Schools: al Qaeda's next target?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

A fascinating series this week on Glenn Beck's show.

Here is a link to the transcript of the discussion (you will need to scroll down to the 3rd COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: About a few months ago, I started hearing about a terrorist concept called "The Perfect Day." And I`m going to get into exactly what that is here in just a second. But in general, it`s a domino theory. I`ve been talking about it on the radio for over a year, and people have been thinking I`m crazy. The idea is that multiple, seemingly unrelated events may all converge together to pose a threat unlike anything we have ever faced before in this country. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/10/gb.01.html)

[3D23]

I think I am going to be sick.

[fquaye14ten]

it's so silly to me the way people try to write the story of terrorists...like "if i were writing a terrorist book, what would i do to play the role of the terrorist"

then they start misunderstanding the intent of the terrorist based on the name. really what terrorists want to do is cause actual physical damage, not make symbolic psychological hollywoodesque statements.

they're not the zodiac killer for christ's sake

remember right after 9/11 when everyone was SO SURE the terrorists were going to attack a generic small town to show "it can happen anywhere"?

nope. they don't give a shit about striking fear in the minds of the american public. they care about fucking up our economy and fucking up our politicians....

i guess what i'm saying is that if we have another attack in america it won't be a small, symbolic thing, it will be a largescale destructive thing

[CaptainBallz]

it's so silly to me the way people try to write the story of terrorists...like "if i were writing a terrorist book, what would i do to play the role of the terrorist"

then they start misunderstanding the intent of the terrorist based on the name. really what terrorists want to do is cause actual physical damage, not make symbolic psychological hollywoodesque statements.

they're not the zodiac killer for christ's sake

remember right after 9/11 when everyone was SO SURE the terrorists were going to attack a generic small town to show "it can happen anywhere"?

nope. they don't give a shit about striking fear in the minds of the american public. they care about fucking up our economy and fucking up our politicians....

i guess what i'm saying is that if we have another attack in america it won't be a small, symbolic thing, it will be a largescale destructive thing

Their intent is both to cause damage AND make large symbolic statements. 9/11 was the perfect example. The Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Both targets that would not a) end capitalism or b) end the US military, but could still be destroyed with devasating results and most importantly, create the symbolism necessary to rally support/opposition to achieve a larger goal.

[samram]

it's so silly to me the way people try to write the story of terrorists...like "if i were writing a terrorist book, what would i do to play the role of the terrorist"

Yeah, and I think Clancy already did the school scenario.

I hate to say this, but there's a part of me that thinks a lot of scenarios are thought up my hawkish types to keep people in fear. I'm not saying whether they're successful or not, just what their intent is. Terror alert levels go up and down pretty much at the whim of Chertoff's gut feeling, like he's Ozzie thinking that this one time MacDougal will get the big out because, well, he's due.

[fquaye14ten]

Their intent is both to cause damage AND make large symbolic statements. 9/11 was the perfect example. The Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Both targets that would not a) end capitalism or b) end the US military, but could still be destroyed with devasating results and most importantly, create the symbolism necessary to rally support/opposition to achieve a larger goal.

but it's not the kind of symbolism like "let's hit them where it hurts the most: THEIR CHILDREN"

it's more like "let's show them that their capitalism and military are not invulnerable"

[3D23]

it's so silly to me the way people try to write the story of terrorists...like "if i were writing a terrorist book, what would i do to play the role of the terrorist"

then they start misunderstanding the intent of the terrorist based on the name. really what terrorists want to do is cause actual physical damage, not make symbolic psychological hollywoodesque statements.

they're not the zodiac killer for christ's sake
remember right after 9/11 when everyone was SO SURE the terrorists were going to attack a generic small town to show "it can happen anywhere"?

nope. they don't give a shit about striking fear in the minds of the american public. they care about fucking up our economy and fucking up our politicians....

i guess what i'm saying is that if we have another attack in america it won't be a small, symbolic thing, it will be a largescale destructive thing


As always, Quaye's wit in the midst of serious political statements cracks me up.

[samram]

Their intent is both to cause damage AND make large symbolic statements. 9/11 was the perfect example. The Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Both targets that would not a) end capitalism or b) end the US military, but could still be destroyed with devasating results and most importantly, create the symbolism necessary to rally support/opposition to achieve a larger goal.

I think terrorists want to cause terror and cause change. Well, unfortunately, they've succeeded to a certain extent in post 9/11 America, what with the Patriot Act, FISA, etc.

[cheeses_h_rice]

Isn't this like the 8000th wacky terraist conspiracy promulgated by pathetic right-wing talk show hacks?

:rolleyes:

[CaptainBallz]

but it's not the kind of symbolism like "let's hit them where it hurts the most: THEIR CHILDREN"

it's more like "let's show them that their capitalism and military are not invulnerable"

Right, because they're not thinking about small peanuts and messing with the livlihoods of soccer moms across the country. The fact is that these people are a bit more in touch with the realities of America's geopolitical strategies than most Americans are. At the root of these strategies is our capitalism through our military.


I think terrorists want to cause terror and cause change. Well, unfortunately, they've succeeded to a certain extent in post 9/11 America, what with the Patriot Act, FISA, etc.

It's pretty safe to say they won every phase of the fight thus far...especially considering what has gone down in Afghanistan since we "won" in that theater.

[fquaye14ten]

Right, because they're not thinking about small peanuts and messing with the livlihoods of soccer moms across the country. The fact is that these people are a bit more in touch with the realities of America's geopolitical strategies than most Americans are. At the root of these strategies is our capitalism through our military.

exsactly--that's my point. these foxnews/cnn "look out in our small towns and football stadiums and schools because the terrorists are symbolic" are bullshit....but that doesn't mean that the attacks are PURELY utilitarianistic

[SABRSox]

Did you guys ever hear the one where terrorists were going to put chemical weapons in ballpoint pens, and inject people all over NY with them?

That was actually reported.

Come on, Fuller, you don't actually believe this tripe, do you? This is fear mongering at it's worst.

I don't fear any terrorist attack anywhere. Why? Because I refuse to live my life that way.

[itsnotrequired]

it's so silly to me the way people try to write the story of terrorists...like "if i were writing a terrorist book, what would i do to play the role of the terrorist"

then they start misunderstanding the intent of the terrorist based on the name. really what terrorists want to do is cause actual physical damage, not make symbolic psychological hollywoodesque statements.

they're not the zodiac killer for christ's sake

remember right after 9/11 when everyone was SO SURE the terrorists were going to attack a generic small town to show "it can happen anywhere"?

nope. they don't give a shit about striking fear in the minds of the american public. they care about fucking up our economy and fucking up our politicians....

i guess what i'm saying is that if we have another attack in america it won't be a small, symbolic thing, it will be a largescale destructive thing

If they wanted to inflict maximum damage on 9/11, they would have crashed the planes into the Indian Point nuke plant (which they flew over).

[fquaye14ten]

where did i say they were trying to inflict maximum damage?

[itsnotrequired]

where did i say they were trying to inflict maximum damage?

get lost

[fquaye14ten]

:douche:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

where did i say they were trying to inflict maximum damage?

here


really what terrorists want to do is cause actual physical damage, not make symbolic psychological hollywoodesque statements...


i guess what i'm saying is that if we have another attack in america it won't be a small, symbolic thing, it will be a largescale destructive thing

Did you guys ever hear the one where terrorists were going to put chemical weapons in ballpoint pens, and inject people all over NY with them?

That was actually reported.

Come on, Fuller, you don't actually believe this tripe, do you?



Of coors not, Skrip!

http://www.chesme.com/Head%20in%20sand%20cropped.jpg

[fquaye14ten]

here





Of coors not, Skrip!

http://www.chesme.com/Head%20in%20sand%20cropped.jpg

where in that post does it say maximum damage?

reading is clearly a skill possessed by the few

really what terrorists want to do is cause actual physical damage, not make symbolic psychological hollywoodesque statements...


i guess what i'm saying is that if we have another attack in america it won't be a small, symbolic thing, it will be a largescale destructive thing

read it again. i'll even give you a few minutes.



waiting


waiting


i never said maximum damage. i said "actual physical damage."*




*cliff's notes!

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Your implication was pretty obvious.

9/11 was all about symbolism. Read the 9/11 Commission report. I'll give you a few minutes...

[fquaye14ten]

yes, fuller, but if you notice, they attacked two meccas of capitalism and military. their were also plans to attack the white house.

hmmmm, the pentagon, the WTC, and the white house.

yeah dude, purely symbolic attacks!

SCHOOLS ARE NEXT :rolleyes:

[SABRSox]

yes, fuller, but if you notice, they attacked two meccas of capitalism and military. their were also plans to attack the white house.

hmmmm, the pentagon, the WTC, and the white house.

yeah dude, purely symbolic attacks!

SCHOOLS ARE NEXT :rolleyes:
http://www.dillon2.k12.sc.us/south/images/south.jpg

Watch out, South Dillon Elementary School!

[samram]

South Dillon's been asking for it.

[SABRSox]

The terrorists hate that school's freedom.

[CaptainBallz]

http://whatisee.org/mt/archives/2006/10/26/school-kids.jpg

Little do these kids know that around the corner awaits international terrorist Muhammed Ahmed al Zwahari bin bin Muqtar... finna pounce right quick.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Can anyone quote specific parts of the transcript you have a problem with?

[SABRSox]

Can anyone quote specific parts of the transcript you have a problem with?
hktrnPICrq0

[Pick a name, Buddy]

:crickets:

[SABRSox]

Chna6nu5IvQ

Yeah, Glenn, because all Muslims are predators.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Yeah, Glenn, because all Muslims are predators.

Well, at least the terrorist ones...

[fquaye14ten]

it's just the general concept that we are guessing the terrorist mentality even though every past "guess" has been wrong

[samram]

Ok, here's one problem I see:

BECK: Brad, Osama bin Laden went to a cleric -- I believe it was in Saudi Arabia -- after 9/11, and he specifically asked, how many children in America can I kill, did he not?

THOR: He did. And he got permission to kill up to 2 million. And the reason he went for that permission is he was roundly criticized after 9/11 for not going for through the proper steps. We talked today about his call for Americans to embrace Islam again. That`s part of the way they wage war. They have to have permission to do things, and they have to offer their enemy a way out before they come and hit us with the attack.

So, this guy just does one these :thinking: and says, 2 million. I don't know if I believe that. I think they're smart enough to know that hurting kids is not something the US looks really kindly upon. They're also smart enough to know that Americans will take drastic measures to protect their kids- so why not use them to create a diversion? It's basically psychological terrorism.

[SABRSox]

Another fine Glenn Beck moment:

uTPfTfgT-Vo

You can cut that tension with a knife.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Skrip, why is it that when you give up discussing the point of an argument, that you always resort to name calling and character assassination? This is about the 4th time I have asked you that very question. You cannot discredit an argument by trying to discredit the person. It is an old debate tactic that just doesn't work these days...too much Hollywood

[SABRSox]

Skrip, why is it that when you give up discussing the point of an argument, that you always resort to name calling and character assassination? This is about the 4th time I have asked you that very question. You cannot discredit an argument by trying to discredit the person. It is an old debate tactic that just doesn't work these days...too much Hollywood

BECK: About a few months ago, I started hearing about a terrorist concept called "The Perfect Day." And I`m going to get into exactly what that is here in just a second. But in general, it`s a domino theory. I`ve been talking about it on the radio for over a year, and people have been thinking I`m crazy. The idea is that multiple, seemingly unrelated events may all converge together to pose a threat unlike anything we have ever faced before in this country.

This week, we wanted to focus on one very important aspect of the theory that you`re just not hearing about, although you`re hearing pieces of it, the threat of an attack on our schools. Like almost all of the other really frightening threats that we talk about on this program, our message is one of preparation, not of panic. And it is critical that you understand why we are giving you this information that others either won`t or cannot.

Okay, this first part is basically fearmongering. The reason others either won't or cannot give out that information is because they are real journalists, and deal in facts, not suspicions.

Colonel, I want to start with you, because we have to lay out some of the facts here on -- for instance, we found a computer disk and some computer plans of schools here in the United States over in the Middle East. Can you tell me about those, sir?

LT. COL. JOE RUFFINI, COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT: Yes, we did, Glenn. There have been several instances of computer disks recovered, the ones you`re talking about in Iraq, some Department of Education schools, emergency crisis management plans were found on the disk, school floor plans, school emergency response plans. But the point I`d like to make here is, you know, when we post this stuff on our Web sites, we can`t get surprised when our enemies download it.

Here's the link: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/crisisplanning.html

It's in the public record, as all government reports should be. What's the issue here?

The rest of the interview reads like a bunch of paranoid white guys raving about Muslims. I'm sure if they had their way, they'd deport every Muslim in the country. Fortunately, the majority of Americans know better.

This stuff about the schools is bullshit. People who believe this stuff are gullible. Am I afraid of terrorists taking control of schools and killing children? Of course not. Why? Because I refuse to live my life in fear.

These stories are bullshit, Fuller. It's amazing how quickly and easily you lap this shit up.

[CaptainBallz]

Question: How can we be more safe, as Fuller voted in the other thread, while "The Perfect Day" is a legitimate threat looming over us that we need to take seriously?

That doesn't sound safe.

[SABRSox]

Just a perfect day,
Drink Sangria in the park,
And then later, when it gets dark,
We go home.
Just a perfect day,
Feed animals in the zoo
Then later, a movie, too,
And then home.

Oh it's such a perfect day,
I'm glad I spent it with you.
Oh such a perfect day,
You just keep me hanging on,
You just keep me hanging on.

Just a perfect day,
Problems all left alone,
Weekenders on our own.
It's such fun.
Just a perfect day,
You made me forget myself.
I thought I was someone else,
Someone good.

Oh it's such a perfect day,
I'm glad I spent it with you.
Oh such a perfect day,
You just keep me hanging on,
You just keep me hanging on.

You're going to reap just what you sow,
You're going to reap just what you sow,
You're going to reap just what you sow,
You're going to reap just what you sow...

[Prope]

Also, a point that has yet to have been spelled out, Glenn Beck sucks.

[SABRSox]

Also, a point that has yet to have been spelled out, Glenn Beck sucks.
hktrnPICrq0

[maurice]

You cannot discredit an argument by trying to discredit the person.

Especially if the person is the Norse God of Thunder.

Thor FTW!

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Question: How can we be more safe, as Fuller voted in the other thread, while "The Perfect Day" is a legitimate threat looming over us that we need to take seriously?

That doesn't sound safe.

Or you can flip that very point and note that Skrip voted that we are weaker and you voted we are more vulnerable, so I guess we should just ignore any chatter and not take anything seriously.

See, that door swings BOTH ways...

[SABRSox]

I voted weaker because we weakened our Constitution while, at the same time, created more terrorists.

Had we not gone to Iraq, and had we not passed the Patriot Act, we would have been stronger.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I love it. WE created more terrorists. Talk about tripe! After 9/11 we should have just asked al Qaeda real nice to stop. Maybe offered to pray to Mecca once or twice a day. And reign in our women, or at least pull their credit cards.

Roll over Skrip! Sit! SIT! STAY!!

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Shouldn't that be a poll?

[samram]

I love it. WE created more terrorists. Talk about tripe! After 9/11 we should have just asked al Qaeda real nice to stop. Maybe offered to pray to Mecca once or twice a day. And reign in our women, or at least pull their credit cards.

Roll over Skrip! Sit! SIT! STAY!!

This isn't about taking marching orders from al Qaeda. The whole problem is instead of going after al Qaeda and bin Laden, we diverted course into Iraq and made it an al Qaeda hot bed. My opinion on Iraq is that the war was started with good intentions, but it was foolish. The troops did what they're trained to do and did it extremely well, but they're in over their heads now. Since we diverted course and didn't go after the real al Qaeda hot spots, they seem to have increased their number.

[CaptainBallz]

Or you can flip that very point and note that Skrip voted that we are weaker and you voted we are more vulnerable, so I guess we should just ignore any chatter and not take anything seriously.

See, that door swings BOTH ways...

No, there's plenty to be taken seriously. I just don't think Glen Beck has the ultimate scoop on exactly what that is.

Him and his fellow crony talking heads are merely sensationalists.

[maurice]

After 9/11 we should have just asked al Qaeda real nice to stop. Maybe offered to pray to Mecca once or twice a day. And reign in our women, or at least pull their credit cards. Roll over Skrip! Sit! SIT! STAY!!

This response is nonsense, and you know it.

Blowing up AQ in Afghanistan resulted in fewer terrorists. AQ attacked us, and we counter-attacked fairly directly. It was a no-brainer.

Invading and occupying Iraq resulted in more terrorists. Iraq didn't attack us, and AQ wasn't there to attack at the time. When no WMD turned up, our international credibility was shot.

Torturing the crap out of people, suspending habeas, and misc. other rights violations also resulted in more terrorists and further eroded our international credibility.

[CaptainBallz]

I love it. WE created more terrorists. Talk about tripe! After 9/11 we should have just asked al Qaeda real nice to stop. Maybe offered to pray to Mecca once or twice a day. And reign in our women, or at least pull their credit cards.

Roll over Skrip! Sit! SIT! STAY!!

It's been determined by basically every intelligence and military agency in the world that terrorist recruitment has increased since the war in Iraq.

[cheeses_h_rice]

I love it. WE created more terrorists. Talk about tripe! After 9/11 we should have just asked al Qaeda real nice to stop. Maybe offered to pray to Mecca once or twice a day. And reign in our women, or at least pull their credit cards.

Roll over Skrip! Sit! SIT! STAY!!

What did Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda?

:dunno:

[SABRSox]

I think it's safe to say that Fuller was
:owned:

[CaptainBallz]

Fuller's never NOT pwned, yet I don't think it really registers.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

What did Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda?

:dunno:

Then? little
Now? much

[CaptainBallz]

Then? little
Now? much

covenient? very

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Fuller's never NOT pwned, yet I don't think it really registers.

It doesn't. Anyone can claim "pwned!" even those who choose to put their heads in the sand or stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and yell "LALALALALALA!"

The reality is you believe what you choose to believe and I believe what I choose to believe and never the twain shall meet. Does it mean you "pwn" me? No. It just means we are irretreivably and diametrically opposed. That ain't a bad thing and I still love you with every fibre of my being.

[cheeses_h_rice]

Then? little
Now? much

You mean, if we weren't in Iraq, we could be fighting Al Qaeda where they were after 9/11?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

covenient? very

Well, that is one way to put it. I would say that we dictated where the battle would take place and sucked them into it on our terms.

is this where is do the :pwneded!: thingy?

You mean, if we weren't in Iraq, we could be fighting Al Qaeda where they were after 9/11?


See above^^

[SABRSox]

Well, that is one way to put it. I would say that we dictated where the battle would take place and sucked them into it on our terms.

is this where is do the :pwneded!: thingy?
Tell that to the millions of dead, innocent Iraqis.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Millions? That would be the number on Sadaams hands. Maybe you should ask him.


Oh wait, he was hung. (well, I might add)

[SABRSox]

No, millions is the number that is on our hands. But, we're America, so that doesn't count, right?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Where do you make up these numbers from? You are going to say with a straight face that our troops are responsible for more deaths of Iraqi civilians than Sadaam?

That thud you just heard was your credibility hitting bottom...

[cheeses_h_rice]

Well, that is one way to put it. I would say that we dictated where the battle would take place and sucked them into it on our terms.

is this where is do the :pwneded!: thingy?


So you believe that the number of "Al Qaeda" was some static figure after 9/11, and that we're killing them off one by one, thereby reducing their numbers?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Not at all Tim. I realized that is a very fluid number. They recruit, we dilute.

[cheeses_h_rice]

Call me crazy, but I think it's entirely possible that our invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation has actually pissed off a lot of otherwise on the fence types, and actually increased the number of people willing to take up arms against our soldiers and U.S. interests around the world. The whole "flytrap" meme is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard.

[SABRSox]

Where do you make up these numbers from? You are going to say with a straight face that our troops are responsible for more deaths of Iraqi civilians than Sadaam?

That thud you just heard was your credibility hitting bottom...
By Americans specifically, no. It'd be less than millions. Maybe 800,000, give or take 200,000. But the Americans are responsible for the current environment in the country. Our presence there is the reason there is so much violence, and so much death. So yes, ultimately we are responsible for millions of Iraqi deaths.

[CaptainBallz]

It doesn't. Anyone can claim "pwned!" even those who choose to put their heads in the sand or stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and yell "LALALALALALA!"

The reality is you believe what you choose to believe and I believe what I choose to believe and never the twain shall meet. Does it mean you "pwn" me? No. It just means we are irretreivably and diametrically opposed. That ain't a bad thing and I still love you with every fibre of my being.


The thing is, most of what you believe gets ceremoniously fileted in these threads, yet you seem to refuse the notion that, maybe, just maybe what you believe concerning the war isn't wholly legitimate. Yet, you seem to expect everybody to respect the difference of "beliefs" when you it appears to everybody else as more of a "willed ignorance".

Were you also on the "greeted as liberators" train too when that was rolling through town?

[cheeses_h_rice]

Were you also on the "greeted as liberators" train too when that was rolling through town?

He strikes me as more of a "candies and flowers" guy.

:shrug:

[CaptainBallz]

:cheneywasright:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Call me crazy, but I think it's entirely possible that our invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation has actually pissed off a lot of otherwise on the fence types, and actually increased the number of people willing to take up arms against our soldiers and U.S. interests around the world. The whole "flytrap" meme is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard.


So you think that there were all of these regular-type muslims that suddenly became jihad-making, Islamo-terrorists once we dropped the kibosh on Sadaam (whom they supposedly hated). I will accept your invitation: "crazy!"

[SABRSox]

The insurgency is in its last throes, if you will?

[SABRSox]

So you think that there were all of these regular-type muslims that suddenly became jihad-making, Islamo-terrorists once we dropped the kibosh on Sadaam (whom they supposedly hated). I will accept your invitation: "crazy!"
The NIE says that very thing.

[maurice]

we dictated where the battle would take place and sucked them into it on our terms.

If fighting insurgent battles while occupying Iraq 6 years after 9/11 is "our terms," then whoever came up with these terms is really dumb.

Most of the people we're fighting in Iraq right now had no intention of attacking the US anywhere before we invaded and occupied Iraq.

They had more pressing concerns and a general inability to get anywhere near us. It's not like some random Iraqi insurgent would be planting IEDs in midtown Manhattan if we stuck to Afghanistan.

[CaptainBallz]

So you think that there were all of these regular-type muslims that suddenly became jihad-making, Islamo-terrorists once we dropped the kibosh on Sadaam (whom they supposedly hated). I will accept your invitation: "crazy!"

Strange things happen to a jobless, dead end youth when you blow up his neighborhood and kill his family... :shrug:

[SABRSox]

Just think, we would have killed Bin Laden by now if Waziristan had any oil in it.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

The thing is, most of what you believe gets ceremoniously fileted in these threads, yet you seem to refuse the notion that, maybe, just maybe what you believe concerning the war isn't wholly legitimate. Yet, you seem to expect everybody to respect the difference of "beliefs" when you it appears to everybody else as more of a "willed ignorance".

Were you also on the "greeted as liberators" train too when that was rolling through town?

Ceremoniously fileted? Come back to planet Earth, Cap'n. Who is to say what I believe about the war is legitimate or not? Do you think you are marginalizing what I think or believe? You give yourself and those like you far too much credit. You sit there and refuse to acknowledge a threat in the face of a history of Islamic terror attacks that have all happened in the last 20 years. But could it happen again? Nahhhh!

Would it help if you saw the list of Islamic terror attacks for the month of September 2007?
Date Country City Killed Injured Description
9/11/2007 Thailand Yala 1 0 A young Buddhist man is shot to death by Islamists.
9/11/2007 Thailand Pattani 1 1 A middle-aged Buddhist man is shot to death by Muslim radicals while riding his motorbike.
9/11/2007 Ingushetia Ordzhonikidzov. 3 0 Two young men and their father are brutally murdered in their home by suspected Islamic militants.
9/11/2007 Pakistan Dera Ismail Khan 17 16 Seventeen people are killed when a suicide bomber detonates on a minibus.
9/11/2007 Afghanistan Helmand 2 7 Two Afghan truck drivers are murdered by a suicide bomber.
9/10/2007 Iraq Tal Marag 10 78 Ten innocents are blown apart by a religious fanatic driving a truck bomb.
9/10/2007 Afghanistan Gereshk 29 57 Over two-dozen Afghans are massacred by Taliban suicide bombers in a small town.
9/10/2007 Thailand Pattani 1 5 A Muslim gunman boards a bus and then shoots a passenger to death.
9/10/2007 Somalia Mogadishu 4 0 Three children and their mother are taken out by Jihadi mortars.
9/10/2007 India Kupwara 1 5 A local soldier is killed in a Lashkar-e-Toiba attack.
9/10/2007 Iraq Saqlawiyah 4 2 A suicide bomber kills four Iraqis at a police checkpoint.
9/10/2007 Pakistan Makeen 2 0 A rocket believed to have been fired by Taliban militants hits a house, killing two, includng a woman.
9/10/2007 Iraq Baghdad 14 19 A Jihad car bombing at a hospital is one of several attacks that leave a dozen Iraqis dead.
9/9/2007 Iraq Mahmudiya 2 7 A Fedayeen suicide bomber kills two civilians.
9/9/2007 Iraq Mosul 4 8 Three woman and a man are murdered in their home by Islamic terrorists.
9/9/2007 Iraq Baiji 7 2 Sunni radicals assault a police station, killing seven officers.
9/9/2007 Iraq Basra 2 0 Two headless bodies, including that of a woman, are found.
9/9/2007 Ingushetia Malgobek 1 2 The Mujahideen ambush local soldiers with grenades, killing one.
9/9/2007 Iraq Balad 4 15 A suicide bomber in a fuel tanker kills four local soldiers.
9/8/2007 Afghanistan Nimroz 2 8 The Taliban attack a food relief convoy, killing two guards.
9/8/2007 Somalia Mogadishu 7 0 A man disguised in a burqa massacres seven local soldiers in a brutal grenade attack.
9/8/2007 Thailand Songkhla 1 0 A plantation worker is shot to death in front of his wife by militant Muslims.
9/8/2007 Thailand Yala 1 0 Terrorists murder a 30-year-old Buddhist woman.
9/8/2007 Algeria Dellys 28 47 Twenty-eight innocent people are blown to bits by an al-Qaeda truck bomber.
9/8/2007 Iraq Kufa 5 8 Five people are blown apart in a marketplace bombing by Sunni radicals.
9/8/2007 Iraq Diwaniya 1 0 Islamic gunmen murder a woman in front of her home.
9/8/2007 Afghanistan Helmand 1 3 A suicide bomber kills one other person.
9/8/2007 Somalia Mogadishu 2 0 Islamists murder two electronics vendors at an open-air market.
9/8/2007 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 A 16-year-old boy is shot three times in the head by suspected Muslim radicals.
9/8/2007 Pakistan Kohistan 4 26 Religious radicals open up on a group of soldiers at point blank range, killing four. Elsewhere a bomb injures twnety-four civilians.
9/8/2007 Iraq Baghdad 15 45 Jihadis slaughter fifteen people with a car bomb along a city street.
9/7/2007 Iraq Kirkuk 3 5 An armed attack by Muslim terrorists on a mosque leaves three people dead.
9/7/2007 Uzbekistan Tashkent 1 0 A prominent 55-year-old Jewish man is stabbed to death in a heinous attack.
9/7/2007 Iraq Mosul 4 0 Radical Sunnis kidnap and murder four policemen.
9/7/2007 Ingushetia Nazran 1 0 An elderly woman is cut down by Islamic terrorists with automatic weapons at point-blank range.
9/6/2007 Thailand Yala 1 2 Muslim extremists kill a police officer with a bomb.
9/6/2007 Somalia Mogadishu 2 0 An elderly man and a woman are killed in a violent grenade attack by Islamic militants.
9/6/2007 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A rubber tapper is killed when Islamic radicals set off a bomb on his plantation.
9/6/2007 Iraq Baghdad 19 5 Nineteen victims of sectarian violence are killed here and in Mosul.
9/6/2007 Iraq Tikrit 3 17 Jihadis bomb a petrol station, killing three innocents.
9/6/2007 Somalia Mogadishu 2 0 Islamic terrorists attack a police station, killing two officers.
9/6/2007 Algeria Batna 14 107 An al-Qaeda linked suicide bomber massacres twenty-two people waiting to see the country's president.
9/6/2007 Pakistan Bannu 2 0 Islamic fundamentalists behead two prostitutes.
9/5/2007 Iraq Mosul 1 28 A suicide bomber kills one other person.
9/5/2007 Afghanistan Helmand 2 3 Two Afghan police are killed when religious extremists bomb their vehicle.
9/5/2007 Somalia Medina 1 0 A local soldier guarding a market is shot to death by Islamic militias.
9/5/2007 Thailand Narathiwat 2 0 A 68-year-old man is shot off his motorbike by Muslim terrorists. Another civilian is killed in a separate drive-by attack.
9/5/2007 Thailand Yala 1 4 Islamists bomb a grocery store, killing a man and injuring four, including two children.
9/4/2007 Afghanistan Paktika 2 2 A suicide bomber attempts an assassination, killing two bodyguards instead.
9/4/2007 Pakistan Rawalpindi 24 74 At least two dozen people are murdered when Islamic bombers attack a bus and a bazaar in separate attacks.
9/4/2007 Chechnya Gukhoi 1 4 One person is killed when Islamic gunmen attack a school and a house.
9/4/2007 Pakistan Kohat 2 0 Two civilians are murdered by the Taliban.
9/4/2007 Afghanistan Kunduz 2 4 Two Afghan cops are murdered by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
9/3/2007 Iraq Baghdad 8 0 Eight electrical workers are kidnapped and murdered by Freedom Fighters.
9/3/2007 Iraq Ramadi 2 13 A suicide bomber blasts two innocent souls to Allah.
9/3/2007 Iraq Baghdad 18 8 Eighteen people are killed by sectarian violence within the Religion of Peace.
9/3/2007 Thailand Yala 1 1 A 55-year-old rubber tapper is shot to death while riding to work with his wife.
9/2/2007 Afghanistan Kunar 7 0 Seven Afghan security personnel are killed in roadside bombings by religious extremists.
9/2/2007 Somalia Suuqa Xoolaha 3 3 Islamist terrorists ambush and kill three Somali soldiers.
9/2/2007 Pakistan Wana 4 10 Islamists bomb a pharmacy, killing four civilians.
9/2/2007 Iraq Taji 2 8 Two Iraqis are murdered by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.
9/2/2007 Pakistan Khyber 1 1 An Afghan refugee is shot to death by Sunni militants.
9/2/2007 India Kathua 2 0 Two children are killed in a Mujahideen bombing.
9/2/2007 Iraq Baghdad 22 16 A Jihad car bombing and various shootings leave about two dozen Iraqis dead.
9/1/2007 Iraq Basra 1 0 A Shiite cleric is shot to death by Muslim rivals outside a mosque.
9/1/2007 Somalia Mogadishu 2 0 Islamic gunmen kill two civilians at point-blank range at a market.
9/1/2007 Pakistan Bajur 5 9 A suicide bomber kills five Pakistanis at a police checkpoint.
9/1/2007 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A Thai soldier is killed in a Muslim terror attack.
9/1/2007 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 22-year-old Buddhist student is shot to death by Muslims while sitting on his motorcycle.
9/1/2007 Iraq Baghdad 24 3 Sectarian Jihadis shoot, blast and stab two dozen to death in various attacks.
9/1/2007 Iraq Mosul 6 9 A child is among six people killed by Islamic terrorists in two attacks.

The insurgency is in its last throes, if you will?

No, I think it is more like a slow and painful death. But far too slow for the "I want it all now" ADD group clamoring to retreat.

[cheeses_h_rice]

I wonder how many Christian murders were committed in the same timeframe?

:thinking:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I wonder how many Christian murders were committed in the same timeframe?

:thinking:

I'm guessing that is a different thread. Still that is a pretty busy week, n'est-ce pas?

[Prope]

It's been determined by basically every intelligence and military agency in the world that terrorist recruitment has increased since the war in Iraq.
But "basically every intelligence and military agency in the world," still leaves some wiggle-room for the Glen Beck's of the world to disagree.

[soxwon]

What do you think ive been talking about in other threads.
Im showing articles and whatnot to show the dangers that we are facing.
And most of you criticize me.
But if Glen Beck says something its ok, but if i say something to that effect im an idiot.
Im simply trying to show- these morons have to be taken seriously.

Could i ask a civilized question. and get civilized answers ?
If Hillary Clinton gets elected president, how do you think she would
encounter the islamist nazi fascists, if something terrible happens here?
Just wondering what your toughts are?

Just think, we would have killed Bin Laden by now if Waziristan had any oil in it.

Or if Willie Clinton wouldve had the gonads to get him the 3 times, he was served up to him.

[SABRSox]

Yeah, shift the blame to Clinton. :jagoff:

[Prope]

Glenn Beck is an idiot.

[SABRSox]

Glenn Beck is an idiot.
I have been saying this forever.

[Prope]

Can't understand why Da Rev hasn't noticed that in this thread so far.

[soxwon]

Yeah, shift the blame to Clinton. :jagoff:

Oh please sabr come on, cant you be honest with everyone and admit Clinton did screw up bigtime in not Getting Osama at the time.
Everyone knows he blew his chances 3 times.
Just admit it.
Its like Cub fans who never ever say their team Sucks.
Democrats NEVER admit they are wrong, thats sad.

Just say it- Yes clinton messed up.

[Prope]

Oh please sabr come on, cant you be honest with everyone and admit Clinton did screw up bigtime in not Getting Osama at the time.
Everyone knows he blew his chances 3 times.
Just admit it.
Its like Cub fans who never ever say their team Sucks.
Democrats NEVER admit they are wrong, thats sad.

Just say it- Yes clinton messed up.
You never admit when Republicans are wrong, and that is just as sad.

[soxwon]

You never admit when Republicans are wrong, and that is just as sad.

Hell i dont, Yes the republicans screw up tons.
This GOP party is not the GOP party of the 70's or 80's
It has its flaws- you better believe it.
You satisfied now?

But why cant democrats admit, Clinton blew it.
Its a proven fact numerous times.
They are very stubborn, thats why they are mules.

[Prope]

Now if you could just do the same for the fallacies and missteps in Iraq, we'd be making some headway.

[soxwon]

Now if you could just do the same for the fallacies and missteps in Iraq, we'd be making some headway.

answer my question why cant democrats admit Clinton blew it.

[SABRSox]

He didn't go kill Bin Laden because there were kings and leaders of about a dozen middle eastern countries with him the one time Clinton had a shot at him. Taking out Bin Laden would have been taking those people out as well, effectively starting World War 3.

Let's get the facts straight, soxwon. The Clinton administration could not have been clearer about the threat Bin Laden and al-qaeda posed to the US during the transfer of power. The Bush administration chose not to care.

(probably because the Bush and Bin Laden families were business partners.)

[Prope]

answer my question why cant democrats admit Clinton blew it.
See SABR's comments.

[soxwon]

He didn't go kill Bin Laden because there were kings and leaders of about a dozen middle eastern countries with him the one time Clinton had a shot at him. Taking out Bin Laden would have been taking those people out as well, effectively starting World War 3.

Let's get the facts straight, soxwon. The Clinton administration could not have been clearer about the threat Bin Laden and al-qaeda posed to the US during the transfer of power. The Bush administration chose not to care.

(probably because the Bush and Bin Laden families were business partners.)

so your a bin ladin defender too.
admit it sabr youll feel better.
Clinton also said there were WMD's.

also answer my earlier question about Hillary and the Islamists nazi's.

He didn't go kill Bin Laden because there were kings and leaders of about a dozen middle eastern countries with him the one time Clinton had a shot at him. Taking out Bin Laden would have been taking those people out as well, effectively starting World War 3.

Let's get the facts straight, soxwon. The Clinton administration could not have been clearer about the threat Bin Laden and al-qaeda posed to the US during the transfer of power. The Bush administration chose not to care.

(probably because the Bush and Bin Laden families were business partners.)

If they didnt care why did we go into Iraq.
all clinton did was bomb an empty warehouse, WAG THE DOG.

[SABRSox]

Bin Laden defender? How do you figure? Because I'm glad Clinton showed some restraint rather than start a world-wide conflict?

And let's be honest, if Clinton did decide to strike, the GOP'ers would have complained the same way they did when Clinton went into Kosovo. That hypocrisy is undeniable.

Also, there is no such thing as an islamist nazi. The two groups contradict each other.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

He didn't go kill Bin Laden because there were kings and leaders of about a dozen middle eastern countries with him the one time Clinton had a shot at him. Taking out Bin Laden would have been taking those people out as well, effectively starting World War 3.

Let's get the facts straight, soxwon. The Clinton administration could not have been clearer about the threat Bin Laden and al-qaeda posed to the US during the transfer of power. The Bush administration chose not to care.

(probably because the Bush and Bin Laden families were business partners.)

That is an embellishment I have not yet heard. :thinking:

And I like how you claim Clinton "handed off" the al Qaeda problem- with full disclosure of coors- to W. The fact that W couldn't crack the code on that one in 7 months dooms us all...

[soxwon]

Bin Laden defender? How do you figure? Because I'm glad Clinton showed some restraint rather than start a world-wide conflict?

And let's be honest, if Clinton did decide to strike, the GOP'ers would have complained the same way they did when Clinton went into Kosovo. That hypocrisy is undeniable.

Also, there is no such thing as an islamist nazi. The two groups contradict each other.

Thats what They are being called by Us Right wing Conspiraters, get used to it.

SABR what will hillary do? Answer my question please!!!

[SABRSox]

How in the hell should I know what Hillary is going to do?

I'm not:

a) Hillary Clinton
b) involved in the Clinton '08 campaign
c) going to vote for Hillary in the primary
d) a fortune teller

[soxwon]

How in the hell should I know what Hillary is going to do?

I'm not:

a) Hillary Clinton
b) involved in the Clinton '08 campaign
c) going to vote for Hillary in the primary
d) a fortune teller

THeres only 2 possible winners Hillary or Obama
Voting for someone else is wasting a vote.
so you like the Muslim with the funny ears!!!

[SABRSox]

You really don't know how our system of government works, do you?

[soxwon]

You really don't know how our system of government works, do you?

You know, its funny we came to hangar's Site
to get away from the WSI moderators, who prosecuted you for
opposing views.
And you -are turning into a WSI moderator- the ones we thought we got away from.
Nothing personal pal, but whats the difference now?

[SABRSox]

Hey, I'm letting you speak your peace and not banning you. But that doesn't mean I won't challenge you when you say stupid things.

[soxwon]

Hey, I'm letting you speak your peace and not banning you. But that doesn't mean I won't challenge you when you say stupid things.

so you would ban someone for opposing views.
Thats a real liberal for ya.
You and i just dont agree, is there ANYTHING we agree on?
Im surprised your a sox fan.

How young are you sir?

[Deuce]

I'm not in the least bit afraid of al Qaeda in the schools. Now, all these "misunderstood" white kids with guns... they are scary.

[SABRSox]

so you would ban someone for opposing views.
Thats a real liberal for ya.
You and i just dont agree, is there ANYTHING we agree on?
Im surprised your a sox fan.

How young are you sir?
I thought I made myself clear. I would not ban you for having an opposing view. That's what they do at WSI. But I'm not going to sit here and let you say things unchallenged. It's called debate. If you can't handle it, that's your problem.

[maurice]

I'll gladly say that Clinton blew it with AQ . . . or even that he blew OBL's dick.

My only precondition is that a single Republican admit that Reagan started this whole fucking mess by pussing out in Lebanon and bending over so that the Iranians could bugger his ass.

No, I think it is more like a slow and painful death. But far too slow for the "I want it all now" ADD group clamoring to retreat.

So your theory is that we're killing them all, it just takes a long time?

I'm only asking because that's been thoroughly debunked by U.S. intelligence estimates indicating that the number of insurgents is growing and that AQ has grown at such a fast rate that it has restored itself to pre-9/11 levels.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

So your theory is that we're killing them all, it just takes a long time?

I'm only asking because that's been thoroughly debunked by U.S. intelligence estimates indicating that the number of insurgents is growing and that AQ has grown at such a fast rate that it has restored itself to pre-9/11 levels.

Ok, so maybe it isn't taking as much time as I had thought.

Debunking the debunkerers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119283901152765565.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

[maurice]

Should we declare victory over al Qaeda in the battle of Iraq?

The very question would have seemed proof of dementia only a few months ago, yet now some highly respected military officers, including the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, reportedly feel it is justified by the facts on the ground.

These people are not suggesting that the battle is over. They all insist that there is a lot of fighting ahead, and even those who believe that al Qaeda is crashing and burning in a death spiral on the Iraqi battlefields say that the surviving ...
• THE FULL WSJ.com ARTICLE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS.

Why am I doubtful that the rest of the article is convincing?
Is it the ridiculous opening line?
Is it the fact that the author didn't hear this directly from McCrystal ("reportedly")?
Is it the widely held presumption that AQ would cool it during the surge and ramp back up after the inevitable troop reduction phase?
Is it the fact that the WSJ is pretty much always wrong about Iraq?
There are so many reasons that it's hard to choose.

I think it would be lovely if every AQ member in the world simply vaporized this afternoon, but I don't think it's likely.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

AQ would cool it during the surge

Is that some kind of euphemism for getting killed?

Also, weird that you got the subscriber only message. I was able to view the entire article and I am not subscribed. Strange...

Ok, I see now. If you google al qaeda and click on news, it is about the 6th item down called "Victory is within reach in Iraq" and that method allows you to read the full article.

So your position is The Surge is working because of all of the dead al Qaeda piling up and that it is forcing the terrorists to stop doing terror type things, at least until the inevitable reduction (unless they get killed first)?

[StockdaleforVeep]

I think the guns we have in schools as well s the movie red dawn prove our schools are safe

[maurice]

No, my position (really pretty much everybody's position, even before the surge) is/was that AQ would lay low so as not to get killed during the surge and simply wait it out. It is/was well-known that the surge is not sustainable given US troop levels and that a draw-down is inevitable. Thereafter, wackiness ensues.

Classic insurgent tactics.

[JohnBasedowYoda]

where did i say they were trying to inflict maximum damage?


So...they want to inflict moderate amounts of damage while killing themselves?:confused:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

No, my position (really pretty much everybody's position, even before the surge) is/was that AQ would lay low so as not to get killed during the surge and simply wait it out. It is/was well-known that the surge is not sustainable given US troop levels and that a draw-down is inevitable. Thereafter, wackiness ensues.

Classic insurgent tactics.

So by allowing Der Serg to be successful and thus emboldening the enemy (us) and giving the Hawks more ammo for sustaining the fight, they are using the well-worn battle tactic of reverse psychology, a kind of AQ version of Mission Accomplished.

Those clever little devils!

[JohnBasedowYoda]

So by allowing Der Serg to be successful and thus emboldening the enemy (us) and giving the Hawks more ammo for sustaining the fight, they are using the well-worn battle tactic of reverse psychology, a kind of AQ version of Mission Accomplished.

Those clever little devils!


I think the Hawks have all the ammo they need once they get Havlat healthy

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Basechips wins the thread!

[soxwon]

Terrorism has been taught in our schools for years.
Largely in all Ivy league Colleges, and now in Everday Acedamia.
Teaching kids about "Joey has two mommies" "Ashley has two Daddies"
And other assorted disasters.
Its called Liberalism, an evil sin that is spreading quicker than the flu.
Thats TERRORISM in America.

[Unregistered]

^ Yikes.

[JohnBasedowYoda]

:thinking:

[Prope]

^^It is an act. Definitely an act, he's like the Stephen Colbert of the SATCH.

I mean, it has to be an act, right?

[JohnBasedowYoda]

^^It is an act. Definitely an act, he's like the Stephen Colbert of the SATCH.

I mean, it has to be an act, right?

:ridiculous:

[soxwon]

I loathe liberalism, i can't stand to see America, being nummed down by the crap the Libs spew every day.
Its taken over our Society and is spreading rapidly.
It might be too late.
Someday soon most intelligent people will wake up from Pharmaceutical
induced sleep and see the truth.
Liberalism is a MENTAL DISEASE, these Libs need help, real Psychological help.
Its Destroying the very foundation of our society, established by our forefathers.
until someone stands up to IT En Masse, it will continue to flurish, and creep into every pore of our Countrys Conservative beliefs.
It must be destroyed very quickly, Liberals should be jailed, or put into Mental Institutions to be rehabilitated.
Im not going to simply let it happen.
Its my opinion, and i love this Country more than Life itself.
Americans are numbing down like Sheeple, Soon all our rights will be gone.
But Not this Patriot, Youll have to Kill me first, to allow it to happen to MY country.
If you disagree fine, its your opinion, everyone has a right to be right- and have a right to be WRONG, like the Liberals.
Im not going to talk about it anymore, fore i cant stand to read the Vile Puke emmiting from the mouths of so called PROGRESIVES, who want our country destroyed like the Terrorists.
God bless America, and yes GOD will PROTECT us!!!!

[Pick a name, Buddy]

I'm as much down on liberalism as the next neo-con. But one of the problems I have with today's so-called conservatism is the polarizing dialogue it encourages. I mean cirrusly, putting liberals in jail and nuthouses? You are becoming the very thing you are railing against.

Quite frankly, I don't know if we can return to the civil discourse of the previous generation, but I'll be damned if I am going to be a party to this hyperbolic screaming match.

We should be able to peacefully and respectfully disagree, not call for the heads of our political rivals on a pike...

[soxwon]

I'm as much down on liberalism as the next neo-con. But one of the problems I have with today's so-called conservatism is the polarizing dialogue it encourages. I mean cirrusly, putting liberals in jail and nuthouses? You are becoming the very thing you are railing against.

Quite frankly, I don't know if we can return to the civil discourse of the previous generation, but I'll be damned if I am going to be a party to this hyperbolic screaming match.

We should be able to peacefully and respectfully disagree, not call for the heads of our political rivals on a pike...


I agree, but Most liberals are Traitors (Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary most every Hollyweirdo Actor.)
It is a disease a sickness! who in their right mind would support their views?
They dont give a damn about the People, They'd sell their grandma down the river, for the mighty $.
Ok i was wrong to say they should be jailed, but instituionalized -YES
See i admit i was wrong, you'll never get a Liberal to say they were wrong!!!
They really need help.
Not saying the Libs are alone, many Conservatives have gown down the wrong road also, and they need HELP.

[maurice]

They're not "allowing it to be successful." It is, in fact, not successful.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Even libs will disagree with you (albeit begrudgingly so) on that one...

[maurice]

The stated purpose of the surge was to buy time for the Iraqis to reconcile politically.

When exactly did that happen? When they took a month off for vacation?

[Pick a name, Buddy]

The stated purpose of the surge was to buy time for the Iraqis to reconcile politically.


That is a popular talking point of the left, but it is misleading. Certainly, that was a purpose, but it was not the primary purpose Del Serj.

Here is an interesting discussion (http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/debating-purpose-of-troop-surge.html) of that very topic. Krauthammer really drives it home.

[Prope]

^^It is an act. Definitely an act, he's like the Stephen Colbert of the SATCH.

I mean, it has to be an act, right?
Seriously, Soxwon is an act right??

[maurice]

That is a popular talking point of the left, but it is misleading. Certainly, that was a purpose, but it was not the primary purpose Del Serj.

Sniff. Hmmm, this BS smells familiar! Oh, yeah. It's the exact same BS tactic used when they didn't find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, and then subsequently lied and said that's not "the primary purpose" of the invasion.

Of course it suffers from the same problems. (1) It's a transparent lie. (2) If it were true, nobody would have supported the invasion / surge in the first place.

"Talking point" indeed.

[soxwon]

Sniff. Hmmm, this BS smells familiar! Oh, yeah. It's the exact same BS tactic used when they didn't find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, and then subsequently lied and said that's not "the primary purpose" of the invasion.

Of course it suffers from the same problems. (1) It's a transparent lie. (2) If it were true, nobody would have supported the invasion / surge in the first place.

"Talking point" indeed.


How many iraqi's did Sadamn have Killed? Mustard Gassed? Shot?
half a million?
Wouldnt you say he was the WMD? I certainly do!!!
And isnt Sadamn dead? I say we found and destroyed the biggest WMD!!!
Also William Jefferson Clinton for all the shit he was, admitted there were WMD's.
A lot of Dems said it too.

[maurice]

Wouldnt you say he was the WMD?

No, and neither would W.

A lot of Dems said it too.

What does this mean to me, and what does it have to do with AQ and the 2007 surge?
A. Nothing.

[CaptainBallz]

soxwon is a dildo

[maurice]

http://www.thesmokehammer.com/images/bush_head2.jpg
"We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had huge stockpiles
of chemical and biological Saddam Hussein, and was actively
attempting to obtain noo-cue-lar Saddam Hussein."

[CaptainBallz]

http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/01/sotu/story.jpg

"9/11 was a day that Saddam Hussein was around doing Saddam Hussein-ish things.... Evil 9/11 things against Freedom, not necessarily related to "9/11" 9/11, but definitely on the day of 9/11 Saddam Hussein and his WMD were planning evil and Al Queda-esque evils against freedom. What? We never said Saddam Hussein had anything to DO with 9/11. But definitely 9/11 Saddam Hussein WMD freedom 9/11.
And liberation, yes, liberation freedom Saddam 9/11

[Pick a name, Buddy]

To be fair and balanced, you should have a picture of all the democrats too. And the 90% of the electorate that agreed at that time, as I recollect.

[maurice]

http://bush2004.com/images/bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg
"We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of Saddam Hussein-related program activities and significant amounts of Saddam Hussein that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, Saddam Hussein's Saddam Hussein programs would continue to this day."

[1951Campbell]

To be fair and balanced, you should have a picture of all the democrats too. And the 90% of the electorate that agreed at that time, as I recollect.

Don't worry! Surely you remember last November. The Democrats will stop the war!

Any anti-war person who votes for the Republican or Democratic front-runners in 2008 is really hoping against experience. And that's putting it charitably.

[maurice]

To be fair and balanced, you should have a picture of all the democrats too. And the 90% of the electorate that agreed at that time, as I recollect.

Agreed that Saddam "was the WMD" or agreed that the president was telling the truth?

The electorate essentially has no way of verifying the president's claims, and the legislative branch has only limited resources in this area. Even the Secretary of State felt that he was duped after learning the truth.

I'm actually not overly concerned with the fact that they didn't find any stockpiles of WMD or a meaningful nuclear program. That probably was a reasonable mistake, particularly since Saddam went out of his way to violate UN resolution 1441 etc. President Clinton admits that he was shocked to learn that Iraq didn't have WMD. Me too.

However, it's not a reasonable mistake to intentionally overstate the pre-war intelligence and then change your story after the fact and pretend that the invasion "really" was about "liberating the Iraqi people." That's just revisionist spin coming from a person who can't admit mistakes, and revisionist spin makes maurice angry. Grrrr.

[CaptainBallz]

To be fair and balanced, you should have a picture of all the democrats too. And the 90% of the electorate that agreed at that time, as I recollect.

Well, though 90% of the electorate is wildly exagerrated, I will concede that there were plenty of assholes around that fell for the crap spewed by BushCo, Democrats included.

But there were enough people living in reality that were highly vocal in their opposition before the invasion... You'll probably hear the same people being as right now as they were then.

[maurice]

Any anti-war person who votes for the Republican or Democratic front-runners in 2008 is really hoping against experience. And that's putting it charitably.

God help us if the general election comes down to that.

Mitch or Rudy vs. Hillary will encourage 3rd party candidates on both sides of the political spectrum.

[1951Campbell]

Mitch or Rudy vs. Hillary will encourage 3rd party candidates on both sides of the political spectrum.

Speaking of third parties, I find Dobson's threat to bolt with the religious right in tow odd. You'd think they'd just get behind Huckabee. :shrug:

The left won't run a third party, they're too scared off by memories of Nader.

[CaptainBallz]

Don't worry! Surely you remember last November. The Democrats will stop the war!

Any anti-war person who votes for the Republican or Democratic front-runners in 2008 is really hoping against experience. And that's putting it charitably.

Truth.

We're so fucked....



The left won't run a third party, they're too scared off by memories of Nader.

Eh. That'll pass.

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Well, though 90% of the electorate is wildly exagerrated, I will concede that there were plenty of assholes around that fell for the crap spewed by BushCo, Democrats included.

But there were enough people living in reality that were highly vocal in their opposition before the invasion... You'll probably hear the same people being as right now as they were then.

Not true Captain. As we were going into Iraq, 90% of the people per ALL of the polling that was being done supported the president's decision. No exaggeration there!

[maurice]

Speaking of third parties, I find Dobson's threat to bolt with the religious right in tow odd. You'd think they'd just get behind Huckabee.

I imagine that most of them will get behind Huckabee, especially now that Brownback is out. That's why I was talking up Huckabee's chances in the Fox GOP debate thread. These people simply aren't going to vote for Rudy or Mitch.

I took his threat to mean that he'll bolt if the GOP nominates a pro-abortion type. That would make the general election pro-abortion northern dem vs. pro-abortion northern republican. Given that choice, he and his ilk would vote for a 3rd party (even if it's only a protest vote), rather than simply stay home.

The left won't run a third party, they're too scared off by memories of Nader.

Disagree. Nader was damaging because there was a huge difference between Gore and W, no matter what Nader says. The difference between, say, Hillary and Rudy is much smaller.

Does Bloomberg count as a left or a righty?

[1951Campbell]

I took his threat to mean that he'll bolt if the GOP nominates a pro-abortion type. That would make the general election pro-abortion northern dem vs. pro-abortion northern republican. Given that choice, he and his ilk would vote for a 3rd party (even if it's only a protest vote), rather than simply stay home.



Disagree. Nader was damaging because there was a huge difference between Gore and W, no matter what Nader says. The difference between, say, Hillary and Rudy is much smaller.

Does Bloomberg count as a left or a righty?

I took the bolting to include electing a heathen Mormon too, but I could be wrong.

I still hold on to my opinion about a leftie third party. Hillary will give the US a shot at socialized medicine (and Rudy will not), and that's just too juicy for them to pass up.

Bloomberg is leftie.

[maurice]

Mitch lacks social conservative bona fines. Folks like Dobson ain't buying what he's selling.

It's not just the Mormon thing (though that certainly doesn't help). His tough talk is undermined by his record in Massachusetts, including previous statements touting liberal causes. Also, blaming the Dem legislature only gets you so far when you actually took a pen and signed the bills into law.

[1951Campbell]

Mitch lacks social conservative bona fines. Folks like Dobson ain't buying what he's selling.

It's not just the Mormon thing (though that certainly doesn't help). His tough talk is undermined by his record in Massachusetts, including previous statements touting liberal causes. Also, blaming the Dem legislature only gets you so far when you actually took a pen and signed the bills into law.

I'll buy that.

[CaptainBallz]

Not true Captain. As we were going into Iraq, 90% of the people per ALL of the polling that was being done supported the president's decision. No exaggeration there!

Show work, etc....

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Nah. It isn't that important to me. It is pretty common knowledge. I'm sure you can google as easily as I

[CaptainBallz]

you suck at the internet, fuller...

The point remains that even if there was 90% public support and idiotic Dems went along with BushCo. (even though the truth was readily available to anyone that cared to take notice) that does not make a fair and balanced counter argument against Bushspeak and the Saddam/WMD/9-11/freedom fry obfuscation that was employed during the run up to the war

[Pick a name, Buddy]

you suck at the internet, fuller...

The point remains that even if there was 90% public support and idiotic Dems went along with BushCo. (even though the truth was readily available to anyone that cared to take notice) that does not make a fair and balanced counter argument against Bushspeak and the Saddam/WMD/9-11/freedom fry obfuscation that was employed during the run up to the war

Ok, I am going to have to call "Bullshit!" on this one. Every intelligence organization in the world made the same assumptions as ours. Surely your memory is not that faulty. Although all of that "intelligence" seems like it was. There is definitely a line between was Saddam's ambitions were versus the resources needed to execute them, I'll grant you that.

What gets me is you hear all of these libs crying and whining about Iraqi civilians dying yet they want the US military to completely withdraw from Iraq, leaving thousands of Iraqi civilians to the slaughter. We started this mess and whether we like the reason we went into Iraq or not, we have a responsibility to stay and finish the job.

[SABRSox]

That's not true, Fuller. Many intelligence agencies (France in particular) said there was absolutely no evidence linking Saddam with WMD's or nuclear programs. This was confirmed by the UN Inspection teams.

[Prope]

How many iraqi's did Sadamn have Killed? Mustard Gassed? Shot?
half a million?
Wouldnt you say he was the WMD? I certainly do!!!
And isnt Sadamn dead? I say we found and destroyed the biggest WMD!!!
Also William Jefferson Clinton for all the shit he was, admitted there were WMD's.
A lot of Dems said it too.
Who gave him those things to kill the Iranians and the Kurds in the north?

soxwon is a dildo
And an act. He has to be an act.

[CaptainBallz]

What gets me is you hear all of these libs crying and whining about Iraqi civilians dying yet they want the US military to completely withdraw from Iraq, leaving thousands of Iraqi civilians to the slaughter. We started this mess and whether we like the reason we went into Iraq or not, we have a responsibility to stay and finish the job.

Most plans floated by "these libs" involves replacing the US presence with UN security forces making the effort the responsibility of the international community and not solely the US.
It helps to understand what exactly "these libs" are proposing..

[Pick a name, Buddy]

Point taken. But the UN s;fjel w[eogjn 2rnjfgl;;jfn swj e[magerl'/

idf ;wmeknh zptm]t, ,e , awnrm]

!

[CaptainBallz]

:thinking:

[Pick a name, Buddy]

That was kinda my way of opening the whole UN can of worms, but then saying that is probably a whole 'nother thread.

Because I really do suck at teh interwebz!

Oh, before I forget...concerning the 90% thingy. I think I was confusing his approval rating following 9/11 (which was 90%) with his approval rating as we were going into Iraq (March 2003) which was more like 75%.

[CaptainBallz]

:vindicated:

[maurice]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the UN and France knew there were no WMD. Rather, they argued that invasion was premature and that we should allow Saddam more time to deal with the inspectors, under the assumption that threats of war might cause him to loosen his restrictions and allow the inspectors to determine whether there were WMD.

Of course, they should have thought about that before they issued 1441.
:shrug:

[StockdaleforVeep]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the UN and France knew there were no WMD. Rather, they argued that invasion was premature and that we should allow Saddam more time to deal with the inspectors, under the assumption that threats of war might cause him to loosen his restrictions and allow the inspectors to determine whether there were WMD.

Of course, they should have thought about that before they issued 1441.
:shrug:

France did not want to invade cuz they made secret deals with iraq for oil in response for a no vote on the iraq resolution

[maurice]

I'm just saying what they argued. I'm not saying that it's their actual motivation.

[Prope]

France did not want to invade cuz they made secret deals with iraq for oil in response for a no vote on the iraq resolution
Doesn't that change the whole argument just a little bit??