# Suicide Bomb Teams Sent to U.S.



## red states rule (Jun 19, 2007)

ABC News last night reported over 300 suicide bombers have been sent to attack the US, Germany, and Canada



Exclusive: Suicide Bomb Teams Sent to U.S., Europe
June 18, 2007 4:45 PM

Brian Ross Reports:

Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.  

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/exclusive_suici.html


----------



## onedomino (Jun 19, 2007)

Who knows if this is true, or whether it is Al Qaeda propaganda. Regardless, it is a relief to know that border security in the US is so tight they'll never get through. That is, unless they walk, drive, fly, or swim.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 19, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Who knows if this is true, or whether it is Al Qaeda propaganda. Regardless, it is a relief to know that border security in the US is so tight they'll never get through. That is, unless they walk, drive, fly, or swim.



If the suicide bombers make it here, and actually carry out their plot - will the left blame the terrorists or Pres Bush?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 20, 2007)

onedomino said:


> Who knows if this is true, or whether it is Al Qaeda propaganda. Regardless, it is a relief to know that border security in the US is so tight they'll never get through. That is, unless they walk, drive, fly, or swim.



Media Ignore Report on Al Qaeda Suicide Bombers Heading to America
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 19, 2007 - 21:51. 

ABCs Brian Ross broke an exclusive story Monday, first at his blog The Blotter, and then on World News with Charles Gibson, concerning teams of well-trained al Qaeda suicide bombers supposedly heading to the United States and Europe. 

This report included video-clips of a Taliban graduation ceremony (video available here), with still-pictures of the event available here. 

Yet, despite the seriousness of this report, LexisNexis and Google News searches identified few media outlets covered the story.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13587


----------



## T-Bor (Jun 20, 2007)

Hopefully you will be standing right next to him when the bomb goes off RSR. One can only pray.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2007)

T-Bor said:


> Hopefully you will be standing right next to him when the bomb goes off RSR. One can only pray.



Truly a sick thing to write.


----------



## maineman (Jun 20, 2007)

one can only wonder what would have been different if Bush had concentrated on our real enemies in the hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan in 2003 instead of rushing off to invade Iraq, a secular nation that posed little to no threat to us _vis a vis _Islamic extremists.


----------



## mattskramer (Jun 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If the suicide bombers make it here, and actually carry out their plot - will the left blame the terrorists or Pres Bush?



How long has bush been in office?  If the suicide bombers make it here, and actually carry out their plot - will right blame the terrorists or the Clintons?


----------



## hjmick (Jun 20, 2007)

I for one will be blaming the homicide bombers, the people we have working our borders who let them in, a Congress that continues to dick around about our border safety and illegal immigration, and a President who has completely dropped the ball on the border and immigration issues for the sake of a legacy he has completely augered into the ground with a idiotically mismanaged war and failure to achieve his goals (specifically, the capture of Osama bin Laden).


----------



## onedomino (Jun 20, 2007)

T-Bor said:


> Hopefully you will be standing right next to him when the bomb goes off RSR. One can only pray.


Only a sick _coward_ would hide behind the anonymity of a net keyboard and write such a thing.


----------



## uscitizen (Jun 20, 2007)

I guess you missed the official govt rebuttal of this story of the mad bombers coming.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Jun 20, 2007)

red states rule said:


> ABC News last night reported over 300 suicide bombers have been sent to attack the US, Germany, and Canada
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Golly, who's been sitting in the Oval Office since 9/11? George Bush. And who's been in control of Congress from 9/11 until 11/06, and still manage to gum up the works with their bullshit? The Republicans. So, as with any dysfunctional family, the head of the household (Chimpy McPresident) was enabled by his dysfunctional family (GOP controlled Congress). And we are all strapped into the back seat as Chimpy sends the car of state careening from one horrible accident to another, praying he'll stop before he gets us all killed.


----------



## jillian (Jun 20, 2007)

So glad to see that we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.


----------



## Psychoblues (Jun 21, 2007)

Spreading terror and rumors of terror are purely a cowards game.  What level are we on today?  Red, yellow or orange?  I suspect yellow.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Well Golly, who's been sitting in the Oval Office since 9/11? George Bush. And who's been in control of Congress from 9/11 until 11/06, and still manage to gum up the works with their bullshit? The Republicans. So, as with any dysfunctional family, the head of the household (Chimpy McPresident) was enabled by his dysfunctional family (GOP controlled Congress). And we are all strapped into the back seat as Chimpy sends the car of state careening from one horrible accident to another, praying he'll stop before he gets us all killed.



It seems if we are hit again, BP would NOT blame the terrorists


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Spreading terror and rumors of terror are purely a cowards game.  What level are we on today?  Red, yellow or orange?  I suspect yellow.



and if we are hit, you would rant why the warnings were not made public


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> one can only wonder what would have been different if Bush had concentrated on our real enemies in the hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan in 2003 instead of rushing off to invade Iraq, a secular nation that posed little to no threat to us _vis a vis _Islamic extremists.



So the terrorists are not to blame?

What did Pres Bush to make the terrorists lash out at Amercia on 9-11?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> How long has bush been in office?  If the suicide bombers make it here, and actually carry out their plot - will right blame the terrorists or the Clintons?



We all know Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism - and the current crop of Dems want to surrender in Iraq

We would blame the terrorists


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> one can only wonder what would have been different if Bush had concentrated on our real enemies in the hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan in 2003 instead of rushing off to invade Iraq, a secular nation that posed little to no threat to us _vis a vis _Islamic extremists.





red states rule said:


> So the terrorists are not to blame?
> 
> What did Pres Bush to make the terrorists lash out at Amercia on 9-11?



*I am curious. Where did I ever say that the terrorists are not to blame?   Where did I ever say that Bush had done something to make the terrorists lash out at America? Why are you incapable of actually replying to the words that people use and, instead, only tossing out irrelevant stock oneliners?*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> *I am curious. Where did I ever say that the terrorists are not to blame?   Where did I ever say that Bush had done something to make the terrorists lash out at America? Why are you incapable of actually replying to the words that people use and, instead, only tossing out irrelevant stock oneliners?*



You were doing your usual Bush basing and I responed


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

I asked a rhetorical question.  WHy don't you try something novel for you and actually try to answer it or discuss it?

*one can only wonder what would have been different if Bush had concentrated on our real enemies in the hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan in 2003 instead of rushing off to invade Iraq, a secular nation that posed little to no threat to us vis a vis Islamic extremists.*

Let's discuss whether or not you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice.  Let's discuss that.  I am not mindlessly Bush bashing.  I am posing a legitimate point.  Address it please.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I asked a rhetorical question.  WHy don't you try something novel for you and actually try to answer it or discuss it?
> 
> *one can only wonder what would have been different if Bush had concentrated on our real enemies in the hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan in 2003 instead of rushing off to invade Iraq, a secular nation that posed little to no threat to us vis a vis Islamic extremists.*
> 
> Let's discuss whether or not you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice.  Let's discuss that.  I am not mindlessly Bush bashing.  I am posing a legitimate point.  Address it please.




Another rant from the Blame America First crowd


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

and that is all you are going to say about it?  really?

and you expect people to respond when you post questions?

don't hold your breath.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> and that is all you are going to say about it?  really?
> 
> and you expect people to respond when you post questions?
> 
> don't hold your breath.



To you and your ilk, America is always to blame, and Pres Bush can never do anything right

While the US is at war with terrorists, you want to surrender and run away


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> To you and your ilk, America is always to blame, and Pres Bush can never do anything right
> 
> While the US is at war with terrorists, you want to surrender and run away



yet another rant from the hate democrats crowd.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> yet another rant from the hate democrats crowd.



Still ducking and dodging


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I asked a rhetorical question.  WHy don't you try something novel for you and actually try to answer it or discuss it?
> 
> *one can only wonder what would have been different if Bush had concentrated on our real enemies in the hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan in 2003 instead of rushing off to invade Iraq, a secular nation that posed little to no threat to us vis a vis Islamic extremists.*
> 
> Let's discuss whether or not you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice.  Let's discuss that.  I am not mindlessly Bush bashing.  I am posing a legitimate point.  Address it please.





red states rule said:


> Another rant from the Blame America First crowd




this reply by RSR would be a classic, textbook example of "ducking and dodging", by the way.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> this reply by RSR would be a classic, textbook example of "ducking and dodging", by the way.



Because I do not blame America for the terroroist attacks is something to be ashamed of?

Keep up the good work MM. Libs like you will put the Dems in the teens in the July 4th poll

Oh, they are already there per Gallup

Sorry


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

no...you see...I made this statement:


*Let's discuss whether or not you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice. Let's discuss that. I am not mindlessly Bush bashing. I am posing a legitimate point. Address it please.*

and you ducked it and dodged it.  It is really all you ever do.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you see...I made this statement:
> 
> 
> *Let's discuss whether or not you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice. Let's discuss that. I am not mindlessly Bush bashing. I am posing a legitimate point. Address it please.*
> ...



uh huh, you sink deeper into your world of delusion and denial by the day my friend.


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

more ducking and dodging.  can you address my point or not?

If not, I understand completely.  I keep hoping that one day you will surprise me.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> more ducking and dodging.  can you address my point or not?
> 
> If not, I understand completely.  I keep hoping that one day you will surprise me.



I understand you walk in step with your party - they have a long hsitory of attacking their own country


----------



## mattskramer (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> We all know Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism -



No.  It seems as though you are the only person who still makes such a false claim. Hello brick wall.  I posted this before you seem to refuse to accept it.  Clinton did many things in his attempt to fight terrorism.  It is a fact.  Did you forget all of those links that I supplied?  

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad

 the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed  he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier  recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world. 

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

President Clinton also ordered a "terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility in the country," which had "already begun" when, in February 1995, the Clinton Administration introduced a counter-terrorism bill in the Senate (S. 390) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 896). Note: this was before the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City bombing on April 19 that year. 

President Clinton's proposals would have expanded pre-trial detention and allowed more federal wiretaps of terrorism suspects, eased deportation of foreigners convicted of crimes, allowed the detention of aliens convicted or suspected of crimes, let the President criminalize fund-raising for terrorism, and revived visa denial provisions to keep dangerous people out of the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18&notFound=true

Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office.

 In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.

 The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.

 Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.

 The CIA's directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no verified damage.

 Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.

The lines Clinton opted not to cross continued to define U.S. policy in his successor's first eight months. Clinton stopped short of using more decisive military instruments, including U.S. ground forces, and declined to expand the reach of the war to the Taliban regime that hosted bin Laden and his fighters after 1996. 

Not until the catastrophe of Sept. 11 -- when terrorists used hijacked airliners to destroy the World Trade Center and damage the Pentagon -- did President Bush obliterate those boundaries.


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

so why don't you just admit that you are unable or unwilling to address my point?  

and then, ask yourself, why ANYONE should then feel compelled to EVER address any of YOUR points.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> No.  It seems as though you are the only person who still makes such a false claim. Hello brick wall.  I posted this before you seem to refuse to accept it.  Clinton did many things in his attempt to fight terrorism.  It is a fact.  Did you forget all of those links that I supplied?
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
> 
> ...



With all that "fighting of terrorism" - OBL said Clinton proved Amercia was a paper tiger - and we got 9-11

Thanks Bill - your legacy is set in stone


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> so why don't you just admit that you are unable or unwilling to address my point?
> 
> and then, ask yourself, why ANYONE should then feel compelled to EVER address any of YOUR points.



What point?  

That Amervcia is to blame?

You do that very well without my help


----------



## mattskramer (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> OBL said Clinton proved Amercia was a paper tiger



Link?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Link?



http://www.meforum.org/article/435


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What point?
> 
> That Amervcia is to blame?
> 
> You do that very well without my help



I asked you to discuss what might be different if we had concentrated on the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq.  Are you capable of forming any coherent thought about that topic?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I asked you to discuss what might be different if we had concentrated on the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq.  Are you capable of forming any coherent thought about that topic?



Are these troops on vacation then

Small US units lure Taliban into losing battles
By Scott Baldauf | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 

QALAT, AFGHANISTAN  It's mid- morning on June 21, and Lt. Timothy Jon O'Neal's platoon has just been dropped onto a dusty field north of a mud-walled village of Chalbar. Their mission: to check out reports that a local Afghan Army commander has defected to the Taliban and burned the district headquarters, and is prepared to fight. 
Within minutes, it becomes clear that the reports are true, and the platoon is in trouble. The radio crackles with Taliban fighters barking orders to surround the Americans. Gunfire comes from the hilltops. Lieutenant O'Neal's men are easy targets. The Taliban have the high ground. 

* * * 

This has been the most violent year here since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. The US Army is moving in smaller numbers to lure the Taliban out of hiding for fights they cannot win. The result: More than 1,200 enemy deaths this year, including high-level commanders. But it is also a strategy with profound risks, and one that may be difficult to sustain in Zabul Province - a region so unstable that commanders call it the "Fallujah of Afghanistan" - as current troops return home, their replacements as yet undecided. 

Through interviews with soldiers of Chosen Company, of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, the Monitor has reconstructed two recent battles that illustrate how this strategy works, and how it may have weakened the Taliban movement's effectiveness as a military force - for now.

* * * 

As the Taliban start shooting, O'Neal's platoon scurries for cover. But there's no panic. "They think, without a doubt, they have us outnumbered," recalls O'Neal, a native of Jeannette, Pa., and leader of 2nd Platoon, Chosen Company. "We've got only 23 people on the ground, and I would say the Taliban had over 150 before the day was over."

But O'Neal and his men are not alone. Just to the south, 1st platoon is clearing a village; to the east, the 3rd platoon are marching toward Chalbar. O'Neal's platoon calls for close air support from nearby Apache helicopters. But on the ground, 2nd platoon will have to hold its own, and fight for every inch - uphill.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1031/p01s04-wosc.html


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

what part of the word "concentrate" do you not understand?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> what part of the word "concentrate" do you not understand?



If you listen to to the libs, we have nothing in AFGHANISTAN - Bush took the military out of there and put them in Iraq


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

why don't you listen to ME?  WHy don't you discuss the issue that I brought up?  give that a try, why don't you?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> why don't you listen to ME?  WHy don't you discuss the issue that I brought up?  give that a try, why don't you?



One of the main talking points you have sprewed, is Bush took his eye off the ball and did not go after the ones who hit us on 9-11

It seems we are fighting those who attacked us on 9-11

Busted again MM


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

busted?????     

do you think that AQ could hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in front of members of the press corps in Iraq? 

I would suggest that they could not...and the reason why they could not is that there are 150K American troops in Iraq.

Now why can they do it in Afghanistan?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> busted?????
> 
> do you think that AQ could hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in front of members of the press corps in Iraq?
> 
> ...



Hey numbnuts - you are wrong again (as usual)

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.


ABC reported the story - hardly a right wing outfit


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> busted?????
> 
> do you think that AQ could hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in front of members of the press corps *in Iraq?*
> 
> ...





red states rule said:


> Hey numbnuts - you are wrong again (as usual)
> 
> A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.
> 
> ...



no...you missed my point (imagine that!).  

I am well aware that a pakistani journalist attended as stated above.  I am suggesting that a similar graduation ceremony would NOT be possible in Iraq because of the presence of 150K american troops.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...you missed my point (imagine that!).
> 
> I am well aware that a pakistani journalist attended as stated above.  I am suggesting that a similar graduation ceremony would NOT be possible in Iraq because of the presence of 150K american troops.



So to MM, the terrorists hoding their graduation is Bush's fault

What a new talking point for the left!


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

no... you missed my point...as always....  and don't admit it when you do.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

hjmick said:


> "Hoding?" What is this "hoding" you speak of?
> 
> You know, if you intend to call others out about their spelling, grammar, and conjugation of verbs, your own had better be beyond reproach my friend.



When have I called anyone on their spelling?


----------



## Bullypulpit (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I asked a rhetorical question.  WHy don't you try something novel for you and actually try to answer it or discuss it?
> 
> *one can only wonder what would have been different if Bush had concentrated on our real enemies in the hills of Afghanistan/Pakistan in 2003 instead of rushing off to invade Iraq, a secular nation that posed little to no threat to us vis a vis Islamic extremists.*
> 
> Let's discuss whether or not you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice.  Let's discuss that.  I am not mindlessly Bush bashing.  I am posing a legitimate point.  Address it please.



Don't hold your breath.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Don't hold your breath.



and I posted where the troops are winning in Afghanistan, and it went right over MM pointy head


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

hjmick said:


> You didn't, yet. You did however call someone out for their conjugating skills, most mistakes in conjugating verbs is a matter of spelling, like the examples you used in the linked thread. You either misspelled "holding" or conjugated your verb wrong. My point is, none of us here are perfect, to tweak someones melon over the issue is just plain silly. Besides, if we do that, we would be busy all day.
> 
> Truthmatters - Don't be mean to he/she, they are retarded



You have me mixed up with someone else. I did not call anyone out for their conjugating skills. 

Please show me where I have


----------



## hjmick (Jun 21, 2007)

Holy crap. I apologize. Profusely. Please accept my apology. It's early, I'm at work, my attention is split. I cannot apologize enough.

Talk about mud on my face. I shall remedy this situation post haste.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

hjmick said:


> Holy crap. I apologize. Profusely. Please accept my apology. It's early, I'm at work, my attention is split. I cannot apologize enough.
> 
> Talk about mud on my face. I shall remedy this situation post haste.



No problem my friend - we all make mistakes


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and I posted where the troops are winning in Afghanistan, and it went right over MM pointy head



they are winning to such an extent that the Taliban can hold a graduation ceremony for suicide bombers and even invite the press along.

Imagine AQ trying that in Iraq!


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> they are winning to such an extent that the Taliban can hold a graduation ceremony for suicide bombers and even invite the press along.
> 
> Imagine AQ trying that in Iraq!



Like in Iraq, to libs the troops are losers - we can not win a war and the military can accomplish nothing positive


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Like in Iraq, to libs the troops are losers - we can not win a war and the military can accomplish nothing positive



I would NEVER think that.  Our troops are winners.  The mission they have been sent on is stupid, but they are doing a great job trying to accomplish it.  

WHy not address my point?  WHy not ask yourself if AQ could get away with holding a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and invite the press in Iraq.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would NEVER think that.  Our troops are winners.  The mission they have been sent on is stupid, but they are doing a great job trying to accomplish it.
> 
> WHy not address my point?  WHy not ask yourself if AQ could get away with holding a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and invite the press in Iraq.



Then why do you defend the Dems who do call them losers? (among other insults they have sprewed)


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then why do you defend the Dems who do call them losers? (among other insults they have sprewed)



I disagree with your characterization.  I disagree with many comments made by democrats.  I am very much a supporter of our troops.  they know it...first hand.  I disagree with the war in Iraq and the way we are not effectively fighting the war on islamic extremism.  I fully support the US military, and always have.


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

I ask again:

Why not address my point? WHy not ask yourself if AQ could get away with holding a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and invite the press in Iraq?  and if not, why not?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I disagree with your characterization.  I disagree with many comments made by democrats.  I am very much a supporter of our troops.  they know it...first hand.  I disagree with the war in Iraq and the way we are not effectively fighting the war on islamic extremism.  I fully support the US military, and always have.



Members of your party have called the troops uneducated, terrorists, compared them to Pol Pot and Nazi's, and said they are running torture chambers

Reid said the war is lost - thus calling the troops losers

Some support for the troops


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

address my point, please


----------



## Shogun (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Members of your party have called the troops uneducated, terrorists, compared them to Pol Pot and Nazi's, and said they are running torture chambers
> 
> Reid said the war is lost - thus calling the troops losers
> 
> Some support for the troops



Your ability to think leads me to ask if you are just a 12 year old out for summer break with nothing more to do than troll a messageboard due to a stark lack of friends..

go outside and play, rsr... dont be another casualty of childhood obesity.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> address my point, please



I did. You are calling the troops in Iarq losers - like your party has


----------



## Shogun (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I did. You are calling the troops in Iarq losers - like your party has



mainman called the troops losers about as accurate as RSR chumming it up with the ghost of Strom Thurman at the klan rally...


see how generalizing works, rsr?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

Shogun said:


> mainman called the troops losers about as accurate as RSR chumming it up with the ghost of Strom Thurman at the klan rally...
> 
> 
> see how generalizing works, rsr?



MM is not the only lib who has called the troops losers - White Flag Harry did

MM never did call him on it


----------



## Shogun (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> MM is not the only lib who has called the troops losers - White Flag Harry did
> 
> MM never did call him on it



and ive never seen you call ole strom on his off COLORED remarks so that must mean that you are just another southern racist still grumpy at having to share your waterfountains and swimming pools, eh dude?


besides, did harry REALLY call the troops losers or is that just a typical RSR interpretation that is about as meaningful as vampire hunting is in the professional world?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

Shogun said:


> and ive never seen you call ole strom on his off COLORED remarks so that must mean that you are just another southern racist still grumpy at having to share your waterfountains and swimming pools, eh dude?
> 
> 
> besides, did harry REALLY call the troops losers or is that just a typical RSR interpretation that is about as meaningful as vampire hunting is in the professional world?



What was worse, what Lott or Strom said or this from Howie Dean?


&#8220;You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,&#8221;

&#8220;Only if they had the hotel staff in here."


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What was worse, what Lott or *Strom said *or this from Howie Dean?
> 
> 
> You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,
> ...




Oh.... I dunno...I think that running for president on a platform that would outlaw interracial marriage is worse than that!


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

can you asnwer this?



maineman said:


> I ask again:
> 
> Why not address my point? WHy not ask yourself if AQ could get away with holding a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and invite the press in Iraq?  and if not, why not?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What was worse, what Lott or Strom said or this from Howie Dean?
> 
> 
> You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,
> ...




are you kidding me?


do you want to DENY the reality of a non-suportive black vote for republicans?


indeed, i bet all the minorities in the room knew EXACTLY where that joke was coming from considering the nature of a klan-white republican party...


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

Shogun said:


> are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> do you want to DENY the reality of a non-suportive black vote for republicans?
> ...



When Howie thinks of hotel staff (waiters and maids) he thinks of blacks doing those jobs

Not the least bit racist - right?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> When Howie thinks of hotel staff (waiters and maids) he thinks of blacks doing those jobs
> 
> Not the least bit racist - right?



in relation to a republican social function?  where ELSE would your party put the minorities?  Certainly not on the speaking podium....

HAHA!


you missed why the joke is funny.. 

BECAUSE IT REFLECTS THE REALITY OF THE REPUBLICAN RELATIONSHIP TO MINORITIES AND THE TOTAL LACK OF SUPPORT THEY GIVE TO REPUBLICANS....


again, im sure the minorities in the audience understood it better than a 12 year old white kid who should be outside playing catch instead of pretending to be Alen P Keaton.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

Shogun said:


> in relation to a republican social function?  where ELSE would your party put the minorities?  Certainly not on the speaking podium....
> 
> HAHA!
> 
> ...




No, it shows the racism on the left


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> No, it shows the racism on the left



how do you explain the fact that over 85% of blacks in America vote democratic, if we are so racist?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> how do you explain the fact that over 85% of blacks in America vote democratic, if we are so racist?



Good point

I have been trying to figure that one out for years

Dems are very racist against black conservatives for being Uncle Toms, and liberal blacks by telling them they can't make it without some liberal program


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

so...you have no answer as to why black americans overwhelmingly support democrats, if we are, as you claim, so racist?

odd.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> so...you have no answer as to why black americans overwhelmingly support democrats, if we are, as you claim, so racist?
> 
> odd.



The Dems are racist - your version of tolerance


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The Dems are racist - your version of tolerance




so why do blacks vote for democrats if we are so racist?  you have not explained that.


----------



## mattskramer (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> http://www.meforum.org/article/435



I read the entire article carefully twice.  I could not find where OBL said, Clinton proved America was a paper tiger. I could not even find where it implied such. Please point it out to me. Perhaps you would copy and paste the particular paragraph for me.  It should not take much time for you to do that.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> I read the entire article carefully twice.  I could not find where OBL said, Clinton proved America was a paper tiger. I could not even find where it implied such. Please point it out to me. Perhaps you would copy and paste the particular paragraph for me.  It should not take much time for you to do that.



Near the bottom

Miller: Describe the situation when your men took on the Americans in Somalia. Were you there?

Bin Ladin: After God honored us with victory in Afghanistan, and justice prevailed against those who slaughtered millions of Muslims in the Muslim republics, Muslim minds no longer believed in the myth of superpowers. The youth no longer saw America as a superpower.

After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.

After a few blows, they forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. They left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat, and stopped using such titles. They learned in America that this name [i.e., God] is larger than them.

When this great defeat took place I was in Sudan, and it pleased me very much, just as it pleases all Muslims. God willing, the next victory will be in Hijaz and Najd, [provinces of] Saudi Arabia, and it will cause Americans to forget the horrors of Vietnam and Beirut.




When Bill ran away from Somalia, OBL admitted that is when he saw Amercia as a paper tiger

That is part of Bills legacy


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

"The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and *realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers.* After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat."

Nothing about Clinton... seems like they believed it before as well.

Nice bullshit spin from RSR to claim something was said when it wasn't.

And what, exactly would you have had us actually DO in Somalia?  We were there to ensure the delivery of UN aid.... Bush senior got us into that mess.... what exactly was the mission that you think we ran away from?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and *realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers.* After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat."
> 
> Nothing about Clinton... seems like they believed it before as well.
> 
> ...



Keep carrying the water for Bill MM - you do for your entire party


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

as long as you keep lying about democrats, I will continue to call you on your lies.

when will you ever stop making attacking democrats the sole focus of your  quote contribution unquote on here and start talking about issues?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> as long as you keep lying about democrats, I will continue to call you on your lies.
> 
> when will you ever stop making attacking democrats the sole focus of your  quote contribution unquote on here and start talking about issues?



Lies to you is telling the truth about what REALLY happened and calling libs on their attempts to rewrite history


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

no.  lies are lies.  period.  now...

when will you ever stop making attacking democrats the sole focus of your quote contribution unquote on here and start talking about issues?

I'll be back after dinner and a movie and see if you can answer that.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> no.  lies are lies.  period.  now...
> 
> when will you ever stop making attacking democrats the sole focus of your quote contribution unquote on here and start talking about issues?
> 
> I'll be back after dinner and a movie and see if you can answer that.



Enjoy your crow for dinner - you have ate alot of it today


----------



## mattskramer (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Near the bottom
> 
> Miller: Describe the situation when your men took on the Americans in Somalia. Were you there?
> 
> ...



Hmmmm.  It is a stretch.  OBL did not say, Clinton proved America was a paper tiger but it would be reasonable to infer that OBL believes that Clinton proved that America was a paper tiger.  It merely happened to be that Clinton was president during the pull out from Somalia. Still, RSR, I think that it is quite a stretch to even infer that from the web site you presented.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 21, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Hmmmm.  It is a stretch.  OBL did not say, Clinton proved America was a paper tiger but it would be reasonable to infer that OBL believes that Clinton proved that America was a paper tiger.  It merely happened to be that Clinton was president during the pull out from Somalia. Still, RSR, I think that it is quite a stretch to even infer that from the web site you presented.



It was well known after 9-11, OBL saw Amercia as weak and as paper tigers when Bill ran away from Somalia


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> Hmmmm.  It is a stretch.  OBL did not say, &#8220;Clinton proved America was a paper tiger&#8221; but it would be reasonable to infer that OBL believes that Clinton proved that America was a paper tiger.  It merely happened to be that Clinton was president during the pull out from Somalia. Still, RSR, I think that it is quite a stretch to even infer that from the web site you presented.



I believe this is what RSR was referring to:

http://www.meforum.org/article/435



> Usama bin Ladin: "American Soldiers Are Paper Tigers"
> 
> Middle East Quarterly
> December 1998
> ...


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

and the "more than BEFORE" just escapes your notice?

Again...what in the hell would you republicans have wanted Clinton to actually stay and DO in Somalia?  Perhaps we could have crammed multi-cultural jeffersonian democracy down their throats at the point of gun with the same marvelous success we've had in Iraq???

And NONE of you all will EVER accept the fact that your demi-god Reagan running away from the Beirut bombings that killed HUNDREDS of Marines REALLY convinced OBL and all the rest of the Islamic extremists that we ran away from a fight.  TO pin this on Clinton for getting us out of a mess that we ought not to have been in the first place and that Bush senior got us INTO is pathetic!

YOu should be ashamed...but we all know that republicans have no shame when it comes to vilifying the CLintons.


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> and the "more than BEFORE" just escapes your notice?
> 
> Again...what in the hell would you republicans have wanted Clinton to actually stay and DO in Somalia?  Perhaps we could have crammed multi-cultural jeffersonian democracy down their throats at the point of gun with the same marvelous success we've had in Iraq???
> 
> ...



Hey, if that was aimed at me, I literally just quoted the interview that RSR was alluding to, mistakenly believing it was from after 9/11, when in fact is was from 1998.


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Enjoy your crow for dinner - you have ate alot of it today



crow?  that is TOO funny!  You have run away from me all day long. I posted a thread about differentiating polls on congressional caucuses and made a point of asking republicans to please just respond to the numbers I posted and not spam the thread with other polls that were not differential in nature....you posted SEVENTEEN POSTS  on that thread and never ONCE addressed the topic of the thread itself. I laughed so hard my sides ached!  

You remind me of the ant fucking the elephant (unbeknownst to the elephant, of course) when a coconut fell, hit the elephant of the head..the elephant moaned and the ant said, "suffer baby, suffer".

You have never bested anyone in any debate on this site ever since the very day I came here.  

You are an embarrassment to many republicans and they have been kind enough to say so in PMs.  

You are the quintessential tarbaby...but you ARE good for a laugh on most occasions.  Thanks for that.


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

RSR said:

_"OBL said *Clinton proved *Amercia[sic] was a paper tiger" _

and then he posted that article...and if you cannot see that the quote does NOT suggest that OBL said that Clinton PROVED anything, then you need to get your glasses checked, or explain why you would ever be at all supportive of such flatulent - all heat, no light - BULLSHIT like the kind that RSR routinely spews.


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR said:
> 
> _"OBL said *Clinton proved *Amercia[sic] was a paper tiger" _
> 
> and then he posted that article...and if you cannot see that the quote does NOT suggest that OBL said that Clinton PROVED anything, then you need to get your glasses checked, or explain why you would ever be at all supportive of such flatulent - all heat, no light - BULLSHIT like the kind that RSR routinely spews.



I quoted it _exactly_, as is my wont and it does what you are saying, where did I say not?



> NEXT TARGETS
> 
> Miller: Describe the situation when your men took on the Americans in Somalia. Were you there?
> 
> ...


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

I say again... the phrase "more than before" seems to fly under your radar.  I would suggest that Ronnie Reagan PROVED to OBL and all the other Islamic crazies that America was a paper tiger LONG before Clinton came along.

Running away from Beirut in the dead of night when we were THERE to keep the peace versus leaving Somalia after it became clear that our mission to deliver UN supplies was over.

Yeah... it was Clinton that proved we were pussies....right!

tell yourself whatever you need to so that you can still justify lighting devotional candles at your Ronnie shrine.


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I say again... the phrase "more than before" seems to fly under your radar.  I would suggest that Ronnie Reagan PROVED to OBL and all the other Islamic crazies that America was a paper tiger LONG before Clinton came along.
> 
> Running away from Beirut in the dead of night when we were THERE to keep the peace versus leaving Somalia after it became clear that our mission to deliver UN supplies was over.
> 
> ...



I really don't know your problem this evening, but I cannot control that OBL did not mention Ronald Reagan, IF he had, it would have been included.


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

funny...he didn't mention "Clinton" either...and he certainly never said that Clinton PROVED anything.


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> funny...he didn't mention "Clinton" either...and he certainly never said that Clinton PROVED anything.



AND that is what I was trying to say, directly and indirectly. RSR's attempt to tie that with post 9/11, was just wrong. I think you are losing patience with the wrong person here.


----------



## maineman (Jun 21, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> AND that is what I was trying to say, directly and indirectly. RSR's attempt to tie that with post 9/11, was just wrong. I think you are losing patience with the wrong person here.



you are, of course, quite right.  And whatever I may have lost, I have found again.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are, of course, quite right.  And whatever I may have lost, I have found again.



You will lose it quick enough. You do everyday


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You will lose it quick enough. You do everyday



I do lose and find my patience often....

when will YOU ever find your intelligence or your testicles?

(just like that ant and the elephant!   )


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do lose and find my patience often....
> 
> when will YOU ever find your intelligence or your testicles?
> 
> (just like that ant and the elephant!   )



What patience?

You have patience as long as people agree with you and they answer your slanted questions to get the answer you want


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What patience?
> 
> You have patience as long as people agree with you and they answer your slanted questions to get the answer you want




you never answer *any* questions....you have spammed a thread I started with nineteen posts and NONE of them address the topic.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> you never answer *any* questions....you have spammed a thread I started with nineteen posts and NONE of them address the topic.



Need a Kleenex?


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

are you gonna address this point?

*And NONE of you all will EVER accept the fact that your demi-god Reagan running away from the Beirut bombings that killed HUNDREDS of Marines REALLY convinced OBL and all the rest of the Islamic extremists that we ran away from a fight. TO pin this on Clinton for getting us out of a mess that we ought not to have been in the first place and that Bush senior got us INTO is pathetic!*


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

or this one?

*Let's discuss whether or not you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice. Let's discuss that. I am not mindlessly Bush bashing. I am posing a legitimate point. Address it please.*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you gonna address this point?
> 
> *And NONE of you all will EVER accept the fact that your demi-god Reagan running away from the Beirut bombings that killed HUNDREDS of Marines REALLY convinced OBL and all the rest of the Islamic extremists that we ran away from a fight. TO pin this on Clinton for getting us out of a mess that we ought not to have been in the first place and that Bush senior got us INTO is pathetic!*



I have said before Reagan was wrong. You can;t show weakness to the bastards

When Clinton ran from Somalia OBL got the impresion Amercia was a paper tiger

Libs do hate the truth when it destroys their myths about Clinton


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have said before Reagan was wrong. You can;t show weakness to the bastards
> 
> When Clinton ran from Somalia OBL got the impresion Amercia was a paper tiger
> 
> Libs do hate the truth when it destroys their myths about Clinton



the weakness that Reagan showed in Beirut was much more telling - and much more cowardly - and inspired our enemies much more than what Clinton did in Somalia.  Why are you not blaming Ronnie for 9/11?


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

miss this?



maineman said:


> or this one?
> 
> *Let's discuss whether or not you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice. Let's discuss that. I am not mindlessly Bush bashing. I am posing a legitimate point. Address it please.*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> miss this?



Oh, time to change the subject - MM has been boxed into the corner


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Oh, time to change the subject - MM has been boxed into the corner




change the subject??? it IS the subject!


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> change the subject??? it IS the subject!



You are correct - I got the thread mixed up with another one

You are not blaming the terrorists - you are blaming America for the bombers. Which is the point on the thread

Thanks for making my point


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

just answer the questions:

Do you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice?

Do you think that AQ could get away with holding a graduation ceremony for suicide bombers and invite the local media to cover it if it were in Iraq?  and if not, why not?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> just answer the questions:
> 
> Do you think that the Taliban would be holding a graduation day in the hills of eastern Afghanistan for suicide bombers if we had trained our military might on THEIR country and kept it there until the Karzai government was really functional and until AQ and the Taliban had indeed been all caught and brought to justice?
> 
> Do you think that AQ could get away with holding a graduation ceremony for suicide bombers and invite the local media to cover it if it were in Iraq?  and if not, why not?



Yea, it is not the terrorists who are to blame for sending out the bombers - it is Amercia fault

Liberal logic on display


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

why can't you answer the questions?

neither of those statements BLAME America.... they ask you to consider what the outcome would be if we had directed our military might in a different way.  

Just try to answer them


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> why can't you answer the questions?
> 
> neither of those statements BLAME America.... they ask you to consider what the outcome would be if we had directed our military might in a different way.
> 
> Just try to answer them



I did

You ahave made my point libs will not blame the terrorists - they will blame the US and the military


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I did
> 
> You ahave made my point libs will not blame the terrorists - they will blame the US and the military



here is my question...  it has not one word of blame for the US and the military.

just try to answer it:

*Do you think that AQ could get away with holding a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and invite the local media to cover it if that graduation ceremony was held in Iraq? *
and if not, why not?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> here is my question...  it has not one word of blame for the US and the military.
> 
> just try to answer it:
> 
> ...



I have - and you are making my point

It if something happens blame the US, the militray, and Pres Bush

If you are lucky, you can blame all three in the same sentence


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> here is my question...  it has not one word of blame for the US and the military.
> 
> just try to answer it:
> 
> ...




there is NOTHING in that question that blames the US or the military for anything.  it doesn't even MENTION either.  it is a simple yes or no question.  just answer it, and explain your answer.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> there is NOTHING in that question that blames the US or the military for anything.  it doesn't even MENTION either.  it is a simple yes or no question.  just answer it, and explain your answer.



One reporter hardly is the "local media"

I know, it is another Karl Rove production!


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> One reporter hardly is the "local media"
> 
> I know, it is another Karl Rove production!



so you do think that Al Qaeda would be able to hold a graduation ceremony in Iraq for 300 suicide bombers and invite the media?  really?

My quesiton has nothing to do about rove, nothing to do about the republican party, nothing to do with Bush, nothing to do with the military.  Can you just answer it?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> so you do think that Al Qaeda would be able to hold a graduation ceremony in Iraq for 300 suicide bombers and invite the media?  really?
> 
> My quesiton has nothing to do about rove, nothing to do about the republican party, nothing to do with Bush, nothing to do with the military.  Can you just answer it?



so now ONE reporter is the media?


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> so now ONE reporter is the media?



of course it is.  when President Bush gives an interview to Hannity, do you think that is not a case of him giving an interview to the media?  what the fuck do you think a reporter IS, if not the media?

now quit spinning and just answer the fucking question.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> of course it is.  when President Bush gives an interview to Hannity, do you think that is not a case of him giving an interview to the media?  what the fuck do you think a reporter IS, if not the media?
> 
> now quit spinning and just answer the fucking question.



My you are one touchy little prick tonight. ONE reporter is not the local media


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> My you are one touchy little prick tonight. ONE reporter is not the local media




it may not be ALL of the local media, but it certainly is the local media.  now answer the question, pussy.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> it may not be ALL of the local media, but it certainly is the local media.  now answer the question, pussy.



One reporter - just ONE reporter, and MM calls that the local media

You could do PR for CNN and MSNBC.


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

quit avoiding the question


----------



## red states rule (Jun 22, 2007)

maineman said:


> quit avoiding the question



Your question makes no sense - like most of your slanted questions


----------



## maineman (Jun 22, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Your question makes no sense - like most of your slanted questions



is english your second language?

of course it makes sense:

*Do you think that AQ could get away with holding a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and invite the local media to cover it if that graduation ceremony was held in Iraq? 
and if not, why not?*

I would suggest that they could NOT pull something like that off in Iraq.  Would you or would you not agree?


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Yea, *it is not the terrorists who are to blame for sending out the bombers *- it is Amercia fault
> 
> Liberal logic on display



Have you asked the terrorists why they are terrorists?

You honestly feel that the US has been humbly watering the lawn for the past 50 years, minding our own business, bothering no one? 

Definetly not invading and interfering in the political business of other countries.

You may want to see how much the terrorists hate Sweden.

Hint: They dont. 


http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Have you asked the terrorists why they are terrorists?
> 
> You honestly feel that the US has been humbly watering the lawn for the past 50 years, minding our own business, bothering no one?
> 
> ...




Typical - America is always to blame

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/102702_pictures_of_anti.htm


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Have you asked the terrorists why they are terrorists?
> 
> You honestly feel that the US has been humbly watering the lawn for the past 50 years, minding our own business, bothering no one?
> 
> ...



YOU may want to read up on what Muslims are doing in Sweden before you make such a claim. There is at least one city Swedes avoid because of terror by the local muslim "youths".

People like you are why we may lose this war against Islam. You can not fathom the concept that the INTENT of the religion is total world wide control. That everyone will convert or die. In fact there are portions of the Islamic movement that do NOT like terrorists that blow up shit, not because they care about who is dying, but because they had a good thing going immigrating and taking over from within.


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

RGS:  have you ever lived in a muslim country?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> RGS:  have you ever lived in a muslim country?



Probably not - he is STILL breathing


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> RGS:  have you ever lived in a muslim country?



Have YOU ever lived in a Muslim Country as a civilian with no protection of another Government or the military? As a citizen non Muslim?

Sure there is at least one small sect of Islam that doesn't want to kill all unbelievers, rather wait until they all convert. BUT the main sects only differ on HOW they will take over the world in degrees.

Unless Islam has a reformation the RELIGION is a threat to all non Muslims. I could live quite comfortably with the threat if it were just that they want to convert everyone, peacefully. But that is NOT what they want and it is not how they operate.

The majority , the VAST majority want worldwide control by Islam. Just look what the religion does when it gets a large enough minority in a country. They demand seperate laws and control in "their" areas. In Europe " disaffected" youths in Germany, France, Sweden and even Denmark and Netherlands are code words for Muslim rioters, looters and gangs. It has not happened in America yet, but I believe it is just a matter of time. The taxi drivers at a certain airport are a prime example.

More specifically there is a MAJOR threat from armed murderous terrorists that want violence to take over NOW.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Have YOU ever lived in a Muslim Country as a civilian with no protection of another Government or the military? As a citizen non Muslim?
> 
> Sure there is at least one small sect of Islam that doesn't want to kill all unbelievers, rather wait until they all convert. BUT the main sects only differ on HOW they will take over the world in degrees.
> 
> ...




and all the US has to do is appease them, and let them know we mean them no harm - and they will leave us alone

At least that is what the left keeps saying


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

> ........America stands at the center of this world of globalization. It seems unstoppable. If you close the borders, America comes in through the mail. If you censor the mail, it appears in the fast food and faded jeans. If you ban the products, it seeps in through satellite television. Americans are so comfortable with global capitalism and consumer culture that we cannot fathom just how revolutionary these forces are......
> 
> ...Disoriented young men, with one foot in the old world and another in the new, now look for a purer, simpler alternative......
> 
> ...




http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

> For most Arabs, relations with the United States have been filled with disappointment..........
> 
> 
> ........ its disillusionment with America begins most importantly with the creation of Israel in 1948. As the Arabs see it, at a time when colonies were winning independence from the West, here was a state largely composed of foreign people being imposed on a region with Western backing. The anger deepened in the wake of America's support for Israel during the wars of 1967 and 1973, and ever since in its relations with the Palestinians. The daily exposure to Israel's iron-fisted rule over the occupied territories has turned this into the great cause of the Arab--and indeed the broader Islamic--world. Elsewhere, they look at American policy in the region as cynically geared to America's oil interests, supporting thugs and tyrants without any hesitation. Finally, the bombing and isolation of Iraq have become fodder for daily attacks on the United States. While many in the Arab world do not like Saddam Hussein, they believe that the United States has chosen a particularly inhuman method of fighting him--a method that is starving an entire nation..........
> ...





http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Have YOU ever lived in a Muslim Country as a civilian with no protection of another Government or the military? As a citizen non Muslim?
> 
> Sure there is at least one small sect of Islam that doesn't want to kill all unbelievers, rather wait until they all convert. BUT the main sects only differ on HOW they will take over the world in degrees.
> 
> ...



When I lived in Beirut, I had absolutely ZERO protection from any government and I was on totally detached duty from the US Navy.  US Military personnel assigned to the US Embassy lived in gated complexes and were driven everywhere in armored cars with armed guards.  On the other hand, as a UN employee, I was not allowed to even carry a weapon.  There were never any guards to protect me.  I drove a white Passat and lived in a tiny walk up apartment until the building across the street that housed the Iranian news agency was blown up, the debris destroyed most of my apartment and my stuff so I moved to another equally unsafe apartment closer to the harbor for no reason other than it was that much closer to a potential escape route if the city came unglued.  In both apartments, I had muslim neighbors.  In both apartments, I was nearby muslim shops and markets and schools and clubs.... and I socialized with many many muslims on a frequent and routine basis. To this day, I routinely correspond with several arab friends I made during my time in the middle east.

Now I know you hate to admit it, but given all that, which one of us probably has a better first hand understanding of what the muslim world is like, what their dreams and aspirations are and what their views of the United States are?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> When I lived in Beirut, I had absolutely ZERO protection from any government and I was on totally detached duty from the US Navy.  US Military personnel assigned to the US Embassy lived in gated complexes and were driven everywhere in armored cars with armed guards.  On the other hand, as a UN employee, I was not allowed to even carry a weapon.  There were never any guards to protect me.  I drove a white Passat and lived in a tiny walk up apartment until the building across the street that housed the Iranian news agency was blown up, the debris destroyed most of my apartment and my stuff so I moved to another equally unsafe apartment closer to the harbor for no reason other than it was that much closer to a potential escape route if the city came unglued.  In both apartments, I had muslim neighbors.  In both apartments, I was nearby muslim shops and markets and schools and clubs.... and I socialized with many many muslims on a frequent and routine basis. To this day, I routinely correspond with several arab friends I made during my time in the middle east.
> 
> Now I know you hate to admit it, but given all that, which one of us probably has a better first hand understanding of what the muslim world is like, what their dreams and aspirations are and what their views of the United States are?



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDiC6KVBZUk[/ame]


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

*This is Waaay better.*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqNLMuijRyU[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKqMCSoBWzQ[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeUz5ZihaqA[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk[/ame]


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> *This is Waaay better.*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqNLMuijRyU
> 
> ...





Videos from the Looney Left


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Videos from the Looney Left



Ha, these are about as far right as you can get.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Ha, these are about as far right as you can get.



Far Right to you is Ted Kennedy


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Far Right to you is Ted Kennedy



You can post your videos that generalize ALL Arab Muslims as seekers of world domination, and I can find just as much evangelical insanity generalizing Christians. 

Whats your point. 

Besides generalizing entire faiths and populations as extreme religious fanatics?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> You can post your videos that generalize ALL Arab Muslims as seekers of world domination, and I can find just as much evangelical insanity generalizing Christians.
> 
> Whats your point.
> 
> Besides generalizing entire faiths and populations as extreme religious fanatics?



Generalize?

Considering that is what the Muslim terrorists actuallly want to do - how is that generalizing? Where are the Muclim leaders when terrorists behead people for not convertuing, or for their terorists attacks?

Oh, they may be afraid of being killed by the terrorists

Not a Mulsims are terrorists, but all terrorists have been Muslims


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Not a Mulsims are terrorists, but *all terrorists have been Muslims*



was McVey a muslim?  I didn't know that.


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> *Generalize?*
> 
> 
> *Not a Mulsims are terrorists, but all terrorists have been Muslims*



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> was McVey a muslim?  I didn't know that.



You do not know much period

Since the 9-11 attacks most of the terrorists have been young Muslim men and few Muslim women

Of course it is racist for me to point out that fact


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Generalize?
> 
> 
> Not a Mulsims are terrorists, but all terrorists have been Muslims



Care to retract your generalization?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Care to retract your generalization?



No, I will not


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> No, I will not



Glad to see your right wing hard hat isnt loose.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Glad to see your right wing hard hat isnt loose.



Lets see

9-11 terrorists - Muslim

Homicide bombers - Muslims

London bombers - Muslims

Ft Dix plotters - Muslims

JFK plotters - Muslims


Are you seeeing the pattern here?


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Lets see
> 
> 9-11 terrorists - Muslim
> 
> ...





Muslim is a religion. You do know that right?

What you are doing is generalizing Arabs, and middle eastern peoples as *ALL* being Muslim extremist terrorists.  

Which they are not. 

Just like not *ALL* Christians are Evangelical.

But by your standards. I could categorize all Christians as being Extreme Evangelicals.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Muslim is a religion. You do know that right?
> 
> What you are doing is generalizing Arabs, and middle eastern peoples as *ALL* being Muslim extremist terrorists.
> 
> ...



Islam is a blast

We all know that


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Islam is a blast
> 
> We all know that



Is that funny? 


Cant defend your generalizations, so you make sick jokes?

Your ignorance is not amusing.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Is that funny?
> 
> 
> Cant defend your generalizations, so you make sick jokes?



What joke?  Islam is a dynamite religion. It can blow you away if you are not careful


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What joke?  Islam is a dynamite religion. It can blow you away if you are not careful



*You deserve a neg rep for that one you ignorant prick.*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> *You deserve a neg rep for that one you ignorant prick.*



Truth hurts?


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

what RSR knows and understands about the religion of Islam could fit into a coffee cup and there would still be room for a cup of coffee.


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

*Brutal.*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> what RSR knows and understands about the religion of Islam could fit into a coffee cup and there would still be room for a cup of coffee.



I know it can be fatal if you do not follow it

They now behead people in the town square for not praying 5 times per day


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I know it can be fatal if you do not follow it
> 
> They now behead people in the town square for not praying 5 times per day



That's the extent of your knowledge?


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I know it can be fatal if you do not follow it
> 
> They now behead people in the town square for not praying 5 times per day



like I said: 



maineman said:


> what RSR knows and understands about the religion of Islam could fit into a coffee cup and there would still be room for a cup of coffee.




any further questions?  I rest my case.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh Mr Arrogrant One - are you saying they are NOT beheadiong people when they do not pray five times per day

Or they kill women who were RAPED?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What joke?  Islam is a dynamite religion. It can blow you away if you are not careful




I give this effort at humor a D minus.   It's really not funny, and it's pretty childish.  Pretty lame overall.   

How old did you say you were?


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Oh Mr Arrogrant One - are you saying they are NOT beheadiong people when they do not pray five times per day
> 
> Or they kill women who were RAPED?



which muslim state beheads people for not praying five times a day?

Saudi Arabia?  Iran?  Jordan"  Egypt?  UAE?  Qatar?  where is this happening?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Pray five times daily 'or face beheading'
MOHAMED SHEIKH NOR
 IN MOGADISHU 
ANYONE who does not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official in a southern Somalian town declared yesterday, adding that the new edict will be implemented in three days' time. 

Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, 124 miles north-east of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no-one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court. 

His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia in recent months. It has brought with it a strict interpretation of Islam that is alien to many Somalis. 

Those who do not follow the prayer edict after three days have elapsed "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law", Sheik Rage said. 

"As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do." 

He said the edict, which covers only Bulo Burto, was being announced over loudspeakers throughout the town. 

Somalia's Islamic courts have made varying interpretations of Koranic law, with some applying a more strict and radical version of Islam than others. 

Some of the courts have introduced public executions, floggings of convicts and bans on women swimming at public beaches in the capital, Mogadishu. 

The most controversial measure has possibly been a law banning the sale and chewing of khat, a leafy stimulant consumed across the Horn of Africa and in the Middle East. Khat is hugely popular among Somalians. 

After complaints about the lack of consistency in interpretation of the law from residents in Mogadishu, the umbrella Council of Islamic Courts set up an appeals court with better-educated judges in October.

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1814932006
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1814932006


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Oh Mr Arrogrant One - are you saying they are NOT beheadiong people when they do not pray five times per day
> 
> Or they kill women who were RAPED?



Is that all they do RSR? 

Blow themselves up, behead people, and kill raped women?

Hard to believe that they can keep thier numbers over 1 billion. 

Why dont we just leave them alone, to erase themselves from the earth?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Is that all they do RSR?
> 
> Blow themselves up, behead people, and kill raped women?
> 
> ...



Clinton tried leaving them alone - and we got 9-11


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Is that all they do RSR?
> 
> Blow themselves up, behead people, and kill raped women?
> 
> ...



http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/jihadpages/women.htm


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

one wacko official...one town.... Somalia.  Is that what you got?

 

Why not just admit that all Christians want to kill all abortion doctors?


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

I read the articles, and its funny that you say, "



> RSR-- are you saying they are NOT beheadiong people when they do not pray five times per day




As far as i read, its a threat, no one has been beheaded.

But you say they have, and then ask us to defend their brutality. 

*How about you defend your generalizations and lies. *


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 23, 2007)

Ummm, superlative?  Maineman?

You _do_ realize that you're probably arguing with a 14-year old kid, sitting at the computer his Mom bought him,  in his underwear?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> one wacko official...one town.... Somalia.  Is that what you got?
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just admit that all Christians want to kill all abortion doctors?



http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/jihadpages/women.htm

You must have missed this post - or did you ignore it?


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/jihadpages/women.htm
> 
> You must have missed this post - or did you ignore it?



MM you missed RSR's conclusive evidence that ALL muslims are barbaric murderous brutes. 

didnt you see the 5$ a year website he linked that PROVES ALL muslims murder women who have been raped? 

and muslims WITHOUT A DOUBT behead people who do not pray 5 times a day. 

He proved it, RSR proved it. where were you?

I was here and now I am convinced (more than ever) that RSR is a total fuckin retard.


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

well said


----------



## maineman (Jun 23, 2007)

I lived with them for two years, but he DOES have those websites!


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Pray five times daily 'or face beheading'
> MOHAMED SHEIKH NOR
> IN MOGADISHU
> ANYONE who does not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official in a southern Somalian town declared yesterday, adding that the new edict will be implemented in three days' time.
> ...




Hmmmm.....this is another D minus effort.  Perhaps D plus, if I could be charitable. 

Why are you providing us outdated information?  The islamist militias in this article were defeated and routed out of power by government forces at the end of 2006... and those who lived fled into the hills and jungles.


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

I dont know how he gets anything done correctly, hopping around on his right foot, and only using his right hand, he hates the left *SOOO MUCH*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Hmmmm.....this is another D minus effort.  Perhaps D plus, if I could be charitable.
> 
> Why are you providing us outdated information?  The islamist militias in this article were defeated and routed out of power by government forces at the end of 2006... and those who lived fled into the hills and jungles.



One would think the left would stand up for human rights in this case - but since when have the left ever said anything critical about Islam and Muslims?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> One would think the left would stand up for human rights in this case - but since when have the left ever said anything critical about Islam and Muslims?




Hmmmm....well, we'll have to give this an "F" for effort.  You totally avoided the point, and tried to divert. 

The issue is:  why did you provide outdated information about somalia - one that isn't relevant today, since the somali islamic militias were defeated and crushed?


----------



## Superlative (Jun 23, 2007)

red states rule said:


> They now behead people in the town square for not praying 5 times per day



The better question is why did you make this false assertion?

When you know there have been no such incidents?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> The better question is why did you make this false assertion?
> 
> When you know there have been no such incidents?



False eh?

How Do You Defeat an Ideology When No One Fights 
Somalia: Sheik Hussein Barre Rage in southern Somalia, who also serves as the chairman of the Islamic courts, has stated that in the town of Bulo Burto, you will be beheaded if you do not pray towards Mecca five times during the day. During prayer times, all shops are expected to be closed as well. If you are caught not praying, you "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law." "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do." - Fox News
Wow. How do you defeat an ideology which leads to this type of law? Actions do speak louder than words, for words are useless in today's society. Say something about the Somali town and you are denounced as a racist or trying to impose your beliefs on someone else. Yes, it is so-o-o terrible that I believe killing someone for missing a prayer is too harsh. Shame on me. I should be reeducated to believe everything is totally relative, there is no good or bad, nor right or wrong. If you think that's the case, please go to this town and don't pray. Let's see you preach relativism to the local Sheik.
Will anyone stand up for what is right? Why is this radical Islam spreading so fast? (See first question) Look at the world from 600-900 A.D. Islam spread from Saudi Arabia all the way across northern Africa, even taking over Spain and parts of France in this short period of time. Then take 900-1300 A.D. Islam spread down the west coast of Africa and all the way through northern India (and it was not by peace. Notice the Hindu Kush Valley in India. It literally means "Kill Hindu" because thousands of Indians died on forced marches across the mountains to be sold as slaves in the Islamic markets.). Who would dare stand up to this? See the Crusades. And look at how they are demonized. Some have called it Europes first "imperialistic war." Just imagine a map in which the entire Middle East, West Asia, North Africa, Spain, parts of the Balkans and Greece were taken in just a few hundred years. Now imagine the areas of Spain and parts of curent Israeli coast taken and advances halted in the Balkans. Yes, it seems who was imperialistic.
Is that what we are afraid of? Will we be demonized in history for "imposing" our values on people? If the same liberal ideology is in charge, yes it appears we will be. But it is precisely becasue the liberal ideology is in charge now that we do nothing, nor say nothing. Hopefully history will know exactly where the blame should fall. 

http://konservativekorner.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Hmmmm....well, we'll have to give this an "F" for effort.  You totally avoided the point, and tried to divert.
> 
> The issue is:  why did you provide outdated information about somalia - one that isn't relevant today, since the somali islamic militias were defeated and crushed?



Perhaps you could enlighten *me*.  What is outdated about an article from Dec 2006?  That's hardly a lot of significant amount of time in the big scheme of things.

Are you saying that your assertion that the somali islamic militias were defeated and crushed is what has rendered RSR's link obsolete?

If so, do you have a link to provide that verifies your assertion?

And before you get all jumpy, I'm just aksing legitimate questions.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2007)

Superlative said:


> The better question is why did you make this false assertion?
> 
> When you know there have been no such incidents?



Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not RSR's link, and not RSR making the assertion?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 23, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but is it *not* RSR's link, and not RSR making the assertion?




Wrong. 

RSR asserted that they _were_ beheading people, AND that is was happening *now*. 

RSR flunked on both assertions.   Suprising that you would gallop in to try to rescue him...he's an embarrasment to the board don't you agree?

Here's what RSR posted:



> -RSR: &#8220;They *now* behead people in the town square for not praying 5 times per day&#8221;
> 
> 
> _*Pray five times daily 'or face beheading'*
> ...




So, some "official" said they would behead people. 

That Hardly, backs up what RSR said.  He said they WERE beheading people, NOW. 

Neither case was he right.  No evidence was proferred that this "officials" edict was every carried out -- plus, it's NOT happening "now".   The islamic militias were routed and driven from power.  


I can find quotes of christian theocrats proclaiming that we should stone prostitutes to death. 

But, if I claimed it was _actually happening_, without providing evidence,  I would be the laughing stock of the board.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 23, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Wrong.
> 
> RSR asserted that they _were_ beheading people, AND that is was happening *now*.
> 
> ...



Eh, I have posted multiple links showing the offical and the courts said it was a crime not to pray five time per day

I also posted a link showing how Muslims treat and feel about women. I am surprised the left is not outraged - where is the NOW gang?


----------



## Gunny (Jun 23, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Wrong.
> 
> RSR asserted that they _were_ beheading people, AND that is was happening *now*.
> 
> ...



Dude, I'm not galloping to anyone's rescue.  I went from the thread title, tot he last few posts which have nothing to do with the thread title, and I read the linked article RSR provided.

The questions I have asked are because I am not all that up to speed on current events in Somalia.  So you're seeing something that isn't there.

At this point, we have an article from RSR dated Dec 2006, and your word that it is outdated and that what the article alleges is not currently taking place.

But i guess it never occurred to you some people might just be interested in what's going on rather than partisan sniping?  Thanks anyway.  I'll see what google has to offer.


----------



## Annie (Jun 23, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Dude, I'm not galloping to anyone's rescue.  I went from the thread title, tot he last few posts which have nothing to do with the thread title, and I read the linked article RSR provided.
> 
> The questions I have asked are because I am not all that up to speed on current events in Somalia.  So you're seeing something that isn't there.
> 
> ...



Here's one that I found:

http://www.iss.co.za/static/templates/tmpl_html.php?node_id=2282&link_id=5



> 29 May 2007: The Significance of Beheadings in Kenya&#65533;s Crime Wave
> 
> &#65533;
> 
> ...


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 23, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Here's one that I found:
> 
> _29 May 2007: The Significance of Beheadings in Kenya&#65533;s Crime Wave_
> 
> http://www.iss.co.za/static/templates/tmpl_html.php?node_id=2282&link_id=5



What's that got to do with anything anyone has said in the last thirty posts?

First, Kenya is a christian country.  Overwhelmingly christian. 

Second, the beheadings are criminal activities perpetrated by the Mungiki sect in Kenya - as your article states.  These aren't Muslims.


----------



## Annie (Jun 23, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> What's that got to do with anything anyone has said in the last thirty posts?
> 
> First, Kenya is a christian country.  Overwhelmingly christian.
> 
> Second, the beheadings are criminal activities perpetrated by the Mungiki sect in Kenya - as your article states.  These aren't Muslims.



That may or may not be true:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/36/249.html



> Kenyan Churches Alarmed By Spread of Mungiki Sect
> Panafrican News Agency, 3 September 2000
> 
> Nairobi - The rapid spread of an unregistered "Mungiki" religious sect, which is advocating female circumcision, has alarmed mainstream churches in central Kenya.
> ...


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 23, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> What's that got to do with anything anyone has said in the last thirty posts?
> 
> First, Kenya is a christian country.  Overwhelmingly christian.
> 
> Second, the beheadings are criminal activities perpetrated by the Mungiki sect in Kenya - as your article states.  These aren't Muslims.




Your article doesn't have anything to do with Islam, or with anything to do with the last thirty posts. 

Like I said, the Mungiki sect isn't muslims.  They are a bastardized hybrid religion of Christianity and native african tribal religions: 

_Seven years ago, self-confessed Mungiki leader Mr Ndura Waruinge, who has since renounced the proscribed sect, confessed that the movement practiced rituals that *&#8220;blended Christian teachings with traditional African worship practice.&#8221;*


http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18414/mungiki-12_


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 23, 2007)

seriously, did y'all just get on Google, type "beheadings", and _assumed_ anything you landed on or clicked, was related to the Islamic religion?  

This was funny.  The link to the Kenyan beheading is more closely linked to christianity, than it is to islam.  Their "sect" is a self-proclaimed hybrid of christianity and native tribal religions. 


Seriously, any whacked out person can cherry pick quotes from holy books, to justify atrocities.  The bible teaches us to stone to death prostitutes and unfaithful wives.  The koran probably has equally atrocious sanctions.   

That's why I don't like any theocrats - christian, muslim, or jew -  who take holy books literally.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> seriously, did y'all just get on Google, type "beheadings", and _assumed_ anything you landed on or clicked, was related to the Islamic religion?
> 
> This was funny.  The link to the Kenyan beheading is more closely linked to christianity, than it is to islam.  Their "sect" is a self-proclaimed hybrid of christianity and native tribal religions.
> 
> ...



It is the "in" things these days to bash Christians and Christianity - but it is racist to point out the facts about Islam and the terrorists who take it to the extreme


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I know it can be fatal if you do not follow it
> 
> *They now behead people in the town square for not praying 5 times per day*






Superlative said:


> The better question is *why did you make this false assertion?*
> 
> When you know there have been no such incidents?





red states rule said:


> *False eh?*
> 
> How Do You Defeat an Ideology When No One Fights
> Somalia: Sheik Hussein Barre Rage in southern Somalia, who also serves as the chairman of the Islamic courts, has stated that in the town of Bulo Burto, you will be beheaded if you do not pray towards Mecca five times during the day. During prayer times, all shops are expected to be closed as well. If you are caught not praying, you "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law." "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do." - Fox News
> ...




*Where do you PROVE your assertion that they have ACTUALLY beheaded people?*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> *Where do you PROVE your assertion that they have ACTUALLY beheaded people?*



I see the biggest defenders (liberals) of the terrorists are speaking up loud and clear


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Is that all they do RSR?
> 
> Blow themselves up, behead people, and kill raped women?
> 
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGFQ0PTjbFY&mode=related&search=[/ame]


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I see the biggest defenders (liberals) of the terrorists are speaking up loud and clear



Is that an answer to the question?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Is that an answer to the question?



Well, libs do have to push even harder for surrender since Reid and Pelosi surrendered to Pres Bush

It was a crushing blow to the terrorists in Iraq and around the world. They were counting on the Dems to hand them Iraq on a silver platter


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Well, libs do have to push even harder for surrender since Reid and Pelosi surrendered to Pres Bush
> 
> It was a crushing blow to the terrorists in Iraq and around the world. They were counting on the Dems to hand them Iraq on a silver platter



Is that an answer to the question?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Is that an answer to the question?



Is this your newest debate tactic?

and you call me a parrot


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Is this your newest debate tactic?
> 
> and you call me a parrot



Replies, replies, replies




*Still no answer. *


Is it because parrots cant explain what they repeat?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Replies, replies, replies
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I beieve one can find your posts on page three of the liberal talking points memo "How To Defend Our Surrrender Bill"


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I beieve one can find your posts on page three of the liberal talking points memo "How To Defend Our Surrrender Bill"



Good one. 


let me ask you again. And ill keep it red in case you forgot the question. 


*Where do you PROVE your assertion that they have ACTUALLY beheaded people?*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Good one.
> 
> 
> let me ask you again. And ill keep it red in case you forgot the question.
> ...



I do believe Kathy posted a link, and I posted several links on how the peaceful and tolerant Muslims deal with people who will not convert, and follow their rules

These are the folks you libs want us to appease and surrender to


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

he has no proof...and he will never answer you.


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I do believe Kathy posted a link, and I posted several links on how the peaceful and tolerant Muslims deal with people who will not convert, and follow their rules
> 
> These are the folks you libs want us to appease and surrender to



Do you have evidence of actual beheadings?


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> he has no proof...and he will never answer you.



I dont think it understands accountability and credibility.


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

I would like to see one link to one news story of one muslim beheaded for the crime of not praying five times a day.

But we will NEVER get that from RSR.... just ridiculous spinning doging and weaving and totally baseless accusations that, by merely asking the question, we have proven ourselves to be lovers of the enemy.

He does operate by a pretty stock formula


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Do you have evidence of actual beheadings?



Typical of liberal debate tactics. You make a statement - the libs asks for a link - your provide it - and the lib askes for more proof

Please keep telling us how the racists in America are misrepresenting the peaceful and tolerant Muslims who practice Islam

Do it or they will behead you


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would like to see one link to one news story of one muslim beheaded for the crime of not praying five times a day.
> 
> But we will NEVER get that from RSR.... just ridiculous spinning doging and weaving and totally baseless accusations that, by merely asking the question, we have proven ourselves to be lovers of the enemy.
> 
> He does operate by a pretty stock formula



really....one wacko somalian town official _threatening to do _something is hardly proof that ISLAM cuts off your head if you don't pray five times a day.


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Typical of liberal debate tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






*Are you admitting your a racist???*


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> *Are you admitting your a racist???*



Libs call me that everyday  - I know your talking points better then you do


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

simple request, really:  





maineman said:


> I would like to see one link to one news story of one muslim beheaded for the crime of not praying five times a day.
> 
> But we will NEVER get that from RSR.... just ridiculous spinning doging and weaving and totally baseless accusations that, by merely asking the question, we have proven ourselves to be lovers of the enemy.
> 
> He does operate by a pretty stock formula





maineman said:


> really....one wacko somalian town official _threatening to do _something is hardly proof that ISLAM cuts off your head if you don't pray five times a day.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Typical of liberal debate tactics. You make a statement - the libs asks for a link - your provide it - and the lib askes for more proof
> 
> Please keep telling us how the racists in America are misrepresenting the peaceful and tolerant Muslims who practice Islam
> 
> Do it or they will behead you



I give this an A plus grade, for diversion. 

You still haven't documented your statement that muslims _actually are_ being beheaded for not praying five times a day.  So, your assetion was false unless you can show otherwise.   I can find christians who state that prostitutes should be stoned to death; but I doubt I could find any _actual cases_ of it happening on more than a isolated case anywhere in the world. 

Also, one of you NeoCon buddies tried to gallop into your rescue with a post about beheadings in Kenya -- but it turned out that those beheading were the result of a criminal, pseudo-*christian* cult...not muslims. 

So your batting average at this point is 0.000


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I give this an A plus grade, for diversion.
> 
> You still haven't documented your statement that muslims _actually are_ being beheaded for not praying five times a day.  So, your assetion was false unless you can show otherwise.   I can find christians who state that prostitutes should be stoned to death; but I doubt I could find any _actual cases_ of it happening on more than a isolated case anywhere in the world.
> 
> ...



Libs like you are a hoot

They will defend the terrorists and their murderous ways - no matter what the evidence says

 appeasement is the key to winning the hearts and minds of the terrorists


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

you could set a clock by it:



maineman said:


> But we will NEVER get that from RSR.... just ridiculous spinning doging and weaving and* totally baseless accusations that, by merely asking the question, we have proven ourselves to be lovers of the enemy.*
> He does operate by a pretty stock formula


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> you could set a clock by it:



Ah, the chief supporter for the surrender to terrorists has bellowed in with his usual meaningless crap


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

really RSR...*one* news story showing* one *muslim beheaded for not praying five times a day.  got that?


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

I am not kiddin'....you couldn't MAKE this stuff up!



red states rule said:


> Ah, the chief supporter for the surrender to terrorists has bellowed in


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not kiddin'....you couldn't MAKE this stuff up!



Who is making anything up?

You are one of the biggest supporters for surrender and defeat of the US in Iraq


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Who is making anything up?
> 
> You are one of the biggest supporters for surrender and defeat of the US in Iraq




not in the least.  I think it is hilarious that I predicted that, rather than post a link to one news source that reported one muslim being beheaded for the crime of not praying five times a day, that rather than admit you had no such link, that you would attack me and claim that I was a terrorist lover.  It is standard RSR behavior when you are caught in a lie.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> not in the least.  I think it is hilarious that I predicted that, rather than post a link to one news source that reported one muslim being beheaded for the crime of not praying five times a day, that rather than admit you had no such link, that you would attack me and claim that I was a terrorist lover.  It is standard RSR behavior when you are caught in a lie.



Your past support for your parties Surrneder bill, and your defense of those who slander/insult the troops - is proof enough of my statement

You are an appeaser and supporter of surrender in Iraq


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 24, 2007)

Round and round we go.  He's all yours Cons.   He really is an embarrasment to the board.  Can we have a rule, where only adults get to debate?  


A day in the life of an RSR debate



> RSR: They *now* behead people in the town square for not praying 5 times per day



...one wacko official...one town.... Somalia. Is that what you got?



> RSR replies:  are you saying they are NOT beheadiong people when they do not pray five times per day



As far as i read, its a threat, no one has been beheaded.
why did you make this false assertion.  When you know there have been no such incidents? How about you defend your generalizations and lies.



> RSR replies: It is the "in" things these days to bash Christians and Christianity - but it is racist to point out the facts about Islam and the terrorists who take it to the extreme



You still haven't documented your statement that muslims actually are being beheaded for not praying five times a day. 



> RSR: Libs like you are a hoot.  They will defend the terrorists and their murderous ways



really RSR*one* news story showing *one* muslim beheaded _for not praying five times a day_. got that?



> RSR replies:  Ah, the chief supporter for the surrender to terrorists has bellowed in



The better question is why did you make this false assertion?
When you know there have been no such incidents?



> RSR replies: I see the biggest defenders (liberals) of the terrorists are speaking up loud and clear.  These are the folks you libs want us to appease and surrender to



Do you have *evidence of actual beheadings?*



> RSR replies: Typical of liberal debate tactics.You make a statement - the libs asks for a link - your provide it - and the lib askes for more proof



You still haven't documented your statement that muslims _actually are_ being beheaded for not praying five times a day. So, your assetion was false unless you can show otherwise.



> RSR replies: Who is making anything up?   You are one of the biggest supporters for surrender and defeat of the US in Iraq


----------



## Superlative (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs call me that everyday  - I know your talking points better then you do



Do Conservatives call you racist too?


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Your past support for your parties Surrneder bill, and your defense of those who slander/insult the troops - is proof enough of my statement
> 
> You are an appeaser and supporter of surrender in Iraq



my party has never put forward a "surrender bill".  ANd the bill that my party did put forward, which fully funded the war efforts in Iraq, but set troop withdrawal deadlines was supported by a large majority of americans. 

I do not want "defeat" for America in Iraq.  I want America to start fighting the war against Islamic extremism instead of tying up the bulk of our fighting forces going after a handful of deadenders in their final throes.  Do you honestly think that when we leave, the Iraqi army is not going to quickly come unglued and become two separate sunni and shiite armed militias that will start in to killing one another?  

What does That have to do with the fact that 3000 Taliban suicide bombers can have a graduation ceremony in Afghanistan - where the bulk of our enemy has been all along - invite the press and NOBODY could do diddly about it because we do NOT have our forces concentrated where our real enemy is?


Your cowardly slander of any veteran who does not agree with George Bush would get your beaten to a bloodly pulp at MY American Legion post.  I guarantee it.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> my party has never put forward a "surrender bill".  ANd the bill that my party did put forward, which fully funded the war efforts in Iraq, but set troop withdrawal deadlines was supported by a large majority of americans.
> 
> I do not want "defeat" for America in Iraq.  I want America to start fighting the war against Islamic extremism instead of tying up the bulk of our fighting forces going after a handful of deadenders in their final throes.  Do you honestly think that when we leave, the Iraqi army is not going to quickly come unglued and become two separate sunni and shiite armed militias that will start in to killing one another?
> 
> ...



rsr, stop slandering maineman, veterans are to be treated with the up-most dignity and respect, and believe me, I once acted like a giant a**hole, to one at an anti-war parade, so i am not lecturing, i am telling you its disrespect and foolery to question patriotism of soldiers past and present.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

Will somebody please tell me, why we cant just cut iraq into three sectarian countries with a central government, and seal the borders?



actsnoblemartin said:


> rsr, stop slandering maineman, veterans are to be treated with the up-most dignity and respect, and believe me, I once acted like a giant a**hole, to one at an anti-war parade, so i am not lecturing, i am telling you its disrespect and foolery to question patriotism of soldiers past and present.


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

I think, actually, that Turkey may have the biggest problem with such a division.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

Have you re-searched how bad non-muslims have been treated historically in muslim countries, women too, and gays.

Do you know, the level of persecution against non-muslims in the world

do you know honor killing is not in-frequent in the muslim world.

Neither is female genital mutilation, Ive seen a report where its hapenning in northern irraq, but i guess we can trust the saudi's to tell us the truth, since they dont keep records, and most muslim countries dont, and most african countries are muslims.

I have to show you a beheading, for you to believe it happens?. are you kidding me ?




DeadCanDance said:


> Round and round we go.  He's all yours Cons.   He really is an embarrasment to the board.  Can we have a rule, where only adults get to debate?
> 
> 
> A day in the life of an RSR debate
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

I really wish liberals would stop down playing the threat from islamo-nazi terrorism. 

Every time, something happens, or some criticizes islamo nazi terrorists, I hear the same thing from the far left and many liberals, its not all of them and its not that big a threat.

Your heads are deeply buried in the sand, recently I realized, we are not fighting them over there so they wont come here. They are already here, and as we speak, planning, and trying to carry out attacks inside the u.s., its sad, that many liberals in the the u.s.a, for years said, hey jews in israel, make peace with the people blowing up your kids, well, one day, when your kids get blown up, at a pizza parlor, or a night club, i want to see you say make peace. Oh, wait it already happened, and you still dont take the threat as seriously as you should and you want peace. 

Not all granted, their are some good democrats who understand the threat, and we can disagree about iraq, im not sure what to do their, but im talking about, show me how many conservatives marched against invading afghanistan, .


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> Have you re-searched how bad non-muslims have been treated historically in muslim countries, women too, and gays.
> 
> Do you know, the level of persecution against non-muslims in the world
> 
> ...




do you have any evidence of muslims being beheaded for not praying five times a day or don't you?

reallly simple question.  a yes or a no will suffice.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 24, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you have any evidence of muslims being beheaded for not praying five times a day or don't you?
> 
> reallly simple question.  a yes or a no will suffice.



I do not recall you answering me if you had ever lived in a muslim country as a civilian with no backing or protection or seperation for being foreign or Un sponsored military.


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I do not recall you answering me if you had ever lived in a muslim country as a civilian with no backing or protection or seperation for being foreign or Un sponsored military.



I guess you missed my rather detailed answer.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

Do you want me to fly there and video tape it?, or will some news articles suffice?  

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=muslims+beheaded+for+not+praying+5+times+a+day

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/somalis-to-behead-those-who-dont-pray-5-times-a-day

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20061206-0813-somalia-prayer.html

The answer is yes...

http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?article248



maineman said:


> do you have any evidence of muslims being beheaded for not praying five times a day or don't you?
> 
> reallly simple question.  a yes or a no will suffice.


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> Do you want me to fly there and video tape it?, or will some news articles suffice?
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=muslims+beheaded+for+not+praying+5+times+a+day
> 
> ...



the answer is no.  none of those articles report anyone *being beheaded *for the crime of not praying five times a day.


----------



## maineman (Jun 24, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I do not recall you answering me if you had ever lived in a muslim country as a civilian with no backing or protection or seperation for being foreign or Un sponsored military.



oh...and for the record, that wasn't your question when you first posed it....you changed it and expanded it here when restating it.

now.  answer mine.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

Lets not play coy, the edict says anyone not praying 5 times a day will be beheaded, and one of the articles i gave you was published by a correspondent in mogudishu. 

What do you want, me to fly there?, with a camera, and ask the nice islamo nazi's to let a jew film them beheading someone. 

oh and by the way, here is some evidence, as too what somalias human's right record is by a very conservative group   , amnesty international.

NOw, i dont know about you, but i dont need to see video of beheadings, to know that when islamo nazi's make threats, they carry them out, see taliban, and 9/11. Bin ladin didnt just say, or threaten us, like the articles threaten somali's he acted on it.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/afr52.htm




maineman said:


> oh...and for the record, that wasn't your question when you first posed it....you changed it and expanded it here when restating it.
> 
> now.  answer mine.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

we are talking the fact, that a court has been set up to kill anyone not by lethal injection, but by be-heading if they dont pray 5 times a day. The reports will come in soon, of fatalities and you know it mr. 

My god, arab muslims are butchering black muslims and sunni's and shiites have been slitting each other throats for 1,000 years, and you think the islamic court is joking. Perhaps instead, they give them, a haircut as a parting gift instead, come to think of it, i would hate to see the islamic version of the price is right. your bid: allah, yours?, death to america?, yours: jihad!

hehehe



maineman said:


> oh...and for the record, that wasn't your question when you first posed it....you changed it and expanded it here when restating it.
> 
> now.  answer mine.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 24, 2007)

Good. 

So we've established that RSR was incorrect when he/she stated that people were and are being beheaded for not praying five times a day.  Good.  It only took 50 posts, to get someone to admit that.  Like pulling teeth.  So some asshole threatened to behead people for not praying.   But it never happened.   

As for the _"Just wait and see!  This town will soon start beheading people...someday!"_  storyline.......

I'm afraid that's just not possible.  As was noted 50 posts ago, the town is no longer under control of islamic militias.  The government forces routed and crushed the islamic forces in somalia.   Unless one stays glued to Fox News, this was all over the international news 6 months ago.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 24, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Good.
> 
> So we've established that RSR was incorrect when he/she stated that people were and are being beheaded for not praying five times a day.  Good.  It only took 50 posts, to get someone to admit that.  Like pulling teeth.  So some asshole threatened to behead people for not praying.   But it never happened.
> 
> ...



Ahh so Somalia is perfectly safe now with no Islamic control anywhere at all? Maybe you should tell the Somali Government that and their allies.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 24, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> I really wish liberals would stop down playing the threat from islamo-nazi terrorism.
> 
> Every time, something happens, or some criticizes islamo nazi terrorists, I hear the same thing from the far left and many liberals, its not all of them and its not that big a threat.
> 
> ...




_I really wish liberals would stop down playing the threat from islamo-nazi terrorism. _

I don't play it down.  I just want us to go after and focus _on the right people_. 

Not every muslim theocrat, or islamic group is the same.  Nor, do they all pose a threat to the american homeland.   Some theocrats are just that....theocrats.  I don't like theocrats of any religion, but that doesn't mean their out to take over my country. 

Likewise, it's idiotic to lump all muslim nationalist or jihaddist groups together.   Some of them have regional goals, and have never demonstrated any interest in attacking Nashville or Lubbock, Texas.  

I prefer to be smart about this.  Sure, we can run around like paranoid chickens with our heads cut off, chasing every monster we think we see under the bed.   But, CIA professionals will tell you, that some muslim extremists are a threat to the United States, and other aren't.   Why waste resources, and paralyze yourself with fear?  Why not be smart about fighting terrorists?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jun 24, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh so Somalia is perfectly safe now with no Islamic control anywhere at all? Maybe you should tell the Somali Government that and their allies.




I give this, perhaps a C plus, for an attempt at diversion, or changing the topic. 

fact is, it took 50 posts to get anyone to admit that the claim of RSR was false.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 24, 2007)

Superlative said:


> *Where do you PROVE your assertion that they have ACTUALLY beheaded people?*



You and deadcandance need to quit playing your dishonest little game.  The article makes the claim.  Neither you nor deadcandance have provided one shred of evidence that I have seen to refute what the article states.

You just keep demanding proof, while providing none of your own.  If you can impeach the article, go for it.  If you can't, you've got no argument.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 24, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I give this, perhaps a C plus, for an attempt at diversion, or changing the topic.
> 
> fact is, it took 50 posts to get anyone to admit that the claim of RSR was false.



Really?  Who has proven the claim made in the article is false?

Diversion would be a) calling a statement made in a linked article RSR's and b) acting as if you have refuted that statement with your opinion.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> _I really wish liberals would stop down playing the threat from islamo-nazi terrorism. _
> 
> I don't play it down.  I just want us to go after and focus _on the right people_.
> 
> ...



ME: I think youre right, we should not run around paranoid, and we should fight the most dangerous group(s) first, and eventually, go after the little fish, only after the big fish.

ME: I quite admire your words.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

what are you talking about??



DeadCanDance said:


> I give this, perhaps a C plus, for an attempt at diversion, or changing the topic.
> 
> fact is, it took 50 posts to get anyone to admit that the claim of RSR was false.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

why are we arguing this. Since when do islamo-nazi terrorists NOT keep their word, and forgive me, but your mad, because rsr said: they are be-heading people, as opposed to, they are going to behead people. I get that yes, its a difference, but its going to happen, so why the anger?



DeadCanDance said:


> Good.
> 
> So we've established that RSR was incorrect when he/she stated that people were and are being beheaded for not praying five times a day.  Good.  It only took 50 posts, to get someone to admit that.  Like pulling teeth.  So some asshole threatened to behead people for not praying.   But it never happened.
> 
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 24, 2007)

huh? im too tired, please explain



RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh so Somalia is perfectly safe now with no Islamic control anywhere at all? Maybe you should tell the Somali Government that and their allies.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 25, 2007)

actsnoblemartin said:


> why are we arguing this. Since when do islamo-nazi terrorists NOT keep their word, and forgive me, but your mad, because rsr said: they are be-heading people, as opposed to, they are going to behead people. I get that yes, its a difference, but its going to happen, so why the anger?



Because most libs think WE are to blame when they launch their terror attacks on us


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> You and deadcandance need to quit playing your dishonest little game.  The article makes the claim.  Neither you nor deadcandance have provided one shred of evidence that I have seen to refute what the article states.
> 
> You just keep demanding proof, while providing none of your own.  If you can impeach the article, go for it.  If you can't, you've got no argument.



actually, the article makes the claim that one municipal official in one somali town threatened to cut off the heads of muslims that did not pray five times a day.  Not one actual beheading resulting from his threat has been noted -either in that article or anywhere else.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 25, 2007)

and these are the people the left want to surredner to in Iraq, and try to reason with


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and these are the people the left want to surredner to in Iraq, and try to reason with



you think that the left wants to surrender Iraq to somali municipal officials?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> you think that the left wants to surrender Iraq to somali municipal officials?



no, surrender to Mulism terrorists


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

my post was about the threats of one somali municipal official.  and you said that those are the people that the left wants to surrender Iraq to.  Did you get confused trying to follow the conversation of this thread?  

Oh..and by the way....Will you ever come up with any instance where a muslim was, in fact, beheaded for the crime of failing to pray five times a day?


----------



## red states rule (Jun 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> my post was about the threats of one somali municipal official.  and you said that those are the people that the left wants to surrender Iraq to.  Did you get confused trying to follow the conversation of this thread?
> 
> Oh..and by the way....Will you ever come up with any instance where a muslim was, in fact, beheaded for the crime of failing to pray five times a day?



The Dems do want to appease and surrender to terrorists

Here is yet another example of the people Dems want to try and appease

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52699


----------



## Superlative (Jun 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> The article makes the claim. THAT THEY WILL BEHEAD ANYONE WHO DOES NOT PRAY. Neither you nor deadcandance have provided one shred of evidence that I have seen to refute what the article states. BECAUSE NO ONE HAS BEEN BEHEADED.
> 
> You just keep demanding proof, OF ACTUAL BEHEADINGS while providing none of your own. BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN NO BEHEADINGS< HOW DO WE DISPROVE RSR's CLAIM? If you can impeach the article, go for it.  If you can't, you've got no argument.





GunnyL said:


> Really?  Who has proven the claim made in the article is false?
> THE ARTICE ITSELF PROVES RSR's CLAIM IS FALSE.





Weird, I figured that when I make a claim, I should provide evidence to back up that claim.

When RSR says *THEY BEHEAD PEOPLE* and provides a link to articles that say they have *NOT BEHEADED ANYONE*,  they want to. 

Because its RSR and he can never admit being wrong, we should ignore it?


----------



## T-Bor (Jun 25, 2007)

You have to agree with Red States here.  If you are going to argue that Terrorists are NOT generally muslim then you are a stone cold dope too caught up in todays politically correct society.  Almost every single terrorist example in todays society has a muslim involved. Sure you can pull out your BS McVey analogy.  That is one freaking person out of many.  You all know damn well that the percentage of terrorists who are muslim is extremely high.  Not racist just a fact.



red states rule said:


> Lets see
> 
> 9-11 terrorists - Muslim
> 
> ...


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

my problem is the illogical leap from "all terrorists are muslims" to "all muslims are terrorists."  

It is the same illogical leap that takes us from the story of ONE somali municipal leader saying that he _wanted_ to behead muslims who didn't pray five times a day to RSR's assertions that *muslims behead people who don't pray five times a day.*

As I have said, I have lived with muslims... lots of them, and I can say that, from my personal experience, the _overwhelming majority _of them are peaceful, friendly, law abiding, hard working people.


----------



## Superlative (Jun 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> my problem is the illogical leap from "all terrorists are muslims" to "all muslims are terrorists."
> 
> It is the same illogical leap that takes us from the story of ONE somali municipal leader saying that he _wanted_ to behead muslims who didn't pray five times a day to RSR's assertions that *muslims behead people who don't pray five times a day.*
> 
> As I have said, I have lived with muslims... lots of them, and I can say that, from my personal experience, the _overwhelming majority _of them are peaceful, friendly, law abiding, hard working people.



Its ok to be a right wing racist if you have a news paper article to back up your assertions.


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Its ok to be a right wing racist if you have a news paper article to back up your assertions.



except, of course, when the newspaper article in question does not back up your assertions!


----------



## Superlative (Jun 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> except, of course, when the newspaper article in question does not back up your assertions!



Except of course for that. 

But hasnt that been the issue FROM THE START?


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

that has been the recurring theme in all of my issues with RSR.  He hardly ever posts "facts", and when he does, he misinterprets them.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 25, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Weird, I figured that when I make a claim, I should provide evidence to back up that claim.
> 
> When RSR says *THEY BEHEAD PEOPLE* and provides a link to articles that say they have *NOT BEHEADED ANYONE*,  they want to.
> 
> Because its RSR and he can never admit being wrong, we should ignore it?



I'm not going to go back and dig up the link.  If it's as you say, then his argument has been refuted, no?

Anything after that is just attacking the messenger and not the message.  

I see certain posters bitching about the board, but those verysame posters contribute greatly to every thread devolving into personal attacks, and running the spectrum of "hot topics" in each and every thread.  

It's getting old.  This isn't aimed at anyone specifically, nor one side of the political spectrum or the other.  It's a blanket statement covering the fact that it happens from both sides.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 25, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Its ok to be a right wing racist if you have a news paper article to back up your assertions.



All you have to do is prove it wrong.  That's the name of the game.


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> All you have to do is prove it wrong.  That's the name of the game.



the article proves RSR's assertions wrong on its face.  It reports that one somali municipal official wanted to behead any muslim not praying five times a day.  Not one actual beheading is mentioned in the article by my reading of it.

RSR claimed that muslims were beheaded for the crime of not praying five times a day.

One muslim obit stating cause of death: beheading because the poor fella didn't pray five times a day.... that's all we're askin' here.


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

RSR, for example, might state his intention to mate with an alien from another planet.  That doesn't get any aliens knocked up.


----------



## Superlative (Jun 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR, for example, might state his intention to mate with an alien from another planet.  That doesn't get any aliens knocked up.



Imagine a half alien half RSR?

RSR's kid could be as smart as an African Grey Parrot. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Grey_Parrot

The smartest parrot in all the land.


----------



## maineman (Jun 25, 2007)

Hey RGS:

did you MISS this answer or just decide to ignore it?

_When I lived in Beirut, I had absolutely ZERO protection from any government and I was on totally detached duty from the US Navy. US Military personnel assigned to the US Embassy lived in gated complexes and were driven everywhere in armored cars with armed guards. On the other hand, as a UN employee, I was not allowed to even carry a weapon. There were never any guards to protect me. I drove a white Passat and lived in a tiny walk up apartment until the building across the street that housed the Iranian news agency was blown up, the debris destroyed most of my apartment and my stuff so I moved to another equally unsafe apartment closer to the harbor for no reason other than it was that much closer to a potential escape route if the city came unglued. In both apartments, I had muslim neighbors. In both apartments, I was nearby muslim shops and markets and schools and clubs.... and I socialized with many many muslims on a frequent and routine basis. To this day, I routinely correspond with several arab friends I made during my time in the middle east.

Now I know you hate to admit it, but given all that, which one of us probably has a better first hand understanding of what the muslim world is like, what their dreams and aspirations are and what their views of the United States are?_


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 25, 2007)

Yup, those peaceful arabs tried to blow you up. Good guys.

You are of course aware that the teachings of Allah specifically forbid Muslims from making non muslim friends? Your "friends" are anything but.


----------



## Larkinn (Jun 26, 2007)

> You are of course aware that the teachings of Allah specifically forbid Muslims from making non muslim friends? Your "friends" are anything but.



Just like in the bible where it says stone adulterers and those who eat shellfish?

Its all about the interpretation.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, those peaceful arabs tried to blow you up. Good guys.
> 
> You are of course aware that the teachings of Allah specifically forbid Muslims from making non muslim friends? Your "friends" are anything but.



So much for the promise made to terrorists


----------



## maineman (Jun 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, those peaceful arabs tried to blow you up. Good guys.
> 
> You are of course aware that the teachings of Allah specifically forbid Muslims from making non muslim friends? Your "friends" are anything but.



quit tap dancing and just answer the question:

*Now I know you hate to admit it, but given all that, which one of us probably has a better first hand understanding of what the muslim world is like, what their dreams and aspirations are and what their views of the United States are?*


----------



## Annie (Jun 26, 2007)

RSR, it's a dupe:

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49243&highlight=hitchens


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> quit tap dancing and just answer the question:
> 
> *Now I know you hate to admit it, but given all that, which one of us probably has a better first hand understanding of what the muslim world is like, what their dreams and aspirations are and what their views of the United States are?*



Your opinion is just that, opinion. And we all know what you think of opinions.


----------



## red states rule (Jun 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> quit tap dancing and just answer the question:
> 
> *Now I know you hate to admit it, but given all that, which one of us probably has a better first hand understanding of what the muslim world is like, what their dreams and aspirations are and what their views of the United States are?*



We know all about Muslim terrorists


----------



## red states rule (Jun 26, 2007)

Superlative said:


> Weird, I figured that when I make a claim, I should provide evidence to back up that claim.
> 
> When RSR says *THEY BEHEAD PEOPLE* and provides a link to articles that say they have *NOT BEHEADED ANYONE*,  they want to.
> 
> Because its RSR and he can never admit being wrong, we should ignore it?



Thousands of people suffer from acute decapitation each year. Liberals think result of the invasion of Iraq and the US's war on terror. Michael Moore is now planning a movie to explore this possibility


----------



## maineman (Jun 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your opinion is just that, opinion. And we all know what you think of opinions.




so obviously, SOME retired gunny sergeants somehow lose their balls and can't answer simple questions?


----------



## maineman (Jun 26, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Thousands of people suffer from acute decapitation each year. Liberals think result of the invasion of Iraq and the US's war on terror. Michael Moore is now planning a movie to explore this possibility



one news report showing one muslim who was decapitated for the crime of not praying five times a day....that is all I ask for.


----------



## maineman (Jun 26, 2007)

::crickets chirping::


----------



## maineman (Jun 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your opinion is just that, opinion. And we all know what you think of opinions.



and again...that is not a statement of MY opinion, it is a question which seeks YOURS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> so obviously, SOME retired gunny sergeants somehow lose their balls and can't answer simple questions?



You resort to name calling a lot, usual tactic of the left, you fit right in. I DID answer your question. You don't like the answer? To damn bad.


----------



## maineman (Jun 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You resort to name calling a lot, usual tactic of the left, you fit right in. I DID answer your question. You don't like the answer? To damn bad.



no you didn't.... you incorrectly dismissed my question by mislabeling it my opinion.  

And realize that the question came at the end of a post which answered a previous question of your in great detail which you first claimed I had never answered and then, failed to respond with anything approaching the interest I put into replying.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

Front page of Tribune today:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...alopekjun28,1,3542860.story?coll=chi-news-hed

They may or not be Muslim, but today it seems they are inspired by those that are extremists:



> 'Madness' in the shantytowns
> With thousands of followers, the vicious Mungiki cult preys on the poor and vows to disrupt Kenya's fledgling democracy
> 
> By Paul Salopek
> ...


----------



## Larkinn (Jun 28, 2007)

They aren't Muslim...or at least almost certainly not.   Mungiki is called a cult because it is religious in nature...Mungiki is their religion, not Islam.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> They aren't Muslim...or at least almost certainly not.   Mungiki is called a cult because it is religious in nature...Mungiki is their religion, not Islam.



Read the thread, the post was related. I bolded what imo was significant.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> no you didn't.... you incorrectly dismissed my question by mislabeling it my opinion.
> 
> And realize that the question came at the end of a post which answered a previous question of your in great detail which you first claimed I had never answered and then, failed to respond with anything approaching the interest I put into replying.



Your so full of shit your eyes must be brown. Your take on Islam and sunni/shiite is NOTHING more than your opinion. That you claim otherwise is simply amazing.

Prove me wrong. Provide us with some certification, some documentation that you are some how a renowned or even obscure EXPERT , recognized as such, on this particular issue.

My answer stands. My opinion and that of others is JUST as valid as yours.


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your so full of shit your eyes must be brown. Your take on Islam and sunni/shiite is NOTHING more than your opinion. That you claim otherwise is simply amazing.
> 
> Prove me wrong. Provide us with some certification, some documentation that you are some how a renowned or even obscure EXPERT , recognized as such, on this particular issue.
> 
> My answer stands. My opinion and that of others is JUST as valid as yours.



would you think that my opinions about marine corps operations, procedures and customs were just as valid as yours?


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

for that matter:

Provide us with some certification, some documentation that you are some how a retired marine corps gunny sergeant and not some pimply faced high school kid.


----------



## Larkinn (Jun 28, 2007)

> Read the thread, the post was related. I bolded what imo was significant.



I did read the thread.   I also responded to a fairly obscure point sometime back in this thread, so it should be obvious that I've read it...of course it would have been if you had read the thread.

You said.



> *They may or not be Muslim*, but today it seems they are inspired by those that are extremists:



And I said they weren't muslim.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> I did read the thread.   I also responded to a fairly obscure point sometime back in this thread, so it should be obvious that I've read it...of course it would have been if you had read the thread.
> 
> You said.
> 
> ...



I thought the article was inferring some thread. It's not often the press comes out with Muslim extremist in articles nowadays. Seems I was correct:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/36/242.html

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35363.htm

http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143970367


----------



## Larkinn (Jun 28, 2007)

Hmm interesting.   I don't quite know how that works because it is, or maybe just was, a religious group as well.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Hmm interesting.   I don't quite know how that works because it is, or maybe just was, a religious group as well.



The newspapers are not quite 'strait up' nowadays, there is a lot left unsaid. It's wrong, but it's just how it is.


----------



## Larkinn (Jun 28, 2007)

Err except that the last article seems to contradict the other two.



> Waruinge, being handsome and the most eloquent, was a favourite of the media. I interviewed him for Citizen Television, when he adopted the Muslim name, Ibrahim, and donned the cap, normally worn by Muslims.
> 
> Asked why he had changed his name, Waruinge attempted to relate Mungikis way of doing things to that of the Muslims. He cited among other things the fact that just like the Muslim prayed facing Mecca, the sect followers prayed facing Mt Kenya.



Seems to be implying that Mungiki's "way of doing things" is a religious standard...hence seeming to be at odds with the statement that



> While religion may have played a role in the formation of the Mungiki, observers believe that it is no longer a key characteristic of the group. The Mungiki do not adhere to any single religion, and members are free to choose their own religion; the group includes Muslims and Christians. The number of Mungiki members is unknown, but the group draws a significant following from the unemployed and other marginalized segments of society.



The first quote is more recent...but it seems strange that they would have religious practices...then allow people to have their own religion, and then have group-specific religious practices again.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Err except that the last article seems to contradict the other two.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be implying that Mungiki's "way of doing things" is a religious standard...hence seeming to be at odds with the statement that


 not really, just Africans mixing their culture with other. Been done since the whole world started exploiting their land, then carving up the continent. 





> The first quote is more recent...but it seems strange that they would have religious practices...then allow people to have their own religion, and then have group-specific religious practices again.


I suppose it's like any other religion, some follow more closely than others. Without a doubt, most Muslims are not terrorists. All terrorists are not necessarily Muslims, but most looking to strike the West are.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> would you think that my opinions about marine corps operations, procedures and customs were just as valid as yours?



Maybe not customs, but as a Naval officers I suspect you would have more knowledge of Operations in General and to some extent would be as knowledgable on procedures.

The only reason I would possible believe the customs part is because that is generally Service connected and learned and taught in house. Now if you were a Naval officer that had spent a lot of time with marines, I would assume you were pretty good on customs as well.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

More to back up the inference, at least tangentially:


http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a



> Explosion Rocks Central Nairobi
> Sub-Saharan Africa - Kenya
> June 11 2007 - BBC News
> 
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> for that matter:
> 
> Provide us with some certification, some documentation that you are some how a retired marine corps gunny sergeant and not some pimply faced high school kid.



This doesn't even have any bearing on the discussion at all. For one, I never have claimed that my Military background gives me any special insight or opinion on the issue of Muslims or Iraq.

You on the other hand have insisted your status as an Officer and a member of UN Commands does, so YOU provide US with proof. Or you can retract this personal insult, I won't even ask for an apology.


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> This doesn't even have any bearing on the discussion at all. For one, I never have claimed that my Military background gives me any special insight or opinion on the issue of Muslims or Iraq.
> 
> You on the other hand have insisted your status as an Officer and a member of UN Commands does, so YOU provide US with proof. Or you can retract this personal insult, I won't even ask for an apology.



does your military background give you any special insight as to marines?  would your service at a particular marine corps installation give you any special insight as to the peculiarities of that installation or that area?

I posted, as you requested, a brief vignette concerning my experiences in the middle east.  Are you suggesting that if YOU were to have lived there and done what I did for the period of time that I did it, that YOU would not have developed any special insight or opinions on the issue of muslims?


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

or are you all but calling me a pimply faced teenager masquerading as an officer?

If you want any credibility as a "retired gunny sergeant" and you want to claim that such credibility extends to the specific nature of your service as a gunny sergeant in the marine corps as opposed to some other branch of service, then you need to grant that same level of credibility to me.  

There are a wealth of things related to the marine corps that I willingly acknowledge your superior knowledge in...and I would defer to you in all of those areas.  

On the other hand, I know more about driving ships than you do.  I know more about anti-submarine warfare than you do.  I know about man overboard drills than you do.  I know more about ship's stability and damage control than you do. AND I know more about the middle east than you do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> or are you all but calling me a pimply faced teenager masquerading as an officer?
> 
> If you want any credibility as a "retired gunny sergeant" and you want to claim that such credibility extends to the specific nature of your service as a gunny sergeant in the marine corps as opposed to some other branch of service, then you need to grant that same level of credibility to me.
> 
> ...



Lets see if I have this right? In true liberal fashion, you make a claim I may be nothing more than a liar and that I SHOULD provide proof I am not, THEN when replied to with the same request that YOU prove your what YOU claim , I am wrong and should be ashamed of myself?

Your a pompous ASS. I have defended your sorry ass more than once from people attacking your service. I have acknowledged you are an officer and THAT you served in UN Commands, with NO proof. And now YOUR going to insinuate I have done none of these things? Your going to try and pretend YOU didn't INSULT me and twist it into me doing the insulting.

I do not normal stoop to this, BUT FUCK YOU. Yes I know it shows a lack of tact and I have chastized others for it, but your BLATANT hypocracy is really starting to PISS me off. You have 2 choices ASSHOLE, one is to continue to play your crap and the other is to apologize for your shit. Do surprise me and do the one I suspect you won't.

Once again just to be clear , of the two of us the one that has shown respect, the one that has acknowledge service, the one that has defend the other would be ME. While your to busy playing word games and trying to pretend you didn't call me a LIAR.


----------



## Larkinn (Jun 28, 2007)

> Yes I know it shows a lack of tact and I have chastized others for it, but your BLATANT hypocracy is really starting to PISS me off



Somehow I doubt your own admitted hypocrisy bothers you nearly as much.


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Now if you were a Naval officer that had spent a lot of time with marines, I would assume you were pretty good on customs as well.




odd.  If I had spent time with marines, you would assume I would know what the fuck I am talking about.  But if I spend time with Muslims, I am still an uninformed layman who has no more knowledge than someone who has spent NO time living amongst them.

yeah...that makes sense.

And if you go back to the genesis of this little argument....you asked me if I had ever spent any time with Arabs....I answered that I had and explained how, even though I was technically a member of the US Armed Forces, I had lived right smack dab in the middle of muslim neighborhoods with ZERO protection or cover from any US or UN forces.

And you denigrated that.

And then you suggested that, if I were to be believed as anything other than a layman with zero experience regarding Muslims and Arabs, that I needed to provide documentation.  I sarcastically suggested that maybe you needed to provide documentation as well, gunny.

Please give me the quote where I ever called you a liar and I will either explain it or apologize for it.

I am not suggesting that you are a liar...I am suggesting that you are a bullheaded obstinate man....I am suggesting that your continued assertions that your opinions about the middle east are just as valid as mine is just as ridiculous as suggesting that I know as much about YOUR duty stations even though I was never stationed there myself.

If you had been assigned to the embassy detail  in Paris and spoke french and were extremely familiar with Paris, France and Frenchmen...and I had never been to Paris or France, wouldn't you think it quite presumptuous of me to claim to know as much about the Montmartre as you?


----------



## Superlative (Jun 28, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> People like you are why we may lose this war against Islam. *You can not fathom the concept that the INTENT of the religion is total world wide control. *That everyone will convert or die. In fact there are portions of the Islamic movement that do NOT like terrorists that blow up shit, not because they care about who is dying, but because they had a good thing going immigrating and taking over from within.





maineman said:


> RGS:  have you ever lived in a muslim country?





RetiredGySgt said:


> [Have YOU ever lived in a Muslim Country as a civilian with no protection of another Government or the military? As a citizen non Muslim?....
> 
> .......More specifically there is a MAJOR threat from armed murderous terrorists that want violence to take over NOW.





maineman said:


> When I lived in Beirut, I had absolutely ZERO protection from any government and I was on totally detached duty from the US Navy.  US Military personnel assigned to the US Embassy lived in gated complexes and were driven everywhere in armored cars with armed guards.  On the other hand, as a UN employee, I was not allowed to even carry a weapon.  There were never any guards to protect me.  I drove a white Passat and lived in a tiny walk up apartment until the building across the street that housed the Iranian news agency was blown up, the debris destroyed most of my apartment and my stuff so I moved to another equally unsafe apartment closer to the harbor for no reason other than it was that much closer to a potential escape route if the city came unglued.  In both apartments, I had muslim neighbors.  In both apartments, I was nearby muslim shops and markets and schools and clubs.... and I socialized with many many muslims on a frequent and routine basis. To this day, I routinely correspond with several arab friends I made during my time in the middle east.
> 
> Now I know you hate to admit it, but given all that, which one of us probably has a better first hand understanding of what the muslim world is like, what their dreams and aspirations are and what their views of the United States are?





RetiredGySgt said:


> I do not recall you answering me if you had ever lived in a muslim country as a civilian with no backing or protection or seperation for being foreign or Un sponsored military.





maineman said:


> I guess you missed my rather detailed answer.





maineman said:


> Hey RGS:
> 
> did you MISS this answer or just decide to ignore it?
> 
> ...





RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, those peaceful arabs tried to blow you up. Good guys.
> 
> You are of course aware that the teachings of Allah specifically forbid Muslims from making non muslim friends? Your "friends" are anything but.





maineman said:


> quit tap dancing and just answer the question:
> 
> *Now I know you hate to admit it, but given all that, which one of us probably has a better first hand understanding of what the muslim world is like, what their dreams and aspirations are and what their views of the United States are?*





RetiredGySgt said:


> Your opinion is just that, opinion. And we all know what you think of opinions.





maineman said:


> so obviously, SOME retired gunny sergeants somehow lose their balls and can't answer simple questions?





RetiredGySgt said:


> You resort to name calling a lot, usual tactic of the left, you fit right in. I DID answer your question. You don't like the answer? To damn bad.





maineman said:


> no you didn't.... you incorrectly dismissed my question by mislabeling it my opinion.
> 
> And realize that the question came at the end of a post which answered a previous question of your in great detail which you first claimed I had never answered and then, failed to respond with anything approaching the interest I put into replying.





RetiredGySgt said:


> Your so full of shit your eyes must be brown. Your take on Islam and sunni/shiite is NOTHING more than your opinion. That you claim otherwise is simply amazing.
> 
> Prove me wrong. Provide us with some certification, some documentation that you are some how a renowned or even obscure EXPERT , recognized as such, on this particular issue.
> 
> My answer stands. My opinion and that of others is JUST as valid as yours.





maineman said:


> would you think that my opinions about marine corps operations, procedures and customs were just as valid as yours?





maineman said:


> for that matter:
> 
> Provide us with some certification, some documentation that you are some how a retired marine corps gunny sergeant and not some pimply faced high school kid.





RetiredGySgt said:


> Maybe not customs, but as a Naval officers I suspect you would have more knowledge of Operations in General and to some extent would be as knowledgable on procedures.
> 
> The only reason I would possible believe the customs part is because that is generally Service connected and learned and taught in house. Now if you were a Naval officer that had spent a lot of time with marines, I would assume you were pretty good on customs as well.





RetiredGySgt said:


> This doesn't even have any bearing on the discussion at all. For one, I never have claimed that my Military background gives me any special insight or opinion on the issue of Muslims or Iraq.
> 
> You on the other hand have insisted your status as an Officer and a member of UN Commands does, so YOU provide US with proof. Or you can retract this personal insult, I won't even ask for an apology.





maineman said:


> does your military background give you any special insight as to marines?  would your service at a particular marine corps installation give you any special insight as to the peculiarities of that installation or that area?
> 
> I posted, as you requested, a brief vignette concerning my experiences in the middle east.  Are you suggesting that if YOU were to have lived there and done what I did for the period of time that I did it, that YOU would not have developed any special insight or opinions on the issue of muslims?





maineman said:


> or are you all but calling me a pimply faced teenager masquerading as an officer?
> 
> If you want any credibility as a "retired gunny sergeant" and you want to claim that such credibility extends to the specific nature of your service as a gunny sergeant in the marine corps as opposed to some other branch of service, then you need to grant that same level of credibility to me.
> 
> ...





RetiredGySgt said:


> Lets see if I have this right? In true liberal fashion, you make a claim I may be nothing more than a liar and that I SHOULD provide proof I am not, THEN when replied to with the same request that YOU prove your what YOU claim , I am wrong and should be ashamed of myself?
> 
> Your a pompous ASS. I have defended your sorry ass more than once from people attacking your service. I have acknowledged you are an officer and THAT you served in UN Commands, with NO proof. And now YOUR going to insinuate I have done none of these things? Your going to try and pretend YOU didn't INSULT me and twist it into me doing the insulting.
> 
> ...



This color thing is bullshit. I tried RGS. 

Its the fight of the week!!

Who will win??

Stay tuned Folks!!!!


----------



## Gunny (Jun 28, 2007)

Nobody's going to win because it's OVER for both the primary combatants and the chiming in peanut gallery.

Anyone who wants to "kick some ass" can feel free to use the Taunting Area, but it's over here.  I'll lock this thread in a heartbeat.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Nobody's going to win because it's OVER for both the primary combatants and the chiming in peanut gallery.
> 
> Anyone who wants to "kick some ass" can feel free to use the Taunting Area, but it's over here.  I'll lock this thread in a heartbeat.



Might as well, the topic is hopelessly lost.


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

In an effort to bring it back on track, let me simply reassert my opinion that one of the reasons that the Taliban is able to hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in Afghanistan with media coverage is because we are giving Afghanistan the short shrift by having invaded, conquered and continuing to occupy Iraq.  It has made those 300 young men even angrier at us than they were before, and it has forced us to have such a minimal relative presence in Afghanistan - where our real enemies have been all along - that those same enemies can conduct a ceremony such as this right under our way too few noses.

_But I cannot refrain from at least saying that the synopsis of our little "discussion" was revealing and illustrative and I thank Superlative for taking the time to compile it._


----------



## trobinett (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> In an effort to bring it back on track, let me simply reassert my opinion that one of the reasons that the Taliban is able to hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in Afghanistan with media coverage is because we are giving Afghanistan the short shrift by having invaded, conquered and continuing to occupy Iraq.  It has made those 300 young men even angrier at us than they were before, and it has forced us to have such a minimal relative presence in Afghanistan - where our real enemies have been all along - that those same enemies can conduct a ceremony such as this right under our way too few noses.
> 
> _But I cannot refrain from at least saying that the synopsis of our little "discussion" was revealing and illustrative and I thank Superlative for taking the time to compile it._



Boy, THAT sure is a fucking news flash!

YOU go right on believing such propaganda mainman, I'm under the impression that it makes you all fuzzy.


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

trobinett said:


> Boy, THAT sure is a fucking news flash!
> 
> YOU go right on believing such propaganda mainman, I'm under the impression that it makes you all fuzzy.



what, pray tell, is "propaganda" in my post?  Please be specific.

Did the taliban NOT hold the ceremony in question?

was the ceremony not attended by the local press?

were American forces NOT unaware of it?


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

how about leaving the RSR/MM piss fest that preceded the last? Try #287 and the few that follow, before derailing stops it, again.


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Front page of Tribune today:
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...alopekjun28,1,3542860.story?coll=chi-news-hed
> 
> They may or not be Muslim, but today it seems they are inspired by those that are extremists:



I would agree that the Taliban is inspiring radical behavior in far flung places.
They are definitely bad guys and I can remember applauding George Bush when he ordered the invasion of Afghanistan in what I thought would be a concerted effort to completely crush them and the Al Qaeda crowd that they harbored.

silly me.

As a corollary:  do socialist secular ba'athists usually inspire such extremist behavior?


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would agree that the Taliban is inspiring radical behavior in far flung places.
> They are definitely bad guys and I can remember applauding George Bush when he ordered the invasion of Afghanistan in what I thought would be a concerted effort to completely crush them and the Al Qaeda crowd that they harbored.
> 
> silly me.
> ...



If I didn't like you, I'd tear your head off! :kablam:


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> If I didn't like you, I'd tear your head off! :kablam:



the truth inspires exasperated violence in Illinois school teachers?


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> the truth inspires exasperated violence in Illinois school teachers?



ARRRGGGG! Not going to go down this path. How about on topic?  I don't want to go to the RSR q & non-answer. You already know what I think on your question.


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> ARRRGGGG! Not going to go down this path. How about on topic?  I don't want to go to the RSR q & non-answer. You already know what I think on your question.




I remain on topic:  I agree that the taliban and AQ are our enemies.  I agree that they are bad bad men and we need to stop them before they stop us.

This whole "Saddam violated UN sanctions" and "a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates will serve as a beacon of freedom that will start a groundswell of peace and goodwill and prosperity in the entire region" is all just bullshit.  NONE of the reasons for invading Iraq were anywhere near as pressing as the reasons to concentrate our assets in Afghanistan and completely crush our real enemies.

and as a result.  We have so few troops in Afghanistan that our enemies hold graduation ceremonies for suicide bombers in front of television cameras and we are powerless to stop them.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> I remain on topic:  I agree that the taliban and AQ are our enemies.  I agree that they are bad bad men and we need to stop them before they stop us.
> 
> This whole "Saddam violated UN sanctions" and "a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates will serve as a beacon of freedom that will start a groundswell of peace and goodwill and prosperity in the entire region" is all just bullshit.  NONE of the reasons for invading Iraq were anywhere near as pressing as the reasons to concentrate our assets in Afghanistan and completely crush our real enemies.
> 
> and as a result.  We have so few troops in Afghanistan that our enemies hold graduation ceremonies for suicide bombers in front of television cameras and we are powerless to stop them.



I'll answer, though you know, then let's get back to spread of terrorism to Africa? 

Democracy as Bush envisioned, no. Something better than Saddam, yes. Saddam killed over 2 m. people, even Lancet doesn't make the claim that Iraq war did so much, and their parameters have been discredited long ago. Yes, the Iraqi people are better off now than then. 

As for the training of Taliban, I think it's highly questionable if we'd put more forces in Afghanistan if we pulled some out of Iraq. Don't you? In all honesty, seems we are doing what we have to there, at the pace they can deal with. You disagree?


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

"I'll answer, though you know, then let's get back to spread of terrorism to Africa?

Democracy as Bush envisioned, no. Something better than Saddam, yes. Saddam killed over 2 m. people, even Lancet doesn't make the claim that Iraq war did so much, and their parameters have been discredited long ago. Yes, the Iraqi people are better off now than then."

*making the lives of Iraqis marginally better is nothing we should be willing to take our eye off the ball to accomplish.  It certainly is not worth 28K dead and wounded americans and nearly a trillion dollars flushed down the toilet*

"As for the training of Taliban, _I think it's highly questionable if we'd put more forces in Afghanistan if we pulled some out of Iraq. Don't you?_ In all honesty, seems we are doing what we have to there, at the pace they can deal with. You disagree?"

*Certainly not in the present climate of public disenchantment that Bush's abject failures in Iraq has spawned.  And I say again:  if our enemies can conduct a televised graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in broad daylight in a country we purportedly occupy and that occupying force does not have a clue about it nor can react to it, we are NOT doing what we have to do there.*


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> "I'll answer, though you know, then let's get back to spread of terrorism to Africa?
> 
> Democracy as Bush envisioned, no. Something better than Saddam, yes. Saddam killed over 2 m. people, even Lancet doesn't make the claim that Iraq war did so much, and their parameters have been discredited long ago. Yes, the Iraqi people are better off now than then."
> 
> ...



Fine with that out of the way, let's move on. Please?


----------



## maineman (Jun 28, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Fine with that out of the way, let's move on. Please?



where to next?


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2007)

maineman said:


> where to next?



I posted, awhile back. Ah well, I'm going to bed shortly, you would probably raise my blood pressure.


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 20, 2012)

red states rule said:


> ABC News last night reported over 300 suicide bombers have been sent to attack the US, Germany, and Canada
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What happened to all those suicide troops?
Did Obama keep us safe?


----------



## High_Gravity (Sep 21, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> red states rule said:
> 
> 
> > ABC News last night reported over 300 suicide bombers have been sent to attack the US, Germany, and Canada
> ...



The suicide bombers had too much fun shopping in malls, going to Buffalo Wild Wings and attending Gentlemans clubs, they pulled the plug.


----------

