Will this war create more terrorist?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
One, have you bothered checking on any of those sources? I have. Many are coming from random quotes from unknown people in Iraq. Not the most reliable information.

Dear Thraxen,
I think you owe me an apology about this.
 

Tates

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 25, 2000
9,079
10
81
Link for the naive: The New York Times | January 27, 2003

In the end, if an American-led invasion ousts Mr. Hussein, and especially if an attack is launched without convincing proof that Iraq is still harboring forbidden arms, history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors.

.....figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.

 

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
Originally posted by: Tates
Link for the naive: The New York Times | January 27, 2003

In the end, if an American-led invasion ousts Mr. Hussein, and especially if an attack is launched without convincing proof that Iraq is still harboring forbidden arms, history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors.

.....figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.

So how many civilians? Don't just say a million caused by wars.
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
I think that the whole notion of inaction in the hopes of not upsetting terrorists is ridiculous. These terrorist types already want to kill us... why should we worry about offending them? Can they kill us twice?

I think this current military action will serve to curb terrorism at, at least, the state-sponsored level. It doesn't make being a suicide bomber so cool when you know your family isn't gonna get a dime from a regime that no longer exists.

If a bully pops me in the nose, I'm coming back with a baseball bat and I'm not gonna worry about pissing him off. The bully invariably finds somebody else to pick on.
 

Tates

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 25, 2000
9,079
10
81
So how many civilians? Don't just say a million caused by wars.

Give us all a huge break. Unlike your "infallible" link, this article does not pretend to know the exact numbers. To ignore the obvious and overwhelming is denial.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
When Iraqi soldiers mortar their own people, your "link" attributes the deaths to the US:

"The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). "

Sorry but blaming us when Saddam murders his own people isn't credible.
 

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
Sorry but blaming us when Saddam murders his own people isn't credible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Saddam. I know he is a bad guy, and ultimately we need to remove him.
But this war, this war is lack of justification.
Firstly, Bush Administration said, "there is a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda."
Then they claimed, "they have WMD."
Finally "we have to remove Saddam for the Iraqi people."

I really suppored resolutions by UN even though it would take a long time.
I still believe it's much better way and safer way.

 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
I don't think it will ultimately be the numbers of civilian casualties that spurs additional extremist anti-American sentiment, but the fact that pretty much all non-US media, including the BBC and especially Al-Jazeera, have been heavily emphasizing the death count and showing graphic images of dead and injured civilians.

All it took to incence many rank and file Al-Qaeda into hating the US was the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, who were pretty much minding their own business. How do you think Arabs with a mindset that gets fanatical over a few troops in Saudi Arabia are going to feel about American Troops keeping the peace (not how fanatics will see it) in Iraq and Afghanistan? Our increased presence is probably going to get them even more worked up.

If the war's only purpose was to reduce terrorism, it's pretty likely it will fail. I have no doubt that Iraq will be significantly better off, but sincerely fear that America will be marginally less safe in the long run because of the war. Given the horrible human suffering in pre-war Iraq, I personally can live with the tradeoff. Staying with the UN approach, despite all other arguments about its merits, wouldn't have magically eliminated all fanatical anti-US sentiment anyway.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: ub4me
Sorry but blaming us when Saddam murders his own people isn't credible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Saddam. I know he is a bad guy, and ultimately we need to remove him.


I'm not saying you are.

I'm saying your link counts deaths caused by Saddam as deaths caused by the US and it's allies. I'm saying you link counts accidental deaths...or someone dying from dysentery as the fault of the US and it's allies. It's just not credible.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
Iraqis don't like Saddam and the US.

I can show you a thousand pics of Iraiqis waving, smiling, high fiving, giving thumbs up, etc at our troops, show me TEN pics of Iraqi citizens protesting our presence...

 

HappyNic

Senior member
Oct 14, 2001
641
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: her209
Iraqis don't like Saddam and the US.

I can show you a thousand pics of Iraiqis waving, smiling, high fiving, giving thumbs up, etc at our troops, show me TEN pics of Iraqi citizens protesting our presence...

well some of those that wavs, smiles, giving tumbs up, might also be afraid of US troops too, thinking they might get the kill the same way if they don't show love and thanks to them just like thier republicguards. And a Pic is a pic, it all depends on whos took it and what it's use for. Pic don't mean much unless you have unbais sources.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
TURN ON YOUR TV THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF IRAQI CITIZENS CHEERING US FORCES AND THROWING FLOWERS AT THEM RIGHT NOW IN BAGHDAD. THE PARTY HAS BEGUN.

CNN
 

BaDaBooM

Golden Member
May 3, 2000
1,077
1
0
Originally posted by: HappyNic
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: her209
Iraqis don't like Saddam and the US.

I can show you a thousand pics of Iraiqis waving, smiling, high fiving, giving thumbs up, etc at our troops, show me TEN pics of Iraqi citizens protesting our presence...

well some of those that wavs, smiles, giving tumbs up, might also be afraid of US troops too, thinking they might get the kill the same way if they don't show love and thanks to them just like thier republicguards. And a Pic is a pic, it all depends on whos took it and what it's use for. Pic don't mean much unless you have unbais sources.

How about tons of video? Turn on your T.V.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
Originally posted by: HappyNic
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: her209
Iraqis don't like Saddam and the US.

I can show you a thousand pics of Iraiqis waving, smiling, high fiving, giving thumbs up, etc at our troops, show me TEN pics of Iraqi citizens protesting our presence...

well some of those that wavs, smiles, giving tumbs up, might also be afraid of US troops too, thinking they might get the kill the same way if they don't show love and thanks to them just like thier republicguards. And a Pic is a pic, it all depends on whos took it and what it's use for. Pic don't mean much unless you have unbais sources.

How about tons of video? Turn on your T.V.

;)
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: ub4me
One, have you bothered checking on any of those sources? I have. Many are coming from random quotes from unknown people in Iraq. Not the most reliable information.

ABC - ABC News (USA)
ABC[AU] - ABC News Online (Australia)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AFR - Australian Financial Review
ALB - Al Bawaba
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CBC - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committee of the Red Cross
IHT - International Herald Tribune
IND - The Independent {London]
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
PDT - Pakistan Daily Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
ST(AU) - Sunday Times, Australia
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

Do you think these are unreliable resourses? Do you read English?
Get a life!

You are either really dumb or just pretending to be.

All that site does is add up all the reports from each of those news agencies. And half those agencies are anti-american propaganda machines.
Many of the civilian casualties in Bahgdad were cause by unguided Iraqi SAM's that went up and came straight back down. They even fired the guy that was in charge of air defense for Baghdad because the missiles kept hitting their own city.

So many of the reports from those agencies are made up or caused by Iraq. Even the ones that were actually caused by the Coalition are probably getting reported by more than one agency and they are adding the numbers.

Those stats are about as believable as the Iraqi Minister of Information.

You realize we don't actually have troops at the airport or in Bahgdad right?
It's all just pretend.

Saddam killed 5000 kurds with gases. None of them blew him up. He executed, tortured, raped, thousands of Iraqi civilians and their families. None of them blew him up.

Wake up,
the Iraqi people in Bahgdad and throughout Iraq are cheering us. They are tearing down the statues of Saddam. They are taking the pictures of Saddam that they are required by law to have in their homes and tearing them to shreds. They are tasting freedom for the first time in decades and they like it.

Yes, there will be terrorist groups that will use our presence in Iraq to recruit and motivate their followers. But it was already happening. They hate us because we are "sinners" (free from tyrannical enforcement of religious beliefs) and because we are a prosperous nation.

In the long run, helping build more free democratic and prosperous societies in the middle east will reduce terrorism.

There are already young people in Iran, Syria, Jordan, and other ME countries that are pushing for more democratic reforms. The freedom and success of the Iraqi society will encourage these groups to continue their efforts. The free access to press and speech that Iraq will now have will help to reduce the brainwashing going on throughout other Arab countries where the only press the people see is state run or state controlled.