On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:39:46 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

What I don't get is how you can claim this is a
religious war.

Try re-reading my original statement:

[quote to TJP] And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation
of Iraq being seen ******by muslims**** as a war against their
religion? [unquote]

Now let's review. I don't claim this is a religious war. I claim that
muslims now view our continued occupation of Iraq as a war against
islam.


I think a more accurate statement would be "accoding to what the media
tells us. . . " and unfortunately we rarely get an objective story it
seems these days.




You and I don't get to frame their perception of US occupation
of Iraq...they do.

You claim this is simply one campaign in the war against terror. But
that claim is BS to most people on the planet. Here's what we all
know.

Saddam had ZERO to do with 9/11, he had been "contained" since 1991,
the almost uniformly ****ty intel [USAF Intel held a dissenting
opinion from what I read] was wrong about WMD, the 9/11 Commission
concludes that there was ZERO operational cooperation between
Hussein's despotic regime and al-****ing-qaeda. ZERO evidence that
Saddam Hussein was planning any terrorist attack against the US.

The events since gwb declared "mission accomplished" indicate gwb was
GROSSLY in error. But hey, he was grossly in error about exporting
good ole uhmurikan democracy smack dap in the middle of the arab
world.

The current fighting around Najaf is against men demonstrating loyalty
(or getting paid) to a guy that was anti-Saddam Hussein (just like
george bush). But this guy want's part of the "action" WRT running
Iraq. He wants to form an islamic state. This guy would be supremely
happy to never see an american face again...if we would just leave.
But that ain't gonna happen.

We don't really give a rat's ass what religion they
are, it's the fact that they (the terrorists) want us dead and will do
whatever they can to do it.

Well since there were no al-Qaeda camps in Iraq before we invaded your
point is irrelevant WRT the fight around Najaf. And fortunately the
military commanders in Iraq do not share your binary [black/white,
on/off, "with us" (patriot)/"against us" (terrorist)] POV.

Last night I read a quote from a USMC Col or Gen commanding some
troops near Najaf. Paraphrasing (cause I'll be damned if I will take
the time to hunt for it now) he said..."WRT to fighting a guerilla war
against insurgents [NOT TERRORISTS] around Najaf, we [USMC good guys]
must be sensitive to the religious implications of attacking forces
hiding in a holy muslim shrine."

My point? ****** [If you read nothing else read this!]*******

The officers and men fighting in Iraq characterize the combat as
guerilla war against insurgents...not some monolithic terrorist cabal.
Nor do they paint a picture of a religious war. But they also must
take steps to mitigate any appearance of making this a war against
islam. The latter clearly acknowledges what many muslims already
think.

The terrorists happen to be Islamic and
are using their religion to try to justify it. We couldn't care less
if they were Catholic, Buddist, or Holy Rollers. It's their actions
not their religion that is causing the problem.

Here's your logic, al-qaeda terrorists attacked us, we're fighting
terrorism, ergo ANYBODY that attacks americans inside Iraq must be a
terrorist.


YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in
Iraq?" Do they want the US to leave? Well attacking our forces
isn't going to speed THAT process up. Are you saying those who kidnap
Americans and behead them on video aren't terrorists? Are those guys
with the bandanas wrapped wround their heads and holding the machine
guns in the videos merely "religious zealots"? And if so then what
*is* the difference between a religious zealot and a terrorist? And
if the legitimate Iraqi government is on your side and you have a
group of people shooting at you do you wave the "time-out" card in the
middle of a fire-fight so you can check to see if they're
card-carrying "religious zealots" rather than terrorists? They know
why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the
terrorists then they'll reap their rewards. Let's put it another way:
Say there is a guy who's holding up a convenience store and has shot
one of the clerks. I'm just a customer who was in the wrong place at
the wrong time. When the cops bust in to take the killer in-hand, if
I jump one of the them and start beating him up do you think they'd
stop and say "oh, he's not with the killer we should let him go"?
Hell no. Likely they'd shoot my ass.











Elegantly simple...but oh so simplistic, and simply faulty logic.

If you truly think MaS and his followers are terrorists, why hasn't
gwb or his dick [cheney] ever mentioned MaS as a terrorist? Answer?
They know MaS is an extremist cleric NOT a terrorist.

In April 2004 the stated policy (articulated by the US General
briefing the press in Baghdad) was to capture or kill ANYBODY killing
US forces or inciting others to kill US troops. But this policy is on
hold as we try to get MaS to leave the shrine in Najaf.


Only because he's in the shrine. If he'd been holed up in some
warehouse they'd have just dropped a bomb on it.





Our occupation of Iraq will be lengthy. It will tie up resources that
could have been used in the real war against terrorists, and limit our
options elsewhere.


In marked contrast to what Northern and Southern watch were tying up
over the last ten years? Not to mention going in and bombing ****
every six months anyway because Saddam started acting up. Better to
go in and spend a year or two and put the problem to rest rather than
tying up resources on it for another 30 years.