24 Sep 06
Originally posted by Palynkai am not surprised at the report ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm
[b]US report says Iraq fuels terror
The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.[/b]
i will also not be surprised if it falls on deaf ears.
24 Sep 06
Originally posted by flexmoreAnything on the Editorial Pages of the NY Times .. will fall on many many deaf ears.
i am not surprised at the report ...
i will also not be surprised if it falls on deaf ears.
What they say may or may not be true, but the fact is .. they lack credibilty. they have an agenda, and it's not in line with mainstream America IMO.
It'll sell big-time to the pointy-headed pseudo-intellectuals of Manhatten and Hollywood .. but most every American between those two places knows better by now.
24 Sep 06
Originally posted by 7ate9There is nothing about America that makes it right as there is nothing
So what is it about America that makes it right?
It's a shame we don't have much of an Iraqi/Middle East perspective.
about that makes it wrong any more than there is for any other
country. Being right or wrong isn’t a birth right of Americans though
it seems that there are some on both sides of that fence, claiming it is
evil or righteous.
Kelly
25 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaAh, the BB-gee strikes again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm
US report says Iraq fuels terror
The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war.
The story (US report says Iraq fuels terror), is based on a
Newspaper story by New York Times - who clearly admit not
having even seen the report. The BBC goes on to quote its own
"defence correspondent" not once, not twice, but three times.
My sister-in-law, presently living in Holland, once dated a
guy in the states whos father worked at large paper mill providing
print stock for the New York Times. And his wife's hairdresser
says the BBC is really responsible for spawning a new generation
of Islamic radicalism. The hairdresser says "just look at whos
country was attacked last!"
reportedly,
xs
25 Sep 06
Originally posted by xsWell this changes everything!
Ah, the BB-gee strikes again.
The story (US report says Iraq fuels terror), is based on a
Newspaper story by New York Times - who clearly admit not
having even seen the report. The BBC goes on to quote its own
"defence correspondent" not once, not twice, but three times.
My sister-in-law, presently living in Holland, once dated a
guy in the states whos ...[text shortened]... m. The hairdresser says "just look at whos
country was attacked last!"
reportedly,
xs
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by jmarksThen trying to take on Islamic extremism is a lost cause, as doing so
The intelligence report has now been declassified.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5382762.stm
Anyone with any common sense would know that the war has created an effect of advancing Islamic extremism.
I will expand on my point if asked.
Edit: link
only creats an effect of advancing Islamic extremism.
Thanks for clearing that up.
27 Sep 06
1 edit
No, I don't think it's a lost cause....yet. There are many ways to stop it. I believe that the "Axis of Good" is using different
methods other than their full blown out warfare approach which invovles sacrificing thousands upon thousands of poeple.
One should not try to stop any kind of extremism by throwing countries in chaos; onto the brink of civil war.
I guess these are the main questions:
Are we safer now because the war?
And are the people in Iraq better off, now that Saddam is gone?
27 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by xsNo, I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think it's something more like this;
Then trying to take on Islamic extremism is a lost cause, as doing so
only creats an effect of advancing Islamic extremism.
Thanks for clearing that up.
"Blowing peoples relatives up does not endear them to you, the US should perhaps figure that into their calculations".
[edit; unless it's mothers in law, perhaps]