Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Redux: "The lack of attacks on US soil has nothing to do with the Iraq war."

Right...that was my point exactly.

It's a shame (bordering on criminal) that the Bush administration made a connection between the two..or between Saddam and al Queda...and still does.

And for 5+ years now, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been at the center of the so-called "war on terrorism."

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Did you even read the rest of what I wrote? Hello!

I dont think he read the rest of what I wrote either.

[Undertoad]

Everything else you said was weak, silly rhetoric that I've heard 1000 times before and am not interested in addressing.

LOL....ok.

Have it your way.

I guess you wont bother to read the Rand report or several of the NIE's for Bush that raised serious concerns about the impact of our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq as a "cause celebre" for terrorist movements.

[Undertoad]

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

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]

I wasn't talking to you dux, but if you like, bringing Iraq into it was kind of strawmanning. If you believe that the WoT and WoIraq were not connected, don't be all busy connecting them.

What I noticed immediately about the report was that

#1 Politics
#2 Policing
#3 Victory
#4 Military

Assuming we don't care for #3, what I noticed is that #4 makes #s 1 and 2 available to us, in places where they are not previously available.

In Pakistan, they are available. In Iran and southern Lebanon, they are not. In Iraq, they were not... but are now.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What I noticed immediately about the report was that

#1 Politics
#2 Policing
#3 Victory
#4 Military

Assuming we don't care for #3, what I noticed is that #4 makes #s 1 and 2 available to us, in places where they are not previously available.

In Pakistan, they are available. In Iran and southern Lebanon, they are not. In Iraq, they were not... but are now.

Thats quite an interpretation of the report as well as the facts on the ground.

I simply disagree.

[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".

[Undertoad]

And, really, I agree with most the report and with your belief that Iraq became a cause celebre. I don't know that it increased recruiting -- will need a good cite for that. I know that it caused a bunch of people to jump in their cars and drive to Iraq to have a shot at the great satan, but there are morons everywhere.

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.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

2740 days since the last major terrorist attack on US soil.

Yup and this garlic keeps away vampires.

C'mon toad. You know that's no proof that we're doing any better at anti-terrorism than pre-911.

[Undertoad]

What better measure do you have?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

No, we weren't. The Iraq War had nothing to do with the attacks against us on 9-11, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. WE supplied al qaeda, who DID attack us, with plenty of US targets in the form of young US soldiers, in Iraq, when we attacked without cause. The whole reason al qaeda wants to wage war with us is to bring us down economically, hence the target of the World Trade Center, which we have effectively now done FOR them, without them having to DO anything. What exactly don't you get?

[sugarpop]

Let's see. The first attack on the WTC happened on February 26, 1993. The second one happened on September 11, 2001. That is 8 1/2 years apart. From what I've read or heard from experts, al qaeda takes a long time to plan out their attacks. Who is to say whether Bush has kept us safe or not? For all we know, there are sleeper cells here just waiting for the right time. I pray you are right UT and I am wrong, but I fear it is only a matter of time before we are hit again. I do not believe that is a reason to give up OUR freedoms though. You can't not live your life because of something that might happen.