Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
00 AM THERE IS A STRANGE PAIRING of positions on the left.
The first is that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were not connected. The work of Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn in THE WEEKLY STANDARD, which is supported by other serious investigative reporters such as Claudia Rosett has already established beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a web of connections, but the combination of the left's indifference to inconvenient facts and the international version of the soft bigotry of low expectations--an Arab dictator couldn't have had a sophisticated intelligence service capable of hiding such matters--make it an article of faith among Bush haters that there was no connection.
Exactly the opposite approach to facts and evidence is emerging on the left's claim that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. "Breeding ground" means something quite different from "killing ground." The term conveys the belief that had the United States and its allies not invaded Iraq, there would be fewer jihadists in the world today--that the transition of Iraq from brutal dictatorship to struggling democracy has somehow unleashed a terrorist-breeding virus.
The fact that foreign fighters are streaming across Syria into Iraq in the hopes of killing America is not evidence supporting the "breeding ground" theory. "Opportunity" to act is not the same thing as "motive" for acting. There is zero evidence for the proposition that Iraq is motive rather than opportunity, but the "motive" theory is nevertheless put forward again and again. As recently as Wednesday the Washington Post
account of the aftermath of the London bombings included the incredible--and unsubstantiated in the article--claim that the "the profile of the suspects suggested by investigators fit long-standing warnings by security experts that the greatest potential threat to Britain could come from second-generation Muslims, born here but alienated from British society and perhaps from their own families, and inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war."[emphasis added]
In an interview with the London Times, Prime Minister Tony Blair disputed the idea "that the London terrorist attacks were a direct result of British involvement in the Iraq war. He said Russia had suffered terrorism with the Beslan school massacre, despite its opposition to the war, and that terrorists were planning further attacks on Spain even after the pro-war government was voted out. "September 11 happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan, before any of these issues and that was the worst terrorist atrocity of all," he said.
While it is theoretically possible that some jihadists were forged as a result of the invasion of Iraq, no specific instance of such a terrorist has yet been produced. Reports in the aftermath of the London bombings indicated that the British intelligence service estimates more than 3,000 residents of Great Britain had trained in the Afghanistan terrorist camps prior to the invasion of Afghanistan--which suggests that the probability is very high that most of the jihadists in England date their hatred of the West to some point prior to the invasion of Iraq. And though two of the London bombers appear to have traveled to Pakistan for religious instruction post-March 2003, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it was Iraq which "turned" the cricket-loving young men into killers. In fact, it is transparently absurd for anyone to claim such a thing.
Isaac Brock said:I think it's fairly safe to see at least some of the terrorists in Iraq have been domestic. Though I can't cite anything specific in terms of figures, I would be very surprised if domestics didn't consist of a large portion of jihadists. I can't see how someone can say there are less terrorists now, than before the war.
Even if that was not the case, it certainly and unfortunately has become a rallying banner has it not?
Bonnie said:Im sure that is the case however weren't they already rallying for the cause wherever they were?
Gabriella84 said:It is a safe bet to say that outside terrorism did not exist in Iraq under Saddam. He was much too autocratic and dictatorial to allow anyone to threaten his hold on the country. That is the fallacy of any theories stating that Saddam conspired with bin Laden. Everything I have ever read about Saddam talked about his total distrust and hatred of the outside world.
Removing Saddam and the resulting American occupation of Iraq gave militant forces a focal point to rally around. That is why you are seeing terrorist factions from all over gather in Iraq. It's like shooting ducks in a barrel. They have American forces on the half shell.
She doesn't know what she is saying. Just repeating the same old tired argument she has heard repeated elsewhere.dilloduck said:So are you suggesting that the withdrawal of ALL US troops from Arab lands would diminish the hatred and terror attacks against the US and it's allies? I would think it would embolden them to have chased the "great satan" from their land.
freeandfun1 said:She doesn't know what she is saying. Just repeating the same old tired argument she has heard repeated elsewhere.
Saddam was known to have given money to the families of suicide bombers, he was known to have had contacts with AQ. He was known to have harbored known terrorists, he was the biggest terrorist there was in his own country. All things the libs like to overlook for convenience sake.
Isaac Brock said:Some yes, assumingly now, more.
dilloduck said:So are you suggesting that the withdrawal of ALL US troops from Arab lands would diminish the hatred and terror attacks against the US and it's allies? I would think it would embolden them to have chased the "great satan" from thier land.
Bonnie said:My point really is that I do't believe Iraq is the cause for renewed terrorist activity or fanaticism. If not in Iraq they would be doing what they are doing elsewhere, ...
Gabriella84 said:Actually, it is quite the opposite. If you read bin Laden's original doctrines, his dispute with America is based almost entirely on ideology. Remember, bin Laden is a religious leader and not a secular one. He is not making land grabs. His twisted way of thinking is that American and its western allies are on Holy Land.
Islam has been around for a lot longer than America has. They are not out on Crusades. This why you haven't had problems with terrorists prior to the 80s, which America became more deeply involved in Middle East affairs.
bin Laden is out to destroy America because he believes America is out to destroy him. If America withdraws, bin Laden is not coming after you. Land grabs are secular ambitions. His goals are religious.
Bonnie said:My point really is that I do't believe Iraq is the cause for renewed terrorist activity or fanaticism. If not in Iraq they would be doing what they are doing elsewhere, the fact that they are now more centrally located makes it easier to remove them no?? To think that somehow if we never went into Iraq these terrorists would be laying dormant in my opinion is being naive. Have we done everything perfectly in Iraq of couse not, but I do think in the long run good will come from the fact that Iraq will have a democratically run government and that will elevate many people there and remove the tyranical ideology that made them terrorists in the first place. Evidence of this comes form the fact that so many terrorists are terriified that Democracy will be successful, as they know there will no longer be the environment to act as a breeding ground. Will there always be terrorism? of course but if enough countries give their people freedom to pursue a better life for their citizens perhaps their time will be better and more constructively spent.
While I partially agree, you are missing a huge point IMHO.Isaac Brock said:I would disagree. Iraq has become a muse for Islamic terrorists and terrorists associated with the old guard. It not logical, it's not rational, it's fanatical. The terrorists have rallied to the concept that foreign occuppiers (in their terms), have control of their country, and hence they've drawn support from some locals to their cause, increasing their numbers.
As I pointed out in another thread, most Iraqis oppose these terrorists vehemently, however to say that if the Iraq war never happened, we'd have the same amount of terrorists, well that simply makes no sense.
Isaac Brock said:I would disagree. Iraq has become a muse for Islamic terrorists and terrorists associated with the old guard. It not logical, it's not rational, it's fanatical. The terrorists have rallied to the concept that foreign occuppiers (in their terms), have control of their country, and hence they've drawn support from some locals to their cause, increasing their numbers.
As I pointed out in another thread, most Iraqis oppose these terrorists vehemently, however to say that if the Iraq war never happened, we'd have the same amount of terrorists, well that simply makes no sense.
Gabriella84 said:Actually, it is quite the opposite. If you read bin Laden's original doctrines, his dispute with America is based almost entirely on ideology. Remember, bin Laden is a religious leader and not a secular one. He is not making land grabs. His twisted way of thinking is that American and its western allies are on Holy Land.
Islam has been around for a lot longer than America has. They are not out on Crusades. This why you haven't had problems with terrorists prior to the 80s, which America became more deeply involved in Middle East affairs.
bin Laden is out to destroy America because he believes America is out to destroy him. If America withdraws, bin Laden is not coming after you. Land grabs are secular ambitions. His goals are religious.
freeandfun1 said:While I partially agree, you are missing a huge point IMHO.
Yes, within Iraq, perhaps there are more "local" terrorists just for the reasons you cite. However, as for the numbers of rabid terrorists in general (not Iraqi's fighting for the supposed "cause" - getting the US out of Iraq) would be the same or close to it. I agree that to an extent the Iraq war is likely creating new foreign terrorist willing to go to Iraq to fight us, but it is also drawing terrorist that, if they were not in Iraq, would be plotting attacks against US interests elsewhere. As much as I feel for the Iraqi people, I would rather our soldiers fight these terrorists there than here. Selfish? I guess in many ways, yes, I am.
Good question. On the one hand the liberals claim we CREATED Bin Laden on the other they say we were out to destroy him, so he "pre-empted" us. When we had the chance to destroy him, Billy Bob was too busy get'n a BJ to do it.ScreamingEagle said:You say "bin Laden is out to destroy America because he believes America is out to destroy him."
Exactly how or why was America out to destroy bin Laden before he became a terrorist?
I do believe it is telling that in places like the UK they have had to resort to using locals to carry out attacks that in the past have been carried out by foreigners.Isaac Brock said:I suppose wondering whether the Iraq war is a diversion for foreign terrorists is just that, mere speculation. It is difficult to divine the mind of terrorist, as it is a concept so foreign to us. I suppose history will prove one of us right!
freeandfun1 said:I do believe it is telling that in places like the UK they have had to resort to using locals to carry out attacks that in the past have been carried out by foreigners.
Do you guys remember "the Jackel"? He was oft times hired by Muslim extremists to carry out hi-jackings, bombings, etc.
