The Bush regime, desperate for justifications to buy a little more time with the American people for its failed adventure in Iraq, markets the idea that if the US rapidly withdraws from Iraq, the “terrorists will follow us home”.

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/2370/p/f/propaganda_terror.jpg


A closer examination of this assertion—like the rest of the administration’s fear mongering--demonstrates it is baseless.

U.S. State Department statistics show that historically, North America has had the lowest incidence of terrorism worldwide.

The American public’s shocked reaction to the catastrophic 9/11 attacks was due, in part, to the infrequency of past terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

After the unique events of 9/11, terrorism in North America has resumed its historical modest trajectory.

North America has been a relative safe haven from terrorism for several reasons.

The United States is far away from the world’s centers of conflict.

Although the United States is roundly hated in the world because of its unneeded meddling in faraway conflicts, most anti–U.S. terrorism is perpetrated on U.S. embassies and military facilities overseas--not on the American homeland.

Terrorists, like conventional armies, have trouble operating in the United States because it is so far from their normal bases of operations.

In addition, the United States does not have many militant foreign populations that could provide sanctuary and support for imported terrorists of the same ilk.

According to Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, the lifetime probability that international terrorists will kill any one American is a miniscule one in 80,000—about the same as the same person being killed by a comet.

Of course, the chances are even lower if you are an American living in America (instead of overseas) and not residing in New York, Washington, Chicago, or Los Angeles.

But the average American, especially after the luck that the hijackers benefited from on 9/11, should not be blamed for overestimating the danger of terrorism.

The U.S. security agencies, to get more funds and authority for their bureaucracies, have constantly used color-coded warnings and other techniques of fear mongering to keep the anxiety generated by 9/11 alive in the public consciousness.

The U.S. media, getting high ratings from sensational reporting on terrorism, has been a willing accomplice to the administration effort.

The “Islamo-fascist” scare has worked. The already massive U.S. defense budget has increased by 50% and the budget of the recently created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has doubled.

The DHS budget request for fiscal year 2008 is $46.5 billion, much of which goes to fight terrorism.

Spending all that money to combat a threat that is as rare as a catastrophic comet hitting the United States makes little sense.

If NASA were able to use the same scare tactics as DHS, perhaps the space agency could persuade a reluctant Congress to give it the paltry $1 billion (by comparison) for its equally absurd Spaceguard Survey program, which tracks asteroids and comets that have an equal probability of killing Americans as terrorists do.

If the probability of Americans in the United States being killed by international terrorists remains low even after 9/11, would it increase if U.S. forces withdraw rapidly from Iraq and chaos there turns into bloody mayhem?

Most likely not. According to U.S. counterterrorism experts, about 90% of al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreign fighters.

These experts believe that these fighters emphasize local concerns and would have their hands full fighting the more numerous Shi’a when U.S. forces--one of their current major targets--withdraw.

Instead of being anxious about such Bush administration canards, the American people should worry about things that have a greater chance of killing them.

For example, the average American’s lifetime chances of being killed in an auto accident are one in 100.

Instead of focusing on potential terrorism in the homeland emanating from a post–U.S. Iraq, Americans who want to have the greatest probability of living longer lives should eat right, exercise, and wear their seat belts, and avoid smoking and excess worry (especially about jihadists following U.S. soldiers home from Iraq).

Ivan Eland @ MMN (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/41807)

"If We Leave Iraq, the Jihadists Will Follow Us Home”

Yes! It is a lie. After incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq, military bases in Arabia, unabashed support for Israel, waging covert war against organizations like Hezbollah, HAMAS, and Al Qaeda, a massive military/industrial complex, materialistic and economically imperialistic, overall Christian nation of America is of no concern to Al Qaeda.

It is a lie that they would care enough to follow us to US soil if we left Iraq. An outright lie I say! Had Bush not invaded Iraq this terrorist network of jihadist militants would be apathetic to America's actions and never even bother stepping on the world platform again to declare greivances they have with this nation.

They're like little lost puppies. If we stop feeding them, they'll stop following us. They're just so darn cute though!

I guess US may rent forces from China, to Iraq and to Afghanistan...
At least, for PKO.

They're like little lost puppies. If we stop feeding them, they'll stop following us. They're just so darn cute though! you read my mind you magnificent bastard.

The Bush regime, desperate for justifications to buy a little more time with the American people for its failed adventure in Iraq, markets the idea that if the US rapidly withdraws from Iraq, the “terrorists will follow us home”.

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/2370/p/f/propaganda_terror.jpg


A closer examination of this assertion—like the rest of the administration’s fear mongering--demonstrates it is baseless.

U.S. State Department statistics show that historically, North America has had the lowest incidence of terrorism worldwide.

The American public’s shocked reaction to the catastrophic 9/11 attacks was due, in part, to the infrequency of past terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

After the unique events of 9/11, terrorism in North America has resumed its historical modest trajectory.

North America has been a relative safe haven from terrorism for several reasons.

The United States is far away from the world’s centers of conflict.

Although the United States is roundly hated in the world because of its unneeded meddling in faraway conflicts, most anti–U.S. terrorism is perpetrated on U.S. embassies and military facilities overseas--not on the American homeland.

Terrorists, like conventional armies, have trouble operating in the United States because it is so far from their normal bases of operations.

In addition, the United States does not have many militant foreign populations that could provide sanctuary and support for imported terrorists of the same ilk.

According to Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, the lifetime probability that international terrorists will kill any one American is a miniscule one in 80,000—about the same as the same person being killed by a comet.

Of course, the chances are even lower if you are an American living in America (instead of overseas) and not residing in New York, Washington, Chicago, or Los Angeles.

But the average American, especially after the luck that the hijackers benefited from on 9/11, should not be blamed for overestimating the danger of terrorism.

The U.S. security agencies, to get more funds and authority for their bureaucracies, have constantly used color-coded warnings and other techniques of fear mongering to keep the anxiety generated by 9/11 alive in the public consciousness.

The U.S. media, getting high ratings from sensational reporting on terrorism, has been a willing accomplice to the administration effort.

The “Islamo-fascist” scare has worked. The already massive U.S. defense budget has increased by 50% and the budget of the recently created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has doubled.

The DHS budget request for fiscal year 2008 is $46.5 billion, much of which goes to fight terrorism.

Spending all that money to combat a threat that is as rare as a catastrophic comet hitting the United States makes little sense.

If NASA were able to use the same scare tactics as DHS, perhaps the space agency could persuade a reluctant Congress to give it the paltry $1 billion (by comparison) for its equally absurd Spaceguard Survey program, which tracks asteroids and comets that have an equal probability of killing Americans as terrorists do.

If the probability of Americans in the United States being killed by international terrorists remains low even after 9/11, would it increase if U.S. forces withdraw rapidly from Iraq and chaos there turns into bloody mayhem?

Most likely not. According to U.S. counterterrorism experts, about 90% of al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreign fighters.

These experts believe that these fighters emphasize local concerns and would have their hands full fighting the more numerous Shi’a when U.S. forces--one of their current major targets--withdraw.

Instead of being anxious about such Bush administration canards, the American people should worry about things that have a greater chance of killing them.

For example, the average American’s lifetime chances of being killed in an auto accident are one in 100.

Instead of focusing on potential terrorism in the homeland emanating from a post–U.S. Iraq, Americans who want to have the greatest probability of living longer lives should eat right, exercise, and wear their seat belts, and avoid smoking and excess worry (especially about jihadists following U.S. soldiers home from Iraq).

Ivan Eland @ MMN (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/41807)

Drive forward by looking thru the rearview mirror, that's a novel idea.

I would suggest you ought to read obl's thoughts on this. It's been clearly stated that if we do not leave muslims alone and leave islamic lands entirely then it is either them or us. As far as he's concerned it is a zero sum game.

I would suggest you ought to read obl's thoughts on this.

?!?!?

From your position on this, I would have thought you were completely unaware what bin Laden's stated position was.

It's been clearly stated that if we do not leave muslims alone and leave islamic lands entirely then it is either them or us.

Correct.

Meaning that George Bush did the exact OPPOSITE of what needed to have been done to bring an end to OBL's brand of terrorism.

Given that oil is the lifeblood of our economy and the world's economy if you think we, or the west, or china or anyone else is leaving the ME anytime soon you are delusional.
If you truly think that if you think that obl just wants the west to leave you need to keep reading. Both obl and a number of AQ strategists/philosophers have indicated that they aren't stopping with the ME.

A couple primers for you.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/11/060911fa_fact3

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,369448,00.html

Given that oil is the lifeblood of our economy and the world's economy if you think we, or the west, or china or anyone else is leaving the ME anytime soon you are delusional.

How far off base can you GET...?!?!?

I have never said anything that would remotely lead anyone to believe that I think that this country is going to remove its military presence from the ME.

We were not and are not arguing about whether or not this country is going to remove its military presence from the ME.

The argument we were having is centered on the consequences --visa vie the terrorists throughout the Middle East-- of this country remaining in the Middle East.

My point is that if America, in the desperate quest for control of the last remaining oil reserves, retains its outposts in the ME --and I am certain that it will keep those outposts in place-- we will forever be subjected to terrorist attacks as a result.

If this country wanted to avoid the global war with the Muslims that is a consequence of its dependence on petroleum as a source of power, it should have begun many decades ago to expend all effort possible to develop alternative energy sources.

Instead --since the oil cartels own the Washington politicians and to a large extent control what goes on in the US Government-- the opposite was done; alternative energy was virtually ignored and oil became the be-all end-all in terms of energy.

And we now see the horrors that have resulted from the Corporate State enslaving this country to oil.


If you truly think that if you think that obl just wants the west to leave you need to keep reading. Both obl and a number of AQ strategists/philosophers have indicated that they aren't stopping with the ME.

A couple primers for you.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/11/060911fa_fact3

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,369448,00.html

Wow.

Did you even READ the links you provided?!?!?

LOL.

You have this hilarious knack for providing sources or links that completely fail to support-- or even say the opposite-- of what you're trying to put forward.

Both articles talk primarily about a *Seven Phases to Establish an Islamic Caliphate* strategy that the terrorists have.

Not only could I not find anything in the articles stating --as you are implying-- that no matter if America completely left the Middle East, bin Laden is dedicated to continuing to launch terrorist attacks against America, the articles on the whole do not think the *Seven Phases* strategy is serious or workable.

Here is what the Spiegel Online International piece has to say in summation about the supposed strategy of the Muslim terrorists;

""But just how serious is this scenario? "Al-Qaida makes no compromises," says the book's author Fouad Hussein....Nevertheless, there is no way the scenario (the author, Hussein) depicts can be seen as a plan which al-Qaida can follow step by step. The terrorist network just doesn't work like that anymore. The significance of the central leadership has diminished and its direct commands have lost a great deal of importance. The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality -- especially phases four to seven.""

How far off base can you GET...?!?!?

I have never said anything that would remotely lead anyone to believe that I think that this country is going to remove its military presence from the ME.

We were not and are not arguing about whether or not this country is going to remove its military presence from the ME.

The argument we were having is centered on the consequences --visa vie the terrorists throughout the Middle East-- of this country remaining in the Middle East.

My point is that if America, in the desperate quest for control of the last remaining oil reserves, retains its outposts in the ME --and I am certain that it will keep those outposts in place-- we will forever be subjected to terrorist attacks as a result.

If this country wanted to avoid the global war with the Muslims that is a consequence of its dependence on petroleum as a source of power, it should have begun many decades ago to expend all effort possible to develop alternative energy sources.

Instead --since the oil cartels own the Washington politicians and to a large extent control what goes on in the US Government-- the opposite was done; alternative energy was virtually ignored and oil became the be-all end-all in terms of energy.

And we now see the horrors that have resulted from the Corporate State enslaving this country to oil.




Wow.

Did you even READ the links you provided?!?!?

LOL.

You have this hilarious knack for providing sources or links that completely fail to support-- or even say the opposite-- of what you're trying to put forward.

Both articles talk primarily about a *Seven Phases to Establish an Islamic Caliphate* strategy that the terrorists have.

Not only could I not find anything in the articles stating --as you are implying-- that no matter if America completely left the Middle East, bin Laden is dedicated to continuing to launch terrorist attacks against America, the articles on the whole do not think the *Seven Phases* strategy is serious or workable.

Here is what the Spiegel Online International piece has to say in summation about the supposed strategy of the Muslim terrorists;

""But just how serious is this scenario? "Al-Qaida makes no compromises," says the book's author Fouad Hussein....Nevertheless, there is no way the scenario (the author, Hussein) depicts can be seen as a plan which al-Qaida can follow step by step. The terrorist network just doesn't work like that anymore. The significance of the central leadership has diminished and its direct commands have lost a great deal of importance. The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality -- especially phases four to seven.""

IT's not just the military presence obl is referring to. It's our entire presence, business included. If the world is not getting off the juice then we will continue to be in the ME, adn these guys will attempt to attack us. Both there and here.

You couldn't find anything that states they will continue come but you did find that the strategy was unworkable. You mean this part The sixth phase will be a period of “total confrontation.” The now established caliphate will form an Islamic Army and will instigate a worldwide fight between the “believers” and the “non-believers.” Hussein proclaims, “The world will realize the meaning of real terrorism.” By 2020, “definitive victory” will have been achieved. Victory, according to the Al Qaeda ideologues, means that “falsehood will come to an end… . The Islamic state will lead the human race once again to the shore of safety and the oasis of happiness.”

Whether the author of the article thinks the plan is workable or not is irrelevant. AQ's intentions are clear and its their intention that matters and is pertinent to the topic. They intend to keep coming.

AQ's intentions are clear and its their intention that matters and is pertinent to the topic.

Al Queda is a government? Really? Where?

Let me know when the "armies" of Al quedastan actually invade a country, ok?

Then I will start worrying.

Al Queda is a government? Really? Where?

Let me know when the "armies" of Al quedastan actually invade a country, ok?

Then I will start worrying.

Just come back from the fevered swamps? Delirium taking hold?

No one said AQ is a gov't. The issue is whether AQ would continue to attack the US even if we left iraq. Their own writings show that whether we are in Iraq, or the ME, or not they will continue to do so. Which is decidedly contrary to your contention.

The issue is whether AQ would continue to attack the US even if we left iraq. Their own writings show that whether we are in Iraq, or the ME, or not they will continue to do so. Which is decidedly contrary to your contention.Then the contention that "the terrorists will follow us here if we leave Iraq" is misleading at best.

They are going to attack us here again no matter what.

The issue is whether AQ would continue to attack the US even if we left iraq.

Thet attacked us before we invaded Iraq.

That is a red herring.



Their own writings show that whether we are in Iraq, or the ME, or not they will continue to do so.

Which SUPPORTS my contention that we should have remained focused on Al Queda and the war on terror instead of getting distracted in Iraq.

You couldn't find anything that states they will continue come but you did find that the strategy was unworkable.

You stated previously that OBL was going to continue to come at us no matter if the U.S. pulled out of the Middle East or not.

You then gave links (supposedly) in support of that argument.

I could not find anything in your links that said that OBL was going to continue to come at us no matter if the U.S. pulled out of the Middle East or not.

I did see in the links where al Qaeda signaled an intention to keep coming....but as the articles note, what the leaders of al Queda want to do and what OBL wants to do are not always the same.

Whether the author of the article thinks the plan is workable or not is irrelevant. AQ's intentions are clear and its their intention that matters and is pertinent to the topic.

I will cede the point to you that al Qaeda (although the links do not say anything about OBL having any such intention) has the desire to keep fighting against the U.S. no matter what.

Intentions aside, your link flatly states that it is ABSURD to think that al Qaeda would --no matter how much they want to-- be able to accomplish phases 4 throught 7 of their plan.

Then the contention that "the terrorists will follow us here if we leave Iraq" is misleading at best.

They are going to attack us here again no matter what.

which is why, in theory, it's smart to GO to the source to try to prevent the attacks from happening...

which is why, in theory, it's smart to GO to the source to try to prevent the attacks from happening...That being the case, it made absolutely no sense whatsoever to invade Iraq.

Depends on how you look at it..

if you are for ending human oppression and brutal monarchies... Iraq was a good move for human rights in general, because they aren't "controlled" by Saddam anymore.

If you are for doing the least amount of military labor to help other countries, than it was a bad move.

Did we throw a rock at a bee's nest? yea.. but maybe when this whole thing is wrapped up the bee's nest won't be around any more.

Depends on how you look at it..

if you are for ending human oppression and brutal monarchies... Iraq was a good move for human rights in general ....

The proposed military agression against Iraq was NOT in any way presented to the gullible American populace as being a campaign for "ending human oppression and a brutal monarchy". It was presented as being desperately necessary because the leader of that country had massive stocks of WMDs in his possession and was intent on using them against America. THAT was a complete falsehood.

Did we throw a rock at a bee's nest? yea.. but maybe when this whole thing is wrapped up the bee's nest won't be around any more.

Won't be around any more......?!?!?!?

And "maybe" we can sufficiently enrage the terrorists throughout the world such that we will bring a complete halt to terrorism.........and "maybe" if we continue to redouble our attempts to force a swarm of hornets into submission by feverishly beating on their nest, the less they will be driven to sting.........

Then the contention that "the terrorists will follow us here if we leave Iraq" is misleading at best.

They are going to attack us here again no matter what.

A distinction without a difference.

That being the case, it made absolutely no sense whatsoever to invade Iraq.
On a note that makes even less sense, your avatar is insane. Someone shave that kid's head.

On a note that makes even less sense, your avatar is insane.What?? It was inspired by yours! Someone shave that kid's head.Not until after the finale.

Thet attacked us before we invaded Iraq.

That is a red herring.




Which SUPPORTS my contention that we should have remained focused on Al Queda and the war on terror instead of getting distracted in Iraq.

Have you been drinking again. In what way is the fact that they've been attacking us for the previous 15 years (see the WTC bombing), in any way supportive of the argument that leaving iraq ensures future AQ attacks is a red herring?

AS to your second point you need to support the contention that we haven't been focused on AQ. Given that we've captured or killed 2/3rds of the original leadership as well as a number of there replacements puts the lie to that line of thinking.

You stated previously that OBL was going to continue to come at us no matter if the U.S. pulled out of the Middle East or not.

You then gave links (supposedly) in support of that argument.

I could not find anything in your links that said that OBL was going to continue to come at us no matter if the U.S. pulled out of the Middle East or not.

I did see in the links where al Qaeda signaled an intention to keep coming....but as the articles note, what the leaders of al Queda want to do and what OBL wants to do are not always the same.

I will cede the point to you that al Qaeda (although the links do not say anything about OBL having any such intention) has the desire to keep fighting against the U.S. no matter what.

Intentions aside, your link flatly states that it is ABSURD to think that al Qaeda would --no matter how much they want to-- be able to accomplish phases 4 throught 7 of their plan.

What a clever little boy you are. i said obl and the article said AQ. Reduced to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are you. And in terms of the arguement about whether AQ would continue to attack us or not the authors opinion does nothing to dispel the notion that AQ would continue. The proof is in the pudding. Starting with the WTC bombing in '93 they've been coming for us.

What is really strange about the left's peripatetic dance with islamists and the war is that in instances where the islamists have prevailed the first people they come for a those on the left. The left's view of the world is complete anathema to islamists. One would think that not only from a philosophical pov but from self-preservation they would want the US to prevail in these matters.

Mr. Bush's assertion that "they'll follow us home" seems to indicate a great lack of confidence in the power and efficacy of our Department of Homeland Security.

Hmmmm.

The left's view of the world is complete anathema to islamists.

That is 100% correct.

The Islamist's view of the world --ignorant religious fundamentalists that they are-- and they way that they think is FAR more closely aligned with that of the theocratic Right that is such an overarching force in America, throughout the society and the Government.

One would think that not only from a philosophical pov but from self-preservation they (the left) would want the US to prevail in these matters.

:@@:

Only those who are insane would think for one instant that the so-called "Left" in America desires that the terrorists should "prevail" over the United States in these matters.

American progressives simply prefer a different way of dealing with the problem; a way that does NOT involve pushing a pack of goddamned LIES in order to foment a murdeous pre-emptive war, a way that does NOT involve throwing away 3200 soldier's lives for nothing, a way that does NOT involve stealing a couple trillion taxdollars out of the pockets of a gullible Public and giving it to the huge multinational Petroleum and Defense industries (aka War Profiteers) currently operating in Iraq.

That is 100% correct.

The Islamist's view of the world --ignorant religious fundamentalists that they are-- and they way that they think is FAR more closely aligned with that of the theocratic Right that is such an overarching force in America, throughout the society and the Government.



:@@:

Only those who are insane would think for one instant that the so-called "Left" in America desires that the terrorists should "prevail" over the United States in these matters.

American progressives simply prefer a different way of dealing with the problem; a way that does NOT involve pushing a pack of goddamned LIES in order to foment a murdeous pre-emptive war, a way that does NOT involve throwing away 3200 soldier's lives for nothing, a way that does NOT involve stealing a couple trillion taxdollars out of the pockets of a gullible Public and giving it to the huge multinational Petroleum and Defense industries (aka War Profiteers) currently operating in Iraq.


You can waste a lot of time re-hashing the past in its various versions but the fact of the matter is we're there.

If they don't want to the islamists to win then why their ongoing opposition to the war.

Here's an question i've borrowed to illustrate the point. Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and a technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it fell into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you were asking the question.

Yet the opposition persists. Because.....?

The proposed military agression against Iraq was NOT in any way presented to the gullible American populace as being a campaign for "ending human oppression and a brutal monarchy". It was presented as being desperately necessary because the leader of that country had massive stocks of WMDs in his possession and was intent on using them against America. THAT was a complete falsehood.
I won't get into the argument again.. all i will say is that it is not 100% fact that it was a lie or a "falsehood"... I've listed many ways that Iraq could have had weapons and gotten rid of them in the long length of time they had to do it, or faulty intel recieved by the administration... all of those are plausible.. but yet ignored by you. I agree that your theory fits the facts, but you have to assume the motives of why people did things, and assume that certain events happened when we don't know HOW they ensued.



Won't be around any more......?!?!?!?

And "maybe" we can sufficiently enrage the terrorists throughout the world such that we will bring a complete halt to terrorism.........and "maybe" if we continue to redouble our attempts to force a swarm of hornets into submission by feverishly beating on their nest, the less they will be driven to sting.........

It's a sound argument... and probably is different for each and every situation. It seems we tried to take out the hornet's nest and the hornets have put up a good fight to defend their turf. Oh well, at least Bush can be looked on admirably like Mr. Clinton, who was praised for saying "at least i tried!!!"

Anything can happen over there... so many people want to write off any continued efforts as doomed... but in 10 years we could be rid of the major threat of middle eastern terrorism... i mean, that IS a possibility right?

Anything can happen over there... so many people want to write off any continued efforts as doomed... but in 10 years we could be rid of the major threat of middle eastern terrorism... i mean, that IS a possibility right?

Yes. It is possible.

IF all the people currently holding any position of control or command in the US Government were to be replaced with people with the diametrically opposite approach (i.e., an approach centered on compromise and resolving cultural differences instead of an approach involving a massive military force carrying out bombing, torture, genocide and the wholesale destruction of those parts of the infrastructure not related to oil production) to combating terrorism, it could be said to be a possibility that in ten years we could be rid of the threat of Middle Eastern terrorism.

In what way is the fact that they've been attacking us for the previous 15 years (see the WTC bombing), in any way supportive of the argument that leaving iraq ensures future AQ attacks is a red herring?

Because it presupposes the idea that they won't attack us if we stay there.

It is nonsense.


AS to your second point you need to support the contention that we haven't been focused on AQ.

Thats easy (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/02/1175366160711.html), we have allowed Al Queda to regroup.

If we were focused on them we would not have allowed that to happen.

Instead we have allowed a whole new generation of terrorists (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16645727.htm)to spring up.

Put your crack pipe down Waldo.

Here's an question i've borrowed to illustrate the point. Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and a technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it fell into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle?

"Important battle", eh?!?!?

That's rich.

That's all well and good-----IF America were to simply throw ALL legal and moral and ethical implications of any kind out the goddamned window, waldo.

If we as a people are willing to do that, and if we are intent on doing that (and you and other Rightwingers I can think of seem to be perfectly fine with it) we could just remove all the troops for a week, drop enough fucking "clean" neutron bombs on the entire country of Iraq so as to kill every living thing in the area; bring in huge bulldozers and push all the dead and decaying corpses into the sea; march back in and begin to pump oil out of the ground as fast as possible and pocket all the profits. Problem solved. Plenty of oil for the good 'ol Yew Ess of by gawd Aye.

Situation --from the oh-so "compassionate" conservative standpoint-- resolved!

The difference between you and me is that you (and millions of other equally soulless rightwing zombies) could seemingly sleep soundly at night with a contented smile on your face after sanctioning such a holocaust to get hold of the precious "untold oil wealth" that they possess and the all important "strategic location" that the militarists are so desperate to gain, while I would be mourning the slaughter of a few million innocent people.

__________________________

"Only after the last tree is cut down, the last river is poisioned and the last fish is caught will man realize that money cannot be eaten."

Because it presupposes the idea that they won't attack us if we stay there.

It is nonsense.

No, it's a rejoinder to the refrain spouted by people like non-thinker that if we'd just leave them alone....It points out that whether we leave or not they will still attack us.



Thats easy (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/02/1175366160711.html), we have allowed Al Queda to regroup.

If we were focused on them we would not have allowed that to happen.

You keep parroting the same line without explaining how we could have prevented it without invading Pakistan. We can only assume that you're conceding the point.

Unable to refute the arguement you've been reduced to repeating the only thing you've heard about the issue.

Give us meat, show us you're more than a parrot.

"Important battle", eh?!?!?

That's rich.

That's all well and good-----IF America were to simply throw ALL legal and moral and ethical implications of any kind out the goddamned window, waldo.

If we as a people are willing to do that, and if we are intent on doing that (and you and other Rightwingers I can think of seem to be perfectly fine with it) we could just remove all the troops for a week, drop enough fucking "clean" neutron bombs on the entire country of Iraq so as to kill every living thing in the area; bring in huge bulldozers and push all the dead and decaying corpses into the sea; march back in and begin to pump oil out of the ground as fast as possible and pocket all the profits. Problem solved. Plenty of oil for the good 'ol Yew Ess of by gawd Aye.

Situation --from the oh-so "compassionate" conservative standpoint-- resolved!

The difference between you and me is that you (and millions of other equally soulless rightwing zombies) could seemingly sleep soundly at night with a contented smile on your face after sanctioning such a holocaust to get hold of the precious "untold oil wealth" that they possess and the all important "strategic location" that the militarists are so desperate to gain, while I would be mourning the slaughter of a few million innocent people.

__________________________

"Only after the last tree is cut down, the last river is poisioned and the last fish is caught will man realize that money cannot be eaten."


I'm worried about your reading comprehension skills. The other possibility i suppose is that you've been doing rails with Keith?

I ask which is the more important battle and you us give a diatribe about dropping neutron bombs on the place. wtf?

Talk about a disconnect.

Just a simple question, which battle is more important? Not, how are we going to win it? Just which battle is more important? Which one will have a more lasting impact?

That isn't a hard question is it? A or B?

It points out that whether we leave or not they will still attack us.

No, that is wrong.

The false scenario being presented by the right is that if we leave they will "follow us home". That doesn't admit they will attack us whether we leave or not. It says the exact opposite.

It is quite dishonest of you to try and make that claim.





You keep parroting the same line without explaining how we could have prevented it without invading Pakistan.

I keep saying it because it is true.

If we put our troops along the border to Pakistan, they can't get back into Afghanistan as easily as they have been.

If Pakistan is really our ally then they will allow us into their land and it won't be an "invasion".

No, that is wrong.

The false scenario being presented by the right is that if we leave they will "follow us home". That doesn't admit they will attack us whether we leave or not. It says the exact opposite.

It is quite dishonest of you to try and make that claim.

It's not wrong. It's demonstrably true.

The topic is The Next Huge RightWing Lie.... Ergo, one either accepts the statement as true or false.

The statement itself is not a conditional statement. There are no 'either's' or 'ors'. It states a fact. You can either deny the statement or accept it. That it doesn't admit they will attack us anyway is irrelevant to the subject of whether it's a lie or not. This is basic english.


I keep saying it because it is true.

If we put our troops along the border to Pakistan, they can't get back into Afghanistan as easily as they have been.

If Pakistan is really our ally then they will allow us into their land and it won't be an "invasion".

Smarter people than you and i have said that no amount of troops along the border could prevent the infiltration. If India with a million can't keep them out of kashmir, what makes you think that we could keep them from coming back? It's naive. If you'd like to live in that fantasy knock yourself out.

AS to Pakistan your world is far too simplistic. Musharaff has real opposition. The islamists are growing in strength. Better to have some modest support from a constrained musharaff who'll play nudge nudge wink wink with you than none at all from an islamist who now possesses atomic bombs don't you think?

The other alternative is maybe they really aren't are ally. How does that impact the point that we've been sidetracked in iraq to the detriment of 'ghanistan? Not a wit!

Regardless the rightwing claim:
"If We Leave Iraq, the Jihadists Will Follow Us Home”

First you say:
It points out that whether we leave or not they will still attack us.

Now you claim the opposite:
It's not wrong. It's demonstrably true.

Then you should have no problem actually demonstrating it for us.


The statement itself is not a conditional statement.

Actually it is. It is an "If/then" statement.

There are no 'either's' or 'ors'.

Incorrect. The "either/or" is implied. The implied part is that if we stay, they won't follow us home.

It is basic english.

:rolleyes:

Yes. It is possible.

IF all the people currently holding any position of control or command in the US Government were to be replaced with people with the diametrically opposite approach (i.e., an approach centered on compromise and resolving cultural differences instead of an approach involving a massive military force carrying out bombing, torture, genocide and the wholesale destruction of those parts of the infrastructure not related to oil production) to combating terrorism, it could be said to be a possibility that in ten years we could be rid of the threat of Middle Eastern terrorism.

agreed... although the intention isn't torture and genocide, it HAS happened, and way too much for such a "fine-tuned" army.

agreed... although the intention isn't torture and genocide,

You may be right about the genocide not being entirely intentional.....but people at the highest levels of the Bush government specifically sanctioned the torture.

The torture was not necessary, was not ethical, was not legal, did not need to be carrried out and should NOT have been carried out, yet Rumsfeld --and possibly those even higher up-- signed off on the directive for it to be done.

You may be right about the genocide not being entirely intentional.....but people at the highest levels of the Bush government specifically sanctioned the torture.

The torture was not necessary, was not ethical, was not legal, did not need to be carrried out and should NOT have been carried out, yet Rumsfeld --and possibly those even higher up-- signed off on the directive for it to be done.
You are right: the U.S. government explicitly condones and promotes torture of its citizens. I can testify personally to considerable torture last night at H&R Block.

FT is right.. he just exaggerates his point....

higher ups DID turn a blind eye.. but the tone FT uses, he makes it sound like George Bush is going house-to-house and ties people on a torture rack...

just a word of advice to you FT, take it or leave it, tone and attitude have ALOT to do with how much people care about your beliefs.