Free Dating Site    

so to invade a country, to kill innocent people for oil means you are fighting terorism? well we have just discovered a new meaning of the word terrorism.

what is the difference between people who were killed in 9/11, and those children who are killed by the US forces in Iraq? maybe you see some difference under your north american point of view, however, under mine they have the same value, they are innocent people killed by terrorists called Bin Laden and Bush.

why did Bush invade Iraq? to fight terrorism?

That's why they call them sleeper cells. They're more patient than we are when it comes to action.

Remember Tony Blair's build up to war or is that beyond your short term memory?

Tread lightly when you are talking about your closest relative. We're a lot like you.

any problem is repaired with bombs"

It was obvious what I meant flyguy. We tried dipolmacy under Clinton and previous Admins. with the terrorists. Did no good. Even being in Alfg. did not stop 9/11 from coming to be. Is it a coinwinkiedink that the land known as the USA has not been attacked since we went into Iraq?

We tried dipolmacy under Clinton and previous Admins. with the terrorists.

In January 1998, President Clinton warned America it must "confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them."

However, in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, Washington had backed Saddam Hussein. According to US Senate Committee reports in 1994, private American companies, under application and licensing by the US Department of Commerce, supplied Hussein with chemical and biological weapons ingredients. Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iranians.

US officials today speak as if Hussein's WMDs were a tremendous threat. In the 1980s, these officials were quite happy to see him using them to annihilate Iranians.

Total casualties in the Iran-Iraq War for both sides is estimated by numerous sources to be at least 1,000,000, including 500,000-600,000 Iranians.

Iranians had overthrown the US-backed dictator Shah Pahlavi, and were now seen as varmints in need of extermination. Poison gas was just the thing to get the job done.

Michael Clodfelter reports Iran's casualties in the Iran-Iraq War were at least 450,000 killed, 600,000 wounded, and 45,000 prisoners, with the total killed possibly as high as 730,000, and 1.2 million wounded.

US foreign aid to Saddam Hussein was used on Iraqis, too. The poison gas was used to exterminate Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shiites.

Human Rights World Report 2004 estimates that "in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more."

Following the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, the Iraqi and Kuwaiti governments quarreled, and US officials sided with the Kuwaitis. In the resulting Gulf War One, casualties numbered at least 100,000 Iraqis killed, but the count runs as high as 150,000.

In the aftermath of this war, during the international embargo against Iraqis that began in 1990, accepted estimates of Iraqi deaths (mostly children under the age of five) run as high as 500,000, from malnutrition and other illnesses resulting from deprivation. By 1999, the UN made much higher estimates: as many as a million Iraqis, mostly children, had died under the US-enforced sanctions.

Before the US began backing Saddam Hussein (because he was killing Iranians), oil-rich Iraq was one of the most affluent and modern places in the Mideast. Said U.N. special envoy Prakash Shah, "People were clearly much more prosperous, their lifestyle was much better, their health was clearly much more healthy. You didn't see beggars, for example, on the streets, or either women or children begging on the streets or near the mosque as you do now."

Come on, how many times do I need to post this stuff for you people anyway or dont you believe your own DOD website either?

Americans should realise it, instead of bragging about having the best military in the world, they should come out of that isolation they seem to be

Declassified Key Judgments of the National
Intelligence Estimate —Trends in Global Terrorism:
Implications for the United States“ dated April 2006

• The Iraq conflict has become the —cause celebre“ for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its
vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)
Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western
domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the
Iraq —jihad;“ (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and
political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US
sentiment among most Muslims–all of which jihadists exploit.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed
and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include
dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the
jihadists‘ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and
criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

• The jihadists‘ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution–an
ultra-conservative interpretation of shari‘a-based governance spanning the
Muslim world–is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the
religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists‘ propaganda
would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few
notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a
constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also
could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim
communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on
passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the
most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated
multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist
leaders

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical
ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt
terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more
quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial
support.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:K06igREErdMJ:www.dni.gov/press
_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments
.pdf+NIE+on+global+terror&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

The war in Iraq has heightened the threat of terrorist attacks in Britain, the former Prime Minister Sir John Major has claimed.

His intervention is a setback to Tony Blair's attempt to play down any link between the London bombings and the Iraq conflict. Sir John told BBC Radio 4 yesterday: "I think what has happened is not that the Iraq war and other policies created that threat, I think it was there and growing, though it was not in full bloom.

"I think it is possibly true that it has made it more potent and more immediate, but having said that, there is absolutely no doubt that we were going to have to confront terrorism at some time. And what I suppose you might say about the events of the Middle East is that they have brought it forward and brought it into focus."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-war-increased
-the-threat-of-attacks-says-major-500240.html

On a global scale: terrorist activity and violence has grown worse, not better since 11 September 2001. Average levels of terrorist violence that would have been considered extreme in the period prior to 9/11 have become the norm in the years since. And there is no sign that this trend is abating. This much is evident from a review of the terrorism incident database maintained by the Rand Corporation for the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), which is funded by the US Department of Homeland Security. Surveying incidents for the period January 1998 through 11 August 2006 shows that:

* The rate of terrorism fatalities for the 59 month period following 11 September 2001 is 250 percent that of the 44.5 month period preceding and including the 9/11 attacks. This figure has been adjusted to account for the different length of the two periods and it implies an increase in average monthly fatalities of 150 percent. (Only in January 1998 did the database begin to include both national and international terrorism incidents.)

* The rate of terrorist incidents for the post-9/11 period is 268 percent that of the period prior to and including 11 September 2001. This implies a 167 percent increase in what might be called the average monthly rate of incidents.

* A fair portion of the increased activity is related to the war in Iraq -- but not all. Removing Iraq from the picture shows an increase in the average monthly rate of terrorism fatalities of more than 10 percent for the post-9/11 period. The increase in the rate of incidents not counting Iraq is 75 percent.

Another way of analyzing the data is to treat the 9/11 attacks as a dependent variable or as a "pivot point". This allows us to ask: "What was the baseline incidence of terror prior to 9/11 and how has it changed since?" The baseline prior to 9/11 is indicative of the level of organization, capability, and activity that eventually expressed itself in the 9/11 attacks.

* Removing 9/11 from the picture shows a 300 percent increase in fatalities for the post-9/11 period (including Iraq) or an 80 percent increase (excluding Iraq) when compared with the pre-9/11 period. The comparable change with regard to incidents is 168 percent increase with Iraq and 76 percent increase without.

It is also worth noting, that if we divide the post-9/11 period into two equal halves (not shown in table), the number of terrorism fatalities is greater in the second half than in the first -- even when Iraq is excluded: approximately 4772 fatalities in the first half versus approximately 5177 in the second. Thus: there is no support in this data for the proposition that the post-9/11 surge in terrorism fatalities is abating.

Most recently, the classified 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, has been reported to conclude that terrorism is on the rise globally, partly driven by the Iraq war. The significance of this document is that it represents the consensus view of America's 16 intelligence organizations. 3

In early 2006, the British Joint Intelligence Committee, which comprises leaders from the various British intelligence agencies, published a top secret memo similarly concluding that the Iraq war "has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not." 4 This follows similar determinations by the United Kingdom's two most respected security policy think tanks, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and Chatham House (formerly the Royal Institute for International Affairs) - one explicitly linking the July 2005 subway bombing to the UK's involvement in Iraq.5

The major bombings in Madrid (11 March 2004) and London (7 July 2005) as well as an attempted London bombing (21 July 2005) confirm the role of the recent wars in motivating and reinforcing extremism. The two successful bombings, both coming a year or more after the onset of the Iraq war, were the worst of their kind experienced in Western Europe in more than 15 years. The responsible cells had only thin organizational links to Al Qaeda - or none at all, in one case. They drew mostly on young, first or second generation immigrants. In the case of the London cells, most participants had only recently converted to extremism, having no previous record of terrorist activity. In group or individual statements, those responsible explicitly associated their actions with the recent wars and the target nations' involvement in them. One of the principals in the failed 21 July 2007 London bombing attempt, Hussain, reported that the group was motivated to act by video scenes of carnage in Iraq.


http://www.comw.org/pda/0609bm38.html