Quote:
Originally posted by LaughingGravy
I think what Bot is trying to say is that by us taking out as much of the terrorist network as we have, most of their activities have been isolated to Iraq, trying to get the infidels out, where we can't tell who's who as easily, where most of their training has been, in the Arab countries. Compare that to here, where we're doing more in the way of bugging phones, etc. It's more difficult here. Though, in my opinion, it's still an easy thing with a little forethought and planning with our easy access to all kinds of gadgets here.
Bot, if I'm out of line, please advise.
|
Oh, yeah, they're all in Iraq. There's no resurgence of the Taliban in Afganistan, nobody's getting blown up in Spain or Saudi Arabia, those guys arrested in Bahrain didn't exist, and the U.S Army Intelligence report putting al-queda's world-wide strength at 18,000 people, they were just kidding. And Osama roaming around free in Pakistan, just some story the democrats made up. Yes, yes, invading Iraq has ended the al-Queda threat. Here guy's This One's for You! :
Here's the real truth, curtesy of the US Army: Hardly anyone they are fighting are "al-Queda" - thats as trumped up as this bull$hit war. We are fighting indigenous insurgents, people we would not be fighting if we hadn't invaded. Meanwhile, thousands of Al-queda ion Afganistan escaped into Pakistan because we did not have enough troops there. We let them go, we did not chase them, and who the hell knows where they are now, never mind what they might be doing. All this worked out that way because our president did not want to commit the number of troops required to catch him in Afganistan because he was already planning to send them to Iraq, even before he was sworn into office. He violated his oath to preserve and protect the United States so he could prosecute an unnecessary war, purposefully not dealing with the al-Queda network in Pakistan so he could have his war in Iraq , and some day we are going to pay for it.
Instead of Koolaid, try a little truth for a change -even tho its harder for some here to swallow:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040709_186.html
This fiction that somehow the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror has addled y'alls judgement. How about a few logical answers to a few little simple logical questions?
If most of our troops are tied down fighting Iraqi insurgents who were peaceful goat farmers before we arrived in Iraq how are they "fighting terrorists"?
If no one is fighting al-Queda in Pakistan, then how, pray tell, are we fighting a "War on Terror" ?
If the terrorists all got away in Afganistan:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html
what makes you think these same people are in Iraq, when even the US Army says they ain't? And if they ain't in Iraq where the fu*k are they ? Never in the history of this country have so many people put blinders on so they could follow a leader with his head so clearly up his ass. If we sent 200,000 troops to Afganistan, where we had NATO and UN support, chased him in to Pakistan if necessary, killed every last one of those Sons of *****es, we would not be discussing this now, and Georgie would be floating to re-election. Ask yourself - why wasn't this done? Why are we sitting here in fear and dread hoping one of our citys isn't attacked with Soviet poison gas from the caves of Afganistan or a uranium weapon coutesy of Pakistani intelligence? Why was this threat not eliminated - a freaking bunch of *******s who lives in caves, ignored so 200,000 men could occupy Iraq, 200,000 men whose main job is to stand around waiting to get shot or blown up by a damned goat farmer?