What a d-bag.

Rob,

You said "solution is to attack these people where they live." You may be more right that you know. Many countries have tried to combat terrorism, but as I understand only one has been successful – Jordan. That country’s strategy was (1) find out who the terrorist are (2) detain their family members (3) put out the word “if you don’t stop you family will pay for your actions” (4) follow up on the threat of the attacks didn’t stop. That hit the terrorist “where they live” and stopped them.

I am one of those left wing anti-war activists – I always thought the “war on terrorism” should be much more like the “cold war” and very personal to the terrorist. Afghanistan seemed effective, but I think Iraq was a distraction from the real war which turned against us – it’s a training ground now.

Be all that as it may, the focus should be – hit the terrorist “where they live.” That's the only effective deterrent.

The gloves need to come off. Again.

Hate to tell you this Bruce, I know facts don't aren't factored into moonbat fairy tales, but Iraq was a training ground for terrorsists long before we even invaded Afghanistan.

This is a terrible thing, and it is especially sad to have happened to America's best friends in one of the greatest cities in the world.

RE: The Iraq training ground
Bomb-making is a "skill" that can be taught anywhere. Even without the war in Iraq, that kind of training is easily done. The bombing in London is reported to be four separate explosions and possibly several unexploded (defective) devices. Four bombs could easily be done by less than ten people. (Consider what two men did in the Oklahoma City bombing.) This whole operation could be 10-20 people in a small splinter cell organized and financed independently.

The only training going on in Iraq is an extension of the lessons that the Islamo-fascists learned in Lebanon and Somalia: America is a Paper Tiger. Once the body bags start coming back, America looses its nerve. You have to be willing to endure a few cruise missles, but that's it.

"After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim."
- Osama bin Laden

We have an opportunity to prove that this guy has underestimated his enemy. If the Galloways of the world prove that he's right, the army of suicide bombers coming for us infidels is going to be unstoppable, and bombings like this will become common place. (After Somalia, bin Laden became a hero throughout the region, and he gained huge numbers of new recruits.)

I believe it was Robert Ardry who said, "Wars start because one side thinks they can win."
If you don't teach these people now, you're heading for real trouble later.

"If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
- Winston Churchill

what a dumbass

What bullwinkle wrote (^^).

And, there ARE countries that promote and 'breed' terrorism as a course of life. Some people need to own up to the reality of this. War in Iraq was beginning: worst first and then others from there.

To suggest that the war on terrorism would not have been impacted had we not pursued Saddam Hussein is just wrong. And, to pursue Hussein and his support of and activities with terrorism, we had to go and get him, and then the effects of his work there/in that entire region.

I'm convinced it would be far worse today, in our own nation, much less others, had we not gone into Iraq and had we not stayed there as we are...it's going to take time and a lot of work, and there aren't any instant answers or solutions to years and generations of troubles in many parts of the globe. But, can't make any progress if there's no starting point and Iraq has been that starting point.

Galloway is a very disturbed person. Among the most disturbed, because what they promote is real harms to others under the guise of being leadership. His derisive emotionalism for purposes of attempting to ridicule his own suffering nation of peoples is a good indication that the truth is hurting his sense of power, or worse, that his sense of power is based on that scurrilous need.

So if someone threatens your friends and allies, and then hurts you and your countrymen when you try to assist, the proper response is to huddle in the corner, meet all their demands, and hope you don't do anything to make them angry. Yes, Mr. Galloway, I'm sure that'll work out just fine. In fact, why not just formalize the arrangement and make Bin Laden the Prime Minister. If you're lucky maybe, just maybe, that will be adequate compensation for the horrible offsense of freeing Iraq from Hussein. At last we'll have Peace In Our Time.

Galloway's statement is just dumb on so many levels. But you're right, I'm sure the hallowed halls of DU and DailyKos are ringing with that sentiment already. What an endorsement.

Galloway: "Run Away!!! Run Away!!!"

Galloway is exactly right....again.

"If you had only left them alone, I would be
getting my oil-for-food contracts and they
wouldn't be attacking you. Everybody
would be happy -- except of course for
Afghan women with no rights and the
Iraqis being thrown in wood chippers.
Who cares about hundreds of thousands
in mass graves? Those people are dead;
you can't make them happy."

Does anyone else need any more proof that Leftism = Slave Morality?

Galloway is a schmuck for all seasons.

PEOPLE.....WAKE UP.....THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ, THERE WERE NO TIES BETWEEN HUSSEIN AND AL-QAEDA, THEY WERE NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT. BUSH AND HIS PUPPET MASTERS LIED US TO WAR. THEY PURPOSELY ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN SO THAT THEY COULD WHIP UP THE NATIONALIST FERVOR SO THAT ALL OF YOU WOULD FOLLOW ALONG WITH FLAGS IN HAND. WHY DON'T YOU ASSHOLES GRAB A GUN AND JOIN THE FIGHT IF YOU SO BELIEVE. I HATE RIGHTWING HYPOCRITES AND COWARDS.

Claimed collateral damage is not always so: "Once the Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were fighters."

In other words, don't believe everything Lawyer-Senators say for the press to print for you to read..

ALL CAPS MAKES ME CORRECT.

Anyway, Britian is paying the price of appearant success of the Madrid Bombing. This isn't a close clone of that attack (mass transit system in capital city) for no reason. Hope the Brits are make of stronger stuff.

Galloway's comments are just a reflection of what the Brits call "hard left Trots" are saying.

What's up with Galloway's use of 'we'?

Is he an editor or a potentate?

Or is he just appeasing a mouse in his pocket?

Wait, I thought it was bad to use such catastrophies as the bombings in London and 9/11 for political gain! At least that's what I've been told...

Double standard, anyone?

Dear Mr. Bin Laden:

We are really sorry for not listening to your wisdom. We will immediately pull all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and generously invest in the establishment of a hard-line muslim governments in both countries. We will publicly acknowledge the error of our evil imperialist, infidel ways, and immediately cover all of our women with bedsheets. Hopefully your greatness will allow you to forgive us, and then we can live together in peace. Of course, we will flush all of our bibles down the toilet first. We are thankful that you have provided us with this opportunity.

Yours truly,

Moonbat

Bullwinkle

You said: “I know facts don't aren't factored into moonbat fairy tales, but Iraq was a training ground for terrorists long before we even invaded Afghanistan.” I need more than that – where are your facts. Here’s what I know:
(1) Saddam was a monster – undisputable.
(2) Saddam made payments to families of terrorist who had “martyred” themselves.
(3) There were no support connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda - “they talked” but hell, we’ve talked to the insurgents, that doesn’t mean we support them. I’ve never read that Saddam sponsored terrorist training camps – point me to news or government bulletins if I’m wrong.
(4) Saddam was contained – arguable, but I think he was. I said before the war in Iraq started that Saddam had no WMDs – that he was only posturing. Why wouldn’t he want the world to think he had WMDs with Iran sitting next door.
(5) A couple of weeks ago I recall a U.S. General saying that there were no foreign insurgents in Iraq before the war but that they are now a major part of that group

And don’t think this moonbat is saying “Run, run.” I don’t think we can leave Iraq now. In my opinion we need to close up the porous borders, give the troops all the armor they need, and let the military determine the measure of success - I don’t believe in arbitrary withdraw dates. It would, however, be useful to have some criteria or milestones of success, something like: 50 percent of Iraqi troops are trained to independent status or 98 percent of the insurgents are dead. I haven’t heard that yet.

All caps mean that Caps Lock was on.

Bruce...so you are suggesting that men, also, pull sheets over their heads? Seems as if you are, in all due respect.

"...clos(ing) up porous borders" and leaving Iraq as any offering of strategy is not at all realistic.

Because, unless we wall our country in (not going to happen), the only means to enforce border security is by increased access to individual information by our government (most liberals really can't stand that idea). Leaving Iraq would be incredibly wasteful, not to include financially irresponsible, all things considered.

I don't understand how the idea could even be entertained with any certainty, at least not as with the amount of certainty that you suggest. And, leaving Iraq would accomplish little other than to completely undermine the entire military effort and accomplishments already made.

I realize that Nancy Pelosi would like a tidy withdrawal, but it's irrational to even entertain the idea now. Particularly now.

-S-
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. The borders of Iraq are currently porous - I think that's a fact but correct me if I'm wrong. I'm saying that before we can "win" in Iraq the borders must be more secure to keep new insurgents out. I did not say - lets get out now - I said I don’t believe in arbitrary withdraw dates and that some criteria for success would be helpful. I don't want the U.S. to say in Iraq for 10 or 15 years – that really would be an occupation.

Dan, all caps does not mean Caps Lock was on -- otherwise the first letter of each sentence would have been lowercase. Unless maybe you composed your comment on a typewriter instead of a computer...

There were terror camps inside Iraq that. Two are noted in this article:
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=urbang.htm&base=urbang&Prev=0&BeginCnt=51

Go to June 23,2005 post.

And of course there is the terror camp run by Iraqi inteligence services (Salmon Pak) see:

http://www.strategypage.com/iraqwar/hamaza/5.asp

Bottom of the page. Although none of the 9-11 guys went to this, the camp did have a plane fuselage to practice with. Also notice the late 1990's contact between Iraq and Bin Laden.

David,

Is strategypage.com – a strategy war games Web site - your source of news and information? Is this a "real" news source? I tend to read AP, Reuters, BBC, etc.

Bruce wrote:

"(3) There were no support connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda - “they talked” but hell, we’ve talked to the insurgents, that doesn’t mean we support them. I’ve never read that Saddam sponsored terrorist training camps – point me to news or government bulletins if I’m wrong."

OK. Happy reading. (And the phrase the hapless 9/11 Commission used was "no formal connections". But WTF does that mean? ) Anyway...

Two recent articles by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard regarding CNN's erroneous reports of "no connections":

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/780plthl.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/781bpfho.asp

This article links to several other articles by Hayes on the connections.

Regarding Newsweek's "Case Closed" on connections:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

I invite you to conduct a search at the Weekly Standard under 'authors' and 'Hayes' and review other articles of his in the time period of November 2003 and up to June 2004. Hayes is quite adept at outlining the connections. He also has an excellent book outlining the Iraq-al Qaeda ties, called: "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America"

Peter,

The Weekly Standard - that's better, I'll give those articles a read. Thanks.

Bruce:

You're welcome. Warning: It's a lot to sift through and keep the names and timelines straight. I was geeky enough to actually draw/map it out on a large board at home to understand it all. (Don't ask me how I did it, it's too hard to explain here!) Anyway, he's definitely done he's research and is well-versed in the matter.

Well done Galloway, its something most brits are thinking but would simply not have the balls to say it, i certainly wont be, and by the way spain voted out the goverment not because of the bombs but becuase the gaverment tried to blame it on etta (goverment lied),,god you americans have simply not got a clue

Doesn't matter what the motivations were in the Spanish voter's minds. We can guess all day.

The problem is how Al-Queda was able to spin it to their supporters and recruits.

If it wasn't a political victory for them, the wouldn't have copied the same approach here.

Bruce, here's one even a moonbat can't ignore, even though you have managed to ignore it up until this point. It's PBfriggin' S, third arm of socialism and moonbats.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

I didn;t know until now that moonbats buried their heads in the sand but the more I think about it the more likely it it seems. Anyone that watches any form of news has heard of Salman Pak. I guess your handlers forgot to warn you not to ask about it.

RE: Kevin's post (July 7, 2005 05:23 PM)

Well done Galloway, its something most brits are thinking but would simply not have the balls to say it...

If most Brits are thinking this, then why would they "not have the balls to say it"? Presumably a popular position would be trumpeted and Galloway and his nodding peers would ride such sentiment to landsliding (re)elections? No, I figure Galloway has his niche audience just like some politicians have here, and that he indeed does NOT represent the views of "most".

But I speculate from afar. I just figure the Brits are more resilient and stiffen that lip just a little bit more when confronted with real threats despite the embarrassment that is Galloway. They probably view Galloway like we view H. Dean... cringing everytime he opens his trap. Most, in a real sense of the word, recognize that the only ones falling for his "trap" are the relatively inconsequential fringe. Galloway may keep climbing out on that limb of "popular" (my quotes) thought until he's so far in the leaves that no one sees him, and that would be the unkindest cut of all.

Bruce, way to try to be condensending. Strategy Page includes civilians contractors and consultants for the Pentagon and regularly has Major Austin Bay contribute, who was in Iraq. But frankly I thought yours was a honest query. My mistake, won't happen again.

Galloway is a tratior and a tool of the Muslim fascists, he is perfectlyon cue. In his Muslim convert mind, we should be fighting the Israelis and the Indians so they will stop oppressing all the poor freedom loving Muslims.

I'd just like to point out that Bruce doesn't really come off as a moonbat. While I disagree with him, he's certainly not a troll and he's certainly not toeing the "Chimpy VonBushitler is the DEVIL!" moonbat line. All you folks crowing "Moonbat! Moonbat! Moonbat!" anytime someone says something you disagree with (bullwinkle, I'm looking at you) are sounding like the genuine moonbats over at DU or DailyKoz. It IS possible to be a Liberal and not be a moonbat, you know.

David: Don't be so sensitive. Who are you, Alan Alda? "Oh, boo hoo hoo, nasty old Bruce was condescending because he questioned my obscure reference to an obscure web page!" Buck up little trooper.

RE: Bruce's post (July 7, 2005 04:33 PM)

...I tend to read AP, Reuters, BBC, etc.

Hmm. Is that really better? They're certainly "mainstream", hence my hesitance. To be sure I put on my own filters when I peruse such material.

Bruce:

The issue (War in Iraq) is not punching a clock but getting the job done. It'll take what it takes.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats worry about punching that (time)clock -- gotta' avoid that overtime and spend the money on party favors for the after-work get togethers and such.

Sarcasm, yes, but every single time I hear the Senate Democrats with this evasive, double-speak nonsense, I wonder just how stupid they think most American voters are. Or, rather, the Senate Democrats are because if it wasn't the time clock issue, it's something else.

Those defeatist Brits are an embarressment to the survivors of the Blitz and should remember what Kipling said about the Dane-Geld.

It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.

Well Governor Breck, I suspect that if I denigrated your sources your would be on me like pig poo on a trough. How terribly superior of you to defend Bruce. The fact is he Bruce has, and I suspect you, has chosen to believe brave journalist that are known not to leave the their comfortable hotels for people how actually were in the field. And yes, I know several of the strategy page people. I knew them as gamers and I knew when they moved on. These are intelligent and erstwhile people, the have been on CNN, MSNBC and horror of all horrors Fox. I guess your point is one should never defends friends and always bow to authority. Point taken and igrnored.

Governor Breck, if you bothered to read you might have noticed that Bruce is a self-proclaimed moonbat. I disagree with what you've said about me but I'm not even considering calling you a moonbat, I reserve that for moonbats, you merely rate as a lower class moron in my book. With emphasis on the lower class.

David and Bullwinkle,

You know, I started reading Wizbang because I thought it might be a place to have an intelligent conversation. I didn’t necessarily think anyone would agree with me, but that they would at least talk. If David had said: Bruce, this site is a little obscure but the sources are good and this is why, then I might have taken it more seriously – but all I saw was advertisements for wargames, and navigation links like Wargames, Wargame Store, and Military Jokes in on a site I’d never heard of.
When I questioned the source what I get in return is “Moonbat, moonbat,” as if I have the plague.

Maybe I am a socialist Bullwinkle, maybe I really believe that the homeless guy in my hometown who stands on the corner near our town square waving at cars needs a little help from government programs to get by because his mind isn’t quite right – that belief is a result of my Baptist upbringing. Another part of my upbringing is that you treat people as you would like to be treated – that means you welcome them in, look them in the eye and don’t judge them until you know them. But it looks like you’ve already pigeon-hole me, you’ve already made a judgment.

I’ll keep reading Wizbang for a while – I still think there are open minds here, and I’ll try not to pigeon-hole anyone.

Call me moonbat if you want to, it doesn’t weaken me.

Well Bruce, just because you haven't heard of them doesn't make them obscure. Both Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay have writen for major newspapers including the Washington Post and NY Times. In the Blogosphere Strategy Page has been linked by everyone from Glenn Reynolds to Andrew Sullivan. Most genuinely curious people read before they denigrate sources, if you just read them you might learn something ( I know horror of horrors). One of the articles I linked to was actually Senate testimony reproduced. But rather than being curious and investigative you merely denigrated. You want intelligent debate, debate intelligently and with an open mind. What is obscure to you may be a gold mine of information you never knew. I am frankly shocked that you never heard of Salman Pak, anybody who was paying attention knew of it. One of the reasons I went with Strategy Page was their search engine is easy to use and you do not have to pay for archives. If you want to fork over some money to NY Times just do a search on Salmon Pak and pay the archieves fee. By the way, don't pay for the after action report as there was small battle at Salmon Pak

Well if you read what galloway actually said was exactly what the British inteligence agencies said and he made a point of this which was " the invasion of Iraq will increase the threat of an attack on london" most brits said that before the war, however now after the attacks it does'nt seem right to mention it.

What a ridduclas comment that the attacks were carried because of what happened it spain, if that was the case the attacks would have happened before the election in May. What a stupid logic by John. So can you tell me why the attacks happened in spain in the first place.

I have many muslim friends and let me tell you something the only way to defeat al quaidi is not by loads of gun hoe talk but by simply taking away their support and every inteligence agency in the world including the CIA will tell you that the war in Iraq has increased their support.

Interesting post Kevin. Please give url's to CIA testimony or posts to back your statement up. I have many Muslim students, and to a person they hate "al quaidi" but to be honest they are mostly conservative and liberal Turks and not Wahabbi. The Civil Rights movement increased participation in the KKK, should we go back to Jim Crow? FDR's support of England dramatically increased the membership of the American Nazi Party, evil FDR how dare he.

Finally, and more importantly, just exactly how would you achieve this ideal. As an Iraqi war agnostic (though now that we are there I believe we need to complete the "mission") I am open to PRATICAL solutions. I am particularly not interested in reviving any of the Caliphates (although I would find reviving Andulusia particularly ironic, as a tourist aside everyone should visit Granada, what a beautiful city) or instituting world wide Sharia, which are two of the demands of the terrorists.

Well speak of the devil. Glenn Reynolds (instapundit) has linked to the "obscure" Jim Dunningan yet again with a different take on why the terrorists are so popular.

I know, I know, he is only a gamer and hence an intellectual idiot. Move along, nothing to see.

somebody beat this guy with a wet noodle.

David,
You make some good points. i have a couple of links for you below:
http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/press/0309178.htm

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006DF1C.htm

All this stuff was talked about years ago how the war would make a terrorist attack more likely, i mostly heard it on the radio but i have managed to get a few links just by doing a quick search. The first link shows how the lib dem leader asked the question to tony blair in the house of parliament citing the inteligence leak.

The problem in this war is that there is no land to win or lose. so effectively everytime the terrorist kill someone it is a win for them and everytime we stop an attack or arrest someone it is win for us, this can go on for decades like this so no one can win it. The only clear way for winning is making them lose their support, wars like Iraq have only managed to do the opposite.

Thanks for the URLs, I will look into it.