http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/08/national/w092217D30.DTL just thought you guys should know
Bin Laden wanted to commit a jihad on Saddam, but was rejected by the Saudi's, and effectually that ended his relationship with the Saudi's because he criticized them over chosing the US to lead the attack...rather than him. Bin Laden is an attention whore. I was looking at that article, and was thinking of posting it as well. Not anything new to me...although I wouldn't assume it paints a full picture of everything.
He may not be directly with Al Qaeda but I don't see how paying your country's citizens (rather forcing them to) to strap bombs on themselves and kill people isn't terrorist activity...
It's funny how some people are so fixated on Al-Queda...as though there isn't quite a few different organizations out there willing to die to kill the 'infidel'.
I'm thinking he's referring to Saddam's pay-offs to families whom had sick-fucks blow themselves up in Israel...but maybe I'm wrong.
They weren't so fixated before it became a political issue. Recall the USS Cole and the 93 bombing of the twin towers? No fixation there. Why not?... I'll admit Bush isn't wise in his policy, but all I keep hearing is 'why isn't Bin Laden captured?' It's not the war on 'Bin Laden', it's the war on terror...it's not the war on only Al-Queda, it's the war on terror. Reminds me...would communism die if it was a war on Russia or Stalin or any particular group? No, you must have a broad concept of the problem and try to deal with all of it. The Dems seem like they're always a step behind,...just catching-up with the general perception of everyone else [notice I'm not talking about repubs in particular]. No fixation when they should have had one in the past, and now they're just slowly going on the bandwagon.
You want documentation? Fine: http://www.husseinandterror.com/ http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/8453 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp http://www.slate.com/id/2108636/ Happy?
I pointed that out to him once before, but he doesn't seem to learn fast its odd when I am wrong about something, its embarassing at least a little, enough so that I would never repeat it again. but with some people, you point out how something they said is inaccurate or totally false, and they will repeat it again. Like they don't know its false, maybe because they want to believe it, or something
duh, because not that many americans were killed and it didn't happen on US soil not really what other groups have succesfully attacked us? well if we had fought the "war on terror" by actually just fighting Al Queda, not invading Iraq. It probably wouldn't have become such a "broad concept" you are not making sense , what are talking about?
Nice post ferret. My response: www.demfacts.com How's everyone's day so far? Mine has been pretty good for a Friday.
You should make separate sentences if you're referring to two different topics, because the 93 bombing of the trade center was on US soil. While it might not have your designate number of bodies, it was blantantly obvious to some that we weren't holding our priorities in the correct position....especially when one let's the leader of such attacks go. *shrug*...These are all cases of Americans (even though some are abroad)...just a few. August 1998: Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. embassies---Saudi finacier June 1998: Lebanon, U.S. Embassy---.... February 1996: Athens, U.S. Embassy------------------National Struggle terrorist group June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers---Unknown November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters--------Four anti-royal Saudi Arabian dissidents, possible connections to Party of God an Iran; beheaded in Saudi Arabia March 1995: Karachi, Pakistan, U.S. Consulate-----Possible retaliation for World Trade Center bombing conviction December 1988: Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan Am flight 103------Libyan intelligence agents February 1988: Southern Lebanon---Lebanese Party of God April 1986: Rome to Athens TWA flight----Mohammed Rashid, Palestinian terrorist, members of Iraqi backed May 15 organization Fuck Iraq... JUST Al queda?...See that's where you and me differ, because I'm not into a small perspective on self-defense issues. In the past,we declared war not only to attack Japan, but also Germany...we wanted both, because it made sense. Todays no different. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm Here's a list of terrorist groups. Some are exclusive to their area, but many aren't. The point in my thoughts is, is not if they actually kill us...that can be done it multiple manners...even without violence. If they attack one of our allies in a gruesome fashion...say they nuke the place or fly a plane into a nucleur plant (making the place a worthless piece of land for hundreds or thousands of years)...well, then we have huge economic problems. That's just not their problem, it's ours. It's one of the reasons we entered the past world wars. The logic of they attack us, we attack them...well, that's just too simplistic of a view, and impractical to the survival of the whole. The perpective must be to get rid of terror throughout the world, through a cohesive mixture of government relations and operation. Yes, I think the Repubs aren't focused enough, but I think the dems stink at this, too. We can't allow anarchy among our key economic peers, nor those growing. Just don't let the seed grow, I say. An assertion and a question...lol. This coming from a guy whom seems like he's drinking when he's typing,... sometimes. What I'm saying is they're only political wave riders. It's a surfboard your on, not a boat, chief. You're leadership is trite.
small attacks by small groups, we even are friends with Libya now yeah there are violent assholes all over the world, some of which we fund and arm. You list a bunch of terror groups almost none of which have anything to do with us, we are not the world police. What do some criminal groups in other countries have to do with us? They are all political wave riders, some just pick worse waves. Do you think leaders should be accountable? Do you think that when people make a mistake like Iraq, that they should be held accountable for it? Or is being soft of illegals worse? You really think after a mistake like Iraq , where like 100,000 people have died, our present leaders should stay in charge?
Some of them, not all of them. Some are in the hundreds others just 20 or less. You did read what I wrote, did you not? Some terrorists/criminals have potential dire effects on our economy via attacks on our peers...we can't live with a mentality of 'only-defense' retalations. We must protect all our interests. This is a serious question!?....lol...NO *sarcasm* Well, then that would mean getting rid of a lot of dem politicians as well, because they gave Bush that authority (and I'm damn sure they knew what they were doing). That won't happen, though, because this isn't about whose responsible...it's a power grab. And... Only 'accountable' in this case (ie your opinion) is putting more irresponsible people in power. Instead of Curly, put in Shemp....that's what you're saying. Are you talking about illegal immigration in the second question...not quite sure what you're saying? Not many options here...so the other option is Dems. hmmmm. I don't like the choses.
is that a yes? you think the people who pushed the Iraq war should stay in power? so please tell me what short comings of the democrats compare to invading Iraq? What even comes close to mess that is over there? like what? other then attacking oil feilds I think everyone who voted for Iraq should step down I would perfer irresponsible over psychotic war mongers, who are causing the deaths of over 100,000 people
compuserve the link I provided is soucring a report directly from a Senate Report, the links you provide are BS, except for the part about giving the money to sucide bombers that is supposedly true. But the others are speculation, so what some Iraq defector said something, its already been show that the defectors the president listened to, were liars, who would say anything to help the case for invading.
That's more like, 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.' Frankly, those people should have been pushed-out in their primaries...a long time ago. But not everyone has that integrity. They naively stood to the side (even though I don't think it was 'naivee'), and when it became politically unpopular among their constituents they slowly edged their nose-in. If they had the balls to stand-up against what was happening at the time, then I could call it principled, but it was political gesture. They're playing the old game of handing the rope to Bush so he could hang himself routine. In general, though: Dems support or development of programs that are long-term destroyers e.g the income tax, federal reserve, welfare state, SS, medicare, mass immigration, and political/culture shifts in what we once were. The repubs aren't good, either, but the dems set-up most of the capabilities for the Repubs. No income tax, no major wars (unless necessary). No shift in the political culture e.g Vietnam, and no specifically undeclared wars presently. No 17th amendment, and less partisan views in the Senate ie a lot of 'bad' things wouldn't happen. Re-read my old post. We want to prevent all major attacks on any economic peer. Doesn't necessarily involve our military....it just isn't a 'defense-only' policy. If Bin decided to fly the plane into a Nuke plant, which was fairly close to the towers, he could have made a part of the east coast uninhabitable for thousands of years. They actually considered that, I've read and heard. If they do this to any country outside of our own, it would be like major heart-attack for the world-economy. Imagine anything like New York no-longer being of use, and millions dying a slow death. There's dozens of ways they can screw economies....not only oil. Wow, principle....now will you vote accordingly? Does your reps have a good record on that....? Perhaps I'm wrong...but I don't think I am...didn't you say if we replaced petro (through alternatives), we could just let all those people kill each other? Isn't that a bit of an odd perspective...? Personally, I think neither are ideal or good, but it's nice to hear your opinion.
maybe some, but it appears a lot voted against it http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml We were in the middle of whole nationalism, with bit a fascism thing, everyone was scared to disagree with the president, not that is an excuse, hopefully it will cost some people the presidential nomination. Yeah maybe that stuff is bad but when you compare it to the price of the Iraq war its pretty small isn't it. At least compared over the same time period. The people who started the war need to be punished, having some dems in power for a few years is a small price to pay, regardless of what programs they push temporarily. come on you know if it involves "culture" its moron issue, or are you talking about politcal culture? yeah , mostly talking about the Jews and Arabs, but in Iraq either , but I don't think we should kill them, or help them kill each other, or take the blame, so that millions more arabs hate us. I think we should stay out of the middle east, meddling in the middle east is the cause of all our present problems. oh yeah you forgot to tell me what liberal shortcommings compare to the mess in Iraq?