SilverNRed Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 So the jerkwads at al Qaeda released another video today and, once again, Osama was 100% absent. No proof of life in over a year. No reason why. If you want an "October Surprise" it'll probably be some 'leak' or announcement that OBL is most likely worm food. al Zawahiri speaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Doesn't much matter. IMHO, Zawaheri is the brains of the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Doesn't much matter. IMHO, Zawaheri is the brains of the organization. 25006[/snapback] Yep and has been all along. He is the one who radicalized Osama back during the Soviet war in Afghanistan and has influenced him ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Doesn't much matter. IMHO, Zawaheri is the brains of the organization. 25006[/snapback] Yeah but OBL is the inspiration that draws the recruits and the tacit assisstance of "ordinary everyday" Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Yeah but OBL is the inspiration He was the inspiration a couple years ago, but now the inspiration is the occupation of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 He was the inspiration a couple years ago, but now the inspiration is the occupation of Iraq. 25341[/snapback] Let's just assume for one second that 1% of the Iraqi population is actively resisting us. What about the other 99%? I am willing to bet that those numbers are accurate and that 99% of Iraqis are HAPPY we're there. But not you, no, you believe whatever you see on the TV, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 am willing to bet that those numbers are accurate and that 99% of Iraqis are HAPPY we're there. And you're content to get your information from the government? No bias there. The last poll taken in Iraq showed that a majority of Iraqis viewed the U.S. as occupiers and wanted us out, as does the majority of the Muslim world, where the new recruits are coming from. It's naive to think that that recruitment will drop off or stop if or when we find out where OBL is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 And you're content to get your information from the government? No bias there. The last poll taken in Iraq showed that a majority of Iraqis viewed the U.S. as occupiers and wanted us out, as does the majority of the Muslim world, where the new recruits are coming from. It's naive to think that that recruitment will drop off or stop if or when we find out where OBL is. 25415[/snapback] Ooh, I love polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 And you're content to get your information from the government? No bias there. The last poll taken in Iraq showed that a majority of Iraqis viewed the U.S. as occupiers and wanted us out, as does the majority of the Muslim world, where the new recruits are coming from. It's naive to think that that recruitment will drop off or stop if or when we find out where OBL is. 25415[/snapback] I have to laugh at Pasta Joe's blurb under his avatar. No retreat ,no surrender? That's exactly what you libs want to do in the war on terror- retreat and surrender! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 I have to laugh at Pasta Joe's blurb under his avatar.No retreat ,no surrender? That's exactly what you libs want to do in the war on terror- retreat and surrender! 25700[/snapback] It's actually Springsteen's motto on sex outside marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 That's exactly what you libs want to do in the war on terror- retreat and surrender! Of course Republicans have a monopoly on patriotism and defending Americans. Fortunately the 3000 dead in NYC and the 1000+ dead in Iraq are just media generated fiction, because the Repubicans would never allow so many Americans to be killed. Great job, you've convinced me Bush has made us safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Ooh, I love polls. 25449[/snapback] It's all well and good to pour scorn on polls, but how else is someone living in the US to get any idea of the state of overall opinion in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 It's all well and good to pour scorn on polls, but how else is someone living in the US to get any idea of the state of overall opinion in Iraq? 25927[/snapback] No easy answer, but I don't trust the polls anymore than I trust the politicians who use them as their basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Of course Republicans have a monopoly on patriotism and defending Americans. Interesting interpretation of Wacka's comments. Defensive about something? Republicans seem to have a monopoly not on patriots, but on leaders who understand the nature of our enemy and are willing to fight this war instead of cowering behind the weakest of our allies. The Democrats who do have the stomach for this war are not really welcome in the party anymore (Lieberman, Miller). Name one candidate in the Democrat primaries who would be seen as strong or intimidating to terrorists. And please don't offer Kerry or Clark, these guys are pacifists at best. The Dems just don't have the resolve right now to make the terrorists fear them. Must be nice to know that your guy is the one terrorist nations want to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Interesting interpretation of Wacka's comments. Defensive about something? Republicans seem to have a monopoly not on patriots, but on leaders who understand the nature of our enemy and are willing to fight this war instead of cowering behind the weakest of our allies. The Democrats who do have the stomach for this war are not really welcome in the party anymore (Lieberman, Miller). Name one candidate in the Democrat primaries who would be seen as strong or intimidating to terrorists. And please don't offer Kerry or Clark, these guys are pacifists at best. The Dems just don't have the resolve right now to make the terrorists fear them. Must be nice to know that your guy is the one terrorist nations want to win. 26091[/snapback] Um... Lieberman was in the primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Must be nice to know that your guy is the one terrorist nations want to win. If we look at the real facts, it's obvious that the terrorists want Bush to win, he's been great for their causes. They've had their greatest successes since he took office, both attacking in the U.S. with 3000 dead and in the world, they have found a new haven and plenty of new recruits in Iraq thanks to Bush's decision to invade and occupy with over 10,000 Iraqis killed and continued anarchy, the U.S. surplus has been drained by $200 billion, we have over 1000 dead and 7000 wounded soldiers, our country is divided as it hasn't been since Vietnam, they continue to gain a new generation of recruits among Palestinians and Muslims due to the lack of progress on a Palestinian state and the U.S. giving silent approval to Sharon's tactics, and Afganistan is once again turning into a haven where the warlords rule, and poppy production which is used to make heroin and finance terrorism is greater than when the Taliban was in charge. Why would any terrorists want to change that situation? Kerry couldn't give the terrorists a better situation even if he wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Osama is in Iran with a clean shave, some plastic surgery, different style clothes,etc ala Mugniyeh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 If we look at the real facts, it's obvious that the terrorists want Bush to win, he's been great for their causes. They've had their greatest successes since he took office, both attacking in the U.S. with 3000 dead and in the world, they have found a new haven and plenty of new recruits in Iraq thanks to Bush's decision to invade and occupy with over 10,000 Iraqis killed and continued anarchy, the U.S. surplus has been drained by $200 billion, we have over 1000 dead and 7000 wounded soldiers, our country is divided as it hasn't been since Vietnam, they continue to gain a new generation of recruits among Palestinians and Muslims due to the lack of progress on a Palestinian state and the U.S. giving silent approval to Sharon's tactics, and Afganistan is once again turning into a haven where the warlords rule, and poppy production which is used to make heroin and finance terrorism is greater than when the Taliban was in charge. Why would any terrorists want to change that situation? Kerry couldn't give the terrorists a better situation even if he wanted to. If our approach is so bad, then why has Russia finally signed on to the same approach as Bush? Why do they now refer to U.S. as the leader in the war on terror? Why are they suddenly interested in working with Israel? Why are they now complaining of the same weak-kneed European leadership that Bush is running into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 If our approach is so bad, then why has Russia finally signed on to the same approach as Bush? Why do they now refer to U.S. as the leader in the war on terror? Why are they suddenly interested in working with Israel? Why are they now complaining of the same weak-kneed European leadership that Bush is running into? 29209[/snapback] Because they realized the folly of keeping contracts with scumbag dictators over killing same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 He was the inspiration a couple years ago, but now the inspiration is the occupation of Iraq. 25341[/snapback] Well then, its a good thing Russia isnt involved in Iraq because then they might be targeted by Al-Qaeda related terrorists....OOPS Nevermind. Why hello facts, Oh hi argument, good to see you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts