quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC I don't need to pose a linky link to Zarquawi's letter saying he wasn't going enough damage to the Coalition to make them leave, so he wanted to cause a civil war based on sectarian tensions and make them boil over... And when he did bomb that mosque the militias didn't hold back anymore and went full blown against each other, hence that's when Iraqi sectarian violence overtook foreign terrorist violence... Shish do I have to break everything down barney-style for you? You didn't quote that because you were wrong.

Quote what? Do you have a serious reading comprehension? I wasn't asking about the event itself. The EVENT itself is not in contention. What IS in contention, and what you continue to fail to provide is effectively demonstrating how that event CREATED the insurgency all by itself. I have provided links that demonstrate otherwise, not it's your turn to answer the question posed to you and demonstrate HOW this event with evidence supposedly caused the insurgency.

Please be specific in detail.

quote:

And yse Moral is VERY high for troops on the ground because they are killing and arresting tons of bad guys everyday and get lots of intel from Iraqis who are sick of the less than 1% going around causing violence and death. You're lame arguement is 'Bush just said we are not winning'. But we are not losing, if you base winning on kills then we are killing ALOT more of them than us.

Oh dear, surely we're not going to resort to the kill ratio argument like that which failed miserably in Vietnam, are we? Funny, in October Bush said that reports of these body counts are counter-productive strategy to the Vietnam war:

quote:

“We have made a conscious effort not to be a body-count team,” Bush said, in a clear reference to the tabulations of enemy killed that became a hallmark of the Vietnam War. And that, in turn, “gives you the impression that [U.S. troops] are just there — kind of moving around, directing traffic, and somebody takes a shot at them and they’re down.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?...Tc1YmQwYTgxNjY=

Oh, but now that's okay, champ? Now that's a successful strategy of showing how well we're winning? I'm just curious, you do realize that the insurgency is not a finite number of men/women, right? You do know they have quite the successful recruiting strategy, right?

quote:

If you consider winning the country stable, well the Iraqis need to make the hard decisions to disband militias and reign in the sectarian violence, American troops can only do so much on their own...

That's the first fucking thing you've said 1/2 correctly all day. There is only so much our brave military men/women can do, and it's painfully clear they continue to be short-changed.

So lemme get this straight - you're for a body count to show we're winning, but when it comes to country stability to demonstrate mission being accomplished you are against it or at least blame it on the Iraqis?

Damn, history is seemingly going to repeat itself with such a philosophy.

quote:

Umm, do you not pay attention to news? Or just lame bloggers? You must have missed the parts about Iran giving Shite militias arms, weapons, and training. And who would Iran like them to use it against? The Sunnis AND the U.S. So yes, Iran gave them shaped charges. As well as to foreign fighers. Are you that naive? "Iran would never give bombs to sunnis" is your arguement? Lame.

Read the fucking quote again, twit. I'll break it down for you real slow-like since that appears to be what you need:

quote:

"Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics....

From this we gather the following:

1. IEDs are supplied by Iran mostly, right?
2. Hezbollah types (Shiite) train the insurgents (Sunnis included?) in their use of tactics

Now how can #2, Hezbollah types which are Shiite and hate and fight the Sunnis train the insurgents which are a mix of different folks but are very much comprised of Sunni insurgents rising up against Shiite majority rule? Can you answer that once you read it real slow-like?

This ANONYMOUS email from a source over a year old did not in any way make the distinction that you made. In fact what you stated was exactly opposite of what he wrote. Are you able to make this simple distinction from your mistake in understanding, or shall we go over it again?

quote:

And posting about a man raping a dog is disturbing to say the least kid. Yes I expect that from a child. You people are pathetic, someone disagrees with your point of view and you start cursing, name calling, and talking about beastiality...

Funny, for a person that doesn't read my posts I'm surprised you saw this. Regardless, it is a point (albeit an extreme one) about posting without evidence to support any assertions made. You are doing this extensively throughout, and I wanted to demonstrate that anything I say about you raping your dog has about as much credence as any of your statements with no evidence to support them.

I want you to try supporting your statements from now on. I'm sick as fuck reading unsupported assertions from newbies such as yourself in this debating forum. The COR forum is full of shit like this, and I've tried hard to continue making the distinction between the two. If you feel this is too difficult for you, I will continue pointing out how worthless your posts continue to be without evidence to support them in any manner.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...