# ISIS Beheads Another Brit



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

*ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
*ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning

From HuffPost:
A video released by the Islamic State group on Friday appears to show the beheading of British aid worker Alan Henning, the Associated Press reports. In the clip, the militants threaten to kill another hostage they identify as American Peter Kassig.

Alan Henning, a 47-year-old taxi driver from Eccles, was kidnapped in December after crossing into Syria with an aid convoy. Henning's wife, Barbara, had pleaded with the militants not to kill her husband. "He went to Syria to help his Muslim friends deliver much needed aid," she said in a statement released on Sept. 23.

Catrin Nye, a BBC reporter who had filmed with Henning, described the Brit as "kind and funny."






*


----------



## Siete (Oct 3, 2014)

I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Oct 3, 2014)

I'm glad O has our back.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 3, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning
> 
> From HuffPost:
> ...



Obama's bombing really scared ISIS, huh!


----------



## Siete (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> ...




maybe the Brits should have joined the US


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> ...




*So you think he should start air strikes on civilian areas where ISIS has disseminated?  Don't dodge the question.  Answer it.  *


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 3, 2014)

Bombing is symbolic. Nothing more

-Geaux


----------



## TooTall (Oct 3, 2014)

Siete said:


> I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.


And now the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to say.

The terror group promises to behead former US Army Ranger *Peter Kassig* next.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> ...



*What would be your solution?  Don't dodge or deflect. Answer the question or go troll somewhere else.*


----------



## TooTall (Oct 3, 2014)

Siete said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...


 They did.  Try and keep informed.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Bombing is symbolic. Nothing more
> 
> -Geaux



*Evidently not because they are no longer parading with flags flying.  They have broken up into small bands and infiltrated civilian areas.  Can I educate you further?  Or do you prefer Fox Noise and Breitbart?*


----------



## TooTall (Oct 3, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



Of course they should as soon as Obama commits some US Special Ops to lase the targets.  Without that, the bombing is pretty much a joke that isn't funny.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Bombing is symbolic. Nothing more
> 
> -Geaux




*What a stupid statement.  Have you ever had a bomb hit your town or neighborhood?*


----------



## JWBooth (Oct 3, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*



Bad shit happens in dangerous places.



Still not our problem.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 3, 2014)

Calling all USMB nutters! Good news over here! 

The Ebola patient hasn't died yet.....and we haven't seen 100 infections....so....you must move on to something else. Look here! A beheading! Thank god!


----------



## JWBooth (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.
> ...


Isis Beheads Another Brit US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 3, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Bombing is symbolic. Nothing more
> 
> -Geaux



since we started the air war on ISIS 

the area they control has gained quite a bit in size


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



*So you are ready to put military personnel in battle again, correct?  Full court press, boots on the ground, etc.  Since Bush spent $4,000,000,000,000 and got us nothing, you want to do that again?


Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion
Study Iraq Afghan war costs to top 4 trillion - The Washington Post
*


----------



## Siete (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.
> ...




sooner than later travel visas to the mid east should be stopped and ALL American's rounded up and drug back to their own country where they belong


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

LordBrownTrout said:


> I'm glad O has our back.




*You're sleeping OK at night, right?  Anybody stopping you a check points?  Dodging any bombed areas in your town lately?*


----------



## JWBooth (Oct 3, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> since we started the air war on ISIS
> 
> the area they control has gained quite a bit in size


Well, aint that the shits?


----------



## Defiant1 (Oct 3, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



We should bomb every living thing until there is unconditional surrender.


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 3, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



Sure it got us something- It set up Obama to FU SOFA. We would have never had the fortunate opportunity to add that (the f/u of SOFA) to the epic living document titled, 'Obama's Epic Adventure of Failures'  

-Geaux


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



*He didn't fuck up SOFA, he has abided by it by withdrawing troops by December 2011, idiot.  You stupid righties are damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  You can't make up your tiny little prick minds.
*


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 3, 2014)

Obama's concerned about beheading.
So concerned he "beheading" to the golf course!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 3, 2014)

Siete said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



let them travel there to assist ISIS 

then cancel their visa


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

Defiant1 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



"We should bomb every living thing until there is unconditional surrender.""


*Interesting that you should say that.  In the summer of 2004 I had the great fortune of meeting someone within the Pentagon who said that was the recommendation by the armed forces generals to Bush and Cheney for the solution they were seeking after 9/11. 

It was rejected in lieu of putting hundreds of thousands of troops in place so that Dick Cheney could have Halliburton furnish food and supplies, General Dynamics, Raytheon, G.E., Lockheed Martin, et. al could prosper, therefore enriching the military industrial base.  

Sad but true.  There's no money in that for the aforementioned corporations.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Obama's concerned about beheading.
> So concerned he "beheading" to the golf course!




*Oh, the village idiot has just arrived.  *


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 3, 2014)

You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.

Two British kids went to Thailand and were killed, this guy went to war zone and died. Which is worse? 

How many Muslims have the US and British killed in the last 13 years?


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 3, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Obama's concerned about beheading.
> So concerned he "beheading" to the golf course!



Or is it 2+2 before


----------



## TooTall (Oct 3, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.
> 
> Two British kids went to Thailand and were killed, this guy went to war zone and died. Which is worse?
> 
> How many Muslims have the US and British killed in the last 13 years?



Only the ones that were trying to kill them.


----------



## JWBooth (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.
> ...


Seriously, you actually believe that?


----------



## TooTall (Oct 3, 2014)

JWBooth said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Got any videos of American or British troops beheading any muslims?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.
> ...



And why were they trying to kill invaders in their country I wonder?

What would you do if Muslims turned up armed to the teeth in the US, putting in place a puppet govt and making sure your resources were being sold abroad for a low enough price?


----------



## 1776 (Oct 3, 2014)

His blood is on Obama's hands...


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 3, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.
> 
> Two British kids went to Thailand and were killed, this guy went to war zone and died. Which is worse?
> 
> *How many Muslims have the US and British killed in the last 13 years?*



Obviously not enough

-Geaux


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 3, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.
> ...



That's the sort of attitude I'd expect from a stupid person. Are you stupid?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2014)

Murders are not necessarily a national security issue.  Like it or not, the murders of individuals in foreign countries - even if they are Americans - are not, in and of themselves, a threat to the vital interests of the United States.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 3, 2014)

1776 said:


> His blood is on Obama's hands...



One more person's blood on the hands of the USA, hardly makes an impression when there are millions of people's blood on the hands of the USA.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 3, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Murders are not necessarily a national security issue.  Like it or not, the murders of individuals in foreign countries - even if they are Americans - are not, in and of themselves, a threat to the vital interests of the United States.



Ie, you don't get oil from these murders so who give a sheet?


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 3, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The jury is out, however, you should ask for a plea deal in your case. You're clearly 5150

-Geaux


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 3, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's concerned about beheading.
> ...



There can only be one village idiot, and you have already earned the title.


----------



## Antares (Oct 3, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> You go to dangerous places, bad things might happen.
> 
> Two British kids went to Thailand and were killed, this guy went to war zone and died. Which is worse?
> 
> How many Muslims have the US and British killed in the last 13 years?



Obviously not enough.


----------



## Antares (Oct 3, 2014)

Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....

Just enough to sit at home and type his outrage to people laugh at him/her.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2014)

If any of you can tell us how many American lives it is worth throwing away to avenge the death of a journalist,

please do so, and then we'll debate from there...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2014)

Antares said:


> Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....
> 
> Just enough to sit at home and type his outrage to people laugh at him/her.



You could always enlist and volunteer for combat duty in the ME.


----------



## JWBooth (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


Just because the style of the killing differs, doesn't make the victims any less dead.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 3, 2014)

Only progressive douchebags think that people have varying degrees of *value*. 

True humans will defend the weak and helpless...regardless of the threat to themselves. We understand you're a coward, NYC..kindly don't assume that everybody else is. Our soldiers have no issue at all putting themselves in the line of fire to rescue people who need rescuing.

Sadly, they'd probably even rescue you if you were stupid enough to get into a tight spot. But they wouldn't like it very much. They can smell cowards a mile away.


----------



## Defiant1 (Oct 3, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...




We should have used nukes to turn Irag into glass.


----------



## blackhawk (Oct 3, 2014)

Everyone knows what the answer to ISIS is an all out military assault using both air power and ground troops the only question left is does the world have the courage to do it.


----------



## Antares (Oct 3, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....
> ...



Poor you.

I'm too old.
I've already served so my world isn't hypothetical like yours and the Fridge.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 3, 2014)

Antares said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



In other words it's easy for you to encourage others to go fight and die for no good reason.


----------



## Antares (Oct 3, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Nope.

In other words I know and understand what the risks are and that sometimes those risks are necessary.

You?
Just a punk who has NEVER served anyone or done anything for anyone other than yourself.

It's ok kid, that's your generation.....selfish and self centered.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

TooTall said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



*I think there's video of them peeing on some.
*
*Video Inflames a Delicate Moment for U.S. in Afghanistan*
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/w...g-on-taliban-corpses.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

Antares said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



*Prove it.  Talk is cheap.*


----------



## LeftofLeft (Oct 3, 2014)

Brits are acting like Pussies.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 3, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




*There just wouldn't be enough toilet paper to go around for these keyboard warriors.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

Antares said:


> Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....
> 
> Just enough to sit at home and type his outrage to people laugh at him/her.



Ah, the old black and white and nothing in between sort of argument. 

Actually I'm a little more complex than a 4 year old. I don't like Islam, however I believe that people should have religious freedom, I understand this concept is a little alien to a lot of Americans, however if you look hard enough in the constitution you may just be able to find it. 
Another concept is that just because some people do something bad, doesn't mean all of them do.

The funny thing is that a lot of people saw what Bush was trying to do. Make a common enemy so that the people of the US and other western countries would become docile, they'd act how they're supposed to act allowing the big players behind the scenes to get what they want, usually cheaper oil and other minerals, allowing them to bomb other countries more easily.

It's worked a charm.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

LeftofLeft said:


> Brits are acting like Pussies.



Ah, another one who thinks that foreign policy = bombing the sheet out of people. (either that or trying to screw them over by taking all their money, or changing their leader in another way)


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> Everyone knows what the answer to ISIS is an all out military assault using both air power and ground troops the only question left is does the world have the courage to do it.



Everyone SHOULD know that ISIS are hoping, praying, that the US sends in ground troops. 

The reason Afghanistan and Iraq have been failures is because there were ground troops. Why go to all the trouble to go to the US to attack Americans when they come to you? 

This is the reason by Bush senior did not go into Iraq. 
But then Dubya just didn't have the brains, and those who did have the brains didn't give a damn about the lives that would lost, they saw PROFIT.......

Who would go and die just so ISIS has an easy target? I'm sure there are enough people who would, and then you'd have lots of single parent families, which apparently aren't great for bringing up kids. But what's more important here? Oil and death or living life and bringing up your kids?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

Defiant1 said:


> We should have used nukes to turn Irag into glass.



Yeah, because there aren't any consequences to doing this, right?


----------



## TooTall (Oct 4, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


 
What branch of the service did you serve in?


----------



## TooTall (Oct 4, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



Pissing on a corpse that was a man trying to kill you is comparable to cutting off a man's head?  Are you making a joke?  I'm not laughing and would piss on everyone of them if I could.  
However the Marines did possibly commit two crimes.  One, they got caught, and two, they didn't beat the dog squeeze out of whoever ratted them out.  I say possibly, because they may have done the latter and without being caught.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Pissing on a corpse that was a man trying to kill you is comparable to cutting off a man's head?  Are you making a joke?  I'm not laughing and would piss on everyone of them if I could.
> However the Marines did possibly commit two crimes.  One, they got caught, and two, they didn't beat the dog squeeze out of whoever ratted them out.  I say possibly, because they may have done the latter and without being caught.



Here's the difference. The US has the most expensive military in the world, the same as the next 8 militarys in terms of expense put together. ISIS have a bunch of guys and some oil money and US weapons they managed to get.

What ISIS are doing is trying to provoke the US into sending in ground troops. They feel this is what they need to be victorious. 
The US doesn't need to provoke any more, but they did provoke in 2003 and that was all the WMD stuff and all the other "intelligence" they managed to make up.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 4, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Pissing on a corpse that was a man trying to kill you is comparable to cutting off a man's head?  Are you making a joke?  I'm not laughing and would piss on everyone of them if I could.
> ...



Here are some of the sources of the 'intelligence' the Bush Administration made up.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."*  - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | **Source*

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."*  - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | **Source*

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."*  - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | **S**ource*

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."*  - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | **Source*

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."*  - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | **Source*

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."*  - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | **Source*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Here are some of the sources of the 'intelligence' the Bush Administration made up.
> 
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."*  - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | **Source*
> 
> ...



I like Hilary's. "Intelligence reports show", which suggests a lot. All of this was based on the "intelligence" that was being "gathered" by groups who, well, were making stuff up.


----------



## Wildman (Oct 4, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Bombing is symbolic. Nothing more
> ...


.............
*have you ?*


----------



## Wildman (Oct 4, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Obama's concerned about beheading.
> ...


................
*outing yourself ?*


----------



## TooTall (Oct 4, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some of the sources of the 'intelligence' the Bush Administration made up.
> ...





frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some of the sources of the 'intelligence' the Bush Administration made up.
> ...



This:

On October 1, 2002, the CIA delivered a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessing the threat represented by Iraq's WMD activities. Three days later, CIA Director George Tenet published an unclassified white paper on the subject of Iraq's WMD capabilities. Over the next two weeks, a joint resolution authorizing the use of force was passed by both houses of Congress.

George Tenet was appointed by Bill Clinton and kept on by George Bush.  He was responsible for the intel that Congress critters got in their briefings.  The British intel agreed for the most part with the CIA.  George Bush shouldn't have listened to a bunch of lying Democrats, or they were ALL wrong.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> This:
> 
> On October 1, 2002, the CIA delivered a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessing the threat represented by Iraq's WMD activities. Three days later, CIA Director George Tenet published an unclassified white paper on the subject of Iraq's WMD capabilities. Over the next two weeks, a joint resolution authorizing the use of force was passed by both houses of Congress.
> 
> George Tenet was appointed by Bill Clinton and kept on by George Bush.  He was responsible for the intel that Congress critters got in their briefings.  The British intel agreed for the most part with the CIA.  George Bush shouldn't have listened to a bunch of lying Democrats, or they were ALL wrong.



You do know that the CIA was making stuff up, it was going out and finding what was wanted to be found, regardless of whether it was real or not? I posted a thread on it, there are two reports from Congress, one in 2004 which states that this happened, and one from much later on, 2009 or some time like that. They basically said the Pentagon was looking for what they could realistically prove, or the evidence was strong enough, the CIA would talk to some guy, if it fit their needs they used it, regardless.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 4, 2014)

Maybe it's time for the Brits to reconsider their constant meddling in other nations' affairs? In fact, maybe the U.S. should do that too. They are by far the two most meddlesome nations on earth. Maybe it's time for a new course.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

paulitician said:


> Maybe it's time for the Brits to reconsider their constant meddling in other nations' affairs? In fact, maybe the U.S. should do that too. They are by far the two most meddlesome nations on earth. Maybe it's time for a new course.



HELL YEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## paulitician (Oct 4, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it's time for the Brits to reconsider their constant meddling in other nations' affairs? In fact, maybe the U.S. should do that too. They are by far the two most meddlesome nations on earth. Maybe it's time for a new course.
> ...



Yeah, the People just need to understand that all the meddling isn't about 'Freedom & Democracy.' It's really about the Ruling-Class Globalist Elites getting richer. It's about seizing nations' Banking Systems and plundering their natural resources. Just look at Libya for example. Who do people think now control its banking system and resources? The answer is, Western Globalist Elites. 

The same scenario has been played out in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now they're in the process of doing it in Syria and Ukraine as well. It happens the same way over & over again in many different countries. It is what it is.


----------



## EconChick (Oct 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> ...



Yep.


We'll have to say this to the Obama supporters at least another million times:  Either do it right or don't fucking do it at all.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 4, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > This:
> ...



I realize that Bush and the Congress acted on the intel that was provided by the CIA and others at the time.   Do you?


----------



## TooTall (Oct 4, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some of the sources of the 'intelligence' the Bush Administration made up.
> ...



Why don't you let her know that she is way too stupid to be the next President if she believes the intel from the CIA.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 4, 2014)

I want to know everything about this british man who was beheadded.  Where will the national memorial service be held?  Can we see interviews with his childhood friends, teachers etc?  Where do we send the money and gifts for the berieved family.  And who are they, specifically?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

paulitician said:


> Yeah, the People just need to understand that all the meddling isn't about 'Freedom & Democracy.' It's really about the Ruling-Class Globalist Elites getting richer. It's about seizing nations' Banking Systems and plundering their natural resources. Just look at Libya for example. Who do people think now control its banking system and resources? The answer is, Western Globalist Elites.
> 
> The same scenario has been played out in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now they're in the process of doing it in Syria and Ukraine as well. It happens the same way over & over again in many different countries. It is what it is.



I had someone on here complain that Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood. Bush helped a coup d'etat against the democratically elected leader Chavez in 2002. Someone said the US couldn't allow this to happen.

The US doesn't give a sheet about democracy, never has and never will. 

But then pretending to take the higher moral ground is something the US does a lot.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> I realize that Bush and the Congress acted on the intel that was provided by the CIA and others at the time.   Do you?



Provided by the CIA who were doing what they were told by Bush.

Cheney to CIA: Find me a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam, doesn't matter what, doesn't matter if it's true.

CIA to random man in Iraq: Does Saddam have links with al-Qaeda?
Man in Iraq to CIA: I don't think so.
CIA to random man in Iraq: Here's $200
Man in Iraq to CIA: Sure he has links to al-Qaeda, clear as day

CIA to Bush and Congress: Saddam has links with al-Qaeda, some man told us. 
Bush: Oh right, let's kill Saddam, he has links with al-Qaeda. 
Congress: Oh right, let's kill Saddam, he has links with al-Qaeda.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Why don't you let her know that she is way too stupid to be the next President if she believes the intel from the CIA.



Well, then no politician would be running for president, and that isn't going to happen, is it?

Oh, to be president you have to be able to do what you're told. It's the one and only requisite for the job.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 4, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > I realize that Bush and the Congress acted on the intel that was provided by the CIA and others at the time.   Do you?
> ...



Your adoration of Saddam Hussein and hatred of Bush are duly noted.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Your adoration of Saddam Hussein and hatred of Bush are duly noted.



Your love of the Moomins and hatred of Pinocchio is duly noted. 

(Ie, where did I say I liked Saddam? Christ, you're trying to shout me down, well done on your rubbish shout down, I am not coward by your lack of argument and attempted bullying)


----------



## TooTall (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Your adoration of Saddam Hussein and hatred of Bush are duly noted.
> ...



What a relief.  After reading your posts I thought that you actually believed that the CIA made up stuff about Saddam Hussein gassing his own people and not coming clean on what happened to his WMD's.  Since you really do think that Saddam needed to be removed from power, I must apologize.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, the People just need to understand that all the meddling isn't about 'Freedom & Democracy.' It's really about the Ruling-Class Globalist Elites getting richer. It's about seizing nations' Banking Systems and plundering their natural resources. Just look at Libya for example. Who do people think now control its banking system and resources? The answer is, Western Globalist Elites.
> ...



Follow the money. First thing they do is seize control of the banking systems. Then they begin the plundering of natural resources. And if their puppets don't behave, they remove them by any means necessary. Average Citizens don't benefit from Permanent War. Only the Elites do. Hopefully, Americans will figure that out at some point.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning
> 
> From HuffPost:
> ...



How sad.  I HATE terrorists.  I DO wish we could just bomb them all.  Unfortunately, that is just not feasible.  New ones are born every day.  Some of them are women and children too.  They don't wear uniforms, they can easily disappear within the civilian populations and "hide-outs."  They are obviously being funded by somebody.  THAT is what I am interested in knowing.  Who is funding this rag tag group of terrorists?

Iran perhaps?  They seem like the most likely suspects IMO.


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 5, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> ...


*Reaper drones pinpoint Jihadi John: Terrorist has been tracked by British forces but security chiefs fear 'kill or capture' mission would end in failure*

Read more: Reaper drones pinpoint Jihadi John but security chiefs fear mission failure Daily Mail Online


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



Interesting, but I'm not sure of the point.    Are you saying you believe we _can _target and kill all the terrorists in the world?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 5, 2014)

Another hard lesson for the Brits. It's time for them to start minding their own business. They simply meddle too much around the world. I know this man was trying to help, but he just didn't belong there. He should have stayed home.


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 5, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I wasn't saying anything but will say, we should target and kill any terrorists who are killing Americans and declaring war against us. Most of us, know they mean it.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > AquaAthena said:
> ...



Certainly, I agree with that, but my point was that we cannot possibly kill them ALL.  This "war on terror" will never end.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

paulitician said:


> Follow the money. First thing they do is seize control of the banking systems. Then they begin the plundering of natural resources. And if their puppets don't behave, they remove them by any means necessary. Average Citizens don't benefit from Permanent War. Only the Elites do. Hopefully, Americans will figure that out at some point.



And when they find out they'll be happy because they're getting rich off this.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> How sad.  I HATE terrorists.  I DO wish we could just bomb them all.  Unfortunately, that is just not feasible.  New ones are born every day.  Some of them are women and children too.  They don't wear uniforms, they can easily disappear within the civilian populations and "hide-outs."  They are obviously being funded by somebody.  THAT is what I am interested in knowing.  Who is funding this rag tag group of terrorists?
> 
> Iran perhaps?  They seem like the most likely suspects IMO.



The founding fathers would have been terrorists had the word been invented. Mandela was a terrorist. 

Maybe it's worth finding out why people become terrorists, then stop doing what it is that is being done to make them terrorists, then people can get on with their lives.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

TooTall said:


> What a relief.  After reading your posts I thought that you actually believed that the CIA made up stuff about Saddam Hussein gassing his own people and not coming clean on what happened to his WMD's.  Since you really do think that Saddam needed to be removed from power, I must apologize.



Oh, of course I wanted Saddam gone. However sometimes it's not as simple as that. Saddam was a bad evil man, but invading Iraq was also the US getting involved was not the right thing. 

The worst thing was the way Bush handled the post war period which was just catastrophic. 

But no, the CIA lied about lots of things, they weren't lying about what had happened, they were lying about what was going on at the time in 2003.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > How sad.  I HATE terrorists.  I DO wish we could just bomb them all.  Unfortunately, that is just not feasible.  New ones are born every day.  Some of them are women and children too.  They don't wear uniforms, they can easily disappear within the civilian populations and "hide-outs."  They are obviously being funded by somebody.  THAT is what I am interested in knowing.  Who is funding this rag tag group of terrorists?
> ...



That's not true.  You are trying to compare the world as it is today to how it was HUNDREDS of years ago.  Times have changed, so have MOST of the people.  That is just a cop out and a really LAME excuse.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > How sad.  I HATE terrorists.  I DO wish we could just bomb them all.  Unfortunately, that is just not feasible.  New ones are born every day.  Some of them are women and children too.  They don't wear uniforms, they can easily disappear within the civilian populations and "hide-outs."  They are obviously being funded by somebody.  THAT is what I am interested in knowing.  Who is funding this rag tag group of terrorists?
> ...



Okay, so why do YOU think they have become terrorists?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> That's not true.  You are trying to compare the world as it is today to how it was HUNDREDS of years ago.  Times have changed, so have MOST of the people.  That is just a cop out and a really LAME excuse.



Did you read the words "would have been"? Do you know your grammar?


----------



## Slyhunter (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > How sad.  I HATE terrorists.  I DO wish we could just bomb them all.  Unfortunately, that is just not feasible.  New ones are born every day.  Some of them are women and children too.  They don't wear uniforms, they can easily disappear within the civilian populations and "hide-outs."  They are obviously being funded by somebody.  THAT is what I am interested in knowing.  Who is funding this rag tag group of terrorists?
> ...


Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > That's not true.  You are trying to compare the world as it is today to how it was HUNDREDS of years ago.  Times have changed, so have MOST of the people.  That is just a cop out and a really LAME excuse.
> ...



You are wrong.  According to the times back then, they would NOT have been.  If they fought a war that way today, then perhaps so, but really what does this have to do with ANYTHING that is taking place today?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

Slyhunter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Okay, so why do YOU think they have become terrorists?



Take a look at terrorist groups.

The IRA. They exist because of the treatment of Catholics in Ireland for as far back as Cromwell and further back. Even in recent years they were second in line for jobs, treated like dirt by the govt, ie, the British govt.

ETA. Well, the genocide in Spain from the dictator Franco was immense. Languages were prohibited, local culture was prohibited, immigration to areas, especially Catalonia and the Basque Country meant these areas were being diluted of their local population etc. 

Chechen rebels. Well the USSR split up and many different countries left a country that had been non-religious but was becoming more Orthodox after many years. The Chechens wanted to leave but had their main city and area almost totally destroyed. 

I could go on, but there's a pattern. 

The pattern also fits for Islamic terrorists. However in this case it's on a MASSIVE scale and involves, in many cases, the west coming into Muslim countries and taking what they feel like. Iraq was made by the British, Israel has played its part, made by the British, other countries saw leaders removed, like Egypt, Iran and others, others saw troops making sure the resources were able to be taken effectively, like in say British India or many other places. 

The support for Israel which has really treated people badly (this isn't a discussion of what Israel has had to endure, I'm not looking at this one sided, but we're talking why Muslims have risen up here) with millions in camps in no man's land and unable to even get on with their lives and ignored by the west. 

Then the US came along, supporting Israel among other things which led to things like the bombing of the USS Cole and then 9/11. Post 9/11 and the massive increase in terrorism has had to do directly with the invasion of Iraq (more so than Afghanistan, but that played a part) and the absolutely ridiculously bad attempt at nation building by Bush (if that's what he actually wanted, I'm not so sure, perhaps he wanted and needed hatred from Muslims of the US for his own policies and party). 

There's so much there that would annoy anyone enough to risk their lives.

Imagine the US had a Muslim country come in, plant troops, take resources, then later on another came along and changed your leaders so they were puppets and then invaded your country for cheaper resources. Are you telling me most people would not have risen up with their arms and fought back? Of course they would have. 

So why do you expect Muslims to take this shit lying down?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> You are wrong.  According to the times back then, they would NOT have been.  If they fought a war that way today, then perhaps so, but really what does this have to do with ANYTHING that is taking place today?



What are you going on about? 

It's called finding EMPATHY and other such things. It's putting into context the way people feel so people like you can get their heads around something they will not empathize about because they're so stuck up the ass with propaganda that they won't even listen.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.



Unless of course they were black or Native American. George Washington has a history of massacring innocent Native Americans.


----------



## Slyhunter (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.
> ...


Why do liberals always bring up ancient history to justify things being done in the present? What happened in the past happened in the past. What happens now is what we deal with.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

Slyhunter said:


> Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.



No, that's not the definition of a terrorist at all.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 5, 2014)

Slyhunter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Did you read what I wrote? Maybe you should go back and see what I wrote.

Also, things that happened in the past happened, you want to ignore the past because.....? I don't know why. Did Washington not do bad things? 

The point being here, that you need to look at things from a new perspective but your head is so far up ********* that you won't even listen.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world.  That is all that needs to be said on that matter.  The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Good point, revolutionists did not purposely go after innocent citizens, torture, maim and murder them.
> ...



Even if this was true, what does this have to do with what is happening today with the terrorists?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Revolutionist attack the military, terrorist attack the civilians. Only a liberal can't see the difference.
> ...



Yes it is.  Terrorists "terrorize".  Hence the word "terrorist."


----------



## Slyhunter (Oct 5, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.


----------



## Mindful (Oct 6, 2014)

I tend to agree with these sentiments. From Mike Cunningham:

Terry Waite, the enormously self-important Anglican envoy who flew to Beirut because he just ‘knew’ that his contacts in Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the ordinary Beirut Arabic slime underground could be implicitly trusted. He has been assured that all was ‘safe’! So he climbed on to a pick-up truck crammed with armed terrorists, again trusting them all because they were all muslim, and therefore completely ‘trustworthy’: and promptly disappeared for five years. Tied to radiators, hidden in underground cells, his only contact was another hostage; until he was released after a huge ransom was paid. ‘Trustworthy’ is as trustworthy does.



Similarly, ‘humanitarian volunteer’ Alan Hemming was travelling in an ‘Aid convoy’ into the darkest place on this Earth, war-torn Syria, because he ‘wanted to help’; ‘wanted to make a difference’, and all the other bullshit phrases used to attempt to excuse the actions of a man who just ‘knew’ that he would be safe, ‘knew’ that he would compete his mission; ‘knew’ that everyone else was wrong, and he alone was ‘right’: going into a muslim maelstrom where no-one is or can be trusted, because, in the end, they all hate us, they call us ‘infidel’, they call us ‘kuffar’.

And now his bereaved family has the audacity to state that the British government should and could have done more to rescue this idiot, should have risked the lives of soldiers, because the family felt that, as a ‘volunteer’, he should have been given special treatment; despite his ignoring every knowledgeable Government Department stating the bleedingly obvious, that Syria was a no-go place, that Europeans, no matter how well-meaning, no matter how well-intentioned; simply should not be there, because their lives would be at risk the second they drove across the border.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 6, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world.  That is all that needs to be said on that matter.  The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.



Hence the reason why I said "would have been", it's grammar, it's not difficult, yet people who don't seem to understand the difference between verb tenses will hammer me for it anyway. 

I didn't say the foundering fathers WERE, I said "would have been", ie, if they were in the modern era they WOULD HAVE BEEN considered terrorists. 

Jeez, it's impossible on a board where people can't even do ENGLISH.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 6, 2014)

Slyhunter said:


> You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.



A) I didn't write this to change the past. However you can LEARN from the past.
B) I said this to show what it means to people to be a terrorist. It's the same as being a freedom fighter, only, it's the negative word for it, for the perspective of those who don't support them. 

The British though the founding fathers wrong. Hence, why they WOULD HAVE BEEN (If you don't know the grammar it isn't MY fault) considered terrorists by the British at least, and probably the Russians and anyone who wasn't the French.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 6, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...



Oh God, please help me with people who really don't have a clue and make stuff up to suit their needs. 

So, they can't terrorize the military then? Hence the word, terrorist? 

terrorist definition of terrorist in Oxford dictionary American English US 

A person who usesterrorism in the pursuit of politicalaims.

*Origin*
late 18th century: from French _terroriste_, from Latin _terror_ (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

Definition of ldquo terrorist rdquo Collins English Dictionary

a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon

*Synonyms*
= freedom fighter, bomber, revolutionary, gunman, guerilla, suicide bomber, urban guerilla, cyberterrorist

terrorist definition meaning - what is terrorist in the British English Dictionary Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

someone who uses violentaction, or threats of violentaction, forpoliticalpurposes:

terrorism - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

*terrorism*
*
violentaction for political purposes*

So, do you see the term civilians here?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 6, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Follow the money. First thing they do is seize control of the banking systems. Then they begin the plundering of natural resources. And if their puppets don't behave, they remove them by any means necessary. Average Citizens don't benefit from Permanent War. Only the Elites do. Hopefully, Americans will figure that out at some point.
> ...



The Ruling-Class Globalist Elites thrive off of war & chaos. Only the average citizens suffer. The Elites don't send their children to die in all these Interventions/Wars. Only the little people send their children to die. They never benefit at all from these wars. Only the Elites do. It's very sad.


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 6, 2014)

Siete said:


> I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.


And who's problem will this be, if and when it happens, as threatened. 


The militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) released a video purportedly showing the execution of British hostage Alan Henning, *which closes with a threat against Peter Edward Kassig, an American citizen who served with the US Army Rangers. [ Peter Kassig, converted to Islam and has gone by the name Abdul-Rahman since 2013]
*

Read more: ISIS Threatens Peter Kassig - Business Insider


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 6, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



AS has already been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES.  A terrorist targets INNOCENT civilians.  THAT is not a freedom fighter.  Get it yet?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 6, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Things that were acceptable in the past are no longer acceptable in today's world.  That is all that needs to be said on that matter.  The things that happened hundreds of years are NOT what we are dealing with today.
> ...



No, you screwed up your grammar.  That is not anyone's problem except for your own.  OWN your own mistakes and don't try to blame others.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 6, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > You can't change the past. You can only work on changing the present. It's the problems of the present that count because it is the problems of the present we can do something about.
> ...



Apparently you do not know what a terrorist is at all.  Pathetic.  A terrorist deliberately targets innocent people, even their OWN people.  

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist What is the Difference Beyond the Cusp



> Now comes the most crucial determination, what are the differences between terrorists and freedom fighters. If they both have similar methods and goals, how do we discern one from the other? The most glaring difference is that of target selection. Where both will target the occupation forces, freedom fighters attempt to avoid collateral deaths among the people they purport to be helping while the terrorists often target those they are supposedly assisting. Freedom fighters will often own up and apologize when their actions go awry and the indigenous population suffers from their actions while terrorists blame the occupation forces for forcing them to attack and kill the indigenous population. Basically this is the major and defining difference but it is a most serious and easily observable difference. The next time somebody argues that the terrorists are simply freedom fighters whose motives we happen to disagree upon, just tell them that the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is denoted by their targeting strategy. If they have a narrow scope aimed at inflicting damage solely on the occupation forces, then they are freedom fighters, but if they target indiscriminately or intentionally target the indigenous peoples, then they are terrorists. It is that simple.


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 6, 2014)

LordBrownTrout said:


> I'm glad O has our back.


*O may take some action on this next target by ISIS. Boy ISIS is sure begging him to, as this next American had converted to Islam: *

The parents of a former Army Ranger threatened with beheading by the Islamic State militant group released a letter written by their son earlier this year in which he said he was afraid to die, *but was at peace with his conversion to Islam.*

Ed and Paula Kassig said in a statement Sunday that they had been told by a former hostage that *their son Peter had voluntarily converted to Islam sometime between October and December of last year when he shared a cell with a Syrian Muslim. They said that their son "took Islam's practices seriously, including praying the five daily prayers and taking on the name Abdul-Rahman." *

*The Associated Press contributed to this report.*

*Parents of ex-Army Ranger held by ISIS release letter written by son Fox News*


----------



## Rotagilla (Oct 6, 2014)

You know...there are some good reasons ISIS isn't beheading russians or chinese civilians...just sayin...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 7, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> AS has already been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES.  A terrorist targets INNOCENT civilians.  THAT is not a freedom fighter.  Get it yet?



So you're working on the theory that if you say something enough times it becomes true.

God, this is ridiculous. You just say "it's been pointed out to you" while ignoring dictionary definitions.

You won't listen, don't want to listen, what's the point of you being on here if you're just going to parrot the US govt bull?

Inside Terrorism

_"What is terrorism? Few words have so insidiously worked their way into our everyday vocabulary. Like `Internet' -- another grossly over-used term that has similarly become an indispensable part of the argot of the late twentieth century -- most people have a vague idea or impression of what terrorism is, but lack a more precise, concrete and truly explanatory definition of the word. This imprecision has been abetted partly by the modern media, whose efforts to communicate an often complex and convoluted message in the briefest amount of airtime or print space possible have led to the promiscuous labelling of a range of violent acts as `terrorism'. Pick up a newspaper or turn on the television and -- even within the same broadcast or on the same page -- one can find such disparate acts as the bombing of a building, the assassination of a head of state, the massacre of civilians by a military unit, the poisoning of produce on supermarket shelves or the deliberate contamination of over-the-counter medication in a chemist's shop all described as incidents of terrorism. Indeed, virtually any especially abhorrent act of violence that is perceived as directed against society -- whether it involves the activities of anti-government dissidents or governments themselves, organized crime syndicates or common criminals, rioting mobs or persons engaged in militant protest, individual psychotics or lone extortionists -- is often labelled `terrorism'."_

The rest you can choose to read, or not!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 7, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I said "would have been" and this gets interpreted to "was" and it's my fault? Uh hu!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 7, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...



So apparently quoting one person, who is annonymous, on the internet and really not able to reply back, is your evidence? that's it? No dictionary definitions, nothing else? I'm guessing this is a govt hack who wants you to believe..........


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 7, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Is that what you would like to see, Abdul?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....
> ...


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 7, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > I CLAIM it's the Brits problem.
> ...


AquaAthena here's another article about beheading. This heinous act is getting to be very political with the Muslim terrorists.

The British Islamist imam Anjem Choudary has been released from police custody after he was arrested for allegedly being a member of a banned terrorist group.

Choudary and nine other radical Muslims were detained during dawn raids in London on September 25 as part of an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation into Islamist-related terrorism.

Choudary—one of the most high-profile jihadists in the United Kingdom, and well known for his relentless resolve to implement Islamic Sharia law there—is a former spokesman of the Muslim extremist group, al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: The Emigrants).

Anjem Choudary I Don t Feel Sorry for Those Beheaded Clarion Project


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 7, 2014)

Rotagilla said:


> You know...there are some good reasons ISIS isn't beheading russians or chinese civilians...just sayin...


Talk about being bombed into the Stone Age!!!


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 7, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > You know...there are some good reasons ISIS isn't beheading russians or chinese civilians...just sayin...
> ...




I see no reason to bomb ISIS---in response to its  "beheading"  policies-----I prefer to
respond   "in kind"------grab a few muslims and--------return the compliment----a kind of random thing-----here and there.


----------



## Rotagilla (Oct 7, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



We aren't talking about what the tribe would do piecemeal. 

We're talking about possible reasons isis isn't beheading russians or chinese citizens. 
Assured _massively_ disproportionate retaliation is our conclusion.


----------



## Antares (Oct 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



In other words I've served and neither you or the Fridge ever has.

Fairly simple kid.


----------



## Antares (Oct 7, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....
> ...



*"Actually I'm a little more complex than a 4 year old"
*
You are the only one here that thinks that son.

Now, this isn't about Bush and like it or not Radical Islam IS a common enemy.


----------



## Antares (Oct 7, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone knows what the answer to ISIS is an all out military assault using both air power and ground troops the only question left is does the world have the courage to do it.
> ...



Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 7, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid loves him some Islamic Maniacs.....not enough to go help them of course.....
> ...


Islamic terrorists believe in religious freedom. In fact they are terrorizing, butchering and beheading all over the world in the name of religious freedom. Yes indeedy. Their religious freedom.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 7, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



great response. I think only about 99% of the population has the brains to come up with such a response.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 7, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Any point within your sarcasm? I doubt it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 7, 2014)

Antares said:


> Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?
> 
> You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.



Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003. 

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 7, 2014)

Antares said:


> *"Actually I'm a little more complex than a 4 year old"
> *
> You are the only one here that thinks that son.
> 
> Now, this isn't about Bush and like it or not Radical Islam IS a common enemy.



Oh, how you make people laugh. Your insults against me are pretty much the same as you use against Obama and everyone else. It's so ridiculous.

Sure, Islam is now the common enemy, Bush made sure of that. How many lives will it cost? Millions. Who benefits? Republicans, Defence contractors. You know, the same old people who were making a ton of money in the Cold War. 

Who loses out? Normal people. Again. Yet again. 

How they manage to get so many people onto their side, when they're essentially doing them over at the same time is interesting.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 7, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?
> ...



I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 7, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > AS has already been pointed out to you NUMEROUS TIMES.  A terrorist targets INNOCENT civilians.  THAT is not a freedom fighter.  Get it yet?
> ...



And I posted a definition that mde a lot more sense!  Lol!  Why do you think YOUR definition (which really doesn't define it, like my definition did) is any more valid than mine?  Simply put, it is not.  I will go with MY definition of terrorism, the correct one, thank you.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 7, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You must be joking, guy on an internet website.    He describes the difference perfectly well.  Please point out what it is you disagree with.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Wrong. 



TooTall said:


> While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.



And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq. 

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 8, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> And I posted a definition that mde a lot more sense!  Lol!  Why do you think YOUR definition (which really doesn't define it, like my definition did) is any more valid than mine?  Simply put, it is not.  I will go with MY definition of terrorism, the correct one, thank you.



Let's see. I posted a lot of definitions for companies which are extremely well know, extremely accountable. I also posted one which was from a guy called Bruce Hoffman that was on the New York Times. He is Director of the Center for Security Studies and Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

You presented an anonymous article, from a website which is just another website with nothing to back it up, no reason to believe, nothing

Which would I believe? It's not hard.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 8, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> You must be joking, guy on an internet website.    He describes the difference perfectly well.  Please point out what it is you disagree with.



Do you know anything about quoting people?

Who wrote this?  Answer: No idea. You have been KKK, could have been a Communist,

Why was it written? Answer: No idea.  It could have been someone with a major agenda to have their view of terrorism be taken seriously because they have need this version to become real.

Where was it written? Answer. Beyond the Cusp. Who are they? About Us - Beyond the Cusp seems to be David McWhortor. Who is he? Beats me. I know he lives in Arizona, that's about it. Oh, and he has a webpage and he
likes science fiction. He has one satisfied customer who is Drew 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 , he looks scholarly, like he knows the definition of "terrorist". Turns out he's a scifi writer, his book The Spires of Tarkus Amazon.co.uk Dave McWhortor Books

Must be a best seller because you type in the name of the book and you get about 15 different choices come up on yahoo. Massive.

So why do I have a problems with a scifi writer from Arizona with a really not successful book making a definition of "terrorism" when compared to international English dictionaries and a professor are a prestigious university and gets invited to write for the New York Times.

Hmm, tough one that.


----------



## Politico (Oct 8, 2014)

LordBrownTrout said:


> I'm glad O has our back.


That explains the spooge we keep finding!



JWBooth said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> ...


That. He knew what he was getting into. Big money means more risk.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 8, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



the US bombs any person sitting on oil?    news to me


----------



## TooTall (Oct 8, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



How much oil is there in Afghanistan?


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



why are you asking me?    I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA  are the  OIL EMIRS


----------



## TooTall (Oct 8, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...





TooTall said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



oh    (sorry---small note------you meant "to"  not  "too"-------but----sorry----you mean 
"that was to whom I directed my post...")-----sorry-----long ago----I had to do "remedial"---
for people who cannot write----freshmen in my college-----I never got over it.......ruined me for life,.......


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2014)

PS----Too-tall  dear----it gives me the creeps that a person named  "too-tall" ----posts on a thread----with the title----which adorns THIS THREAD.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 8, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


I


irosie91 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


I have a BSEE and English was not one of my better subjects, as you clearly pointed out.  Unlike some, I appreciate constructive criticism. 
I was going to say the m key on my laptop doesn't work, but decided not too.  (is that too or to?)


----------



## TooTall (Oct 8, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> PS----Too-tall  dear----it gives me the creeps that a person named  "too-tall" ----posts on a thread----with the title----which adorns THIS THREAD.



LOL,  you clearly have a good sense of humor, my dear!


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



it's   'to'         too is just another word for  'also'


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 8, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> the US bombs any person sitting on oil?    news to me



Where have you been? Okay, maybe they don't just bomb.

Here's a story.

2002 Coup d'etat against Chavez in Venezuela (OPEC COUNTRY) helped by the US with funding and encouragement. 
2003 Invasion of Iraq (OPEC COUNTRY)
2011 Bombing of Libya (OPEC COUNTRY)
Iran has had sanctions against it from the US because, well, it's an OPEC COUNTRY. 

You're looking at the 4 OPEC countries which weren't friendly with the US in 2001. 

Then you have issues with Nigeria. Not so much the govt, but the locals. 

Here are some websites

THE PRICE OF OIL

"
THE PRICE OF OIL
Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights Violations in 
Nigeria’s Oil Producing Communities"

Factsheet Shell s Environmental Devastation in Nigeria Center for Constitutional Rights

"Factsheet: Shell's Environmental Devastation in Nigeria"

Not bombing, and not necessarily all to do with the US govt, but the situation in Nigeria, with the US doing absolutely nothing, because hey, the US has been paying the Nigerian military, paying the Nigerian govt to be on their side, and who cares if an ally is doing all of this? Who cares if international companies that are represented massively in the US are doing this? Not the US govt that's for sure.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> I have a BSEE and English was not one of my better subjects, as you clearly pointed out.  Unlike some, I appreciate constructive criticism.
> I was going to say the m key on my laptop doesn't work, but decided not too.  (is that too or to?)



too = also
to is a preposition (to the shops) or used before a verb in the infinitive. (to go)


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > the US bombs any person sitting on oil?    news to me
> ...



It makes no sense-----EVERYONE KNOWS---the 
DA ZIONISTS  control the USA  policy------I know lots of jews--------my dad was a watch maker.      My doctor was a jew-----my lawyer is a jew-------my hubby is a jew---he is an artist-----I HAVE NEVER MET A JEW INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN THE OIL BUSINESS----
.....thus....it is impossible that the USA engages in any
 thing related to OIL-------the USA exists for one purpose---   FOR DA JOOOOOOOS     (ask Penelope)


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> How much oil is there in Afghanistan?



Afghanistan's an interesting one, why go into Afghanistan? 

In relation to oil. First. To be able to attack these oil rich Muslim countries, it helps that they're a really big enemy. So, Afghanistan was the obvious target after 9/11 and it helped Bush spread the word about al-Qaeda and the "War on Terror". 

Traditionally Afghanistan was a buffer. The British went into Afghanistan to create a buffer between the British Empire in British India and Russia. This was a time when Russia was growing, Catherine the Great had see some great successes against the Ottoman Empire and was moving further south. Turns out the Russians wouldn't have done anything there anyway, just like the British got kicked out continually. 
The Russians made in the 1980s and, well, suffered then left. 

I have heard of various other reasons why Bush invaded Afghanistan, 

Bush wanted bin Laden's head. That's one reason, enough for an invasion? Not really. 

The question the US has always asked since Lebanon in the 1980s is, what are US interests? And does the US benefit from this? 

Why Did the United States Invade Afghanistan The Future of Freedom Foundation

This is a good article. 

It deals with Afghanistan saying it would turn bin Laden over IF the US provided evidence. It never does, and never has and never will. 

"So, the U.S. government’s case against Osama bin Laden was not good enough to take to court, but it was good enough to take the country to war, a war that has killed or maimed countless people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. "

"Surveying the evidence, it is clear the Bush administration did not even come close to exhausting its diplomatic options in the fall of 2001 and that some other route could have been chosen to respond to the 9/11 attacks."

"Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, citing officials from the Department of Justice and the CIA, said the real reason the Bush administration reneged on its pledge to release the evidence was a “lack of solid information.”"


This is the main point here.

"The anger arising from the invasion and occupation of the country has created a perpetual supply of terrorist recruits, enabling U.S. officials to use the never-ending “war on terror” to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. And we now have a president who asserts the authority to kill off any person he deems a “threat.” I submit that this claim of unaccountable power represents a far greater threat to the peace and security of the country than any terrorist or group of terrorists could ever pose."

Afghanistan was used as a tool to open the way to the invasions of Iraq and Iran. Iran never happened, Iraq did. 

Oil? Oh yeah, it's not in Afghanistan, it's in Muslim countries.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2014)

nope----Afghanistan was the site chosen by  BIN LADEN----as his homebase for the perpetuation of terrorism and for the creation of a    SHARIAH CESSPIT---right there ---
in a huge part of the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT      In order to understand the seriousness of such a program----you would have to know something about the muslims of south east asia--------I do----because I have  known SO MANY
muslims from southeast ASIA----they have an interesting
"RELIGION"-------****THE MOGHUL EMPIRE*****
      if you think   ISIS is a big problem----think again---
      THE MOGHUL EMPIRE (or facsimile)would be an    even greater threat to the planet.   Bin laden saw it as
a step toward  WORLD WIDE CALIPHATE-----how do
I know?        easy------he said so


----------



## TooTall (Oct 8, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > How much oil is there in Afghanistan?
> ...



Total BS.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 8, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > the US bombs any person sitting on oil?    news to me
> ...



By my count, Bush bombed 4, Obama bombed 6.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Well I'm glad you got that off your chest. It would be nice if you actually had more to say though. Perhaps backing up your argument a little.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

TooTall said:


> By my count, Bush bombed 4, Obama bombed 6.



So?

By my count the US is the most dangerous country on earth.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Afghanistan was invaded to stop bin Laden from mounting another attack on the US.  In order to do that, the Taliban that was protecting him had to be taken out of power.  Does 911 ring a bell?


----------



## TooTall (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > By my count, Bush bombed 4, Obama bombed 6.
> ...



I sure do hope so.  It is a shame that our enemies consider us weak.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



No, I don't think they consider the US weak, just gullible. 

In order to grow they needed to be able to attack the US and make them look bad to their own people, they did that in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were crying out for the US to attack ISIS, a bit too much for this to be smart though, ISIS have made quite a few blunders. 

They use what the US does against the US. And yet the US fails to see this.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...





frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Afghanistan was invaded to stop bin Laden from mounting another attack on the US.  In order to do that, the Taliban that was protecting him had to be taken out of power.  Does 911 ring a bell?



This is so simple, and doesn't take into account the many different areas of interest that the US has. Part of the reason, and a small part, was bin Laden.

HOWEVER, if you read that report I presented, or anything else, you'll see that the US govt asked the Afghan regime to hand over bin Laden and they said "okay, if you provide the evidence that he was responsible for 9/11". 

Bush couldn't do that. Who extradites anyone without any proof? (The UK maybe, that's about it). 

So if the US could have got bin Laden without a war, why wouldn't they have pushed and pushed and pushed to get this? They hardly even tried. They wanted the war. Why? It wasn't for bin Laden.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Afghanistan was invaded to stop bin Laden from mounting another attack on the US.  In order to do that, the Taliban that was protecting him had to be taken out of power.  Does 911 ring a bell?
> ...



I agree---It was not ONLY for bin laden----it was for the entire    CALIPHATE  program in   Afghanistan-----which was more controlled by  THE TALIBAN ----than by Bin Laden and, of course---there were lots of other players----just as there are now.   Did anyone say    ----or did BUSH say---"I did it for bin laden"????


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> I agree---It was not ONLY for bin laden----it was for the entire    CALIPHATE  program in   Afghanistan-----which was more controlled by  THE TALIBAN ----than by Bin Laden and, of course---there were lots of other players----just as there are now.   Did anyone say    ----or did BUSH say---"I did it for bin laden"????



Why does the US give a damn who runs a backwards out of the way place like Afghanistan? Does the US care who runs Zimbabwe? Does it care who runs the DRC? Does it care who runs most countries in the world? No, not really.

So why does it care who runs Afghanistan?


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree---It was not ONLY for bin laden----it was for the entire    CALIPHATE  program in   Afghanistan-----which was more controlled by  THE TALIBAN ----than by Bin Laden and, of course---there were lots of other players----just as there are now.   Did anyone say    ----or did BUSH say---"I did it for bin laden"????
> ...



easy----because within the agenda of the  CALIPHATE  of Afghanistan----was an ambitious  agenda of imperialism and world wide terrorism.     Have you  ever heard of   THE MOGHUL EMPIRE?------I will help you----
it was a caliphate----just as  ISIS  is   (or wished to be)  and ---sorta like the OTTOMAN EMPIRE once was----
well---before ataturk ruined things


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree---It was not ONLY for bin laden----it was for the entire    CALIPHATE  program in   Afghanistan-----which was more controlled by  THE TALIBAN ----than by Bin Laden and, of course---there were lots of other players----just as there are now.   Did anyone say    ----or did BUSH say---"I did it for bin laden"????
> ...



STABILITY.  It is still an important area, with the oil.  Oil is the MOST important commodity that we have.  Without it, the world would come to a stop.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...




Bingo. 

This was all about OIL. You don't need to have oil in order for the US to target you. But you have to play a part, or you have to be useful for the US to want to use you.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Sure, it was definitely partly due to the oil.  It is imperative that it is secured for the good of the entire world.  Do you not understand that?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

That's why I've suggested that we go in and take over the countries with the oil.  They are TOO unstable and retarded to run a country and they use the oil as a weapon.  They are like spoiled children, and the good of the rest of the world SHOULD take precedence over those savages.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Sure, it was definitely partly due to the oil.  It is imperative that it is secured for the good of the entire world.  Do you not understand that?



The US being the entire world?







The US uses more than China, Japan and India put together, that's a population of 2.4 billion people or so. That's like 1/3 of the world. 

Good of the entire world my ass.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, it was definitely partly due to the oil.  It is imperative that it is secured for the good of the entire world.  Do you not understand that?
> ...



We ALL use oil.  Yes, without oil, the world and the economy would collapse, genius.  Good grief!!!  You can't be so dense as to think that the United States is the ONLY country to which oil is important!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> That's why I've suggested that we go in and take over the countries with the oil.  They are TOO unstable and retarded to run a country and they use the oil as a weapon.  They are like spoiled children, and the good of the rest of the world SHOULD take precedence over those savages.



Oh, and the US is the country that can run things well huh?

Hurricane Katrina. 
The post war period in Iraq
Afghanistan in general. 

Hell, the US can't even run itself let alone another country. Two parties who bicker more than they actually do anything, an education system the envy of anyone who absolutely no money, universities away from the govt actually have some prestige. Also a lot of people in the country don't trust the govt to run their own country. 

I'd rather NORWAY run these countries, and the US, they'd do a much better job.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> That's why I've suggested that we go in and take over the countries with the oil.  They are TOO unstable and retarded to run a country and they use the oil as a weapon.  They are like spoiled children, and the good of the rest of the world SHOULD take precedence over those savages.



chris------not a bad idea-------the good news is that the countries that seem to have lots-------are kinda hostile to
lots of people----------ISIS/IRAQ       SAUDI ARABIA------the them thar  EMIRATES   ---------the Saudis and the emirates make slaves out of HINDUS-------a nice potential   FIFTH COLUMN


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




But somehow the US seems to use more.

Germany uses oil. It didn't invade Iraq.
France uses oil. It didn't invade Iraq. 
South Africa uses oil. It didn't invade Iraq. 
the Ivory Coast uses oil. It didn't invade Iraq. 

Get the picture?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I've suggested that we go in and take over the countries with the oil.  They are TOO unstable and retarded to run a country and they use the oil as a weapon.  They are like spoiled children, and the good of the rest of the world SHOULD take precedence over those savages.
> ...



Well, Norway is TINY.  Lol!  Yes, I think the United States and pretty much ANY country that is not a part of the Middle East could do a MUCH better job at managing the oil and everything else!  Really, the people in the middle east are so caught up in their centuries old "battles" and their religious preoccupations and hating on everyone and blaming everyone, that they cannot function.  THAT much is obvious.  Something's got to give.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



yes----you have made it clear that the USA  did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of   OIL


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I've suggested that we go in and take over the countries with the oil.  They are TOO unstable and retarded to run a country and they use the oil as a weapon.  They are like spoiled children, and the good of the rest of the world SHOULD take precedence over those savages.
> ...



It would be a HUGE headache for any country that decided to action against the savages.  A HUGE splitting headache.  Lol!  I imagine that the terror attacks would increase ten-fold because the savages would be SO angry.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



That is because, unfortunately, we are the "sugar daddy" of the world.  They rely on the United States to make ALL the bold moves.  Also, we have the MOST powerful military might on EARTH.    That means a LOT.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



not really.       People is people----most want what is BEST FOR THEM-----ie ---if they see an advantage to themselves.     Only a few break into the terrorist mode under ANY circumstances-------that is why MOST muslims in the USA-----are simple doing their work and buying their groceries and doing the laundry-----even if they BELIEVE  in the   GLORIOUS GOLDEN CALIPHATE


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Well, Norway is TINY.  Lol!  Yes, I think the United States and pretty much ANY country that is not a part of the Middle East could do a MUCH better job at managing the oil and everything else!  Really, the people in the middle east are so caught up in their centuries old "battles" and their religious preoccupations and hating on everyone and blaming everyone, that they cannot function.  THAT much is obvious.  Something's got to give.



Yeah, tiny and efing rich. 

U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

$17,000,000,000,000 in debt.

US Debt Clock National Debt of United States

Citizen's share $56,197

Norway Debt Clock National Debt of Norway

$114,000,000,000

*"Comment:* NOTE The Norwegian central government is in a net asset position, i.e. the government’s total financial assets exceed the total deb"

The people in the middle are caught up in their age old battles, mainly because the west goes in every so often and messes things up, preventing stability and preventing any good from happening. Oh, we ignored that, didn't we?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> That is because, unfortunately, we are the "sugar daddy" of the world.  They rely on the United States to make ALL the bold moves.  Also, we have the MOST powerful military might on EARTH.    That means a LOT.



Yeah, they rely on the US to INVADE them. 

Yes, having the most powerful military in the world certainly does help when you want to take over anyone who doesn't agree with you and has oil. 

Though it didn't help in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Most military might doesn't mean the US can actually sort anything out.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> not really.       People is people----most want what is BEST FOR THEM-----ie ---if they see an advantage to themselves.     Only a few break into the terrorist mode under ANY circumstances-------that is why MOST muslims in the USA-----are simple doing their work and buying their groceries and doing the laundry-----even if they BELIEVE  in the   GLORIOUS GOLDEN CALIPHATE



As opposed to most Muslims in any other country who are....... getting on with their lives and doing their laundry. 

Oh, wait, isn't that the crap you're told by the US govt? No, they tell you all 1 billion Muslims are terrorists and figure that as they didn't bother teaching you math properly (money had to go finance some war, depending on how old you are) so that you won't figure out that it makes no sense.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> yes----you have made it clear that the USA  did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of   OIL




Oh really. Then why did the US put so many lives on the line then? Because the US is so cuddly and cute? Always does the nice thing? 

What is this, retard 101? "No, it's not for oil, it's for the teddy bears".


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > not really.       People is people----most want what is BEST FOR THEM-----ie ---if they see an advantage to themselves.     Only a few break into the terrorist mode under ANY circumstances-------that is why MOST muslims in the USA-----are simple doing their work and buying their groceries and doing the laundry-----even if they BELIEVE  in the   GLORIOUS GOLDEN CALIPHATE
> ...




I learned math very well-------broke  700 on the  SAT  ----and  aced calculus in college.      Did you pass high school geometry?         Someone told me that a billion muslims are terrorists?       who told me that?    I know lots of muslims who are not terrorists   -------but I have been in mosques where I was told that  
CHRISTIANS ARE THE ENEMEEEEEEES OF ISLAAAM------which---I guess---makes Christians the
terrorists


----------



## TooTall (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Afghanistan was invaded to stop bin Laden from mounting another attack on the US.  In order to do that, the Taliban that was protecting him had to be taken out of power.  Does 911 ring a bell?
> ...





frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Afghanistan was invaded to stop bin Laden from mounting another attack on the US.  In order to do that, the Taliban that was protecting him had to be taken out of power.  Does 911 ring a bell?
> ...



If I wanted to read any more of your BS I would merely go to the World Socialist site.  If you are suggesting that bin laden did not plan and execute the attack on 911, just say so.  Then you can start a movement to have Obama tried at the Hague for killing an innocent man.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)

Perhaps Liberals need THIS to be a video!


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



I agree with the gist of your post, but I still think there would be MUCH anger in the ME and lots of attacks because of it.  Why people would WANT to continue to live the way those people live is beyond what I can fathom.  Maybe because all I've ever known is life in the United States?  I don't know, but I cannot relate to those people and their thought processes at all.  I'm thinking that if I lived there, I would WELCOME the United States because I would then have more freedom (especially as a woman), running water, electricity, jobs . . .


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > That is because, unfortunately, we are the "sugar daddy" of the world.  They rely on the United States to make ALL the bold moves.  Also, we have the MOST powerful military might on EARTH.    That means a LOT.
> ...



Do you realize how people in Afghanistan and a lot of other ME countries live?  They don't really have it good.  Lol!  MOST of them would probably do MUCH better if the United States was to take over their countries.  

Anyway, that will NEVER happen because of many different reasons, only one being the wimps in our own country.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Norway is TINY.  Lol!  Yes, I think the United States and pretty much ANY country that is not a part of the Middle East could do a MUCH better job at managing the oil and everything else!  Really, the people in the middle east are so caught up in their centuries old "battles" and their religious preoccupations and hating on everyone and blaming everyone, that they cannot function.  THAT much is obvious.  Something's got to give.
> ...



You cannot compare our country with their country.  It's not reasonable.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > yes----you have made it clear that the USA  did not enter either Afghanistan or Iraq for the sake of   OIL
> ...



It was for a VARIETY of reasons.  Why is it that you think there is only ONE reason why we went over there?


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



I don't think it was only ONE reason.    We certainly do not
continue a war in Afghanistan ONLY BECAUSE OF BIN LADEN


----------



## Roudy (Oct 9, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



No he should send in some special forces that he so stupidly removed entirely, which created the rise of ISIS.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

TooTall said:


> If I wanted to read any more of your BS I would merely go to the World Socialist site.  If you are suggesting that bin laden did not plan and execute the attack on 911, just say so.  Then you can start a movement to have Obama tried at the Hague for killing an innocent man.



Did I say that? No, I didn't. 

Why don't you try reading what I wrote and don't make up stuff claiming I said things I didn't say.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



I didn't say it was only for one reason? However oil is a BIG BIG reason for the US.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Do you realize how people in Afghanistan and a lot of other ME countries live?  They don't really have it good.  Lol!  MOST of them would probably do MUCH better if the United States was to take over their countries.
> 
> Anyway, that will NEVER happen because of many different reasons, only one being the wimps in our own country.



Oh, I've been there, and I've seen how things work there. 

Would they be better off in the US? Maybe. 

Would they better of if the US left their country alone? Probably that too. 

There are plenty of better possibilities than the shit that goes on in that region, all I can say is the US doesn't help in the region. Nor does Israel. Nor does Hamas. Nor does ISIS, nor do a lot of people. 

The wimps? Well it won't get better with the bullies either.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Yes-----Olive oil is such a BIGGIE now----- in accordance with Islamic custom -----it must be 
    *****VIRGIN******         I am covering my olive
    oil cans with burkahs,        I remember when
    VEGETABLE OIL----some kind of mixed and
    mingled brew-----was   OK


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Would it be possible to start your reply with either "complete nonsense" or "i actually have a point to make" so I can avoid wasting time?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Yeah, and?  It's a perfectly GOOD reason.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 9, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize how people in Afghanistan and a lot of other ME countries live?  They don't really have it good.  Lol!  MOST of them would probably do MUCH better if the United States was to take over their countries.
> ...



They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them.  They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent.  Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people.  It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people.  I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 10, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



And then we suffer the consequences for this. 

You want to be all arrogant about this, then get annoyed that ISIS appears and BLAME OBAMA for the whole thing. 

The point being that the US's quest for oil has led to ISIS. It's led to a destabilization of the Middle East, which not Americans are complaining it's backwards, hardly difficult to understand when the US destabilizes it on a constant basis. 

It's all about joined up thinking.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 10, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them.  They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent.  Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people.  It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people.  I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.



Have you ever been to a country where the UN runs things? I have, quite a few actually. I was in UN controlled Kosovo before it became independent of Serbia, and various African countries, where the UN doesn't necessarily run things, but they do seem to spend a lot of money on themselves. Everyone has to have a nice 4x4, nice UN building and the workers (even volunteers) earn way too much money for there to be money left for anything else.

I wouldn't want the UN running things.

The simple fact is, people need to run their own countries, and would probably do a better job if the west wasn't interfering the whole time and bombing, invading, changing leaders and so on.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 10, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Where did I mention Obama?    I don't make any policies.  I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you.  Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING.  Get a grip.  The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 10, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Where did I mention Obama?    I don't make any policies.  I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you.  Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING.  Get a grip.  The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.



I'm just using the common line on this forum, in the US in general for the right to blame Obama. 

However I disagree with you about whether the Middle East would be a mess without the US there or not. 

There are lots of problems, but the US, and the British, make things worse. Stability when the US has taken down leaders in Iran, Iraq, Libya claiming a need for democracy yet supports totally non-democratic leaders too. It ferments a sense of anger among the people who are then more malleable for the extremists.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 10, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them.  They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent.  Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people.  It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people.  I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.
> ...



Some CANNOT do it, obviously, and they control a large portion of our oil supply, so unless you are willing to let everyone ELSE in the world suffer for the sake of these savages . . .


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 10, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Where did I mention Obama?    I don't make any policies.  I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you.  Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING.  Get a grip.  The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.
> ...



Are you kidding?  All of those countries are terrorist breeding grounds, have been for a LONG time.  They were fighting one another LONG before we ever went over there.  They are just ANGRY people period.  Stop making excuses for their behavior!!!


----------



## TooTall (Oct 10, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Where did I mention Obama?    I don't make any policies.  I'm simply giving my opinions on a political forum, as are you.  Your opinions hold no more weight than mine, which equal pretty much NOTHING.  Get a grip.  The Middle East would be a mess whether we went there or not.
> ...



Carter was responsible for the Shah of Iran being ousted and Obama was responsible for Libya.  You left out Egypt and can thank Obama for that as well.  Iraq was Bush, and as I recall, there were a lot of purple fingers when the people of Iraq actually elected their government.  Maliki left a lot to be desired, but he was not a dictator.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 10, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




Even I do not blame  the fact of the  AYATOILET  grab for power on Carter----he simply mishandled things---badly.
As for ISIS-----sorry   TOO TALL----that was inevitable---
its been cooking in the depraved minds of muslims for
centuries.     Obama did not do it-----he is doing the best he can------he may not be entirely up to the job-----
SHEEEEESH!!!!!!!

a big problem brewing right now-----is going on in south east asia------the fact of a  "CALIPHATE"    in Iraq----is
INEVITABLY  going to excite  the  islamo Nazi scum over there to -------LETS GET ONE TOO-------the delusionary  
MOGHUL EMPIRE is on the minds ----right now of islamo scum in Kashmir


----------



## TooTall (Oct 10, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



"the  AYATOILET"  Good one, thanks for the chuckle, or was it a typo?  It happened on Carter's watch while he refused to support the Shah.

IF Obama had used his power wisely and left some Special Ops people in Iraq, ISIS would have been confined to Syria.  Our guys could have called in air strikes and kept the Iraq army from running away.  Now it is out of control, and I do blame Obama.  We need a leader in the White House, not a fund raising politician.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 10, 2014)

TooTall said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



no doubt----Obana and Carter are and were-----overwhelmed.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 10, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Thanks! I'm in good company then?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 10, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > They would probably be better off if the UN or something ran their countries for them.  They have shown time and time again that they are incapable and incompetent.  Of course, now with Iraq, everyone is like "oh, look what's happening," but things were NOT any better under Saddam for a LOT of people.  It is estimated that he killed MILLIONS of his own people.  I think I've read it was something like 20 MILLION people.
> ...


Seems like you didn't learn anything.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 10, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


What have you learned from the US invasions/occupations of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Hossfly?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


That's classified information and you don't have the clearance to know. Sorry.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 10, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


*"(S)hall we put an end to the human race or shall mankind renounce war?" *
"After learning of the bombing of Hiroshima and seeing an impending nuclear arms race,Joseph Rotblat, the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project on moral grounds, remarked that he 'became worried about the whole future of mankind'.

"Over the years that followed Russell and Rotblat worked on efforts to curb nuclear proliferation, collaborating with Albert Einstein and other scientists to compose what became known as the *Russell–Einstein Manifesto*."
Russell Einstein Manifesto - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 11, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> Seems like you didn't learn anything.



Uh hu?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I've learned that you cannot allow "politics" to run a war, and that if you aren't willing to go balls to the wall, then you have NO business going to war.  I think if we are going to declare war and go to war with another country, we should be ready and willing for utter destruction of that country.  There should be no "holding back" when you are trying to win a war.  THAT is what the United States does though.  

Joe Scarborough Obama 8217 s 8216 We don 8217 t have a strategy 8217 remark comes from 8216 The Art of War 8217 Douglas Ernst




> Here is  an excerpt from “The Art of War”:
> 
> “Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don’t let the enemy figure out how to prepare. This is why it is said that in military operations formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, ‘The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown,” (Meng Shi).
> 
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 11, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


*From your link:*
"If Joe Scarborough was joking about the president’s 'We don’t have a strategy' remark, then he should stop because Islamic State isn’t a laughing matter. 

"If he was serious and he really believes the president knows exactly what he’s doing, then the MSNBC host should explain how Libya’s fall to Islamic radicals, Iraq’s implosion, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the the invasion of eastern Ukraine (the president still calls it an 'incursion') all fit into Mr. Obama’s master plan."
*FWIW, I believe Obama's "master plan" was the same one followed by all of his recent predecessors, namely the one Wesley Clark revealed to the world in March of 2003:*
"In Clark's book, _Winning Modern Wars_, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. 

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with *Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran*."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
*Ukraine is simply a bonus for those who get rich from wars that other people fight and die in.*


----------



## TooTall (Oct 11, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > If I wanted to read any more of your BS I would merely go to the World Socialist site.  If you are suggesting that bin laden did not plan and execute the attack on 911, just say so.  Then you can start a movement to have Obama tried at the Hague for killing an innocent man.
> ...



Learn to read. I didn't say you SAID it, only that is the impression you leave with you socialist drivel.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Did you read the last paragraph too?  I don't see how this negates my claims.  I watched a documentary that had several historical as well as military experts who were discussing just this issue.  They noted that since after WWII, the US has forgotten about Sun Tzu's ingenious military strategies, and since then we've suffered for it.


----------



## Exsas (Oct 11, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning
> 
> From HuffPost:
> ...


Cowards why is America standing by while this is going on, or are u waiting for us the Brits to start it then join when it's nearly over


----------



## Exsas (Oct 11, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad O has our back.
> ...


Fukin nuke the bastards before this gets out of hand


----------



## Exsas (Oct 11, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning*
> *ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning
> 
> From HuffPost:
> ...


Send in proper soldiers like the sas


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 11, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Only I'm not a socialist. So what is your point?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 11, 2014)

Exsas said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



Why does the US care what happens half way around the world? I don't hear you talking about nuking those in the DRC.


----------



## TooTall (Oct 11, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I didn't say you were a socialist, merely that your posts reflect what I can read on the World Socialist website.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 11, 2014)

TooTall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



You mean, you don't agree? Well, if you'd prefer to say why you don't agree and make it a debate instead of a half hearted attempted at an insult, it might go better.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 11, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Well some were to stop the spread of communism, and now it's to stop the spread of Islam.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


We'll blame people like you, George. For being narrowminded. The US has allies. the US belongs to organizations such an the UN, NATO, SEATO and other affiliations. When our Allies become attacked or threatened, the US goes to their aid. What would you have us do, Commie Pinko?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 11, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Kill fewer women and children, Silver Star


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 11, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 11, 2014)

You know, I keep hearing people talk about "moderate" Muslims.  What is a moderate Muslim.  As I see it, Islam is a violent religion.  The Koran (as well as the Bible) have calls for violent acts against people who don't convert, or who use Muhammed, Jesus' or whomever "god's" name in vain, etc.  

I would think that those who do not follow the words of their holy books would not really be considered a practitioner of said religion.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.



Based on the US's history of messing everything up, it's far more likely ISIS just developed out of a situation the US didn't understand. It has it's convenient points for any US administration interested in keeping the people down though.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> You know, I keep hearing people talk about "moderate" Muslims.  What is a moderate Muslim.  As I see it, Islam is a violent religion.  The Koran (as well as the Bible) have calls for violent acts against people who don't convert, or who use Muhammed, Jesus' or whomever "god's" name in vain, etc.
> 
> I would think that those who do not follow the words of their holy books would not really be considered a practitioner of said religion.



As you see it isn't how it is. 

You've been fed a load of rubbish for the last 13 years, sorry. 

Islam manages to be quite peaceful in many areas of the world. Most of the problems appear when Muslims are being stamped on by large govt boots.

In Serbia they wanted Kosovo to be Muslimless. So the Serbs attempted ethnic cleansing/genocide there.
In Chechnya they wanted independence from a Christian country in Russia, just like plenty of other countries had gained. They got pounded.
In XinJiang in the west of China they wanted their own country and not the crazy nut job Mao or the Communists after this. They're getting pounded on right now. You can see women walking around in military style clothing and sticks, they're Han Chinese intimidating the Muslims who will probably only be the majority in the region for a few more years until the govt in Beijing has managed to get enough Han into the region. 

I could go on and on and on.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.



Which suits the right perfectly. More war, more weapons, more spending on the military, more chances to be tough on terrorism, more chances to pacify the US people and get what the right wants.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I keep hearing people talk about "moderate" Muslims.  What is a moderate Muslim.  As I see it, Islam is a violent religion.  The Koran (as well as the Bible) have calls for violent acts against people who don't convert, or who use Muhammed, Jesus' or whomever "god's" name in vain, etc.
> ...



Sorry, but I see most areas in the world where there is a concentrated population of Muslims to have issues with violence and other things.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.
> ...



Oh, so now you are trying to make this a right versus left thread?  Plenty of people on the left would like to wipe out terrorism too.  THOSE are the people who are preventing there being any kind of peace in the world.  They are the people you should be angry with.  It isn't just the US that they start trouble with.  They start trouble with EVERYONE.  Open your eyes!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Sorry, but I see most areas in the world where there is a concentrated population of Muslims to have issues with violence and other things.



Oh, and clearly you seeing something and then making a decision based ONLY on seeing something, without perhaps looking everywhere, that this is then the plain truth?

I don't think so. 

Maybe when you've looked at the history, the issues, and all of the places where Muslims live, then maybe you will have a judgement that is closer to the reality.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Nope, I'm not.

However I do know that the right, far more than the left, likes to be "tough on...." things. Tough on crime. Tough on terror. It's how they present themselves, it's an easy way for people to associate themselves with a party on the right.

To be tough on stuff it's easier when you make something to be tough on.

Look at what Bush did. It's not much different to internal policies with crime, for example Louisiana making prisons a business then making sure there's enough crime for them to make money from more than enough prisoners. 

This isn't about "wiping out terrorism". Terrorism exists, in most cases, because the people have been treated badly enough for them to have the need, desire or some other such thing to risk their life to do this. 

You don't wipe out terrorism by invading countries, making power vacuums, disbanding the local army and police etc. You CREATE terrorism, which is exactly what Bush did. Why does he and his party need terrorism? 

You tell me, it's not that difficult. 

Do they start trouble? Or did trouble start with them. You made the claim, back it up. You find where Muslims started trouble. I'm not saying they didn't, I'm saying in many cases they didn't start it, it started with them.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I see most areas in the world where there is a concentrated population of Muslims to have issues with violence and other things.
> ...



Uh, yes.  When I see something, I make a decision based upon that.  I watch the world news and I also read articles online.  There are terrorist attacks (by Islamic terrorists) everywhere in the world every day.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Lol!  Yeah!  It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists!  Gee whiz.  You seem to be truly delusional.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Uh, yes.  When I see something, I make a decision based upon that.  I watch the world news and I also read articles online.  There are terrorist attacks (by Islamic terrorists) everywhere in the world every day.



There are. Does that mean they started it? I'm sorry I don't see the link there. 

You do something therefore you started it. Isn't this what we're talking about? Starting it? Not bombing now, but what happened in the beginning to make it start.


Answer this, let's take Iraq and make Iraq the US.

So, the Canadians made the USA and gave the US a king from Cuba. They formed this out of threes different peoples who really didn't want to live in the same country.
The US people thought, sod this, and got rid of the king because he was just a puppet and they put in their own president.

Then Mexico decides that the president of the US really isn't a great president. So they invade, get rid of the police and army and basically the power vacuum is taken up by American rebels who are fighting the Mexican invader. But Mexico also invaded Columbia and some of the Columbian rebels are helping out in the US too. 

Then the Mexicans complain that the US are just a bunch of terrorists and they started this whole thing.

What would you say to that? You'd say you didn't start it, right?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Lol!  Yeah!  It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists!  Gee whiz.  You seem to be truly delusional.



I didn't say it was all the right's fault. I said a lot of it was the right's fault. However there's a lot of history to on here too.

Bush came in to the scene in 2001. What he did, what his party did, was to cause far more terrorism than otherwise would have existed. 

Invading Iraq was a masterstroke for the HR department of Islamic extremism.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.
> ...


*The right values privacy at least as much as the left, and it's clear  "eternal war" requires massive state surveillance of all its citizens.

Ralph Nader gets this part, too:
*
"Say what you will about Ralph Nader — and most of you probably have — the man is tireless and persistent.

"Now 80, Nader has a new book with the triumphant title of “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.” 

"And even if you’re not convinced that alliance is emerging, let alone unstoppable, Nader beats on, a relentless, articulate and sometimes very lonely critic of big business, media mediocrity and politicians who put corporate interests ahead of the public interest."

Ralph Nader 8220 The left is seized by fear and the right is driven by brass 8221 - Salon.com


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, yes.  When I see something, I make a decision based upon that.  I watch the world news and I also read articles online.  There are terrorist attacks (by Islamic terrorists) everywhere in the world every day.
> ...



Our country doesn't commit atrocities against it's own citizens.  You cannot compare the US to any of those savages.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Lol!  Yeah!  It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists!  Gee whiz.  You seem to be truly delusional.
> ...



Saddam Hussein had been a thorn in the side of the WORLD for a very long time.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Our country doesn't commit atrocities against it's own citizens.  You cannot compare the US to any of those savages.



Yeah, the US has never had slavery, has never committed genocide against the Native American peoples. It doesn't execute innocent people and doesn't destroy the very land they're on to get at oil or gas and wouldn't deny people rights based on how they were born. 

No, the US would never do any of those things. 

But, sarcasm aside, treating others completely differently to US citizens just because they sit on top of oil, well, I'd say it kind of does make the US look like a bunch of savages. Just ones that have just enough intelligence to justify their savagery.

Back in the day, cowboys 'n' injuns and all that, the US citizens managed to justify their genocide. Trail of tears, destroying the buffalo, just hacking native american women and children to death, among many, MANY acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing committed from people like George Washington well into last century, and I could even argue it's still happening now.

But hey, go ahead and justify your savagery. I know you want to.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



The world? Or just Israel, Iran, Kuwait and a few other neighbors?

The US on the other hand, well, they really have been a thorn in the side of the world for a very long time.

Russia, Korea, China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, I don't even think I can list most of the African nations, Iraq, Iraq, oh, should I continue?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Lol!  Look at those countries you mentioned.    ROFL.  Please do continue.  Please.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

Saddam Hussein was an evil man who killed more than 20,000,000 Iraqis.

Edit:  Oops, there I go, using the word "evil."  I should have said a "sick" man.  A very, very, very sick, sick, sick man.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Lol!  Yeah!  It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists!  Gee whiz.  You seem to be truly delusional.
> ...


Bush merely was the one who finally put his foot down and said "Enough is enough." If his actions angered and inflamed the terrorists then so be it. In other words, the world has had enough of Islam and it's penchant for causing people to have ten thousand different intrepetations of why each bearded insane maniac thinks it's his duty to force their evil devil worship on everyone else in the world. This is not the end but the end of the beginning, as someone said. Live with it.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.
> ...


*I think it's a huge mistake to believe the chaos we see today across the Middle East comes from "messing up" or a "misunderstanding" on the part of some of the best educated people on the planet; what we are seeing today in Syria and Iraq has been planned since the mid 1980s, at least:*
"In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of
the Jewish State stretches: 'From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.'

"Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N.
Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: 'The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up
to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon...'"

*In the mid-'80s one of the most prominent Jewish intellectual put forth a plan to ensure the survival of Israel by breaking up neighboring Arab states in much the same way we are seeing today:*

"The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the
Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently.

"Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track.

"The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is
Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power
of those states serves as the primary short term target.

*"Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its 
ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a 
Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus 
hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and 
certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. *

"This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and
security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.pdf

*The architects of the Long War are ethical imbeciles, willing to murder millions of innocent human beings in order to maintain their lifestyles, but it's a huge mistake to think they are incompetent.*


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Our country doesn't commit atrocities against it's own citizens.  You cannot compare the US to any of those savages.
> ...


Any particular reason you hate America so much? Did you run for Congress and lose? Tch tch.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Hmm.  This sounds suspiciously like a "conspiracy theory" and those that you yourself would laugh at the right for because I could post some "conspiracy theories" about Islam and plans to take over as well.  Lol.  

Even if this were true, I would support Israel.  I trust them MUCH more than I trust any of those Arab nations.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


*Do you notice any conspiracy in Wesley Clark's 2003 revelation about conversations he had in the Pentagon within weeks of 911?*
"In Clark's book, _Winning Modern Wars_, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat.' 

"'Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with *Iraq*, then *Syria*, Lebanon, *Libya*, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Hardly surprising. Everyone knows the right want to attack Iran.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Tell us why you worship America?
Still confusing freedom and war?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


War brings and maintains freedom, America-hater.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Iran and Russia occupy the innermost rings on most neocon targets, but "liberals" like Clinton and Obama are just as committed to the Long War as conservatives like Bush and Romney.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> Any particular reason you hate America so much? Did you run for Congress and lose? Tch tch.



Who said I hate America? Oh, you did. Not me. 

Actually, I hate the US govt. I hate it when Democrats are in, I hate it when Republicans are in. There's not much difference and everyone seems to end up worse off all the time.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> War brings and maintains freedom, America-hater.



War = passive people
Passive people = draconian laws
Draconian laws = rich people happy
Rich people happy = freedom

Something like that?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Remember when Bush said it would be a long war? You and your den mates can't fast forward it, Champ.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Iran and Russia occupy the innermost rings on most neocon targets, but "liberals" like Clinton and Obama are just as committed to the Long War as conservatives like Bush and Romney.



I disagree. 

I think Obama has just be reacting to events that are generally out of his control. Had he been president in 2001, there wouldn't have been a war with Iraq, there wouldn't have been ISIS, there wouldn't have been uprisings in Egypt, Syria (potentially, these are a bit harder to pin down).


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > War brings and maintains freedom, America-hater.
> ...


That's jabberwocky, Wierdo.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


War is slavery, Killer; that's why you signed away your Constitutional rights when you enlisted.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Iran and Russia occupy the innermost rings on most neocon targets, but "liberals" like Clinton and Obama are just as committed to the Long War as conservatives like Bush and Romney.
> ...


I agree 100%. Obungle would have caved in to the Taliban. His Muslim brothers.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Damn pleasant slavery, Genius. Sign me up.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




Perhaps some have been planning this, and trying to make it work, doesn't mean all have. This is often what happens is a collision of interests and when enough, with enough money, collide, things like this happen.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Who's talking the Taliban? Oh you are. 

I wasn't. So... why are you replying to something that is nothing to do with what I wrote?


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


You and George could be Ambassadors. To Monaco.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Yeah, it is, Bubbles.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Which one of these is Afghanistan?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Obungle (as Barry Soetoro) may have done as much to create the Taliban as your hero, Reagan.

Rhymes with rich, remember?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Before or after you cure Ebola?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


How long would the war last if all its profits were subjected to a 100% Death Tax after the first innocent civilian dies?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I wouldn't say that I "worship" America, but I love America because it is the land of the free and the home of the brave!  You don't love your country and want it to be the best in the world?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


I just heard a radio conversation in which a former Catholic priest said those who love their country are committing
"i·dol·a·try
īˈdälətrē/
_noun_

worship of idols.

synonyms:idolization, fetishization, fetishism, idol worship, adulation, adoration,reverence, veneration, glorification, lionization, hero-worshiping
"the prophets railed against idolatry"
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone.


Google


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Why should I care?  I'm not Catholic.  Lol.    I think that having pride in your country and love for your country makes your country better.  Don't you?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I think there are universal standards of morality that states regularly violate, and many of us excuse some of the resulting crimes because of an accident of birth. For example, would you have the same love for the US if you had been born in Iraq or Afghanistan? As far as improving your country is concerned, I think love is blind.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Now we know why you would be a piss poor soldier, George. No allegiance, no loyalty. no backbone.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Do you understand how allegiance and loyalty and physical courage become negative qualities when pledged to the Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World? I suspect we both choose our side of this issue decades ago and our opinions aren't likely to change at this point; you believe the Rich are worth killing and dying for, and I think you're a slave.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


I lay awake at night worrying about what you think, Slug.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yes, but that has nothing to do with loving your country and everything it stands for.  Is there someplace you wished you would have rather been born besides the United States?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


I thought it might be the Agent Orange, SS


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


*No, there is no place I would rather be than here; the American Revolution offered humanity a chance at freedom that only Haiti's slave rebellion can rival. 

"Unfortunately, the bankers took control of both revolutions, and, today, both governments serve their richest citizens at the expense of their majorities. 

"Hopefully, the internet will open enough eyes in the US to reinvigorate our struggle:*

"In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. 

"A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! 

"Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

—Thomas Paine[12
Common Sense pamphlet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Honestly, if we were going to war for the reasons you state, then we would be making out well on it, but we do not.  The oil does not belong to us.  The United States still has to purchase oil, so that is not the reason.  As far as I can tell, we make only sacrifices, and the sacrifices would be much bigger than any benefit we, as a country, could possibly get.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Some of us are making a great deal of money from the Long War; big players in arms sales, oil sales, and the laundering of illegal drug profits are literally making a killing in the Middle East. Naturally, some of the profits trickle down to the Shareholder Class and middle-class Americans working for defense and energy contractors. I believe it's only a matter of time before the real killing blows back on the US homeland, and then we'll watch what's left of our civil rights disappear.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



That is still not worth the COSTS of war that we all pay.  I'm not buying your conspiracy theory.    I do believe that oil was a reason, but more for world economic security reasons than to line any individuals pockets, but I also believe there were other reasons.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


The first act will be to take away all the grift the freeloaders and deadbeats receive. Then maybe they'll get a job and learn to be taxpayers. Nah, thats a pipe dream.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


*If there is a Conspiracy, its controlled by bankers, and they are serious about world dominion:*
"One distinctive feature of Quigley's historical writings was his assertion that secret societies have played a significant role in recent world history. His writing on this topic has made Quigley famous among many who investigate conspiracy theories.[2]:96, 98 Quigley's views are particularly notable because the majority of reputable academic historians profess skepticism about conspiracy theories."
Carroll Quigley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




Lol!  Are you sure it isn't the Illuminati!!!!????


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Like those about bringing peace. freedom, and prosperity to the people of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq,and Syria?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


*Be careful what you wish for:*
"In his book _The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden_,[19] Quigley purports to trace the history of a secret society founded in 1891 by Cecil Rhodes andAlfred Milner. 

"Quigley notes that 'The organization was so modified and so expanded by Milner after the eclipse of Stead in 1899, and especially after the death of Rhodes in 1902, that it took on quite a different organization and character, although it continued to pursue the same goals.'[20]

"The society consisted of an inner circle ('The Society of the Elect') and an outer circle ('The Association of Helpers', also known as The Milner Kindergarten and the Round Table Group).[21] 

"The society as a whole does not have a fixed name..."
Carroll Quigley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I think that our politicians are crooks and that they do occasionally conspire together, but I don't believe there is some huge conspiracy as you claim.  That is would require MUCH evidence.    Also, I think that evidence of such would have been gathered by now if these societies have existed since the 1800s.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


"'Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.' Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild."

*If Quiqley is correct, private bankers control the world's politicians. Bill Clinton apparently bought into the plan, and there's no reason to believe his wife will disappoint rich capitalists either.
*
"'The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, *mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system*, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.' The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863."

Famous Quotations on Banking


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 13, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> Now we know why you would be a piss poor soldier, George. No allegiance, no loyalty. no backbone.



No willingness to take a bad order from an incompetent higher command chain in order to get yourself killed for a cause that has nothing to do with you, and only gets the rich richer.

You're not a patriot George, patriots will die so their masters get more money.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 13, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Now we know why you would be a piss poor soldier, George. No allegiance, no loyalty. no backbone.
> ...


Idiotic drivel.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 13, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


What threat level did the people of Vietnam pose to your homeland, Hossie?
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 13, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Irrelevant drivel


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 13, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Not to your victims.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 14, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Yeah, willingness to go fight for a dumbass cause is a good thing? 

Willingness to go fight so some rich people can get richer is a good thing?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 14, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You know, it's funny that you keep insisting that we only go to war so that rich people can get richer.  That is silly and paranoid.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


He spends a lot of time listening to georgephillip about the Rockefellers and other rich cats.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> You know, it's funny that you keep insisting that we only go to war so that rich people can get richer.  That is silly and paranoid.



Is it? 

Who decides who goes to war and why do they decide this?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 15, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > You know, it's funny that you keep insisting that we only go to war so that rich people can get richer.  That is silly and paranoid.
> ...



Yes, it is silly beyond belief.  CONGRESS decides if we go to war.  They have the final word.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Oct 15, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> He spends a lot of time listening to georgephillip about the Rockefellers and other rich cats.


 

 Well, he has to have SOMETHING to do while he waits for his first chin whiskers to appear.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 15, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


*Like your pal, Henry?
The Kissinger Telephone Conversation Transcripts*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Yes, it is silly beyond belief.  CONGRESS decides if we go to war.  They have the final word.



Actually no. War can often be started by the President who has a certain number of days to do what he likes before he has to consult with Congress who control the purse strings.

Also, Bush could say, tell the CIA to go cook up some information, come back, convince Congress and then go to war, ie, what happened.

Also, this isn't the point. Congressmen and Presidents seem quite prone to being bought by big money. Who decides to put pressure and money on Congress and the President?


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


*Since the end of WWII, international law has made formal declarations of war highly unlikely since there are only two legitimate excuses for one state to declare war on another.*
"For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II. 

"One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal lawof _jus cogens_. 

"It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945."
War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...





Unless you're just proud of being stupid.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 15, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


*Patriotism has made a lot of smart people look stupid over the centuries:*
"*Patriotism* is, generally speaking, cultural attachment to one's homeland or devotion to one's country, although interpretations of the term vary with context, geography and political ideology. It is a set of concepts closely related to those of nationalism."
patriotism - Google Search


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 15, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is silly beyond belief.  CONGRESS decides if we go to war.  They have the final word.
> ...



That is not true.  They are not supposed to be able to declare war without the approval of Congress.  Bush had Congress approval to go to war with Iraq.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 15, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



So, you think being proud of your country is "stupid."  Well, that explains a lot.    Seriously, you should go live in another country and then you would be grateful to be an American.  You seem like an entitled little brat.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 15, 2014)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > He spends a lot of time listening to georgephillip about the Rockefellers and other rich cats.
> ...



He must have lots of time on his hands then.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> He must have lots of time on his hands then.




Makes up for what he doesn't have IN his hands.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 15, 2014)

Dogmaphobe said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > He must have lots of time on his hands then.
> ...


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 15, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Georgie, if you ain't a patriotic veteran it's best if you raus your narrow butt out of this thread.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 15, 2014)

Hossfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


Why's that, Hossie?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




That depends, what specifically are you proud of? Are you proud of our education system?  Are you proud that we rank # 1 in incarceration? See, it all depends.


----------



## Hossfly (Oct 15, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Don't want to see you get embarrased George.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 15, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Freedom, liberty, democracy.  Look what you are doing now, you can discuss the government freely on the internet without having to worry about retribution!  This is not the case in some other countries.  Look how FAR our country has come in such a relatively short time compared to other countries.  Our people are great and so is our landscape!  Our country is beautiful, free (for the most part) and great.  I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.


----------



## georgephillip (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Do you think the US has become less free since 9/11?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 15, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...





I can't argue with that, but I do think we can do much better.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> *Patriotism has made a lot of smart people look stupid over the centuries:*
> "*Patriotism* is, generally speaking, cultural attachment to one's homeland or devotion to one's country, although interpretations of the term vary with context, geography and political ideology. It is a set of concepts closely related to those of nationalism."
> patriotism - Google Search



Patriotism is often used by the right for their own means.

Look at the present. People say Obama aided and abetted the US's enemies, ie, Muslims in Egypt. 

The US has traditionally given money to the Egyptian govt, Mubarak was pro-US, but the US invasion of Iraq and the consequences thereof, caused the Arab Spring which led to Mubarak being taken down. The US claimed support for democracy in the region, and in Egypt. 

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood won the election and the right, who claim to love democracy, say they are the enemy of the US, and anyone who supports them (especially democrats) is treasonous and not patriotic is ridiculous.

The right seem to claim that patriotism is doing what they want. They use wars because they know they can pump patriotism for everything it's worth. 

But, they're just wrong on their definition of patriotism. Patriots can want change in their country.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 16, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Patriotism has made a lot of smart people look stupid over the centuries:*
> ...



*"The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood won the election and the right, who claim to love democracy, say they are the enemy of the US, and anyone who supports them (especially democrats) is treasonous and not patriotic is ridiculous."
*
You support the Muslim Brotherhood?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Democracy huh? Presidents elected by electors, the Senate elected by state votes, not based on democratic principles, the House is being gerrymandered up so badly it's not true. 

Then it makes no difference anyway, the amount of money involved means congressmen are following the money, not principles, because principles can't compete with money. 

Democracy isn't helping a coup d'etat against democratically elected leaders, like Hugo Chavez. It's not denouncing the Muslim Brotherhood for being democratically elected. 

The US doesn't give a damn about democracy. 

Freedom huh? Freedom to do what you like as long as it's also what the US likes. Freedom to pump oil out, but not the freedom to limit oil supplies which pushes up prices because this isn't in the interests of the US govt.

Give me a break. 

I'm going to quote Nick Griffin, formerly leader of the BNP in the UK. Basically a far right fascist. 


"There's a difference between setting out your ideas and selling your ideas and the British National Party isn't about setting out its ideas, which are **** ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, but that means basically to use the same old words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy, nobody can criticise them, nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas, they are saleable."


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> *"The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood won the election and the right, who claim to love democracy, say they are the enemy of the US, and anyone who supports them (especially democrats) is treasonous and not patriotic is ridiculous."
> *
> You support the Muslim Brotherhood?



Nope. I don't support many political parties who are in power. Why should I support them because they're in power? Should I support Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter? 
Should I support Merkel, Cameron, Rajoy and others who have been democratically elected to a certain extent?


----------

