Iraq War has angered and increased Islamic terrorism.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep...USIraq,00.html

Interesting article. According to National Intelligence Estimate, Islamic terrorsim and anger has increased over the Iraq war. I just have this to say...

WELL, DUUUUUUUHHHHH

The mere fact that people in the Western World are still breathing causes Islamic anger and terrorism!!! You can't walk past a mosque and fart these days without having a jihadists having a fit. Cartoons anyone? I just find it funny that people think that if we were to play nice with the middle east that they would all the sudden be as playful as puppy dogs.

(ser disclaimer: I'm talking about radical Islam, so don't start menstrating, thanks)

[Pannonian]

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep...USIraq,00.html

Interesting article. According to National Intelligence Estimate, Islamic terrorsim and anger has increased over the Iraq war. I just have this to say...

WELL, DUUUUUUUHHHHH

The mere fact that people in the Western World are still breathing causes Islamic anger and terrorism!!! You can't walk past a mosque and fart these days without having a jihadists having a fit. Cartoons anyone? I just find it funny that people think that if we were to play nice with the middle east that they would all the sudden be as playful as puppy dogs.

(ser disclaimer: I'm talking about radical Islam, so don't start menstrating, thanks)

Do you have any evidence showing that these things cause these fundies to tip over the edge into actual terrorism, as opposed to mere words? Of our own home grown terrorists, the common reason they've given for their turning against their hosts was Iraq and Britain's participation in it. Before Iraq, these nutjobs were of marginal importance and influence. After Iraq, their stories gained ready ears and their schemes ready followers.

If you read or watch the Feb 2003 Newsnight interview, you'll know that the studio audience warned Blair that Britain's participation in an invasion of Iraq would only increase our risk from terrorism.

[Devastatin Dave]

Do you have any evidence showing that these things cause these fundies to tip over the edge into actual terrorism, as opposed to mere words? Of our own home grown terrorists, the common reason they've given for their turning against their hosts was Iraq and Britain's participation in it. Before Iraq, these nutjobs were of marginal importance and influence. After Iraq, their stories gained ready ears and their schemes ready followers.

If you read or watch the Feb 2003 Newsnight interview, you'll know that the studio audience warned Blair that Britain's participation in an invasion of Iraq would only increase our risk from terrorism.

So you're saying that before the Iraq war there wasn't any islamic terrorism.

[Spetulhu]

So you're saying that before the Iraq war there wasn't any islamic terrorism.

No, he's saying exactly what the Republitards don't want to hear: invading Iraq was a blunder that only increased terrorism.

[Devastatin Dave]

No, he's saying exactly what the Republitards don't want to hear: invading Iraq was a blunder that only increased terrorism.

Terrorism would increase towards the West regardless. These aggressions have increased decade by decade. We weren't in Iraq from the time terrorist (yes terrorist) Yassar Arafat began hijacking airplanes in the 70's, all the way up to 9/11. It would have increased regardless of the Iraqi invasion. Oh, I almost forgot my disclaimer....

(ser disclaimer: I'm talking about radical Islam, so don't start menstrating, thanks)

[rotorgun]

This disatisfaction is not limited to Irag, but Afghanistan also. I watched a presentation by Sarah Chaye of her book, Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban, last night on CSPAN. She has lived in Kandahar for sometime now, and she has taken notice of how corrupt the newly installed government is. The reliance on the former warlords by the US, and inability of the new government to reign them in has led to vast corruption in the region. So bad is it, that many people are being driven back into the ranks of the Taliban. The governments inability to provide stability has led many to wish for a return of the Taliban because they did a better job of running the show.

Here is a short excerpt from the book review in the New York Times:

She contends that Gul Agha Shirzai, the warlord governor of Kandahar, has been able to convince the American military officers constantly rotating through the city that he is a loyal supporter of the new Afghanistan. But in fact, she writes, he and his relatives hid their own sweeping corruption, along with bitter complaints from other tribes. Today, Afghans who long for a modern and stable country express disappointment with Hamid Karzai and his American backers for creating a hugely corrupt Afghanistan. In rural areas, support for the Taliban is rising.

Chayes’s most explosive charge is that Pakistan — the United States’ supposed ally in the war against terrorism — is actively supporting the Taliban as a way to counter the spreading influence of its regional rival, India. To placate the Americans, Pakistan occasionally arrests a senior Qaeda operative. But at the same time, the resurgent Taliban fighting and killing American soldiers in the “new” Afghanistan were “maufactured and maintained, housed, trained and equipped by stubborn, shortsighted officials in that very Pakistani government,” she writes. “I was at a loss to understand why American decision makers could not see how suicidally contradictory their alliance with Pakistan was. To us on the ground, it was obvious.”


This is also similar to what is happening in Iraq in some ways. The level of corruption is very high in most provinces, and this has caused many Iraqis to have a lack of faith in the government to provide services and security.

If you care to read the whole review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/bo...fab9dd&ei=5070

"If you break it(Iraq), it's yours." (Colin Powell's advice to the President and his cabinet before the invasion of Iraq)

[Pannonian]

So you're saying that before the Iraq war there wasn't any islamic terrorism.

None against us, which is all that matters to me. There's the matter of 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, but that was a treaty matter, a response to an attack to an ally, and that didn't provoke any homegrown terrorism. Are you saying that Islamic fundamentalism in the UK had already moved into terrorism before Iraq? If so, can you provide cites?

[Devastatin Dave]

None against us, which is all that matters to me.

You have a veeery short memory if you think that 911 was the first time we've been attacked. Your real name wouldn't happen to be Clinton would it?

[Devastatin Dave]

You have a veeery short memory if you think that 911 was the first time we've been attacked. Your real name wouldn't happen to be Clinton would it?

Sorry, i forgot , you're Brittish. But do you HONESTLY believe that Britain would NEVER be attacked by Islamic radicals if they did not assist the Americans in Iraq? You're a fool if you think so...

[Scurvy]

Of course there were islamic terrorist attacks before 9/11, but Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afganistan and probably now Lebannon) certainly increases the terrorism threat. This is because the terrorists get publicity, which then attracts more radical muslims them - palestine is a good examples - a (fundamentalist) muslim might see pictures of dieing kids in Gaza on bbc news - and be rightly angered, see reports of terrorist activites against those he percieves as responsible, and it all proceeds from there (- that was v badly structured, need to improve my writing skills )

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The NIE also notes that terror forces are much less centralized now, albeit more numerous. This makes larger, coordinated attacks such as the 9-11-01 assault less likely, even though the increase in terror recruiting indicates that the overall threat of terror attacks has probably increased.

Had we never attacked Iraq, it is unlikely that Libya would have opted out (big plus for the WOT? debatable), but Al-Queda capabilities would still have been significantly degraded by the attack on Afghanistan. Recruiting would still have been up -- any involvement by the USA beyond what existed prior to the 9-11-01 attack would have generated an increase in recruiting, but probably not to the levels we see today. Iraq as a festering sore provides the USA with little advantage. Iraq as an emergent and semi-secular democracy provides huge long term advantages. Not having an effective plan -- and it seems clear now that we were relying on a "we're liberating France from the Nazis model (only we'll skip the bit about a government in exile ready to step in and minimize chaos) -- to begin the rebuilding is far and away the biggest malf-up of the whole process.

We now have a more difused threat with a greater number of opponents and even less of a central authority (C3I) component to target. International terror forces would have been a smaller -- albeit capable of more "marquee" operations -- opponent had we done nothing militarily in response to the 09-11-01 attacks. Psychologically, of course, a non-response was impossible. The USA could no more sit still and not counter-attack than could Israel ignore Hizbollah rockets.

Which brings us back to the age-old dilemma. If you do nothing, extremist terror forces "win," your goverment may fall, and you might even lose militarily. If you hammer the terrorists, innocents die along with them and you will be seen as an invader in almost all circumstances -- and become a target as numerous people seek to repel a foreign occupier. You can co-opt one terror faction against another -- war on the cheap -- but you will be tarred by the association and (unintended consequences) may create a worse threat in the long run [some Taliban forces (and subsequent AQ's) had CIA training back in the early 1980s]. Negotiation has all the moral drawbacks of legitimizing criminality -- which gets done with every successful rebellion of course, but still isn't fun -- and often carries the impact of creating a perception of weakness that prompts further attacks.

No neat answers, folks. Lessons to remember: Resolve matters. Intelligence (miilitary sense) is key -- and we don't have enough (yet).

[Pannonian]

Had we never attacked Iraq, it is unlikely that Libya would have opted out (big plus for the WOT? debatable)

Gaddafi had been looking to reestablish normal international relations since the mid 1990s. Fortunately for him and us, Blair saw this and (helped by the atmosphere following 9/11) worked out a mutually acceptable solution based on compensating the relatives of the Lockerbie victims. The publicly acceptable solution could only be defined in terms of Lockerbie, but as a bonus we got the full cooperation of the Libyan intelligence services, who had opposed Islamic radicalism since their inception..

No neat answers, folks. Lessons to remember: Resolve matters. Intelligence (miilitary sense) is key -- and we don't have enough (yet).

It's been alleged that Syria offered full cooperation with the US over al-Qaeda - their intelligence service being second only to Libya's on the matter - but were turned down. The price was America's non-intervention in Israeli-Syrian relations. The CIA were happy at filling this big gap in their intelligence efforts for no material cost, and were less pleased when the White House ordered them to shut shop.

[sharrukin]

Do you have any evidence showing that these things cause these fundies to tip over the edge into actual terrorism, as opposed to mere words? Of our own home grown terrorists, the common reason they've given for their turning against their hosts was Iraq and Britain's participation in it. Before Iraq, these nutjobs were of marginal importance and influence. After Iraq, their stories gained ready ears and their schemes ready followers.

If you read or watch the Feb 2003 Newsnight interview, you'll know that the studio audience warned Blair that Britain's participation in an invasion of Iraq would only increase our risk from terrorism.

You know that when the United States went to war with Japan, the citizens of Japanese ancestry remained loyal despite American actions towards them, that gave them far more cause for complaint.

Citizens of German, Italian, and French descent went to war against the nations of their origin, and showed themselves to be Americans first.

Perhaps the 'hosts' should tell the guests that its time to go home!

And since when haven't the Muslims been blowing up airplanes, cafes, etc. It started in the mid to late 1960's and hasn't stopped since. The reasons change slightly as events transpire, but the song remains the same.

So maybe if we are really nice to our killers they will murder less of our citizens than they did last year? We can hope!

[kataphraktoi]

And what have these extremists done to increase terrorism? Everything under the sun....

[Pannonian]

You know that when the United States went to war with Japan, the citizens of Japanese ancestry remained loyal despite American actions towards them, that gave them far more cause for complaint.

Britain invaded Iraq without just cause. America did not invade Japan without just cause. When we took action against Afghanistan, it was almost universally recognised as the right response to an attack on our ally. Everyone supported that war. The invasion of Iraq was a different matter - Iraq had done nothing against us, nor had they done anything against our allies. We had no business there.

Citizens of German, Italian, and French descent went to war against the nations of their origin, and showed themselves to be Americans first.

Perhaps the 'hosts' should tell the guests that its time to go home!

Do you want to say the same to those WW2 veterans who opposed the Iraq war?

And since when haven't the Muslims been blowing up airplanes, cafes, etc. It started in the mid to late 1960's and hasn't stopped since. The reasons change slightly as events transpire, but the song remains the same.

So maybe if we are really nice to our killers they will murder less of our citizens than they did last year? We can hope!

Do you have any cites for Islamic terrorists targeting Britain before Iraq?

[rotorgun]

Britain invaded Iraq without just cause. America did not invade Japan without just cause. When we took action against Afghanistan, it was almost universally recognised as the right response to an attack on our ally. Everyone supported that war. The invasion of Iraq was a different matter - Iraq had done nothing against us, nor had they done anything against our allies. We had no business there. (Pannonian)

Exactly Panonnian! This is exactly what gets my goat the most about his whole trumped up affair, IMO designed to do nothing else but expand power and keep the defense industry in the black. We haven't even done the honor of officially declaring war upon Iraq-an honor that we felt that Germany (under Hitler) and Japan (under Tojo) were at least entitled to. This rousing of public fear against WMD's and the "War on Terror" is only so much of a cheap side parlor trick IMO. I have always been behind our efforts in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. I love my country and would die for her, but this makes a mockery of honorable service.

Sincerly,

[sharrukin]

Britain invaded Iraq without just cause. America did not invade Japan without just cause. When we took action against Afghanistan, it was almost universally recognised as the right response to an attack on our ally. Everyone supported that war. The invasion of Iraq was a different matter - Iraq had done nothing against us, nor had they done anything against our allies. We had no business there.

I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. I think it was an idiotic mistake, that burned up a lot of goodwill around the world. That does not mean that Muslims do not owe their loyalty to the nation they claim to be citizens of.

Do you want to say the same to those WW2 veterans who opposed the Iraq war?

I would say to them that I agree with them completely.

Do you have any cites for Islamic terrorists targeting Britain before Iraq?

The Lockerbie Bombing.

Leila Khaled, the leader of the PFLP cell captured in Britain.

Two attempted attacks on planes in December, 1969. Stopped by police.

Another arrest in December, 1972 at London airport

Letter bombs sent to Jewish and Israeli addresses in Britain. May 1973

An explosion at a hotel resort near Athens injured 13, including six British citizens by Abu Nidal.

In 1978, Al Mukhabarat was behind the murder of Gen Abdul Razzaq al-Hayef, outside a hotel in London.

April 17, 1984, a Libyan embassy employee kills a british policewoman

In December,1970 Black September attempted the assassination of the Jordanian ambassador to Britain.

In February 1972, Black September destroyed a West German electrical plant and a Dutch gas plant. Tell me, what exactly did West Germany or the Netherlands do to them? You are fooling yourself if you think grovelling is a tactic that will work.

[Pannonian]

The Lockerbie Bombing.

Leila Khaled, the leader of the PFLP cell captured in Britain.

Two attempted attacks on planes in December, 1969. Stopped by police.

Another arrest in December, 1972 at London airport

Letter bombs sent to Jewish and Israeli addresses in Britain. May 1973

An explosion at a hotel resort near Athens injured 13, including six British citizens by Abu Nidal.

In 1978, Al Mukhabarat was behind the murder of Gen Abdul Razzaq al-Hayef, outside a hotel in London.

April 17, 1984, a Libyan embassy employee kills a british policewoman

In December,1970 Black September attempted the assassination of the Jordanian ambassador to Britain.

How many of those were by Islamic fundamentalists, and how many were nationalists or other purveyors of secular causes who happened to be Muslims? Most of the terrorism Britain has suffered in the past few decades was directed by people who happened to be Christian, but we didn't call them Christian terrorists because their cause was not dictated by Christianity.

In February 1972, Black September destroyed a West German electrical plant and a Dutch gas plant. Tell me, what exactly did West Germany or the Netherlands do to them? You are fooling yourself if you think grovelling is a tactic that will work.

Now where have I ever advocated grovelling? My consistent position on the threat of Islamic terrorism is that we should do what we should be doing in the first place, whether or not those terrorists existed. That means not lashing out at people and countries who have nothing to do with these terrorists, it means not doing what these terrorists want us to do simply because they tell us to. It means not giving in to these terrorists, but it also means not doing the opposite of what these terrorists say simply because they say it. It means completely ignoring them as a political factor.

[caravel]

You can't walk past a mosque and fart these days without having a jihadists having a fit.

You can fart, just so long as you haven't eaten any pork in the last 24 hours?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Apologies

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

WELL, DUUUUUUUHHHHH

Please, all this means is that Fox News is going Liberal. The Iraq War has, of course, decreased terrorism in all its forms and is completely justified.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The above is complete sarcasm.

[AntiochusIII]

Please, all this means is that Fox News is going Liberal. The Iraq War has, of course, decreased terrorism in all its forms and is completely justified.

You, sir, sadly forget that the Iraq War is not only completely justified, but completely effective, and morally righteous; and anyone who dares speak against the excellent results of the war is a mere traitor of the USA, of which capital punishment against them is leniency.

FOX News have shamed America by surrendering to the pressure of the Liberal Elite.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A funny note: I've just finished a wonderful 50-episodes anime series yesterday; in one episode, the characters went to save a certain "Vodarek priest" who was captured on a false charge, and was held captive in a political prison. Guess what's the prison's name in the story? Dabu Ghraib. Right from Japan for ya. Talk about losing goodwill.