Bring on the Virgins!
I often snicker when I hear of an Islamic extremist who has murdered people, getting knocked off. They are told they'll be greeted with dozens of virgins in heaven (which by the way is some of the worst sex you can have...I've heard).
I only wish I could see the look on their face when they are in fact greeted properly, wherever they end up. Yesterday, al-Zarkawi got his chance.
According to the Pentagon, only about 2 to 3% of the attacks in Iraq are actually coming from foreign al-Qaeda. Most are from Iraqis who want the U.S. out. We will now get to see how accurate this theory is, and whether or not the attacks will slow down now that a major Al Qaeda leader has been snuffed.
I only wish I could see the look on their face when they are in fact greeted properly, wherever they end up. Yesterday, al-Zarkawi got his chance.
According to the Pentagon, only about 2 to 3% of the attacks in Iraq are actually coming from foreign al-Qaeda. Most are from Iraqis who want the U.S. out. We will now get to see how accurate this theory is, and whether or not the attacks will slow down now that a major Al Qaeda leader has been snuffed.
posted by Jeremy at 9:39 AM
14 Comments:
You mean the Same Zarqawi that was mentioned operating in Iraq in the UN speech from Colin Powell prior to the invasion ? The same Al Queda Leader in Iraq ? You mention 2 to 3% of foreign Al Queda, but don't even mention the Al Queda operating in Iraq that are not foriegn. It's crazy how you rationalize this war as if it's the Normal everyday farming Iraqi who are fighting us, and not radical islamic militants who would be fighting us no matter where we invaded.
You mean the Same Zarqawi that was mentioned operating in Iraq in the UN speech from Colin Powell prior to the invasion ? The same Al Queda Leader in Iraq ? You mention 2 to 3% of foreign Al Queda, but don't even mention the Al Queda operating in Iraq that are not foriegn. It's crazy how you rationalize this war as if it's the Normal everyday farming Iraqi who are fighting us, and not radical islamic militants who would be fighting us no matter where we invaded.
Anonymous, I don't think Jeremy rationalizes this war at all. Most of us here can't find a rationalization if someone paid us millions to do so.
you're right, someone could pay you billions, and you still wouldn't get it.
What I'm saying here is you guys are so vehement on making sure that everyone believes we are just fighting "freedom Fighters who are just fighting for their country" in Iraq, and thats the big picture. You want everyone to believe that we are the big bad guys who are there to rape the land, kill innocent people and bully the world. When thats not the big picture at all.You are doing a good job making people believe that, or someone is making a good job making you believe that. Point is, Al Zaqawri was mentioned as a reason to go into this war with Iraq.He was the Al Queda leader in Iraq prior to and after the invasion. Deny it all you want for political purposes. Your hatred for Bush trumps all reason.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow. Typical, personal assault by a radical right. You're all so predictable.
At the present time, I think we're fighting a throng of millions of insurgents and terrorists, all of whom are a threat to the peace of the entire world, and most of whom wouldn't exist were it not for our less-than-stellar foreign policies. America doesn't make fundamentalist Islamists, but it sure can fan the flames. I believe everyone is responsible for his/her own actions. On September 11, 2001, I believe that 19 hateful, religiously misguided men took the lives of 3,000 Americans, and that the base of their disgusting plot was Afghanistan (not Iraq), their leader Osama bin Laden (not Sadaam Hussein). The fact that we failed to finish the mission in Afghanistan (which in my mind is completely justified) before invading another country is testament to the administration's warmongering, and that can't be defended.
I don't hate Bush. I hate his policies and his unwillingness to admit to mistakes. Save your assumptions for someone who won't defend herself.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted by me pointing out that you don't understand my point of view and the reality of our situation.
911 proved that no matter what, the islamic militants will attack us. They were unprovoked. They hate infidels and want to rid the world of us, and by us fighting them can't make them hate us anymore. It's not like they up the level of hatred everytime we try to attack them.It's a silly arguement to say that by reacting to a war they started makes them madder and we should just stop fighting them and leave them alone and understand them. That snot reality. We could bring every soldier home, build a giant wall, stop trading with other countries, stop giving billions of Aid to everyone out there and isolate ourselves, and they would still hate us and try to attack us and terrorizing the world. All you are doing is stating that 911 was justified, because we fanned the flames of their movement. Thats absolute nonsense.
We are still fighting in Afghanistan, we are still trying to find and kill Osama. We are fighting Al Queda and are very successful at it. Seriously, we have decimated their ranks. To say, by fighting our enemy, it only makes them stronger and us weaker is a defeatist attitude.
I know you and the parrots here want to believe that all consevatives think Saddam was tied to 911. Sorry, but thats not how it really is. Some people aren't articulate enough to branch the arguement out a bit . The complex war which we are in in Iraq is tied to Terrorism, not 911 .To make it as simple as can be. We need a foothold in a part of the world, which you agree, is the hot bed of people who want to kill all of us.Now, I know every country in the region has terrorist ties. Why not attack them ? Simple, Iraq was on the chopping block for the past twelve years, so lets go with the easiest target .Saddam was due to be taken down, hard part done. We decide to set up shop and continue our war against terrorism and Iraq is the battle ground. There was going to be a battle ground somewhere and Iraq was the best option for that. Sitting back and doing nothing was not an option.
Now, mistakes were made, Bush has stated that many times.Same with Blair. It's impossible to have a war and not make mistakes. Seriously, I bet you make mistakes all the time, and you most likely have less at stake in your daily routine.
I'm not assuming anything. I have my finger on the pulse of what drives you guys.
It's not normal everyday Iraqis that are fighting us. Its former Bathists, former Iraqi army solders that had no options after we disbanded their army and said they couldn't join the current joke of an army they have now. It's Sunni’s afraid of a new Iraqi where they're the clear minority. Yes there are Islamists in Iraqi but they seem more interested in sectarian scores to settle and civil war than killing American...oops "coalition" Solders. Get your head out of your ass dude. Yeah it's the same Zarqawi that the administration tried to use to connect Saddam and Al Qaeda. That went well. The same Zarqawi touted by the American government as a leader of the opposition so another prewar intelligence failure could be answered. That we’d be treated as liberators. It's not the Iraqi's it's foreign fighters. Right.
You are right we started in Afghanistan. Why didn’t we finish? Why did we use Afghan warlords to try to find our “enemy” when we knew full well they had their own agenda? Why is the Taliban still a player in that country? Who gives us the worldly power to decide where we’re going to fight this “enemy”?
Why can we ignore international law? Because we were attacked?
I’m sure we’d let the Israelis use that logic. Or the N. Koreans, or China…right? Maybe if tibetian terroists attack Hong Kong we'll let them fight it out in Seoul...or LA...either im sure.
It's the same Al Zarqawi who we used to connect IRAQ to TERRORISM. It did work well, because it was true. We just killed the leader of Al Queda in Iraq, and it was proven he was there before the war. Thank you for helping me prove my point. The pre-war intelligence on that subject was correct.
I too am not 100% happy with the whole way this thing is going.That doesn't mean I wasn't for going there in the first place. I wish they would have just told the truth and said " Hey, look we are finally going to take the giant US mistake called Saddam out of power. We are going to do this because we need a foot hold in the part of the world to fight our enemy or the world is doomed.It's the only place in the region were we have any type of reason to set up shop. You know, the resolutions, not complying with WMD destruction, Shooting at UN planes,terrorists operating in Iraq thing ? Yeah, well its' the best we have and we need a center to work from."...
We are still fighting in Afghanistan, why are you acting like we've given up ? Have you not learned through our history that we can hold numerous battle fields and still prevail ? Who said this was easy ?
"I'm sorry if you feel insulted by me pointing out that you don't understand my point of view and the reality of our situation."
I'm not insulted by your unfounded jabs. I'm merely intrigued by your blind following.
"911 proved that no matter what, the islamic militants will attack us. They were unprovoked."
I don't consider 9/11 a defensive jihad, which is, as Michael Schuer says in his book Imperial Hubris, the most typical kind of jihad. I do, however, consider it a result of our occupation in the Middle East over the last decade+ and our immovable support for Israel. Was the attack warranted? Uh, no. Was the attack deserved? Uh, hell no.
"All you are doing is stating that 911 was justified, because we fanned the flames of their movement."
The vicious murder of 3,000 people can't be justified in any age, any language, or any universe. Again, your assumptions are infinite in their stupidity.
"We are fighting Al Queda and are very successful at it. Seriously, we have decimated their ranks. To say, by fighting our enemy, it only makes them stronger and us weaker is a defeatist attitude."
We aren't successful according to those who are in the ranks on the front lines, and they know a hell of a lot more about the situation than you do. I'm not saying we're weaker because we're fighting our enemy. I'm saying we're fighting the WRONG enemy, and you can call that what you will.
"Simple, Iraq was on the chopping block for the past twelve years, so lets go with the easiest target."
You're right--Iraq was the easiest target. Their military had never recovered from the Gulf War, their WMD and biological weapons programs were defunct, and Sadaam was delusional about the fact that we were actually going to invade. A: How brave of us to select the weakest target when we're the biggest, baddest country in the world. B: How illogical of us to select the weakest target, when Iran and North Korea were bigger threats then and are still. C: How wrong we were to select the weakest target, when the number of insurgent attacks in the country have sky-rocketed since our occupation there.
"Seriously, I bet you make mistakes all the time, and you most likely have less at stake in your daily routine."
I make mistakes CONSTANTLY. In fact, I'm making a mistake now, taking your bait. The two major differences are A: I can admit to my mistakes and do so, and B: My mistakes aren't killing and wounding thousands of our brave soldiers. I tend to take those kinds of mistakes a little more seriously.
"I have my finger on the pulse of what drives you guys."
Here's a shocker for you, know-it-all anonymous: I'm actually conservative. So much for your finger.
You are not Conservative.
I don't know it all.
We could not set up shop in Iran,NK or any other country you mentioned. Iraq was the only choice.The "insurgency " attacks skyrocketed, because we are in a war. How silly do you sound. Attacks skyrocketed because thats th definition of War. You are lost on this topic. A conservative should understand that if they use that kind of logic they look like an idiot.
What Commanders are yo utalkign about ? The personnel on the ground don't agree with you. They are positive about our war against terror. Step outside the "quagmire" yo ucall Iraq for a moment. And think about the grand scheme of the war on terror. Look at the numbers of Al Queda leaders decimated. We are fighting Al Queda and those whop stand in our way to fight Al Queda. Regardless of what you say, we are moving ahead, and are being proven succesfull.
While tryign to tell me my assumptions are wrong, you proved my point. Yo uare reiterating the Jihadists Justification for war. I can prove it matters none. Osama used our bases in Saudi Arabia as one reason for the attack. We pulled out of SA, did he change his mind ?
I am not folowing anyone here. I supported Clinton when he attacked Iraq as well. I don't follow Bush on anything but fighting terrorists.
So a Jordanian connects Iraq and terrorism simply by being in the country? Interesting, why don’t 15 hijackers connect Saudi Arabia and terrorism? I think I know the answer. Why wouldn't the force we have in that country count as a "foothold"? Or is this war fixing our mistake with Saddam? Which mistake? Supplying him with weapons to fight Iran? Him being our golden boy in the Middle East during the 80's, an example of what type of government we wanted across the region? Was it a mistake supporting the mujahadien in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets? I doubt the CIA training and arming them has anything to do with their current abilities. Can't believe they backstabbed us! I haven't given up on Afghanistan this administration did when it decided to use our assets there to invade Iraq. At a time when we had a real opportunity to catch the enemy. Nice job. History does show we can hold numerous battlefields and still prevail. That requires leadership, something we're severely lacking. Unless an amendment "protecting" marriage is what you call leadership. Hope you're not married...I hear that gay people might ruin that for you.
"You are not Conservative."
OOOHH, OOOHH, say the sky isn't blue and will it so for me!
"We could not set up shop in Iran,NK or any other country you mentioned."
Could we set up shop in Japan after Pearl Harbor? (By the way, those were the only two countries I mentioned.)
"The 'insurgency' attacks skyrocketed, because we are in a war."
Hmmm...the same attacks this war was supposed to quell, once and for all?
"The personnel on the ground don't agree with you. They are positive about our war against terror."
Did you ask the soldiers committing suicide and choosing imprisonment over more Iraq deployments how positive they are about the war against terror?
For fuck's sake anon. Will you pay attention to facts for once? You paint yourself as a really uneducated conservative sometimes.
By the way, we're not against this war just because Bush supports it. What do you think this is, a sandbox?
See, what you don't seem to understand is that most people with the opinions that we share don't follow political leaders like sheep, as you will see much more often on the Republican side. There are times that Clinton did things in the 90’s that disgusted me. It’s part of why Democrats, Greens and other parties a bit more to the left have trouble with strong organization and speaking with one voice. It’s our strength and proudest attribute that differentiates us from Republicans, yet it’s what makes us move less with one step politically speaking.
With that said, yes, Zarqawi, from Jordan, was in Iraq prior to the invasion and had almost no power and moved in and out of Baghdad without Saddam even really knowing. I believe the most documented activity he did in Baghdad was visit a hospital. Since the report denying evidence that the two worked together was filed by the CIA, which apparently you haven’t read, there has been further evidence suggestion the two were enemies.
Again, Saddam was more like the mayor of Baghdad than we was the president of Iraq. If Zarqawi, by whom Saddam felt threatened, was in northern Iraq or even traveling through Baghdad on his way back to Jordan, it doesn’t mean he cooperated with Saddam or that Saddam even knew he was there. If he did, he most likely would have had him killed.
Mohammad Atta made his way through Maine, and used an ATM machine 1.4 miles from where I’m writing this comment, yet we really shouldn’t storm the governor’s mansion in Augusta because of it. Most of the hijackers lived in and around Florida and New Jersey, and even trained in Florida to fly into buildings! Should we invade Tampa and Atlantic City? By your logic tying Zarqawi to Saddam the answer is yes.
And yes, absolutely, I’m making the argument that we’re fighting primarily against Iraqis, and that the Iraqis are fighting among themselves, and that most of what you see is not Al Qaeda, because there wasn’t a strong Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the war (in fact there was more Al Qaeda in New Jersey than Iraq), and there isn’t a very significant presence now. Is there an interest? Absolutely. Was ripe for the picking regarding these terrorist groups? Absolutely not.
As for Afghanistan, the Taliban is actually starting to reform, and are getting stronger. The was the central breeding ground for terrorism, which our country enabled after sending our troops to Saudi Arabia, and after arming and aiding the mujahadeen, including one wealthy, connected Saudi named Osama bin Laden, and an Egyptian doctor named al Zawahiri. Their largest cash crop is now opium poppy (so much for the ‘war on drugs!’) and the country is now run mostly by warlords and a puppet government connected to the Bush administration.
Finally, I want to address this absolutely stupid fucking point you made, and again, urge you to do more research. You said:
"Step outside the "quagmire" yo ucall Iraq for a moment. And think about the grand scheme of the war on terror. Look at the numbers of Al Queda leaders decimated. We are fighting Al Queda and those whop stand in our way to fight Al Queda. Regardless of what you say, we are moving ahead, and are being proven successful."
Anon, read carefully – terror attacks worldwide have gone up THREEFOLD since the invasion of Iraq. Ask people in London, Madrid, Bali…Christ they just arrested people trying to attack Toronto! Attacks are increasing in both the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Iraq, formerly no threat to the United States with no weapons and no ties to Al Qaeda, is now one of the most dangerous countries on the planet. The American bus at the world cup is the only country that isn’t displaying it’s flag out of 32. Honestly – read this article for some more insight.
Now your arugment that "we had to start somewhere" to fight the war on terror is also flawed. What brought 9/11 to our backyard was exactly that - our presence in the holy land, occupying part of a Muslim Arab nation. Your suggestion that we combat terrorism by setting up shop in Iraq is insane. Occupation has never worked throughout history.
By your logic, Iran could try to occupy Washington today, because they view us as a threat, we have WMD's and we have used them in our history. We have even killed upwards of 50,000 Iraqis, and through our support of Israel, have killed many Palestinians.
Go get some reading materials, reach Richard Clarke’s book, read some of Cobra II, watch some PBS Frontlines, pick up major news papers, spend some time away from the Right wing lunatic conspiracy theory Ann Coulter sites, and get a fucking sense of what’s going on here please.
Post a Comment
<< Home