If there's no threat of terror, and the US just invented that as means to invade Iraq..?

Question

which significantly resulted in the creation of a threat which never before existed, then why did the fundamentalists attack the twin towers?

Answer 1

Terrorism has been around since the dawn of civilization -- it just went under different names at different times -- bandits, brigands, zealots, barbarians, pirates -- but all are really just a specific type of criminal using a particular tactic.

The Iraq invasion had nothing to do with terrorism -- for all his other faults, Saddam hated terrorists as much as we do. We attacked Saddam for entirely unrelated reasons -- nothing to do with the "war on terrorism".

As to that so-called war against a concept --- terrorism will continue to exist as long as people act based on fear and hatred and prejudice -- and force of arms will never end that.

Fundamentalists attacked us in 2001 -- as they have every other time in the past -- because they hate us. However, rather than putting most of our efforts into going after them we headed off in a different directly and left only a token force in pursuit.

Answer 2

Iraq did not attack the US. Iraq did not aid the people that did. Iraq was a threat, but a contained threat that did not warrant an invasion. Iraq was not a fundamentalist Shia regime before we invaded (It was Suni and mostly secular),

So these 20 fundamentalists that attacked the pentagon and twin towers had nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with them. Those attacks were merely the pre-text to finishing the unfinished business of the first gulf war. Absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with oil, and a sandbox that the NeoCons could play in while they attempted to terra-form democracy.

Answer 3

Because there IS a terror threat. The liars are the terror war deniers. That would be the Democrats, and the worldwide anti-war, anti-American Left.

1) The terror deniers hate America so much because of its capitalist success that they root for its undoing. They believe America is evil and deserves to be attacked and the current way of life here destroyed. The America haters think no further than that; do not care about possible bad unintended consequences.

2) The America haters claim there were no reasonable grounds to invade Iraq and look for WMDs. but there CLEARLY were, with verifiable intelligence going back to the start of Iraq/Iran war in 1981. The reason people believe there wasn't probable grounds IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO.

3) Unless and until the America haters are successfully countered, the US will struggle every time there is a need for military force. That is because the America haters do not want America to succeed.

4) As long as the worldwide news media is heavily slanted Left, and vicious in promoting its propaganda, people will believe that the US is evil, George Bush (or any Republican/conservative president) is worse than Adolf Hitler, and will celebrate when the president of Iran is invited to speak at a prestigious American university, like Colombia.

5) Saddam Hussein was reasonably believed to be the repository of WMDs that could easily be made available to al Qaida or any Jihadist organization in the Middle East. TO CLAIM THAT IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR IS TO BLINDLY SUPPORT AND REPEAT A REPREHENSIBLE LIE. The WMDs were removed or destroyed long before the US got there, because Hussein had a slight warning time of about, let's see, 12 friggin' years!

We went in there because we couldn't take the chance that biological and possibly nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of Middle East murderers.

Answer 4

Our government was initially overthrown in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Bank took over our country's financial system and began exploiting our country by loaning money out to our government, when there was no need for them to do that , since we were creating our own money. They began creating wars to imprison us to their money loans to the Rockerfellers and the Rothchilds and their central banks. The Illuminati now run our entire country which was made evident in the '60s when the Kennedys and MLK were assassinated. These criminals who run our country destroyed the twin towers in order to use our army to attack the rest of the world and bring it under their control. They were dealt a blow when Russian's Putin took their control away from his country. Now the Illuminati has invaded countries like Iraq and in the future Iran to seize their oil and surround Russia in a threat to once again take it over.

Answer 5

The logic in the question is very hard to follow, but it's kind of typical.

Correction... the war in Iraq had very little to do with terror, but now it does. Saddam would not have stood for a rival faction such as Al Qaeda operating in his country, but he did donate to other terror groups, though the notion that he in any way threatened America was far-fetched. Now, though, it's the central front in the war on terror. Some would say, and I think it's common sense, that our presence is fueling further violence and extremism. So we now have two bad options... stay and they hate us, or leave Iraq to chaos.

Our recourses were misallocated, our international good-will squandered, and our objective slipped away in this war. On top of that, there was a distinct lack of planning and failure in judgment leading up to the invasion and following our "victory".

Yet people still support this administration... it boggles the mind. And this is coming from someone who supported Bush when he first ran against Gore.

Myron: Give me a break. It's obvious you're the one who hates America, because you blatantly despise half of the population of this country. Rhetoric like yours on both the left and right will tear this country apart sooner than terrorism. Disgusting.

Additionally, this botched war and the bumbling president you support distracted us from the fight on terror. While we're out there removing WMDs from a country you acknowledge had already disposed of them (of course he had chemical agents at one point -- WE gave him some, and he developed some of his own as well), Al Qaeda is reforming, Iran is developing nukes and funding terror, and terror is on the rise in places like Pakistan (which also possesses nukes).

No one but the straw-man you created denied these threats, but we do disagree with the priorities and methodology in going about fighting them.

And here we are, hands behind our back, unable to do jack about any of it. No political capital. No troops to spare. No funds to spare. No international support. Borders as open as could be, and limited inspections in imports. Take a deep breath, look around, and think about why that is. I'll give you a hint - it's not the people you hold responsible in your twisted view of reality.

Answer 6

There is real threat of terror. But the 9/11 attack didn't come from Iraq. It came from Saudi Arabia.

But, the Saudi, especially the bin Laden family, are the Bush family's business partners, political allies and close friends.

So Bush blamed it on Sadam, who had nothing to do with it and in fact was doing a better job of killing terrorists--just to keep his own corrupt self alive, then we ever could.

Better to ask, why did Bush pull troops out of Afghanistan when the Army was on the verge of capturing bin Laden, dealing Al Qeda the kind of damage that they'd be decades recovering from and crushing the Taliban for good?

Even better to ask, why do Bush and the "Liberal Media" keep pretending that our troops are only in one war?

Answer 7

I understand your logic perfectly.

You are right that the threat of terrorism to our everyday lives was proven on 9/11 and nothing has significantly changed or, will ever be significantly changed as long as radicals and their scholars hang so literally to their interpretations of the Koran.

The larger problem now resides within circles that best identify with the Clinton philosophy of foreign affairs -

look around for the biggest rug you can find,

ignore and it will go away,

act as though it never happened &

forget about it....

- I happen to think it's a lousy policy myself, but those Americans who need to cling to a false feeling of security in order to make it through their daily lives, simply love it.

Answer 8

I'm dizzy from following you're logic, but I'll explain the flaw.
The argument isn't if there was no threat of terror, on 9/11 that was proved. The argument was Iraq didn't attack us. which they didn't. You buying revisionist history from someone trying to change what happened 5 years ago.

Answer 9

The Twin Towers were attacked because they were angry over U.S. interventionalism. They even came right out and told us that. Ironically, we went right into their country anyway.

Answer 10

You are talking in circles.

The invasion of Iraq was about WMD's (non-existent ones).

Iraq has NOTHING to do with the "war on terror".