Bush Iraq Invasion Has Helped To Spread Terror To Jordan

[MSgt]

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.

This is a war of attrition unlike any other war we have ever been a part of. So many do not know what that means.

 

[MSgt]

More of what I was talking about when I said that with every new terrorist attack, they seal their own fate. While so many are focused on anything that might show how our actions are "creating terrorists," the terrorists are actually creating more and more enemies. They are slowly waking up their own people throughout the Middle East. Like I said before, "the only thing that will fix the Middle East in the end is Muslims." The sooner they wake up and take responsibility for their own world and their own religious extremists, the better. Especially, the youth, because hatred taught to the young seems a lingering cancer of the human condition. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many.

ZARQA, Jordan - In this rundown industrial town where the al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was born, residents expressed anger, skepticism and dismay Saturday that one of their own could be behind Amman's triple bombings that killed 57 people, mostly Arabs and Muslims.

"If there were still any people with any sympathy left for al-Zarqawi, it's gone now. It has backfired on him," said Zuheir Najjar, 45. "What does an attack on a wedding with women and children have to do with fighting the Americans?"

"I support the resistance against the Americans in Iraq and against the Israelis everywhere," said the unemployed 47-year-old. "Those are our enemies. But I don't support bombing innocent civilians."

In the town's center, Nabil Daoud said he supported bin Laden when he fought the Soviets and, later, the Americans in Afghanistan, just like he backed al-Zarqawi's insurgency against the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq.

"But when they started targeting Muslims, I stopped sympathizing with them," said Daoud, who is in his early 20s. "I don't understand it anymore."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_zarqawi_s_hometown

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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.

You seem to be arguing for things that we agree upon. We both agree that there's a serious and pervasive problem. While I certainly appreciate your posts, They do come across as if you think we disagree about points that we hold in common.

A single, possible point of difference would be that I think that the probability of any given person deciding to carry-out violent actions is more variable than you have portrayed it in your recent comments. Perhaps this due to a relatively hurried composition on your part, perhaps it's due to the inherent inexactness of language, perhaps I've just misread what you're saying. But it seems as if you're trying to make the case that the US's actions re the invasion and occupation of Iraq have had little or no impact re the likelihood of Muslim, Arab individuals in the MENA region decisions to engage in, support or merely look the other way from terrorist activities.

Am I close here?

We agree that that there are cultural elements that influence perceptions of the world that are found in the MENA region that are decidedly 'problematic.' Elements that lend themselves to allowing non-state sanctioned violence as a means of negotiating resolutions to conflicts. Just issues w/ how they see the world.

However, I don't think that these are the only factors that come into play when someone makes a decision to engage in or ignore terrorism related activities. Nor do I think that these elements of culture that proscribe and prescribe ways of perceiving and interpreting the world are such powerful factors that an individual cannot but help to engage in or ignore terrorism related activities despite other factors.

I think that environmental factors come into play in a significant way when many individuals make decisions. I think that an individual's perception of his world can have a major role in the likelihood him choosing particular actions. I suspect that you do too.

It seems that you give it a shorter shrift when it comes to someone's choice to engage in terrorism. You see, I think that certain conditions can promote the likelihood of an individual deciding to perform violent acts, and that certain conditions inhibit the likelihood of an individual making such decisions.

Many lower level Islamist/extremist volunteers are not trained or skilled fighters. They come from a wide range of countries, though mostly from the Maghreb, usually with little or no training. The majority of them have only a limited history of affiliation with any organized Islamist or extremist group if they have any history of such at all.

Theory? It is fact. No one can predict when.

If it were a fact it would be demonstrable. As it is, at best, it's a theory. However since it has no testable, falsifiable elements, it more like pontification really.

How much do you know about the social issues in Iran?

Not as much as some, but more than most Americans. I've done a bit of research from the the Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran and the Iranian Revolution and the some of the history angle.

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.

Iranians already have a desire for democracy before we invaded Iraq. Interestingly enough, according to the Arab Human Development Report from 2003.pdf (p19), the view that democracy is the best form of government and a dislike for autocracies are more widely held in ME countries than in the US/Can/Aus/NZ. So, it would seem that are already plenty inspired on this count.

If you like we can debate the "Democratic Domino Theory." I've already begun a thread on the very subject: Democratic Domino Theory

Like so many, you let the three day drive by (Gulf War) spoil you into the prospect of immediate victories. This war against terrorism will take time.

Hogwash. My objections have nothing to do w/ a lack of patience. The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea before it was begun.

Do your own damn homework and studying.

Ain't you touchy. Just a simple request for a citation for an assertion made in a debate. It's an accepted practice. There's no need to take it personally or be "insulted" by it. Not that I can stop you from finding offense in it if you so choose, but all the same ...

There are books, professional 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.

Thank you for being so kind as to supply some interesting links.

None of these seem to be advocating a mismanaged invasion and occupation of Iraq as a solution to anything though.

 

[MSgt]

A single, possible point of difference would be that I think that the probability of any given person deciding to carry-out violent actions is more variable than you have portrayed it in your recent comments. Perhaps this due to a relatively hurried composition on your part, perhaps it's due to the inherent inexactness of language, perhaps I've just misread what you're saying. But it seems as if you're trying to make the case that the US's actions re the invasion and occupation of Iraq have had little or no impact re the likelihood of Muslim, Arab individuals in the MENA region decisions to engage in, support or merely look the other way from terrorist activities.

Am I close here?

No. Quite the opposite. Democracy and militant regime changes are necessary in the "War on Terror." Iraq was as good a place as any to spark change, if not the best. The Jordanian populous has already chastised Zarqawi's decision to kill fellow Muslims. Even though it seemed OK as long as he was killing Iraqis. The truth is, that they are so ignorant to world events, that they think America is slaughtering Muslims and Israel is to blame for the bombings in Jordan!


In the town's center, Nabil Daoud said he supported bin Laden when he fought the Soviets and, later, the Americans in Afghanistan, just like he backed al-Zarqawi's insurgency against the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq. "But when they started targeting Muslims, I stopped sympathizing with them," said Daoud, who is in his early 20s. "I don't understand it anymore."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_zarqawi_s_hometown

Now Zarqawi is showing a want to export bombings in other locals around the Midde East. Do you think he is going to make more friends or wake more Muslims up to who the true monsters are? He is the very definition of an "apocalyptic" terrorist. They always bring about their own demise and with every new attack on Muslims, he awakens them from their ignorance. Many in the Middle East think we and Israel are the enemy. Why? When was the last time Israel attacked Muslims in aggression? Are they not aware that America gives the most foreign aid to Palestine, despite being surrounded by Muslims countires? Do they not know of all the building and retructuring going on inside Iraq tyhanks to the bilions and billions of dollars we have "given" Muslims? The free flow of information and Democracy is the Arab Mullah's and the elite's worse enemy.

It seems that you give it a shorter shrift when it comes to someone's choice to engage in terrorism. You see, I think that certain conditions can promote the likelihood of an individual deciding to perform violent acts, and that certain conditions inhibit the likelihood of an individual making such decisions.

The problem with this is that we did absolutely nothing throughout the 90's despite being attacked. In what way did we antagonize them into 9/11? The only way to deal with this is to deal with it. The temporary repurcussions are necessary. You don't fix a broken arm without setting it and causing more temporary pain.

Many lower level Islamist/extremist volunteers are not trained or skilled fighters. They come from a wide range of countries, though mostly from the Maghreb, usually with little or no training. The majority of them have only a limited history of affiliation with any organized Islamist or extremist group if they have any history of such at all.

This is why they are slaughtered every where we find them. And not just in Iraq.

Iranians already have a desire for democracy before we invaded Iraq. Interestingly enough, according to the Arab Human Development Report from 2003.pdf (p19), the view that democracy is the best form of government and a dislike for autocracies are more widely held in ME countries than in the US/Can/Aus/NZ. So, it would seem that are already plenty inspired on this count.

Exactly. Don't you think that they are watching Iraq's advancements towards Democracy? Iraq is about inspiration to the rest. Whether the President had that intuition or not, I did and so did my Commander (General Mattis), so you can bet that plenty of proffessionals knew this.

If you like we can debate the "Democratic Domino Theory." I've already begun a thread on the very subject: Democratic Domino Theory

No. It would seem that we agree on this, but for some reason you feel Iraq wasn't worthy a place to start.

Thank you for being so kind as to supply some interesting links.
None of these seem to be advocating a mismanaged invasion and occupation of Iraq as a solution to anything though.

These were links regarding regime changes, social issues, the need for democracy, etc in the Middle East. You're not going to find a "blue print" on how best to achieve this or who to attack or who not to attack or how to attack or how long to stat or etc. How that end is met is up to who makes the decisions. We could have easily started in Syria (punitive strike necessary), but there still would have been an Al-Queda presence through insurgency and Saddam would still be across the border inevitably needing ousted with no hope of using diplomatic leverage. Even Clinton (the great appeaser) new the need for a regime change inside Iraq. Saddam was a figure head for Islamic defiance towards the west for everyone inside the Middle East. To the many ignorant and uneducated throughout the Middle East, he was a hero. So is Bin Ladden, though Zarqawi has really hurt that image by slaughtering fellow Muslims and now in his own home town.