Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Bush has the US military and other ancillary forces out there killing Jihadists in places OTHER than the US. That, in and of itself, is a very good thing. Why? Because there's a limited supply of people willing to kill themselves for their religion, and every one of them we kill over there is one more we don't have to kill over here. Bush has parts of the third world scared to DEATH that we're going to go after them next. Why do you think Libya suddenly "saw the light" WRT their WMD program? It's because they didn't want us to stop on our way back from Iraq and kick the shit out of them on general principles. Getting the Libyan WMD program to go away is a good thing, and Bush didn't even have to invade Libya to do it.
Iraq and Afghanistan are essentially "jihadi sponges". They're sucking the whacked out fundie islamics who want to die gloriously into battle on almost equal terms which WE set, instead of allowing them to plot and attack our civilian population base on their terms. This in and of itself is a good thing for us, even though it's kind of hard on the Iraqi people.
|
<center>
According to our own military, your "sponges" don't seem to be soaking
up many foreign fighters or "jihadists". Your argument is flawed because
there are probably many more than the 19 people in the "cell" that attacked
us on 9/11, willing to martyr themselves now. 9/11 illustrated just how few terrorists<br> with a workable plan it actually takes to wreak havoc on our economy, our psyche,<br> and our leadership; compared to the the relatively few casualties and minimal property<br> damage that was caused, versus ithe new mindset that 9/11 triggered.<br> How many "Mohammed Atta types", supposedly believing in an immortality sweetened<br> by the company of 70 virgins, will Bush's policies and military actions actually "scare" into abandoning<br> their suicide saboteur strategy? I doubt that you can make these most <br>dangerous terrorists fear our military, or much else, since they have a "vision" of martyrdom.</center>
Quote:
nsurgents Are Mostly Iraqis, U.S. Military Says
Tue Sep 28, 7:55 AM ET
Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Los Angeles Times
By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The insistence by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and many U.S. officials that foreign fighters are streaming into Iraq (news - web sites) to battle American troops runs counter to the U.S. military's own assessment that the Iraqi insurgency remains primarily a home-grown problem.
In a U.S. visit last week, Allawi spoke of foreign insurgents "flooding" his country, and both President Bush (news - web sites) and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record), have cited these fighters as a major security problem.
But according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters is far less significant than American and Iraqi politicians portray. Instead, commanders said, loyalists of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government.
Foreign militants such as Jordanian-born Abu Musab Zarqawi are believed responsible for carrying out videotaped beheadings, suicide car bombings and other high-profile attacks. But U.S. military officials said Iraqi officials tended to exaggerate the number of foreign fighters in Iraq to obscure the fact that large numbers of their countrymen have taken up arms against U.S. troops and the American-backed interim Iraqi government.
"They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and fomenting all this violence. We don't think so," said a senior military official in Baghdad. "What's the main threat? It's internal."........ <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=30&u=/latimests/20040928/ts_latimes/insurgentsaremostlyiraqisusmilitarysays">link</a>
|