Studies: Most foreign fighters didn't wage terror before Iraq war

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Condor
Are you, another liberal idiot, saying that the weekends bombings were done by Americans? Just wanted to clarify.

Kind of like the Neocons who drop their kids off at NAMBLA conventions. Oh what a surpise they were abused.

The defenders here seem to have a few things in common, the least of which is denying their responsibility for cause and effect. Face it, these people are there doing what they are because we opened the door. This was perfectly predictable, and that means either Bush was an idiot, or didn't care.

Face it, you boy screwed the pooch. At least have the good grace to admit it.

Start a war and it's not our fault?

Geeze, bring back Clinton. He was more honest and less cold than who we have now.

Well said. The "Golly, we didn't realize they'd keep fighting" excuse might be laughable if the results weren't so tragic.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BowfingerWell said. The "Golly, we didn't realize they'd keep fighting" excuse might be laughable if the results weren't so tragic.

The Iraqi army is no longer doing the fighting.

Look at who and why the conflicts are still happening.



The major problem is that we mis-analyzed the reactions of the locals and the exteranls.

In WWII, the allies rolled into a westernized or civilized society that was willing to regrow. They (Axis) had confidence in their abilities and saw the truth in what had happened.

With the results in Kuwaitt from the population after GWI, it was expected that the Iraqi people would welcome the opportunity for freedom and want to rebuild/grow their nation.

The internal depth of hatred (against being thrown out of power) and the opportunity for other would-be king makers to jump into the reconstruction phase, just in order to screw it up, was difficult to comprehend by our previous experiences.

Therefore we were unprepared to handle such scenarios. The depth of resistance and hatred within the local population exceeded that of Vietnam. There is was equivalent to countries, one trying to stay in power, the other trying to re-unite the country.

In Iraq, it is also the same situation, but those trying to stay in power are willing to destroy the country rather than lose power.

 

[irwincur]

I agree. Unfortunately, BushCo ignored those strategists (and George H.W. Bush, who also foresaw the current fiasco) and blundered in anyway.

As much as you think Bush is the planner, strategist, and theater general I will tell you for sure that he is not. The Pentagon is very much in charge of every part of this war. They are the ones that wanted it because they are the ones that had forecasted the need. Saddam was chosen by them for a few reasons...

1. His people hated him, he was vulnerable.
2. Taking him out had the least chance of inciting the population of the nation.
3. Terror attacks were known quantities and expected - why do you think we never significantly reduced troop levels - we expected this.
4. STRATEGIC LOCATION.
5. Offsets Saudi Arabia's oil power over us. There is now a second option for when the Saudi regime falls - not if, but when.
6. Iraq has traditionally be a multi-culteral state, easier to integrate and not nearly as radical as other Islamic nations.
7. Iraq and the Iraqi people at one time had a strong relationship with the West. France and Germany were active in Iraq for a long time.




I also have a question for the history IGNORANT liberals here (Bow) - What war did not result in some type of insurgency?

Another one - How many American troops were lost after victory in WWII?

 

[Dman877]

Some Pentagon officials may have wanted a war but it was definitely not their decision to make. Also, there isn't a chance in hell of the Saudi regime falling (at least not while any neo-cons have any power).

As to your other questions, there are plenty of wars that didn't create insurgency. However, the definition of insurgency needs to be clarified before I can point out examples. We lost 400k+ (around 450 iirc) in WWII. How you can compare Iraq to WWII is a mystery to me though. We lost over 800k in the Civil War but again, neither of those were aggressive invasions of a sovereign power over something as silly as oil and war profiteering.

 

[conjur]

The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq "feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says "Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent)." CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence sources in the Gulf region.

The CSIS report says: "The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathizers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion."

The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. "Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the Internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology."

The report also gives notes that the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.

The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not "Saddam Hussein loyalists" but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are "wary of a Shiite-led government."

The Los Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that "Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals."

Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].

Extremists in Iraq are "exposed to international networks from around the world," said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. "They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play."

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was "clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally" this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and "in establishing a politically viable state."

Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border ? a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.

"Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make," Bush said. '"They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace."

The president's speech, however, was followed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. "I doubt he would last a day," al-Faisal said.

Finally, The Guardian reports that "ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private" by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. "We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along," the source said.

It's no surprise that the U.S. and Britain are engaging in propaganda and fear-mongering in order to, in the twisted minds of the ideologues, bolster support for the "war on terror" in their respective citizenry. The citizens are no longer buying the BS.

But, one problem with that think-thank's study is the estimated 30,000 insurgents. The insurgency is many times that size as, based on the numbers killed and detained, we'd have eliminated that insurgency long ago.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gee Whiz, Irwincur- it's amazing how your analysis comes to the exact opposite conclusion of the Israeli and Saudi studies, and just happens to follow the conventional Bushista line in the matter. All from the comfort of your computer desk, where, I'm sure, you had the opportunity to interview and study the subjects in depth, right?

They say it was the invasion of Iraq that radicalized the foreign fighters now there, you say it was 9/11... 9/11 is the reason for everything, right? I'm expecting the Wingnuts and apologists to find a "link" between 9/11 and Katrina RSN... It's all a vast Islamo-fascist conspiracy, and we are in no way the victims of our own actions....

"The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure."

Might want to think about that a little bit. No more lofty goals of a beacon of democracy in Iraq, no more talk of actually avoiding failure- just trying to make it look like it's not failure... The usual smoke 'n mirrors...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: maluckey
jackschmittusa,

NO joke!!

Suicide bombers are by nature one time use. They could NOT have done it before. The ringleaders have a history in almost all cases. This study is a clear example of how with statistics you can support anything. No sources, vague references and a clear bias leads me to call this study "bunk".

The terrorists have been active before the Iraq invasion. The 9/11 bombers had no prior history of terrorism either. It is the preferred method. That way they are difficult to connect with the group as a whole. Does this mean that there were no terrorists before 9/11??

NEXT!!!

most insurgants aren't suicide bombers.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: irwincur

I agree. Unfortunately, BushCo ignored those strategists (and George H.W. Bush, who also foresaw the current fiasco) and blundered in anyway.

As much as you think Bush is the planner, strategist, and theater general I will tell you for sure that he is not. The Pentagon is very much in charge of every part of this war. They are the ones that wanted it because they are the ones that had forecasted the need. Saddam was chosen by them for a few reasons...

1. His people hated him, he was vulnerable.
2. Taking him out had the least chance of inciting the population of the nation.
3. Terror attacks were known quantities and expected - why do you think we never significantly reduced troop levels - we expected this.
4. STRATEGIC LOCATION.
5. Offsets Saudi Arabia's oil power over us. There is now a second option for when the Saudi regime falls - not if, but when.
6. Iraq has traditionally be a multi-culteral state, easier to integrate and not nearly as radical as other Islamic nations.
7. Iraq and the Iraqi people at one time had a strong relationship with the West. France and Germany were active in Iraq for a long time.




I also have a question for the history IGNORANT liberals here (Bow) - What war did not result in some type of insurgency?

Another one - How many American troops were lost after victory in WWII?

are you really comparing ww2 to iraq?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Yay, someone else has the ability to look more than one day ahead. Thank you.

Like I have said before, the Pentagon does not employ 50,000 of the worlds best strategists for the hell of it. I am sure that everything that is happening in Iraq has been planned for, forseen, and predicted.

just because the pentagon hires the best strategists, doesn't mean that anyone listens to them.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: BBond
Read the article. The majority of these people weren't "terrorists" prior to the illegal, unjustified U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were radicalized BY the invasion.

No wonder you people are so easily fooled.

One question this article brings up that hasn't been answered. What gave America the right to declare Iraq their homefield in the "war on terror" when Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM?

We'd rather fight them there than here? Why should Iraqi civilians bear that burden? Aren't we doing the SAME THING IN IRAQ THAT BIN LADEN DID TO US ON 9/11???

You're damn right we are.

Iraqui civilaians paid a steep price under Saddam as well. Perhaps 200-300K murdered or gassed.

I think we have made big mistakes in the aftermath of the war, and am not pleased at all with this admin, but I simply fail to understand why you hate so much. Disagreeing is one thing, but much of what you post with your commentary is simple hate speech with no input on how we can make things better except to run away like we've done too many times before.

To do so now, whther we agree or disagree on being in Iraq, we will face far more serious repercussions in the future. We are in a mess, but the only real way out is to solve the Iraqi problem in Iraq, ensure a stable Iraqi government, and then withdraw once stability is insured.

That may be several years, and cost many lives, but I firmly believe that if we do not, then we will face much worse longer term.

Since when did Saddams killing of innocent civilians give America the right to do the same?

America is falling into the hole it dug up for Laden.

Are you, another liberal idiot, saying that the weekends bombings were done by Americans? Just wanted to clarify.

Hatim is anything but a liberal. I don't think that liberals want to commit genocide against all atheists. He is a religious extremist, IMO.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BowfingerWell said. The "Golly, we didn't realize they'd keep fighting" excuse might be laughable if the results weren't so tragic.

The Iraqi army is no longer doing the fighting.

Look at who and why the conflicts are still happening.



The major problem is that we mis-analyzed the reactions of the locals and the exteranls.

In WWII, the allies rolled into a westernized or civilized society that was willing to regrow. They (Axis) had confidence in their abilities and saw the truth in what had happened.

With the results in Kuwaitt from the population after GWI, it was expected that the Iraqi people would welcome the opportunity for freedom and want to rebuild/grow their nation.

The internal depth of hatred (against being thrown out of power) and the opportunity for other would-be king makers to jump into the reconstruction phase, just in order to screw it up, was difficult to comprehend by our previous experiences.

Therefore we were unprepared to handle such scenarios. The depth of resistance and hatred within the local population exceeded that of Vietnam. There is was equivalent to countries, one trying to stay in power, the other trying to re-unite the country.

In Iraq, it is also the same situation, but those trying to stay in power are willing to destroy the country rather than lose power.

The problem is we invaded a country, killed 10's of thousands innocents in the name of protecting ourselves from WMD's that we said were there and never found anything to back up our claims. We pushed the fence sitters right off the fence and onto the other side.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq "feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says "Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent)." CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence sources in the Gulf region.

The CSIS report says: "The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathizers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion."

The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. "Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the Internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology."

The report also gives notes that the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.

The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not "Saddam Hussein loyalists" but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are "wary of a Shiite-led government."

The Los Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that "Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals."

Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].

Extremists in Iraq are "exposed to international networks from around the world," said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. "They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play."

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was "clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally" this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and "in establishing a politically viable state."

Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border ? a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.

"Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make," Bush said. '"They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace."

The president's speech, however, was followed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. "I doubt he would last a day," al-Faisal said.

Finally, The Guardian reports that "ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private" by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. "We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along," the source said.

It's no surprise that the U.S. and Britain are engaging in propaganda and fear-mongering in order to, in the twisted minds of the ideologues, bolster support for the "war on terror" in their respective citizenry. The citizens are no longer buying the BS.

But, one problem with that think-thank's study is the estimated 30,000 insurgents. The insurgency is many times that size as, based on the numbers killed and detained, we'd have eliminated that insurgency long ago.

Ayup...more propaganda. This time from the poodle:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4287906.stm

"9/11, 9/11"

Sing it, Tony!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
link

WASHINGTON - New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank ? both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States ? have found that the vast majority of them are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war.

The studies cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the "central front" in a battle against the United States.

The gist of this article mirrors my own opinion of the reality of our "war on terror".

GWB claims the insurgent activity in Iraq is proof that we are winning this so-called war.

In reality, it may be proof that we are losing.

Again, I find myself at odds with GWB's assessment of the world.

There is an idiot born everyday. This we didnt need a study for.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond
Read the article. The majority of these people weren't "terrorists" prior to the illegal, unjustified U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were radicalized BY the invasion.

No wonder you people are so easily fooled.

One question this article brings up that hasn't been answered. What gave America the right to declare Iraq their homefield in the "war on terror" when Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM?

We'd rather fight them there than here? Why should Iraqi civilians bear that burden? Aren't we doing the SAME THING IN IRAQ THAT BIN LADEN DID TO US ON 9/11???

You're damn right we are.

*Newsflash* June 8th 1944-

Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and study finds most in the military were not in the military nor wanted to be in the military prior to Dec 7th 1941.

We return you to your regular programming.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond
Read the article. The majority of these people weren't "terrorists" prior to the illegal, unjustified U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were radicalized BY the invasion.

No wonder you people are so easily fooled.

One question this article brings up that hasn't been answered. What gave America the right to declare Iraq their homefield in the "war on terror" when Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM?

We'd rather fight them there than here? Why should Iraqi civilians bear that burden? Aren't we doing the SAME THING IN IRAQ THAT BIN LADEN DID TO US ON 9/11???

You're damn right we are.

*Newsflash* June 8th 1944-

Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and study finds most in the military were not in the military nor wanted to be in the military prior to Dec 7th 1941.

We return you to your regular programming.

So, are you saying that our invasion and bombing of Iraq is their version of Pearl Harbor that got them all pissed off and ready to fight?

 

[dahunan]

^^well?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Condor
So what did happen to those big buildings in NYC? How about the embassies and the Cole? Reality, not just a party drug!

<Bush Voter>Saddam done did 9-11. He done fly those planes into dem perty towers.</Bush Voter>

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
So what did happen to those big buildings in NYC? How about the embassies and the Cole? Reality, not just a party drug!

<Bush Voter>Saddam done did 9-11. He done fly those planes into dem perty towers.</Bush Voter>

<Bush Voter>Gawd wuz jest punishing dem libs fer voting for thet Gore guy</Bush Voter>