Doug Says: In response to SteveL's claim that he "supports
our troops" BWHAHAHAHAHAHA - I thought you might want to see some
more about what this lying cyberharasser and his aliases are
really saying about our war on terror and our troops that are
putting their lives on the line. Dai Dummy's hero seems to be
something other than what he claims to be on AVV.
In this one SteveL claims we are fighting a "made up enemy"
" noWrap width="1%" bgColor=#b71c0cSteveL
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.liberalism,
From: SteveL <steve...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> -
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:23:57 +0000
Local: Sat,Jan 29 2005 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: Lying about Iraq
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show
On 29 Jan 2005 06:28:42 -0800, "Clay" <clayonl...@lycos.com>
This Mark Alexander is a fucking lunatic and a coward based on
>Other Demos joined this tired anti-American Leftist refrain<bzzt> the old "only the right-wing and Republicans are
and patriots" one party state mantra.
>, doing whatAs opposed to fomenting division by calling anything Democratic
>they do best -- fomenting division in order to undermine support
>, regardless of the consequences. What consequences?Gee can't wait. You watch, WMDs will be *way* down the list
>Not only are these Demos spreading lies and dividing American
>for critical national-security operations, but their words aid,
>and encourage our enemy to continue killing U.S. service
>innocent Iraqis -- and on the eve of the first democratic
>Iraq's history. (In fairness to Kennedy, et al., though, America
>hold democratic mid-term elections in 2006.)
>So, just what is the truth about our military operations in and
>To counter all the Leftist obfuscation about U.S. national
>interests in the Middle East and to explain the necessity of our
>military presence in the region, what follows is a much-needed
>-- not only on why our Armed Forces are in Iraq (and border
>but also why they should remain in the region for the
>Western democracies, particularly those beacons of liberty (theNumbering a few thousand people at most...... And that 's being
>and our Allies), are at war with Jihadistan, a borderless nation
>Islamic fascists comprising al-Qa'ida and other Islamist
>groups and their malcontent sects.
generous. Of course because of the unilateral invasion of Iraq
admirable efforts at winning hearts and minds over there that
probably *has* grown substantially.... Especially when people
resisting the invasion by a foreign power are automatically
"terrorists" in these Orwellian times.
>A borderless nation? The "IslamicA made up enemy. The mark of a fascist.
>World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though
>Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the
>Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very
>sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca"
>Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of
>death-worshipping sects that calls for jihad, or "holy war,"
>all "the enemies of God." They thus constitute an enemy without
>-- a nation of "holy" warriors called Jihadistan.
>While the Bush administration is careful not to paint Islam withFear Fear Fear.
>broad brush, the correct way to understand this enemy, in order
>engage and destroy it, is to cast off the historic
>model; this enemy is simply not a political entity. As President
>Bush correctly noted in October of 2001, "Our war on terror
>al-Qa'ida, but it does not end there. It will not end until
>terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and
>... This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago,
>decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion."
>Jihadi terrorism (type asymmetric warfare) had its origins with
>People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) almost 40
>ago. There, Islamists inflicted terror first against Israel, and
>working westward, against democratic targets in Europe. Yet
>subsequent attacks on U.S. personnel in that region -- the
>the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, for example -- it was
>1993 that our homeland became a frontline in the war with
>On 26 February, 1993, Pakistani native Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and
>terrorist brethren (who had entered the United States on Iraqi
>passports under the control of Iraqi intelligence) bombed the
>tower of the World Trade Center in an effort to topple that
>the south tower and inflict mass civilian casualties.
>to Ramzi's lack of engineering knowledge, his crude truck-bomb
>topple the building, though it created a six-story crater in the
>Although Ramzi escaped, several other terrorists were captured
>tried. Ramzi himself was finally arrested in 1995, while
>plans to bomb a number of U.S. international flights
>After 1995, al-Qa'ida Jihadis focused on American targets
>abroad -- the
>Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in
>and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 -- all without reprisal from the
>In 2001, Ramzi's uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the number-three
>in the al-Qa'ida organization), and Ramzi's mentor, Jihadi sheik
>bin Laden himself, revised Ramzi's plan to use civilian aircraft
>terrorist ends -- using them as bombs rather than bombing them.
>September of that year, one of al-Qa'ida's U.S. terrorist cells
>finished the business that Ramzi started almost a decade
>On that Tuesday morning, the American people were awakened to an
>imminent threat to our homeland, and before noon that day, our
>sense of invincibility had all but vanished. Indeed, given the
>planning and sophistication of the attack, a larger question
>the minds of all rational people: What moral obstacles would
>surrogate terrorists from using WMD provided by rogue nation
>under tyrants like Saddam Hussein? What would prevent al-Qa'ida
>detonating a fissionable weapon in a U.S. urban center?
But anyway, what will prevent them now? Nothing. Except we've
>That question would have to be answered by President George W.It wasn't about UN resolutions or Saddam's WMDs?
>whose administration had been operational for only eight months
>to the 9/11 attack -- a period preceded by eight long years of
>administration inaction and appeasement of terrorists, as
>noted in this column during those years.
>President Bush determined, correctly, that the war being waged
>U.S. and its Allies could not be resolved diplomatically, nor
>be won defensively. Al-Qa'ida and other elements of Jihadistan,
>surmised, could be defeated only by way of pre-emptive strikes,
>keeping with the dictum of military strategist Carl von
>"The best form of defense is attack."
>In 2001, The Patriot's military and intelligence analysts were
>front in our characterization of the war with Jihadistan and our
>support for the Bush strategic doctrine of preemption -- taking
>battle to the enemy.
>To that end Sen. Edward Kennedy, never one to miss an
>use the deaths of American military personnel as political
>unwittingly endorsed the Bush Doctrine this week: "The war has
>Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism...."
>The principal objective of President Bush's doctrine of
>Operation Enduring Freedom (or "Operation Let's Roll," as it's
>around our shop) -- is to keep the front lines of our war with
>Jihadistan on their turf, rather than our own.
Ok let's remember that.
So it's *our* war, not the UN's. And it's for *our* national
> Our Armed Forces are the"Vermin". Say that's what the nazi propaganda movies called the
>most capable, best-trained and best-equipped in history, and
>issued a standing invitation to Jihadis worldwide to engage them
>Iraq, where tens of thousands of these vermin have met their
There's a lot of non-human imagery from Mark Alexander and his
and they don't just stop at Arabs. They're starting to use it
non-republicans as well.
>Why Iraq? In 1991, Saddam Hussein signed a binding agreement ofGee, how many have Israel breached? Besides, didn't you just say
>surrender as a precondition to the cessation of Gulf War
>the subsequent violation of which was, in effect, grounds to
>military campaign against Iraq. After a jaw-slackening 17th UN
>resolution to disarm was flouted by Saddam
was a US operation for US national security? Ah well just can't
trying to cloak yourself in the legitimacy the UN brings even if
have to steal it in the night by lying about UN authorization,
even as you bizarrely also claim the UN *has no* legitimacy
>, the Bush administrationFuck the Iraqi people and their *sovereignty*. *We* want to fight
>determined that Iraq would be a suitable, logical and defensible
>line with Jihadistan.
war here. So tough.
>Let's be clear: American forces are NOT, first and foremost,Yep he's a coward. The most ludicrously overarmed nation in the
>for Iraq's freedom." They are fighting for U.S.
>interests and those of the free world, which was, and to a
>degree (thanks to our considerable military achievements),
>great peril. Ultimately, these two objectives are inextricably
world's "national security" is at risk by Saddam.
>Our ultimate objective in Iraq is to establish a forwardSo we just invade because it's in our interests to invade. Just
>presence in the Middle East -- military personnel, but primarily
>equipment -- now that the Saudis have pulled our lease.
Adolf Hitler. The gall of this guy.
> Our analysts"Estimate?" HAHAHAHA!!! Trust me. The "new Iraqi government"
>estimate that once the new Iraqi government is seated, the U.S.
>invited to establish permanent military installations in
permitted to say no!!
Enough. This guy is why the world is really starting to hate the
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.