NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: I'm not entirely sure I agree with the premise of this article, but I thought it was an interesting take on Iraq, particularly on "Operation Matador." Comments?


War in Iraq looks like last stand for al Qaeda

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The war in Iraq is increasingly looking more like a showdown with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda followers than a battle primarily against Saddam Hussein loyalists.

The shift is making the fight a focal point of the U.S. global war against Islamic terrorists and one that might dictate whether the U.S. wins or loses, said a senior official and an outside expert.

"If they fail in Iraq, Osama and his whole crew are finished," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a military author and analyst.

The changing dynamic was highlighted this week when the U.S. military launched a major offensive in western Iraq, primarily against foreign jihadists who crossed the border with Syria to join the al Qaeda network in Iraq led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. In a troubling sign, U.S. officers said Zarqawi's terrorists seemed well-trained and well-equipped.

The U.S. offensive, code named Operation Matador, entered its third day yesterday in the dusty border towns west of Baghdad near Syria. The command said three Marines and more than 100 enemy fighters have been killed.

"In the Muslim world and extremist world, this fight for Iraq is their key battle," said Gen. McInerney. "If they lose it, they lose the war. And so the imams are inciting young people, not particular well-educated, to head to Iraq. Most are going through Syria via Damascus.

"This is why Iraq is such a fundamental part of the global war on terrorism. When we finally defeat Muslim extremists, it will be the battle in Iraq that defeats them."

The war's changing nature is also illustrated by the list of the high-ranking enemy announced as captured by the new Baghdad government. Virtually all of those caught since December have been identified as lieutenants of the Jordanian-born Zarqawi, not operatives for Iraq's former dictator Saddam Hussein.

Since the January elections of the new Iraqi parliament, Zarqawi's suicide terrorists have unleashed more than 100 car bombings, killing hundreds.

On the plus side for the U.S., it is receiving a record number of intelligence tips from Iraqis that have resulted in scores of captures of Zarqawi's terrorists.

But the number of arrests also present the coalition with a sobering reality. The fact that Zarqawi has in place a larger number of cell leaders and planners means that he has built up a sizable terror network since the March 2003 invasion.

"Clearly, the insurgents are more lethal, and that is a better measure than numbers," said a senior Pentagon official, who agreed that Iraq has become pivotal in the overall global war on terror. "They continue to adapt to the changes we make. They are a thinking enemy."

Outside analysts, such as Gen. McInerney, estimate that Zarqawi has as many as 2,000 operators. The Pentagon official said Zarqawi has the ability to quickly replenish his ranks once suicide jihadists kill themselves and their targets.

The constant reinforcement is one reason that the U.S. command launched Operation Matador in an attempt to flush out and kill insurgents who found safe havens in towns near Syria.

Gen. James T. Conway, the Joint Chiefs director of operations, said at the Pentagon yesterday that the battle plan called for the 2nd Regimental Combat Team to cross the Euphrates River, then set up blocking positions near the town of Rommana, as other forces flushed out insurgents.

But most foreign fighters chose to fight instead of running toward the Marine position.

"They were decisively engaged," Gen. Conway said. "A fairly significant battle followed. ... If they are intending on being martyred, that has to be cranked into the equation with this particular enemy."

He said the fighting yesterday involved Marines and soldiers finding fixed enemy positions and then hitting them with ground and air power. He said Marines received one unconfirmed sighting of Zarqawi in the past three weeks in an area between Qaim on the Syrian border and Husaybah.

A Marine officer told a Los Angeles Times reporter, "These are the professional fighters who have come from all over the Middle East. These are people who have received training and are very well-armed."

Insurgents kidnapped the governor of Al Anbar Province, Raja Nawaf Farhan al Mahalawi. They said he would not be released until U.S. forces withdraw from Qaim, the site of intermittent fighting since Baghdad fell two years ago.

Seems extremely optomistic.

You just can't fight terrorists with conventional warfare. You can weaken them no doubt, but defeat? That goes a little far. In order to end stop a terrorist organization you need to remove their means of support. If anything Iraq has galvanized alot of people's hatred for the US. The war may hurt some of Al Qada's cells, but the organization as a whole will be a strong as ever.

I think the problem is there are still many people out there who want to kill other people. I don't think invading Iraq has been efective in preventing these people from killing other people, or in persauding them to change their minds. The invasion of Iraq has cost the U.S. over $150,000,000,000 so far and has cost over 1,600 U.S. soldier's lives. It number of Iraqis who have died are at least in the tens of thousands. This is a very high cost. Security of the United State's people could have been obtained much more cheaply and effectivley. If your goal was to spead democracy, this also could have been done more cheaply and effectively. Hopefully the violence in Iraq will end soon. But I think it will continue with or without al Qaeda.

The thing is jihad is one of the pillars of the Islamic faith. Muslims are supposed to as part of their religion, defend Islam, Muslim people, and Muslim lands from non muslims. Muslims don't need someone like Bin Laden to tell them to take up arms to defend other Muslims, in places like Chechneya, Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir etc, it is part of their religion. If a muslim stands by why others are killed and oppressed, he will face eternal damnation for doing nothing.

Moreover Al-Queda is more of an idea or a brandname rather than a highly structured organization with a rigid chain of command. Terrorists from Indonessia to Morocco envoke the name Al-Quaeda to get support and inspiration. Neo Nazis use the swastika world wide, Anarchists use a circled A, it doesn't mean they have any physical connection. It is pretty hard to kill an idea, which is why I don't expect to see the end of "Al Quaeda" any time soon.

Seems extremely optomistic.

You just can't fight terrorists with conventional warfare. You can weaken them no doubt, but defeat? That goes a little far. In order to end stop a terrorist organization you need to remove their means of support. If anything Iraq has galvanized alot of people's hatred for the US. The war may hurt some of Al Qada's cells, but the organization as a whole will be a strong as ever.
And thats pretty much it. Terrorism isn't a G.I. Joe cartoon, they aren't doing it to be cool.

It's a last resort for desperate people. People who think that thier people and culture have no recourse but to sacrafice themselves. They now that they can't face just about any countries standing army in a straight fight. They can only gain support if they can convince others that it's only a matter of time before that army crushes them as well. How do you do that? Provoke the giant into a fight and hope that it does it recklessly. Enter George.

This is like trying to solve an ant problem by sitting next to the crack in the wall with your shoe in your hand. You sure will get a lot of ants that way, but you're not going to solve the problem.

Well, I think if Al-Qaeda fails in Iraq...


1. The hierarchy will be finished. Local groups which have developed will continue, but Bin Laden's upper echelons, which have been in decline since Afghanistan, have invested so much men, materiel, and money into Iraq that if they fail, local Al-Quaeda groups are going to be pretty much on their own.

2. Ideology wise, Iraq could be very deadly to Al-Qaeda. Why? A successful democratic state in Iraq will flatly disprove everything they say about the US. Already, the democratic fervor has spread to Lebanon, and is intensifying in Iran. While networks like Al-Jazeera will continue to spew out bullsh*t propaganda, the sheer facts of Iraq's success will make this kind of propaganda far less believable.

Y'know? There are days when I wish we would either...

A) Up and leave Iraq. Get us out of the damn quagmire.

B) Nuke it and get it over with. Even though I know I'm gonna bitch about it later.

(sigh) I'm so sick of this war...

(sigh) I'm so sick of this war...you are not the only one...trust me.

So what if you're "sick of this war"? Wars aren't scheduled to fit people's entertainment attention spans. No one likes it, but it's necessary. We can't just up and leave, after all, nor can we wave a magic wand to make it go away.

We can't just up and leave....why not?

Silly inconsequential bit of trivia I came upon in my online ego-searches of the late Isaac Asimov:

When translated and published for the Islamic world, Asimov's classic 'Foundation' was titled, 'Al-Qaeda'.

Silly. Inconsequential. Trivia.

Just thought I'd share.

Oh, and I'm tired of this war, too. Actually, I've never been a fan of any military solution, and I find the idea of war in and of itself to be a soul-crushing drag, at best. It's got nothing to do with entertainment factor. I'd prefer all war to be fought by extras firing blanks in front of Panavision cameras.

NOTE: I'm not entirely sure I agree with the premise of this article, but I thought it was an interesting take on Iraq, particularly on "Operation Matador." Comments?


War in Iraq looks like last stand for al Qaeda

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The shift is making the fight a focal point of the U.S. global war against Islamic terrorists and one that might dictate whether the U.S. wins or loses, said a senior official and an outside expert.

"If they fail in Iraq, Osama and his whole crew are finished," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a military author and analyst.

"In the Muslim world and extremist world, this fight for Iraq is their key battle," said Gen. McInerney. "If they lose it, they lose the war. And so the imams are inciting young people, not particular well-educated, to head to Iraq. Most are going through Syria via Damascus.

"This is why Iraq is such a fundamental part of the global war on terrorism. When we finally defeat Muslim extremists, it will be the battle in Iraq that defeats them."

Outside analysts, such as Gen. McInerney, estimate that Zarqawi has as many as 2,000 operators. The Pentagon official said Zarqawi has the ability to quickly replenish his ranks once suicide jihadists kill themselves and their targets.

I think it is interesting to note that this General McInerney and the Pentagon are frequently at odds over assessments of overall strength and direction of enemy forces. I suspect that McInerney is not a very credible source in the final analysis.

His choice of words, his utter lack of reasoning behind his opinions; he simply is stating policy positions and hopeful words without backing them up. This smells of shill. I don't know what kind of analysis he has to back this up, but I doubt anyone credible believes that the whole Jihadi movement could be crushed because of one nation. This is an international problem.

"Cannot think of a name" has a good point, this is very similar to crushing the visable enemy while leaving everything beyond that alone. The military undoubtedly recognizes this, but how much they can do about it is certainly questionable. This problem does not lend itself to a military solution; its a political and social problem.

Well atleast you can say tha Al-qaeda, terrorist freedomsfighter or that ever have been succefull in stoping the most powerfull country from creating a stabil Iraq. This you can say for certain, because you can not call a country there hundreds of people dies evryone months from terrorist atacks, stable.

Hopefully the situation will be better in the future for the Iraq. Because it also extremly clear that the liberation from Saddam is not worth the cost of a infinite numbers of terrorist atacks, some there the price get to high for the Iraqies, even if you can argue that what price it is....

I don't think most of the resistance in Iraq is Al-Quaeda or Saddam loyalists. I think they're a range of other extremist groups that the US has managed to piss off in the extreme. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them haven't actually formed since the initial invasion.

Al-Quaeda is probably still alive and well and keeping it's head down more than making a "last stand". The groups tactics are known to be based around staying hidden, hitting and running, and causing as much damage to their enemies as possible with minimal expense and loss to themselves. I don't think many of their cells/members would be operating much in Iraq where, especially not making a "last stand" which'd probably get them wiped out.

why not?
Because then Iraq becomes like Afghanistan after the Soviets left. A battlefield for countless tiny factions in a neverending civil war, and a breeding ground for terrorists.

I doubt anyone credible believes that the whole Jihadi movement could be crushed because of one nation. This is an international problem.


No, it's an engineering problem. It is certainly possible to round up every Arab and Muslim on the planet and kill them. I'm just waiting for things to get bad.

One major terrorist attack that involves the use of WMD, or a series of highly effective attacks of a conventional nature that harm the worldwide economy (point of fact - damage the US economy, and everyone suffers), and you'll get another Wannsee Conference, except this time, they'll be speaking English.

From what I've read the insurgency in Iraq is looking like the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets created the more extremist fighters and allowed their ideology to flourish. The Coalition seems to be training the next generation of fighters with a strengthened ideology. I'm unsure if this is primarily Al-Qaeda inspired Islamo-fascism, (I think Iraqi nationalism is playing a significant role that is not being looked at because its easier to say foreign fighters from outside Iraq are doing all the work), but no doubt it will hijack the situation, like Afghanistan. And if the American contingent pulls out anytime soon, I think Iraq will collapse as a organised state.

No, it's an engineering problem. It is certainly possible to round up every Arab and Muslim on the planet and kill them. I'm just waiting for things to get bad.

One major terrorist attack that involves the use of WMD, or a series of highly effective attacks of a conventional nature that harm the worldwide economy (point of fact - damage the US economy, and everyone suffers), and you'll get another Wannsee Conference, except this time, they'll be speaking English.
If you want to see a huge bunch of people get highly pissed off to the point of rage, just let al Qaeda or some other terrorist group unleash a biological weapon, especially if it kills a lot of children. You think GWB is bad? Stick around.

If you want to see a huge bunch of people get highly pissed off to the point of rage, just let al Qaeda or some other terrorist group unleash a biological weapon, especially if it kills a lot of children. You think GWB is bad? Stick around.
Beslan? Not a biolgogical attack but killed lots of kids.

I am concerned that every time we kill one of these terrorists in combat, he is leaving behind children and relatives that now even more resolved against us. I'm worried there are more suicide bombers being bred everyday.
Its a very tough situation with no easy solution. Some one will die either way.

Y'know? There are days when I wish we would either...

A) Up and leave Iraq. Get us out of the damn quagmire.

Care to show me why Iraq is a quagmire? I know for a fact that it isn't a quagmire.

B) Nuke it and get it over with. Even though I know I'm gonna bitch about it later.

Nuke Iraq or the whole region? I say the whole region.

(sigh) I'm so sick of this war...

So is everyone else but welcome to the Real World.

From what I've read the insurgency in Iraq is looking like the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets created the more extremist fighters and allowed their ideology to flourish. The Coalition seems to be training the next generation of fighters with a strengthened ideology. I'm unsure if this is primarily Al-Qaeda inspired Islamo-fascism, (I think Iraqi nationalism is playing a significant role that is not being looked at because its easier to say foreign fighters from outside Iraq are doing all the work), but no doubt it will hijack the situation, like Afghanistan. And if the American contingent pulls out anytime soon, I think Iraq will collapse as a organised state.

The problem for any major insurgency is logistical support.

The Viet Cong were supplied by both the Russians and Chinese on a massive scale.

The Afghans were supplied by the US in their fight against Russian forces - and it was substantial.

The current insurgents in Afghanistan seem rather weak - largely because they have no real logistical support. The number of US troops in Afghanistan is really quite small, especially in comparison to what the Russians had in place, and we effectively control the country where they did not.

In Iraq, logistical support for the insurgency comes largely from Syria, and more and more of the actual members are not Iraqis. It's only a matter of time before we decide just to cut Syria off at the knees, and stop the flow of support.

Personally, I believe that calling the President of Syria to an open air nuclear test in the Pacific, and giving him an ultimatum would probably work wonders.

I am concerned that every time we kill one of these terrorists in combat, he is leaving behind children and relatives that now even more resolved against us. I'm worried there are more suicide bombers being bred everyday.
Its a very tough situation with no easy solution. Some one will die either way.

The problem is that we're trying to be good about it. Our actions are clouded by conscience, and delusions of morality.

If we were truly the atrocity generator the world believes us to be, this war would already be over, and there wouldn't be a person alive on the planet who spoke Arabic, except the few that remained to walk into the crematoriums.

Another problem with Al Qaeda is the Arabs and Central Asians have been feuding over the scant resources. I guess hate for the West can't overcoming their differences.

On Jerry Springer....Trailer Park Love and Islamofascism

Mohammed: Osama used to call after we got together but he's stopped talking to me. He says he can't come around because the cops are looking for him. I need somebody. (wiping tears from his eyes) I used to love you, I'd die for you but you stopped calling. You used me.

(crowd boos Osama...jeering with thumbs turned down)

Osama: (stands and stick finger up to crowd) shut up! I love Mohommed Allah doom you all. (moves over to Mohammed) Baby I do love you, really I do.

Mohammed: It's too late Osama. I'm tired of slaving and cooking and cleaning up your messes. I got a new man.

(crowd cheers, Osama looks shocked and sits down)

Jerry: Let's bring in Mohammed's new flame...

(crowd applause as Abu Masab al Zarqawi walks in looking pissed and sits down next to Mohammed with his hand on his knee)

Zarqawi: You don't love him he deserves better.

Osama: Don't talk to me like that you son of a <BEEP>

Mohammed: unintelligible since all are screaming

(Osama and Zarqawi fly from their chairs and wail away with roundhouse swinging of fists and tearing of their man-dresses. crowd stands and screams with joy)

(

Another problem with Al Qaeda is the Arabs and Central Asians have been feuding over the scant resources. I guess hate for the West can't overcoming their differences.

On Jerry Springer....Trailer Park Love and Islamofascism

Mohammed: Osama used to call after we got together but he's stopped talking to me. He says he can't come around because the cops are looking for him. I need somebody. (wiping tears from his eyes) I used to love you, I'd die for you but you stopped calling. You used me.

(crowd boos Osama...jeering with thumbs turned down)

Osama: (stands and stick finger up to crowd) shut up! I love Mohommed Allah doom you all. (moves over to Mohammed) Baby I do love you, really I do.

Mohammed: It's too late Osama. I'm tired of slaving and cooking and cleaning up your messes. I got a new man.

(crowd cheers, Osama looks shocked and sits down)

Jerry: Let's bring in Mohammed's new flame...

(crowd applause as Abu Masab al Zarqawi walks in looking pissed and sits down next to Mohammed with his hand on his knee)

Zarqawi: You don't love him he deserves better.

Osama: Don't talk to me like that you son of a <BEEP>

Mohammed: unintelligible since all are screaming

(Osama and Zarqawi fly from their chairs and wail away with roundhouse swinging of fists and tearing of their man-dresses. crowd stands and screams with joy)

(


Osama: I didn't start this!

AUDIENCE: WHORE! WHORE! WHORE!

The problem for any major insurgency is logistical support.

The Viet Cong were supplied by both the Russians and Chinese on a massive scale.

The Afghans were supplied by the US in their fight against Russian forces - and it was substantial.

The current insurgents in Afghanistan seem rather weak - largely because they have no real logistical support. The number of US troops in Afghanistan is really quite small, especially in comparison to what the Russians had in place, and we effectively control the country where they did not.

In Iraq, logistical support for the insurgency comes largely from Syria, and more and more of the actual members are not Iraqis. It's only a matter of time before we decide just to cut Syria off at the knees, and stop the flow of support.

Personally, I believe that calling the President of Syria to an open air nuclear test in the Pacific, and giving him an ultimatum would probably work wonders.

I'm unsure....you've got Iran remember, even without Syria, how are you going to muster the political will or logistical ability to "cut Syria off at the knees?" (Does this translate as invasion? Or closing the border down, because you'll need alot more men to do it).

I'm unsure also that you can say that the insurgency needs logisitcs. Most of the I.E.D's (Improvised Explosive Devices) and military hardware are weapons that were not secured when Colaition forces initially went in. These have been spread throughout the insurgency, and you don't need a sophisticated weapon to kill a soldier or disable a tank. it's not like the Soviets using Hind-24/35 attack helicopters that are being brought down by US supplied Red Eyes. It doesn't matter how much you control the cities, you controlled the cities in Vietnam, but the ideology and the inherent nationalism that you have to fight, (as someone suggested, an idea is nearly impossible to kill by weaponary), which will takes years.

The only way you'll achieve what you say is increasing the number of troops that are there. Only the US really has that ability, us Brits are with you all the way but we're a small force, and I'm unsure if the political will is there.

The problem is that we're trying to be good about it. Our actions are clouded by conscience, and delusions of morality.

If we were truly the atrocity generator the world believes us to be, this war would already be over, and there wouldn't be a person alive on the planet who spoke Arabic, except the few that remained to walk into the crematoriums.


Thats true-we certainly have the men and resources to obliterate the entire region, with no regard to civilian casualties and damage to the infrastructure.
Being "good" about it will only serve us. the rest of the world is already convinced this is American expansionism and going after natural resources. No matter how much they profit from it.

I am concerned that every time we kill one of these terrorists in combat, he is leaving behind children and relatives that now even more resolved against us. I'm worried there are more suicide bombers being bred everyday.
Its a very tough situation with no easy solution. Some one will die either way.

Exactly. One can't "crush terrorism" by killing some fighters in Bagdad slum. by killing one you will get his childrens, brothers and cousins to take his place. The problem group is young men who have no hope of for their future. They cant get educated, they cant get jobs. All they can do is to join some extremist group -Al Qaeda, HAMAS or IRA to even TRY to do something useful. In Iraq though this is not the whole thing. It is an occupied country.

Every day those young men see American tanks driving by, playing Death Metal on loud during their praying time, they see Hummers with flags with pictures of skulls and bones, and text FUCK IRAQ painted in doors. In their own soil. In their country. Hell, if I'd be in there I would fight as well. Not killing reporters and taking hostages though, but that seems to be done mostly by those so much hyped "foreign fanatics"... Killing some of those foreigners or (assumed) Al Qaeda's fighters, or even closing the border will not still end the war. As long as Americans stay in Iraq, the war - Iraq's Liberation War for those young men - will continue.

I think the problem is there are still many people out there who want to kill other people. I don't think invading Iraq has been efective in preventing these people from killing other people, or in persauding them to change their minds. The invasion of Iraq has cost the U.S. over $150,000,000,000 so far and has cost over 1,600 U.S. soldier's lives. It number of Iraqis who have died are at least in the tens of thousands. This is a very high cost. Security of the United State's people could have been obtained much more cheaply and effectivley. If your goal was to spead democracy, this also could have been done more cheaply and effectively. Hopefully the violence in Iraq will end soon. But I think it will continue with or without al Qaeda.

How could democracy have been brought to Iraq otherwise?

Was Saddam going to bow to words?

Noooooooooo... he'd thumbed his nose at international mandates for 15 years. He's one of those guys you have to punch in the face to get him to listen to you.

Osama: I didn't start this!

AUDIENCE: WHORE! WHORE! WHORE!


All the while with hands on hips and heads pivoting like bobble-head dolls.

And spend $150.00 on their fingernail ornaments, but have a pillsbury dough roll hanging out of their shirt.

.... You just have to destroy their army, bomb down the infrastructure and slaughter some thousands of civilians among tens/hundreds of thousands of soldiers during the operation, what Frangland forgot to mention..

How could democracy have been brought to Iraq otherwise? This was never about democracy until post-invasion. Prior to that, the only major reason listed for invading was of WMDs. We all know how that panned out.

Was Saddam going to bow to words? Many dictators would if they believed doing so would allow them to continue to rule. In Saddam's case, he bowed under pressure to let inspectors back in.

How could democracy have been brought to Iraq otherwise?

Was Saddam going to bow to words?

Noooooooooo... he'd thumbed his nose at international mandates for 15 years. He's one of those guys you have to punch in the face to get him to listen to you.


And hold a death grip on his balls while you speak til he says he understands.

The only way you'll achieve what you say is increasing the number of troops that are there. Only the US really has that ability, us Brits are with you all the way but we're a small force, and I'm unsure if the political will is there.

The main problem with Western militaries in general is their associated societies. There's not only a general loathing to incur casualties amongst their own soldiers, there's now a new loathing to inflict casualties on anyone else.

Europeans are especially sensitive to that, and it has driven the technology of US forces towards extreme precision.

However, it's not entirely useful against an insurgency.

Nor is that whole attitude useful towards an ideology that demands the death of Western civilization for the crime of not being Muslim.

We could be as peaceable as we like, and we still pose a lethal threat to their ideology. Just because we exist.

Sooner or later, someone, perhaps everyone, will realize that the only way to solve the problem will be to annihilate a whole culture, religion, and a lot of people.

Sooner or later, someone, perhaps everyone, will realize that the only way to solve the problem will be to annihilate a whole culture, religion, and a lot of people. That's both sad and cynical at the same time. :(

I'm unsure....you've got Iran remember, even without Syria, how are you going to muster the political will or logistical ability to "cut Syria off at the knees?" (Does this translate as invasion? Or closing the border down, because you'll need alot more men to do it).

Iran has their own worries right now because they want nuclear bombs. THe world is watching them with a microscope. As for cutting Syria off at the knees, Operation Matador right now is on the border with Syria and taking out insurgents that are trying to cross the border. As for mustering logistical support, we already have troops and materials in Iraq. We have the forces there to take down Syria if we need too. We have the air force to bomb the living daylights out of them and a navy that can hurl missiles into them as well. We can keep that up till the ground troops are ready for a push towards Damascus.

I'm unsure also that you can say that the insurgency needs logisitcs. Most of the I.E.D's (Improvised Explosive Devices) and military hardware are weapons that were not secured when Colaition forces initially went in. These have been spread throughout the insurgency, and you don't need a sophisticated weapon to kill a soldier or disable a tank. it's not like the Soviets using Hind-24/35 attack helicopters that are being brought down by US supplied Red Eyes. It doesn't matter how much you control the cities, you controlled the cities in Vietnam, but the ideology and the inherent nationalism that you have to fight, (as someone suggested, an idea is nearly impossible to kill by weaponary), which will takes years.

And yet, more insurgents are getting killed by the day, either by blowing themselves up, truck bombs, or by the guns of the US Military. The insurgency is now starting to get desprit and their moral is getting very low. Why? Because we are kicking their ass. They can't do nothing and the new government isn't wavering at all.

The only way you'll achieve what you say is increasing the number of troops that are there. Only the US really has that ability, us Brits are with you all the way but we're a small force, and I'm unsure if the political will is there.

We don't need to increase our troops over there. Infact, we are going to be lowering the number of troops there. My father was supposed to go back later this month but guess what? He's not! Why? Because he isn't needed. Go figure. If things were as bad as your trying to make them out to be, he would be going back. He isn't.

Carnivorous Lickers All the while with hands on hips and heads pivoting like bobble-head dolls.

Don't bobblehead too much cause your turban will fall off. You know Zarqawi is going to grab the Osama beard with both hands and do a Steven Seagal throw over his shoulder. Osama's extraordinary long legs swing up kicking Zarqawi in the eye.

I'd pay good money to watch them kill each other in the steel cage.

The main problem with Western militaries in general is their associated societies. There's not only a general loathing to incur casualties amongst their own soldiers, there's now a new loathing to inflict casualties on anyone else.

Europeans are especially sensitive to that, and it has driven the technology of US forces towards extreme precision.

However, it's not entirely useful against an insurgency.

Nor is that whole attitude useful towards an ideology that demands the death of Western civilization for the crime of not being Muslim.

We could be as peaceable as we like, and we still pose a lethal threat to their ideology. Just because we exist.

Sooner or later, someone, perhaps everyone, will realize that the only way to solve the problem will be to annihilate a whole culture, religion, and a lot of people.

It seems clear that there is already a group of them that is intent on doing that to us. I', concerned about how many of these scumbags are already here in the US-sleepers-patiently waiting to be activated. With detailed knowledge of how things work here-how we do things and how we respond. You know they were all watching closely yesterday with the plane the flew into Washington's No Fly zone. I think they will continually test and prod until their time comes. Their here to learn,after all, on "student visas"

Carnivorous Lickers All the while with hands on hips and heads pivoting like bobble-head dolls.

Don't bobblehead too much cause your turban will fall off. You know Zarqawi is going to grab the Osama beard with both hands and do a Steven Seagal throw over his shoulder. Osama's extraordinary long legs swing up kicking Zarqawi in the eye.


With tha bald guy trying to hold them apart. Osama's dress gets pulled up over his head and they have to pixel out his ass

That's both sad and cynical at the same time. :(
While it is sad, it is realistic.

If there were no such thing as WMD, we could afford the risk of continuous nibbling by terrorist acts on our society for all eternity. Rather like being stung by bees every once in a while. We could ignore them.

We even have an in-built resistance to killing members of our own species (most animals have this) - it's something we have to overcome in order to kill others - we have to dehumanize them - make them somehow "less human".

You can see it in Nazi literature. Or Zionist literature. Or pro-Arab literature. Or some American literature. Every culture, at some point, paints some other group of people as "less human" so they can be killed without regrets.

It's even in Osama's publicized writing. Everyone in Western civilization (not just the Americans) are as good as dead, and do not meet the criteria for being human beings worthy of breathing air.

But, with WMD around (and I'm not saying Saddam had any - Taha had already dumped the anthrax next to one of his palaces, so they didn't have any more), someone someday will have some.

A vial of smallpox, for example. Or even better, a simple microbe that plants rely on that has no effect on people - but it gets modified by some idiot into a pathogen that kills most of the plant life on earth.

Now, put yourself in the position of any politician. Even if the risk of this happenning each year is less than 1 percent, is this an acceptable risk? That actively hostile groups actively seeking any WMD they can obtain will use them without any more provocation?

What if you could reduce the risk to zero? Would you take those steps? Or would politics override our recently acquired ambivalence over inflicting civilian casualties en masse - and make us into a futuristic equivalent of the Nazi Final Solution?

This was never about democracy until post-invasion. Prior to that, the only major reason listed for invading was of WMDs. We all know how that panned out.

Democratization was the goal. WMDs were the excuse. oh yeah and the payment of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, daily firing on Coalition aircraft in the no fly zone, habitual breaking of the peace papers and his attempt to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague.

The thing is jihad is one of the pillars of the Islamic faith.

No, it is not. Islam has 5 pillars: Faith, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and Pilgrimage.

Jihad does not mean war and is a personal thing 99% of the time. Such as when a person tries to quit smoking or when a person strives to give more to charity.

Please do not spread misinformation. It doesn't help matters any. Thanks.

Sooner or later, someone, perhaps everyone, will realize that the only way to solve the problem will be to annihilate a whole culture, religion, and a lot of people.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. You'll always have the fanatics but get rid of their support. Get rid of what they say they believe are the "crimes" of the West and what may galvanises their followers. Whether that be the Palestininian situation, jobs for the disenfranchised youth of many Arab countries, a mellower foreign policy from Western nations etc. You deal with these things and you fundamentally weaken them, then you can destroy the fanatics. For example the Maoist rebels in Malaysia had an ideology completely at odds with Western democratic capitalism but they were still defeated after some clever social and political policies.

My fear is that Iraq will merely increase the support for the rabid and extreme Islam that Al-Qaeda follow, because Iraq will represent another crime. If it goes that way its much harder to deal with, there will be more indigenous suicide bombers instead of those coming in from the outside. I think we're overlooking Iraqi nationalism as a cause of the insurgency. We have to separate it from the more extreme elements, or disenfranchise the lot.

Democratization was the goal. WMDs were the excuse. oh yeah and the payment of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, daily firing on Coalition aircraft in the no fly zone, habitual breaking of the peace papers and his attempt to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague.
Don't forget cleaning up our mess.

We cleaned up Afghanistan (yes, we left the place a mess after helping the people screw the Russians).

We are cleaning up Iraq (yes, we helped Saddam be stupid all those years - what a bad idea that turned out to be).

Come to think of it, this sort of foreign policy started with us cleaning up Panama...

Sooner or later, someone, perhaps everyone, will realize that the only way to solve the problem will be to annihilate a whole culture, religion, and a lot of people.


Yes, but which?

Yes, but which?
Osama has already decided that Western Civilization, and everyone who lives in it, has to be killed.

Shall we wait for him and his followers to fully organize, and achieve this goal, or shall we start something to prevent this?

It's not as simple as "well, if America was nicer, and followed the Geneva Convention, and didn't invade countries, and didn't grab oil, and.., and.."

The only thing that would cause them to spare your life would be a convincing conversion to their variant of Islam. Oh, and everyone else around you would have to do that as well. You know, put women in blue bags, etc.

And all those people who are big on sexual freedom - homosexuals, etc?

Well, Osama and his friends make Fred Phelps look like one of the hosts of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Iran has their own worries right now because they want nuclear bombs. THe world is watching them with a microscope. As for cutting Syria off at the knees, Operation Matador right now is on the border with Syria and taking out insurgents that are trying to cross the border. As for mustering logistical support, we already have troops and materials in Iraq. We have the forces there to take down Syria if we need too. We have the air force to bomb the living daylights out of them and a navy that can hurl missiles into them as well. We can keep that up till the ground troops are ready for a push towards Damascus.



And yet, more insurgents are getting killed by the day, either by blowing themselves up, truck bombs, or by the guns of the US Military. The insurgency is now starting to get desprit and their moral is getting very low. Why? Because we are kicking their ass. They can't do nothing and the new government isn't wavering at all.



We don't need to increase our troops over there. Infact, we are going to be lowering the number of troops there. My father was supposed to go back later this month but guess what? He's not! Why? Because he isn't needed. Go figure. If things were as bad as your trying to make them out to be, he would be going back. He isn't.

To launch another inavsion into Syria or Iran when one of your own top Generals (forget his name) said very recently that Afghanistan and Iraq is/has impeded your ability to fight another conflict. I know of the operation you speak, but thats merely one operation, the geographical size of Iraq's borders and the number of crossing points are too numerous to be counted, you'll most likley displace rather than replace the flow of arms and/or men from Syria. Iran is most likely saying to the Eu and the US that if anything happens to them they'll flood Iraq with their support and supplies. It'll just be Hamas by another name. To attack Syria or Iran you will be doing it alone, and I don't know how you'll get the political will within the US. You'll just be creating more ant hills.

Doesn't the number of suicide bombers suggest to you how extreme its going? The attacks are not dropping off significantly, today another 60 civilians (I believe died). The insurgency may just piss off their support with such attacks but when you see foreign troops in your land I think it'll remain, 9again my Iraqi nationalism supposition).

Your troops are being lowered because your administration wants out, I believe they originally thought of 2007. The assumption is that you can get rid of the Iraqi army, disband it and its leaders and then recreate it and have it fighting effectively within 4/5 years. That's a big gamble. Your "Iraqisation" policy could fail.

The only way to crush the terrorists is to give the Islamic world democracy. People said that Afghanistan would never budge from the grip of dictatorship. What happened? We went in and the people voted later. They are saying that Iraq will never have democracy because the people don't want it. What happened? The Iraqi elections had one of the highest voter turnout in history. I learned about Islam in World History class. The terrorists are using it just for politics. Islam is about peace, not waging war on everyone else. Have you noticed how those terrorist leaders are into politics(most of them)? How can they recruit so many followers if Islam isn't about blowing everyone else up? The same way Hitler managed to get all those Germans to work the concentration camps. They all lied to get their way. While most of the world wouldn't touch Iraq qith a mile-long stick, the US, Uk, and others gave the Iraqis something they always wanted, freedom from a man who would kill his own people just to stay in power. A man who acted as judge and jury and found people guilty because he said they were. The Iraqis wanted to vote in real elections where there was more than one candidate. Terrorism is evil because it targets the innocent just to get something done. The terrorists didn't want the elections to take place, so they threatened to kill the voters. The Iraqis voted in massive numbers. They did 9-11 to put the American people into hiding and to get the Americans out of the Middle East. The US military saw a surge in recruit numbers with young people eager to go to the middle east to fight an enemy that will do anything and kill anyone to get something done. Are those people who defied the terrorists stupid or brave?

I am concerned that every time we kill one of these terrorists in combat, he is leaving behind children and relatives that now even more resolved against us. I'm worried there are more suicide bombers being bred everyday.
Its a very tough situation with no easy solution. Some one will die either way.
Did you see the bit on BBC TV with the Iraqi prime minister consoling the 4-yr-old child of a man who had just been killed from a suicide bomber?
The boy demanded that the pm find and kill those responsible, or at the very least bring them to him, so he could kill them himself.
Every time the US kills one of those terrorists without focusing on the real people behind them, that's pretty much what's happening.

From the original report:
"In the Muslim world and extremist world, this fight for Iraq is their key battle," said Gen. McInerney. "If they lose it, they lose the war. And so the imams are inciting young people, not particular well-educated, to head to Iraq."
...
A Marine officer told a Los Angeles Times reporter, "These are the professional fighters who have come from all over the Middle East. These are people who have received training and are very well-armed."
Could someone explain this to me? It really does seem like they're talking about two different peoples here. How can uneducated young people conned into Muslim extremism also be well-trained professional fighters?
Seems to me that either someone's overly optimistic and downplaying the attacks, or the other person is overly pessimistic and exagerating the quality of the attackers. I would plump for the former myself. The Marine officer has little to gain by saying the terrorists are well-trained.

To launch another inavsion into Syria or Iran when one of your own top Generals (forget his name) said very recently that Afghanistan and Iraq is/has impeded your ability to fight another conflict. I know of the operation you speak, but thats merely one operation, the geographical size of Iraq's borders and the number of crossing points are too numerous to be counted, you'll most likley displace rather than replace the flow of arms and/or men from Syria. Iran is most likely saying to the Eu and the US that if anything happens to them they'll flood Iraq with their support and supplies. It'll just be Hamas by another name. To attack Syria or Iran you will be doing it alone, and I don't know how you'll get the political will within the US. You'll just be creating more ant hills.

Tio, we have satellites over the area, and I'm sure that we are doing fighter operations over it too as well as having AC-130 Gunships there too. We have the border under constent survallance and with the ability to detail aircraft to keep them from crossing. Doesn't always work but its been effective. As for Iran, Europe (Yes Europe) is pressuring Iran to stop what they are doing with nuclear weapons and have given support to the US for a resolution in the UN if they dont. I'm sure if push came to shove, Europe will back the US in an invasion of Iran. Britain would do something to help us with Syria. Don't underestimate the planet my friend. It'll have a way of coming back to bite ya. Saddam underestimated the US. I advise the world not to do the same.

Doesn't the number of suicide bombers suggest to you how extreme its going? The attacks are not dropping off significantly, today another 60 civilians (I believe died). The insurgency may just piss off their support with such attacks but when you see foreign troops in your land I think it'll remain, 9again my Iraqi nationalism supposition).

Nope it doesn't. Why? Because there has been to many of them in the region. Most notably in Israel. We all see that it doesn't accomplish anything except make a population made at the Perps that send them in. The more Iraqi civilians they kill, the better for the US because it'll turn public opinion away from the insurgents. Oops, that's already happening. We are now turning our attention to Jihadists and Foreign fighters and away from Regime elements. WHy? Probably because the regime elements realized that they are sunk. Better be part of a new system than dead. The terrorists are losing in Iraq and they pretty much lost in Afghanistan.

Your troops are being lowered because your administration wants out, I believe they originally thought of 2007. The assumption is that you can get rid of the Iraqi army, disband it and its leaders and then recreate it and have it fighting effectively within 4/5 years. That's a big gamble. Your "Iraqisation" policy could fail.

No the administration doesn't want out. We'll leave when they ask us too or when the mission is accomplished. We've said that throughout this whole thing and I am not seeing any reversal of this fact. You my friend, is trying to make it out to be such when it isn't. I suggest you pick up some new material because so far, your having trouble defending your points.

No, it is not. Islam has 5 pillars: Faith, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and Pilgrimage.

Jihad does not mean war and is a personal thing 99% of the time. Such as when a person tries to quit smoking or when a person strives to give more to charity.

Please do not spread misinformation. It doesn't help matters any. Thanks.

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

on these guys sites I couldn't find anything about quitting smoking. Killing Americans and Jews as a way to salvation that was in there though.

Added: I know there are peaceful Muslim people. We're not talking about them. We're discussing Islamofascist.

The only way to crush the terrorists is to give the Islamic world democracy. People said that Afghanistan would never budge from the grip of dictatorship. What happened? We went in and the people voted later.
Have you checked in on Afghanistan recently? It's in a very very bad condition. The PM basically can't go out of Kabul, because the Afghan security and army forces have no control of any other area than there. The entire place is a battleground run by feuding warlords. Most humanitarian aid agencies have recently pulled out because it's too dangerous.
Even the PM has said that the indigenous army isn't ready yet or capable of dealing with the warlords.
So, hardly an example of how invading a country can bring postive change.

Osama has already decided that Western Civilization, and everyone who lives in it, has to be killed.


Is that so? Have you been reading the AQ manifesto? I seem to recall a statement explaining why i.e. Sweden was not being attacked. Did it also say that Western Civilization, and everyone who lives in it, had to be killed? Guess I need to read it again. Unless you care to back that up.

Added: I know there are peaceful Muslim people. We're not talking about them. We're discussing Islamofascist.

So you are not going to join up in the holocaust to wipe out the religion, or the region?

Tio, we have satellites over the area, and I'm sure that we are doing fighter operations over it too as well as having AC-130 Gunships there too. We have the border under constent survallance and with the ability to detail aircraft to keep them from crossing. Doesn't always work but its been effective. As for Iran, Europe (Yes Europe) is pressuring Iran to stop what they are doing with nuclear weapons and have given support to the US for a resolution in the UN if they dont. I'm sure if push came to shove, Europe will back the US in an invasion of Iran. Britain would do something to help us with Syria. Don't underestimate the planet my friend. It'll have a way of coming back to bite ya. Saddam underestimated the US. I advise the world not to do the same.



Nope it doesn't. Why? Because there has been to many of them in the region. Most notably in Israel. We all see that it doesn't accomplish anything except make a population made at the Perps that send them in. The more Iraqi civilians they kill, the better for the US because it'll turn public opinion away from the insurgents. Oops, that's already happening. We are now turning our attention to Jihadists and Foreign fighters and away from Regime elements. WHy? Probably because the regime elements realized that they are sunk. Better be part of a new system than dead. The terrorists are losing in Iraq and they pretty much lost in Afghanistan.



No the administration doesn't want out. We'll leave when they ask us too or when the mission is accomplished. We've said that throughout this whole thing and I am not seeing any reversal of this fact. You my friend, is trying to make it out to be such when it isn't. I suggest you pick up some new material because so far, your having trouble defending your points.

I'm surprised you say that the border of Syria is so well sealed, how are the foreign fighters getting in, as the article mentions, digging tunnels? If people are determined to get through, they will. For example your border with Mexico, I forget how many illegal Mexicans are currently in the US, are they not displacing white Californians (not illegals, but Espanics) as the largest demographic?

I tell you now, the UK will not support you with any troops. The declaration has already been made by our Foreign Minister Jack Straw. We had nearly two million people protesting over Iraq, the resolution to go to war went through with much debate, the political capital has been used in Iraq, Britian has reelected Blair with a much reduced majority and alot of the awkward squad Labourites as his backbenchers. If the UK doesn''t support you with men the rest of Europe aren't likely to either.

To say they've lost in Afghanistan is very puzzling when recent ambushes within the Southern part have been escalating, whether these be Warlords or actual Jihadists I'm unsure of at the moment, but it doesn't bode well for in that chaos anything could once again flourish. And I'm still not convinced we're winning in Iraq, despite what you say.

If the US administration did not want out why are they relying so heavily on their "Iraqisation" policy. It suggests that they want the Iraqis to fight it themselves, as in Vietam, but I don't think they'll be strong enough. On the other hand I don't see the US staying their for ten years in order to rebuild the infrastructure and other necessities for an orderly state.

"We in the name of God, call on every Muslim who believes in God and
desires to be rewarded, to follow God's order to kill Americans and
plunder their wealth wherever and whenever they find it."

So, so you believe that Sweden is off the hook - or just for the moment?

Are you aware what ancient texts Osama is getting his feed from? It's not the Koran. It's a text written during the First Crusade.

He's following the rules of jihad laid out in a very specific text. He can offer only temporary respite to non-Muslims - but in the end, once he achieves his victory over America (and whoever does business with America), he is forced by his dogma to finish the work - he MUST expand dar al-Islam to encompass the whole world, and to rid the world of all unbelievers.

If you look at the old text, and then at some of the stuff he's written in the original Arabic, you would notice that he's plagiarizing from that book - and just substituting Americans for Franks.

"We in the name of God, call on every Muslim who believes in God and
desires to be rewarded, to follow God's order to kill Americans and
plunder their wealth wherever and whenever they find it."

So, so you believe that Sweden is off the hook - or just for the moment?

Are you aware what ancient texts Osama is getting his feed from? It's not the Koran. It's a text written during the First Crusade.

He's following the rules of jihad laid out in a very specific text. He can offer only temporary respite to non-Muslims - but in the end, once he achieves his victory over America (and whoever does business with America), he is forced by his dogma to finish the work - he MUST expand dar al-Islam to encompass the whole world, and to rid the world of all unbelievers.

If you look at the old text, and then at some of the stuff he's written in the original Arabic, you would notice that he's plagiarizing from that book - and just substituting Americans for Franks.


1 Doesn't say anything about the West, only America

2 Don't know about that text you refer to. Nor do I see a reason to take your word for it. Who told you?

3 Accepting your interpretation of that text, no, sorry, can't do that either.

4 Unscolarly of me, I admit, I can't go digging that up. But didn't they give you a digital copy? ;)

I'm surprised you say that the border of Syria is so well sealed, how are the foreign fighters getting in, as the article mentions, digging tunnels? If people are determined to get through, they will. For example your border with Mexico, I forget how many illegal Mexicans are currently in the US, are they not displacing white Californians (not illegals, but Espanics) as the largest demographic?

No I didn't say that it is very well sealed. There are leaks in it but not as many as people say there is. There is a difference. Satellites can't watch an area 24/7 unless its in Geostationary orbit. You are right that if they want to get through, they'll find a way. They have but when they do, they wind up meeting death at the hands of US soldiers and/or Iraqi National Guard Forces. As for the Illegal immigrants, the citizens are starting to patrol the borders themselves and alerting the Border Patrol. Also, I blame local governments for not reporting Illegal Immigrants to Federal Authorities. Both parties are responsible for that mess.

I tell you now, the UK will not support you with any troops. The declaration has already been made by our Foreign Minister Jack Straw. We had nearly two million people protesting over Iraq, the resolution to go to war went through with much debate, the political capital has been used in Iraq, Britian has reelected Blair with a much reduced majority and alot of the awkward squad Labourites as his backbenchers. If the UK doesn''t support you with men the rest of Europe aren't likely to either.

You know that Britain won't support us with troops for a fact? Care to tell me where you came across that since no one is talking about military action against either Syria or Iran? Care to point it out to me what Straw said with a link? Also, he doesn't speak for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to go to the British Parliment for their authorization, not Minister Straw. As for Britain, they are an ally. They'll support us because we are very close allies. Can't say the same for the Frenchies though. If anything, most of the opposition will come from France no matter what. Hopefully it doesn't get that far though.

To say they've lost in Afghanistan is very puzzling when recent ambushes within the Southern part have been escalating, whether these be Warlords or actual Jihadists I'm unsure of at the moment, but it doesn't bode well for in that chaos anything could once again flourish. And I'm still not convinced we're winning in Iraq, despite what you say.

Sighs.

Did you know that the Taliban is surrendering to the new Afghani government? Did you know that the terrorists are still on the run there? Did you know that the Afghanis had elections? Did you know that the Afghanis have a new constitution? Did you know that the new government isn't wavering? The terrorists are facing the same problems there as they are in Iraq. At least the terrorists have better terrain in AFghanistan than in Iraq. Want to know why I say that?

If the US administration did not want out why are they relying so heavily on their "Iraqisation" policy. It suggests that they want the Iraqis to fight it themselves, as in Vietam, but I don't think they'll be strong enough. On the other hand I don't see the US staying their for ten years in order to rebuild the infrastructure and other necessities for an orderly state.

THey want Iraq to fight for themselves because it is, and this may surprise you, their country. The Iraqis are fighting the terrorists. THey have killed or captured terrorists as well. They have done operations on their own without American help and succeeded. Did you know that? No I guess not.

1 Doesn't say anything about the West, only America

2 Don't know about that text you refer to. Nor do I see a reason to take your word for it. Who told you?

3 Accepting your interpretation of that text, no, sorry, can't do that either.

4 Unscolarly of me, I admit, I can't go digging that up. But didn't they give you a digital copy? ;)

Right now, because of all the controversy on this forum about what Islam stands for (it's farcical to assert that it's all the same), and what motivates Osama, I've enlisted the help of my brother-in-law, who reads Arabic and works at George Washington University as a historian specializing in the Middle Ages.

The text is from Zangi, one of the first rulers to contest the Crusaders. There are other texts as well from that period - and Osama appears to be a fan of them all.

I'll see if I can get a digital copy of the original Arabic.

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

on these guys sites I couldn't find anything about quitting smoking. Killing Americans and Jews as a way to salvation that was in there though.
While you're at it, why not look up all the white supremist websites, just so you can draw the conclusion that all white people hate jews and blacks and wish Hitler was still in power. It's about as fair and balanced as what you've just done regarding Islam.

Sighs.

Did you know that the Taliban is surrendering to the new Afghani government? Did you know that the terrorists are still on the run there? Did you know that the Afghanis had elections? Did you know that the Afghanis have a new constitution? Did you know that the new government isn't wavering? The terrorists are facing the same problems there as they are in Iraq. At least the terrorists have better terrain in AFghanistan than in Iraq. Want to know why I say that?



THey want Iraq to fight for themselves because it is, and this may surprise you, their country. The Iraqis are fighting the terrorists. THey have killed or captured terrorists as well. They have done operations on their own without American help and succeeded. Did you know that? No I guess not.


They are tasting freedom in both countries.Its encouraging them to fight hard to defend what they now have.Neither country wants to go back to how they were. I hope Iraqis and Afghans both continue to stay strong and fight the insurgents/terrorists while at the same time uphold their standards of democracy. There will be losses and death, but with their resolve and our continued support, I think they will win. And maybe a better way of life-freedom instead of oppression, will start to phase out the stragglers that arent committing themselves-waiting to side with the winner.

Moreover Al-Queda is more of an idea or a brandname rather than a highly structured organization with a rigid chain of command. Terrorists from Indonessia to Morocco envoke the name Al-Quaeda to get support and inspiration. Neo Nazis use the swastika world wide, Anarchists use a circled A, it doesn't mean they have any physical connection. It is pretty hard to kill an idea, which is why I don't expect to see the end of "Al Quaeda" any time soon.

Agreed.

(it's farcical to assert that it's all the same.

Entirely. That is why I somewhat disagree with your earlier suggestions that entire religions/regions should be annihilated.

While you're at it, why not look up all the white supremist websites, just so you can draw the conclusion that all white people hate jews and blacks and wish Hitler was still in power. It's about as fair and balanced as what you've just done regarding Islam.


Unfortunately, religions arent absolute, black and white. They all seem to be open to interpretation. And this allows for biased zealots to twist their meanings to suit themselves.
We cant let this become a religious war.

I agree that the article sounds too optimistic over things, but i think it's quite possible that this is indeed the last that al Qaeda can bring up.
At least this is an effecting method of drawing terrorists from across the globe (it's some kind of 'terrorism tourism') to a single point were they can be fought...
The question however is if the US forces can make a stand in Iraq for much longer...

... besides, who says that after Al Qaeda is gone, that other terrorist groups won't spring up and try something similar? It's not like Al Quaeda was unique... :(

Entirely. That is why I somewhat disagree with your earlier suggestions that entire religions/regions should be annihilated.

I would start with all Wahhabi-oriented individuals. If that failed, I would work my way out through the Sunnis.

Interestingly, Shias have no obligation for jihad until the return of their imam.

Sunnis seem to generally agree that there are two kinds of jihad - internal and external. Internal - you struggle to lose weight, you struggle to stop smoking. External - you are enlarging dar al-Islam by force. Depending on who you are, the external may be obligatory. And Wahabbis take this more seriously - you can't really lump all Sunnis into this group.

As a matter of interest, guess what book started the whole madrassa thing?

They are tasting freedom in both countries.Its encouraging them to fight hard to defend what they now have.Neither country wants to go back to how they were. I hope Iraqis and Afghans both continue to stay strong and fight the insurgents/terrorists while at the same time uphold their standards of democracy. There will be losses and death, but with their resolve and our continued support, I think they will win. And maybe a better way of life-freedom instead of oppression, will start to phase out the stragglers that arent committing themselves-waiting to side with the winner.

I agree that now that they have tasted freedom, they'll fight to maintain it. I wish them luck in this endeavor. THey'll take casualties but I'm hoping that they'll perserver and secure their freedom that we helped them achieve.

I would start with all Wahhabi-oriented individuals. If that failed, I would work my way out through the Sunnis.

Interestingly, Shias have no obligation for jihad until the return of their imam.

Sunnis seem to generally agree that there are two kinds of jihad - internal and external. Internal - you struggle to lose weight, you struggle to stop smoking. External - you are enlarging dar al-Islam by force. Depending on who you are, the external may be obligatory. And Wahabbis take this more seriously - you can't really lump all Sunnis into this group.

As a matter of interest, guess what book started the whole madrassa thing?

Would you use Zyklon - B?

Would you use Zyklon - B?

No. I'm sure that engineers can come up with something more efficient.

I agree that now that they have tasted freedom, they'll fight to maintain it. I wish them luck in this endeavor. THey'll take casualties but I'm hoping that they'll perserver and secure their freedom that we helped them achieve.


My feelings are the same. And I hope in the future, they would be true allies of the US, as well as trading partners. We would certainly all benefit from that relationship. much more so than the alternative.

My feelings are the same. And I hope in the future, they would be true allies of the US, as well as trading partners. We would certainly all benefit from that relationship. much more so than the alternative.

I agree 100%

No I didn't say that it is very well sealed. There are leaks in it but not as many as people say there is. There is a difference. Satellites can't watch an area 24/7 unless its in Geostationary orbit. You are right that if they want to get through, they'll find a way. They have but when they do, they wind up meeting death at the hands of US soldiers and/or Iraqi National Guard Forces. As for the Illegal immigrants, the citizens are starting to patrol the borders themselves and alerting the Border Patrol. Also, I blame local governments for not reporting Illegal Immigrants to Federal Authorities. Both parties are responsible for that mess.



You know that Britain won't support us with troops for a fact? Care to tell me where you came across that since no one is talking about military action against either Syria or Iran? Care to point it out to me what Straw said with a link? Also, he doesn't speak for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to go to the British Parliment for their authorization, not Minister Straw. As for Britain, they are an ally. They'll support us because we are very close allies. Can't say the same for the Frenchies though. If anything, most of the opposition will come from France no matter what. Hopefully it doesn't get that far though.



Sighs.

Did you know that the Taliban is surrendering to the new Afghani government? Did you know that the terrorists are still on the run there? Did you know that the Afghanis had elections? Did you know that the Afghanis have a new constitution? Did you know that the new government isn't wavering? The terrorists are facing the same problems there as they are in Iraq. At least the terrorists have better terrain in AFghanistan than in Iraq. Want to know why I say that?


THey want Iraq to fight for themselves because it is, and this may surprise you, their country. The Iraqis are fighting the terrorists. THey have killed or captured terrorists as well. They have done operations on their own without American help and succeeded. Did you know that? No I guess not.



Sighs.

Referring to Iran not Syria, but you can guess what he and the country would say to invasion of Syria, (as there is even less of a case for it):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3981307.stm

Unlike the American President, who is your commander-in-chief, the British Prime Minster cannot go to war, (I believe its 90 days in the US without the approval of Congress), or significant deployment of troops without Parliament approval. That will just not happen this time. Politically Blair has no support. We wasted all our political credibility over Iraq. He will never get the approval. Blair might want to help the US but he won't be allowed.

Sighs again.

I could explain why I think Afghanistan is not working as well as you think, but I'll be lazy and refer to another BBc site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4528213.stm

And another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3476377.stm

Even bigger sighs.

The Iraqi force you're building up is only effective if supported by Coalition forces. They have helped the us sure, but they have also deserted in great numbers and joined the insurgency as well. My point, which I'm unsure if you're reading, is that to build this up and expect it to work in a short period of time is folly. As I've given you sites to look at, I'm interested to know what successful military operation the indigenious Iraqi force has done without Coalition help in some way.

Sighs.

Referring to Iran not Syria, but you can guess what he and the country would say to invasion of Syria, (as there is even less of a case for it):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3981307.stm

Here's a hint, read between the lines. Also remember that Britain was having an election. Politicians will say anything to get their boss re-elected. Europe and the US have an agreement. Europe talks with Iran and if that doesn't work, will support a US resolution on Iran. Notice, I never said anything about military action.

Unlike the American President, who is your commander-in-chief, the British Prime Minster cannot go to war, (I believe its 90 days in the US without the approval of Congress), or significant deployment of troops without Parliament approval. That will just not happen this time. Politically Blair has no support. We wasted all our political credibility over Iraq. He will never get the approval. Blair might want to help the US but he won't be allowed.

Notice, I said that the Prime Minister needs approval from Parliment. I know full well what our president can do. My father is in the US Military as was several of my uncles on his side, my uncle on my mother's side, as well as 2 of my cousins and my brother-in-law. I know full well what the President can and cannot do when it comes to sending our forces into harms way. Don't assume otherwise. Here's another thing regarding politics that you apparently haven't grasped yet. It has the ability to turn. It can make enemies allies and allies enemies. What transpired one day will turn against or for it the next. Its an ever changing quagmire. Never say never when it comes to politics.

Sighs again.

I could explain why I think Afghanistan is not working as well as you think, but I'll be lazy and refer to another BBc site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4528213.stm

And another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3476377.stm

Well you better start explaining then because the links aren't helping.

Even bigger sighs.

The Iraqi force you're building up is only effective if supported by Coalition forces. They have helped the us sure, but they have also deserted in great numbers and joined the insurgency as well. My point, which I'm unsure if you're reading, is that to build this up and expect it to work in a short period of time is folly. As I've given you sites to look at, I'm interested to know what successful military operation the indigenious Iraqi force has done without Coalition help in some way.

Wanna bet that they are only effective when supported by coalition forces? You sir/ma'am have no clue as to how many operations have taken place by Iraqi NG forces ALONE. You have no clue how many of those operations have succeeded. You have no clue as to how many times they fought thet terrorists without American help and won the engagement.

BTW: Your first link says that a US attack on Iran isn't likely

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said it is "inconceivable" that America would try to bomb Iran.

I even like this gem:

Mr Straw said President Bush's re-election gave the world the chance to make new progress on Middle East peace.

Your other two links don't do nothing for your Afghan Comments either. In one, it says that 2 marines have died. Yea and that shows things are bad how when apparently 23 terrorists have died in that same battle?

Two US marines have been killed in a battle in eastern Afghanistan in which up to 23 militants are also thought to have died, the US military has said.

As for an illegal drug trade, that has been going on for years dude. Even before the US invaded. Did you know that Columbia has an illegal drug trade? Did you know that there's an illegal drug trade in the US?

I would start with all Wahhabi-oriented individuals. If that failed, I would work my way out through the Sunnis.

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious, but you are advocating genocide...you know that right?

Every free man's hand would rise up against you. You would literally become worse than the enemy you tried to exterminate. You would become worthy only of scorn and death; and at worst, those you killed would be forgiven for their crimes against you. You do realize this right?

What you propose could lead to the success of the Wahhabi factions or the complete destruction of the major western powers.

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious, but you are advocating genocide...you know that right?

Every free man's hand would rise up against you. You would literally become worse than the enemy you tried to exterminate. You would become worthy only of scorn and death; and at worst, those you killed would be forgiven for their crimes against you. You do realize this right?

What you propose could lead to the success of the Wahhabi factions or the complete destruction of the major western powers.

Yes, it's genocide. No, I'm not advocating it now. But once people of the Wahhabi persuasion pull off a major WMD attack, you won't be able to stop it from happenning.

Yes, it's genocide. No, I'm not advocating it now. But once people of the Wahhabi persuasion pull off a major WMD attack, you won't be able to stop it from happenning.

Is that so? If it did happen; I'd see those responsible for it dead. No provication is worth the wholesale slaughter you suggest.

Here's a hint, read between the lines. Also remember that Britain was having an election. Politicians will say anything to get their boss re-elected. Europe and the US have an agreement. Europe talks with Iran and if that doesn't work, will support a US resolution on Iran. Notice, I never said anything about military action.



Notice, I said that the Prime Minister needs approval from Parliment. I know full well what our president can do. My father is in the US Military as was several of my uncles on his side, my uncle on my mother's side, as well as 2 of my cousins and my brother-in-law. I know full well what the President can and cannot do when it comes to sending our forces into harms way. Don't assume otherwise. Here's another thing regarding politics that you apparently haven't grasped yet. It has the ability to turn. It can make enemies allies and allies enemies. What transpired one day will turn against or for it the next. Its an ever changing quagmire. Never say never when it comes to politics.



Well you better start explaining then because the links aren't helping.



Wanna bet that they are only effective when supported by coalition forces? You sir/ma'am have no clue as to how many operations have taken place by Iraqi NG forces ALONE. You have no clue how many of those operations have succeeded. You have no clue as to how many times they fought thet terrorists without American help and won the engagement.

BTW: Your first link says that a US attack on Iran isn't likely



I even like this gem:



Your other two links don't do nothing for your Afghan Comments either. In one, it says that 2 marines have died. Yea and that shows things are bad how when apparently 23 terrorists have died in that same battle?



As for an illegal drug trade, that has been going on for years dude. Even before the US invaded. Did you know that Columbia has an illegal drug trade? Did you know that there's an illegal drug trade in the US?

I quote from your earlier response "I'm sure if push came to shove, Europe will back the US in an invasion of Iran". If thats not military action I don't know what is. If you refer to your answer (number 36) to my question to invasion of Syria you gave me the impression the US has the will and ability to do it. Great, but you will not have British troops, and I'm unsure if Blair would be so enthiastic a supporter.

If you want to believe Blair will have the political capital to wage another war, i.e. supplying troops, believe that if you like. I've given you logical reasons, and you've come back with suggestions that politics is not a quarmire, great, but there are also political realities. He will not get approval. That will not change.

And why are you getting offened when I compare the UK Prime Minister's ability to wage war compared to your President? I haven't tried to insult you but you seem to be taking what I've said something against you for some reason.

May I have some links please, to show you their effectiveness? And I'll get links to show you that they are also highly ineffective.

In my first link to you also says: Asked if it was inconceivable that the world would support US military action against Iran, presumably bombings or using Israel as a "proxy", Mr Straw replied: "Not only is that inconceivable but I think the prospect of it happening is inconceivable."

And if you read that the US won't invade Iran, doesn't it make your ealier comments that the US is able in the case of Syria, (which is much less able to sell politically), to invade much less likely? I don't see it being put as a UN resolution.

In my second link (on Afghanistan) also says: Rebel attacks on US-led forces have risen in recent weeks, following the winter lull. Seventy people died in three days of clashes in southern Afghanistan last week, Afghan and US authorities said. The BBC's Andrew North in Kabul says the arrival of the spring thaw in the mountain areas where the Taleban-led insurgency has been concentrated, has always marked a new round of fighting in the past few years. He says there had been hopes this year would be more peaceful amid statements from the US military that the Taleban and other groups were in disarray and that many wanted to give up. However, the government is seen by some as having been slow in setting out plans for a reconciliation scheme with the Taleban, our correspondent says.

All my original point to you was, if you go back and read it, is that Afghanistan is not the overwhelming success you suggest. There is still alot of chaos.

In the final link it also says: The irony that many experts at the meeting were reluctant to mention was that the only people who have had any success in dealing with the drugs trade were the hardline Islamic Taleban, just before they were overthrown two years ago.In 2001, in the parts of the country they controlled, they cut back cultivation almost to nothing, using harsh methods to enforce their edict. The 185 tonnes of opium produced that year - compared to the 3,600 tonnes in 2003 - mostly came from the small area of northern Afghanistan then held by the Northern Alliance that later helped US forces topple the Taleban.

If you do not read these things that suggest to you that Afghanistan has major and long-term problems that need to be addressed than I don't know what you need to read to make you reconsider what you've said.

If you are getting angry its not my intention, but if you don't want to have a normal chat without getting more sarcastic and asking me silly things like "do I know there's a drug problem in the US?" than I won't continue to debate with you because I think you can't listen to a different side than the one you believe in.

Is that so? If it did happen; I'd see those responsible for it dead. No provication is worth the wholesale slaughter you suggest.
I'm not suggesting it. I'm saying no one will be able to stop it from happenning.

Here's a hypothetical situation, and not one that is entirely improbable.

Some al-Q people get some smallpox. Not impossible, you know. They infect themselves, then board planes and ships and begin to travel the US. But to get there, they fly and ride with other passengers - it's not a direct flight from Pakistan to New York, you know.

So smallpox breaks out in Europe, parts of North Africa, North and Central America, and possibly even South America.

A billion people die. The economy of the world is shattered - and more die of starvation. Some governments collapse in chaos.

I don't think you would be able to stop what happens in retribution.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm saying no one will be able to stop it from happenning.

Here's a hypothetical situation, and not one that is entirely improbable.

Some al-Q people get some smallpox. Not impossible, you know. They infect themselves, then board planes and ships and begin to travel the US. But to get there, they fly and ride with other passengers - it's not a direct flight from Pakistan to New York, you know.

So smallpox breaks out in Europe, parts of North Africa, North and Central America, and possibly even South America.

A billion people die. The economy of the world is shattered - and more die of starvation. Some governments collapse in chaos.

I don't think you would be able to stop what happens in retribution.

My person power to prevent worldwide retaliation is unquestionably small. However the scenerio you describe is faulty. For the sake of an argument we'll just use traditional scenerios; A nuke is used in NYC, everyone dies. What is the response?

A nation of laws would find out who was responsible and kill them. What you seem suggest is to wipe out everyone and anyone in a region, regardless of guilt or innocence.

These are different responses. One of them makes sense, the other will only make things worse.

I suppose what you are now suggesting is that the entire world would spontaneously retaliate against an entire people and exterminate them.

I remember that you said that "I would start with all Wahhabi-oriented individuals. If that failed, I would work my way out through the Sunnis." This is a very different sentance than "The world will spontaneously react to such an attack."

I can understand and regret the idea of the world lashing out in a moment of pain and rage; that is human instinct. Premeditated genocide of an entire people on a pretext is another matter entirely.

My response would be to remove from power permanently anyone who attempted to use a WMD attack as an excuse for genocide. My response for the world commiting a horrible atrocity in a moment of blindness would be considerably different.

A nation of laws would find out who was responsible and kill them. What you seem suggest is to wipe out everyone and anyone in a region, regardless of guilt or innocence.


A national government is, at its heart, not a collection of laws, but a bureaucracy.

The Final Solution was conceived as a bureaucratic solution to a non-existent problem.

What reaction do you believe the world's bureaucracies will offer to a real problem?

Look at the American reaction to 9-11. Invaded two countries, one of which isn't even related to 9-11. But more to the point, the US and the UK went out and did a bureaucratic response to the event - reorganizing the bureaucracy, crafting new laws, and more importantly, new regulations and chains of command and communication.

Rather like tapping a sleeping bear on the shoulder. It shifted a bit.

Don't pound the bear with a stick, because it will wake up.

A national government is, at its heart, not a collection of laws, but a bureaucracy.

The Final Solution was conceived as a bureaucratic solution to a non-existent problem.

What reaction do you believe the world's bureaucracies will offer to a real problem?

Look at the American reaction to 9-11. Invaded two countries, one of which isn't even related to 9-11. But more to the point, the US and the UK went out and did a bureaucratic response to the event - reorganizing the bureaucracy, crafting new laws, and more importantly, new regulations and chains of command and communication.

Rather like tapping a sleeping bear on the shoulder. It shifted a bit.

Don't pound the bear with a stick, because it will wake up.

The question is one of motivation, however. Governments are indeed a bureacracy. However, at some level, they are a bureacracy with goals.

Suppose, for a moment, that the US response to 9-11 was, on some level, opportunistic. It's not that difficult. Plans to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power were on the table almost from the second Bush took control of the White House.

Thus, when 9-11 occured, it opened the door that was needed to carry those plans out. It would have happened anyway, but 9-11 provided a very convenient call to action and a level of political chaos that allowed for not only the Iraq invasion, but for an introduction of entire new systems of government monitoring within the private sector.

I think it fully plausible that, should a doomsday scenario like the one you suggest happen, nukes might get thrown around. However, I would argue that if they did, it would be less from some sort of reliatory strike and more from the general confusion and a collapse of the safeguards that keep them in check.

The US response to 9-11 was not so much a "response" to the situation, but rather a siezed moment of opportunity to implement changes and revisions which the party currently in power had hoped to accomplish for a long time.

Tio,

I suggest you study politics abit more. You apparently have no grasp of it. Politics has an annoying habit of changing on ya when your not looking. A politician can say one thing one day and say the complete opposite the next. Nothing is absolute when it comes to politics. It is very fluid.

As for war, it is unpredictable. Never underestimate your opponet. Underestimating them has caused more defeats than victories. Underestimation cost the USSR, Argentina, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, and to a degree, the United STates. Saddam underestimated us as well.

Corneliu,

I suggest you just read more opinions and facts that conflict with your own. It'll broaden the mind. Politics and war are very fluid. But when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it's a duck.

Laters

Tio,

I suggest you study politics abit more. You apparently have no grasp of it. Politics has an annoying habit of changing on ya when your not looking. A politician can say one thing one day and say the complete opposite the next. Nothing is absolute when it comes to politics. It is very fluid.

As for war, it is unpredictable. Never underestimate your opponet. Underestimating them has caused more defeats than victories. Underestimation cost the USSR, Argentina, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, and to a degree, the United STates. Saddam underestimated us as well.

Corneliu,

I suggest you just read more opinions and facts that conflict with your own. It'll broaden the mind. Politics and war are very fluid. But when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it's a duck.

Laters

I have read opinions that conflict with mine. Only problem is that they are either bias or not based on facts. Problem is your not getting anything out of the mainstream media about all the good things that have happened in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Your only hearing the bad. I have heard the good and know that we are getting cooperation from the locals.

I also know that the insurgency in Iraq is despiret. Its obvious because of all the massive attacks going on. They know that this is their last chance. THey will fail.

I hope your not planning on going into politics anytime soon because you will be eaten up alive.

Just a question of many have heard of the woman that got stoned to death recently in Afganisthan? That is just a small sign that afganisthan have a long way to go.

Then it comes to Iraq a intersting thing his how long will the terrorist will keep atacking and that need to been done to stop them? Because one goal must for them is to increase the cost for the american and iraqies of taking a way saddam. And for two years know the Iraqies have to pay for the liberation by many many terrorist atacks. The thing is that even if the terrorist can't beat American they will still win if the USA can't stop the terrorist atacks.

I have read opinions that conflict with mine. Only problem is that they are either bias or not based on facts. Problem is your not getting anything out of the mainstream media about all the good things that have happened in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Your only hearing the bad. I have heard the good and know that we are getting cooperation from the locals.

I also know that the insurgency in Iraq is despiret. Its obvious because of all the massive attacks going on. They know that this is their last chance. THey will fail.

I hope your not planning on going into politics anytime soon because you will be eaten up alive.

Well as I intern for an NGO, The International Institute for Strategic Studies who have experts in the field concerning such things and discuss in great length about the on-going events. Have graduated from War Studies at King's College London, and have friends and family in the Armed Services and know people that are serving in British intelligence whom are about to serve in Iraq or coming back from Iraq I think my information is valid.

I think you do need to look at information besides the stuff you're getting to make more balanced and sensible comments. And to say the BBC is biased, (when compared to your ridiculious right-wing Fox News or liberal ABC), is like your other asinine questions asking if the US has a drug problem. And your knowledge of British politics and realities are very lacking.

But believe what you like, whatever makes you feel good.

My only argument with you is the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan have long-term problems that need to be addressed and that they don't seem to be doing that at the moment of writing. If you want to take that as doom-mongering or what have you, fine, but if you read my other threads when it comes to America I'm pretty balanced with what I'm saying. You just seem to be getting angry and personal when someone asks you questions that you don’t like or think they’re “liberally biased”; but then you don’t seem to answer them in any sensible fashion.

Ah, hell! Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out! :rolleyes:

Ah, hell! Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out! :rolleyes:

Oh no you don't! I've got friends serving in Iraq! ;)


God can sort 'em out later.

Oh no you don't! I've got friends serving in Iraq! ;)

God can sort 'em out later.
Oops! Yeah, me too. Ok ... point taken! :)

Well as I intern for an NGO, The International Institute for Strategic Studies who have experts in the field concerning such things and discuss in great length about the on-going events. Have graduated from War Studies at King's College London, and have friends and family in the Armed Services and know people that are serving in British intelligence whom are about to serve in Iraq or coming back from Iraq I think my information is valid.

Your info is valid as is mine. Here's a tip though. Don't trust the mainstream media for all of your information. Get the low down from the forces in Iraq. I have listened to those that just returned from the region and they are saying things are getting better. And they are getting better. Never trust the press as your only source. As for NGO's, I trust some but not others. I haven't heard of your NGO so I shall look into it. Thank you.

I think you do need to look at information besides the stuff you're getting to make more balanced and sensible comments. And to say the BBC is biased, (when compared to your ridiculious right-wing Fox News or liberal ABC), is like your other asinine questions asking if the US has a drug problem. And your knowledge of British politics and realities are very lacking.

Wow someone else thinks ABC is liberal. Your my hero :fluffle:

Seriously though, I also read the WASHINGTON POST as well as both of my local papers with one being conservative and the other isn't. So I get all sides as much as possible. As for BBC, if it wasn't biased then why did the British Royal Navy yank BBC off its ships? I'm not here to debate wether BBC is biased or not. All I'm saying is that I have come to learn that the Media isn't reliable as your only source of news.

But believe what you like, whatever makes you feel good.

My only argument with you is the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan have long-term problems that need to be addressed and that they don't seem to be doing that at the moment of writing.

Again, don't trust the news service. I can tell you that there is more going on behind the scenes that isn't being mentioned on Fox News, CNN, SkyNews, BBC, etc. For all we know is that they are being addressed and no one is hearing about it.

If you want to take that as doom-mongering or what have you, fine, but if you read my other threads when it comes to America I'm pretty balanced with what I'm saying. You just seem to be getting angry and personal when someone asks you questions that you don’t like or think they’re “liberally biased”; but then you don’t seem to answer them in any sensible fashion.

Not at all. I just don't like people who are giving only one side and fail to see the good that has been done. Yea Iraq has long term proplems as does Afghanistan. They have been long term problems even before we invaded both countries. Now, we are beginning to sort out the mess that the world has ignored for far to long.

It was a pleasure debating with ya Tio. Your one of the few on here that didn't throw insults at their opponets. Take Care.

AL-QAEDA who?

Does al-qaeda exist on any sort of scale?

All evidence suggests no. Though there are a lot of armed and angry islamic derivative people out there.

The name al-qaeda is used without thought to describe any arabic (or otherwise Islamic) terrorist/freedom fighter/economic warrior who is resisting western orientated political/economic systems.

These people will, like all resistance movements, continue to operate until the values that lead them into resistance are eradicated or placated. So they will continue to operate in Iraq, even if a new US-backed police state was imposed, and will continue to gain support across the arabic/islamic world.

Iraq has conditions ripe for insurgency and resistance, but as long as America (and the West in general) follow an exploitative capitalist strategy with rregards to these people's home states these people will always exist.

A democratic arabia would probably result in nationalistic governments who could justify war on America far easier than America is able to justify war on Iraq/Iran/Syria.

The name al-qaeda is used without thought to describe any arabic (or otherwise Islamic) terrorist/freedom fighter/economic warrior who is resisting western orientated political/economic systems.

It's not used without thought. These groups DO communicate with one another, and collaborate on plans. They are not all Arabs. They are not generic Muslims, either. One of the hallmarks that they DO have in common is that they are all followers of the Wahhabi sect within Sunni Islam.

al-Qaeda is an umbrella term that encompasses several organizations that DO work together and DO coordinate action together and DO share goals. They also have disagreements with one another.

It's rather like the term "mafia".

And it's not used without thought.

AL-QAEDA who?

A terrorist organization of global reach that wants to make the world an Islamic state

Does al-qaeda exist on any sort of scale?

They still do though not as big as they once were

All evidence suggests no. Though there are a lot of armed and angry islamic derivative people out there.

Al Qaeda has alliances and they're soldiers consider themselves Al Qaeda.

The name al-qaeda is used without thought to describe any arabic (or otherwise Islamic) terrorist/freedom fighter/economic warrior who is resisting western orientated political/economic systems.

Then why isn't Hamas, Al Aqsa Marters Brigrade, Islamic Jihad not referred too as Al Qaeda?

These people will, like all resistance movements, continue to operate until the values that lead them into resistance are eradicated or placated. So they will continue to operate in Iraq, even if a new US-backed police state was imposed, and will continue to gain support across the arabic/islamic world.

US Backed Police State? Care to tell me when Iraq became a police state?

Iraq has conditions ripe for insurgency and resistance, but as long as America (and the West in general) follow an exploitative capitalist strategy with rregards to these people's home states these people will always exist.

You don't happen to be a communist are you? Iraq has always been ripe for resistence and insurgency long before we got there. If it wasn't against Saddam Hussein, its against those trying to make Iraq a better place.

A democratic arabia would probably result in nationalistic governments who could justify war on America far easier than America is able to justify war on Iraq/Iran/Syria.

Considering our invasion in Iraq has shooken up the middle east, I doubt this highly.

I agree that the media is very one-sided and it's focusing on the negative in Iraq. I'm 100% behind you on that one. All I'm saying to you is that the BBC is one of the more balanced news providers you're going to get, as in the fact that many of your compatriots watched it during the Coalition invasion, (and even then it got things hidiously wrong, but thats the development of 24/7 news and what have you). I'm unfamilar with the fact that it got pulled off Royal Navy ships, I'll investigate.

My annoyance was only with the fact that you thought I was relying on just media sources. I only used them as they were universally at hand. You can investigate IISS at: http://www.iiss.org/

But to access any files you need membership access. (There is another IISS in DC and I think Singapore). But if you want I can send you the recent Adephi Paper by Toby Dodge that is advertised on the front site concerning Iraq. It's not negative but it shows alot of bad problems taht have to be addressed.

And I'll admit that good things are going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are. I'm just unsure for all the good that we, primarily America is doing, is going to defeat the massive problems we face. I do hope that we are successful because I believe that success in Afghanistan and Iraq could bring alot of good for the people and the local region. Fingers crossed.

I'm glad that we didn't descend into a slanging match, there is too many of those on NS.

I look forward to future debates with you


Your info is valid as is mine. Here's a tip though. Don't trust the mainstream media for all of your information. Get the low down from the forces in Iraq. I have listened to those that just returned from the region and they are saying things are getting better. And they are getting better. Never trust the press as your only source. As for NGO's, I trust some but not others. I haven't heard of your NGO so I shall look into it. Thank you.



Wow someone else thinks ABC is liberal. Your my hero :fluffle:

Seriously though, I also read the WASHINGTON POST as well as both of my local papers with one being conservative and the other isn't. So I get all sides as much as possible. As for BBC, if it wasn't biased then why did the British Royal Navy yank BBC off its ships? I'm not here to debate wether BBC is biased or not. All I'm saying is that I have come to learn that the Media isn't reliable as your only source of news.



Again, don't trust the news service. I can tell you that there is more going on behind the scenes that isn't being mentioned on Fox News, CNN, SkyNews, BBC, etc. For all we know is that they are being addressed and no one is hearing about it.



Not at all. I just don't like people who are giving only one side and fail to see the good that has been done. Yea Iraq has long term proplems as does Afghanistan. They have been long term problems even before we invaded both countries. Now, we are beginning to sort out the mess that the world has ignored for far to long.

It was a pleasure debating with ya Tio. Your one of the few on here that didn't throw insults at their opponets. Take Care.

Thanks for the NGO link. Much appreciated. Be well my friend.