These are the terrorists who scare GWB

Which ones; the government side or the other side? The other side doesn't scare me because of their limited capabilities and the fact that the chance of becoming a victim of terrorist attack is very small,.... One the other hand, the government sponsored terrorism which makes it possible to arrest anybody without charge or conviction and imprison or torture people without any over sight concerns me.

 

haven't you heard the alqada in iraq is defeated. oh what a relief now our troops can come home.
we have achieved all our objectives congrat every one

• wmd found and removed
• dictator removed and executed
• democracy archived iraqi voted and have a new law
• alqada in iraq defeated and finished

mission accomplished bush is a hero lets go home.

 

Did you mean to quote someone else?

 

I do not believe that Al Qaeda has yet been eradicated.

You can't really defeat Al Qaeda "in Iraq" -- because Al Qaeda is an International organization and fully capable of moving troops and supplies between theaters of conflict.

Of course, this also means that the more Al Qaeda we kill in Iraq, the less Al Qaeda we run into elsewhere.

We will never completely eradicate Al Qaeda until we close down the mosques and madrassa's which promote Islamist revolution -- and that's a sticky issue for everyone.

 

I would go so far as to say that we cannot defeat Al Queda as long as we are in the Middle East. It's not just a matter of killing them, as you eluded to, it's a question of recruitment, funding, access etc.

Yeah, trying to shut down a religion is a sticky issue. I'm not sure we have the moral right.

 

Maybe we could follow GTechs ideas on Muslims?

We could always make them put the Star of Islam in their shop windows and round their necks at all times just in case.

At least until we work out what to do with them, a final solution if you will.

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=517193
check this out

 

it seemed that you are worried about terrorists and i wanted to let you know that they are not as dangerous as you were led to belive they are crippled in the last few months
check out Gtech's topic

 

Maybe you could offer counseling to 9/11 victims or something.

 

i did help. i am in new york and i used to work in union square. we used to help out with families when they were trying to find their loved ones.
i was talking about iraq. did you check Gtechs topics.
it is obvious that they are crippled and we can come home.
in afganistan we can send the marines to defeat alqada there also and then come home
but since we have achived all our goals in iraq why isn't it time to come home

 

The gist of those topics you talk of are that AQ are basically crushed & are being crushed not that they are all dead but they are no longer such a strong enemy.

Did you tell them terrorists are not dangerous?

 

at the time every one talked about getting the terrorists back so i did support invasion of afganistan
the point i am trying to make wich seems to elude most of the people that support bush is that these people are not as strong as we are led to belive.
the proof is the fact that in a few months since the surge has started we have managed to cripple them in iraq.
also this is proof that rumsfeld did not know what he was doing and probably the rest of the neocons don't know either.

 

Pizzaman, c'mon now. You know that Al Queda has

• A bunch of aircraft carriers and submarines
• Squadron upon Squadron of fighter planes
• A nuclear deployment system throughout the world
• Missle defenses
• Legions of tanks and heavy artillery
• A standing army of 200,000 men
• Satellites for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering

We need to be scared.

 

It's not about who has more military power it's about protecting innocent civilians from virgin seekers who will blow themselves up & as many others as possible.

 

So you are saying that they are able to attack us despite our superior military power?

 

I don't know exactly what a "virgin seeker" is (could be a racist stab at Muslims but I'll assume it's not) but I don't think it matters much. Al-Qaida hasn't managed an attack on American soil in over 6 years - I don't see a reason to be too upset.

Cohesive action from the governments of the world is the only hope of really keeping these extremists in check. Think of it like this: if a neighborhood bully punches you in the eye and you have your big brother kick his ass, he'll likely get you again at a later date. If, on the other hand, you and the rest of the neighborhood were to knock on said bully's door and make clear to him that his actions would not get him anywhere positive, there is a good chance that he'll cease being a bully (at least in your neighborhood).

I know we're so deep in the conflict that it's difficult to see a peaceful solution, but that's the catch - the only possible solution is a peaceful solution.

 

Dou you really need to ask such a question?

Virgin seekers are people who blow themselves up because they believe they go to paradise & have amazing sex with 72 virgins that are on tap. You can't be muslim & a terrorist, it's been posted by muslims so many times on DP, in fact i'm surprised you missed it.

Are you connecting my statement i made "it's about protecting innocent civilians from virgin seekers who will blow themselves up", to all muslims because they believe they with get 72 virgins? & you believe all muslims are terrorists? (that can get you banned)

Were they too busy with other things or do you think that government policy stops these attacks?

 

Well yes, because if they can attack us despite our military power, perhaps we should be looking at another way of dealing with the threat.

How do you explain non-Muslim suicide bombers? What is their motivation?

 

We cannot defeat Al Qaeda UNLESS we are in the Middle East.

You can't defeat an enemy while hiding under your bed.

You don't win wars by sticking your head in the sand and wishing for them to go away.

As Field Marshal Colmar Baron von der Goltz said, "He who stays on the defensive does not make war, he endures it."

A defensive strategy in this war will have three effects:

1. The Islamist extremists will defeat all weaker parties before they get to us -- including all non-extremist Muslims. This means that, by the time they get to us, they will be very strong.
2. This war will not be over soon. This war will last several hundred more years, because we were not willing to end it with victory when we could.
3. Technology will, by that time, be on the Islamists side. All of our major cities will either surrender or be obliterated.

Fundamentalist Islam is a more vigorous, expansionist, and violent culture than the current effete American culture. In a prolonged fight, we will lose.

Our best option for victory is to strike now using the minority portion of our culture which is not yet stricken with this terminal weakness.

The law of self-preservation trumps all others.

 

Did we go to Russia to end the cold war?

That's funny because Aaron Russo basically said that is what one of the Rockefellers told him when they asked him to join the CFR.

Well, I have just about seen everything. This is the same guy who blindly authorized the Armenian deportation from Turkey. You're quoting military doctrine from a 19th century Second Reich German, against the advice of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. Wow. WoooooW!

Could I get you to predict the Presidency? I'm intrigued by your ability to predict several hundred years into the future. Heck, just let me know if Gold will continue to be a good buy for the next 6 months or the Superbowl winner or something.

That's a scary post Will. Not for me, but that I think you actually believe it.