• 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.

the notion that Americas involvement in Iraq is "creating" terrorists (1 Viewer)

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
is just simply nuts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198832,00.html

so by that notion.....this new leader just woke up yesterday and decided "hey, I want to lead a terrorist organization because of Americas actions in Iraq"

its far more logical to think he was already a major terrorist player and without our involvement in Iraq, he could have just sat back and planned attacks without any fear of reprisal.

now, he has to look over his shoulder and wonder if a 500 lb bomb is going to fall on his head.
 
Nut Jobs in the Intelligence Community

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.
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?
 
nothing in that post disputes my assertion that the people you are talking about WERE ALREADY TERRORISTS.

the notion that we CREATED THEM is pure B.S. plain and simple.

sure they are trainging there......but if not there, in afghanistan, or syria.

sure they are gaining experience. should we have never fought the Japanese for fear they would learn better warfare?

to believe the terrorists simply didnt exist before we got there is nonsense....and no ammount of cut and paste will change that.

I will concede they are comming to the forefront, they are learning, they are studying. no argument there. I also dont think that is sufficient reason to run away from the fight like a coward.
 
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.
So, you're saying that these "new anti-US jihadists" aren't really new at all and that Porter Goss doesn't know what he's talking about?

And, how is it that the body of terrorist sympathizers, financiers, and collaborators grows when there aren't more people being added to it?
Do you know something that the CIA doesn't?
 
So, you're saying that these "new anti-US jihadists" aren't really new at all and that Porter Goss doesn't know what he's talking about?

I thought I was clear. I am saying our presence does not create new terrorists.

if they are recruited, they would have been recruited anyway. if they werent hating AMerica, they would be recruited to hate Israel, or Brittain, or someone else.

If trying to stop crime created more criminals, I guess we can just fire all the police officers.

fact is, criminals are going to be criminals whether there is an increased presence of law enforcement or not.

terrorism is the same thing, just on a larger scale.
 
SimonWMoon said:
you're saying that...Porter Goss doesn't know what he's talking about?

Uhmmm, well, er, uh, ;)

SimonWMoon said:
Do you know something that the CIA doesn't?

Uhmmm, well, er, uh, ;)

Just kidding. Mostly. Have recently read a couple of more books describing the CIA and US intel efforts leading up to 9/11 and then Iraq. Not pretty. Very discouraging, actually. Makes me think that perhaps the 9/11 commish knew more than I originally gave them credit for when they recommended a re-org of the intel community.

Off topic! Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
is just simply nuts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198832,00.html

so by that notion.....this new leader just woke up yesterday and decided "hey, I want to lead a terrorist organization because of Americas actions in Iraq"

its far more logical to think he was already a major terrorist player and without our involvement in Iraq, he could have just sat back and planned attacks without any fear of reprisal.

now, he has to look over his shoulder and wonder if a 500 lb bomb is going to fall on his head.
I'd like to know why you think it's "nuts". Because the article you posted has nothing to do with this thread!
 
Billo_Really said:
I'd like to know why you think it's "nuts". Because the article you posted has nothing to do with this thread!


its good to see you this afternoon as well Billo. Hows it goin?
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
fact is, criminals are going to be criminals whether there is an increased presence of law enforcement or not.
That is total bullshit! A while back, people that drove without buckling their seatbelt were not criminals. You do that now, you're a criminal. Sometimes, your own intolerance gets the better of you.
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I thought I was clear. I am saying our presence does not create new terrorists.
What about former Iraqi military men that didn't plan to be terrorists, but after living without a job or income and seeing American atrocities being committed throughout the country, decided to join the insurgency. If we hadn't attacked, they would still be law-abiding citizens.
 
Billo_Really said:
That is total bullshit! A while back, people that drove without buckling their seatbelt were not criminals. You do that now, you're a criminal. Sometimes, your own intolerance gets the better of you.


good to see you too Billo.

what in the world does your opinion on seatbelts have to do with my statement that an increased presence of law enforcement simply does not create criminals?
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
its good to see you this afternoon as well Billo. Hows it goin?
Why thank you, PA, it's good to see you too. Things are going great. I've got a job and I'm not stuck in traffic.

Nice to see you got a lot to say. I might not agree with any of it. But it's nice to see you get "your" word out there and contributing to the "marketplace of ideas".
 
Billo_Really said:
What about former Iraqi military men that didn't plan to be terrorists, but after living without a job or income and seeing American atrocities being committed throughout the country, decided to join the insurgency. If we hadn't attacked, they would still be law-abiding citizens.


you cant convince me those men are doing that.

clear thinking men would join the military, or police force of their new country for a job, rather than some lame insurgency made up of terrorists and criminals.

thats certainly what I would do.
 
Billo_Really said:
Why thank you, PA, it's good to see you too. Things are going great. I've got a job and I'm not stuck in traffic.

Nice to see you got a lot to say. I might not agree with any of it. But it's nice to see you get "your" word out there and contributing to the "marketplace of ideas".


I couldnt agree more. I have had a wonderfull week and am looking forward to a terrific weekend.

:2wave:
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
good to see you too Billo.

what in the world does your opinion on seatbelts have to do with my statement that an increased presence of law enforcement simply does not create criminals?
When you put it that way, absolutely nothing. My apologies for being a little hyper-combative. There are certain criminals that are going to be criminals whether there is law enforcement or not. There are also people that were not criminals, have become criminals without doing anything different in their lives with the exception that a bunch of people got into a room and said, "From now on, this is a crime".

You want to reduce crime in America, stop making so many god-damn laws!
 
ProudAmerican said:
the notion that Americas involvement in Iraq is "creating" terrorists is just simply nuts.

You mean we've been there three years with ~ 150,000 troops and we haven't managed to kill/capture a measely 10,000 insurgents *yet*!

Jeez I hope the US military is better than that.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
you cant convince me those men are doing that.

clear thinking men would join the military, or police force of their new country for a job, rather than some lame insurgency made up of terrorists and criminals.

thats certainly what I would do.
I as well. No one is going to convince you of anything unless you are receptive to that point of view. You would think "clear thinking men" wouldn't do that, but there are reports that this is exactly what has happened.

It's funny that this insurgency is so "lame" that the worlds mightiest military force the world has ever known can't put a stop to it.
 
ProudAmerican said:
is just simply nuts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198832,00.html

so by that notion.....this new leader just woke up yesterday and decided "hey, I want to lead a terrorist organization because of Americas actions in Iraq"

its far more logical to think he was already a major terrorist player and without our involvement in Iraq, he could have just sat back and planned attacks without any fear of reprisal.

now, he has to look over his shoulder and wonder if a 500 lb bomb is going to fall on his head.


Simple question: How many Iraqis were committing terrorist acts before we invaded? How many now?

Fox seldom thinks very much, but we should do better. ;)
 
BigDog said:
Simple question: How many Iraqis were committing terrorist acts before we invaded? How many now?

Fox seldom thinks very much, but we should do better. ;)


you dont know the answer to that question anymore than I do.

but nice try.

and the fact that they werent committing as many terrorist acts before in no way means they werent terrorists.

before 9-11, Mohammed Atta had never committed a terrorist act that we know of.....but im pretty sure he was already a terrorist.

or maybe you think he just woke up that very morning and said "I think today, I will become a terrorist"

yeah, youre right. we should try to do better.
 
Last edited:
All wars will strengthen the resolve of a certain percentage of the populace.

To argue the stance that new terrorists aren't created completely ignores the human equation. All war brings some collateral damage of innocent lives and people have an eradict way of dealing with personal tradegy.
 
zymurgy said:
All wars will strengthen the resolve of a certain percentage of the populace.

To argue the stance that new terrorists aren't created completely ignores the human equation. All war brings some collateral damage of innocent lives and people have an eradict way of dealing with personal tradegy.


do you think stopping hitler created new nazis? and I suppose more importantly than whether or not we create new terrorists by going into Iraq is the question of should that stop us from combating terrorism?

even if I were to concede that our actions in Iraq cause some people to simply wake up one day and decide they want to become members of Al Queda......I dont think that is a good enough reason to roll over and stop fighting them.
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
and the fact that they werent committing as many terrorist acts before in no way means they werent terrorists.

before 9-11, Mohammed Atta had never committed a terrorist act that we know of.....but im pretty sure he was already a terrorist.

or maybe you think he just woke up that very morning and said "I think today, I will become a terrorist"

yeah, youre right. we should try to do better.
I'm glad you brought this up, PA. For two reasons:
  1. By the same token he [Atta] didn't wake up one day and decide to be a terrorist, it is also unlikely that he was sitting around in a room with his criminal buddies and jumps up all of a sudden and says, "I know, lets get some visa's, take some flying lessons and..."
  2. And you are also right. We should do better [at getting to the bottom of how this level of hatred gets its genesis]. Because you have to have a real "hate-on" to do what they did. And that level of hatred doesn't come from (or be maintained by) internal sources.
 
ProudAmerican said:
nothing in that post disputes my assertion that the people you are talking about WERE ALREADY TERRORISTS.

the notion that we CREATED THEM is pure B.S. plain and simple.


So you're telling me that if a foreign army killed your best friend, dad, sister and a few more people you knew you wouldn't try to get back at them ?
 
massive_attack said:
So you're telling me that if a foreign army killed your best friend, dad, sister and a few more people you knew you wouldn't try to get back at them ?


sure. but I wouldnt do it by killing as many innocent civilians as I could in the process.

you do realize they intentionally harm innocent civilians dont you?
 
And you are also right. We should do better [at getting to the bottom of how this level of hatred gets its genesis]. Because you have to have a real "hate-on" to do what they did. And that level of hatred doesn't come from (or be maintained by) internal sources

I honestly believe what drives them is very simple to figure out. It isnt the west.

as GySgt has pointed out, the hatred comes from the failure of their own governments. It comes from a failing religion that is making a last ditch effort to cling to glory. And most of all, it comes from a belief system that commands them to do it.

I honestly dont believe it has a damn thing to do with the west. I believe that is just a convenient excuse.

Just as the palestinians arent doing what they are doing for some small strip of land. That is just the convenient excuse.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom