Another perspective on Lebanon and Israel
- Thread starter zoombwaz
- Start date
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
But they have little capability for doing so. And if we start taking positive steps to ameliorate the conditions that give rise to their hatred we'll undermine their support within the Muslim world very rapidly.Sir Evil said:
How many people died in the attacks of 9/11/2001? Less than 3,000 all told. It was a horrible tragedy, yes, but not the Earth shattering event so many glandular types try to make it.
Terrorism is far less of a threat to us than some of the ideologues try to paint it. Yes, it's a problem and yes, it does have to be addressed. That doesn't mean we have to . . . well, live in terror of it. Nor do we have to let fear of terrorism dictate our foreign policy. Doing so simply plays into their hands.
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
maineman said:
Call it a cocktail if you would like, but they are there and are there because we invaded, they will be anywhere they can reach us for the simple point of killing us. So is it the baathists are all good and they should not of been bothered, is it that the baathists could certainly have nothing to do with supporting terrorism like the baathists of Syria?
maineman
Banned
baathist do not get along with wahabbists.... wahabbists attacked us.... that does not make baathists any better...it just makes them NOT the guys who attacked us.... and therefore, our attacking them, when they were enemies of the guys who attacked us and also enemies of Iran, was a bad idea.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Sir Evil said:
oh the diplomacy works so well with these radicals! ever think these radicals may be as tired of you appeasers as the rest of us? They don't want to be appeased, they don't want to negotiate, they don't want much from you other than your life!
I know you are culturally rich because you spent two years in Lebanon so after all you are just an expert on this subject, but being you were such a special guest to that side of the world why not go back and ask some of the radicals what you can do to help the situation, what it will take for them to chill out a bit, and why they wanna wipe Israel off the map?
Appeasers? Since when has diplomacy only been about appeasement? Answer: never. It is only appeasement in the tiny parrot brains of the neocon apologist.
Do you have an actual point to make, or are neocon buzzwords the only thing you'er capable of posting? Your comments show you either didn't read or didn't comprehend what Ray Close wrote. Try to keep up. If you aren't sure, ask.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Sir Evil said:
It's pretty obvious you don't have the answers, hell I have'nt seen any answers from you at all outside of explaining what radical group wants what, I think you might be for one of these factions yourself there mainecoon![/QUOTE]
Terrorist sympathizer? WTF? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? If so, do you plan on showing it anytime soon?
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Sir Evil said:Hey slappy that was a good flip flop! I was not the one who started it but now you are asking me why I point it out after stooping to your level.
nothing wrong with a mainecoon, just a harmless little kitty kat right?
Stoop to his level? There is no level below neocon. At least not among vertebrates.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Sir Evil said:Call it a cocktail if you would like, but they are there and are there because we invaded, they will be anywhere they can reach us for the simple point of killing us. So is it the baathists are all good and they should not of been bothered, is it that the baathists could certainly have nothing to do with supporting terrorism like the baathists of Syria?
Are you capable of anything besides straw man arguments? You do realizr\e that you have yet to make a valid point, don't you?
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Sir Evil said:
So we should invade a country because they might someday take a shot at us through a proxy? According to our own laws, there are three acceptable reasons for invading another country:
1. They attacked us first.
2. An attqack from them is imminent.
3' With the approval of the UN Security Council
Please nte that your weak assed rationale does not appear on that list.
maineman
Banned
and watching you continuing to confuse nationalist arab terrorist organizations such as Hamas and fatah with wahabbist organizations like the ones who attacked US is getting boring. I never said he didn't support terrorism. I said he never supported wahabbists like AQ. get it?????Damocles said:
If we are going to attack anyone who ever supported terrorists, we need to start by levelling south boston - they supported the IRA for decades whilst they were still blowing up stuff all over the UK
I'm saying that it was only one small step before he did. The "enemy of my enemy" rule applies there too and often does make strange bedfellows. Also repeating "Nationalist" doesn't change the central religious theme of those movements that is not based on Nationalism. It is based on directive of the Imam... Attempting to equate them with secularism and state that they are no danger to the west because they are "nationalist" when they are not is a mistake, and one you keep repeating.maineman said:
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
maineman said:
Al-Qaida is linked to the following plans that were disrupted or not carried out: to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila in late 1994, to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines in early 1995, to bomb in midair a dozen US trans-Pacific flights in 1995, and to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. Also plotted to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations in late 1999. (Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial.) In December 2001, suspected al-Qaida associate Richard Colvin Reid attempted to ignite a shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight from Paris to Miami. Attempted to shoot down an Israeli chartered plane with a surface-to-air missile as it departed the Mombasa airport in November 2002.
LINK
I can see how Billy thought he was a harmless guy! This was after a two second search so not sure if this will suit it's purpose for you.
maineman
Banned
now...if you could only show me that we had that intelligence before May of '96, then maybe you would have something...but alas....you cannot.
Like I said....show me that we had knowledge BEFORE MAY '96 that OBL.... the man... had himself committed any crimes against America or American interests that would have allowed the United States to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil.
Here's a hint: there is no such evidence you can show me. I have scoured the web for weeks and weeks on end looking at thousands of links and the links listed on those links.... the fact of the matter is: Bill Clinton did not have a crystal ball.... he did not have any way to know, in May of '96, that OBL would direct the attacks of 9/11/2001 anymore than Union military officers and Washington DC police did not know on April 10th 1865 that John Wilkes Booth would assassinate Lincoln five days later.... if only they had known, they could have picked him up and avoided that tragedy.
Neocons like to replay that fantasy to somehow make it Bill Clinton's fault that 9/11 happened. It's bullshit. 9/11 happened because the president at the time did not care a bit about islamic terrorism. He was all about star wars....it is a FACT that the very day before 9/11 happened, Attorney General Ashcroft reduced the anti-terrorism task force budget within the DoJ by over $50Million.
Trying to make it, somehow, partially Clinton's fault when he didn't take OBL from the Sudan EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NO BASIS FOR DOING SO is nothing more than a pathetic neocon fantasy. Wake up and smell the coffee....wake up and accept responsibility for the failures of your stupid stupid PNAC insired plan and the failures of your administration to execute their own policy.
Like I said....show me that we had knowledge BEFORE MAY '96 that OBL.... the man... had himself committed any crimes against America or American interests that would have allowed the United States to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil.
Here's a hint: there is no such evidence you can show me. I have scoured the web for weeks and weeks on end looking at thousands of links and the links listed on those links.... the fact of the matter is: Bill Clinton did not have a crystal ball.... he did not have any way to know, in May of '96, that OBL would direct the attacks of 9/11/2001 anymore than Union military officers and Washington DC police did not know on April 10th 1865 that John Wilkes Booth would assassinate Lincoln five days later.... if only they had known, they could have picked him up and avoided that tragedy.
Neocons like to replay that fantasy to somehow make it Bill Clinton's fault that 9/11 happened. It's bullshit. 9/11 happened because the president at the time did not care a bit about islamic terrorism. He was all about star wars....it is a FACT that the very day before 9/11 happened, Attorney General Ashcroft reduced the anti-terrorism task force budget within the DoJ by over $50Million.
Trying to make it, somehow, partially Clinton's fault when he didn't take OBL from the Sudan EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NO BASIS FOR DOING SO is nothing more than a pathetic neocon fantasy. Wake up and smell the coffee....wake up and accept responsibility for the failures of your stupid stupid PNAC insired plan and the failures of your administration to execute their own policy.
Last edited:
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
You seriously need to STFU with your babble about what org. is representing what. All you point out for all to see is that there is many more factions of terrorism out there then some may be aware of.
Futhermore for my third day on the board I am already tired of hearing your typical lib attitude, quickly attacking with insults when discussions are'nt the way you see them. Take your diaper off and discuss a topic like a man for a change!
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
Yeah, and I guess Clinton did'nt realize to many years later about this info right?
They wanted to assasinate him and he never knew it right?
Take the terrorist weenies out of your mouth for a while why don't ya!
maineman
Banned
Yeah, and I guess Clinton did'nt realize to many years later about this info right?
They wanted to assasinate him and he never knew it right?
Take the terrorist weenies out of your mouth for a while why don't ya!
all I am saying is that there was NO evidence against OBL that we were aware of in the springtime of '96 that would have given us reason to take him into custody.
I am not apologizing for this guy...I am only stating facts. Just deal with it. Clinton could not have taken him into custody when Sudan offered him up because we had no reason to hold him.
Sir Evil
Megalocon, The Evil Dick
Back to the friendly approach? do you suffer from a split personality issue?
Save it, I can't discuss any issues with you as you are so back in forth in your own little mind.....
maineman
Banned
I am a friendly guy... I just do not have a great deal of patience for people who spout unsupportable blather. Do you honestly think that if Bill Clinton's administration had any evidence that Osama bin Laden had hatched a plot to assassinate him that they would not have used that evidence as justification to take Osama into custody when Sudan offered him up? I am telling you that we did not know enough about the guy to be capable of taking him - a foreign national - into custody in a foreign land in May of '96. I realize that perpetrating that myth is a way for conservatives to somehow dissapate the blame for 9/11 away from the Bush administration... much like the myth that Ollie North warned us about him during the Reagan years.... the FACTS do not support those myths. The facts show that the Bush administration was warned about AQ and did not take the warnings seriously... the facts show that the very day before 9/11 the administration was giving speeches about star wars and taking millions of dollars AWAY from the FBI's anti-terrorism task force.