thinkprogress.org — "The Iraq conflict has become the a 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." After seeing this was consensus report of 16 intelligence agencies in April of 2006, both Bush and Cheney knowingly continued to argue the opposite.
Sep 27, 2006 View in Crawl 4
phatt138Sep 27, 2006
datastorage:I believe he's referencing the current generation of Jihad inductees. True, the attackers on 9/11 were not poor farmers. But the people that our war is affecting -are-. There are a lot of people who have lost everything without having a damned thing to do with the Iraq War - except for possibly being in the way. Their fault for living on traditional, inhereted land, huh? These are the people who are becoming easy converts, and for good reason. What we're showing the citizens of Iraq (remember how we were, like, SAVING them at one point? Weren't we?) is that Americans are everything the elite Jihadists say they are.Holier-than-thou? Check.Supremacists? Check.Imperialists? Check.Set for a rude awakening? Check.Evil? Well, that's an arguable point, but I certainly don't think our administration is fighting 'the good fight' right now.Add to that getting your farm destroyed and your family killed or maimed because of a war that's done you more bad than good, initiated by America for the wrong reasons, and you've got yourself a righteously angry individual with legitimate complaints.
geekeeSep 27, 2006
I expect about as much truth out of thinkprogress.org as I expect from Ann Coulter
helchoseSep 27, 2006
People are generally the same, no matter what color, ethnicity, religion, or political ideology they were indoctrinated with. Let's turn the tables for a moment. If a foreign power were to attack the United States, occupy your towns and cities, raid your homes and ransack your houses and rape your women, abuse and torture your countrymen in prison, annex your national landmarks for military purposes, install an occupation government and transition to a 'democratic' government friendly to the occupying country, establish checkpoints and hinder travel around your own city, erroneously shoot your family members and friends because of misunderstandings, etc. etc... wouldn't YOU as a patriotic American feel compelled to establish and join an insurgency against the occupiers? Wouldn't you or your fellow Americans feel compelled and justified and desperate enough to sacrifice their lives to try to drive those occupiers out of your homeland? Might you feel compelled to support or even participate in a counterattack on the occupying country's home soil to send a message to GO AWAY AND LEAVE US ALONE?I know I would. "Red Dawn" anyone?
ninjaltSep 27, 2006
Warning: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.Rightwingers have reported that this story contains information that may shake up their little beliefs and as so have reported it as inaccurate.
nitro2985Sep 27, 2006
A treaty is still subservient to the Constitution. This means that we can't sign a treaty which gives away every black man's right to vote. Just like that, we can't sign a treaty which puts the power of declaring war into the hands of someone other than the congress.
Closed AccountSep 27, 2006
lol "freedom agenda"...
allatti2dSep 27, 2006
I apologize for reposting a previous question, but I'm really hoping someone who knows can provide an answer for me.Is the war in Iraq the same as the war on terror?Because I know that the war on terror is 100% unwinnable. It's impossible to eradicate terrorism throughout the world -- even domestically. So the statement, "We must win this war in Iraq [to be safe]" means exactly what?Cuz if the war in Iraq is synonymous with the war on terror, then we're SOL. There is no winning... only losing.I wonder, what does "winning this war" exactly entail? At what point is it considered won? After we find WMDs? After the Iraqi people have the democracy we spread to them? After the terrorists are all dead?Does anyone know the answer to that? Cuz I'd really like to know.========
kolywaterSep 27, 2006
bigdavediode for president!
bs101Sep 27, 2006
You know what I think, anything posted from thinkprogress.org should automatically be buried. If someone was to actually print it, the paper would be worth more. It is obvious whoever is running this site has a huge negative bias towards President Bush and his cabinet.
secondguesserSep 27, 2006
Big Dave, come on now.6-way talks and not moving forward with relations until NK lives up to the agreement it signed is "escalation"? In what sense?Or are you just referring to the fact that Bush calls North Korea "communist" and "totalitarian" and "starving the people" and "a dictatorship" and "pursuing nuclear weapons" -- (all truths)? If you're NK, then sure, it sounds hostile...unelected dictators have every reason to feel threatened by a democracy when they pursue nuclear weapons. It hardly means that we're "escalating". How much more escalating can you get than 30,000 troops at your border? I wish I could make it clearer for you.As for everything else, it's just your politics. You seem to think that the US is obligated to live up to every single treaty we've signed, regardless of its obsolesence or the fact that our enemies are not signatories themselves (as if international agreements are any more perfect than our own legislative and policy process). Did it ever occur to you that some international agreements are not good for us?And this idea that Saddam was "compliant". Where is this coming from? Why would the holy authority you call "the UN" pass 14 resolutions if he was compliant? As if withdrawing UNMOVIC after 5 years of looking has any bearing on whether or not they'll ever find any WMD. Unfortunately history is not as you remember in this case.You say "Democrats weren't involved in the lie."<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts</a>History is not as you remember it, my friend.