Study says Iraq war did not damage terror groups

[shanek]

Sometimes I wonder if the US military doesn't DELIBERATELY provoke group X into retaliating.

After all, what purpose would their lives serve if they didn't?

Well, hey, they gotta keep this national-state-of-emergency thing going on somehow. After 70 years, they've shown every ability to find a new threat after the previous one goes away. First it was the depression, then Hitler and Japan, then the commies, then the energy crunch, then the commies again, when the commies fell they started going on and on about Saddam being the next Hitler, now the terrorists have stepped forward to provide the perfect scapegoat.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Well most of those 'terrorsits' are native.

And so are those lying in mass graves.

New mass grave found in Iraq

 

[peptoabysmal]

Well, hey, they gotta keep this national-state-of-emergency thing going on somehow. After 70 years, they've shown every ability to find a new threat after the previous one goes away. First it was the depression, then Hitler and Japan, then the commies, then the energy crunch, then the commies again, when the commies fell they started going on and on about Saddam being the next Hitler, now the terrorists have stepped forward to provide the perfect scapegoat.

It's all a plot to keep the Libertarians out of office, I tell you!

 

[Dorian Gray]

When they're in Iraq fighting against the best-trained and best equipped army the world has ever known, they're not here flying planes into buildings.

Then why do Cheney and Ridge keep coming on to tell us we will be attacked, there are cells in the US, etc.?

Are you saying that terrorists can't both attack our troops in Iraq and attack civilians in the US?

Are you saying that fewer terrorists want to attack us now?

 

[AWPrime]

Are you saying Afghan women were safer from terrorism with the Taliban in power?

But consider that the warlords that rule afganistan now, aren't that much better.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I don't understand. Are you saying that the world was safer from terrorism with theTaliban in power harboring al Qaeda?

Are you saying Afghan women were safer from terrorism with the Taliban in power?

God, you can't even follow the thread of your own arguments. You had replied to:

Jaffee Center director Shai Feldman said the vast amount of money and effort the United States has poured into Iraq has deflected attention and assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan (news - web sites).

With:

Yes, that would explain why the Taliban were able to terrorize the entire population of Afghanistan into staying home this past weekend, rather than voting in their first free elections ever...

Removing the Taliban was only one part of the problem. It's a little like removing one tumour and hoping that the rest of the cancer will go away by itself. The US removed the Taliban, good for them, but Al Qaeda are alive and well and could well be in Afghanistan. We can't be sure at the moment because the Bush administration has decided to get side-tracked with the war in Iraq. Maybe, if Bush was serious about keeping the world safe from A-Q, he should have concentrated on Afghanistan.

If you read what I wrote above, you'll see I never made that claim.

In keeping with your theme of being unable to follow the threads of your own arguments, you forgot that you had responded to:

The concentration of U.S. intelligence assets in Iraq "has to be at the expense of being able to follow strategic dangers in other parts of the world," he said.

With:

Hmmm. So the people coming into Iraq from Syria and shooting at U.S. soldiers aren't terrorists or a strategic danger, I guess. They're just coming into town because they hear the food is really good.

As my link says, the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, as estimated by US Military intelligence, is about a thousand. Bugger-all, in other words. While the US intel is trying to keep track of the handful of foreign fighters in Iraq, and the large amounts of insurgents, terrorists in other parts of the world have more freedom to plot and plan all they want. That is why your point is as weak as your train of thought.

Exactly - though I would be willing to bet shocking sums of money against frightful odds that the U.S. soldiers in general don't consider themselves to be "terrorized." When they're in Iraq fighting against the best-trained and best equipped army the world has ever known, they're not here flying planes into buildings. Call me stupid - oh, wait, you already did - but I prefer it that way.

If they aren't flying planes into American buildings, it has sod-all to do with the war in Iraq, as so many people have painstakingly tried to point out to you. I think people trying to develop education policy should see your responses in this thread as a classic argument against education by 'osmosis'. It seems that, no matter how submerged you are in facts, none of it manages to sink in.

 

[Nikk]

I When they're in Iraq fighting against the best-trained and best equipped army the world has ever known, they're not here flying planes into buildings. Call me stupid - oh, wait, you already did - but I prefer it that way.

Which army would that be then?

If you are talking about the U.S. army it seems poorly trained to deal with the problems of occupation. It has created large numbers of civilian casualties which have only served to motivate the insurgents. Unless you consider the current violent resistance to be some sort of success of course.

If you have some evidence that the insurgents have been diverted from conspiring to attack the U.S., Europe or anywhere else I'm sure we would like to see it.

It is more likely that Iraq is providing a training ground and a source of motivation for those who will carry out such attacks outside Iraq in future.

Currently the risk of the non Kurdish areas of Iraq turning into some sort of Islamic republic also seems increasingly real. Perhaps your views are a little short sighted.

 

[BPSCG]

When they're in Iraq fighting against the best-trained and best equipped army the world has ever known, they're not here flying planes into buildings.

Then why do Cheney and Ridge keep coming on to tell us we will be attacked, there are cells in the US, etc.?

Will be attacked? Don't recall either of the gentlemen making such a claim. But I certainly don't believe that there is no threat from terrorists inside the country. Do you know anyone who has ever made that claim?

Are you saying that terrorists can't both attack our troops in Iraq and attack civilians in the US?

Seems to me that a terrorist holed up in Fallujah with the knowledge that he's going to have a hole in his chest the size of a grapefruit if he ventures outside isn't going to present much of a threat to Dayton, Ohio. He's probably wondering what his chances are of surviving the next six months even in Fallujah.

In any case, you and all the others on the left keep harping that we've made a catastrophic strategic error by going into Iraq. We've taken our eye off the ball, we shouldn't be dividing our time and attention with Iraq, when the main focus should be on al Qaeda.

Now, if it's a catastrophic strategic error for the most powerful military force in the world to divide its time and attention between al Qaeda and Iraq, why is it not a catastrophic strategic error for the bad guys to divide their time and attention between Iraq and Dayton, Ohio?

Are you saying that fewer terrorists want to attack us now?

I dunno what the number is, and really, I don't think anyone - yourself included - really knows. I do know that a great number of former terrorists don't want to attack us any more, because they are dead. Do you know a more effective way of "converting" a terrorist? If so, could you please tell me what the method was, and how these people who once hated America enough to risk their lives now wish to live with us in peace?

 

[BPSCG]

But consider that the warlords that rule afganistan now, aren't that much better.

Ah yes, the old canard: Unless we achieve Utopia at little or no cost, everything is a catastrophic failure and we're all doomed, I tell you, doomed!.

Women in Afghanistan can now show their faces in public without being stoned to death, the country has its first free elections (ever?), women are allowed to vote, a woman was even on the ballot as a choice for president, the election was reasonably well-run and orderly, all things considered, and UN election observers and even the losing candidates are saying they are satisfied with the democratic process.

Never mind all that. There's warlords out there. We're all doomed, I tell you, doomed!.

 

[AWPrime]

Ah yes, the old canard: Everything is better as long as we caused the change.


Right now, most of those rights are just show, untill the warlords and the regrowing taliban are 'removed'.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Will be attacked? Don't recall either of the gentlemen making such a claim. But I certainly don't believe that there is no threat from terrorists inside the country. Do you know anyone who has ever made that claim?

"Seems to me that a terrorist holed up in Fallujah with the knowledge that he's going to have a hole in his chest the size of a grapefruit if he ventures outside isn't going to present much of a threat to Dayton, Ohio." "I like to think of it as flypaper. Get 'em all in one place..." Arguments like these, the whole "rather fight terrorists in Iraq than in the US", come pretty close to the claim.

And then, there's Cheney:

It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll(we will) get hit again and we'll(we will) be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

"we know to a certainty that terrorists will kill as many innocent people as they possibly can, limited only by the means at their disposal.

Ridge, in an address and question-and-answer session with publishers at The Associated Press annual meeting, said terrorism in America is a "permanent condition" and outlined goals for a long-term security strategy.

And George Tenet:

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - CIA Director George Tenet told members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Wednesday that the terrorist threat to Americans both at home and overseas is far from over.

"We assess that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will continue to plan to attack this country and its interests abroad," he said. "Their modus operandi is to have multiple attack plans in the works simultaneously, and to have al Qaeda cells in place to conduct them."

Now, if it's a catastrophic strategic error for the most powerful military force in the world to divide its time and attention between al Qaeda and Iraq, why is it not a catastrophic strategic error for the bad guys to divide their time and attention between Iraq and Dayton, Ohio?

Because the bad guys are only splitting a couple hundred people. We are splitting a couple hundred THOUSAND. I can't believe you even asked this.

 

[Elind]

Think Tank: Iraq War Distracted U.S.!
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_terrorism)

Exactly what I have been thinking for years.

So, if I understand correctly, what you have been thinking for years (and nobody listened, presumably) is that if we had all kept quiet and subservient then all these nasty terrorists would just have evaporated because since there was no civilized response to them there would have been no reason for more uncivilized people to join the terrorists!!! Bingo! The world's problems are solved by retrospective analysis, according to jackasses.

 

[a_unique_person]

I like to think of it as flypaper. Get 'em all in one place...

Or you could think of it as a big pile of ◊◊◊◊, good for breeding swarms of them.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Study says Iraq war did not damage terror groups

So, if I understand correctly, what you have been thinking for years (and nobody listened, presumably) is that if we had all kept quiet and subservient then all these nasty terrorists would just have evaporated because since there was no civilized response to them there would have been no reason for more uncivilized people to join the terrorists!!! Bingo! The world's problems are solved by retrospective analysis, according to jackasses.

False dilemma, there were more options than just war or doing nothing.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: Study says Iraq war did not damage terror groups

False dilemma, there were more options than just war or doing nothing.

I presume you mean talk to them or perhaps bribe them?

 

[Dorian Gray]

So, if I understand correctly, what you have been thinking for years (and nobody listened, presumably) is that if we had all kept quiet and subservient then all these nasty terrorists would just have evaporated because since there was no civilized response to them there would have been no reason for more uncivilized people to join the terrorists!!! Bingo! The world's problems are solved by retrospective analysis, according to jackasses.

First of all, you are wrong sometimes and misguided sometimes, but you are hardly a jackass.

You also don't understand correctly, love strawmen, enjoy quiet walks on the mischaracterization, and spin as a hobby.

I have been thinking for years that Iraq has nearly nothing to do with terror, and expecially nothing to do with 9/11, and that we should have pursued Osama with more drive and determination for maximum terror-ridding effectiveness. Also, that Iraq was not necessary. I have stated this on other forums as well, not just this one.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Study says Iraq war did not damage terror groups

I presume you mean talk to them or perhaps bribe them?

If you look around, the US is using, right this minute, many more means of influence than just outright war, many of them successful.

 

[Renfield]

Beethoven seems to be operating under the assumption that the people we are fighting in Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9-11. But the gorrilla war in Iraq isn't being fought by the taliban or AQ. And the logic behind it being preferable that they kill Americans in Iraq as opposed to elsewhere kind of baffles me.

 

[Renfield]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Study says Iraq war did not damage terror groups

If you look around, the US is using, right this minute, many more means of influence than just outright war, many of them successful.

Considering the number of nations on this planet that are hostile to us - some of them much bigger threats then Iraq ever was in the last 15 years - we don't really have a choice. Especially with so much of our military committed to Iraq now. Our enemies have been emboldened by this unnecesary war if anything else, after seeing how we are struggling there. Not to mention we've committed so much of our military to the occupation.

 

[BPSCG]

The quotes are getting a little too nested here, so I'm going to take the liberty of inserting initials (in italics)to keep the speakers straight where appropriate.

BP Will be attacked? Don't recall either of the gentlemen making such a claim. But I certainly don't believe that there is no threat from terrorists inside the country. Do you know anyone who has ever made that claim?

DG "Seems to me that a terrorist holed up in Fallujah with the knowledge that he's going to have a hole in his chest the size of a grapefruit if he ventures outside isn't going to present much of a threat to Dayton, Ohio." "I like to think of it as flypaper. Get 'em all in one place..." Arguments like these, the whole "rather fight terrorists in Iraq than in the US", come pretty close to the claim.

Oh, I see. So when I say "terrorists are going to Iraq to fight U.S. soldiers, where they'll likely be killed", you translate that as "BPSCG thinks there's no danger to the U.S."

And then, there's Cheney:
quote:
It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll(we will) get hit again and we'll(we will) be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

So you believe that a conditional statement - "if we make the wrong choice", there is a danger we'll be hit again is the same thing as unqualified prediction that we will certainly be hit again.

Ridge, in an address and question-and-answer session with publishers at The Associated Press annual meeting, said terrorism in America is a "permanent condition" and outlined goals for a long-term security strategy.

Proof positive, in the Dorian Gray world, that we're certainly going to be hit again. Just as the fact that I have locks on my car doors is proof positive that my car will be stolen.

And George Tenet:
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - CIA Director George Tenet told members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Wednesday that the terrorist threat to Americans both at home and overseas is far from over.

"We assess that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will continue to plan to attack this country and its interests abroad," he said. "Their modus operandi is to have multiple attack plans in the works simultaneously, and to have al Qaeda cells in place to conduct them."

More proof that we will be hit by terorists again.

Look, Dorian, I really don't think this is all that complicated. Terrorists in Iraq trading shots with the U.S. Army aren't here shooting at you and me. You know that and I know that and the dumber of my two cats knows that. To try to take that and claim that I therefore think there is no threat from terrorists here is fundamentally and intellectually dishonest, and you know it and I know it and the dumber of my two cats knows it.

That having been said, if there is a finite number of terrorists in the world - and I hope you agree the number is finite - then the fact that some unknown number of them are going into Iraq to become target practice for the 82nd Airborne means that that same unknown number of them are not here shooting at you and me.

Does that make us perfectly safe? You know and I know and the dumber of my two cats knows the answer is "of course not."

Does that make us safer? Well, I know, and the dumber of my two cats knows it does.

BP Now, if it's a catastrophic strategic error for the most powerful military force in the world to divide its time and attention between al Qaeda and Iraq, why is it not a catastrophic strategic error for the bad guys to divide their time and attention between Iraq and Dayton, Ohio?

DG Because the bad guys are only splitting a couple hundred people. We are splitting a couple hundred THOUSAND. I can't believe you even asked this.

Interesting - there are only a couple of hundred bad guys out there? I thought it was your position that our ham-fisted approach to dealing with the Islamofascists was breeding them all over the world by the tens of thousands. I heard on the radio yesterday (and dammit, I can't find an online link to the story) that the U.S. estimates that about 3,000 al Qaeda boys have been killed over the last three years. Are you telling me we've got them down to a couple of hundred?

Maybe we're safer than we thought we were...