Too many times I have been in arguments in which it was disputed whether or not our actions in Iraq create more potential terrorists. A study by the International Institute of Strategic Studies shows that al-Qaida is on the rise. From Report: al-Qaida Ranks Swelling Worldwide:
- Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks, a report said Tuesday. . . .
Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.
And the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaida and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention, the survey said.
The U.S. occupation of Iraq brought al-Qaida recruits from across Islamic nations, the study said. Up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are cooperating with Iraqi insurgents, the survey said.
The "War" on Terror is not going so well. Bombing the hell out of other countries, taking them over, and torturing their citizens, many of whom are innocent, isn't such a good strategy after all. That was a problem from the get-go. These terrorists are spread out all over the world. They aren't a country that can be conquered. They spread like a virus wherever our country does its evil deeds. They are all over the US. Should we bomb ourselves?
If you want to know more about the International Institute of Strategic Studies, then check out their website, and also see this Disinfopedia article.
Article comments
1 - Marc
Should we bomb ourselves? Well actually no... just those that read this study and come up with a proficiency in reading comprehension.
The IISS said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said.
Here is what the IISS had to say in the same report about the potential benefits of the Iraq war in the fight against terrorism:
QUOTE
Progress in marginalising transnational Islamist terrorists will come incrementally. It is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation, such as the stable democratisation of Iraq or resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
UNQUOTE
Care to go back and reread the IISS report now? NO! I didn't think so, you just cherry picked what you thought would bolster your anti-war/anti-Bush stance. Sorry pal your way off the mark
BTW: How'd you like that Gore speech? Bet you wet your little leftist undies over that one.
ASSHAT
2 - Shark
Nevermind that Mr. "Your [sic] An Asshat" doesn't and/or can't dispute the assumption that there are more terrorists now than a year or two ago.
After Abu Ghraib, it's pretty much a given, but this Marc guy would defend Bush if it turns out his President eats orphan babies for breakfast.
PS: "Asshat" gets old, pal, but I'll bet it breaks 'em up on the playground! Try something new -- like "Hockeypuck!"
3 - Shark
Dirtgrain, I read somewhere that there's evidence that invading an Arab country and torturting innocent citizens with sexual humiliation actually REDUCES the amount of people who hate America.
I think it was ...Heritage Foundation?
4 - JR
...this Marc guy would defend Bush if it turns out his President eats orphan babies for breakfast.
Well, it would be an improvement on Bush's current family planning policies.
5 - Andrew
Oh, really? Then explain this observation from the details available from the same report:
"The estimate of 18,000 fighters was based on intelligence estimates that al Qaeda trained at least 20,000 fighters in its training camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al Qaeda fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said."
So there were 20,000 before we went into Iraq, but 18,000 now...and this is supposed to be "growing?" And where is it that these 18,000 terrorists are training, planning or getting medical care? It used to be Afghanistan and Iraq.
Today, Al Qaeda members are reportedly flocking to Iraq for the chance to get killed by our soldiers and marines. This is definitely progress, but not for the terrorists.
6 - Debbie
"Nevermind that Mr. "Your [sic] An Asshat" doesn't and/or can't dispute the assumption that there are more terrorists now than a year or two ago."
Nor can you prove it is true.... that is why it is an assumption.
7 - Dirtgrain
"Hah hah, you fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Hah hah hah hah. . ."
Andrew, the third most famous classic blunder is to confuse Iraq and Afghanistan. By focusing solely on the Iraq war, as the excerpts I chose do, it is clear that the study points out that the Iraq war has increased the number of terrorists (not necessarily from before the war in Afghanistan, though). Iraq was not a legitimate target in the "war" on terror, although it certainly is claimed to have been one by Bush and friends. Irony of all ironies, this fake reason for invading Iraq has actually brought about the opposite intention of the "war" on terror--it has created more terrorists.
Marc, talk about cherry picking. Since I am capable of comprehending your excerpt from the study, I should explain it to you. Excerpt:
Progress in marginalising transnational Islamist terrorists will come incrementally. It is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation, such as the stable democratisation of Iraq or resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
My explanation:Minimizing the terrorists is not going to happen quickly. The process will speed up when we invoke a political strategy that will discourage people from becoming terrorists and de-motivate people who are terrorists already ("elusive political developments" means that Bush and friends are having a hard time coming up with such a political strategy--or at least that things aren't going so well with their current political endeavors). Two such political strategies might be to democratize Iraq in a stable way (yah, that's happening right now (for those who aren't so good a reading comprehension, that was sarcasm (look up sarcasm in the dictionary if you are lost (a dictionary is a big book with definitions of words in it)))) and to do away with the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians (okay, sounds easy enough (sarcasm, dude)).
Your excerpt is completely in line with my main points. I don't think Bush is doing anything to decrease terrorism in Iraq ("elusive political developments"). The study claims that the war in Iraq is actually making more terrorists. Your excerpt does nothing to dispel this. Your excerpt does say that we haven't been acting in a political way so as to decrease the number of terrorists. Enough said on that cherry picking!Speaking of reading comprehension, your writing is unclear and lacking in the following: "Should we bomb ourselves? Well actually no... just those that read this study and come up with a proficiency in reading comprehension." Bomb those that read a study and come up with a proficiency in reading comprehension? What meaning do you intend to convey with "come up with a proficiency in reading comprehension." Following along, someone reads the article, and they are proficient in reading comprehension. And you say that they should be bombed. Did you perhaps mean deficiency? That is some awkward and misguided writing.
As for your name calling, I go by Dirtgrain. How much is Asshat going to hurt? But just for good measure--YOUR MAMMA.
Thank you for the excellent example on reading comprehension--lack thereof, that is. As a way to improve, I encourage you to read a lot, stop watching TV, and stop playing video games.
8 - Dirtgrain
Debbie, that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists is a conclusion of the study--not an assumption.
9 - Marc
DG
First lets correct what you would like to pick on. My statement (come up with a proficiency in reading comprehension).
What it should have said: "come up a lack in proficiency of reading comprehension."
Now on to what you still are unable to understand despite the fact the words are before your eyes.
Lets break this down so even the most feeble among us can understand.
"Progress in marginalising (to lessen, producing at a slower rate) transnational Islamist terrorists will come incrementally (A small increase, implying one of several regular steps.).
It is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments (and what are the political developments?) that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation, (Right here) such as the stable democratisation of Iraq or resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"
If a stable democracy in Iraq or resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict happens it would lessen/slow down the production of terrorists. The study clearly points out, if viewed without partisan goggles in place, 20,,000 terrorists were trained in the Afghn camps before the war to oust the Taliban. And now there are 18,000, 2000 less than before the Afghan and Iraq campaigns.
The chances the West Bank/Gaza problems will be resolved unless Hamas/Arafat/Al-Aqsa/Islamic Jihad and all the rest of the terrorists there are despensed with is about zero.
But there is evidence that Democracy is taking hold
Will this in any way change DG's interpretation of the IISS study, NO but thankfully he is in the minority.
NOTE to Shark: Where in my first post or this one is there any defense of Bush? Who I choose to support is not within the context of this thread. This post and the comments it contains are discussing the IISS study. Would you care to weigh in on its contents, or do your also read its meaning thru your set of partisan goggles?
10 - Dirtgrain
Dude, you should get a grammar handbook. You say you meant to write, "come up a lack in proficiency of reading comprehension." It should read, "come up [with] a lack [of] proficiency [in] reading comprehension." Better yet, you should have just called me illiterate (the irony is irking me here). I would further elaborate on the grammatical details, but I prefer not to teach English when I'm not at work. Does a mailman walk on his day off?
From the excerpt, you seem to overlook the word "elusive." This reflects badly on those who are making the political plans--unless you think that political success comes randomly like the rain. Their plans in Iraq are failing to achieve the intended objective (at least one of the stated objectives). Bush is failing. He is making al-Qaida grow--at least for now. Again, the excerpt that you cherry picked, without comprehending it, does not contradict my original post. I'll not repeat this again.
As for your new excerpt, you have completely gone astray from your first excerpt. The first excerpt did not simply say democracy; it said, "stable democratisation." STABLE. After all, Saddam held elections all the time. Did that make his government a stable democracy? Are you claiming that a stable democracy exists in Iraq right now? Today, Iraq is far from stable, and there is no telling if it will become less or more stable in the future. So your only hope in making that poorly chosen excerpt work in your "refutation" (I use quotation marks here because it wasn't at all a refutation--more like a completely disconnected and false blathering--sorry for the brutal honesty, but your wasting of my time is beginning to become tiresome--then again, if you learn something valuable about how to construct logical arguments or about how to read, then maybe it's worth it) is based solely on your magical ability to predict the future. You seem to claim that a stable democracy will exist in Iraq in the future and that therefore this means somehow by logic (I'm lost on this one) that the number of terrorists is not increasing right now. Confuse a cat?
And then you write this? "The study clearly points out, if viewed without partisan goggles in place, 20,,000 [sic] terrorists were trained in the Afghn [sic] camps before the war to oust the Taliban. And now there are 18,000, 2000 less than before the Afghan and Iraq campaigns." Did you miss the classic blunder part? Don't confuse Iraq with Afghanistan. Duh. The war in Iraq has led to an increase in the number of terrorists. That is a conclusion of the study--not my interpretation. You have not refuted that because you have nothing on which to base it. Rather, you bring Afghanistan into the picture to completely muddle your chance at an argument. The war in Iraq has resulted in a setback in the "war" on terror, plain and simple.
To better clarify what a blunder you are committing, I shall use the following example. Peter wants to get rid of weeds in his neighborhood. On lawn A, Peter uses a ton of artillery and manages to lessen the number of weeds. On lawn I, Peter does the same thing, except that there are no weeds on lawn I to begin with. Peter's massive use of artillery decimates lawn I, thereby making it easier for weeds to grow on it--and grow they do. Marc, by your line of reasoning, Peter's attempt to lessen the number of weeds on lawn I was a success because he lessened the number of weeds on lawn A. This is a logical fallacy.
For the sake of humanity, and so that you don't waste my time (and the time of any readers) in the future, I send you to Critical Thinking on the Web, an excellent site on which you can find links to all sorts of resources on how to construct logical arguments and how to avoid logical fallacies. Here I go again, teaching when I'm off duty. But it's for the good of the world--and the good of Blogcritics.org. As for the reading comprehension, continue to work on it. Even George Bush can read (I'm guessing on this one).
11 - Mac Diva
I'm gonna have to echo Malcolm X in regard to America's policies and consequences. Chickens do come home to roost. I'm hoping the roosting from U.S. abuses in Iraq will not come in the form of another 9/11. As the trail of evidence goes higher and higher in the chain of command, it becomes more and more clear that humiliation and torture are official policy in the prisons there, not abberations. The impact on increased membership in terrorist organizations may well dwarf what was projected before the information about the abuses became public.
12 - Kudd45
being able to write well show no intellectual superiority so get of your high-horses you two. None of us (including myself) no a thing about what is, and what isn't in politics nowadays. This is what you should be upset about, not random speculation that you unjustly decide to be fact.
Keeping us in the dark and having us all fight eachother is what keeps these people in power, whatever it is they have or have not done wrong.
Wake up! neither the right or left is correct as far as we KNOW, and deciding fact upon little if no knowledge is what led us to believe that black people were inferior to whites. Is this the kind of systematic mental assanation you wish to condemn yourselves too?
P.S. feel free to correct my grammer, i have no doubt that i've made at least 50 mistakes, but who gives a shit.
13 - Dirtgrain
Grammar is a system created by the man to keep us down. It is all about status, hierarchy and cultural capital. There is a practical purpose with grammar to some extent: to help one convey meaning as one intends it to be conveyed (message sent, message received). Of course, many grammatical errors in no way impede the conveyance of meaning. These meaningless errors are a marker of class, education, status and privilege, sloppiness, lack of a word processor, etc. To dote on such errors is to be something of a snob, a classist, a prude. To be sure, one can be highly intelligent and write with bad grammar.
Marc brought up the issue of reading comprehension, and I only intended to show his glass house and point out the irony of the accusation (pot, kettle, black. . .). You're right, Kudd45. The next step is to start debating the implied meaning of "is." I in no way meant to put myself up on some shaky pedestal (I make my share of grammatical mistakes and typos). However, for the arguments about the post, a discussion about semantics became important. For some reason, I was accused of interpreting the study, when I actually restated some of its conclusions. I then had to focus on the meaning of several provided excerpts from the study in order to show that they in fact did not contradict my restatement of the study's conclusions. Kudd45, this is an essential problem in our political age. Sophistry is everywhere. Political debates are rarely about facts and logic--rather, they are about twisting truths, debating interpretations, labeling, and a host of hollow persuasive tactics.
Keep in mind that Blogcritics asks us to follow grammatical guidelines. I think that Eric wants Blogcritics to be a professional-quality site--this will help the site become more popular, and it will help connect us with an educated audience. Perhaps that is classism. I don't try to be discriminatory, but I do prefer to argue with educated, logical, literate people who don't resort to calling me an asshat as an argumentative measure. That said, I don't have a problem going up against a keen thinker who writes poorly but clearly. As long as I know what you are saying, as long as you aren't repeating yourself over and over, and as long as you come to the table with logic (as opposed to manipulative, underhanded, obfuscating tactics that are meant to bypass logic), then I'm cool with that. Humor is great, too. Call me an asshat--just do it in the name of fun as opposed to doing it as some juvenile way to win an argument.
14 - Eric Olsen
what Dirtgrain said
15 - Mac Diva
I don't get 'asshat.' It seems to me that, literally, it would be 'covering for the buttocks.' In other words, panties or shorts or briefs. So, trying to peep the Right Wing mind for a moment here, is 'asshat' meant to be a slur on wearers of underwear?
16 - Eric Olsen
my understanding is that the object of derision is being likened to the hat itself, ie they dwell in said nether regions.
17 - Mac Diva
So, would 'vaginahat' be an insult, too?
And, wouldn't gay men be happily 'asshats'?
18 - Shark
At Blogcritics, we've been running low on original insults, so I think it's great that Marc can combine clothing with sexual/anatomical parts. Very creative! (...and Andre Breton is smiling down from Heaven!)
Feel free to use any of the following, as long as you give me credit:
"You...
...Dick glove!
...Penis pants!
...Nipple knickers!
...Scrotum suspenders!
...Ball boots!
...Clitoris coat!
...Tit tie!
...Shit shirt!
...Vulva vest!
...Anus sock!
...Rump rubber!
~and my favorite:
...Butt bonnet! (MUCH more musical than "asshat"!)
Have fun, all you logical butt-bonnets,
Dada
19 - Shark
re: creation of new terrorists - Al Kayda "members" aren't the only anti-American terrorists out there.
And although it's only anecdotal evidence, I know at least a couple of my close friends who've become terrorists thanks to Bush. They feel it's their patriotic duty.
So there:
Make that total eighteen thousand AND TWO.
20 - Shark
PS: Intercepted "chatter" suggests they're moving toward Crawford Texas with a bag of pretzels and a mountain bike.
21 - Kudd45
Shark :
You're such an idiot, but a funny idiot and thats always excusable.
keep up the non-sensical jargon, it keeps those who can write intelligently humbled and off their high-horses.
Good job
22 - Dirtgrain
U.S. Doubles Number of Terrorism Deaths in 2003