slothrop Posted July 18, 2005 Author Share Posted July 18, 2005 Bet'cha a buck, had Hillary said that, he wouldnt have posted it. Most know the Slothdog is a left leaning tree hugger, catch up, will ya. 384450[/snapback] Slothdog? Are you the Randy Jackson of PPP? I will tell you that I have never hugged a tree - especially trees that lean to the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Meanwhile, in real news, leading UK Sunni clerics finally issue a fatwah against the nutjobs - It's about time Good luck finding this story among the the top lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philburger1 Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Wish it were that simple. Know it wasn't my question, but a lot of the real successes dealing with these people are through venues other than direct military action. Thoughts of treaties and diplomacy with the TERRORISTS accomplishes nothing, but treaties and diplomacy, along with other actions with the people who have them living in their backyards can accomplish a lot. 384341[/snapback] "There are no treaties, only Jihad and the rifle" was a quote from Bin Liden's right hand man. The point of the story wasn't that the US would strike first with a nuclear bomb first, no way. But if it were to happen to us, the gloves would have to come off in a BIG way. And unfortunately, it looks like they are people who have been planning do something like this for the past 10 years. Just curious, if , heaven help, such an event happened, what would your response be? For the sake of the argument, let's say it is a know fact that is was carried out by Islamic extremists who came in thru the Mexican border. The mike is yours..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 SARCASM, poindexter. Throwing out a little sarcasm. 384460[/snapback] I caught that, and responded with same. - Excuse my bad smilie manners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philburger1 Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Meanwhile, in real news, leading UK Sunni clerics finally issue a fatwah against the nutjobs - It's about time Good luck finding this story among the the top lists. 384516[/snapback] I am sure it will be easier to find then the stories of pro-democracy protests in the middle east: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4490623.stm http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/...-match-pro.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Why? What do you bomb? I think what we are doing now, which is a whole bunch of stuff to PREVENT it from happening is more the way to go. If this were proven to be the work of radical Islamists, with no state sponsorship I wouldn't be bombing anybody. Things would be prosecuted, but not that way. Have to suck that one up. They got one in. Were there state sponsorship involved, which I personally think the chances of having approach near zero, might be another question - but as has been pointed out, targets can be defeated kinetically without resorting to nuclear weapons. As to any further comment, you give a very broad scenario - hard to make any kind of meaningful comment. What does Mexico have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philburger1 Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Why? What do you bomb? I think what we are doing now, which is a whole bunch of stuff to PREVENT it from happening is more the way to go. Have to suck that one up. They got one in As to any further comment, you give a very broad scenario - hard to make any kind of meaningful comment. What does Mexico have to do with anything? 384532[/snapback] "Have to suck that one up. They got one in" Wow, I am sure that is the Americam people would want to hear after a major city goes up in flames. What does Mexico have to do with anything? Well, since they said they aren't going to help stop terrorists from coming into the US until will give them a bunch of money and create a massive amnesty program for them, plus the fact you can pretty much walk across the Mexican-US border (and get handed a Gatoraide from some Berkley students as come in), it would seem a very likely scenario. Islamic terrorsist have said on their web sites that it is tough to come into the US through normal means. Thank God for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 "Have to suck that one up. They got one in" Wow, I am sure that is the Americam people would want to hear after a major city goes up in flames. What does Mexico have to do with anything? Well, since they said they aren't going to help stop terrorists from coming into the US until will give them a bunch of money and create a massive amnesty program for them, plus the fact you can pretty much walk across the Mexican-US border (and get handed a Gatoraide from some Berkley students as come in), it would seem a very likely scenario. Islamic terrorsist have said on their web sites that it is tough to come into the US through normal means. Thank God for that. 384607[/snapback] Well, contrary to what many believe, I speak without spin. I give my take. And, if I got into lots of black and white detail as to how scenarios like this get looked at in "the real world", both liberal and conservative sides would unite on a march against Washington. You're better off with the spin. You forget Canada has a long border too? Want to nuke Ottowa because the Canadians didn't "do their job"? And, why import bad guys when you can recruit here? Much easier. It's only a week or so old, remember a town called London? Newsflash: Unless you are looking for votes, what the "American people" think has next to nothing to do with anything. Nor, should it. That is the biggest reason I actually have some respect for this particular administration. Go read the Travis Henry threads and tell me if you want "America" making national security decisions based on what they think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Go read the Travis Henry threads and tell me if you want "America" making national security decisions based on what they think? 384616[/snapback] The man has a point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philburger1 Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Well, contrary to what many believe, I speak without spin. I give my take. And, if I got into lots of black and white detail as to how scenarios like this get looked at in "the real world", both liberal and conservative sides would unite on a march against Washington. You're better off with the spin. You forget Canada has a long border too? Want to nuke Ottowa because the Canadians didn't "do their job"? And, why import bad guys when you can recruit here? Much easier. It's only a week or so old, remember a town called London? Newsflash: Unless you are looking for votes, what the "American people" think has next to nothing to do with anything. Nor, should it. That is the biggest reason I actually have some respect for this particular administration. Go read the Travis Henry threads and tell me if you want "America" making national security decisions based on what they think? 384616[/snapback] Jimmy Carter, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Jimmy Carter, is that you? 384705[/snapback] OK, you win. Nuke everyone. My bad. I'm such a liberal kitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 My bad. I'm such a liberal kitty. 384708[/snapback] No, that is what you would be if you were a Picard fan. As a Kirk fan, you "get" liberal kitty. Big difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 No, that is what you would be if you were a Picard fan. As a Kirk fan, you "get" liberal kitty. Big difference! 384729[/snapback] Thats just wrong...... Kirk>Picard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Slothdog? Are you the Randy Jackson of PPP? I will tell you that I have never hugged a tree - especially trees that lean to the left. 384477[/snapback] I think it was " Lets Go Buffalo" That said you were a left leaning liberal fag, if thats not correct, I'm sorry. I kid, I jest. But He could have said that? I'm not sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Thats just wrong...... Kirk>Picard 384730[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philburger1 Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Well, contrary to what many believe, I speak without spin. I give my take. And, if I got into lots of black and white detail as to how scenarios like this get looked at in "the real world", both liberal and conservative sides would unite on a march against Washington. You're better off with the spin. You forget Canada has a long border too? Want to nuke Ottowa because the Canadians didn't "do their job"? And, why import bad guys when you can recruit here? Much easier. It's only a week or so old, remember a town called London? Newsflash: Unless you are looking for votes, what the "American people" think has next to nothing to do with anything. Nor, should it. That is the biggest reason I actually have some respect for this particular administration. Go read the Travis Henry threads and tell me if you want "America" making national security decisions based on what they think? 384616[/snapback] 1. I don't think any person in their right mind would say the Canadian border is as big of problem as the Mexican Border. For one thing, you have drug gangs like MS-13 practically running the show in the border towns of Mexico. There have been some reports that they might help smuggle Islamic Terrorist into the US if the price is right. 2. As far as the Bush administration goes, I think you got it half-right. They don't let "special interest" groups determine their policies (like C.I.A.R). But a slight majority (53%) actually agrees mostly with what they are doing. 3. My main point is that some senator ( and just about the only one willing to tackle the illegal immigration problem, talk about not bowing to voter blocks) making a case for retaliation against the Islamic Terrorists, and hopefully giving them some type of deterrent, in the event of them blowing up a US city with a nuke, isn't what you should get made about. Everyday, if you look hard enough in the news, you can get almost daily threats and hypocritical statements from the lovely world of Islamo-facists: The following are excerpts from an Al-Jazeera television interview on the London bombings, with Palestinian National Council member Mamoun Al-Tamimi...The interview aired on July 12, 2005 on Al-Jazeera TV. Host: We heard the British Home Secretary say that what happened in London has nothing whatsoever to do with the British policies or Iraq. What do you have to say to him? Al-Tamimi: "Obviously, he wants to defend himself, because this operation will bring down the government. Blair will fall just like Aznar did. When Spain was attacked, Aznar immediately tried to pin it on ETA and the Basques. Then it turned out that Al-Qaeda was behind the attack, and he immediately lost the elections. Blair will follow Aznar. This is certain. Therefore they want to cover up... "First of all, they prevented the media from filming the attacks. The attacks were enormous, a thousand times greater than what was reported. Why did they do this? Because of the fear that overcame the British people and government, and because they know that they are paying a steep price for the mess Blair got them into. They understood that this is because they treat the Arabs and Muslims with disdain and spill their blood. They understood that this is war. In war, you hit and get hit. That's the equation. "Since this war is ongoing, the people you strike have the right to strike back at you, in your home, your country, anywhere. That's the equation." Host: When Spain suffered a terrorist attack, it immediately withdrew its forces from Iraq... Al-Tamimi: "As for Britain's humanism, Winston Churchill once said: 'Defend freedom, for it is the reason for our existence.' After Hitler's fall in Germany, Winston Churchill ordered the army and the air force to continue bombing. The bombings continued three weeks after Hitler's fall, and military historians say that the casualties sustained by Germany after Hitler's fall were greater than the casualties from the war. Germany had 25 million casualties, and in Britain there were 18 million dead. In other words, Britain totally annihilated Germany after Hitler's fall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 1. I don't think any person in their right mind would say the Canadian border is as big of problem as the Mexican Border. For one thing, you have drug gangs like MS-13 practically running the show in the border towns of Mexico. There have been some reports that they might help smuggle Islamic Terrorist into the US if the price is right. Uh-huh. Pay no attention to the fact that two of the biggest Islamic communities (i.e. hiding places) in the country are in Buffalo and Detroit. You know why you'll never see a major al Qaeda attack in either of those cities or Seattle? Because al Qaeda knows it'll bring an immediate security response, and those cities are too valuable as ingress points. Al-Tamimi: "As for Britain's humanism, Winston Churchill once said: 'Defend freedom, for it is the reason for our existence.' After Hitler's fall in Germany, Winston Churchill ordered the army and the air force to continue bombing. The bombings continued three weeks after Hitler's fall, and military historians say that the casualties sustained by Germany after Hitler's fall were greater than the casualties from the war. Germany had 25 million casualties, and in Britain there were 18 million dead. In other words, Britain totally annihilated Germany after Hitler's fall... 384771[/snapback] Retarded. That's not even close to being factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 I'm not sure where to even start, on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 No, that is what you would be if you were a Picard fan. As a Kirk fan, you "get" liberal kitty. Big difference! 384729[/snapback] And plenty of it runs around DC. They needed a flatbed truck to haul the Kerry-Edwards signs out of my neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Meanwhile, in real news, leading UK Sunni clerics finally issue a fatwah against the nutjobs - It's about time Good luck finding this story among the the top lists. 384516[/snapback] i wonder how long these guys are going to live before they get blown up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts