Great Fucking News!

[HBox]

<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7685017/" target="_blank">Seriously, this is really good news!</a></p><p>Reports of credible terrorist threats against the United States are at
their lowest level since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to
U.S. intelligence officials and federal and state law enforcement
authorities.</p><p>The intelligence community's daily threat
assessment, developed after the terrorist attacks to keep policymakers
informed, currently lists, on average, 25 to 50 percent fewer threats
against domestic targets than it typically did over the past two years,
said one senior counterterrorism official.</p>
<p class="textBodyBlack">A
broad cross section of counterterrorism officials believes al Qaeda and
like-minded groups, in part frustrated by increased U.S. security
measures, are focusing instead on Americans deployed in Iraq, where the
groups operate with relative impunity, and on Europe.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7685017/" target="_blank"></a>

http://img255.echo.cx/img255/5972/mariosig8fk.jpg

[spoon]

<p>&quot;are focusing instead on Americans deployed in Iraq, where the groups operate with relative impunity&quot;</p><p>So, what's the difference?&nbsp; </p><p>And how many attacks actually happened in the US not counting our own people attacking government buildings and abortion clinics?&nbsp; </p>

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/spoon2.jpg">

Get your balls out of your purse and step up to flavor!
With whale cancer!
F yeah!

[Bulldogcakes]

That was the idea. To &quot;fight them over there instead of here&quot;. So I
guess your giving Bush credit for how well this is working? Good. Glad
to see you coming around. <br />


<img border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Kevin2700/bulldaogcopy.jpg" />


Does it bug you that your local pharmacy sells cigarettes and emphysema medicine?

<font color=black>This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 5-1-05 @ 8:48 AM</font>

[Yerdaddy]

<p>A broad cross section of counterterrorism officials believes al Qaeda and like-minded groups, in part frustrated by increased U.S. security measures, are focusing instead on Americans deployed in Iraq, where the groups operate with relative impunity, and on Europe.</p><p>Really? Then, maybe the first step we need to take is to get these people to read their own reports instead of just the White House press releases.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000907.html" target="_self">Global Terrorism Statistics Debated</a></p><p>Last year, the department was forced to withdraw the report and admit that its initial version vastly understated what turned out to be a record high number of terrorist attacks. This year, government analysts determined that attacks had gone up once again -- three times more, in fact, to a high of 651 attacks that resulted in 1,907 deaths. Rather than publish that information, the State Department decided to strip the annual terrorism report of the numbers and hand responsibility to Brennan's new NCTC. Faced with an outcry once the redacted statistics showing a surge in terrorism leaked out, the NCTC last week released the numbers, but then said the methodology that produced the statistics was so hopelessly flawed the numbers should not be relied upon to make any conclusions.</p><p>The idea that we can keep terrorism off our soil, while it increases overseas is the same absurd strategy we've had for decades... as in before 9-11. We thought that we could support violent Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan and it would only hurt the Soviet Union, (to &quot;deliver to the Soviets their Vietnam.&quot;) Oops! Instead, we gave to the Islamists of the world a major source of ligitamacy, (the defeat of a world superpower), and left behind vast networks of black market weapons, drug sales for revenues, a global propaganda and recruitment network, the support of a neighboring intelligence agency, (Pakistan's), and a whole country to train in for 20 years. And how'd that work out for us?</p><p>Bush's &quot;theory&quot; that the war in Iraq was designed to attract terrorists to a foreign country where they can be exterminated one-by-one is illogical, immoral, and disingenous. It is illogical because no honest terrorism expert operates on the premise that terrorists are a finite quantity. Islamist terrorism is driven by ideology, and that ideology spreads, like a virus, under certain conditions that the Bush strategy does not aknowledge, except within the post-war rationalization process. Al-Qaeda has adjusted to our tactics and, like any organization, replaces the leaders we have caught or killed since 9-11. The president loves to site the numbers of al-Qaeda leaders eliminated, but expects us to assume his finite numbers theory, (his loyal supporters will, of course). But who was Zarqawi before the Iraq war? Nobody. Now, he's able to operate almost freely in Iraq, killing our soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and foreign journalists, aid workers and contractors, and flaunting his ability to do so to the world. That's better? That's winning? Hell no. That's losing, as the government's terrorism statistics demonstrate. </p><p>And, while the Republican lovers of the Iraqi people take credit for the elections that Bush never wanted, what's the defense of the rationale that we lured terrorists to Iraq to kill them, and us, so that we would be safe? Iraqi civilians have suffered tens of times the casualties of 9-11 in this war. Are they supposed to sigh and say &quot;at least the American people are safe from these terrorists&quot;? </p><p>But fortunately, for us, Iraqis know that that's NOT the reason we went into Iraq. This &quot;fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here&quot; is just another ludicrous justification for the administration to do what they had wanted to do for a decade - invade Iraq. Just like &quot;democracy&quot; was an afterthought, (the military has aknowledged that i

[Mike Rotch]

<font style="font-size: 9px" face="Verdana">quote: </font><p>&quot;are focusing instead on Americans deployed in Iraq, where the groups operate with relative impunity&quot;</p><p>So, what's the difference?&nbsp; </p><br />Um...Americans deployed in Iraq have really big guns and are trained to deal with this sort of thing, unlike a secretary in an office building attacked by these savages? Might that be the difference?

===========
Man, I've been lurking forever.

[HBox]

<p>&nbsp;</p>
<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:
</font><font size="0" face="verdana" color="black">Um...Americans deployed in
Iraq have really big guns and are trained to deal with this sort of
thing, unlike a secretary in an office building attacked by these
savages? Might that be the difference?
</font>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><font face="Century gothic" color="Navy"><font size="2">The point that they were making is that we
aren't eliminating terror, just shifting it away from America. Which is
a great thing if you're here, but sucks for anyone else anywhere else,
especially Iraq.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Century gothic" color="Navy"><font size="2">I'm still glad we are safer here. Hopefully Iraq
works out in the long run, that'll help elminate the terrorists.
Unfortunately, after a few months of good news, there has been an
uptick in attacks.</font></font> </p>
<font size="0" face="verdana" color="black">
<img border="0" src="http://img255.echo.cx/img255/5972/mariosig8fk.jpg" /></font>

<font color=black>This message was edited by HBox on 5-1-05 @ 3:10 PM</font>

[Mike Rotch]

<p>I understand the point, i just think its great no matter what. If we have managed to make these lunatics give up on trying to hit us where we're vulnerable and take on our armed forces instead, that's very good news. Of course its a tragedy that a single one of our troops has to die, but if this is something that will save US civilians' lives in the end then it must be done.</p>

===========
Man, I've been lurking forever.

[Yerdaddy]

I've never seen anyone promoting this &quot;flypaper&quot; theory of drawing terrorists to Iraq demonstrate any evidence that any of the terrorists operating in Iraq would have attacked the US if Iraq hadn't lured them away. That secretary is no safer than he/she would have been without the Iraq war.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[DarkHippie]

Iraq: America's Gar-barge

<IMG SRC=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/HippieRat.jpg>
<marquee> Check out DarkHippie's latest story, "Keeper", at http://home.pcisys.net/~drmforge/dftoc2.htm </marquee>

[spoon]

Thanks Yer, you made my point.&nbsp; The &quot;Saudi&quot; terrorists planned the attack for years and there were no other attacks on US soil between both tower attacks.&nbsp; So have we stopped anything?&nbsp; Or are they planning again, not in Iraq, but Bush's friendly Saudi Arabia?&nbsp; If we are to deal with it, fine, let's deal with the real problem.....oh wait, too late.&nbsp; If there is a next terrorist strike against the US, I'm sure they want to make it big.&nbsp; So how are we doing protecting our nuclear $ chemical plants?&nbsp; How safe are our ports and borders?&nbsp; Just what did they do to protect us better?&nbsp; They used Ridge's&nbsp;color system to buffer Bush's numbers during an election and sent our boys to the wrong place for Bush's wallet and revenge.&nbsp; This report does nothing for me since nothing is different other then the fact we are not respected any longer.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/spoon2.jpg">

Get your balls out of your purse and step up to flavor!
With whale cancer!
F yeah!

[Alice S. Fuzzybutt]

<p>Blah blah blah. Words words words.</p><p>Just tell me who I should believe on the chart? </p><p><img src="http://www.bradmesser.com/images/alerts.jpg" border="0" /></p>

<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/alicesig.jpg>

"We sound just like Cheap Trick only the guitars are louder,"
- Kurt Cobain

"I prefer to listen to Cheap Trick."
-Homer Simpson

[TheMojoPin]

<p>Well, it sure as shit isn't Bert!</p><p><img height="207" src="http://www.almostaproverb.com/images4/osama_bert_thumb.jpg" width="250" border="0" /></p>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << On the streets of your town... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[TheMojoPin]

<font style="font-size: 9px" face="Verdana">quote: </font><p>I understand the point, i just think its great no matter what. If we have managed to make these lunatics give up on trying to hit us where we're vulnerable and take on our armed forces instead, that's very good news. Of course its a tragedy that a single one of our troops has to die, but if this is something that will save US civilians' lives in the end then it must be done.</p>=========== Man, I've been lurking forever. <p><br />Welcome back.</p><p>But you seem to be missing the big part of Yerdaddy's posts...that we've unleashed these terrorists not even just on our troops, but even moreso on the Iraqi civilians.</p><p>Why is it fair that they get to suffer daily terrorist attacks (far more of whcih are directed at them than any of our soldiers) just so we can be &quot;safer&quot; in theory, at BEST?&nbsp; A helluva lot more of them have been killed so far by Jihadist terrorists than America lost on 9/11...is that somehow fair?&nbsp; Or right?&nbsp; Or a better alternative?</p>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << On the streets of your town... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

<p>But you seem to be missing the big part of Yerdaddy's posts...that we've unleashed these terrorists not even just on our troops, but even moreso on the Iraqi civilians.</p><p>Hey, Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Afghanistan got old for them.</p>

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Bulldogcakes]

<p>&nbsp;</p><font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font><br />
<p>But
you seem to be missing the big part of Yerdaddy's posts...that we've
unleashed these terrorists not even just on our troops, but even moreso
on the Iraqi civilians.</p><p>Why is it fair that they get to suffer
daily terrorist attacks (far more of whcih are directed at them than
any of our soldiers) just so we can be &quot;safer&quot; in theory, at BEST? A
helluva lot more of them have been killed so far by Jihadist terrorists
than America lost on 9/11...is that somehow fair? Or right? Or a better
alternative?</p>

<br />
<br />And you've missed the
point of this strategy. First of all, we're not responsible for the
behavior of these criminals. Period. And we're not shifting the attack
anywhere, were going on offense and attacking the terrorists where they
are, in their own backyard. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>I know we hear daily stories about
the bombings going on there, and they're all horribly tragic. Of
course. But you dont hear much about the cells (and their weaponry)
that we're killing and capturing in Iraq all the time. And once there
is a functioning Government in Iraq, I believe they will be able to go
even deeper. At least the people of Iraq have a CHANCE of being a free
people, which they didn't have under Saddam. <br />
</p><p>I'll try again, though I've never got anything resembling a
satisfactory, cogent answer to this question from the Left. What is
your alternative? Is this strategy perfect? No. Nothing ever is. But
what is your clear, effective answer for dealing with international
terrorism?&nbsp;</p>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Kevin2700/bulldaogcopy.jpg


Does it bug you that your local pharmacy sells cigarettes and emphysema medicine?

[spoon]

<p>Hey sweety cakes, link one person from Iraq to 9/11 for me.&nbsp; One fucking person!&nbsp; Your answer is simply to deal with the likes of the true cause of this problem, fundamentalist teachings and the distribution of wealth in Saudi Arabia and the constant problem with Israel and the Palestinians.&nbsp; Not fucking Iraq.&nbsp; Now answer my question.....How can you back this moron Bush?&nbsp; He isn't looking out for us at all.&nbsp; He's an giggling idiot who lets big buisness write its own reform and Tom Delay change the rules when he's caught breaking them.&nbsp; Fuck Bush!&nbsp; </p><p>Wow, I thought I'd never say that.&nbsp; But hey, it is one of my favorite pastimes.</p><img src="http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/spoon2.jpg" border="0" /> Get your balls out of your purse and step up to flavor! With whale cancer! F yeah!

<font color=black>This message was edited by spoon on 5-3-05 @ 5:52 PM</font>

[spoon]

To hit on the main point of this thread, this "great" news is regarding the number of RUMORED threats is down. Now that's progress.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/spoon2.jpg">

Get your balls out of your purse and step up to flavor!
With whale cancer!
F yeah!

[TheMojoPin]

<p>I'll try again, though I've never got anything resembling a satisfactory, cogent answer to this question from the Left. What is your alternative? Is this strategy perfect? No. Nothing ever is. But what is your clear, effective answer for dealing with international terrorism?</p><p>The problem with the current strategy is that there is NO strategy.</p><p>I have no idea how to fix this...I doubt anyone does.&nbsp; It's a mess we're mired in...and we have no options because there's no plan.&nbsp; It's made up on the fly.</p>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << On the streets of your town... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[spoon]

That was the plan.&nbsp; In the process, their backers/companies are making billions.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/spoon2.jpg">

Get your balls out of your purse and step up to flavor!
With whale cancer!
F yeah!

[Yerdaddy]

<p>And you've missed the point of this strategy. First of all, we're not responsible for the behavior of these criminals. Period. And we're not shifting the attack anywhere, were going on offense and attacking the terrorists where they are, in their own backyard. <br />I know we hear daily stories about the bombings going on there, and they're all horribly tragic. Of course. But you dont hear much about the cells (and their weaponry) that we're killing and capturing in Iraq all the time. And once there is a functioning Government in Iraq, I believe they will be able to go even deeper. At least the people of Iraq have a CHANCE of being a free people, which they didn't have under Saddam. <br />I know you're capable of making better arguments than this. I've seen it. You're just parroting the administration's meaningless cliches: &quot;going on the offensive&quot;; &quot;attacking them where they are&quot;; &quot;in their own backyard&quot;?? Afghanistan was going on the offensive. Building the capabilities of our own and other intelligence agencies to find and kill or capture terrorists around the world is going on the offensive. Addressing the various issues that fuel extremism and terrorism is going on the offensive. But if Iraq was the minor terrorism supporter that the intelligence community now aknowledges him to have been, and none of that directed at the US but only Palestinian nationalist terrorist groups, then how is Iraq the terrorists backyard? Better yet, how would you explain to the Iraqis that they were the terrorist's backyard before the US invasion? If it was based on preventing anti-Israeli terrorism then why wasn't that the rationale given to the American people? The fact is, we are attacking terrorists where they are now but weren't before. Therefore, if that was the strategy all along then we are responsible for drawing this terrorism to the Iraqis, who would have otherwise not suffered the attacks they now face. </p><p>I just don't see how you can hold to the theory that the terrorist attacks faced by our soldiers and the Iraqi people is part of an anti-terrorism strategy. That is not logical. That theory depends on the the theory that terrorists are a fininte quantity - that if we keep killing them, (at any rate of speed), sooner or later we will have killed them all and we will have defeated terrorism. If that's the case, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1354084.htm" target="_blank">then why isnt the insurgency getting smaller?</a> It's certainly not from an inflow of terrorists from the outside world because military reports have always shown that foreign support is a small fraction of the insurgency - maybe five to ten percent. The vast majority of insurgents in Iraq, including some of them using terrorism, are home grown - Baathists and Saddam's military. They were not committing terrorism against Americans before the war. They were repressing and murdering Iraqis before the war, but when they were doing so on a scale even remotely comparable to the current campaign the US position was to do nothing to stop it, or, in the case of most of the leaders of the Bush administration, during the Anfal campaing of genocide against the Kurds from 1987 to 1989, the decision was made to prevent meaningful punishment of Saddam from the Congress and to continue military and economic aid to Saddam. But at the time of the war, Iraq's military was doing little or nothing to promote terrorism internationally, and were not actively committing terrorism against their own people. Now they are. How is that a strategy to defeat terrorism, given all the facts presented here so far, especially: increased international terrorism, creating terrorism that didn't exist in Iraq, and that we cannot free our forces from fighting until the Iraqis are capable of doing what we have not proved that we can do - defeat the insurgency?</p><p><br />[quote]I'll try again, though I've never got anything resembling a satisfactory, cogent answer to this question from the Left. What is your alternat

[Bulldogcakes]

<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font><p>&nbsp;</p><font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font>I'll
try again, though I've never got anything resembling a satisfactory,
cogent answer to this question from the Left. What is your alternative?
Is this strategy perfect? No. Nothing ever is. But what is your clear,
effective answer for dealing with international terrorism?<p>&nbsp;</p><p>The problem with the current strategy is that there is NO strategy.</p><p>I
have no idea how to fix this...I doubt anyone does. It's a mess we're
mired in...and we have no options because there's no plan. It's made up
on the fly.</p>

<br />
<br />Thank you for an
honest answer. I dont have any simple solution to this problem, or to
why the fucking Yankees cant pitch or hit if their fucking lives
depended on it. . . . sorry, got sidetracked there. I at least see some
(potential) light at the end of this tunnel. And after 9/11, some
attempt needed to be made to break the cycle of dictators and their
terrorist breeding grounds. <br />


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Kevin2700/bulldaogcopy.jpg


Does it bug you that your local pharmacy sells cigarettes and emphysema medicine?

[TheMojoPin]

I guess...but even that's pretty random, and we haven't been consistent at all in our foreign policy since.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << On the streets of your town... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bulldogcakes]

<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I
know you're capable of making better arguments than this. I've seen it.
You're just parroting the administration's meaningless cliches: &quot;going
on the offensive&quot;; &quot;attacking them where they are&quot;; &quot;in their own
backyard&quot;??</p><p>Guilty.
10:00 is past my bedtime. I take no resposibility for the quality of
posts after 10:00. It's just shorthand for a general idea that has some
merit.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>I'd prefer there be NO military role in
rooting out Terrorism. I think its mostly &quot;Police&quot; and/or CIA type
work. Investigate, infiltrate and take them down. There's a few basic
problems with that though</p><p>1) We dont have many friends in the region we can trust (I'd put Pakistan at the top of that list)<br />
</p><p>2) Police have &quot;Jurisdiction&quot; The ability to operate freely in an area. We didn't have that before this invasion. <br />
</p><p>3) Bill Clinton took the &quot;Police&quot; approach, as did Bush in his
first year in office. Which resulted in 9/11. Obviously the old
approach was no longer acceptable. It needed to be added to. &nbsp; <br />
</p><p>Afghanistan was going on the offensive. Building the
capabilities of our own and other intelligence agencies to find and
kill or capture terrorists around the world is going on the offensive.
Addressing the various issues that fuel extremism and terrorism is
going on the offensive. </p><p>Agreed&nbsp;</p><p>But if Iraq was the minor terrorism supporter
that the intelligence community now aknowledges him to have been, and
none of that directed at the US but only Palestinian nationalist
terrorist groups, then how is Iraq the terrorists backyard?</p><p>You
cant argue that there are terrorist bombings every day and then say
Iraq is not a &quot;Terrorist Backyard&quot; Somebody's setting all these
roadside bombs, and they're in Iraq.<br />
</p><p>Better yet,
how would you explain to the Iraqis that they were the terrorist's
backyard before the US invasion? If it was based on preventing
anti-Israeli terrorism then why wasn't that the rationale given to the
American people? The fact is, we are attacking terrorists where they
are <strong>now</strong> but weren't before.</p><p>I
dont know that to be a fact. If you do, please explain. My impression
is that many of these terrorists are Sunni holdouts from Saddam's
regime. There has been very little bombing in the Kurdish North and the
Shia south. <br />
</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I just don't see how you can hold to the theory that
the terrorist attacks faced by our soldiers and the Iraqi people is
part of an anti-terrorism strategy. That is not logical. </p><p>Its
the &quot;Drain the Swamp&quot; Theory, which I hope you're aware of, because its
after 10:00 and I'm too tired to explain it.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>[quote]That theory
depends on the the theory that terrorists are a fininte quantity - that
if we keep killing them, (at any rate of speed), sooner or later we
will have killed them all and we will have defeated terrorism.</p><p>Well
then, I guess we should stop arresting all those murderers and
criminals in this country, because there isn't a &quot;finite quantity&quot; of
them. One thing I do know, when we do kill or capture one, thats one
less. <br />
</p><p>If
that's the case, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1354084.htm">then why isnt the insurgency getting smaller?</a>
It's certainly not from an inflow of terrorists from the outside world
because military reports have always shown that foreign support is a
small fraction of the insurgency - maybe five to ten percent. The vast
majority of insurgents in Iraq, including some of them using terrorism,
are home grown - Baathists and Saddam's military. </p><p>Wait a minute. didn't you just argue these terrorists are outsiders?&nbsp;</p><p>[quote]They were not
committing ter

[Bulldogcakes]

<p>&nbsp;</p><font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font>I guess...but even that's pretty random, and we haven't been consistent at all in our foreign policy since.&nbsp;<br />You
deal with problems as they arise, and keep an open mind. Its the smart
thing to do. You have to be flexible because there's too many
contingencies, too many variables. <p>&nbsp;</p><p>I do think the goals have remained the same, though. <br />
</p>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Kevin2700/bulldaogcopy.jpg


Does it bug you that your local pharmacy sells cigarettes and emphysema medicine?

[HBox]

<p><font size="0" face="verdana" color="black">To use Bush's term, It's
strategery. Saddam was a bad actor, so we had justification (If nothing
else he was in violation, many times over, of the cease fire pact after
Gulf 1) to take him out. In doing so, we now have a our forces
bordering BOTH of the two BIGGEST terrorist breeding grounds, Syria and
Iran. Which should help us lean on both of them.</font></p>
<p><font face="Century gothic"><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7725427/" target="_blank">What about this?</a>
That article leaves the impression that it would be difficult to fight
another war, and our enemies realizing this will only be bolder. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7721392/" target="_blank">Iran seems to be doing so.</a> <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7696261/" target="_blank">Ditto North Korea.</a></font>[/font]&nbsp;</p>

http://img255.echo.cx/img255/5972/mariosig8fk.jpg

[Recyclerz]

<p>Its the &quot;Drain the Swamp&quot; Theory, which I hope you're aware of, because its after 10:00 and I'm too tired to explain it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>BDC, like Yerdaddy I think you come up with some cogent arguments and raise the level of discourse 'round here, BUT, I've seen you mention this slogan masquerading as a justification in a few threads now and I have to call bullshit.&nbsp; It's also too late in the evening &nbsp;for me to come up with an intelligent&nbsp;multi-paragraph refutation (besides I'm sure Yerdaddy will do it for us with a lot more panache than I can muster) but I find it difficult to swallow that W's crew is gonna pull the evil weeds out by the roots and be Johnny Democracyseeds planting market-based civil societies in their stead.</p><p>I would just suggest that anyone who is buying into this theory read Joseph Conrad's <em>Heart of Darkness</em> before they try to sell it to the rest of us.</p>

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">

[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon, he never lived 'round here[b]

[Yerdaddy]

But if Iraq was the minor terrorism supporter that the intelligence community now aknowledges him to have been, and none of that directed at the US but only Palestinian nationalist terrorist groups, then how is Iraq the terrorists backyard? <p>&nbsp;</p><p>You cant argue that there are terrorist bombings every day and then say Iraq is not a &quot;Terrorist Backyard&quot; Somebody's setting all these roadside bombs, and they're in Iraq.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">With this new posting doohickey this forum is going to look like Jackson Pollock threw up a quart of gin into it. </font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">You need to address the major error in the &quot;drain the swamp&quot; &quot;flypaper&quot; and &quot;kill them over there&quot; theories that I'm trying to point out: <strong>the Iraq war has created more terrorists than it has killed. </strong>That's why the TTIC report mentioned in the article above sites terrorist attacks <strong>multiplying. </strong>The attacks within Iraq is a major source of that - even though only certain types of terrorist attacks in Iraq are even included in those numbers, depending on who the intended targets are presumed to be. But the effect of this war has been to make groups of people who were not terrorists before and make them terrorists. </font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">If Iraq is the terrorists' backyard, then it is a backyard that we <strong>gave to&nbsp;them. </strong>Is the &quot;backyard&quot; strategy to give terrorists backyards? Because then it might at least match the results it has produced. The fact is that most of the people conducting terrorism in Iraq were not conducting it before the war, and that includes the foreign Islamists. If the &quot;backyard&quot; strategy is to create terrorists, then it is working. If it is a strategy to combat terrorism, then it is clearly failing.</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Look at the pattern of Islamist terrorism&nbsp;over the last 20 years: They find a safe place to conduct recruiting, training,&nbsp;a base for planning operations, and a public campaign to&nbsp;demonstrate its strength to its target recruiting populations in refugee camps and ass-backwards, broke-dick countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. The major &quot;backyard&quot; for them before 9-11 was Afghanistan. It was a classic failed state - a Cold War proxy war battleground that had been abandoned by its backers in the war against the Soviets and was now an anarchy full of guns and drugs and religious freaks and without a legitimate&nbsp;government willing or able to remove this shit from its soil, (and in fact the Taliban eventually came from the freaks themselves). We took that &quot;backyard&quot; away from them, and fought them in it. Then, we gave them an even bigger and better backyard in Iraq. Where, in the 1980s and 90s, most major international Islamist terrorist organizations were made up of people who had trained and fought in Afghanistan, now they can go to Iraq. But, unlike in Afghanistan, they can go to the heart of the Middle East, fight and kill American soldiers, score regular propaganda victories, and work towards the goal of driving out the Americans and toppling whatever government it leaves behind, thus demonstrating their strength and our weakness - which looks nice on a recruiting poster. <strong>And</strong> they will be fighting alongside the former Iraqi military, who they are now allied with, creating a force that we have not proved capable of deafeating. </font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Wouldn't it have been better to take &quot;backyards&quot; away from them? Afghanistan was not just a place where existing terrorists went to train. Instead, Afghanistan was an important resource for terrorists to <strong>multiply</strong>. Now Iraq is. We are not &quot;draining the swamp,&quot; we are creating swamps, and causing them to spread. The numbers show it.</font><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p>[quote]<font style="font-size: 9px" face="Verdana">quote: </font>Better yet, how would you e

[HBox]

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7732035/" target="_blank">BTW, here's some good news in the real war on terror.</a><br />


http://img255.echo.cx/img255/5972/mariosig8fk.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

<p>Hey!&nbsp; Didn't that guy used to teach science at Ridgemont High?</p><p><img height="221" src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050504/050504_abunew_vsml_8a.vmedium.jpg" width="198" border="0" /></p>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << On the streets of your town... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Judge Smails]

<p>I heard he was already dead and haunting the NYC subway.</p><p><img src="http://www.venus.dti.ne.jp/~akkira/oyaji/vin-s.gif" border="0" /></p>

"It's easy to grin, when your ship comes in.
And you've got the stock market beat.
But the man worthwhile, is the man who can smile.
When his shorts are too tight in the seat"

[Snoogans]

judge smails kicks ass, even if he sucked, his name would still kick ass<br />


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=Snoogans194">
GO SAWX!!!!! Hassan Eats Dick!!! Snoogans 1, Monitor 0
GIMMIE MY FUCKIN CHANGE, I AINT PLAYIN WIT YOU

[HBox]

Why does that guy look like he's crying tears of diarrhea shit?<br />

http://img255.echo.cx/img255/5972/mariosig8fk.jpg

[A.J.]

<p>Can't wait to read the debriefing reports.</p>

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Freebird]

<font style="font-size: 9px" face="Verdana">quote: </font><p>Hey!&nbsp; Didn't that guy used to teach science at Ridgemont High?</p>Go easy on him.&nbsp; He just switched to Sanka<br />

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

Now I'm starving

I'm about to turn it up a notch!

[high fly]

<p>HEY BULLDOG!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I see how important it is for you to talk tough and all, but really.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>When we invaded Iraq, it was not to &quot;fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.&quot;</p><p>The Iraqi Army was not about to come across the beach at Nags Head Iwo-Jima-style, and there were no terrorists operating out of Iraq attacking Americans.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Go ahead, tell the class which attacks against Americans were committed by terrorists backed by Saddam?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The reason they are there NOW is because we attracted them there, by invading the second most holy land in Islam.</p><p>What we have done is fulfill bin Laden's prediction that the U.S. would invade an oil-rich Muslim country that hadn't attacked America.Not only did the invasion give bin Laden more legitimacy that way, but it also made more recruits for the jihadists whose religion requires them to all fight an invader.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Why the hell do you think bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 the way he did?</p><p>What was he trying to do?</p><p>The answer is he knew al Qaeda was not large enough to defeat America on it's own, so he came up with a scheme to cause us to invade over there because it would lead to a large percentage of the over 1 billion Muslims to obey their obligation to fight a defensive war.</p><p>And now with Iraq, we have provided a nice California-sized live-fire training ground for the terrorists.</p>

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[Bulldogcakes]

<p> </p><font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font><font color="#ff0000">You
need to address the major error in the &quot;drain the swamp&quot; &quot;flypaper&quot; and
&quot;kill them over there&quot; theories that I'm trying to point out: <strong>the Iraq war has created more terrorists than it has killed. </strong>That's why the TTIC report mentioned in the article above sites terrorist attacks <strong>multiplying. </strong>The
attacks within Iraq is a major source of that - even though only
certain types of terrorist attacks in Iraq are even included in those
numbers, depending on who the intended targets are presumed to be. But
the effect of this war has been to make groups of people who were not
terrorists before and make them terrorists.</font><p> </p><p> My understanding of the &quot;Drain the Swamp&quot; theory goes as follows.</p><p>-Dictators
rule with an iron fist, impoverish their nations for their own personal
gain, and blame everything on us (US) and Israel. They also promote
terrorism and use it as a tool for their own political reasons, both at
home and abroad. <br />
-The people, with no hope for the future and no other side of the story, buy the idea and some seek to attack us<br />
</p><p>So how do you break this cycle? Remove the worst Dictatorship and pressure the others to Democratize. </p><p>Always
remember Terrorism is the tool of the Powerless vs the Powerful. They
wont win, they cant militarily. They can only hope to get well meaning
folks on our side to pressure us to pull out. </p><p>The
Left complained for years (correctly) that we were propping up these
dictators for our own short term interests. We have now done a complete
turn around from that policy. I'd think you'd support that. It is now
the position of the Pentagon that Democracy and Capitalism are in the
ultimate best interests of the US. I think thats great progress. <br />
</p><p>Are Terrorist multiplying? According to everything I've read,
yes. And they will likely continue to do so, until Iraq has
effective tools for dealing with it. The terrorism will continue until
the PEOPLE of Iraq, dealing with functioning law enforcement, make it
impossible for them to operate. This isn't Palestine/Israel, for ALOT
of reasons. The terrorists are largely targeting their own people (for
political reasons you're aware of) as they did under Saddam's regime.
They are trying to grab power the way they always held it, through fear
and intimidation. But that only goes so far. Eventually, people stop
being afraid. That's when the terrorists cant win anymore. <br />
</p><p> </p><font color="#ff0000" /><p><font color="#000000">
[quote]<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font>If Iraq is the terrorists' backyard, then it is a backyard that we <strong>gave to them. </strong>Is
the &quot;backyard&quot; strategy to give terrorists backyards? Because then it
might at least match the results it has produced. The fact is that most
of the people conducting terrorism in Iraq were not conducting it
before the war
</font></p><p><font color="#000000">I'd argue Saddams regime was a terrorist regime. I think most Iraqis would concur. </font></p><p><font color="#000000">
<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font> thus demonstrating their strength and our
weakness - which looks nice on a recruiting poster. <strong>And</strong>
they will be fighting alongside the former Iraqi military, who they are
now allied with, creating a force that we have not proved capable of
deafeating
</font></p><p><font color="#000000">They cant win Militarily. See above post. <br />
</font></p><p><font color="#000000">
[quote]<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:</font>Wouldn't it have been
better to take &quot;backyards&quot; away from them? Afghanistan was not just a
place where existing terrorists went to train. Instead, Afghanistan was
an imp

[HBox]

<p>&nbsp;</p>
<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:
</font><font size="1" face="verdana" color="black"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#000000">I'd argue Saddams regime was a terrorist regime. I think most Iraqis would concur.</font></font></font><font size="0" face="verdana" color="black"><font color="#ff0000">
</font></font>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<font face="Verdana" style="font-size: 9px;">quote:
</font><font size="1" face="verdana" color="black"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#000000">Again, I'd argue they were always terrorists. That's how Saddam held power.
</font></font></font>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><font face="Century gothic" color="Navy"><font size="2">I think you are just playing semantics here.
&quot;Terrorist&quot; is not just a word we get to use to describe every bad guy
in the world.</font></font><br />
</p>
<font size="0" face="verdana" color="black"><font color="#ff0000">
<img border="0" src="http://img255.echo.cx/img255/5972/mariosig8fk.jpg" /></font></font>

<font color=black>This message was edited by HBox on 5-5-05 @ 10:13 PM</font>

[HBox]

<p><a href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11574296.htm" target="_blank">This
definitely isn't great news, isn't really surprising, and I doubt it
will get much media attention in the U.S. It should, though.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html" target="_blank">And here's a link to that original memo.</a>&nbsp;</p><a href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11574296.htm" target="_blank"></a>

http://img255.echo.cx/img255/5972/mariosig8fk.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

<p>My understanding of the &quot;Drain the Swamp&quot; theory goes as follows.</p><p>-Dictators rule with an iron fist, impoverish their nations for their own personal gain, and blame everything on us (US) and Israel. They also promote terrorism and use it as a tool for their own political reasons, both at home and abroad. <br />-The people, with no hope for the future and no other side of the story, buy the idea and some seek to attack us</p><p><br />So how do you break this cycle? Remove the worst Dictatorship and pressure the others to Democratize. <br />I agree with this, but only in part. Burma is one of the worst dictatorships on earth, yet no Burmese has ever been involved with international terrorism to my knowledge. But dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran, and others have. Also, authoritarian, but not necessarily dictatorial regimes, like Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Indonesia, Morocco and others have produced substantial numbers of international terrorists. Some of these countries, like Yemen and Egypt, are categorized by the CIA World Factbook as &quot;democracies.&quot; Add to that territories of larger states like Russian Chechnya, Bosnia, and the Phillipines who's people have played major roles in international terrorism. Arguably, in all of these states repression plays a major role in the decision of its citizens to turn to terrorism to address their real and percieved grievances. And, like you say, many, if not most, of these states are historic allies of the US. But their production of terrorists is more closely related to their political repression, economic stagnation, and other related democratic shortcommings, but which are combined with the presence of groups that hold to fundamentalist ideologies that exploit these other factors to recruit members to terrorist organizations. </p><p>Taking Egypt as a case in point, it is certainly broke-ass poor, and President Mubarak has never ran in anything close to a fair election, but it is hardly comparable to the level of repression that saddam Hussein has carried out during his reign. But Egypt has contributed a large percentage of international terrorists than Iraq, which is not known to have contributed any that I'm aware of, (sorry, but I won't address the theories of Laurie Mylroie and her backers as those theories have been thoroughly discredited by nearly every major intelligence institution, both public and private). The reasons for this difference, I think, is related to the nature and tactics of the regimes that have ruled the two countries. Egypt has long been viewed as an Arab leader beyond just its borders. When former president Gabel Nasser siezed control of the Suez Canal in the name of pan-Arabic nationalism he bacame an icon of Arab power across the Arab world and even in Persian Iran, SE Asian Indonesia, as well as an inspiration to African and Latin American independence movements. But in achieving and maintaining the kind of power required to take these kinds of actions, Nasser, and the military rulers that have ruled Egypt from the time of its independence from Britain, have simultaneously encouraged and repressed Islamic fundamentalists beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood. This has proved to be an effective tool for bringing the military rulers to power and keeping it through to the present, but it has proved a dangerous ballancing act. This game has assured the existence of extremism within the country, as the government has been able to kill and imprison its leaders en masse, but not wipe out the ideology they espouse, while simultaneously repressing all secular political opposition. Because Islam, like all religions, are literally considered &quot;sacred,&quot; it is difficult to control its activities, and it is usually tempting to exploit this as a ruler when it is convenient. Secular politcal activities, on the other hand, are usually considered, in all unfree regimes, as a threat that can only be attacked. In Egypt, the history of its particular brand of authoritarianism has cr

[high fly]

<font style="font-size: 9px" face="Verdana">quote: </font><p>&nbsp;</p><font style="font-size: 9px" face="Verdana">quote: </font><font face="verdana" color="#000000" size="1"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#000000">I'd argue Saddams regime was a terrorist regime. I think most Iraqis would concur.</font></font></font><font face="verdana" color="#000000" size="0"><font color="#ff0000"> </font></font><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><font style="font-size: 9px" face="Verdana">quote: </font><font face="verdana" color="#000000" size="1"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#000000">Again, I'd argue they were always terrorists. That's how Saddam held power. </font></font></font><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font face="Century gothic" color="#000080"><font size="2">I think you are just playing semantics here. &quot;Terrorist&quot; is not just a word we get to use to describe every bad guy in the world.</font></font><br /></p><font face="verdana" color="#000000" size="0"><font color="#ff0000" /></font><font color="#000000">This message was edited by HBox on 5-5-05 @ 10:13 PM</font> <p>It's a crutch.</p><p>Let's say, by some stretch of the word, that Saddam's regime&nbsp;<em>was indeed</em> a &quot;terrorist regime?&quot;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So What?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>He wasn't hurting any Americans, was he?</p><p>He sure as hell wasn't going anywhere. He had the U.S. Navy in the Gulf, U.S. ground forces over there, hundreds of inspectors combing his country spying out every rumor of WMD, U.S. Air Force in his skies, and a broken-down decrepit military.</p><p>To keep him bottled up cost us about $12 billion over 10 years.</p><p><em>AND NO AMERICANS DIED KEEPING HIM THERE, EITHER!</em></p><p><em /></p><p><em /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br />&nbsp;</p>

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[spoon]

I wish bulldogcakes and yerdaddy would elaborate&nbsp;a little more.&nbsp; Holy shit, you both need to hand in your essay/thesis by when?

<img src="http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/spoon2.jpg">

Get your balls out of your purse and step up to flavor!
With whale cancer!
F yeah!

[high fly]

<p>I liked the part where Bulldog tole us how Iraq was about to invade us if we didn't do something quick!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[PapaBear]

<p>I just realized that I should have posted this here, instead of making a new topic.</p><p><a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/52/Topic/44921/page/More_War_Aftermath.htm">http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/52/Topic/44921/page/More_War_Aftermath.htm</a></p><p>I think this is a perfect example of &quot;great news&quot;.</p>

<center><img src="http://www.geocities.com/pauleight/pb_sig.gif"></center>
<center>Please refrain from tasting the knob</center><center>KARMA IS</center>
<center>Thanks Monsterone for the sig!</center>