"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad
guys are Iraqis.

Are you unhappy with the current administration?

I couldn't be happier with them.


Separate question:

What if the situation is far worse 6 months from now? What will be your
reaction to that? Assume for the moment that the definition of "worse" is
one created by YOU.

We'll have troops in bases over there...but they won't be regularly
patrolling the cities. Instead, they'll be using the bases as staging areas
for attacks against terrorist cells in Syria and Iran.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft
age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the bad
guys are Iraqis.

Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your either/or
theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem to shake this
bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more than what we hear
from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq???

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft
age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the
bad guys are Iraqis.

Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your
either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem
to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more
than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq???

I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an
interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a
group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is
easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest
targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when
they are interrogated.

"Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support.
They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but
these are no such thing. They are terrorists."


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft
age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the
bad guys are Iraqis.

Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your
either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem
to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more
than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq???

I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an
interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a
group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That is
easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the softest
targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV when
they are interrogated.

"Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have support.
They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like Gandhi but
these are no such thing. They are terrorists."


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/



Doh! You mean Doug is wrong again? Who would have thunk it?

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an
interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:

English is Jaafari's second language. Interesting that you have to rely
on him for a definition of insurgency or terrorism. Although, I suppose
it's better than relying on our President. English appears to be his
second language also.


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a
group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That
is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the
softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

Clearly, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. Anyone who targets
civilians, is, by definition, a terrorist.


And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.

BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where are
the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very
small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you
have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on
now, show us a source. Where are the numbers?


"Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have
support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like
Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists."

So, NOYB, have you read the new studies about just who these foreign
fighters are? It seems they are not al Qaeda. It seems they *weren't*
terrorists at all, although they are now. It seems they "are part of a
new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow
Muslims from 'crusaders' and 'infidels.'" In other words, they are *our*
creation.

http://forums.santacruzsentinel.com/...c;f=1;t=002361

Just imagine if the Chump hadn't invaded Iraq. The chances are al Qaeda
would be in ruins, bin Laden may even have been brought to justice, and
quite possibly, the world would be at peace. We are now embroiled in a
problem we created. A problem that might never have existed, if it
weren't for the stupid SOB in the White House. A problem that just isn't
going away.

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.


BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where are
the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very
small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you
have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on
now, show us a source. Where are the numbers?

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question. He flatly stated that 95% of the
insurgency are disenfranchised Sunni Iraqis and maybe 5% tops are foreign.

-rick-

--
ignoring reality won't make it go away...

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.


BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where
are
the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very
small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you
have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on
now, show us a source. Where are the numbers?

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question.

Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who
doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed
while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building?

If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed
him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and
what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers
to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:45:21 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"-rick-" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.


BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where
are
the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a
very small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%..
NOYB, you have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some
time. Come on now, show us a source. Where are the numbers?

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question.

Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General"
who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he
interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast
building?

If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who
interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this
General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody
like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up.

Put up or shut up? Damn, if I wasn't asking for your sources up-thread.
Is this a little bait and switch? Here is one source that says foreign
militants are "perhaps as little as 5%":

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n5terror.html

"As little as 10%":

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...error_in_iraq/

Now, perhaps you will share a source or two in support of your belief that
we are fighting mainly "foreign militants".

NOYB wrote:
"-rick-" wrote in message

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question.


Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who
doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed
while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building?

If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed
him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and
what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers
to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up.

Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved.

The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared
that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting
from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and
couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they
introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the
discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency.

A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript
(LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a
reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my
struggle/fun ratio threshold.

-rick-

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.


BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where
are
the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very
small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you
have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on
now, show us a source. Where are the numbers?

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question. He flatly stated that 95% of the
insurgency are disenfranchised Sunni Iraqis and maybe 5% tops are foreign.


What the reporters are reporting vs. what the statistics actually show has
created a completely skewed and erroneous picture of what is actually taking
place. If you read the following article, you'll see a slant by the
journalist to suggest that the terrorists are actually domestic insurgents.
However, I've clipped two important passages with statistics that completely
refute his claim.

First passage:
" increasingly violent suicide and roadside bombings are expected to
continue at a rate of 65 daily -- about 500 a week"

Second passage:
"Only two or three of the hundreds of suicide bombings that have occurred
since the war began appear to have been committed by Iraqis, apparently
radical Kurds from the north, according to the military intelligence
assessment.
The foreigners detained by U.S. forces in Iraq have come mostly from Egypt
and, second, Saudi Arabia, with others from Libya, Sudan and Tunisia, U.S.
military officials said.

Some recently discovered roadside bombs bear the earmarks of Hezbollah,
suggesting that insurgents have been schooled outside of Iraq."



So if the bombings are occurring at a rate of 500 week, and only 200-300
have been committed by Iraqis since March of 2003 (roughly 120 weeks), it's
logical to conclude that an *extreme* minority (less than 1%) of the attacks
are by Iraqis rather than by foreigners.