1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Iraq War: Pretty much the opposite of a war on terror

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by dog428, Sep 25, 2006.

  1. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Shocking news. The Iraq war, as numerous people have pointed out since damn near the beginning, is actually serving to strengthen various terrorist groups around the world, our intelligence agencies say.


    WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq 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.

    Go ahead and try spinning it around, boys.
  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    So let me see if I have this right.

    The left claims that there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. The left then claims that terrorists poured into Iraq after we got there. And now the left claims that even though there are terrorists behind every nook and cranny in Iraq, fighting in Iraq is not fighting the war on terror.

    I sure wish you guys would make up your mind.

    But I can understand why you have to keep moving the bar to convince yourselves you're right.
  3. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    To answer you, no, you don't have it right.

    Not even close really.
  4. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Funny, but you apparently have missed the DNC talking points the past few years. Apparently even they don't want you.

    Yes, I had it right. The left has repeatedly said that there were no terrorists in Iraq under Saddam, and they've said that terrorists poured into Iraq after we got there. You're either very ignorant or lying.
  5. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    I believe I see the problem here, tony -- you like to boil everything down to talking points.

    That tactic works rather well if you're trying to win elections, but it doesn't mean a hell of a lot if you're actually trying to solve problems once in office.

    Simply saying that there were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there and that there are now bunches of them running around sounds like a severe contradiction, when it's boiled down to talking points. But it's not. Hell, it's not even honest, since the "Dems" aren't saying it. Sixteen different intelligence agencies are saying it.

    I'm not going to go through all this shit again. I went through it a few days ago on here. Find that thread if you like. I'll just point out the biggest flaw in your statement: The terrorists aren't "pouring in," they're being recruited from the people who were already there. That war is turning people who would have lived nice, quiet lives in Iraq into terrorists who have come to hate America.
  6. Gee, did you really think the jihadists would just dry up and blow away once we decided to do something about them?

    Did you really think a highly motivated enemy would just fold like a cheap tent? That they wouldn't try to recruit more foot soldiers?

    Oh, that's right, we're the ones who are supposed to go whimpering into a corner when someone gets aggressive with us. Gee, if we just didn't bother them, they'd leave us alone.

    Are you really this stupid, dog, or have you really had a lobotomy?
  7. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    Man, the 101st Fighting Keyboardists are feisty tonight.

    Was Rambo on?
  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    And next you'll tell me they want to go back to the good ole days of Saddam.

    I've been arguing politics on the Internet for years, dog, and all the lefties two years ago were saying that terrorists were pouring over the borders into Iran now that we were there and Saddam wasn't. If you missed that talking point, don't blame me.

    You say "they're being recruited from (sic) the people who were already there" which is an admission that there were terrorists already there and they're being trained there. Doesn't exactly support your point that fighting in Iraq isn't fighting the war on terror, in case you haven't noticed.

    Again, you're either ignorant or lying -- or, more likely, both.
  9. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    I may not agree much with you, Joe, but I do like that name: The 101st Fighting Keyboardists. Has a really good ring to it. :)
  10. Tony, you're trying, but arguing with dog is a futile task. Don't know why I get suckered into it. Probably because he's so ignorant you just can't let the shit he slings pass without comment.
  11. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Following our attacks on Afghanistan, al Qaeda was on the verge of complete defeat. Over 80 percent of its members were dead, its leaders were on the run and the one country which offered the group a place to train and live was no longer welcoming them.

    Instead of closing the deal, we went to Iraq. And in less than four years, al Qaeda has an estimated four times the number of members, controls a large province in the very country in which we're fighting this war on terror and has convinced the Muslim world that the US's goal is to rid the world of Muslims.

    There's a difference in fighting a group of radicals who are trying to spread their brand of hate and helping that group of radicals to spread that hate with our fighting. A big difference.

    But hey, our president got to say "Bring it on," so all is good.
  12. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    You're exactly right. You can't let ridiculous shit be flung against the wall without cleaning it up. I'm convinced that like his hero Clinton he's a congenital liar. He's trying now to deny that the entire line of the left two years ago was that there were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there and now there are tons of them.

    Then he says that there are tons of terrorists being recruited and trained in Iraq, but his thread title says he believes fighting in Iraq isn't fighting the war on terror. We should just turn the entire thread over to him and let him argue both sides.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page