Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[KrazyHorse]

Indeed...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I am specifically saying that the radicals are there no matter what we do, and as soon as we set foot in Afghanistan the fight was on, with or without Iraq.

And Iraq has INCREASED the number of those radicals. Saying there were radicals since we invaded Afghanistan and it doesn't matter that we went into Iraq is willful blindness. What's next, saying that if we raze Mecca it won't matter because we already invaded Afghanistan and the radicals already came out to fight us?

I'm disagreeing that Iraq alone has caused the increase in radicals. I feel it can be argued that the same or similar result would have happened solely on Afghanistan. Of course we can't see that as it isn't what happened, but we can see what happened to the Soviets when they were only in Afghanistan.

[QUOTE]

I sat with people who were leaving a University in Canada to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. These were not local yokels. The mujahadeen mobilised from the entire Muslim world to fight the Red Army.

Wow, you knew a few guys who left a university in Canada to fight the Soviets. That so totally shows that the Islamic world got much more radicalized by the Soviet invasion. They couldn't have been Islamic radicals before the invastion, could they? Soon afterwards, you had suicide bombers in Moscow and Leningrad, right? Arabs were marching in streets and calling for "Death to the USSR", right?

What do you think you are blathering on about?

It is a well known fact that many of the mujahadeen were not local Afghanis. Muslims from around the world went there to fight the invader. That is the point. Afghanistan by itself was enough to provoke a reaction that led to defeat in a military confrontation for a super power.

It's the people, and if you think the Iranians were going to sit still and keep quiet for the next 10 years you are severely naive.

Here is that strawman again. Of course, people that are against the Iraq war thought that there would be absolutely no problems in the Middle East if we just stayed in Afghanistan. Come back with real arguments next time please.

Are you making an admission or just having a hard time expressing yourself?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Indeed...

Ominous music can be heard.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
NYE - Sorry for the delay in responding. I only post during business hours.

The news article you posted (again) makes for fine propaganda, which was its intended purpose. Display some explosive material (provided by law enforcement) and portray statements made by children as 'serious threats'.

Glad to see you still have confidence in the RCMP. Most of us have heard of the O'Conner Report (you know, the one where the RCMP where condemned for incompetence and malfeasance?) and realise when it comes to terrorist issues they are way beyond their capabilities.

The news conference you posted about was a politically timed event to make people believe the threat was oh so serious right before the SCC hearings.

I notice you didn't post anything about the accused version of events.

Finally, I will ask again - You do realize a good number of the dangerous and scary 'terrorists' mentioned in your article are currently out on bail? I guess when a neutral party looked at the facts they weren't quite up to the standard claimed by the cops.

Your cynicism has grown to be a very healthy crop.

And yes, I am aware that some of them are out on bail. Many of them are practically children who are charged 'only' with accepting training in a terrorist organisation.

Others are in jail, and will most likely remain there for the balance of their non-senior-citizen lifetimes.

And what exactly do you think the guy who paid cash for 3000 lbs of 'explosives' intended to do with the stuff? Plant a good garden?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm disagreeing that Iraq alone has caused the increase in radicals. I feel it can be argued that the same or similar result would have happened solely on Afghanistan. Of course we can't see that as it isn't what happened, but we can see what happened to the Soviets when they were only in Afghanistan.

Where did we see this increase radicalism when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? Like I said, were Muslims marching in the street? Bombing Moscow and Leningrad? What, so radicals around the world flocked to Afghanistan... that's nice. But we didn't see any increase in Islamic radicalism due to the Soviet invasion. There were plenty of radicals in the Islamic world before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (ie, such as that Ayatollah Khomenei). Simply because a good deal of them went to Afghanistan in response to the Soviet invasion doesn't show an increased radicalism.

Iraq's war has led to an increased radicalism. Marches in the streets, increased violence and protests around the Muslim world, as well as in the West. Really, I mean why is it that now we see so much passion when a picture of Muhammed is shown in a Denmark newspaper? It didn't happen 10 years ago and it isn't like they never showed a likeness of Muhammed before then.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither

I'm disagreeing that Iraq alone has caused the increase in radicals. I feel it can be argued that the same or similar result would have happened solely on Afghanistan. Of course we can't see that as it isn't what happened, but we can see what happened to the Soviets when they were only in Afghanistan.

Why can't you understand the simple difference that the radicals fighting in Afghanistan were getting billions in funding from the west and US allies in the Muslim world, which makes the situation fundamentally different?

It is a well known fact that many of the mujahadeen were not local Afghanis. Muslims from around the world went there to fight the invader. That is the point. Afghanistan by itself was enough to provoke a reaction that led to defeat in a military confrontation for a super power.

Many Mujahadeen were not, correct, but they were a small group compared to local warlords. And again, it was massive military aid from the other superpower that allowed the mujahadeen to wear the Soviets down, not the number or fervor of foreign fighters.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by VJ
I'd like an honest answer to this question: why are parroting talking points instead of discussing the issue?

Iraq had no terrorists in 2003, it's filled with terrorists in 2006. Germany most certainly had nazis in 1941 and had considerably less of them in 1944.

What the **** does that parallel even mean? Saddam, of course, is Hitler and Bush Roosevelt as the talking point we all so well know goes (either Roosevelt or Lincoln, that's what Bush must be as a War President), but who are terrorists then? If terrorists are nazis like I think you mean with your parallel, then how can Saddam, a man who kept them away and was a mortal enemy of OBL, be Hitler?

oh, and yes, Iraq is so COMPLETELY like WW2 so parallels are smart: same terrain, same sort of objectives, same strategic positions...

Why am I responding to this? Oh, I clicked on the wrong Reply With Quote button. Be that as it may, everything you've said is moronic. I made a comparison based on the criticism leveled against the continuing operation in Iraq. Try to keep up, if you can.

[KrazyHorse]

It's VJ. Most of what he says is moronic...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

You have the question backwards. How is it a war on Islam? Do we systemmatically destroy mosques? Do the US/Brit/etc troops inhibit Muslim practices in some specific way?

Why should any moderate, thinking Muslim even begin down that train of thought when there is absolutely zero evidence from the start?

Because it is not a logical deduction, it is a purely emotional reaction, born of deep prejudices. Blame a thousand years of history or what have you, it is still prejudice.

[Straybow]

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.

No, they do that themselves. Half of these newly minted radicals would be killing Shi'ites and Kurds if juicy western targets weren't in their own back yard. Some were doing just that for Saddam. The other half would be killing Israelis if they could get there to do it.

These are people who are looking for a cause and are weak-minded enough to believe the crap spewed out by the charismatic radicals.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
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.

This is news? We would do so, just as we gave the shirts off our backs to Japan, Germany and the Warsaw Pact countries while they were supposed to be our enemies.

We can't build anything while radicals are blowing up targets of opportunity. They know that. They don't want peace. They prefer their hatred.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Victor Galis
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.

This is news? We would do so, just as we gave the shirts off our backs to Japan, Germany and the Warsaw Pact countries while they were supposed to be our enemies.

We can't build anything while radicals are blowing up targets of opportunity. They know that. They don't want peace. They prefer their hatred.

Well, if you don't do this, the resentment will build and the radicals will be unstoppable. If you claim we can't do the rebuilding because there's too much violence, you're basically throwing in the towel, and agreeing that we'd have been better off not being there in the first place.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The Soviets had their own faction as well. It was called the government at the time.

But what was the backing of this soviet supported government among the population of Afghanistan? AFAIK it ws almost nil.
Whereas AFAIK the northern alliance which was supported by the USA seen in a good light by those parts of the afghan population who were not radical muslims.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by VJ
I'd like an honest answer to this question: why are parroting talking points instead of discussing the issue?

Iraq had no terrorists in 2003, it's filled with terrorists in 2006. Germany most certainly had nazis in 1941 and had considerably less of them in 1944.

What the **** does that parallel even mean? Saddam, of course, is Hitler and Bush Roosevelt as the talking point we all so well know goes (either Roosevelt or Lincoln, that's what Bush must be as a War President), but who are terrorists then? If terrorists are nazis like I think you mean with your parallel, then how can Saddam, a man who kept them away and was a mortal enemy of OBL, be Hitler?

oh, and yes, Iraq is so COMPLETELY like WW2 so parallels are smart: same terrain, same sort of objectives, same strategic positions...

Why am I responding to this? Oh, I clicked on the wrong Reply With Quote button. Be that as it may, everything you've said is moronic. I made a comparison based on the criticism leveled against the continuing operation in Iraq. Try to keep up, if you can.

It's VJ. Most of what he says is moronic...

HURR HURR, "TRY TO KEEP UP"! AWESOME:

YOU MADE A COMPARISON

I _CRITICIZED_ THE COMPARISON, ASKING SOME QUESTIONS

YOU BOTH IGNORE THE CRITICIZISM AND THE QUESTIONS AND MAKE A PERSONAL ATTACK

LOL BUT BECAUSE I DON'T SUNK TO YOUR LEVEL AND POST TRENDY ONE-LINERS AND PERSONAL ATTACKS, I MUST BE A ****HEAD WHO CAN BE ****ED OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND WHO'SE MESSAGE CAN BE IGNORED AND DISTORTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IT'S SO TRENDY LOL

LOL THIS IS SO MATURE LOL

community of apolyton, thank you for revealing what's wrong with you

mental masturbation, that's all what this thread has been and is

i'm a ****ing moron for thinking it's something else and trying to ask honest questions

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm disagreeing that Iraq alone has caused the increase in radicals. I feel it can be argued that the same or similar result would have happened solely on Afghanistan. Of course we can't see that as it isn't what happened, but we can see what happened to the Soviets when they were only in Afghanistan.

Where did we see this increase radicalism when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? Like I said, were Muslims marching in the street? Bombing Moscow and Leningrad? What, so radicals around the world flocked to Afghanistan... that's nice. But we didn't see any increase in Islamic radicalism due to the Soviet invasion. There were plenty of radicals in the Islamic world before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (ie, such as that Ayatollah Khomenei). Simply because a good deal of them went to Afghanistan in response to the Soviet invasion doesn't show an increased radicalism.

Iraq's war has led to an increased radicalism. Marches in the streets, increased violence and protests around the Muslim world, as well as in the West. Really, I mean why is it that now we see so much passion when a picture of Muhammed is shown in a Denmark newspaper? It didn't happen 10 years ago and it isn't like they never showed a likeness of Muhammed before then.

OK, show me. As far as I know the cartoons mocking radical Islam follow the actions of radical Muslims, not the other way around. There were no doubt many cartoons against the Arafat, or Khomeini, but show me one that depicted Teh Prophet...

So what about the protest gap? It's called "hypocrisy." They knew which side of the bread is buttered. They bought Soviet tanks and planes. They had Russian advisors training their troops and intelligence officers. Besides, Afghanistan was just some backwater patch of dirt nobody cared about. How many Muslim nations joined Jimmy Carter's boycott of the Moscow Summer Olympics?