KrustyKidd

On the contrary, it appears as if you, like most of the rabble have missed the entire political game which has been unfolding for years. Ask yourself when a former head of state (especially from a repressive regime like Iran) has say on what is what in his country and taken seriously on the world scene. Iran needs to become modern and needs the west. It also has to keep the Revolution alive and has a population that is increasingly miffed that they have not had the fruits of what was promised. Hence, the nuclear standoff where with little hope of becoming a nuclear power they gain the ears and attention of the world without getting bombed. Ahmadinejad preaches that the holocost never happend and makes inuendo about how Israel must not be allowed to exist and the world thinks he is a nut but listens and wonders what they can do to award them with things to make them sane. When they feel there is no sound mind in charge, along comes the former Presidetn, the very next day getting equal time on Iranian tv saying that the Holocost was a fact and voila! A sane voice to talk to now that the attention is focused. A very basic game of good cop bad cop and both of course, puppets of the Iranian Council composed of clerics.

He has a few hundred analyists working for him and his organization. You want the quotes, pay the three grand for a membership. As for your theory, prove it. I think that accolades from the Time and a a half dozen other high profile publications should satisfy you but then again, denial is a river in Egypt right? They enjoyed wide support in Saudi Arabia before that was nipped in the bud. Right now they are pretty loved in Pakistan. Of course not. And, they probably never will as they continually errode governments until their clerics work with other clerics to mould it the way they want then the combination of attacks and charity sway public opinion to their liking and it morphs into a different type of organization. If you are looking for a goverment of guys wearing belt bombs making decisions with the UN that is not going to occur. Islam, Democracy, femenist movement, Christianity, PLO, Hamas, gay rights, minority rights, Hezbollah, Nazi Party, Communism and just about every revolution that has come around had squat for support from the people until a certain stage. All started small and got big. This particular one has a lot going for it, far more than the others. It has race, religion, common enemies and a cultural war with them on one side and the percieved oppressors on the other. To say they don't have a large base of support is only a matter of time if not taken on now as we have seen by their popularity in Saudi society and, they hope to gain that bit by bit hence, it is not a hair's breadth away but could've been had Saudi Arabia not joined in actively in the War on Terror. Anyhow. Please answer Oh, and you forgot to adress this; And my reply of; Now, here is wisdom Black Dog. The reason I know the area is not in the hands of Al Queda or any Jihadist group for that matter is that those people cannot survive without support from the Sunni population. If you read the article it says what I know and that is that the Sunnis are in control. Now, the wisdom lies in the Sunni leadership. If they get what they want on the political front, they slow support for the Jihadists or, as you like to call them, 'Islamists.' If they need to apply more pressure on Baghdad, they open up the 'Ratline' again but, they do not turn over power to the Islamists, Jihadists or whatever name you have for those who wish to recreate the Caliphate as the Jihadists are a threat to the Sunni leadership once they have acheived their goals as they wish to take over with their brand of leadership and hence, can only operate with their permission. For a Sunni community to simply turn over the reins of power to any Jihadist group, crew or gaggle is not on. Now, please take into account that you actually said this; To which I asked ""Which part for crying out loud? Come on, the entire forum population is dying with suspense. Stand that comment down or provide the proof."" To which you replied; Then, you come across a story where you think you have a point, you bring it up again rather than leave it withdrawn. And when I blow it out of the water, you don't bother mentioning it again. Stop wasting time and deal with the discussion rather than try to fabricate things to make your incorect and emotional beliefs fact.

Uh not exactly. He is the head of Stratfor You know there as as you say "Some parts of the country are in the hands of the "jihadists" as you call them," In case there is confusion Black Dog. Jihadists is a generic term denoting people that fight using terrorist tactics in order to move towards recreating the Caliphate. There is a group known as Al Queda that is Jihadist as there are many individuals in loose groups all working towards the same goal - From your article; Recreating the Caliphate. Check. Better let Black Dog in on the secret. So, you didn't answer "What's an Islamist? Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals? And, did not Saddam invade other countries and posses WMDs and not prove he was in complence with UN resolutions? And did not Al Queda, supported by the Taliban attack the US and has cells across the Middle East. And what are the goals of the people who follow the same idealology of AL Queda in that they believe it so much that they kill themselves, and other Muslims in acts of terror?" This quote is from his boss. Now, here is wisdom Black Dog. The reason I know the area is not in the hands of Al Queda or any Jihadist group for that matter is that those people cannot survive without support from the Sunni population. If you read the article it says what I know and that is that the Sunnis are in control. Now, the wisdom lies in the Sunni leadership. If they get what they want on the political front, they slow support for the Jihadists or, as you like to call them, 'Islamists.' If they need to apply more pressure on Baghdad, they open up the 'Ratline' again but, they do not turn over power to the Islamists, Jihadists or whatever name you have for those who wish to recreate the Caliphate as the Jihadists are a threat to the Sunni leadership once they have acheived their goals as they wish to take over with their brand of leadership and hence, can only operate with their permission. For a Sunni community to simply turn over the reins of power to any Jihadist group, crew or gaggle is not on.

Exactly. Now, insert a container into the plan and it gives them a one in eighteen chance of evberybody, including the hundred or so support people getting caught. That is my point exactly not to mention losing the valuable machne, commodity or whatever inside the container. In fact, with the trail of goods being longer and with a materieal reather than a fluid person, the chances would probably be a lot higher. Thanks for the insight.

So patient that they will wait, plan, accumulate material to carfully set it up in a foregn land for years, set up operatives here, then, in secret, make sure the stuff is loded onto a container, bribe the right people to have it shipped in secret and then, contact all involved to wait for the stuff to arrive. Then, when they are ready to recieve it, hope that none of the hundred or so people involved have been compromised they risk a one in eighteen chance the whole two year long operation will be dicovered simply by a physical inspection. Got it. No wonder you are shivering. You have no idea of what these people have to do to set up an operation and the risks involved without a random check. BTW, did you ever get together with Black Dog? He doesn't think there is any threat whatsoever from these people. In fact, he denies the existance of any organized group. What do you think of that?

I think you missed the point. 6% is enough to provide a deterrent. To protect you 100% every container would have to be inspected crippling the economy to the point where there really wouldn't be much to attack anyhow. As a quick parallel, if the police were to provide protection rather than a deterence, every man, woman and child would have to be guarded by a personal police officer. I suppose that you would decry that your rights were being infringed on but, as it is, one officer per thousand people is more than enough to provide the deterence and surity that commiting a crime will probably get you caught. As for not being safer, I see that in the years since 911, with every terrorist wanting to harm the US at home, not one has done so. I would say that the deterence is sucessful. Try sleeping pills if you can't sleep.

The Saudi family is made up of those who are with and without portfolio and, as you observed, have different views. You are wrong about Wahabbism not being entrenched though as it is. As for the monarchs in Europe, interesting.

Of course I do. Hope this helps. If it does not give you the credibiliity you desire then I hope you can provide some proof that the article is in error. Thanks. Taliban are an Afgani group. Much like we Canadians are confined to our country but support democracy the world over. As I think? What are you on where you have to put words in other's mouths? We are not, and are not even close to being a hair's breadth away from that. Mostely because the War on Terror has been sucessful much to your chagrin. Uh uh. Then like the Taliban they help out organizations that wish to reach further like Al Queda. Dam, you getting smart fast. What's an Islamist? Why would they rally? Who are they and where did they come from and what are their goals? And, did not Saddam invade other countries and posses WMDs and not prove he was in complence with UN resolutions? And did not Al Queda, supported by the Taliban attack the US and has cells across the Middle East. And what are the goals of the people who follow the same idealology of AL Queda in that they believe it so much that they kill themselves, and other Muslims in acts of terror?

I am showing how all people deal with bad guys when they are our friends or teamed up to defeat a greater enemy. Responding to this hubris to be exact; Also, thanks for that glimpse into the life of a Russian soldier.

Lots. I see nothing there to warrent a label of a moron . If somebody followed anybody around all day with a microphone lots of gaffs would be heard I'm sure. Ever listen to Cretien? How about his buddy 'Pootine,' the french fry covered in cheese and gravy President of Russia? Your military service? Your record in private industry? And, unarguably being chosen by close to half of the voting public in the US twice is hardly "an appointed president".

Even more similar. Friends, then enemies.

So newbie, still wondering what it is you are worried about getting through the ports. Please explain.

Of course this entire thread is based on one premise - that of Iraq being a simple money making venture. Good luck and, thank you for proving yourselves as black and white thinkers. Leftists good, right wingers bad. Got it. Definitely got it. More educated than Kerry who was the left's front runner. You have your baby sitter do your research for you? Of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam much like Rosevelt buddying up with Stalin. Oh, and add my name to the list of people who support and, supported the invasion. So far, the losses of life arre far below what Saddam caused in his twenty five some odd years of rule. The invasion has saved lives so if you have a problem with that, I don't know where it might lie unless of course, you are just anti Bush puppets. Anyhow, been fun but there is zip for substance in this thread aside from lefties just ranting so go for it.

duplicate post

What a crock. Blame the victim why don't you? First, if the US was not involved in the ME, Russia or Chna would run it and pay a lot less for oil than the US and the OPEC oragnization does. In fact, there probably wouldn't be an OPEC. As for the expense of people living in those countries, look in your closet for any item made in the ME. There won't be much but, look in your tank and you will see one of the few items that makes them money they can buy food and goods with. Thanks to a secure global economy made in good part by the US.

Conservative Wahabbism Liam. The radicals view and espouse the belief that the Royals are aposphates that must be overthrown along with other corrupt regime leaders of the former Caliphate. That is the idealology. The Royals are Wahabbists as they must be, much like the King of England is Christian but not an Evangelical Baptist.

Saddam was a lot more than you say. He was in violation of UN law in many ways with conditions of a ceasfire he did not adhere to. Of course they are. However, they were not and, needed some persuassion. Hopefully Iraq will be a more settled place in 2008 than it is now but, in any case, it is up to the Iraqi government to get their act together in order to make it so. I doubt that it will be seen as cutting and running but rather a drawing down of support for the country as they take on the day to day tasks for themselves. I do wonder why you see this as encouraging Iran to persue nukes at any cost though. Iran was never in any danger of having a US ground assault or unconventional attack against them nor are they now so, if anything, by persuing nukes they open theemselves up for non conventional attacks making your theory wrong. Tribal or not, more people per capita voted in Iraq then in Canada's election. Seems they pick this democracy thing up pretty good contrary to your doom and gloom However, what is not hopeless is for the coalition to throw out the existing regime and create the conditions for a democratic society to take place such as what sixty five percent of the poulation participated in and continue to do.

Them the people? It seems that most western governments figured the elections were rigged and, every oppostiion party boycotted them anyhow. So now you are blaming the west for the coup when it would seem that it was inevitable? I mean, if there wasn't people to train or arm or support then no matter what we thought or did there would still be an inept guy in power right? Well, Hamas is a terrorist organization and so is Al Queda. Al Queda is hardly a fictional group and they were very popular in Saudi Arabia. You should catch up on current events as you seem to gloss over this detail. In reality, there is no difference between them save Hamas is a regional group whereas Al QUeda ultimitely seeks a larger goal. Another differeence is that Saudi Arabia does not have elections so that AL Queda is hardly likely to become elected as Hamas was. If they were, I would not support the democraticly elected goverment of Saudi Arabia as they would be terrorists. I suppose as I said that you would. Very strange. I take it that if in 1939 you woulod support the Nazi Party in Germany too. Welcome to politics. Stalin was an ally at one time too. When the people of Germany elected a government that wished to dominate the world or Palistine elects a government that wishes to destroy one of our allies then I don't support them. I take it you do.

Yes it is. Shows how the US action in Iraq has forced the Suadis to take the unpleasent action and has taken care of that particular threat for now. However, as you state above about the middle class Yes, I'll bet it does as you don't understand how much of a threat Al Queda and conservative Wahabbism was to the regime. The Wahabbists were using the US presence there to galvanize the people (middle and lower and even upper class) against the Royals. Hence, the US went along with the request to leave As it was feeding the Conservative problem . However, the Suaids, willing to appease the Wahabbists still were unwilling to confront them until the US occupied Iraq. Glad it makes you laugh as this is pretty common knowledge to pretty much every anyalist Ah great! Now you agree the War on Terror has and is being sucessful and that Jiahdists are fighting for relevency in this serious struggle! You finally are beggining to get it. The Taliban neded shit from Al Queda as they are conservative Wahabbists and got lots of support from Saudi Arabia (who were the first country to recognize them) Al Queda integrated it's people in with the Taliban military so one could almost conclude it was a relationa=ship based on mutual goals. The Taliban? Running an Islamic state and hand in hand with an organizatin that seeks a larger Islamic state. Ya, maybe you're right but inconsequential as every Conservative Wahabbist seeks a larger Islamic State. That's their doctrine. As for being small time, they took over an entire nation and held it. Hardly small time. I'll explain this to you; terrorism can change goverments in weak regimes and gain momentum in order to form a government. The Conservative Wahabbist religion endorses terrorism for their ends rather than the reason for their existence so is hardly an organization or idealology trying to simply acheive property damage or mischief. They took Afganistan, would probably have taken Saudi Arabia and, at this moment are very strong in Pakistan. Other countries that come to mind are Somalia and Ethipia. How was invading Iraq a mistep? Most morons say that it creates terrorists but here you are saying that terrorists are not a problem so, we got rid of a dictator and rid of his WMD as well as aspirations of regional power. You also show us that in your opinion, the war on terror is being won as one of the pressures the US placed on SA was to make social and human rights reforms. Actually, I believe the war is being waged correctly and have no problems with it so do not live in a hole.

Most people in our country believe in Christisanity, the afterlife and personal freedom to choose here on earth so of what do you speak of? I don't care who your God is. But when people start to kikll us in the name of a carrot or bannana then it is time to shut that religion down. Re install the Caliphate as per the medieval times of the eighth century. There is no modern version. We do have an obligation to provide the right to choose to people. If they choose to have an Islamic stae then so be it. If they choose to have a terrorist state and be attacked by us then so be it too. You don't think that people creating chaos until the right combination of clerics and people come to power is not a threat to an Islamic country? I certainly do as most ae centrally controlled and when the economic sector and the military are subverted by certain religious appeals and degredations the populace loses confidence in the avility for them to stop carnage they are ripe for a coup. We have seen coups in more stable situations with only political goals as the outcome. Try it with racial and religious overtones and it is a possible.

You mean the level that allows us to choose what to wear, where to go, who to lead us, who makes our laws, what those laws are, that allows us to falter and not be stoned to death, allows non democratics to live here without being killed, lets us see what a female looks like because other creeds stop ape morons from losing it by covering them up in lumber tarps. Those kinds of people? Yes, we are just like them, in a different way of course.

The US had to do a few things and it all added up to invasion. First, the area was not a peaceful one with Saddam in a box. Sooner or later the box would have to be removed and then he or one of his sons would be up to the same old things. So, taking him out of power was a bonus for them. Two. As I explained for the umteenth time to alzhiemer boy, the US needed to get the Suadis to take on Al Queda within their own border or there would be a coup sooner or later. Al Qudeda in control of SA would be extremely bad for the situation there. Third. Showing the will of the US who were reknowned for cutting and running to support those who wish freedom was essential for change within the region as it is the poverty of the people and oppulance of the corrupt regimes which fuel the Jihadist mentality. Fourth. To create a democracy within the center of the region where people can decide their own future is counter to the culture the Jihadists wish which is control of every aspect from shitting to how you dress. Fifth: To pressure friend and foe to take on jihadists within their border or, not allow them to entrench themselves period. The other three choices were to leave Saudi Arabia to the mounting tide of Conservative Wahabbism and hope for the best. Invade SA to take out the Royals and replace them with a democratic government. Or, to make a deal with Saddam where he would stay in power and let the US have bases there to threaten SA with to take care of AL Queda. The first is not on as too risky. The second would play into the hands of Al Queda who would be instantly popularized into power as a resistance front. The third took care of nothing as it too would have be a galvanizing factor for Al Queda to show the people that the west is in bed with the corrupt regimes and they would more than likely have increased in power in SA rather than be marginalized as they are now. As for playing into Bin Ladens hands, if you will note in his month old camel gram he is now concentrating on Somalia rather than the US. A very interesting shift from being a threat to the Superpower to going to a shithole on the Horn of Africa. Bin Laden is not a movement, the entire Jihadist idealology is and, Al Queda is being beaten but, the mentality is still there.

So, you are afraid. Now, please answer the question of what Or else just say your are afraid of nothing or something that you don't have a shmick about. Then go onto saying how the US government doesn't know how to protect you from something that you can't tell us what it might be and how you are more at risk now from something you don't know about than you were before from something you don't know about.

Were you for the coup, against it or a fence sitter? France was for it, as was the US and Canada for good reason - the guy was inept. We didn't overthrow him, his own countrymen did. As for Hamas, if Al Queda takes Saudi Arabia I suppose you are all for that which shows where your logic cells are. You know Hamas, the guys that believe Ya, Mr Negotiator there Black Dog. That's from their constitution and you feel that you can negotiate or deal ingood faith with a democraticly elected government like that? Some coups should happen and be backed by us, that's one of them.

Conservative Wahabbism is a force in Saudi Arabia which also seeks to overthrow the Roayals and replace them with an Islamic state with no Royals. When OBL began bitching about the US being in SA it provided a gravitational point for the people to rally behind making CW more powerful than the Royals wanted . To keep the US there gave Al Queda more power so they asked the US to leave. When the attack on the Kobar Towers happened there was absolutely no Saudi cooperation and no clamp down on Al Queda activity so, the US knew the Suadis were not going to deal with Al Queda within their own borders out of fear of a revolution. By invading Iraq, the US was able to show the Saudis that they were willing to go all the way and didn't need their help to do it anywhere in the region. It also placed US troops with armor within striking distance on a semi permanent foothold to deal with any Al Queda activity inside the kingdom without actually invading them,. As any moron would know, invading Saudi Arabia would be a very good thing for Al Queda to rally the entire Muslim world around, Shiite and Sunni. Instead, Saudi Arabia did a very quiet rounding up of Al Queda cells breginning right around the time Johston was beheaded. Strange, they never knew where he was being held but the moment the video is published, they have the cell leader killed an hour later. They have been taking care of business so much so that Al Queda in Iraq is only a small faction rather than a main one. Why? Because Al Queda in SA is fighting for their very existance thank to the pressure the US placed on SA without invading.