• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Iraq Invasion Has Helped To Spread Terror To Jordan

Paul said:
Care to share your evidence that terrorism has spread because of this war?

Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence Porter J. Goss Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
16 February 2005

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists.
These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.​
http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf
• Anti-globalization and opposition to
US policies could cement a greater
body of terrorist sympathizers,
financiers, and collaborators.
societies.

Iraq and other possible conflicts in
the future could provide recruitment,
training grounds, technical skills and
language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are “professionalized”
and for whom political
violence becomes an end in itself
.​

'New militant threat' from Iraq
The insurgency in Iraq is creating a new type of Islamic militant who could go on to destabilise other countries, a leaked CIA report says.

The classified document says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to co-ordinated attacks.

It says these skills may make them more dangerous than fighters from Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s.

And the threat may grow when the Iraq insurgency ends and fighters disperse.

The broad conclusions of the report have been confirmed by an unnamed CIA official and are said to have been widely circulated in the intelligence community.​
Iraq May Be Prime Place for Training of Militants, C.I.A. Report Concludes
A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.

They said the assessment had argued that Iraq, since the American invasion of 2003, had in many ways assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the rise of Al Qaeda during the 1980's and 1990's, as a magnet and a proving ground for Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.​
Iraq a site to train terrorists, CIA says
The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, officials said yesterday.

Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.

The May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.

Although the Afghan war against the Soviets was largely fought on a rural battlefield, the CIA report said, Iraq is providing extremists with more comprehensive skills including training in operations devised for populated urban areas.
There're more where thos came from. Quite a number of the folks crossing Iraq's borders to engage the US were not on any terrorist watchlist nor were they previously associated with terrorism. The folks say they were radicalised by the invasion of Iraq. But, what do they know about their own motivations anyway?

Paul said:
You defending the terrorist is appalling.
Cite, please.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11
So, if there were to be an attack on US soil then that would mean that the invasion of Iraq was a failure?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence Porter J. Goss Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
16 February 2005

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists.
These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.​
http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf
• Anti-globalization and opposition to
US policies could cement a greater
body of terrorist sympathizers,
financiers, and collaborators.
societies.

Iraq and other possible conflicts in
the future could provide recruitment,
training grounds, technical skills and
language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are “professionalized”
and for whom political
violence becomes an end in itself
.​

'New militant threat' from Iraq
The insurgency in Iraq is creating a new type of Islamic militant who could go on to destabilise other countries, a leaked CIA report says.

The classified document says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to co-ordinated attacks.

It says these skills may make them more dangerous than fighters from Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s.

And the threat may grow when the Iraq insurgency ends and fighters disperse.

The broad conclusions of the report have been confirmed by an unnamed CIA official and are said to have been widely circulated in the intelligence community.​
Iraq May Be Prime Place for Training of Militants, C.I.A. Report Concludes
A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.

They said the assessment had argued that Iraq, since the American invasion of 2003, had in many ways assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the rise of Al Qaeda during the 1980's and 1990's, as a magnet and a proving ground for Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.​
Iraq a site to train terrorists, CIA says
The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, officials said yesterday.

Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.

The May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.

Although the Afghan war against the Soviets was largely fought on a rural battlefield, the CIA report said, Iraq is providing extremists with more comprehensive skills including training in operations devised for populated urban areas.
There're more where thos came from. Quite a number of the folks crossing Iraq's borders to engage the US were not on any terrorist watchlist nor were they previously associated with terrorism. The folks say they were radicalised by the invasion of Iraq. But, what do they know about their own motivations anyway?

Cite, please.


Like I said. We have not created any of this. This is a product of their own civilization and it's spreading is inevitable. If America was invaded by our enemies, would we start lashing out and bombing civillian discoteqeus and train stations and mosques and synagogues and skyjacking airplanes and taking hostages and ransoming off said hostages in every corner of the world? Of course not, because that is not how we are groomed from our birth and we do not believe that God wishes such violence upon his enemies. Especially, against women and children. You're using an inevitable spreading as proof that our actions have created this. There is a lot of "maybe's" and "could be's" and "mights" in this 'proof.' Nobody decided to hate America because of Iraq. Nobody decided to hate America at birth. These people are raised this way through misinformation, a lack of education, and a beating of deep rooted and blasphemous Arab Islam. It doesn't take much for them to pick up a gun and to cross borders to slaughter civilians does it?
 
GySgt said:
Evidence? Don't insult me.
I see. A request for evidence for your position in a debate is insulting to you. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me, because I'll be insulting you by asking you to back up your words w/ evidence again sometime.

GySgt said:
The Intel community deal in numbers, but they also deal in common sense. This is the type of evidence that numbers will not show. I am currently stationed at a higher HQ (underneath HQ Marine Corps) and I deal with this day in and day out. Moving on....
IIRC, you've intimated that you're more informed about the goings on in Iraq and the GWoT that the SECDEF and General Casey and several other persons of similar stature. I suppose it's not surprising that you'd do the same re the US Intel Community.
Hopefully, one day, you'll be ready to back up your forceful prose w/ something more than "Because I said so."
 
GySgt said:
Nobody decided to hate America because of Iraq.
There are folks who think that they decided "to hate America because of Iraq." I suppose you know their minds better than they do.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
So, if there were to be an attack on US soil then that would mean that the invasion of Iraq was a failure?

Iraq is not a war to end Islamic terrorism. Iraq is merely a battle field. London is another. So is Indonesia, Checnya, inevitably France, now Jordan, Sudan, Palestine and Israel, Phillipines, Bosnia, Kosovo. Everywhere these Islamic extremists are doing the work of "Allah" and destroying and murdering is a battle field in different forms. This war will last decades and generations. This is a clash of civilizations all over the world and the more attacks they carry out and the more enemies become willing to face it, the more they seal their fate.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I see. A request for evidence for your position in a debate is insulting to you. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me, because I'll be insulting you by asking you to back up your words w/ evidence again sometime.

IIRC, you've intimated that you're more informed about the goings on in Iraq and the GWoT that the SECDEF and General Casey and several other persons of similar stature. I suppose it's not surprising that you'd do the same re the US Intel Community.
Hopefully, one day, you'll be ready to back up your forceful prose w/ something more than "Because I said so."


I live it, study it, and witness it.

All one has to do is study what military analyst have said for two decades and then sit back and watch it unfold as other analysts throw their belated opinions in as such things occur. Like I said, "they are dealing in numbers." They are also using common sense. There was no way to fight this problem without pushing some already dormant extremists in to the camps where before their recruitment, were cheerleaders of every American civilian death.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Iraq is not a war to end Islamic terrorism. Iraq is merely a battle field. London is another. So is Indonesia, Checnya, inevitably France, now Jordan, Sudan, Palestine and Israel, Phillipines, Bosnia, Kosovo. Everywhere these Islamic extremists are doing the work of "Allah" and destroying and murdering is a battle field in different forms. This war will last decades and generations. This is a clash of civilizations all over the world and the more attacks they carry out and the more enemies become willing to face it, the more they seal their fate.
Tell it to Trajan who cited "No attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11" as evidence that the invasion of Iraq has not spread terrorism or increased the extremists camp.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
There are folks who think that they decided "to hate America because of Iraq." I suppose you know their minds better than they do.

Now you are arguing without knowing the difference between a terrorist and a Sunni disrupter in Iraq. Very few of these individuals will export outside of Iraq and if they do, then they are a product of their civilization. They were not created by us.

Hmmmm...some American troops wound up killing my family because I was harboring "soldiers of God" in Fallujah. I'm angry. I will exact my revenge by traveling the world and murdering civillians wherever I please and I will kill fellow Muslims while I'm at it, because they don't believe in Allah as I do. - Not very logical. This is a civilization that has been raised to view such things as honorable and no manner of dealing with them short of changing their societies to a more democratic one will change them. This is why this war will take generations.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Tell it to Trajan who cited "No attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11" as evidence that the invasion of Iraq has not spread terrorism or increased the extremists camp.

I would think that he said that based on the facts that there hasn't been one. How many attacks might we have had if Al-Queda and their adherents were left to focus their manpower and funding on American soil rather than sending them to their deaths in Iraq over the last two years? You're guess is as good as mine, but given 9/11, you can bet that there would have been something.

This insurgency and local Sunni resistance would have happened in Iran (not necessary for ground assault) and Syria (needs a military punitive strike) also. It would also have happened in Saudi (would have been a HUGE mistake). At least with Iraq, Saddam is gone and is no longer an image to the extremists on how to defy America while abusing and maintaining the status quo on his people. He's also no longer a threat for financial aid to anybody against us or our allies.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The foriegn insurgency in Iraq; al-qaeda in Iraq led by Al-Zarqawi
So, you're saying that no one's mind was changed re engaging in violent opposition to the US presence in Iraq by the existence of the US presence in Iraq?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
So, you're saying that no one's mind was changed re engaging in violent opposition to the US presence in Iraq by the existence of the US presence in Iraq?

So if there is one individual that is fighting because of a family member was killed than I am completely wrong? You can do better than that. Your arguing for the sake of arguing.

The issue is global terrorism. The truth is that if America up and left Iraq today, then the local Sunni resistance would go back to life as before and very few would be considered terrorists. Many of the isurgency would go back to their families in Syria and Iran. Like I said, "It doesn't matter what we do, this civilization has millions of people that subscribe to the extremists way of revenge for their own failures." 9/11, alone, was seen as an Islamic victory by the uneducated and ignorant and was a recruitment tool for "martyrs." Our retaliation is a recruitment tool for "martyrs" to defend their God. There is no delicate way to see us to the end. We are up against a civilization, not a few rogues.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
I would think that he said that based on the facts that there hasn't been one. How many attacks might we have had if Al-Queda and their adherents were left to focus their manpower and funding on American soil rather than sending them to their deaths in Iraq over the last two years? You're guess is as good as mine, but given 9/11, you can bet that there would have been something.
One could bet that. It may be that if we had kept our focus on counter terrorism and WMD proliferation we may have accomplished the same effect w/o adding so much to the efforts of violent Islamists.

GySgt said:
At least with Iraq, Saddam is gone and is no longer an image to the extremists on how to defy America while abusing and maintaining the status quo on his people.
The view of Mohammed Atta, and prob'ly other members of al Qaida, was that "Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East"(alt link)
 
Simon W. Moon said:
So, you're saying that no one's mind was changed re engaging in violent opposition to the US presence in Iraq by the existence of the US presence in Iraq?

I think that alot of minds were changed when we told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam in 90-91 and promised to back them and then we sold them out because of the international community. I still remember when after the U.S. aided in ousting Saddam from Kuwait the majority of people in the Mid-East were waving the Stars and Stripes instead of burning them. The majority of the Iraqis are greatful that the U.S. got rid of the bastard Saddam and gave them a chance at freedom, it's the Sunni minority that no longer have a strangle hold over the country that are pissed that we ousted Saddam.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
One could bet that. It may be that if we had kept our focus on counter terrorism and WMD proliferation we may have accomplished the same effect w/o adding so much to the efforts of violent Islamists.


The view of Mohammed Atta, and prob'ly other members of al Qaida, was that "Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East"(alt link)

Doubtful. We did nothing against them for under a decade. It didn't stop the attacks leading up to 9/11. Everyone has their own views. That's why I deal in generalities and don't get bogged down in what an individual might say or any exceptions to prove a point. This is why I don't seek out Internet sites to "prove" myself. Proof is in the study, not a few Internet sites with opinions after the fact.

Counter terrorism is dealing with the civilization behind the extremists. It is not arresting up a few rogues and calling it a success. Do you think after we get Bin Ladden, then all will be better? Will another terrorist group not emerge from this failing civilization as they have been for decades? Will the PLO stop lobbing rockets into Israel? Will the Islamic population in France not continue to gain strength and become more and more isolated from their host nation leading up to terrorism as an outlet? The people in the Middle East know this. This is why reformacist in Syria, who believe in Bush's sense for change, are being imprisoned and chased away by the Baathist leadership that now runs the country. This is why 70 percent of the population in Iran are disenchanted youth under thirty years old and are wanting a more democratic civilization away from the Khomeini oppressions that the Mullahs and current government subscribe to.

Iraq wasn't about a loss of focus. It very much was about terrorism.
 
--------------------
[snip]
Jordan Attacks Claim 17 From One Family
By Mohammed Ballas - Associated Press
Nov 10, 2005

SILET AL-THAHER, West Bank - In this Palestinian village, the Akhras clan mourned 17 relatives killed by a suicide bomber in Jordan — the first time Palestinians have been a target in a suicide attack.
[/snip]
--------------------

Now for the supreme irony...

--------------------
[snip]
Female suicide bomber kills 2 at capital supermarket
By Etgar Lefkovits - Jerusalem Post
Mar 31, 2002. pg. 03

An 18 year-old female Palestinian suicide bomber wearing a belt of explosives around her waist, walked into a supermarket in Jerusalem's Kiryat Hayovel neighborhood Friday afternoon and blew herself up, killing two Israelis and wounding 28 others. The Palestinian female was identified as Ayat Akhras of the West Bank town of Silet al-Thaher.
[/snip]
--------------------


 
GySgt said:
So if there is one individual that is fighting because of a family member was killed than I am completely wrong?
First, that comment was in response to what Trajan had posted. Second, it wouldn't make you wrong, it would just make your statement wrong.

GySgt said:
Many of the isurgency would go back to their families in Syria and Iran.
Surely, some would. But there're many who would remain active in the "Global Jihad" after returning to their families in Syria and Iran.

GySgt said:
Our retaliation is a recruitment tool for "martyrs" to defend their God. There is no delicate way to see us to the end. We are up against a civilization, not a few rogues.
Unlike Afghanistan, invading Iraq was a **** poor choice for "retaliation" for 9-11. In addition, the invasion and subsequent occupation has been poorly managed by the various politico hacks to the detriment of the GWoT.
The fact that there's "no delicate way to see us to the end" does not require us to commit blunders of strategy, tactics and policy.
 
GySgt said:
Doubtful. We did nothing against them for under a decade. It didn't stop the attacks leading up to 9/11.
Doing nothing was not suggested.

GySgt said:
Counter terrorism is dealing with the civilization behind the extremists.
I'm not debating this point. Invading Iraq does not deal with the civilization behind the extremists in a way that is productive for the US.

GySgt said:
Iraq wasn't about a loss of focus. It very much was about terrorism.
Issues for the Intelligence Community
29, July 2004
... Iraq was not the only significant intelligence problem facing the Community in the years immediately preceding the war. Counter terrorism and counter proliferation were given higher priority ...
 
Simon W. Moon said:
First, that comment was in response to what Trajan had posted. Second, it wouldn't make you wrong, it would just make your statement wrong.

Surely, some would. But there're many who would remain active in the "Global Jihad" after returning to their families in Syria and Iran.

Unlike Afghanistan, invading Iraq was a **** poor choice for "retaliation" for 9-11. In addition, the invasion and subsequent occupation has been poorly managed by the various politico hacks to the detriment of the GWoT.
The fact that there's "no delicate way to see us to the end" does not require us to commit blunders of strategy, tactics and policy.


They would be just as active as they were before. Nothing new and nothing we caused. They are exactly as they were raised. If a child molester, who lives among the normal, has no crime committed, guilty of anything? If we open up a school across the street and he now acts on what he is and reveals himself, did we cause this?

This is why you will remain obtuse to the situation. 9/11 was one attack. There are decades of attacks to draw from when reflecting on a civilizations symptoms. Saddam was every part of that symptom as Bin Laden. This had nothing to do with "retaliation" of one attack. Screw 9/11. If this is all you see, then you are not opening your eyes and simply prefer to stay in the dark. Dealing with Syria (military strike needed), Iran (ground assault not necessary), and Saudi (we're screwed for now), while leaving Saddam to continue to practice in the heartland what every country around him practiced, would be stupid. Iraq offered a lot to us and it will prove to be Iran and Syria's undoing. Open your eyes. President Bush stumbled upon what the military community has been saying since the Reagan era.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
Doing nothing was not suggested.

I'm not debating this point. Invading Iraq does not deal with the civilization behind the extremists in a way that is productive for the US.


Issues for the Intelligence Community
29, July 2004
... Iraq was not the only significant intelligence problem facing the Community in the years immediately preceding the war. Counter terrorism and counter proliferation were given higher priority ...

And what was productive to the US? How was leaving Saddam to continue his work within and outside his borders productive to the US? Would it be better if we invaded Iran or Syria and dealt with the insurgents, local resistance to equality, and Al-Queda there instead of Iraq where Saddam would have been a border away with an Army ready to go? What would have been productive?

You're still using concrete information regarding WMD and links to Al-Queda as your argument. What does any of it have to do with the real problem behind Islamic extremism? There is no WMD in Saudi, yet we know what we know about their society regarding terrorism. There is no concrete evidence between Al-Queda and some terrorist in Indonesia, but we know what we know. The common glue amongst this global war on terror is Islam and a civilization. This needs addressed. Not the mundane details and mistakes along the way that only serve to disrupt efforts.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
They would be just as active as they were before. Nothing new and nothing we caused.
So you're saying that the same number of folks'd be terrorists regardless of whether we invaded Iraq? And that folks can be terrorist w/o committing any acts of terrorism?

GySgt said:
This is why you will remain obtuse to the situation. 9/11 was one attack. There are decades of attacks to draw from when reflecting on a civilizations symptoms. Saddam was every part of that symptom as Bin Laden.
Even if this were granted as true, it still doesn't speak to the invasion of Iraq at the time and in the manner in which it was done as being either necessary or desirable.

GySgt said:
Iraq offered a lot to us and it will prove to be Iran and Syria's undoing.
So far the invasion of Iraq seems to be going well for Iran, so I ask, "When?" What is your prediction? When will it become Iran's undoing? How long until we know if your theory is valid or not?

GySgt said:
Open your eyes.
Open your eyes.

GySgt said:
President Bush stumbled upon what the military community has been saying since the Reagan era.
And who is that has been doing this speaking for the military community? What exactly have they said? Or is this something else where we must simply take your word for it?
 
GySgt said:
How was leaving Saddam to continue his work within and outside his borders productive to the US?
It need not be that productive to be a better alternative to something that is even less helpful.

GySgt said:
You're still using concrete information regarding WMD and links to Al-Queda as your argument.
Silly me. Relying on things like concrete information.

GySgt said:
What does any of it have to do with the real problem behind Islamic extremism?
W/o concrete information "the real problem behind" violent Islamist extremism is solely a matter of imagination. It takes information to get beyond mere imagination.

GySgt said:
The common glue amongst this global war on terror is Islam and a civilization. This needs addressed. Not the mundane details and mistakes along the way that only serve to disrupt efforts.
I agree that these things need to be dealt w/. This invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive in re these efforts.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
So you're saying that the same number of folks'd be terrorists regardless of whether we invaded Iraq? And that folks can be terrorist w/o committing any acts of terrorism?

I'm saying, that these people are raised within a civilization to hate infidels and raising one's fist to hurt or kill is seen as favorable to their God. Whether they do it or not, they are the recruiting pool for the extremists and choosing not to deal with them and help them out of their oppression will only give the extemists camp an unimpeded strength.

Simon W. Moon said:
So far the invasion of Iraq seems to be going well for Iran, so I ask, "When?" What is your prediction? When will it become Iran's undoing? How long until we know if your theory is valid or not?
Theory? It is fact. No one can predict when. How much do you know about the social issues in Iran? I'm guessing not a lot except for the whole WMD issue. The Iranian model has failed and the Shiite Clerics in Iraq knows it. Far from inaugurating a perfect society, the tyranny of the mullahs alienated the young from religion and generated cynicism toward the clergy. Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution brutalized Islam. Iraq's mullahs likely will press for greater social strictures than we would like to see, but they're not going to bind themselves to an Iranian government that they view as living on borrowed time. There's a greater likelihood that Iraq's free elections will inspire the people of Iran. About 70% of Iran's population is younger than 30, and disenchanted. Iraqi democracy may prove the downfall of Iran's mullahs, not the other way around. Like so many, you let the three day drive by (Gulf War) spoil you into the prospect of immediate victories. This war aginst terrorism will take time.

Simon W. Moon said:
And who is that has been doing this speaking for the military community? What exactly have they said? Or is this something else where we must simply take your word for it?

Do your own damn homework and studying. There are books, proffessional articles and papers, and studies to learn from. Military analysts and social reformacist for the Middle East have been saying these things for two decades and I have been studying it for one, because since Somalia, I chose to learn of my enemy and why they do the things that Americans do not.

Eric B. Riker is well known...
http://www.unc.edu/~chaos1/mideast.pdf#search='military%20analysts%20for%20the%20middle%20east'

Steven Heydemann....
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9006.html

Here is a link full of little information...
http://www.pwhce.org/middleeastdemocracy.html

Stephen Zunes is an expert Middle Eastern history and politics....
http://www.fpif.org/papers/mideast/index_body.html

Here is a butt load of books you can read from military analysts and proffessors so that you can conduct your own studies instead of relying on a reporter to influence your opinion......
http://print.google.com/print?hl=en&q=military+analysis+for+change+in+the+middle+east

Another site full of good info...
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-ntel.htm#socialintel

Dealing with social issues....
http://www.rand.org/nsrd/cmepp/imey/hot/social_problems.html

Michael Dahan, a Political Scientist....
http://www.mevic.org/papers/inet-mena.html


There is plenty of sources in which to begin your own study. These just popped up and there are plenty of well known authors who were former Intellligence Officers in different branches of the military and in the CIA that have books of works and papers out there.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
W/o concrete information "the real problem behind" violent Islamist extremism is solely a matter of imagination. It takes information to get beyond mere imagination.

I agree that these things need to be dealt w/. This invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive in re these efforts.

There is no imagination of this. The problem with trying to tell a nation of civillians of this reality is that they want to see nuclear missiles and warehouses full of Sarin gas before they can understand the threat. How the hell does any President do that to a bunch of people that favored the years of the false peace under Clinton?

No matter what we did or will do in the future, it will be seen as counterproductive to the masses, because immediate results can not be provided. Most Americans lack the patience to see anything through and in doing so actually do make things counterproductive. If your kid shoplifts and you bust his ass for it, will the results of your actions be immediate or will you have to wait ten years and look back on his life of good citizenry to see the results?
 
GySgt said:
There is no imagination of this. The problem with trying to tell a nation of civillians of this reality is that they want to see nuclear missiles and warehouses full of Sarin gas before they can understand the threat.

I know. It's friggin amazing.

Consider:

These terrorists strap bombs to their children to blow up other children.

They flew planes into buildings full of civilians.

Most Islamic theocracies in one way or another support terrorists.

Iran has the knowledge and technology to make nukes. They just lack weapons grade uranium. The plant they are now building will give them such. You think they wont make nukes and let terrorists have them? If you don't then you are a fool. I'm not willing to wait for mushroom clouds in this nation to say I told you so. Apparently you libs demand we wait for such a thing. If ever there was a time to be proactive it is now.

Only a few ways to prevent this.

Tighten our borders to such extent that no one gets in, ever, Amen. But you libs will scream unfair to the poor illeagle immigrants.

Wipe the fuc*kers off the face of the earth. And take a whole lot of innocent, oppressed people with them.

Change their countries from within. Give them the freedom and knowledge and power to deal with the women beating monsters who now control these nations. As we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. These ideas will spread. Don't you doubt the oppressed of these horrid nations now look to these countries as an example with before unimagined hope.

Put it all together. Unimagined horror awaits this nation if we sit idly by on our hands. No change in "foreign policy" will sway these monsters. If you think it will then you don't understand Islam.

Conversion.

Temporary appeasement.

Death.

This is how they deal with us. Don't take it from me. Read that rag the Koran. The young boys of these nations don't learn math and science. They learn the Koran. It's easy to brainwash children. I brainwashed mine into being polite and well mannered.

Don't you libs have the ability to see past your whining bullshit to see the long term picture? Haven't heard you guys come up with a plan. Your best is "Bush lied". That's not gonna stop mushroom clouds. And you know what, I don't give a fuc*k what you think. Bush is doing his best to take care of this problem. He has the balls to address this. If he succeeds then we wont be attacked with nukes. He'll never get credit for that. And he knows it. He isn't sticking his finger in the political wind and doing what the unwashed masses FEEL is right. Like Clinton did. He is doing what is political suicide. Because it's right.

There is only one way to deal with this:

Free the Women.
 
Back
Top Bottom