Harmor - you're talking like as if the US is having any kind of impact at all on Al Qaeda et al. To be honest, I don't see any evidence to suggest that to be to the case...Harmor wrote:
Not to derail the argument too much, but what about Venezuela? The supply interruptions that we will see in the future there were not sparked by Islamic extreamism we have in the Middle east. 19% of the oil the United States uses comes from Venezuela.
So if let Iran, Al-Quada and the rest of them to their own devices then the price of oil will go down and we'll all be better for that?
EDIT: Is this the 'If we can't see it or we ignore it its not problem?'
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Al Qaeda Unhappy With Democrat War Funding Bill.
wrong wrong wrong.Harmor wrote:
Actually I thought the reason gas prices in the United States are so high are because of the following:
- There are so many different blends of gasoline that refineries can't make enough of the gas to meet the supply
- No refineries have been built in the last 20 years (no one wants them in their backyard and they are very expenseive to make - upwards of 1 billion each).
- Taxes on Gas by my account are about 45 cents of the price.
- Oil reserves off the coast of California and Oregon will not be drilled because of the environementalists concerns of another Exxon Valdez
At least that's my understanding.
Gas prices are so high because of
Katrina destroying refineries in Texas, louisiana, and mississippi
Cost of gaurds stationed on foregin oil platforms (i.e. iraq)
rufusal to use ANY U.S. oil
tense relations between america and latin america
Chinas hunger for oil, and the fact that lost of countries now want oil.
Didn't we just kill at least 2 Al-Quade leaders in Iraq? What about Al-sar Warhiri (sp) about a year ago?CameronPoe wrote:
Harmor - you're talking like as if the US is having any kind of impact at all on Al Qaeda et al. To be honest, I don't see any evidence to suggest that to be to the case...
We are killing thousands of them. They are spending alot of time and money in Iraq fighting out troops there.
Could this be a gianit 'salt lick' for them...a magnet for them to fight their war so they don't have the time/resources to attack us on our native soil?
Left to their own devices prior to 9/11 it took them 7 years after the first World Trade Center bombing to do 9/11.
Basically what I'm suggesting is if we don't fight them there they will fight us here.
Do you think they will not follow us home? Do you think our defences (airport/cargo screening, border patrol, visa background checks, terror watch lists, student exchange program watch lists, the Patriot Act - or whats left of it), are enough to stop another 9/11 if we are not fighting them in Iraq?
Didn't one of those two 'killed' leaders just release an audiotape?Harmor wrote:
Didn't we just kill at least 2 Al-Quade leaders in Iraq? What about Al-sar Warhiri (sp) about a year ago?CameronPoe wrote:
Harmor - you're talking like as if the US is having any kind of impact at all on Al Qaeda et al. To be honest, I don't see any evidence to suggest that to be to the case...
We are killing thousands of them. They are spending alot of time and money in Iraq fighting out troops there.
Could this be a gianit 'salt lick' for them...a magnet for them to fight their war so they don't have the time/resources to attack us on our native soil?
Left to their own devices prior to 9/11 it took them 7 years after the first World Trade Center bombing to do 9/11.
Basically what I'm suggesting is if we don't fight them there they will fight us here.
Do you think they will not follow us home? Do you think our defences (airport/cargo screening, border patrol, visa background checks, terror watch lists, student exchange program watch lists, the Patriot Act - or whats left of it), are enough to stop another 9/11 if we are not fighting them in Iraq?
I don't think you realise that it doesn't matter whether you kill leaders. Al Qaeda is like open source terrorism. It doesn't require leadership. It just requires a certain mentality and a will to kill, a will that often involves killing onself. There isn't any great strategising required in order to walk into a market with some semtex strapped to your chest.
Believe me - if they want to attack you on your own soil they will be able to provided your southern border is a giant gaping hole. Don't fool yourself that your venture in Iraq is doing anything to prevent attacks on the homeland. A quick flight from Riyadh to Mexico and you're screwed. What you need to realise is that it is exactly your homeland security you need to focus on, not misadventures 10,000 miles away from home. Israel has a suicide bombing maybe once a year and it is right in the heart of a hostile region that hates its guts. If it is capable of preventing terror with walls, effective border security and nuclear deterrency then why is the US so incapable of such a thing?
PS US soldiers are US citizens too. >3000 people have been killed in the space of 4 years over hundreds of incidents for pretty much zero or negative progress. Think about that in the context of one incident in a 7 year period causing 3000 deaths that could have been prevented by air marshalls and proper airport security. You also seem to forget the Madrid and 7/7 bombings. Iraq didn't prevent them did it?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-06 13:07:12)
Someone enlighten me. Does this asshole (Zawahiri) want us bogged down in Iraq or off their land?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lol, yeah. Get someone with a GPS thing to set up an "interview" with him, when they're sitting down have him set off the GPS locator, and when he leaves have the USAF come in and do what they do best.Turquoise wrote:
I think it would be a lot more entertaining for the media to engage in mock interviews. If they can get the chance to meet with these people, they should hook up with a group of military operatives, so that they can film what starts out as an interview and then catch the look of surprise on their faces as they get killed by the operatives on camera.
It would make one hell of a video, wouldn't it?...
Bomb the living shit out of them.
Bush can.ATG wrote:
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Internation … 505_ms.jpg
Of the war funding bill sent to be vetoed by George Bush:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3143623Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote:
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.You just can't make those guys happy.Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, "We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."
The Russkies did that with a Chechen leader. Someone from a newspaper I think it was phoned him and he gave an interview, and they then dropped a smart bomb on him using the signal from the phone.Poseidon wrote:
lol, yeah. Get someone with a GPS thing to set up an "interview" with him, when they're sitting down have him set off the GPS locator, and when he leaves have the USAF come in and do what they do best.Turquoise wrote:
I think it would be a lot more entertaining for the media to engage in mock interviews. If they can get the chance to meet with these people, they should hook up with a group of military operatives, so that they can film what starts out as an interview and then catch the look of surprise on their faces as they get killed by the operatives on camera.
It would make one hell of a video, wouldn't it?...
Bomb the living shit out of them.
They want us out of the ME but stay in the ME. Clear?Kmarion wrote:
Someone enlighten me. Does this asshole (Zawahiri) want us bogged down in Iraq or off their land?
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-05-06 14:55:39)
GOP is terrorists
Only if you're a terrorist.Sanjaya wrote:
GOP is terrorists
Then what about the "AL-QAEDA WANTS TEH DEMOCRATS IN POWER BECAUSE DEMOCRATS IS TERRORISTS" mentality that exists here? Now that the democrats are tampering with their whims shouldn't the reverse be true?
*are*Sanjaya wrote:
GOP is terrorists
I think you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where the real War on Terror is being fought. Forget Iraq.Harmor wrote:
I don't think so. Looks what they almost pulled last year when they wanted to down 10 airlines destended for the United States - killing upwards of 4,000 people.CameronPoe wrote:
Let's face it - if the US do pull out of Iraq it'll be a darn sight tougher for them to get at Americans.
Assuming that we pull out will Al Quada get a foothold on the country? Will they fester and use the money from oil revenues to fund new attacks against us and our allies?
Will Iran annex 1/3rd of Iraq? Will the price of oil goto $120/barrel and cause a world-wide recession?
Will Iran get the nuke and kill 90,000 Israelies before the world 'acts'?
Will Iran give nuclear technology to Al-Quada to attack U.S. interests?
Will the 30,000 Hesbolla troops inside the United States attack our malls and schools en masse killing 100,000 Americans?
Just some of the questions that still need to be answered.
Well that's convenient isn't.
Let's give 'em what they want!1!!!11!!1!!1
...I love the media, such tools.
Let's give 'em what they want!1!!!11!!1!!1
...I love the media, such tools.
Because the United States is an open society, more so than Britan. The debate we had over the Patriot Act a couple of years ago shows that people want to balance their privacy and their security, other more so than others.CameronPoe wrote:
Israel has a suicide bombing maybe once a year and it is right in the heart of a hostile region that hates its guts. If it is capable of preventing terror with walls, effective border security and nuclear deterrency then why is the US so incapable of such a thing?
While I think 1 death is far too many, the difference is that these soldiers volunteered to fight unlike the innocent men, women and children in the World Trade center on 9/11.CameronPoe wrote:
PS US soldiers are US citizens too. >3000 people have been killed in the space of 4 years over hundreds of incidents for pretty much zero or negative progress.
No, but I believe that without Iraq that their would had been even MORE bombings like the Madrid and 7/7 bombings. I think that is where we disagree, you think that if we never went into Iraq that these terrorists would had never struck Madrid (to get Spain to get out of Iraq), and the 7/7 bombings (British support of the United States in the Iraq war) - is this correct?CameronPoe wrote:
Think about that in the context of one incident in a 7 year period causing 3000 deaths that could have been prevented by air marshalls and proper airport security. You also seem to forget the Madrid and 7/7 bombings. Iraq didn't prevent them did it?
I believe that if we never went into Iraq that these terrorists would had still carried out these attacks and others because of our involvement in Afghanistan.
Sorry, my mind is still boggled by the "30,000 Hizbollah troops in the US" thing. Seriously, Red Dawn was just a movie ffs.
Fucking lies. It was a training vid.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
Red Dawn was just a movie ffs.
OK. So you are essentially saying that by shoving the brunt of terrorism onto innocent Iraqi civilians (basically the jist of what you're saying the Iraq war is - keeping it off your doorstep) you will not have to make any changes to the free and open society you enjoy. It's essentially 'Ha ha, fuck the Iraqis, we're ok!', which is a view you're entitled to but one that is incredibly cruel, harsh and distasteful.Harmor wrote:
Because the United States is an open society, more so than Britan. The debate we had over the Patriot Act a couple of years ago shows that people want to balance their privacy and their security, other more so than others.
That is true but the two sets of people both died for nothing. And the deaths of the US soldiers could have been avoided. They're still dying at the hands of Al Qaeda.Harmor wrote:
While I think 1 death is far too many, the difference is that these soldiers volunteered to fight unlike the innocent men, women and children in the World Trade center on 9/11.
Well of course that is something that neither of us can say definitively but then I would draw your attention to he fact that the London bombing was carried out by BRITISH civilians who left a note/tape explaining that the exact reason they carried out the attack was because the UK had gone into Iraq. If that isn't Iraq 'causing terrorism in the west' then I don't know what is. The Al Qaeda statement following the Madrid bombings stated that it had been in retaliation for Spain being involved in the Iraq war. They pulled out and guess what? No attacks since...Harmor wrote:
No, but I believe that without Iraq that their would had been even MORE bombings like the Madrid and 7/7 bombings. I think that is where we disagree, you think that if we never went into Iraq that these terrorists would had never struck Madrid (to get Spain to get out of Iraq), and the 7/7 bombings (British support of the United States in the Iraq war) - is this correct?
I believe that if we never went into Iraq that these terrorists would had still carried out these attacks and others because of our involvement in Afghanistan.
I don't think you realise that you aren't tying anyone down in Iraq or Afghanistan. The kind of plebs who are killing themselves over there aren't the kind of people who can afford a flight to Florida for some 'flight training and box cutter purchasing'. The Afghan ones live in caves for Christ's sake. The vast majority of all 9/11 bombers were...... SAUDI. Way to overlook the real culprut GW!
The US has basically subjected the Iraqi civilian populace to an Al Qaeda onslaught that never previously existed there. GG.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-07 04:32:51)
One little train bombing and the Spaniards cave; what a bunch of pussies.CameronPoe wrote:
OK. So you are essentially saying that by shoving the brunt of terrorism onto innocent Iraqi civilians (basically the jist of what you're saying the Iraq war is - keeping it off your doorstep) you will not have to make any changes to the free and open society you enjoy. It's essentially 'Ha ha, fuck the Iraqis, we're ok!', which is a view you're entitled to but one that is incredibly cruel, harsh and distasteful.Harmor wrote:
Because the United States is an open society, more so than Britan. The debate we had over the Patriot Act a couple of years ago shows that people want to balance their privacy and their security, other more so than others.That is true but the two sets of people both died for nothing. And the deaths of the US soldiers could have been avoided. They're still dying at the hands of Al Qaeda.Harmor wrote:
While I think 1 death is far too many, the difference is that these soldiers volunteered to fight unlike the innocent men, women and children in the World Trade center on 9/11.Well of course that is something that neither of us can say definitively but then I would draw your attention to he fact that the London bombing was carried out by BRITISH civilians who left a note/tape explaining that the exact reason they carried out the attack was because the UK had gone into Iraq. If that isn't Iraq 'causing terrorism in the west' then I don't know what is. The Al Qaeda statement following the Madrid bombings stated that it had been in retaliation for Spain being involved in the Iraq war. They pulled out and guess what? No attacks since...Harmor wrote:
No, but I believe that without Iraq that their would had been even MORE bombings like the Madrid and 7/7 bombings. I think that is where we disagree, you think that if we never went into Iraq that these terrorists would had never struck Madrid (to get Spain to get out of Iraq), and the 7/7 bombings (British support of the United States in the Iraq war) - is this correct?
I believe that if we never went into Iraq that these terrorists would had still carried out these attacks and others because of our involvement in Afghanistan.
I don't think you realise that you aren't tying anyone down in Iraq or Afghanistan. The kind of plebs who are killing themselves over there aren't the kind of people who can afford a flight to Florida for some 'flight training and box cutter purchasing'. The Afghan ones live in caves for Christ's sake. The vast majority of all 9/11 bombers were...... SAUDI. Way to overlook the real culprut GW!
The US has basically subjected the Iraqi civilian populace to an Al Qaeda onslaught that never previously existed there. GG.
Oh yeah, it's all Americans fault.
Hardly anyone in Spain supported the war anyway - they had some of the biggest anti-war marches in Europe. It was essentially democracy in action. I would have regarded it as more cowardly to have sided with the US over Iraq against the will of the people, most probably because of US inward investment.ATG wrote:
One little train bombing and the Spaniards cave; what a bunch of pussies.
Oh yeah, it's all Americans fault.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-07 05:26:10)
only Israel would have the balls for something like that, their media would actually back them up. As would their government in its entirety back its soldiers. I have the sneaking suspicion their traitors would be hung.Turquoise wrote:
I think it would be a lot more entertaining for the media to engage in mock interviews. If they can get the chance to meet with these people, they should hook up with a group of military operatives, so that they can film what starts out as an interview and then catch the look of surprise on their faces as they get killed by the operatives on camera.
It would make one hell of a video, wouldn't it?...
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-07 05:48:24)
It's a combination thing. See beyond the black and white. The bombings are 90% the responsibility of those who carried it out (Al Qaeda, etc.) but if you allowed a situation to arise or unjust actions you took prompted or facilitated such a situation to arise then you must take the remaining 10% of the blame.rdx-fx wrote:
Okay, so a British subject goes nuts and blows some stuff up.CameronPoe wrote:
the London bombing was carried out by BRITISH civilians who left a note/tape explaining that the exact reason they carried out the attack was because the UK had gone into Iraq. If that isn't Iraq 'causing terrorism in the west' then I don't know what is.
I would think that would be the fault of the people that planted those bombs, really.
Blaming something else for their actions is an excuse.
You're going to take the reasons provided by a first class 'nutter' as being true/logical/valid?
He/they were insane enough to want to blow up a bunch of random innocent civilians, to make some minor political point.
If we want to play the point-the-finger-anywhere-but-at-the-perpetrator, fine..
Let's point the finger at the Islamic Fundamentalist Extremist, who's made the "bombing of civilian targets as political statement" the first choice for the political activist 'with a mandate from god'.
(In other words; It's not Jack Daniels fault you got drunk last night - it's yours)So.. it's the USA's fault and not Al Qaeda's?CameronPoe wrote:
The US has basically subjected the Iraqi civilian populace to an Al Qaeda onslaught that never previously existed there. GG.
<see above>
Sorry, if I didn’t plant a bomb in the Subway Metro Tube what ever I will take no blame.
Try not to be so abstract in your thinking.
Try not to be so abstract in your thinking.
That's what the Iraqi people are doing, no? Not trying to stop the bombers in any way, so therefore they're 50% responsible.CameronPoe wrote:
It's a combination thing. See beyond the black and white. The bombings are 90% the responsibility of those who carried it out (Al Qaeda, etc.) but if you allowed a situation to arise or unjust actions you took prompted or facilitated such a situation to arise then you must take the remaining 10% of the blame.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-05-07 07:12:02)
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Al Qaeda Unhappy With Democrat War Funding Bill.