For once, i agree with old bush.

[AAAhmed46]

My fellow liberals tend to say ''pull the troops out...pull the troops out, it's useless and thier dying''

But well, what will happen if you pull them out? I really dont want Iraq to have a new taliban rise up or have some insane civil war which creates more terrorism.

It ***** troops are dying.

Why are they dying?

Honestly, i think it's because they need to put MORE troops in Iraq if they want to stop the insurgency.

A few months back i was talking to a guy who was a ''petty officer''(i think thats what his title was) he served in the U.N. in Cyprus and the gaza strip, and some oher places i cant recall off of memory.

(this is going to sound off topic but bear with me, it will connect)

Thing is he really thinks the U.N. is flawed despite serving in it. He says peace keeping exists when peace exists. If two sides are fighting there is no peace keeping, it's peace enforcing, but that never came to be in the U.N. which is what it was designed for. Anyway he said that, in his experience, that whether or not Iraq was justified is no longer relevant outside of politics. In the nitty gritty, the american presence is already there and they need to....DO something.

He says more troops need to be brought into Iraq if they want to secure it and bring some sort of order to it. There will be more casualties, but in the long run it's better that there are a few casualties if it means securing the country and actually being able to bring the troops back without worrying too much about any fall out.

If they are left as they are...more casualties will occur, and nothing will get done, nothing will help bring some sort of order.

Pulling them out? Well, i really dont think that would be wise considering the political climate.

Bring more in? Casualties yes, but it will be easier to secure rebuilding of the country.


If Iraq becomes stable again, will this be a big embarassment?



Im not pro-war, i was against this war. But when it comes to whats going on INSIDE of Iraq, it's kind of pointless no?

NOw voting on the otherhand...then it is relevant.

[Mills75]

I agree with you Adam about more troops to help secure Iraq and support existing ground forces already on the ground. John McCain I believe is for increasing troop numbers too and I'm all for this type of strategy as it stands now. Leaving and pulling out now would be a terrible mistake.

Jeff

[AAAhmed46]

I agree with you Adam about more troops to help secure Iraq and support existing ground forces already on the ground. John McCain I believe is for increasing troop numbers too and I'm all for this type of strategy as it stands now. Leaving and pulling out now would be a terrible mistake.

Jeff

Exactly.

[IJ]

First let me say I tend to agree--other than the fact my little brother will probably be there within a year. But anyway...

The resultant chaos after we depart ... that's kind of a theory. My understanding is that these people all have it in for each other and their wedding parties, apparently, and will begin all out civil war once troops are gone. And that would be a happy breeding ground for islamofacists, so al qaeda and company would love it.

On the other hand, I've heard foreign policy types state they think its not clear that we're helping a whole lot. We're a thorn in the side of some, not just a benefit to some others. And there was that report (we've discussed this matter here and generally my concerns that Iraq was creating new terorists was dismissed with "who cares if they like us") that said that Iraq was the cause celebre for radical islam, so we may NOT be making things that much better. I'm not qualified to say for sure one way or the other---but since i think we're in for the long haul and because i tend to agree--maybe people who read more newspapers could do the rest of my convincing?

Another note: I heard an interesting report on NPR that explained that while the "war on terror" alientates some muslims, we have to call what we're doing something. One expert recommended "war on jihadism" since the psychos actually do call themselves "jihadis." They had a clip of Bush referring to attacks on jihadis so apparently he followed this advice. The downside, however, is that jihad such means "striving in the name of God" and to declare war on jihad IS to declare war on islam, whether you mean it or not (and God knows a cartoon can get people killed when radical islamic sensibilities are offended, though generally not vice versa). Instead, a few scholars recommended "harrabis" (spelling? islamic readers please help), which means illegal or ungodly warmaking. That's what we think the radical islamists are doing, and it shows an understanding of the culture and a respect for peaceful forms of jihad to use the term. I was sold. thoughts?

[AAAhmed46]

First let me say I tend to agree--other than the fact my little brother will probably be there within a year. But anyway...

The resultant chaos after we depart ... that's kind of a theory. My understanding is that these people all have it in for each other and their wedding parties, apparently, and will begin all out civil war once troops are gone. And that would be a happy breeding ground for islamofacists, so al qaeda and company would love it.

On the other hand, I've heard foreign policy types state they think its not clear that we're helping a whole lot. We're a thorn in the side of some, not just a benefit to some others. And there was that report (we've discussed this matter here and generally my concerns that Iraq was creating new terorists was dismissed with "who cares if they like us") that said that Iraq was the cause celebre for radical islam, so we may NOT be making things that much better. I'm not qualified to say for sure one way or the other---but since i think we're in for the long haul and because i tend to agree--maybe people who read more newspapers could do the rest of my convincing?

Another note: I heard an interesting report on NPR that explained that while the "war on terror" alientates some muslims, we have to call what we're doing something. One expert recommended "war on jihadism" since the psychos actually do call themselves "jihadis." They had a clip of Bush referring to attacks on jihadis so apparently he followed this advice. The downside, however, is that jihad such means "striving in the name of God" and to declare war on jihad IS to declare war on islam, whether you mean it or not (and God knows a cartoon can get people killed when radical islamic sensibilities are offended, though generally not vice versa). Instead, a few scholars recommended "harrabis" (spelling? islamic readers please help), which means illegal or ungodly warmaking. That's what we think the radical islamists are doing, and it shows an understanding of the culture and a respect for peaceful forms of jihad to use the term. I was sold. thoughts?

Sounds really cool.

[Valkenar]

Instead, a few scholars recommended "harrabis" (spelling? islamic readers please help), which means illegal or ungodly warmaking. That's what we think the radical islamists are doing, and it shows an understanding of the culture and a respect for peaceful forms of jihad to use the term. I was sold. thoughts?

I heard the same report, and also think the terminology change is a good idea. Unfortunately, I'm cynical enough to think that a lot of people just associate all things arabian with terrorism and will be reluctant to use a new word because they'll think it's somehow coddling the enemy. Or they'll perceive it as some PC issue about being sensitive to terrorist, despite the fact that the new word is insulting (I remember them saying it's akin to brigand) whereas Jihadi is completementary. And some people just believe that Muslims have chosen a false religion and that Islamic terrorists really are "striving in the path of god", meaning Jihadi, to them, is an accurate word. As much as people try to argue that there's no religious war aspect to this whole thing, there are plenty of people who view Islam as an enemy.

The word is Hirabi, and you can read NPR's report here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6392989

[Bill Glasheen]

Boy, I never would have expected a story like that from NPR.

Believe it or not I'm against the suggestion, Ian. You might wonder why given that I use the word "islamofascist" quite a bit.

Here's the deal.

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? I vividly remember Katie Couric getting on the air and immediately asking authorities if this was an Islamic terrorist plot. This, mind you, was before 9/11. I immediately felt embarassed that this "perky" nitwit graduated from my alma mater, and my suspicions proved to be true.

Terrorism come from all walks of life. We are at war with terrorism. We are NOT at war with Islam, or even exclusively some narrow faction thereof. It has nothing to do with religion. God knows we should be able to figure THAT one out in a heartbeat. It has only to do with boneheaded, sociopathic, extremist thinking with malevolent intent.

Do you REALLY think that members of al qaeda are "god fearing" people? Maybe they do. I don't see any association whatsoever with the Islam that I know. Ponder some of these pinheads with their many concubines and penchant for murdering innocents. That's Islam? Riiiigggghhhtttt!

War on terror works for me...

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Adam et al

I found this article in Knowledge News rather fascinating. Between this and the existance of al qaeda, this should explain a lot about what's going on now and what we might expect in the future.

- Bill

How Did Iraq Get Stuck with Saddam?



Unless you've been hiding in a hole, you already know how Saddam Hussein's dictatorial reign came to an end. Now here's our look at how Saddam came to power in the first place--at the crucial events that shaped modern Iraq, and that challenge its new leaders now.

1917 - With the Ottoman Empire crumbling in World War I, western powers begin carving the Middle East into spheres of colonial influence. British forces enter Baghdad and replace the Ottoman provincial government with a British imperial one. The Ottomans had ruled the region since the 16th century, yet prior to Britain's arrival, "Iraq" was not a single political unit. The term had been used since the Middle Ages to refer to the area, but the Ottomans ruled the land as five provinces approximating its religious and ethnic divisions.

1920 - The emir Faysal I establishes an Arab government in Syria and is proclaimed king. Nationalists in Iraq instigate a revolt and proclaim Faysal's older brother, Abdullah, their king. The French expel Faysal from Syria, while the British suppress the revolt in Iraq.

1921 - Britain offers to make Faysal the Iraqi king. Faysal accepts, provided the Iraqi people agree. A plebiscite says they do, and Faysal takes the throne.

1922 - Britain and Iraq sign a treaty of alliance. The treaty satisfies neither the Iraqis--who notice that the British still have considerable say in their affairs--nor the British public, which opposes spending money on Iraq.

1925 - King Faysal signs the "Organic Law," establishing a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government. Yet neither monarchy nor parliament is organic to the region. Both will survive for only 33 years.

1932 - The League of Nations formally admits Iraq as an independent state. With independence achieved, Iraq's numerous political parties turn on each other.

1933 - Several hundred members of a small Christian community are killed in clashes with Iraqi troops. An ailing King Faysal counsels moderation but cannot control the situation. The king dies in Switzerland and is succeeded by his young and inexperienced son, King Ghazi.

1934-35 - Tribal insurrections, spurred by opposition leaders, lead to the fall of three governments in two years. The insurrections reflect two critical problems: the questionable legitimacy of a political system largely imposed from outside and the country's ethnic and religious diversity.

1939 - King Ghazi is killed in a car accident and is succeeded by his 4-year-old son, Faysal II. His uncle, Emir Abdullah, serves as regent. World War II breaks out in Europe. Despite paying lip service to the Anglo-Iraqi alliance, Iraq's prime minister, General Nuri, declares Iraq "nonbelligerent." The army dominates Iraqi politics.

1940 - Iraq sides with pan-Arab leaders who oppose British power and who are secretly negotiating with the Nazis.

1941 - British forces rout the Iraqi army and make Iraqi leaders and their pan-Arab supporters flee the country. Under duress from the British, Iraq declares war on Germany and the Axis powers and helps the Allies.

1945 - World War II ends. The regent, Abdullah, calls for reforms that would make Iraq more genuinely democratic. His call is embraced by a generation of young reformers, yet vested interests block any change.

1948 - Salih Jabr, Iraq's first Shi'ite prime minister, negotiates a new and more equal treaty with the British. Yet popular protests promptly compel repudiation of the treaty and, ultimately, Jabr's resignation. Iraq participates with other Arab nations in the First Arab-Israeli War, which ends in bitter humiliation for the Arab states.

1952 - Opposition leaders, students, and extremists spur a popular uprising that spins out of control. The regent calls in the army, and the country falls under martial law. The government signs a profit-sharing agreement with the Iraq Petroleum Company, despite protests from opposition groups that want to nationalize the oil industry.

1958 - The "Free Officers," a group of young military officers operating in secret cells, stages a coup, overthrows the monarchy, and proclaims a republic. The king, the crown prince, and many members of the royal family are executed. Abd-al-Karim Qasim, leader of the Free Officers, assumes control of the government. It soon becomes apparent that Iraq is a republic in name only.

1961 - In an apparent attempt to divert attention from problems at home, Qasim advances a claim to Iraqi sovereignty over Kuwait. The claim has little historical basis and serves primarily to anger Britain, Kuwait, and other Arab nations. Qasim nationalizes the oil industry.

1963 - A faction of the army cooperates with the Iraqi branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath ("Renaissance") Party in a revolt against Qasim's regime. Qasim is executed, and a National Council for Revolutionary Command is created under Colonel Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr. Ba'ath leaders install Abd-al-Salam Arif as president. Arif promptly rallies the military, has Ba'ath leaders arrested, and consolidates his power. Forced underground, the Ba'ath party reorganizes under al-Bakr, helped by a young Saddam Hussein.

1966 - President Arif dies in a helicopter accident and is succeeded by his older brother, Abd-al-Rahman Arif, who ignores calls from Ba'ath and other opposition leaders for elections and for getting the army out of politics.

1968 - A faction of the army and Ba'ath leaders overthrow the government again. President Arif surrenders and leaves the country. The new regime forms the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), which makes al-Bakr president. Al-Bakr gives considerable power to Saddam Hussein and consolidates his own by forcing military leaders to flee. A Kurdish uprising begins but is quickly suppressed. The Ba'ath party becomes the central force in Iraqi politics.

1970 - Ba'ath party leaders meet with leaders of the Kurds. The government promises that by 1974 it will recognize the Kurds as a national group entitled to self-rule.

1974 - The promises of 1970 go unkept, and the Kurds revolt. The shah of Iran supports the Kurds, primarily because he wants to pressure the Iraqi government into renegotiating a 1937 treaty that gives Iraq control over the valuable Shatt al-Arab shipping channel.

1975 - Saddam Hussein meets with the shah of Iran, and the two quickly come to an agreement: Iraq will share control of the Shatt al-Arab, and Iran will stop supporting the Kurds. The agreement puts an end to the Kurdish war.

1978 - Pursuing the Ba'ath goal of Arab unity, Iraq and Syria sign a "charter for joint national action." The charter says the two nations will merge their military forces and suggests they'll eventually form one political entity. Negotiations on forming the union stall, however, as leaders on both sides work to remain on top. The quick engagement-turned-annulment leads to bad feelings all around.

1979 - Al-Bakr resigns, and Saddam Hussein, who has assumed increasing control, succeeds him. Not two weeks later, the government announces that it has uncovered a conspiracy to overthrow Saddam's new regime. Several members of the RCC are arrested, a special court is set up, and 22 people are executed. In Iran, a Shi'ite Islamic movement led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrows the shah and proclaims a policy of "exporting the revolution." Clashes along the Iran-Iraq border become frequent.

1980 - Iraqi forces invade Iran, setting off a war between the two that will last eight years and create an Iraqi debt of $80 billion, with about half owed to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. After some initial Iraqi successes, a stalemate ensues.

1983 - Iranian forces penetrate Iraq. Kurds in the northeastern provinces cooperate with them. In response, Iraq deploys chemical weapons and bombs Iranian oil holdings in the Persian Gulf.

1987 - Iraq regains the upper hand in the war, partly by acquiring arms from France and the Soviet Union. Iraq also enjoys diplomatic and military support from the United States, which bombs Iranian ships and oil platforms and provides information about Iranian troop movements.

1988 - The Iran-Iraq War ends. Ultimately, the two sides make peace by reverting to agreements made in 1975. Saddam begins to rebuild the Iraqi military. He also begins chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds, massacring between 50,000 and 100,000 people in northern Iraq.

1990 - Angered by Kuwaiti and Saudi refusals to forgive Iraq's war debt, Saddam resurrects Iraq's claim to sovereignty over Kuwait. Iraqi forces invade. The U.N. Security Council imposes economic sanctions against Iraq, and U.S. troops arrive in Saudi Arabia. Saddam declares Kuwait an Iraqi province.

1991 - A multinational coalition led by the United States launches "Operation Desert Storm." The attack begins with an air campaign, but ground forces soon follow. Iraq withdraws from Kuwait and accepts a cease-fire dictated by the U.N. Almost immediately, Saddam flouts the cease-fire's terms, and economic sanctions remain in place. Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south rebel, but are put down with brutal force. In an attempt to protect the Kurds, the United States creates a "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq. U.S. forces establish a southern "no-fly" zone the next year.

1996 - Because of a growing humanitarian crisis stemming from the ongoing sanctions, the U.N. allows Iraq to sell $1 billion worth of oil every 90 days, on the condition that the money be used for humanitarian relief. Corruption within the "Oil-for-Food Program" later leads to one of the biggest scandals in U.N. history.

1997 - The U.N. disarmament commission determines that Iraq continues to hide information about its development of chemical and biological weapons.

1998 - Iraq ends all cooperation with the U.N. weapons inspection program. To force compliance and destroy weapons facilities, U.S. and British forces bomb Iraqi military targets and oil refineries.

1999 - The U.N. Security Council proposes a new arms inspection plan that could lead to the suspension of economic sanctions. Iraq rejects the plan.

2003 - The United States and Great Britain argue that Iraq continues to hide prohibited weapons. U.S. and British forces invade and topple Saddam Hussein's government. Eight months after Baghdad's fall, U.S. forces capture Saddam Hussein. No weapons of mass destruction are found.

--Steve Sampson

[AAAhmed46]

Timeline-too much stuff to talk about!

One thing...strange how since it's inception it has certainly had a rocky history.

And...

Kings...kings..kings...sad how it exists in this day and age.

Boy, I never would have expected a story like that from NPR.

Believe it or not I'm against the suggestion, Ian. You might wonder why given that I use the word "islamofascist" quite a bit.

Here's the deal.

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? I vividly remember Katie Couric getting on the air and immediately asking authorities if this was an Islamic terrorist plot. This, mind you, was before 9/11. I immediately felt embarassed that this "perky" nitwit graduated from my alma mater, and my suspicions proved to be true.

Terrorism come from all walks of life. We are at war with terrorism. We are NOT at war with Islam, or even exclusively some narrow faction thereof. It has nothing to do with religion. God knows we should be able to figure THAT one out in a heartbeat. It has only to do with boneheaded, sociopathic, extremist thinking with malevolent intent.

Do you REALLY think that members of al qaeda are "god fearing" people? Maybe they do. I don't see any association whatsoever with the Islam that I know. Ponder some of these pinheads with their many concubines and penchant for murdering innocents. That's Islam? Riiiigggghhhtttt!

War on terror works for me...

- Bill

Certainly there ARE fascist elements to it, calling for a single wahabi inspired ideology, the use of authority and institution, placing blame. Hell the RISE of nazism and rise of islamo-fascism is also disturbingly similar(despairing populace gets roused in irrational anger, projecting blame on another group...)


The whole ''war on islam'' stuff is why i tend to be so defensive, really i noticed online in particular, alot of people do look at this conflict along those lines, thats it's all about islam being flawed and that muslims are practicing the wrong faith, or the worst faith. Hey if they dont like islam, it's thier choice, just as its anyones choice to dislike any religion.
But to look at this in such black and white terms? Especially with the extreme complexity of this, how deep rooted it is through history with all the politics and economics involved? With all the S-H-I-T regimes?
With the king of saudi arabia dictating how people living in saudi arabia should live thier lives and worship? THe men and woman of the royal family living as they wish with no law, secular or religious stopping them inside the palaces; while those outside are living in a police state in the name of religion and order? Does that make sense?


Is al-queerda(Tony created this term ) god fearing? Who knows, if they do, certainly they are strange. Yes its very strange. I was reading about the toronto arrests and the history of those involved, the irrationality of it all truly disturbed me. The CBC interviewed a white convert to islam who had interacted with them who commented on thier beliefs, saying how it was like a cult, how that group was a little cult. They would go pray in the mosque with everyone else, even stand up and give speeches but ultimatly went off on thier own with thier own little posse, with thier own little religion. What i found striking in the interview was that, by watching it i got the feeling that there WAS something about these guys that kept them from truly integrating with everyone else.

Which is why i think canadian law enforcement was tipped off and aware for so long of what they were doing.

[Stryke]

Bill your timelines a bit incomplete , how about this stuff ?

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/arti ... g_iraq.php

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[Bill Glasheen]

Good sources, Marcus.

Those two sources deal only with a very narrow time period in Iraq's history. Neither get into why we would have (secretly) wanted to support Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war in the first place. That all came about with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran (our sunovabitch), the arrival of Khomeini, the overthrow of the US embassy in Iran with hostage taking, and their annouced intention to export Islamic revolution. This ultimately led to Carter losing by a landslide to Reagan, and Ronald Reagan indirectly waging war on Iran (via support for Iraq).

This explains how Saddam got all the chemical, biological, and nuclear technology. Once again, it was the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" mindset. Never mind that you're supporting dictators and sociopaths. In the long run, this policy comes back to bite you in the ass. That's ultimately what happened, and what led to Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As to what we can expect from the future, well this goes way back, Marcus. I'll quote just a small part of the article I posted. This speaks volumes to me.

1917 - With the Ottoman Empire crumbling in World War I, western powers begin carving the Middle East into spheres of colonial influence. British forces enter Baghdad and replace the Ottoman provincial government with a British imperial one. The Ottomans had ruled the region since the 16th century, yet prior to Britain's arrival, "Iraq" was not a single political unit. The term had been used since the Middle Ages to refer to the area, but the Ottomans ruled the land as five provinces approximating its religious and ethnic divisions.

The boundaries of Iraq are not "natural" boundaries. More than a few have suggested - as have I - that we encourage the Iraqis to revert back to a Republic model which contains 3 to 5 provinces of relatively homogenous people. They can be loosely associated (plus or minus) the way our original 13 colonies were in this country. The Kurds in the north already are experiencing peace and prosperity. So are areas in the Shia-dominated south.

The big bloody problem here is that the oil isn't equally divided. It poisons the atmosphere.

Al qaeda understands the heterogenous mix in "Iraq" and exploits it by trying to get one group to kill another (Sunnis vs. Shia, for example). They want chaos. Chaos represents an opportunity for them to fill the power vacuum with their Nazi style of ruling.

And they'll do ANYTHING to get what they want.

Understanding all this makes it easier to understand how things will go in the future, and what opportunities there are for peace. It's a long row to hoe, but it is possible. The Ottomans pulled it off.

- Bill

[Bruise* Lee]

I really dont want Iraq to have a new taliban rise up .

I assume you know that the Taliban was not in Iraq...... It was the ruling class of Afghanistan.

But regardless, I think it will be impossible to even think of having an Iraqi country that does not hate us for many generations - everyone over the age of 5 would need to die now for that to happen. Otherwise they will indoctrinate anyone born from this point on.

We went into that country on false pretenses, we have killed more men women and children than Hussein did on his best years - a few US soldiers have committed atrocties of rape and torture which will not be forgotten in a long time and were highly publicized. There will be a great many that will hate us - I doubt staying there and using our military to keep them in submission will make them love us. When they get a chance they will strike back - its unavoidable and inevitable.

We can either nuke the region and kill everyone in Iraq with finality or expect the inevitable that many of them will strike at us at any given opportunity for many decades. But we will never get them to warm up to us, and like us, at the business end of our guns.

[AAAhmed46]

I really dont want Iraq to have a new taliban rise up .

I assume you know that the Taliban was not in Iraq...... It was the ruling class of Afghanistan.

But regardless, I think it will be impossible to even think of having an Iraqi country that does not hate us for many generations - everyone over the age of 5 would need to die now for that to happen. Otherwise they will indoctrinate anyone born from this point on.

We went into that country on false pretenses, we have killed more men women and children than Hussein did on his best years - a few US soldiers have committed atrocties of rape and torture which will not be forgotten in a long time and were highly publicized. There will be a great many that will hate us - I doubt staying there and using our military to keep them in submission will make them love us. When they get a chance they will strike back - its unavoidable and inevitable.

We can either nuke the region and kill everyone in Iraq with finality or expect the inevitable that many of them will strike at us at any given opportunity for many decades. But we will never get them to warm up to us, and like us, at the business end of our guns.

Yes i know, what i meant by using it in a different concept.

EDIT: Im saying staying for rebuilding and making sure no civil war breaks out. Ultimatly yes, the troops will have to leave.

But if they left right now? Not a good idea.

[Bruise* Lee]

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2006/09/

Interesting historical perspective on Islam

[IJ]

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? I vividly remember Katie Couric getting on the air and immediately asking authorities if this was an Islamic terrorist plot. This, mind you, was before 9/11. I immediately felt embarassed that this "perky" nitwit graduated from my alma mater, and my suspicions proved to be true.

--Why shouldn't she? Wasn't everyone thinking that? Isn't it something that needs to be discussed? It all depends on the how rather than the whether.

Terrorism come from all walks of life. We are at war with terrorism. We are NOT at war with Islam, or even exclusively some narrow faction thereof. It has nothing to do with religion. God knows we should be able to figure THAT one out in a heartbeat. It has only to do with boneheaded, sociopathic, extremist thinking with malevolent intent.
--Ask the Taliban and Al Qaeda if it has nothing to do with religion. Ask the people of northern israel. We are at war with these islamic brigands--we've spent a trillion dollars an hour and lost thousands of troops and blown up half of two countries--and it wasn't to get the last of the montana militia out of southern iraw or anything.

Do you REALLY think that members of al qaeda are "god fearing" people?
--Yes. All of the religious nuts are bigtime believers. You think they dynamite themselves for the few bucks their families may get?

I don't see any association whatsoever with the Islam that I know. Ponder some of these pinheads with their many concubines and penchant for murdering innocents. That's Islam? Riiiigggghhhtttt!
--It's sick islam for sure. But its islam. Were the Crusades not christian? What about the inquisition?

We're not ONLY at war with islamofacists. That's true... but the war on terror is a phrase that apparently irritates some muslims, for reasons i don't understand. Shouldn't we address that? And while 100% of our war on terror is not just with hirabi, it must be about 98%.... Here's another thought--if you don't change the whole name at least avoid calling these fighters jihadis or calling for a war on jihad.