[Lerkfish]

Calls to Jihad Are Said to Lure Hundreds of Militants Into Iraq

this new york times story (registration required...

here's some salient points:

Calls to Jihad Are Said to Lure Hundreds of Militants Into Iraq
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and DESMOND BUTLER
Published: November 1, 2003
LONDON, Oct. 31 — Across Europe and the Middle East, young militant Muslim men are answering a call issued by Osama bin Laden and other extremists, and leaving home to join the fight against the American-led occupation in Iraq, according to senior counterterrorism officials based in six countries.
The intelligence officials say that since late summer they have detected a growing stream of itinerant Muslim militants headed for Iraq. They estimate that hundreds of young men from an array of countries have now arrived in Iraq by crossing the Syrian or Iranian borders.

and

But outside, a 21-year-old man who identified himself as Akmed said that while Saddam Hussein was unpopular, now "there are people who are angry about the American occupation." He and others said that inside the mosque, collections usually requested for Muslims in Palestine and Chechnya were now being offered for Iraq as well.

[Mohammed Atef]

If they fight, they'll die, and I expect Europe is happy--their militant muslims are leaving, never to return (except in body bags).

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
If they fight, they'll die, and I expect Europe is happy--their militant muslims are leaving, never to return (except in body bags).

Umm.....US troops are dying by the day, and I expect America isn't happy--their sons and daughters are leaving never to return (except in body bags).

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Umm.....US troops are dying by the day, and I expect America isn't happy--their sons and daughters are leaving never to return (except in body bags).

you're correct. Now just pull together that pseudo-thought and lame snipe into the thread topic.

[finboy]

Again with this? This is NEWS to somebody? This has been happening since this time last year, at least. Just like it happened in Lebanon in the late 70s and 80s. Just like it happened in the Balkans, and Somalia, and Afghanistan, and the Phillipines, and Pakistan. This is why it's called the "war on terror."

[tie]

The difference since last year is that we now control Iraq. Our army is just too incompetent to guard the borders. Or at least, its incompetent leadership is unwilling to ask for enough troops to guard the borders.

The reason it's called the "war on terror" is because the goal is to stop terrorist attacks. Not to bring more attacks down on Americans. Complete failure.

[RooneyX]

And all for some dino soup.

Surely if dictators weren't propped up in the first place or if they were only financially rewarded for creating democracies then these situations wouldn't arise?

Why did they financially support Islamists against the Russians instead of Afghani democrats, which there were?

Why not the same in Iraq against Iran?

Why did they let reward the Shah of Iran when he was behaving corruptly? Rewarding him for instilling democracy would have insured less support for the Ayatollah to return.

And then comes the Ayatollah himself, living in luxury in Paris and sending cassettes across the world, calling for Islamic revolution. From Paris!

If you ask me none of this is accidental. Arms manufacturers and oil barons are the criminals. Ban privatization of those fields and nationalize those industries and the greed and consequential deaths will disappear.

[RooneyX]

nd all for some dino soup.

Surely if dictators weren't propped up in the first place or if they were only financially rewarded for creating democracies then these situations wouldn't arise?

3 billion from Bush to Musharaff to buy arms against India? Huh, against a non threatening democracy? Why not instead give the Pakistani leader money to help democratic reform?

Business with Saudis? Sure, good idea. But reward them for democratic reform and not just oil.

Why did they financially support Islamists against the Russians instead of Afghani democrats, which there were?

Why not the same in Iraq against Iran?

Why did they reward the Shah of Iran when he was behaving corruptly? Rewarding him for instilling democracy would have insured less support for the Ayatollah to return.

And then comes the Ayatollah himself, living in luxury in Paris and sending cassettes across the world, calling for Islamic revolution. From Paris!

If you ask me none of this is accidental. Arms manufacturers and oil barons are the criminals. Ban privatization of those fields and nationalize those industries and the greed and consequential deaths will disappear.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by tie:
the goal is to stop terrorist attacks. Not to bring more attacks down on Americans. Complete failure.

then why don't you tell us all about the terrorist attacks on american soil by foreign terrorists since 9/11. ah, you can't. there haven't been any. the war on terrorism is making America safer, even if American soldiers are put in harm's way to defend the country.

take your propagandising distortions to the kavkaz.org forums--you'll be welcomed with open arms there.

[tie]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
then why don't you tell us all about the terrorist attacks on american soil by foreign terrorists since 9/11. ah, you can't. there haven't been any. the war on terrorism is making America safer, even if American soldiers are put in harm's way to defend the country.

If you can't realize this argument doesn't make any sense, then there's no point discussing it. If we attacked France and Germany (who else?) and there weren't any terrorist attacks on American soil in the next six months, you'd present that as evidence that the war reduced the threat of terrorism to Americans. Whereas they'd actually be unrelated.

Don't take my word for it. The administration itself argued after 9/11 that one way of reducing terrorism was to improve impressions of the US in the Middle East. They started a publicity campaign and tried to do something about Israel. Both complete failures. The war on Iraq, while itself completely unrelated to terrorism, has dramatically increased resentment against the US, and therefore increased the terrorist threat.

Unfortunately and stupidly, American soldiers were put in harm's way to protect the US against a nonexistent threat (WMDs). (Fortunately, there were and are good reasons for them to be in Iraq -- namely freeing the Iraqi people -- even if these reasons are turning out to be harmful to US security.)

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd suggest that the Middle East has earned the resentment of the United States - not the other way around.

Seriously.

The fact of the matter is that Americans (from my observation) don't really give a crap what the Middle East thinks of the United States. Sorry to inform you of this.

There is little or no chance of us warming up to a bunch of foreign folks halfway around the world that do not share our culture, values, or tradition - just to appease a handful of suicidal brainwashed religious nutjobs. Ain't gonna happen. Ever. The fact that we need the Middle East to the tune of only 13% of our oil imports means an end to the extortion of American consumers by greedy Middle East countries that was so prevalent in the 70's & 80's.

No love lost. To put it bluntly.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd suggest that the Middle East has earned the resentment of the United States - not the other way around.

Seriously.

The fact of the matter is that Americans (from my observation) don't really give a crap what the Middle East thinks of the United States. Sorry to inform you of this.

There is little or no chance of us warming up to a bunch of foreign folks halfway around the world that do not share our culture, values, or tradition - just to appease a handful of suicidal brainwashed religious nutjobs. Ain't gonna happen. Ever. The fact that we need the Middle East to the tune of only 13% of our oil imports means an end to the extortion of American consumers by greedy Middle East countries that was so prevalent in the 70's & 80's.

No love lost. To put it bluntly.

I give you people's exhibit A.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd suggest that the Middle East has earned the resentment of the United States - not the other way around.

Seriously.

The fact of the matter is that Americans (from my observation) don't really give a crap what the Middle East thinks of the United States. Sorry to inform you of this.

There is little or no chance of us warming up to a bunch of foreign folks halfway around the world that do not share our culture, values, or tradition - just to appease a handful of suicidal brainwashed religious nutjobs. Ain't gonna happen. Ever. The fact that we need the Middle East to the tune of only 13% of our oil imports means an end to the extortion of American consumers by greedy Middle East countries that was so prevalent in the 70's & 80's.

No love lost. To put it bluntly.

That's why were in the middle east to begin with.

Because we encouraged it to hate us.

Carter practically predicted 9/11 during his presidency. Everyone thought he was nuts and was putting to much on the region, which was not capable of attacking the US... unless the news channels lied about 9/11 (and the set was amazing, since I was @ ground zero a few weeks later)... as some hint here... or Carter (among others) was on to something years earlier.

[tie]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd suggest that the Middle East has earned the resentment of the United States - not the other way around.

Seriously.

Sure, you have a point. So what are we doing there? Except for oil and terror, the US could completely ignore the Middle East. We're there now for oil, $$ for Halliburton. By stirring the pot, we're causing terrorism.

By committing our military and hundreds of billions of dollars to Iraq (& Halliburton), we're ignoring real security threats to the US, including terrorists.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
Sure, you have a point. So what are we doing there? Except for oil and terror, the US could completely ignore the Middle East. We're there now for oil, $$ for Halliburton. By stirring the pot, we're causing terrorism.

First off, the US did not go into Iraq for the purpose of making money for Halliburton. The more you continue to assert this, the more you deflate your other arguments.

However, I do feel that our dependence on foreign oil is significant, and absolutely contributes to foreign policy decisions by our government, - irregardless of the administration in power.

I am all for encouraging drilling in ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico, and far off the California coast. But even with modern-day, clean-drilling technological advances, the environmental left and its lobbies will never allow this to happen. So reliant on foreign oil we remain.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
First off, the US did not go into Iraq for the purpose of making money for Halliburton. The more you continue to assert this, the more you deflate your other arguments.

However, I do feel that our dependence on foreign oil is significant, and absolutely contributes to foreign policy decisions by our government, - irregardless of the administration in power.

I am all for encouraging drilling in ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico, and far off the California coast. But even with modern-day, clean-drilling technological advances, the environmental left and its lobbies will never allow this to happen. So reliant on foreign oil we remain.

If you really think oil has no role in this... it's rather ignorant. There's a reason we are liberating an oil country... and not one of several African nations which have had deathtolls into the millions (much worse than Iraq on it's worst day).

Wasn't directly for Halliburton's revenue... but to stabalize the economy for the future. Remember Iraq is oil country #1. It has more oil than any other country. It's also home to very efficient processing, and efficient exporting.

Making 1 OPEC nation western friendly (unlike other's such as Saudi Arabia) ensures that the US has a steady supply of oil into the future.

Iraq is a country unlike any other. There is absolutely no 2nd place. Not even a 3rd in terms of oil capability.

Securing it, means a much more reliable oil supply. South America has proven to be somewhat unreliable, and is much more limited in capacity. Especially as more and more oil is consumed. Not to mention it's not cheap. The US buys oil from non-middle eastern countries for poilitical reasons... much cheaper production in the middle east.

Securing Iraq is a giant win for the US economy.

Now perhaps we can really "liberate" a country (meaning humans, not oil wells)?

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
First off, the US did not go into Iraq for the purpose of making money for Halliburton. The more you continue to assert this, the more you deflate your other arguments.

I have hard evidence that we went to war with Iraq simply to make money for Halliburton. Unfortunately, you are just going to have to take my word for it, as it would jeopardize national security to make public any of my evidence.

Sound familiar? Why is it okay for Bush to play make-believe about an Iraqi WMD program but not me? The fact is, neither you nor I have any idea why we went to war with Iraq. Two things:
1) It had nothing to do with terrorism
2) It had nothing to do with WMD
That leaves oil and humanitarian reasons. (It also leaves the possibility of complete and total incompetence of all the American leadership, but let's put that aside.) I don't think that we would spend hundreds of billions of dollars for a purely humanitarian war for a country that, as Spliffdaddy mentions, most Americans don't care about. What is our annual aid budget, something like $15 billion? To all of Africa, maybe $3 billion?

But if it wasn't for humanitarian reasons, all that is left is oil. Halliburton has a big oil contract, that the Administration saw fit to keep secret. So I said we went to war to give Halliburton $$.

[Mohammed Atef]

you're gonna see what you want, no matter how hard we try to convince you. You are a die-hard left-wing fanaticist, who sees conspiracies everywhere.

that's why the party extremist vote doesn't count in America--all sides know you're going to vote for your side no matter what. Ted Kennedy could feed you cow patties, and if he told you it was gourmet escargot you'd lap it up like an eager dog, obedient to his master's every command.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
you're gonna see what you want, no matter how hard we try to convince you. You are a die-hard left-wing fanaticist, who sees conspiracies everywhere.

that's why the party extremist vote doesn't count in America--all sides know you're going to vote for your side no matter what. Ted Kennedy could feed you cow patties, and if he told you it was gourmet escargot you'd lap it up like an eager dog, obedient to his master's every command.

lol you apparently don't know anything about tie

if it walks like an idiot and talks like and idiot... to quote you scott_h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
First off, the US did not go into Iraq for the purpose of making money for Halliburton. The more you continue to assert this, the more you deflate your other arguments.

However, I do feel that our dependence on foreign oil is significant, and absolutely contributes to foreign policy decisions by our government, - irregardless of the administration in power.

these two paragraphs contradict each other mightily.

when the dust settles, Halliburton will still be billions of dollars richer, even if Bush is voted out of office. That WAS the purpose of Iraq, and that IS the purpose of the neocon agenda. They intend to do great and powerful things, but they first need MONEY. and obscene amounts of it. And you know what? they're going to get it.
An army travels on its stomach, and the armory is tied by purse strings. Beware of something that needs this much money.

beware.

[finboy]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Because we encouraged it to hate us.

You mean "we showed weakness." Carter, bless his heart, started the whole MidEast ball rolling by not doing something about Iran when he had a reason to (I know, he really couldn't). The lack of response during the Carter Administration demonstrated to the rest of the world that we lacked the political will to deal overtly with anything, except perhaps competing ideology, and we've been playing catch-up since.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
You mean "we showed weakness." Carter, bless his heart, started the whole MidEast ball rolling by not doing something about Iran when he had a reason to (I know, he really couldn't). The lack of response during the Carter Administration demonstrated to the rest of the world that we lacked the political will to deal overtly with anything, except perhaps competing ideology, and we've been playing catch-up since.

ROTFLMAO!

you right-wingers love to pummel your whipping boys.

Did it ever occur to you a republican might be to blame? If not, why not?

The situation has been this way for a variety of reasons, but mainly because the West has made the same mistake over and over in the Middle East...and by "west" I include Britain and others.
Look at the Shah of Iran...that is perhaps the best example of the west wanting to control the middle east at any cost, and then being surprised when the "liberated" chafed at the puppets.

Its like the elephant in the living room..no one wants to say there's an elephant.

There would be no jihads if there had been no interference and propping up of puppet regimes by the west.
yes, you'd still have a difficult to control middle east region, but they would have been fighting among themselves...instead, the west has conveniently given them a focus, an outside enemy.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ROTFLMAO!

you right-wingers love to pummel your whipping boys.

Did it ever occur to you a republican might be to blame? If not, why not?

The situation has been this way for a variety of reasons, but mainly because the West has made the same mistake over and over in the Middle East...and by "west" I include Britain and others.
Look at the Shah of Iran...that is perhaps the best example of the west wanting to control the middle east at any cost, and then being surprised when the "liberated" chafed at the puppets.

Its like the elephant in the living room..no one wants to say there's an elephant.

There would be no jihads if there had been no interference and propping up of puppet regimes by the west.
yes, you'd still have a difficult to control middle east region, but they would have been fighting among themselves...instead, the west has conveniently given them a focus, an outside enemy.

Actually, the Bible, the basis of American law directly states that Republicans and Jesus can commit no sin.

This post was offensive and has been reported.