PDA

View Full Version : Hatred of U.S. drives al-Qaida recruiting


lily
10-17-2007, 03:11 AM
Confirms what some of us have been saying for quite some time now. But just like this administration won't admit there is also a civil war going on, they won't admit this. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21312504/)

Hatred of U.S. drives al-Qaida recruiting
As Americans become desensitized, violence radicalizes ordinary Arabs



By Robert Windrem and Richard Engel
NBC News
Updated: 7:28 p.m. ET Oct 16, 2007


Robert Windrem
Senior Investigative producer



The Bush administration rejects the idea that the war in Iraq has driven
young Arab men into the arms of al-Qaida. But if you believe the young men
themselves, the administration is wrong.

At a Baghdad jail for prisoners who have attacked U.S. forces, everyone — to
a man — says it was the U.S. occupation of Iraq that drove them to violence.
And they are not alone. Across the Middle East and South Asia, the same
story can be heard in Internet cafes, mosques, safe houses and prisons.

“The U.S. says this war is part of the global war on terrorism,” Saedi
Farhan, an Iraqi engineer who took part in an attack on U.S. forces, said in
a weekend interview with NBC News. "But people here say that the war has
increased fanaticism and brought terrorism to Iraq."



Interviews with Farhan and other radicals reveal that many young men were
torn when it came time to choose sides. Even though they fight alongside
al-Qaida, they insist that — contrary to what U.S. officials say — they do
not support al-Qaida. Many, in fact, say they hate al-Qaida.

But they hate the United States more.

Turned against the Americans
“An aggressor occupied my country, destroyed it and made millions [of]
refugees. It is an honor to fight this,” said Hamid Ali, the owner of a
construction company who also admitted attacking U.S. troops.

At a government rehabilitation center in Saudi Arabia, many radicals say
they now reject the al-Qaida philosophy. But at the same time, they admit
that the U.S. occupation of Iraq drove many of them to join the movement and
that it still drives their hatred of America. Some, in fact, were arrested
for trafficking in Internet videos about Iraq designed specifically to
motivate and recruit for al-Qaida.

One of them, Saddam Sogoby, says he was recruited over the Internet, seduced
by videos of Iraqis fighting America.



In Zarqa, Jordan — home of the late leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi — one member of the group, a 19-year-old high school dropout,
told NBC News earlier this year that he was ready to carry out suicide
bombings in Iraq — or anywhere else he was ordered to.

He, like many others in the Middle East, cannot look away from the powerful
images of destruction to which many Americans have become desensitized.
Indeed, they say they do not want to look away from what is happening to
their neighbors, their fellow Arabs and Muslims.

It is often those videos that fuel the fire for these young men, nearly all
of whom are educated, middle class and skilled in using the Internet to
recruit for al-Qaida.

The daily stream of images from wartorn Iraq — of screaming men, women and
particularly children; burned-out cars; twisted metal — has dramatically
increased the organization’s pool of recruits, said al-Qaida sympathizers in
cell after cell.

Recruiting impact ‘remains to be seen’
Like other U.S. officials, Adm. Scott Redd, head of the National
Counterterrorism Center, says it still is not proven whether a visceral
response to scenes of U.S. destruction is radicalizing a generation of young
Arab and Muslim men.

“In the short term, that is probably true,” Redd said. “But ... I believe in
the long-term strategic deal. And that remains to be seen."

But other U.S. officials are beginning to reject that view. And the closer
they are to fighting the threat on the ground, the more vigorously they seem
to reject it.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly expresses no doubt that the war
has made his job harder.

“I think there is no question about it, that the war in Iraq has been a
catalyst," Kelly said.

While the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are
often invoked to justify the war, Kelly said the war has actually made New
York less safe.

“That’s what we have to deal with,” he said. “We can’t deal with the world
as we wish it would be. That’s, in our judgment, a fact, and it has made our
job perhaps more challenging, more difficult.”

‘Chasing the wrong bad guys’
Bruce Riedel, a former Middle East expert with the CIA, said that the Bush
administration was unable to admit that it had made mistakes and that the
war had made things worse.

“We’ve got our best and brightest in the wrong desert, chasing the wrong bad
guys,” said Riedel, who was the National Security Council’s senior director
for Near East and North African affairs on 9/11. “We need to put our best
people in South Asia going after the man who we know is planning another
attack on the U.S.” — that is, Osama bin Laden.

The war has “made America less safe,” he contended. “By diverting so much
money, so much of our intelligence effort and so much of our special forces
in the military to fighting a war in Iraq, we have diverted resources from
the central battlefield in the war against al-Qaida.”

President Bush’s homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, remains
unconvinced. The picture is a distortion, she suggests, maintaining that the
war is simply a convenient rallying cry for jihadists sworn to destroying
the West.

If it were not al-Qaida, it would be “something else,” Townsend said, citing
a steady stream of terrorist attacks against U.S. interests before the
invasion of Iraq.

“We should be very clear that every time we take the fight to the enemy, we
make the United States safer and we make our citizens safer,” Townsend said.

“There’s no question,” she said, that for bin Laden and his chief deputy,
Ayman al-Zawahiri, “the war in Iraq is critical for them to win. There’s no
question that they look to ... leverage [the] expertise of fighters in Iraq,
not only inside Iraq but around the world.”

Cobra
10-17-2007, 03:56 AM
Hatred of U.S. drives al-Qaida recruiting
Duhhhh. :ponder:

JohnnyAwake
10-17-2007, 04:17 AM
Exactly. What did we expect to happen. You can't completely wipe out an idea. Terrorism isn't something that will ever completely fade away. All we can do is work on national security (within our nation; and not uninvited in other nation states) and focus on collectively preventing these instances (ie:/ with nation states)

preservanation
10-17-2007, 04:41 AM
In these dangerous times, I would rather be hatred than loved by the likes of terrorists.
They would love to destroy us and hate for us to fight back.
Fear breeds respect and peace is only achieved in this situation when one side wins and the other gives up.
Sorry....History is replete with examples of this.

JohnnyAwake
10-17-2007, 04:48 AM
In these dangerous times, I would rather be hatred than loved by the likes of terrorists.
They would love to destroy us and hate for us to fight back.


Good point. I think, though, that they love the fact that we are in the middle east. Their enemy target is closer, they have home-field advantage, and it just makes us look that much more callous to neighbor nation states (Blackwater). Besides they'd hate to give chase; that'd be a long swim.

Trish
10-17-2007, 05:26 AM
Being hated is not something new for the U.S. Al-Qaeda is just the latest to join the queue. To borrow a phrase from Rhett Butler - Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Al-Qaeda hated us before Iraq - they attacked us more than once before Iraq. If us being in Iraq has pissed them off more than they already were - so be it. I stopped giving a damn what Al-Qaeda thought about the U.S. on 9/11.

preservanation
10-17-2007, 05:35 AM
In these dangerous times, I would rather be hatred than loved by the likes of terrorists.
They would love to destroy us and hate for us to fight back.


Good point. I think, though, that they love the fact that we are in the middle east. Their enemy target is closer, they have home-field advantage, and it just makes us look that much more callous to neighbor nation states (Blackwater). Besides they'd hate to give chase; that'd be a long swim.

I thank you too, sir.
However we are now there and no matter of how we think that was a bad idea...it is reality.
Do we now cut and run (to coin a phrase) or do we try to gain allies and peace now?
We are at a cross roads (forget how we got to those particular roads) what do we do now?
That is the question that will rule the day for many years to come.

JohnnyAwake
10-17-2007, 05:39 AM
In these dangerous times, I would rather be hatred than loved by the likes of terrorists.
They would love to destroy us and hate for us to fight back.


Good point. I think, though, that they love the fact that we are in the middle east. Their enemy target is closer, they have home-field advantage, and it just makes us look that much more callous to neighbor nation states (Blackwater). Besides they'd hate to give chase; that'd be a long swim.

I thank you too, sir.
However we are now there and no matter of how we think that was a bad idea...it is reality.
Do we now cut and run (to coin a phrase) or do we try to gain allies and peace now?
We are at a cross roads (forget how we got to those particular roads) what do we do now?
That is the question that will rule the day for many years to come.


Well put; However can you explain to me how we don't 'cut and run' when there is an inevitable day that this mess is put behind us? Please explain in better detail what characterizes closure.

preservanation
10-17-2007, 05:47 AM
Yes!
Closure maybe at a different level.
You, my Bull Dog Friend, think we are ready now...I hope you are correct.
Me, I think that the Iraqis need some more time to get up on their feet.

jafar00
10-17-2007, 07:37 AM
Like I've been saying all along

If you want peace, all you need to do is..

1) Pull your military out of the Middle East and close your bases there
2) Stop all military aid of Israel and refrain from blindly vetoing legitimate UN resolutions against them
3) Adopt a less belligerent foreign policy

World peace in 3 easy steps. Are you ready to vote for a president with the balls to do it?

moses2792796
10-17-2007, 08:13 AM
Good post Jafar, I don't see how anyone who wasn't either retarded or brainwashed could not hate the US.

lawless168
10-17-2007, 01:45 PM
Well then Moses, strap a bomb to your azz and continue the fight!

Rawk on

Elrathin
10-17-2007, 02:23 PM
Like I've been saying all along

If you want peace, all you need to do is..

1) Pull your military out of the Middle East and close your bases there
2) Stop all military aid of Israel and refrain from blindly vetoing legitimate UN resolutions against them
3) Adopt a less belligerent foreign policy

World peace in 3 easy steps. Are you ready to vote for a president with the balls to do it?


You know, I am no fan of Israel and I was against going into Iraq. But let me ask you this. If a country let's us have a base on their land, who the fuck is it any of Al-Qaeda's business what they country allows? Answer is? It's none of their damn business.

Also you say stop military aid of Israel? Sure thing, when is Iran and a feww others going to stop arming Palestine then?

Look, I know the U.S. has made mistakes, but let's not paint a pretty little picture of everyone else. I would rather not have U.S. bases overseas, however, those countries we have them in the governments are allowing us to have them there. I would rather not be arming Israel, but at the same time I definately don't want Palestine getting armed either.

You say it's 3 easy steps, well I guess they are. Too bad you don't take into account the other players in the game that will NOT abide by the rules and do the same.

HumanBeast
10-17-2007, 02:53 PM
They hate the USA because they think it looks like Bablyon.

jafar00
10-17-2007, 08:26 PM
Like I've been saying all along

If you want peace, all you need to do is..

1) Pull your military out of the Middle East and close your bases there
2) Stop all military aid of Israel and refrain from blindly vetoing legitimate UN resolutions against them
3) Adopt a less belligerent foreign policy

World peace in 3 easy steps. Are you ready to vote for a president with the balls to do it?


You know, I am no fan of Israel and I was against going into Iraq. But let me ask you this. If a country let's us have a base on their land, who the fuck is it any of Al-Qaeda's business what they country allows? Answer is? It's none of their damn business.


They only let you have a base because they are either bribed or threatened. If you were a leader of a country, what would you ask for in return for a foreign power to have a base on your land with which to wage war against your neighbours?
It not a sore point just with Al Qaeda. Very few Middle Easterners are happy about US bases being there.


Also you say stop military aid of Israel? Sure thing, when is Iran and a feww others going to stop arming Palestine then?


If they are arming Palestine, they are doing a piss poor job of it. Small rockets, some AK's a perhaps a few grenades are nothing against Tanks, Artillery, attack helicopters, chemical weapons etc that Israel has been given. Not to mention the *cough* undeclared and un-inspected nuclear weapons they have acquired.


Look, I know the U.S. has made mistakes, but let's not paint a pretty little picture of everyone else. I would rather not have U.S. bases overseas, however, those countries we have them in the governments are allowing us to have them there. I would rather not be arming Israel, but at the same time I definately don't want Palestine getting armed either.


Perhaps if Israel didn't get all the juicy, high tech weaponry, they would be less inclined to lay siege to their neighbours and Palestinians/Lebanese would have a need for all those weapons to try and defend themselves.


You say it's 3 easy steps, well I guess they are. Too bad you don't take into account the other players in the game that will NOT abide by the rules and do the same.


Those 3 easy steps would give the other players a reason to also revise their own foreign policies by hitting hard at the root of the problem rather than just dealing with the symptoms don't you think?

Ok, so then you would be left with the Israel problem, but at least your war on terrorism would be over. Since when was it in the American interest to serve Israel's interests in the region anyway?
Let them deal with it themselves. Once their cozy little security blanket in the form of UN veto by the US and the billions in arms are taken from them, they would have to sit back and take a good hard look at the things they are doing and perhaps do something to move towards a peaceful settlement.

Elrathin
10-17-2007, 08:42 PM
They only let you have a base because they are either bribed or threatened.

What country isn't bribed? It's called you scratch my back and I give you 3 million dollars. Regardless its the governments decision to allow them. They aren't there unless the government oks it.


If they are arming Palestine, they are doing a piss poor job of it. Small rockets, some AK's a perhaps a few grenades are nothing against Tanks, Artillery, attack helicopters, chemical weapons etc that Israel has been given. Not to mention the *cough* undeclared and un-inspected nuclear weapons they have acquired.

Well Jafar, they ARE arming them. It's not like the Palestines have a stable economy to just go out and make the shit themselves. They are getting them from someone and I don't think it's Israel do you?


Perhaps if Israel didn't get all the juicy, high tech weaponry, they would be less inclined to lay siege to their neighbours and Palestinians/Lebanese would have a need for all those weapons to try and defend themselves.

You'll get no argument from me on that one, I don't think we should be arming ANY country.


Those 3 easy steps would give the other players a reason to also revise their own foreign policies by hitting hard at the root of the problem rather than just dealing with the symptoms don't you think?

Not really, so far they just take advanatage of it to get a few extra shots in.


Ok, so then you would be left with the Israel problem, but at least your war on terrorism would be over.

Not really. Do you really think for a moment, AQ is going to just disband if we left? Or do you think they will try to force their way of life on others militarily. Do you think that is right?


Since when was it in the American interest to serve Israel's interests in the region anyway?
Let them deal with it themselves. Once their cozy little security blanket in the form of UN veto by the US and the billions in arms are taken from them, they would have to sit back and take a good hard look at the things they are doing and perhaps do something to move towards a peaceful settlement.


Sounds like you are more interested in revenge than peace to me. You make some good points, but your desire to watch a country suffer clouds your judgment on whats right and wrong IMO. On most things I agree with you, but the fact is Israel would be wiped off the map without the U.S. and I don't think sentencing 4 million innocent people to death is the right thing to do.

I don't agree with how or why Israel was created, but it's done and there are MILLIONS living there now. Palestinians are going to have to get used to that. I wish it didn't go down that way, but you are not going to get millions of people in Israel to just up and move.

Wndrtch
10-19-2007, 09:12 PM
Like I've been saying all along

If you want peace, all you need to do is..

1) Pull your military out of the Middle East and close your bases there
2) Stop all military aid of Israel and refrain from blindly vetoing legitimate UN resolutions against them
3) Adopt a less belligerent foreign policy

World peace in 3 easy steps. Are you ready to vote for a president with the balls to do it?


I guess you never read the Bin Ladin statement that the only way to achieve peace with Muslims, is to adopt Islam.

Sticking your head in the ground, and hoping the terrorist leave you alone, is not solution.

If you really, really want peace, the way to do it is make a statement that if one more mass-casualty event occurs by Islamic elements, the US will destroy Mecca, and make it unreachable for two generations. In the Muslim faith, it is required that a Muslim visit Mecca at least once before they die, otherwise they will be denied Heaven. Then make sure you fly a few B-2's over the city to drive the point home.

Terrorist heads will begin to fly all over the Middle East, at the hands of civilized Muslims.[hr]
They hate the USA because they think it looks like Bablyon.


I would add, because we ACT like Babylon.

Tsky
10-19-2007, 09:58 PM
For all the tough talk Bush makes about terrorism and destroying our enemy he will never do anything like blow up Mecca because he really isn’t interested in stopping Islam and he darned sure isn’t afraid of it. When was the last time we went to a country to stop our enemies, blew up a few things and immediately started rebuilding the place? Right after “Iraqi Freedom” was “The Rebuilding of Iraq.” Huh? You went there to destroy our enemies and yet you are there rebuilding their schools? The ridiculous notion that we could just waltz into a religiously and polictically divided sovereign nation and make them a democratic society is utterly ridiculous. The President even said we would leave if asked to. WTH? You are at war with a country and if the head of the new government asks you to leave you will? I can't be the only one who is confused by this.

There are a lot of casualties in Iraq and a significant amount of it is because of religions fighting. The U.S. could have dropped an atomic bomb on Afghanistan and Iraq but they weren’t interested in a real war. They were interested in a minor conflict that allowed them to oust the Taliban and Saddam and start construction of pipelines and take control of Iraqi oil. Why else would they have Halliburton stationed there? This war and American's preoccupation with the 'evil Muslims' is a joke.