Al Queda in Iraq threatens Pope Benedict XVI "You and the west are doomed" (1 Viewer)

[ProudAmerican]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214318,00.html

what do ya know. the very same terrorists that hit us on 9-11 are threatening us from Iraq.

I simply can not fathom how some people can allow partisan politics to interfere with common sense.

so, should we pull out of Iraq and allow AQ to find safe haven there, and threaten our country with impunity?

please avoid talking about how we got there. that is now irrelevant. we are there, AQ is there, and they are threatening America. No, they are PROMISING AMERICA.

would you prevent our country from defending itself against another AQ attack because of your partisan political beliefs?

 

[Sir_Alec]

I'm sorry but I don't listen to empty threats. Last time I checked these so called professional terrorists can't do **** and they were just lucky our guard was down on 9/11.

I think the fact we are in Iraq is making the world a more dangerous place, but I also think it is only a temporary hazard. These terrorists are going to lose their support if we stay strong in Iraq. In about a decade we might have Iraq up and running and this will get a lot of extremeists to put down their guns. To pull out would only make the situation worse and would most likely end in civil war.

I don't agree with the war, but it is too late to argue about that. I don't agree we should abandon and waste what so many people had to pointlessly die for.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I'm sorry but I don't listen to empty threats. Last time I checked these so called professional terrorists can't do **** and they were just lucky our guard was down on 9/11.

righhtttt. empty threats huh?

they are always empty threats, untill innocent civilians die. then all of a sudden, its a big deal and Bush is to blame.

 

[Sir_Alec]

righhtttt. empty threats huh?

they are always empty threats, untill innocent civilians die. then all of a sudden, its a big deal and Bush is to blame.

I edited more in so please re-re-reply.

 

[ProudAmerican]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-nun-slain-somalia-pope-link-speculation.html

I wonder what she thought right before she was slain.

"just a bunch of empty threats from do nothing muslems"

I still cant believe that after 9-11 people are naive enough to think these people make "empty threats"

 

[Sir_Alec]

I wonder what she thought right before she was slain.

"just a bunch of empty threats from do nothing muslems"

I still cant believe that after 9-11 people are naive enough to think these people make "empty threats"

well about 95% of their threats are empty so I find it hard to be afraid of them.

 

[Captain America]

Now I'm confused. (Well, actually, that's most of the time.)

If we leave Iraq, the Al Queda terrorists will follow us. Did I get that right?

So....if we are in Iraq, that must mean the Al Queda terrorists have followed us there too. Obviously so. I mean, there wasn't much a presence of them there before, by all indicaters,. Which, in turn, means the Al Queda terrorists are in Iraq because we are in Iraq.

(But that's better than them being here, that's for sure.)

Why didn't we just stay in Afghanistan in the first place and just save everybody some gas money?

 

[ProudAmerican]

well about 95% of their threats are empty so I find it hard to be afraid of them.

it has nothing to do with being "affraid"

it has everything to do with taking them seriously at their word, and stopping them.

if these idiots ever get a nuke, we are in serious trouble. if that happens, it wont matter if 99% of their threats are empty. that one percent is doing to do a hell of a lot of damage.

am I the only one that notices that they have gotten better at what they do? more effective? larger losses of life? more complex?

to dismiss these radicals as clumsy, idiotic, stupid, and ineffective is irresponsible.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Now I'm confused. (Well, actually, that's most of the time.)

If we leave Iraq, the Al Queda terrorists will follow us. Did I get that right?

So....if we are in Iraq, that must mean the the Al Queda terrorists have followed us there. Obviously so. I mean, they weren't there before. Which in turns means the terrorists are in Iraq because we are in Iraq. (But that's better than them being here, that's for sure.)

Why didn't we just stay in Afghanistan in the first place and just save everybody some gas money?

they were there before. they saught medical treatment there before.
and we never left afghanistan.

other than that, you are pretty much spot on.

but lets try to stay on topic.

regardless of whether they were there before, do you support us fighting them since they are there now? do you support us defending our nation against terrorists?

 

[Captain America]

well about 95% of their threats are empty so I find it hard to be afraid of them.

Whose?

Al Queda's or O'Reilly's? :rofl

 

[Sir_Alec]

it has nothing to do with being "affraid"

it has everything to do with taking them seriously at their word, and stopping them.

if these idiots ever get a nuke, we are in serious trouble. if that happens, it wont matter if 99% of their threats are empty. that one percent is doing to do a hell of a lot of damage.

am I the only one that notices that they have gotten better at what they do? more effective? larger losses of life? more complex?

to dismiss these radicals as clumsy, idiotic, stupid, and ineffective is irresponsible.

I am very irresponsible. I'm not saying we should let our gaurd down at all, I'm just saying 95% of the time these guys are talking BS.

 

[Captain America]

they were there before. they saught medical treatment there before.
and we never left afghanistan.

other than that, you are pretty much spot on.

Well, they were here before too. Hell, they we're enrolled in flight school. Are you suggesting that we, the US, was in bed with Al Queda too?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Well, they were here before too. Hell, they we're enrolled in flight school. Are you suggesting that we, the US, was in bed with Al Queda too?

but lets try to stay on topic.

regardless of whether they were there before, do you support us fighting them since they are there now? do you support us defending our nation against terrorists?

and are you suggesting that our government knew they were here, and openly gave them flying lessons?

are you suggesting that the Iraq government had NO CLUE that an AQ leader was being treated at a medical facility?

 

[Iriemon]

What else would you expect Al-Queda to say? The war in Iraq is the best thing that ever happened to them. It turned the organization from a bunch of little known bandits in Afganistan to a major force in the Muslim world. It has fostered their goal of holy war, strengthened radical anti-western feelings in the Muslim world, weakened the moderates, and given them great fodder for their arguments that the US is the great Satan, and given them a wonderful training ground in Iraq. Americans are now known for torturing Muslims and committing other atrocities, and responsible for killing Muslims daily.

Why would Al-Queda want the US to leave Iraq? That would spoil their party.

 

[ProudAmerican]

What else would you expect Al-Queda to say? The war in Iraq is the best thing that ever happened to them. It turned the organization from a bunch of bandits in Afganistan to a major force in the Muslim world. It has foster their goal of holy war, strengthened radical anti-western feelings in the Muslim world, weakened the moderates, and given them great fodder for their arguments that the US is the great Satan.

Why would Al-Queda want the US to leave Iraq? That would spoil their party.

you are so clueless on this issue its damn near mind boggling.

I suppose if losing your leaders and members to death, and capture is "the best thing that ever happened to them" then you are correct.

It has foster their goal of holy war, strengthened radical anti-western feelings in the Muslim world, weakened the moderates, and given them great fodder for their arguments that the US is the great Satan.

they certainly seem to have convinced most liberals.

regardless of whether they were there before, do you support us fighting them since they are there now? do you support us defending our nation against terrorists?

 

[Captain America]

PA does have a point. When given lemons, make lemonade.

 

[Iriemon]

you are so clueless on this issue its damn near mind boggling.

I suppose if losing your leaders and members to death, and capture is "the best thing that ever happened to them" then you are correct.

regardless of whether they were there before, do you support us fighting them since they are there now? do you support us defending our nation against terrorists?

If you think that somehow by invading Iraq, Al-Queda is weaker now than it was in 2003, you are the one who is so clueless it is mind-boggling.

They are there now and stronger because we are creating them.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If you think that somehow by invading Iraq, Al-Queda is weaker now than it was in 2003, you are the one who is so clueless it is mind-boggling.

They are there now because we are creating them.

regardless of whether they were there before, do you support us fighting them since they are there now? do you support us defending our nation against terrorists?

 

[Captain America]

If you think that somehow by invading Iraq, Al-Queda is weaker now than it was in 2003, you are the one who is so clueless it is mind-boggling.

They are there now and stronger because we are creating them.

Alas, someone wore their thinking cap to class.

 

[ProudAmerican]

no suprise I cant get anyone to answer.

Should AQ in Iraq be able to threaten our country with impunity?

since they are now in Iraq, should we defeat them, since they are the very same people that hit us on 9-11?

or should we pull out, and have debates about whether or not we are "creating" them?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Alas, someone wore their thinking cap to class.

regardless of whether they were there before, do you support us fighting them since they are there now? do you support us defending our nation against terrorists?

 

[dsanthony]

I'm sorry but I don't listen to empty threats. Last time I checked these so called professional terrorists can't do **** and they were just lucky our guard was down on 9/11.

Yes, I suppose Madrid and London bombings were "empty threats" as well. The ONLY reason AQ has not struck the US again (as they did 4 times under Clinton) is that Bush is largely ignoring the ACLU crowd and securing our nation. It's a wonder he doesn't just say the hell with it and let AQ kill a few thousand more Americans.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Yes, I suppose Madrid and London bombings were "empty threats" as well. The ONLY reason AQ has not struck the US again (as they did 4 times under Clinton) is that Bush is largely ignoring the ACLU crowd and securing our nation. It's a wonder he doesn't just say the hell with it and let AQ kill a few thousand more Americans.

when they are successful, its Bushes fault. when they are stopped , its blind luck.

get with the program here man!!

 

[Iriemon]

regardless of whether they were there before, do you support us fighting them since they are there now? do you support us defending our nation against terrorists?

No, I do not support indefinited continued occupation of Iraq. I believe, based on what I've read, that 99% of the terrorists there would not be terrorists but for our illegitimate presense. Not to mention the other problems our occupation is causing. It is a self-justifying argument. We invade a country wrongly and people fight and then the argument is we are justified to continue fighting because they are fighting against us. IMO, we are creating more anti-American terrorists by staying the course, and doing great damage to what must be our ultimate goal: Reducing anti-America radicals in the ME.

 

[Captain America]

regardless of whether they were there before, do you support us fighting them since they are there now? do you support us defending our nation against terrorists?

I am for fighting Al Queda where ever they are at.