"DSK" wrote in message
...
Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google
says there are over 2 million hits.


NOYB wrote:
That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these terrorists really are.

You mean, the "lie" that actually happens to be how it is in the real
world?

Funny, you seem to have avoided any references about how many foreign
fighters are in the Iraq insurgency.

There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters. You
ask how many? Who knows. There is no way to count the number of
terrorists that flood across the porous borders from Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Iran, and Jordan.


Why do you keep running away from
factual references, and keep returning to propagandizing?


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting that
Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the frontline on
"the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war on
terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America,

Admit a falsehood? Why? So you'd feel better?

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google
says there are over 2 million hits.


NOYB wrote:
That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these terrorists really are.

You mean, the "lie" that actually happens to be how it is in the real
world?

Funny, you seem to have avoided any references about how many foreign
fighters are in the Iraq insurgency. Why do you keep running away from
factual references, and keep returning to propagandizing?


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting
that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the frontline
on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war on
terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America, then they would also
have to admit the Bush-Cheney Administration's failure to actually fight
terrorism and the long string of lies leading us into war in Iraq.

So, keep spinning & dodging, NOBBY! Maybe you'll be rewarded with a nice
cushy appointment, or maybe you'll have to wait for your reward in
Heaven.

DSK






The Bushbots are no longer fighting a War on Terrorism. The White House
has a new term. I kid you not.

You're citing the NY Times again. Just last Friday, in his speech calling
for the renewal of the Patriot Act, Bush used the phrase "war on terror".
So I'm not really sure where the NY Times is getting its info from.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with
porous borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer
casualties than 1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't
insurgents who killed those 3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not
insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and countless Iraqi civilians
since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine.
Google says there are over 2 million hits.
There's no requirement that an insurgent be a native of the country in
which he or she is fighting. Further, NOYB is suffering from "old
think" here. The Muslims are bound together by religion, not by
geography. It's a Muslim insurgency.
That's a good argument to nuke the whole region, eh?


No, it is not.

Let me know when one arises then. The plans are already drafted to
destroy Iran should another 9/11-type attack occur...particularly if it's
with WMD. After 9/11, even you were calling for "bombing Afghanistan into
the stone age". I suspect that we'll strike while the iron is hot next
time.


You keep bringing that up, and you never mention the fact that I changed
my mind after a few days and said so.

That's OK, Harry. As an internet arm-chair quarterback, you're allowed to
vacillate. As the leader of the US, Bush must respond with conviction.
Should a WMD/nuclear attack occur, Tehran will be reduced to ashes before
even you have a chance to "change your mind after a few days".



We aren't going to be tossing nukes at anyone, unless we are attacked with
nukes by a nation-state. Bet on it.

If we're attacked with a nuke, Tehran will be gone. No investigation. No
trial. And you can bet on that.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOBBY wrote:
Because the surrounding countries were not as geographically
strategically important. Look at a map and you'll understand.

I understand that Iraq has oil. Looking at a map, it appears there are
lots of better choices for strategic location... including Saudi Arabia,
which we have removed troops from in deference to fundamentalism Moslem's
wishes. Is this how Bush/Cheney are "winning"?

Saudi Arabia doesn't border our biggest threat from the region: Iran.



Southern Iran controls routes west into Afghanistan and the Straits of
Hormuz where so much of the world's oil is shipped thru. Why not plant a
strategic base there?


Because we weren't in a position to invade Iran. We had troops in the Gulf,
in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia at our disposal. We thought we had troops
available in Turkey, but the *******s squelched that plan at the last
minute...which allowed a lot of weapons and people to flow back and forth to
and from Syria at the start of the war.



... Iran is surrounded on three side now by US troops. Syria is
surrounded on two sides. Saudi Arabia is surrounded on three sides.

We already had troops in Saudi. I guess it makes more sense to pull them
out so you can threaten to invade later??

We only had troops there in order to invade Iraq if needed. Once we had
Iraq, we didn't need Saudi Arabia.


BTW you seem to be laboring under the illusion that there is some credible
threat that we might invade another Middle East country. The rulers of
these countries don't seem to share that illusion.

Neither did Saddam...until we marched into Baghdad.



... We can hit terror cells in any country in the region as long as we
have troops in Iraq.

So, why haven't we? If there are "terrorist" and/or insurgents coming into
Iraq, then they must exist in these other countries. Why have we not cut
them off at the source??

We've squeezed Syria pretty hard...even so far as getting into border
squirmishes with Saddam-sympathizing Syrian troops.

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

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with
porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed
those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says
there
are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it
would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is
the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the
war
on terror").



It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO


If we apply Don's logic...
When you do a google search with the words "terrorists" and "Iraq", you
get
8,290,000 hits. That's almost 4 times more hits with the word
"terrorists"
than with the word "insurgents". Using liberal debate tactics, I guess
that
I have just proven that they are terrorists and not insurgents.

Well google returned 78,500 hits for "Hillary Clinton" and Liar.......
as well as 718,000 for "John Kerry" and "stupid"


(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost getting
boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps I'll start
playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups, and start
promoting
the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least I'll have more
intelligent
adversaries to argue against.)

NOBBY wrote:
There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters.

Really? 5% to 10% is "almost all?"

... You
ask how many? Who knows. There is no way to count the number of
terrorists that flood across the porous borders from Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Iran, and Jordan.


So how are you sure there are so many? By your own statements, it might
be a trickle rather than a flood.

So, I tend to rely on the professionals (the Army, the CIA, the DIA, the
State Dept) who say five to ten percent, rather than the political
spinmeisters who say "a flood."


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting that
Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the frontline on
"the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war on
terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America,


Admit a falsehood?

Yep, a "falsehood" that corresponds more closely to actual facts in the
real world.

... Why? So you'd feel better?


No, so that you would be "honest" which is what we call people who tend
to tell the truth instead of lying all the time. Maybe you'd feel better.

DSK

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with
porous borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer
casualties than 1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't
insurgents who killed those 3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not
insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and countless Iraqi civilians
since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine.
Google says there are over 2 million hits.
There's no requirement that an insurgent be a native of the country
in which he or she is fighting. Further, NOYB is suffering from "old
think" here. The Muslims are bound together by religion, not by
geography. It's a Muslim insurgency.
That's a good argument to nuke the whole region, eh?


No, it is not.
Let me know when one arises then. The plans are already drafted to
destroy Iran should another 9/11-type attack occur...particularly if
it's with WMD. After 9/11, even you were calling for "bombing
Afghanistan into the stone age". I suspect that we'll strike while the
iron is hot next time.


You keep bringing that up, and you never mention the fact that I changed
my mind after a few days and said so.

That's OK, Harry. As an internet arm-chair quarterback, you're allowed
to vacillate. As the leader of the US, Bush must respond with
conviction. Should a WMD/nuclear attack occur, Tehran will be reduced to
ashes before even you have a chance to "change your mind after a few
days".


We aren't going to be tossing nukes at anyone, unless we are attacked
with nukes by a nation-state. Bet on it.

If we're attacked with a nuke, Tehran will be gone. No investigation.
No trial. And you can bet on that.


Even if it is launched from North Korea?

Especially if it is launched from North Korea. But I was actually referring
to a "suitcase nuke" smuggled in to the states.


North Korea-Iran missile link feared
Tokyo
July 25, 2004

Page Tools
Iran and North Korea could be co-operating on missile development, it
emerged yesterday.
Quoting a senior US official, Japan's Asahi Shimbun daily said it had learnt
that Iran had given data on launch tests to North Korea.

"There is very strong evidence indicating that Iran and North Korea are
co-operating on ballistic missile development," Asahi quoted the US official
as saying.

The comments coincided with a visit to Japan by US Under-secretary of State
John Bolton, part of a drive by Washington to breathe life into six-party
talks aimed at ending a 20-month-old stand-off over North Korea's nuclear
ambitions.

Mr Bolton was scheduled to leave on Saturday after talks with Japanese
officials.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine.
Google says there are over 2 million hits.
NOYB wrote:
That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these terrorists really are.
You mean, the "lie" that actually happens to be how it is in the real
world?

Funny, you seem to have avoided any references about how many foreign
fighters are in the Iraq insurgency. Why do you keep running away from
factual references, and keep returning to propagandizing?


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting
that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka
"the war on terror").

OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small
minority of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America, then they
would also have to admit the Bush-Cheney Administration's failure to
actually fight terrorism and the long string of lies leading us into
war in Iraq.

So, keep spinning & dodging, NOBBY! Maybe you'll be rewarded with a
nice cushy appointment, or maybe you'll have to wait for your reward in
Heaven.

DSK





The Bushbots are no longer fighting a War on Terrorism. The White House
has a new term. I kid you not.

You're citing the NY Times again. Just last Friday, in his speech
calling for the renewal of the Patriot Act, Bush used the phrase "war on
terror". So I'm not really sure where the NY Times is getting its info
from.




That's right. Not only am I a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but...I
also get the Sunday NY Times delivered to my home.

Hey, it's your money. If I'm going to spend money on paper, it's on
Charmin. It's much more comfortable than the NY Times...and about as useful
if you're looking for accurate reporting.

Southern Iran controls routes west into Afghanistan and the Straits of
Hormuz where so much of the world's oil is shipped thru. Why not plant a
strategic base there?


NOYB wrote:
Because we weren't in a position to invade Iran.

We weren't in a position to invade Iraq either. That's why it took a few
months of maneuvering, and buttering up other countries to allow us to
position troops & equipment on the border.

And guess what? We're *still* not in a position to invade Iran.


... We thought we had troops
available in Turkey, but the *******s squelched that plan at the last
minute...which allowed a lot of weapons and people to flow back and forth to
and from Syria at the start of the war.

You know, PO'ing the Turks is one of the stupidest things the
Bush/Cheney Administration has done. Turkey has a strong army, they're
fierce fighters, they have a lot of experience combatting terrorism,
they have a strongly secular government, and they have been strongly
pro-West and especially pro-US for decades. They could (and should IMHO)
be among our staunchest allies in the Middle East.

Instead, we anger them to curry favor with the Kurds, who hate us and
are going to remain more friendly towards Al-Queda no matter what we do.

Smart move, huh? If Bush was playing chess, he might as well have thrown
away his rooks at the start.




... We can hit terror cells in any country in the region as long as we
have troops in Iraq.

So, why haven't we? If there are "terrorist" and/or insurgents coming into
Iraq, then they must exist in these other countries. Why have we not cut
them off at the source??


We've squeezed Syria pretty hard...even so far as getting into border
squirmishes with Saddam-sympathizing Syrian troops.


Really? Is that a fact? When?

The only thing we've done to Syria is get them angry enough to stop
cooperating on counter-terrorist investigations. Another smart strategic
move... like throwing away a knight or two.

I guess next time Bin Laden and/or his friends call 'check' you'll be
cheering about how we're winning. Better start talking about the economy
again!

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOBBY wrote:
There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters.

Really? 5% to 10% is "almost all?"

Those are bull**** numbers. Nobody (including Thunder) has posted a
reliable source for those numbers...yet you continue to cite them as gospel.


... You ask how many? Who knows. There is no way to count the number
of terrorists that flood across the porous borders from Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Iran, and Jordan.


So how are you sure there are so many? By your own statements, it might be
a trickle rather than a flood.



So, I tend to rely on the professionals (the Army, the CIA, the DIA, the
State Dept) who say five to ten percent, rather than the political
spinmeisters who say "a flood."

You're not quoting one single "named" source who states that the number is
5-10%. I've quoted several "named" sources who say that it's much, much
higher.


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting
that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the frontline
on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war on
terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America,


Admit a falsehood?

Yep, a "falsehood" that corresponds more closely to actual facts in the
real world.


In your world...not the real world.

... Why? So you'd feel better?

No, so that you would be "honest" which is what we call people who tend to
tell the truth instead of lying all the time. Maybe you'd feel better.

You accuse him of lying, and yet can't produce a single on-the-record source
that proves your case.