Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror 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

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

When did I say that? See, there you go with your bullshit rhetoric.

We aid countries all across the globe. I'm certainly not advocating isolationism, but I'm not going to promote pandering to terrorists....you might, but I'd rather die first.

[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?

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

Hmmm who exactly is saying that, and where?

The OP article suggests that the current policy isn't working - that has direct relevance to the public debate. People decide elections on the basis of such things - certainly didn't stop the government from using the 9/11 anniversary as a political soap box (after first telling everyone days before that the speech wouldn't be political).

[Alex+R 0]

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.

When did I say that? See, there you go with your bullshit rhetoric.

We aid countries all across the globe. I'm certainly not advocating isolationism, but I'm not going to promote pandering to terrorists....you might, but I'd rather die first.

Lisa, if the point of the Iraq war was claimed to have been to "fight terror," and we have just learned that our war is having an opposite effect, what would be the point of "staying the course," as Bush vaguely puts it?

How does facilitating terrorist activity show terrorists we mean business about cracking down on their activities?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

but I'm not going to promote pandering to terrorists....you might, but I'd rather die first.

Who is pandering?

Noone has said that - the report doesn't say that. It says that the Iraq war has had an effect on world security that is completely counter to what the President has said. I fail to see how that is irrelevant....

[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.

When did I say that? See, there you go with your bullshit rhetoric.

We aid countries all across the globe. I'm certainly not advocating isolationism, but I'm not going to promote pandering to terrorists....you might, but I'd rather die first.

Lisa, it goes both ways. Did I ever say we should pander to terrorists? Go back to what you said about cutting out the partisan rhetoric and let's have real discussion about the causes and effects of our foreign policy on our national security.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We made that place a battleground.

I'd rather it be there than here..

oh yawn... that tired old line? Anyone really still falling for that nonsense?

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?

Since one can't prove a negative, why don't you produce some positive proof that Iraq did pose a terror threat to the US prior to 3/19/03? The Congress tried and came up empty.

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.

Actually it is. A free media is the one of the very cornerstones of a free society. If the government controls all information as it sees fit and the media ducks, we're fcuked. I know what I'm talking about - I've lived it. Edited September 24, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Alex+R 0]

We made that place a battleground.

I'd rather it be there than here..

oh yawn... that tired old line? Anyone really still falling for that nonsense?

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?

Since one can't prove a negative, why don't you produce some positive proof that Iraq did pose a terror threat to the US prior to 3/19/03? The Congress tried and came up empty.

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.

Actually it is. A free media is the one of the very cornerstones of a free society. If the government controls all information as it sees fit and the media ducks, we're fcuked. I know what I'm talking about - I've lived it.

Yes, I don't think people are used to the American media doing their jobs anymore. They've been so cowardly and reluctant to report the truth since Bush took office. Could it be because most major newspapers are now owned by large corporations and are now run like businesses, purely for profit?

[incanada1234 0]

I love how the NYT loves to blame islamic terrorism on the USA.

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

Yes, I don't think people are used to the American media doing their jobs anymore. They've been so cowardly and reluctant to report the truth since Bush took office. Could it be because most major newspapers are now owned by large corporations and are now run like businesses, purely for profit?

A bit off the original topic, Alex, but I think this is worth reading in response to what you've just said. It gives me hope anyway.

The Fund for Investigative Journalism was founded in 1969 by the late Philip M. Stern, a public-spirited philanthropist who devoted his life "to balancing the scales of justice," in the words of a friend. Stern was convinced small amounts of money invested in the work of determined journalists would yield enormous results in the fight against racism, poverty, corporate greed and governmental corruption. Stern's theory proved true in the Fund's first year, when a tiny grant of $250 enabled reporter Seymour Hersh to begin investigating a tip concerning a U.S. Army massacre at the Vietnamese village of My Lai. A subsequent Fund grant of $2,000 allowed Hersh to finish reporting the story.

"Think of it," Stern later wrote, "a mere $2,250 in Fund grants enabled Seymour Hersh to leverage a whiff into a colossal stink and contribute mightily to the change in how Americans viewed the war in Vietnam."

Over three decades, the Fund has awarded more than $1.5 million in grants to freelance reporters, authors and small publications, enabling the publication of more than 700 stories and broadcasts and some 50 books. "Without support from the Fund for Investigative Journalism, The Progressive would simply not have been able to publish many of the stories that we are most proud of," wrote Matthew Rothschild, the magazine's editor. "�Democracy depends on the circulation of this information; the Fund makes that circulation possible."

http://fij.org/about/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Since when did the POTUS rule the world?

The issue is not whether or not we have right to defend this nation from terrorist or other threats. That right is not in dispute. But we are the fcuking aggressor in Iraq. We're the war maker. We're the law breaker. We're the bad guys. The administration fcuked this and the entire region up for decades to come - all under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And that goal is not even being accomplished - the exact opposite is happening. We're not decreasing the threat, we're building it up. The vast majority of the people that died in Iraq because of what Bush broke lose needlessly were not terrorists.

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

Actually, the only person busy playing world dictator is Gorge W Bush.

[Fandango 1,439]

This is going to be short and sweet for now because my computer just crashed on me three times in a row

I FEEL - not only from this thread, but from reading all the threads on here - as if SOME people read bad stuff like this and is all 'more terrorist?!?! EXCELLENT! summat else to blame on Bush!' Yes, I'm being dramatic in this statement, but the overall sentiment is there IMO.

[Heracles 417]

Democracy depends on the circulation of this information; the Fund makes that circulation possible."

Democracy or hypocrisy. True journalism is fair and balanced, aka not biased based on one's political affiliation.

It is also illegal in numerous 1st world countries for journalist to reveal national secrets, especially in a time of war, to the rest of the world. Which in essence is what the NYT is doing.

Example: Advising the terrorists that the US government is monitoring their calls. Therefore one should ask, which side is the NYT really on??

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I love how the NYT loves to blame islamic terrorism on the USA.

It doesn't. It just states that the US intelligence agencies have concluded that Bush's war on terror, especially in respect to the debacle in Iraq, is nothing but failed strategery. There's a huge difference in what they are saying and what you think they're saying.

[Heracles 417]

It doesn't. It just states that the US intelligence agencies have concluded that Bush's war on terror, especially in respect to the debacle in Iraq, is nothing but failed strategery. There's a huge difference in what they are saying and what you think they're saying.

So how about being a real journalist and being fair and balanced. IE EG Reporting both sides of the story..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I FEEL - not only from this thread, but from reading all the threads on here - as if SOME people read bad stuff like this and is all 'more terrorist?!?! EXCELLENT! summat else to blame on Bush!' Yes, I'm being dramatic in this statement, but the overall sentiment is there IMO.

Funny. I've said for years now that illegally and illegitemately invading Iraq is not going to do us any good in terms of making this country safer from Islamic terrorism. Bush supporters always claimed that I am just not seeing the bigger picture or whatnot. So, here are the intelligence agencies essentially confirming what I've been thinking and saying all along - Bush's policy is ####### and the Iraq war is not only a disaster but it actually makes this country less safe. The POTUS keeps lying to the public about this - he knows this report and he knows that what he publicly claims is not true. So yeah, more ####### on Bush. Thing is, he crapped on himself - it wasn't me crapping on him.

It doesn't. It just states that the US intelligence agencies have concluded that Bush's war on terror, especially in respect to the debacle in Iraq, is nothing but failed strategery. There's a huge difference in what they are saying and what you think they're saying.

So how about being a real journalist and being fair and balanced. IE EG Reporting both sides of the story..

Didn't know there were two Intelligence Estimates out there with different conclusions.

Edited September 24, 2006 by ET-US2004