Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't think the radicals needed Iraq for jihad. They would be in Afghanistan today, or supporting people there if it were not for Iraq.

I don't think moderates are ever going anywhere even if they are unhappy with a policy.

Although you have a point that Iraq may radicalise more people, recent Canadian experience demonstrates that Iraq is not required to be a target of radicals, of whom there were many already.

I think you are willfully shutting your eyes as to how much more Iraq has radicalized certain groups of Muslims. A lot of these 'radicals' were on the fence for using violence. They didn't come out of the woodwork during Afghanistan. But in the wake of the Iraq war there were the Madrid bombings and London bombings.

Before Iraq, you may have had Muslims who hated the US, but weren't seriously thinking violence. After Iraq, they decided that perhaps violence was not such a bad idea. The example of the moderates was used to show what a dramatic change in outlook occured in moderate Muslims after the invasion of Iraq. I can easily imagine that those on the fence or even a bit on the 'right side' of the fence may have jumped over that fence to the wrong side feeling a dramatic change in outlook themselves.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

It's a matter of degree though. There will always be radicals. Whether they are a significant threat depends on our actions. I believe that if not for Iraq, Afghanistan would be in better shape now. I believe taht after the Iraq war started, resources and attention was drawn away from Afghanistan and caused current problems in there. Bush is trying to do nation building on the cheap and it doesn't work that way. I believe that if a proper effort had been given to reconstruction, there would not be nearly as many radicals flowing in.

There were enough radicals to be attacking the United States at their embassies and ships, as well as taking on Russia in Moscow way before Iraq. There were enough of them to draw a pool of them who were good enough to stay free and fly 4 planes into buildings to make a spectacular statement.

Radicals were a significant threat way before Iraq.

Iraq also drew off a lot of radical attention from Afghanistan. There is a line of thought that Iraq is a honey pot.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I think you are willfully shutting your eyes as to how much more Iraq has radicalized certain groups of Muslims. A lot of these 'radicals' were on the fence for using violence. They didn't come out of the woodwork during Afghanistan. But in the wake of the Iraq war there were the Madrid bombings and London bombings.

And I think you are discounting the effect Afghanistan would have had with or without Iraq.

Before Iraq, you may have had Muslims who hated the US, but weren't seriously thinking violence. After Iraq, they decided that perhaps violence was not such a bad idea. The example of the moderates was used to show what a dramatic change in outlook occured in moderate Muslims after the invasion of Iraq. I can easily imagine that those on the fence or even a bit on the 'right side' of the fence may have jumped over that fence to the wrong side feeling a dramatic change in outlook themselves.

Again, you are ignoring the effect that Afghanistan all by itself has had on Muslims in the past, both in Canada and with regard to the Russians.

I think you find it convenient to pin it all on Iraq. I don't agree with you.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


There were enough radicals to be attacking the United States at their embassies and ships, as well as taking on Russia in Moscow way before Iraq. There were enough of them to draw a pool of them who were good enough to stay free and fly 4 planes into buildings to make a spectacular statement.

Radicals were a significant threat way before Iraq.

See here I disagree, the Iraq war has done nothing to fight Islamic fundamentalism. The US replaced a secular dictator with Shi'ite religious parties. The Afghanistan war at least arguably flushed OBL out of his hiding place and at least nominally put him on the run. There was a casus belli that most of the rest of the world could at least understand if not support.

Iraq also drew off a lot of radical attention from Afghanistan. There is a line of thought that Iraq is a honey pot.

But not enough to stablize the country. The US is like a juggler who tried too many balls and dropped all of them.

[notyoueither]

Afghanistan was enough to mobilise a muslim response that defeated a super power in a military confrontation.

Even before invading Afghanistan, radicals were attacking the West, with terrorism.

Anyone who thinks that the problems we are having with radicals would not exist were it not for Iraq is buying a share of swamp land near Basra.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


See here I disagree, the Iraq war has done nothing to fight Islamic fundamentalism.

Except provide a place for radicals with jihad on their minds to go to to fight the infidel invaders. It's also much better terrain for this sort of thing than the mountains of Afghanistan.

The US replaced a secular dictator with Shi'ite religious parties. The Afghanistan war at least arguably flushed OBL out of his hiding place and at least nominally put him on the run. There was a casus belli that most of the rest of the world could at least understand if not support.

Radicals would neither have recognised it nor supported it. They would have done the same to us as they did to the Soviets, except they would be able to attack our open societies more easily than they could the Soviets.

From that point of view, giving them another sand box to play in that is not downtown Western city is a bonus.

But not enough to stablize the country. The US is like a juggler who tried too many balls and dropped all of them.

We can't stabalise these countries. Only the inhabitants can. We can provide security for governments while they get on their feet, but it will be up to them in the long run.

And anyone who thinks that all of the forces available to the US and NATO could have shut down Afghanistan when the Soviets couldn't, with 10 times as many men and a willingness to kill any and all locals who got in the way, is naive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And I think you are discounting the effect Afghanistan would have had with or without Iraq.

Again, you are ignoring the effect that Afghanistan all by itself has had on Muslims in the past, both in Canada and with regard to the Russians.

I think you find it convenient to pin it all on Iraq. I don't agree with you.

And you are completely overrating the effect Afghanistan had on radicalizing Muslims. I believe that it would have had a very, very minimal effect sans the Iraq invasion. Not many new radicals were created by the US invasion of Afghanistan. The vast, vast majority of them existed before. 9/11 may have brought these radicals together (as in a now I know where to turn to in order to maximum effect), but not invasion of Afghanistan. I say this with the knowledge of how Muslims reacted to Afghanistan as compared to the reaction after entering Iraq.

Anyone who thinks that the problems we are having with radicals would not exist were it not for Iraq is buying a share of swamp land near Basra.

As I pointed out before, this is a strawman, a false argument. NO ONE is saying there would be no terrorists if we didn't go into Iraq. I don't know why the right keeps latching onto this fallacy. The argument is that the Iraq war created a great deal MORE radical Muslims eager to use violence against the West than would have existed otherwise. Not that without Iraq's invasion everything would have been hunky dorey.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except provide a place for radicals with jihad on their minds to go to to fight the infidel invaders. It's also much better terrain for this sort of thing than the mountains of Afghanistan.

Wonderful . So now the best justification for invading Iraq and having thousands of Allied soldiers killed is that it is better terrain for fighing terrorists? And I'm sure the Iraqi people thank you for the Civil War that is near eruption that will totally decimate their country (as the Civil War did to Lebanon in the 1980s) just because we decided it was "better terrain".

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And you are completely overrating the effect Afghanistan had on radicalizing Muslims.

Not too long ago they sent the Red Army packing in a military confrontation.

Next.

[SlowwHand]

We got Hussein, that's good. I still believe that Iraq sent WOMD to Syria, and may have them in-country yet. We should still leave Iraq now.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As I pointed out before, this is a strawman, a false argument. NO ONE is saying there would be no terrorists if we didn't go into Iraq. I don't know why the right keeps latching onto this fallacy. The argument is that the Iraq war created a great deal MORE radical Muslims eager to use violence against the West than would have existed otherwise. Not that without Iraq's invasion everything would have been hunky dorey.

And I might argue that no matter what we did once we decided to go into Afghanistan would greatly alter the course of what is going to happen for the next many years.

You refuse to acknowledge that as anything other than an imagined strawman. That is your fallacy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Not too long ago they sent the Red Army packing in a military confrontation.

Next.

And this has what, exactly, to do with radicalizing Muslims? Did we see mass suicide bombs in Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc? AFAIK, the people that were there in the 70s and 80s already were radicals... where did this mass radicalization of the Muslim world come from after the Soviet's invaded?

So "Next." yourself.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Except provide a place for radicals with jihad on their minds to go to to fight the infidel invaders. It's also much better terrain for this sort of thing than the mountains of Afghanistan.

Wonderful . So now the best justification for invading Iraq and having thousands of Allied soldiers killed is that it is better terrain for fighing terrorists? And I'm sure the Iraqi people thank you for the Civil War that is near eruption that will totally decimate their country (as the Civil War did to Lebanon in the 1980s) just because we decided it was "better terrain".

Not the best justification, but one that applies to this discussion.

And Saddam might have thought about it before handing out cheques to suicide bombers on international news after 9/11. Talk about painting a target on yourself.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And this has what, exactly, to do with radicalizing Muslims? Did we see mass suicide bombs in Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc? AFAIK, the people that were there already were radicals... where did this mass radicalization of the Muslim world come from after the Soviet's invaded?

So "Next." yourself.

Muslims from all over the world went to Afghanistan to fight. You think people like that would have stayed home just because it was the US and NATO this time?

Oh, and yeah, after the Soviet Union fell, Muslims with a grudge over other places have done things like blow up entire apartment blocks in Moscow.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Except provide a place for radicals with jihad on their minds to go to to fight the infidel invaders. It's also much better terrain for this sort of thing than the mountains of Afghanistan.

And this justifies invading a sovereign nation We want better terrain to fight people. Oh... sorry about your houses, guess they got in the way.

Radicals would neither have recognised it nor supported it. They would have done the same to us as they did to the Soviets, except they would be able to attack our open societies more easily than they could the Soviets.

And we've shown no resilience. One massive attack, and Bush was ready to give them just what they wanted. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? No... everyone's either with us or against us. I guess Jesus was with the terrorists, eh?

From that point of view, giving them another sand box to play in that is not downtown Western city is a bonus.

Yeah, but radicalizing many who would not have otherwise been radicalized is a far greater downside. Giving them another unstable nation to use as a base of operations was a mistake.

We can't stabalise these countries. Only the inhabitants can. We can provide security for governments while they get on their feet, but it will be up to them in the long run.

Both these countries were stable before we went in. I feel it is wrong to break something we can't fix, and I believe brutal dictatorship > civil war.

And anyone who thinks that all of the forces available to the US and NATO could have shut down Afghanistan when the Soviets with 10 times as many men, and a willingness to kill any and all locals who got in the way, is naive.

But is a willingness to kill any and all locals who got in the way a good way to stablize an area? That worked so well in Germany and Japan after WWII... oh wait.

The only path to stability is reconstruction. We have the money to fix the economy in Afghanistan and give something to people to do besides kill eachother. To believe that stability can be established purely by force of arms... well, I suppose Saddam did manage it.