My messege to the terrorists

[Alastor]

Dear God...

I so hope this thread was started as a joke...

 

[26 X World Champs]

Because I named liberals as having traitorous elements among them does not mean that all liberals are traitors. It means that SOME liberals are traitors. It also implies that most traitors are more likely than not to come from liberal ranks.

You seem to keep changing what you said? Here's a reminder:

A good many people on the left are clearly treasonous

"Good many" implies A LOT, not the three you keep mentioning. Spin, spin, spin...or like the Byrds sang, "Turn, Turn, Turn."

But having said all this, no one can deny that Churchill, Chomsky, Clark and Moore are anything other than traitors. Do you disagree? They certainly can't be considered as anything as except on the far left. Am I wrong?

None are TRAITORS. All are FAR LEFT. Churchill is alone on a mountain, not sure what his thinking means, but I do disagree with it.

Michael Moore is NOT a traitor, nor is he Un-American. He's a FILMMAKER, not a politician. I like his films, and I like his politics. Is he perfect, NO, but who is? Moore is no more a traitor than Rove is.

I will amend my statement to this extent. "Democrats" should have been worded as the National Democratic Party that is now run almost exclusively by the far left. On that I am not backing off. For proof, just look at Howard Dean. He is clearly out of his ever loving mind. Even Democrats (decent ones, anyway) know this to be true. He is the gift that keeps on giving to the Republicans.

Howard Dean's job is to raise money for the DNC, and he's quite good at it. I do not recall people changing their votes based on the Chairman of one of the political parties?

How about Ken Melman? IMHO he's a liar and a robot. He rallies Democrats together. However the people who will vote for Democrats are not affected by Melman anymore than the people who will vote for Republicans are affected by Dean.

It's like VP candidates. People don't vote for them either.

My opinion of your posts is that you make broad and nasty comments about ALL Democrats. Then, when challenged you practice revision history, but only because you were challenged.

You're the one who used the outrageous term "TREASONOUS" It is that to which I strongly object. I find it to be an ignorant comment.

To call Michael Moore a traitor discredits you in my eyes, sorry.

Tell us you dislike him, that you disagree with him, that you think he's full of it. Calling him a traitor is really, really wrong, IMHO.

 

[cnredd]

My opinion of your posts is that you make broad and nasty comments about ALL Democrats. Then, when challenged you practice revision history, but only because you were challenged.

You're the one who used the outrageous term "TREASONOUS" It is that to which I strongly object. I find it to be an ignorant comment.

To call Michael Moore a traitor discredits you in my eyes, sorry.

Tell us you dislike him, that you disagree with him, that you think he's full of it. Calling him a traitor is really, really wrong, IMHO.

In radio announcer's voice...PaidforbytheDemocraticNationalPartyHowardDeanChairman

 

[Alastor]

Correct, but the War on Terror is a war on terrorism in general, whether they threaten the U.S. or not.

Um... no.

That's not what we were sold on. It also opens a whole can of worms we are really better off not dealing with. The IRA is a terrorist group, shall we invade Ireland? What about France? What about London since they've clearly got their hands full of them?

I know! Let's invade Japan again (Hell, that's about the last time doing so went well for us anyway). They've got nut-jobs trying to blow up their subway systems and trains too!

No, now wait, those guerillas in Columbia, those aren't terrorists... those are freedom fighters because they're on our side.

No. The quote above simply doesn't fly. We did not declare war on all terrorists in general. We are not out to cleans the world. We are and were sold on the idea of protecting ourselves from Al-Qaida.

Anything beyond that is a complete farce, opens up a hypocritical conuundrum from which there is no escape, and stretches the bounds of both common sense and reason.

Though many that oppose your view here have backed down from errant assertions, Tetracide (and rightfully so), this is one you'd be better off relinquishing as well in my opinion.

 

[Missouri Mule]

You seem to keep changing what you said? Here's a reminder:

"Good many" implies A LOT, not the three you keep mentioning. Spin, spin, spin...or like the Byrds sang, "Turn, Turn, Turn."

None are TRAITORS. All are FAR LEFT. Churchill is alone on a mountain, not sure what his thinking means, but I do disagree with it.

Michael Moore is NOT a traitor, nor is he Un-American. He's a FILMMAKER, not a politician. I like his films, and I like his politics. Is he perfect, NO, but who is? Moore is no more a traitor than Rove is.

Howard Dean's job is to raise money for the DNC, and he's quite good at it. I do not recall people changing their votes based on the Chairman of one of the political parties?

How about Ken Melman? IMHO he's a liar and a robot. He rallies Democrats together. However the people who will vote for Democrats are not affected by Melman anymore than the people who will vote for Republicans are affected by Dean.

It's like VP candidates. People don't vote for them either.

My opinion of your posts is that you make broad and nasty comments about ALL Democrats. Then, when challenged you practice revision history, but only because you were challenged.

You're the one who used the outrageous term "TREASONOUS" It is that to which I strongly object. I find it to be an ignorant comment.

To call Michael Moore a traitor discredits you in my eyes, sorry.

Tell us you dislike him, that you disagree with him, that you think he's full of it. Calling him a traitor is really, really wrong, IMHO.

Evidently you didn't hear what he has said overseas. And his film was a work of creative but dishonest fiction. Bin Laden no doubt took great comfort with that film. The gullible ate it up. And they weren't Republican/Conservatives, either. Who does that leave?

Moore's problem is not that he is stupid. He isn't. It isn't even that he is evil. He's not. He is self-delusional and believes his own rhetoric. But the twisting of facts and the context he uses those facts, the "ambushing" method of journalism that is cheap and tawdry makes him a pretty darn poor example of humanity. He also needs to take a bath. He stinks -- literally.

But I don't want to spend a lot of time about Michael Moore. On the other three; traitors all. They ought to be strung up.

 

[Tetracide]

I wont back down from my statment, but instead, I will articulate it. This quote is from the white house website:

"The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."

When I say "whether they threaten the U.S. or not" encompasses the level of threat terrorism poses to our allies as well. The IRA threatens one of our close allies, and we have provided assistance to the British people to stop that kind of terrorism. An attack on London such as been seen recently is not an attack on a single country, but freedom and democracy as a whole.

That is why we go after terrorists.

I wonder if I’ll have to use a WWII reference.

 

[Alastor]

I find quotes from the White House to be uncompelling, as they change their story to suit the mood of the day. Even if we take this quote though:

"The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."

Might you tell me which terrorists that threatened our allies were in Iraq prior to our invasion? I mean just for fun? Of course at the time we invaded that wasn't our story - it's the White House's story now, sure. But they tend to change their story a lot, so let's not worry about what it is now since it's bound to change by next week anyway.

Let's stick with the original deal.

But for fun, go ahead and let me know which terrorist groups we were after in there, if you would be so kind.

The IRA threatens one of our close allies, and we have provided assistance to the British people to stop that kind of terrorism.

But we didn't invade Ireland.

An attack on London such as been seen recently is not an attack on a single country, but freedom and democracy as a whole.

Um... no. If we were interested in freedom and democracy as a whole, we'd be in Chechneya right now. We're not. It's about us going after those who directly threaten us.

That is why we go after terrorists.

Very passionate statement. But it's just that, a passionate (as opposed to rational) statement. It garners no support in the way of argument, but it does tug at one's patriotic heart strings.

I wonder if I’ll have to use a WWII reference.

No, you don't need to use a WWII reference. I see where you're going here, it just doesn't fly. I'd prefer that rather than you digging into your Bartlett's Familiar Quotations that you make an argument that stands the test of reason and is consistent with our current course of actions around the world.

 

[Tetracide]

You want me to make the case for why we are going after countries like Iraq and not... (where did you want us to go again? You seem to want to invade a few different countries.)?

 

[Alastor]

You want me to make the case for why we are going after countries like Iraq and not... (where did you want us to go again? You seem to want to invade a few different countries.)?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you.

Let's recap:

No. You made the assertion that...

Correct, but the War on Terror is a war on terrorism in general, whether they threaten the U.S. or not.

To which I responded (and I paraphrase here), "That's complete rubbish, as we've not invaded every other nation on Earth that has terrorists within it. It's also not what we were ever told we were doing until now that the Bush Administration has nothing else to sell us on."

You then disagreed, making a very passionate statement about why we fight terrorism and how it's all about freedom and democracy.

I simply asked you to let us know which terrorist groups were in Iraq that we were defending ourselves and our allies from (which is a stretch that you added on top of the stretch and ever-changing purpose the White House gave us this week).

You then dodged the issue.

That's where we are now, I believe.

 

[Tetracide]

Sure!

Kongra-Gel (KGK) (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, KADEK) - terrorist organization that has carried out dozens of attacks on Turkey (an ally) and "western European nations" (state department wasn't specific).

Or how about Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)? They have been in Iraq since 1987, and apparently killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran.

Should I keep going?

 

[Alastor]

Sure!

Kongra-Gel (KGK) (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, KADEK) - terrorist organization that has carried out dozens of attacks on Turkey (an ally) and "western European nations" (state department wasn't specific).

Or how about Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)? They have been in Iraq since 1987, and apparently killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran.

Should I keep going?

Turkey wouldn't even let us use their air-space during the Iraq war. Your interpretation of "ally" is much different than mine. That they're part of NATO I don't dispute.

To be honest those are pretty shakey in terms of "compelling evidence" though I am legitimately surprised you were able to drum some names up. Congrats on that.

It's some pretty loose ties you have there, and it's really pretty soft evidence, and of course there's still the whole matter of this now being an argument of "Iraq is friends with Al-Qaida. No, wait, Iraq harbors terrorists that are enemies of ours. Oh, okay, no... but Iraq has terrorist groups (which by the way it hates too and has been trying to eliminate) that attack some of our... well, let's call them friends, because otherwise we look like we're complete liars instead of just plain stupid."

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I The IRA threatens one of our close allies, and we have provided assistance to the British people to stop that kind of terrorism.

Umm, no, for decades Americans were FUNDING the IRA. Call that assistance to the British people if you like .....

 

[Alastor]

Umm, no, for decades Americans were FUNDING the IRA. Call that assistance to the British people if you like ...

the War on Terror is a war on terrorism in general, whether they threaten the U.S. or not... When I say "whether they threaten the U.S. or not" encompasses the level of threat terrorism poses to our allies as well.

Oh, crap! Now we have to invade ourselves!

If you buy the crap some are spewing forth about the idealistic War on Terror at any rate. Since I don't see our tanks blowing each other up right now, I'll take that as evidence that we're not really following the latest line from the White House.

Nor should we.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Dude, you need to learn some english. It hurts just to read what you have to say. In reference to that, we didn't obey the law by attacking Iraq in the first place. And we do our share of killing innocent people. But I do agree with the jist of your arguement that the sick people that blow themselves up are not going to do anything but extend the time of US troops in Iraq. These car bombs, bus bombs and train bombs do nothing but pis$ed off Americans and Brits to the point of saying, "Oh ya! Ok, were gonna stay a little longer. How do you like that? Why don't you stick that in your nap-sack!"

I'm against this war. I support the troops by wanting them to come home. At this point, I don't really know if that is the best answer. I don't have enough information to draw an intelligent conclusion. Unfortunately, Bush does. Although he's my President, I do not think he has America's interests in mind when he makes his decisions. I hope I'm wrong.

Explain to me how we didn't obey the law by attacking. The appropriate actions were taken and okayed throught our congress. A war resolution was passed, so how was it illegal. And when have we targeted innocent civilians in iraq?

Although I do agree with you, I want my soldiers back as soon as possible.

 

[Alastor]

Glad you asked, Calm2chaos. I thought about it but didn't want to open another huge debate on my own, since I've got quite a few going already.

I'm glad you said that stuff though, and raised the issue for further discussion.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Glad you asked, Calm2chaos. I thought about it but didn't want to open another huge debate on my own, since I've got quite a few going already.

I'm glad you said that stuff though, and raised the issue for further discussion.

Not a problem. Anytime I can help you just let me know.


I have heard this on other boards and it just never flys.

IS the US millitary atively targeting civilians? NO
Does the US millitary actively target civilians as a matter SOP? NO
Are terrorist actively targeting civilians? YES
Do terrorist actively target civilians as a matter of SOP? YES

 

[Surenderer]

Not a problem. Anytime I can help you just let me know.


I have heard this on other boards and it just never flys.

IS the US millitary atively targeting civilians? NO
Does the US millitary actively target civilians as a matter SOP? NO
Are terrorist actively targeting civilians? YES
Do terrorist actively target civilians as a matter of SOP? YES

Hey bro,


But this again brings me to a point I asked earlier....Hypothetically speaking what if a terrorist attacks a crowd or bus that has soldiers on it? Suppose the death ratio is 20 civilians dead and 3 soldiers? does that constitue a terrorist act?(assuming that the soldiers were the original target) Where is the line drawn?


peace

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Hey bro,


But this again brings me to a point I asked earlier....Hypothetically speaking what if a terrorist attacks a crowd or bus that has soldiers on it? Suppose the death ratio is 20 civilians dead and 3 soldiers? does that constitue a terrorist act?(assuming that the soldiers were the original target) Where is the line drawn?


peace

Anytime you target something and knowingly disregaurd civilians would seem a little terrorist. But you also have to take into account motive and past actions. Why target him on the bus and not walking out of the gate or something like that. The only reason you target him on the bus would be to kill others. And if your targeting a man on a bus out of a military uniform your sounding a lot like a terrorist to begin with. Your posing as something you are not to infiltrate the local area. You are using the laws and freedoms as your cover so you can strike against a group of people on a bus. YA .. your a terrorist

 

[Surenderer]

Anytime you target something and knowingly disregaurd civilians would seem a little terrorist. But you also have to take into account motive and past actions. Why target him on the bus and not walking out of the gate or something like that. The only reason you target him on the bus would be to kill others. And if your targeting a man on a bus out of a military uniform your sounding a lot like a terrorist to begin with.Your posing as something you are not to infiltrate the local area. You are using the laws and freedoms as your cover so you can strike against a group of people on a bus. YA .. your a terrorist

Well I will leave the military uniform comment alone because I was in the military and I know that not all military personal wear their uniforms at all times...how do you think that we get human intell? As far as civilian casualties it is common practice for Israel to put car bombs in vehicles of Hamas leaders etc......now we both know that Car bombs will kill anyone in the area by your definition is that terrorism?



peace

 

[Arch Enemy]

Right here comes my rant.

Look i could be all understanding of problems in the middle east Palestine etc etc.

But I'm not you stupid ****s.First of have any religion you want i don't care i will never become a Muslim Christian Hindu it doesn't matter you get it.

I'm not even prepared to be sensitive to your needs sorry but you ****ed you ****ed up big time.See you can kill a few thousand people but we can wipe you out like polio. And isn't ironic how selfish you actually are you "self sacrifice but you just bring more death to your own people.

I'm Russian and even i see how pathetic you are i live in the UK i am a capitalist. You know us running the world.We wanna progress you want to take it back wards,we try and talk your to back wards to listen, We try to understand and be fair you keep silent and attack.

Yes we invaded Iraq but we try ed to obey laws we have soldiers being sued etc etc.

You will probably get support from people on here who's lives are so easy they have nothing better to do but feel sorry for people.

The fact is your killing innocent people on purpose but you will never ever achieve one of you big goals You will never tell the UK what to do you will never tell the USA what to do you will never tell Australia what to do you will never tell Russia what to do you will never any of the countries with balls what to do.






so basically what I'm saying is **** you

Mind if I fax them a copy of this!?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Well I will leave the military uniform comment alone because I was in the military and I know that not all military personal wear their uniforms at all times...how do you think that we get human intell? As far as civilian casualties it is common practice for Israel to put car bombs in vehicles of Hamas leaders etc......now we both know that Car bombs will kill anyone in the area by your definition is that terrorism?



peace

You know what a terrorist is and isn't. You can glean what you want from any statement and find a nugget to wrap your idea around. As I sadi you have to also take into account past actions and even motive. Yes there is a great difference between what we do and a terrorist.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Mousourri Mule:
His English is just fine, thank you very much. I understand him quite clearly. It is you that I don't understand. Bin Laden is counting on the fence sitters and apologists to help him defeat the west. It really comes down to this. Are you with us or are you against us? There is no middle road.

Talk about a pretentious SOB! How the hell do you know what he is
counting on? Did you get an email recently? I'm not sitting on any fence. I'm
AGAINST THIS GOD-DAMN WAR!
How's that you little terrorist! And you are a terrorist. If you support them.
Then you are one of them. And supporting someone that violates
International Law and invades another country that has done nothing to them,
is supporting terrorism!

 

[Tetracide]

I know! God damn the U.S. We should have left poor Saddam alone. The Iraqi's were fine with him in power.

 

[tiktok]

Right here comes my rant.

Look i could be all understanding of problems in the middle east Palestine etc etc.

I'm Russian and even i see how pathetic you are i live in the UK i am a capitalist. You know us running the world.We wanna progress you want to take it back wards,we try and talk your to back wards to listen, We try to understand and be fair you keep silent and attack.

So you're using my country as a base for this kind of polarised rhetoric.

Did you watch Blair's address this morning BTW? You better start learning the English language matey boy or you'll find yourself back in that wasteland you call a country.

And don't speak about "we" like you're British/English. You're not. You're Russian.

Go home and do something useful like convincing your government to get out of Chechnia instead of ranting on a political forum that requires some grasp of the English language.

Oh and thanks for the Chechclear vid BTW... class mate, class.

 

[Bestial_Pagan]

Go home and do something useful like convincing your government to get out of Chechnia instead of ranting on a political forum that requires some grasp of the English language.

It´s actually Chechnya.