[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by James L:
Wrong again, and how truely misguided you are.

So, your opinion is that unless a person supports the attack, and invasion, of a nation because of what they might do, then that person is supporting terrorism?

Your statement, "So, what next. Iran..." Is your own twisted argument turned back at you. You are doing the same thing; (verbally) attacking a country because of what it might do.

But in this case it's the US.

The President declared before the war that the WOT would be against not only individuals and groups but countries that harbor or support terrorism.

You would certainly agree that radical Islamic terrorism is a cancer that spreads and destroys freedom. The way you fight a cancer is to cut it out. Every bit of it. Then you use every other means available to kill that which you can't excise.

In the years before ICBM's, nuclear weapons, bio-terror and box cutters the US could afford the "luxury" of a retaliatory response to an attack. Now, the first blow struck by terrorists could be a blow to the US or Israel that DWARFS the awful attacks on 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

In your bizzarro world of FUZZY THINKING, you would actually prefer losing an American city (sure you would because you said you aren't American...this means YOU are a, FOREIGN AGENT!) or an Israeli city rather than working to pre-empt an attack.

(If I were ever to meet you and we began fighting I would probably win. Why? Many reasons, but most assuredly you would allow me the first punch, right? Well, with that first lick I would knock you OUT!)

What you don't understand is the nature of the radical Islamist (or alQaeda) ideology. They make no demands of the Western nations. Why not? Because they want us DEAD or to become MUSLIMS! NO IN BETWEEN. No negotiation. No diplomacy. Dead or Muslim.

You want to change religions? Or do you intend to die?

Iran is filled with radical Islamic terrorists who have no greater wish than to kill YOU, YOUR WIFE and anyone who isn't Islamic.

Your fine principles of justice and fairness go out the window when it comes down to choosing between being Dead or Muslim.

Or, in the case of a terrorist attack, like on 9/11 or the many other terroist attacks, you have no choice at all.

Cheers!

You speak of the freedoms and democracy we wish to encourage around the world as though we were trying to spread communism or something!

The first thing you did when responding to my post was to invoke your RIGHT of free speech and free choice.

But when it comes to DEFENDING freedom or making the world SAFE for freedom or helping others to gain their own freedom you suddenly draw these high minded distinctions.

"All in the name of bringing democracy, which not everyone in those parts of the world wants..."

Are you PRETENDING to be stupid or are you REALLY STUPID?

GOD or ALLAH or BUDDHA (or in your case perhaps, 'the BIG FUZZY ONE') gave ALL THE PEOPLE ON EARTH FREEDOM. It is tyrants and despots who take these freedoms away.

We are in Iraq securing the continued availability of a vital national resource. At the same time, we removed a threat to US & regional security (Saddam) and are creating a political environment where the people in Iraq will one day CHOOSE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT AND THEIR OWN LEADERS.

We are returning to the Iraqi people THEIR freedoms which were denied them!

We are giving them their freedom so they too have the RIGHT to express themselves as they wish (maybe some of them might be as idiotic as you!)! You'd HAVE to agree that was good, wouldn't you? Or do you so zealously guard your standing as the DUMBEST MAN ON EARTH that you'd favor keeping everyone else enslaved lest their freedom might uncover someone who MIGHT be dumber?

The WOT called upon EVERY nation to choose: FOR TERROR or AGAINST TERROR!

Most free nations have taken the President's cue to stamp out terrorism in their lands. Your childish statement:
"So what next? Invade Italy if they settle down there? Invade New Zealand, Thailand, India, or Egypt if they settle down there? Where does it end?" once again prompts me to ask,

Are you PRETENDING to be stupid or are you REALLY STUPID?

You say you are "defending the rights of the innocents killed in an unjust war" when it is obvious you haven't bothered to look at the situation in Iraq at all, or at LEAST without your FUZZY FILTER!

If you DID, you'd see that the GREAT MAJORITY of Iraqi insurgents are criminals, thugs, Al Qaeda operatives and those who support a radical Taliban-like Iraqi government.

These people KNOW the American ideals and values perhaps better than YOU! Why do you think so many civilians are dying over there?

Because the creeps and jerks hide themselves in mosques, and other holy places and residential areas.

Why do they do this? Because they know the Americans are less likely to shoot or bomb if there's a chance we'd accidentally hit civillians!

In Viet-Nam, some of the American POW's said that the war protests in the US encouraged the North Vietnamese to keep holding on to their struggle because they knew by waiting, the American protests would help them win the war where they couldn't win it on the battlefield.

That is what the insurgents are banking on. That your opposition to the war will deliver them the victory they want.

So they keep attacking Americans. They keep beheading hostages. They keep hiding behind civilians. And they keep hoping James L. keeps on working to help them win.

So, yes, your protests DO place you among those who are aiding and providing moral support for the enemies of FREEDOM!

You have NO IDEA of my feelings about the "vast majority of peace loving muslims who have nothing to do with fundamentalist radicalism."

I'll compare my posts with any Christians when it comes to recognizing and respecting Islam and it's peace loving followers.

It's YOU who need to do some research into what and who EXACTLY is behind this radical Islamist terror movement. Maybe you'll ALSO run across what THEIR view of Islam is compared to the BILLIONS of other REAL MUSLIM'S beliefs.

You said, "I will not support the paranoid concept of invading countries at will to prevent what may or may not ever happen."

Let's not act pre-emptively to attack America, there, bucko!

We're in Iraq, NOT any other countries. If (or when) that changes you'll be sure to know. Until then, confine your expressions to the subject at hand, NOT TO WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN! eh?

"We might as well agree to disagree"

NO!

I will oppose your every utterance until GWB is re-elected.

You may think you are only supporting some elementary school concept of fairness by reciting here at MacNN what your teacher said when she was teaching you to "play well with others."

But in reality you are swimming in dangerous waters. The sharks are circling and you not only represent dinner to them, but you make it more likely that they will attack us because the sentiments you spew are rotten, smelly and devoid of any nutritional value.

You spew nothing but CHUM, chump!

[James L]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Your statement, "So, what next. Iran..." Is your own twisted argument turned back at you. You are doing the same thing; (verbally) attacking a country because of what it might do.

But in this case it's the US.

The President declared before the war that the WOT would be against not only individuals and groups but countries that harbor or support terrorism.

You would certainly agree that radical Islamic terrorism is a cancer that spreads and destroys freedom. The way you fight a cancer is to cut it out. Every bit of it. Then you use every other means available to kill that which you can't excise.

In the years before ICBM's, nuclear weapons, bio-terror and box cutters the US could afford the "luxury" of a retaliatory response to an attack. Now, the first blow struck by terrorists could be a blow to the US or Israel that DWARFS the awful attacks on 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

In your bizzarro world of FUZZY THINKING, you would actually prefer losing an American city (sure you would because you said you aren't American...this means YOU are a, FOREIGN AGENT!) or an Israeli city rather than working to pre-empt an attack.

(If I were ever to meet you and we began fighting I would probably win. Why? Many reasons, but most assuredly you would allow me the first punch, right? Well, with that first lick I would knock you OUT!)

What you don't understand is the nature of the radical Islamist (or alQaeda) ideology. They make no demands of the Western nations. Why not? Because they want us DEAD or to become MUSLIMS! NO IN BETWEEN. No negotiation. No diplomacy. Dead or Muslim.

You want to change religions? Or do you intend to die?

Iran is filled with radical Islamic terrorists who have no greater wish than to kill YOU, YOUR WIFE and anyone who isn't Islamic.

Your fine principles of justice and fairness go out the window when it comes down to choosing between being Dead or Muslim.

Or, in the case of a terrorist attack, like on 9/11 or the many other terroist attacks, you have no choice at all.

Cheers!

You speak of the freedoms and democracy we wish to encourage around the world as though we were trying to spread communism or something!

The first thing you did when responding to my post was to invoke your RIGHT of free speech and free choice.

But when it comes to DEFENDING freedom or making the world SAFE for freedom or helping others to gain their own freedom you suddenly draw these high minded distinctions.

"All in the name of bringing democracy, which not everyone in those parts of the world wants..."

Are you PRETENDING to be stupid or are you REALLY STUPID?

GOD or ALLAH or BUDDHA (or in your case perhaps, 'the BIG FUZZY ONE') gave ALL THE PEOPLE ON EARTH FREEDOM. It is tyrants and despots who take these freedoms away.

We are in Iraq securing the continued availability of a vital national resource. At the same time, we removed a threat to US & regional security (Saddam) and are creating a political environment where the people in Iraq will one day CHOOSE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT AND THEIR OWN LEADERS.

We are returning to the Iraqi people THEIR freedoms which were denied them!

We are giving them their freedom so they too have the RIGHT to express themselves as they wish (maybe some of them might be as idiotic as you!)! You'd HAVE to agree that was good, wouldn't you? Or do you so zealously guard your standing as the DUMBEST MAN ON EARTH that you'd favor keeping everyone else enslaved lest their freedom might uncover someone who MIGHT be dumber?

The WOT called upon EVERY nation to choose: FOR TERROR or AGAINST TERROR!

Most free nations have taken the President's cue to stamp out terrorism in their lands. Your childish statement:
"So what next? Invade Italy if they settle down there? Invade New Zealand, Thailand, India, or Egypt if they settle down there? Where does it end?" once again prompts me to ask,

Are you PRETENDING to be stupid or are you REALLY STUPID?

You say you are "defending the rights of the innocents killed in an unjust war" when it is obvious you haven't bothered to look at the situation in Iraq at all, or at LEAST without your FUZZY FILTER!

If you DID, you'd see that the GREAT MAJORITY of Iraqi insurgents are criminals, thugs, Al Qaeda operatives and those who support a radical Taliban-like Iraqi government.

These people KNOW the American ideals and values perhaps better than YOU! Why do you think so many civilians are dying over there?

Because the creeps and jerks hide themselves in mosques, and other holy places and residential areas.

Why do they do this? Because they know the Americans are less likely to shoot or bomb if there's a chance we'd accidentally hit civillians!

In Viet-Nam, some of the American POW's said that the war protests in the US encouraged the North Vietnamese to keep holding on to their struggle because they knew by waiting, the American protests would help them win the war where they couldn't win it on the battlefield.

That is what the insurgents are banking on. That your opposition to the war will deliver them the victory they want.

So they keep attacking Americans. They keep beheading hostages. They keep hiding behind civilians. And they keep hoping James L. keeps on working to help them win.

So, yes, your protests DO place you among those who are aiding and providing moral support for the enemies of FREEDOM!

You have NO IDEA of my feelings about the "vast majority of peace loving muslims who have nothing to do with fundamentalist radicalism."

I'll compare my posts with any Christians when it comes to recognizing and respecting Islam and it's peace loving followers.

It's YOU who need to do some research into what and who EXACTLY is behind this radical Islamist terror movement. Maybe you'll ALSO run across what THEIR view of Islam is compared to the BILLIONS of other REAL MUSLIM'S beliefs.

You said, "I will not support the paranoid concept of invading countries at will to prevent what may or may not ever happen."

Let's not act pre-emptively to attack America, there, bucko!

We're in Iraq, NOT any other countries. If (or when) that changes you'll be sure to know. Until then, confine your expressions to the subject at hand, NOT TO WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN! eh?

"We might as well agree to disagree"

NO!

I will oppose your every utterance until GWB is re-elected.

You may think you are only supporting some elementary school concept of fairness by reciting here at MacNN what your teacher said when she was teaching you to "play well with others."

But in reality you are swimming in dangerous waters. The sharks are circling and you not only represent dinner to them, but you make it more likely that they will attack us because the sentiments you spew are rotten, smelly and devoid of any nutritional value.

You spew nothing but CHUM, chum!

Wow, now THAT post impressed me! As this will be my final post as I cannot continue this stupidity with you any longer, I will leave you with the following four thoughts:

1) It must be very sad to be so scared of people that are different than you that you feel this way. Truly, sad. Thank god you do not represent the hundreds of Americans I know who are mature enough to disagree on a topic when needed.

2) It wasn't the war on terrorism that drew a line in the sand and said to counntries choose.. you are either with us, or against us. It was George Bush who asked that, and the vast majority of the free countries actually chose neither. Every sane person in the world is against terrorism, but that is not synonomous with being for GW and his warmongering. As I see things different from you you wouldn't understand that. See point #1.

3) I am a 4th degree black belt in one martial art, and a first in another. I box, and through my work I deal with street altercations all too often unfortunately. Dude, you could throw the first, second, and third punch. I can pretty much gaurantee that I wouldn't be the one losing. But, how typical of your thought process that you resort to excessive violence when you encounter something, or someone, different than you. Sad. Again, see point number 1.

4) I didn't want to resort to childish behaviour like yours, so I will leave you with an opinion...you need serious anger management therapy.... and probably a hug.

Cya!

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We weren't going to stop terrorism in any of those places if we had waited around and let Iran invade Iraq before we did.

We'd have been on the defensive and playing catch-up, we'd be reacting to the actions of a rogue nation who has no love for the US!

So to fight the war on terrorism, we needed to invade Iraq first... the country with the relatively least amount of threat to American soil.

If Iran invaded Iraq, then at least we would've had U.N. backing to stop them.

[James L]

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by James L:
Wow, now THAT post impressed me! As this will be my final post as I cannot continue this stupidity with you any longer, I will leave you with the following four thoughts:

1) It must be very sad to be so scared of people that are different than you that you feel this way. Truly, sad. Thank god you do not represent the hundreds of Americans I know who are mature enough to disagree on a topic when needed.

2) It wasn't the war on terrorism that drew a line in the sand and said to counntries choose.. you are either with us, or against us. It was George Bush who asked that, and the vast majority of the free countries actually chose neither. Every sane person in the world is against terrorism, but that is not synonomous with being for GW and his warmongering. As I see things different from you you wouldn't understand that. See point #1.

3) I am a 4th degree black belt in one martial art, and a first in another. Through my work I deal with street altercations all too often unfortunately. Dude, you could throw the first, second, and third punch. I can pretty much gaurantee that I wouldn't be the one losing.

4) I didn't want to resort to childish behaviour like yours, so I will leave you with an opinion...you need serious anger management therapy.... and probably a hug.

Cya!

There ain't a cowboy that's never been throw'd.

Hug Osama bin Laden when you see him, or wrap your arms round a martyr as he dispatches himself to meet the 77 virgins!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
So to fight the war on terrorism, we needed to invade Iraq first... the country with the relatively least amount of threat to American soil.

If Iran invaded Iraq, then at least we would've had U.N. backing to stop them.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=15422

If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would be in command of an al-Qaeda army in northern Iraq; the UN�s, 17th resolution ordering Saddam to comply or else would have been successfully defied, the largest chemical weapons factory in the Third World, in Libya, would still be humming along with an advanced nuclear weapons plant (both now shut down). And what would the forces of terror � the Zarqawis and Zawahiris � be doing in the face of another toothless appeasement by the world community? That, of course, is the question that Saletan and Kerry � and those who agree with them � cannot answer.
_

[iWrite]

There is clearly no way to tell which person is from where in this thread.

Where is James L from?

Did he say?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by iWrite:
There is clearly no way to tell which person is from where in this thread.

Where is James L from?

Did he say?

All I know is Foreign Agent. Nuff fer me.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by iWrite:
There is clearly no way to tell which person is from where in this thread.

Where is James L from?

Did he say?

Are you a friend of his?

Where are you from?

[Cody Dawg]

Are you feeling okay aberdeenwriter?

Seriously?



You seem like you're telling a lot of folks to pound sand today!

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=15422

A conservative Republican website. I'm sure that's a completely unbiased source.

If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power;

No, Iran invaded, remember?

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would be in command of an al-Qaeda army in northern Iraq;

Saddam Hussein did not have control over Northern Iraq, that is, if you were trying to make a connection.

the UN�s, 17th resolution ordering Saddam to comply or else would have been successfully defied

You mean like how Bush "successfully defied" UN resolution on global warming (42?)?

the largest chemical weapons factory in the Third World in Libya, would still be humming along with an advanced nuclear weapons plant (both now shut down).

Why would not invading Iraq effect our policies towards chemical and nuclear warfare?

And what would the forces of terror � the Zarqawis and Zawahiris � be doing in the face of another toothless appeasement by the world community?

We didn't invade Iraq on the premise of removing terrorists. Only after September 11th did it become an issue. An issue that became so intwined with deceit that people actually believed that Iraq was directly responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11th. If those attacks had never happened, the support for the war in Iraq would probably be completely different (as would be the reasons we went to war in the first place.)

That, of course, is the question that Saletan and Kerry � and those who agree with them � cannot answer.

Bush & Co. can't offer an answer either. No one can predict what might happen if we did one thing or another. We've seen that already with a preemptive attack on Iraq based on what they might do sometime in the future. First it was WMDs, then it was terrorists, then it was intention to produce WMDs, and now it's terrorists again. Talk about flip flops.

Edit: Fixed tags.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by iWrite

OOPS!

Wrong account, Cody...errr iWrite!

[Cody Dawg]

I'm sure, quite sure, that I did not make a mistake LBK.

Are you watching my every move again?

We figured as much.

[Logic]

Here Cody, take this:

[Cody Dawg]

Thank you, Logic!



I happen to LOVE cookies!

Onto another thread...

[alphasubzero949]

I find it funny that anyone who disagrees with the Bush policies is automatically labeled a liberal/leftist/peacenik/etc. by some of the fanboys in here.

That is all.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
I find it funny that anyone who disagrees with the Bush policies is automatically labeled a liberal/leftist/peacenik/etc. by some of the fanboys in here.

That is all.

Or a terrorist or anti-American.