Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
supercar

Muqtada al-Sadr has fled Iraq

122 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

el midgetron

Yup, for we didn't bother with any before and yet we got hit on 9/11

You dont care about "being hit" on 9/11. Its the best thing that ever happened to the lie you base your life on. If you cared, even just a tiny bit you would want to know why there were failure after failure which allowed 3/4 of the planes to find their targets.

We are fighting it differently, it is the Liberals who sees it and is doing the same thing as they did in vietnam.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how this is different from vietnam.

Well, you are wrong. A lot of the insurgents are foreign fighters.

Well, you are wrong. Our own millitary says most the insurgents are Iraqies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111602519.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0928-21.htm

We are occupying the Iraqi land and the enemy is the same enemy of the Iraqis themselves.

see above, this shows exactly how little you understand whats happening.

Got away? You mean he ran away from the fight, so who knows when we will fight him again.

LOL, yeah thats what I was saying. If he didnt "get away" then we must not be after him. How in the heck can you view this as a "victory"? If someone robs a bank, and has to "flee" from the bank to aviod being caught by the police. Then even if the police dont catch him, its a "victory" because the robber had to "run away"??? OPEN YOUR EYES. HE GOT AWAY PLAIN AN SIMPLE.

This one guy could give the US hundreds of "victories". All he has to do is never get caught and each time he gets away, the media can report a victory. Heck by your logic, we could never kill or capture a single person and still have "victories" in Iraq every single day.

Is this how you think we are fighting differently then in Vietnam? Now when the bad guy gets away and lives to fight another day its considerd a "victory"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

so al sadr has fled iraq...back to topic; what does that mean to his militias and control of commodity markets around baghdad?...will the shiites disperse there forces and quit the death squad activities etc? or accelerate them.

Edited by limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
As it was yous lost in Vietnam. And besides indonesia and the phili[[ines are not your governments country so why should you be worried? The oil for food program was a scam especially here n australia. And if you went in and verified that there was no weapons of destruction then why the need for military action? Amazing how quick it went from removing weapons of mass destruction to regime change...........

Anyway I have said enough. I dont care to debate this any longer. I have had my say. Only sufffering, hatred and fear can ever be the outcome of war. The Iraq war is a perfect demonstration of it.

Good, for you can't surely explain why the UN did not OFFICALLY DECLARE that Iraq was not a threat and that it does not have any WMD before we went in, I mean the UN and Saddam had 2 full years to do so.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
You dont care about "being hit" on 9/11. Its the best thing that ever happened to the lie you base your life on. If you cared, even just a tiny bit you would want to know why there were failure after failure which allowed 3/4 of the planes to find their targets.
Sorry, but conspiracy theory and wild imagination is in another Forum.

Then perhaps you would like to explain how this is different from vietnam.

We fought at Vietnam with the White House conducting the war and political motives was the consideration in major battle decisions.

The commanding Generals in Iraq is doing the battle plans and decisions.

Well, you are wrong. Our own millitary says most the insurgents are Iraqies.
Most, then not all. Why are the Iraqis then not siding with them and asking us to leave?

LOL, yeah thats what I was saying. If he didnt "get away" then we must not be after him. How in the heck can you view this as a "victory"? If someone robs a bank, and has to "flee" from the bank to aviod being caught by the police. Then even if the police dont catch him, its a "victory" because the robber had to "run away"??? OPEN YOUR EYES. HE GOT AWAY PLAIN AN SIMPLE.

This one guy could give the US hundreds of "victories". All he has to do is never get caught and each time he gets away, the media can report a victory. Heck by your logic, we could never kill or capture a single person and still have "victories" in Iraq every single day.

Is this how you think we are fighting differently then in Vietnam? Now when the bad guy gets away and lives to fight another day its considerd a "victory"??

I for one never claim it as a victory, instead I think it is a positive development. When your enemy leaves the disputed territory, that is good news, agree?

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron

Most, then not all. Why are the Iraqis then not siding with them and asking us to leave?

As meny as 2/3rds are Iraqies. I think the very fact Iraqie resistance is such a problem is evidence they dont want us there.

I for one never claim it as a victory, instead I think it is a positive development. When your enemy leaves the disputed territory, that is good news, agree?

Its not a war over territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

As meny as 2/3rds are Iraqies. I think the very fact Iraqie resistance is such a problem is evidence they dont want us there.
Who is they? The Iraqis who voted? Or the few hundreds who are bombing the ones who voted?

Its not a war over territory.

Then what is the war all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron

You think a few hundred "rouge Iraqies" could keep the US millitary fighting for control? We have killed far more than a few hundred and the situation there is only getting worse.

Its a war on "terrorism". Its not about territory, its about fighting an ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
You think a few hundred "rouge Iraqies" could keep the US millitary fighting for control? We have killed far more than a few hundred and the situation there is only getting worse.
So, why do they bomb their fellow Iraqis? :blink:

If you think the majority of the Irqis wants us out, then why not get on the street on a mass protest and chant, U.S. OUT!!!, can you imagine how that would makes us look really as occupier instead of liberators? Well???

Its a war on "terrorism". Its not about territory, its about fighting an ideology.

Wait a minute, I thought you folks are complaining Iraq is not related to 9/11 and that there are no terrorist in Iraq, just a bunch of poor insurgents who simply wants their contry back or they would keep blowing away the Iraqis :lol:

What good is an ideology when you don't have any land or country to live by it?

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
So, why do they bomb their fellow Iraqis? :blink:

If you think the majority of the Irqis wants us out, then why not get on the street on a mass protest and chant, U.S. OUT!!!, can you imagine how that would makes us look really as occupier instead of liberators? Well???

Yeah, and it would be a good way to get thrown in Abu Ghraib. But of couse the US isnt fighting the resitants and people can just go out and demonstrate agianst the US without fear of being arrested or shot. The French didn't want to be occupied by the Nazis and there was a resistance movement. However, you didnt see the average person out on the corner saying "down with the Nazis".

Another side of it is the media coverage. Even if people in Iraq were saying "US out" do you think it would make it onto Fox news?

I question the insurgent "bombing" fellow Iraqies. Can you link me to some information? I bet its the Iraqies who are cooperating with the Americans that are being bombed. They would indeed be seen as collaborators. But I really don't know.

Wait a minute, I thought you folks are complaining Iraq is not related to 9/11 and that there are no terrorist in Iraq, just a bunch of poor insurgents who simply wants their contry back or they would keep blowing away the Iraqis :lol:

Its not and the whole notion that you are arguing about territory proves it. That is a pretty slick tactic you are trying there but it aint gonna work. Its you who is arguing that controlling territory is going to win this war. They are going to do their best to spin the war on terror into a "victory". However, the war on terror is a diluted fantasy that can never be won and history will prove this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

Yeah, and it would be a good way to get thrown in Abu Ghraib. But of couse the US isnt fighting the resitants and people can just go out and demonstrate agianst the US without fear of being arrested or shot. The French didn't want to be occupied by the Nazis and there was a resistance movement. However, you didnt see the average person out on the corner saying "down with the Nazis".

Another side of it is the media coverage. Even if people in Iraq were saying "US out" do you think it would make it onto Fox news?

The Abu Ghraib incident was a case of a couple of bad seed that got mixed into our fine fighting soldiers. And people like yourself are capitalizing on the incident by labeling our entire Army same as those idiot soldiers, talk about profiling.

The German Army marched into France not because France has been under a Dictator who has been butchering his own people and been a headache for the world for the past 10 years. Germany was the Saddam then, you get it now?

Each bomb and bad news is an automtic headline in Iraq, so I would not worry about not reading it in the paper when the Iraqis marched for us to get out. It is the good news and developments that the main stream liberal media not interested at.

I question the insurgent "bombing" fellow Iraqies. Can you link me to some information? I bet its the Iraqies who are cooperating with the Americans that are being bombed. They would indeed be seen as collaborators. But I really don't know.

Oh really? So the insurgents bomb kills only collaborators, there is such a smart bomb now?

Its not and the whole notion that you are arguing about territory proves it. That is a pretty slick tactic you are trying there but it aint gonna work. Its you who is arguing that controlling territory is going to win this war. They are going to do their best to spin the war on terror into a "victory". However, the war on terror is a diluted fantasy that can never be won and history will prove this.

Tactic??? Just answer the question then, how good is an ideology then when you have no land or territory and is always on the run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
The Abu Ghraib incident was a case of a couple of bad seed that got mixed into our fine fighting soldiers. And people like yourself are capitalizing on the incident by labeling our entire Army same as those idiot soldiers, talk about profiling.

No what came out about Abu Ghraib is the policy of this Adminsitration and is the tip of the iceberg or what is happening in our prison camps everyday. And its people like you who simplely don't care if men, women and even children are being tortured, raped and murderd in our name.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2004Jun8.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/internat...fd6&ei=5088

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/

Be sure to read through the accounts Sexual humiliation and Physical assault (links on the left side of the page) at this site -

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project...s_torture_abuse

The German Army marched into France not because France has been under a Dictator who has been butchering his own people and been a headache for the world for the past 10 years. Germany was the Saddam then, you get it now?

We didnt march into Iraq becuase Saddam tortured his people. We went there becuase he "had WMDs". Saddams human rights abuses are just the secondary reason they gave once their number one reason proved to be a lie. I think most Iraqies would prefer to be tortured by Saddam instead of the Americans.

"The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html

Oh really? So the insurgents bomb kills only collaborators, there is such a smart bomb now?

Tactic???

Well, one of the major problems for US forces are IEDs. IEDs are remotly detonated by the Insergants via remote control. They are used to specificaly target millitary vehicals. Anyway, I guess you cant back up your claim with anything other than your BS propaganda you repeat like a parrot.

Tactic??? Just answer the question then, how good is an ideology then when you have no land or territory and is always on the run?

I think people will believe what they believe reguardless of wether they have the recognition of a state or nation. Besides if there is a vast network of international terrorist in 50 (now 48) countries, they still have plenty of "territory" for you to do whatever you think they need territory to do. In 5 years we have eliminated 4% (since we have allready won in Iraq) of the terrorist's "territory". At this rate we will still be fighting the terrorist in 2100. Considering the "friends" we are making around the world, this war will never end.

You need to get a clue as to the truth of this war, you wont be able to hide from it forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pinky Floyd
We went there becuase he "had WMDs". Saddams human rights abuses are just the secondary reason they gave once their number one reason proved to be a lie.

You need to get a clue as to the truth of this war, you wont be able to hide from it forever.

JON STEWART, HOST: Then, is the battle between our two countries, was it drummed up between Saddam and his interests to dominate the Arab world and our interests to have stability? Was it inevitable? Is it something that came through misunderstandings of culture?

GENERAL GEORGES SADA: Well let me tell you, it was not misunderstanding between the cultures, but t was the Saddam intentions and Saddam wanted to rule that part of the world. He was always going to go for weapons and of course he had weapons of mass destruction that he had managed to hide and to mislead the United Nations countries.

STEWART: This is obviously the most controversial part of the book. In it you say that right before the invasion of Iraq Saddam had his weapons of mass destruction taken to Syria.

SADA: That’s true. He had them there before Americans came and liberated the country. The weapons were transported to Syria by air and by ground.

STEWART: That would seemingly get the Bush administration off the giant hook that it appears to be on. Why wouldn’t they pursue that line of evidence? Or have they? It seems like for us it would be hard to understand that that really happened. Given that the whole world was looking for those.

SADA: I am sure in the coming days the authorities are going to tell the public and tell all Americans after they will have all the evidence in their hands and they can verify everything to the Americans.

STEWART: You still feel, now this is first-hand knowledge of yours? Somebody told you this? You’ve seen it in documents? You’ve seen it on video.

SADA: Oh yes, the weapons of mass destruction I have seen them myself because you see I was the number two man in the air force. Then I know how they were used against our nation. Of course—

STEWART: But in the later ‘90s after they thought they had rid them of it, you still saw them.

SADA: After the ‘90s they were there. How I knew they were there, after they were transported the pilots who transported they told me.

Gen George Sada interview on Daily Show with Jon Stewart

I'm going with Sada on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron

So what??? We knew he once had them becuase we gave them to him. If you want proof he Saddam had WMDS, look at the receipt from the US governement. The point is we went there to keep them from falling into the hands of the terroist. OPPS TO LATE, DEE DEE DEE. Now we can attack Syria and then attack whoever they pass them off to, until someone passes them off across our wide open boarders and we no longer need to guess where the WMDs are.

The intelligence was wrong and all the kings men cant put humpty dumpty back together again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
No what came out about Abu Ghraib is the policy of this Adminsitration and is the tip of the iceberg or what is happening in our prison camps everyday. And its people like you who simplely don't care if men, women and even children are being tortured, raped and murderd in our name.
NO, you are labeling our entire forces because of a few idiots and ACCUSATIONS. As I have repeatedly asked, how come the Iraqis themselves didn't get so outrage like the liberlas did and the anti war group? Proves that the Iraqis knows better and understand better who the real enemy is.

We didnt march into Iraq becuase Saddam tortured his people. We went there becuase he "had WMDs". Saddams human rights abuses are just the secondary reason they gave once their number one reason proved to be a lie. I think most Iraqies would prefer to be tortured by Saddam instead of the Americans.

YES! The world was not sure if he had WMD, all indicators then says he still is toying with them.

The UN itself was not sure that is why we have all those resolutions. We went in and verified it, in doing so we found mass graves and learned the brutality of the 2 sons of Saddam for one. Go ask the family members of those in the mass graves, those tortured and brutallly killed by Saddam and his 2 sons if they would prefere to go back to those days.

"The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country."

The Iraqis know they can get us out of there whenever they want to, all they have to do is call Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha. :tu:

Well, one of the major problems for US forces are IEDs. IEDs are remotly detonated by the Insergants via remote control. They are used to specificaly target millitary vehicals. Anyway, I guess you cant back up your claim with anything other than your BS propaganda you repeat like a parrot.
The IED is really meant towards people like yourself, they bomb the Iraqis, sit down and let you folks take over with the propaganda.

I think people will believe what they believe reguardless of wether they have the recognition of a state or nation. Besides if there is a vast network of international terrorist in 50 (now 48) countries, they still have plenty of "territory" for you to do whatever you think they need territory to do. In 5 years we have eliminated 4% (since we have allready won in Iraq) of the terrorist's "territory". At this rate we will still be fighting the terrorist in 2100. Considering the "friends" we are making around the world, this war will never end.

What good is a territory if it is non significant or no asset on it?

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
NO, you are labeling our entire forces because of a few idiots and ACCUSATIONS. As I have repeatedly asked, how come the Iraqis themselves didn't get so outrage like the liberlas did and the anti war group? Proves that the Iraqis knows better and understand better who the real enemy is.

.

They are SHOOTING at US. Get the hint.

YES! The world was not sure if he had WMD, all indicators then says he still is toying with them.

The UN itself was not sure that is why we have all those resolutions. We went in and verified it, in doing so we found mass graves and learned the brutality of the 2 sons of Saddam for one. Go ask the family members of those in the mass graves, those tortured and brutallly killed by Saddam and his 2 sons if they would prefere to go back to those days.

Blah blah blah. No we didnt. We went to Iraq Because Saddam HAD WMDs. It was not a mission to "verify". WE WERE TOLD Saddam HAD WMDs, PERIOD. This was a complete reversal of what W said in January 2000 -

And a complete reversal of what they were still saying as late as july of 2001.

If things were so bad under Saddam, then by your logic why didnt the Iraqies march in the streets and demand change? Heck they could have called "Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha", but they didnt, humm why?

We allready knew about the mass graves before were went into Iraq. And we allready knew about the brutality of Saddam and his sons. Heck we had know about that since long before 9/11. You really think we discoverd all that AFTER invading Iraq???

The Iraqis know they can get us out of there whenever they want to, all they have to do is call Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha. :tu:

Yeah, exactly. YOU DONT CARE.

Its their country. Why the heck should they have to leave their country if they don't like the people who are occupying them??? You just don't care, its a joke to you. As if the Iraqies can "call" anyone to bail them out.

The IED is really meant towards people like yourself, they bomb the Iraqis, sit down and let you folks take over with the propaganda.

That doesnt even make sense. I have allready proved to you that the vast majority of the insergents are IRAQIEs. I have also provided you with evidence toward the fact that the majority of Iraqies DO NOT WANT US THERE. And the best you can do its make some jab about "you folks" and propaganda?

You are a joke.

What good is a territory if it is non significant or no asset on it?

What good do you think "territory" does for the terrorists? 9/11 wasnt an attack launched from some "territory" they occupied. It was 19 guys who had appartments in the US. They didnt even own land or homes much less CONTROL TERRITORY. But some how in your half baked logic, we are now safer from 19 guys getting apartments in the US because, we control Iraq.

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KingTomis

.

Edited by KingTomis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pinky Floyd
Its their country. Why the heck should they have to leave their country if they don't like the people who are occupying them???

I agree that we need to bail out of Iraq-at least bail out of the Bahgdad region. These people just are not worth it. They wish to slaughter each other in the worst way, by all means let them. We need to continue to protect the Kurds (under UN guidance) and the Marsh Arabs however.

Saddam did have WMD's. And it looks like he was a step ahead of us in transferring them somewhere. But since they are not there anymore, our primary ojective in going into Iraq is fufilled: there are now no WMD's in Iraq.

I certainly remember the pictures of the dead Kurds in the streets of their town when 'Chemical Ali' torched them with nerve gas. Saddam was going to exterminate all of the Kurds. Saddam, cousin discussed exterminating Kurds And he had been quietly killing thousands of them each year. They are now safe. Second ojective met. Time to go. Let the Sunni and the Shia commit mindless genocide on each other as the UN will idley watch.

Saddam swung by his neck for his crimes against humanity and his two maniac sons died in a phalanx of gunfire. Tertiary (and bonus) objective met. Icing on the cake.

Our objectives have been fully met in Iraq. The American soldiers that have died there did not die in vain. All of our objectives, (save for one: the seemingly impossible one of spreading democracy amongst demons and demonettes) have been met. Let's get the hell out. Let's give the Iraqis' what they want and let the Shia and the Sunni slaughter each other like animals in the street, with the end result that Iraq is split into 3 or more pieces (Kurds, Suni, Shia). Thousands more will perish than what is right now in an unbridaled civil war (anyone remember Beruit in the '70's? Serb vs. Croat in the '90's?), but who cares? I don't. Not anymore.

Let it fall apart. Screw 'em

Edited by Pinky Floyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
[hey are SHOOTING at US. Get the hint.
Again, who is they? Those who voted or those who are bombing those who voted?

Blah blah blah. No we didnt. We went to Iraq Because Saddam HAD WMDs. It was not a mission to "verify". WE WERE TOLD Saddam HAD WMDs, PERIOD. This was a complete reversal of what W said in January 2000 -

YUP, we went in there for everyone thought he had WMD, for his deceiving acts, uncooperation and screwing with the UN made everyone uncertain.

So now we know including yourself that there is no WMD, VERIFIED!

Now, was there any before we went in to monkey around for 2 years with France, Germany and Kofi Anan while they are trying to cover up the Oil for Food program corruption???

If things were so bad under Saddam, then by your logic why didnt the Iraqies march in the streets and demand change? Heck they could have called "Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha", but they didnt, humm why?
The mass graves can answer your question and the 2 sons of Saddam.

We allready knew about the mass graves before were went into Iraq. And we allready knew about the brutality of Saddam and his sons. Heck we had know about that since long before 9/11. You really think we discoverd all that AFTER invading Iraq???

Yeah, exactly. YOU DONT CARE.

We knew about the chemical attack on the Kurds, those mass graves really didn't have tombstones as you think so. :rolleyes:

Its their country. Why the heck should they have to leave their country if they don't like the people who are occupying them??? You just don't care, its a joke to you. As if the Iraqies can "call" anyone to bail them out.

That doesnt even make sense. I have allready proved to you that the vast majority of the insergents are IRAQIEs. I have also provided you with evidence toward the fact that the majority of Iraqies DO NOT WANT US THERE. And the best you can do its make some jab about "you folks" and propaganda?

So, most of the few Insurgents are Iraqis, and ALL of those who voted and being bomb by the few MOSTLY Iraqi insurgent are ALL Iraqis. You follow???

What good do you think "territory" does for the terrorists? 9/11 wasnt an attack launched from some "territory" they occupied. It was 19 guys who had appartments in the US. They didnt even own land or homes much less CONTROL TERRITORY. But some how in your half baked logic, we are now safer from 19 guys getting apartments in the US because, we control Iraq.

Like you said, it is a war on Ideology. You need territory to practice or live by your ideology, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
Again, who is they? Those who voted or those who are bombing those who voted?

"They" would be the insurgants. That is "who" they are. They are shooting at us. They are the insurgents. The insurgents are shooting at us.

The insurgents are 90% Iraqies -

Anthony H. Cordesman (a former Pentagon official), said the relative influence of foreign and Iraqi elements of the insurgency is difficult to measure because accurate numbers are hard to come by. In a report published in September, he and a co-author said they believed that 4 to 10 percent of the roughly 30,000 insurgents in Iraq are foreigners, many of them adherents of a radical branch of Islam known as Salafism.
source

"They" would be the insergants. That is "who" they are. They are shooting at us. They are the insurgents. The insurgents are shooting at us. and NOW we know -The insurgents are Iraqies.

So, who voted?

The 1% of Iraqi citizens who think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country?

Or the 65% cent of Iraqi citizens support the insurgent attacks?

Or the 82% who are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops?

Or the 67% of Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation?

Or the 43% of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened?

Or the 72% who do not have confidence in the multi-national forces?

Or the 71% of people who rarely get safe clean water?

Or the 47% never have enough electricity?

Or the 70% who say their sewerage system rarely works?

Or the 40% of southern Iraqis who are unemployed?

source

YUP, we went in there for everyone thought he had WMD, for his deceiving acts, uncooperation and screwing with the UN made everyone uncertain.

So just to be clear. You are saying that we, the American people, were NOT told by this administration that "Saddam has WMDs"?

So just to be clear. You are saying that we were not to specific loctations in Iraq where these weapons are?

So just to be clear. You are saying that we were not told of specific types of WMDs that Saddam HAD?

Is that correct and what you are saying? That we did not know? That we just suspected? That we needed to verify?

Now, was there any before we went in to monkey around for 2 years with France, Germany and Kofi Anan while they are trying to cover up the Oil for Food program corruption???

That would be a NO. Collon Powell and Condi Rice both clearly stated this in 2001 -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9...short&hl=en

So, most of the few Insurgents are Iraqis, and ALL of those who voted and being bomb by the few MOSTLY Iraqi insurgent are ALL Iraqis. You follow???

Most of the few?? They are the "few" who have had it with the occupation and are willing to kill and die, to end it.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who say their sewerage system rarely works.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who think Allied military involvement is NOT helping to improve security.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who support the insurgent attacks.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who feel less secure because of the occupation.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies whodo not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who rarely get safe clean water.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who never have enough electricity.

They are the few of the Majority of Iraqies who will not take it any more.

How meny more of the majority must join the "few" before you listen?

There are 30,000 insurgents which are 90% Iraqies. Thats 27,000 Iraqi insurgent. And the number is growing. Its a considerable number of people who are fed up with and are taking up arms to fight the occupation.

source

Like you said, it is a war on Ideology. You need territory to practice or live by your ideology, right?

No, where do you get that idea from? Why would you need "territory" to parctice or live by your ideology?

"They trained indigenous terror cells and moved on somewhere else,". - Col. H.R. McMaster, commander of the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment

source

They just move on and begin training indigenous terror cells where ever they go. They don't need territory.

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
"They" would be the insurgants. That is "who" they are. They are shooting at us. They are the insurgents. The insurgents are shooting at us.

The insurgents are 90% Iraqies -

"They" would be the insurgants. That is "who" they are. They are shooting at us. They are the insurgents. The insurgents are shooting at us. and NOW we know

Well, we agreed on something the insurgents are the ones shooting at us, same group who are bombing the Iraqis who wants no more of their Tyrannical rule.

So, who voted?

The 1% of Iraqi citizens who think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country?

Or the 65% cent of Iraqi citizens support the insurgent attacks?

Or the 82% who are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops?

Or the 67% of Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation?

Or the 43% of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened?

Or the 72% who do not have confidence in the multi-national forces?

Or the 71% of people who rarely get safe clean water?

Or the 47% never have enough electricity?

Or the 70% who say their sewerage system rarely works?

Or the 40% of southern Iraqis who are unemployed?

Well, their vote was honored after all and got the elected leader they chose, while your insurgents use bomb to make sure your statistic or poll stays, like I said, the Insugents do the bombing and then let people like you do the propaganda. See how it works? Right here, LIVE!, :lol:

So just to be clear. You are saying that we, the American people, were NOT told by this administration that "Saddam has WMDs"?

So just to be clear. You are saying that we were not to specific loctations in Iraq where these weapons are?

So just to be clear. You are saying that we were not told of specific types of WMDs that Saddam HAD?

Is that correct and what you are saying? That we did not know? That we just suspected? That we needed to verify?

That would be a NO. Collon Powell and Condi Rice both clearly stated this in 2001 -

Didn't I say the whole WORLD was uncertain about the WMD? That means everyone in this planet, of course except Saddam and his cronies.

Most of the few?? They are the "few" who have had it with the occupation and are willing to kill and die, to end it.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who say their sewerage system rarely works.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who think Allied military involvement is NOT helping to improve security.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who support the insurgent attacks.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who feel less secure because of the occupation.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies whodo not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who rarely get safe clean water.

They are the "few" of the majority of Iraqies who never have enough electricity.

They are the few of the Majority of Iraqies who will not take it any more.

How meny more of the majority must join the "few" before you listen?

There are 30,000 insurgents which are 90% Iraqies. Thats 27,000 Iraqi insurgent. And the number is growing. Its a considerable number of people who are fed up with and are taking up arms to fight the occupation.

They just move on and begin training indigenous terror cells where ever they go. They don't need territory.

Like I said, and it is not a joke. Get on the street and Chant U.S. OUT and we are out of there in 24 hours led by Nancy Pelosi.

I dare any Political leader or anyone who thinks as you do to go over to Iraq and call all those who hates the US to get on the street on a massive protest and see where it goes.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
Well, we agreed on something the insurgents are the ones shooting at us, same group who are bombing the Iraqis who wants no more of their Tyrannical rule.

Yes, I am glad you finaly understand the Iraqies do not want their tyrannical rule of the American occupiers.

Well, their vote was honored after all and got the elected leader they chose, while your insurgents use bomb to make sure your statistic or poll stays, like I said, the Insugents do the bombing and then let people like you do the propaganda. See how it works? Right here, LIVE!, :lol:

Well, since 65% of Iraqi citizens support the insurgent attacks, I guess "my" insurgents are the voice of the majority of Iraqies.

Then there are people like you who support the bombing of the Iraqies as a reason to bomb them futher, fuling a false war. And also giving you reason to demonize the people who support the Iraqies efforts for freedom. Why do you hate freedom?

Didn't I say the whole WORLD was uncertain about the WMD? That means everyone in this planet, of course except Saddam and his cronies.

Yeah, I am glad you finaly understand that we were told Saddam had WMD. Not maybe, not might, but Saddam HAD WMDs. Now you know it was lies which led to this war. :tu:

Like I said, and it is not a joke. Get on the street and Chant U.S. OUT and we are out of there in 24 hours led by Nancy Pelosi.

I dare any Political leader or anyone who thinks as you do to go over to Iraq and call all those who hates the US to get on the street on a massive protest and see where it goes.

I dont think Nancy Pelosi couldnt lead a dog around the block with a leash. However you are free to support Pelosi or whoever you choose but I do think you are wasting yoru time backing Pelosi. I am just glad you are calling for any political leader to go to Iraq stand up for the 82% of Iraqies who are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops. Its a naive, child like idea, but at least your heart is in the right place and you are supporting the freedom of the Iraqies from their tyrannical American occupiers.

Glad you are comming around and seeing the truth behind the war. :tu:

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Whats so tyrannical about the americans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
Whats so tyrannical about the americans?

Those are AROCES words. Even though I have posted all kinds of information which describes the reality in Iraq, and AROCES best response is to only play a shell game of words. If you would like to debate to information I have presented please do so. If you just want to play the same game AROCES is, then perhaps the two of you can play with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Yes, I am glad you finaly understand the Iraqies do not want their tyrannical rule of the American occupiers.
Hmmmm, twisting things around huh? For me the Insurgents who bomb their fellow Iraqis are the Tyrants, and you think it is the Americans.

Let's leave it at that for it is pretty much clear who's side you on.

Well, since 65% of Iraqi citizens support the insurgent attacks, I guess "my" insurgents are the voice of the majority of Iraqies.

YUP! That is YOUR majority, your own version I would say. Who for some reason won't get on the street and DEMAND the Americans leave.

I wonder??? :blink:

Then there are people like you who support the bombing of the Iraqies as a reason to bomb them futher, fuling a false war. And also giving you reason to demonize the people who support the Iraqies efforts for freedom. Why do you hate freedom?
They voted while the American and the Iraqi Army protected them. These supporters of your Insurgents, when did they vote for the Insugents? :lol:

Yeah, I am glad you finaly understand that we were told Saddam had WMD. Not maybe, not might, but Saddam HAD WMDs. Now you know it was lies which led to this war.

YUP, WE. That includes you, if it was a lie then why didn't Bush simply planted a WMD , I mean why not go for it all???

I dont think Nancy Pelosi couldnt lead a dog around the block with a leash. However you are free to support Pelosi or whoever you choose but I do think you are wasting yoru time backing Pelosi. I am just glad you are calling for any political leader to go to Iraq stand up for the 82% of Iraqies who are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops. Its a naive, child like idea, but at least your heart is in the right place and you are supporting the freedom of the Iraqies from their tyrannical American occupiers.

Glad you are comming around and seeing the truth behind the war.

Why not? Pelosi is on your side on this and wants us out there ASAP!

82%? Wow, that is the most quiet 82% I ever heard of. Maybe 82% of the Insurgents? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Those are AROCES words. Even though I have posted all kinds of information which describes the reality in Iraq, and AROCES best response is to only play a shell game of words. If you would like to debate to information I have presented please do so. If you just want to play the same game AROCES is, then perhaps the two of you can play with each other.

Nope, you are twisting it around. Nice try, but you are assuming the readers here are not smart enough to figure that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.