Anyone Seen Osama?

[st8_o_mind]

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.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
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.

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!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Meanwhile in the real war on terrorism....



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.

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.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
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.

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.

 

[DKSuddeth]

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

I'm betting thats about to start some fires

 

[jimnyc]

Thanks for answering my question, but a simple yes would have been sufficient.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Vote for whomever you like but remember, a vote for Bush is a vote for Osama.

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!

 

[insein]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
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.

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.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
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.

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.

 

[preemptingyou03]

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?"

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by insein
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.

Ever hear of the Camp David Accords? Geez.

 

[insein]

Ever hear of the Shah of Iran. While not a real humanitarian guy, he was an allie to america. His loyalty was unquestioned. When he came under fire from rebels, he expected that at any moment the US would help out and send in troops to save him since he supported the US so much.

No support came. The Aaytollah took over and a new breed of Anti-American sentiment grew in the Middle East led by Iran.

That is a major contributor to why the "Hate America" doctrine that has become so widespread over there was allowed to spread further.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Our enemy is our enemy because they defined us as that. If we are the enemy... we have an enemy. Once we understand this, it must change the way we view the world. We must understand our enemy, not to appease him and reform our ways, but to learn the best ways to defeat him and his entire justifications and beliefs.

And we will. Have we made mistakes? Yes, there is no question. But this isn't a sprint. It is gonna take a long, long time. The verdict of the War on Terror will be celebrated - and written about - by the next generation.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03

I never wrote that Saddam was a nice guy or that he should/could have been ignored. I continue to oppose the invasion for many reasons beginning with, first and foremost, it has made the US less secure. It has diverted resources, military, financial and intelligence from dismanteling the terrorist network that attacked the US, alienated our allies and international institutions, stretched our military to a dangerous degree, and has enflamed anti-american radical islam giving Osama a recruitement bonanza. This is seriously dangerous stuff for the United States. Add to that the report from today's New York Times and other recent reporting from Afghanistan that the Taliban is reorganizing. That represents a "real and present danger" to the US. For crying out loud, these freaks flew airplanes full of people into our buildings. What else do they have to do to get the full attention of the White House?

 

[preemptingyou03]

I'm quite sure al-Qaeda's gotten the attention of the White House. You come from the school where once Mr. bin Laden is captured, you're complacency kicks back in, correct? There's more to defending America than capturing OBL and dismanlting al-Qaeda, however, from our actions, you can't say we haven't done a damn good job on al-Qaeda.

Does al-Qaeda have state sponsorship from the Taliban anymore? Does al-Qaeda have any terrorist camps anymore? No and no.

Their leaders are dead and in jail cells and those that remain at large are sleeping with one eye open in a cave somewhere. As for the Iraq war "diverting resources..." look... al-Qaeda's a non-geographical force. The 130,000 troops in Iraq cannot invade al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is all over the world. You cannot militarily invade individuals. The War on Terror isn't a literal war, yet it may consist of literal wars.

As for the war in Iraq giving Osama a recruitment tool... all I have to say is a free Iraq, will de-radicalize the Middle East a generation from now. If we fight terrorism, it may inflame radicalism, sure... but we must endure that for we know democracy doesn't preach hatred.

 

[acludem]

All that's happened is that Al Qaeda has been slowed down some, but other terrorists have been happy to fill their shoes.

George Bush's so-called War on Terror has been an absolute disaster. He sent troops into Iraq with absolutely no plan of how to rebuild the country after we leveled it. It's been, what a year, since Saddam was deposed and things aren't any better, in fact things have actually deteriorated in recent months as more and more of our armed forces are being killed each day. Instead of fighting a "War on Terror" we are instead fighting a war to force American principles upon the Iraqi people. I am glad Saddam is gone. It should, however, be up to Iraqis what type of government they have. The only reason we are trying to force our will down their throats is so we can control the oil supply.

All I know is that John Kerry certainly can't do any worse than Bush has.

acludem

 

[insein]

Originally posted by acludem
All that's happened is that Al Qaeda has been slowed down some, but other terrorists have been happy to fill their shoes.

George Bush's so-called War on Terror has been an absolute disaster. He sent troops into Iraq with absolutely no plan of how to rebuild the country after we leveled it. It's been, what a year, since Saddam was deposed and things aren't any better, in fact things have actually deteriorated in recent months as more and more of our armed forces are being killed each day. Instead of fighting a "War on Terror" we are instead fighting a war to force American principles upon the Iraqi people. I am glad Saddam is gone. It should, however, be up to Iraqis what type of government they have. The only reason we are trying to force our will down their throats is so we can control the oil supply.

All I know is that John Kerry certainly can't do any worse than Bush has.

acludem

Oh contraire. John Kerry can appease the terrorists and not hold them ALL accountable when an attack occurs. What do you think would have happened had Gore been in office on that fatefull day. Same thing that happened when the First WTC attack occured. The same thing when Oklahoma City occurred. The same thing when the Embassies in Africa occurred. The same thing when the USS Cole was attacked.

We gave a token angry response, swore we would find the 1 or 2 "criminals" that did this and bring them to swift justice. That justice cost alot of money in manhunting for information to find just 1 or 2 guys. Then it cost more money to try them in a court of law that they dont even recognize and by their standards is a resort stay as opposed to the ass-raping Arab prisons they have in the Middle East.

Thats what would have happened with Gore. Thats what will happen if we allow Kerry in office. More appeasement and trying to find how to become their friends. Not trying to find them and kill them.

Your assesment is skewed by your unexplainable hatred for one of the better Presidents we've had in a long time.

 

[acludem]

How is Bush "holding the terrorists accountable"? He's all but abandoned Afghanistan, don't believe me? Ask the guy we put in power, he's wondering if we haven't abandoned them.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02262003_200302269.html

There's a story from the armed forces news network...or is this a liberal media source?

Bush is so obsessed with Iraq, he's all but forgotten the terrorists. Is he helping to go after those responsible for bombing of the Spanish communter train? How about the terrorists threatening to attack France? Oh, wait, France supports the terrorists so to hell with them.

acludem

 

[krisy]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
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.

Would you prefer that women in Afghanistan still get the crap beat out of them for showing their face? Or maybe those public lynchings in arenas that the Taliban loved so much? Or maybe you prefered it when girls could not go to school? Please,you act as if nothing good has happened in Afghanistan! If there are things going wrong-let's place blame where it lies-with the terrorists. Maybe you are friends with them? I can't think of another reason you are critsizing Bush for the progress that has been made.

 

[preemptingyou03]

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

Yup, Bush is doing a terrible job in finding terrorists.

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.

Yup, Saddam wasn't a terrorist and Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.