• 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.

War in Iraq . . .

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Osama Bin and his Al Q boys were nothing more than a street gang; a hardcore fanatical street gang, but a street gang none the less. That idiot Bush & his thugs glorified them into a combination of Ghengis Kahn & Barbarossa. Idiots! The invasion, occupation and rape of Iraq is stupidity and mass murder that Stalin and his commrades would envy.

Please change the title of this thread from 'War in Iraq' to 'Stupidity in Iraq.' Thank you.
 
Originally posted by: Condor
And would have been treated as such by Democratic leadership while thousands more died as the other cells in the US did their work - unobstrucked! That would be why we re-elected Republicans.

:cookie: for your opinion with no actual facts to support your argument.
 
Originally posted by: AndrewR
You reall think that all of those so called "terrorists" were in Iraq before we invaded?

And you would rather we fight those terrorists on US soil with police forces as opposed to fighting them in Iraq with the military?


First: Those terrorists are "NEW". We have created many more than we have destroyed. Second: You really think that we are fighting "ALL" the worlds terrorists in Iraq?

The 200 Billion spent would have done far more for security for the US had it been spent on shoring up the homeland instead of stirring up the hornets nest.

Nice quoting of the party line talking points! :roll:
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: RichPLS
Seems that we often give too much credit or too much blame for single men.

Do you honestly believe that Gore would've launched this phoney War as well???

I honestly think things would be worse had Gore gotten elected. Sadly, Bush was the better of the two evils...
 
Originally posted by: magomago
I want to see where all these funides are screaming for the "conversion of America"- Bin Laden never stated that

It wasn't Bin Laden who said it. It was Mohammad. Islam means to submit. According to the "prophet" non-Muslims have three choices:

1) Submit
2) Live as a second-class citizen under Islamic law.
3) Death.

Read the Qur'an. It's right there in black and white and not in some ambiguous manner. I've took it upon myself to start studying the Qur'an, and I have to be honest, it reads more like The Art of War than any kind of spiritual inspiration. I'd really be willing to discuss this with any Muslim because, honestly, it scares the sh*t out of my that that book is the inspiration for over a billion people. I really hope I am missing something and I really, really want someone to tell me it's not so.

"Fundies want to make everyone Muslim stems from fear with people throwing up a storm when they hear that FIVE percent of France is Muslim, or somethinglike like 1-3% of Europe is Muslim.

It the rate Islam is spreading, Europe will be predominantly Muslim by the turn of this century.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: AndrewR
You reall think that all of those so called "terrorists" were in Iraq before we invaded?

And you would rather we fight those terrorists on US soil with police forces as opposed to fighting them in Iraq with the military?


First: Those terrorists are "NEW". We have created many more than we have destroyed. Second: You really think that we are fighting "ALL" the worlds terrorists in Iraq?

The 200 Billion spent would have done far more for security for the US had it been spent on shoring up the homeland instead of stirring up the hornets nest.

Nice quoting of the party line talking points! :roll:

First, terrorists have been springing up for decades, unless you missed the Abu Nidals of the '80s (oh, he was in Baghdad, remember?) and the almost daily suicide attacks in Israel (which, incidentally, have pretty much stopped since Saddam isn't paying their families anymore). You also completely failed to answer my question.

Second, I am more than passingly familiar with the various terrorist groups in the world. Care to tell me off the top of your head where the groups I listed are from? No Google. Regardless, we are fighting a significant foreign terrorist presence in Iraq which is being fueled by recruits from the Middle East. Those recruits might have been just as likely to join AQ or any of the other groups without anything going on in Iraq. Previously, it was the US presence in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia that gave them recruits. Now, it's our presence in Iraq. If we leave, it's going to be our support for Israel. The raison du jour changes, but the result does not.

You CANNOT defend against terrorist activity by resting on your laurels without creating a police state. If that's what you want, I'm all for it since I'm in the government and will be on the controlling side. I suspect that you aren't arguing for that, however, which implies that you are wholly ignorant about antiterrorism/force protection, etc. I've been trained and working that area for over three years, and while it's necessary to make potential targets more difficult, it's not an absolute protection by any stretch of the imagination. Fortress America can never be impregnable if it's to stay America.

The British had an attack on their transit system followed up by the very same attack method two weeks later which would have succeeded but for some idiocy on the part of the terrorists. Does that give you any indication of the level of vigilance and police control we would need to prevent such attacks? If I wanted to become a terrorist, I could attack numerous targets with ease -- it's really not that tough. Sorry to alarm anyone, but it's the truth.
 
Originally posted by: dwell
Originally posted by: magomago
I want to see where all these funides are screaming for the "conversion of America"- Bin Laden never stated that

It wasn't Bin Laden who said it. It was Mohammad. Islam means to submit. According to the "prophet" non-Muslims have three choices:

1) Submit
2) Live as a second-class citizen under Islamic law.
3) Death.

Read the Qur'an. It's right there in black and white and not in some ambiguous manner. I've took it upon myself to start studying the Qur'an, and I have to be honest, it reads more like The Art of War than any kind of spiritual inspiration. I'd really be willing to discuss this with any Muslim because, honestly, it scares the sh*t out of my that that book is the inspiration for over a billion people. I really hope I am missing something and I really, really want someone to tell me it's not so.
Sure 🙂 I can if you want to. We can even draw on history and see what actually DID happen...because I would assume you are either reading it wrong (any arabic text accompied with your copy along with paraphrasing? I myself am amazed at how off the subbing of Chinese Shows are that I watch, and something like a religious text can easily be mistaken) and making the incorrect assumptions (Which is probably not due to your fault since again I don't like translations too much...I have two English Arabic Qurans with me with parphrasing in my apt. I'd have more but luckily the internet provides other translations as well) or you are onto some deep evil message that onver 1 billion people today are not concious of...a message that helped spur an age of scientific discovery and philosophy in the middle east 😉


"Fundies want to make everyone Muslim stems from fear with people throwing up a storm when they hear that FIVE percent of France is Muslim, or somethinglike like 1-3% of Europe is Muslim.

It the rate Islam is spreading, Europe will be predominantly Muslim by the turn of this century.

And whether or not this is true...WHY would it matter what the religion of people is? Is that going to change the governments that exist? Could, God Forbid, France remove its ban on the Hijab and Italy remove its ISlamophobic laws? If that would happen due to a larger Muslim population than I would say GOOD. But the way you are saying it, you are assuming all the sudden all the governments will be toppled and some kinda of theocratic government would appear.
 
Back
Top