Study says Iraq war did not damage terror groups

[BPSCG]

"Loony left."

Yes, you've made that point already and I acknowledged it. Now how many times do you intend to draw water from that well?

Your attempts to change the way I speak, the words I use and the style I possess are thinly veiled passive-aggressive attacks

While yours are simply uncontrolled and naked invective.

Furthermore, your imposition of this "standard" is for me alone.

That is quite incorrect. I've had an exchange with at least one other person on this forum regarding name-calling and general civility. Had him on "ignore" for a while.

Your response to Bush calling a reporter a "major A-hole" was dismissed, because it's alright for conservatives to name-call and swear.

No, I dismissed it because it wasn't directed at me as a response to an argument.

I notice you didn't have a problem with epepke calling people jackasses.

You're right. And I don't have any problem with you calling other people jackasses. But when you start personally calling me names, I tend to take it, well personally.

So, in short, you have a double standard, you are using it to obfuscate and distract from the topic, and you are going along with the conservative tradition of imposing your faux-indignant values on others, especially those that disagree with you.

Oh, my, aren't we self-righteous today. "How dare he take offense to my calling him a weasel? How dare he impose his values on me?Who does he think he is, telling me not to call him names?"

Getting back to the topic, though I know you don't really want to:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are going to try to control yourself. Because if not, I'm ready to retire from this thread right now, let you have your little victory, such as it is, and make use of that "ignore" button you so kindly recommended to me.

You made the claim that a terrorist attacking troops in Iraq is a terrorist not attacking troops in America. Leaving aside that the terrorists don't give a crap where the Americans they are killing currently are,

Well, that's a big "leaving aside", akin to "Leaving that aside, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

I think terrorists very much care where the Americans are. When they're killing Americans in the U.S., they do quite well. Last time they tried, the terrorists won, 3000 to 19. They haven't been doing nearly as well since.

Now, if they could get 3000 to 19 odds in Iraq, I'd agree with you, they wouldn't much mind where the Americans were. But you do see the difference between them attacking unsuspecting, untrained, and unarmed civilians in New York and fighting tanks and smart bombs in Fallujah, don't you?

you seem to be implying that by attacking Iraq, we are reducing the chances that terrorists will attack America itself.

If that is true, cite your proof that the chances have dropped.

You know what? I don't know that for a fact. And if you're going to be honest, you can't say you know for a fact that we are not safer from an attack, because none of this is like a laboratory experiment, where you can reproduce conditions and control variables and test the hypothesis to see if the results can be reproduced. What I do know is that there are large numbers of people there who have held a blood grievance against western civilization since the 12th century and have shown by word and by deed that they are not going to give up on those grievances until either I am dead or they are. I prefer that it be them. And I regard anyone who harbors them or gives them aid and comfort to be an enemy, and if they choose to fight our armed forces there instead of me here, I prefer those terms.

Also, please explain how it would be a strategic error for terrorists to deploy a few (or many) cells in America and a few (or many) cells in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/etc. In the case of US troops, we are talking about hundreds of thousands needed to restore order. In the case of terrorists, we are talking about a couple dozen to cause chaos.

For starts, we have not had a terrorist attack in this country in over three years. We know we've broken up some terrorist cells in this country. Our defenses aren't perfect, but they're better than they were three years ago. Do you think we would be safer by bringing all the troops home from Iraq and having them patrolling our cities? Do you subscribe to the idea that we should be entirely on the defensive, and hope and pray that our defenses always remain perfect?

 

[demon]

Ziggurat:
"The most important single thing that makes a country a cohesive body is the belief of its citizens that they are part of one country, that they all share mutual interests and responsibilities. And elections are the best way to generate and support that belief."

I'm unsure why you're so enthusuastic about elections per se (well I`m not really, since it`s you); after all, Saddam Hussein held them - bent ones it's true, but elections all the same. The holding of elections is no great triumph - they don't necessarily mean (censored), let alone democracy.

There's no doubt the US has interfered in the Afghan elections to get their man into office. From the outset when enormous pressure was put on the old former king to step aside once it was clear he was the preferred candidate, the US has crushed any move towards genuine self-determination for the Afghan people just like they have done in iraq with the good fairy Paul Bremer. The US asked each opposition candidate to stand down - large sums of money were available to buy however many votes were needed for America's man.

This isn't democracy any more than opening markets at gunpoint is free trade.

 

[Elind]

Ziggurat:
"The most important single thing that makes a country a cohesive body is the belief of its citizens that they are part of one country, that they all share mutual interests and responsibilities. And elections are the best way to generate and support that belief."

I'm unsure why you're so enthusuastic about elections per se (well I`m not really, since it`s you); after all, Saddam Hussein held them - bent ones it's true, but elections all the same. The holding of elections is no great triumph - they don't necessarily mean (censored), let alone democracy.

There's no doubt the US has interfered in the Afghan elections to get their man into office. From the outset when enormous pressure was put on the old former king to step aside once it was clear he was the preferred candidate, the US has crushed any move towards genuine self-determination for the Afghan people just like they have done in iraq with the good fairy Paul Bremer. The US asked each opposition candidate to stand down - large sums of money were available to buy however many votes were needed for America's man.

This isn't democracy any more than opening markets at gunpoint is free trade.

Is there a smiley for borderline or flaming paranoia coupled with conspiracy infection?

 

[peptoabysmal]

For whatever reason, we are currently engaged in Iraq and Afganistan.

Could someone explain to me how pulling out of Iraq or Afganistan now would reduce terrorism?

 

[evildave]

For whatever reason, we are currently engaged in Iraq and Afganistan.

Could someone explain to me how pulling out of Iraq or Afganistan now would reduce terrorism?

No more than anybody could explain how invading Iraq would.

 

[Dorian Gray]

While yours are simply uncontrolled and naked invective.

"Tu quoque" (This post has been filtered for the thin-skinned)

That is quite incorrect. I've had an exchange with at least one other person on this forum regarding name-calling and general civility. Had him on "ignore" for a while.

Oh, well having your standard for TWO people changes everything.

No, I dismissed it because it wasn't directed at me as a response to an argument.

Argument: Name calling is bad and uncivil. Counter: Bush called a reporter an A-hole. Conclusion yet to be reached by you: Bush is uncivil as well. Additional conclusion: You are okay with name calling as long as the person doing it matches your ideology relatively closely.

Oh, my, aren't we self-righteous today. "How dare he take offense to my calling him a weasel? How dare he impose his values on me?Who does he think he is, telling me not to call him names?"

Unfair. I fully admit that I call you names. You fully fail to admit that you have a double standard, and that this whole name-calling issue is a device you use to avoid addressing thread topics. What you are doing is instructing me on how I am allowed to talk to you instead of dealing with the issues I raise - an attempt to control the conversation instead of having the conversation.

In other words, I bring up issues and topics and you want to discuss podium height and format.

Well, that's a big "leaving aside", akin to "Leaving that aside, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

No.

I think terrorists very much care where the Americans are. When they're killing Americans in the U.S., they do quite well. Last time they tried, the terrorists won, 3000 to 19. They haven't been doing nearly as well since.
Now, if they could get 3000 to 19 odds in Iraq, I'd agree with you, they wouldn't much mind where the Americans were.

What does the number have to do with the location? Look at the attacks. Embassies in Africa, a ship, Iraq, Afghanistan, New York, Washington DC., Jordanian hotels, plans for Wall Street. This makes a pretty strong case that they don't care where the Americans they kill are.

But you do see the difference between them attacking unsuspecting, untrained, and unarmed civilians in New York and fighting tanks and smart bombs in Fallujah, don't you?

Sure: The difference is that against civilians it takes a few years of planning for, and a day to kill, 3000, but against the military it takes a day of planning and a few years to kill 3000. The numbers are the same, the time is the same, just the focus is different.

Except that in Iraq, we have to add the Iraqi civilian casualties of terrorist attacks that wouldn't happen in America. So change "a few years" to "less than two years" in the case of the military.

And if you're going to be honest, you can't say you know for a fact that we are not safer from an attack,

or starts, we have not had a terrorist attack in this country in over three years. We know we've broken up some terrorist cells in this country. Our defenses aren't perfect, but they're better than they were three years ago. Do you think we would be safer by bringing all the troops home from Iraq and having them patrolling our cities? Do you subscribe to the idea that we should be entirely on the defensive, and hope and pray that our defenses always remain perfect?

Do you subscribe to the idea that we should be entirely on the offensive against ONE of the MANY sources of terrorism, simultaneously leaving the other sources unattacked and our country less well protected - especially in light of the fact that 3 million illegal immigrants cross over the Mexican border every year, and some of those could actually be terrorists?

In every single strategy game I have ever played involving the capturing and holding of territory, once a territory has been left relatively unguarded it has been attacked.

I am disgusted by the meme that we haven't been attacked again in over 3 years. It is one of the lamest arguments of all time - do you forget your words of a few lines ago?

Well, that's a big "leaving aside", akin to "Leaving that aside, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

What you, and anyone who makes this argument, mean to say is "Leaving out the fact that terrorists attacked DC and NYC and killed 3,000 people, we haven't been attacked again in over 3 years."

The other problem I have with that is that history is showing us something. The WTC was bombed, relatively unsuccessfully, in 1993 under Clinton. Then OKC was bombed in 1995. There were no more attacks by terrorists on US soil for 6 more years - yet there were indeed more attacks. How can we be so sure that more attacks won't happen?

Having said that, there actually were more attacks against Americans by terrorists since then - just not on US soil. To me, the argument is tantamount to saying that there have been no more school shootings at Columbine since 1999. Small comfort for the victims of the 1999 shootings, and small comfort for the shooting victims at other schools.

 

[peptoabysmal]

No more than anybody could explain how invading Iraq would.

We can't go back in time so the point, while poorly formed, is nevertheless irrelevant.

Fact:
Funding and support of Palestinian terrorism by Saddam Hussein has ended as a direct result of the war in Iraq.

Pretend that I have an open mind and convince me that pulling out of Iraq will reduce terrorism.