NationStates Jolt Archive

I apologize if someone has already posted this (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ref=middleeast). I did a search and couldn't find any threads.

I can't wait to see how all of the Bush apologists are going to try and explain this one away. And don't try and tell me it is just NY Times Liberal propaganda. The source is US intelligence agencies.

And for all of those who are going to post the "Thank You Captain Obvious" responses ... just remember that some people need to be reminded.

Told ya so! No shit, Sherlock!

I can see where this point is actually valid. The way it has been handled has hurt our efforts on the war on terror.

By the way, I'm quite conservative and a Bush supporter, although I don't support him now as much as I used to.

well, fuckin' DUH!!!!!

I apologize if someone has already posted this (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ref=middleeast). I did a search and couldn't find any threads.

I can't wait to see how all of the Bush apologists are going to try and explain this one away. And don't try and tell me it is just NY Times Liberal propaganda. The source is US intelligence agencies.

And for all of those who are going to post the "Thank You Captain Obvious" responses ... just remember that some people need to be reminded.I mentioned it in the "Is America safer" thread, but that doesn't amount to its own.

I have one thing to say
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
*breathe*
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

I have another thing to say to all the conservatives, I told you so, months ago.

Thank you, captain obvious.

Of course, I don't say this to the topic starter, but to the CIA (or whoever) that published this report. I mean, I could have said so much and I'm a 15 year old Canadian. What really gets me though is the media attention, how so many news agencies are all over this like it's big news. It's like a major university publishing a study to prove big black clouds do in fact signal rain.

I apologize if someone has already posted this (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ref=middleeast). I did a search and couldn't find any threads.

I can't wait to see how all of the Bush apologists are going to try and explain this one away. And don't try and tell me it is just NY Times Liberal propaganda. The source is US intelligence agencies.

And for all of those who are going to post the "Thank You Captain Obvious" responses ... just remember that some people need to be reminded.
The Iraq War had disaster written all over it, before the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. I am so glad that our country said NO to Bush.

The Iraq War had disaster written all over it, before the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. I am so glad that our country said NO to Bush.

I wish mine had.

I wish mine had.

Yeah, me too. Bastard declared war on my birthday. :(

Yeah, me too. Bastard declared war on my birthday. :(

I think he declared war three days after my birthday. Or maybe two. But it pissed me off.

And my country said no to Bush, too, but the problem is that I live in America, where politicians' actions could not be any more divorced from the people's views.

I think he declared war three days after my birthday. Or maybe two. But it pissed me off.

And my country said no to Bush, too, but the problem is that I live in America, where politicians' actions could not be any more divorced from the people's views.
For a short time I wanted to go into politics to change that. Then I realized I was being an idiot: I don't have the time or the patience to devote to what I'd need to in order to go into politics, and I'd probably just turn into another one of them by the time I got into it anyway.

Yeah, me too. Bastard declared war on my birthday. :(

Wow, the US is actually going to fight a war against your birthday ? ;)



Not like this report tells us anything we didnt know before, does it...

For a short time I wanted to go into politics to change that. Then I realized I was being an idiot: I don't have the time or the patience to devote to what I'd need to in order to go into politics, and I'd probably just turn into another one of them by the time I got into it anyway.

Yes, being a politician means you are no longer allowed to think. Also, you have to tell three lies for every true thing you say.

The Iraq War had disaster written all over it, before the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. I am so glad that our country said NO to Bush. Yes. It's just too bad we're having to clean up the mess he made in Afghanistan, without any of the support we need to do it.

The Iraq War had disaster written all over it, before the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. I am so glad that our country said NO to Bush.


I wish mine had.

I wish mine had too.

I apologize if someone has already posted this (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ref=middleeast). I did a search and couldn't find any threads.

I can't wait to see how all of the Bush apologists are going to try and explain this one away. And don't try and tell me it is just NY Times Liberal propaganda. The source is US intelligence agencies.

And for all of those who are going to post the "Thank You Captain Obvious" responses ... just remember that some people need to be reminded.

Well, now that we've officially pissed off the entire Muslim world in every concievable way, what do you expect would happen!?!?

So the National Intelligence Estimate says Iraq worsens terrorism threat.

Okay.

Wasn't it a National Intelligence Estimate (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html) some four years ago insisting Iraq has wmd?

Well, I'm sure they got it right this time.

Well, I think even after the war in Iraq, America is quite safe of terrorists. There isn't such a big muslim community, where terrorism can grow.

But there are other countries which have to suffer, like Israel, Great Britain, France or Germany, countries there many muslims live in or nearby, who can be radicalised. (Even if Germany and France were against the war!)

I wish mine had.

I wish mine had too.

I wish Iraq had... oh, wait, they did, but Bush didn't listen! :p

Let me get this straight, some years after it was obvious and apparent the US intelligence services both realise that there were no WMD and that invading Iraq =a rather stupid thing to do...breath-taking!

The US should outsource it's intelligence services, at the end of the day what chance is there that a call centre in India could fuck up worse...?

I have one thing to say
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
*breathe*
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

I have another thing to say to all the conservatives, I told you so, months ago.

I would like to echo both these statements.

In fact, I've just done so.

I'm still amazed anyone could seriously believe invading Iraq would decrease terrorism.

Hmmm.....to look at it from a different point of view......Iraq War gets the terrorists out from hiding and wakes the sleeper cells up.

However, they still fight like the cowards they are. Dressing as civilians with bombs strapped on, using the mosques, hospitals, and schools as their own barracks, driving bomb laden cars into crowds of innocent civilians, using their own people as human sheilds and killing their own people. All of this in the name of Allah.

I would like to echo both these statements.

In fact, I've just done so.

I'm still amazed anyone could seriously believe invading Iraq would decrease terrorism.

Oh, it increased terrorism alright -- just not here in the US. Now the terrorists are flocking to Iraq. Fine by me.

However, they still fight like the cowards they are. Dressing as civilians with bombs strapped on, using the mosques, hospitals, and schools as their own barracks, driving bomb laden cars into crowds of innocent civilians, using their own people as human sheilds and killing their own people. All of this in the name of Allah.

God, I hate this argument against terrorists.

Please, tell me how a small(ish) force with very limited technology is going to fight a bigger, better equiped and better trained professional army?

Remember, 'the object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the bastard die for his.' Some quote from some guy i cant remember the name of. Hiding from the enemy so you don't die is called cowardice now?

I apologize if someone has already posted this (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ref=middleeast). I did a search and couldn't find any threads.

I can't wait to see how all of the Bush apologists are going to try and explain this one away. And don't try and tell me it is just NY Times Liberal propaganda. The source is US intelligence agencies.

And for all of those who are going to post the "Thank You Captain Obvious" responses ... just remember that some people need to be reminded.

Everyone knows that spy agencies have a liberal bias and are just trying to discredit the Bush administration and destroy America. The defense dept. knows that the world is safer. At least if you only listen to its appointed representatives, not just everyone who works there.

Oh, it increased terrorism alright -- just not here in the US. Now the terrorists are flocking to Iraq. Fine by me.

Yup. That's the next slogan the us armed forces recruitment ads are going to use.

"The Army. Be Bait."
"The Few, The Getting Fewer, The Marines."

I don't mean to be a cynic here, but when do the US intelligence agencies submit budget requests?

God, I hate this argument against terrorists.

Please, tell me how a small(ish) force with very limited technology is going to fight a bigger, better equiped and better trained professional army?

Remember, 'the object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the bastard die for his.' Some quote from some guy i cant remember the name of. Hiding from the enemy so you don't die is called cowardice now?

No, blending in a crowd of innocent unarmed civilians is cowardice, you should have read my entire post thoroughly before comeing back with an idiotic statement.

Yup. That's the next slogan the us armed forces recruitment ads are going to use.

"The Army. Be Bait."
"The Few, The Getting Fewer, The Marines."


Yes, it's cynical, but better guys who are being paid to fight than some innocent accountant in an office building.

I don't mean to be a cynic here, but when do the US intelligence agencies submit budget requests?

Every government agency has to submit a budget request. Some of the budget lines may be classified, but they still have to submit the request.

Good lord! How very insightful this thread is.....

The Iraq War had disaster written all over it, before the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. I am so glad that our country said NO to Bush.

My country did too, unfortunatly big Tony doesn't seem to bother with that whole representing the people part of democracy and went ahead with it anyway.

Too bad all the idiots that vote still think this is hurting the terrorists.

This was printed today in Letters to the Editor
After reading the Sept. 7 letter by Reese Danley-Kilgo, "Responsible plan," I had to respond.

All of us would love to have peace, but not by appeasing terrorists. We lose if terrorists dictate peace terms.

Doing nothing in retaliation to terrorist attacks is a stupid thing to do. It encourages and emboldens the terrorists into doing more acts of terrorism.

Our government tried ignoring terrorists in the past. We learned this only encourages more terrorist attacks.

We need to make being a terrorist hazardous to their health.

The writer complains that we have killed over 100,000 Iraqis. Where was she when Saddam Hussein was killing and torturing between 400,000 and 2 million of his own people, according to some estimates?

Peace activists complain about our soldiers and innocent Iraqis being killed. They forgot about Sept. 11, 2001, where almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans were killed. They never condemned Saddam for the torture and murder of his own people.

We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq; they are the ones murdering Iraqis and Americans.

Losing 2,600 U.S. military personnel in three years of fighting is tragic, but the devastation of the 911 attacks that killed almost 3,000 of our citizens is even worse.

I am glad that people like the writer of this letter were not in charge during World War II. We would all be speaking German and be Nazis.

This is why there should be tests to vote.
Tests to vote and mandatory voting for those who pass.

Every government agency has to submit a budget request. Some of the budget lines may be classified, but they still have to submit the request.

well if the intelligence services next round of budgeting is in say a month or so then this report isn't going to be a great suprise, no-ones going to produce a report saying they need less money than before. especially prior to a budget meeting.

well if the intelligence services next round of budgeting is in say a month or so then this report isn't going to be a great suprise, no-ones going to produce a report saying they need less money than before. especially prior to a budget meeting.

No government agency ever says they need less money than before.

Oh, it increased terrorism alright -- just not here in the US. Now the terrorists are flocking to Iraq. Fine by me.

This argument does not make sense. It assumes that terrorism cannot increase in Iraq and in the USA at the same time. It also denies the possiblity that the Iraq war is creating terrorists, as well as the possibility that US foreign policy is inspiring people all over the world to support terrorist attacks against the USA.

Since it is possible that terrorists are flocking to Iraq and the Iraq war has increased the risk of terror in the USA at the same time, I am wondering why you think it is fine that the policies set forth by your government endanger the military abroad and civilians at home?

This argument does not make sense. It assumes that terrorism cannot increase in Iraq and in the USA. It also denies the possiblity that the Iraq war is creating terrorists, as well as the possibility that US foreign policy is inspiring people all over the world to support terrorist attacks against the USA.

Since it is possible that terrorists are flocking to Iraq and the Iraq war has increased the risk of terror in the USA at the same time, I am wondering why you think it is fine that the policies set forth by your government endanger the military abroad and civilians at home?

Where are the terrorists going? They're going to Iraq. Ergo, decreased risk of terrorism in the US. Makes perfect sense really. You just have your political blinders on and refuse to see reality.

Not to mention the Iraqis, by luring terrorists to Iraq you're really just endangering US soldiers instead of US civilians. Not much net gain, IMO.
Is the Iraq war morally wrong? No. Is it a total disaster? Yes.

Where are the terrorists going? They're going to Iraq. Ergo, decreased risk of terrorism in the US. Makes perfect sense really. You just have your political blinders on and refuse to see reality.



I will use small words.

Your argument only makes sense if there are only a fixed number of terrorists in the world.

Your argument: If there are 500 terrorists in the world, and 400 go to Iraq, only 100 are left to attack the USA.

Big hole in your argument: What if the Iraq war caused 500 new terrorists to be trained, and 400 go to Iraq. Gee, that still leaves 500 terrorists to attack the USA, and another 100 makes 600.

It is not your politics I have a problem with. It's your logic.

Never eat yellow snow

Too bad all the idiots that vote still think this is hurting the terrorists.

This was printed today in Letters to the Editor


This is why there should be tests to vote.
Tests to vote and mandatory voting for those who pass.

So your saying that your ideal democracy is to force the people to vote. (only the highly intelligent ones, that is).

Now that's an intelligent thing to think and even more intellegent to say out loud. :D

Intelligent people generally lack common sense

Intelligent people generally lack common sense

I would most definately agree.

Yes, it's cynical, but better guys who are being paid to fight than some innocent accountant in an office building.

But it's a lousy way of doing things.

Clinton used intelligence gathering and law enforcement, like the recent British counter-terrorist operation that was successful. And Clinton prevented several terrorist plots after the original WTC boming.

All Bush has done is create more. It's not cynical to say that 2,000 servicemen should die as nothing more than bait so that we can pretend that's why one accountant didn't. It's just bad math on a faulty premise.

Once again, the Bush Administration is consistently showing problems in the international strategy segment of their administration. They overreach, and when they screw up they don't do what they need to to fix it. I've given up on international military affairs with this admin, alongside domestic affairs of all types.

I only hope they can keep decent on International trade issues.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/09/26/485366.html
(sorry, but it had the line)

President Bush on Tuesday said it is naive and a mistake to think that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism, as a key portion of a national intelligence assessment by his own administration suggests. He said he was declassifying part of the report.

"Some people have guessed what's in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree," Bush said.

He asserted that portions of the classified report that had been leaked were done so for political purposes, referring to the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

Hilarious. He's not even lying now! :p

Intelligent people generally lack common sense

That's because they're not common.

It's common sense (what most people 'sense' to be the truth) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Intelligent people lack this misinformation.

Maybe those who would claim otherwise will finally shut up. Why do I doubt it though? Is it because reality has a liberal bias?

Remember, 'the object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the bastard die for his.' Some quote from some guy i cant remember the name of.

General George S. Patton. Probaly the best General the Americans ever had.

I apologize if someone has already posted this (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ref=middleeast). I did a search and couldn't find any threads.

I can't wait to see how all of the Bush apologists are going to try and explain this one away. And don't try and tell me it is just NY Times Liberal propaganda. The source is US intelligence agencies.

And for all of those who are going to post the "Thank You Captain Obvious" responses ... just remember that some people need to be reminded.
I already knew this. The attacks on Spain, Britain and India are more than enough evidence.

Hmmm.....to look at it from a different point of view......Iraq War gets the terrorists out from hiding and wakes the sleeper cells up.
That's the POV (theory) that has been proven unrealistic in the last three years.

Oh, it increased terrorism alright -- just not here in the US. Now the terrorists are flocking to Iraq. Fine by me.
And Britain, and Spain. Is that fine by you too?

Where are the terrorists going? They're going to Iraq. Ergo, decreased risk of terrorism in the US. Makes perfect sense really. You just have your political blinders on and refuse to see reality.
Yes, terrorists are going to Iraq, but the reality is that they're going to a lot of other places, many of them in the west, also.

Intelligent people generally lack common sense
No, idiots usually lack it.

I would most definately agree.
Anti-intellectualism makes you look like a complete moron. The complexities of Middle Eastern foreign policy are too much to merely trust your misinformed common "sense" (using the term loosely).

Oh, it increased terrorism alright -- just not here in the US. Now the terrorists are flocking to Iraq. Fine by me.

Actually after reading the entire declassified NIE (what they'll show) it declared that terrorism "WORLDWIDE" is worse off resulting in more likelihood of attacks. They're not all in Iraq. They're actually more of them all over the world. "Heck of a job Bushie."

I already knew this. The attacks on Spain, Britain and India are more than enough evidence.


That's the POV (theory) that has been proven unrealistic in the last three years.


And Britain, and Spain. Is that fine by you too?


Yes, terrorists are going to Iraq, but the reality is that they're going to a lot of other places, many of them in the west, also.


No, idiots usually lack it.


Anti-intellectualism makes you look like a complete moron. The complexities of Middle Eastern foreign policy are too much to merely trust your misinformed common "sense" (using the term loosely).

Thanks RealAmerica. I chuckled. Greetings to Corneliu.

Where are the terrorists going? They're going to Iraq. Ergo, decreased risk of terrorism in the US. Makes perfect sense really. You just have your political blinders on and refuse to see reality.

Not that bollocksology again....groupings like Al Qaeda specialise in "spectaculars" - Big flashy acts of destruction. They are primarily interested in high profile media attracting targets - Washington, NYC or the like. Theres not much point in doing a big attack in middle of nowhere province, Iraq because most journos are too fucking scared leave Baghdad. In fact, the last big attack they made in Iraq was across from the hotel where the vast majority of reporters stay.

Thanks RealAmerica. I chuckled. Greetings to Corneliu.
I think you quoted the wrong poster.

I mean, I could have said so much and I'm a 15 year old Canadian.

What is funny is that a 15 year old Canadian has figured this out, yet at least 1 in 3 Americans are still in denial ...

I think you quoted the wrong poster.
Yeah?

Want to take it out?

I can see where this point is actually valid. The way it has been handled has hurt our efforts on the war on terror.

I think the whole way the war on terror has been handled has been counter-productive.


By the way, I'm quite conservative and a Bush supporter, although I don't support him now as much as I used to.

What aspects of his policies do you support?

In the interest of keeping this subject confined to one thread, I'll put the news here.

Now that the media has had a chance to see the newly declassified intelligence report, they aren't convinced that America is safer. Here's the story: Iraq is 'Cause Celebre' for Extremists (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060926/D8KCR38G1.html)

And here are some quotes from the report included in the story:

"If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide," the document says. "The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups."

The unclassified document said:

- The increased role of Iraqis in opposing al-Qaida in Iraq might lead the terror group's veteran foreign fighters to refocus their efforts outside that country.

- While Iran and Syria are the most active state sponsors of terror, many other countries will be unable to prevent their resources from being exploited by terrorists.

- The underlying factors that are fueling the spread of the extremist Muslim movement outweigh its vulnerabilities. These factors are entrenched grievances and a slow pace of reform in home countries, rising anti-U.S. sentiment and the Iraq war.

- Groups "of all stripes" will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, train, recruit and obtain support.

I don't mean to be a cynic here, but when do the US intelligence agencies submit budget requests?

I'm pretty sure that putting out a report that blatantly contradicts the Administration's position is not going to help the intelligence agencies come budget time.

Does anybody else feel bizarre that Bush released portions of the report and told us to read it ourselves but the portions of the report actually make Bush look worse? Am I being made a fool of somehow?

"U.S. President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that he "strongly disagrees" that Iraq war was a mistake and it is wrong to think the Iraq war has worsened terrorism."

"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives,” said the declassified segment of the report, titled Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States. It was completed in April but stands as America’s current intelligence threat assessment."

The Iraq War had disaster written all over it, before the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. I am so glad that our country said NO to Bush.

Too bad my country didn't. :(