[lil'babykitten]

I've been hearing this statement a lot recently but I'm not sure whether it has been proven to be entirely accurate. Today when Bush was talking to journalists in the White House he seemed to be pretty sure that these most recent attacks have been committed by non-Iraqis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3220451.stm

Referring to the spate of attacks in Iraq, Mr Bush said he assumed those responsible were "either, or - and probably both - Baathists and foreign terrorists".

He said the supporters of the ousted Baath Party "try to create chaos and fear because they realise that a free Iraq will deny them the excessive privilege they had under Saddam Hussein".

Foreign terrorists, he said, "are trying to create conditions of fear and retreat because they fear a free and peaceful state".

The UK government has also said that the latest attacks are from "foreign elements". I think at the moment it seems pretty hard to find any conclusive evidence of outsiders being involved. It just seems to be an assumption.
On the other hand, some of the most recent attacks, particularly on non-military targets are similar to the tactics Al-Queda undertake. But again how can we be sure?

So what do people think? do you believe these people are 'foreign terrorists'? or could this be a subtle attempt to put Iran and Syria back in to question over their supposed harbouring of terrorists, by suggesting that they are now operating in Iraq?

More analysis here:

Who Are The Bombers?
Foreigners behind Baghdad Bombs

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I think at the moment it seems pretty hard to find any conclusive evidence of outsiders being involved. It just seems to be an assumption.

Is it your experience that assumptions carry Syrian passports?

Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Ahmed Ibrahim, the deputy interior minister, blamed foreign fighters for the assault, saying a fifth, aborted car bombing was attempted by a man captured with a Syrian passport.

[thunderous_funker]

Good topic.

Obviously there are foreigners entering Iraq to fight the Coalition. This we already know. Where I think the assumptions are wrong is that they are doing so because "they hate freedom". Hard to imagine a more meaningless political nothingism than that.

Here is my theory:

Group #1:
I think there are Ba'athist elements who are fighting to regain some measure of the previous condition. I don't know if Saddam is really alive, really in charge and if restoring him is really the goal, but it seems to me they want things to go back to the way it was (Saddam or no Saddam). This includes the remnants of the Iraqi military, the Ba'athist True Believers (fedayeen and such), and the tribal groups that enjoyed the favor of the Ba'athist regime. They are the ones probably responsible for the ongoing resistance against coalition forces. Attacking "hard" targets with loose organization, but enjoying broad support and complicity in the Sunni Triangle.

Group #2:
The Islamists/Nationalists. People who are politically aligned with SCIRI and Sadr, but are openly fighting the Coalition either out of revenge or to drive them out and let "democracy" empower them to shape Iraq in their own interests, not the interests of the West. They are targeting coalition forces but also the police (which are made up of former Ba'athists) and others seen to be traitors to Iraq. I don't think they are openly cooperating with Group #1, but since both are content to attack the same enemy, they probably don't get in each other's way. This group is more active in the north and the south, not the Sunni Triangle, although they operate in Bagdad in the Shia areas.

Group #3??:But who is bombing the Aid agencies and the other indescriminate suicide attacks? How does that benefit the Ba'athists or Nationalists? What bothers me most is that no one is claiming responsibility for the suicide strikes. That is very un-terrorist like. I fear that there may be a third group which is not directly alligned with the Ba'athists or the Nationalists. They may be nationalist or Islamists, but their goal isn't to establish some kind of New Order in Iraq, but rather to conduct a brutal proxy war against the West (the US, predominantly). That is why they are indescriminant and targeting soft targets, even Iraqis. That would also explain why they aren't claiming responsibility. They aren't trying to rally Iraqis to their "cause", and they aren't interested in how Iraq might turn out. They are simply there to pour gas on the fire that is the global War on Terror. Every time innocent Iraqis get killed, the Arab world gets angrier and angrier that the US can't provide security, invaded in the first place or worse still, that the US doesn't really want security because they just want Muslims to die. This is already a popular conspiracy theory in Iraq ("How can the most powerful nation on earth not get Iraq working? Because they don't want to. Its just a ruse to brutalize Muslims..")

This potential 3rd group is probably entirely foreigners. They don't care about Ba'athism, Saddam, or even the future of Iraq. They are just continuing to lure the US into an ever increasing quagmire of either brutalizing Arabs directly or unable to prevent (secretly allowing?) the brutalization of Arabs. This is precisely the Al'Queda strategy. They know they can't fight the US, so they lure the US into situations where the US is increasingly alienated from its allies, increasingly hostile towards Arabs, and increasingly indefensible (in the eyes of many) in it's actions. They are picking a fight between East & West and they don't care who gets caught in the middle.

This is the group I think it conducting the attacks on the UN, the Red Cross and perhaps helping with the attacks on Police. They may be infiltrating and manipulating the other 2 groups, but they do not share their goals. They don't care about Iraqis or politics, they are purely interested in the proxy war that is costing the US billions of dollars, hundreds of lives, and polarizing world opinion--particularly Arab opinion.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Is it your experience that assumptions carry Syrian passports?

I've heard about these reports, but I'm not entirely convinced yet.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Good topic.

Obviously there are foreigners entering Iraq to fight the Coalition. This we already know. Where I think the assumptions are wrong is that they are doing so because "they hate freedom". Hard to imagine a more meaningless political nothingism than that.

Exactly. Who the hell hates freedom? They hate the occupation/foreign policy/whatever, but freedom? That's like "They hate cupcakes"... it is just nonsensical.

[mr. natural]

RE: thunderous_funker's fine summary.

Oh, great, just dandy.

Having cut off one head we now see three more pop up in its place.

Yep, we sure are doing great with this War on Terror thing.

[lil'babykitten]

Interesting post t_f, very insightful.

This part in particular makes a lot of sense

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
This potential 3rd group is probably entirely foreigners. They don't care about Ba'athism, Saddam, or even the future of Iraq. They are just continuing to lure the US into an ever increasing quagmire of either brutalizing Arabs directly or unable to prevent (secretly allowing?) the brutalization of Arabs. This is precisely the Al'Queda strategy. They know they can't fight the US, so they lure the US into situations where the US is increasingly alienated from its allies, increasingly hostile towards Arabs, and increasingly indefensible (in the eyes of many) in it's actions. They are picking a fight between East & West and they don't care who gets caught in the middle.

This is the group I think it conducting the attacks on the UN, the Red Cross and perhaps helping with the attacks on Police. They may be infiltrating and manipulating the other 2 groups, but they do not share their goals. They don't care about Iraqis or politics, they are purely interested in the proxy war that is costing the US billions of dollars, hundreds of lives, and polarizing world opinion--particularly Arab opinion.

I've been thinking a lot about a) Why such places have suddenly become targets and, b) who's behind them. Your post is an interesting take.

:Goes back to thinking about it:

Any other theories?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Good topic.

Obviously there are foreigners entering Iraq to fight the Coalition. This we already know. Where I think the assumptions are wrong is that they are doing so because "they hate freedom". Hard to imagine a more meaningless political nothingism than that.

Here is my theory:

Your post made the topic much better. i enjoyed it.

I disagree somewhat with your disagreement on the assumption "they hate freedom". I think they hate a lot of things about America and its western allies, but I think that, when you boil it all down to its core, it is freedom that they hate - at least from their leaders' perspective.

Individually, Al Qaeda members are fueled by a love of their religion, their history, and homeland. But it is under the direction of their freedom-hating leaders that they plot and attack, IMO.

[finboy]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I've been hearing this statement a lot recently but I'm not sure whether it has been proven to be entirely accurate. Today when Bush was talking to journalists in the White House he seemed to be pretty sure that these most recent attacks have been committed by non-Iraqis.

Recently? I've heard that foreign terrorists have been causing problems since the war started. Iran has acknowledged on several occasions that some of its citizens (without sponsorship of course) have crossed into Iraq and acted against the US. We have foreign terrorists in custody in Iraq. How is this new to anyone?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Your post made the topic much better. i enjoyed it.

I disagree somewhat with your disagreement on the assumption "they hate freedom". I think they hate a lot of things about America and its western allies, but I think that, when you boil it all down to its core, it is freedom that they hate - at least from their leaders' perspective.

Individually, Al Qaeda members are fueled by a love of their religion, their history, and homeland. But it is under the direction of their freedom-hating leaders that they plot and attack, IMO.

I say its a nothingism because everyone is for freedom--at least their own freedom. The Taliban was all about freedom--the freedom to have a pure Islamic state, free from interference from outsiders.

They aren't "anti-freedom" any more than Pat Robertson, Pat Buchannon, Orin Hatch, Ashcroft, the Freemen, Unabomber or the Bader-Meinhoff gang. They all want their freedom even at the expense of everyone else's. Why? Because they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Even Bush is "anti-freedom" in Iraq if it means a Shia Theocracy beholden and cozy with Iran.

Don't mean to derail the thread on a tangent (religious, partisan or otherwise). I just think saying "they hate freedom" is utterly meaningless. It doesn't tell us anything about them. Might as well just stick with "evidoers" or "terrorists". None of which tell us who they are, what they want or how we can best deal with their violence.

[RooneyX]

Islamists seem to recruit from a lot of places. Those guys who cut off Daniel Pearl's head were from Britain. Those guys cutting people's heads off and killing non-Muslims in Chechnya are from Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, UK and other places too. Those guys trying to brainwash Kashmiris are from Pakistan. It's a global theocratic movement that recruits 16 year old dossers who are gullible and innocent enough to belief God wants something like land or writes books.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by finboy:
Recently? I've heard that foreign terrorists have been causing problems since the war started. Iran has acknowledged on several occasions that some of its citizens (without sponsorship of course) have crossed into Iraq and acted against the US. We have foreign terrorists in custody in Iraq. How is this new to anyone?

You are right, this isn't new. Before the war started there was a program on Dutch television about these "foreign terrorists"(not necessarily islamic terrorist), who saw this as an opportunity to fight against americans, independently or among the forces of saddam.

There were alot of different groups interviewed, mostly from surrounding countries of Iraq, but among them you also had right-wing extremists from Russia. There was a small organisation in Russia who recruited such people just like a job or travel agency. The guy who ran the organisation told the interviewer that he already had more then 2000 people who booked a "trip".

I have never read anything about this group in particular since then.

I think T_f's theory is in the right direction but there might be even more groups.

edited: did a quick google search and found an old and small article regarding those russians http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/03/06/44067.html

this seems to come from the iraqi embassy so i don't how real this is.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Your post made the topic much better. i enjoyed it.

I disagree somewhat with your disagreement on the assumption "they hate freedom". I think they hate a lot of things about America and its western allies, but I think that, when you boil it all down to its core, it is freedom that they hate - at least from their leaders' perspective.

Individually, Al Qaeda members are fueled by a love of their religion, their history, and homeland. But it is under the direction of their freedom-hating leaders that they plot and attack, IMO.

According to Bin Laden's statement, as well as Al Queda member's statements. There is no hatred of freedoms, or American/Western culture.

Those were statements made by the Whitehouse and British government.

Bin Laden's grief was "US Agression" in the middle east. Which is what Al Qaeda is about.

So calling them "freedom haters", is like saying America hates non-America. A bit of a skewed perspective. We may hate certain countries that are not america... but not because they aren't america.

They may hate a free country. But not because it's a free country.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Bin Laden's grief was "US Agression" in the middle east. Which is what Al Qaeda is about.

And Bin Laden's strict Wahabi-ist preachings and insistance on the most restrictive rule of Islamic law - do you think this is just window dressing?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I say its a nothingism because everyone is for freedom--at least their own freedom. The Taliban was all about freedom--the freedom to have a pure Islamic state, free from interference from outsiders.

The freedom to murder homosexuals, the freedom to restrict all movement, acceptance, and appearance of all women, etc.? If that's your point there, I see it. However (you knew this was coming), I think that the saying, "they hate freedom", refers to a different interpretation.

Perhaps a better word would be "liberty", as in:

lib·er·ty
1.(a) The condition of being free from restriction or control. (b) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. (c) The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And Bin Laden's strict Wahabi-ist preachings and insistance on the most restrictive rule of Islamic law - do you think this is just window dressing?

I think its irrelevant, or at least merely a facet of the overall issue.
The point of Bin ladin's beef turned on the events of Desert Storm. His main stated objection was the american presence in the holy land in Saudi Arabia. He felt they defiled it by stationing troops there.
THAT is the point at which Al Quaida was formed. and THAT is the stated objection.

Now, whether that's the real objection or the whole objection, you'll have to ask him, if you can find him. US intelligence can't or won't.

[DBursey]

...(Bin Laden's) main stated objection was the american presence in the holy land in Saudi Arabia. He felt they defiled it by stationing troops there.
THAT is the point at which Al Quaida was formed. and THAT is the stated objection.

Al Queda is thought to have originated at the time of Afghan insurgency against Soviet occupation. Al Queda's ideological objective is the overthrow of the region's autocratic rulers and the establishment of a Wahhabist Islamic theocracy straddling Africa, the mideast and southern Asia from Indonesia to Morrocco. They view the American military presence on the Arabian penninsula as an affront to Islam, as well as an instrument in keeping what they consider to be corrupt, Western-allied, un-Islamic regimes in power in the region. To the standard bearers of Wahhabism, American soldiers represent a military, political and ideological obstacle to these goals.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Al Queda is thought to have originated at the time of Afghan insurgency against Soviet occupation. Al Queda's ideological objective is the overthrow of the region's autocratic rulers and the establishment of a Wahhabist Islamic theocracy straddling Africa, the mideast and southern Asia from Indonesia to Morrocco. They view the American military presence on the Arabian penninsula as an affront to Islam, as well as an instrument in keeping what they consider to be corrupt, Western-allied, un-Islamic regimes in power in the region. To the standard bearers of Wahhabism, American soldiers represent a military, political and ideological obstacle to these goals.

Actually, Bin Ladin was an underling in the previous organization which you describe. It was when he started his own after the US forces in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm that the present Al Quaida was formed. True, one is the parent of the other, but again the point was where Bin Laden got his impetus from, or what his objections were.

Unless all that research I did for a Bin ladin timeline is incorrect.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Here is my theory:

[SNIP]

I agree with most it - very insightful, thanks. My opinion is:

There is no 'Group #1' and 'Group #2' - or better, there are many groups that would fit that description. They fight the 'Coalition' for (patriotic/nationalistic/religious/personal/etc.) reasons, and therefore I will call them the genuine resistance. While their ultimate goals differ, they share the same short-term goals and the same tactics. They know they are greatly outnumbered and have no chances of a military victory - consequently their methods are the ones of the urban guerrilla: their most valuable asset are the militants themselves, therefore they will rarely risk death or sacrifice themselves. Their strategy is the one of armed propaganda: their actions have little military value, mainly aimed at emboldening their own ranks and broaden popular support.

What you call 'Group #3' I would rather define as agents provocateurs - I find it dubious they share the same middle-term goals as the genuine resistance (chasing out the occupiers) and their tactics, which can be summed up as strategy of tension is rather aimed at alienating the general population from the guerrilla (who wants to be associated with mass-murdering crazies?) and strenghten the position of the 'Coalition', which 'needs to be in Iraq' to 'fight against terrorism'.

While it's clear who is behind the genuine resistance and what they want, the agents provocateurs are a mystery: Al Qaeda? Maybe. Whoever they are, their goal is to make the occupation as long and painful as possible, and deny any chance of self-determination to the Iraqi people.

[DBursey]

Actually, Bin Ladin was an underling in the previous organization which you describe. It was when he started his own after the US forces in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm that the present Al Quaida was formed. True, one is the parent of the other, but again the point was where Bin Laden got his impetus from, or what his objections were.

Unless all that research I did for a Bin ladin timeline is incorrect.

No; I agree, and I'm sure your research was thorough. I just wanted to point out that Al Qaeda's ideological objectives go far beyond the eviction of American troops from the region. They also seek to bring down regional regimes supported by the west, and to unite the Islamic world under a Wahabbist banner.

Al Qaeda itself can be only loosely described as an organization. It's structural heirarchy is transitive and de-centralized. Bin Laden is likely one of many operational masterminds. If killed or captured, he'll become a figurehead whose legend will help to inspire a new generation of recruits now being taught to hate America and the west.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
.....While it's clear who is behind the genuine resistance and what they want, the agents provocateurs are a mystery: Al Qaeda? Maybe. Whoever they are, their goal is to make the occupation as long and painful as possible, and deny any chance of self-determination to the Iraqi people.

Good points. I think that is a fair analysis with what we know and what we don't know.

Your final point is curious. Are they really against Iraqi self-determination? Or merely willing to sacrifice it in the short term in order to keep America shooting at Arabs for as long as possible so they can stir the pot and start Armageddon?

Your hint that they are motivated to extend the occupation suggests they could be agents of the West. Not only is that terribly cynical, but I don't think its realistic even for the most whacked-out, Idealistic Messianic peleo-con.

I see the agents provocateurs strategy to be luring the US into an protracted land war in Asia, which we all know is one of the Classic Blunders(tm). The more the US is over-extended militarily, financially strapped, and easily villified in the eyes of the Arab world, their plan is working.

Even Rummy has now acknowledge that such a scenario is unwinnable for the US. Time and money are against us, not to mention the need to placate angry voters. Our enemies have none of these constraints.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Your final point is curious. Are they really against Iraqi self-determination? Or merely willing to sacrifice it in the short term in order to keep America shooting at Arabs for as long as possible so they can stir the pot and start Armageddon?

I probably didn't express myself correctly. I think they don't really care for Iraqi self-determination (in the short or even middle term): it would be an obstacle to their own agenda (judging from their actions so far).

Your hint that they are motivated to extend the occupation suggests they could be agents of the West. Not only is that terribly cynical, but I don't think its realistic even for the most whacked-out, Idealistic Messianic peleo-con.

I really don't know whom agents they are. As I said above, their actions point in that direction - unlike classical guerrillas they don't openly declare their intentions.

I see the agents provocateurs strategy to be luring the US into an protracted land war in Asia, which we all know is one of the Classic Blunders(tm). The more the US is over-extended militarily, financially strapped, and easily villified in the eyes of the Arab world, their plan is working.

Sad but true.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And Bin Laden's strict Wahabi-ist preachings and insistance on the most restrictive rule of Islamic law - do you think this is just window dressing?

That's because the religious slant is what gets people to commit martyr or suicide acts.

You don't see PETA suicide bombing a meat processing plant...for reason.

Bin Laden (from intel collected) isn't a Islamic believer... that's been known for years.

When he puts a religious slant... it's an attack on religion.

Then tells his people that he's a firm believer in religion...

people follow him. Because he is one of us... or so they feel.


Bush does the same thing with "freedom".

He is attacking our "freedom"... he keeps saying how "HE" will protect US freedoms. It's "HIS" obligations.

This is the same guy who refuses DNA testing for death row inmates, appeals etc. The same guy who can't separate religion from state.

Why? Because he is now the leader of US. Defending us from THEM.


They use what people value most to achieve their political goals.

Bush knows Americans are not a very religious group... most don't attend a religious gathering weekly. So the religion deal doesn't work.

But the Freedom deal works great.

Bin laden knows just what works for his target audience.


It's called working the crowd.

Wonder why Clinton's Weed confession happened on MTV rather than Dateline? It did wonders for his appeal with the younger audience. Actually made people register to vote. That was a demographic he stole with just 1 statement on the right topic on the right channel.

Bin Laden and Bush do the same thing. So did Hitler (perhaps the most successful persuasive speaker ever).