Is America so stupid that they believe all the terrorists in the world are

[Bandit]

flocking to Iraq to do battle with the most powerful military on the planet? Terrorists by definition do not stage pitched battles with conventional forces so why the rhetoric? Is there no one in any media willing to question this asertion? To me this is the most ridiculous thing they have said yet. And I'm talking of a field of ridiculous asertions extremely broad. Why has no one brought up this point? Am I missing something here?

[JHB]

1. Most Americans...

...don't really think about it, at least not thinking through details like that.

That happens for a lot of things, and is part of why we're in TMTWI (the mess that we're in).

[onecitizen]

2. I just posted about this.......

in another thread but what I think is hilarious is that they are spinning it like this: Our brilliant leader had this plan all along. Take the war to the terrorists in Iraq thus avoiding attacks on American soil. The pundits have been repeating over and over the last 3 days. Obviously, a new talking point for them. What a joke!! Were I an Iraqi, I would be outraged. Were I the parent, wife, girlfriend, etc of a serviceman, I would be outraged as well. BUT NOOOOOOO, this is a brilliant plan all along from bush!

[caledesi]

5. It's total bullshit.! The morphing of this misadventure is

unbelievable.

Reasons to attack Iraq (when each reason fails, * morphs to another reason):

WMDs morphed to LIBERATION OF THE OPPRESSED IRAQIS morphed to THE CENTRAL FRONT OF THE WAR ON TERRA

What do you think is next for his "bait and switch" routine?

[jbfam4]

6. You took the words right out of my mouth

I was going to say the same thing, but you said it better.

This gives Americans the false sense of security that there are no terrorist among us. The administrations constant use of Munchausen politics is totally unacceptable. But gulible people believe it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. I said this last week too. Bush thinks we believe this?

Sure. Terrorists are flocking to Iraq to confront the U.S. Army. Sure thing W. Go take another valium.

[zbdent]

3. America, taken as a whole, has an attention span

of about the amount of time spent on a real news story on CNN, right before they cut in with the newest engagement/marriage/breakup/divorce of J-Lo.

This is why "America" believes that the 9/11 hijackers are from Iraq, that Clinton started the recession, etc.

[bryant69]

4. Actually I don't think it's unreasonable

I think it's a foolish strategy; and I don't believe that was our plan going into Iraq (our plan was to swoop in like Superman, save the day and swoop home. Unfortunately there seems to be Kryptonite all over Iraq). But to say that they are afraid of American troops is foolish.

If they were going to stand up and shoot at our troops they'd be afraid; but assuming they can blend into the crowd and get close enough to blow themselves and American soldiers up; well, given what they believe why wouldn't they? Easier to get there than to get here.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DCDemo]

10. I sent this to a member of the press re: the "flypaper strategy"

I am writing this to question you on your support of the "flypaper stategy". Actually, I have a few questions. After thinking about them and responding to them, I think you will see the utter fallacy of the flypaper argument.

1. Was/is Al-Queda primarily operating out of Afghanistan?
2. Are not Al-Queda and sympathizers still in Afghanistan, causing trouble, killing our troops, and allied Afghanis?
3. Would it not be difficult, expensive, dangerous, and time-consuming, for an Al-Queda person from Afghanistan to re-locate to Iraq?
4. Are American troops in Afghanistan?
5. Are there more American troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq?
6. If you had the choice of travelling thousands of miles to attack 140,000 troops versus travelling a few hundred at most to attack less than 10,000, which would you do?
7. How many terrorists have swarmed into Afghanistan to attack our troops?


If you answer these questions honestly, I think you will quickly invalidate the arguments for the soundness of the "flypaper strategy".

Quite honestly, it's poorly-thought out, emotional bunk.

Terrorists don't attack military targets - the very definition of terrorism excludes military targets. Terrorists do not attack well-defended and armed forces; they attack softer targets to terrorize the population, not the military.

I'm quite sure many young people full of anger and energy (as are many young people in any country) from countries surrounding Iraq are entering Iraq to "do battle with the Great Satan", but serious terrorists, like Al-Queda, would not be so stupid or wasteful of their most precious resources - trained, dedicated people.

Please...think this through, reply, and let's have a little dialogue. You are far too bright to buy into this malarky.

[Plaid Adder]

11. Here's my flypaper rant

http://www.livejournal.com/users/plaidder/25543.html

for what it's worth,

The Plaid Adder

[chiburb]

13. Thanks PA,

Another perfectly written piece.

[bryant69]

15. Let me be clear

It's a BS strategy (the flypaper strategy)--and I'm not buying into it. I am simply saying that terrorist attacks by international terrorist groups (I'm not sure what else to call al-Queda) would not be deterred by American Troops; because they aren't fighting the same kind of war. And because if the United States is humiliated in Iraq, they will take it as a victory for their brand of insanity.

[StandWatie]

24. the people headed over there..

were never going to come here, they are the one's who don't know english and come from the Islamic world.

I always thought it was interesting that most of the hijackers were usually Western educated, I think it has much to do with the fact that as a Muslim in the Muslim world you can have near any opinion you want but as a diaspora Muslim you have some need to "prove" how Muslim you are and it makes an incentive to latch onto the most radical elements of that culture.

[sandnsea]

28. Like Israel?

Losing proposition. The more we try to hunt down groups who might do what you describe, the more mistakes we make. The more mistakes we make, the madder the people get and the more 'terrorists' we create.

The minute we started putting handcuffs on little girls, we lost Iraq. Until we start treating the Iraqis with the same general due process types of rights that we normally have in this country, the situation won't improve. And fighting who knows who in Iraq does nothing about the terrorists in Manila or Indonesia or right here in the US.

It's a bullshit theory spun out of desperation.

[Q]

8. Most Americans seem to believe what they're told...

...and that's what the Fearless Leader Bush* is telling them.

- We need to expect this type of willful ignorance without a free press.

[Plaid Adder]

9. No, but Andrew Sullivan is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=323613

This is just what happens when people would rather go crazy than admit that they were wrong about something or someone. It's kind of sad, really.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[dbt]

12. Yes, we're that stupid (as a nation)

The fallacy of Murkin Logic in the 21st Century is:

"If it's on the News, it must be true."

Sadly, the converse also holds:

"If it's important, it will be on the news."

We are SO fucked!

:argh:
dbt
Burn in hell, CNN!

[ArkDem]

14. Well, I don't think there have been any pitched battles.

Mostly car bombs or remotely detonated bombs set off when a humvee passes. Some sniper attacks, as well. Probably Baath Party members doing it though.

[sandnsea]

29. What's a pitched battle?

An hour and a half yesterday, somewhere over there, I forget now.

[denverbill]

16. No, you're wrong.

They ARE going there, to a degree. But they aren't going there to attack tanks with sabers. They are fighting urban guerilla warfare.

Blowing up unguarded pipelines. Setting off roadside bombs. Sniping individual soldiers.

They aren't stupid enough to forms into an enormous terrorist brigade and charge an Apache helicopter.

[Rich Hunt]

22. am I stupid or...

wasn't that one of their chief motivations - to provoke the US into war over there?

[ninkasi]

17. Why is it so hard for some people to understand...

that many of the attacks aren't necessarily carried out by "terrorists"? Why isn't it just as plausible to believe that the ones doing the attacking see themselves as patriots in their own country, fighting against a foreign invader?

We've imposed years of punishing sanctions, killed, maimed, and humiliated them; we've destroyed their cities, left them without basic things like clean water, medical care, sanitation, etc. Yet for some, it's easier to believe that all of the hostilities toward our troops are being carried out by outside terrorists, flooding into Iraq.

No doubt, some of them are. Many, though, are Iraquis who don't want us there, and feel that they have a right to fight for their own country.

[Bandit]

18. That was indeed my question only worded differently.

Why indeed is it so hard to understand that the attacks are being committed by Iraqis who just don't want us there. Not every terrorist in the world flocking to do battle with the evil west like is being promulgated.

[Hanuman]

19. I would posit that...

the Baathist attacks and activities might be inspiring some generic Iraqis to join their team, but my opinion would be that most of the violence is coming from Baath party loyalists and perhaps to an increasing extent, from transplanted extremists who are spoiling for a fight and a chance to make mayhem against the Great Satan.

[ninkasi]

21. Your thread, and the question

were perfect. I only commented because so many people seem to lack the ability to try to put themselves in somebody elses' place. I mean, what would we Americans be doing right now, if a foreign country had invaded us, and treated us the way we're treating Iraq.

I can tell you, as a mother and a grandmother, that I wouldn't be waiting for outside terrorists to come in and try to expel the invaders. I'd be doing everything I could to do it myself. Any Iraqui who has lost loved ones at the hands of our troops must surely be too grief stricken to thank us for ridding them of Saddam, and to think that the price was far too high.

It's their country; we are the foreign invaders. Americans seem to lack the ability to allow that other people have the same human feelings as Americans. This attitude is absolutely incredible to me. We need to grow up, and join the world community.

[Hanuman]

23. Well I can't speak for everyone...

but if MY country was being run like Iraq and a man like Saddam was in charge, I'd be fighting too- BUT ON THE SIDE OF THE INVADERS!!!

Who wants to live in a society like that? Unless you are/were part of the power structure that actually enjoyed the largesse and benefits of a repressive, totalitarian regime.

[Bridget Burke]

25. Then you would be a collaborator.

Many of us here strongly dislike Bush & his ilk.

But (I've read many times) if a foreign power bombed us, invaded & drove them into hiding...

We'd be fighting the invaders.

[StandWatie]

26. I really hate Bush

no way in hell though would I want the Chinese to "liberate" the place while they confiscate American industries (to help us pay for "reconstruction" of course) and bring in a bunch of American expatriot Chinese party line hacks to be our new "representative government".

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. So if the US were being invaded to overthrow Bush, you would

fight on the side of the invaders?

[Hanuman]

30. No.

Unlike some of our more radical but nonetheless beloved and revered DUers, I do not "hate" Boosh. I don't particularly like or respect him, but I don't think the nation is in the same dire crisis that others believe it is.

To compare the Boosh regime and the state of America's affairs to the almost non-functional and totally repressive condition of Iraq is utterly bogus.

So, no, I would not fight on the side of an invading army that sought to overthrow the government.

[StandWatie]

20. it's the dumbing down of the word "terrorist"

It used to drive me nuts when Taliban mujahedeen trained in "terrorist camps" and the NA suddenly had "bases", they are the same damn thing, different hats, different alliegences, but they were all Afghans fighting guerrilla war with each other.

You can go back to Vietnam where it was VC "terrorists" (I just saw an old newsreel on a M*A*S*H* episode that came on before the movie they were watching talking about the French fighting "terrorists" in Indochina). Very, very few people would call the people who replicated or improved upon VC attrocities with Project Phoenix "terrorists", as a matter of fact one of them is Bob Kerrey, we elected him to high government.

To really answer the question though, of course not. These people see themselves as God's Army out to help Muslim's wherever they are fighting but the people who would be carrying out operations against us at home are too valuable to bother sending over to Iraq.