-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Did Rumsfeld Really Say This Today? Ayup...He Sure Did
- Thread starter conjur
- Start date
DealMonkey
Lifer
I'm getting a weird sense of deja vu here. 🙂
Just the violence in the holy city of Najaf has probably engenedered enough ill-will to guarantee terrorist attacks against the US for the next decade, and I would not be surprised if 10 years were a gross underestimate.
And here I'm talking about people who would have otherwise not been prone to terrorism, but by the desecration of Najaf--Now that will trigger more violence. and since they are asymetrically weak compared to US military might. Voila--shake and stir--you got yourself some new terrorists.
Thanx Rummy.
And here I'm talking about people who would have otherwise not been prone to terrorism, but by the desecration of Najaf--Now that will trigger more violence. and since they are asymetrically weak compared to US military might. Voila--shake and stir--you got yourself some new terrorists.
Thanx Rummy.
Wow, this is the closest we can come to a right-wing criticism of this thread? Either you guys are slipping, or you have run away from a a bunch of pansy-assed liberals. You pick which it is.
Here's what your argument should have been:
The city as a whole was not considered 100% sacred, or else many dissenting voices in the Arb community would have risin up in criticism of the alleged "imam" who is exploiting the power vacuum in Iraq. Rather, it is the city who has the honor of hosting the most sacred mosque in Iraq, which is a significant difference. The restraint showed by the US forces in the last flare-up in this city proves the respect the official US policy holds towards the Islamic faith.
Thus, any rational evaluation of US "desecration" in Najaf will show that the US showed considerable restraint regarding the religious norms of Islamic society.
For those who beleive that "mohammedeans" do not listen to logic, I would ask you to remind yourselves who preserved Aristotelian norms when our own society was facing barbarism.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
