Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10

 

2006-01-19 07:47:01
dragon102
Member
+0|6934|Elyria OH

Nebular wrote:

FoodNipple101 wrote:

Fuck france smelly bastards there fucking stupid. They cant win for shit. There language is fucking retarded. So all in all we just xenocide them. there no good for anything.
You stupid nazi, some Iraqui are thinking same about you, so stop being racist and start shutting you mouth up
Nazi=Racist ???? Oh and its genocide not xenocide i didnt think the french were aliens.

Last edited by dragon102 (2006-01-19 07:47:23)

2006-01-19 08:01:02
The_49er_Kid
Member
+0|6969
First we had WWI then WWII then the Cold War , and now we have the Silent war , Silent War in my opinion is the US silently trying to take piece by piece to get global control ....


Just my 2 cents :x
2006-01-19 08:04:14
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6975|Salt Lake City

In 25-30 years when a lot of the current documents can be declassified and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (assuming we still have one) we will shake our heads and wonder what the hell the government was thinking, and how we let it happen.
2006-01-19 08:24:03
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6974|California

The_49er_Kid wrote:

First we had WWI then WWII then the Cold War , and now we have the Silent war , Silent War in my opinion is the US silently trying to take piece by piece to get global control ....


Just my 2 cents :x
You've got change coming.
2006-01-19 15:18:00
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6913|Canberra, AUS
I think that France is really Bush's scapegoat here...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-01-19 15:33:42
n1nj41c l337ne55
Member
+1|6983|Pittsburgh, Virginia lol

FoodNipple101 wrote:

Fuck france smelly bastards there fucking stupid. They cant win for shit. There language is fucking retarded. So all in all we just xenocide them. there no good for anything.
Wow. Retard.

A- xenocide= WRONG. genocide=RIGHT
B-not our world americans dont own everything.
C-They porbly think OUR language is f*cking retarded.
D-Theyre obviously good for the iraqi's
E-grow up you f*cking kindergartner
2006-01-19 21:27:57
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
in a previous long winded post Marconius  States.  and rudely so.

Yes, YOU are wrong, and constantly.  You are providing no proof to your statements and are just going by biased "memory."  I offered facts, proof to back it up, and resources for you to peruse to find out how wrong you are.  You obviously have neglected to read them before posting, and are therefore still uninformed and thusly still wrong.  Plus you are generalizing everything down to a tremendously basic level and are showing no signs of critical thinking on these issues.

Horseman Replies,

I think your Arrogance  is misplaced. For instance.  Not That I consider myself an expert on the subject but, Why do you presume to have any ability to gauge my knowledge on the American Revolution?

Here is my exact quote.

" I never heard about France in the American Civil War? As for the Revolution, in the Toe to Toe, European type Set battles Yes they helped. But It was an Economic disaster For GB to fight even a guerilla War in the Colonies. I feel We would have drove them out that way also. With Probably less blood shed.
I am just guessing tho. Where can I find a good read about France's role in the Civil war here? "

You will notice that unlike you, I use peoples differences of opinions to seek knowledge, to learn, to get another point of view. where as you sling mud Better than Senator McCarthy. You presume to know all and have the only valid point of view.

With what in your self assumed superiority did you take issue?
The American  took place over great distances and distance had a bigger affect on communication and logistics on How the war was fought. Do you presume the war was carried out with the same tactics in Vermont as it was in Massachusetts  or New York, New Jersey or South Carolina for that matter. Fairfax  Commanded just like Arnold despite the different climate and terrain ?? you paste a link to two paragraphs from some childrens book on US History and you feel this make you an expert?

You tell me I am biased against clinton, and I say I am. But you are rabid Against Bush, some of your quotes.

" Bush cuaght red handed " "  this monkey-in-office ", " Cocaine most certainly was a drug in 1972...as that's when GWB got arrested for possessing it"

Do you really think he was in a Tel. Co. main distribution frame, running wire onto bridging heads? and placing taps himself?
You don't think he would have a few layers in the chain of command to act as buffers if something was illegal ?
Do you really think he personally picked the people to spy on. ?

you say " Cocaine most certainly was a drug in 1972...as that's when GWB got arrested for possessing it"

They all have stories, You don't ? You never did anything.?  clinton said he " smoked weed but didn't inhale " Why?, was he a phony and just wanted people to see him toking so they'd think he was cool too? To be one of the crowd like a sheep bleating in a herd. Or was he to dumb to know how it worked? 

Marconius  States.

What you just said is directly contradictory. The FBI was responsible for capturing 93 bombers, but Clinton was personally responsible for Waco? Why is it you blame Clinton for Waco, yet in your other thread (directly about Waco) you blame it on the FBI and the cops. Sounds to me like you're trying to worsen the image of Clinton.

Horseman Replies,

How is this a Contradiction ?  The difference between the FBI acting on The WTC 93 bombing and WACO is enormous. The WTC bombing invetigation was a crushing amount of police work. checking facts, Cross  checking facts, sorting data and running down leads. Do you really believe clinton had any hand in this at all, I mean REALLLY do you ?
   Capturing and sentencing the actual bombers was a coup by the FBI but it called for stronger goverment action. There was none. If we had some how caught Mohamed Atta or even Bin Laden, Or a prison guard operating a gas chamber at Auschwitz would we have put them in jail and Ended it there?  Would you want to stop and call it square? not me. again it called for stronger action.

Waco was a stand off, a show piece that could have been avoided by one word from the President Which never came.

Marconius  States.

Sorry, I count only 6 ( Terror attacks ) that occurred when clinton was president (1992 - 2000)  Let's break them down, shall we?  Rather than just (again) spout them off with no critical explanation to any of them. 
       
   Horseman Replies, ( getting angy at the insults )

       Can you read you pompous jerk ? I said,
    "  8 attacks,  Half of them during his Administration "
       Half of 8 is 4 asshole and Ready?  pay attention for some higher math.
   
      6 > 4 Got it ? or to quote you again.
   
" You obviously have neglected to read them before posting, and are therefore still uninformed and thusly still wrong.  Plus you are generalizing everything down to a tremendously basic level and are showing no signs of critical thinking on these issues. "

Horseman goes on to add,
Yes you have some elegant sentence structure and it befuddles people who are impressed with multi syllable words but your fluff is wasted here, keep it clear cut and to the point . It doesn't make you look any smarter.

Re Cap...
Marconius  States.
Terror attacks that occurred when clinton was president (1992 - 2000)  Let's break them down, shall we?

Libyan Bombing of Pan Am 007 - It was the last attack by Qaddafi's terrorism push.  Any further policy on Libya would've been a waste of resources.

Horseman Replies,
You are correct here because I meant Pan Am Flight 800, shot down of the coast of LI.New York, People who saw it first hand said it looked like missiles streaked up at it and it exploded. An airline/Air Force Reserve pilot said " I saw missiles, I have seen them before hundreds of times. I know what they look like, I know what the ordinance looks like when it explodes."  An FAA inspector was told what to look for if indeed a surface to air missile was used, he found all the traces he was told would be present. It was the Only Plane crash That the FBI came to and took over the investigation entirely. .

WTC 1 - Occurred 38 days after Clinton took office.  Clinton responds by arresting those responsible for the attacks. (As I detailed in my post) [ eviscerated  by mine.]

Khobar towers - Clinton "outed" Iranian intelligence agents, but didn't go after the bombers even though 19 servicemen died.  It's not nothing, but it wasn't a tough response either.  Possibly done to keep peace with Iran.

Kenya/Tanzania Bombings - Clinton responds by striking targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation with bombs and Tomahawk missiles.  This was heralded by Newt Gingrich, who said "The President did exactly the right thing.  By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."  I'll give you that one of the targets in Sudan was accidentally and unfortunately only an aspirin factory.

You will give me Two if you can count, Kenya/Tanzania Bombings.   Kenya 1  Tanzania 2    (Bombings) is plural that was your clue

USS Cole - Clinton responds by sending Richard Clarke after al Qaeda.  Clarke investigates them and writes up a paper on how to destroy them, which is ignored by Bush, eventually instigating 9/11.
 
Horseman Replies,
Why was it on paper ? clinton couldn't act or was this during Pardon Gate when he was busey selling presidential pardons to all his friends in jail? You say it was ignored?  prove it. I heard we had people filtering into the Iraq Afganistan region early on. Its not something you advertise if you want to win a war.
Also clinton had three separate chances to take out Bin Ladin but clinton lost his wood every time.

Marconius  States.
Hmm, seems like Clinton did something for everything.  I win, you lose unless you can prove otherwise.

Horseman Replies,
I didn't know it was a contest? but is that how you win a foot race by not telling other people your racing ? you must have been a joy in the sand box as a child back in the 90s but have it your way.

You lose as you proved yourself

1 WTC 93
2 Khobar towers " didn't go after the bombers even though 19 servicemen died "
               your quote
3 Pan Am Flight 800
4 Kenya Bombing
5 Tanzania Bombing, " I'll give you that one of the targets in Sudan was accidentally and unfortunately
    only an aspirin factory." your quote  pounding sand with multi million dollar ordinance.
6 DD USS Cole

Not to mention 911 would not have happend if cliton had acted with some spine.

You said in another post.
" And erkut...sarcasm doesn't flow thro prose " I Say yes it does Everyone else gets it except you. You are always pompous self assured and arrogant and always mouthing off and insulting when your total safety is assured. the mark of a coward.


I lost my temper, its unforgiveable.
2006-01-19 22:37:44
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076

Marconius wrote:

Hear hear on that.  Spark, 51% of our nation is like cwkatl..
You are in the 51%
2006-01-20 00:16:15
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6933|San Francisco
OK, Horseman.  I'm sorry for the hostility, but with the nature of all your other posts in these forums, you were pretty much borderlining on it coming to you some time.  You've slung around some scathing and racist comments as easily as if you just talked about them as if you were talking about the weather.  I thought you could take the heat.

I'll calmly state my points here:
1.  We were talking about France in the Revolutionary War.  You've quoted yourself from a response to user tnt_dynamite on the 3rd page of this thread, when I've been focusing on your responses to my posts.
I also gave you a link so you could further your knowledge on the trials and tribulations of the War.

2.  Bush has publicly announced that he has been spying on US Citizens.  If you watch the news, watch C-Span, listen to the radio, look at news online, or read the newspapers, it's there.  He publicly announced that he was wiretapping without Consent of the FISA laws.  He broke the law.  Even though he didn't place the taps himself, in the nature of a Chain of Command, it was His order to the NSA to do so, and therefore it is His responsibility.
It's even worse because the nature of his wiretapping would've been agreed upon and passed by the FISA court judges, and that would've taken just a few hours.  I cannot make that any simpler.

3.  It doesn't matter that "everyone was on Something" back in the 60s and 70s.  The point I was making was that Bush didn't do anything but fly around in Texas due to some manipulation by his parents while Kerry was piloting swift boats in Vietnam.  That's all.  While Kerry was serving his country, like our soldiers in Iraq are currently doing, he was gaining experience in leadership skill and learning first-hand why diplomacy should be reached first before just diving into combat.  Bush just served in the Texas National Guard, acted very irresponsibly, and had his parents try to start him up as a businessman, to which he drove every company he ran into the ground.  It's a solid point about the success and the backgrounds of each of the 2004 Presidential candidates.

4.  You've mis-quoted me on the Waco thing.  You are actually quoting Homeschtar from page 4 of this thread.  I haven't been involved with the Waco thread at all, so I'll be disregarding that part of your response.

5.  Yes, 6 is greater than 4, and is therefore more than half of the attacks you listed.  When you are vague about what you are posting, it seems like you don't care, nor have really checked up on it all.  You could've easily just said 6 of the terrorist actions were done under Clinton's watch, or only just posted the 6 attacks themselves without the rest of them.
     - You mentioned the wrong attack about the Pan Am flight, so we'll let that one go.
     - I fail to see how you "eviscerated" my truthful response at how Clinton arrested the people responsible for the WTC 1 attacks.  I'm sorry, but he did arrest them.
     - Nothing wrong with Khobar.
     - Tanzania/Kenya - I said "one of the targets in Sudan" which you've interpreted as meaning "The ONLY target in Sudan."  Retaliation was completed for both of the bombings.  We just happened to hit one wrong building during the strikes in Sudan.
     - USS Cole - I have proven it.  I posted my sources, and summarized what the sources say.  When you identify an enemy, you don't just go in guns a'blazin' to kill him.  You scope the situation out first, and find the smartest way to attack him without straining your resources and leaving you in a good position to move on unharmed.
Clarke did his research and found the best way to bring down al Qaeda.  Unfortunately, the bombing of the USS Cole happened in Clinton's last year, and scoping out the enemy takes a bit of time when it as deeply entrenched as al Qaeda.  The responsibility was passed on to Bush, who had other things on his mind despite Clarke's pleas.

Please give me links to the stories about Clinton passing up the opportunities to apprehend bin Laden.  I'd like to read them.

Last edited by Marconius (2006-01-20 00:20:21)

2006-01-20 00:22:00
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Horseman 77 wrote:

in a previous long winded post Marconius  States.  and rudely so.

Yes, YOU are wrong, and constantly.  You are providing no proof to your statements and are just going by biased "memory."  I offered facts, proof to back it up, and resources for you to peruse to find out how wrong you are.  You obviously have neglected to read them before posting, and are therefore still uninformed and thusly still wrong.  Plus you are generalizing everything down to a tremendously basic level and are showing no signs of critical thinking on these issues.

Horseman Replies,

I think your Arrogance  is misplaced. For instance.  Not That I consider myself an expert on the subject but, Why do you presume to have any ability to gauge my knowledge on the American Revolution?

Here is my exact quote.

" I never heard about France in the American Civil War? As for the Revolution, in the Toe to Toe, European type Set battles Yes they helped. But It was an Economic disaster For GB to fight even a guerilla War in the Colonies. I feel We would have drove them out that way also. With Probably less blood shed.
I am just guessing tho. Where can I find a good read about France's role in the Civil war here? "

You will notice that unlike you, I use peoples differences of opinions to seek knowledge, to learn, to get another point of view. where as you sling mud Better than Senator McCarthy. You presume to know all and have the only valid point of view.

With what in your self assumed superiority did you take issue?
The American  took place over great distances and distance had a bigger affect on communication and logistics on How the war was fought. Do you presume the war was carried out with the same tactics in Vermont as it was in Massachusetts  or New York, New Jersey or South Carolina for that matter. Fairfax  Commanded just like Arnold despite the different climate and terrain ?? you paste a link to two paragraphs from some childrens book on US History and you feel this make you an expert?

You tell me I am biased against clinton, and I say I am. But you are rabid Against Bush, some of your quotes.

" Bush cuaght red handed " "  this monkey-in-office ", " Cocaine most certainly was a drug in 1972...as that's when GWB got arrested for possessing it"

Do you really think he was in a Tel. Co. main distribution frame, running wire onto bridging heads? and placing taps himself?
You don't think he would have a few layers in the chain of command to act as buffers if something was illegal ?
Do you really think he personally picked the people to spy on. ?

you say " Cocaine most certainly was a drug in 1972...as that's when GWB got arrested for possessing it"

They all have stories, You don't ? You never did anything.?  clinton said he " smoked weed but didn't inhale " Why?, was he a phony and just wanted people to see him toking so they'd think he was cool too? To be one of the crowd like a sheep bleating in a herd. Or was he to dumb to know how it worked? 

Marconius  States.

What you just said is directly contradictory. The FBI was responsible for capturing 93 bombers, but Clinton was personally responsible for Waco? Why is it you blame Clinton for Waco, yet in your other thread (directly about Waco) you blame it on the FBI and the cops. Sounds to me like you're trying to worsen the image of Clinton.

Horseman Replies,

How is this a Contradiction ?  The difference between the FBI acting on The WTC 93 bombing and WACO is enormous. The WTC bombing invetigation was a crushing amount of police work. checking facts, Cross  checking facts, sorting data and running down leads. Do you really believe clinton had any hand in this at all, I mean REALLLY do you ?
   Capturing and sentencing the actual bombers was a coup by the FBI but it called for stronger goverment action. There was none. If we had some how caught Mohamed Atta or even Bin Laden, Or a prison guard operating a gas chamber at Auschwitz would we have put them in jail and Ended it there?  Would you want to stop and call it square? not me. again it called for stronger action.

Waco was a stand off, a show piece that could have been avoided by one word from the President Which never came.

Marconius  States.

Sorry, I count only 6 ( Terror attacks ) that occurred when clinton was president (1992 - 2000)  Let's break them down, shall we?  Rather than just (again) spout them off with no critical explanation to any of them. 
       
   Horseman Replies, ( getting angy at the insults )

       Can you read you pompous jerk ? I said,
    "  8 attacks,  Half of them during his Administration "
       Half of 8 is 4 asshole and Ready?  pay attention for some higher math.
   
      6 > 4 Got it ? or to quote you again.
   
" You obviously have neglected to read them before posting, and are therefore still uninformed and thusly still wrong.  Plus you are generalizing everything down to a tremendously basic level and are showing no signs of critical thinking on these issues. "

Horseman goes on to add,
Yes you have some elegant sentence structure and it befuddles people who are impressed with multi syllable words but your fluff is wasted here, keep it clear cut and to the point . It doesn't make you look any smarter.

Re Cap...
Marconius  States.
Terror attacks that occurred when clinton was president (1992 - 2000)  Let's break them down, shall we?

Libyan Bombing of Pan Am 007 - It was the last attack by Qaddafi's terrorism push.  Any further policy on Libya would've been a waste of resources.

Horseman Replies,
You are correct here because I meant Pan Am Flight 800, shot down of the coast of LI.New York, People who saw it first hand said it looked like missiles streaked up at it and it exploded. An airline/Air Force Reserve pilot said " I saw missiles, I have seen them before hundreds of times. I know what they look like, I know what the ordinance looks like when it explodes."  An FAA inspector was told what to look for if indeed a surface to air missile was used, he found all the traces he was told would be present. It was the Only Plane crash That the FBI came to and took over the investigation entirely. .

WTC 1 - Occurred 38 days after Clinton took office.  Clinton responds by arresting those responsible for the attacks. (As I detailed in my post) [ eviscerated  by mine.]

Khobar towers - Clinton "outed" Iranian intelligence agents, but didn't go after the bombers even though 19 servicemen died.  It's not nothing, but it wasn't a tough response either.  Possibly done to keep peace with Iran.

Kenya/Tanzania Bombings - Clinton responds by striking targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation with bombs and Tomahawk missiles.  This was heralded by Newt Gingrich, who said "The President did exactly the right thing.  By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."  I'll give you that one of the targets in Sudan was accidentally and unfortunately only an aspirin factory.

You will give me Two if you can count, Kenya/Tanzania Bombings.   Kenya 1  Tanzania 2    (Bombings) is plural that was your clue

USS Cole - Clinton responds by sending Richard Clarke after al Qaeda.  Clarke investigates them and writes up a paper on how to destroy them, which is ignored by Bush, eventually instigating 9/11.
 
Horseman Replies,
Why was it on paper ? clinton couldn't act or was this during Pardon Gate when he was busey selling presidential pardons to all his friends in jail? You say it was ignored?  prove it. I heard we had people filtering into the Iraq Afganistan region early on. Its not something you advertise if you want to win a war.
Also clinton had three separate chances to take out Bin Ladin but clinton lost his wood every time.

Marconius  States.
Hmm, seems like Clinton did something for everything.  I win, you lose unless you can prove otherwise.

Horseman Replies,
I didn't know it was a contest? but is that how you win a foot race by not telling other people your racing ? you must have been a joy in the sand box as a child back in the 90s but have it your way.

You lose as you proved yourself

1 WTC 93
2 Khobar towers " didn't go after the bombers even though 19 servicemen died "
               your quote
3 Pan Am Flight 800
4 Kenya Bombing
5 Tanzania Bombing, " I'll give you that one of the targets in Sudan was accidentally and unfortunately
    only an aspirin factory." your quote  pounding sand with multi million dollar ordinance.
6 DD USS Cole

Not to mention 911 would not have happend if cliton had acted with some spine.

You said in another post.
" And erkut...sarcasm doesn't flow thro prose " I Say yes it does Everyone else gets it except you. You are always pompous self assured and arrogant and always mouthing off and insulting when your total safety is assured. the mark of a coward.


I lost my temper, its unforgiveable.
If we speak of long-winded posts, what shall we say of yours [,"young serpent?", but that doesn't really suit]
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-01-20 00:24:50
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Horseman 77 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Hear hear on that.  Spark, 51% of our nation is like cwkatl..
You are in the 51%
Who are you talking to here? Marcionus, or me?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-01-20 06:32:12
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
If we speak of long-winded posts, what shall we say of yours [,"young serpent?", but that doesn't really suit]

mine was " counter-wind " believe me there is a difference.
2006-01-20 15:52:53
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Horseman 77 wrote:

If we speak of long-winded posts, what shall we say of yours [,"young serpent?", but that doesn't really suit]

mine was " counter-wind " believe me there is a difference.
ah, ok I believe you.

--

I believe I hav just read something that should end the main debate (over France and their terrorist-helping)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm

This is MUCH further than anybody has EVER gone before.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-01-20 16:29:15
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people. In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224. Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

      In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. Government Forces.

It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps.  The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden?  NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5.  The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says. Bill Clinton refused to order a strike on Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the American destroyer Cole even though the al-Qa'eda leader's whereabouts were known,

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says "Mr Clinton allowed the September 11 attacks to happen by squandering more than a dozen opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. In two cases the terrorist leader's exact location was known", senior members of the Clinton White House did confirm, that they shied away from an attack immediately after the Cole bombing for reasons of diplomacy and military caution.


On Oct 12, 2000, the day the warship was bombed off Aden, killing 17 sailors, Mr Clinton's counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, urged an immediate strike on al-Qa'eda camps and Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar.

Such a strike would destroy terrorist infrastructure and with luck might kill bin Laden, Mr Clarke told senior colleagues. But he was overruled by the Clinton cabinet.

Janet Reno, then the attorney general, said an attack would break international law. Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state, is quoted as saying that "bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time.  William Cohen, then the defence secretary, as saying the Cole attack "was not sufficiently provocative" and retaliation might cause trouble in Pakistan.

All direct qoutes, Some of from Richard Clarke who you thought would exonerate clinton.

draw you own conclusions.
2006-01-20 16:39:53
Berserk_Vampire
Banned
+7|6927

FoodNipple101 wrote:

Fuck france smelly bastards there fucking stupid. They cant win for shit. There language is fucking retarded. So all in all we just xenocide them. there no good for anything.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/Two_Handed_Sword/184046383X.jpg


You tell me?
2006-01-20 17:51:07
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6933|San Francisco
Link me to Sources Horseman...don't just copy and paste it.  They never gave the names of the "Democrats" speaking out against Clinton, and I don't know when this story was published.
I can't trust the credibility of what you've posted, and am taking it with a huge grain of salt.
2006-01-20 23:04:48
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
just type in " Bin Laden missed Chance " in Google you will be swamped

and make that Huge grain of salt a suppository, Just kidding. You seem much cooler now..

Ask me about the Time I met clinton face to face.  te hee
2006-01-20 23:12:04
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
alot came from the 911 commision book. there was a cool show on the history channle that got me interested.
One guy said he had photos of his camp and location when he ( benny ladin ) was out falcon hunting.
He sent them to your boys people. " Qwik ! Strike here now These tents at location X ! "

word came back " which tent is he in ? " lol
2006-01-21 00:38:01
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Horseman 77 wrote:

alot came from the 911 commision book. there was a cool show on the history channle that got me interested.
One guy said he had photos of his camp and location when he ( benny ladin ) was out falcon hunting.
He sent them to your boys people. " Qwik ! Strike here now These tents at location X ! "

word came back " which tent is he in ? " lol
lol, that's really stupid
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-01-21 01:57:49
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6955
lol, that what happened
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-01-21 02:28:27
JamesDPS
Member
+0|6923|Irvine, CA
I just have to comment that I agree with Marconius, primarily because (even with the generous length of his comments) I have yet to find an error in his spelling or grammar.   I just thought that deserved some notice, since it's such a rare thing these days to see forum posts that observe the differences between "they're, there, and their", for example.  Props!

As for "Fuck france smelly bastards there fucking stupid. They cant win for shit. There language is fucking retarded. So all in all we just xenocide them. there no good for anything."  WOW.  That's really great!  I assume I'm the only person in here who realizes this post must be satirical?  I mean, come on... it HAS to be.  No English language native writes like that....

And as far as I can remember, I think the last French victory that did not involve American or British allies' help was the invasion of Algeria in 1830, and it's not like that came back to bite them in the ass or anything... ;-)  But I don't know a lot about history, so I'm probably wrong.

As for my 2 cents regarding Bush and Clinton, I think everyone gives every president too much credit and/or blame.  Anti-terrorist operations are not as much an endeavor of the president as the various intelligence agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA), and while I'm not a fan of Bush, I think the absence of attacks on US soil since 9.11 shows that something is probably being done right.  (The old cliché that you never hear of intelligence successes, only failures, is a cliché because it's true).  But that's not because Bush is so vigilant, it's because of all the great folks in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies that work to protect us.  (On a side note, I think it's telling that many at the NSA did not want to use the "roving wire tap" powers granted by Bush because of the dubious legality, though I don't have links to the proof so I won't pursue that further).  Just as it's ridiculous to praise Clinton as the creator of the booming dot-com economy of the 90's, it's ridiculous to blame him for things like Waco going badly -- the highest that could possibly go is maybe Janet Reno, and that is a stretch.  The only thing that worries me about Bush is I believe he is entirely surrounded by people who only tell him one side of every story (either "yes men" or, more sinister, manipulators);  I really think he tries to do the right thing, but he is too insulated from dissenting opinions to see the big picture;  but again I'm too lazy to cite evidence so flame away.    Of course, the flip side to that is that I have to admit that I have no way of knowing that it is not the public (myself included) that is too insulated from the big picture (even though I try to get around that by seeking world news from sources the world over).  In the end, perhaps it is absolutely necessary that the US establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, both to keep the fighting off our shores, and to create a way to pressure Iran and Syria when it becomes necessary (which seems imminent, of course), all while lessening our dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and airstrips) and the kings (barons) who control it?  I really don't know... just had to get it off my chest.

(BTW I know I'll also get flamed for being the dick who points out spelling when it doesn't matter, but it could be in reaction to this CNN article:  http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/20/literacy.college.students.ap/index.html)  SO off topic.  I'd better get some sleep.

[Edited for a type... please point them out to me since I bag on people who make them, though moreso people who don't realize they're there.]

Last edited by JamesDPS (2006-01-21 02:32:15)

2006-01-21 11:26:52
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
I have neither the time nor inclination to run spell check or edit things like there their etc  U get the point when U read it, that's all. I am just letting my opinion be heard. Caps etc... could care less most people don't.

I do however see your point. I mean if I saw a picture of you mounted and your " throat latch "was undone or you stirrup  was rolled, I be pointing it out.

   " but again I'm too lazy to cite evidence so flame away "

thats cool No one really knows the WHOLE picture anyway, We just have Our opinions.
mine are always right ! lol
its fun to get opinions and out looks from around the world. Thats what makes this forum so adictive.
2006-01-21 11:48:08
JamesDPS
Member
+0|6923|Irvine, CA
No worries Horseman -- I wasn't referring to you at all regarding typos etc., you write intelligently and clearly, so it's obvious that mistakes are just typos (like you said, who can be bothered to run a spell check in a forum? That's just weird....)  I won't name names (though you might want to refer to the only quote in my prev. post ;-)), but my general point is that I find it extremely ironic when people are making no argument at all, just saying "so-and-so are complete morons" without backing it up, especially when their use of English clearly demonstrates no interested in their own learning   It's a sad state of affairs when people show no interest in NOT being ignorant -- but posts like yours and Marconius' (that actually SAY something) are great!
2006-01-21 12:01:35
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
This whole ( wire tap ) thing to me seems like its a big show because in my experience, you no longer need to " tap " phones. There is such a thing as an inductive mo niter which gathers the small radio wave a wire emits and assembles its into data. You don't ever touch the line. In essence you have a very sensitive radio that picks up very small radio signals.  I must merely be near a telephone cable. This technology was available in the late 70's. who knows what they can do now. Also, These were legal even in International law.

"  I think the reasoning was " its not his fault your phone call came over his radio "

I realize that I am " generalizing everything down to a tremendously basic level "

but it is to more clearly  illustrate my " critical thinking ".
2006-01-21 12:31:16
JamesDPS
Member
+0|6923|Irvine, CA
Clearly the term "wire tap" is just the generic term for intercepting telecommunications through whatever means;  regardless of the technological trickery involved, however, the legality of it is still the same.  I agree that if someone in al queda calls someone in the U.S., we should find out why, and what they said, but I'm sure any good judge would agree with that too, so why not get a court's approval?  The worrisome thing is that Bush (who OK'd the eavesdropping without a warrant) does not seem to care about going through proper legal channels, on this topic or, for example, with regard prisoner treatment, due process of American citizens, etc.  And while the level of privacy invasion is at the moment somewhat justifiable, it is still a step down a "slippery slope" (a term politicians just LOVE), the inevitable conclusion of which is a true Orwellian society (a la 1984).  Just the mere thought that an American citizen CAN be held indefinitely without trial (or even being charged with anything), by a group of folks who think torture is okay, runs shudders down my spine.  Throw the jailing of journalists into the mix and things look pretty scary.  It seems so strange to me that the same people who quote the 2nd Amendment all day long are happy to piss all over the OTHER Amendments, etc. saying that they are "outdated"... (and yes, I'm fine with the 2nd, I think there is an important principle behind it: http://www.bustedtees.com/product.php?name=secondamendment)

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard