From a Terrorist Forum: Al Qaeda Strategy in Iraq Is Destroyed, What Can We Do? (We= Terrorists)

August 28 2007 | jveritas

[George W. Bush]

In the meantime, please do not disturb the Americans who are busy killing his terrorists.

And how many terrorists did you kill today sitting in front of your keyboard?

[Maelstrom]

The military isn’t about to leave Iraq because of the incompetence and impotence of terrorists.

However, they might be forced out of Iraq if the political battle against liberal whackadoodles here in the states is lost.

While I will never kill a single terrorist sitting behind a keyboard, I can prevent YOU from saving thousands of terrorists by bringing to bear enough political pressure to drive the US military out of Iraq.

It’ll have to do.

[Maelstrom]

Besides...if I did kill a terrorist your peers would lynch me for murder.

[shield]

Great to hear. Good work, FRiend.

[George W. Bush]

I can prevent YOU from saving thousands of terrorists by bringing to bear enough political pressure to drive the US military out of Iraq.

So the battle for Iraq will be won or lost on FreeRepublic.com? LOL. What a loon.

So if you break a nail typing furiously, will you be awarded a Purple Heart?

[George W. Bush]

Besides...if I did kill a terrorist your peers would lynch me for murder.

I don't recall anyone ever objecting to terrorists getting killed.

[Maelstrom]

The battle for Iraq will be won or lost in America, just like the battle for Vietnam was lost in America.

I think you already knew that...

[George W. Bush]

Uh, right. Won or lost in America. At a keyboard.

[Maelstrom]

Here:

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=270702

Military hearing may test war laws

By Kevin Maurer
Staff writer

There is no question that Master Sgt. Troy Anderson shot Nawab Buntangyar in front of his compound near the Afghan-Pakistani border.

There also is no debate that Nawab was known to be a “bad guy” — an enemy who helped arm suicide bombers and who was on a list of the most dangerous insurgent leaders in Afghanistan.

The question facing an Army investigator at Fort Bragg in the coming weeks is whether Anderson and his commander, Capt. Dave Staffel, were acting within the rules of engagement when they killed Nawad.

[Maelstrom]

Quite frequently propagandists deny that their efforts have an effect.

The military, however, refers to propaganda as “psyops” otherwise known as Psychological operations against a population.

Psyops are a known method of battle against an opponent as old as Sun Tzu.

Clauswitz teaches us that war is politics. This is never more true than in a war such as that in Iraq where the terrorists do not have any significant military capability and must rely wholly upon the political impact of their bloodletting to win their objectives.

The terrorists, after all, can bring to bear zero pressure against the US military in Iraq. They can spell enough blood to fuel a political battle within America.

The only question left is ... why are you fighting for the terrorists objectives by attacking those of us working to clarify, and thereby mitigate the political efforts on the terrorists’ behalf?

[Cementjungle]

...heading toward Mosul which is their last bastion.

Perhaps some of our fine Marines will be there to greet you.

[George W. Bush]

There is no question that Master Sgt. Troy Anderson shot Nawab Buntangyar in front of his compound near the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Good. Give him a medal and a promotion. Next.

You'll find I have no objections to killing terrorists whatsoever. I do want the main terrorist, Osama, killed the most. As many times as possible. In humiliation. Drowned in pig's blood, whatever you like.

It's a very poor record for any U.S. president to leave alive and unpunished those who kill any Americans anywhere in the world, let alone 3,000 citizens in one of our largest cities.

[Maelstrom]

Someone does...but it has been noted that you skipped that part.

Your focus on Osama indicates a dangerous short-sightedness.

Osama, you see...didn’t pilot a single freaking plane. Killing Osama doesn’t end a single terrorist threat, because, you see, Osama has been neutered in his ability to accomplish anything.

As soon as he tries, we can find him and kill him.

[jveritas]

And this will happen for sure. The terrorists lost the support of the Sunni Arabs, and because of this they are finished, now they are left for our troops to annihilate them at a very fast rate.

God bless our brave troops and President Bush.

[George W. Bush]

Quite frequently propagandists deny that their efforts have an effect.

We can never be too paranoid. LOL.

Psyops are a known method of battle against an opponent as old as Sun Tzu.

Okay.

Clauswitz teaches us that war is politics.

Well, first he'd probably teach you to spell his name correctly. I assume you're trying to quote that old line of his about "war is merely a continuation of politics" and the variations of it. There are many misconceptions about Vom Krieg because it is written in an early dialectical style. The phrase actually is not Clausewitz's real point though it is often misused by those who don't grasp the literary style of the era. The famously quoted phrase you reference is actually the antithesis of Clausewitz's argument. His thesis is "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, Zweikampf] on a larger scale." His antithesis is the famous "war is merely a continuation of politics". His synthesis (conclusion) is that war is neither mere brute force and chance nor merely policy and politics. But then, the single cynical juicy quote works well for those who don't really care or understand what his point was anyway. You see this same kind of shallow anachronistic reading applied to Machiavelli's The Prince and his lesser known but far finer Discourses On Livy and his later eight volumes of Florentine history.

The terrorists, after all, can bring to bear zero pressure against the US military in Iraq. They can spell enough blood to fuel a political battle within America.

Since our borders are open and we are known to be infiltrated by Muslims and others from recognized terror states as well as the threat from internal Muslim elements, it is not especially compelling to argue that Iraq is where we are likely to face the threat of terrorism. It is from internal terrorist elements, generally of Muslim descent, possibly self-radicalized in admiration of Osama or as sleeper cells planted here by him years ago or by students and others who violate visas and hang around sensitive installations, take aircraft training, etc.

The only question left is ... why are you fighting for the terrorists objectives by attacking those of us working to clarify, and thereby mitigate the political efforts on the terrorists’ behalf?

This is the tail end of a thread no one is even reading. Nothing you or I say at this point is likely to be read by anyone other than ourselves. So I don't think the outcome of the war in Iraq is going to hinge on my next two hundred keystrokes. Or yours. That's just delusional. We are civilians after all. If you want to fight so badly, go enlist.

[Maelstrom]

You’re wrong about terrorists working in the US.

Saddam Hussein called for jihad when the US invaded.

Al Qaeda answered that call.

It is in Iraq that more Al Qaeda terrorists have been killed or captured than anywhere else in the world.

This leaves second-rate terrorists who are captured in the US, usually before they have been able to enact any plan...but plans that have been made nonetheless.

I also believe you’re wrong about this thread. I have a point in keeping you in it. At the very least, it keeps you from undermining the US in other threads.

[Maelstrom]

Ah yes...and finally...it is a matter of fact, not opinion, that the US military cannot be challenged, militarily by the terrorists in Iraq.

That leaves the full power terrorists have against this nation relegated to political discourse.

The terrorists did their homework, and openly admit that their intention is to use the liberals and other useful idiots who handed Vietnam to the communists to also give Al Qaeda power in Iraq.

[George W. Bush]

Someone does...but it has been noted that you skipped that part.

Then write them a letter and stop complaining to me. I'm not the one who has a problem with it.

Osama, you see...didn’t pilot a single freaking plane. Killing Osama doesn’t end a single terrorist threat, because, you see, Osama has been neutered in his ability to accomplish anything.

And Hitler didn't pull a trigger, fly a plane, or gas any Jews either. Osama issued the fatwa that authorizes jihad against us, a prerequisite for unlimited holy war upon an enemy to Moslems. He inspires and incites the Muslim hordes to kill us. The very fact we have not apprehended him gives him an aura of divine protection ("even the Great Satan cannot find the holy Osama, the holy warrior of Allah, blah-blah-blah"). As soon as he tries, we can find him and kill him.

Here's a clue: he already killed 3,000 of us and, six years later, he's still alive and you still think it's all about Iraq.

Talk about complacency. Perhaps if he inspires some Saudi billionaire to buy a few Paki or old Soviet nukes and explode them in D.C., NYC, Chicago, or L.A., you might realize that such people should not be allowed to live. As I said earlier, it's like letting Hitler escape just because he hasn't killed any Jews lately.

[George W. Bush]

Saddam Hussein called for jihad when the US invaded.

Saddam was a hardened socialist and opponent of al-Qaeda operating in Iraq. As with the Saudis, these regimes recognize al-Qaeda is a direct threat to them. al-Qaeda constantly condemned them (including the Saudis) for being unworthy Muslims and whose rule must be ended to open the path to the Caliphate.

Al Qaeda answered that call.

Some terrorists from many Muslim and a few Western nations came. Very few were true Osama-led al-Qaeda. Now, it is down to mostly some north Africans and a bunch of Saudis, slipping in from Damascus over the border. It is in Iraq that more Al Qaeda terrorists have been killed or captured than anywhere else in the world.

Only because we have so far refused to pursue them to their source: Saudi Arabia and the tribal areas of Waziristan, choosing instead to attack Iraq in an attempt to re-make the Mideast, using Iraq/Afghanistan as a pincers against Iran.

This leaves second-rate terrorists who are captured in the US

All of the 9/11 terrorists were also second-rate. But they killed 3,000 people. We are still highly vulnerable and largely unprotected from real threats, both internal and external.

I also believe you’re wrong about this thread. I have a point in keeping you in it. At the very least, it keeps you from undermining the US in other threads.

Fine. Type away. At some point, I'll get bored with your variations on the same points or you'll get bored with mine.

[Maelstrom]

When did I say it was all about Iraq?

I would say that Iraq was where Al Qaeda chose to go to die against US soldiers.

So far, they have not managed to cause more deaths than happened accidentally during peacetime.

We’re still going after Osama bin Laden. Your whining seems to evoke a pie-in-the-sky wish that we would ignore Iraq and Afghanistan to find an old man slowly dying in his own urine, who dares not poke his head out of a cave.

I like your analogy with Nazi Germany though...why don’t you show a little unity against the terrorists as the US did against all the Axis powers, including Japan...you’ve failed to do so little in this thread.

Finally, one more thing I believe you overlooked with your analogy with Hitler: We never killed Hitler.