Speaking of the GWOT, have you seen this?

In its annual global survey of terrorism, the department said 14,338 attacks took place in 2006, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, 3,185 more than in 2005 representing a 28.5 percent increase.

These strikes claimed a total of 20,498 lives, 13,340 of them in Iraq, 5,800 more, or a 40.2 percent increase, than last year, it said.

They're all (as you say) brain damaged. See above for example.

When I saw the "-bot" word I knew Jayson was back!

*looking on Barnyards post for attacks in the US*... hmmmmm.

Better there than in your hometown, eh Barn?

*note to Barnyard*..WOT does mean War on terror?..as in "WAR"?...

The number of terrorist attacks have increase every year since Bush has been in office. Maybe they should re brand it as the Not So Great War on Terror.

The difference is that now the terrorists pay with they're lives, unlike the 90's when they were free to immediately begin planning another attack. Say the first attack on the WTC which failed to kill the correct number of people led to 9-11.
So a democrat, Tenet, says that NYC and D.C. are targets for a nuclear attack by the Islamic 'religion'. Go figure that someone of the low class that Tenet has shown himself to be would dare say that.

Why does every democrat that is a failure at their job immediately write a book that blames their failures on someone else? Is it a mental condition other than BDS, or that their parents spoiled them so bad they never grew up? Whiner that cry, momma they're picking on me.

Note from the US State Department: Terrorist attacks worldwide shot up more than 25 percent last year, killing 40 percent more people than in 2005, particularly in Iraq where extremists used chemical weapons and suicide bombers to target crowds, the State Department said Monday.

Four years after winning the war the terrorists situation is growing worse each year, instead of better - - and April was the worst month this year for US troop casualties, so obviously the "surge' is making things worse instead of better.

Some people just don't get it -- and instead they just keep repeating the lies they were telling four years ago. I'd say they're the brain-dead bots....

I'm more afraid of my own government than the terrorists. Does that mean I'm brain damaged?

Yes Paul, it does.. they have meds for that.

I forget Barnyard, was the USS Cole Bushes fault too?

Barney, Paul and Lee-

Terrorism wouldn't be on the rise because it's been effective?

Spain was "responsive" to terrorism-they reacted exactly how the terrorists wanted them to-and the Socialists took full advantage.

Since the 7/7 attack England has been in retreat mode-and here in the USA the Democrats are in full blown surrender mode.

Do you think the terrorists are stupid?

Europe and Democrats have responded exactly how the terrorists wanted them to.

Simple negative reinforcement. The world has coward according to their plan and they have had plenty of help from the Euro and Democrat Elitist Alliance.

Now watch your beer drinking because that was part of the 7/7's "Operation Crevice" [ya that's what they called it] to poison the beer.

The collapse of British culture might be on the horizon-the trial was extended- took nearly a year -because they were only allowed to meet for 3 1/2 hours during Ramadan. Unbelievable.

In fact the plans the conspirators considered even included poisoning beer, according to supergrass Mohammed Babar [...]
During Ramadan, the court could only sit for three-and-a-half hours a day.

telegraph.co.uk

The people who don't get it, Lee, are those who can look at the huge number of Muslims killed and still think that the terrorists are just like us except on the other side.

The people who don't get it, Synova, are those who can look at the huge number of innocdents killed and still claim that the war on terror is having a positive effective anywhere in the world. Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens blown to bits by terrorists who are still there, despite the surge, and will remain there until we pull out of Iraq.

You are right lee, they will be in Iraq till we come home, then they will follow because there is nothing to stop them. I hope they come to your house first. Reference Viet Nam, we left, did the Communists from the North leave the South alone. Idiot.

here lee.. and Barnyard.. bushes fault, right?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25309_Video-_BBC_Newsnight_on_Al_Muhajiroun&only

Well, I've quit laughing now, Zelda -- so you honestly believe that our presence in Iraq is stopping terrorists from coming into the U.S..

Explain how that works - do we have them corralled? lol

"I hope they come to your house first."

You're a great American Zelda - a great American.

"Reference Viet Nam, we left, did the Communists from the North leave the South alone. Idiot."

I guess we're seeing a pattern here, aren't we. The Vietnam exit was bungled by Nixon (R), and the Iraq exit has been bungled by Bush (R).

Make sure you pull the right lever in the voting booth next time, Zelda -- the left one.

Former Nixon adviser Alexander Haig said Saturday military leaders in Iraq are repeating a mistake made in Vietnam by not applying the full force of the military to win the war.

"Every asset of the nation must be applied to the conflict to bring about a quick and successful outcome, or don't do it," Haig said. "We're in the midst of another struggle where it appears to me we haven't learned very much."

Note the operative terms here, Zelda -

-- "military leaders are repeating a mistake" not "would be making a mistake"- *are* Present tense - in 2006. Haig made this remark in March 2006.

Haig also said "We're in the midst of another struggle where it appears to me we haven't learned very much."

Note "in the midst" - present tense - in March of 2006 - already there, already in the middle of a struggle just like Vietnam. IN the midst in March 2006 - started way before - and in March of 2006 the Republican expert on Vietnam says we are already in the midst of another Vietnam in March of 2006.

There we are, your own Republican Haig telling you that the Republicans are blowing the war in Iraq - making mistakes -- back in March 2006.

It IS Vietnam all over again, Zelda, - not will become Vietnam -- it IS Vietnam and has been for over a year, according to Haig.

So, the war was won four years ago, but with more time and more money more mistakes have been made, and things haven't changed, Zelda, their getting worse. The mistakes are still being made, more people are dying, terrorism is increasing -- and these mistakes will continue to made as long as we allow the Republicans to run this war.

It's four years after Bush declared the war was over -- and for the last four years Bush has been bungling the exit -- making mistakes -- making things worse instead of better. It's time to cut the monkey off from his bottomless supply of bananas, and bring our men and women home.

You just don't want to admit how badly you guys screwed this up, so you want more of our fighting men and women and thousands of innocent Iraqis to die, all because Republicans don't want to admit you've already created another Vietnam, and you have no idea how to fix it.

Your ego is causing the deaths of thousands and causing an increase in terrorism. Get a clue.

I just came across this:

The figures, compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and released with the annual State Department Country Reports on Terrorism, showed that the number of incidents in Iraq rose 91 percent, from 3,468 in 2005 to 6,630 in 2006.

A 91% increase in 2006. Haig was right, it is Vietnam. Admit it.

I've yet to hear any of the loyal minority explain with a little more depth the "terrorists will follow us home" canard. What does that mean exactly? They had no problem finding us in 2001. Seems the biggest change since then is that we've gone over there and stirred the hornet's nest. That and the senseless loss of life on both sides. If the last four years prove anything it's the futility of fighting a tactic with conventional military force. Bush's strategy is nothing more than a desperate run out the clock dash to 2008. Petraeus will report on the surge in Sept.At the current rate that means about 400 or so families will be getting the worst possible news from Iraq. For what?

By keeping their attention focused on Iraq, Groucho, the terrorists are forced to do everything they can THERE in order to pull out a 'win' for their side. Think of them as being arsonists who just love the sight of a city ablaze, and who, in order to feel fulfilled, want to keep their fires going as long as possible. They're aided by firebugs in Iran, who'd love to see the whole country of Iraq in flames - figuring they can get cheap real estate when the fires go out in a few years.

We go in, put out fires and help the victims rebuild, and they have to restart the fires in order to keep the city burning. The only problem is, the folks they're setting on fire are getting tired of it (hey they enjoy a good blaze now and then, but enough's enough already) and are turning them in when they're caught and noticed. We're also killing the arsonists - to the point where most of the firebugs are now from outside Iraq. They're committed in Iraq - they HAVE to burn up everything - but if we go "Fine - screw it, burn everything down, we don't give a damn" that'll do two things.

First, it'll free up a whole lot of resources that they can use elsewhere.

Second - it'll encourage repeat performances worldwide. It will be proof that terrorism works, and works well indeed. Spain was a fine example of that - the proper timing of suicide bombings, and you end up getting pretty much everything you want. And the next time you want something, you only have to threaten.

Think about Detroit, and their Hell Nights - what if the firemen and police stayed away? Would the arsonists see it as a defeat?

"Well, I've quit laughing now, Zelda -- so you honestly believe that our presence in Iraq is stopping terrorists from coming into the U.S..

Explain how that works - do we have them corralled? lol"

It is hard to beleive some people simply can't see it. But the war in Iraq DOES prevent terror here, it's fairly obvious, here's why:

1) There's is a shame/honor based culture. They HAVE to drive us from Iraq, or face the idea of an infidel power taking hold of "Muslim" land. Unacceptable. The Loss of Face that would accompany an Al Queda retreat from Iraq would discredit the organization, and by extension, its ideology. But its ideology is Holy- so this can't ever, ever be allowed to happen.

2) This makes winning in Iraq their #1 goal. It is more important than bombing busses in the West, or anything else, anywhere. Everything in their mind is In'Shallah. It's all the will of god. You can say that god didn't support one particular operation somewhere- but you can NEVER say that god decided to turn over Iraq- Baghdad!- to the Infidel. Despite claims about Jerusalem, the fact is, historically, Islam has been politically centered on Baghdad to a much greater extent than anywhere else! So it is the war that cannot be allowed to end, from the AQ point of view. Most of their resources go there, and those resources are unavailable for use elsewhere.

3) After more than four years, they are unable to drive us from Iraq, and their capabilties have shrunk to the point where random murder is the only thing they can do. Imagine how frustrating that must be! You have god on your side and money and weapons and self sacrificing suicide bombers, but the damn infidel Americans just hang on! But surprisingly, Al Quedad does not quit. They know, as the Democrats know but don't tell us, that quitting is the wrong thing to do. So, now, unable to beat us in battle, their hopes for victory are pinned on their allies in the US, such as the core of the Democratic Party. While not ideologically allied, the Democrats have a common vision- defeat for the US in Iraq, and so Democrat and Al Queda preferences for US policy in Iraq are surprisingly identical.

4) Despite the fact that a US retreat from Iraq will be due to the Democrats and NOT Al Queda, AQ will take full credit for it and most people "on the fence" about AQ in the middle east will beleive them. They will owe the Democrats nothing for this favor and their increased prestige and threat level in the middle east will enable them to coerce local governments and "donors" far more than they already do. When the mob knocks on your door for "donations", and you know the city council just ordered the police out of the neighborhood, you dig deep into your pockets. Just imagine the prestige associated with "we drove the Americans out" in the middle eastern mindset.

5) However, once that is achieved, the shame/honor culture ratchets up the bar: having beaten the US in Iraq, where can you beat them NEXT? Anyone who does not think this would be the case should think about US politics: If a party turns one "swing state", would they ever say "that's enough for us!" and stop? No, when you are comitted to an ideology, any victory short of 100% final victory is merely a step along the way. So any US retreat, obviously, would not "end" the war, merely shift it. Much like a political victory in one battlefield state merely shifts the contest. But to where? One critical difference between us and them- Americans think about the benefits of winning, while to a middle easterner, the honor and glory involved merely in fighting is a reward in itself, and the mightier and more "infidel" the enemy, the more glory for the Jihadi fighting it! When you are seeking glory in battle, we are the mother lode.

6) The US remains a very "soft" target. A very diverse immigrant community, while a good thing in itself, offers the enemy easy places to hide, as do our social imperatives against intrusive security. As the truck explosion proved in CA, our infrastructure remains very vulnerable. The will and the means certainly exist. The reward exists. The manpower and money and weapons exist. So, one of two things: Either you beleive that other than Iraq, the War on Terror is amazingly successful and consists of one brilliant yet secret victory after another, (yet brought to you by the same people who gave us Iraq!) or you must beleive that the the only thing currently stopping attacks on the US is the existence of a higher priority sucking down all the effort- currently, Iraq.

7) Ergo the removal of this higher priority will mean that lower priority targets- us- will become the new highest priority. There are only two ways out: Defeat them before they eliminate the highest priority, no matter what it takes, however long it takes, or offer up another more tempting target.

8) The Democrats are no stranger to thug-think, they have worked this all through, and they have gotten here first. They have by now concluded one or both of two things: the cost in lives, property, and fear of a renewed terror assault against the US is worth it if we can get a Democrat government and put our buddies back on the gravy train, and/or we can always toss Israel to the crocodiles and let them chew on that for a while.

Ben

So BarneyG - you'd RATHER the terrorists were blowing up YOUR happy ass?

Here's the deal fella - either they're blowing somebody up over THERE or they're free to blow somebody up HERE. Is that concept too complicated for you?

Here's the bottom line: They WANT to KILL US! Not because of anything we've done but because they HATE our freedom, our vibrant economy, our tolerance. And the Islamofascists will try to use our very best strengths to harm us.