'All-time high' in Baghdad violence

[ProudAmerican]

So you're actually trying to say that 70% of those deaths (due to terrorists) in the hundreds of thousands would have happened had we not been there?

no. im trying to say that had we simply left those terrorists alone, to plan, and do their work.....somewhere down the line they would have killed someone, somewhere.

probably Americans.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Oh yes those factual proven reasons, I kept forgetting about all the WMD's and parades thrown for us as we entered Baghdad.

the president spelled out our reasons clearly. and yes, the WMDs reason was proven true. facts are facts.

It can also be argued that we didn't prevent anything and ruined the country of Iraq. They are both theoretical stances, what's your point?

that argument would be ludicrous. is it your stance that Saddam was just going to stop using the rape rooms, torture rooms, and start being a nice guy out of the goodness of his heart?

Of course they are going to choose that country, it's next door to them. They think the same way we do, better to fight them there then here.

so why do you condemn America for that line of thought, and give the terrorits a free pass for the same line of thought?

The terrorists would rather keep out army occupied in Iraq so that they can continue planning attacks with minimal opposition in neighboring countries.

wow.....with all that planning they have accomplished NOTHING. its much more likely that they are so bogged down fighting a superior military force that planning further attacks has had to take a back seat for a while.

It's obvious this admin went into Iraq to save American lives by fighting a war in Iraq and not in America.

I cant for the life of me figure out what we need to discuss further then.

 

[Gibberish]

that argument would be ludicrous. is it your stance that Saddam was just going to stop using the rape rooms, torture rooms, and start being a nice guy out of the goodness of his heart?

No he was a manic and should have been taking out, I was just trying to get your point of view. The problem I have with Iraq is the planning, not the reasoning.

so why do you condemn America for that line of thought, and give the terrorits a free pass for the same line of thought?

Where did I say I condemn America for it? Below I agree with the reason we are there, Iw ould just like for people to admit it and stop all this better for man kind BS. It's not better for mankind, it's better for America.

wow.....with all that planning they have accomplished NOTHING. its much more likely that they are so bogged down fighting a superior military force that planning further attacks has had to take a back seat for a while.

We assume they have accomplished nothing because no attack has taken place. We also assumed a plane would never hit a New York skyscraper again, we see how well that went.

I cant for the life of me figure out what we need to discuss further then.

I openly acknowledge the reasons we are in Iraq. Strategically it makes sense for us to fight in Iraq and not in America. The problem I have is no one will admit we are in Iraq merely to save American lives. This isn't said because by doing so we will openly acknowledge that an America cilivians life is worth more then any other civilian, and the conservative mom's won't stand for that because that is not what Jesus taught.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

nonsense. you think terrorists just materialized before our very eyes? lol. they were there.

and they have killed 70% of the people you CLAIM to care so much about.

but its much easier to just blame America. I realize this.

You guys on the right constantly confuse nationalism with patriotism. No one is Blaming America. The United States is the Greatest Nation on Earth. We are instead blaming the Administration that got us into this mess. When you bitch about Democratic Administrations, are you "Blaming America"?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

the president spelled out our reasons clearly. and yes, the WMDs reason was proven true. facts are facts.

When was that???? You guys are pathetic, we find a few useless degraded leftovers from the Iraq / Iran war, and you trump that around as though its some vindication.

 

[southern_liberal]

they werent discovered because SADDAM was the one in power. who the hell do you think was going to discover them before he was removed?



you have no clue what was occuring while he was in power. but we have found mass graves to confirm people were dying in huge numberrs.



of course you blame America. its the liberal way.

1) I didn't say anything about bombs being discovered, I said bombs going off, as in exploding.

2) No, I don't have much of a clue as to what was going on on a day to day basis in Iraq, but I think if terrorists were blowing up around 60 a people a day (before mission accomplished), we would have heard about it; and that's the point I was making since you are under the impression terrorists were attacking civilians BEFORE we invaded.

3)No, this liberal don't make wide sweeping generalizations; I blame bush.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

nonsense. you think terrorists just materialized before our very eyes? lol. they were there.

Babies aren't born terrorists.
Folks make decisions to engage in acts of terrorism. Unless the US actions in Iraq have been entirely inconsequential, it seems likely that those actions have had an impact on folks and, presumably, their decision making process.
Or are you saying that the invasion has done nothing?

Now the United States Intelligence Community thinks that the invasion of Iraq had persuaded folks to turn to the dark side.
Do you have some info to the contrary that you should share w/ the USIC that would cause them to reach a different conclusion?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Looks like the jihadists are stepping up their efforts to get their DNC allies elected in the USA.

That's very, very funny. Way to poke fun at the silly-*** **** that the Pro-war party has been reduced to using.
LOL!
Kudos on on that! Good one!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

do I need to dig up all the links TOT has posted here of letters from AQ members talking about how they are having their asses handed to them?

And this somehow contraindicates the USIC findings that the invasion of Iraq has mobilized a new pool of potential Salafist jihadi recruits?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The problem I have with Iraq is the planning, not the reasoning.

Actually, it was an exceptionally bad idea that was very poorly executed. It did not and does not serve the best interests of the US.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The levels of violence in Iraq have varied fairly widely. It's not clear that they are indicative of much more than the level of violence.
It is telling that Rumsfeld's estimates that we'd be done in Iraq in weeks or months are a little off. He must've misunderestimated the scope of the problem.

Again, the Realists outshine the Idealists.

 

[ProudAmerican]

When was that???? You guys are pathetic, we find a few useless degraded leftovers from the Iraq / Iran war, and you trump that around as though its some vindication.

more nonsense.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Babies aren't born terrorists.

correct. they are taught by their parents, imams, and clerics to be terrorists. they are taught this whether America invades Iraq or not.

Babies arent born racists either.

they become racists the same way terrorists become terrorists.

If a bunch of black people decided to invade Arkansas (I only use that state as an example because I live close to it and know for a fact a very large part of the Klan resides there) are they creating racists by being there? or did the racists already exist and just decide to rise up and cause problems?

 

[ProudAmerican]

And this somehow contraindicates the USIC findings that the invasion of Iraq has mobilized a new pool of potential Salafist jihadi recruits?

now you are using the correct terms. mobilized??? sure. created?? nope.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

now you are using the correct terms. mobilized??? sure. created?? nope.

I guess you're glossing over the word 'new.' New means not the same old ones. New ones. New ones have been mobilized.

Are you seriously arguing that the war in Iraq has had no impact on the number of Salafist jihadis and their sympathizers?

Anyway here's some actual texts:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,
although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
​

Increasing in number sure sound like it means there're more than there used to be. What does increasing in number mean to you? Something other than more of them than there used to be?

same source:

New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge.
​

New, as noted above means one that are not old. New ones means ones that did not exist before.

same source:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders...
​

There's that pesky 'new' again.

same source:

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.
​

It's spreading. That certainly sounds different than the theory that they're merely gathering in Iraq. Spreading is different than gathering, I looked it up.

same source:

Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.
​

More of that spread word.

same source:

Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
​

More 'new.'



different source:

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication

We face a war on terrorism, intensified conflict within Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility[!] and ways the U.S. pursues its goals[!].

"The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective ... But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists ...

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.​

What was 'marginal' is now Ummah-wide. And there's been a 'proliferation' of terrorist groups. I double checked what 'proliferation means. It mean there's more than before.

So on one hand the USIC are saying that there's more now than before, and on the other hand there's you saying, "Nuh-uh."

Why should I buy your story over the experts?​

 

[ProudAmerican]

Are you seriously arguing that the war in Iraq has had no impact on the number of Salafist jihadis and their sympathizers?

absolutely.

they already existed. we just drew them out into the open.

are you seriously arguing that Akhmed the hardware store owner woke up one day and decided out of the blue to strap on a bomb vest because America was in Iraq?

if Akhmed did that, I submit to you that he was already the member of a radical mosque and had been taught to hate America long before we arrived.

 

[Kandahar]

absolutely.

they already existed. we just drew them out into the open.

are you seriously arguing that Akhmed the hardware store owner woke up one day and decided out of the blue to strap on a bomb vest because America was in Iraq?

if Akhmed did that, I submit to you that he was already the member of a radical mosque and had been taught to hate America long before we arrived.

I am suggesting that if the infidels had accidentally bombed the home of Akhmed's third-cousin's wife's mother, and killed her, that he would be more inclined to start planting road side bombs.

Common sense would indicate that that is the case.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

More proof that President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a deadly choice indeed not only for our troops but for the people of Iraq as well.

That's why it's called WAR, kidrocks. It's never pretty but sometimes very necessary. Besides, without people dying in war, you wouldn't have anything to celebrate.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I am suggesting that if the infidels had accidentally bombed the home of Akhmed's third-cousin's wife's mother, and killed her, that he would be more inclined to start planting road side bombs.

Common sense would indicate that that is the case.

and I would suggest we need to come to an agreement on the difference between muslem terrorists that want to kill Americans and start a civil war, and Iraqi citizens that feel they are fighting for their homeland.

we certainly may have created the latter of the two.....we most definately did not create the former.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

and I would suggest we need to come to an agreement on the difference between muslem terrorists that want to kill Americans and start a civil war, and Iraqi citizens that feel they are fighting for their homeland.

we certainly may have created the latter of the two.....we most definately did not create the former.

Unfortunately, it would seem that you hold some time of a Cognitive Dissonance (the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, which can be defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior).

You seem to think that war and instability cannot create terrorists or help terrorist’s movements and recruitment efforts. Basically, you seem to think that the terrorists already existed. Unfortunately, because your position is obviously the result of a Cognitive Dissonance, it is almost impossible for you to see the absurdness of it.

Prior to the war, there were obviously plenty of people in Iraq who were culturally and psychologically predisposed to terrorism and radical Islam. This is similar to being predisposed to alcoholism or predisposed to a gambling addiction in that an individual who is predisposed to alcoholism may or may not become an alcoholic, but under certain conditions, such as high levels of stress and anxiety and or exposure to heavy drinkers, that individual would have a higher likelihood of developing an addiction to alcohol than an individual who was not predisposed to alcoholism.

Similarly, those in the Muslim World who are culturally and psychologically predisposed to terrorism, are, under certain conditions, more likely to commit terrorist acts or join terrorist movements than those in the Muslim World without such a predisposition. For example, those who are psychologically predisposed to terrorism are less likely to commit terrorist acts or join terrorist movements in a free and tolerant society than they would in a unstable and war torn society. That is not to say that some would become terrorists regardless of the conditions in their society, but it is to say that the number that would result to terrorism would be higher in an unstable, war torn society, than would in a free or even a totalitarian but stable society. Conversely, some individuals would never result to violence and terrorism regardless of their living and societal conditions.

Now, the core of the Neo-Conservative Movements Foreign policy is that a Free and Democratic Society will result in a much lower number of individuals who might have a cultural / psychological predisposition to terrorism actually committing terrorist acts or joining terrorist movements than a totalitarian dictatorship would. That of course is true, and no reasonable individual would dispute that contention.

However, the problem is that a unstable and war torn society will result in a much higher number of individuals who might have a cultural / psychological predisposition to terrorism actually committing terrorist acts or joining terrorist movements than even a totalitarian dictatorship would.

So essentially the risk is that in trying to forcibly democratize the Middle East and therefore, foster an environment where a much lower number of individuals result to committing terrorist acts or joining terrorist movements, we instead create a war torn society that results in a much higher number of individuals resulting to terrorism or joining terrorist movements than would have even under totalitarianism.

 

[KidRocks]

That's why it's called WAR, kidrocks. It's never pretty but sometimes very necessary. Besides, without people dying in war, you wouldn't have anything to celebrate.

"CELEBRATE"?

SEE! I told you you had a devious little mind!

LOL... and I love it!

 

[Deegan]

Unfortunately, it would seem that you hold some time of a Cognitive Dissonance (the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, which can be defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior).

You seem to think that war and instability cannot create terrorists or help terrorist’s movements and recruitment efforts. Basically, you seem to think that the terrorists already existed. Unfortunately, because your position is obviously the result of a Cognitive Dissonance, it is almost impossible for you to see the absurdness of it.

Prior to the war, there were obviously plenty of people in Iraq who were culturally and psychologically predisposed to terrorism and radical Islam. This is similar to being predisposed to alcoholism or predisposed to a gambling addiction in that an individual who is predisposed to alcoholism may or may not become an alcoholic, but under certain conditions, such as high levels of stress and anxiety and or exposure to heavy drinkers, that individual would have a higher likelihood of developing an addiction to alcohol than an individual who was not predisposed to alcoholism.

Similarly, those in the Muslim World who are culturally and psychologically predisposed to terrorism, are, under certain conditions, more likely to commit terrorist acts or join terrorist movements than those in the Muslim World without such a predisposition. For example, those who are psychologically predisposed to terrorism are less likely to commit terrorist acts or join terrorist movements in a free and tolerant society than they would in a unstable and war torn society. That is not to say that some would become terrorists regardless of the conditions in their society, but it is to say that the number that would result to terrorism would be higher in an unstable, war torn society, than would in a free or even a totalitarian but stable society. Conversely, some individuals would never result to violence and terrorism regardless of their living and societal conditions.

Now, the core of the Neo-Conservative Movements Foreign policy is that a Free and Democratic Society will result in a much lower number of individuals who might have a cultural / psychological predisposition to terrorism actually committing terrorist acts or joining terrorist movements than a totalitarian dictatorship would. That of course is true, and no reasonable individual would dispute that contention.

However, the problem is that a unstable and war torn society will result in a much higher number of individuals who might have a cultural / psychological predisposition to terrorism actually committing terrorist acts or joining terrorist movements than even a totalitarian dictatorship would.

So essentially the risk is that in trying to forcibly democratize the Middle East and therefore, foster an environment where a much lower number of individuals result to committing terrorist acts or joining terrorist movements, we instead create a war torn society that results in a much higher number of individuals resulting to terrorism or joining terrorist movements than would have even under totalitarianism.

Or in other words, just ignore the dictators, they have the people right where we want them, ignorant, controlled, and slaves to the man!

Unfortunately, history has shown us that this never works, didn't work in Italy, Japan, Germany, Russia, or even ancient Rome! It's certainly not working in N. Korea, Iran, Lebanon, or any of the other dangerous countries we have allowed to remain dysfunctional. These are just words you read above, they don't relate to the reality on the ground, which is that Islamic fascism is a real threat, and even the dictators can't control this wave of rage forever!

Still, it was well written, and I am certain, well thought out.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Or in other words, just ignore the dictators, they have the people right where we want them, ignorant, controlled, and slaves to the man!

Unfortunately, history has shown us that this never works, didn't work in Italy, Japan, Germany, Russia, or even ancient Rome! It's certainly not working in N. Korea, Iran, Lebanon, or any of the other dangerous countries we have allowed to remain dysfunctional. These are just words you read above, they don't relate to the reality on the ground, which is that Islamic fascism is a real threat, and even the dictators can't control this wave of rage forever!

Still, it was well written, and I am certain, well thought out.

That is a false choice though. The choice is not just the two extremes of simply doing nothing and supporting the status quo, or the very risky attempt at trying to forcibly democratize the Islamic world.

Take Iraq for example, Saddam’s regime would not have lasted forever. Overtime, it is reasonable to think that economic incentives resulting from Globalization, alone would have helped foster some type of transition between total and brutal totalitarianism in Iraq, and probably some type of government similar to the one of Egypt. A generation later, Iraq would probably become a full fledged Democracy, or divide along ethnic lines into 2 or 3 states, where those states would become a full fledged democracy. In fact, it is this gradual and inevitable transition to more free and tolerant societies in the Middle East that radical Islam is trying to fight.

The problem with trying to forcibly accelerate this transition, to in essence go directly from the Battlefield to the Ballot Box, is that such a forced democratization in a multiethnic society has never been successful in the history of civilization. For a variety of reasons, namely the inevitable fear among minority ethnicities of a tyranny of the majority ethnicity, it always has resulted in Civil War. Which brings us back to the point in my earlier post. Free societies result in less terrorism than totalitarian societies, but war torn and unstable societies result if far more terrorism than would have existed even under totalitarianism.

Thus, because of the low-grade civil war, violence, and instability that resulted from our attempts at forcibly democratizing Iraq, we have unfortunately created a situation where there are more terrorists than would have existed otherwise. Which, by the way, is exactly what traditional conservatives and pragmatic moderates were warning would happen if we went in.

 

[Deegan]

That is a false choice though. The choice is not just the two extremes of simply doing nothing and supporting the status quo, or the very risky attempt at trying to forcibly democratize the Islamic world.

Take Iraq for example, Saddam’s regime would not have lasted forever. Overtime, it is reasonable to think that economic incentives resulting from Globalization, alone would have helped foster some type of transition between total and brutal totalitarianism in Iraq, and probably some type of government similar to the one of Egypt. A generation later, Iraq would probably become a full fledged Democracy, or divide along ethnic lines into 2 or 3 states, where those states would become a full fledged democracy. In fact, it is this gradual and inevitable transition to more free and tolerant societies in the Middle East that radical Islam is trying to fight.

The problem with trying to forcibly accelerate this transition, to in essence go directly from the Battlefield to the Ballot Box, is that such a forced democratization in a multiethnic society has never been successful in the history of civilization. For a variety of reasons, namely the inevitable fear among minority ethnicities of a tyranny of the majority ethnicity, it always has resulted in Civil War. Which brings us back to the point in my earlier post. Free societies result in less terrorism than totalitarian societies, but war torn and unstable societies result if far more terrorism than would have existed even under totalitarianism.

Thus, because of the low-grade civil war, violence, and instability that resulted from our attempts at forcibly democratizing Iraq, we have unfortunately created a situation where there are more terrorists than would have existed otherwise. Which, by the way, is exactly what traditional conservatives and pragmatic moderates were warning would happen if we went in.

And again, it has worked in the past, so I don't know how you can call it a "false choice"? The fact is, we can ill afford to wait it out, especially as these dangerous regimes arm themselves with WMD's. I don't mind that there are more terrorists, I actually think it's great that we now have more folks to shoot at, and hence make examples of, it will work if we continue to do so. I would choose this over just dropping a bomb, as we were unfortunately forced to do twice in Japan, but whatever it takes to make the free world safe, that is what I will continue to support.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And again, it has worked in the past, so I don't know how you can call it a "false choice"? The fact is, we can ill afford to wait it out, especially as these dangerous regimes arm themselves with WMD's. I don't mind that there are more terrorists, I actually think it's great that we now have more folks to shoot at, and hence make examples of, it will work if we continue to do so. I would choose this over just dropping a bomb, as we were unfortunately forced to do twice in Japan, but whatever it takes to make the free world safe, that is what I will continue to support.

1. The country we tried to forcibly democratize had no WMD.

2. Waiting it out is better than creating more terrorists than would have otherwise existed.

3. More terrorists is a bad thing regardless of whether you think it is or not, and the more terrorists, the less the chance that any Muslim Nation will successfully democratize.

4. Name one multiethnic nation, in the history of civilization, that was successfully forcibly democratized.