Iraq War Helps Recruit Terrorists...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
...says CIA Director Porter Goss.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...050217/ts_washpost/a28876_2005feb16&printer=1

War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told

By Dana Priest and Josh White, Washington Post Staff Writers

The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday.

"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

"These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said. "They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

On a day when the top half-dozen U.S. national security and intelligence officials went to Capitol Hill to talk about the continued determination of terrorists to strike the United States, their statements underscored the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq.

"The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists," Goss said in his first public testimony since taking over the CIA. Goss said Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist who has joined al Qaeda since the U.S. invasion, "hopes to establish a safe haven in Iraq" from which he could operate against Western nations and moderate Muslim governments.

"Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment," Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate panel. "Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."

Jacoby said the Iraq insurgency has grown "in size and complexity over the past year" and is now mounting an average of 60 attacks per day, up from 25 last year. Attacks on Iraq's election day last month reached 300, he said, double the previous one-day high of 150, even though transportation was virtually locked down.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee that he has trouble believing any of the estimates of the number of insurgents because it is so difficult to track them.

Rumsfeld said that the CIA and DIA had differing assessments at different times but that U.S. intelligence estimates of the insurgency are "considerably lower" than a recent Iraqi intelligence report of 40,000 hard-core insurgents and 200,000 part-time fighters. Rumsfeld told Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), the committee's ranking Democrat, that he had copies of the CIA and DIA estimates but declined to disclose them in a public session because they are classified.

"My job in the government is not to be the principal intelligence officer and try to rationalize differences between the Iraqis, the CIA and the DIA," Rumsfeld testified. "I see these reports. Frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in any of them."

After the hearing, Rumsfeld told reporters that he did not mean to be "dismissive" of the intelligence reports.

"People are doing the best that can be done, and the fact is that people disagree," he said. ". . . It's not clear to me that the number is the overriding important thing."

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House panel that the extremists associated with al Qaeda and Zarqawi represent "a fairly small percentage of the total number of insurgents."

Sunni Arabs, dominated by former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, "comprise the core of the insurgency" and continue to provide "funds and guidance across family, tribal, religious and peer-group lines," Jacoby said.

Foreign fighters "are a small component of the insurgency," and Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and Iranian nationals make up the majority of foreign fighters, he said.

On terrorism, Goss, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and the acting deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security reiterated their belief that al Qaeda and other jihadist groups intend to strike the United States but offered no new information about the threat.

"It may be only a matter of time before al Qaeda or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons," Goss said.

Tom Fingar, assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, submitted a written statement that said: "We have seen no persuasive evidence that al-Qaida has obtained fissile material or ever has had a serious and sustained program to do so. At worst, the group possesses small amounts of radiological material that could be used to fabricate a radiological dispersion device," or dirty bomb.

Mueller, whose bureau has the lead in finding and apprehending terrorists in the United States, said his top concern is "the threat from covert operatives who may be inside the U.S." and said finding them is the FBI's top priority. But he said they have been unable to do so.

"I remain very concerned about what we are not seeing," Mueller said.

"Whether we are talking about a true sleeper operative who has been in place for years, waiting to be activated to conduct an attack, or a recently deployed operative that has entered the U.S. to facilitate or conduct an attack, we are continuously adapting our methods to reflect newly received intelligence and to ensure we are as proactive and as targeted as we can be in detecting their presence," he said.

Mueller said transportation systems and nuclear power plants remain key al Qaeda targets.

James Loy, acting deputy secretary of homeland security, agreed. In a written statement, he said that despite the efforts of the U.S. intelligence community and his department, and advances in information sharing, technology and organization, "any attack of any kind could occur at any time."

Funny how toppling Saddam was supposed to make us "safer" and "combat terrorism," and, yet, Iraq has done the exact opposite, as I expected. Now we have well-trained terrorists coming out of Iraq, and now the FBI says they want to attack the U.S.?

So, tell me, who still buys the bullshit that Iraq is part of the "war on terrorism"?

Melon
 
This is something I've said since the beginning of the Iraq war. Something that most from the right scoffed at and probably will still scoff today.
 
well, really, wasnt this obvious? and expected? if you attack people, they WILL strike back
 
melon said:
...says CIA Director Porter Goss.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...050217/ts_washpost/a28876_2005feb16&printer=1



Funny how toppling Saddam was supposed to make us "safer" and "combat terrorism," and, yet, Iraq has done the exact opposite, as I expected. Now we have well-trained terrorists coming out of Iraq, and now the FBI says they want to attack the U.S.?

So, tell me, who still buys the bullshit that Iraq is part of the "war on terrorism"?

Melon


How many "well-trained terrorist" have COME OUT OF Iraq to attack the United States or its Allies since the invasion?

If you read the article a little more carefully, it all so discusses the fact that the vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are SADDAM LOYALIST!

The fact remains that the planets energy supplies from the Persian Gulf is more secure than it has ever been thanks to the removal of Saddam's regime and his 400,000 man military that used to be only a few dozen miles from these energy reserves just across the border in northern Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and Southwestern Iran.



The war in Afghanistan is just as effective a recruiting tool and attraction for extremist as Iraq.
 
Re: Re: Iraq War Helps Recruit Terrorists...

STING2 said:







The war in Afghanistan is just as effective a recruiting tool and attraction for extremist as Iraq.



not true

torture1.jpg



these events in these pictures are worse than 911
 
911 was done by fanatics







Abu Graib was done by Americans

on defensless people

under the authority of the U S government

paid for with my tax dollars




These images will live for a long time and go a long way to validate Bin Laden's proclamations.
 
Abu Ghraib is NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF, AND NOTHING WORTH DEFENDING. The scandal still makes me sick. You're right in a sense that it was done by Americans, and it gives us a bad name.

But still, worse than 9/11? 9/11 was an attack on defenseless people as well. Still, I'm not convinced that Abu Ghraib was worse than 9/11.
 
You don't have to agree.



Let’s break it down this way


Whatever justification the 911 highjackers believed they had


is nothing
compared to the legitimate anger and resentment caused by Abu Ghraib


Think how upset we get with hostages and beheadings

The U S claims to be a civilized country with the rule of law.

Those crimes were not committed by a terrorist, a Tim McVeigh operating outside the government.

The U S Government is solely responsible for the environment in which they occurred.
 
NObody's cheering Abu Ghraib. Instead, we're prosecuting those involved. Whether it goes to the top is a matter for another thread. Fact is, the American people do not condone Abu Ghraib.

Millions cheered 9/11.

If you wanna go tit for tat, compare and contrast 9/11 vs. Abu Ghraib you're in for a big disappointment because your statement
"these events in these pictures are worse than 911" is so laughable, beyond the pale and insane that they do not dignify a response.

But I wouldn't think of demanding an apology because you have the right to be a moron and I despise the PC apology police.
 
gratuitous humiliation + what some would call torture of prisoners + 1 (or is it 2 or 3)dead = pre planned + 4 hijacked airliners + 2,xxx dead + billions in property damage + economic recession, etc.

I see the logic.
 
abu ghraib
done under the authority of the US government by the military of United states, a country whose president currently preaches freedom and justice

9-11
done by religious fanatics who came from a country (saudi arabia) with an impossibly theocratic and totalitarian regime which also turns out to be supported by the US

i see the logic:eyebrow:
 
Last edited:
my original comment was to respond to this:

"these events in these pictures are worse than 911

I personally think this is a ridiculous statement.

This was my response:
"gratuitous humiliation + what some would call torture of prisoners + 1 (or is it 2 or 3)dead = pre planned + 4 hijacked airliners + 2,xxx dead + billions in property damage + economic recession, etc.

I see the logic."

The following response
"abu ghraib
done under the authority of the US government by the military of United states, a country whose president currently preaches freedom and justice

9-11
done by religious fanatics who came from a country (saudi arabia) with an impossibly theocratic and totalitarian regime which also turns out to be supported by the US

i see the logic"

This response linked the two events as both being facilitated by the US, one directly and one indirectly.

This response did not answer my claim that to say Abu Ghraib was worse than 9/11 is outrageous and juvenile.

I don't see the point he was trying to make unless he was trying to imply that US support for Saudi Arabia was the cause of 9/11.

Even if that was true, how does that make this statement "these events in these pictures are worse than 911" true?

Am I missing something here?
 
the religious fanatics are not expected to live up to any standards, US government is (i guess). the shock value of these actions lies not only in the amount of destruction theyve caused, but also in the identity of the involved party. dont dismiss abu ghraib as an isolated event. that was an insult to a war torn nation, humiliating them even more. and of course 9-11 was a terrible event, and it hurt so many, but it was also a wake-up call (not in terms of 'lets go and kick their asses) but more in the lines of 'maybe we shouldnt apply policies that push millions all over the world towards suffering.:eyebrow:

does 9-11 compare to all the pain and suffering US caused in the world for the last century? i have serious doubts about that.

although, id like to point out that US has also done a lot of good, just look at bosnia and kosovo, i think it should be held to a different standard than the terrorists it faces.

it was your president who believes such corrupt regimes breed terror (or why else would he attack iraq, continuing his war against terror) and yet feels its ok to support them when convenient. yeah sure, US supports a fundamentalist government and was attacked by hard core fundamentalists, it doesnt make sense. as someone pointed out in the clinton thread 'unintended consequences is a bitch'

in another thread, someone quoted chomsky saying something in the lines of 'what goes around comes around' and pointed out that US policy will eventually create trouble for the US, this is the exact same thing.
 
Last edited:
Melon, i agree that marketing the Iraq invasion as part of the "war on terrorism" (and, then, of course, as part of bringing freedom and democracy) is a fairly thin line.

I'm not sure if you oppose the war or not (i think you do...i do, also), but i'm wondering for those who oppose it would it have been a better "sell" if the the administration had been completely up front and pragmatic about this? If they had just said "Look. We don't like Saddam. We feel this mess in Iraq is partly of our making. We supported him when we wanted to, especially to fight Iran. Now we think he's a dickhead. We want him out. We feel it's our responsibility since we helped prop him up up until the '80s. And, yes, a major part of the reason is the oil and the interest of Americans."

To the opposers: would this have been more palatable? Would you still oppose the war, but maybe not be as offended as you (myself also) are right now thinking about the lines and made-up justifications for invading (i.e. WMD threat)?
 
Last edited:
i dont think it would change much.. a lot of people knew the WMDs would probably turn out to be bogus anyway. :huh:
 
all_i_want said:
i dont think it would change much.. a lot of people knew the WMDs would probably turn out to be bogus anyway. :huh:


this is in no way true

almost every poster in this forum believed some sort of WMD's would be found


the Administration stated it was a fact

nobody believed the Admin would go out on that limb without holding their hidden ace cards.
 
well 'I' and a lot of people where i live didnt buy a word of it. i dont think most of the europeans did either. definitely not the french. but i cant blame the americans. colin powell went up there and said 'These, these and these are the warehouses where WMDs are held. These are the trucks that are used to carry them around etc.'

people tend to believe the person who represents their state on an international level.
 
Back
Top Bottom