WAR: CIA: The West Less Safe After Iraq

For the the first time a senior member of the U.S Administration has admitted that the west is more susceptable to Islamic extremist terrorism than before the invasion of Iraq. CIA Director Porter Goss yesterday indicated that the "Iraqi cause" provided a magnet for Islamic terrorist who then left Iraq fully trained in urban terrorist warfare.



We were told that the world would be a safer place after the invasion of Iraq but instead it turns out we've just provided a training ground for new terrorists.

Those that organised and perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11 had their skills and techniques honed on the battlefields of Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet Union during the 1980's.

What new atrocities will these new Jihadis' commit, the ones who were first called to arms to fight the coalition ?

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
www.reuters.com

[edit on 17-2-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 17-2-2005 by John bull 1]

Why Doing Something Is So Bad

Indeed, before we did something about it, all we had to worry about were occasional bombings and murders of American citizens around the world and the loss of a couple of tall buildings and a measly few thousand Americans.

A small price to pay for the luxury of being able to do nothing instead.


[edit on 2/17/2005 by Majic]

Well, I think the point is that, unlike Afghanistan, the Bush doctrine was incorrectly applied to an already neutered nation state. In diposing a tyrannical madman, Bush II suceeded in toppling the one secularist country in the region, thereby inviting cleric rule and jihadist islam into the one place that it simply had not flourished before.

In essense, Bush II created a theocratic power vacuum, and young, jaded, Muslims answered the call to a Holy War. Something they've been gearing up for since the Shaw of Iran was toppled. And now that Pro-Iranian clerics just got voted into power, we're in real trouble. They'll start off moderate, sure, but eventually, they'll show their true colors.

To be blunt, the war in Iraq does make the citizens of the United Safe less safe from Islamic terrorists. Tens of thousands of eager volunteers will enlist to fight us. And those are besides the bloodthirsty crazies who especially hated us before. It would take ten...TEN suicide bombers in the Continential United States to fundementally alter American life forever.

There simply aren't enough bullets in the world to stop a movement such as this, especially one as deparaved and craven as Jihadism truly is. These people are dangerous, fundementally anti-humanity. But, we've blundered the war on terror almost entirely from the beginning, because we did exactly what they wanted us to do.

Anger a lion and make him chase you...directly into your punji trap.

That's all they did. Our enemies want nothing more than to have an occupying force of sitting ducks out in the desert, fighting a guerilla war, street to street. For every one we kill, ten more volunteer.

There isn't a single army in the history of the known world, and we have the most lethal, most technologically advanced, best equipped, best trained one ever, that has been able to effectively fight a man willing to die for his cause, no matter how barbaric that cause may be.

Nobody anywhere, ever as long as I can remember, has been able to tell me how we can stop a guy willing to blow himself up...to kill two more of us. I mean, it's a self replicating enemy that grows everytime we hit it with overwhelming force.

Education isn't the silver bullet, because they shun it. Religious moderates won't speak up, because they'll get blown up by their own people. The only thing left is to promote the virtues of the western lifestyle, and hope that we can bribe their young into not hating us so much, but that will take twenty years and we can't sit around that long.

The bottom line, we won and suceeded brilliantly in Afghanistan, because we freed the people from the evil, theocratic rule of the Taliban. They knew what they got themselves into, and didn't like it. They welcomed us with open arms.

We're failing in Iraq, because we toppled a secularist totalitarianist nation station under a cruel despot. The people, formerly deprived of cleric rule, have now invited in something far worse than Saddamn...not knowing what they got themselves into.

The Taliban was formed when right wing extremist clerics in Pakistan fueled the insurgency against the Russians in Afghanistan. When the Russians pulled out, these same clerics installed a puppet government that was behdoling to them.

Quite frightening is the mirror effect we're currently witnesssing. Iran and Syria are fueling the insurgency in Iraq against the Allied forces. The people voted in Pro-Iranian clerics. I am almost positive that, as history would decree, when we leave, these pro-Iranian clerics will become a proxy to the religious whims of Iran.

And that's bad for us.

all we had to worry about were a few bombings and occassional murders around the country

Magic, do you think the world is safer for Americans, now? The World has, only, a fraction of it's self left where Americans can wave our flags and continue their other boorish behavior, in safety, compared to before the war. Yeah, we did good.

Brimstone, your every point is right-on.

.
.
.
Hmmm. Looks like a policy shift. Maybe Bush is ready to leave Iraq or "Take the Oil and Run," to coin a phrase..

Wonder who's next on the menu?




Also see:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

.

Originally posted by brimstone735
We're failing in Iraq, because we toppled a secularist totalitarianist nation station under a cruel despot. The people, formerly deprived of cleric rule, have now invited in something far worse than Saddamn...not knowing what they got themselves into.

In iran, the islamic revolution which toppled the brutal Shah was a popular revolution, and still is to this day. The people consistenly democratically elect islamist candidates. So, it seems, they DO know what they are getting into, because they have been getting into it since the revolution.

What makes you think the Iraqi people don't truly want an islamist government?

Originally posted by General Zapata

Originally posted by brimstone735
We're failing in Iraq, because we toppled a secularist totalitarianist nation station under a cruel despot. The people, formerly deprived of cleric rule, have now invited in something far worse than Saddamn...not knowing what they got themselves into.

In iran, the islamic revolution which toppled the brutal Shah was a popular revolution, and still is to this day. The people consistenly democratically elect islamist candidates. So, it seems, they DO know what they are getting into, because they have been getting into it since the revolution.

What makes you think the Iraqi people don't truly want an islamist government?

Well, I think technically, they are an Islamic government, now that the elections results are being finalized. I think the people of Iraq are at a crossroads, because they're not fully engaged with the clerics just yet, otherwise we would see popular movements, riots and widespread attacks on U.S. installations. That being said, the culture is slowly growing to incubate jihadism within the population.

A poor economy, a poor infrastructure, massive propganda, and Anti-American feelings are all things Jihadists can seize upon. If the idea of "American Imperialism" can be firmly rooted with the average moderate Iraqi, then things do not bode well for the U.S. forces currently stationed there.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend spiel. In this case, if the moderate Iraqis turn on us, then the Clerics will be waiting for them with open arms with hardliner rhetoric. The conversion of the secularist people can happen frighteningly quick.

Framing The Debate On A Shaky Foundation

Originally posted by kazi
Magic, do you think the world is safer for Americans, now? The World has, only, a fraction of it's self left where Americans can wave our flags and continue their other boorish behavior, in safety, compared to before the war. Yeah, we did good.

Convince me there has ever been single time in U.S. history when Americans have ever been safe, and then your supposition can provide a basis for discussion.

Fail to do so -- as I predict you will, and you will understand why I rarely respond to rhetorical questions like yours.

If you are suggesting the U.S. was safer before this latest war, you are labeling history a lie.

Did anyone expect these people to roll over and die? I mean come on..of coarse its going to get worse before it gets better. These terrorist guys....we didn't get rid of them when we went into Afganistan...we only dispersed them. They've learned their lessons and they'll be back...with something bigger and nastier.

Once more some members in here don't seem to understand what is going on.....

Look, the French who were pretty much against the war on terror are also getting their dose of Islamic extremists terrorism... Before they attacked Spain, the original plan was to attack France according to evidence found by the government of Spain. New evidence came up two days ago in which they found that Islamic extremists are still looking to attack France......among others....

Now we also have the following... According to Northeast Intelligence there are 11 Chinese nationals who came to the states illegally for the sole goal to make attacks on US soil.

Strikes Expected on Western Targets

Oil Facilities, All Western Interests at Sea & on Land on Arabian Peninsula


FBI: BOLO
20 January 2005--The FBI has issued a BOLO to law enforcement to be on the lookout for 11 Chinese nationals. They are reportedly armed and dangerous "All pose a risk to national security".


Mei Xia Dong DOB: 05/30/1982
Xiuming Chen
Chang Yin Liu
Xiujin Chen DOB: 12/15/1984
Guozhi Lin DOB: 03/08/1991
Zengrong Lin DOB: 10/27/1982
Yu Xiang Weng DOB: 10/04/1963 or 04/05/1964
Qiquan Lin
Min Xiu Xie DOB: 11/21/1977
Xing Wei Liu
Liqiang Liang

Per BOLO: "If located, detain and hold for questioning. Suspects are believed to have entered the US via New York or Boston.

Excerpted from.
www.homelandsecurityus.com...

The fact of the matter is, the whole world is being attacked by Islamic extremists, we did not begin this war, they did... When terrorists attack a country the best way to deal with them is to seek them out and take them out...ignoring them and not doing anything will make it worse. Clinton tried to ignore terrorism, and it got us 9/11...

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Muaddib]

Yeh.. I guess that would be the case. Mexico and Canada would be in a tough geographical spot too.
Dallas

Amazing, i found the above on Northeast intelligence network today, after i presented evidence of the plans of the Chinese government, and what two of their generals said the chinese must do for them to get control of natural resources, and in order for them to be the biggest world power....

The Chinese and the Russians too, have shown that they are not really our friends or our allies. And as some other members have said before, it all comes down as to who benefits the most...

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Muaddib]

There is a reality at play here of the "damned if you do/damned if you don't" persuasion...

Imagine the U.S. allowing Saddam to stay in power under the U.N. rules that bound, but did not deter, him.

Would he have been able to build a coallition of Jihadists, train them with his infrastructure and send them out into the free world to cause havok?

Maybe...

Would this have been a worse scenario than we have right now?

Probably...

Would he have stayed relatively harmless and impotent?

Maybe...

Would the Jihadists not have as good a rallying cry against the west?

Probably...

See my point? It's all "maybies" and "probablies"... There is no way of knowing for certain what's going to occur until it occurs. This is the inherant downfall of the "hit 'em before they hit you again" theory.

You can never prove they were ever giong to be able to hit you again and you really tend to piss alot of people off when you do things like regime change in sovereign nations.

On the other hand...

What sense does it make to allow a despot like Saddam continue to break the very rules that allowed him to continue his rule? It was pretty evident he was more than willing to help anyone take a swing at the west anyway he could.

Hindsight being 20/20, it would appear that the "war on terror" is a no win situation as one astute member points out. "There aren't enough bullets on Earth to crush an enemy that is willing to die to kill two of us". That math is bleak at best and forecasts our demise at worst.

The $64,000.00 question is would they have continued attacking us had we left Iraq alone or not?

m...

There's no way the administration is going to say 'you're safe.' The illusion of danger has to be present for a country to be aggressive. US aggression isn't going to peak for some time yet.

face it friends, nobody gets out of here alive

the world is a dangerous place, yes?

en.wikipedia.org...
www.sullivan-county.com...

so we here in the United States can sit idly by with our thumbs up our backsides, pretending that appeasment will win victory, that to ignore the situation will cause it to whither and fade away, or we as a nation can, as has been said by an advertisement here for a well known phone company...."REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE"

the world has seen the United States slowly awaken to the realization, once again, that her enemies wish to destroy her. the world is angered, for they know none can defeat America, the world is afraid, for the Armies of the Free have inserted themselves directly in the middle of Arabia, and none can stop them. were it possible, the enemies of America would have her destroyed, but she still stands, her stars and stripes waving valiantly across the land, and her people, of all nationalities, religions and cultures, from all over the globe, living in freedom.

yes, the islamoterrorists have a war on their hands, and only time shall reveal the victor.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
yes, the islamoterrorists have a war on their hands, and only time shall reveal the victor.

However, and I say this respectfully, there was a right way and a wrong way to do this. We did it the wrong way. Yes, our war is against Jihadists. We have to find and we have to kill them. But, we have to make sure that our actions don't breed hundred thousand more.

Invading Iraq served absolutely no purpose in our war against Jihadism. If you wage war against France, you don't invade and occupy Belgium, because they seem similar. The only thing invading Iraq has done, is to provide fertile training grounds for thousands holy warriors against us.
Jihadism did not exist in Iraq before we invaded. At least not in any way that could ever harm us.

We amputated a leg, for a cancer that might appear twenty years later.

Invading Iraq has depleted our strength, while they amass strength.

Invading Iraq has depleted our treasury, while they can fund the insurgency with the money I currently have in my pockets.

Invading Iraq has divided this nation, while they grow more unified.

Invading Iraq has whittled away our armed forces recruitment, while their forces multipy at an exponential rate.

We're in Iraq to keep order, they're fighting to spread chaos. It takes 150,000 of our guys to keep the lights on. It takes ten Jihadists to knock them out.

How exactly can we keep this up? At some point, people have to realize that you cannot kill weeds by fighting them with sunlight.

The proper thing, and this is just my opinion, would have been to create a multi national strike force, directly after 9/11. A companion piece to NATO, entirely seperate from the U.N. France, Russia, the EU, North America, Australia, and India. Any nations currently threatened by Jihadism, and make no mistake, France and Russia would have been the first in line.

For a moment, forget what the conservative pundits preach. France is the third largest supplier of troops in Afghanistan, with 5,500. France was the first country to fly sorties over Afghanistan. They have war ships patrolling the gulf. They were the first ones in, kicking down the door with us. Russia has a real big problem with Jihadists in Chechnya. And, nobody can tell me that they wouldn't be hungry for a little payback against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

We could have used the momentum we gained after 9/11 to create this multinational strike force. We could have used the combined political and economic weight of these assembled nations to sign air space treaties with other nations. With these strike forces, we could be prepared to launch at a moment's notice, and wipe out any percieved Jihadist threat anywhere in the known world.

Knock out training camps. Carry out the assinsations of key terrorist figures. Blow up weapons depots. Basically, the world united to wipe out terrorist networks, wherever they might hide.

It's not vigilante justice, when everyone in town is doing it.

And, with 80% of the world united to obliterate a common enemy, we could have crushed them once and for all, and be done with it.

Instead? Bush bullied his way into Iraq. "You're either with us, or against us" An ill conceived move that will go down in history as one of the classic military blunders of the known modern world. And here we are, at the very brink of it all, everybody splitting off into their own tribes.

The world will survive. America will survive. But, we sure as hell won't have to worry about over population anymore.

as long as the west needs oil they're gona have the advantage

We have been fighting this one way or another for thousands of years. There are no front lines anymore. God forbid they bring this onto American soil again. (Chances are that they will) We need to hunt them down. No red tape, no scandel, just erase them from society. The world has ignored these religious extremists for the most part for too long and thats partly why we are in the situatiuon that we are in now.