War 'creating more terrorists' is empty rhetoric

Arizona Daily Star (The Heritage Foundation ) ^ | James Jay Carafano

[SandRat]

Interesting

[kinoxi]

Killing those who want to kill us. What am I missing here?

[Mike Darancette]

Poverty and ignorance is creating new terrorists and we know who these people are because they tell us who they are every day by word and deed.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

This is coming from the most liberal rag in Arizona, mind you.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Throughout history, the message of the liberals is consistent in the face of the dangers that our country faces: SURRENDER.

[Dark Skies]

The recent leak of a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate led to newspaper headlines proclaiming that the war on terror is "creating more terrorists" than it's getting rid of.

I think the above statement has a kernal of truth but would make more sense restated as something like this...

"...as islamists are killed and as this war goes on, the enemy is working to recruit, train, and enlarge its force."

We all know there are many islamists that are going to join the jihad before this war is won.

[johnny7]

And “redeploying” to Okinawa will make us invincible...

[Wormwood]

Counting numbers makes even less sense when we consider how many (or how few) terrorists it takes to kill or traumatize a great many people.

30,000+ Iraqis diasgree with this article.

[SandRat]

I know that's why I just said "interesting."

[navyguy]

ping for later

[Garvin]

"Yet, more than five years into the long war against terrorism, we still don't even know exactly how many enemy fighters we're up against."

How about the Iranian Army

[bruinbirdman]

"Declaring that the war on terror is "creating more terrorists" than it's getting rid of is more of a bumper-sticker slogan than a serious attempt to gauge our progress."

The mooslugs said early on that terrorists from all over the world would come to Iraq.

GW said, "Bring 'em on."

Said it right up front. Better Iraq than Iowa.

yitbos

[ClaireSolt]

To me, anytime you come down hard and increase the consequences, the loosely affiliated and wannabes will decide to stay home. So this assertion has never made any sense. The 40,000 number of trainees is interesting and indicative that we let them get a 20 year headstart. Demands that we snuff it out in 5 years are pretty silly, imho.

[onedoug]

Ignorance, yes. But the poverty bit doesn't fly. How many criminals are wealthy? And most of the 9/11 terrorists - not to mention Bin Laden - were quite well off.

[stephenjohnbanker]

"Throughout history, the message of the liberals is consistent in the face of the dangers that our country faces: SURRENDER."

I'm 52 years old, and all my life liberals have told us to surrender, regardless of the size of the conflict.

[stephenjohnbanker]

My guess is 10 years to "discourage" the terrorists by killing a great many of them.

[Maelstorm]

I think the "creating terrorist" argument is silly. It is just counter any reasonable analysis from a conscious person. It is like saying imprisoning criminals creates more of them. Not to mention it is entirely inaccurate. Creating terrorists would involve us establishing training camps and providing funding to terrorist organizations. I suppose we could look at buying Oil from the MiddleEast as creating terrorists but then one would have to make the leap that all the Oil money that goes to Arabs is funding terrorists and that the individuals who receive the benefit of such do not have any moral responsibility for their actions. It does fit with the bankrupt leftist bent in which no person can be held responsible for their actions unless of course they are evil Republicans.

[Mike Darancette]

And most of the 9/11 terrorists - not to mention Bin Laden - were quite well off.

Those are the rock-stars of terrorism. The run of the mill Jihadi that plants the bombs or dies in greatest numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan are from meaner backgrounds.

[bruinbirdman]

Imho, your ho is correcto.

yitbos