Whats with the Bush Administration and the Media?

See thats the problem, we are fighting the terrorists and criminals and also we are fighting the people who just want us out of the country. If we leave, we remove all the people who just want us out, from the fighting.

Lets say he was wrong and Al quada isn't 2% but much higher, like 20%. If we left we would remove 80% of the insurgance. They would be gone, they have no reason to fight and they go back home. That leaves the Iraq government to deal with a fraction of the headache they had before.

Sure its not going to solve all their problems. They will have to figure out what to do with the rest of them on their own. Its a lot better though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

There wasn't any Al Quada over there untill we invaded the country. If you agree there is only a small number of Al quada over there now, then the idea of being over there makes no sense at all.

---

Our war is not on just Al Qaeda. It is against Islamofascism. The war has many purposes, one of them being to suck those with terrorist potential out of the woodwork so we can either lock them up or kill them. Bin Laden's letter is an official Al Qaeda statement, but they are far from alone with that mentality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I wouldn't call them freedom fighters either.

On the other hand, I'm sick and tired of the argument that they are "freedom haters." They are haters of the west, Christianity, and especially the US. But nobody hates freedom.

If it were freedom they were attacking, how come we never hear about them attacking Norway, for example? They have much more personal freedom than we do. Or Sweden, or Iceland, or Switzerland, or the Netherlands? All of these places are much more "free" than the US in almost any way one could measure.

---

This says otherwise...

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/009294.php

The countries you named are not the power centers. The Islamofascists see the U.S. as the head of the snake, and second on their list are those who ally with us. If we and our allies did not exist any more, the countries you named would be getting invaded by Islamofascists, unless somebody like China were to beat them to it. You can bet your nuts on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Well how would we feel if cuba starting stocking nuclear missiles? Then canada got invada by China. Then in mexico there was a military coup and their leader got replaced and suddenly they were great friends with China. Then China begins to send battleships and aircraft carriers to surround our country on both sides. Then mexico invades the country to the south of them. Then china builds huge military bases in canada. Then China comes in and kills off our military and you see tanks driving up and down he streets, everyday for years to come.

---

Those would not be justifiable situations. Our situation is. You talk as though we are just bullies gettting our power kicks. That is far from the truth. There is no comparison. Mexico and Canada are not in the same ballpark with Iraq and Afghanistan. If they were, we would have already invaded them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

So why are there insurgances? It might have to do with the high deal of stress of having stuff explode all around them, and having an occupation force in their country. There probably scared to death, and worried about what is going to happen and some of them probably snapped. They are desperate for it to stop so they lash out and do crazy stuff. Then a group comes in and says they can get rid of all the problems, and they are willing to believe it. Its there only hope.

---

Because they are Southern Baptists times a thousand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

See thats the problem, we are fighting the terrorists and criminals and also we are fighting the people who just want us out of the country. If we leave, we remove all the people who just want us out, from the fighting.



Lets say he was wrong and Al quada isn't 2% but much higher, like 20%. If we left we would remove 80% of the insurgance. They would be gone, they have no reason to fight and they go back home. That leaves the Iraq government to deal with a fraction of the headache they had before.

Sure its not going to solve all their problems. They will have to figure out what to do with the rest of them on their own. Its a lot better though.

---

No, Al Qaeda would have a field day because they have a great deal of interest in Islamofascist rule of Iraq. It would also invite in the governments of Iran and Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Not per se. In 2003 when you guys invaded and oeverthrew Saddam. His Army was out of a job. These were people with varying degrees of military training and knowhow. Many of these layed of workers joined militias and the insurgency.
Shia militiamen get somewhat extensive training in Iran where among other things they learn how to handle explosives. Both of these are examples of people more trained better then al qaeda. And no i disagree, of all the subgroups i would have to say probably the Wahabies who come in from Saudi Arabia who do more then 50% of the suicide bombings are the most dangerous.
Like i said Al Qaeda is always pinned for things that happen in Iraq and they are talked about the most because the USA wants to draw a line between the war in Iraq and 9/11 to justify the war.

---

A great deal of the former Iraqi army is in the present Iraqi army, and now they work for us. Their new militias are not the threat to us Al Qaeda is. Saudis, working independently or in independent groups, might be more numerous than Al Qaeda members, but five Al Qaeda members are better at terrorism than five independent/other Saudi terrorists in a group. Most importantly, Al Qaeda is the biggest threat to us domestically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I condem those who target innoncents, but i hardly would call Coalition Soldiers innocents if you are lumping them into that group. What keeps America in Iraq is hardly a feeling of responsibility for the people who live there. You're reasons for entering were equally illegitimate.

---

I have yet to see you condemn Al Qaeda or any of the other insurgent terrorists. All I see you doing is taking up for them while condemning the United States. Is that not true? Please quote yourself to show otherwise if you disagree with that point. I explained who is on your side and who would love to kill you, and I have explained the goals of both, so why are you on the wrong side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Well actually alot of the tactics the insurgents use against civilans are quite intune with some mandates of Guerilla War....
It's not irrational killing at all, if your country was invaded alot of your fellow americans would take up arms against the invaders and occupiers. they wouldn't just sit there and take the ocupation. No one has ever done that. France didnt do it, Poland didn't do it.
The Afghans didn't didn't sit tight and let the soviets take their country, no they fought back and drove out the Soviets. And as i recall your country funded the Mujahedin to fight the soviet occupiers.

---

I am still completely unclear on what good their evil is supposedly doing. What are they helping? Remember that it is not just U.S. soldiers they are targetting, and I have explained their hatred for democracy and given you links on Al Qaeda statements that express that hate. I have explained that it is insurgent terrorists' killing that is keeping us there, so their goal could not possibly be to drive us out. Do you see what I am saying? You have not responded to that point yet. They don't want the new government to work. That is why people who vote there are under terrorist death threats. Did you read the Zarqawi link? If their goal were to get us to leave, they would stop doing the very thing that is keeping us there. If their goal were to prevent the new democracy from working, they would threaten terrorist attacks on voters, which is in fact what has been happening.

What good are they doing? I really want an answer to that question. Thank you.

Quote:

---

A great deal of the former Iraqi army is in the present Iraqi army, and now they work for us. Their new militias are not the threat to us Al Qaeda is. Saudis, working independently or in independent groups, might be more numerous than Al Qaeda members, but five Al Qaeda members are better at terrorism than five independent/other Saudi terrorists in a group. Most importantly, Al Qaeda is the biggest threat to us domestically.

---

And a great deal became unemployed once Iraq was subdued to and a great deal joined up with militias and lended their skills to the insurgency. Even today.
I dissagree with you Saudi terrorists, Saudi suicide bombers in particular cause more damage and are more then of a threat then 5 lonely al qaeda insurgents. I also mentioned to you Shia militiamen who are generally more trained then Al Qaeda and pose an even greater thread with their Iranian made Roadside bombs and weapons.

Quote:

---

have yet to see you condemn Al Qaeda or any of the other insurgent terrorists.

---

I condem the ones who target civilans are who intentionally maim,kill or harm civilans in anyway but i will not condem those who attack coalition forces. This is war, you guys have invaded with less then legitimate reasons and now there are consequences to illegal occupation. People dont welcome that and i understand why Iraqis and others would take up arms against yoru countries forces.

Quote:

---

I am still completely unclear on what good their evil is supposedly doing. What are they helping? Remember that it is not just U.S. soldiers they are targetting, and I have explained their hatred for democracy and given you links on Al Qaeda statements that express that hate. I have explained that it is insurgent terrorists' killing that is keeping us there, so their goal could not possibly be to drive us out. Do you see what I am saying? You have not responded to that point yet. They don't want the new government to work. That is why people who vote there are under terrorist death threats. Did you read the Zarqawi link? If their goal were to get us to leave, they would stop doing the very thing that is keeping us there. If their goal were to prevent the new democracy from working, they would threaten terrorist attacks on voters, which is in fact what has been happening.
What good are they doing? I really want an answer to that question. Thank you.
__________________

---

Well i am not on the same page with Al Qaeda at all and their world view is very unsettling to put it mildly. but the Insurgency is fighting to free Iraq from occupation like any other nation would do, to free their country is what they are doing and i can't commend that anymore then i could condem the cotinental army from fighting to pushthe british off of america.
You know the British called the patriots terrorists during the Revoloutionary War?

As i said before i condem those who bully,harras or hurt civilans including voters but the overwhelming majority of violence is directed at occupying forces not civilans and this is overwhelmingly the case.

[QUOTE=skysaw;687556]Ridiculous.

If that were the case, they'd be more than happy to have the US come over and oppress them, instead of fighting back.[QUOTE]


Do you actually believe this, or were you joking? Please tell me you were joking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Well i am not on the same page with Al Qaeda at all and their world view is very unsettling to put it mildly. but the Insurgency is fighting to free Iraq from occupation like any other nation would do, to free their country is what they are doing and i can't commend that anymore then i could condem the cotinental army from fighting to pushthe british off of america.
You know the British called the patriots terrorists during the Revoloutionary War?

As i said before i condem those who bully,harras or hurt civilans including voters but the overwhelming majority of violence is directed at occupying forces not civilans and this is overwhelmingly the case.

---

Your examples involve strategies that were necessary and that worked. The British were not over here to help our new democracy stand on its own, were they? The insurgent terrorists, on the other hand, are doing EXACTLY what goes counter to what you CLAIM is their goal. Does it not? What they are doing is exactly what is our reason for staying. But you say their goal is to get us to not stay. You are not explaining yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

The recent military surge has been able to surpress the recent increase of freedom fighter activies against the US occupation forces. This is a major blow against the Iraqis, and we have been able to seize control of vital areas to prevent the Iraqis from further violence against our troops.

Hmm doesn't sound the same does it?

---

LOL freedom fighters.

Quote:

---

Perspective

---

Trying to understand this insurgency with more depth than, "Islam hurt Hulk. Hulk smash!" is not the same as backing the insurgents. If Islam is the mother of the insurgents, the U.S. and Britain are the baby daddies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Our war is not on just Al Qaeda. It is against Islamofascism. The war has many purposes, one of them being to suck those with terrorist potential out of the woodwork so we can either lock them up or kill them. Bin Laden's letter is an official Al Qaeda statement, but they are far from alone with that mentality.

---

You can't fight a war against an idea. Its also odd that you said the purpose of the war is to suck out 'potential' terrorists. When you say stuff like that, its obvious why the war will never end untill we either give up or go bankrupt. Its like the war on drugs. How do you have a war against things? You can't which is why we totally failed in the war on drugs. Which is why we are failing in the war on 'terrorism'. You cant fight a war against ideas and things.

Declaring war on Al Qaeda makes sense. They are a group, we can defeat them. Except its obvious our war isn't against Al Qaeda, just like you said. Which is why we are not getting anywhere. If we declared war on Al Qaeda and just fought them, we would of won already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Trying to understand this insurgency with more depth than, "Islam hurt Hulk. Hulk smash!" is not the same as backing the insurgents.

---

:? What is saying you won't condemn the insurgents? What is saying they are not out of line for killing U.S. troops? What is making the empty claim that they are defending Iraq as opposed to trying to end the possibility of a future of Iraqi freedom?

I have no idea what relevance your point has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If Islam is the mother of the insurgents, the U.S. and Britain are the baby daddies.

---

No, the U.S. and Britain are the juvenile justice system.

It blows my mind how difficult it is for some people to condemn terrorists. When they blow up your family, are still going to be this sympathetic? Let me assure you... The would LOVE to do it. How do you feel about that? Maybe you could explain how the insurgents' actions are doing any good whatsoever. Can you? Nobody else has. Explain the logic of their actions and how, "Me Hulk blow up shopping center and then kill infidel sodliers," is connected to, "Now Iraq is more free, prosperous, and stable, and the U.S. is leaving because we are giving them such a major reason to stay." I don't get that connection or the logic of the second statement in quotes, and nobody has explained it yet. PLEASE... Explain it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

You can't fight a war against an idea. Its also odd that you said the purpose of the war is to suck out 'potential' terrorists. When you say stuff like that, its obvious why the war will never end untill we either give up or go bankrupt. Its like the war on drugs. How do you have a war against things? You can't which is why we totally failed in the war on drugs. Which is why we are failing in the war on 'terrorism'. You cant fight a war against ideas and things.

Declaring war on Al Qaeda makes sense. They are a group, we can defeat them. Except its obvious our war isn't against Al Qaeda, just like you said. Which is why we are not getting anywhere. If we declared war on Al Qaeda and just fought them, we would of won already.

---

You can't declare war on drugs because the drugs result from a market demand that is very extreme. Drug dealer positions are positions created by demand, and they would exist even if every potential drug dealer were in jail. When one drug dealer goes to jail, his position still exists, and somebody fills it. There is no way to put every potential drug dealer in jail any way. We will never accomplish a major improvement in the drug situation by fighting drugs on the supply side. It has not happened, and it will not happen.

Terrorism is different. If you lock up a terrorist, that is one less person who will blow up a grocery store. His position is not a result of market demand, so it does not automatically get filled. It is possible to bring terrorism way down, and we have accomplished that. The liberations of Iraq and Afghanistan will produce a much more stable climate in their region in the future because of the civilizing nature of capitalism. Sit back and watch it happen over the next few decades.

Would it make more sense to you if they called it war on terrorists? War on drugs is absurd because drugs are inanimate objects that don't fight. War on drug dealers would not make any sense because it is the positions that are the problem. War on drug demand makes sense, and the government has been pathetic in that effort. By stabilizing the Middle East over time, we are fighting a war on terrorism demand. We are also taking out the positions, which do not automatically get filled like they do with drug dealers.

Quote:

---

Your examples involve strategies that were necessary and that worked. The British were not over here to help our new democracy stand on its own, were they? The insurgent terrorists, on the other hand, are doing EXACTLY what goes counter to what you CLAIM is their goal. Does it not? What they are doing is exactly what is our reason for staying. But you say their goal is to get us to not stay. You are not explaining yourself.

---

There was not a connection between that president of Guatemala and Russia. He did however limit the powr of UFCO and then UFCO spread the lies about its communist ties to Washington and then a coup followed. To me that was scape goating.

Quote:

---

"Me Hulk blow up shopping center and then kill infidel sodliers," is connected to, "Now Iraq is more free, prosperous, and stable, and the U.S. is leaving because we are giving them such a major reason to stay." I don't get that connection or the logic of the second statement in quotes, and nobody has explained it yet. PLEASE... Explain it!

---

Americans do not have any place in Iraq,They invaded under false pretences and this is unacceptable and obviously Iraqi Insurgents are fighting the occupation to free their country from the grip of a foreign power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Americans do not have any place in Iraq,They invaded under false pretences and this is unacceptable and obviously Iraqi Insurgents are fighting the occupation to free their country from the grip of a foreign power.

---

So thats why they strap bombs to two mentally retarted little girls and remote detonate them in the market! For freedom.

Freedom fighters my ass. They are thugs. And you're right!!! Americans have no place in Iraq. Every free country should be taking down oppressive regimes like Saddam's on EVERY CORNER OF THE GLOBE. The entire UN should be in Iraq.

I propose a long, LONG, worldwide war not only on terror, but on OPPRESSION. It would cost many lives, but would ultimately save lives.

Then oppression would be gone for the next 1,000,000 years of human existence. But nobody has the balls to take on such a beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

There was not a connection between that president of Guatemala and Russia. He did however limit the powr of UFCO and then UFCO spread the lies about its communist ties to Washington and then a coup followed. To me that was scape goating.

---

I can't say I am an expert on that situation, but how do you know they were "lies"? Any way, I was talking about driving the British out of our country and other things. It worked. Your response still does not answer the big question I keep asking. I want you to explain how giving the United States our biggest reason to continue to stay in Iraq is supposed to drive the United States out of Iraq. The idea makes no sense. I don't have the foggiest idea what the connection is supposed to be. You know what my question is. What is your answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Americans do not have any place in Iraq,They invaded under false pretences and this is unacceptable and obviously Iraqi Insurgents are fighting the occupation to free their country from the grip of a foreign power.

---

We invaded under many pretenses, such as giving the Hussein regime the stated consequence of lack of compliance with our ceasefire, creating democracy (beyond Israel) in the Middle East, killing terrorists like flies, taking down a terrorist government, and other things. Those are true pretenses. the WMD reports came from six governments and factions of the U.N. The WMD's have not been found, but not finding something is not proof of its nonexistence, and the reports truly were given to us.

And now for the million dollar question once again... Specifically how are the insurgents freeing themselves from the grip of the U.S. by doing exactly what it is that is our reason for remaining? You have yet to explain that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

So thats why they strap bombs to two mentally retarted little girls and remote detonate them in the market! For freedom.



Freedom fighters my ass. They are thugs. And you're right!!! Americans have no place in Iraq. Every free country should be taking down oppressive regimes like Saddam's on EVERY CORNER OF THE GLOBE. The entire UN should be in Iraq.

I propose a long, LONG, worldwide war not only on terror, but on OPPRESSION. It would cost many lives, but would ultimately save lives.

Then oppression would be gone for the next 1,000,000 years of human existence. But nobody has the balls to take on such a beast.

---

I agree with every word of that, but I will add that the U.S. and Britain have the balls to take on part of that beast. If enough of the rest of the world would join us, the U.S. and Britain would be very much inolved in that necessary project. It is nauseating how apathetic most of the rest of the world is.

Thats where you are wrong. Taking out a drug dealer is the same as taking out a terrorist. Its has become obvious every time we kill a terrorist another one just takes his place. We can see this all over. We have brought terrorism down at all. Where is the proof of that? If anything its worse off now. Theres more terrorists now than when we started.

If anything we increase the demand of terrorist by the stuff we are doing over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats where you are wrong. Taking out a drug dealer is the same as taking out a terrorist. Its has become obvious every time we kill a terrorist another one just takes his place. We can see this all over. We have brought terrorism down at all. Where is the proof of that? If anything its worse off now. Theres more terrorists now than when we started.

If anything we increase the demand of terrorist by the stuff we are doing over there.

---

No, the statistics show that the killings are way down and that tons of areas of Iraq are much more stable now. We have also successfully gottent large percentages of the people who live in those areas to turn against the insurgents. Well, the insurgents have a lot to do with that too, because they are so fucking stupid. People tend to turn against those who target them.

It is not true that every terrorist is replaced. The changes show that. It does not work the same way with drug dealers. Let's say you and fifty people in your social network are regular pot smokers. Five dealers supply the drugs to all fifty of you. If three of those dealers are put in jail, either the other two are going to quickly pick up the slack and keep getting the drugs to you all (directly and indirectly through people in the market) or other drug dealers are going to take the places of the three who went to jail. That is because what drives the drug market is the demand. You and your friends and their friends are going to get pot. That is how it works, and I know it first hand. Pot smokers find their pot. It is one of the laws of reality. So the war on drugs is a big stupid joke because the people who support it think that if you arrest three out of five drug dealers, then the drug consumption of their market is decreased by something close to 3/5. In reality, it is at most decreased like 1/5 for maybe two days until the market finds the necessary replacements. The war on drugs is insane for that reason, among others. But if 100 terrorists are arrested or killed during a war, there is not some market that has their actions equally replaced right away. There are just 100 fewer terrorists than there otherwise would be. It is true that more people become terrorists every day, and the wars do add to the numbers, but the wars take away a whole lot more than they add. The changes in Iraq show that. The much more stable future will show it even more.

Thats not true. The US was saying how we wiped out 70% of Al qaeda, 5 years ago. Yet clearly they are still there, and its like we havn't done anything. Obviously the come back very quickly, or else 5 years of fighting could of killed the last 30%.

Also Iraq isn't any more stable now than it was before. People are still dying, and things blow up just as often. There is very little real progress. I am not sure what changes your talking about. There are still entire areas of the country where the US troops can't go because they are to dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats not true. The US was saying how we wiped out 70% of Al qaeda, 5 years ago. Yet clearly they are still there, and its like we havn't done anything. Obviously the come back very quickly, or else 5 years of fighting could of killed the last 30%.

---

They said 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership has been killed or captured. That is part of the reason why Al Qaeda has been seriously impaired. They also have not attacked us again domestically since 9/11. Overthrowing two terrorist governments has helped a lot in that effort. Al Qaeda was expecting us to be a "paper tiger", thanks to Bill Clinton's genius Somalia withdrawal and Ford's genius Vietnam withdrawal. By overthrowing two terrorist governments, we have given Al Qaeda and their potential recruits a totally different perspective on what they are dealing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Also Iraq isn't any more stable now than it was before. People are still dying, and things blow up just as often. There is very little real progress. I am not sure what changes your talking about. There are still entire areas of the country where the US troops can't go because they are to dangerous.

---

The dying has gone way down, and lots of provinces are so stable now that children play in the streets and Al Qaeda can't bully the people. It is a fact. Even the Communist News Network admits it, though bitterly.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Some other articles:

http://www.kingforcongress.com/clipp...mdeskiraq2.htm

http://www.mediaresearch.org/reality...ax20051213.asp

http://include.nurse.com/apps/pbcs.d...12/0/frontpage

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=16555907

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/P...rge_is_working

That doesn't mean anything. In the time we been there we have seen violence raise and lower all the times. A temporary drop in voilence fits the pattern for the last 5 years. Saying this recent drop some how shows we are now winning is silly. Especially since they have said that every other time it happen, and it only resulted in an increase a few months later.

Also not being attacked since 9/11 doesn't mean anything. We hadn't really been attacked before 9/11 either. Its very likely it was only a one time thing, and that all it ever was, no matter what we did. Its hard to say the lack of attacks is proof we are winning, when there wasn't a history of attacks in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

And now for the million dollar question once again... Specifically how are the insurgents freeing themselves from the grip of the U.S. by doing exactly what it is that is our reason for remaining? You have yet to explain that

---

I dunno, im not expert on it but wear and tear probably. They aren't gonna sit tight with you guys patrolling their streets and shit like that. You guys have to much sway with their "democratically elected gov" anyway.

I wonder whos will it reflects that a pipleine be created from the iraqi oil fields to Haifa in Israel? Hmmm american interference...

Anyway the invasion of iraq has put people like al qaeda in the mainstream. atleast with their view point about attacking the west.

Sure al qaeda attacked the USA and massacred thousands but by invading a muslim country that type of attack "infedel west" view point is becoming more acceptable and is spawning copycats, thank god meany of these copycats get sloppy and get after awhile. but some get through and suceed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That doesn't mean anything. In the time we been there we have seen violence raise and lower all the times. A temporary drop in voilence fits the pattern for the last 5 years. Saying this recent drop some how shows we are now winning is silly. Especially since they have said that every other time it happen, and it only resulted in an increase a few months later.

---

Iraq is in better shape than it has been in decades. See the articles I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Also not being attacked since 9/11 doesn't mean anything. We hadn't really been attacked before 9/11 either. Its very likely it was only a one time thing, and that all it ever was, no matter what we did. Its hard to say the lack of attacks is proof we are winning, when there wasn't a history of attacks in the first place.

---

Al Qaeda exists for the purpose of making us extinct. 9/11 was their declaration of war against us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I dunno, im not expert on it but wear and tear probably. They aren't gonna sit tight with you guys patrolling their streets and shit like that. You guys have to much sway with their "democratically elected gov" anyway.

I wonder whos will it reflects that a pipleine be created from the iraqi oil fields to Haifa in Israel? Hmmm american interference...

---

I am saying that all the insurgents ever had to do to get us to withdraw was not be insurgents. So their killing is going against what you say they are trying to accomplish. That suggests that it is the new democracy that they are really acting against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Sure al qaeda attacked the USA and massacred thousands but by invading a muslim country that type of attack "infedel west" view point is becoming more acceptable and is spawning copycats, thank god meany of these copycats get sloppy and get after awhile. but some get through and suceed.

---

Al Qaeda already had a world megaphone as a result of 9/11. The Girls Gone Wildization of Iraq and Afghanistan will be a sign that we are winning over freedom lovers. We will soon be at the point where Al Qaeda will not be able to stop the freight train we have created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

So thats why they strap bombs to two mentally retarted little girls and remote detonate them in the market! For freedom.

Freedom fighters my ass. They are thugs. And you're right!!! Americans have no place in Iraq. Every free country should be taking down oppressive regimes like Saddam's on EVERY CORNER OF THE GLOBE. The entire UN should be in Iraq.

I propose a long, LONG, worldwide war not only on terror, but on OPPRESSION. It would cost many lives, but would ultimately save lives.

Then oppression would be gone for the next 1,000,000 years of human existence. But nobody has the balls to take on such a beast.

---

I disagree, the invasion of Iraq in aprticular has spawned nothing but hatred for the west (America and Britain in particular). The USA had lots of sympathy after 9/11 even from Iran and you guys could of done something prodoctive with it. Instead...the west and america are now being openly targeted by groups like al qaeda and wannabees and most of it was spawned from the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/stories.asp

http://www.operationiraqichildren.or...schoolboys.jpg

http://www.operationiraqichildren.or...s/OICboxes.jpg http://www.operationiraqichildren.or...ildrenOIC4.jpg http://www.operationiraqichildren.or...e-two-boys.jpg

http://media.collegepublisher.com/me...48612-56-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Iraq is in better shape than it has been in decades. See the articles I posted.



Al Qaeda exists for the purpose of making us extinct. 9/11 was their declaration of war against us.



I am saying that all the insurgents ever had to do to get us to withdraw was not be insurgents. So their killing is going against what you say they are trying to accomplish. That suggests that it is the new democracy that they are really acting against.



Al Qaeda already had a world megaphone as a result of 9/11. The Girls Gone Wildization of Iraq and Afghanistan will be a sign that we are winning over freedom lovers. We will soon be at the point where Al Qaeda will not be able to stop the freight train we have created.

---

I dont understand the insurgents at all completely i guess each has his own
reason for doing what he does and influences him.

But i dont think america can continue with the freight train that you started. There is a lack of public will,economy is coming down and such. Eventually it will run out of steam so to speak.

However i am supportive of whats going on in Afghanistan,at one point afghanistan looked like a success story but now its coming to because of a lack of military will on behalf of some NATO nations and a rise of the Taliban.

I read alitle on the taliban and they seem to be the sickest fucks out there...to bad they are carving a mini state in Pakistan.