#About that "surge" thingy....

[Amanda Williams]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html

Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
Iraqi officials said Sunday.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military said coalition forces picked up 10
suspected terrorists during raids targeting car bombing networks across
the capital Sunday.

A suicide bombing at a marketplace in northern Iraq on Saturday killed
150, a government official said. About 250 people were injured in the
blast.

A truck laden with two tons of explosives detonated in an outdoor market
in Amerli, officials said. The truck resembled an Iraqi military truck,
according to an official at the Joint Coordination Center in Tuz
Khurmatu.

Amerli is a village predominately populated by Shiite Turkmens and
Kurds. It is about 100 miles north of Baghdad in Salaheddin province,
near the city of Tuz Khurmatu.

On Sunday two car bomb attacks killed at least nine people and wounded
15 others in Baghdad, Iraq's Interior Ministry said.

The first car bomb exploded at about 10:30 a.m. (2:30 a.m. ET) on a busy
commercial street in central Baghdad's Karrada district. Six people were
killed and seven were wounded.

Minutes later a second car bomb detonated outside a restaurant in
Baghdad's Jadriya district, killing three civilians and wounding eight
others, the ministry said.

In the busy Shorja market in central Baghdad a roadside bomb explosion
killed three people and wounded five others, according to a Baghdad
police official.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Damned glad it's working so well with all those Iraqis running around
being "estatic" and playing soccer and all.. well not 162 of them ...

Not to mention the July US death toll is at 27 already with the last 3
months being the WORST for US deaths since this misbegotten neocon war
began...

Gonzo Funeral Watch: 118 days 8 hours 34 minutes and counting

--
AW

<small but dangerous>

 

[Vitor]

Amanda Williams wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>
> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>
> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>

Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.

Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not attack.
Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our troops
in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.

As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
kill as many as possible.

 

[Vitor]

Amanda Williams wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>
> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>
> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
> Iraqi officials said Sunday.

Yep and that is why those evil people have to be defeated. No blame is
put on them for making such senseless attacks and causing wanton
suffering.
>
> Meanwhile, the U.S. military said coalition forces picked up 10
> suspected terrorists during raids targeting car bombing networks across
> the capital Sunday.

Good.
>
> A suicide bombing at a marketplace in northern Iraq on Saturday killed
> 150, a government official said. About 250 people were injured in the
> blast.

Those people are horrible and need to be defeated. That is a good
rational so keep up the fight. They can't kill US troops because they
are weak they just cause death. There is no way evil like that can win.
Either the people will cower in fear or they will stand up. It is up
to us to stand up to such demonic individuals with twisted ideals.
>
> A truck laden with two tons of explosives detonated in an outdoor market
> in Amerli, officials said. The truck resembled an Iraqi military truck,
> according to an official at the Joint Coordination Center in Tuz
> Khurmatu.

If a group was doing this in the US it would not be tolerated. We would
hunt down and kill people who are like this.
>
> Amerli is a village predominately populated by Shiite Turkmens and
> Kurds. It is about 100 miles north of Baghdad in Salaheddin province,
> near the city of Tuz Khurmatu.

These people are so crazy if they can't get past US troops they will
satisfy their blood lust on the nearest targets.
>
> On Sunday two car bomb attacks killed at least nine people and wounded
> 15 others in Baghdad, Iraq's Interior Ministry said.

These people are manics and must be killed.
>
> The first car bomb exploded at about 10:30 a.m. (2:30 a.m. ET) on a busy
> commercial street in central Baghdad's Karrada district. Six people were
> killed and seven were wounded.

More rational to keep fighting. These people are psychotic killers who
make Dalhmer look like a teddy bear.
>
> Minutes later a second car bomb detonated outside a restaurant in
> Baghdad's Jadriya district, killing three civilians and wounding eight
> others, the ministry said.
>
> In the busy Shorja market in central Baghdad a roadside bomb explosion
> killed three people and wounded five others, according to a Baghdad
> police official.

The evidense keeps mounting.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Damned glad it's working so well with all those Iraqis running around
> being "estatic" and playing soccer and all.. well not 162 of them ...
>
> Not to mention the July US death toll is at 27 already with the last 3
> months being the WORST for US deaths since this misbegotten neocon war
> began...
>

You have no concept of war. We are conducting offensive operations.
That means getting out of the protection of a large base. We are going
to where the terrorists hang out and that means they shoot at us. We
are also staying in smaller numbers in their territory. Our troops are
more vulnerable. The mission is not defensive but offensive to go after
seek out and find the enemy. If there is a gang problem and the
residence are being terrorized then you send in the police. If they are
doing patrol and raids in gang territory will be more of a risk than
sitting in the police station.

 

[Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names]

On Jul 8, 4:08 pm, Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> Amanda Williams wrote:
> >http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>
> > Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>
> > BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
> > two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
> > Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>
> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
> very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
> counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
> whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.
>
> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not attack.
> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
> go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
> those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our troops
> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>
> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
> kill as many as possible.


You need to take a few minutes and become familiar with the concept of
"asymmetrical warfare."

We are not fighting WW II. That one ended 60 years ago and there will
not be another like it.

Sadly for American GI's who are dying for no reason in Iraq, fools
like those in the White House, and like you, do not understand what it
is that we are fighting nor do they understand how to fight it. You
start by not fighting.

 

[Joe S.]

"Vitor" <none@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:4691442d$0$16568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Amanda Williams wrote:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>>
>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>>
>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
>> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
>> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>>
>
> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
> very hard to understand.


I participated in one war. I studied war for years and years. I served on
the planning staff for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

You need to get a clue about "asymmetrical war." We are past the days of
World War I, World War II and Korea. Hell, we are even past the days of the
Vietnam War.

Start by reading and understanding Ted Gurr "Why Men Rebel."

Then read the collected works of Osama Bin Laden.




> This is not a war of attrition where body counts mean anything. US losses
> are so low we have lost fewer in a whole war than have been lost in most
> single day battles.
>
> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there. If
> you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not attack. Still
> there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take the
> offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are engaging in
> offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to go out to their
> neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in those places in case
> they show up. Instead of keeping all of our troops in large protected
> bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>
> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
> kill as many as possible.

 

[Baldin Lee Pramer]

On Jul 8, 2:08 pm, Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> Amanda Williams wrote:
> >http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>
> > Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>
> > BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
> > two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
> > Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>
> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
> very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
> counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
> whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.
>
> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not attack.
> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
> go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
> those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our troops
> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>
> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
> kill as many as possible.

You are so full of **** is is hard to know where to begin.

The terrorists in Iraq are a huge subset of the Iraqi people, as well
as Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, and the like. We are not
engaging in an offensive operation -- we are engaging in dike
plugging. We plug a hole, try to stick around as long as possible,
then pull out and go to the next leak.

The terrorists are not losing by a long shot. There is an endless
supply, due to the global jihad, and you can kill a few at a time in a
little operation, but they will flood in from neighboring countries to
fill the vacuum.

You are a Bush apologist; that much is obvious. If you were really
interested in addressing the global Islamist threat, you would think
for yourself and come up with some outside the box ideas instead of
repeating the same tires old talking points.

Bloopu

 

[Day Brown]

On Jul 8, 4:30 pm, "Joe S." <non...@nosuch.net> wrote:

> I participated in one war. I studied war for years and years. I served on
> the planning staff for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
>
> You need to get a clue about "asymmetrical war." We are past the days of
> World War I, World War II and Korea. Hell, we are even past the days of the
> Vietnam War.
>
> Start by reading and understanding Ted Gurr "Why Men Rebel."
>
> Then read the collected works of Osama Bin Laden.
Try Sun Tzu. like maybe http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm
"Understand your enemy, but to do that, first understand yourself."
The current government and military suffer from group think. Had they
understood themselves and what they were trying to do, this whole Iraq
thing never would have unraveled.

 

[Bushsucks]

Look, asshole: If the 3500 plus DEAD GI's and 30,000 MAIMED FOR LIFE
are so trivial, WHAT THE **** DID BUSH START THIS TRILLION-DOLLAR
"WAR ON TERROR" FOR?

After all, we lost fewer that 3000 on 9-11.

Vitor wrote:
>
> Amanda Williams wrote:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
> >
> > Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
> >
> > BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
> > two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
> > Iraqi officials said Sunday.
> >
>
> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
> very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
> counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
> whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.
>
> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not attack.
> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
> go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
> those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our troops
> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>
> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
> kill as many as possible.

 

[Coffee in Madrid]

In article <4693EE04.6937@moron.com>,
Bushsucks <Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote:

> Look, asshole: If the 3500 plus DEAD GI's and 30,000 MAIMED FOR LIFE
> are so trivial, WHAT THE **** DID BUSH START THIS TRILLION-DOLLAR
> "WAR ON TERROR" FOR?

Its no longer a "war on terror".

Its really a "war to save US tail under legs as they leave".

The "terror war" was in Afghanistan and Pakistan... too bad Bush screwed
that up by about a thousand miles and a million dead people.

FISHING ACCOMPLISHED!!!





Coffee in Kufu

 

[Vitor]

Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
> On Jul 8, 4:08 pm, Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>> Amanda Williams wrote:
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
>>> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
>>> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
>> very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
>> counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
>> whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.
>>
>> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
>> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not attack.
>> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
>> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
>> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
>> go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
>> those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our troops
>> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>>
>> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
>> kill as many as possible.
>
>
> You need to take a few minutes and become familiar with the concept of
> "asymmetrical warfare."
>
> We are not fighting WW II. That one ended 60 years ago and there will
> not be another like it.
>
> Sadly for American GI's who are dying for no reason in Iraq, fools
> like those in the White House, and like you, do not understand what it
> is that we are fighting nor do they understand how to fight it. You
> start by not fighting.
>
>

It is still warfare and it is all about the will to fight. If we won't
fight them there where will we stand up to them? This not a war of
liberation against an occupation. It it all political and thought like
that is the weapon of war. You have to define what their objectives
are. Then you have to look at their tactics. I have not had a good
explanation what the objectives are of who we are fighting. Still, they
are fighting to oppress people. They get people on their side by
killing them or killing them if they don't submit. In Iraq they can't
even work at the PX without dying. We have to let Translators move to
the US so they will help us.

There are successes, we are protecting the people from the terrorist so
they can choose what kind of country they want. Yes, the US failed at
the first government we created but we didn't try to create a new
country during the reformation with a bunch of zealots running around.

 

[Vitor]

Joe S. wrote:
> "Vitor" <none@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:4691442d$0$16568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Amanda Williams wrote:
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>>>
>>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>>>
>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
>>> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
>>> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>>>
>> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
>> very hard to understand.
>
>
> I participated in one war. I studied war for years and years. I served on
> the planning staff for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
>
> You need to get a clue about "asymmetrical war." We are past the days of
> World War I, World War II and Korea. Hell, we are even past the days of the
> Vietnam War.
>
> Start by reading and understanding Ted Gurr "Why Men Rebel."
>
> Then read the collected works of Osama Bin Laden.
>

The Iraqis are not rebelling, if they are it is against the terrorists
that oppress them. There are success in Iraq. We are not fighting a
war of liberation of the Iraqi people. What are their objectives and
the best way to achieve those objectives. If it was to get us out the
quickest way to do that would be to stop fighting and ask us to leave.
If you look at war you have to define the objectives of each side. We
are fighting a malignant group of terrorists who not think twice about
killing to impose what they believe. We want to stop them.

If you have a clue on warfare you will look at strategies and would
realize that they have less man power crap logistics are on life support
from other countries and have not won a single engagement. They can
only win if they get people who vote to vote for their objectives. If
they have no military success why would they fight with no prospect of
victory? Political attitudes are their only hope of victory. Calling
this war stupid or what ever is their strategic objective. If we leave
then they will be far more empowered because what they did worked. The
terrorists are not about what people want but what they want to inflict
on people.

 

[Vitor]

Day Brown wrote:
> On Jul 8, 4:30 pm, "Joe S." <non...@nosuch.net> wrote:
>
>> I participated in one war. I studied war for years and years. I served on
>> the planning staff for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
>>
>> You need to get a clue about "asymmetrical war." We are past the days of
>> World War I, World War II and Korea. Hell, we are even past the days of the
>> Vietnam War.
>>
>> Start by reading and understanding Ted Gurr "Why Men Rebel."
>>
>> Then read the collected works of Osama Bin Laden.
> Try Sun Tzu. like maybe http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm
> "Understand your enemy, but to do that, first understand yourself."
> The current government and military suffer from group think. Had they
> understood themselves and what they were trying to do, this whole Iraq
> thing never would have unraveled.
>
>
You have a good point with Sun Zu, I have read that one. What you
seeing is that their strategy is to piss us off until we get tired of
fighting. This operation will not be stopped by US ability only will.
There would have to be dramatic shifts in the situation of the US to
sustain this small operation. To counter that strategy of the terrorist
is to make the choice to not give up. The only real effect of the war
on the average person is not taxes or conscription or shortages just
pictures on TV and people saying stuff that we can choose to avoid if we
want.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

Vitor <none@yahoo.net> wrote in
news:46943b97$0$7987$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> Joe S. wrote:
>> "Vitor" <none@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:4691442d$0$16568$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Amanda Williams wrote:
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>>>>
>>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed
>>>> in two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial
>>>> areas, Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>>>>
>>> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it
>>> is very hard to understand.
>>
>>
>> I participated in one war. I studied war for years and years. I
>> served on the planning staff for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
>>
>> You need to get a clue about "asymmetrical war." We are past the days
>> of World War I, World War II and Korea. Hell, we are even past the
>> days of the Vietnam War.
>>
>> Start by reading and understanding Ted Gurr "Why Men Rebel."
>>
>> Then read the collected works of Osama Bin Laden.
>>
>
> The Iraqis are not rebelling, if they are it is against the terrorists
> that oppress them. There are success in Iraq. We are not fighting a
> war of liberation of the Iraqi people. What are their objectives and
> the best way to achieve those objectives. If it was to get us out the
> quickest way to do that would be to stop fighting and ask us to leave.
> If you look at war you have to define the objectives of each side. We
> are fighting a malignant group of terrorists who not think twice about
> killing to impose what they believe. We want to stop them.


Trouble is, the Iraqis don't. Until the locals stand
up and reject the radicals in their midst the US will never
"win".


> If you have a clue on warfare you will look at strategies and would
> realize that they have less man power crap logistics are on life support
> from other countries and have not won a single engagement.


Shades of that Vietnamese general talking a US general
a few years ago, about why the Viet Cong won after failing to
win any battles. "We were not trying to win battles, we were
trying to win a war". Which they did.




> They can
> only win if they get people who vote to vote for their objectives. If
> they have no military success why would they fight with no prospect of
> victory? Political attitudes are their only hope of victory. Calling
> this war stupid or what ever is their strategic objective. If we leave
> then they will be far more empowered because what they did worked. The
> terrorists are not about what people want but what they want to inflict
> on people.


The US has done all it can do in Iraq and it has not
worked. Staying there only prolongs the US casualty count.
The local forces were supposed to "stand up so we can stand
down". Well, that is not happening.

 

[Vitor]

Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:08 pm, Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>> Amanda Williams wrote:
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in
>>> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas,
>>> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
>> very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
>> counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
>> whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.
>>
>> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
>> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not attack.
>> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
>> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
>> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
>> go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
>> those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our troops
>> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>>
>> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
>> kill as many as possible.
>
> You are so full of **** is is hard to know where to begin.

We will see what kind of argument you make.
>
> The terrorists in Iraq are a huge subset of the Iraqi people, as well
> as Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, and the like. We are not
> engaging in an offensive operation -- we are engaging in dike
> plugging. We plug a hole, try to stick around as long as possible,
> then pull out and go to the next leak.

Partly that is correct, it is unrestricted gang warfare. There are few
aggressors and yes, support is flowing in from other countries. Again
you have to look at the strategic aims of those fighting us. That is
alway ignored. Having those forces win in Iraq will not make the world
a better place. If you want to criticize me because we don't go far
enough, I will get out of your way.


> The terrorists are not losing by a long shot. There is an endless
> supply, due to the global jihad, and you can kill a few at a time in a
> little operation, but they will flood in from neighboring countries to
> fill the vacuum.

Are you saying we are doomed to world Islam?

You say Global Jihad the world wide network of radicals. It is being
fought around the world where identified. Yes, it stretches around the
world for funding, recruitment, propaganda and moving people. It is
being dealt with.

I don't like to use Jihad because that is an Islamic term mostly used
about self overcoming. I just call them terrorists. Still that is
beside the point. These people have been coming out of the wood work
for a long time. If you want to look at radical religion you have to
discuss issues bigger than this war because this radicalization is much
older. If we leave it will give a huge boost to these radicals because
what they did worked and they will be able to recruit expand on their
victories.

What you bring us are larger issues we will have to deal with and have
dealt with aside from this operation.

>
> You are a Bush apologist; that much is obvious. If you were really
> interested in addressing the global Islamist threat, you would think
> for yourself and come up with some outside the box ideas instead of
> repeating the same tires old talking points.

Great, how about finding out who the radical are. Exposing their hate.
Realizing that they operate globally. They kill people who disagree
with them. Still Islam is a force around the world. It is completely
contrary to all we hold important in the west. It would also be good to
look at Islam. I have a Kurdish ? who I write and he hates Islam and
wants to rid his people of the oppressor's religion. Most of the time
religions being from other times use strong language that most of the
time we take as symbolic. God wants you to kill and conquer and it is
written in the Koran it can be powerful.

I have asked the question if Islam is compatible with the modern world.
I don't know that much about the Koran but I am told there is violent
language. The Bible says that we should kill all gays that is wrong
although it makes a moral statement. I am not Islamic and have no
interest in that religion. It is up to those to not choose to be
terrorists. First it is families and then the religion at large to not
engage in this kind war. There is crime and there are acts of war. We
are in an age were individuals and private groups commit acts of war.
War is not a humane act. This war is all about using force to make them
stop. We are not fighting states because no state will risk war with
the US because they don't want their country to end and more important
they loose power.

 

[Vitor]

Coffee in Madrid wrote:
> In article <4693EE04.6937@moron.com>,
> Bushsucks <Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote:
>
>> Look, asshole: If the 3500 plus DEAD GI's and 30,000 MAIMED FOR LIFE
>> are so trivial, WHAT THE **** DID BUSH START THIS TRILLION-DOLLAR
>> "WAR ON TERROR" FOR?
>
> Its no longer a "war on terror".
>
> Its really a "war to save US tail under legs as they leave".

How is that? Please cite the victories. The US is not defeated our
ability to conduct operations has not been impaired by hostile action.

>
> The "terror war" was in Afghanistan and Pakistan... too bad Bush screwed
> that up by about a thousand miles and a million dead people.
>
> FISHING ACCOMPLISHED!!!
>
>
I can't understand why the war is lost there is no evidence for it or I
have not seen anything that makes sense from a military point of view
which has to do with the has to do with the ability of to conduct
operations.

Nope the war on terror goes around the world. That is identifying and
engaging in groups that commit acts of war on the US. The insurgents
have not won a single engagement and their leaders are captured and
killed at high rates. The past strategy failed of staying on the
defensive in large bases and relying rebuilding the Iraqi Army. It
takes years to train a platoon sergeant. The Peshmerga is well trained
and has secured 1/3 of the country. Still when we move into one area
they move out and let schlubs get killed. It is simple, we need to
capture territory and hold it. The problem that we have to hold many
places at the same time.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

Vitor <none@yahoo.net> wrote in news:469444ec$0$24757
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 2:08 pm, Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>> Amanda Williams wrote:
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>>>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed
in
>>>> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial
areas,
>>>> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>>> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
>>> very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
>>> counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
>>> whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.
>>>
>>> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
>>> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not
attack.
>>> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
>>> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
>>> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
>>> go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
>>> those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our
troops
>>> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>>>
>>> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
>>> kill as many as possible.
>>
>> You are so full of **** is is hard to know where to begin.
>
> We will see what kind of argument you make.
>>
>> The terrorists in Iraq are a huge subset of the Iraqi people, as well
>> as Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, and the like. We are not
>> engaging in an offensive operation -- we are engaging in dike
>> plugging. We plug a hole, try to stick around as long as possible,
>> then pull out and go to the next leak.
>
> Partly that is correct, it is unrestricted gang warfare. There are few
> aggressors and yes, support is flowing in from other countries. Again
> you have to look at the strategic aims of those fighting us. That is
> alway ignored. Having those forces win in Iraq will not make the world
> a better place.


Is the world safer because the US invaded and
occupied Iraq under pretenses proven to be false?



>
>> The terrorists are not losing by a long shot. There is an endless
>> supply, due to the global jihad, and you can kill a few at a time in a
>> little operation, but they will flood in from neighboring countries to
>> fill the vacuum.
>
> Are you saying we are doomed to world Islam?
>
> You say Global Jihad the world wide network of radicals. It is being
> fought around the world where identified. Yes, it stretches around the
> world for funding, recruitment, propaganda and moving people. It is
> being dealt with.


Not by the US, which is galvanizing Islamic radicals
all over the world.


>
> I don't like to use Jihad because that is an Islamic term mostly used
> about self overcoming. I just call them terrorists. Still that is
> beside the point. These people have been coming out of the wood work
> for a long time. If you want to look at radical religion you have to
> discuss issues bigger than this war because this radicalization is much
> older. If we leave it will give a huge boost to these radicals because
> what they did worked and they will be able to recruit expand on their
> victories.


The biggest source of radicalization of Islam is
the Wahabist movement - funded by our "ally" Saudi Arabia.



>
> What you bring us are larger issues we will have to deal with and have
> dealt with aside from this operation.
>
>>
>> You are a Bush apologist; that much is obvious. If you were really
>> interested in addressing the global Islamist threat, you would think
>> for yourself and come up with some outside the box ideas instead of
>> repeating the same tires old talking points.
>
> Great, how about finding out who the radical are. Exposing their hate.
> Realizing that they operate globally. They kill people who disagree
> with them. Still Islam is a force around the world. It is completely
> contrary to all we hold important in the west. It would also be good to
> look at Islam. I have a Kurdish ? who I write and he hates Islam and
> wants to rid his people of the oppressor's religion. Most of the time
> religions being from other times use strong language that most of the
> time we take as symbolic. God wants you to kill and conquer and it is
> written in the Koran it can be powerful.
>
> I have asked the question if Islam is compatible with the modern world.
> I don't know that much about the Koran but I am told there is violent
> language. The Bible says that we should kill all gays that is wrong
> although it makes a moral statement. I am not Islamic and have no
> interest in that religion. It is up to those to not choose to be
> terrorists. First it is families and then the religion at large to not
> engage in this kind war. There is crime and there are acts of war. We
> are in an age were individuals and private groups commit acts of war.
> War is not a humane act. This war is all about using force to make them
> stop. We are not fighting states because no state will risk war with
> the US because they don't want their country to end and more important
> they loose power.


Islam is a religion very focused on the "sanctity"
of land. To trespass on "sacred" land is a grave injustice
that calls for jihad. Ergo Al Queda being created as a
response to the US "defiling" the sacred land of Saudi
Arabia by Bush 41 placing US bases there. And by the US
"defiling" the sacred sites in Iraq. What would the
target of jihad if the US stopped meddling in the region
and let the locals work out their own differences?

 

[ffranco@mailandnews.com]

On Jul 10, 8:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote in news:469444ec$0$24757
> $4c368...@roadrunner.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> >> On Jul 8, 2:08 pm, Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> >>> Amanda Williams wrote:
> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
> >>>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
> >>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed
> in
> >>>> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial
> areas,
> >>>> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
> >>> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
> >>> very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
> >>> counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
> >>> whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.
>
> >>> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
> >>> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not
> attack.
> >>> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
> >>> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
> >>> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
> >>> go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
> >>> those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our
> troops
> >>> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>
> >>> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
> >>> kill as many as possible.
>
> >> You are so full of **** is is hard to know where to begin.
>
> > We will see what kind of argument you make.
>
> >> The terrorists in Iraq are a huge subset of the Iraqi people, as well
> >> as Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, and the like. We are not
> >> engaging in an offensive operation -- we are engaging in dike
> >> plugging. We plug a hole, try to stick around as long as possible,
> >> then pull out and go to the next leak.
>
> > Partly that is correct, it is unrestricted gang warfare. There are few
> > aggressors and yes, support is flowing in from other countries. Again
> > you have to look at the strategic aims of those fighting us. That is
> > alway ignored. Having those forces win in Iraq will not make the world
> > a better place.
>
> Is the world safer because the US invaded and
> occupied Iraq under pretenses proven to be false?
>
>
>
> >> The terrorists are not losing by a long shot. There is an endless
> >> supply, due to the global jihad, and you can kill a few at a time in a
> >> little operation, but they will flood in from neighboring countries to
> >> fill the vacuum.
>
> > Are you saying we are doomed to world Islam?
>
> > You say Global Jihad the world wide network of radicals. It is being
> > fought around the world where identified. Yes, it stretches around the
> > world for funding, recruitment, propaganda and moving people. It is
> > being dealt with.
>
> Not by the US, which is galvanizing Islamic radicals
> all over the world.
>
>
>
> > I don't like to use Jihad because that is an Islamic term mostly used
> > about self overcoming. I just call them terrorists. Still that is
> > beside the point. These people have been coming out of the wood work
> > for a long time. If you want to look at radical religion you have to
> > discuss issues bigger than this war because this radicalization is much
> > older. If we leave it will give a huge boost to these radicals because
> > what they did worked and they will be able to recruit expand on their
> > victories.
>
> The biggest source of radicalization of Islam is
> the Wahabist movement - funded by our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > What you bring us are larger issues we will have to deal with and have
> > dealt with aside from this operation.
>
> >> You are a Bush apologist; that much is obvious. If you were really
> >> interested in addressing the global Islamist threat, you would think
> >> for yourself and come up with some outside the box ideas instead of
> >> repeating the same tires old talking points.
>
> > Great, how about finding out who the radical are. Exposing their hate.
> > Realizing that they operate globally. They kill people who disagree
> > with them. Still Islam is a force around the world. It is completely
> > contrary to all we hold important in the west. It would also be good to
> > look at Islam. I have a Kurdish ? who I write and he hates Islam and
> > wants to rid his people of the oppressor's religion. Most of the time
> > religions being from other times use strong language that most of the
> > time we take as symbolic. God wants you to kill and conquer and it is
> > written in the Koran it can be powerful.
>
> > I have asked the question if Islam is compatible with the modern world.
> > I don't know that much about the Koran but I am told there is violent
> > language. The Bible says that we should kill all gays that is wrong
> > although it makes a moral statement. I am not Islamic and have no
> > interest in that religion. It is up to those to not choose to be
> > terrorists. First it is families and then the religion at large to not
> > engage in this kind war. There is crime and there are acts of war. We
> > are in an age were individuals and private groups commit acts of war.
> > War is not a humane act. This war is all about using force to make them
> > stop. We are not fighting states because no state will risk war with
> > the US because they don't want their country to end and more important
> > they loose power.
>
> Islam is a religion very focused on the "sanctity"
> of land. To trespass on "sacred" land is a grave injustice
> that calls for jihad. Ergo Al Queda being created as a
> response to the US "defiling" the sacred land of Saudi
> Arabia by Bush 41 placing US bases there. And by the US
> "defiling" the sacred sites in Iraq. What would the
> target of jihad if the US stopped meddling in the region
> and let the locals work out their own differences?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In 1782, the Government of Lord North fell on a vote of no confidence
following the defeat of British forces at Yorktown the year before.
That led to the end of the American Revolution and the independence of
what became the United States. There was no other reason why the
British should have given up than war weariness and the realization
that the long war (since 1775) was no longer worth fighting.

Did the defeat by national forces end Britain as a world power? They
went on to defeat Napoleon and create the second empire. So, defeat
does not necessarily mean disaster.

 

[r wiley]

..

As Limbaugh likes to say, madness is doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting a different
result.

The "surge" is more of the same and George W. Bush
is trying to tell us it will cause a different result now.

rw

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada".

George W. Bush

"I had other priorities."

Dick Cheney

 

[Mitchell Holman]

ffranco@mailandnews.com wrote in
news:1184125899.691877.51600@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 10, 8:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote in news:469444ec$0$24757
>> $4c368...@roadrunner.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
>> >> On Jul 8, 2:08 pm, Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>> >>> Amanda Williams wrote:
>> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>> >>>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>> >>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been
>> >>>> killed
>> in
>> >>>> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial
>> areas,
>> >>>> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>> >>> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one
>> >>> it is very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition
>> >>> where body counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost
>> >>> fewer in a whole war than have been lost in most single day
>> >>> battles.
>>
>> >>> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B
>> >>> there.
>> >>> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not
>> attack.
>> >>> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you
>> >>> take
>> >>> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
>> >>> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have
>> >>> to go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to
>> >>> stay in those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all
>> >>> of our
>> troops
>> >>> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current
>> >>> mission.
>>
>> >>> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of
>> >>> opportunity to kill as many as possible.
>>
>> >> You are so full of **** is is hard to know where to begin.
>>
>> > We will see what kind of argument you make.
>>
>> >> The terrorists in Iraq are a huge subset of the Iraqi people, as
>> >> well as Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, and the like. We are
>> >> not engaging in an offensive operation -- we are engaging in dike
>> >> plugging. We plug a hole, try to stick around as long as possible,
>> >> then pull out and go to the next leak.
>>
>> > Partly that is correct, it is unrestricted gang warfare. There are
>> > few aggressors and yes, support is flowing in from other countries.
>> > Again you have to look at the strategic aims of those fighting us.
>> > That is alway ignored. Having those forces win in Iraq will not make
>> > the world a better place.
>>
>> Is the world safer because the US invaded and
>> occupied Iraq under pretenses proven to be false?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The terrorists are not losing by a long shot. There is an endless
>> >> supply, due to the global jihad, and you can kill a few at a time in
>> >> a little operation, but they will flood in from neighboring
>> >> countries to fill the vacuum.
>>
>> > Are you saying we are doomed to world Islam?
>>
>> > You say Global Jihad the world wide network of radicals. It is being
>> > fought around the world where identified. Yes, it stretches around
>> > the world for funding, recruitment, propaganda and moving people. It
>> > is being dealt with.
>>
>> Not by the US, which is galvanizing Islamic radicals
>> all over the world.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I don't like to use Jihad because that is an Islamic term mostly used
>> > about self overcoming. I just call them terrorists. Still that is
>> > beside the point. These people have been coming out of the wood work
>> > for a long time. If you want to look at radical religion you have to
>> > discuss issues bigger than this war because this radicalization is
>> > much older. If we leave it will give a huge boost to these radicals
>> > because what they did worked and they will be able to recruit expand
>> > on their victories.
>>
>> The biggest source of radicalization of Islam is
>> the Wahabist movement - funded by our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > What you bring us are larger issues we will have to deal with and
>> > have dealt with aside from this operation.
>>
>> >> You are a Bush apologist; that much is obvious. If you were really
>> >> interested in addressing the global Islamist threat, you would think
>> >> for yourself and come up with some outside the box ideas instead of
>> >> repeating the same tires old talking points.
>>
>> > Great, how about finding out who the radical are. Exposing their
>> > hate.
>> > Realizing that they operate globally. They kill people who
>> > disagree
>> > with them. Still Islam is a force around the world. It is
>> > completely contrary to all we hold important in the west. It would
>> > also be good to look at Islam. I have a Kurdish ? who I write and he
>> > hates Islam and wants to rid his people of the oppressor's religion.
>> > Most of the time religions being from other times use strong language
>> > that most of the time we take as symbolic. God wants you to kill and
>> > conquer and it is written in the Koran it can be powerful.
>>
>> > I have asked the question if Islam is compatible with the modern
>> > world. I don't know that much about the Koran but I am told there is
>> > violent language. The Bible says that we should kill all gays that
>> > is wrong although it makes a moral statement. I am not Islamic and
>> > have no interest in that religion. It is up to those to not choose
>> > to be terrorists. First it is families and then the religion at
>> > large to not engage in this kind war. There is crime and there are
>> > acts of war. We are in an age were individuals and private groups
>> > commit acts of war. War is not a humane act. This war is all about
>> > using force to make them stop. We are not fighting states because no
>> > state will risk war with the US because they don't want their country
>> > to end and more important they loose power.
>>
>> Islam is a religion very focused on the "sanctity"
>> of land. To trespass on "sacred" land is a grave injustice
>> that calls for jihad. Ergo Al Queda being created as a
>> response to the US "defiling" the sacred land of Saudi
>> Arabia by Bush 41 placing US bases there. And by the US
>> "defiling" the sacred sites in Iraq. What would the
>> target of jihad if the US stopped meddling in the region
>> and let the locals work out their own differences?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In 1782, the Government of Lord North fell on a vote of no confidence
> following the defeat of British forces at Yorktown the year before.
> That led to the end of the American Revolution and the independence of
> what became the United States. There was no other reason why the
> British should have given up than war weariness and the realization
> that the long war (since 1775) was no longer worth fighting.
>
> Did the defeat by national forces end Britain as a world power? They
> went on to defeat Napoleon and create the second empire. So, defeat
> does not necessarily mean disaster.
>


As one historian put it, the US retreated from Vietnam
and went on to win the Cold War, Russia got bogged down in
Afghanistan and thus lost the Cold War.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

Vitor <none@yahoo.net> wrote in news:46943964$0$12240
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 4:08 pm, Vitor <n...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>> Amanda Williams wrote:
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/08/iraq.main/index.html
>>>> Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq
>>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed
in
>>>> two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial
areas,
>>>> Iraqi officials said Sunday.
>>> Please get a concept of war. If you have not participated in one it is
>>> very hard to understand. This is not a war of attrition where body
>>> counts mean anything. US losses are so low we have lost fewer in a
>>> whole war than have been lost in most single day battles.
>>>
>>> Lets take a simple situation like WWI. Group A here and group B there.
>>> If you don't want to get killed you stay in the trench and not
attack.
>>> Still there will be killed from indirect fire and such. If you take
>>> the offensive many will be killed but so will the enemy. We are
>>> engaging in offensive operations. To defeat the terrorists we have to
>>> go out to their neighborhoods and find them. We also have to stay in
>>> those places in case they show up. Instead of keeping all of our
troops
>>> in large protected bases they are more exposed in the current mission.
>>>
>>> As the terrorists are loosing they are taking targets of opportunity to
>>> kill as many as possible.
>>
>>
>> You need to take a few minutes and become familiar with the concept of
>> "asymmetrical warfare."
>>
>> We are not fighting WW II. That one ended 60 years ago and there will
>> not be another like it.
>>
>> Sadly for American GI's who are dying for no reason in Iraq, fools
>> like those in the White House, and like you, do not understand what it
>> is that we are fighting nor do they understand how to fight it. You
>> start by not fighting.
>>
>>
>
> It is still warfare and it is all about the will to fight.



Specifically, the IRAQI's will to fight for their own democracy.

(which they won't do as long as the US does it for them, it seems.)



> If we won't
> fight them there where will we stand up to them?


Why should we "stand up" to Iraqis fightinng other Iraqis?




> This not a war of
> liberation against an occupation. It it all political and thought like
> that is the weapon of war. You have to define what their objectives
> are. Then you have to look at their tactics. I have not had a good
> explanation what the objectives are of who we are fighting. Still, they
> are fighting to oppress people. They get people on their side by
> killing them or killing them if they don't submit. In Iraq they can't
> even work at the PX without dying. We have to let Translators move to
> the US so they will help us.


Since the locals clearing not going to "stand up"
will the US ever "stand down"?