Insurgents and Terror leaders say they want the Democrats to win

DarkStar · November 2006

Cosmo wrote:

'...senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND..."
...
If WND knows who these terrorists are... why doesn't our C.I.A. know? Shouldn't we get a C.I.A. agent to pose as a WND reporter and set up an interview... and kill the sonovabitch?

WND ... a right wing rag.

ds

ThumbingMyWay32 · November 2006

I'm not exactly sure why terrorists would want the Democrats to win the election. If America pulls out of Iraq they would lose their recruiting base. After all, Bush is creating these terrorist.

Cosmo · November 2006

DarkStar wrote:

WND ... a right wing rag.

ds

...
Well, they sure are acting like a Left Wing Liberal (a.k.a. JEW) Media outlet by meeting with these high ranking terrorist leaders and not killing them. Any Patriotic Right Wing Republican ameircan would kill these fuckers if given half the chance, right?
Damn Liberal (JEW) Press.

Purple Hawk · November 2006

so anyways,

I think the point of the article is..is that we need to finish training the Iraqi security forces. Insurgent leaders don't want that to happen because that defines victory for our side. I really don't see why that's so hard for people to understand...that THATS the objective...to train the iraqi army and security forces. I really don't think Democrats even know it's going on. people like the clintons, and your schumers, all they want is power. hell, most of them have gone into hiding and don't even want to talk about iraq. i'll give it to you guys, at least you address the issues and express your opinions. i disagree with you beyond belief, but at least you express your beliefs and stand up for what you believe in. to do anything else is gutless.

Abuskedti · November 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

so anyways,

I think the point of the article is..is that we need to finish training the Iraqi security forces. Insurgent leaders don't want that to happen because that defines victory for our side. I really don't see why that's so hard for people to understand...that THATS the objective...to train the iraqi army and security forces. I really don't think Democrats even know it's going on. people like the clintons, and your schumers, all they want is power. hell, most of them have gone into hiding and don't even want to talk about iraq. i'll give it to you guys, at least you address the issues and express your opinions. i disagree with you beyond belief, but at least you express your beliefs and stand up for what you believe in. to do anything else is gutless.

Train them? They need 300,000 Iraqi troops or so. I find it unlikey you'll find 1,500 Iraqis that are on the same side as the trainers... They are just looking for some protection from the chaos and for opportunities to gain intelligence to share with one of the many opposing sides.

Purple Hawk · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

Train them? They need 300,000 Iraqi troops or so. I find it unlikey you'll find 1,500 Iraqis that are on the same side as the trainers... They are just looking for some protection from the chaos and for opportunities to gain intelligence to share with one of the many opposing sides.

you seem to know a lot about it...you know anyone actually on the ground?

Abuskedti · November 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

you seem to know a lot about it...you know anyone actually on the ground?

I know a few people that have been on the ground and a few that are there now. They are not any more likely to understand what is going on than you, me or the US Congress.

Purple Hawk · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

I know a few people that have been on the ground and a few that are there now. They are not any more likely to understand what is going on than you, me or the US Congress.

so there's NO progress being made in training iraqi soldiers? i don't think that's the case.

Abuskedti · November 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

so there's NO progress being made in training iraqi soldiers? i don't think that's the case.

I didn't say that. We are providing training to Iraqis. we are providing weapons and food too. However, It doesn't seem that if ever they are left to their own devices, that they will act as we expect them to. We are training people who's alegances belong to several different interests. We can only direct their actions with a strong presence.

Once we leave - regardless how long we wait - and make these people suffer - they will go their own way. There will be some civil war battles - and Iraq with begin to recover. For now - its just a severly weakend country struggling to survive the occupation.

Purple Hawk · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

I didn't say that. We are providing training to Iraqis. we are providing weapons and food too. However, It doesn't seem that if ever they are left to their own devices, that they will act as we expect them to. We are training people who's alegances belong to several different interests. We can only direct their actions with a strong presence.

Once we leave - regardless how long we wait - and make these people suffer - they will go their own way. There will be some civil war battles - and Iraq with begin to recover. For now - its just a severly weakend country struggling to survive the occupation.

i just think that's blatently ignoring the goal...and that's with all due respect b/c you are clearly knowledgeble about the situation. research has show that people will accept democracy if they are convinced that they have a voice, and people need security from everyday thugs, i think we are making progress...unfortunately, the media is fixated on death tolls instead of reporting news, so i'm not so up to date as i should be.

Abuskedti · November 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

i just think that's blatently ignoring the goal...and that's with all due respect b/c you are clearly knowledgeble about the situation. research has show that people will accept democracy if they are convinced that they have a voice, and people need security from everyday thugs, i think we are making progress...unfortunately, the media is fixated on death tolls instead of reporting news, so i'm not so up to date as i should be.

Surely they want democracy. However, they hold some things higher. things they wont sacrifice.

I believe it is possible to bring democracy to Iraq. We need only two things - first we can not expect them to trust us when we don't care about their security. We need three times the number of troops in country to keep their streets safe. We don't care about their security - so they die every day because of the lack of law throughout the country

The second thing - perhaps more difficult - we need to learn to respect them and their decisions. Listen to their ideas and work with them - ranther than dictating.

Right now they can all have to be very careful how they are perceived - because there are many different groups killing and torturing people.

If we are unwilling to respect them enough to provide a reasonable amount of security - and yet continue to insult them by patroling their streets with weapons... we can not possibly win their trust.

and we are wasting out time, money lives and far more of their lives.

Purple Hawk · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

Surely they want democracy. However, they hold some things higher. things they wont sacrifice.

I believe it is possible to bring democracy to Iraq. We need only two things - first we can not expect them to trust us when we don't care about their security. We need three times the number of troops in country to keep their streets safe. We don't care about their security - so they die every day because of the lack of law throughout the country

The second thing - perhaps more difficult - we need to learn to respect them and their decisions. Listen to their ideas and work with them - ranther than dictating.

Right now they can all have to be very careful how they are perceived - because there are many different groups killing and torturing people.

If we are unwilling to respect them enough to provide a reasonable amount of security - and yet continue to insult them by patroling their streets with weapons... we can not possibly win their trust.

and we are wasting out time, money lives and far more of their lives.

With all due respect, i think you're criticisms are misplaced. I think we are on the same page...but training these people is taking some time.

at least we agree on the goal..b/c if i have to read one more "stay the course" post i'm going to slam my head against my george foreman grill.

bottom line: we are there, and we need to win. which means we have to train these guys, and it CAN be done.

Abuskedti · November 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

With all due respect, i think you're criticisms are misplaced. I think we are on the same page...but training these people is taking some time.

at least we agree on the goal..b/c if i have to read one more "stay the course" post i'm going to slam my head against my george foreman grill.

bottom line: we are there, and we need to win. which means we have to train these guys, and it CAN be done.

We are there.

Win what? I hope you haven't bought into the war on terror. Because world terrorism has less to do with Iraq than it does with Switzerland. The only thing we can possibly do is help Iraq recover from what we have done to them. We are currently not doing that. Training people to use a gun, to march and do some urban police manuvers is not enough.

If they can not go shopping or to school and feel safe - if they are not free to speak their mind - then they are not recovering and democracy is nowhere in sight.

It must start with secure streets. The Iraqi troops we train do not have the same vision for Iraq as us - how could they possibly? there are all manuvering for a piece of what is left.

we can only win by gaining their trust and respect. If we continue to allow 100 people killed and tourtured every week or so.. they will live in fear and continue to blame us... and resist us - however quietly...

Ahnimus · November 2006

This smells like Karl Rove.

It's a whisper campaign designed to covertly sway the voters. It doesn't have to be true, it's just designed to create doubt in the opposition.

Information is the answer to all our problems. Our minds are subject to information, when we learn something new it shifts our thinking. Whisper campaigns seek to cause a shift by introducing information, perhaps false or misleading.

If you think about it almost everything works in this way. The whole concept of court is utilizing information. Evidence, whitness testimony, motive. All have a set value in a court of law. However, politics affect those point values. E.g. a bloody glove as physical evidence can be devalued by claims of planted evidence. It doesn't matter how conclusive or factual the claim is, it serves it's purpose to lower the value of information with conflicting information. This happens in the minds of the jury.

The situation in the world, regarding terrorism, can be thought of the same way. "Terrorists" have received a life time of information drastically different than the western world. The conflicting information to their train of thought is insignificant. It's like throwing an acorn into the Grand Canyon. Our understanding of the situation can also be thought of the same way.

When a person decides to vote they may be faced with an information war in their minds. Many people avoid this conflict of information by simply choosing a set party and always voting for them. They look at the information once and make a decision that sticks, neglecting new information.

It's kind of a Hebbian theory of psychology. Things that fire together wire together. It's difficult for a person without that understanding to escape it.

That's my current train of thought, of course it's subject to persuasion. :cool:

Purple Hawk · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

We are there.

Win what? I hope you haven't bought into the war on terror. Because world terrorism has less to do with Iraq than it does with Switzerland. ...

Maybe it did at the time we went in, but to not realize that the central front on the war on terror is in Iraq is ignoring what al-Queda is saying themselves. don't believe me, or bush, or whoever, believe THEM...what they are saying.

i wasn't for the iraq war to begin with, and at that time it wasn't part of the war on terror...but it is now, and we don't have a time machine, so we need to deal with it...train the iraqi forces, and once we do that, we win.

again, i'm not sure why this is so hard to understand and frankly, the bush administration has done a crappy job of putting this objective forward.

Abuskedti · November 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

Maybe it did at the time we went in, but to not realize that the central front on the war on terror is in Iraq is ignoring what al-Queda is saying themselves. don't believe me, or bush, or whoever, believe THEM...what they are saying.

i wasn't for the iraq war to begin with, and at that time it wasn't part of the war on terror...but it is now, and we don't have a time machine, so we need to deal with it...train the iraqi forces, and once we do that, we win.

again, i'm not sure why this is so hard to understand and frankly, the bush administration has done a crappy job of putting this objective forward.

Thats just silly if only you do a little thinking. Do you really believe the terrorists are happy to have an opportunity to fight the United States in a conventional war? They are "Terrorists". The execute dramatic attacks to bring attention to their aganda. Iraq provides for them a pool of recruits and a wonderful consequence free practice field. their propaganda is designed to spread the news that America is the enemy and that we are helping fight them - when in fact the ones fighting are the locals and America's brave. And its only the ones fighting that are losing.

The terrorists win - their message proves right - and their numbers grow.

Bush wins - because he has engaged the angry yet disinterested American vote... he makes money for his supporters -

Iraq is not a war on Terror.. it is a war on Iraq.

DOSW · November 2006

In reply to the article:

The terrorists aren't idiots. If they really wanted the Democrats to win, they wouldn't say it. They know that if they actually said that, it would only help the Republican party.

That's why the entire article is a fake.

soulsinging · November 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

i just think that's blatently ignoring the goal...and that's with all due respect b/c you are clearly knowledgeble about the situation. research has show that people will accept democracy if they are convinced that they have a voice, and people need security from everyday thugs, i think we are making progress...unfortunately, the media is fixated on death tolls instead of reporting news, so i'm not so up to date as i should be.

and where is your proof? cos im not convinced they want democracy at all. i dont think they give a shit. i think they just want people to stop dying.

Open · November 2006

Purple Hawk wrote:

i just think that's blatently ignoring the goal...and that's with all due respect b/c you are clearly knowledgeble about the situation. research has show that people will accept democracy if they are convinced that they have a voice, and people need security from everyday thugs, i think we are making progress...unfortunately, the media is fixated on death tolls instead of reporting news, so i'm not so up to date as i should be.

"fixated on death tolls" i guess death tolls are only important when the death involves you,your family, or friends. If it's people on the other side of the world its just a number. This isnt a game we win or lose; it's life that we're losing.

Dirty Mosquito · November 2006

Abuskedti wrote:

Do you actually believe that any military action we take will lesson the likelyhood of a terrorist attack? The only way this Iraq war may prolong the time between random acts of terrorism - is that we are doing more damage to ourselves than any terrorist group could hope to.

No I don't. We aren't any safer since this war began. That's what I was trying to say...that terrorist acts are going to happen regardless of who's in office or where we stand in this war.

Insurgents and Terror leaders say they want the Democrats to win

Comments

Categories