ProudAmerican
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,694
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So, you're saying that these "new anti-US jihadists" aren't really new at all and that Porter Goss doesn't know what he's talking about?
SimonWMoon said:you're saying that...Porter Goss doesn't know what he's talking about?
SimonWMoon said:Do you know something that the CIA doesn't?
I'd like to know why you think it's "nuts". Because the article you posted has nothing to do with this thread!Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
is just simply nuts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198832,00.html
so by that notion.....this new leader just woke up yesterday and decided "hey, I want to lead a terrorist organization because of Americas actions in Iraq"
its far more logical to think he was already a major terrorist player and without our involvement in Iraq, he could have just sat back and planned attacks without any fear of reprisal.
now, he has to look over his shoulder and wonder if a 500 lb bomb is going to fall on his head.
Billo_Really said:I'd like to know why you think it's "nuts". Because the article you posted has nothing to do with this thread!
That is total bullshit! A while back, people that drove without buckling their seatbelt were not criminals. You do that now, you're a criminal. Sometimes, your own intolerance gets the better of you.Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
fact is, criminals are going to be criminals whether there is an increased presence of law enforcement or not.
What about former Iraqi military men that didn't plan to be terrorists, but after living without a job or income and seeing American atrocities being committed throughout the country, decided to join the insurgency. If we hadn't attacked, they would still be law-abiding citizens.Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
I thought I was clear. I am saying our presence does not create new terrorists.
Billo_Really said:That is total bullshit! A while back, people that drove without buckling their seatbelt were not criminals. You do that now, you're a criminal. Sometimes, your own intolerance gets the better of you.
Why thank you, PA, it's good to see you too. Things are going great. I've got a job and I'm not stuck in traffic.Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
its good to see you this afternoon as well Billo. Hows it goin?
Billo_Really said:What about former Iraqi military men that didn't plan to be terrorists, but after living without a job or income and seeing American atrocities being committed throughout the country, decided to join the insurgency. If we hadn't attacked, they would still be law-abiding citizens.
Billo_Really said:Why thank you, PA, it's good to see you too. Things are going great. I've got a job and I'm not stuck in traffic.
Nice to see you got a lot to say. I might not agree with any of it. But it's nice to see you get "your" word out there and contributing to the "marketplace of ideas".
When you put it that way, absolutely nothing. My apologies for being a little hyper-combative. There are certain criminals that are going to be criminals whether there is law enforcement or not. There are also people that were not criminals, have become criminals without doing anything different in their lives with the exception that a bunch of people got into a room and said, "From now on, this is a crime".Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
good to see you too Billo.
what in the world does your opinion on seatbelts have to do with my statement that an increased presence of law enforcement simply does not create criminals?
ProudAmerican said:the notion that Americas involvement in Iraq is "creating" terrorists is just simply nuts.
I as well. No one is going to convince you of anything unless you are receptive to that point of view. You would think "clear thinking men" wouldn't do that, but there are reports that this is exactly what has happened.Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
you cant convince me those men are doing that.
clear thinking men would join the military, or police force of their new country for a job, rather than some lame insurgency made up of terrorists and criminals.
thats certainly what I would do.
ProudAmerican said:is just simply nuts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198832,00.html
so by that notion.....this new leader just woke up yesterday and decided "hey, I want to lead a terrorist organization because of Americas actions in Iraq"
its far more logical to think he was already a major terrorist player and without our involvement in Iraq, he could have just sat back and planned attacks without any fear of reprisal.
now, he has to look over his shoulder and wonder if a 500 lb bomb is going to fall on his head.
BigDog said:Simple question: How many Iraqis were committing terrorist acts before we invaded? How many now?
Fox seldom thinks very much, but we should do better.
zymurgy said:All wars will strengthen the resolve of a certain percentage of the populace.
To argue the stance that new terrorists aren't created completely ignores the human equation. All war brings some collateral damage of innocent lives and people have an eradict way of dealing with personal tradegy.
I'm glad you brought this up, PA. For two reasons:Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
and the fact that they werent committing as many terrorist acts before in no way means they werent terrorists.
before 9-11, Mohammed Atta had never committed a terrorist act that we know of.....but im pretty sure he was already a terrorist.
or maybe you think he just woke up that very morning and said "I think today, I will become a terrorist"
yeah, youre right. we should try to do better.
ProudAmerican said:nothing in that post disputes my assertion that the people you are talking about WERE ALREADY TERRORISTS.
the notion that we CREATED THEM is pure B.S. plain and simple.
massive_attack said:So you're telling me that if a foreign army killed your best friend, dad, sister and a few more people you knew you wouldn't try to get back at them ?
And you are also right. We should do better [at getting to the bottom of how this level of hatred gets its genesis]. Because you have to have a real "hate-on" to do what they did. And that level of hatred doesn't come from (or be maintained by) internal sources
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?