Terrorist Kills 6 in Philadelphia

[Derek 2.0]

You're being disingenuous and semantic. The British were not wanted in Pasthun-dominated Helmand province. Whether I said nobody or hardly anybody doesn't materially affect the statement.

So? The British were not wanted in New Lodge.....

First, if you're going to link material in your statements, at least provide some commentary for them. If you're going to go through the trouble of citation, taking 30 seconds to explain your citation's content/relevance is a pretty reasonable expectation.

I already have.......several times

Second, yes, cost was one of the reasons the British left Afghanistan (same with the Americans and the Canadians). If the costs exceed the perceived benefits of the mission, it's unlikely to continue.

Riiiiiight.....nice shift of the goal posts........And whom perceived the cost benefits, and by that (your) measure, why didn't the British do likewise in the later 70s in Northern Ireland? Surely cost benefits would have factored in (in your mind) during the British economic troubles of the later 1970s.......

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there were reasons that public opinion turned against them, and a lot of that had to do with how long, how deadly, how expensive, and how unsuccessful the campaign was.

The conflict in Northern Ireland lasted decades longer and sent home more Union Jack draped coffins than Iraq and Afghanistan.........So why no shift in public with Northern Ireland, but a shift with Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Moonbox]

So? The British were not wanted in New Lodge.....

New Lodge is part of Belfast, where the British most certainly were wanted. You're being disingenuous again.

I already have.......several times

Not for those links. One of them was a UK government report to which you attached no relevance or explanation. Either explain them or don't bother citing them. It's only your own time you're wasting.

Riiiiiight.....nice shift of the goal posts........And whom perceived the cost benefits, and by that (your) measure, why didn't the British do likewise in the later 70s in Northern Ireland?

GEE, I don't know. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that it was part of the union, part of the economy and had a substantial British or pro-British population...Call it, skin in the game.

The conflict in Northern Ireland lasted decades longer and sent home more Union Jack draped coffins than Iraq and Afghanistan.........So why no shift in public with Northern Ireland, but a shift with Iraq and Afghanistan?

See above. As for deaths, British armed forces lost ~453 soldiers in Afghanistan, virtually all of them in Helmand between 2006 and 2009. During the decades of the Troubles, around 700 died. Do the math.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

New Lodge is part of Belfast, where the British most certainly were wanted. You're being disingenuous again.

I know were it is, like I know it was one of the most dangerous geographic locations on the planet for a British serviceman throughout the 70s and 80s......the British were wanted dead....

Not for those links. One of them was a UK government report to which you attached no relevance or explanation. Either explain them or don't bother citing them. It's only your own time you're wasting.

The costing associated with Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan.......guess which saw the greatest outlay in Pound Sterling.......

GEE, I don't know. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that it was part of the union, part of the economy and had a substantial British or pro-British population...Call it, skin in the game.

The British had no problem divesting themselves of their Empire through the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s.......and of course, they let the rest of Ireland go decades prior.........

See above. As for deaths, British armed forces lost ~453 soldiers in Afghanistan, virtually all of them in Helmand between 2006 and 2009. During the decades of the Troubles, around 700 died. Do the math.

I have.......more members of the British military, police services and intelligence services died in Northern Ireland then both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.....perhaps you should redo your math....and please, learn more of the actual conflict(s) were discussing, so as not to continue to waste my time.

[Moonbox]

The British had no problem divesting themselves of their Empire through the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s.......and of course, they let the rest of Ireland go decades prior.........

Is that the part of Ireland that had a large British population that fully desired to remain part of the Union?

I have.......more members of the British military, police services and intelligence services died in Northern Ireland then both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.....perhaps you should redo your math....

My math doesn't need redoing. The Troubles lasted 30 years and if you count all British security deaths they amount to about 1050. The British lost 450 soldiers in Helmand province in ~4 years (2006-2009), after which they withdrew to safer areas having failed to pacify the insurgents.

Derek, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure 450 deaths over 4 years is a higher casualty rate than 1000 over 30. Pull out your calculator if you're not sure. Hell, go back to 2002 and add up Iraq and Afghanistan over 12 years if you like. It'll yield similar results!

and please learn more of the actual conflict(s) were discussing, so as not to continue to waste my time.

You're wasting your own time, as by now you've clearly forgotten what my original point was. Now you're just engaging in another one of your pointless and blustering displays of armchair-general expertise. It's too bad that your enthusiasm and interest on these subjects are so clouded by bias and are never really matched by your wits.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Is that the part of Ireland that had a large British population that fully desired to remain part of the Union?

Every divested colony contained British subjects prior to being divested.......

My math doesn't need redoing. The Troubles lasted 30 years and if you count all British security deaths they amount to about 1050. The British lost 450 soldiers in Helmand province in ~4 years (2006-2009), after which they withdrew to safer areas having failed to pacify the insurgents.

Derek, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure 450 deaths over 4 years is a higher casualty rate than 1000 over 30. Pull out your calculator if you're not sure. Hell, go back to 2002 and add up Iraq and Afghanistan over 12 years if you like. It'll yield similar results!

Another goal post shift? I clearly stated totals......since we're shifting the pitch to casualty rate, the Falklands were far more deadlier then both Iraq and Afghanistan.......Any calls for a British withdrawal post Bluff Cove?

You're wasting your own time, as by now you've clearly forgotten what my original point was. Now you're just engaging in another one of your pointless and blustering displays of armchair-general expertise. It's too bad that your enthusiasm and interest on these subjects are so clouded by bias and are never really matched by your wits.

Says the fellow that claims the Troubles didn't encompass religious tension and that British forces were welcomed into Catholic, Provo controlled, communities????

Whats next? Jews enjoying picnics in Buchenwald or Marines sunbathing on Iwo Jima??

[Moonbox]

Every divested colony contained British subjects prior to being divested.......

A British subject is not the same thing as someone who wants to be a British subject.

Another goal post shift? I clearly stated totals......since we're shifting the pitch to casualty rate,

Who cares what you stated!? Your stated totals mean nothing unless they're provided with context. Like I said, it's painfully obvious you don't even remember what the original point was, which was simply that the Troubles differ immensely from the GWOT. The higher casualty rate for the latter serves to show how the intensity of the violence was so different.

the Falklands were far more deadlier then both Iraq and Afghanistan.......Any calls for a British withdrawal post Bluff Cove?

LOL! What do the Falklands have to do with the discussion Derek? Really!? I'm pretty sure it has nothing to offer in a comparison of the Troubles vs the GWOT. I'm not going to satisfy your need for another pointless and exhausting military-related segway, sorry.

Says the fellow that claims the Troubles didn't encompass religious tension

I said, in a debated comparison to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, that the Troubles were about political and nationalist tensions rather than religious ones. If I downplayed or underestimated the religious tensions then you can take your point if you like. It doesn't greatly affect the debate and I doubt even you would suggest that the PIRA's religious convictions carried as far as ISIS' enforcement of wahhabism.

and that British forces were welcomed into Catholic, Provo controlled, communities????

I flat out just didn't say that. That's a pretty rotten example of misrepresentation, but well in line with your tendency to dissemble.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

A British subject is not the same thing as someone who wants to be a British subject.

Indeed........like Catholic Republicans in Northern Ireland I should think....

Who cares what you stated!? Your stated totals mean nothing unless they're provided with context. Like I said, it's painfully obvious you don't even remember what the original point was, which was simply that the Troubles differ immensely from the GWOT. The higher casualty rate for the latter serves to show how the intensity of the violence was so different.

Was it not you that suggested the British withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan because of the shift in public opinion from the deaths of their servicemen? It sounds if you forgot your own incorrect pretext.....

LOL! What do the Falklands have to do with the discussion Derek? Really!? I'm pretty sure it has nothing to offer in a comparison of the Troubles vs the GWOT. I'm not going to satisfy your need for another pointless and exhausting military-related segway, sorry.

Did you not shift to "casualty rates" after incorrectly pointy to death totals of UK servicemen as justification for withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, well staying in Northern Ireland because of your incorrectly claimed lower death toll????

More total British forces died in Northern Ireland then Iraq/Afghanistan and the Falklands had a higher "casualty rate" then Iraq/Afghanistan.......as such, that would tend to counter your previous failed point on deaths/casualty rates....

I said, in a debated comparison to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, that the Troubles were about political and nationalist tensions rather than religious ones. If I downplayed or underestimated the religious tensions then you can take your point if you like. It doesn't greatly affect the debate and I doubt even you would suggest that the PIRA's religious convictions carried as far as ISIS' enforcement of wahhabism.

And you would be wrong..........see James Joyce

I flat out just didn't say that. That's a pretty rotten example of misrepresentation, but well in line with your tendency to dissemble.

Did you not suggest the British were welcome in New Lodge?

New Lodge is part of Belfast, where the British most certainly were wanted.

[Moonbox]

Indeed........like Catholic Republicans in Northern Ireland I should think....

The same Northern Ireland that had a large British/Protestant/loyalist population...

Was it not you that suggested the British withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan because of the shift in public opinion from the deaths of their servicemen? It sounds if you forgot your own incorrect pretext.....

You get so lost in your own red herrings and semantic nitpicking that you can't even keep track of the debate. YOU asked:

"Are you stating British public opinion and in turn British domestic politics didn't play into the the withdrawal of forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan???"

and I replied with a multitude of reasons why public opinion and politics shifted.

Did you not shift to "casualty rates" after incorrectly pointy to death totals of UK servicemen as justification for withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, well staying in Northern Ireland because of your incorrectly claimed lower death toll????

First, I never claimed Northern Ireland had a lower death toll. That's pure strawman and a good example of either your blatant dishonesty or your confusion/tendency for logical fallacy.

As for casualty rates, it wasn't a shift. YOU brought up overall casualties and asked why the higher total in Northern Ireland didn't lead to a withdrawal. I responded by asking you to do the math, assuming you'd have enough smarts and common sense to compare:

"British armed forces lost ~453 soldiers in Afghanistan, virtually all of them in Helmand between 2006 and 2009. During the decades of the Troubles, around 700 died."

More total British forces died in Northern Ireland then Iraq/Afghanistan and the Falklands had a higher "casualty rate" then Iraq/Afghanistan.......as such, that would tend to counter your previous failed point on deaths/casualty rates....

The fact that you're persisting on this moronic tangent is baffling. Use some common sense and context. The British thoroughly defeated the Argentinian attempt to take the islands and ended the war on their own terms - totally unlike the situation in Afghanistan.

Did you not suggest the British were welcome in New Lodge

I most certainly did not. I said, "New Lodge is part of Belfast, where the British most certainly were wanted."

Is this all you're offering the debate? Strawman, non-sequiturs, and misrepresentations? Funny.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

The same Northern Ireland that had a large British/Protestant/loyalist population...

........Like any other former British colony

I replied with a multitude of reasons why public opinion and politics shifted.

Like the greater death toll or higher costs........but of course Northern Ireland cost more and saw a greater loss of life than Iraq or Afghanistan for the British military

As for casualty rates, it wasn't a shift. YOU brought up overall casualties and asked why the higher total in Northern Ireland didn't lead to a withdrawal. I responded by asking you to do the math, assuming you'd have enough smarts and common sense to compare:

"British armed forces lost ~453 soldiers in Afghanistan, virtually all of them in Helmand between 2006 and 2009. During thedecades of the Troubles, around 700 died."

Indeed and I responded with the higher rate found within the Falklands....

The fact that you're persisting on this moronic tangent is baffling. Use some common sense and context. The British thoroughly defeated the Argentinian attempt to take the islands and ended the war on their own terms - totally unlike the situation in Afghanistan.

And why didn't they (or the West) end Iraq and Afghanistan on their own terms? Leaving before the enemy was defeated played into it I should think, or is that too moronic and baffling to you?

I most certainly did not. I said, "New Lodge is part of Belfast, where the British most certainly were wanted."

Is this all you're offering the debate? Strawman, non-sequiturs, and misrepresentations? Funny.

So again, are you suggesting the British were wanted in Provo controlled communities???? These are your words, how have I misrepresented them?

[bush_cheney2004]

More garden variety non-terrorism in Philadelphia North (Edmonton). No need to worry, eh?

(CNN) -- A man described by his family as "depressed and overly emotional" is suspected of killing eight people before taking his own life, police in Edmonton, Alberta, said Tuesday.

Seven of the victims, including two children, were found inside a house in north Edmonton, said Edmonton Police Chief Ron Knecht.

"This series of events are not believed to be random acts and there is no risk to the broader public," he said. "These events do not appear to be gang related but rather tragic incidents of domestic violence."

This is the worst mass violence in Edmonton, a city of about 812,000 people in the western Canada province of Alberta, since six people were killed in 1956, Knecht said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/world/americas/edmonton-killings/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

[On Guard for Thee]

Apparently you can never depend on that useless NRA crowd that reckon that all you need to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

[Derek 2.0]

More garden variety non-terrorism in Philadelphia North (Edmonton). No need to worry, eh?

It sounds like the Edmonton police services s**t the bed on this one............

[bush_cheney2004]

It sounds like the Edmonton police services s**t the bed on this one............

Yes....that story is getting lots of play "down in the states". Damn handguns !!

[Derek 2.0]

Yes....that story is getting lots of play "down in the states". Damn handguns !!

From the reporting in the media, the suspected killer was charged with domestic and sexual assault several years ago....and that once police were first called to the house nobody answered the door and they left.......only to return hours later to find the victims dead.......my question, if they are responding to a call with a man with a recent violent past, why they didn't enter the home the first visit?

That's not to say those inside weren't already dead, of that its not been made clear in the media, but it does seem a lapse on the police's part.

[Moonbox]

........Like any other former British colony

Except that Northern Ireland wasn't thousands of miles away and it contained a majority of the population that supported staying in the union...so very much unlike most other British colonies...

Like the greater death toll or higher costs........but of course Northern Ireland cost more and saw a greater loss of life than Iraq or Afghanistan for the British military

but you're not making an apples to apples comparison. You're comparing the total casualties of a 30-year domestic insurgency with relatively brief (and failed) foreign campaigns where the violence was far more intense...but you know that. You're just being (as usual) disingenuous.

Indeed and I responded with the higher rate found within the Falklands....

Which was a moronic red herring completely unrelated to our discussion and comparison.

And why didn't they (or the West) end Iraq and Afghanistan on their own terms?

Because the people in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't give up. The Argentinians did, after taking FAR less of a beating. It couldn't be any more simple than that, so I remain baffled with your dense line of questioning.

So again, are you suggesting the British were wanted in Provo controlled communities???? These are your words, how have I misrepresented them?

No, they're not my words at all. I never said the British were wanted in provo-controlled communities. I said they were wanted in Belfast and in Northern Ireland. I even highlighted it in bold so you couldn't confuse the statement. I did not say the British were wanted in every single part of Northern Ireland, which is what you seem to be insisting. I like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're capable of understanding the distinction, so your insistence on misunderstanding/misrepresenting my statement makes it pretty obvious that you're doing it on purpose to distract from the incompetence of your own position.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Except that Northern Ireland wasn't thousands of miles away and it contained a majority of the population that supported staying in the union...so very much unlike most other British colonies.

..

A majority? During the troubles?

but you're not making an apples to apples comparison. You're comparing the total casualties of a 30-year domestic insurgency with relatively brief (and failed) foreign campaigns where the violence was far more intense...but you know that. You're just being (as usual) disingenuous.

Iraq and Afghanistan saw more intense death for British servicemen? Thats comforting.....

Which was a moronic red herring completely unrelated to our discussion and comparison.

When confronted with the actual death toll in Northern Ireland, did you not shift to rate of death over a shorter time frame in Iraq and Afghanistan to attempt to confirm your point? As would you contend that several hundred dead of several months of combat is a greater rate then 400-500 over a ~4-6 year span?

Just because your assertion is countered, does not make my factual response "moronic".......

Because the people in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't give up. The Argentinians did, after taking FAR less of a beating. It couldn't be any more simple than that, so I remain baffled with your dense line of questioning.

They didn't have to "give-up", the British/West left!!!!

Because I never said the British were wanted in Provo-controlled communities, nor did I suggest anything even resembling that. I said they were wanted in Belfast and in Northern Ireland. I even highlighted it in bold so you couldn't confuse it, but you still somehow managed to get it all screwed up.

Did you not suggest the British were "wanted" in Belfast and that New Lodge was apart of Belfast?

Your "points" are ever shifting when countered with facts, likewise your propensity towards personal insults.......

None the less, in closing, a ~generation ago the British were more than willing to engage in combat operations, operations that were costly in terms of both money and personal, and see said operations through to a successful endgame. In doing so, the British armed forces were focused on actually winning the conflicts by any required means and not the perception seen by the populace of those they fought.

A generation later, the British/West, well fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, heavily restricted their armed forces ability to engage in total war, instead attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of the local populations. Once this strategy was proven folly, the elected Governments rapidly lost the support of their own populations and in turn, withdrew (or in the process of) their forces and handed their enemies a default victory......

With the case of Iraq (and I'm certain Afghanistan in the near future) the former enemies have regrouped and once more pose a threat to the West........And the West has returned to the same mess that they left unfinished.....With the British, this runs counter to their experience in contending with post-war insurgencies (Northern Ireland, Malaya, Kenya etc), of which until Iraq and Afghanistan, the British excelled and achieved positive results...........

As I said, the GWOT was not a stupid fight, but in how parts were waged (nation building) and other parts self-defeating (restrictive ROEs, self-immolation over the treatment of ones enemies, avenues of gaining intelligence etc) were without a doubt "stupid".......

[eyeball]

Your "points" are ever shifting when countered with facts, likewise your propensity towards personal insults...

You know what they say, "if you're not with us..."

You'll know you've made the big time when he starts calling you a lefty.

[dre]

.

As I said, the GWOT was not a stupid fight, but in how parts were waged (nation building) and other parts self-defeating (restrictive ROEs, self-immolation over the treatment of ones enemies, avenues of gaining intelligence etc) were without a doubt "stupid".......

It wasn't just a few different mistakes, the entire idea was tragically and fundamentally flawed. Militants in the middle east set their sites on the west because of our political and military intervention in the region... Our answer was more political and military intervention, which is why the whole thing has backfired on us so badly.

Not only have we failed to effectively fight terrorism but we have turned the middle east into a breeding ground for anti western terrorism that will produce a whole new generation of terrorist, and we also inadvertantly took the cap off a potentially massive sectarian conflict that for the most part had been effectively suppressed by guys like Saddam, Assad, et al.

You assessment "we just werent brutal enough" is utterly silly. Comparisons to Ireland are utterly silly as well.

[Derek 2.0]

It wasn't just a few different mistakes, the entire idea was tragically and fundamentally flawed. Militants in the middle east set their sites on the west because of our political and military intervention in the region... Our answer was more political and military intervention, which is why the whole thing has backfired on us so badly.

I disagree, the strategy and execution used were flawed........such conflicts dating history back have been fought and won......

You assessment "we just werent brutal enough" is utterly silly. Comparisons to Ireland are utterly silly as well.

Yet, as cited, the British postwar were able to contend with such groups, in multiple examples, by the successful usage of "brutal methods".......you may feel such examples are "utterly silly", but they are historic fact.

[Moonbox]

A majority? During the troubles?

When the UK was divesting of its 'colonies' which is what you brought up.

Iraq and Afghanistan saw more intense death for British servicemen? Thats comforting.....

More intense violence, greater mortality rates, call it whatever you want.

When confronted with the actual death toll in Northern Ireland, did you not shift to rate of death over a shorter time frame in Iraq and Afghanistan to attempt to confirm your point?

Again, no, I didn't shift anything. I assumed that any reasonable human being would include context and time frame into their death toll.

Just because your assertion is countered, does not make my factual response "moronic".......

It didn't counter anything. The Falklands War didn't have any relevance to our discussion (being a completely different type of conflict altogether). It was moronic because it was yet another of your endless and exhausting red herrings.

They didn't have to "give-up", the British/West left!!!!

for reasons we've already described at length. The British could not enforce their terms on the Taliban like they did with the Argentinians.

Did you not suggest the British were "wanted" in Belfast and that New Lodge was apart of Belfast?

and here we see that you fail in even the most basic exercise of reasoning. This is a perfect example of how broken your logic is and a glaring example of how oblivious you are to your own non-sequiturs.

Yes, I said the British were wanted in Belfast. Yes, I said New Lodge was part of Belfast. These two points, however, are not mutually exclusive. I've already explained how and somehow you're still failing miserably to get it. New Lodge is not the only part of Belfast.

Your "points" are ever shifting when countered with facts, likewise your propensity towards personal insults.......

Your arguments make no sense. You provide facts to the discussion, but then you're clearly unable to assemble them into something even resembling a focused or cogent argument. You're all over the place on tangents and irrelevant segways and then when the reasoning behind your shabby conclusions gets scrutinized you whine about goal-post shifting and flail around trying to put words into other people's mouths. Do everyone a favor and look up the definition and then a few examples of "red herrings" and "non-sequiturs". You clearly aren't capable of avoiding them.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

When the UK was divesting of its 'colonies' which is what you brought up.

Yes and all colonies comprised British citizens........like Ulster.

More intense violence, greater mortality rates, call it whatever you want.

Indeed......your though is that British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan were just deader.......

Again, no, I didn't shift anything. I assumed that any reasonable human being would include context and time frame into their death toll.

It didn't counter anything. The Falklands War didn't have any relevance to our discussion (being a completely different type of conflict altogether). It was moronic because it was yet another of your endless and exhausting red herrings.

"Mortality rates" are used by yourself as examples (when actual death totals don't help), except once mortality rates become inconvenient, then they become "red herrings".......as to relevance within our discussion, didn't you also suggest the Troubles had no relevance in discussing the GWOT........

for reasons we've already described at length. The British could not enforce their terms on the Taliban like they did with the Argentinians.

Of course they couldn't........the British left, which would be akin to pulling up lock, stock and barrel in Ulster (which the Thatcher Government considered in the early 80s) or turning the Armada around once it received its first losses in the South Atlantic.......

and here we see that you fail in even the most basic exercise of reasoning. This is a perfect example of how broken your logic is and a glaring example of how oblivious you are to your own non-sequiturs.

Yes, I said the British were wanted in Belfast. Yes, I said New Lodge was part of Belfast. These two points, however, are not mutually exclusive. I've already explained how and somehow you're still failing miserably to get it. New Lodge is not the only part of Belfast.

Again with the insults when your ignorance on the topic becomes obvious.......as by far, the Provos received their most actual support from within Belfast, with Provo battalions formed in all corners of the city and outlaying communities...and in turn the majority of the British solders killed or wounded having been in Greater Belfast.....

Your arguments make no sense. You provide facts to the discussion, but then you're clearly unable to assemble them into something even resembling a focused or cogent argument. You're all over the place on tangents and irrelevant segways and then when the reasoning behind your shabby conclusions gets scrutinized you whine about goal-post shifting and flail around trying to put words into other people's mouths. Do everyone a favor and look up the definition and then a few examples of "red herrings" and "non-sequiturs". You clearly aren't capable of avoiding them.

That is rather rich coming from a person who's arguments share the consistency of that of Jello.....and once one attempts to nail said Jello to the wall, they are berated with insults.......By all means, continue to insult me, I don't mind at all, fore I'm of the belief that everyone on this planet has a talent and its clear (as Jello) that your talent is not regurgitating your wikipedia search results

I leave you the last word.......since that is all that you've got

[dre]

I disagree, the strategy and execution used were flawed........such conflicts dating history back have been fought and won......

No... "such conflicts" have NOT been fought or won. Not even close.

In the case of the idiotic GWOT what you have is an entire region with hundreds of millions of people, and dozens of countries, that feel like foreigners from the west had dominated and brutalized them for a century. A region that is not only rife with anti-western sentiment but populated by adherents to a backward and conservative religion, and a region where the two major sects of that religion believe it is their religious duty to kill each other.

The GWOT is failing miserably because not only is it creating MORE anti western sentiment and MORE support for anti western militants, but it is also removing many of the obstacles that were preventing full on sectarian war.

We have unwittingly spent 5 trillion dollars creating a whole new generation of terrorists and plunging the middle east to the bring of a dustup between Shia and Sunnis. And again, it wasn't because we made a few tactical mistakes along the way... the entire plan was flawed. Anyone with half a brain knew that this is EXACTLY what would happen. It was the only thing that COULD possibly happen.

And you have no relevant analogies and no parallels to draw, because there simply isnt any.

[GostHacked]

More soldiers have been killed in this war on terror in Afghanistan than there were deaths on 9/11. That seems a little out of whack.

[dre]

More soldiers have been killed in this war on terror in Afghanistan than there were deaths on 9/11. That seems a little out of whack.

The GWOT is a thousand times the threat that terrorism ever was or could hope to be. Hundreds of thousands dead... Trillions of dollars seized from poor fear-dumb westerners. Our great children will still be paying for it. And it's increased the threat of terrorism ten-fold to boot.

[Moonbox]

Again with the insults when your ignorance on the topic becomes obvious.......as by far, the Provos received their most actual support from within Belfast, with Provo battalions formed in all corners of the city and outlaying communities...and in turn the majority of the British solders killed or wounded having been in Greater Belfast.....

So (to use your own logic and line of questioning) you're saying that there was not a significant population of pro-Union loyalists in Belfast, and that the Provos were being supported from Sandy Row, and that nobody wanted the British in Belfast?

It'll be interesting to see how you handle your own brand of shabby reasoning.