Bin Laden and Chomsky

[LowerCaseRepublican]

give me a break. your Dems are the ones saying " but, he didn't get bin Laden.... osama is the real target. " . you going to blame them for being shortsighted? of course you won't.

 

comparing Suskind to Hannity and O'reilly sounds about right. i certainly wouldn't use any of their books as proof of anything, and that was my point... so what if some partisan wrote a book? it proves nothing.

 

i didn't think the US should have invaded iraq.. but i wouldn't say anyone that does is, as you call it, "braindead". we get it, you're a democrat, but do you really need to stoop so low to make a point?

You said the Dems were soft on terrorism by leaving the leadership of AQ alone and not wanting to kill/eliminate OBL. Then, I showed you how six months after 9/11 GWB stated publicly that he was not concerned about OBL. Then I quoted two major Republican candidates for the Presidency that have said that is not worth it to go after OBL. Why can you slime the Democrats and Clinton for not eliminating OBL and saying they are soft on terrorism when you're giving GWB, Thompson, Romney, et al. a free pass for the exact same behavior?

 

Brain dead is one of the terms that I would have used for a cheerleader for the war. Despite the stories that information was unreliable, being stovepiped from questionable sources, Powell's UN speech being cribbed from a doctoral paper written in 1991 and that there were likely no WMD -- they threw that all out and went for the feel good orgy of violence in a nation thousands of miles away because they thought that it would make them 'secure' and it satisfied their bloodlust to go kill Muslims for what they did on 9/11. Remember, most of the people still believed that fallacious notion that Iraq and 9/11 were related which was an excellent selling point by the corporate media and the pro-war wings of both parties. Any person who did a little reading of investigative journalism could have seen that the claims of Iraq and 9/11 were absolute bunk. Yet, people shut off their brains and continued to believe the bulls***. So, yes, braindead would be an accurate descriptor of a war party supporter in this case, especially the 20+% that still continue to support this insane bloodbath and slaughter.

 

And just because a partisan writes a book does not mean that what they wrote was suspect. Everybody has an agenda and the idea of objectivity is insane. The only objective thing in newspapers is the sports box scores and sometimes stock reports.

 

And I'm not necessarily a Democrat. I shift from party to party in elections depending on the candidates running and their platform/how they stand on issues that are important to me -- sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat and sometimes Green or Libertarian.

[kapkomet]

What was unclear about my post? I quoted you exactly. You felt qualified to speak on everything in the clip, without having even read it. That's some real desperation. The thing was only 7 pages long, for chrissake.

 

You said you hadn't said it. You did say it. And you still try to attack me, for attacking "the messenger". What the f*** is your problem? If you said it, ADMIT IT.Btw, with all your "you libs" bulls***, I invite you to provide a few examples of where I blindly supported Dem positions. Like when I've said that we should stay in Iraq at this point, although the invasion was idiocy. Or when I've supported open trade or guest worker programs. Be my f***ing guest.

 

On the other side, I'd like you to do exactly what you said you could -- put full quotes "side by side", and let us all gasp at how terrorist the Dems are. We're still waiting. Vague references about "global warming" are just sad.

I did. But apparently you can't read. I'm done with you.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well this is hands-down the most embarrassing thread I've seen in my time in the 'Buster.

 

I won't even bother trying to clean up anything, and instead say this: please, please, lets try to keep away from labelling all liberals as being like Al Qaeda (and yes Kap, that is 100% precisely what you did), and from labelling all the conservatives as brainless or otherwise stupid for wanting to stay the course.

 

And I'll add just one talking point. If indeed the rhetoric being spewed by UBL has some similarities to stands taken by the Democrats... has it occurred to anyone that may have been done intentionally to try to keep the GOP in power in order to sustain the war? And that UBL and AQ have a vested interest in keeping the war going? Just something to consider.

 

[kapkomet]

Well this is hands-down the most embarrassing thread I've seen in my time in the 'Buster.

 

I won't even bother trying to clean up anything, and instead say this: please, please, lets try to keep away from labelling all liberals as being like Al Qaeda (and yes Kap, that is 100% precisely what you did), and from labelling all the conservatives as brainless or otherwise stupid for wanting to stay the course.

 

And I'll add just one talking point. If indeed the rhetoric being spewed by UBL has some similarities to stands taken by the Democrats... has it occurred to anyone that may have been done intentionally to try to keep the GOP in power in order to sustain the war? And that UBL and AQ have a vested interest in keeping the war going? Just something to consider.

Hey, thank you very much for proving my point! I appreciate that. But of course, it's a "slap in the face" to admit that for "Democrats".

 

And I'll say it for I think now the fourth or fifth time... the RHETORIC spewed is LIKE THAT of Democrats, not that "all liberals are like Al Queda". I've said it over and over and over after my initial post which was done on the way out the door and poorly worded.

 

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

Well this is hands-down the most embarrassing thread I've seen in my time in the 'Buster.

 

I won't even bother trying to clean up anything, and instead say this: please, please, lets try to keep away from labelling all liberals as being like Al Qaeda (and yes Kap, that is 100% precisely what you did), and from labelling all the conservatives as brainless or otherwise stupid for wanting to stay the course.

 

And I'll add just one talking point. If indeed the rhetoric being spewed by UBL has some similarities to stands taken by the Democrats... has it occurred to anyone that may have been done intentionally to try to keep the GOP in power in order to sustain the war? And that UBL and AQ have a vested interest in keeping the war going? Just something to consider.

 

I don't think Kap was saying that all liberals are like Al Qaeda. Just the majority

 

oh, is that not helping? how could I not stay away?

 

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

[jasonxctf]

now this is a thread which should be shut down.

[Texsox]

Hey, thank you very much for proving my point! I appreciate that. But of course, it's a "slap in the face" to admit that for "Democrats".

 

And I'll say it for I think now the fourth or fifth time... the RHETORIC spewed is LIKE THAT of Democrats, not that "all liberals are like Al Queda". I've said it over and over and over after my initial post which was done on the way out the door and poorly worded.

 

Why is it so bad to have both sides wanting peace?

 

I guess my post regarding embracing killing people is pretty damn close to GOP rhetoric after all.

[Gregory Pratt]

Well this is hands-down the most embarrassing thread I've seen in my time in the 'Buster.

 

I won't even bother trying to clean up anything, and instead say this: please, please, lets try to keep away from labelling all liberals as being like Al Qaeda (and yes Kap, that is 100% precisely what you did), and from labelling all the conservatives as brainless or otherwise stupid for wanting to stay the course.

 

And I'll add just one talking point. If indeed the rhetoric being spewed by UBL has some similarities to stands taken by the Democrats... has it occurred to anyone that may have been done intentionally to try to keep the GOP in power in order to sustain the war? And that UBL and AQ have a vested interest in keeping the war going? Just something to consider.

 

As I pointed out, that's the CIA's perspective, though they also believe that American political ideology is completely different than al-Qaeda's and they prefer certain leaders because they can be better morphed into a campaign. Of course I completely made that up and it was blasphemy. Hawt.

[NorthSideSox72]

now this is a thread which should be shut down.

The topic still has plenty of good territory to play out. I'd like to keep the discussion open. That said, if it can't rise above the snark and absurdity, then we'll see.

 

[kapkomet]

Maybe I'm not getting through because ya'll want to make this something I'm not meaning.

 

I'll try this (besides the quote stuff, which I hope I can get to later today, it depends on how long the kiddo will sleep).

 

Al Queda = Anti-US

Democrats = Anti-War

 

Therefore, Democrats = Al Queda ANTI WAR RHETORIC.

 

What I am NOT saying is that Al Queda = Democrat. I AM saying that the poltical discourse of wanting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan are mutual to the line of thinking of both Al Queda and the Democrats.

 

I am NOT also saying that Democrat = Anti-America, perhaps maybe this is why my point is getting lost in the translation - because some of ya'll are taking it that way.

 

Is that any more clear?

 

Edit: I also realize my initial post was a lot more over the top then I meant for it to be, and that's my fault. For that alone, I apologize. If some folks in this thread want to keep bringing that up, fine, but as of this post, I'm finished with that part of the conversation. I will re-iterate, though, that my basic premise stands that the rhetoric (talking points) are extremely close in nature.

 

Edited September 9, 2007 by kapkomet

[kapkomet]

As I pointed out, that's the CIA's perspective, though they also believe that American political ideology is completely different than al-Qaeda's and they prefer certain leaders because they can be better morphed into a campaign. Of course I completely made that up and it was blasphemy. Hawt.

GP, of course, that's what the intentions of the organization called Al Queda wants. That's pretty clear. I also think they use our media effectively to obtain information to fuel the divisions when they write speeches like this.

 

 

[Texsox]

Again Kap, what is wrong with both sides wanting peace? That's the only way to end a war. I thought the GOP loyalists wanted peace also.

[NorthSideSox72]

I AM saying that the poltical discourse of wanting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan are mutual to the line of thinking of both Al Queda and the Democrats.

I'd say its the opposite. Al Qaeda wants war. They are feigning support of an anti-war cause in order to try to bolster those (generally, the GOP) that support the war.

 

[kapkomet]

Again Kap, what is wrong with both sides wanting peace? That's the only way to end a war. I thought the GOP loyalists wanted peace also.

There's two sides to "peace". One is a lasting peace, the other is a peace by burying your head in the sand and saying "let them all sort it out". That is where the Democrats side on this. They are taking the "anti-war" stance of the far left in this country and running pedal to the medal with that message. That is why I keep arguing that the rhetoric for Al Queda and the Democrat party is similiar in nature.

 

Two examples, really quick.

 

Al Queda:

 

People of America, the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment.

 

... (further down)

 

And here I say: it would benefit you to listen to the poignant messages of your soldiers in Iraq, who are paying - with their blood, nerves and scatterd limbs - the prices for these sorts of irresponsible statements.

 

Harry Reid, 9/7/07:

You'll find that the war is now costing us $3 Billion dollars a week. The wounded and maimed (sp) are going up every day. We have recognition now of emotional distress that's [paraphrase - caused by this war] - with these IED's, suicide bombers - the reason that 80% of our troops coming home that are married get divorced. So, we can have all the reports that we want - all we have to do is look at what's going on in Iraq and that's my direction to do something to change the course of this war so I don't have to continue making calls back to Nevada when these deaths occur.

 

I have every belief that this good man, General Patreaus (sp), will give us what he feels is the right thing to do in this report - that is now not his report. It's President Bush's report. President Bush took final ownership of this when he landed in the Anbar Province just a few days ago. So, I'm hopeful and confident that he will give us his honest opinion but at this stage - unless there is some real surprise - nothing new will come up. We've (my emphasis) leaked everything that there is in this report already.

 

Now for the parallells. Both talk of this being "Bush's war". Both talk of getting the war stopped. Both talk about the harshness of the soldier's plight in the open in a negative connotation (i.e. get out of there because it's all for nothing). The discussions of "it's time for a change (let's not beat around the Bush (pun intended) here - we all know Reid means withdrawl. If there were MORE casualties, it makes the case for Reid that much more, does it not? They both reference the (dollar) cost of the war being too much - and oh by the way, how much of this money is earmarked toward reconstruction?

 

This is just but one longer example - and frankly, the idealogy is very close. I'm sure I'll get nitpicked to death about how this isn't remotely the same, but these two areas definitely play and feed off of one another in the contexts of the two quotes. It's not that far of a stretch, but I'm sure that no one will admit to that, because it serves the purpose of "ending this war!!" cry that's out there right now.

 

And this is a side discourse, but I find it quite interesting that they are now so quick to discredit General Patraeus' report - that started a month ago... because if it has any good news in it at all, the Democrats cannot rally around the "let's get out" war cry. They knew that the report was going to say where the surge was put in place it was working. It has allowed for political reconciliation where the peace has taken hold, but the Democrats can't have that, or we're there for another (period of) time.

[kapkomet]

I'd say its the opposite. Al Qaeda wants war. They are feigning support of an anti-war cause in order to try to bolster those (generally, the GOP) that support the war.

Al Queda wants war, but not in their own back yard. Yes or no? And to me what you're saying only emphasizes my point even more about the two sides using the same rhetoric. You're making it a better arguement then I have.

[Texsox]

We went to war variously to secure WMD and to remove a dictator. Both have been accomplished. Now we keep adding factors. That is GOP rhetoric for continuing to fight. It isn't burying our heads in the sand to determine that nobody can solve centuries of bitter animosities between groups. It isn't burying our heads in the sand to believe that our Troops are better resources when they are available to meet a different enemy than bogged down for a decade or two in Iraq.

 

Bin Laden is in favor of tax cuts and capital punishment. He's in pro-Life and strong on law enforcement. All are nice GOP attributes. Shall the GOP drop those because they happen to follow his message? Does this mean the GOP is Anti-American?

[Rex Kickass]

Al Queda wants war, but not in their own back yard. Yes or no? And to me what you're saying only emphasizes my point even more about the two sides using the same rhetoric. You're making it a better arguement then I have.

 

Al Qaeda doesn't have a back yard to begin with. Al Qaeda is a decentralized network of cells with an ultimate aim of promoting Islam by forcing violence on the nonbelievers. If Al Qaeda didn't want war in its backyard, why is it attacking Pakistan? Why is it attacking Indonesia? Why is it attacking in any number of states that are predominantly Islamic?

[NorthSideSox72]

Al Queda wants war, but not in their own back yard. Yes or no? And to me what you're saying only emphasizes my point even more about the two sides using the same rhetoric. You're making it a better arguement then I have.

Al Qaeda wants war period - and so much the better for them being in their backyard, where recruting is so much easier.

 

I don't disagree that SOME of UBL's stances appear to be similar to SOME of those of SOME Democrats. Same can be said for SOME views of the GOP, by the way. But whereas you think its because the Democrats are somehow wimps that want to surrender, I think its because AQ loves the idea of the christian conservative element staying in control in the U.S. It means more business for them.

 

[kapkomet]

Al Qaeda wants war period - and so much the better for them being in their backyard, where recruting is so much easier.

 

I don't disagree that SOME of UBL's stances appear to be similar to SOME of those of SOME Democrats. Same can be said for SOME views of the GOP, by the way. But whereas you think its because the Democrats are somehow wimps that want to surrender, I think its because AQ loves the idea of the christian conservative element staying in control in the U.S. It means more business for them.

I don't disagree with that at all. But which is more dangerous? I don't think we will have a definitive answer to that question, but I will say that cowering to their wishes and "dialogue" will not work with these people. I also agree with Rex that Al Queda is an idealogue based organization who has no qualms about destroying anything that is not 100% on board to their views, including their own Islamic home bases.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't disagree with that at all. But which is more dangerous? I don't think we will have a definitive answer to that question, but I will say that cowering to their wishes and "dialogue" will not work with these people. I also agree with Rex that Al Queda is an idealogue based organization who has no qualms about destroying anything that is not 100% on board to their views, including their own Islamic home bases.

Again with labels like "cowering to their wishes". Strident and untrue. The U.S. should have a foreign policy which first and foremost protects our national security - that is reason number one to leave Iraq.

 

[mr_genius]

You said the Dems were soft on terrorism by leaving the leadership of AQ alone and not wanting to kill/eliminate OBL. Then, I showed you how six months after 9/11 GWB stated publicly that he was not concerned about OBL. Then I quoted two major Republican candidates for the Presidency that have said that is not worth it to go after OBL. Why can you slime the Democrats and Clinton for not eliminating OBL and saying they are soft on terrorism when you're giving GWB, Thompson, Romney, et al. a free pass for the exact same behavior?

 

Brain dead is one of the terms that I would have used for a cheerleader for the war. Despite the stories that information was unreliable, being stovepiped from questionable sources, Powell's UN speech being cribbed from a doctoral paper written in 1991 and that there were likely no WMD -- they threw that all out and went for the feel good orgy of violence in a nation thousands of miles away because they thought that it would make them 'secure' and it satisfied their bloodlust to go kill Muslims for what they did on 9/11. Remember, most of the people still believed that fallacious notion that Iraq and 9/11 were related which was an excellent selling point by the corporate media and the pro-war wings of both parties. Any person who did a little reading of investigative journalism could have seen that the claims of Iraq and 9/11 were absolute bunk. Yet, people shut off their brains and continued to believe the bulls***. So, yes, braindead would be an accurate descriptor of a war party supporter in this case, especially the 20+% that still continue to support this insane bloodbath and slaughter.

 

And just because a partisan writes a book does not mean that what they wrote was suspect. Everybody has an agenda and the idea of objectivity is insane. The only objective thing in newspapers is the sports box scores and sometimes stock reports.

 

And I'm not necessarily a Democrat. I shift from party to party in elections depending on the candidates running and their platform/how they stand on issues that are important to me -- sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat and sometimes Green or Libertarian.

 

Obviously a strategy to stop terrorism is going to go beyond obl, but if the Democrats are going to claim the war on terror is failing because the guy is not captured or dead I am going to call them out on not getting him when they were in the White House and had the chance to take him out. They vote for the war in Iraq, then decide to abandon it when things are not going well. When things turn around a little it's "in spite" of the troops and military leadership. When they have a chance to get Bin Laden, it's not worth insulting muslims...when the GOP doesn't get him it's "a failure". They stand for nothing, just constant contradictory rhetoric.

 

I'm not going to get into an in depth discussion about the notion that the US just invaded Iraq to kill muslims and are waging a genocidal war. It's a ridiculous accusation and one that does not play out. I'm not sure if this is really what you think or maybe your emotions got the better of you and resulted in that portion of your post. If the US was really this fascist regime, as you are eluding to, these muslim countries would have been totally destroyed. The military is trying to avoid civilian casualties, I can guarantee you that if they wanted they could carpet bomb, or even nuke those countries and succeed in this "mass genocide".

 

As far as the corporate media supporting the war, I don't see much or any support in the MSM. Yes, the MSM is owned by corporations and it's news rooms are run by Democrats. Democrats and "liberals" are often in places of power in these large corporations you despise. From Hillary Clinton at Walmart to John Edwards and his large investments. Many of these supposed "liberals" are as money and power hungry as even the greediest of the GOP.

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

think its because AQ loves the idea of the christian conservative element staying in control in the U.S. It means more business for them.

 

 

Highly unlikely. Their attempts at destroying targets in the United States and killing US citizens has been greatly hindered by this admin. Your theory of "it helps recruiting" is also suspect. There were plenty of recruits well before the GW Bush presidency and the main tool was "jews / Isreal" and the United States support of them. And aren't most Democrats Christians as well? The entire theory has so many holes in it. If a Democrat is president there will still be an equal amount of support for AQ and they know this.

Edited September 9, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Highly unlikely. Their attempts at destroying targets in the United States and killing US citizens has been greatly hindered by this admin. Your theory of "it helps recruiting" is also suspect. There were plenty of recruits well before the GW Bush presidency and the main tool was "jews / Isreal" and the United States support of them. And aren't most Democrats Christians as well? The entire theory has so many holes in it.

Their ability to strike the U.S. is a little less, but that isn't even what I was talking about - recruiting is going pretty darn well by all accounts, all over the Middle East and in other regions. And what on earth does the fact that Dems are Christians have to do with it? I never said anything about crusades or what not, that was someone else.

 

[mr_genius]

And what on earth does the fact that Dems are Christians have to do with it? I never said anything about crusades or what not, that was someone else.

 

You said that AQ likes the idea of a Christian conservative admin in the White House. So the Dems would meet atleast 50% of those requirements. A main tool for there recruiting is also the "lack of morals" and the "satanic way of life" in the United States. So basically, a Christian, pro-gay, pro-liberal ideals would be much more "satan like" than a conservative one. I would also imagine the Democrats would continue much of the policy towards Israel, therefore the recruting would be fine for these groups.

 

I didn't think you were implying that this was a Christian crusade.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Obviously a strategy to stop terrorism is going to go beyond obl, but if the Democrats are going to claim the war on terror is failing because the guy is not captured or dead I am going to call them out on not getting him when they were in the White House and had the chance to take him out. They vote for the war in Iraq, then decide to abandon it when things are not going well. When things turn around a little it's "in spite" of the troops and military leadership. When they have a chance to get Bin Laden, it's not worth insulting muslims...when the GOP doesn't get him it's "a failure". They stand for nothing, just constant contradictory rhetoric.

 

I'm not going to get into an in depth discussion about the notion that the US just invaded Iraq to kill muslims and are waging a genocidal war. It's a ridiculous accusation and one that does not play out. I'm not sure if this is really what you think or maybe your emotions got the better of you and resulted in that portion of your post. If the US was really this fascist regime, as you are eluding to, these muslim countries would have been totally destroyed. The military is trying to avoid civilian casualties, I can guarantee you that if they wanted they could carpet bomb, or even nuke those countries and succeed in this "mass genocide".

 

As far as the corporate media supporting the war, I don't see much or any support in the MSM. Yes, the MSM is owned by corporations and it's news rooms are run by Democrats. Democrats and "liberals" are often in places of power in these large corporations you despise. From Hillary Clinton at Walmart to John Edwards and his large investments. Many of these supposed "liberals" are as money and power hungry as even the greediest of the GOP.

I simply said that the Iraq war was illegal and has resulted in a lot of bloodshed. Having a genocide would be a concerted, concentrated effort. It is giving the US too much credit and is also inaccurate to call it a genocide (and I don't believe I used the g word). Right now the US war policy couldn't find a clue with two hands and a detailed road map.

 

And the corporate media cheerled the war effort throughout the buildup in 2003 -- when it was important to have the investigative arm of the media out there. Nary a dissident voice could be heard on the mainstream media during that critical time.

 

And I agree about most Democrats. Watching John Edwards get his $400 haircuts -- that is 4 trips of groceries for me. Most of the Dems have whored for and cheerled the bloody war effort and have just as much blood on their hands as Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney, et al. I don't have blinders on for all Democrats. I do however, side with those Dems who have been opposed to the war and continue to do their job to GTFO of Iraq. Our armed forces are not meant to be an ongoing occupation force in a foreign land to an undetermined amount of time for the goal of nationbuilding (which the Bush administration was against before it was for it) As I said before, my vote goes on a candidate by candidate basis depending on their platforms, stances, etc. The last election I ended up voting Libertarian, Green, Democrat and Republican on the same ballot for different races simply based on the candidates that were offered.