Obama raised funds for Islamic causes

[trickblue]

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57341)

Obama raised funds for Islamic causes
Speeches for Palestinian refugees called code for Israel's destruction
Posted: February 25, 2008
10:18 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama has spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps, WND has learned. Palestinians have long demanded the "right of return" for millions of "refugees," a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum warn is code for Israel's destruction by flooding the Jewish state with millions of Muslim Arabs, thereby changing its demographics.

In a conference call last month with Jewish and Israeli media aimed primarily at dispelling Internet reports he is anti-Israel, Obama stated "Palestinian refugees" belong in their own state and do not have a "literal" right of return to Israel.

"We cannot move forward until there is some confidence that the Palestinians are able to provide the security apparatus that would prevent constant attacks against Israel from taking place," continued Obama during the conference with Jewish journalists.

But in the 1990s Obama was a speaker at events in Chicago's large Palestinian immigrant community to raise funds for U.N. camps for the so-called Palestinian refugees.

Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based Palestinian-American activist and co-founder of Electronic Intifada, a pro-Palestinian online publication, recalls introducing Obama at one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for the Deheisha Palestinian camp in the West Bank.

Abunimah is also a harsh critic of Israel and has protested outside pro-Israel events in the Chicago area.

"I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator – when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time," stated Abuminah during an interview last month with Democracy Now!, a nationally syndicated radio and television political program.

"I remember personally introducing [Obama] onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that's just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation," Abunimah said.

Abunimah also was recently quoted saying that until a few years ago, Obama was "quite frank that the U.S. needed to be more evenhanded, that it leaned too much toward Israel."

Abunimah noted Obama's unusual stance toward Israel, commenting "these were the kind of statements I'd never heard from a U.S. politician who seemed like he was going somewhere, rather than at the end of his career."

'Critical of U.S. bias toward Israel'
Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist.

"[Obama]came with his wife. That's where I had a chance to really talk to him," Abunimah recalled. "It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.

According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat. Abunimah quoted Obama telling him "warmly" he was sorry that "I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race."

"I'm hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front," Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.

Abunimah said Obama urged him to "keep up the good work" at the Chicago Tribune, where Abunimah contributed guest columns that were highly critical of Israel.

Obama's campaign headquarters did not reply to an e-mail request seeking comment on his fundraising activities for Palestinians.

Abunimah serves on the board of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing driver's licenses and education to illegal aliens.

WND reported yesterday (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57231) the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit on which Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist, provided $75,000 in grants to the AAAN.

The co-founder of AAAN is Columbia's Khalidi, who held a 2000 fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi, a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the PLO while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

'Very active' terror apparatus
Obama's 1999 fundraising for the Palestinian Deheisha camp raised the eyebrows of one senior Israeli security official who was contacted yesterday for comment on the issue. The official, who was not aware of Obama's fundraising, noted Deheisha, which is located near the city of Bethlehem, had a "very active" Palestinian terror apparatus in 1999, carrying out scores of deadly shootings against Israeli civilians that year.

Two of the most deadly suicide bombings in 2002 also were planned from Deheisha, where the suicide bombers originated, said the security official. On one such bombing, in March of that year, 11 people were killed and over 50 injured, four critically when a Deheisha bomber detonated his explosives next to a group of Jewish women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave a nearby synagogue.

The question of so-called Palestinian refugees is a sensitive one for supporters of Israel. All Israeli prime ministers have stated a final peace deal with the Palestinians cannot include the "return" of "refugees."

When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were flushed out when the Jewish state pushed back attacking Arab armies. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.

While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle those Arabs elsewhere.

There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs; Arabs living full-time in Jordan; and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.

Other cases of worldwide refugees aided by the U.N. are handled through the international body's High Commission for Refugees, which seeks to settle the refugees quickly, usually in countries other than those from which they fled.

The U.N. created a special agency – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA – specifically to handle registered Palestinian refugees. It's the only refugee case handled by the U.N. in which the declared refugees are housed and maintained in camps for generations instead of facilitating the refugees' resettlement elsewhere.

The U.N. officially restricts the definition of refugee status worldwide for nationalities outside the Palestinian arena to those who fled a country of nationality or habitual residence due to persecution, who are unable to return to their place of residence and who have not yet been resettled. Future generations of original refugees are not included in the U.N.'s definition of refugees.

But the U.N. uses a different set of criteria only when defining a Palestinian refugee – allowing future generations to be considered refugees; terming as refugees those Arabs who have been resettled in other countries, such as hundreds of thousands in Jordan; removing the clause requiring persecution; and removing the clause requiring a refugee to be fleeing his or her "country of nationality or habitual residence."

Palestinian leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, routinely refer to the "right of return," claiming the declared right is mandated by the U.N. But the two U.N. resolutions dealing with the refugee issue recommend that Israel "achieve a just settlement" for the "refugee problem." The resolutions, which are not binding, do not speak of any "right of return" and leave open the possibility of monetary compensation or other kinds of settlements.

Obama worked with terrorist
Obama's advocacy on behalf of Palestinians comes after WND reported yesterday the presidential candidate served on the board of the Woods Fund alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombings against government buildings.

Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Ayers has boasted of his involvement with the Weathermen terror group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released Sept. 11, 2001
"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoirs, titled "Fugitive Days." He continued with a disclaimer that he didn't personally set the bombs, but his group set the explosives and planned the attack.

A $200 campaign contribution is listed April 2, 2001, by the "Friends of Barack Obama" campaign fund. The two appeared as speakers together at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"

The charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.

Ayers is married to another notorious Weathermen terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn, who also has served on panels with Obama. Dohrn was once on the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted List and was described by J. Edgar Hoover as the "most dangerous woman in America." Ayers and Dohrn raised the son of Weathermen terrorist Kathy Boudin, who was serving a sentence for participating in a 1981 murder and robbery that left four people dead.

Obama adviser wants talks with terrorists
Last month WND quoted Israeli security officials (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59930) who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.

Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.

Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.

Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Bill Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.

To interview Aaron Klein, contact M. Sliwa Public Relations by e-mail (msliwa@msliwa.com), or call 973-272-2861 or 212-202-4453.

[arglebargle]

Not to the merits of the article, but to the reputation of the writer, I found these when looking around online. These and other things definitely brought up the agend question pretty quickly.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/kleinhebron.html

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2006/kleinterrorist.html

[Danny White]

Not to the merits of the article, but to the reputation of the writer, I found these when looking around online. These and other things definitely brought up the agend question pretty quickly.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/kleinhebron.html

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2006/kleinterrorist.html

If he writes for World Net Daily, then he certainly has a conservative agenda. I don't think anyone at WND would deny that.

A conservative agenda doesn't mean he's making this up, though... it simply means he has an interest in pursuing angles that others in the media with more liberal agendas aren't looking at.

Most investigative journalism (as opposed to "reporting" on obvious issues) is sparked by some kind of agenda... otherwise the investigator would never have dug below the surface of the situation to begin with.

[iceberg]

i would have to think someone running for president has not funded terrorists *after* they were tagged as such. but, as we push forward you'll see what the news called "the kitchen sink approach" the clintons are about to use. so if this is true i'd see hillary capitalizing on it w/o question.

if that doesn't happen there must be some holes there we simply don't see.

[Danny White]

i would have to think someone running for president has not funded terrorists *after* they were tagged as such. but, as we push forward you'll see what the news called "the kitchen sink approach" the clintons are about to use. so if this is true i'd see hillary capitalizing on it w/o question.

if that doesn't happen there must be some holes there we simply don't see.

I will say that some of this takes quite a bit of time and fleshing out to get to the bottom of.

A lot of the Clinton scandals didn't come to light during the primary (92) because people weren't looking deep enough. Once you get the nomination, though, then the market for dirt goes way up.

And if Obama's President, every possible skeleton will be unearthed... just as it was for Bush and for Clinton before him.

Fun times we're living in, ain't they? And to think, back when FDR was President the press actually kept it a secret that he was in a wheelchair!

[zrinkill]

Barack Hussein Obama an Islamic sympathizer? No Way

[BrAinPaiNt]

Obama is a dirty muslim who is waiting to pull a Manchurian Candidate type of ploy...at least that is what the hillary camp and extreme right would try to lead people to believe with veiled references to his race and name.

[Danny White]

Obama is a dirty muslim who is waiting to pull a Manchurian Candidate type of ploy...at least that is what the hillary camp and extreme right would try to lead people to believe with veiled references to his race and name.

Seriously, though, if you'd have put money down 6 years ago that someone named "Hussein" would be elected President of the United States in 2008, you would have CLEANED UP! :laugh2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Seriously, though, if you'd have put money down 6 years ago that someone named "Hussein" would be elected President of the United States in 2008, you would have CLEANED UP! :laugh2:

If I would have known a few years ago what I know now...I would never have voted for W the first time around.:(

[zrinkill]

Obama is a dirty muslim who is waiting to pull a Manchurian Candidate type of ploy...at least that is what the hillary camp and extreme right would try to lead people to believe with veiled references to his race and name.

Yea cause no one would be joking or anything.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yea cause no one would be joking or anything.

You may be joking...I don't think Hillary's camp or most republican mouth pieces are...do you think they are?

[burmafrd]

Love the way Brain is talking Republican mouthpieces. Many of them are conservative but not very close to the republican party. Like so many Brain seems to think that all conservatives are card carrying republicans. And that is not true, especially nowadays.

[Vintage]

Love the way Brain is talking Republican mouthpieces. Many of them are conservative but not very close to the republican party. Like so many Brain seems to think that all conservatives are card carrying republicans. And that is not true, especially nowadays.

If its what the Republican party has evolved/de-evolved too, then hey, that's what it is.

I used to associate the Republican party with small gov't, fiscal responsibility, and other various constitutional ideals I liked.

But if that's what the Repubs want to get away from; that's their choice. I can switch my vote (if I vote for either of the two major parties). I mean, some of my stances such as pro choice, gay marriage, etc fall in line with the liberals.... so I could temporarily align with them until the Repubs decide which way they want to trend towards...

I mean, if we are going to get fiscally irresponsibility either way, I'd prefer to see it spent on domestic issues.

(I'd much prefer fiscal responsibility as opposed to that, but since that no longer seems an option.... )

[BrAinPaiNt]

Love the way Brain is talking Republican mouthpieces. Many of them are conservative but not very close to the republican party. Like so many Brain seems to think that all conservatives are card carrying republicans. And that is not true, especially nowadays.

You mean like you do with liberals and democrats...hello kettle.

Sadly if you would actually read people's posts from time to time I have said MANY times that the current republicans are FAR from conservatives....hence why I call many NEO-cons.

However one thing you can not deny, both Hillary's camp and right political spin machine are doing what they can to put out the image that Obama is a muslim and the enemy and in turn using that fear card that they have used so well in the past.

[zrinkill]

You may be joking...I don't think Hillary's camp or most republican mouth pieces are...do you think they are?

I am sorry I thought since you posted that right after I posted, you were referring to what I posted ....

My bad ....

[Jon88]

Did everyone see him dressed up as a stupid looking African Muslim?

God he looked like he was 8 or 9 years old. I don't want that guy running this country.

[SultanOfSix]

What a terribly titled article. As if "Islamic" causes imply "terrorist" causes that this article tries to bind it with.

I bet those "Islamic" causes hate our "freedumbs" too. Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!

And Muslims are left wondering if there really is a bias in the media. :rolleyes:

[Jon88]

What a terribly titled article. As if "Islamic" causes imply "terrorist" causes that this article tries to bind it with.

I bet those "Islamic" causes hate our "freedumbs" too. Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!

And Muslims are left wondering if there really is a bias in the media. :rolleyes:

What? Who cares what they think. How many Muslim leaders denounced 9/11? How did "Islamic" imply terrorist? Read the headline again.

[SultanOfSix]

What? Who cares what they think. How many Muslim leaders denounced 9/11? How did "Islamic" imply terrorist? Read the headline again.

Yeah, man get the guns ready and the bombs packed. We're going to go fight all them Muzlims and kick their *****, yeeehaaaaw!!!

Who cares what dem guys think, specially when sum may just read this here board!

Links to all those who denounced terrorism:

1) http://islamiclawetc.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/never-forget-denouncing-terror-the-911-attacks/

2) A more appropriate article and factual title, without the standard subliminal messaging that has become commonplace in the media would have been: "Obama raises funds for causes may be linked to terrorism".

The agenda of the article (in addition to denigrating Obama) was to emote the standard Pavlovian response of associating "Islamic" to the notion of terrorism, and then went on to reinforce that.

So what if he raised funds for "Islamic" causes? Are they all, or even a small minority of them, linked to terrorism?

Get a book and read before you one day wake up realize all your freedoms are gone due to and induced fear of yet another boogeyman, while your tax money is paying for wars that make a few people rich.

[Cajuncowboy]

Yeah, man get the guns ready and the bombs packed. We're going to go fight all them Muzlims and kick their *****, yeeehaaaaw!!!

Who cares what dem guys think, specially when sum may just read this here board!

Links to all those who denounced terrorism:

1) http://islamiclawetc.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/never-forget-denouncing-terror-the-911-attacks/

2) A more appropriate article and factual title, without the standard subliminal messaging that has become commonplace in the media would have been: "Obama raises funds for causes may be linked to terrorism".

The agenda of the article (in addition to denigrating Obama) was to emote the standard Pavlovian response of associating "Islamic" to the notion of terrorism, and then went on to reinforce that.

So what if he raised funds for "Islamic" causes? Are they all, or even a small minority of them, linked to terrorism?

Get a book and read before you one day wake up realize all your freedoms are gone due to and induced fear of yet another boogeyman, while your tax money is paying for wars that make a few people rich.

Do you really wonder why many Americans have a problem with the Muslim faith?

They saw who the ones were that were yealling ali, ali oxen free or whatever the heck it was when they flew the planes into the the towers or the ones using mentally retarded women to blow up American soldiers or the the ones who were jumping on the buses in Israel and killing innocent people.

This is not to suggest that all Muslims are like this, (as a matter of fact, one of our employees is a muslim and we talk about this a lot), but to act like you have no idea why most people have this perception is crazy.

And by the way, this war is just. We will not be attacked again with out taking it to them first. Sorry, just the way it is.

[Jon88]

Yeah, man get the guns ready and the bombs packed. We're going to go fight all them Muzlims and kick their *****, yeeehaaaaw!!!

Who cares what dem guys think, specially when sum may just read this here board!

Links to all those who denounced terrorism:

1) http://islamiclawetc.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/never-forget-denouncing-terror-the-911-attacks/

2) A more appropriate article and factual title, without the standard subliminal messaging that has become commonplace in the media would have been: "Obama raises funds for causes may be linked to terrorism".

The agenda of the article (in addition to denigrating Obama) was to emote the standard Pavlovian response of associating "Islamic" to the notion of terrorism, and then went on to reinforce that.

So what if he raised funds for "Islamic" causes? Are they all, or even a small minority of them, linked to terrorism?

Get a book and read before you one day wake up realize all your freedoms are gone due to and induced fear of yet another boogeyman, while your tax money is paying for wars that make a few people rich.


While I get a book and read, I want you to get a life.

[ConcordCowboy]

Did everyone see him dressed up as a stupid looking African Muslim?

God he looked like he was 8 or 9 years old. I don't want that guy running this country.

You're right I don't want a man dressed in local clothing looking stupid running the country either.

http://www.drudgereport.com/bc.jpg

[Jon88]

You're right I don't want a man dressed in local clothing looking stupid running the country either.

http://www.drudgereport.com/bc.jpg


I never said I wanted him running the country.

[ConcordCowboy]

I never said I wanted him running the country.

Never said you did...I was just showing you who I don't want running the country and how he can get dressed up too in local clothes and look stupid the whole time doing it.

[Jon88]

Never said you did...I was just showing you who I don't want running the country and how he can get dressed up too in local clothes and look stupid the whole time doing it.

You're a little late I think.

[ThreeSportStar80]

I call this "political B.S." :rolleyes:

[ConcordCowboy]

You're a little late I think.

He's still got eleven months...I can always hope for a quicker end.

[SultanOfSix]

Do you really wonder why many Americans have a problem with the Muslim faith?

They saw who the ones were that were yealling ali, ali oxen free or whatever the heck it was when they flew the planes into the the towers or the ones using mentally retarded women to blow up American soldiers or the the ones who were jumping on the buses in Israel and killing innocent people.

This is not to suggest that all Muslims are like this, (as a matter of fact, one of our employees is a muslim and we talk about this a lot), but to act like you have no idea why most people have this perception is crazy.

And by the way, this war is just. We will not be attacked again with out taking it to them first. Sorry, just the way it is.

Thanks for reinforcing to me that ignorance is a huge problem in this country, and that the general population can't distinguish between the actions of the few and the majority. This is what you call stereotyping.

I know the perception very well, and it tells me that the the US education system is receding. And just in case you don't believe me, the facts prove it to be so.

The war is just? Are you talking about the Iraq war, or the war on terror? The Iraq war that was started because of evidence that was never found (I guess people forgot the sham that occured by bypassing the findings at UN) for nuclear weapons, or any sort of linkage to Al-Qaida whatsoever?

The war on terror: another "war" on something to keep the money flowing from the public into the hands of the few, like the war on illiteracy, or the war on drugs, or the war on whatever else you can come up with.

Perception is a two way street. What many Muslims see, who have nothing to do with Al-Qaida or other radical organizations, is 3000 Americans dead equivalent to hundreds of thousands to over a million Muslims dead as a result of 911.

They are beginning or have already begun (a while ago) to see the country I was born and raised in as the terrorist, and organizations like Al-Qaida feed off of this, and if it continues like this, the problem is only going to get bigger.

Instead of shouting "Yeeeeehaaaw. Let's get em all and shoot dum *******s!" like the worst president in US that I've ever seen while another trillion dollars in deficit is built up, the economy recedes at home, and thousands more American and Muslim lives are lost in the continuing one-sided ratio, perhaps people should start looking deeper into the issues at who the real culprits are.

[Doomsday101]

Gosh telling each group they what they want to hear, sounds like a great campaign strategy. Not so great for the country but it could get you the White House.

[Hoov]

Thanks for reinforcing to me that ignorance is a huge problem in this country, and that the general population can't distinguish between the actions of the few and the majority. This is what you call stereotyping.

I know the perception very well, and it tells me that the the US education system is receding. And just in case you don't believe me, the facts prove it to be so.

The war is just? Are you talking about the Iraq war, or the war on terror? The Iraq war that was started because of evidence that was never found (I guess people forgot the sham that occured by bypassing the findings at UN) for nuclear weapons, or any sort of linkage to Al-Qaida whatsoever?

The war on terror: another "war" on something to keep the money flowing from the public into the hands of the few, like the war on illiteracy, or the war on drugs, or the war on whatever else you can come up with.

Perception is a two way street. What many Muslims see, who have nothing to do with Al-Qaida or other radical organizations, is 3000 Americans dead equivalent to hundreds of thousands to over a million Muslims dead as a result of 911.

They are beginning or have already begun (a while ago) to see the country I was born and raised in as the terrorist, and organizations like Al-Qaida feed off of this, and if it continues like this, the problem is only going to get bigger.

Instead of shouting "Yeeeeehaaaw. Let's get em all and shoot dum *******s!" like the worst president in US that I've ever seen while another trillion dollars in deficit is built up, the economy recedes at home, and thousands more American and Muslim lives are lost in the continuing one-sided ratio, perhaps people should start looking deeper into the issues at who the real culprits are.
good post :bow:

[Cajuncowboy]

[QUOTE]Thanks for reinforcing to me that ignorance is a huge problem in this country, and that the general population can't distinguish between the actions of the few and the majority. This is what you call stereotyping.

Ignorance is a huge problem. I'll be the first to acknowledge that. And that too is a two way street. The media portrays Bush as evil, yet, he is doing his constitutional duty to protect Americans at home and abroad the best he can. And by the way, nowhere did I say "All Muslims this or that". I asked if you really didn't understand why most of America has this view. Forums are very two dimensional. I honestly wanted to know that. Not a challenge or anything.

I know the perception very well, and it tells me that the the US education system is receding. And just in case you don't believe me, merica had a problem with this?
the facts prove it to be so.

Again, I've said for years that the education system is faulty. On this we can agree.

The war is just? Are you talking about the Iraq war, or the war on terror? The Iraq war that was started because of evidence that was never found (I guess people forgot the sham that occured by bypassing the findings at UN) for nuclear weapons, or any sort of linkage to Al-Qaida whatsoever?

First you need to have your facts straight. The Iraq war is the same war as the Gulf War. Not a different war. Saddam never surrendered we had a cease fire. That cease fire was based on his agreements to certain things, namely the resolutions through the UN. He violated them by not allowing the UN Inspectors unfettered access to his country. You can blow all you want about how he wanted to put up a tough guy front but it is the reality of it. It was his fault and we could not allow someone who had publicly claimed ill will against against us who has sponsored terrorists to have WMD. That was a prudent move and a just move.

The war on terror: another "war" on something to keep the money flowing from the public into the hands of the few, like the war on illiteracy, or the war on drugs, or the war on whatever else you can come up with.

Anytime you have a conflict like this someone is going to make money. If you know your history you know this is as old as time. No way to avoid someone profiting from it.

Perception is a two way street. What many Muslims see, who have nothing to do with Al-Qaida or other radical organizations, is 3000 Americans dead equivalent to hundreds of thousands to over a million Muslims dead as a result of 911.

Most of these Muslims that are killed have other Muslims to than for that.

They are beginning or have already begun (a while ago) to see the country I was born and raised in as the terrorist, and organizations like Al-Qaida feed off of this, and if it continues like this, the problem is only going to get bigger.

Then I suggest your country (whichever it may be if you care to share) do something about it internally then and maybe that would help change the perception instead of being afraid of them and cow towing to them.

Instead of shouting "Yeeeeehaaaw. Let's get em all and shoot dum *******s!" like the worst president in US that I've ever seen while another trillion dollars in deficit is built up, the economy recedes at home, and thousands more American and Muslim lives are lost in the continuing one-sided ratio, perhaps people should start looking deeper into the issues at who the real culprits are.

Again I say the war in Iraq and the war on terror is just. If you have a problem with us killing our enemies wherever we find them, I'm sorry, but we will continue to do so until they are all gone.

No more 9/11's. No more Homicide bombers. No more.

[Vintage]

Again I say the war in Iraq and the war on terror is just. If you have a problem with us killing our enemies wherever we find them, I'm sorry, but we will continue to do so until they are all gone.

No more 9/11's. No more Homicide bombers. No more.



You are mistaken if you think the "war on terror" will put an end to terrorism.

Terrorism exists for a variety of reasons. One is to try and influence politics. So long as the terrorist groups do not gain political power, they will continue to strike out as a means of politics. (Now, I would think I wouldn't have to explain the following point, but I will..... I am NOT advocating giving them power. I am NOT saying terrorism is a legitimate action. I am ONLY saying that this is ONE reason terrorists used terrorism). They exist because of certain political factors. And fighting them will not end bring an end to the political factors for which they exist. It will make it harder, I hope. But it won't put an end to it.

Second. To prevent an attack of 9-11 from happening again, we need to get lucky every time. A terrorist only has to get lucky once. Its foolish to expect nothing will happen in the future. Because it probably will. (And I will explain: I am NOT advocating this. NOR do I wish for this to happen. I am just saying the odds are, something will happen in the future).

[Jon88]

You are mistaken if you think the "war on terror" will put an end to terrorism.

Terrorism exists for a variety of reasons. One is to try and influence politics. So long as the terrorist groups do not gain political power, they will continue to strike out as a means of politics. (Now, I would think I wouldn't have to explain the following point, but I will..... I am NOT advocating giving them power. I am NOT saying terrorism is a legitimate action. I am ONLY saying that this is ONE reason terrorists used terrorism). They exist because of certain political factors. And fighting them will not end bring an end to the political factors for which they exist. It will make it harder, I hope. But it won't put an end to it.

Second. To prevent an attack of 9-11 from happening again, we need to get lucky every time. A terrorist only has to get lucky once. Its foolish to expect nothing will happen in the future. Because it probably will. (And I will explain: I am NOT advocating this. NOR do I wish for this to happen. I am just saying the odds are, something will happen in the future).


So you hope things get harder in Iraq, Afghanistan, and abroad because we are fighting these savages?

:rolleyes:

[Jon88]

[QUOTE=SultanOfSix;1972481]

Ignorance is a huge problem. I'll be the first to acknowledge that. And that too is a two way street. The media portrays Bush as evil, yet, he is doing his constitutional duty to protect Americans at home and abroad the best he can. And by the way, nowhere did I say "All Muslims this or that". I asked if you really didn't understand why most of America has this view. Forums are very two dimensional. I honestly wanted to know that. Not a challenge or anything.



Again, I've said for years that the education system is faulty. On this we can agree.



First you need to have your facts straight. The Iraq war is the same war as the Gulf War. Not a different war. Saddam never surrendered we had a cease fire. That cease fire was based on his agreements to certain things, namely the resolutions through the UN. He violated them by not allowing the UN Inspectors unfettered access to his country. You can blow all you want about how he wanted to put up a tough guy front but it is the reality of it. It was his fault and we could not allow someone who had publicly claimed ill will against against us who has sponsored terrorists to have WMD. That was a prudent move and a just move.



Anytime you have a conflict like this someone is going to make money. If you know your history you know this is as old as time. No way to avoid someone profiting from it.



Most of these Muslims that are killed have other Muslims to than for that.



Then I suggest your country (whichever it may be if you care to share) do something about it internally then and maybe that would help change the perception instead of being afraid of them and cow towing to them.



Again I say the war in Iraq and the war on terror is just. If you have a problem with us killing our enemies wherever we find them, I'm sorry, but we will continue to do so until they are all gone.

No more 9/11's. No more Homicide bombers. No more.


Excellent post. The guy has a warped view of reality and hurls baseless insults at people who don't agree with him. You've made the point clear. I wouldn't argue with him anymore because he just can't comprehend the real world.

[Vintage]

So you hope things get harder in Iraq, Afghanistan, and abroad because we are fighting these savages?

:rolleyes:


What?

[Cajuncowboy]

You are mistaken if you think the "war on terror" will put an end to terrorism.

Terrorism exists for a variety of reasons. One is to try and influence politics. So long as the terrorist groups do not gain political power, they will continue to strike out as a means of politics. (Now, I would think I wouldn't have to explain the following point, but I will..... I am NOT advocating giving them power. I am NOT saying terrorism is a legitimate action. I am ONLY saying that this is ONE reason terrorists used terrorism). They exist because of certain political factors. And fighting them will not end bring an end to the political factors for which they exist. It will make it harder, I hope. But it won't put an end to it.

Second. To prevent an attack of 9-11 from happening again, we need to get lucky every time. A terrorist only has to get lucky once. Its foolish to expect nothing will happen in the future. Because it probably will. (And I will explain: I am NOT advocating this. NOR do I wish for this to happen. I am just saying the odds are, something will happen in the future).

So the war on terror is useless then? What would you suggest? Lollipops for terrorists?

Should we just stop fighting it? That is just a plain crazy statement.

And you say we need to get lucky every time...Well, we've been lucky ever since 9/11 and that "Luck" has to do with smart policies like the Patriot act.
To just sit back and wait for the next shoe to drop is a cowards way of approaching things. America has never been the coward and if I and many American's have anything to say about in November, we will stay that way.

[Vintage]

Not what I said either.

[Cajuncowboy]

Not what I said either.

You said the war on terror won't work. Yet you offer no other options. So therefore the based on what you said, we should just sit around and wait to get hit again and just be thankful we were "lucky" a few times.

[Vintage]

You said the war on terror won't work. Yet you offer no other options. So therefore the based on what you said, we should just sit around and wait to get hit again and just be thankful we were "lucky" a few times.

Not what I said either.

What I said was "winning a war in Iraq (paraphrasing) will NOT put an end to terrorism."

Now, I am not going to put words in your mouth... but let me ask you this? Do you think winning in Iraq will stop terrorism? No. It might end up helping. But it won't end terrorism. THAT was my point.

As for the lucky comments, well, I explained that further in a P.M. I sent you.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So the war on terror is useless then? What would you suggest? Lollipops for terrorists?

Should we just stop fighting it? That is just a plain crazy statement.

And you say we need to get lucky every time...Well, we've been lucky ever since 9/11 and that "Luck" has to do with smart policies like the Patriot act.
To just sit back and wait for the next shoe to drop is a cowards way of approaching things. America has never been the coward and if I and many American's have anything to say about in November, we will stay that way.

I would hand out pork flavored lollipops...would you be ok with that. <evil grin>

[SultanOfSix]

Ignorance is a huge problem. I'll be the first to acknowledge that. And that too is a two way street. The media portrays Bush as evil, yet, he is doing his constitutional duty to protect Americans at home and abroad the best he can. And by the way, nowhere did I say "All Muslims this or that". I asked if you really didn't understand why most of America has this view. Forums are very two dimensional. I honestly wanted to know that. Not a challenge or anything.

No one said you said "all muslims this or that", nor was it implied that you did. What you did say was "many" Americans have a problem with the "Muslim faith", which only reinforced to me that those "many" Americans are ignorant, if we believe what you say, and then you went on to imply that somehow the "Muslim faith" was responsible for 911. Otherwise, you wouldn't have classified it as such. Clueless boy, aka Jon88, did the same, and when he was shown how many Muslim leaders and people condemned the attacks, he reverted to the same psychology that is apparent in the gun-slinging mentality of those who seem to support Bush.

Don't mess with Texas.

In the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams, one of the founding fathers, wrote the following:

As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Islamic) nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

First you need to have your facts straight. The Iraq war is the same war as the Gulf War. Not a different war. Saddam never surrendered we had a cease fire. That cease fire was based on his agreements to certain things, namely the resolutions through the UN. He violated them by not allowing the UN Inspectors unfettered access to his country. You can blow all you want about how he wanted to put up a tough guy front but it is the reality of it. It was his fault and we could not allow someone who had publicly claimed ill will against against us who has sponsored terrorists to have WMD. That was a prudent move and a just move.

So you want me to believe that the war had a cease fire from a few years before the end of the senior Bush presidency, after which sanctions were applied to Iraq, through the Clinton presidency, and several years after 911, until Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors in, which he eventually did, and then they proceeded to find nothing related to WMDs, and no al-Qaida link whatsoever? If they did, it could have been easily proven in World Court under due process of law. But, it couldn't because there was nothing. So, the cowboy who became president decided to take the law into his own hand and fire away.

I'm glad that Saddam was ousted from power. He was a brutal dictator, a member of the Baathist party, and an atheist for the majority of his life, who only became "Muslim" on television for show when he wanted to rally the people to his cause against the "Great Satan". But, his departure created a vacuum that the US was in no way prepared to fill. Those in power in the US government were pathetic in their knowledge of Iraq, and totally unprepared for the ramifications.

And they are only maintaining support for keeping troops in Iraq under the banner of the "war on terror", which didn't exist in Iraq, until the US itself created the power vacuum to cause it to happen there. How ridiculously ironic. And, how much of what they tell us can we even believe after all of the bypassing they did in the first place?

Anytime you have a conflict like this someone is going to make money. If you know your history you know this is as old as time. No way to avoid someone profiting from it.

Yeah, it's pretty pathetic, but it's not as old as time. The arms industry is the biggest money making industry in the world. The second biggest industry is the drug industry.

Now, you tell me if there is something ****ing wrong with the world?

Most of these Muslims that are killed have other Muslims to than for that.

No they don't. Sure, there are Muslims killing each other. Small pockets of them have been doing it for centuries. But, to believe that they are killing each other more than the opposing force is utterly ridiculous.

Then I suggest your country (whichever it may be if you care to share) do something about it internally then and maybe that would help change the perception instead of being afraid of them and cow towing to them.

That would the United States of America where I was born and raised.

Again I say the war in Iraq and the war on terror is just. If you have a problem with us killing our enemies wherever we find them, I'm sorry, but we will continue to do so until they are all gone.

No more 9/11's. No more Homicide bombers. No more.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

BTW, terrorism, by its very definition cannot be eradicated. It's impossible. So, a war on terror essentially means you trade your security for freedom. How much of that is up to you and the rest of the people who live in this country.

[Cajuncowboy]

You are mistaken if you think the "war on terror" will put an end to terrorism.



For everyone to see...this is your post. You think I am mistaken to think the war on terror will stop the terrorists. This is what you said, not me. According to you, we should then stop fighting it.

Oh well, you have your opinion and I have mine. I prefer to fight these guys and fight them on their turf as opposed to here at home.

[Cajuncowboy]

Not what I said either.

What I said was "winning a war in Iraq (paraphrasing) will NOT put an end to terrorism."

Now, I am not going to put words in your mouth... but let me ask you this? Do you think winning in Iraq will stop terrorism? No. It might end up helping. But it won't end terrorism. THAT was my point.

As for the lucky comments, well, I explained that further in a P.M. I sent you.

No, you said the war on terror. Read your own post.

[Cajuncowboy]

I would hand out pork flavored lollipops...would you be ok with that. <evil grin>

Yes, and hand out ham hats for them to wear as well. Right there wit ya!

[Cajuncowboy]

No one said you said "all muslims this or that", nor was it implied that you did. What you did say was "many" Americans have a problem with the "Muslim faith", which only reinforced to me that those "many" Americans are ignorant, if we believe what you say, and then you went on to imply that somehow the "Muslim faith" was responsible for 911.

Never did I say or imply that. I simply said that the ones who did this were ALL muslims and further, what I implied was that they did it, according to them, in the name of their god.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have classified it as such. Clueless boy, aka Jon88, did the same, and when he was shown how many Muslim leaders and people condemned the attacks, he reverted to the same psychology that is apparent in the gun-slinging mentality of those who seem to support Bush.

I won't speak for jon88 but I will for myself. IF we have to go to another part of the world to kill these people we will. It is far better to kill them there than to have them here killing our people. When it comes right down to it, it's who would you rather have dead, Americans on our soil or the enemy on their soil. Guess which way I am voting!

Don't mess with Texas.

In the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams, one of the founding fathers, wrote the following:

As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Islamic) nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with people killing our people. It just so happens that EVERY ONE OF THE TERRORISTS IS A MUSLIM.
I think you are getting hung up on this.

So you want me to believe that the war had a cease fire from a few years before the end of the senior Bush presidency, after which sanctions were applied to Iraq, through the Clinton presidency, and several years after 911, until Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors in, which he eventually did, and then they proceeded to find nothing related to WMDs, and no al-Qaida link whatsoever?

Saddam would not allow unfettered access to his country by the inspectors. What they said was that there was no way to verify that he had gotten rid of the WMD that we know he had. That was a violation of the UN Sanctions, thus ending the cease fire.

If they did, it could have been easily proven in World Court under due process of law. But, it couldn't because there was nothing. So, the cowboy who became president decided to take the law into his own hand and fire away.

Again, if saddam would have would have allowed this and not acted the way he did, he would still be alive today instead of having his neck snapped at the end of a rope by his own people. BTW, I didn't see too many people boohooing in Iraq when this happened. Did you shed a tear??

I'm glad that Saddam was ousted from power. He was a brutal dictator, a member of the Baathist party, and an atheist for the majority of his life, who only became "Muslim" on television for show when he wanted to rally the people to his cause against the "Great Satan".

But you would have preferred that he still be in power. Because had we not acted he would be.

But, his departure created a vacuum that the US was in no way prepared to fill. Those in power in the US government were pathetic in their knowledge of Iraq, and totally unprepared for the ramifications.

All young governments go through this especially in that part of the world where people only have known this kind of rule their entire lives.


And they are only maintaining support for keeping troops in Iraq under the banner of the "war on terror", which didn't exist in Iraq, until the US itself created the power vacuum to cause it to happen there. How ridiculously ironic. And, how much of what they tell us can we even believe after all of the bypassing they did in the first place?

Sure there was terror in Iraq, Saddam was a chief financier of terrorism, just ask the Jews.


Yeah, it's pretty pathetic, but it's not as old as time. The arms industry is the biggest money making industry in the world. The second biggest industry is the drug industry.

That's just the way it is.

Now, you tell me if there is something ****ing wrong with the world?



No they don't. Sure, there are Muslims killing each other. Small pockets of them have been doing it for centuries. But, to believe that they are killing each other more than the opposing force is utterly ridiculous.

The Muslims that are dying DO have other muslims to thank for it. It was muslims who started this fight and drug them into it. They put them in harms way. You want to blame Bush but the truth is if you want to blame someone, blame bin laden and his crew, I doubt you would find any Christians, Jews, Mormons, or even Atheists in his group. So yes, blame a muslim. They started it we are just going to end it. And if it means killing everyone of the terrorists to do it so be it. And the innocent, god loving muslims that killed in the middle of it, then they have other muslims to thank for it.

That would the United States of America where I was born and raised.

I'm sorry, I thought you said in an earlier post that you were from a country where the war was going on. (I'm too tired right now to go back and look through the posts) If I misread then I apologize. I thought that was what you said.


You have your opinion and I have mine.

Well, that may be the one point on which we will agree. Probably a good place to leave it. :beer2:
BTW, terrorism, by its very definition cannot be eradicated. It's impossible. So, a war on terror essentially means you trade your security for freedom. How much of that is up to you and the rest of the people who live in this country.

Just remember, this is not a war on islam, but on the terrorists. We didn't start this thing. But we will fight it to the end.

[Vintage]

For everyone to see...this is your post. You think I am mistaken to think the war on terror will stop the terrorists. This is what you said, not me. According to you, we should then stop fighting it.

Oh well, you have your opinion and I have mine. I prefer to fight these guys and fight them on their turf as opposed to here at home.

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

And per usual, you have misinterpreted what I've said.

I did NOT say NOR suggest we should stop fighting. What I did say is that if you think this war will end terrorism, you are mistaken.

There is a difference. You fail to see that.

[Vintage]

No, you said the war on terror. Read your own post.

The war on Iraq is a war on terror.

And either way, the "war on terror" or the "war in Iraq" will not bring an end to terrorism.

And since its become obvious that I need to spell things out for you... I am NOT suggesting we should abandon the war on terror. I am saying its far more complicated than that....and that terrorism will never truly be defeated due to the political conditions as well as other reasons that exist in which terrorism is viewed as a means of achieving a political goal for the terrorists.

Which, if you read my post, was the WHOLE point of it.

[Cajuncowboy]

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

And per usual, you have misinterpreted what I've said.

I did NOT say NOR suggest we should stop fighting. What I did say is that if you think this war will end terrorism, you are mistaken.

There is a difference. You fail to see that.

Then what you should have said was "While I am all for the war on terrorism and think we should continue to fight it, I fear it may not produce the desired end results."

You really should be more clear.

[Cajuncowboy]

The war on Iraq is a war on terror.

And either way, the "war on terror" or the "war in Iraq" will not bring an end to terrorism.

And since its become obvious that I need to spell things out for you... I am NOT suggesting we should abandon the war on terror. I am saying its far more complicated than that....and that terrorism will never truly be defeated due to the political conditions as well as other reasons that exist in which terrorism is viewed as a means of achieving a political goal for the terrorists.

Which, if you read my post, was the WHOLE point of it.

You never made that point.

[Vintage]

You are mistaken if you think the "war on terror" will put an end to terrorism.

Terrorism exists for a variety of reasons. One is to try and influence politics. So long as the terrorist groups do not gain political power, they will continue to strike out as a means of politics. (Now, I would think I wouldn't have to explain the following point, but I will..... I am NOT advocating giving them power. I am NOT saying terrorism is a legitimate action. I am ONLY saying that this is ONE reason terrorists used terrorism). They exist because of certain political factors. And fighting them will not end bring an end to the political factors for which they exist. It will make it harder, I hope. But it won't put an end to it.

Second. To prevent an attack of 9-11 from happening again, we need to get lucky every time. A terrorist only has to get lucky once. Its foolish to expect nothing will happen in the future. Because it probably will. (And I will explain: I am NOT advocating this. NOR do I wish for this to happen. I am just saying the odds are, something will happen in the future).



This is what I said.

Nowhere does it remotely look I am opposing the war on terror. In fact, I said I hope "it will make it harder" - in reference to the previous point of the existing political factors for which terrorism exists.

Then the second half, as I explained via PM.... is that terrorists only need to be lucky once. We have to constantly keep catching breaks. Intelligence gathering is NOT an easy thing. Especially considering we cannot infiltrate Al-Qaeda. And that another terrorist attack will probably occur. We've thwarted some. But its going to be tough to remain perfect.

That is what I wrote, in summary.

Not once did I suggest abandon it or "offer them lollipops."

[Jon88]

This is what I said.

Nowhere does it remotely look I am opposing the war on terror. In fact, I said I hope "it will make it harder" - in reference to the previous point of the existing political factors for which terrorism exists.

Then the second half, as I explained via PM.... is that terrorists only need to be lucky once. We have to constantly keep catching breaks. Intelligence gathering is NOT an easy thing. Especially considering we cannot infiltrate Al-Qaeda. And that another terrorist attack will probably occur. We've thwarted some. But its going to be tough to remain perfect.

That is what I wrote, in summary.

Not once did I suggest abandon it or "offer them lollipops."


You really don't make any sense.

[Jon88]

No one said you said "all muslims this or that", nor was it implied that you did. What you did say was "many" Americans have a problem with the "Muslim faith", which only reinforced to me that those "many" Americans are ignorant, if we believe what you say, and then you went on to imply that somehow the "Muslim faith" was responsible for 911. Otherwise, you wouldn't have classified it as such. Clueless boy, aka Jon88, did the same, and when he was shown how many Muslim leaders and people condemned the attacks, he reverted to the same psychology that is apparent in the gun-slinging mentality of those who seem to support Bush.

Don't mess with Texas.

In the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams, one of the founding fathers, wrote the following:

As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Islamic) nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."



So you want me to believe that the war had a cease fire from a few years before the end of the senior Bush presidency, after which sanctions were applied to Iraq, through the Clinton presidency, and several years after 911, until Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors in, which he eventually did, and then they proceeded to find nothing related to WMDs, and no al-Qaida link whatsoever? If they did, it could have been easily proven in World Court under due process of law. But, it couldn't because there was nothing. So, the cowboy who became president decided to take the law into his own hand and fire away.

I'm glad that Saddam was ousted from power. He was a brutal dictator, a member of the Baathist party, and an atheist for the majority of his life, who only became "Muslim" on television for show when he wanted to rally the people to his cause against the "Great Satan". But, his departure created a vacuum that the US was in no way prepared to fill. Those in power in the US government were pathetic in their knowledge of Iraq, and totally unprepared for the ramifications.
And they are only maintaining support for keeping troops in Iraq under the banner of the "war on terror", which didn't exist in Iraq, until the US itself created the power vacuum to cause it to happen there. How ridiculously ironic. And, how much of what they tell us can we even believe after all of the bypassing they did in the first place?



Yeah, it's pretty pathetic, but it's not as old as time. The arms industry is the biggest money making industry in the world. The second biggest industry is the drug industry.

Now, you tell me if there is something ****ing wrong with the world?



No they don't. Sure, there are Muslims killing each other. Small pockets of them have been doing it for centuries. But, to believe that they are killing each other more than the opposing force is utterly ridiculous.



That would the United States of America where I was born and raised.



You have your opinion and I have mine.

BTW, terrorism, by its very definition cannot be eradicated. It's impossible. So, a war on terror essentially means you trade your security for freedom. How much of that is up to you and the rest of the people who live in this country.


So you are glad we removed Saddam. You just want to whine about how we werent prepared after we did so.

[arglebargle]

So you are glad we removed Saddam. You just want to whine about how we werent prepared after we did so.


That's the understatement of understatements. The administration was in an ivory tower of immense preportions. They were warned of almost every problem and error of their plan: Not only did they blithely ignore, or fire, the people trying to call this to their attention, they made absolutely no plans for what might happen if things would go wrong. You know....nothing could go wrong with this, so why worry about it. They are reaping the whirlwind, but unfortunately they've dragged many innocent people along with them. It was and is criminally stooopid.

[Jon88]

That's the understatement of understatements. The administration was in an ivory tower of immense preportions. They were warned of almost every problem and error of their plan: Not only did they blithely ignore, or fire, the people trying to call this to their attention, they made absolutely no plans for what might happen if things would go wrong. You know....nothing could go wrong with this, so why worry about it. They are reaping the whirlwind, but unfortunately they've dragged many innocent people along with them. It was and is criminally stooopid.


Well, we messed up. Let's not run away because of it.

[Jarv]

You mean like you do with liberals and democrats...hello kettle.

Sadly if you would actually read people's posts from time to time I have said MANY times that the current republicans are FAR from conservatives....hence why I call many NEO-cons.

However one thing you can not deny, both Hillary's camp and right political spin machine are doing what they can to put out the image that Obama is a muslim and the enemy and in turn using that fear card that they have used so well in the past.

Outside of JT's man crush on Hillary, you and him are a lot alike.

Terrorism to me is like pulling weeds from my garden. You will never get them all and they always come back, but you don't stop weeding or you will not have a garden left, just wees (Which some might like, who knows). As for Islam and terrorism, unfortunately, most terrorist these days come from or train in Islamic countries, which is how the two are linked.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Outside of JT's man crush on Hillary, you and him are a lot alike.

Terrorism to me is like pulling weeds from my garden. You will never get them all and they always come back, but you don't stop weeding or you will not have a garden left, just wees (Which some might like, who knows). As for Islam and terrorism, unfortunately, most terrorist these days come from or train in Islamic countries, which is how the two are linked.

I don't like bush and make no bones about it, but JT are different in many areas concerning politics.

I am not for universal health care because I don't think it will work, I think it would drag down medical quality and also think it would give insurance companies more power.

I would like smaller government instead of more government.

I want a wall (physical or virtual) on the borders.

Now I do have my liberal issues and have no bones about it. I have said time and time again I fall close to the middle in politics. I just happen to bash the current admin more because I think they have done a bad job.