Reply By: kingbeePosted: Sunday, February 05, 2006
Oh just to clarify things. If your not with us, and you support the death of Americans, then your a terrorist supporter at least, and a terrorist propaganda piece at the least. If not a terrorist using the site to spread the information.
what this clarifies is your misunderstanding or repudiation of constitutional protections afforded to all american citizens--not solely those with whom you agree (or vice-versa).
you may be as convinced your opinion is right and all others are so horribly wrong as to doom their advocates to an eternity of weeping and gnashing of teeth, but you're just one of many--all of whom are very likely equally convinced their way is the only way.
I no where said you don't have a right to voice your opinions. SO where in the world di that come from? Are you saying I am not allowed to do the same? I thought you were smarter than this. I am sorry I assumed you were. There is a difference between peacful and non-violent demonstration of a issue and supporting the death of US Troops. And there are established methods for getting issues addressed by our government.
BY supporting the death of someone you encourage the same people to kill more and to be violent. This is especially true of violence prone people. If you are anti-abortion (not saying you are or are not, making a point here) and you see or hear of someone killing a doctor involved. Then you get online and post how they were right in what they did and that you feel they should do it more, and you openly support them, you are encouraging them to commit more murder. So that makes you a murder supporter correct? Doen't take a law degree to figure that one out.
As for you post "if only all similarly complex political questions were so easily resolvable to everyone's satisfaction. there is, however, a valid basis for disputing the legitimacy of the present iraqi government. what's more, even if everyone involved unanimously stipulated to its authority, the presence of troops under any flag but iraq's or the united nations' may reasonably be considered those of an occupier."
Our troops are there and recognized by the UN (not that that matters) and at the request of the newly ELECTED Iraqi government. And with more than 70% voter turn out I think their government is a better example of a representative government than ours. And our Troops are working with and actually training the troops that operate under the Iraqi Flag. Are those troops (the Iraqi ones) occupiers? If they are in your eyes then you seriously need to have your vision examined. If they are legitimate then those that attack them are not a resistance force but terrorist. More Iraqis are killed by the terrorist than US forces. We are not the primary target anymore and have not been for some time.
This will help(maybe)
For most of January, the casualty rate in Iraq was at the lowest rate since the spring of 2004, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman said in a briefing from Baghdad today.
"In January ... there were 19 days where the number of casualties were lower than 50, and that's the lowest rate we've seen since the spring of '04," Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said.
"If you study total casualty numbers - and these casualty numbers include coalition, civilian and Iraqi security force casualties - the month of January had about 1,600 casualties," he said.
By comparison, he pointed out, November, December and January had monthly casualty totals 1,000 less than October and less than half those recorded in May 2004.
"You can see a significant trend line down in the number of casualties: coalition, civilian and Iraqi security force casualties," Lynch said.
While the overall downward trend is encouraging, "the predominant number of casualties are in the Iraqi civilian population," Lynch said. "If you work the numbers you realize that 50 percent of the casualties ... are Iraqi civilians."
Lynch attributes this to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate in Iraq. He said the terrorist is inept at attacks against coalition and Iraqi security forces, so he has shifted the focus of his attacks.
"He's zoomed his target (in) on Iraqi civilians," Lynch said. "That is indeed the target of Zarqawi because he can get mass effects, he can get mass coverage, and he's trying to create a sectarian divide here in Iraq."
Yesterday's attack on Iraqi construction workers in a Baghdad Shiite neighborhood is a prime example of Zarqawi's tactics, Lynch said. A bomb killed at least eight and wounded more than 50.
But still Iraqi citizens' tips are foiling these kinds of attacks on a more regular basis, he said.
Two recent operations were launched in Baghdad and north of Karbala on tips from Iraqi citizens. They resulted in the detention of a suspected kidnapper and the discovery of materials used in making improvised explosive devices, Lynch said.
The number of tips from Iraqis has increased from about 400 in December 2004 to 4,700 in December 2005, he said. Iraqi citizens gave coalition and Iraqi security forces over 30,000 tips last year, the general noted.
"We find a majority ... of our operations and Iraqi security force operations are intelligence-led operations based on tips provided by Iraqi citizens," Lynch said.
Security operations are continuing all across Iraq, he added. Of the 443 total operations conducted last week, only about one-third were coalition forces only.
"Two-thirds ... were either conducted independently by the Iraqi security forces or done in combination with coalition forces," Lynch said. "So you see, we've reached the point in our counterinsurgency operations where the Iraqi security forces have clearly taken the lead across Iraq."
Last week's operations resulted in the detention of 320 suspected terrorists, 11 foreign fighters, 100 weapons caches and the clearing of 150 emplaced IEDs, he said.
Any person that says the people that are blowing themsleves up and killing both US and Iraqi Military, and the Iraqi civilians are nothing more than resistence fighters is seriously in denial of what is going on. Have you talked to anyone that has actually been there on the ground with the Iraqi Forces and police and seen whats going on? I have, several times. And almost to the one they state that the vast majority of Iraqi people want us there until their forces can take over. That to me gives our troops legitimacy to be there, especially when the people want them there.
From a Jan 26th briefing: Question: General, Hi. Dogan Hannah with Knight Ridder Newspapers. I was wondering what the U.S. -- what the military's response is to the Islamic Party's call this week for Sunnis to defend themselves from these raids that have been occurring. I mean, is this something that you would support or discourage, or I mean, you know, what is the message, and has there in fact been a formal message or response to this?
GEN. LYNCH: There hasn't been a formal response, but the answer to your question is the answer that I give all the time. What the people of Iraq need is trust and confidence in their Iraqi security forces -- those 227,000 trained, equipped members of the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army. And rather than advocating armed militias or armed response to acts of violence, the people of Iraq need to support the established Iraqi security forces, and that's what we see in general terms.
As I've talked about before, polling data leads us to believe that 80 percent of the people of Iraq have trust and confidence in the Iraqi security forces, and that's what needs to happen.
Its fairly simple. If you support the terrorist that are killing innocent Iraqi men, women and children, and encouraging them to do it more and posting things about their success, then you are a terrorist supporter. Any disputing of that? Didn't think so.
You are also aware that the people of Iraq themselves have started to fight back against the terrorist. Reports (tips about IEDs, caches, and terroris) to the Coalition forces have increased 970% over the year (2005). In addition Iraqis are fighting back against the terrorist.
From a Jan 22 briefing in Iraq to the Iraqi/ FREE press.
Q (Through interpreter.) On January 19, Major Recklenin (sp) said that there have been some fighting between some armed Iraqi groups and insurgents in Al Anbar and Salahuddin. Do you think this is a positive development against the Zarqawi organization? Do you think it is a positive step for the Iraqi side or for you also?
GEN. ALSTON: I say yes to all of those questions. It is a positive sign that the people of -- in Al Anbar -- and we've seen it in Ramadi, most recently -- that the people of Al Anbar would see Zarqawi and his people for what they are, people that bring violence to their area, that have no future, that includes them, that democracy is absolutely not part of the future that Zarqawi and al Qaeda have in mind for the area of Iraq. For them to recognize that as they have seen it, but for them to show their opposition by drawing the line to secure their neighborhood, for their local leaders to step out against Zarqawi, whether it would be sheikhs and others who would share the same values as those local people, all of that, I think, is a positive sign.
The people of those areas, I think, have never had difficulty understanding the violence associated with Zarqawi. But the fact that we have reached a point in Iraq where in those areas they are not only not intimidated by Zarqawi, but that they are willing to stand up and oppose Zarqawi -- I think that's the more interesting issue and the more interesting development, the fact that they feel that they can oppose them, the fact that they have more Iraqi security forces and Iraqi army in particular in Al Anbar that are there to support them, then I think that that is an interesting development. I think it's a positive development. And as I said before, the key to reducing violence in Iraq faster is the people of Iraq exposing the terrorists so that they can be taken away and brought to justice.
So the question boils down to who do you support Kingbee? The Iraqi People (at least 80% of them that want democracy (the voters), those fighting against the terrorist (Iraqi police and Armed forces) or those that advocate the killing of innocent Iraqis, the Iraqi Army and police and the coalition forces? If you answer the later, you are a terrorist sympathizer at least and other things that I will not use the words here to describe.
Its a pretty easy call. If you can drop all the Bush hate, and look at just the Iraqi People and ur forces and leave Bush out of it, yo may not be so blind.
