PDA

View Full Version : More Wack-A-Mole - More Dead Troops - More Bush BS



Gayle in MD
01-16-2008, 02:15 PM
CHRISTOPHER CHESTER | January 16, 2008 12:21 PM EST |


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAGHDAD A woman wearing a vest lined with explosives blew herself up near Shiite worshippers in turbulent Diyala province north of the capital Wednesday, killing nine of them _ the latest in a growing number of female suicide attacks.

Six people were wounded in the bombing in Khan Bani Saad, a town nine miles south of Baqouba, Diyala's provincial capital, police said.

Although female suicide bombings have been fairly rare in Iraq, extremists have been using women more frequently in recent months. U.S. officials say this indicates the militants are running short of male volunteers. However, it also could be that al-Qaida in Iraq believes women are less likely than men to be searched and that explosives are easier to conceal under women's clothing.

Wednesday's bombing was the fourth female suicide attack in Iraq since November. All have taken place in Diyala, which has been a major focus of a nationwide campaign the U.S. military launched last week against al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni extremists.

According to residents and police, the woman detonated her explosives when she saw Shiite men in black about 50 yards from a mosque making preparations for a ceremony marking Ashoura, the holiest day in the Shiite calendar.

Sunni Arab militants have repeatedly targeted Ashoura processions since 2003, with hundreds killed by mortar shelling or car bombings. As a precaution, authorities announced a 48-hour ban on the use of vehicles in Baghdad and nine provinces south of the capital starting Thursday at dusk.

Ashoura, which comes later this week, commemorates the death in a 7th century battle of Imam Hussein, one of Shiite Islam's most revered saints whose tomb is in the city of Karbala, about 60 miles south of Baghdad.

The U.S. military announced Wednesday that one of the key al-Qaida in Iraq leaders in Diyala, Abu Layla al-Suri, also known as Abu Abd al-Rahman, was killed in a military operation Dec. 30 near Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Diyala has defied the trend toward lower violence over the past six months in Baghdad and much of central Iraq. Insurgents who were pushed out of the western province of Anbar and out of Baghdad have shifted their operations into the farming region of palm and citrus groves, where Shiite and Sunni communities press up next to each other.

At least 273 civilians were slain in Diyala last month, compared to at least 213 in June, according to an Associated Press count. Over the same span, monthly civilian deaths in Baghdad dropped from at least 838 to at least 182.

But after several months of relative quiet in Baghdad, fighters believed allied with Iran have resumed mortar and rocket attacks, with several big blasts heard shortly after dawn on Wednesday as well as a few more later in the morning.

On Tuesday night, at least five mortars crashed into the fortified Green Zone, site of the American Embassy and Iraqi government, not long after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held a news conference after making an unannounced visit.

Mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone, which had been a daily event, virtually stopped about mid-October. The quiet followed a six-month cease-fire announced by radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia in August, though some breakaway factions of al-Sadr's group continued to launch attacks.

The resumption of the attacks coincided with a sharp rise in U.S. rhetoric against Iran by President Bush during his tour of the Middle East.

Two Mahdi Army commanders have told The Associated Press the uptick in mortar and rocket attacks is not the work of their organization, which continues its cease-fire.

Instead, they said the attacks are the work of a new organization with ties to Iran. The group, called Italat, which means "information" in Farsi, was formerly the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's liaison to the Mahdi Army and its rogue factions, the commanders said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to advertise their jobs to the U.S. military.

Not all the attacks in Baghdad may be linked to Shiite extremists. About 10 a.m., two mortar rounds slammed into Palestine Street in east Baghdad.

Three pedestrians were wounded, police said. The target was unclear, but the neighborhood is dominated by Shiites.

But other types of attacks linked to Iran also appear to be on the rise.

On Sunday, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters that the overall flow of weaponry from Iran into Iraq appears to be down, but that attacks with "explosively formed projectiles" tied to Tehran are up by a factor of two or three in recent days. "Frankly, we are trying to determine why that might be," he said.

The roadside bombs, known as EFPs, are armor-piercing explosives that have killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. U.S. military officials have said for months that mainly Shiite Iran has been supplying the devices to Shiite militias in Iraq. Tehran denies it.

In other attacks Wednesday, a roadside bomb exploded at 8 a.m. in the commercial Bab al-Muadham district of Baghdad, killing two civilians and wounding four. The blast appeared to target a passing police car but instead hit a civilian car, a police officer said.

About the same time, another roadside bomb went off southeast of Baghdad at an intersection where U.S. and Iraqi troops often pass, police said. The attack killed one civilian and wounded four others.

All police spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release information.


<font color="blue">For the last four plus years we were told not to listen to the echoes of Vietnam. It was a different war, long ago and far away. Then, last fall, Bush told us that what we fqaced in Iraq was analygust to what we faced in Vietnam when he rewrote the history of Vietnam, las August, to justify Staying the Course. If we didn't stay, he said, we would watch the horrors of the Viet Nam Killing Fields, leaving aside the fact that those killing fields of which he spoke were actually in Cambodia, a country with which Vietnam was actually at war, let us focus on just two of his central arguments.

First he argued we should have stayed the course in Vietnam. In fact, we did, for four years after the TET Ofensive had shown that we couldn't win, we slowly pulled back, and during that time, we lost an additional 21,000 young American soldiers. Second, even when we had half a million American soldiers in Vietnam, we were not able to prevent the social revolution that ultimately reshaped the country. When we left, a massive and painful readjustment wqas inevitable.

The lessons of Guerilla Warfare have been expressed by William Polk, our former member of the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State, in 1962, and witness to all the thousands of Intelligence Reports, coming into our government, stated to the National War college, now called the Defense University, Navy Captians - Marines - Air Force - Army Captians - and Colners.

William Polk, author of Violent Politics, stated that Guerill Warfare is made up of three parts that fall roughly in a sequence, and can be weighted in impact. The first is politics, the infurgents have to establish their claim to speak for their nation, and usually the way they do this is to put themselves in the forefront as the Nationalist leaders.

they were so successful in Vietnam that President Eisenhower thought that Ho Chi Men could have won a landslide victory of 80%, of a free vote election, even in South Vietnam.

The second component is administration; the inusrgents have to destroy the ability of the government to affect it's rule. In Vietnam, they systematically murdered officials, and caused the government virtually to cease to function. We see the same in Iraq today. As we know, General Jones stated Iraq's police force was so disfunctional, it should be abolished, and in September, the General Accounting Office reported that the Iraq Regime is still, even now, hardly functioning; Indeed, only 7 of the 18 Provinces are even nominally under the control of the Iraq government. And, incidentally, that's not just our experience, that was the experience of the Russians in Afghanistan. Their chosen government functioned only in the shadow of russian Tanks and Ari Craft.

These two points of the insurgency, political legitimacy, and administration, amount to about 95% of the total effort in the war, so even before America sent it's first large Troop Contingency to Viet Nam, we had grasped the short end of the lever.

What happened from 1963, for the next decade, was the period of the fighting, and that was only for the last 5%, So Polk told his 1963 War College that we had already lost the war in Vietnam. They were no more receptive to this notion than many of our Senior Officers are today. So we plunged ahead, surging from a few thousand, to half a million. We used every trick and every weapon we had. but despite the glowing press hand outs; coining such phrases as we hear today, more time is needed, we must stay the course, we are near success, the South Vietnamese government was taking charge, there was light at the end of the tunnel....things didn't get any better.

to convince us that things had improved, President Johnson brought back our Military Commander, General William Westmoreland, to reassure the Conress, and the American public. He cut a fine figure with his medals and stars, and was very popular with the press, and what he said was very reassurring, with a marvelous display of graphs and charts, and power points, and so forth. He advised us that the Viet Cong were on the run. Their soldiers were sick, and discouraged, their numbers had fallen by about 15%, they were, "Almost starving to death" and about half of their main forces, were no longer combat effective. Victory, he said, lies within our grasp. but the Vietnamese weren't listening.

Invasive force, even massive force does not work.

In Vietnam, we armed the insugency, In Iraq, we've imported huge numbers of AKA's...190,000 weapons have vanished...</font color>

LWW
01-16-2008, 04:15 PM
Why is the most male dominated subset of the most male dominant culture on Earth now sending women out Gayle?

Answer that and you will find enlightenment.

LWW

Bobbyrx
01-16-2008, 06:38 PM
How in the world did the Tet offensive show us (besides Walter Cronkite) that "we couldn't win" ?

pooltchr
01-17-2008, 05:32 AM
Seems to me this all indicates that the terrorists we are fighting have no regard for human life whatsoever. They are willing to sacrafice their own children and now their women to kill us. All the more reason to keep the battles over there.

I wonder how the politicians on the left would feel if they face the roadside bombs and suicide bombers inside the beltway....or on the MD eastern shore! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Steve

LWW
01-17-2008, 05:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Seems to me this all indicates that the terrorists we are fighting have no regard for human life whatsoever. They are willing to sacrafice their own children and now their women to kill us. All the more reason to keep the battles over there.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>
I'll ask you the same thing ... why are they shifting to using women?

There is a reason and many historical precedents.

LWW

LWW
01-17-2008, 05:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I wonder how the politicians on the left would feel if they face the roadside bombs and suicide bombers inside the beltway....or on the MD eastern shore! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Steve <hr /></blockquote>
That's easy. Blame Bush.

LWW

DickLeonard
01-17-2008, 08:24 AM
LWW as a warrior your intelligence is questioned. A women with a bomb belt is more accurate than a billion dollar hi tech Bomber.
Wait will order one hundred more bombers that should do the trick. Net cost 100 billion.
So far this month I have one hundred women lined up net cost less than a thousand Euros. They have their targets.
Guess who wins this war?

DickLeonard
01-17-2008, 08:33 AM
LWW I do blame Bush for everything.He has totally weakened our National Guard by sending to fight a war that they are not trained to fight. Getting their training on the Battlefield while leaving our country wide open to attack.####

LWW
01-17-2008, 09:03 AM
You know so much but can't even hazard a guess as to the answer.

Quite revealing.

Now, let me try again... why is the most male dominated subset of the most male dominated culture on Earth sending women into combat?

There is historical precedent for what you are observing my friend, and if I give you the answer you will discard it because you didn't come to it yourself.

Find the answer and you will find enlightenment.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-17-2008, 09:05 AM
Read (google) the Pentagon Papers. You're question is too broad to try to answer. sorry...

Gayle

LWW
01-17-2008, 09:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> LWW I do blame Bush for everything.He has totally weakened our National Guard by sending to fight a war that they are not trained to fight. Getting their training on the Battlefield while leaving our country wide open to attack.####<hr /></blockquote>
Good points all, except you catch all boogie man is a knee jerk reaction.

Why are we sending reservists? Where is the US regular army? Why did we have to send a largely non combat experienced force into the field? Where did our experienced NCO corpps go?

ALL of these issues predate BUsh, as much as I know you hate to hear that.

Furthermore, if we are so exposed to attack why haven't we had another?

From your post you seem to think being hit again would be acceptable since you could then use it to promote your very narrow view of reality.

LWW

LWW
01-17-2008, 09:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Read (google) the Pentagon Papers. You're question is too broad to try to answer. sorry...

Gayle <hr /></blockquote>
I have read the PP, and your reply is a total dodge of a very simple and direct question ... but, you knew that.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-17-2008, 09:45 AM
Terrorist violence represents only 20% of the violence in Iraq. The rest, is Iraqis. Since Bush vetoes every measure which would push the Iraqis into settling their differences, and you have people like John McCain, stating we should stay for a hundred years, and we are borrowing the money from foreign countries, to pay for not only this war, but for Bush's tax cuts, for the wealthiest in America, how do you purpose to pay for continuing to escalate the war in Iraq?

While Bush vetoes everything Democrats try to accomplish, after six years of no veto for Republicans, who spent like drunken sailors, as we all know, how come no one from the right questions his refusal to put pressure on the Iraqi government, with a time line for removing our troops?

It is clear to me that his desire is to point the Democrats as unable to accomplish anything, even if that means more lost American Troops in Iraq. Why should he care? His cronies are making billions.

There are two books that everyone should read if they are to discuss taxes, or the Iraq war.

House Of Bush, House Of Saud

and

Confessions by John Perkins, about his work as a sub-contractor for the US Agency for the International Development...and what he did in places like Latin America...

Then look into Sovereign Wealth funds, a new type of Private Equity Invertment that is occuring, which is largely undisclosed and un-monitored by our government, but is having an enormous impact on our financial markets, now.

But, back, to the war in Iraq, the point is that we are sacrificing our people, and our treasure on the hope that Sunnis and Shiia, will forget grudges they have held for thousands of years. Military operations, have nothing to do with that. Political reconciliation, which was supposed to be the reason for the surge in the first place, has not occured. We are facing very threatening circumstances in this country economically. Bush has borrowed us into a pit, we've lost over four thousand troops, are in at minimum nine trillion dollars of debt, with our own infracture crumbling, manufacturing vanashing as we write, a deep recession looming, Middle Class American going into debt to pay for their everyday needs, and bills, with soaring prices on oil, affecting the entire economy.

for the love of reason, how do you expect anything resembling an advantage to this country to result from more lost lives, and wasted billions spent in Iraq? Staying there longer will make no difference at all in the long run. We surely cannot continue to go further in debt to potential enemies to pay for this war, and Bush's tax cuts, which advantage the wealthiest among us, allowing them to defer taxes today, for tomorrow, a loss for this country NOW.

"The difference between apeasement and surrender is time - and more lives wasted for no reason." William Wilberforce Pitt
America needs to invest here, not in Iraq, or anywhere else, if we are to survive what Bush has done to our country.

Why does it take six years to train the Iraqi Army, when we do it here in 6 months?

How do you think we are going to continue on this absurd, pointless foreign policy? We have turned a situation which was under control, into a national disaster, with devastating consequences, which will hurt our country for decades to come, and for what? To kill one man, who had no weapons? How the hell can you continue to try to suggest that there was any good purpose in invading Iraq? bin Laden is still training terrorists. Terrorist attacks have risen since the invasion, no reduced, so please don't try to tell me that the money we've blown on this war wouldn't have been better spent focused on bin Laden, and al Qaeda, in Afghanistan, and investing in American Can Do, to reduce our dependency on oil, financingt some of the many American inventors, whose patents for reducing our reliance on oil, through solar, wind, automobile inventions which can cut our gas consumption in half, and better, instead of ending up atleast nine trillion dollars in debt, with not one single national advantage to show for it.

FUBAR...the only credible description for the Bush Administration, and the cut taxes Republican methods, at a time of growing domestic economic crises.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
01-17-2008, 10:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Terrorist violence represents only 20% of the violence in Iraq.

Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Got anything to link us to that would support such an amazing claim sweetheart?

LWW

Fenwick
01-17-2008, 11:57 AM
Why is the most male dominated subset of the most male dominant culture on Earth now sending women out?
Because they are valued less the dogs compared to men and male children and they might be desperate and the Mothers of dead Husbands and Sons with nothing left to lose? Or they would rather die then be controlled by a foreign military force.
My question is can LWW or anyone name a War that was won except the War in America against Native Americans? Examples, Germany started two wars and lost both. Japan bombed Pear Harbor, did they win. I know if any other Army from any other Country were to invade us I would fight until the end.
I'm not sure what the point of this tread is. Can someone enlighten me. I'm a survivor of the TET Offensive of 1968 and 1969 but I'm not complaining or bragging.

bamadog
01-17-2008, 05:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fenwick:</font><hr>

I'm not sure what the point of this tread is. Can someone enlighten me.
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle's threads are, to say the least, obtuse. So It's not surprising that you don't get the point. A helpful hint would be not to look at them as factual narratives, but rather as stream of consciousness art pieces. To me, they resemble 600 word screams.

pooltchr
01-17-2008, 06:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fenwick:</font><hr> I'm not sure what the point of this tread is. Can someone enlighten me. <hr /></blockquote>

As you spend more time around here, you will find that some posters don't find it necessary to have a point to start a thread. They are frustrated, self-proclaimed intellictuals who just like to post epic ramblings about their hatred of the current administration...and all things conservative....not that the two are by any means the same!
Steve

Fenwick
01-17-2008, 07:47 PM
"They are frustrated, self-proclaimed intellectuals who just like to post." I found that out when I asked a what I thought was a simple question on a different forum here. I might have deserved the reply I received but BIDFTS and frankly, DILLIGAS. Thanks for the heads up and if anyone is offended by my reply go see the Chaplin cause I not listening to complaints any more.

hondo
01-17-2008, 09:38 PM
I thought the point of your 1st post was that Iraq will fight man, woman &amp; child to protect their homeland from the aggressor ( us) and that no agressor has ever won.
And yet the war supporters on here are acting like you posted in agreement with them.
Did I mis-read your post? It's certainly possible.
I believe Bamadawg thinks I'm an idiot because I don't think Bush and Joe McCarthy are two of the greatest Americans of the past 60 years.
Things get a little confusing on here.
BTW, Thank you for serving your country and welcome to the board.

Gayle in MD
01-17-2008, 10:30 PM
Oh, so now you deny that you were one of the biggest Bush supporters on here for years?

How very convenient. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

What a Joke!

One thing is for sure, no one will ever mistake you for an "intellictual".

pooltchr
01-18-2008, 05:14 AM
Just because I voted for him, does not mean I support everything he does. If you care to go back and do some research, I believe you will find I didn't vote "for" Bush...I voted "against" Kerry/Edwards.

In your blind hatred of all things conservative, you fail to grasp the concept that not all conservatives are sheep blindly following someone. Some of us actually think for ourselves...something you might like to try sometime!
Steve

LWW
01-18-2008, 05:28 AM
You have to understand Gayle's, and the left's, mindset.

If you disagree with Bush 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999% then you are a Bushie.

You must hate. You must hate for all reasons. You must exonerate all who oppose him no matter what they do. You must hate completely and without reservation. If not, you are a Bushie.

Yes, sheep are stupid and they do stink ... but since they only hang out with sheep they finally begin to think the aroma is normal. THAT is the problem with partisans.

LWW

Fenwick
01-18-2008, 06:34 AM
I thought the point of your 1st post was that Iraq will fight man, woman &amp; child to protect their homeland from the aggressor ( us) and that no agressor has ever won.
"Did I mis-read your post? It's certainly possible." No that is the exact point I was trying to make.

hondo
01-18-2008, 06:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fenwick:</font><hr> I thought the point of your 1st post was that Iraq will fight man, woman &amp; child to protect their homeland from the aggressor ( us) and that no agressor has ever won.
"Did I mis-read your post? It's certainly possible." No that is the exact point I was trying to make. <hr /></blockquote>

LOL! well, the righties explained the lefties to you.
I'll try to explain the righties.
Most of them will read only part of a post and then respond. It's maddening.
I'm retired and enjoy throwing my 2 cents in but, I'm telling you, it's a jungle on here!
You've got to maintain a sense of humor. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Hope you keep posting.

Fenwick
01-18-2008, 07:46 AM
One thing I have learned on the www is everyone is 11 feet tall. I try to maintain a sense of humor but I have lines I don't cross and lines I wish others did not cross but I can't control that. I have been a student of history for 43 years, that's not my age, and learn something new every day and I try to keep a open mind. We are so lucky to live in a country that allows everyone to speak ones mind right or wrong if there is such a thing. Left or right; I don't know the difference nor do I care. I will post in other forums but not this one me thinks. I did not join this site to engage in hand to hand Combat or a war of words. I came here to become a better pool player. " it's a jungle on here!" No, I have been in the Jungle and Rice Patties, Bunkers and Watch Towers; this is a city park. For the record I'm not a frigging Hero nor do I pretend to be. God, Country, Family.

LWW
01-18-2008, 09:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fenwick:</font><hr> I thought the point of your 1st post was that Iraq will fight man, woman &amp; child to protect their homeland from the aggressor ( us) and that no agressor has ever won.
"Did I mis-read your post? It's certainly possible." No that is the exact point I was trying to make. <hr /></blockquote>
Then why is nearly all of the terrorism done by non Iraqis?

Why are the Iraqis taking the terrorists out now, other than until recently Bush kowtowed to the left and wouldn't?

Why did the Iraqis elect a govt which wants us to stay?

So, clearly, it ISN'T Iraqis defending their homeland from the occupying Americans.

It sure sounds good when you say it to a bunch of partisans though.

LWW

Fenwick
01-18-2008, 06:31 PM
You are entitled to your view, I'm entitled to mine. Enlighten me, answer your own questions. I'm all ears. I will say Figures Don't Lie But Liars Can Figure. That is not directed towards anyone here. LWW does mean Living With War?

LAMas
01-18-2008, 08:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fenwick:</font><hr> I thought the point of your 1st post was that Iraq will fight man, woman &amp; child to protect their homeland from the aggressor ( us) and that no agressor has ever won.
"Did I mis-read your post? It's certainly possible." No that is the exact point I was trying to make. <hr /></blockquote>


The aggressor in Iraq is now Al Qaida.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/01/iraqis-fighting-al-qaida-attacked-but-stand-firm/

Iraqis fighting al-Qaida attacked, but stand firm
Bin Laden is traitor to Muslims, one says
By ELENA BECATOROS
Associated Press
Tuesday, January 1, 2008


BAGHDAD - A suicide bomber attacked a checkpoint manned by a group fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq, killing 12 people in one of a series of strikes Monday against the largely Sunni movement singled out by Osama bin Laden as a "disgrace and shame."

Leaders of the rapidly expanding U.S.-backed movement, credited with helping slash violence across the country by 60 percent since June, condemned bin Laden's latest message to his followers.

"We consider our fighting against al-Qaida to be a popular revolution against the devil," said Sheik Mohammed Saleh al-Dohan, head of one of the groups in southern Ramadi, a city in Anbar province where the movement was born.

Al-Dohan blamed al-Qaida, which espouses a radical version of Sunni Islam, for bringing destruction to Iraq: "They made enemies between Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who lived in peace for centuries."

Bin Laden and his fighters "are the traitors who betrayed the Muslim nation and brought shame to Islam in all the world," he added.

LWW
01-19-2008, 05:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LAMas:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fenwick:</font><hr> I thought the point of your 1st post was that Iraq will fight man, woman &amp; child to protect their homeland from the aggressor ( us) and that no agressor has ever won.
"Did I mis-read your post? It's certainly possible." No that is the exact point I was trying to make. <hr /></blockquote>

The aggressor in Iraq is now Al Qaida.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/01/iraqis-fighting-al-qaida-attacked-but-stand-firm/

Iraqis fighting al-Qaida attacked, but stand firm
Bin Laden is traitor to Muslims, one says
By ELENA BECATOROS
Associated Press
Tuesday, January 1, 2008


BAGHDAD - A suicide bomber attacked a checkpoint manned by a group fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq, killing 12 people in one of a series of strikes Monday against the largely Sunni movement singled out by Osama bin Laden as a "disgrace and shame."

Leaders of the rapidly expanding U.S.-backed movement, credited with helping slash violence across the country by 60 percent since June, condemned bin Laden's latest message to his followers.

"We consider our fighting against al-Qaida to be a popular revolution against the devil," said Sheik Mohammed Saleh al-Dohan, head of one of the groups in southern Ramadi, a city in Anbar province where the movement was born.

Al-Dohan blamed al-Qaida, which espouses a radical version of Sunni Islam, for bringing destruction to Iraq: "They made enemies between Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who lived in peace for centuries."

Bin Laden and his fighters "are the traitors who betrayed the Muslim nation and brought shame to Islam in all the world," he added.

<hr /></blockquote>
Good points all.

Very close to the answer also.

Why do you think AQ is using women?

LWW

LWW
01-19-2008, 05:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fenwick:</font><hr> You are entitled to your view, I'm entitled to mine. Enlighten me, answer your own questions. I'm all ears. I will say Figures Don't Lie But Liars Can Figure. That is not directed towards anyone here. LWW does mean Living With War? <hr /></blockquote>
I would answer you, but you wouldn't listen.

I want to see one of you guys figure it out yourself.

Oh, BTW, the choice of war or peace was made for us by AQ ... but you knew that.

LWW

hondo
01-19-2008, 07:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fenwick:</font><hr>
Oh, BTW, the choice of war or peace was made for us by AQ ... but you knew that.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Nah, it was made by Bush. I hope you knew that.
It just gave the AQ another playing field that they didn't have during Saddam's reign.

LWW
01-19-2008, 08:00 AM
Really!

Is there any video of Bush directing the WTC attacks, or the taking of the embassy in Teheran, or the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, or the USS Cole, or the African embassy bombings, or Khobar Towers, or the Beirut Marine barracks,? I'd like to view it.

Maybe the UN has on their security tapes where Bush forced them to pass the resolutions they then refused to enforce? That would be incriminating.

Or, maybe our congress has it on the record where Bush threatened them with a machete' if they didn't vote with him?

Please. Links. Data.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-19-2008, 08:46 AM
Precisely, and according to our own 16 National Security Intelligence Agencies, emboldened bin Laden's cause and power to recruit. Destablized the Middle East, and increased the dangers to our country.

Thank you George Bush, and your blind supporters.

LWW
01-19-2008, 09:38 AM
So, you can point me to the evidence of this then?

LWW

Fenwick
01-19-2008, 12:43 PM
Post deleted by Fenwick

LWW
01-19-2008, 02:49 PM
So, you don't know where the evidence is either but you hope nobody figures out that it's mythical?

LWW

hondo
01-19-2008, 03:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Really!

Is there any video of Bush directing the WTC attacks, or the taking of the embassy in Teheran, or the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, or the USS Cole, or the African embassy bombings, or Khobar Towers, or the Beirut Marine barracks,? I'd like to view it.

Maybe the UN has on their security tapes where Bush forced them to pass the resolutions they then refused to enforce? That would be incriminating.

Or, maybe our congress has it on the record where Bush threatened them with a machete' if they didn't vote with him?

Please. Links. Data.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Good Grief! That post doesn't even merit a reponse!
What a peice of work you are!

LWW
01-20-2008, 05:32 AM
Sorry dude.

It was your comment claiming the WOT was the choice of Bush.

I honestly wasn't aware you were a truther?

Or, is there confusion on what you meant that you would wish to clarify?

LWW

hondo
01-20-2008, 07:11 AM
You may be one of only 2 people in the world who thinks the decision to attack Iraq wasn't Bush, Cheney, and companies.
WADR, I gonna drop out of this thread.
You &amp; Dawg are giving me a headache.
It's silly to debate you when you twist my words around.
I noticed attacking Iraq turned into decision to start war on terror.
You win again, bubby. Happy?

LWW
01-20-2008, 08:55 AM
Let me close with the obvious.

The US went to war in Afghanistan due to decisions made in Afghanistan.

The US went to war in Iraq due to decisions made in Iraq.

No amount of obfuscation changes that.

LWW