P. Fritz wrote:
"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 you're talking about me...I bend more toward socialists/labour.

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

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


NOYB wrote:
Those are bull**** numbers.

No, they're the most accurate & reliable figures available.

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

Wrong again. Reliable source *have* been quoted. Several times, actually.

You're losing it, NOBBY. Even a five-year-old gets tired of saying "yes
it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't." Or are you trying out a new
Monty Python skit?


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.


Like who? Vice President Cheney? Totally unbiased, right?

Official Bush/Cheney Policy: When confronted with hard fact, lie. If
confronted with more facts, lie harder.

isn't it time for you to run away from this thread, NOBBY?

DSK

NOYB wrote:
snip...

Syria is surrounded on two sides.

snip

Let me think about this for a minute...must be more George W 'funny talk'.

NOYB wrote:
snip

(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.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.

NOYB,
You are sounding like Harry. He thought we should carpet bomb the entire
region. The difference is Harry thought we should remove all citizens and
only destroy their entire infrastructure. That way the citizens die a slow
death.


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

"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?

An interesting note, if you Google up "Liberal Asshole" you get 310,000 hits
and "Liberal ****" gives you 961,000 hits.
and last but not least:

"Kevin Noble Pothead" gives you 547 hits.


"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.

(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.)

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

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


NOYB wrote:
Those are bull**** numbers.

No, they're the most accurate & reliable figures available.

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

Wrong again. Reliable source *have* been quoted. Several times, actually.

You're losing it, NOBBY. Even a five-year-old gets tired of saying "yes it
is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't." Or are you trying out a new
Monty Python skit?


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.


Like who? Vice President Cheney? Totally unbiased, right?

Official Bush/Cheney Policy: When confronted with hard fact, lie. If
confronted with more facts, lie harder.

Cheney said it. PM al-Jaafari said it. The Associated Press said it:

"Most of Iraq's suicide bombers are foreign-born, with the highest
proportion coming from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states, according
to an analysis by the Associated Press. "

But rick saw "some General" on "Faux News", and you heard "some government
official" on NPR say that it was mostly Iraqis doing the bombings...and
you've chosen to go with those mysterious un-named sources whose names you
can't remember.

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

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

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


NOYB wrote:
Those are bull**** numbers.

No, they're the most accurate & reliable figures available.

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

Wrong again. Reliable source *have* been quoted. Several times,
actually.

You're losing it, NOBBY. Even a five-year-old gets tired of saying "yes
it
is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't." Or are you trying out a new
Monty Python skit?


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.


Like who? Vice President Cheney? Totally unbiased, right?

Official Bush/Cheney Policy: When confronted with hard fact, lie. If
confronted with more facts, lie harder.

Cheney said it. PM al-Jaafari said it. The Associated Press said it:

"Most of Iraq's suicide bombers are foreign-born, with the highest
proportion coming from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states,
according
to an analysis by the Associated Press. "

But rick saw "some General" on "Faux News", and you heard "some government
official" on NPR say that it was mostly Iraqis doing the bombings...and
you've chosen to go with those mysterious un-named sources whose names you
can't remember.

This is some great wrting about the ongoing in Iraq

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/07/empty-jars.html

Like who? Vice President Cheney? Totally unbiased, right?

Official Bush/Cheney Policy: When confronted with hard fact, lie. If
confronted with more facts, lie harder.


NOBBY wrote:
Cheney said it.

Very highly biased, as well as being a prodigious liar. Remember, this
is the guy who said "I've never once used my political connections for
profit."


... PM al-Jaafari said it.

Another politician with an axe to grind, as well as with a vested
interest in currying favor with the Bush/Cheney gang.

... The Associated Press said it:

"Most of Iraq's suicide bombers are foreign-born..."

ah, so... you don't know the difference between SUICIDE BOMBERS and
insurgents. Big difference. Most of the attacks that are killing &
maiming our military personnel are NOT suicide attacks.

By their very nature, suicide bombers are a very tiny fraction of the
world wide terrorist network & of the Iraq insurgency.




But rick saw "some General" on "Faux News", and you heard "some government
official" on NPR say that it was mostly Iraqis doing the bombings...

Wrong. "Some Pentagon sources" which are of course highly protected and
some named intel officials, and the U.S. State Dept (*when* the heck is
Condi going to purge those disloyal *******s??) and of course, Fox News
itself.



....and
you've chosen to go with those mysterious un-named sources whose names you
can't remember.


Seems to me like I've remembered quite a lot. You're the one who is
misquoting, taking quotes out of context, quoting the equivalent of
Pepsi advertising as if it were Gospel, and of course outright lying.

Between refusing to distinguish between suicide bombers and the "on it's
last legs" insurgency, as well as refusing to acknowledge others
sources, as well as refusing to quote any of your own *reliable* (ie non
propaganda) sources, you've pretty much admitted that it's all fantasy.

You've done a very good job discrediting the running-dog fascist
lackeys, comrade NOBBY. Maybe as a reward, you'll get a little red star.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
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.


Turkey was agraid that allowing US troops to pass from Turkish soil into
Iraq would cause a terrorist backlash within their own borders. It was
fear, not failed diplomacy, that caused the Turks to withdraw their support.

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.

Better do some more research there, because you've just made a profoundly
dumb and inaccurate statement. *Most* Kurds are Shafiite Sunnis, and were
battling al Zarqawi's fundamentalist Ansar al-Islam group right before, and
early on in the March 2003 US invasion.



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?

Yes. The first one was in June of '03, when we hit a convoy on the
Syria-Iraq border and engaged in a firefight with Syrian border guards. We
ended up detaining 5 of them.

Just a few days ago, US troops fired on Syrian troops again:


Syrian troops 'fired on by US forces'
From correspondents in Damascus, Syria
July 22, 2005
SYRIA said today its border troops had been fired on by US and Iraqi forces
and accused Washington, London and Baghdad of lack of cooperation in
preventing insurgents infiltrating into Iraq.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E31477,00.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you wonder why *your* news sources don't report on these things?
Don't worry though. I'll be happy to pass along the truth from my sources
so that you can keep up to speed on things.




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