Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The War on Terror Is the Leading Cause of Terrorism

By Kim Sengupta and Patrick Cockburn, The Independent UK. Posted March 1, 2007.


It's official: A new report shows that the U.S. has made the world more dangerous -- not just for Americans, but for everyone.
3012007story
Advertisement

Innocent people across the world are now paying the price of the "Iraq effect," with the loss of hundreds of lives directly linked to the invasion and occupation by American and British forces.

An authoritative U.S. study of terrorist attacks after the invasion in 2003 contradicts the repeated denials of George Bush and Tony Blair that the war is not to blame for an upsurge in fundamentalist violence worldwide. The research is said to be the first to attempt to measure the "Iraq effect" on global terrorism.

It found that the number killed in jihadist attacks around the world has risen dramatically since the Iraq war began in March 2003. The study compared the period between 11 September 2001 and the invasion of Iraq with the period since the invasion. The count -- excluding the Arab-Israel conflict -- shows the number of deaths due to terrorism rose from 729 to 5,420. As well as strikes in Europe, attacks have also increased in Chechnya and Kashmir since the invasion. The research was carried out by the Centre on Law and Security at the NYU Foundation for Mother Jones magazine.

Iraq was the catalyst for a ferocious fundamentalist backlash, according to the study, which says that the number of those killed by Islamists within Iraq rose from seven to 3,122. Afghanistan, invaded by US and British forces in direct response to the September 11 attacks, saw a rise from very few before 2003 to 802 since then. In the Chechen conflict, the toll rose from 234 to 497. In the Kashmir region, as well as India and Pakistan, the total rose from 182 to 489, and in Europe from none to 297.

Two years after declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq President Bush insisted: "If we were not fighting and destroying the enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people."

Mr Blair has also maintained that the Iraq war has not been responsible for Muslim fundamentalist attacks such as the 7/7 London bombings which killed 52 people. "Iraq, the region and the wider world is a safer place without Saddam [Hussein]," Mr Blair declared in July 2004.

Announcing the deployment of 1,400 extra troops to Afghanistan earlier this week -- raising the British force level in the country above that in Iraq -- the Prime Minister steadfastly denied accusations by MPs that there was any link between the Iraq war an unravelling of security elsewhere.

Last month John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence in Washington, said he was "not certain" that the Iraq war had been a recruiting factor for al-Qa'ida and insisted: "I wouldn't say that there has been a widespread growth in Islamic extremism beyond Iraq, I really wouldn't."

Yet the report points out that the US administration's own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" -- partially declassified last October -- stated that " the Iraq war has become the 'cause célèbre' for jihadists ... and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

The new study, by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, argues that, on the contrary, "the Iraq conflict has greatly increased the spread of al-Qa'ida ideological virus, as shown by a rising number of terrorist attacks in the past three years from London to Kabul, and from Madrid to the Red Sea.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war in iraq, violence, jihad

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
it's a simple grammatical rule: replace "on" with "for"
Posted by: blaine s on Mar 1, 2007 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we had a war "on" drugs; the situation was exacerbated.
for example students who went through the D.A.R.E. program were actually more likely to do drugs...
we had a war "on" poverty; the situation was exacerbated.
for example, well, you probably noticed...
now, we have a war "on" terror: the situation is, SURPRIZE!, being exacerbated...
(no example neccessary).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» nah, borat said it best Posted by: jesusonthedashboard
Mark Cartwright
Posted by: mcartri on Mar 1, 2007 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush/Cheney remain the most dangerous terrorists in the world. The United States Congress remains their greatest enabler.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THIS IS MOST IDIOTIC COMMENT Posted by: staringatthesun
» RE: THIS IS MOST IDIOTIC COMMENT Posted by: ALANHESTER
» WOW Posted by: stinkpiggy
» 18 million people? Posted by: mrcentrist
» RE: THIS IS MOST IDIOTIC COMMENT Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Mark Cartwright Posted by: jesusonthedashboard
» RE: Mark Cartwright Posted by: ng1944
» RE: Mark Cartwright Posted by: MindyB
» RE: Mark Cartwright Posted by: DonS
» RE: Mark Cartwright Posted by: CritterLover
Afghanistan is the next Iraq
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 1, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The so-called war on terror in Afghanistan no longer makes sense, and NATO should pack up its guns and leave. Our five years of slogging around ineffectively in that country have demonstrated that, as with Iraq, only a massive occupation could quash the insurgency, and that's politically untenable.

Oddly, even many progressives have drunk the neocon kool-aid that Afghanistan is the true war on terror and losing there would put the West in grave peril. Sorry, folks, but we lost there some time ago, also. Al Qaeda and the Taliban pretty much move around as they please while the U.S. and NATO stay cooped up in Kabul and a few other places.

Not that it matters. Al Qaeda can plan attacks anywhere, from Pakistan to Sudan to Malaysia, and for them Afghanistan is largely a military training site, with the U.S. taxpayers paying for their very realistic training.

It's sad to see Democratic leaders talking tough about Afghanistan and preparing to get us bogged down there for even more years. We should cut our losses there and beef up our anti-terrorism measures elsewhere around the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America became a hard target, the rest of the world soft
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 1, 2007 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Military planners knew what they were doing: they wanted to make sure th price of attacking the US would be too high. And they did this by making the price of attacking other people just right. And so outside the US people bleed to death in this war.

The solution for other western countries is to mimic the US approach and to substantially ramp up military and police efforts. Outside the US should become as hard as the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are you missing the point? Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Are you missing the point? Posted by: Basenjis
Oliver Hardy
Posted by: pcushniesr on Mar 1, 2007 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Oliver Hardy were still alive, I know what he'd say: "Well, George, here's another fine mess you've gotten us into!" Certainly there are comparisons to be made bewteen Bush and the bumbling Stan Laurel, but Stanly was was no sociopath. (My apologies to the memory of Stan for the comparison to Bush.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EFFICACY
Posted by: efficacy on Mar 1, 2007 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The war on terror like the war on drugs "is meant to be waged not won".
Efficacy@msn.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FFICACY Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: FFICACY Posted by: efficacy
» RE: FFICACY Posted by: Lauren
The Only Way
Posted by: wawa on Mar 1, 2007 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To break the insane cycle of violence for violence

Is to WAKE UP;

ALL life is sacred and ALL people are equal

Good and Evil runs through EVERY human heart

There is no superior race; NO 'chosen ones'

We are all in this world together,

Humans will either evolve/wake up

Or the inhumanity of men will blow the world up.

And for all those rapture fanatics-they ain't going anywhere-we are in this together to learn to love one another and share it

The only way to stop the violence is to STOP it!

If only for ONE day all the daughters of Zion, all of Abrahams sons laid down their guns -took a breather and looked within at their own hearts

Chances are;

sisters and brothers would NOT pick them back up.

IMAGINE the day when a war is called;

And nobody shows up!

"Imagine All the People Sharing All the World."-John Lennon

Only in Solidarity do "We have it in our power to begin the world again" Tom Paine


wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Only Way Posted by: CritterLover
The War on Terror Is the Leading Cause of Terrorism
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Mar 1, 2007 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
duh...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get rid of military Posted by: openhouse
» RE: Get rid of military Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Progressive Posted by: openhouse
Head in the sand attitudes
Posted by: Poe on Mar 1, 2007 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“The war on terror is the leading cause of terrorism.”

Ridiculous. This article is bullshit! What is the excuse given for terrorism before the “war on terror”?

It’s like the battered wife syndrome. Standing in front of the police with a broken arm and an eye swollen shut, she doesn’t press charges because it may make him mad.
Don’t take the bees nest down from the front porch.....the bees will attack us. We’ll just sit here and sip our summer tea and take a sting once in awhile.

There have been hundreds of terrorist attacks across the globe, well before Bush put one foot in the White House.

So now everyone thinks the gates of hell have opened up, as if the gates before were only slightly ajar.


Poe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Head in the sand attitudes Posted by: staringatthesun
» RE: Head in the sand attitudes Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Head in the sand attitudes Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Read 'Blowback' Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: ead 'Blowback' Posted by: CritterLover
» feduphoosier - Posted by: LeftWright
WHO CARES?!? GORE HAS HIGH ELECTRIC BILLS!!!!!
Posted by: David V on Mar 1, 2007 5:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TERRORISM, SCHMERRORISM. AL GORE HAS A BIG HOUSE WITH HIGH ELECTRIC BILLS!! DON'T YOU LIBERALS KNOW A REAL THREAT WHEN YOU SEE ONE?!?!?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

whitehouse.gov
Posted by: bookie on Mar 1, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
does anyone ever go to this site? It will either infuriate you or laugh depending on your mood I guess. On the link to his middle east policy a large banner proclaims "Peace in the Middle East" Does Bush really believe the dreck put out on this site? Is he is some kind of John Wayne time warp?
I knew we were going to be in trouble when he was appointed office in 2000. But I couldn't have even imagined how bad it would get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: whitehouse.gov Posted by: CritterLover
For The Moment
Posted by: joseph_b26 on Mar 1, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the moment, we have raised our level of knowing what we have done in Iraq. How long has it been since the US has looked at our ugly truths?

I have never scene denial on the scale it exist in our country when it comes to Iraq. The most obvious example of this is the very fact we never found WMDs in Iraq. We initiated a war under the expectation we would prevent a "mushroom cloud." At the point we found no WMDs, the US was supposed to withdraw our troops and make a collective apology to the world and most important, the Iraqi people. Instead, after bombing this country into the stone ages, we decided to deny what we in Iraq for. To make things worse, we invaded the country, changed our reason for going into Iraq, and continued to create more terrorism by bombing the innocent population. We then decided to use a dehumanizing term, "collateral damage" to deny are smart bombs was so smart after all.

In a short time, US terrorism was born. The media and the Republican Party continue to fuel this war. Under the false need to "win this thing," the Republican Party and our president continue to beat the war drum of a conflict we deny is a civil war. The media, which has become a dido machine for the Righwing warmongers, have lost the sense of "fair and balance" and have put its place the unfair and unbalance practice of creating news to match there so-called "special commentators."

Put all this together and you come up with long awaited realization we are acting in the same way as our adversaries.

Joseph

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For The Moment Posted by: ALANHESTER
» Tyranny Posted by: openhouse
» RE: Tyranny Posted by: moflard
» Blame us Posted by: openhouse
» RE: Blame us Posted by: moflard
» RE: For The Moment Posted by: MindyB
And yet 'OUR' writers
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Mar 1, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Continually natter on about 'the real terrorists' and 'winning the war on terror' ... only with Democratic pols and policies.

"We" seem to think it's vitally important ot 'bring ben Laden to justice' ... and 'we' get our knickers in a twist about the Dubai Port dea ... Our "anti-war" candidates are not so much anti-war as they are anti-Bush's Bungling Conduct of THIS war -- It's not so much a desire for peace, as a pragmatic disapproval of waste and failure. (This war cannot be won, any war Democrats fought to keep us safe from terrorists ... well, you can be real sure we'd win THAT one.)

This article was by comparision a refreshing change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Again with the war on terror...
Posted by: sonex on Mar 1, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The terrorists and the people waging the war against terror are the same people, get it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thats funny. I would say Islam is the terror leader
Posted by: White middleclass male on Mar 1, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see people of the muslim faith as the biggest terror threat. Why is it muslims of different races and cultures all do the same thing?

These cowards target innocent civilians everywhere.

Palestinian muslims blow up teenage jewish girls at the shopping malls.
Chechen muslims kill Russian school children.
Asain muslims blow up resorts in Bali.
Algerian muslims kill French people eating at bistros.
African muslims killing and maiming other Africans.
Muslim attacks on the civilians in Spain, Italy, Germany, Australia, the US.
I could go on and on

Why do these cowards not attack the military bases and personnel of their enemies, but instead target civilians just trying to live out their lives? Why is islam the problem regardless of the plot of land, the people, or the culture?

I do believe we need to stay out of their countries though. That is why I left them to their own devices when the tsunami hit (I did support Defenders of Wildlife) and the earthquake in Iran that killed 30000 a few years back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They will put you to death Posted by: openhouse
» RE: They will put you to death Posted by: blaine s
» Spewing Posted by: openhouse
» Fallujah Posted by: openhouse
» RE: Fallujah Posted by: moflard
» Hitler Posted by: openhouse
you are joking??
Posted by: robertweed69 on Mar 1, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The attacks on western interests started long before the "war on terror" .... and sure, once you start a war and fight back, the people you are fighting will fight even more till you defeat them. Dah!

You have to remember, these people have declared war on the western world. They want to convert or destroy. If we don't fight back they will STILL continue to fight us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: you are joking?? Posted by: PopRox80
» xeno Posted by: openhouse
» RE: xeno Posted by: madmac10
Antiwar activists call for Encampment to Stop the War
Posted by: rwa on Mar 1, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beginning March 12

On March 12, antiwar activists from across the U.S. will begin an "Encampment to Stop the War" on the National Mall, directly across from the Capitol Building.

Larry Holmes, a spokesperson for the Troops Out Now Coalition, the organization that initiated the call for the Encampment, said, "During the week beginning March 12, Congress will begin voting on Bush's request for $100 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. If Congress votes to cut off funds, they can end the war now and bring the troops home. If they approve Bush's war funds, the killing, and dying and occupation will go on just as it has. It is as simple as that. This vote will be the most important war related vote since Congress voted to authorized Bush to invade and occupy Iraq in October of 2002. The antiwar movement must be there to let Congress know that we won't let them get away with it this time.

Organizers with the Encampment say that response to the call has been "overwhelming." Sharon Black, a labor activist and organizer with the Encampment, said,
"We are getting thousands of responses. People from as far away as California and Hawaii are telling us that they'll be there. It's clear to all of us that President Bush won't end the war, and neither will Congress."

Daily updates on the Encampment are posted at http://encampmenttostopthewar.blogspot.com

Encampment to Stop the War Ride Board

Do you need a ride to DC for the Encampment?
Do you have a ride to offer?

Post your info on the new Encampment to Stop the War Ride Board.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's easy for Al Qaeda to strike America -- NOW, not later.
Posted by: DougScott on Mar 1, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because President Bush left our borders unprotected after 9/11 and invaded Iraq instead of hunting down Al Qaeda, it would be easy for a Bin Laden operative to create widespread terror in the U.S.

Assume the agent, codenamed “Jose,” lived in Spain but was not involved in the Madrid railway in 2004 that killed 200 people. Carrying a legitimate Spanish passport issued under an alias with a nonimmigrant visa for visiting the United States, Jose flies on Aero Mexico Flight 2, a Boeing 767-200, from Madrid to Mexico City, arriving as scheduled at 8:25 pm local time.

After a 90-minute layover, he’s back in the air again, this time on Aero Mexico Flight 180, ironically a Boeing 757 like the four jetliners hijacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11.

His destination is the Abelardo Rodríguez International Airport in Tijuana south of San Diego, less than 100 yards from the U.S.-Mexico barrier fence. But Jose won’t have to climb over the obstruction like Mexican illegals do. Purposively, he had planned his Tijuana arrival for Saturday night when foot-traffic at the official border crossing is the heaviest.

Following a short cab ride to the crossing station, after flashing his Spanish passport and visa to overworked U.S. Immigration authorities, Jose is waved into Southern California where two waiting Al Oaeda operatives pick him up in a Hertz Ford Tarus.

Minutes later, at a commercal storage facility with 24 hour access, the evildoing threesome enter the private rental space and begin preparing an explosive vest

On noon Monday, after a day of prayers to Mecca, wearing the TNT-laden undergarment beneath a jogging jacket, Jose rides with his Bin Laden buddies to Los Angeles, buys a Metro ticket, takes the escalator downstairs and walks onto the crowded passenger platform. When the next train arrives—BOOM!

By nightfall, the Unites States is more panicked than after 9/11. And all it took was one suicide bomber seeking Paradise, $700 in airline tickets, two Bin Laden followers in San Diego, 15 pounds of dynamite and a shattered subway station.

What would George W. say with a bullhorn after that calamity? "Whoops?"

PS: I used San Diego because that's where two of the Al Qaeda skyjackers lived prior to 9/11.

Hugh E. Scott --Vietnam vet and creator/editor www.King-George.biz --the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Scare tactics Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon
» How dare you judge me Posted by: HughScott
A distinction must be made
Posted by: sfortuna on Mar 1, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The label 'terrorist' is applied with too broad a brush to make this study, or the current dialogue, meaningful. The incidents you lump toghether under the term "Terror" should be separated into two classes: those attacks aimed against a civilian, non-combatant people, versus those aimed specifically against those of an occupying military power. Car bombs planted at a street market are acts of mass terror. A Iraqi who detonates an IED under a US army convoy is not a TERRORIST. This is an act of RESISTANCE; defined as guerilla actions intended to weaken and drive out invaders from your native soil. By this definition, US actions that kill Iraqi women and children can be labeled Terrorist as well. It would be interesting to see the quantified results of this study if you factor out Islamist attacks against an invading or occupying military force. Example: One COULD classify the recent car bomb at Baghran AFB as a direct attempt to kill Cheney, and thus an act of nationalist resistance by an Afghani. One may also classify it as terrorism because it did kill civilians when the bomber had to detonate short of his target. There are many variables, but I think the prime driver would be one of MOTIVATION.

If the US were occupied by a foreign power that has done to us as we've done toward the Iraqis, I'm sure many patriotic and courageous individuals would go underground and attempt to resist in any way possible, including guerilla or possibly even suicide attacks on the invading troops. Our sacrifices in defense of our sovreignty would earn the term Hero or Freedom Fighter or Resister here at home, yet branded as terrorism by the occupying force. Once we get rid of this 'double standard' to apply the term TERROR we may be able to identify and quantify the MOTIVES.

I would be proud to give my life to defend US soil and my fellow citizens from invasion, but waging war to increase the geopolitical influence of our corporate elites is not a cause to die for. Let Exxon and General Dynamics and Haliburton and Lockheed take their humongous tax exempted profits from this war and buy mercenary forces to fight and die for them.
It's bad enough they are sucking the life out of our treasury without them profiting from the deaths of the poor kids who join the military to escape poverty and gain an education.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Blame it on the corporations Posted by: openhouse
» Not so free Posted by: openhouse
» RE: Blame it on the corporations Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Funhouse Posted by: openhouse
9/11 is the foundation of the Global War on Terror
Posted by: rwa on Mar 1, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ‘war on terror’ was created by Netanyahu and the Israeli right for three reasons:

1) It was supposed to replace the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against the Soviets, by the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against fundamentalist Islam (the shift was needed when the Soviet Union no longer existed).
2) It was intended to create the idea that Israel’s struggle against the justified reaction by the Palestinians to Israeli war crimes was the same struggle faced by the United States, and the world.
3) It has been extended to include the entire gamut of propaganda weapons which we know of as Islamophobia, intended to create a general fear of Islam which is used to make possible various Zionist outrages.

One of the Israeli spies caught while cheering at the collapse of the World Trade center put it clearly:

“We are Israeli. We are not your problem.

Your problems are our problems.

The Palestinians are the problem.”

Netanyahu himself, on being asked about what the September 11 attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations, said:

"It's very good. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» leave the Jews alone Posted by: openhouse
» That isn't accurate Posted by: brunowe
» Misinformed Posted by: openhouse
» RE: Misinformed Posted by: yellow
» RE: leave the Jews alone Posted by: leafsong1
» READ YOUR HISTORY DUDE.... Posted by: gellero
» RE: AD YOUR HISTORY DUDE.... Posted by: moflard
» REad my post, dude.... Posted by: leafsong1
» Syria Posted by: openhouse
no source?
Posted by: reinhold on Mar 1, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not once did this article mention the report's name that it's citing or the authors. Pathetic that I can't look into this further.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: no source? Posted by: rwa
» RE: no source? Posted by: yellow
» RE: no source? Posted by: babs
» Yellow = Israeli propagandist Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon
» AN ARAB PROVERB Posted by: gellero
Mumbai - Why America Looks The Other Way Pt 1
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 1, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Tuesday, as part of a post of my thoughts on the Mumbai bombings, I made a prediction.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has way too much political capital and way too much arms-trade loot invested in Pakistan to do any kind of about face on its relationship with that nation. Expect there to be no mention of the Indian allegations of Pakistani complicity - the possibility just doesn't exist for the Bush White House. Yet again and as usual, foreign policy will be determined by the needs of domestic policy - and admitting such a close relationship with a state sponsor of Islamist terrorism would be a domestic poison pill.
I was mostly right and sort of wrong - the Bush administration itself has been careful not to mention Pakistan in any way whatsoever. However, rightwing pundits, commentators and opinion-makers have been almost zealous in their attempts to exonerate Pakistan of any blame whatsoever - to the extent of being blind to facts and to parallels with other situations in many cases. Amazingly, mainstream liberal comment has also been of the "sweep Pakistan's involvement under the rug" kind. Like being for the invasion of Iraq before they were belatedly against it, establishment liberals are doing their best not to talk about an obvious longterm policy mistake for as long as possible in the hope that it will go away. In so doing they have formed yet another foreign policy 'consensus of errors' with the Bush administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trolls on the run
Posted by: Knowmad on Mar 1, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that there's so much sad troll activity on this thread is very encouraging. It's means even they are finally realizing their primitive pseudo-rule is coming to an end.

Keep it up honest, progressive Americans. The pathetic reactions from the brain-dead right are no more than desperate attempts to distract and obfuscate, and signs you truly are winning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mumbai - Why America Looks The Other Way Pt 2
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 1, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That bipartisan establishment consensus has been best articulated by Xenia Dormandy in the Washington Post. Dormandy was director for South Asia at the National Security Council where her main responsibility was the India/Oakistan peace process. She is now an executive director of a broadly liberal think-tank, the Belfer Center, which is part of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The conclusion of her op-ed runs as follows:

Now is a moment when Pakistan really needs to respond. It wants to be taken seriously as an important player on the international scene. It has repeatedly asked the United States for a nuclear energy deal similar to the one we are working on with India. But until Pakistan -- and this means not only President Pervez Musharraf but also the military, the people and the political parties, including the religious party, the MMA -- gets serious about shutting down, arresting and otherwise dismantling the militant groups that operate from its territory, it cannot expect to be treated as a responsible player in the region. Pakistan is working on it, but it could do so much more.
A good -- or at least stable -- India-Pakistan relationship is one of the most important elements for long-term global stability. Given that both are nuclear powers, their region is one of the most dangerous in the world. And with attacks such as this, it is also one of the most volatile. India has taken great strides to tamp down this volatility. Pakistan needs to do more.
In return, India would need to step up in a real, substantive way on bilateral issues such as Kashmir. The third round of the high-level composite dialogue taking place next week, assuming it is still on, is the place to do it.
In a nutshell, India should offer concessions to a nation which has talked the talk far more often than it has walked the walk. There is no mention anywhere in the piece of Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, and its alleged sponsoring of terror groups in Kashmir, Afghanistan and India.No mention of the tens of thousands of Taliban and Al Qaida trained militants in Pakistan (Jane's estimated 20,000 such in Karachi alone). No mention of Pakistan's inability (reluctance) to capture Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar - and other major terror/crime figures such as Dahwood Ibrahim - who are certainly hiding on their territory. The establishment simply does not want to talk about these things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mumbai - Why America Looks The Other Way Pt 3
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 1, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a way that's understandable, if reprehensible. For at least six years policymakers from both camps have touted Pakistan as an ally in the 'war on terror'. Hundreds of statements have been made to that effect and have been backed by votes and decisions giving Pakistan billions in taxpayer's funds as well as some of the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet. To do an about-face now and admit that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism - a rogue state which has duped those policymakers into thinking it was an ally with some token assistance on basing, some captures of lesser terror figures who are instantly replaceable and clever rhetoric concealing active backing of terror groups - would be a political disaster of monumental proportions for both parties.

To see how bad it could be, compare the establishment position on Pakistani supported terrorism in India with positions on Iran and Syria's support for Hizboullah attacks on Israel. Or rhetoric over Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program. Very few in the political establishment have any problem in accepting Israel's unsubstantiated allegations of Iranian/Syrian planning and personnel being behind Hizboullah or Hamas attacks - because it is clear both nations are funding said terror groups. (Ditto Shia militias in Iraq.) The American political establishment has broadly stepped back from condemning Israel's unbalanced response - an overwhelming invasion of Palestine and Lebanon which has targeted infrastructure and used indiscriminate attacks which have led to many civilian deaths. In the main, both parties have even given Israel a pass to extend their belligerence to Syria and Iran should it wish to. "Intelligence" from the most unbelievable of sources - like the MeK and a discredited former Iranian spy - has been touted as proof positive of Iran's weapons program and formed the basis for broadly bi-partisan policy. Denials are rejected with "well, they would say that, wouldn't they" no matter what evidence points towrds the denials being genuine.Yet when the Indian or Afghani governments categorically state that Pakistani intelligence is providing funding, weaponry and planning to various Islamist terror groups their assertions are rejected out of hand (when such statements are considered at all) even though the Pakistani Ministry of Defense admits the ISI is a law unto itself. There aren't even calls for the evidence to be made available for scrutiny. India is told that it cannot use Cheney's One Per cent Doctrine or Bush's Doctrine of Pre-emption at all - instead it should make concessions and accept Pakistan's doubtful word on non-involvement. Indian politicians no doubt see the double standard - it is no wonder they have postponed peace talks indefinitely. One can only wish that Israel would be held to such a high standard of behaviour.

Were America's politicians to publicly accept that Pakistan is indeed a state sponsor of terrorism, much of the "narrative" for policies on Israel, Iran, Syria, Iraq and counter-terrorism would disappear overnight and disappear in an embarassingly obvious way. Domestic trust in the competence of those politicians would be badly hurt - but on the international stage any such admission and the knock-on effect into parallel issues would be a blow from which American prestige and authority might never recover. No matter which party was in charge.Unfortunately few American politicians, who have backed Pakistan for six years, are going to do the "right thing" when political expediency beckons. It is just so not going to happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]