"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.