"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"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/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups
in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I
wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going
with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"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/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups
in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I
wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going
with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not.


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the car
or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love you
dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally, these
people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:52 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the car
or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love
you dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally, these
people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon.

Kind of depends on your definition of terms. While *all* reports I have
read, state that foreign militants are less than 10% of the insurgents, it
seems there are reports that those same militants make up 90% of the
suicide bombers. One caveat, while that 90% number is all over the
internet, it can be generally traced to one article written by Patrick
Quinn and Katherine Shrader and attributed to "one defense official".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...109609,00.html

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:52 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the
car
or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love
you dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally,
these
people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon.

Kind of depends on your definition of terms. While *all* reports I have
read, state that foreign militants are less than 10% of the insurgents, it
seems there are reports that those same militants make up 90% of the
suicide bombers. One caveat, while that 90% number is all over the
internet, it can be generally traced to one article written by Patrick
Quinn and Katherine Shrader and attributed to "one defense official".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...109609,00.html

Good link. Thanks.

``The foreign fighters are the ones that most often are behind the wheel of
suicide car bombs, or most often behind any suicide situation,'' said U.S.
Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the Multinational Force in
Iraq.
Officials have long believed that non-Iraqis infiltrating the country
through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were behind
most suicide missions, and the wave of bloody strikes in recent months has
confirmed that thinking.

Authorities have found little evidence that Iraqis have been behind the
near-daily stream of suicide attacks over the past six months, U.S. and
Iraqi intelligence officials said"



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

Is that good enough for you, Doug?

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

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

Is that good enough for you, Doug?


No, it's not.

By the way, why do you suppose this sort of violence was not going on before
we arrived? Keep in mind that your first response will probably be flung out
the window, and go for the second response, to save us all some time.

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

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

Is that good enough for you, Doug?


No, it's not.

By the way, why do you suppose this sort of violence was not going on
before we arrived? Keep in mind that your first response will probably be
flung out the window, and go for the second response, to save us all some
time.

First response: because you're in idiot (I figured I had a freebie there
since you already told me you were throwing it out).

Second response: because bin Laden's goal (as described by his 1996 Fatwa)
was to toss the U.S. out of the Middle East, sieze control of Saudi Arabia,
and use its oil to finance an Islamic state. The problems with his plan
arose when we voluntarily surrendered Saudi Arabia and planted 170,000
troops in the 2nd most oil-rich country in the region...which just so
happens to be on the border of the #1 oil-rich country that bin Laden and
his fellow Salifis hoped to sieze.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

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

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

Is that good enough for you, Doug?


No, it's not.

By the way, why do you suppose this sort of violence was not going on
before we arrived? Keep in mind that your first response will probably be
flung out the window, and go for the second response, to save us all some
time.

First response: because you're in idiot (I figured I had a freebie there
since you already told me you were throwing it out).

Second response: because bin Laden's goal (as described by his 1996
Fatwa) was to toss the U.S. out of the Middle East, sieze control of Saudi
Arabia, and use its oil to finance an Islamic state. The problems with
his plan arose when we voluntarily surrendered Saudi Arabia and planted
170,000 troops in the 2nd most oil-rich country in the region...which just
so happens to be on the border of the #1 oil-rich country that bin Laden
and his fellow Salifis hoped to sieze.

Great! But, I thought we were supposed to give the Iraqi people a safer,
more civilized country. Your president said "Mission Accomplished". When do
you think this goal might be achieved?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"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/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of
higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal
numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going
with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not.


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it.

Ok. Fine. You heard it. What is his name? What branch of the military
was/is he with? How long was he in Iraq? Is he still there? If not, when
did he leave? How did he come to the conclusion that we're fighting
domestic-born terrorists (aka--insurgents) vs. foreigners?

I would think that when we find these guys bodies blown to pieces, there's
very little reliable way to determine if they're Iraqi or Syrian/Saudi
Arabian/Iranian/Jordanian/etc.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"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/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of
higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal
numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going
with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not.


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it.

Ok. Fine. You heard it. What is his name? What branch of the military
was/is he with? How long was he in Iraq? Is he still there? If not,
when did he leave? How did he come to the conclusion that we're fighting
domestic-born terrorists (aka--insurgents) vs. foreigners?

I would think that when we find these guys bodies blown to pieces, there's
very little reliable way to determine if they're Iraqi or Syrian/Saudi
Arabian/Iranian/Jordanian/etc.


your last paragraph. If they're blown to pieces, how does YOUR trusted
source determine their nationality? Smell?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"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/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of
higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal
numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm
going with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're
not.


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official
on the radio, accept the fact that I heard it.

Ok. Fine. You heard it. What is his name? What branch of the military
was/is he with? How long was he in Iraq? Is he still there? If not,
when did he leave? How did he come to the conclusion that we're fighting
domestic-born terrorists (aka--insurgents) vs. foreigners?

I would think that when we find these guys bodies blown to pieces,
there's very little reliable way to determine if they're Iraqi or
Syrian/Saudi Arabian/Iranian/Jordanian/etc.


your last paragraph. If they're blown to pieces, how does YOUR trusted
source determine their nationality? Smell?

I'm sure the Iraqis have the equivalent of the US's missing person reports.
If 10 bad guys are found blown up cowering outside a mosque with RPGs at
their side, and 10 women report that they haven't heard from their hubbies
or sons in awhile, it's probably pretty likely they were Iraqis. Of course,
the Iraqi PM would be the person with the best knowledge of what's
happening...so I'm going to continue to rely on his interpretation and
analysis which concludes that almost all of the terrorists are foreign-born.