Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 152

Thread: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

  1. #121
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,483

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    I have a real problem with the "root cause(s)" fetish that dominates any discussion of Islamic terrorism.
    It's not a fetish. It's very real and it can be countered. I'm sorry you don't feel that way.

    It just ain't possible to tie this one down. The terrorists themsevles cite all sorts of reasons, typically evolving as the basis for one reason disappears so something new becomes contemporary fashion.
    Really? Okay, please cite what the terrorists say, maybe give examples of reasons that have disappeared and ones that have taken their place.

    Typically, politicians and scholars boil the root cause of Islamic extremism down to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But this doesn't explain the Islamist murder of, for example, 150,000 in Algeria over the last decade or two, the murder of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq.
    No, not "typically." It's certainly a factor, but not the factor. Do you know how many Muslims there are on this planet? Do you know how many perpetrate the crimes you are speaking of?

    So, the real root problem in Islamic extremism is...Islam. Traditional and even mainstream islamic teaching promotes violence. Women are stoned to death and gays hang from the gallows...with the approving and sometimes enthusiastically cheering support of Muslims throughout the Middle East and Africa. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near-deafening silence of the Muslim majority against this barbarism is evidence enough that something is fundamentally wrong.
    Moderate Islam in no way reflects much of what you are talking about. What you are describing is fundamental Islam, not moderate Islam. Islam, like Christianity, has evolved albeit at a slower pace. It's still evolving. There is a war within the culture with the fundamentalists struggling to keep control versus the moderates who are changing with the times. Your narrow description and broad application of the worst of Islam is very disingenuous.

    Terrorism is just a manifestation of this disease.
    Not even clever.
    *insert profound statement here*

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    03-18-09 @ 08:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    146

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    When Obama is president these news dispatches will carry more importance and weight by the MSM....trust me!



    Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa...Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

  3. #123
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    How can I? You've offered nothing but this kind of response to the problem. Show me where you have offered anything else. When you say we need to put more troops into Iraq, which is what you said, by default that involves more money, more munitions. Does it not?


    Again you are making it up as you go along. If you are not going to quote my points properly, I am not going to waste any time cottecting you.




    Reverend Hellhound, not only did I read your posts, I pulled them ALL together and put them in one big post. I know exactly what you said. Your post containing the word sovereignty involved stripping it from nations that harbor terrorists and invading them as a solution. That is your opinion, I didn't give it to you, you stated it. I simply responded.
    Again you are making it up as you go along. If you are not going to quote my points properly, I am not going to waste any time cottecting you.


    When did I say "strip"?



    I'm sorry that you can't understand what those words amount to in a military context. Seeing as we are both veterans I would assume you would get the context I was going for. Not sure what you did in the military, but from now on I'll assume you weren't combat arms.


    Bait me all you want. Your subversive rudeness beckons to your building up of anger that you are known for.

    You know damn well what I did in the Air Force, or are you going to pretend now you don't in order to play your little troll game. We can compare DD214's any time you like.


    So let me break this down for you in terms that I think you'll get. When I say "discretion and caution" I am referring to overt and covert operation that do not involve the invasion and occupation of nations, operations that do not involve the destruction of large amounts civilian utilized infrastructure (power grids, communications centers, water treatment plants), and operations that are launched in response to reasonably good HUMINT. SIGINT, IMINT, and MASINT. Operations that by design contain the damage pattern to the target area and don't end up flattening whole sections of a neighborhood. Those kinds of operations.

    like how? Give me an example. You can throw all the "intelligence" acronyms around to look cool all you want. All you are doing is avoiding an actual answer....

    Are you suggesting ignorantly I might add that we can do MOUT operations in terrorist strongholds without any of the things you whine about above? Or do you think haji only hides in the hills. :


    You know what you propose would expose operators to far greater danger, right? Good to see saftey of these members amount little to you.





    What are you talking about? You said...

    THAT is your position, YOU stated it. You called it a "solution." What you described is nothing more than saying "if they harbor terrorists we invade whenever and wherever we feel it necessary." That's it. You described nothing more. Unilateral cowboy foreign policy that relies on a big stick. I asked you to clarify your position by explaining the rest of your "solution" because you don't have the best track record of actually spelling things out here. I see you didn't even try. How come that is?

    more of a solution than you offered, but if you look real close and take you partisan blinders off for a second you can see that we are proposing similar things here....

    Go ahead think about it.... Your little surgical small hammer solution, would require exactly what I propose. Soveregnty means jack when you send in troops to get terrorists like you stated.

    Or are you suggesting that we ask the likes of the Taliban permission before going into afghanistan oh and wait for france to give us the go ahead.

    I think this is where we differ.



    My opinions are firmed up just fine. The problem here for you is that you have yet to actually get around one of them. Once again, all you have done is accused me of complaining and not coming up with a "solution." I gave several examples of things we could do differently. For some reason they just aren't jumping off the page at you. That is not my problem. I don't have to ask you to go and search other threads to get to what I'm saying...I've posted it all out here in front of you. What exactly are you having a problem with? Spell it out and if I've addressed it in this thread, I'll walk you back through it. If you didn't understand what I posted, I'll break it down for you.

    why you waste your time posting these tantrums is beyond me......



    Well I suppose you shouldn't bring it up in the discussion if you're not prepared to at explain it. You used your "solution" to counter my argument. Excuse me for asking you to not be so simplistic since what you have proposed has already been tried and failed. Is it wrong for me to ask you what your plan consists of and how it's going to be somehow different?

    pages and pages of whining...jeesh, or is that "Command pressence" you are going for?


    Yeah, okay. So when I start asking you to provide at least as much detail as I have all of sudden I'm going off on a tangent. This discussion has evolved in a very relevant and on topic fashion. Just because I'm forcing you to step outside your one dimensional mind set on this issue does not mean I'm on a tangent or diluting the debate. It just means you don't want to go there, or you can't. Either one.

    I think I used up my smiley quotent, You are so laughable. Just because I have no interest in a broad discussion on every little tangent you can think of is not my issue its yours. Pick something to talk about and lets shorten this up....





    You will hear about this elsewhere.


    How did I gloss over it exactly? You, in your typical fashion, were simplifying and limiting your remarks in order to counter me in some way. I say poor, you say rich. You took one example over the history of this problem, narrowed it to less than two dozen people and said...

    Useless banter.


    How is that in anyway a "stark contrast" to my assertion that the poor and undereducated are prime targets for indoctrination to the radical Islamic movement? What was the point of your comment? Just so you would have something to say back to me? Were you simply trying to be argumentative? I am fully aware that many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated. So? What does that have to do with the fact that thousands of Muslims living in middle eastern ghettos are being recruited by militant clerics? That some well educated Muslims are also being recruited? Okay, I knew that already. My commentary on the poor of the middle east being at risk is relative to the over all problem and how past and current U.S. foreign policy plays a role. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to track for you.
    Talk about arguing for arguings sake. I never disagreed with you regarding this, I simply pointed out that indeed they come from all walks of islamic life....



    We are talking about "the problem" of radical Islam and "solutions" to it, are we not? In an intelligent discussion of this problem is it not very relevant to talk about the underlying causes? Or are you not comfortable with that discussion? Tangent? I think not. Deep water for you? It sure looks that way. Would you prefer we just talk about the January 1 missile strike instead?

    ad hom after ad hom....


    What started radical Islam? what caused it? Why do they kill each other?

    Please by all means educate me.




    Well do me the courtesy of at least trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with me then. Just because you say I haven't offered up "solutions" doesn't mean I haven't provided what I believe to be the best answer to your challenges.

    More useless crying and ad homs.



    I have taken a great deal of time to put serious effort into reading and responding to your posts, point by point. I've glossed over nothing and addressed nearly every line of text you have posted in response to our argument. You haven't even tried to delve into a third of what I've discussed. It's fairly insulting to see you conduct yourself in this manner after I've taken your posts seriously enough to dedicate the kind of time I have in responding.

    Again with the useless complaining.



    If this is the effort you can muster, don't even bother responding.

    Man you complain alot...



    But see, if you leave all the personal crap out, and stop complaining, your posts become more managable... Why don't you give it a try.... Thanks!
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 01-13-09 at 10:15 AM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #124
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I offered a substantial amount of information regarding what we have done wrong and how we can start to correct it, specifically regarding foreign policy. You are hung up on the military solution, I'm talking about overall, long term strategy.
    Where?

    Now you are are all mad that I posted your comments in this thread and caught you flat footed. Your comments were a major series of one liners with little to no actual value to the debate. You said you weren't of a Gung-Ho mindset, I referenced your comments that show that you in fact are. You tried to say you gave a detailed explanation about this mini-cold war being waged by the French, Germans, and U.N. or something. This was your counter to my statement. I simply proved to you that you did no such thing. Don't get angry, just read your own posts before you try to pull one over on me. And I attributed none of your statements out of context. If you have a problem with how your one liners are interpreted I would suggest putting a little more time and effort into them. Now if you want to go back and give specific examples of where I used them out of context we can examine that. I'll show you where you are wrong in your own words.

    Useless ad hom banter and misrepresentation of my posts.




    You offered no solutions. You simply said we needed to increase troop strengths and invade nations that harbor terrorists. You show me where you offered anything other than this. I have at least provided basic, broad ideas of how we could engage high risk/at risk nations and assist in the effort to help counter the spread of radical Islam. In summary I talked about critically examining how we utilize foreign aid and trade agreements as well as taking a vocal position on the international stage even when it's critical of our allies. A reinvention of U.S. foreign policy that puts more weight into assisting in moderate, democratic reform as opposed to national/corporate interests and the western flow of resources would be a start. All of these things can have tremendous impact on the ground in nations we extend our influence into. If our foreign policy helps improve their daily living conditions and returns to them a sense of self-determination it will dramatically impact their willingness to blow themselves up. All you have to do is look at how we have impacted them with our past strategies to tell that we have to do something different. What I am suggesting is a pretty good start, at least according to the authors I have read.
    Now there you go Lerxst.....


    You said this before? Can you show me? It must of gotten lost in all your ad hom, complaining, and banter.... If you show me I will be happy to take a look.


    And you know what. I agree with this.... I also though as you say, think we need to take the fight to the terrorists.

    What yo propose is some goofy "either or" proposition, or combined, depending on what post it is.

    Perhaps you can summarize...


    I think we should do exactly what you say, I also think we need to go into some of these "Soverign nations" to root out the hard core terrorists, and not ask france for a permision slip....



    No thank you. You tried to use it to counter me, holding it out as some kind of example of your substantial contribution to this discussion. I'll not give you the benefit of the doubt on this given your history here. The burden is on you to present, if you choose not to I'll simply dismiss you as being too lazy to do so or simply not caring to back up your position.

    Useless banter. Unlike you I am not intereted in "everything including the kitchen sink" debate style...


    But it is simple and if you are as well read as you claim, you would understand the underpinnings of the oil for food program, who benefited, and who was blamed for starving Iraqis.....

    But if willful ignorace is your position, uhm ok,




    You gave no solution to attack. You have simply backed expanding the war. Nothing more. That is not a solution, there is no end game here. You don't seem to understand the problem with this kind of logic. I do. I have absolutely provided an explanation as to why your strategy won't work, prima facia evidence being that it hasn't worked in the last six years or so. This isn't all that hard. A "solution" implies there is an end game of some kind. Increasing troop strengths and invading other nations is a one dimensional methodology involving combat operations. Since you can't seem to provide anything other than this I am forced to wonder what your definition of "solution" really is.

    More complaining and clear misrepresentation of my point.


    What is your endgame? Historical evidence that your endgame has worked before?




    Invading Iraq wasn't the answer, fighting the Taliban obviously was the answer. Again, you try to make this so simple, but it's not. And that is where you stumble. We did some things right, and some things wrong. Afghanistan, in principle was the right thing to do. Our actual execution on the other hand has been sorely lacking. And like our involvement during the Soviet occupation of that nation, we are precariously close to screwing up the end game on this one as well. Our strategy for Afghanistan in both cases showed that we simply did not learn anything about our past failures. Dropping the ball there has set us back and resulted in the civilian population drifting back towards the fundamentalists for solutions. We created a vacuum and we didn't fill it properly. This is an example of failed foreign policy.

    So are you suggesting more troops?

    Moving on, working hand in hand with foreign nations to combat the spread of active terror groups is one way of "taking the fight to the enemy." Joint military operations or simply helping develop a system of more moderate educational institutions are both examples, the key being the development of relationships that foster that kind of activity. Remember, this isn't always about military force. These nations are basically fighting an insurgency. And if you know anything about counter insurgency you know it's all about giving the population an alternative to the bad guys. Invasion and occupation is rarely a good answer as it creates more problems than it solves in a situation like this (extremist theology based militarism). Covert ops as well as surgical overt operations come to mind. Scalpel as opposed to a hatchet. Invading countries with no substantial link to supporting international terrorism not so much.

    I find nothing wrong with this. I believe I have stated similar in the past... I guess you choose to see what you think I said instead of what I did say.

    How would you go about giving say the population in Iraq an "alternate to the bad guys"? How does that differ than what we are doing, and how long should this take?




    No I didn't. Do you not understand that the events of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq have almost nothing to do with one another, despite a desire from the right to make it seem so? The new campaign of terror is taking place in the middle east and is a direct result of our occupation of Iraq. Do you understand this? We added fuel to this fire and we opened up a brand new front that led to the rise of a new generation of Islamic militants in Iraq. Get it?

    Perfect.

    Make up position I do not have, blame righty, and demonstrate an ignorance that this started long before iraq or even 911....




    No, the puerile and ignorant position would be associating me with arguments I haven't made or trying to argue against a position that I have never taken. It's clear you are having trouble comprehending the actual argument I'm making because it gets all blurry to you. I'm addressing the military, geopolitical, historical aspects of this issue and you are not for some reason. You seem to be stuck in the military side of it and are content to make accusations of complaining whenever I bring up the U.S. part of the problem. And that's okay, but it gets us nowhere.

    perhaps you should leave the drama out and stick to the facts and your position. It would benefit both of us.....
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    What does "winning the war" even mean, at this point?
    Kill all the Al Qaeda leaders?
    Who cares?
    There are a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand ready to take the place of each one killed; this is largely the result of US conduct in the region.

    I think it's a good idea, at this point, that we stop doing things, stop saying things, and simply go sit on our hands in a quiet room. Preferably, here in America.
    Until something changes, everything we do from here on out only makes it worse.
    This pretty much sums up the mentality of those who wallow in denial when it comes to the events of 9-11 and how to prevent future attacks on us.

    What I ask of people who wallow in such denial is to explain to me what the US was doing that led to events of 9-11; were any troops in Iraq or Afghanistan?

    The inane notion that if we just retreat from the Middle East and mind our own business, these hate mongers will leave us alone requires the willing suspension of reason and logic; it also requires one to ignore treaties and our allies and suggests that they do the fighting while we just sit back in peaceful bliss and ignorance.

    This level of denial also requires the suspension of disbelief that the reasons there is so much hate in the region is perhaps caused by the fact that they are taught to hate and breed ignorance. These terrorists promote disinformation and lies in order to maintain enough ignorant followers to carry out their despicable acts. Do you honestly think it has ANYTHING to do with US policy? A policy I might add that has helped and fed millions of Muslims in Palestine, Indonesia, Bosnia and many other ethnic populations.

    The REALITY is that terrorism is bred from ignorance of the truth, facts and honesty. If you think we are the bad guys in this scenario or that our actions in the Middle East right now are helping the terrorists, you truly are wallowing in self induced ignorance and perhaps willful historic ignorance. To suggest that it is OUR actions and not the lies, ignorance and disinformation from the terrorist and fundamentalist is truly stunning in the level of denial required to have such views.

  6. #126
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    It's not a fetish. It's very real and it can be countered. I'm sorry you don't feel that way.
    It is a fetish. And I don't deny that the concern with root causes is "real." Of course it's real. My problem is that the root causes fetish is dangerous as it leads us to avoid dealing with the real root cause...Islamic violence. Instead, this root causes business has caused us to blame the victims rather than the perps. In other words, this root causes analysis typically leads to some vague notion of American or western culpability. I call it a fetish because it seems to be driven by some anti-American, anti-western attitude.

    Really? Okay, please cite what the terrorists say, maybe give examples of reasons that have disappeared and ones that have taken their place.
    Colonialism, poverty, US troops in Saudi Arabia, etc.

    No, not "typically." It's certainly a factor, but not the factor. Do you know how many Muslims there are on this planet? Do you know how many perpetrate the crimes you are speaking of?
    You're quibbling on the margins. The core reason politicians and scholars have settled on to explain Islamic terrorism is the Israel/Palestinian problem. That problem, they argue, is the reason why Muslims commit acts of terrorism against the US, Europe, and elsewhere...a form of protest against the West's support for Israel.

    But didn't you understand my point? I was arguing the falsity of that conclusion made by politicians and scholars by noting that Islamic terrorism occurs all over the world and in places where the Israeli/Palestinian problem is a not of any concern at all.

    Moderate Islam in no way reflects much of what you are talking about.
    Moderate Islam is a minority, outside the mainstream.

    What you are describing is fundamental Islam, not moderate Islam. Islam, like Christianity, has evolved albeit at a slower pace. It's still evolving. There is a war within the culture with the fundamentalists struggling to keep control versus the moderates who are changing with the times. Your narrow description and broad application of the worst of Islam is very disingenuous.
    Not at all. It's the realization that Islam promotes violence. It's from this core of Islam that Islamic extremism flows. Islam teaches that violence is an appropriate method to redress grievances.

    Not even clever.
    I don't care if you don't find it clever.

    The fact is that terrorism is a manifestation of a disease, a symptom, not the disease itself.

    And the west's problem is it's unwillingness or inability to confront even the possibility that islaimic terrorism is, you know, at all connected to...~gasp~...Islam. The focus on so-called "root causes" leads to finding socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel.

    What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? If the problem is not connected to Islamic beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

    Well?

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    Well done but 'winning the war' is impossible
    How does a country plan to defeat a ideology?
    No one is fighting an "ideology"; we are fighting terrorists who promote an agenda of murder, lies and distortions which only gullible Liberals apparently fall for.

    But by all means, continue illustrating the Liberal view that the US is an evil empire and operating illegally in dealing with terrorists, depots and dictators and how the terrorists are the innocents in this fight.

    Carry on.

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Everything we've done since all this began has strengthened our enemy, rather than weakening it.
    I keep hearing this FALSE argument and have to wonder what evidence you can provide that suggests that terrorist organizations are now stronger than they were before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Al Qaeda is on the run; they are living like animals in caves and have been cut off from their former sources of funds and communications networks. They are being hunted down by the Pakistani Government, the Iraqi Government, the Afghanistan Government and most Governments of the world.

    Their source of funding has been significantly reduced and their methods of communication thanks to spying programs have been significantly impaired.

    Only someone living in a fantasy world can think that these organizations have been somehow enhanced or that they are recruiting more than post 9-11. The ONLY thing Osama has to show for his despicable act of 9-11 is two former dictatorships now Democracies and him and his followers living in caves on the run and fearful that the moment the show their faces they end up at the end of a missile.

    You and many Liberals like you have a warped notion about what success and victory is. We are definitely winning this fight without the help of whiney Liberals who think that retreating behind your walls and doors will somehow make you safe from thugs trying to murder you.

    Carry on.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    We have failed the past 8 years, i would have called it quits after 2
    Wrong again; global policy on the Middle East has been a failure for the last SIXTY years and the final result of that failure culminated in the events of 9-11.

    Remember that old saying; if you keep doing what you have always done expecting different results, you just might be an idiot.

    Carry on.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    However, it is our very recent use of big stick/cowboy militaristic tactics in the Middle East (as well as our past addiction to influencing the governments of other nations to our way of thinking regardless of the costs to the people of those nations) that have hindered our ability to actually gain significant ground on the core issues behind the formation and growth of extremist terror cells.


    But we cannot continue to walk around with this cowboy swagger and simply say "**** 'em, bring it on!" We have to act with discretion, we have to act with caution, and we have to make sure we get it right. We cannot afford to continue making monumental blunder in foreign policy at the tip of a bayonet.
    Yet no one has taken the positions you PERCEIVE they have. Those are YOUR perceptions based on YOUR political perspective.

    But all the innuendo and rhetoric aside, the feelings of many after 9-11 was exactly that; how dare you attack us and declare war.

    Your politics and those of Democrats who supported the War in Iraq have been singular in their affect to promote the despicable acts you denounce; Osama and Saddam felt that they could use American Liberal politics and journalism to win the propaganda war.

    What they didn't count on, and thought they would get another "Clinton", was a President who actually did what he said he would and carried it out even with the onslaught of Liberals and Journalists in their inane attempts to declare the Iraq War lost and attack this President as being the enemy instead of our REAL enemies.

    Isn't it telling that their efforts at declaring the US the loser have been silenced and we no longer see the front pages blathered with the typical Liberal speculative BS and body counts to support their inane assertions that losing is good and winning is bad.

    Please spare us your hyperbole when you attempt to describe the HISTORIC facts and how the Bush Presidency acted and reacted to Osama and Saddam; the facts do not support your rhetoric as usual. It is about as inane as suggesting Bush did not use diplomacy; only by suspending common sense and the facts can anyone make such idiotic arguments.

    It is ironic that you can come up with the RIGHT solution using the WRONG logic.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •