Iraq war worse than thought

[nakedemperor]

True. Dead insurgents are counted by the mark of Saddam under their left armpits. American is strategically bombing insurgent strongholds in major and minor Iraqi cities like Falujah. As the insurgents congregate in mass within buildings or on streets they are wiped out in large blasts. Much like red ants in their mounds (mosques). Do you think that the Army goes in afterward and counts the heads?

I was actually pointing out that a dead person is not universally considered an insurgent by the Army when tabulating casualties. "If they are dead they must be insurgents" is an obvious fallacy, but its not exactly what you were addressing.

False:

Insurgents, whether Iraqi, Jordanian, Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian or from far flung countries gather in Iraq to fight the hated Americans and their anti-Islam freedom democracy. There they are killed in their rather large numbers and if not for Bush, would be busy blowing up US cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Des Moines, Dallas and many more. But of course the Kerry voters don't think that is possible or that Bush has done the impossible by keeping our shores free from destruction after 09/11.

Elect Johns Kerry and Edwards and find out for yourself.

It was just an ironic statement playing off the "10/10 terrorist choose Kerry" thing someone has as his signature. I'm pointing out that the insurgency has created many, many terrorists who wouldn't have been terrorists had we not gone into Iraq.

It was Clinton who stepped into cow dung instead of around the piles. George Bush for some reason beyond understanding has not only avoided stepping in cowdung but has actually forced the radical Islamists to walk right into a very large pile of cowdung in Iraq.

How easily you are fooled by the main stream media in the US.

I don't need the mainstream media to deduce that the American invasion, however noble in its goals, will create insurgents and terrorists; people who don't or choose not to understand why the USA is there.

 

[Hobbit]

It was just an ironic statement playing off the "10/10 terrorist choose Kerry" thing someone has as his signature. I'm pointing out that the insurgency has created many, many terrorists who wouldn't have been terrorists had we not gone into Iraq.

So you'd rather we didn't go at all and instead by fighting fewer terrorist, but be fighting them all in America with millions of innocent lives on the line? I'll take what we've got over that. I'd much rather they be over there trying to terrorize hardened soldier than over here blowing up school busses like they do in Israel.

 

[wade]

So you'd rather we didn't go at all and instead by fighting fewer terrorist, but be fighting them all in America with millions of innocent lives on the line? I'll take what we've got over that. I'd much rather they be over there trying to terrorize hardened soldier than over here blowing up school busses like they do in Israel.

How about we had finished the job against Al-Queda, and made a proper example of them? How about we had killed Saddam but not occupied Iraq?

There is absolutely no reason to believe there would have been a significant rise in the number of terrorists attacking the USA on US soil had we not invaded Iraq. We are not really fighting that many terrorists in Iraq anyway, we are fighting insurgents - anti-occpation forces that see the US presence in the mid east as contrary to Islam. Most of these enemies would never have considred comming to the USA to attack us.

In the mean time, the true terrorists are now replenishing their ranks in record numbers - and those terrorists do want to attack the USA.

There is no reason to believe the USA is any less vulnerable to terrorist attacks today because of the war in Iraq than it would have been had we not invaded.

 

[Hobbit]

How about we had finished the job against Al-Queda, and made a proper example of them? How about we had killed Saddam but not occupied Iraq?

There is absolutely no reason to believe there would have been a significant rise in the number of terrorists attacking the USA on US soil had we not invaded Iraq. We are not really fighting that many terrorists in Iraq anyway, we are fighting insurgents - anti-occpation forces that see the US presence in the mid east as contrary to Islam. Most of these enemies would never have considred comming to the USA to attack us.

In the mean time, the true terrorists are now replenishing their ranks in record numbers - and those terrorists do want to attack the USA.

There is no reason to believe the USA is any less vulnerable to terrorist attacks today because of the war in Iraq than it would have been had we not invaded.

Call them what you want, terrorists are terrorists. These 'insurgents' you keep hearing about are mostly from Iran. For every one of them throwing himself at a Hum-vee, that's one less one throwing himself at an Israeli...or American...school bus. To say they aren't part of the terrorists is a fallacy. Since we occupied Iraq, we have captured hundreds of known terrorists and have captured over half of our top 100 list.

Also, assassinating Saddam wouldn't work. He'd have been replaced by someone just as bad, if not worse. Despite what you and Michael Moore may think, you can't expect to depose an oppressive regime with nothing but 'commandos.'

 

[ajwps]

9 out of 10 insurgents are Iraqi's. You make it sound like there is a flood of foriegn insurgents into Iraq, when in fact there is a trickle.

Wade you make a statement that those insurgents in Iraq are mainly Iraqis. Do you have one shred of evidence to that effect except for the John Kerry campaign?

What is the similarity between a Jordianian, Egyptian, Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, Philippian, Malasian or any other Islamic terrorist who fights in Iraq?

Answer: There are all in Iraq fighting American and allied soldiers and not in America blowing up our cities.

 

[wade]

Call them what you want, terrorists are terrorists. These 'insurgents' you keep hearing about are mostly from Iran. For every one of them throwing himself at a Hum-vee, that's one less one throwing himself at an Israeli...or American...school bus. To say they aren't part of the terrorists is a fallacy. Since we occupied Iraq, we have captured hundreds of known terrorists and have captured over half of our top 100 list.

Also, assassinating Saddam wouldn't work. He'd have been replaced by someone just as bad, if not worse. Despite what you and Michael Moore may think, you can't expect to depose an oppressive regime with nothing but 'commandos.'

Every report I've seen indicates that 90% of the insurgents are Iraqis. Your argument is bunk, most of the Arabs fighting in Iraq would not be fighting except for the US invasion.

I agree, I should have been more specific and said that we needed to assasinate Saddam, his sons, and the Bath Party leadership. And we could have waited to do that until after we had fully destroyed Al-Queda.

Yes we have captured hundreds of known terrorists, but we have created 10's of thousands of new ones.

 

[eric]

Yes we have captured hundreds of known terrorists, but we have created 10's of thousands of new ones.

Lets get real. This has nothing to do with Iraq. It was bound to happen as soon as we declared the war on terror and went after Al-Queda.

Now if Iraq had no ties to terror, as many Democrats profess, then why would the war procure more terrorism ? If you want to say that the terrorist are flocking there to battle the US forces, well then so be it, better there than here, but to say the war has somehow increased the number of terrorists, I just don't buy it.

As far as insurgents are concerned, I think many are just little more than thugs with nothing better to do than to show their true colors.

 

[Hobbit]

Every report I've seen indicates that 90% of the insurgents are Iraqis. Your argument is bunk, most of the Arabs fighting in Iraq would not be fighting except for the US invasion.

I agree, I should have been more specific and said that we needed to assasinate Saddam, his sons, and the Bath Party leadership. And we could have waited to do that until after we had fully destroyed Al-Queda.

Yes we have captured hundreds of known terrorists, but we have created 10's of thousands of new ones.

You've been reading bogus reports, then. Most of the ones I've seen say that while many of them are Iraqis, many more are coming in from Iran.

10s of thousands is unrealistic, and no matter if there are new ones or not, they're staying over here rather than trying to kill us over here.

 

[ajwps]

Every report I've seen indicates that 90% of the insurgents are Iraqis. Your argument is bunk, most of the Arabs fighting in Iraq would not be fighting except for the US invasion.

What reports have you seen verifying certainty of 90% Iraqi being the insurgents fighting Americans? Do you think that the Iraqis attacked Iran and Kuwait because the American's attacked them first?

I agree, I should have been more specific and said that we needed to assasinate Saddam, his sons, and the Bath Party leadership. And we could have waited to do that until after we had fully destroyed Al-Queda.

So you think that WE could have fully destoryed Al-Queda? Do you have any idea of the number of Islamic fundamentalists who consider themselves Al-Queda or Taliban or the multitude of Islamics who are really many groups and in reality all fight civilization under the same banner of Muhammad?

Then we could have killed Saddam and family? That would be like sitting around and talking about putting out a fire for several hours and then putting water on the fire.

Yes we have captured hundreds of known terrorists, but we have created 10's of thousands of new ones.

Do you believe that we CREATED terrorists by attacking them on their home ground after 09/11? Like those who vote for John Kerry, any actions by George Bush does not create new Kerry voters.

The terrorists around the world have not increased by one because of America's actions. In the human body, cancer cells do not increase because the body receives chemo-therapy, surgery or radiation. The same concept follows for the Islamic terrorists who attack the world for Allah.

There are really an X number of these men, women and now children on earth who are doing the bidding of their prophet Muhammad and his Qur'an novel.

John Kerry wants to wait for them to blow up the United States and then he has written in his site, that we can sit around and discuss it with the United Nations as to the best course of action.

That's a great plan....

 

[sagegirl]

How about we had finished the job against Al-Queda, and made a proper example of them? How about we had killed Saddam but not occupied Iraq?

There is absolutely no reason to believe there would have been a significant rise in the number of terrorists attacking the USA on US soil had we not invaded Iraq. We are not really fighting that many terrorists in Iraq anyway, we are fighting insurgents - anti-occpation forces that see the US presence in the mid east as contrary to Islam. Most of these enemies would never have considred comming to the USA to attack us.

In the mean time, the true terrorists are now replenishing their ranks in record numbers - and those terrorists do want to attack the USA.

There is no reason to believe the USA is any less vulnerable to terrorist attacks today because of the war in Iraq than it would have been had we not invaded.

We are making enemies faster than we can kill them.

 

[wade]

What reports have you seen verifying certainty of 90% Iraqi being the insurgents fighting Americans? Do you think that the Iraqis attacked Iran and Kuwait because the American's attacked them first?

That's according to the reports comming from the military and CIA. 90% of the "insurgents" are Iraqi's.

So you think that WE could have fully destoryed Al-Queda? Do you have any idea of the number of Islamic fundamentalists who consider themselves Al-Queda or Taliban or the multitude of Islamics who are really many groups and in reality all fight civilization under the same banner of Muhammad?

Yes, i think we could have effectively destroyed Al-Queda had we killed or captured Bin-Ladin and wiped out Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Other organizations might have arisen to take their place, but Al-Queda would have been destroyed and that would have sent a big message to other Arab terrorists about the price of ******* with the USA.

Then we could have killed Saddam and family? That would be like sitting around and talking about putting out a fire for several hours and then putting water on the fire.

No, it would have been dealing with a problem that was not getting any worse in the near future. There is absolutely no reason to believe that we could not have waited a year, or even two, before taking on Saddam without their being any significant risk from his regime.

Do you believe that we CREATED terrorists by attacking them on their home ground after 09/11? Like those who vote for John Kerry, any actions by George Bush does not create new Kerry voters.

No, I believe we created terrorists when we invaded a soverign Arab nation which holds 25% of the worlds known oil reserves on trumped up WMD and terrorist connection charges which are transparent to the whole world. We made it clear to them that they are indeed in a fight for their culture and religion against the USA, and many who did not believe this before do now.

The terrorists around the world have not increased by one because of America's actions. In the human body, cancer cells do not increase because the body receives chemo-therapy, surgery or radiation. The same concept follows for the Islamic terrorists who attack the world for Allah.

Human beings are not cancer cells. They react to what they see going on.

And BTW, you are wrong about cancer cells. It is a known fact that when a surgeon removes a tumor, cancer often appears all over the body as a result. This has to do with angiogenisis and is probably a topic I should post on in the health section.

There are really an X number of these men, women and now children on earth who are doing the bidding of their prophet Muhammad and his Qur'an novel.

And some are terrorists, most are not, and many are on the cusp of making the decision to be terrorists. Bush's war in Iraq pushed many of them over that line. You are stupid if you think that the Arab world is not rallying support to fight against wht it sees as American imperialism.

John Kerry wants to wait for them to blow up the United States and then he has written in his site, that we can sit around and discuss it with the United Nations as to the best course of action.

That's a great plan....

The fact is, if we'd done nothing after 911 except increase our security agianst another airliner based attack and eliminated Al-Queda in Afghanistan, we'd be about as safe from terrorism today as we are right now, maybe safer in the long run. Bin-Ladin/Al-Queda found a weakness and exploited it, sucker punched us, and that's that. They cannot pull that trick again, and it is quite clear they didn't have any other significant tricks in their bag or they'd have used them in short succession after the 911 attack.

You've just succumb to the fear mongering of the Bush adminstration. And apparently you are racist agianst all Moslims. It's people like you that justify the Arab's hatred and fear of the USA - because you believe all Arabs are terrorists already, and you want to go to where they live and kill them.

 

[ajwps]

We are making enemies faster than we can kill them.

Actually the number of our enemies are diminishing faster than we can kill them. Which enemy or nation loves the last remaining superpower that takes action to protect humanity from a psychopathic desire to destroy civilization?

For example, if Russia was the only remaining superpower in the world and they were doing what was best for Russia, would we Americans love them or would be still be enemies?

 

[ajwps]

That's according to the reports comming from the military and CIA. 90% of the "insurgents" are Iraqi's.

Really?? Are you privy to the actual 'top secret' documentation of the US military, CIA or intelligence services on the ground? The reality is that insurgent radical Islamics are pouring into Iraq as if it were a sieve to fight America. There they are killing a few of our soldiers, now somewhere over one thousand men and women, while they are killed in their thousands upon thousands.

I prefer that our brave military destroy them in Iraq than in New York City or Chicago, Illinois.

Yes, i think we could have effectively destroyed Al-Queda had we killed or captured Bin-Ladin and wiped out Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Other organizations might have arisen to take their place, but Al-Queda would have been destroyed and that would have sent a big message to other Arab terrorists about the price of ******* with the USA.

Do you think that all Al-Queda fighters were located in the fixed borders of Afghanastan? Al-Queda is just a name to confuse the free world into believing that all the radical Islamics are different little groups located in isolated countries instead of all being under the umbrella of the Qur'an.

George Bush did demonstrate that America is not about consulting with the Islamic parent groups in the UN but has now destroyed more than 3/4 of these brave terrorist fighters covertly by mercinaries sent out after 9/11. What the public doesn't know is significant unless you listen very carefully to what our leaders reveal in speehes. When you knock down a wild bee hive, the bees go around stinging wildly as seen now in Iraq and other places in the world but eventually without their queens, they eventually go away to begin a long period of time to re-establish themselves as bee hives or Islamic fighters.

No, it would have been dealing with a problem that was not getting any worse in the near future. There is absolutely no reason to believe that we could not have waited a year, or even two, before taking on Saddam without their being any significant risk from his regime.

Are you a military strategist who has credentials for same? No reason you say to go after Saddam without OUR being at risk from his regime?

You are truly a believer in John Kerry and his expertise in this arena.

No, I believe we created terrorists when we invaded a soverign Arab nation which holds 25% of the worlds known oil reserves on trumped up WMD and terrorist connection charges which are transparent to the whole world. We made it clear to them that they are indeed in a fight for their culture and religion against the USA, and many who did not believe this before do now.

Do you think that Arab nations who backed and supported the invasion of a sovereign United States did not create an irate American nation aroused into fighting to protect our shores? Do you really believe that there were no Iraqi WMDs moved out through Syria and into Lebanon before the American military attacked Mr. Saddam? Did you not see the connective Al-Queda and Taliban towns destroyed in Iraq during the first 21 days of America's incursion into a country that was training, supporting and housing those terrorists you think were created after America did the right and just deed? Kerry believes just as you do....

Human beings are not cancer cells. They react to what they see going on.

Beings believing in a death cause are identical to cancer cells invading the human being's body. Cancer cells react to what they experience happening to them in their attempt to spread throughout the body and destroy its host.

And BTW, you are wrong about cancer cells. It is a known fact that when a surgeon removes a tumor, cancer often appears all over the body as a result. This has to do with angiogenisis and is probably a topic I should post on in the health section.

Being a physician and very familiar with cancer, I can tell you that you are totally incorrect. Angiogenesis is a word used to describe the formation of blood vessels. Cancer cells spread throughout the body just like the Islamic terrorists do on this earth. Cancer cells spread through the body by the lymphatic system, blood born and even growing along the sheaths of tendons, muscles, nerves, etc. Both spread by insidious methods.

If the onchologist and surgeon do not EXCISE and RADIATE the cancer in the body, the cancer will certainly kill the host being. But if one gets appropriate treatment, the being has a chance of living on. Just like with radical Islamic terrorists, leave them to attack you without excising or radiating them and you and the world will most certainly perish.

And some are terrorists, most are not, and many are on the cusp of making the decision to be terrorists. Bush's war in Iraq pushed many of them over that line. You are stupid if you think that the Arab world is not rallying support to fight against wht it sees as American imperialism.

Actually you are wrong again. Bush's response to a sneak attack against America has actually created dread and a sense of respect for a sovereign country who is prepared to defend itself from being slain from ambush. Many Many Arabists siting on that cusp have now decided because of Bush's strength to turn on their brothers in Islam and become allies of America. Libya and Kadafy are just one example.

The fact is, if we'd done nothing after 911 except increase our security agianst another airliner based attack and eliminated Al-Queda in Afghanistan, we'd be about as safe from terrorism today as we are right now, maybe safer in the long run. Bin-Ladin/Al-Queda found a weakness and exploited it, sucker punched us, and that's that. They cannot pull that trick again, and it is quite clear they didn't have any other significant tricks in their bag or they'd have used them in short succession after the 911 attack.

Yes you and John Kerry believe and promulgate that fairy tale. Maybe if we (the American people) had hidden our head in the sand, perhaps we'd be safe from terrorism as if we didn't see them, they wouldn't be there.

So you think that one sucker punch on 09/11 was all that they had in their bag? What a joke.

Have you considered that many such successive attacks after 9/11 have been prevented by not playing like an ostrich but because America became aware of the threat and has infiltrated and decimated their ranks causing not one further SUCCESSFUL attacks against our shores. Many attempts to do so have been documented like the aborted attack against a shopping center in the United States earlier this year but all have failed.

Thanks to George W. Bush.. For whatever reason, America got a strong leader instead of another Clinton/Gore do nothing team.

You've just succumb to the fear mongering of the Bush adminstration. And apparently you are racist agianst all Moslims. It's people like you that justify the Arab's hatred and fear of the USA - because you believe all Arabs are terrorists already, and you want to go to where they live and kill them.

Yes I am afraid that without pre-emptively striking those who are willing to die in order to destroy civilization has made me a bit of concerned about those who believe in Prophet Muhammad and his Qur'anic design to slay the world of unbelievers from ambush or convert them to the slaves of Islam.

Qur'an (Sura 9:5)

All Arabs are not terrorists but neither were all the Japanese, Germans or Vietnamese determined to destroy western civilization. But because they did not fight against their brothers who were terrorists and sociopaths, they are responsible for their brothers actions just as we are responsible for stopping those amongst ourselves who would destroy others. I.E., the KKK etc.

Just as in the fight against any cancer cells or Islamic terrorists, the surrounding good cells or people are necessarily destroyed with the evil ones. That is the way it is and anyone familiar with recorded history of the world knows it as well.

 

[dumphauler]

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9908/02/yugo.01/
Whatever Clinton commites felonies, Bush kill's people
should have known when that sticking firecracker's in frog's mouth's story came out.
The aditude of people in this country is realy scarry about 100 times more scarry that any terrorest to me. People running around- you want to tell me the bush administration isn't useing the fear of terrorest to get reelected?
That wolf commercial OH GOD PROTECT ME PRESADENT BUSH ! I cant do it myself! I'm weak and you are strong and masculan please OH GOD protect my pampered ass. The war on terrorism is the war on drug's unwinnable and Never Ending!
you would have to take over the whole middle east and start a new education system we controled and that will never happen. As a matter of fact we wont set foot in any other country even under bush because Iraq was just a personal vendetta of bushes aginst saddom hussain that is what this whole war was nothing more! Either OR- There will be if not in this election the next a democratic presadent because if bush is reelected there is no dought in my mind the economy is going to tank big time.
That felt good I'm going to hid in my fallout shelter now.

 

[wade]

Really?? Are you privy to the actual 'top secret' documentation of the US military, CIA or intelligence services on the ground?

No, but neither are you. I'm basing this on the data provided just in the past week by both Fox News and CNBC concering the composition of the insurgency as estimated by both the US Military and the CIA.

The reality is that insurgent radical Islamics are pouring into Iraq as if it were a sieve to fight America.

Back that up, because the info being reported is quite to the contrary. Less than 10% of the insurgents are non-Iraqi's.

There they are killing a few of our soldiers, now somewhere over one thousand men and women, while they are killed in their thousands upon thousands.

Well, thousands upon thousands of Arabs are being killed, but what percentage are really insurgents is a big question mark right now. The current standard of measurement seems to be that if the dead Arab is a male adult he's an insurgent.

I prefer that our brave military destroy them in Iraq than in New York City or Chicago, Illinois.

Aside from the 911 attack in 2001 and the earlier WTC attack in 93, what evidence do you have to support the idea that other attacks were imminent? None! The fact is that about one sucker punch attack per decade is about the limit of Al-Queda's capability. The fact is that of the 1000's of Arabs being killed, only a very small fraction of a percent were even potential international terrorists who's reach might extend beyond the middle-east. Those terrorists that might come to the USA to attack us on our soil are unlikely to go to Iraq. And there are now a lot more Arabs volunteering to come kill us than before the Iraq war.

Do you think that all Al-Queda fighters were located in the fixed borders of Afghanastan? Al-Queda is just a name to confuse the free world into believing that all the radical Islamics are different little groups located in isolated countries instead of all being under the umbrella of the Qur'an.

No, Al-Queda is a loose organization of terrorist cells spread around the world. But the largest concentration by far was located in Afghanistan, where they were sanctioned by the Taliban. In their other locations, such as Malaysia and the Philapines, they operate against the goverment, and as such their focus is generally interanal against those governments.

Therefore, we should have deployed the forces necessary to whipe out Al-Queda and destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, and simultanously we should have struck at their other cells, many of which we knew enough about the location of to get them if we'd tried. We would have had to take a hard line with the Philapines and insist they allow us to take action against Al-Queda in the south, and also done so with other countries known to have Al-Queda cells. But I have little doubt that had we pressed and pressed hard, Al-Queda would have disintigrated as an international terrorist organization and by now all that would remain would be a few scattered remnants running for their lives. Instead they have been allowed a respite to reform and refill their ranks and adapt to the post 911 situation.

George Bush did demonstrate that America is not about consulting with the Islamic parent groups in the UN but has now destroyed more than 3/4 of these brave terrorist fighters covertly by mercinaries sent out after 9/11. What the public doesn't know is significant unless you listen very carefully to what our leaders reveal in speehes. When you knock down a wild bee hive, the bees go around stinging wildly as seen now in Iraq and other places in the world but eventually without their queens, they eventually go away to begin a long period of time to re-establish themselves as bee hives or Islamic fighters.

No, Bush claimes to have destroyed about 3/4ths of the Al-Queda leadership, a speculative number at best. That amounts to what, 200 individuals? No numbers have been given with respect to the total percentage of Al-Queda terrorists remaining. Of those 3/4ths of the leadership destroyed, a handful were really significant, the rest were quite expendable and immeadiately replaced by their subordinates.

Are you a military strategist who has credentials for same? No reason you say to go after Saddam without OUR being at risk from his regime?

No, I never said I was opposed to toppling the Saddam regime. But the manner in which Bush has undertaken this goal smacks of US imperialism which feed the Arab hate machine. Furthermore, there was no pressing need to topple the regime now. The only reason Bush did it when he did was because he knew if he waited he might not be able to get the USA deeply involved in such a war during his first term. Without the war in Iraq, the desperation of the economy would be apparent to the American public and he would not so easily have been able to conduct is rape of the environment.

You are truly a believer in John Kerry and his expertise in this arena.

Kerry has more military experiance by far than does Bush, who ducked Vietnam. Bush had zero experiance in military operations or anti-terrorism prior to 911. He even outright ignored warnings that Al-Queda was planning an attack in September more than a month prior to 911.

Deploying the most powerful military in the world and gaining mediocre results is hardly a shining badge of success hanging on Bush's chest.

Do you think that Arab nations who backed and supported the invasion of a sovereign United States did not create an irate American nation aroused into fighting to protect our shores? Do you really believe that there were no Iraqi WMDs moved out through Syria and into Lebanon before the American military attacked Mr. Saddam? Did you not see the connective Al-Queda and Taliban towns destroyed in Iraq during the first 21 days of America's incursion into a country that was training, supporting and housing those terrorists you think were created after America did the right and just deed? Kerry believes just as you do....

Support any of this speculation. It is certainly possible that some WMD's may have been exported out of Iraq, but it is more likely that this happened way back in 91 than now.

Beings believing in a death cause are identical to cancer cells invading the human being's body. Cancer cells react to what they experience happening to them in their attempt to spread throughout the body and destroy its host.

Being a physician and very familiar with cancer, I can tell you that you are totally incorrect. Angiogenesis is a word used to describe the formation of blood vessels. Cancer cells spread throughout the body just like the Islamic terrorists do on this earth. Cancer cells spread through the body by the lymphatic system, blood born and even growing along the sheaths of tendons, muscles, nerves, etc. Both spread by insidious methods.

Wrong. You clearly have not studied Judah Folkman's research and do not know of endostatin and angiostatin. Cancer cells often spread throughout the body prior to detection, and remian dormant under the influence of angiostatic (not sure that is the right term) proteins emmited by the primary tumor. When that primary tumor is removed, it is very common for a hoard of small tumors to appear in the body when the angiostatic proteins produced by the primary tumor are no longer present.

Read about it: http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/topic.php?topic_id=159

It's probably the most significant discovery w.r.t. cancer treatment of the last few decades.

If the onchologist and surgeon do not EXCISE and RADIATE the cancer in the body, the cancer will certainly kill the host being. But if one gets appropriate treatment, the being has a chance of living on. Just like with radical Islamic terrorists, leave them to attack you without excising or radiating them and you and the world will most certainly perish.

That is an absurd comparison.

Actually you are wrong again. Bush's response to a sneak attack against America has actually created dread and a sense of respect for a sovereign country who is prepared to defend itself from being slain from ambush. Many Many Arabists siting on that cusp have now decided because of Bush's strength to turn on their brothers in Islam and become allies of America. Libya and Kadafy are just one example.

Libya and Kadafy are about the only such example. On the flip side, Pakistan is in a state of upheaval, with a huge portion of their population having fallen into line behind Al-Queda. Kadafy realized how vulnerable he was for so many reasons - his position was poor and he was very exposed to being quickly and easily eliminated. The same is not true of Pakistan, Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia.

Yes you and John Kerry believe and promulgate that fairy tale. Maybe if we (the American people) had hidden our head in the sand, perhaps we'd be safe from terrorism as if we didn't see them, they wouldn't be there.

So you think that one sucker punch on 09/11 was all that they had in their bag? What a joke.

Have you considered that many such successive attacks after 9/11 have been prevented by not playing like an ostrich but because America became aware of the threat and has infiltrated and decimated their ranks causing not one further SUCCESSFUL attacks against our shores. Many attempts to do so have been documented like the aborted attack against a shopping center in the United States earlier this year but all have failed.

No significant attack has been undertaken. I'm talking about something like a WMD attack. I actually am pleasently surprised that Al-Queda has not been able to pull such an attack off. If I were Bin-Ladin, I would never have done 911 without having a significant WMD attack in my bag and ready to go sometime in the following year. But he didn't.

Thanks to George W. Bush.. For whatever reason, America got a strong leader instead of another Clinton/Gore do nothing team.

Yes I am afraid that without pre-emptively striking those who are willing to die in order to destroy civilization has made me a bit of concerned about those who believe in Prophet Muhammad and his Qur'anic design to slay the world of unbelievers from ambush or convert them to the slaves of Islam.

Qur'an (Sura 9:5)

All Arabs are not terrorists but neither were all the Japanese, Germans or Vietnamese determined to destroy western civilization. But because they did not fight against their brothers who were terrorists and sociopaths, they are responsible for their brothers actions just as we are responsible for stopping those amongst ourselves who would destroy others. I.E., the KKK etc.

Just as in the fight against any cancer cells or Islamic terrorists, the surrounding good cells or people are necessarily destroyed with the evil ones. That is the way it is and anyone familiar with recorded history of the world knows it as well.

I agree we need to be less concerned about collateral damage. Where I disagree is that it was in the best interest of the American public to become embroiled in this protracted war/occupation of Iraq. Kill Saddam and excise the tumor, yes - as I've discussed before. But occupy Iraq? This is foolishness that will cost the USA dearly in many respects. But it will profit the few and distract the American public from more important issues and activities of the Bush Administration, and that is really what it's all about.

 

[ajwps]

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9908/02/yugo.01/
Whatever Clinton commites felonies, Bush kill's people
should have known when that sticking firecracker's in frog's mouth's story came out.
The aditude of people in this country is realy scarry about 100 times more scarry that any terrorest to me. People running around- you want to tell me the bush administration isn't useing the fear of terrorest to get reelected?
That wolf commercial OH GOD PROTECT ME PRESADENT BUSH ! I cant do it myself! I'm weak and you are strong and masculan please OH GOD protect my pampered ass. The war on terrorism is the war on drug's unwinnable and Never Ending!
you would have to take over the whole middle east and start a new education system we controled and that will never happen. As a matter of fact we wont set foot in any other country even under bush because Iraq was just a personal vendetta of bushes aginst saddom hussain that is what this whole war was nothing more! Either OR- There will be if not in this election the next a democratic presadent because if bush is reelected there is no dought in my mind the economy is going to tank big time.
That felt good I'm going to hid in my fallout shelter now.

Muhammad why is it you and all the Arab and European countries want John F. Kerry to become president of the United States? Why are you and your brother terrorists so afraid of the big bad Bush administration?

Could it be that you don't like it when you'r Jihad is actually put in jeopardy by your murderous behavior for Allah?

 

[ajwps]

No, but neither are you. I'm basing this on the data provided just in the past week by both Fox News and CNBC concering the composition of the insurgency as estimated by both the US Military and the CIA.

So highly classified insurgent information is being released by the intelligence service to the news media for public consumption? I have a piece of swamp land in Florida that you might be interested in purchasing.

Back that up, because the info being reported is quite to the contrary. Less than 10% of the insurgents are non-Iraqi's.

Allawi insisted that the insurgents "are, frankly, getting more desperate. We are winning." He said that "international terrorists" are flooding into Iraq from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Europe and other places. He said that in a recent engagement, of 63 taken prisoners, 54 were foreign fighters.

http://www.harktheherald.com/print.php?sid=35406

Well, thousands upon thousands of Arabs are being killed, but what percentage are really insurgents is a big question mark right now. The current standard of measurement seems to be that if the dead Arab is a male adult he's an insurgent.

In war time, all the dead (including women fighters) are counted as terrorists or insurgents due to the fact that they are used as shields by the mostly foreign Arabs fighting the coaltion forces in Iraq.

Aside from the 911 attack in 2001 and the earlier WTC attack in 93, what evidence do you have to support the idea that other attacks were imminent? None! The fact is that about one sucker punch attack per decade is about the limit of Al-Queda's capability. The fact is that of the 1000's of Arabs being killed, only a very small fraction of a percent were even potential international terrorists who's reach might extend beyond the middle-east. Those terrorists that might come to the USA to attack us on our soil are unlikely to go to Iraq. And there are now a lot more Arabs volunteering to come kill us than before the Iraq war.

The attack on the USS Cole, the attack and killing of so many Marines in Lebanon, the countless blowing up of American and western hotels and buildings around the world, Pakistan Jihad against India, Islamic Philippian atrocities and bombings, etc for many decades has been ignored as an attacks against civilization. Again where do you get your insider information about all those Arabs volunteering to come kill us instead of fighting in Iraq?

Do you often read Mavel Comic Books?

No, Al-Queda is a loose organization of terrorist cells spread around the world. But the largest concentration by far was located in Afghanistan, where they were sanctioned by the Taliban. In their other locations, such as Malaysia and the Philapines, they operate against the goverment, and as such their focus is generally interanal against those governments.

Do you really believe that the Jihadists (Islamic terrorists) are generally INTERANAL against those governments? Why do you think that the largest concentration of those calling themselves Al-Queda are or were in Afghanastan? Do you have trouble understanding that whereever Muslims exist, they are and have been in a holy Jihad war against mankind. There is nothing internal about Muslim and individual unbeliver countries.

Therefore, we should have deployed the forces necessary to whipe out Al-Queda and destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, and simultanously we should have struck at their other cells, many of which we knew enough about the location of to get them if we'd tried. We would have had to take a hard line with the Philapines and insist they allow us to take action against Al-Queda in the south, and also done so with other countries known to have Al-Queda cells. But I have little doubt that had we pressed and pressed hard, Al-Queda would have disintigrated as an international terrorist organization and by now all that would remain would be a few scattered remnants running for their lives. Instead they have been allowed a respite to reform and refill their ranks and adapt to the post 911 situation.

What do you think George Bush has been doing? Just starting imperialist wars against Afghanastan and Iraq? The Bush administration has been fighting covertly against Islamic terrorists around the world and while this international war against the enemies of mankind continues, the world-wide war cannot be announced for it simply keeps the terrorists off-balance and unable to enlarge their attacks against the world.

No, Bush claimes to have destroyed about 3/4ths of the Al-Queda leadership, a speculative number at best. That amounts to what, 200 individuals? No numbers have been given with respect to the total percentage of Al-Queda terrorists remaining. Of those 3/4ths of the leadership destroyed, a handful were really significant, the rest were quite expendable and immeadiately replaced by their subordinates.

Replaced by their subordinates you say. That now dead leadership were effective and well trained over a long period of time by their handlers. Their subordinates, like in every war, are poorly trained and equipped and unable to wage an effective strike against the west. The numbers are not reported but are known by those who need to know.

No, I never said I was opposed to toppling the Saddam regime. But the manner in which Bush has undertaken this goal smacks of US imperialism which feed the Arab hate machine. Furthermore, there was no pressing need to topple the regime now. The only reason Bush did it when he did was because he knew if he waited he might not be able to get the USA deeply involved in such a war during his first term. Without the war in Iraq, the desperation of the economy would be apparent to the American public and he would not so easily have been able to conduct is rape of the environment.

So you didn't say that you were apposed to toppling the Saddam regime now but at some future time? That's nice. Maybe he could have supplied the terrorists with those now missing WMDs which are buried in Lebanon and Syria which would have been very nice in New York and Los Angeles.

You are really funny. So President Bush attacked Afghanastan and Iraq to hide the desperate US economy but the president did not do so in response to 9/11. Give me a minute to stop laughing. Rape the environment..... Wow....

Do you also believe that the Uranian men are preparing to suck the earth's oxygen back to their planet?

Kerry has more military experiance by far than does Bush, who ducked Vietnam. Bush had zero experiance in military operations or anti-terrorism prior to 911. He even outright ignored warnings that Al-Queda was planning an attack in September more than a month prior to 911.

Exactly how much experience has the Heintz ketchup king had in REAL military operations or anti-terrorism? Those home made Kerry movies of his heroic fighting were made by him long after the war was over. Most of his four months on the swift boats were his smoking weed and some firing into friendly fishing boats. You really believe that Kerry crap, don't you?

Deploying the most powerful military in the world and gaining mediocre results is hardly a shining badge of success hanging on Bush's chest.

Deploying the most powerful military machine in the world and taking down Afghanastan's taliban and then Iraq's Saddam in 21 days is hardly mediocre. Libya and Kadafy giving his weapons and allegiance to Bush was also not mediocre. This post war cleanup like all before it takes time to mop up resistance that is mainly from other Islamic countries come to fight the great Satan. Keeping our cities safe after having a 9/11 sneak attack is not mediocre. If it wasn't for Mr. Bush being president at the right time and place, you would now be a pile of ashes. But apparently that concept may be too difficult for you to comprehend.

Support any of this speculation. It is certainly possible that some WMD's may have been exported out of Iraq, but it is more likely that this happened way back in 91 than now.

Likely speculation. Saddam forced the UN inspectors out of Iraq because he had no WMDs to hide? Early reports by Mr. Kay that videos of large convoys out of Iraq before the American's arrived are now denied. WHY?

Wrong. You clearly have not studied Judah Folkman's research and do not know of endostatin and angiostatin. Cancer cells often spread throughout the body prior to detection, and remian dormant under the influence of angiostatic (not sure that is the right term) proteins emmited by the primary tumor. When that primary tumor is removed, it is very common for a hoard of small tumors to appear in the body when the angiostatic proteins produced by the primary tumor are no longer present. Read about it: http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/topic.php?topic_id=159
It's probably the most significant discovery w.r.t. cancer treatment of the last few decades.

Do you have any idea of how many conflicting studies of cancer are being conducted around the world today. Do you have any idea about the multiplicity of cancers that can invade the human body? Discoveries are made every day but we still have cancer(s) and thousands of people die everyday even with the most modern chemotherapeutic agents, radiation and surgical techniques available. The real discoveries are being made on the nano-level of designer genes that will eventually be used to treat and cure almost every cancer. Your research site is referencing drugs that impede or halt blood supply to cancerous tumors. They have been now demonstrated to be of very limited efficacy in the treatment of some cancers.

That is an absurd comparison.

Is that your educated opinion or just that you do not understand realitive comparisons between macro and micro life forms and their activity?

Libya and Kadafy are about the only such example. On the flip side, Pakistan is in a state of upheaval, with a huge portion of their population having fallen into line behind Al-Queda. Kadafy realized how vulnerable he was for so many reasons - his position was poor and he was very exposed to being quickly and easily eliminated. The same is not true of Pakistan, Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia.

You find one good example and them instinctively believe that your other examples valid in the alternative. Actually Kadafy realized that he did not want to be the next Saddam hiding in a 'spider hole.' Pakistan's government is cooperating with George Bush to a very large degree and their leader Musharaf has been protected from assasination by radical foreign Islamists by America. As for Iran, Syria and their satellite Lebanon and Saudia Arabia being in an upheaval, they are also aware that they are in the sights of the USA and other friendly western allies for eventual pacification from Jihad. Stop watching CBS, NBC, CNN and the rest of the news media and begin to understand that the picture of internatioal Islam is slowly changing from warring factions and beginning to live in a modern world because of the right man in the right place to change slowly eliminate barbarians by the force of the only remaining world superpower in the world. You speak of what you see TODAY but cannot understand what George Bush is really saying. This pacification process will be long and portracted but inevitably will prevail.

No significant attack has been undertaken. I'm talking about something like a WMD attack. I actually am pleasently surprised that Al-Queda has not been able to pull such an attack off. If I were Bin-Ladin, I would never have done 911 without having a significant WMD attack in my bag and ready to go sometime in the following year. But he didn't.

You are pleasantly surprised? Why when George Bush took pre-emptive action which resulted in your pleasant surprise. You aren't Bin Laden and he did have those dirty bomb WMD's in his possession and they were found by the American forces in Afghanastan. You underestimate your own government's ability to disrupt and destroy this very illusive and dispersed enemy. This coming Tuesday is the national election for president of the USA. The terrorists have been trying to demonstrate a major attack to unseat George Bush but have been foiled in their endeavors. If Bin Laden were able to vote in Tuesday's election, do you think he would vote for George Bush or John F. Kerry?

I agree we need to be less concerned about collateral damage. Where I disagree is that it was in the best interest of the American public to become embroiled in this protracted war/occupation of Iraq. Kill Saddam and excise the tumor, yes - as I've discussed before. But occupy Iraq? This is foolishness that will cost the USA dearly in many respects. But it will profit the few and distract the American public from more important issues and activities of the Bush Administration, and that is really what it's all about.

America did not choose to become embroiled in any protracted war but unfortunately that is what is necessary to defeat cancerous cells (radical Islamic terrorists) around the world. Iraq now is an example for these terrorists to understand that America is willing to have a protracted war in order to defeat their aims of world domination. No more firing a missile or two into a sand dune like Clinton and running away to hide his head in the sand.

The US will never occupy Iraq forever but will eventually use it as base to attack other Muslim bases of terror like Iran, Syria and surrounding corrupt Muslim dictatorships both near and far.

This is history occurring in front of your own face and all you can do is find fault with a winning strategy.

 

[dumphauler]

Muhammad why is it you and all the Arab and European countries want John F. Kerry to become president of the United States? Why are you and your brother terrorists so afraid of the big bad Bush administration?

Could it be that you don't like it when you'r Jihad is actually put in jeopardy by your murderous behavior for Allah?

1. Because Bush is a dumass!
2. Again A war on terrorism is something we can not win! Even bush slipped up for a moment and said the truth in that one! We are not willing or able to do what would have to be done. Look people like the truth and people that do the rite thing That's suppost to be US! we need to start doing the rite thing's.What do we stand for freedom? We stand for whatever is in our national Interest.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

1. Because Bush is a dumass!
2. Again A war on terrorism is something we can not win! Even bush slipped up for a moment and said the truth in that one! We are not willing or able to do what would have to be done. Look people like the truth and people that do the rite thing That's suppost to be US! we need to start doing the rite thing's.What do we stand for freedom? We stand for whatever is in our national Interest.

Bush meant there is no official head of state who's surrender would officially mean the "end of the war". You know that, quit being a dumbass.

 

[dilloduck]

1. Because Bush is a dumass!
2. Again A war on terrorism is something we can not win! Even bush slipped up for a moment and said the truth in that one! We are not willing or able to do what would have to be done. Look people like the truth and people that do the rite thing That's suppost to be US! we need to start doing the rite thing's.What do we stand for freedom? We stand for whatever is in our national Interest.

We can certainly fight terrorism to reduce the damage done and perhaps foil some murder attempts--guess you're one of those who would do nothing.

Freedom IS in our national interest !