Al-Zawahri Calls Bush a 'Butcher' in New Video

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: thraashman
We condemn the "terrorists" when they kill groups of civilians. Yet we brush it off when we do it. Why is that?

The simple answer is when it happens as a result of the US it was an accident or collateral damage. The terrorists are targeting the civilians. That is the key difference, and if you refuse to accept that then you are a fool.

If the US was intended to kill civilians we could kill them by the millions without much effort.

:thumbsup:

Collateral damage is reduced as much as possible. Then the terrorists attempt to use civilians as tools/shields then they have as much responsiblity as those that oppose them.
They attempt to exploit our weakness toward the valuation of life and then advertise via the comlicit media, the casualities while minimize their role in the situation

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
I would trust the Faux News media that uses conspiracy theories as a basis for fact.

Fixed.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: thraashman
We condemn the "terrorists" when they kill groups of civilians. Yet we brush it off when we do it. Why is that?

The simple answer is when it happens as a result of the US it was an accident or collateral damage. The terrorists are targeting the civilians. That is the key difference, and if you refuse to accept that then you are a fool.

If the US was intended to kill civilians we could kill them by the millions without much effort.

:thumbsup:

Collateral damage is reduced as much as possible. Then the terrorists attempt to use civilians as tools/shields then they have as much responsiblity as those that oppose them.
They attempt to exploit our weakness toward the valuation of life and then advertise via the comlicit media, the casualities while minimize their role in the situation

Go back and read the thread about the US firing at least 10 missiles in an attempt to get one man. Are the people who were killed by those missiles collateral damage? Would the following statement be catgorized as falling in the 'collateral damage' definition? "Those 18 people must die so that we can try to eliminate the 1 man we mean to kill."

 

[jpeyton]

Al-Zawahri Calls Bush a 'Butcher' in New Video

Takes one to know one...err...wait a second...

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
I would trust the Faux News media that uses conspiracy theories as a basis for fact.

Fixed.

Give an example of Fox News using conspiracy theories as a basis for fact please.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
I would trust the Faux News media that uses conspiracy theories as a basis for fact.

Fixed.

Give an example of Fox News using conspiracy theories as a basis for fact please.

Swift Boat Veterans

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: thraashman
We condemn the "terrorists" when they kill groups of civilians. Yet we brush it off when we do it. Why is that?

The simple answer is when it happens as a result of the US it was an accident or collateral damage. The terrorists are targeting the civilians. That is the key difference, and if you refuse to accept that then you are a fool.

If the US was intended to kill civilians we could kill them by the millions without much effort.

:thumbsup:

Collateral damage is reduced as much as possible. Then the terrorists attempt to use civilians as tools/shields then they have as much responsiblity as those that oppose them.
They attempt to exploit our weakness toward the valuation of life and then advertise via the comlicit media, the casualities while minimize their role in the situation

Go back and read the thread about the US firing at least 10 missiles in an attempt to get one man. Are the people who were killed by those missiles collateral damage? Would the following statement be catgorized as falling in the 'collateral damage' definition? "Those 18 people must die so that we can try to eliminate the 1 man we mean to kill."

It is more that one man must die; We will not try to target additional innocents.
The one man wants to hide among civilians for the exact purpose that you want; Safety from retaliation.

Any idea how many innocent civilians that man might be responsible for the deaths of?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i wonder what the world would be like if women were in charge....

and before you attack me for that statement ask yourself how well things are going with men in charge.

There would be very little war, but everyone would really, REALLY hate each other until the end of time and spend a lot of time trying to undermine everyone else in cruel, yet subtle, ways. Instead of invading Iraq, we would just spread viscious rumors about them.

Seriously though, women are DIFFERENT than men when it comes to leadership, but that doesn't mean they are better. We might not have all the same exact problems, but we'd still have problems.

 

[Pabster]

The thing about this latest tape is...

If you didn't see the video you might think it was spoken by Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry. Much of Zawahri's rhetoric sounds eerily similar to the propaganda the left has been spewing.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The thing about this latest tape is...

If you didn't see the video you might think it was spoken by Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry. Much of Zawahri's rhetoric sounds eerily similar to the propaganda the left has been spewing.

Hmm, perhaps I'm not stoned enough when I listen to the lefties, but I don't think their rhetoric sounds like that at all. They are critical of Bush, but that is not the same thing at all.

Like I'm surprised though, you guys really can't accept any criticism of the President without going apeshit about it. I could say, "I think Bush is overstepping his authority with the NSA warrantless wiretaps" and you would hear, "Bush and his supporters are goose-stepping Nazis and I support the terrorists".

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hmm, perhaps I'm not stoned enough when I listen to the lefties, but I don't think their rhetoric sounds like that at all. They are critical of Bush, but that is not the same thing at all.

Let me slow it down for you a bit.

Remove the 'Butcher' references (which I'm sure the left utters regularly in private) and look at the other content on this latest tape.

"Bush, you are a failure"

Hmmmm, who have we heard that from before?

"You can't win, You are defeated"

Sounds an awful lot like Howard Dean not too long ago...

Like I'm surprised though, you guys really can't accept any criticism of the President without going apeshit about it. I could say, "I think Bush is overstepping his authority with the NSA warrantless wiretaps" and you would hear, "Bush and his supporters are goose-stepping Nazis and I support the terrorists".

No, I'm merely citing the obvious here. UBL himself cited John Kerry's rhetoric in his latest tape and this new one from Zawahri makes it pretty clear that AQ is using the left's propaganda to try and further their cause.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Wait, I may have miss placed my tin foil hat, but this is obviously a fake right? Cause he referenced Osama's tape it has to be a fake because the government faked the tape? Isn't that what the consipiracy theorists want us to believe?

/tin foil hat on

What if Osama is dead / out of the picture, but al-Zawahri doesn't know. It isn't like they are running a state of the art comm system and they are set up to run independently. Some claim that all of Osamas messgages since 911 (including 911) have been faked.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hmm, perhaps I'm not stoned enough when I listen to the lefties, but I don't think their rhetoric sounds like that at all. They are critical of Bush, but that is not the same thing at all.

Let me slow it down for you a bit.

Remove the 'Butcher' references (which I'm sure the left utters regularly in private) and look at the other content on this latest tape.

"Bush, you are a failure"

Hmmmm, who have we heard that from before?

"You can't win, You are defeated"

Sounds an awful lot like Howard Dean not too long ago...

Like I'm surprised though, you guys really can't accept any criticism of the President without going apeshit about it. I could say, "I think Bush is overstepping his authority with the NSA warrantless wiretaps" and you would hear, "Bush and his supporters are goose-stepping Nazis and I support the terrorists".

No, I'm merely citing the obvious here. UBL himself cited John Kerry's rhetoric in his latest tape and this new one from Zawahri makes it pretty clear that AQ is using the left's propaganda to try and further their cause.

Or whomever is faking the tapes has a political agenda

/tinfoil hat off

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hmm, perhaps I'm not stoned enough when I listen to the lefties, but I don't think their rhetoric sounds like that at all. They are critical of Bush, but that is not the same thing at all.

Let me slow it down for you a bit.

Remove the 'Butcher' references (which I'm sure the left utters regularly in private) and look at the other content on this latest tape.

"Bush, you are a failure"

Hmmmm, who have we heard that from before?

"You can't win, You are defeated"

Sounds an awful lot like Howard Dean not too long ago...

So you're argument is based on an exceptionally common phrase used by people who dislike a political leader, assisted by your ability to read minds. Is calling a political leader a failure considered "terrorist rhetoric" now? Or only when you can phone up Miss Cleo and find out if we're thinking "butcher" as well?

Like I'm surprised though, you guys really can't accept any criticism of the President without going apeshit about it. I could say, "I think Bush is overstepping his authority with the NSA warrantless wiretaps" and you would hear, "Bush and his supporters are goose-stepping Nazis and I support the terrorists".

No, I'm merely citing the obvious here. UBL himself cited John Kerry's rhetoric in his latest tape and this new one from Zawahri makes it pretty clear that AQ is using the left's propaganda to try and further their cause.

How is that "citing the obvious"? I'm saying you lack the ability to rationally hear the anti-Bush rhetoric of the left, everything sounds way more extreme to you than it really is. Saying you think Osama and Zawahiri are "using the left's propaganda" isn't really convincing me. Mostly because you are a moonbat when it comes to this stuff, as I said. Hell, you're argument is based on the ability to read my mind, how seriously can I take you?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hmm, perhaps I'm not stoned enough when I listen to the lefties, but I don't think their rhetoric sounds like that at all. They are critical of Bush, but that is not the same thing at all.

Let me slow it down for you a bit.

Remove the 'Butcher' references (which I'm sure the left utters regularly in private) and look at the other content on this latest tape.

"Bush, you are a failure"

Hmmmm, who have we heard that from before?

"You can't win, You are defeated"

Sounds an awful lot like Howard Dean not too long ago...

Like I'm surprised though, you guys really can't accept any criticism of the President without going apeshit about it. I could say, "I think Bush is overstepping his authority with the NSA warrantless wiretaps" and you would hear, "Bush and his supporters are goose-stepping Nazis and I support the terrorists".

No, I'm merely citing the obvious here. UBL himself cited John Kerry's rhetoric in his latest tape and this new one from Zawahri makes it pretty clear that AQ is using the left's propaganda to try and further their cause.

The big difference you fail to see is that the "lefties" aren't directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, like Bush and Al-Zawahri.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: rahvin
Wait, I may have miss placed my tin foil hat, but this is obviously a fake right? Cause he referenced Osama's tape it has to be a fake because the government faked the tape? Isn't that what the consipiracy theorists want us to believe?

/tin foil hat on

What if Osama is dead / out of the picture, but al-Zawahri doesn't know. It isn't like they are running a state of the art comm system and they are set up to run independently. Some claim that all of Osamas messgages since 911 (including 911) have been faked.

That's just insane. The world will know when OBL is dead. It will not be something anyone could hide.

The neo-cons would love nothing more than to add another "victory" to their list of "accomplishments." The thought that they need OBL alive is utter nonsense. They can always find/create another enemy from which to save the American people.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The big difference you fail to see is that the "lefties" aren't directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, like Bush and Al-Zawahri.

The fact that you lefties even compare Bush to Al-Zawahri shows just how extreme your party has become.

I say keep it up. The voters are watching :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
The big difference you fail to see is that the "lefties" aren't directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, like Bush and Al-Zawahri.

The fact that you lefties even compare Bush to Al-Zawahri shows just how extreme your party has become.

I say keep it up. The voters are watching :laugh:

Wrong. I'm a Republican, and a Christian. I just don't have my head in the sand. Nor my foot in my mouth.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The big difference you fail to see is that the "lefties" aren't directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, like Bush and Al-Zawahri.
.
.
.
Wrong. I'm a Republican, and a Christian. I just don't have my head in the sand. Nor my foot in my mouth.

Damn! You don't have it in some other inconvenient, sternward orifice, either. I knew there were some out there like you I could trust to make an honest decision, even if I disagree with you. :beer: :thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Wrong. I'm a Republican, and a Christian. I just don't have my head in the sand. Nor my foot in my mouth.

I don't give two thumbs about your affiliation or your religion. Calling the President a "butcher" and comparing him to Ayman Al Zawahri is ridiculous.

 

[raildogg]

Isn't it dangerous to show these videos? Don't these videos contain hidden messages which the terrorists can act upon? But Al-qaeda-jazeera doesn't represent the same viewership as American networks. When you represent extremists and religious thugs, you have to make them happy.

As for the comment about women in power - women are in power in many countries. Women have even been elected Presidents and Prime Ministers of muslim countries.

As for the comment about the terrorists paying attention to American politics and what is going on, that is absolutely correct. They pay great attention to all the political moves and all the criticism. They even say how badly Bush is doing among the American population.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Wrong. I'm a Republican, and a Christian. I just don't have my head in the sand. Nor my foot in my mouth.

I don't give two thumbs about your affiliation or your religion. Calling the President a "butcher" and comparing him to Ayman Al Zawahri is ridiculous.

Shock & Awe is terrorism, just in a different form and different words. The intentions are the same. Scaring the people to an extreme point in which they turn on their own corrupt government. It's exactly what Al Zawahri did in Egypt, exactly what OBL is doing to the US, and exactly what the US is doing in Iraq. And, they have all failed, time and time again. There are many similarities between the current administration and Al Zawahri and OBL.

Bush and OBL have MUCH in common. Both are from wealthy families. Both were screw ups growing up. Both have a long line of failures through their lives. Both consider themselves now deeply religious, and both are leading their people to war with their main support gained from a false face of their own proclaimed religion.

 

[jlmadyson]

Yep, just got done watching Flight 93 on A&E that is about all the reinforcement I need for one evening. We're coming for your ass Zawahri among "your" people or not.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I don't give two thumbs about your affiliation or your religion. Calling the President a "butcher" and comparing him to Ayman Al Zawahri is ridiculous.

Only if he isn't responsible for over 2000 American military casualties and tens of thousands of other deaths due to a war he started based on lies, and only if he isn't responsible for any deaths due to torture committed with his knowledge and on his watch.

If that isn't the case, yes, he is. :|

The cause of those deaths isn't the issue when the motive behind it is as evil as those of either Al-Zawahri or your wannabe führer, George Adolf Bushler. :|

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
Wrong. I'm a Republican, and a Christian. I just don't have my head in the sand. Nor my foot in my mouth.

I don't give two thumbs about your affiliation or your religion. Calling the President a "butcher" and comparing him to Ayman Al Zawahri is ridiculous.

You're right, Zawahri can only dream of shedding as much civilian blood. What are we at now, 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians? 10X the death toll of 9/11?

But of course, you have your blinders on because 9/11 was in NY and dead Iraqi children are halfway across the globe.