Saddam's Tribal Leaders: Stop Attacking U.S. GIs

[KMAN]

Saddam's Tribal Leaders: Stop Attacking U.S. GIs

Tribal chiefs in Tikrit, Iraq - birthplace of captured Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and a focal point for resistance to the U.S. occupation by remnants of Hussein's regime - are calling for an end to attacks on U.S. forces.

Saddam's hometown leaders are urging that a "reconciliation committee" be established "to convince the resistance movements to cease operations against American forces," reports the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram - according to a translation published Monday by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Since Saddam's capture on Dec. 14, attacks on U.S. forces have dropped dramatically from levels the month before, though GI's are still being killed at the rate of one-a-day.



The news keeps getting better everyday.

KMAN

 

[WildBill]

Yeah right, they are attacking Iraqis now. This policy became clear a few weeks ago, they realized if they attack GIs then the GIs come charging into homes looking for anyone they can find. If they attack Iraqis with carbombs and the like, they get a lot less in return.

 

[Banned4Life]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The news keeps getting better everyday.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why we're at Code Orange, we're escorting passenger jets with F-16s, and the country is in a state of virtual martial law. Yeah, things are getting so much better.

 

[KMAN]

B4L - I think you, and everyone else knows, that if we had a Democrat in office we would still be trying to negotiate with Al-Queda, while they bomb the hell out of us.

Personally I prefer the raised terror alert to having to be afraid everyday that me and my family might be the victim of an attack.

KMAN

 

[lander]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Personally I prefer the raised terror alert to having to be afraid everyday that me and my family might be the victim of an attack.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

That doesn't make much sense. If the terror alert is raised that means that there is a greater chance of a terror attack - which is precisely what you're claiming you'd be afraid of.

C'mmon, stop spewing nonsense in the name of partisanship.

 

[jimbutorac]

Actually KMAN,

I do believe that apprehending saddam will slow the death rate of American GIs and no doubt it's a good thing. As much as I would love to be wrong, IMO we will still see US casualties every week for the next 6 months.

Still does not change my opinion that we should never have gone over there in the first place as I agreed with Condoleeza Rice when she said in 2000 that Saddam was no threat to the US.

 

[Banned4Life]

You can't speculate like that about what a democrat would do in this situation. Democrats have been known to be just as willing to go to war as republicans in the past, and I just think it's a damn shame that Wesley Clark was forced to retire from the army before we decided to invade Iraq.

 

[TheFunkMonkey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Personally I prefer the raised terror alert to having to be afraid everyday that me and my family might be the victim of an attack.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

That doesn't make much sense. If the terror alert is raised that means that there is a greater chance of a terror attack - which is precisely what you're claiming you'd be afraid of.

C'mmon, stop spewing nonsense in the name of partisanship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? That doesn't make much sense either. The raised terror alert doesn't necessarily mean that there is a greater chance of a terror attack. I mean, we're not talking about a weather report. You really can't predict the probability of a terror attack.

"Bob, we've got a Code Orange today. So that means we've got a 5% chance of car-bombings combined with a 10% chance of bridge explosions."

And then you could argue that raising the terror alert actually DECREASES the likelihood of an attack. The increased security/attention might deter some terrorists from completing the attack. Which is probably true, because we all know that any halfway-decent terrorist is going to wait until the security returns to normal. Terrorists tend to flow towards the path of least resistance. Why attack an area that is being monitored by 600 law-enforcement officers when you can wait for a day when only 70 officers will be monitoring the area?

I think KMAN is just saying that he prefers the increased security and awareness, as opposed to the old days when there was basically nothing preventing a terrorist attack.

 

[lander]

Funkey,
Please tell me that you don't actually believe a word of that nonsense that you just spewed?

"Huh? That doesn't make much sense either. The raised terror alert doesn't necessarily mean that there is a greater chance of a terror attack. I mean, we're not talking about a weather report. You really can't predict the probability of a terror attack."

From your neo-conical friends at Fox
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62618,00.html

RED: Severe risk of terrorist attacks.
ORANGE: High risk of terrorist attacks.
YELLOW: Elevated condition. Significant risk of terrorist attacks.
BLUE: Guarded condition. General risk of terrorist attack.
GREEN: Low risk of terrorist attacks.

So, what exactly does a raised alert mean?

"And then you could argue that raising the terror alert actually DECREASES the likelihood of an attack. The increased security/attention might deter some terrorists from completing the attack. Which is probably true, because we all know that any halfway-decent terrorist is going to wait until the security returns to normal. Terrorists tend to flow towards the path of least resistance. Why attack an area that is being monitored by 600 law-enforcement officers when you can wait for a day when only 70 officers will be monitoring the area?

I think KMAN is just saying that he prefers the increased security and awareness, as opposed to the old days when there was basically nothing preventing a terrorist attack."

Again, From your neo-conical friends at Fox
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62618,00.html

RED: Severe risk of terrorist attacks.
ORANGE: High risk of terrorist attacks.
YELLOW: Elevated condition. Significant risk of terrorist attacks.
BLUE: Guarded condition. General risk of terrorist attack.
GREEN: Low risk of terrorist attacks.

By all means - explain to me how a "severe risk of terrorist attacks" (red) actually means there is less of a chance than say a "low risk of terrist attacks" (green).

You sheep are unbelievable at times. You'll just ramble the most senseless crap in the name of partisanship. Sad, very sad.

[This message was edited by lander on January 06, 2004 at 09:29 AM.]

 

[KMAN]

What I am saying is - I would much rather have alerts and know that the US government is trying to protect me and my family (like we have now), instead of my government trying to negotiate with terrorists which is what the Democrats would do.

How do I know?????? Because the Dems wanted us to try and negotiate with the UN and Saddam instead of enforcing the many resolutions that Saddam violated. The Democrats could care less if Saddam continued to build WMD or that he was a murderous dictator. Do you honestly think that that power hungry animal would have stopped with his own country. That SOB was eventually going to come after the USA and we got him before he got us. The Dems think that as long as he doesn't attack us who cares what he does to others? Republicans want to stop the threat before it becomes a threat. I thank God we have a pro-active government right now instead of a re-active government.

KMAN