Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Countrydave55

75% Of Al Quida Killed Or Captured

Recommended Posts

No reason to oppose us???

 

The western countries are enemies as far as these people are concerned. Their religious beliefs clearly state that the west must be eliminated. So why would you possibly think that they would leave us alone when their religious beliefs and bylaws state the opposite???? When we are gone from the face of the earth, they will leave us alone by default.

 

Just like the Palestinians and Israel. The palestinians believe that Israel DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST so peace is not an option. The only solution with them is to destroy Israel or be destroyed themselves.

The Middle East has been around far longer then Western society, how come the terrorism did not occur before 1910-1920? If they ideally wanted to remove western society the how come they have not been attempting to do it since they have known of the western society? Only after the Middle East was redrawn by western countries after WW1 and WW2 has terrorism been a factor!

 

The middle east has been opressed and alienated by the west and now I have no doubt that they are being taught to hate westerners but as for being a religious aspect that is not accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Link Firecracker. :beer:

 

This article sums it up nicely.

 

There will be no peace under any circumstances until all opposition to the terrorists political view are eliminated.

 

Anyone that believes that if we leave the middle east completely, that we will have no more problems is very misinformed. There is no peace when it comes to their religios beliefs and they will never stop until we are destroyed.

 

Even if JK is elected, they will still continue these cowardly actions until either the west or they themselves are destroyed.

 

NO COMPROMISES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush sayed 75% prolly meant 25%....

He "sayed" huh? :rolleyes:

 

There will ALWAYS be conflict in the Mid-East, just as Americans will always make fun of their Presidents, because no matter what, you can never please both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He "sayed" huh? :rolleyes:

 

There will ALWAYS be conflict in the Mid-East, just as Americans will always make fun of their Presidents, because no matter what, you can never please both sides.

:rolleyes: Since we are correcting grammar ZION, you used too many comma's in your response. The comma's kill the whole context of your idea.

 

You damn well knew what he meant so get over it ZION :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

terrorism did start 1910....waaaaay before

 

http://www.ipcs.org/Terrorism_kashmirLevel...atID=1022&mod=g

I am not talking about terrorism in gerneral, I was talking about terrorism from the middle-east to the western countries.

 

Their has always been extremists in any culture and that was no different in the middle east before 1910 however these extremists has their political views and did not act on them. However after WW1 they were irrate at the western countries intervening in the middle east, they literally shuffled up most of Europe and that had greatly upsetted some, that a culture that had no idea what was going on could come in and dictate to them their regions.

 

Do terrorists want every American man, women and child dead? Yes Does every Middle-eastern person want this? NO!!

 

You cannot fight terror with terror, it does not work. These people are not afraid of death while western society is conditioned to fear death and cherish life. By bombing the hell out of the middle-east you are not proving anything... innocent people are being killed and the terrorists are using that as an example to fuel even more hatred.

 

Lets get something straight, I do not agree with terrorism nor do I sympathize with it in any way shape or form. I think if you are going at war with a country due to the allegation of terrorism you should at least understand why and how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do terrorists want every American man, women and child dead? Yes Does every Middle-eastern person want this? NO!!

 

 

believe me, there's room for ssome gray area in there....

 

though i tend to agree that ya can't fight fire with fire. the problem is that no matter how many terrorists ya get, 10 more take their place. there's a never ending supply

 

i haven't the foggiest idea what the solution is but, like you, i'm tired of all the innocents being killed. i really don't see an end to any of this....sad to say, but that's what i think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know the solution to this problem either. There have been many people far more intelligent then myself to try and find solutions to this problem and have failed so there is no reason to think that I have the answer.

 

Maybe Bush was correct and maybe he has stopped terrorism and nothing would make me happier. I really hope that Bush did infact stop terrorism, I do not know if I can take another 9/11 type incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: Since we are correcting grammar ZION, you used too many comma's in your response. The comma's kill the whole context of your idea.

 

You damn well knew what he meant so get over it ZION :rolleyes:

Deflection, and well if you want to get technical, that was proper inflection syntax, and "context" is the improper word usage.

 

The point which you so obviously missed was that he was accussing of someone of making a mistake while being guilty of the exact same offence.

 

It's beyond annoying when the public (especially elitist liberals) blame the President for something that went wrong, when in fact it is generally the fault of the people; yet when good is accomplished, the people often receive credit when in fact the President and or government is deserving.

 

From now on instead of nitpicking, you can reply to the statement concerning the main topic. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deflection, and well if you want to get technical, that was proper inflection syntax, and "context" is the improper word usage.

 

The point which you so obviously missed was that he was accussing of someone of making a mistake while being guilty of the exact same offence.

 

It's beyond annoying when the public (especially elitist liberals) blame the President for something that went wrong, when in fact it is generally the fault of the people; yet when good is accomplished, the people often receive credit when in fact the President and or government is deserving.

 

From now on instead of nitpicking, you can reply to the statement concerning the main topic. ;)

Nobody likes to have their post nitpicked for grammar mistakes and it is a good way to make sure new people do not return so I was simply making a point that it is not acceptable to do that to anybody let alone a new member.

 

I cannot see how a President that was not even elected by popular vote can speak for the American people. A politician is a thankless job, the politicians never seem to whine about being picked on... it always seems to be the bleeding hearts that take it personally that are offended by comments pertaining to the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President that was not even elected by popular vote can speak for the American people

that is a non issue in the US because our presidential elections are not based on the popular vote of individuals, they are based on the popular vote of the states.

 

I also would like to point out that Bill Clinton did not garner more than 50% of the vote in either of his elections. (the only reason I went back to bill is because its the most recent election so dont go "oh there they go again bringing up Clinton ;) )

 

William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 47,400,125 49.23%

William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 44,909,806 43.01%

 

I only point this out in order to display that garnering less than 50% of the the "popular" vote often leads to a win. It is slightly different in the Gore v Bush election because Gore actually got more votes than Bush but this shows that the president doesnt always have the complete support of over fifty percent of the population.

Edited by one2gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is a non issue in the US because our presidential elections are not based on the popular vote of individuals, they are based on the popular vote of the states.

 

I also would like to point out that Bill Clinton did not garner more than 50% of the vote in either of his elections. (the only reason I went back to bill is because its the most recent election so dont go "oh there they go again bringing up Clinton ;) )

 

William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 47,400,125 49.23%

William Clinton Albert Gore Jr. Democratic 44,909,806 43.01%

 

I only point this out in order to display that garnering less than 50% of the the "popular" vote often leads to a win. It is slightly different in the Gore v Bush election because Gore actually got more votes than Bush but this shows that the president doesnt always have the complete support of over fifty percent of the population.

when in fact it is generally the fault of the people

I was making light of that in respect to this comment, it is not the fault of the people when the elected official was not elected by the majority of people. If Bush had 50+1% of the popular vote and then made that decision then I could live with it being the peoples fault but the majority of people did not support him so the blame cannot be placed on the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find fault with that argument simply because many of our presidents havent garnered more than 50% of the vote. Be it because a third party candidate or some other reason it happens often. I can understand your argument but I cant really accept it due to how the president is elected within the US. I would be willing to bet that it starts happening more often as the third party movement has been growing.

Edited by one2gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cc,

The palestinians believe that Israel DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST so peace is not an option. The only solution with them is to destroy Israel or be destroyed themselves.

Just a tad erroneous;

 

The tactics of the two sides in the conflict are largely based upon their resources and goals. Despite the claims of both sides to the contrary, polling consistently shows that the significant majority of both Palestinians and Israelis agree on the same basic goals: a two state solution, established on the 1967 borders, with at least most of the settlements withdrawn, and right to return only within the borders of the new Palestinian state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know if I can take another 9/11 type incident.

i don't readily see a link but i've read several articles discussing the possibility of another attack just before the elections....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't readily see a link but i've read several articles discussing the possibility of another attack just before the elections....

Well, let's be thankful that there is only 25% of an unknown quantity left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't readily see a link but i've read several articles discussing the possibility of another attack just before the elections....

don't see the link between what? 9/11 and terrorism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12G posted it befoire I could.

 

The somewhat sad fact is that the President doesn't represent the country, he represents the high priority (rich and socioeconomicly important) states. Everyone in North Dakota would vote for one Canidate, and only 10 people in California could vote for the other, as you can see the winner of Ca would have many more Electorial votes, but lose heavily in the Popular vote (supposed to be a very extreme example). Nevertheless, people should stand behind their President as he DOES represent the country, and in reality a Democrat or a Republican in office won't really make any difference at all.

 

There will be violence in the Mid-East untill the end of time, no amount of political banter, peace treaties, land trade, chance in political ideology, or cookies and milk will change the state of what is malevolent human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's beyond annoying when the public (especially elitist liberals) blame the President for something that went wrong, when in fact it is generally the fault of the people; yet when good is accomplished, the people often receive credit when in fact the President and or government is deserving.

 

 

Imagine that, almost sounds like GW Bush speaking. Anything that goes wrong is the peoples fault, and all good things should be attributed to his government.

 

If "you" can't see the annoying hypocracy in the people=bad the government=good then................ :help:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...then what?

 

Nowhere did I suggest that people=bad/gov=good, you're reading into my statement what you want to hear, I was merely making a point about the manner in which blame and praise is often assigned to the wrong party.

 

BTW people=bad, gov=good is more of a Liberal doctrine, it ties into big government/little government.

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...then what?

 

Nowhere did I suggest that people=bad/gov=good, I was merely making a point about the manner in which blame and praise is often assigned to the wrong party.

 

BTW people=bad, gov=good is more of a Liberal doctrine, it ties into big government/little government.

It is more of a liberal idea but even liberals understand accountability. Trying to pass the blame onto the people is very sad indeed, what happened to people taking responsibility for their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the past four years it hasn't been.

 

For four years now we have had a president that claims he can't think of one mistake. Not one, not a single one. Yet he is quick to point fingers at the people and say they don't understand.

 

BTW I was not the one who made the cooment that the people are to blame when things go wrong, and the government should recieve the credit when something goes right.

 

Stick to your doctrine, you said it, either you beleive your own words, or they were one of those unspeakable mistakes. :rofl3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more of a liberal idea but even liberals understand accountability. Trying to pass the blame onto the people is very sad indeed, what happened to people taking responsibility for their actions.

Exactly, if a "bad" decision is made, the President take the heat when in fact there are hundreds of people working under him who are advising him one way or the other, the truth is the ENTIRE world thought Saddam had WMD's, all of NATO intelligence suggested this, to not act as Bush did would be negligence, but now liberals like to pertend that they "knew" all along, what a load of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sayed pertend? :yikes:

 

Pull yer collar up the red is showin or yer nek

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...