Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[RickSp]

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. 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. An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official. National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Surprise, surprise.

[shrike]

Quote by: article A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks

I thought you don't trust intelligence agencies? Or you do it only when it suits your political agenda?

[RickSp]

Quote by: shrike I thought you don't trust intelligence agencies? Or you do it only when it suits your political agenda?

Speaking of political agendas. To whom are you speaking? You obviously haven't the first clue about what I think and your speculation is clearly pointless. I am waiting for you to claim that the NYTimes is a "biased" source to be discounted, as you have so many other sources from the BBC on down.

You might note that John Negroponte, the Bush admistration's director of national intelligence did approve the report.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

[shrike]

Quote by: rick Speaking of political agendas. To whom are you speaking? You obviously haven't the first clue about what I think and your speculation is clearly pointless. I am waiting for you to claim that the NYTimes is a "biased" source to be discounted, as you have so many other sources from the BBC on down. You might note that John Negroponte, the Bush admistration's director of national intelligence did approve the report

Stop with your straw-man arguements.You get never tired of this.i never claimed this report wrong or right.Anyway back to my question.Do you trust "American intelligence agencies" or no?

[RickSp]

Quote by: shrike Stop with your straw-man arguements.You get never tired of this.i never claimed this report wrong or right.Anyway back to my question.Do you trust "American intelligence agencies" or no?

As I have suggested before, you should learn the meaning of the phrase "strawman " before claiming others use it. It gets really boring and is frankly, stupid.

In most cases, US intel has been pretty good. They identified the Niger "yellow cake" letter as a forgery, which didn't stop Bush from claiming it was accurate in his State of the Union speech. The CIA debunked claims that AlQaeda had close ties with Saddam, which didn't stop both Bush and Cheney from repeating the falsehood. They warned the Bush administration that the source, code named "Curveball", was unreliable and probably lying, yet Bush still used the false information. Intel had identified the aluminum tubes as not suitable for centrifuges well before Condi Rice claimed that they were part of Iraq's nuclear program. An intel agency predicted a violent insurgency and likely civil war if the US invaded Iraq. That was ignored as well. And on and on it goes.

It was the Bush administration who blamed the intelligence agencies to cover its own lies. And now Bush keeps claiming that the occupation of Iraq prevents terrorism, months after his own director of national security approved a report which claims exactly the opposite.

[shrike]

As I have suggested before, you should learn the meaning of the phrase "strawman " before claiming others use it. It gets really boring and is frankly, stupid.

Let's see .Prove that you post wasn't straw man

I am waiting for you to claim that the NYTimes is a "biased" source to be discounted, as you have so many other sources from the BBC on down. You might note that John Negroponte, the Bush admistration's director of national intelligence did approve the report.

You assuming here that I reject the accuracy of this report and you try to prove its accuracy by citing Negroponte though I never claimed anything about truthfulness of this report. So it was classic straw man .You tried to refute something that I never claimed.

[RickSp]

Pure nonsense, shrike. You have repeatedly claimed that anything that doesn't support you views is "biased". That is no "straw man." That is simply your well documented history.

My observation regarding Negroponte was a simple statement of fact. If you wish to draw your own inferences from that, that is up to you, but has nothing to do with the fact I posted.

So let's get back on topic shall we?

[shrike]

You have repeatedly claimed that anything that doesn't support you views is "biased".

Please prove it by quoting me.

[RickSp]

Quote by: shrike Please prove it by quoting me.

No shrike, I won't waste my time. If you have nothing to say on the topic, then why post at all? If you wish to communicate with me further, send me a provate message.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Shrike I thought you don't trust intelligence agencies? Or you do it only when it suits your political agenda?

In the months prior to the invasion of Iraq, the National Intelligence Council predicted that an invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict. The administration predicted that it would not.The Intelligence Council also predicted that an insurgency would likely develop after an invasion. The administration declared confidently that it would not. To say nothing of the intelligence community's doubts over whether Iraq had WMD or connections to al-Qaeda.

Take a wild guess at who I don't trust.

Quote by: Shrike Stop with your straw-man arguements. You get never tired of this. i never claimed this report wrong or right. Anyway back to my question. Do you trust "American intelligence agencies" or no?

A strawman followed by a red herring? :rolleyes: Answer your own question, Shrike... do you or don't you believe this report to be correct? Kinda tough, innit, because saying yes means that... once again ...your Dear Leader is fulla sh!t, while saying no denies the obvious.

Quote by: Rick You have repeatedly claimed that anything that doesn't support you views is "biased". Quote by: Shrike Please prove it by quoting me.

"I thought you don't trust intelligence agencies? Or you do it only when it suits your political agenda?" -- Shrike

You're clearly implying that Rick only believes reports that support his own political bias. So, any comments about the report itself?

.

[shrike]

Quote by: sonart A strawman followed by a red herring? Answer your own question, Shrike... do you or don't you believe this report to be correct? Kinda tough, innit, because saying yes means that... once again ...your Dear Leader is fulla sh!t, while saying no denies the obvious.

Its your Leader not main.:)

You're clearly implying that Rick only believes reports that support his own political bias. So, any comments about the report itself?

I really don't care and I don't think its matter one way or another. What implications it can have on US foreign policy? I think nothing will change. The people in the office choose what reports suits their agenda they not different from people on this board. But i will wait and see how it will develop.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Shrike I really don't care and I don't think its matter one way or another. What implications it can have on US foreign policy? I think nothing will change. The people in the office choose what reports suits their agenda they not different from people on this board. But i will wait and see how it will develop.

Nice out. Personally, it only confirms what I've believed since the fall of 2002... that invading Iraq would be a really, really bad idea. Everything the Bush League promised would happen from his adventure has failed to pass, while everything we warned would happen has. It confirms that Boy George has fucqued America right up the ass.

Not that you care.

.

[JohnMK]

I could have told you this four years ago. You could have paid me a lot less to boot.

[webjedi]

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Yeah, right. Before we invaded Iraq they really, really, really hated us. Now they really, really, really, really hate us.

Shame on us! We've made these peace-loving people hate us. What monsters we are! And to think: if we would not have invaded Iraq Iran would have sent home all those Russian scientists and stopped working on nuclear weapons, Hezzbullah would have shipped their missiles back to Iran, HAMMAS would have given up their desire to destroy Israel, Al Queada would have given up terrorism and opened a theme park in Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

Quote by: Rick I am waiting for you to claim that the NYTimes is a "biased" source to be discounted

The NY Times publicly released classified information - info that would help terrorists kill Americans. The NY Times, like all other major news organizations, is a for-profit enterprise. The more explosions, the more war, the more death and destruction - the more papers they sell. I don't disbelieve the report, but in terms of bias yes, they are absolutely biased in favor of war.

Go back and look at their coverage of Bosnia - a war most people agree needed to be fought to prevent the Muslims from being persecuted. It is the same for every war since WWII. Newspapers don't want peace - there'd be nothing to write about.

Quote by: Sonart Personally, it only confirms what I've believed since the fall of 2002... that invading Iraq would be a really, really bad idea. Everything the Bush League promised would happen from his adventure has failed to pass, while everything we warned would happen has. It confirms that Boy George has fucqued America right up the ass.

So after 17 UN resolutions what would you like us to do? Saddam was paying suicide bombers to attack Israel and everybody did think he WMDs. What would you have us do in a situation like that? Be like the Europeans, afraid of their own shadow and let this dictator make a mockery of all democratic nations? You think the Muslims would respect us more if we let Saddam push as around? You think they have any respect for the EUs?

We made the right decision when we went in - we haven't waged the war properly so now it's getting hairy. Eventually Iraqis will get sick of the militias and terrorists and they will solve their own problem.

::

[RickSp]

Quote by: webjedi So after 17 UN resolutions what would you like us to do? Saddam was paying suicide bombers to attack Israel and everybody did think he WMDs. What would you have us do in a situation like that? Be like the Europeans, afraid of their own shadow and let this dictator make a mockery of all democratic nations? You think the Muslims would respect us more if we let Saddam push as around? You think they have any respect for the EUs? We made the right decision when we went in - we haven't waged the war properly so now it's getting hairy. Eventually Iraqis will get sick of the militias and terrorists and they will solve their own problem.

The Bushinistas feel free to denounce the UN, ignore resolutions whenever they pertain to Israel, and then use the UN as a justification to violate the UN charter and the Nuremberg accords to invade and occupy a country that never attacked us. Looney tunes, pure and simple.

Now after the National Intelligence Estimate approved by Negroponte told Bush last April that his ugly little war has made the risks of terrorism worse, not better, he continues to lie to the American people, just as he has done throughout his disastrous terms in office.

[shrike]

The Bushinistas feel free to denounce the UN, ignore resolutions whenever they pertain to Israel, and then use the UN as a justification to violate the UN charter and the Nuremberg accords to invade and occupy a country that never attacked us. Looney tunes, pure and simple.

The decisions on Israel and Iraq were done on different chapters of UN law. In Iraqi case its does allow forcible actions.

[RickSp]

Quote by: shrike The decisions on Israel and Iraq were done on different chapters of UN law. In Iraqi case its does allow forcible actions.

No, it doesn't. The US failed to get UN authorization for war. The previous resolutions, including Resolution 1441, did not provide for an invasion or occupation of Iraq. The invasion was illegal.

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish." He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

[jose]

Quote by: webjedi Saddam was paying suicide bombers to attack Israel

i thought he was paying the family of suicide bombers $25,000 to rebuild there homes after they were demolished as punishment by Israel

[webjedi]

Quote by: jose Quote by: webjedi Saddam was paying suicide bombers to attack Israel i thought he was paying the family of suicide bombers $25,000 to rebuild there homes after they were demolished as punishment by Israel

Yeah, sort of a "terrorism insurance policy". What an asshole.

I guess you could call it "punishment" if you want. My form of punishment would be jail, but then I'm not the Prime Minister of Israel. Maybe they don't have the jail space, I don't know. I know if someone blew themselves up on Miami Beach I'd want anyone who knew or was connected with it in jail or executed. Anyway they used their houses as their base of operations, making them legitimate military targets.

Let's not forget some Americans were killed in Israel while they were there visiting by the terrorists. I don't recall them sending any flowers over here.

Quote by: RickSp The Bushinistas feel free to denounce the UN, ignore resolutions whenever they pertain to Israel, and then use the UN as a justification to violate the UN charter and the Nuremberg accords

Yeah the UN is totally impartial towards Israel. Can't possibly understand why we wouldn't force Israel to destroy itself. :rolleyes: Get real.

The fact that Saddam didn't have WMDs was completely contradictory to his behavior. He was paying suicide bombers. He attacked Iran, Kuawait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. He had been warned by us and the UN for years and years. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together could see he was a threat, and he was making no attempt to guarantee he wasn't.

My reason for supporting the war is and always has been that he could have given technology, weapons or finances to terrorists to attack us. Would you like to argue that could or would not have happened? Waiting for that to happen before we did anything is what lead us to 9/11, and it would be the height of stupidity to do that again. Screw me once shame on you - screw me twice shame on me.

Quote by: RickSp to invade and occupy a country that never attacked us. Looney tunes, pure and simple.

I expect my government to do whatever is necessary to maintain my physical security, so if it raises Europe's oil prices to prevent terrorists or despots from harming American interests - including overseas companies, and Americans overseas - then they are doing their job. Self-preservation is perfectly sane.

Quote by: RickSp The US failed to get UN authorization for war. The previous resolutions, including Resolution 1441, did not provide for an invasion or occupation of Iraq. The invasion was illegal.

1441 included the phase "serious consequences". Everybody knew what that meant, which is why it was so hard to get the resolution. Remember: Annan was making money illegally off the Oil for Food program; of course he opposed the invasion. As far as I'm concerned he should be in jail himself.

"International Law" is just another BS game of politics - it has little to do with what is right or wrong, and the UN is a good example of that; it is just a shield for dictators, despots, and terrorists.

Look at what is going on in the Sudan and tell me again how the "international community" has any interest in justice. It's all about oil to them.

::

[jose]

is there oil in sudan?