| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
From Reuters:
Iraq a "terrorist Disneyland" if U.S. goes: expert
LONDON (Reuters) - A U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launchpad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said on Tuesday.
Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.
If U.S., British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America - would become such that after two or three years, the U.S. forces will have to go back to Iraq."
The Singapore-based academic and writer said the epicenter of international terrorism had already switched from Afghanistan to Iraq." In many ways, the terrorist threat has now shifted 1,500 miles closer to Europe."
The flypaper strategy worked. Here's how it was described in 2003 by U.S. Army Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq:
This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity... But this is exactly where we want to fight them. ...This will prevent the American people from having to go through their attacks back in the United States.
Terrorists have been drawn into Iraq where we have been consistently capturing and killing their leadership.
Yet the Dems want to run away, and abandon Iraq to become a "terrorist Disneylad" for terrorists to use in launching attacks against America.
From Appeal For Courage, via Instapundit.
#1
#2Your analogy is flawed precisely because it leaves out the distinction between the army and the civilian population.
Are you implying that it was a good thing to have our soldiers in Iraq to attract terrorist attacks, and in so doing, lessen the probability of terrorist attacks on American soil?
Up to the phrase "in so doing", yes. After the "in so doing" your paraphrase does not correctly sum up the flypaper strategy. That strategy is to attract the terrorists to Iraq, and then capture and kill them. It's far better to have our army capturing and killing the terrorists in Iraq, than to have the terrorists killing civilians here in the U.S.
As part of their goals in Iraq, our brave soldiers are fighting to preserve our freedoms and our way of life from terrorist attacks, by drawing the terrorists into battle, where our soldiers can capture and kill them.
#3You are right, I do consider our soldiers lives to be as valuable as civilians. And it might be a good idea to go over and get them before thy get us, however I tend to believe that our soldiers via our administration attacking and occupying Iraq, which was not at all affiliated with the terrorists, is causing the hatred of America to grow, thus encouraging the growth in the number of our enemy, the "terrorists". Do you think by staying in Iraq, we will eventually destroy all the terrorists? Or is the strategy to maintain an endless war in the Middle East so the terrorists would never attack our borders? It is a disturbing foreign policy, nonetheless.
#4...Iraq, which was not at all affiliated with the terrorists...
This is a common misconception, most likely because MSM doesn't do stories and interviews debunking it.
Hussein had a long history of supporting terrorism:
CIA Analysis, January 2003: Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism."
CIA Analysis, January 2003"Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 315):
"The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment."
Do you think by staying in Iraq, we will eventually destroy all the terrorists?
That question seems to set a standard for going to war that would rule out fighting people who are trying to kill us. The goal in World War II was not necessarily to destroy all the Nazis; it was to defeat them, which is not the same thing.
The expert quoted in the article stated that if we leave Iraq, Iraq will turn into a "launching pad to strike other Western countries -- countries in Europe, North America." Do you agree that we must not permit Iraq to become a launching pad for attacks on U.S. civilians, such as 9-11?
#5First, I do not agree with the premise that by having our MILITARY leave Iraq, it will turn into a "launching pad".
I have more a belief that diplomacy and intelligence will stop terrorism, only if listened to by an intelligent administration. I believe Bush, et al, had the intelligence necessary to diffuse the 911 attacks but dismissed it. I can't help remembering the image of Bush in the schoolroom when he was informed of the attacks and the horrible look on his face of having "fumbled the ball". He had been informed of the possibility. This is what needs to be addressed. His administration's poor leadership skills and their abuse of power.
#6First, I do not agree with the premise that by having our MILITARY leave Iraq, it will turn into a "launching pad".
You are disagreeing with the expert hired by Lloyd's of London; the expert's opinion appears more likely to be correct. Please provide links to back up your view on this.
#7This tired old DOG of a lie. Yes bush was informed of the possibility. But it was one of HUNDREDS of possible threats of which his intelligence agancy shifted through and listed in the top dozen or so "credible threats". Short of a tarot Cards or a crystal ball, there was no way he could know that this one out of those dozen were going to come through.
The only way that the Muslims stop hating us, is for us to roll over and become muslims and put ourselves under mulsim laws. THAT is the only outcome acceptable to the extremists. Unfortunatley the extremists continue to rule Islam. I wish the president would have the strength to stand up to the "moderate muslims" if such an animal truly exists, and reiterate his demand of "YOU are either with us or with the Terrorists". Until moderate Islam denounces its more racdical elements and begins to put thier money where their mouth is, I say we treat them exactly the same way as we do the terrorists. IN WWII we bombed plenty of places where we KNEW we were killing NON nazi's. This is war and its horrible and should be avoided. Until you make them realise that continually attacking the west brings them only MORE misery and destruction, and FORCESS the more moderate muslims into action, we will continue to have this problem. I have no problem with the middle eastern muslims Hating the united states, so long as they hate the extremists who live among them more.
#8If I was in charge of security, and I had unlimited resources, and there were a top dozen or so "credible threats", I would do everything in my power to stop all credible threats from occurring. If I were running a business and found out of a dozen "credible" ways I might be robbed, I would stop all dozen. The president is commander in chief of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, CIA, FBI, etc. It was his responsibilty to protect our borders at all costs and when he fumbled the ball, his response was to invade IRAQ? Where is the reasoning behind that?, It was a chance for his power-crazed and gas-crazed friends to get over 500 BILLIONS of tax money into the private pockets of the fortunate few who profit from war. If we did not invade Iraq, but instead put all our efforts into intelligence and infiltration of the hundred or so terrorist cells that existed at the time of 9/11 do you think we would have more frequent attacks on our soil? Do you feel the world is more secure, now? Do you think there are fewer terrorists now?
#9It seems that you are conceding the point that Iraq would become a launching pad for attacks on America if the U.S. left Iraq. I note this because in #6 I asked you to back up your view on that question, and you have not yet provided any links to back up your view.
Is it correct that you are conceding that point? If not, please provide some links to back up your view.
#10"The only way that the Muslims stop hating us, is for us to roll over and become muslims and put ourselves under mulsim laws"
That is an item I disagree with, Muslims do not hate us. In fact I would venture to say some American Muslims are more patriotic than you or I. Following your reasoning,and applying it to other noteworthy terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the only way for backwoods militiamen to stop hating us is for us to become backwoods militiamen. And again, I would venture to say that some back-woods militiamen are more patriotic than you or I.
But you are right. It is the extremists that are dangerous. In our country as well as abroad. And in our leadership as well as Middle Eastern leadership.
#11Vik, In reply to post #9, I am conceding that the "expert's" opinion is feasable. But I am not condoning that the U.S. leave Iraq, I am condoning that the U.S. MILITARY leave Iraq. And not all of our military. We have bases in many parts of the world that carry out covert and overt operations for our Intelligence Agencies. I would support a sustained withdrawal combined with an aggressive Intelligence Policy to infiltrate and defuse any potential terrorist threats and a definitive Diplomatic agenda to promote peace. But the war in Iraq is no longer about terrorists. It is now about who gets to control Iraq. The Sunni's, the Shii's, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudi's, the Halliburton's, the Kurds, the U.S.
Mr. Bush is "proud" to be the WAR PRESIDENT. There is just something disturbing to me about that.
I do value your posts though, they are intelligent, even though misguided. :^)
#12Vik, In reply to post #9, I am conceding that the “expert’s” opinion is feasable. But I am not condoning that the U.S. leave Iraq, I am condoning that the U.S. MILITARY leave Iraq.
That is what the expert is talking about as well. His view, which it appears you agree with, is that if the U.S. military leaves Iraq, it will become a launching pad for attacks on the U.S.
You go on to say that a partial military pullout and "an aggressive Intelligence Policy" could still prevent Iraq from becoming a launching pad for attacks on the U.S. Please provide links to back up this view.
#13The following article tells of how the CIA shut down Egypt's Jihad problem
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a95renditionegypt#a95renditionegypt
#14Vik,
haven't heard from you in a while- One link and I win the argument? or did you come to your senses about the insensibility of the invasion of Iraq?
#15frank julian
Sept. 11 turned the world upside down. It opened the minds of some people, but in your case not all..Your mosquito story says it all. Its all about you getting bit. Our brave soldiers who fight against the evil over there, are willing to get bit, for the sake of their families and for freedoms sake. I'm proud of President Bush. He made the tough decision to go war against evil itself..You act like he made that decision over coke and whiskey..Thats gotta be the hardest dicision a President can make. Knowing full well that peoples families will be torn apart, He made the right decision, despite what the left says.
#16Dear Azbastard
Please explain to me why Bush then picked Iraq as his enemy as the "Evil" of the world. Why not Osama Bin Laden? Iraq is a poster child for what disaster a war-mongering simple-minded president can do by manipulating the emotions of a nation. 9-11 had NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to do with Iraq. NOTHING- don't you get it? NOTHING, how many times must I repeat it til it gets through to everybody. 9-11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq, Al- Quaida was an enemy of Hussein. 9-11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Get it? My God, how closed-minded is that. After 9-11 Bush could have waged war on anybody and the wounded American people would have lock-stepped in support. Talk about opening minds. Oh, yes- beware the "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud" - we must now attack Iran- Oh yes, let's not forget Korea and what about China! and Russia is saying things bad about us too, Oh yes and Venezuela, Let's attack them all. How idiotic that is. I wholeheartedly disagree that he made the right decision. He made the most idiotic foreign affairs blunder of my lifetime. I am sorry that you support him. And he could give a damn about our soldiers. He used them as political fodder for his agenda, which some of us believe may quite possibly be linked to the oil industry and Halliburton Of course, you will dismiss this as left wing theory.
#17Frank
I'm a simple minded guy myself..At least from your comments your not a truther who believes 911 was an inside job. Contrary to what you might think, we are diplomatic. We gave saddam what 10 yrs? We're trying to be diplomatic with iran, but as you can see that ain't working either. We've been diplomatic with cuba for what 50 years? Only when che and castro wanted nucleaur missles in cuba did we stand our ground. We've been diplomatic with n korea and all they do is lie to us and continue to expand their nucleuar capablities not only in their own country but syria. Hugo Chavez should be taken out but we just let him rant and rant and hopefully his own country will do the dirty work.. In this day and age America can not let her guard down for one minute. Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world. We hit 'em hard and failed to realize that most would not jump on the Freedom band wagon as quickly as we thought. We thought it would be easy to set up a democracy there. Not only do we have to fight the enemy there we have to fight the enemy within. We're succeding in afganistan and iraq, but in my mind it will be short lived. Keep your eyes on Israel. Its just a matter of time, when the cancer of the Zionist will be treated with radiation, according to Iran. Then you can throw diplomacy out the window. It will be the mother of all wars. I hope that whoever our president is, he wont be afraid to unlease the dogs of war.
#18Israel is scary and thier control over much of our foreign policy is to blame for a great deal of resentment towards us. But we allowed it to happen because we are using them as a strategic ally in the Oil belt. I don't agree with you saying GW is a diplomatic president. Condoleeza Rice can't tell a truthful statement without her face falling off. He rules as a despot. And only through his ouster can we bring America back to what I remember it to be when I was growing up. Torturing was done by the enemy, we were too noble for that. We would not aggressively attack any Nation unless they attacked us or an ally.
I remember hearing the difference between Communist Russia and the US was that the Russians would imprison a thousand innocent people to ensure the prosecution of one guilty person whereas the US would let a thousand criminals go free to ensure the freedom of one innocent person. I was proud of that stand, while it may be unpopular to those promoting the philosophy of curtailing freedom for the sake of security. I can see where Obama's wife is coming from saying for the first time in her adult life she can be proud of America. I am much older than she, but when Bush was in his glory, claiming "Bring It On!" I remember singing God Bless America at a ballgame and choking down the sentiments. Hopefully his replacement will re-instill that "land that I love" phrase.
#19frank
dude your talking in circles...."the land that i love" is under attack big time. from without and from within..I can see where bush was coming from, when he said, that "if your not with us your against us"..i will take stedfastness over change any day..and i take that back, you do believe 911 was an inside job
#20Steadfastness means not changing your mind no matter what you have learned? That's ignorance.
#21no ignorance is jumping off a cliff because eveybody else did
#22No, ignorance is failing to realize why everyone is jumping off the cliff. Or even after realizing jumping is better than not jumping , you don't jump.
Are you implying that it was a good thing to have our soldiers in Iraq to attract terrorist attacks, and in so doing, lessen the probability of terrorist attacks on American soil? I will try an analogy of, say, mosquitoes. Occasionally, a mosquito bites me. They breed outdoors along the hedges. I spray occasionally to keep down their population. On Sept. 11th, three mosquitos attacked me in my house, right in my bedroom. But wait, here is an idea. I will build a stagnant pond over by the power box, and hopefully attract and breed the mosquitoes in one spot, and I can go out there every night and try to kill as many mosquitoes as I can, getting bit much more regularly in the process. But at least, then I can sleep inside, comforted, in the knowledge that someday I will annihilate the entire mosquito population. What fairy tale world do you live in?