Fundamentalist Islam has existed since the founding if Islam around 610 AD/CE, and there are periodic outbreaks of it from time to time. World history has many instances of this, and the resulting bloodshed. If you think it started in Iran in the '50s, you are way off base.
The coup is Iran was a counter-coup to restore the Shaw, not to instill him.
Comments like yours fill me with a sense of despair for the future because there are so many people like you.
You despair for the wrong reason.
Essentially, you're the kind of person who would be absolutely shocked if, after you smeared dog shit on someone's face, they got mad at you for smearing dog shit on their face. Rather than note the obvious fact that they got pissed because you just smeared dog shit on their face, you'd have to come up with some justification for what you did, like, "he has freckles and hates people who don't."
I think you would be shocked to actually learn what is going on since you don't actually seem to know, or really have a good idea. This ultimately isn't about the US, it is about them - the Islamist extremists, their goals, and aspirations. Their kind was conquering and killing for hundreds of years (more like 1,000) before the US came along. Read Bin Laden's demands in his Letter to America. His first actual demand is that the United States convert to Islam. Second, he wants the Constitution replaced with Sharia law in all its glory: stone the adulterer, crush homosexuals under walls or throw them off of buildings, whip the immodest, chop off the hands of thieves, no drugs or alcohol, no interest charged on loans, and all the rest. That isn't a demand to "stop smearing shit on my face", that is the demand of a man determined to see the world under Islamic rule even if it takes 1,000 more years. This was a man who wanted to see the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, which existed until ~ 1924. Their grievances is that Islam has fallen from its former glory, and they intend to restore it. They want to retake Spain which pushed out Islamists rulers hundreds of years ago.
If you want to despair, then do it over the fact that this conflict could easily continue for 20, 50, or 100 more years as these flare ups of Islamist extremism do. Or Londonistan , or Eurabia
In a shrinking world, the extremists will probably never be far away.
These facts should be well known by now. How is it that people keep getting this wrong eleven years after 9/11/2001?
At the The Other September 11th, the Battle of Vienna, the Islamist attackers were outside the gates trying to get in. In future battles, we will find them inside the gates, and too many of the defenders of the West ignorant and in doubt, or even ready to throw in with them.
Like when we ignored the anti-ballistic missile shield treaty when Bush was president, or ignoring the U.N. treaties on torture under both Bush and Obama, or threatening to attack another country (Iran) under both Bush and Obama, to ignoring Geneva Conventions, to ignoring silly treaties on how wars may only be fought for defense or humanitarian reasons....
You are confused. The US didn't ignore the ABM treaty, it withdrew from it as was allowed under the treaty. Bush and Obama aren't ignoring the Geneva conventions - Al Qaeda is not entitled to their protections due to fighting in an unlawful manner - but captured Al Qaeda members are still being treated in a humane fashion at Guantanamo Bay prison camp. A broad coalition of nations is dealing with Iran and its unacceptable behavior, but if it makes you happier - Iran has been threatening to attack the US, Europe, Israel, and various Arab nations for some time, not to mention making veiled threats of genocide, and engaging in an active campaign of terrorism and assassination around the world. Iraq committed an act of war against the US (firing on US aircraft) pretty much every day for years prior to the invasion. Torture has a specific meaning under US law, which the US didn't violate when it water boarded a total of three (3) people, the most recent of which was nine (9) years ago.
Apparently you are baffled as to why the National Rifle Association of the United States - think about it. . . National Rifle Association - doesn't advocate for the Constitutional rights documented in the United States Constitution for foreign citizens living in their own countries under their own laws and constitutions? So your view is that the US Constitution is the governing law of the land through the entire world? If that is so, how can there be "other" people - wouldn't they all be US citizens? Why don't they pay US Income tax?
No, what he's arguing for isn't anywhere close to a justification for a (foreign) government to kill anyone who owns a gun. What causes trouble in Afghanistan is groups of 20-100 people armed with AKs, and perhaps the occasional machinegun or RPG, moving long distances in the dark going to a "wedding". Wedding party, or Taliban group? The Taliban have claimed that some of their groups that were attacked were "wedding parties". And some actual wedding parties have been attacked. Knowing that there is a war going on, wouldn't you think an actual wedding party might notify the government or the Americans that their heavily armed wedding party is going for a visit tonight, not for a raid on the neighboring village over a blood feud, or to impose Taliban style Islamic justice on the police station the next town over?
We have recently seen somewhat too close ties between the U.S. embassy and the judges here, when the case about The Pirate Bay took place, so I don't think one has to be too paranoid to fear such a chain of events.
Since the Swedish extradition process doesn't work that way I think we can safely say it is nonsense.
It's sillier than you think: as yet there are still no charges he has to face in Sweden. My understanding is that he is wanted for questioning only. The first prosecutor in Sweden tossed the case because there was no evidence. Somehow, a second prosecutor has gotten involved, and has put in this unprecedented request for extradition for "questioning" while there still have been no civil or criminal charges laid against him by the Swedish police.
And let's also not forget that while Assange was in Sweden, he tried to comply with police requests as much as possible, to the point of saying to the Swedish police, "OK, I'm leaving the country now, is there anything else I have to do to help sort this out?" He left Sweden thinking that this was all over and done with.
I must admit, it is easy to forget an important detail: the original prosecutor dropped the case entirely, citing a lack of evidence. Sounds pretty nebulous to me...
In case you have forgotten, the charges against Julian Assange were already dropped by the original prosecutor in the case, due to a lack of evidence, and new charges have not even been filed.
You don't quite have that right in detail and flavor.
What Julian did was have *consensual sex* with two different women. Neither woman was angry with him, until several days later when they met one another and discovered he was a two-timer. THEN they decided to accuse him of "not wearing a condom" during the consensual sex. THAT'S what Julian is being charged with, and it's a bunch of bullshit.
Assange allegedly engaged in intercourse with a sleeping woman - you can't give consent if you are asleep. Beyond that, she had only previously consented to intercourse if he wore a condom - which he wasn't when he began intercourse while she was asleep. Now, what is sexual intercourse without consent? Four letters, starts with an "R".
Oh, they asked... but given the amount of publicity surrounding the case the UK couldn't just hand him over - it would be illegal.
That is nonsense - publicity about the case has nothing to do with the legality of it. Furthermore, I very much doubt that enough of the public in the UK would side with Assange in any real way for it to pose a political problem either.
There have been a relatively small number of attacks against genuine wedding parties, and the number of casualties is also limited. There have been a large number of attacks against Taliban groups, some of which were later falsely claimed to be wedding parties. Those attacks against Taliban groups have caused them significant damage. The vast majority of people being killed in Afghanistan are being killed by Taliban road-side bombs, suicide attacks with bomb vests, car bombs, and truck bombs, and various other sort of attacks. The Taliban is fighting to impose a religious dictatorship on Afghanistan so I'm not sure that is really a civil government, is it?
But then, even that starts begging the questions of how do you define a "terrorist" attack, whether the followers committing the attacks are doing them in the name of their religion or not, how representative the followers are of the religion by percentage, etc. One man's terrorist attack is another man's insurrection against a heavily-armed invader
You're kind of flailing around, so why don't we go for the simple case: setting off a suicide vest / bike bomb / car bomb in a crowded market place. That is pretty cut and dried terrorism. That is the sort of thing that rang up enormous body counts of innocent people in Iraq, and it didn't really effect the international forces there helping to restore civil government and order in Iraq. Now, guess who?
Mind you, the same is true of the Old Testament and Yahweh.
I think you're a bit confused. "Yahweh" is a name attributed to God, not a prophet. The people of Israel were expected to obey God's laws, not emulate a prophet. And what were they commanded to do?
Old Testament: Leviticus 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
New Testament: Mark 12:28-34: One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.
I think your history teachers have really glossed over the whole slave trade part during colonisation era. It made muslim-done enslaving look like employing unionised people.
These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.
Africa
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
Because when islam was the progressive religion driving greatest scientific minds of its time, christian Europe was hell bent on killing and enslaving as many muslims as possible. Crusading was a great way to earn money, fame and reputation. Read about that stuff sometime.
. . . Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineff ectual response to the jihad—a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6
At first the larger Muslim world didn’t much care about the Christian reclamation of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The jihad to repel the crusaders didn’t start in earnest until the European forces pressed on into the Muslim Holy Lands approaching Mecca and Medina. Even then the Muslim world considered the fight to reclaim Jerusalem a sideshow. The real fight was in the East, where caliphs were rolling up victory after victory in the old Byzantine Empire. In 1291, the Muslims expelled the last of the crusaders, and all remaining Christians and Jews in the Islamic world lived as second-class citizens (though often better than Muslims or Jews might have in many parts of Christendom). By the sixteenth century, Islam’s empire covered all of North Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, and much of southern Europe. Had Islamic forces not been turned back outside the Gates of Vienna, Christianity itself may not have survived. (The battle ended in victory for the Christians on September 12, but it was the day before, marking the apex of Muslim rule, that would stick in the minds of many Muslims for the next 318 years.)
Islam has a reeeeeeeeeeally long way to go if it actually wants to even compete for #1. Even discounting WW1 and WW2, christians have long held the trophy, and they're not going to be relinquishing it any time soon.
. More people died in the Iraq war (which, by the way, would be very easy to prevent by not invading it)
Actually, not invading would probably have killed more people. Saddam's long term average for killing Iraqis was higher than what occurred in Iraq after his fall. Now Saddam is gone and terrorism is way down, so objectively the Iraqis are much better off with Saddam falling.
Basically, this kind of war is not winnable in a traditional sense. The resistance can carry on with a small number of soldiers and on a shoestring budget almost indefinitely.
That's not to say that guerilla forces can't be defeated. They can be, if the populace cooperates with the central government to deny them aid, deny them new soldiers and help ferret them out -- and if the resistance doesn't have cooperative govenrments across the border.
Reminds me of how people used to speak of Iraq - the coalition was losing an unwinnable war until the final bitter taste of victory.
Just a suggestion, but stop fucking up peoples shit around the world and people wont have a grudge against you and you wont have to intimidate people. . . . Contrary to popular opinion in the US, the reason for extremists from the middle east and areas of asia isn't because "they hate freedom", . . . . I swear, how people don't see the cause and effect in all this is beyond me...
The reason it's beyond you is that you really don't understand what is going on. Here is some starter material. Yes, they do hate our freedoms - including the freedom of religion, and self governance under the Constitution. Their ultimate goal is to restore the Caliphate, which existed up until ~ 1924, and conquer the world for Islam.
bin Laden's 'letter to America' Goal - coerced religious conversion, replacement of Constitution with Sharia law, with an end to drinking, gambling, fornication, etc., etc.. Noncompliance means they will keep attacking.
- Civilian deaths in Iraq are likely greater than 100K, so something is off with your math.
The vast majority of which were killed by terrorists and insurgents who did things like explode car bombs in busy markets, and use truck bombs to level entire villages.
If Saddam had stayed in power and killed at his long term average, there would probably have been 50-100% more dead than there were. Saddam is out of power now, and the terrorist and insurgent violence is down by something like 90%. US combat forces are out of Iraq. Iraq is a functioning, if troubled, democracy. And now the Iraqis are rebuilding, putting up schools and libraries instead of another batch of enormous palaces for Saddam.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got this wrong.
Fundamentalist Islam has existed since the founding if Islam around 610 AD/CE, and there are periodic outbreaks of it from time to time. World history has many instances of this, and the resulting bloodshed. If you think it started in Iran in the '50s, you are way off base.
The coup is Iran was a counter-coup to restore the Shaw, not to instill him.
Comments like yours fill me with a sense of despair for the future because there are so many people like you.
You despair for the wrong reason.
Essentially, you're the kind of person who would be absolutely shocked if, after you smeared dog shit on someone's face, they got mad at you for smearing dog shit on their face. Rather than note the obvious fact that they got pissed because you just smeared dog shit on their face, you'd have to come up with some justification for what you did, like, "he has freckles and hates people who don't."
I think you would be shocked to actually learn what is going on since you don't actually seem to know, or really have a good idea. This ultimately isn't about the US, it is about them - the Islamist extremists, their goals, and aspirations. Their kind was conquering and killing for hundreds of years (more like 1,000) before the US came along. Read Bin Laden's demands in his Letter to America. His first actual demand is that the United States convert to Islam. Second, he wants the Constitution replaced with Sharia law in all its glory: stone the adulterer, crush homosexuals under walls or throw them off of buildings, whip the immodest, chop off the hands of thieves, no drugs or alcohol, no interest charged on loans, and all the rest. That isn't a demand to "stop smearing shit on my face", that is the demand of a man determined to see the world under Islamic rule even if it takes 1,000 more years. This was a man who wanted to see the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, which existed until ~ 1924. Their grievances is that Islam has fallen from its former glory, and they intend to restore it. They want to retake Spain which pushed out Islamists rulers hundreds of years ago.
What al-Qaida Really Wants
If you want to despair, then do it over the fact that this conflict could easily continue for 20, 50, or 100 more years as these flare ups of Islamist extremism do. Or Londonistan , or Eurabia
In a shrinking world, the extremists will probably never be far away.
Think about this: POVERTY, EDUCATION, AND TERRORISM
These facts should be well known by now. How is it that people keep getting this wrong eleven years after 9/11/2001?
At the The Other September 11th, the Battle of Vienna, the Islamist attackers were outside the gates trying to get in. In future battles, we will find them inside the gates, and too many of the defenders of the West ignorant and in doubt, or even ready to throw in with them.
As I wrote, you despair for the wrong reason.
Like when we ignored the anti-ballistic missile shield treaty when Bush was president, or ignoring the U.N. treaties on torture under both Bush and Obama, or threatening to attack another country (Iran) under both Bush and Obama, to ignoring Geneva Conventions, to ignoring silly treaties on how wars may only be fought for defense or humanitarian reasons....
You are confused. The US didn't ignore the ABM treaty, it withdrew from it as was allowed under the treaty. Bush and Obama aren't ignoring the Geneva conventions - Al Qaeda is not entitled to their protections due to fighting in an unlawful manner - but captured Al Qaeda members are still being treated in a humane fashion at Guantanamo Bay prison camp. A broad coalition of nations is dealing with Iran and its unacceptable behavior, but if it makes you happier - Iran has been threatening to attack the US, Europe, Israel, and various Arab nations for some time, not to mention making veiled threats of genocide, and engaging in an active campaign of terrorism and assassination around the world. Iraq committed an act of war against the US (firing on US aircraft) pretty much every day for years prior to the invasion. Torture has a specific meaning under US law, which the US didn't violate when it water boarded a total of three (3) people, the most recent of which was nine (9) years ago.
Apparently you are baffled as to why the National Rifle Association of the United States - think about it. . . National Rifle Association - doesn't advocate for the Constitutional rights documented in the United States Constitution for foreign citizens living in their own countries under their own laws and constitutions? So your view is that the US Constitution is the governing law of the land through the entire world? If that is so, how can there be "other" people - wouldn't they all be US citizens? Why don't they pay US Income tax?
No, what he's arguing for isn't anywhere close to a justification for a (foreign) government to kill anyone who owns a gun. What causes trouble in Afghanistan is groups of 20-100 people armed with AKs, and perhaps the occasional machinegun or RPG, moving long distances in the dark going to a "wedding". Wedding party, or Taliban group? The Taliban have claimed that some of their groups that were attacked were "wedding parties". And some actual wedding parties have been attacked. Knowing that there is a war going on, wouldn't you think an actual wedding party might notify the government or the Americans that their heavily armed wedding party is going for a visit tonight, not for a raid on the neighboring village over a blood feud, or to impose Taliban style Islamic justice on the police station the next town over?
Shotgun wedding is largely a metaphor.
We have recently seen somewhat too close ties between the U.S. embassy and the judges here, when the case about The Pirate Bay took place, so I don't think one has to be too paranoid to fear such a chain of events.
Since the Swedish extradition process doesn't work that way I think we can safely say it is nonsense.
Questions and answers about extradition from Sweden
It's sillier than you think: as yet there are still no charges he has to face in Sweden. My understanding is that he is wanted for questioning only. The first prosecutor in Sweden tossed the case because there was no evidence. Somehow, a second prosecutor has gotten involved, and has put in this unprecedented request for extradition for "questioning" while there still have been no civil or criminal charges laid against him by the Swedish police.
You don't quite have that right.
Lawyer appeals decision on Assange case
Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange
And let's also not forget that while Assange was in Sweden, he tried to comply with police requests as much as possible, to the point of saying to the Swedish police, "OK, I'm leaving the country now, is there anything else I have to do to help sort this out?" He left Sweden thinking that this was all over and done with.
I doubt that given this: Julian Assange applies for Swedish residency
Strange, hmmm? Applies for residency and then flees the country?
Probably just to draw attention to how ridiculous, trumped-up and politically-motivated these nasty allegations against him are.
Under Swedish law, not so much: New legislation on sexual crimes - Ju 05.07e June 2005
Fighting every little thing tooth and nail, with press releases all along the way, is about all he can do.
Whether he is guilty or innocent.
I must admit, it is easy to forget an important detail: the original prosecutor dropped the case entirely, citing a lack of evidence. Sounds pretty nebulous to me...
Not really, no.
Lawyer appeals decision on Assange case
Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange
In case you have forgotten, the charges against Julian Assange were already dropped by the original prosecutor in the case, due to a lack of evidence, and new charges have not even been filed.
You don't quite have that right in detail and flavor.
Lawyer appeals decision on Assange case
Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange
What Julian did was have *consensual sex* with two different women. Neither woman was angry with him, until several days later when they met one another and discovered he was a two-timer. THEN they decided to accuse him of "not wearing a condom" during the consensual sex. THAT'S what Julian is being charged with, and it's a bunch of bullshit.
Assange allegedly engaged in intercourse with a sleeping woman - you can't give consent if you are asleep. Beyond that, she had only previously consented to intercourse if he wore a condom - which he wasn't when he began intercourse while she was asleep. Now, what is sexual intercourse without consent? Four letters, starts with an "R".
Assange case triggers rape debate in Sweden
That is a great link you provided, to which I'll add this: CNN: Al-Awlaki threatens Americans
Oh, they asked ... but given the amount of publicity surrounding the case the UK couldn't just hand him over - it would be illegal.
That is nonsense - publicity about the case has nothing to do with the legality of it. Furthermore, I very much doubt that enough of the public in the UK would side with Assange in any real way for it to pose a political problem either.
There have been a relatively small number of attacks against genuine wedding parties, and the number of casualties is also limited. There have been a large number of attacks against Taliban groups, some of which were later falsely claimed to be wedding parties. Those attacks against Taliban groups have caused them significant damage. The vast majority of people being killed in Afghanistan are being killed by Taliban road-side bombs, suicide attacks with bomb vests, car bombs, and truck bombs, and various other sort of attacks. The Taliban is fighting to impose a religious dictatorship on Afghanistan so I'm not sure that is really a civil government, is it?
Star Trek: bio-neural gel packs
But then, even that starts begging the questions of how do you define a "terrorist" attack, whether the followers committing the attacks are doing them in the name of their religion or not, how representative the followers are of the religion by percentage, etc. One man's terrorist attack is another man's insurrection against a heavily-armed invader
You're kind of flailing around, so why don't we go for the simple case: setting off a suicide vest / bike bomb / car bomb in a crowded market place. That is pretty cut and dried terrorism. That is the sort of thing that rang up enormous body counts of innocent people in Iraq, and it didn't really effect the international forces there helping to restore civil government and order in Iraq. Now, guess who?
Then it failed and you might try repeating after some contemplation - it's supposed to help scare the bedevil out of you.
Mind you, the same is true of the Old Testament and Yahweh.
I think you're a bit confused. "Yahweh" is a name attributed to God, not a prophet. The people of Israel were expected to obey God's laws, not emulate a prophet. And what were they commanded to do?
Old Testament:
Leviticus 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
New Testament:
Mark 12:28-34: One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.
Japan was the alternate target for the Atomic bomb.
I think your history teachers have really glossed over the whole slave trade part during colonisation era. It made muslim-done enslaving look like employing unionised people.
Tears of Jihad
Because when islam was the progressive religion driving greatest scientific minds of its time, christian Europe was hell bent on killing and enslaving as many muslims as possible. Crusading was a great way to earn money, fame and reputation. Read about that stuff sometime.
Let's see what some other sources say:
'Tyranny of Clichés' Excerpt: The Truth About the Crusades
The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism
The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule
The Golden Age of Islam is a Myth
Islam has a reeeeeeeeeeally long way to go if it actually wants to even compete for #1. Even discounting WW1 and WW2, christians have long held the trophy, and they're not going to be relinquishing it any time soon.
a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.
The atheist Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.
. More people died in the Iraq war (which, by the way, would be very easy to prevent by not invading it)
Actually, not invading would probably have killed more people. Saddam's long term average for killing Iraqis was higher than what occurred in Iraq after his fall. Now Saddam is gone and terrorism is way down, so objectively the Iraqis are much better off with Saddam falling.
Basically, this kind of war is not winnable in a traditional sense. The resistance can carry on with a small number of soldiers and on a shoestring budget almost indefinitely.
That's not to say that guerilla forces can't be defeated. They can be, if the populace cooperates with the central government to deny them aid, deny them new soldiers and help ferret them out -- and if the resistance doesn't have cooperative govenrments across the border.
Reminds me of how people used to speak of Iraq - the coalition was losing an unwinnable war until the final bitter taste of victory.
Just a suggestion, but stop fucking up peoples shit around the world and people wont have a grudge against you and you wont have to intimidate people. . . . Contrary to popular opinion in the US, the reason for extremists from the middle east and areas of asia isn't because "they hate freedom", . . . . I swear, how people don't see the cause and effect in all this is beyond me...
The reason it's beyond you is that you really don't understand what is going on. Here is some starter material. Yes, they do hate our freedoms - including the freedom of religion, and self governance under the Constitution. Their ultimate goal is to restore the Caliphate, which existed up until ~ 1924, and conquer the world for Islam.
bin Laden's 'letter to America'
Goal - coerced religious conversion, replacement of Constitution with Sharia law, with an end to drinking, gambling, fornication, etc., etc.. Noncompliance means they will keep attacking.
What al-Qaida Really Wants
Given your handle, you might find this interesting.
Actually they do pay and train them.
- Civilian deaths in Iraq are likely greater than 100K, so something is off with your math.
The vast majority of which were killed by terrorists and insurgents who did things like explode car bombs in busy markets, and use truck bombs to level entire villages.
If Saddam had stayed in power and killed at his long term average, there would probably have been 50-100% more dead than there were. Saddam is out of power now, and the terrorist and insurgent violence is down by something like 90%. US combat forces are out of Iraq. Iraq is a functioning, if troubled, democracy. And now the Iraqis are rebuilding, putting up schools and libraries instead of another batch of enormous palaces for Saddam.