http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159070400&en=003f596f66422cfd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

September 24, 2006

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/john_d_negroponte/index.html?inline=nyt-per), director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said that its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said that the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says that “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.
In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/michael_v_hayden/index.html?inline=nyt-per), during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said that the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”

Big Surprise...

I'm preaching to the choir, I know, but it still has to be said. Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism before we got there, unless of course, if you were kuwaiti or kurdish...

OR did the Terror Threat Worsen Iraq?

Yeah, pity they didn't come up with this judgement before the war- everyone else did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159070400&en=003f596f66422cfd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

September 24, 2006

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/john_d_negroponte/index.html?inline=nyt-per), director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said that its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said that the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says that “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.
In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/michael_v_hayden/index.html?inline=nyt-per), during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said that the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”

Meh. Bullshit I say.

Meh. Bullshit I say.

well that puts you in a minority of one

Here's the declassified portion of the report in PDF form. I've been trying to find the ACTUAL report, complete with redactor pen marks so I could guess what got taken out by context, but have been unsuccessfull so far.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/09/26/nie.declass.pdf

Currently, thats the best representation of the report that I can find. If anyone actually does find the orignal version with redactor pen marks, not this summary version, post it for everyone.

Simply put, if you haven't read the report, you shouldn't have anything to say in this thread.

I'd have to agree going into Iraq was wrong without the UN. Though, I think the UN is a bullshit organization. The way we went about it made it more of a "Christianity vs. Islam" scenario in the mind of a lot of these radicals, which isn't good.

Though, it would have been that way anyway. Just not as bad if the UN would have got off their ass to enforce UN Resolutions, which I would say are akin to toilet paper covered in shit.

But let's not fool ourselves here. Osama's successful attacks on 9-11, as we saw on your TV sets around the world, had a lot of Muslims dancing in the streets saying we finally got what we deserved, blah-fucking-blah. It was like they won some huge sporting event as they were going apeshit and smiling from head to toe as they celebrated the deaths of our innocent civilians.

That attack alone helped spur on new recruits, and people saw that the mighty US was vulnerable after all. Osama had popularity way before that time because of his exploits in Afghanistan, and a few other things he had done, including to us, but that huge successful attack made his popularity shoot through the roof. Also, his organization was growing well before we occupied Iraq. That's a fact.

All I'd say to anybody that says "if we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, things would be fine and dandy," is they're a complete and utter fool. Not saying anybody in here is, but I've seen it in other forums.

If it wasn't Iraq, the rallying point would have been Afghanistan. It's not hard to see that a good many Muslims in the Middle East are just itching for something to piss them off so they can act like a bunch of stupid ass savages.

There's a bigger picture here that sometimes I feel people just can't grasp, or don't care to learn more about, other than what they can get from Fox, CNN, or the like. Sad, really.

I'd have to agree going into Iraq was wrong without the UN. Though, I think the UN is a bullshit organization. The way we went about it made it more of a "Christianity vs. Islam" scenario in the mind of a lot of these radicals, which isn't good.

Though, it would have been that way anyway. Just not as bad if the UN would have got off their ass to enforce UN Resolutions, which I would say are akin to toilet paper covered in shit.

But let's not fool ourselves here. Osama's successful attacks on 9-11, as we saw on your TV sets around the world, had a lot of Muslims dancing in the streets saying we finally got what we deserved, blah-fucking-blah. It was like they won some huge sporting event as they were going apeshit and smiling from head to toe as they celebrated the deaths of our innocent civilians.

That attack alone helped spur on new recruits, and people saw that the mighty US was vulnerable after all. Osama had popularity way before that time because of his exploits in Afghanistan, and a few other things he had done, including to us, but that huge successful attack made his popularity shoot through the roof. Also, his organization was growing well before we occupied Iraq. That's a fact.

All I'd say to anybody that says "if we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, things would be fine and dandy," is they're a complete and utter fool. Not saying anybody in here is, but I've seen it in other forums.

If it wasn't Iraq, the rallying point would have been Afghanistan. It's not hard to see that a good many Muslims in the Middle East are just itching for something to piss them off so they can act like a bunch of stupid ass savages.

There's a bigger picture here that sometimes I feel people just can't grasp, or don't care to learn more about, other than what they can get from Fox, CNN, or the like. Sad, really.

On your point about Iraq had we not gone in. Obviously it wouldn't have been, but they wouldn't have caused any problem. Hussein would have rattled his sabre and gone on about how corrupt the West is blah, blah, blah. But they certainly had no foreign ambitions and certainly wouldn't have allowed any terrorist harbouring on his soil just the same as Kim Jung ill would on his- it wasn't as if he spent the Country's money on his armed forces, he spent it building palaces. Surely the swift invasion- two/three weeks and a Country the size of Germany with an armed forces number 500,000 fell with the total allied deaths at around 60 (most of which were friendly fire) Saddam Hussein couldn't have invaded Kurdistan- who incidently are very, very likely to harbour terrorists.

All I'd say to anybody that says "if we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, things would be fine and dandy," is they're a complete and utter fool. Not saying anybody in here is, but I've seen it in other forums.
If it wasn't Iraq, the rallying point would have been Afghanistan. It's not hard to see that a good many Muslims in the Middle East are just itching for something to piss them off so they can act like a bunch of stupid ass savages.

That arguement is pretty weak.

Let's pretend you clog your toilette. In your rush to do something... ANYTHING, you drop an m-80 in there hoping to blow the clog to hell. Then, after decimating your toilette you call a plumber. The plumber comes over and asks, "What the fuck were you thinking?", and you respond, "Well, I had to do something to make it work. Not doing anything wouldn't have fixed the problem."

Thats how ludicrous your arguement sounds. At absolute best, your post was well intentioned, but with enough logic holes to drive a metaphorical truck through.

My advice? Next time you start getting worked up about the muslims, don't try to talk politics. Go punch a pillow, or count to ten, or breathe into a paper bag or something, then come back when you can actually think clearly. You're letting your anger and irrationality override your logical mind, and thats the exact mindset you appear to be so upset with the muslim world over.

Hypocrisy doesn't suit you...

One last point before I stop stalling on my physics studying...
It's not hard to see that a good many Muslims in the Middle East are just itching for something to piss them off so they can act like a bunch of stupid ass savages.

So, what is your solution? Follow your train of thought to the logical conclusion. Are you talking genocide? You seem to imply that the majority of all muslims are dangerous, and you always seem to advocate a direct response, so what's your response?

The way I see it, with your mindset, there are only 2 logical conclusions. We can either start a genocide program to remove the problem permenantly, or we can intern all muslims where they can be monitored. There isn't much else you can do, if like you imply, most muslims are looking for an excuse to strap tnt to their chests.

No, the much more likely scenario is that most muslims are looking for a way to live their lives normaly, day to day, and only take such extreme positions in response to some kind of stimulus in their normal lives. Maybe, like seeing foreign troops take over your government and treat you as less than human in front of your family? Or, maybe, missplaced airstrike wiping out the house of the girl you love.

But, of course, love and respect aren't personality traits you'd find in 'savages', right? Its so much easier when you don't picture your enemy as human...

That arguement is pretty weak.
Let's pretend you clog your toilette. In your rush to do something... ANYTHING, you drop an m-80 in there hoping to blow the clog to hell. Then, after decimating your toilette you call a plumber. The plumber comes over and asks, "What the fuck were you thinking?", and you respond, "Well, I had to do something to make it work. Not doing anything wouldn't have fixed the problem."
Thats how ludicrous your arguement sounds. At absolute best, your post was well intentioned, but with enough logic holes to drive a metaphorical truck through.
My advice? Next time you start getting worked up about the muslims, don't try to talk politics. Go punch a pillow, or count to ten, or breathe into a paper bag or something, then come back when you can actually think clearly. You're letting your anger and irrationality override your logical mind, and thats the exact mindset you appear to be so upset with the muslim world over.
Hypocrisy doesn't suit you...

I'm thinking quite clear, and my point stands. Even if we didn't go into Iraq the rallying point would be Afghanistan, and they would fight us there.

Plus, Al-Qaeda was growing in size before Iraq even appeared on the radar.

I suggest you study the group and radical Islam before you say my arguments are "weak."

I said it wouldn't be as bad if we hadn't gone into Iraq, but it sure wouldn't be "fine and dandy," and you damn well know it.

But thanks for the advice on what I should do. It's greatly appreciated. :eyeroll:

:eyeroll: No, the much more likely scenario is that most muslims are looking for a way to live their lives normaly, day to day, and only take such extreme positions in response to some kind of stimulus in their normal lives. Maybe, like seeing foreign troops take over your government and treat you as less than human in front of your family? Or, maybe, missplaced airstrike wiping out the house of the girl you love.

But, of course, love and respect aren't personality traits you'd find in 'savages', right? Its so much easier when you don't picture your enemy as human...

So, you're one of the "it's our fault" kind, huh? Funny. You obviously don't know your history.

Osama became enraged when we went in with the UN to Saudi Arabia and he wasn't allowed to bring his fighters to repel the Iraqis.

That's been proven that it was the candle that lit the fire under his ass. The attacks against American interests happened after that point, and before Iraq was even an issue.

Again, some people, and including you obvioulsy, are misinformed on historical events that led to 9-11. No problem. You're like most. I'll give you some advice. I suggest you pick up a book and read before you enter a discussion on these issues when it's blatantly apparent you know nothing of what you're going on about.

Also, I didn't say "most Muslims" in my post, and I didn't advocate anything you posted. You can put words in my mouth all day, but that's all it is. Nonsense, really.

As far as a solution, that's really simple. Don't bail on Iraq, which we shouldn't have gone into under the circumstance, but we're there, so don't leave like we cut tail and ran in Somalia. Which history has proven was something that showed Osama we were cowards.

Or would you prefer to hand our enemies a victory? Your kind are playing right into their hands. :eyeroll:

I'm thinking quite clear, and my point stands. Even if we didn't go into Iraq the rallying point would be Afghanistan, and they would fight us there.

You aren't listening, and your point doesn't stand. This argument is JUST AS FLAWED as the last one you shoveled into this thread. Your 'point', if I were gracious enough to call it that, assumes that every person we fight in iraq would have fought us whether or not we were in Iraq. You can't honestly believe that, can you?

As far as a solution, that's really simple. Don't bail on Iraq, which we shouldn't have gone into under the circumstance, but we're there, so don't leave like we cut tail and ran in Somalia. Which history has proven was something that showed Osama we were cowards.

Or would you prefer to hand our enemies a victory.
Ok, I think I'm finally starting to understand your stance. You think that we can puff up our chests and act tough, and suddenly that will scare terrorists out of acting? The people who usually attack by blowing themselves up? They're supposed to what, not attack us because they're afraid what will happen to their mudhut after they already blew themselves up?

So, you're one of the "it's our fault" kind, huh? Funny. You obviously don't know your history.

I don't know MY history??? Are you fucking daft? Seriously, you sound like someone who read O'Reiley Factor [for kids] and think you know everything about anything.

To put it simply, us and our allies been fucking with the middle east BADLY ever since WW1. We've made up new countries as we see fit. We've supported wars that we had no stake in, and then flipped sides half way through. We've pulled every dirty trick possible to snatch up as much oil as we can for minimal cost. We prop up every dictator who looks like he'll be pro-us, regardless of what the country's population actually wants.

Now, I'm no terrorist lover. I take joy in thinking about the terrorists and their supporters roasting in hell. Still, we're not talking about a battle of armies, we're talking about a battle of ideologies here. You CAN'T drop enough bombs to end terrorism/islamic radicalism. I don't care if you nuked that entire hemisphere... the reaction to the attack will always create new recruits.

They WERE NOT justified in ANY of the terror attacks on american soil, but don't let that fact trick you into thinking we had no involvement in creating these people.

Seriously bro, your rage and loyalties are blinding you. Step back from the situation and pretend you have no stake in who wins or who loses. Simply evaluate the situation, not your emotions...

You aren't listening, and your point doesn't stand. This argument is JUST AS FLAWED as the last one you shoveled into this thread. Your 'point', if I were gracious enough to call it that, assumes that every person we fight in iraq would have fought us whether or not we were in Iraq. You can't honestly believe that, can you...

I guess your reading comprehension skills are lacking tonight. I was speaking of Islamic radicals. They'd fight us in Afghanistan, and their numbers would have still grown whether we entered Iraq or not.

That's a valid argument, the truth, and if you deny these groups wouldn't have grown regardless of our entry into Iraq, then you're just moronic and don't know the history behind the situation.

They were growing before we went into Iraq, which so happened to culminate in 9-11, and their numbers continued to grow after said event before we went into Iraq.


Ok, I think I'm finally starting to understand your stance. You think that we can puff up our chests and act tough, and suddenly that will scare terrorists out of acting? The people who usually attack by blowing themselves up? They're supposed to what, not attack us because they're afraid what will happen to their mudhut after they already blew themselves up?...

You're actually not understanding anything and putting up irrelevant points. Leaving Iraq would hand Al-Qaeda a victory. If you can't see that, that's your problem.

I don't know MY history??? Are you fucking daft? Seriously, you sound like someone who read O'Reiley Factor [for kids] and think you know everything about anything.?...

No, but I think you are. I've obviously studied more on this subject, read books, researched things on the internet, which you seem to be obvlious to. No worries. You're like most. And, no, O'Reiley isn't who I get my information from. I can't stand the putz.

To put it simply, us and our allies been fucking with the middle east BADLY ever since WW1. We've made up new countries as we see fit. We've supported wars that we had no stake in, and then flipped sides half way through. We've pulled every dirty trick possible to snatch up as much oil as we can for minimal cost.

Now, I'm no terrorist lover. I take joy in thinking about the terrorists and their supporters roasting in hell. Still, we're not talking about a battle of armies, we're talking about a battle of ideologies here. You CAN'T drop enough bombs to end terrorism/islamic radicalism. I don't care if you nuked that entire hemisphere... the reaction to the attack will always create new recruits.

They WERE NOT justified in ANY of the terror attacks on american soil, but don't let that fact trick you into thinking we had no involvement in creating these people.
Seriously bro, your rage and loyalties are blinding you. Step back from the situation and pretend you have no stake in who wins or who loses. Simply evaluate the situation, not your emotions...

Making excuses for our enemies. Priceless.

And I've evaluated the situation. I just, it appears, have more knowledge than you to make an informed opinion. I'm not using "emotions" in what I say. My opinion has come from a close examination of all the evidence as it relates to this matter.

I just, it appears, have more knowledge than you to make an informed opinion. I'm not using "emotions" in what I say. My opinion has come from a close examination of all the evidence as it relates to this matter.
Wow, you're stupid. I honestly have nothing to say besides that. This isn't worth discussing with you because theres a complete absence of logical thought in all of your conclusions.

Enjoy ignorance... I hear it's bliss

Enjoy ignorance... I hear it's bliss

Then you must be in Heaven. "Enjoy" the stay.

On your point about Iraq had we not gone in. Obviously it wouldn't have been, but they wouldn't have caused any problem. Hussein would have rattled his sabre and gone on about how corrupt the West is blah, blah, blah. But they certainly had no foreign ambitions and certainly wouldn't have allowed any terrorist harbouring on his soil just the same as Kim Jung ill would on his- it wasn't as if he spent the Country's money on his armed forces, he spent it building palaces. Surely the swift invasion- two/three weeks and a Country the size of Germany with an armed forces number 500,000 fell with the total allied deaths at around 60 (most of which were friendly fire) Saddam Hussein couldn't have invaded Kurdistan- who incidently are very, very likely to harbour terrorists.

I agree Iraq wouldn't have been a problem, per se. Again, all the fighting would have just taken place in Afghanistan, like when Osama fought the Russians.

But I think it would have been a hell of a lot harder to fight in the mountains of Afghanistan than it would be to blend into the population like in Iraq.

We shouldn't have gone in under the conditions we did until Afghanistan was taken care of, and then only with the full backing of the UN.

Though, still radical Islam would still be breeding dickheads, which was my point. They were growing in numbers long before we went into Iraq.

Why such a simple concept is so hard to grasp for GCD is beyond me.

Wow, you're stupid. I honestly have nothing to say besides that. This isn't worth discussing with you because theres a complete absence of logical thought in all of your conclusions.

Enjoy ignorance... I hear it's bliss

It's why I have him on ignore, though from what you quoted he never did say most, he said many..... but I got the same thing from it that you did I think. That is to say that he wanted to say most while being able to say that he never actually said most.