WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 (UPI) — The new commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps says the 180,000-strong Corps may need to expand its ranks to manage both the war on terror and any new contingencies, if the pace of current operations continues.
Gen. James Conway told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday — just eight days after his assumption of command — that the Marine Corps is so tied up in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan it cannot train and prepare as it should for conventional warfare.
“We’re simply not as capable today as we were in 2001,” Conway said.
The high demand for troops in Iraq means Marines are spending seven months in Iraq and just a little over that time back home before their unit deploys again. It is supposed to have 14 months to recover, retrain and spend time with their families — a one-to-two ratio of deployed time to garrison time.
“Right now we are well below one to two,” Conway said. “I would say there is stress on individual Marines that is increasing.”
When garrison time is cut short, the Marine Corps has to give up something — and that is training for traditional engagements.
Normally 10 battalions at a time deploy to the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at 29 Palms in California for maneuver warfare training with live ammunition. Mustering those numbers for conventional training has not been possible with the Iraq war.
“The Marine Corps’ forte is combined arms maneuver battalion (operations),” Conway said. “We’re not doing that. We’re not operating together on that scale (to develop) the capability to deploy and win…like we were previously capable of doing,” Conway said.
Conway said that the Marine Corps is expected to be the “shock troops” — first ground troops into a war, ready on short notice.
“That doesn’t come with an asterisk that say ‘unless you are engaged in a contingency operation somewhere,'” he said. “Right now we are a (counterinsurgency operations) force of emphasis.”
He said he is particularly concerned that artillerymen are losing their skills because they are being used as security forces or civilian affairs troops in Iraq, and headquarters operations are as prepared to plan and carry out a major contingency operation as they should be.
Conventional wisdom holds low-intensity counterinsurgency operations are likely to be the norm in the foreseeable future. However, preparing only for those is not an option, Conway said.
“We’ve never been good at predicting (the next ) fight,” Conway said. “That is a capacity we must have.”
However, Conway said there was enough capacity in the Marine Corps to take on another contingency if necessary — but it would be at a higher risk in terms of casualties.
He also said the corps could surge if necessary for a major new offensive in Iraq — one of the possibilities to change the downward slide in Iraq — but not without suffering a degradation in daily operations later. Troops and equipment would fall below their normal pace of operations to recover, both physically and in terms of equipment repair and maintenance.
“If that (surge) requirement is levied on us, we will provide it but … it will have longer term impacts, in terms of accepting some level of risk in theater,” he said. “A surge is feasible …but I’m gonna pay later on.”
Troops for a surge would likely come from extending the deployment of Marines’ already in Iraq as well as accelerating the deployment of fresh forces to the fight, the general said.
There are only two ways of remedying the strain on the force, Conway said: reducing the demand on troops or adding numbers to the Marine Corps.
A series of panels — the Baker-Hamilton report, as well a Joint Staff review, and now a White House review — are reconsidering strategy in Iraq.
“I’m very anxious to see what comes out of the reviews,” Conway said. “It would mean …reducing requirement or potentially growing the force for the long war.”
“When I see the final numbers, I think that will be the conclusion,” he said.
The Marine Corps could realistically add 1,000 to 2,000 additional Marines to its number s every year, but it is an expensive and slow proposition. It will take several years after a decision is made to expand the force sufficient to yield any relief for Marine now on duty.
U.S. Marines in Iraq are primarily assigned to Anbar province, a massive Sunni region about the size of Wyoming due west of Baghdad. It does not suffer the sectarian violence of Baghdad because of its homogenous nature. The fight, however, is major: Marines suffered more than 400 wounded and killed in Anbar in October alone.
The threat there is a mix of homegrown insurgents and those associated with al-Qaida-in Iraq. That mix convinces Marines there of the necessity of their mission — something Conway worries that the U.S. public does not buy.
“My personal believe is we are engaged in the war on terror in Iraq. I don’t think we’ve been able to convince our people — somehow I just don’t think our people have made that connection,” Conway said.
Conway is concerned that the failure to make an ongoing, convincing case for the war will lead to the early withdrawal of troops before the job is done, and Iraq’s government is capable of securing the country on its own.
“It’s not our chore to win. It’s our chore to help the Iraqis win,” Conway said. “It is not progress that is happening as rapidly as we would like. It’s a long slow process. Unfortunately the time we think it would take… is longer that the timeline we feel our country would support,” he said.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20061122-125110-2677r
By: Farooq - 1st December 2006 at 04:12
Other than the clearly incompetent Pat Robertson (Robinson?), which of those groups have actually incited their followers to start attacking others? There is the KKK of course, and yes, those morons should clearly be eradicated.
I thought the whole point was about people spreading hatred. There are plenty here who do and that shows in their attitudes (racial and religious both). Are you telling me that this kind of hatred has never resulted in lynchings and violence? How about the Sikhs who were murdered because they were wearing turbans and were mistken as muslims by some really ignorant morons who had alot of the same kind of mudarssah teachings you are taking an issue with. You just need some event that would result in outpour of this sorts. How is that any different from what goes on in the heads of idiots being brainwashed in madrassah?
Again, how many people have started killing others as a result of their “teachings”?
Plenty if you count Bush as one of them. Infact way more than the AQ has killed so far.
Why are you only focusing on Pakistan when I clearly directed my attention to Saudi Arabia as well?
I am grateful for these small mercies but then u didn’t mention a long list of others. My question is why whenever something is discussed like this it turns into lordofthesea or someone sermoning ‘see i told you it all starts in Pakistan lets kills em all’.There are plenty of people that you can point your fingers towards for the mess your country has to deal in particular and west in general now . Alot of those fingers would be pointing towards washington.
Al Qaeda wasn’t supplied, funded, or trained by the CIA in Afghanistan.
It drew upon the same dangerous Jihadi idealogy that Washinton was completely supportive of and nurturing when the enemy was USSR. If these are not the same guys who have some how benefitted from training or materials by USA then where did these guys come from? What happened to your guys? I guess they just vanished from Afghanistan and a new breed of Jihadis came down and started this whole mess.
I never said invade anyone. And I’m not saying bomb everyone. Just the individuals promoting and directly inciting radical, extremist Islam and propagating new generations of terrorists. What exactly is wrong with simply attacking them directly at the source? Let me guess, it has to do with the fact that I mentioned “madrassa” and “Pakistan”, right?
Good you made it clear. But if you look at the whole thread this offtopic discussion started with someone repeating the same ‘invade’ line that i have seen in one or two more threads.
Regarding attacking the radicals thats already happening. And at times it targets and affects people who shouldn’t be. Even in Pakistan no matter what the govt says i m convinced US is having it’s way. Now please don’t say thats not enough, cause with all the free hand and freedom NATO and USA had in Afghanistan and Iraq they haven’t achieved much. Have they? How can you blame some stone age madrassah and some Idiotic bigoted mullahs for everything?
And no ‘madrassa’ part didn’t trigger this response from me. Infact i have argued with those guys as well and to say the least some of em are hopeless. But then firing a missile and killing underage kids won’t achieve anything. Dismantling or having stricter control over such instituitions will help way more than that. If you really have an issue with a mullah, get him disappeared by you know who in Pakistan, and fortunately for you no one would notice unlike here in USA. The same lawlessness in waziristan is working to your end as well. You can have as many ‘secret prisons’ and you can kill as many taxi drivers by sheer torture and nothing happens.
By: SOC - 1st December 2006 at 02:40
So as long as neo-cons and evanglists are liked by those ‘here in America’ they should be allow to preach hatred and follow their policies and should not be punished according to the rules you are establishing here??
Other than the clearly incompetent Pat Robertson (Robinson?), which of those groups have actually incited their followers to start attacking others? There is the KKK of course, and yes, those morons should clearly be eradicated.
Indeed there are scholars who are problems. Lots of em too. I have lived in Alabama for 4 years and half the state thinks just like those ‘scholars’ and ‘Mullahs’. Lets start your crusade aginst hatred at home, fair enough?
Again, how many people have started killing others as a result of their “teachings”?
how you came to the conclusion that Pakistan is big enough a threat that it would justify going to the trouble more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined?
Why are you only focusing on Pakistan when I clearly directed my attention to Saudi Arabia as well?
By the way thanks for all the guns and money and satellite images you guys were giving to the same guys.
Al Qaeda wasn’t supplied, funded, or trained by the CIA in Afghanistan.
just passing by leaving a remark about ‘bomb em all’ or ‘invade em’ without thinking about the reasons even doesnt reflect positively on you.
I never said invade anyone. And I’m not saying bomb everyone. Just the individuals promoting and directly inciting radical, extremist Islam and propagating new generations of terrorists. What exactly is wrong with simply attacking them directly at the source? Let me guess, it has to do with the fact that I mentioned “madrassa” and “Pakistan”, right?
By: Farooq - 1st December 2006 at 02:02
Ah, but here in America, if you don’t like the guy or his followers, you can elect someone else. Let’s see a nation like Iran try that…oh wait.
So as long as neo-cons and evanglists are liked by those ‘here in America’ they should be allow to preach hatred and follow their policies and should not be punished according to the rules you are establishing here??
You’re absolutely right. It’s not the people like Bin Laden that are the problem, but rather the “scholars”, Imams, and Mullahs that are preaching hatred and violence. Those are the people that should be targeted and eliminated.
Indeed there are scholars who are problems. Lots of em too. I have lived in Alabama for 4 years and half the state thinks just like those ‘scholars’ and ‘Mullahs’. Lets start your crusade aginst hatred at home, fair enough?
By the way how many times have you been to Pakistan? what do you know about the society and it’s different segments and how you came to the conclusion that Pakistan is big enough a threat that it would justify going to the trouble more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined?.
The West would have a far different impression of Islam if it was a bunch of Russians that flew planes into New York City. Or bomb Israeli market places. Or attack Iraqi police and military recruiting centers.
West’s impression is not necessarily driven by what is right or wrong. Is it? Before Islam became object of affection ,it used to be just ‘smelly sub- humans’ in colonies on the far side of the earth. Then west had problem with communists. And now the Islamic terrorists. By the way thanks for all the guns and money and satellite images you guys were giving to the same guys. Go ask your then president Mr Regan saying on TV ‘I am Mujhadeen’.
No, I see no reason to put people on the ground when you can take out your target with a JDAM or LGB.
And that would solve what? You are saying as if it hasn’t been done before. I mean come on dude just look at Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq and even in Pakistan.
I have no problem with someone pointing the exact dynamics of terror and whatever islam as a religion or Pakistan as country contributes to it but just passing by leaving a remark about ‘bomb em all’ or ‘invade em’ without thinking about the reasons even doesnt reflect positively on you.
By: SOC - 1st December 2006 at 01:32
So…wouldn’t that mean that neo-cons should also be ‘eliminated’? What about the Christian far right who seem to think the end is nigh?
Ah, but here in America, if you don’t like the guy or his followers, you can elect someone else. Let’s see a nation like Iran try that…oh wait.
When has that ever worked? The Israelis have been doing it for decades and what did they achieve except giving the extremists even more power and alienating the arab moderates?
Israel’s problem (ok, ONE of Israel’s problems…) is that they refuse to seriously engage Hamas. If they sent a missile into every last Hamas stronghold or camp the next time Hamas blew something up, then they might start getting results.
I think what people in the west really desperately fail to realise is that Islamic terrorism is not led by a handful of wicked charasmatic religious loonies as seem to be the provailing view
You’re absolutely right. It’s not the people like Bin Laden that are the problem, but rather the “scholars”, Imams, and Mullahs that are preaching hatred and violence. Those are the people that should be targeted and eliminated.
It is the pervived hostility of the west towards Islam that is fueling Islamic terrorism
The West would have a far different impression of Islam if it was a bunch of Russians that flew planes into New York City. Or bomb Israeli market places. Or attack Iraqi police and military recruiting centers.
Bush made an unfathomably poor decision to invade Iraq, and that has fueled hatred towards the west no end. Now you want to repeat that mistake?
No, I see no reason to put people on the ground when you can take out your target with a JDAM or LGB.
By: plawolf - 1st December 2006 at 01:09
And any extremist group or sect that has shown that it will use violence to subjugate others should be eliminated. We can even start in the West, we’ll take out the idiot Imam in England that keeps talking crap.
So…wouldn’t that mean that neo-cons should also be ‘eliminated’? What about the Christian far right who seem to think the end is nigh? :p
Oh, I’m done with the “invade and rebuild” theory. Any issues can be handled by airstrikes, without the need for putting people on the ground. And I am not saying crack down on every madrassa. Just those identified as producing extremists.
When has that ever worked? The Israelis have been doing it for decades and what did they achieve except giving the extremists even more power and alienating the arab moderates?
I think what people in the west really desperately fail to realise is that Islamic terrorism is not led by a handful of wicked charasmatic religious loonies as seem to be the provailing view, but rather it is led by the natural human desires for justice, faith and vengence. The ‘enemy’ you are facing in this ‘war on terror’ might as well be your own reflection if not for the fact that you have B2s while they only have IEDs. It is the pervived hostility of the west towards Islam that is fueling Islamic terrorism, and that feeling is not just felt by the few hardcore religious loons. The strength of emotion has also grown so strong that it would be hard not to sound like an extremist for a great many muslims who are just expressing their own views about world events. Are you going to labble the whole mulsim population as ‘extremists’?
The general muslim population is what paracities like Bin Ladden feed on to survive, and unless you plan to exterminate every last muslim on this planet, then merely being content with attacking the ‘host’ without finding a means to eliminate the root cause will get you nowhere. The only way the west can truely defeat Islamic terrorism is either to go the way of Hitler and start building concentration camps and gass chambers, or follow the example of Britain, and turn the general muslim population against the extremists.
But you cannot achieve the latter with LGBs. Bush made an unfathomably poor decision to invade Iraq, and that has fueled hatred towards the west no end. Now you want to repeat that mistake? 😮
By: SOC - 1st December 2006 at 00:35
There is a difference between holding an extremist view and acting upon it with violence.
And any extremist group or sect that has shown that it will use violence to subjugate others should be eliminated. We can even start in the West, we’ll take out the idiot Imam in England that keeps talking crap.
Now you are basing your argument for invading another country partically on the basis that it is not cracking down hard enough on religious schools?
Oh, I’m done with the “invade and rebuild” theory. Any issues can be handled by airstrikes, without the need for putting people on the ground. And I am not saying crack down on every madrassa. Just those identified as producing extremists.
By: plawolf - 30th November 2006 at 08:06
So has Islamic extremism. AQ is not and should not be regarded as the only Islamic extremist target or threat.
Extremists off all kinds have been around since as far as history records, Jesus and his lot were also considered as ‘extremists’ in their time IIRC. The likes of Orangemen in N.Ireland and NRA can also be labbled as extremists. Does that mean they should all be exterminated? There is a difference between holding an extremist view and acting upon it with violence.
I never said they should close all of them down. Only the ones identified as recruitment centers and teaching centers for Islamic extremism. If not, treat them for what they are, terrorist training facilities, and take them out with TLAMs.
Its not like religious schools of other faiths have not been used to preach about ‘resistence’ in the past, that has not stopped the west labbling the governments involved as violating human rights to worship when they crack down. Now you are basing your argument for invading another country partically on the basis that it is not cracking down hard enough on religious schools?
Saudia Arabia has taken down a few AQ cells internally, so it could also be stated with an equally straight face that they are contributing as well. The question is one of substantive effort. I didn’t even mention Pakistani crackdown on the extremists conducting attacks in Kashmir and India yet.
I think you would find that the degree of the contribution of the two are somewhat on different levels. In terms of substantive effort, SA doesn’t come close to the contribution Pakistan has made.
I’ve stated before that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would have made perfectly logical targets after Afghanistan instead of Iraq.
That is you view, and it is fair enough. The last part of my last post was aimed more at those who have singled Pakistan out. I was just pointing out the fact that there are others more ‘deserving’ of American attention.
By: SOC - 30th November 2006 at 04:51
madrassas have been around far far longer then Al-Q
So has Islamic extremism. AQ is not and should not be regarded as the only Islamic extremist target or threat.
Trying to close them down would be akin to trying to close down all Catholic schools in the west.
I never said they should close all of them down. Only the ones identified as recruitment centers and teaching centers for Islamic extremism. If not, treat them for what they are, terrorist training facilities, and take them out with TLAMs.
some might, rightly, question the sincerity of Pakistan’s actions and whether or not it is doing all it can, surely people cannot dispute the fact that Pakistan IS contributing to the fight against terrorism?
Saudia Arabia has taken down a few AQ cells internally, so it could also be stated with an equally straight face that they are contributing as well. The question is one of substantive effort. I didn’t even mention Pakistani crackdown on the extremists conducting attacks in Kashmir and India yet.
Also, I question the reason for people listing Pakistan as the best candidate for invasion when there are others, like Saudi Arabia and Gerogia, that are contributing far less to the global fight against terror, yet seem to have many of the exact same institutions (SA have madrassas’ too if I’m not mistaken, what more, a great many of the Madrassas’ in Pakistan are funded with Saudi oil money) as what Pakistan is being criticised for, and have just as much, if not stronger direct links with Islamic terrorism (Saudi 9/11 connection, Saudi support for Islamic terrorists in Chechneya; Gerogia being an open recuitment, training and recouporation base for Islamic terrorists etc).
I’ve stated before that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would have made perfectly logical targets after Afghanistan instead of Iraq.
By: plawolf - 30th November 2006 at 01:59
Really? They’re actively cracking down on madrassas preaching radical Islam and engaging the extremist camps in Waziristan?
There are more then one way to fight terrorism, just as there is more then one method to tackle pretty much any problem in the world. One can argue about which is the more effective method, but one couldn’t deny that someone is trying to solve a problem just because they are taking a different approach.
Yes, yes, the madrassas’ have become a major recruiting tool for Islamic fundermentalists. However, madrassas have been around far far longer then Al-Q, and just because some religious nuts are abusing these institutions for their own ends does not make the institution evil. From what I understand, madrassas’ have long been a part of the Islamic culture in one form or another over the centuries. Trying to close them down would be akin to trying to close down all Catholic schools in the west. Which leads on nicely to my next point.
The main reason Pakistan is not shutting down all the madrassas’ is not because they are secretly supporting Islamic terror, but because of the violent reaction a huge proportion of its population would have to such an act. Imagin the carnage if a US president tried to forcably disarm the American population, only about 10 times worse.
Can you deny that Pakistani intellegence has provided western intellegence and security agences with valuable info that directly led to the exposure and destruction of a great many Islamic terror cells? The Pakistani intellegence servive has also been pretty cooperative in terms of extraditing (or not in some cases, so that valuable intell may be extracted) people western security services want.
Like it or not, Pakistan is more then pulling its weight in terms of stopping terrorists, and while some might, rightly, question the sincerity of Pakistan’s actions and whether or not it is doing all it can, surely people cannot dispute the fact that Pakistan IS contributing to the fight against terrorism? Thus, I suggest that the notion of invading Pakistan in the name of fighting terrorism is plainly flawed fundermentally.
Also, I question the reason for people listing Pakistan as the best candidate for invasion when there are others, like Saudi Arabia and Gerogia, that are contributing far less to the global fight against terror, yet seem to have many of the exact same institutions (SA have madrassas’ too if I’m not mistaken, what more, a great many of the Madrassas’ in Pakistan are funded with Saudi oil money) as what Pakistan is being criticised for, and have just as much, if not stronger direct links with Islamic terrorism (Saudi 9/11 connection, Saudi support for Islamic terrorists in Chechneya; Gerogia being an open recuitment, training and recouporation base for Islamic terrorists etc).
By: SOC - 29th November 2006 at 23:52
They would destroying a government that is truely trying to fight terrorism
Really? They’re actively cracking down on madrassas preaching radical Islam and engaging the extremist camps in Waziristan?
By: plawolf - 29th November 2006 at 23:31
To have any chance of invading and occupying Pakistan, India must be involved because the US simply don’t have the manpower needed to police such a large and heavily populated country. Hell, the best strategy would probably to cut a deal with India and allow them to annex all of Pakistan under a ‘greater India’ or something similar. That way, the Americans move in to do what they are best at and smash up Pakistan’s conventional military while the Indians send in their milliom-strong army to steamroll over any opposition and mop up.
There will be appauling casaulties, but as long as they are not American, the white house will not have a problem with it if it is seen as helping their crusade against ‘Islamic terror’.
This is of course assuming that the Indians can be so stupid as to agree to such madness. In effect, such a move would shift the focus of Islamic terrorists from the west and the US in particular, to India. They’d all be swarming to Pakistan to fight their crusade against the Indians, just like it is in Iraq and Afganistan, thus they would not have much time to plan and propair for attacks against western interests.
If the US went and invaded Pakistan with only loyal Blair in toll, then that would be one of the stupidest things they could have done. They would destroying a government that is truely trying to fight terrorism and turning all the resources of that government and people into supporting and engaging in anti-American activities, which would inevitably result in the use of terrorst tactics. What more, they would be facing a far better equipped, united and determined foe then the one they are currently having such troubles dealing with in Iraq. It would be a horrible bloodbath that would only serve to strengthen terrorism, thus it would be a meaningless bloodbath.
If the US somehow mamaged to con the Indians into agreeing to clean up the mess for them, then that would only serve to transfer the Islamic terrorism problem from the plate of the Americans to the Indians. It would be pretty much the same result, only it would be happening to someone else.
By: swerve - 29th November 2006 at 17:11
I dont give 2 ****s about Oil, that why I mentione Strategy in terms of the war on terror. The pakistani security agencys are a joke as is there COIN strategy, just look at Waziristan. I also am not that fussed about casualtys, invading pakistan would have done far more damage to the ability of Muslims to carry out terrorist attacks against the west than invading Iraq has or ever will.
Invading Pakistan would have been the biggest possible boost to terrorism imaginable. If the USA can’t keep Iraq quiet at full stretch, how would it fare in Pakistan, with 6 times the population, no internal allies & better trained & more numerous local armed forces? The US would have to reintroduce conscription just to garrison the place to the same level as Iraq. Now consider the political impact of far more US casualties, most of them conscripts. The war would already be over: the Democrat-controlled (by a massive majority, the Republicans having been swept out on a wave of anti-war sentiment) Congress would have forced withdrawal by now. The resulting mess would be a breeding ground for vast numbers of anti-Western Islamic terrorists, convinced that they could beat all comers.
If you can explain why you think invading Pakistan would have produced a different result, I’d like to hear it. BTW – where would you invade from? India wouldn’t help. Amphibious landings?
By: kursed - 29th November 2006 at 15:49
As I’ve said earlier I’ve absolutely no issues with apologizing if Sea edits his statement in which he’s based a general blame on all Muslims. Since he’s not anti-Muslim, my bad that I said so. But he’d be careful in making statements that clearly put the blame on all Muslims irrespective of the fact that whether or not they’re extremists.
By: EdLaw - 29th November 2006 at 15:30
This thread is turning in to a flame war, and for no good reason. Sealord probably shouldn’t have said ‘muslim’, he should have said islamic extremists, but that does not make him a racist or anti-muslim. Kursed’s remarks, however, were completely unreasonable, and he should apologise. No more flaming please!
By: kursed - 29th November 2006 at 15:28
For as long as your statement blaming the entire lot of Muslims, extremists or not, for terrorism stands. I’ve nothing to apologize about.
By: sealordlawrence - 29th November 2006 at 15:02
LOL – I didn’t flame anyone, I merely stated the very obvious. You never said Pakistani Muslims, now did you? Your statement was vague, broad and a blame on all Muslims, including me. Take it back or edit it and I’ll apologize to you.
Cheers!
You interpreted something how you wanted just so you couls start a flame war now apologise.
I didnt mention pakistani muslims becouse muslims of various nationalitys have been trained and supported from pakistan.
By: kursed - 29th November 2006 at 14:29
LOL – I didn’t flame anyone, I merely stated the very obvious. You never said Pakistani Muslims, now did you? Your statement was vague, broad and a blame on all Muslims, including me. Take it back or edit it and I’ll apologize to you.
Cheers!
By: sealordlawrence - 29th November 2006 at 14:20
Nobody called you a racist since all Muslims do not belong to a single race. I just stated a fact that you hate the religion Islam, in actuality Muslims. Anyone who’s in any doubts can visit the following thread.
Heck one doesn’t even need to go that far.. I am quoting the following from your own post above…
#5
You’re effectively judging the entire Muslim lot as terrorists and still have the guts to question me for stating an actual fact?
So how many christian terrorist groups are resourced from within Pakistan.
Hating a religion does not mean hating people. Apologise immediately you flaming little terd.
By: kursed - 29th November 2006 at 11:20
Nobody called you a racist since all Muslims do not belong to a single race. I just stated a fact that you hate the religion Islam, in actuality Muslims. Anyone who’s in any doubts can visit the following thread.
Heck one doesn’t even need to go that far.. I am quoting the following from your own post above…
ability of Muslims to carry out terrorist attacks
#5
You’re effectively judging the entire Muslim lot as terrorists and still have the guts to question me for stating an actual fact?
By: sealordlawrence - 29th November 2006 at 11:17
PLA leave him. Any country that has anything to do with Muslims is related to terrorism as far as this bloke is concerned (yeh, i m waiting for him to launch a tirade against Singapore for allowing Muslims to ‘live’ here given his constant rant against Muslims :rolleyes: People like him are no different from those who call all Westerners ‘infidels’ and advocate their killing. It is through these two kinds of people that intolerance, hatred, and wars are created.). And you’re trying to convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced so why bother and waste your energy?
I will start waiting for the apology now, how dare you start effectively calling someone a racist for no reason. 😡
Sign In
November 27, 2006 at 3:58 pm