Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So yes when we declared war on Germany we made ourselves more vulnerable to German attack, obviously. The details are very different here but the concept is the same.

No, it isn't. Because while declaring war on Germany made the US vulnerable to German attack, declaring war on Iraq made the US more vulnerable to radical Muslim attacks all over the Mid East and South Asia, and beyond. The situation is so different as to make the comparison useless.

much more important is that declaring war and attacking Germany weakened US opposition. Declaring war and attacking Iraq has NOT weakened US opposition (terrorists), which is what this whole thread is about, a leaked government report saying that terrorism has radically gained ground in Iraq because of US invasion. On the contrary, terrorist attacks around the world have nearly tripled during the last three years!

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by VJ

If you don't approve whatever Bush does, you're a leftist pinko hippie commie traitor who must be personally attacked. Witness Winston calling everyone who doesn't approve government-sanctioned torture camps and government spying it's citizens "left-wing loonies" in the name of Reagan, witness DanS saying how he considers Oerdin a "traitor" when he dares to question Bush's strategy in central Iraq. I think the Problem is that people are again treating politics mainly as a sports contest with two teams from which they must pick one which's fans they are, like the people did in democratic countries in the 19th century.

Taking that to its logical extremity, what does that say about spreading democracy to places, without a liberal (in the original sense of the word) tradition, where politics would in fact work much as you describe, except with actual violence.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by GePap


They want to argue but are generally unwilling to debate in a calm, deliberative manner.

I am certainly guilty of that as well.

I don't think it's a matter of debate, calm and deliberative or not. The 'poly warhawks are stitting this one out. They have no arguments to make.

How can they argue? The evidence is overwhelming that the world is far less secure now than when the US invaded Iraq. And if they try to turn a blind eye to the facts, they now have their own national security agencies debunking the lies of the Bush administration. Ouch!

And so they aren't even trying to mount a serious argument. They limit themselves to lamely trying attack the source, a basic logical error most of us learned about in first year philosophy, and attacking the rest of us who are in the debate because we have something to say.

It's not a "circle jerk", but it might look like one to a few w@nkers in a dark corner.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil

I suspect the scale of the T.O. plot is going to really embarass the right wingers when the rest of the facts come out.

You do realize a good number of these scary people are out on bail?

Overblown in the extreme.

Edit: As I mentioned earlier - Afghanistan was the reason given for their plot. You'd have a better point if you wouldn't overlook this fact.

Right. There would be people wanting to attack Canada over Afghanistan. You think more people are pissed with the US because of Iraq, but I doubt it. I think Afghanistan would have been more than enough.

As for making right wingers look bad, are you telling us that the RCMP and CSIS are right wing organizations?

What about these 'facts'?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/

INDEPTH: TORONTO BOMB PLOT
Overview

CBC News Online | August 4, 2006

In the largest operation ever carried out under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act, more than 400 police officers conducted a series of raids in southern Ontario on June 2-3, 2006, and arrested 17 suspects.

Search warrants were executed on homes in Mississauga, Toronto and Pickering. Most of the suspects were taken under heavy guard to be processed at a police station in Pickering, east of Toronto. Police officers carrying automatic weapons ringed the building. Snipers were perched on nearby rooftops. It was a show of force rarely seen on Canadian soil.

ALLEGED TARGETS
Targets mentioned in court documents
» Parliament Buildings, Ottawa
» CBC Broadcasting Centre, Toronto
» CSIS offices, Toronto
» Unspecified military installation, Toronto

Other targets mentioned in media
» Toronto Stock Exchange
» CN Tower, Toronto

The 12 men and five youths were accused of knowingly participating in a terrorist group and either receiving or providing terrorist training. Police allege the suspects were inspired by al-Qaeda and planned to make bombs to attack targets in Ontario. None of the allegations have been proven in court.

As many as 400 police officers and security officials were involved in the operation. Officials revealed very few details of what was going on as it was going on — except that people were being arrested under the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act.

It wasn't until the next morning — when the RCMP held a news conference in Mississauga, Ont. — that police would reveal some of the details. Placed on a table for the reporters to see was some of the evidence police say they seized. Among the items were bags of ammonium nitrate — intended as a harmless fertilizer but a deadly explosive when mixed with certain ingredients.

RCMP Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said the suspects had ordered and received three tonnes of ammonium nitrate. He said it was three times the amount that Timothy McVeigh used to bomb a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. That blast killed 168 people.

"This group posed a real and serious threat," McDonell said. "It had the capacity and intent to carry out attacks. Our investigation and arrests prevented the assembly of any bombs and the attacks being carried out."

McDonell said the raids had thwarted a plot to blow up targets in southern Ontario. Toronto police Chief Bill Blair said he was aware of the targets but would not reveal them, except that Toronto's transit system had not been singled out.

Two months after the initial sweep, an 18th suspect, Ibrahim Alkhalel Mohammed Aboud, 19, of Mississauga, Ont., was arrested in the alleged plot.

'Home-grown terrorism'

"We are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.

"Their alleged target was Canada: Canadian institutions, the Canadian economy, the Canadian people."

All of the suspects were either born in Canada or were long-time residents. Luc Portelance, the assistant director of operations for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) called it a case of "home-grown terrorism."

"For various reasons, they appear to have become adherents of a violent ideology inspired by al-Qaeda," Portelance told reporters.

On Nov. 13, 2002, Canada was named as a potential target for attacks in an audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden. Security officials had been warning since then that it was a matter of "when" and not "if" Canada would be attacked.

On May 29, days before the arrests, the deputy director of CSIS, Jack Hooper appeared before the Senate defence committee, where he addressed the possibility of "home-grown terrorists" in Canada.

"We know who and where some of them are," he told the committee.

Canada's Anti-terrorism Act became law on Dec. 18, 2001. It gave police sweeping new powers, including the power to arrest people and hold them without charge for up to 72 hours if they're suspected of planning a terrorist act. It also made it easier for police to use electronic surveillance in their investigation of suspects.

Police said this investigation has been underway for a couple of years. Two of the suspects were already in jail, accused of trying to smuggle weapons into Canada from the United States in November 2005. It's believed that the investigation began as security officials monitored traffic to extremist-related websites.

The arrests of the 17 suspects marked the second time that the Anti-terrorism Act was used for that purpose.

The first involved Ottawa software developer Mohammad Momin Khawaja, who was arrested in March 2004, accused of participating in the activities of a terrorist group and facilitating a terrorist activity. He was also named — but not charged — in Britain for playing a role in a foiled bomb plot. He is being held in an Ottawa detention centre, awaiting trial.

Mixed reviews in the U.S.

In the United States, reaction to news of the alleged plot drew mixed responses. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said the arrests showed Canada is doing its part in the "war on terrorism."

"This shows that the Canadians are on the job. That's what it really shows."

But New York Republican Peter King, the chairman of the House of Representatives homeland security committee, said the case shows it's easy for extremists to operate in Canada.

"I think it's a disproportionate number of al-Qaeda in Canada because of their very liberal immigration laws, because of how political asylum is granted so easily."

Canada's ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, sought to reassure the Americans.

"Canada is just as diligent and successful in fighting terrorists as the Americans," he said. Soon after the arrests, Wilson organized a Washington visit for top Canadian security officials, so they could brief their American counterparts on how they are staying on top of militant activity north of the border.

Emphasis mine.

Bombs and gun smuggling... sure... nothing but law abiding citizens here. Move along.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by techumseh

What a setup that was. Have you ever heard of the term "agent provocateur"?

Sure. Have you heard of the term 'informer'?

[notyoueither]

Incidentlly, I'm not buying that Iraq has made it worse, or very much worse.

Afghanistan drew muslims from around the world when the war there was against the Soviets. People who are willing to get up and move somewhere else for jihad, or whatever, would be more likely to be in Afghanistan today if there were no problem in Iraq.

Perhaps a few more people would be motivated, and there are the locals in Iraq who never would have moved, but because of Iraq there are fewer of the real fanatics in Afghanistan than there would have been, and as I've illustrated, you don't need Iraq for some muslims to be pissed off and for some of them to be willing to resort to violence over it.

[Barnabas]

People who were in first place against the war of Iraq have every right to say I told you so

[Barnabas]

Is Bush worse than Carter now?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Afghanistan drew muslims from around the world when the war there was against the Soviets. People who are willing to get up and move somewhere else for jihad, or whatever, would be more likely to be in Afghanistan today if there were no problem in Iraq.

Perhaps a few more people would be motivated, and there are the locals in Iraq who never would have moved, but because of Iraq there are fewer of the real fanatics in Afghanistan than there would have been, and as I've illustrated, you don't need Iraq for some muslims to be pissed off and for some of them to be willing to resort to violence over it.

Not really. I'm in a family of moderate Muslims. They are integrated into American society. Speak fluent English, hold respectable jobs including governmental work and even military. None of them voiced opposition to the Afghanistan war. ALL OF THEM are completely pissed off about Iraq.

The point is if moderate Muslims can support the Aghani war and be so vociferously against the Iraqi war, can you imagine those who are bit more radical? Perhaps those who did not feel violence was warranted against US invasion of Afghanistan, but were pushed over the edge by the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

When moderate Muslims in the US who vote in elections and participant in American community activities start to believe the War on Terror is actually a War on Islam, what do you think those who are little bit further radical, living in the Middle East will do? It isn't just a few more people, it is far more than that. Probably a majority of new terrorists (including those that bombed the London subways) arose directly from the very poorly justified (or unjustified if you will) Iraq invasion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Is Bush worse than Carter now?

He has been for a while. The question is, Is Bush worse than Harding or Buchanan?

[RGBVideo]

Bush is certainly no Harding. Bush being worse than Buchanan would require a military coup within the next three years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well Harding was ultra corrupt, but didn't get us into any wars, so he has that going for him .

[Victor Galis]

I would put him just above Buchanan, but he's got 2 years left, and his legacy may be even worse than Buchanan's depending on whether whoever succeeds him can clean up his mess.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Afghanistan drew muslims from around the world when the war there was against the Soviets. People who are willing to get up and move somewhere else for jihad, or whatever, would be more likely to be in Afghanistan today if there were no problem in Iraq.

Perhaps a few more people would be motivated, and there are the locals in Iraq who never would have moved, but because of Iraq there are fewer of the real fanatics in Afghanistan than there would have been, and as I've illustrated, you don't need Iraq for some muslims to be pissed off and for some of them to be willing to resort to violence over it.

Not really. I'm in a family of moderate Muslims. They are integrated into American society. Speak fluent English, hold respectable jobs including governmental work and even military. None of them voiced opposition to the Afghanistan war. ALL OF THEM are completely pissed off about Iraq.

The point is if moderate Muslims can support the Aghani war and be so vociferously against the Iraqi war, can you imagine those who are bit more radical? Perhaps those who did not feel violence was warranted against US invasion of Afghanistan, but were pushed over the edge by the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

When moderate Muslims in the US who vote in elections and participant in American community activities start to believe the War on Terror is actually a War on Islam, what do you think those who are little bit further radical, living in the Middle East will do? It isn't just a few more people, it is far more than that. Probably a majority of new terrorists (including those that bombed the London subways) arose directly from the very poorly justified (or unjustified if you will) Iraq invasion.

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.

[Victor Galis]

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.

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.