Bin Laden
- Thread starter Master Capper
- Start date
You should read Sun Tzu's "Art of War". (not our Sun Tzu of course - the dead Chinese guy). When you are strong, make it same as though you are weak - when are weakened, appear strong. When far away, appear near - when close by, appear far away.DOGS THAT BARK said:
Do not feel safe just because we may not have heard from him in a little while or he hasn't claimed any recent attacks. Remember - 8 1/2 years between WTC attacks. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we don't get hit again until shortly after the next presidential election.
Ridiculous to think he's not a factor. And sounds like even more back-pedalling from the right. The Right has back-pedalled there way into both rationalizing invading Iraq as well as not capturing Osama. Quite a contradictory tandem there. Who caused 9-11 again?
smurphy said:
Can you imagine the outcry about how the dems were 'soft on terror' and how incompetent they are regarding the use of the military?
kosar said:
I think this is a very valid point. Of course, you can see it here in action in virtually any thread dealing with the current administration not bringing him to justice - or killing or torturing him (I threw that in for flavor...
oke ).No sooner do you ask why we have not been successful in getting the real architect of the 9-11 terror, and the first comment deals with Bill Clinton not getting him. Typical tactics when people have no answer...change the subject or deflect attention from the truth.
Or, just lie about it. That seems to work well these days.
You don't really believe its that easy to find one person hiding somewhere on this planet do you ?? The odds of us finding Osama have always been very slim at best . Really ,how hard do you think it is to hide one person especially when he is amongst his loyal friends ....Its just plain ignorant to believe that isn't a colossal task hence why so many are pist at the man that was handed Osama's ass on a platter ..only to turn it down and then have him kill 3000 innocents . I don't understand why you accept this ? That will never be acceptable to me regardless of what party they are from .
Nobody said it was easy. Some of us are surprised at how accepting people with otherwise aggresive views are in this particular case, however.
This "silver platter" Osama was supposedly on that you keep bringing up was from an extremely marginal, flaky, and corrupt Sudan official. I blame the Clinton administration for dismissing the silver platter - but chances are it was not a legitimate silver platter anyway. AND I doubt either Bush would have followed up on that either.
Please stop simply repeating the AM radio talking point spin over and over again and do some informative research yourself.
This "silver platter" Osama was supposedly on that you keep bringing up was from an extremely marginal, flaky, and corrupt Sudan official. I blame the Clinton administration for dismissing the silver platter - but chances are it was not a legitimate silver platter anyway. AND I doubt either Bush would have followed up on that either.
Please stop simply repeating the AM radio talking point spin over and over again and do some informative research yourself.
Wow. Some fine spinning there. Yes - Clinton turned down a guarantee of Osama's capture from a very reliable source then had him kill 3,000 Americans.Palehose said:
Can you just speak plainly, clearly, factually without this amazing lean and twist of everything?
I think I'll call you 'Pisa" from now on.
I would be against anyone weak on terror Matt. Of course that does not make me right--I was probably a minority that cheered Nickleson when he told Tom Cuise in movie "he couldn't handle the fcking truth" Many things our security depend on are better off left unsaid to my thinking. You can not win war on terror against kinds of people with a PC approach of giving them attorneys and having human rights watch groups dog you while they play by no rules.
On UBL Sure I wish we'd catch him--but until we do I'll take next best thing-islolation. I believe all but 2 of his 8 top dogs are dead and captured and with bounty on head doubt if hes looking to make 'new" friends. He is confined to communications by carrier.
The real puzzeler to me is--with his condition he needs kidney dialysis frequently--how the hell does he get that in supposed terrain he is confined to uless they have machine and generator?
Don't expectits been pretty past years confined to cover always looking over your shoulder--If I had my druthers of getting him or his fat buddy with the beard--I take his fat buddy--as I believe he is much more dangerous at this stage than UBL--but just my opinion.
Matt Believe it or not when it comes to war I leave poitics at home in most instances. I appluad Bill for going into Somolia just wished he finished the job. I think Johnson had best perspective on VN war and best of intentions--his prob was McNamera's (spl) pitiful insight.
Many things our security depend on are better off left unsaid to my thinking. You can not win war on terror against kinds of people with a PC approach of giving them attorneys and having human rights watch groups dog you while they play by no rules.On UBL Sure I wish we'd catch him--but until we do I'll take next best thing-islolation. I believe all but 2 of his 8 top dogs are dead and captured and with bounty on head doubt if hes looking to make 'new" friends. He is confined to communications by carrier.
The real puzzeler to me is--with his condition he needs kidney dialysis frequently--how the hell does he get that in supposed terrain he is confined to uless they have machine and generator?
Don't expectits been pretty past years confined to cover always looking over your shoulder--If I had my druthers of getting him or his fat buddy with the beard--I take his fat buddy--as I believe he is much more dangerous at this stage than UBL--but just my opinion.
Matt Believe it or not when it comes to war I leave poitics at home in most instances. I appluad Bill for going into Somolia just wished he finished the job. I think Johnson had best perspective on VN war and best of intentions--his prob was McNamera's (spl) pitiful insight.
smurphy said:
Bwahahaha.. :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: yep I just cant get enough of those AM radio shows :mj07:
You just keep a spinning and make sure to go visit our Allie's in France ...and be sure to visit southern France :mj07: :mj07:
:scared Yes I am so afraid of our country going into hock my god what will we do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: Dumb people
Hmmm probably the same thing we did since 1788 when we were at our absolute highest point in debt in the history of our country @ 30% of our GDP ...Today we run somewhere Between 12 to 15 % of our GDP in debt ... was talking to my father the other day when that came up and he laughed his ass off telling me how Liberals in the 50's were telling him that his Kids and Grandchildren would be strapped with this terrible debt .............hmmm guess what ???? Wrong again !!!!!!!!!
And the beauty of it all is out of the what ? 257 or so Countries on the planet we our like in the top 5 of Countries strapped with the least Debt in % of GDP ...which of course is the only measuring stick that matters .
I am gonna bet you cant tell me off the top of your head what the 1st sign will be of our country being to far into debt ???? hurry up run and get some help because you haven't a chance of coming up with this on your own !!
Hmmm probably the same thing we did since 1788 when we were at our absolute highest point in debt in the history of our country @ 30% of our GDP ...Today we run somewhere Between 12 to 15 % of our GDP in debt ... was talking to my father the other day when that came up and he laughed his ass off telling me how Liberals in the 50's were telling him that his Kids and Grandchildren would be strapped with this terrible debt .............hmmm guess what ???? Wrong again !!!!!!!!!
And the beauty of it all is out of the what ? 257 or so Countries on the planet we our like in the top 5 of Countries strapped with the least Debt in % of GDP ...which of course is the only measuring stick that matters .
I am gonna bet you cant tell me off the top of your head what the 1st sign will be of our country being to far into debt ???? hurry up run and get some help because you haven't a chance of coming up with this on your own !!
Your question is entirely subjective. Ask 20 experts and you might get 20 different answers. Add partisan thinking to that and it gets even more mixed. ...I honestly don't know what I would consider the 1st sign that we are too much in debt.
Remember, I was talking about DEFICIT by the way, NOT DEBT. Here's an interesting article about some problems resulting from deficit spending - specifically the falling value of the dollar.
http://www.kondratyev.com/articles/article.asp?Subject=The+Bush+Tax+Increase
I realize you are not looking at any of the links I'm posting - which brings me back to my position of not bothering with these squabbles because no matter how many facts and support I bring to my case it makes no difference - because you will never concede even one part of any issue. Perhaps others may be able to take something from my efforts though.
By the way - your statistic of the debt - I'm assuming you mean the NATIONAL DEBT - being 12-15% of the annual GDP is very wrong. The GDP in 2004 was over $11 trillion. 2005 forecasts about 4.4% increase of that. Figure about $12 trillion for the 2005 GDP. The national debt is currently $8 trillion. That means the debt is a whopping 67% of the GDP. Don't know where you came up with your numbers. If you wanted to say DEFICIT instead, then you made the same mistake as me before.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Keep calling me dumb. It makes you look brilliant.
Remember, I was talking about DEFICIT by the way, NOT DEBT. Here's an interesting article about some problems resulting from deficit spending - specifically the falling value of the dollar.
http://www.kondratyev.com/articles/article.asp?Subject=The+Bush+Tax+Increase
I realize you are not looking at any of the links I'm posting - which brings me back to my position of not bothering with these squabbles because no matter how many facts and support I bring to my case it makes no difference - because you will never concede even one part of any issue. Perhaps others may be able to take something from my efforts though.
By the way - your statistic of the debt - I'm assuming you mean the NATIONAL DEBT - being 12-15% of the annual GDP is very wrong. The GDP in 2004 was over $11 trillion. 2005 forecasts about 4.4% increase of that. Figure about $12 trillion for the 2005 GDP. The national debt is currently $8 trillion. That means the debt is a whopping 67% of the GDP. Don't know where you came up with your numbers. If you wanted to say DEFICIT instead, then you made the same mistake as me before.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Keep calling me dumb. It makes you look brilliant.
Last edited:
Palehose, two quick points on things you have posted in the last few posts here.
First, one thing that should have been done to try to find Bin Laden was not moving most of the troops out of the area THEY told us he was in and into Iraq. Yes, it could be a massive undertaking to find him, and if you were SERIOUS about finding the architect and master terrorist, then you should have used the soldiers and technology that was already there to find him. Bush's choice was to undermine the mission he was approved to do (it's clear to anyone with any common sense), to attack Iraq. I think that was a very poor choice, as do most people that are serious about the real "war on terror". Or at least if they were being honest, they would.
Second...I noticed that in the WMD discussion, you use France as being helpful and an ally of the US with intelligence in that issue, and then make light of them in any other point you don't agree with. Just thought I'd mention it. Some might insinuate you to be a... :hah: flip-flopper
First, one thing that should have been done to try to find Bin Laden was not moving most of the troops out of the area THEY told us he was in and into Iraq. Yes, it could be a massive undertaking to find him, and if you were SERIOUS about finding the architect and master terrorist, then you should have used the soldiers and technology that was already there to find him. Bush's choice was to undermine the mission he was approved to do (it's clear to anyone with any common sense), to attack Iraq. I think that was a very poor choice, as do most people that are serious about the real "war on terror". Or at least if they were being honest, they would.
Second...I noticed that in the WMD discussion, you use France as being helpful and an ally of the US with intelligence in that issue, and then make light of them in any other point you don't agree with. Just thought I'd mention it. Some might insinuate you to be a... :hah: flip-flopper
Bro finding one man on the planet is near impossible espeacially when he has allies ...............Just take a quick peak at the literally millions who have evaded the law and governments around the world for a lot longer than Osama ....thats why Billy really blew it ....Is it possible to catch him ? ...yes with a good lead from a reliable source ....no amount of men or technology is going to change the fact that a small task force with a good lead will be the only thing that will spell Osama demise .
France didnt send their intelligence to the US they reluctantly reported what they knew to the UN ..................France is your enemy and has the blood of a young US Soldier on their hands .
When we now know what we do about the food for oil program at the very least if you didnt agree with removing Saddam before ...for the life of me I cannot understand why people wouldnt want him removed now knowing what we do .......... That one act alone is by far and away reason enough to want that man out no matter what it took ....If you dont believe that than you believe the UN should be disolved and that cannot be denied or argued .
When we now know what we do about the food for oil program at the very least if you didnt agree with removing Saddam before ...for the life of me I cannot understand why people wouldnt want him removed now knowing what we do .......... That one act alone is by far and away reason enough to want that man out no matter what it took ....If you dont believe that than you believe the UN should be disolved and that cannot be denied or argued .
I think it's swell that Saddam is under wraps. I don't think anyone is arguing that. If they are, so be it. There's a LOT of bad guys around the world that I would love to see under wraps. Take Bin Laden, for instance. But to say that someone even as bad as Saddam should be taken out by the US - no matter what it took - is not something I can agree on. I think that there could have been many better ways to spend the extraordinary money that we have spent - and will continue to spend indefinitely - than what has gone on in Iraq. Let alone the lives that have been lost. That's my opinion, and you can have yours.
You talk about the food for oil program. What about the oil for war program promised us by Bush and Rumsfeld? It seems the right wing has forgotten that Bush promised that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and that has not been the case. Where has all that money gone? I think some of us will agree we know where much of it has gone. Not to the Iraqi citizens, not to Iraqi debtors, not to the U.S. treasury. Some of it surely has, I would hope, but most of it, sadly, has not.
And Kosar is, of course, correct when he points out that if a democrat were in the White House right now then the commentary from you guys would be completely different. But then again, we might have found him by now, as the democratic president might not have pulled away the troops and technology from the job at hand to begin with.
You talk about the food for oil program. What about the oil for war program promised us by Bush and Rumsfeld? It seems the right wing has forgotten that Bush promised that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and that has not been the case. Where has all that money gone? I think some of us will agree we know where much of it has gone. Not to the Iraqi citizens, not to Iraqi debtors, not to the U.S. treasury. Some of it surely has, I would hope, but most of it, sadly, has not.
And Kosar is, of course, correct when he points out that if a democrat were in the White House right now then the commentary from you guys would be completely different. But then again, we might have found him by now, as the democratic president might not have pulled away the troops and technology from the job at hand to begin with.
Why would we bother to find a guy who planned an attack that levelled 2 skyscrapers when we can putz around Iraq chasing insurgents and set up some flimsy "democracy" that will just get shredded in the Islamic woodchipper? :mj14:
The women over there will still be required to wear drapes....Christ, the ones living here are living in a democracy established over 200 years ago and walk around wearing a blanket...
Just be sure to shut the assembly line down 5 times a day so they can pray, and when in doubt, consult the Koran for a rules clarification. :mj07:
The women over there will still be required to wear drapes....Christ, the ones living here are living in a democracy established over 200 years ago and walk around wearing a blanket...
Just be sure to shut the assembly line down 5 times a day so they can pray, and when in doubt, consult the Koran for a rules clarification. :mj07:
Questions for you Marco :
Why do you think its so impossible to change a persons religion ? Its been done 1000's of time though out the history of mankind ? I do understand the Liberal PC crowd does make this more difficult by why do you believe it is impossible with so many historic examples saying your wrong ?
Better yet, you do realize we dont need to convert todays Muslims all we really need to do is force what every other religion on gods green earth has already gone through....... Reform ...Yes every other religion on earth today has reformed to remove the Violence from it why do you find that so immpossble with again so much historical fact saying your wrong ?
Why do you think its so impossible to change a persons religion ? Its been done 1000's of time though out the history of mankind ? I do understand the Liberal PC crowd does make this more difficult by why do you believe it is impossible with so many historic examples saying your wrong ?
Better yet, you do realize we dont need to convert todays Muslims all we really need to do is force what every other religion on gods green earth has already gone through....... Reform ...Yes every other religion on earth today has reformed to remove the Violence from it why do you find that so immpossble with again so much historical fact saying your wrong ?
