Add new comment

USMarinesTanker wrote, <blockquote>However, despite the increase in global terror incidents there have been NO (zip, zero, zilch, nada, none, etc.) terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.</blockquote> I suppose you think repeating synonyms for zero adds rhetorical emphasis to your point, but I already acknowledged in my previous reply to you that there has not been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. <i>My</i> point is that terrorism worldwide has risen dramatically since the invasion of Iraq. To assume that this will not eventually blow back to U.S. soil is wishful thinking. As for the three instances of thwarted terrorism that you listed, I'm certainly glad that the would-be perpetrators were caught, but the war in Iraq didn't play any role in helping stop them. Two of your three examples -- the one in Florida, and the one in Canada -- were cases of "home-grown" terrorism, in which the people arrested were citizens of the countries they planned to attack. How many were from Iraq? Zero. Nada. Zip. Assem Hammoud, the ringleader of the second example on your list, was Lebanese and was arrested by Lebanese authorities. (It's fortunate that they were able to apprehend him before Israel began bombing.) According to one of the officials who interrogated him, he [http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-new-prince-of-terrorism/2006/07/08/1152240535591.html became involved with militant Islamic websites in 2003, soon after the U.S. invaded Iraq]. "He was angry with what America was doing in Iraq, and he began spending time on these Islamic sites and chat rooms," the official said. "He became more and more deeply involved. He sank into this extremist environment." In this case, in other words, it's possible that the war in Iraq may have been what <i>motivated</i> him to become a terrorist. So kudos to the FBI for catching him, but I don't see how this shows the war in Iraq making us safer. The disturbing thing to me about these plots -- none of which came close to fulfillment, fortunately -- is that two of your three examples involve people who were citizens of either the U.S. or Canada deciding to become terrorists. We're fortunate that they were so amateurish, because home-grown terrorists are going to be harder to stop than foreign citizens. And the fact that we're talking about this kind of anger from people whose nationalities and ethnic backgrounds are this diverse demonstrates my point that making the WORLD a more dangerous place also increases the danger of attacks on U.S. soil. USMarinesTanker also wrote, <blockquote>I cannot recall a single news account (paper, tv, radio) of one successful reconstruction effort. No one reports them because it doesn't sell.</blockquote> For starters here, I should point out that the examples you cited of successful efforts to interdict terrorists in the United States and Canada were all taken from news accounts. You're playing a contradictory game here. On the one hand, you cite the news media as authorities when it helps make your argument. On the other hand, you dismiss them as biased when their reports <i>don't</i> support your argument. It's true that journalists are more inclined to report dramatic events than non-dramatic ones, but that's a distortion whose effects are a lot more complicated than your comments suggest. In 2001, for example, approximately 100 times as many people died prematurely in the United States from tobacco-related diseases as died from terrorist attacks, but guess which threat got more coverage? Media sensationalism also helped spread the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that got us into this war in the first place. You're presuming that the media have an anti-war agenda, but it's just as easy to make the argument that they actually have a <i>pro</i>-war agenda. You write that you haven't seen any news accounts of reconstruction efforts, but I <i>have</i> seen some. I agree that there haven't been many, but some of the reasons for this don't support your assumptions about a "media agenda." For one thing, the situation in Iraq has gotten so dangerous for journalists that they have to take extraordinary security measures, which in turn limits their reporting. A case in point is ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff, who visited Iraq in January for the precise purpose of doing what you accuse journalists of failing to do: reporting the good news that the Bush administration complains is ignored by the news media. Woodruff spent a day chatting with friendly Iraqis on the street and eating ice cream at a Baghdad shop to show the "normal" side of life in Iraq. The following day, he and an ABC cameraman were badly wounded and nearly killed traveling in a routine military convoy. Incidentally, the war in Iraq has already been the deadliest war for journalists since World War II. So far, 99 journalists and their assistants have been killed in the war, which is more than the number killed during 20 years of war in Vietnam or the civil war in Algeria. Finally, there is one other reason why journalists are unlikely to focus on reconstruction projects. When they <i>do</i> publicize them, the projects become targets for terrorist attack. You might want to read the observations of Robert J. Callahan, a former press attache at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad: http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4071 He writes, <blockquote>Well, the media did run positive stories, perhaps not as many as we would have liked, but again the situation in Iraq often made it difficult, impractical or counterproductive to get coverage for the good news. For example, we stopped taking reporters to the inaugurations of many reconstruction projects because, as we quickly learned to our dismay, publicity might invite a terrorist attack. On several occasions, one involving a school, terrorists struck the site and killed innocent people the day after an article or television story appeared. We concluded that good publicity simply wasn't worth the cost in lives and damage, and we stopped advertising them. It was frustrating, to be sure, but prudent.</blockquote> USMarinesTanker also wrote, <blockquote>Over 80% of the fighters in Iraq are from foreign countries.</blockquote> I don't know where you come up with a figure like 80%. It's the opposite of everything I've seen from every other source. The Washington Post reported last year that foreign fighters comprised between 4 to 10 percent of all insurgents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html I know you don't trust the news media, but if you read the article, you'll see that its information is taken from U.S. military officials whom it quotes by name. CENTCOM estimated in the summer of 2005 that 90 percent of the insurgency was Iraqi and Sunni, with a maximum of 10 percent foreigners. Who should I believe, you or CENTCOM? Moreover, these estimates are consistent with what President Bush said in November of last year in his "Plan for Victory" speech to naval cadets at Annapolis. According to Bush, "The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein. And they reject an Iraq in which they're no longer the dominant group. ... The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein, people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. ... The third group is the smallest but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda." Finally, USMarinesTanker wrote: <blockquote>May I also remind the reader that NO U.S. Troops have been charged with any war crimes other than the Abu Ghraib "torture" scandal. Our Marines in Haditha and Soldiers accused of raping and murder of a 14 y/o girl are innocent until proven guilty.</blockquote> It's interesting that you feel compelled to put quote marks around the word "torture." Do you believe that torture happened at Abu Ghraib, or don't you? Since you read milblogs, I'm sure you know that many milbloggers and supporters of the war are utterly contemptuous of the torture revelations at Abu Ghraib. It's not uncommon to see people write that the only bad thing about Abu Ghraib was the fact that the photos got published. A number of people have suggested that newspapers were guilty of treason for publishing the photos, and there has even been talk about shooting reporters for treason. (So much for the notion that this war is being fought to protect our rights back home.) Joseph Darby, the soldier who first reported the abuse at Abu Ghraib, was denounced for doing so. His home was vandalized, and he and his family received so many death threats that they had to go into protective military custody at an undisclosed location. This suggests to me a culture within the military that is not very receptive to investigating its human rights abuses. Of course you're right that the Marines in Haditha and the soldiers accused of murdering that 14-year-old girl are entitled to a fair trial, with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. They have the same rights as the accused terrorists you mentioned in Florida or anyone else who is accused of a crime. Everyone has that right. This doesn't mean, however, that the rest of us have to wait until after the trial before we form any opinion. I believe that the accused terrorists in Florida are guilty (even though they haven't gone to trial yet), and I also believe that the marines in Haditha and the soldiers accused of rape/murder are guilty. I believe this based on the information I've seen to date, and I'm prepared to revise my opinion if I see other information that suggests otherwise. In the case of Haditha, I think they're guilty in part because I've watched the video of an interview with James Crossen, the marine who was badly injured by the roadside bomb in Haditha that served as a catalyst for the killings. (Another marine, Miguel Terrazas, was killed.) Crossen was removed from the scene for treatment of his injuries and did not see the killings firsthand, but he was friends with the soldiers who <i>did</i> the killing, and he has spoken with them after the events. The interview makes it clear that he thinks of them as "good guys" and that he is not at all sympathetic with the Iraqis who were killed, but nevertheless he believes that the marines committed a massacre. I don't think he'd be saying that if he didn't have good reason to believe it were true. Here's the video so you can watch it yourself: http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=68258&catId=81 As for the rape/murder of the 14-year-old girl and her family, the circumstances under which this came to light (through the confession of one of the soldiers involved), combined with other known facts about the character of the instigator, Steven Green, suggest to me that the charges are probably true.