A US Marine Speaks Out

[menewa]

Originally posted by ajwps
In fact? Whose facts? Are you having trouble counting? Give some site or proof of this allegation. What facts do you have that gives any correlation between Bush's policies and terrorist attacks?

In fact, attempting to link GW Bush's policies with terrorist acts is the equivalent of linking birth defects and moon beams. There is no connection other than your hatred of Bush.

I posted a link earlier in the thread. Do you not read the threads either?

And you used a typepad blog to counter the legitamacy of the commission.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by menewa
I posted a link earlier in the thread. Do you not read the threads either?

And you used a typepad blog to counter the legitamacy of the commission.

I carefully read your site. It said two significant things.

1) The number of terrorist attacks have increased over the last 21 years but that does not take into account the Islamic terrorist attacks preceeding that 21 year period plus those occurring during that 21 year period.

from your site:

The number of people killed in terrorist attacks worldwide still declined in 2003 when compared with 2002.....

Maybe Mr. Bush's policies caused this worldwide decrease in terrorist deaths?

2) There is no evidence of correlation between cause (Bush's policies) and effect (terrorist attacks).

And you think that a Senate Committees findings are based only on what is available to them during their hearings and what is found to have been unavailable now or information that comes to light at a later date.

Do you really believe that there were no Islamic terrorist activities before 21 years ago? You really should stay away from that firewater.

 

[TheOne]

The number of terrorist attacks are up in 2003. The disputed notion is whether the actions of the Bush administration are the cause to that effect. I find that to be irrelevant.

We should be seeing a decline in terrorist activities and a weakening of the Al Qaeda organization, especially close to three years after the 9/11 attack. While reports have claimed that 2/3 to 3/4 of Al Qaeda's previous leadership hierarchy are dead or in custody, Jane's Defense Intelligence, the world reknowned military analysis organization, states that Al Qaeda is actually stronger now.

With Bin Laden and his number one guy, and Omar, the Taliban leader still unaccounted for, how can any rational person claim that 1) we are safer and 2) we are winning the War on Terror?

The insurgents in Iraq are thought mainly to be ex-Baathists and former Republican Guard elements and their numbers in the area of 20,000 or greater. What's more, it is beleived they cannot be militarily defeated .

What am I missing here?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by TheOne
The number of terrorist attacks are up in 2003. The disputed notion is whether the actions of the Bush administration are the cause to that effect. I find that to be irrelevant.

We should be seeing a decline in terrorist activities and a weakening of the Al Qaeda organization, especially close to three years after the 9/11 attack. While reports have claimed that 2/3 to 3/4 of Al Qaeda's previous leadership hierarchy are dead or in custody, Jane's Defense Intelligence, the world reknowned military analysis organization, states that Al Qaeda is actually stronger now.

With Bin Laden and his number one guy, and Omar, the Taliban leader still unaccounted for, how can any rational person claim that 1) we are safer and 2) we are winning the War on Terror?

The insurgents in Iraq are thought mainly to be ex-Baathists and former Republican Guard elements and their numbers in the area of 20,000 or greater. What's more, it is beleived they cannot be militarily defeated .

What am I missing here?

you are assuming that AQ is the only terrorist organization in the world. bad assumption. you are assuming that the terrorist attacks were only Islamic terrorist attacks. You are making a lot of assumptions that are making an ASS outta you.

 

[TheOne]

you are assuming that AQ is the only terrorist organization in the world. bad assumption. you are assuming that the terrorist attacks were only Islamic terrorist attacks. You are making a lot of assumptions that are making an ASS outta you.

Can you demonstrate that the rise in terror attacks actually show a decline in Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda related organization's activity and that the rise in attacks in 2003 are really the result of non-Islamic terrorist activity? Or will you be satisfied with just drive by ad hominem attacks to "prove" your point?

Can I also "assume" you can't refute my assertion based on any facts?

Nice motto you have under your name there, btw.....

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I'm simply making a logical connection. Bush illegally invades a Muslim nation

Illegally? What would have made it legal? UN approval? The UN is a joke. Even after oil-for-fraud and having Cuba, Sudan, and Syria on the human rights commission, people still think that UN is legitimate.

Even after all the broken UN resolutions, the deaths Saddam has caused, the threat that Democrats, world leaders, and many others said that Iraq posed, people still say it was illegal. I also get tired of hearing how the US decided to "go it alone" when many nations helped. Sure, they might not send thousands upon thousands of soldiers but they are helping nonetheless and they'd probably appreciate it if people would give them some credit.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by TheOne
The number of terrorist attacks are up in 2003. The disputed notion is whether the actions of the Bush administration are the cause to that effect. I find that to be irrelevant.

We should be seeing a decline in terrorist activities and a weakening of the Al Qaeda organization, especially close to three years after the 9/11 attack. While reports have claimed that 2/3 to 3/4 of Al Qaeda's previous leadership hierarchy are dead or in custody, Jane's Defense Intelligence, the world reknowned military analysis organization, states that Al Qaeda is actually stronger now.

With Bin Laden and his number one guy, and Omar, the Taliban leader still unaccounted for, how can any rational person claim that 1) we are safer and 2) we are winning the War on Terror?

The insurgents in Iraq are thought mainly to be ex-Baathists and former Republican Guard elements and their numbers in the area of 20,000 or greater. What's more, it is beleived they cannot be militarily defeated .

What am I missing here?

It seems that you are missing an important fact. Janes Military Analyst Organization was started in 1898 by Fred T. Janes. Your Janes site is from Webindia instead of a source not known to me or many others until this very day.

From the Janes site information on this RELIABE SOURCE, the following infomation was gleaned.

The singular mind of Fred T. was never at rest. A well-known hoaxer and self-publicist, he had a reputation for "kidnapping" people. Among his detainees was a waiter suspected to be a German spy. But even that episode turned to Fred T.'s advantage. The resulting publicity produced a flood of mail naming other "spies". Fred T. handed this information over to the War Office, and the informants were passed on when the famous British security service, MI5, was founded shortly afterwards.

Fred T. was a prolific writer as well as artist. Many of his works fell in the realm of science fiction....

I have never seen this source of military intelligence quoted, used by or referenced by any reputable source.

Just today one of Osama's head men turned himself into Saudi Arabia because of health problems. Apparently he could not obtain adequate health care under a rock in Pakistan or Afghanastan.

Terrorist attacks are not due to a single titular head like Osama Bin Laden but are semi-autonomous groups funded by many Islamic oil countries and front organizations like the Tide Foundation of which Mrs. John Kerry (wife of presidentail hopeful John Kerry) contributes large sums of money.

The fact that a large percentage of Al-Quaida have been covertly eliminated does not eliminate terrorist attacks. There are many more underlings in the wings waiting to take their places.

The fact that America has not had one terrorist attack gives some credence to the fact that there is something to this Homeland Security and their covert activities.

Remember the number of attacks in 2003 was well under 200 small and large attacks. For some reason, the terrrorists, be they Islamic or Japanese terrorists or Chechynian (Muslim) terrorist groups is irrelevant.

What you are seeing in these few years is a snapshot of a new world movment meant to destabilize the civilized nations of the world.

All in all they are not succeeding.

 

[TheOne]

I have never seen this source of military intelligence quoted, used by or referenced by any reputable source.

That doesn't mean it isn't true .

Jane’s Information Group is a world leading provider of intelligence and analysis on national and international defence, security and risk developments. Jane’s is an independent organisation with an unrivalled reputation of accuracy, authority and impartiality.

LINK

From my many years working in the Pentagon, I can assure you, Jane's is the de facto standard defense analysis organization.

Just today one of Osama's head men turned himself into Saudi Arabia because of health problems. Apparently he could not obtain adequate health care under a rock in Pakistan or Afghanastan.

If you are refering to al Harbi, American officials don't believe he was involved on an operational level with Al Qaeda. Do you think he may have turned himself in because of the amnesty program that Saudi Arabia is offering. You are aware that half of all Saudi Arabia have a favorable veiw of Bin Laden and his rhetoric, right?

The fact that America has not had one terrorist attack gives some credence to the fact that there is something to this Homeland Security and their covert activities.

So, if you are hunkered down in a bunker, yet your enemy continues to gain strength and multiply around you, attacking other freinds, you perceive that to be a victory?

What you are seeing in these few years is a snapshot of a new world movment meant to destabilize the civilized nations of the world.

All in all they are not succeeding.

Tell that to Jose Maria Aznar.

 

[menewa]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
Illegally? What would have made it legal? UN approval? The UN is a joke. Even after oil-for-fraud and having Cuba, Sudan, and Syria on the human rights commission, people still think that UN is legitimate.

Without even the existence of the UN, this war remains illegal. We invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us nor any of our allies. And do you really think this war was about liberation? There is no such thing. War is about profits and power. It always has and it always will be. There have been a few exceptions, but this is not one of them.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by TheOne

That doesn't mean it isn't

Nor does it mean that Jane's opinions are necessarily true.

Jane’s Information Group is a world leading provider of intelligence and analysis on national and international defence, security and risk developments. Jane’s is an independent organisation with an unrivalled reputation of accuracy, authority and impartiality.

Apparently Janes is a paid for service information group of consultants that are not listed on their web site. But Janes claims to be impartial and use comphrensive interpretation and independent determination of everything from military events in every country of the world to local traffic evaluations is a bit of a stretch. They also admit that their information comes off the shelf and then interpreted by their independent and unbaised consultants (unknown). The fact that they do not list their extensive consultants is highly suspect at the very best.

TheOne, there is no service that is totally accurate, authoritative or impartial. All one has to do is look at the CIA scandals and the Pentagon's admitted faulty determination of intel.

There is no valid connection between causation and correllation between George W. Bush's policy and increased terrorism around the world.

From my many years working in the Pentagon, I can assure you, Jane's is the de facto standard defense analysis organization.

If you worked for any period of time at the Pentagon, your assurances alone gives one pause to place any credibility in your declartion of fact. Are you implying that Janes (a paid for information) service is the de facto source for the United States Pentagon for information? If this be the case, then this country is definitely in a great deal of trouble.

If you are refering to al Harbi, American officials don't believe he was involved on an operational level with Al Qaeda. Do you think he may have turned himself in because of the amnesty program that Saudi Arabia is offering. You are aware that half of all Saudi Arabia have a favorable veiw of Bin Laden and his rhetoric,

Not at all. Al Harbi turned himself in to his Saudi friends and the allies of Bin Laden because of his serious health status. I doubt that Saudi Arabia will do anything but treat him as royality even though the terrorists are now threatening the Royal Saudi family because of their western society direction and a slap in the face of radical world Islam. The Royal family is not anxious to have an all out war against the Islamic terrorist groups cleansing the world for Muhammad the last prophet.

So, if you are hunkered down in a bunker, yet your enemy continues to gain strength and multiply around you, attacking other freinds, you perceive that to be a victory? Tell that to Jose Maria Aznar.

I believe that you, like many, are giving the Islamic enemy of mankind a bit to much tribute to these new world order killers.

That bunker you referred to is the United States and its allies around the world. A gun is being placed to the head of the world of infidels (unbelievers in Islam) in an attempt to convert the world to their beliefs. It is apparent that, with the exception of Spain and their giving into destruction blackmail with their new Islam friend Jose Aznar, the world is actually fighting back against this new type of enemy who attacks from ambush.

Your opinion may be that this 14th century religion is gaining strenth and multiplying around the world while it is my view that this is not the case at all. You may have worked in the Pentagon but you are oblivous to the fact that the world is not all giving into this murderous blackmail from within.

With the help of G-d and advanced technology, these primitive barbarians are giving every indication of imploding. The world of Islam is taking note of the first rapid destruction of two main power bases of their faith by the infidel army.

The 'enemy' strikes out in increased terror attacks as they realize that the 'will of Allah' has not helped them. My analogy is like a beehive that is knocked down with a large stick. The bees strike out in a frenzied fury striking (attacking) at everything in site.

Ultimately, the bees (Islam) seem to dissipate and disappear in the sands of history. History does seem to repeat itself especially if no one takes the effort to remember.

It is my personal opinion (not Janes) that western technology is so advanced that none of us ordinary folks have any awareness of what the west is capable of doing to these believers in Muhammad.

If a monkey pokes a lion with a stick long enough to arouse the king of beasts, he will finally awake from his slumber (lethargy) and eat the little monkey who thinks he has the ability to destroy the lion from his place in the jungle.

For some unknown reason, George W. Bush uses his power and initiative to strike at the heart of the monkey who strikes America and allies with a stick (09/11).

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by menewa

Without even the existence of the UN, this war remains illegal. We invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us nor any of our allies. And do you really think this war was about liberation? There is no such thing. War is about profits and power. It always has and it always will be. There have been a few exceptions, but this is not one of them.

You are apparently very dense. You talk about things that are illegal. Like you think there is some kind of world law marshall who arrests or shoots those who you deem to be criminals.

The United States remains the sole remaining super power in the world. George W. Bush and the US Congress deemed that we had been attacked by Islamic radical terrorists.

You fail to appreciate pre-emptive strikes that prevent greater disasters to free people around the world.

President Bush states correctly that western society is in a WAR against those who would destroy those who don't believe in Muhammad's bible. Mr. Bush warns that this war is not going to be easy, cheap or short but will take time to destroy all those who wish to destroy us.

It is obvious that this fact angers you and the Islamic world. Everyone understands that you and your friends would like to have a free reign to destroy mankind but you whine and bleat when you get back what your people sow. Islam sees their religious duty to destroy the freedom and dignity of mankind.

As you say, this war is neither about liberation nor is it about power, WMDs, conquest or acquisition of petroleum. This WAR is a fight for our lives. This fact strikes fear in the hearts of the Imams and Clerics of Islam. Islam has waited a long time to strike at the heart of those who have passed into the 21st century and left the Muslims and Arabs behind in a much earlier century.

In WW2 Japan thought the very same way and attacked with suicide bombers from ambush. Admiral Hirohito knew the Americans and the world. He knew that Japan was simply 'waking a sleeping giant.'

Now you and your brothers are about to learn the same lesson.

 

[Yurt]

Impressed!

 

[Yurt]

Originally posted by Yurt
Impressed, ajwps!

forgive my blunder, i meant only to edit my reply

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by menewa
I'm simply making a logical connection. Bush illegally invades a Muslim nation and suddenly the number of terrorist attacks increase more than it has in the past two decades. It might be plain coincidence, but my neurons tell me otherwise.

By similar logic, Roosevelt's decision to join the war against germany resulted in hitler scrapping his plans to send the jews to Africa, beginning the massacre of Jews at death camps.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by menewa
Without even the existence of the UN, this war remains illegal. We invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us nor any of our allies. And do you really think this war was about liberation? There is no such thing. War is about profits and power. It always has and it always will be. There have been a few exceptions, but this is not one of them.

Right...you keep using that word illegal. I dont think it means what you think it means.

If its illegal to attack a soviergn nation then no war would be legal period. And even using your conditions, both Iraq and Aghanistan were justified.

Aghanistan justified because of 911 directly

Iraq was justified because they did invade our ally, Kuwait. The conditions they agreed to for the ceasefire was not lived up to, therefore legally the Ceasefire Agreement is null and void and we simply finished what we began when we liberated Kuwait.

I have to say i love how you try to explain the motives of the US contrary to what we believe are the motives. I dont know about everyone else, but im American and I supported the war to liberate the nations. So yes this war was about liberating the people. And now the Iraqis are profiting from the liberation. Isnt that wonderful

(On a side note. what the heck is wrong with making money anyway?)

 

[NightTrain]

Nice post, AJ.

You're pretty radical and go overboard, but to quote a resident knucklehead, "I can dig it."


Menewa : Explain exactly how this was an illegal war. It seems clear to me that you believe that there is a written law that has been broken by GWB.

Either admit that the war is unjust in your opinion, or provide a link to the written law / treaty / pact that the USA is signatory or subject to that states the Iraq War was illegal.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NightTrain
Nice post, AJ.

You're pretty radical and go overboard, but to quote a resident knucklehead, "I can dig it."


Menewa : Explain exactly how this was an illegal war. It seems clear to me that you believe that there is a written law that has been broken by GWB.

Either admit that the war is unjust in your opinion, or provide a link to the written law / treaty / pact that the USA is signatory or subject to that states the Iraq War was illegal.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the compliment NightTrain. But the observation of one being radical is actually a very subjective perception.

Would you consider the late Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer or Mahatma Ghandi as having radical views?

Actually these now three deceased people considered radicals is all from the point of view by others who see them as extremists with radical theories far from their own ideologies.

A radical is one of whom people say “He goes too far.” A conservative, on the other hand, is one who “doesn’t go far enough.” Then there is the reactionary, “one who doesn’t go at all.” All these terms are more or less objectionable, wherefore we have coined the term “progressive.” I should say that a progressive is one who insists upon recognizing new facts as they present themselves—one who adjusts to these new facts.

ATTRIBUTION: Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924)

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by nbdysfu

By similar logic, Roosevelt's decision to join the war against germany resulted in hitler scrapping his plans to send the jews to Africa, beginning the massacre of Jews at death camps.

Actually Hitler's decision to transfer the Jewish population out of Europe effectively came to an end in 1940 and the United States entry into the war began in December of 1941. So the correlation is inaccurate.

When you talk about Islam and their terrorist war against humanity, you must realize that you are not talking about rational human beings but more closely resembling mind-numbed killer-bees. Killer-bees, unlike their helpful bee cousins who go about benignly making honey and pollinating flowers, blindly strike out stinging any living thing and in the process kill themselves leaving part of their organs with the stinger and kill everything around them.

As long as you leave the killer-bees alone, they continue to multiply, migrate across the landscape of the world and kill everything in their surrounding world including men, women and children.

If man knocks down their nest, they immediately go about increasing their attacks against anyone close around, like Islamic terrorists, until finally these many killers are destroyed by man and they are no more. The killer bees increase their activities when attacked and now the Muslim terror attacks increase as their nests are being 'knocked down.'

How does one equate mindless Islamic terrorist attacks with mindless killer-bee attacks? How can any human become a mindless killer of men, women and children?

It seems that Muslim children are taught from the day of their birth only one thing. They are taught to read only the Qur'anic injunctions to kill the infidels and from their mother's breast they are taught that their greatest goal in life is giving their life for their god allah while destroying any non-Muslim with them.

They are not taught anything about the sanctity of human life, freedom, the right to seek happiness in this life like the remainder of humanity.

In effect, they are programmed or brainwashed from birth to become exactly what you see of them today. Islamic Mullahs have only one problem with this brainwashing technique. Once these mind-numbed Arabs have seen and experienced what we consider normal life, individual freedoms and modern lifestyles they sometimes come out of their mind-dead brain state foresaking their entire life's singular goal.

That frightens the Mullahs and Clerics of Islam more than even George W. Bush.

 

[TheOne]

Originally posted by ajwps


Apparently Janes is a paid for service information group of consultants that are not listed on their web site. But Janes claims to be impartial and use comphrensive interpretation and independent determination of everything from military events in every country of the world to local traffic evaluations is a bit of a stretch. They also admit that their information comes off the shelf and then interpreted by their independent and unbaised consultants (unknown). The fact that they do not list their extensive consultants is highly suspect at the very best.

TheOne, there is no service that is totally accurate, authoritative or impartial. All one has to do is look at the CIA scandals and the Pentagon's admitted faulty determination of intel.

ajwps, with all due respect, you questioned my source originally because it was secondarily posted on WebIndia. I referenced the original source, Jane's Defense Weekly, and now you wish to cast aspersions on it's objectivity. Any other person who has any military experience, especially at the officer level, will attest that Jane's is a trusted source for unbiased, accurate information regarding global military strengths. I advise you to talk to people with experience in the US military since you don't trust me on this. Obviously, you have very little knowledge of the inner working of the US Defense Department.

The bottom line is that I have met the burden of proof by providing a credible source.

Originally posted by ajwps
There is no valid connection between causation and correllation between George W. Bush's policy and increased terrorism around the world.

While this is true, this is not what we should be proving. As I stated before, this is irrelevant. If you recall, when the State Department erred with it's original report, The Patterns of Global Terrorism, released on April 29th, 2004, Cofer Black, the State Department's ambassador at large for counterterrorism, told a news conference that he attributed the decrease to "unprecedented collaboration between the United States and foreign partners to defeat terrorism."

LINK


When the report was corrected to show the INCREASE in terror in 2003, does it stand to reason that what Cofer Black had stated is not only false, but the opposite is true? If not, then at any point in the future, if the rate of terrorist attacks DO decline, there will be no causal connection to the Bush policy on terror. Would you agree?

Originally posted by ajwps
If you worked for any period of time at the Pentagon, your assurances alone gives one pause to place any credibility in your declartion of fact. Are you implying that Janes (a paid for information) service is the de facto source for the United States Pentagon for information? If this be the case, then this country is definitely in a great deal of trouble.

Jane's is a trusted reference on guaging another nation's defense assets and has been proven relatively accurate for over a century. It may surprise you that CNN is a valuable source of current events at the Pentagon and most offices have a TV tuned to it. This is not to say that other "sources" of information are not available, but I can't and won't get into those for obvious reasons. I am not resting my arguments on my experiences though and I really don't care if you don't believe where I have worked. I have referenced, credible, viable sources which you can't discredit, you have referenced nothing but your own rhetoric.

Originally posted by ajwps
Not at all. Al Harbi turned himself in to his Saudi friends and the allies of Bin Laden because of his serious health status. I doubt that Saudi Arabia will do anything but treat him as royality even though the terrorists are now threatening the Royal Saudi family because of their western society direction and a slap in the face of radical world Islam. The Royal family is not anxious to have an all out war against the Islamic terrorist groups cleansing the world for Muhammad the last prophet.

Al Harbi is purported to have lost both his legs and been paralyzed by a bullet to the spine in the USSR/Afghan war. I can't find any references to his surrender being health related though. I can't understand why you wouldn't attribute his surrender to the one month amnesty window that was offered though. Especially since he said so himself .

Saudi and Iranian officials -- and Harbi himself -- said on Tuesday he took advantage of a Saudi amnesty announced on June 23. Saudi Arabia said he had been in the Iran-Afghan border region when he contacted the Saudi embassy in Iran to surrender.

Originally posted by ajwps
I believe that you, like many, are giving the Islamic enemy of mankind a bit to much tribute to these new world order killers.

That bunker you referred to is the United States and its allies around the world. A gun is being placed to the head of the world of infidels (unbelievers in Islam) in an attempt to convert the world to their beliefs. It is apparent that, with the exception of Spain and their giving into destruction blackmail with their new Islam friend Jose Aznar, the world is actually fighting back against this new type of enemy who attacks from ambush.

How am I giving them tribute? By stating the facts that they are growing and the current US policy is ineffective? Is it wise to deny the facts and continue making the same mistakes until it is too late? I am not sure I understand your point here.

The "bunker" I refered to was an analogy to counter the assertion that you made when you declared the war on terror was being won because the US had not suffered an attack on domestic soil since 9/11/2001. I found your argument lacking as a pillar of your opinion that the US was winning the War on Terror. I guess I could use your argument though. Prove to me that the absence of an attack on the US by terrorists is the result of the Bush War on Terror?

By the way, how exactly is Jose Maria Aznar a "new Islam freind"? This is a puzzling statement.

Originally posted by ajwps
Your opinion may be that this 14th century religion is gaining strenth and multiplying around the world while it is my view that this is not the case at all. You may have worked in the Pentagon but you are oblivous to the fact that the world is not all giving into this murderous blackmail from within.

With the help of G-d and advanced technology, these primitive barbarians are giving every indication of imploding. The world of Islam is taking note of the first rapid destruction of two main power bases of their faith by the infidel army.

The 'enemy' strikes out in increased terror attacks as they realize that the 'will of Allah' has not helped them. My analogy is like a beehive that is knocked down with a large stick. The bees strike out in a frenzied fury striking (attacking) at everything in site.

Ultimately, the bees (Islam) seem to dissipate and disappear in the sands of history. History does seem to repeat itself especially if no one takes the effort to remember.

It is my personal opinion (not Janes) that western technology is so advanced that none of us ordinary folks have any awareness of what the west is capable of doing to these believers in Muhammad.

If a monkey pokes a lion with a stick long enough to arouse the king of beasts, he will finally awake from his slumber (lethargy) and eat the little monkey who thinks he has the ability to destroy the lion from his place in the jungle.

For some unknown reason, George W. Bush uses his power and initiative to strike at the heart of the monkey who strikes America and allies with a stick (09/11).

First off, I'm not sure what "14th century religion" you are referring to. Is it Islam? I thought Islam had it's roots in the 6th and 7th century. Secondly, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and the United States. Did you know that 85% of the US mosques have been built in the last 20 years?

Mainly, I am shocked you have perceived the war on terror to be a war on Islam. Are you a religious bigot? These people, the ones who are commiting acts of terrorism in the "name" of Allah, are a very small percentage of the generally peace loving Muslims around the world. Even Bush agrees with this.

America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam, which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. --George W. Bush December, 2002

Islam did not attack us on 9/11. You really need to understand that if you want to have any chance whatsoever to win the war on terror. I have no idea what religion you belong to, but I advise you to consider embracing your peaceful Muslim neighbor and working together with him to make the world a better place.

One more thing, in a previous post, I forgot to ask you about this:

Originally posted by ajwps Terrorist attacks are not due to a single titular head like Osama Bin Laden but are semi-autonomous groups funded by many Islamic oil countries and front organizations like the Tide Foundation of which Mrs. John Kerry (wife of presidentail hopeful John Kerry) contributes large sums of money.

Do you have any proof of this? This is very interesting and you provided no link.

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by ajwps
If man knocks down [the killer bees'] nest, they immediately go about increasing their attacks against anyone close around, like Islamic terrorists, until finally these many killers are destroyed by man and they are no more. The killer bees increase their activities when attacked and now the Muslim terror attacks increase as their nests are being 'knocked down.'

I, for one, am sick of the whole claim that we have created more terrorists than we are taking care of. I think the increase in attacks is more a sign of desperation as we are tightening our grasp. Most likely, the war on terror, like many things in life, by nature must get worse before it gets better. Let's just make sure we don't give up when it gets worse...or it will never get better.

-Douglas