Bush Iraq Invasion Has Helped To Spread Terror To Jordan (1 Viewer)

[TimmyBoy]

Seems Iraqi sucide bombers have struck Jordan. Bush's invasion seems to have helped to spread terror rather than prevent it. I sometimes wonder in this day and age if the survival of the human species is at stake:

Angry Jordanians Rally to Protest Bombings By PAUL GARWOOD, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago


AMMAN, Jordan - Thousands of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities shouting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" a day after three deadly hotel bombings that killed at least 59 people. Officials suspected Iraqi involvement in the attacks, which were claimed by al-Qaida's Iraq branch.

As protesters in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab world denounced the Jordanian-born leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, security forces snared a group of Iraqis for questioning and officials said one of the bombers spoke Iraqi-accented Arabic before he exploded his suicide belt in the Grand Hyatt Hotel.

And nationalism has struck the Jordanian people like a plague much like it did after the September 11 attacks in the US. I wonder how the Jordanian government will unjustly exploit this opportunity to increase it's own power and oppress more the rights of their people:

The main demonstration in Amman lasted for more than an hour. But honking vehicles, decorated with Jordanian flags and posters of King Abdullah II, cruised Amman's streets until late in the night, as passengers chanted "Death to al-Zarqawi, the villain and the traitor!" and anti-terrorism slogans.

About 50 people, including Jordanian children holding tiny flags, placed candles on a makeshift sand memorial in the driveway of the Hyatt.

Al-Qaida in Iraq, which appears to be expanding its operations outside of Iraq, said the bombings put the United States on notice that the "backyard camp for the Crusader army is now in the range of fire of the holy warriors."

Al-Zarqawi's group has claimed responsibility for previous attacks in Jordan, including the 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley. Jordan, a moderate Arab nation, has fought a long-running battle against Islamic extremists opposed to its 1994 peace deal with Israel.

In addition to the two Americans, the dead included 33 Jordanians, many with families ties to the Palestinian West Bank; six Iraqis; two Bahrainis; at least two Chinese; one Indonesian; and one Saudi. The others had not yet been identified. Officials said the death toll of 59 — which includes the three attackers — could rise because several of the 100 or so wounded victims were seriously hurt.

Hmm, Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion, but look now:

He also said Iraqis may have had a hand in the attacks.

"The al-Qaida organization has become as a plague that affected Iraq and is now transmitted by the same rats to other countries. A lot of Iraqis, especially former intelligence and army officers, joined this criminal cell," Kubba said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110...AJYU.0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Gibberish]

Bush's invasion seems to have helped to spread terror rather than prevent it.

This is obvious and even Bush knows it. Though he seems to think that the terrorists will run out of people and supplies. He doesn't like to look at the fact that the number of islamic-radicals is increasing.

I sometimes wonder in this day and age if the survival of the human species is at stake:

I believe the world structure will change at the end of this fighting. We are fighting an enemy with no country and really no political ties. They can move in and out of any country they want (secretly of course) and have an abundance of money and supplies. The inevitable outcome is massive deaths of human beings. More so then the world wars.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Seems Iraqi sucide bombers have struck Jordan. Bush's invasion seems to have helped to spread terror rather than prevent it. I sometimes wonder in this day and age if the survival of the human species is at stake:



And nationalism has struck the Jordanian people like a plague much like it did after the September 11 attacks in the US. I wonder how the Jordanian government will unjustly exploit this opportunity to increase it's own power and oppress more the rights of their people:










Hmm, Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion, but look now:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110...AJYU.0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

First al-qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion secondly Zarqawi has long had it in for his government and homeland of Jordan probably due to comments like these from King Husseini:

"The middle east is changing change with it or you may have change thrust upon you." I love this guy.

Why don't you take a que from the Jordanians and clamor for the head of that murdering scum bag al-Zarqawi! Blame the people who did the attacks you freaking moron.

 

[hiker]

Since George Bush is the reason why terrorists attack, if we impeached him for it and replaced him with a liberal, the terrorists would be happy and go home and we all would live happily ever after. :doh

Maybe this will help explain why Jordan was attacked

Early on the afternoon of September 21, King Abdullah bin al-Hussein walked briskly to the front of a ballroom at the Ritz Carlton hotel. The 43-year-old Jordanian monarch, wearing a business suit, was surrounded by bodyguards whose suspicious eyes scanned the room. Inside that ring of security, flanking the king as he made his way to the podium, were two young men wearing yarmulkes.

Abdullah's speech was notable both for its content and its audience. Abdullah, a Sunni Muslim, addressed a group of American rabbis. "Muslims from every branch of Islam," he said, "can now assert without doubt or hesitation that a fatwa calling for the killing of innocent civilians--no matter what nationality or religion, Muslim or Jew, Arab or Israeli--is a basic violation of the most fundamental principles of Islam." Abdullah denounced Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden by name. Not surprisingly, he received a standing ovation.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/check.asp?idArticle=6115&r=skijl

This is not the first time Jordan has been attacked. The attacks did not start with the Iraq invasion. Jordan is the closest thing to a Western society in that region (Other than Israel) Is it any wonder they do not face attack even more often than this?

But don't let any semblance of reason get in the way of the Bush blamefest.

 

[TimmyBoy]

This is obvious and even Bush knows it. Though he seems to think that the terrorists will run out of people and supplies. He doesn't like to look at the fact that the number of islamic-radicals is increasing.




I believe the world structure will change at the end of this fighting. We are fighting an enemy with no country and really no political ties. They can move in and out of any country they want (secretly of course) and have an abundance of money and supplies. The inevitable outcome is massive deaths of human beings. More so then the world wars.

Of course Bush knows that his invasion would have spread terror, but fighting terror was not his objective in Iraq and he did not care if it did spread terror. Bush is not stupid and he is surrounded by intelligent advisors. The control of strategic resources of the Middle East's oil was the objective of the invasion. The US controlling the oil spicket would give it alot of leverage on the world scene. It was a price the Bush Adminstration (as well as past democrat adminstrations) were willing to pay for a gain in strategic power.

 

[TimmyBoy]

The message that the rest of the world recieved from the invasion of Iraq, is that if you do not want to be the next target, then acquire nuclear weapons and boost your military spending. Russia and China boosts their military spending, so then India sees China boosting their military spending so they boost their own military spending, then Pakistan sees India boosting military spending, so Pakistan boosts it's military spending. It sends a ripple effect around the world. Major powers begin to keep their nuclear weapons more readily and quickly usable because tensions have increased. Terrorists might acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on the US, the US might respond with a minor nuclear strike of it's own. The survival of the human species is at stake here when you really think about it. The US is the last super-power remaining and Bush has not used American power wisely.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Europe sees Russia boosting it's military spending, so Europe boosts it's own military spending because they remember past Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe. They might also keep their nukes more readily usable. Terrorism has accomplished the complete re-armament of the world and it could accomplish the extinction and destruction of the human species or civilization.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

... you freaking moron.

Ah, the classic ad hom. Just as fresh today as it was when it was invented. It's just as effective and as brilliant of a debate ploy as it has always been. That's why they call it a classic I suppose.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ah, the classic ad hom. Just as fresh today as it was when it was invented. It's just as effective and as brilliant of a debate ploy as it has always been. That's why they call it a classic I suppose.

oh ya I try my best lol but how am I supposed to debate a contention which is so obviously wrong as this; it's not the terrorist scumbags fault that he blew up a wedding party and killed innocent people it's Bush's fault (sarcastic emphasis added), give me a freaking break.

 

[cnredd]

Seems Iraqi sucide bombers have struck Jordan. Bush's invasion seems to have helped to spread terror rather than prevent it. I sometimes wonder in this day and age if the survival of the human species is at stake:



And nationalism has struck the Jordanian people like a plague much like it did after the September 11 attacks in the US. I wonder how the Jordanian government will unjustly exploit this opportunity to increase it's own power and oppress more the rights of their people:









Hmm, Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion, but look now:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110...AJYU.0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

While you continually suckle the teat of the complaining left, maybe we should see if Zarqawi himself had a beef with Jordan that doesn't relate to your obsession of hatred...

Jordan Court Sentences Al-Zarqawi
Sunday, March 20, 2005

STORIES BACKGROUND LINKS
•Report: Jordan Proposes New Mideast Peace Plan•Terror Suspects Silent in Court

AMMAN, Jordan — Jordan's military court sentenced wanted terror leader Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi (search) to 15 years jail and a detained associate to three years behind bars Sunday for planning an attack on the Jordanian Embassy (search) in Baghdad. ...

Let's continue on to see if Zarqawi was "such a bad guy" BEFORE GWB went into Iraq...

Al-Zarqawi has been linked to numerous other crimes in Jordan and sentenced to death in the plot to kill 60-year-old U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley, who was gunned down Oct. 28, 2002 outside his Amman home.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150953,00.html

And this is just the proof that DOESN'T have anything to do with Zawahiri's letter to Zarqawi found a couple of months ago...

Sorry...your wrong...chalk up another one to reality...

Maybe you should just stop fighting it?...:shrug:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

... it's not the terrorist scumbags fault that he blew up a wedding party and killed innocent people it's Bush's fault (sarcastic emphasis added), give me a freaking break.

In Iraq,
Is it the pilot's fault that there's lethal collateral damage at a wedding party from a bomb that he drops?
Or is it the fault of the person who gave him the order to drop the bomb?
Is it the fault of the politicians who declared the commencement of hostilities?
Or is it Hussein's fault for being his own hatable self all these years?

 

[cnredd]

In Iraq,
Is it the pilot's fault that there's lethal collateral damage at a wedding party from a bomb that he drops?
Or is it the fault of the person who gave him the order to drop the bomb?
Is it the fault of the politicians who declared the commencement of hostilities?
Or is it Hussein's fault for being his own hatable self all these years?

It's "war's" fault...killing civilians without intent has been going on for quite awhile...

I'd expect these kinds of questions from the left...I guess I was correct...:2wave:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's "war's" fault ...

"Fault" is a funny idea ain't it? Blame is pretty much the same as fault. Responsibility is something similar, yet decidedly different. One can be responsible for things that are not one's fault. One can be responsible for things that go wrong even when one is not to blame.

"It's 'war's' fault" is kind of like saying that rape and robbery is crime's fault. It may be technically correct in some abstract way, but ...

Ultimately, as adults, we're all responsible for our own actions and the consequences thereof. The suicide bomber is just as responsible for the deaths of those who are killed by his bomb as the pilot is for the deaths caused by his. To take issue with that is to deny the manhood of the pilot.

But whose fault is it? That's a murky question at best. Everything is the result of the whole universe of events that preceded it. Every one thing leads to another. Where exactly is the dividing line between an effect and a cause when effects become causes and causes are effects?

Ferinstints,
WWII can be blamed on Hitler. But Hitler can be blamed on the onerus peace terms of WWI. But the onerus peace terms can be blamed on various elements of the geopolitical situation in Europe. But the geopolitical situation in Europe can be blamed on ...
And on and on ad infinitum until we arrive at the beginning of time.

The invasion of Iraq is cited by many folks as their inspiration for their radicalization. Yet, as adults, they are each responsible for their actions. Even if the invasion did actually radicalize them, they still chose to do what they do. Is the invasion to blame?
9-11 is cited by many folks as their inspiration for joining the military. Yet, as adults, they are each responsible for their actions. Even if 9-11 did actually inspire them, they still chose to what they do. Is 9-11 to blame?

I'd expect these kinds of questions from the left...I guess I was correct ...

You're selling my comments short.

I knew it would be easier to throw up an ad-hom style drive-by post that dodges the issue and attempts to distract w/ false charges than it would be to actually address the murky and thorny issues around what blame/fault and responsibility actually mean. But I expected that sort of a shallow-minded dodge from Attack-Iraq-Bushbots. I guess I was correct.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

In Iraq,
Is it the pilot's fault that there's lethal collateral damage at a wedding party from a bomb that he drops?
Or is it the fault of the person who gave him the order to drop the bomb?
Is it the fault of the politicians who declared the commencement of hostilities?
Or is it Hussein's fault for being his own hatable self all these years?

Two totally different situations, bombing runs are meant to hit military and strategic targets and the U.S. military does it's damdest not hit civilian targets, the suicide bombers are only hitting civilian targets for no strategic or military gains but rather to instill fear into a populace. You can't honestly be trying to imply a moral equavalency b/w suicide bombers and U.S. soldiers can you? :roll:

 

[ddoyle00]

Its easy to paint Bush as the primary reason for the recent terrorist bombings, but dont forget what happened eight years ago when Clinton was president.

1.The first attack on the World Trade Center.
2.The terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
3.The terrorist attack on the American Embassy in Africa.
4.The terrorists capturing and killing people in Indonesia.

All that and more happened when Clinton was in office and he didnt send troops anywhere. Did they stop? No, they flew two ******* jets into the World Trade Center. I for one am glad that some of these assholes are dead even if the whole operation in covered up to take oil.

 

[cnredd]

"Fault" is a funny idea ain't it? Blame is pretty much the same as fault. Responsibility is something similar, yet decidedly different. One can be responsible for things that are not one's fault. One can be responsible for things that go wrong even when one is not to blame.

"It's 'war's' fault" is kind of like saying that rape and robbery is crime's fault. It may be technically correct in some abstract way, but ...

Ultimately, as adults, we're all responsible for our own actions and the consequences thereof. The suicide bomber is just as responsible for the deaths of those who are killed by his bomb as the pilot is for the deaths caused by his. To take issue with that is to deny the manhood of the pilot.

But whose fault is it? That's a murky question at best. Everything is the result of the whole universe of events that preceded it. Every one thing leads to another. Where exactly is the dividing line between an effect and a cause when effects become causes and causes are effects?

Ferinstints,
WWII can be blamed on Hitler. But Hitler can be blamed on the onerus peace terms of WWI. But the onerus peace terms can be blamed on various elements of the geopolitical situation in Europe. But the geopolitical situation in Europe can be blamed on ...
And on and on ad infinitum until we arrive at the beginning of time.

The invasion of Iraq is cited by many folks as their inspiration for their radicalization. Yet, as adults, they are each responsible for their actions. Even if the invasion did actually radicalize them, they still chose to do what they do. Is the invasion to blame?
9-11 is cited by many folks as their inspiration for joining the military. Yet, as adults, they are each responsible for their actions. Even if 9-11 did actually inspire them, they still chose to what they do. Is 9-11 to blame?

Irrationally informed at its finest?...:2wave:

From here on out we'll blame Africa for everything because that's where the first man came from...:roll:

Should we also blame Jeffrey Dahmer's great-great-grand parents for screwing?

Blame goes to the persons attributable to the actions done...Your "Hitler" analogy was irrelevant...Hitler became what he did because he CHOSE to...whether or not the doors were open and the red carpet rolled out for something like that to happen doesn't matter...The existance of opportunity is not a result...It's what one does with that opportunity that is...

If you saw a bag on money fall out of a Brink's trunks, the opportunity is there for you to be a criminal...It is ONLY though your actions of actually taking the money that makes it so...

You're selling my comments short.

I knew it would be easier to throw up an ad-hom style drive-by post that dodges the issue and attempts to distract w/ false charges than it would be to actually address the murky and thorny issues around what blame/fault and responsibility actually mean. But I expected that sort of a shallow-minded dodge from Attack-Iraq-Bushbots. I guess I was correct.

I get it...

You portray, through your posts, that you are thinking along the lines a person from the Left would...I mention it, with a smiley face no less, so you go straight to name calling...

Niiiice.....:roll:

 

[TimmyBoy]

Irrationally informed at its finest?...:2wave:

From here on out we'll blame Africa for everything because that's where the first man came from...:roll:

Should we also blame Jeffrey Dahmer's great-great-grand parents for screwing?

Blame goes to the persons attributable to the actions done...Your "Hitler" analogy was irrelevant...Hitler became what he did because he CHOSE to...whether or not the doors were open and the red carpet rolled out for something like that to happen doesn't matter...The existance of opportunity is not a result...It's what one does with that opportunity that is...

If you saw a bag on money fall out of a Brink's trunks, the opportunity is there for you to be a criminal...It is ONLY though your actions of actually taking the money that makes it so...

I get it...

You portray, through your posts, that you are thinking along the lines a person from the Left would...I mention it, with a smiley face no less, so you go straight to name calling...

Niiiice.....:roll:

Hitler became what he became because the West forced an unjust Treaty of Versailles on Germany. This treaty caused a much greater depression in Germany than the rest of the world and gave opportunties for Hitler to rise to power. Our job as the West is not to allow such opportunities for Hitlers and terrorists to arise. However, just like with the Treaty of Versailles shortly after World War I, we failed in doing our obligation to insure justice. Because we failed to do justice, terrorists and Hitlers rise to power. Hitler and the terrorists we fight are the products of the injustices that the West has inflicted on peoples of a particular region. Terrorists take up arms because of the unbearable conditions, poverty and injustice they are inflicted with. You can hide from your responsibilities to treat all people fairly and deny the reality of the injustices that West has inflicted in many parts of the globe, but it still doesn't change reality and still doesn't change the truth. It seems you don't want to take an honest look in the mirror as a nation of who we really are. Americans must look at themselves in the mirror and face the painful reality of who we really are and do something about it to bring about a positive change to a bad mirror image. The US cannot win by using force alone. The US can win by addressing the underlying causes of terrorism, which have alot to do with what the US has done to other people and the immense injustices and poverty some people in the Third World endure. But that part is not reported to you in the media or taught to you in the classroom.

 

[KCConservative]

Its easy to paint Bush as the primary reason for the recent terrorist bombings, but dont forget what happened eight years ago when Clinton was president.

1.The first attack on the World Trade Center.
2.The terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
3.The terrorist attack on the American Embassy in Africa.
4.The terrorists capturing and killing people in Indonesia.

All that and more happened when Clinton was in office and he didnt send troops anywhere. Did they stop? No, they flew two ******* jets into the World Trade Center. I for one am glad that some of these assholes are dead even if the whole operation in covered up to take oil.

Amen. Very well said.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You can't honestly be trying to imply a moral equavalency b/w suicide bombers and U.S. soldiers can you?

No. I'm not at all.
I'm discussing the nature of fault and blame.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No. I'm not at all.
I'm discussing the nature of fault and blame.

Well in the nature of fault and blame one must realize that Jordan has been neutral in the war in Iraq and Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the one who bombed them for no good god dang reason at all. Pin this on Bush? Sure then you can turn around and pin the U.S.S. Cole on Clinton and hay we can pin the Iranian hostages on Carter, yep further back we can pin Vietnam on Kennedy hay wait how about Eisenhower, WW2 on Wilson, WW1 on Teddy Roosevelt (hay that ****er caused the Panama conflict too) the Civil war on Lincoln, the revolution on Washington, but I think we ought to place blame where blame is due squarly on the heads of those who perpetrate these actions. Quit blaming the victims and start blaming the attackers.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

From here on out we'll blame Africa for everything because that's where the first man came from...
Should we also blame Jeffrey Dahmer's great-great-grand parents for screwing?

Well perhpas we could. And it'd prob'ly be technically correct in some abstract way, but it's not very useful or meaningful to do so.
But abandoning the idea of assigning blame isn't acceptable either. So, even though the lines are hard to see, there're still needs to draw lines.

You portray, through your posts, that you are thinking along the lines a person from the Left would ...

Your decision to see a lack of support for Team Bush and the invasion of Iraq as the shibboleth of "the Left" throws me in the same lefty boat w/ Kissinger, Scowcroft, Baker, Buckley, Buchanan etc.
It used to be that conservatism took pride in its vigorous and intellectually honest dissent, debate and diversity of ideas. More and more often it seems that folks're trying to redefine conservatism to be exclusively the domain of pop-cons.

... I mention it, with a smiley face no less, so you go straight to name calling ...

I forgot that derision w/ a smiley face is somehow different. Here's the smiley to go w/ what I posted earlier so that it can be a more exact equivalent:
:2wave:

Perhaps I misunderstood the context of your remarks? I have no room for carrying any sort of a grudge.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well in the nature of fault and blame one must realize ... start blaming the attackers.

All of these things are true in some sense.

Since the invasion, Iraq has become a better training ground for terrorists than Afghanistan was.
Who is responsible for that?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

All of these things are true in some sense.

Since the invasion, Iraq has become a better training ground for terrorists than Afghanistan was.
Who is responsible for that?

are you thinking that I didn't know what would happen if we invaded Iraq? On the contrary I knew for a fact that they would call arms to jihad and muslim terrorists from throughout the region would answer the call the same way they did in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, only difference now is they don't have U.S. support, my question to you is how better of a way to bring an unseen enemy into the line of fire?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Timmy, What amazes me is that there were people killed here by suicide bombers. And yet you berate the US and not those that did the killing. How utterly expected, and completely pathetic. You keep giving the terrorist a free pass, im sure thats going to work out well......:doh

 

[KCConservative]

Timmy, What amazes me is that there were people killed here by suicide bombers. And yet you berate the US and not those that did the killing. How utterly expected, and completely pathetic. You keep giving the terrorist a free pass, im sure thats going to work out well......:doh

That is because Timmy thinks a lost war means a return to power for the dems. It is sick and twisted patriotism that spits on the brave men and women fighting for a stable middle east and a safer homeland.