How BUSH Created a Terrorist Haven

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar. – Anonymous, circa ?”

“(AP) Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrap yards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a letter to U.S. officials three weeks ago informing them of the findings. The information was also sent to the U.N. Security Council in a letter from its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, that was circulated Thursday.

The IAEA is waiting for a reply from the United States, which is leading the coalition administering Iraq, officials said.

The United States has virtually cut off information-sharing with the IAEA since invading Iraq in March 2003 on the premise that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

No such weapons have been found, and arms control officials now worry ****the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons ***** or that civilians may be unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials.



****the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons *****

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/16/iraq/main612333.shtml”

“stickmanwalking, i understand why you don't like the long posts. but i believe, maybe just maybe there are one or two objective liberals out there who have an open mind and will read my posts start to finish, where they might not if they had to follow a link. links are a hassel. if i'm reading a thread, and i'm in a hurry(usually) i rarely follow links, takes too long.

it's funny how phaaedrus skims them, simply because he's not interested in hearing both sides.

BAWWWWK BAWWWK BAWWWWWK BAWK BAWK!>!>!>!”

“Strat, you'll recall, when I was asking you to post links, that I had already read most of the articles you had posted. I read quite a bit of the "other side", but I'm not interested in reading the latest drivel from Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh any more than I am interested in reading the latest drivel from Michael Moore. I already know what they're going to say, and the constant scrolling through articles that I've already read or just don't care to read is annoying. Further, you seem to post some of the most off-the-wall crap that has little to do with the subject we're discussing.

At least, if you'd post a link, you'd not be screwing the whole thread up.”

“Strat, you'll recall, when I was asking you to post links, that I had already read most of the articles you had posted.

no way dood. no way.

I read quite a bit of the "other side", but I'm not interested in reading the latest drivel from Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh any more than I am interested in reading the latest drivel from Michael Moore.

just makes you closed minded, biased, and prejudiced. every point should be listened to and taken seriously and pondered honestly. i very rarely post anything from those 2 you mentioned but even when i do, they should be heard and their thoughts considered. they are sucessful because they have a talent for evaluationg politics and they are very intelligent. brains aren't held out only for the elite progressives of our times.


already know what they're going to say, and the constant scrolling through articles that I've already read or just don't care to read is annoying

ok then, you might as well not even post at all cuz i already knopw what you are gonna say.


Further, you seem to post some of the most off-the-wall crap that has little to do with the subject we're discussing.


you just admitted not reading my posts, and knowing whaty they are gonna say...but now you say my posts are off topic. if you would read my stuff, and consider it all, every time, you would see that they are usually extremely pertenant to the conversation. but i guess you're just too smart to read something from doofus, redneck, trailor trash like me, right phaED"?


At least, if you'd post a link, you'd not be screwing the whole thread up."

i disagree wholeheartedly. my post enhance the thread, but you wouldn't know that cuz, as you've said, you don't read them.”

“Strat, if you're intentionally trying to misunderstand what I wrote, good job!

Strat, you'll recall, when I was asking you to post links, that I had already read most of the articles you had posted.

no way dood. no way.

Yes way dood. Yes way. I had already read the Time article, the NRO article (though in a different venue) and the AP article you posted. You might not have noticed me saying that as you were too busy cutting and pasting.

just makes you closed minded, biased, and prejudiced. every point should be listened to and taken seriously and pondered honestly. i very rarely post anything from those 2 you mentioned but even when i do, they should be heard and their thoughts considered. they are sucessful because they have a talent for evaluationg politics and they are very intelligent. brains aren't held out only for the elite progressives of our times.


I've given those three about all the time I'm going to. There comes a point when a person has so thoroughly discredited himsef that he is no longer worth reading. The three examples I gave have all either approached or surpassed that point.

you just admitted not reading my posts, and knowing whaty they are gonna say...but now you say my posts are off topic. if you would read my stuff, and consider it all, every time, you would see that they are usually extremely pertenant to the conversation. but i guess you're just too smart to read something from doofus, redneck, trailor trash like me, right phaED"?


I've made it very clear that I have been purposely ignoring your posts that clutter up the threads with extraneous crap, or the cut and pastes that I have already read. If you write something, and I see it, I'll consider it, but those long cut and paste jobs aren't your words.

BTW, you tend to enjoy throwing like four or five long paste jobs back to back - making it appear that you're just trying to overcome with volume what you're lacking in originality.

i disagree wholeheartedly. my post enhance the thread, but you wouldn't know that cuz, as you've said, you don't read them

Yes, I read your posts, but if I miss them because you've blown a thread up with a ton of crap and I've stopped clicking on your posts, I'm not considering it a big loss.”

“3?


THREEEEEE?

geesh man, i've posted a hundred easy. you've read 3....whoa, you really got it covered dood.


if there were such a thing as an objective, outside opinion who was visiting here, there is no way he would agree with you right now.

you are skeered to listen to me. it's not cool to be conservative, your frinds would disown you if they knew you read something by [GASSSSSP] rush limbaugh.

it's ok phaeddy. i always knew that you've sold your soal to the leftie-god and never has any misgivings that you would objectively listen(read) to every word i post, no matter what it is.
no excuse is valid, as long as an honest debate in what were stiving for.

i make alot of valid points that you conVEEEEEnyantly overlook.

oil well, i don't really care , lol! no really, i don't. i'm jsut trying to balance out the six thousand liberal robots on here....

it's not fair really....ya'll need more guys....”

“Strat, just in case you missed it, I was referring specifically to the thread where I asked you to stop posting the whole article. I had already read three of the five you posted. One other was from Treason-hysteria-girl and the last was off subject.

you are skeered to listen to me. it's not cool to be conservative, your frinds would disown you if they knew you read something by [GASSSSSP] rush limbaugh.

it's ok phaeddy. i always knew that you've sold your soal to the leftie-god and never has any misgivings that you would objectively listen(read) to every word i post, no matter what it is.
no excuse is valid, as long as an honest debate in what were stiving for.


A good portion of my best friends are conservatives. We discuss matters based on reason and I'm positive each of them would have no problem with me placing you on ignore after looking at a few threads.

There are a good number of things we agree on, Strat, so your attempts to stereotype my beliefs are about as ridiculous as any argument you've made here.”

“IRAQI REACTION: Clerics say retaliation is necessary

May 8, 2004





BY SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI
ASSOCIATED PRESS




KUFA, Iraq -- A defiant Muqtada al-Sadr delivered prayers at a mosque Friday, denouncing U.S. abuse of Iraqi prisoners, while the radical Shi'ite cleric's militiamen battled U.S. troops in two cities.

The scandal over the mistreatment of prisoners spilled into the confrontation, as a sheik loyal to the cleric offered rewards for capturing coalition troops and said anyone who seizes a female British soldier could keep her as a slave.

"What sort of freedom and democracy can we expect from you, when you take such joy in torturing Iraqi prisoners?" al-Sadr told thousands of worshippers at Kufa's main mosque in reference to the U.S. troops.

Al-Sadr dismissed apologies from President George W. Bush over the abuse at Abu Ghraib. "I tell this to Bush," al-Sadr said. "Your statements are not enough. They must be punished in kind," he said, referring to the guards.

During a sermon in Basra, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli displayed documents and photos he said showed three Iraqi women being raped at British-run prisons in Iraq and called for jihad, or holy war, against British troops in the southern city.

Al-Bahadli said $350 would be given to anyone who captures a British soldier and offered $150 for killing one. "Any Iraqi who takes a female soldier can keep her as a slave or gift to himself," he said.

Al-Sadr traveled from his hometown of Najaf to Kufa -- 6 miles away -- to lead Friday prayers, despite a crackdown on his militia by U.S. troops in and around Najaf and other southern cities. U.S. commanders suggested they were refraining from moving against al-Sadr on the Islamic day of prayers, as they have the past three Fridays.”

“It looks like the naked arab jenga thing isn't going over too well over there.”

“ARAB JENGA!!! LOL!

Ahem... Not funny.”

“I'm just waiting for Condoleeza to say "No one could have possibly imagined this".”

“Where's strat? I need to hear jihad Bush.”

“as soon as he wipes his mouth off from taken care of Bush, he'll be here.....”

“It's not just the Arabic world who's pissed...

--Snip--

...The prisoner scandal had provoked a cry of despair from Boris Johnson, a Conservative Party member of Britain's Parliament who had supported the war.

"How could the American Army have been so crass, so arrogant, so brutal as to behave in this way?" Johnson wrote in The Daily Telegraph.

"The trailer-trash troops said they had no idea what they were doing. They weren't even aware of the existence of the Geneva Conventions. They didn't have any orders to obey, only vague instructions.

"Was this really the operation I had voted for? Did I really think, when the House of Commons voted to support the American action on March 18, 2003, that it would be carried out with such boneheaded stupidity?"

More...”

“Yep!”

“LMAO Phaeddy”

“(CBS/AP) Insurgents set off car bombs and seized police stations Thursday in an offensive aimed at creating chaos ahead of next week's handover of power to a new Iraqi government. U.S. and Iraqi forces regained control in heavy fighting, but the day's violence killed more than 100 people, including three U.S. soldiers.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror network claimed responsibility for the attacks. Most of the casualties were Iraqi civilians. A large number were killed in simultaneous car bombings in the northern city of Mosul, but some also died as U.S. troops battled the guerrillas. At least 320 people were wounded, including 12 Americans.

Motorists who drove through Fallujah said insurgents and uniformed Iraqi police appeared to be cooperating, chatting amiably on the street corners.

Thursday, U.S. helicopter gunships swooped low over Baqouba, firing at suspected guerrilla hideouts in palm groves. Some motorists flew white flags from their car antennas, trying to avoid being hit.

The wounded screamed in agony, and many of their friends and relatives directed their anger at the Americans, whom they blamed for destroying the order imposed by Saddam Hussein.

"May God destroy America and all those who cooperate with it!" one man screamed in the corridor. Another carried the body of a young man shot in the back of the head. "Oh God! Abbas is dead!" he cried.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml”

“Falluja Pullout Left Haven of Insurgents, Officials Say

By DEXTER FILKINS NY Times

CAMP FALLUJA, Iraq, July 6 - American and Iraqi officials say that a decision in April to pull back American forces from Falluja inadvertently created a safe haven for terrorists and insurgents there. But officials are reluctant to send American troops back into the city for fear of touching off another uprising.

The officials say they are unsure how to proceed, but agree they merely postponed the problem when the Americans halted an attack in April, brokering a deal to keep Americans out of Falluja and allow local Iraqis to police the city instead.

Iraqi and American officials say they would prefer to re-enter the city with a sizable force of Iraqi soldiers, perhaps backed up by Americans. But they concede that an Iraqi force capable of mounting an effective assault on Falluja, a city of 250,000 people, is months or even years away.

As a result, the Americans and the new Iraqi government are faced with a growing danger that - as long as they adhere to the agreement to stay out of the city - they are nearly powerless to confront.

"There is no question that Falluja is a safe haven," said Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, until last week the head of all military forces in the country. "At some point it is going to have to be dealt with."

American and Iraqi intelligence reports suggest that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian believed to be responsible for scores of attacks here, is using Falluja as a base for operations. He is thought to be working with dozens of hard-core Islamist fighters, many of them from outside the country, and former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

Iraqi officials say the terrorists are using the city to assemble car bombs and other such weapons before sending them to Baghdad and other cities.

The Iraqi officials say the security force formed to police the city, called the Falluja Brigade, has had little or no effect in breaking up the terrorist networks inside the city. The brigade is made up largely of former Baathists and some insurgents.

Senior Iraqi officials say the government in Falluja has been effectively replaced by a group of insurgent leaders, many of them Islamist extremists, who dominate most decisions affecting the city. Former members of the Baath Party are using the city as a base to regroup, and recently held a meeting to plot a strategy to return to power, the Iraqi officials said.
[...]
One measure of how little control the Iraqi government has over Falluja came last month, during a meeting between Mr. Bremer and Abu Karim Barias, the governor of Anbar Province, which includes Falluja. Mr. Barias had driven through Falluja to meet Mr. Bremer at an American base. His convoy was ambushed on the way.

"There is no government there," Mr. Barias told Mr. Bremer. "They will not allow any person in there who is associated with the government. It's the mujahedeen shura that is in control of that city," a reference to a council of militants.
[...]
Afterward, as Mr. Barias prepared to leave, he was asked to describe the situation in Falluja.

"It's simple," he said. "It's a terrorist hotbed."
[...]
"We didn't ask to go into the city, and we didn't ask to stop offensive operations," said a senior American officer involved in the campaign. "If we had not been told to stop, in three to five days we would have owned the city."

Both decisions were made by the political leadership in the United States, he said, but "you tell your force to do one thing, and then another - it has a cost."
[...]”

“OK, now it's the National Intelligence Council saying it.

Wingers?



Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground

War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents.

"The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

<snip>”

“what's the expression I'm looking for, oh year "Bring em on"”

“This is why it is so important that Bush keep the troops in Iraq unless the death figures increase markedly.”

“GOOD, get them all in one place and shot the sh*t out of them.

Seriously, we the U.S. at this time in history are the the Major Power on the Planet. Just like all the Major Powers throughout history. We will have these peoples, cultures, or nations who want what you and I have. And just like in past history, they will try to take it by force. (Regardless of what they say their motives are)
So we either give them everything. Or we defend ourselves.
I have no problem helping anyone, regardless of race, culture, religion or creed. But I do have a problem when they try to take it by force.
As for those 5000 people who left the country to hide, from Iraq. If they did not want to defend the country. Why did they join the military. After all it is not like they are dodging the draft. Makes me wonder about the character of these people. People who want a free paycheck, but do not want to earn it. Canada is all the poorer for allowing their presence in their country.”

“LMAO - Surely you mean that America wanted what Iraq had and decided to take it by force. So you're then saying it's right to get the American soldiers all in one place and shoot the #&%!$ out of them?”

“How you could possibly come up with that conclusion Y2 is beyond me. If they are terroists, then deal with them accordingly.
The motives for the U.S. invading Iraq, may never be completely clear. But for most Americans, I would say, they associate the former regime with terrorism. And even to this day I believe there is a lot of anger with terrorism, because of the 9-11 events.”

“They have a kewl new plan for mosquito control. Place long pools of standing murky water out there to attract mosquitos - have lots of people out there swatting them and pretty soon you won't have any more mosquitos at all.”

“There is a somewhat dated study (from the Clinton era), by the CATO Institute (no left wingers they) that suggests that we could decrease the threat of terrorism by adopting a policy of military restraint around the world - that our interventionist foriegn policy was actually the cause of much terrorism against us.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf”

“I saw the latest numbers and it’s official. We have now wrecked more homes than Angelina Jolie.”

“As to the theory of a "venus flytrap", attack Iraq and bring them all in. Yeah, a lot of Pentagon people think that.

It's true that it's some militants in Iraq, however only 3% of the insurgents are estimated to be foreign. This is despite the media constantly naming "Zarqawi" all over the media because he's a foreigner. It's actually Iraqis attacking the U.S. BBC conducted interviews of Iraqis and none of them had a clue who Zarqawi was with most labeling him as a fictitious character made up by the U.S. to make their country look like a terrorist nation.

'Success' in Iraq means installing U.S. tyrannical puppet dictatorship v6.0. Under that all the insurgents go underground.

Worse... instead of one, pretty small organization, Al-Qaeda, there are now hundreds of diffuse, independently run groups with some having members in the thousands.
last edited: 1/14/05 3:37:07 PM”

“Just as you saw the basis of Al Quaeda come out of Afganistan, then you'll see the next generation of terrorists come out of Iraq.
I'm already hearing hearing people call the insurgent Mujahadin.
Ok WLD, so I made a leap there. But you forget, that America is in their country, not the other way round. And it doesn't matter that most people associate the Saddam regime with terrorism, it was never a threat to America. To Isreal maybe, but should America go fighting the battles for Sharon the war monger?
Anger with Terrorism sure, but your response should be to deal with the threat, not put American lives at greater risk. By the end of this you will probably see more Americans dead in Iraq than died in 9/11. Some "War on Terror" that is.”

“Funny how some idiot liberals complain about stagnant water and swamps breeding mosquitos. What a bunch of hooey - they attract them so we can kill them. There are only so many mosquitos in the world and once we kill them all, we are done with the job.”

“</sarcasm font>>”

“Iraq: spinning off Arab terrorists?

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA – The lessons of Afghanistan are not lost on counterterrorism experts and Arab government officials here.
As the insurgency continues in Iraq, the risk is that the country becomes a regional training ground for terrorists - as Afghanistan was in the 1990s - creating newly radicalized and experienced jihadis who return home to cause trouble in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere.

In fact, there's evidence it's already happened in Kuwait. In the past month, the tiny Gulf state has been rocked by a series of shootouts with Muslim militants, some of whom learned their craft by working alongside Iraqi insurgents.
<snip>
According to Faris bin Hizam, a Saudi researcher and journalist who closely follows Al Qaeda, some 2,500 Saudis have gone to Iraq. "These fighters will most probably return to Saudi Arabia to bolster Al Qaeda, which has been weakened and is in disarray with the death of much of its leadership," he says.
<snip>
Media adviser to the Saudi ambassador in England, Jamal Khashoggi, who traveled to Afghanistan many times during the Soviet occupation and met Mr. bin Laden, says the Arab fighters in Iraq are more violent and more dangerous than the "Arab Afghans."

"The Arabs who first fought in Afghanistan were moderate. Initially Osama bin Laden was not radical. There were no kidnappings of relief workers or beheadings. But any Saudi who survives Iraq is a potential danger to Saudi Arabia. These men have blood on their hands and blood in their hearts," he says.
<snip>”

“Gloom & Doom
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ;-)”

“Interesting insight:

Iraq Is No Afghanistan
July 19, 2005 20 20 GMT


Summary

The popular perception among many Western and non-Western experts on
the Middle East, military affairs and terrorism is that the growing
insurgency in Iraq is rendering the country a breeding ground for the
next generation of transnational jihadists, as was the case with
Afghanistan in the 1980s giving rise to al Qaeda. Though the war in
Iraq will provide many militant Islamists with combat training, it is
unlikely that it will pave the way for the rise of a neo-al Qaeda,
given that Osama bin Laden and his associates emerged as a result of
certain unique international circumstances 20 years ago that are not
present today.

Analysis

The overall upswing in the Iraqi insurgency has led to speculation that
the country is in the process of producing the next wave of militant
Islamist fighters, similar to what happened in Afghanistan during 1979
to 1989. This is not likely the case. The international system and
international politics have changed significantly from the time of the
Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Also, major structural differences
between Afghanistan and Iraq as countries allowed the former to be a
launch pad for global jihadists and will prevent Iraq from going the
same way. That said, the fallout from the war in Iraq will include a
large number of militant Islamists who will be veterans of the Iraq
war, but at best they will constitute a regional rather than global
threat.

This is not to say that there are no similarities between the jihadists
in Iraq and those in Afghanistan. Islamist volunteers joined Afghans in
their fight against the Soviet Union and its client regime in Kabul,
much like the Iraqi al Qaeda branch led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and its
allies are fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces. In both cases, the militant
Islamists caused chaos within their own countries. However, this
comparison is superficial.

Once the dust of war settles in Iraq, these fighters will return to
their home countries and pose threats to the regimes there. This is
another similarity to the aftermath of the Afghan war -- the fighters
returned to their Arab homelands as militants trying to take down their
home governments, but the Arab regimes were able to contain the
militant Islamist threat. It was this defeat that galvanized many
jihadists to switch from working against their home states to waging
war against the United States under the banner of al Qaeda; the
thinking was that if U.S. support for the Arab regimes was removed or
decreased, the regimes would topple easily. This is where any
similarities between Afghanistan and Iraq end.

The militants who survive the Iraq war will not likely be able to
attack the United States, given the post-Sept. 11, 2001, atmosphere and
counterjihadist measures in place. They lack a charismatic leader like
Osama bin Laden, and they lack the material resources that bin Laden
had at his disposal, which allowed him to develop his global network.
The insurgents' support both internationally and domestically, the
strategy of nation-building and the perception of the insurgents
themselves have drastically changed since the Afghanistan-Soviet Union
conflict of the 1980s. The Afghans contesting the Soviet military
presence in their country had active support from Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia and the United States, who all were trying to topple the Soviet
government and force its troops out of Afghanistan. The Islamist
volunteers who went to fight against the Soviets were paid by the
Saudis, armed by the United States, and trained, housed, fed and
provided intelligence by Pakistan. However, the present-day insurgency
in Iraq has no support that can stand up to the United States. The only
known support for al-Zarqawi is private donations reportedly from
select Saudis and other Arabs/Muslims. Al-Zarqawi does not have the
large pool of trained military or centralized control that bin Laden
had.

Furthermore, after the Iraq war ends, the bulk of the jihadists there
will have only the limited experience gained during the Iraq war. The
jihadists' experience in Afghanistan had a much broader scope,
including intelligence, money, weapons and radical Islamist ideologies.
The militant Islamist veterans of the Iraq war could emerge as a threat
within the region. However, they would not enjoy the freedom of
movement the Taliban had in the 1980s and 1990s. This new group will be
a localized phenomenon and not a global threat like al Qaeda.

Also, the objective behind the Soviet-Afghan war was clearly to expel
the Soviet Union by traditional liberation-type fighting. This differs
greatly from Iraq, where al-Zarqawi has been staging suicide bombings
to create chaos that will destabilize not only Iraq, but neighboring
countries as well.

After the Soviet-Afghan war, there was no real attempt to rebuild a
viable state, leaving Afghanistan to find its own leaders and support.
Following the Soviet departure from Afghanistan, civil war created
chaos within the country for seven years before the Taliban came to
power. The United States is avoiding this course in Iraq by working
toward the creation of a government and training an Iraqi army while
fighting jihadists and the Sunni guerrillas. The jihadists within Iraq
do not have the chaos that surrounded the lack of leadership or
strategy that was seen in Afghanistan. This impedes the jihadists'
ability to use Iraq as a training ground for the next generation.

Afghan and other Muslim fighters fought against the Soviets to help
liberate the country, which was mostly Sunni. Afghan society blended
together with the freedom fighters, and they were internationally seen
as heroes for their efforts. In contrast, Iraqi society is strongly
secularized, with many factions working with the United States. The
Iraqi insurgents have been vilified internationally and are not seen as
helping to liberate the country, at least not on the same level. Though
many still see the Sunni guerrillas as resistance fighters, the attacks
waged by al Qaeda and other militant Islamist outfits have led to a
general atmosphere of disgust at the violence being perpetrated by the
fighters in Iraq. In other words, unlike in Afghanistan during the
1980s, where all insurgent groups were united to oust Soviet troops, in
Iraq there is no united front against the United States. Even among the
Sunni community, many are negotiating with Washington and the Iraqi
government. Besides that split, the foreigners fighting in Iraq have a
different agenda from the Sunni guerrillas; in Afghanistan, the
foreigners were fighting alongside the Afghans against Kabul and
Moscow.

The belief that the jihadists fighting in Iraq are rising to become the
next generation of global jihadist fighters ignores the altered global
circumstances since the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The fighters
from the Afghan experience were supported by one global superpower
against another one, and without an option to create a new
nation-state. Presently, no group can support the insurgency in Iraq
against the United States to create a new form of jihadists, as
happened in Afghanistan.”

“I hope they are right.

They don't seem to mention the developmnent of grass roots network throughout the world to support terror or the kinds of cells around the world that may be fed and energized by the US invasion. They also don't say that much about Al-Qeda networks and sympathetic sub-networks being fed (money and recruits) and enregized by events.

I'm wondering now about the vulnerability of our seaports (esp. oil tanks and nuclear power plants near seaports) given that Al-Qeda has launched a couple ocean based attacks.”

“Don't miss the forest for the trees, pedX. Iraq isn't the sole focus of U.S. foreign policy. We've been very active all over the world establishing ties with governments to combat these kinds of grassroots efforts. The grassroots support will whither once Iraq dwindles into the background. Our presence and determination to gain cooperation on terrorism won't.”

“Meanwhile, a United Nations panel of experts issued a report Monday saying there is no shortage of recruits for terrorism worldwide and that Iraq has provided new training ground for them, replacing al Qaeda bases lost in Afghanistan.

"Al Qaeda has managed to recover from the loss of Afghanistan as a training base for terrorism by exploiting the situation in Iraq," the report said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/19/zawahiri/index.html”

“United Nations panel of experts

That says it all right there.”

“Can you say oxy-moron?”

“Isn't it pretty much self-evident that terrorist are breeding in Iraq?”

“I believe over there Muslim = terrorist weather by action or by duplicity.”

“The killing has just led to more killing.”

“Isn't it pretty much self-evident that terrorist are breeding in Iraq?

No - jihadists, yes. Terrorists that are more than a regional-opportunistic threat - it remains to be seen.”

“We also have to keep in mind that it's not so much they are becoming or breeding but they are coming to Iraq. Look at Afganistan, there were Muslims from all over the world flooding in there to fight. And that's fine. Just means we don't have to come to their country to find them. Get 'em all in one place. :)”

“You're just playing around with semantics, Mutt!”

“You have no idea the kind of constraint I am exhibiting by keeping to my self-imposed commitment to not post on the flame threads... ;)”