Liberals vs al Qaeda

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scott J, Nov 10, 2006.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pelosi said that Iraq wasn't a war to be won but a situation to be solved.

    The liberals and Dems have denied vehemently that Iraq has anything to do with the War on Terror (aka Islamofascism).

    Al Qaeda disagrees.

    http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061110/D8LAC4OG1.html

    Implicit in this report is the notion that al Qaeda viewed the Republican defeat as a victory for them.
     
  2. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    They know democrats have no stomach for a fight.

    No wonder they're happy.
     
  3. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    The war in Iraq certainly does have an impact on terrorism. It has made it much worse by serving as a training ground for al-Quaeda.
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only if you call dying training or think that their terrorist efforts prior to Iraq were ineffective.

    They didn't seem to have too much difficulty in Somalia or even NY, did they?


    Again, following the stupidity of such "logic", we should never fight an aggressor since they might learn how to fight us better... we should never pursue criminals since they might learn how to evade justice...

    Your statement is inane. You can't appease your enemies simply because they won't sit there stupid and let you beat them...

    I can almost see how a liberal would think that though. You think the "rich" will just accept tax increases without collecting them from those you are supposedly defending by raising prices, cutting wages and benefits, reducing headcount, and demanding the same from their vendors thus hurting their employees as well. The only real beneficiaries of "tax the rich" are lying politicians, bureaucrats, and accountants. Everyone else loses.
     
  5. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was what al Qaeda wanted.
     
  6. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Don't forget:
    1. Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the attack on September 11th.
    2. OBL hated Saddam, and the feeling was definitely mutual.
    3. Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion - he was up in the Kurdish region that Saddam did not control.
    4. Now that we are there, so are the terrorists - many of them from other countries.
    5. Saddam was a brutal dictator - and there is now way he would have supplied OBL with any WMD, especially since the evidence suggests that he hasn't had them since the end of the first Gulf War.
    6. The US is now stuck in a quagmire. We cannot leave now, and there is no end in sight.

    There you go again with a discussion on "liberals." Remember that it wasn't a "liberal" that raised the debt ceiling more than once.....

    Regards, hope all is well,
    BiR
     
  7. UnchartedSpirit

    UnchartedSpirit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm too lazy to care about who wastes mroe money or not it never changes anything to my life anyway...im' too low to be in the system
     
  8. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    BUSH himself said that there was no connection between the Iraq invasion an the war on terrorism.
     
  9. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    To finish your statement, because it led to the removal of Rumsfeld. Now do you really believe removing Rumfeld changes the war? Do you really believe removing Rumfeld is a victory for Al-Qaida?

    "On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House."
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    The official war was won back in 2004. The Iraqi Army is our ally now - we supply them with money, guns and training.

    If we are treating the current fighting as a war, then captured fighters from the other side should be treated as POWs don't you think? Al Qaeda has no national boundaries and a very loose command structure.

    That's not quite right - Iraq didn't used to have anything to do with the War on Terror, aka al Qaeda, but we brought it to them because we prefer to fight in their back yards.

    Do you believe everything al Qaeda says?

     
  11. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I find it more interesting to me that Daisy and I are in agreement -- have been in several issues over the last month or so. Hmm, and I getting more intelligent?
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps neither of us are totally dogmatic party-liners...
     
  13. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Al Qaeda has freely admitted that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a great victory for them, as it gave them a new base of operations, and a wonderful recruiting tool.

    So they cooperated with Bush in the campaign, by endorsing his opponents, knowing that endorsement would help Bush.

    Or are they are so stupid, that they think their endorsement of candidates would make Americans vote for them?

    Aren't they?

    (WFTH-I)
     
    #13 The Galatian, Nov 12, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 12, 2006

Share This Page

Loading...