The Iraq / war on terror thread

[SLCPUNK]

That is actually very funny.

So funny in fact I saved it to put on my website.

Thanks POPTARD.

[Kitano]

BAGHDAD, Sept 11 (KUNA) -- The average number of insurgent attacks in Iraq decreased by 55 percent, said an Iraqi government press release on Sunday.

The press release, issued by the Directorate of Government Communications, also said that 141 gunmen were killed, 236 foreign gunmen were arrested, and 18 weapons' hideouts were discovered in the area of Tal Afar in northern Iraq.

It added that the number of insurgents in Tal Afar is estimated at 400, including foreign fighters.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=768479

[SLCPUNK]

That is wonderful news.

I you forgot to list how many insurgent attacks there were before we started the "war" though....

Here's a hint...not much.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

That is wonderful news.

I you forgot to list how many insurgent attacks there were before we started the "war" though....

Here's a hint...not much.

come on, there is not point comparing the two.
it's done, it's done.

but that doesnt mean we have to look hard in numbers to justify what is happening ...

and these figures are issued by some official structure = lies.

[Axls Locomotive]

i know statistics well enough to know some figure is being manipulated here...decreased by 55% from when exactly? last month? christmas day? slc's birthday? the worst day of the occupation? people who dont know statistics should know better than to believe them

[SLCPUNK]

That is wonderful news.

I you forgot to list how many insurgent attacks there were before we started the "war" though....

Here's a hint...not much.

come on, there is not point comparing the two.
it's done, it's done.

Of course we can compare.

Our presence created the insurgents strikes did they not?

[Kitano]

That is wonderful news.

I you forgot to list how many insurgent attacks there were before we started the "war" though....

Here's a hint...not much.

come on, there is not point comparing the two.
it's done, it's done.

Of course we can compare.

Our presence created the insurgents strikes did they not?

Did our presence in Iraq cause 9/11?

Did our presence in Iraq cause the embassy bombing in Africa?

Did our presence in Iraq cause the bombing of the USS cole?

Did our presence in Iraq cause the first WTC bombing in 1993?

Our presence in Iraq did not cause these people to attack us.  Our presence there means that we are fighting and killing them there rather than in the US.

The percentage they refer to is the number of daily attacks which has been the standard way that the US military has been using to gauge the intensity of the terrorist violence since the begining of the terrorist campaign. 

[SLCPUNK]

Apple meet orange.

Your first post is about terror attacks in Iraq. Not here, or anywhere else.

Our presence in Iraq is what caused the terrorist to come into Iraq to fight us. They were not there until Saddam was taken out, then they came in to fight.

Not too hard to understand.

Even if we followed your logic, you would still be condradicting yourself, since Saddam had no part in any of those attacks.

But I digress.

Maybe a more accurate gauge is if terror cells have been able to strike abroad since we went to Iraq. Answer to that is yes.

[Prometheus]

Apple meet orange.

Your first post is about terror attacks in Iraq. Not here, or anywhere else.

Our presence in Iraq is what caused the terrorist to come into Iraq to fight us. They were not there until Saddam was taken out, then they came in to fight.

Not too hard to understand.

Even if we followed your logic, you would still be condradicting yourself, since Saddam had no part in any of those attacks.

But I digress.

Maybe a more accurate gauge is if terror cells have been able to strike abroad since we went to Iraq. Answer to that is yes.

dang it and me having assignments to do........... to all those wondering... ill be learning grammer this term.....

[Vicious Wishes]

That is wonderful news.

I you forgot to list how many insurgent attacks there were before we started the "war" though....

Here's a hint...not much.

come on, there is not point comparing the two.


it's done, it's done.

Of course we can compare.

Our presence created the insurgents strikes did they not?

You're right, all the "insurgent" attacks came from Saddam and the two wonderful angels he called sons.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

maybe we should ponder why we are such an evil country and find out why the holy muslim terrorists, who worship the one true god want to kill all those who do not agree with them.

Bullshit, some people make me sick.

[SLCPUNK]

Saddam and his sons were taken out almost immediately. We have been there how long since?

Those insurgents we speak of came in after Saddam was taken down. The AQ that were NOT associated with Saddam.

You know that, don't try to act dumb.

Maybe it's not acting?

[Surfrider]

Saddam and his sons were taken out almost immediately. We have been there how long since?

Those insurgents we speak of came in after Saddam was taken down. The AQ that were NOT associated with Saddam.

You know that, don't try to act dumb.

Maybe it's not acting?

The facts stated above are all indisputable; no pro-war person can counter any of the above.? However, you are not addressing his post: "terrorist attacks in Iraq down by 55%."? By returning to the argument of whether we should have went into Iraq, and whether attacks are less than they were prior to the war, you are doing exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing in every other thread, creating a strawman.

[gilld1]

55% of what number are they taking this from?  Half what it was at the all time high in attacks?  Or the average?  Becareful with stats, they can be very misleading. 

Actually, one of the things that set Bin Laden off was the US military being in Saudi Arabia, he never gave a shit about Iraq and Sadam.  The latter is just the popular cause for extremists now.

[Surfrider]

55% of what number are they taking this from?? Half what it was at the all time high in attacks?? Or the average?? Becareful with stats, they can be very misleading.?

Actually, one of the things that set Bin Laden off was the US military being in Saudi Arabia, he never gave a shit about Iraq and Sadam.? The latter is just the popular cause for extremists now.

Well, then how come he cares so much about it now? 

Osama doesn't give two shits about Saudi Arabia, and he certainly doesn't give two shits about Iraq.  Both places are simply used as excuses and propoganda to further his radical agenda.  Anyone who believes that Osama would turn into a peaceful world participant if the rest of the world was out of the middle east is, in my opinion, naive.  Should the US leave the middle east to the middle east, I doubt very much that Osama will go back to Saudi Arabia and start herding sheep.  In fact, I believe quite the contrary; he will simply look for another place to use his tactics to achieve his ends. 

[SLCPUNK]

Saddam and his sons were taken out almost immediately. We have been there how long since?

Those insurgents we speak of came in after Saddam was taken down. The AQ that were NOT associated with Saddam.

You know that, don't try to act dumb.

Maybe it's not acting?

The facts stated above are all indisputable; no pro-war person can counter any of the above.  However, you are not addressing his post: "terrorist attacks in Iraq down by 55%."  By returning to the argument of whether we should have went into Iraq, and whether attacks are less than they were prior to the war, you are doing exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing in every other thread, creating a strawman.

I was replying to this statement:

"You're right, all the "insurgent" attacks came from Saddam and the two wonderful angels he called sons."

Maybe I should have quoted that, sorry.

[pilferk]

First, it was WMD's (not there).? Then, it was connections to Al Qeada (not there).? And FINALLY it was "bringing democracy to the Iraqi people".?

Bringing democracy to the Iraqi people was something the Bush administration espoused from before the war started. I'm surprised that you would distort the Bush administration's position like that right after accusing me of distorting SLC's positions? (meanwhile ignoring his crimes against logic and context, but I digress).

I call bullshit.? Specifically because that was NOT how the war was "sold" to the American people, nor to the world at large, by this administration.? For you to insinuate otherwise is a gross distortion of the truth and is more right wing "revisionist history".? Bush's justification for attacking was they had WMD's, and we knew it, for sure.? Then, when they failed to materialize, he "dropped down his list" and began insinuating there were ties to Al Queada.? There weren't.? Only AFTER those two justifcations fell through did this administration start to espouse, in earnest, that the campaign was to "free the Iraqi people". 

If you'd like, I'll start pulling relevant news articles from the time of the invasion containing Bush's (and his administrations, especailly Cheney, Powell and Rice) quotes on the subject.

Were they talking about the fact they'd "like Iraq to be a peaceful and free democracy"? Sure (as did Bush Sr and Clinton and most of the UN Security Council).? Was it remotely the reason they were using to attack Iraq? No fucking way.? It was talked about to alay fears that, after the US invaded, that country would be thrown into anarchy and we'd just disappear, leaving a global mess to be dealt with.

[pilferk]

Do you really think it was "bad intelligence"?? I thought he knew perfectly well that there were no WMD's, he just wanted to justify going in there to the public.?

Sure, I believe that he thought the weapons were there.? I do believe that he knew the evidence was not as strong as he was portraying to the public.? However, I have no doubt that he thought they had WMDs.? The government had actual evidence of their existance as close as 1992.? After that, Suddam consistently evaded inspectors and failed to produce evidence of the destruction of the WMDs.? In addition, Clinton along with many other countries (four or five others I beleive) believed Suddam had them also.? Of course, this isn't justifying the war since even if Suddam did have them invasion was a separate question altogether.? But do I think Bush believed Suddam had them?? Yes.? Was it one of the worst mistakes this nation has had to deal with?? Yes.

I, too, have a hard time buying the oil argument this time.

I think Bush actually thought they had WMD's.  I think he ignored the contrary evidence, quite frankly, displaying an appaling lack of leadership and an extreme amount of poor judgement.  I think as soon as the "whisper" of WMD's materialzed, Bush had made his decision on how to act, and rigidly decided to stay the course regardless of what he was confronted with during the process leading up to attack.  After they found out there were no WMD's, they went into damage control mode..which is why the operation has been so poorly run.  They had poor contingency planning and very, very little (and/or very very poor) long term planning for the operation.

[pilferk]

Jan. 29, 2002 state of the union address is when Bush outlined the terror threat from WMD, that was his primary focus through the entire speech.

Your speech is over a year later Feb. 26, 2003.

After Bush realised it was time to change his tune.

POPTARD = LIAR.


We already know that there were no WMD. All you are left to argue is if Bush said "free Iraq" before going to war? LOL, pathetic dude. Give it up already.

Unbelievable! pilferk you support this guy? I used to have respect for you.

I don't support the personal insullts.? Never have, never will.

On his point...well, he's right, isn't he??First off, in the multitude of speeches, articles, etc on the subject at the time, you'll see the administrations quotes almost entirely focus on WMD's and, secondarily, possible terrorist connections.? Secondly, the quote you pulled is but a very brief section of the entire article...and in reading the entire thing, there can really be no doubt as to what Bush is saying.? He outlines 2 reasons for the invasion of Iraq in the speech...and, if you read the entire content of the speech, you'll see the "freedom for Iraqi's" is more of an afterthought/consequence/result than it is justification.

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.) "
 

"The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them -- and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force."

Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the Council will fulfill its founding purpose.

I've listened carefully, as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world; the threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent, and defend the cause of peace. And by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected. (Applause.)

Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we will meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. The dangers are real, as our soldiers, and sailors, airmen, and Marines fully understand. Yet, no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges. "
 

In your quote, he's not using the freeing of the Iraqi people as reason, he's explaining what the US is going to do AFTER we invade, when the "war" is over.? It was a common question from both internal opponents of invasion AND the UN..."Who is going to clean up "the mess" and how?".

You can see, very clearly, from his speech, what his justifications for invasion are: WMD's, first and foremost, and connections to terrorism, secondly, (which this administration insisted were connections to Al Qaeda) with the RESULT of the invastion being a free Iraq.? Again, it was not used as a "selling point" until the first 2 were proven untrue.

[pilferk]

If the CIA, Britain, Russia and other US operatives told you that Iraq had WMD`s and that they had contact with Bin Laden, Al Quida and Zarqari would n`t you send in troops after Saddam kicked out UN inspectors especially right after 9-11 happened? ? Yes, in hindsight we had bad intelligence but do you sit on your ass and give Saddam the benefit of the doubt? If the security of your country is at stake, what would you do?

Sure if we knew then what we know now, we`d be better off not going into Iraq in the first place, but it diddn`t happen that way.

The CIA and Britain..yes.

Russia? No.  they said they had information that Iraq MIGHT have WMD's, but it was not conclusive enough to act on.

And WE had intelligence, direct intelligence, that there might not be WMD's, too.

You paint it like the intel was slam dunk, and then turned out to be incorrect.  That's false.  The intel was anything BUT a slam dunk from the start, and turned out to be false.