Roughly sums up the best approach. On point 3) - why has the US casually forgotten about Osama Bin Laden? They make a hullabaloo when they catch some 'third in command' type and yet Bush himself says 'I really don't spend too much time on him [Osama]'. I just don't get it.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Sorry lowing, but Cam is right here for the most part. Un focused attacks, not too much to worry about. I think his point is not that he or anyone DOESN'T worry about that sort of thing, it is just a waste to worry about tired rhetoric and focus on real threats. Careful Cam, if err uhh, Osama, gets a hold of this post, he's uhhh, comin for Ireland.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't know ANYONE who believes in negotiation with intransigent cunts like those who are members of the group known as 'Al Qaeda'.
Even though I am a stout conservative, and dislike the majority of the extreme left, it is unfair to be biased against people who are real Democrats, real Americans (and citizens of respectful countries), and not crazy foos. While we can agree to disagree on basic stances, it cannot be debated whether or not either side has an opinion to be respected. Let's tone down the errr, personality and name calling, and focus on the issue. I think we need this plan.
1) Eventually withdraw from Iraq within AT LEAST 2 years. (It takes time fellas)
2) Strengthen up the defense as Cam suggested. A good defense is the best offense. (In this case)
3) Nuke the mother fuck out of all caves everywhere in the middle east.
4) Problem solved.
Anyways....on a more serious note about 3), I think we should focus on defense, because someone somewhere will always want to attack the U.S. for some bullshit reason. Terrorism will always be around, so it would be best to unite with the countries of the world to rid ourselves of these pests. Oh and step 5.
Get rid of the U.N. or revamp the shit out of it.
It's basically because it is so hard to get to him. Bush says that, but there are quite a few active agencies left still looking for him, on a daily basis. I have this on good information from someone high up I know in the intelligence field, not that I give a damn if anyone believes me, because sure its the internet I could be making this up. Anyways it does seem anticlimatic for the President to say such a thing, and I understand your confusion, however Osama has made it his number one goal to be extremely hidden, and has been successful. However, there is still the chance we might get him, will it change a lot if we do, probably not, will it make a lot of Americans happy, I don't know, it sure would make me feel all tingly inside.CameronPoe wrote:
Roughly sums up the best approach. On point 3) - why has the US casually forgotten about Osama Bin Laden? They make a hullabaloo when they catch some 'third in command' type and yet Bush himself says 'I really don't spend too much time on him [Osama]'. I just don't get it.
Of course Bush doesn't spend too much time, he's not looking at intel all day, thats what the agencies are for? He doesn't worry about it, because there is no point dwelling on something like that. A smart move I think. Glad we are on the same team for this one. Your comprehension and communication skills outweigh the majority of people that I know.
Good day.
Edit: In relation to your sig........so does the majority of Ireland believe in Zeus?? Eh whats up with that? I'd be interested to know because a good part of me is Irish.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-04 01:17:58)
well this is nothing new. although this american dude is new to me with the turbin on. anyway they always make these threats. i dont see another attack happening for a while.
NOBODY is talking about a) accomodating them, b) succumbing to them, c) catering for them. d) pandering to them or e) attaining 'peace at any price'. Where on earth do you get this shit from?lowing wrote:
No, my memory is intact. I will never forget, forgive, the terror attacks carried out be these animals. especially 911. The short term memory loss, sadly, appears to be yours. Not surprised though.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. It's like Lowings memory updates every two weeks, with everything that happened prior wiped!!PRiMACORD wrote:
Wrong.
This converting to Islam bullshit is a recent thing. Osama's videos prior to 911 (now available on limited edition DVD) warned the US to stop meddling with affairs in the middle east.
Do not expect me to listen to them, understand them, accomodate them, succumb to them, or cater to them.
there are enough of you, PEACE AT ANY PRICE, panderers out there kneeling at their alter.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-04 02:22:16)
do you think that there will ever be peace in the world....lowing wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/zawahiri.tape/index.html
Can't wait to hear how this is gunna be dismissed away by the left. Or how pulling out of Iraq is going to bring peace to the world.
My personal favorite part.
"We invite all Americans and believers to Islam, whatever their role and status in Bush and Blair's world order," Gadahn says. "Decide today, because today could be your last day."
wether it be the left or the right.... war is not the way to bring about peace... the problem is getting both sides to understand that and each other.
by the way i didnt know iraq was the key to peace in the world. usually you post better than this.
edit: reading that last post with cameron quoting you, maybe i was mistaken and you don't.
Last edited by Nicholas Langdon (2006-09-04 02:10:15)
5. The article is neo-con shit:Phantom2828 wrote:
5.Read this and dont instantly dissmiss it as Neo con shit. http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=2987 now please stfu about stuff you know nothing about.
6.9/11 was almost all clintons fault.
7.Yes I know about the different terrorist organizations but realy what does it matter I dont give a shit if you are fucking shooting rockets at my kids I am going to kill you regardless.
- Saddam Hussein never harboured islamic militants and it would have made no sense if he had because they hated his guts. The only islamic militants in Iraq were Ansar-al-Islam in Kurdistan on the Iranian border - where Saddam couldn't get at them after 1991.
- It states 'we had a decade of experience that showed it was impossible to reason with Saddam' - did he have any WMD? No. LOL. It continues to beat the fanciful 'Saddam sponsored Islamic fundamentalists terror' BS with the rest of point 2. Neo-con dreams.
- Point 3: nice quote, any references as to when/if that was actually said. Why trust russian intelligence anyway? Oh that's right - US intelligence is woefully inept.
- Point 4 makes my blood boil because I care so much about the injusties meted out against Palestinians. To suggest that all Palestinians blow themselves up for cash is patently ridiculous. What are they gonna spend it on? A coffin? You make me laugh (angrily) you really do.
- Point 5 - another quote with no references. 'Zarqawi was treated in a Baghdad hospital' - break out the cruise missiles: LOL. The likelihood of Saddam knowing a) who he was and b) what goes on in some Baghdad hospital, is slim to nil. There are no doubt terrorist cells in USA, England and elsewhere, operating under the noses of the governments of said countries. Are you gonna bomb those countries? George Tenet's quote talks of 'Credible Reporting'. What the fuck is that? Is that the same reporting that suggested Saddam had WMD? They read it on the FOX News website? LOL. Let's not forget that Tenet, being CIA, would have a distinctly pro-government, pro-Iraq war agenda.
- Point 6 - ludicrous. So you're happy for American SOLDIERS to get killed at the hands of militants when decent domestic security and border controls could prevent terror (rather than creating more terrorists, which is what even the CIA concedes has happened as a result of the Iraq war).
- Point 7 - I believe you might some day become a terrorist. Does that mean I get to blow up your house now? LOL
- Point 8 - Again no references given. There were in fact some weapons of this nature found: all of which, as conceded by the military, were no longer usable and hadn't been for some time.
- Point 9 - Nice one USA for speeding up the nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea. NK now has nukes and Iran knows it MUST get them. They're making as much progress as they can while the US is wallowing in their own incompetence in Iraq.
- Point 10 - It's ironic how this right wing neo-con trash article draws upon the voice of John Kerry to endorse a particularly lame neo-con point.
- Point 11 - 'Freed more than 25 million Iraqis'. LOL. You freed a great number of them from running water, electrical power, the ability to go to the shops without being blown up, the ability to worship in mosques without being blown up, the ability for women to go outside without wearing a headscarf, etc. etc. You also freed a great many of them from earthly life. If what is in Iraq today is what you describe as 'freedom' then I don't want to be free.
In summary, mindless neo-con BS that has little substance and difficult to defend arguments. To fact that you so excitedly shove this shit in peoples faces like it's some gospel of truth shows how unintelligent you are. Critical appraisal of opinion pieces is not your strong point.
6. Yes because Clinton completely ignored a report labelled, as Condi Rice put it, 'I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." That is her quoted at the 9/11 commission. It doesn't get ANY clearer than that. And they were aware of several of the 9/11 bunch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
Blame Clinton if you want - it's a lot easier to do that than swallow the truth of the fact that your beloved neo-con government were equally to blame.
7. Anybody shooting rockets at your kids? I don't think so!! THe only ones who would like to are Al Qaeda incidentally.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-04 03:43:39)
He had nothing legitimate to say so he took the easy way out and tries to play on horror of 911; acting all righteous as if we condone what happened while he's all high and mighty.CameronPoe wrote:
NOBODY is talking about a) accomodating them, b) succumbing to them, c) catering for them. d) pandering to them or e) attaining 'peace at any price'. Where on earth do you get this shit from?lowing wrote:
No, my memory is intact. I will never forget, forgive, the terror attacks carried out be these animals. especially 911. The short term memory loss, sadly, appears to be yours. Not surprised though.
Do not expect me to listen to them, understand them, accomodate them, succumb to them, or cater to them.
there are enough of you, PEACE AT ANY PRICE, panderers out there kneeling at their alter.
Sad but typical of lowing.
Yep, the #1 reason why I ended my so called debate with lowing is because he resorted to named calling and stereotypes.
Lowing: This is no way to hold a debate. When some one doesn't agree with what you say and then go even further to prove their point you brush is off as "You believe it because you are a hippy and think its cool" or something along the lines of "Because you are a left wing nut job". Enough! If you can't hold a civil debate then GTFO. You have made one point apparent, you see the world in black and white and anyone that disagrees with you is a nut job.
/Closed because this is no longer a "Debate and Serious Talk" It has become a "Disagree with lowing and you're a nut job" post.
Lowing: This is no way to hold a debate. When some one doesn't agree with what you say and then go even further to prove their point you brush is off as "You believe it because you are a hippy and think its cool" or something along the lines of "Because you are a left wing nut job". Enough! If you can't hold a civil debate then GTFO. You have made one point apparent, you see the world in black and white and anyone that disagrees with you is a nut job.
/Closed because this is no longer a "Debate and Serious Talk" It has become a "Disagree with lowing and you're a nut job" post.
