Did Rumsfeld Really Say This Today? Ayup...He Sure Did

[viivo]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why aren't american indians strapping explosives to themselves and charging into The Gap?

Too much firewater, not enough Fox News.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why aren't american indians strapping explosives to themselves and charging into The Gap?

Becuase they had been beaten into submission a century ago. Before that though they did use terrorists attacks against the palefaces and faced terrorists attacks from the US Army.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why aren't american indians strapping explosives to themselves and charging into The Gap?

Becuase they had been beaten into submission a century ago. Before that though they did use terrorists attacks against the palefaces and faced terrorists attacks from the US Army.

If we were going into Iraq to stay, I'd say we'd need to learn some lessons from that. Perhaps the iraqi army can.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why aren't american indians strapping explosives to themselves and charging into The Gap?

Becuase they had been beaten into submission a century ago. Before that though they did use terrorists attacks against the palefaces and faced terrorists attacks from the US Army.

If we were going into Iraq to stay, I'd say we'd need to learn some lessons from that. Perhaps the iraqi army can.

There are a lot more Iraqi's than American Indians.

 

[kage69]

Another delusional neocon. What a shock.

 

[Jhhnn]

What? Don't you guys remember all the stories of car bombings and the influx of foreign radical freedom fighters in Saddam's Iraq? The religious militias? The shootings, bombings, and the utter lack of order?

Yeh, well, neither do I...

Terrorism has its roots in bitter sentiment, and the invasion of Iraq has created plenty of that... It also thrives on a lack of civil authority, something that the total abolishment of the government in Iraq pretty much insured for a very long time...

Reality is for folks who can't take drugs, or can't find a way to believe in Neocon fairytales...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In order to be able to answer this question you would need to know what a terrorist is and how one is created. You would have to factor in such issues as to why persons seeming in the same environment pursue different life strategies. You would need to command a knowledge of many variables. Neither Rumsfelf nor anybody here posesses that knowledge, I would think.

Along that line of thinking, is it so far out of the bounds of logic to assume terrorism *has* been created?

How does one define terrorism? Is it enough to say the insurgents are engaging in terror attacks in addition to an organized resistance? I would hazard to say that, yes, the insurgents are engaging in both. And, considering the now-termed insurgents were *not* insurgents before but, rather, members of the former Saddam Fedayeen or other Baath party supporters that did not engage in car bomb attacks against, say, Western hotels, Iraqi police stations, Iraqi oil pipelines, etc. then it *would* be correct to say that terrorism has indeed been created.

Correct by your definition.
===================

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why aren't american indians strapping explosives to themselves and charging into The Gap?

The terrorism the American Indians now practice is against themselves as a result of low self esteem via humiliation.

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why aren't american indians strapping explosives to themselves and charging into The Gap?

Becuase they had been beaten into submission a century ago. Before that though they did use terrorists attacks against the palefaces and faced terrorists attacks from the US Army.

If we were going into Iraq to stay, I'd say we'd need to learn some lessons from that. Perhaps the iraqi army can.

Which lesson is this? Wipe out 90% of the indigenous population in order to beat them into submission? Great idea! Typical "let's take off the gaunlet" attitude.

 

[kage69]

I would ask you to remind yourselves who preserved Aristotelian norms when our own society was facing barbarism.

What do Irish monks have to do with this?


😉

 

[Todd33]

f the war in Iraq "creates" terrorism, than women in short skirts create rape.

While Iraq may have become the focal point for terrorists, to say it has "created" terrorism is silly.

That is the silliest thing I've read on these forums. Not only does an invasion and occupation by a Christian nation in a Muslim country play right into the recruiting efforts of al Qaeda, Osama has said as much. I've read many of his speeches (ya, there is more to reality than Fox news tells you) and he drums up support by using our imperialism as an example why jihad required for defense of Islam. Our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are the best things to happen to the extremist Islam movement, they will have young men to die for them for years to come.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Terrorism has its roots in bitter sentiment, and the invasion of Iraq has created plenty of that... It also thrives on a lack of civil authority, something that the total abolishment of the government in Iraq pretty much insured for a very long time...

Agreed.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Amused

If the war in Iraq "creates" terrorism, than women in short skirts create rape.

As a previous poster mentioned, this has got to be the stupidest comparison I've heard in a long time.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it isn't.

Yes it is.

how can it not? if Russia invaded Canada would it not piss off people in the US?

I don't think so...I think people would laugh about it. 😀

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In order to be able to answer this question you would need to know what a terrorist is and how one is created. You would have to factor in such issues as to why persons seeming in the same environment pursue different life strategies. You would need to command a knowledge of many variables. Neither Rumsfelf nor anybody here posesses that knowledge, I would think.

I would think the need for revenge would be a very strong factor?? Couple that with a sense of nationalism and sprinkle on a generous dose of religion. Bake in an oven for about a year, and there you go. 😉

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Why aren't american indians strapping explosives to themselves and charging into The Gap?

Go bomb their towns and see what happens. Jeesh! No comparison there.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.dod.mil/transcripts...040907-secdef1281.html

the war in Iraq has not created terrorism.

Wow.

He's right.

If the war in Iraq "creates" terrorism, than women in short skirts create rape.

While Iraq may have become the focal point for terrorists, to say it has "created" terrorism is silly.

I'm going to do you a small favor and glance over your horrible horrible analogy and go right to the point.
You really don't think that there hasn't been at least a few people in Iraq who were perfectly happy(well, as happy as one could be, basically not wanting strap a bomb to ones chest to kill the evil satan) who were upset by what is going on in their country and decided to strap a bomb to their chest to do something?

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: Amused

If the war in Iraq "creates" terrorism, than women in short skirts create rape.

Oh but your analogy does in fact hit a certain undisputable point in term of the reality of people perspective.
It's a fact that many in society still think women in short skirts should be blamed or shouldered part of the blame for inciting the rapist(s), (I know ideal world is so different than real world) and that's is the same problem with what we did in Iraq in the view of many in the muslim world.
We ideally like to think that we went to Iraq to defeat terrorism, but if our viewpoint is only shared by us (and that only among the neo-cons right wing or christian right-wing, not even everyone in right-wing party), then we get the problem, for Al-Qaeda didn't recruit among us, but among people in muslim world where their extreme ideology is getting the boost by the view/perspective of the people about what we're doing in Iraq. Many find we are without justification in invading Iraq now. GWB tried to use WMD justification prior to the war, it's not only to convince us, but to convince the population in middle east to either support or at least not overtly oppose our move there. Now that no WMD has been found, he is switching his reasons, eg Saddam brutality, mass-murdering regime, etc, but while it may work half the time here, unfortunately it's not working so well back there, and it's creating backlash against our interest not just at home but also abroad. Making AQ recruiting work easier and AQ ideology spread faster. That's why we could say that on the net result, war in Iraq actually create more terrorist than reducing them.
Of course only later history will be able to determine how bad the damage is...

 

[onelove]

looks like another silly word game:

the war in Iraq has not created terrorism.

same as:

Iraq had long-established ties to terrorists

Bush is correct in saying the Iraq war didn't INVENT terrorism - duh - same as depending on the bent of the listener, the term "long established" can be interpreted to mean EITHER
1) that Hussein had a lengthy (in time) and established (like rooted, intertwined, or on solid foundation) ties with AQ.
OR
2) that Hussein's ties with AQ have long ago been demonstrated and shown as fact (long ago established)

The former is the statement without evidence offered for support, but the latter is more insidious: through this word choice, the faithful, the forgetful, and the inattentive (listening to the soundbyte with one ear while preparing dinner) easily interpret "long established" to have definition #2.

Bush rattles these things off like he's the county simpleton, but there's a calculus evident.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In order to be able to answer this question you would need to know what a terrorist is and how one is created. You would have to factor in such issues as to why persons seeming in the same environment pursue different life strategies. You would need to command a knowledge of many variables. Neither Rumsfelf nor anybody here posesses that knowledge, I would think.

I would think the need for revenge would be a very strong factor?? Couple that with a sense of nationalism and sprinkle on a generous dose of religion. Bake in an oven for about a year, and there you go. 😉

Yes but why one and not another?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.dod.mil/transcripts...040907-secdef1281.html

the war in Iraq has not created terrorism.

Wow.

He's right.

If the war in Iraq "creates" terrorism, than women in short skirts create rape.

While Iraq may have become the focal point for terrorists, to say it has "created" terrorism is silly.

Something tells me AT's newest elite member isn't too bright.

 

[glenn1]

Invading and occupying a Muslim nation on the Arab Peninsula does not recruit for al Qaeda, don't be ridiculous!

If you take preventing a possible reason for terrorist recruitment as being a higher goal than freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, then you are correct. Otherwise, it's like saying we shouldn't have fought the Civil War and freed the slaves because of all the Jim Crow laws that resulted because from resentment of the invasion and subsequent occupation of the south during Reconstruction. You can cite "creation of new terrorists" as a negative side-effect but it still doesn't override that OIF was the right thing to do.

 

[Gaard]

I didn't have enough milk for my cereal in the morning, but it wasn't that big of deal so I wasn't going to make a trip to the store. But then I realized I was out of coffee (and I absolutely have to have my coffee) so I drove to the store. As long as I was there I bought some milk. Later when I got back home, I discovered that I wasn't out of coffee afterall. When my wife asked me why I went to the store, I told her because I was out of milk.

 

[GMElias]

wow...go Rumsfeld...what a genius!🙁
-Elias

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Invading and occupying a Muslim nation on the Arab Peninsula does not recruit for al Qaeda, don't be ridiculous!

If you take preventing a possible reason for terrorist recruitment as being a higher goal than freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, then you are correct. Otherwise, it's like saying we shouldn't have fought the Civil War and freed the slaves because of all the Jim Crow laws that resulted because from resentment of the invasion and subsequent occupation of the south during Reconstruction. You can cite "creation of new terrorists" as a negative side-effect but it still doesn't override that OIF was the right thing to do.

Maybe you should reread the topic. Rummy didn't say "Ya, Iraq is making new terrorist, but it's worth it!". But thanks for throwing flak out there and confusing the topic anyhow. BTW the Civil War is one of the worst examples to illustrate Iraq, but I guess you got sucked in by Cheney and his "Grant and Lincoln didn't wage a sensitive war" line?

Oh wait, the Civil War does have one parallel, during the time of the war no one ever said it was to free the slaves, but now they do. Same in Iraq, we never said we were there to free the Iraqis, but now we are! You are a genius and you didn't even know it.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Oh wait, the Civil War does have one parallel, during the time of the war no one ever said it was to free the slaves, but now they do. Same in Iraq, we never said we were there to free the Iraqis, but now we are! You are a genius and you didn't even know it.

well, in addition, he raised the issue of "civil war" in this iraq thread - maybe smarter than you're giving him credit for. Glenn's a good guy, no need to be personal about it... (sorry, just advocating for civility on the forums)