| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"ta" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2005 03:24:37 PM |
| Object: |
Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
"Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were not
terrorists before Iraq war.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Two new studies, one by the Saudi government and one by an Israeli
think tank, which "painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and
motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United
States" have found that most foreign fighters in Iraq were not
terrorists before the Iraq war, but were "radicalized by the war
itself." The Boston Globe reported on Sunday that the studies "cast
doubt" on claims by President Bush that terrorists have "seized on the
opportunity to make Iraq the 'central front' in a battle against the
United States."
However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to
sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who
blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the
calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land,
according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained
analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access
to Saudi officials and intelligence.
A separate Israeli analysis [by Global Research in International
Affairs] of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism
researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda
operatives who are organizing the volunteers, 'the vast majority of
[non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist
activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.'
The Globe also reports that American intelligence officials and
terrorism experts have a very similar picture of these fighters: that
prior to the Iraq war, they were not extremists who wanted to attack
the US in an Al Qaeda-like manner, but "are part of a new generation of
terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from
'crusaders and 'infidels.' "
'The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on
terrorism, but this is a front we created,' said Peter Bergen, a
terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a
Washington think tank.
Columnist Terry Neal of The Washington Post, talked to Stephen Flynn, a
senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former US Coast
Guard commander, whose recent book, as well as his articles in the
Council's journal Foreign Affairs, argue that Iraq is a "phony war"
based on Mr. Bush assertions' that we have to fight the terrorists
there rather than here.
Mr. Flynn believes that by diverting so many resources to the war in
Iraq, we've not only helped to create more terrorists, but that
"America remains astonishingly vulnerable to attacks from Al Qaeda,
which has morphed under Bush's watch, from an organization to a
worldwide movement ..." He says the recent attacks in London show how
patient Al Qaeda has become, using the three cell approach: The first
cell is the leadership cell, the second cell is the reconnaissance
team, and the third is the 'action' team.
Iraq has not changed that equation one bit, Flynn argues. It has only
diverted resources from the more pragmatic approach of targeting and
hunting down terrorists around the world and, even more important,
bolstering domestic security ... The US administration and its hawks
are stuck in a 'state-centric perspective, cold war idea that
deterrence is about overwhelming power and offense. But that has
nothing to do with the overwhelming reality of this threat.'
In the United Kingdom, The Belfast Telegram reports that the respected
Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, and
the Economic and Social Research Council, have said that British
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan "have put Britain at a greater risk
of attack." The Chatham House report, issued Monday, also said that
Britain's support for the US did not create an equal partnership, but
instead turned Britain into a "passenger compelled to leave the
steering to the ally in the driving seat".
Chatham House warned that Iraq had created difficulties for the UK and
the coalition. 'It gave a boost to the Al Qaeda network's propaganda,
recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition,
provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al Qaeda-linked
terrorists, and deflected resources that could have been deployed to
assist the Karzai government [in Afghanistan] and bring bin Laden to
justice,' it said.
Both British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
reacted strongly to the report by Chatham House. The Guardian reports
that Mr. Blair said the recent attack on London was the result of
fanatics who subscribed to an "evil ideology" rather than opposition to
any policy and that it would be " 'misunderstanding of a catastrophic'
order to think that if we changed our behavior they would change
theirs."
<my comment: Is Blair really that stupid, or is he just playing along,
using the "evil" card at the appropriate times?>
Mr. Straw also denied that Britain's support for the US made it more of
a target for terrorists. "I'm astonished that Chatham House is now
saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our
long-standing allies in the United States," he said."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate.html
.
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
18 Jul 2005 04:17:25 PM |
|
|
Come on, what do the Saudis and the Israelis know about this stuff?
Sounds like liberal propaganda to me!
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
18 Jul 2005 10:49:08 PM |
|
|
tg <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121721445.344976.248300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Come on, what do the Saudis and the Israelis know about this stuff?
Sounds like liberal propaganda to me!
-tg
Probably . . . now if the article were published in the "Fundy Christian
Science Monitor", then it would carry more weight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
24 Jul 2005 06:49:27 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
--
"Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign
fighters were not terrorists before Iraq war.
James A. Donald wrote:
yet oddly, terror is diminishing.
"Michael Price"
Actually according to the US government's own (now
unavailible) figures it's going up.
If we count only terror in the west, terror is
diminishing, due to the diminished capability of Islamic
terrorists.
You don't give any evidence of that.
If we count both governmental terror and
non governmental terror, world wide, it is also
diminishing, as the private terrorists are less capable
than the governments they substitute for.
If we count only non governmental terror, world wide, it
is going up, and going up quite a lot, but this seems to
me like a good thing, or rather a bad thing that is an
unfortunate but necessary consequence of good things.
Private violence by mercs, militias, and non
governmental terrorists is increasing, while government
violence, particularly governmental terror, is
decreasing. However the people that are today being
terrorized by non governmental terrorists are for the
most part not us westerners. They are the people, for
example Iraqis, who were formerly terrorized by
governmental terrorists.
And are now terrorised by governmental terrorists and
private terrorists.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
fQQHpNuKF6oBSwmruWEPwyH2s6HSokbf5J17MRuh
4lyEEvF/mEdU91ADCc4BSrQBA8skON8ENcbalO8H9
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
25 Jul 2005 05:19:03 AM |
|
|
--
James A. Donald wrote:
If we count only terror in the west, terror is
diminishing, due to the diminished capability of
Islamic terrorists.
"Michael Price"
You don't give any evidence of that.
Observe the terrorist outrages in the west. Three
thousand, two hundred, fifty. Their capability is
diminishing. If they could do better, they would.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ablOybx6zIzQ6g+87hudzEC4KFXb6clhXF7cJsLZ
4iy843rGHeq6dnl0JzB7AplBikIsQkt+JACR6o3WO
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
25 Jul 2005 11:46:44 AM |
|
|
James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:p0f9e1l7lrag988g3ci0b1kdvpmb6qbit1@4ax.com...
--
James A. Donald wrote:
If we count only terror in the west, terror is
diminishing, due to the diminished capability of
Islamic terrorists.
"Michael Price"
You don't give any evidence of that.
Observe the terrorist outrages in the west. Three
thousand, two hundred, fifty. Their capability is
diminishing. If they could do better, they would.
Like a good capitalist, you see life in terms of numbers and only the
numbers matter.
The weakness of that approach is simply explained. For years the IRA blew up
or shot cleaners, pub-goers, bus passengers, squaddies and other assorted
citizens to a chorus of governmental "We shall not be moved". Then they blew
up Mountbatten and suddenly 'contacts' were made and the first approachs
towards a political settlement began. That first attempt failed. So back to
blowing up citizens they went. More staunch governmental choruses of "We
shall not be moved" for a few more years until the IRA blew the ***** out of
Thatchers hotel in Brighton..... and lo and behold..... the talks began
again.
It is not the numbers blown up that matter.. it is the who that gets blown
up.
Sooner or later this fact will permeate through the skulls of the nutters
engaged in the current murderous campaign and perhaps they will consider
blowing the ***** out of a few congressmen or senators may produce better
results. And they will be right.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ablOybx6zIzQ6g+87hudzEC4KFXb6clhXF7cJsLZ
4iy843rGHeq6dnl0JzB7AplBikIsQkt+JACR6o3WO
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
24 Jul 2005 07:37:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:49:27 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
--
"Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were
not terrorists before Iraq war.
James A. Donald wrote:
yet oddly, terror is diminishing.
"Michael Price"
Actually according to the US government's own (now unavailible)
figures it's going up.
If we count only terror in the west, terror is diminishing, due to the
diminished capability of Islamic terrorists.
You don't give any evidence of that.
Because the evidence is contrary to his statement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/middleeast/24insurgents.html?
American commanders say the number of attacks against American and Iraqi
forces has held steady over the last year, averaging about 65 a day.
But the Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks
and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are
killed.
"We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents," said a senior Army
intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was
not authorized to make his assessments public. "But they're being replaced
quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another
insurgent ready to step up and take charge."
At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to
understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of
foreign fighters, who are believed to be conducting a vast majority of
suicide attacks. The insurgency, believed to be an unlikely mix of Baath
Party die-hards and Islamic militants, has largely eluded the
understanding of American intelligence officers since the fall of Saddam
Hussein's government 27 months ago.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
24 Jul 2005 07:55:48 PM |
|
|
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:49:27 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
--
"Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were
not terrorists before Iraq war.
James A. Donald wrote:
yet oddly, terror is diminishing.
"Michael Price"
Actually according to the US government's own (now unavailible)
figures it's going up.
If we count only terror in the west, terror is diminishing, due to the
diminished capability of Islamic terrorists.
You don't give any evidence of that.
Because the evidence is contrary to his statement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/middleeast/24insurgents.html?
American commanders say the number of attacks against American and Iraqi
forces has held steady over the last year, averaging about 65 a day.
Military attacks aren't terrorism. Hitting soldiers that volunteered
to fight is not a terrorist act.
But the Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks
and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are
killed.
"We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents," said a senior Army
intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was
not authorized to make his assessments public. "But they're being replaced
quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another
insurgent ready to step up and take charge."
At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to
understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of
foreign fighters, who are believed to be conducting a vast majority of
suicide attacks. The insurgency, believed to be an unlikely mix of Baath
Party die-hards and Islamic militants, has largely eluded the
understanding of American intelligence officers since the fall of Saddam
Hussein's government 27 months ago.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
24 Jul 2005 11:21:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:55:48 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:49:27 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
--
"Saudi and Israeli studies show that most foreign fighters were
not terrorists before Iraq war.
James A. Donald wrote:
yet oddly, terror is diminishing.
"Michael Price"
Actually according to the US government's own (now unavailible)
figures it's going up.
If we count only terror in the west, terror is diminishing, due to the
diminished capability of Islamic terrorists.
You don't give any evidence of that.
Because the evidence is contrary to his statement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/middleeast/24insurgents.html?
American commanders say the number of attacks against American and Iraqi
forces has held steady over the last year, averaging about 65 a day.
Military attacks aren't terrorism. Hitting soldiers that volunteered
to fight is not a terrorist act.
Do tell. Try asking whether our soldiers consider being bushwacked a
terrorist activity or a definable military foe.
I think you're getting desperate, that's a tough assertion to defend.
But the Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks
and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are
killed.
"We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents," said a senior Army
intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was
not authorized to make his assessments public. "But they're being replaced
quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another
insurgent ready to step up and take charge."
At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to
understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of
foreign fighters, who are believed to be conducting a vast majority of
suicide attacks. The insurgency, believed to be an unlikely mix of Baath
Party die-hards and Islamic militants, has largely eluded the
understanding of American intelligence officers since the fall of Saddam
Hussein's government 27 months ago.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "matt" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
20 Jul 2005 10:59:59 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
If we count only non governmental terror, world wide, it
is going up, and going up quite a lot, but this seems to
me like a good thing, or rather a bad thing that is an
unfortunate but necessary consequence of good things.
The downside is that when our enemies are conceived as private groups,
governments focus their attention on the private sphere, and freedom and
independence from government are seen as obstacles to the war on terror.
Drugs, immigration, money laundering, even music piracy have been
related to terrorism.
In the old days big, omnipotent government -- the USSR -- was the enemy.
Nowadays the enemy is us -- because any of us could be a terrorist, or
aiding terrorists -- and big, omnipotent government is our friend.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Studies: War radicalized most foreign fighters in Iraq |
21 Jul 2005 05:19:39 PM |
|
|
--
matt:
when our enemies are conceived as private groups,
governments focus their attention on the private
sphere, and freedom and independence from government
are seen as obstacles to the war on terror.
Drugs, immigration, money laundering, even music
piracy have been
related to terrorism.
In the old days big, omnipotent government -- the USSR
-- was the enemy. Nowadays the enemy is us -- because
any of us could be a terrorist, or aiding terrorists
-- and big, omnipotent government is our friend.
This is a problem - the Patriot act was an immense
setback for privacy protecting internet currencies, but
I was expecting far worse. It has not been as bad as it
could have been.
To my considerable surprise there has been no attempt to
revive the demand for a government backdoor into all
cryptography - or indeed any cryptography, nor has
offshore banking suffered any worse than the democrats
were doing to it. All in all, privacy seems safer under
this administration, despite the war, than it was under
the previous administration. The worst bit was when
they closed down the Hawala network - but that was
because the Hawala network was run by Muslims.
It is certainly the case that the war and terror has
taken a lot of the vigor out of the anarchist movement,
because many of our projects, such as anonymous
untraceable internet cash, are now politically
unpalatable. On the other hand, it is boom time for
mercenaries and militias. It has become conspicuously
apparent that mercenaries apply more force per dollar,
despite paying their men substantially higher wages.
The existence of terrorists has undermined the arguments
for liberty, but strengthened the arguments for
mercenaries and militias.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
IB9RGbd8mwFhBA9lPAMbLfrHY9SBN5yT19BSePLQ
47DTp66DAkpggTFIf8/kiZeu2NIRvqHcUpIhAdnAx
--
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
