If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Al Qaeda releases "Happy Anniversary" message   (cnn.com) divider line 268
    More: News  
•       •       •

31341 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2006 at 2:01 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-09-11 10:25:53 AM  
AWWWW....They remembered! That's nice. Thanks Guys!

isnt-that-cute.com
 
2006-09-11 10:30:02 AM  
bouts of brilliance

You are my new hero and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2006-09-11 10:30:15 AM  
Okay, Al Queda is dumb... but this video in no way resembles a purpose of being released just before 9/11. I think, if anything, somebody held onto it to get some extra use out of it right before then. I mean, most of their other ones have been planned for specific events, right?

/not necessarily saying it's the US
//Al-Queda is still dumb either way
 
2006-09-11 10:31:02 AM  
themoreilikemydogs:

No attacks. Gee, I wonder why?

I would say it's mostly because none are required (you can see my Boobies in this thread to see why I think this). If Al Qaeda cells still exist in the US, why would you bother exposing them when everything is going generally so well? You'd only need to activate them if things start to turn the corner.

A significant portion had nothing to do with terrorist activity? You're right. They are prisoners of war. Big difference. Like the end of any war they should be released at THE END OF THE WAR.

I could play semantics and say that war was never declared. Hell, war wasn't even formally declared on terrorism (not that you could declare a war on a tactic anyhow). And the Korean war never officially ended... it is merely in a state of continuous ceasefire. Should PoWs from that war still all be in captivity? And when does the war on terror end? When Islamic terrorism ends? When they group they were allegedly members of disbands? It's difficult to keep a PoW when the definition of what a war is and what a combatant is continuously changes. Plus, if these guys are PoWs as you say, the Geneva convention strictly forbids pressing these guys for information. So why treat these guys differently from the way the Germans were treated in WW2?

BTW, American prisoners of war during WW2 would've prayed they got treated as well as the present Gitmo guys.

Perhaps. I assume you're talking about those that were captured by the Japanese at least. My understanding that they types of PoWs that had it the best during the war were German prisoners of the US and US prisoners of Germany... though I can't remember where I read that. Anyhow, yes, Americans were brutalized by the Japanese. But is this the gold standard you wish to go by? I mean the Germans treated non-combatant jews worse than the Japanese treated Americans? Since it happened, should that be the standard?

I think one thing that the US should not lose sight of is how it is perceived in the world. Being the last remaining superpower (though an argument could be made that China is one, it merely is isolationist) does not mean that the US is more powerful than everyone else combined. You need allies. You need to be seen by the Western world as "the good guys". The more you go against the Geneva convention and the more you act in sinister seeming ways, the less credit you have globally. Admittedly 9/11 gave the US the great benefit of the doubt in these matters, but it is unquestionably running out as 9/11 becomes less of a daily thought and more a part of history.
 
2006-09-11 10:32:21 AM  
Korben_Dallas

I have to apologize. I just read on the internets that terrorists set up huge fans that blew Katrina towards the U.S. Sorry.
 
2006-09-11 10:36:20 AM  
Don't want rebroadcasts? Fine. You have that little switch on your TV called "POWER". Go ahead. Touch it.
 
2006-09-11 10:40:06 AM  
Here it is 5 years after 911.
Why the fark is Osama Bin Laden still breathing?

He is the guy who did it. Not Saddam... Osama.
I am not for torture but in his case I think he should have his nuts crushed with hammers on an ABC mini-series.
 
2006-09-11 10:42:35 AM  
FWIW, it's pretty funny that when you read excerpts from these videos, it sounds like quotes from the Senate floor.
 
2006-09-11 10:49:24 AM  
Is it ironic that the near-naked woman in the Victoria's Secret ad appears next to this article? I think it might be.
 
2006-09-11 10:50:31 AM  
I cant help but to see these coincidences...

www.911truth.org
www.peoplefor911justice.com
www.wtc7.org
www.ny911truth.org
www.st911.org
www.911sharethetruth.com
www.reopen911.org
www.911truthradio.com
www.scholarsfor911truth.org
www.mujca.com
www.nineeleven.co.uk
www.911truthseekers.org
www.v911t.org
www.911truth.ie
www.911revealingthetruth.org
www.911truthmovement.org
www.whatreallyhappened..com
www.911blogger.com
www.loosechange911.com

Followed by a quote from the article...

"Your leaders are hiding from you the true extent of the disaster," al-Zawahiri says in a statement posted on the Internet late Sunday. "And the days are pregnant and giving birth to new events, with Allah's permission and guidance."

At least the people are getting smarter...
"Poll: Bush 9/11 blame grows"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/911.poll/index.html
 
2006-09-11 10:58:46 AM  
yeah,

It's easy to be smug when you are HIDING IN A CAVE, CRAPPIN IN A HOLE, AND AFRAID TO SHOW YOUR FACE.

Screw You, Jerk.

Die in a fire(bombing)
 
2006-09-11 11:03:52 AM  
I hate fox news:

Time Ebbs Away at Grief
Sun has risen 1,826 times since Sept. 11 as family of victim deals with loss

Who the fark cares how many times the sun has risen?
 
2006-09-11 11:11:27 AM  
El_Perro: We went 8 years without an attack on the U.S.

Embassies and naval ships are part of the US.
 
2006-09-11 11:12:24 AM  
Noxieas: I cant help but to see these coincidences...

www.911truth.org
www.peoplefor911justice.com
www.wtc7.org
www.ny911truth.org
www.st911.org
www.911sharethetruth.com
www.reopen911.org
www.911truthradio.com
www.scholarsfor911truth.org
www.mujca.com
www.nineeleven.co.uk
www.911truthseekers.org
www.v911t.org
www.911truth.ie
www.911revealingthetruth.org
www.911truthmovement.org
www.whatreallyhappened..com
www.911blogger.com
www.loosechange911.com


A lot of crazy people like to post their "theories" on pages with "911" in the URL?
 
2006-09-11 11:18:38 AM  
I have no shop skills. Could somebody redo LoonieCobber's picture for me with something more of a christian taste? Thanks.
 
2006-09-11 11:20:56 AM  
To everyone that keeps asking "Why haven't we caught these guys yet?"

Maybe its because you government is lying to you, and the truth is somewhere closer to what the mullas are saying than what the president is saying.


Hopefully someday we will stop worrying about all this for a year or two and start to defend our country against its government.
 
2006-09-11 11:26:01 AM  
"And the days are pregnant and giving birth to new events, with Allah's permission and guidance."

First of all, what would this asshole know about giving birth? Dork.

'Nuff said, to me.
 
2006-09-11 11:29:50 AM  
WhatMeWorry: Maybe its because you government is lying to you, and the truth is somewhere closer to what the mullas are saying than what the president is saying.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
 
2006-09-11 11:29:57 AM  
Noxieas: I cant help but to see these coincidences...

What coincidences?

The coincidence that conspiracy theorists misuse the word "truth"?
The coincidence that conspiracy theorists never bother consulting experts in the respective fields (i.e. structural engineers?)
The coincidence that anecdote and conjecture qualify as 'smoking guns' to these morons?
The coincidence that many of the conspiracy theorists also believe we never landed on the moon, that JFK was killed by the CIA and that the holocaust never happened?

Those coincidences?
 
2006-09-11 11:30:46 AM  
brandied: First of all, what would this asshole know about giving birth?

That it's messy?
 
2006-09-11 11:42:13 AM  
Im not saying everything in those videos is 100% acurate, however if you ignore everything in there and believe 100% what your told against physics, against math, and against rational thought for several major arguments it brings up, your a f*cking moron.
 
2006-09-11 11:43:38 AM  
The problem with people who decry conspiracy theories is that they tend to conveniently link all conspiracy theories together...

Some theories make more sense than others just and have varying levels of collusion required.

For example, it's one thing to say that explosives were planted in the WTC, it's another to say that NORAD's response was strangely late, and it's even another to say that there were people in intelligence service who knew this would happen and may have been pushed aside too easily. I'm not suscribing to any of these beliefs necessarily, it's just that by taking one extreme scenario and painting everything else with the same brush, you do a disservice to what we should all be doing... considering whether or not we're being given the whole story. Very important, especially in this day and age.
 
2006-09-11 11:44:25 AM  
Noxieas: Im not saying everything in those videos is 100% acurate

If you spend your time watching idiots with too much time on their hands and too little knowledge of physics, that's your bidness. *shrug* It's not gonna stop me from laughing at you, though.
 
2006-09-11 11:44:45 AM  
Instead of boo-hooing and mopping our tears for the 3,000 people who died five years ago, why aren't we fighting to keep our nation free of the kind of barbarism and human rights violations that lead to us being attacked in the first place?

Why aren't we doing everything we can to stop our President from legitimizing torture and secret prisons?

Just about four years ago, President Bush stood in front of the American people and said we were going to capture and depose Saddam Hussein because he tortured people and threw them into secret prisons. Bush explicitly said these were bad things, and that America was opposed to them.

Now he wants to do the same things in OUR country?

Things are f'ed up here, people.
 
2006-09-11 11:47:39 AM  
The Evil Home Brewer yeah, It's easy to be smug when you are HIDING IN A CAVE, CRAPPIN IN A HOLE, AND AFRAID TO SHOW YOUR FACE. Screw You, Jerk.

Who are you talking to...Dick Cheney?
 
2006-09-11 11:49:40 AM  
Conspiracy theories on this magnitude are insane.

Look at how much crap is leaked out of the government. Then try to imagine how many people would need to be involved to pull off a conspiracy as large as 9/11.

Then if you still think the Government can launch missiles at the Pentagon and crash drones into the WTC and place demolition charges in 3 HUGE, busy buildings and shoot down a commercial airline in broad-daylight, and hide forever hundreds of plane passengers without anybody knowing, please place a bullet in your own head.
 
2006-09-11 11:50:58 AM  
Holly_Wight: Instead of boo-hooing and mopping our tears for the 3,000 people who died five years ago, why aren't we fighting to keep our nation free of the kind of barbarism and human rights violations that lead to us being attacked in the first place?

Ummm, having troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (at Saudi request) are examples of barbarism and human rights violations?
 
2006-09-11 11:51:35 AM  
Noxieas - Im not saying everything in those videos is 100% acurate, however if you ignore everything in there and believe 100% what your told against physics, against math, and against rational thought for several major arguments it brings up, your a f*cking moron.

Ok then. What goes against physics and against math according to the official account?
 
2006-09-11 11:51:43 AM  
Sloth_DC: Embassies and naval ships are part of the US.

The argument I was responding to is that there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11. I responded by saying that there were no attacks on the US (meaning, on US soil) between 1993 and 2001.

If attacks on US interests (embassies, naval ships) count as "attacks on the US," then wouldn't IEDs, suicide bombings, and all of the other stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan count as well? I mean, since we're fighting "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn't we count our military (and non-military) losses as terrorist casualties?

In other words, if you are just talking about attacks on US soil, you have to recognize that there were none between 1993 and 2001. If you're going to bring in attacks on US interests that take place overseas, you have to recognize that there have, in fact, been attacks on the US since 9/11. Either way, the argument that "We haven't been hit since 9/11, so our leaders must be doing the right thing" is pure hogwash.
 
2006-09-11 11:56:07 AM  
I'm sure that it's no coincidence that Al Qaeda does this at election time. The actions of the people currently in power have played directly into their hands. It won't be long before Iraq is run by an Islamic government and Iran is a middle east superpower.
 
2006-09-11 11:56:22 AM  
El Perro,

I'd say there's a difference between attacks on troops actively engaged in combat and attacks on soft targets like a docked ship and an embassy.

I think that's part of the whole point is to get them to engage our troops rather than blow up trains and buildings.
 
2006-09-11 11:57:40 AM  
Didn't we capture/kill this guy?
 
2006-09-11 11:59:01 AM  
El_Perro: The argument I was responding to is that there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11. I responded by saying that there were no attacks on the US (meaning, on US soil) between 1993 and 2001.

If attacks on US interests (embassies, naval ships) count as "attacks on the US," then wouldn't IEDs, suicide bombings, and all of the other stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan count as well? I mean, since we're fighting "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn't we count our military (and non-military) losses as terrorist casualties?

In other words, if you are just talking about attacks on US soil, you have to recognize that there were none between 1993 and 2001. If you're going to bring in attacks on US interests that take place overseas, you have to recognize that there have, in fact, been attacks on the US since 9/11. Either way, the argument that "We haven't been hit since 9/11, so our leaders must be doing the right thing" is pure hogwash.


QFT

VespaGuy: What coincidences?

The coincidence that conspiracy theorists misuse the word "truth"?
The coincidence that conspiracy theorists never bother consulting experts in the respective fields (i.e. structural engineers?)
The coincidence that anecdote and conjecture qualify as 'smoking guns' to these morons?


QFT
 
2006-09-11 12:03:40 PM  
MugzyBrown: I'd say there's a difference between attacks on troops actively engaged in combat and attacks on soft targets like a docked ship and an embassy.

A docked ship in fairly hostile territory and embassies thousands of miles away.

/If we're counting embassies, then we should probably also count consulates, and our consulate in Karachi was bombed in 2002, 2003, and 2006...

//And if we're counting all of our "interests," there was the Riyadh compound bombing in 2003...
 
2006-09-11 12:07:32 PM  
MugzyBrown: I'd say there's a difference between attacks on troops actively engaged in combat and attacks on soft targets like a docked ship and an embassy.

I think that's part of the whole point is to get them to engage our troops rather than blow up trains and buildings.


Well then, in that case

What this gets at is the fundamental inconsistency/problem of our whole approach to this "war on terror" thing, and the reason that many people see the "War on Terror" as an polarized/politicized joke. The terms we use to describe people and events - "terrorists," "criminals," "fighters," "insurgents," "prisoners of war," "enemy combatants," "acts of war," "acts of terrorism," and the like - are seemingly chosen based on political expediency. When the administration (and its supporters) wants to brag about the job they're doing, they're quick to point out that "We haven't been hit since 9/11." When they want to stir up some fear/nervousness/support, they're quick to point out the great threat that terrorism presents, and to refer to isolated incidents as acts of terror (that guy who ran his SUV into a college campus, a few "lone gunmen," people like that - Michelle Malkin is pretty good at flipping out over that stuff). You can't have it both ways, yet this administration constantly does.
 
2006-09-11 12:08:09 PM  
If all this ass hat can deliver is a video that is couried by donkeys and smelly Afghan mountain villagers, then I'd say someone's in denial about just exactly who's hiding from who.
 
2006-09-11 12:11:16 PM  
Sloth_DC

What? What the fark are you talking about?

I'm talking about the recent push in Congress to legitimize torture and secret prisons in America. I wasn't referencing Saudi at all. Nowhere in my post did I mention Saudi Arabia.

I was talking about how we removed Saddam because he was a tyrant who tortured people, and according to Bush that was evil, but now Bush's tune has changed and torture is A-OK, as long as it's us doing it.

Watch the 2001 and 2002 State of the Union Address. President Bush says several times that torture is wrong. Now he wants to legalize it, and they started slipping this legislation through only a few days before this anniversary of September 11, 2001. Why? Why frame the question of torturing human being in the week that we are forced to remember an attack against America?

Why? To incite rage and fear and get the backing of people who might otherwise think about it and realize that torture is NOT an American value.

Fear-mongering in the shadow of today's meaning is pretty farking low.
 
2006-09-11 12:16:34 PM  
El_Perro: The argument I was responding to is that there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11. I responded by saying that there were no attacks on the US (meaning, on US soil) between 1993 and 2001.

US Embassies *are* US soil.

If attacks on US interests (embassies, naval ships) count as "attacks on the US," then wouldn't IEDs, suicide bombings, and all of the other stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan count as well? I mean, since we're fighting "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn't we count our military (and non-military) losses as terrorist casualties?

Possibly, but occupation troops are not "US territory" in the same sense that Embassies are, or even really in the same sense that a peacetime naval ship in a neutral port is.

In other words, if you are just talking about attacks on US soil, you have to recognize that there were none between 1993 and 2001.

US Embassies are US soil. I don't think you're grokking this concept very well.
 
2006-09-11 12:18:35 PM  
Holly_Wight: What? What the fark are you talking about?

I'm talking about the recent push in Congress to legitimize torture and secret prisons in America. I wasn't referencing Saudi at all. Nowhere in my post did I mention Saudi Arabia.


You said "the reason we were attacked in the first place". We were attacked because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (at Saudi request).

Fear-mongering in the shadow of today's meaning is pretty farking low.

WTF are you babbling about, besides revising your argument now that you've been called on it?
 
2006-09-11 12:22:17 PM  
I don't really care about the political pissing match. People on here argue like there's some score being kept.

I personally feel the situation is better when we're engaged than when we're acting like it's nothing more than a criminal sting operation.
 
2006-09-11 12:47:54 PM  
After 9/11, bin Laden received sharp criticisms from Islamist scholars that dealt with the al-Qaeda chief's failure to satisfy several religious requirements pertinent to waging war. The critique focused on three items: (1) insufficient warning; (2) failure to offer Americans a chance to convert to Islam; and (3) inadequate religious authorization to kill so many people. Bin Laden accepted these criticisms and in mid-2002 began a series of speeches and actions to remedy the shortcomings and satisfy his Islamist critics before again attacking in the United States.

Bin Laden devoted most attention to warning Americans that, to prevent another 9/11-type attack, they had to elect leaders who would change U.S. policies toward the Islamic world. He focused especially on the U.S. presence in the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and Afghanistan, unqualified support for Israel, as well as support for Muslim tyrannies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Animosity toward these policies had long been a staple of bin Laden's statements, but since 2002 he has spoken directly to Americans about what they - not their leaders - must do to avoid another attack.

In America's democratic system, bin Laden said, U.S. leaders are elected by the people and stay in office only if the people support their policies. Arguing that the U.S. policies perceived by Muslims as attacks on Islam have been in place for decades, bin Laden said it is clear that the American people as a whole approve of anti-Islamic policies. "The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change their Government," bin Laden said in October 2002, "yet time and again polls show that the American people support the policies of the elected Government." On this basis, bin Laden warned Americans on four occasions between mid-2002 and October 2004 that they would be responsible for any military disaster that befell them if they did not elect leaders who would change the policy status quo.

[snip]

Parallel to the warnings, bin Laden on two occasions since 2002 asked Americans to convert to Islam as the means of terminating the war al-Qaeda is waging against the United States. "We call you to Islam," bin Laden said on both occasions, addressing himself to President Bush - as the leader of the American people - and asking him to lead his countrymen to Islam. He also offered to serve as guide and teacher for the American people, urging them to "follow the right path" to Islam.

[snip]

To remedy the criticism of inadequate religious authorization for mass American casualties, bin Laden received the necessary sanction from a young, radical Saudi Shaykh named Hamid bin al-Fahd. In May 2003, al-Fahd published a fatwa on his website entitled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels." (FBIS, May 23 2003) In this lengthy work, al-Fahd affirmatively answered the question of whether it was permissible under the four schools of Sunni Islam for the mujahideen to use nuclear weapons against the United States. Bin al-Fahd concluded that each school did permit the use of such weapons and that the mujahideen would be justified in inflicting millions of casualties in the United States. "Anyone who considers America's aggression against Muslims and their lands during the last decade," al-Fahd maintained, "will conclude that striking her is permissible merely on the rule of treating one as one has been treated. Some brothers have totaled the number of Muslims killed directly or indirectly by their [America's] weapons and come up with the figure of nearly ten million."
 
2006-09-11 01:04:38 PM  
This makes me so mad I'm ready to give up more personal freedoms to prevent it!
 
2006-09-11 01:14:41 PM  
Sloth_DC: US Embassies are US soil. I don't think you're grokking this concept very well.

First of all, see elchip at 2006-09-11 12:03:40 PM. If we're counting embassy bombings, we should also be counting the consulate bombings in Karachi, should we not?

Beyond that, I don't think you're quite understanding my point (actually, I think you know very well what I'm saying, and you're being purposefully obtuse).

But, maybe I should have been more precise with my language, so here's my post as it should have appeared:

The argument I was responding to is that there have been no attacks on the US mainland since 9/11. I responded by saying that there were no attacks on the US (meaning, on the US mainland) between 1993 and 2001.

If attacks on US interests (embassies, naval ships) count as "attacks on the US," then wouldn't IEDs, suicide bombings, and all of the other stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan count as well? I mean, since we're fighting "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn't we count our military (and non-military) losses as terrorist casualties?

In other words, if you are just talking about attacks on the US mainland, you have to recognize that there were none between 1993 and 2001. If you're going to bring in attacks on US interests that take place overseas, you have to recognize that there have, in fact, been attacks on the US since 9/11. Either way, the argument that "We haven't been hit since 9/11, so our leaders must be doing the right thing" is pure hogwash.


The point remains the same - however you reasonably define "attacks on the US," there is little substantive difference between the level of activity post-9/11 and the level of activity beyween 1993 and 2001. So, the argument that "We haven't been hit since 9/11, so our leaders must be doing right" is not a convincing one in the least.
 
2006-09-11 01:33:45 PM  
EatYourHeartOut: Seriously, though, ragging on a general group like "atheists" is rather... well, it's dumb.


The whiners do the same with "Christians".
 
2006-09-11 01:36:30 PM  
The Muslims see this as a religious war, and they're right. We need to respond in kind--with attacks, or the threat of attack, on their religious icons (which is how they viewed the WTC--Mother Church in the worship of Mammon). We must threaten to do what they fear, not what they welcome as an opportunity for religious martyrdom. We've got the manpower over there. It's not too late to seize the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields, carpet bomb Medina, and demand the head of Osama bin Laden or suffer the consequences--the destruction of Mecca, the end of the Hajj, the dissolution of Islam.

The same strategy will work in Iran. There are lots of religious sites, entire cities devoted to religious pursuits. Blow up Qum, then tell them to disarm or kiss the Tomb of Ali goodbye. It will work.

Will this incur the wrath of a billion Muslims? Sure, but guess what? They're already pissed off at us, they're all already secretly cheering on the terrorists, and a sizable percentage would cheerfully suicide bomb any number of targets in the US if they could only get over here. Thankfully, they can't (except for all those potential terrorists the Bush administration is encouraging to come over here on student visas). I'm not worried about angering 200 million Indonesian Muslims because, realistically, there's nothing they can do about it. I'm more concerned about making sure that Muslim (read Arab, read Saudi Arabian) terrorists rue the day they ever attacked the West and ensuring that there is never another 9/11. We need to take care of business now, not after the next successful attack. The Muslims have earned a disaster of biblical proportions. Let's give it to them.
 
2006-09-11 01:40:42 PM  
The "are you safer today than five years ago" keeps coming up today. HOw would we measure this? I am serious here, I'm not looking for the posts of how many people died of lung cancer as a function of how many people died of terrorism, but a sort of "terrorist safety index" similar to the GDP. So that apples can be compared to apples.
 
2006-09-11 01:45:03 PM  
twisted farkers. Fark em
 
2006-09-11 01:52:18 PM  
clambam:

Your grasp of global events is astounding...

In a bad way.

The problem with beginning terror attacks on the muslim population is that not all muslims are evil. Sure you might punish the what... approximately .001% (less than that even?) of muslims that are radical AND militant but is that a worthwhile venture?

And, I guess, an argument can be made that the Iraq has already been attacked (see how well that's been working) and that the "threat of attack" method has already been used against Iran.

Also, you'd have to imagine that if the US every truly forced the issue to the extent you want, it's allies would totally abandon them and then we'd really see some terrorist acts against the US.
 
2006-09-11 01:53:29 PM  
Don't invite us to a fight and then act rightous when we show up - you grease spot.

I say we do what ever we can to distance ourselves from Islamofascism. If they want to return to the 8th century - let them. Get off their oil and cut off all trade and aid to their armpit countries. I think if we leave them alone they will probably kill each other over their stupid secularism. Other than oil, they have nothing to offer the west.

Not a thing. Period.
 
2006-09-11 02:13:03 PM  
HowlingFrog, where are you to tell us how this is a fake video and the hijackers were somehow dubbed into the video?
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report