[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I don't think it's a laughing matter.

Fine.

It only bothers me when people I respect misunderstand me. That's why your comment really stings.

[Saad]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We've established NO SUCH THING. I'll thank you for coming to your comrade's aid, but he needs to answer this, Saad.

You never see me telling someone what to say or not say.

Because your the only one to use such comparisons in an offensive way.

[swrate]

Sometimes in the middle of a thread i forget what the topic was.


I have to recollect then,


I doubt OBL is still in a cave, and on those extracts it looks like him, sounds like him, and he has same hands, OBL, calm and in a leader�s attitude, putting the blame on the bushes policies, for what reason?
I had the feeling he doesn�t really care, he has no sense of horror and cruelty,he gives the orders, the others kill for their goal,
-we can take care of our own security and everyone should take care of their own security- .
He has a specific strategy, feels invested with a mission from higher, as if pain suffering did not reach him anymore.
I do not like seeing him appear, worse then tapes and written messages. Numbers of victims means nothing much to him at this point, i hope his message is just an intimidation strategy, we don't need no more war.


We just looked at some of my drawings, Manhatten feeling, twin towers were in most of them somewhere,
now it's emptiness and sorrow.

In Tora Bora, they did not really look for the evidence.
6 Americans soldiers only? With 600 Afghans? (many probably buying opium with their salaries)
Pushing the Talibans to the West of Nangahar and alined provinces is hard work, but when the troops find a �special nest�, 6 US soldiers on the mission sounds strange.

Time just changed
switch
No more war, yet, Marcus Garvey....

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by greenamp:
I am sick of hearing people say that anti-american sentiments only began somehow after Bush took office. That statement is so shallow and and anyone who believes it needs to read up on their world history.

Meddling in the affairs of the mideast has been happening since the advent of the 1st world war, when the powers that were divided the place up into the sh*t hole mess it is now. "Hmm, lets re-draw the boundaries of what is now Iraq, to encompass three factions of Islam that hate each other. Brilliant!! And while we're at it, lets tell the Palestinians who have occupied Israel for centuries, that they must leave and give it back to the Jewish people. I'm sure they won't mind."

The problems we are now facing with islamic fundamentalism have been brewing for decades. And the short sided "die commie scum" foreign policies of the 80's under Reagan were simply the straws that broke the camels back (ie: training and funding Islamic militants to help fight Russia in the cold war).

9/11 was not just an attack on America, it was an attack on the world. Why do you think OBL chose to attack the world trade center,? not once, but twice?

America is in part to blame for the mess that is the middle east, but we are not solely to blame. The entire civilized world is to blame. And so far, there are only a handful of countries willing to take responsibility for cleaning up the mistakes of the past.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Shouldn't it prompt self-examination that so many Democrat talking points coincide with Bin Ladin's speech? Shouldn't it prompt some reflection, some questioning, causing people to ask "how did I become so partisan that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

No kidding.

My first reaction to the Bin Ladin tape was, "Damn, if that's really him, he HAS to have somehow gotten hold of the Democrat talking points." He sounds for all the world EXACTLY like Michael Moore.

You'd think that'd make Moore take a step back, and consider that his exact brand of propaganda is being regurgitated back by the likes of Bin Laden. Or that in order to effectively impersonate Bin Laden, one has to basically sound just like Moore. But rather than prompt reflection, he probably considers it an honor.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No kidding.

My first reaction to the Bin Ladin tape was, "Damn, if that's really him, he HAS to have somehow gotten hold of the Democrat talking points." He sounds for all the world EXACTLY like Michael Moore.

You'd think that'd make Moore take a step back, and consider that his exact brand of propaganda is being regurgitated back by the likes of Bin Laden. Or that in order to effectively impersonate Bin Laden, one has to basically sound just like Moore. But rather than prompt reflection, he probably considers it an honor.

I hear Eminem's a big MM fan.

Yeah, I thought that too.
And evidently Osama bin Laden sees socialism as freedom. Hmmmmmmm�

[typoon]

Originally posted by Icruise:

I'm not one of the people who say it is entirely Bush's fault, but the fact is that he didn't exactly see anti-terrorism as a priority, and in fact members of the Clinton administration did advise the Bush administration about the dangers of a possible attack. I don't think the playing the blame game here is all that productive, but don't try and pawn it all off on Clinton.

Clinton had 8 years to do something about Bin Ladin, He had 8 years of taking care of terrorists. What did he do? So yes most of the blame can be laid at his doorstep. Bush had been in Office 8 months. Do you think he didn't have a plan for fighting terrorism?

You can't blame anti-american sentiment completely on Bush of course, but he has done nothing to improve our relationships with the Muslim world, and in needlessly attacking Iraq he has unwittingly supplied terrorists with ammunition (both real and metaphorical) for their attacks against the US.

They didn't need us to Attack Iraq to "give them ammunition" THEY HATED US ALREADY. THEY WANT TO DESTROY OR CONVERT THE WESTERN WORLD.

And needless to say, his position on the war has cost us some valuable allies who could be helping us fight terrorism.

Really? France wouldn't have helped us. Germany wouldn't have either. Neither would Russia. What other of our "allies" would there have been?

Yes he did. This isn't the place to discuss it, but Reagan really doesn't deserve credit for ending the cold war. Luckily the USSR self destructed when it did, but for quite a while there was the very real threat of nuclear war, and I find it hard to believe that our capacity to destroy the globe hundreds of times over was what made the difference in the end.

This may not be the thread for it but outspending the russians and staying ahead of them in Weapons build was part of what caused their downfall. They were afraid of SDI whether fictional or not. Reagan helped stop the spread of communism and brought down the Soviet Union.

[QUOTEInteresting rhetoric, but what does it really mean? What does it mean to do ANYTHING necessary? Does it mean randomly invading countries that have little or no ties to terrorism? Does it mean sacrificing the very things that make our country great?

And did it ever occur to you that thinking of the enemy as mindless animals might not be the most effective way of stopping them? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes anything short of nuclear weapons should be used to eliminate these terrorists. ANY tie to terrorism is a tie to terrorism and it must be defeated.

Then what would you call them? Would you not call people who kill innocents animals? Would you not call them Barbarians?
The ONLY thing they ONLY understand Strength and Violence and they should be dealt with in a way they understand You DON'T try and contain them. Containment has been tried many times in history and has NOT worked.

How would spreading Freedom to other countries be sacrificing what makes our country great? We have done so in many places in this world. Now Many of those places are free because of what the US has done. isn't freedom and not being held under repression one of the things that makes this country grest and why people keep wanting to come here?

[ebuddy]

Bin Laden and Michael Moore say; Vote John Kerry for change!

[warmspit]

Originally posted by typoon:
Clinton had 8 years to do something about Bin Ladin, He had 8 years of taking care of terrorists. What did he do? So yes most of the blame can be laid at his doorstep. Bush had been in Office 8 months. Do you think he didn't have a plan for fighting terrorism?

clinton did many things about bin ladin, every step he took he was eviscerated by your republicans at the time for "wagging the dog". Karma's a bitch, eh?

blaming Clinton...wow! never saw that one coming from a republican. that never happens, you guys never make clinton the whipping boy for your own failures..nope, never never.

Do I think Bush didn't have a plan for terrorism? hjyup, that's EXACTLY what I think, and I'm not alone, his top terrorism expert thinks that, too.

[icruise]

Originally posted by typoon:
They didn't need us to Attack Iraq to "give them ammunition" THEY HATED US ALREADY. THEY WANT TO DESTROY OR CONVERT THE WESTERN WORLD.

Who is THEY? It is true that Al Qaeda and others radicals hated us already, but Bush's tactics have given them ammunition to use in convincing others who might not have otherwise been attracted to their cause.

Really? France wouldn't have helped us. Germany wouldn't have either. Neither would Russia. What other of our "allies" would there have been?

France, Germany and others wouldn't have helped us fight terrorism? Really? Aren't you confusing "wouldn't help us invade Iraq" with "wouldn't help us fight terrorism"? They aren't the same thing.

Yes anything short of nuclear weapons should be used to eliminate these terrorists. ANY tie to terrorism is a tie to terrorism and it must be defeated.

Then what would you call them? Would you not call people who kill innocents animals? Would you not call them Barbarians?
The ONLY thing they ONLY understand Strength and Violence and they should be dealt with in a way they understand You DON'T try and contain them. Containment has been tried many times in history and has NOT worked.

First of all, dehumanizing the enemy is what leads to things like the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. We are, or should be, better than that. It also means that you have given up trying to understand their mindset, which means that you won't be able to predict how they will act or react in a given situation.

And are you really suggesting that the US should invade every country with ties to terrorism, no matter how slight? I have no problem with the US going after these terrorists, but when it means killing tens of thousands of innocent people for no real gains in the safety of the US, that is going too far.

How would spreading Freedom to other countries be sacrificing what makes our country great? We have done so in many places in this world. Now Many of those places are free because of what the US has done. isn't freedom and not being held under repression one of the things that makes this country grest and why people keep wanting to come here?

I was referring to the PATRIOT act and how it seems that we have to give up our civil liberties in order to protect them. But I also don't think it is our place to invade other countries and impose our system of government on them.

[ebuddy]

I was referring to the PATRIOT act and how it seems that we have to give up our civil liberties in order to protect them.

What civil liberties have you had to give up???

[icruise]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What civil liberties have you had to give up???

If you are asking (as I think you are) how my life has been personally changed by the PATRIOT act, my answer is, not at all. At least not yet. But that is the wrong question to ask. I would venture to say that I don't "use" most of my civil liberties on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean that they aren't important. And even if my life was never affected by it, someone's life will. And no, I'm not just referring to "the terrorists."

[Saad]

Originally posted by warmspit:
clinton did many things about bin ladin, every step he took he was eviscerated by your republicans at the time for "wagging the dog". Karma's a bitch, eh?

blaming Clinton...wow! never saw that one coming from a republican. that never happens, you guys never make clinton the whipping boy for your own failures..nope, never never.

Do I think Bush didn't have a plan for terrorism? hjyup, that's EXACTLY what I think, and I'm not alone, his top terrorism expert thinks that, too.

Clinton enforced sanctions upon state sponsors of terrorism, thwarted the Millenium Bomb Plot, and destroyed an alleged Al Qaida training camp.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Saad:
Clinton enforced sanctions upon state sponsors of terrorism, thwarted the Millenium Bomb Plot, and destroyed an alleged Al Qaida training camp.

Clinton also had numerous times to pick up OBL without a problem.
What response did we get in 1993?

[Saad]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Clinton also had numerous times to pick up OBL without a problem.
What response did we get in 1993?

They arrested the bomber and his accomlices, then tried them. It was not an Al Qaida job. Ramzi Yousef was not a member at the time of the attack.

[Saad]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Clinton also had numerous times to pick up OBL without a problem.
What response did we get in 1993?

What response did we get in January of 2001 for the attack of the USS Cole 2 months earlier?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Saad:
They arrested the bomber and his accomlices, then tried them. It was not an Al Qaida job. Ramzi Yousef was not a member at the time of the attack.

And that's all we did.
We didn't go on a terror hunt or anything.
Clinton sure knows how to bomb aspirin factories.

Just saying Clinton was very wimpy as far as kicking ass.