Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

Want to try a simple cause and effect excercise?

We made that place a battleground. Most of the actual terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis nor have they been in Iraq prior to us illegally and illegitimately aggressing against that country, knocking out it's government and failing to secure the place leaving it wide open for anyone and everyone to come there and play whatever game they wanted to play. Iraq did not have a thing to do with any terrorism threat against the US until March 19, 2003.

Edited September 24, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

The issue THEN was that Saddam had no identifiable links to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The issue NOW is that the power vacuum resulting from the removal of Saddam coupled with poor 'post invasion' planning allowed for a set of circumstances where islamic fundamentalists have entered the country almost unchecked - and where old tribal rivalries have flamed into sectarian violence.

That has OBVIOUS implications for the wider region.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[I'm Gone 60]

It just makes it official. It also makes official that the administration has, again, been busy lying to the public about the actual results of their Iraq policy as it relates to the safety of this nation.

But what President would say we were losing a war he started? Don't think Johnson ever said he f*cked up with Vietnam or we were losing. Plus couldn't making this report public be a good terrorist recruiting tool? Come on boys we have the great satan on the run.

[Heracles 417]

We made that place a battleground.

I'd rather it be there than here..

Iraq did not have a thing to do with any terrorism threat against the US until March 19, 2003.

Where is your proof of this?

Edited September 24, 2006 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It just makes it official. It also makes official that the administration has, again, been busy lying to the public about the actual results of their Iraq policy as it relates to the safety of this nation.

But what President would say we were losing a war he started? Don't think Johnson ever said he f*cked up with Vietnam or we were losing. Plus couldn't making this report public be a good terrorist recruiting tool? Come on boys we have the great satan on the run.

It has clear implications for his performance - hence the public interest angle. Or should we classify everything so that people think the government is doing a marvellous job, all of the time?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

Want to try a simple cause and effect excercise?

We made that place a battleground. Most of the actual terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis nor have they been in Iraq prior to us illegally and illegitimately aggressing against that country, knocking out it's government and failing to secure the place leaving it wide open for anyone and everyone to come there and play whatever game they wanted to play. Iraq did not have a thing to do with any terrorism threat against the US until March 19, 2003.

To add to that, the mere invasion and occupation of Iraq confirmed in the minds of many Muslims what people like Osama were saying all along about the U.S. - whether or not that claim is completely accurate, it has added fuel to the fire. The Bush Administration, prior to the invasion had told the American people we were only going in there to take out Saddam, leaving the country for the people of Iraq to rule - we were not occupiers. A bit shortsighted to say the least.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We made that place a battleground.

I'd rather it be there than here..

If Saddam had no links to fundamentalist groups as has been WIDELY reported. Why would NOT fighting a guy who was militarily contained result in a battleground "over here"?

Soundbites might sound great - but they fall apart if you subject them to any degree of scrutiny.

[Cassie 8]

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

The way I understood it, this whole Iraq war was to be a part of the "war on terror" -- you know, getting Al-Qieda (sp) and Osama bin Laden (remember him? curious how we rarely hear about him anymore) and supposedly "liberating" Iraq was part of the plan. Utter rubbish. Meanwhile NATO troops are paying the price for the work started in Afghanistan (remember that? the battleground that's not as sexy or splashy as Iraq so we rarely hear about that anymore?).

[I'm Gone 60]

should we classify everything so that people think the government is doing a marvellous job, all of the time?

Probably not, but it's not the NY Times call to say what should be made public and what should not. Plus would they have printed it if it supported Bush?

[Fandango 1,439]

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

Want to try a simple cause and effect excercise?

We made that place a battleground. Most of the actual terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis nor have they been in Iraq prior to us illegally and illegitimately aggressing against that country, knocking out it's government and failing to secure the place leaving it wide open for anyone and everyone to come there and play whatever game they wanted to play. Iraq did not have a thing to do with any terrorism threat against the US until March 19, 2003.

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

The issue THEN was that Saddam had no identifiable links to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The issue NOW is that the power vacuum resulting from the removal of Saddam coupled with poor 'post invasion' planning allowed for a set of circumstances where islamic fundamentalists have entered the country almost unchecked - and where old tribal rivalries have flamed into sectarian violence.

That has OBVIOUS implications for the wider region.

firstly, I was being sarcastic

Secondly, yes...let's all run scared that we'll make people mad....quick, someone fax the rest of the world and give them our national schedule so we all get world approval to take a sh!t...

Since when did we have to cowtow to terrorists? What kind of fuct up planet is this that supposed rational people are sat here passive aggressively blaming the USA for fcuking terrorists and getting their fcuking dander up? THEY'RE FCUKING TERRORISTS, PEOPLE...we do not negotiate with terrorists, and we certainly shouldn't be blaming OURSELVES for these radical azzholes....what next? 'do this or we'll do that'???? so then all of a sudden the USA is some radical's b!znatch? 'Oh yes, mr terrorist, right away!!!' Did all you people get your azzes kicked on a daily basis in school? QUICK MARTY BIFF IS COMING LET'S NOT MAKE HIM ANGRY

Boneless chicken, how do they walk?

This bi-partisan pizzing contest really needs to stop because common sense is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And if one more person says or implies something even moderatly ridiculous (I say this as I see S&J at the bottom of this thread) I'm gonna scream.

Edited September 24, 2006 by LisaD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

Want to try a simple cause and effect excercise?

We made that place a battleground. Most of the actual terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis nor have they been in Iraq prior to us illegally and illegitimately aggressing against that country, knocking out it's government and failing to secure the place leaving it wide open for anyone and everyone to come there and play whatever game they wanted to play. Iraq did not have a thing to do with any terrorism threat against the US until March 19, 2003.

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

The issue THEN was that Saddam had no identifiable links to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The issue NOW is that the power vacuum resulting from the removal of Saddam coupled with poor 'post invasion' planning allowed for a set of circumstances where islamic fundamentalists have entered the country almost unchecked - and where old tribal rivalries have flamed into sectarian violence.

That has OBVIOUS implications for the wider region.

firstly, I was being sarcastic

Secondly, yes...let's all run scared that we'll make people mad....quick, someone fax the rest of the world and give them our national schedule so we all get world approval to take a sh!t...

Since when did we have to cowtow to terrorists? What kind of fuct up planet is this that supposed rational people are sat here passive aggressively blaming the USA for fcuking terrorists and getting their fcuking dander up? THEY'RE FCUKING TERRORISTS, PEOPLE...we do not negotiate with terrorists, and we certainly shouldn't be blaming OURSELVES for these radical azzholes....what next? 'do this or we'll do that'???? so then all of a sudden the USA is some radical's b!znatch? 'Oh yes, mr terrorist, right away!!!' Did all you people get your azzes kicked on a daily basis in school? QUICK MARTY BIFF IS COMING LET'S NOT MAKE HIM ANGRY

Boneless chicken, how do they walk?

This bi-partisan pizzing contest really needs to stop because common sense is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And if one more person says or implies something even moderatly ridiculous (I say this as I see S&J at the bottom of this thread) I'm gonna scream.

Switch to decaf?

[Fandango 1,439]

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

Want to try a simple cause and effect excercise?

We made that place a battleground. Most of the actual terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis nor have they been in Iraq prior to us illegally and illegitimately aggressing against that country, knocking out it's government and failing to secure the place leaving it wide open for anyone and everyone to come there and play whatever game they wanted to play. Iraq did not have a thing to do with any terrorism threat against the US until March 19, 2003.

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

The issue THEN was that Saddam had no identifiable links to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The issue NOW is that the power vacuum resulting from the removal of Saddam coupled with poor 'post invasion' planning allowed for a set of circumstances where islamic fundamentalists have entered the country almost unchecked - and where old tribal rivalries have flamed into sectarian violence.

That has OBVIOUS implications for the wider region.

firstly, I was being sarcastic

Secondly, yes...let's all run scared that we'll make people mad....quick, someone fax the rest of the world and give them our national schedule so we all get world approval to take a sh!t...

Since when did we have to cowtow to terrorists? What kind of fuct up planet is this that supposed rational people are sat here passive aggressively blaming the USA for fcuking terrorists and getting their fcuking dander up? THEY'RE FCUKING TERRORISTS, PEOPLE...we do not negotiate with terrorists, and we certainly shouldn't be blaming OURSELVES for these radical azzholes....what next? 'do this or we'll do that'???? so then all of a sudden the USA is some radical's b!znatch? 'Oh yes, mr terrorist, right away!!!' Did all you people get your azzes kicked on a daily basis in school? QUICK MARTY BIFF IS COMING LET'S NOT MAKE HIM ANGRY

Boneless chicken, how do they walk?

This bi-partisan pizzing contest really needs to stop because common sense is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And if one more person says or implies something even moderatly ridiculous (I say this as I see S&J at the bottom of this thread) I'm gonna scream.

Switch to decaf?

Go hug something.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

Want to try a simple cause and effect excercise?

We made that place a battleground. Most of the actual terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis nor have they been in Iraq prior to us illegally and illegitimately aggressing against that country, knocking out it's government and failing to secure the place leaving it wide open for anyone and everyone to come there and play whatever game they wanted to play. Iraq did not have a thing to do with any terrorism threat against the US until March 19, 2003.

Hang on...people keep screaming how Iraq and terrorism were not connected, yet the occupation of Iraq has a direct effect on it?

Hrmmm....way to straddle that fence, boys...make sure you're all wearing your cups.

The issue THEN was that Saddam had no identifiable links to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The issue NOW is that the power vacuum resulting from the removal of Saddam coupled with poor 'post invasion' planning allowed for a set of circumstances where islamic fundamentalists have entered the country almost unchecked - and where old tribal rivalries have flamed into sectarian violence.

That has OBVIOUS implications for the wider region.

firstly, I was being sarcastic

Secondly, yes...let's all run scared that we'll make people mad....quick, someone fax the rest of the world and give them our national schedule so we all get world approval to take a sh!t...

Since when did we have to cowtow to terrorists? What kind of fuct up planet is this that American people are sat here passive aggressively blaming the USA for fcuking terrorists and getting their fcuking dander up? THEY'RE FCUKING TERRORISTS, PEOPLE...we do not negotiate with terrorists, and we certainly shouldn't be blaming OURSELVES for these radical azzholes....what next? 'do this or we'll do that'???? so then all of a sudden the USA is some radical's b!znatch? 'Oh yes, mr terrorist, right away!!!' Did all you people get your azzes kicked on a daily basis in school? QUICK MARTY BIFF IS COMING LET'S NOT MAKE HIM ANGRY

Boneless chicken, how do they walk?

Simply, because you can't separate US government policy from its effect on the wider world. Here's some food for thought:

Can the West defeat the Islamist threat?

[Fandango 1,439]

Simply, because you can't separate US government policy from its effect on the wider world. Here's some food for thought:

Can the West defeat the Islamist threat?

Right so let's have the rest of the world dictate our actions to us

Edited September 24, 2006 by LisaD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Simply, because you can't separate US government policy from its effect on the wider world. Here's some food for thought:

Can the West defeat the Islamist threat?

Right so let's have the rest of the world dictate our actions to us

The "I don't give a f##k what other countries think" foreign policy is really getting us far.