ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
Absent a rational counter argument you always resort to Bush bashing. It's identical to what the Sorosaists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational counter argument. What George Bush thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is irrelevant. Your and my opinion of Bush is irrelevant.
What al-Qaeda thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is what is relevant. Al-Qaeda was not stopped while we watched them grow before 9/11. That is also relevant. And, they would not have been stopped or slowed if we watched them grow after 9/11. That too is also relevant. They would have been encouraged and helped murder and recruit more rapidly by our just watching more. All our leaving Iraq now would do is help al-Qaeda resume growing and resume murdering at a more horrific rate.
ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
Absent a rational counter argument you always resort to Bush bashing. It's identical to what the Sorosaists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational counter argument. What George Bush thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is irrelevant. Your and my opinion of Bush is irrelevant.
What al-Qaeda thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is what is relevant. Al-Qaeda was not stopped while we watched them grow before 9/11. That is also relevant. And, they would not have been stopped or slowed if we watched them grow after 9/11. That too is also relevant. They would have been encouraged and helped murder and recruit more rapidly by our just watching more. All our leaving Iraq now would do is help al-Qaeda resume growing and resume murdering at a more horrific rate.
The point is; Ican, there is AQ in other parts of the world over there; a lot more AQ in those parts than in Iraq. Take Pakistan for instance; AQ has been flourishing there for years now since the invasion of Afghanistan; yet I don't hear you worried about it. We can keep our eyes on Iraqs AQ the same way we do in every other country in which we don't occupy.
revel wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
Absent a rational counter argument you always resort to Bush bashing. It's identical to what the Sorosaists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational counter argument. What George Bush thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is irrelevant. Your and my opinion of Bush is irrelevant.
What al-Qaeda thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is what is relevant. Al-Qaeda was not stopped while we watched them grow before 9/11. That is also relevant. And, they would not have been stopped or slowed if we watched them grow after 9/11. That too is also relevant. They would have been encouraged and helped murder and recruit more rapidly by our just watching more. All our leaving Iraq now would do is help al-Qaeda resume growing and resume murdering at a more horrific rate.
The point is; Ican, there is AQ in other parts of the world over there; a lot more AQ in those parts than in Iraq. Take Pakistan for instance; AQ has been flourishing there for years now since the invasion of Afghanistan; yet I don't hear you worried about it. We can keep our eyes on Iraqs AQ the same way we do in every other country in which we don't occupy.
The point is, we are having a difficult enough time right now exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. No doubt, after that is accomplished, we will have to proceed to exterminate al-Qaeda in some other country or countries. Al-Qaeda is like a metastasized cancerous malignancy. Doctors do not avoid trying to cure any part of such a cancer because they are unable to cure it all simultaneously. They try to cure what they can when they can as fast as they can.
Makes sense to me.
The point is, we are having a difficult enough time right now exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. No doubt, after that is accomplished, we will have to proceed to exterminate al-Qaeda in some other country or countries. Al-Qaeda is like a metastasized cancerous malignancy. Doctors do not avoid trying to cure any part of such a cancer because they are unable to cure it all simultaneously. They try to cure what they can when they can as fast as they can.
We do everything we can to defeat cancer by our eating and excercise habits; we don't feed the cancer with more cancer causing foods.
ergo: Iraq and Bush's war on terrorism increased the cancer in this world body.
revel wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
Absent a rational counter argument you always resort to Bush bashing. It's identical to what the Sorosaists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational counter argument. What George Bush thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is irrelevant. Your and my opinion of Bush is irrelevant.
What al-Qaeda thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is what is relevant. Al-Qaeda was not stopped while we watched them grow before 9/11. That is also relevant. And, they would not have been stopped or slowed if we watched them grow after 9/11. That too is also relevant. They would have been encouraged and helped murder and recruit more rapidly by our just watching more. All our leaving Iraq now would do is help al-Qaeda resume growing and resume murdering at a more horrific rate.
The point is; Ican, there is AQ in other parts of the world over there; a lot more AQ in those parts than in Iraq. Take Pakistan for instance; AQ has been flourishing there for years now since the invasion of Afghanistan; yet I don't hear you worried about it. We can keep our eyes on Iraqs AQ the same way we do in every other country in which we don't occupy.
The point is, we are having a difficult enough time right now exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. No doubt, after that is accomplished, we will have to proceed to exterminate al-Qaeda in some other country or countries. Al-Qaeda is like a metastasized cancerous malignancy. Doctors do not avoid trying to cure any part of such a cancer because they are unable to cure it all simultaneously. They try to cure what they can when they can as fast as they can.
Makes sense to me.
ican711nm wrote:revel wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
Absent a rational counter argument you always resort to Bush bashing. It's identical to what the Sorosaists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational counter argument. What George Bush thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is irrelevant. Your and my opinion of Bush is irrelevant.
What al-Qaeda thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is what is relevant. Al-Qaeda was not stopped while we watched them grow before 9/11. That is also relevant. And, they would not have been stopped or slowed if we watched them grow after 9/11. That too is also relevant. They would have been encouraged and helped murder and recruit more rapidly by our just watching more. All our leaving Iraq now would do is help al-Qaeda resume growing and resume murdering at a more horrific rate.
The point is; Ican, there is AQ in other parts of the world over there; a lot more AQ in those parts than in Iraq. Take Pakistan for instance; AQ has been flourishing there for years now since the invasion of Afghanistan; yet I don't hear you worried about it. We can keep our eyes on Iraqs AQ the same way we do in every other country in which we don't occupy.
The point is, we are having a difficult enough time right now exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. No doubt, after that is accomplished, we will have to proceed to exterminate al-Qaeda in some other country or countries. Al-Qaeda is like a metastasized cancerous malignancy. Doctors do not avoid trying to cure any part of such a cancer because they are unable to cure it all simultaneously. They try to cure what they can when they can as fast as they can.
Makes sense to me.
Doctors do not treat cancer with instruments which actively create more cancer. Your analogy fails.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:revel wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
Absent a rational counter argument you always resort to Bush bashing. It's identical to what the Sorosaists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational counter argument. What George Bush thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is irrelevant. Your and my opinion of Bush is irrelevant.
What al-Qaeda thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is what is relevant. Al-Qaeda was not stopped while we watched them grow before 9/11. That is also relevant. And, they would not have been stopped or slowed if we watched them grow after 9/11. That too is also relevant. They would have been encouraged and helped murder and recruit more rapidly by our just watching more. All our leaving Iraq now would do is help al-Qaeda resume growing and resume murdering at a more horrific rate.
The point is; Ican, there is AQ in other parts of the world over there; a lot more AQ in those parts than in Iraq. Take Pakistan for instance; AQ has been flourishing there for years now since the invasion of Afghanistan; yet I don't hear you worried about it. We can keep our eyes on Iraqs AQ the same way we do in every other country in which we don't occupy.
The point is, we are having a difficult enough time right now exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. No doubt, after that is accomplished, we will have to proceed to exterminate al-Qaeda in some other country or countries. Al-Qaeda is like a metastasized cancerous malignancy. Doctors do not avoid trying to cure any part of such a cancer because they are unable to cure it all simultaneously. They try to cure what they can when they can as fast as they can.
Makes sense to me.
Doctors do not treat cancer with instruments which actively create more cancer. Your analogy fails.
Cycloptichorn
Only dummies blame the doctor's choice of instruments for causing cancer to metastasize. Only somewhat smarter people blame the doctor for failure to stop the cancer from metastasizing. Only intelligent people select a doctor who has been more successful in stopping cancers from metastasizing.
Name one! ... p l e a s e.
ican wrote :
Quote:The point is, we are having a difficult enough time right now exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. No doubt, after that is accomplished, we will have to proceed to exterminate al-Qaeda in some other country or countries. Al-Qaeda is like a metastasized cancerous malignancy. Doctors do not avoid trying to cure any part of such a cancer because they are unable to cure it all simultaneously. They try to cure what they can when they can as fast as they can.
if someone has cancer the physicians would certainly NOT recommended continuing an UNHEALTHY lifestyle or further feeding the cancer by exposure to cancerous agents .
experts seem to agree that AQ and its recruits (cancer) often/mainly come out of pakistan - and particularly the north-west border region , but as the corruption increases in pakistan , they seem to find willing recruits all over pakistan .
since the root of AQ seems to be the corruption in pakistan , i see little hope of destroying AQ unless corruption is first stopped or at least reduced greatly .
i believe the supply of new recruits has to be stopped first . at the moment the supply seems to be increasing steadily .
iraq (and afghanistan) seem merely the points where the AQ come into contact with america .
(just like cancer may have deep seated malignacies that break out on certain parts of the body ).
if someone has lung cancer there is little hope of cure unless the person is willing to stop smoking .
just my opinion .
hbg
ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:revel wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You continue to miss all the important FACTS about Bush's "war on terrorism." He has increased terrorism around the world ten-fold, and it's still "increasing," because of our occupation of Iraq - seen by Muslims as an intrusion by the US into an Arab country.
Absent a rational counter argument you always resort to Bush bashing. It's identical to what the Sorosaists resort to when they cannot come up with a rational counter argument. What George Bush thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is irrelevant. Your and my opinion of Bush is irrelevant.
What al-Qaeda thinks or thought, says or said, does or did, is what is relevant. Al-Qaeda was not stopped while we watched them grow before 9/11. That is also relevant. And, they would not have been stopped or slowed if we watched them grow after 9/11. That too is also relevant. They would have been encouraged and helped murder and recruit more rapidly by our just watching more. All our leaving Iraq now would do is help al-Qaeda resume growing and resume murdering at a more horrific rate.
The point is; Ican, there is AQ in other parts of the world over there; a lot more AQ in those parts than in Iraq. Take Pakistan for instance; AQ has been flourishing there for years now since the invasion of Afghanistan; yet I don't hear you worried about it. We can keep our eyes on Iraqs AQ the same way we do in every other country in which we don't occupy.
The point is, we are having a difficult enough time right now exterminating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. No doubt, after that is accomplished, we will have to proceed to exterminate al-Qaeda in some other country or countries. Al-Qaeda is like a metastasized cancerous malignancy. Doctors do not avoid trying to cure any part of such a cancer because they are unable to cure it all simultaneously. They try to cure what they can when they can as fast as they can.
Makes sense to me.
Doctors do not treat cancer with instruments which actively create more cancer. Your analogy fails.
Cycloptichorn
Only dummies blame the doctor's choice of instruments for causing cancer to metastasize. Only somewhat smarter people blame the doctor for failure to stop the cancer from metastasizing. Only intelligent people select a doctor who has been more successful in stopping cancers from metastasizing.
Name one! ... p l e a s e.
Sorry, but when the doctor is using instruments which do not cause the current cancer to metastasize, but instead induce new cancers which previously did not exist, then he deserves blame. That's exactly what we are seeing now: our destruction in Iraq causes new, previously un-AQ affiliated Muslims to turn against us. It isn't a spread of what existed earlier, as you posited. It is something new, and our fault.
You'll never understand this. That's my prediction. In just a few short years you'll go to your grave still believing your stupid theories about how killing breeds peace.
Cycloptichorn
...
if someone has lung cancer there is little hope of cure unless the person is willing to stop smoking .
just my opinion .
hbg
People are not cancer cells, they don't act like them, they aren't anything even resembling them. That's your biggest problem. You don't see member of AQ as people. But, they are people. Many of them turned to AQ solely because of our actions in Iraq, and no other reason.
Your failure to understand the enemy leads to a basic misunderstanding of the situation and how to solve it. You seek to remove humanity from the enemies in order to justify your analogies, and this is foolish in the extreme.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:People are not cancer cells, they don't act like them, they aren't anything even resembling them. That's your biggest problem. You don't see member of AQ as people. But, they are people. Many of them turned to AQ solely because of our actions in Iraq, and no other reason.
Your failure to understand the enemy leads to a basic misunderstanding of the situation and how to solve it. You seek to remove humanity from the enemies in order to justify your analogies, and this is foolish in the extreme.
Cycloptichorn
It is your failure to understand reality that is your problem. Your system of beliefs is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Yet you continue to peddle it.
Members of al-Qaeda have adopted an anti-human-life religion or belief system in the belief that adhering to that religion or belief system will buy them a fun place in paradise. Having chosen of their own free will to do that, such people have surrendered any claims or rights of humans. Any other humans that adopt an anti-human-life belief system surrender the same. It's long past time for people who think like you to wise up before it's too late, and reject the notion that adopters of an anti-human-life belief system are caused to do that by people who have not adopted an anti-human-life belief system.
ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:People are not cancer cells, they don't act like them, they aren't anything even resembling them. That's your biggest problem. You don't see member of AQ as people. But, they are people. Many of them turned to AQ solely because of our actions in Iraq, and no other reason.
Your failure to understand the enemy leads to a basic misunderstanding of the situation and how to solve it. You seek to remove humanity from the enemies in order to justify your analogies, and this is foolish in the extreme.
Cycloptichorn
It is your failure to understand reality that is your problem. Your system of beliefs is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Yet you continue to peddle it.
Members of al-Qaeda have adopted an anti-human-life religion or belief system in the belief that adhering to that religion or belief system will buy them a fun place in paradise. Having chosen of their own free will to do that, such people have surrendered any claims or rights of humans. Any other humans that adopt an anti-human-life belief system surrender the same. It's long past time for people who think like you to wise up before it's too late, and reject the notion that adopters of an anti-human-life belief system are caused to do that by people who have not adopted an anti-human-life belief system.
You have no idea what the average member of AQ, or insurgent in Iraq, or other terrorist thinks, Ican. So stop pretending that you do. The most you can tell is what you have read which may or may not come from some of the top leaders. The minds of the individuals are clouded to you.
Your analogy also fails, in that people can change their minds. They can reach settlements. They can gain a satisfactory situation. They can give up the fight. Cancer does none of these things. Therefore, the method of attacking the two separate problems will be far different.
Cycloptichorn
I infer from that statement that you think that al-Qaeda will stop murdering other middle easterners, if those middle easterners were to stop allying themselves with America. Al Qaeda would then only murder Americans.
Thus, the exercise of highlighting some of the sectors should be read with the knowledge that corruption in Pakistan seems pervasive across most sectors. With that in mind, it is safe to say that expert sources indicate that the following sectors are among those most affected by corruption (the particular order varies from source to source):
Police and law enforcement
Judiciary and legal profession
Power sector
Tax and customs
Health and education
Land administration
In addition, Public Procurement seems to be a major concern across most sectors
