FUBARRed

[jreeves]

No terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

Do you read the news? Remember that bomb that went off at Times Square not that long ago? Or that pipe bomb in San Diego? What were those if not terrorist attacks?

What were the fatality numbers from both of those attacks?

 

[Larkinn]

In Dogger's quote, Clinton said Assassination not targeted killing.

If you expect politicians to speak in legalese, you are gravely mistaken.

I'm sure there were no terrorist in Iraq before the war started.

Did you say terrorist? I could have sworn you said AQ.


No it's not, evidently you haven't been paying attention.

Though largely dismissed by the Democratic Left, America’s “surge” policy is paying attractive dividends. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is in retreat, violence is down, and political reconciliation is up.

In a 16-page letter that U.S. soldiers found last October near Baghdad, AQI leader Abu Tariq complained that his 600-man force had dwindled to 20 terrorists.

“We were mistreated, cheated, and betrayed by some of our brothers,” he moaned, as Sunnis swapped AQI for the USA. This shift “created panic, fear, and the unwillingness to fight,” another AQI chief whined in his own missive discovered in November near Samarra. His network, he said, suffered “total collapse.”

You say its the surge, but then you cite a letter saying that negotiating with the Sunnis who had been killing American troops (wouldn't you Republicans call that negotiating with terrorists if a Democrat did it?).

Terrorism is collapsing across Iraq. In February 2007, when President Bush ordered 30,000 additional troops into Iraq -- as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) cheered and Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) jeered -- only 8 percent of Baghdad’s neighborhoods were rated secure. That number is now 75 percent. In 2006, coalition troops defused 2,662 terrorist weapons caches. In 2007, they neutralized 6,956. Since June, attacks on U.S. soldiers have slid 60 percent. Meanwhile, sectarian violence fell 90 percent from January to December 2007, sparing Iraqi and U.S. lives alike.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25044

AQ is thriving in Iraq, I think not.....

Compared to its nonexistance before we invaded? Yes, actually it is.

What were the fatality numbers from both of those attacks?

That makes it somehow more ok?

 

[jreeves]

If you expect politicians to speak in legalese, you are gravely mistaken.



Did you say terrorist? I could have sworn you said AQ.


No it's not, evidently you haven't been paying attention.



You say its the surge, but then you cite a letter saying that negotiating with the Sunnis who had been killing American troops (wouldn't you Republicans call that negotiating with terrorists if a Democrat did it?).



Compared to its nonexistance before we invaded? Yes, actually it is.



That makes it somehow more ok?

Well in the article he cited, Clinton stated that he had already contracted the assassination of Osama...but that is legalese I am sure.

Let me understand you completely here, if a terrorist organization isn't called AQ then they aren't deemed dangerous. I understand now, btw heard AQ in Iraq was changing their name to the Peace Flowers.

The article stated it was because of the surge not me.

9-11 and the two things you cited hardly compare, so it appears to be an absurd attempt of claiming some type of terrorist activity.

 

[Larkinn]

Well in the article he cited, Clinton stated that he had already contracted the assassination of Osama...but that is legalese I am sure.

No, point being is politicians DON'T talk in legalese. That is, Clinton isn't going to differentiate between targeted killings and assassinations in a political speech, especially when the different is unclear.

Let me understand you completely here, if a terrorist organization isn't called AQ then they aren't deemed dangerous. I understand now, btw heard AQ in Iraq was changing their name to the Peace Flowers.

Were we talking about terrorist organizations or about AQ? YOU said AQ, not me. If you wanted to talk about terrorists, you should have spoken more generally.

9-11 and the two things you cited hardly compare, so it appears to be an absurd attempt of claiming some type of terrorist activity.

Oh? So now something isn't a terrorist attack unless it compares to 9/11? 9/11 wasn't the epitome of the terrorist attack, the perfect statement of what terrorism is. It was just the terrorist attack that woke the US up.

 

[jreeves]

If you expect politicians to speak in legalese, you are gravely mistaken.



Did you say terrorist? I could have sworn you said AQ.


No it's not, evidently you haven't been paying attention.



You say its the surge, but then you cite a letter saying that negotiating with the Sunnis who had been killing American troops (wouldn't you Republicans call that negotiating with terrorists if a Democrat did it?).



Compared to its nonexistance before we invaded? Yes, actually it is.



That makes it somehow more ok?

No, point being is politicians DON'T talk in legalese. That is, Clinton isn't going to differentiate between targeted killings and assassinations in a political speech, especially when the different is unclear.

Well it sure seems as though it would have in fact been an assassination not a target killing.



Were we talking about terrorist organizations or about AQ? YOU said AQ, not me. If you wanted to talk about terrorists, you should have spoken more generally.

Well where do you think AQ in Iraq came from thin air? A lot of them are from terrorist organizations that were in Iraq before the war started.

Oh? So now something isn't a terrorist attack unless it compares to 9/11? 9/11 wasn't the epitome of the terrorist attack, the perfect statement of what terrorism is. It was just the terrorist attack that woke the US up.

No, I'm saying 9-11 and a pipe bomb aren't comparable. That's absurd....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So according to Larkinn Terrorists and AQ are not the same thing.

Did you say terrorist? I could have sworn you said AQ.

What fantasy world do you live in Larkinn?

 

[rayboyusmc]

What fantasy world do you live in Larkinn?

And you don't. I wish I had some good swampland to sell you.

 

[Larkinn]

No, I'm saying 9-11 and a pipe bomb aren't comparable. That's absurd....

Are they both terrorist acts, yes or no?

 

[Larkinn]

So according to Larkinn Terrorists and AQ are not the same thing.

What fantasy world do you live in Larkinn?

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?

Was he part of AQ?

Really simple concept RGS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?

Was he part of AQ?

Really simple concept RGS.

Ya simply concept indeed, one that you can not grasp.

 

[Larkinn]

Ya simply concept indeed, one that you can not grasp.

Anwser the questions.

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist.

Was Timothy McVeigh part of AQ.

Since you get different anwsers from those 2 questions, how can AQ and terrorism be the same thing?

But I don't expect you to ever admit your wrong. As usual.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anwser the questions.

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist.

Was Timothy McVeigh part of AQ.

Since you get different anwsers from those 2 questions, how can AQ and terrorism be the same thing?

But I don't expect you to ever admit your wrong. As usual.

That you can, with a straight face, claim AQ is not Terrorists is hilarious if not so sad. McVey was a terrorists and SO are AQ. At least to anyone with a functioning brain cell. You keep claiming words have meanings then play these games, then wonder why most of us consider you an idiot.

 

[jreeves]

Are they both terrorist acts, yes or no?

Yes they are, Is an elephant and a kitten both animals? But would you say they are both comparable in size?

 

[Larkinn]

That you can, with a straight face, claim AQ is not Terrorists is hilarious if not so sad. McVey was a terrorists and SO are AQ. At least to anyone with a functioning brain cell. You keep claiming words have meanings then play these games, then wonder why most of us consider you an idiot.

You are retarded. I never claimed that AQ was terrorists. The point was that not all terrorists are part of AQ. Get it now?

 

[Larkinn]

Yes they are, Is an elephant and a kitten both animals? But would you say they are both comparable in size?

Was the statement that there have been no more terrorist attacks, or was the statement there was no more terrorist attacks similar to 9/11?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Was the statement that there have been no more terrorist attacks, or was the statement there was no more terrorist attacks similar to 9/11?

DId you or did you not say ...

Did you say terrorist? I could have sworn you said AQ.

 

[Larkinn]

DId you or did you not say ...

Yes, I did. AQ is a subset of terrorists. The two terms aren't interchangable.

Learn the difference between a specific term and a general term and why they aren't the same.

 

[jreeves]

Was the statement that there have been no more terrorist attacks, or was the statement there was no more terrorist attacks similar to 9/11?

Ok, so yes there has been small scale attempts with limited damage, but nothing close to the magnitude of 9/11. Does that make you feel better?

 

[jillian]

Ok, so yes there has been small scale attempts with limited damage, but nothing close to the magnitude of 9/11. Does that make you feel better?

there were 7 years between the two WTC attacks.

and?

 

[jreeves]

there were 7 years between the two WTC attacks.

and?

and.....there was also the USS Cole, bombings on embassies in between those two attacks as well....and??