BF2S Forums Yes, He's an Idiot at times, but

crimson_grunt wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

When was the last deadly attack by Al Qaeda in the US?

You make it sound like attacks were happening every week before Iraq.

Exactly, in fact, there has only been one alleged Al-qaeda attack in the US. 911

Sidious1969 wrote:

America will not be in the mid-east for that long or anyway near it. And England went out and conquered so many places when it was formed that your quote is quite funny. From Ireland to the west indies to New Zealand to America.....England, THE Kingdom was taking over for the good of the Kingdom. And it raped all these lands for gold, food and slaves. At lease America (if it can be blamed for this) is only doing it for oil and to fight those bastards over there rather than here.

Please get your facts straight.

Good night Ya'll

Sid

Actually when the British arrived here they eliminated the practise of slavery (and also cannabilism) from the native people (Maori)

Last edited by Pubic (2007-01-13 08:12:27)

jonsimon wrote:

crimson_grunt wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

When was the last deadly attack by Al Qaeda in the US?

You make it sound like attacks were happening every week before Iraq.

Exactly, in fact, there has only been one alleged Al-qaeda attack in the US. 911

I make it sound like what?

Khobar Towers. 1996
US Embassy Nairobi and Tanzania 1998
USS Cole 2000
9/11 - 2001
2001- ?

crimson_grunt wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

When was the last deadly attack by Al Qaeda in the US?

usmarine2007 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Exactly, in fact, there has only been one alleged Al-qaeda attack in the US. 911

I make it sound like what?

Khobar Towers. 1996
US Embassy Nairobi and Tanzania 1998
USS Cole 2000
9/11 - 2001
2001- ?

They were all IN the us?

All of those are US territory.  So yes.

9-11......enough of a reason to do what it takes to protect ourselves........flame me all of you that dont even live in this country........i think its great that villham thinks that we stick our nose into everyones business when that is exactly what he is doing.
i also think its really cool that he thinks i am a terrorist. LOL. here buddy, since you already know that im a "gun toting hillbilly" let me reinforce that for you.

http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … uzi009.flv


like i said, we will never fall and it pisses you off
people like me are this countries last line of defense.....people like you whine about it.

Parker wrote:

9-11......enough of a reason to do what it takes to protect ourselves........flame me all of you that dont even live in this country........i think its great that villham thinks that we stick our nose into everyones business when that is exactly what he is doing.
i also think its really cool that he thinks i am a terrorist. LOL. here buddy, since you already know that im a "gun toting hillbilly" let me reinforce that for you.

http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … uzi009.flv


like i said, we will never fall and it pisses you off
people like me are this countries last line of defense.....people like you whine about it.

Enough reason to sort out Afghanistan - yes. Enough reason to stamp all over the rest of the Islamic world - no.

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

All of those are US territory.  So yes.

List all of the attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremists carried out within the 50 United States of America.

PS Timothy McVeigh is not an Islamic extremist.

I am sorry.  Would you like me to wait for a certain amount of attacks before it is acceptable to you?  Maybe 5 or 6 attacks?  How many dead would you like.  6, 8, 12 thousand?  More or less?  I just want to know when it is ok with you to prevent an attack on your country.

Invading Iraq did not do one single little thing to prevent an attack on the USA. What it did do was prompt attacks in Madrid and London though. GG.

What's was so wrong about continuing the pursuit of Bin Laden? Why'd ye give up on that little mission?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-13 09:37:27)

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

I am sorry.  Would you like me to wait for a certain amount of attacks before it is acceptable to you?  Maybe 5 or 6 attacks?  How many dead would you like.  6, 8, 12 thousand?  More or less?  I just want to know when it is ok with you to prevent an attack on your country.

Invading Iraq did not do one single little thing to prevent an attack on the USA. What it did do was prompt attacks in Madrid and London though. GG.

You are an idiot.  Why don't you go play on an Irish forum?

LOL. I see you are becoming a mite frustrated. Don't flip out like you did on your previous account and plaster the forum with 'FUCK USA' messages now. Go into the corner of the room, take a deep breath and calm down. The truth sometimes hurts I know.

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

You are an idiot.  Why don't you go play on an Irish forum?

LOL. I see you are becoming a mite frustrated. Don't flip out like you did on your previous account and plaster the forum with 'FUCK USA' messages now. Go into the corner of the room, take a deep breath and calm down. The truth sometimes hurts I know.

What account?

usmarine2005

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

List all of the attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremists carried out within the 50 United States of America.

PS Timothy McVeigh is not an Islamic extremist.

I am sorry.  Would you like me to wait for a certain amount of attacks before it is acceptable to you?  Maybe 5 or 6 attacks?  How many dead would you like.  6, 8, 12 thousand?  More or less?  I just want to know when it is ok with you to prevent an attack on your country.

Invading Iraq did not do one single little thing to prevent an attack on the USA. What it did do was prompt attacks in Madrid and London though. GG.

What's was so wrong about continuing the pursuit of Bin Laden? Why'd ye give up on that little mission?

cam do you have proof that our invasion of iraq was the cause of those attacks?
i honestly believe that if we are not somewhere they can attack us easily, they will come and attack us here. i know that is an extremely unpopular belief but im from the old school where standing up for what you believe in isnt dictated by popularity.

i do believe we need larger troop strength in afghanistan, but that does not mean i think we should pull out of iraq. what i have a hard time understanding is how everyone thinks that it is wrong. we were attacked, our civilians killed and our economy almost shattered. we will do what we must to survive,and if that means making attacks on unpopular targets, so be it.

Parker wrote:

cam do you have proof that our invasion of iraq was the cause of those attacks?
i honestly believe that if we are not somewhere they can attack us easily, they will come and attack us here. i know that is an extremely unpopular belief but im from the old school where standing up for what you believe in isnt dictated by popularity.

i do believe we need larger troop strength in afghanistan, but that does not mean i think we should pull out of iraq. what i have a hard time understanding is how everyone thinks that it is wrong. we were attacked, our civilians killed and our economy almost shattered. we will do what we must to survive,and if that means making attacks on unpopular targets, so be it.

The suicide notes of those Brits who blew up the trains and that bus in London stated that they were carrying out their acts in protest and retaliation for the invasion of Iraq.

I just don't see how fighting them 'over there' is preventing them from flying on a plane to Mexico, crossing the border, buying some fertiliser and blowing the shit out of something in the vast, vast country you live in. All Iraq is doing is producing more terrorists and generating more animosity towards the US, which has a shitty reputation in the region anyway given its support for state terrorists Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-13 09:47:42)

usmarine2007 wrote:

Sort of on subject......but why do Presidents have speech writers?  I never understood that.

Because if they accidentally say the wrong thing they could start a major diplomatic incident.


Its not always to possible to think clearly under pressure and being broadcast to millions has got to be stressful even for the president.

Last edited by crimson_grunt (2007-01-13 09:49:55)

Bubbalo wrote:

Keep in mind that he doesn't actually have to run everything: rather, he provides general direction, as well as being more involved in important decisions.  The running of the country is done by administrators and similar, who do what he says.  That is to say, I think there are a lot of people who could do the job better, because it isn't really that hard, given that you have expert advice at your fingertips.

Exactly.
Like the war in Iraq.
Bush didn't personally decide to invade Iraq because of issues with daddy.

The joint Chiefs of Staff and others recommend action to the president, which he must authorize.

You brought up a excellent point Lizard, in that the war in Iraq was decided on and executed by, a team of experts in the field.
+1 for you Kiwi.