PDA

View Full Version : Al Queda takes town in Iraq.


Taco John
09-05-2005, 08:49 PM
Insurgents Assert Control Over Town Near Syrian Border
Zarqawi's Forces Kill U.S.-Allied Iraqis And Impose Strict Law, Witnesses Say

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 6, 2005; A20



BAGHDAD, Sept. 5 -- Fighters loyal to militant leader Abu Musab Zarqawi asserted control over the key Iraqi border town of Qaim on Monday, killing U.S. collaborators and enforcing strict Islamic law, according to tribal members, officials, residents and others in the town and nearby villages.

Residents said the foreign-led fighters controlled by Zarqawi, a Jordanian, apparently had been exerting authority in the town, within two miles of the Syrian border, since at least the start of the weekend. A sign posted at an entrance to the town declared, "Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Qaim."

In other developments Monday, the U.S. Army warned noncombatants to leave a portion of the northeastern city of Tall Afar ahead of an expected assault on an insurgent stronghold there. Car bombs and other political violence around Iraq killed at least 33 Iraqi civilians and security force members. A U.S. soldier and two British troops also were killed, officials said.

The report from Qaim, about 200 miles west of Baghdad, marked one of insurgents' boldest moves in their cat-and-mouse duels with U.S. Marines along the Euphrates River. U.S. forces have described border towns in the area as a funnel for foreign fighters, arms and money into Iraq from Syria.

Insurgents have occasionally made similar shows of force, such as the takeover of a Baghdad neighborhood for a few hours late last month by dozens of gunmen. They then slipped away, having made the point that they can muster men as well as plant bombs. The weekend takeover of Qaim extended already heavy insurgent pressure on the people there, and came after the U.S. military said it had inflicted heavy bombing losses on foreign-led fighters.

Marines conducted heavy airstrikes in the past week on suspected insurgent safe houses in area. Ground fighting has also been reported between Zarqawi's group and Sunni Arab tribes more open to the Iraqi government and U.S. military.

Capt. Jeffrey Pool, a Marine spokesman in Ramadi, capital of the western province that includes Qaim, said he had no word of unusual activity in Qaim. Marines are stationed just outside the town, and no Iraqi government forces are posted inside, Pool said.

Witnesses in Qaim said Zarqawi's fighters were killing officials and civilians who they consider to be allied with the Iraqi and U.S. governments or anti-Islamic. On Sunday, the bullet-riddled body of a young woman dressed in her nightclothes lay in a street of Qaim. A sign left on her corpse declared, "A prostitute who was punished."

Zarqawi's fighters have shot and killed nine men in public executions in the city center since the start of the weekend, accusing the men of being collaborators with U.S. forces, said Sheik Nawaf Mahallawi, a leader of the Albu Mahal, a Sunni Arab tribe that had clashed earlier with the foreign fighters.

Dozens of families were fleeing Qaim every day, Mahallawi said.

For local fighters now, "it would be insane to attack Zarqawi's people, even to shoot one bullet at them," the tribal leader said. "We hope the U.S. forces end this in the coming days. We want the city to go back to its normal situation."

Many of the towns along the river have been subject to domination by foreign-led fighters, despite repeated Marine offensives along the river since May. Residents and Marines have described insurgents escaping ahead of such drives, and returning when the offensives end.

The U.S. attacks are credited with helping disrupt insurgent networks and reducing the number of car bombings and suicide attacks in the rest of Iraq.

U.S. and Iraqi officials in recent weeks have welcomed reports of local Sunni Arabs challenging the presence of foreign fighters. But the accounts from Qaim indicated a setback.

The Albu Mahal tribe remained in control of their village outside Qaim, residents said. However, a car bomb placed by Zarqawi's fighters killed a tribal leader, Sheik Dhyad Ahmed, and his son on Sunday, said a resident, Mijbil Saied.

Fighters loyal to Zarqawi openly patrolled the streets of Qaim with AK-47 assault rifles and grenade launchers. The fighters included both Iraqis and foreigners, including Afghans. They draped rooftops with Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq banner of a yellow sun against a black background.

Residents said insurgents in recent weeks had begun enforcing strict Islamic law, burning shops that sold CDs and a beauty parlor, and lashing men accused of drinking alcohol. They said Zarqawi's fighters were killing government workers, but had spared doctors and teachers.

Karim Hammad Karbouli, 46, said he had stood among small crowds of nervous residents watching the insurgents, waiting Sunday for his brother to come with a pickup truck so they could load up his household and leave. Karbouli said he feared both Zarqawi's fighters and U.S. bombs.

The director of the town's hospital has ordered patients to leave the facility, said Muhammed Ismail, a physician at the hospital. Zarqawi's fighters had taken control of the hospital, and the director feared it would come under U.S. attack, Ismail said.

In Tall Afar, U.S. and Iraqi soldiers entered the fourth day of an offensive against insurgents who have controlled large sections of the city for nearly a year. On Monday night, soldiers dropped leaflets from helicopters in the eastern neighborhood of Sarai, where commanders believe insurgents are entrenched, warning noncombatants to evacuate the area.

About 5,000 soldiers from the Army's 3rd Armored Reconnaissance Regiment and the Iraqi army's 3rd Division continued advancing toward Sarai from all directions, searching homes, confiscating weapons and interrogating residents.

Early Monday morning, six members of an elite U.S. special operations unit were wounded in what was to have been a raid on the home of a suspected insurgent leader, according to U.S. commanders. Members of the unit, which is charged with searching for high-level insurgents, and the Army in Tall Afar would not provide details.

Tall Afar, a city of more than 200,000 about 40 miles from the Syrian border, is considered a logistical hub for insurgents operating around the country.

A roadside bomb killed one soldier in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tall Afar on Monday, and two British troops were reported killed by another roadside bomb in southern Iraq.

In Baghdad, insurgents launched a dawn attack on the Interior Ministry, killing two police officers, officials said. Other political violence Monday in Baghdad killed at least 13 civilians, the Associated Press reported.

A roadside bomb and other attacks killed four oil workers associated with a northern oil company in Kirkuk. Insurgents have mounted frequent attacks to disrupt Iraq's oil exports.

Mortar fire hit a residential neighborhood in the central city of Baqubah, killing six civilians, said Ahmed Fouad, a hospital physician. Eight other civilians were killed by a car bomb in the western town of Hit, the AP said.

In ongoing political negotiations, interim President Jalal Talabani said in a statement that he and the other top Kurdish leader, Massoud Barzani, had agreed to changes in the draft constitution. The changes would ease concerns among Arab countries that the wording of the draft loosened Iraqi ties to the Arab world.

The language at issue describes Iraq as an Islamic -- but not Arab -- country, a concession to non-Arab Kurds who form about 15 percent of the Iraqi population.

Finer reported from Tall Afar. Special correspondents Hassan Shamarri in Baqubah and Omar Fekeiki in Baghdad contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090500313_pf.html

memyselfI
09-05-2005, 08:52 PM
Well, well, well, look what happened with Katrina in the news and Natalle Holloway out. :shake:

Taco John
09-05-2005, 08:54 PM
Drudge dropped it as an afterthought on his page, rather than blaring it as a headline... It definitely deserves headline treatment.

memyselfI
09-05-2005, 08:56 PM
Drudge dropped it as an afterthought on his page, rather than blaring it as a headline... It definitely deserves headline treatment.

Not when Mary Landrieu is threatening to punch the President. :rolleyes:

mlyonsd
09-05-2005, 09:05 PM
Well, well, well, look what happened with Katrina in the news and Natalle Holloway out. :shake:

Your glee to this story stands as a testiment for what you believe in.

Mr. Laz
09-05-2005, 09:22 PM
just curious ... but why are these insurgents "al qaeda" and not just like all the other insurgents?

Mr. Laz
09-05-2005, 09:23 PM
Your glee to this story stands as a testiment for what you believe in.
and you ignoring the event is yours

Taco John
09-05-2005, 09:24 PM
just curious ... but why are these insurgents "al qaeda" and not just like all the other insurgents?


"Abu Musab Zarqawi "

mlyonsd
09-05-2005, 09:30 PM
and you ignoring the event is yours

so why don't you tell me what I'm ignoring?

Iowanian
09-05-2005, 09:45 PM
In about 3 days...dense and co will be throwing a tizzy about US marines and Bombs flattening terrorist assholes, and the buildings in which they hide, in and near Quaim Iraq.


You'll all have to excuse me, if I'm no longer suprised, after an Attack byTerrorist assholes, is followed by Dunce Showing her hairy as shouting "YI YIYIYYYIYIYYIYIYIYIYIYIYYIYI!" in the street and throwing candy to the neighbor kids.

mlyonsd
09-05-2005, 09:53 PM
In about 3 days...dense and co will be throwing a tizzy about US marines and Bombs flattening terrorist assholes, and the buildings in which they hide, in and near Quaim Iraq.


You'll all have to excuse me, if I'm no longer suprised, after an Attack byTerrorist assholes, is followed by Dunce Showing her hairy as shouting "YI YIYIYYYIYIYYIYIYIYIYIYIYYIYI!" in the street and throwing candy to the neighbor kids.

Let me speak for the other side of the fence.

It's evident we're not winning when this can happen. Never mind the majority of the country wants a democracy. The entire region was better under SH's regime. The US has failed and we are wasting our money since now we can use it in the gulf.

Logical
09-05-2005, 09:58 PM
This is truly unfortunate and a major, major setback. You have to expect setbacks but you would hope they would not be so significant.

WoodDraw
09-05-2005, 10:36 PM
Let me speak for the other side of the fence.

It's evident we're not winning when this can happen. Never mind the majority of the country wants a democracy. The entire region was better under SH's regime. The US has failed and we are wasting our money since now we can use it in the gulf.

Yeah, what's the big deal? So a group of insurgents takes over an Iraqi city...this thing is obviously still under control. What we need here is to stay the course. And remember, everytime you criticize Iraq the terrorists win.

Seriously though, your keen sense of humor and sharp rhetorical skills are overwhelming.

Loki
09-05-2005, 10:39 PM
This is truly unfortunate and a major, major setback. You have to expect setbacks but you would hope they would not be so significant.

how is this a major setback?

that particular town has been the site of a constant:
1. fight your way in
2. hump back out
3. insurgents retake (because they bugged out)
4. us airstrikes
5. repeat steps 1 - 5

so the marines left... (again)
the insurgents came back, roughed up the local populace, killed the
"collaborators", burned some shops etc etc etc.
airstrikes will come, us forces will move back in (once again) and the
process will be repeated again.

only difference this time is that the insurgents planted a flag.
big deal...:whackit:

the "major setback", if you will, is the misuse of our forces/iraqi forces.
if you're going to take an area, OCCUPY it, then reinforce it. if that
particular town is a crossing point/collection point/logistics point for
foreign fighters... BLOCK the friggin thing. either occupy the thing or
level it. send the army/marines in with a compnay of iraqis. hose it
down good, and plant a battalion of iraqi's to reinforce and hold it. rest
our forces for next op.

we need to start using the iraqi forces to hold key points. sure they're
green, but in enough strength, they can hold an area.

get those fuggers TRAINED... now.

Pitt Gorilla
09-05-2005, 10:42 PM
Level the f*ckers.

ChiefsCountry
09-05-2005, 10:46 PM
how is this a major setback?

that particular town has been the site of a constant:
1. fight your way in
2. hump back out
3. insurgents retake (because they bugged out)
4. us airstrikes
5. repeat steps 1 - 5

so the marines left... (again)
the insurgents came back, roughed up the local populace, killed the
"collaborators", burned some shops etc etc etc.
airstrikes will come, us forces will move back in (once again) and the
process will be repeated again.

only difference this time is that the insurgents planted a flag.
big deal...:whackit:

the "major setback", if you will, is the misuse of our forces/iraqi forces.
if you're going to take an area, OCCUPY it, then reinforce it. if that
particular town is a crossing point/collection point/logistics point for
foreign fighters... BLOCK the friggin thing. either occupy the thing or
level it. send the army/marines in with a compnay of iraqis. hose it
down good, and plant a battalion of iraqi's to reinforce and hold it. rest
our forces for next op.

we need to start using the iraqi forces to hold key points. sure they're
green, but in enough strength, they can hold an area.

get those fuggers TRAINED... now.

Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

Logical
09-05-2005, 11:08 PM
how is this a major setback?
....Because we lose people over and over again and will lose many once again, we also waste monetary assets that we cannot afford especially in view of the Gulf Coast disaster, finally losing to the Al Quaeda is a major psychological vitory for Al Quaeda and in their terrorist recruitment efforts. Seems we can do almost nothing right anymore when it comes to Al Quaeda. They seem to be winning the WOT more and more every day and it mostly appears because we are involved in the Iraqi occupation.

alanm
09-05-2005, 11:26 PM
how is this a major setback?

that particular town has been the site of a constant:
1. fight your way in
2. hump back out
3. insurgents retake (because they bugged out)
4. us airstrikes
5. repeat steps 1 - 5

so the marines left... (again)
the insurgents came back, roughed up the local populace, killed the
"collaborators", burned some shops etc etc etc.
airstrikes will come, us forces will move back in (once again) and the
process will be repeated again.

only difference this time is that the insurgents planted a flag.
big deal...:whackit:

the "major setback", if you will, is the misuse of our forces/iraqi forces.
if you're going to take an area, OCCUPY it, then reinforce it. if that
particular town is a crossing point/collection point/logistics point for
foreign fighters... BLOCK the friggin thing. either occupy the thing or
level it. send the army/marines in with a compnay of iraqis. hose it
down good, and plant a battalion of iraqi's to reinforce and hold it. rest
our forces for next op.

we need to start using the iraqi forces to hold key points. sure they're
green, but in enough strength, they can hold an area.

get those fuggers TRAINED... now.I wouldn't be suprised to see in the little news fillers in the paper of shit starting to blow up mysteriously in Syria. A little nature hike by the Marine LLRP's and some SEALS on lovely evening stroll who just by accident manage to get lost and just by accident discover a couple of insurgent base camps along the way, And by God just couldn't, in good conscience, leave them sitting all alone and inviting like to be taken down. I couldn't see our heroic soldiers be severly reprimanded. :)

Taco John
09-05-2005, 11:31 PM
Bill O'reilly has it right. This Administration from top to bottom is in over their heads.

Logical
09-05-2005, 11:34 PM
I wouldn't be suprised to see in the little news fillers in the paper of shit starting to blow up mysteriously in Syria. A little nature hike by the Marine LLRP's and some SEALS on lovely evening stroll who just by accident manage to get lost and just by accident discover a couple of insurgent base camps along the way, And by God just couldn't, in good conscience, leave them sitting all alone and inviting like to be taken down. I couldn't see our heroic soldiers be severly reprimanded. :)That is the way we should be fighting the WOT not in some non-essential occupation action in Iraq that has created more terrorists than it ever was going to prevent.

trndobrd
09-06-2005, 12:37 AM
Take a look at the map and you'll notice Qaim is on the Syrian border, making it easy for AMZ loyalists to mass forces outside areas controlled by coalition forces. It's also the starting line for Euphrates route into the interior of Iraq. Coalition forces have been moving from East to West securing towns along the route. As the insurgent forces are pushed back West from Hit, Rawah, etc. Qaim is the last place to stay and still be in Iraq.

Ugly Duck
09-06-2005, 12:40 AM
how is this a major setback?

that particular town has been the site of a constant:
1. fight your way in
2. hump back out
3. insurgents retake (because they bugged out)
4. us airstrikes
5. repeat steps 1 - 5Hey, you beat me to it. There's actually several towns like this one. The insurgents vacate as we roll in. We leave and they come back. They run the civil governments of several towns whenever our troops leave.

WoodDraw
09-06-2005, 01:44 AM
Hey, you beat me to it. There's actually several towns like this one. The insurgents vacate as we roll in. We leave and they come back. They run the civil governments of several towns whenever our troops leave.

So is that not just further evidence that this administration has had no solid war plan? What good does it do to secure a city (losing soldiers and Iraqis on the way) just to leave it and have to redo the whole thing again? Either the commanders are fuggin stupid, there aren't enough American troops, or enough Iraqis aren't being trained. I really just don't understand what we are doing over there...

Taco John
09-06-2005, 02:31 AM
I love the "no big deal" attitude that has crept in. I get that people are upset about the "anything to get GWB" attitude. But countering it with "anything to support GWB" is just as crazy, especially in the face of glaring evidence that things are worse than his administration ever envisioned.

Loki
09-06-2005, 03:01 AM
That is the way we should be fighting the WOT not in some non-essential occupation action in Iraq that has created more terrorists than it ever was going to prevent.

2 problems with that...

ridiculous "rules of engagement" + whining liberals.

Ugly Duck
09-06-2005, 08:00 AM
Either the commanders are fuggin stupid, there aren't enough American troops, or enough Iraqis aren't being trained. I really just don't understand what we are doing over there...Our commanders are not stupid. Its just that they are up against numbers like this (shades of Nam):

"Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 12:08 PM
Your glee to this story stands as a testiment for what you believe in.

Which post was gleeful? Saying that the news media has missed this story because of Katrina. Or that Drudge missed it because of a Senator wanting to punch the President. (Yeah, I guess that might not be news afterall...)

the Talking Can
09-06-2005, 12:12 PM
Insurgents Assert Control Over Town Near Syrian Border
Zarqawi's Forces Kill U.S.-Allied Iraqis And Impose Strict Law, Witnesses Say

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 6, 2005; A20



BAGHDAD, Sept. 5 -- Fighters loyal to militant leader Abu Musab Zarqawi asserted control over the key Iraqi border town of Qaim on Monday, killing U.S. collaborators and enforcing strict Islamic law, according to tribal members, officials, residents and others in the town and nearby villages.


Mission Accomplished?


More importantly, why does this thread hate America?

Mr. Laz
09-06-2005, 12:18 PM
so why don't you tell me what I'm ignoring?
well evidently you saw fit to respond first about MEME instead of the situation.

speaks volumes in my book

Radar Chief
09-06-2005, 12:31 PM
But, but, but I thought Al Quada wasn’t in Iraq?

ROFL

Thing is, Iowanian was post’n a couple of months ago blogs reporting the fight’n by the Syrian boarder. Where you guys been? :shrug:

http://billroggio.com/

Loki
09-06-2005, 03:09 PM
But, but, but I thought Al Quada wasn’t in Iraq?

ROFL

Thing is, Iowanian was post’n a couple of months ago blogs reporting the fight’n by the Syrian boarder. Where you guys been? :shrug:

http://billroggio.com/

who knows... :banghead:

the newspapers are saying baaaad things.

all is lost!!!
time to panic!!!

ig ig ig ig ig ig ig ig ig ig ig ig ig

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 03:11 PM
But, but, but I thought Al Quada wasn’t in Iraq?


http://billroggio.com/

Correction, they are now, thanks W!!! :rolleyes:

SBK
09-06-2005, 03:13 PM
Correction, they are now, thanks W!!! :rolleyes:

ROFL I suppose you'd rather they come here!

Moron. :shake:

Iowanian
09-06-2005, 03:18 PM
US Troops Die. Denise Laughs.

GFY

Radar Chief
09-06-2005, 03:19 PM
Correction, they are now, thanks W!!! :rolleyes:

You do realize that Zarqawi, the Al Queda leader in your article, has been in Iraq since ’02 don’t you? :hmmm:

edit: oops.

chagrin
09-06-2005, 03:20 PM
I wonder how she is going to react in 2008 when the new President stays in Iraq. Probably business as usual I would assume with her, since she does nothing to further her own cause other than eat bon bons and complain about anything "W".

In a way, I can't wait until the President comes along, it's like a Duh-nese time tomb, waiting to explode.

P.S. The last thing she wants is for them to come here and take away HER freedom dude. She is too content to sit at home and prepare for her wife to come home to give her the money, to pay for her SUV pmt, mortgage pmt,water, sewage, food bills, and most importantly, the electric bill, so she can do nothing more than come on here between soaps, Oprah and CNN and gripe about "W" all the while enjoying the freedom she takes for granted.

No, she doesn't want them here because then she couldn't be herself anymore, a freedom she has by living here, in the USA!

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 03:21 PM
You do realize that Zarqawi, the Al Queda leader in your article, has been in Iraq since ’01 don’t you? :hmmm:

Yep, I've heard he visited. But from most accounts he was not stationed there and there is no proof that AQ had the levels of involvement in Iraq that they do now. That is a GWB unintended consequence. :hmmm:

SBK
09-06-2005, 03:24 PM
Yep, I've heard he visited. But from most accounts he was not stationed there and there is no proof that AQ had the levels of involvement in Iraq that they do now. That is a GWB unintended consequence. :hmmm:

I see you've changed from NEVER THERE.

I would say it was a GWB intended consequence, being as they are throwing rocks at us over there, not over here.

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 03:25 PM
I see you've changed from NEVER THERE.

I would say it was a GWB intended consequence, being as they are throwing rocks at us over there, not over here.

Where did I say he was 'never' there?

SBK
09-06-2005, 03:27 PM
Where did I say he was 'never' there?

Do you really want someone to search for posts where you say AQ was never in Iraq?

Radar Chief
09-06-2005, 03:33 PM
Yep, I've heard he visited. But from most accounts he was not stationed there and there is no proof that AQ had the levels of involvement in Iraq that they do now. That is a GWB unintended consequence. :hmmm:


Really? He apparently never left, guess he’s just couch surf’n and Osama Bin Hidden say’s, “as well you as another” naming him leader of AQ in Iraq? ROFL

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 03:35 PM
Do you really want someone to search for posts where you say AQ was never in Iraq?

Actually, there were two different points there. AZ being in Iraq, I agree he was there. AQ being in Iraq is questionable. I do not believe they as an organization were there. Perhaps members of the organization but not the organization, that is, not until the US invaded did AQ as an organization emerge in Iraq.

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 03:37 PM
Really? He apparently never left, guess he’s just couch surf’n and Osama Bin Hidden say’s, “as well you as another” naming him leader of AQ in Iraq? ROFL

But, but, but he was suposedly in Afghanistan. Perhaps that was his twin bro. :rolleyes:

penchief
09-06-2005, 04:38 PM
US Troops Die. Denise Laughs.

GFY

When are some of you going to stop shooting the messenger and start holding our leaders accountable for their failed policies?

Logical
09-06-2005, 05:07 PM
US Troops Die. Denise Laughs.

GFYI have read this entire thread up to this point and this is total bullshit, she has not laughed once. She stated some facts that some conservatives are uncomfortable with and that is the most I can find.

NewChief
09-06-2005, 05:24 PM
One of my buddies that I talk politics with a lot was drinking with me this weekend. He was telling me about a political talkshow (something like Crossfire, but I don't think that was it) he was watching. On it, the liberal (he classified him as a Chicken little radical who always preaches worst case scenarios) claimed that the reason the insurgency has been quiet lately is that they're planning their "Tet Offensive". We both kind of rolled our eyes and dismissed it, but this news makes me reconsider the validity of the guy's claims.

But hell, let there be a "Tet Offensive." Getting these ****ers out into the open would be a good thing for our boys, I think.

Halfcan
09-06-2005, 06:06 PM
I hope we get those guys.

gblowfish
09-06-2005, 06:10 PM
"Somewhere there's a guy in Cleveland named Al Kida: K-I-D-A.. and he's FREAKIN OUT!!!" -Dan Bern

WoodDraw
09-06-2005, 06:22 PM
Our commanders are not stupid. Its just that they are up against numbers like this (shades of Nam):

"Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

But again, isn't the fall in those numbers a direct result of the US failing to properly secure all of these towns and instead allowing the insurgency to rise? I'm no expert but I'd guess that if the US had the troops to secure all of these towns from day one then this wouldn't be as big of a problem.

Bwana
09-06-2005, 07:30 PM
Good news! Any time we can get a large group of these pricks in one place, they will be easier to kill. BOOM!!

Iowanian
09-06-2005, 07:36 PM
I have read this entire thread up to this point and this is total bullshit, she has not laughed once. She stated some facts that some conservatives are uncomfortable with and that is the most I can find.

Jim, you're going to have to write slower.....your voice has been muffled the past few weeks, with Dense's PrIck in your food chewer.

|Zach|
09-06-2005, 07:38 PM
Jim, you're going to have to write slower.....your voice has been muffled the past few weeks, with Dense's PrIck in your food chewer.
Everything he said was correct...

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 07:44 PM
Jim, you're going to have to write slower.....your voice has been muffled the past few weeks, with Dense's PrIck in your food chewer.

Ah, once again no response to the point instead only a personal attack addressed to the pointee. :rolleyes:

Logical
09-07-2005, 12:09 AM
Jim, you're going to have to write slower.....your voice has been muffled the past few weeks, with Dense's PrIck in your food chewer.You have let your anger towards one person make you say and do stupid things, now you are letting it lower your IQ, that may be the lamest smaque you have ever thrown.

Vlad
Usually an Iowanian fan.

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 05:19 AM
You have let your anger towards one person make you say and do stupid things, now you are letting it lower your IQ, that may be the lamest smaque you have ever thrown.

Vlad
Usually an Iowanian fan.

Good point. But can you blame HIM?

If that one person did not post or was gone then Chiefsplanet and the world would be as one, at peace. :Peace: But since that one person is here there is NO way to control thyself, NO need to accept personal responsiblity, NO end to the ways one is manipulated and forced into saying things they wish they hadn't...things said that make such victims look weak and pitiful. That one person sticking their cybergun to the heads of these individuals and forcing their hand is to blame...

so don't be so hard on folks like this one and his ilk. ;)

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 07:06 AM
But, but, but he was suposedly in Afghanistan. Perhaps that was his twin bro. :rolleyes:

Really? Who’s claiming he was in Afghanistan after ’01? The voices in your head? ROFL
And just after you posted that he was there:

Actually, there were two different points there. AZ being in Iraq, I agree he was there. AQ being in Iraq is questionable. I do not believe they as an organization were there. Perhaps members of the organization but not the organization, that is, not until the US invaded did AQ as an organization emerge in Iraq.

Forget your meds? :LOL:

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 07:46 AM
Really? Who’s claiming he was in Afghanistan after ’01? The voices in your head? ROFL
And just after you posted that he was there:



Forget your meds? :LOL:

Ooops, CNN must have forgotten theirs. :hmmm:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/06/us.zarqawi/


A U.S. official said Tuesday that al-Zarqawi traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for treatment of a leg injury but, contrary to previous reports, appears not to have had a leg amputated. The official would not discuss the reason for the change in assessment.

Al-Zarqawi, an associate of Osama bin Laden, had been named by the Bush administration as an al Qaeda member who fled to Iraq from Afghanistan in May 2002 for medical treatment and then stayed to organize terror plots.

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 08:02 AM
Ooops, CNN must have forgotten theirs. :hmmm:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/06/us.zarqawi/


A U.S. official said Tuesday that al-Zarqawi traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for treatment of a leg injury but, contrary to previous reports, appears not to have had a leg amputated. The official would not discuss the reason for the change in assessment.

Al-Zarqawi, an associate of Osama bin Laden, had been named by the Bush administration as an al Qaeda member who fled to Iraq from Afghanistan in May 2002 for medical treatment and then stayed to organize terror plots.

Lets see, May ’02. :hmmm: That would be “after” ’01 wouldn’t it? :shrug:

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 08:58 AM
Lets see, May ’02. :hmmm: That would be “after” ’01 wouldn’t it? :shrug:

Actually, May 02 would incompass part of 01/ AND 02. What this CNN piece does is prove my point that AZ was not in Iraq until after the US invaded.

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 09:06 AM
Actually, May 02 would incompass part of 01/ AND 02. What this CNN piece does is prove my point that AZ was not in Iraq until after the US invaded.


:LOL: Uh, the invasion began March '03.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html

Ooops. ROFL


Just FYI but that'd be after AZ arrived in Iraq. :thumb:

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 09:11 AM
:LOL: Uh, the invasion began March '03.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html

Ooops. ROFL


Just FYI but that'd be after AZ arrived in Iraq. :thumb:

My bad on the year. So he was there before the invasion but after the possibility of such an invasion became known. Your own timeline indicates where DUHbya was headed. AZ was not going to go to Iran or North Korea. :rolleyes:



June 2, 2002

President Bush publicly introduces the new defense doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. In some instances, the president asserts, the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one: "Our security will require all Americans…[to] be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 09:23 AM
My bad on the year. So he was there before the invasion but after the possibility of such an invasion became known. Your own timeline indicates where DUHbya was headed. AZ was not going to go to Iran or North Korea. :rolleyes:


Exactly, he and several other Al Quada escaping from Afghanistan and went to Iraq where they had an open invitation of asylum before we invaded.
Thank you for proving exactly what I’ve been say’n. ;)


June 2, 2002

President Bush publicly introduces the new defense doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. In some instances, the president asserts, the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one: "Our security will require all Americans…[to] be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

Lets see, “June 2, ‘02” would be after May ’02, correct?
So we’ve got a build up of al Quada in Iraq, by your own admission, and the president noticing the situation.
Sounds like he was on top of it. ROFL

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 09:29 AM
Exactly, he and several other Al Quada escaping from Afghanistan and went to Iraq where they had an open invitation of asylum before we invaded.
Thank you for proving exactly what I’ve been say’n. ;)



Lets see, “June 2, ‘02” would be after May ’02, correct?
So we’ve got a build up of al Quada in Iraq, by your own admission, and the president noticing the situation.
Sounds like he was on top of it. ROFL

Nice spin but in Jan 02 the President announces Iraq as part of the access of evil. In May, AZ goes for treatment and stays in Iraq for a number of weeks. In June, the President announces the pre-emptive doctrine.

The timing of these events is too close to pretend that AZ was not responding to the threat vs. leading an already existing AQ movement within Iraq.

Iowanian
09-07-2005, 09:30 AM
I'd better get a snickers.....I'll be waiting a long time before Dense Cheers a victory by US troops and uses a smiley for the death of some terrorists.

Loki
09-07-2005, 09:32 AM
June 2, 2002

President Bush publicly introduces the new defense doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. In some instances, the president asserts, the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one: "Our security will require all Americans…[to] be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

and the problem with the bolded portion would be???

i take it you're not sick of our citizens being blown up overseas and at
home. how many more need to die before taking the fight to the enemy
is ok in your mind?

:shake:

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 09:34 AM
and the problem with the bolded portion would be???

i take it you're not sick of our citizens being blown up overseas and at
home. how many more need to die before taking the fight to the enemy
is ok in your mind?

:shake:

Well the problem could be summed up like this: WMD/Iraq.

Loki
09-07-2005, 09:41 AM
Well the problem could be summed up like this: WMD/Iraq.

or could be summed up 9-11/afghanistan.
:shrug:

either way, being proactive as opposed to REactive is much better
considering the amount of time we have suffered terrorist attacks
both at home and abroad...

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 09:45 AM
or could be summed up 9-11/afghanistan.
:shrug:

either way, being proactive as opposed to REactive is much better
considering the amount of time we have suffered terrorist attacks
both at home and abroad...

Even hawkish Neocons are wondering if that is truly the case. Do you go into a country, kill thousands of innocents, and create new hatreds and maybe new terrorists while trying to weed out a few who might be using that country as a base? :hmmm: :shake:

Loki
09-07-2005, 09:49 AM
Even hawkish Neocons are wondering if that is truly the case. Do you go into a country, kill thousands of innocents, and create new hatreds and maybe new terrorists while trying to weed out a few who might be using that country as a base? :hmmm: :shake:

and you pussy libs STILL consider dead terrorists and insurgents
"innocent".

so... it's ok for terrorists to blow up women and children, planes, boats,
troops, buildings etc etc etc...
but NOT ok for the offended nation to get some payback.

that makes perfect sense... where do i sign up for your camp?

StcChief
09-07-2005, 09:50 AM
Kill them where they are. Don't wait for them to come to USA.

Iowanian
09-07-2005, 09:52 AM
Gonna Be here a while?

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 10:39 AM
but NOT ok for the offended nation to get some payback.



Where/when did Iraq attack the US? :hmmm:

Iowanian
09-07-2005, 10:53 AM
ooops US Troops Free American Hostage, held since Nov.....Dense and Jaz fail to report

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9173345/

Iowanian
09-07-2005, 10:55 AM
Where/when did Iraq attack the US? :hmmm:


US Planes were shot at(see ATTACKED) over UN Mandated No fly zones almost every day for a decade...dunce.

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 10:58 AM
ooops US Troops Free American Hostage, held since Nov.....Dense and Jaz fail to report

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9173345/

Well that is good news. :clap:

Rather strange that the article claims that US forces 'released' them in a 'mission' but also mentions that the report does not indicate whether or not there were shots fired or even a fight. :hmmm:

Guess, I'll wait for further details...having been down this path before.

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 11:02 AM
US Planes were shot at(see ATTACKED) over UN Mandated No fly zones almost every day for a decade...dunce.

Oh, so this is the new fallback reason...seeing that the whole WMD thing didn't pan out?

Can you please provide a link where the WH/W has stated this?

Iowanian
09-07-2005, 11:06 AM
dumbass..........I, and many others PRIOR to the war, said that firing on 1 US Warplane was an attack, and was good enough reason.

I just don't think I can tollerate your stupidity anymore.

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 11:47 AM
dumbass..........I, and many others PRIOR to the war, said that firing on 1 US Warplane was an attack, and was good enough reason.

I just don't think I can tollerate your stupidity anymore.

ROFL

Brock
09-07-2005, 11:48 AM
Oh, so this is the new fallback reason...seeing that the whole WMD thing didn't pan out?

Can you please provide a link where the WH/W has stated this?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-rumsfeld_x.htm

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 11:51 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-rumsfeld_x.htm


Oops. ROFL

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 12:00 PM
Nice spin

“Spin”? You’ve agreed with every fact I’ve brought up so far,

but in Jan 02 the President announces Iraq as part of the access of evil. In May, AZ goes for treatment and stays in Iraq for a number of weeks. In June, the President announces the pre-emptive doctrine.

but suddenly it’s “spin”? :spock:

If you wanna see “spin”, this is “spin” right here.

The timing of these events is too close to pretend that AZ was not responding to the threat vs. leading an already existing AQ movement within Iraq.

:LOL: I’d say “nice spin” right back at’cha but honestly it isn’t nice, it’s just spin and sorta weak paranoid delusional fantasy so that makes it kinda sad. :shake:

Loki
09-07-2005, 12:43 PM
Where/when did Iraq attack the US? :hmmm:

i think you know the answer to that by now ... right?

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 12:59 PM
i think you know the answer to that by now ... right?

I'm guessing you are implying 9/11 but then we know there is no connection so I'm not sure what your deal is.

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 01:03 PM
“Spin”? You’ve agreed with every fact I’ve brought up so far,



but suddenly it’s “spin”? :spock:

If you wanna see “spin”, this is “spin” right here.



:LOL: I’d say “nice spin” right back at’cha but honestly it isn’t nice, it’s just spin and sorta weak paranoid delusional fantasy so that makes it kinda sad. :shake:

It is spin. You and DUHbya are trying to say we went into Iraq because AQ was there. But AQ ended up there because the US was coming.

Therefore the US stating that 'whew it's a good thing we went to Iraq because AQ is there' is akin to firefighters starting five alarm fires and then saying 'whew it's a good thing we were there to fight that fire.' :rolleyes:

Brock
09-07-2005, 01:06 PM
It is spin. You and DUHbya are trying to say we went into Iraq because AQ was there.

Wrong. Iraq sponsored terrorism, and had at least one major terrorist living within its borders.

go bowe
09-07-2005, 01:16 PM
One of my buddies that I talk politics with a lot was drinking with me this weekend. He was telling me about a political talkshow (something like Crossfire, but I don't think that was it) he was watching. On it, the liberal (he classified him as a Chicken little radical who always preaches worst case scenarios) claimed that the reason the insurgency has been quiet lately is that they're planning their "Tet Offensive". We both kind of rolled our eyes and dismissed it, but this news makes me reconsider the validity of the guy's claims.

But hell, let there be a "Tet Offensive." Getting these ****ers out into the open would be a good thing for our boys, I think.i doubt that the leaders of the terrorists are that stupid (to stand and fight like the insurgents sometimes do)...

but they could be considering a coordinated attack across the entire country with large numbers of suicide car and truck bomobers, which might produce the "tet" effect of shocking the american public into demanding an immediate end to the war...

interesting notion, new chief...

never thought of it quite that way...

hope the damned terrorists don't figure this out...

wait, is that duhneese?

shit, they already know... :eek: :eek: :eek:

go bowe
09-07-2005, 01:33 PM
Wrong. Iraq sponsored terrorism, and had at least one major terrorist living within its borders.i might be wrong here, but didn't the terrorism sponsered by iraq target israel and not the u.s. homeland?

and i'm even less sure about this, but wasn't that major terrorist someone who also targeted israel or those assisting israel (which includes western foreign forces in lebanon) and not the u.s. homeland?

there's different kinds of terrorists just like there are different makes of cars...

where's the evidence that iraq sponsered any terrorism against the american homeland (like osama's boys for example)?

that some arab terrorist (read hero to the arab world, including saddam's iraq) took up residence in the country?

how many arab terrorists have taken up residence in other arab countries?

are those countries responsible for 9/11 too?

and what about iran?

iran sponsers a whole lot more terrorism than saddam ever did, it's called hezbollah, isn't it?

so why didn't we attack iran too? or first? or next?

these are just some lingering questions that i have in my underinformed mind... :shrug:

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 01:40 PM
so why didn't we attack iran too? or first? or next?

these are just some lingering questions that i have in my underinformed mind... :shrug:

Or Saudi Arabia? They had more connection to 9/11 than Iraq did...

go bowe
09-07-2005, 01:46 PM
Or Saudi Arabia? They had more connection to 9/11 than Iraq did...and there's oil there too, i've heard... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Brock
09-07-2005, 01:46 PM
i might be wrong here, but didn't the terrorism sponsered by iraq target israel and not the u.s. homeland?

and i'm even less sure about this, but wasn't that major terrorist someone who also targeted israel or those assisting israel (which includes western foreign forces in lebanon) and not the u.s. homeland?

Abu Nidal is known to have entered Iraq in 1999 after being expelled from Libya by Muammar Gadaffi, who was distancing himself from terrorism in an effort to re-establish diplomatic relations with the U.S. and UK after the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which Gadaffi is believed to have commissioned. The Iraqi government later said Abu Nidal had entered the country using a fake Yemeni passport and was not there with their knowledge, but by 2001, at the latest, he was living there openly, in defiance of the Jordanian government, whose state-security court sentenced him in absentia in 2001 to death by hanging for his role in the 1994 assassination of a Jordanian diplomat in Beirut.

On August 19, 2002, al-Ayyam, the official newspaper of the Palestinian Authority, reported that Abu Nidal had died three days earlier of multiple gunshot wounds in his home in the wealthy al-Masbah neighborhood of al-Jadriyah, Baghdad, where the villa he lived in was owned by the Mukhabarat, or Iraqi secret service.

After Abu Nidal's death, a former senior member of the Abu Nidal Organization, Atef Abu Bakr, told journalists that Abu Nidal had orchestrated the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on behalf of Colonel Gadaffi. The flight was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 when a bomb exploded in its forward cargo hold, killing 270 people. A Scottish court convicted Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the former head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, for his role in the attack.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal

It gets real old having to refute the "no ties between Iraq and terrorism" BS. This is the kind of stuff that everyone should already know just by osmosis.

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 02:05 PM
It is spin. You and DUHbya are trying to say we went into Iraq because AQ was there. But AQ ended up there because the US was coming.

Uh, no. Stating that AQ was in Iraq before we arrived is fact, not spin. Try’n to nail down one single reason we went into Iraq is defiantly “spin” though, particularly when multiple reasons were outlined by the POTUS, and posted here previously.

Therefore the US stating that 'whew it's a good thing we went to Iraq because AQ is there' is akin to firefighters starting five alarm fires and then saying 'whew it's a good thing we were there to fight that fire.' :rolleyes:

This analogy only works if AQ isn’t in Iraq before we showed up, they were and you’ve already admitted such. So save the :rolleyes: for someone that might be impressed by it. :rolleyes: :p

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 02:06 PM
Uh, no. Stating that AQ was in Iraq before we arrived is fact, not spin. Try’n to nail down one single reason we went into Iraq is defiantly “spin” though, particularly when multiple reasons were outlined by the POTUS, and posted here previously.



This analogy only works if AQ isn’t in Iraq before we showed up, they were and you’ve already admitted such. So save the :rolleyes: for someone that might be impressed by it. :rolleyes: :p

Actually, according to one of your ilk, we were there and being shot at for decade before. :hmmm:

mlyonsd
09-07-2005, 02:13 PM
Actually, according to one of your ilk, we were there and being shot at for decade before. :hmmm:

I must say I think you over use the word "ilk".

It's not a very common word used in today's modern American culture so it seems out of place when you use it once a day.

Carry on.

Radar Chief
09-07-2005, 02:30 PM
Actually, according to one of your ilk, we were there and being shot at for decade before. :hmmm:

So you next attempt at “spin” is to claim AZ was there ‘cause we patrolled the “No Fly Zones”? :spock:
And just how do you have any inkling as to what “my ilk” would be? You haven’t figured me out much less be able to recognize “my ilk”. :rolleyes:
Or by “ilk” do you just mean some white guy? :hmmm:

Loki
09-07-2005, 03:11 PM
I'm guessing you are implying 9/11 but then we know there is no connection so I'm not sure what your deal is.

*sigh* you guessed wrong.

US Planes were shot at(see ATTACKED) over UN Mandated No fly zones
almost every day for a decade

lemme guess... your definition of "attacked" and my definition of
"attacked" are different... :rolleyes:
(and the fact that our forces were fired upon without returning fire has
no bearing as well.)

side note: the war in iraq was never stated as in connection with 9/11.
afghanistan, however, was.

go bowe
09-07-2005, 08:38 PM
So you next attempt at “spin” is to claim AZ was there ‘cause we patrolled the “No Fly Zones”? :spock:
And just how do you have any inkling as to what “my ilk” would be? You haven’t figured me out much less be able to recognize “my ilk”. :rolleyes:
Or by “ilk” do you just mean some white guy? :hmmm:ilk?

oh, i thought she said elk... :Poke: :Poke: :Poke:

memyselfI
09-07-2005, 09:36 PM
So you next attempt at “spin” is to claim AZ was there ‘cause we patrolled the “No Fly Zones”? :spock:
And just how do you have any inkling as to what “my ilk” would be? You haven’t figured me out much less be able to recognize “my ilk”. :rolleyes:
Or by “ilk” do you just mean some white guy? :hmmm:

Actually, you and your ilk, RWNJs like Iraqi Iowa, are trying to have it both ways. OTOH, you say that Iraq deserved to be invaded because they were firing at our planes for much of the 90's and that was the reason we needed to invade Iraq but OTOH you claim that AZ was there before we got there in 2003 and that was the reason we needed to invade Iraq.

So for AZ to be there before the US got involved in the country he would have had to be there in 1991.

Please clarify which of the two statements you believe is true.

So which is it?

the Talking Can
09-07-2005, 11:55 PM
Wrong. Iraq sponsored terrorism, and had at least one major terrorist living within its borders.

this wouldn't be so fantastically stupid if you were talking about Saudi Arabia....but you're not that honest...

Logical
09-08-2005, 12:32 AM
this wouldn't be so fantastically stupid if you were talking about Saudi Arabia....but you're not that honest...It was actually technically correct, it is just that the terrorists that occupied Iraq went after Israel not the US.

Ugly Duck
09-08-2005, 12:35 AM
Oh, so this is the new fallback reason...seeing that the whole WMD thing didn't pan out? The "multiple reasons" excuse is a buncha hooie. Every one of knows that Bushron could never have sold the Iraq invasion to the congress or to the people without all the bullsh!t about mushroom clouds and drones and yellowcake uranium and mobile biological weapons labs. Now that the lies have been exposed, we see the righties pretending to be all teary-eyed about "freeing the Iraqi people" instead. Wutta buncha bull.

DenverChief
09-08-2005, 01:03 AM
how is this a major setback?

that particular town has been the site of a constant:
1. fight your way in
2. hump back out
3. insurgents retake (because they bugged out)
4. us airstrikes
5. repeat steps 1 - 5

so the marines left... (again)
the insurgents came back, roughed up the local populace, killed the
"collaborators", burned some shops etc etc etc.
airstrikes will come, us forces will move back in (once again) and the
process will be repeated again.

only difference this time is that the insurgents planted a flag.
big deal...:whackit:

the "major setback", if you will, is the misuse of our forces/iraqi forces.
if you're going to take an area, OCCUPY it, then reinforce it. if that
particular town is a crossing point/collection point/logistics point for
foreign fighters... BLOCK the friggin thing. either occupy the thing or
level it. send the army/marines in with a compnay of iraqis. hose it
down good, and plant a battalion of iraqi's to reinforce and hold it. rest
our forces for next op.

we need to start using the iraqi forces to hold key points. sure they're
green, but in enough strength, they can hold an area.

get those fuggers TRAINED... now.


Sounds a lot like Vietnam...we take a hill/village/city and when we leave they come back

Standoff Attacks (http://www.gruntonline.com/TheWar/Tactics/tactics7.htm) As the war progressed, the NVA made increasing use of standoff weapons to attack US installations in 'hit and run' operations utilising rockets, recoilless rifles and mortars.

Saggysack
09-08-2005, 01:09 AM
Wrong. Iraq sponsored terrorism, and had at least one major terrorist living within its borders.

Umm, so did/do we.

Brock
09-08-2005, 06:40 AM
Umm, so did/do we.

Yeah? Are/were they living in government provided housing?

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 06:44 AM
Actually, you and your ilk, RWNJs like Iraqi Iowa, are trying to have it both ways.

Why done’cha just come out and say white guys? That’s what your problem with “my ilk” seems to be, that we’re white and guys. Or does it make you feel better to just call us “white guys” “rednecks”?
Why done’cha just come out and label me with whatever derogatory term helps you cope with being proven wrong, and exposed as spiteful for it. :shrug:

OTOH, you say that Iraq deserved to be invaded because they were firing at our planes for much of the 90's and that was the reason we needed to invade Iraq but OTOH you claim that AZ was there before we got there in 2003 and that was the reason we needed to invade Iraq.

So for AZ to be there before the US got involved in the country he would have had to be there in 1991.

Please clarify which of the two statements you believe is true.

So which is it?

Well, if you really wanna get this “ticky-tacky” where were those planes stationed that patrolled the “no fly zones”? Hmmm? Saudi Arabia maybe, Turkey and Kuwait also? So why didn’t AZ go there, that’s where the Americans were. :hmmm: Can’t have it both ways. ROFL

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 06:46 AM
this wouldn't be so fantastically stupid if you were talking about Saudi Arabia....but you're not that honest...

The "multiple reasons" excuse is a buncha hooie.

What is it ‘bout facts you’re afraid of? ROFL

memyselfI
09-08-2005, 07:13 AM
Why done’cha just come out and say white guys? That’s what your problem with “my ilk” seems to be, that we’re white and guys. Or does it make you feel better to just call us “white guys” “rednecks”?
Why done’cha just come out and label me with whatever derogatory term helps you cope with being proven wrong, and exposed as spiteful for it. :shrug:



Nah, as much as you try to spin this being white and a guy is not the problem. Being an clueless RWNJ lambs is. I know that Jim, UD, KCJones just to name a few are indeed white guys and for the most part not the 'ilk' of which I speak. Also, there are guys on the CONS side who are not complete and total apologists and will point out lunacy when they see it. As did RL the other day when he posted about DUHbya's dream of Trent Lott's porch.

So as much as you, BD and other, have tried to spin this both now, and in the past, it's not about your sex or your color.


As far as Iraq goes, this is a chicken and egg scenario. You will keep moving the goal posts to broaden the potential reasons why the US needed to invade Iraq based on terrorism. I can move them even further and say that if you want to go down this path, the US was meddling and overthrowing goverments and installing dictators back in 50s. Thus, the seeds of terror were sown.

But then that would mean having to accept responsiblity for some of the mistakes WE HAVE MADE and that is unacceptable to some. So we will just pretend that this terror and hatred aimed at us happened in a vaccum...just because we are White, American, Christian...

I see how some RWNJs like to play this victim game. :rolleyes:

memyselfI
09-08-2005, 07:14 AM
The "multiple reasons" excuse is a buncha hooie. Every one of knows that Bushron could never have sold the Iraq invasion to the congress or to the people without all the bullsh!t about mushroom clouds and drones and yellowcake uranium and mobile biological weapons labs. Now that the lies have been exposed, we see the righties pretending to be all teary-eyed about "freeing the Iraqi people" instead. Wutta buncha bull.


Yeah, they are just throwing anything out there hoping something sticks with their lambs. With some of them, it ALL sticks. ROFL

jettio
09-08-2005, 07:20 AM
Yeah? Are/were they living in government provided housing?

Since your info says that this Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad by multiple gunshot wounds, who killed him?

Brock
09-08-2005, 07:39 AM
this wouldn't be so fantastically stupid if you were talking about Saudi Arabia....but you're not that honest...

I'm all for attacking Saudi Arabia. Moreso than Iraq.

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 07:59 AM
Nah, as much as you try to spin this being white and a guy is not the problem. Being an clueless RWNJ lambs is. I know that Jim, UD, KCJones just to name a few are indeed white guys and for the most part not the 'ilk' of which I speak. Also, there are guys on the CONS side who are not complete and total apologists and will point out lunacy when they see it. As did RL the other day when he posted about DUHbya's dream of Trent Lott's porch.

So as much as you, BD and other, have tried to spin this both now, and in the past, it's not about your sex or your color.

So now your attempting to lump me in with BD, do you have any idea of what he, Iowanian and I have in common? I mean other than be’n white and guys? :shrug:
As far as “ilk” goes, I know plenty of liberals that aren’t whiney psychos that bitch just he hear their pea rattle. Amno, Newchief and GoBo are all self-proclaimed liberals that are level headed, reasonable and even when disagreeing can debate in a considerate even witty way. They don’t have the uncontrollable need to be a total jackass like you do. Why is that? What is it your try’n to compensate for? :hmmm:

As far as Iraq goes, this is a chicken and egg scenario. You will keep moving the goal posts to broaden the potential reasons why the US needed to invade Iraq based on terrorism. I can move them even further and say that if you want to go down this path, the US was meddling and overthrowing goverments and installing dictators back in 50s. Thus, the seeds of terror were sown.

But then that would mean having to accept responsiblity for some of the mistakes WE HAVE MADE and that is unacceptable to some. So we will just pretend that this terror and hatred aimed at us happened in a vaccum...just because we are White, American, Christian...

I see how some RWNJs like to play this victim game. :rolleyes:

Like your not try’n to play victim with your every post. This one is a perfect example, this discussion we’re currently engaged in isn’t because I’ve presented you with facts and you’ve attempted to spin, squiggle and deny, oh no it’s because I’m “moving the goal posts”.
Another example, how have I ever claimed we weren’t involved in the ME since before WWII? That terrorism was created “in a vacuum”? Oh that’s right, you’re the “victim” here. I’m just some ole mean “White, American, Christian” that’s pick’n on ya with facts. :rolleyes: ROFL

memyselfI
09-08-2005, 08:34 AM
Like your not try’n to play victim with your every post. This one is a perfect example, this discussion we’re currently engaged in isn’t because I’ve presented you with facts and you’ve attempted to spin, squiggle and deny, oh no it’s because I’m “moving the goal posts”.
Another example, how have I ever claimed we weren’t involved in the ME since before WWII? That terrorism was created “in a vacuum”? Oh that’s right, you’re the “victim” here. I’m just some ole mean “White, American, Christian” that’s pick’n on ya with facts. :rolleyes: ROFL


ROTF, every time I bring up a point you try to use it as you presented it. The only point that you have made that was your own was when you correctly pointed out I had the dates wrong on the actual invasion. But since I've pointed out that Iraqi Iowa maintains that the US has been attacked regularly since the first Gulf War and thus AZ could not have been there since then you seem to be wanting to divert the discussion to 'white guys.' :rolleyes:

All this leads to is the fact that the reasons for the invasion keep changing and the apologists rhetoric for it must as well. If you do a seach you will see that I years ago said the reason the US is a victim of Islamist terror is because of what happened over the past 4 or 5 decades. Now all of a sudden you are admitting that this past is an issue? :hmmm:

Iowanian
09-08-2005, 09:10 AM
Oops...US Troops Kick Major Foreign Terrorist Ass

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168770,00.html
200 Insurgents Nabbed in Iraq; U.S. Convoy Attacked
Thursday, September 08, 2005

TAL AFAR,Iraq — U.S. and Iraqi forces have encircled the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar (search), and the Iraqi military on Thursday announced the arrest of 200 suspected insurgents — most of them foreign fighters.

The Iraqi military said 150 of those arrested Wednesday in this town near the Syrian border were Arabs from Syria, Sudan, Yemen and Jordan (search).

The joint forces have reported heavy battles on the outskirts of the city and several bombings that have mainly killed civilians. Iraqi authorities reported most of the civilian population had fled the city, which is 260 miles north of Baghdad (search) and about 35 miles from the Syrian border.

"Our forces arrested 150 non-Iraqi Arabs yesterday in addition to 50 Iraqi terrorists with fake documents as they were trying to flee the city with the [civilian] families," Iraqi army Capt. Mohammed Ahmed said.

"We ordered the families to evacuate the Sunni neighborhood of Sarai, which is believed to be the main stronghold of the insurgents," Ahmed said

Eight civilians were killed in the city Wednesday by a homicide car bomber at an Iraqi checkpoint, he said. On Thursday, the U.S. military said the combined American-Iraqi force had killed seven insurgents in the past two days.

Tal Afar is 90 percent Turkmen, and 70 percent of them are Sunnis. After the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the United States installed a largely Shiite leadership in the city, including the mayor and much of the police force.

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 09:11 AM
ROTF, every time I bring up a point you try to use it as you presented it. The only point that you have made that was your own was when you correctly pointed out I had the dates wrong on the actual invasion.

‘Cause I’ve presented all these things before, complete with links. Funny thing is, you argued with me when I posted them originally. ROFL Though it is good to see you finally admit I was right, even if you can’t come out and actually say it.

But since I've pointed out that Iraqi Iowa maintains that the US has been attacked regularly since the first Gulf War and thus AZ could not have been there since then you seem to be wanting to divert the discussion to 'white guys.' :rolleyes:


And I pointed out that we weren’t actually “in” Iraq, but I noticed you deleted that portion of my post from your response. What is it you were say’n ‘bout “diversion” again? :rolleyes:

All this leads to is the fact that the reasons for the invasion keep changing and the apologists rhetoric for it must as well. If you do a seach you will see that I years ago said the reason the US is a victim of Islamist terror is because of what happened over the past 4 or 5 decades.

Looks more to me that your reasons for bitch’n is what keeps changing. The reasons (notice that’s plural meaning more than one :rolleyes: ) for invasion have remained the same since before invasion even though you keep attempting to nail down one single reason. I’m assuming that makes it easier for the simple minded to argue. :shrug:

Now all of a sudden you are admitting that this past is an issue? :hmmm:

Please post a quote and link to where I’ve ever said it wasn’t? :hmmm: Or is this just more of that “diversion” your be’n victimized by? :LOL:

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 09:19 AM
Oops...US Troops Kick Major Foreign Terrorist Ass

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168770,00.html
200 Insurgents Nabbed in Iraq; U.S. Convoy Attacked
Thursday, September 08, 2005

TAL AFAR,Iraq — U.S. and Iraqi forces have encircled the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar (search), and the Iraqi military on Thursday announced the arrest of 200 suspected insurgents — most of them foreign fighters.

The Iraqi military said 150 of those arrested Wednesday in this town near the Syrian border were Arabs from Syria, Sudan, Yemen and Jordan (search).


But, but, I thought all insurgents were just “freedom fighters”, how could they be foreign?

Course I probably shouldn’t respond to you, I’ll be accused of being “your ilk”. :rolleyes:
Though I ‘spose it could be worse, I could be Denise’s “ilk”. :eek:

memyselfI
09-08-2005, 09:31 AM
But, but, I thought all insurgents were just “freedom fighters”, how could they be foreign?

Course I probably shouldn’t respond to you, I’ll be accused of being “your ilk”. :rolleyes:
Though I ‘spose it could be worse, I could be Denise’s “ilk”. :eek:

Do a search. I stated the people who were in the insurgency were 1. SH loyalists, 2. Nationalists who do not want the US in their country as well as other Arabs who do not want the US on Arab soil, 3. Iraqi people who have issues with the other groups within the country (those who are trying to start a civil war) and 4. affiliates of various terror groups.

I said that an upcoming insurgency would encompass ALL of these factions. What I did not anticipate is that they would be loosely cooperating with each other. I figured the US would be not only their target but also caught in their crossfire.

It was your side, the RNWJs who at first would not admit there was an insurgency, preferring to call them 'terrorists' for months, and then when you (and the WH/Pentagon) finally could not deny it any longer you started saying it was an insurgency of mostly foreign fighters. Which is also not true. They have found people from other countries in the insurgency but the US has not been able to prove that they are the majority or that this is being done without sufficient support of the Iraqis.

Keep trying. ROFL

Iowanian
09-08-2005, 09:35 AM
ooooooooooopsy poooooooopsy

More dead Al Queda near HIT

Soldier Killed in Accident; Air Strike Destroys Terrorist Safe House

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7, 2005 – One U.S. soldier was killed in a non-combat-related accident at about 6:30 p.m. local time today at Camp Taqaddum, Iraq, military officials reported.

The soldier, assigned to the 56th Brigade Combat Team, was taken to a coalition forces medical treatment facility, where he died of his wounds. The name of the soldier is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

Elsewhere, coalition forces conducted an air strike against an al Qaeda terrorist safe house in the western city of Jaramil Sept 7, further disrupting terrorist sanctuaries and activities in Iraq.

Abu Ali, a senior al Qaeda facilitator of foreign fighters, was believed to be in the house at the time of the strike. Ali has been linked to other al Qaeda terrorists and facilitators in the Hit, al Qaim, Karabilah and Husaybah. Additionally, he had al Qaeda connections in the Mosul area, to include Abu Talha, who was captured in June, and Abu Khallad, who was killed in August.

Abu Ali is also known to have al Qaeda connections in Syria and Saudi Arabia, where most of his foreign fighters were recruited. The foreign fighters he funneled into Iraq, and subsequently sent to various terrorist groups, were used to attack Iraqi citizens, Iraqi security forces and coalition forces.

Coalition air assets, after delivering the precision-guided munitions that destroyed the safe house, observed numerous large secondary explosions, indicating a large cache of weapons that was also destroyed during the air strike.

The type of munitions used and the time of the air strike were selected to decrease the risk to civilians in the local area, officials said.

(Compiled from Multinational Force Iraq news releases.)


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2005/20050907_2641.html

Iowanian
09-08-2005, 09:35 AM
I put the queen TWUNT on iggy. Life is better.

memyselfI
09-08-2005, 09:42 AM
‘Cause I’ve presented all these things before, complete with links. Funny thing is, you argued with me when I posted them originally. ROFL Though it is good to see you finally admit I was right, even if you can’t come out and actually say it.



And I pointed out that we weren’t actually “in” Iraq, but I noticed you deleted that portion of my post from your response. What is it you were say’n ‘bout “diversion” again? :rolleyes:



Looks more to me that your reasons for bitch’n is what keeps changing. The reasons (notice that’s plural meaning more than one :rolleyes: ) for invasion have remained the same since before invasion even though you keep attempting to nail down one single reason. I’m assuming that makes it easier for the simple minded to argue. :shrug:





So we weren't "in" Iraq but the invasion was justified because we were over their airspace? ROFL . I know this little bit of truth completely destroys your notion that terrorists had been in Iraq for long periods of time but it's not true. Clearly, their establishment, organization, and infiltration can be traced to the war in Afghanistan, the subsequent Jan. 2002 axis of evil declaration, the June 2002 'pre-emptive doctrine' speech this along with the fact that the country had been under US military patrol since 1991 and combined with the previous shenanigans the US had perpetrated in the region.

The connection with Afghanistan is important because the origins of AQ were born there in the 80's and under the Reagan administration. Thus, you would be correct in saying that AQ and even AZ were in AFGHANISTAN prior to the US taking military action there but you cannot say that is true about Iraq. No matter how much you spin it.

Finally, you are in complete and utter denial if you do not believe the reasons for this invasion have changed and continue to do so.

memyselfI
09-08-2005, 09:46 AM
I put the queen TWUNT on iggy. Life is better.

Great!

But thanks for pointing out that the US had been engaging in military action with Iraq since 1991. It sure blows a huge hole in the theory that the US needed to invade Iraq because of terrorists. I had completely zoned out that aspect of their rationale. :thumb:

vailpass
09-08-2005, 10:19 AM
Kill Muslim Terorists and all of their supporters. Let the blood flow. Profile them track them , spy on them, find them, eliminate them.

Let's take off our gloves and go for a big finale. A solid month of offensive firepower to lay low the entire border region, stunning the middle east cowards with ruthless deployment of ferocious ordinance in a mannner they thought we would never use due to the political constraints they hide behind.

Deployment to be undertaken at range wherever feasible so as to absolutely minimize exposure of American & Coalition forces. Let our troops fight face-to-face rather than be subjected to IED death as they are not allowed to go on the offensive.

I'm starting to get impatient with losing Americans because we have to play the game their way. Let's allow the military free reign with the objective of neutralizing all resistance and subduing any thought of counter-attack with a display so monstrous all will know they have no chance against our full power.

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 11:57 AM
Do as search. I stated the people who were in the insurgency were 1. SH loyalists, 2. Nationalists who do not want the US in their country as well as other Arabs who do not want the US on Arab soil, 3. Iraqi people who have issues with the other groups within the country (those who are trying to start a civil war) and 4. affiliates of various terror groups.

I said that an upcoming insurgency would encompass ALL of these factions. What I did not anticipate is that they would be loosely cooperating with each other. I figured the US would be not only their target but also caught in their crossfire.

I’m sorry, is your name Iowanain? Was I addressing you with that post? Or you just gotta but in making everything ‘bout you? :rolleyes: ROFL

It was your side, the RNWJs who at first would not admit there was an insurgency, preferring to call them 'terrorists' for months, and then when you (and the WH/Pentagon) finally could not deny it any longer you started saying it was an insurgency of mostly foreign fighters. Which is also not true. They have found people from other countries in the insurgency but the US has not been able to prove that they are the majority or that this is being done without sufficient support of the Iraqis.

Keep trying. ROFL

Maybe you could quote where I’ve ever posted that Iraqis weren’t involved in the insurgency? :shrug:
I’d say “nice deflection” from what Iowanian posted, but it’s again just weak.
Now your try’n to deny call’n them “freedom fighters”?
Keep try’n. ROFL

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 12:11 PM
So we weren't "in" Iraq but the invasion was justified because we were over their airspace? ROFL .

Again, your try’n to nail down a single reason, I thought we covered this already. Meds not kick’n in yet?

I know this little bit of truth completely destroys your notion that terrorists had been in Iraq for long periods of time but it's not true.

Then just how do you explain Answer Al Islam? You know, a terrorist organization linked to Al Quada and Al Zarqawi that had been in Iraq for “long periods of time” prior to our invasion? And you’ve already admitted Al Quada was in Iraq prior to invasion so I’m a little baffled at what you think your arguing here.

Clearly, their establishment, organization, and infiltration can be traced to the war in Afghanistan, the subsequent Jan. 2002 axis of evil declaration, the June 2002 'pre-emptive doctrine' speech this along with the fact that the country had been under US military patrol since 1991 and combined with the previous shenanigans the US had perpetrated in the region.

Now your try’n to lump the entire country of Iraq into two “no fly zones”. I’m see’n a pattern of overgeneralization, is that ‘cause your try’n to make up something more arguable from your weak stance? :hmmm:

The connection with Afghanistan is important because the origins of AQ were born there in the 80's and under the Reagan administration. Thus, you would be correct in saying that AQ and even AZ were in AFGHANISTAN prior to the US taking military action there but you cannot say that is true about Iraq. No matter how much you spin it.

Uh, we’ve already covered this and you admitted that AZ was in Iraq prior to our invasion. :spock: Seriously, you feel’n alright?

Finally, you are in complete and utter denial if you do not believe the reasons for this invasion have changed and continue to do so.

Tell ya what, once you’ve recovered some sanity, and short term memory, why don’t you post how reasons for invasion have “changed”, I’ll dig up what the POTUS outlined in two speeches that I’ve already quoted here before, and we’ll see where the differences are. Deal? :shrug:

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 12:41 PM
I put the queen TWUNT on iggy. Life is better.

I’m glad that works for you, but I’d never skip out on the opportunity to point out what a psycho head case she is. Besides that’s what she wants, to think she chased you off.

Great!

See.

Iowanian
09-08-2005, 12:45 PM
If dense were a dog, she'd crap on her own Frisby and then bitch about the bad taste in her mouth when you took her out to play.

Chief Henry
09-08-2005, 01:06 PM
If dense were a dog, she'd crap on her own Frisby and then bitch about the bad taste in her mouth when you took her out to play.


Dogs are a mans best friend. You just insulted dogs all over the world.

|Zach|
09-08-2005, 01:08 PM
If dense were a dog, she'd crap on her own Frisby and then bitch about the bad taste in her mouth when you took her out to play.
Dude, you're obsessed.

Iowanian
09-08-2005, 01:12 PM
No Zach...I'm free.

Be sure to take a piece of gum if you're going to be chewing on her frisby.

|Zach|
09-08-2005, 01:17 PM
No Zach...I'm free.

Be sure to take a piece of gum if you're going to be chewing on her frisby.
I would rather her not be here...thats why I don't invoke her name on such a consistant basis baiting her and trying to get her to respond and seeking out her posts. Alot of the actions of you and others have only made her post more. Which...alot of times sucks...ya know what im saying?

BIG_DADDY
09-08-2005, 01:28 PM
If dense were a dog, she'd crap on her own Frisby and then bitch about the bad taste in her mouth when you took her out to play.

Dude, don't insult dogs like that. If meme were drowning and I could save her I would just wave goodbye and and throw a party.

Iowanian
09-08-2005, 01:39 PM
I would rather her not be here...thats why I don't invoke her name on such a consistant basis baiting her and trying to get her to respond and seeking out her posts. Alot of the actions of you and others have only made her post more. Which...alot of times sucks...ya know what im saying?

I'm probably too close to the situation...I've got too many family and friends, over there, doing the fighting....and it pisses me off....alot, when the ditchpig and pals constantly Teehee about insurgent "victories".


I've got some doozie stories I wish I could share, of what some of our guys are going through, and the things they shake off, to go kick some ass....only to find themselves scolded for not being nice enough, to terrorists who just killed thier friends...And Then I come here.

I just probably shouldn't.

BIG_DADDY
09-08-2005, 02:05 PM
I'm probably too close to the situation...I've got too many family and friends, over there, doing the fighting....and it pisses me off....alot, when the ditchpig and pals constantly Teehee about insurgent "victories".


I've got some doozie stories I wish I could share, of what some of our guys are going through, and the things they shake off, to go kick some ass....only to find themselves scolded for not being nice enough, to terrorists who just killed thier friends...And Then I come here.

I just probably shouldn't.

Amen brother.

Chiefnj
09-08-2005, 02:33 PM
I haven't read through this entire thread, but if a town is taken over by Al Queda doesn't it make life easier for the military to take them out with a few pushes of buttons and some tomahawk missiles? Seems easier than chasing them through the mountains one at a time.

memyselfI
09-08-2005, 02:42 PM
Maybe you could quote where I’ve ever posted that Iraqis weren’t involved in the insurgency? :shrug:
I’d say “nice deflection” from what Iowanian posted, but it’s again just weak.
Now your try’n to deny call’n them “freedom fighters”?
Keep try’n. ROFL

Dude, if you didn't say it, fine. I'm not really finding this important enough to do a search. I apologize if I lumped you into the RWNJs who have been in denial about the elements of the insurgency and of them being the factions that I previously listed. I'll trust you are being honest in stating you have always believed Iraqis were involved in the insurgency and not merely infiltrating foreign 'terrorists.'

And FTR, I don't consider the insurgents 'freedom fighters.' I've said the IRAQIS might. I've also said 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' I think you are mixing up quotes and expecting me to defend something I've not said...

seems we are both guilty of that, eh?

BIG_DADDY
09-08-2005, 02:55 PM
I haven't read through this entire thread, but if a town is taken over by Al Queda doesn't it make life easier for the military to take them out with a few pushes of buttons and some tomahawk missiles? Seems easier than chasing them through the mountains one at a time.

MOAB

BIG_DADDY
09-08-2005, 02:59 PM
Dude, if you didn't say it, fine. I'm not really finding this important enough to do a search. I apologize if I lumped you into the RWNJs who have been in denial about the elements of the insurgency and of them being the factions that I previously listed. I'll trust you are being honest in stating you have always believed Iraqis were involved in the insurgency and not merely infiltrating foreign 'terrorists.'

And FTR, I don't consider the insurgents 'freedom fighters.' I've said the IRAQIS might. I've also said 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' I think you are mixing up quotes and expecting me to defend something I've not said...

seems we are both guilty of that, eh?

The context of which you have used your freedom fighter line is completely different than how your posting it here. People were asking how you can support terrorists when you used the one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter line. I can't believe how deceptive you are from outright lying like when you said you would never post here to completely misleading statements like this. You have zero integrity.

Radar Chief
09-08-2005, 03:26 PM
Dude, if you didn't say it, fine. I'm not really finding this important enough to do a search. I apologize if I lumped you into the RWNJs who have been in denial about the elements of the insurgency and of them being the factions that I previously listed. I'll trust you are being honest in stating you have always believed Iraqis were involved in the insurgency and not merely infiltrating foreign 'terrorists.'

And FTR, I don't consider the insurgents 'freedom fighters.' I've said the IRAQIS might. I've also said 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' I think you are mixing up quotes and expecting me to defend something I've not said...

seems we are both guilty of that, eh?

If I hadn’t read it myself, I’d never know that you could be a reasonable person when ya want to be and that’s kinda sad. You're doing yourself a disservice by having everyone else think you’re actually the person you portray yourself as here.
Anyway, have a good weekend.

memyselfI
09-08-2005, 04:26 PM
If I hadn’t read it myself, I’d never know that you could be a reasonable person when ya want to be and that’s kinda sad. You're doing yourself a disservice by having everyone else think you’re actually the person you portray yourself as here.
Anyway, have a good weekend.

Well thank you for allowing me to clarify. I know some people would like to continue to portray me saying that 'terrorists are freedom fighters' (take note: that sentence will be cut and pasted or otherwise referenced as being I actually said it) but I have pointed out that the Sandanistas thought the Contras were terrorists while we considered them freedom fighters. Hence, the primary American example of the 'one man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter' principle.

Iowanian
09-10-2005, 10:06 PM
Ooops..........Payback is a bitch

Air strike destroys terror consultant's safe house
Multi-National Force-Iraq

BAGHDAD , Iraq – Coalition Air Forces destroyed an al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist safe house in the Ubaydi, in western Iraq Sept. 10. This attack disrupts al-Qaida in Iraq 's ability to conduct operations against Iraqi Security and Coalition Forces.

A senior al-Qaida terror consultant and foreign fighter facilitator known as “Sheik” is believed to have been in the house at the time of the attack. Sheik has been linked to other senior al-Qaida in Iraq terrorists and foreign fighter facilitators operating throughout the Euphrates Valley . Intelligence sources confirmed that Sheik was specifically brought in to the Husaybah area to consult with Abu Islam (the recently deceased Emir) and Abu Ibrahim (Islam's brother and successor) on managing terror operations in the area.

Sheik has been known to have extensive connections throughout the Middle East to include Yemen , Morocco , Saudi Arabia , Kuwait and Syria . From those countries his connections recruited and financed foreign fighters who were later smuggled into Iraq , usually through Syria , and subsequently delivered to various terrorist groups in western Iraq .

Coalition air assets delivered precision guided munitions to destroy the house. The type of munitions used and the timing of the air strike lowered the risk to civilians in the local area.

Iowanian
09-10-2005, 10:07 PM
Ooops........glad I wasn't camping with these donkey pokers

Iraqi, US Troops Launch Major Offensive in Tal Afar
By VOA News
10 September 2005


Iraqi forces, supported by American troops, have launched a major offensive against insurgents in the northwestern city of Tal Afar, and the government has warned it is ready to go after terrorists in four other cities.

Days of clashes and U.S. airstrikes preceded the offensive, which began early Saturday. Many of Tal Afar's ethnic Turkmen residents had already fled ahead of the fighting.

Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi said troops had killed 141 insurgents and captured nearly 200 in the city. He also warned the residents of Ramadi, Samarra, Rawa and Qaim that their cities would be next, saying "there will be no refuge for the terrorists, criminals and bloodsuckers."

Taco John
09-10-2005, 10:11 PM
I'm probably too close to the situation...I've got too many family and friends, over there, doing the fighting....and it pisses me off....alot, when the ditchpig and pals constantly Teehee about insurgent "victories".




I, for one, would never Teehee about an enemy victory. I will, however, point out the incompetence of the leadership as it pops up and continue to point it out until it either improves or is changed. I don't care if that makes me unpopular with the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd. That crowd is just as bad as Dense from my perspective, and just as big a detriment to the security of our nation.

How Donald Rumsfeld still has a job is mystifying. If I was as inept at my job, I wouldn't have one.

Logical
09-10-2005, 10:16 PM
Iowanian, you really have turned into the polar opposite of DEnise, her exact opposite in fact. You both don't warrant reading half the time, I guess you should be proud now the board has memyselfI and Imyselfme what a pair you two make.

Iowanian
09-10-2005, 10:19 PM
**** you Jim.

go bowe
09-10-2005, 10:20 PM
* * *
As far as “ilk” goes, I know plenty of liberals that aren’t whiney psychos that bitch just he hear their pea rattle. Amno, Newchief and GoBo are all self-proclaimed liberals that are level headed, reasonable and even when disagreeing can debate in a considerate even witty way. They don’t have the uncontrollable need to be a total jackass like you do. Why is that? What is it your try’n to compensate for? :hmmm:
* * *hold on now...

i've never admitted to being a liberal, because i'm not... :cuss:

i'm one of those spineless moderates that changes his opinion when confronted with reasoned arguments based on persuasive evidence... :harumph:

but like vlad, on most social issues, i'm probably a little left of center... :eek:

mostly i just like to poke fun at everyone if i can, especially those who are a little, shall we say, extreme in their views... :fire:

but thanks for the kinds words anyway... :D :D :D

Logical
09-10-2005, 10:22 PM
**** you Jim.ROFLROFLROFL

Taco John
09-10-2005, 10:25 PM
**** you Jim.


I'll prove he's right with one simple question...


What mistakes do you believe this Administration has made in the execution of this war?

Taco John
09-10-2005, 10:29 PM
I'd give you a real test and ask for three, but come on! You're going to have a hard enough admitting one, let alone three.

Iowanian
09-10-2005, 10:33 PM
Many things. I'm no Blind Bush Lover....I'm a heavy supporter of our military though.

I think the administration would have been better served to put less emphasis on the wmd..though I do believe, that they believed they were there, as intelligence(confirmed by Clinton) suggested.

I think They should have Pressured Turkey harder and convinced them to allow the 4th ID to come in from the north, and cut off the back door alot of the insurgents Used....and finished the military phase quicker....and possibly cut back on the bullshit we're fighting now.

I think there should have been better planning for the second phase.

I think they made a serious clusterfug out of Fallujah the first time the Marines were in, and half done.....for political reasons, taking the boot of our Marines off the throat of those bastards....and give them a false sense of victory.
How many more do you want?




Good luck getting 3 things the Military..let alone the admin has done right from Jaz, jettio or the queen of the ditchpigs.

Iowanian
09-10-2005, 10:35 PM
I'd give you a real test and ask for three, but come on! You're going to have a hard enough admitting one, let alone three.

mmm mmmm

really?

ooooopsy pooopsy eh Donkey?

Logical
09-10-2005, 10:41 PM
Iowanian on the road to recovery and we can thank Dr. Taco John. Kudos TJ I knww Iowantian had it in him.:clap:

Iowanian
09-10-2005, 10:45 PM
vlad, T@co et al......Your turn.

List 3 things the Admin has done RIGHT in Iraq.

Taco John
09-10-2005, 10:47 PM
Ok... fair enough...

Do you believe in this war? I don't. I think we are sacrificing American Soldiers there. I guess I should say it differently... I see it as a gamble. I think we are putting our soldiers lives at risk on a gamble.

I think you know that I stand behind our troops. I came from a military family on my Mom's side. I, like many others, have anscestors who did their part for thier country and did what they could to put me into the position that I am today. I'm thankful for that, and am glad that thier sacrifice paid off.

I'm a believer in the principles of the Monroe Doctrine because I support the troops. We shouldn't be making gambles on other nations. If Iraq falls into civil war, we fall with them. That's poor.

I was for US intervention in Iraq, but not like this cluster****. It's sickening to me to the point of wanting to puke that we didn't have operatives that could lead us directly to the facilities where WMDs were being kept. I'm incredulous about it. Largely because of this, I see Bush as a fraud. I don't care what Clinton says. Period. And neither do you, until it makes Bush's case look better. If I'm President, I'm not going to war unless I KNOW that I'll have the country behind me. The fact that America is where it is today is DIRECTLY related to incompetent leadership.

But then, I don't believe the reasons we are in Iraq has anything to do with what is on the table. I believe it's about greed. I belive our soldiers lives are being gambled on out of greed. It's a striaght up money play.

I support the troops, and thank them for their service. I don't support the gamble though. I'm sorry that we have troops dying for people of another country/culture who don't appreciate that sacrifice. I pray that the gamble pays off somehow, and all these deaths aren't in vain.

Do you believe in this war?

go bowe
09-10-2005, 10:49 PM
Many things. I'm no Blind Bush Lover....I'm a heavy supporter of our military though.

I think the administration would have been better served to put less emphasis on the wmd..though I do believe, that they believed they were there, as intelligence(confirmed by Clinton) suggested.

I think They should have Pressured Turkey harder and convinced them to allow the 4th ID to come in from the north, and cut off the back door alot of the insurgents Used....and finished the military phase quicker....and possibly cut back on the bullshit we're fighting now.

I think there should have been better planning for the second phase.

I think they made a serious clusterfug out of Fallujah the first time the Marines were in, and half done.....for political reasons, taking the boot of our Marines off the throat of those bastards....and give them a false sense of victory.
How many more do you want?




Good luck getting 3 things the Military..let alone the admin has done right from Jaz, jettio or the queen of the ditchpigs.i don't know about ditch pigs, but i can name three things off the top of my head that the military/admin. have done right in irag...

they planned and executed brilliantly a military plan to defeat the iraqi army and sieze control of baghdad...

they have provided sufficient security that there have been successful elections and most of the iraqi factions are engaged in a political process as a result of that security...

they have done a great deal in the effort to rebuild the country's infrastructure at the local level...

and, for good measure, they have consistently kicked ass whenever the opportunity has presented itself...

there are a lot of stupid dead insurgents (those that chose to stand and fight at any time)...

and it sounds like from those articles that you posted iowanian that there's now a lot of smart dead insurgents/terrorists too... :thumb:

Taco John
09-10-2005, 10:56 PM
I will say this... You have a Brother over there whose life is being gambled with. If you support that, that's cool by me. I can respect that. And God Bless him...

I, however, am thankful my brother got out before things went down. I don't want to lose my brother to a gamble.

I feel immense sorrow for those who have lost their loved ones, and wander in confusion wondering "what for?"

I wish there was a good answer that a real leader could give them... One that America was behind and believed in on the whole... Real leadership would have been able to accomplish that. I truly believe that.

Logical
09-10-2005, 10:59 PM
vlad, T@co et al......Your turn.

List 3 things the Admin has done RIGHT in Iraq.

Prep for Shcok and Awe

Shock and Awe itself

The taking of Saddam

Iowanian
09-10-2005, 11:00 PM
Iowanian on the road to recovery and we can thank Dr. Taco John. Kudos TJ I knww Iowantian had it in him.:clap:

Its not like there haven't been and aren't enough people on here, and the street Bitching with a bullhorn. I can focus just fine, on the Successes our TROOPS are having in Iraq.....It doesn't have much to do with "the govt" for me these days....weeks...months.

It usually seems to me, that the nutjobs bitching the loudest really don't know jack shit about whats really happening over there, beyond some talking points from CNN or DU.

I want our Guys to Kill every shady futher mucker over there, while they sleep....before they have a chance to kill or harm any of OUR guys. If the run over some Iraqi Kittens, or kick a terrorist in the face along the way, I could give a shit less. If Radical Shiites are picking off a few radical Sunni.....and vica versa....I could give a shit less....They're all assholes.

alanm
09-10-2005, 11:17 PM
So you next attempt at “spin” is to claim AZ was there ‘cause we patrolled the “No Fly Zones”? :spock:
And just how do you have any inkling as to what “my ilk” would be? You haven’t figured me out much less be able to recognize “my ilk”. :rolleyes:
Or by “ilk” do you just mean some white guy? :hmmm:
Deknees racist???? Nah... :rolleyes:

Taco John
09-10-2005, 11:25 PM
It usually seems to me, that the nutjobs bitching the loudest really don't know jack shit about whats really happening over there, beyond some talking points from CNN or DU.


Given that I don't believe in this war anymore, I don't think it matters what's happening over there. The fact that we're there in the capacity that we are disturbs me. But don't let that confuse you to think that I don't pay attention to what's happening over there. I definitely do. I'm happy for our victories. I'm saddened and outraged by our defeats.

As far as what this Administration has done right over there, I would say precious little. I thought Shock and Awe was a bust that penalized the civilians just as much as it did anyone else. I'd have been more impressed if we killed Saddam on that first night/week. I thought we went in with far too little troop strength, putting our guys in more trouble than they needed, and again penalizing the civilian population by not providing order with enough boots on the ground.

The capture of Saddaam is great, but I'd have rather seen him dead. But Kudos for catching him anyway...

But I'm supposed to be coming up with things that Bush has done right over there.

Taking down the statue was a stroke of brilliance. That was a keystone moment that marked the end of Saddam's rule. There's one the Admnistration got right.

Putting Colin Powell on the Cabinet was a good move, however, I would criticize the fact that he didn't put him on as secretary of defense. But then, I don't personally believe he had much choice in that matter. I think the big kids pretty much told him how that was going to go down... soooo... back to what he did right...

I like the appointment of John Bolton to the UN. It has little to do with Iraq, but I find the UN to be a joke... a circus... and who better to send to the circus but a clown? I'm 100% in favor of it...

But... back to what decisions that the Bush admin made in Iraq that were right... This is harder than I thought. I really think that the leadership has been that bad. I could throw out some token crap, but it wouldn't be meaningful.

While I think the decision-making pretty much from start to finish has been bad, the boots on the ground have executed with precision.

I'd have an easier time coming up with stuff if we had clear objectives. We faild at locating WMDs, and they apparently weren't there to begin with... So I can't give any kudos for that...

I do give Kudos for catching Saddam, and killing his sons... Though I wish that Saddam was peeling the flesh off their backs in hell right now... as I'm sure you do. I do give Kudos for the symbolic downing of Saddam. That was brilliant. The elections were good too, though I'd say our military deserves more credit for that than Bush, but it was under his watch, so Kudos.

So I came up with three, directly related to clear objectives.

If there were more clear objectives, I could come up with more.

So why are we there again?

Taco John
09-10-2005, 11:38 PM
This thread has a good peek at exactly why I feel this war is such a gamble and is so messed up... Particularly post #8.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=122500


Also, I will add that before the War in Iraq, I believed Bush was well on his way to getting his face carved in Mt. Rushmore. I was very much behind him after 9/11, and despite early reservations, came onboard fully and completely on Iraq when Powell gave his speech to the UN on WMDs.

I wish I could find the Mt Rushmore post, but unfortunately the server jumps have jacked up the search engine.

Brock
09-11-2005, 03:25 PM
Iowanian, you really have turned into the polar opposite of DEnise, her exact opposite in fact.

Meaning he's right 100 percent of the time?

Radar Chief
09-12-2005, 06:59 AM
I'd give you a real test and ask for three, but come on! You're going to have a hard enough admitting one, let alone three.

Biggest three as I see it.
1. Completely disbanding the Iraq military. We had one battalion of Elite Republican Guard surrender to us, then the rest saw how we disarmed them and sent’em home without pay or a job or any hope of one any time in the near future, the rest of the military evaporated into the populace and many became insurgents rather than “surrender”.
2. First assault on Falluja should’ve been the only one needed. But no, we pulled back for whatever ridiculous reasons and, besides not getting Al Sadre which was the stated mission, emboldened insurgents throughout the country with our weakness.
3. Not reinforcing the initial ground assault with enough troops to secure more of the infrastructure. It’s obvious that the there was more than enough fire power and troops for the invasion, but directly after Baghdad fell, they should’ve been reinforced with more troops to guard power and water stations. Course this is relative and might not be as big a problem without failure #1 of my list.

Do I need to go on?

Radar Chief
09-12-2005, 07:12 AM
Many things. I'm no Blind Bush Lover....I'm a heavy supporter of our military though.

I think the administration would have been better served to put less emphasis on the wmd..though I do believe, that they believed they were there, as intelligence(confirmed by Clinton) suggested.

I think They should have Pressured Turkey harder and convinced them to allow the 4th ID to come in from the north, and cut off the back door alot of the insurgents Used....and finished the military phase quicker....and possibly cut back on the bullshit we're fighting now.

I think there should have been better planning for the second phase.

I think they made a serious clusterfug out of Fallujah the first time the Marines were in, and half done.....for political reasons, taking the boot of our Marines off the throat of those bastards....and give them a false sense of victory.
How many more do you want?




Good luck getting 3 things the Military..let alone the admin has done right from Jaz, jettio or the queen of the ditchpigs.

Everyone with actual information/intelligence into the situation agrees that there’s still a crap load of stuff missing, like the 3.9 tons of VX for example, with no reasonable/verifiable explanation as to where it went. Deulfer and Blix both agree on this.
But otherwise it looks like we’re pretty close.

BigOlChiefsfan
09-12-2005, 08:35 AM
http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/09/border_wars_v_o.php

Loki
09-12-2005, 09:21 AM
Sounds a lot like Vietnam...we take a hill/village/city and when we leave they come back

Standoff Attacks (http://www.gruntonline.com/TheWar/Tactics/tactics7.htm) As the war progressed, the NVA made increasing use of standoff weapons to attack US installations in 'hit and run' operations utilising rockets, recoilless rifles and mortars.

sounds like a lot of battles we've fought, and have been fought throughout time...

one would think we'd learn our lessons in war.
go all out or don't go at all.

Loki
09-12-2005, 09:56 AM
Kill Muslim Terorists and all of their supporters. Let the blood flow. Profile them track them , spy on them, find them, eliminate them.

Let's take off our gloves and go for a big finale. A solid month of offensive firepower to lay low the entire border region, stunning the middle east cowards with ruthless deployment of ferocious ordinance in a mannner they thought we would never use due to the political constraints they hide behind.

Deployment to be undertaken at range wherever feasible so as to absolutely minimize exposure of American & Coalition forces. Let our troops fight face-to-face rather than be subjected to IED death as they are not allowed to go on the offensive.

I'm starting to get impatient with losing Americans because we have to play the game their way. Let's allow the military free reign with the objective of neutralizing all resistance and subduing any thought of counter-attack with a display so monstrous all will know they have no chance against our full power.
holy wood batman!
yes robin... a chilling oration.

despite the wonderful idea (that's shared by many...) this will never
happen. this nation seems to have a weak stomach and unrealistic
expectations while placing restraints on our forces operations... AGAIN.

9/11 SHOULD have been the final straw for the entire nation as a whole.
the last time our nation rose up as a whole and SMOTE some pissant
nation that thought they could f*ck with the eagle was DEC 7th 1941.
our grandfathers rose up and fought those fuggers right back to their
home turf, nuked them twice, and FORCED a surrender that has never
been challenged by the japanese since. in fact now, we're allies.

what happened to the sacrifice and determination our grandfathers had,
and our forefathers before them who took up arms to create our great
nation?

those who still think there is some diplomatic solution after seeing the
enemy's RESOLVE in this 30+ year fight doom our response. this
complacent nation shows it's weakness to our new enemies by trying
to micromanage our troops observance of rules, while the enemy follows
NONE...
pathetic. :shake:





sorry grandpa...