Anyone Seen Osama?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by st8_o_mind, Apr 12, 2004.

  1. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Meanwhile in the real war on terrorism....


    Already Stretched, Afghan Leaders Face New Threat
    By CARLOTTA GALL

    Published: April 12, 2004

    More than two years after a United States-led coalition brought down the Taliban government, and as Afghanistan prepares for the elections in September, security remains a serious problem in much of the country, and the authority of the transitional government in Kabul is in question. Taliban remnants continue to challenge American and Afghan forces in the south and east.


    Complete article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/12/i...U.html?ex=1082788319&ei=1&en=f65ce1878c3d3fdf


    As the Taliban reconstitutes itself, the government that REALLY supported the terrorists that attacked the United States the Bush Administration is fighting the wrong enemy...and botching that as well.

    If you're serious about defeating terrorism, then work to defeat Bush.
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Are you retarded? Our military has been in Afghanistan since the beginning and remain there today. You just don't approve of how they split up our forces. It's a good thing we have competent General's in charge as opposed to those who haven't a clue like you.

    If you aren't serious about defeating terrorism, then vote for Kerry!
     
  3. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    So we should not elect Bush, who has deposed both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein - two governments that supported terrorism - and brought the beginnings of democracy to both Afghanistand and Iraq. Who should we vote for instead? Raplh Nader, the anti-war Green/independent? Or John Kerry, who won't sneeze without Jacque Chirac's permission, much less fight terrorism?
    Sorry, st8, but Bush is the only man running who has and will fight terrorism abroad.
     
  4. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm in the ABB camp: Anybody But Bush. I'm not going to defend Kerry or Nadar, I don't care for either of em that much.

    Look, only one country supported the terrorists that attacked the united states. That was the Taliban government, not Iraq. We may have gotten Saddam, but not Osama. Which one mastermined the attack against the US on 9/11. Or the attack against the Cole? Or the attack against our West African embassies? The answer is Osama in every case. Not Saddam. Saddam is the wrong war. The oath is "protect and defend" not "settle scores for your daddy."

    We should finish Job 1, capturing or killing the terrorists who attacked us. Iraq has diverted us from that mission and pissed off our allies and international institutions that are essential to eliminating world terrorism.

    Vote for whomever you like but remember, a vote for Bush is a vote for Osama.
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I'm betting thats about to start some fires :flameth:
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Thanks for answering my question, but a simple yes would have been sufficient.
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Because he's the only one with a set of balls to go after Osama? (unlike that pussy Clinton). Vote for Kerry who has less of a clue than you do?

    It helps when you make sense when posting. Just an Fyi!
     
  8. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    The reason you dont hear about Afghanistan is because of the media bias on TV. Too much good is happeneing in Afghanistan that its not news worthy television for the likes of CNN or MSNBC.

    As for working to defeat Bush and defeating terrorism, your contradicting yourself. If Bush is defeated it will mean a return to Good ole Appeasement politics of the Clinton Era. We will coddle the Terrorists and understand why they hate us and then they will become model world citizens no longer wanting to kill their fellow man. You know all of that except the part where the terrorists give a damn.

    They are begging Ala for Kerry to win so that they may continue unimpeded in their war on America and the War on Civilization. If we do not attack these people en masse where they live, then we will be doomed to have many more 9/11's in our time and our childrens time.
     
  9. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    When you vote against a candidate because you hate them soo much that you vote for anything but them, you get Jimmy Carter. Can the world really take another Jimmy Carter? Hes a main reason why the world is where it is today with all of this Middle East Conflict with America.
     
  10. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    Once again, I'll have to defend Bush's successes against al-Qaeda and I'll have to prove Iraq's connection to terrorism. Bush has removed two of the worst regimes on the face of the planet and started an historic campaign of democracy and capitalism in the Arab world, a place that only has totalitarian dictators and radical religious rulers. Bush has launched an amazing campaign against terrorism throughout the international community: law enforcement against terrorism is at an all time high, intelligence sharing and gathering is at an all time high, (after all the French shared their intelligence that Saddam would have nuclear weapons by 2005), and military operations are at an all time best.

    With a few thousand troops, we removed the Taliban regime, and did in a few weeks what the Soviet Union couldn't do in ten years. We then took Baghdad in 21 days.

    As for al-Qaeda, the following is the leadership of al-Qaeda and the status of these leaders. To say that Bush isn't fighting the "real War on Terror" is a joke. Fighting al-Qaeda is like fighting a non-geographical force. It does not require military forces outside of Afghanistan.

    1) Osama bin Laden - at large on Afghan/Pakistani border
    2) Ayman al-Zawahiri - at large on Afghan/Pakistani border
    3) Mohammed Atef - killed by US missile in Afghanistan
    4) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - captured by CIA in Pakistan
    5) Abu Zubaydah - captured by CIA in Pakistan
    6) Hambali - captured by CIA in Southeast Asia
    7) Saif al-Adel - at large in Iran
    8) Ramzi Binalshibh - captured by CIA in Pakistan
    9) Anas al-Liby - captured by US forces in Afghanistan
    10) Mohammed Haydar Zammar - captured by CIA in Morocco
    11) Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri - captured by CIA in Yemen
    12) Omar al-Faruq - captured by CIA in Indonesia
    13) Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harthi - killed by US drone missile in Yemen, something every Dem got mad at Rumsfeld for
    14) Saad bin Laden - at large in Iran
    15) Sulaiman Abu Ghaith - at large in Iran
    16) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - at large in Iraq

    Those are just the top leaders, in order, of al-Qaeda and their status. Not to mention, former sponsors, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are now capturing these people for us, and former rogue states, such as Libya, are now dismantling their WMDs as a result of removing Saddam.

    Now, you don't believe Saddam had anything to do with terrorists or terrorism. I can write about 15 pages on Saddams links to terrorists, but I'll just keep it short and simple.

    Saddam Hussein gave sponsorship to the following terrorist groups within Iraq: the MEK, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam, all having ties to al-Qaeda.

    Saddam Hussein funded: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, the largest terrorist groups in the world behind al-Qaeda.

    Saddam Hussein sheltered: Abu Nidal, and his ANO terrorist group, Abu Abbas, and his PLF terrorist group, Abdul Yassin, a plotter of the 1993 WTC attack and al-Qaeda operative, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda operative.

    Not to mention, Saddam Hussein violated 17 war treaties 333 times, regarding his WMD, the UNSC, Congress, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, the UK, and every Democrat thought he had WMD, he used WMD, he admitted to it, he kicked inspectors out, he detained and blindfolded inspectors, he admitted to having WMD in 1998 and never accounted for the material the world thought he had, oh and... he slaughtered 750,000 of his own people.

    Considering that, and considering the unemployment rate is lower than the average unemployment rate of the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, and considering inflation is at an all time low, and home ownership is at an all time high, and considering John Kerry has been on both sides of every issue... Bush will win in a landslide.

    Landslide. Can you say "1984 all over again?"
     

Share This Page