Die You Fucking Pigs

[comsquat]

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - The leader of al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia was believed killed in a raid in the capital Friday, hours after his group claimed the beheading of an American engineer, Saudi security officials said.

A U.S. official confirmed that al-Moqrin has been killed. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.

To establish identities, one Saudi official said forensic tests would be conducted on three bodies of militants killed in a shootout in a downtown neighborhood shortly after the discovery of Paul M. Johnson Jr.'s body.

The killing of Abdulaziz al-Moqrin, 31, would be a coup for the Saudi goverment, which has been under intense pressure to halt a wave of attacks against Westerners in the kingdom.

The Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya satellite station, which first reported al-Moqrin's death, said two other militants were also killed in the raid, and another was wounded and arrested. All three dead militants were on Saudi Arabia's list of most wanted men, security officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Two suspects escaped, he said, said one Saudi security official who took part in the raid.

Al-Moqrin, who trained with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, is believed to be the leader of the group calling itself al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which claimed responsibility for Johnson's beheading.

Al-Moqrin's group has also claimed responsibility for most attacks against Westerners in Saudi Arabia in the past two months.

WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF AMERICAN BEHEADED
http://www.drudgereport.com/jp.htm

[Primal Instinct]

He wouldn't have killed the American if the Saudis hadn't released him from prison early (he was sentenced to 8 years) for conspiring to kill Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. They said they let him out on good behavior and that he memorized the Koran :ghey: We don't yet know that he was really killed yet until DNA results are complete. Either way, the Saudis are complicit it supporting Al Qaeda terrorists. Too many seem to "escape" from Saudi Police shootouts. Either they are incompetant police (highly unlikely) or they are in collusion (much more believeable) with the terrorists cells there.





*EDIT*

I strongly support the formation of a covert anti-terrorist hit squad like the Israelis had put together in retaliation for the Iraeli athlete slayings at the '72 Munich Olympics. It took them 5 years but they got every one of those fuckers involved.

[JUICE]

fuck that pisses the shit out of me. I know Ive said it a million times, but these fuckers are fucked up in the head and need to be killed. Before I never thought life was like this, I thought life was awesome and no worries but now that Ive grown I know how fucked up this world is because of people like that. Im saying this now, If I were to ever see a fuck head like that trying committing shit like that, Id personall take him out. I will defend my people here in the US or all innocent people. I just had enough of this shit. And if they were to make a draft fuck that Im in , killing every single sick muther fucker over there. I dont care of people get in the way but this shit gots to stop. I know I aint no one to stop this shit but with help , we can put a stop to it.
What the US should do, is all the damn terrorist prisoners, should be kiiled, screw that put away rather than releasing them. Just put them in a gas chamber or something. Hit them 10 times more with it, so they can get the hint wthat we aint taking thier shit and they dont intimidate us. Thats why , i wanna work with either cops or border patrol to protect people here. Seriously just too upset right now.

[hitmansb]

Nuke em' all....let Allah sort em out. Since they have those virgins waiting for them in their version of the afterlife, it shouldn't bother them too much.

[1mark1]

Totally agree ALL the murderers should be sorted.But who originally trained and backed up Bin Ladin.Who funded right wing terror squads in ElSavador,Nicarragua etc.To me it should be Bush and Blaire who should be sorted out and not innocent American and Europeen workers.In my country,UK,millions of voters turned their backs on Blair and the Labour party because of going in with the other rabid right winger Bush,for a war against the wrong people-Iraq,who had nothing to do with 9-11.

[mountainman]

3 WORDS













NUCLEAR


FUCKIN


WEPONS




case dismissed

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by mountainman
3 WORDS


NUCLEAR


FUCKIN


WEPONS




case dismissed

Nuclear assault is definitely NOT the answer. Not all inhabitants of the middle east OR Iraq are terrorist minded. It would be wrong to punish an entire people for certain members of its population. Let's look at an example:

In the south, members of a terrorist organization killed and tortured black people. That organization was the Ku Klux Klan. Should the entire nation or even the whole south be militarily devasted to remove a few from the face of the earth? Of course not. If you blanket everyone there in the same group and attack all of them regardless of guilt, you will surely galvanize the population to stand against you when previously, these people would have supported your efforts to clean the region up.

The answer is to specifically target those individuals who engage in such activities. Root them out. Put immense pressure on those who support the terrorists. Make them accountable for their complicity in terrorism. Expose them on a national and international level. Ruin their lives, their businesses, their relationships in government if they can be tied to supporting terrorists. Stop protecting members high in government who sympathize with terrorists. Start playing hardball with these people and stop pussyfooting around.

The Saudi Royal family have for decades, looked the other way while the madhrasses (religious schools) have taught anti-American hatred to the children in their care. For more than 2 decades, the House of Saud have paid off terrorists to keep from starting trouble in Saudi Arabia. They released known terrorist prisoners or they somehow "got away" during arrest attempts by the Saudi Police. How come the US lets them continue to coddle these terrorists? It's easy; we need their oil, we need their military bases there, and the Saudis donate shitloads of money to influence our government's leaders. Here's one quick example: The Saudis (via Prince Bandahar) have donated 1 million dollars to the George Bush Presidential Library. They'll probably donate to Dubya's Library too. Do you think that Dubya is going to let the Saudis look bad and release the Congressional findings on their 9/11 report which has over 27 pages blacked out pertaining to Saudi connections to 9/11? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-29-saudis-bush_x.htm This is the kind of stuff that needs to stop. Our own government is protecting people who harbour terrorists and then act hypocritically by attacking a nation who has no pertinent ties to the 9/11 tragedy, which the White House claimed in
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html. A statement which he now publically claims on television was misinterpreted. It is very clear what he said in his letter- Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Read the Whitehouse link above.

Clean the clocks here at home first then abroad. Make suppressed inforamation available and then then take actoins against those who cover it up. Next, lay down hard propositions to those nations that support terrorists. If they don't cooperate, expose their leaders who are involved and threaten serious trade sanctions with them through UN support. Enforce any sanctions with military force, if necessary. Get the politics out of fighting terrorism and start making some real progress. The world leaders have top-notch security people protecting them personally from terrorism 24/7....who's protecting YOU?

[funniirishman]

I hear everyone continually whining about Saddam Husseins suppossed ties to 9/11..did he? Didn't He?

The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein killed thousands of people..He flew in the face of UN sanctions for a decade while the United Nations did nothing but formally sanction his oil exports..which he then smuggled out of the country for years to the tune of billions which he personally pocketed. Having been to Iraq, I can tell you that the people there lived in poverty and abject fear of a regime that tortured, killed and buried thousands upon thousands of people. As for the weapons of mass destruction..chemical weapons ect. Saddam Hussein has absolutely deployed chemical weapons on his own people in the last decade..the Kurds to the North that we know of. We didn't find any..bummer, but the fact is he was a murderous fanatic that has caused nothing but pain and suffering to millions of people for many many years. If the UN wants to snivel and whine because we destroyed his regime fine. The UN should have taken stauncher sanctions against him to begin with for the last decade.

Furthermore although the media continually points out that our intelligence cannot pinpoint any links to Al-Quida, no one seems to want to analyze why they are now a driving force of terrorist attacks in Iraq with a complex and effective network already in place..Hmmmm.

Since US intervention (war, whatever you want to call it) the Iraqi people as a whole now have import export capability, a power grid that is solidifying everyday providing upwards to 65% power, access to goods and trade that was banned by the UN for a decade. Moreover the majority of the Iraqi people are very happy that we are there..I know because I saw it everywhere I went. The media will exploit the minority of fundamentlists to appear as the rank and file of the country when in reality it is anything but.

And the bottom line is those that support terror, whether foriegn or domestic, should be hunted down relentlessly without mercy, without pause, without rest, until they are stopped or killed. Period.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by funniirishman
I hear everyone continually whining about Saddam Husseins suppossed ties to 9/11..did he? Didn't He?

The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein killed thousands of people..He flew in the face of UN sanctions for a decade while the United Nations did nothing but formally sanction his oil exports..which he then smuggled out of the country for years to the tune of billions which he personally pocketed. Having been to Iraq, I can tell you that the people there lived in poverty and abject fear of a regime that tortured, killed and buried thousands upon thousands of people. As for the weapons of mass destruction..chemical weapons ect. Saddam Hussein has absolutely deployed chemical weapons on his own people in the last decade..the Kurds to the North that we know of. We didn't find any..bummer, but the fact is he was a murderous fanatic that has caused nothing but pain and suffering to millions of people for many many years. If the UN wants to snivel and whine because we destroyed his regime fine. The UN should have taken stauncher sanctions against him to begin with for the last decade.

Furthermore although the media continually points out that our intelligence cannot pinpoint any links to Al-Quida, no one seems to want to analyze why they are now a driving force of terrorist attacks in Iraq with a complex and effective network already in place..Hmmmm.

Since US intervention (war, whatever you want to call it) the Iraqi people as a whole now have import export capability, a power grid that is solidifying everyday providing upwards to 65% power, access to goods and trade that was banned by the UN for a decade. Moreover the majority of the Iraqi people are very happy that we are there..I know because I saw it everywhere I went. The media will exploit the minority of fundamentlists to appear as the rank and file of the country when in reality it is anything but.

And the bottom line is those that support terror, whether foriegn or domestic, should be hunted down relentlessly without mercy, without pause, without rest, until they are stopped or killed. Period.

I appreciate your concern on the matter, funniirishman. Did you know that prior to UN sanctions on Iraq that they had a 90% literacy rate? Iraq had the most up to date medical facilities in the region? The power grid, oil fields and communications systems there were very well maintained prior to the sanctions that have lasted over 10 years. The sanctions worked to really delapitate Iraq's infrastructure and Saddam did not dedicate money to keep them up once the sanctions started to take their toll. He choose to continue to fund building his palaces, some military and keep money for himself. Obviously, not a good leader but it certainly did not warrant the US leading an invasion to oust him, wspecially since the reasons presented to us were that he was planning to attack us. Why would he do such a stupid thing knowing that he would be deposed as a result of those actions? It doesn't make sense because he didn't threaten the US. He didn't have the military power, money, supplies, allies, nothing... He didn't even have reliable leaders to enact such a task. Surely, it would have escalated to open warfare- a thing he ouldn't possibly risk because as proven, he couldn't hang with the US military. Saddam was going nowhere. We controlled the northern and southern thirds of its airspace. We had spy satelittes trained over the country for over a decade. They couldn't mount an attack on Iran to the east, Saudi Arabia to the southwest, Kuwait to the south or Syria to the north because their military was not strong enough anymore and we would see an agressive movements well before an attack was under way.

Nope, the only reason for war in Iraq was for corporate profit. With the nation still in fear from the 9/11 attacks from Al Qaeda, the nation was primed to be mislead in the disquise of trusting the White House. Weapons sales, rebuild contracts, private security firms, etc... You want to know who profitted the most in this war? Just follow the money. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US needed a new enemy. Without the threat of war or attacks, there is no money to be made, plain and simple. Bush/Cheney used the US military to gain corporate profit for his big business connections like Halliburton, Bechtel, The Trilateral Commission, and certain ideologues in his administration. You don't believe it? Check out who in Bush's Administration takes jobs with these firms after this administration's tenure in office. Follow the money. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the US entered a war under false pretenses. Check out the Vite Nam Guf of Tonkin Incident or the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor which triggered the Spanish-American War.

The terrorist threat is from Islamic Fundamentalist extremists, no other. It is the goal of these people to institute a single worldwide theocracy in which the only rule of law is Fundamental Islam. They are organized and well funded by nations like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Bahrain, U.A.E and Oman. Stop the problem at its roots, not cajole up some fucking Iraq shit to distract from the real threat. We could have been 2 years further ahead and all of that taxpayer money spent on Iraq could have gone to fund Homeland security, Medicare, upgrading our own archaic power grid, and job development here in the US. There's no money in that though.

[Primal Instinct]

I didn't want you to think that I was flaming you, funniirishman. I just wanted to make the case that just because people are sent overseas to fight, it isn't always for the benefit of the many but sometimes that of the few. This does in no way, take from the danger or honor of those serving there. It is just to point out that resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

First of all, WE built Saddam into what he was recently. It was the US government under Reagan who supplied him with weapons and training durin the Iran-Iraq War. We provided intelligence and weapons to both sides, actually. If he had a start on chemical or bio weapons, it wa US who trained and supported HIM. This is not conjecture, it is documented fact. We helped Saddam become what he was until recently. We were helping both sides when we KNEW that they were using chemical weapons on each other. We are part of our own problem. Don't act surprised when a snake acts like a snake. We used Saddam as an ally when we thought that it would benefit the US. When Saddam ceased to be of benefit to us we sought to have him removed from power, eventually culminating in a war.

One other thing; the defenders of the Bush policy to go to war in Iraq because Saddam was a murder falls on deaf ears. Cheney, was the Secretary of Defense during the George H W Bush presidency. He was the one who called off troops during Desert Storm NOT to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. He was totally aware of Saddam's intentions and actions against his own people back then. They did not even comment about when Saddam ordered heliocopters to machinegun the Kurdish rebels in the northern part of Iraq. All this after Bush had encouraged the Kurds to uprise against Saddam. It was like the Bay of Pigs debacle but instead of Cuba, this time it was Iraq.

Current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is no saint either. Reagan had sent him as the emissary to Iraq in December of 1983. He took a letter to Saddam which indicated that Iraq would be removed from the US's official list of states who support international terrorism. It opened the door to full diplomatic and economic relations between Iraq and the US. The CIA and US military intelligence would be used to help Iraq in its war with Iran. Rumsfeld was an integral part of this relationship.

There are plenty of other nations undergoing mass murders of citizens. Places like ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, East Timor, the "shoot-to-kill drug dealer" policy in Thailand, in which many people were targets of other people's revenge, or the mass murders going on in Burma? Why? Because they don't have proven oil reserves. The US only gets involved if there's something that it can get from it. The Iraq argument fell far behind as an afterthought when Bush pushed for a US invasion. It became an argument only after the WMD position was questioned. Furthermore, if that was the case for invasion then why didn't Bush and Co. work more closely with our allies and the UN in highlighting this as a human rights relief endeavor?

[JUICE]

:rolleyes:









good post bro:D

[funniirishman]

Oh I didn't think you were flaming me at all. You have some valid points. Bush's closet most definitely isn't squeaky clean..but no politicians ever is..The bottom line is for every statistic I throw up or you throw up there is one to counter it.

As for invading Iraq because of proven oil fields or big business, I would dispute that. For those fields to even become profitable or managable is going to take years. Point in fact is just this week terrorist blew a hole in it that completely stopped production. As for making profit from a military action..I think it is safe to say that US companies have profited from war dating as far back as the Civil War if not farther. To not assume that US companies are going to be contracted is silly. It is certainly not an indicator of the orgin of the Iraq conflict.

As for putting the blame solely on the US for supplying him I can safely and without a doubt tell you your mistaken. I know because the ordance and weapons that I saw over there came from a whooole lot of places..France and Britain were primary suppliers as well as the US. Fact. Shitloads and shitloads..there is even more than significant reason to believe that some of Iraq's chemical stockpile came from France and Britain.

As for what happened 10 years ago..we can what if all you want. It was a bad choice not to march straight the fuck to Bagdad. No argument from me. But saying that Cheney was responsible is inaccurate. The President-Commander in Chief-has the final say on all United States Forces and gives the orders on whether or not they stay or go. The buck stops with him, no one else. So maybe Cheney advocated to stop maybe he didnt but the decision was ultimately the President's.

As for working with the UN as a human rights endeavor..exactly what kind of success rate are we talking about in recent years? The UN is a powerless body that drags its feet continually..its ineffectualy policy and planning have continually cost the US lives and money..the US is ALWAYS leading the UN mission both in manpower and dollars...And what kind of success rate have we had? We (the US) put our military and financial might to the forefront on peacekeeping mission after mission..Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia to name a few..are these successful missions? No. Time and time again we have left an area of operation with the UN tail between its legs. Somalia was all the rage in the 90's behind a UN peace keeping mission..warlords are starving the populace..US troops died, civilians died, lots of people died. My friends died. I for one can't think of a whole lot of economic benefit Somalia had or has. And hows that country doing now after the UN backed peacekeeping mission? Hmmm I think they are still starving and people are still dying..its just not the flavor of the month for the UN anymore..Lets look at Kosovo..another UN success story. My good friend just emailed me last week telling me they had blown up his police station and killed citizens in an enthnic skirmish. So, you will have to excuse me if I dont get to misty eyed because the US decided to forgo UN approval and do what was neccessary in Iraq rather than let it get micromanaged into even a bigger clusterfuck..(God knows what would have happened if this mission fell under the command of the UN).. is the policy squeaky clean..probably not. You can poke holes in anything if you try..like I said you and I can banter facts and stats back and forth for weeks..Until you've spilled some blood in the mud its really easy to sit in the bleachers and Monday morning quarterback. Is the reason for the Iraq war sound? I believe it is.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by Keiser
Those people over there are barbarians, only one way to control a barbarian and thats to have someone in there more insane than they are (Sadam). They will never have a democracy over there, never.

You're right, Keiser. It's because most of the middle eastern countries are kingdoms. The leaders of the kingdoms aren't going to embrace democracy because that means they would have to lose their power. No one there is going to voluntarily give up their monarchy, money, power, etc...and relinguish it to democratic elections. That's just foolish to think it would ever happen. It's been that way for thousands of years and they won't change now because WE are dumb enough to think they will. When push comes to shove, the middle eastern kingdoms (Syria, Jordan, House of Saud, Kuwait, Egypt, etc..) will tell us to kiss off. There is no real authentic cooperation with these countries when the push for democracy is on because they won't readily support that which will remove them from power. However, they will support those who would fight against the establishment of democracy if they feel that their sovereignty is threatened. It is in their best interests.

If you want to seriously stop the rise of terrorism then you need to address the causes of terrorism. This is where it must begin. Addressing the results aren't solving it. We need to address the root causes. Let's take a look at who gets recruited for terrorist activities. It's the young to middle aged people who live in poverty that are more apt than anyone to become terrorists or at least sympathize with them. Why? Because they don't have any money. Many have no jobs, shitty housing, poor health standards, and nothing to look forward to because things aren't changing for the better for them. Right?

So what do you do to turn this thing around? You give them something to live for. Let's take Iraq, for example:
Yes, the US has removed Saddam as their dictator and they have less to fear domestically. They are getting their power grid rebuilt by us. Yes, as funniirishman says, it's currently at 65% - but they still have less hours of electrical power as when Saddam was in power. They see this as a decline in services. The Iraqis have an incredibly high unemployment rate. Remember, this is a highly literate nation, not some ignorant shithole. They have doctors who get paid less than soldiers and teachers (subsidized by the US taxpayer) and have young men and women with lots of free time on their hands. Free time and poor living conditions = time to brood and get pissed off at the way their lives are turning out.

There's terrorism there today but there wasn't any during Saddam's rule- except from Saddam's croonies. At least they knew what they could and could not do though. Al Qaeda moved in with other anti-American types after the fall of Saddam because the US military did not have the resources available to seal off the borders from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc...so, where there wasn't Al Qaeda before, there is now. This to me, is a spread of terrorism, not subduing terrorism. That said, insurgents can attack US and British forces who are actively trying to rebuild and secure Iraq from terror. People get killed for cooperating with the US and the new provisional government there, including Iraqi policemen. Until there are enough forces to close the borders, there will always be an influx of new terrorists. As time passes and the US wears out its welcome, they also will have a primed audience to listen to their anti-American spiel. It is inevitable that they will recruit more and more future terrorists. Again, how do we stop this from happening?

We give them an active part in their nation's recovery. People hate when other people do shit for them. They just don't take pride in it. So, we should start hiring Iraqis to rebuild Iraq. People who have money and a job can buy things and support their families. They have a reason to live. They have to have something to fight for and to protect- a reason to wake up everyday because they want the same things we do- to be able to raise a family in safety. Iraqi morale would pick up tremendously. They would not likely support terrorism or terrorists if they (Iraqis) had something to lose. When these people see others doing the rebuilding and having jobs and money when they don't- in their own nation- they get upset. At that point they become less than enthusiastic about the US troops and contractors being there and are more open to suggestion from terrorist influences.

They want to assume control of their own destinies but still need help in many aspects. They just don't want to be treated as if they were fools. Arabs are a proud people and this is something that many westerners do not understand. So in short, seal off the borders from new terrorists. Root out the existing terrorists. Stop making the Iraqis out to being supporters of terrorism- that time has passed- move on. Give these people an active part in their own recovery by giving them jobs. Guide them but don't rule them in their efforts to develop a stable democratic government and treat them with dignity and respect. If they're happy, they will not likely support terrorist ideals. That's all I'll say in this thread.

[JUICE]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
You're right, Keiser. It's because most of the middle eastern countries are kingdoms. The leaders of the kingdoms aren't going to embrace democracy because that means they would have to lose their power. No one there is going to voluntarily give up their monarchy, money, power, etc...and relinguish it to democratic elections. That's just foolish to think it would ever happen. It's been that way for thousands of years and they won't change now because WE are dumb enough to think they will. When push comes to shove, the middle eastern kingdoms (Syria, Jordan, House of Saud, Kuwait, Egypt, etc..) will tell us to kiss off. There is no real authentic cooperation with these countries when the push for democracy is on because they won't readily support that which will remove them from power. However, they will support those who would fight against the establishment of democracy if they feel that their sovereignty is threatened. It is in their best interests.

If you want to seriously stop the rise of terrorism then you need to address the causes of terrorism. This is where it must begin. Addressing the results aren't solving it. We need to address the root causes. Let's take a look at who gets recruited for terrorist activities. It's the young to middle aged people who live in poverty that are more apt than anyone to become terrorists or at least sympathize with them. Why? Because they don't have any money. Many have no jobs, shitty housing, poor health standards, and nothing to look forward to because things aren't changing for the better for them. Right?

So what do you do to turn this thing around? You give them something to live for. Let's take Iraq, for example:
Yes, the US has removed Saddam as their dictator and they have less to fear domestically. They are getting their power grid rebuilt by us. Yes, as funniirishman says, it's currently at 65% - but they still have less hours of electrical power as when Saddam was in power. They see this as a decline in services. The Iraqis have an incredibly high unemployment rate. Remember, this is a highly literate nation, not some ignorant shithole. They have doctors who get paid less than soldiers and teachers (subsidized by the US taxpayer) and have young men and women with lots of free time on their hands. Free time and poor living conditions = time to brood and get pissed off at the way their lives are turning out.

There's terrorism there today but there wasn't any during Saddam's rule- except from Saddam's croonies. At least they knew what they could and could not do though. Al Qaeda moved in with other anti-American types after the fall of Saddam because the US military did not have the resources available to seal off the borders from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc...so, where there wasn't Al Qaeda before, there is now. This to me, is a spread of terrorism, not subduing terrorism. That said, insurgents can attack US and British forces who are actively trying to rebuild and secure Iraq from terror. People get killed for cooperating with the US and the new provisional government there, including Iraqi policemen. Until there are enough forces to close the borders, there will always be an influx of new terrorists. As time passes and the US wears out its welcome, they also will have a primed audience to listen to their anti-American spiel. It is inevitable that they will recruit more and more future terrorists. Again, how do we stop this from happening?

We give them an active part in their nation's recovery. People hate when other people do shit for them. They just don't take pride in it. So, we should start hiring Iraqis to rebuild Iraq. People who have money and a job can buy things and support their families. They have a reason to live. They have to have something to fight for and to protect- a reason to wake up everyday because they want the same things we do- to be able to raise a family in safety. Iraqi morale would pick up tremendously. They would not likely support terrorism or terrorists if they (Iraqis) had something to lose. When these people see others doing the rebuilding and having jobs and money when they don't- in their own nation- they get upset. At that point they become less than enthusiastic about the US troops and contractors being there and are more open to suggestion from terrorist influences.

They want to assume control of their own destinies but still need help in many aspects. They just don't want to be treated as if they were fools. Arabs are a proud people and this is something that many westerners do not understand. So in short, seal off the borders from new terrorists. Root out the existing terrorists. Stop making the Iraqis out to being supporters of terrorism- that time has passed- move on. Give these people an active part in their own recovery by giving them jobs. Guide them but don't rule them in their efforts to develop a stable democratic government and treat them with dignity and respect. If they're happy, they will not likely support terrorist ideals. That's all I'll say in this thread.

damn bro, those are some strong words and I agree with you. You always have good and interesting posts to read.:)

[Primal Instinct]

Thanks, Juice :D