"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.