Torture Won't Stop Terror

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So let me get this straight, you are saying that we will win a war by playing by the rules while the opponent has absolutely no rules to follow, whatsoever?? Wow.. If history was rewritten based on that core belief we would still be under Roman rule or would possibly now be living under a NAZI State..

Interesting you mention the Romans and the Nazis.

The Romans were a (relatively) representative republic until Julius Caesar decided to usurp the system by using a legal loophole to do away with the constitution. Rome wasn't officially an "Empire" until the time of Augustus.

Nazi Germany was a similar story - read up on the Weimar constitution and how it was subverted by two acts of parliament.

And we still think these 'hard' tactics are 'saving' our civilisation...?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

People can stop "terror" by watching milder movies and reading lighter books

You forgot video games.

[Dean iWait 0]

If you would like to see the entire article pull it up on the NYT archives why don't you. And yes it does have bearing since as a former terrorism analyst he is obviously clueless on the subject. Why should anyone think now that he is still not totally clueless on the same subject? Any expert on terrorism worth their salt at the time was saying exactly the opposite in July of 2001.

I do love this line from your original post though: Let's ignore for the moment that terrorist attacks in which people have been killed or wounded have quadrupled since 2001.

So they have quadrupled as compared to what? Quadrupled as compared to the previous 2,000 years? As compared to the last 100 years? The last 50 years? Quadrupled as compared to 1972? LOL! Typical partisan hack tactic. Just throw out some bumper sticker propaganda slogan that isn't even a complete statement.

ehem...terrorist attacks have quadrupled since 2001 - meaning the number of terrorist attacks in 2006 are four times more frequent than the number of attacks in 2001. I'm not sure how that escapes your comprehension.

As for Larry Johnson, he wasn't the only one who hadn't a clue that a large scale terrorist plot on U.S. soil was going to happen. And if you put his words and juxtapose them with the conflicting and contradictory remarks that have been made by Bush and his Administration prior to and after 9/11, this is just reaching to discredit what he is saying in this article. And that's what it's about - this Adminstration's foreign policy is a miserable failure, yet there are still a few of you Bush supporters out there that refuse to see the forest for the trees. To dismiss Johnson's remarks as mere political rhetoric while accepting the Administrations remarks as the God honest truth is appalling. These discussions aren't nor should they be partisan in nature. We should be able to rise above political partisan rhetoric and discuss these issues on their own merits.

BTW, Dean, Larry C. Johnson is hardly a liberal hack...

Read on...

Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN and the BBC. He was even employed as a Fox News Contributor during 2002. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria.

From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward.

http://www.berg-associates.com/larryc.htm

Johnson said that he believes a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) helped opened doors for him at the CIA. [2]. He left the CIA after working there for four years in 1989. A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000,[3] Johnson has since broken ranks with Republicans over the scandal surrounding the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

Yeah, a REAL liberal hack...my #######.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson

Like it says here he obviously was considered an expert on terrorism at one time. But I guess he must have hit his head or been hitting the pipe when he wrote the following:

On July 10, 2001, Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA and State Department terrorism analyst, lamented in the pages of the New York Times that too many Americans had been persuaded that terrorism ‘is becoming more widespread and lethal,’ too many feared that the ‘United States is the most popular target of terrorists’ and that ‘extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.’ He declared: ‘None of these beliefs are based in fact.’

Can you point out anywhere in my post where I called him a liberal hack? Oh wait, I will save you the time because I didn't.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you would like to see the entire article pull it up on the NYT archives why don't you. And yes it does have bearing since as a former terrorism analyst he is obviously clueless on the subject. Why should anyone think now that he is still not totally clueless on the same subject? Any expert on terrorism worth their salt at the time was saying exactly the opposite in July of 2001.

I do love this line from your original post though: Let's ignore for the moment that terrorist attacks in which people have been killed or wounded have quadrupled since 2001.

So they have quadrupled as compared to what? Quadrupled as compared to the previous 2,000 years? As compared to the last 100 years? The last 50 years? Quadrupled as compared to 1972? LOL! Typical partisan hack tactic. Just throw out some bumper sticker propaganda slogan that isn't even a complete statement.

ehem...terrorist attacks have quadrupled since 2001 - meaning the number of terrorist attacks in 2006 are four times more frequent than the number of attacks in 2001. I'm not sure how that escapes your comprehension.

As for Larry Johnson, he wasn't the only one who hadn't a clue that a large scale terrorist plot on U.S. soil was going to happen. And if you put his words and juxtapose them with the conflicting and contradictory remarks that have been made by Bush and his Administration prior to and after 9/11, this is just reaching to discredit what he is saying in this article. And that's what it's about - this Adminstration's foreign policy is a miserable failure, yet there are still a few of you Bush supporters out there that refuse to see the forest for the trees. To dismiss Johnson's remarks as mere political rhetoric while accepting the Administrations remarks as the God honest truth is appalling. These discussions aren't nor should they be partisan in nature. We should be able to rise above political partisan rhetoric and discuss these issues on their own merits.

BTW, Dean, Larry C. Johnson is hardly a liberal hack...

Read on...

Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN and the BBC. He was even employed as a Fox News Contributor during 2002. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria.

From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward.

http://www.berg-associates.com/larryc.htm

Johnson said that he believes a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) helped opened doors for him at the CIA. [2]. He left the CIA after working there for four years in 1989. A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000,[3] Johnson has since broken ranks with Republicans over the scandal surrounding the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

Yeah, a REAL liberal hack...my #######.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson

Like it says here he obviously was considered an expert on terrorism at one time. But I guess he must have hit his head or been hitting the pipe when he wrote the following:

On July 10, 2001, Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA and State Department terrorism analyst, lamented in the pages of the New York Times that too many Americans had been persuaded that terrorism ‘is becoming more widespread and lethal,’ too many feared that the ‘United States is the most popular target of terrorists’ and that ‘extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.’ He declared: ‘None of these beliefs are based in fact.’

Can you point out anywhere in my post where I called him a liberal hack? Oh wait, I will save you the time because I didn't.

See the text above in bold, blue print. You called it typical partisan hackery - what he said about terrorists attacks having quadrupled since 2001. What side of partisan were you refering to? Conservative???

[Dean iWait 0]

If you would like to see the entire article pull it up on the NYT archives why don't you. And yes it does have bearing since as a former terrorism analyst he is obviously clueless on the subject. Why should anyone think now that he is still not totally clueless on the same subject? Any expert on terrorism worth their salt at the time was saying exactly the opposite in July of 2001.

I do love this line from your original post though: Let's ignore for the moment that terrorist attacks in which people have been killed or wounded have quadrupled since 2001.

So they have quadrupled as compared to what? Quadrupled as compared to the previous 2,000 years? As compared to the last 100 years? The last 50 years? Quadrupled as compared to 1972? LOL! Typical partisan hack tactic. Just throw out some bumper sticker propaganda slogan that isn't even a complete statement.

ehem...terrorist attacks have quadrupled since 2001 - meaning the number of terrorist attacks in 2006 are four times more frequent than the number of attacks in 2001. I'm not sure how that escapes your comprehension.

As for Larry Johnson, he wasn't the only one who hadn't a clue that a large scale terrorist plot on U.S. soil was going to happen. And if you put his words and juxtapose them with the conflicting and contradictory remarks that have been made by Bush and his Administration prior to and after 9/11, this is just reaching to discredit what he is saying in this article. And that's what it's about - this Adminstration's foreign policy is a miserable failure, yet there are still a few of you Bush supporters out there that refuse to see the forest for the trees. To dismiss Johnson's remarks as mere political rhetoric while accepting the Administrations remarks as the God honest truth is appalling. These discussions aren't nor should they be partisan in nature. We should be able to rise above political partisan rhetoric and discuss these issues on their own merits.

BTW, Dean, Larry C. Johnson is hardly a liberal hack...

Read on...

Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN and the BBC. He was even employed as a Fox News Contributor during 2002. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria.

From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward.

http://www.berg-associates.com/larryc.htm

Johnson said that he believes a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) helped opened doors for him at the CIA. [2]. He left the CIA after working there for four years in 1989. A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000,[3] Johnson has since broken ranks with Republicans over the scandal surrounding the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

Yeah, a REAL liberal hack...my #######.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson

Like it says here he obviously was considered an expert on terrorism at one time. But I guess he must have hit his head or been hitting the pipe when he wrote the following:

On July 10, 2001, Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA and State Department terrorism analyst, lamented in the pages of the New York Times that too many Americans had been persuaded that terrorism ‘is becoming more widespread and lethal,’ too many feared that the ‘United States is the most popular target of terrorists’ and that ‘extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.’ He declared: ‘None of these beliefs are based in fact.’

Can you point out anywhere in my post where I called him a liberal hack? Oh wait, I will save you the time because I didn't.

See the text above in bold, blue print. You called it typical partisan hackery - what he said about terrorists attacks having quadrupled since 2001. What side of partisan were you refering to? Conservative???

First of all you are assuming that's what it means is that terrorist attacks have quadrupled in 2006 since 2001. He didn't say this. Read what he wrote again. So is this taking in to account the first 6 months of 2006 compared to the first 6 months of 2001? July 2006 compared to July 2001? We are 8 months and a few days on to 2006. Is he using the first 8 months of 2001 to compare to get these numbers? It's idiotic. Where is he getting his numbers? Who knows because he doesn't explain where.

And sure a lot of people me included where taken by surprise on 9/11. But this is coming from a so called expert on terrorism! Some expert.

Oh yeah the Valerie Plame thing. Don't hear much about that anymore now that we know the leaker was Armitage. Guess it's no fun for liberals or the mainstream media anymore since they have no chance of bringing down any high level Bush adminisration officials. And besides Armitage came on TV and apologized so that's good enough since he is now a critic of many of the administrations policies.

You said he split from the Republicans over the Plame non scandal didn't you? What kind of partisan hack would that make him?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

See the text above in bold, blue print. You called it typical partisan hackery - what he said about terrorists attacks having quadrupled since 2001. What side of partisan were you refering to? Conservative???

First of all you are assuming that's what it means is that terrorist attacks have quadrupled in 2006 since 2001. He didn't say this. Read what he wrote again. So is this taking in to account the first 6 months of 2006 compared to the first 6 months of 2001? July 2006 compared to July 2001? We are 8 months and a few days on to 2006. Is he using the first 8 months of 2001 to compare to get these numbers? It's idiotic. Where is he getting his numbers? Who knows because he doesn't explain where.

And sure a lot of people me included where taken by surprise on 9/11. But this is coming from a so called expert on terrorism! Some expert.

Oh yeah the Valerie Plame thing. Don't hear much about that anymore now that we know the leaker was Armitage. Guess it's no fun for liberals or the mainstream media anymore since they have no chance of bringing down any high level Bush adminisration officials. And besides Armitage came on TV and apologized so that's good enough since he is now a critic of many of the administrations policies.

You said he split from the Republicans over the Plame non scandal didn't you? What kind of partisan hack would that make him?

I'll let others who read this figure that one out. I'm not sure why his statement escapes your comprehension.

You seem to have a skewed way of comprehending what is said. It stated that he supported Bush in 2003 but broke from the ranks over the Valerie Plame outing. How you conclude that if someone is critical of Bush they can't be Conservative or Republican baffles me, let alone calling them a partisan hack and then later denying you did. I'd recommend you read The American Conservative, or someone like George Will. You'll be surprised how many Conservative Republicans are critical of Bush's foreign policies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How you conclude that if someone is critical of Bush they can't be Conservative or Republican baffles me, ...

Yeah that is an interesting phenomenon indeed. Some people appear to have elevated Bush to some sort of "Dear Leader". Those longing to have a "Dear Leader" should head on over to North Korea for a little and get a better idea what mess that usually ends up being. If they then still want a Dear Leader, they should take Montana or some other scarcely populated area and do their thing there. Put a Bush statue in the center of town square, put his posters on every wall, have his image appear 7 times on each page of each newspaper. Have at it. Knock yourselves out with Georgie. Just do it some place else and leave our democratic system, my freedom, liberties and privacy intact, thank you very much.

ETA: In that little Bushtopia, you can even reject the Geneva Convention and other humanitarian, ecological, you-name-it nonsense and torture the freaken hell out of each other. While at it, try and reject gravity, too. Maybe you all get to float around that happy place...

Edited September 10, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Dean iWait 0]

See the text above in bold, blue print. You called it typical partisan hackery - what he said about terrorists attacks having quadrupled since 2001. What side of partisan were you refering to? Conservative???

First of all you are assuming that's what it means is that terrorist attacks have quadrupled in 2006 since 2001. He didn't say this. Read what he wrote again. So is this taking in to account the first 6 months of 2006 compared to the first 6 months of 2001? July 2006 compared to July 2001? We are 8 months and a few days on to 2006. Is he using the first 8 months of 2001 to compare to get these numbers? It's idiotic. Where is he getting his numbers? Who knows because he doesn't explain where.

And sure a lot of people me included where taken by surprise on 9/11. But this is coming from a so called expert on terrorism! Some expert.

Oh yeah the Valerie Plame thing. Don't hear much about that anymore now that we know the leaker was Armitage. Guess it's no fun for liberals or the mainstream media anymore since they have no chance of bringing down any high level Bush adminisration officials. And besides Armitage came on TV and apologized so that's good enough since he is now a critic of many of the administrations policies.

You said he split from the Republicans over the Plame non scandal didn't you? What kind of partisan hack would that make him?

I'll let others who read this figure that one out. I'm not sure why his statement escapes your comprehension.

You seem to have a skewed way of comprehending what is said. It stated that he supported Bush in 2003 but broke from the ranks over the Valerie Plame outing. How you conclude that if someone is critical of Bush they can't be Conservative or Republican baffles me, let alone calling them a partisan hack and then later denying you did. I'd recommend you read The American Conservative, or someone like George Will. You'll be surprised how many Conservative Republicans are critical of Bush's foreign policies.

I've got some numbers for you. Zero attacks on US soil in since 9/11! Can you comprehend that?

How you assume his statement actually means something concrete is ludicrous. Again where does he get this information?

I never denied I called him a partisan hack. I certainly did! You said I called him a liberal hack. I most certainly did not!

Do me a big favor won't you? Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of saying things I didn't.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Zero attacks on US soil in since 9/11! Can you comprehend that?

More than eight years went by between the two attacks aimed to bring down the WTC. Only five have passed since the last one. Meanwhile, if we are to believe what we are told, more than 2,500 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since March of 2003. Can you comprehend that?

Edited September 10, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Dean iWait 0]

Zero attacks on US soil in since 9/11! Can you comprehend that?

More than eight years went by between the two attacks aimed to bring down the WTC. Only five have passed since the last one. Meanwhile, if we are to believe what we are told, more than 2,500 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since March of 2003. Can you comprehend that?

2,500 died in terrorists attacks? Nice try. Those 2,500 heroes died fighting a war against terrorists. Can you comprehend that? Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1998, that same year he bombed 2 U.S. embassies which are all on U.S. soil, 3 years later he attacked on U.S. soil again. Can you comprehend that? Im doubtful.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Zero attacks on US soil in since 9/11! Can you comprehend that?

More than eight years went by between the two attacks aimed to bring down the WTC. Only five have passed since the last one. Meanwhile, if we are to believe what we are told, more than 2,500 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since March of 2003. Can you comprehend that?

2,500 died in terrorists attacks? Nice try.

That's what Bush keeps claiming. They're all bad terrorists over there setting off IED's and shizzle.

Those 2,500 heroes died fighting a war against terrorists. Can you comprehend that?

Actually, they were sent to disarm a regime from the WMD's it didn't have. You probably forgot that already but go ahead and read up. The war against terrorists is only fought in Iraq today because the idiots at 1600 Penn Ave didn't know how or simply didn't care to secure a country after knocking out it's government.

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1998, that same year he bombed 2 U.S. embassies which are all on U.S. soil, 3 years later he attacked on U.S. soil again.

That still leaves some 5 years between the '93 attack on the WTC and attacks on US interests overseas as well as the 8+ years between WTC attack I and II as I stated earlier. So, since US interests have been and are being attacked in both Afghanistan and Iraq on somewhat of a daily basis and more Americans died in terrorist attacks (again, Bush rather than me is claiming that our troops are attacked by terrorists) since September of 2001 than in any 5 year period before 9/11/01, I fail to see the progress and how we are so much safer as Bush would like me to believe. Now you can spin that all you want but the facts stand all the same: Those boys are dead and, if I believe the commander in chief, it was terrorists who killed them. Edited September 10, 2006 by ET-US2004

[one...two...tree 2,762]

See the text above in bold, blue print. You called it typical partisan hackery - what he said about terrorists attacks having quadrupled since 2001. What side of partisan were you refering to? Conservative???

First of all you are assuming that's what it means is that terrorist attacks have quadrupled in 2006 since 2001. He didn't say this. Read what he wrote again. So is this taking in to account the first 6 months of 2006 compared to the first 6 months of 2001? July 2006 compared to July 2001? We are 8 months and a few days on to 2006. Is he using the first 8 months of 2001 to compare to get these numbers? It's idiotic. Where is he getting his numbers? Who knows because he doesn't explain where.

And sure a lot of people me included where taken by surprise on 9/11. But this is coming from a so called expert on terrorism! Some expert.

Oh yeah the Valerie Plame thing. Don't hear much about that anymore now that we know the leaker was Armitage. Guess it's no fun for liberals or the mainstream media anymore since they have no chance of bringing down any high level Bush adminisration officials. And besides Armitage came on TV and apologized so that's good enough since he is now a critic of many of the administrations policies.

You said he split from the Republicans over the Plame non scandal didn't you? What kind of partisan hack would that make him?

I'll let others who read this figure that one out. I'm not sure why his statement escapes your comprehension.

You seem to have a skewed way of comprehending what is said. It stated that he supported Bush in 2003 but broke from the ranks over the Valerie Plame outing. How you conclude that if someone is critical of Bush they can't be Conservative or Republican baffles me, let alone calling them a partisan hack and then later denying you did. I'd recommend you read The American Conservative, or someone like George Will. You'll be surprised how many Conservative Republicans are critical of Bush's foreign policies.

I've got some numbers for you. Zero attacks on US soil in since 9/11! Can you comprehend that?

How you assume his statement actually means something concrete is ludicrous. Again where does he get this information?

I never denied I called him a partisan hack. I certainly did! You said I called him a liberal hack. I most certainly did not!

Do me a big favor won't you? Please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of saying things I didn't.

Now you're reaching...I think anyone here who read your statement would make the reasonable conclusion that since he is being critical of the Bush Administration (which happens to be Republican) and you called him a partisan hack would mean that he is ideologically opposed to Bush. You do know what a partisan hack is, right?

[Marc and Olga 0]

Zero attacks on US soil in since 9/11! Can you comprehend that?

More than eight years went by between the two attacks aimed to bring down the WTC. Only five have passed since the last one. Meanwhile, if we are to believe what we are told, more than 2,500 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since March of 2003. Can you comprehend that?

2,500 died in terrorists attacks? Nice try.

That's what Bush keeps claiming. They're all bad terrorists over there setting off IED's and shizzle.

Those 2,500 heroes died fighting a war against terrorists. Can you comprehend that?

Actually, they were sent to disarm a regime from the WMD's it didn't have. You probably forgot that already but go ahead and read up. The war against terrorists is only fought in Iraq today because the idiots at 1600 Penn Ave didn't know how or simply didn't care to secure a country after knocking out it's government.

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1998, that same year he bombed 2 U.S. embassies which are all on U.S. soil, 3 years later he attacked on U.S. soil again.

That still leaves some 5 years between the '93 attack on the WTC and attacks on US interests overseas as well as the 8+ years between WTC attack I and II as I stated earlier. So, since US interests have been and are being attacked in both Afghanistan and Iraq on somewhat of a daily basis and more Americans died in terrorist attacks (again, Bush rather than me is claiming that our troops are attacked by terrorists) since September of 2001 than in any 5 year period before 9/11/01, I fail to see the progress and how we are so much safer as Bush would like me to believe. Now you can spin that all you want but the facts stand all the same: Those boys are dead and, if I believe the commander in chief, it was terrorists who killed them.

You know the more I think about it and consider IF I was in their position, how would I feel and react?

Perhaps these aren't "terrorists" but PEOPLE that have become so angry at the americans and how WE have treated THEM! Think about this, 3 years after the war started MANY do not have water and electricity much of what has been promised them has not materialized and they are paying US companies to repair streets and buildings (such as schools) and the US companies are taking their money and not doing ANYTHING.

Don't get me wrong, we may have been heroes to them early in this war but their way of life as they had known and lived it was wrecked. Many of them probably had high hopes that their way of life was going to change for the better, without Saddam and with the US support!

3 years in the desert, without electricity and water would leave me more then a little frustrated and angry and I imagine that I would take that anger and frustration out on the group of people that brought this delemia to me and threw it at me and expected me to be happy in a situation far worse then I was in before they got there!

Add to that the reports of torture and how about that poor little girl that was raped and then she and her family were murdered by some of our "heroes" (quoted to reference the men involved in the incident and not our soldiers in general)! How would you feel if that was your cousin/sister/daughter or just your friend and neighbor?

Perhaps what I read in another thread is more true then we the (American) people would like to think and believe...WE created these so called terrorists! More specifically, President George W. Bush created them.

Edited September 10, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[Heracles 417]

That's what Bush keeps claiming. They're all bad terrorists over there setting off IED's and shizzle.

They must be nice people just trying to express their views, by killing people that is..

Actually, they were sent to disarm a regime from the WMD's it didn't have. You probably forgot that already but go ahead and read up. The war against terrorists is only fought in Iraq today because the idiots at 1600 Penn Ave didn't know how or simply didn't care to secure a country after knocking out it's government.

I don't know about you but I would rather fight it there than in the US.

PS Maybe you could write Penn Ave a letter and tell them how it's done, since its so easy.. Bush is dumb remember so he needs all the help he can get..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's what Bush keeps claiming. They're all bad terrorists over there setting off IED's and shizzle.

They must be nice people just trying to express their views, by killing people that is..

Look, read the thread and leave statements in context. Think you can muster that?

Actually, they were sent to disarm a regime from the WMD's it didn't have. You probably forgot that already but go ahead and read up. The war against terrorists is only fought in Iraq today because the idiots at 1600 Penn Ave didn't know how or simply didn't care to secure a country after knocking out it's government.

I don't know about you but I would rather fight it there than in the US.

Maybe the choices were to fight there or not at all. You see, many of the folks the Bushies like to label "terrorists", "insurgents" or whatnot might just be Iraqis whose families fell vitim to the US aggression against their country or that say that the US has no right or business being in their country and thus take up the fight against the illegal invader and occupier. Quite possible, don't you think? I mean, I'd do whatever I need to to fight off anyone trying to or actually entering my home.

As such, the choice would be to fight and kill people over there (to the tune of tens of thousands, by the way) or not to fight and kill at all. Me, I'd pick the latter. But the bloodthirsty and greedy (yes, they make tons of cash on this one, too) bastards at 1600 Penn Ave apparently feel differently.