bush speech

jlew24asu

ledvedderman wrote:

You bash me earlier for my source and you post a source on something else and it is Fox News? Fair and balanced.

Here is how concerned we are about the rules of engagement.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/ - War Crimes Memo

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/29503

I dont care who the source is. just because its fox news that means its not true? as you can see from the picture we had maybe a hundred taliban locked and didnt fire. these are the same taliban who would slice your daughter's throat and not blink an eye simply because you are not muslim

Open

jlew24asu wrote:

the taliban and el queda are hiding in caves and are constantly on the run. I wouldnt exactly say they have made a triumphant return to power.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213641,00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=1537040

EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Sees Resurgence in Pakistani Tribal Areas

By BRIAN ROSS

Jan. 24, 2006 — Al Qaeda and its former protectors — the Taliban — are in the midst of a powerful resurgence, according to accounts by local officials and information contained in new al Qaeda videotapes obtained by ABC News.

U.S. troops are not permitted inside Pakistan, and the Pakistani army is barely seen in this part of Waziristan Province.

The new videotapes show open recruitment for the jihad, or holy war, to kill Americans and their allies.

The narrator says, "Come join the jihad caravan."

"The Taliban resurgence this year has been enormous and quite extraordinary," said Ahmed Rashid, author of the book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and the Fundamentalism in Central Asia."

The tape claims Taliban officials have taken over government functions. There is no date on the tape, but in the last month ABC News reporters have confirmed that Western aid organizations have been forced out, their headquarters burned, schools shut down, teachers and journalists killed, and music banned.

The tape shows men described as thieves being dragged through a village behind a truck, and later beheaded.


'Breakdown of Law and Order'

"We're seeing a complete breakdown of law and order," said Rashid. "The army is holed up in its barracks or in its bunkers."

A much rosier picture was described at the White House today as President Bush met with Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, thanking him for all his government is doing.

"We're working closely to defeat the terrorists who would like to harm America and harm Pakistan," Bush said during a news conference.

But there's no sense of defeat seen in a second tape obtained by ABC News, this one produced by al Qaeda.

The tape shows the planning of an attack on a government building across the border in Afghanistan.

The commander is identified as one of the four men who last year escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan — and are now back in action.

The commander is seen on tape, giving a Powerpoint presentation of how the attack was carried out.

It also shows scenes of fighters firing their automatic weapons and of buildings burning. The fighters seen on tape shout "bin Laden forever! Long live al Qaeda!"

"It has regrouped, reformed and re-emerged with new vigor," said Akbar Ahmed, professor of Islamic studies at American University, "and this is a very dangerous emergence."

jlew24asu

Open wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=1537040

EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Sees Resurgence in Pakistani Tribal Areas

By BRIAN ROSS

Jan. 24, 2006 — Al Qaeda and its former protectors — the Taliban — are in the midst of a powerful resurgence, according to accounts by local officials and information contained in new al Qaeda videotapes obtained by ABC News.

U.S. troops are not permitted inside Pakistan, and the Pakistani army is barely seen in this part of Waziristan Province.

The new videotapes show open recruitment for the jihad, or holy war, to kill Americans and their allies.

The narrator says, "Come join the jihad caravan."

"The Taliban resurgence this year has been enormous and quite extraordinary," said Ahmed Rashid, author of the book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and the Fundamentalism in Central Asia."

The tape claims Taliban officials have taken over government functions. There is no date on the tape, but in the last month ABC News reporters have confirmed that Western aid organizations have been forced out, their headquarters burned, schools shut down, teachers and journalists killed, and music banned.

The tape shows men described as thieves being dragged through a village behind a truck, and later beheaded.


'Breakdown of Law and Order'

"We're seeing a complete breakdown of law and order," said Rashid. "The army is holed up in its barracks or in its bunkers."

A much rosier picture was described at the White House today as President Bush met with Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, thanking him for all his government is doing.

"We're working closely to defeat the terrorists who would like to harm America and harm Pakistan," Bush said during a news conference.

But there's no sense of defeat seen in a second tape obtained by ABC News, this one produced by al Qaeda.

The tape shows the planning of an attack on a government building across the border in Afghanistan.

The commander is identified as one of the four men who last year escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan — and are now back in action.

The commander is seen on tape, giving a Powerpoint presentation of how the attack was carried out.

It also shows scenes of fighters firing their automatic weapons and of buildings burning. The fighters seen on tape shout "bin Laden forever! Long live al Qaeda!"

"It has regrouped, reformed and re-emerged with new vigor," said Akbar Ahmed, professor of Islamic studies at American University, "and this is a very dangerous emergence."

sounds like pakistan has a problem. if, however, they go to afhganastan or even iraq they will fight american and coalition soliders on the battlefield. they don't stand a chance.

Open

jlew24asu wrote:

sounds like pakistan has a problem. if, however, they go to afhganastan or even iraq they will fight american and coalition soliders on the battlefield. they don't stand a chance.

So they're sitting in Pakistan our ally in the "war against terror" and plotting what they're going to do here next and your happy with that? I think im just going to go outside and have a discussion with a tree; it would be much more fruitful.

jlew24asu

Open wrote:

So they're sitting in Pakistan our ally in the "war against terror" and plotting what they're going to do here next and your happy with that? I think im just going to go outside and have a discussion with a tree; it would be much more fruitful.

Pakistan can do alot more to stop certain things but they arent. there is so much going on in pakistan that i will never understand. whatever help they can give us, is needed. what should we do invade pakistan? i think its disgusting with what goes on there. the president of pakistan says we cant go in to get them, so we dont. i never said i was happy with it. personally I would fire on them whenever and whereever I saw them. but thats just me. our government plays by the rules of war. now I know someone will post some incident that happened about american soliders fucking up. its war but still fight by the rules, if we didnt, bombs would be falling on their heads in pakistan.

Open

jlew24asu wrote:

Pakistan can do alot more to stop certain things but they arent. there is so much going on in pakistan that i will never understand. whatever help they can give us, is needed. what should we do invade pakistan? i think its disgusting with what goes on there. the president of pakistan says we cant go in to get them, so we dont. i never said i was happy with it. personally I would fire on them whenever and whereever I saw them. but thats just me. our government plays by the rules of war. now I know someone will post some incident that happened about american soliders fucking up. its war but still fight by the rules, if we didnt, bombs would be falling on their heads in pakistan.

Thanks man, i see where your coming from a bit more clearly...thanks for clarifying.

pushmepullme

jlew24asu wrote:

Pakistan can do alot more to stop certain things but they arent. there is so much going on in pakistan that i will never understand. whatever help they can give us, is needed. what should we do invade pakistan? i think its disgusting with what goes on there. the president of pakistan says we cant go in to get them, so we dont. i never said i was happy with it. personally I would fire on them whenever and whereever I saw them. but thats just me. our government plays by the rules of war. now I know someone will post some incident that happened about american soliders fucking up. its war but still fight by the rules, if we didnt, bombs would be falling on their heads in pakistan.

Yeah, lets bomb some more countries! That'll solve the problem! And believe me, America doesn't play by the rules of war.

jlew24asu

pushmepullme wrote:

Yeah, lets bomb some more countries! That'll solve the problem! And believe me, America doesn't play by the rules of war.

you really dont get it do you. I wasnt saying we should. I was responding to the other persons response on how we should handle pakistan's lack of cooperation. my answer: I don't know. me personally, I would bomb the taliban were ever I see them. but I dont work for the government. If I did wear the uniform, I would fight by the rules, because of the oath I would have taken to do so. I'm just an american citizen who hates islamic extremeists and wants them dead. our government however has to fight by the rules. why the hatred for america? the war on terror has created a gray area for rules of war, i.e, terrorists dont wear uniforms or fight for a specific country. like i said before, IF we didnt play by the rules, we would have bombed pakistan back to the stone age. O wait there are still there. but we would drop bombs on any taliban we see. pakistan says no, so we don't. We even had restaint on bombing the taliban in afghanistan, were we are allowed to be. We had 200 fighters in the crosshairs and didnt shoot becuase of rules of engagement. if you want the link and picture to that story, I will be happy to post it again.

RockinInCanada

jlew24asu wrote:

you really dont get it do you. I wasnt saying we should. I was responding to the other persons response on how we should handle pakistan's lack of cooperation. my answer: I don't know. me personally, I would bomb the taliban were ever I see them. but I dont work for the government. If I did wear the uniform, I would fight by the rules, because of the oath I would have taken to do so. I'm just an american citizen who hates islamic extremeists and wants them dead. our government however has to fight by the rules. why the hatred for america? the war on terror has created a gray area for rules of war, i.e, terrorists dont wear uniforms or fight for a specific country. like i said before, IF we didnt play by the rules, we would have bombed pakistan back to the stone age. O wait there are still there. but we would drop bombs on any taliban we see. pakistan says no, so we don't. We even had restaint on bombing the taliban in afghanistan, were we are allowed to be. We had 200 fighters in the crosshairs and didnt shoot becuase of rules of engagement. if you want the link and picture to that story, I will be happy to post it again.

That's why the war on terror (which is fought using a nation state vs nation state scenerio) will never work.....

jlew24asu

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

That's why the war on terror (which is fought using a nation state vs nation state scenerio) will never work.....

what do you mean it will never work? whether the rules are written or not, the fact remains that america is at war with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11

merlyn

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

watch out with the insults.....

cuz our moderators here......who are all about fairness....

just might ban you for the name calling......

freedom of speech. ooh just watch what ya say!!!!!!

merlyn

jlew24asu wrote:

what do you mean it will never work? whether the rules are written or not, the fact remains that america is at war with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11

yeah n the jobs that fantastic they can't find him. your government asked for it cos they think cos they're so big they're untouchable. well theyv'e been proven otherwise n now are pissed.

jlew24asu

merlyn wrote:

yeah n the jobs that fantastic they can't find him. your government asked for it cos they think cos they're so big they're untouchable. well theyv'e been proven otherwise n now are pissed.

care to elaborate? we asked for it? asked for what? to be attacked?

RockinInCanada

jlew24asu wrote:

what do you mean it will never work? whether the rules are written or not, the fact remains that america is at war with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11

America rolled into Afganistan and Iraq with a strategy that would be used to attack an aggressive nation....for example the most petty arguement (or rebuttal) I hear from those that support the war to those that believe in peaceful measures is comparing this to Hitler in WW2.

The strategy adopted for the Middle East would be highly successful if they were combating a nation that had the vast majority of its populace supporting a ruthless government that was bent upon expansion (example Germany in WW2)....however that is not the case is the Middle East you are dealing with Fundanutalists that represent a very small minority of the populace...yet the strategy has been to attack the nation as if the entire country was a threat...which it is not....the threat is small (meaning numbers not the reality).....to combat terrorism will take another approach......if you continue to punish a nation, where the vast majority of nation supports no sort of Fundanutalism you will make enemies out of those who you should be making friends......sorry but people there don't view their friends and family deaths as a neccessry step to attain freedom as some here try to suggest that the losses are needed for the greater good...

jlew24asu

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

America rolled into Afganistan and Iraq with a strategy that would be used to attack an aggressive nation....for example the most petty arguement (or rebuttal) I hear from those that support the war to those that believe in peaceful measures is comparing this to Hitler in WW2.

The strategy adopted for the Middle East would be highly successful if they were combating a nation that had the vast majority of its populace supporting a ruthless government that was bent upon expansion (example Germany in WW2)....however that is not the case is the Middle East you are dealing with Fundanutalists that represent a very small minority of the populace...yet the strategy has been to attack the nation as if the entire country was a threat...which it is not....the threat is small (meaning numbers not the reality).....to combat terrorism will take another approach......if you continue to punish a nation, where the vast majority of nation supports no sort of Fundanutalism you will make enemies out of those who you should be making friends......sorry but people there don't view their friends and family deaths as a neccessry step to attain freedom as some here try to suggest that the losses are needed for the greater good...

in terms of Iraq your are right. we went in fighting saddam, which even I question, but now we are fighting el queda in iraq. and the different sects are fighting themselves. (shite/sunni)

but as far as afhganistan, we were fighting a nation. we were fighting the government of that nation, the taliban. and we were highly successful in overthrowing them and allowing a free nation to be born.

stupidcorporatewhore

jlew24asu wrote:

in terms of Iraq your are right. we went in fighting saddam, which even I question, but now we are fighting el queda in iraq. and the different sects are fighting themselves. (shite/sunni)

correct on all points. Only I would add that there were no al queda in iraq before we deposed saddam

jlew24asu wrote:

but as far as afhganistan, we were fighting a nation. we were fighting the government of that nation, the taliban. and we were highly successful in overthrowing them and allowing a free nation to be born.

right again. except now the taliban have regrouped in Afhganistan and are more powerful than ever.

ooops

DCGARDEN

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

America rolled into Afganistan and Iraq with a strategy that would be used to attack an aggressive nation....for example the most petty arguement (or rebuttal) I hear from those that support the war to those that believe in peaceful measures is comparing this to Hitler in WW2.

The strategy adopted for the Middle East would be highly successful if they were combating a nation that had the vast majority of its populace supporting a ruthless government that was bent upon expansion (example Germany in WW2)....however that is not the case is the Middle East you are dealing with Fundanutalists that represent a very small minority of the populace...yet the strategy has been to attack the nation as if the entire country was a threat...which it is not....the threat is small (meaning numbers not the reality).....to combat terrorism will take another approach......if you continue to punish a nation, where the vast majority of nation supports no sort of Fundanutalism you will make enemies out of those who you should be making friends......sorry but people there don't view their friends and family deaths as a neccessry step to attain freedom as some here try to suggest that the losses are needed for the greater good...

Comparing Sadamm to Hitler is quite silly - you are right about that
Yes Fundamentalists represent a small minority, but that does not make them any less dangerous , if they have the wrong intent. Now you can argue, and we probably have, about Sadamm's intentions, but you talk about attacking a nation as if we carpet bombed the Iraqi population and targeted civilians during the war and I would take issue with that. The picture there is far from pretty and it's probably getting worse by the day, but we didn't launch this mission to " quote on quote punish the Iraqi people. You can certainly look now and say that they are suffering a great price - I am only taking issue with your charge of intent ( if that is the case) if you are not suggesting intent then I will apologize now.

jlew24asu

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

correct on all points. Only I would add that there were no al queda in iraq before we deposed saddam



right again. except now the taliban have regrouped in Afhganistan and are more powerful than ever.

ooops

more powerful then ever? that is very far from the truth. do they have an office? how about an embassy somewhere? are they holding new conferences proclaiming to control the country? are they driving around the streets on kabul hanging people for not praising allah?

sure they have regrouped in some lawless areas but more powerful then ever? you cant be serious.

they briefly held some small towns in southern afgah but where quickly defeated.

RockinInCanada

DCGARDEN wrote:

Comparing Sadamm to Hitler is quite silly - you are right about that
Yes Fundamentalists represent a small minority, but that does not make them any less dangerous , if they have the wrong intent. Now you can argue, and we probably have, about Sadamm's intentions, but you talk about attacking a nation as if we carpet bombed the Iraqi population and targeted civilians during the war and I would take issue with that. The picture there is far from pretty and it's probably getting worse by the day, but we did launch this mission to " quote on quote punish the Iraqi people. You can certainly look now and say that they are suffering a great price - I am only taking issue with your charge of intent ( if that is the case) if you are not suggesting intent then I will apologize now.

No I was not suggesting intent...it was to attack the method being used in Iraq...which is a nation state vs. nation state policy....which was invasion and continued occupation...my belief is that to combat cells of terrorists you can not take this approach because you deal with a small minority....which is, surprisingly but currently not shocking, maybe more difficult to combat than an entire nation state......because the ultimate reprecussion from an attack made on the minority is that the people that do desire peace and freedom get punished which will ultimately return back upon the attacking nation as their intent gets mislead as being directed towards the populace (which I hope it isn't)...these people then buy into the message of the Fundanutalists that, in this case, America is the enemy of Islam, and hence recruitments for the nut vision increases....this is what gets bred through combating terror in a nation vs. nation wartime strategy.....this was not thought of....I believe the US government thought it would be a cake walk (because they viewed it as American army vs Iraqi army)....that vision would certainly make one think it would be...but they forget to realize that they were essentially not fighting a country to say, but a small band of criminals....which can do a surprising amount of damage....

It is a disaster of epic proportions that is, unfortuantly and cannot say it enough, dragging the fine name of America through the mud.....

DCGARDEN

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

No I was not suggesting intent...it was to attack the method being used in Iraq...which is a nation state vs. nation state policy....which was invasion and continued occupation...my belief is that to combat cells of terrorists you can not take this approach because you deal with a small minority....which is, surprisingly but currently not shocking, maybe more difficult to combat than an entire nation state......because the ultimate reprecussion from an attack made on the minority is that the people that do desire peace and freedom get punished which will ultimately return back upon the attacking nation as their intent gets mislead as being directed towards the populace (which I hope it isn't)...these people then buy into the message of the Fundanutalists that, in this case, America is the enemy of Islam, and hence recruitments for the nut vision increases....this is what gets bred through combating terror in a nation vs. nation wartime strategy.....this was not thought of....I believe the US government thought it would be a cake walk (because they viewed it as American army vs Iraqi army)....that vision would certainly make one think it would be...but they forget to realize that they were essentially not fighting a country to say, but a small band of criminals....which can do a surprising amount of damage....

It is a disaster of epic proportions that is, unfortuantly and cannot say it enough, dragging the fine name of America through the mud.....

I understand you now - thanks