Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 10:52 am

Al-Zarqawi Said to Declare 'Fierce War'

By BASSEM MROUE
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A speaker purporting to be Iraq's most feared terror leader declared a ``fierce war'' on democracy and said in an audiotape posted Sunday on the Web that the Americans were using next weekend's Iraqi elections to install the Shiites in power.

``We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology,'' said the speaker, who identified himself as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq. ``Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it.''

Full Story: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...0807023480.htm

So, what should our response be? Do you think we should say:"Bring it on" or "We're sorry and we're leaving"? Which is it gonna be?

(One choice only please. The guy will accept no compromises.)

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 02:04 pm

Hmm, no one is able to make a simple choice here? What gives?

Gorgo · Jan 24, 2005, 02:06 pm

You said 'we.' I assume by 'we' you're talking about the criminals that invaded Iraq. I'm not one of them.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 24, 2005, 02:07 pm

Okay, how about he is more myth than man? This character, Al-Zarqawi is always assumed to be behind the insurgents but there is no tangible truth. Take Falluja for example, first the Allied forces claim he's behind it all and in the city causing the mess, then when it's invaded, he has miraculously escaped...or was he there in the first place?

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 02:08 pm

No, I mean 'we' as in Americans.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 24, 2005, 02:09 pm

Considering the British are close partners, don't we get a say?

ericsp23 · Jan 24, 2005, 02:10 pm

I think that people object to being boxed into only two possible solutions, when things are rarely that simple in the real world. If you can rephrase this in a way that is more condusive to discussion you will probably get more of a response.

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 02:11 pm

OK, Brits too. What's your choice?

bishop · Jan 24, 2005, 02:12 pm

yeah.. every single iraqi blog that i've read assumes that zarqawi is an imaginary person who WE created.

personally, i love those articles where "zarqawi" issues some statement and then the trustworthy cia confirms that it was he who spoke. kind of like that slam dunk wmd case.

i could really care less if the iraqis have democracy, theocracy, tyranny, whatever... it is not our purpose to decide what kind of government forms in iraq.

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 02:13 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ericsp23

I think that people object to being boxed into only two possible solutions, when things are rarely that simple in the real world. If you can rephrase this in a way that is more condusive to discussion you will probably get more of a response.

I'm afraid as far as al-Zarqawi is concerned, it is this simple: either get the hell out of Iraq with tails between your legs or bring it on. So, which is it?

**Pooeypants** · Jan 24, 2005, 02:16 pm

Al Zarqawi, man or myth?
And TinyBear, hardly any situations these days are black or white.

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 02:17 pm

Geez, what kind of answer's that?

**Pooeypants** · Jan 24, 2005, 02:19 pm

One that avoids the questions. I'm speaking Tony Blair style.

Seriously, I think you're question was just too blunt for most to people answer.

ericsp23 · Jan 24, 2005, 02:24 pm

We could just ignore him and thereby rob him of any credibility. Of course, we should respond to any attacks in an appropriate manner, and if we have knowledge of an impending attack we should do what we can to prevent it (which is pretty much the status quo in Iraq).
You present us with two possible options, we can run away or we can openly challenge him to "bring it on." I don't feel that either of those are a wise option to take. When presented with such a situation, it is almost always possible to find a third option.

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 02:25 pm

But this Volconvo; not the United States Congress, where people are paid handsome salaries to be evasive!

Gorgo · Jan 24, 2005, 02:50 pm

'We' as Americans need to impeach Bush, put him and former officials on trial for their crimes, and try to sort out the mess that they've made.

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

No, I mean 'we' as in Americans.

tinybear · Jan 24, 2005, 02:51 pm

How do 'we' sort out that mess? It's either fight or run. Which is it?

**Pooeypants** · Jan 24, 2005, 02:52 pm

Gorgo, let's not stretch this debate too far...

bishop · Jan 24, 2005, 02:52 pm

first of all, even though i expect the turnout in iraq to be low, people will still go out and vote. second, "zarqawi" is simply looking to exploit the sunni position in the new iraq in hopes of fostering a civil war.

"zarqawi" also realizes that by continuing to paint a terrorist personage on iraq, our political "leaders" will use this as a reason to stay - and possibly increase troop levels. staying means more money and lives pissed down the drain, with our military left in an increasingly precarious position.

and, will our fearless leader want his legacy to read: "bush, invaded iraq and was beaten back by al qaeda"? i think not.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 24, 2005, 02:52 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

How do 'we' sort out that mess? It's either fight or run. Which is it?

We're already fighting them, what difference does it make?

Jan 24, 2005, 10:52 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	A Fierce War Is Declared On Democracy Al-Zarqawi Said to Declare 'Fierce War' By BASSEM MROUE BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A speaker purporting to be Iraq's most feared terror leader declared a ``fierce war'' on democracy and said in an audiotape posted Sunday on the Web that the Americans were using next weekend's Iraqi elections to install the Shiites in power. ``We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology,'' said the speaker, who identified himself as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq. ``Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it.'' Full Story: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...0807023480.htm So, what should our response be? Do you think we should say:"Bring it on" or "We're sorry and we're leaving"? Which is it gonna be? (One choice only please. The guy will accept no compromises.)

Jan 24, 2005, 02:07 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	Okay, how about he is more myth than man? This character, Al-Zarqawi is always assumed to be behind the insurgents but there is no tangible truth. Take Falluja for example, first the Allied forces claim he's behind it all and in the city causing the mess, then when it's invaded, he has miraculously escaped...or was he there in the first place? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 24, 2005, 02:09 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	Considering the British are close partners, don't we get a say? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 24, 2005, 02:16 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	Al Zarqawi, man or myth? And TinyBear, hardly any situations these days are black or white. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 24, 2005, 02:19 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	One that avoids the questions. I'm speaking Tony Blair style. Seriously, I think you're question was just too blunt for most to people answer. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 24, 2005, 02:04 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	Hmm, no one is able to make a simple choice here? What gives?

Jan 24, 2005, 02:06 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	You said 'we.' I assume by 'we' you're talking about the criminals that invaded Iraq. I'm not one of them.

Jan 24, 2005, 02:08 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	No, I mean 'we' as in Americans.

Jan 24, 2005, 02:10 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
ericsp23 Pragmatic liberal Posts: 421	I think that people object to being boxed into only two possible solutions, when things are rarely that simple in the real world. If you can rephrase this in a way that is more condusive to discussion you will probably get more of a response.

Jan 24, 2005, 02:11 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	OK, Brits too. What's your choice?

Jan 24, 2005, 02:12 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	yeah.. every single iraqi blog that i've read assumes that zarqawi is an imaginary person who WE created. personally, i love those articles where "zarqawi" issues some statement and then the trustworthy cia confirms that it was he who spoke. kind of like that slam dunk wmd case. i could really care less if the iraqis have democracy, theocracy, tyranny, whatever... it is not our purpose to decide what kind of government forms in iraq.

Jan 24, 2005, 02:17 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	Geez, what kind of answer's that?

Jan 24, 2005, 02:24 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
ericsp23 Pragmatic liberal Posts: 421	We could just ignore him and thereby rob him of any credibility. Of course, we should respond to any attacks in an appropriate manner, and if we have knowledge of an impending attack we should do what we can to prevent it (which is pretty much the status quo in Iraq). You present us with two possible options, we can run away or we can openly challenge him to "bring it on." I don't feel that either of those are a wise option to take. When presented with such a situation, it is almost always possible to find a third option.

Jan 24, 2005, 02:25 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	But this Volconvo; not the United States Congress, where people are paid handsome salaries to be evasive!

Jan 24, 2005, 02:51 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,008	How do 'we' sort out that mess? It's either fight or run. Which is it?

Jan 24, 2005, 02:52 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	Gorgo, let's not stretch this debate too far... War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 24, 2005, 02:52 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	first of all, even though i expect the turnout in iraq to be low, people will still go out and vote. second, "zarqawi" is simply looking to exploit the sunni position in the new iraq in hopes of fostering a civil war. "zarqawi" also realizes that by continuing to paint a terrorist personage on iraq, our political "leaders" will use this as a reason to stay - and possibly increase troop levels. staying means more money and lives pissed down the drain, with our military left in an increasingly precarious position. and, will our fearless leader want his legacy to read: "bush, invaded iraq and was beaten back by al qaeda"? i think not.