# It's True: Iraq is a quagmire



## Big Don (Nov 19, 2007)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm
Jack Kelly gets it.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm
> Jack Kelly gets it.


 
Hi Big Don,

Well, since we've already won The Real Iraq, I guess that means our men and women can come home now?? The author is essentially saying Mission Accomplished, so he's arguing for military withdrawal from Iraq?? Right??

Unless, of course, the article in question was just a fluff piece to dismiss those who criticize the war's purpose and strategy and is the tired old Disagree With Me And You're With The Terrorists wardrum of the Pax Americana imperialists??

Nah, couldn't be. That'd just be cliched at this point.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2007)

I thought that Osama Bin Laden attacked America on September 11, 2001 because the US Military was living and working in the Islamic holy lands of Saudi Arabia. Well, if we listen to his words, that's what he told us. 

And, the vast portions of the US Military that had been forward deployed in Saudi Arabia have since been redeployed out of Saudi Arabia. 

I'm not certain that having a strong al Qaeda presence in Iraq was ever a goal of Mr. bin Laden, beyond the idea of the Caliphate; which, as I understand it encompasses much more than Iraq, and is actually focused in Eqypt, Israel and Lebanon.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

Michael: No, Al Qaeda attacks people, not because of anything their victims have actually done, but because they are murderous bastards and that is what murderous bastards do.
Heretic, what the author suggests is not that we withdraw, but rather, that the media distorts the successes we have seen, exaggerating the negative and minimizing the positive.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 20, 2007)

The same way they publicize every death but never show any stories of bravery, courage or the awarding of citations like bronze stars CMH etc.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

Like Army Lieutenant Walter B. Jackson,  only the seventh soldier in the past 32 years to be awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.Lt. Jackson&#8217;s citation  reads in part: 



> &#8220;Upon regaining consciousness after being shot, second lieutenant alternated between returning fire and administering first aid to the Soldier. Second Lt. Jackson was hit again with machine gun fire as he helped carry his wounded comrade to safety, but he never faltered in his aid. Although his own severe wounds required immediate evacuation and surgical care, 2nd Lt. Jackson refused medical assistance until his wounded comrade could be treated. Second Lt. Jackson&#8217;s selfless courage under extreme enemy fire was essential to saving another Soldier&#8217;s life and is in keeping with the finest traditions of military service&#8230;&#8221;


The DSC is second only to the Medal of Honor, but, LT Jackson's courageous actions weren't enough to merit mention on any network newscast.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 20, 2007)

Shameful


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 20, 2007)

> Al-Qaida is evacuating populated areas and is trying to establish hideouts in the Hamrin mountains in northern Iraq, with U.S. and Iraqi security forces, and former insurgent allies who have turned on them, in hot pursuit. Forty-five al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured in October alone.
> Al-Qaida's support in the Muslim world has plummeted, partly because of the terror group's lack of success in Iraq, more because al-Qaida's attacks have mostly killed Muslim civilians.
> "Iraq has proved to be the graveyard, not just of many al-Qaida operatives, but of the organization's reputation as a defender of Islam," said StrategyPage.


 
At least some good came out of this war.


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> No, Al Qaeda attacks people, not because of anything their victims have actually done, but because they are murderous bastards and that is what murderous bastards do.


 
Sorry if I sound like an *******, but what a wonderfully simplistic view of the situation. It must make your opinions very easy to formulate.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Michael: No, Al Qaeda attacks people, not because of anything their victims have actually done, but because they are murderous bastards and that is what murderous bastards do.


 
I can't help but wonder ... 

We are told that "Iraq is the central front in the Global War on Terrorism, because Osama Bin Laden says it is" by our President. This leads us to believe that we should give credence to what Osama Bin Laden says.

Then we are told that "Al Qaeda attacks because they are murderous bastards", and we should not give credence to what Osama Bin Laden says. 

Well ... just as long as we can have it both ways at the same time.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Michael: No, Al Qaeda attacks people, not because of anything their victims have actually done, but because they are murderous bastards and that is what murderous bastards do.



This may be an incredibly simplistic way of looking at this, but it is very true.

There are people who may be pissed off with American policy who *don't *resort to violence against innocent people to make their point. These people have a point of view that needs to be respected and discussed. However, once an individual or group decides to cross that line, their worldview and "plight," if you will, loses all credibility.

So any comments to imply that we could prevent from being attacked if we just behaved differently amounts to ********, in my opinion.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

The thing is, terrorists are by any sane definition, a tad mentally unbalanced, (sane people don't wear explosive clothing...)therefore, taking their rationales as rational is, by definition, irrational.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The thing is, terrorists are by any sane definition, a tad mentally unbalanced, (sane people don't wear explosive clothing...)therefore, taking their rationales as rational is, by definition, irrational.


 
Well, terrorism itself is a sane approach as long as you can expect people to get all scared and give you whatever you want.  It's when people get pissed off and start killing the terrorists and their loved ones in large quantities that the strategy ought to be reexamined.  Problem is, when you've used one strategy for a long time it's hard to think outside the box.

It's the suicide bombers that take a whole other degree of stupid.  Unfortunately, they got a lot of that to go around.


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> This may be an incredibly simplistic way of looking at this, but it is very true.
> 
> There are people who may be pissed off with American policy who *don't *resort to violence against innocent people to make their point. These people have a point of view that needs to be respected and discussed. However, once an individual or group decides to cross that line, their worldview and "plight," if you will, loses all credibility.
> 
> So any comments to imply that we could prevent from being attacked if we just behaved differently amounts to ********, in my opinion.


 
One problem with this Big Don's point of view is that it encourages people to forget that, as horrible as they are, terrorists do have a ryme to thier reason. This hinders diplomacy, and from a military standpoint, you don't really "know your enemy."
But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem (and the administration has spoon fed this to us from the start) is that it dehumanizes the enemy. It makes it much easier to hate and kill our enemies if we feel they are less than human. Why use diplomacy when it means nothing to simply destroy them? Hitler was the master of this tactic. He convinced a nation that Jews were worth less than the dirt they walked on. Countries still use this tactic to push their war-agendas. And our country does it as well.



Big Don said:


> The thing is, terrorists are by any sane definition, a tad mentally unbalanced, (sane people don't wear explosive clothing...)therefore, taking their rationales as rational is, by definition, irrational.



But these people believe that what they are doing makes complete sense. Again, "know your enemy."


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 20, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> One problem with this Big Don's point of view is that it encourages people to forget that, as horrible as they are, terrorists do have a ryme to thier reason. This hinders diplomacy, and from a military standpoint, you don't really "know your enemy."


 
And I'm okay with that, really.  There are some things that, if you do them, I don't need to understand your point of view anymore.



JBrainard said:


> But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem (and the administration has spoon fed this to us from the start) is that it dehumanizes the enemy. It makes it much easier to hate and kill our enemies if we feel they are less than human.


 
The administration didn't dehumanize our enemy.  They did that all by themselves.  They've made it as easy to hate and kill them as it could possibly be, and they have no one but themselves to blame.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 20, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> And I'm okay with that, really. There are some things that, if you do them, I don't need to understand your point of view anymore.


 
Exactly.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Heretic, what the author suggests is not that we withdraw, but rather, that the media distorts the successes we have seen, exaggerating the negative and minimizing the positive.



Hi Big Don,

Yeah, yeah, I know. We never hear stories about the buildings that _aren't_ getting blown up. 

There's a lot of reasons for this, I'm sure. The old adage If It Bleeds It Leads probably has more to do with this than anything else. On the days of school shootings here in the States, there's probably gonna be a lot more coverage of that stuff than of all the schools that weren't shot up on that day.

But, to address some of the claims made on this thread, I have seen at least two dozen stories over the past year about individual soldiers' stories and the heroic feats they have performed in Iraq. One of them is a co-worker of my friend's father (they're both firefighters in Miami) and he didn't utter a word about what he did or the Purple Heart he earned to anyone (they found out about it through a Marine Corps editorial that was sent to his superior at the station). This had less to do with "political bias" and more to do about his character as a human being.

My guess is most of the guys that do this sort of stuff don't feel like spreading the word about their deeds. That almost definitely has more to do with their sporadic presence on the news networks than anything else.

Of course, if we have not "won" the so-called Real Iraq to the point that we can at least begin phased military withdrawal then it sounds to me like we haven't "won" anything at all, at least not a victory that would be in any sense meaningful to the American public. This is a fluff piece showcasing Pax Americana propaganda, and very little else.

'Course, that's just my take.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The thing is, terrorists are by any sane definition, a tad mentally unbalanced, (sane people don't wear explosive clothing...)therefore, taking their rationales as rational is, by definition, irrational.


 

Again, I don't quite understand ...

Why does the President use the words of someone 'mentally unbalanced' to justify American Foreign Policy? 

President Bush, and many in his Administration, have told us that we can not withdraw from Iraq because it is the "central front in the global war on terror" because Osama bin Laden says it is.

Why is American military and foreign policy being written by someone you claim is insane? Why would our President abdicate his responsibility to mad man?


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 20, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> The administration didn't dehumanize our enemy. They did that all by themselves. They've made it as easy to hate and kill them as it could possibly be, and they have no one but themselves to blame.


 
I don't know how you can say that our administration didn't dehumanize our enemy, but ok.
The other cause of the dehumanization is simply the general public's complete apathy towards understanding the who/what/why of what is really going on.
I have no love for Bin-Laden and his cronies, but they are human beings that believe firmly that they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. You don't have to agree with them, but understanding them gives you more information. And information is power.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Again, I don't quite understand ...
> 
> Why does the President use the words of someone 'mentally unbalanced' to justify American Foreign Policy?
> 
> ...


Really? You think we should just ignore the crazies and they'll go away, Pollyanna? 
We don't need to understand the "reasoning" of terrorists. There is only one thing we need to know about terrorists:How to kill them.
Did California need to know why Manson was insane before they locked his crazy *** up? NO, just knowing he was dangerously insane was enough to merit removing him from society.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 20, 2007)

Im all for "understanding them" if it helps to capture or kill more of them.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

I never claimed terrorists were less than human. That their behavior is inhumane is indisputable, there is no context in which mass murder by explosive clothing is sane or humane.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Im all for "understanding them" if it helps to capture or kill more of them.


That they want to kill you, just to see you dead should be enough of an understanding.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 20, 2007)

I don't care if people see them as human or non-human, as long as it doesn't interfere with making them _ex_-human.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Really? You think we should just ignore the crazies and they'll go away, Pollyanna?
> We don't need to understand the "reasoning" of terrorists. There is only one thing we need to know about terrorists:How to kill them.
> Did California need to know why Manson was insane before they locked his crazy *** up? NO, just knowing he was dangerously insane was enough to merit removing him from society.


 
I will point out that Osama bin Laden is not now, nor ever was in Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> I never claimed terrorists were less than human. That their behavior is inhumane is indisputable, there is no context in which mass murder by explosive clothing is sane or humane.


 
I wonder if "mass murder" by pilotless aircraft or satellite guided bomb is somehow humane or sane.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I will point out that Osama bin Laden is not now, nor ever was in Iraq.


I will point out that no one ever claimed he was. Only that terrorists from the same group (Al Qaeda) are.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I wonder if "mass murder" by pilotless aircraft or satellite guided bomb is somehow humane or sane.


If you don't believe in using force in self defense, you may be wasting time in martial arts...


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 20, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> I don't care if people see them as human or non-human, as long as it doesn't interfere with making them _ex_-human.


 
It does interfere with making them ex-human. If you see them as a bunch of nutcases, you are underestimating them. Hmm... maybe Bin-Laden isn't crazy at all. Maybe he understands the Muslim world more than we do. Maybe he's pretty damn smart. Maybe that's why we haven't captured him yet? If he were a raving lunatic, the war on terror would be over by now, would it not?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> I will point out that no one ever claimed he was. Only that terrorists from the same group (Al Qaeda) are.


 
I will point out that there were no terrorists in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was governing the State. 

I will point out that we are spending three billion dollars a week in Iraq.

I will point out that the President of the United States has repeatedly told us that we are fighting in Iraq because Osama bin Laden said it was the battlefront. Why is the President listening to a crazy person? 

And, I will point out that now that the British military has withdrawn from Basra, Iraq ... *attacks in that city have fallen by 90%*. It makes one wonder what would happen if the United States military would withdraw from Iraq in totality.


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 20, 2007)

Big Don said:


> If you don't believe in using force in self defense, you may be wasting time in martial arts...


 
There is a difference between retaliation and self defense. Any martial artist worth his salt knows the difference. Do you honestly think that the war on Iraq is going to make them _less likely_ to attack us again?
Please...
This is what I'm trying to get you people to understand. If we new even an ounce of **** about Middle Eastern politics and terrorist ideology in the first place we would have known that starting a war in Iraq would only provoke more terrorist attacks on the US.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 20, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Do you honestly think that the war on Iraq is going to make them _less likely_ to attack us again?


 
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the ones we killed won't attack us again.  We'll just have to try harder to get the rest.


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 20, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> We'll just have to try harder to get the rest.


 
Al Quida (spelling?) is a worldwide organization. You're dreamin', dude.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 20, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Al Quida (spelling?) is a worldwide organization. You're dreamin', dude.


 
So are we.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 20, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> If we new even an ounce of **** about Middle Eastern politics and terrorist ideology in the first place we would have known that starting a war in Iraq would only provoke more terrorist attacks on the US.


 
Where did they happen?


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 20, 2007)

What's interesting is that it goes both ways:

_If [the terrorists] new even an ounce of **** about [American] politics and ideology in the first place [they] would have known that starting a war [on US soil] would only provoke more attacks [from] the US._

_So who, really, is in the best position to take understanding from this situation?  IMO, it's the side that is dying in massive ****loads.  And before the "grim milestone" people chime in, it ain't us.
_


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 20, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> One problem with this Big Don's point of view is that it encourages people to forget that, as horrible as they are, terrorists do have a ryme to thier reason. This hinders diplomacy, and from a military standpoint, you don't really "know your enemy."
> But that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem (and the administration has spoon fed this to us from the start) is that it dehumanizes the enemy. It makes it much easier to hate and kill our enemies if we feel they are less than human. Why use diplomacy when it means nothing to simply destroy them? Hitler was the master of this tactic. He convinced a nation that Jews were worth less than the dirt they walked on. Countries still use this tactic to push their war-agendas. And our country does it as well.
> 
> But these people believe that what they are doing makes complete sense. Again, "know your enemy."



Trust me when I say that I know this enemy better then most, and I can say that given another year/year-and-a-half, I'll know this enemy quite well.

That said, we have to operate on a personal level based on moral principles. Morally, if someone is willing to purposefully do grave bodily damage or death to innocent people, then they have effectively forfeited their right to live. And just because one doesn't like the policies or behaviors of another, that does not give them the right to hurt innocent people. And just because "it makes sense to them" that doesn't make it right or just. I know how they think and how it makes sense to them; but that doesn't give them the right to hurt innocent people.

Does this view "dehumanize" them? I really don't care, for one, and for two it doesn't really matter. And that is because those who are willing to and actively try to hurt/kill innocent people have effectively forfeited their inalienable rights.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

Aside from a few random crazies, who the media tried not to ID as Muslims, and who didn't accomplish much, there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. This is amazing, considering the vast numbers of Mexicans and others able to make it across our porous southern border. I'd rather have our military, who are trained, equipped and, btw, PAID to fight our enemies, fight our enemies in Iraq than in, oh say LA, Miami and Dayton. In Clancy's last novel, _The Teeth of the Tiger_Muslims attacked, after coming across the southern border, with automatic weapons in middle American shopping malls. 





> Al Quida (spelling?) is a worldwide organization.


 and yet, they have been unable to strike American targets on American soil one time in over six years... Somehow, I am less than impressed. 
Yes, JBrainard, terrorists do have a ryhme to their reason, but, insanity isn't a reasonable ryhme. The few (Shamefully few) Muslims that speak out against terrorism tell us that Islam is a "Religion of Peace&#8482;" That would be a lot easier to sell if the anyone from any other religion had ever used suicide bombers. That is one of the precious few innovations by Muslims in the past 700 years. No one else does that. It is an entirely Muslim idea. Even at the height of the "troubles" between the UK and Ireland, no Irishman ever blew himself up to take out others.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Trust me when I say that I know this enemy better then most, and I can say that given another year/year-and-a-half, I'll know this enemy quite well.
> 
> That said, we have to operate on a personal level based on moral principles. Morally, if someone is willing to purposefully do grave bodily damage or death to innocent people, then they have effectively forfeited their right to live. And just because one doesn't like the policies or behaviors of another, that does not give them the right to hurt innocent people. And just because "it makes sense to them" that doesn't make it right or just. I know how they think and how it makes sense to them; but that doesn't give them the right to hurt innocent people.
> 
> Does this view "dehumanize" them? I really don't care, for one, and for two it doesn't really matter. And that is because those who are willing to and actively try to hurt/kill innocent people have effectively forfeited their inalienable rights.


 
I understand that our military has an unwritten polciy of innocent people getting hurt while chasing one of 'them'; the number is twenty. If in an attempt to kill a leader of a terrorist organization, the innocent casualties will be less than 20, the commander on the ground can make the call in favor of launching the strike. If the anticipated civilian casualties are going to be higher than 20 persons, a higher authority for the strike must be sought. 

Do we have the right to hurt innocent people in our efforts to chase down "them". (Who ever "them" is this week - for "them" seems to shift quite often).


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I understand that our military has an unwritten polciy of innocent people getting hurt while chasing one of 'them'; the number is twenty. If in an attempt to kill a leader of a terrorist organization, the innocent casualties will be less than 20, the commander on the ground can make the call in favor of launching the strike. If the anticipated civilian casualties are going to be higher than 20 persons, a higher authority for the strike must be sought.
> 
> Do we have the right to hurt innocent people in our efforts to chase down "them". (Who ever "them" is this week - for "them" seems to shift quite often).


1. No such policy exists! That is the kind of asinine idiocy one would get from places like the dailykos, etc. The US Military bends so far over backwards to NOT hurt non-combatants it endangers our own people. 
2. Terrorists have a long history of hiding in residential areas, mosques, schools, and hospitals. Do you know why? Because that makes it really hard for us to shoot back at them.
3. In the first week of basic training American servicemen are taught the "Rules of Land Warfare" A big part of that training is it is WRONG to hide behind non-combatants or to disguise yourself as a non-combatant.
4. Claiming an "unofficial policy" such as the one you suggest exists is an affront to servicemen and veterans. Not being smart enough to realize it is made up ought to just be embarrassing...


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 20, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I understand that our military has an unwritten polciy of innocent people getting hurt while chasing one of 'them'; the number is twenty. If in an attempt to kill a leader of a terrorist organization, the innocent casualties will be less than 20, the commander on the ground can make the call in favor of launching the strike. If the anticipated civilian casualties are going to be higher than 20 persons, a higher authority for the strike must be sought.
> 
> Do we have the right to hurt innocent people in our efforts to chase down "them". (Who ever "them" is this week - for "them" seems to shift quite often).



I'd never heard any such policy like that; do you have a source?

That said, there is a difference between collateral damage where innocent people get hurt/killed in a war zone, and intentionally going after innocent people. Collateral damage sucks, but it is a fact in war, thus creating moral gray areas. There is no gray area when it comes too intentionally going after innocent people, as this is a complete moral corruption...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I can't help but wonder ...
> 
> We are told that "Iraq is the central front in the Global War on Terrorism, because Osama Bin Laden says it is" by our President. This leads us to believe that we should give credence to what Osama Bin Laden says.
> 
> ...



Sure, why not?  It's just like the abortion debate that certain groups/individuals make:

You can have an abortion, because it's your body.... but you can't do drugs...

Absolutely the same situation.  Both "sides" of a debate do the same thing in political discussions, with few exceptions.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Big Don said:


> 1. No such policy exists! That is the kind of asinine idiocy one would get from places like the dailykos, etc. The US Military bends so far over backwards to NOT hurt non-combatants it endangers our own people.
> 2. Terrorists have a long history of hiding in residential areas, mosques, schools, and hospitals. Do you know why? Because that makes it really hard for us to shoot back at them.
> 3. In the first week of basic training American servicemen are taught the "Rules of Land Warfare" A big part of that training is it is WRONG to hide behind non-combatants or to disguise yourself as a non-combatant.
> 4. Claiming an "unofficial policy" such as the one you suggest exists is an affront to servicemen and veterans. Not being smart enough to realize it is made up ought to just be embarrassing...


 
As I recall from "A Few Good Men", there is no mess hall in Quantanamo Bay either. 

But, Big Don, you have said ... terrorists are insane. And you haven't addressed my queries related to this ascertion. Why does the President use the comments of an insane person (by your definition), Osama bin Laden, in order to justify the United States Military presence in Iraq. 

[yt]tJsN4k2kDls[/yt]

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I'd never heard any such policy like that; do you have a source?
> 
> That said, there is a difference between collateral damage where innocent people get hurt/killed in a war zone, and intentionally going after innocent people. Collateral damage sucks, but it is a fact in war, thus creating moral gray areas. There is no gray area when it comes too intentionally going after innocent people, as this is a complete moral corruption...


 
This article is interesting ... 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/60minutes/main3411230.shtml

Obviously, if it is an unwritten policy ~ and if you choose to disregard my argument because I ascert the policy is unwritten, that's fine, but look to the evidence ~ there won't be any formal documentation.


The crux of your argument is 'innocent people'. Do those on the other side view their actions as indescriminate?

We have been told that the targeting on September 11, was specific. The World Trade Towers were attacked because they were symbols of Western business. The Pentagon was attacked because it is a symbol of American Military. If those targets are symbols of what is being fought against, can the occupants be 'innocent people'?


And, if the targets aren't legitimate, can our targeting of a jeep driving through the Afghan countryside be a legitimate target?


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 21, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Aside from a few random crazies, who the media tried not to ID as Muslims, and who didn't accomplish much, there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. This is amazing, considering the vast numbers of Mexicans and others able to make it across our porous southern border.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> and yet, they have been unable to strike American targets on American soil one time in over six years... Somehow, I am less than impressed.



Hi Big Don,

It is important to remember that prior to September 11, there had been no successful terrorist attacks on "American soil" (by which I assume you are referring to the continental United States and not embassies or military vessels) by Muslim extremists since 1993. As such, this large gap of time is in no way unusual and is to be expected. 

Secondary targets, however, such as U.S. military vessels, embassies, and consulates have been successfully attacked both before and after September 11. In fact, such attacks have happened _more_ frequently since September 11 and our occupation of Iraq.



Big Don said:


> I'd rather have our military, who are trained, equipped and, btw, PAID to fight our enemies, fight our enemies in Iraq than in, oh say LA, Miami and Dayton.



Most of "our enemies" in Iraq are Iraqi nationalists and tribal insurgents who have no ties to international terrorist organizations. Even the organization Al Queda In Iraq has only indirect ties to the larger Al Queda organization (the leader of the former changed the name of his group to gather the attention of the latter).

Some military experts have predicted that were we to withdraw from Iraq, these groups would slaughter the Al Queda forces in Iraq (whom they also fight against) in very short order.



Big Don said:


> The few (Shamefully few) Muslims that speak out against terrorism tell us that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" That would be a lot easier to sell if the anyone from any other religion had ever used suicide bombers. That is one of the precious few innovations by Muslims in the past 700 years.



I suspect this has more to do with the socioeconomic conditions of the people in question as well as the availability of such explosives technology in the modern age. Were such technology available to the Christian "martyrs" (who, by the way, were just as "insane" as our terrorists) during the time of Nero, you can rest assured the Muslims wouldn't be the first suicide bombers in history.

Laterz.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As I recall from "A Few Good Men", there is no mess hall in Quantanamo Bay either.


Really? You're gonna use that movie to prop up your argument? (I hate to tell you, but, Santa isn't real, either) You need to look up the word *FICTION*...





> But, Big Don, you have said ... terrorists are insane. And you haven't addressed my queries related to this ascertion. Why does the President use the comments of an insane person (by your definition), Osama bin Laden, in order to justify the United States Military presence in Iraq.
> http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm


That's a nice unbiased source there... http://www.cursor.org/toc.htm
Crazy people still kill people, an megalomania is psychiatric too. Would you call Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews sane? He an Osama share a stated goal...
Bin Laden's insanity doesn't stop his followers from committing mass murder, and certainly shouldn't stop us from defending ourselves and our allies. You can't really believe it is wrong to defend when attacked by the insane can you?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Really? You're gonna use that movie to prop up your argument? (I hate to tell you, but, Santa isn't real, either) You need to look up the word *FICTION*...
> That's a nice unbiased source there... http://www.cursor.org/toc.htm
> Crazy people still kill people, an megalomania is psychiatric too. Would you call Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews sane? He an Osama share a stated goal...
> Bin Laden's insanity doesn't stop his followers from committing mass murder, and certainly shouldn't stop us from defending ourselves and our allies. You can't really believe it is wrong to defend when attacked by the insane can you?


 
Well, Big Don ... I am so glad that Marine Manual in Guantanamo Bay tells our soldiers there when and where to eat. ~Whew~ I thought they were getting mighty hungry, keeping those human beings away from the Red Cross, and away from any legal system. 

You still haven't addressed the first question I asked. 

Why did President Bush invade and occupy the nation-state of Iraq?
Why does President Bush make his foreign policy decisions because of the language of Osama bin Laden? 
Who are we defending ourselves from in Iraq? 
What was the danger posed to us by Iraq?


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 21, 2007)

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!   :rofl:


----------



## Big Don (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Well, Big Don ... I am so glad that Marine Manual in Guantanamo Bay tells our soldiers there when and where to eat.


 Again, you are confusing fiction with fact, that doesn't make you look very smart...





> ~Whew~ I thought they were getting mighty hungry, keeping those human beings away from the Red Cross, and away from any legal system.


 Would you rather we treated them as un-uniformed combatants under the Geneva Conventions? Because combatants not in uniform are, under the Geneva Conventions, considered spies or saboteurs and may be LEGALLY summarily executed. Which would save us a lot of money and free up troops for other duties.





> You still haven't addressed the first question I asked.
> 
> Why did President Bush invade and occupy the nation-state of Iraq?


 To remove a brutal tyrant from power. Saddam's regime not only used Weapons of Mass Destruction against Iraqis (Kurds are still Iraqis...) but, also waged a campaign of terror including rape rooms. He [Hussein] you might also remember, defied 17 separate UN resolutions demanding he A} Disband his WMD programs B} Allow UN inspectors free access to see that the WMD's were in fact gone, or rendered harmless. We KNOW he had had weapons of mass destruction, because he used them, during the Iran/Iraq war and also on his own Kurdish population. Whether he still had them or not, his responsibility to the Cease Fire Agreement that ended the 91 Gulf War (That Hussein started by invading Kuwait...) and to the UN was to PROVE the weapons no longer existed and were disposed of properly (Not hidden in the desserts or shipped to foreign lands or sold or given to terrorist groups he was a vocal proponent of. He did not. 





> Why does President Bush make his foreign policy decisions because of the language of Osama bin Laden?


 Because when people want to, and have shown an ability to kill you, you try to kill them first, or render them unable to harm you,  this is called self-defense, you may have heard of it.





> Who are we defending ourselves from in Iraq?


 Terrorists. Because if they are busy actively fighting THERE they aren't blowing up HERE.





> What was the danger posed to us by Iraq?


 A threat to our allies is also a threat we must face, that is known as friendship. If your friend was constantly threatened by a bully with a history of mass murder, wouldn't you do something to help him? You may have heard the quote:"All that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing." Well, thanks to President Bush, and our military and allies, Saddam Hussein is no longer prosperous. You may have also heard the quote: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." The injustices of Hussein's regime are also ended, aren't they?


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 21, 2007)

Big Don said:


> That would be a lot easier to sell if the anyone from any other religion had ever used suicide bombers. That is one of the precious few innovations by Muslims in the past 700 years. No one else does that.



I would say about this comment what you said about mine in an earlier thread, but I'm not that immature.  As such, I will just content myself with saying this comment is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing#History

The Tamil Tigers were responsible more than any other single group for the modern use of suicide bombing.  Their religion?  Mainly Hindu.

Muslims are not the uniquely insane and evil creatures you seem to think they are.  Nor, if you were of a mind to proof-text, would the texts of Islam lend themselves to bad behavior any more than the texts of Judaism and Christianity.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2007)

Big Don ... Osama Bin Laden was never in Iraq. Fighting "Them" there did not prevent the London Tube bombings, nor the Madrid train bombings. 

President Bush takes orders from a Crazy Person, and you're worried about me confusing fact with fiction. Wow.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Big Don ... Osama Bin Laden was never in Iraq.


 I never said he was, nor, did anyone in the Bush administration.The bad thing about the widespread use of technology is the bad guys can use it too...





> Fighting "Them" there did not prevent the London Tube bombings, nor the Madrid train bombings.


 Yes, the UK and Spain have their own problems with Muslim Terrorism, in both countries, the Muslims who have immigrated to them are by and large, unabashedly radical and opposed to assimilating into the culture of the nations they live in. Spain's decision to appease the terrorists by giving in to their demands that Spain pull it's troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot like Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. 





> President Bush takes orders from a Crazy Person, and you're worried about me confusing fact with fiction. Wow.


1 No, he does not take orders from a crazy person. He responds to the very real threat posed by those who follow the crazy person's denouncements and pronouncements. 
2 If he were taking orders from bin Laden, he would have pulled out our troops from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, removed all US support from Israel and converted to Islam, he is clearly not following orders...
3 You keep quoting a movie, that, by the way, never claimed to be based on real events, and comparing it to reality. This shows a marked lack of comprehension on your part, IMHO.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 21, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> I would say about this comment what you said about mine in an earlier thread, but I'm not that immature.  As such, I will just content myself with saying this comment is wrong.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing#History
> 
> The Tamil Tigers were responsible more than any other single group for the modern use of suicide bombing.  Their religion?  Mainly Hindu.
> ...


The Tamil Tigers movement is a political one, they do not claim to be a religious group. Neither Christianity nor Judaism requires non-believers to be second class citizens nor do either advocate (Aside from the Crusades, which were nearly 1000 years ago) conversion by the sword. Yes, Christians believe that if you aren't a Christian you will go to hell, but, Christians are not in such a hurry to speed the process that they will explode themselves to ensure your death.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 21, 2007)

Suicide bombing is so last year.  The new hotness is strapping explosives on a 1-year-old.   



> Meanwhile, horrifying new details emerged last night of the attempt by suicide bombers to kill Ms Bhutto on her return home from exile last month.
> Investigators from Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party said yesterday they believed the bomb, which killed 170 people and left hundreds more wounded, was strapped to a one-year-old child carried by its jihadist father.
> They said the suicide bomber tried repeatedly to carry the baby to Ms Bhutto's vehicle as she drove in a late-night cavalcade through the streets of Karachi.
> "At the point where the bombs exploded, Benazir Bhutto herself saw the man with the child and asked him to come closer so that she could hug or kiss the infant," investigators were reported as saying. "But someone came in between and a guard felt that the man with the child was not behaving normally. So the child was not allowed to come aboard Benazir's vehicle."
> Ms Bhutto is said to have told investigators she recalls the face of the man who was carrying the infant. She has asked to see recordings made by television news channels to try to identify the man.


 
Say what you want about the Tamil Tigers or ancient Judeo-Christian text.  As far as I'm concerned, it's a one-contestant race to the bottom.  Dehumanization, indeed.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 21, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The Tamil Tigers movement is a political one, they do not claim to be a religious group.



So?  You said that Muslims were the only people that had ever used suicide bombing, and that they invented it.  Both demonstrably false.



Big Don said:


> Neither Christianity nor Judaism requires non-believers to be second class citizens nor do either advocate (Aside from the Crusades, which were nearly 1000 years ago) conversion by the sword. Yes, Christians believe that if you aren't a Christian you will go to hell, but, Christians are not in such a hurry to speed the process that they will explode themselves to ensure your death.



Islam does not "require" 2nd class citizenship for non-believers either, as you will find many modern Muslims who do not subscribe to these hadith.  If you want to go back to the Caliphate for your evidence, I would then point you to the treatment of the _conversos   _in Christian Spain.  Similarly, if a Jew or Christian so desired, they could easily use God's instructions about the Canaanites to Joshua & Co. (for instance) as support for such a position.  

You will also find many modern, although fringe, fundamentalists who do advocate forced conversion ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." -Ann Coulter).  Similarly, you will find many modern Muslims who do not believe in forced conversion.

Lastly, you won't find many Christians blowing themselves up these days because by and large they don't need to.  Such tactics are employed by those on the short end of the stick in asymmetrical power conflicts, and your average Christian these days tend to live in more powerful countries.  Where Christians do live in such areas, you will find the occasional one supporting such tactics - such as the sprinkling of Christians in the Tamil Tigers or George Habash, Christian founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who split with Arafat after the Oslo accords for "selling out".

Human behavior and rationalization is a weird and wonderful thing, and you basically just aren't going to be able to limit suicide bombing as a tactic to a religious group you just so happen not to like.


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Islam does not "require" 2nd class citizenship for non-believers either, as you will find many modern Muslims who do not subscribe to these hadith. If you want to go back to the Caliphate for your evidence, I would then point you to the treatment of the _conversos _in Christian Spain. Similarly, if a Jew or Christian so desired, they could easily use God's instructions about the Canaanites to Joshua & Co. (for instance) as support for such a position.


I believe that either sharia or the Koran institutes the jizya. I further believe that non-Muslims in an area using sharia law cannot build new churches or synagoges. I am under the impression that non-Muslim religions cannot proselytize where sharia is in force. There are several other things that come to mind but these will suffice to show that probably non-Muslims do become 2nd class citizens under Sharia.[/quote]


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 28, 2007)

Ray said:


> I believe that either sharia or the Koran institutes the jizya. I further believe that non-Muslims in an area using sharia law cannot build new churches or synagoges. I am under the impression that non-Muslim religions cannot proselytize where sharia is in force. There are several other things that come to mind but these will suffice to show that probably non-Muslims do become 2nd class citizens under Sharia.


[/quote]

In some countries yes, in some no, and all in those that claim to follow shari'a.  The actual behavior of muslims and muslim countries is too varied to claim that the Quran or Islam demands any such behavior.  In Saudi Arabia it is illegal for members of other religions to bring in religious paraphenalia like bibles or to proselytize.  On the other hand, in the largest Islamic nation on Earth, Indonesia, it is not illegal, and Christian missionaries operate there.  In yet other Islamic countries, long standing communities of Christians and Jews have been living peaceably for centuries, such as the Druze.


----------

