[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Bob, Brad, Wally (political, terrorism, etc.)

[TN Rhodey]

You mention the last attack killed over 3,000. Please note that none of the
attackers were from Iraq. Your post makes very little sense to me. It is
really quite simple. The Taliban supported Bin laden and allowed him to hide
out in Afghanastan. Bin Laden and other Saudis attacked us. We were right to
attack Afghanastan and go after Bin laden. Iraq was contained and not posing
a threat to anyone other than themselves. Alas our Commander in Chief was
dead set on going to war in Iraq so we lost focus in Afghanastan and attack
Iraq. As your post pointed out the terrorists are now taking advantage of
this and are trying to re-establish the Taliban.  This isn't rocket science.

Wally



On 7/7/07, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> Guys:
>
> Mike Abdullah said, "The problems today are caused not by true Islam but
> by
> the wacko Saudi Wahabi sect/cult of death."
>
> What goes for education today in Pakistan and that entire area is
> indoctrination into that cult controlled by 'Mullahs'.  They have and are
> continuing to create zombies that they send out to kill infidels
> (westerners).
>
> In support of Bob's and Wally's position that Bush screwed up, is the fact
> that the general population's education level is estimated at less than
> our
> 4th grade level.  This yields large numbers who have difficulty with
> higher
> level reasoning, problem analysis, and recognizing the best solution. (MBA
> type skills)
>
> What is interesting in this problem of lack of civilized reasoning extends
> to those with what westerners call higher education.  This was illustrated
> recently with medical doctors carrying out car bombings in England.
>
> It should be noted that you both fall back on the ability of U. S. marines
> or military.  However, where are all such marines or military supposed to
> come from?  Do you think that the influx of immigrants will be of the same
> caliber and mind set as you know?  A few yes, but I question that the
> number
> needed is available.  While in the mountains in that part of the world
> some
> over 50 still participate in military activity, how many of you are able
> to
> do so.
>
> The argument was put forth that we will be attacked again, and that
> outrage
> will conquer our attackers.  I think that Bush's unpopular approach of
> going
> after potential attackers now is a better way.  First, out military gets a
> real feel for the adversary today.  Second, we have a military with
> current
> skills.  Third, there is the legitimate possibility that such action might
> prevent the upcoming attack that you would allow.
>
> The Iraq war was necessary because Saddam bin Hussein at-Takriti paid
> suicide bombers.  While at the time they were directed toward Israel,
> there
> was a potential they could be sent elsewhere.   Saddam used poison gases.
> What was going to stop him from supplying suicide bombers with such
> weapons?
>
> We are using the current war to learn, train and keep the wolves at bay.
> Peacenik and appeasement arguments fail to appreciate the islamofasist and
> their 'cult of death'.  The last attack killed over 3,000.  How many of
> your
> neighbors are you willing to allow to be killed in the next attack?
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Reply-to-Bob%2C-Brad%2C-Wally-%28political%2C-terrorism%2C-etc.%29-tf4040147.html#a11477851
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list