The latest nonsense from sinister mastermind of "Greenworld". Let's see, how can I counter the undeniable fact that al Qaida is by far the most effective and deadly part of the insurgency in Iraq. Ah, yes! It must be a Bush conspiracy to keep us from surrendering in Iraq!

Fact: No one other than the extreme defeatists like Greenwald, Pelosi and Reid try to argue that Al Qaeda is a non-factor in Iraq. Osama and Ayman have specically stated that Iraq is the central front in their war against the USA. Osama's exact quote was, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars." Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two leader of al Qaeda, said that Iraq "is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." He also said, "the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq." Of course Greenwald thinks these guys are nothing more than common criminals and that there is no global radical Islamic movement that should concern the USA.

Fact: No one who does not have a defeatist political agenda like Greenwald, Pelosi and Reid, disputes that Al Qaeda is behind almost all of the suicide bombings in Iraq that take the greatest toll on Iraqi civilians and drive the sectarian strife in Iraq. There were almost no sectarian killings in Iraq before the original Samarra mosque bombing and the heinous daily suicide bombings that have occurred since that time are al Qaeda's tactical strategy for pushing defeatists like Greenwald, Pelosi and Reid to force America out of Iraq so that they can use it as a base for their designs on the Arab gulf states and to attack the American homeland.

Fact: Even the extreme left media like NBC, NYT and WaPo do not deny that Al Qaeda is embedded in the Iraqi civilian populations and that Iraqi Sunnis from Ramadi to Baquoba to the neighborhoods of Baghdad are seeking to drive them out with American assistance.

Greenwald invents this nonsense because he fears that America might actually help Iraqis defeat al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and thereby position America to make a responsible reduction in forces in Iraq rather than pursue the abject geo-strategic, political, military. moral and economic capitulation to radical Islam that Greenwald advocates.

The reason behind Greenwald's gesticulating denials of al Qaeda's central role in Iraq is that it might result in a positive outcome for America in Iraq that would be very bad news for Pelosi, Reid and their defeatists cohorts who care more about their political ambitions than America's national security. Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria and the rest of radical Islam are all pulling for Greenwald's point of view to prevail because they believe the Greenwald's of the world can help them defeat America from within.

This inescapable reality and the huge risks and devastating consequences of Greenwald's surrender strategy (see link below) should tell any sane person everything they need to know about the true motives of Greenwald's grotesquely self-serving demagoguery. Greenwald could not be doing a better job of undermining America's national security if he was directly collaborating with the forces of radical Islam that are dedicated to America's destruction. Are you, Glenn?

http://www.politicalrealityonline.com/The_Bottom_Line.html

RealName, for a guy who thinks the way you do, continent or century is irrelevant. It's the impulse that's the key, the impulse to declare civilization to be of uniquely European manufacture, and those who resist its imposition on their own lands and cultures to be a kind of universal vermin, to be disposed of at your convenience.

That's why, as bebop-o says, you find it perfectly civilized to drop JDAMs on Afghan caravans bringing broccoli to market, cut off aid to Gaza, or treat Grenada to the benefits of modern amphibious invasion. It's also why you think we can win.

The results were always predictable, will always be predictable. Apart from the vast misery you seem to find so titillating, failure is the only long-term product. It doesn't really matter whether we use Little Big Horn, Saigon, or the Bay of Pigs as an example, the Sudan or Abysinnia or the British Raj. Folks like you keep turning the crank, and what comes out of the other end is never anything but hamburger and wrecked civilizations.

And now, of course, with the United States itself teetering on the verge of becoming yet another failed empire, and our government ready to set fire to the Constitution in front of cheering crowds, you declare victory.

Google is your friend indeed. No one else -- at least not anyone with any sense -- will give you the time of day.

Thanks but it's not that romantic. When you live in ZA you serve(d) in some function in the SAA. They don't keep resident aliens or mutinationals out of the service except for special groups that require one to be native born. Typically it comes down to a kind of homeland defense. Back in the late '80's early '90's armed wings of the ANC and SWAPO killed about 30,000 ZA nationals in ZA, both black and white. They invented the IED techniques you see today in Iraq. Typically the approach would be to mine the roads in and out of agricultural and industrial areas. Often workers transport buses were targeted killing mostly black workers. But hey - omelette, break a few eggs.....? The arc of Marxist history and such.

BTW I highly recommend Port Elizabeth. It's a very pretty place.

should have this discussion about what I believe between yourselves and then when you're sure you have direct evidence of my satanic nature, come back and sum it up in verse. thanks. Afterall you clearly don't need me to interrupt your musings of what you're sure I think. Why let that stand in your way?

RealName, you provide your own direct evidence. You've worked hard to establish yourself as a Platonic category. Why turn your back on success now?

The function of fools remains what it always has been -- to remind the rex et imperator that he too has an opening at his nether end. (And in your case, that he's identified with it at the expense of what else he might have made of himself)