Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You two don't want to work that one out? You were directly at odds with each other.

From reading the posts, I think sugarpop and I are in agreement that the use of military force, particularly an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, is the least effective way to respond to terrorism.

And many defense, national security and anti-terrorism experts agree.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

From reading the posts, I think sugarpop and I are in agreement that the use of military force, particularly an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, is the least effective way to respond to terrorism.

That wasn't exactly the question. The question was, 2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil, why?

Part of your answer was "certainly not Iraq". sugar's number-one answer was, "Iraq".

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That wasn't exactly the question. The question was, 2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil, why?

Part of your answer was "certainly not Iraq". sugar's number-one answer was, "Iraq".

Here is what I saw in sugarpop's post:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

By the same token, the way we chose to handle the whole thing, by starting a war in a country that had nothing to do with that attack, I believe ultimately that decision may come back and bite us on the ass.....

And I agree.

As does, to some extent, the 06 NIE, "Trends in Global Terrorism" prepared by the US intelligence community:

*The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

*Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims--all of which jihadists exploit.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists' radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

*The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists' propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

*Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

I agree particularly with the first finding that "the Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement..."

Yet, our actions (by invading and occupying a sovereign country that had no connection to 9/11 nor posed no direct threat to the US) created that scenario and have often been counter-productive (see Gitmo, torture, extraordinary rendition to countries with no respect for human rights...) and have turned many Muslims against the US.

Or the finding that "the jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."

IMO, an interpretation of that to mean "many Muslims love the West and want to be more like us" is also misplaced and counter-productive.