Obama calls Al-Qaeda today the "jayvee" version..

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,687
Reaction score
4,130
Points
280
So Obama thinks Al-Qaeda is diminished to Jayvee (Junior varsity)

"In his New Yorker interview published over the weekend, President Obama stated that current Al Qaeda was “jayvee” – and said that his analogy was often used around the White House.
“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said. He then added, “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Attempting to respond to the growing power of Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, including the takeover of the Iraqi city of Fallujah, Obama said that Al Qaeda’s activities didn’t always threaten American interests:
“how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”

CNN reported last week that “al Qaeda appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.”

During the 2012 campaign, the Obama administration routinely stated that al Qaeda was on the run.

Obama: Al Qaeda 'Jayvee' | Truth Revolt

Hey Obama... so 9/11 WTC was a big deal by the varsity and we shouldn't have waded into Iraq and freed 28 million while keeping 2.7 million kids from starving right?
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,246
Reaction score
3,973
Points
1,130
Ah the widening Sunni-Shiite war, hmm I wonder if that's what GWHB meant when he wrote of the reasons he didn't invade and overthrow Saddam.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,687
Reaction score
4,130
Points
280
Ah the widening Sunni-Shiite war, hmm I wonder if that's what GWHB meant when he wrote of the reasons he didn't invade and overthrow Saddam.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
Yea and GWHB didn't expect US senators to daily encourage the terrorists to put bombs on kids that blew up when US troops handed out candy!
GWHB believed you don't bad mouth the same people you put at risk and while the Liberation of 28 million Iraqis took less then 6 weeks to rid the dictator that used pliers and drills on his people while allowing millions of children to starve while he built 91 palaces that people like YOU obviously approved!
I am sure you were one of these anti-military hate Americans and glad to see the terrorists blow up our troops by making statements like these which have been proven to have
extended the violence and especially the deaths of our American troops!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

and when these statements are made most normal intelligent people would say..."geez doesn't this just help the terrorists in killing more troops"?
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So when Reid, et.al. made statements that were NEGATIVE about our military... you don't think the terrorists USED that crap??
 

paulitician

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
38,401
Reaction score
4,161
Points
1,130
Obama the Cowboy. Is taunting really the right way to go? He may deeply regret his words someday.
 

Erand7899

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
488
Points
65
The Islamic extremists are in this war for the long haul. They do not expect to win in a few months, or even a few years. They are growing in numbers, territory, and the ability to indoctrinate millions more children into their ideology and their cause.

The dumbass idea that they are somehow weaker today, is nothing more than whistling past the graveyard.

The timid actions of the West, including the United States, has emboldened them, and provided them the opportunity to convince doubters that the West can be beaten. They have rightly concluded that Westerners do not have the stomach for protracted bloody warfare.
 

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
I will try to make this as clear and simple to understand as possible.

Al Qaeda = Radical Islam.

Radical Islam = hundreds of organizations, thousands of personal associations and millions of individuals around the world who are committed to bringing about the downfall of all non-strictly ruled Shariah governments and the domination of all people who are not strict Islamists.

Vanquishing Al Qaeda is like vanquishing skin cancer.

Great if you can do it. But there remains many other kinds of cancers that are still deadly threats.

My point?

Don't let Obama's rhetoric mislead you into believing he has done more to make the world safe for democracy than he really has.

If al Qaeda were COMPLETELY wiped out there are still hundreds of millions of radical Jihadi still intent on conquering, converting, killing and captivating you.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,246
Reaction score
3,973
Points
1,130
Ah the widening Sunni-Shiite war, hmm I wonder if that's what GWHB meant when he wrote of the reasons he didn't invade and overthrow Saddam.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
Yea and GWHB didn't expect US senators to daily encourage the terrorists to put bombs on kids that blew up when US troops handed out candy!
GWHB believed you don't bad mouth the same people you put at risk and while the Liberation of 28 million Iraqis took less then 6 weeks to rid the dictator that used pliers and drills on his people while allowing millions of children to starve while he built 91 palaces that people like YOU obviously approved!
I am sure you were one of these anti-military hate Americans and glad to see the terrorists blow up our troops by making statements like these which have been proven to have
extended the violence and especially the deaths of our American troops!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

and when these statements are made most normal intelligent people would say..."geez doesn't this just help the terrorists in killing more troops"?
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So when Reid, et.al. made statements that were NEGATIVE about our military... you don't think the terrorists USED that crap??
Your out of context quotes (you don't even have the guts to use the full sentences or site the source that would contain the full context) have been debunked so many times that it is laughable that you keep using them.

I don't think there was a serious debate if the US could defeat Saddam's Army. We knew he had no WMD to attack us with and we knew he had not been able to rebuild his conventional army. So that was no surprise. The ill fated and totally fucked up occupation is what caused the civil war that is becoming a regional war between the two faction of Islam. Thank the pseudo-cons of the Bush Administration.
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,734
Reaction score
3,381
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
Ah the widening Sunni-Shiite war, hmm I wonder if that's what GWHB meant when he wrote of the reasons he didn't invade and overthrow Saddam.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
George HW was right.
The Sunni-Shiite civil war has spread beyond Iraq's borders. George HW listened to the experts, it's too bad "W" didn't. The result is something bad got even worse.
 

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Ah the widening Sunni-Shiite war, hmm I wonder if that's what GWHB meant when he wrote of the reasons he didn't invade and overthrow Saddam.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
George HW was right.
The Sunni-Shiite civil war has spread beyond Iraq's borders. George HW listened to the experts, it's too bad "W" didn't. The result is something bad got even worse.
You would never be chosen to lead anything more than a Kindergarden class.

Why do i say this?

Because you can't imagine the far worse consequences that W sought to avoid by invading.

Hell, you can't even recognize the benefits we derived from the invasion.

Lack of intelligence. Lack of imagination. Lack of gratitude.

You're a triple threat.

Go home and put on your Dunce Cap.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,246
Reaction score
3,973
Points
1,130
Ah the widening Sunni-Shiite war, hmm I wonder if that's what GWHB meant when he wrote of the reasons he didn't invade and overthrow Saddam.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
George HW was right.
The Sunni-Shiite civil war has spread beyond Iraq's borders. George HW listened to the experts, it's too bad "W" didn't. The result is something bad got even worse.
You would never be chosen to lead anything more than a Kindergarden class.

Why do i say this?

Because you can't imagine the far worse consequences that W sought to avoid by invading.

Hell, you can't even recognize the benefits we derived from the invasion.

Lack of intelligence. Lack of imagination. Lack of gratitude.

You're a triple threat.

Go home and put on your Dunce Cap.
Do tell of these "Benefits"
 

Erand7899

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
488
Points
65
Ah the widening Sunni-Shiite war, hmm I wonder if that's what GWHB meant when he wrote of the reasons he didn't invade and overthrow Saddam.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
Yea and GWHB didn't expect US senators to daily encourage the terrorists to put bombs on kids that blew up when US troops handed out candy!
GWHB believed you don't bad mouth the same people you put at risk and while the Liberation of 28 million Iraqis took less then 6 weeks to rid the dictator that used pliers and drills on his people while allowing millions of children to starve while he built 91 palaces that people like YOU obviously approved!
I am sure you were one of these anti-military hate Americans and glad to see the terrorists blow up our troops by making statements like these which have been proven to have
extended the violence and especially the deaths of our American troops!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

and when these statements are made most normal intelligent people would say..."geez doesn't this just help the terrorists in killing more troops"?
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So when Reid, et.al. made statements that were NEGATIVE about our military... you don't think the terrorists USED that crap??
Your out of context quotes (you don't even have the guts to use the full sentences or site the source that would contain the full context) have been debunked so many times that it is laughable that you keep using them.

I don't think there was a serious debate if the US could defeat Saddam's Army. We knew he had no WMD to attack us with and we knew he had not been able to rebuild his conventional army. So that was no surprise. The ill fated and totally fucked up occupation is what caused the civil war that is becoming a regional war between the two faction of Islam. Thank the pseudo-cons of the Bush Administration.
The Iraqi army was the fourth largest army in the world, and we did not know that Saddam had no WMD to attack us with. Perhaps you have forgotten those hot, heavy, rubber suits that our troops had to wear?

The serious debate was not over whether or not our forces could defeat Saddam's forces, it was over just how bloody the fight could be. Saddam made little effort to put up much of a defense, and his troops did not have their hearts in the fight.

The insurgency, was not caused by the occupation, it was a pre-planned strategic move, designed to incite anti-American world opinion, and force us to return Saddam to the throne. The mistakes made during the occupation were mostly the idiocy of the State Department and their dumbass policies. Especially, the idiocy of disbanding the Iraqi army.
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,734
Reaction score
3,381
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
Ah the widening Sunni-Shiite war, hmm I wonder if that's what GWHB meant when he wrote of the reasons he didn't invade and overthrow Saddam.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
George HW was right.
The Sunni-Shiite civil war has spread beyond Iraq's borders. George HW listened to the experts, it's too bad "W" didn't. The result is something bad got even worse.
You would never be chosen to lead anything more than a Kindergarden class.

Why do i say this?

Because you can't imagine the far worse consequences that W sought to avoid by invading.

Hell, you can't even recognize the benefits we derived from the invasion.

Lack of intelligence. Lack of imagination. Lack of gratitude.

You're a triple threat.

Go home and put on your Dunce Cap.
Speaking of dunces,,,,,,,:lol:.
What could have gotten worse in the region than is already happening? Please explain.
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,734
Reaction score
3,381
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
"Iraq is a rallying cause for al-Qaeda -- it's allowed them to attract new recruits," said Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism specialist at the Congressional Research Service, the think tank for the House and Senate. "This was an organization that was under enormous pressure. Iraq has put new wind in its sails, definitely."
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,246
Reaction score
3,973
Points
1,130
Yea and GWHB didn't expect US senators to daily encourage the terrorists to put bombs on kids that blew up when US troops handed out candy!
GWHB believed you don't bad mouth the same people you put at risk and while the Liberation of 28 million Iraqis took less then 6 weeks to rid the dictator that used pliers and drills on his people while allowing millions of children to starve while he built 91 palaces that people like YOU obviously approved!
I am sure you were one of these anti-military hate Americans and glad to see the terrorists blow up our troops by making statements like these which have been proven to have
extended the violence and especially the deaths of our American troops!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

and when these statements are made most normal intelligent people would say..."geez doesn't this just help the terrorists in killing more troops"?
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So when Reid, et.al. made statements that were NEGATIVE about our military... you don't think the terrorists USED that crap??
Your out of context quotes (you don't even have the guts to use the full sentences or site the source that would contain the full context) have been debunked so many times that it is laughable that you keep using them.

I don't think there was a serious debate if the US could defeat Saddam's Army. We knew he had no WMD to attack us with and we knew he had not been able to rebuild his conventional army. So that was no surprise. The ill fated and totally fucked up occupation is what caused the civil war that is becoming a regional war between the two faction of Islam. Thank the pseudo-cons of the Bush Administration.
The Iraqi army was the fourth largest army in the world, and we did not know that Saddam had no WMD to attack us with. Perhaps you have forgotten those hot, heavy, rubber suits that our troops had to wear?

The serious debate was not over whether or not our forces could defeat Saddam's forces, it was over just how bloody the fight could be. Saddam made little effort to put up much of a defense, and his troops did not have their hearts in the fight.

The insurgency, was not caused by the occupation, it was a pre-planned strategic move, designed to incite anti-American world opinion, and force us to return Saddam to the throne. The mistakes made during the occupation were mostly the idiocy of the State Department and their dumbass policies. Especially, the idiocy of disbanding the Iraqi army.
That forth largest Army was decimated during the first Gulf war.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

.......

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

The decision to disband the regular military and police force in Iraq had a great deal to do with the Civil War erupting there. That was one of the first things they did under the occupation.
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,734
Reaction score
3,381
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
Al-qaeda Uses Iraq As Tool To Replenish Depleted Ranks
WASHINGTON -- The American invasion and occupation of Iraq has provided al-Qaeda with a powerful propaganda tool in its holy war against the West, injecting new energy into the worldwide network even though many of its key operatives are in jail or dead, its top leadership is on the run and its sources of money are shrinking, according to international security analysts.
While exhorting Muslims to turn Iraq into a new anti-American battleground, the network has staged spectacularly bloody bombings in neighboring Turkey and Saudi Arabia in hopes of undermining their pro-U.S. governments and demonstrating that it remains a dangerous force, analysts say.
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and related groups have used Web sites, videos and publications throughout the Muslim world to seek new warriors, proclaiming their message that Islam itself is under threat from the United States and that the region's governments are powerless to defend it.
"Iraq is a rallying cause for al-Qaeda -- it's allowed them to attract new recruits," said Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism specialist at the Congressional Research Service, the think tank for the House and Senate. "This was an organization that was under enormous pressure. Iraq has put new wind in its sails, definitely."
Al-qaeda Uses Iraq As Tool To Replenish Depleted Ranks - Orlando Sentinel

Yes, things really turned out great!
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,246
Reaction score
3,973
Points
1,130
"Iraq is a rallying cause for al-Qaeda -- it's allowed them to attract new recruits," said Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism specialist at the Congressional Research Service, the think tank for the House and Senate. "This was an organization that was under enormous pressure. Iraq has put new wind in its sails, definitely."
Invading an oil rich Arab Nation that was not involved in the attacks of 9-11was exactly what bin Laden was hoping President Bush would do.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,687
Reaction score
4,130
Points
280
"Iraq is a rallying cause for al-Qaeda -- it's allowed them to attract new recruits," said Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism specialist at the Congressional Research Service, the think tank for the House and Senate. "This was an organization that was under enormous pressure. Iraq has put new wind in its sails, definitely."
Invading an oil rich Arab Nation that was not involved in the attacks of 9-11was exactly what bin Laden was hoping President Bush would do.
Right! Bush played right into Bin Laden's hands right?
No mind there were 28 million people freed from a drill/plier wielding dictator that used oil money for palaces while 2.7 million would have starved!
YUP that was a real disaster. And of course Bin Laden LOVED these politicians for their encouraging the terrorists who planted bombs on kids to explode when reaching for candy from US troops! Yea that was his plan all along to get these Idiots to endorse the terrorists by making statements like these which were replayed thousands of times by a compliant MSM that hated Bush and the fact that 28 million people were freed!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

and when these statements are made most normal intelligent people would say..."geez doesn't this just help the terrorists in killing more troops"?
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.


NOT one US soldier anticipated the above comments would be made by traitor politicians!
NOT one of the dead US soldiers ever expected Americans to call our troops terrorists. Or an American who later became their C-I-C would declare ON PURPOSE
our military "air-raiding villages killing civilians"!

You really have to be so out of touch with reality to ever think terrorists would NOT take these statements to recruit more terrorists!
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,246
Reaction score
3,973
Points
1,130
"Iraq is a rallying cause for al-Qaeda -- it's allowed them to attract new recruits," said Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism specialist at the Congressional Research Service, the think tank for the House and Senate. "This was an organization that was under enormous pressure. Iraq has put new wind in its sails, definitely."
Invading an oil rich Arab Nation that was not involved in the attacks of 9-11was exactly what bin Laden was hoping President Bush would do.
Right! Bush played right into Bin Laden's hands right?
No mind there were 28 million people freed from a drill/plier wielding dictator that used oil money for palaces while 2.7 million would have starved!
YUP that was a real disaster. And of course Bin Laden LOVED these politicians for their encouraging the terrorists who planted bombs on kids to explode when reaching for candy from US troops! Yea that was his plan all along to get these Idiots to endorse the terrorists by making statements like these which were replayed thousands of times by a compliant MSM that hated Bush and the fact that 28 million people were freed!


You really have to be so out of touch with reality to ever think terrorists would NOT take these statements to recruit more terrorists!
Yep he wanted to get the US involved in a long drawn out war of occupation like the Soviet Union did in the 80's. He didn't understand how vast our resource were compared to the Soviet Union. We were not bleed dry like they were. However by destroying Iraq and opening it's borders the region seems to be on the verge of a wider conflict.

So terrorist take out of context quotes from politicians and make shit up about them. Is that some kind of a confession?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top