There are different situations going on here

1. OBL and his mission regarding "infidels" in the Middle East (e.g., Saudi)
2. Insurgents and their mission regarding Iraq
3. Hamas and their mission regarding Israel

IMO, not all of these groups "goal" is the wholesale extermination of non-muslims. They have different goals. Lumping them together is quite ineffective when addressing the issue.

This is why the President doesn't come out and "say it." Because what you say is not altogether accurate.

Re: Re: Re: Amnesty for "terrorists"
 

Huh? :confused:

pretty soon after the next 2 Iraqi elections they will become more management oriented on what they want to do with their country and their terrorists.

fwiw.. in Afgh the military has been doing a pretty good job of buying out and connecting the warlords lawfully into the economy. Even the heroin trade is slowly being dismantled, very slowly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Amnesty for "terrorists"
 

My point was maybe it's a tad early to declare defeat.

In any two paragraph summation of the Iraq situation, some accuracy will be lost in the name of brevity. So many conversations on this topic seem to center around the idea that the democratic freedom-loving people of Iraq are revolting against the yoke of American tyranny, but that simply isn't the problem.

Let me put it this way: If someone declares war on you, but you deny that you're at war, does that mean you're not at war?

Apparently that is the problem in their eyes, have you heard what the Iraqi government is saying today?

Sure, but it doesn't sound like, "You declared war on us and we want your villanous scum to depart our fair shores at once." It sounds more like, "Thanks for the help, gentlemen, but we think we've got enough of this to setup a timetable now."

legitimate right of resistance....(except IRAQI citizens, nothing about American soldiers)

called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts

The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."

"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people"

Dude, I'm sorry, but I think they think we're part of the problem......

Zarqawi is a "nationalist". Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Zarqawi isn't a nationalist. He's a terrorist of Jordanian descent.

How in the hell did you come up with that????

There is a huge difference between German soldiers in uniform and murderous terrorists who intentionally kill women and children. Once Iraq surrendered, the remaining terrorists are simply war criminals who should be shot on sight.

Perhaps we are, and perhaps going into Iraq was even dumber than those F-1 rules changes we were all up in arms about. My point is that focusing on Iraq as if it is the only problem is dreadfully short-sighted. Whether or not anyone decides to grant amnesty to the people who are blowing up our boys will:
a - no longer be our decision, as we will have wilfully removed ourselves from the scene , and
b - won't make a whit of difference in the Grance Scheme of Things.
The Muslims who wants us dead don't give a rats's petut if we forgive them or not. They just want us dead. Listen, I'll acknowledge that maybe Iraq wasn't a great idea if you'll acknowledge that we have bigger problems with Islam right now.

Oh I agree we have bigger problems. That's why all along I've been against Iraq. We need to deal with these problems!

We need to rebuild and get ready to deal with it ASAP.

I read an article, and it was a convincing argument that the Iran government itself was also behind 9/11. We have Pakistan literally harboring these terrorists, including Osama......etc. etc. Sharif going on the record in interviews saying that "we aren't looking too hard" (Pakistan)....and "America cannot look for him in our country" (basically, that's the gist of his comments).

And I don't think it's a problem with Islam, it's a problem with some fanatics who are Islamic.

But I also think this problem is not as big as it's made out to be. To give you perspective, We have something like 20,000 gun deaths a year in this country, yet our biggest fear is something that in the grand scale of things is relatively low of affecting you or me (percentagewise, oddswise). This is not to say guns need to be banned or anything, I'm just saying oddswise, it's a much, much larger threat to human life.

Same analogy of those who are afraid of flying...your odds are something like 20 million to one you'll die...but driving in your car....what are your odds? Yet people don't fear driving, but they fear flying.

Me, I fear none of it. I'm just careful, observant, and I pay attention.

Lemme get this strait. Not as big as it is made out to be? #1 Paskistan has the bomb and #2 Iran is working on one. It could very big, very quickly. Both Sunni and Shia fanatics with nukes and we are talking "perspective"?

We need a functioning Iraq, if only to give the non-fanatics next door in Saudi Arabia and Iran something to aspire to. We cut and run and let them fall into more chaos - we will be repaid a thousand times over..