| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: Iraq blowback: 7x more terrorism; 33% excepting Iraq/Afgh. |
 |
|
The Biggest Lie: We're safer.
| Quote: |
..."If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people." So said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to "bring them on." Jihadist terrorists, the administration�s argument went, would be drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, and would perish there rather than wreak havoc elsewhere in the world.
The study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've said it before and I've said it again. The USA is safer. The Iraq war has given the terrorists a shorter distance to travel and far easier borders to cross. If you want to strike out at America and send a message, you don't have to blow up secretaries. You can bag a sitting duck GI with an RPG and get your trophy video on Liveleak.com.
Did Bush not think this would happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Are you just becoming argumentative because of interactions on othe threads? You're not taht childish, eh? The premise that no explosions on American soil = greater security is beyond simplistic. Give me something to actually respond to, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think what Mindmetoo is implying is that "perception is everything". Not withstanding the cost to so many others being choked to death by this "throwing the dirt" under the rug.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The trouble with the "blowback" thing is that many of its proponents (such as Patrick Buchanan) are easily derided, even thought they are right on that issue.
It's much easier for an incompetent moron like Bush (or a competent, but bloodthirsty boor, like Rumsfeld) to keep shouting about "bringing democracy to Iraq", which is feel-good (at least at first) and politically correct.
Anyway, it does not take a rocket scientist to predict blowback and those who did are vindicated in seeing what's happening today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Are you just becoming argumentative because of interactions on othe threads? You're not taht childish, eh? The premise that no explosions on American soil = greater security is beyond simplistic. Give me something to actually respond to, eh? |
I mean what I say. The muslim world wants to strike out at the USA. Iraq has many targets and a porous border. If you want to strike out at the USA, it's easier to down expensive helicopters than try to sneak into the USA and blow up a building. That you've seen no major attacks on the homeland is because Iraq is a target rich environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The muslim world wants to strike out at the USA. |
I know you don't mean that.
Also, I think "America" is her citizens. If America wants to protect the homeland by sending Americans elsewhere to be a target --- America is not safer. Rather, the danger is just further away, a perception and not a reality.
I think all sane people see that the "putting fire with gasoline" to paraphrase that Bowian sung phrase, is / was / will always be the wrong course of action. Especially when trying to protect the nation, its citizens.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Are you just becoming argumentative because of interactions on othe threads? You're not taht childish, eh? The premise that no explosions on American soil = greater security is beyond simplistic. Give me something to actually respond to, eh? |
I mean what I say. The muslim world wants to strike out at the USA. Iraq has many targets and a porous border. If you want to strike out at the USA, it's easier to down expensive helicopters than try to sneak into the USA and blow up a building. That you've seen no major attacks on the homeland is because Iraq is a target rich environment. |
You're basically saying a good way to protect Americans is to have them killed in Iraq, instead. And, that sacrificing people in other countries is another good way to save Americans.
This is truly stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Are you just becoming argumentative because of interactions on othe threads? You're not taht childish, eh? The premise that no explosions on American soil = greater security is beyond simplistic. Give me something to actually respond to, eh? |
I mean what I say. The muslim world wants to strike out at the USA. Iraq has many targets and a porous border. If you want to strike out at the USA, it's easier to down expensive helicopters than try to sneak into the USA and blow up a building. That you've seen no major attacks on the homeland is because Iraq is a target rich environment. |
You're basically saying a good way to protect Americans is to have them killed in Iraq, instead. And, that sacrificing people in other countries is another good way to save Americans.
This is truly stupid. |
Where in god's name did I say "good"? Go back and actually read what I wrote. Making up things is what is stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The true cause of terror is that mideast regimes , and elites teach hate , incite violence, support terror and fund or allow Al Qaeda to be funded.
Ever notice that the mideast street never got too angry when Saddam gassed MUSLIM kurds or when Assad destroyed the city of Hama in 1982 killing 25,000 or when Khomeni killled 30,000 in 1988 or when Bin Laden killed muslims in Afghanistan?
Any thoughts on why this is?
Here is left wing writer Robert Fisk, I don't like him but he is correct here.
As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone � allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities � could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Are you just becoming argumentative because of interactions on othe threads? You're not taht childish, eh? The premise that no explosions on American soil = greater security is beyond simplistic. Give me something to actually respond to, eh? |
I mean what I say. The muslim world wants to strike out at the USA. Iraq has many targets and a porous border. If you want to strike out at the USA, it's easier to down expensive helicopters than try to sneak into the USA and blow up a building. That you've seen no major attacks on the homeland is because Iraq is a target rich environment. |
You're basically saying a good way to protect Americans is to have them killed in Iraq, instead. And, that sacrificing people in other countries is another good way to save Americans.
This is truly stupid. |
Where in god's name did I say "good"? Go back and actually read what I wrote. Making up things is what is stupid. |
Semantics. You are defending the idea we are safer because of Iraq. That stance is wrong on the face of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Semantics. You are defending the idea we are safer because of Iraq. That stance is wrong on the face of it. |
Yeah. Secretaries in NYC office buildings are safer. Yeah people who want to put their lives on the line and serve in the military less so. I'm not saying anything is good in that situation. The reality is those who wish to strike the USA have big targets closer to their home now, courtesy of Iraq. They can move among the population, unlike parts of the USA.
Seriously. Get a huge clue.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Ever notice that the mideast street never got too angry when Saddam gassed MUSLIM kurds or when Assad destroyed the city of Hama in 1982 killing 25,000 or when Khomeni killled 30,000 in 1988 or when Bin Laden killed muslims in Afghanistan? |
Of course. Americans don't get very upset as a culture when an American shoots another American. But a Mexican kills a blond Connecticut teenager on holiday, well, oh my god. A Korean runs over a girl, it's a tragedy to only the family. An American GI runs over a girl, Korea has candle light vigils. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Semantics. You are defending the idea we are safer because of Iraq. That stance is wrong on the face of it. |
Yeah. Secretaries in NYC office buildings are safer. Yeah people who want to put their lives on the line and serve in the military less so. I'm not saying anything is good in that situation. The reality is those who wish to strike the USA have big targets closer to their home now, courtesy of Iraq. They can move among the population, unlike parts of the USA.
Seriously. Get a huge clue. |
It is you who needs the clue. our repeated statement that America is/Americans are safer is jsut bullshit. That an attack hasn't occurred means almost nothing. What means something is the cost of keeping it from happening. How is more than 3000 American soldiers and somewhere betwen 1 - 800 American contractors being killed safe for "Americans?" Eh?
I ask, how many Americans feel safer traveling abroad? Not one, I can almost guarantee. How many Canadians and other Caucasian non-Americans feel safer abroad or in their own countries? Few, if any. Like being mistaken for American and harrassed or worse, folks?
We are much less safe from our own government, which is far, far worse than being in danger from radical Islamists.
You are arguing just to argue, and doing so poorly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Semantics. You are defending the idea we are safer because of Iraq. That stance is wrong on the face of it. |
Yeah. Secretaries in NYC office buildings are safer. Yeah people who want to put their lives on the line and serve in the military less so. I'm not saying anything is good in that situation. The reality is those who wish to strike the USA have big targets closer to their home now, courtesy of Iraq. They can move among the population, unlike parts of the USA.
Seriously. Get a huge clue. |
It is you who needs the clue. our repeated statement that America is/Americans are safer is jsut *beep*. That an attack hasn't occurred means almost nothing. What means something is the cost of keeping it from happening. How is more than 3000 American soldiers and somewhere betwen 1 - 800 American contractors being killed safe for "Americans?" Eh?
I ask, how many Americans feel safer traveling abroad? Not one, I can almost guarantee. How many Canadians and other Caucasian non-Americans feel safer abroad or in their own countries? Few, if any. Like being mistaken for American and harrassed or worse, folks?
We are much less safe from our own government, which is far, far worse than being in danger from radical Islamists.
You are arguing just to argue, and doing so poorly. |
Basically you need to get your head out of your ass. This is not the first time you've been told that, I'm certain. Go back. Read what I wrote. Try to understand what I said. I'm done trying to explain what I think everyone else understands as my obvious point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
