# Bush had better do something pretty damn fast about the solidier's being killed daily **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172 "2003-07-27T00:55:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/141 "2003-07-29T15:27:17Z")
Dissonance: You’re mistaken. Some National Guard units did deploy to Vietnam. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/142 "2003-07-29T16:41:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*Dissonance: You’re mistaken. Some National Guard units did deploy to Vietnam. \*\* Do you have a cite for this? I’m not disagreeing, I’m honestly curious and could very well be mistaken, but I haven’t found any Army National Guard combat units that were sent to Vietnam. Perhaps I wasn’t explicit enough in my post, but I’m not including supply and maintenance units and such or the Air National Guard – I meant infantry, armor, armored cavalry and the like. I should probably add that I found the original source of the story, the briefing is [here](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/07/mil-030723-dod03.htm). I must confess that I haven’t been following the US Army that closely over the past decade and was unaware of how much the NG has been integrated into Army deployments since the post cold war draw down, major units are deployed to Kosovo and the Sinai. Still, the deployment to Iraq would be to an active combat zone rather than peacekeeping. The heavy commitment of the Army is rather sobering as well: > [@](#): > > This is what it means to us down at unit level: 24 of the 33 active component brigade combat teams are deployed overseas during fiscal year '03, or 73 percent. Of our National Guard enhanced battalions, 15 of the 45, or 33 percent of them deployed overseas in '03. It makes getting the UN involved if just for the sake of US security pretty important. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/143 "2003-07-29T16:56:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reeder \* > \*\*There is a central clearing house for weapons and soldiers in all Islamic uprisings? > > I think not. \*\* In my post I said “camps” and “sources”, both in plural. I’m sure that most of those camps and sources are interconnected somehow, one has to look long and hard to figure out exactly how. There was plenty of serious articles about this in the last two years. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reeder \* > \*\*Each uprising is it’s own. Do you have a cite that all are fed from a central location? \*\* I know for a fact that recruitment and donation campaigns for the first Chechen war were conducted as far as US mosques. I was told of that at the time by Muslims attending those mosques. Again, I can only guess about “central location”, but there certainly are extensive interconnected networks. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reeder \* > \*\*One soldier dying for a lie is too many. \*\* Commendable sentiment, however totally disconnected from history. Soldiers were dying for all sorts of lies everywhere since time immemorial. I think that US soldiers in Iraq are dying right now to prevent US civilians dying at home or office. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/144 "2003-07-29T17:06:36Z")
\*\*Dissonance[/v] On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in 20 units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War. Eight units deployed to Vietnam and over 7,000 Army Guardsmen served in the war zone. Company D (Ranger), 151st Infantry, Indiana Army National Guard arrived in Vietnam in December 1968. As part of the II Field Force, the Indiana Rangers were assigned reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering missions. Operating deep in enemy territory, Ranger patrols engaged enemy units while conducting raids, ambushes and surveillance missions. “Delta Company” achieved an impressive combat record during its tour in Vietnam; unit members were awarded 510 medals for valor and service. The gallant record of Company D, 151st Infantry symbolizes the Army National Guard’s performance in Vietnam. [http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/heritage/indianarangers.shtml](http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/heritage/indianarangers.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/145 "2003-07-29T17:09:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\ ***X~Slayer** : The “goals” of the invasion as offered by the administration have been, as you well know, quite changeable, based on marketing rather than fundamental policy, and therefore less than fully credible. A national or transnational consensus of the war’s necessity has never been achieved, or for that matter seriously tried or even considered. In terms of getting our families to accept the possibility of their loved ones deaths, that matters a hell of a lot. Doesn’t it seem so to you? > > Your comparisons of death rates to traffic accidents and such do not apply. The war was voluntary, optional, not clearly necessary. A risk inherent in the requirements of daily life can be accepted. A similar risk inherent in a nonrequired activity may not be. The deaths our people are incurring every day don’t have to be risked _at all_. \*\* I dont believe the overall goal in Iraq has changed at all. It has always been to replace the Saddam regime with a democratically elected govt. Bugaboos of WMDs and oppressed people aside, we achieved the main goal in war by ousting Saddam. The main goal in peace is to make sure he doesnt come back. Short term goals such as guarding museums, universities, oil ministries and wells, recovering money, chasing loyalists, etc are not “market based” as you call it but are essential short steps to acquire the bigger prize, establishing a govt run by the Iraqi people. I dont understand why the loss of _civilain_ life can be “acceptable” in the course of daily life while a similar situation in the military can somehow be “unacceptable”. What is the difference between the 5 or 6 civilians murdered in California everyday versus the 1 or 2 american soldiers killed everyday in Iraq? Do you think the families of the murder victims can accept their loss as part of the “_risk inherent in the requirements of daily life_”? Now lets get to the issue of whether or not we are “required” to be there in Iraq. The thread for whether or not we should have gone _into_ Iraq is in another thread. The fact of the matter is we have already gone into Iraq, blown things up and killed many Saddam loyalists and destroyed the Saddam regime. No one is in charge there now. We cant leave without fixing that situation. We are now required to be there until a new govt of Iraq is formed. To leave now would just necesitate going back in some time in the near future to fix the mess that will develop in the vacuum, which would require more lives lost on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/146 "2003-07-29T17:29:03Z")
Morally speaking, we cannot expect to blow Iraq into a zillion itty-bitty pieces and then not help to put it back together again. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/147 "2003-07-29T17:31:28Z")
Collounsbury, I don’t understand yours and others resistance to accept Russian occupation of Chechnya for comparison with US occupation of Iraq. It seems to be perfect to draw some parallels: our old adversary in Cold War is occupying fledging small Islamic country, we are occupying much bigger and better established Islamic country; resistance fighting by some elements of native population is going on in both places; Islam is one of the most importance factors; simply tailor-made for comparison, I think. So far, comparison serves to show that we are doing much better job than Russians. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*Complete rubbish. > > Some Chechens have gone to al-Qaeda or other camps, there is no evidence that a majority of the fighters have. \*\* If you concede that “some Chechens” did go “to al-Qaeda or other camps”, than my statement can’t be “complete rubbish”. Do try to be logical. Further, I didn’t speak about “majority of the fighters”, just re-read my message. Also, what about foreign Islamic volunteers and mercenaries, ranging from Algier to Phillipines, especially in position of high command and in control of the money? Chechens hate them as much as they hate Russians, but can’t do anything to get rid of them. To me it looks like Chechens accepted Islamists help to fight Russians and now can’t free themselves from either. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*The equipment appears to be largely obtained two ways. > > (a) Russian soldiers sell it on the black market > (b) It’s stolen from Russian armories. \*\* That would be very interesting to discuss, however I’m afraid it will take us way off-topic. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/148 "2003-07-29T17:50:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\*I dont believe the overall goal in Iraq has changed at all. It has always been to replace the Saddam regime with a democratically elected govt. Bugaboos of WMDs and oppressed people aside, we achieved the main goal in war by ousting Saddam. First, the fact that we are still discussing goals shows that we never had a consensus in the first place about either goals or their necessity. Second, the items you’re now dismissing as “bugaboos” were, in fact, the basis presented to us as the causes for war. We can always get a national consensus for self-defense, but this isn’t a matter of self-defense at all and never was. > [@](#): > > I dont understand why the loss of _civilain_ life can be “acceptable” in the course of daily life while a similar situation in the military can somehow be “unacceptable”. Losses are not “acceptable”, but risks can be when they cannot be avoided. We accept risks as part of daily life, but a different calculation must be made when they are optional. > [@](#): > > the difference between the 5 or 6 civilians murdered in California everyday versus the 1 or 2 american soldiers killed everyday in Iraq? Do you think the families of the murder victims can accept their loss as part of the “_risk inherent in the requirements of daily life_”? No, they cannot “accept their loss”, but yes, they can acknowledge that there is a risk of getting killed involved in living everyday life. People have to live their lives - they don’t have to go to war, and we don’t have to ask them to. > [@](#): > > We are now required to be there until a new govt of Iraq is formed. To leave now would just necesitate going back in some time in the near future to fix the mess that will develop in the vacuum, which would require more lives lost on both sides. No doubt about that. We now have to make the best of it. The toothpaste cannot be stuffed back in the tube. That’s why I commented that we have to minimize further risk to the troops, ourselves, and the Iraqis from continuing violence and from creating more terrorists. That reflects one of the most painful we-told-ya-so’s, among way too many, from those of us who opposed this folly all along. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/149 "2003-07-29T20:09:42Z")
**yojimbo** : Thanks for the link. **New Iskander** : Chechnya/Iraq comparisons might be better served in a thread of it’s own, but briefly: Islam is not the driving force amongst the Chechens. The stated goal of the US is to establish a self-governing democracy in Iraq, not to annex it as the 51st state. Russia is essentially attempting to keep a colonial conquest. The Chechens have a long history of grievances with Russia, particularly tsarist pacification efforts and the mass deportations to Central Asia under Stalin for alleged collaboration with the Germans. The sentence called into question, > [@](#): > > Chechen islamic warriors are trained in the same camps and get supplies from the same sources as all the other muslim warriors. at the least sounded like you believe that there is some location where all Muslims go for training and by extension all Chechens. At the least the sentence is factually incorrect in that for example, the Indonesian Army doesn’t get trained in the same places or draw supplies from the same sources as the Tunisian Army, and they are both composed of ‘Muslim warriors.’ Even Islamic terrorist groups are not a monolith, Al-Qaeda, the Armed Islamic Group, Hamas, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and East Turkistan Islamic Movement don’t share the same training camps, supply sources, or goals. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/150 "2003-07-29T21:02:06Z")
Dissonance, All those distinctions are very important, I agree. I still think there are some important similarities, though. I expanded on that a bit in my post to Collounsbury above. Of course I had better used “Muslim terrorists” to prevent association with regular armies of Muslim countries, but then I didn’t want to lump all Chechen “warriors” with “terrorists”, because I am fully aware that there is indeed a national liberation resistance fighters in Chechnya, as much as I disapprove of them and their doings. Islamic terrorist groups are not a monolith, but there certainly must be connections and exchanges between them, as there are connections and exchanges between all international terrorist criminals around the world. For example, links between Islamists and IRA are well known, though they don’t share goals and financial sources. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/151 "2003-07-29T22:00:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **First, the fact that we are still discussing goals shows that we never had a consensus in the first place about either goals or their necessity. Second, the items you’re now dismissing as “bugaboos” were, in fact, the basis presented to us as the causes for war. We can always get a national consensus for self-defense, but this isn’t a matter of self-defense at all and never was.** The fact that we are still discussing goals means that some of us havent accepted the consensus and are still quibbling over the justifications of a war that has already ended. A lot of people are trying to affix their own agendas and when they cannot be accomodated, would shout foul and accuse the administration of mishandling an operation that has a lifespan counted in months. Some would interject long term goals and count them as short term ones and cannot understand why it hasnt been implimented yet. This is a political and military operation. National consensus is irrelevant to the day to day operations which are costing the lives of american soldiers which is at issue in this thread. Soldiers are dying because they walk away from their posts to try to help Iraqi women pleading for help and then get shot in the back of the head at close range. The bugaboos were “dismissed” because they are not part of this threads topic and another thread can better discuss it in detail. The cause of war is not at issue here. Its the lives of soldiers dying in an operation that must be seen to its conclusion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Losses are not “acceptable”, but risks can be when they cannot be avoided. We accept risks as part of daily life, but a different calculation must be made when they are optional. > > * * * > > No, they cannot “accept their loss”, but yes, they can acknowledge that there is a risk of getting killed involved in living everyday life. People have to live their lives - they don’t have to go to war, and we don’t have to ask them to. > > * * * > > No doubt about that. We now have to make the best of it. The toothpaste cannot be stuffed back in the tube. That’s why I commented that we have to minimize further risk to the troops, ourselves, and the Iraqis from continuing violence and from creating more terrorists. That reflects one of the most painful we-told-ya-so’s, among way too many, from those of us who opposed this folly all along. \*\* I find it hard to reconcile the first 2 parts of this replay with the last part. Minimizing risk doesnt mean not partaking in a war. Sometimes not going to war in the right time increases the chance of more people getting killed. if risks are taken then losses can incur at which case, a certain number is deemed acceptable. No risk means no loss but also no gain. The risks taken in Iraq are well with what is miltarily “acceptable” to achieve the final goal of a Saddam free and democratic Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/152 "2003-07-30T07:06:52Z")
Well, my dear Iskander, I see you have suddenly decided to qualify your unqualified original remarks – I can hardly be faulted with being unable to discern qualifications which were, in fact, no present. As to the added statement, that IRA links with Islamic terrorists being well know, again we have this little slight of hand – IRA links with Middle Eastern terror groups in the 1970s and 1980s, happening to have majority Muslim membership but largely secular are well known. Islamist, no I can’t say that is well know to me, and I am a regional specialist, although this is not my field of speciality per se (terror). Perhaps you can enlighten with citations to reputable sourcing. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/153 "2003-07-30T07:54:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Losses are not “acceptable”, but risks can be when they cannot be avoided. We accept risks as part of daily life, but a different calculation must be made when they are optional. > > * * * > > No, they cannot “accept their loss”, but yes, they can acknowledge that there is a risk of getting killed involved in living everyday life. People have to live their lives - they don’t have to go to war, and we don’t have to ask them to. Yes, life brings risk of death and certain deaths, as caused by accidents or disease, are in a sense acceptable. But I don’t agree that the number of deaths caused by crime are acceptable. I feel that our governments are not doing enough to protect ‘the law abiding citizen’ from people that prey on them. [/slight hijack] ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/154 "2003-07-30T10:42:29Z")
Yesterday, [American forces picked up the pace of the raids against suspected loyalists of Saddam Hussein](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/international/worldspecial/30IRAQ.html?hp) and no American soldiers were killed. One day without a killing doesn’t prove anything, but it’s a hopeful sign that we’re on the right track. It looks like the US may be doing what’s needed to end the assassinations of American soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/155 "2003-07-30T10:49:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > It looks like the US may be doing what’s needed to end the assassinations of American soldiers. Ah yes “assassinations”. Of course. From the sandy knoll, no doubt. The one overlooked by the looted/ransacked local book depository. You mean they’re leaving ? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/156 "2003-07-30T11:23:16Z")
Ah yes, US soldiers have been hard at work making friends: ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/157 "2003-07-30T11:40:02Z")
Ah yes, US soldiers have been hard at work making friends: > [@](#): > > \*\*U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said U.S. forces had missed Saddam by just “hours” in recent raids. > > But furious Iraqis say innocent people are being killed as American forces scour Iraq for Saddam. > > Task Force 20, the secretive U.S. unit leading the search, raided a house in Baghdad on Sunday but found no trace of the fugitive former president. Five people driving in cars near the house died in a hail of gunfire during the raid, and angry locals said U.S. forces had opened fire indiscriminately. \*\* [ABC News](http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030730_14.html) Hope you don’t find the news too upsetting, **december** , because I know how concerned you’re about the plight of the Iraqi people. BTW, those five that died in the ‘hail of gunfire’, no chance they were “assasinated,” right? Because, if I understand you correctly, that only happens when a member of the occupying forces gets killed by the resistan…oops! terrorists! Sorry. But getting this straight is akin to learning a new language. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/158 "2003-07-30T14:41:25Z")
**X~Slayer** , I’m not clear why you’re attempting to continue an argument where it seems we basically agree. I initially tried to address those who claim that losses of life can be “acceptable” by addressing their underlying assumptions for going into a war. However, you’re trying to refute that by noting that we’re already in it. True, but that doesn’t address the point I raised. Re the “goals” of the war, and now occupation: You have your own idea of what they _should_ be, and many share that, but that by no means constitutes a consensus. Further, you do not address the widespread suspicion, backed by a number of worrying comments by such as Wolfowitz, that the administration had and has a set of goals in mind that do not jibe with what We the People have understood and agreed to. Given that, it cannot be said that we have properly consented to the costs “in blood and treasure” involved. Note particularly that you’re claiming the goal was to remove Saddam from power. That isn’t what we agreed to by any reasonable definition of agreement; what we agreed to was to fight terrorism at its source and to eliminate immediate threats to our national security. That risk/benefit analysis can be worthwhile, and to a majority of us it was. But we now know it was based on, shall we say, incorrect information and a different statement of goals. We have not agreed to those. You also cannot dismiss the subject as “bugaboos” because that is the very basis for the “acceptability” of troops risk of life - which is, despite your denial, essential to the thread topic. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172/159 "2003-07-30T15:46:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*Well, my dear Iskander, I see you have suddenly decided to qualify your unqualified original remarks – I can hardly be faulted with being unable to discern qualifications which were, in fact, no present. \*\* If that is intended as a criticism on my original post, I’ll take it into consideration for the future. I don’t think it’s appropriate, because I pointed to what I see as similarities between Chechnya and Iraq only “to add … perspective”: naturally, I didn’t want to dump all I know about Chechnya into unrelated thread right away. However, I’ll keep this in mind. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*As to the added statement, that IRA links with Islamic terrorists being well know, again we have this little slight of hand – IRA links with Middle Eastern terror groups in the 1970s and 1980s, happening to have majority Muslim membership but largely secular are well known. Islamist, no I can’t say that is well know to me, and I am a regional specialist, although this is not my field of speciality per se (terror). Perhaps you can enlighten with citations to reputable sourcing. \*\* “Islamists” was a poor choice of word; upon consideration, I prefer “MENA terrorists” much better. I am well aware that most purported Islamic terrorists only use the name of Islam as a cover and there are hundreds of millions devouted Muslims not engaged in terrorism whatsoever. However, let’s not forget the real shahids: I think many of them are extremely devouted Muslims, who seek honourable and heroic death on the battlefield (I know of numerous cases in Afghanistan against the Soviets and some in Bosnia against the Serbs). They are co-opted into terrorist organizations too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-had-better-do-something-pretty-damn-fast-about-the-solidiers-being-killed-daily/191172.md?page=7)