Author Topic: Winning or losing the war on terrorism? (Read 821 times)

Skydancer · « **Reply #15 on:** April 28, 2005, 06:13:06 PM »

"The very idea of a "War on Terrorism" is silly and an absurd impossibility."

Yep!

Its wars that make terrorists!

Raider179 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 28, 2005, 06:45:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
come on raider , say what you want to say....bush evil , USA evil, war on terror evil,we can't win, run away..run away...

No not evil. Just mismanaged? And no you don't run away after you start a fight.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #17 on:** April 28, 2005, 06:54:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
No not evil. Just mismanaged? And no you don't run away after you start a fight.

how is it that you feel that WE started this fight?

Tumor · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2005, 07:00:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by babek- [/B]

When the US-forces captured Iraq these bases were not closed - no, the MEK-terrorists were allowed to stay there and to march around with their small guns. Only their heavy weapons were taken away.

Confined

still today the MEK, operating from Iraq, are performing terroristic attacks against iranian targets.

You reap what you sow?

Lizking · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2005, 07:15:32 PM »

How many of those attacks took place in Iraq? Remove them from the count and what do you have?

Lizking · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2005, 07:17:22 PM »

Remember that the first lesson of war is to make the enemy react to you instead of reacting to him. Terrorists are killing their support base in Iraq, and reacting to us, and the rest of the world has been about the same as it always was, or a little better.

Fishu · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2005, 07:30:49 PM »

Iraq can't be used as a measure how the war on terror is going.
Most of the actual terrorists are outside Iraq, elsewhere in the world.
They are practicing and planning for attacks abroad, against more significant targets.
They cannot be beat by any amount of fightning in Iraq, since they're not in Iraq.
Iraq is full of amateurs to keep up the pressure, so the US cannot withdraw, which means more money poured into Iraq and more political problems within the US. It is just a side show.

Some day the terrorists will strike again abroad, regardless of Iraq and that strike will cause more terror in the west than the whole years terrorist/guerrilla attacks in Iraq. Who gives a crap in the west when a hundred iraqis are killed in a terror attack?
Thats whats the actual terrorists are after, to terrorize the infidels in the west, so they most surely aren't operating in Iraq.

Lizking · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2005, 07:49:09 PM »

Exactly, Fishu, so remove all of the terrorist attacks that took place inside Iraq, and the level of world terrorism is lower than ever.

Raider179 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 28, 2005, 08:53:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
how is it that you feel that WE started this fight?

Oh I mean Iraq, not neccesarily the bin laden hunt. And we did start the Iraq fight. Remember its not all just about WMD its about fighting terrorists over there instead of here. At least I remember bush saying that.

Lizking · « **Reply #24 on:** April 28, 2005, 09:07:25 PM »

Raider, you are probably young, and you may have still been ****ting yellow in 1991, but read up on your history, Son. Saddam invaded and pillaged Kuwait in 1990, so everything since then is strictly because of his actions.

Fishu · « **Reply #25 on:** April 28, 2005, 09:39:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizking
but read up on your history, Son. Saddam invaded and pillaged Kuwait in 1990, so everything since then is strictly because of his actions.

Also read the fine print, where the US diplomats acted careless of the Saddams plans to invade Kuwait and he thought the US wouldn't mind it.
Had the diplomats said no, Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait.

Lizking · « **Reply #26 on:** April 28, 2005, 09:41:34 PM »

Fishu, that is the stupidest line of reasoning I have heard since Bill Clinton said getting his dick sucked wasn't sex.

Lizking · « **Reply #27 on:** April 28, 2005, 09:43:43 PM »

The last I heard, Saddam was the leader of his country, and not a vassal of the US. His interpretation of a minor dipolmat's response has exactly what to do with him invading another country?

Lizking · « **Reply #28 on:** April 28, 2005, 09:45:29 PM »

Along that line of reasoning, if the US diplomat toChina says, in response to a query, "well, the Tiawan issue is for you to resolve", does that mean the US would be responsible for China invading Tiawan?

Shamus · « **Reply #29 on:** April 28, 2005, 09:49:06 PM »

Without a doubt losing, when those Bin-laden types see the way that we are thowing our freedoms away, they must feel a deep sense of satisfaction.

shamus