This one does, but i am a rarity. Most of the GOP still goose steps to the Bushco party line, and think its all al-qeada. When in fact less then 10% are terrorist related, and the rest is sectarian violence, Sunni and Shia Muslims killing each other. But since there were no WMD, No nukes, and no 9/11 connection prior to the war, Bush has to use something to keep America afraid enough to support the war. I guess he chose the big bad al-qeada.
2007-06-19 07:52:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
I am not standing up for Bush, but I think guys running into markets and restaurants blowing themselves up and killing dozens of people and wounding hundreds of others would be considered terrorists. Sunni terrorists are targeting shiite civilians as well as vice versa. The insurgents went from wanting to kill US soldiers to now, just wanting to kill civilians of the other factions using suicide bombers, if that isn't terrorism I dont know what is.
Just because they arent all Al Qaeda does disclude them from being terrorists. It is ignorant to think that all terrorists are Al Qaeda.
Tiredofwannabecons - why dont you actually read a book on the modern history of the Middle East before making more ignorant posts? I consider myself to be an "old school" conservative too, but I at least have spent many years studying the middle east.
2007-06-20 08:10:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by DAVIDRZR 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most likely. They seem to continue following the 'leader' no matter the cost, or outcome. I have noticed recently, the real Republicans are distancing themselves from the neocon, in the white house.
2007-06-19 16:55:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ro40rd 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
It has to do with a screwed-up, backward region of the world that was a threat to our security. It's all connected to the war on terror, or the evil that comes out of that cesspool. They're killing each other, yes, we know.
2007-06-19 14:57:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by tttplttttt 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
How so? When did suicide bombers, car bombs, and IED's not become acts of terrorism. Is it not PC to say that a Islamic fascist who goes into a market, screaming Allah Akbar then proceeds to blow himself up and everyone else that he can is no longer terrorism. Please tell me Mr. Secular Progressive what we are supposed to call these acts. Religious sacrifices? It's TERRORISM. We will welcome you back to reality when you can get here.
2007-06-19 14:58:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by mbush40 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yes it does. Do you realize that strapping a bomd on your body to blow innocent poeple up is called terrorism? Just cause they are killing their own people doesn't make it alright, dude. Get a clue.
2007-06-19 14:52:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by John Galt 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
do you realize you don't know what you're talking about? terror is a tactic. generally, used by groups which cannot or will not confront their enemies (real or perceived) face to face. terror is the most widely used tactic in Iraq, by all sides. even by our guys.
2007-06-19 14:56:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by jonny y 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Then who is it that keeps Car Bombing Soldiers and Civilians? The local Boy Scout Troops?
2007-06-19 14:53:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ken C 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Actually it does, it was a terrorist attack on the Gold Mosque that started the civil war there.
2007-06-19 14:54:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
I don't think so, they seem to cling to the idea desperately that we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. So in their minds, it's all the big fight about terrorism over there. When in truth, we are so busy policing a civil war that we can't properly attend to the areas where the terrorists are really gaining ground - Anbar Province, Afghanistan, etc. And Al Queda obliges them by keeping a small presence in Baghdad for them to point to. I wish they would take the blinders off for about 10 minutes, that's all it would take to see the real picture.
2007-06-19 14:52:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋