Major Terror Attack On The Uk

[freeandfun1]

until the threat is gone, i wouldn't call it a success. and to say that it justifies our policy to date is innaccurate, arrogant and/or ignorant. besides, what exactly is it saying to our britain that we haven't had an 'attack' on our soil since 9/11? (and europe, where you have stated you want them there and not here)

especially when we started this war? gee, i wonder why it's so tough to garner support and strengthen the 'coalition'? what a mystery.

Frankly, I care more about this country and our citizens than I do Europe. I care about them, but MY priority is MY country and MY family. You are such an ignorant fuck it isn't even funny.

 

[archangel]

I have said that police as well as intel is needed, in order to track down the threats exposed by intel.

Please answer this specific question:

Do you think 150,000 additional US intel agents and 150,000 additional US police agents and at least an equal number of other Free World agents would help significantly, or not?

(It could possibly help...but would not end the attacks...must go to the nest..search and destroy...a military action...not a police action)





I have not made any statement which could be described as appeasement.

What specificly has given you that impression?

(Gimmee a break...you countered by stating increased activity by the terrorist by our actions vs negotiation)





I am not aware of any involvement by the Balkan Muslims in 9/11, or any other terrorist act. Wanna fill me in on what I've missed here?

Furthermore, the Balkan situation is in fact a rare case where relatively helpless Muslims were in mortal danger from aggressors, and the entire operation seems to have panned out quite well so far.

(Wake up Billy Bob supported the wrong side...since then we have had 911 and the radicals in Serbia continue to burn Christian churches...anymore silly statements?)

 

[spillmind]

Why don't you stop the liberal tactic of ignoring what doesn't support your suppositions? I have been very clear in my points. Regardless of what YOU think, the WoT has prevented further attacks against US interests. As I have said several times now, under Clinton and his program of appeasement, we (the USA) was attacked on average once every two years by AQ. Since 911 and the start of the WoT we haven't had another attack on US interests. That is quite a substantial point if one will take off their blinders, ditch their preconceived biases and evaluate the results with an intellectually honest mind. You however have proved that you will not. You already have your preconceived biases and you are going to stick with them come hell, high water or a Islamofacist detonated nuclear bomb. You better get your head out of your ass and see the light because your ignorance is keeping you blind.

awesome! some specifics! so this 'global' war on terror is actually soley aimed at 'preventing further attacks against US interests.' thanks for this meaningful insight. i'm sure this is what bush was pitchin in his call for aid in iraq. it sure sounds like a goal the whole world should buy into! it's really so amazing they aren't buying what you are selling. that must keep you up at night.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

until the threat is gone, i wouldn't call it a success. and to say that it justifies our policy to date is innaccurate, arrogant and/or ignorant. besides, what exactly is it saying to our britain that we haven't had an 'attack' on our soil since 9/11? (and europe, where you have stated you want them there and not here)

especially when we started this war? gee, i wonder why it's so tough to garner support and strengthen the 'coalition'? what a mystery.

I will file our opinion away with other's of equal value, thanks for that!

Exactly, how did "we" start this war? I guess I am not as smart as you appear to be.....

BTW...are you belittling the contributions of those from the international community, who have paid dearly for their efforts as a part of the international coalition? Seems to me, that you are the one who is fighting to destroy the support and strength of our coalition partners. (not 'coalition,' as you have so incorrectly punctuated)

 

[spillmind]

Frankly, I care more about this country and our citizens than I do Europe. I care about them, but MY priority is MY country and MY family. You are such an ignorant fuck it isn't even funny.

and why they aren't on board must really be baffling to you.

 

[no1tovote4]

stop using tragedy to shamelessly whore our failed effort in iraq. the insurgency is as strong as ever and the bombing continue. what exactly are you saying is making your case stronger? you aren't taking them out, they are getting more polarized and stronger.

it's a damn good thing you aren't a general.

and come to my house and call me a coward, buddy. you're really got some nerve. and you certainly aren't convincing anyone either.

If I were a leader of a Terrorist group, I would attack as much as possible in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to insrue that a Democracy could not form as that would be the largest blow to my organization's recruiting than any defeat militarily at the hands of the US would be. This is one of the reasons that Al Zarqawi is attempting to equate the new Iraqi forces with the US forces in his newest training tapes.

It isn't that the insurgency is "strong as ever" that you should be looking it, but why they attack in Iraq that we should look at. The terrorist training tapes on the Homeland security sites show that they are politically savvy and understand that a Democracy would pretty much end recruits in that area. They work towards equating Democracy itself to religion and therefore any attempt would be seen as a "religious" attack and lately they have been rather successful.

The work towards setting up a Democracy in Iraq is the actual attack on Terrorism, not the military battles. Those are a sideline effect of the real battle, the one against Democracy as a whole being waged by the Terrorist organizations in their propaganda and in body in Iraq.

 

[GotZoom]

and why they aren't on board must really be baffling to you.

Who is "they"?

 

[rcajun90]

stop using tragedy to shamelessly whore our failed effort in iraq. the insurgency is as strong as ever and the bombing continue. what exactly are you saying is making your case stronger? you aren't taking them out, they are getting more polarized and stronger.

it's a damn good thing you aren't a general.

and come to my house and call me a coward, buddy. you're really got some nerve. and you certainly aren't convincing anyone either.

Whether are not you supported the war in Iraq you should step back and re-examine your position on Iraq. I bought into that Saddam had WMD’s so we had to get him before he handed them over to terrorists. Now it doesn’t seem he had them or perhaps he moved them to his Ba’athist buddies in Syria. It doesn’t matter because we are there an Al-Queda is definitely there. Why not kill as many Jihadist as we can there instead of doing at home? Think about if we did cut and run from Iraq? I believe we would see a terrorist base camp similar to the one in Afghanistan. The Jihadist would be encouraged and they would surely launch waves of suicide attacks on the United States. This is not Vietnam. The North Vietnamese never threatened us at home.

We can not afford to try understand our enemy. What’s there to understand anyways? They hate us for our democracy and freedom. They want to establish a one world Islamic Republic. We must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also we must eventually go into Iran to cut the head off of the Islamic terrorist movement. Iran is the mother of all terrorist states.

I often ask people that take a position like you to give me a peaceful resolution that doesn’t amount to surrender. So how would stop this?

 

[spillmind]

I will file our opinion away with other's of equal value, thanks for that!

Exactly, how did "we" start this war? I guess I am not as smart as you appear to be.....

BTW...are you belittling the contributions of those from the international community, who have paid dearly for their efforts as a part of the international coalition? Seems to me, that you are the one who is fighting to destroy the support and strength of our coalition partners. (not 'coalition,' as you have so incorrectly punctuated)

forgive my imperfections. on a side note i respect all intelligence of those i respond to, or the logic would be rather fleeting to then be expecting a response, right?

and i guess that wasn't powell going to the UN with phoney intel? that we all know now was fashioned around policy. YES, we did start this war. the hunt for bin laden was justified. but the attack on iraq was suspect at best, which probably means the largest protests this planet has ever seen against it must have been some kind of incredible coincidence.

while i can see how you would think i seek to undermine the effort, i am in fact calling for a re thinking of how our tactics have been carried out, and expect a plan from our government. i think the investment we have put in is sufficient enought to warrant at least a feasible exit strategy. don't you?

expecting a solution to the bombings is far above and beyond this administration's capabilities, as they have demonstrated to date, but i think it's high time we all took a serious and honest look at the 'war on terror' and what's it's achieving, and what the future holds. it's in everyone's best interest.

 

[dmp]

Whether are not you supported the war in Iraq you should step back and re-examine your position on Iraq. I bought into that Saddam had WMD’s so we had to get him before he handed them over to terrorists. Now it doesn’t seem he had them or perhaps he moved them to his Ba’athist buddies in Syria. It doesn’t matter because we are there an Al-Queda is definitely there. Why not kill as many Jihadist as we can there instead of doing at home? Think about if we did cut and run from Iraq? I believe we would see a terrorist base camp similar to the one in Afghanistan. The Jihadist would be encouraged and they would surely launch waves of suicide attacks on the United States. This is not Vietnam. The North Vietnamese never threatened us at home.

We can not afford to try understand our enemy. What’s there to understand anyways? They hate us for our democracy and freedom. They want to establish a one world Islamic Republic. We must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also we must eventually go into Iran to cut the head off of the Islamic terrorist movement. Iran is the mother of all terrorist states.

I often ask people that take a position like you to give me a peaceful resolution that doesn’t amount to surrender. So how would stop this?

Welcome to USMB!

That's the best "First Post" I remember reading.

 

[OCA]

stop using tragedy to shamelessly whore our failed effort in iraq. the insurgency is as strong as ever and the bombing continue. what exactly are you saying is making your case stronger? you aren't taking them out, they are getting more polarized and stronger.

it's a damn good thing you aren't a general.

and come to my house and call me a coward, buddy. you're really got some nerve. and you certainly aren't convincing anyone either.

So Spilly, I beg of you, if military action is not the answer what is the answer in your mind. This is the 2nd attempt to get you to answer this beyond some stupid shit about money etc. etc.

 

[-Cp]

Whether are not you supported the war in Iraq you should step back and re-examine your position on Iraq. I bought into that Saddam had WMD’s so we had to get him before he handed them over to terrorists. Now it doesn’t seem he had them or perhaps he moved them to his Ba’athist buddies in Syria. It doesn’t matter because we are there an Al-Queda is definitely there. Why not kill as many Jihadist as we can there instead of doing at home? Think about if we did cut and run from Iraq? I believe we would see a terrorist base camp similar to the one in Afghanistan. The Jihadist would be encouraged and they would surely launch waves of suicide attacks on the United States. This is not Vietnam. The North Vietnamese never threatened us at home.

We can not afford to try understand our enemy. What’s there to understand anyways? They hate us for our democracy and freedom. They want to establish a one world Islamic Republic. We must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also we must eventually go into Iran to cut the head off of the Islamic terrorist movement. Iran is the mother of all terrorist states.

I often ask people that take a position like you to give me a peaceful resolution that doesn’t amount to surrender. So how would stop this?

Yeah, welcome to USMB (I'm curious how you found it?) - and a nice first post indeed.. .

 

[OCA]

Hmmm, kind of like you are using the tragedy to shamelessly bash the administration?

C'mon Spilly, this is not the time to do the bashing! this is exactly why the attacks will continue, too much fighting amongst ourselves instead of banding together to get the job done!

Spilly band together? You must be shitting me. He cares only to bash the Bush administration or in other words anything Republican.

 

[spillmind]

Hmmm, kind of like you are using the tragedy to shamelessly bash the administration?

C'mon Spilly, this is not the time to do the bashing! this is exactly why the attacks will continue, too much fighting amongst ourselves instead of banding together to get the job done!

sir e, with all due respect, my friend. what exactly is this job we are trying to get done? and where are in the progress of this job? and do you think anything needs to be changed to meet any of those objectives?

 

[spillmind]

Spilly band together? You must be shitting me. He cares only to bash the Bush administration or in other words anything Republican.

that's a false perception you have of me, OCA. maybe it's because i don't buy into everything you are selling? so it's easier to demonize me and call me names, say i hate america, etc???

 

[OCA]

that's a false perception you have of me, OCA. maybe it's because i don't buy into everything you are selling? so it's easier to demonize me and call me names, say i hate america, etc???

Ok Mr. independent, name me one thing you agree with Bush on and when was the last Republican you voted for, be honest now.

 

[archangel]

and why they aren't on board must really be baffling to you.

What is your problem anyway...there is no draft in the US and you are not about to volunteer...so relax...there are plenty of big boys on the block to take up your slack...I guess you are just concerned that we will call you a coward....nah there are plenty of you out there to hold hands with each other...we have better things to do!

 

[Fmr jarhead]

forgive my imperfections. on a side note i respect all intelligence of those i respond to, or the logic would be rather fleeting to then be expecting a response, right?

and i guess that wasn't powell going to the UN with phoney intel? that we all know now was fashioned around policy. YES, we did start this war. the hunt for bin laden was justified. but the attack on iraq was suspect at best, which probably means the largest protests this planet has ever seen against it must have been some kind of incredible coincidence.

while i can see how you would think i seek to undermine the effort, i am in fact calling for a re thinking of how our tactics have been carried out, and expect a plan from our government. i think the investment we have put in is sufficient enought to warrant at least a feasible exit stradegy. don't you?

expecting a solution to the bombings is far above and beyond this administration's capabilities, as they have demonstrated to date, but i think it's high time we all took a serious and honest look at the 'war on terror' and what's it's achieving, and what the future holds. it's in everyone's best interest.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond, and not resort to irrational name calling, in the face of adversity.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm (1998...signed by Bill Clinton) outlines the beginnings of the US policy to eradicate Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. It is a well documented fact that Zarqawi has been treated for injuries in Iraq from the early days of the campaign in Afghanistan, so there were ties to al Qaeda (or more technically terrorists) from the beginning of our operations in Iraq.

I think a feasible exit strategy would require the dismantling of all military bases of operations in Iraq and the complete withdrawal of all US personnel in the year 2103. I would certainly hope that we can have trained military personel, a viable police force, and a thriving democratic government in operation by that time. Any talk of exiting before, would be absolute lunacy, and to "require" talk of an exit strategy would be the greatest disservice we could do for the future of a thriving peace loving Iraqi population.

A complete commitment to the Middle East, and the destruction of all the radical elements of ALL religious hate groups should be our underlying goal! (unless you think that women should be treated as second class citizens, and that we should only worship thier god, or suffer decapitation as punishment)

 

[OCA]

Anyway there is no buying into anything, the goal is clear in Iraq and elsewhere, eliminate terrorists and presuure the countries that harbor them both physically and financially. This has been clear from the very beginning.

 

[GotZoom]

What is your problem anyway...there is no draft in the US and you are not about to volunteer...so relax...there are plenty of big boys on the block to take up your slack...I guess you are just concerned that we will call you a coward....nah there are plenty of you out there to hold hands with each other...we have better things to do!

spilly has been brainwashed. This is his homepage; it explains everything.

http://ohyahmon.com/