That so called war on terror...

[Zoots]

I'm wondering if you think the 'war on terror' is a bumper sticker, or not. I'm confused.

Bumper sticker, tag line... whatever you wanna call it.. some words to cover up the fact that we launched an attack on a country that never did us any harm.

 

[A_Wanderer]

so harbouring Osama Bin Laden after the terrorist attacks is not doing any harm? The term was promulgated for the war in Afghanistan and the wider operations elsewhere before Iraq.

 

[INDY500]

If Bin Laden, al Queda hates America and President Bush is the leader.

Then why do they want to kill the Democratic Leader of the Senate and the Democratic Chair of the Judicial Appointments Committee in October 2001?

These two people were at the top of Cheney and the conservatives "hit list".

Oct 2001 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Government officials told The Washington Post that top FBI and CIA officials think the anthrax attacks in Washington, New York and Florida are likely the doing of United States extremists probably not connected to the al Qaeda terror network.

In a report published Saturday, a senior official was quoted in the Post as saying that "everything seems to lean toward a domestic source. Nothing seems to fit with an overseas terrorist type operation."

Officials say none of the 60 to 80 threat reports gathered every day by U.S. intelligence agencies has connected the letters containing anthrax spores to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. They say evidence from the spore samples provides no links to a foreign government or lab.

 

[randhail]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 29% they are trying to shore up the base - Indy bought it

Excuse me?

Are you implying that if you dont buy into evolution that you are stupid? I have to very much disagree with you.

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious to hear why you don't agree

 

[A_Wanderer]

Split it into a new thread

 

[2861U2]

we launched an attack on a country that never did us any harm.

Nobody has said that Iraq did us harm. At least, no Republican that I can think of. We didnt invade Iraq because they attack us.

We went to Iraq because Saddam was a threat to us and to the Iraqi people. Iraq is the next step in the United States' post-9/11 foreign policy. Is Iraq a mess right now? Of course. Are more terrorists in Iraq than there were pre-invasion? Possibly. But Saddam was very, very dangerous and the world (and that includes Iraq) is better without him.

 

[Zoots]

so harbouring Osama Bin Laden after the terrorist attacks is not doing any harm? The term was promulgated for the war in Afghanistan and the wider operations elsewhere before Iraq.

Well, it developed into the pointless war in Iraq, didn't it? That's the war I was referring to, not the one they started in Afghanistan!

 

[deep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 29% they are trying to shore up the base - Indy bough

Give me a break.

*sigh*

I disagree with most people in FYM more and more everyday. I can't watch Keith Olbermann before I go to bed because it gets my BP going, and I'm starting to feel the same about this forum.

come on Redbird

you would probably call me a lib
and
I am listening to "the Savage Nation" right now, and I do tune in to 'Rush and Sean occasionally.
That way I can at least get the same information as the people I don't agree with.

If I listen to NPR all the time 24/7 am I not just getting programed in that one direction.

Why not take in information from all sides? If what we believe is well-grounded in reason, hearing a contrary opinion should not raise our blood pressure

 

[Zoots]

We went to Iraq because Saddam was a threat to us and to the Iraqi people. Iraq is the next step in the United States' post-9/11 foreign policy.

But why go after Tyrant Dictator B before finishing off Terrorist Leader A? The priority was Osama, not Saddam.

How can Iraq be the next step in the United States' post-9/11 foreign policy when Iraq/Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11?

 

[INDY500]

We went to Iraq because Saddam was a threat to us and to the Iraqi people. Iraq is the next step in the United States' post-9/11 foreign policy. Is Iraq a mess right now? Of course. Are more terrorists in Iraq than there were pre-invasion? Possibly. But Saddam was very, very dangerous and the world (and that includes Iraq) is better without him.

Good luck with that argument around here. Most people in this forum are of the opinion that the wrong president was hanged in Iraq for war crimes.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 29% they are trying to shore up the base - Indy bought it

Give me a break.

*sigh*

I disagree with most people in FYM more and more everyday. I can't watch Keith Olbermann before I go to bed because it gets my BP going, and I'm starting to feel the same about this forum.

how else are you going to defend creationism?

do you not believe in the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Plate Tectonics either?

the blood pressure thing is a sign that your beliefs are being challenged. accept the challenge, or don't.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 29% they are trying to shore up the base - In

Hey, thats unfair and Islamophobic - they get walls collapsed on them in the proper humane fashion.

i stand(/kneel?) corrected.

 

[U2democrat]

Man this thread is flying, it's hard to keep up!

Olbermann


Tells it like it is

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Are more terrorists in Iraq than there were pre-invasion? Possibly.

Haha. Possibly? How much do you know about Iraq pre-invasion?

 

[Irvine511]

Good luck with that argument around here. Most people in this forum are of the opinion that the wrong president was hanged in Iraq for war crimes.

that's totally unfair.

firstly, it's not even an argument. it's an article of naive faith, and our chief Kool Aid maker has all but given up as his "arguments" degrade in the face of reality.

secondly, i'm of the opinion that they both should have been hung.

sheesh.

though, hanging was botched -- what isn't! -- by the Bushies. all those shouts of "MOQTADA!" that's some big-assed trouble for you right there.

 

[Irvine511]

Haha. Possibly? How much do you know about Iraq pre-invasion?

and what's so funny is that the "terrorists" in Iraq -- by which we have to mean Al-Qaeda soldiers eager to hone their fighting skills by battling American soldiers at night and being trained by them during the day -- are the least of our problems.

it's the whole sectarian conflict thing-y that's the real bitch.

 

[randhail]

Haha. Possibly? How much do you know about Iraq pre-invasion?

He's got satellite photos

 

[INDY500]

secondly, i'm of the opinion that they both should have been hung.

sheesh.

Aren't you becoming quite the proponent of capital punishment! You're faster on that gavel than Roy Bean.

 

[deep]

Aren't you becoming quite the proponent of capital punishment! You're faster on that gavel than Roy Bean.

unfortunately, being "feeble minded" does not save you by Texas standards

 

[INDY500]

unfortunately, being "feeble minded" does not save you by Texas standards

Don't run off. What makes you think the anthrax attacks of 2001 are al Qaeda since you brought it up? That is not the conclusion of the FBI or CIA.

 

[Diemen]

Are more terrorists in Iraq than there were pre-invasion? Possibly.

Talk about willful ignorance! Anyone who has kept even a cursory eye on Middle East current events should be fully aware that the number of terrorists in post-invasion Iraq VASTLY outnumber the terrorists in pre-invasion Iraq. As in, so vast a difference that to attempt to call it a possible increase is downright laughable. Or mind-bogglingly ignorant.

 

[deep]

Don't run off. What makes you think the anthrax attacks of 2001 are al Qaeda since you brought it up? That is not the conclusion of the FBI or CIA.

But an analysis of the anthrax mailings suggests that U.S.-based supporters of one of Osama bin Laden's closest advisers, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were responsible.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/6/163931.shtml?s=lh

The article you posted from the end of Oct 2001 was a couple of days after the Patriot Act was passed.

I kind of suspect these attacks were the Bush Administration's
Reichstag fire

 

[INDY500]

But an analysis of the anthrax mailings suggests that U.S.-based supporters of one of Osama bin Laden's closest advisers, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were responsible.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/6/163931.shtml?s=lh

The article you posted from the end of Oct 2001 was a couple of days after the Patriot Act was passed.

I kind of suspect these attacks were the Bush Administration's
Reichstag fire

I read the article and it sounds like we still don't know. And don't these guys usually take credit for these things? Sooo, if we don't know, isn't Cheney right for not lumping the anthrax attacks in with 9/11. After all, look at how he's hammered for even the smallest suggestion that Iraq and 9/11 were linked after we find out that they weren't.

But I'm confused by your post. Are you implying that it was foreign terrorists with assistance from the U. S. government? An inside job.

(Raise your hand if you are "stupid", and you know it?")

 

[deep]

(Some things, I do know)

I knew my post went both ways.

The NewsMax
article is almost a putup job to lay it off on al-Queda (to me)

also
this site seems to be created just to keep attention on al Queda


http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com/



I do recall when all this was going down
it fed in to the "America is under attack" and most suspected Islamos.

The letter's were supposed to seal the deal

kind of like the "forged yellow cake" document did for justifying getting into the Iraq War

Well, what did the anthrax attacks accomplish?
Do we hear anything about them now?

 

[INDY500]

(Some things, I do know)

I knew my post went both ways.

The NewsMax
article is almost a putup job to lay it off on al-Queda (to me)

also
this site seems to be created just to keep attention on al Queda


http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com/



I do recall when all this was going down
it fed in to the "America is under attack" and most suspected Islamos.

The letter's were supposed to seal the deal

kind of like the "forged yellow cake" document did for justifying getting into the Iraq War

Well, what did the anthrax attacks accomplish?
Do we hear anything about them now?

I'll grant you this, it has all but been forgotten. But most things are today once there's nothing new to talk about. Any mention in the 9/11 report?

But back to nutty conspiracies. Wonder why there have been no new attacks? Wouldn't one right before the 06 elections have played right into Bush's hands? Assuming, of coarse, he green-lights these sorts of things. The week after Katrina? How about now, what with his popularity at an all-time low and even Republicans pissed at him?

 

[Irvine511]

1 attack a hero makes, 2 attacks an incompetent president makes?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

But back to nutty conspiracies. Wonder why there have been no new attacks? Wouldn't one right before the 06 elections have played right into Bush's hands? Assuming, of coarse, he green-lights these sorts of things. The week after Katrina? How about now, what with his popularity at an all-time low and even Republicans pissed at him?

Your (rather hilarious) terror threat level colour chart thingy always seemed to swing in line with stuff like this.

 

[BVS]

Nobody has said that Iraq did us harm. At least, no Republican that I can think of. We didnt invade Iraq because they attack us.

We went to Iraq because Saddam was a threat to us and to the Iraqi people. Iraq is the next step in the United States' post-9/11 foreign policy. Is Iraq a mess right now? Of course. Are more terrorists in Iraq than there were pre-invasion? Possibly. But Saddam was very, very dangerous and the world (and that includes Iraq) is better without him.

This isn't what you said last week.

Been drinking?

 

[BVS]

Good luck with that argument around here. Most people in this forum are of the opinion that the wrong president was hanged in Iraq for war crimes.

The more you post, the harder it is to take you serious...

I'm actually disappointed...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think what John Edwards meant by his bumper sticker comment is that the phrase "war on terror" has been used and manipulated by the Bush administration and others to justify the situation in Iraq, certain provisions of the Patriot Act, torture, questionable wiretapping, not having little things like warrants, etc. When something no longer has any real meaning because of the way it is used and manipulated by people to justify their actions, it's a bumper sticker. It's cliche, it has lost its' real meaning.

"I don’t know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.

- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Bush: “So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him. … And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. January 19, 2006.

How can anyone who wants to fight a real and legitimate war on terror ever say something like that? It's not the end of the war in terror but it's a start. Now we are left with even more motivation for terrorists and potential terrorists in that whole region. Bush will never face that fact, he lives in complete denial of it.