Republican Team ISIS Fighters quitting their 'lost cause' fight.

[Synthaholic]

Every Republican I know wishes ISIS never existed and would love it if they dropped off the face of the earth.

And lose an issue to slam Obama over? Not a chance.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo14046186

Do I think the US should have to follow the law after being attacked? Yes I do.

If you start acting like terrorists, then you've lost already.

You would not defend America and you think America is acting like the terrorists and the hosts that enabled them.

Your argument should embarrass you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo14046186

Do I think the US should have to follow the law after being attacked? Yes I do.

If you start acting like terrorists, then you've lost already.

You would not defend America and you think America is acting like the terrorists and the hosts that enabled them.

Your argument should embarrass you.

Would you defend America, that had just been attacked by ibn Laden inspired al Qaeda by attacking Canada? Would you? If not then "You would not defend America and you think America is acting like the terrorists and the hosts that enabled them." Blahdiblahdiblah.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14062012

Would you defend America, that had just been attacked by ibn Laden inspired al Qaeda by attacking Canada?

Is Canada's government harboring and giving sanctuary to the terrorists and refusing to hand the leadership over?

Canada would not have asked for an investigation first. The Taliban were not only harboring bin Laden, they were too stupid to hand him over immediately. Bin Laden was wanted long before 9/11/01 and they harbored him.

But we know where you stand. You will not defend America when attacked. 95% of Americans favored taking the Taliban down as Bush did it. And then the entire world community backed the security force that the UN established to keep them down.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14062012

Would you defend America, that had just been attacked by ibn Laden inspired al Qaeda by attacking Canada?

Is Canada's government harboring and giving sanctuary to the terrorists and refusing to hand the leadership over?

Canada would not have asked for an investigation first. The Taliban were not only harboring bin Laden, they were too stupid to hand him over immediately. Bin Laden was wanted long before 9/11/01 and they harbored him.

But we know where you stand. You will not defend America when attacked. 95% of Americans favored taking the Taliban down as Bush did it. And then the entire world community backed the security force that the UN established to keep them down.

Again, the Afghan government said it would listen to a US extradition. The US did not bother to seek extradition through normal channels.

Would you support the invasion of Canada if Canada did not hand over a suspect without extradition proceedings and with the threat of invasion if this was not done?

You don't know where I stand, you're just using nonsense to try and attack me and thereby somehow "win" this debate. It doesn't work like that. You can't just make stuff up and then use it as evidence.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Would you support the invasion of Canada if Canada did not hand over a suspect without extradition proceedings and with the threat of invasion if this was not done?

Yes if Canada was ideologically and financially and militarily tied to terrorist suspects inside Canada that murdered 3000 Americans including members of the U.S. military.

OBL was not a suspect of shoplifting or failing to pay child support. OBL committed an act of war against the United States. You don't spend months investigating an act of war as the Taliban were "discussing" and stalling for time.

OBL having declared war on the U.S. could have been plotting more attacks while you wanted The USA to ''talk".

You have made it clear that defending the USA home soil is very very low on your priority list,

You want to 'talk' to an enemy and its sponsors that carried out an act of war on US soil. It was the largest mass murder on US soil committed by a foreign enemy being sheltered in Afghanistan.

We know exactly where you stand because you wrote it down here. You would not defend America following a massive attack by a terrorist organization. You would insist that we talk about it for months leaving the potential for a second or third or more attacks.

The second OBL was named as a suspect the Taliban were obligated by every moral and legal imperative to grab his terrorist ass and hand him over - no ifs buts or demands.

Canada would never have denied the U.S. what it wanted if the prime suspect was found to be on Canadian soil. They would have killed him if he could not be captured by surrender,

Time was of the essence. You are asking another very stupid question and I have told you exactly why.

You can't defend your position that the Taliban were not complicit in the act of war against us, so you cry.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14062264

Again, the Afghan government said it would listen to a US extradition. The US did not bother to seek extradition through normal channels.

Naughty naughty USA 3000 dead in one attack, the Pentagon itself was attacked but the USA did not follow proper extradition channels. Do you realize what a joke you are.

Proper channels?? That is insane.

The Taliban most likely could not have captured Bin Laden even if they actually wanted to cooperate and follow 'proper' extradition channels. OBL practically owned them.

 

[Tehon]

frigidweirdo 14062264

Again, the Afghan government said it would listen to a US extradition. The US did not bother to seek extradition through normal channels.

Naughty naughty USA 3000 dead in one attack, the Pentagon itself was attacked but the USA did not follow proper extradition channels. Do you realize what a joke you are.

Proper channels?? That is insane.

The Taliban most likely could not have captured Bin Laden even if they actually wanted to cooperate and follow 'proper' extradition channels. OBL practically owned them.

You and those on the left like you are the reason the left has failed America.

Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the 9/11 bill that has been in the news lately?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Would you support the invasion of Canada if Canada did not hand over a suspect without extradition proceedings and with the threat of invasion if this was not done?

Yes if Canada was ideologically and financially and militarily tied to terrorist suspects inside Canada that murdered 3000 Americans including members of the U.S. military.

OBL was not a suspect of shoplifting or failing to pay child support. OBL committed an act of war against the United States. You don't spend months investigating an act of war as the Taliban were "discussing" and stalling for time.

OBL having declared war on the U.S. could have been plotting more attacks while you wanted The USA to ''talk".

You have made it clear that defending the USA home soil is very very low on your priority list,

You want to 'talk' to an enemy and its sponsors that carried out an act of war on US soil. It was the largest mass murder on US soil committed by a foreign enemy being sheltered in Afghanistan.

We know exactly where you stand because you wrote it down here. You would not defend America following a massive attack by a terrorist organization. You would insist that we talk about it for months leaving the potential for a second or third or more attacks.

The second OBL was named as a suspect the Taliban were obligated by every moral and legal imperative to grab his terrorist ass and hand him over - no ifs buts or demands.

Canada would never have denied the U.S. what it wanted if the prime suspect was found to be on Canadian soil. They would have killed him if he could not be captured by surrender,

Time was of the essence. You are asking another very stupid question and I have told you exactly why.

You can't defend your position that the Taliban were not complicit in the act of war against us, so you cry.

Oh, I have to understand what is low on my list of priorities? I'm sorry, but you don't get to tell me how I think.

Secondly, the US could have asked for extradition. The US could have gone through the motions and then if the Taliban then basically stalled or whatever, then the US might have had a solid reason for invading. As it was......

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14062264

Again, the Afghan government said it would listen to a US extradition. The US did not bother to seek extradition through normal channels.

Naughty naughty USA 3000 dead in one attack, the Pentagon itself was attacked but the USA did not follow proper extradition channels. Do you realize what a joke you are.

Proper channels?? That is insane.

The Taliban most likely could not have captured Bin Laden even if they actually wanted to cooperate and follow 'proper' extradition channels. OBL practically owned them.

A joke? You think if you've been attacked you can do whatever the hell you like?

Basically a lot of people on the right would love to just become like the terrorists. In fact, that's what the US did become, just another group that goes around the world causing terror to people.

Why do you think the Iranians want nukes? So they can scare the US into not invading them. The right has spent how long preparing Iran for an invasion?

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14062264

Again, the Afghan government said it would listen to a US extradition. The US did not bother to seek extradition through normal channels.

Naughty naughty USA 3000 dead in one attack, the Pentagon itself was attacked but the USA did not follow proper extradition channels. Do you realize what a joke you are.

Proper channels?? That is insane.

The Taliban most likely could not have captured Bin Laden even if they actually wanted to cooperate and follow 'proper' extradition channels. OBL practically owned them.

You and those on the left like you are the reason the left has failed America.

Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the 9/11 bill that has been in the news lately?

Failed America?

Bush and the right failed America by causing so much hatred of the US by acting like the US can do whatever it likes, ie, the school bully.
Going into Iraq was the time that tipped the scales. ISIS emerged from this hatred and anger, and look what's happening. The US CREATES terrorism by making people angry.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14070004

You and those on the left like you are the reason the left has failed America.

How has the left failed America specifically?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14070634

The US CREATES terrorism by making people angry.

ISIS split off from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked the U.S.and killed three thousand of us and our guests expecting to be protected from such horrendous things.

Did that make you angry?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14070624

Why do you think the Iranians want nukes? So they can scare the US into not invading them. The right has spent how long preparing Iran for an invasion?

Nothing verifies that the Iranians want anything more than peaceful use of nuclear power. So you go with the right wingers on Iran.

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14070634

The US CREATES terrorism by making people angry.

ISIS split off from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked the U.S.and killed three thousand of us and our guests expecting to be protected from such horrendous things.

Did that make you angry?

ISIS didn't exactly split from al Qaeda. ISIS was a product of what had happened before and went different.

But then again, al Qaeda attacked the US and killed 3,000, the US attacked Iraq and got maybe 1 million killed.

Which is worse?

 

[Tehon]

Failed to stop the endless wars. Failed to see through the Bush lies and stop the destruction of Iraq. Failed to hold Obama accountable for his extrajudicial killing. Failed to stop Hillary Clinton et al from destroying Libya..........etc etc

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But then again, al Qaeda attacked the US and killed 3,000, the US attacked Iraq and got maybe 1 million killed.

Which is worse?[/QUOTE

I am not laughing at your position on Iraq. Bush had no inherent right to self defense to justify that invasion. Iraq did not harbor Al Qarada. They were ememies of sorts. The Iraq invasions was not about 09/11/01 and it was wrong, illegal, immoral and not justified.

Obviously you don't see any difference between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the decision to remove the Taliban from power. The differences are monumental.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then again, al Qaeda attacked the US and killed 3,000, the US attacked Iraq and got maybe 1 million killed.

Which is worse?

I am not laughing at your position on Iraq. Bush had no inherent right to self defense to justify that invasion. Iraq did not harbor Al Qarada. They were ememies of sorts. The Iraq invasions was not about 09/11/01 and it was wrong, illegal, immoral and not justified.

Obviously you don't see any difference between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the decision to remove the Taliban from power. The differences are monumental.

I do see the difference between removing Saddam and removing the Taliban.

However I also see that both are unjustified.

Basically what you're saying is that a country has a valid reason for invasion if a country is harboring an enemy of your country.

The precedent is shocking.

For example, Edward Snowden. Does the USA have a valid reason for invading any country which harbors this guy? Russia does. Should the USA invade Russia because of this?

Okay, Snowden is a lesser guy than ibn Laden. But still, if the precedent is there... then it's an excuse, right?

There are plenty of Chinese dissidents in the USA, would China have a valid reason to invade the USA if China went to the US and demanded they give up these dissidents or face invasion within a week's time?

Where does this end? Where is the cut off point for a valid invasion and an invalid invasion?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

frigidweirdo 14072512

For example, Edward Snowden. Does the USA have a valid reason for invading any country which harbors this guy? Russia does. Should the USA invade Russia because of this?

Nope.

Your arguments are increasingly ignorant and they started out quite dumb. Did Snowden mass murder three thousand on American soil in an act of war? Is he a terrorist?

 

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo 14072512

For example, Edward Snowden. Does the USA have a valid reason for invading any country which harbors this guy? Russia does. Should the USA invade Russia because of this?

Nope.

Your arguments are increasingly ignorant and they started out quite dumb. Did Snowden mass murder three thousand on American soil in an act of war? Is he a terrorist?

Ignorant? I'm sorry, but attacking me like this won't help your cause.

Did Snowden mass murder 3,000? No, he did not.

However he leaked data, which could have killed more people. We don't know.

Anorak | Wikileaks Killed 1300 People And Counting

"
WIKILEAKS has killed 1,300 people. OK, not killed but led to their deaths. Not our opinion but that of fame-hungry Julian Assange, who has undone the brilliant site by steering it towards an anti-USA agenda and media prominence.

He claims that Wikileaks swung the Kenyan 2007 elections. There was much bloodshed:

“1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak.”
"

There's a claim. Not in America, however you see how sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword?

Now, think about it, the negative press from the wikileaks could have potentially led to more anger, to turning people against the US, and led to, or will lead to, attacks on the US.

Now, some would say this isn't wikileak's fault, or Snowden's fault, but the US's govt's fault for doing what they did in the first place.