or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Terrorists getting their beepbeeps kicked (merged)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Terrorists getting their beepbeeps kicked (merged)

post #1 of 168
Thread Starter 
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB7NYFT9VD.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in622002.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122242,00.html

Quite handily I might add. Good news IMO.
post #2 of 168
The world feels so much safer
post #3 of 168

Woo Whooo!!!

Bin Laden is now more popular than ever in Saudi Arabia and we knocked off 120 bad guys. Stop the presses. AQ has recruited an additional 18,000, and we just polished off 120 of them. That's a good ratio I guesst-- 4:600 deaths to recruits.

You can't polish a terd Naples. The war on terror went south when we decided to avert our attention towards Iraq. Our actions since March 03 have increased AQ recruitment and lowered US standing in the region. Sending 120 guys to hell is not going to change things.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #4 of 168
They weren't terrorists, they were Taliban rebels.

Remember we invaded them because they were *harbouring* terrorists i.e. Bin Laden and co. The Taliban were just a repressive theocratic regime (like the Republicans want to be when they grow up).

Interestingly when the media was focused on Afghanistan they never dwelled on the tribal nature of the area and how large groups of 'good guys' had been fighting for the 'bad guys' the day before as various warlords changed sides during the fighting.

I guess reality is just too complicated for some people. Call it a terrorist, kill it and declare yourself a victory, regardless of any actual progress (or lack thereof).

edit: I didn't realise the first story wasn't about the Taliban, the above only realy applies to the other stories.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #5 of 168
In related news, US Will Revise Data on Terror.

Quote:
The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate and was politically manipulated by the Bush administration.

When the most recent "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report was issued April 29, senior Bush administration officials immediately hailed it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world.

"Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against global terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said during a celebratory rollout of the report.

But on Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the tally for 2003, and added that they expected to release an updated version soon.

Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years.
post #6 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Woo Whooo!!!

Bin Laden is now more popular than ever in Saudi Arabia and we knocked off 120 bad guys. Stop the presses. AQ has recruited an additional 18,000, and we just polished off 120 of them. That's a good ratio I guesst-- 4:600 deaths to recruits.

You can't polish a terd Naples. The war on terror went south when we decided to avert our attention towards Iraq. Our actions since March 03 have increased AQ recruitment and lowered US standing in the region. Sending 120 guys to hell is not going to change things.

I have never understood this logic. Actually, let me correct that...I understand perfectly. I simply think it's misguided and intellectually dishonest. First of all, can you prove your claim of 18,000 AQ? Can you prove that invading has increased recruitment at ALL? I thought not. You're basing your claims on nothing but supposition.

Secondly, do you really believe that AQ recruitment would be lower if we had not invaded Iraq? What would you like to do..."win hearts and minds?". You don't understand. AQ and like minded groups hate and want to destroy the western civilized world. That fact cannot be changed. To quote one of its own members: "You love life. We love death". How can that be negotiated with? It cannot. The only solution is to hunt and kill terrorists across the globe. Right now, the US military is fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and elswhere. Would you like to fight them in the streets of Manhattan instead?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 168
"beepbeeps"??? What a beepbeep.

SDW: your reply to Faust is based on nothing but suppositions aswell. Your quote is meaningless hearsay aswell. What if Faust had included a quote from a terrorist saying "our base is swelling in much larger numbers than before the Iraq invasion"? I'm sure you would've dismissed it outright. So what?

Did it ever occur to you that those terrorists have a "cause", a "reason" to commit those evil and cowardly crimes as wildly fucked up as it may be?

Yeah, searching and killing them sounds great and all. That's the blind patriotic way to look at it. It's much more complicated than that. You need to cut the terrorist organizations' legs, their financing and capture/kill their leaders and masterminds. At the same time, you need to get to the minds of the parents of the 10 year old potential future terrorists before they teach their kids to hate us.
Yeah, "winning hearts and minds"(although I wouldn't quite put it that way) is a big part of the equation. Let's not be naive.
post #8 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
"beepbeeps"??? What a beepbeep.

SDW: your reply to Faust is based on nothing but suppositions aswell. Your quote is meaningless hearsay aswell. What if Faust had included a quote from a terrorist saying "our base is swelling in much larger numbers than before the Iraq invasion"? I'm sure you would've dismissed it outright. So what?

Did it ever occur to you that those terrorists have a "cause", a "reason" to commit those evil and cowardly crimes as wildly fucked up as it may be?

Yeah, searching and killing them sounds great and all. That's the blind patriotic way to look at it. It's much more complicated than that. You need to cut the terrorist organizations' legs, their financing and capture/kill their leaders and masterminds. At the same time, you need to get to the minds of the parents of the 10 year old potential future terrorists before they teach their kids to hate us.
Yeah, "winning hearts and minds"(although I wouldn't quite put it that way) is a big part of the equation. Let's not be naive.

I am positive they have some reason. I will never understand it, nor want to. Nevertheless, it's a reason.

I can go along with most of what you say. I will inject that winning of hearts and minds is not always done by throwing fig leaves at the enemy. It is accomplished sometimes by inflicting penalty for incorrect thinking. The defeat of Japan and also the Soviet Union show this to an extent.

There are a lot of factors and tactics that go into it, that's what I am saying.
post #9 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
"beepbeeps"??? What a beepbeep.

SDW: your reply to Faust is based on nothing but suppositions aswell. Your quote is meaningless hearsay aswell. What if Faust had included a quote from a terrorist saying "our base is swelling in much larger numbers than before the Iraq invasion"? I'm sure you would've dismissed it outright. So what?

Did it ever occur to you that those terrorists have a "cause", a "reason" to commit those evil and cowardly crimes as wildly fucked up as it may be?

Yeah, searching and killing them sounds great and all. That's the blind patriotic way to look at it. It's much more complicated than that. You need to cut the terrorist organizations' legs, their financing and capture/kill their leaders and masterminds. At the same time, you need to get to the minds of the parents of the 10 year old potential future terrorists before they teach their kids to hate us.
Yeah, "winning hearts and minds"(although I wouldn't quite put it that way) is a big part of the equation. Let's not be naive.

And let's not shit each other either. HOW would you "win hearts and minds?" Secondly, we ARE killing the leadership and going after financing. And yes, of course I would dismiss a statement by a terrorist group. Wouldn't you?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
inflicting penalty for incorrect thinking.

Ah yes... bring on the Thought Police!

Perhaps penalties should be inflicted for improper ACTIONS, but for THINKING?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #11 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And let's not shit each other either. HOW would you "win hearts and minds?"

You are no expert, and I am no expert. I doubt ay answer besides "let's nuke 'em" would satisfy you.
A good start would be to rebuild Iraq and let them choose their own government.
Then we could put serious pressure on the Israelis and Paletinians to find a satisfactory solution.
Maybe even developing and quickly adopting alternatives to oil could diminish terrorism from that area. Less money, less influence, less military presence.
Quote:
Secondly, we ARE killing the leadership and going after financing.

Re: the financing. BS. To what extent? Like the "war on drugs"? The idiots who Bush likes to hold hands with come from a country well known to finance terrorism. Who knows, they may even be secretly funding them.
Quote:
And yes, of course I would dismiss a statement by a terrorist group. Wouldn't you?

Yeah, well you didn't dismiss that comment from the terrorist you "quoted"...which was my whole point.
Quote:
Naples said: I will inject that winning of hearts and minds is not always done by throwing fig leaves at the enemy. It is accomplished sometimes by inflicting penalty for incorrect thinking.

Fig leaves? "Incorrect thinking"? WhatThebeepbeep? 1984 Extreme? Big Bro On Steroids?
Quote:
The defeat of Japan and also the Soviet Union show this to an extent.

are you calling a world war...."incorrect thinking"? Awfully simplistic.
Quote:
There are a lot of factors and tactics that go into it, that's what I am saying.Edit:

We can agree there. We have got to pursue other non-violent ways aswell as the ones mentioned before. Violence always brings more violence. That's not news.
post #12 of 168
There's a simple answer for why the conservatives are down there at the bottom of the barrel with subject matter. They are running out of good reasons to justify Bush in office and election time is growing ever more near.

They know it won't be pretty and he's not a shoe in.

I can't wait for November so we can stop this nonsense we've been putting up with for 4 years.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #13 of 168


I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #14 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac

I can't wait for November so we can stop this nonsense we've been putting up with for 4 years.

Yup. And get on with a whole nother kind of nonsense!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #15 of 168
Found this...ont the woefully bad website of the United American Civil Taskforce.

List of terrorists list to whether they are at large, captured or killed; By name, function and status.


SHURA MAJLIS
\t
These are the first-tier guys and the actual members of al-Qaeda's board of directors. Any one of them is a possible successor to Osama bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden
Emir-General
Possibly killed at Tora Bora in Dec. 2001, now believed to be at large

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Second-in-Command/Egyptian Islamic Jihad Emir-General
At Large

Mohammed Atef
Supreme Military Commander
Dead

Abu Zubaydah
Global Operations Chief
Apprehended

Rifa Ahmed Taha
Gamaa al-Islamiyyah Secretary-General
At Large

Thirwat Salah Shirhata
Egyptian Islamic Jihad Deputy Emir
At Large

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri
Middle East Operations Chief
Apprehended

Abu Musab Zarqawi
Former Southeast Asian Operations Chief, currently Global Operations Chief
At Large

Abu Zubair al-Haili
North African Operations Chief
Apprehended

Tawfiq Attash Khallad
South Asian Operations Chief
At Large

Abu Mohammed al-Masri *
East African Operations Chief
At Large

Zaid Khayr
Unknown
At Large

Mohammed Salah
Senior Explosive Expert, Central African Operations Chief \t
Dead

Tariq Anwar al-Sayyid Ahmad
Balkans Operations Chief
Dead

Saif al-Adel **
Former second-in-command of al-Qaeda's military, currently Supreme Military Commander
At Large

Amin al-Haq
Shura Majlis Security Chief
At Large

Abu Hafs the Mauritanian (aka "Mr. Mauritania")
Theologian
Formerly believed dead, now believed to be at large



TERRORIST TRAINING CAMP COMMANDERS

These are the guys who supervise the training, indoctrination, and assignment of al-Qaeda operatives worldwide. They also seperate all recruits into four categories: mujahideen (foot soldiers), shahideen (suicide bombers), takfiri (sleepers), and ansar (support personnel). Each category has its own version of the "Afghan Guide to Jihad," al-Qaeda's training manual (all four versions combined are roughly 3,000 pages in length) that provides instruction to recruits for just about any situation imaginable.

Sheikh Ibn al-Liby
Terrorist Training Camp Commander
Apprehended

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi
Terrorist Training Camp Commander
Apprehended

Omar Bandon
Terrorist Training Camp Commander
At Large



THE FINANCIAL COMMITTEE

This is the committee that oversees al-Qaeda's legitimate and illegitimate businesses, charities, drug smuggling, ect. The top ten al-Qaeda donors have all been named by both the UN and the families of 9/11 victims as being the major financiers of al-Qaeda and remain at large

Sheikh Saeed (Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi?)
Head of the Financial Committee
Apprehended

Mohammed Jamal Khalifa
Financier and envoy to the Saudi Bin Laden Group
At Large

Abu Jafar al-Jaziri
Financier
Dead

Abu Salah al-Yemeni
Financier
Dead

Abdul Rahim Riyadh
Financier
Apprehended

Ahmed Saeed al-Kadr
Financier
At Large

Hamza al-Qatari
Financier
Dead


MEDIA COMMITTEE
This the group that manages and updates the websites, oversees the E-Jihad, and is responsible for all statements by the al-Qaeda leadership. Not a lot of declassified info on this one as far as names go.

Suleiman Abu Ghaith
Spokesman
At Large

Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri
Spokesman/Recruiter
At Large

Sheikh Omar al-Bakri
Spokesman
At Large

Sheikh Abu Qatada al-Philisteeni
Spokesman
Apprehended



WMD COMMITTEE

Al-Qaeda employs a number of Muslim scientists of various nationalities to assist it in procuring as well as manufacturing the necessary materials to create chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons.

Midhat Mursi
Top scientist for nuclear weapons research
At Large

Abu Khabab
Biological and chemical weapons expert
At Large

Assadalah Abdul Rahman
Weapons of Mass Destruction Chief
At Large

Abu Bashir al-Yemeni
Unknown
At Large



MILITARY COMMITTEE

These are the definite guys to watch out for. Most have a great deal of combat experience either from serving in Arab militaries or else from fighting in Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, or the Philippines.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Martyrdom Battalion Commander-in-Chief
Apprehended

Abd al-Aziz al-Jamal
Unknown
At Large

Bilal bin Marwan
Arabian Sea Commander-in-Chief
At Large

Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi
Yemen Commander-in-Chief
Dead

Mohsen al-Fadli
Kuwait Commander-in-Chief
Apprehended

Essid Sami ben Khemais
Southern Europe Commander-in-Chief
Apprehended

Saqar al-Jadawi
Unknown
At Large

Mohammed Omar Abdel Rahman
Military Commander
Apprehended

Ahmed Omar Abdel Rahman
Military Commander
Apprehended

Abu Walid
Military Commander
At Large

Abdel Hari al-Iraqi
Afghanistan Commander-in-Chief
At Large

Abu Leith al-Lybi
Algeria/Libya Commander-in-Chief
At Large

Shamil Basayev
Chechnya Commander-in-Chief
At Large

Amir ibn al-Khattab
Dagestan Commander-in-Chief
Dead

Hanbali
Indonesia Commander-in-Chief
At Large

Imam Samudra
Java Commander-in-Chief
Apprehended

Mas Selamat Kastari
Singapore Commander-in-Chief
Apprehended

Current Tally:

Dead=8
Apprehended=15
At Large=29


Others

These are non-leader Al Qaeda members who are on the FBI most wanted list or have, in some way, come to attention..

Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Sheik Mohammed Al Hasan Al-Moayad
Financier / Cleric
Apprehended

Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed
Financier / Cleric
Apprehended

Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser
Khobar Towers Bomber
At Large

Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Ali Atwa
Flight 847 (Lebanon) Hijacker
At Large

Hasan Izz-Al-Din
Flight 847 (Lebanon) Hijacker
At Large

Anas Al-Liby
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Imad Fayez Mugniyah
Flight 847 (Lebanon) Hijacker
At Large

Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Abdul Rahman Yasin
1993 WTC Bombing
At Large

Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Ahmad Ibrahim Al-Mughassil
Khobar Towers Bomber
At Large

Muhammad Atef
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Ali Saed Bin Ali El-Hoorie
Khobar Towers Bomber
At Large

Saif Al-Adel
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub
African Embassy Bomber
At Large

Current Tally:

*Note: There has been some contradictory information as to the status of this individual. Abu Mohammed al-Masri is a nom de guerre, hence one should not confuse him with the al-Qaeda functionary of the same name who was recently killed in Algeria working with the GSPC. Mossad reportedly had intelligence that al-Masri might have been one of the suicide bombers involved in the al-Qaeda attack in Mombasa, but near as I can tell the findings were not corroborated

**Note: Per Knight Ridder, he may have been captured along with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If this is indeed true it would be exceedingly good news.

Terrorist Network Map

(Active Terrorist Cells in U.S.)



...kinda old and we have plucked a few more. But think of the scale of this network. It is a world wide network and with fresh recruits breeding everywhere. Take down the schools and camps and maybe this could even out the score. We are definately not there yet...and sure as hell aren't "handily" there yet...

I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #16 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Yup. And get on with a whole nother kind of nonsense!


Yes but the point is this kind of nonsense ( the kind we have currently ) could do irreparable harm. Kerry will be another politician I'm sure. But he won't be dangerously bad like what we have now!

It's like the old saying where if they want the job they're probably wrong for it.

If you're a Nader supporter he has no chance of getting us out of our current dilemma. Right now things are bad but without a second term to win what do you think GB will be like in the next 4 years?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #17 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes but the point is this kind of nonsense ( the kind we have currently ) could do irreparable harm. Kerry will be another politician I'm sure. But he won't be dangerously bad like what we have now!

It's like the old saying where if they want the job they're probably wrong for it.

If you're a Nader supporter he has no chance of getting us out of our current dilemma. Right now things are bad but without a second term to win what do you think GB will be like in the next 4 years?

I know, I know. I was just making a joke about how Republians can cause just as much turmoil in office (Bush) as then can when they're not in office (e.g. treating Clinton as an enemy of the state)

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #18 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I know, I know. I was just making a joke about how Republians can cause just as much turmoil in office (Bush) as then can when they're not in office (e.g. treating Clinton as an enemy of the state)

Cheers
Scott


Ahh!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #19 of 168
Thread Starter 
post #20 of 168
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/pow...ort/index.html

Bush admin officials (Armitage and Black): "Look! Terrorism was reduced in 2003! That means the war on terror is working! Look!!!"
(Psst... actually, your data was wrong. There was actually a sharp increase in terrorism in 2003.)
Reporters: "Does that mean the war on terror is not working?"
Powell: "No one has suggested that the war on terror has been won."

Answer the freaking question, Colin, you pusswat.

The question was, "Does that mean the war on terror is not working?", not "Does that mean the war on terror has not been won?"
post #21 of 168
[mod's note]

Tonton created a new thread, but I think his post is directly releated to what is already being discussed (or was being discussed) here. Hopefully this will refocus the thread and avoid too much double-posting and cross-over from one thread to the other.

[/carry on]
post #22 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/pow...ort/index.html

Bush admin officials (Armitage and Black): "Look! Terrorism was reduced in 2003! That means the war on terror is working! Look!!!"
(Psst... actually, your data was wrong. There was actually a sharp increase in terrorism in 2003.)
Reporters: "Does that mean the war on terror is not working?"
Powell: "No one has suggested that the war on terror has been won."

Answer the freaking question, Colin, you pusswat.

The question was, "Does that mean the war on terror is not working?", not "Does that mean the war on terror has not been won?"


How could it be won the way they are going about it?

Like I've said before it's very similar to the war on drugs back in the 80's ( and we've seen how effective that was ).

It makes some money for certain people, makes it look like you're doing something about the problem ( for people who aren't paying attention ), and leaves you free to follow your other real agendas ( what ever they might be ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #23 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
How could it be won the way they are going about it?

Whenever I want a bee to stop stinging me I spray a hose at it's hive
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #24 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Whenever I want a bee to stop stinging me I spray a hose at it's hive

Yup! That's the way!

When I was a kid the house I'm living in once again was next to my uncle's cherry orchard. In the middle he had several bee hives and when I threw dirt clods at them they always saw the fact that I as a human was much more powerful than they and quieted down ( not! ).

Hey! Maybe that's where dubbya got the idea to " smoke em' out ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #25 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
They weren't terrorists, they were Taliban rebels.

Remember we invaded them because they were *harbouring* terrorists i.e. Bin Laden and co. The Taliban were just a repressive theocratic regime (like the Republicans want to be when they grow up).

Interestingly when the media was focused on Afghanistan they never dwelled on the tribal nature of the area and how large groups of 'good guys' had been fighting for the 'bad guys' the day before as various warlords changed sides during the fighting.

I guess reality is just too complicated for some people. Call it a terrorist, kill it and declare yourself a victory, regardless of any actual progress (or lack thereof).

edit: I didn't realise the first story wasn't about the Taliban, the above only realy applies to the other stories.

I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.
post #26 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Playmaker
I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.

So you're saying that, because we might disrespect the troops, we shouldn't talk about politics?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #27 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
You are no expert, and I am no expert. I doubt ay answer besides "let's nuke 'em" would satisfy you.
A good start would be to rebuild Iraq and let them choose their own government.
Then we could put serious pressure on the Israelis and Paletinians to find a satisfactory solution.
Maybe even developing and quickly adopting alternatives to oil could diminish terrorism from that area. Less money, less influence, less military presence. Re: the financing. BS. To what extent? Like the "war on drugs"? The idiots who Bush likes to hold hands with come from a country well known to finance terrorism. Who knows, they may even be secretly funding them. Yeah, well you didn't dismiss that comment from the terrorist you "quoted"...which was my whole point. Fig leaves? "Incorrect thinking"? WhatThebeepbeep? 1984 Extreme? Big Bro On Steroids? are you calling a world war...."incorrect thinking"? Awfully simplistic. We can agree there. We have got to pursue other non-violent ways aswell as the ones mentioned before. Violence always brings more violence. That's not news.

1. Umm...OK. Your ridiculous "nuke em" comment aside, I believe they ARE going to be choosing their own government.

2. Quickly developing oil alternatives will not happen, no matter who is in office.

3. Wait...our government is secretly funding terrorism?

4. Again...hold on. Are you disputing my quote and its veracity? Or, are just playing games again? The context we werre discussing the issue in related to terrorist recruitment. In other words, I would not trust a statement by a terrorist indicataing how many new members they've gotten due to Iraq.

5. Violence does not always bring more violence. That's called LIBERAL RHETORIC. War IS sometimes the answer. Welcome to the real world.

6. You know damn well what Naples meant. Man, you really are the Master of Semantics. I don't know about you, but I might define incorrect thinking as "targeting innocent civilians, including women and children and fellow muslims to further an extreme totalitarian goal". Wouldn't you?

7. WHAT OTHER WAYS? You've said nothing new.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
3. Wait...our government is secretly funding terrorism?

4. Again...hold on. Are you disputing my quote and its veracity?

For those who aren't masters of semantics I'll explain:

3. He's talking about Saudi Arabia.

4. *You* quoted a terrorist to support your case and then said you wouldn't believe a terrorist when someone else did the same.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #29 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Playmaker
I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.

Can you explain why you think this paragraph of yours is in any way related to the post of mine you quoted?

And out of interest, what vocabulary do you think I was showcasing?
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #30 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Can you explain why you think this paragraph of yours is in any way related to the post of mine you quoted?

And out of interest, what vocabulary do you think I was showcasing?

I think he/she meant "theocratic," which is apparently a big word. Whodathunkit?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #31 of 168
Also, could a Mod please fix the grammatical error in the title? It should be "their," not "there."

Cheers
Scott

[edit by BuonRotto]

Its been taken care of.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #32 of 168
Thread Starter 
wrong thread
post #33 of 168
Nevermind.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #34 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
For those who aren't masters of semantics I'll explain:

3. He's talking about Saudi Arabia.

4. *You* quoted a terrorist to support your case and then said you wouldn't believe a terrorist when someone else did the same.


-I know he's talking about Saudi Arabia

-That's because we're talking about two different things. Again, is someone disputing the quote and its veracity? Does anyone doubt its meaning or truthfulness? Is it not in line with the radical islamic philsophy? Surely you can see the difference between this statement and one like "We've recruited 10,000 new members since the fall of Iraq".
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 168
(A parenthesis)

After making a quick edit to the thread title, I see that other comments were quite condescending towards other members. Any further comments like this will get the thread closed and will result in temporary bans without any further warnings. No more discussion of this post either. Please PM me or another mod if you want to talk respond to it.

(End parenthesis)
post #36 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Umm...OK. Your ridiculous "nuke em" comment aside, I believe they ARE going to be choosing their own government.

Not so ridiculous. Rumsfeld did not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq.

Quote:
2. Quickly developing oil alternatives will not happen, no matter who is in office.

Then we are going to have to abandon the system that keeps the destructive status quo of dependence on oil owned by unstable foreign nations, if there is to be any hope of change for the better....and knowing fullwell that it is our continued lust for oil that supports the regimes that breed the terrorists in the first place.

Quote:
3. Wait...our government is secretly funding terrorism?

Well, lets say that our government is waging a very selective war on terrorists. namely, some terrorists are to be squashed, and others are AOK.

Quote:
5. Violence does not always bring more violence. That's called LIBERAL RHETORIC. War IS sometimes the answer. Welcome to the real world.

War is sometimes the answer? War is an appropriate response to being attacked, yes, I will give you that. That might just be why there is an insurgency going on in Iraq. If we were attacked and occupied, I would want to bet that a number of patriotic people outside of our regular armed forces would take things into their own hands and attack the occupiers. But it is not the answer to anything, and never, ever has been. If it was, we would all be fighting, all the time. And re. "pre-emptive war", that kind of thing is definitely not any kind of answer. Imagine if India or Pakistan decided to settle their differences using the Bush doctrine (GOD FORBID). Or Russia and China?GOD FORBID or Israel and Iran..... Osama bin Laden against the USA even?

Violence does beget violence. It is not liberal rhetoric...its common sense, and the human instinct of self-defense. Nobody gets attacked without defending themselves.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #37 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Not so ridiculous. Rumsfeld did not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq.



Then we are going to have to abandon the system that keeps the destructive status quo of dependence on oil owned by unstable foreign nations, if there is to be any hope of change for the better....and knowing fullwell that it is our continued lust for oil that supports the regimes that breed the terrorists in the first place.



Well, lets say that our government is waging a very selective war on terrorists. namely, some terrorists are to be squashed, and others are AOK.



War is sometimes the answer? War is an appropriate response to being attacked, yes, I will give you that. That might just be why there is an insurgency going on in Iraq. If we were attacked and occupied, I would want to bet that a number of patriotic people outside of our regular armed forces would take things into their own hands and attack the occupiers. But it is not the answer to anything, and never, ever has been. If it was, we would all be fighting, all the time. And re. "pre-emptive war", that kind of thing is definitely not any kind of answer. Imagine if India or Pakistan decided to settle their differences using the Bush doctrine (GOD FORBID). Or Russia and China?GOD FORBID or Israel and Iran..... Osama bin Laden against the USA even?

Violence does beget violence. It is not liberal rhetoric...its common sense, and the human instinct of self-defense. Nobody gets attacked without defending themselves.

1. Of course he didn't. No official at that level would ever rule out any type of weapon we have in our arrsenal. It would be announcing what we would and wouldn't do. Of course, the media loves this kind of situation, because then they get to print a headline that says "Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out uUse of Nuclear Weapons!" If you remember, on 9/11, an official was aksed about respondig with nuclear weapons. He said "all options are on the table". The media loved that, too.

2. We have an oil problem. No question. We need to get off of Middle Eastern oil, do more exploration in and around the US, develop higher efficiency standards, etc. We also need to start planning to develop autos that do not run on gasoline. No question, and no argument. It's just going to take a long time, and Kerry won't make it happen any faster than Bush will. At least Bush wanted to obtain more oil from within our borders. But, anti-ANWR crown went crazy. By "anti-ANWR", I mean the environmental lobby.

3. War is somtimes the answer. That doesn't mean it's plseasant. Pre-emptive war is also sometimes the answer, especially in this day and age. I suppose we simply disagree. In any case, I'm not even sure you can classify Iraq as a pre-emptive. The man refused to openly disarm and cooperate. Now we're hearing that...wait for it...he shipped WMD out of the country. Gee, imagine.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Of course he didn't. No official at that level would ever rule out any type of weapon we have in our arrsenal. It would be announcing what we would and wouldn't do. Of course, the media loves this kind of situation, because then they get to print a headline that says "Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out uUse of Nuclear Weapons!" If you remember, on 9/11, an official was aksed about respondig with nuclear weapons. He said "all options are on the table". The media loved that, too.

2. We have an oil problem. No question. We need to get off of Middle Eastern oil, do more exploration in and around the US, develop higher efficiency standards, etc. We also need to start planning to develop autos that do not run on gasoline. No question, and no argument. It's just going to take a long time, and Kerry won't make it happen any faster than Bush will. At least Bush wanted to obtain more oil from within our borders. But, anti-ANWR crown went crazy. By "anti-ANWR", I mean the environmental lobby.

3. War is somtimes the answer. That doesn't mean it's plseasant. Pre-emptive war is also sometimes the answer, especially in this day and age. I suppose we simply disagree. In any case, I'm not even sure you can classify Iraq as a pre-emptive. The man refused to openly disarm and cooperate. Now we're hearing that...wait for it...he shipped WMD out of the country. Gee, imagine.


-----------------------------------------------------------

" Now we're hearing that...wait for it...he shipped WMD out of the country. Gee, imagine. "

-----------------------------------------------------------





Where are you hearing that one? Other than speculation on the part of people who want this to be true?



Thank god the warmongering is on the way out! I'm really tired of the torrential down pour of alternate reality logic.


OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!


PS. Even if SH shipped these nonexistant WOMD all out in that amount of time he couldn't have had a very formitable arsenal.

Oh! and how would he have deployed them?

This is what they call " Clutching at straws ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #39 of 168
And of course you've gotta love this.......

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/pow....ap/index.html




Ah, gee!

It would be even more funny if it didn't involve people's lives.

I'd be willing to bet the real figures show terrorism has gone up not down.


Slanted reports!

It's all someone else's fault!

God, this Bush is over the top and has got to go!

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 168
jimmac,

Once again, your blind partisanship shows. First you comment on WMD. Then, you link to the article on the understimation of terror attacks.

Your own agenda disqualifies your argument. You will use anything...and I mean anything...to discredit the Bush adminsitration and make it look bad. From a one day report on the state of the stock markets, to a jobless claims number that was actually GOOD...you'll use it all.

As for where I've been hearing the WMD were shipped out, try this:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Winnip...25/324358.html

(not the best source...but there are others)

and on the terror front:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Terrorists getting their beepbeeps kicked (merged)