Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq

[MannyIsGod]

Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were not terrorists before Iraq war.


Two new studies, one by the Saudi government and one by an Israeli think tank, which "painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States" have found that most foreign fighters in Iraq were not terrorists before the Iraq war, but were "radicalized by the war itself." The Boston Globe reported on Sunday that the studies "cast doubt (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/)" on claims by President Bush that terrorists have "seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the 'central front' in a battle against the United States."
However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence. A separate Israeli analysis [by Global Research in International Affairs (http://gloria.idc.ac.il/)] of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, 'the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.'

The Globe also reports that American intelligence officials and terrorism experts have a very similar picture of these fighters: that prior to the Iraq war, they were not extremists who wanted to attack the US in an Al Qaeda-like manner, but "are part of a new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from 'crusaders and 'infidels.' "
'The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created,' said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.Columnist Terry Neal of The Washington Post, talked to Stephen Flynn (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071500050_2.html), a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former US Coast Guard commander, whose recent book, as well as his articles (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83504/stephen-e-flynn/the-neglected-home-front.html) in the Council's journal Foreign Affairs, argue that Iraq is a "phony war" based on Mr. Bush assertions' that we have to fight the terrorists there rather than here. Mr. Flynn believes that by diverting so many resources to the war in Iraq, we've not only helped to create more terrorists, but that "America remains astonishingly vulnerable to attacks from Al Qaeda, which has morphed under Bush's watch, from an organization to a worldwide movement ..." He says the recent attacks in London show how patient Al Qaeda has become, using the three cell approach: The first cell is the leadership cell, the second cell is the reconnaissance team, and the third is the 'action' team.

Iraq has not changed that equation one bit, Flynn argues. It has only diverted resources from the more pragmatic approach of targeting and hunting down terrorists around the world and, even more important, bolstering domestic security ... The US administration and its hawks are stuck in a 'state-centric perspective, cold war idea that deterrence is about overwhelming power and offense. But that has nothing to do with the overwhelming reality of this threat.'In the United Kingdom, The Belfast Telegram reports that the respected Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House (http://www.riia.org/), and the Economic and Social Research Council (http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/index.aspx), have said that British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan "have put Britain at a greater risk of attack (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=653005)." The Chatham House report (http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/niis/BPsecurity.pdf), issued Monday, also said that Britain's support for the US did not create an equal partnership, but instead turned Britain into a "passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat".
Chatham House warned that Iraq had created difficulties for the UK and the coalition. 'It gave a boost to the Al Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, and deflected resources that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government [in Afghanistan] and bring bin Laden to justice,' it said.Both British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw reacted strongly to the report by Chatham House. The Guardian reports that Mr. Blair said the recent attack on London was the result of fanatics who subscribed to an "evil ideology (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1530818,00.html)" rather than opposition to any policy and that it would be " 'misunderstanding of a catastrophic' order to think that if we changed our behavior they would change theirs." Mr. Straw also denied that Britain's support for the US made it more of a target (http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/07/18/afx2142675.html) for terrorists. "I'm astonished that Chatham House is now saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our long-standing allies in the United States," he said.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate.html

[Vashner]

We created it by plan. WTF does the media want us to do give our whole 100% battleplan to them so they can run it as a streamer on CNN 24/7.

Again this is a case of crack pipe.. if we can't fight a fucking war without secrets then ... Hey remember Geraldo drawing invasion plans with a stick in the sand?

Bush has a fucking plan. to build iraq into a big fucking cheese bait .. roaches come in but they don't come out. ...

WMD excuse is like a lawyer using a "technicality" to get excuse to engage. Real reason is to kill radical islam base and get next to Iraq, Syria and Saudi.

IT'S FUCKING BRILLIANT hahahaha

[Vashner]

Ok this part is messed up

In the United Kingdom, The Belfast Telegram reports that the respected Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, and the Economic and Social Research Council, have said that British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan "have put Britain at a greater risk of attack." The Chatham House report, issued Monday, also said that Britain's support for the US did not create an equal partnership, but instead turned Britain into a "passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat".

So in WWII this is the EXACT fucking excuse pussies here in the States used to not piss off Hitler.. while he was planning his final solution and killing millions of Russian.

If we did like BUSH and went in early we would NOT of had to climb the walls of France and die all stupid on the beach.

If the USA did what Bush did in IRaq in WWII we could of saved 5 million Jews and millions of Russians. Not to mention lot less casualties having to push them all the way back from France.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, thats person number one that would probably fail the reading portion of the TASK test. Would anyone else like to step up to the plate?

[AFE7FATMAN]

I GOT IT MANNY

We can talk to all these Radical Islamist, OBL's, So called Religious leaders, heads of government in Iran, Syria, just like John Kerry and the French want to and have

PEACE in Our time

just like Neville Chamberlain.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Yes, I remember that part from the initial paragraph AFE. Oh wait, it's not there.

So would anyone actually care to address that these studies are saying that we created the problem we are now trying to solve in Iraq?

I understand that you guys say this was our plan, but how intelligent is lighting a fire simply for the purpose of putting it out? If you want to argue that this is merely a by product of a larger goal - instilling democracy in Iraq - then that at least has some possible ground to stand on but do not try to feed me bullshit when there is proof counteracting it in the initial post.

So no, don't say the purpose or Iraq was to fight terrorists in their backyard because as I've said for quite some time now the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq were created by the invasion.

[AFE7FATMAN]

OK Manny in simple terms and I'm sure people are going to get pissed


We went into Iraq because GWB wanted to get the Man who tried to kill his Daddy and who had invaded his neighbor. It didn't matter that we had supported this man in his war against Iran. The man was evil and had used chemical weapons on his own people. We had been attacked and we had to strike back or again look like pussies to the rest of the world. My Opinion


Is anyone here aware of the fact the we supported the Taliban in Afganistan in 1980.

BTW all of the terrost in Iraq are not inported. Some are fighting because their homeland has been invaded-as they understand it. SOme are fighting because their
religious leaders are telling them to do so.

Sorry-short of time I'm at work

[smackdaddy11]

Is anyone here aware of the fact the we supported the Taliban in Afganistan in 1980.


The U.S. supported the mujahadeen (sp?), not the Taliban.


Between the clerics preaching their hate (what else is new) and the recruits(who evidently were already on the fence), the war just made their true feelings show. They would have done this eventually. The Iraq war just sped it up. Time to turn them into worm food with anyone else who is a radical Islamist.

[Clandestino]

saddam hussein funded terrorists..there is no doubt about that..

[MannyIsGod]

saddam hussein funded terrorists..there is no doubt about that..
Who said anything to the contrary? Anyone here will acknowledge the money that he gave to Hamas. However, even an Israeli - they might know a thing or 2 about Hamas - think tank says that the problem we are now solving is one of our creation. Did you read the article?

[MannyIsGod]

The U.S. supported the mujahadeen (sp?), not the Taliban.


Between the clerics preaching their hate (what else is new) and the recruits(who evidently were already on the fence), the war just made their true feelings show. They would have done this eventually. The Iraq war just sped it up. Time to turn them into worm food with anyone else who is a radical Islamist.
So what do you know that these organizations don't?

[Spurminator]

Without knowing how many terrorists are typically "first time terrorists" in non-Iraq related attacks, there's not really a basis for comparison. It would seem, with the popularity of suicide bombings as a method of attack, that a lot of terrorists would be first (and last) time terrorists...

[bigzak25]

IF the war radicalized most foreign fighters in iraq, then by that same token, they should calm the fuck down when the majority of the U.S. military departs. :tu

in the meantime? terrorists and any anti-american radicals willing to die for their cause can get their wish granted on foreign soil instead of American. :tu

two thumbs up.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, two thumbs up because I'm sure the Iraqis dying each day appreciate that.

[bigzak25]

Yeah, two thumbs up because I'm sure the Iraqis dying each day appreciate that.



are the majority of iraqis better off now then under saddam?

will their kids have a better future?

[MannyIsGod]

That remains to be seen, but I wonder about the moral implications of turning someone elses home into a battle ground for your own protection. As for them being better off they are currently worse off. As I said, it remains to be seen how well they recover but people are dying at a much higher right than they did under Sadaam.

[The Ressurrected One]

"...people are dying at a much higher right than they did under Sadaam."
25 years in power, over 500,000 dead at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That is approximately 55 people a day...including Ramadan.

Yeah, we've had a few days where more than a hundred have been killed.
But, for the most part, it's been way less than that rate. And, it's been people killed by terrorists and insurgents. The U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi military have killed Iraqi citizens at a much lower rate than that.

So, I call bullshit on your post, Manny.

[Bandit2981]

It would be interesting to find the numbers of how many Iraqis died under Sadaam's regime, compared to the number of Iraqis that have died from this war.

[MannyIsGod]

25 years in power, over 500,000 dead at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That is approximately 55 people a day...including Ramadan.

Yeah, we've had a few days where more than a hundred have been killed.
But, for the most part, it's been way less than that rate. And, it's been people killed by terrorists and insurgents. The U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi military have killed Iraqi citizens at a much lower rate than that.

So, I call bullshit on your post, Manny.
Where did I blame the coalition forces?

WHY THE FUCK CAN'T PEOPLE READ A POST ON HERE WITHOUT DEDUCING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE!

[The Ressurrected One]

It would be interesting to find the numbers of how many Iraqis died under Sadaam's regime, compared to the number of Iraqis that have died from this war.
500,000 is a conservative estimated.

Saddam Hussein, himself, claimed that many Iraqi casualties during the Iraq/Iran war he instigated and waged from 1980 to 1988. Iran claimed 300,000. Add another 100,000 Iraqi military and civilians when we expelled him from Kuwait in '91.

Then you start adding up the political murders.

300,000 Shi'ites in the South after the '91 cease-fire. And, another 30,000 to 50,000 Kurds to the North.

Forget about the 1 to 5 at-a-time revenge killings where he would go and wipe out an entire family because of some perceived political opposition. He began his regime by marching dozens of his own political cronies outside the place where he held his first meeting as President and had them shot so they wouldn't compete with him in the future.

There's probably no accurate count of the number of deaths for which he's been responsible.

[The Ressurrected One]

Where did I blame the coalition forces?

WHY THE FUCK CAN'T PEOPLE READ A POST ON HERE WITHOUT DEDUCING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE!
You said they were dying at a higher rate and that's just not true...

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/14/news/casualties.php

[Bandit2981]

There's probably no accurate count of the number of deaths for which he's been responsible
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about someone else.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and if you can back up your 500,000 (conservative estimate my ass, thats almost twice as many as I've seen as a credible estimate) then I'll admit you have a point.

[MannyIsGod]

You said they were dying at a higher rate and that's just not true...
That is debateable, but no where in that post did I blame American forces with the deaths.

I'm so sick of the reaching, why the hell can't people stick to what is being said in the thread? I understand that you are despratelly trying to fit me into some liberal mold because I dare be critical of America at times, but get a damn grip.

[mookie2001]

im just glad we invaded
gas is so cheap now

[The Ressurrected One]

That is debateable, but no where in that post did I blame American forces with the deaths.

I'm so sick of the reaching, why the hell can't people stick to what is being said in the thread? I understand that you are despratelly trying to fit me into some liberal mold because I dare be critical of America at times, but get a damn grip.
Calm down little one.

Where did I say you were blaming American forces? I merely delineated between deaths caused by terrorists and insurgents and deaths caused by Coalition forces.

You're a little sensitive, don't'cha think?

And, on the 500,000 number. If you just start with the 500,000 casualties claimed by Saddam Hussein in the Iraq/Iran war from 1980 to 1988, then staying at 500,000 is conservative.

Hell, if nothing else, he was under-reporting his own casualties and it was probably much higher...

But, really, you take things much too personally in here.

[The Ressurrected One]

im just glad we invaded
gas is so cheap now
Who ever said it was about the price of gasoline?

[Bandit2981]

I was wondering when the "smug" tactic by TRO would be used...

[The Ressurrected One]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/14/news/casualties.php
26 a day. Less than half what it would take to approach the carnage inflicted under the Saddam Hussein regime.

[The Ressurrected One]

I was wondering when the "smug" tactic by TRO would be used...
Wow! You wonder about such things? Must be nice to have such time on your hands.

[mookie2001]

well
ill admit if gas was under a $1.50 id be hardcore prowar, although id feel like and be an asshole

[The Ressurrected One]

well
ill admit if gas was under a $1.50 id be hardcore prowar, although id feel like and be an asshole
Okay, I'll bite. What does the price of gasoline have to do with your position on the war?

[MannyIsGod]

300,000 deaths under the Baath regime is what I've found. That comes out to 8k a year. Currently, 800 a month are dying which is 16 more per year.

But I digress, its nothing more than a talking point when it comes down to it. The point that things are less than peachy stands.

[mookie2001]

its a huge factor in me not thinking this war is good for our country
americans, younger and stupider than me dying
innocent iraqis dying
billions of dollars wasted
our military being spread thin
and our presidents 3 different reasons for war right after another

[The Ressurrected One]

300,000 deaths under the Baath regime is what I've found. That comes out to 8k a year. Currently, 800 a month are dying which is 16 more per year.

But I digress, its nothing more than a talking point when it comes down to it. The point that things are less than peachy stands.
But, things are "peachier" than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Which is the point.

I suggest you read parts 1 through 31 of this man's blog on how well things are going in Iraq now.

Good News from Iraq -- Part 23 (http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/03/good-news-from-iraq-part-23.html)

Parts 1 through 22 are suggested reading, as well.

Also, I think you 300,000 number is way off. That's just the number of Shi'ites he's suspected of murdering.

[The Ressurrected One]

its a huge factor in me not thinking this war is good for our country
americans, younger and stupider than me dying
innocent iraqis dying
billions of dollars wasted
our military being spread thin
and our presidents 3 different reasons for war right after another
Okay...then...nevermind.

[bigzak25]

That remains to be seen, but I wonder about the moral implications of turning someone elses home into a battle ground for your own protection.


That is a valid point.

But while I'm not a big fan of the ideology, in this case, I feel it is warranted...The End Justifies the Means.

For the good of the American people 1st, and as it so happens, for the good of the Iraqi people as well. I refuse to believe that when the U.S. pulls the majority of our troops out of Iraq, it will not a better place then when we came.

I hope i'm not wrong. I think we all do.

[Chevy Tahoe]

Gas, schmash... If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be driving. Take a bus, ride a bike or carpool in a nice big Chevy Tahoe!

[AFE7FATMAN]

The U.S. supported the mujahadeen (sp?), not the Taliban....

No smack daddy no

Russia entered Afganistan, at the invitation of the previous government. They got drawn into the conflict because a FANATICAL socialist government
had instituted reform at too fast a pace and their ungodly actions pissed of the religious fanatic, whom we had been supplying with weapons. The radical governmnet crumbled, a more conservative socialist one came to power, but the US continued to support the rebels

In Afganistan there were two sides the communists and the opposition forces,
the mujahedin.

The infighting among mujahedin factions also deterred many afgans from repatriating and sent thousands of refugees into countries next door and around the world, and some of these became the terroists and the trainers
of the terroists of today.

The anarchy of the civil war enabled the radical Islamic movement, the
Taliban to gain POWER. The Taliban had great support from the pushtun population, and we supported them.

Mujahedin = freedom fighter
The Mujahedin was simply the armed resistance to the People's Democratic
Party of Afganistan which came into power when Mohammed Daoud was
killed.

Sheet in 1997 the Taliban sent a delagation to Sugarland Texas to discuss
building a oil pipeline. Ever hear of Unocal?
What we will do for oil, Manny, Tony Cleveanger, I and others discussed
this 4 or five years ago. :rolleyes

[smackdaddy11]

No smack daddy no

Yes, Smackdaddy, yes.

http://www.sabawoon.com/afghanpedia/History.CivilWar.shtm


[QUOTE]The Taliban:

The name "Taliban" means "Students" (Students of Islamic Knowledge). Founded in 1994, rose to power in 1996, and seeks to establish a radical Sunni Islamic regime throughout Afghanistan. Created by a senior mullah (Islamic priest), Mohammed Omar, in the southern Afghanistan town of Kandahar.

Mullah Mohammed Omar, the reclusive supreme leader, is supported by a circle of eight to 10 colleagues. Veterans of the war against the Soviets fill their fighting ranks. Rules are enforced by the Ministry of Virtue and Vice, a religious police force.

The Taliban leaders at the beginning made look like they didn't have any special social relationship with the forces of bin Laden, but at the fall of Kabul on Nov.12, 2001, Mullah Mohammad Omar stated that the Afghan war was not about how many states they may control in Afghanistan but about "the destruction of America, that everybody in the world will witness".

The Taliban, in 1996 began a genocidal campaign designed to wipe out Shiite Muslims from much of Afghanistan. It openly countenanced international terrorism, harboring the criminal mastermind Osama bin Laden and giving him virtually free rein to plan bombings and assassinations.

It imposed a disturbing and deeply fundamentalist form of Muslim culture on the nation.
Under the Taliban regime, girls' schools were closed and women were forced to quit their jobs (at one time, 40 percent of Afghan doctors were female) and to wear a head-to-toe garment known as the burkha. As a result, hospitals lost almost all their staffs and children in orphanages were deserted. In a country where hundreds of thousands of men had been killed in warfare, widows, who were the sole sources of income for their families, found themselves unable to work.
Men were ordered to grow full, untrimmed beards (in accordance with orthodox Islam) and were rounded up and beaten with sticks in an effort to force prayer in the mosques.
Movies, television, videos, music and dance -- all were banned.


The Taliban gained power through the lawlessness left over after the '80's war, Pakistan and Saudi support. Nobody was helping the Afghans after the war. The Taliban was nowhere to be seen in 1980, as you claim.


http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html

[Marcus Bryant]

We should go back to the "do nothing" approach to dealing with Islamofascism and two bit dictatorships in the ME. That certainly worked.

[MannyIsGod]

When exactly have we ever used the do nothing policy?

[Marcus Bryant]

Look back over the 30 years prior to 9-11. Repubs and Demo presidents alike turned a blind eye to strikes and threats against American interests in the ME. Not just Carter, but Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. Sure, some of it was driven by pragmatism during the Cold War, but by and large the US pretty much did nothing, unless it was a rather blatant move like Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

[MannyIsGod]

So, the do nothing policy contained the following:

Continued military and financial support of Israel.
Building bases in Saudi Arabia.
Using said bases and bases in Turkey for No Fly Zones in Iraq
Continued Military pressence in the Persian Gulf
Support of Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s.
Military support of Iran prior to the 80s.
Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Might as well throw in Desert Fox, too.
Support of Afghanistan in the 1980s through the use of the CIA and arms shipments.
The Clinton cruise missle attacks.
The attacks on Libya in the 80s.

Shit, thats a lot for nothing.

[Marcus Bryant]

What did Reagan do when the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon?
What was Clinton's response to the USS Cole? The African Embassy bombings? The '93 WTC attack?

Do. Nothing.

[MannyIsGod]

By no means am I saying that the policy put into place was great, but look at your own last post.

First, the pressence of a marine barracks in Beruit is already contradictory for a "Do Nothing Policy" because the pressence is in itself an action.

Same thing with the Cole.

There was something done about the embassy bombings, and it was half assed but it is not as though there was actual support in this government for anything more.


Its as though America as a whole is reaching out to grab a beehive and trying to figure out a way to stop the stings. Here is an idea, stop grabbing the hive.

[Marcus Bryant]

I said attacks. Again and again the US ran away. The US was never committed to dealing with Islamic terrorism for well over 30 years.

[MannyIsGod]

No, you said:



We should go back to the "do nothing" approach to dealing with Islamofascism and two bit dictatorships in the ME. That certainly worked.

You said nothing about terrorism.

[Marcus Bryant]

Then who was committing the "strikes", the Easter Bunny?

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, the point being that the United States policy of being overactive in that portion of the world is hardly a "Do Nothing" policy.

[Marcus Bryant]

The US response to dealing with threats was by and large an inactive one. Just because there were a couple bases in the region doesn't mean much. Again and again when the US was attacked by Islamic terrorists the US response was weak or nonexistent.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, before 9/11 terrorism was a crime, not an act of war. And you don't send your army after criminals. Now that the scope of terrorism has changed, so has the way it is being delt with. Even so, this active policy isn't working either. Until America gets its hands off the hive, its going to get stung.

[Marcus Bryant]

Perhaps the US policy of viewing it as a crime led to the ineffective response prior to 9-11.

[Duff McCartney]

Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything, 14% of all people know that.

[MannyIsGod]

Perhaps the US policy of viewing it as a crime led to the ineffective response prior to 9-11.
I would not argue with that.

[bigzak25]

you negotiate, i'll get the bug spray.

[Clandestino]

Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything, 14% of all people know that.

haha... too funny

[MannyIsGod]

you know that was the joke , right?

[AFE7FATMAN]

I OWN SMACK DADDY :drunk

The Taliban movement was formed in 1993-1994 by Afgan Islamic clerics and Students, many of them from mujahedin (the term refers to an Islamic guerrilla; literally "one who fights in the cause of ISLAM" who had moved into the western areas of Pakistan to study in Islam seminaries ("Madrassas") They are mostly ultra-orthodox Sunni Muslims who pratice a form of islam, Wahhabism similar to that practiced in Saudi Arabia.

The Taliban movement is led by an inner Shura (consulation) council headed
by a mujahedin fighter-turned religious scholar named Muhammad Umar.


MY SOURCE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7654.pdf



"In the 1980's when the CIA mounted the largest covert action program in its history to support afgan rebels (some of which became the taliban) (my words) against the soviets the pakistan agency served as the critical link between the CIA and the rebels at the front lines.

The intelligence service of Pakistan, crucial American ally in the war on terorism, has had an indrect but longstanding relationship with Al Quadea, turning a blind eye for years on the growing ties between OBL and the Taliban...

By 1996 Mr Bin Laden, who had been in Afghanistan in the 1980's, helpinf
to pay for arab fighters to battle the Soviets, returned and quickly forged a close alliance with the taliban.



SOURCE
2002 Pulitzer Winner article by James Risen and Judith Miller(She is in jail
now) :lol
for protecting
Karl Rove or
her CIA connect
ions :oops
Oct 29, 2001.
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/explanatory-reporting/works/102901.html


Manny

suggest you read the articles

The one from the NYT mentions the memo of Michael Sheehan, State Department chief of counterterrorism to Clinton calling for action against terrorism and calling Pakistan the key. it landed with a resounding thud.

, and on another note from 5 years ago
one pipeline has been built and the end of it is outside of our Air Base in Turkey.

Work/continues on another one through Afganistan.
UNOCAL does good work. :spin lets sell it to CHINA

I'm afraid until France,Germany,China, Italy, etc and the "Capitials of Europe" get blown up, other countries are not going to join us in the War on terror,
and even Spain bent over and sent up a white flag.
France is 10% muslim so I think they are safe.
Other countries are not going to give us more than lip service and a good PR front in our War on terror, unless it is in their best intrest-like Pakistans, our good buddy. :lol

sorry paste and cut does not work here at work :pctoss

BTW. Smackdaddy where were you in 1980?
Bet you were not in Europe reading
classified material.
Therefore go take some history classes at UTSA
one of the posters on this board teaches them
or ask AHF for some of his notes from A&M :lol

[ATJ2003]

I agree with much of what people are saying in this topic. Was suicide bombing existing in Iraq prior to USA invasion? Nope. Things have become much more violent there, than ever before. Hussein was a dictator yes, but at least while he was in power, there was control. He maintained control over the people. Now, there is a vacuumn of power, and I fear that when USA leaves, if USA ever leaves, it will only become more dangerous.

Also, I truly do not understand WHY people think this war is to make America more safe? From my perspective, this war can only give Arabs and Muslims one more reason to feel that USA is at war with Islaam. As proof in this article, it also radicalises some. Bush and his supporters perhaps will say, if we fight them in Iraq we will not need to fight them in America - but I think Iraq is simply creating more problems, and I think that in the future, we will be haunted by this.

The Middle East is much like a spider web (I do not mean this in an insult way as I am origins there!). If you toy or bother with one part, the rest will be affected as well. The situation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict combined with the American prescence in Saudi Arabia is partially what radicalised Usama bin Ladin. He has stated in his fatwas, that he wishes for the USA to be involved in the Middle East, in multi front wars, in order to exhaust them and weaken them. It seems that Bush is giving to him, exactly that which he wishes:(

[The Ressurrected One]

I agree with much of what people are saying in this topic. Was suicide bombing existing in Iraq prior to USA invasion? Nope. Things have become much more violent there, than ever before. Hussein was a dictator yes, but at least while he was in power, there was control. He maintained control over the people. Now, there is a vacuumn of power, and I fear that when USA leaves, if USA ever leaves, it will only become more dangerous.

Also, I truly do not understand WHY people think this war is to make America more safe? From my perspective, this war can only give Arabs and Muslims one more reason to feel that USA is at war with Islaam. As proof in this article, it also radicalises some. Bush and his supporters perhaps will say, if we fight them in Iraq we will not need to fight them in America - but I think Iraq is simply creating more problems, and I think that in the future, we will be haunted by this.

The Middle East is much like a spider web (I do not mean this in an insult way as I am origins there!). If you toy or bother with one part, the rest will be affected as well. The situation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict combined with the American prescence in Saudi Arabia is partially what radicalised Usama bin Ladin. He has stated in his fatwas, that he wishes for the USA to be involved in the Middle East, in multi front wars, in order to exhaust them and weaken them. It seems that Bush is giving to him, exactly that which he wishes:(
There was much more violence when Saddam Hussein was in power. He just kept it behind closed doors -- where he stored the plastics shredders and rape rooms.

[Duff McCartney]

There was much more violence when Saddam Hussein was in power. He just kept it behind closed doors -- where he stored the plastics shredders and rape rooms.

As long as it wasn't Americans....who cares right?

[Vashner]

Hey after 9/11 GW had a list of shit he was crossing out.
Fuckin Saddams name was on that list. No more fucking around..

The twin tower sites.. which once had projected on them David and Tim in 99...
lay smouldering for months...

AMERICA FUCK YEA .. BUSH FUCKED SADDAMS ASS UP THAT FUCKER.
where the fuck is Saddam now? Playing rock scissors paper that's where!

[AFE7FATMAN]

War radicalized most Foreign Fighters in Iraq.
YEP
Talk to the Americans there.
Talk to the Brits
The war sure made a lot of them radical :lol

The guys on the other side
Nope most were radical to begin with.

Don't worry- I am going on record and state that within 18-24 months or less
we will be out of IRAQ, for the most part, unless we stay and provide some security for the oil fields.

Than we will see if the "Established" government
oops thats elected, can hold its own. I bet we see a Civil War,

Poor Kurds - Will they get their own country?
or am I wrong and we will help get them their own country.
What will "Pakastan" do?, considering our new friend India?

After this is over, please come back and convince me the the deaths
of 3-4000 Americans and the deaths of, however many IRAQ's ,was worth
it.