DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on March 12, 2010, 10:20:44 PM
-
http://hbdbooks.com/2009/09/why-is-there-no-terrorism/ (http://hbdbooks.com/2009/09/why-is-there-no-terrorism/)
Here is an article from last year that I just found, the essential theme of which is that the "War on Terror" is a hoax. Not only is the article very good in itself, but it links to an even better article by Paul Craig Roberts from February of last year on pretty much the same thing.
It asks the unanswerable question, if the "terrorists" are such a constant threat, how is it that they haven't been able to pull off any major attacks since the WTC attacks? Roberts doesn't question so much the absence of another master-stroke like the WTC attack, but even smaller-scale attacks on relatively soft targets. Given the abilities of even high-school kids to massacre their own classmates and die, it does seem passing strange that highly trained killer teams from the Wild East don't score any hits in years. I strongly recommend the article and the linked Roberts article.
The hoax serves multiple interests - - for the opponents of a free society, it allows the government increasingly repressive powers of surveillance and detention; for the military-industrial complex, a continuing sales bonanza that survived the end of the Cold War; for the geopolitical strategists of American world hegemony, it provides the rationale for ongoing invasions, occupations and aggressions of various kinds; and for the ZioNazis and Likudniks, cover for the continuing ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.
-
It asks the unanswerable question, if the "terrorists" are such a constant threat, how is it that they haven't been able to pull off any major attacks since the WTC attacks?
Probably for the same reasons there has not been another Holocaust. You know, heightened awareness and sensitivity.
So your unanswerable question is not so unanswerable after all.
-
Speaking of unanswerable, though off on a completely different tangent, recall how our resident communist apparenty is unable to fester enough mental reserve to answer direct questions sirs poses, all based on the bogus notion that sirs supposedly keeps calling on his less than truthful proclaimations. Notice also how the vast plethora of posts that sirs poses in response to Tee rarely have an allegation to lying
I'm sure most everyone else notices as well 8)
-
<<Probably for the same reasons there has not been another Holocaust. You know, heightened awareness and sensitivity.>>
Yeah, that must be it. And of course the reason why all those "terrorists" are able to pull off one hit after another in Pakistan and Iraq is - - wait for it ! ! ! - - - LOWERED awareness and sensitivity. Now if only those dumb Pakis and Iraqis would wake up to the seriousness of the threat, why they'd have peace and quiet all the rest of their days, just like the U.S.A. does.
<<So your unanswerable question is not so unanswerable after all.>>
No, of course not. Not to one of your knowledge and sophistication, o Great One.
-
The question is not unanswerable , only he true answer is unbearable to the questioner.
Bush did right.
Was right .
Was effective.
If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch.
George W. Bush
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_W._Bush (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_W._Bush)
America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.
George W. Bush,
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.
George W. Bush
We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
George W. Bush, September 7, 2003
-
Bush did right.
Was right .
Was effective.
============================================
That is hilarious.
So what they can't get right in Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan, they got right in the U.S.A. Neutralized a threat in a free, open and highly mobile "democracy" of three hundred million people, which they can't neutralize in countries of one-tenth that size or less, even under a military occupation of hundreds of thousands of troops, where people are routinely shot for not stopping at checkpoints, or arrested, tortured and murdered daily by the occupiers and their puppet forces of state security.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Although they can stop trained hit squads of suicide killers from striking anywhere in a vast nation of 300 million people for nine straight years, yet they still haven't figured out how to stop high-school kids, college students or disgruntled workers from the periodic mass shootings breaking out at least three or four times a year now.
Rubbish. What total rubbish. I hope you actually READ the article by Paul Craig Roberts. The article that I linked to, links to his. Anyone who can read that article and still believe in the Great War on Terror has to be willfully blind to the facts
-
It's a matter of control.
We don't control Pakistan and Iraq.
And terrorist have struck in the US , the Dr. at FT. Hood and the guy who blew off his dick over Detroit.
-
<<It's a matter of control.
<<We don't control Pakistan and Iraq.>>
Please. The Pakistan Army has a lot more control over Lahore or Karachi than the Federal Government has over New York or LA. There are raids, kidnappings, assassinations, drone raids in the remoter parts of the country, etc. In Iraq you or your puppet army have had power over the people for years - - power to arrest arbitrarily in the middle of the night, to kill, to kidnap, to torture, to set up checkpoints and kill whole families for not stopping. In countries many times smaller than the USA in both area and population, you have held awesome power and never been able even now to stop determined killers and assassins from striking.
You have much LESS power in your own country, which is huge in comparison to the victims of your aggression, both in area and in population, and dozens of times more mobile. It is ludicrous to assert that it is the "success" of Bush's operations that would prevent determined, suicidal squads of hit-men or lone assassins from striking anywhere in nine long years over the length and breadth of your country. As Paul Craig Roberts has noted, in all that time, not a single neocon figure has been hit. Go figure. There is no "terror threat" except as manufactured for public consumption by the interests which depend on there being one.
<<And terrorist have struck in the US , the Dr. at FT. Hood and the guy who blew off his dick over Detroit. >>
Don't make me laugh. The guy in Detroit was a government set-up, he was waved through passport control by a U.S. government agent, kept under tight surveillance and "overpowered" by "passengers" before any harm could be done. Yeah right. Too bad that Detroit lawyer overheard those morons setting the whole thing up and spilled the beans. The Ft. Hood gunman was a Muslim soldier who went postal. He wasn't a part of any vast Muslim conspiracy, just another in a long series of U.S. military men going bonkers and taking it out on those around him. Live by the sword, die by the sword. As long as the U.S. sheeple are bamboozled into maintaining a huge force of psycho thugs to try to keep the rest of the world in line, don't be surprised when the thugs go off-leash without orders and start killing at random back home in the U.S.A. Goes with the territory. He wasn't the first and he sure as hell won't be the last. THAT you can take to the bank. That he happened to be a Muslim was a BONUS, played right into the hands of the hoaxers.
-
The Pakistan Army has a lot more control over Lahore or Karachi than the Federal Government has over New York or LA.
Typical top down thinking. The difference is in the US the people have little tolerance for terrorist acts.
-
<<Typical top down thinking.>>
I think we all have to agree, that what happens at the top has SOME trickle-down influence on what happens in the rest of the country.
<<The difference is in the US the people have little tolerance for terrorist acts.>>
In which case, the spying on and surveillance of the American people, far from being evidence of how effective Bush has been, as claimed by plane, was actually a huge waste of time and effort. Interesting.
As September 11 should have demonstrated, what counts is not how "little tolerance" the American people may have for "terrorist acts" (apart from the actions of their own government, of course) but how determined the "terrorists" are to do their thing on U.S. soil.
For a vast Muslim terrorist conspiracy to operate for nine whole years in and around a country of 300 million people occupying one of the largest unitary-state land areas in the world without scoring a single hit on any public figure, institution or structure is proof, not of the efficiency of Bush's methods, but of the non-existence of the conspiracy.
-
Or more realistically, the effectiveness to which such attacks are prevented upon "the Great Satan"
-
You shift the goal posts.
The fact is terrorist attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11. Most notably after Bush left office.
-
<<You shift the goal posts.
<<The fact is terrorist attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11. Most notably after Bush left office. >>
Actually, YOU are the one who just shifted the goal posts. The issue was never whether or not there would be individuals going postal and committing or attempting to commit mass killings in the U.S.A. Given the state of your gun-control laws or lack thereof, and given the huge "defence" forces that your country maintains, that's a given. There will always be Colombines of one kind or another, there will always be servicemen running amok with their weapons and we've all gotta live with it. This kinda shit even happens in Canada, although rarely if ever from our military.
The "terrorist attacks" that you refer to have always been around, before the first neocon even dreamed of fabricating the "War on Terror." To seize on the latest ones as proof that there is a vast terrorist conspiracy out there is beyond ludicrous. The Detroit bomber was an obvious set-up and the Ft. Hood guy was just one more deranged soldier acting on his own, as per well-established precedent.
Roberts (you really SHOULD read his article) referred specifically to the obviously conspiratorial or political efforts that one would expect to see in a real "terrorist" war, such as the assassination of neocons or other public figures who would be obviously anathema to any bona fide "terrorist" conspirator. Nothing at all like this has happened in nine long years. Yet these enemies were sophisticated enough and bold enough to organize 9-11 and pull it off. Now you tell me that they're still busting their ass 24/7 to score once more against the US, but only the genius of Bush has shut down every effort they made, large or small, for nine long years?
Get real.
-
No.
Roberts hypothesis was that here have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 9-11 and therefore 9-11 must have been a conspiracy by the Bush Admin and or Neo-Cons acting on their own..
His hypothesis is incorrect because there have been attacks since then.
The lone gunman theory is trite. The attacks were made by individuals in contact with known terrorist organizations.
-
<<Roberts hypothesis was that here have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 9-11 and therefore 9-11 must have been a conspiracy by the Bush Admin and or Neo-Cons acting on their own.>>
No. That is pure fiction. I revisited the Roberts link and he didn't even mention 9-11, let alone claim that it was a Bush conspiracy. Maybe that was YOUR hypothesis, but it sure as hell ain't Roberts'.
<<His hypothesis is incorrect because there have been attacks since then.>>
I will assume at this point that you are talking about Roberts' real hypothesis, not the one you just fabricated for him. There was no credible attack since 9-11 that could be attributed to a "terrorist" organization. There is no evidence that anyone but the Ft. Hood gunman planned, organized or participated in the execution of his rampage. No other individual has been charged or indicted in that crime. None was named as unindicted co-conspirator.
The "lone gunman" theory may indeed strain credibility in the attacks on JFK, MLK, RFK and others, but there are such things as lone gunmen, just as there are soldiers who go nuts and start shooting and you have absolutely ZERO evidence that shadowy figures unknown and unnamed were responsible in whole or in part for the crime; "contacts with" is just a particularly cheesy form of guilt by association. In this internet age, everyone has contacts with everyone; "known terrorist organizations" is really trite too, they're whatever the ZioNazis in Tel Aviv tell their US Congresscritters to put on the list, anyone who shows the slightest ability to impede their ethnic cleansing of the West Bank is suddenly a "known terrorist organization."
The Detroit bomber apparently had contacts with powerful unnamed US figures of very shadowy backgrounds who were able to walk him onto the US-bound plane without going through passport control, which indicates to me that the kid was set up by the US government to fabricate yet another threat, foiled yet again, so they could keep the whole scam going. Expect more. Expect more phony "attacks" that never actually hurt anybody, expect more "escaped by the skin of our teeth" thrillers in which Muslim "attackers" ALMOST get away with it. Wow. From the folks who brought you the Gulf of Tonkin Incident! from the folks who brought you Saddam's Deadly WMD and The Mushroom Cloud We Can't Afford to Wait For!
It's hilarious, I don't know what's funnier, the kooky crap they come up with or the apparently unending ability of the American sheeple to swallow that crap whole.
-
Both Hasan and the Detroit Bomber had contact with one Anwar Al-Alwaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)
13 people were killed by Hasan. untold hundreds could have been killed by Abdulmutullab. I wouldn't call these phony attacks that did not kill anyone.
-
<<Both Hasan and the Detroit Bomber had contact with one Anwar Al-Alwaki
<<13 people were killed by Hasan. untold hundreds could have been killed by Abdulmutullab. I wouldn't call these phony attacks that did not kill anyone.>>
al Awlaki is a preacher who hates the U.S., preaches jihad against it and praises anyone who attacks it. There is no evidence whatsoever that he plans attacks, counsels individuals on how to attack, or shelters anyone who has committed an attack.
Actually, there's no difference at all between Awlaki and American preachers like Pat Robertson, who call for war on Iran, the assassination of Hugo Chavez and other acts of violence and mayhem.
Major Hasan and the Detroit bomber may very well be filled with hate for America because of the influence of al Awlaki in the same way that millions of Americans are filled with hate for Iran/Hugo Chavez/Muslims, etc., because of the influence of Pat Robertson and other preachers like him.
You are really making a stretch by claiming that because one listens to or corresponds with a hate-filled preacher, whether Christian or Muslim, that one is therefore a dangerous, trained terrorist and a member of an organized terror network. Quite frankly, you are making no sense at all. The Detroit bomber's "foiled attack" on a U.S. airliner was clearly a fake, a set-up by the American state security apparatus akin to the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident and no American was injured in the "attack;" Major Hasan, as I indicated previously, was clearly a nut-case soldier going ballistic, as has happened many times in the past and will continue to happen many times in the future. Clearly, apart from fueling the hatred, Awlaki had nothing to do with either of the "attacks."
Paul Craig Roberts makes a lot more sense than you do. If there had been an organized attempt by a "terror organization" to attack Americans on American soil, you would think that ONCE - - just ONCE - - such an attack would have been made successfully. As Mr. Roberts says, the fact that high-school misfits, fucked-up vets and disgruntled ex-employees pull this shit off all the time makes it obvious that there are no dedicated suicidal squads of trained, professional al Qaeda killers operating in the U.S. and never have been.
-
<<Both Hasan and the Detroit Bomber had contact with one Anwar Al-Alwaki
<<13 people were killed by Hasan. untold hundreds could have been killed by Abdulmutullab. I wouldn't call these phony attacks that did not kill anyone.>>
The Detroit bomber's "foiled attack" on a U.S. airliner was clearly a fake, a set-up by the American state security apparatus akin to the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident and no American was injured in the "attack;"
And clearly you have evidence/proof of such. We'll patiently wait to see some validation to your current unsubstantiated opinion
If there had been an organized attempt by a "terror organization" to attack Americans on American soil, you would think that ONCE - - just ONCE - - such an attack would have been made successfully.
Again, thanks to Bush & the American people, such a large scale attack, such as 911 appears to have been averted. At least for now. But we will get hit again.
-
You are really making a stretch by claiming that because one listens to or corresponds with a hate-filled preacher, whether Christian or Muslim, that one is therefore a dangerous, trained terrorist and a member of an organized terror network.
Define terrorist.
-
<<Define terrorist. >>
It's a highly subjective term. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's why I usually put it in quotes when I use it.
-
<<Define terrorist. >>
It's a highly subjective term. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's why I usually put it in quotes when I use it.
In the United States, what is the definition of terrorism?
-
<<Both Hasan and the Detroit Bomber had contact with one Anwar Al-Alwaki
<<13 people were killed by Hasan. untold hundreds could have been killed by Abdulmutullab. I wouldn't call these phony attacks that did not kill anyone.>>
The Detroit bomber's "foiled attack" on a U.S. airliner was clearly a fake, a set-up by the American state security apparatus akin to the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident and no American was injured in the "attack;"
And clearly you have evidence/proof of such. We'll patiently wait to see some validation to your current unsubstantiated opinion
As everyone else also notices......didn't think so
-
It asks the unanswerable question, if the "terrorists" are such a constant threat, how is it that they haven't been able to pull off any major attacks since the WTC attacks?
The question is not unanswerable , only he true answer is unbearable to the questioner.
Bush did right.
Was right .
Was effective.
If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch.
George W. Bush
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_W._Bush (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_W._Bush)
America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.
George W. Bush,
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.
George W. Bush
We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
George W. Bush, September 7, 2003
Bush did right.
Was right .
Was effective.
============================================
That is hilarious.
So what they can't get right in Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan, they got right in the U.S.A. ....?
Yes of course.
Are the attacks on the Kobar Towers and the American Embassys in Tanzinea and Kenya hilarious too? Please ask your question again and be specific as to what you are really asking.
Al Queda was causing a big attack every ten months or so while Clinton was President and the response was either ineffective or nothing. The Al Queda attacks escalated .
Attacking Al Queda suffeciently to actually weaken them turns out to have been a better choice. Even if we never can totally eliminate them, attacks suffecient to keep them miserable and weak can be managed , perhaps forever.
-
When you cut through all the irrelevant bullshit (such as the declamations by George W. Bush on what Americans are or are not) and get back to the real no-bullshit world of common sense, the questions asked by Paul Craig Roberts remain curiously unanswered except by ludicrous and lame claims that "Bush got it right" that deny all common sense.
Has any participant in a war EVER gotten it SO "right" that in nine years of continuous warfare, that participant suffers not a single casualty? The greatest minds in military history could not boast such an accomplishment, but Bush - - BUSH ! ! ! - - was able to "get it right." Preposterous.
If the U.S.A. really IS in a "war" with ruthless, unscrupulous "terrorists" how is it that in nine solid years of this "war," not a single neocon, public official, soldier or soldier's family member has ever been assassinated on U.S. soil by a member of a "terrorist" gang or network? THAT is the problem and that is why this "war" is, as Mr. Roberts so rightly says, a hoax.
-
Why nine years?
The Kobar towers , the Cole , the Embassy bombing... several other attacks directly attributable to Al Quieda?
Why not say fifteen years? Why not say twenty?
The enemy kept on growing and strikeing bigger targets escalateing their attacks and digging deeper in in Afganistan. They would never have quit untill someone got it right.
Bush got it right and your assertion otherwise is lucridous. The question asked is answered no other way , you may call it unanswerable because you find the truth unacceptable.
-
<<Why nine years?>>
Because in nine years since the WTC attack, there has been no successful attack on ANY American in the U.S.A. by any so-called "terrorist" gang, cell, organization or network. NONE. Not a single neocon assassinated, not a single politician, public figure, etc. You are "at war" with an enemy that has not inflicted one single casualty on you in NINE FUCKING YEARS? Who are you kidding? What military genius was ever able to wage war for nine years without suffering a single casualty? Hannibal? Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? Robert E. Lee? Now you are telling me that what they could never accomplish, George W. Bush has succeeded in doing? Because HE "got it right" and all those other bozos got it wrong? Really, plane, this IS kind of hard to swallow
<<The Kobar towers , the Cole , the Embassy bombing... several other attacks directly attributable to Al Quieda?>>
Obviously, if you push your forces into their territory, some of them who are not so thrilled to see you there are going to push back. That explains both the Kobar Towers and the Cole, both of which were purely military targets a long way from home. Their purposes were hardly innocent. The Embassy bombings, while not attacks on military targets, were no indication either that Americans living at home in their own country were in any particular danger. Obviously, you have people, countries and organizations around the world that hate your fucking guts and do not welcome you into their lands and homes and will gladly sacrifice their own lives to see that you do not stay too long there. But the "War on Terror" is based on the aftermath of Sept. 11, on the theory that you are engaged in a "war" with a ruthless and wily opponent who is coming after you in your own homeland (thus the Department of Homeland Security) and that this extraordinary "threat" (which is in fact pure bullshit) needs to be defended with kangaroo-court military commissions replacing courts of law, with torture and illegal arrests and detentions, etc., all justified as "wartime" exigencies, despite the fact that there is no war.
<<Why not say fifteen years? Why not say twenty?>>
Because I'm counting from a genuine and real attack on Americans on American soil, not from some imaginary event that might have taken place fifteen or twenty years ago.
<<The enemy kept on growing and strikeing bigger targets escalateing their attacks and digging deeper in in Afganistan. They would never have quit untill someone got it right.>>
Sure, that was because they did not want U.S. troops on Muslim land - - the escalations were against legitimate U.S. targets on Muslim soil. The attack on the WTC was a criminal operation, not a war.
<<Bush got it right and your assertion otherwise is lucridous. >>
Ridiculous. For reasons already given.
<<The question asked is answered no other way , you may call it unanswerable because you find the truth unacceptable.>>
I call it unanswerable because nobody's yet been able to answer it except in lame and ridiculous terms that defy common sense.
-
You are makeing a seaparation in events that is confuseing you,...
Al Queda declaired war on us twenty years ago, and never palced any limit on where or how many Americans it would kill. I deny their right to kill Americans or Canadians for reason of having American or Canadian feet on Arabian dirt.
They also never had a right to kill Tanzineans or Kenyans or Arabians who happened to be passing by an American when the Al Quada bombs would blow up.
Also your assertian that AlQueda couldn'tbe failing if they were real is lucridious , of course they could fail, I sincerey hope thay continue to fail.
We are the more powerfull contestant in the fight so we get to choose the venue. If we choose to choose the venue. This is something that Bush got entirely right. The Al Queda was a lot more effective when they go to pick where and when to strike and never needed to face Armed Americans. Americans who can shoot back tipicly kill Al Queda fighters at a rate that weakens them for future conflict , this we cannot keep up forever because we will eventually run low on targets.
-
By the way I also deny Al Queda the right to kill Swedes or Danes for drawing insulting drawings , I deny their right to kill Duchmen or DutchWomen for makeing Movies that insult Sharia Law.
Further I deny them the right to kill Spanyards or Englishmen for commuteing.
I fnally deny that Al Queda has any right to strike Christians or Muslims or Jews or Kiffir anywhere they find them vunerable just because they find them vunerable.
-
<<Al Queda declaired war on us twenty years ago, and never palced any limit on where or how many Americans it would kill. >>
I don't know about "declaring war," I suppose if you have such a document or declaration, I'd be interested to see it. Whether or not al Qaeda "declared war" on the USA is of minimal significance. I could declare war myself on the USA tomorrow, but my mere declaration could not possibly have the effect of creating a real war.
Regardless of what they declared, they commenced a series of attacks against U.S. installations, both military and civilian, in their little corner of the world. They also made two attacks on the WTC, the latter of which succeeded spectacularly. The attacks on American lives and property abroad leave America with some choices to make - - pull out of places where some folks don't think you should be, or defend yourselves by fortifying the properties and catching the attackers. The attacks on American soil obviously require a beefing up of security, and it seems this has been done.
The problem with the creation, for propaganda purposes, of a fake "war" to deal with (a) isolated attacks on your military bases and ships in the Third World, (b) isolated attacks on your Embassies and (c) one spectacular attack on the US homeland which took less than 3,000 lives, is that the rhetoric of "war" is used to silence or diminish free and open debate inside America, give powers to the President that the Constitution never intended for him to have and mainly to justify and cover for wars of unprovoked aggression in the Middle East and the totally unnecessary expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in "defence" and "homeland security" which only a real war could ever justify.
<<I deny their right to kill Americans or Canadians for reason of having American or Canadian feet on Arabian dirt.>>
So what? They deny the rights of the owners of those feet to put them on Arabian dirt.
<<They also never had a right to kill Tanzineans or Kenyans or Arabians who happened to be passing by an American when the Al Quada bombs would blow up.>>
No, only Americans can blow up the innocent and say, "Oooops. Collateral damage."
<<Also your assertian that AlQueda couldn'tbe failing if they were real is lucridious , of course they could fail, I sincerey hope thay continue to fail.>>
There are failures and there are failures. It's ludicrous to suggest that the test of their being real is whether they can nuke the Capitol, assassinate the Joint Chiefs of Staff and occupy the White House, but it's not ludicrous at all to suggest that their failure to assassinate on American soil one neocon, one public figure etc. in nine long years of "war" is evidence, not of their alleged "failure," but of their non-existence. The "War on Terror" is sold on the threat to American lives in their home in the American homeland, not on what happened to the Kobar Towers or USS Cole. It's sold with the frantic assurance that "this threat is DIFFERENT," it's a threat from within. And it's used to jack hundreds of billions more from the American taxpayer.
<<We are the more powerfull contestant in the fight so we get to choose the venue. >>
That's the official line. The fact is, you are the ONLY contestant in the fight, but you can't very well bomb villages in America, so you HAVE to "choose the venue" to be in Iraq or Afghanistan.
<<If we choose to choose the venue. This is something that Bush got entirely right. >>
Wake up, plane. First he bamboozled you into agreeing that America was at war, THEN he told you that he was choosing the venue. That is hilarious. If you really were at war, the venue would be wherever al Qaeda decided it wanted to kill Americans. But what you are saying is that in nine years, the "enemy" couldn't (due to the brilliance of Bush) infiltrate one agent or team into the US to score even one hit? Ridiculous.
<<The Al Queda was a lot more effective when they go to pick where and when to strike and never needed to face Armed Americans. Americans who can shoot back tipicly kill Al Queda fighters at a rate that weakens them for future conflict >>
Yet strangely enough in nine years, shooting back and "weakening them for future conflict," it appears they are stronger than ever. Go figger.
<<this we cannot keep up forever because we will eventually run low on targets.>>
Sure plane, let us know when THAT happens. [jaw dropping in amazement at what a good fight you Americans can talk]
-
So what? They deny the rights of the owners of those feet to put them on Arabian dirt.
It's not Al Queda call to deny those feet. Until they reach the status of a sovereign govt , they are nothing but thugs.
-
<<Why nine years?>>
Because in nine years since the WTC attack, there has been no successful attack on ANY American in the U.S.A. by any so-called "terrorist" gang, cell, organization or network. NONE. Not a single neocon assassinated, not a single politician, public figure, etc.
Wow....the overwhelming disappointment in Tee's tone is nearly tangible
-
<<It's not Al Queda call to deny those feet. Until they reach the status of a sovereign govt , they are nothing but thugs. >>
Well, this could go on forever. As they probably see it, you've reached the status of a sovereign gov't and you're still nothing but a bunch of thugs.
Obviously, name-calling is not going to resolve the problem. The real issue is that you have an out-of-control U.S. government, responsible to no one other than those who line its pockets, who are draining the resources of the nation to fight a non-existent war, when the real enemy is a relative handful of criminal fanatics living thousands of miles away, best dealt with under existing frameworks of criminal law.
-
The real issue is your apologies for a bunch of criminal thugs, whose sole purpose is to kill innocent civilians as expression of their outrage over what their legitimate govts allow.
-
<<The real issue is your apologies for a bunch of criminal thugs, whose sole purpose is to kill innocent civilians as expression of their outrage over what their legitimate govts allow.>>
Yeah, well speaking of a bunch of criminal thugs who kill innocent civilians . . . are we into pot/kettle territory, or is this one of those glass houses/throwing stones disputes?
-
Nice try in trying to compare the US to Al Queda.
A more direct comparison would be Al Queda vs M13 or some other gang like the Crips or the Bloods.
Shame we aren't prosecuting the war like they would.
-
<<Nice try in trying to compare the US to Al Queda.>>
Oh, please. If I were really trying, I would have compared the amount of innocent blood on your hands and on theirs. There really isn't any comparison, you're really far too modest in pretending there is.
<<A more direct comparison would be Al Queda vs M13 or some other gang like the Crips or the Bloods.>>
If I compared the U.S.A. to ALL of them, and threw the Mafia in as well, you'd still be the No. 1 source of murder, torture and mayhem in the world.
<<Shame we aren't prosecuting the war like they would. >>
ROTFLMFAO. Yeah right. Hundreds of thousands dead are just a drop in the bucket compared to what you're really capable of. What did you have in mind, nukes? What's your next slogan gonna be, "No more Mr. Nice Guy?"
-
Yet strangely enough in nine years, shooting back and "weakening them for future conflict," it appears they are stronger than ever. Go figger.
I would like you to argue with a fellow I am aquainted with , who is certain that they are not strong ,certain he is that they are actually ficticious.
the real enemy is a relative handful of criminal fanatics living thousands of miles away, best dealt with under existing frameworks of criminal law.
As was tried for the entire Clinton Administration, whilst Al Queda grew in strength , numbers and influence. This is a discredited approach , abandoning it was one of the things that the Bush administration Got right.
ROTFLMFAO. Yeah right. Hundreds of thousands dead are just a drop in the bucket compared to what you're really capable of. What did you have in mind, nukes? What's your next slogan gonna be, "No more Mr. Nice Guy?"
Exactly!
One of the things that the Al Queda strategy depends on is our reluctance to overreact , they are depending on our patience to be neverending, and our main strength to be withheld. We naturally have a lot of reluctance to carpet bomb their bases and homes , the undesired colateral damage would be atrocious. In Vietnam we decided to loose rather than escalate one more time , but by then Vietnam and its neighbors had adzorbed more bombs than we dropped on Germany in WWII , in WWII itself we didn't hold back any strenth of any form but blasted city centers in Europe and in Japan.
Osama Bin Laden is certainly no student of history , he is assureing his people that the way to treat Americans is to frighten them and use up their patience, does he hope to frighten us as much as the Jappaneese did in 42? The Vietnameese were smarter than this and in a war that spanned seven years for us and fifteen for them they never even tried to attack us on our homeland , their resorces were equal to such a mission I am certain , what prevented this was a higher level of intelligence than Al Quieda can demonstrate.
Of course you know that the Vietnam war was an absolute fabrication that never really happened because the Vietnameese never did attack an American city, WWII also was mostly ficticious because after a single real success the Japaneese never did get off a successfull attack on American territory.
-
What did you have in mind, nukes? What's your next slogan gonna be, "No more Mr. Nice Guy?"
yeah
-
yeah [Yeah, I had nukes in mind and from now on it's "No More Mr. Nice Guy."]
As always, I'm impressed by how good a fight you guys can talk. Forgetting that you're broke, in large part due to your endless wars of naked aggression, and you need to keep buying shitloads of hi-tech weapons to kill barefoot, lightly-armed mujahideen that you'll never have the balls to face mano-a-mano without overwhelming firepower and technology, just how do you propose to keep on paying for your cowardly, one-sided slaughters?
-
Umm We have troops on the ground now so we are going mano o mano with them as we speak.
A nuke cost what to drop? Gotta be cheaper than deploying 200k soldiers overseas for a year. Not sure why you are so concerned about innocent civilians. Doesn't seem to bother you when they are blown up by suicide bombers.
-
<<One of the things that the Al Queda strategy depends on is our reluctance to overreact , they are depending on our patience to be neverending, and our main strength to be withheld.>>
Quite the opposite, they hope to provoke you into attacking and occupying Arab land, Iraq was a master stroke because (a) they hated that bastard Saddam Hussein and his un-Islamic "Arab Socialists" even more than you do and (b) the attacks generated more anti-American hatred than anything al Qaeda could ever generate on their own, radicalizing the Arab populations of American client states and thus weakening the hold of the American puppet rulers, particularly in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The more they see of U.S. attacks on Muslims, the more they hate their own rulers for doing nothing about it.
<<We naturally have a lot of reluctance to carpet bomb their bases and homes , the undesired colateral damage would be atrocious.>>
Was that supposed to be my Laugh of the Week? Thanks, it's hilarious.
<<In Vietnam we decided to loose rather than escalate one more time >>
ROTFLMFAO - - why I never realized the true extent of your benevolence. I guess you must have learned from Adolf Hitler, who chose to lose WWII rather than see Europe continue to suffer.
<< . . . in WWII itself we didn't hold back any strenth of any form but blasted city centers in Europe and in Japan.>>
Yes but then in Viet Nam you went soft - - dropping more tonnage on them than in all of WWII. Uhh, what is your point? I hope it's not to show how "humanitarian" you were in Vietnam. When you are responsible for the deaths of 2 million people in a war of pointless aggression launched, like the Iraq War, on a barefaced lie, trying to convince anyone of how "humanitarian" your actions were is - - well, let's just say it's verging on the obscene.
<<Osama Bin Laden is certainly no student of history , he is assureing his people that the way to treat Americans is to frighten them and use up their patience, does he hope to frighten us as much as the Jappaneese did in 42? >>
Uh, no, as I tried to explain above, his aim is to get you to react against Muslims, killing, torturing and raping them, to ignite an anti-American shit-storm in your puppet states of the Middle East that will cause the people to rise up agains their corrupt pro-American leaders and toss them into the dustbin of history.
<<The Vietnameese were smarter than this and in a war that spanned seven years for us and fifteen for them they never even tried to attack us on our homeland , their resorces were equal to such a mission I am certain . . . >>
Why are you so certain? The fact that they had fought successively against the French and Japs before you, also without attacking their homelands, should have indicated to anyone with even half of a functioning brain that they were fighting for what they said they were fighting for, i.e., the liberation of their homeland from foreign powers. Did the U.S. invade England during the Revolutionary War? Did the Indonesian freedom fighters try to blow up Holland? Did the Mau Mau try to blow up London Bridge?
The Vietnamese had very simple war goals - - Foreigners Out! and so they chose the tactic best suited to their goals. Al Qaeda had different goals - - Infidels out of the Middle East, but the infidels had the local Middle Eastern governments in their pockets. The tactic that al Qaeda chose was best suited to ITS goal - - infidels out of Muslim lands ruled by collaborationist governments.
<<what prevented this was a higher level of intelligence than Al Quieda can demonstrate.>>
What utter rubbish. The Vietnamese chose the tactic that best suited their goal and al Qaeda chose the tactic that best suited ITS goal.
<<Of course you know that the Vietnam war was an absolute fabrication that never really happened because the Vietnameese never did attack an American city>>
No, I think the Viet Nam war was real. The fiction was that the Vietnamese wanted to attack America.
<< WWII also was mostly ficticious because after a single real success the Japaneese never did get off a successfull attack on American territory.>>
No, I think WWII was real. I think most people understood the exact nature of the threat from Germany and Japan, and did not expect immediate attacks on U.S. soil except in the early days of the American entry into the war, when there was some panic on the West Coast.
-
Gads, you are so delusional, its scary
-
<<Umm We have troops on the ground now so we are going mano o mano with them as we speak.>>
Uhhh, yeah, but troops supported by helicopter gunship assaults, drone attacks, stealth bombers, missiles and other air support aren't exactly what I meant by mano-a-mano. At the rate you're going, your cowardice in combat is probably costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even more, for each mujaheed you kill. Since they're easily and cheaply replenished, the question that arises is how long can your weakened coffers keep it up?
<<A nuke cost what to drop? Gotta be cheaper than deploying 200k soldiers overseas for a year. >>
But you haven't done it? How many guys would you kill with one nuke? They're dispersed, in the mountains, in caves, etc. How many nukes do you think you could drop before the neighbours - - India, Pakistan, China, Russia - - took offence at the radioactive clouds drifting their way?
The fact is, you CAN'T drop even one nuke, and if you could, the one wouldn't help at all. If you COULD nuke them, you would. A fucking snake has more "humanitarian concerns" than the U.S. government so please don't try to pretend that it is humanitarian scruple that keeps you from nuking your enemies. You've already done it twice before.
Besides, don't worry so much about the cost of deploying 200K Neanderthal hillbillies - - most of the money required comes straight out of your pocket and into the pockets of Blackwater, Boeing, KBR, etc. "Your" government has correctly figured that YOU won't even miss it. And they were right. This is one party that will go on until the kitty is broke - - which from the looks of things, won't be long now. Then you'll just have to pay a little more and the government will have to cut back some on whatever benefits it still is able to pay out. It's all gonna work out fine.
<<Not sure why you are so concerned about innocent civilians. Doesn't seem to bother you when they are blown up by suicide bombers.>>
Sure it concerns me, it's just that you kill so many in relation to the "terrorists" AND you were the original supporters of the "terrorists" and of Saddam himself, so most of the victims can be laid to your account, either killed by Americans or by people whom the Americans at one point supported, armed and advised.
-
Sure it concerns me, it's just that you kill so many in relation to the "terrorists" AND you were the original supporters of the "terrorists" and of Saddam himself, so most of the victims can be laid to your account, either killed by Americans or by people whom the Americans at one point supported, armed and advised.
So some civilian lives are worth more than others?
-
<<Umm We have troops on the ground now so we are going mano o mano with them as we speak.>>
Uhhh, yeah, but troops supported by helicopter gunship assaults, drone attacks, stealth bombers, missiles and other air support aren't exactly what I meant by mano-a-mano.
Priceless. Our efforts to minimize our own casualties and that of civilians with the use of all these other assets is "cowardice". What a world that must be to live in
At the rate you're going, your cowardice in combat is probably costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even more, for each mujaheed you kill. Since they're easily and cheaply replenished, the question that arises is how long can your weakened coffers keep it up?
Haven't you heard? We can print our own money. It's endless, per our current administration and legislative majority
-
No, I think WWII was real. I think most people understood the exact nature of the threat from Germany and Japan, and did not expect immediate attacks on U.S. soil except in the early days of the American entry into the war, when there was some panic on the West Coast.
You do not think that WWII was real at all!
Why If only you were able to confrount FDR with the fiction of Japaneese agression when odviously they had only struck once in Hawii and once in Alaska , for the whole rest of the war they couldn't manage to attack the US territory at all?
Why this is lucridous , that the Japaneese never attacked any second or third time proves that they were no real threat in the first place , FDR lied us into that war and could not have answerd this unanserable question, why no more attacks ? Were FDR and Eisenhour and McArther better leaders than Robert E Lee?
Don't you consider it proven that the Japaneese didn't attack more because they were never a real threat?
I am sure that do not think that WWII was real at all!
You are a logical person arn't you ?
Are not the prooffs equal?
-
<<Umm We have troops on the ground now so we are going mano o mano with them as we speak.>>
Uhhh, yeah, but troops supported by helicopter gunship assaults, drone attacks, stealth bombers, missiles and other air support aren't exactly what I meant by mano-a-mano. At the rate you're going, your cowardice in combat is probably costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even more, for each mujaheed you kill. Since they're easily and cheaply replenished, the question that arises is how long can your weakened coffers keep it up?
<<A nuke cost what to drop? Gotta be cheaper than deploying 200k soldiers overseas for a year. >>
But you haven't done it? How many guys would you kill with one nuke? They're dispersed, in the mountains, in caves, etc. How many nukes do you think you could drop before the neighbours - - India, Pakistan, China, Russia - - took offence at the radioactive clouds drifting their way?
The fact is, you CAN'T drop even one nuke, and if you could, the one wouldn't help at all. If you COULD nuke them, you would. A fucking snake has more "humanitarian concerns" than the U.S. government so please don't try to pretend that it is humanitarian scruple that keeps you from nuking your enemies. You've already done it twice before.
Besides, don't worry so much about the cost of deploying 200K Neanderthal hillbillies - - most of the money required comes straight out of your pocket and into the pockets of Blackwater, Boeing, KBR, etc. "Your" government has correctly figured that YOU won't even miss it. And they were right. This is one party that will go on until the kitty is broke - - which from the looks of things, won't be long now. Then you'll just have to pay a little more and the government will have to cut back some on whatever benefits it still is able to pay out. It's all gonna work out fine.
<<Not sure why you are so concerned about innocent civilians. Doesn't seem to bother you when they are blown up by suicide bombers.>>
Sure it concerns me, it's just that you kill so many in relation to the "terrorists" AND you were the original supporters of the "terrorists" and of Saddam himself, so most of the victims can be laid to your account, either killed by Americans or by people whom the Americans at one point supported, armed and advised.
Do you suppose they would agree to meet at a Dojo or a fight ring and fight Marquis of Queensbury rules?
We would still win , but with much less waste. Possibly no killing at all.
I really think you have a good idea there.
I think we would be willing to hold back as much as they , if such a thing could only get started.
-
The Japs attacked and took over a lot of U.S. territories, the Philippines, for example, Guam, Wake Island, Attu, Kiska, they bombed Dutch Harbor (Alaska) and fire-bombed American forests, killing five Americans (but the fire-bombing was hushed up so as not to spread panic) - - I dunno, even for Americans there must have been SOME evidence that the Japs were out to get them.
-
<<So some civilian lives are worth more than others?>>
No, it's only the U.S. military who thinks that the lives of Americans are worth a helluva lot more than the lives of civilians who become "collateral damage." Which is why Tommy Franks keeps a very close count on American casualties but "doesn't do body counts" when it comes to Iraqi civilians.
No, if I seem to dwell on the victims of the US military more than I do on the victims of the "terrorists," it's not because of differences in the intrinsic value of one group of lives over another, it's just to point out the gross hypocrisy of Americans in general, who go ape-shit over the victims of "terrorists" but are pretty comfortable with the much greater toll of "collateral damage" killing done by their own people. Hey, too bad about Blackwater's guys getting all charges against them thrown out of court eh? The American people really seem upset by it.
-
No, if I seem to dwell on the victims of the US military more than I do on the victims of the "terrorists," it's not because of differences in the intrinsic value of one group of lives over another, it's just to point out the gross hypocrisy of Americans in general, who go ape-shit over the victims of "terrorists" but are pretty comfortable with the much greater toll of "collateral damage" killing done by their own people.
I haven't seen where you treat the intrinsic value of lives equally. I do agree that you take every opportunity to shine the light on the US instead of examining your own shortcomings.
-
I'm sure Tee can produce a plethora of posts from Americans, especially those here in the saloon, who apparently have no problem with collateral deaths, and are completely comfortable with them. (I wonder how he defines "comfortable"?)
*cues the jeapordy theme*
-
<<I haven't seen where you treat the intrinsic value of lives equally. I do agree that you take every opportunity to shine the light on the US instead of examining your own shortcomings.>>
Thats because I don't have any real shortcomings, and specifically, because I'm not running all over the globe killing, raping, torturing and maiming. Your comments are akin to the citizen who wants to know why the police are wasting so much time on tracking down serial killers instead of organizing massive crackdowns on overtime parking.
-
...it's just to point out the gross hypocrisy of Americans in general, who go ape-shit over the victims of "terrorists" but are pretty comfortable with the much greater toll of "collateral damage" killing done by their own people
I'm sure Tee can produce a plethora of posts from Americans, especially those here in the saloon, who apparently have no problem with collateral deaths, and are completely comfortable with them.
Didn't think so. As most everyone else, including our visitors, can deduce as well