War on Terror vs. War on Error

[envy me]

This is funny because it's true.

 

[Moonbeam]

Brainwashing has nothing to do with how we see things. I see only the real truth. It is other people only who are not objective. Always other people. It can't be me because any flaw I might have opens the door to feeling my real feelings which are that I am the worst in the world. No way I will let that happen. You are worthless, not me.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: envy me

This is funny because it's true.

As long as Palestinian civilians continue to strap on explosives and guns, and blow up innocent people, they should be accustomed to be treated as armed soldiers.

If the innocent palestinian civilians want this to stop, they should make an effort to curb the actions of their extremists.

 

[Harvey]

War on Terror:

• Al Qaeda planned and executed terrorist attacks on the U.S., including the bombing of the Navy destroyer, U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000 and hijacking four American airliners to carry out suicide missions on September 11, 2001.
  
• Al Qaeda operated from bases in Afghanistan with the knowledge of and assistance from the Taliban government in that nation.
  
• The United States invasion of Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom1) occurred in October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., marking the beginning of its "War on Terrorism" campaign. Seeking to oust the Taliban and find Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden, the Afghan Northern Alliance provided the majority of forces, and the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada provided support.
  
  The officially-stated purpose of the invasion was to target al-Qaeda members, and to punish the Taliban government in Afghanistan which had provided support and haven to al-Qaeda.

War on Error:

George W. Bush lied to the American public about why he started a useless, elective war that has killed thousands of U.S. troops and tens of thousands of other innocent people and spent us into trillions of dollars of debt that will remain a burden on our society for generations to come. He did so while offering continuously shifting alleged reasons for his actions:

• There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.

They ignored little things like:

• All warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  

  After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
  
  "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
  
  "Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
  
  "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
  
  Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

  The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need several hundred thousand troops to do the job.
  
  The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him,

Of course, those are just some of Bushwhacko's lies. There are plenty more, but at a minimum, it would take at links to at least half the threads in P&N to list them.

War on Terror vs. War on Error:

Going after Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 was a direct response against those who had attacked our nation. As such, it was REASONABLE, JUSTIFIABLE and OBVIOUS.

Invading Iraq and ignoring all competent advice to the contrary was STUPID and ARROGANT. :|

Beyond STUPIDITY and ARROGANCE, intentionally lying to Congress, the American people and the world about the reasons for the war in Iraq is CRIMINAL! :|

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
As long as Palestinian civilians continue to strap on explosives and guns, and blow up innocent people, they should be accustomed to be treated as armed soldiers.

If the innocent palestinian civilians want this to stop, they should make an effort to curb the actions of their extremists.

Do you oppose roving gangs in your city? Should we unleash tanks to stop them, then use your excuse if you get caught in the crossfire?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: envy me

This is funny because it's true.

As long as Palestinian civilians continue to strap on explosives and guns, and blow up innocent people, they should be accustomed to be treated as armed soldiers.

If the innocent palestinian civilians want this to stop, they should make an effort to curb the actions of their extremists.

Interesting...doesn't that mean American civilians are valid targets for terrorists unhappy with US military action in the Middle East?

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: envy me

This is funny because it's true.

As long as Palestinian civilians continue to strap on explosives and guns, and blow up innocent people, they should be accustomed to be treated as armed soldiers.

If the innocent palestinian civilians want this to stop, they should make an effort to curb the actions of their extremists.

Should American civilians be responsible to "curb the actions of our extremists" in the white house? War Crimes, Lies, Illegal Wars, Unlawful Detention, Torture etc... Is this our responsibility (as civilians) to do something about the infidels/extremists in Washington?



Secondly, Until the IDF becomes a recognized terrorist organization (for killing innocent civilians) there will be no peace in the middle east. They should be placed in the same category as the suicide bombers are placed in.

 

[Meuge]

Moron.

I don't care what you say, but IDF does not go out with the goal to target innocent civilians... palestinian militants do, and they're proud of it. Since there is no other way for Israel to defend itself, except to stage incursions into the settlements, they have my benefit of the doubt.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
As long as Palestinian civilians continue to strap on explosives and guns, and blow up innocent people, they should be accustomed to be treated as armed soldiers.

If the innocent palestinian civilians want this to stop, they should make an effort to curb the actions of their extremists.

Do you oppose roving gangs in your city? Should we unleash tanks to stop them, then use your excuse if you get caught in the crossfire?

Because the sides of the conflict are not homogeneous, there is a huge difference between this obviously faulty analogy.

What should the Israelis do, if their children are being blow up by Hamas members? Should they continue giving things away until they have nothing left? And given the current state of affairs in the Middle East, do you really think that a compromise is going to be allowed by the radical members of Islamic Jihad? No - they want to kill all the Israelis and they won't stop until that happens.

That's the key difference between the current Palestinian dogma and the Israeli dogma -> their preferred end to the conflict:

Palestinian: drive all Israelis into the sea.
Israeli: can they please just stop shooting at us.

 

[tommywishbone]

"If the innocent American civilians want this to stop, they should make an effort to curb the actions of their extremists."

Fixed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
As long as Palestinian civilians continue to strap on explosives and guns, and blow up innocent people, they should be accustomed to be treated as armed soldiers.

If the innocent palestinian civilians want this to stop, they should make an effort to curb the actions of their extremists.

Do you oppose roving gangs in your city? Should we unleash tanks to stop them, then use your excuse if you get caught in the crossfire?

Because the sides of the conflict are not homogeneous, there is a huge difference between this obviously faulty analogy.

What should the Israelis do, if their children are being blow up by Hamas members? Should they continue giving things away until they have nothing left? And given the current state of affairs in the Middle East, do you really think that a compromise is going to be allowed by the radical members of Islamic Jihad? No - they want to kill all the Israelis and they won't stop until that happens.

That's the key difference between the current Palestinian dogma and the Israeli dogma -> their preferred end to the conflict:

Palestinian: drive all Israelis into the sea.
Israeli: can they please just stop shooting at us.

So it IS ok for Israeli soldiers to intentionally target non combatant Palestinian civilians? I'm not talking about armed terrorists, who I wouldn't consider civilians, I'm talking about innocent Palestinian civilians (or don't they exist?).

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Moron.

I don't care what you say, but IDF does not go out with the goal to target innocent civilians...

... I assume thats your opinion, since you cannot prove this.

palestinian militants do, and they're proud of it.

... Again.. opinion. Fact is they have both killed civilians. Whether it be a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a marketplace, or an Isreali Sniper shooting a child attending school. They both have, and will kill civilians.

Since there is no other way for Israel to defend itself, except to stage incursions into the settlements, they have my benefit of the doubt.[/quote]

.. How about give back all the land they stole. That would probably stop the violence.


What both sides are doing is wrong.. you seem to have been a little offended by my previous post, I can only assume you are jewish. Well to sum things up They are both in the wrong, they have both killed civilans, and they both hate each other, Yet the coporate American spin is that the Isreali's are the innocent ones and the palestinians are the blood thirsty monsters that will eat your children. That is 90% of the problem. If there was no media propoganda people would be able to formulate their own opinions, and not those of the people running the country.

Isn't there already a story on how Americans are trying to control Iraq media now?? A countries media can be alot more powerful than it's army, that is why it is ok to violate the rights of muslims and make fun of them, but question one of isreal's policy's and everyone will play the anti-semite card.

Sounds a little one sided to me.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
As long as Palestinian civilians continue to strap on explosives and guns, and blow up innocent people, they should be accustomed to be treated as armed soldiers.

If the innocent palestinian civilians want this to stop, they should make an effort to curb the actions of their extremists.

Do you oppose roving gangs in your city? Should we unleash tanks to stop them, then use your excuse if you get caught in the crossfire?

no, but don't begrudge him if he wishes to walk about his neighborhood armed with a 9mm strapped to his side and prepared to use it.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge
Moron.

I don't care what you say, but IDF does not go out with the goal to target innocent civilians...

... I assume thats your opinion, since you cannot prove this.

I don't need to prove it. I know tons of people in the IDF and they are drilled daily about how careful they must be not to kill people who are innocent, not to mention that they themselves would never do it, and are horrified at the concept. They don't broadcast TV programming where children's programs consist of stories on how innocents must be killed as retribution.

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge
palestinian militants do, and they're proud of it.

... Again.. opinio
n. Fact is they have both killed civilians. Whether it be a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a marketplace, or an Isreali Sniper shooting a child attending school. They both have, and will kill civilians.

Israeli snipers do not shoot kids intentionally. If they do, it's cause those kids point their AKs at the soldiers. Guess what - a bullet fired by a 13-year-old carries the same killing power as one by a 30-year-old.

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge

Since there is no other way for Israel to defend itself, except to stage incursions into the settlements, they have my benefit of the doubt.

.. How about give back all the land they stole. That would probably stop the violence.

They did not steal any land. Whatever land they took beyond the original borders was done so AFTER the Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians viciously attacked them.

If the Israelis have to give back that land, then we owe Texas and California to Mexico.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge
Moron.

I don't care what you say, but IDF does not go out with the goal to target innocent civilians...

... I assume thats your opinion, since you cannot prove this.

I don't need to prove it. I know tons of people in the IDF and they are drilled daily about how careful they must be not to kill people who are innocent, not to mention that they themselves would never do it, and are horrified at the concept. They don't broadcast TV programming where children's programs consist of stories on how innocents must be killed as retribution.

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge
palestinian militants do, and they're proud of it.

... Again.. opinio
n. Fact is they have both killed civilians. Whether it be a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a marketplace, or an Isreali Sniper shooting a child attending school. They both have, and will kill civilians.

Israeli snipers do not shoot kids intentionally. If they do, it's cause those kids point their AKs at the soldiers. Guess what - a bullet fired by a 13-year-old carries the same killing power as one by a 30-year-old.

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge

Since there is no other way for Israel to defend itself, except to stage incursions into the settlements, they have my benefit of the doubt.

.. How about give back all the land they stole. That would probably stop the violence.

They did not steal any land. Whatever land they took beyond the original borders was done so AFTER the Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians viciously attacked them.

If the Israelis have to give back that land, then we owe Texas and California to Mexico.

Maps of Isreal and Palestine
10 Yr Old shot by IDF
Israeli snipers shoot girl 20 times as she was walking to school

... Some very interesting articles.

 

[Meuge]

/sarcasm

Very unbiased sources you have there.

/sarcasm

It's like siting FOX NEWS squared.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge
/sarcasm

Very unbiased sources you have there.

/sarcasm

It's like siting FOX NEWS squared.

...It's a change from the crap that is on CNN and other networks. It's nice to see news from outlets that arent afraid to criticise Isreal without fear -- American media is compromised, we only get news that they want us to see, that is why news available on Internet blogs is becomming a more popular source of information. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its fake.

 

[Meuge]

I don't watch TV news... I read GoogleN from all over the world. And one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how the Palestinians manage to twist the stories. If you think there is nothing ambiguous about the articles you quoted, then I am not sure if you can think for yourself at all.

As for the 10-year-old story, I will not even honor it with a comment - it is such open bullshit, that it's beyond sad - it's funny.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I don't watch TV news... I read GoogleN from all over the world. And one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how the Palestinians manage to twist the stories. If you think there is nothing ambiguous about the articles you quoted, then I am not sure if you can think for yourself at all.

As for the 10-year-old story, I will not even honor it with a comment - it is such open bullshit, that it's beyond sad - it's funny.

It would really be funny if it was your sister/daughter/cousin who was shot in school.

/thread

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge
I don't watch TV news... I read GoogleN from all over the world. And one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how the Palestinians manage to twist the stories. If you think there is nothing ambiguous about the articles you quoted, then I am not sure if you can think for yourself at all.

As for the 10-year-old story, I will not even honor it with a comment - it is such open bullshit, that it's beyond sad - it's funny.

It would really be funny if it was your sister/daughter/cousin who was shot in school.

/thread

I know people who were hurt in a suicide bombing, you ******.

I was talking about the spin that was put on it, and the outright lie that followed it, not about someone who unfortunately probably got shot with a stray bullet.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I don't watch TV news... I read GoogleN from all over the world. And one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how the Palestinians manage to twist the stories. If you think there is nothing ambiguous about the articles you quoted, then I am not sure if you can think for yourself at all.

As for the 10-year-old story, I will not even honor it with a comment - it is such open bullshit, that it's beyond sad - it's funny.

Are you talking about the same IDF as this: http://media.putfile.com/Israeli-Abuse

If you put forth the bias claim because the video talks about the rights of the Palestinians being demanded, you're just an ass.

 

[Meuge]

Nice editing. At no point do you actually get to find out what happened before or after the events on tape.

And if you think that pictures of soldiers beating someone in civilian clothing equates them to people who blow up children on purpose, then you're out of your mind.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Nice editing. At no point do you actually get to find out what happened before or after the events on tape.

And if you think that pictures of soldiers beating someone in civilian clothing equates them to people who blow up children on purpose, then you're out of your mind.

read up on the 10 year old kid's shooting. there was quite an outrage. the sniper actually circled the wall, and took deliberate aim to shoot both the father and his son who were just returning from the market.

this further goes to show your selective news reading on Google News. No one has claimed the innoncence of the Palestinian suicide bombers, but your complete disregard of anything wrong the IDF commits pretty much sums up your bias.

How about not equating suicide with a ten on one beating of a civilian and actually showing some outrage at the latter act?

Edit:
How about some more links?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/952600.stm
Video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1220635,00.html
You kill innocents, other innocents will die. That concepts works both ways.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge
I don't watch TV news... I read GoogleN from all over the world. And one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how the Palestinians manage to twist the stories. If you think there is nothing ambiguous about the articles you quoted, then I am not sure if you can think for yourself at all.

As for the 10-year-old story, I will not even honor it with a comment - it is such open bullshit, that it's beyond sad - it's funny.

It would really be funny if it was your sister/daughter/cousin who was shot in school.

/thread

I know people who were hurt in a suicide bombing, you ******.

I was talking about the spin that was put on it, and the outright lie that followed it, not about someone who unfortunately probably got shot with a stray bullet.

There are no STRAY bullets when snipers are involved. Snipers don't miss, that is why they are snipers.

..That is like making a statement saying, a suicide bomber blew himself up with the intent of killing soldiers and all the civilians in the area were collateral damage. - Pure BS.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Meuge
Nice editing. At no point do you actually get to find out what happened before or after the events on tape.

And if you think that pictures of soldiers beating someone in civilian clothing equates them to people who blow up children on purpose, then you're out of your mind.

read up on the 10 year old kid's shooting. there was quite an outrage. the sniper actually circled the wall, and took deliberate aim to shoot both the father and his son who were just returning from the market.

this further goes to show your selective news reading on Google News. No one has claimed the innoncence of the Palestinian suicide bombers, but your complete disregard of anything wrong the IDF commits pretty much sums up your bias.

How about not equating suicide with a ten on one beating of a civilian and actually showing some outrage at the latter act?

Edit:
How about some more links?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/952600.stm
Video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1220635,00.html
You kill innocents, other innocents will die. That concepts works both ways.

.. That article I found very disturbing (with the father shielding his son). Children should not be involved in this ongoing problem. This angers me soo much. I guess we (westerners) can't really comprehend the situation unless it were to happen here. Too much senseless bullshvt.