|
Banned
|
Does no one else consider the possibility that this is a "staged" event?
Observe the timing.....the day AFTER the Int. Olympic committee awarded the 2012 games, in a heavy competition with other cities, to London.
Quote:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...stupidity_.htm
July 7, 2005
Wow, al Qaeda must be the stupidest terrorists, no wait, stupidest people period, on this entire planet. Their purported goal is to shake the will of the western powers that have invaded Iraq, and to drive them out, no? Then can someone please explain to me the logic of the London bombings? No seriously, it is time to apply logic to these events. Please do not hand me the nonsense about these people being “killers” who do not apply logic. You do not become the number one terrorist organization without having some logic, no? We are expected to swallow that these people were smart enough to circumvent our billion dollar intelligence and air defense systems with box cutters, but they cannot play coherent cause-effect scenarios out in their mind prior to carrying out terrorist activities? I doubt that very much.
Just this week, it was reported that England had drafted plans to pull out their troops, gone, see you later, victory for al Qaeda, right? So we are to believe then that the orchestrated response to these plans was to blow up a double decker bus, in England. Now, can you guess what the most likely response to such an event would be:
1) Pull the troops out faster
2) Galvanize public support, thus keeping the troops in Iraq
Those of you that selected number one, I will assume you work for the Bush administration. Those of you that selected number two, good job. Now that we have established the enormous stupidity in the England bombings, the next logical front to examine is here in the United States.
Let’s examine the political climate here in this country just prior to this “attack”. Support for the Iraq War was at an all time low. People were unmoved by the President’s speech, dropping his overall approval rating to 43%. The drums of impeachment were growing louder with each passing day, with the revelations that the Downing Street Memos do indeed prove that George Bush committed felonies in lying to Congress and starting war without Congressional approval. Also on our political front was the Valerie Plame story and how it appears there is a good chance that Karl Rove committed treason in outing a covert CIA operative, who just happened to be assigned to uncovering WMD. Considering the closeness of Rove to Bush, if these allegations proved to be true, then how much of a stretch is it to assume Bush had complete foreknowledge of the revenge against Joe Wilson by outing his wife.
Now the corporate media has tried very hard to ignore these stories. We have had coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, and most recently the missing girl in Aruba for months now as Bush’s world unraveled daily. No offense to the Holloway family but the story about Natalie’s events should not be a lead story on any news show, with the possibility of impeachment, treason, and the Iraq War events happening daily. But there was our media, firmly in the pocket of George Bush, pimping the pain of the Holloway family as the most important news story. This aside though, the real stories were finally starting to poke through. Mainstream media received so many complaints about their ignoring potentially Bush-damaging stories, that they finally had to cover them.
Now, from al Qaeda’s perspective one would logically conclude this is a good thing. We were told by the Bushies that a vote for John Kerry was a vote for al Qaeda because they were so afraid of the great warrior, Bush. Considering the plummeting poll numbers for Bush and calls from the grass roots in this country for his political head, one should conclude that al Qaeda would be happy that the news had finally turned its attention to the possibility of getting rid of Bush. Please do not hand me the nonsense about how they do not look at these events. We are led to believe that al Qaeda runs their own website so they can leak stories that help Bush and claim credit for their own terrorist activities so it is obvious they are on the cutting edge of technology and Internet news.
So I ask again, given that the events in the US are in the favor of al Qaeda, and that public opinion for the war had been steadily eroding, I must ask the obvious question. Why in the world would they now carry out another terrorist mission? Are we honestly to believe they did not think about what the ramifications were? If the war was going poorly for them and the world was united against them, then I could understand an attack to break our will, but when things are going well, why in the world would they carry out this attack? It has now been reported that:
“BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said a previously unknown group calling itself the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe had claimed to be behind the attacks in a statement posted on an Islamist website.
The group's statement said the attacks were revenge for the "massacres" Britain was committing in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the country was now "burning with fear and panic", he added.”
Uh-huh. So, al Qaeda carried out the attacks for the massacres committed by the British troops, which are miniscule in comparison to the US. They further carried out the attacks in complete obliviousness to the news of the imminent British troop pullout. They further carried out these attacks despite the fact that Bush’s poll numbers were in the toilet and heading lower, leading to a possibility of impeachment. They further carried out these attacks even though the media had finally begun to cover the stories that could be potentially damaging to the entire war machine that they are fighting against. Wow, they are some stupid terrorists.
The level of stupidity is equal to when Osama bin Laden released his latest hit video, four days before the Presidential election. Surely he must have realized that would have only aided Bush, yet there he was providing America with a little fear before the election, a move that only could have helped Bush. Today, here is his little outfit, al Qaeda, once again coming to the aide of his alleged arch-nemesis Bush............
.............I understand this raises things we do not want to consider. Well, consider this. In the early 1960’s your government considered operations that would sacrifice innocent, civilian American lives in order to start a war with Cuba. I will not rehash Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/) here except to point out that it is horribly naïve to assume people in power, would not seek to abuse that power for their own ends. If this was true in 1962, it is even truer in 2005.
We see the images of terror on the television and we remember our fear, just like we were supposed to. Our President will use this attack to rebuild all he has lost in support and we cannot allow that to happen. This attack does not change the fact that George Bush started his war 6 months prior to obtaining Congressional approval. It does not change the fact that he knowingly lied to Congress to go to war, fitting his intelligence around his policy. It does not change the fact that Karl Rove apparently may have committed treason against the United States. Don’t let him use this tragic event to sway us from pursuing the truth. Don’t let him.
Cui bono America, Cui bono.
Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 37-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
Anthony Wade’s Archive: http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm
|
Britain appears to have needed a little "push" in the "resolve" department:
Quote:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a1384df4-ec...00e2511c8.html
MoD plans Iraq troop withdrawal
By Jimmy Burns and Peter Spiegel
Published: July 4 2005 22:02 | Last updated: July 4 2005 22:02
The Ministry of Defence has drafted plans for a significant withdrawal of British troops from Iraq over the next 18 months and a big deployment to Afghanistan, the Financial Times has learnt.
In what would represent the biggest operational shake-up involving the armed forces since the Iraq war, the first stage of a run-down in military operations is likely to take place this autumn with a handover of security to Iraqis in at least two southern provinces.
Defence officials emphasised that all plans for Iraqi deployments were contingent on the ability of domestic security forces to assume peacekeeping duties from UK troops. Iraqi forces have so far proven unable to take over such roles in areas where the insurgency is most intense, and progress has disappointed coalition officials.
But senior UK officers believe the four south-east provinces under UK command, which are largely Shia and have not seen the same violence as more Sunni-dominated areas north of Baghdad, may be ready for a handover earlier than those under US command.
Any reduction of UK troops could be timed to coincide with plans being developed to deploy a total of up to 3,000 troops to Afghanistan before the end of next year. This deployment would take the lead in a Nato force to take over from US troops in the south of Afghanistan......
|
Quote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E28737,00.html
Just not enough force
Patrick Walters, National security editor
June 18, 2005
DOUGLAS Wood's extraordinarily fortunate rescue this week continues Australia's incredible run of good fortune in Iraq. Wood, the only Australian to be held hostage for a lengthy period by Muslim insurgents, escaped with his life thanks to the efforts of a dedicated multinational hostage relief effort and, not least, to a successful house raid conducted by the fledgling Iraqi army.
In 28 months of military operations in Iraq, the Australian Defence Force has not lost a man or woman on active service, although the army has suffered several seriously wounded from car and roadside bombs in Baghdad.
The army's 500-strong deployment to al-Muthanna province in southern Iraq is going well, with Lieutenant-Colonel Roger Noble's troops quickly establishing a good rapport with the local community in Samawah and surrounding villages.
Australia's military contribution to the war on terror continues to be notable, not just for the professionalism of our defence force but also for the paucity of the numbers involved.
But within the next few months the Howard Government must ponder tough questions about our future contribution to the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres, still the front line of the global effort against Islamist terrorism. For all the Government's rhetoric, our contribution to US-led coalition efforts at a critical time for both countries remains largely a token effort.
The insurgency in Iraq remains potent, with violent attacks on Iraqi security forces and stretched US forces in northern and central Iraq occurring every day.
In Afghanistan the Government of Hamid Karzai is still struggling to establish the rule of law in the face of stiff opposition from tribal warlords and attacks mounted by heavily armed Taliban and al-Qa'ida elements.
We have fewer than 1000 defence personnel inside Iraq and only a single army mine clearance expert in Afghanistan. This compares with US military forces of 139,000 in Iraq and about 10,000 in Afghanistan, and Britain with 10,000 in Iraq and about 1000 in Afghanistan.
A fortnight ago tiny New Zealand dispatched 50 Special Air Service troops to Afghanistan, a force now on its third rotation. In addition, the Kiwis have a 120-strong contingent working on provincial reconstruction tasks in Bamiyan province.
"The trouble is we believe our own propaganda," observes one senior Australian government source. "We have a contradiction at the heart of our policy. This is a desperate time for the US in Iraq. They are critically short of troops. The fact is the UK is the only country fighting and dying with the US."
..........With Britain set to take over the running of the UN-backed International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan next year, the pressure on the Howard Government will be to match rhetoric with action. The NATO-led ISAF troops will be boosted to more than 10,000 in the run-up to parliamentary elections in September. The US and British military would like to see the Australian army play a bigger role in Afghanistan..........
|
Quote:
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...&obj_id=123359
http://theconservativevictory.blogsp...or-troups.html
Government must explain plans for massive British troop deployment to Afghanistan
Following press reports today that the UK has been asked to provide an additional 5,500 troops for operations in Afghanistan, Shadow Defence Secretary Michael Ancram, has written to Dr John Reid asking for clarification as to how this deployment would affect British operations in Iraq. He wrote: "There have been reports in the media this morning that the UK has been asked to provide an additional 5,500 troops for the operations in Afghanistan. It is my understanding that the offer was made at last week's NATO meeting in Brussels. According to the same reports 5,500 troops will be pulled out of Iraq within the next 12 months, reducing the British presence there by almost two thirds. "I would be grateful if you could clarify several issues:When was a decision on deploying additional troops to Afghanistan made?What is the exact nature of the deployment? What is the composition of the troops designated for the deployment? How many reservists will be deployed? When do you expect the first contingent to be deployed? Has the U. S. approached any other of our allies? Have any other Coalition partners indicated that they may want to commit additional troops to Afghanistan?"Finally, are you satisfied that Iraq's own security forces will be able to take on a greater burden of the struggle against the insurgency there? Are you confident that Iraq will have calmed down enough by the spring next year to allow resources to be switched to the new campaign?.......
|
What is a terror "production", possibly designed to give the English speaking world a little "jolt" to offset the bad publicity of the Downing Street Memo, without "Mr. 9/11" himself, just happening to be on hand to give interviews and calm the sheeple, while allaying any inkling of suspicion or "stench" ?
Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...685159,00.html
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News
July 07, 2005
Rudy Giuliani in London and sees terror again
By Sam Knight, Times Online
Rudolph Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York so closely identified with his city's recovery after September 11 attacks, was in London this morning, just yards from Liverpool Street station when the bombs went off.
Mr Giuliani, who was given an honorary knighthood by the Queen in recognition of his leadership in 2001 said today's events strongly recalled the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
"They are a very eerie reminder of September 11. I was right near Liverpool [Street] station when the first bombing took place, so I could hear the sirens and then kept hearing reports of different bombings, in different parts of the city," he told Sky News television.
Mr Giuliani was in the City as the Underground system was evacuated and roads were closed in a rush of emergency vehicles and evacuations. A bomb on a Tube train between nearby Aldgate and Moorgate killed seven people and injured dozens.
"As we were walking through and driving through the streets of the city, it was remarkable how the people of London responded calmly and bravely," said Mr Giuliani.
The former Mayor, who now runs Giuliani Partners, a security consultancy and investment bank, said that New Yorkers would be full of sympathy for Londoners caught in today's violence..........
|
Quote:
http://www.occupationwatch.org/headl...rqawi_phe.html
July 07, 2005
The Zarqawi Phenomenon
Dahr Jamail
TomDispatch
July 6, 2005
A remarkable proportion of the violence taking place in Iraq is regularly credited to the Jordanian Ahmad al-Khalayleh, better known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and his organization Al Qaeda in Iraq. Sometimes it seems no car bomb goes off, no ambush occurs that isn't claimed in his name or attributed to him by the Bush administration. Bush and his top officials have, in fact, made good use of him, lifting his reputed feats of terrorism to epic, even mythic, proportions (much aided by various mainstream media outlets). Given that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be based upon administration lies and manipulations, I had begun to wonder if the vaunted Zarqawi even existed.............
.............The Bush administration has regularly claimed that Zarqawi was in -- and then had just barely escaped from -- whatever city or area they were next intent on attacking or cordoning off or launching a campaign against. Last year, he and his organization were reputed to be headquartered in Fallujah, prior to the American assault that flattened the city. At one point, American officials even alleged that he was commanding the defense of Fallujah from elsewhere by telephone. Yet he also allegedly slipped out of Fallujah either just before or just after the beginning of the assault, depending on which media outlet or military press release you read.
He has since turned up, according to American intelligence reports and the U.S. press, in Ramadi, Baghdad, Samarra, and Mosul among other places, along with side trips to Jordan, Iran, Pakistan and/or Syria. His closest "lieutenants" have been captured by the busload, according to American military reports, and yet he always seems to have a bottomless supply of them. In May, a news report on the BBC even called Zarqawi "the leader of the insurgency in Iraq," though more sober analysts of the chaotic Iraqi situation say his group, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad, while probably modest in size and reach is linked to a global network of jihadists. However, finding any figures as to the exact size of the group remains an elusive task.
Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell offered photos before the U.N. in February, 2003 of Zarqawi's "headquarters" in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, also claiming that Zarqawi had links to Al-Qaeda. The collection of small huts was bombed to the ground by U.S. forces in March of that year, prompting one news source to claim that Zarqawi had been killed. Yet seemingly contradicting Powell's claims for Zarqawi's importance was a statement made in October, 2004 by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who conceded that Zarqawi's ties to Al Qaeda may have been far more ambiguous, that he may have been more of a rival than a lieutenant to Osama bin Laden. "Someone could legitimately say he's not Al Qaeda," added Rumsfeld..........
|
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek/
.................The first high-level Bush administration references to Zarqawi came in October 2002 when President Bush, in a speech in Cincinnati, laid out the case against Saddam’s regime by emphasizing what he described as “high-level contacts” between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. One prominent example cited by the president was the fact that “one very senior Al Qaeda leader [had] ... received medical treatment in Baghdad this year”—a reference to Zarqawi. Then, in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell described Zarqawi as “an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.”
But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”
Rumsfeld’s comments essentially confirm the contents of a German police document, first reported by NEWSWEEK last year, that quoted a terrorist defector from Zarqawi’s network in Afghanistan describing the group as operating in “opposition to Al Qaeda.”....................
|
Fellow TFP members, I spend a good deal of time attempting to keep informed about what passes for "hard news". My efforts do not yield accurate or consistant information. I know more concerning what I "don't know", than what I can believe. One of the few things that I am certain of is that your government, your political leaders are lying to you and intentionally misleading you. It may well be that ther is NO AL QAEDA. I do not know one way or the other, but I know that "officials", sworn to protect you, who tell you this, are not to be trusted....
<b>July 11, 2002: It is reported that the FBI believes there are approximately 5,000 al-Qaeda agents inside the US. In early 2003, FBI Director Mueller reduces the estimate to "several hundred." The New York Times then says that even suggesting over 100 is probably an exaggeration made for political reasons. [New York Times, 2/16/03]</b> the link to the rest of my post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...33#post1830433
I read your opinions posted on these threads, day after day, and I watch as so many of you challenge or attempt to marginalize the offerings of roachboy, a participant here who we are truly fortunate to have as a contibutor to the political discussions. Review what I am sharing with you in this post, how much of it have you already considered? How do you know that there is an "Al Qaeda" or an "Al Zarqawi" ? Because....."they" told you?
Please start challenging everything that our leaders and news reports tell us. Go to the source.....I visit the government sites to read the actual text of their briefings. How do you do it? How are you so sure of your opinions when you post few sources here and seem to rely on a "well, everyone knows that so and so is".....NO....they don't.....I'm here to tell you. I know where to search, and I put the time in....and I dont' know....so how can you?
Here is more research on the phantom "Al Zarqawi":
The first published Zarqawi reference that I can find from the NY Times in that site's archive search was dated March 24, 2002,
presumably about the Oct., 2001 murder
of US diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan.
Zarqawi was supposedly implicated in Foley's
murder, according to the Jordanians, by
two captured "assasins"........
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3603949.stm
Excerpt from April 6, 2004 BBC News Article
....Confessions
The shooting of Mr Foley outside his home was the first killing of a Western diplomat in the city.
He was shot several times in the chest and head as he walked towards his car.
Among those sentenced to death by the military court were Libyan Salem Saad bin Suweid and Jordanian Yasser Freihat, who were arrested in December 2002 and accused of carrying out the actual shooting.
They had told the court they were innocent and had been forced to confess to the crime.
The other six were sentenced to death in absentia, including Zarqawi.......
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...887379,00.html
Sunday February 2, 2003
....But the question that remains unresolved is whether there is any evidence that Saddam is in bed with al-Qaeda. The answer is likely to devolve to two lines of investigation - both of which, Bush administration officials will say, lead directly from Saddam to al-Qaeda.
The first connection, Powell is certain to allege, is a one-legged Jordanian wounded in the allied bombing of Afghanistan, who the Bush administration will argue is that missing link. He is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Stories about al-Zarqawi have been carefully fed to the media, suggesting his key role as the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam. Most of them have been unsourced. And all have been dismissed by those who have followed the career of this veteran of the global jihad, who was fighting for Islam long before the world had heard of Osama bin Laden and whose al-Qaeda credentials have, in part, been created to fulfil the agendas of those who want him for other reasons.
So it is al-Zarqawi who is credited with being al-Qaeda's chemist-in-chief - an expert in weapons of mass destruction. It is al-Zarqawi, too, who is credited with being the mastermind behind a plot to use ricin to poison food at a British military base and other Allied military sites across Europe........
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...l=chi-news-hed
Prisoner casts doubt on Iraq tie to Al Qaeda
Story at odds with Powell's UN case
By Cam Simpson and Stevenson Swanson
Tribune correspondents
Published February 11, 2003
HAMBURG, Germany -- A former Al Qaeda recruit told German authorities last year that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, portrayed by the Bush administration as the critical link between Osama bin Laden's group and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, was actually opposed to Al Qaeda.
In voluminous statements given to German federal police after his April arrest, Shadi Abdallah, a 26-year-old Jordanian who claims to have served briefly as a bin Laden bodyguard, maintained that Zarqawi was allied instead with Iraq's enemy, the fundamentalist Islamic government of Iran.......
U.S. yet to confirm Jordanian is behind biggest attacks
By Christine Spolar and Bill Glauber, Tribune foreign correspondent. Christine Spolar reported from Baghdad, with Bill Glauber in Hillah
February 19, 2004
BAGHDAD -- With insurgent bombings growing in frequency, scale and sophistication, a senior U.S. military official said Wednesday that investigators still have not confirmed that a Jordanian terrorist linked to Al Qaeda was behind two of the highest-profile attacks in Iraq.
More than a week ago, coalition leaders named the Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as the prime suspect in attacks on the UN headquarters in Baghdad and a mosque in Najaf, and offered a $10 million reward for his capture. But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said investigators still have no conclusive proof against al-Zarqawi.
The latest suicide attack--a two-vehicle assault Wednesday on a coalition base south of Baghdad--was resisted by a guard who opened fire as the drivers approached, preventing them from getting inside before their 1,500 pounds of explosives were detonated. Still, the blasts just outside the base killed 10 people and injured 100 others.
U.S. officials suspect foreign fighters are involved in such attacks, though analysts have said that unanswered questions on cases as important as the UN and Najaf bombings underscore their concerns about investigative procedures in Iraq. Analysts said uneven evidence collection and coordination among U.S. and Iraqi agencies are hampering efforts to identify and stop insurgent groups.
Similar methods
Wednesday's blasts in Hillah fit a pattern of increasingly coordinated attacks that have rattled Iraq in recent weeks from the northern city of Irbil to the central town of Fallujah. At least 506 people have been killed in such explosions since August. In February alone, 219 people have died.
The power and pace of bombings this month have riveted the attention of coalition and military investigators. The discovery of a memo that could be linked to al-Zarqawi, who was indicted in Jordan in one bombing plot and convicted in absentia in the killing of a U.S. government worker in 2002, was trumpeted last week by U.S. officials.
The memo, found on a compact disc taken from a suspect last month, outlined a plan for inciting civil war in Iraq, and U.S. officials were quick to point to al-Zarqawi as the connection to foreign elements operating in the country. If the memo is to be believed, al-Zarqawi boasted he was behind 25 violent attacks in Iraq.
Wednesday, a senior military official acknowledged that the claims are considered plausible but not proven.
"We can't just say, `Yep, it's him,'" said the official. So far, the coalition's best links have been the suspected al-Zarqawi memo and similarities that investigators have found in the methods and explosives used in some bombings.
"We haven't been able to prove it, but those attacks are consistent with his abilities ... [although] others have those abilities and have access to similar munitions too," said the senior military source, who is familiar with the case........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4466324/
By Rod Nordland
Newsweek
Updated: 3:01 a.m. ET March 7, 2004
March 6 - The stark fact is that we don’t even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq.....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ees-usat_x.htm
Posted 7/5/2004 11:39 PM Updated 7/6/2004 8:33 AM
Foreign detainees are few in Iraq
By Peter Eisler and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.
Since last August, coalition forces have detained 17,700 people in Iraq who were considered to be enemy fighters or security risks, and about 400 were foreign nationals, according to figures supplied last week by the U.S. military command handling detention operations in Iraq. Most of those detainees were freed after a review board found they didn't pose significant threats. About 5,700 remain in custody, 90 of them non-Iraqis.
The numbers represent one of the most precise measurements to date of the composition of the insurgency and suggest that some Bush administration officials have overstated the role of foreign holy warriors, or jihadists, from other Arab states. The figures also suggest that Iraq isn't as big a magnet for foreign terrorists as some administration critics have asserted.
In Ramadi, where Marines have fended off coordinated attacks by hundreds of insurgents, the fighters "are all locals," says Lt. Col. Paul Kennedy, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment. "There are very few foreign fighters."
|
|