Iraq Becomes Terror Central

5:11 pm EST November 13th, 2005 | Politics | 10 Comments

Terror For Export

Afghanistan used to be the place to go for terrorist training, funding and real-world experience in battle. Not anymore. Iraq has become, in President George W. Bush’s words, “the central front” in the war on terror. And compared with distant Afghanistan, Iraq has more fighting, more people, more money and a far better strategic position in the heart of the Middle East. If Afghanistan under the Taliban was a backwoods school for terrorism, Iraq is an urban university. “Bin Laden and Zawahiri remain in the leadership’s safe haven in Afghanistan,” says a senior Taliban official who uses the nom de guerre Abu Zabihullah. “But Iraq is where the fierce encounters take place, where we recruit and dispatch fighters and where jihad’s spirit thrives.”

The historical legacy of the Bush administration is going to be the body count of civilians who died at the hand of terrorism. Who knew Al Qaeda would have such compliance from the White House?

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

10 Responses to “Iraq Becomes Terror Central”

  1. drpedro says:
    November 13, 2005 at 11:11 pm

    Gee whiz, a couple of years ago A-ghan was a “quagmire” that we would never escape….remember?

    Now, there isn’t enough going on to train a decent terrorist, who’d thunk it? Well, GWB for one. That is EXACTLY why we went in there. And guess what, the same thing will happen in Iraq in a year or two.

    And then, the free world will have to go hose out the next cesspool and THAT will become the next “terrorist training ground”…and so on, and so on.

    The leftist of this country are great with hindsight judgement, unfortunately that is the diametric opposite of leadership

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    November 14, 2005 at 2:11 am

    Nobody on the mainstream left was saying it was a quagmire. Afghanistan hasn’t claimed over 2,00 lives. But otherwise, you’re on point to your talking points, I’m sure Chairman Mehlman will reward you.

  3. frameone says:
    November 14, 2005 at 2:11 am

    Yup, Afghanistan is just peachy keen, guys. That’s why there’s talk at the moment of negotiating with the Taliban to end their four year insurgency:

    KABUL, Nov 13 (Reuters) – Talking, not fighting, is the only way to end Afghanistan’s four-year-old Taliban insurgency, the head of the government’s commission for national reconciliation said on Sunday.

    “Talks, dialogue and negotiations…would prove fruitful for ending the war and reaching an understanding,” Sibghatullah Mojadeddi told reporters after a conference aimed at exploring possible talks with the Taliban.

    Participants in the government-sponsored conference included several former Taliban officials, including Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, a former foreign minister who surrendered to U.S. forces and was released after several years in custody.

    Nearly 30,000 U.S. troops and NATO-led peacekeepers deployed in Afghanistan have failed to quell a low-level guerrilla war with the Taliban and their Islamist allies that has cost more than 1,100 lives this year alone.

    Mojadeddi, who briefly served as Afghan president in 1992, said quelling the insurgency along Afghanistan’s southern and eastern flanks had proved a difficult task.

    “Despite trying so hard, and conducting many operations… neither the government or the international forces have succeeded in establishing complete peace in Afghanistan,” he said. “It is difficult for continuous war to be a solution.”

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL158983.htm

    Yup. Not a quagmire at all.

  4. frameone says:
    November 14, 2005 at 10:11 am

    Maybe we wouldn’t have to negotiate with the Taliban if we had FINSIHED bombing them into the stone age, instead diverting all our attention and resources to Iraq. And what exactly does hindsight have to do with it? We could and should have known that finishing the job was better than not finishing the job before we diverted money and resources to Iraq. Jesus, you guys are fucking stupid.

  5. drpedro says:
    November 14, 2005 at 10:11 am

    So Frame, you are of the camp that says “bomb them into the stone age”?

    I thought negotiation was a GOOD thing? N’cest pas?

    You leftist can’t seem to keep hold of one train of thought in these arguments.But since you are leaders but followers, it doesn’t really matter since all your input is in hindsight.

  6. Dugger says:
    November 14, 2005 at 11:11 am

    “diverting all our attention and resources to Iraq.”

    More urban legend. We obviously have a lot more resources than those going to Iraq. This is basically the same DOD that was structured around a two-war scenario. On the scene Iraq commanders have said they did not and do not want a ‘bigger footprint.”

    Dugger (Sorry to butt in Pedro)

  7. frameone says:
    November 14, 2005 at 11:11 am

    Give me a break, Duggger. In another thread you said that terrorism and the Taliban were taken care of as in “Mission Accomplished.” No credibility. None whatsoever.

  8. Dugger says:
    November 14, 2005 at 12:11 pm

    frame,

    That was irrational to begin wih but it was also completely off topic. You are referring to my posts about Afghanistan.

    Dugger (said it in two lines)

  9. frameone says:
    November 14, 2005 at 2:11 pm

    It’s always irrational to point out that you’re hack, is that it Dugger? Why the hell would I believe anything you say since you can’t even get basic facts right about ourpresent situation? Why would I believe anything say when it’s so obvious that you are willing to say anything, whether it’s true or not, to defend this administration?

  10. BD says:
    November 14, 2005 at 2:11 pm

    I thought we went into Afghanistan because we’d been attacked on 9/11–that is, a war of retaliation, not a pre-emptive war of choice. To tout Afghanistan as some kind of incredible GWB foresight is to forget that his administration tolerated the Taliban when it was an ally in the war on opium.

    Which is at least a mistake, if not dishonest.