1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

List of Islamic terror attack.

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Aug 13, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    May 14, 2003
    I only posted since August 13. The list is really long. (The list begins at the bottom of the site linked.

    " The List " of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 5 Months

    8/13/06 Philippines Jolo Abu Sayyaf kidnappers stab a businesswoman to death and behead her son after taking them captive. A policeman trying to rescue them is killed as well.

    8/13/06Thailand Narathiwat Islamic radicals kill a shopowner to draw police, then detonate a bomb, killing an officer and injuring twelve people.

    8/13/06 IsraelShlomi Hezbollah fires rockets into an Israeli neighborhood, killing a 70-year-old man in his home.

    8/12/06 India Drogian Two elderly people are shot to death in their homes by Islamic terrorists.

    8/12/06 Iraq Baghdad Three civilians are killed when Jihadis place a shrapnel bomb in a residential neighborhood.

    8/12/06 Thailand Narathiwat Islamists shoot a policeman in the back as he is leaving his house.

    8/12/06 Thailand Pattani A policeman is gunned down by Muslim militants while on patrol.

    8/12/06 Iraq Mosul Jihadis murder a dozen Iraqi civilians in a series of bombing and shooting attacks.

    8/11/06 Afghanistan Ghazni Two civilians are killed by a roadside bombing.

    8/11/06 Afghanistan Ghazni Religious extremists kill a man outside his home.

    8/11/06 Afghanistan Nuristan Three U.S. soldiers are killed when Taliban militants bombard their patrol with rockets.

    8/11/06 Afghanistan Spin Boldak A suicide bomber kills a Canadian soldier in a transport convoy.

    8/11/06 Philippines Pikit Two policemen are ambushed and executed by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

    8/11/06 Iraq Baghdad Religious radicals kidnap, torture and murder six members of a rival sect.

    8/11/06 India Arra A Hindu mother and her two young children are brutally slain in their home by Muslim fanatics.

    8/10/06 Iraq Najaf At least 35 innocent people at a market are blown to bits by an Islamic fanatic wrapped in explosives.

    8/10/06 Israel Dir el-Asad A young mother and her 4-year-old son are blown apart in their home by a Katyusha rocket.

    8/10/06 Israel Karmiel A baby girl is killed by Hezbollah rockets fired on her family's home.

    8/10/06 Israel Jerusalem An Italian tourist is stabbed to death by a Palestinian youth.

    8/10/06 India Pattan The Mujahideen gun down a civilian and injure his wife and neighbor.

    8/10/06 Philippines North Cotabato A bombing attack by Islamic militants leaves one dead and five injured.

    8/9/06 Pakistan Angoor Adda An elderly man is shot to death by Islamic militants.

    8/9/06 Ingushetia Nazran Radicals bomb a prosecutor's house, killing his brother.

    8/9/06 Iraq Baghdad Terrorists open fire on a street vendor grilling fish, killing five civilians. Thirteen other bodies are found elsewhere.

    8/8/06 Iraq Muqdadiya Three people are shot to death by Jihad militants, including a teacher.

    8/8/06 Iraq Baghdad Muslim terrorists set off two bombs at a bustling market, killing at least ten people.

    8/8/06 Dagestan Makhachkala Islamic separatists bomb a government official's convoy, killing three people.

    8/8/06Iraq Baqubah At least five people were killed when Muslim radicals blow up an apartment building in the middle of the night.

    8/8/06 Iraq Baghdad Fifteen bodies are found by police from sectarian violence.

    8/7/06 Iraq Baqubah A senseless attack on a checkpoint by Sunni terrorists leaves at least six Iraqi soldiers dead.

    8/7/06 Pakistan Garhiyoum A tribal leader is abducted and beheaded by Muslim extremists.

    8/7/06 India Donipawa A civilian is abducted and murdered by the Mujahideen.

    8/7/06 Russia Karachaevsk A local Imam is gunned down by Islamists for performing healing.

    8/7/06 Iraq Fallujah Six civilians are killed when Sunni terrorists set off a bomb by the side of a road.

    8/7/06 Iraq Khalis Terrorists blow up a minibus, killing four civilians..

    8/7/06 Afghanistan Daigh A 70-year-old woman and her 13-year-old grandson are pulled from their home and hanged by the Taliban.

    8/6/06 IsraelKfar Giladi Hezbollah successfully hits a gathering of people in a community, killing twelve Israelis.

    8/6/06 India Sopore A woman is killed when Islamic terrorists lob a grenade into the street.

    8/6/06 Iraq Baghdad Police discover sixteen victims of sectarian violence in two location in the country. Women were among the dead.

    8/6/06 Israel Haifa A crowded residential area is the target of Hezbollah rockets. An Israeli woman is among three dead.

    8/6/06 Thailand Pattani A 52-year-old Buddhist civilian is gunned down by Muslims.

    8/6/06 Thailand Tala A rubber plantation worker is machine-gunned to death by Islamic radicals.

    8/6/06 Iraq Tikrit Fifteen mourners at a funeral are slaughtered by a suicide bomber.

    8/5/06 India Poonch The Mujahideen capture a village head, beat him up and then shoot him in the head.

    8/5/06 Israel al-Aramshe A 60-year-old Arab-Israeli woman and her two daughters are killed when a Hezbollah rocket lands in their home.

    8/5/06 Iraq Baghdad Radicals kidnap and torture to death nine members of a rival Muslim sect.

    8/4/06 Afghanistan Kandahar Two children are killed when religious extremists lob an explosive into a house.

    8/4/06 Israel Mughar The mother of two young children is killed in her living room by a Hezbollah rocket.

    8/4/06 Iraq Hadhar A Fedayeen suicide bomber plows his car into a crowd of specators at a soccer game, killing at least ten.

    8/4/06 Israel Karmiel Two people are killed and dozens injured by more 'Party of Allah' rockets.

    8/4/06 Iraq Dujail Muslim terrorists barge into a home and kill four family members.

    8/4/06 Iraq Ubaydi Three civilians are killed when Jihadis lob mortars into their neighborhood.

    8/4/06 Iraq Kut 70Seven people are kidnapped and beheaded by Islamic radicals.

    8/3/06 Iraq Wajihiya Muslim radicals invade a home, killing three women and a man.

    8/3/06 Afghanistan Kandahar A Shaheed martyr murders twenty-one innocents at a market by detonating explosives strapped to his body.

    8/3/06 Iraq Mussayab Jihad gunmen attack a wedding party, killing three members.

    8/3/06 Iraq Bahgdad Allah's butchers detonate a bomb in a rubbish pile, killing at least ten bystanders.

    8/3/06 Israel Acre Five Israeli civilians, including a father and daughter, are killed during a 90-minute rocket barrage on their town from Hezbollah.

    8/3/06 Israel Ma'alot Three Arab Israelis are killed by a Hezbollah rocket attack.

    8/3/06 Thailand Narathiwat Islamic militants shoot a mechanic to death and seriously injure a 5-year-old girl.

    8/3/06 Tajikistan Dushanbe An Islamist kills himself and a police officer with a grenade.

    8/2/06 Thailand Songkhla Thai Islamists kill three policeman with a bomb planted along a railroad track.

    8/2/06 Iraq Baghdad Islamic terrorists target a bank with bombs, killing more than a dozen innocents.

    8/2/06 Iraq Beiji Two-dozen people aboard a bus are slaughtered by a remote-controlled bomb operated by radical Sunnis.

    8/2/06 Iraq Baghdad Children as young as 11 are blown apart when Sunnis deliberately target a soccer match with a bomb hidden in a gym bag.

    8/2/06 Israel Nahariya An Israeli man is killed by a Hezbollah rocket while riding his bike.

    8/2/06 Iraq Baghdad Three day laborers looking for work are blown to bits by Islamic bombers.

    8/2/06 Iraq Diwaniya Radical Muslims murder an employee of a human rights group outside his home.

    8/2/06 Iraq Suwayra Eleven bound and tortured bodies, victims of sectarian violence, are pulled from a river.

    8/2/06 Thailand Pattani slamists kill a guard at a construction site with a bomb.

    8/1/06 Afghanistan Helmand A Taliban ambush on a NATO patrol leaves three British soldiers dead.

    8/1/06 India Srinagar Four Indian soldiers are shot to death by Islamic militants in two separate attacks. One was outside a hospital, and the other a shopping area.

    8/1/06 Iraq Baghdad At least fifty-six people are killed in five Jihad attacks by sectarian militants. Most are burned or blasted to death in bombings.
  2. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    Mar 25, 2002
    It's all my fault. :(
  3. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    Jun 27, 2002
    So, does this mean we're "winning the war on terror"?:scratch::nono2:
  4. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    May 14, 2003

    Jon you are with out a doubt the biggest example of what is wrong with the liberal mentality. The list not just the last six months but every year since 9/11 (includes the time before the Iraq war) shows how brutal and wide spread radical islam is. I guess 9/11 and the thousands upon thousands of other deaths committed in the name of Allah do not show an intelligent fellow like you that islam is at war with the world and will not stop until all non believers are killed.

    Peaceful islam wants to kill you and everyone else that you know for one reason and one reason only you are not musilim.

    They even kill musilims who do not agree with the radical POV.

    Salman Rushdie is in hiding for how many years because of his book?

    Van Gough was killed for his point of view against islam.

    But sure go ahead defend them and say Israel and the US are dead wrong. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

    Yours just happens to be wrong.

    The evidence is there you choose to ignore it and blame GW and the jews.
  5. GeneralDisarray

    GeneralDisarray Banned User

    Jul 8, 2006
    I wanna carry my Cherry Coke on an airplane!! :mad:
  6. GeneralDisarray

    GeneralDisarray Banned User

    Jul 8, 2006
    You sure aren't supporting the war on terror. As a matter of fact you and your type have been fighting against the war on terror.
  7. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    In a word "yes". Thanks to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq:

    - 50 million people are now free of repressive regimes.
    - The AQ Kahn nuclear proliferation network has been shut down.
    - Libya has come clean and opened its doors to the rest of the world.
    - Lebanon is now free of Syrian occupation

    all of that happened as a direct and indirect result of our actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you don't believe that items 3 and 4 are linked to the events in Afghanistan and Iraq, consider the timing of those events. Qadaffi came clean within days of us beating Hussein's regime. If you think the speed with which we got to Baghdad was lost on Qadaffi... And the Cedar Revolution happened to coincide with people in Iraq going to the polls. Democracy is contagious, and when you see your neighbor being able to vote, it has an effect. We've also seen some, albeit modest, reforms in places like Saudi Arabia (women being allowed to hold some low-level government posts) and Egypt.

    Does that mean that we'll win this overnight? No. And I challenge anyone to point to a statement by the administration saying that this would be a cake-walk. Bush has said from day one that this would be a long, hard fight. There is much to be done - but what happened in London says that we still have a long way to go. Of course, I guess, we could just put our tails between our legs, and wait for them to strike again.
  8. GeneralDisarray

    GeneralDisarray Banned User

    Jul 8, 2006
    jpl, don't bring facts into the arguement!!!
  9. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    Apr 23, 2002
    ...Afghanistan, Iraq, London, New York, Washington, Beirut and Madrid
    are holes in the dike, radical Islamic jihadists are the sea, and we are
    the little Dutch boy.
  10. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    Jun 27, 2002
    Whoa! A little touchy guys!

    But here's where I get confused.:scratchin

    We hear all this "good news" like

    - 50 million people are now free of repressive regimes.
    - The AQ Kahn nuclear proliferation network has been shut down.
    - Libya has come clean and opened its doors to the rest of the world.
    - Lebanon is now free of Syrian occupation

    And in the next breath I'm told that British subjects want to blow up their toothpaste on my next trans-Atlantic flight, or someone comes along with one of these "lists" like above. That's just this month eh? Yeah, you're all very reassuring! NOT!!!

    And what "50 million" are you talking about? Iraq and Afganistan?:lol: You mean the ones who are free to get blown up by their neighbors on any given day? Those "50 million"?

    Ah yes, AQ Kahn. Now there was a deal with the devil if there ever was one. In exchange for retiring from being the number one nuclear proliferator on the planet to anyone who had the dime, he has to suffer the indignation of living like a king and being a respected hero in his native Pakistan, theoretically under house arrest mind you. All this not to jeopardize our deal with Pakistan's military dictator whose intelligence agency, the ISI, probably has a damn good idea where OBL is hiding out. The US has not been allowed to interrogate Kahn, most likely because there might be some embarrassing connections with Pakistan's own government and maybe the Saudis and others as well. Make that TWO deals with the devil and chalk up another "W" in the war on terror!

    Qadaffi? We've been over this before too. Do you really believe this pompous, posturing clown suddenly saw the light "within days of us beating Hussein's regime"? He seems to have lost his enthusiasm for being Islam's terrorist poster boy sometime in the aftermath of Lockerbie. Granted, having his house blown up, possibly with him inside might have put the fear of Allah in him. But ever since he's been trying to inveigle his way back into polite diplomatic society. He more or less owned up to Flight 103 and coughed up a bunch of cash. Part of the deal though, at least tacitly, was an easing of sanctions against Libya. Qadaffi knew he wasn't "next", if he was on the short list at all. And he's never been the type to give something up without some sort of quid pro quo. So it's very likely his sudden conversion to peacenik was orchestrated to coincide with our glorious victory in Baghdad. It's very UNLIKELY it was an impulsive urge to show fealty to the mighty USA. Qadaffi is getting old and he'd like his son to succeed him. Chances for Junior's future are highly enhanced by making nice with the west.

    And finally Lebanon. We'll have to wait and see of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if at least a few Lebanese are pining for the good ol' days of "Syrian occupation". After kicking them out, it became a bit awkward to ask them for any help now. And although I suspect Syria is rather content to be sitting on the sidelines at the present time, if they had still been occupying Lebanon, it might have given Israel second thoughts about their attack, at least the scale of it. And the Cedar Revolution? The elections in Iraq? I think it may have had more to do with the assassination of the very popular anti-Syrian former Prime Minister.

    Now, I could very well be wrong on one, several, or all of these points. But they're all plausable explanations for these events that lead away from the conclusion they were all great victories in the war on terror. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Bush DOES have a handle on the situation. But then there's your list! Contrary to talking points, terror worldwide, especially Islamic inspired terror, appears to be on the rise since we started this war on terror in earnest. Perhaps that's only temporary and we have to get over the hump. But things don't look good out there and we've still got one hell of a hump in front of us.
  11. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    I just love the sarcasm. I'm not touchy about anything. And I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture, and I'm not trying to reassure anyone of anything, aside from the fact that we've had some very real concrete victories in the war on terror. I just get tired of folks saying "all this time we've spent, and we have nothing to show for it on the war on terror." As for the 50 million that are free, yes, I'm referring to Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there still violence in Iraq? Well, duh. Of course there is. But ask yourself this question - if you were to live in Iraq, would you rather live under Hussein, or in the present-day Iraq? For me the answer is obvious - I would rather live there today. And so would the Iraqis. Every poll I've seen has borne that out. And if you believe that there was no violence in Iraq before Hussein was deposed, well that's just not realistic. The difference is that it was state-sponsored.

    We uncovered some lovely items when we got in country. For example the mass graves. We were absolutely aghast at how many there were. Then there were the childrens prisons. And the rape rooms. And lets not forget the people-shredders. Wonderful pieces of equipment - just basically large meat grinders. Hussein's goons would put you in feet first, to hear you scream, as you were being turned into sausage. Oh, yeah, things were paradise before. Hussein was a brutal butcher. He also believed in wide-scale retribution, torturing and killing groups that opposed him - the Kurds as well as a group of river-people. He actually set out to destroy the Tigris and Euphrates because of that latter group. They survived off the river, and Hussein decided to make them pay by destroying those rivers. Turns out both groups of people opposed Hussein after the last gulf war.

    The truth is that there are lots of people still in Iraq that don't want things to change - they believe that by blowing up innocents that we'll turn tail and run. If we did, it would be catastrophic. Those bad people with bad weapons would take over, and things would get horribly chaotic over there. It's like getting rid of a hornets nest. The nest is a threat, but if you get rid of it you disrupt the hornets and risk getting a couple stings. That's exactly what's happening now.

    As for the AQ Kahn network, you can focus on what happened to Kahn. The truth is, we uncovered that network because of our work with Pakistan, and because of our operations in the gulf. If we hadn't gone in there, that network would still be operating, supplying the lovely Iranian and North Korean regimes with nuclear material and know-how. The disruption of that network was a major victory, regardless of what happened to Kahn. I don't like the fact that Kahn got off easily, but had we thrown him in prison, we would have lost Pakistan's cooperation - which was critical in uncovering that terror plot in London.

    As for Libya opening its doors, you honestly think that Qadaffi wasn't moved by the speed with which moved into Baghdad? We take down the regime, and within days, Qadaffi, who during the 80's was US public enemy #1, all of a sudden got religion and opened his doors? Wow, what a coincidence. Also, after we hammered out an agreement with Libya - they would take responsibility for Lockerbie, and other attacks, and would totally open their doors to inspectors, in exchange for normalized trade relations, and leaving Qadaffi alone. A day after that deal was signed, another top Libyan official tried to put the brakes on "wait a sec, we're not going to necessarily take responsibility for Lockerbie..." Within a few hours, Qadaffi shut that guy down "I'm the president here... ignore what that guy had to say..."

    As for Lebanon, yeah, that's a tricky situation. It was a good thing that Syria was ousted, but you still have Hezbollah to deal with. Lebanon is also very much in a state of upheaval - freedom doesn't come easily. It can leave alot of pain and bloodshed in its wake - there are lots of very bad people out there who will fight tooth and nail to prevent it taking hold.

    You're right, things are bad around the world in terms of Islamofascist terrorism. This has been a problem that's been years in the making - it doesn't get solved overnight. And our stomping around in the middle east is forcing the hands of alot of these groups. They can't afford to just sit around and patiently plan attacks anymore. Like I said, it's like that hornet analogy. We've disturbed a mother of a nest. But I would rather we get rid of the nest before it swarms us and we get hit with another 9/11. I know you hear this alot, but the fact that we've gone 5 years without another attack on US soil or US property is a major achievement. During the 90's there were repeated attacks, and attempted attacks.

    Maybe the fact that I used to work a couple blocks from the WTC makes it more personal for me. The only reason my sister-in-law is alive (she worked on the 97th floor of, I believe, tower 1) is because she was on maternity leave at the time. Most of her company, as well as her boss, were killed on 9/11 - her company suffered the second-most number of losses that day. What hit me particularly hard, btw, was a picture they showed, right after the devestation, of 4 WTC. I used to take the PATH train into the WTC. Coming out with a couple million fellow commuters, going toward Wall St., you walked right by 4 WTC. The view that they showed, of the destroyed building, was the view that I used to see every day going to work.
  12. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    One more thing about the Lebanese situation. It's true that Hariri's assassination provided the spark, but there was a critical element that was provided by Iraq and Afghanistan. That it was possible. Every time I hear some blow-hard telling me that "democracy just isn't possible in that area of the world..." I want to scream. Unfortunately I think alot of people believe that nonsense. Seeing Afghans elect a government, and seeing Iraqis going to the polls, after shedding the shackles of two of the most brutal regimes on earth, can be a hell of a driver that "maybe we can do it too..." And it wasn't just in Lebanon - you also saw it with the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine. Don't underestimate what that kind of example can do - it was the American Revolution, afterall, that inspired the French Revolution. Only after they saw us throw off the British monarchy that the French realized that they could do the same with their own rulers.

    And the situation with Hezbollah and Israel had nothing to do with Syria being ejected from Lebanon - that just doesn't make any sense. This is the third time that Israel had to go in and remove Hezbollah from the border - the first two happened under Syrian rule. I only hope that the Lebanese wise up and realize that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that having them there does the country no favors.

    And the notion that Qaddafi had been trying for years to open up relations with the west - one question. Why didn't he do that earlier? He had ample opportunity. And funny, he never took the initiative until Hussein was taken down... hmmm... very coincidental, don't you think?

    Oh, yeah, one last clarification. I mentioned that if Kahn's network were not disrupted that he would still be supplying material and know-how to North Korea. I should have mentioned that we've already done a good job of that ourselves. You can scream that "Bush sucks" all the live-long day, but it was Clinton that signed a bogus agreement with the North Koreans, giving them the technology to build those weapons that he's testing. Thanks, Bubba!
  13. billpa

    billpa Icon

    Jul 11, 2003
    A lot of those attacks in the list are in Iraq. I'm confused: Are things going well in Iraq or is it hell on earth?
  14. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    Hard to tell, actually. Personally I get the impression that things are improving in Iraq overall, but it's clear that there is still alot of violence. My biggest beef with the Bush administration on the war (and also with other issues) is that I think their PR sucks. They need to do a much better job of educating people as to what's going on.

    Probably the most effective that I saw was a presentation, on C-SPAN, given by a general in the field. He had a map of Iraq, broken out by region. Each region was colored red, yellow, or green. He explained the colors this way:

    - red = the US is doing the heavy lifting, militarily in this area
    - yellow = Iraqi military is taking the lead, with heavy support from the US
    - green = region was handed completely over to Iraqi military, the US has pulled out of that region, although we may still provide some logistical support

    He sought to counter those who said we have no plan for victory in Iraq. We get out of a region when we succeed in that region. Success is actually something that's quantifiable. And if I remember right, the math went something like this:

    - we measure the abilities of every Iraqi military unit (he didn't get into what the criteria were)
    - if they meet specific measures for competency, then that unit is considered ready for prime time.
    - when 3 Iraqi units meet that level of success, we pull a single US unit out.

    our goal is to get every US unit out of each region, and that's how we've been progressing. That is, most of the regions on the map were yellow. A handful were red (mostly around Baghdad and in the Sunni triangle), and there was one green one - in the deep south of the country.

    I thought that a presentation like that, given regularly, would be extremely valuable in understanding the situation on the ground. How successful are we at training the Iraqi military? That's really the key - because the sooner that happens, the sooner we can get most of our troops out, while still not sacrificing the Iraqi government. I would like to see a time-lapse presentation of like that - how many have "gone to yellow" over the last 6 months? That kind of thing.

    But this administration is horrible at articulating things like that. For example, the economy, by just about any measure is exploding, yet a large percentage of people will tell you that we're in a recession... the administration doesn't counter the nay-sayers out there. Ditto with Iraq. A co-worker asked "why are we trying to bring democracy to Iraq - Hussein's gone, let's just bug out... if it devolves into civil war, so be it..." My response: "Democracy coming to Iraq is, and I know this sounds harsh, a serendipity. It's wonderful that they're voting over there, but bringing democracy for the sake of bringing democracy is not the primary mission. Our mission is to ensure that Iraq doesn't become a cesspool for terrorism again. The BEST way to ensure that is to instill some form of democracy - democracies tend toward free-market economies. It give the population a stake in how the country does. As a result, they're loathe to go to war - democracies are almost never the aggressors in a conflict -- and they don't breed terrorists... as unhelpful as France has been recently, we really don't worry about that country as being a terrorist breeding-ground." His response: "that makes sense, now why isn't the administration saying that?" I just gave a shrug. "No idea - but they should be." Not long after that (this was going into the 2004 election) you started hearing Bush make that point.
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    Jun 27, 2002
    OK, just to backtrack a little, "PEOPLE-SHREDDERS"???:scratchin

    Is there ANY credible evidence of such a thing happening? Or is this just another hot tip from "Curveball"?

    Isn't what we can prove Saddam is responsible for bad enough? Do we really have to make stuff up? When these type of 3rd, 4th or 5th hand rumors are bandied about like verifiable truth, it casts doubt on ALL allegations against Saddam, including the ones we can prove. It's the "boy who cried wolf" effect.


    I'm a bit of a skeptic if you hadn't noticed. And I would say the Bush administration has played "PR" like a fiddle, and a virtuoso performance at that! The problem is, after all that wear and tear, the fiddle is out of tune, a couple strings are broken, and the public is growing weary of the same old song!

    Try this on for size. Go to this site-
    Click on the "Nexus" commentary.

    This is from Olberman's Countdown. I understand he may not be your favorite newscaster, but give this one segment a listen. It's about 13 minutes long and details about 10 instances where negative news or publicity about Bush or the effort in Iraq was followed almost immediately by racheting up the fear level by raising the national "alert status" or holding news conferences about some "immediate, specific threat" that later turns out to be neither immediate nor specific.

    Perhaps Olberman is wrong on one, several or all of these, and he admits as much. But there is a suspicious pattern here. And I'm afraid it too might eventually have a "boy who cried wolf" effect. If there ever actually IS a credible threat, many are just going to ignore it as just another false alarm.

    Are there threats out there? I believe there certainly are. But we are constantly bounced back and forth between how much "safer" we are thanks to Bush "staying the course", and how much danger we're in as the terrorists are about to attack from all sides at any moment.:eek2::confused: It is very easy to manipulate public opinion with these tactics and a basic premise of "PR" to keep people guessing and unsure when you've got something to hide.

    As for color-coded maps presented by generals on C-Span-

    When was the last time you witnessed anyone making a "presentation", especially with color-coded maps, charts and pointers, where the object was to illustrate how bad a job the presenter and the organization he represents has done? Or to highlight how many mistakes had been made?

    From my experience, that doesn't happen too often. And just because the presenter is wearing the uniform of a general and is representing the military makes it no more credible.

    BTW, what is it with you people and color-coded charts and maps?:p

    If you want my opinion, and you probably don't,:grin: I would say the current dire situation in Iraq is probably underreported if anything. The only things that keep any support going for this debacle at all is precisely the Bush administration's masterful handling of the art of "PR". Part of this of course is the constant mantra that any criticism of this war or talk of even a timetable for withdrawal is necessarily "not supporting the troops", "undercutting their morale" and/or "giving aid and comfort to the terrorists".:sure:

    And the "media", which I assume you hold entirely responsible for the negative opinions of this war? The actual "news" from Iraq is generally an afterthought now. Reported at best on page two or three or in passing at the tail end of "headlines". Like, "...And in Iraq today, six car bombs went off in Baghdad, killing 63 and injuring 140. Coming up, weather and sports!":nono:

    No my friend, Bush's problem is not PR, it's his policies that got us into these messes in the first place.
  16. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    Ok, now I'm the one that's confused. Bush is playing the PR fiddle like a virtuoso, eh? Then why aren't his poll numbers higher? You made the insinuation essentially that the jig is up and that the public isn't buying this anymore... well, how exactly does that square with waging a good PR campaign? Doesn't make any sense.

    As for the sources you site, could you possibly find someone more opposed to the administration than Olbermann? What was Joe Wilson busy or something?

    And what is the "you people" nonsense? We keep hearing people on the left screaming "what's the situation on the ground in Iraq!" So a general comes up with a very effective way of communicating just that type of information... what exactly is the problem? I really don't get it. If they don't tell us when every soldier goes to the latrine, the administration is "hiding stuff from us." When they're forthcoming they get criticized too?

    I know the argument comes down to "Bush sucks and everything he does is wrong." That seems to be the tenor of your argument and the argument of everyone on the left - even when the arguments are contradictory. If you listened to Kerry and every democrat during 2004, you kept hearing that "we shouldn't go it alone." Fine. Then Kerry criticizes Bush over North Korea. Why? Because Bush wants to engage in multi-lateral talks! Because Bush WASN'T acting unilaterally. So which is it? Is it "unilateral is the ticket when Bush wants to act multilaterally?" These arguments are really getting tiresome. I really wish you folks would make up your minds about this.

    Look at the situation with the London terrorist bust. What do we keep hearing from the democrats on that "We need to be more like Britain!" I guess no one pointed out that Britain was using the very tools that the democrats attacked Bush for using. You can't walk 2 feet in London without being caught on camera. So which is it? And we also hear them complaining that we've misallocated funds. What are they complaining about? They're saying that "we've spent SO much money on first responders, that we're taking money away from homeland security, and intelligence gathering." I just about spit out my coffee when I heard that little gem coming from the likes of Dean. I started shouting at my TV: "THAT'S WHAT YOU CLOWNS WANTED!" The reason we've allocated so much money to first responders, at the expense of homeland security is BECAUSE of the democrats. I remember the adiministration (I think it was Rumsfeld) make the statement - to the effect "having lots of first responders is useless if we're all dead."

    The mess in Iraq wasn't caused by this Bush. You can put some of the blame on his father if you want. We left the job undone. We should have taken Hussein out to begin with. Why didn't we? Why because of the UN - the very organization that THIS president Bush is accused of not taking seriously. The original UN resolution to oust Hussein from Kuwait stopped at the border. We were forbidden from taken out Hussein BECAUSE of the UN. And I pin alot of the blame on Clinton. What was Operation Desert Fox? We lob a bunch of cruise missiles at Hussein. He survives. He doesn't let in inspectors. He thumbs his nose at the rest of the world... guess what THAT did to his esteem among the thugs and terrorists of the world? You think that didn't make him look like a giant killer? Like he could stand up to the "Great Satan" and survive?

    You can accuse this administration for going in "for the wrong reasons" all you want. But remember, WE weren't the only ones who thought he had WMDs. So did Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Israel, Australia, Russia.... the list goes on. And so did Clinton. Go back and listen to his 1998 address to the nation. He actually made the statement that Hussein had a very active nuclear program. Bush NEVER made that allegation. You want to pin THAT on Bush too? About all that says is that Bush isn't clairvoyant. Congratulations - he's not psychic. I'll alert the media. As a leader you make the best decisions you can with the information you're given. Based on the information that Bush had, if he HADN'T gone into Iraq he should have been impeached. Everything he was told indicated that Hussein was a very real, very dangerous threat. The president of the US gets that kind of information, especially after 9/11, and what do you propose he do with it? Ignore it? Please. He HAD to act in Iraq. Period. Not doing so would have been highly irresponsible.
  17. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Problem with blaming the predecessor for Iraq... is that you'd also have to go back to Reagan and blame him too for funding/helping train & providing weapons to Iraq for use against Iran... and we knew how "evil" the "Great Satan" was then too... but it served our government's designs at the time to support Hussein against Iran even with the atrocities we knew he was committing then.
  18. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    I don't shy away from blaming Reagan for what's going on now. First off, when dealing with war, you frequently have to pick the lesser of two evils. We fought along with Stalin in WWII, and then spend the next 45 years fighting the soviets in the cold war. Does that mean it was wrong to ally with a monster like Stalin? No. I don't think so. That being said, we weren't the ones who armed Hussein. When he lobbed missiles into Israel in the first gulf war, which missiles were they? SCUD missiles, which came from... the soviet union. Hussein was armed with soviet equipment, not American. You CAN make the claim that we indirectly armed the Taliban - we armed the mujahadeen, because they were fighting a soviet invasion.

    Where I DO put blame on Reagan involved the bombing of our barracks in Lebanon. We responded to the deaths of a couple hundred marines by bugging out. Stuff like that just emboldens and encourages terrorists. But you NEED to look back in history on stuff like this. It's the purpose that history serves. Want to ensure what happened in WWII never happens again? How do you do that? By looking at the events that led to Hitler's rise to power, and what missteps we made in helping him along. If that means laying the blame on some leaders (Neville Chamberlain, e.g.) then that serves a purpose too. It serves as a case study to future leader as to what actions to avoid. I hope we look to history for these things.

    BTW, I don't give republicans a pass in all this. I think we overestimated the response by the Iraqi public when we rolled into town. We expected jubilation. Instead, we got cautious optimism, at best, and mistrust. Why? There's a saying: "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Why did they mistrust us? Because of what happened in 1991. We pushed for the Iraqis to overthrow Hussein, and many rose up against the regime. We then abandoned them, and they got crushed. I would be distrustful of US forces at that point too. It seems that that was a case where we didn't learn from history (it's exactly what happened to the South Vietnamese when we left - we promised to support them with money and munitions, and then Congress cut the funding. We left them to be slaugthered by the North).

    I also think we underestimated the insurgency. And I think we did a poor job initially in the reconstruction. All that has improved, but we spent time climbing out of a hole we put ourselves into. Overall, I go after the DNC hard in all this because they don't seem to take all this seriously. Making contradictory statements about the war - it seems that they're only goal is to make Bush look bad. And damn national security! They make conflicting statements - I mentioned Kerry's positions on unilateralism vs multilateralism. That's one example. I see the left pounding on things like Guantanamo - lashing out at our soldiers instead of the monsters sitting in the cages down there. Seeing all that, it is hard to take the DNC seriously on this issue, which is why they get the brunt of my tirade.

    I honestly believe that the current administration is doing a good job in the war on terror. Were mistakes made? Of course. That's the nature of conflict - not just in war, but in all things. I got into this with my father-in-law. He went off on the changes in strategy, pounding on the fact that mistakes happened. He was also a high-school football coach at one point. My response to him "so, when you coached your team, you mean to tell me that you were NEVER forced to change strategy in the middle of a game? Every play, every plan was executed perfectly? Of course not. That's what makes a good leader - they need to assess the situation on the ground, and make adjustments as necessary." Overall I trust this administration - I honestly believe that they're doing what's necessary to fight, really fight, the fascists that want us all dead. Ok, I'll wait for the responses now :)
  19. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    Jul 9, 2006
    BTW, just so I'm clear, when I say "democrats" or "republicans" I'm not talking about the rank-and-file. I'm not talking about you or me. I really should learn to be more precise in this. I'm talking, specifically, about the party leadership. When I say "listen to every democrat..." I'm really saying "listen to what the party was saying..." Just wanted to make that clear. I'm not going after democrats in general. I have many in my family (my wife's family is loaded with them :)), and friends. I'm talking about the folks who appear on the Sunday shows and speak on behalf of the party...
  20. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    Jun 27, 2002
    Ultimately, all the PR in the world won't help if your peoduct is crap. As that other Republican was wont to say, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." And Bush's foolishness has finally come home to roost!

    Whatever the source, it doesn't change the timeline on these events. You are perfectly entitled to spin them however you wish. But for whatever reason, even if it's only coincidence,:sure: the "threat level" seems to get conveniently spiked every time there is some news or a revelation that needs to be distracted from. Abu Ghraib? PDBs? Whatever it is, the response from the administration is always the same. Be sure to check for terrorists under your bed!:eek:

    Frankly, I would have liked to see the general's presentation too. Unfortunately I missed it, but all information is good. But being the skeptic that I am, I may not have given it any more credence as a reflection of the truth than a report from CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, or Keith Olberman!:p If we could always count on getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth directly from the government, we wouldn't have much need for a free press now would we.

    Undoubtedly there are areas of relative calm in Iraq, and where the police and military we have trained are able to pretty much maintain control to varying degrees with a modicum of assistance from allied forces. And as far as that goes, this is a good thing. But as much as anything, these seem to be areas where there is less mixing of the various ethnic and sectarian factions. Wherever there is a mix, particularly in cities, there appears to be little abatement in the violence. If anything it seems to have escalated over the past six months or so. Not that any or these areas were exactly utopean previous to the last six months.

    In addition, what we do hear about in the media is mostly the "attacks", car bombs, IEDs, RPGs, etc. in spectacular acts usually taking multiple lives and causing injury on a large scale. What we rarely hear about is the assassinations and executions carried out by roving bands of paramilitary vigilantes organized mostly along ethnic and sectarian lines that in some cities are estimated to be taking place at the rate of one an hour!

    Recently I saw a report, I think it was on Fox, about Fallujah and how US forces no longer had to patrol because Iraqi forces were now well trained and diciplined enough to handle the patrols themselves. Again, this is a good thing. I'm impressed. But what stuck me, and what the report failed to emphasize, was that it did not appear that there was any less violence in Fallujah. There were no fewer attacks on police stations, etc., no fewer roadside bombs and no fewer random shootings. The only difference was that it was no longer necessary for US forces to be the ones to go out and shoot back. I guess if you can call that progress, then maybe were "making progress".:shrug:

    Actually, what I DON'T want is to be "more like Britain", with surrveilance cameras every two feet and barely half the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights! Didn't we fight a war precisely over these issues several hundred years ago? And if you're a true conservative, you don't want it either!

    However, there seem to be many today who are not troubled in the least that through a series of executive orders and "signing statements" we are moving to an imperial Presidency where one person decides what laws mean and which parts of them and how they will be enforced. Apparently, in your vision of an idealistic USA, we not only do not need a free and inquiring press, we don't need the legislative and judicial branchs of government either. We will simply do wha the President decides because the President knows best!!!:icon_stup

    That's enough for now. I got a life to live!;)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page