Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Hey Nick, if you don't mind, what have you been hearing on what really happened? I'm getting alot of conflicting stories: 3 bombs, 4 bombs, 6 bombs, a power surge, one was a suicide bomber.. Have you heard anything more concrete? 376469[/snapback] He's probably hearing the same thing. Worry about that tomorrow. It'll take a while for the investigators to figure it out, and everything you hear until then is little more than the media masturbating all over itself for lack of any real information.
Thurman's Helmet Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Here's another typical leftist response I've seen scouring various message boards; And given what our countries have historically done, and persist in doing, this isn't even a fraction of what we deserve.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 AHHHHHHH...But they are supported by certain states/nations/governments (IRAN, SYRIA) ....Do you advocate military force against them? Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan? They were a government that sponsered terrorism. So should we nuke Tehran? Maybe we should....Let em know we mean business. 376475[/snapback] Not al Qaeda. They're a trans-national terrorist organization. By definition, they're not geographically centered or nationally supported.
GG Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Why must so many of you go into hyper hawk drive at the first sign of anyone suggesting other ways of fighting and winning the war on terrorism? 376465[/snapback] Could it be that everyone who's involved in the GWOT has steadfastedly said that the process will take a long, long, long time and many more terrorist attacks will occur in the meantime? No one who is directly working in this arena has dismissed diplomacy as a major avenue to win this war, along with strong military encoursions in key areas. If anything, you continue to demonstrate the reactionary naivete that if terrorists succeed in one of potentially dozens of attempts, then our efforts are failing. If you go around the board calling people stupid for not understanding your post, perhaps you can work a bit better on making a cogent point from the start.
gantrules Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 best wishes nick, i hope things go well over there... at least this thread had a little bit of time before it turned into a crappy political debate (i thought we had an entire board for that?) can we go back to discussing london now? 376466[/snapback] right on. You guys have a board for this don't you?
swede316 Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Not al Qaeda. They're a trans-national terrorist organization. By definition, they're not geographically centered or nationally supported.So they weren't supported by the taliban?
OGTEleven Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 I have not advocated forswearing the use of force against terrorists, just pointed out the starkly obvious: military operations will not stop terrorism. If you disagree, please submit your military plan to stop terrorism to the governments of the United States, Great Britian, Spain, Russia and Israel. I am sure they would love to hear it, you must know something they don't. Chamberlain faced a different situation. Nazi Germany was a state, a nation, a government. Military operations work very, very well against states, nations and governments. Unfortunately, terrorists are not goverments are they? They are not protecting territory, they have no real geography do they? Surely you appreciate the difference between the armies of nation states clashing over territory and the struggle against terrorism. They are entirely different conflicts requiring different strategies. I don't advocate appeasment, far from it. I do find it interesting however that by simply pointing out how ineffective military operations are against terrorist attacks, I am attacked as an appeaser. Quite a leap in logic there. Why must so many of you go into hyper hawk drive at the first sign of anyone suggesting other ways of fighting and winning the war on terrorism? 376465[/snapback] Mick, You appear to be saying that military operations have no place in this and we should all be resigned to being attacked. If that is what you meant or you are in favor of some other type of force, you should clarify your position and describe it more fully. If you feel the military should be used to some extent, you should describe the extent. If you feel force has no place at all, you should state that. With all due respect, you seem to be stating we're all stupid for not just throwing up our arms and hoping we are not the next one blown up.
VABills Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Not al Qaeda. They're a trans-national terrorist organization. By definition, they're not geographically centered or nationally supported. 376479[/snapback] But it still take a place to train, someone to fund these folks, and someway to get them to where they need to train. Two out of the three means that a country could probably get some indicators that something is happening there. The third take a good chunk of coin for all of the communications and purchase of these materials. A lot black market. Ergo, we need to find not only the countries looking the other way, but the funding agents for these activities. That being said, I disagree that the radicals really want us out of the middle east as much as they want to control the oil and the riches that come with it. I think the leadership of these groups are just as greedy as everyone else.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 So they weren't supported by the taliban? 376482[/snapback] More accurately, the Taliban was supported by them. Though that's not even really accurate either...the truth is that Afghanistan is better thought of as a geographical region than a country (they don't even recognize their own borders), and Afghanistan politics was, is, and will always be an unholy mess...particularly from 1980-2000, with the Pakis, Saudis, Russians, Iranians, US, and multiple corporate and special interest groups mucking around in it. To say any single entity supported any other single entity in Afghanistan is an egregious over-simplification; at its simplest, you might say that the Taliban and al Qaeda are two facets of the same issue.
philburger1 Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Are you really that stupid that you could misread that post that much? I think oil is a great reason to go to war. One of the best I've ever heard. Our economy and standard of living depends on it. The price though is having to be knee deep in the most politically, culturally backward and unstable areas in the world. If we didn't need their oil, if it wasn't vital to our national interests we would not have to be there. We could deal with their turmoil and self destruction the same way we did in Rwanda, the Balkans and the Sudan. That is, do what we can without putting our own people at risk until things die down and the risks of involvement become acceptably low. If Saudis revolted against the royal family, would you send American troops to die in Mecca to keep Saudi Princes in power? Would we have a choice given our dependence on Saudi oil? 376445[/snapback] Sorry pal, oil isn't the only factor out there. I would say they hatred of other religions is the number reason for the attacks. Here are some questions for YOU to answer. If it is all about oil... 1. Why are all the major religious conflicts in the world always Islam vs Hindus, or Christians, or Jews,,,etc. When is the last time a major war or attack was wages by Jews against Hindus, Buddhist against Christians? 2. Why in the terrorist propaganda speeches do they mention attacking the Vatican? What does that have to do with oil or the US's foreign policy? 3. Why in their threats to us to they mention Las Vegas? Hardly because it is a military base. 4. Why is one Osma's demands to us is that we have to convert to Islam? 5. Why do they attack other religions' holy sites? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/05/...ain706203.shtml
Mickey Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 What a bullcrap copout of an answer. Oil only goes into gas engines? Take a look around you. Anything that is plastic, PVC, "rubber" is oil based. Turn off your lights, because there's a good chance the electricity is being generated by an oil fired power plant. Oil is the leading commodity in powering the world, and even if we take your weakly naive solution of cutting ties with the Mid East oil regimes and pull out, you will not change a thing, because there are plenty of other countries that will continue to siphon oil out of those wells. This is more than just about walking to work. Do you also advocate US tourists stopping to visit Bali, because of the bombings there? Stop going to Spain, too. Let's throw the Jews into the Mediterranean and return the pristine lands to the native boys. Let's put up a 100' tall fence on every inch of US boundary and we'll be perfectly safe. 376429[/snapback] uh...actually one point of the post was that oil is critical, a vital national interest worth fighting for. "...walking to work..." was just a short hand reference to our reliance. As for not going to Bali, yeah, that is exactly what I would do and it also happens to be exactly what the State Department does whenever there is a civil war or other violent unrest in other parts of the world, they announce travel restrictions until it all blows over. You make it sound like we would perish as a nation if we didn't go to Bali for 6 months while a civil war played out. Oil is a vital national interest. Vacationing in Bali or Madrid isn't. The answer for Israel is what it has always been, a political solution to the Palestinian problem. Israeli's know that and have tried to reach one over and over but there has been no one minding the store on the other side for them to deal with. They can't negotiate with a madman and that is the only choice they have had. Hopefully that is changing. I resent your implication that I was advocating leaving Israel to its own. I NEVER said that, never would. My point isn't that we should pull out of the middle east, it is that we can't pull out because of the oil and because we can't, these attacks will go on and on. I'd love to believe that simply using a bigger hammer would stop them but I don't believe that at all. Today's attacks and the history of terrorism underscores that uncomfortable reality.
Ramius Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 and the ppp circle jerk begins 376492[/snapback] unfortunate isnt it?
GG Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 My point isn't that we should pull out of the middle east, it is that we can't pull out because of the oil and because we can't, these attacks will go on and on. I'd love to believe that simply using a bigger hammer would stop them but I don't believe that at all. Today's attacks and the history of terrorism underscores that uncomfortable reality. 376494[/snapback] And you would have saved everyone a lot of aggravation and lessened the carpal tunnel risk by typing this in the first place.
GG Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 and the ppp circle jerk begins 376492[/snapback] Sorry to intrude on the vital poker & Paris Hilton threads.
VABills Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 and the ppp circle jerk begins 376492[/snapback] Better than being the idiots who goes around stalking and verbally attacking others.
IDBillzFan Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 If you go around the board calling people stupid for not understanding your post, perhaps you can work a bit better on making a cogent point from the start. 376480[/snapback] Well put. Thank you.
ShortBusDriver Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 and the ppp circle jerk begins 376492[/snapback] Sorry if world events are getting in the way of your discussions of: 1) The World Series of Poker 2) What movies you have watched 3) What television shows you have watched 4) The latest dog seatbelt laws Need a ride?
IDBillzFan Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 unfortunate isnt it? 376496[/snapback] It's actually pretty good discourse, Ramius. You just have to eliminate the name calling and you've got insightful discussions at a pretty high level. Much higher than I find at a business meeting or round of golf.
gantrules Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 point is there is a board for this. Us peon's, at least me, don't understand it and the thread was hijacked. You guys are some knowledgable fellas that's for sure. But, if I have to talk baseball in a certain room you gotta follow the rules too.
Recommended Posts