Aleph-Null Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 http://www.itshappening.com made headline news when the owner of the site successfully hijacked the former site of Al-Qaeda http://www.alneda.com shortly following 9/11. The FBI and CIA have kept close watch of the site. After the hijacking, many followers of the crazed terrorist mastermind took the newly created message board to rant and rave their frustration and many have dived head in to debate the terrorists and pre-empt as well as neutralize their propaganda. Some terrorists and terrorist sympathizers such as Usamah AlQariah and FC-UK, as well as many others rant incoherently on the net calling for the death of all Americans in this no-holds-barred where the introduction to the site reads: Our web logs show access from everywhere.... literally EVERYWHERE. We've had visitors from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. This website has been found by a reporter listed in "FAVORITES" on the laptop computer left at an Al-Qaeda strong hold in Afghanistan. Even the official Iraqi government website owned by Saddam Hussein's son Uday, pointed HERE before it was taken offline by coalition forces. After visiting this board for over two and a half years now, I am convinced that a Bush defeat, not a Kerry victory, would be a morale boost for the terrorist who will march on with the motto of "people agree that we are righteous" God Bless & Protect the United States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 that wouldnt be in the least justified. bush is a jackass and has actually supported terrorism in his presidency; he left the capture of bin laden to afghan warlords (who weren't inclined to capture him), and has ignored him and al-qaida since. add this to the growing number of pissed off iraqi civilians (those whose houses have been destroyed, those whose relatives have been killed) and youll find that we've created more terrorists than we have killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 that wouldnt be in the least justified. bush is a jackass and has actually supported terrorism in his presidency; he left the capture of bin laden to afghan warlords (who weren't inclined to capture him), and has ignored him and al-qaida since. add this to the growing number of pissed off iraqi civilians (those whose houses have been destroyed, those whose relatives have been killed) and youll find that we've created more terrorists than we have killed. I know people that was in the war, and most of them (Iraqis) are happy that we are there. If the reporters would just get off of there ass and go do some research, it would be a different picture of the war. Just think bud, Clinton could of had him several times, and kept telling Syria no, we dont want him, and repaid them by blowing up there pharmacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 I know people that was in the war, and most of them (Iraqis) are happy that we are there. and a great bunch of them are pissed off like never before. i dont see reasoning in your statement. perhaps clinton could have had him, but this was before he was much of a threat. the ends would not justify the means in the case presented to clinton, or so he believed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph-Null Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 America is gaining allies faster than the terrorists as their cause becomes more and more desperate. The best we can do now is to live happy lives and invite others to celebrate freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 and a great bunch of them are pissed off like never before. i dont see reasoning in your statement. perhaps clinton could have had him, but this was before he was much of a threat. the ends would not justify the means in the case presented to clinton, or so he believed Ummm, USS Cole, The first World Trade Center bombing, Bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, Bombing of U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers truck bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Simultaneous bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, So I guess there was no terrorist during Clintons term, and a known terrorist leader was no threat. Oh but wait, he (Laden) was put in power by us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph-Null Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 I don't recall holding an election to give terrorists any authority. i'll also say that bush isn't responsible for any of the terror and if any here don't agree with me thats just tough. the constitution is the just and rightful law of the land and thats just the way it is and will always be and if you (being used generically) don't like it then war on terror on you (this you also being used generically). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 mardigan, i understand the threat he posed. i was just saying that clinton was not inclined to capture him because the ends would not justify the means America is gaining allies faster than the terrorists as their cause becomes more and more desperate last i checked everybody was leaving iraq and the british have all but given up. I don't recall holding an election to give terrorists any authority. what is the significance here?? i'll also say that bush isn't responsible for any of the terror and if any here don't agree with me thats just tough. it's especially tough when you dont even justify your statement. hey, if you were to justify it, i'd probably gain a little respect for you. i have little to no respect for those who blindly flaunt their unjustified opinions as just as meaningful as my own justified opinions. the constitution is the just and rightful law of the land and thats just the way it is and will always be and if you (being used generically) don't like it then war on terror on you (this you also being used generically). first half of the "sentence": i think the majority of us can say the constitution isnt so bad. i will say that it is incredibly poorly written, and it spells "pennsylvania" incorrectly, for example. it is only 4400 words, so it is very short. as a result we have had to ammend it many times in order to achieve a better good. despite this i dont have much against the constitution in its ammended version. second half of your "sentence": are you assuming that all those who do not appreciate the constitution fully are terrorists? in that case, send the troops to the white house and kill the president and most other neo-cons. yep, they've taken authoritarian rule and they just love to flaunt their authority. patriot act, anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph-Null Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 I am not speaking of military allies, I am speaking of intelligence and law enforcement allies. We have gained Libya, one example. Also, it is pardonable for allies to leave Iraq as more and more Iraqis become more capable of handling the security situation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah libya! got any other countries with marginally effective governments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 budullewraagh, (BTW, how the hell do you pronounce that?) it is correct to say that Bush, or Clinton for that matter, are not responsible for terrorist acts. The ones responsible are the terrorists. The old "See what you are making us do. If you just gave in to our demands, no-one would be hurt, so it's really you who are killing them not us" argument is wearing extremely thin. Only the armed robber is responsible for his act, only the murderer is responsible for his act, likewise only the terrorist is responsible for his act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 neither clinton nor bush are responsible for the attacks (at least i believe). i believe bush and clinton (to some degree) are responsible for not stopping the attacks. clinton tried, as he met with advisors every day for over a year and actually stopped an attack on LAX. bush on the other hand did not meet with security advisors once before the attacks, and spent the majority of his first months on vacation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 bush on the other hand did not meet with security advisors once before the attacks, and spent the majority of his first months on vacation Neither of those statements is true. He met with the national security council many times during those 8 months (what do you think a "President's Daily Briefing" is?), and he spent less than half of his time on vacation. Even Michael Moore quotes a 42% figure (which is highly disputed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Its interesting what has been said about whether the terrorists or the leaders are responsible for the attacks. What is also interesting is how the enemy has been portrayed. Did anyone notice how quickly the people opposed to the the coalition forces in Iraq went from the Iraqi army to militants to insurgents to terrorists. It was quite handy for Bush to create a terrorist problem where there was none to say that the war in Iraq is a part of the "war on terror" (also known as the "war on truth") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Iraqi army to militants to insurgents to terrorists.When someone starts indiscriminently blowing themselves up in public places, threatening the infidels, and removing the heads of innocent hostages, they earn the label terrorists. Until then, they are called whatever they are, which is why we called the iraqi army "the iraqi army" when we invaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Yes. Run from people who pawn terrorists off with confused and conflicted statements about their true intentions, and place responsibility for their actions on others. Do not pass "go". Do not collect $200. Just run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Was there a terrorist problem in Iraq before the US illegally invaded it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 For the citizens of Iraq, no, not really. Unless, of course, we count their own government. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be on the Iraqi soccer team. For the rest of the world, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 For clarification, can one of the proponents of the Iraq invasion tell me why it was necessary to invade? This would greatly help my understanding of the issue from a non liberal view point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Was there a terrorist problem in Iraq before the US illegally invaded it? The problem now is that there are several factions who have sprung up, the most damaging of which so far is a rebel group led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has about as much right to fight the interim government as we had to be there in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 The problem now is that there are several[/u'] factions who have sprung up, the most damaging of which so far is a rebel group led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has about as much right to fight the interim government as we had to be there in the first place. I would agree with the above, so long as Zarqawi represents a reasonable portion of the Iraqis.....I.E. not just terrorists. BTW, was this forum "on line" in 2000 ? .... If so, was there this much discussion about the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 The problem now is that there are several factions who have sprung up, the most damaging of which so far is a rebel group led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has about as much right to fight the interim government as we had to be there in the first place. I'm not sure what relevence his (or our) "right to be there" has. Two wrongs don't make a right. The US shouldn't be in Iraq, AND there's no justification for Zarqawi's terrorist actions. He'll be taken down like the dog that he is, and I'll be the first one to spit on his grave and laugh as he descends into the lower depths of hell. And I have no doubt Bush is going in the opposite direction, dead Iraqi children notwithstanding. One of those people wanted what's best for society. The other wanted what's worst. Rationalizing terrorism is generally a bad idea. But I'm sure they're grateful for the assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I'm not sure what relevence his (or our) "right to be there" has. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's relevant to people like Douglas who - quite rightly - want to know how representative his (their) actions are of the general Iraqi attitude towards our coalition. I did not intend the comparison with the coalition presence to be a value judgement of either - simply pointing out that his intervention is arguably unwarranted or uninvited to the same degree as our own. For illustrative purposes and etc. In answer to Douglas, no the forum was not running in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 It's relevant to people like Douglas who - quite rightly - want to know how representative his (their) actions are of the general Iraqi attitude towards our coalition. It will be very interesting seeing the results of the Iraqi elections. The vote could go for hardline religious parties and other Anti Western groups. At the moment no one really knows what the Iraqi public really thinks. I bet whoever is in the White House will have his fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 It will be very interesting seeing the results of the Iraqi elections. The vote could go for hardline religious parties and other Anti Western groups. At the moment no one really knows what the Iraqi public really thinks. I bet whoever is in the White House will have his fingers crossed. When Bush was interviewed by Fox news, O'Reilly asked him how he would feel if the Iraqis elected an "ayatollah khomeini", Bush said (a paraphrase), If that's what they want, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now