[mojo2]

Well, we tried to explain this to you Cindy Sheehan supporters but Noooooooooo!

Ok. Well, enjoy the victory when it comes! You'll notice I didn't say YOUR victory. Cause it's NOT yours. It will be THEIRS.

YOU won't have won anything. Cause of you, (JUST LIKE WE"VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG) you lost. Our men in Iraq lost. The freedom loving Iraqis lost. Casey Sheehan and all the others who sacrificed there have lost. We ALL lost.

March on Washington and celebrate. You finally did it. Thanks A LOT!

al-Qaida No. 2: Get Set to Fill Iraq Void
October 12, 2005 4:33 AM EDT
WASHINGTON - In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam - and how they ran and left their agents - is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now."

Senior U.S. military commanders have said that Iraqi security forces are improving significantly and some U.S. forces could return home early next year. Yet skeptics have raised concerns about whether such statements simply let the insurgency know how long they must wait for the U.S. to leave.

In a letter taking up 13 typed pages in its English translation, al-Zawahri also recommended a four-stage expansion of the war that would take the fighting to neighboring Muslim countries.

"It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," al-Zawahri wrote.

The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, would be a clash with Israel, which he said was established to challenge "any new Islamic entity."

The letter is dated July 9, and was acquired during U.S. operations in Iraq. It was written in Arabic and translated by the U.S. government. The Pentagon briefed reporters last week on portions of the document, but the full text was not available until Tuesday.

In a statement, the National Intelligence Director's office said the letter "has not been edited in any way" and its contents were released only after it was clear no military or intelligence operations would be compromised.

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said his committee is reviewing the letter, but he cautioned "against reading too much into a single source of intelligence."

In his letter, al-Zawahri, a Sunni, devoted significant attention to al-Zarqawi's attempts to start a civil war with the rival Muslim Shiite sect, the majority that now dominates the new Iraqi government. Ultimately, al-Zawahri concluded that violence, particularly against Shiite mosques, only raises questions among Muslims.

"This matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue," he wrote.

Al-Zawahri was also critical of the Taliban, which was toppled in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, because, he said, they did not have the representation of the Afghan people. He said students of the Taliban retreated to their tribes.

"Even the devout ones took the stance of spectator," al-Zawahri wrote.

Contrasting that, he saw fearlessness in battles waged in the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Al Qaim.

At times, the letter got personal. Al-Zawahri said he tasted the bitterness of America's brutality, noting that his "favorite wife's chest was crushed by a concrete ceiling" during an apparent U.S. attack. His daughter died of a cerebral hemorrhage.

To this day, he wrote, he did not know the location of their graves.

The letter then switches to the court of public opinion.

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

The line is an apparent reference to a phrase - "hearts and minds" - often used by President Bush.

---

On the Net:

Read the full letter in English or Arabic on the national intelligence director's Web site: http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Well, we tried to explain this to you Cindy Sheehan supporters but Noooooooooo!

Ok. Well, enjoy the victory when it comes! You'll notice I didn't say YOUR victory. Cause it's NOT yours. It will be THEIRS.

YOU won't have won anything. Cause of you, (JUST LIKE WE"VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG) you lost. Our men in Iraq lost. The freedom loving Iraqis lost. Casey Sheehan and all the others who sacrificed there have lost. We ALL lost.

March on Washington and celebrate. You finally did it. Thanks A LOT!

Nice hyperbole.

[BlueSky]

This is almost as if a president lied to a nation, misled them into an unnecessary war, created new terrorists by the thousands and then when things blow up in their face they say "Well, hope you're happy now!"

Monty Python, right?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

This is almost as if a president lied to a nation, misled them into an unnecessary war, created new terrorists by the thousands and then when things blow up in their face they say "Well, hope you're happy now!"

Monty Python, right?

Why are you trying to bring reality into this situation? Don't you know that it's all the "left's" fault that we're losing the war?

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Why are you trying to bring reality into this situation? Don't you know that it's all the "left's" fault that we're losing the war?

Nah, no reality. Something like that couldn't possibly be true.

[vmarks]

http://www.centcom.mil/extremistssay.asp

The letter demonstrates that pulling US forces out of Iraq is the wrong approach – that terrorists will not simply lay down their arms when American forces depart Iraq . Al-Qaida and its terrorist brethren will not go away when the Coalition hands over security control to Iraqi forces; rather, they are committed to overthrowing the elected, democratic Iraqi government and ruling the country according to their interpretation of Islamic law.

[James L]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

This is almost as if a president lied to a nation, misled them into an unnecessary war, created new terrorists by the thousands and then when things blow up in their face they say "Well, hope you're happy now!"

Monty Python, right?

[James L]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://www.centcom.mil/extremistssay.asp

The letter demonstrates that pulling US forces out of Iraq is the wrong approach – that terrorists will not simply lay down their arms when American forces depart Iraq . Al-Qaida and its terrorist brethren will not go away when the Coalition hands over security control to Iraqi forces; rather, they are committed to overthrowing the elected, democratic Iraqi government and ruling the country according to their interpretation of Islamic law.

These would be the terrorists that had never launched a terrorist attack in Iraq UNTIL the US troops got there, right?

The US invaded and occupied a foreign nation, under lies, and has created a mess.

Having said that, the military is now obligated to stay and clean up that mess one would think.

[notloc_D]

Created terrorists, I don't think so. a bad man is a bad man, no matter what way the cookie crumbles.

[tie]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Why are you trying to bring reality into this situation? Don't you know that it's all the "left's" fault that we're losing the war?

No, I think it is just Cindy Sheehan's fault. Actually, I have no idea what this thread is about. Somebody needs to get more sleep.

[cpt kangarooski]

notloc_D--

Created terrorists, I don't think so. a bad man is a bad man, no matter what way the cookie crumbles.

Maybe, but would they have engaged in terrorism if the cookie had crumbled differently?

Some parts of the world have more terrorists than others. I don't think this is because there is a varying distribution of bad people geographically. Certainly everyplace has criminals, or at least jerks. I think that it's more because in some places, there's no perceived need for terrorism -- you're either happy with things, or if you aren't, there are better and more effective ways of trying to change things. In other places, terrorism is about all that's available.

What makes people happy, and what means they have for realizing it, will tend to determine how many terrorists you produce. If a person is miserable, and sees terrorism as a solution (or at least a way to exact revenge), then it's possible that whatever caused that misery is a cause for his actions. That isn't to say that the cause is necessarily to blame; the terrorist still chose to engage in terrorism. Nevertheless, if you're going to do stuff that seems likely to cause misery, and perhaps be a part of a chain that leads towards terrorism, it's certainly worth thinking carefully about whether you want to proceed.

For example, if you promote religion A, and oppress members of religion B, the B-ists will either roll over or fight back. Therefore, given the possibility of the fighting back, maybe you shouldn't oppress them to begin with. You can't lay all the blame at their feet, after all. Plus this just brings us back to the question of whether the B-ists, who are attempting to liberate themselves from the oppression of certain A-ists are even bad people. Perhaps they just want to be left alone, refuse to knuckle under, and lack alternatives.

I think you're trying to simplify things far beyond any reasonable point.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://www.centcom.mil/extremistssay.asp

The letter demonstrates that pulling US forces out of Iraq is the wrong approach – that terrorists will not simply lay down their arms when American forces depart Iraq . Al-Qaida and its terrorist brethren will not go away when the Coalition hands over security control to Iraqi forces; rather, they are committed to overthrowing the elected, democratic Iraqi government and ruling the country according to their interpretation of Islamic law.

Good. Let them.

[sminch]

Good. Let them.

er, wasn't that the whole reason we (well, you) invaded afghanistan a few years back?

bloody hell - you're all for invading a reasonably stable country on pathetically false pretenses, royally screw up the aftermath, and then piss and moan when the locals aren't hugely impressed with your efforts. the republicans are in power so if you want to stay, grow a spine and stay, deal with the consequences that you were so keen to create, and screw the few lefties who say you should leave. most liberals think you should bloody well stay and fix what you broke.

but then, this is all because we didn't support you guys enough, isn't it? could you please explain that one cos i really don't follow your reasoning - this is like blaming a football loss on the fan who didn't cheer loud enough.

sminch

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

The saddest part of this is, he knows he has to fight a propaganda war to win over any reasonable Muslims, but the western Useful Idiot crowd is no fight at all! They're already effectively stumping for his side by constantly doing exactly what is useful to him- declaring defeat at every turn and doing everything they can to undermine the morale of those that would stop him. There it is, spelled out in black and white. He's knows he's got to do to the 'community of Muslims' the same thing the Useful Idiots have already DONE FOR HIM among themselves! Manipulate the media to spin that he's winning and the west is losing.

How freakin’ sad to be on THAT loser side of history, but hey, that's never stopped Useful Idiot types before.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by sminch

er, wasn't that the whole reason we (well, you) invaded afghanistan a few years back?

bloody hell - you're all for invading a reasonably stable country on pathetically false pretenses, royally screw up the aftermath, and then piss and moan when the locals aren't hugely impressed with your efforts. the republicans are in power so if you want to stay, grow a spine and stay, deal with the consequences that you were so keen to create, and screw the few lefties who say you should leave. most liberals think you should bloody well stay and fix what you broke.

but then, this is all because we didn't support you guys enough, isn't it? could you please explain that one cos i really don't follow your reasoning - this is like blaming a football loss on the fan who didn't cheer loud enough.

sminch

I didn't invade a reasonably stable country on pathetically false pretenses; I've been against the Iraq war since day one. I say we pull out of Iraq now, and let them deal with it however they want (and I'm generally considered a "leftie.")

[sminch]

The saddest part of this is, he knows he has to fight a propaganda war to win over any reasonable Muslims, but the western Useful Idiot crowd is no fight at all!

surely it'll help our cause a lot more to show the world's "reasonable Muslims" that we aren't happy with what's going on either, rather than doing our best to convince them that we're not concerned about the reasons behind the invasion of iraq and the reasons behind the tens of thousands of muslims who've been killed as a result?

Al-Zawahri said he tasted the bitterness of America's brutality, noting that his "favorite wife's chest was crushed by a concrete ceiling" during an apparent U.S. attack. His daughter died of a cerebral hemorrhage.

To this day, he wrote, he did not know the location of their graves.

i'd be really interested to hear what the striden right wingers think about this - if another country invaded yours and your wife and kids were killed, would you sit there and celebrate being "liberated" by them or be really pissed and want some revenge? those who were calling for "revenge" after 9/11 can hardly turn around now and wonder why some iraqis want the exact same thing.

that all depends on each individual situation etc etc blah blah blah, but i can understand where some of the insurgents must be coming from.

sminch

[sminch]

I say we pull out of Iraq now, and let them deal with it however they want

i'd like for no more coalition forces to get killed there, for sure, but i reckon if you made a mess then you've got to stay and clean it up. sucks to have that responsibility, but that's the breaks when you take over a country.

sminch

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by sminch

surely it'll help our cause a lot more to show the world's "reasonable Muslims" that we aren't happy with what's going on either, rather than doing our best to convince them that we're not concerned about the reasons behind the invasion of iraq and the reasons behind the tens of thousands of muslims who've been killed as a result?

Sure, they should all have been happy with being slaughted by Saddam, happy with a terrorist who has slaughtered and wants to slaughter more of them, and sip the cool-aid spewed by the spoiled Useful Idiot crowd that the eeeevil badguy west is the foe they should fight, while we all go back to sipping our lattes and ignore the people who murder them in droves. Yeah, sure, that'll show the reasonable Muslims.

i'd be really interested to hear what the striden right wingers think about this - if another country invaded yours and your wife and kids were killed, would you sit there and celebrate being "liberated" by them or be really pissed and want some revenge?

You're quoting a terrorist who routinely blows up other people's wives and kids, calls for doing so on an ever-increasing basis, kicked off this whole mess with the WTC in 93, various embassy bombings, the USS Cole, 9/11 and dozens of other attacks you sat on your thumbs pretending never happened while you were blaming Bush for them after the fact- and you're asking us to shed tears over this sack of $hit reaping just a tiny fraction of what he's sewn?


So sure, I guess I'd be pissed if one of my many wives were killed after I'd blown up other people's wives and kids by the droves.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Sure, they should all have been happy with being slaughted by Saddam, happy with a terrorist who has slaughtered and wants to slaughter more of them, and sip the cool-aid spewed by the spoiled Useful Idiot crowd that the eeeevil badguy west is the foe they should fight, while we all go back to sipping our lattes and ignore the people who murder them in droves. Yeah, sure, that'll show the reasonable Muslims.

You're quoting a terrorist who routinely blows up other people's wives and kids, calls for doing so on an ever-increasing basis, kicked off this whole mess with the WTC in 93, various embassy bombings, the USS Cole, 9/11 and dozens of other attacks you sat on your thumbs pretending never happened while you were blaming Bush for them after the fact- and you're asking us to shed tears over this sack of $hit reaping just a tiny fraction of what he's sewn?

So sure, I guess I'd be pissed if one of my many wives were killed after I'd blown up other people's wives and kids by the droves.

The "hysterical" revisionists want to simply erase the root causes that occurred before this nasty little mess hit THEIR radar screens. They were too busy watching "Friends" and "Seinfeld" to have paid much attention, I guess.

Then, there are those who are so stuck in the "lessons" of Viet-Nam that they think this is exactly the same thing. Same exact dynamic. Same exact consequences, even though just a CASUAL study of bin Laden's PUBLICLY STATED aims and goals couldn't BE...ANY...CLEARER!!!

He has announced the attacks beforehand...and then he did them. He has declared war on the USA...AND ATTACKED US. Not once. Not twice. Not just three times but dozens of times his forces have looked for any and every way to attack us and our strategic or symbolic interests.

He has gone on PRIME TIME US NETWORK TV and announced his intentions, and true to his word he has done what he has said he was going to do!!!!

HOW STUPID MUST YOU BE TO IGNORE THIS OR THINK THAT EVERYONE WILL IGNORE THIS?

This is no longer a matter of closing your eyes REEEEEL TIGHT and repeating, I wish I can, I wish I can...

What do you do in war, you BRAINIACS???

You find the enemy's weakness and you exploit it.

You all (and don't make me embarrass you by pulling up your previous posts) have admitted you are aware that we are dependent on foreign oil and you all admit we should do something to lessen our dependence on it.

That is one of our weaknesses.

Well, GUESS WHAT???

Your ENEMY knows your weakness better than YOU IDIOTS DO!!!

And he has TOLD YOU what he is going to do.

And STILL you are too FREAKING STUPID to understand. Go to EVERY school and every teacher you have ever had and tell them THEY FAILED YOU!

http://www.overpopulation.org/energy.html

One of Osama Bin-Laden's goals has been to force oil prices into the $200 range.

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbin...0406020835.asp
By attacking energy sources al Qaeda is hitting two targets. First, they are attempting to damage our economy. Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is a form of flank attack. This is not to say that they might not also target the homeland — note the recent threat alert directed to U.S. oil and natural-gas terminals, processing facilities, and pipelines. However, attacks on the global energy infrastructure are likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and are easier to pull off. The physical damage they can inflict is less important than the fear they can promote in the marketplace — which leads to higher prices without keeping a single barrel of oil off the market. Furthermore, they not only hope to send our economy into recession (though no sign of a slowdown yet) but create a crisis of confidence in the political leadership.

http://www.archiveondemand.com/qfile...opics.0410.htm
Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the U.S. It was the first footage in more than a year of the fugitive al-Qaida leader. Now mainstream is speculating about very expensive oil. "Anyone Willing to Forecast $200 Oil?'' This report by Action Economics LLC explores the worst-case scenario for energy markets in the years ahead. On whether the price of a barrel of crude oil will go that far, Action Economics Chief Economist Mike Englund is quite right when he says "we suspect it's well beyond the willingness of most oil analysts to reasonably project.'' Perhaps not in the near future, but thanks to economic trends in Asia, can $200 per-barrel crude oil really be ruled out? No, says Marc Faber. One of Asia's best-known contrarians, the Hong Kong-based head of Marc Faber Limited has been managing money in this region for more than 20 years -- $300 million at the moment.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...716957,00.html

There is, however, a three-letter reason why the US will not impose a peace plan on Israel and leave the region. Baer, the author of Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, well knows what it is. “I don’t think any American politician, however at fault we are in Iraq or anywhere else, can say, ‘All right, let the crazies have the oil fields’, because oil at $200 a barrel would put us into a depression.”

It...Would...Put...US...INTO...A...DEPRESSION!!!!



WAKE THE **** UP, WILL YOU?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Nice hyperbole.

Either that or someone doesn't understand the implications and see the connections. Like my cat doesn't understand that it's really MY hand rustling the paper behind the sofa even though all the signs are there.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

This is almost as if a president lied to a nation, misled them into an unnecessary war, created new terrorists by the thousands and then when things blow up in their face they say "Well, hope you're happy now!"

Monty Python, right?

Nope. It's more like how many attacks does it take for some people to realize they are being threatened? I don't know, BlueSky.

Tell me, how many warnings and attacks have there been so far?

Then tell me when you THINK you might wake up to the fact that your life and security and way of life is REALLY being threatened?

How long do you reckon it WAS/HAS been threatened and is CURRENTLY under threat?

Or, how close will the attacks have to be before the reality of the danger strikes home for you?

And how long do you believe we will REMAIN under threat until the WoT is won?

Then tell me when it is you woke up to the facts of life or when you intend to wake up?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Why are you trying to bring reality into this situation? Don't you know that it's all the "left's" fault that we're losing the war?

No, KarlG you can't twist this one.

The article CLEARLY states an important element in the enemy's strategy and YOU look at that and dismiss it as being unimportant. That's the kind of mentality we are trying to eliminate, that Viet Nam era thinking.

Al Qaeda is TELLING us the keys to their strategy and what do YOU do? You politicize it.

That kind of silly, misguided non-thinking is on the same level as what used to pass for 'enlightened discourse' amongst pseudo-intellectual pot addicts and winos.

[cpt kangarooski]

mojo2--

He has declared war on the USA...AND ATTACKED US.

...

What do you do in war, you BRAINIACS???

Meh. Terrorists are criminals. It's no war.

It...Would...Put...US...INTO...A...DEPRESSION!!!!

And we can deal with the threat of that, and even a depression, should one occur, without killing people over it. The US has weathered many economic depressions, bank panics, and so forth; what's one more?

Would you have bombed a country to prevent the dot-com bubble from bursting?

I would not support going to war to protect the American consumer lifestyle. Let me know when he's threatening our civil liberties, our sovereignty, democratic government, etc., because right now our government's response has been the greater danger to these. Terrorists are not making the US into a police state.

It's more like how many attacks does it take for some people to realize they are being threatened?

I don't feel threatened by terrorists at all. Terrorist acts are difficult to predict and often fatal if you're caught up in one, but the same is true for car accidents or heart attacks, which are many many times more likely.

And how long do you believe we will REMAIN under threat until the WoT is won?

It's unwinnable. Terrorism will always remain on the table, and is too much beloved of governments to ever be eliminated. Besides which, the spectre of terrorism is even better (since there's no way to ensure that no one will ever ever engage in terrorism), making it a handy thing to point to and stir up unfounded fears of, when trying to acquire power. These sorts of boogeymen are nothing new; look at any red scare.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

These would be the terrorists that had never launched a terrorist attack in Iraq UNTIL the US troops got there, right?

The US invaded and occupied a foreign nation, under lies, and has created a mess.

Having said that, the military is now obligated to stay and clean up that mess one would think.

You repeatedly return here with arguments that are repeatedly smacked down as incomplete and missing, lacking in depth and understanding, shallow and, frankly, embarrassing.

The ONLY way that your post makes sense is if NOTHING else ever happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. And the ONLY reason you are able to keep coming back with the same argument is because there is something in you that renders you incapable of accurately interpreting events that unfold before you.

However, that can't be true, if your previous posts are to be believed.

As much as I kid about Canada, I know they have good public services and if you are a first responder working in the medical field then you must be able to quickly and accurately assess a person's medical condition, often under less than ideal conditions, and treat them until they are able to reach the hospital.

Not an easy job, for many reasons. And if someone in your position did NOT perform well it wouldn't be long before you were banned from performing such work. And asa I can tell, you remain employed and/or employable.

But how does one manage 20/20 assessment of a blood and guts situation yet be totally BLIND to other events?

My guess is that you have become de-sensitized to any but the greatest, most dire stimulus.

It's like your mechanism for consciousness doesn't even click ON until you hear a siren, see blood or are smacked between the eyes by a 2x4 (yeah, yeah, yeah martial arts...blah,blah,blah...).

SO maybe the reason you keep returning with your naive opinions and points of view, only to be thrashed, is because you CAN'T learn unless the lessons are accompanied by extra stimulus.

I'll try.

Stupid idiot. There have been attacks on the US and US interests, by OBL and al Qaeda for more than 10 years before the invasion of Iraq.

Naive imbecile. As one more piece of evidence that the plans and intent of al Qaeda and the jihadist movement was ongoing and was going along without regard for the invasion. Russia opposed the US invasion of Iraq. But Muslim terrorists attacked the schoolhouse in Beslan without regard for Russia's stance on the invasion.

Dorkwad. Here, (in the cited text below) you'll note that the Muslim voices condemning the violence do NOT condemn it because Russia was against the US invasion. They DON'T condemn it because Islam seeks to co-exist with it's neighbors and non-Muslims without spreading it's influence everywhere it can in any way possible. No. Those arguments would not be true.

The truth is, like ivy on the side of a building which just will crawl and creep up the wall until it totally obscures the wall, Islam's goal is to spread all over the world until the whole world becomes Islamic. This effort, this violent AND non-violent struggle is called jihad. It is part of the teachings of the Quran.

The violence in Beslan was part of the jihad, but not a smart tactic in the jihad.

It would be like the US guards in Abu Graib did bad things even though they were there supporting a good cause.

Jerk. Look at the following text from the Observer (hardly a Right wing paper!) as they pinpoint the specific "slaughter" to condemn but not the fact that the struggle goes on against the Russians. One guy says that this killing of children was despicable but kidnapping would be alright.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...297664,00.html

Arab reaction
Muslim leaders condemn killers

David Smith
Sunday September 5, 2004
The Observer

Islamic leaders in the Middle East yesterday denounced the slaughter of children in Russia as 'unIslamic', as commentators asked unusually soul-searching questions about the region and terrorism.
Even the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's biggest Islamic group, condemned the bloody siege in Beslan. Its leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said that kidnappings may be justified but killings are not. He added: 'What happened is not jihad [holy war] because Islam obligates us to respect the souls of human beings; it is not about taking them away.'

While some Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East have long supported fellow Muslims fighting in Chechnya, such was the barbarity of the hostage takers that few voices spoke in support of the actions in Ossetia. Egypt's leading Muslim cleric, Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, was quoted as saying during a Friday sermon: 'What is the guilt of those children? Why should they be responsible for your conflict with the government? You are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kidnappings are criminals, not Muslims.'

And, then how would YOU rationalize his saying, "because Islam obligates us to respect the souls of human beings; it is not about taking them away..." when Islamic suicide terrorists have, for ten + years (Yeah, I know...before you were paying attention!) been blowing up innocent human souls???

Dogbreath.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

mojo2--


Meh. Terrorists are criminals. It's no war.

And we can deal with the threat of that, and even a depression, should one occur, without killing people over it. The US has weathered many economic depressions, bank panics, and so forth; what's one more?

Would you have bombed a country to prevent the dot-com bubble from bursting?

I would not support going to war to protect the American consumer lifestyle. Let me know when he's threatening our civil liberties, our sovereignty, democratic government, etc., because right now our government's response has been the greater danger to these. Terrorists are not making the US into a police state.

I don't feel threatened by terrorists at all. Terrorist acts are difficult to predict and often fatal if you're caught up in one, but the same is true for car accidents or heart attacks, which are many many times more likely.

It's unwinnable. Terrorism will always remain on the table, and is too much beloved of governments to ever be eliminated. Besides which, the spectre of terrorism is even better (since there's no way to ensure that no one will ever ever engage in terrorism), making it a handy thing to point to and stir up unfounded fears of, when trying to acquire power. These sorts of boogeymen are nothing new; look at any red scare.

Tell your dad I suggested he not allow you use of his nic.

Oh, and your argument is about the same as that of the judge, a few years ago, who instructed the rape victim she should have simply laid there and enjoyed it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The "hysterical" revisionists want to simply erase the root causes that occurred before this nasty little mess hit THEIR radar screens. They were too busy watching "Friends" and "Seinfeld" to have paid much attention, I guess.

Then, there are those who are so stuck in the "lessons" of Viet-Nam that they think this is exactly the same thing. Same exact dynamic. Same exact consequences, even though just a CASUAL study of bin Laden's PUBLICLY STATED aims and goals couldn't BE...ANY...CLEARER!!!

He has announced the attacks beforehand...and then he did them. He has declared war on the USA...AND ATTACKED US. Not once. Not twice. Not just three times but dozens of times his forces have looked for any and every way to attack us and our strategic or symbolic interests.

etc.

Since terror is not a war that can be won, where is the line drawn? When does Iraq seem to be identical to Vietnam? When have we gone far enough to ensure our safety? When are we being too paranoid?

I don't know, but we can't live in fear of another attack and keep on invading countries out of this fear. Americans are already chicken shits about every little thing anyway, I can't imagine what this country would turn to if the line isn't drawn sometime soon. I, for one, am growing sick of being told to be afraid of everything. I'm sure there are many threats out there, including terrorists, but there are many terrorists living among us (i.e. who are Americans). Where is the line drawn?

A useful starting place might be to capture Osama Bin Laden. Haven't heard about the US going after that guy for months.

[besson3c]

Another interesting thing...

The right goes on about how horrible a person Hussein was, yet we turn a blind eye to leaders and countries where genocide is occurring.

The right goes on about how Hussein ignored the world, yet we give a free pass to Israel ignoring the world, as they have done on at least a few occasions.


Mojo,

I ask again: where is the line drawn? When have we gone too far? What is stopping that crazy guy living down the street with all of the crazy lawn gnomes and other crap on his front lawn from killing you?

Terrorism is a tactic that people turn to out of desperation. I'm no more scared of a random person in an Islamic country killing me than somebody living in this country. Besides, for years we have monitored terrorism with covert police-type operations. The Brits did this for years with combating the IRA.

At what point does the response to terrorism warrant more of this secret police mission stuff than nationalism and tanks? I'd say after we leave Iraq we should forget about using the tanks for a good while in invading a country. It sure wasn't the best of ideas, and I can't help thinking that the terrorists that we are all so concerned with right now (i.e. long time terrorists involved in international terrorist cells for years, not civilians recently turned to terrorists out of desperation) would be better fought using more covert methods. Bring all the tanks and military toys to an area sure is a dead giveaway that it might be time to relocate

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I didn't invade a reasonably stable country on pathetically false pretenses; I've been against the Iraq war since day one. I say we pull out of Iraq now, and let them deal with it however they want (and I'm generally considered a "leftie.")

Actually you did invade the "stable country"! Even if you voted against Bush, even if you are personally against the war..., you have invaded because that's what democracy is: Every possible voter, even if unregistered, is equally responsible for the actions of its government as those who registered and voted specifically for the republicans, cause the winner of the majority gets it all, even the support of those that didn't vote or voted against the winning party. Otherwise the country would grind to a halt, taxes not being paid anymore, mass-strikes, even revolts would happen...

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Since terror is not a war that can be won, where is the line drawn? When does Iraq seem to be identical to Vietnam? When have we gone far enough to ensure our safety? When are we being too paranoid?

I don't know, but we can't live in fear of another attack and keep on invading countries out of this fear. Americans are already chicken shits about every little thing anyway, I can't imagine what this country would turn to if the line isn't drawn sometime soon. I, for one, am growing sick of being told to be afraid of everything. I'm sure there are many threats out there, including terrorists, but there are many terrorists living among us (i.e. who are Americans). Where is the line drawn?

A useful starting place might be to capture Osama Bin Laden. Haven't heard about the US going after that guy for months.

Try walking to work because you can't afford to drive. Then imagine all the other truths that would have to accompany that scenario.

You won't understand until it happens, I know. I know. You know, besson3c, there are people who can't understand how someone can make the connection between a bunch of little squiggly marks on a piece of paper and how they represent precise musical sounds. And how everyone who knows how to read music will understand and, generally speaking, interpret those notes the same way.

There are folks who JUST MARVEL at that ability because they simply can't fathom it. In fact, if they didn't see it happening before their very eyes and ears every day they would not believe ANYONE could do it at all.

And yet, as a musician, you perform such magic regularly and without thinking much about it.

Yes, it took much practice and study for you to achieve this level of ability, but you accept that it is a skill you have and isn't all THAT miraculous.

Well, there are people who have put some amount of study into developing a skill called news analysis and though everyone is given the opportunity to consume the news or not at whatever level they do or not, there are some people who are just better at understanding what things mean. Whether they are more gifted or have more experience or are more intelligent, I can't say.

But when you are performing live and at the end feel your rendition wasn't one of your shining moments but your audience can't tell the difference and go crazy applauding you, in your heart you know that you played poorly. The average member of the public might not, but YOU do. And conversely, when you play reallllly well, the average audience may not appreciate THAT. But, YOU do.

I know I have probably been mistaken in some of my interpretations of news events. But when I am giving you good stuff, I know it. Sadly, you don't see that. But you think you are a good judge of the events being played out before you.

I'm afraid I'll have to allow you to go on without expectation that you will get it, until or unless you get it in your (figurative) teeth.

Don't say you weren't alerted.

Oil. Way of life. Pocketbook. Conveniences. Economic depression. Global impact. bin Laden smiles. Fertile ground for Islam to make new converts. That's enough for now. You can't handle even THIS much.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Another interesting thing...

The right goes on about how horrible a person Hussein was, yet we turn a blind eye to leaders and countries where genocide is occurring.

The right goes on about how Hussein ignored the world, yet we give a free pass to Israel ignoring the world, as they have done on at least a few occasions.


Mojo,

I ask again: where is the line drawn? When have we gone too far? What is stopping that crazy guy living down the street with all of the crazy lawn gnomes and other crap on his front lawn from killing you?

Terrorism is a tactic that people turn to out of desperation. I'm no more scared of a random person in an Islamic country killing me than somebody living in this country. Besides, for years we have monitored terrorism with covert police-type operations. The Brits did this for years with combating the IRA.

At what point does the response to terrorism warrant more of this secret police mission stuff than nationalism and tanks? I'd say after we leave Iraq we should forget about using the tanks for a good while in invading a country. It sure wasn't the best of ideas, and I can't help thinking that the terrorists that we are all so concerned with right now (i.e. long time terrorists involved in international terrorist cells for years, not civilians recently turned to terrorists out of desperation) would be better fought using more covert methods. Bring all the tanks and military toys to an area sure is a dead giveaway that it might be time to relocate

http://www.overpopulation.org/energy.html
Quote:
One of Osama Bin-Laden's goals has been to force oil prices into the $200 range.


Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbi...00406020835.asp
By attacking energy sources al Qaeda is hitting two targets. First, they are attempting to damage our economy. Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is a form of flank attack. This is not to say that they might not also target the homeland — note the recent threat alert directed to U.S. oil and natural-gas terminals, processing facilities, and pipelines. However, attacks on the global energy infrastructure are likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and are easier to pull off. The physical damage they can inflict is less important than the fear they can promote in the marketplace — which leads to higher prices without keeping a single barrel of oil off the market. Furthermore, they not only hope to send our economy into recession (though no sign of a slowdown yet) but create a crisis of confidence in the political leadership.



Quote:
http://www.archiveondemand.com/qfil...topics.0410.htm
Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the U.S. It was the first footage in more than a year of the fugitive al-Qaida leader. Now mainstream is speculating about very expensive oil. "Anyone Willing to Forecast $200 Oil?'' This report by Action Economics LLC explores the worst-case scenario for energy markets in the years ahead. On whether the price of a barrel of crude oil will go that far, Action Economics Chief Economist Mike Englund is quite right when he says "we suspect it's well beyond the willingness of most oil analysts to reasonably project.'' Perhaps not in the near future, but thanks to economic trends in Asia, can $200 per-barrel crude oil really be ruled out? No, says Marc Faber. One of Asia's best-known contrarians, the Hong Kong-based head of Marc Faber Limited has been managing money in this region for more than 20 years -- $300 million at the moment.


Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1716957,00.html

There is, however, a three-letter reason why the US will not impose a peace plan on Israel and leave the region. Baer, the author of Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, well knows what it is. “I don’t think any American politician, however at fault we are in Iraq or anywhere else, can say, ‘All right, let the crazies have the oil fields’, because oil at $200 a barrel would put us into a depression.”

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Another interesting thing...

The right goes on about how horrible a person Hussein was, yet we turn a blind eye to leaders and countries where genocide is occurring.

The right goes on about how Hussein ignored the world, yet we give a free pass to Israel ignoring the world, as they have done on at least a few occasions.


Mojo,

I ask again: where is the line drawn? When have we gone too far? What is stopping that crazy guy living down the street with all of the crazy lawn gnomes and other crap on his front lawn from killing you?

Terrorism is a tactic that people turn to out of desperation. I'm no more scared of a random person in an Islamic country killing me than somebody living in this country. Besides, for years we have monitored terrorism with covert police-type operations. The Brits did this for years with combating the IRA.

At what point does the response to terrorism warrant more of this secret police mission stuff than nationalism and tanks? I'd say after we leave Iraq we should forget about using the tanks for a good while in invading a country. It sure wasn't the best of ideas, and I can't help thinking that the terrorists that we are all so concerned with right now (i.e. long time terrorists involved in international terrorist cells for years, not civilians recently turned to terrorists out of desperation) would be better fought using more covert methods. Bring all the tanks and military toys to an area sure is a dead giveaway that it might be time to relocate

I'm trying to decide which image more aptly describes your level of understanding of the danger. He has told you he's at war with you. Do you not believe him? He has shown you he is at war with you. Do you still not believe him? He has said it repeatedly. Do you remain steadfast in disbelief? He kills those who are trying to keep him from killing you and the country you, apparently, take for granted. Do you just naively not understand? Do you have your head up your rectum? Or is the truth too much for you to acknowledge?

I work on helping bring the news of the danger to you in a way that seems to escape you in any other manner and I post things so you will better see it for yourself...

Ahhhhhhhh!! Silly me. I JUST got it. You are just PLAYING dumb! Ho, ho, ho!!! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...we won't get fooled again.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by James L

These would be the terrorists that had never launched a terrorist attack in Iraq UNTIL the US troops got there, right?

The US invaded and occupied a foreign nation, under lies, and has created a mess.

Having said that, the military is now obligated to stay and clean up that mess one would think.

Forgot to point out that under Saddam Iraq was still powerful enough to prevent terrorists from getting a foot hold in the country to start there new nation. One must wonder if they planted evedence for the US to find to invade Iraq, knowing this would be the out come.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Actually you did invade the "stable country"! Even if you voted against Bush, even if you are personally against the war..., you have invaded because that's what democracy is: Every possible voter, even if unregistered, is equally responsible for the actions of its government as those who registered and voted specifically for the republicans, cause the winner of the majority gets it all, even the support of those that didn't vote or voted against the winning party. Otherwise the country would grind to a halt, taxes not being paid anymore, mass-strikes, even revolts would happen...

Taliesin

Thank you, Taliesin.

Readers, Taliesin understands and has just given you the justification bin Laden uses in attacking Americans. Whether they be in Iraq or in New York or D.C. or in besson3c's city or KarlG's or Capt. Kangarooki's. Even if you are a lone American trying to make believe you are really a Canadian in a foreign spot, you are (in his eyes) a justified target. Man. Woman. Child. because you are American. He says the only good and worthy government is an Islamic government. Any other is worthy of attack.

He has said so and he has acted on making his edict a reality and the proof is as close as Google.

Even IF we were removed from Iraq the danger wouldn't stop. Iraq is a central point in controlling the middle east and in addition to that, it enjoys a historic significance as well.

Bin Laden expects you will help him take control of Iraq and from there he can better prosecute his campaign to bring down your government and your economy.

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You repeatedly return here with arguments that are repeatedly smacked down as incomplete and missing, lacking in depth and understanding, shallow and, frankly, embarrassing.

Actually, I never left.

As to the smack down comment.... by whom? You? I know it makes you feel better to think you have the ability to intellectually "smack down" people.... but you do realize many people here think your opinions are completely wrong, and therefore amount to as much as a smack down as a flea could give a dog.

You do enjoy typing lots though, I will give you that.

Bunch of other stuff you have posted before

You should put me back on ignore... it would probably be better for your blood pressure.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Actually, I never left.

As to the smack down comment.... by whom? You? I know it makes you feel better to think you have the ability to intellectually "smack down" people.... but you do realize many people here think your opinions are completely wrong, and therefore amount to as much as a smack down as a flea could give a dog.

You do enjoy typing lots though, I will give you that.



You should put me back on ignore... it would probably be better for your blood pressure.

Actually, the more I read of Islam the more I have to say it has a lot going for it. It has a pretty clear set of guidelines for behavior that would eliminate things like crime and moral depravity and proscribes how women should submit to their men, that we pray as Jesus himself did, with the head touching the ground. The periods of fasting. Alms for the poor. It encourages people to study and to grow in the faith. The government would no longer practice the deceit that goes on in Washington that you guys so decry.

There would be no abortion, no drinking or drug use. And even though I believe that people should be free to practice their own sexual orientation, I would have to go along with whatever the Quran and the hadiths and the Imam said, so no homosexuality or any sexual relations outside of marriage.

Every Muslim is your brother, no matter his color. And you are judged only by your good works.

I tell ya, there's a lot to be said for it. And if I ever would convert I would try to put in a good word for you, James and Athens. After all, you guys certainly did your part toward helping Islam to gain control and for that you'd deserve some recognition.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Actually, the more I read of Islam the more I have to say it has a lot going for it. It has a pretty clear set of guidelines for behavior that would eliminate things like crime and moral depravity and proscribes how women should submit to their men, that we pray as Jesus himself did, with the head touching the ground. The periods of fasting. Alms for the poor. It encourages people to study and to grow in the faith. The government would no longer practice the deceit that goes on in Washington that you guys so decry.

There would be no abortion, no drinking or drug use. And even though I believe that people should be free to practice their own sexual orientation, I would have to go along with whatever the Quran and the hadiths and the Imam said, so no homosexuality or any sexual relations outside of marriage.

Every Muslim is your brother, no matter his color. And you are judged only by your good works.

I tell ya, there's a lot to be said for it. And if I ever would convert I would try to put in a good word for you, James and Athens. After all, you guys certainly did your part toward helping Islam to gain control and for that you'd deserve some recognition.

No Prob, and the way I see things, if I ever decided to be religious, I would currently pick Islam as my first choice right now. Perhaps one day we can call each other brothers

[AKcrab]

Is mojo2 the exact opposite of Lerkfish?

[Athens]

I dont know, I do know im the exact opposite of notloc_D

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

No Prob, and the way I see things, if I ever decided to be religious, I would currently pick Islam as my first choice right now. Perhaps one day we can call each other brothers

Once you successfully give up your professed wicked ways. But, if there's hope for someone like me, then you should prove less difficult to convince. See, you are halfway there already!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Once you successfully give up your professed wicked ways. But, if there's hope for someone like me, then you should prove less difficult to convince. See, you are halfway there already!

methinks I will have the same problems with wicked ways as you. I've said this a few times on the boards, true muslims, the ones that follow there faith true are some of the nicest people I have ever meet.

[Troll]

The way the American right unashamedly tries to cast their own failure as vindicating their policy is absolutely astounding to me.

If it is even be a possibility that a country that the US liberated, invaded, occupied, gave democracy and installed law and order, could become a centre of Islamic fundamentalism, then the Bush Administration has completely and utterly failed. The invasion did not in fact remove a danger to peace and when the right realised that, they fell back on their other justification for the war. Thus, the whole basis of their action in Iraq was premised on the idea that in overthrowing Saddam, you could create a set of circumstances where a nation would develop that was a beacon of anti-Islamic fundamentalism in the area; an ally to America, its institutions and its way of life and a nice place for Iraqis to live.

Now, we're looking at an Islamic Iraq (it's in the Constitution), that is a more dangerous place for Iraqis and foreigners to live than it ever was, is anti-American and that the right wing thinks may develop into a hotbed for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And all this is supposed to somehow make us believe that they know what they're doing and Americans should support their policies!

Here's what I think. This administration doesn't have a clue what it is doing. From health care to disaster management to the economy to invading Iraq to dealing with terrorism; it doesn't have a friggin clue. Every thing it touches turns to sh1t. The most stuff you let them touch, the more sh1t you're going to be in. Iraq IS a disaster right now and the US can't leave. That isn't a vindication of their policies; it's a sign of their incompetence. Another sign of their incompetence is the fact that they STILL don't have a plan for dealing with the Iraq problem. The Administration seems to simply advocate steering the course; doing more of the same. Plodding on the way the US has for the last 2 years isn't going to solve the problem. I have journalist friends in Iraq and they say that what has happened there is that the US has decided to minimise their losses by venturing out of their safe zones less. That means that the civilian population is more exposed. Basically, the US Army has started a slow retreat which commences with a retreat into their bases. What the right is saying that the US Army shouldn't be doing (leaving Iraq to its own devices) is what they have ALREADY started doing. The only difference is that the current approach is to draw the withdrawal out over 2 or 3 years. Their strategy in Iraq is failing as miserably as it failed in Vietnam and Somalia. The Insurgency is growing in numbers in numbers of victims, in potency. The US is losing the war. Whether it loses that war overnight by withdrawing tomorrow or over a period of two years, is of little consequence. Unless they make a major change in strategy, the writing is on the wall: Iraq will be the new Afghanistan.

For me, there's only one way to turn the tide. Keep the peace the way the peace is supposed to be kept. Conventional wisdom says that keeping the peace in Iraq requires 400,000 - 500,000 US troops. That's using the figures that have been used in every conflict since WWII for civilian to armed forces ratios. Because Bush is an incompetent diplomat, you are not going to get any foreign assistance in this endeavour. You broke it and you must fix it. The US doesn't have another 300,000 spare soldiers lying around so the only alternative is a draft. That's the only solution there is to Iraq IMHO. Put a draft in place and send in the number of troops that should have been sent to Iraq in the first place. If you put a soldier on every second street corner, I reckon you'd have Iraq stabilised in a year. You'll probably also lose a few thousand more American lives, but that's what war is about and maybe the loss will make you think more carefully about supporting a violent solution to a problem that could have been solved peacefully if your President hadn't prematurely ejaculated at the UN.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

methinks I will have the same problems with wicked ways as you. I've said this a few times on the boards, true muslims, the ones that follow there faith true are some of the nicest people I have ever meet.

EDIT: I have no issues with a person's sexuality. Yet, I disagree with your statement that you and I would have the same problems with our wicked ways. I don't drink, smoke, do drugs or have intimate relations outside of marriage and I am not gay or bi-sexually oriented. I'd say quitting any of those behaviors might be difficult for anyone and I can't think you'd be exceptional in that regard.

QUESTION:<< My question concerns the issue of homosexuality.
Please provide a Quranic spotlight on this contentious issue. Is
homosexuality normal/natural? Is it accepted in Quran? How to
deal with people who are homosexual? Can homosexuals be
submitters?>>

Homosexuality is a sin. Men and women should abstain from any practice
of Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is prohibited in Quran per the example of the people of Lot.
The following verses will make this clear, God willing.

[7:80-81]

Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination; no one
in the world has done it before! "You practice sex with the men,
instead of the women. Indeed, you are a transgressing people."

[26:165-166]

"Do you have sex with the males, of all the people? "You forsake
the wives that your Lord has created for you! Indeed, you are
transgressing people."

The Quran forbids any sexual relationship other than in a marriage
between a man and a woman. Many homosexual men and women
claim that they are born with their sexual preferences and that they
have no choice. Although this point is very much in dispute in the
medical world, it has no support in the Quran. Even then, irrespective
of the nature of homosexuality, this matter would not affect the laws
spelled out clearly in the Quran .http://www.submission.org/sex/homosexuality.html

Ah, but I just did some Googling and found this and NOW I better understand why you are so accepting.

http://www.naseeb.com/naseebvibes/pr...l.php?aid=3810
There’s a liberal, accepting side to this dimention. For instance, nobody can accuse us of being absolute bigots when it comes to homosexuality and bisexuality because this is culturally and historically accepted, as long as no one talks about it.

Nobody raises an eyebrow when men hold hands (or more) in the street. Our culture recognizes the presence of such relationships, thereby establishing them as a social norm. Again, is that religion or culture?

Well, as it turns out, there is actually a fairly lively gay scene in Damascus. And, in that secular Arab way, it appears to be tolerated, as long as one sticks to one's assigned part to play. I found that out when I went to the Al Jadid hammam (public bathouse), which I got from the above-mentioned website. http://www.globalgayz.com/g-syria.html

This is a surprise to me.

But, does anyone have any knowledge of bin Laden's view of gays and lesbians and bi-sexuality? Links?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The "hysterical" revisionists want to simply erase the root causes that occurred before this nasty little mess hit THEIR radar screens. They were too busy watching "Friends" and "Seinfeld" to have paid much attention, I guess.

Then, there are those who are so stuck in the "lessons" of Viet-Nam that they think this is exactly the same thing. Same exact dynamic. Same exact consequences, even though just a CASUAL study of bin Laden's PUBLICLY STATED aims and goals couldn't BE...ANY...CLEARER!!!

He has announced the attacks beforehand...and then he did them. He has declared war on the USA...AND ATTACKED US. Not once. Not twice. Not just three times but dozens of times his forces have looked for any and every way to attack us and our strategic or symbolic interests.

He has gone on PRIME TIME US NETWORK TV and announced his intentions, and true to his word he has done what he has said he was going to do!!!!

HOW STUPID MUST YOU BE TO IGNORE THIS OR THINK THAT EVERYONE WILL IGNORE THIS?

This is no longer a matter of closing your eyes REEEEEL TIGHT and repeating, I wish I can, I wish I can...

What do you do in war, you BRAINIACS???

You find the enemy's weakness and you exploit it.

You all (and don't make me embarrass you by pulling up your previous posts) have admitted you are aware that we are dependent on foreign oil and you all admit we should do something to lessen our dependence on it.

That is one of our weaknesses.

Well, GUESS WHAT???

Your ENEMY knows your weakness better than YOU IDIOTS DO!!!

And he has TOLD YOU what he is going to do.

And STILL you are too FREAKING STUPID to understand. Go to EVERY school and every teacher you have ever had and tell them THEY FAILED YOU!

http://www.overpopulation.org/energy.html









It...Would...Put...US...INTO...A...DEPRESSION!!!!



WAKE THE **** UP, WILL YOU?

All well and good. Let's go and finish the job and get bin Laden. What this has to do with Iraq is beyond me.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Troll

Much enlightenment.

We should all hope for a stable US economy which, you must be aware, does not, can not and will not stand alone without affecting most every other nation in some way.

But if it be His will, then so be it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by mojo2

We should all hope for a stable US economy which, you must be aware, does not, can not and will not stand alone without affecting most every other nation in some way.

People need to understand that our economy is directly linked to the global economy. If the global economy goes sour, ours does to and vice versa.

The average American does not recognize this fact.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

All well and good. Let's go and finish the job and get bin Laden. What this has to do with Iraq is beyond me.

The man who will not drink remains continually thirsty. I invite you to drink and quench your raging thirst.

http://www.overpopulation.org/energy.html
Quote:
One of Osama Bin-Laden's goals has been to force oil prices into the $200 range.


Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbi...00406020835.asp
By attacking energy sources al Qaeda is hitting two targets. First, they are attempting to damage our economy. Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is a form of flank attack. This is not to say that they might not also target the homeland — note the recent threat alert directed to U.S. oil and natural-gas terminals, processing facilities, and pipelines. However, attacks on the global energy infrastructure are likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and are easier to pull off. The physical damage they can inflict is less important than the fear they can promote in the marketplace — which leads to higher prices without keeping a single barrel of oil off the market. Furthermore, they not only hope to send our economy into recession (though no sign of a slowdown yet) but create a crisis of confidence in the political leadership.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by art_director

People need to understand that our economy is directly linked to the global economy. If the global economy goes sour, ours does to and vice versa.

The average American does not recognize this fact.

Well stated.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Troll

The way the American right unashamedly tries to cast their own failure as vindicating their policy is absolutely astounding to me.

If it is even be a possibility that a country that the US liberated, invaded, occupied, gave democracy and installed law and order, could become a centre of Islamic fundamentalism, then the Bush Administration has completely and utterly failed. The invasion did not in fact remove a danger to peace and when the right realised that, they fell back on their other justification for the war. Thus, the whole basis of their action in Iraq was premised on the idea that in overthrowing Saddam, you could create a set of circumstances where a nation would develop that was a beacon of anti-Islamic fundamentalism in the area; an ally to America, its institutions and its way of life and a nice place for Iraqis to live.

Now, we're looking at an Islamic Iraq (it's in the Constitution), that is a more dangerous place for Iraqis and foreigners to live than it ever was, is anti-American and that the right wing thinks may develop into a hotbed for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And all this is supposed to somehow make us believe that they know what they're doing and Americans should support their policies!

Here's what I think. This administration doesn't have a clue what it is doing. From health care to disaster management to the economy to invading Iraq to dealing with terrorism; it doesn't have a friggin clue. Every thing it touches turns to sh1t. The most stuff you let them touch, the more sh1t you're going to be in. Iraq IS a disaster right now and the US can't leave. That isn't a vindication of their policies; it's a sign of their incompetence. Another sign of their incompetence is the fact that they STILL don't have a plan for dealing with the Iraq problem. The Administration seems to simply advocate steering the course; doing more of the same. Plodding on the way the US has for the last 2 years isn't going to solve the problem. I have journalist friends in Iraq and they say that what has happened there is that the US has decided to minimise their losses by venturing out of their safe zones less. That means that the civilian population is more exposed. Basically, the US Army has started a slow retreat which commences with a retreat into their bases. What the right is saying that the US Army shouldn't be doing (leaving Iraq to its own devices) is what they have ALREADY started doing. The only difference is that the current approach is to draw the withdrawal out over 2 or 3 years. Their strategy in Iraq is failing as miserably as it failed in Vietnam and Somalia. The Insurgency is growing in numbers in numbers of victims, in potency. The US is losing the war. Whether it loses that war overnight by withdrawing tomorrow or over a period of two years, is of little consequence. Unless they make a major change in strategy, the writing is on the wall: Iraq will be the new Afghanistan.

For me, there's only one way to turn the tide. Keep the peace the way the peace is supposed to be kept. Conventional wisdom says that keeping the peace in Iraq requires 400,000 - 500,000 US troops. That's using the figures that have been used in every conflict since WWII for civilian to armed forces ratios. Because Bush is an incompetent diplomat, you are not going to get any foreign assistance in this endeavour. You broke it and you must fix it. The US doesn't have another 300,000 spare soldiers lying around so the only alternative is a draft. That's the only solution there is to Iraq IMHO. Put a draft in place and send in the number of troops that should have been sent to Iraq in the first place. If you put a soldier on every second street corner, I reckon you'd have Iraq stabilised in a year. You'll probably also lose a few thousand more American lives, but that's what war is about and maybe the loss will make you think more carefully about supporting a violent solution to a problem that could have been solved peacefully if your President hadn't prematurely ejaculated at the UN.

That was a great post except I disagree with the last paragraph. Instead of trying to salvage Iraq, which is just a made up country anyway, I say it's time to draw new lines in the sand and break that f*cker up. Give the Kurds the North and the oil there, give the Shia the West and South and the oil and let them know that they'll get foreign aid, security alliances and investment from us in return to access to their oil (double bonus for them as we'll also pay for that oil). We'll have to be a lot more clever with the Shia to keep Iran out of their pocket (or vice versa) but cleverness will come when the next administration is in place. I assume we thread water until then,

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by Athens

I dont know, I do know im the exact opposite of notloc_D

it is good to have such loyal fans. Do you think about me late at night too?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The man who will not drink remains continually thirsty. I invite you to drink and quench your raging thirst.

http://www.overpopulation.org/energy.html
Quote:
One of Osama Bin-Laden's goals has been to force oil prices into the $200 range.


Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbi...00406020835.asp
By attacking energy sources al Qaeda is hitting two targets. First, they are attempting to damage our economy. Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is a form of flank attack. This is not to say that they might not also target the homeland — note the recent threat alert directed to U.S. oil and natural-gas terminals, processing facilities, and pipelines. However, attacks on the global energy infrastructure are likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and are easier to pull off. The physical damage they can inflict is less important than the fear they can promote in the marketplace — which leads to higher prices without keeping a single barrel of oil off the market. Furthermore, they not only hope to send our economy into recession (though no sign of a slowdown yet) but create a crisis of confidence in the political leadership.

And because of this we had to invade Iraq?