Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[Flip McWho]

Al Qaeda gains recruits from Iraq war - UN study
28 September 2006


UNITED NATIONS: A UN report released today said the Iraq war provided al Qaeda with a training centre and recruits, reinforcing a US intelligence study blaming the conflict for a surge in Islamic extremism.


The report by terrorism experts working for the UN Security Council said al Qaeda was playing a central role in the fighting in Iraq as well as inspiring a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, several hundred kilometres away.

"New explosive devices are now used in Afghanistan within a month of their first appearing in Iraq," said the report. "And while the Taliban have not been found fighting outside Afghanistan/Pakistan, there have been reports of them training in both Iraq and Somalia."

Al Qaeda, it said, "has gained by continuing to play a central role in the fighting (in Iraq) and in encouraging the growth of sectarian violence, and Iraq has provided many recruits and an excellent training ground," it said.

The report said that al Qaeda's influence may soon wane in Iraq, citing some fighters' complaints that they were unhappy to learn upon arriving in the country that they would have to kill fellow Muslims rather than foreign fighters or could serve their cause only as suicide bombers.

The report was prepared by a team of experts set up to monitor the effectiveness of Security Council sanctions imposed on the Taliban and al Qaeda shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

A 2001 council resolution requires all 192 UN member-nations to freeze the assets and travel of any person or group suspected of ties to al Qaeda or Afghanistan's former Taliban rulers, and bars arms deals with them.

US President George W Bush faced heavy criticism from political foes after parts of the US National Intelligence Estimate leaked out this week, revealing intelligence experts' conclusion that Islamic extremists were "increasing in both number and geographic dispersion" due to the Iraq war.

The study, prepared in April, said the war had become a "cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

US Ambassador John Bolton said it was natural that war would lead to more violence, citing as an example Japan's World War 2 attack on Pearl Harbour and the US response.

"If you said after the attack on Pearl Harbour that the American response had increased the violence in the Pacific, you would be right, wouldn't you? Because violence did increase after the attack and after our response," he told reporters.

"We are in conflict with international terrorism and the nature of that conflict is playing out in Iraq," he said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3811673a12,00.html

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Because this information carries no national security value while being newsworthy.

Bravo Times.

Been gone for a couple of days traveling w/o internet access. So lets rock on!

Your criteria for breaking classification law is that information merely needs be newsworthy and in your ohhh so informed opinion carries no national seucirty value. (The point of which is that is exactly the reason the admin is now saying they don't want to declassify the gritty details but felt compelled to declassify the executive summary. But hey you and the NYT who have never read the NIE know better don't you. )

So the arguement comes down to was it newsworthy. (pardon me for a second, cough* Bull***** cough) First the article was not newsworthy in the slightest. It takes an 18 month old child all of 3 seconds to understand that if he hits someone they get mad. Of course any action taken over the course of history would indicate you take an offensive action those affected will rally against the offensive action.

But lets get to the details of this ohhh so compelling and well thought out counterarguement that the story need only be newsworthy, because we all know the 1st amendment rights are supreme and inviolate. Its not like there are any limitations on free speech. Why just the other day for ****s and giggles I went to a crowded movie theatre and yelled Fire. Went down the street to the nearest pay phone and called in a bomb threat. And for the hat trick finished off my quite ordinary day (hey everyone does this kind of stuff everyday right) by advising all my freinds to buy shares of stock in my company because I got the early word that my company's earnings look to be way up.

Ohh for the days when the mere fact that a story simply be newsworthy for it to warrant immediate publications for mass consumption.

I remember those newsworthy and interesting stories of:

- Remember that story from your history books how the rags of the day were second guessing the plan of attack of Grant on Vicksburg. Yeah it was fascinating how Grant was planning a cavalry raid diversion so that he could land his main forces south of Vickburg at Grand Junction. Probably would have worked too had those rebs not guessed his plan and foiled. WOnder how they did that? Ahhh really doesn't matter water under the bridge. But the articles were exceedingly newsworthy and fascinating.

- Let move up a little. Remember that story of the Japanese codes being broken and then the followup story saying we also broke the Uboat naval codes as well. Man that was compelling reading. Shame about the Brits though. But you know I think fascism agrees with the prig up their butt Limeys, Don't you?

- You know the one I really found compelling. Man that McCarthur was one smart west pointer wasn't he? His decision to fight those commies in Korea by doing an end around amphibious landing at Inchon would have been a stroke of brilliance if he could have carried it off. Who'ld have thought their would have been some Russian subs laying off the coast there.

- I fully expect that this weeks revelations about our military preparedness and our candid assessments of all possible strike capabilities to destroy Irans nuclear program will be a great read. And NOOO I am definitiely not one of those you hear of that think this might in anyway impact our ability to negotiate with Iran.

- Ohhh and I hear tale that NYT's is gonna be running a special expose this month on how to build a thermonuclear device including all technical specs on how to properly time conventional explosive and placemnt of same in order to assure you achieve critical mass. Fascinating stuff. My inner geek is titillated. My sources also inform me we may be getting those (laugh) Security clearance passcodes and launch codes we were so interested in hearing about. Now thats gonna be an issue I can't miss.


Laugh. Newsworthy my ass. Think newsworthy and for the publics good in order to even think about breaking the law. In all 3 cases the NYT's has missed the point of compelling public good. In all thre cases no greater good was served other than to put more people at risk or damage the ability for the proper prosecution of war.

You wanna talk Pentagon Paper fine lets do it. Your right Nixon was not and should not have tried to stop a priori via injunction the publication of the pentagon papers. Nixon was a wimp though for not prosecuting those offending parties though under statute. But he shot his quiver of arows at that point. More to the point Nixon should have never been the nice guy who tried to cover for Dems in the first place. He should have simply let LBJ and his Dem ilk swing for their crimes.



You wanna talk Rosa Parks fine. (But realize at least she had the hutzpa to do time for her beliefs. The NYT's gets to break the law and all in the name of circulation numbers. Doesn't quite square with me the nobility of Rosa vs. the crassness of the NYT's. But I suppose I am being a bit harsh its not like the NYT to shy away from showing cartoons of Mohamed or get deep under cover to understand how AQ plans to attack us next. Yeah that NYTs model of courage they are. ). You realize of course that in her civil disobediance came the reform that was so desparately required. In other words her incarceration sparked the repeal of those laws that really didn't deserve to be there. That is the crux of your arguement isn't it. Those laws that you don't think should exist. So bring it on. Incarcerate those responsible at the NYT and start the process moving to reform the laws.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
The wisdom of the ideologies responsible for the decision to invade Iraq are debetable, and would make a nice debate actually.

What I can;t understand for a second is why people here are willing to cut the admin slack for obviously totally mishandling the entire enterprise. The biggest problem is not that we invaded Iraq, but that even before day 1, this administration had ****ed everything related to the invasion up.

On this I agree. The admin thought this a simple means to topple Iraq. And yes that portion was simple. Vastly more simple than media the public or even military heads thought it would be. The problem was the lack of resources to pacify. While Shinzeki was dismissed and rightly so earlier for his old school philosophy of war. A proponent of outmoded use armor and the heavy military as opposed to the light and mobile military Rummy wanted. That exct wrong approach would have translated into enough forces to maintain the peace in the cirtical days that followed the Iraq toppling.

Rummy - right about how to find a modern battleground, Wrong about how to maintain the peace

Shinzeki - wrong about how to fight a modern battleground, wouldh ave been right by chance about how to keep the peace

[Bosh]

Hmmmm, I love the magically morphing rationals for attacking Iraq as soon as one gets thoroughly undermined a new one pops up to replace it and the old one goes down the memory hole...

1. They have scary scary WMDs! Boo!
Oh wait, no they don't
2. Well at least they're better off than under Saddam! Saddam bad man! Bad bad bad!
Oh wait, no they're not
3. Having Iraq turn into a charnal house of murder and mayhem is actually a very good thing. It reduces the number of terrorists.
Oh wait, no it doesn't (see recent NIE)

I wonder what number 4 will be. I predict a "we can't lose face" rationale will start displacing all the rest soon, but the problem with that one is that it doesn't explain why the war was a brillian idea in the first place (a must for the administration). I'm kind of stumped, what rationale could the administration use at this point for why the war was a good idea in the first place?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am specifically saying that the radicals are there no matter what we do, and as soon as we set foot in Afghanistan the fight was on, with or without Iraq.

And Iraq has INCREASED the number of those radicals. Saying there were radicals since we invaded Afghanistan and it doesn't matter that we went into Iraq is willful blindness. What's next, saying that if we raze Mecca it won't matter because we already invaded Afghanistan and the radicals already came out to fight us?

I sat with people who were leaving a University in Canada to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. These were not local yokels. The mujahadeen mobilised from the entire Muslim world to fight the Red Army.

Wow, you knew a few guys who left a university in Canada to fight the Soviets. That so totally shows that the Islamic world got much more radicalized by the Soviet invasion. They couldn't have been Islamic radicals before the invastion, could they? Soon afterwards, you had suicide bombers in Moscow and Leningrad, right? Arabs were marching in streets and calling for "Death to the USSR", right?

It's the people, and if you think the Iranians were going to sit still and keep quiet for the next 10 years you are severely naive.

Here is that strawman again. Of course, people that are against the Iraq war thought that there would be absolutely no problems in the Middle East if we just stayed in Afghanistan. Come back with real arguments next time please.

[Wezil]

NYE - Sorry for the delay in responding. I only post during business hours.

The news article you posted (again) makes for fine propaganda, which was its intended purpose. Display some explosive material (provided by law enforcement) and portray statements made by children as 'serious threats'.

Glad to see you still have confidence in the RCMP. Most of us have heard of the O'Conner Report (you know, the one where the RCMP where condemned for incompetence and malfeasance?) and realise when it comes to terrorist issues they are way beyond their capabilities.

The news conference you posted about was a politically timed event to make people believe the threat was oh so serious right before the SCC hearings.

I notice you didn't post anything about the accused version of events.

Finally, I will ask again - You do realize a good number of the dangerous and scary 'terrorists' mentioned in your article are currently out on bail? I guess when a neutral party looked at the facts they weren't quite up to the standard claimed by the cops.

[Bosh]

if you think the Iranians were going to sit still and keep quiet for the next 10 years you are severely naive.

They'd be sitting a hell of a lot stiller if the US hadn't just whiped their main enemy off the map and replaced them with a leadership with deep ties to Iran...

[Chemical Ollie]

Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

Told you so

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie

Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

Told you so

No, no, no, you've got to do it like this...

TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO!

[Wezil]

I finally found a use for the ignore option.

[Chemical Ollie]

Overkill is an American feature, Mobius, don't fall into such habits

[Dr Strangelove]

You didn't tell me nothin'. I was never in favor of this cluster-fest.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Overkill is an American feature, Mobius, don't fall into such habits

Just givin' 'em a taste of their own medicine...

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Hussein broke a CEASE FIRE, Victor. That can't be disputed. Hell, even the wimpass U.N. didn't give the USA/Brits a ration of crap. The French did. So what?

You still going on about this lame "excuse" of yours?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


But you seem to forget one small important fact:
The US of A didn´t simply send its troops and invade Afghanistan.
Instead they chose to support the more moderate of the two factions in the civil war that was going on in Afghanistan at this time.
i.e. instead of invading the country they chose to help a group, that already was supported by a part of the afghan population.

So the situation was different from the hostile takeover which was done by the soviets in the 80s.
The soviet takeover mobilized radicals and moderates alike, whereas the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan probably only miobilized the people which already where radical.

The Soviets had their own faction as well. It was called the government at the time.