DescentBB

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/28/terror ... index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The State Department's annual terrorism report finds that Iraq is becoming a safe haven for terrorists and has attracted a \"foreign fighter pipeline\" linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world, a senior State Department official involved in the preparation of the report told CNN.

Don't you feel safer now?
I'm certain that CNN is putting as much of an anti-Bush spin on this as they can, but the basic facts still stand for themselves. Before we invaded Iraq the Islamic Terrorist movement was faltering. No one wanted to house it and the people of Afghanistan were ready to help kick the terrorist out with all speed.

After we invaded Iraq we gave the beast new strength, new recrutment material, and a new base of operations, where a significant percentage of the locals are happy to welcome, hide, and support them.

The people that controlled afghanastan weren't willing to expell any terrorists before we attacked and killed many of them...

In Iraq, before we invaded, there were already havens for al Queda and many other terrorist factions, but we weren't there killing them. A difference worth noting and a welcome change in our abilty to deal with them. Just look at all the dead and imprisoned terrorists we've taken down, all the financial tools they used to have that we have tracked down and eliminated due to our new level of involvement over there...

I also contest your assertion that the islamic terrorist movement was faltering. They seemed to be doing just fine and reaching a boiling point in many places, most noticebly the boil over that is now a smoking crater in lower Manhattan....

Of all the hotspots on the globe (war zones) you'll find islam at the heart of the majority of those conflicts. This was true before our military involvement in the two countries and is still true today.
So regardless of whether I feel safer or not, or just how successful the Iraq portion of the War on Terror is at this point, I think, overall, we haven't contributed to the escalation of the islamo-facsist threat nearly as much as the islamo-facsists have, pre or post invasion.

Will Robinson wrote:The people that controlled afghanastan weren't willing to expell any terrorists before we attacked and killed many of them...

But the PEOPLE of Afghanistan fought WITH us. The majority of them wanted to see the Taliban gone, and were willing to put their OWN lives on the line to see it happen. In Iraq, hardly a finger was raised to help us.

Will Robinson wrote:In Iraq before we invaded, there were already havens for al Queda and other terrorists but we weren't there killing them.

Havens? Hardly. There are indications Saddam had a meeting with al Queda once, and sent some money to the families of suicide bombers, and a smattering of support here and there. Largly anti-American, not pro Islamic Fundamentalist, because the Islamic Fundamentalists didn't LIKE Saddam, and he didn't like them. There was NOTHING in Iraq on the scale of the terrorist involvement that we are seeing now. Not even close.

Will Robinson wrote:I also contest your assertion that the islamic terrorist movement was faltering. They seemed to be doing just fine and reaching a boiling point in many places, most noticebly the boil over that is now a smoking crater in lower Manhattan.

It was faltering AFTER WE INVADED AFGHANISTAN. 9/11 happend BEFORE that. Afghanistan was their stronghold, and after we invaded, most of the OTHER pro Islamic terrorist states were closing their doors to the extremist. Even the Islamic world could see that we had a fully justified reason to invade Afghanistan. It was the invasion of Iraq that sent all of the nutcases over there screaming "Crusade" again.

Will Robinson wrote:we haven't contributed to the escalation of the islamo-facsist threat nearly as much as the islamo-facsists have

I'm not trying to remove the blame from the radical idiots over there who think the solution to every problem is to kill as many innocents as you can. The blame rests fully upon their own heads.

But Bush's policy of invading Iraq stirred the nuts UP, fed the beast when it was starving, gave them a place to hide when they were running out of places to go. It was the most absolutely idiotic approach to the problem I can imagine. I said so before we invaded, and I have seen nothing to change my mind.

Congratulations.

But the PEOPLE of Afghanistan fought WITH us. The majority of them wanted to see the Taliban gone, and were willing to put their OWN lives on the line to see it happen. In Iraq, hardly a finger was raised to help us.

I'm not buying into that theory. Sure there is no rush to report positive Iraqi involvement in the process, nor much reporting on the good news out of Iraq, but that's to be expected when the press corp isn't looking for the good news and instead sitting safely in the hotels in the green zone filing their reports based on third party runners, clairvoyance and god knows what other forms of creative journalism!
I do know there are many Iraqis either dying to make the new government work or in danger of being the next one to die for trying and I believe their efforts deserve a different designation than that of the efforts of 'a people not willing to lift a finger'!!

...There are indications Saddam had a meeting with al Queda once, and sent some money to the families of suicide bombers, and a smattering of support here and there. Largly anti-American, not pro Islamic Fundamentalist, because the Islamic Fundamentalists didn't LIKE Saddam, and he didn't like them. There was NOTHING in Iraq on the scale of the terrorist involvement that we are seeing now. Not even close.

The meetings (plural) are a sign of what is a well know phenomenon over there, which is the enemy of my enemy is my brother.
They can dislike him on one level and still work with him against a greater percieved evil.
Saddam gave sanctuary and medical aid to al Queda members. Training to al Queda members, financial aid by the hundreds of thousand$ to al Queda fake charity front orginazations.

There was plenty of financial and logistical support for anti-western terrorists who are islamic. Numerous instances of terrorists finding sanctuary there, a standing offer of $25000 for every family of a suicide bomber, etc.
Whether or not you want to think of them as islamic or anti-western doesn't really matter to me and that semantic argument probably wouldn't hold much weight with their victims either. I'm sure their potential victims aren't thinking Damn, the americans are shutting down Saddam but his form of terror wasn't exactly islamic by the bin Laddin definition so really I wish they wouldn't have interfered. I'd rather take my chances on a bomb at the cafe or on my bus ride to work rather than have a less than devout terrorist arrested and stopped from putting his unpure support behind terrorist attacks.
Yea I bet that thought crosses their minds daily

One thing is certain, the terrorists, whatever you want to call them, are now looking elsewhere for the logistical and financial support they used to recieve from Saddam and any of them that are rushing to jihad in Iraq are being met with a much more secure and dangerous target in the U.S. Armed Forces than they would have found in any other jihadi venture they would have embarked on.
Sure there are more people per capita in Iraq right now willing to go shoot at americans but that isn't some new found religion on their part, it's a new found target of opportunity! Once we leave they dissapear, those that don't and survive our presence were already a threat to begin with hence not our creation. All told were not creating that many new enemies just giving them a focused target. That's why your assertion that there are more terrorists in Iraq now is misleading.

It was faltering AFTER WE INVADED AFGHANISTAN. 9/11 happend BEFORE that. Afghanistan was their stronghold, and after we invaded, most of the OTHER pro Islamic terrorist states were closing their doors to the extremist. Even the Islamic world could see that we had a fully justified reason to invade Afghanistan. It was the invasion of Iraq that sent all of the nutcases over there screaming \"Crusade\" again.

First of all, Afghanastan wasn't the stronghold of al Queda. It was one of the strongholds but it is a loosly knit world wide orginazation. Muhammed Atta was an egyptian student who never thought of jihad until he went to school in Germany... Afghanastan and the Taliban could have been a fairy tale and he still would have done his thing on 911!
Secondly, post 911 and post Afghanastan was largely lip service, sympathy rallies and the usual hand wringing politicians posing for camera time.
I've seen much more actual material proactive response after the Iraq invasion than before it.

Certainly our efforts in Iraq haven't stopped any country from taking us seriously. They may whine about our unilateral cowboy methods and pretend there was some kind of world community that has now cut us off but the truth is more countries stepped up to shut down terrorists after we invaded Iraq. It was a no brainer that we would punch the Taliban in the face after 911, it was a whole different proactive aggressive posture we took going into Iraq! Even the Russians were telling Saddam not to worry, that we wouldn't go in alone. A lot of the world was given the wake up call after seeing us take out Saddam!
Can you name one country that has pulled an about face after the Iraq stage? Is there a country that changed their position and decided to side with al Queda after the Iraq invasion?

I'm not trying to remove the blame from the radical idiots over there who think the solution to every problem is to kill as many innocents as you can. The blame rests fully upon their own heads.

But Bush's policy of invading Iraq stirred the nuts UP, fed the beast when it was starving, gave them a place to hide when they were running out of places to go. It was the most absolutely idiotic approach to the problem I can imagine. I said so before we invaded, and I have seen nothing to change my mind.

I think it was a strategic and tactical gift that Saddam handed us.
If you want to think of the War on Terror as a reaction to 911 then you can say iraq makes no sense.
If you're willing to say that the War on Terror is not just a war on-some-terrorists-living-in-cave-in-Packistan-but-not-all-terrorists...then you start to realize that Iraq is but a small strategic battle in the larger, much larger, War on Terror.

Ferno wrote:Congratulations.

Thank you.

Will Robinson wrote:I do know there are many Iraqis either dying to make the new government work or in danger of being the next one to die for trying and I believe their efforts deserve a different designation than that of the efforts of 'a people not willing to lift a finger'!!

Yes they are. Now. I was speaking of during the initial invasion. There was no significant support for our overthrow of Saddam from the Iraqi public during the invasion. I think that was in BIG part due to the fact that the LAST time we told them to rebel against Saddam, G. Bush Senior decided not to hold up his end of the bargain and let Saddam's air support squash the rebellion. But the fact remains, for whatever reason, we had support from the locals when invading Afghanistan, we did NOT have support from the locals while invading Iraq.

Will Robinson wrote:One thing is certain, the terrorists, whatever you want to call them, are now looking elsewhere for the logistical and financial support they used to recieve from Saddam

The support they recieved from Saddam was a pittance compared to what came from elsewhere. Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran offered MUCH MORE support to Al Queda than Saddam.

Will Robinson wrote:and any of them that are rushing to jihad in Iraq are being met with a much more secure and dangerous target in the U.S. Armed Forces than they would have found in any other jihadi venture they would have embarked on.

It's called TRAINING. And they are getting plenty. Training specifically in how to fight our troops. For example, look at the progression of sophistication in road side bombs.

• Counterinsurgency experts are alarmed by how fast the other side's tactics can evolve. A particularly worrisome case is the ongoing arms race over improvised explosive devices. The first IEDs were triggered by wires and batteries; insurgents waited on the roadside and detonated the primitive devices when Americans drove past. After a while, U.S. troops got good at spotting and killing the triggermen when bombs went off. That led the insurgents to replace their wires with radio signals. The Pentagon, at frantic speed and high cost, equipped its forces with jammers to block those signals, accomplishing the task this spring. The insurgents adapted swiftly by sending a continuous radio signal to the IED; when the signal stops or is jammed, the bomb explodes. The solution? Track the signal and make sure it continues. Problem: the signal is encrypted. Now the Americans are grappling with the task of cracking the encryption on the fly and mimicking it—so far, without success. Still, IED casualties have dropped, since U.S. troops can break the signal and trigger the device before a convoy passes. That's the good news. The bad news is what the new triggering system says about the insurgents' technical abilities.
  
  The CIA is worried that Iraq is becoming a far more effective breeding ground for terrorists than Afghanistan ever was, because they get real-world experience with urban terrorist-style combat.

Will Robinson wrote:the truth is more countries stepped up to shut down terrorists after we invaded Iraq.

The truth is, we get lip service from the governments, but the support for Al-Queda is growing among islamic people.

The truth is, Iran learned a very, very important lesson from looking at Iraq and N. Korea. North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, is a homicidal maniac who makes Saddam look like Captain Kangaroo. He openly sells weapons to anyone who will buy, including terrorists. So why did we invade Iraq and yet not N. Korea? Because N. Korea has (or at least claims to have) a nuke. Lesson learned. Iran is working as hard and fast as they can to get on the untouchable side of that equation. Thank God they are to STUPID to do it quietly.

was going to say something but you guys have a good one going here...

It's an election year, you think the lefties aren't going to come out blazing to try and regain power?

Come on people, I think the was well worth it. I mean, we got rid of those mobile weapons trailers, didn't we?