No you're not, you heard that idiotic Michael Mendez on "The Patriot" mention it (or somewhere similar), and now you're trying to appear clever by mentioning it before someone else does. There are already people claiming that the arrests never happened.
You're not very clever, sorry.
Also, the idea to invade Afghanistan was a questionable one, considering we weren't even sure where they were, and we still aren't.
The idea to invade Iraq was just plain wrong, we had no leads to any terrorists linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and they only entered the country to fight our occupation. We entered Iraq preemptively to take out WMDs.
Wait, sorry, I meant Saddam.
WAIT! It was actually terrorists.
...Alright... Why are we in Iraq again? Oh who am I kidding?! It's just bull shit, and we all know it.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Don't worry, once Bush is out suddenly all the naysayers here will be clamouring to support their new President in claiming terrorism is a big problem and Bush wasn't doing enough about it. Of course their method of fighting terrorism would be to raise taxes
You guys just cannot see the difference between the WOT and the war in Iraq. From any angle.
Bush's hatred comes not from his invasion of Afghanistan, but his invasion of Iraq. His hatred is not from money squandered in Afghanistan but from money squandered in Iraq, not from American lives squandered in Afghanistan, but in Iraq.
You all just fail to see that invading Iraq was just so damn contradictory in fighting the "war on terror." And in almost every conceivable way.
WTF? This thread isnt about Iraq. How about posting something on topic? Or was it an intentional troll post?
It was more on topic than this post. Leave the moderating to the Moderators.
Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn
Your wrong Red Dawn, the OP posted NOTHING ABOUT IRAQ but some tinfoiler dragged that into the conversation. Just because it fits your poltical view point does not make it on topic.
I certainly feel zero regret in bringing up Iraq in this thread because this thread deals with the war on terror.
And before you attempt to call me on contradicting myself in that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, I will certainly stand by that statement.
Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, that is until Bush decided to invade that country.
Islamic fundamentalists are attacking western countries because we have been meddling in their affairs for decades. And our invasion of Iraq is not only a perfect example of this meddling, it is also now more ammo that Al Qaida and the like can use against us. They can point the finger at our invasion of Iraq and say, "see there they go again, attacking another soveriegn Muslim country for no reason. We are right to fight them."
One of the only good strong ways of fighting the war against Al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups is to stop giving them reasons for their war against us, which prevents their further recruitment. And our invasion of Iraq is a complete contradiction to that stratgey.
You don't fight a war by giving the enemy ammunition. That's just retarded. And that's exactly what we did in invading Iraq.
So people who are bitching about Bush are not doing so because of the war on terror, we are bitching about the way he's going about it. And rightfully so. We are not un-American, and we are not trying to put our country in danger. We are bitching because Bush is doing just that.
And to heartsurgeon, as well as to you, Shivetya, I am not a lefty, in fact I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I would still like to consider myself a true Republican, and definitely a Christian. And I can tell you that Bush and his administration act like neither.
I wonder what their punishment will be. Many Germans likely support the attacks on American bases. Will the politicians pander to them? On the other hand, non-Germans (such as the Turk) are viewed by many Germans as inferior.
This is the same country which gave pathetic suspended sentences (no prison time) to terrorists who were plotting to bomb a Jewish ceremony and kill high-level Jewish community members and German politicians.
I wonder if you people will still be congratulating the Germans...
This is the same country which gave pathetic suspended sentences (no prison time) to terrorists who were plotting to bomb a Jewish ceremony and kill high-level Jewish community members and German politicians.
I wonder if you people will still be congratulating the Germans...
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
So by your logic, we should invade Britain, Germany and Spain because Al Qaeda is there. Sure, the leaders of the country may not support their efforts, they may even hate each other, but they are there and therefore we must go in and stop them.
Saddam was the most effective force acting against Al Qaeda in Iraq because they labeled him an infidel with no right to hold power (which is just about the best thinig you can do to piss off a dictator). When we removed his ability to govern, that's when Al Qaeda started setting up shop in Iraq. Your own link shows that Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't start operating until 2004... I wonder why they weren't there beforehand... Maybe it's because Saddam was damn effective at keeping those terrorists out of his country. Don't get me wrong, Saddam is burning in a special level of hell reserved for the truly despicable; but don't try to tell us that Al Qaeda was why Bush invaded Iraq.
+3 :thumbsup:
I love how they suggest 3 people could carry out "MASSIVE ATTACKS" on U.S. installations. What's this say about U.S. military readiness that it is thought 3 people could carry out "MASSIVE attacks" against the U.S. Military?
+1
Was about to write the same thing but you said what I had to say. The argument that the US was in Iraq due to Al Qaeda falls flat when there were no links found between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and in fact they opposed each other. The war in Iraq was counterproductive to the war on terror in every way, especially due to the fact the work in Afghanistan was far from finished. This is why countries like France and Germany and logical thinkers opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq, yet were at the forefront in the war in Afghanistan, and helping allies in the war on terror as was shown with this huge bust to help America.
Are you really that dense? I could point to fifty reasons why your statement is completely idiotic, but it would take all day.
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
The ideology of "anti-terrorism" is a much greater threat than terrorism itself.
The ONE thing worse than a "terrorist" act is when the event is used to further an OBVIOUSLY narrow-minded & self-destructive ideology.
What's "worse": 10,000 people being murdered or another group of people using the event to murder 1 million & exploit hundreds of millions.
The ONE thing worse than a "terrorist" act is when the event is used to further an OBVIOUSLY narrow-minded & self-destructive ideology.
What's "worse": 10,000 people being murdered or another group of people using the event to murder 1 million & exploit hundreds of millions.
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
The answer lies in the resulting security situation. If doing so prevents the future murder of any more innocent people, then it's worth it.
I'd kill millions of fanatics, of any sort, in an instant - if it meant the promised and continued safety of my own family and friends. I'd also give up my life to accomplish the same.
The problem is that killing 1 million fanatics only breeds 10 million more fanatics. Fighting terrorism stupidly makes it worse. Iraq is a case in point.
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
fair enough. But then what is the answer? appeasement? what lies in between eradication and appeasement?
My guess is that it's some sort of diplomatic middle-ground that involves "never-ending acceptable innocent losses" - and to some, that's not an option.
I know this issue is far too complex to resolve in a forum, but, for the sake of argument, what real steps could be taken to ensure the simultaneous end of fanaticism and the protection of innocents?
OOOHHH! Nasty non-toady Europeans steal Bush's War-on-Terrorists Thunder by actually arresting some. I predict spin to some how take credit. Yeh! Rove on the speed dial.
Isn't that the danger? If you're so, if you'll pardon the expression, "fanatical" about fighting terrorism, isn't it pretty easy to get you to support virtually any action in the name of fighting terrorism? And if you're somehow immune to that kind of manipulation, you're clearly in a small minority. History suggests that any time a group starts thinking about fighting something "whatever the cost", bad things are going to happen. Hell, you're already halfway there...being a "fanatic" doesn't mean you're violent or a terrorist, how much longer till you relax your standards even further?
And am I the only person who finds is pretty amusing that virtually no one seems to really care about this attack so much as they care about how it can be used to advance their particular agenda? The war against terrorism (and such a better acronym than 'GWOT') has become so ridiculously political to the point of being almost useless for its original purpose. It doesn't really matter whether the lefties or the righties or whoever is right about terrorism, because the efforts will be hamstrung by both sides trying to advance a particular agenda. Any success or failure is seen by conservatives as a reason to dramatically increase police powers, flog the Democrats and vote Bush Fuhrer for life...thus instantly alienating civil libertarians, Democrats, liberals, and folks who just don't like Bush. And lefties, probably reacting to the righties, have the instant reaction to further limit police powers, limit program funding, and impeach Bush at the soonest possible opportunity. I think the main blame lies with Republicans here, as they have been politicizing the war against terrorism from day one (nothing so nauseating as Republicans running as "strong on defense"), but the rest of us have been no picnic either.
i guess you really that stupid....
a handful of people brought down the Murrah Office complex in Oklahoma city with a truck bomb.
a handful of people brought down the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia
a handful of people nearly sank the USS Cole
a handful of people nearly brought down the World Trade Center with a truck bomb
1983 2 truck bombers brought down a Marine barracks in Beirut killing over 300 marines
I guess you think it's all just a bunch of fascist hype, don't you.
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
No man. An anonymous forum is one of the best places to discuss this.
You need to realize that things like terrorism, countries & racism don't fucking exist. We've just been trained to believe they do. If we analyze the situation for what it is. Animals killing animals based on ideals (which can only explain things in a limited context). It's obviously self-destructive and ridiculous. All of us, me & you are fucking idiots who have to live together. Why the fuck have we adopted these absurd systems that just lead to needless conflict & exploitation of each other. I personally don't give a fuck what your skin color, sex or "political standpoints" are. Why the fuck do we sit on here & over argue over the same shit day in & day out?
Fuck faith. Look @ what the is going on. Do you really trust what these politicians or whoever is guiding our ideological systems? "Anti-terrorism" isn't shit, but a silly little narrow-minded point of view. I am not trying to argue, but say just look @ the situation for what it is.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Don't worry, once Bush is out suddenly all the naysayers here will be clamouring to support their new President in claiming terrorism is a big problem and Bush wasn't doing enough about it. Of course their method of fighting terrorism would be to raise taxes
You guys just cannot see the difference between the WOT and the war in Iraq. From any angle.
Bush's hatred comes not from his invasion of Afghanistan, but his invasion of Iraq. His hatred is not from money squandered in Afghanistan but from money squandered in Iraq, not from American lives squandered in Afghanistan, but in Iraq.
You all just fail to see that invading Iraq was just so damn contradictory in fighting the "war on terror." And in almost every conceivable way.
WTF? This thread isnt about Iraq. How about posting something on topic? Or was it an intentional troll post?
It was more on topic than this post. Leave the moderating to the Moderators.
Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn
Your wrong Red Dawn, the OP posted NOTHING ABOUT IRAQ but some tinfoiler dragged that into the conversation. Just because it fits your poltical view point does not make it on topic.
I certainly feel zero regret in bringing up Iraq in this thread because this thread deals with the war on terror.
And before you attempt to call me on contradicting myself in that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, I will certainly stand by that statement.
Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, that is until Bush decided to invade that country.
Islamic fundamentalists are attacking western countries because we have been meddling in their affairs for decades. And our invasion of Iraq is not only a perfect example of this meddling, it is also now more ammo that Al Qaida and the like can use against us. They can point the finger at our invasion of Iraq and say, "see there they go again, attacking another soveriegn Muslim country for no reason. We are right to fight them."
One of the only good strong ways of fighting the war against Al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups is to stop giving them reasons for their war against us, which prevents their further recruitment. And our invasion of Iraq is a complete contradiction to that stratgey.
You don't fight a war by giving the enemy ammunition. That's just retarded. And that's exactly what we did in invading Iraq.
So people who are bitching about Bush are not doing so because of the war on terror, we are bitching about the way he's going about it. And rightfully so. We are not un-American, and we are not trying to put our country in danger. We are bitching because Bush is doing just that.
And to heartsurgeon, as well as to you, Shivetya, I am not a lefty, in fact I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I would still like to consider myself a true Republican, and definitely a Christian. And I can tell you that Bush and his administration act like neither.
:thumbsup:
:beer: to the German officials that pulled this off also.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Well said. First, kudos to the Germans for their great work. Second, I hope all the people who bought the "Terrorism isn't a law enforcement problem" propaganda notice that it was, in fact, police work that stopped this, not a military assault. While I certainly think the military has a role in combatting terrorism, it requires small groups of specialists, not massive firepower.
I usually find your posts funny, albeit in a sad way.
The fact that you can't stop spurring nonsense even in the light of news like this, is just sad and not funny at all.
Shame.
"...massive attacks..."
Were they going to flood Brooklyn, or attack an Army Base... all 3 of those evil-doers?
Were they going to flood Brooklyn, or attack an Army Base... all 3 of those evil-doers?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter