Iraq Insurgency: No End In Sight part II

The last few days have been IRAQ - Extreme FUBAR Makeover. I put up something like 20 posts detailing many horrific details on just how badly things ae going in the other Iraq thread. It is amazing how stunning this is - in a mind-numbind day-after-day horrific ritual of death.

 

After the detonation Wednesday of the bomb which killed the children in Iraq, I decided that, if the United States was not in Iraq, this would have been a good reason to be there! The frequency, number, and horrific nature of the bombings daily lend credence to our mission there; we cannot end our presence until all these murdering terrorists are captured or killed and our mission is completed. There is an end to this strife and it is a shame that so many innocent will die at the hands of the terrorists...

 

Bin Laden is in Iraq?

 

oh comon. theyre like the people in darfur, and before it places like rwanda, and so on... thier lives dont matter. dont be silly...

please tell me that youre joking and that your logic doesnt really work this way.

 

Jesus wept.

 

I will speak slowly so you understand. I'll use caps too.

IF. THE. UNITED STATES. WAS. NOT. IN. IRAQ. THESE. BOMBINGS. WOULD. NOT. HAVE. HAPPENED. IN. THE. FIRST. PLACE. IRAQ. HAD. LITTLE. TO. DO. WITH. THE. MURDERING. TERRORISTS. AND. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. 9-11.

THE. U.S HAS. ENABLED. TERRORISTS. TO. COME. TO. IRAQ. BECAUSE. THEY. DESTABILIZED. A. CORRUPT. REGIME. THERE. WAS. NO. NEED. TO. GO. THERE. IN. THE. FIRST. PLACE

Just ******** you, eat some neg rep, and I'll pray that you are in fact, nothing but a sockpuppet online persona that doesn't really believe the drivel that he spouts, which is how I have finally come to reconcile Flannigan.

 

Honestly, it's clear that whoever uses the name "In the Net" is simply a wind-up artist, a college student conducting an extensive study on internet political communication, or a paid political tool -- but even so, this sort of aggressive distortion of facts and intentional historical revisionism put forth into the public discourse needs to be shouted down for what it is.

The even-more-horrific-than-usual bombing Wednesday that took the lives of several children would simply never have happened if the United States had not invaded and occupied Iraq. It happened as a specific response to the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq.

This is a fact. These sorts of activities never happened under the brutal regime of Hussein -- who deserves a special place in hell for his other crimes, right next to that suicide bomber.

To say this bombing is a good reason for us to be there and lends credence to our mission is an insult to intelligence, to history, and to the lost innocent lives in that latest tragic incident in a seemingly-endless string of related tragic incidents.

We can debate and disagree about the reasons for invading Iraq, the morality of invading Iraq, the legality of invading Iraq and all the other geo-economic-crapo-political reasons for the war in the first place til we're all blue in the face.

But to say this bombing is justification for our presence there is circular and deceitful at best, and hateful and evil at worst.

 

I'm going to add a hyperlink to all my posts in the future to the 09/11/01 terror attacks... Thomas A Fina's post tells me that folks just are not understanding the problem. Almost sympathetic to the terrorists... cut and run is all they wish... sad!

It would have still happened, but in the United States! Mainstreet Yourtown!

Ignoring terrorists is no strategy at all, except to a pacifist! And the terror bombings in Spain and London show how terrorists deal with pacificistic civilians... they kill them!

 

Don't bother. We know the argument. Its wrong, but we know the argument.

 

Cause and effect, cause and effect.

There were no sucide bombings in Iraq when US was not there. Do you know that, ITN?

 

There was no free elections or freedom either before we got there. Do you know that verybdog?

 

I know that. But what are free election and freedom good for if you are dead?

 

I think I can actually smell your soul rotting.

 

You know that old joke about the guy who kills his parents, then pleads for mercy on the grounds he's an orphan?

If ITN were on that jury, it'd be hung.

 

The Colonial Militia thought about that all through the Revolutionary War! Thank God they were not pacifists but patriots! For their sacrifice we have freedom here; for the Army's sacrifice in Iraq, they'll have freedom there!

Patriotism verybdog... read about it this weekend... I'll give you a test on Monday!

 

ITN...in your sig, you misspelled "avatar."

You're welcome.

PS...that's gotta be the WORST picture of Peter Nowak of all time.

 

Actually there Claymore, I've never felt more fresh!

Bush is President, nominees to the Supreme Court await being named, we are winning in the War on Terror, the market is rising, and my favorite stock just split paying fair dividents. I'm going to play the lotto for a change this afternoon and watch Fox & Friends on the big screen (I tivo'ed it from this morning)! I still have the rest of Dick Morris' book to read too!

Life is sweet!

 

Thanks....actually it's a little known Brazilian Striker named Jose!

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/825ijtne.asp

THERE IS A STRANGE PAIRING of positions on the left.

The first is that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were not connected. The work of Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn in THE WEEKLY STANDARD, which is supported by other serious investigative reporters such as Claudia Rosett has already established beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a web of connections, but the combination of the left's indifference to inconvenient facts and the international version of the soft bigotry of low expectations--an Arab dictator couldn't have had a sophisticated intelligence service capable of hiding such matters--make it an article of faith among Bush haters that there was no connection.

Exactly the opposite approach to facts and evidence is emerging on the left's claim that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. "Breeding ground" means something quite different from "killing ground." The term conveys the belief that had the United States and its allies not invaded Iraq, there would be fewer jihadists in the world today--that the transition of Iraq from brutal dictatorship to struggling democracy has somehow unleashed a terrorist-breeding virus.

The fact that foreign fighters are streaming across Syria into Iraq in the hopes of killing America is not evidence supporting the "breeding ground" theory. "Opportunity" to act is not the same thing as "motive" for acting. There is zero evidence for the proposition that Iraq is motive rather than opportunity, but the "motive" theory is nevertheless put forward again and again. As recently as Wednesday the Washington Post

account of the aftermath of the London bombings included the incredible--and unsubstantiated in the article--claim that the "the profile of the suspects suggested by investigators fit long-standing warnings by security experts that the greatest potential threat to Britain could come from second-generation Muslims, born here but alienated from British society and perhaps from their own families, and inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war."[emphasis added]

In an interview with the London Times, Prime Minister Tony Blair disputed the idea "that the London terrorist attacks were a direct result of British involvement in the Iraq war. He said Russia had suffered terrorism with the Beslan school massacre, despite its opposition to the war, and that terrorists were planning further attacks on Spain even after the pro-war government was voted out. "September 11 happened before Iraq, before Afghanistan, before any of these issues and that was the worst terrorist atrocity of all," he said.

While it is theoretically possible that some jihadists were forged as a result of the invasion of Iraq, no specific instance of such a terrorist has yet been produced. Reports in the aftermath of the London bombings indicated that the British intelligence service estimates more than 3,000 residents of Great Britain had trained in the Afghanistan terrorist camps prior to the invasion of Afghanistan--which suggests that the probability is very high that most of the jihadists in England date their hatred of the West to some point prior to the invasion of Iraq. And though two of the London bombers appear to have traveled to Pakistan for religious instruction post-March 2003, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it was Iraq which "turned" the cricket-loving young men into killers. In fact, it is transparently absurd for anyone to claim such a thing........................

 

Sacrifice is good only when your country is under attacks.

But Iraqi never attacked us. Saddam Hussein never attacked us.

It's Bush's personal war. Don't get too crazy about it, ITN!

 

If I can find a link/quote proving what I put in bold to be true, will you publicly renounce the Iraq war?