(Reese, Killgore & Ritter 22)
Another well documented myth is that Iraq and some active terrorist organization, of which Iraq is not one, have benefited from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, through the proliferation of Soviet weapons scientists and their knowledge.
A another fear of WMD proliferation was through Soviet "brain drain." Yet there has been no open-source evidence indicating that WMD materials or knowledge has reached terrorist hands from the breakup of the former Soviet Union.  Though the potential proliferation of weapons and expertise has to be taken seriously, several factors mitigate the danger of chem-bio defectors. First, most chemical and biological scientists who departed the Soviet Union have emigrated to the United States, Britain, Israel, and Germany for commercial jobs. Second, there is no evidence to suggest that scientists have alternately gone to Libya, Syria, North Korea, or Iraq to sell their weapons expertise. Third, some confidence can be gained from the professionalism and ingrained security culture of the scientists. Last, many scientists have family and cultural ties that make living in Pyongyang, Damascus, or Tripoli less appealing than remaining in Russia. And even where isolated incidents have occurred, the individuals have been in contact with state officials, not terrorist organizations. (Weiss 117)
The resulting truths seem to somehow escape the public and the U.S. government when making decisions with regard to the entrance of the U.S. In a full scale and almost solo invasion of Iraq and in fact the myths persist and even elaborate by additional myth creation of a direct social, political and financial connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda or at the very least Osama Bin Laden. "The CIA has been unable to tie Iraq to the September 11 attacks. Cheney speculates about a 'potential marriage' between terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Iraq. But no concrete evidence of a link has been forthcoming." (Cohn 25) in other words there is no real connection between the Iraq government and Al-Qaeda other than the fact that terrorist organizations' ideologies, such as those of Al Qaeda, are similar to many others and are fed by U.S. aggression which it sees as unfounded and central to attacking the values of Islam. (Cohn 25)
New York Times, January 27, 2001, A1 (Secretary of State Colin Powell says no evidence links Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks); James Risen, "Iraq -- Terror Acts by Baghdad Have Waned, U.S. Aides Say," New York Times, February 6, 2002, A10 ("The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials."). (Cohn 25)
Though there is little doubt among even the most ardent of war supporters that the U.S. invasion of Iraq will serve as not a point of resolution of terrorist activity but fodder for continued terrorist hatred of U.S. aggression and potentially further acts of violence, we are now so invested in the war that little can be done to extricate the U.S. without creating additional destabilizing forces in the region.
In short the politcalization and propagandizing of this conflict, that allowed it to begin on the eve of American fear of 9/11 like attacks occurring in the future, has created a situation where there is no doubt that they will. The U.S. led war on Iraq, will serve as ammunition for the existing and soon to be extremists that would be most likely to attack the U.S. And her international interests in the future. There are already so many strikes against the U.S. On this list that there was little real need to add more to the fodder, though out of fear and misguided ideas we seem to have done just that by invading Iraq...
(Preble 20) the Abu Ghraib prison scandal is just one example of how a picture is worth a thousand words and how the world will likely continue to see the U.S. As an aggressor. "The shocking abuse and sexual humiliation that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004 was the work of "corrupt cops" who acted for their own enjoyment and without the sanction of their commanders..." (Kiehl NP) Regardless of their representative "sanction" by supervisors these men and women openly degrading the strict cultural faith of Islam are wearing the uniforms of U.S. soldiers and representing the whole. These are the pictures that will endure and fee the fundamentalist camps that breed terrorists. There were many pictures available to fundamentalists prior to this event but the fresh ones serve not to control the situation but feed the ideology of international hatred for the aggressive U.S.
The foundational reasons for the war on terror are real, and a reasonable course should be taken to reduce this threat, in a multi-causal and multi-solution manner, but reaffirming that there is some connection between the Iraq war and the war on terror is irresponsible to say the least, as the truth has been evident for more than the length of the Iraq war itself that the repercussions of this aggression are more likely to worsen rather than diffuse the situation. It has also been clear for some time that there is no connection between Iraq and the terrorism that has already shaken the foundation of the nation. Those who argue that sometimes it is darkest before the dawn and that there is a need to make things worse before they can get better need to reevaluate their reasoning and recount the destructive toll of this modern U.S. aggression.
The shocking truth that emerges from Clarke's account is that after 11 September, the Bush administration did not see international terrorism as a threat but as an opportunity. It enabled the White House to secure the support of the U.S. public, and more perplexingly that of Downing Street, for an invasion of Iraq falsely packaged as part of the "war on terrorism." (Cook 34)
Despite the fact that the U.S. public, and the Congress were capable of being dissuaded to make a connection that did not exist those who see it from another perspective, i.e. those seeking to find ammunition to reiterate their belief that the U.S. is an aggressor that must be stopped by any means possible were not fooled. The early response to September 11th in political and social circles was to find and meet the culprits with retaliatory actions. In the early days after the attacks, many falsely contended that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, some even supported the idea that a war against a known state conspirator (in this case Iraq) was warranted, even though the same individuals most often cried for evidence before action. One researcher even furthered the opinion that the idea of terrorism, as a state sponsored event, should be reaffirmed in political ideology, even though at least a decade of evidence is contrary to such state sponsorship. (Mylroie 24)
What occurred is just that, the U.S. was able to further the idea that state sponsorship of terrorist activities was evident, and even as the pieces of information associated with this conclusion were rapidly and successively shot down the furtherance of the cause against one individual state was furthered and now we are embroiled in a war that has little if any bearing on terrorist attacks, of the past. The result, as was predicted by many will likely not be a safer U.S. But a more vulnerable one and so the connection between Iraq and terrorism has now been cemented not by any real prior conspiracy on the part of Iraq to attack the U.S. On September 11th but by adding fuel to the fire of future and present ideological ideas with regarded to U.S. blind aggression against Islamic nations and groups. In a bid to makes things better, we have made things worse, and continue to do so, with no end in site.
The current "war on terror" will likely become a blight on the history of the United States, just as the Vietnam war yet, with even more convoluted issues, with regard to the nature of the "enemy." There is little to create a sense that there is a real connection between a defined state with defined borders and a common enemy. Though there is a clear sense that there are individuals who allow or even support the development of the extremist views that feed terrorism, and yet it seems that these are not the people who are communicating or representing an independent nation.
The terrorist attacks on September 11th are the only real reason why there was initial support for the actions of the (Western) international community in aggression toward Afghanistan…
... Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud Thus we conclude that President did indeed mislead the public even though the evidence clearly indicated that Saddam or Iraq were no immediate threats to national security. This is a matter of serious concern because if the head of the state deliberately tries to mislead
Terrorism refers to threats, violence, bombings, etc. Terrorism is known to have a long history, but even today, the reason behind this terror by the super powers and the government remains explicit. The acts of terror are very common these days and could be found in current political and social environment. A part of terror is still confused when it is applied in the actual present world (Robb, 2007). Where the
Global Jihad, a Myth or Reality The Jihad is often associated with a certain Muslim fight against the unfaithful, one that has been going on for decades now and which is unlikely to stop in coming years. However, despite this sustainable development of the notion and everything it entangles, it cannot be stated without a doubt that this is an obvious reality. This assumption is made based on the fact that
Rational choices are limited in this setting, and may merely consist of making the best of the worst available alternatives. The American public is becoming increasingly frustrated with national policymakers who seem to be firing global broadsides but are not able to hit anything. In fact, Butler even questions whether the war on terrorism is a struggle against Osama bin Laden, his Al Qaeda network, and a few similarly minded
Terrorism Domestic terrorism is legally defined as activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State," and which are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or "affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping," (Cornell University Law School n.d.). The central
In my opinion, the 'war on terror' like all other wars is irrational and the mainstream media is not playing an objective role in getting the average American involved in the matter. If terrorism as defined in some strict sense does not exist, on what exactly is the war all about? The needs to answer this question and to have faith and belief in the government are confusing and require