Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S.Terror Fight

#26
#26
Yep, everything he wants you to see is right there. The rest? That's another story.

This missing parts of the report??????

Karl Rove is secretly funneling RNC funds to the jihadist movement and is personally responsible for rapid growth in the worldwide terrorist threat. He along with Halliburton is providing key intelligence and training to ramp up terrorist scares in the Fall of 2006, 2008 and every 2 years beyond that. Oh yeah, and he's lowering gas prices too.
 
#28
#28
You know what is scary, I am sure someone can rationalize our situation in Iraq by those imaginary comments.
 
#30
#30
BBC NEWS | Americas | Democrats seek full terror report

start_quote_rb.gif
Jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion
end_quote_rb.gif



National Intelligence Estimate

 
#31
#31
Mr Bush has consistently dismissed such reasoning in the past, arguing that Islamic militants had hated the US long before it invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.
Our correspondent says the report gives backing to the White House view that a victory in Iraq would be a big prize with fewer enemy fighters inspired to carry on.
There is also mention of real successes against al-Qaeda.
But the overall picture, including the assertion that the Iraq conflict has become a cause celebre for jihadists, is not terribly comforting for Mr Bush and could be a setback in the elections, our correspondent adds.
Other key points of the report include:
  • Militants, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion
  • If this trend continues, threats to US interests globally will become more diverse leading to increased attacks worldwide
  • Militants consider Europe an important venue for attacking Western interests
  • The loss of key leaders in rapid succession would probably fracture al-Qaeda into smaller groups that would pose, at least for a time, a less serious threat to US interests.
 
#33
#33
Just to throw a couple what if's out there, what if we succeed in Iraq?

Or what if we do not succeed?
 
#35
#35
It's my belief that Al Quaeda will continue to terrorize the globe no matter the outcome in Iraq.

No argument there...........

Do we prosecute Al Quaeda no matter they might be?

Should we be proactive in our approach?

*No, I am not talking about invading every country they are in.
 
#37
#37
No argument there...........

Do we prosecute Al Quaeda no matter they might be?

Should we be proactive in our approach?

*No, I am not talking about invading every country they are in.

I've always thought that a "proactive" (this word brings to mind a Simpsons episode immediately) approach was the only way to defeat AQ. They see themselves as romantic heroes of the people and will always be able to generate at least a few rcruits as long as that perception continues. Of course, I also think that's why it's easy for them to connect themselves with arabs who have resisted european conquerors in the past; whereas, we see this as a war with its roots entirely in modern times.

Maybe utilizing religious figures such as the pope would be a way to help alter the terrorist idealogy, if he has so much more sway with muslims than he seems to with us. I don't know.
 
#42
#42
I suspect you are correct. Does that mean we are just in "semi-war" status?

Would it be possible to imagine the Roman Senate odering the Roman War Machine to fight by rules of war?

I am not arguing pro or against fighting with some sort of code and or guidelines, but at some point.....................is there a breaking point when you say, take care of it by any means necessary?
 
#43
#43
Would it be possible to imagine the Roman Senate odering the Roman War Machine to fight by rules of war?

I am not arguing pro or against fighting with some sort of code and or guidelines, but at some point.....................is there a breaking point when you say, take care of it by any means necessary?

I believe Yes. Also, why does a person or country go to war? I suspect it is so they can achieve an outcome that they could not otherwise achieve diplomatically. If you are willing to go to war, what is the point of putting restrictions on your military? That would be one of the problems I see with Bush and Rumsfield. You are either at war or you are not. I do not like this PC kind of war.
 
#44
#44
You are either at war or you are not. I do not like this PC kind of war.

It does raise some interesting moral questions............I love napalm.........but would it be necessary for the U.S. to napalm cities full of civilians?

I said earlier about the unforgiven method against terrorists.........Is there a wrong or right way to prosecute a war?

Should one make war so terrible, like attacking civilians, that the other side loses their will to carry on?
 
#45
#45
It does raise some interesting moral questions............I love napalm.........but would it be necessary for the U.S. to napalm cities full of civilians?

I said earlier about the unforgiven method against terrorists.........Is there a wrong or right way to prosecute a war?

Should one make war so terrible, like attacking civilians, that the other side loses their will to carry on?

If the other side loses the will to carry on, then you have won your war I would suppose, which is the goal isn't it?

Innocent people will die in war no matter how you fight it, I feel if you go all out, the war will end sooner.

I am not for or against having gone in Iraq. I am against what is going on there now.
 
#46
#46
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning. Smells like...Victory.
 

VN Store



Back
Top