Al Qaeda Needs You!

[DesertPirate]

You didn't even know Colly.

I was directed to read her posts so many times I wish I had. They still outshine 99% of the ones around hers.

 

[cloudy]

I was directed to read her poats so many times I wish I had. They still outshine 99% of the ones around hers.

Colly was an extremely intelligent person, as well as being one of my best friends, but you didn't know her, so stop pretending that you did.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That proves absolutely nothing but that people want us out of Iraq. So...prove what you said, or retract it.

Okay. This is the post to which you took such exception:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Over the last few years, there have been many persons, including some on this forum,loudly demanding that the Anglo-American alliance leave Iraq and Afghanistan, which would have given victory to the Taliban and al Qaeda and other terrorists. For the most part, they were also smugly predicting victory for the terrorists, although they would have called them insurgents.

If the shoe fits, put it on.

I then posted a link to a thread that includes the kind of posts I described. You know as well as I do that there have been many posts over the last few years calling for the US and the UK to cut and run from the Middle East.

As far as I am concerned, if a person is clamoring for one side to do something that will give victory to the other side, they are rooting for that other side. During the Super Bowl, I was rooting for the Steelers to do something on their last possession that would not result in a score. In other words, I was rooting for the Cardinals to win.

Okay, what else do you want me to prove?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Colly was an extremely intelligent person, as well as being one of my best friends, but you didn't know her, so stop pretending that you did.

For a change, we agree on something. I considered Colly to be a friend too, although I only knew her through her posts.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Over the last few years, there have been many persons, including some on this forum,loudly demanding that the Anglo-American alliance leave Iraq and Afghanistan, which would have given victory to the Taliban and al Qaeda and other terrorists. For the most part, they were also smugly predicting victory for the terrorists, although they would have called them insurgents.

If the shoe fits, put it on.

That's apparently how you see it, and I suppose that's reflective of your level of knowledge of the situation over there. There are those of us who want the US out of Iraq because we know our presence there is just making Al Qaeda stronger, helping them recruit more terrorists and putting the US and its citizens at increased risk for no good purpose whatsoever, but that's not at all the same as "rooting" for terrorists, and your ignorance about this distinction is rather breathtaking, but typical for people of your stripe.

The situation in Iraq is a little more complicated than the US versus Al Qaeda, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a misinformed idiot. Most of the military operations the US engages in are not against Al Qaeda but against indigenous insurgent groups and militia who want the US out of their country. There are any number of books on what's going on over there and I suggest you read one and drop this third-grade good guys vs bad guys notion of that conflict.

As for Afghanistan, the problem there is political right now, with the US-backed Karzai government so corrupt and oppressive that it's driven the people to seek redress by joining the Taliban. There won't be a military solution to that war. The solution will have to be political and will start with the US either reigning in and reforming the Karzai government or finding someone else to put in his place. Holding free elections now would result in the popular election of a Taliban government and everyone knows it, which is why Karzai's postponed elections.

The situation's very similar to the way South Vietnam never held a free election the whole time the US was there, because they knew the Viet Cong would win the popular vote.

Get your news from somewhere besides Fox.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Over the last few years, there have been many persons, including some on this forum,loudly demanding that the Anglo-American alliance leave Iraq and Afghanistan, which would have given victory to the Taliban and al Qaeda and other terrorists. For the most part, they were also smugly predicting victory for the terrorists, although they would have called them insurgents.

If the shoe fits, put it on.

That's apparently how you see it, and I suppose that's reflective of your level of knowledge of the situation over there. There are those of us who want the US out of Iraq because we know our presence there is just making Al Qaeda stronger, helping them recruit more terrorists and putting the US and its citizens at increased risk for no good purpose whatsoever, but that's not at all the same as "rooting" for terrorists, and your ignorance about this distinction is rather breathtaking, but typical for people of your stripe.

I think it's safe to say that almost all Americans want US forces to leave Iraq. However, there are those who want the job to be finished, and there are those who want the US to cut and run, leaving the people to whatever the heavily armed terrorists want to do with them. Such an abrupt American departure would be seen by most as an American defeat and a victory for Al Qaida and other groups of terrorists. That's why I say that, if you are clamoring for an immediate departure of US forces, you are also calling, or rooting, for a victory by the terrorists.

The situation in Iraq is a little more complicated than the US versus Al Qaeda, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a misinformed idiot. Most of the military operations the US engages in are not against Al Qaeda but against indigenous insurgent groups and militia who want the US out of their country. There are any number of books on what's going on over there and I suggest you read one and drop this third-grade good guys vs bad guys notion of that conflict.

I know it's more complicated than that. There are the Sunnis vs the Shia, and militias such as those of Al Sadr. I refer to "Al Qaida" as a shorthand for terrorist groups in general. Personally, if there are some guys who park a car next to a market, and it blows up, killing people at random, the guys who left it there are bad guys. I doubt if many would disagree.

As for Afghanistan, the problem there is political right now, with the US-backed Karzai government so corrupt and oppressive that it's driven the people to seek redress by joining the Taliban. There won't be a military solution to that war. The solution will have to be political and will start with the US either reigning in and reforming the Karzai government or finding someone else to put in his place. Holding free elections now would result in the popular election of a Taliban government and everyone knows it, which is why Karzai's postponed elections.

Without defending anybody, if you can point out how the Karzai government beats women to death for leaving their homes without a male escort, I will be more accepting of your comparison. Do you really believe that the majority, or even a plurality of the voters would vote for the Taliban, given a choice? I mean, they never did before.

The situation's very similar to the way South Vietnam never held a free election the whole time the US was there, because they knew the Viet Cong would win the popular vote.

Get your news from somewhere besides Fox.

There was an election while the US was there, and the winner was Thieu. I don't know how honest the election was, but I would venture to say it was more honest than any that have been held since then, especially in the last thirty years. As I recall, the Viet Cong refused to participate in the election. Ho probably would have been elected premier, or president, but I am not so sure about any of his followers.

 

[TheEarl]

Eesh. I try to be as tolerant of other religions as I can and I know that you can't judge a religion based on one or two cases, but it's like everywhere I turn now I see something else that tells me Islam really is a religion of violence. It's sad.

From its inception, Islam has NEVER been a religion of peace, except that it has preached peace among Muslims, while preaching death and/or enslavement to heretics, meaning all non-Muslims. This goes all the way back to Mohammed leading the attack by the city of Medina against his home town of Mecca, to force the Meccans to recognize him as The Prophet. After that conquest, Mohammed led his forces on a series of successful invasions of neighboring states and cities, and urged, while on his deathbed, that his followers continue the carnage. They did, until defeated by Europeans when they attempted to conquer that continent also.

If you follow every Judeo Christian religion to the letter of the law, then they are religions of violence. They're monotheistic - their book says that their god is the only right one and everyone who does not follow that god's law is the enemy.

99% of religious books are coloured by the period they were written in and just because they may have contemporary evil in them, doesn't make the religion evil. Or are we going to condemn English Lady, because her religion encourages stoning women who've been raped?

Incidentally, the Quran includes a very neat line that's also in the Bible, "Thou shalt not kill." Maybe it's the people who are violent, rather than their faith?

Just a thought.

The Earl

 

[cloudy]

If you follow every Judeo Christian religion to the letter of the law, then they are religions of violence. They're monotheistic - their book says that their god is the only right one and everyone who does not follow that god's law is the enemy.

99% of religious books are coloured by the period they were written in and just because they may have contemporary evil in them, doesn't make the religion evil. Or are we going to condemn English Lady, because her religion encourages stoning women who've been raped?

Incidentally, the Quran includes a very neat line that's also in the Bible, "Thou shalt not kill." Maybe it's the people who are violent, rather than their faith?

Just a thought.

The Earl

Thank you.

It's the same ol' witch hunt, really. First it was the Jews back in the middle ages, then the whole Inquisition thing, then it was fine to kill Natives here because we were heretics, and now it's Muslims.

One day they'll find the tables have turned, and for something they are, or believe, or whatever, they'll be on the receiving end of it - they'll be "them."

People that think like Box are just scared, pathetic little people looking for a scapegoat. I feel sorry for them.

 

[TheEarl]

Thank you.

It's the same ol' witch hunt, really. First it was the Jews back in the middle ages, then the whole Inquisition thing, then it was fine to kill Natives here because we were heretics, and now it's Muslims.

One day they'll find the tables have turned, and for something they are, or believe, or whatever, they'll be on the receiving end of it - they'll be "them."

People that think like Box are just scared, pathetic little people looking for a scapegoat. I feel sorry for them.

I would say that the situation's a little bit different; Muslims have got it really bad at the moment because there is a significant minority of them in the world who are psychotic imbeciles. The Jews didn't have to put up with a group who were going on a non-Jew killing spree.

Although I note that Catholics don't get shit for the IRA and the Protestants for the UDF.

The Earl

 

[cloudy]

I would say that the situation's a little bit different; Muslims have got it really bad at the moment because there is a significant minority of them in the world who are psychotic imbeciles. The Jews didn't have to put up with a group who were going on a non-Jew killing spree.

Although I note that Catholics don't get shit for the IRA and the Protestants for the UDF.

The Earl

True, they do have it really bad, but it's made more so by the ignorance of those that believe a few represent the entire religion.

I think it's rather telling that some Christians don't think that Christianity has been violent at all. Just look at the examples I gave. Christianity has more of a history of violence than any other religion in the world.

 

[Liar]

Disgusting and revolting. And, there have been some people on this forum rooting for people like her.

Box, did you just say that there are members of this forum that are in favor of rape?

A 'yes' or a 'no' will suffice.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think it's safe to say that almost all Americans want US forces to leave Iraq. However, there are those who want the job to be finished, and there are those who want the US to cut and run, leaving the people to whatever the heavily armed terrorists want to do with them.

Job to be "finished"??? You think one day we'll kill the last terrorist and the war will be over? This is a political insurgency, not an armed revolt, and insurgencies are only defeated by political means.

This ludicrous "either/or" mentality of yours--either we stay and finish the job or the terrorists have "won"--is the same kind of bullshit thinking that's led to so many American foreign policy disasters. Our mission over there is to set up a free and democratic government able to defned and support itself, not to defeat terrorists. They're not the same thing. You've fallen into that old simplistic John Wayne Good Guy vs Bad Guy concept of the conflict.

Let's remember that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq when we invaded. Now, where do you think they're coming from? Could it be they see us as invaders and themselves as freedom fighters? Could it be that we're producing the very problem you think we're trying to solve?

Could be...

I know it's more complicated than that. There are the Sunnis vs the Shia, and militias such as those of Al Sadr. I refer to "Al Qaida" as a shorthand for terrorist groups in general. Personally, if there are some guys who park a car next to a market, and it blows up, killing people at random, the guys who left it there are bad guys. I doubt if many would disagree.

So "Al Qaida" is shorthand for terrorists in general. Like "Democrats" is shorthand for "Republicans"? You want to declare war on a tactic, is that it? Because that's all the Shi'a SIIC and the Kurdish PUK have in common when they set their bombs.

Without defending anybody, if you can point out how the Karzai government beats women to death for leaving their homes without a male escort, I will be more accepting of your comparison. Do you really believe that the majority, or even a plurality of the voters would vote for the Taliban, given a choice? I mean, they never did before.

Listen to something besides Fox news. The people loathe Karzai. Afghanistan is not going to turn into the US anytime soon. As long as the people out in the sticks support the Taliban, and they do, that war is unwinnable.

There was an election while the US was there, and the winner was Thieu. I don't know how honest the election was, but I would venture to say it was more honest than any that have been held since then, especially in the last thirty years. As I recall, the Viet Cong refused to participate in the election. Ho probably would have been elected premier, or president, but I am not so sure about any of his followers.

I don't give a fuck what they've done over the last 30 years. That's not the point. It's their country and let them deal with it. The bullshit starts when we start flapping our mouths about democracy and freedom when in reality that's the last things on our minds.

Wiki:

"On September 3, 1967, he [Thieu]ran successfully for the new executive presidency of South Vietnam earning 38% of the vote and held that position until a few days before the surrender of Saigon, South Vietnam's capital, became imminent in 1975.

Thiệu's regime was accused of being far more corrupt than the regime of his predecessor. Unlike Kỳ, Thiệu created a political party and greatly centralized political power in the executive branch at the expense of the elected congress. Close allies were placed in key ministerial and military posts in order to prevent threats to the president's leadership from emerging.

In 1971, Thiệu ran for re-election, but his reputation for corruption made his political opponents believe the race would be fixed, and they declined to run. As the only candidate, Thiệu was thus easily re-elected, receiving a suspiciously high 94% of the vote on an 87% turn-out."

--My bolds.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

All that stuff aside, the fact is that you make the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded stance on the Iraqi war is "rooting" for the terrorists, and that's just intellectually lazy, politically dangerous and misinformed, downright stupid, and morally repulsive.

You owe some apologies.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, did you just say that there are members of this forum that are in favor of rape?

A 'yes' or a 'no' will suffice.

Not exactly. What I said is that there are persons who are hoping for the US to fail and for Al Qaida and their ilk to succeed, regardless of how evil the minions of the latter are.

Have you stopped beating your wife? I ask that, because it is another example of how "Yes or no" will sometimes not suffice.

 

[cloudy]

Not exactly. What I said is that there are persons who are hoping for the US to fail and for Al Qaida and their ilk to succeed, regardless of how evil the minions of the latter are.

So...exactly who is hoping for the US to fail and Al Qaeda to win? Who?

Prove it or apologize, one of the two.

 

[Liar]

Not exactly. What I said is that there are persons who are hoping for the US to fail and for Al Qaida and their ilk to succeed, regardless of how evil the minions of the latter are.

I see. Who?

Come on. Names, please. Contrary to Cloudy, I don't even ask for proof. Only that you step up and own your accusations.

 

[DesertPirate]

I see. Who?

Come on. Names, please. Contrary to Cloudy, I don't even ask for proof. Only that you step up and own your accusations.

David Letterman wouldn't answer that question last year on his show. He would not say yes or no to: Do you want America to win? George Soros is another.

 

[Liar]

Have you stopped beating your wife? I ask that, because it is another example of how "Yes or no" will sometimes not suffice.

I don't have a wife. But I beat my sister on a regular basis. In Scrabble.

 

[Liar]

David Letterman wouldn't answer that question last year on his show. He would not say yes or no to: Do you want America to win? George Soros is another.

First, I don't think they're on this forum, which was the question.

Second, "Do you want America to win?" a lame-ass, vague question. Win what?

I want America to contribute in an as effective way as possible to the demise of extremism and terrorist organisations in the world. That's not what America has been doing lately.

 

[DesertPirate]

First, I don't think they're on this forum, which was the question.

Second, "Do you want America to win?" a lame-ass, vague question. Win what?

Win the war in the Middle East, what else?

Those two are not on this forum but they get a lot of undeserved attention.

 

[Liar]

Win the war in the Middle East, what else?

Those two are not on this forum but they get a lot of undeserved attention.

Aha, so you believe there is a "the war in the Middle East"? I see why we fail to communicate here.

There are more wars in the Middle East than fake boobs in Vegas. Which one? And what constitutes a win?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Not exactly. What I said is that there are persons who are hoping for the US to fail and for Al Qaida and their ilk to succeed, regardless of how evil the minions of the latter are.

I see. Who?

Come on. Names, please. Contrary to Cloudy, I don't even ask for proof. Only that you step up and own your accusations.

I posted the thread and it includes the names. I could probably dig up many more, but the one will suffice. It includes members of AH demanding that the US abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, which would constitute a defeat for this country and victory for Al Qaida and the Taliban and other terrorists.

 

[Liar]

I posted the thread and it includes the names.

Ok, so pure, Colly, amicus, glynndah, elsol, Cloudy, TheEarl, me...

Since nobody is saying about rooting for terrorists, and I can't decipher which ones you twist whatever they say into support for terrorists, I'll have to assume you mean everybody on that thread.

Or you could, you know, name names. Just a few. Or one? Pretty please? With a cherry on top?

I could probably dig up many more, but the one will suffice. It includes members of AH demanding that the US abandon Iraq and Afghanistan

No, it includes members of the AH suggesting that there might be better ways to handle things than a massive and seeminlgy indefinite US military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. That's something else.

...which would constitute a defeat for this country and victory for Al Qaida and the Taliban and other terrorists.

No, it wouldn't. Or it would, if the real world was no more complex than a game of tic-tac-toe.

But you know, and this may come as a surprise: it is.

 

[trysail]

I just finished reading Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack ( 2004 ) which covers the 2001-2003 period, which obviously includes the intelligence that was available at the time, the political-military considerations, the planning, the logistics and the rationale behind the decision to invade.

I'm now ploughing through the same author's 2008 work, The War Within which covers the 2006-2008 time frame which includes the height of sectarian violence, the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, the departure of Rumsfeld, Powell's perspective and the long internal analysis and debate that led to the 2006 decision to surge troops.

Both bring to the fore the dilemmas that inevitably face individuals resident in any human organization. Many who opine on the subject would do well to read these books. Things were never as simple as the harshest critics or the most vocal supporters seem to think. In an always-murky world, the now-obvious is only so in hindsight— perfect grist for second-guessers. Mistakes are always perfectly identifiable in rear view mirrors. Those whose opinions of the leading actors are already set in stone will receive no benefit from reading these books. Those with a willingness to entertain other than received opinion may be surprised.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

All that is beside the point. Boxlicker has said that all of us who favor a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq are in favor of the terrorists winning, and that's just a cheap, slanderous, political lie and tantamount to an ad hominem attack on our patiotism. The same simplistic lie was used during the recent campaign to paint those who oppose current US policy in Iraq as some sort of traitors or cowards, and I'm fucking sick of it.

We got the same treatment with Viet Nam, where any opposition to the US's failed and misguided policies was grounds to be called a traitor to your country or worse.

How we got into this mess has nothing to do with boxlicker's ignorant, ill-informed, and reprehensible charges. Boxlicker is repeating the simplistic propaganda that the last administration used to silence its critics, and we won't be fucking silenced anymore.

I am for the withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq. I think nothing would do more to reduce the strength and influence of Al Qaeda in Iraq and around the world, and I'm not alone. I'm not in any way "rooting" for terrorists.

I also think nothing would do more to increase American security and further American interests in the world. The longer we stay there, the more we empower the terrorists and put AMerican lives and interests at risk.

If there's anyone espousing the terrorist's cause, it's George Boxlicker and others of his ignorant ilk.