Suicide bombers in Iraq are mostly foreigners

[obeygiant]

WASHINGTON — Suicide bombers in Iraq are overwhelmingly foreigners bent on destabilizing the government and undermining American interests there, two independent studies have concluded.

The studies report that the number of suicide bombings in Iraq has now surpassed those conducted worldwide since the early 1980s. The findings suggest that extremists from throughout the region and around the world are fueling Iraq's violence.

"The war on terrorism— and certainly the war in Iraq — has failed in decreasing the number of suicide attacks and has really radicalized the Muslim world to create this concept of martyrs without borders," said Mohammed Hafez , a visiting professor at the University of Missouri in Kansas City and the author of one of the two studies.

Hafez, whose new book is "Suicide Bombers in Iraq ," has identified the nationalities of 124 bombers who attacked in Iraq . Of those, the largest number— 53— were Saudis. Eight apiece came from Italy and Syria , seven from Kuwait , four from Jordan and two each from Belgium , France and Spain . Others came from North and East Africa , South Asia and various Middle Eastern and European countries. Only 18— 15 percent— were Iraqis.

In the second study, Robert Pape , a University of Chicago professor who runs the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, identified the nationalities of 55 suicide bombers in Iraq . Sixteen were Saudis, seven were Syrians and five were Algerians. Kuwait , Morocco and Tunisia each supplied three bombers. Thirteen— 24 percent— were Iraqi Sunni Muslims.

Hafez and Pape said Iraqi Shiite Muslims hadn't carried out suicide attacks so far and instead had restricted their role in the sectarian violence to militia activity.

Pinning down the nationalities of suicide bombers can be tricky because they leave few physical remains, and extremist groups often don't claim the attacks until much later. The U.S. military says it does some DNA testing to investigate the bombers' identities.

Both researchers relied on extremist Web sites, "martyr" videos, news reports and statements to compile the data on nationalities. Hafez also gathered some information from online chats and discussion forums.yahoo/mcclatchy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070808/wl_mcclatchy/20070808bcusiraqsuicidebombers_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop_1)
Maybe the US troops should just leave Baghdad and provide border security for Iraq instead.

[Ugg]

Maybe the US troops should just leave Baghdad and provide border security for Iraq instead.

Maybe the post battle plan should have provided for border security in the first place!

It's interesting how many Europeans there were on the list.

The list is sort of pointless if they don't provide details about who the people were. Immigrants to Italy or native born? Educated or illiterate? Whacked out wahibi or just an Arabian strung out on heroin?

[it5five]

Am I the only one who noticed that there were no Iranians?

Interesting that Bush still claims the biggest threat to Iraq is Iran, while most suicide bombers are Saudi Arabian. Hmmm.

And watch nobody ever call him out on this blatant lie he continuously uses.

[solvs]

Am I the only one who noticed that there were no Iranians?
No, I caught that too. But this is different than all of the previous reports that said most of the violence was home grown, and only about 7% were foreign born. Maybe this is just a small sampling of this specific type of attack, ignoring the rest of the majority. Still, it is telling and yet another in a series of bad news.

Somehow I'm sure this will be all Iran and Al Qaida's fault anyway. :rolleyes:

[miloblithe]

These results sound a little questionable, given the difficulty in identifying these people. Also, how were those included in the study selected?

[imac/cheese]

yahoo/mcclatchy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070808/wl_mcclatchy/20070808bcusiraqsuicidebombers_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop_1)
Maybe the US troops should just leave Baghdad and provide border security for Iraq instead.

We don't even secure our own border, let alone one in a country on the other side of the world.

[obeygiant]

We don't even secure our own border, let alone one in a country on the other side of the world.

Yeah I know, thats the joke. :)

[killerrobot]

That's a really interesting study. Don't know what else to say other than -Ooops, the war on terrorism has created more terrorists instead of stopping them.

[ham_man]

Am I the only one who noticed that there were no Iranians?

Interesting that Bush still claims the biggest threat to Iraq is Iran, while most suicide bombers are Saudi Arabian. Hmmm.

And watch nobody ever call him out on this blatant lie he continuously uses.
Bush never said the suicide bombers were Iranian. He said that Iran was/is supplying Shia militias with a certain type of incredibly lethal IEDs. Get your facts straight.

[it5five]

Bush never said the suicide bombers were Iranian. He said that Iran was/is supplying Shia militias with a certain type of incredibly lethal IEDs. Get your facts straight.

Well, there is still no proof of even that statement. So I refuse to believe such things, especially coming from the mouth of Bush.

[mactastic]

Let's see... attacked by Saudis on 9/11. Result? Attack Iraq.
Attacked by Saudis in Iran. Result? Saber rattling and possible attack against Iran.

Our gunslinger diplomacy seems misdirected. And oddly enough, with Texas oilmen in the WH, there is no interest in attacking Saudi Arabia. Funny, that.

[Ugg]

Bush never said the suicide bombers were Iranian. He said that Iran was/is supplying Shia militias with a certain type of incredibly lethal IEDs. Get your facts straight.

And of course he hasn't at all mentioned that much of the funding for Sunni whackjobs comes directly from his good buddies, the Sauds. In addition to, yet once again, the VAST MAJORITY of the suicide bombers.

Heaven forbid that he take his masters to task for their corrupt and evil ways, better to blame Iran.

Stop wearing blinders, man.

[mactastic]

And of course he hasn't at all mentioned that much of the funding for Sunni whackjobs comes directly from his good buddies, the Sauds. In addition to, yet once again, the VAST MAJORITY of the suicide bombers.

Heaven forbid that he take his masters to task for their corrupt and evil ways, better to blame Iran.

Stop wearing blinders, man.
If we attack the Saudis, what other man would GWB hold hands with?

[ham_man]

And of course he hasn't at all mentioned that much of the funding for Sunni whackjobs comes directly from his good buddies, the Sauds.
Is there actual evidence for this or is it pure speculation on your part?

[skunk]

Is there actual evidence for this or is it pure speculation on your part?The ISG said it was so:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htmCAIRO (AP) — Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq's insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.

Overall, the Iraqi officials said, money has been pouring into Iraq from oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a Sunni bastion, since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq toppled the Sunni-controlled regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Saudi officials vehemently deny their country is a major source of financial support for the insurgents.

"There isn't any organized terror finance, and we will not permit any such unorganized acts," said Brig. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, a spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry. About a year ago the Saudi government set up a unit to track any "suspicious financial operations," he said.

But the Iraq Study Group said "funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states."

[mactastic]

Is there actual evidence for this or is it pure speculation on your part?
This is widely known; at least among people who get their news from reality-based news organizations.

[ham_man]

So the money is funelled from private donors, knowingly and unknowingly, through religious channels? What does this have to do with Bush allying himself with the Saudi government? Last time I checked, the Saudi government was not openly giving money, equipment, and training to terrorist groups in Iraq and Lebanon/Syria...

[skunk]

So the money is funelled from private donors, knowingly and unknowingly, through religious channels? What does this have to do with Bush allying himself with the Saudi government? Last time I checked, the Saudi government was not openly giving money, equipment, and training to terrorist groups in Iraq and Lebanon/Syria...Not openly, no. However, since an awful lot of "state" money finds its way into the pockets of government ministers/House of Saud members, the distinction is blurry to say the least.

[mactastic]

So the money is funelled from private donors, knowingly and unknowingly, through religious channels? What does this have to do with Bush allying himself with the Saudi government? Last time I checked, the Saudi government was not openly giving money, equipment, and training to terrorist groups in Iraq and Lebanon/Syria...
Last time I checked, the Iranian government was not openly giving money, equipment, and training to terrorist groups in Iraq and Lebanon/Syria. Under the radar? Sure, just like the Saudis.

Remember, very little occurs in Saudi Arabia that the government doesn't tacitly or openly approve of.

[ham_man]

Last time I checked, the Iranian government was not openly giving money, equipment, and training to terrorist groups in Iraq and Lebanon/Syria. Under the radar? Sure, just like the Saudis.

Remember, very little occurs in Saudi Arabia that the government doesn't tacitly or openly approve of.
As to your first point, you (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=746631) are (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm) wrong (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_hezbollah_e1b.htm).

As to your second point, why in the world would the Saudi government support al-Qaeda (and others allied with al-Qaeda), a well known critic of the Saudi ruling family and one of the main perpetrators of these suicide attacks?

[skunk]

As to your second point, why in the world would the Saudi government support al-Qaeda (and others allied with al-Qaeda), a well known critic of the Saudi ruling family and one of the main perpetrators of these suicide attacks?Because they are Sunnis. It's not rocket science.

[ham_man]

Because they are Sunnis. It's not rocket science.
Could you offer a bit more explanation on this point...?

[skunk]

The Saudis, being Sunnis, do not want to see their fellow Sunnis in Iraq disadvantaged by the Shia. For a broader picture:THE FALL OF THE BA’ATH REGIME IN IRAQ ignited a bloody conflict between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites. The conflict is exemplified, inter alia, in the attacks by Sunnis on Shiites (including on mosques), Sunni allegations of murder of Sunni ulama by the Shiite Badr Forces, and Abu Musab Zarqawi’s statement on May 19, 2004 branding the Shiites as “hypocrites” (munafiqun) whose “only objective is to please their masters among the apostates and the Crusaders.” These trends may represent a new stage in the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq with potential spillover into other countries.
The conflict between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis may be viewed as a local conflagration in which a political elite which ruled the country since the end of the World War I struggles to maintain its predominance against a new elite which has taken over the country with the aid of an outside power and by virtue of its majority. Alternatively, it may be viewed as an ethnic conflict between a Sunni Arab minority and a Shiite ethnic majority which threatens to overthrow the social primacy of the former. A more optimistic analysis may see the conflict as one element or symptom in the syndrome of breakdown of law and order in a country hitherto ruled by an iron fist, which will disappear once the rule of law is reinstated.
All these explanations have their merits. However, the conflict in Iraq must also be viewed as a local reflection—both a result and a cause—of a much wider phenomenon of Sunni-Shiite animosity. In many cases, the animosity between Sunnis and Shiites is clearly rooted in ethnic differences which are given religious justification by the religious leaders of the two sides. This is the case both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the former, the Deobandi Sunni Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (Army of the Companions) is infamous for vicious terrorist attacks against the Shiites (particularly in Karachi), including attacks against Shiite mosques, and its branding of the Shiites as heretics. In Afghanistan, the conflicts between Sunni Pashtuns and Shiite Hazaris reached their acme in the massacre of Hazaris by the Taliban and the murder of the Hazari leader Ustadh Abdul Ali Mazari. There too, the acts against the Hazaris were justified by the Taliban by the need to expunge the Shiite heresy of the former (it is noteworthy that the Taliban did not act in such a manner towards Sunni non-Pashtuns). Similarly, the Shiites of Bahrain are, for the most part, of Iranian extraction and, as such, are suspect as a Persian fifth column. In other cases, however, it seems that the religious sources of the animosity are predominant. In Malaysia, the moderate—albeit virulently anti-Western—Islamic regime of Mohammad Mahathir was also implacably anti-Shiite and in the late 1990’s waged a campaign against Shiite heresies. Closer to the center of the Middle East, the Ikhwan rebellion against Ibn Saud demanded that the Shiites in the eastern region accept Sunni Islam or be put to death.http://www.futureofmuslimworld.com/research/pubID.26/pub_detail.asp

[solvs]

This is widely known; at least among people who get their news from reality-based news organizations.

It's not rocket science.

You would think this stuff would be obvious for anyone paying attention, but still we have to argue it. At least it isn't Clinton's fault this time. OR IS IT? :eek:

BTW, Iran actually is bad. Why you ask? Because I said so that's why.

[mactastic]

As to your first point, you (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=746631) are (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm) wrong (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_hezbollah_e1b.htm).
So (http://www.courierlife.net/site/tab3.cfm?newsid=18685182&BRD=2384&PAG=461&dept_id=552849&rfi=6) are (http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-12-02.html) you. (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/06/religious_hatred_saudi_style/)

As to your second point, why in the world would the Saudi government support al-Qaeda (and others allied with al-Qaeda), a well known critic of the Saudi ruling family and one of the main perpetrators of these suicide attacks?
Because, the suicide attacks - while spectacular and newsworthy - are overshadowed by the sectarian violence of Sunni vs Shia. In that fight, Saudi Arabia is supporting the Wahabbist Sunni.

It truly is a pity that people didn't stop and think about the ramifications of removing a paper tiger Sunni dictator in a balancing position between Shia Iran - whom the last thing we want to do is increase their influence in the area - and Sunni Saudi Arabia, upon whom we depend for oil. Which set of killers do we ally ourselves with? Or do we ally with no one, and get killed by both sides? Yet the war supporters would have none of it. "Flowers and candy" or "greeted as liberators" in "I doubt six months" and for "less than $50 billion" was the response.