Terrorists "flocking" to Iraq?

[eaglenrider 0]

Bush stated last night that (and 'm psaraphrasing) that terrorists were flocking to Iraq.
Let's examine that thought.
Does it make any sense?
I don't think it does.

Don't terrorists try to avoid large military bodies?
Don't they attempt to take out large numbers of people and then let the world know who did it and why?
Don't terrorists want everyone to know who was responsible for thier act?

I mean if a bomb blows up and no one knows why, it doesn't really further any terrorists' agenda, does it?
Does it make sense to you that "terrorists are entering Iraq to join the "insurgents". or does it make more sense that fellow Arabs are coming to the aid of thier brethren who are under the occupation of a foreign power?

Don't you believe that if all these supposed "terrorists" were heading to Iraq, at least a few of them would come to the US and blow off car bombs here?

But we haven't seen any car bombs here, have we.

Maybe all that shoe removal at airport security has paid off.
Or maybe there never was any "terrorist threat".

What do you think?

Blues,
Cliff

[jimmytavino 16]

Al Quada and those who ascribe to their radical policies, and over the edge tactics ARE terrorists, since they have publicly admitted to their "devotion to the cause"..... Yes they were supported by the taliban in some parts of the world especially Afganistan.....
.... However.... for the "Bush Boys",, ( i e the current administration) to rally around that Term,,, and to label the insurgents in Irag as "terrorists" is simply part of the "scare tactics" which not only got us into the quagmire over there,,, but also got G W re-elected...
The Insurgents,,,,, while carrying on "terrorist type attacks",,, are really nothing more than "nationalists" who resent the current Occupation of their country by U.S and coalition forces....
I do NOt understand why the american public is so willing to accept the concept that " the insurgents are terrorists".... as though they are absolutley and without a doubt,, affiliated with Bin laden et al... Religious fanaticism has been a part or this planets' history since about the time that 'religion' was created.... Think "crusades" think "holy wars",,,, soo many fights have been fought over contrasting religious philosophies.....
Rather than take the position that the US is out, "speading democracy" ( a rather "ethnocentric and arrogant attitude" ) why can't our president look at the situation from the point of view of Our "enemies"........ which is.... A huge world power comes from across the world, to send equipment manpower, supplies and extreme firepower to an area of the world , about which we understand little,,,, We behave as a destructive and conquering force,,,, blow up infrastructure like it is inconsequential,, kill civilians as well as "opposing soldiers",,, and then simply move along to "declare" that democracy will be the next order of business, in a place which cleary does not share our "forward thinking ways"...... Helll democracy is only 229 years Old... Who is to say that it is the right way for societies to live? ..... Look at our own country... We are in a mess.... we can't care for our own,,, we spend money which we don't have, we barge all over the planet like some self appointed
"hallway monitor" and step all over cultural and historic populations as though they "requested our help"....
Please..... sounds like imperialism at work....
sounds like the Big Kid on the block, throwing around his weight in a totally selfish way....
Terrorists??..... I dunno,, maybe,,, but I think these poor bastards who have Nothing to lose,,, are simply trying to defend their homeland,,,, ( which has been in existence for thousands!!!! of years) from the war mongering USA.... who should learn how to stay the hell out of everyone elses' business.....
as for "terrorist threat" ? The whole concept sounds like some madison Ave ad agencies attempt to sugar coat the entire mess in which we find ourselves... some semi acceptable rationalization for our aggressive and ( to my way of thinking ) unacceptable behavior world wide...
ok... flame away !!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The Insurgents,,,,, while carrying on "terrorist type attacks",,, are really nothing more than "nationalists" who resent the current Occupation of their country by U.S and coalition forces....

You know, the bitch of the matter is that you and I aren't over there asking each one of those insurgents/terrorists/girlscouts with bombs where they're from. So its pretty hard to say as people living in the US who they are or what they are. I would hope that the intelligence community has this one figured out, but I'm not holding my breath.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 3,095]

>Does it make any sense?
>I don't think it does.

Terrorists go to Iraq to:

1. kill americans, a popular pastime for terrorists
2. make new terrorists (easier to do in an occupied country)
3. get experience they can use in their country (per a recent CIA report)

>Don't terrorists try to avoid large military bodies?

Yes. They avoid the raids and kill military in small numbers at a time.

>Don't they attempt to take out large numbers of people and then
>let the world know who did it and why?

Sometimes. Other times they just want to spread terror, and killing people randomly does that.

>Don't terrorists want everyone to know who was responsible for thier act?

Oh, I think if a car bomb goes off near the green zone, it's a safe bet that a disgruntled postal worker from Kansas didn't do it.

>Does it make sense to you that "terrorists are entering Iraq to join
>the "insurgents". or does it make more sense that fellow Arabs are
>coming to the aid of thier brethren who are under the occupation
>of a foreign power?

Those are the same things from two different perspectives.

>Don't you believe that if all these supposed "terrorists" were heading
> to Iraq, at least a few of them would come to the US and blow off
> car bombs here?

Hard to drive the car to the US. Easier to drive it to Baghdad.

[SpeedRacer 1]

REcently there have been reports of "Red-on-Red" attacks.

In other words, insurgents fighting other insurgents.

Which illustrates an important point:

There are at least TWO different types of insurgents, who have seperate, often conflicting agendas, & therefore you cant make one generalization about them:

1) Nationalists, or Baathists, predominantly Iraqis, fighting against foreign occupation. Their primary targets are the foreign troops.

2) Foreign jihadists who don't give a shit about Iraq. They will gladly kill a thousand Iraqis to get one American. They will sabotage public works that have nothing to do with affecting the troops; they just want to see America fail to bring about a democracy, so they'll make life as chaotic & un-workable as possible for the Iraqi citizen.

Naturally, this is pissing off the first type of insurgents who are just fighting to get the foreiners out, but don't want other foreigners blowing up their countrymen & fucking up the country's public works.

hence the red-on-red attacks.


1) Foreign

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Zep 0]

> Bush stated last night that (and 'm psaraphrasing) that terrorists were flocking to Iraq. <


Good wait till they have all arrived,Then blow it off the fucking map.

Gone fishing

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Bush stated last night that terrorists were flocking to Iraq.

Would you prefer that they flock to America, setting off car bombs and carrying out suicide attacks, in American schools, shopping malls, restaurants and movie theatres?

[billvon 3,095]

>Would you prefer that they flock to America, setting off car bombs
> and carrying out suicide attacks, in American schools, shopping
> malls, restaurants and movie theatres?

Right! We can all recall the 1990's, when terrorists had no other outlet and were therefore blowing up a US mall a week.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>Would you prefer that they flock to America, setting off car bombs
> and carrying out suicide attacks, in American schools, shopping
> malls, restaurants and movie theatres?

Right! We can all recall the 1990's, when terrorists had no other outlet and were therefore blowing up a US mall a week.

1993. World Trade Center?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Guest]

Quote

REcently there have been reports of "Red-on-Red" attacks.

In other words, insurgents fighting other insurgents.

Which illustrates an important point:

There are at least TWO different types of insurgents, who have seperate, often conflicting agendas, & therefore you cant make one generalization about them:

1) Nationalists, or Baathists, predominantly Iraqis, fighting against foreign occupation. Their primary targets are the foreign troops.

2) Foreign jihadists who don't give a shit about Iraq. They will gladly kill a thousand Iraqis to get one American. They will sabotage public works that have nothing to do with affecting the troops; they just want to see America fail to bring about a democracy, so they'll make life as chaotic & un-workable as possible for the Iraqi citizen.

Naturally, this is pissing off the first type of insurgents who are just fighting to get the foreiners out, but don't want other foreigners blowing up their countrymen & fucking up the country's public works.

hence the red-on-red attacks.


1) Foreign

From James F. Dunnigan's Strategy Page:
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda and Sunni Arab terrorists are seen battling each other in towns and villages along the Syrian border. Closer to Baghdad, the terrorists are knocking each other off on a more personal level. Some tips, about where terrorists are hiding, are believed to have come from rival terrorist groups. The Sunni Arabs are under pressure from other Sunni Arab groups because of these continued al Qaeda attacks. The Sunni Arab terrorists are being told, by other Sunni Arab groups, that if al Qaeda is not stopped, the majority of the Sunni Arab community, in addition to the the 80 percent of the population representing the Kurds and Shia Arabs, will come after the Sunni Arab terrorist groups. That would be very bad for the Sunni Arab terrorists. But they are finding that al Qaeda does not care. The al Qaeda guys are on a mission from God, and are basically unreachable when it comes to discussing compromise. It's this characteristic of al Qaeda that has caused its defeat in so many other countries. It's deja vu all over again.

mh
\
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[SpeedRacer 1]

The thing to understand about Al Quaeda is:

They are Nihilists.

They don't give a shit about anything except their place in the afterlife, which they believe they will earn by killing the infidel & his allies.

Websters def. nihilism: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility.

I believe, despite all of our fuck-ups, that Al Quaeda will fail in the end. These people have no vision for the future, other than apocalypse.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[narcimund 0]

Quote

These people have no vision for the future, other than apocalypse.

I know Christians about which this same thing could be said.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Would you prefer that they flock to America, setting off car bombs and carrying out suicide attacks, in American schools, shopping malls, restaurants and movie theatres?

Just to add a good quote that goes along with the above: "the War on Terror takes many forms in many places. We should be grateful that right now it's in "that" place [Iraq] and not here in "this" place."

Well, a lot of people don't like the war, but isn't it better to be fighting them over there and not at the Baltimore docks, Central Park, Wrigley Field, etc? The point is, AQ hates us with a passion. They WILL fight us one way or the other. So, if we don't bring the fight to them on foreign grounds, they will bring the fight to us on domestic grounds. So take your pick, Iraq or your front porch. Which is it?

[Alias 0]

Quote

Just to add a good quote that goes along with the above: "the War on Terror takes many forms in many places. We should be grateful that right now it's in "that" place [Iraq] and not here in "this" place."

I though the war on "terror" was in Afghanistan. Iraq was, started as, UN resolutions and the removal of Saddam - mission accomplished!

Lets lead them there and not in two locations that were not connected in the first place, until recently.

Two issues. It isnt Saddam Bin Laden in Iraqistan,

Carpe Diem

[ViperPilot 0]

The war on terror is in many places, and just for now, it's not in the US. That's what we should be happy about. It's a lot better to fight terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. than it is in Florida. Would you agree with that?

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

The war on terror is in many places, and just for now, it's not in the US. That's what we should be happy about. It's a lot better to fight terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. than it is in Florida. Would you agree with that?

I for one certainly agree. Just remember porus border and OTM (other than Mexican). It has been mentioned enough. Why will it take loss of Innocent life before Bush really does something?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Alias 0]

Quote

The war on terror is in many places, and just for now, it's not in the US. That's what we should be happy about. It's a lot better to fight terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. than it is in Florida. Would you agree with that?

Yes, I agree. But most people do not separate the two operations.

What again were the results, we as Americans, demanded after 9/11? Invade Saddam? Push democracy in Iraq? Don't think so!

Our "enemy" in the "War on Terror" is reported to be on the Afghan/Paki border, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, operating freely. If so, why do we have so many troops in Iraq?

" The war on terror " is only in Iraq because we created an environment for our enemy to rally there, you are right. The young, poor, confused muslim men of the world will continue to be indoctrinated to the dark side in part because of it. There was a weak connection prior to our invasion. Making war with Iraq, in the way Bush's Admin did, of course will breed more AQ support.


If we want to defeat AQ, which I consider the "War on Terror", it will be through the intelligence communities combined with SF and Delta intervention - A little good press for the US in the Islamic world couldnt hurt either.

The radicals are very small numbers in Islam. But continued invasions/occupations will create another version of the Afghan Jihad in the 80's/90's - cept we play the Soviets.

Too bad we are not using the resources we've committed to Iraq for the "War on Terror"

Pisses me off!

Carpe Diem

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Too bad we are not using the resources we've committed to Iraq for the "War on Terror"

I agree ... too bad GWB and his crownies don't see it this way.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Channman 2]

Do you know any buddist, humanist, universalist... that the same thing could apply?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Does it make any sense?
>I don't think it does.

Terrorists go to Iraq to:

1. kill americans, a popular pastime for terrorists
2. make new terrorists (easier to do in an occupied country)
3. get experience they can use in their country (per a recent CIA report)

The majority of attacks are on Iraqi nationals.

Quote

>Don't terrorists try to avoid large military bodies?

Yes. They avoid the raids and kill military in small numbers at a time.

Even though the raids net hundreds of killed/captured insurgents at a time.

Quote

>Don't they attempt to take out large numbers of people and then
>let the world know who did it and why?

Sometimes. Other times they just want to spread terror, and killing people randomly does that.

True indeed.

Quote

>Don't terrorists want everyone to know who was responsible for thier act?

Oh, I think if a car bomb goes off near the green zone, it's a safe bet that a disgruntled postal worker from Kansas didn't do it.

Ahh, but with increasing frequency, those commiting "suicide" or driving the car don't know they're doing so. More and more are being remote-detonated in cars that have been tampered with by terrorists.

Quote

>Does it make sense to you that "terrorists are entering Iraq to join
>the "insurgents". or does it make more sense that fellow Arabs are
>coming to the aid of thier brethren who are under the occupation
>of a foreign power?

Those are the same things from two different perspectives.

Agreed.

Quote

>Don't you believe that if all these supposed "terrorists" were heading
> to Iraq, at least a few of them would come to the US and blow off
> car bombs here?

Hard to drive the car to the US. Easier to drive it to Baghdad.

Yeah, they're more pre-occupied there too.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ViperPilot 0]

I see your point Alias. However, I think Iraq fits in as one of the many pieces in the War on Terror as a grounds for a new democracy in a region ripe with terrorists (and by region, I obviously mean the Middle East). Helping establish a working democracy in the region will help us in the long run in the War on Terror. And on the plus side, we're helping millions of innocent people who led terribly burdened lives before we came. I agree that our enemy is everywhere, and thus we must operate everywhere, it's just that the war is in Iraq right now. Afghanistan has been done. Iraq is now, what's next? What should be next in the War on Terror? We all have our opinions on that, but what's best for America, who knows right now. But don't worry about the Spec Ops community...they're EVERYWHERE.

[Alias 0]

Quote

I see your point Alias. However, I think Iraq fits in as one of the many pieces in the War on Terror as a grounds for a new democracy in a region ripe with terrorists

The Bush Admin agrees with you. By deciding to sell the Iraqi invasion based in part on a link to AQ, which was extremely weak at best in reality, the have created a convenient location for Jihadists to act. And again, since AQ seems to have a heavier presence in Jalalabad and Kandahar, why consider Iraq such a large "piece" of the war on terror?

Quote

Afghanistan has been done.

You mean is being done - (shhhh)

Quote

Iraq is now, what's next?

Train, pull out and I guess maintain as a shit hole rotation. Democracy is rare in the middle east. Why again is it important for us to breed it there? Freedom maybe. But I smell oil

Understanding peak oil and the shift in users, I agree that we need to control certain securities.

But the process this administration pursued to get there is a scary reminder that an abuse of power can accomplish many things.

Carpe Diem

[mccurley 1]

"...... Helll democracy is only 229 years Old... Who

Please check your history texts, Democracy was not invented in 1776 by American Nationalists, who by the way were considered by some at the time to be terrorists, traitors, etc etc...!!

Most people will atribute democracy to ancient Greece.

Watch my video Fat Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWkEky8GoI

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

since AQ seems to have a heavier presence in Jalalabad and Kandahar, why consider Iraq such a large "piece" of the war on terror?

AQ has an equally large presence in Iraq, if not larger. Arghanistan has proven to be a great success story. We went in, ousted the Taliban, and now the country is free. It has had free elections and now a democratically elected government. AQ has been diminished there, but obviously not wiped out, as there are still a lot there. But, at least their numbers have been decreased. Now, we are trying to do the same thing in Iraq. Iraq has had free elections and now a democratically elected government. Iraq is the same situtation as Afghanistan...we need to create democracy in order to keep the world safer and to help the people of the country.

Quote

You mean is being done - (shhhh)

I meant that the main push of it all had been done. It's no secret that we're still there fighting. Just, the brunt of it all has been done.

Quote

Democracy is rare in the middle east. Why again is it important for us to breed it there? Freedom maybe.

Yes it is rare. That's why we need more. It is EXTREMELY important to breed democracy in the Middle East because it promotes freedom and safety throughout the world, in addition to providing a much harder location for terrorists to "exist." Terrorism is much much harder to operate out of a democratic country than it is out of a dictatorship. The more democratic countries in the Middle East, the less places there are for AQ and others to exist easily. Not to mention one more democracy means one more country that won't have a national aim of attacking us or Europe (which is a much larger possibliity with a dictatorship).

Quote

But I smell oil

We get 10-20% (20% is probably way too high) of our oil from the Middle East, it's been that way forever. Most of our oil comes from Latin America, with some coming from West Africa and old Soviet states. It's not OPEC that's screwing us, it's people like Chavez of Venezuela. The argument that we went to war for oil is completely baseless and nothing more than a blind excuse to riticule President Bush. Many Democrats have even admitted that.

[Alias 0]

edit to add: Did you know that Canada is consistantly one of our top three suppliers. Taking turns being number one. Canada.

Quote

AQ has an equally large presence in Iraq, if not larger.

Now, but not before the invasion. Hence the topic of this thread. I agree it is better to fight there and not in the US, but it seems the US policies are creating a boom within the Jihadists.

Quote

Arghanistan has proven to be a great success story. We went in, ousted the Taliban, and now the country is free. It has had free elections and now a democratically elected government.

The fact of the matter is that what's happening is the solidification and legitimization of a government that is going to be heavily populated by really, really brutal, cruel criminals, most of whom are part of the mujahedin, which was a force that was created by the Pakistani intelligence and the U.S. in the 1980s to fight the Soviet Union and the Afghan communists. And these are the people, once again, running Afghanistan. And the way they run Afghanistan is to exploit and steal from the common people.

Atta is now with Karzai, the US backed "winner" Keep in mind the entire election was a car wreck. With all candidates except Karrzai boycotting because of fraud. It was backroom deals with war lords that created the resolve. And if you want to call it "free elections with a democratically elected govt" well, I guess you can, but you'd be incorrect imho. It was prearranged by the U.S. that Karzai would be president, and that's the way it's going to be. With two of the biggest warlords, with private armies, as cabinet members.

Your new elected Afghan government will include Mohammed Atta and Rashid Dostam, both of whom are involved in the drug trade, both of whom are seizing land, both of whom tax, mercilessly, the extremely poor people of this region, and both of whom are jockeying for positions in the Karzai regime.

And I'll bet that Mohammed Atta is governor of a province and I'm sure that Rashid Dostam will be bought off or rewarded, somehow, with some sort of position.

And the U.S. is cooperating with these people, the mujahedin leaders, who have been reincarnated as the, quote-unquote, “Northern Alliance,” but they're really just a bunch of feudal thugs who is use Kalashnikovs and R.P.G.’s instead of swords and horses.

Quote

I meant that the main push of it all had been done. It's no secret that we're still there fighting. Just, the brunt of it all has been done.

I disagree. It is a unique "war" we have there.New US detention centers littering the country. New bases being built left and right, permanent structures. We are there for the "long run". It is also a strategic step towards circling Iran, the last of three 'rouge" states on the list. And it seems we are in bed with the same people you think we have ousted. Who knows. Might be the best way to get Intel is keeping close to the enemy. But it is no way near over. 20,000 troops and growing.

Quote

But I smell oil

Quote

The argument that we went to war for oil is completely baseless

Not really. It was the core reason to me. In a nut shell. It is about oil being a strategic commodity!

The US continues to consume record amounts of oil without providing a solid plan B, at all!

US relies on the Saudi's to stave off a price increases triggered by many things such as weather, civil unrest etc.
Severe increase could paralyze the US economy

China is the new largest global consumer and growing much faster then the US. And is the Saudi's new largest customer

Prior to the invasion, OPEC members, Iran & Iraq switched profits from $ to Euro's. Thus creating a weaker dollar in the world economy and possibly a continued down stream. With Ven considering the same, until the convenient coup attempt the month we invade Iraq.

BTW, Iraq's were switched back as one of our first actions we when took over.

and the kicker

Iraq has the second largest reserves

I guess you do not yet see any coincidence here?

I truly believe Iraq was for the stabilization of the dollar, oil reserves and yes, democracy (to help control the govt for US means) . Even if there was a WMD threat, which I believe was an excuse, I feel the US should not be out there policing for the UN, especially when they (UN) says NO! And there was no direct threat to US soil.

I agree that we should have done something to handle the potential security issues in regards to the US oil needs in the future. Taking out SH and occupying the second largest oil reserves in the world sure is effective. I simply am now more aware of the whole picture the Bush Administration seems to be committed too. It is the process of lying and BS that this is not what it is about , that bugs the shit out of me.

Quote

and nothing more than a blind excuse to reticule President Bush. Many Democrats have even admitted that.

My goal is not to redicule Bush. I voted for him. The first few people I engaged with the concept of this being for oil looked at me like I was a traitor, being that I was a hard core Republican. Now most of the "not for oil" folks cannot recall that conversation. And say "of course oil is a huge part" changing the tune, which is fine by me. I changed mine also.

The point is that AQ does have a place to get easy pickins on US forces. And we created it. How it is going to go away is the question. Be interested in any opinions. A solution is what we should be talking about. Not a history lesson on why we are really there. That's pointless.

If we plan on staying in Iraq until these "insurgents" are gone - we will lose that one. We created a situation where they breed faster then we can recrute. And most troops are getting real tired of three deployments in a row to Iraq.

Carpe Diem