When have I ever appeased the terrorists? Or suggested doing so?
Sorry for the delayed response. Ive been working to many hours.
Turquoise.... Let me explain something to you. There's prescription and there's reality. The reality is that perhaps, less then eight times, if that many;what you would call "(like how radical Christians have bomb clinics)." And then equate it to thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries to an "ultraconservative agendas". This isn't about DemomCats or RepubliCats. Its about convert or die. I truly believe your prescription of reality is way off base.
For the sake of your sanity. Wake up Man!
And Bubbalo ~ You sound to me your a miss guided individual who've been taught the schools of ill. Do me one favor. Do some research on, lets say; Why Islam doesn't allow other forms of religion within their society? Then present the results to your instructor.
-Peace Out
Turquoise.... Let me explain something to you. There's prescription and there's reality. The reality is that perhaps, less then eight times, if that many;what you would call "(like how radical Christians have bomb clinics)." And then equate it to thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries to an "ultraconservative agendas". This isn't about DemomCats or RepubliCats. Its about convert or die. I truly believe your prescription of reality is way off base.
For the sake of your sanity. Wake up Man!
And Bubbalo ~ You sound to me your a miss guided individual who've been taught the schools of ill. Do me one favor. Do some research on, lets say; Why Islam doesn't allow other forms of religion within their society? Then present the results to your instructor.
-Peace Out
Last edited by Pigskinn (2007-02-06 10:31:09)
Well, you don't want to fight them , you want to "understand" them. You have tried to rationalize their behavior of blowing up civilians and suggest that the US is at fault for the actions of the terrorists. Sounds like appeasement to me.Bubbalo wrote:
When have I ever appeased the terrorists? Or suggested doing so?
QFTlowing wrote:
Well, you don't want to fight them , you want to "understand" them. You have tried to rationalize their behavior of blowing up civilians and suggest that the US is at fault for the actions of the terrorists. Sounds like appeasement to me.Bubbalo wrote:
When have I ever appeased the terrorists? Or suggested doing so?
Well, the only way to defeat your enemies effectively is to understand them first. Some of our actions have created terrorists. We have even supported terrorists (the Iranian contras) when it served our interests.lowing wrote:
Well, you don't want to fight them , you want to "understand" them. You have tried to rationalize their behavior of blowing up civilians and suggest that the US is at fault for the actions of the terrorists. Sounds like appeasement to me.Bubbalo wrote:
When have I ever appeased the terrorists? Or suggested doing so?
This isn't a War on Terror; it's a war on terrorists that don't serve our needs. Once you understand that, you start to understand why we have enemies in the first place.
Nevertheless, what seems to be understandable about the terrorists we face in Iraq is that most of them just want Americans out of the area. Most of them have no desire to fly across the world to attack us. The few that fit that description are mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why don't we put more effort toward fighting the Taliban instead of Iraq?
Are you suggesting we support groups that don't serve to promote our own national security or those of our allies? Ort ignore the groups that pose a threat to national security of the US or our allies?Turquoise wrote:
Well, the only way to defeat your enemies effectively is to understand them first. Some of our actions have created terrorists. We have even supported terrorists (the Iranian contras) when it served our interests.lowing wrote:
Well, you don't want to fight them , you want to "understand" them. You have tried to rationalize their behavior of blowing up civilians and suggest that the US is at fault for the actions of the terrorists. Sounds like appeasement to me.Bubbalo wrote:
When have I ever appeased the terrorists? Or suggested doing so?
This isn't a War on Terror; it's a war on terrorists that don't serve our needs. Once you understand that, you start to understand why we have enemies in the first place.
Nevertheless, what seems to be understandable about the terrorists we face in Iraq is that most of them just want Americans out of the area. Most of them have no desire to fly across the world to attack us. The few that fit that description are mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why don't we put more effort toward fighting the Taliban instead of Iraq?
They just want us out of Iraq and have no desire to fly across the world to attack us? Yet, we were not in Iraq 6 years ago. Now, this is where you tell me that you said "most" have no desire to fly across and attack us, to this I say, wrong, the very group of people we are fighting in Iraq and trying not to let get control of the region IS the same group that attacked us.
I have no problem fighting the Taliban, kick their asses some more if we need to, but the front of this war IS in Iraq. This outcome does not hinge on Iraq, it is simply being fought in Iraq at this time.
Why can it be constantly brought up that the US funded the fight against the Soviet Union by supporting the Mujahadeen and no one wants to say that the Mujahadeen ACCEPTED US help. Can the US not feel a sense of betrayal or a sense of being used just like you say we did to them? The US offered peace and freedom to Iraq. Quite simply these animals can not handle peace or freedom. All they want to do is kill each other and anyone that tries to stop them from doing so. Lock the door on this zoo and let the animals fight. I will go make pop corn.
I'm suggesting that we do not fight for ideals -- we fight for profit and power. This isn't really about terror -- it's just a game of cat and mouse that we play with extremists and governments we don't like.lowing wrote:
Are you suggesting we support groups that don't serve to promote our own national security or those of our allies? Ort ignore the groups that pose a threat to national security of the US or our allies?
I'm suggesting we become more careful about who we aid and ally with. I'm also suggesting that we intervene less in conflicts that really have nothing to do with our national security.
Al Quida mostly resides in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are far less significant in Iraq. That's a fact. If this battle relates to 9/11, then we're in the wrong country.lowing wrote:
They just want us out of Iraq and have no desire to fly across the world to attack us? Yet, we were not in Iraq 6 years ago. Now, this is where you tell me that you said "most" have no desire to fly across and attack us, to this I say, wrong, the very group of people we are fighting in Iraq and trying not to let get control of the region IS the same group that attacked us.
Wrong again. Iraq means nothing compared to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We worry about Iran's nukes, but Pakistan has them already, and they're less stable than Iran is.lowing wrote:
I have no problem fighting the Taliban, kick their asses some more if we need to, but the front of this war IS in Iraq. This outcome does not hinge on Iraq, it is simply being fought in Iraq at this time.
I agree with you on this part. That's why we need to leave Iraq. We tried, they betrayed us, we failed. End of story.lowing wrote:
Why can it be constantly brought up that the US funded the fight against the Soviet Union by supporting the Mujahadeen and no one wants to say that the Mujahadeen ACCEPTED US help. Can the US not feel a sense of betrayal or a sense of being used just like you say we did to them? The US offered peace and freedom to Iraq. Quite simply these animals can not handle peace or freedom. All they want to do is kill each other and anyone that tries to stop them from doing so. Lock the door on this zoo and let the animals fight. I will go make pop corn.
Afghanistan has far more potential, and Pakistan is more of a security threat.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-06 19:22:06)
I dunno Turquoise, how many innocent civilians died or American choppers were shot down last week in Afghanistan? The front is Iraq. Iraq was never meant to be the war on terror. Iraq was a seporate issue and you know this. It has since become an issue of terrorism because the terrorists are trying to set up shop and gain a foothold in Iraq. What do you think happens if we let Iraq go to the terrorists and give them control over oil and a country in which they can operate out of? THe key is to not let the terrorists have a safe harbor in any country. Why can this not be done?Turquoise wrote:
I'm suggesting that we do not fight for ideals -- we fight for profit and power. This isn't really about terror -- it's just a game of cat and mouse that we play with extremists and governments we don't like.lowing wrote:
Are you suggesting we support groups that don't serve to promote our own national security or those of our allies? Ort ignore the groups that pose a threat to national security of the US or our allies?
I'm suggesting we become more careful about who we aid and ally with. I'm also suggesting that we intervene less in conflicts that really have nothing to do with our national security.Al Quida mostly resides in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are far less significant in Iraq. That's a fact. If this battle relates to 9/11, then we're in the wrong country.lowing wrote:
They just want us out of Iraq and have no desire to fly across the world to attack us? Yet, we were not in Iraq 6 years ago. Now, this is where you tell me that you said "most" have no desire to fly across and attack us, to this I say, wrong, the very group of people we are fighting in Iraq and trying not to let get control of the region IS the same group that attacked us.Wrong again. Iraq means nothing compared to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We worry about Iran's nukes, but Pakistan has them already, and they're less stable than Iran is.lowing wrote:
I have no problem fighting the Taliban, kick their asses some more if we need to, but the front of this war IS in Iraq. This outcome does not hinge on Iraq, it is simply being fought in Iraq at this time.I agree with you on this part. That's why we need to leave Iraq. We tried, they betrayed us, we failed. End of story.lowing wrote:
Why can it be constantly brought up that the US funded the fight against the Soviet Union by supporting the Mujahadeen and no one wants to say that the Mujahadeen ACCEPTED US help. Can the US not feel a sense of betrayal or a sense of being used just like you say we did to them? The US offered peace and freedom to Iraq. Quite simply these animals can not handle peace or freedom. All they want to do is kill each other and anyone that tries to stop them from doing so. Lock the door on this zoo and let the animals fight. I will go make pop corn.
Afghanistan has far more potential, and Pakistan is more of a security threat.
The answer to your last question is two-fold. First, a large part of Africa harbors terrorists. We can't afford to invade this chunk of Africa. Second, terrorism will always exist. Like evil, you can only weaken it, not eliminate it.lowing wrote:
I dunno Turquoise, how many innocent civilians died or American choppers were shot down last week in Afghanistan? The front is Iraq. Iraq was never meant to be the war on terror. Iraq was a seporate issue and you know this. It has since become an issue of terrorism because the terrorists are trying to set up shop and gain a foothold in Iraq. What do you think happens if we let Iraq go to the terrorists and give them control over oil and a country in which they can operate out of? THe key is to not let the terrorists have a safe harbor in any country. Why can this not be done?
Iraq is, indeed, a hotbed of terror, but the reason why it's a hopeless mess is because of how many sides are involved. Between the Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Al Quida, and various others, there are too many extremists with too many agendas for us to be successful in maintaining order.
In all seriousness, I would be more inclined to nuke Iraq than try to rebuild it, because at least that would eliminate the chaos. I can't think of much else that would.
Thus, I support moving this battle to Afghanistan, where we've actually made some progress.
Yet how many will insist that Islam is a faith all about peace??
No, I want to arrest them like the criminals that they are. I have never felt otherwise, and you have just demonstrated the reason that discussions on this forum so often deteriorate: too many people view the situation as black and white and, if their opposition disagrees with them, decide on what their views are without bothering to read what they say.lowing wrote:
Well, you don't want to fight them , you want to "understand" them. You have tried to rationalize their behavior of blowing up civilians and suggest that the US is at fault for the actions of the terrorists. Sounds like appeasement to me.Bubbalo wrote:
When have I ever appeased the terrorists? Or suggested doing so?
NO, YOU have maintained that the US is responsible for terrorism and that we need to look inward to find the solutions for it. If terrorists are like any other criminal and should be arrested, based on your bullshit then the city of NY, Atlanta, etc. should look inward to find the reason why there are serial killers running around killing people or child molesters or rapists etc........ Your solution that we need to understand them and fix OUR problems so they don't hurt us IS appeasement. Tap dance all ya want, but it is.Bubbalo wrote:
No, I want to arrest them like the criminals that they are. I have never felt otherwise, and you have just demonstrated the reason that discussions on this forum so often deteriorate: too many people view the situation as black and white and, if their opposition disagrees with them, decide on what their views are without bothering to read what they say.lowing wrote:
Well, you don't want to fight them , you want to "understand" them. You have tried to rationalize their behavior of blowing up civilians and suggest that the US is at fault for the actions of the terrorists. Sounds like appeasement to me.Bubbalo wrote:
When have I ever appeased the terrorists? Or suggested doing so?
I didnt read it but im sure it was cool
I have maintainted that the terrorists are criminals, and should be treated as such. I have pointed out that the US (more specifically the CIA) is the reason that Al Qaeda is as powerful and influential as it is today. I have further maintained that the US is making the situation worse through it's actions. I have never argued that the US is responsible.lowing wrote:
NO, YOU have maintained that the US is responsible for terrorism and that we need to look inward to find the solutions for it. If terrorists are like any other criminal and should be arrested, based on your bullshit then the city of NY, Atlanta, etc. should look inward to find the reason why there are serial killers running around killing people or child molesters or rapists etc........ Your solution that we need to understand them and fix OUR problems so they don't hurt us IS appeasement. Tap dance all ya want, but it is.
Having said that, your statement is partially correct: I believe that in addition to, not instead of, arresting criminals we should attempt to understand their motivations and prevent development of further criminals. But I fail to see how arresting criminals and then preventing them from multiplying is appeasement.
Ok, so, you have never said the US IS responsible for terrorism, but you say the US is the reason that terrorists are as powerful........6 0f one, half dozen of the other Bubbalo, how are those tap dancing shoes?, no blisters I see.Bubbalo wrote:
I have maintainted that the terrorists are criminals, and should be treated as such. I have pointed out that the US (more specifically the CIA) is the reason that Al Qaeda is as powerful and influential as it is today. I have further maintained that the US is making the situation worse through it's actions. I have never argued that the US is responsible.lowing wrote:
NO, YOU have maintained that the US is responsible for terrorism and that we need to look inward to find the solutions for it. If terrorists are like any other criminal and should be arrested, based on your bullshit then the city of NY, Atlanta, etc. should look inward to find the reason why there are serial killers running around killing people or child molesters or rapists etc........ Your solution that we need to understand them and fix OUR problems so they don't hurt us IS appeasement. Tap dance all ya want, but it is.
Having said that, your statement is partially correct: I believe that in addition to, not instead of, arresting criminals we should attempt to understand their motivations and prevent development of further criminals. But I fail to see how arresting criminals and then preventing them from multiplying is appeasement.
How do you suggest we "try and prevent future terrists", by the way? By NOT pissing them off, even it goes against the greater good is appeasement. By considering what will piss off terrorists and letting that keep you from doing what is right IS appeasement.
You talk of terrorists as if they can be reasoned with. You fail to understand that they want it their way, or people will die. trying to negotiate this is appeasement.
Last edited by lowing (2007-02-07 16:02:37)
I'm sorry, lowing, I must have confused with somebody who has a brain. I won't bother you any further.
I understand bubbalo, I would stop trying to back peddle up hill, as well, if I were you. Especially with tap dancing shoes on.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm sorry, lowing, I must have confused with somebody who has a brain. I won't bother you any further.
Why would they want sharia law ? it advocates Marriage & Sex
with girls from the age of nine ?????
Sharia law is a peadophiles idea of heaven ?
with girls from the age of nine ?????
Sharia law is a peadophiles idea of heaven ?
Because they're conservative. Just the same as some women opposed the feminist revolution in the West.
cry me a river
usmarine2007 wrote:
QFTlowing wrote:
Well, you don't want to fight them , you want to "understand" them. You have tried to rationalize their behavior of blowing up civilians and suggest that the US is at fault for the actions of the terrorists. Sounds like appeasement to me.Bubbalo wrote:
When have I ever appeased the terrorists? Or suggested doing so?
Malloy must go
Clickity Clack, Clickty Clacklowing wrote:
I understand bubbalo, I would stop trying to back peddle up hill, as well, if I were you. Especially with tap dancing shoes on.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm sorry, lowing, I must have confused with somebody who has a brain. I won't bother you any further.
Malloy must go
does that make martyrs emo?ATG wrote:
deeznutz1245 wrote:
Oh God Dammit.May I offer a razor blade?some retarded Muslim whack job fanatic wrote:
“We want Sharia or we are ready to embrace martyrdom,”
LOL, I know, I was pretty amused by the tap dance routine as well, I was hoping I could continue making him do it just by throwing his own contradictory statements in his face but I guess he has had enough. So, like a typical liberal, he resides to calling you stupid, sticks his fingers in his ears, and runs away screaming, LALALALALAIAMNOTLISTENINGTOYOUYOUARESTUPIDLALALALAALLALALA.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Clickity Clack, Clickty Clacklowing wrote:
I understand bubbalo, I would stop trying to back peddle up hill, as well, if I were you. Especially with tap dancing shoes on.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm sorry, lowing, I must have confused with somebody who has a brain. I won't bother you any further.
All liberals do it eventually in frustration, their warped sense of reality is hard to keep defending, against truth.
What a peaceful religion, a bunch of school girls threatening to suicide bomb people if they aren't repressed.
Carpet bombing seems to make much more sense, these back assward people want to convert or kill us and we're wearing kid gloves picking up their poop everywhere they go.
Carpet bombing seems to make much more sense, these back assward people want to convert or kill us and we're wearing kid gloves picking up their poop everywhere they go.