JoeKnows: Where do your talking points come from? Janeane Garofalo?

France, Germany, etc are not appeasers, and are struggling against terrorists too.

Does 'etc' include Spain? Because then there's only one on that list doesn't have a history of appeasement, and Schroeder only disagrees with the US to get re-elected.

I want Bush and Co. to go after the terrorists who pose a serious threat to our country, which is why the Iraq War was a bad idea.

Who are we fighting in Iraq now? Saddam's armies or terrorists? Who's never going to be able to supply and train terrorists with WMD or promote terror against Israel with blood money? Who's never going to defy the UN ever again?

How was it a bad idea?

Kerry thinks terrorism is a law-enforcement problem. Clinton felt the same way.

In most cases that's exactly what it is. Usually the terrorists are not operating out in the open where your army can easily go after them. Afghanistan was the exception, a place teeming with terrorists (hell, a place rune by terrorists) and an obvious target for military action, not the rule.

An army does you little good unless you know where to send it, and not all places are appropriate to send it. I'll bet 30 years from now, when we take stock of the war on terror, that we will have made more significant inroads from covert operations than from invading other countries.

This just in...
Stuff might happen.
You heard it here first... oh and Lindsay Lohan drove a BMW somewhere... or ... something.

Exercise vague caution.

Oh, and anybody who thinks terrorism is NOT primarily a law enforcement issue is just a war monger.

Uh huh. How did the law enforcement strategy work out for Clinton. How many terrorists did they catch? Let's see, the managed to track down the clowns that planted the bomb at the WTC, after it went off. Did they get anywhere with their higher ups? How many chances did the CIA have to assassinate Osama, but couldn't because they didn't have the go ahead?

Compare this to our military fighting terrorism. Just look at the results. I know the media would like you to focus on some idiots in Abu Ghraib, and the extremely violent minority in Iraq attacking US forces, but let's look at the big picture, which will be remembered 20 years from now.

Look at the number of despots captured (Hussein), killed (most of the Taliban), and scared (Qadhafi) under the tactics of using the military to fight terrorism? Who's next? Iran? N. Korea?

Look at the number of high-level terrorists captured or killed. Look at al Qaeda, their main base of operations destroyed, their leaders constantly on the run from US military forces.

And we have two formerly repressed countries headed towards Democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're right, we should go back to the failed ways of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue...

Bittorrent may be your friend, but http://empornium.us/ is his hot older sister.

I wanted to be coffee
Did anyone go to my link?

Yup, thanks for wasting 2 minutes of my life.

To communion, or mass or something dude....

Would stay around and flame awhile, but I gotta go and prance in the streets so the terrorists will know I think they are t3h SuXx0r3Z!11111111!

.

Copped a Plea
NOTE*
I can't believe the intensity level of hate-speech provided by the bat-shiattt crazy vomit-scum liberals on Fark.

Thank goodness for level-headed, ad-hominem avoiding conservatives, then!

I wonder what the effect on public opinion would be if terrorists were able to successfully launch another attack on US soil before the election.

Bush could enjoy another big boost to his job performance opinion polls and cruise to an easy victory in November. But I seriously doubt that will be the case. In Spain the ruling government was ahead in all the polls before the bomb, but after the bombing the populace blamed the government for placing them in danger through the involvement in Iraq. Here in the US there is a widely held opinion that the Iraq war is not making us safer from terrorism. A terrorist attack is likely to cement that opinion against Bush in November.

Secondly people are expecting more from Bush in the security department right now. And they are not wanting warnings, we have heard so many of those that we shrug our shoulders in apathy when we here them now. The American people are looking for results, they are looking for a dramatic arrest of terrorists with lots of gunplay caught on camera at various angles so they can watch it time and again on CNN and Fox. They are not going to accept any excuses three years after 9/11. This also is going to work against Bush if there is a terrorist attack.

If there is a terrorist attack in the US before November, it is going to sink Bush;s chances at re-election unless it destroys the Democratic National Convention.

I think we should start treating terrorism as a fashion issue.

You guys farking piss me off. Lay off our President. You all say he wasn't elected by the people but let me tell you something. He was elected by a higher power than the people. He was elected by GOD. And if we don't vote for him again we will surely be asking for another 9/11. This is the man that will destabilize the Middle-East enough for the prophecies concerning the Rapture to come about and it is through this man than Jesus will return to Earth and send all the demons and homosexuals back to Hell!

You had me going there for a moment ,Hannahman!! Well done!!

Time to declare open season on the ragheads. If the FBI knows who they are and where they, then go get them and to hell with their civil liberties because they sure won't care about ours.

GaryPDX
>If something does happen, I'm gonna post a good recipe for roasted crow so you lib's can take a big bite.<

Gee Gary, I see again your razor sharp intellect, quick wit and tasteful sense of humor has raised it's ugly head yet again. In the familiar, no-content, empty, one sentence format too!

You should be ashamed to have children.

I don't see what being liberal or not has anything to do with it. You're talking about your countrymen dying or more to the point, men women and children dying. You think it's going to be great so you can feel like you knew something was going to happen??

Why is it that it's always someone who professes to be conservative is the first to be happy about people dying to further thier belief in the conservative way of thinking? I have read some seriously disturbing things posted on the internet by conservatives who are advocating the death of liberals. WTF, and they're supposed to be patriotic?

It's sick. While I am somewhat liberal, my conservative side sincerely hopes that it's not YOUR kids that get killed, let alone anyone else's. You may not agree with how some people see the world, but since when is it "American" to revel in the anticipation of the death of others?

flypusher713

Yeah, I thought that was fairly decent but, truely, it is sad how the normal conservative (fiscal conservative, personal freedoms) has been squashed by paranoid religious zealots. I really wish McCain would have won. I mean, there has to be a bunch of moderate Conservatives and Republicans on Fark and you don't really see them. It must suck to have your party stolen from you.

I hope this shiat doesn't happen

I live in NYC and you know they're gunning for the greatest city in the world.

farking terrorist biatch e s

According to the 700 Club, we have the power to stop another terrorist attack. All we need to do is end civil liberties, insert religion into our government, eliminate all homosexuals, and all convert to the same religion.

Apparently, in order to defeat the Middle East, we must become it.

=====

700 Club transcript:

"The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for [September 11th]. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped [September 11th] happen."

Oh, and anybody who thinks terrorism is NOT primarily a law enforcement issue is just a war monger.

Uh huh. How did the law enforcement strategy work out for Clinton. How many terrorists did they catch? Let's see, the managed to track down the clowns that planted the bomb at the WTC, after it went off. Did they get anywhere with their higher ups?

Yes they did. That blind Egyptian cleric (Rahman??) is spending life in prison right now. He was at least one of the masterminds. There were also trials and convinctions for terrorists involved in the African embassy bombings.

blarkseymark
Anyone wanting to give advice on grammar needs to learn what a contraction is.

"Lib's" is a proper contraction. The letters "eral" are missing, replaced with an apostrophe. Other examples.

ol' (old)
'em (them)

"ol'", and "'em" are not contractions. a contraction generally occurs when two words are combined. "isn't", "can't", "won't", "i'm" are contractions. "ol'" is a word that has been shortened, due to a regionalism or a colloquial useage. "lib's" is not a contraction. also, i suspect that, when creating a contraction, there would be something that would differentiate the contracted plural from a possessive, which is what you, rightly, were nailed on.

Hannahman

Holy Shiat! You had me going there for a moment. Yeah, people believe some scary things.

I'm tired of this flame war ... I'm leaving b/c :
A) the facts don't matter
B) sleepy
C) New issue of Adbusters
D) all of the above


Answer: D

Kerry thinks terrorism is a law-enforcement problem. Clinton felt the same way.

Except when they don't. Like when Clinton bombed the shiat out of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan with about 50 cruise missiles. Or when we hit the conservaclone's favorite target: the "aspirin factory" that was owned by Osama bin Laden and used to produce chemical weapons. And Clinton signed every snatch order for terrorists that came across his desk. Every one.

Law enforcement, my ass. It's called "getting the job done without being a stupid arrogant fark."

WilliamWallace

And we have two formerly repressed countries headed towards Democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Do you have one farking clue as to what is going on in Afghanistan today, or do you get all your news from reading Bush's speeches?

ArkAngel
Maybe after the next attack kills hundreds of thousands of people, the liberals will finally concede that the terrorists hate us no matter what.

odd. that's what the liberals that i know already think. the terrorists will hate us because we represent many things to them, all of them bad. no liberal i know thinks that we will win the hearts and minds of terrorists.

only naive idiots of any political leaning would believe that.

say what you want about the blind cleric, Rahman, but his noodles kept me alive in college.

/Don't look at me like that...

Where do your talking points come from? Janeane Garofalo?


Given that I'm not a liberal, I probably have no reason even to tune into her political thoughts.

Who are we fighting in Iraq now? Saddam's armies or terrorists?

Maybe a little of both. Terrorists fled to liberated Iraq to recruit more for their cause.

Who's never going to be able to supply and train terrorists with WMD or promote terror against Israel with blood money?

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where the terrorists and their financiers actually are.

Who's never going to defy the UN ever again?

I'm not in any way crying about the downfall of Saddam. I wish that Reagan would have stopped napping long enough to take Saddam out of power back in the late 1980's back when Saddam was gassing his own people. Instead Reagan and Bush responded to Saddam's slaughter of the Kurds by giving Saddam foreign aid and opposing an anti-genocide legislation in the Senate specifically targeting Iraq.

The problem of anti-American terrorists resides in Saudi and Pakistan. Maybe it's a weird though, but

I'm planning on getting laid by Cindy Crawford this summer- details sketchy.

ArkAngel
Maybe after the next attack kills hundreds of thousands of people, the liberals will finally concede that the terrorists hate us no matter what.


Yeah Dude, what the hell are you talking about? I don't know anyone who believes that crap you're trying to sell. I am sure many feel that Bush's personal vendetta/war on Saddam isn't helping and I agree.

OSAMA ISN'T IN IRAQ

Let me summarize. Bush wants to seek out and destroy all terrorists using our military might. He wants to destroy regimes that harbor terrorists.

Perhaps he should have started with "Terrorist Central" a/k/a Saudi Arabia.

Me: Gee, if only the Bush Administration had paid attention to, and acted upon, the intelligence briefings they got prior to 9/11/2001. This would be a whole different world right now.

The White House has repeatedly insisted that the intelligence report included in the president's daily briefing on August 6th 2001 titled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" contained "no actionable intelligence" and there isn't anything they could have done to prevent 9/11.

Now they get an intelligence report very similar -- no specific date, or time, or place, or method, and they hold a farking press conference to show that the president cares, that he's on top of it.

Give me a break. These intelligence briefings weren't important until an election year, right Mr. Prez?

This Celluloid Dream: I really hate stupid people. Clinton recieved dozens of memos containing exactly what Bush did. They are and were almost a daily occurence, and he still did nothing. And that the fact that they're acting on the threats now shows that they're learning from the past, which is the point right?

/hates stupid dumbass comments...

Hey asshat, Clinton did plenty about it. He deployed more troops on more peace-keeping missions than any other president in our history (look it up if you think I'm lying). He also enabled the CIA and the FBI to thwart numerous attempted terrorist attacks because he didn't go on vacation to his Texas ranch the day after reading a briefing entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."

Learn something before trying to criticize my point of view. That way you don't look like such an ignorant clown.

The problem of anti-American terrorists resides in Saudi and Pakistan. Maybe it's a weird though, but

It helps if I finish my sentences ...

The problem of anti-American terrorists resides in Saudi and Pakistan. Maybe it's a weird though, but I think that fighting terrorism means going where the terrorists and their financial backers actually are.

Hannahman

Yes, McCain would have been so much better. The RNC had a choice between real honesty & integrity and a record of distinuished service, and an underqualified frat boy with a prominent family name and a bunch of rich backers. Bad call, very bad call.

Or the Pentagon or White House, Joe.

Hmm, Captain Morgan beat me to it.

We're at BLACKWATCH PLAID PEOPLE!!


/Birdman

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

====

"I am truly not that concerned about him."

- G.W. Bush

In other news, grass is growing and paint is drying.
More at 11.

2004-05-25 09:35:10 PM DasNibblet

Thanks for the warning Super Bee. If the admins pull that image, then the terrorists have won.

Guess what? Deleted.

See how things work here? People can post all the anti-Bush/conservatove/republican pics they want but when you post one that goes against certain peoples political leanings it gets deleted.
It's ok, I posted it to alt.fark last week and there are no mods there. Usenet is the last bastion of free speech and this crap is the whole reason I created alt.fark. Though bin posts won't show on google.

It seems to me that a bunch of people are saying that Bush's current way of thinking... that is, Terrorism is mainly a military problem... is correct and a bunch of people think that it is a law-enforcement problem.

It seems to me that all a person needs to do is step back and take a slightly wider view: It is both.

In countries will stable governments is most certainly is a law enforcement problem. This includes Europe and the US and some other countries. Countries that would rather not have soldiers on every street corner.

It becomes a military problem when the country is like Afghanistan and run by a government in league with Islamic Extremists.

It becomes tricky in a place like Iraq where a brutal dictator controls a secular government and only pays lip service to Islam. Is the chance that he may provide weapons to terrorist groups to fight a common enenmy (the US) high enough to go to war? Or is it more likely that those groups would use any weapons against his secular regime in order to establish a theocracy? Those are much harder questions to answer.

i love tits and beer, i wish women could shoot beer out of their nipples.

Colonel Bat Guano
If I may quote from an Australian Paper
...one of those already convicted of involvement in the Bali bombings, Amrozi, said the reason for the Bali bombing was "because of the evil plan of the United States and their allies to colonise [and] to destroy religions". He also said the bombing was aimed at "the evil plans of the Jews' dirty hands and their friends who always try in every way to prevent congregation by religious groups, especially Muslims . . . then these Jewish people and their friends will easily conquer and make it [Indonesia] their possession".

So I think the Bali bombing event support my point made above...but I welcome criticism...I like a good debate. unfortunately we will not know until several weeks after the november election. I for one would welcome a summer without any dramatic event and would prefer spending more time talking about Boobies then argueing government politics on a forum.
off to watch the news for now

And we have two formerly repressed countries headed towards Democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Where exactly are you getting your news? The White House?

FEAR! FEAR! AHHRRRGGHGHHHHH!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! HIDE IN YOUR HOMES! VOTE BUSH 2004!

revscat

Getting the job done...

WTC I
Khobar Towers
Embassy bombings
USS Cole
9/11

Yessir, that Clinton Administration shore did whup al Qaeda reeeel goood.

Figures. Why is this a headline? They are always saying that they are planning to ass-hump us in one way or another.