60% of Americans Think Iraq makes more Terrorism in US

[Larry]

Well this just proves, yet again, that 60% of the population is freaking retarded

Explain to me how Iraq has anything to do with terrorism. I mean, was that the line in the sand? So, up until the invasion of Iraq, we were cool? I mean, the Middle East was completely ok with the US backing Israel, cramming its culture into Saudia Arabia, and the whole Crusades thing?

But, taking out one of the most secular leaders in the Middle East was the step too far?!? Now we're gonna get attacked for real??

Please, this poll is useless. May as well ask who believes that Elvis and Tupac are not only still alive, but collaborating on an album together

John Stewart, on The Daily Show (insert "it's full of liberal lies!" comment here), said about the same thing.

Then the Abu Garahib photos came out, he showed several of them, and when the camers cut back to him he had this horrified expression on his face:

"What will we do now? Now the arab 'man on the street' won't trust us. This will hurt our credability."

-----

That said, however: There's a difference between

1. Doesn't like the US, and
   
2. Hates the US enough to kill themselves if they can only take a few infidels with them.

Invading and conquering somebody's country, and creating possibly millions of people who can say 'My father/brother/friend/neighbor was killed/tortured/disapeared by the Americans' does have at least the potential of moving a small minority, but still noticable number, from category A to B.

[Redskins Diehard]

Do you honestly think Iraq has made us safer? If so, then why has Al Qaeda doubled in strength and terrorism has increased tenfold since the operation started?

There has been no terrorist attack directed at America since the operation started.

[alexey]

Invading and conquering somebody's country, and creating possibly millions of people who can say 'My father/brother/friend/neighbor was killed/tortured/disapeared by the Americans' does have at least the potential of moving a small minority, but still noticable number, from category A to B.

Good point... Also, what about simple criminals?

I'm sure many people in Iraq with AK-47s are not insurgents. They are people who chose to make a living via criminal activities.

Poverty + power vacuum + AK47s = criminals with AK-47s

[Midnight Judges]

There has been no terrorist attack directed at America since the operation started.

Unless you count the American embassy in Iraq.

[chomerics]

There has been no terrorist attack directed at America since the operation started.

Really? Our troops are not American? And tell me what attacks were directed against America under Clinton? The 93' bombing and what?

If you want to use the argument there have been no attacks on American soil, then obviously Clinton did a stellar job in combating terrorism huh? i mean how many Americans died under Clinton's watch? 500? 600? How many under Bush? 6000? Who was better at fighting terrorism?

Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. . .

[Zuck]

:laugh:

but what exactly is the formula to create the desire to become one????

Does that question even need to be asked?

poverty, youth, the promise of eternal happiness after death.

Than throw in some smart bombs that take out your family and voila a new terrorist is born.

[Larry]

There has been no terrorist attack directed at America since the operation started.

Last I heard, the Britts had arrested several dozen terrorists who were planning on attacking US-bound airliners.

I think the Canadians have captured a bunch, too.

I also recall a story about a college student at U of Oklahoma, who'd supposedly recently converted to Islam, who attempted to enter an OU football game, found out that he couldn't enter without opening his coat, so he went to the parking lot and blew himself up, using the explosives he'd strapped to himself, during the game. (Although according to all the (lack of) media coverage, aparantly the theory is that there's nothing terrorist-related about a muslim strapping explosives to himself and attempting to enter a crowded, public place with live TV coverage. Just a suicide, folks, nothing important. Look somewhere else.)

Edit: Now, if you want to claim that there have been no successfull attacks, then you might have a point. However, none of those attempted attacks were stopped by our troops in Iraq. Thay were stopped by staduim security. And Brittish and Canadian police.

[Predicto]

Count me one who doesn't think we can just "pull out" of Iraq. I do think we have to stay and see it through, and hope it turns out for the best. For America's sake, I pray it all works out, and soon.

On the other hand, I also think it was an amazingly stupid invasion in the first place. It has not made us safer - it has made millions of people loathe us. It has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and unfathomable amounts of prestige around the world. It has made us the hated enemy to millions, and given the terrorists the kind of recruiting tools you just can't buy.

We can't just pull out, but we do have a moral responsibility to point the finger at the numbskulls who put us in there in the first place and make sure they don't get the chance to do anything insane like this ever again.

Rumsfeld should be selling pencils on a street corner, Cheney should be shining shoes in a bus station men's room, Wolfowitz should be picking up dog poop along a frontage road in Walla Walla, Washington.

People, placing blame for huge mistakes DOES matter, or you end up making the same old mistakes all over again. Trying to pretend the Iraq invasion was not a mistake requires one to drink ever more prodigious amounts of the old Kool Aid as each day passes.

[luckydevil]

John Stewart, on The Daily Show (insert "it's full of liberal lies!" comment here), said about the same thing.

Then the Abu Garahib photos came out, he showed several of them, and when the camers cut back to him he had this horrified expression on his face:

"What will we do now? Now the arab 'man on the street' won't trust us. This will hurt our credability."

-----

That said, however: There's a difference between

1. Doesn't like the US, and
   
2. Hates the US enough to kill themselves if they can only take a few infidels with them.

Invading and conquering somebody's country, and creating possibly millions of people who can say 'My father/brother/friend/neighbor was killed/tortured/disapeared by the Americans' does have at least the potential of moving a small minority, but still noticable number, from category A to B.

Another great post, Larry. Imagine if a foreign government blew up your son or daughter ( or mother and father). I suspect most of us here would have a hard time forgiving that, no matter how noble the overall purpose of that government might have been. War pushes people into extremism. You notice this phenomenon on this board, for God sake’s many of the "conservatives" on here advocate nuclear war.

[Redskins Diehard]

Really? Our troops are not American? And tell me what attacks were directed against America under Clinton? The 93' bombing and what?

If you want to use the argument there have been no attacks on American soil, then obviously Clinton did a stellar job in combating terrorism huh? i mean how many Americans died under Clinton's watch? 500? 600? How many under Bush? 6000? Who was better at fighting terrorism?

Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. . .

Don't let reality get in the way of your agenda...woops, too late Chom. Did I mention Clinton anywhere? Why the apostrophe after 93? I am not aware of a 93 foot bombing.

While Clinton was busy staining a blue dress UBL was meeting with some guys in Afghanistan, turn on the news.

I have argued before that I believe most of the attacks on US troops are not terrorism. Some are unlawful acts of war, but not terrorism. You do know the definition right?

Your right, Bill Clinton did a great job fighting terrorism. That is why no President, before the current one, ever made even a cursory attempt at eliminating the threat that was Bin LAden. If you think the man was unknown before Bush was elected then you are painfully blinded.

[twa]

Does that question even need to be asked?

poverty, youth, the promise of eternal happiness after death.

Than throw in some smart bombs that take out your family and voila a new terrorist is born.

I would think it is the notion that suicide bombing or martyrdom is a path to great reward. :2cents:

Think of how many have suffered even worse in thier lives ,but never turned to terrorism.

[luckydevil]

Does that question even need to be asked?

poverty, youth, the promise of eternal happiness after death.

Than throw in some smart bombs that take out your family and voila a new terrorist is born.

Most of these terrorists come from middle class and wealthy families. Study after study show the links between poverty and terrorism is tenuous at best.

[Thiebear]

As long as we continue to catch the ones that know the routes and methods.

As long as we continue to get them to talk.

As long as we continue to win, time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time. ( Yes, I know they only have to win ONCE )...

but so far: We are hopefully making OVERT terrorism rare.

Subvert terrorism will never go away.

[Larry]

Most of these terrorists come from middle class and wealthy families. Study after study show the links between poverty and terrorism is tenuous at best.

I do think there's more to it than poverty. I think the terrorists (maybe not the leaders, but at least the pawns) honestly do believe they're serving A Great Cause. Now, maybe the cause is the poverty of their countrymen. Maybe it's national pride. (Maybe it's something more personal, like "My Daddy doesn't think I'm a Man!")

I also recall something else that a Social Studies teacher pointed out. He said that Freedom of Speach helps prevent Revolutions, because people tend to revolt when they think they're being silenced. (His example was: If somebody's yelling something you disagree with, and you ignore him, he'll just keep yelling. But try to put your hand over his mouth, and you'll have a fight.)

I think one of the ingredients that's necessary for terrorism is a belief that working within the system won't work.

[Predicto]

Your right, Bill Clinton did a great job fighting terrorism. That is why no President, before the current one, ever made even a cursory attempt at eliminating the threat that was Bin LAden. If you think the man was unknown before Bush was elected then you are painfully blinded.

I don't think this guy read Bang's post.

Be honest - 9/11 changed everything. Everything. What was understood as necessary, reasonable, expedient with regard to Al Qaeda or terrorists in general pre-9/11 by anyone, and what was realized post 9/11, are two different worlds. I have never blamed Bush, I do not blame Clinton.

Pre 9/11, Bin Laden was just another pissant terrorist, tenously connected to the sinking of the USS Cole. Pre 9/11, this level of terrorism was not even on the radar.

[luckydevil]

I do think there's more to it than poverty. I think the terrorists (maybe not the leaders, but at least the pawns) honestly do believe they're serving A Great Cause. Now, maybe the cause is the poverty of their countrymen. Maybe it's national pride. (Maybe it's something more personal, like "My Daddy doesn't think I'm a Man!")

I also recall something else that a Social Studies teacher pointed out. He said that Freedom of Speach helps prevent Revolutions, because people tend to revolt when they think they're being silenced. (His example was: If somebody's yelling something you disagree with, and you ignore him, he'll just keep yelling. But try to put your hand over his mouth, and you'll have a fight.)

I think one of the ingredients that's necessary for terrorism is a belief that working within the system won't work.

Agreed, pretty much nailed it

[Redskins Diehard]

Really? Our troops are not American? And tell me what attacks were directed against America under Clinton? The 93' bombing and what?

If you want to use the argument there have been no attacks on American soil, then obviously Clinton did a stellar job in combating terrorism huh? i mean how many Americans died under Clinton's watch? 500? 600? How many under Bush? 6000? Who was better at fighting terrorism?

Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. . .

Of course "this guy" was responding to "that post".^^

I don't think this guy read Bang's post.

Be honest - 9/11 changed everything. Everything. What was understood as necessary, reasonable, expedient with regard to Al Qaeda or terrorists in general pre-9/11 by anyone, and what was realized post 9/11, are two different worlds. I have never blamed Bush, I do not blame Clinton.

Pre 9/11, Bin Laden was just another pissant terrorist, tenously connected to the sinking of the USS Cole. Pre 9/11, this level of terrorism was not even on the radar.

Bin Laden was another pissant terrorist to Joe Public, no disagreement there. In Feb 1998 I got my first threat briefing that addressed specifically and by name Bin Laden. It changed several times from OBL to UBL and back again.

Once again this level of terrorism was not on the radar to the general public, the people that the taxpayers pays to protect us from that type of stuff were well aware of that scale, maybe not that method.

I have read many of Bangs posts and I am not sure which one you reference. If it is one of the ones that places the responsibilty for 9-11 on the terrorists then I only partially agree with that opinion. We pay people good money to make sure that stuff does not happen. While they may not cause it to happen, they do allow it to happen. And I am not implying incompetence or lack of effort.

[honeydont]

Islam is a violent religion intent on taking down all of the christian kingdom and that is the truth. Iran is part of that sickness and must be dealt with. No question. :notworthy

[SkinsHokieFan]

I don't think this guy read Bang's post.

Be honest - 9/11 changed everything. Everything. What was understood as necessary, reasonable, expedient with regard to Al Qaeda or terrorists in general pre-9/11 by anyone, and what was realized post 9/11, are two different worlds. I have never blamed Bush, I do not blame Clinton.

Pre 9/11, Bin Laden was just another pissant terrorist, tenously connected to the sinking of the USS Cole. Pre 9/11, this level of terrorism was not even on the radar.

Of course "this guy" was responding to "that post".^^

Bin Laden was another pissant terrorist to Joe Public, no disagreement there. In Feb 1998 I got my first threat briefing that addressed specifically and by name Bin Laden. It changed several times from OBL to UBL and back again.

Once again this level of terrorism was not on the radar to the general public, the people that the taxpayers pays to protect us from that type of stuff were well aware of that scale, maybe not that method.

I have read many of Bangs posts and I am not sure which one you reference. If it is one of the ones that places the responsibilty for 9-11 on the terrorists then I only partially agree with that opinion. We pay people good money to make sure that stuff does not happen. While they may not cause it to happen, they do allow it to happen. And I am not implying incompetence or lack of effort.

You guys are both older and a lot smarter then I am, but Bin Laden's name was already pretty big in 1996, and in particular that summer of 1998 that I spent in Pakistan

2 big headlines that summer on the world scene. Pakistan/India nuke tests and Bin Laden's increasing attacks on US interests

Pre 9/11, the guy was far more then just a pissant terrorist

Edit: Redskins Diehard you specfically mentioned 2/98 as your first briefing, my bad. To my memory, Bin Laden by 1996 was already making a name for himself in the terror business

Don't forget, this guy declared war on us in 1996, and in 2000, thanks to some great police work, the millenium bombing plot was foiled

[chomerics]

You guys are both older and a lot smarter then I am, but Bin Laden's name was already pretty big in 1996, and in particular that summer of 1998 that I spent in Pakistan

2 big headlines that summer on the world scene. Pakistan/India nuke tests and Bin Laden's increasing attacks on US interests

Pre 9/11, the guy was far more then just a pissant terrorist

Edit: Redskins Diehard you specfically mentioned 2/98 as your first briefing, my bad. To my memory, Bin Laden by 1996 was already making a name for himself in the terror business

Don't forget, this guy declared war on us in 1996, and in 2000, thanks to some great police work, the millenium bombing plot was foiled

Yea, and I also remember a few republicans screaming "wag the dog" and "no war for Monica" when Clinton went after him. I also remember a few republicans completely ignoring him before 9-11 and doing absolutely nothing to combat terrorism internally, yet Clinton had a trerrorism task force set up with direct funding from OMB. So to say Clinton did nothing, and ignored him is not only revisionist history, it is also completely wrong.

Did he do everything possible to stop him? No, but he had OBL on the radar screen, and there were no attacks in the US while he was president. The argument that "there have been no attacks over here" so its working is nefarrious at best, and dishonest when you examine the facts behind the rhetoric.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Yea, and I also remember a few republicans screaming "wag the dog" and "no war for Monica" when Clinton went after him. I also remember a few republicans completely ignoring him before 9-11 and doing absolutely nothing to combat terrorism internally, yet Clinton had a trerrorism task force set up with direct funding from OMB. So to say Clinton did nothing, and ignored him is not only revisionist history, it is also completely wrong.

Did he do everything possible to stop him? No, but he had OBL on the radar screen, and there were no attacks in the US while he was president. The argument that "there have been no attacks over here" so its working is nefarrious at best, and dishonest when you examine the facts behind the rhetoric.

A few missles at a pharma factory in Africa and few missles launched in Afghanistan aint exactly going after him. Did pretty much nothing, but piss off the Brits I met in late August of 1998

If we had some sort of boots on the ground in Afghanistan at that point, thats doing something. Launching missles the day after you look like a fool to the world (and yea that was brought up on the tube that fine morning in London by other passengers once my mother proudly proclaimed to being an American) isn't decisive nor enough action

You and I both know that Bin Laden was far more then just a pissant terrorist before 9/11. That is the point of my argument. The fact that everything to stop him wasn't done in the late 90s is an indictment on Clinton, as well as the fact that intel warnings were not follwed up upon in 2001 being an indictment of Bush

Can you at least admit that for once?

[chomerics]

Don't let reality get in the way of your agenda...woops, too late Chom. Did I mention Clinton anywhere? Why the apostrophe after 93? I am not aware of a 93 foot bombing.

While Clinton was busy staining a blue dress UBL was meeting with some guys in Afghanistan, turn on the news.

Read my above post about "No war for Monica" and "Wag the Dog" about how your party behaved when he went after OBL.

I have argued before that I believe most of the attacks on US troops are not terrorism. Some are unlawful acts of war, but not terrorism. You do know the definition right?

Why don't you use the state department's definition of terrorism, would that be adequate for you? I will allow you to use what the Bush Administration defines a "terrorist" attack as a definition, and the data still prove me correct. You can argue all you want that terrorism hasn't increased, but you would be wrong, and you would have a heck of a time trying to find ANY statistical data to back up an outlandish claim.

Your right, Bill Clinton did a great job fighting terrorism. That is why no President, before the current one, ever made even a cursory attempt at eliminating the threat that was Bin LAden. If you think the man was unknown before Bush was elected then you are painfully blinded.

Are you that uninformed? Do you not know that we attacked Al Qaeda in 98'? What the hell is everyone drinking here lately? Man, I have one person who seems to understand economics telling me oil is not price inelastic, and another person claiming to be on the inside of the GWOT, who says Clinton did not even attempt to get Bin Laden? Seriously, are people usually this dishonest, or are they just completely unaware of anything outside the right wing blog sphere?

[chomerics]

You and I both know that Bin Laden was far more then just a pissant terrorist before 9/11. That is the point of my argument. The fact that everything to stop him wasn't done in the late 90s is an indictment on Clinton, as well as the fact that intel warnings were not follwed up upon in 2001 being an indictment of Bush

Can you at least admit that for once?

I have stated that plenty of times and I agree with what you said, you know my position on the matter. It is people who sit here and claim that Clinton did absolutely nothing, while giving Bush a free pass as if Bin Laden all of a sudden wasn't a problem when he took office that get my ire.

If people want to use the illogical point that we haven't been attacked since 9-11, and that is evidence that the GWOT is working, I will call them on it, which is what happened in this thread.

[Predicto]

Bin Laden was another pissant terrorist to Joe Public, no disagreement there. In Feb 1998 I got my first threat briefing that addressed specifically and by name Bin Laden. It changed several times from OBL to UBL and back again.

Once again this level of terrorism was not on the radar to the general public, the people that the taxpayers pays to protect us from that type of stuff were well aware of that scale, maybe not that method.

I fully admit overstating my argument to make a point. You are correct that intelligence was well aware of Osama prior to 9/11, as were our leaders. I remember reading a Vanity Fair article in the late 1990s about him that was pretty scary to me.

Still, the idea that we had to pull out ALL the stops to get him just wasn't apparent yet, not to anyone. The idea that we would invade Afganistan, start an open war, just to get this guy was out of the question for everyone, Democrat or Republican. Just like we didn't invade Libya to get the Lockerbie guys. We had a different perspective on the risk posed by terrorists at that time, and it is not reasonable to expect that Clinton (or Bush) could have anticipated how much things were about to change.

The scope and impact of 9/11 changed everything.

[Boss_Hogg]

Says who? How do you know they would have been attacked? The only time they were successful attacking on our soil after Clinton set up the task force was after he left. What is to say that they would have done anything if we didn;t invade Iraq?

Look at it this way. how many Iraqis were on the 9-11 planes? How many Iraqi terrorists were there? How about now?

Wouldn't you say that doing a good job would require your policies to DECREASE the amount of terrorists in the world not INCREASE them??? Come on now people, open your eyes and clean out the fog, we are making them faster then we are killing them, a sure sign what we are doing is NOT working!!!

He's right, Iraq is a domicile for terrorist activity now, we made terrorism/war, rather than stopping or destroying it.

However I still think our nation is safe from a terrorist attack.