The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The beauty of a study like this is that their sources of information are clearly articulated for anyone to search, authenticate, and replicate the study if they so desire. Unlike an opinion piece, where people can rant and rave and not have to prove a dang thing.

Yes.

Facts, however, hurt the administration.

Thus, they embolden the enemy and are unpatriotic.

Since the administration markets opinion as facts, facts must then become opinion.

There you have it!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The beauty of a study like this is that their sources of information are clearly articulated for anyone to search, authenticate, and replicate the study if they so desire. Unlike an opinion piece, where people can rant and rave and not have to prove a dang thing.

Exactly my point. Noone can say that they are trying to hide anything. Its all for the reader to disassemble and subject to his/her own internal critical thinking processes.

What tends to happen however is that people end up politicising these thigns with their own inherent biases, it has nothing to do with the content of the article.

Hence you end up with one group of people who don't read the article or don't understand it (and are offended by things like the title); and on the other, those people who accept this sort of article as gospel truth without question or any attempt at criticism - because of course, there are flaws... At the end of the day, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the article, except in the loosest, most superficial manner, and the discourse will continue in circular fashion without any reference to its particular merits or lack of...

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[peezey 0]

The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

The guys were on NPR this morning. They used conservative think tank numbers as well as numbers from DOD. What else do you want?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

...a house of cards.

I haven't seen any evidence of increased terrorism worldwide. And I haven't seen any evidence that if there is an increase it is due to Iraq. These clowns are making assumptions they cannot support either.

The guys were on NPR this morning. They used conservative think tank numbers as well as numbers from DOD. What else do you want?

Probably no mention of NPR, because these days source (as opposed to content) automatically adds the liberal media label

Its another piece of a very large puzzle.

[pedroh 21]

The beauty of a study like this is that their sources of information are clearly articulated for anyone to search, authenticate, and replicate the study if they so desire. Unlike an opinion piece, where people can rant and rave and not have to prove a dang thing.

Yes.

Facts, however, hurt the administration.

Thus, they embolden the enemy and are unpatriotic.

Since the administration markets opinion as facts, facts must then become opinion.

There you have it!

LOL

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Has anyone actually dissected the numbers, sources, definitions, time frames, funding sources, biases of the authors and contributors, etc. (important to determining motivation for the sources and tenor used) before taking sides? There is so much more to understanding a study than merely reading it.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Green-eyed girl