Jump to content

New Bin Laden tape


Balta1701

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 05:47 PM)
Simple question. Why is this man still both alive and able to run around free?

 

How dare you. He is just an muslim freedom fighter up against the fascist Bush regime. The US deserved those attacks, as our chickens had come home to roost.

 

They had to roost somewhere, correct? And a Chicken that cannot roost is really a sad situation.

 

Seriously though, I'm sure the US is trying to get him. I guess him being elusive and middle east governments turning a blind eye to where he is would be the reason he is still running around.

Edited by mr_genius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 09:45 PM)
Because our president is "not really concerned about him"??

13106968v13_240x240_Front.jpg

 

Barack will catch him!

 

oh wait, GeneHonda said Obama voted for Bin Laden.. Or was it the other way around? politics is confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I got a good idea... if you're upset about your prophet being insulted and having him and your religion portrayed as terrorists in a silly cartoon, in response, go burn things, blow s*** up, and kill foreigners... that'll show em you're not all a bunch of terrorists. If that doesn't work, then actually threaten major terrorist attacks to remove all doubt that you should be portrayed as a terrorist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 04:47 PM)
Simple question. Why is this man still both alive and able to run around free?

 

Because he has a better box office draw than Chevy Chase and Wesley Snipes combined??? I mean come on, who doesn't look forward to a new movie from Osama!?!

Edited by Kid Gleason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 08:41 PM)
How dare you. He is just an muslim freedom fighter up against the fascist Bush regime. The US deserved those attacks, as our chickens had come home to roost.

 

They had to roost somewhere, correct? And a Chicken that cannot roost is really a sad situation.

 

Seriously though, I'm sure the US is trying to get him. I guess him being elusive and middle east governments turning a blind eye to where he is would be the reason he is still running around.

 

If Sen. Obama becomes President, Osma Bin Laudin will be dead within a month. Bush doesn't want to catch him. Then he won't have the boogie man to scare people into voting for McCain. President Obama will not only kill terrorists, he will slow down their recruitment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 09:13 AM)
If Sen. Obama becomes President, Osma Bin Laudin will be dead within a month. Bush doesn't want to catch him. Then he won't have the boogie man to scare people into voting for McCain. President Obama will not only kill terrorists, he will slow down their recruitment.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

The one month thing is a BIT extreme. But yes, within the first few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 08:21 AM)
:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

The one month thing is a BIT extreme. But yes, within the first few years.

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! He'll do that by pulling all the troops home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 09:23 AM)
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! He'll do that by pulling all the troops home.

no. by redeplying them to mor eimportant areas. He has not said he will bring them home. He talks about redeployment outside of Iraq. Yes, the TOTAL number of troops int he middle east would go down. But many would get moved to the ACTUAL war on terror, vs the false one we are involved in today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really want to beat a dead horse but nothing distracted us farther from the war on terror than Iraq. Before the invasion Iraq had close to zero to do with the war on terror, at the most it was a very low priority. NOW there are terrorists in Iraq - not to be confused with the insurgency that will mostly dissolve when we leave - and that is a result of our own piss poor planning, as is the looming sectarian conflicts that were mostly in check. Albeit through some brutal methods, but which is worse really? Instead of confronting the hornets in the nest all we did is kick it and spread them around some more. So now we're stuck. We actually have to do something about it, we can't just hide our heads in the sand.

 

This is where it really gets tricky because there is no clear-cut solution, just a bunch of ambiguous shades of gray. At this point there are only strategic long-term decisions. There is no such thing as "victory" at least in the sense that we are used to and there is no such thing as "defeat" because no matter what we do short of outright genocide, radical Islamists are going to claim "victory" for themselves as long as enough of them live to see another day. And they will, because al-Qaida is not some clear existential military threat the way some of us act like they are, it's not like we can just send a big ground force into some town and settle it once and for all. They're persistent and extremely adaptive, every time we kill one of their leaders some other guy steps in and takes his place and we just disrupt their plans for a few months/couple years, but in the near term they gradually start losing support. The sooner we all understand this and get on the same page the better, the polarizing rhetoric using words like "surrender" or doing extreme left-wing nonsense like protesting recruiting stations is actually pretty idiotic and does nothing to help us.

 

Had he not undermined his own effectiveness with that Iraq invasion and left me sitting wondering what could've been I actually would've had a high overall opinion of his presidency in spite of the fact that I couldn't stand him when he first took office.

Edited by lostfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 10:29 AM)
no. by redeplying them to mor eimportant areas. He has not said he will bring them home. He talks about redeployment outside of Iraq. Yes, the TOTAL number of troops int he middle east would go down. But many would get moved to the ACTUAL war on terror, vs the false one we are involved in today.

Let's also not forget that the military is not the only tool we need to use against terrorists btw, and we can't do it by ourselves either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 03:15 PM)
I don't really want to beat a dead horse but nothing distracted us farther from the war on terror than Iraq. Before the invasion Iraq had close to zero to do with the war on terror, at the most it was a very low priority. NOW there are terrorists in Iraq - not to be confused with the insurgency that will mostly dissolve when we leave - and that is a result of our own piss poor planning, as is the looming sectarian conflicts that were mostly in check. Albeit through some brutal methods, but which is worse really? Instead of confronting the hornets in the nest all we did is kick it and spread them around some more. So now we're stuck. We actually have to do something about it, we can't just hide our heads in the sand.

 

This is where it really gets tricky because there is no clear-cut solution, just a bunch of ambiguous shades of gray. At this point there are only strategic long-term decisions. There is no such thing as "victory" at least in the sense that we are used to and there is no such thing as "defeat" because no matter what we do short of outright genocide, radical Islamists are going to claim "victory" for themselves as long as enough of them live to see another day. And they will, because al-Qaida is not some clear existential military threat the way some of us act like they are, it's not like we can just send a big ground force into some town and settle it once and for all. They're persistent and extremely adaptive, every time we kill one of their leaders some other guy steps in and takes his place and we just disrupt their plans for a few months/couple years, but in the near term they gradually start losing support. The sooner we all understand this and get on the same page the better, the polarizing rhetoric using words like "surrender" or doing extreme left-wing nonsense like protesting recruiting stations is actually pretty idiotic and does nothing to help us.

 

Had he not undermined his own effectiveness with that Iraq invasion and left me sitting wondering what could've been I actually would've had a high overall opinion of his presidency in spite of the fact that I couldn't stand him when he first took office.

 

 

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 03:15 PM)
Let's also not forget that the military is not the only tool we need to use against terrorists btw, and we can't do it by ourselves either.

Very good thoughts. I like the way you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Mar 22, 2008 -> 09:13 AM)
If Sen. Obama becomes President, Osma Bin Laudin will be dead within a month. Bush doesn't want to catch him. Then he won't have the boogie man to scare people into voting for McCain. President Obama will not only kill terrorists, he will slow down their recruitment.

 

I thought he was going to negotiate with them, not kill them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...