PDA

View Full Version : Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"



jetdawgg
06-24-07, 02:08 PM
Josh Marshall publishes an e-mail (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_06_17.php#014771) from a reader who identifies what is one of the most astonishing instances of mindless, pro-government "reporting" yet:
It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as "al-Qaida" fighters. When did that happen?

Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were "insurgents" or they were referred to as "Sunni" or "Shia'a" fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as "al-Qaida".
Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda.
That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq" is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

But what is even more notable is that the establishment press has followed right along, just as enthusiastically. I don't think the New York Times has published a story about Iraq in the last two weeks without stating that we are killing "Al Qaeda fighters," capturing "Al Qaeda leaders," and every new operation is against "Al Qaeda."

The Times -- typically in the form of the gullible and always-government-trusting "reporting" of Michael Gordon, though not only -- makes this claim over and over, as prominently as possible, often without the slightest questioning, qualification, or doubt. If your only news about Iraq came from The New York Times, you would think that the war in Iraq is now indistinguishable from the initial stage of the war in Afghanistan -- that we are there fighting against the people who hijacked those planes and flew them into our buildings: "Al Qaeda."

What is so amazing about this new rhetorical development -- not only from our military, but also from our "journalists" -- is that, for years, it was too shameless and false even for the Bush administration to use. Even at the height of their propaganda offensives about the war, the furthest Bush officials were willing to go was to use the generic term "terrorists" for everyone we are fighting in Iraq, as in: "we cannot surrender to the terrorists by withdrawing" and "we must stay on the offensive against terrorists."

But after his 2004 re-election was secure, even the President acknowledged (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-2.html) that "Al Qaeda" was the smallest component of the "enemies" we are fighting in Iraq:
A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. . . .

The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein -- people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. . . .

The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda.
And note that even for the "smallest" group among those we are fighting in Iraq, the president described them not as "Al Qaeda," but as those "affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda." Claiming that our enemy in Iraq was comprised primarily or largely of "Al Qaeda" was too patently false even for the President to invoke in defense of his war.

But now, support for the war is at an all-time low and war supporters are truly desperate to find a way to stay in Iraq. So the administration has thrown any remnants of rhetorical caution to the wind, overtly calling everyone we are fighting "Al Qaeda." This strategy was first unveiled by Joe Lieberman when he went on Meet the Press (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/14/chuck-hagel-smacks-lieberman/) in January and claimed that the U.S. was "attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we're fighting in Iraq today". Though Lieberman was widely mocked at the time for his incomparable willingness to spew even the most patent falsehoods to justify the occupation, our intrepid political press corps now dutifully follows right along.


Here is the first paragraph from today's New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html?hp) on our latest offensive, based exclusively on the claims of our military commanders:
The operational commander of troops battling to drive fighters with Al Qaeda from Baquba said Friday that 80 percent of the top Qaeda leaders in the city fled before the American-led offensive began earlier this week. He compared their flight with the escape of Qaeda leaders from Falluja ahead of an American offensive that recaptured that city in 2004.The article then uses the term "Qaeda" an additional 19 times to describe the enemy we are fighting -- "Qaeda leaders," "Qaeda strongholds," "Qaeda fighters," "Qaeda groups," the "Qaeda threat," etc. What is our objective in Iraq? To "move into neighborhoods cleared of Qaeda fighters and hold them."


In virtually every article from the Times now, anyone we fight is automatically designated "Al Qaeda":
* June 21 (by Michael Gordon and Alissa Rubin) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/world/middleeast/21iraq.html):
American troops discovered a medical aid station for insurgents -- another sign that the Qaeda fighters had prepared for an intense fight . . . In a statement, the American military said it had killed 41 Qaeda operatives.

* June 20 (by Michael Gordon) (http://www.nytimes.c%20om/2007/06/20/world/middleeast/20military.html):
The problem of collaring the Qaeda fighters is challenging in several respects. . . The presence of so many civilians on an urban battlefield affords the operatives from Al Qaeda another possible means to elude their American pursuers. . . . Since the battle for western Baquba began, Qaeda insurgents have carried out a delaying action, employing snipers and engaging American troops in several firefights.* June 19 (by Michael Gordon and Damien Cave) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html):
The Qaeda and insurgent strongholds in Baquba are strongly defended, according to American intelligence reports [though even that article described the enemy in Baquba as "a mix of former members of Saddam Hussein's army and paramilitary forces, embittered Sunni Arab men, criminal gangs and Qaeda Islamists"]*June 17 (by Thom Shanker and Michael Gordon) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html):
With the influx of tens of thousands of additional combat troops into Iraq now complete, American forces have begun a wide offensive against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia on the outskirts of Baghdad, the top American commander in Iraq said Saturday.


The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, in a news conference in Baghdad along with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, said the operation was intended to take the fight to Al Qaeda's hide-outs in order to cut down the group's devastating campaign of car bombings. . . .

The additional American forces, General Petraeus said Saturday, would allow the United States to conduct operations in "a number of areas around Baghdad, in particular to go into areas that were sanctuaries in the past of Al Qaeda."
From The Washington Post today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062200272.html?hpid=topnews):
The battle came Friday to the town of Khalis, about 10 miles northwest of Baqubah. U.S. forces saw a group of al-Qaeda in Iraq gunmen attempting to avoid Iraqi police patrols and infiltrate Khalis from the southwest, according to a U.S. military statement. . . . .

With those deaths, at least 68 suspected al-Qaeda operatives have been killed in the offensive, according to the U.S. military's tally.
And here is the headline from CNN's article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/22/iraq.main/) yesterday:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/Rn0Va1M4psI/AAAAAAAAAFU/6NFKh6JmHW8/s400/cnn.png (http://bp2.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/Rn0Va1M4psI/AAAAAAAAAFU/6NFKh6JmHW8/s1600-h/cnn.png)
Note that, in the sub-headline, CNN totals the number of "militants" killed as 68, which, in the headline, magically becomes "68 al Qaeda militants killed." That is because, in our media, everyone we kill in Iraq, and everyone who fights against our occupation, are all now "al Qaeda."

Each of these articles typically (though not always) initially refers to "Al Qaeda in Iraq" or "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," as though they are nothing more than the Iraqi branch office of the group that launched the 9/11 attacks. The articles then proceed to refer to the group only as "Qaeda," and repeatedly quote U.S. military officials quantifying the amount of "Qaeda fighters" we killed. Hence, what we are doing in Iraq is going after and killing members of the group which flew the planes into our buildings. Who could possibly be against that?

Are there some foreign fighters in Iraq who have taken up arms against the U.S. occupation who are fairly called "Al Qaeda"? Probably. But by all accounts -- including the President's -- they are a tiny part of the groups with guns who are waging war in Iraq. The vast, vast majority of them are Iraqis motivated by a desire to acquire more political power in their own country at the expense of other Iraqi factions and/or to fight against a foreign occupation of their country. To refer to them as "Al Qaeda" so casually and with so little basis (other than the fact that U.S. military officials now do so) is misleading and propagandistic in the extreme.

Making matters much worse, this tactic was exposed long, long ago. From (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html) the Christian Science Monitor in September, 2005:
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq "feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents. And in January of this year, the Cato Institute published a detailed analysis (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7353) -- entitled "The Myth of an al Qaeda Takeover of Iraq" -- by Ted Galen Carpenter, its vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, documenting that claims of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is "a canard that the perpetrators of the current catastrophe use to frighten people into supporting a fatally flawed, and seemingly endless, nation-building debacle."

What is always most striking about this is how uncritically our press passes on government claims. War reporting in Iraq is obviously extremely difficult and dangerous, and it takes a great deal of courage to be in Iraq in order to file these stories. There is no denying that.

But precisely because of those dangers, these reporters rely almost exclusively on the narratives offered by U.S. military officials selected by the Bush administration to convey events to the press. Almost every one of the articles referenced above is shaped from start to finish by accounts about what happened from American military commanders (with, in isolated instances, accounts from Iraqis in the area). That is inevitable, though such accounts ought to be treated with much greater skepticism.

But what is not inevitable is to adopt the patently misleading nomenclature and political rhetoric of the administration, so plainly designed to generate support for the "surge" (support for which Gordon himself admitted (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/opinion/28pubed.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=91a2e31c236a6af9&ex=1327640400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) he has embraced) by creating the false appearance that the violence in Iraq is due to attacks by the terrorist group responsible for 9/11. What makes this practice all the more disturbing is how quickly and obediently the media has adopted the change in terms consciously issued by the Bush administration and their military officials responsible for presenting the Bush view of the war to the press.

UPDATE: Posts from other bloggers who previously noticed this same trend demonstrate how calculated it is and pinpoint its obvious genesis. At Kos, BarbInMD noted back in May (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/4/45748/74248) that Bush's rhetoric on Iraq had palpably shifted, as he began declaring that "Al-Qaida is public enemy No. 1 in Iraq." The same day, she noted that Bush "mentioned Al-Qaida no less than 27 times" in his Iraq speech. As always, a theme travels unmolested from Bush's mouth into the unexamined premises of our newspapers' front pages.

Separately, Ghillie notes (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/permalink/206cfb638325e6eccc45de88e2d703b3.html) in comments that the very politically cognizant Gen. Petraeus has been quite noticeably emphasizing "the battle against Al Qaeda" in interviews for months. And yesterday, ProfMarcus analyzed (http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2007/06/media-is-al-qaedas-best-pr-agency.html) the top Reuters article (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-06-22T093026Z_01_COL021520_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=nl_usmorningdigest) concerning American action in Iraq -- headline: "Al Qaeda fight to death in Iraq bastion: U.S" -- and noted that "al qaeda is mentioned 13 times in a 614 word story" and that "reading the article, you would think that al qaeda is not only everywhere in iraq but is also behind all the insurgent activity that's going on."

Interestingly, in addition to the one quoted above, there is another long article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062202013.html?hpid=topnews) in the Post today, this one by the reliable Thomas Ricks, which extensively analyzes the objectives and shortcomings in our current military strategy. Ricks himself strategy never once mentions Al Qaeda.

Finally, the lead story of the NYT today -- in its first two paragraphs -- quotes Gen. Odierno as claiming that the 2004 battle of Falluja was aimed at capturing "top Qaeda leaders in the city." But Michael Gordon himself, back in 2004, published a lengthy and detailed article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/international/middleeast/09FALL.html?ex=1182744000&en=9ccd44786cd1aef1&ei=5070) about the Falluja situation and never once mentioned or even alluded to "Al Qaeda," writing only about the Iraqi Sunni insurgents in that city who were hostile to our occupation (h/t John Manning (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/23/al_qaeda/permalink/cbabdadcea4c8e174d7fde397bee714b.html)). The propagandistic transformation of "insurgents" into "Al Qaeda," then, applies not only to our current predicament but also to past battles as well, as a tool of rank revisionism (hence, it is now officially "The Glorious 2004 Battle against Al-Qaeda in Falluja").

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

FistFu68
06-24-07, 02:54 PM
:evilgrin:DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHO THE BASTARD'S ARE,THAT ARE TRYING TOO KILL YOU OR YOU'R BROTHER'S???KILL THEM ALL,LET GOD SORT THE BASTARD'S OUT!!!:evilgrin: DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR :usmc:

jetdawgg
06-24-07, 02:57 PM
The point here is 'more lies' from the MSM and the gov't. No wonder support for the war is down the tubes.

Of course it would not matter whom I kill. The gov't needs to tell the truth about the war effort(?) in Iraq.

They may very well be telling it now, but no one believes them. The credibility is shot

OLE SARG
06-24-07, 03:00 PM
Just look what lying, piece of ****, media all this **** is coming from!!!!!!! Talk about credibility - these ****ing rags have NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND who the **** is josh marshall besides something I've never heard of!!!!

SEMPER FI,

jetdawgg
06-24-07, 03:05 PM
Josh is a product of the right wing controlled MSM's failure to tell the truth

Sgt Leprechaun
06-25-07, 10:21 AM
So, who would you prefer the headlines say we killed?

All I care about is were they attempting to do harm against US military or allied personnel. You can call them the Furry tailed Muskrat Militia for all I care, as long as you kill em.

erased
06-25-07, 10:29 AM
So... it doesn't bother you at all that the media is still trying to connect Iraq to Afghanistan by way of Al Qaeda in order to maintain what little public support there is for this war?

Sgt Leprechaun
06-25-07, 11:25 AM
And, how do you know for fact that AQ ISN'T in Iraq?

I love the loaded question, though. Funny, about public support. I think there is far more support than most people believe.

I think that if we lose this thing, the blame won't go where the left thinks it will (or hopes, which is Bush, Republicans, NeoCons, etc), but will, for JoeSixPack anyway, be placed at the hands of the demo party. Years from now, that will be the popular belief, just as it is the popular belief that "the left/hippies/etc" "caused" us to "lose" (we didn't of course but it's the belief) in Vietnam.

erased
06-25-07, 12:56 PM
Well, as far as I know, they are in Iraq, but not everyone fighting us in Iraq is in AQ.

003XXMarineDAD
06-25-07, 01:02 PM
There are some that would go as far to have the miranda rights give to them.
Also do not profile them, also do not shoot with any weapon bigger then what they are using in self defence against you.
Any thing put on here by the daily KOS should be quetioned just as hard as jet pushing the so called lies of Fox and others.

I could give not a hoot who is doing the shooting just as long as they are dead after meeting up with our Troops.
Then read them the miranda.
:D

Sgt Leprechaun
06-25-07, 01:04 PM
Amen Dad. I also think that most of the guys on the ground feel the way you do.

10thzodiac
06-25-07, 01:08 PM
Quoting Sgt Lep, "If we loose this thing", do you think we should start hunkering down before a rag-head invasion here in America, or is that to far fetched because they don't have that kind of Navy ?

What's the threat other than whose fault it is, three thousand plus of our finest were killed for nothing ?

BTW, seriously, why are we still there now anyway, GW's legacy ?

Sgt Leprechaun
06-25-07, 01:13 PM
By lose, I mean, the same way we 'lost' Vietnam. Did they invade? No. Well, not right away, anway.

But, the perception is/was that we 'lost'. And we've paid the price for that ever since.

I don't give a rip about 'legacy'. I just want to win.

drumcorpssnare
06-25-07, 02:35 PM
Bottom line, it wouldn't matter what the media called these "fighters." When they are labeled "insurgents" the liberals whine. If you mention the Sunni, it becomes the Shia's fault. Call then "Islamic fundamentalists" and you're accused of grouping all Muslims together...
The truth is, the left will grasp at any straw in an attempt to make the situation look worse than it really is.
What's really ironic is that "liberal-minded" people are among those who are the most despised by al-Quida, Hamas, and virtually all the jihadists.:D

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

erased
06-25-07, 02:43 PM
"What's really ironic is that "liberal-minded" people are among those who are the most despised by al-Quida, Hamas, and virtually all the jihadists."

That's funny. That's almost the opposite of what our 'terp told me when I was last there.

"The truth is, the left will grasp at any straw in an attempt to make the situation look worse than it really is."

Oh, by the way, Saddam has weapons of mass distruction, Iran has nukes, North Korea is going to attack the US, the KGB is ruling the world, and two homos getting married will ruin your marriage.

erased
06-25-07, 02:50 PM
Almost forgot...

If we don't stay in Iraq forever, they will follow us home.

drumcorpssnare
06-25-07, 03:23 PM
erased- The entire jihadist theocracy revolves around the issue that "only God can rule man"...therefore any interpretation of Islamic law, outside of the Koran, is sacreligious and therefore unacceptable.
Even the most ultra-conservative secular government is out-of-bounds.
The very last thing these Islamic fundamentalists want to hear, is some leftist-liberal saying, "If your women don't want to wear burkas, they shouldn't have to!"
America became a prime target of al-Quida long before Desert Storm.
WHY?
Because of our openly liberal society.

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

Sgt Leprechaun
06-25-07, 03:24 PM
Really? And how do AQ and the other insurgents view the 'liberal minded folk', do tell?

I would be curious to know. Considering "liberal" is usually something those folks are supposedly against (gay marriage, gays, women voting, driving, etc etc). Has there been a 'sea change' in Muslim ideology that we've somehow missed?

Two homos getting married won't ruin my marriage, but it certainly will start us on the path to the eventual downfall of Western Civilization. Or, rather, further down the path, anyway.

drumcorpssnare
06-25-07, 03:29 PM
Sgt Leprechaun- Some of us have spent these past years researching Islamic history, theology, political (OIC), and terrorist (Hamas, etc.) activities.
We understand the "greater Jihad" and the "lesser Jihad." We know that America, not Israel is their #1 enemy. Etc., etc.
Then there are some here who don't have a clue, but somehow have all the answers.
My guess is you know who I'm talking about...:D

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

Sgt Leprechaun
06-25-07, 04:14 PM
:)

However, I always like to hear what the folks with boots on the ground, or who have been, have to say. Ya just never know. That's the kinda learnin you don't get from books.

Still, I cast doubts on the 'liberalization' of AQ or any other Muslim religion. Perhaps the 'terp was a Christian and hopeful he could immigrate! LOL. Never know. But it's always good for the de-brief.

drumcorpssnare
06-25-07, 04:19 PM
Sgt Leprechaun- I've read, and talked to WW II vets from the Pacific theatre, who didn't fully understand the "Bushido Code" until after the war was over. Up until then, they just thought the Japs were nuts.

Kinda like the terrorists of today...

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

10thzodiac
06-25-07, 07:45 PM
Sgt Leprechaun- I've read, and talked to WW II vets from the Pacific theatre, who didn't fully understand the "Bushido Code" until after the war was over. Up until then, they just thought the Japs were nuts.

Kinda like the terrorists of today...

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

Talking about about nuts and terrorist of yesterday.

My uncle (dad's brother) told me this story about WW II Army boot camp:

The drill Sergeant was having one of those boot camp Kill, Kill the enemy pep talks and one of the guys yells out in my uncles company, "I can't wait to go to Germany and kill Germans and toss their babies up into to air and let them fall on my bayonet !"

My uncle still was in disbelief when he told me of that incident, but listening to his other war stories (Luzon) that he told me of, that one was right up there with the worst; killing enemy prisoners and decapitating enemy dead.

erased
06-25-07, 08:25 PM
" Then there are some here who don't have a clue, but somehow have all the answers.
My guess is you know who I'm talking about..."

I'm just gonna match Drum's maturity here and ignore him until he goes away. Go ahead, do your research... from your couch.

@Sgt Lep: Most Muslims aren't against gays or women driving although there are rules involving both, however, there are just as many rules involving traditional marriage there. Most of the Iraqis I talked to including our 'terp (although these guys obviouly aren't the extremest nut-jobs there) all agreed they have a live and let live policy toward the US and Israel. However, the US isn't letting them on with their lives. Our arrogance is what drives a lot of them. Then again I don't claim they spoke for everyone.

10thzodiac
06-25-07, 08:31 PM
By lose, I mean, the same way we 'lost' Vietnam. Did they invade? No. Well, not right away, anway.

But, the perception is/was that we 'lost'. And we've paid the price for that ever since.

I don't give a rip about 'legacy'. I just want to win.


And what is the price that we paid for loosing the Vietnam war you are talking about ? What ever it is please enlighten me ! And then please tell me how many more American Soldiers you are willing to have die for that alleged price of not loosing in Iraq [MENA] this time ?

Your argument reminds me of a driver speeding home for what ? You don't win anything for getting home early, but if you don't get home (die) you loose !

Full answers please, you can borrow drumscorpssnares tin-foil hat, his saw-dust caught on fire and he won't be needing it for awhile :D

SF

10thz

Sgt Leprechaun
06-26-07, 05:49 AM
Hmmm......the 'price' of Vietnam....wow..the list is long, but lets go with:

1: Loss of confidence in America's ability to protect our friends

2: Loss of confidence by the American people in the gummint as well as the military (perception, again)

3: Embolding the USSR and other client states to believe that the US was on the decline.

4: The election of the peanut farmer, whose administration oversaw the continual decline of American power & prestige worldwide

5: The literal gutting of the American military, and the need to completely re-build same, a process that was finally culminated by 'Desert Storm'.

6: The loss of intelligence services clandestine operations capability worldwide, due to the Church commission, a direct result of the deflation of American prestige.

7: The 'retreat' theory of guerrilla fighters, in that, America having done so once, the chances are that America will do so again, "if" "they" can only hold out.

8: The empowerment of the left wing press, believing that they were directly responsible for the "defeat", and turning the old fashioned 'reporters' of fact into 'crusading journalists' types who are more interested in spinning news to a certain point of view (either left or right) as opposed to just telling the story.

9: The hippie class believing they are far more important and powerful than they really were.

10: "Maliase" in all it's forms and functions, partly due to the national thought that we "lost" in Vietnam.


Sure, that's only ten of em, but it's one large bowl. Do you even remember the 70's? The country was in a funk, and while Vietnam wasn't the only blame (Watergate played a part as well) do you have the desire to go back to that time period? I sure don't.

Erased, interesting point. I would counterpoint your last line, though, by simply saying that I believe if we were to suddenly pull out (last helicopters leaving the green zone and all that), the moderates and those who just want to 'live and let live' will be swamped by those extremists.

The 'how many American soldiers' line, 10th, is a straw man. I could use the same quote about Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or any day in early May, 1945 on the European front. I could also say, "How many more 9/11's will it take for you to realize that the extremists just-want-you-dead!"?

It's a ludicrious argument. How many more Amurkans must die in homicides, vehicle crashes, cancer, AIDS, and drownings before the gummint issues us all bulletproof and floatable plastic bubbles? How many "people" will die because of "global warming" before "we" finally "do something"??

Hand wringing and 'feelings' don't solve problems. They won't go away by us wishing they weren't so.

jetdawgg
06-26-07, 09:01 AM
Hmmm......the 'price' of Vietnam....wow..the list is long, but lets go with:

1: Loss of confidence in America's ability to protect our friends

We do trade with Vietnam today. It is considered one country

2: Loss of confidence by the American people in the gummint as well as the military (perception, again)

The American people don't want our young people's lives invested for big business purposes and then they give cheap labor to illegal immigrants. The military is the top vote getter in America per the poll posted last week


3: Embolding the USSR and other client states to believe that the US was on the decline.

The current policy of sabre rattling has emboldend the arms race globally. This is not a sustainable policy.

4: The election of the peanut farmer, whose administration oversaw the continual decline of American power & prestige worldwide

Currently the USA is number 96 out of 121 in the world of nations. Lotta work to do here and Mr. CArter has not been president for 27 years

5: The literal gutting of the American military, and the need to completely re-build same, a process that was finally culminated by 'Desert Storm'.

This policy is 'gutting' the military now

6: The loss of intelligence services clandestine operations capability worldwide, due to the Church commission, a direct result of the deflation of American prestige.

Americans don't like clueless, incompetent republicans losing wars for us. The sabre rattling policy is not scaleable

7: The 'retreat' theory of guerrilla fighters, in that, America having done so once, the chances are that America will do so again, "if" "they" can only hold out.

Why are we fighting in Iraq again? WMD's? Democracy? Saddam?....

8: The empowerment of the left wing press, believing that they were directly responsible for the "defeat", and turning the old fashioned 'reporters' of fact into 'crusading journalists' types who are more interested in spinning news to a certain point of view (either left or right) as opposed to just telling the story.

The FOX Noise Channel and the 'right wing' radio parrots created the web as a tool of the left to present facts

9: The hippie class believing they are far more important and powerful than they really were.

A realistic energy policy could bring peace to the world also. How about if the military which runs on oil gets cut off?

10: "Maliase" in all it's forms and functions, partly due to the national thought that we "lost" in Vietnam.

See answer number 1. Vietnam is still one nation today and we trade with them


Sure, that's only ten of em, but it's one large bowl. Do you even remember the 70's? The country was in a funk, and while Vietnam wasn't the only blame (Watergate played a part as well) do you have the desire to go back to that time period? I sure don't.

Erased, interesting point. I would counterpoint your last line, though, by simply saying that I believe if we were to suddenly pull out (last helicopters leaving the green zone and all that), the moderates and those who just want to 'live and let live' will be swamped by those extremists.

The 'how many American soldiers' line, 10th, is a straw man. I could use the same quote about Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or any day in early May, 1945 on the European front. I could also say, "How many more 9/11's will it take for you to realize that the extremists just-want-you-dead!"?

It's a ludicrious argument. How many more Amurkans must die in homicides, vehicle crashes, cancer, AIDS, and drownings before the gummint issues us all bulletproof and floatable plastic bubbles? How many "people" will die because of "global warming" before "we" finally "do something"??

Hand wringing and 'feelings' don't solve problems. They won't go away by us wishing they weren't so.

This policy is only creating more of them

HOLM
06-26-07, 09:16 AM
YEAH JET... Why don't you just say it....


What does the reoccupation of Iraq mean by using lies and deception along with murder, destruction, detention, torture and creation of huge military bases to dominate the whole region? It is a Zionist crusade against Muslims.

jetdawgg
06-26-07, 09:23 AM
YEAH JET... Why don't you just say it....


What does the reoccupation of Iraq mean by using lies and deception along with murder, destruction, detention, torture and creation of huge military bases to dominate the whole region? It is a Zionist crusade against Muslims.

HOLM what it means now is that the cause has "changed" again. This time it is AQ.

The 'right wing' controlled MSM has once again affected (infected) your mind. There are those that really believe all of the folks we are fighting are AQ.

Can't you see thru this Marine? Incredible. Why do you think that I posted this:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u17/jetdawgg/Sheeple20Watch20Fox20News.jpg

Get the picture?

HOLM
06-26-07, 09:38 AM
****** whomever is producing the Bin Laden speeches damn sure thinks that we are fighting them (AQ)


AQ words.. NOT mine.. Not the Right wing media (oh please) Words from "bin Laden" speeches

Lets quote em AGAIN...



Despite the numerous Crusader attacks against our Muslim nation in military, economic, cultural and moral aspects, but the gravest of them all is the attack against our religion, our prophet and the our Sharia tenets. The epicentre of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the khalifate rule. They keep reiterating that success in Baghdad will be success for the US, failure in Iraq the failure of the US.

Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist-Crusader tide against us. Your mujahidin sons and brothers in Iraq have taught the US a hard lesson while in the fourth year of the Crusaders' invasion, they are steadfast and patient and keep killing and wounding enemy soldiers every day.

HOLM
06-26-07, 09:40 AM
<nobr>This brief survey of the fall of the Khalifate</nobr> is a reading of history which opens the discourse of return.
Khalifate is not only fundamental to Islam, it is the necessary foundation of its power. Idealised concepts of what constitute a proper Khalif were a Shi'a diversion to guarantee, since it could always be claimed a specific person was not good enough, that the task was never taken on. Equally, the Arab claim that it belongs to the Quraish has not got an absolute authority, while the historicity of Osmani rule is the highest argument.


The Khilafa must return to the Islamic heartland of Anatolia, most of all because Sultaniyya was suspended there by coup d'etat. However appropriate it was in its moment that moment has gone. It created the second interregnum in Osmani rule, a brief rupture in Islamic rule, less than a hundred years. It is not the House of Osman that is at issue,

jetdawgg
06-26-07, 09:58 AM
I'd like to know who is producing the bin Laden speeches myself.:usmc:

HOLM
06-26-07, 10:07 AM
Hillary Clinton if you ask me...


They sound damn near like her parties platform to me...

jetdawgg
06-26-07, 10:12 AM
G.W. Bush 9/18/2003

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushsaddam.html

Bush: "What did Iraq have to do with what?"
Reporter: "The attack on the World Trade Center."
Bush: "Nothing."

See the video

Sgt Leprechaun
06-26-07, 10:58 AM
Yeah, like this one:

Washington Times
June 26, 2007
Pg. 1
Afghan Boy Outsmarts The Taliban
Not tricked into suicide mission
By Jason Straziuso, Associated Press
FORWARD OPERATING BASE THUNDER, Afghanistan - The story of a 6-year-old Afghan boy who says he thwarted an effort by Taliban militants to trick him into being a suicide bomber provoked tears and anger at a meeting of tribal leaders.
The account from Juma Gul, a dirt-caked child who collects scrap metal for money, left American soldiers dumbfounded that a youngster could be sent on such a mission. Afghan troops crowded around the boy to call him a hero.
Though the Taliban dismissed the story as propaganda, at a time when U.S. and NATO forces are under increasing criticism for civilian casualties, both Afghan tribal elders and U.S. military officers said they are convinced by his dramatic account.
Juma said that sometime last month, Taliban fighters forced him to wear a vest they said would spray flowers when he touched a button. He said they told him that when he saw U.S. soldiers, "throw your body at them."
The militants cornered Juma in a Taliban-controlled district in southern Afghanistan's Ghazni province. Although he is but an impoverished youngster being raised by an older sister - he proved too street-smart for their plan.
"When they first put the vest on my body, I didn't know what to think, but then I felt the bomb," Juma told the Associated Press as he ate lamb and rice after being introduced to the elders at the joint U.S.-Afghan base in Ghazni. "After I figured out it was a bomb, I went to the Afghan soldiers for help."
While Juma's story could not be independently verified, local government leaders backed his account and the U.S. and NATO military missions said they believe his story.
Abdul Rahim Deciwal, chief administrator for Juma's village of Athul, brought the boy and an older brother, Dad Gul, to a weekend meeting between Afghan elders and U.S. Army Col. Martin P. Schweitzer.
Col. Schweitzer called the Taliban's attempt "a cowardly act."
As Mr. Deciwal told Juma's story, 20 Afghan elders clicked their tongues in sadness and disapproval. When the boy and his brother were brought in, several of the turban-wearing men welled up with tears, wiping their eyes with handkerchiefs.
"If anybody has a heart, then how can you control yourself [before] these kids?" Mr. Deciwal said in broken English.
Wallets quickly opened, and the boys were handed $60 in American and Afghan currency - a good chunk of money in a country where teachers and police earn $70 a month.
Afghan officials described the boys as extremely poor, and Juma said he is being raised by his sister because his father works in a bakery in Pakistan and his mother does domestic work in another village.
"I think the boy is intelligent," Mr. Deciwal said. "When he comes from the enemy, he found a checkpoint of the [Afghan National Army], and he asked the ANA: 'Hey, can you help me? Somebody gave me this jacket, and I don't know what's inside, but maybe something bad.' "
Lt. Col. George Graff, a father of five who attended the meeting, also teared up.
"Relating to them as a father and trying to fathom somebody using one of my children for that kind of a purpose ... it just tore me up," said Col. Graff, a National Guard soldier from St. George, Utah. "The depths that these people will go to get what they want, which is power for themselves - it's just disgusting."
A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, denied the militant group uses child fighters, saying it has hundreds of adults ready for suicide missions.
"We don't need to use a child," Mr. Ahmadi told the AP by satellite phone. "It's against Islamic law; it's against humanitarian law. This is just propaganda against the Taliban."
However, a gory Taliban video that surfaced in April showed militants instructing a boy of about 12 as he beheaded a purported traitor with a large knife. U.N. officials condemned the act as a war crime.
Fidgety but smiling during all of the attention, Juma told the AP that he was scared when he was surrounded by Taliban fighters. He cupped his hands together to show the size of the bomb, then ran his hands along his waist to show where it was on his body.
Raised in a country where birthdays are not always carefully tracked, Juma said he is 4. But he looks older and Afghan officials said he is about 6. His brother appears to be a year or so older.
Their village lies in Ghazni province's Andar district, a Taliban stronghold targeted this month in a joint Afghan-U.S. operation. The region remains dangerous, and Afghan elders worry for Juma's safety.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-26-07, 11:12 AM
Point by point....

Hmmm......the 'price' of Vietnam....wow..the list is long, but lets go with:

1: Loss of confidence in America's ability to protect our friends

We do trade with Vietnam today. It is considered one country


That's today, not 20 years ago. However, today, Vietnam is still a communist country.

2: Loss of confidence by the American people in the gummint as well as the military (perception, again)

The American people don't want our young people's lives invested for big business purposes and then they give cheap labor to illegal immigrants. The military is the top vote getter in America per the poll posted last week



Recall I was answering the question about Vietnam, not today, but nonetheless....the public opinon polls of the military are from TODAY, not 20 years ago. Or 30 as the case may be. Yes, confidence is high....until we are perceived (again) as 'losing' a war.

3: Embolding the USSR and other client states to believe that the US was on the decline.

The current policy of sabre rattling has emboldend the arms race globally. This is not a sustainable policy.

Crap. That's a line right from Code pink and doesn't refute the statement. Once they (in this case I'll say the militant muslims, but the old USSR applies as well) believe we are weak, power abhors a vacum. Something will fill it. It may not be the 'something' you think.

4: The election of the peanut farmer, whose administration oversaw the continual decline of American power & prestige worldwide

Currently the USA is number 96 out of 121 in the world of nations. Lotta work to do here and Mr. CArter has not been president for 27 years


Again, I was talking about 'then', not now, and you continue to quote a hard core left wing survey that listed Norway as #1. Who gives a flying rip in a rolling donut about that survey, anyway, other than touchy feeley socialists? Why, exactly, should I give a rip about it? And, since when does Amurka compete with Norway in anything? LOL

5: The literal gutting of the American military, and the need to completely re-build same, a process that was finally culminated by 'Desert Storm'.

This policy is 'gutting' the military now

Doesn't answer the question, nor refute it. Who had to rebuild the military after years of neglect? Oh, yeah, Reagan.

6: The loss of intelligence services clandestine operations capability worldwide, due to the Church commission, a direct result of the deflation of American prestige.

Americans don't like clueless, incompetent republicans losing wars for us. The sabre rattling policy is not scaleable

Has nothing to do with the statement, above. It was, however, a clueless, incompentent, Democrat, who got us into Vietnam (LBJ) and the Tonkin Gulf incident, it has been proven, was manufactured so as to prove LBJ was 'strong on defense' against Goldwater. You are right, though, Amurkans don't like losers in wars, which is why they looked down on the military after Vietnam, and then elected Carter (the 'peace' guy)....only to find out they liked being lectured to about "maliase" even less. They elected Clinton because "the cold war was over, etc" and got a peace dividend, yes. And with it, the gutting of the military (sound familiar?) and ignoring the war on terror. Thus, the election of a Republican.

7: The 'retreat' theory of guerrilla fighters, in that, America having done so once, the chances are that America will do so again, "if" "they" can only hold out.

Why are we fighting in Iraq again? WMD's? Democracy? Saddam?....

Dodging the question nicely. Iraq is nowhere mentioned in the above statement. However, the statement is valid. Yours is merely political rhetoric that tells me....nothing.


8: The empowerment of the left wing press, believing that they were directly responsible for the "defeat", and turning the old fashioned 'reporters' of fact into 'crusading journalists' types who are more interested in spinning news to a certain point of view (either left or right) as opposed to just telling the story.

The FOX Noise Channel and the 'right wing' radio parrots created the web as a tool of the left to present facts


Hilarious. Another dodge. Gimmie a break. And, I thought AlGore invented the internet? Was that before, or after, he invented global warming?

9: The hippie class believing they are far more important and powerful than they really were.

A realistic energy policy could bring peace to the world also. How about if the military which runs on oil gets cut off?


This has what to do with the hippie class? And, show me a party (either one) that has a 'realistic' energy policy. Peace to the world with it? A touchy feely answer that isn't based in reality. It wasn't 'poor starving moooslums' who drove airplanes into buildings a few short years back.

10: "Maliase" in all it's forms and functions, partly due to the national thought that we "lost" in Vietnam.

See answer number 1. Vietnam is still one nation today and we trade with them


And, see my response to same. I don't see one point here that you brought up that has a coherent arguement. You can do better than this!! :)

HOLM
06-26-07, 12:36 PM
4: The election of the peanut farmer, whose administration oversaw the continual decline of American power & prestige worldwide

Currently the USA is number 96 out of 121 in the world of nations. Lotta work to do here and Mr. CArter has not been president for 27 years


Again, I was talking about 'then', not now, and you continue to quote a hard core left wing survey that listed Norway as #1. Who gives a flying rip in a rolling donut about that survey, anyway, other than touchy feeley socialists? Why, exactly, should I give a rip about it? And, since when does Amurka compete with Norway in anything? LOL


HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA...


It is not just some stupid liberal talking point he is quoting there... IT IS BIN LADEN himself that is being quoted...

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

bootlace15
06-26-07, 12:56 PM
don't blame it (the terrorist ) on a name. blame it on EVERYONES actions that got us here or there in the first place. We humans have been fighting each other since birth. It will never end until a higher power says so. But the main thing about it,is when it happens the Corp will be here or there because we live forever.............. BITE ME..............

bootlace15 out

drumcorpssnare
06-26-07, 01:25 PM
bootlace15- Good point! Warfare pre-dates civilization. Clan against clan; tribe against tribe. And the same is true now, as then.
Feeble, old, worn-out men dictate the policies that send young, vibrant men off to their deaths.
That isn't gonna change just because we want it to.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

jetdawgg
06-26-07, 01:53 PM
Point by point....

Hmmm......the 'price' of Vietnam....wow..the list is long, but lets go with:

1: Loss of confidence in America's ability to protect our friends

We do trade with Vietnam today. It is considered one country


That's today, not 20 years ago. However, today, Vietnam is still a communist country.

True. Vietnam is a communist country today. When we were involved, it was two separate and unequal nations.
I really don't see where our allies have lost confidence in us to protect them. We have moreso lost our allies due to poor foreign policy decisions.

2: Loss of confidence by the American people in the gummint as well as the military (perception, again)

The American people don't want our young people's lives invested for big business purposes and then they give cheap labor to illegal immigrants. The military is the top vote getter in America per the poll posted last week



Recall I was answering the question about Vietnam, not today, but nonetheless....the public opinon polls of the military are from TODAY, not 20 years ago. Or 30 as the case may be. Yes, confidence is high....until we are perceived (again) as 'losing' a war.

The military is the only working entity from the USA doing an effective job in Iraq and the WOT. All other entities are suspect at best.


3: Embolding the USSR and other client states to believe that the US was on the decline.

The current policy of sabre rattling has emboldend the arms race globally. This is not a sustainable policy.

Crap. That's a line right from Code pink and doesn't refute the statement. Once they (in this case I'll say the militant muslims, but the old USSR applies as well) believe we are weak, power abhors a vacum. Something will fill it. It may not be the 'something' you think.

So you are stating that the Foreign policy of the USA (sabre rattling and war) is efffective? Chavez has gained a lot of power since this admin has taken over. The price of oil allows him to buy a new Navy (9 new submarines) and re-arm his defense force. China has already shown that they have the ability to knock a satelitte from the sky. USSR knows that our troops are stretched thin so they gain strenght. Iran releases the hostages (British Marines) and now look better int he eyes of the world.

Listen to what the foreign nations are saying about us. The unilateral decision making is backfiring on us. Israel is about the only ally left. The Blair Ditch project in Iraq has even kept Prince Harry out of that nation. We are alone and making things more dangerous for us. A sane foreign policy is a dire need.

4: The election of the peanut farmer, whose administration oversaw the continual decline of American power & prestige worldwide

Currently the USA is number 96 out of 121 in the world of nations. Lotta work to do here and Mr. CArter has not been president for 27 years

Again, I was talking about 'then', not now, and you continue to quote a hard core left wing survey that listed Norway as #1. Who gives a flying rip in a rolling donut about that survey, anyway, other than touchy feeley socialists? Why, exactly, should I give a rip about it? And, since when does Amurka compete with Norway in anything? LOL

Norway is one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world. We should look into what they are doing as once the USA was that. Most recently 2001 when this admin took over. We are now number 7.


5: The literal gutting of the American military, and the need to completely re-build same, a process that was finally culminated by 'Desert Storm'.

This policy is 'gutting' the military now

Doesn't answer the question, nor refute it. Who had to rebuild the military after years of neglect? Oh, yeah, Reagan.

The current policy is not sustainable. Who is doing that?

6: The loss of intelligence services clandestine operations capability worldwide, due to the Church commission, a direct result of the deflation of American prestige.

Americans don't like clueless, incompetent republicans losing wars for us. The sabre rattling policy is not scaleable

Has nothing to do with the statement, above. It was, however, a clueless, incompentent, Democrat, who got us into Vietnam (LBJ) and the Tonkin Gulf incident, it has been proven, was manufactured so as to prove LBJ was 'strong on defense' against Goldwater. You are right, though, Amurkans don't like losers in wars, which is why they looked down on the military after Vietnam, and then elected Carter (the 'peace' guy)....only to find out they liked being lectured to about "maliase" even less. They elected Clinton because "the cold war was over, etc" and got a peace dividend, yes. And with it, the gutting of the military (sound familiar?) and ignoring the war on terror. Thus, the election of a Republican.

Just to provide a level of incompetency not seen in the USA in decades, maybe never before. And at such a cost.


7: The 'retreat' theory of guerrilla fighters, in that, America having done so once, the chances are that America will do so again, "if" "they" can only hold out.

Why are we fighting in Iraq again? WMD's? Democracy? Saddam?....

Dodging the question nicely. Iraq is nowhere mentioned in the above statement. However, the statement is valid. Yours is merely political rhetoric that tells me....nothing.

What are we left to do in Iraq? The nation has to settle the issues amongst themselves. That is not retreat. No WMD's. No Saddam. More terrorists due to the USA involvement. No democracy still.....


8: The empowerment of the left wing press, believing that they were directly responsible for the "defeat", and turning the old fashioned 'reporters' of fact into 'crusading journalists' types who are more interested in spinning news to a certain point of view (either left or right) as opposed to just telling the story.

The FOX Noise Channel and the 'right wing' radio parrots created the web as a tool of the left to present facts


Hilarious. Another dodge. Gimmie a break. And, I thought AlGore invented the internet? Was that before, or after, he invented global warming?

The Al Gore statement is straight from the republicans. I never found out where he made that claim: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)

I have shown enough here to show that the MSM is not 'left'. Moreover it is right wing controlled. Even here the 'right' want to stifle debate as they don't like what I post.

9: The hippie class believing they are far more important and powerful than they really were.

A realistic energy policy could bring peace to the world also. How about if the military which runs on oil gets cut off?


This has what to do with the hippie class? And, show me a party (either one) that has a 'realistic' energy policy. Peace to the world with it? A touchy feely answer that isn't based in reality. It wasn't 'poor starving moooslums' who drove airplanes into buildings a few short years back.

The hippies wanted peace in the 60's and 70's. They wanted green houses.

10: "Maliase" in all it's forms and functions, partly due to the national thought that we "lost" in Vietnam.

See answer number 1. Vietnam is still one nation today and we trade with them


And, see my response to same. I don't see one point here that you brought up that has a coherent arguement. :)

See my number 1 again

drumcorpssnare
06-26-07, 02:15 PM
jetdawgg- Much of your discourse deals with the American side of our politics, military, Iraq, Israel, etc.
How would you rebutt the Islamic fundamentalists who are absolutely, and completely against any form of secular government? i.e. "No man can rule another man. Only God can rule man."
Let's assume they achieve an "Islamic state" that encompasses the entire Middle East, and return to a Caliphate. (One single intermediary, between God and man)
Do you think they will stop there? Or will they continue until all the world is under Islamic law?
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

jetdawgg
06-26-07, 04:11 PM
drums, I deal with what I think is fair and resaonable. I cannot currently agree that the policy we are administering today is either.

Circumventing the Geneva Convention, Holding hostages for extended periods of time and calling them 'detainees', changing the name of the enemy to suit a political purpose (like the thread here suggest) is just not the American way.

I joined the Marines to serve the nation in an honorable manner and I did. I would expect that those we have entrusted to adminster the doctrine do so in the same manner, with respect to other nations and religions.

With the abuses that we have all witnessed here over the past 5 years I would like to see how one can come to the conclusion that we are on the path of 'first to fight for right and freedom'

Sgt Leprechaun
06-26-07, 04:27 PM
You allege 'abuses', which is a topic up for discussion in my opinion. And, check the Geneva convention. Guerrillas and terrs aren't covered. Sorry about that, but that's the way it.

jetdawgg
06-26-07, 04:56 PM
You allege 'abuses', which is a topic up for discussion in my opinion. And, check the Geneva convention. Guerrillas and terrs aren't covered. Sorry about that, but that's the way it.

Treating the 'detainees' in the harmful manner that we have is only making the situation more hostile for us. This war has torn the nation apart. The terrorists are winning imo.

They don't need to attack the USA. We are in a split so bad an attack on American soil would re-unite us and that is what they don't want.

bigdog43701
06-26-07, 05:43 PM
this comment is for jet and 10z...go get the July issue of LEATHERNECK. read the interview with General CONWAY. then tell me if you agree or disagree with his assesment.

Sgt Leprechaun
06-26-07, 08:54 PM
And, I'm not ignoring your point by point Jet, just don't have time at the 2nd job (yes, the 2nd job LOL) to answer it in depth.

Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you :) :)

jetdawgg
06-27-07, 08:41 AM
SGT Lep, WORK RULES!!!!!!!!!:D

drumcorpssnare
06-27-07, 01:18 PM
jetdawgg- I asked you to comment on the enemy, and again you comment on America. Will you answer my questions, to you, re: the enemy?
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

jetdawgg
06-27-07, 02:05 PM
jetdawgg- I asked you to comment on the enemy, and again you comment on America. Will you answer my questions, to you, re: the enemy?
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

Perhaps I am missing something. Can you please repeat the question?

TIA

drumcorpssnare
06-27-07, 02:18 PM
jetdawgg- Please see post # 40 of this thread. That was my question posed to you, and it is genuine and sincere.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

jetdawgg
06-27-07, 02:39 PM
jetdawgg- Much of your discourse deals with the American side of our politics, military, Iraq, Israel, etc.
How would you rebutt the Islamic fundamentalists who are absolutely, and completely against any form of secular government? i.e. "No man can rule another man. Only God can rule man."
Let's assume they achieve an "Islamic state" that encompasses the entire Middle East, and return to a Caliphate. (One single intermediary, between God and man)
Do you think they will stop there? Or will they continue until all the world is under Islamic law?

I don't like to speculate. This war is about extremists on all sides. There will never be a winner. I don think that if they achieved an "Islamic State" it would stop where it is (MENA).

The major rub is Israel and the determination by some to Islamic People to rid the world of that nation. Since that will not occur, we have to use diplomacy, education and other peaceful means to bring about a resolution.

The singular approach of war is not working and only bringing more ills to more people. The Israeli Zionists need to settle down. They need to own up to the wrongs that they are doing in the region.

The USA needs to bring about a sane foreign policy approach. As the worlds only superpower we cannot engage ourselves in disputes that isolate or nation and drain our resources.

This war is so bad that we cannot protect our own ports, our own rail systems. It is just not worth it. The world will never be under any one religious rule. It has too many people and too many religions.

drumcorpssnare
06-27-07, 03:40 PM
jetdawgg- There are so many "rubs" here, we may need to call in a massage therapist to consult.

First of all, you claim Israel to be the main rub.
Our enemies have "clearly stated" the Israeli situation to be "a" rub, but certainly not the "main" rub.
They have said for many years now, that what rubs them the worst...is America's liberal democracy. First and foremost.
And the close second is the "arrogance" of the American " people". (Note- They didn't say American "govt."....they said "people.")
You see, for many centuries, the Muslims were a very proud people. Then they were infiltrated by the French, the British, the Dutch, the Germans. The position of Caliphate (equivelant to our Pope) was abolished! Then, the "unbelieving" Jews establish a homeland in Palestine! Lastly, America "interferes" with the Iran-Iraq war, assembles the coalition for Desert Storm, and ultimately undertakes OIF.
Because America is the only super-power, we are now the object of their "Greater Jihad". Israel, by default, now becomes the "Lesser Jihad."

Understand, that MOST Moslems interpret the Koran in a much less radical way, than the jihadists do. The radical Muslims go out of their way to look for any opportunity to twist or misconstrue the "meaning" of the Koran, in an attempt to use that to their advantage. They want to reflect all non-believers as "infidels" who are a serious threat to Islam itself.

Here's the "RUB". Until the last Jihadist on earth is dead, we will need to look over our shoulder, in fear of being killed by a radical fundamentalist. THAT IS THEIR PROMISE TO US!
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

jetdawgg
06-27-07, 03:51 PM
drums, if this is the case and there is a great deal of veracity to it, why are we not protecting our ports and other areas?

The fighting in the MENA can be more effective if we had some support at home (infrastructure). Again I state, the current solution is not scaleble and completely unsustainable.

I for one cannot live with 'looking over my shoulder' at all times. This is America and there is ample technology to prevent and detect such harmful intent.

If we succumb to 'looking over our shoulders' in the same manner as we are now doing because of a lack of protective infrastructure, they have won without landing anymore planes or people bombs in the USA.

HOLM
06-27-07, 03:55 PM
lack of protective infrastructure
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA


Like the left would let that happen... Wana move Gitmo to your living room..

That away you and the ACLU could keep track of the goings on a little better..

jetdawgg
06-27-07, 04:00 PM
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA


Like the left would let that happen... Wana move Gitmo to your living room..

That away you and the ACLU could keep track of the goings on a little better..

HOLM it is the current admin not adhering to the 911 Commision Review.

coffeecoven
06-27-07, 04:05 PM
The worst kind of terrorist ,is our news media. They sway the opinions of
the public and polititians to pul out of every battle we engage. was anyone

drumcorpssnare
06-27-07, 04:18 PM
jetdawgg- I agree with Smedley and 10thz, that our borders should be so tight, a rat couldn't get through. But, we're not dealing with rats. We are dealing with intelligent (though radical) human beings, who are determined to bring us harm.
And just for the sake of the conversation...let's say we get our borders secured. Tight.
Then, anytime an American travels abroad, shall we send a massive contingent of troops to guard that American, so he doesn't fall prey to terrorists in France, or Britain, or Spain?

Jet, since 9/11, I have done a lot of reading. Many books, by many authors, worldwide. Some about the enemy. Some by the enemy. So, I feel I'm getting a pretty broad consensis. Across the board, these sources all say the same thing. These "million-plus" Jihadists are determined to fight to the death, in their attempt to see Islamic rule, across the entire globe.

We have a long difficult fight on our hands.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

jetdawgg
06-27-07, 04:26 PM
drums the current admin's approach is 'do nothing' to the borders. We can't even keep illegal aliens out.

Like I stated there is technology that should have been deployed en masse already.

If there are a "million plus jihadists". That means that there are very few. The total Muslim world is 1.25BB. With education and other more productive mesaures it should not go one for an unending period of time.

drumcorpssnare
06-27-07, 04:36 PM
jetdawgg- Ah, but let's not forget the millions of little minds that our enemy is brainwashing to hate America. An entire new generation. It's the jihadi who are teaching their children...not Uncle Sam.
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

Sgt Leprechaun
06-27-07, 06:02 PM
Talk about securing our borders, for pete's sake, they just passed a massive 'shamnesty' bill. They could give a rip about that, realistically.

It's disgusting.

Uncle Sam is trying, massively as best we can, to help those that can be helped in the places where we have a footprint (Nation building, like it or not, and I for one was against it) and actually make a bit of a difference.

I don't see America going out and physically taking territory and keeping it forever. We have no desire to do that.