- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,776
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Paul said:Care to share your evidence that terrorism has spread because of this war?
Cite, please.Paul said:You defending the terrorist is appalling.
So, if there were to be an attack on US soil then that would mean that the invasion of Iraq was a failure?Trajan Octavian Titus said:No attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11
Simon W. Moon said:Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence Porter J. Goss Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence16 February 2005http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf
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.• 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 IraqThe insurgency in Iraq is creating a new type of Islamic militant who could go on to destabilise other countries, a leaked CIA report says.Iraq May Be Prime Place for Training of Militants, C.I.A. Report Concludes
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.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.Iraq a site to train terrorists, CIA says
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.
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.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?
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.
Cite, please.
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:Evidence? Don't insult me.
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.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....
There are folks who think that they decided "to hate America because of Iraq." I suppose you know their minds better than they do.GySgt said:Nobody decided to hate America because of Iraq.
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?
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."
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.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.
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.
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.
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?Trajan Octavian Titus said:The foriegn insurgency in Iraq; al-qaeda in Iraq led by Al-Zarqawi
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?
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: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.
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)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.
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?
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)
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:So if there is one individual that is fighting because of a family member was killed than I am completely 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.GySgt said:Many of the isurgency would go back 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.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.
Doing nothing was not suggested.GySgt said:Doubtful. We did nothing against them for under a decade. It didn't stop the attacks leading up to 9/11.
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:Counter terrorism is dealing with the civilization behind the extremists.
Issues for the Intelligence CommunityGySgt said:Iraq wasn't about a loss of focus. It very much was about terrorism.
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.
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 ...
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:They would be just as active as they were before. Nothing new and nothing we caused.
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: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.
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:Iraq offered a lot to us and it will prove to be Iran and Syria's undoing.
Open your eyes.GySgt said:Open your eyes.
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:President Bush stumbled upon what the military community has been saying since the Reagan era.
It need not be that productive to be a better alternative to something that is even less helpful.GySgt said:How was leaving Saddam to continue his work within and outside his borders productive to the US?
Silly me. Relying on things like concrete information.GySgt said:You're still using concrete information regarding WMD and links to Al-Queda as your argument.
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:What does any of it have to do with the real problem behind Islamic extremism?
I agree that these things need to be dealt w/. This invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive in re these efforts.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.
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?
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: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?
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?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?