Suicide bombers in Iraq are mostly foreigners

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Aug 9, 2007.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    yahoo/mcclatchy
    Maybe the US troops should just leave Baghdad and provide border security for Iraq instead.
     
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    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?
     
  3. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    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.
     
  4. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #4
    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:
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    These results sound a little questionable, given the difficulty in identifying these people. Also, how were those included in the study selected?
     
  6. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #6
    We don't even secure our own border, let alone one in a country on the other side of the world.
     
  7. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #7
    Yeah I know, thats the joke. :)
     
  8. killerrobot macrumors 68020

    killerrobot

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #8
    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.
     
  9. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #9
    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.
     
  10. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #10
    Well, there is still no proof of even that statement. So I refuse to believe such things, especially coming from the mouth of Bush.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    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.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    If we attack the Saudis, what other man would GWB hold hands with?
     
  14. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #14
    Is there actual evidence for this or is it pure speculation on your part?
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    The ISG said it was so:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    This is widely known; at least among people who get their news from reality-based news organizations.
     
  17. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #17
    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...
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    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.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    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.
     
  20. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #20
    As to your first point, you are wrong.

    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?
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    Because they are Sunnis. It's not rocket science.
     
  22. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #22
    Could you offer a bit more explanation on this point...?
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    The Saudis, being Sunnis, do not want to see their fellow Sunnis in Iraq disadvantaged by the Shia. For a broader picture:
    http://www.futureofmuslimworld.com/research/pubID.26/pub_detail.asp
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    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.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    So are you.

    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.
     

Share This Page