Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 172
  1. #121  
    Hobbes: it sure looks like there is more to this then meets the eye (but at the same time, even IF it shows that Saddam supported AQ in his country, it doesnt necessarily indicate that Saddam wanted the US hit. Also, it makes you wonder why Saddam would want the 9/11 attacks to be attributed to him, he must have known we would come after him??)

    Its interesting that there are more ties from Saddam and AQ out there that werent reported to the media AND not pointed out in the 9/11 commission report? Hmm...
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    but at the same time, even IF it shows that Saddam supported AQ in his country, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that Saddam wanted the US hit.
    If you support an enemy with obvious historical attacks against the US and with obvious intentions to continue to the same, does it matter? If he supported the group, he supported provided aid for their cause.


    Also, it makes you wonder why Saddam would want the 9/11 attacks to be attributed to him, he must have known we would come after him??)
    Ego comes to mind. He always held himself as the underdog that faced the Lion in the first gulf war and Won...."See I faced you. I fought you. I am still here! So...Na, na, na, na" type of attitude. Basically I think the answer to this question is more phys than logical.

    Its interesting that there are more ties from Saddam and AQ out there that weren’t reported to the media AND not pointed out in the 9/11 commission report? Hmm...
    I agree fully......why is the media not sharing these new testimonies and new developments? I think it is a question that should be answered by the MSM itself....like that would ever happen.

    I know this is sounding conspiratorial, but all of this new news is going against what many of the MSM published. And I am not talking about news...as news is always developing. But, it is going against a LOT of editors from MAJOR paper's personal editorial comments and statements. Could it be as simple as an ego thing....you know having to admit maybe....just maybe they were wrong in their own personal opinion that is currently archived in print and readily available to be thrown in their face?

    Papers are run by people......it is just a rambling thought....and nothing more.
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by Marianne
    Winning the war against terrorism... That would be something. Terrorism has existed as long as mankind and I don't think any war against it will be won in our lifetime. Maybe some battles. Also, a person could be a terrorist to some, and a person fighting for a good cause to others. I by no means sanction terrorism, but I think you should be realistic.
    To me it's not so much "winning" but rather showing terrorism is not a viable option to influence the change they are seeking.
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    If you support an enemy with obvious historical attacks against the US and with obvious intentions to continue to the same, does it matter? If he supported the group, he supported provided aid for their cause.
    In a way...yes. But maybe the difference is that he used AQ to support his particular agenda within his country and probably other ME countries but didnt intend for the 9/11 attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Ego comes to mind. He always held himself as the underdog that faced the Lion in the first gulf war and Won...."See I faced you. I fought you. I am still here! So...Na, na, na, na" type of attitude. Basically I think the answer to this question is more phys than logical.
    Well he faced us in the first gulf war and got his stuff kicked to the curb...it was actually embarrassing how his tent just got folded .

    [QUOTE=HobbesIsReal]Maybe it was his response (he didnt really have a choice...he probably had to come across as I got the best of the U.S....his own 'spin zone'.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I agree fully......why is the media not sharing these new testimonies and new developments? I think it is a question that should be answered by the MSM itself....like that would ever happen.
    Yeah but that assumes that all the MSM supports the left...and I don't think it does (although a majority probably does.)

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I know this is sounding conspiratorial, but all of this new news is going against what many of the MSM published. And I am not talking about news...as news is always developing. But, it is going against a LOT of editors from MAJOR paper's personal editorial comments and statements. Could it be as simple as an ego thing....you know having to admit maybe....just maybe they were wrong in their own personal opinion that is currently archived in print and readily available to be thrown in their face?
    It may be. I think it wont get reported on until things get more confirmed. The MSM has taken a stance on this...they cant reverse until there is clear and convincing proof. As it is now (primarily) its mostly circumstantial.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Papers are run by people......it is just a rambling thought....and nothing more.
    True, and we have to remember that the papers have their first priority to be ... making money. Maybe economically they think these types of headlines wouldnt sell news?

    Plus, like you pointed out...newspapers are run by people...and people are political.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    To me it's not so much "winning" but rather showing terrorism is not a viable option to influence the change they are seeking.
    I wish it were like this in practice.

    However, terrorists usually use the bombings and violence in lieu of having political power. It then becomes a cycle because the US and other countries dont want to recognize the terrorists acts. Then this in turn drives terrorists because that is the only avenue of 'change' (if you want to call it that) which they can perform. It just goes round and round.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I wish it were like this in practice.

    However, terrorists usually use the bombings and violence in lieu of having political power. It then becomes a cycle because the US and other countries dont want to recognize the terrorists acts. Then this in turn drives terrorists because that is the only avenue of 'change' (if you want to call it that) which they can perform. It just goes round and round.
    That's kind of what I meant - terrorism becomes a popularly used tool, terrorists get their butts kicked and/or have to stay on the run, focus weakens, terrorism rears it's ugly head again, terrorists get their butts kicked.......

    you're right - it goes round and round and round.
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    In a way...yes. But maybe the difference is that he used AQ to support his particular agenda within his country and probably other ME countries but didnt intend for the 9/11 attacks.
    I think I would have to totally disagree on this point. If you support an terrorist organization then you should be held accountable with what they do as a result of your support.

    If I harbor, associate with, and support a man who I know has already killed innocent children, raped multiple women, and robbed at least 25 banks at gun point killing at least 32 people in the process, and then he goes and blows up a shopping mall partially because of the safe haven and money I provided him.......would I be held accountable even though I didn't intend for him to blow up the building of my main competitor in business? Would I also be held accountable if I tried to hide all this from the police?

    Of course...when you put yourself in league with terrorist, you are responsible for what they do with your support....even if you didn't specifically intend for them to do a certain event (like blow up cafe with innocent men, women or children or fly planes full of innocent people into the towers) or not.

    And if this late breaking news is accurate, Saddam knew what they have done. He knew who they have attacked in the past. He would be EXTEMELY stupid and niave, which I think he is neither, to have thought that they may not try to attack the US again sometime in the future.
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    That's kind of what I meant - terrorism becomes a popularly used tool, terrorists get their butts kicked and/or have to stay on the run, focus weakens, terrorism rears it's ugly head again, terrorists get their butts kicked.......

    you're right - it goes round and round and round.
    This is probably more true than anyone wants to admit....but the alternative would be to do nothing...(Clintons half hearted, political token of a response to previous attacks didn't do anything positive at all) which historically has only proven to be worse and then only emboldens the terrorists with promoting undaughting success without having to answer for their actions.
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I think I would have to totally disagree on this point. If you support an terrorist organization then you should be held accountable with what they do as a result of your support.
    To an extent, I can agree. But to be devil's advocate, let me flip it around to the US. Do we take responsibility (nor would we want to) when we support all the different political factions and then when they go against our wishes and do horrible things to other people? I know I am mixing words with terrorists and factions (i.e. different regimes, etc.) but the word terrorist is somewhat vague. Regardless, the US has put certain people in power and when they backstab us, we dont stand up and say "We are responsible for everything they do".

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    If I harbor, associate with, and support a man who I know has already killed innocent children, raped multiple women, and robbed at least 25 banks at gun point killing at least 32 people in the process, and then he goes and blows up a shopping mall partially because of the safe haven and money I provided him.......would I be held accountable even though I didn't intend for him to blow up the building of my main competitor in business? Would I also be held accountable if I tried to hide all this from the police?
    I agree but you are applying a legal standard to a situation which at least in the ME doesnt seem applicable. Under International Law (I think), the burden is on the US to prove its case that Saddam supported and intended for AQ to conduct the 9/11 attacks. I don't know if we have (at least to this point). But I understand your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Of course...when you put yourself in league with terrorist, you are responsible for what they do with your support....even if you didn't specifically intend for them to do a certain event (like blow up cafe with innocent men, women or children or fly planes full of innocent people into the towers) or not.
    No real argument about that except the punishment would not be the same for the supporter who didnt intend for that attack to happen versus the person who actually flew the plane. (This isnt even addressing the fact that Saddam is just one person and although we will punish him, how many 100's of thousands have been affected who are largely not involved in any way with 9/11.)

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    And if this late breaking news is accurate, Saddam knew what they have done. He knew who they have attacked in the past. He would be EXTEMELY stupid and niave, which I think he is neither, to have thought that they may not try to attack the US again sometime in the future.
    Once again, you are probably right. But if hes not stupid and naive (as we both agree), then he must have known we were gonna beat him and his country to a pulp when we found out and that the rest of the world was just gonna stand by and wait for the dust to settle. <--That why I think he may not have been involved.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10. #130  
    Back to the original question of the thread:

  11. #131  
    How appropriate...the cartoon should have had a Hummer or one of those Sport Utility Trucks or something. That would have been more fitting...
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenzytom
    How appropriate...the cartoon should have had a Hummer or one of those Sport Utility Trucks or something. That would have been more fitting...
    You got a problem with Hummers?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  13. #133  
    No, just the people who drive them.

    No wait! I'll take 2 of these please, this will get me 2 mpg instead of 10!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Frenzytom; 07/01/2005 at 11:54 PM.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenzytom
    How appropriate...the cartoon should have had a Hummer or one of those Sport Utility Trucks or something. That would have been more fitting...
    Not with today's gas prices!

    (but that is another thread )

    Quote Originally Posted by Frenzytom
    No wait! I'll take 2 of these please, this will get me 2 mpg instead of 10!
    Man, I will take two as well!!!!! Once I flip the sale on them, I will have my house paid off, two new hybrid cars, and a chunk for my kids college fund!
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/02/2005 at 03:42 AM.
  15. #135  
    I really think this is valid question. I never realized that we are not allowed in there, even in hot pursuit.

    Why Does Pakistan Have A Veto Over Our National Security?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bill-scher/why-does-pakistan-have-a-_3837.html

    Pakistan does not permit American military and intelligence forces in Afghanistan to cross the border to go after militants. This prohibition on cross-border "hot pursuit" makes it relatively easy for Taliban and Qaeda fighters to initiate attacks on American bases in Afghanistan, and then quickly escape to the safety of Pakistan. American soldiers have complained about being fired on from inside Pakistan by foreign militants while Pakistani border guards sat and watched.
    As a result of the restrictions, American military and intelligence personnel in Afghanistan are no longer really hunting for Mr. bin Laden, an intelligence official said.
  16.    #136  
    Certainly yesterday's events doesn't indicate we're winning, but it does show the muslim bad guys are having a more difficult time pulling off massive death tolls. Britain is so resilient, the muscum made a mistake. Do they really think Britain is going to go run and hide?

    I read that several muslim Britain organizations immediately condemned the attacks. That was refreshing.

    Here's a heart breaking quote from a father...

    Devastated dad George Kolias wept last night as he kept a vigil at the hospital bedside of daughter Danielle, 19, in intensive care.

    Shaking with emotion, George, 45, said: "I can't believe what they have done to my little girl. It is hard to recognize her.

    "She came round and struggled to talk to me. She started to cry and I felt my heart would break. How could anyone do something like this?"
    Last edited by Advance The Man; 07/08/2005 at 03:53 PM.
  17. #137  
    Here...Here....well said!
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Certainly yesterday's events don't indicate we're winning, but it does show the muslim bad guys are having a more difficult time pulling off massive death tolls. Britain is so resilient, the muscum made a mistake. Do they really think Britain is going to go run and hide?

    I read that several muslim Britain organizations immediately condemn the attacks. The was refreshing.

    Here's a heart breaking quote from a father...

    Devastated dad George Kolias wept last night as he kept a vigil at the hospital bedside of daughter Danielle, 19, in intensive care.

    Shaking with emotion, George, 45, said: "I can't believe what they have done to my little girl. It is hard to recognize her.

    "She came round and struggled to talk to me. She started to cry and I felt my heart would break. How could anyone do something like this?"
    A) You don't know who carried out the London attacks.

    B) You can never stop this type of attack. You can't stop the next McVeigh.

    It is VERY MUCH like preventative police work and should be treated as such with emphasis on intelligence gathering and follow up.
  19.    #139  
    A. You kidding me? Al Queda or an off-shoot Muslim scumbag group.

    B. It's not a McVeigh type.

    I agree you can't stop this type of attacks from muslim scumbags, but you can kill these scumbags so they can't repeat it or from doing it in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    A) You don't know who carried out the London attacks.

    B) You can never stop this type of attack. You can't stop the next McVeigh.

    It is VERY MUCH like preventative police work and should be treated as such with emphasis on intelligence gathering and follow up.
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    A) You don't know who carried out the London attacks.

    B) You can never stop this type of attack. You can't stop the next McVeigh.

    It is VERY MUCH like preventative police work and should be treated as such with emphasis on intelligence gathering and follow up.
    So, I am not sure what you are saying. Should we not go after terrorist groups? Should we just watch and gather information on them and then try to arrest them by knocking on their door with a pair of handcuffs? Do you feel it is bad to after terrorist groups where they set up camp?
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions