Sizeable minorities in US still believe many crazy things re: Iraq, Al Qaeda, etc.

[Hakluyt]

However, the numbers have fallen substantially this year

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Dec. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- More than four years after the
attacks of September 11, 2001, many U.S. adults still believe some of the
justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which have now been discredited,
according to a new Harris Poll. For example:


-- Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had
"strong links to Al Qaeda."
-- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped
plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on
September 11."
-- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of
mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."
-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the
hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

However, all of these beliefs and others have declined sharply since the
questions were asked in February 2005. For example:
-- Those who think Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda have fallen
from 64 to 41 percent.
-- Those who believe that Iraq was a serious threat to U.S. security are
down from 61 to 48 percent.
-- Those who think Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11 are down from 47 to
22 percent.
-- Those who think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are down from
36 to 26 percent.
-- Those who think Iraqi hijackers attacked the United States on 9/11 have
fallen from 44 to 24 percent.


More: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-29-2005/0004240417&EDATE

[Felix the Cat]

Meh. To many folks this issue very simple -

The Muslims smashed up two American cities and killed 3,000 Americans

Therefore America smashed up two Muslim countries and killed 30,000 Muslims

There are a lot of Old Testament Christians in the US, and these people take a very different view of Revenge and Punishment to turn-the-other-cheekers

[Starr]

Meh. To many folks this issue very simple -

The Muslims smashed up two American cities and killed 3,000 Americans

Therefore America smashed up two Muslim countries and killed 30,000 Muslims

put even more simple than that. Muslims attacked, muslims bad. That is the deepest thoughts that all too many have:p

It is so annoying to talk to people who will say "Saddam attacked us on 9/11" "Saddam had weapons, that he was going to kill us with"(two actual comments from friends) I just want to say, don't you pay attention to anything?:rolleyes:

[Atlas]

Therefore America smashed up two Muslim countries and killed 30,000 Muslims

Well this is nothing, and Americans didn't go to war just to kill as much muslims as possible but to get rid of two govnt considered as a threat to democracy. Afghanistan and Iraq have one of the highest birthrate in the world, 30k of people killed won't change much more both of these countries.

[zenero]

Well this is nothing30.000 Dead Muzzies is nothing? and Americans didn't go to war just to kill as much muslims as possible but to get rid of two govnt considered as a threat to democracy.First off: Afghanistan didnt had a goverment. Taliban wasnt officially recognized by the US of A, or the European Union. The Taliban had their headquarters in Kandahar, they never managed to completely conquer Kabul. Second: Americans were fighting a war because both of them big buckets of sand were hostile??? Stop with disinforming people! You are lame, in every thread you write, you disinform us, in every thread you write, you make 67% flaws, and i come to mind to correct these damn flaws. ( yet again ) Afghanistan and Iraq have one of the highest birthrate in the world, 30k of people killed won't change much more both of these countries.Oh really?

AfghanistanPopulation:

29,928,987 (July 2005 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 44.7% (male 6,842,857/female 6,524,485)
15-64 years: 52.9% (male 8,124,077/female 7,713,603)
65 years and over: 2.4% (male 353,193/female 370,772) (2005 est.)

Median age:
total: 17.56 years
male: 17.55 years
female: 17.57 years (2005 est.)

Population growth rate:
4.77%
note: this rate does not take into consideration the recent war and its continuing impact (2005 est.)

Birth rate:
47.02 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)

Death rate:
20.75 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)

Net migration rate:
21.43 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2005 est.)

Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.95 male(s)/female
total population: 1.05 male(s)/female (2005 est.)

Infant mortality rate:
total: 163.07 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 167.79 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 158.12 deaths/1,000 live births (2005 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 42.9 years
male: 42.71 years
female: 43.1 years (2005 est.)

Cia facts. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html)

[Niko Bellic]

put even more simple than that. Muslims attacked, muslims bad. That is the deepest thoughts that all too many have:p


I don't see a problem with that.


It is so annoying to talk to people who will say "Saddam attacked us on 9/11" "Saddam had weapons, that he was going to kill us with"(two actual comments from friends) I just want to say, don't you pay attention to anything?

Most people don't.

And anyway, every thinking person knows it was the joooooooz who flew those planes into the buildings.:p

[raven]

Will somebody please explain to me why the United States went to war with Iraq? The majority of the Al-Qaeda members involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian. When they went after Iraq I never really understood why the fuck they called it a war on terrorism. Maybe I'm lost or something? :D

[Starr]

I don't see a problem with that.

People should be concerned with the reasons it happened instead of just that it happened because they hate our freedoms or whatever.

And anyway, every thinking person knows it was the joooooooz who flew those planes into the buildings.

Well no, I don't expect everyone to believe that. And it was Arabs who flew planes into the buildings.:p But, in the very least, even if you watch the (J)news at all, you should know that no link has been established between Saddam Hussein, Iraq and 9/11 and that no WMDs have been found in Iraq, and I believe GWB himself admitted that they knew there were no WMDs. That was my only point.

Will somebody please explain to me why the United States went to war with Iraq? The majority of the Al-Qaeda members involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian. When they went after Iraq I never really understood why the fuck they called it a war on terrorism. Maybe I'm lost or something

There were apparently plans to go to war with Iraq since before 9/11 even happened, and I don't see much of a chance in hell that the U.S would attack their $Saudi allies.

[raven]

There were apparently plans to go to war with Iraq since before 9/11 even happened, and I don't see much of a chance in hell that the U.S would attack their $Saudi allies.
Yes I know the United States had plans no doubt but why were they using the 9/11 card as an excuse to go into Iraq then? The majority of the terrorists were Saudis. So how is he able to fool his nation into going into Iraq and saying htat its a "war on terrorism"? It is bullshit. He is going to let the real terrorists (Al-Qaeda... mostly in Saudi Arabia) go because they invest $$$ in the US while going after Iraq for his own personal reasons. It is fucking bs. Bush is such a crook. There's this guy I know who is real cool but he still supports that idiot Bush. Can't believe he and many other Americans buy into that shit.

[Lord_Lugdreg]

Meh. To many folks this issue very simple -

The Muslims smashed up two American cities and killed 3,000 Americans

Therefore America smashed up two Muslim countries and killed 30,000 Muslims

Simple solutions for the simple minded!

Saddam Hussein wasn't even much of a muslim, Iraq was totally secular and so was the ruling party, the Baathists.

Sadly most Americans are very ignorant and just believe what the jews tell them on the televitz.

(In case anyone wonders the jews remote controlled the planes into the towers. )

[Lenny]

The Muslims smashed up two American cities and killed 3,000 Americans

Therefore America smashed up two Muslim countries and killed 30,000 MuslimsThey hit us and we hit them back, anything less would've been (rightly) seen as cowardice and weakness. That's what the appeasers in continental Europe are seen as today by the muslims: weak, soft, and cowardly. This is bad news for continental europe for sure

We could've done something like issue a proclamation against Al Qaeda or whine to the United Nations to do something, or some other wimpy thing like that, this would've been a catastrophic mistake. Even though Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, they were enemies of the US and were/are a part of the Muslim world, so they were fair game in the eyes of the people. This is the same reasoning as was used in the struggle against Communism from 1946-1991: the Western nations, especially the US, intervened in countries like Korea and Vietnam and dozens of others, and even though our enemy the Soviet Union was not necessarily directly involved with those countries, the Western powers (especially the US) were justified because they were fighting against the dangerous hostile menace of Communism that threatened the West. The same is true today: Even though our ostensible enemy Al Qaeda was not involved with Iraq, we were justified in invading as we were fighting against the dangerous hostile menace of Islam that threatens the West. Yes, Iraq was not an "Islamist state", was secular, was enemies with Al Qaeda, and was not a threat, that's all true. But at the same time New York City is one of the most "tolerant" cities when it comes to accepting Islam in the US, but it was attacked anyway. London is also very tolerant of Islam but was attacked anyway as well, and will be again no doubt.

There are a lot of Old Testament Christians in the US, and these people take a very different view of Revenge and Punishment to turn-the-other-cheekersMost of the people who supported invading Iraq and continue to support us being in Iraq do so for political reasons, not because of any religious world view. This idea that US religious fundamentalists were the driving force behind invading Iraq because of their religious views is all hype and not based in fact. Those people supported the invasion, but it had nothing to do with their religion, as it seems you are suggesting (perhaps I am mis-reading you though) and as others have suggested many times. The reason they did was because they are overwhelmingly conservative politically

Will somebody please explain to me why the United States went to war with Iraq?See the first response in this post

[raven]

Oh I see. Still though I think Bush should have went after Saudi Arabia if he really wanted to put an end to Islamic terrorism. However we all know he wouldn't have the balls to do that since Saudis have a lot of money invested in the United States. This would hurt the economy. So in the end it's all about money interests.

[Felix the Cat]

I have no doubt that if anyone attempts to topple the Saudis - whether infidels or rival Muslims - they will leave the oilfields in ruins

I've noticed previously that the Saudis don't mind provoking and offending the US government (hiking the oil price in the run-up to the 2004 election is a good example)

The US is probably wise to treat them with caution and go after softer targets, like Iraq

[B-Pep]

There are a lot of Old Testament Christians in the US, and these people take a very different view of Revenge and Punishment to turn-the-other-cheekers

Yeah, those are called jews.

Personally I believe this is all just an experiment to see just how stupid the American "people" are. They want to see if they can wage these pointless wars for Israel and get away with it, because they could easily have planted the "weapons of mass destruction" and forged the "al-qaeda links". This is just a tip of the iceberg for the wars to come.

[raven]

I have no doubt that if anyone attempts to topple the Saudis - whether infidels or rival Muslims - they will leave the oilfields in ruins

I've noticed previously that the Saudis don't mind provoking and offending the US government (hiking the oil price in the run-up to the 2004 election is a good example)

The US is probably wise to treat them with caution and go after softer targets, like Iraq
Well true... I just think that Iraq is small potatoes and Hussein had no involvement with Al-Qaeda. Hussein is a cunt yes but he's secular... he has no involvement in this Islamic Fundamentalism shit. Not to mention that had we didn't go to war and Hussein was going to continue treating Iraqis like shit, so be it. They couldn't do sqwat against us anyway. Saudi Arabia is most likely the main culprit with much of the Islamic world connecting to there. Though yes I see your point. As I said, the U.S (and the rest of us) would be screwed economically if there was a war declared on the Saudis. I am not exactly comfortable with Saudis having such pull though. The majority of Al-Qaeda members involved were Saudis... something is definatley up over there and I don't like the idea of Saudis having so much influence.

[Felix the Cat]

Most of the people who supported invading Iraq and continue to support us being in Iraq do so for political reasons, not because of any religious world view.
If Bush voters were Baptist pacifists or Quakers, do you think the US would be in Iraq?

[Starr]

They hit us and we hit them back, anything less would've been (rightly) seen as cowardice and weakness. That's what the appeasers in continental Europe are seen as today by the muslims: weak, soft, and cowardly. This is bad news for continental europe for sure

People need to get tough with Muslim immigrant invaders for sure and it is weak and cowardly to not do so. But attacking them in their own countries is a different story and will only lead to more 9/11s.

[Lenny]

If Bush voters were Baptist pacifists or Quakers, do you think the US would be in Iraq?People decided to support the Iraq effort based on their political views, not based on their religious views. If most Bush voters were Quakers or Baptist pacifists then things would be different but only because their political views (pacifism) would preclude them from supporting the invasion.

I've seen european commentators and even european news reports say that the war was supported by Christian fundamentalists for largely religious reasons, this is wrong. It was supported by Christians, but for political reasons

People need to get tough with Muslim immigrant invaders for sure and it is weak and cowardly to not do so. But attacking them in their own countries is a different story and will only lead to more 9/11s.In the past few decades the muslims have renewed the long-running conflict between themselves and us. Doing nothing or taking minimal actions in the face of this threat projects cowardice and weakness, and ultimately helps those whose goal it is to fly the crescent moon flag over the cities of western europe. As far as "attacking them in their own countries", they have done this to us already

Saudi Arabia is most likely the main culprit with much of the Islamic world connecting to there. Though yes I see your point. As I said, the U.S (and the rest of us) would be screwed economically if there was a war declared on the Saudis. I am not exactly comfortable with Saudis having such pull though. The majority of Al-Qaeda members involved were Saudis... something is definatley up over there and I don't like the idea of Saudis having so much influence.If you think they're bad now, just think if that regime was toppled and replaced by a radical muslim government, how much worse things would be. Things would be orders of magnitude worse. This is another reason why it is in our interest to keep the status quo in Saudi Arabia