Maybe It Wasn’t Just a Civil War in Iraq?
January 23rd, 2008 at 01:17am Mark Noonan
Heck, it might even have been the central front in the War on Terrorism:
Muhammad Ayn-al-Nas, a 26-year-old Moroccan, started his journey in Casablanca. After flying to Turkey and then to Damascus, he reached his destination in a small Iraqi border town on Jan. 31, 2007. He was an economics student back home, he told the al-Qaeda clerk who interviewed him on arrival. Asked what sort of work he hoped to do in Iraq, Nas replied: “Martyr.”
Algerian Watsef Mussab, 29, who arrived in Iraq via Saudi Arabia and Syria, said he had come for combat. He complained that the Syrian smugglers who brought him to the border took his money, but he contributed what he had left to the insurgent cause — a watch, a ring and an MP3 player.
Hanni al-Sagheer, a computer technician from Yemen and aspiring suicide volunteer, gave the clerk his home telephone number and also that of his brother.
Their stories are among the individual records of 606 foreign fighters who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. The cache of documents was discovered last fall by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar…
…Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed.
Although there is no way of knowing how many of the total entrants the 606 recorded individuals represent, officials said Sinjar was a primary entrance point. Its importance increased as Iraq’s Anbar province — farther south and bordering Saudi Arabia and Jordan — became more difficult for foreigners to cross.
9 out of 10 suicide bombers were foreigners…9 out of 10! You’d think that if the Iraqis were as fanatic to get rid of us as the left says they were (and are), then at least, say, half of the suicide bombers would be Iraqi…but 9 out of 10 were foreign. What does this mean?
It means that the global terrorist enemy wanted very much to force us out of Iraq so that they could score a decisive victory against the United States in the War on Terrorism. The other group of people who wanted us out of Iraq were the Democrats.
Shame on them!
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
44 Comments
1. french student | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 am
Maybe it means that although the iraquis want the US to leave, as they have repeatedly expressed through their government and many acts of guerilla, they are not terrorists. But in this case, why is Iraq the central front on the war on terror? Kinda unfair to them, no?
2. War&hellip | January 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 am
[...] Maybe It Wasn’t Just a Civil War in Iraq? [...]
3. bozo the neoclown | January 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 am
Our invasion and subsequent mismanagement of the invasion of Iraq lead to the creation of an environment where these type of bombings could take place. Interestingly enough, we have created this front on “the war on terruh” when in fact, the initial invasion’s mission was trumpeted as, “avoiding the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud”. What we’re saddled with is the debt for this debacle and a self-fufilling prophecy. By the way, anyone find those WMD’s yet?
4. keefer | January 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 am
By the way, anyone find those WMD’s yet?
I think they’re up your arse, along with libretardTHC’s gerbil…
5. french student | January 23rd, 2008 at 5:50 am
what I love most about this blog is the class anh high level of discourse from the republicans….
6. OhioOrrin | January 23rd, 2008 at 5:55 am
lets don’t let Rummy off the hook.
he substituted assumptions for competent military advice re the necessary manpower to occupy Iraq after the invasion.
the result was civil chaos, open borders, avoidable deaths (military & civilian), & a prolonged occupation.
the surge is a course correction.
the powell doctrine in gulf 1 is the preferred model.
7. neocon | January 23rd, 2008 at 7:35 am
I just hate it when a war results in chaos and death. Whatever happened to a well manged war? That’s the only type of war the Democrats will support. One that is well managed, with no death or chaos and with a solid exit strategy.
I will remind all of our resident lefties with damaged short term memories that creating a battle ground in the ME to fight AQ was a stated mission from the very beginning.
The Iraq front will continue to improve and by this summer it will be clear how wrong the Democrats were on this and that will not bode well for their pandering, inexperienced candidates.
1/20/09
8. liberalT | January 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 am
Mark - i find it hard to believe that you think this is a good sign. Or a sign that proves you were right about anything. How many suicide bombers per year were there before the invasion - from Iraqi’s or foreigners? The number is pretty close too 0. So the invasion of Iraq has precipitated terrorists coming to Iraq not removed them. It has brought terrorism there and increased it a 1000 fold. Bizzare way to fight a war on terror huh?
9. neocon | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:15 am
libT,
How many suicide bombers were in Israel prior to the Iraq war? And how many have there been recently? Without the funding from Saddam, it appears that they were redirected to Iraq to fight for their interests there.
And they lost. An effective way to fight the war I would say. Protect innocent Israeli’s and direct them into the teeth of the US Military.
Good thing you’re not a war planner.
10. neocon | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:18 am
And the following is some more bad news for Democrats. It will only get worse for them as the year goes on. Pass the popcorn.
NUMANIYAH — The Iraqi National Police graduated approximately 1830 recruits from various training courses at Numaniyah National Training Center Jan. 21.
The Iraqi National Police host graduation ceremonies for basic recruit training and specialized training at the site. These graduating classes are unique because the class composition ranged from Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, Turkman, and Christian recruits.
11. Joe | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is sounding like your whole arguement here is this…
We invaded Iraq (a soverign nation that didn’t attack us) so we could draw all the Al Quaeda fighters to Iraq and fight them there. Is that right? Is that what you are claiming to be the point of this invasion? And that is why this is a success??
12. neocon | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
Joe,
You often need correction. And you have that just about right. We went into Iraq to depose a brutal, murderous dictator who had violated 17 UN cease fire resolutions and was suspected of possessing WMD, in order to establish a battle ground to defeat AQ, and to establish a new, representative gov’t of Iraq. Someone once said, “we will fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here”. You might remember that.
I know it’s all very complex for liberals, and that is why you have been so wrong, so often.
13. Joe | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 am
then explain why we couldn’t just use Afghanastan, where we already were fighting Al Quaeda, as the “battle ground to defeat AQ”. Why did we have to take our eye off of Afghanastan and go into a sovereign nation?
I know… I know… he was a “brutal, murderous dictator”. So why not go into all the other countries that have a “brutal, murderous dictator”? There are others ya know.
So… we went in because he had WMDs.
No… we went in because he was a brutal dictator.
No… we went in because AQ was there.
No… we went in because they need democracy.
And on… and on… and on it goes.
And “we fight them over there, so we don’t fight them over here” is the most ridiculous comment ever made.
14. Tractatus | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 am
And “we fight them over there, so we don’t fight them over here” is the most ridiculous comment ever made.
Nah, “they hate us for our freedom” has it topped. What a brain-dead bit of sloganeering that is. And hey–look who swallows it hook, line, and sinker!
i find it hard to believe that you think this is a good sign.
Why would you find it hard to believe? Mark thinks everything is a good sign–he’s rather like a Turing Machine when it comes to Iraq. No matter what the input is, as long as it’s about Iraq, the output is, “We’re winning! Freedom is on the march!”
15. Jay Gaultieri | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
It seems the turmoil in the world financial markets and desperate attempts to head off a recession (the Dow is down triple digits AGAIN as I type this) will not be acknowledged here. Instead we don’t even get what is being passed off these days as good news in Iraq. What we get is a big smug middle finger at “the libruls” about how the existence of some foreign members of Al Qaeda in Iraq somehow justifies bad intelligence, poor planning, arrogance, ignorance, corruption, dead Americans and no end in sight for a conflict now about to enter its fifth year. Except so far I’ve never heard any non-Bushie say that there aren’t foreign fighters in Iraq. The only people who said that were the Bushies claiming the insurgency were merely dead-end Baathists when forced to admit the war didn’t end with “Mission Accomplished”.
The response to me will be “The surge worked”. The surge proved that
1)if the Sunnis and Shiites are paid off not attack Americans
2)the Sunnis get sick of Al Qaeda in Iraq and attack Al Qaeda in Iraq themselves,
3)Southern Iraq is ceded to the Shiites
and
4) a growing war between the Kurds and the Turks is ignored
then violence will decrease in Baghdad if a large number of American troops are kept on the ground in Baghdad indefinitely. That’s a hell of a long way down from transforming the entire Middle East into pro-American democracies through military means. Which is why a story about foreign terrorists in Iraq is the best the remaining Bushies have to crow about.
16. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
So much lip service.
So few facts.
A lot of speculation.
17. Joe | January 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
js:
So much lip service.
So few facts.
A lot of speculation.
Are you going to refute anything or just say “you are wrong”?
18. TiredofLibBullShit | January 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Liberals forget too soon….maybe it’s because of their everchanging talking points.
Before the Iraq war, there was speculation of a Saddam and Al Qaeda link and that Al Qaeda was running to Iraq since we went to Afghanistan. The liberal argument was - Al Qaeda is in Iraq only because Saddam does not control the north thanks to the enforcement of the no fly zones. That is why Iraq was there and not because of any ties.
This was a widespread argument at the dailyKos, Moveon and the democratic undergroud.
How soon they forget! Well, they never really grasped it in the first place only because they cannot think for themselves as evidenced ONCE AGAIN by the liberal use (ha ha) of the talking point playbook.
Joe, why do you even try? Everything you have said has been debated ad nauseum and debunked with transcripts, you only making yourself look more and more foolish. Keep banging you head against the wall, sooner or later you will feel it, regardless of what someone else tell you.
19. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Are you going to refute anything or just say “you are wrong”?”
Its pretty obvious whats goin on Joe, do you have to ask? Not one solid hit there, not one.
20. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“And “we fight them over there, so we don’t fight them over here” is the most ridiculous comment ever made.’
U.S. Border Patrol Agent says
“1 in every 10 that we catch is from the Middle East. Arab terrorists are here!”
The number of illegal aliens in the U.S. grows daily with estimates ranging from 20 million to 30 million. The U.S. Border Patrol reports over 1,200,000 apprehensions of Illegals on Mexico-US border yearly and 36% were previously apprehended. Osama Bin Laden and Mexican Criminals Love Open Borders. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado obtained records showing that since the Sept 11, 2001 attack, agents have stopped hundreds of nationals from countries considered a national security threat, including Syria, North Korea and Iran. Secure the Border FIRST. 7 years after 9/11terror attack the Senate, Congress and Bush are still jaw jacking about amnesty and not fences with high tech equipment. The refuse to uphold their oath for national security.Bush Administration and many in the Senate, Congress want facts on Illegal Aliens and Terrorist Immigration kept from the public. Reasons vary from contributions from big labor, to hispanic votes and illegal votes with proposed special drivers licenses
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/illegal-aliens-immigration.html
Dude, dont piss on us and try to tell us its raining!!
21. Sunny | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I will remind all of our resident lefties with damaged short term memories that creating a battle ground in the ME to fight AQ was a stated mission from the very beginning.
neocon | January 23rd, 2008 at 7:35 am
Really??? I watched all kinds of new programs (sans Fox), read papers from the time talk of attacking Iraq started and do not recall one time that the argument was made that the reason we were going to invade I to fight AQ. How in the devil did I miss that? All I ever heard was WMDs and mushroom cloud. But not once that this was an expansion of the battle ground for AQ. What a crock!
22. Diana Powe | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
One of the things that is so amazing about the members of the President Bush cult of personality is how they will grasp at simply anything for signs that they can interpret as reflecting well on the object of their veneration. They sit down at their computers every day and type the approving words courtesy of the reliable, always-on (except for the odd weather event or accident) electricity which they take for granted.
One of the tasks handed to the American taxpayers to pay for is funding for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). On April 23, 2003, Andrew Natsios, then-Administrator of USAID, famously made the following statements to Ted Koppel on Nightline regarding how much reconstruction would cost us:
“This is $1.7 billion.”
“In terms of the American taxpayer’s contribution. I do. This is it for the U.S.”
“But, the American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding.”
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMjskIV1Oxs
23. Diana Powe | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Well, not so much. As of October 2007, USAID expenditures - $18,449 billion
Using the example of electricity, the following are figures about power in Iraq from the State Department’s report to Congress last October:
Average daily hours of power after meeting essential services:
Baghdad - 6.5
Basrah - 16.6
Nationwide average - 10.8
__________
Source: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/94896.pdf
American taxpayers have been forced to spend almost 11 times as much money as we were told over almost 5 years just in this one area. The result? People in Iraq have electricity in amounts that Americans would consider an absolute outrage.
As js said, don’t try to convince us that urine is precipitation.
24. Diana Powe | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Correction on my punctuation - $18.449 billion
25. Sunny | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Dude, dont piss on us and try to tell us its raining!!
js | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
js, how many of the middle eastern illegals were from Iraq?
26. Joe | January 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
That is the link you provide js?
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/illegal-aliens-immigration.html
Isn’t there a whole post on this site about how foolish and biased any report backed by “liberal” George Soros is?
Allow me to quote one of YOUR comments from that post:
22. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
…
look at you, raa raa for all this hoopola about some report made by a known liberal billionaire and the “non-profit” supported survey he paid for
And you bring up a website of “Warriors for Truth”? Wow. That must be all true!
27. Zach | January 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
One of the things that is so amazing about the members of the Reid/Pelosi cult of personality is how they will grasp at simply anything for signs that they can interpret as reflecting poorly on the war front in Iraq/Bush/Cheney/Republicans..
There..
Fixed it for ya Diane!
“How many suicide bombers per year were there before the invasion - from Iraqi’s or foreigners? The number is pretty close too 0.”
I believe this is an excellent representation of LiberalT’s mental capacity.
Man, I’m sorry Mark, but his blog sucks these days…I think we both no why.
28. Zach | January 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
excuse me…*know*
wow..I just showed my own mental capacity..haha
29. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“How many suicide bombers per year were there before the invasion - from Iraqi’s or foreigners? The number is pretty close too 0.”
Actually, I think it was all reflective of a terrorist state at that time. You could consider the entire secret police and most of the governing body to be terrorist. Counting the dead people that we dug up after the invasion, Id say they killed about 1 million Iraqi citizens between 91 and 03.
30. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
” how many of the middle eastern illegals were from Iraq”
who knows
they say about 6% are from arab nations
out of 1.5 million people coming in per year/illegal immigration totals for highly potential terrorists and other non potential (women/children/elderly) are about 90,000 hot bodies in a 12 month period.
effectively, the potential for them to smuggle arms and equipment to outfit an army as large as some of the biggest US Divisions are fair
for all we know, they already could have several units hidden in our own country training to kill americans when they get the word to “go”….
have you written your congress person about this?
31. Joe | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
js:
1 in every 10 that we catch is from the Middle East. Arab terrorists are here!
and
for all we know, they already could have several units hidden in our own country training to kill americans when they get the word to “go”….
QUICK JS!!! get under your bed and hide! They are here and ready to kill you!!!
Again, if you are to laugh at a report that you claim was financed by Soros, then are you really going to believe a report from “Warriors for Truth”?
32. bozo the neoclown | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“How many suicide bombers were in Israel prior to the Iraq war? And how many have there been recently? ”
Err, perhaps it could have something to do with the giant containment wall the israelis are building around the west bank? of course not, neoclowns often distort facts to suit their own interests for example, this entire post.
33. Almiranta | January 23rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I know that Mark and Matt want to present the kinds of articles that don’t make it through the Agenda Media filter, and want to create a forum for intellecutal political discourse. I am sure it has been a disappointment to them—it certainly has to US—to have it polluted by mindless regurgitations of radical Leftist cant.
But then I think they might be so diabolically clever that they realized from the get-go that this site would draw the Lefty Loons and encourage them to exhibit their sheer lunacy. At least that is what I think when I go through a list of posts like this one.
Good work, guys. We could not make up stuff like this, and if we were to just tell people how bizarrely flawed the Leftist thought process is (to use far too kind a phrase for whatever it is they go through to produce such goofiness) we would be accused of exaggeration at the very least.
The thread is about how at least 90% of the suicide bombers in Iraq are from other countries, and how this figure puts the lie to the claim that Iraq is in the middle of a “civil war”. Didn’t you guys get that?
Clue: “Maybe It Wasn’t Just a Civil War in Iraq?”
Clue: “9 out of 10 suicide bombers were foreigners..”
The thread is not about the tired old WMD whine, or any of your other efforts to use this specifically titled thread to air your sad old tattered grievances. Much less to exhibit your total and irrational commitment to the All Hate All The Time mantra of the radical Left.
We get it. We know who you hate, why you hate them, and so on and so on and so on, blah blah blah.
If you can’t actually CONTRIBUTE to a discussion, just go away, secure and happy in the knowledge that you made your point. You hate all conservatives, you hate all conservatives stand for, WE GET IT.
Now stop embarrassing yourselves and your silly loser movement by constantly posting your regurgitated Lefty talking points and wallowing in your irrational hatreds. It is very distasteful and very tiresome.
How funny that some of you call yourselves PROgressives, when all we hear from you is your REgressive ranting and whining and bitching and moaning.
34. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
31. Joe | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
js:
1 in every 10 that we catch is from the Middle East. Arab terrorists are here!
and
for all we know, they already could have several units hidden in our own country training to kill americans when they get the word to “go”….
QUICK JS!!! get under your bed and hide! They are here and ready to kill you!!!
Again, if you are to laugh at a report that you claim was financed by Soros, then are you really going to believe a report from “Warriors for Truth
————————————————
Cmon now little boy. Why dont you give us a reason to think they are lying? You might have to work on this instead of poke fun and insult me, so get to it.
Those statistics are facts, you are trying to ignore the reality of this issue, by joking? Your a clueless liberal tree hugger for sure!! I see from your one-liners how many stats your introducing here showing these people are liears (NOT!!).
You afraid of facing the possibility that it could be true eh? Well little boy, thats your option. But its my option to call you a coward and a liar for the way your acting here.
By the way, it is a fact that that the report was financed by Soros, but YOUR ON THE WRONG ARTICLE FOR THAT KNOTHEAD.
35. keefer | January 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
It seems the turmoil in the world financial markets and desperate attempts to head off a recession (the Dow is down triple digits AGAIN as I type this) will not be acknowledged here.
You posted too soon, you freakin’ BDS idiot; the roller-coaster Dow finished UP 297. And as for your whining about the content of this blog, I suggest you go to americablog.com, and hang out with the kooks. You’ll feel right at home, Jaybird…
36. keefer | January 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Are you going to refute anything or just say “you are wrong”?
Why should anyone here “refute” anything Josephine posts? Her talking points are almost five years old, and have been regurgitated, ad nauseum, by most of the lemming pukes who troll here.
Really??? I watched all kinds of new programs (sans Fox), read papers…
So, Sunni, what’d you watch, Matthews and Olberman? What’d you read, the NY Slimes? It’s funny how cows such as yourself go out of your way to tell us you don’t watch Fox News, even though it’s the most-trusted news network, according to recent studies.
You, cow, probably get your “news” from Colbert and Stewart. Good on ya, Sunni…
37. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The Census Bureau estimates that about 115,000 people from the Middle East are
in the United States illegally
• Current efforts by the Justice Department to make 6,000 Middle Eastern men who have been ordered deported actually return to their home countries barely scratch the surface. According to the Census Bureau, there are perhaps 58,000 non-Israeli Middle Eastern men living in the United States illegally, not including Pakistan or North African countries.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/censusillegalsme.html
Cmon KNOTHEAD, think Warriors for Truth made it UP?
Where you go?
38. bozo the neoclown | January 23rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“Fox News, even though it’s the most-trusted news network, according to recent studies.”
ROFLMAO, the neoclowns have lost their minds. According to recent studies…by whom?
39. Diana Powe | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
The assumptions used by Mark here from “9 out of 10 suicide bombers are non-Iraqis” to “central fight on the war on terrorism” are rather thin on supporting evidence, I’d adjudge. The first assumption, of course, is that using the phrase “war on terrorism” is even meaninful given that terrorism is a word used for a tactic rather than an actual ideology. Of course, it’s meaningful if you want to try to present a complex reality within the bounds of a comic book view of the world, but not so much when assessing the actions of millions of actual human beings with their millions of histories, ideas and motivations.
The core assumption is that the non-Iraqi suicide bombers are traveling to Iraq to blow up coalition troops rather than Iraqis. This doesn’t get much support from the assessment of the 2006 report on terrorism from the National Counterterrorism Center which said (my emphasis):
40. Diana Powe | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
41. Diana Powe | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
The key aspect of the civil war in Iraq and the lack of political progress is the conflict between the Sunni and Shi’a branches of Islam. When coalition troops are attacked with explosives, the method of choice has predominantly been the IED rather than suicide attacks.
A number of answers to questions are missing:
1 - When non-Iraqis travel to Iraq, what percentage plan on being suicide bombers?
2 - What motive or motives actually underlie their decisions? How many are there to engage in Sunni-Shi’a violence such as the 2006 al-Askari Mosque bombing?
3 - Who are their handlers once they’re in Iraq? Do the handlers make decisions about targeting that may or may not agree with the ideas of some al-Qaeda in Iraq “command structure”?
Of course, the American-centric point of view here essentially ignores the terrorist incidents around the rest of the world which undercut the “central war on terror” meme.
42. Jones | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Diana,
You stated that core assumption was that the suicide bombers came to Iraq to kill US troops. That is flat wrong and you know it. Your numbers support the fact that the suicide bombers came to disrupt Iraq.
It was obvious that one of the motives was to create instability in Iraq. One of the lessons that Bin Laden and Iraq learned from Somalia was that when the going gets tough, portions of the United States wants to run away. Once the going got tough in Iraq as the terrorist attacks helped increase the animosity and reprisals between Shiites and Sunni’s, what did many of our democrat leaders start demanding? We should run away!
Finally, I think your last comment is maybe the most absurd considering your own link refutes it. Your link says “most were victims of attacks in Iraq.” You state that the terrorist “incidents” undercut the “central war on terror theme”, but your numbers definitely seem to point to Iraq being the major hot spot for terrorism. Seems fairly “central” or important to me. Plus, don’t call terrorist attacks “incidents”. The murder of innocent civilians is not an “incident.”
43. Diana Powe | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Jones,
I think we can disagree on whether a fair reading of Mark’s post implies that the non-Iraqi “suicide bombers” were directed at Iraqis or coalition forces. Unfortunately, you simply assume mental states that are inferences only:
1 - “It was obvious that one of the motives was to create instability in Iraq.”
2 - “One of the lessons that Bin Laden and Iraq learned from Somalia was that when the going gets tough, portions of the United States wants to run away.”
The records that form the reason for this post don’t have any information about any of the motivation questions that I asked in my earlier post. To quote someone as saying they want to be a martyr is really pretty vague about a lot of things that are rather critical. As to what Osama bin Laden learned or didn’t learn from Somalia, that’s pure mind-reading on your part (which is a common occurrence in the comments section here). However, assuming that he did learn this and assuming that Mark’s assumption that he was killed in 2002 is wrong, then how do you connect that to non-Iraqis travelling to Iraq? That would require a whole new set of inferences.
Finally, the word “incidents” that you take exception to is the one used by the National Counterterrorism Center including the name of their “Worldwide Incidents Tracking System”. If it assumes a cavalier attitude towards the victims to call them “incidents” then you need to complain to your United States Government about that. As to the large percentage of attacks being in Iraq this goes right back to the “chicken or the egg” question of why they happen there? Would the number of attacks be the same if we left?
44. Jones | January 24th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Diana,
You are wrong yet again. I am not reading Osama’s mind about lessons learned from Somalia. You might want to read the 911 commission report. It refers to Osama’s interview from an ABC where he says as much.
As for Al Qaeda trying start a civil war in Iraq, it is not an opinion or inference of mine. Zarqawi stated in a letter to Al Qaeda in Iraq that they should initiate a sequence of attacks which will set off civil war. Or, do you think Al Qaeda targeted civilians just because it was fun?
Just because the facts do not fit your world view, please do not try to spin things to make it look like the problem is someone else’s world view or “inferences only.”