| Author | Message | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 512 Registered: 5-2003 |
HUmmm... once again Telson, you anti american moron, at no point did I EVER link different muslim groups... I said KILL THEM ALL. IRAQ is no less a threat than the Saudis or Iran. I did, however, ask about terror attacks in AMERICA. I aasked that question very directly.... and you, of course, ignored it. WHO CARES if we are killing the enemy daily in Iraq? My question was based on your implication that Amnerica was at a greater risk now.I AGAIN ask for proof. Grow up you liberal piece of S**t. Get behind your country or perhaps you would like to explain to the famiilies of the WTC how we were wrong and caused the poor muslims to hate us. BTW.. rumsfield NEVER said that Bush was wrong.... only that we have no way to measure success... BIG DIFFERENCE. He is still very behind the president. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 222 Registered: 8-2003 |
 Again, what is all this nonsensical spin to do with an excellent thread on a true Israeli Professional and Patriot, Army Chief, no less, who is stating that Sharons policy of "shoot first, never mind whom, and ask questions later", is counter-productive. Although unfortunately it's a policy that could be a twin seperated at birth to Bushs policy. Ralph, its simply too imbecilic to respond to, when someone is ignoring all facts and analysis. Heck, Iraq has, thanks to us, turned into a terror paradise where we are under constant attack, yet he thinks we're safer just because we didn't get hit on our own soil yet, lol, he is totally ignoring the FACT that Iraq and Al Qaeda had NOTHING to do with each other PRIOR to the invasion, but NOW they do, etc blabla. Same old cognitive dissonance we see quite a bit in this day and age when belief and facts don't match up. Heck, he probably would even manage to distort what RUMSFELD himself said in his infamous recent "memo", just because it doesn't fit in with what he WANTS to believe, lol. "Thanks to USA Today, the public now knows some of what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld really thinks of the war of terrorism. And thanks to Rumsfeld, the public knows that Bush is spinning when he discusses the war on terrorism. The newspaper obtained an October 16, 2003, memo Rumsfeld wrote to four senior aides, in which he asked, "Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?" Rumsfeld also noted, "We are having mixed results with Al Qaida." The much-discussed memo was clearly intended to goose his top people--General Richard Myers, General Peter Pace, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith--to think boldly and imaginatively about the war at hand. But Rumsfeld observed, "Today, we lack the metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror." He wondered whether more terrorists are being produced on a daily basis than the number of terrorists being captured, killed, deterred or dissuaded by U.S. actions. If Rumsfeld says there is no way to measure success or defeat in the campaign against terrorism, how can George W. Bush declare that he is winning the war? Yet while speaking on September 12 at Fort Stewart in Georgia, before soldiers and families of the Third Infantry Division, Bush said, "We're rolling back the terrorist threat, not on the fringes of its influence but at the heart of its power." As Rumsfeld might put it, according to what metrics, Mr. President? But the Rumsfeld memo is significant beyond its inadvertent truth-telling. Bush has repeatedly said that Iraq is "the central front" in the war on terrorism. Yet Rumsfeld's memo barely mentioned Iraq. Instead, Rumsfeld focused on combating terrorism at its roots, and he asked his aides to bring him ideas to counter the radical Islamic schools--the madrassas--that instruct students to hate the West. As he noted, "Does the U.S. need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?" And he asked, "Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madrassas to a more moderate course?" With these comments, Rumsfeld veered dangerously close to becoming one of those root-cause-symps who routinely are derided by hawks for arguing that the United States and other nations need to address the forces that fuel anti-Americanism overseas--in the Muslim world and elsewhere. The public disclosure of these views also made Rumsfeld's refusal to criticize Lt. General William Boykin appear all the more curious. Boykin, the newly appointed deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, was recently caught by NBC News and The Los Angeles Times making comments that indicate he believes that Islam is a false religion--he called Allah "an idol"--and that he sees the war on terrorism as a spiritual conflict between "a Christian nation" and heathens. In various press briefings, Rumsfeld has dodged addressing Boykin's remarks. At one point Rumsfeld said he had tried to watch a videotape of one of Boykin's church speeches, but he was unable to make out the words. (Boykin made most of his controversial statements from various church pulpits.) Wait a minute. The Pentagon can analyze communications intercepts and satellite imagery, but it cannot provide the defense secretary a clear rendition of a broadcast videotape? Social conservatives have predictably rallied behind Boykin, trotting out the to-be-expected argument that the poor general is being assailed for his religious views. Now what if he had said something like, "According to my religious views, Judaism is a false religion"? Or, "my religion teaches that black people are inferior to white people"? Would Rumsfeld and Boykin's defenders have been as temperate in their response? Writing in The Washington Times, conservative commentator Tony Blankley noted, "Whether or not American officials chose to call this a religious war, it is unambiguously clear that our enemy, bin Laden and the other terrorists, are motivated by Islamic religious fanaticism.....It shouldn't be a firing offense for the occasional American general to return the compliment." In other words, in this war (religious or not), the United States is entitled to be as extremist and intolerant as its murderous foes. Blankley fondly recounted that when Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met on a cruiser off the coast of Newfoundland on August 9, 1941, they sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers" with the assembled sailors. Does he suggest that Boykin lead the Pentagon masses in singing that same number? Perhaps Bush and Rumsfeld can provide back-up vocals. Boykin's prominent role in the administration's war on terrorism is certainly an impediment to any effort to encourage fundamentalist Islamic institutions to become more moderate. Rumsfeld ended his memo with a wide-open question: "What else should we be considering?" Here's a no-brainer: how about not appointing a Christian jihadist to be one of the leaders of an endeavor that aims to persuade Islamicists that the West is not so bad? Or is that too far outside the box? " http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-22- defense-memo-usat_x.htm  "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 QED | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Intermediate Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 1042 Registered: 3-2002 |
Telson: time to cut and paste ?? | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 511 Registered: 5-2003 |
The exact answer I expected.. You post"Oh, and if you want terror, why, isn't the terror, we now have imported into Iraq, sufficient for you ? Not to forget the chaos and anarchy there and in Afghanistan as well? " The "terror" we have imported into Iraq is well deserved. The message that death and destruction will be our answer to terrorist acts seems to make sense to those that would attempt to strike the US. We are not in the same situation as the Jewish homeland. They are bordered by the very people that wish to kill them. America stands alone and hard to reach. But other than answer your feeble post I will only add.... YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. Where is the terror for America? I gues the muslims are too busy burying their dead right now...but they will get back to us soon... right? BS... I sleep better each night knowing that our soldiers are allowed to shoot and kill in IRAQ... unlike the troops under Clinton that were ordered to hold fire even when fired upon. It's like Jack said in "A few good men" How dare you enjoy the freedoms I provide and then question the methods by which I provide them. Typical liberal Piece of S**t. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 220 Registered: 8-2003 |
Don't waste time with dead GI's.. they get paid to fight and die. Wow. Not for nothing spin, lies and deceit, they don't.  Dearest Jeffrey, what, pray, does an excellent thread on a true Israeli Professional and Patriot, Army Chief, no less, who is stating that a policy of "shoot first, never mind whom, and ask questions later", a policy that could be a twin seperated at birth to Bushs policies, in other words, what that has to do with your little hate filled tirade ?? Oh, and if you want terror, why, isn't the terror WE have allowed to flourish in Iraq through our unprecedented attack on said nation, sufficient for you? Not to forget the chaos and anarchy there and in Afghanistan as well? Terror that will without doubt spread from there, as indeed it has already, witness eg Bali ? That really is simply a question of time, as Bush chose, after all, to ignore the very real threat that Al Qaeda posed, and instead went off on a personal vendetta against Iraq that was NOT behind 9-11, did NOT have ties to Al Qaeda, and did NOT pose a HUGE and IMMINENT threat to us.  "Iraq war has swollen ranks of al-Qaida Richard Norton-Taylor Thursday October 16, 2003 The Guardian War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al-Qaida and "galvanised its will" by increasing radical passions among Muslims, an authoritative think-tank said yesterday. The warning, echoing earlier ones by MI5 and MI6, was made in the annual report of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance. The parliamentary intelligence and security committee reported last month that Tony Blair was warned by his intelligence chiefs on the eve of war that an invasion of Iraq would increase the danger of terrorist attacks. "The counter-terrorism effort has also perversely impelled an already highly decentralised and evasive transnational terrorist network to become more 'virtual' and protean and, therefore, harder to identify and neutralise. If al-Qaida has been compromised since the Afghanistan intervention from an offensive point of view, from a defensive perspective it is better off." Al-Qaida's great advantage, the report says, is its operational flexibility as a result of it not having a state to defend. The institute believes the network is present in more than 60 countries, has a rump leadership intact, and that there are more than 18,000 potential terrorists at large, with recruitment continuing. It disclosed that in February, a month before the invasion, Whitehall's joint intelligence committee said that "al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq". " continued: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks/story/ 0,10538,1063761,00.html "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 QED | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 510 Registered: 5-2003 |
Telson... you are a totally biased moron. Tell me, in detail, exacly what terroist threats we ahve experienced since 911? Don't waste time with dead GI's.. they get paid to fight and die. Tell me what bombs have gone off on our soil, what planes or ships have been attacked, what buildings have been blown up. Funny that under the sell out coward clinton we were attacked almost every 6 months.... Killing the enemy sends a message... and it seems to work. I will wait for your detailed answer... and BTW... saying we are at a "higher risk" won't cut it.... I would say crashing planes into the WTT was about as high as you could get. And funny how nothing like that has happened since we started killing towel heads. Time to get back to hanging trators too I guess. | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Intermediate Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 1153 Registered: 9-2002 |
John, although I understand your remark considering many/most of Telson's threads, what does this one have to do with America? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 219 Registered: 8-2003 |
 I really do not see where this attack stems from in a thread that deals with a very invaluable insight from a true Israeli (!) professional about how best to tackle terror and its sources, lol, and that is equally applicable in many other circunstances. Amazing how quickly people pick up on Bushs standard slander of critics, that they are traitors etc. Never mind that most critics want nothing more than to get this country back on track from the precipice to disaster where Bush and gang have taken us. But just to humor you nevertheless, I differentiate between COUNTRY and GOVERNMENT, the latter right now being in the hands of some incredibly evil, corrupt and incompetent people, as a matter of fact, I don't hate anyone, I just happen to believe that Bush is the biggest threat to world and national peace and stability we have seen in a long long time. Btw, TRAITORS are those who continue supporting a president who has done absolutely nothing for the good of the COUNTRY, who has in fact exposed this country to greater national security threats than we have witnessed in at least the last 50 years, and who has absolutely no respect for freedom, civil rights and judicial due process. In other words, traitors are those who put GOVERNMENT ahead of COUNTRY. | ||
| JohnR. (Rivee)
Member Username: Rivee Post Number: 303 Registered: 1-2002 |
Telson, do you hate America? It appears so. Were you this fervent when Bill Clinton was bombing Bosnia? I think your nickname should be pitbull "Traitor" instead of "trader". | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 215 Registered: 8-2003 |
An admirable insight that by no means only applies to Israel: "Our strategy helps the terrorists - army chief warns Sharon Fierce rebuke exposes rift between military and government Chris McGreal in Jerusalem Friday October 31, 2003 The Guardian Israel's army chief has exposed deep divisions between the military and Ariel Sharon by branding the government's hardline treatment of Palestinian civilians counter-productive and saying that the policy intensifies hatred and strengthens the "terror organisations". Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon also told Israeli journalists in an off-the-record briefing that the army was opposed to the route of the "security fence" through the West Bank. The government also contributed to the fall of the former Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, by offering only "stingy" support for his attempts to end the conflict, he said. Gen Ya'alon had apparently hoped his anonymous criticisms would strengthen the army's voice, which has been subordinated to the views of the intelligence services in shaping policy. But the comments were so devastating that he was swiftly revealed as the source. The statements - which a close associate characterised to the Israeli press as warning that the country was "on the verge of a catastrophe" - will also reinforce a growing perception among the public that Mr Sharon is unable to deliver the peace with security he promised when he came to office nearly three years ago. " continued: Full Story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1074804,00.html |