If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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. 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. It must...finite resources...most resources tied up in Iraq or stateside reconstituting for a return to Iraq...means you have limited your options for any other crisis. Robey |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following: Yeah that's it, I'm a racist. I think you are. Hitler and the Nazis blamed the jews, James L Hart in the 8th District of TN vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. The fact that you can even attempt to claim I'm being a racist by saying the majority of terrorism against the US originates in the Middle East... The problem is that isn't what you said. And you know it. Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world known as The Middle East. Clearly not all muslims are terrorists. I think there are smarter ways to hunt down and kill the real terrorist islamist [note the i-s-t vice i-c] ****s rather than invade an arab country and impose our will. suggests you're either a frickin' imbecil or a limp-wristed, let's-all-hug-a-tree-they-were-just-expressing-freedom-of-religion, pacifist. Wanna compare MENSA scores? Does card carrying atheist, former Sierra Club member with gay friends count? Robey |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Hirose wrote:
The 2004 Edwards AFB open house and air show has been cancelled. According to the AFFTC commander, Maj. Gen. Pearson, "Our country is currently engaged in a global war on terrorism, and all of our military resources and efforts must go toward supporting that cause... I assure you that the cancellation is not related to organizational command changes within the Air Force Flight Test Center nor is it related to any specific terrorist threat." http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh.html Running short on flying things, eh? -- Regards, Venik Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line: ?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:02:55 GMT, Robey Price
wrote: After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott Ferrin confessed the following: Yeah that's it, I'm a racist. I think you are. It's a free country. Hitler and the Nazis blamed the jews, James L Hart in the 8th District of TN vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. The fact that you can even attempt to claim I'm being a racist by saying the majority of terrorism against the US originates in the Middle East... The problem is that isn't what you said. And you know it. Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world known as The Middle East. Clearly not all muslims are terrorists. No, but a pretty high percentage of terrorists are Muslim. And Muslim is a religion not a race. IT so happens the Middle East has a high percentage of Muslims. If for some reason 99% of the terrorists came from Brazil then I'd have said Brazil was the asshole of the world. It has absolutley *nothing* to do with race and trying to make the debate about race actually weakens your position. It comes across like a desperate attempt to play the race card. I think there are smarter ways to hunt down and kill the real terrorist islamist [note the i-s-t vice i-c] ****s rather than invade an arab country and impose our will. suggests you're either a frickin' imbecil or a limp-wristed, let's-all-hug-a-tree-they-were-just-expressing-freedom-of-religion, pacifist. Wanna compare MENSA scores? Sure. Does card carrying atheist, former Sierra Club member with gay friends count? Nothing wrong with being an atheist. I wouldn't criticize someone for not believing in Santa Claus either. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following: 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. Geez Scott...the ****ing 9/11 commission confirmed my statements, they're not Fox News or the vast liberal media conspiritors that O'Reilly always whines about. YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in Iraq?" Easy answer...Iraqi citizen says, "Hey America, thanks for getting rid of that ****ing Saddam Hussein...why are you still here? Leave my country NOW." Some Iraqi factions maneuvering for power are equally thankful for getting rid of SH, absent the Baathists and Tikritis. According to a RAND study, the US "****ed up" (my word) by not having enough troops/police/civil affairs folks on the ground to ensure domestic tranquility. Result? Guerilla war as competing factions vie for power amongst themselves and against the US which they now see as NOTHING MORE than an occupier that's killing muslims that might or might not have been Hussein thugs. Do they want the US to leave? Well attacking our forces isn't going to speed THAT process up. You're probably right. Not having a better ratio of US/allied personnel to Iraqi citizens (according to RAND) will certainly make this a long slog! Are you saying those who kidnap Americans and behead them on video aren't terrorists? Never said that...never even suggested that. You may recall (but probably don't) that those ****s claimed the original beheading was in DIRECT RETALIATION for the Abu Ghraib **** storm. Again you and I don't get to color an Iraqi's perception of what happens or gets reported on arab TV. [FWIW, prior to our invasion I think the number of al-qaeda asswipes in Iraq totaled the square root of negative 1, but NOW there maybe hundreds or thousands of those ****s in-country...the borders are so damn porous. Which is NOT to say MaS and his merry band are al-qaeda.] We're doing lots of great things in Iraq WRT to civil affairs outside of the Sunni triangle, Najaf, etc. But all those attaboys mean the square root of **** all to the folks competing for power, or that simply want us to leave. There was a great article on 8/15 in the Philly Inquirer about a USMC outfit in western Iraq written by an imbedded reporter. Lots of heroism, and lots of deadly combat against well trained, well coordinated, sharpshooting Iraqi guerillas (the Marines even say so). http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/ you'll have to register then look for http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...9401925.htm?1c titled The Battle of Rimadi. They know why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the terrorists then they'll reap their rewards. Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing. Jesus ****ing christ Scott...are you really that dense? Sure as americans, our troops are going to shoot first and sort it out later. No uniforms and no team jerseys for insurgents or terrorists. Classifying ALL opposition fighters as terrorists is the zenith of ignorance. Let's put it another way: No look at it this way. Muslims invade America to remove George Bush (yeah he's an asshole, but he's our asshole) from power, AND they want to establish a religious form of government. Here it is 18+ months after they removed george from power, and they're still here. I bet every bible thumping anti-abortion knucklehead and every ACLU member would be fighting the occupation of our nation. 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. Wanna bet? MaS is literally asking the US to make him a martyr (like some really famous islamic dude) when he isn't saying, "Oh yeah, we'll leave the shrine and have a cease-fire." If we kill him we are so ****ed. The PR from such an event will not be good. In marked contrast to what Northern and Southern watch were tying up over the last ten years? Dumb question Scott... yes! NW and SW were principally USAF operations...NO Army Guard or Reserves. There were no ANG units activated (AFAIK) for two years at a time to support NW/SW. Containment worked! The ANG unit at Jackson MS recently switched from 141s to C-17s. They are not even close to being MR (you know what that means since you were in the USAF), but they are flying "training sorties" into Iraq and Afghanistan because there are not enough resources. Guys (read aircrew) cannot resign from some units because of the "stop loss" provisions. "Stop Loss" WAS NOT in effect during NW/SW. I was never notified that I was affected by "Stop Loss" for NW/SW...but was for Bosnia/Kosovo...guess what? 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. A year or two? How about ten or twelve? I encourage you to join the military and get over there to help them out. I've heard they're looking for volunteers, and you've got the "right" attitude. Whata-ya-say? Sign up today... |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in Iraq?" Easy answer...Iraqi citizen says, "Hey America, thanks for getting rid of that ****ing Saddam Hussein...why are you still here? Leave my country NOW." Some Iraqi factions maneuvering for power are equally thankful for getting rid of SH, absent the Baathists and Tikritis. According to a RAND study, the US "****ed up" (my word) by not having enough troops/police/civil affairs folks on the ground to ensure domestic tranquility. In this I am in total agreement. I think Rumsfeld was so anxious to sell "transformation" that the US military got the shaft in a huge way over there. About half the people they ought to have had and no plan for after the war. [FWIW, prior to our invasion I think the number of al-qaeda asswipes in Iraq totaled the square root of negative 1, but NOW there maybe hundreds or thousands of those ****s in-country...the borders are so damn porous. Which is NOT to say MaS and his merry band are al-qaeda.] Never said MaS is al-qaeda. It was pretty obvious from the first time he opened his mouth and praised 9/11 that he was bad news though. We're doing lots of great things in Iraq WRT to civil affairs outside of the Sunni triangle, Najaf, etc. But all those attaboys mean the square root of **** all to the folks competing for power, or that simply want us to leave. So the choice is to leave and leave the Iraq people at the mercy of those trying to grab power or stay to finish the job. Which would you choose? There was a great article on 8/15 in the Philly Inquirer about a USMC outfit in western Iraq written by an imbedded reporter. Lots of heroism, and lots of deadly combat against well trained, well coordinated, sharpshooting Iraqi guerillas (the Marines even say so). http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/ you'll have to register then look for http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...9401925.htm?1c titled The Battle of Rimadi. They know why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the terrorists then they'll reap their rewards. Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing. And you do the same by presuming that since those grabbing for power are ****ed that there is opposition the entire population of Iraq would prefer we leave. Jesus ****ing christ Scott...are you really that dense? Sure as americans, our troops are going to shoot first and sort it out later. No uniforms and no team jerseys for insurgents or terrorists. Classifying ALL opposition fighters as terrorists is the zenith of ignorance. I've stated that they aren't all terrorists. HOWEVER, fighting on the side of the terrorists, even if not FOR them. . .well when it gets down to it WTF does it matter what their motivation is? You shoot at US soldiers your going to get shot back at. Period. Saddam is gone and there's a power vaccum and every asshole with delusions of granduer in Iraq is trying to fill it. Should we let them? Should we turn a blind eye while they shoot at our soldiers? Sure sounds like that's what you're saying. Let's put it another way: No look at it this way. Muslims invade America to remove George Bush (yeah he's an asshole, but he's our asshole) Ah NOW it begins to make sense. from power, AND they want to establish a religious form of government. Here it is 18+ months after they removed george from power, and they're still here. I bet every bible thumping anti-abortion knucklehead and every ACLU member would be fighting the occupation of our nation. Well the ACLU would be holding protests I'm sure but they'd probably **** their pants at the thought of even touching a gun. I encourage you to join the military and get over there to help them out. I've heard they're looking for volunteers, and you've got the "right" attitude. Whata-ya-say? Sign up today... |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following: In this I am in total agreement... As Dan Patrick used to say on ESPN Sports Center, "That deserves a 'Wow.'"...WOW! Never said MaS is al-qaeda. It was pretty obvious from the first time he opened his mouth and praised 9/11 that he was bad news though. Ummm, I'm pretty sure I've been trying to state that MaS was NOT a terrorist, and you'e been arguing the opposite. But hey, again we're apparently in agreement. So the choice is to leave and leave the Iraq people at the mercy of those trying to grab power or stay to finish the job. Which would you choose? First...I would NEVER have invaded. Containment was working. But that is no longer an option. Second, I would not have taken down the despotic SH regime without international consensus, including "old europe." WRT to the current situation? Tough call, I find no compelling reason that Iraq should not be broken up into several ethnic states. But that has a host of problems too. I'd try damn hard to get our friends in europe in on the problem (stability and reconstruction) and knock off the purely BS situation of Halliburton et al (KB&R) running the contracting. I'd have gwb admit publically, "Hey, I ****ed up...sorry." Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing. And you do the same by presuming that since those grabbing for power are ****ed that there is opposition the entire population of Iraq would prefer we leave. No, I do think those fighting us want us out...I suspect every Iraqi wants stability, and many embrace the security our troops offer. My whole issue with your statements has to do with "lumping" all opposition as terrorists, which clearly you've backed away from. I've stated that they aren't all terrorists. HOWEVER, fighting on the side of the terrorists, even if not FOR them. . .well when it gets down to it WTF does it matter what their motivation is? To a grunt it makes no difference, to commander? Big difference. Well the ACLU would be holding protests I'm sure but they'd probably **** their pants at the thought of even touching a gun. No, I'm pretty sure I'd be shooting. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Keith Willshaw wrote:
No he didnt, Sadr didnt oppose the overthrow od Saddam. Trouble is he believes that he has the god given right to rule Iraq in his place. Problem is that US is thinking they can rule Iraq, it is WRONG. Have we heard of Sadr before the invasion? NO, so US has created his resistance himself. Qman |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Ferrin wrote:
I don't seem to recall any Japanese terrorists behind the wheel on 9-11. I don't recall there being a band of Brazilians in '93. Scott, you sound like 10 year old, stop it. And get the grip on "terrorism", US has great responsibility that such a thing ever exists as it is. Admit it. Qman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
RI National Guard Air Show 2004 | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | June 17th 04 08:08 PM |
Moffett Air Show 2004 | JD | Military Aviation | 10 | June 11th 04 07:37 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 146 | November 3rd 03 05:18 PM |