Brave Iraqi Freedom Fighters attack New World Order Baghdad HQ

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Since 9/11 we had Bali, Riyahd, attacks in Tunis, Karachi, and now Baghdad.

.

against a bar, a civilian housing complex, a synagogue, and a church. Versus attacks on a Military housing complex, 2 emabassies, and a destroyers. You do understand the difference between hard and soft targets, dont you?

As for including "now Baghdad" in this list, you are jumping the gun in assuming its al qaeeda.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I seem them as chicken little, but someoen in the gov. does not feel as confident as you.

where did i say that another 9/11 wasnt possible, or even likely?

[SlowwHand]

I guess "a long time" is one of those"it's all relative" things.
Five years is half of a 10 year old's like, a quarter of a 20 year old's life.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


against a bar, a civilian housing complex, a synagogue, and a church. Versus attacks on a Military housing complex, 2 emabassies, and a destroyers. You do understand the difference between hard and soft targets, dont you?

The two embassies were not that hard a target, anymore than the UN compound in Baghdad. I would assume, given the history of the US in SA that the housing complex was supposed to be protected. The difference between soft and hard matters little to those killed. In fact , hitting soft targets, ie every day tagets, makes more sense for a terrorist, if what you want to do is spread terror.

As for including "now Baghdad" in this list, you are jumping the gun in assuming its al qaeeda.

It doesn;t matter if it was not Al qaeda: it is a terrorist attack under Bush's watch, in a place in which the Coolition has the responsiblity for security.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
where did i say that another 9/11 wasnt possible, or even likely?

Edit: I think it is unlikely. Thus the pronoun 'I'.

And on the "soft vs hard": Al qaeda's most stunning and successful attacks were against Soft targets not hard, unless you want to classify airports and WTC as Hard targets.

[lord of the mark]

one of the clear differences between Germany and Iraq

German Nazis persecuted Jews, communists, foreigners etc. An ex-Nazi in the western zones didnt have to fear foreigners (the occupying powers only executed a handul of top people and even imprisoned a relatively small number - most just had to look for new careers) didnt have to fear communists (all gone east) and didnt have to fear Jews (such as remained in Germany generally kept a low profile) for the most a low level ex_nazi, even SS, was NOT a deadended in post war Germany. In Iraq the Shiite and Kurdish majorities, and at least some portion of the sunni arabs, are clearly gunning for the fedayeen, secret police, etc. There is clearly NO future for these guys in any conceivable Iraqi endgame, whether pluralist or shiite fundamentalist, EXCEPT for a Baathist restoration.

[HershOstropoler]

lord of the mark:

"he certainly thought of it, but didnt allow its absence to stop the US from acting."

He didn't give a flying **** about it.

"And its hardly too late - the world still has a chance to pull together."

Nobody wants a piece of your Iraq adventure. And after having blatantly violated international law and insulted about every nation that did not say "yeah great", it would take an amazing turnabout to get support.

"And even if it doesnt, we will still pull this out, with the assistance of the coalition of the willing, and, most importantly, the Iraqi people."

Wishful thinking. The real problems haven't even started.

[Dom Pedro II]

It certainly could be Al-Queda, but I would certainly not be surprised if it were not. Al-Queda has no love for Saddam. He is there ideaological enemy! That's why I didn't buy this whole crock of sh*t from the beginning about this having jack to do with the War on Terror.

Do you know that when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 that Osama bin Laden offered the Saudi government 30,000 seasoned Afghan troops to kick Saddam out? The Saudis told him to fvck off because they'd rather back the Americans, and to seal the deal, had him exiled. That was what pushed him over the edge in the first place.

I mean all this stuff about "them" as if they are all one big happy family out there is pure shyte. The 9/11 attacks were designed to inspire Muslim people to kick out leaders like Saddam... And on Saddam's part, he was not so stupid and self-destructive as to suddenly start hurling WMD our way... c'mon. Some of you believe far too many of the fairy tales coming out of the White House.

As for not having had a terrorist attack on US soil, A) It's been only two years... we went eight between the first WTC and the second. There was Oklahoma City, but that was one of our own home-grown nut jobs... and B) It has much more to do with security measures taken at home and the new-found zeal of the FBI in pursuing terrorists.

Their time is done, much more advantageous to commit themselves to the new Iraq and make something out of themselves, now.

Good, so we won't have to be there much longer, right? Fine... I'll be a lot happier when we get the hell out, and I'm sure they will too.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Edit: I think it is unlikely. Thus the pronoun 'I'.

\

i think youre confusing me with defiant. Please reply with quote to calrify what youre referring to.

[GePap]

There most certainly is a possible future for Baathits. In any scenerio where the Sunni middle either keeps power or gets significant powers in a new state anyone who has part of the Baath party can come back as a "reformed" individual. Even old KGB people came back in Russia.

[Defiant]

"Wishful thinking. The real problems haven't even started"

Flat out wrong, in case you havn't been keeping up with USA current events, "the real problems" began a quite a while ago.

If this country is hit again like 9/11, you will see what this country is really capable of.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
\

i think youre confusing me with defiant. Please reply with quote to calrify what youre referring to.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap


I seem them as chicken little, but someoen in the gov. does not feel as confident as you.

where did i say that another 9/11 wasnt possible, or even likely?

I was responding to you. I said I don;t think a new 9/11 style attack is likely.

[HershOstropoler]

"Flat out wrong, in case you havn't been keeping up with USA current events, "the real problems" began a quite a while ago."

I have no diea what you are talking about.

"If this country is hit again like 9/11, you will see what this country is really capable of."

We will see that.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

...and, most importantly, the Iraqi people.

Why would they want to support you when your trigger-happy soldiers keep killing innocent civilians for no obvious reason?

An analyst from the Swedish Military Academy said on the radio news today that previosly peaceful people who have lost their family in recent weeks have taken up arms and attacked the Americans in pure revenge and anger.

[Defiant]

"Good, so we won't have to be there much longer, right? Fine... I'll be a lot happier when we get the hell out, and I'm sure they will too."

I hope so too but these things don't go away quickly, obviously, the sooner the better.