the notion that Americas involvement in Iraq is "creating" terrorists

[faithful_servant]

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.

Had we not invaded, they would still be law abiding citizens, given that rape and torture were lawful in Iraq prior to OIF. You think that moving from being a recognized, accepted part of the Baathist system of gov't by terror to being part of a terrorist organization committed to re-establishing the rule by terror means creating new terrorists. It's not creating new terrorists, it's re-organizing the existing ones. The CIA reports quoted in this thread give the same "mis-impression".

 

[faithful_servant]

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.

Gee, bigdog, you tell me, or do you not count gov't officials who are paid to terrorize people?


http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/html/under_saddam.stm
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1079494683058_5/?hub=Special
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=167864
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2000/427/427p22d.htm
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0211.htm
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html
http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24452.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030404-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq

 

[Iriemon]

clear it up for me. did he have to commit the acts on 9-11 to be a terrorist or not? dont let me missrepresent you. TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN.

I'll reprint for the record what I wrote:

He might have been an anti-american radical who decided to commit a terrorist act. I suppose you could say once he decided to committ a terrorist act he became a terrorist.

I included someone who actually intends or is attempting to committ a terrorist act as well.

you lefties need to learn what a lie is. and yes, I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

And as I said, your hypocracy is funny.

thats pretty much the extend of your argument. always has been.

Response in kind.

its pointless to debate with me because you cant prove your assertions.

Not to you. You start a post challenging the notion that Americas involvement in Iraq is "creating" terrorists. Anything anybody posts -- news articles from numeous reliable sources showing civil war, 40-50 people being excuted daily, the number of "terrorists" attacks and fighters in Iraq increasing dramatically over the past 3 years ... none of that is "proof" to you. So what? I proved my assertions just fine.

 

[Iriemon]

Had we not invaded, they would still be law abiding citizens, given that rape and torture were lawful in Iraq prior to OIF. You think that moving from being a recognized, accepted part of the Baathist system of gov't by terror to being part of a terrorist organization committed to re-establishing the rule by terror means creating new terrorists. It's not creating new terrorists, it's re-organizing the existing ones. The CIA reports quoted in this thread give the same "mis-impression".

Depends on how you define terrorist. They were not committing terrorist acts against the US.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Depends on how you define terrorist. They were not committing terrorist acts against the US.

irrelevant.

 

[faithful_servant]

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.

Billo, I've got to agree with you, on this one, that level of hatred doesnot come from internal sources, but rather from external ones. But, you can't stop with just the source, you have to look at what they being told. If people only hear about the bad things then they are more likely to become terrorists, but if they hear aboutthe good things, then they are less likely to become terrorists. Americans are creating terrorists. But to lay the blame at the feet of the gov't is just plain dumb, when the people who are spreading the information that is causing the problem is the media (especially American media). If the people who are being recruited were exposed to the successes in Iraq with as much fervor as teh problems, we'd have far fewer terrorists. People join with the side they perceive as being the "good guys", the terrorist leaders know this and work to create the perception that we are the bad guys and they are the good guys, when the truth is that we are working to help Iraq get back to being a free nation, while the terrorists are working to re-establish the old gov't by terror that thrived under SH & Sons. The more bad news they get, the more it fuels the terrorists organization. The more good news they get, the more it fuels the success of a strong Constitutional Republic in Iraq.

SO the answer to the question is, yes, our presence in Iraq creates terrorists, as long as you recognize that the part of "us" that is doing so is the media.

 

[Iriemon]

irrelevant.

Maybe to you.

But you cannot even define what a terrorist is. You just use the term to justify whatever your current argument is. Which makes your arguments irrelevant.

 

[faithful_servant]

Depends on how you define terrorist. They were not committing terrorist acts against the US.

Ahhh... That liberal compassion that we all so love. "As long as I'm safe, the rest of the world can rot."
Where's the compassion?
Where's the desire to stop oppression?
Where's that "We're gonna save the world" zeal that is the left's greatest strength?

It all seems to have gotten lost in the left's hatred of any success that the right may have led.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Had we not invaded, they would still be law abiding citizens, given that rape and torture were lawful in Iraq prior to OIF. You think that moving from being a recognized, accepted part of the Baathist system of gov't by terror to being part of a terrorist organization committed to re-establishing the rule by terror means creating new terrorists. It's not creating new terrorists, it's re-organizing the existing ones. The CIA reports quoted in this thread give the same "mis-impression".

From the link you provided:

Iraq's legislation prohibits the use of torture. Article 22(a) of Iraq's Interim Constitution states that ''the dignity of the person is safeguarded. It is inadmissible to cause any physical or psychological harm''. Article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that ''it is not permissible to use any illegal means to influence the accused to secure his statement. Mistreatment, threatening to harm, inducement, threats, menace, psychological influence, and the use of narcotics, intoxicants and drugs are all considered illegal means.'' In fact the Iraqi Penal Code criminalizes the use of torture by any public servant. Article 333 states that ''any employee or public servant who tortures, or orders the torture of an accused, witness, or expert in order to compel that person to confess to committing a crime, to give a statement or information, to hide certain matters, or to give a specific opinion will be punished by imprisonment or detention. The use of force or threats is considered to be torture''.

Do I need to read through all these links to double check your work?
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ

 

[ProudAmerican]

Not to you. You start a post challenging the notion that Americas involvement in Iraq is "creating" terrorists. Anything anybody posts -- news articles from numeous reliable sources showing civil war, 40-50 people being excuted daily, the number of "terrorists" attacks and fighters in Iraq increasing dramatically over the past 3 years ... none of that is "proof" to you. So what? I proved my assertions just fine.

in order for us to be "creating" terrorists, you would have to prove that before we got there, normal, everyday folks that were just going about their lives, working, feeding their family, paying the light bill and mowing the lawn (or blowing the sand off the driveway, whichever the case may be) stopped doing those things and decided to start planting IEDs and wearing bomb vests.

you cant prove that.

it must be nice to think you can make such accusations without having to provide any proof.

 

[faithful_servant]

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 ?

This had been going on in Iraq for decades with no discernable effect on people's atitude towards the Baathists. By your logic, there should have been IED's planted all over Iraq during the Baathists reign of terror. Car bombs should have been happening every single day of the week and twice on Saturday.

 

[Iriemon]

Billo, I've got to agree with you, on this one, that level of hatred doesnot come from internal sources, but rather from external ones. But, you can't stop with just the source, you have to look at what they being told. If people only hear about the bad things then they are more likely to become terrorists, but if they hear aboutthe good things, then they are less likely to become terrorists. Americans are creating terrorists. But to lay the blame at the feet of the gov't is just plain dumb, when the people who are spreading the information that is causing the problem is the media (especially American media). If the people who are being recruited were exposed to the successes in Iraq with as much fervor as teh problems, we'd have far fewer terrorists. People join with the side they perceive as being the "good guys", the terrorist leaders know this and work to create the perception that we are the bad guys and they are the good guys, when the truth is that we are working to help Iraq get back to being a free nation, while the terrorists are working to re-establish the old gov't by terror that thrived under SH & Sons. The more bad news they get, the more it fuels the terrorists organization. The more good news they get, the more it fuels the success of a strong Constitutional Republic in Iraq.

SO the answer to the question is, yes, our presence in Iraq creates terrorists, as long as you recognize that the part of "us" that is doing so is the media.

The media play a role, but the fact is what has undermined our credibility as "good guys" is the fact that we invaded and bombed the crap out of a nation based on it having WMDs which was false, we invaded on the promise of limited goals of removing the (non-existent) WMDs and Hussein yet more than 3 years later we are still in an indefinite occupation of the country, we act like we want to help the Iraqis and then say we are using their country as the battleground for fighting "terrorists", we proclaim our superior government system and respect for human rights and then lock people away in torture dungeons in secret for years without charges or hearings. We are killing Muslems daily and our occupation is ripping the country apart.

That is the source of our lack of credibility as good guys and why our continued occupation of Iraq is hurting our objective of reducing anti-American radicalism in the ME.

 

[faithful_servant]

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?

Well said, PA. This is where most of the logic of the "vendetta" motivation breaks down. Many of the attacks have been against other Iraqis, not US troops. This shows the terrorists complete disregard for Iraqis and fellow muslims. It is ver clear evidence of a group of people, who are fighting for power, not freedom.

 

[Iriemon]

This had been going on in Iraq for decades with no discernable effect on people's atitude towards the Baathists. By your logic, there should have been IED's planted all over Iraq during the Baathists reign of terror. Car bombs should have been happening every single day of the week and twice on Saturday.

Yeah, if the Iraqi people were as vehemently opposed to the Hussein regime as the US occupation you would have expected that was happening. But it wasn't, at least not on a wide scale basis in 2003.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

in order for us to be "creating" terrorists, you would have to prove that before we got there, normal, everyday folks that were just going about their lives, working, feeding their family, paying the light bill and mowing the lawn (or blowing the sand off the driveway, whichever the case may be) stopped doing those things and decided to start planting IEDs and wearing bomb vests.

you cant prove that.

it must be nice to think you can make such accusations without having to provide any proof.

Would it have not made the news if there were daily acts of terrorism?
I think it would have.

Are you contending that life in Iraq is essentially the same now as it was before the war? Was there always daily bombings?
What are you saying here?, be clear.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Maybe to you.

But you cannot even define what a terrorist is. You just use the term to justify whatever your current argument is. Which makes your arguments irrelevant.

the only time you claim a terrorist act must have been carried out on AMerica for it to be a legitimate war is when someone shows you proof Saddam supported terrorism.

something you claim never happened.

once proof is shown to you it did happen, all of a sudden for it to be a legitimate action, it had to be an action directly against America.

leftist whacjob: "saddam never had ties to terrorists!!

Clear thinkin bipartisan person: "sure he did....look at these translations....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html"

leftist whacjob: "but theres no proof that was aimed at America"

clear thinkin bipartisan person: "wait a second.....you never made that an issued untill I showed you that you were wrong on your first point"

its easy to win a debate when you keep changing the rules as we go along isnt it??

 

[faithful_servant]

yes, i do..

do you know why they do this ?

To acquire power.

[/quote]edit : im sure you'll admit we harm innocent civilians too however not so much on purpose if you want to define it that way.

however dead=dead=dead

the path to hell is paved with good intentions.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but your platitude and misinterpretation of facts does not equate to having a point. There is a HUGE difference between people dieing as a result of being in the wrong place, at the wrong time and being intentionally targetted. Most intelligent people understand this.

 

[faithful_servant]

yes, i do..

do you know why they do this ?

To acquire power.

edit : im sure you'll admit we harm innocent civilians too however not so much on purpose if you want to define it that way.

however dead=dead=dead

the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Sorry, but your platitude and misinterpretation of facts does not equate to having a point. There is a HUGE difference between people dieing as a result of being in the wrong place, at the wrong time and being intentionally targetted. Most intelligent people understand this.

 

[Iriemon]

Ahhh... That liberal compassion that we all so love. "As long as I'm safe, the rest of the world can rot."
Where's the compassion?
Where's the desire to stop oppression?
Where's that "We're gonna save the world" zeal that is the left's greatest strength?

It all seems to have gotten lost in the left's hatred of any success that the right may have led.

1. The amount of terrorist killings in Iraq in 2003 was much lower than it is now.

2. The concept that the Bush Admin invaded Iraq because of humanitarian concerns is bullshit.

3. Absent mass genocide justifying an international consesus for intervention which was not happening in 2003, a nation has the right to choose their own form of government. Another country does not have the right to invade and dictate the form of government it thinks it should have, nor is it wise policy to try to do so.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

I assume you will be playing the role of a 'clear thinkin bipartisan person?'
:bs

 

[ProudAmerican]

Would it have not made the news if there were daily acts of terrorism?
I think it would have.

Are you contending that life in Iraq is essentially the same now as it was before the war? Was there always daily bombings?
What are you saying here?, be clear.

1. no, it wouldnt have. there were no news media outlets there covering the story untill America showed up.
2. no I am not. I am contending that people just going about their daily lives before we got there, are still doing just that....to the best of their ability. I am contending that someone who worked at a gas station just trying to raise a family before we got there, didnt all of a sudden decide after we got there to be a terrorist.
3. as far as daily bombings are concerned.....
a. we have no idea that those are being commited by Iraqi civilians
b. If they are being commited by Iraqi civilians, we have no idea how many are aimed at U.S. troops, civilians, or which ones are from the "civil war" as the left likes to call it.

you have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY of knowing we have actually CREATED terrorists in this fight.

 

[Iriemon]

in order for us to be "creating" terrorists, you would have to prove that before we got there, normal, everyday folks that were just going about their lives, working, feeding their family, paying the light bill and mowing the lawn (or blowing the sand off the driveway, whichever the case may be) stopped doing those things and decided to start planting IEDs and wearing bomb vests.

you cant prove that.

it must be nice to think you can make such accusations without having to provide any proof.

It is proved in the news every single day.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I assume you will be playing the role of a 'clear thinkin bipartisan person?'
:bs

you can safely assume I didnt think of YOU when I wrote that part.

 

[ProudAmerican]

It is proved in the news every single day.

absolute hogwash.

 

[Iriemon]

the only time you claim a terrorist act must have been carried out on AMerica for it to be a legitimate war is when someone shows you proof Saddam supported terrorism.

something you claim never happened.

once proof is shown to you it did happen, all of a sudden for it to be a legitimate action, it had to be an action directly against America.

leftist whacjob: "saddam never had ties to terrorists!!

Clear thinkin bipartisan person: "sure he did....look at these translations....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html"

From that story:

A newly released document appears to provide evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan.

That is the evidence of Husseins support of terrorism?

leftist whacjob: "but theres no proof that was aimed at America"

clear thinkin bipartisan person: "wait a second.....you never made that an issued untill I showed you that you were wrong on your first point"

its easy to win a debate when you keep changing the rules as we go along isnt it??

Changing the rules? LOL

If Hussein wasn't supporting terrorism against the US, didn't threaten the US, wasn't a threat to the US, wasn't even a radial Islamic, what the hell are we doing there?