NationStates Jolt Archive

Caught a shot of Murtha saying this:

Rep. John Murtha on 6/16/06:
"The thing that disturbed me and worries me about this whole thing is we can't get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it, in Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia President Clinton changed direction, and yet here, with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and being looked at as occupiers — 80 percent of the people want us out of there — and yet they continue to say, "We're fighting this thing." We're not fighting this. The troops are fighting this thing. That's who's doing the fighting..."

our actions in Beruit and Somalia in response to those attacks are the whole fucking reason we are in this mess

Or don't you remember the 9-11 Commission's findings?

http://static.flickr.com/66/169050591_239c64ed5e_o.jpg

Al-Qaida thinks it can win because Allah is on their side.

The United States thinks it can win because God is on their side.

Very confusing.

Terrorists think that because Iraq hasn't been crushed and destroyed yet, theres still hope. I don't know, that sort of makes sense. I mean, if you're still alive then you can still win right?

I'm not sure if they think they can win. I think it's more about how, even if it is very small, whatever terror you inflict on western civilisation is a personal victory that will be rewarded by Allah.

These ones think they can win because they already have won.

They think they can win because experience has shown them that a ragtag band of irregular fighters who are willing to commit any atrocity will cause the US to retreat.

Beirut showed them that. Somalia showed them that. And it worked against the former USSR - Afghanistan at that time showed them that.

So, Bin Laden states that all they have to do is fight insurgencies and they will win, because the US will not have the will to fight. He knows that men like Murtha will step up and call for a retreat.

And they plan to do this until one day, they are fighting the insurgency within the US.

I don't think these people are even hoping for "victory" in the traditional sense of the word. Things like suicide bombings are carried out by people who feel that they have lost everything they have and have nothing to lose by dieing. They want to send a clear message of defiance to the world and they think that blowing themselves and about 10-50 other people up is sending that message.

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Did the terrorists succeed in their goals here by that definition? I think not. We're fighting over there and the Islamic extremists (remember that the mainstream Islamic people don't approve of their actions) are seeing this as an extension of the Crusades and Western colonialism. Just think, if someone were to, God forbid, invade the United States, wouldn't you try and find a rifle and kill the occupiers? Tis better to die on your feet then live on your knees.

They think they can win because experience has shown them that a ragtag band of irregular fighters who are willing to commit any atrocity will cause the US to retreat.

Beirut showed them that. Somalia showed them that. And it worked against the former USSR - Afghanistan at that time showed them that.

So, Bin Laden states that all they have to do is fight insurgencies and they will win, because the US will not have the will to fight. He knows that men like Murtha will step up and call for a retreat.

And they plan to do this until one day, they are fighting the insurgency within the US.

So, just out curiosity, if you have all the answers, why ask the question?

So, just out curiosity, if you have all the answers, why ask the question?

Because Murtha evidently doesn't have any idea of how the insurgents think (not that Bush does either, but Murtha is even more clueless).

So, just out curiosity, if you have all the answers, why ask the question?
Probably curious as to what others think. That would be my guess. Which, as shown by the above post, is wrong :p

The terrorists think they can win because they will win.

The terrorists think they can win because they will win.

However, they could not win if they didn't think they could win.

So they'll win because they think they can win,

And they think they can win because they will.

Think about that for a minute or so.

However, they could not win if they didn't think they could win.

So they'll win because they think they can win,

And they think they can win because they will.

Think about that for a minute or so.

They win if we retreat. Think about that for a minute or so.

Explain to me how you feel they are terrorists whilst your supposed "Civilized" fascist pig government holding in one hand the flag and the other a bible invading a nation for different ideology, now THAT is terrorism, Osama Bin Laden deserves AT LEAST the same amount of recognition as Ronald Reagan....


FRY THE PIGS!

The idea of "winning" changes from person to person. It's hard to say "they win if we retreat" because have they really "won"? Is it all over, with them being the victors? It just means that America needs time to regroup and rethink. A complete "victory" seems to be years away for either side..

In the eighties, muslim extremists kicked the shit out of one superpower, that ended up collapsing.

So they though "Hey, the USSR fell because we kicked them in Afghanistan! We can make superpowers fall!"

Coincidentally, the people that fought the USSR also fight the US today.

They think they won once. They think they can win again.

So what if they are stupid?

Explain to me how you feel they are terrorists whilst your supposed "Civilized" fascist pig government holding in one hand the flag and the other a bible invading a nation for different ideology, now THAT is terrorism, Osama Bin Laden deserves AT LEAST the same amount of recognition as Ronald Reagan....

FRY THE PIGS!

Hmm.... don't you just love the empty rhetoric?

In the eighties, muslim extremists kicked the shit out of one superpower, that ended up collapsing.

So they though "Hey, the USSR fell because we kicked them in Afghanistan! We can make superpowers fall!"

Coincidentally, the people that fought the USSR also fight the US today.

They think they won once. They think they can win again.

So what if they are stupid?


All they have to have for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is to have the US retreat. They knew that people like Murtha would be there to call for it.

Explain to me how you feel they are terrorists whilst your supposed "Civilized" fascist pig government holding in one hand the flag and the other a bible invading a nation for different ideology, now THAT is terrorism, Osama Bin Laden deserves AT LEAST the same amount of recognition as Ronald Reagan....


FRY THE PIGS!

Get off your high horse and stop labelling anything you don't like as 'terrorist'. The true definition of terrorism is using force specifically against non-military personnel for political gains. The administration invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons, IMO, but not because we're just out there to slaughter civilians.

And in response to the question of the original poster. Dude, the terrorists ARE winning. All they're out to do is destroy as much of American lives, property and morale as possible and they're doing very well. They have the advantage. They don't have to consider collatoral damage, civilian casualties or political reputation. We do. They have the advantage.

So it's no wonder they're not stopping. they're doing precisely what they aimed to do.

They win if we retreat. Think about that for a minute or so.

Oh, I'm not arguing with that. If the US retreats, they have achieved their goal, namely, to make the US retreat.

I was just pointing out an interesting paradox.

Well....


because if I start talking abt. this I will end up writing a 6 page essay explaining how capitalism is evil, drugs should be legalized, and christianity can be EASILY disproven, so I'm not going to go into details, Bin Laden should be given respect, you cannot call a man simply protecting his homeland a terrorist because his views are not accepted in your part of the world, mostly because he only has the power to fight guerilla, explain to me how beheading ten people is worse than setting off a bomb in an aspirin factory and killing over 100 people?

Oh, I'm not arguing with that. If the US retreats, they have achieved their goal, namely, to make the US retreat.

I was just pointing out an interesting paradox.

Also, they knew that they could win, because even though we possess enough military might to destroy anything, we do not possess the will to stop them.

Sooner or later, a Murtha comes along, and we retreat.

Osama's grand plan is to keep doing this until he's fighting us on the streets in the US.

Well....


because if I start talking abt. this I will end up writing a 6 page essay explaining how capitalism is evil, drugs should be legalized, and christianity can be EASILY disproven, so I'm not going to go into details, Bin Laden should be given respect, you cannot call a man simply protecting his homeland a terrorist because his views are not accepted in your part of the world, mostly because he only has the power to fight guerilla, explain to me how beheading ten people is worse than setting off a bomb in an aspirin factory and killing over 100 people?


I'm not discussing whether terrorism is right or wrong, if you took the time to read the OP.

I'm not sure if they think they can win. I think it's more about how, even if it is very small, whatever terror you inflict on western civilisation is a personal victory that will be rewarded by Allah.


Appearently, orthodox islamic hopes of going to Paradise can be squashed by judicious alteration of burial-rites.
Let's get to it - we did something similar during the Sepoy insurgency, if memory serves me correct.

All they have to have for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is to have the US retreat. They knew that people like Murtha would be there to call for it.


lolol. damn right

you are kinda screwed.. you stay, more dead gi's for nothing

you go, and you have to put up with a bunch of derka derka's having a psychological orgasm

sucks!

No, we are not, HOWEVER you are labelling people who are not truly terrorists terrorists because whatever western nation you live in has given them that name, a more proper name would be "insurgents" or "al Qeada"
I'm simply correcting the injustice people make by labelling them "terrorists"

Also, they knew that they could win, because even though we possess enough military might to destroy anything, we do not possess the will to stop them.

Sooner or later, a Murtha comes along, and we retreat.

Osama's grand plan is to keep doing this until he's fighting us on the streets in the US.

So we never leave? Or do we stay until we've killed every single insurgent and terrorist to make sure no one can win when we leave?

Also, they knew that they could win, because even though we possess enough military might to destroy anything, we do not possess the will to stop them.

Sooner or later, a Murtha comes along, and we retreat.

Osama's grand plan is to keep doing this until he's fighting us on the streets in the US.

You have had a deep and insightful conversation with Osama then, about what his grand plan is, or are you just guessing?

Appearently, orthodox islamic hopes of going to Paradise can be squashed by judicious alteration of burial-rites.
Let's get to it - we did something similar during the Sepoy insurgency, if memory serves me correct.

Politically incorrect, and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Although I hate to say it, I find little difference in dropping a bomb on someone that mutilates a body in ways that you just can't do by hand, and actually mutilating bodies by hand.

Technically, if we added pork fat to every explosive munition that would be legal under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, but smearing pork fat on the dead by hand would be a violation.

Got it? Good.

So we never leave? Or do we stay until we've killed every single insurgent and terrorist to make sure no one can win when we leave?

Why not?
The enemy is there, and targetys abound.

It's like RummyWorld: throw a life grenade, and you're bound to kill some terrorists.

Also, they knew that they could win, because even though we possess enough military might to destroy anything, we do not possess the will to stop them.

Sooner or later, a Murtha comes along, and we retreat.

Osama's grand plan is to keep doing this until he's fighting us on the streets in the US.

... Yeah... okay...

That plan, if it does in fact exist (and if Osama, is, in fact, still in practical control of Al-Qaeda) has a fundamental flaw.

At the point that he's fighting on the streets in the US, there's nowhere to retreat to...

... Yeah... okay...

That plan, if it does in fact exist (and if Osama, is, in fact, still in practical control of Al-Qaeda) has a fundamental flaw.

At the point that he's fighting on the streets in the US, there's nowhere to retreat to...

Retreat is psychological. There will be those who will say, "why don't we just surrender?"

I'm not discussing whether terrorism is right or wrong, if you took the time to read the OP.

I don't quite understand the thread question because you've already answered it yourself - the terrorists are winning and will win in the end, based on their own conceptions of 'victory'. i.e, the thought "If I manage to convince this kid that our cause is just, he'll follow me after I get wiped out by some Special Forces chap". Hence, the question of whether terrorism is right or wrong is integral in answering how much longer we have to endure this bullshit.

Rumsfeld was right about it being a long war.

... Yeah... okay...

That plan, if it does in fact exist (and if Osama, is, in fact, still in practical control of Al-Qaeda) has a fundamental flaw.

At the point that he's fighting on the streets in the US, there's nowhere to retreat to...

I don't think DK meant that quite so literally guys. Replace the term 'grand plan' with 'dream'. And 'fighting us on our streets' with 'bombing landmarks on our own territory.' Both are probably true.

Politically incorrect, and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Although I hate to say it, I find little difference in dropping a bomb on someone that mutilates a body in ways that you just can't do by hand, and actually mutilating bodies by hand.

Technically, if we added pork fat to every explosive munition that would be legal under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, but smearing pork fat on the dead by hand would be a violation.

Got it? Good.


No, I don't get it.

Our opponents use their beliefs as 'medicine'.
Thing to do is to totally and utterly destroy their 'medicine'.

Alright: add pork fat, or pork blood, or better yet! both, to the ammo.
Saves us the problem of having to worry about our opponents using our ammo.

Unfortunately, the Busheviks believe that until Iraq is either a shiney happy place full of rainbows and unicorns or a glass parking lot uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years, any troop redeployment is a "cut and run" maneuver.

Extremists are so strange sometimes.

Retreat is psychological. There will be those who will say, "why don't we just surrender?"
But retreat to where?

They already hit the US before. :(

But retreat to where?

They already hit the US before. :(

Yes ... but that was before the homo rainbow of the terror alert system!

Al-Qaida thinks it can win because Allah is on their side.

The United States thinks it can win because God is on their side.

Very confusing.

Yes, since it is the selfsame deity.

And on the matter: the terrorists are already in the process of winning. They have managed to get the US in a hysteria like no-one ever has. And the mess in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq has disclosed the weakness of the US in fighting many struggles at once. It takes only a few people to disturb even large crowds, and the terrorists know that. Fear is their weapon and it works better than any military endeavor the US could ever undertake.
.

I don't quite understand the thread question because you've already answered it yourself - the terrorists are winning and will win in the end, based on their own conceptions of 'victory'. i.e, the thought "If I manage to convince this kid that our cause is just, he'll follow me after I get wiped out by some Special Forces chap". Hence, the question of whether terrorism is right or wrong is integral in answering how much longer we have to endure this bullshit.

Rumsfeld was right about it being a long war.

The Cold War was an ideological war. And it took over 50 years.

Since our opponents don't have a nation to call home, as the USSR did, this one might go on for a thousand years.

They'll fight it whether or not we show up.

Yes ... but that was before the homo rainbow of the terror alert system!


Red Alert!
Green Alert!
Yellow Alert!
Blue Alert!

Be very afraid Alert!


Oh, look, it's Cheney's daughter!


PINK ALERT MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY

Equally, does the USA think it can win, and if so, why?

Yes you have the military power to invade this country or that one, but you cannot change the mindset of the militant anti-US brigade by doing so.

It seems to me that this is a war (the war on terror - not the war in Iraq - they are different) that cannot be won by either side.

The US can occupy Iraq and brutally eliminate any opposition to this in the country, but there will always be those opposed to the US and minded to do something about it, in other countries. This includes within the USA.

So how does the USA think they can win?

Why do they think they can win? Look at how America has changed since 9/11. It shows their methods work. I cant even get through a day without hearing the word terrorism. Everyone is overwhelmed with fear, so much fear that they put all their trust in our unitary executive to protect us. The war on terror is over. We lost.

Equally, does the USA think it can win, and if so, why?

Yes you have the military power to invade this country or that one, but you cannot change the mindset of the militant anti-US brigade by doing so.

It seems to me that this is a war (the war on terror - not the war in Iraq - they are different) that cannot be won by either side.

The US can occupy Iraq and brutally eliminate any opposition to this in the country, but there will always be those opposed to the US and minded to do something about it, in other countries. This includes within the USA.

So how does the USA think they can win?

Rinse, dry, repeat.

But retreat to where?

They already hit the US before. :(

Retreat from offensive, overseas wars perhaps. Hunker down and concentrate on defense, not pre-emption. I'm not saying this is the only way to go but it's an option I've been thinking about. The advantage to this is primarily a political one. It would give our enemies, allies and friends a chance to cool down and stop thinking of the U.S. as some kind of neo-Nazi Germany.

So how does the USA think they can win?

If I occupy a country, and run its education system content for a generation, I win.

Worked on the Nazis. We've turned Germany into a nation of pacifists.

Rinse, dry, repeat.

Why havent you enlisted to fight that never ending war again?

Why havent you enlisted to fight that never ending war again?


I voted to draft YOU.
Problem?

Why havent you enlisted to fight that never ending war again?
Been there, done that

I voted to draft YOU.
Problem?

Pussy.

Been there, done that

Wasnt talking to you. But why havent you reenlisted?

Why havent you enlisted to fight that never ending war again?

Ooh ooh! Can I play?

I haven't enlisted because I'd rather stay here and fuck all the deployed soldiers's girlfriends.

Wasnt talking to you. But why havent you reenlisted?
Gee, I guess working as a contractor over there doesn't count for you.

Ooh ooh! Can I play?

I haven't enlisted because I'd rather stay here and fuck all the deployed soldiers's girlfriends.

Ouch...

But seriously, I dont know how people can support some never ending war thats being fought by someone elses child, or someone elses brother/sister, or someone elses husband/wife.

Its pathetic.

Gee, I guess working as a contractor over there doesn't count for you.

And that is supposed to mean what exactly?

Al-Qaida thinks it can win because Allah is on their side.

The United States thinks it can win because God is on their side.

Very confusing.
"Clash of the Titans?" :)

Why do they think they can win? Look at how America has changed since 9/11. It shows their methods work. I cant even get through a day without hearing the word terrorism. Everyone is overwhelmed with fear, so much fear that they put all their trust in our unitary executive to protect us. The war on terror is over. We lost.

Smartest response I've read so far.

But I don't think victory for the U.S. is totally out of the question. It'll take a long long time, lots of patience and a change in strategy. Basically, alongside our military wiping out the terrorists who are beyond 'salvation', so to speak, we need more spies and schools. Spies to locate any new threats and schools to educate those who still CAN be saved from becoming terrorists with nothing to lose. Educating them would eventually improve their economy, giving them less reason to think they have so little while the rest of the world has so much. As DK pointed out, it worked with Germany pretty well.

"Clash of the Titans?" :)

Would make for an entertaining Friday Night Fight.

And that is supposed to mean what exactly?
Let's see - I did the 1991 Gulf War as enlisted, and came back for six months in late 2003, early 2004. Doing the same thing, but as a private contractor.

Got it?

Pussy.


*scratches your eyes out*

Would make for an entertaining Friday Night Fight.


*promises to buy Eut, Keru, and DK ringside tickets*

But seriously, I dont know how people can support some never ending war thats being fought by someone elses child, or someone elses brother/sister, or someone elses husband/wife.


I don't either. I believe in standing up for your causes, body and soul. If you support this war and are eligible for enlistment and aren't there eating sand, then you're a hypocrite and should stfu.

*promises to buy Eut, Keru, and DK ringside tickets*
Kewl! [ Promises to bring all the beer and pretzels. ] :D

I don't either. I believe in standing up for your causes, body and soul. If you support this war and are eligible for enlistment and aren't there eating sand, then you're a hypocrite and should stfu.
I tried to re-enlist three times. :(

Kewl! [ Promises to bring all the beer and pretzels. ] :D

Partytime! *promises to bring alcohol-free drinks for those of us who can't drink beer*

I don't either. I believe in standing up for your causes, body and soul. If you support this war and are eligible for enlistment and aren't there eating sand, then you're a hypocrite and should stfu.

I'm 45 now, and the age for enlistment is 42.

I fought in the 1991 Gulf War, and I also went to Iraq in late 2003, early 2004 as a private contractor.

Partytime! *promises to bring alcohol-free drinks for those of us who can't drink beer*
Par-tay! Yayyyy!

God, it's been WAY too long since I last had a real good party. :headbang:

I tried to re-enlist three times. :(

I know. At least you tried. Many so-called "supporters" of this war haven't gotten up off their chair long enough to wipe the Cheet-Os crumbs from their fingers and dial up a recruiting office.

I'm 45 now, and the age for enlistment is 42.

I fought in the 1991 Gulf War, and I also went to Iraq in late 2003, early 2004 as a private contractor.

Then you've done your time. Also, since you're ineligible, you're not counted in the aforementioned hypocrites.

I don't either. I believe in standing up for your causes, body and soul. If you support this war and are eligible for enlistment and aren't there eating sand, then you're a hypocrite and should stfu.

Like DK, I'm no longer eligible for Enlistment. *shrug*

I know. At least you tried. Many so-called "supporters" of this war haven't gotten up off their chair long enough to wipe the Cheet-Os crumbs from their fingers and dial up a recruiting office.

Lets all stare at those college republicans.

Like DK, I'm no longer eligible for Enlistment. *shrug*

Did you EVER enlist, like DK?

Lets all stare at those college republicans.

That's who I'm lookin' at, with one eyebrow raised in a knowing "mmmhmm" glance.

Did you EVER enlist, like DK?

24 years of service.
Made it to O5.

Did you EVER enlist, like DK?

I, myself, have not. However, I don't support this (or any) war.

I know. At least you tried. Many so-called "supporters" of this war haven't gotten up off their chair long enough to wipe the Cheet-Os crumbs from their fingers and dial up a recruiting office.

I have more respect for the insurgents in Iraq than I do for any of the people who oppose the war here at home.

At least they take a side. A lot of the opposition here waits for news stories like vultures. They get off on watching us lose. And they don't really do anything - unlike the insurgents, who at least fight and die and get captured. I don't believe that most of the opposition has a life, because they don't do anything but talk.

I think the terrorists can win because there are enough terrified bed-wetters who are more than willing to rip the Constitution to shreds the moment a brown-skinned person walks in the room. Many people are already utterly consumed by terror, so the terrorists don't have to do much in order to exploit this.

A lot of the opposition here waits for news stories like vultures. They get off on watching us lose.

Way to regurgitate those talking heads on Fox news.

Its the news. How do they make money? By people watching/reading. Do you think people are going to pay attention to a story about whats good in Iraq, if anything? No. People want death and destruction.

Way to regurgitate those talking heads on Fox news.

Its the news. How do they make money? By people watching/reading. Do you think people are going to pay attention to a story about whats good in Iraq, if anything? No. People want death and destruction.

So, which movement have you fought for? Even the people who show up at IMF and World Bank protests are doing "something".

At least they take a side. A lot of the opposition here waits for news stories like vultures. They get off on watching us lose.

I'm opposed to the war. I'm opposed because I don't believe violence solves anything. Nothing political there, just the conviction that peace can prevail without bloodshed.

Some call it "Harm none", others say it "Thou shalt not kill", but it's all pretty much the same ideaology. I greive just as much for every fallen soldier as I do for every fallen innocent. I take no joy in any victory or loss.

Sadly, bad news sells more than good news.

Few journalists, counting me in, are trying to change that fact, but even if it isn't an aspect of the human nature, or just a conditioning by the media, it will take centuries to change, if ever happens.

So, which movement have you fought for? Even the people who show up at IMF and World Bank protests are doing "something".

Are you implying I have never protested?

I have more respect for the insurgents in Iraq than I do for any of the people who oppose the war here at home.

At least they take a side. A lot of the opposition here waits for news stories like vultures. They get off on watching us lose. And they don't really do anything - unlike the insurgents, who at least fight and die and get captured. I don't believe that most of the opposition has a life, because they don't do anything but talk.

That reminds me of why I oppose certain wars, but I was never really fond of the anti-war camp. Look at what's happened to Bush's approval ratings and the approval of the war in Iraq. The graph goes down as we take more and more losses. Imagine if this kind of thinking was the norm in World War II, where we took a hell of a lot more casualties than today?

It seems like people's opinion only hinges on whether we're taking a lot of hits or not, not whether the war was necessary or not. That's cowardice. If you protest against the war, do it because you believe it was a bad decision, not because we're having a tough time with it!

Are you implying I have never protested?

I'm merely implying you're a tosser.

Are you implying I have never protested?
I want to know if you've actually fought for a cause.

You know, been shot at, arrested, beaten, etc.

If I occupy a country, and run its education system content for a generation, I win.

Worked on the Nazis. We've turned Germany into a nation of pacifists.

Sorry, had to go out for a while.

You missed the point DK. I clearly seperated the war in Iraq - which you can win, from the war on terror - which you cannot win.

You occupy Iraq, and run its education system for three generations and you can have the effect you want. (Germany, is not quite how you see it, but never mind).

The point is that while you are doing this in Iraq, the anti-US brigade is active in half a dozen other vulnerable locations - including within the US. You simply cannot control the minds of the entire world, and while the solution to the problem is seen as being a militaristic one, you are going to be like a dog chasing a dust devil.

I have more respect for the insurgents in Iraq than I do for any of the people who oppose the war here at home.

At least they take a side. A lot of the opposition here waits for news stories like vultures. They get off on watching us lose. And they don't really do anything - unlike the insurgents, who at least fight and die and get captured. I don't believe that most of the opposition has a life, because they don't do anything but talk.
You are, unfortunaltely, correct. :(

You know, been shot at, arrested, beaten, etc.

Never been shot at, myself. Have been arrested and beaten (not by police) in gay rights rallies and once had eggs thrown at me (those hurt!) during a pro-choice march in Austin.

Caught a shot of Murtha saying this:



our actions in Beruit and Somalia in response to those attacks are the whole fucking reason we are in this mess

Or don't you remember the 9-11 Commission's findings?

http://static.flickr.com/66/169050591_239c64ed5e_o.jpg
Murtha has either lost his mind or he has taken a calculated move to attatch himself to the looney left and feels his former actions in the military will shield him...well he claims the US is a greater danger than North Korea..so we can say for sure..he will never win election again in PA.
We like our politicions a bit more to the center...if Murtha tilts any more left he will be laying down. He's doomed himself with his own stupid words.
Outside of a small pocket in Philadelphia and Pittsburg..there is no left wing in Pennsylvania ..its all moderate to conservative to extremely consevative.
So I'd say he screwed the pooch bad..unless of course he feels he is so old he will not run again and is setting himself up for leadership of a nice commitee ...he would need the looney votes for that...BUT he is betting on the Democrats somehow winning elections...Since the cut and runners are scaring the living shit out of voters with there looney talk...I dont see how they win the post of dog catcher. So Murtha the Dems new male Cindy Sheehan ..( thats how he is now being presented in this state ) is in for a rough ride .
He crossed the line of no return by comparing the US to NK .and Iran .

I have more respect for the insurgents in Iraq than I do for any of the people who oppose the war here at home.

At least they take a side. A lot of the opposition here waits for news stories like vultures. They get off on watching us lose. And they don't really do anything - unlike the insurgents, who at least fight and die and get captured. I don't believe that most of the opposition has a life, because they don't do anything but talk.


I second that .


Blah blah blah...so whats your plan ? We run away ....:rolleyes: Thats a plan ?

This is not France despite what the looney left thinks .

DK..someone should E-mail Murtha and let him know that cutting and running in Somalia is the template Al Queda uses to wage war against the US...we cant take casualties or brutality so the more brutal and murderouse they are the faster we tuck our tail between our legs and run away .
In Al queda's own words...http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rO2HY8unF_sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&sig=IeU_HX_hj-67RVOLMM-SXeX3CuQ&dq=al+queda+somalia+&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3Dal%2Bqueda%2Bsomalia%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff

Sorry, had to go out for a while.

You missed the point DK. I clearly seperated the war in Iraq - which you can win, from the war on terror - which you cannot win.

You occupy Iraq, and run its education system for three generations and you can have the effect you want. (Germany, is not quite how you see it, but never mind).

The point is that while you are doing this in Iraq, the anti-US brigade is active in half a dozen other vulnerable locations - including within the US. You simply cannot control the minds of the entire world, and while the solution to the problem is seen as being a militaristic one, you are going to be like a dog chasing a dust devil.


*shrug* mind-altering drugs in water-supplies.
Quitaiopine. ( Unsure about spelling. )
Technically difficult, but not impossible.

Of course, this is not exactly a military solution.
Nice to see that there are some problems that can ONLY be solved by non-violent means... :) :D

This is not France despite what the looney left thinks .

Youch, that's not going to go over too well with les Francais that we have here. :eek:

I'm merely implying you're a tosser.

lol.


(Was smacked up by riot police in London's 2000 May Day riots - I have the right to laugh)

Alright: add pork fat, or pork blood, or better yet! both, to the ammo.
Saves us the problem of having to worry about our opponents using our ammo.

Suggestion: Do that to your own bullets first. Then try to fire them. Watch what it does to your gun.

Someone should get Murtha and the other looney toons to read some things...

Zawahiri impressed upon Bin Laden the importance of understanding the American mentality. The American mentality is a cowboy mentality-- if you confront them with their identity theoretically and practically they will react in an extreme manner. In other words, America with all its resources and establishments will shrink into a cowboy when irritated successfully. They will then elevate you and this will satisfy the Muslim longing for a leader who can successfully challenge the West. Zawahiri advised Bin Laden to forget about the 12 page statement as nobody had read it and instead issue a short statement identifying every American as a target. Even though this was controversial from an Islamic perspective, Zawahiri argued on pragmatic grounds that it had to be sanctioned. The statement in February 1998, which was only 3 or 4 lines, effectively sanctioned shedding the blood of every American.



We all know how WELL this worked

The main thesis proposed in the document is that America cannot be coerced to leave Iraq by military-political means alone, but the Islamist resistance can succeed if it makes the occupation of Iraq as costly as possible - in economic terms - for the United States.

The document therefore offers a number of specific "policy recommendations" in order to increase the economic impact of the insurgency and the jihadi campaign in Iraq. The most important of these recommendations consists of trying to limit the number of American allies present in Iraq, because America must not be allowed to share the cost of occupation with a wide coalition of countries. If the mujahidin can force US allies to withdraw from Iraq then America will be left to cover the expenses on her own, which she cannot sustain for very long. The intermediary strategic goal is therefore to make one or two of the US allies leave the coalition, because this will cause others to follow suit and the dominos will start falling.

The document then analyses three countries (Britain, Spain and Poland) in depth, with a view to identifying the weakest link or the domino piece most likely to fall first. The author provides a surprisingly informed and nuanced analysis of the domestic political map in each country. He argues that each country will react differently to violent attacks against its forces because of domestic political factors:

Poland, for example, is unlikely to withdraw from the coalition because there is political consensus on foreign policy, and the country has a very high tolerance for human casualties.

Britain is easier to force out of Iraq, because the popular opposition to the war and the occupation is so high. However, the author estimates that Britain will only withdraw from Iraq in one of two cases: either if Britain suffers significant human casualties in Iraq or if Spain and Italy withdraws first.

Spain on the other hand is very vulnerable to attacks on its forces, primarily because public opposition to the war is almost total, and the government is virtually on its own on this issue. The author therefore identifies Spain as the weakest link in the coalition.

References to Spain
The author devotes 6 out of 42 pages to a review of the domestic political situation in Spain. In the process he displays a knowledge of and interest in Spanish society which is striking. We do not know whether the author himself has intimate knowledge of Spanish politics or whether he is plagiarising good secondary sources. However, the very fact that he deems such a high level of detail necessary for his argument indicates that we are dealing with a politically very developed mind. It must also be noted that of the three case studies, the chapter on Spain is by far the best in terms of analytical clarity.

The most interesting passage of the whole text is the author’s concluding remarks regarding Spain:

"Aznar’s position does not express the Spanish popular stance, and if the disparity between the government and the people were at the same percentage rate in Britain, then the government would fall. But this has not happened thus far, for a number of reasons, including:

- That the Spanish people, despite the passing of more than quarter of a century of democracy, has not reached the level of e.g. Britain in terms of accountability of its rulers. So far it (the people) has accepted the lies of the politicians as the truth and it does not see a reason for holding them accountable. This is contrary to the British who try to hold Blair accountable for his lies in making a case for Britain’s entry in the war on Iraq.

- That most of the rightist electorate are very loyal to their party. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the Spanish opposed the war, in the last local elections the Popular party electorate voted for their party and remained loyal to it.

- The power of the group Opus Dei in the Popular Party..

- The lack of direct influence of the Iraq events on life in Spain...

- The weakness of the leftist opposition and the failure of mounting a political struggle.

Therefore we say that in order to force the Spanish government to withdraw from Iraq the resistance should deal painful blows to its forces. This should be accompanied by an information campaign clarifying the truth of the matter inside Iraq. It is necessary to make utmost use of the upcoming general election in Spain in March next year.

We think that the Spanish government could not tolerate more than two, maximum three blows, after which it will have to withdraw as a result of popular pressure. If its troops still remain in Iraq after these blows, then the victory of the Socialist Party is almost secured, and the withdrawal of the Spanish forces will be on its electoral programme.

Lastly, we are emphasise that a withdrawal of the Spanish or Italian forces from Iraq would put huge pressure on the British presence (in Iraq), a pressure that Toni Blair might not be able to withstand, and hence the domino tiles would fall quickly. Yet, the basic problem of making the first tile fall still remains."

(The passage is underlined and in bold types in the Arabic original)



http://www.mil.no/felles/ffi/start/article.jhtml?articleID=71589

So where does the war stand now, according to al Qaeda? A leading al Qaeda operative has written a book, the title of which translates loosely to “The Management of Chaos.” According to al Qaeda, the current stage of revolution is the stage of “vexation and exhaustion” of the enemy. They have a notion of how to do this to the Americans and to their 'puppets'.

You vex and exhaust the Americans, according to al Qaeda, by making them spend a lot of money. The United States is a materialist society, and if forced to spend too much money it will “cut and run.”

The means to this end is to force the Americans to spread themselves thinly. Al Qaeda wants to strike everywhere, not just spectacular high value attacks. This will cause the Americans to defend a lot of places at high cost.

In addition, al Qaeda wants to force Americans to carry the war into the heartland of the Middle East [We have obliged them in this. - ed.] There are two reasons why al Qaeda sought an American invasion in the Middle East. First, it will be very costly for the United States and will therefore drain our treasury. Second, bringing the war to the heartland will have a polarizing effect within Muslim society. Doran believes that they borrowed this “polarization” idea from Palestinian organizations of the 60s and 70s. Americans striking back “without precision” will polarize Muslim society between supporters and proponents of jihad.

It is not necessary, according to al Qaeda, that they get the great masses on their side. The goal is to win over “an important segment of the youth.” Their propaganda is directed to young men. One of their propagandists says that “if we can win over only 5% of one billion Muslims, we will have an unbeatable army.”



http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/03/al-qaedas-grand-strategy.html


Know your enemy...whats Murtha's excuse ?

Questions from the audience:

Why has there been no attack on U.S. soil since September 11?

Doran claimed no special insight into al Qaeda's military capabilities, but ventured a guess: “My guess is that they don’t have the capability. They could blow up a mall, but if you’ve brought down the Twin Towers, what act will follow?”

What’s the real difference between a guy like Zarqawi and a death cult?

“I don’t think he’s indiscriminately killing. They are targeting people fairly carefully. They are attacking recruitment centers for the police, economic installations, election workers, anything that will legitimate the new order. It is designed to weaken the state. One of the differences between Iraq and Saudi Arabia is that al Qaeda is much more willing to kill Sunni Muslims in Iraq. This is why they don’t attack the oil installations in Saudi Arabia." Doran’s theory is that the combination of Zarqawi and Saddam’s henchmen has led to a more indiscriminate slaughter in Iraq.

How do al Qaeda intellectuals explain what has happened in Afghanistan?

“They do not explain this well. This is why I think we will win in the long run. There are some things they do not think well about. They don’t trust the average Muslim. They do not have a good example. Whenever something bad happens to them, they say ‘The situation is clarified.’ They always say this. They also do not think very clearly about the sectarians. They are going to lose in Iraq because their message is not attractive to the Kurds and the Shiites."

How is this going to play out in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is advocating democracy?

“There is a difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the radicals. It is kind of the tap root of these organizations, but it is not itself radical. Al Qaeda hates the Brotherhood, because it operates within a nationalist framework, which al Qaeda is very much against.”

Is Iran the ideal state organization?

“The Iranians are Shiites, and al Qaeda hates the Shiites. Over the long term, Iranians are very threatening to al Qaeda. Politics make strange bedfellows, so they may make alliances of convenience over the short term, but there are a lot of antibodies there over the short term.”

Is the ultimate goal of the radicals transforming society, or taking power?

“Ultimately, it is taking power. But they are very calculating.”

Are those goals limited to the Middle East?

“No.”

What about the al Qaeda strategy explains the Madrid bombings?

“That is a good example of al Qaeda thinking strategically. The Spaniards were the weak link in the coalition, and al Qaeda thought if they could drive Spain out they would drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe.” Doran added that he did not understand the strategic rationale for the subsequent attempted bombing that was foiled. [This tactical confusion may be the price al Qaeda pays for its decentralized structure -- even in tightly managed organizations, you can't count on all your "employees" doing everything consistently with the objectives of the organization. There are a lot of dopes out there who act on behalf of the organization for personal reasons, or out of stupidity. You have to think that happens within al Qaeda's affiliates all the time. - ed.]

What advice does Doran have to a U.S. policy maker that has to balance the interests of democratic civil society with the risk that some of these organizations are fronts for radicals? [A smart question. - ed.]

“I’ve been surprised how little work has been done on clerical politics in Saudi Arabia. We need to have a much more textured understanding of the domestic map of politics in these countries.”

Can changes in American policy influence this situation?

“I fight against the argument that solving the Arab-Isreali problem will make all of this go away. However, I am more confident than a lot of people about Iraq because of this Sunni-Shiite division. I find it hard to believe that radicalism will take root there.”

Has there been a change in American attitudes toward the House of Saud?

“Everything has changed, and nothing has changed. The relationship will always been defined by shared strategic interests. The importance of the region for the global economy is such that we will still care very much about Saudi Arabia’s policies.

"They didn’t lift a finger against al Qaeda until the bombs started going off, but I’ve been surprised at how effective they have been since. Al Qaeda is significantly weakened there.

The Saudi leadership is pragmatic at the top levels.”

Is Osama bin Laden any longer a central figure? Is his capture or non-capture a sideshow?

“I don’t know. I don’t think he is insignificant. I think he has a pretty direct connection to the radicals in Saudi Arabia. His relationship with al Zarqawi in Iraq is more tenuous. In one sense he is irrelevant. There is an ideology out there that has a sense of its own. It tells everybody what to do."

Indeed.





http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/03/29/news/12473.shtml

The terrorists think they can win, because many of them were involved in the defense of Afghanistan against the USSR. And, not without considerable aid from the US, they managed to force the USSR to withdraw. Then shortly afterwards the USSR collapsed. Anyone in Afghanistan who wasn't too up on the history of the USSR would probably think they caused the collapse of the USSR. Now if they think they can distroy the USSR with Allah's help then it's highly likely they think they can cause the collapse of the USA.

Ideas such as this can be very hard to distroy, infact any idea can be hard to distroy. And the US army doesn't seem to be too proficent in distroying ideas. Any disintergration of the terrorist cause seems to be self inflicted much in the same way Islamic Jihad did in Egypt. Hmmm... not sure if I've named the right group here. But the group was gaining popular support, but didn't rise up against the government. So IJ decided to bomb civilian areas thinking that would make them rise up. And instead the lost all credibility and popular support.

It's like an independence movement, you can violently supress which will hold it back for a while, but eventually it will come back again. To end the idea the tables need to be turned and for everyone to view the movement as bad and to be content with the current system.

I don't think these people are even hoping for "victory" in the traditional sense of the word. Things like suicide bombings are carried out by people who feel that they have lost everything they have and have nothing to lose by dieing. They want to send a clear message of defiance to the world and they think that blowing themselves and about 10-50 other people up is sending that message.

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Did the terrorists succeed in their goals here by that definition? I think not. We're fighting over there and the Islamic extremists (remember that the mainstream Islamic people don't approve of their actions) are seeing this as an extension of the Crusades and Western colonialism. Just think, if someone were to, God forbid, invade the United States, wouldn't you try and find a rifle and kill the occupiers? Tis better to die on your feet then live on your knees.


These terrorist are located everywhere. They are in the US,England ,France ,you name it and until you kill every last one, we the United States cannot claim victory over them. Even as we keep killing them their numbers increase through new recruits into terroism. Therefor they will never be defeated in a sense, becuase we will never eliminate them.

These terrorist are located everywhere. They are in the US,England ,France ,you name it and until you kill every last one, we the United States cannot claim victory over them. Even as we keep killing them their numbers increase through new recruits into terroism. Therefor they will never be defeated in a sense, becuase we will never eliminate them.

Someone in another thread pointed to the example of the IRA. They simply need to lose relevance. The way to help bring that about? Improve the education and economy in the places that breed terrorists.

The terrorists already have won. They've induced people to terror.

How can you defeat a group that considers dying for their cause to be the ultimate achievement of their life on earth.

Suggestion: Do that to your own bullets first. Then try to fire them. Watch what it does to your gun.

What gun?
*is thinking in terms of GP-bombs and explosives being given an additional anti-hallal charge*

Everyone seems to want us out of Iraq, but we have not erradicated to terrorists yet, as soon as we move out, *boom* oh look 9/11 again!! Who would you rather lose? A hundred trained soldeirs who gave their life for their country? Or hundreds (note the plural) of people who just want their paycheck so they can feed their kids? Maybe the second one wouldn't be so bad since it's probobly populated with the librals who want us out.

Think about it.

Have a nice day!!! :) :p :D :)



WATCH OUT TERRORISTS!! :eek: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

How can you defeat a group that considers dying for their cause to be the ultimate achievement of their life on earth.


By treating their bodies in such a way that according to their own beliefs they now are destined for hell...

By treating their bodies in such a way that according to their own beliefs they now are destined for hell...




I <3 you

By treating their bodies in such a way that according to their own beliefs they now are destined for hell...


I'm no expert on their beliefs nor will I ever claim to be. Terrorism has been alive for centuries. It just wasn't called terrorism back then. These people have been at war with someone since the beginning of recorded history. I don't see an end to the fightring until they or their enemies have been eliminated.

Everyone seems to want us out of Iraq, but we have not erradicated to terrorists yet, as soon as we move out, *boom* oh look 9/11 again!!

I don't advocate leaving Iraq at the moment but I think that whether or not we leave, Al Qaeda will try for another 9/11 anyway and killing insurgents in Iraq is not going to prevent it. Most of them are beyond appeasement already. Those are the ones we need to hunt down and spank to death.

I don't think that we should pull out now, but that isn't because i think that will mean the terrorists win. I say that we should stay because it would be wrong to have gone and fucked the country up and then just leave it to the vultures. The only reason there are terrorists in Iraq itself is because the US came there. The administration entered Iraq under the false pretenses that there were WMDs and that Hussein was connected to terrorists. That was utter bullshit! The only reason they went to war is for oil, and we all know just how great that worked now that gas is $3 a gallon. Saddam wasn't connected to terrorists. Why would he stage himself against the US directly, don't you think he had learned his lesson in Kuwait? The terrorists only flocked to Iraq when the US came because all of a sudden they didn't have to travel half-way around the world to attack Americans. The war in Iraq is a worthless drain of lives and money, and there is nothing that we can do about it.

They think they can win because experience has shown them that a ragtag band of irregular fighters who are willing to commit any atrocity will cause the US to retreat.

Beirut showed them that. Somalia showed them that. And it worked against the former USSR - Afghanistan at that time showed them that.

So, Bin Laden states that all they have to do is fight insurgencies and they will win, because the US will not have the will to fight. He knows that men like Murtha will step up and call for a retreat.

And they plan to do this until one day, they are fighting the insurgency within the US.
And as soon as an appeasing Democrat is elected, along with an appeasing majority in Congress, they will get the schedule that they want for our troops to "re-deploy" away from Iraq. The instant that happens, we have lost. It may take until the end of the timetable to see that, but as soon as that timetable is released, we have surrendered.

Well, if that doesn't define a quagmire. "We have to stay there forever because if we don't the terrorists win! 9-11"

And as soon as an appeasing Democrat is elected, along with an appeasing majority in Congress, they will get the schedule that they want for our troops to "re-deploy" away from Iraq. The instant that happens, we have lost. It may take until the end of the timetable to see that, but as soon as that timetable is released, we have surrendered.

And we won't lose because we've abandoned a fight in a particular country. We'll lose because these folks do not give a damn whether we pull out of Iraq or not. Remember 9/11? No war in Afghanistan or Iraq to point to back then was there?

And we won't lose because we've abandoned a fight in a particular country. We'll lose because these folks do not give a damn whether we pull out of Iraq or not. Remember 9/11? No war in Afghanistan or Iraq to point to back then was there?
Beirut, Somalia, as Bin Laden explicitly pointed out.

Beirut, Somalia, as Bin Laden explicitly pointed out.

True. My point was that pulling out won't simply be a show of impatience or defeatism, but it will do nothing to stop Al Qaeda from giving up their cause. May even inspire them more, as you noted.

the commision report nis a LIE.

the commision report nis a LIE.
Really? All of it?

Prove it.

And we won't lose because we've abandoned a fight in a particular country. We'll lose because these folks do not give a damn whether we pull out of Iraq or not. Remember 9/11? No war in Afghanistan or Iraq to point to back then was there?
And so I say to myself, "So what if there were never Al--Quaida in Iraq before we came. It doesn't matter, because they are there now. If our presence in Iraq is making them easier to find and kill, all the better."

And so I say to myself, "So what if there were never Al--Quaida in Iraq before we came. It doesn't matter, because they are there now. If our presence in Iraq is making them easier to find and kill, all the better."

I would hope that you're right. While I don't have any official numbers to point to, my fear is that any which way we cut it, we are either emboldening youngsters to swell al Qaeda's ranks through our presence in Iraq or inspiring them to finish the job on U.S. soil by withdrawing. Quite the conundrum.

Al-Qaida thinks it can win because Allah is on their side.

The United States thinks it can win because God is on their side.

Very confusing.
And Iran thinks they'll win because the Muslim "Second Coming" is going to happen soon. :rolleyes:

And Iran thinks they'll win because the Muslim "Second Coming" is going to happen soon. :rolleyes:
IIRC, they are actually trying to make it come about.

Reminds me of the whole idea of the Mahdi back in the day when Britain was fighting in the Sudan (a long, long time ago, yadda yadda yadda yadda).

Maybe they think they can win because apperently we went to their central country, tore it apart, killed thousands of innocent people, found jack shit and left. Then we went and did again!

The War on Terror is endless, just like the war on drugs, the war on crime etc

They never fucking end

The War on Terror is endless, just like the war on drugs, the war on crime etc

They never fucking end

Doesn't mean you shouldn't fight them.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't fight them.

I disagree on the drugs one all it did was drive the prices up and with terrorism invasions arn't the best way to hurt it, all that happens is the grunts come up and the leaders go underground.

The question is why do they think they can win?
Why do we think we can win?

I disagree on the drugs one all it did was drive the prices up and with terrorism invasions arn't the best way to hurt it, all that happens is the grunts come up and the leaders go underground.

The question is why do they think they can win?
Why do we think we can win?

The war on drugs is obviously one about money, and who gets the money.

The war on drugs, at 40 billion a year in costs to the government for agents, weapons, etc., has never changed the street price of any drug in terms of real dollars adjusted for inflation.

So it's having no effect. It may be a parlor show by the government to show people that "they're working hard to protect your kids".

Hasn't diminished the number of addicts, either.

" Why Do Terrorists Think They Can Win?"

Because you'd have to be more than a little impaired in the logic department to ... blow yourself while thinking you'll lose.

Oh wait. Good question.

They think they can win because experience has shown them that a ragtag band of irregular fighters who are willing to commit any atrocity will cause the US to retreat.

Beirut showed them that. Somalia showed them that. And it worked against the former USSR - Afghanistan at that time showed them that.

So, Bin Laden states that all they have to do is fight insurgencies and they will win, because the US will not have the will to fight. He knows that men like Murtha will step up and call for a retreat.

And they plan to do this until one day, they are fighting the insurgency within the US.

I thoroughly enjoyed the was the way you phrased your portrayal of the terrorists for one simple purpose. On many occasions, in books and documentries, it is the exact way the revolutionist forces are portrayed who overthrough Britian to claim the colonies as their own. The commited many acts that would be called atrocities. My point is simple. Over the time of human existance there has always been a struggle over a few things: Religion, Greed, and Resources. This struggle has brought about a tribalistic/nationalistic paradigm which only cycles in its intensity.
Think about your own thoughts about certain people that have been instilled in you since childhood. They've come through experiences as well as from your guardians directly. In America there is divisiveness over what type of latino you are. If you are from a certain country you are despised by those who consider themselves better than you. This tribalistic mentality has been inbedded from their homelands and continues today. Do you really think you will bomb this mindset into oblivion? Why do you think they will fight this all the way to the death? There's a message here like with any other conflict. The problem is that not many people are willing to hear it. As soon as they are accused of some wrong (which they may have clearly done) they resort back to nationalism/tribalism and become irrational. Then it's "Us vs. Them" and "dagnabit Jethro we gonna kill all dem (fill in your hated group here)!" Don't try to shout me down with calling me a coward as I've been in battle. My final question is this, how do you expect this current strategy to give you your desired result?

My apologies to anyone named Jethro :D :p

I thoroughly enjoyed the was the way you phrased your portrayal of the terrorists for one simple purpose.

It's not my portrayal. It's Bin Laden's.

my grand father was a terrorist.
He fought against nazis and other thugs,does it mean terrorist will not win?

my grand father was a terrorist.
He fought against nazis and other thugs,does it mean terrorist will not win?

If the Germans had won, you would still be there doing what your dad did. Or you might be dead.

If the Germans had won, you would still be there doing what your dad did. Or you might be dead.

if your point is taking an history lessson,than i accept it.
but what about,now.

if your point is taking an history lessson,than i accept it.
but what about,now.

Unless the US actually leaves a place like Afghanistan or Iraq, the insurgents can only fight on and on and on until they are exhausted.

The Palestinians, as an example, are nearly impotent, and have exhausted not only their fighting forces, but their entire people, to no gain at all.

Unless the US actually leaves a place like Afghanistan or Iraq, the insurgents can only fight on and on and on until they are exhausted.

The Palestinians, as an example, are nearly impotent, and have exhausted not only their fighting forces, but their entire people, to no gain at all.

However that rather ignores the long view. The East Timorese took 3 decades. The Vietnamese took 4 decades. The Irish took 600 years.

Unless the US actually leaves a place like Afghanistan or Iraq, the insurgents can only fight on and on and on until they are exhausted.

The Palestinians, as an example, are nearly impotent, and have exhausted not only their fighting forces, but their entire people, to no gain at all.


ok define terrorism to me.
Death squadrons?
they go 1000 meter hight and what ?
are they above the law?
Still they see the one above as on terrorist

Terrorism can only work if you have support from the people.
it is coming from the egg

However that rather ignores the long view. The East Timorese took 3 decades. The Vietnamese took 4 decades. The Irish took 600 years.
Indeed. The only hope is to subjugate the area and re-educate the children in the hopes that you make progress over generations.

ok define terrorism to me.
Death squadrons?
they go 1000 meter hight and what ?
are they above the law?
Still they see the one above as on terrorist

Terrorism can only work if you have support from the people.
it is comming from the egg

Nowadays, you don't have to have the support of too many people to do terrorism. Money from legal and illegal sources, a few computers and Internet accounts, some guns and explosives, and you're in business.

The 19 hijackers operated in America with no support from the locals.

Nowadays, you don't have to have the support of too many people to do terrorism. Money from legal and illegal sources, a few computers and Internet accounts, some guns and explosives, and you're in business.

The 19 hijackers operated in America with no support from the locals.

some of them are still in life,and upon 250millions people ,street gang wars are far more dangerous,

They think they can win because experience has shown them that a ragtag band of irregular fighters who are willing to commit any atrocity will cause the US to retreat.

Beirut showed them that. Somalia showed them that. And it worked against the former USSR - Afghanistan at that time showed them that.

So, Bin Laden states that all they have to do is fight insurgencies and they will win, because the US will not have the will to fight. He knows that men like Murtha will step up and call for a retreat.

And they plan to do this until one day, they are fighting the insurgency within the US.

Only a fool underestimates his opponents.

Bin Laden is most certainly not convinced that he can single-handedly defeat the United States. He is far too intelligent and cunning to beleive that if he holds out long enough and hard enough, he will single-handedly drive America from the Middle East. In point of fact, if you'd bothered to read the very section of the 9/11 report you posted, you'd know that his aim isn't to drive the U.S. from the Middle East, as that doesn't accomplish what he really wants.

Bin Laden looks at the glory days of the Muslim empire and sees a unified and enormously powerful Middle Kingdom, and he wants to build that empire anew. What he opposes, therefore, is not America in and of itself, but anything that prevents him from uniting all Muslims together in a Pan-Islamic nationstate. America is only a tertiary concern, because it is the 800-pound gorilla in international politics and one that, traditionally, has worked against Pan-Islamism by playing various factions off against each other and propping up local strongmen in the region. Bin Laden knows this. He also knows that in terms of direct military opposition, he cannot hope to oppose the United States. In short, the fact that the United States has not beaten the hell out of a nation that wasn't bothering it in the last ten years has not made him a complete frapping retard, nor has it given him delusions of grandeur.

But he also knows that the United States can be roused into massive action, and he also knows the great truth of international politics: the more one nation pushes against the others, the more other nations counterbalance that nation by pushing back. Unlike neo-cons, then, Bin Laden remembers the concept of a balance of power. If you look at the gameboard that way, one possible combination of 2 and 2 ought to become apparent to you, DK: if we could rouse the United States into massive aggressive action, we could at once isolate the United States, bleed it through continual nicking, and unite Islam as an anti-imperialist and anti-hegemonist alliance. Hmm, I wonder how the terrorists might do this?

cut and run (tm) or lie and die (tm)?

I don't see it as a retreat if we leave the Iraqis to work the rest out on their own. I think the Republicans, by calling it a "retreat" or "cut and run" are the ones aiding the insurgents moral by promoting that point of view in the media.

If we said publically over and over, "Well, we won... we got Saddam and we held back the insurgents while we got a democracy started. We trained over 200,000 Iraqis as well. It's a good day for democracy." I believe it will demoralize them as we leave claiming victory.

If you look at the gameboard that way, one possible combination of 2 and 2 ought to become apparent to you, DK: if we could rouse the United States into massive aggressive action, we could at once isolate the United States, bleed it through continual nicking, and unite Islam as an anti-imperialist and anti-hegemonist alliance. Hmm, I wonder how the terrorists might do this?
The actual end goal is the destruction of the entire West, and the creation of Dar al-Islam across the world.

Not just the Middle East.

Nowadays, you don't have to have the support of too many people to do terrorism. Money from legal and illegal sources, a few computers and Internet accounts, some guns and explosives, and you're in business.

The 19 hijackers operated in America with no support from the locals.

i know!
Still we don't agree about a definition

The actual end goal is the destruction of the entire West, and the creation of Dar al-Islam across the world.

Not just the Middle East.

One step at a time, DK.

They win if we retreat. Think about that for a minute or so.They also win if we don't retreat, and our commitment drags on long enough, and at a great enough expense, that when a real threat to our security arises we are underprepared to combat it.

Indeed. The only hope is to subjugate the area and re-educate the children in the hopes that you make progress over generations.

Didn't work on the Irish. The Basques still see themselves as seperate . The Catalans have just been recognised as a nation within Spain and given massive levels of autonomy, despite many efforts to destroy their identity.

When OBL is killing soldiers in Yemen you will have a point, until then the Yemeni behind killing civilians around the world is just making those soft on terrorism look stupid.

I'm also goining to guess this was written my a white upper middle class male teen student who's parents are politically Liberal. (Modern usage) Also you come from a Western nation (US, Canada, or Western Europe) and are the youngest child.

Well....


because if I start talking abt. this I will end up writing a 6 page essay explaining how capitalism is evil, drugs should be legalized, and christianity can be EASILY disproven, so I'm not going to go into details, Bin Laden should be given respect, you cannot call a man simply protecting his homeland a terrorist because his views are not accepted in your part of the world, mostly because he only has the power to fight guerilla, explain to me how beheading ten people is worse than setting off a bomb in an aspirin factory and killing over 100 people?

New deleronix, You just don't get it; When we bombed that Aspirin Factorywe thought it was a threat, it turned out to be a horrible mistake; that was over national security. When these terrorists decided to Blow up the Pentagon, World Trade Center, and Bomb the Madrid Trains it was over THE FALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Now reconsider, The only reason that you get to speak against Western Civilization is beecause you are living in it. If you were a terrorist that spoke against Allah they would behead you. Which one's more of a Fascist Pig? These people are Anti-Democracy, you can tell by the Insurgents; And if your thinking "Well they're just defending their homeland." Bullshit, if they really wanted us to leave ASAP they would let us create a democracy so they can have their country back.

Anyone can win if they don't quit fighting. This is what Bush forgot when he did "Mission Acomplished". The number one rule of war.....The LOSER decides when the war is over not the winner.

The problem is the administration didn't take into acount the culture of the area. Time is totally different. Remember that the Jews said "Next Year in Jerusalem for 2000 years. The Palistinians have fought for 60 years and show no sign of declaring defeat.

Culture is also the reason they fight in the first place. The west has declared genocide on every culture of the world except that of the west and genocide of every religion of the world except their idea of Christianity.

When you fight you use the tools you have. If you are a technically advance civilization you use 500 lb. computer controlled bombs. If all you have is sharpened sticks you use sharpened sticks. How is one type of killing terror and the other isn't?

They think they can win because they are crazy, brainwashed idiots.

They think they can win because experience has shown them that a ragtag band of irregular fighters who are willing to commit any atrocity will cause the US to retreat.

Beirut showed them that. Somalia showed them that. And it worked against the former USSR - Afghanistan at that time showed them that.

If that's the case, then where's the situation where Israel retreated, thus causing terrorists to attack and think they can win against them?

I think you oversimplify the situation if you believe that terrorists wouldn't attack the US if only we hadn't retreated from Somalia or Beirut.

ok define terrorism to me.
Death squadrons?
they go 1000 meter hight and what ?
are they above the law?
Still they see the one above as on terrorist

Terrorism can only work if you have support from the people.
it is coming from the egg


Which makes those people a collection of VMTs.

Here is the house that Jack built.
Here is the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built.
Here is the terrorist who threw the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built.
Here is the umma that prayed for the terrorist who threw the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built.
And here is the rope that will hang the umma that prayed for the terrorist who threw the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built.

The continued existence of elements that actively oppose the World Order is unacceptable.

The continued existence of elements that actively oppose the World Order is unacceptable.

For God's sake. The 'World Order'? The Weltgemeinschaft? What sort of neo-freemasonry are you talking about here?

For God's sake. The 'World Order'? The Weltgemeinschaft? What sort of neo-freemasonry are you talking about here?


The arrangement in which the 5 Veto-powers call the shots, and the rest just have to live with it.

Call me crazy, but the terrorists think they can win because they are winning.

We stomp around the globe like modern-day Red-coats and they jump out of the bushes and snipe/bomb/kidnap/what-have-you, and run off, leaving chaos and confusion in their wake. I get upset and pissed at the mortality rates for our soldiers -- and I get pissed at the policy-makers who sent them.

Democracy has never come from the end of a foreign wepon. It must be indigenous or it will fail. Why my country's leaders can't understand this, I have no idea.

What makes a terrorist a terrorist? Just being a Muslim? No. Islam is the ignition source that lights the poverty powderkeg. Islam is sold as the liberation of the downtrodden, and who's perceived as doing the most "trodding"? The US. Add to that the fact that the US makes the weapons that its client state, Israel, uses to slaughter their Palestinian brethren, and you add powerlessness to the mix. Someone who feels poor, powerless and is religiously convicted is not someone to trifle with -- he has nothing but nothing to lose. Why else strap a bomb to your chest?

We can't win this war with weapons. At least not with weapons that kill. It's time for a re-think...but that presupposes any actual thought that went into this mess in the first damn place.

*sigh*

The arrangement in which the 5 Veto-powers call the shots, and the rest just have to live with it.


That's brilliant. No inequality in that system. No cause for further resentment in the third world there.

Terrorists... What kind of terrorist?

they could win what? A prize?

From all times, world has been divided...USSR and America, and know Islam and Christianism... Oh please... I'm really fed up...

Us, French, really don't understand the Iraq war. If someone can explain me why american soldiers (and others) have killed non-terrorist people in the name of war against terrorists, explain me. For me it's just confusing... I understand that you can be...hum...sensible because of 9-11... That was, of course, terrible, and I feel very bad for the families of the innocent victims...But...Terrorism...i mean...it's just some people, not an entire nation...You can't punish innocent for what some of them have done or wanted to do...

Please explain me...

Terrorists may or not believe they can "win", Im sure most of them are smart enough to realize you cant really "win" a conflict with any superpower, but the ultimate goal is to make victory too costly to achieve.

This means cause enough damage to property and loss of life to make such a hostile takeover too costly in lives and money to maintain for a peroid long enough to maintain an established democratic government.

This is personally why Im so pissed at Bush and his asshole team.
They knew full well that to enter this conflict, would put America in a position that would present no option for retreat, if it went sour.

They knew full well that to invade a country like Iraq, would mean a prolonged hostile occupation, and that previous administrations did not take such actions, becuase no viable exit strategy could be obtained.

This means that Bush willingly entered this conflict knowing full well, that complete victory would be achieved, becuase we cannot afford to leave Iraq in a state of near civil war.
So..we stay and win, and dont come home until we do.

This is why time and time again the White House refuses to give any kind of withdraw timetable.

Becuase the answer is "When we win".

This is pretty much a dictatorship, made legal by careful strategy.
No matter how many americans want its forces to withdraw from the mess in Iraq, the White House will not listen.

For willfully biting off more than his country could chew, so many of you still applaud him.

Brilliant.

That's brilliant. No inequality in that system. No cause for further resentment in the third world there.

*shrug* good little boys - or dead little boys.
In either case, nothing but little boys.

*shrug* good little boys - or dead little boys.
In either case, nothing but little boys.

Glad to be English, eh?

Glad to be English, eh?

Very glad to be British, indeed.

Very glad to be British, indeed.

I bet. Were you ever stationed overseas?

I bet. Were you ever stationed overseas?

Indeed.
I was even born overseas.

Indeed.
I was even born overseas.

Wow. How does the rest of the world seem to you? Happy with their lot?

Wow. How does the rest of the world seem to you? Happy with their lot?

*head askew*
A lot of those places looked like a great amount of chastising was in order...

But to save you a lengthy discussion:
'other places' shall not be accorded any means whatsoever to alter the status quo.

*head askew*
A lot of those places looked like a great amount of chastising was in order...

I remember a conversation I had with a friend who had recently retired from the Royal Navy. We were discussing this type of thing, bantering geo-politics and whatnot, and the conversation turned to economies. I posited that in about twenty years, when the investment system in under-developed nations has nowhere left to go and these same nations stop producing our goods for a fraction of the profits, there may be some backlash from these poorer nations. i.e, they'll stop giving us the easy ride we've been having through virtue of us having run the world a few centuries ago. Carl (for it was he) said - with a straight face - "We're the ones with battleships and nukes. If it came to it, I'd have been willing to defend my living standard with the use of force"

So. Do you agree with Carl?

I remember a conversation I had with a friend who had recently retired from the Royal Navy. We were discussing this type of thing, bantering geo-politics and whatnot, and the conversation turned to economies. I posited that in about twenty years, when the investment system in under-developed nations has nowhere left to go and these same nations stop producing our goods for a fraction of the profits, there may be some backlash from these poorer nations. i.e, they'll stop giving us the easy ride we've been having through virtue of us having run the world a few centuries ago. Carl (for it was he) said - with a straight face - "We're the ones with battleships and nukes. If it came to it, I'd have been willing to defend my living standard with the use of force"

So. Do you agree with Carl?

Nope.

I'd say that while there is no upper limit to the amount of violence I'm willing to authorise in order to maintain the peace ( never mind that you might argue that fighting for peace is like fiddlesticking for virginity ), I'm rather unwilling to authorise any violence in order to maintain low prices for coffee or petrol.

I'm rather unwilling to authorise any violence in order to maintain low prices for coffee or petrol.
I will agree that this may not be very rational, but I suppose that this would be a faith-based-initiative that Carl ( or you ) would just have to live with.

Nope.

I'd say that while there is no upper limit to the amount of violence I'm willing to authorise in order to maintain the peace ( never mind that you might argue that fighting for peace is like fiddlesticking for virginity ), I'm rather unwilling to authorise any violence in order to maintain low prices for coffee or petrol.


I will agree that this may not be very rational, but I suppose that this would be a faith-based-initiative that Carl ( or you ) would just have to live with.

Hmmm. I'm tempted to say 'fair enough' - but it doesn't seem to tally with your promotion of the status quo. In fact, my gut instinct is that having a status quo in the first place is more likely to lead to said status quo having to maintain the peace through violent means.

I wish the UN was more effective and worth more than a monkey's shit. I really really do.

Middle-eastern terrorist organisations want mainly want the following three things in order:

One. To kick all western forces\culture out of the Middle East and all Muslim majority countries.

Two. To replace every single religion with Islam, many of the smart ones believe this is impossible or will take several generations.

Three. To ensure and force every man lives like the Great Prophet Muhammad did.

With the current situation the Terrorists don't stand much of a chance of winning the war on terrorism but as these are terrorists and not soldiers they could strike any where in the world and cause massive amounts of damage and casualties. The best way to fight terrorism is with advanced Intelligence.

Hmmm. I'm tempted to say 'fair enough' - but it doesn't seem to tally with your promotion of the status quo. In fact, my gut instinct is that having a status quo in the first place is more likely to lead to said status quo having to maintain the peace through violent means.

I wish the UN was more effective and worth more than a monkey's shit. I really really do.

Join the club.

But now we are getting somewhere: the UN is not going to be any more effective as an instrument for maintaining global peace in a nuclear age - unless you arrange matters such that the 5 Veto Powers have a total monopoly on the use of force.

We're now living in a world in which Humanity has 2 ways to commit collective suicide:
A] by nuclear holocaust.
B] by ecological mismanagement.

My preferred solution is to minimise the number of groups ( nations or otherwise ) that have effective self-determination. Thus, they can do nothing bad.
I promote the Status Quo because the haves have less incentive to blow the place up than the have-nots.

Join the club.

But now we are getting somewhere: the UN is not going to be any more effective as an instrument for maintaining global peace in a nuclear age - unless you arrange matters such that the 5 Veto Powers have a total monopoly on the use of force.

We're now living in a world in which Humanity has 2 ways to commit collective suicide:
A] by nuclear holocaust.
B] by ecological mismanagement.

My preferred solution is to minimise the number of groups ( nations or otherwise ) that have effective self-determination. Thus, they can do nothing bad.
I promote the Status Quo because the haves have less incentive to blow the place up than the have-nots.

Ah, but there's the rub. At the moment, your two options are plausible (certainly the second), but we may add a third case of biological engineering (as an example). In twenty or thirty years, who knows who far we will have advanced with mapping the genome and developing embryonic cell technology? Who knows how easy it could be to engineer a disease that (for instance) only attacks white people with a certain amount of alcohol in their bloodstream?

Off-key points, I know, but the thrust of the argument is that in creating a world of have and have-nots while we move towards an unknown era of unknown technological capability of unknown price structures and attainability, we could be setting the scene for armageddon. Better to ration things out now before it all gets too hectic, I reckon.

They win if we retreat. Think about that for a minute or so.

You'll retreat, that's for sure. You've done it before in situations that were a lot smaller in their involvment so you'll prolly do it now to. The USA is a so called superpower, at least for a while longer, and not even you have the stuff to fix things in Iraq. Too few soldiers, poor planning and such. As I've understood it your economy is somewhat going down the drain as it is, so sending more troops seems to be a pure wish. I wish the moronic leaders in the USA would finally understand that they don't really have the muscle to occupy and hold another nation. One would think they'd learned that lesson by now.

I don't think these people are even hoping for "victory" in the traditional sense of the word. Things like suicide bombings are carried out by people who feel that they have lost everything they have and have nothing to lose by dieing. They want to send a clear message of defiance to the world and they think that blowing themselves and about 10-50 other people up is sending that message.

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Did the terrorists succeed in their goals here by that definition? I think not. We're fighting over there and the Islamic extremists (remember that the mainstream Islamic people don't approve of their actions) are seeing this as an extension of the Crusades and Western colonialism. Just think, if someone were to, God forbid, invade the United States, wouldn't you try and find a rifle and kill the occupiers? Tis better to die on your feet then live on your knees.

First post?! Wheres the bam-bam and the shooting and stuff?

First post?! Wheres the bam-bam and the shooting and stuff?

what?! This is an outrage...I didn't get to bam-bam anyone or have anyone shot in my honour when I made my first post!

Everyone seems to want us out of Iraq, but we have not erradicated to terrorists yet, as soon as we move out, *boom* oh look 9/11 again!! Who would you rather lose? A hundred trained soldeirs who gave their life for their country? Or hundreds (note the plural) of people who just want their paycheck so they can feed their kids? Maybe the second one wouldn't be so bad since it's probobly populated with the librals who want us out.

Think about it.

Have a nice day!!! :) :p :D :)



WATCH OUT TERRORISTS!! :eek: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

Can you tell me the link between Irak and 9/11? And I'd like to remember than in Irak died about 100000 people, most of them innocent from 9/11. So from my more-or-less neutral point of view, why some innocents worth more to be protected than others?

Can you tell me the link between Irak and 9/11? And I'd like to remember than in Irak died about 100000 people, most of them innocent from 9/11. So from my more-or-less neutral point of view, why some innocents worth more to be protected than others?


Because some civilians belong to the most powerful, war hungry country in the western world.

You'll retreat, that's for sure. You've done it before in situations that were a lot smaller in their involvment so you'll prolly do it now to. The USA is a so called superpower, at least for a while longer, and not even you have the stuff to fix things in Iraq. Too few soldiers, poor planning and such. As I've understood it your economy is somewhat going down the drain as it is, so sending more troops seems to be a pure wish. I wish the moronic leaders in the USA would finally understand that they don't really have the muscle to occupy and hold another nation. One would think they'd learned that lesson by now.

Economy hasnt been better in a long time .
we have no desire to HOLD any nation.
And the last I looked a legally and Democratically elected government was taking charge in Iraq.
They voted on their own constitution.
There army and police have already begun taking the place of coalition forces.
The US generals have already made plans based on progress to start bring troops home or reasigning them elsewhere.
The insurgants that are not outright joining the government are starting to try to bargain with the government of Iraq and the US.

So WTF are you babbling about ?

Because some civilians belong to the most powerful, war hungry country in the western world.

Indeed, it is common knowledge that according to the current justice in the world, 4,000 americans in a corporate building are millions times more worthy than 100,000 "towelheads" in some retarded islamic country.

Who said human life had the same value?. Clearly some of us are more worthy than others.

You'll retreat, that's for sure. You've done it before in situations that were a lot smaller in their involvment so you'll prolly do it now to. The USA is a so called superpower, at least for a while longer, and not even you have the stuff to fix things in Iraq. Too few soldiers, poor planning and such. As I've understood it your economy is somewhat going down the drain as it is, so sending more troops seems to be a pure wish. I wish the moronic leaders in the USA would finally understand that they don't really have the muscle to occupy and hold another nation. One would think they'd learned that lesson by now.

It's not a matter of muscle, it's a matter of willpower.

Technically speaking, there isn't a place on Earth that the US could not turn into a glass covered parking lot that glowed in the dark. Or use conventional weaponry to destroy every sign of human habitation and development.

But the US isn't "willing" to do that sort of thing. Nor do we relocate entire populations to concentration camps where the adults are killed and the children forcibly educated. No, we don't have the will to do that either.

We certainly have the power to do so. When nations are stupid enough to stand up to the conventional force we use, they are swept away rather quickly. We defeated the world's fourth largest army in a matter of weeks.

All that is left to people who oppose us is asymmetric warfare - they can't win unless we lose the will to stay.

As long as we stay, they have zero chance of taking the country back. Zero.

Know the difference between the power to do a thing, and the will to do a thing.

Ah, but there's the rub. At the moment, your two options are plausible (certainly the second), but we may add a third case of biological engineering (as an example). In twenty or thirty years, who knows who far we will have advanced with mapping the genome and developing embryonic cell technology? Who knows how easy it could be to engineer a disease that (for instance) only attacks white people with a certain amount of alcohol in their bloodstream?

Off-key points, I know, but the thrust of the argument is that in creating a world of have and have-nots while we move towards an unknown era of unknown technological capability of unknown price structures and attainability, we could be setting the scene for armageddon. Better to ration things out now before it all gets too hectic, I reckon.

*grin*
Adding more threats - such as bio-engineering - IMHO only increases the urgency of setting the Status Quo beyond change.