IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[shartley]

not

[1stdeadeye]

You are so naive!

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I do not know where you all got that my information comes from books. I have only read one on this area of the world, and it was primarily a history of the attacks. I have said before, my understanding of the situation in Palestine, and the understanding of the situation in Israel comes not from books but from talking with the actual people who live there. With people who have first hand knowledge and experience in the subject.

And they are unbiased right?

I never said all experience clouds your judgment. I said experience can cloud your judgment. Would I listen to a wood craftsman on how to build a chest, yes. Would I listen to a woodcraftsman on the best way to fix a car engine, no. That is what I was trying to show you Shartley. I would listen to you any day on the mind set of a terrorist. But you would not be a good source on what makes a terrorist, on what draws them to these people that brainwashes them. I would turn to the girls above, who knows what it is like to live in this area. Who have seen fellow members of their community join these groups. I would turn to you and listen about hatred directed to military personal in a foreign country. But you would not be a good source on hatred directed to non military members. For that I would turn to my parents, but they were there a long time ago, so more recently to my community to talk to the wives and children of military men who lived in foreign countries. Even then that can be tricky in some cases. When you use a source in a paper, or in what ever you do, the most important thing to find out, even more then the information, is who is the author, where did he get this information, what was his purpose in writing this, and finally can he be conceived as having any bias or anything that might cloud his thoughts.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say experience clouds your judgement, but I learned from talking to people who are from the camps. The fact is that it is Palestinians who are blowing themselves up to kill Israelis, not the other way around!

1de

That will work in the real world. By proposing a peace settlement, by backing out of controlled land, by putting the ball in the play of the PLO. You are taking any blame away from the Israel that the Palestinians have. I agree some groups will only be happy with Israel out. But that is the beauty behind this plan. You can now weed out those groups and deal with them individually. How do you deal with them individually you make the PLO responsible for their actions. Sooner or later they will wear out their welcome and the people will turn on them. Right now both sides are together because they have a common cause, get Israel out of the occupied land. Once you take away that commonality you will quickly see a difference being made.

Read the PLO charter. It refuses to recognize Israel and calls for the destruction of it! If you go to the poeace table right now, then the terrorists claim victory and are emboldened. Let me put this in terms you might understand: In the 1990s a group of Al Qaida operatives detonated a bomb in the World Trade Center. The Clinton Administration called it a criminal matter, arrested and prosecuted the terrorist cell. No ramifications for the masterminds of the attack. They grow emboldened and plan a bigger attack. 9/11!

You can no negotiate from a position of weakness. If Israel caves now, the terrorist will only get worse. You are naive if you think otherwise. Here: You are my neighbor. I want to park in your driveway. You tell me no. I punch you in your face. You then negotiate to let me park there. Next time I want something from you, guess what? I am gonna deck you. If you had first hit me back to show me you are of equal or greater might, I would think twice before doing it again.

[shartley]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
you're unbelievable.

by the logic of your post we should never arrest criminals of ANY kind because that'll only make them mad and make them commit more crimes.

unreal, WTF color is the sky in your world kid?

you're not only a Useful Idiot, you're dangerous as well.

thank God we don't have people like you prosecuting this war. we'd cease to exist as a nation in about a week.

I have said that time and again in this thread.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Ehhhhh WRONG.

Both Clinton and his flunky Madelein not-too-Albright had bin laden handed to them on a platter not once but twice and they didn't take it.

They knew EXACTLY when and where he and his cabal were going to be, including the flight number and they chose to NOT go after him.

Maddy not-too-albright even admitted this a few weeks ago on Meet The Depressed or Deface the Nation can't remember which show.

So yeah, I do blame Slick for not gettin UBL when he had the chance. Guess he was too busy gettin jobbed instead of doin his damned job.

Please spare us the screaming rhetoric of conservative talk shows. I do not mind reading well thought out arguments but I can't stand propaganda spews.

Why haven't we caught Bin Laden since Bush was in office? Why didn't we catch him in Afghanistan? Why didn't the different factions of US Intelligence work together to put together the pieces prior to 9/11? The answer is because this is not a Rambo movie. I am sure that Bush is doing everything possible to capture Bin Laden but he is a slippery snake. His number three man has been captured (the Pakistanis caught him) and hopefully this will lead to his capture. It is nice for conservatives to imagine someone walking into Clintons office and saying we have the ability to capture the mastermind behind the U.S.S. Cole attack but him to be too busy with Monica to take advantage of it. In the end, however, it is equivalent to Howard Stern shock jock ratings grabs.

[1stdeadeye]

Yes!

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Do you think that is Clinton, especially, could have gotten Bin Laden and successfully locked him away he would have. I do.

The CIA was tracking him via his satillite phone. When they knew the flight he was on, well mechanical problems happen. Act of God and all that good stuff. If Clinton would have hunted him down and killed him and his leadership the way the Iraelis do and Bush is doing now, 9/11 WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED!!!


Now why didn't Clinton. I have no idea. But knowing the above I have to come to the realization that maybe the US couldn't convict Bin Laden personally of all these or any of these issues. And even he they could, could you imagine what kind of martyr he would become if he was arrested or killed. Can you imagine what could have happened if he was arrested. Now knowing that we can make the next assumption. Maybe Clinton thought that it was best to let the man roam while keeping an eye on him. I mean he is dying. That way you can keep the level of resent down and keep control of him down. If you think that by arresting Bin Laden back then, 911 would have not happened, you are mistaking yourself. It would have still happened, if not much worse.

Convict? I don't think so. Kill Yes! He is dieing? So am I...of Old Age! He can't be that bad off if he is still able to move and elude capture.

BTW, I think Clinton was an incredible politician. He was also a very lucky president. That being said, he was a poor leader and a worse president. His political instincts and his teflon coating may make him one of the most popular of the recen past presidents, but I feel that history will not be so kind to him! That is all I have to say about him!

[1stdeadeye]

Ha ha!

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Please spare us the screaming rhetoric of conservative talk shows. I do not mind reading well thought out arguments but I can't stand propaganda spews.

Meet the Press and Face the Nation are NOT conservative shows. LOL

I do agree that the NAME CALLING should cease immediatly. Name calling and profanity are signs of a weak mind. If you have to resort to that level to make a point, then you really did not have a point to begin with! That's all I have to say about that! *In Best Forrest Gump Voice*


Why haven't we caught Bin Laden since Bush was in office? Why didn't we catch him in Afghanistan? Why didn't the different factions of US Intelligence work together to put together the pieces prior to 9/11? The answer is because this is not a Rambo movie. I am sure that Bush is doing everything possible to capture Bin Laden but he is a slippery snake. His number three man has been captured (the Pakistanis caught him) and hopefully this will lead to his capture. It is nice for conservatives to imagine someone walking into Clintons office and saying we have the ability to capture the mastermind behind the U.S.S. Cole attack but him to be too busy with Monica to take advantage of it. In the end, however, it is equivalent to Howard Stern shock jock ratings grabs.

Because Bin Laden has been careful ever since Clinton tried to get him with a few cruise missles. Killing Bin Laden or even capturing him would have been much easier before Bin Laden learned that US agencies were listening in and tracking him via his satellite phones. You never get a second chance for a suprise attack!

BTW Bin Laden's number three guy was arrested by Pakistanis upon receiving his location from the US Intelligence Community. The US only paid $27million to a tipster for his location. So yes, Thank you to the Pakistanis for the use of their SWAT team!

Had Clinton never fire those cruise missles at Bin Laden and made a serious attempt to kill or capture him they just might have done so. His half hearted attempt tipped our hand to a very dangerous man!

[1stdeadeye]

Re: Re: next!

Originally posted by aaron_mag


I was starting to wonder! There have been some pro war rallying marches in the United States with people waving the US Flag with the Israeli flag (heard about it on the news). People can rally in any way they want as far as I am concerned but I think it is in the best interest of the pro war movement in the U.S. to limit foriegn flags being carried. This allows the other side to point and say that our military is being used to carry out the agenda of other countries. It is just as damaging as when peace rallys burn the American flag.

Ditto! Wave the American Flag in America!

[aaron_mag]

Re: Ha ha!

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Because Bin Laden has been careful ever since Clinton tried to get him with a few cruise missles. Killing Bin Laden or even capturing him would have been much easier before Bin Laden learned that US agencies were listening in and tracking him via his satellite phones. You never get a second chance for a suprise attack!

Had Clinton never fire those cruise missles at Bin Laden and made a serious attempt to kill or capture him they just might have done so. His half hearted attempt tipped our hand to a very dangerous man!

I believe you like to say that hindsight is 20/20? You got my main point. People want to blame all of the foriegn problems that we have on the democrats the same way others try to blame all of our economic woes on the republicans. Never mind the fact that our economic woes started prior to Bush taking office and that foriegn problems strech back for to prior to 1776. During the time line we have had Republican and Democrat presidents and both have supported regimes that switched from allies to enemies, etc. Am I going to say we never should have recognized China just because it was a Republican President (Nixon) who brought it about? This over simplification of issues due to party loyalties annoys me.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Please spare us the screaming rhetoric of conservative talk shows. I do not mind reading well thought out arguments but I can't stand propaganda spews.

Why haven't we caught Bin Laden since Bush was in office? Why didn't we catch him in Afghanistan? Why didn't the different factions of US Intelligence work together to put together the pieces prior to 9/11? The answer is because this is not a Rambo movie. I am sure that Bush is doing everything possible to capture Bin Laden but he is a slippery snake. His number three man has been captured (the Pakistanis caught him) and hopefully this will lead to his capture. It is nice for conservatives to imagine someone walking into Clintons office and saying we have the ability to capture the mastermind behind the U.S.S. Cole attack but him to be too busy with Monica to take advantage of it. In the end, however, it is equivalent to Howard Stern shock jock ratings grabs.

It ain't propoganda if it's fact.

why haven't we caught UBL while W is in office? you answered it yourself, he's apparently very good at hiding in caves.

and as for your assertion that someone walked into slick's office and said we can grab bin laden, it happened TWICE.

and he refused BOTH TIMES. I found the quote from all-not-too-bright:

on why they didn't grab UBL when he was handed to them the second time in 1996 when he was kicked out of the Sudan along with a bunch of his lackeys and sent on his way to Qatar:

The quote is from Meet The Press with Tim Russert

Albright:

"In hindsight, there probably should have been a different decision made than to let him leave the Sudan."

Russert responds:

"Why didn't you capture him when he arrived in Qatar"

Albright:

"I don't have an answer to that."

propoganda my backside.

[Collegeboy]

What reason did Clinton have letting UBL go? It sure would help his political career if he would have been the guy to bring in the guy who bombed the apartments, who has done all those things UBL has done. So saying Clinton only looks out for himself has just shot your argument. Now let me ask this. Since capturing UBL would have helped Clinton, why did he let him go.


1de. It isn't bias to get information about life in the camps from people who live there. If I was to ask them their opinion on Israel, and use just their opinion to form my opinion that would be bias.

[1stdeadeye]

Re: Re: Ha ha!

Originally posted by aaron_mag


I believe you like to say that hindsight is 20/20? You got my main point. People want to blame all of the foriegn problems that we have on the democrats the same way others try to blame all of our economic woes on the republicans. Never mind the fact that our economic woes started prior to Bush taking office and that foriegn problems strech back for to prior to 1776. During the time line we have had Republican and Democrat presidents and both have supported regimes that switched from allies to enemies, etc. Am I going to say we never should have recognized China just because it was a Republican President (Nixon) who brought it about? This over simplification of issues due to party loyalties annoys me.

I never said Democrat or Republican. I said Clinton. I truly believe that Clinton was of the party of Clinton and didn't care about anything else. He was a very selfish man! I know hindsight is 20/20. I was merely pointing out why Osama is so hard to find now! He has had lots of time to practice being very careful. We just need to find someone who will sell him out like they did Khalid Muhammad! That's the American way, we outspend our opponent!

[1stdeadeye]

Alrighty then!

Originally posted by Collegeboy
What reason did Clinton have letting UBL go? It sure would help his political career if he would have been the guy to bring in the guy who bombed the apartments, who has done all those things UBL has done. So saying Clinton only looks out for himself has just shot your argument. Now let me ask this. Since capturing UBL would have helped Clinton, why did he let him go.

Why? It would have been difficult. It would have required political capital to convince an "ally" to hand over Osama. Doing nothing and staying out of it was so much easier and simpler.


1de. It isn't bias to get information about life in the camps from people who live there. If I was to ask them their opinion on Israel, and use just their opinion to form my opinion that would be bias.

Really? Your arguments against Israel and rewarding the terrorists with a settlement seems kind of biased to me!

You know what? You never answered my point about the Paelsitian Refugee Camps in Jordon. Why are they so horrid too if they are not under Israeli Control. You also have not apologized for using your term "concentration camp" in reference to ALL refugee camps! Could it be that the Arabs can't stand the Palestinians either? Maybe they want the Palestinians to have their own country so that they can throw them out of theirs? If ever the Palestinians establish a country of their own, it will be very interesting to see how much aid their country receives from their Arab brethren.

[Collegeboy]

I will not apologize for someone being to pc. The term concentration camp has been used way before Hitler used it.

concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

OBL was captured ready to be turned over. Get past your hatred of Clinton to see what is in front of you. If Clinton knew he could have prosecuted OBL he would have.

I told you why the conditions in the camps are harsh.

[1stdeadeye]

PC may butt!

To compare a reufgee camp admionistered by the UN to a death camp of WWII is just wrong! Where are the "showers"? Where are the mass executions?

What about the Jordanian Camps? Are those "Concentration Camps" too? You must have been real, um..."close" to those Palestinian girls to have your head so twisted.

Yes, Clinton would have had to expend political capital to take Osama to prosecute him. He did not have the courage to do it. He let Osama walk. End of story. His own Secretary of State said so!

As for PC. That is just ridiculous. I guess we can say the ghettos of America are our concentration camps then.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I will not apologize for someone being to pc. The term concentration camp has been used way before Hitler used it.

concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

OBL was captured ready to be turned over. Get past your hatred of Clinton to see what is in front of you. If Clinton knew he could have prosecuted OBL he would have.

I told you why the conditions in the camps are harsh.