It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Apoc
What does it take to turn someone who is not a terrorist into someone who will murder? I submit that it is impossible and that individual was destined to be a killer in the 1st place.
Originally posted by Apoc
Worse than what? I guess that little thing called 9/11 was insignificant. How much worse could it be than in the 90's when scores of attacks happened? When was the last attack on American soil since we decided to stop treating these attacks as "law enforcement" issues?
What does it take to turn someone who is not a terrorist into someone who will murder? I submit that it is impossible and that individual was destined to be a killer in the 1st place. It's not like convincing someone to vote for a different political party.
Reuters
The Iraq war gave birth to a new generation of Islamic radicals and the terrorist threat has grown since the September 11 attacks, according to a U.S. intelligence report cited in The New York Times on Saturday.
"The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of 'self-generating' cells inspired by al Qaeda's leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants," the newspaper said.
New York Times
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
Washington Post
A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the “centrality” of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.
Bush's War Creates Terror!
You've made us all less safe now, while killing tens of thousands of innocent people, including Americans.
why do people continue to associate Iraq with 9/11?
Originally posted by Apoc
It is relevant in the sense that it changed the way the US deals with islamo-facist terrorists.
Islamofascism
"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own."
As of that event, the Bush administration changed from the Clinton approach of law enforcement and only going after terrorists after they did something, to a proactive approach of stopping them premptively.
It's a laughable and moot point to think that Iraq created more terrorism. 1. We have not had an attack since we went into Iraq, and 2. 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks Clinton chose not to deal with prove that terrorism already strongly existed to a point where they could, and were willing, to kill 3k+.
Ask the democrats what their alternative options are with reasoning as to how it will prevent future 9/11s...good luck finding anything.
Who cares if there are more terrorists? As long as we are killing them and not having our "commander in chief" sitting around getting BJs from interns, cheating on his wife, and raping woman while terrorists kill our people like during the 90's.
White House admits Iraq fuels extremism
The White House acknowledged Monday that Iraq was among several factors that "fuel the spread of jihadism," but said that winning the war would dishearten potential terrorists.
Spokesman Tony Snow sought to challenge news reports on Sunday about the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and terrorism, which represents the comprehensive consensus findings of the 16 US intelligence agencies.
"It assesses that a variety of factors, in addition to Iraq, fuel the spread of jihadism, including longstanding social grievances, slowness of the pace of reform, and the use of the Internet," he told reporters.
Originally posted by Apoc
1. We have not had an attack since we went into Iraq, and 2. 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks Clinton chose not to deal with prove that terrorism already strongly existed to a point where they could, and were willing, to kill 3k+.
Who cares if there are more terrorists? As long as we are killing them and not having our "commander in chief" sitting around getting BJs from interns, cheating on his wife, and raping woman while terrorists kill our people like during the 90's.
Originally posted by factfinder38
I am glad that there are more of them because it make a bigger target to drop bombs on.
How would you handle the terrorist issue?
1. Maybe we could pay them off?
2. Maybe we should all become Muslims.
3. Sorry but 2 will not work because when they are not fighting Us they fight each other.
4. Stop using their oil. ( this would be great but when your entire country lives off it and every part of life needs it that is kinda stupid thinking).
So what kind of liberal plan can the Democrats come up with because I have herd a lot of complaining but no plan of their own.
Originally posted by Souljah
Weren't the Hijackers of the passenger planes on 9-11 mostly SAUDI ARABIAN? Why have the allmighty and noble Bushy administration attacked Afganistan then? A country that had as much to do with 9-11, as the Eskimos? Were there any Afganis hijacking airplanes? Then, part two - Bushies attacked Iraq; even if Saddam had NO Al-Qaeda connection, he actually Hated and Feared them (ofcourse, since Al-Qaeda is basicly Al-CIA-duh, a creation of Western Intelligence agencies such as NSA, MI6, Mossad and others...) and even these days, mister President himseld ADMITED that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9-11. He didn't have any WMD's - so what was the Real Reason again?
Originally posted by Souljah
Have you cheked how many Attacks have happened in Other countries?
Originally posted by Souljah
Apparently today, we have even the White House admitting, that Iraq FUELS International Terrorism: