Maybe I'm not so smart . . . but doesn't hoping that a "jihad" flies a fucking plane into (the) whitehouse . . . make you a terrorist too? Isn't this just the sort of thing that the Secret Service take a lot of exception to? Way to be a patriot!Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Fucking stupid ass democrats, i cant fucking wait untill the next terrorist attack so i can run up to every scumbag cock sucking anti-war liberal and scream in there face about what a stupid mother fucker they are and how they should've listened to the fucking president. I hope a democrat gets elected and jihad flies a fucking plane into his whitehouse office...
Fuckin fuck
Dont even fucking quote me im not in the mood to fight
I DONT WANNA SEE A FUCKING AWM EITHER! This is pathetic enough to yell about!
lmao yeah i was mad. got in much trouble. forgot it was teh DST... Damn dst...Shopvac wrote:
Maybe I'm not so smart . . . but doesn't hoping that a "jihad" flies a fucking plane into (the) whitehouse . . . make you a terrorist too? Isn't this just the sort of thing that the Secret Service take a lot of exception to? Way to be a patriot!Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Fucking stupid ass democrats, i cant fucking wait untill the next terrorist attack so i can run up to every scumbag cock sucking anti-war liberal and scream in there face about what a stupid mother fucker they are and how they should've listened to the fucking president. I hope a democrat gets elected and jihad flies a fucking plane into his whitehouse office...
Fuckin fuck
Dont even fucking quote me im not in the mood to fight
I DONT WANNA SEE A FUCKING AWM EITHER! This is pathetic enough to yell about!
15 more years! 15 more years!
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!Turquoise wrote:
The Democratic Party doesn't run the NY Times. It may be a liberal newspaper, but if there's a problem with them disclosing war strategies, then it's the government's job to find a legal way to "censor" them, so to speak.
Either that, or just improve your security ffs.
I'm truly amazed at how many breaches have occurred with this administration. This isn't just a Democrat thing either.
Anyway, I would agree that we need to stand united in an exit strategy for Iraq, but my earlier post addressed that....
Any leader in the military will tell you retreat is not always a disgrace. Sometimes it's the best thing to do, given the situation.lowing wrote:
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!Turquoise wrote:
The Democratic Party doesn't run the NY Times. It may be a liberal newspaper, but if there's a problem with them disclosing war strategies, then it's the government's job to find a legal way to "censor" them, so to speak.
Either that, or just improve your security ffs.
I'm truly amazed at how many breaches have occurred with this administration. This isn't just a Democrat thing either.
Anyway, I would agree that we need to stand united in an exit strategy for Iraq, but my earlier post addressed that....
They doBubbalo wrote:
Wait, who says Al Qaeda hope the democrats win? Can non-centralised organisations even have hopes?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20 … -1601r.htm
It doesn't seem like a retreat... It's not a full frontal battle, it's policing.lowing wrote:
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!Turquoise wrote:
The Democratic Party doesn't run the NY Times. It may be a liberal newspaper, but if there's a problem with them disclosing war strategies, then it's the government's job to find a legal way to "censor" them, so to speak.
Either that, or just improve your security ffs.
I'm truly amazed at how many breaches have occurred with this administration. This isn't just a Democrat thing either.
Anyway, I would agree that we need to stand united in an exit strategy for Iraq, but my earlier post addressed that....
My view on this is if a Secruity Gaurd has a break in at his job and calls the real police.. The real police come and scare away the criminal, now should the police stay there all night and hold his hand while he works, or should they leave him to take care of his job alone?
Havn't gone through ths whole thread, but at the initial posts:
Don't be fucking idiots!
Just because you are against the war dos NOT mean you are against the troops. It's intentional misunderstanding by political spin-doctors who want to undermine the Democrats.
Don't be fucking idiots!
Just because you are against the war dos NOT mean you are against the troops. It's intentional misunderstanding by political spin-doctors who want to undermine the Democrats.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Support (v) - to force to endure a difficult situation, possibly incuding the threat of death
Stage 1 Withdraw all coventional forces in Iraq.
Stage 2 Let the insurgents come out from hiding.
Stage 3 Release US special forces death squads(disquised as Iraqi's of course)
Stage 4 Watch the insurgency crumble and remaining insurgence turn on themselves.
Stage 2 Let the insurgents come out from hiding.
Stage 3 Release US special forces death squads(disquised as Iraqi's of course)
Stage 4 Watch the insurgency crumble and remaining insurgence turn on themselves.
But if we just paint all of the anti war crowd as against the troops then maybe they'll shut up! We don't want any dissent, that would be unpatriotic. Blind allegiance, mien Fuhrer! There are no shades of gray, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. We know what's best for you, little sheep. Just do as we say. Sure, some of you will be slaughtered, but it's all for the good of those greater than you.Ty wrote:
Havn't gone through ths whole thread, but at the initial posts:
Don't be fucking idiots!
Just because you are against the war dos NOT mean you are against the troops. It's intentional misunderstanding by political spin-doctors who want to undermine the Democrats.
Unless they are employing hollywood style makeup i presume it will be difficult to disguise white male caucasians as Arabs?! Then is the language barrier...rawls2 wrote:
Stage 1 Withdraw all coventional forces in Iraq.
Stage 2 Let the insurgents come out from hiding.
Stage 3 Release US special forces death squads(disquised as Iraqi's of course)
Stage 4 Watch the insurgency crumble and remaining insurgence turn on themselves.
Although i do admit that i don't know how much dark skinned soliders/marines you have as they always seem to white on the news.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Oops bad analogy...........The police would investigate, find the criminal, and bring him to justice, where ever he is.cpt.fass1 wrote:
It doesn't seem like a retreat... It's not a full frontal battle, it's policing.lowing wrote:
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!Turquoise wrote:
The Democratic Party doesn't run the NY Times. It may be a liberal newspaper, but if there's a problem with them disclosing war strategies, then it's the government's job to find a legal way to "censor" them, so to speak.
Either that, or just improve your security ffs.
I'm truly amazed at how many breaches have occurred with this administration. This isn't just a Democrat thing either.
Anyway, I would agree that we need to stand united in an exit strategy for Iraq, but my earlier post addressed that....
My view on this is if a Secruity Gaurd has a break in at his job and calls the real police.. The real police come and scare away the criminal, now should the police stay there all night and hold his hand while he works, or should they leave him to take care of his job alone?
We (the UK) tried the undercover stuff a while back, remember? Except they just threw on a couple of head-dresses on white soldiers and tried to roll through a checkpoint with a couple of AK's and hoped no-one would notice... smoooooooth...m3thod wrote:
Unless they are employing hollywood style makeup i presume it will be difficult to disguise white male caucasians as Arabs?! Then is the language barrier...rawls2 wrote:
Stage 1 Withdraw all coventional forces in Iraq.
Stage 2 Let the insurgents come out from hiding.
Stage 3 Release US special forces death squads(disquised as Iraqi's of course)
Stage 4 Watch the insurgency crumble and remaining insurgence turn on themselves.
Although i do admit that i don't know how much dark skinned soliders/marines you have as they always seem to white on the news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … wirq20.xml
Not for a simple break in.. They'd go back to the office file a report and leave the security gaurd to do his job.lowing wrote:
Oops bad analogy...........The police would investigate, find the criminal, and bring him to justice, where ever he is.cpt.fass1 wrote:
It doesn't seem like a retreat... It's not a full frontal battle, it's policing.lowing wrote:
Stand united at a retreat .brilliant!!!
My view on this is if a Secruity Gaurd has a break in at his job and calls the real police.. The real police come and scare away the criminal, now should the police stay there all night and hold his hand while he works, or should they leave him to take care of his job alone?
That's were us Mexicans come in. You know how many times I've walked into a 7-11 and had the guy start talking to me in some form of ME language? Alot.UON wrote:
We (the UK) tried the undercover stuff a while back, remember? Except they just threw on a couple of head-dresses on white soldiers and tried to roll through a checkpoint with a couple of AK's and hoped no-one would notice... smoooooooth...m3thod wrote:
Unless they are employing hollywood style makeup i presume it will be difficult to disguise white male caucasians as Arabs?! Then is the language barrier...rawls2 wrote:
Stage 1 Withdraw all coventional forces in Iraq.
Stage 2 Let the insurgents come out from hiding.
Stage 3 Release US special forces death squads(disquised as Iraqi's of course)
Stage 4 Watch the insurgency crumble and remaining insurgence turn on themselves.
Although i do admit that i don't know how much dark skinned soliders/marines you have as they always seem to white on the news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphic … irq20b.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … wirq20.xml
and you are comparing terrorism to a"simple break in"???cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not for a simple break in.. They'd go back to the office file a report and leave the security gaurd to do his job.lowing wrote:
Oops bad analogy...........The police would investigate, find the criminal, and bring him to justice, where ever he is.cpt.fass1 wrote:
It doesn't seem like a retreat... It's not a full frontal battle, it's policing.
My view on this is if a Secruity Gaurd has a break in at his job and calls the real police.. The real police come and scare away the criminal, now should the police stay there all night and hold his hand while he works, or should they leave him to take care of his job alone?
Last edited by lowing (2007-03-26 16:37:34)
You do realise you just attempted to use an opinion peace as factual evidence? There aren't even any direct quotes about the Democrats. Further, the fact that they say they want the Democrats to win doesn't mean they do.lowing wrote:
They doBubbalo wrote:
Wait, who says Al Qaeda hope the democrats win? Can non-centralised organisations even have hopes?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20 … -1601r.htm
It is an article about the audio tape thaty was recieved. It spoke of the audio tape and what was in it. Or are you saying he just made it up??Bubbalo wrote:
You do realise you just attempted to use an opinion peace as factual evidence? There aren't even any direct quotes about the Democrats. Further, the fact that they say they want the Democrats to win doesn't mean they do.lowing wrote:
They doBubbalo wrote:
Wait, who says Al Qaeda hope the democrats win? Can non-centralised organisations even have hopes?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20 … -1601r.htm
""Further, the fact that they say they want the Democrats to win doesn't mean they do.""
This I gotta ponder............
SO you agree that they say they want the democrats to win............ and your argument is, that doesn't mean that that is what they meant???!!! WTF????
You've got a point. Someone intentionally misleading a reader for the sole purpose of convincing them of a radical viewpoint? That's almost as ridiculous as arguing that a political party is attempting to undermine it's own country! Oh, wait.......................lowing wrote:
It is an article about the audio tape thaty was recieved. It spoke of the audio tape and what was in it. Or are you saying he just made it up??
Again, you've got me! A political group intentionally lying about their aims and wishes in order to decieve others? Utter madness!lowing wrote:
""Further, the fact that they say they want the Democrats to win doesn't mean they do.""
This I gotta ponder............
SO you agree that they say they want the democrats to win............ and your argument is, that doesn't mean that that is what they meant???!!! WTF????
Well if you break into your own house it's not a break in anymore..lowing wrote:
and you are comparing terrorism to a"simple break in"???cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not for a simple break in.. They'd go back to the office file a report and leave the security gaurd to do his job.lowing wrote:
Oops bad analogy...........The police would investigate, find the criminal, and bring him to justice, where ever he is.
And yes I am I'm simplifing it so it makes more sense
We did not break into our own house, and your attempt at the comparison of two totally different topics does not simplify anything.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well if you break into your own house it's not a break in anymore..lowing wrote:
and you are comparing terrorism to a"simple break in"???cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not for a simple break in.. They'd go back to the office file a report and leave the security gaurd to do his job.
And yes I am I'm simplifing it so it makes more sense
Ok
You insult my intelligence through a spelling error, yet you fail to comprehend the words you criticized. The point was that the body of this thread to that point was accepting republican finger pointing while simultaneosly ignoring republican fault.DBBrinson1 wrote:
First, if you are going to insult someones intelligence, you may want to use the spell check first instead of showing everyone you can't spell for shit.jonsimon wrote:
OMG the democrats are destorying america! What sheep you are. You fall for republican propaganda like the bombs you're supporting. You complain about the democrats blaming the republicans, yet you gobble it up when the republicans blame the democrats. You're a gaggle of the dumbest hypocrits I've ever had the pleasure not to meet.
Second, how am I a dumb hypocrite? If the Dems are wrong and I complain about it, how does that make me a hypocrite? I didn't vote for the war before I voted against it? That's a hypocrite (KERRY). I all along have supported Bush and democracy in Iraq (let alone every country ruled by a fascist dictator). In case you forget, the US put Saddam there in Iraq, thus are responsible for removing him.
Finally, if you want hypocrites just look to the left. The libs are the hypocrites in just about every issue from global warming to the war in Iraq. From Gore's stop polluting so I can jet about -to the whole flock of Dems who voted for the resolution to use force in Iraq before realizing that they haven't the balls to see it though.
I'm glad I haven't met you either -You probably have a limp noodle handshake like the rest of the wussy left.
Oh, and at least my handshake would be the only limp thing I'd need to worry about.
a) Impossible, if you actually wanted some minor semblance of stability after taking down that regime.cpt.fass1 wrote:
a) Seeing how it isn't our country I would have much rather seen the U.S. take Sadam out of power and left the region in about a year.
b) Maybe keep a small Strike force there on a base of about 5k soldier to defend the borders from Iran and Saudia.
c) Our Military costs would have been so much less if we allowed the Iraqies build there own government without our involvent. Held our forces back and if the stuff got to deep over there do an other attack.
d) This "the Terrorist will win" if we pull out is bullshit, as far as I'm concerned every attack on the U.S. Soldiers is an attack on the U.S.. So since 9/11 we have had somewhere around one million attacks on the U.S..
e) Also we have put our country at a much bigger risk of collapse with the billions of dollars spent on rebuilding a country.
b) ...
c) Not necessarily, unless you were to abandon the country entirely like Bush Sr.
d) An attack on a US soldier outside the US is different than an attack that takes place on US soil. The impact can still be devastating, but there is a difference.
e) If we ever do hit another depression, we'll probably just go to war again to bring us back out of it.
Leave? Sorta contradicts b), where border defense was suggested. But ask France about border defense. Anyhow, do the real police go away if there's still an angry mob lobbing explosives into the food court? They'd more likely radio in for military support from behind cover.cpt.fass1 wrote:
It doesn't seem like a retreat... It's not a full frontal battle, it's policing.
My view on this is if a Secruity Gaurd has a break in at his job and calls the real police.. The real police come and scare away the criminal, now should the police stay there all night and hold his hand while he works, or should they leave him to take care of his job alone?
The fact that there are also non-Iraqis fighting us (and incidentally taking out a good share of civilians) in Iraq partially invalidates that analogy.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well if you break into your own house it's not a break in anymore..
And yes I am I'm simplifing it so it makes more sense
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh god that's fucking hilarious.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Liberals DO NOT BELONG in america.
you've probably got your Mein Kampf right next to you, you're screaming "Es ist Zeit für Rache!" and "Wir müssen die liberals ausrotten!" at the TV, and browsing anti-liberal sites right now. That really is one of the funniest things i've ever heard.
Like CameronPoe said, america is ABOUT HAVING MORE THAN ONE IDEA. If you don't like it, stfu or gtfo!