Al-Qaeda Endorses McCain

[Sui Generis]

Nah, being alive and in poverty is actually a tad bit more popular there right now than being a dead terrorist. More future in it.

Hospitals and schools are precisely what we have been building in Iraq. You must have missed the memo.

Really, prove that people would rather live a horsehockey poor life then being given something that puts there lives into perspective in the muslim world.

Anyway, I have to say this. Just because we are pouring money into Iraq doesn't mean that anything is being built. In fact, Iraq is still struggling to reach pre-2003 levels. Probably was a bad idea to invade it, huh.

 

[JeffIllinois]

Really, prove that people would rather live a horsehockey poor life then being given something that puts there lives into perspective in the muslim world.

Anyway, I have to say this. Just because we are pouring money into Iraq doesn't mean that anything is being built. In fact, Iraq is still struggling to reach pre-2003 levels. Probably was a bad idea to invade it, huh.

Alot of the money we pour in their get lost to corruption. They have an eighty billion dollar surplus, they're sitting on an ocean of oil, and they need our money. We need that money at home and we're already over ten trillion dollars in debt.

 

[Mehmed100]

I can't see how this endorsement will hurt any of the candidates. I don't know why people care what Al-Qaeda says? They are terrorists.

 

[warpus]

Nah, being alive and in poverty is actually a tad bit more popular there right now than being a dead terrorist. More future in it.

But they're not dead. They're in heaven partying with virgins.

 

[Sui Generis]

I can't see how this endorsement will hurt any of the candidates. I don't know why people care what Al-Qaeda says? They are terrorists.

I'll play devil's advocate.


Because if Osama backs Obama, it is a sign of A-rab solidarity. He loves him because he is a fellow A-rab.

or

Osama wants Obama to win because he would be easy on terrorism. Its proof that Obama will ruin America.


The second thing I stated happened in 2004. The first thing I stated would probably happen if Osama endorsed Obama.

Anyway, Osama wants McCain to win, and to help him win, he will take advantage of the ignorance of the America people by endorsing Obama.

 

[MobBoss]

Really, prove that people would rather live a horsehockey poor life then being given something that puts there lives into perspective in the muslim world.

I would think that the huge decrease in suicide bombings to be some proof of that to you.

If not....then /oh well.

Anyway, I have to say this. Just because we are pouring money into Iraq doesn't mean that anything is being built. In fact, Iraq is still struggling to reach pre-2003 levels. Probably was a bad idea to invade it, huh.

I think that remains to be seen. Right now its not looking so bad at all.

But they're not dead. They're in heaven partying with virgins.

Riiiiiiiiight.

 

[Sui Generis]

I would think that the huge decrease in suicide bombings to be some proof of that to you.

If not....then /oh well.



I think that remains to be seen. Right now its not looking so bad at all.


Riiiiiiiiight.

People don't have to bomb things to be extremists.

And in case you haven't noticed, casualties have been rising again in Iraq. 25 US deaths and 400 Iraq deaths in September. We are no doubt beginning to fix the mess we created, but it ain't peace. Nothing near it.


The war in Afghanistan has gotten a lot worse. Nobody gives a damn though because of the economy and Iraq. Al Qeada, after a trillion dollars in spending and close to 5,000 american lives lost and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani dead, is still around, still strong in much of the middle east, and is undiminished as a threat. In fact, it is more wide spread if anything. There was no Al Qeada in Iraq pre 2002. Pre 2001, there was no islamic violence in Pakistan and India. Now, thousands have dead in those countries, along with potentially putting Pakistans nuclear arms at risk. This war on terror isn't working.

 

[RedRalph]

Iran has endorsed Obama... instersting, a divergence in evil

 

[JollyRoger]

Iran has endorsed Obama... instersting, a divergence in evil

But I thought Bush was a uniter, not a divider.

 

[MobBoss]

And in case you haven't noticed, casualties have been rising again in Iraq. 25 US deaths and 400 Iraq deaths in September. We are no doubt beginning to fix the mess we created, but it ain't peace. Nothing near it.

Dude....you may want to try to stick with something you know better. 17 of those 25 deaths were accident/illness related....not due to violence or enemy fire at all. So, your insinuation that 'violence' is rising due to the 25 soldier deaths is dismissed as crap.

Its always the details that get you in the end isnt it?

 

[Mehmed100]

I have a question. Why does the average American seem so stupid? Only a fool would let their vote be influenced by fear of what a terrorist says. Oh wait, I can answer my own question...

 

[BasketCase]

We lost Vietnam because we weren't as committed to victory as they were. As you point out, the kill ratios were off the chart, yet they kept coming. We'd killed hundreds of thousands and they still pulled off the Tet offensive. Sure, they lost, but that still didn't stop them. We weren't resolved to pay the price for victory.

Absolutely. And why weren't we resolved to pay that price? BAD PRESS. As I said last post.

 

[Sui Generis]

Dude....you may want to try to stick with something you know better. 17 of those 25 deaths were accident/illness related....not due to violence or enemy fire at all. So, your insinuation that 'violence' is rising due to the 25 soldier deaths is dismissed as crap.

Its always the details that get you in the end isnt it?

Those accidents wouldn't have happened without them being in Iraq.

Its always the details that get you in the end isn't it?

 

[MobBoss]

Those accidents wouldn't have happened without them being in Iraq.

Not exactly true. The US military has a fair number of training fatalities each and every year. Simply because they happened in Iraq doesnt mean that something similar might not have happened elsewhere.

But remember, you alluded that this was because of increasing violence. Do you know acknowledge that this isnt the case since I educated you on those casualties?

 

[Sui Generis]

Not exactly true. The US military has a fair number of training fatalities each and every year. Simply because they happened in Iraq doesnt mean that something similar might not have happened elsewhere.

But remember, you alluded that this was because of increasing violence. Do you know acknowledge that this isnt the case since I educated you on those casualties?

You are avoiding what I said. Would those people who died in Iraq from illness and accidents have died if the Iraq war didn't happen? Yes or no?

Anyway, I didn't say what the casualties were because of, I said that deaths are trending back up. Both Iraqi casualties and American ones. Are you denying that Iraqi's are dying in greater numbers then the month before?

 

[MobBoss]

You are avoiding what I said. Would those people who died in Iraq from illness and accidents have died if the Iraq war didn't happen? Yes or no?

Actually, you are avoiding my counter to your saying the death toll was going up.

But to answer your question, its not a simple yes or no. Being in the military is a dangerous job, in or out of a warzone. Training accidents occur all over the world. Neither you nor I can say whether those people would have died in another accident a world away....but to insinuate they only died due to an accident because they were in Iraq is also itself false. Its like saying would person X have died on the highway in Texas if they didnt live in Texas.

The basic point is that you are simply trying to obfuscate your claim that the casualty rate is going up in Iraq because of some violence there. I countered that simply by pointing out that 17 of the 25 casualties you referred to had nothing to do with enemy action. Thats it.

Now, once more. Do you acknowledge the point or not?

Anyway, I didn't say what the casualties were because of, I said that deaths are trending back up.

Please dont try to sell me something we both know isnt the case. You brought it up to allege violence is up. It isnt.

You see here...what you are doing now is what I call the debate death wiggle. You have already lost the arguement becuase you made a false assumption - that the 25 soldiers killed were due to enemy violence. Instead of merely admitting that you were indeed wrong, now you are trying to put the focus on me, and doing the debate cha-cha-cha in order to save some face.

Its ok.

Btw, there have been only 10 soldier deaths here in October (only 6 due to hostile action) with only 1 week left to go. Its not looking good for your claimed upward 'trend'.

Both Iraqi casualties and American ones. Are you denying that Iraqi's are dying in greater numbers then the month before?

Yes. While it is true more died in September than did in August...the number from September was still much less than the entire previous YEAR. A breakdown:

Sep 08: 366
Aug 08: 311
Jul 08: 419
Jun 08: 450
May 08: 506
Apr 08: 744
Mar 08: 980
Feb 08: 674
Jan 08: 554
Dec 07: 548
Nov 07: 560
Oct 07: 679
Sep 07: 848

Now you tell me, the month of Sep 08 was the SECOND LOWEST CASUALTY MONTH IN THE ENTIRE LAST YEAR. How can it be indiciative of an 'upward trend'.

I eagerly await your answer.

 

[JollyRoger]

Now you tell me, the month of Sep 08 was the SECOND LOWEST CASUALTY MONTH IN THE ENTIRE LAST YEAR. How can it be indiciative of an 'upward trend'.

I eagerly await your answer.

The fact the we are no longer surging is working.

 

[Sui Generis]

Actually, you are avoiding my counter to your saying the death toll was going up.

But to answer your question, its not a simple yes or no. Being in the military is a dangerous job, in or out of a warzone. Training accidents occur all over the world. Neither you nor I can say whether those people would have died in another accident a world away....but to insinuate they only died due to an accident because they were in Iraq is also itself false. Its like saying would person X have died on the highway in Texas if they didnt live in Texas.

The basic point is that you are simply trying to obfuscate your claim that the casualty rate is going up in Iraq because of some violence there. I countered that simply by pointing out that 17 of the 25 casualties you referred to had nothing to do with enemy action. Thats it.

Now, once more. Do you acknowledge the point or not?



Please dont try to sell me something we both know isnt the case. You brought it up to allege violence is up. It isnt.

You see here...what you are doing now is what I call the debate death wiggle. You have already lost the arguement becuase you made a false assumption - that the 25 soldiers killed were due to enemy violence. Instead of merely admitting that you were indeed wrong, now you are trying to put the focus on me, and doing the debate cha-cha-cha in order to save some face.

Its ok.

Btw, there have been only 10 soldier deaths here in October (only 6 due to hostile action) with only 1 week left to go. Its not looking good for your claimed upward 'trend'.



Yes. While it is true more died in September than did in August...the number from September was still much less than the entire previous YEAR. A breakdown:

Sep 08: 366
Aug 08: 311
Jul 08: 419
Jun 08: 450
May 08: 506
Apr 08: 744
Mar 08: 980
Feb 08: 674
Jan 08: 554
Dec 07: 548
Nov 07: 560
Oct 07: 679
Sep 07: 848

Now you tell me, the month of Sep 08 was the SECOND LOWEST CASUALTY MONTH IN THE ENTIRE LAST YEAR. How can it be indiciative of an 'upward trend'.

I eagerly await your answer.

The odds are stacked against those people dying if they had not been in Iraq. You must admit that.

And those casualties have everything to do with enemy action. No Iraq war, and those people would probably have not died.

You have ignored Iraqi casualties, both military and civilian. Tell me, have they gone up in the last 2 months or not?

You consider violence to only involve US troops. I consider violence to involve US troops, Iraqi Civilians and Troops. Has violence involving these demographics increased in the last two months, yes or no?

Don't bring up October until the month is over.

Also, incase you haven't noticed, the numbers you quoted are see-sawing. You call a few months of decreasing deaths with a spike in the middle indicative of victory.

Look what happened in Dec 07. 548 deaths, and for a few months after that, similar numbers. Then bam, three months of near thousand deaths a month. Will you come here and admit you are wrong if violence climbs during the spring and summer?

 

[MobBoss]

The odds are stacked against those people dying if they had not been in Iraq. You must admit that.

I will admit that being in a warzone is more dangerous, just like being in the Army is more dangerous than working at Walmart.

And those casualties have everything to do with enemy action. No Iraq war, and those people would probably have not died.

No, thats where you are directly incorrect. DNBLs (disease/non-battle losses) have nothing to do with enemy action, and it would be a huge mistake to assume an increasing trend based on such.

You have ignored Iraqi casualties, both military and civilian. Tell me, have they gone up in the last 2 months or not?

The numbers I just listed in the previous post were the Iraqi military and civilian casualties from icasualties.org. http://icasualties.org/oif/iraqideaths.aspx So, no, I didnt ignore them at all. And to answer your question, no they havent gone up in the last two months. Sep 08 was much lower than Jul 08.

You consider violence to only involve US troops. I consider violence to involve US troops, Iraqi Civilians and Troops.

I gave you numbers for all of them. Stop trying to debate this. The facts are not in your favor.

Has violence involving these demographics increased in the last two months, yes or no?

Casualties have decreased since Jul 08. And fwiw, one month does not make a trend. Oct is looking to be lower than Sept btw.

Don't bring up October until the month is over.

Its less than a week out with a significantly lower number. Its perfectly fine to consider it. Unless, of course one thinks the number is increasing.

Also, incase you haven't noticed, the numbers you quoted are see-sawing. You call a few months of decreasing deaths with a spike in the middle indicative of victory.

This from the guy who is trying to say a one month increase is a tread. Rofl.

No, I say the overall trend over the last 2 years is way down.

Look what happened in Dec 07. 548 deaths, and for a few months after that, similar numbers.

Cough. Compare Dec 07 with Dec 06 and then get back to me.

 

[aelf]

Absolutely. And why weren't we resolved to pay that price? BAD PRESS. As I said last post.

Because, obviously, BAD PRESS makes you feel the pain of the loss of loved ones and wealth for nothing. Nothing likes words on pages to leap out at you and knock you on the head. Heck, it's almost like the Bible.