BF2S Forums A question for the "America is Evil for Retaliating against Terrorists

You start by improving your homeland security instead of just invading a few countries for no reason out of pure rage. Then when you´re sure it won't happen again, you start looking a certain terrorists, and instead of invading and killing thousands of civilians (and in this case, loose the war) you use smart bombs to finish them off.

kr@cker wrote:

just sit there and do nothing like Carter and Clinton, maybe put them in a room with John and Ted and have them talk the terrorists into submission at most, but certainly not fight back for that and the previous 3 decades of attacks

Yes Vote Bush in he will start a war at a moment. Brainwash his people that Iraq has mas destruction weapons. And in the process him and Cheny are getting stoned rich of his failed policies wich will drag this war for years to come.

Amazing...everyone saw Clinton defend himself..you saw his FACTS go undisputed (but at least MSNBC had a little conversation about his leg showing)..and still.."it's Clinton's fault."

Great, let's humor you idiots for a minute and say it was Clinton's fault...Great..Clinton is enemy # 1!  Woohoo..

And how about now...On somebody elses watch...someone else who actually said bin laden is not even important anymore....who attacked our country (first time since pearl harbor..even though hawaii wasn't a state yet) and even admitted to killing 3000 people?  Bin Laden.  And which uber-macho-misunderestimated chickenhawk baby killer is letting bin laden off the hook?  So who is more to blame "NOW?" 

My comment to the original poster is this:

Go to dictionary.com and look up the word "Terrorism" because you obviously have no clue what it is.  Instead, you're erroneously assuming the definition to be targetted towards arab muslims when you should be realizing that the USA is the greatest terrorist nation in the world by far.  We've killed thousands upon thousands more than Al Quaeda could dream of.  For example...since terrorism is the illegal killing of (xxx) for political gain, how do you think Bush will fare in the afterlife after he's held accountable for the hundred thousand or so Iraqis he's killed?  How bout the thousands of us troops he's killed vicariously by invading sovereign nations without just cause or any legal basis? 

I hate to agree with the people we're fighting, but they're right, Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world at the moment.  He is more of a "Butcher of Baghdad" than Saddam could ever dream of being.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-09-28 09:36:57)

kr@cker wrote:

congratulations bogo!!!! evel kneivel couldn't have made that jump!!!

Isen't this the truth ?
Or you will you justify this war ?

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

You start by improving your homeland security instead of just invading a few countries for no reason out of pure rage. Then when you´re sure it won't happen again, you start looking a certain terrorists, and instead of invading and killing thousands of civilians (and in this case, loose the war) you use smart bombs to finish them off.

So are you advocating isolationism?

Afghanistan had it coming. They actively supported Bin Laden and refused to hand him over. Bin Laden was named the head of the Afghan military under the Taliban. That was a valid attack. Iraq I'll give you because the intelligence was faulty but to pull out now would be to create another Afghanistan.

And in afghanistan, what good is it to start the fearmongering in the US and rallying other countries to war, taking precious weeks and months to deploy an inadequate force despite what head military generals requested....aiding and abetting the bad guys by giving them plenty of time to arrange their escape, their stocking of their caves and bunkers, setting up their communications for the next several years before the attackers give up.  Yeah, Bush is the "war president"..... such a fucking loser.

No, planning it like Clinton did was correct...give no warning and fire away...then gain permission for more attacks (which he never got to do) directed at the actual enemy.  But thanks to Clinton (good and bad), Bin Laden and his people knew they would need to hide even before 9/11 occurred, and they did..and they've been laughing at Bush and Rumsfeld make a laughing stalk out of the most powerful military in the world.

rawls2 wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

just sit there and do nothing like Carter and Clinton, maybe put them in a room with John and Ted and have them talk the terrorists into submission at most, but certainly not fight back for that and the previous 3 decades of attacks

Cmon man. Thats just as bad as the anti-Americanism bieng spouted by the libs. Quit dividing the issue into Rep-Dem. Either side would have done something if they could. Its just that the Dems would have done it smarter.

you must mean john kerry's super double top secret plan that we had to elect him to find out, well, he's back to being a senator now, can't he tell us this great plan since he's no longer running?

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Deader wrote:

Crew"

What would you have wanted/demanded/expected your governments to do if Terrorists murdered more than 3000 of your countrymen?

I presume you're aiming this at opponents of the Iraq war because there was little contention (by comparison) for the Afghan war.

So, can you then tell what the hell Iraq had to do with 9/11 and justify your OP?

Actually, in my previous post you'll see I have no aguement that Iraq was a mistake due to faulty intelligence. The real mistake was not removing Hussein in the first gulf war. However pulling out at this point will only create another Afghanistan as extremist groups fill the void created by civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. So while the premise for the initial invasion was faulty the current situation requires continued action. And that action is related to the global war on terror.

BTW: WMD's (chemical) have been found in Iraq. Just not anything that was constituted after the first gulf war. What has been found is most likely what was shown as missing by UN inspections since the first gulf war.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Amazing...everyone saw Clinton defend himself..you saw his FACTS go undisputed (but at least MSNBC had a little conversation about his leg showing)..and still.."it's Clinton's fault."

Great, let's humor you idiots for a minute and say it was Clinton's fault...Great..Clinton is enemy # 1!  Woohoo..

And how about now...On somebody elses watch...someone else who actually said bin laden is not even important anymore....who attacked our country (first time since pearl harbor..even though hawaii wasn't a state yet) and even admitted to killing 3000 people?  Bin Laden.  And which uber-macho-misunderestimated chickenhawk baby killer is letting bin laden off the hook?  So who is more to blame "NOW?" 

My comment to the original poster is this:

Go to dictionary.com and look up the word "Terrorism" because you obviously have no clue what it is.  Instead, you're erroneously assuming the definition to be targetted towards arab muslims when you should be realizing that the USA is the greatest terrorist nation in the world by far.  We've killed thousands upon thousands more than Al Quaeda could dream of.  For example...since terrorism is the illegal killing of (xxx) for political gain, how do you think Bush will fare in the afterlife after he's held accountable for the hundred thousand or so Iraqis he's killed?  How bout the thousands of us troops he's killed vicariously by invading sovereign nations without just cause or any legal basis? 

I hate to agree with the people we're fighting, but they're right, Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world at the moment.  He is more of a "Butcher of Baghdad" than Saddam could ever dream of being.

EIGHT years VS EIGHT MONTHS doesnt compare. Clinton is more worried about his legacy than anything. He went into that interview with the intent of answering soft questions. Then got all Handsy and angry. Tough shit, Shows that he had something to hide. Even his ex advisors(all of them) said the last and 8th time he had the best chance of getting Osama, he vetoed the action because he was afraid of wagging the dog. That, and he was afraid of killing him because it would be an assasination, BUT to be one it would have to have been a killing of a Forign Government leader or official, Osama was neither. So much for facts. Gee come to think of it, the Northern Alliance in Afganistan was with our 5 special forces, THEY had osama in the scope and were told by OUR guys it was a no go. 30 feet away. It wouldnt have been on our hands if they pulled the trigger, yet they were told not to take him out. Theres another fact thrown out the window.

One fact that is true is Theres One less asprin factory, and one less tent. One of our Greatest allies in the Northern alliance was killed because we chose not to act, if we did act, we probably wouldnt be having this conversation right now.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

EIGHT years VS EIGHT MONTHS doesnt compare. Clinton is more worried about his legacy than anything. He went into that interview with the intent of answering soft questions. Then got all Handsy and angry. Tough shit, Shows that he had something to hide. Even his ex advisors(all of them) said the last and 8th time he had the best chance of getting Osama, he vetoed the action because he was afraid of wagging the dog. That, and he was afraid of killing him because it would be an assasination, BUT to be one it would have to have been a killing of a Forign Government leader or official, Osama was neither. So much for facts. Gee come to think of it, the Northern Alliance in Afganistan was with our 5 special forces, THEY had osama in the scope and were told by OUR guys it was a no go. 30 feet away. It wouldnt have been on our hands if they pulled the trigger, yet they were told not to take him out. Theres another fact thrown out the window.

One fact that is true is Theres One less asprin factory, and one less tent. One of our Greatest allies in the Northern alliance was killed because we chose not to act, if we did act, we probably wouldnt be having this conversation right now.

Ok, ok..again, I'm not understanding why it's soooo hard to see that what's important is "NOW."  Who is responsible NOW..in the present...SEPTEMBER 2006??  Can ya dig it?

Also, Clinton didn't freak out because he was expecting soft question.  It was painfully obvious how Chris Wallace set up that interview as an ambush.  He started by saying that half the time he'd like to talk about the global initiative thing (which is absolutely amazing that no republican ex president could fathom doing to help out fellow mankind), then half the time with email questions.  He actually spent 3 minutes on the global initiative before plunging into "an email question" as if it wasn't one Fox had planned to ambush him with.  THEN, when Clinton saw it coming a mile away, he started trying answer it completely when he was cut off repeatedly because the ambush wasn't going Chrissy-poos way...and you knwo the rest..Clinton raped that little beotch and FOX and left their having caused their ambush to backfire...backfire because it exposed Fox, and it gave an awesome audience the opportunity to hear truth for once.  Further, if you paid attention, Clinton actually said he failed, he also told us that in meeting with the 911 commission, he asked them to put on the public record (not secret record like Bush Cheney's private, not-under-oath testimony in the white house with no recording devices...) that he failed so that people would know.

Dude, i can't believe i have to explain this..but it's typical of you fools who pick and choose things that fit your brainwashed opinions.

But this..this was the best part of your bullshit...

So much for facts. Gee come to think of it, the Northern Alliance in Afganistan was with our 5 special forces, THEY had osama in the scope and were told by OUR guys it was a no go. 30 feet away.

You plagiarized this from that "Path to 9/11" fictional movie on tv.  And yes, that scene was completely false... damn  you're funny...

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-09-28 11:03:08)