You Might Be A Taliban If...

I'm posting this post to document right wingnut crudeness. "Uncle Remus" is both a white racist and a mercenary (sanitary technician) "working" in Afghanistan.

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:34 am Post subject: Re: You Might Be A Taliban If...
Laguria wrote: Uncle Remus wrote: 10. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer. 9. You own a $1,500 machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes. 8. You have more wives than teeth. 7. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide. 6. You can't think of anyone you HAVEN'T declared Jihad against. 5. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry ammunition in your robe. 4. You've never been asked, "Does this burka make my ass look big?" 3. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs. 2. A common compliment is, "I love what you've done with your cave." And, the NUMBER ONE SIGN you might be a member of the Taliban: 1. You wipe your ass with your bare hand, but consider bacon unclean. Reinous, you are so funny. We are all just busting a gut. Keep it up. Lag

Conservatism Is Dying

Conservatism Is Dying
By Eric Lotke
Campaign for America's Future

Thursday 13 March 2008

Modern conservatism is dying. There's still an election to be held, but conservatism as we've known it since Ronald Reagan is failing - ground down in the desert of Iraq, drowned in the floods of Hurricane Katrina, foreclosed by the housing crisis and poisoned by toys imported from China.

The American people are figuring this out. While conservatives repeat their time-worn slogans - "small government, low taxes, high security" - the American people are living the consequences.

We've seen eight years of a conservative presidency, six years overlapping with a conservative Congress, and 30 years of broadly conservative ideology. Now reality is showing how the values embodied in those slogans have been betrayed.

Conservatives say "shrink government." We get inadequate levees, exploding steam pipes and schools without textbooks. Conservatives say "deregulate," and now Thomas the Tank Engine is painted with toxic lead. Conservatives say "low taxes," but it primarily applies to millionaires, billionaires and crony corporations.

What follows is a history of these problems, and the direction people want to go instead.

Appealing Slogans, Disastrous Results

The conservative shibboleth - "small government, low taxes, high security" - has timeless appeal, founded on genuine moral and constitutional values. But the application of those values by today's conservatives is frightening.

Shrinking Government

"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
- Ronald Reagan, First inaugural address, January 1981.

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
- Grover Norquist, Executive Director, Americans for Tax Reform.

The modern conservative movement is united less by belief in small government - a traditional constitutional value - than by disdain for government. They don't just want to shrink it. They want to drown it in a bathtub. Such disdain courts exactly the kind of disasters we got.

Hurricane Katrina. A shrunken government failed in fundamental responsibilities when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Crucial levees had been left to rot and the Federal Emergency Management Agency had been "systematically downgraded and all but dismantled." Reconstruction remains a forgotten promise.

Decaying Infrastructure. While government shrinks, America falls apart. A highway bridge collapses in Minneapolis and a steam pipe bursts in Manhattan. One out of four bridges is "structurally deficient or functionally obsolete." Commuters waste hours in gridlock. School roofs leak and children share textbooks. State colleges raise tuition at three times the rate of inflation as states cut back public support. "Starve the beast," conservatives say. But what they really starve are the triumphs of previous generations and investments vital to our future.

Free Market Faith

"The best minds are not in government; if they were, business would steal them away."
- Ronald Reagan

"The average Halliburton hand knows more about the world than the average member of Congress."
- Vice President Dick Cheney

Conservatives disdain government but they revere the private sector. They think that government involvement in private enterprise is bad, and that everything done for profit will be done well. Conservatives seem to forget that the purpose of profit is profit. Business interests might well line up with the interests of government and taxpayers, but they might not. At those moments, government is supposed to be on the side of the people. That push and pull makes the system work; a one-sided system works for no one.

Enron and Friends. Deregulation of electricity led to the Enron fiasco. Without government supervision, Enron artificially limited the power supply in California and drove up prices. The impact of the ensuing inflation of Enron stock value with no real economic basis is best understood by Enron employees who lost their pensions when the company went bankrupt. But Enron was not alone. Worldcom, Adelphia and hosts of other business debacles prove that markets need grown-up supervision.

The Housing Bubble. Failed regulation of the financial sector brought us the housing bubble. It became rare for banks and other mortgage issuers to hold mortgages, so they no longer cared whether the borrower could pay the mortgage. Instead, these companies made their money from the fees they charged the borrowers and quickly sold the mortgages into the secondary market. They loans were then packaged into mortgage-backed securities, which were in turn packaged into "collaterized debt obligations" and other complex assets that were sold around the world to investors, many of whom had no idea what they were buying. This new finance structure, in which those who put up the money had no knowledge of the value of the underlying asset, pushed up home values beyond the reach of ordinary buyers. In response, homebuyers turned increasingly to risky instruments that created artificial money to buy houses at artificially high prices - until the bubble finally burst.

Consumer Safety. Deregulation of consumer products led to e-coli in our spinach, salmonella in our peanut butter and lead in our Barbie dolls. Agricultural inspectors sat on the sidelines while forklifts carried "downer cows" - who cannot walk and are presumptively unsafe for human consumption - for slaughter and sale as food.

Halliburton. The vice president's firm receives billions in no-bid contracts, despite marginal and often inadequate performance. Most recently, a unit spun off from Halliburton provided water to military bases in Iraq that sickens troops.

Lower Taxes. "Low taxes" as practiced under conservative rule is less about minimizing the tax burden on working people than about budget gimmickry that rewards friends and conceals deficits.

The biggest break for the richest people. Billionaire hedge fund manager Warren Buffett ends up paying taxes at a lower rate than his receptionist. Millionaires got an average $118,000 annual break from the Bush tax cuts, while average middle-income households got only $740.

Subsidizing record profits. Oil companies pocket billions in subsidies and tax breaks while racking up the largest profits in corporate history. Corporations get tax breaks for moving jobs abroad.

Moral Values

The moral values crusade has turned morality into a burlesque. Conservative leaders are obsessed with abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research - issues that divide and confuse. They don't care enough about the morals we learned in kindergarten. Share. Wait your turn. Treat others as you want to be treated yourself.

And conservatism entirely misses the big picture. It doesn't see the greed and materialism tearing us apart. It doesn't see poverty and economic injustice, or refugees fleeing genocide. It doesn't care for the green Earth that earlier generations protected in national parks.

Terri Schiavo.

Conservatives put her family through hell before honoring her husband's request to remove life support. Blinded by faith, conservatives cast aside honored principles of small government and states' rights.

Choice.

Conservatives seek to deny women the right to decide whether to have a child on her own. They don't seem to care about the women's own decision, the risk to her health or the child's well-being after birth. And they insist on teaching only abstinence during sex education in schools, though a mixed curriculum shows better results. Abortion-obsessed conservatives even force their morals onto foreign policy by denying U.S. government aid to organizations in countries that allow abortion in addition to contraception, family planning or other health programs.

High Security

Cowboy-booted conservatives constantly tell us how much danger we're in and how much we need them to keep us safe. From crime to drugs to terrorism, conservatives wear the security mantle. Meanwhile, they ignore real risks, dismiss success stories and stir up hornets nests all over the world.

Iraq. Conservatives chose to invade Iraq on trumped-up charges of weapons of mass destruction. Now oil prices have skyrocketed, Baghdad has become a recruiting ground for jihadists, we're bankrupting ourselves, and American standing has never been lower in the world.

Conservative Policies: Not What People Want

Behind the high-level principles lay specific policies. Here again, conservative choices diverge from policies people want. Here are some polls about some signature policies.

Health Care

Health care reform is a top priority for America's voters. A Gallup survey in November 2007 revealed 81 percent of Americans are "dissatisfied" with health care in this country, with 56 percent saying the health care system "has major problems." Health care routinely appears at the top of voter concerns, mixed in with Iraq and the economy, depending on the exact question.

When asked how to deal with health care problems, people do not respond from a conservative position. They don't talk about getting government out of the way or promoting individual responsibility. Quite the contrary, Gallup's survey showed an overwhelming belief that it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage (64 percent to 33 percent). A Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters in October 2007 showed that voters care more about covering the uninsured than keeping costs down (53 percent to 41 percent), even though most voters (94 percent) are insured. People want our government to be involved, not to shrink.

A survey by CBS News and the New York Times went one step further, asking people not only if they want the federal government to guarantee health insurance for all Americans (64 percent yes vs. 27 percent no), but whether they would be willing to pay extra for it. Even with money on the line, people wanted expanded health care. Four times as many people thought the government should "guarantee health insurance" even if "the cost of your own health insurance would go up" (48 percent vs. 11 percent). Similarly, four times as many people said it was more important to expand access to health care than maintain the Bush tax cuts (76 percent vs. 18 percent).

Energy

Americans are tired of rising fuel prices, but they want more than just cheaper gas. They are deeply dissatisfied with the status quo, and they want an entirely new energy policy. Democracy Corps' survey of voters in April 2007 found 65 percent say our energy policy is "seriously off on the wrong track," compared to just 27 percent who say it's "headed in the right direction." A survey by CBS News and the New York Times in April 2007 revealed 63 percent disapproval of George Bush's "handling of the energy situation," and only 27 percent approval.

In addition to disapproving of current policy choices, Americans are pointing where they want to go. Surveys by Gallup and CBS News indicate a higher priority on conservation than production (Gallup, 64 percent to 26 percent; CBS, 68 percent to 21 percent). The Democracy Corps survey of voters shows they want to "act immediately" on global warming (64 percent). Nearly three out of four voters (74 percent) want to "move from oil to alternative fuels for our vehicles because it will cause less pollution, stop global warming and make us more energy independent."

Most tellingly, Americans do not view alternative energy as a threat. By an overwhelming margin (79 percent to 17 percent) voters surveyed by Democracy Corps believe that "shifting to new, alternative energy production will help America's economy and create jobs, not cost Americans jobs." Even if there were costs, people are willing to pay them. The CBS News/New York Times survey showed that 64 percent of Americans are "willing to pay higher taxes on gasoline and other fuels if the money was used for research into renewable sources like solar and wind energy." Fully three out of every four (75 percent) Americans would be "willing to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources like solar or wind energy" in order to reduce global warming.

Taxes

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but the conservatives have manipulated that sentiment for political gain despite real world consequences, and people are starting to catch on. A January 2008 Wall Street Journal survey of adults shows more saying the Bush tax cuts were "not worth it" than "worth it" (45 percent to 42 percent). Democracy Corp's poll of likely voters in December 2007 reveals more frustration that taxes are "unfair" (56 percent) than that they are "too high" (39 percent). Tax cuts provide less a sense of relief than an indication of which side the government is on - and people don't like what they see. The biggest tax problems were loopholes and inequality. These troubled likely voters twice as much as high payments, even in Republican districts (51 percent vs. 24 percent).

The Bottom Line: A Dying Ideology

These surveys show that conservative policies diverge considerably from public opinion. Although it's possible to win elections under such circumstances, it does not bode well for the health of a mass political movement.

Indeed, John McCain's presidential campaign indicates the weakness of the conservative estate. Sometimes McCain brands himself as a "true conservative," but he's famous for being a maverick, an independent who bucks the conservative party line - and thus many "movement conservatives" have not rallied to his candidacy. Other candidates who proudly declared themselves conservative in recent months have not survived primaries or special elections. The March special election victory of progressive Democrat Bill Foster in the Illinois district that had been held by the fiercely conservative former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is a particularly dramatic example. That doesn't mean Democrats will win in November - personalities, trust, personal attacks and get-out-the-vote efforts certainly matter - but conservatism is far from alive and well.

FISA sham & Republic Party sleaze

TWO items below:

Countdown: FISA & Fallon - Our Petulant President By: Logan Murphy [Crooks and Liars] Thursday, March 13th, 2008 at 7:20 PM - PDT

President Bush has been doing his best to remind the American people that he’s still around, and what better way to do that than to throw a few hissy fits? As Keith Olbermann says on today’s Countdown, from the tone of Bush’s voice, it sounds like he’s just given up. The president is once again chiding House Democrats for drafting new FISA legislation that does not include amnesty for telecommunications companies who illegally spied on Americans, calling those companies - “patriotic.” Right.

Rachel Maddow joined Keith and as always, her analysis is spot on. She points out that President Bush was willing to veto the safety of the American people all in the name of protecting corporations and and himself from prosecution. They also touch on the “resignation” of Admiral Fallon and how it was obviously a shot across the bow of anyone in the Pentagon who wants to be a real patriot and save the country from launching another unprovoked war against a sovereign nation.

Maddow:”The other part of this strategy is that they’re using a biplane to fly a picture of Eric Shinseki around the Pentagon to remind everybody what happens when people don’t toe the line and do something that’s right instead of what the President wants.”

Sham Audits May Have Hid Theft by G.O.P. Committee Treasurer, Lawyer Says

March 14, 2008

By NEIL A. LEWIS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The former treasurer of a Republican Congressional fund-raising committee may have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars by submitting elaborately forged audit reports for five years using the letterhead of a legitimate auditing firm, a lawyer for the committee said Thursday.

Robert K. Kelner, a lawyer with Covington & Burling, who was brought in by the National Republican Congressional Committee to investigate accounting irregularities, said a new audit showed that the committee had $740,000 less on hand than it believed. Mr. Kelner said it was unclear whether that amount represented money siphoned off by the former treasurer, Christopher J. Ward.

Mr. Ward, who is under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had the authority to make transfers of committee money on his own, Mr. Kelner said.

He said an investigation with the help of PricewaterhouseCoopers had “found a pattern in which Mr. Ward would transfer funds by wire out of the N.R.C.C. to outside committees.” From those outside committees, Mr. Kelner said, money was then transferred to “personal and business accounts of Mr. Ward.”

~~~cont'd~~~

2 items re: torture & propaganda

The questions are: who should take the fall for torture; and are LTEs & guest columns to local newspapers by members of the military supporting the surge a form of organized, institutional propaganda? My answers are: those high up who ordered, condoned, supervised, or ignored torture are to be held legally accountable; and LTEs and guest columns to local newspapers supporting the current mission and strategy are definitely coercive and/or clearly propaganda.

Who Should Take the Heat for Torture? By Spencer Ackerman [The Washington Independent]03/13/2008

Area soldier in Iraq: Surge working

Steve Timko (STIMKO@RGJ.COM)
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
March 14, 2008

U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Jeff McArthur, a 2002 Hug High School graduate, wants Nevadans to know the surge by the U.S. military has reduced violence in the area of Iraq in which he is serving.

"Since I've been deployed in Iraq, I've seen a good decrease in activity of attacks on coalition forces," McArthur said.

In an interview by satellite telephone coordinated by the military, McArthur said more Iraqis are walking in the open, and more are greeting U.S. troops.

McArthur is with a unit doing police work guarding prisoners at Forward Operating Base Hammer, about 20 miles east of Baghdad. It's predominantly Sunni, the branch of Islam of executed dictator Saddam Hussein but a minority in Iraq.

He said he has seen more children go to school since the surge and seen more marketplaces open with people selling goods and food.

This is his second deployment to Iraq. The first was from January 2005 to January 2006, and the change has been dramatic, especially since the surge announced by President Bush in January 2007 that sent 21,500 extra troops to fight insurgents and establish a U.S. presence.

One of the unit's jobs has been to restore the flow of water to farming areas. Pumps that were supposed to deliver water were not working. Getting the pumps to work and water to flow have helped reduce insurgent attacks, McArthur said.

"Once we started the water flow operation, they had less time on their hands to do that stuff. They had to farm their crops," the sergeant said.

One of the goals is to get life back to normal in Iraq, McArthur said.

"Keep them on their toes as far as not starting to rise back up and start with the IEDs (improvised explosive devices), the bombs and all of that stuff," McArthur said.

He said his fellow soldiers don't have a problem with prisoners, who "for the most part are adults. Some children, but not very often," he said. "Once in apprehension, they don't resist at all."

Fed up with ACursed Forum wingnuts

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies:

It is not I you effing idiot who keeps sending American service men and women into harms way IN A LOST CAUSE. I and others lobbied for this war never to have started five years ago on March 19. Bush claimed yesterday "Going to war in Iraq was the right decision 5 years ago, it is the right decision today, it will ALWAYS be the right decision." That is pure American hubris!

Bush and the warhawks wanted to claim victory on May 1, 2003. Didn't happen! You dolts insisted the surge is working. It isn't! You even posted ridiculous claims that "we have already won and there is nothing you can do about it." Just ridiculous. THE SURGE IS NOT WORKING. 12 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq in the last three days. Yes, you struck a nerve you effing hypocrit! Why don't you go eff yourself!

-------------------------
Regardless of what The AC chooses to do or not do about Perro de Luna's "outrage" United States will NOT win military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. The AC Editorial Staff (ACES) has been bull headed for 5 long years. They are incorrigible. It is Republican War Party partisans and right-wing rags like The Chronicle that gullible Americans down the primrose path to hell. The blood of Americans as well as the blood of innocent Iraqis and Afghani are on YOUR HANDS!

--------------------------------




There is NO MILITARY VICTORY TO BE HAD IN IRAQ you arrogant ahole!

-----------------------------------

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

No doubt, Saddam took great comfort from my online antiwar efforts while he was hiding in a spider hole in Iraq. Right!

Maybe the fact that the U.S. war in Iraq is ILLEGAL and a foreign military power (United States) occupies Iraq also EMBOLDENS Iraqi insurgents who refer to themselves as resistance fighters. Of course the occupying power, Uncle Sam, calls these Iraqi patriots "terrorists". Go figure.

This much is certain. Bush's decision to invade Iraq has ignited the flames of fed up Islam worldwide. United States is in the early stages of getting itself economically, political, and militarily defeated in Iraq and in Afghanistan - much to the delight of that indignant and outraged population.

Allah Akbar!

Are Iraqi Insurgents Emboldened by Antiwar Reporting?

Quote:

By Alex Kingsbury U.S. News and World Report 2:45 pm EDT Wed 12 Mar 2008 Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq? The short answer, according to a pair of Harvard economists, is yes. In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the authors are quick to point out numerous caveats to their findings, based on data from mid-2003 through late 2007. Yet, their results show that insurgent groups are not devoid of reason and unresponsive to outside pressures and stimuli. "It shows that the various insurgent groups do respond to incentives and shows that a successful counter insurgency strategy should take that reality into account," says one of the paper's coauthors, Jonathan Monten, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The paper "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq" concludes the following: ~~~cont'd~~~

_________________
Augusta Alternative
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:04 pm

No doubt, Saddam took great comfort from my online antiwar efforts while he was hiding in a spider hole in Iraq. Right!

Maybe the fact that the U.S. war in Iraq is ILLEGAL and a foreign military power (United States) occupies Iraq also EMBOLDENS Iraqi insurgents who refer to themselves as resistance fighters. Of course the occupying power, Uncle Sam, calls these Iraqi patriots "terrorists". Go figure.

This much is certain. Bush's decision to invade Iraq has ignited the flames of fed up Islam worldwide. United States is in the early stages of getting itself economically, political, and militarily defeated in Iraq and in Afghanistan - much to the delight of that indignant and outraged population.

Allah Akbar!

Are Iraqi Insurgents Emboldened by Antiwar Reporting?

Quote:

By Alex Kingsbury U.S. News and World Report 2:45 pm EDT Wed 12 Mar 2008 Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq? The short answer, according to a pair of Harvard economists, is yes. In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the authors are quick to point out numerous caveats to their findings, based on data from mid-2003 through late 2007. Yet, their results show that insurgent groups are not devoid of reason and unresponsive to outside pressures and stimuli. "It shows that the various insurgent groups do respond to incentives and shows that a successful counter insurgency strategy should take that reality into account," says one of the paper's coauthors, Jonathan Monten, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The paper "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq" concludes the following: ~~~cont'd~~~

_________________
Augusta Alternative
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:04 pm
JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies

Allah Akbar is a common expression throughout the Muslim world. Terrorists can no more claim it as their own as can the KKK claim the cross as their own. Get in touch with reality, Moon Puppy. My point is that millions if not billions of Muslims and other people in the world relish the United States finally getting sand kicked in its face. Get used to it. When we change our ways we might begin to regain respect. If McCain is more hawkish than Bush that will only expedite the defeat of United States I wrote about above. Word of God!
_________________
Augusta Alternative

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies

Allah Akbar is a common expression throughout the Muslim world. Terrorists can no more claim it as their own as can the KKK claim the cross as their own. Get in touch with reality, Moon Puppy. My point is that millions if not billions of Muslims and other people in the world relish the United States finally getting sand kicked in its face. Get used to it. When we change our ways we might begin to regain respect. If McCain is more hawkish than Bush that will only expedite the defeat of United States I wrote about above. Word of God!

--------------------------------------
Here's what you good old American boys are forgetting. Bush has gone and jumped on the back of a tiger and he can't get off. I wrote a Letter to the Editor of The News and Farmer in Louisville, Georgia which was published on Feb 27, 2003. Here is an excerpt:

Quote:

...Nor do I think that defeating Iraq will automatically make the world safer against terrorism. Remember one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. George Bush will be seen as a winner if Saddam resigns. Both Bush and the UN will be seen as winners if Iraq disarms without military invasion. George Bush would be seen as a winner if he defeats Saddam and democratizes Iraq rapidly, but this seems unlikely. However, as soon as President Bush orders U.S. strikes on Iraq without clear provocation or international license, then he is labeled the aggressor, especially in the Arab world of 1 billion people. Even if Saddam then used chemical or biological weapons or destroys Iraq's oil wells, many will blame Bush for starting the war and the real trouble could begin. ...

Bush ignited wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He hasn't captured those responsible for 9/11. Therefore Afghans and Pakistanis and Iraqis and Saudis and Libyans and Yemenis and Algerians and other Muslims who take their religion VERY seriously see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as war on Islam. By God they will teach the invader a lesson. Nothing United States military can do will prevent an eventual economic, political, and military defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Pakistan if necessary. There is no amount of non-nuclear or even nuclear weapons that will "bomb these people back to the stone age" or "make glass parking lots out of the Middle East and south Asia."

Bush and Cheney may well charge into Iran, but that won't stem the international uprising or even prevent more Muslim nations besides Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons. It might even result in a faster proliferation of nuclear weapons.

United States did not THINK before we went to war. We went to war in a spirit of revenge and capitalism (war profiteering). Today, five years into this clash of civilizations, Sec of State Rice said United States "made mistakes in reconstruction". I'll say! They also made mistakes in choosing to go to war under false pretexts and with ill defined goals and mixed motives at best. United States is in the process of getting taught another hard lesson like the Vietnamese taught us in the 1960s and 1970s. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.
_________________
Augusta Alternative

-------------------------------------

JohnRandolphHaridsonCain replies:

You really aren't really very bright are you, Perro de Luna? Because I posted the story does not mean I believe the story. Look a the fun I poked at this ridiculous piece of propaganda in the first post. I also gave reasons why insurgents ARE emboldened.

The neocon's blueprint for the Iraq war is called "Project for a New American Century". The idea was to seize the "unipolar moment" after the collapse of the Soviet Union while United States is the world's sole uncontested superpower to spread the U.S. economic and political system and make it dominant throughout the world through the use of military force.

And if you want to make light of neocons go ahead. Neocon Fred Kaplan is one of the authors of the surge. His academic "home" is the American Enterprise Institute. Kaplan was in the news today saying how he doesn't believe that ethnic cleansing has taken place in Iraq in the Sunni vs Shiite civil war. Right!

If Bush had been successful in subduing Iraq he would have taken the fight to Iran and Syria. Iraq was to be the first domino and a base of operations for projecting U.S. military power throughout the region. Bush even bragged about reshaping the Middle East.

Quess what? It didn't happen. The neocons include Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz (many if not most neocons are Jewish) didn't even think there were any Muslim holy sites in Iraq like this is Saudi Arabia. Duh! The Bush-Cheney administration and the neocns didn't study history very well if they didn't know Afghanistan has NEVER been subdued by a foreign invader in 2,500 years. Baghdad has been sacked at least 17 times throughout its long history but Iraq (or Mesopotamia) has NEVER been been successfully administered by a foreign power. NOTHING DIFFERENT THIS TIME EITHER.

Now go repeat your "America is still the greatest country in the world with the mightiest military in human history" mantra, little Moon Puppy dog. That and a quarter will get you a dog biscuit.
_________________
Augusta Alternative

-------------------------------------

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies:

It is not I you effing idiot who keeps sending American service men and women into harms way IN A LOST CAUSE. I and others lobbied for this war never to have started five years ago on March 19. Bush claimed yesterday "Going to war in Iraq was the right decision 5 years ago, it is the right decision today, it will ALWAYS be the right decision." That is pure American hubris!

Bush and the warhawks wanted to claim victory on May 1, 2003. Didn't happen! You dolts insisted the surge is working. It isn't! You even posted ridiculous claims that "we have already won and there is nothing you can do about it." Just ridiculous. THE SURGE IS NOT WORKING. 12 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq in the last three days. Yes, you struck a nerve you effing hypocrit! Why don't you go eff yourself!

There is NO MILITARY VICTORY TO BE HAD IN IRAQ you arrogant ahole!
_________________
Augusta Alternative

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain at 6:48 PM

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Negotiate with Terrorists!

Topic: Negotiate with terrorists!

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 07:39 AM Even John Kerry says the U.S. government shouldn't do it. He is wrong, IMHO. We can indeed negotiate with terrorists. The United States government should negotiate openly with terrorists for the release of Jill Carroll. It would be hypocritical to release female detainees in Iraq and then claim it was unrelated to demands made by the kidnappers of the U.S. journalist. I also think the United States government can and should negotiate with Osama (or Usama if you prefer) bin Laden. Please notice that I didn't say we should cave into all their demands or that we should appease them, but we should listen to their demands and try to understand their grievances. I thought that Scott McClellan's slamming the door on bin Laden's message yesterday sends the wrong message. "We didn't start this war. We will end this war at the time and place of our choosing" is arrogance personified IMO. quote: Kerry: No negotiations with captors Kerry, on a visit to Baghdad, said he's discussed the kidnapping in every meeting with high-level government officials but added he doesn't support any U.S. attempt to negotiate with her captors. "You just can't do it," said the Democrat from Massachusetts. "You can't negotiate with terrorists ... because once there's a beginning, there's no end at all, so we have to take the hardest line possible." Kerry said other pathways are being explored. "Every single effort possible that can be made is being made to try to locate her, to try to find out what's going on, to deal with this issue," he said. "This young reporter, by all reputation over here in Baghdad, is somebody who has the interests of the Iraqi people at heart, and if they're concerned about women being released from prison, the worst thing in the world to do is take a young reporter and put her in this kind of a situation," Kerry said. "It's hard to be here and know that this is going on. Obviously, we hope the outcome will be a small moment of grace in the midst of a lot of violence and a lot of turmoil." Journalist's father: 'Do not sacrifice an innocent soul' -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Wabisabi El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 965 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 08:22 AM Interesting that even a douchebag like Kerry understands this and yet you do not. -------------------- When I was a boy, I laid in my twin-size bed, wondering where my brother was. --M. Hedberg Posts: 10019 | From: The South, Dammit! | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

BoyScout Super Guru 3 Member # 2748 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 08:26 AM It would seem to me that the US has had a long history of negotiating with terrorists, such as people in this country that take others hostage. We all see the police negotiate with them, at least to certain degrees. David Koresh,--at least for several weeks and many more. Many say Israel terrorizes Palestinians and or vice versa. Yes, it is bad policy to negotiate with terrorists, but what if children here in the states were being held and all the children were those of the very rich or those in congress? What if it was each one of our children? -------------------- EDEE Posts: 3326 | From: Florida | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 09:09 AM Vice says "Kill 'em all!" The Bush administration rebuffs Osama bin Laden's offer of a truce. I wonder who is more hardline, Dick Cheney or Osama bin Laden. No wonder Harry Belafonte (rightfully) referred to President Bush as the world's greatest terrorist! So, I guess we can expect more killing, more revenge taking, more terrorism, more war on terrorism, more defense spending, more government monitoring, more counter-terrorism, and more holy war. At least the Vice didn't pronounce that Al Qaeda is in "its last throes." quote: Rejecting a suggestion by Osama bin Laden of a negotiated truce in the war on terror, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was only one way to deal with terrorists. "I think you have to destroy them," Cheney said. U.S. Rejects Any 'Truce' With Bin Laden -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Wabisabi El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 965 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 09:15 AM If you knew anything about the subject you would know that their religion dictates that they must offer a truce before an attack. This doesn't negate them attacking at a later date though. It was common practice during the crusades for them to offer a truce in one battle only to attack in a different quarter. Osama's message was not to us per se but rather to the muslim community and apologists like you. -------------------- When I was a boy, I laid in my twin-size bed, wondering where my brother was. --M. Hedberg Posts: 10019 | From: The South, Dammit! | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

jack El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1077 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 11:09 AM Only a fool like Spamergy would think that terrorists driven by the hatred of "infidels" is possible. Those who kidnap or hold someone hostage in this country is totally different that trying to deal with terrorists as at leasat they have grown up in a society that says killing innocent people is wrong. OBL and his ilk have shown that they have NO moral compass when it comes to killing innocent people. -------------------- Conservatism=Anathema to Left Wing Liberal DIMocRATS Posts: 16125 | From: Augusta GA | Registered: Aug 2003 | IP: Logged

Wabisabi El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 965 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 11:12 AM Never mind. You pointed out the obvious difference between one disgruntled postal worker taking some hostages and a terrorist organization. [ January 20, 2006, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Wabisabi ] -------------------- When I was a boy, I laid in my twin-size bed, wondering where my brother was. --M. Hedberg Posts: 10019 | From: The South, Dammit! | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

MAKO803 Ascended Super Guru Member # 181 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 02:42 PM quote: Originally posted by Synergy: Vice says "Kill 'em all!" The Bush administration rebuffs Osama bin Laden's offer of a truce. I wonder who is more hardline, Dick Cheney or Osama bin Laden. No wonder Harry Belafonte (rightfully) referred to President Bush as the world's greatest terrorist! So, I guess we can expect more killing, more revenge taking, more terrorism, more war on terrorism, more defense spending, more government monitoring, more counter-terrorism, and more holy war. At least the Vice didn't pronounce that Al Qaeda is in "its last throes." quote: Rejecting a suggestion by Osama bin Laden of a negotiated truce in the war on terror, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was only one way to deal with terrorists. "I think you have to destroy them," Cheney said. U.S. Rejects Any 'Truce' With Bin Laden You are a complete and utter dolt. If you can not distinguish between Cheney and Osama Bin Laden you are a puerile child who is completely ignorant in the workings of the world. You need to have the electronic equivalent of �training wheels� attached to every opinion you post. A flashing neon sign that alerts other readers to how juvenile and simplistic your mind is, so that we don�t inadvertently roll over your post and read it as we scroll by. I strongly suggest you sell your home, take the money and travel abroad for several long years. Mingle with the enlightened people of these strange foreign lands who you persist in lionizing and championing. Go sit and have tea with them. Explain to them how we mean them no harm and that we only want peace and coexistence. And in the end, when they are sawing off your head and yelling "Allah Akbar" I want you to remember one thing. You will have died as big an idiot as you lived. Your problem is that you have ZERO frame of reference to even hold an intelligent conversation on this issue. You think you understand these people but you do not. I will bet you a week�s wages, you have never even talked to an Islamic Fundamentalist before. And I am NOT talking about a passing conversation you had one day at the Food Lion with and American Muslim. I know for a fact, you have never sat and discussed politics, religion or world affairs with any third world Muslim. Let alone tried to live under their rule, or in their country. Because if you had, you would NOT be spewing the vomitous garbage you flood these boards with. You are completely insolated from the brutal reality of the real world, and yet you feel qualified to post this crapolla. Under normal circumstances you would be comical. Hell, 1,500 years ago you would have served admirably as the village idiot. But today, as our nation wages a war across the globe against terrorist, you sit here at home on your comfortable fat arse, protected from violence (by men and women who go into harms way so that you can make political sport of their deaths), and you harangue away with your daily non-stop barrage of venom and hate. You are nothing more than a bitter malcontent, who strikes out blindly across the internet in order to make yourself feel bigger than you are. You are mad at the world for your miserable level of existence and hide from the reality of your patheticlife through electronic gibberish you post. And when your done you feel satisfied (like all good little liberals) that you have somehow made a difference because��.. you �feel better�. You have done nothing to solve the problem. Lent not one iota of strength to fixing the issue. But you �feel� better. So you justify your existence and think you have made a difference. You are ignorant beyond all measure on the subject, yet feel compelled to flood the boards with your ranting. And each new post only serves to show how completely ignorant you are of these people, their motives, their religion or their thinking. YOU ARE STILL PATHETIC. Posts: 1133 | From: Home Again!. | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Gheco Guru Member # 2655 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:02 PM quote: Originally posted by MAKO803: quote: Originally posted by Synergy: [qb]Vice says "Kill 'em all!" The Bush administration rebuffs Osama bin Laden's offer of a truce. I wonder who is more hardline, Dick Cheney or Osama bin Laden. No wonder Harry Belafonte (rightfully) referred to President Bush as the world's greatest terrorist! So, I guess we can expect more killing, more revenge taking, more terrorism, more war on terrorism, more defense spending, more government monitoring, more counter-terrorism, and more holy war. At least the Vice didn't pronounce that Al Qaeda is in "its last throes." quote: Rejecting a suggestion by Osama bin Laden of a negotiated truce in the war on terror, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was only one way to deal with terrorists. "I think you have to destroy them," Cheney said. U.S. Rejects Any 'Truce' With Bin Laden You are a complete and utter dolt. If you can not distinguish between Cheney and Osama Bin Laden you are a .... DAmnnnnn...Somebody just got knocked the f*** out! Posts: 373 | From: Augusta Georgia | Registered: Oct 2005 | IP: Logged

jshiver15 Super Guru 3 Member # 1590 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:04 PM With all that said, I have still yet to see him puff out his chest and insult another poster like y'all are doing to him. Yes, he may be an apologist and he may "spam" the boards or post stuff that y'all don't like reading, but there is absolutely no point, and absolutely no maturity displayed when y'all constantly insult and make things as personal as you do. Its an online forum. It is meant to voice your opinion. Not meant to shoot down everyone elses. -------------------- Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop to look once in awhile, you could miss it - Ferris Beuler It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.- Tyler Durden Posts: 2648 | From: Honolulu, Hawaii | Registered: Feb 2004 | IP: Logged

Gheco Guru Member # 2655 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:10 PM quote: Originally posted by jshiver15: Its an online forum. It is meant to voice your opinion. Not meant to shoot down everyone elses. Actually, that's what they WERE doing, voicing their opinions. Posts: 373 | From: Augusta Georgia | Registered: Oct 2005 | IP: Logged

Wabisabi El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 965 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:10 PM Bite me. -------------------- When I was a boy, I laid in my twin-size bed, wondering where my brother was. --M. Hedberg Posts: 10019 | From: The South, Dammit! | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

jshiver15 Super Guru 3 Member # 1590 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:16 PM quote: Originally posted by Gheco: quote: Originally posted by jshiver15: Its an online forum. It is meant to voice your opinion. Not meant to shoot down everyone elses. Actually, that's what they WERE doing, voicing their opinions. Voicing their opinions and attacking someone with differing opinions are two totally different things. Sure, I don't agree with half of what Synergy says, but unless he does actual provoking then what is the point of making myself look like a complete a$$? -------------------- Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop to look once in awhile, you could miss it - Ferris Beuler It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.- Tyler Durden Posts: 2648 | From: Honolulu, Hawaii | Registered: Feb 2004 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:16 PM Bin Laden offers truce quote: The Courier-Mail (Australia) Bin Laden offers truce Deborah Zabarenko in Washington 21jan06 THE US yesterday dismissed a conditional truce offered in a tape attributed to Osama bin Laden and said it "does not negotiate with terrorists". Vice-President Dick Cheney said the offer from the Al-Qaeda leader appeared to be a ploy, but that it was too early to draw conclusions. The audiotape, aired by Arab television station Al Jazeera, also warned that Al-Qaeda was preparing new attacks inside the US. "Clearly the Al-Qaeda leaders and other terrorists are on the run, they're under a lot of pressure. We do not negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "The terrorists started this war and the President (George W. Bush) made it clear that we will end it at a time and place of our choosing. We continue to pursue all those who seek to do harm to the American people." A CIA official said US intelligence analysts believed the voice on the tape � the first from bin Laden since 2004 � belonged to the Al-Qaeda leader. In it, bin Laden warned of new attacks inside the US. But he said Al-Qaeda was willing to "respond" to US public opinion in favour of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The voice did not specify conditions for the truce, but indicated that it was linked to US troops quitting Iraq. Asked about the truce offer, Mr Cheney told Fox News in an interview: "I'm not sure what he's offering by way of a truce. I don't think anybody would believe him . . . it sounds to me like it's some kind of a ploy, but again not having seen the entire text or validated the tape and the timing of it, I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions. "This is not an organisation that's ever going to sit down and sign a truce. I think you have to destroy them." US Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich said the agency had no plans to raise the US security alert level. ABC News reported that Homeland Security officials were sending a bulletin to 18,000 police agencies telling them to review all of their intelligence. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said analysts typically checked such tapes for any threat indicators and clues that might help in the hunt for members of Al-Qaeda. Mr Cheney told Fox that in addition to authenticity, the key question was when the tape had been made. Al Jazeera said the tape dated from this month. US officials did not know whether there was any link between the tape and an airstrike in Pakistan last week aimed at Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri. Pakistani officials said Zawahiri did not appear to be hit in the strike. Reuters -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Gheco Guru Member # 2655 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:23 PM However you wish to word it... THEY ARE STILL VOICING THEIR OPINIONS! [ January 20, 2006, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Gheco ] Posts: 373 | From: Augusta Georgia | Registered: Oct 2005 | IP: Logged

MAKO803 Ascended Super Guru Member # 181 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:34 PM quote: Originally posted by jshiver15: With all that said, I have still yet to see him puff out his chest and insult another poster like y'all are doing to him. Yes, he may be an apologist and he may "spam" the boards or post stuff that y'all don't like reading, but there is absolutely no point, and absolutely no maturity displayed when y'all constantly insult and make things as personal as you do. Its an online forum. It is meant to voice your opinion. Not meant to shoot down everyone elses. Point noted. But your right to have an opinion does not negate responsible posting, nor your liability for posting nauseating bile disguised as a personal opinion. Nor does it entitle you to post out right lies, half-truths and political propaganda and expect that someone will not call you on it. Now consider that some of the veterans that have died in Iraq were my personal friends, and that other personal friends of mine are still there under the gun while he undermines their efforts here at home. I take umbrage to his cheap, smarmy use of their deaths for political brownie points. So if you construe my opinion of Synergy as an attack, well sorry. It is my opinion of his character and moral merit based on having read his umpteen thousand diatribes. -------------------- "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill Posts: 1133 | From: Home Again!. | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

MAKO803 Ascended Super Guru Member # 181 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 03:40 PM quote: Originally posted by Synergy: Bin Laden offers truce quote: The Courier-Mail (Australia) Bin Laden offers truce Deborah Zabarenko in Washington 21jan06 THE US yesterday dismissed a conditional truce offered in a tape attributed to Osama bin Laden and said it "does not negotiate with terrorists". Vice-President Dick Cheney said the offer from the Al-Qaeda leader appeared to be a ploy, but that it was too early to draw conclusions. The audiotape, aired by Arab television station Al Jazeera, also warned that Al-Qaeda was preparing new attacks inside the US. "Clearly the Al-Qaeda leaders and other terrorists are on the run, they're under a lot of pressure. We do not negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "The terrorists started this war and the President (George W. Bush) made it clear that we will end it at a time and place of our choosing. We continue to pursue all those who seek to do harm to the American people." A CIA official said US intelligence analysts believed the voice on the tape � the first from bin Laden since 2004 � belonged to the Al-Qaeda leader. In it, bin Laden warned of new attacks inside the US. But he said Al-Qaeda was willing to "respond" to US public opinion in favour of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The voice did not specify conditions for the truce, but indicated that it was linked to US troops quitting Iraq. Asked about the truce offer, Mr Cheney told Fox News in an interview: "I'm not sure what he's offering by way of a truce. I don't think anybody would believe him . . . it sounds to me like it's some kind of a ploy, but again not having seen the entire text or validated the tape and the timing of it, I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions. "This is not an organisation that's ever going to sit down and sign a truce. I think you have to destroy them." US Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich said the agency had no plans to raise the US security alert level. ABC News reported that Homeland Security officials were sending a bulletin to 18,000 police agencies telling them to review all of their intelligence. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said analysts typically checked such tapes for any threat indicators and clues that might help in the hunt for members of Al-Qaeda. Mr Cheney told Fox that in addition to authenticity, the key question was when the tape had been made. Al Jazeera said the tape dated from this month. US officials did not know whether there was any link between the tape and an airstrike in Pakistan last week aimed at Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri. Pakistani officials said Zawahiri did not appear to be hit in the strike. Reuters I reiterate, "Your problem is that you have ZERO frame of reference to even hold an intelligent conversation on this issue. You think you understand these people but you do not. I will bet you a week�s wages, you have never even talked to an Islamic Fundamentalist before. And I am NOT talking about a passing conversation you had one day at the Food Lion with and American Muslim. I know for a fact, you have never sat and discussed politics, religion or world affairs with any third world Muslim. Let alone tried to live under their rule, or in their country. Because if you had, you would NOT be spewing the vomitous garbage you flood these boards with.� And yes. You are still pathetic. -------------------- "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill Posts: 1133 | From: Home Again!. | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 04:10 PM It's not me that needs to sit down and talk with Muslim extremists, it is the so-called leadership of this country that needs to open a dialog. We talked to the North Vietnamese. We talk to North Korea. We can talk to Al Qaeda. 'End wars with a truce' quote: The Australian 'End wars with a truce' An abridged version of bin Laden's speech January 21, 2006 MY message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite. But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land. I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favour, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing, not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. You can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (US Army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them. The news of our brother mujaheddin (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. What deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad. On another issue, jihad continues, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the US Army and its agents - (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands. As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons. Despite all their barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujaheddin, thank God, are increasing in number and strength - so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realise that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true. And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier, with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say: that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujaheddin, with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through, with God's permission. Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement - the one that slipped from him - which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) fight Muslims on their lands than they fight us on ours. We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and warmongers in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars - which explains the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war. If you are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush carries on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State (by William Blum), which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all." Finally, I say that war will go either in our favour or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in that direction. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on September 11, God permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honour and dignity and spilled our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment. You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is in the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing. In that there is a lesson for you. -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Wabisabi El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 965 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 04:32 PM Tell Osama that we will only talk to him face to face then when he shows up we arrest him, try him and kill him for the deaths of 3000 innocent civilians. -------------------- When I was a boy, I laid in my twin-size bed, wondering where my brother was. --M. Hedberg Posts: 10019 | From: The South, Dammit! | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 04:52 PM US wrong to sniff blood in bin Laden tape: analysts quote: US wrong to sniff blood in bin Laden tape: analysts Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:33 PM ET By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House officials listening to Osama bin Laden's latest tape heard a weakened man on the run, but other U.S. officials and analysts heard a dangerous leader rallying his troops, mocking the United States and possibly setting up another attack. The audiotape -- the first one from the al Qaeda leader since December 2004 -- said the militant network was preparing attacks in the United States but was open to a truce with Americans, linked to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. As soon as the tape aired on Thursday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said it proved al Qaeda leaders were fugitives under the gun and Vice President Dick Cheney said bin Laden appeared to be in deep hiding with difficulties getting messages out. But some counterterrorism officials and analysts say this assessment from the White House is off the mark and fails to examine the benefits a savvy operator like bin Laden may derive from showing he is alive and focused on a U.S. attack. A U.S. counterterrorism official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said al Qaeda was propaganda savvy and knew how to manipulate the airwaves, in contrast to the United States, which has had trouble getting its message across. "In the cacophony of the media and the Internet, the al Qaeda voice is clear and identifiable," the official said. "They have us on that and this is another example of it." Gen. Russ Howard, a recently retired army terrorism expert who headed the counterterrorism program at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, said bin Laden was showing the world he was still in action. "It's a message to rally his own forces and people loyal to him," he said. "He gets a 'two-fer': he's rallying his own people and psychologically he's raising the threat here." ANALYZING THE MESSAGE Several officials, including Cheney, said bin Laden's choice of an audio over a videotape was a sign of his crippled logistical capabilities. Some officials have suggested he wanted to avoid being seen in a video because he was ill. Some analysts and other officials were wary of these suggestions and cautioned against wishful thinking. "You can read it either way: if you're an optimist, Osama's deep down in a cave," Howard said. "If you're a pessimist, he's in downtown Islamabad two doors down from the president." Michael Scheuer, a former top CIA official who once led the spy agency's hunt for bin Laden, said the Bush administration failed to understand al Qaeda and would shrug off the tape at its peril. "You ought to take the measure of your enemy and we're not doing that," he said, adding the truce call would resonate positively in the Muslim world. "U.S. officials continue to describe these people (al Qaeda) as a small bunch of gangsters and crazy people. They have no apparent conception that so much of the Islamic world is angry with America, not because of our freedoms or liberties but because of our foreign policies," he said. Several former U.S. counterterrorism officials, including Scheuer, noted how bin Laden manipulated to his advantage the Bush administration's own rhetoric about fighting the war on terror abroad so America would not have to fight it at home. The al Qaeda leader said he was offering his conditional truce because polls indicated "Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land." "Bin Laden ridiculed the president's arguments that we're fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here," Scheuer said. "I think he raises that as a foreshadowing of what's coming." -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 06:27 PM This is exactly the kind of conclusion the previous post above warns about. US lawmaker says no sign Qaeda ready to strike US quote: US lawmaker says no sign Qaeda ready to strike US Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:04 PM ET By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - There is no evidence to back Osama bin Laden's claim that al Qaeda is gearing up to attack the United States, but there are signs the group is active in the country, a leading Republican lawmaker said on Friday. A new tape by the militant leader, aired on Thursday, said U.S. "operations are under preparation and you will see them in your houses as soon as they are completed." Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who chairs the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, said there was no reason to believe the threats were anything other than bluster to rally support among his followers. As committee chairman, King has special access to classified information on homeland security. "We are taking it seriously," King told Reuters in an interview, but he added, "There is nothing that I've seen that would indicate that the threat to the United States is any greater or worse than it was a week ago, or a month ago. Still, the congressman said attacks were possible and it was important for the United States to stay on its guard. "I believe there is evidence of al Qaeda activity in this country," King said. "We are still such an open society they can always pull off a cheap attack. An easy one somewhere." He would not give any specifics on the kind of al Qaeda activity he was referring to, but said it was more than someone's willingness to provide a safe house, for example. King said bin Laden had sought to energize his followers with the audiotape, but questioned whether he had been successful. He said the al Qaeda leader had sounded "almost desperate" explaining the absence of U.S. attacks since September 11, and that his voice had been weaker than usual. On the tape, bin Laden said there had been no recent strikes inside the United States because preparations were still under way. "Rather than a real show of strength, they (his followers) could have looked upon it as a show of some desperation. But it's always a judgment call. You're never going to hear me say we've defeated al Qaeda or he's on his last legs or something like that, at least not for a while," King said. "I think we have him off balance and he's trying to get back in the game and he's not fully succeeding. This ebbs and flows. Right now I think it's going our way," he said. -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Moon Puppy Super Guru 3 Member # 2389 posted January 20, 2006 07:51 PM quote: MY message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Is this not a contradiction? So many times we have been told that the war in Iraq is not about terror, well guess what, the head terrorist just blew that crap out the window. -------------------- Peace is a product of War. read Michael Yon for real news of Iraq _ _ _______________________________ _ _ We need a 3rd party of Reagan Conservatives, REAGANCONS! Posts: 2558 | From: Greenwood | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged

Moon Puppy Super Guru 3 Member # 2389 posted January 20, 2006 07:56 PM quote: Originally posted by Synergy: This is exactly the kind of conclusion the previous post above warns about. Why would someone in congress come out and say, "Yes we will be attacked again in the near future because binladn said so." Have you ever heard of disinformation? You know it is quite possible that we know who is about to do what and are waiting for them to come out of hiding to make a move. OR it could be quite possible that we already have the suspects in custody. Maybe even from overhearing their overseas conversations... But if I'm being to optimistic, Would anyone like to bet how quickly after the next terror attack on US soil dose syn and his ilk blame President Bush for not doing enough to protect the US? [ January 20, 2006, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Moon Puppy ] -------------------- Peace is a product of War. read Michael Yon for real news of Iraq _ _ _______________________________ _ _ We need a 3rd party of Reagan Conservatives, REAGANCONS! Posts: 2558 | From: Greenwood | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged

JohnBoy53 Super Guru 4 Member # 128 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 09:02 PM quote: Originally posted by Synergy: So, I guess we can expect more killing, more revenge taking, more terrorism, more war on terrorism, more defense spending, more government monitoring, more counter-terrorism, and more holy war. Let's not forget more hardline bullcrap from you. -------------------- Women should be obscene and not heard--Groucho Marx Aspire to inspire before you expire. Posts: 7008 | From: Evans, GA. | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

BoyScout Super Guru 3 Member # 2748 Member Rated: posted January 20, 2006 09:13 PM I have never met any terrorists from the regions discussed here, but I can tell you much about them. I just wonder why others on this board don't understand them. I have to wonder if any Middle Eastern scholors can tell us about them, because it seems this government sure didn't have any advisors or they had their minds made up and didn't want to hear from any. If one but looks at Palestine and Israel, Afghanistan vs Russia and many more, it should be very easy to understand these people. -------------------- EDEE Posts: 3326 | From: Florida | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged

Topic: Negotiate with terrorists!

Sam Redclay Super Guru 4 Member # 133 posted January 20, 2006 10:04 PM In point of fact, Boy Scout, much effort has been expended at the lower levels of the government in understanding terrorists. Public reports are available from the Library of Congress and the Army War College. Whether this penetrates or influences the agenda of the NeoCons is another matter. _____________________________ There are three low forms of being who can be relied on to post invective with no thought, research or analysis. They have again made themselves evident on this thread. There are many here who read and are stimulated to thought by the items that Synergy researches. Posts: 9777 | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

Moon Puppy Super Guru 3 Member # 2389 posted January 20, 2006 11:27 PM Looking back at binladin's comments some things jump out at me. First. quote: the war against America These are his words. He didn't say this is a defence of something or other, he said, "the war against America". The sooner some of you understand this the better off we all will be. This is not some spokesperson of the poor 3rd world nations, this is a religious fanatic who wants to be the next ruler of all of islam. They have a name for it but I'm to tired to look it up(seem to remember that there has never been a supreme leader of islam, they are waiting for him or something). quote: quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz How long has the Wolf been out of the DOD? The rest of this stuff sounds like it came off dailykooks. Torture, rape pillage. You want the truth, someone tell me the demise of that young journalist? Who is targeting women and children? Who targets the civilians? My bet, this tape has been collecting dust for sometime and when we took out those thugs in Pak someone thought it would be a good time to rattle the cage. How many alqadea type are they saying are dead in that attack now? 4-5? -------------------- Peace is a product of War. read Michael Yon for real news of Iraq _ _ _______________________________ _ _ We need a 3rd party of Reagan Conservatives, REAGANCONS! Posts: 2558 | From: Greenwood | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged

BoyScout Super Guru 3 Member # 2748 Member Rated: posted January 21, 2006 04:20 AM When any person takes their eye off the entire picture and the history of any subject, then they have lost what is known as critical thinking. They must then rely on others to do their thinking for them. Most of our schools are little more than indoctrination centers, that teach basic skills. They do not teach critical thinking, so they can be manipulated and taken advantage of, instead of teaching for the betterment of society. While I speak to no one person here, I also speak to all here. It seems all to often that when those in our culture clash, reason goes out the window for quite a few on all boards. From all I have seen on-line since 95, far too many college educated people are not critical thinkers. They may be ok in one particular field or a part of that field, but not as overall critical thinkers. Many attorneys are far from being critical thinkers. From many professionals I talk with, their co's. make them update, but from their words, their are being indoctrinated and molded, instead of being taught to be better thinkers. While I don't use particularly colorful wording, that is not necessarily required to be a critical thinker. There are some critical thinkers on this board and one or two have colorful language, with which to spice their posts with. New words are a good thing, but for me, simplicity seems to work. Colorful words in this meaning are not cuss words. They are words not used in most everyday language, except in certain circles and for certain reasons. Depends on the reasoning! Ya'll have a nice day, ya hear! -------------------- EDEE Posts: 3326 | From: Florida | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted January 21, 2006 07:31 AM Boy Scout, I think your essay on critical thinking is excellent! Also your point about there being more to the colorful use of language besides name calling and cussing is also well made. The hard right wing does not have intellect in its arsenal. They want to label anyone who disagrees with Bush administration policy as cowards, traitors, weirdos, wackos, apologists, appeasers, etc. It should be stressed that constitutional rights are protected in times of war just as in times of peace - particularly during an optional war undertaken by a President with erroneous intelligence and questionable motives. Iraq did not attack this country. Al Qaeda did. We have every right to go after those responsible for 9/11. We do not have the right to threaten people (either foreigners or American citizens) with "You are either with us or against us." The AC editorial staff demonstrates again today that they lack critical thinking skills. I say "Good luck" in destroying all the terrorists which was what Vice President Dick Cheney called for when he got word of Osama bin Linden truce offer. Calling Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists "sub-humans" puts the AC editoral staff on the same intellectual and moral level as those who label all non-Muslims as "infidels" to be killed by the sword. The AC editorial writers do not have the intelligence information to make judgements regarding Osama or Al Qaeda's preparedness or effectiveness. Lack of credible intelligence information did not stop President Bush from launching the war in Iraq, and it does not stop the AC editorial writer(s) from making unfounded assumptions. Furthermore, there is no proof whatsoever that 4 Al Qaeda members were killed by the U.S. missile/air strike in Pakistan on January 13th. The AC editorial writers are apologists for fascism in the name of national security and support the subversion of democratic principles by a President grabbing the powers of a dictator. The real message quote: The real message Bin Laden audio tape means jihadists are on the run Friday, January 20, 2006 Sadly, Osama bin Laden is still alive. Having not been heard from in over a year, there was some hope that the al-Qaida chieftain was dead. Not so. The CIA confirms that the rambling Arabic mix of threats and truce talk heard on al-Jazeera TV Thursday apparently came out of bin Laden's mouth. Terrorists and their sympathizers must be elated, but credit Vice President Dick Cheney for striking precisely the right chord in responding to the world's No. 1 terrorist's peace-talk overture: You don't negotiate with terrorists, you destroy them. He's absolutely right - and for a change there was bipartisan agreement. Even Howard Dean echoed Cheney's remarks. Al-Qaida and its Islamic extremist allies are cruel, cowardly, psychotic sub-humans whose principal calling is to kill as many "infidels" - innocent men, women and children - as they can. They also slaughter fellow Islamists who disagree with them. Such is the nature of the enemy. Except for their vows to kill - which you can take to the bank - jihadists such as bin Laden cannot be trusted to keep their word, and even if they could be, peace talks would still be ridiculous. You can't hold civilized talks with a homicidal hermit. This raises another issue. Bin Laden couldn't deliver on promises even if he wanted to. He's no operational leader; at most he's a figurehead. The war on terror has isolated him and forced the entire jihadist movement to decentralize. He couldn't call off the troops now if he wanted to. But that still doesn't explain why bin Laden surfaced at this particular time, holding an olive branch. And, we might add, citing polls and parroting talking points that cut-'n-run Democratic war critics have been using. As Cheney says, just because the jihadists are losing the war doesn't mean they aren't still dangerous. A lot of al-Qaida's leaders have been killed, including four in a bombing raid this week. Although bin Laden's peace overtures cannot be taken seriously, his threats cannot be ignored. Wounded animals are always dangerous. The tape also strengthens President Bush's hand against his domestic enemies. It deals a blow to civil libertarian extremists holding up renewal of the Patriot Act and ripping the president for snooping on U.S. citizens in cahoots with jihadists abroad without a warrant. These obstructionists need to get out of the way and let the president do his job - protecting the American people from terrorists. From the Saturday, January 21, 2006 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle [ January 21, 2006, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Synergy ] -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

BoyScout Super Guru 3 Member # 2748 Member Rated: posted January 21, 2006 09:02 AM While I agree with most you say, when it comes to Bin Lauden and his threat, I believe it. If for no other reason than what he stands for in the Islamic world, to the Islamic people. Yes, Bin Lauden must be a very weary man indeed, but those that are backing his and other organizations, are still very much into the fight. They would be the money men. I'm betting that at this point, Bin Lauden would just like to be left in peace, but he will never have that again. Terrorisim has become a business from what I see and it has always been here, just not in such a dedicated form. However, that business will just keep getting worse and there will be no room for peace, in any country, because there never really was equality as many have said, but merely the illusion. That is what feeds terrorisim, in the name of what they percieve as justice and what we see right now just the start. Look at France, Belgium and some of Germany. They want cheap labor, they will get it, but they will get a big surprise with it. When the terrorisim his the streets in all countries hard as it must, governments will be like Bin Lauden, just wanting to be left in peace, but it will not come. -------------------- EDEE Posts: 3326 | From: Florida | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted January 21, 2006 09:18 AM You and I don't have to agree about every last point. I appreciate that you are civil and open minded. The following (informed) opinion piece by Robert Fisk should be required reading for the AC editorial staff that puts out tripe like they did in today's editorial. That editorial is posted in a previous entry above. I learned something from reading this and hope you do too. A prerequisite for critical thinking is having correct and adequate information to make an informed judgement. Osama bin Laden: Is It Him? Almost Certainly. quote: Osama bin Laden: Is It Him? Almost Certainly. By Robert Fisk The Independent UK Friday 20 January 2006 So why only on audio? Why no video tape? Is he sick? Yes, say the usual American "intelligence sources". It's the same old story: Osama bin Laden talks to us from the mouth of a cave, from within a cave, from a basement perhaps, from a tape almost certainly recorded down a telephone line from far away. Yesterday's message, broadcast as ever by al-Jazeera television, was a reminder that security - not sickness - decides his method of communication. We invaded Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and we fight and die in Iraq to kill his supporters - yet still he eludes us, still he threatens us, still he taunts us. How much longer can this nonsense go on? President Jacques Chirac warns that France - of all countries - might use nuclear weapons, if attacked. On whom, I wonder? America blows Pakistani children to pieces and claims it has killed five wanted men, including a bomb-maker. But there's absolutely no evidence. Bin Laden says that America will be attacked again unless it accepts a truce in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Weren't we supposed to be winning the "war on terror"? Oh no, the "experts" tell us, Bin Laden and al-Qa'ida are losing, that's why they want a truce. Some hope. It's a game. Bin Laden has no intention of calling an end to his own war and nor has George Bush and nor has Tony Blair. The Bin Laden offer, almost certainly, is intended to be rejected. He wants Bush and Blair to refuse it. Then, after the next attack, will come the next audio tape. See what happens when you reject our ceasefire? We warned you. And we'll ask: is it him? So why no video tape? Never before in history have so many wanted men sent pictures and messages and video tapes out of the dark. The irony, of course, is that Bin Laden is now partly irrelevant. He has created al-Qa'ida. His achievement - that word should be seen in context - is complete. Why bother hunting for him now? It's a bit like arresting the world's nuclear scientists after the invention of the atom bomb. The monster has been born. It's al-Qa'ida we have to deal with. So we are told that America's security hasn't prevented an attack, that " operations" take time to prepare. "It is better not to fight the Muslims on their land," Bin Laden says. "We'd not mind offering you a truce that is fair in the long term ... so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan," he says. Forget for a moment the deep cynicism behind this message - deconstructing the Shia of Iraq seems to be one of the Iraqi insurgents' aims - it also reveals one of Bin Laden's old themes: the idea that these wars will bankrupt the United States. "There is no shame in this solution because it prevents the wasting of billions of dollars ... to the merchants of war." These are almost the same words Bin Laden used to me when we last met. "The Americans will be bankrupted," he said, not realising that war primes the pumps of a superpower economy. It is as if both "sides" in this conflict live on illusions. Mssrs Bush and Blair keep telling us things in Iraq are getting better, when we all know that they are getting worse. Anarchy has seized that entire country. American bodies coming home to the United States? Just don't let the press take photographs of the coffins. Bombs in London? Nothing to do with Iraq, Blair haplessly told us last July. Now there's a website in Spanish about Iraq on the White House screens. Why? Because the Spaniards are interested in the war their army has left? Or because so many of the American soldiers dying in Iraq are Hispanics? And now we have Paul Bremer, America's equally hapless former pro-consul in Baghdad, telling us that those same Spanish troops contributed to the uprising in Najaf because they weren't performing their tasks in Iraq. More nonsense. What started the uprising was Bremer's own anger at an attack on him in a tiny Shia Muslim newspaper which he ordered to be closed (in an announcement of execrable Arabic). It was this which prompted Muqtada al-Sadr to fight the Americans. And so we go on. Blame foreign fighters - even if 158,000 of them in Iraq happen to be wearing American uniforms - blame Syria, blame Iran. And blame Spain of course. Blame anyone who is not "with us". In truth, it will need Iran and Syria to help get the US and Britain out of this shameful adventure. Yet what do we do? Raise the stakes on Iran by claiming that it intends to make nuclear weapons. And why Iran? Why not that infinitely more unstable Islamic state called Pakistan whichhas nuclear weapons? Because its dictator, President General Musharraf is on "our side". Why not attack North Korea, whose leader is more unstable than any Iranian cleric? Because he also has nuclear weapons. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are slowly returning. Outside Kabul every woman wears a burqa. Weren't they supposed to have taken them off? Weren't women now "free" in Afghanistan? US troops are being killed at an increasing rate there. Weren't they supposed to have won? Now Canada has split its troops and sent a battalion to Kandahar to fight the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. What are the Canadians now doing in combat operations? What risks does this now pose for the Canadian nation which kept out of Iraq? It was only a few months ago that Bin Laden was bombarding us with explanations for his movement's attacks. Why did no one ask, he said, why Sweden was not assaulted? And so, I suppose, we can indeed fear more attacks on the United States, more bombing raids, further chapters in the "war on terror". And all the time we in the West fail to look for a way to end this "war". How about some justice in the Middle East? How about lifting the blanket of injustice that has lain across the region for so many decades? Muslims there will probably like some of the democracy we say we're trying to export to them. They would also like human rights off our Western supermarket shelves. But they would also like another kind of freedom - freedom from us. And this, it seems, we are not going to give them. So the war goes on. Stand by for more audio tapes, and more threats, and more death. The Text of Excerpts from the Bin Laden Tape My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them... Our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite. But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show that an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he [Bush] has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them [Bin Laden's followers] on their land than them fighting us [Americans] on our land. I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favour, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses... The reality shows that war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he [Bush] claims ... The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through [with preparations]... We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars. -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

BoyScout Super Guru 3 Member # 2748 Member Rated: posted January 21, 2006 09:38 AM Sam Redclay says,--In point of fact, Boy Scout, much effort has been expended at the lower levels of the government in understanding terrorists. Public reports are available from the Library of Congress and the Army War College. Whether this penetrates or influences the agenda of the NeoCons is another matter. -------------------------------------------- I reply,--When it comes to war, what is the most vital and necessary component? That which must be there, for war to proceed. -------------------- EDEE Posts: 3326 | From: Florida | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged

BoyScout Super Guru 3 Member # 2748 Member Rated: posted January 21, 2006 09:46 AM Synergy says,--You and I don't have to agree about every last point. I appreciate that you are civil and open minded. ---------------------------------------------- I say,--And I appreciate the same coming from you and some others here. As people with long term pain, I weary of those that use their name calling, twisting of word and meaning and generally unable to debate--argue the points of the subject. I no longer bother to answer such people. It's good there are reasonable people here. Man thrives on adversary, but it might best be served in ways other than a killing war. There are many ways to accomplish this within each land. Man also thrives on power and greed and most times not thru his own, if he may be killed. Peace! -------------------- EDEE Posts: 3326 | From: Florida | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted August 22, 2006 09:40 AM Nobody Ever Died From Talking quote: Nobody Ever Died From Talking By William Fisher t r u t h o u t | Perspective Monday 21 August 2006 If, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously declared, Israel's response to Hezbollah's rocket attacks marked "the birth pangs of a new Middle East," the US is likely to be in labor for a long time. Who won this 34-day war is still an open question. Both sides are claiming victory, though President Bush seems a lot more certain than the Israelis, whose fractious Knesset is already publicly questioning the quality of the Israel Defense Force strategy and leadership. But it is clear that this campaign put a large dent in the notion of Israeli invincibility. And, at least as of now, it has made Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah a hero in much of Lebanon and most of the rest of the Muslim world. While diplomats were talking about donor conferences to mobilize international resources for reconstruction, Hezbollah was already handing out large amounts of cash to help the dispossessed relocate and start to rebuild. The effectiveness of the United Nations cease-fire resolution - a measure the US actively delayed for weeks - remains to be seen. President Bush and Secretary Rice vowed to block it until the UN agreed to address the "root cause" of the conflict. Hezbollah was identified as that root cause. But almost everyone agrees that Hezbollah is but one dangerous symptom. Ask Nasrallah about the root cause and he will tell you loud and clear that it is the very existence of the State of Israel. Once Secretary Rice finally got around to working with France to develop a cease-fire resolution, objections from the Arab world and others obliged the UN Security Council to water it down virtually to the vanishing point. It is virtually identical to the Security Council's previous resolution on this issue, except that the multinational force will be larger. If it ever materializes. The most serious lapse was France's insistence that it would not deploy troops for a "hot war." While claiming it would "lead," France has thus far agreed to provide only one engineering company, or about 200 soldiers. Moreover, the troops that join the multinational force in southern Lebanon will not be mandated to disarm Hezbollah. Nor will the Lebanese Government - of which Hezbollah is a member - whose army clearly lacks both the political will and the strength to do the disarming. Hezbollah is to disarm itself. Right! Meanwhile, America's delay in seeking a cease-fire and its seemingly unquestioning support of Israel's arguably disproportionate response to Hezbollah attacks and hostage-taking was further alienating leaders in much of the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world. And, while Lebanon and northern Israel were being battered, Israel's "other issue" - the so-called roadmap to a two-state solution - wasn't going away. The only thing that went away was media attention. Now Israel's post-mortem investigation of the Lebanon campaign will make it even more difficult for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to make any progress on this key issue - on which the Bush Administration has been largely AWOL for six years. Now, that absence may not be critical; as a result of the Lebanon adventure, the US has lost its credibility as an "honest broker" of a comprehensive Middle East peace process. The bottom line is that both the US and Israel have been significantly weakened by the Lebanon war. If there are any State actors who are perceived to have been strengthened by this adventure, they are Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's patrons and facilitators. This may or may not be the reality, but it is the widely held diplomatic and public perception - so the reality may be irrelevant. Meanwhile, Iran sits on its long border with Iraq, apparently able and willing to do whatever it takes to turn sectarian violence into a full-blown civil war. And Syria provides an ideal location for the trans-shipment of more deadly rockets to Hezbollah. The timing could not be worse, because in a few weeks, the Security Council will again turn to the issue of trying to rein in Iran's nuclear program. The US and the EU3 will press for robust sanctions; but it is doubtful the Russians and the Chinese will agree. The result may be no resolution, or another slap-on-the-wrist resolution that changes nothing. Yet, the US has had sanctions against Iran for some years and the oil-rich theocracy appears to have little trouble finding suitors. If multilateral diplomacy via the UN fails to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, what's left? It is now generally accepted that a US military option is a non-starter, though some of Mr. Bush's neo-con advisors refuse to recognize this inconvenient reality. The American experience in Iraq - not to mention the Israeli assault on Lebanon - shows once again that neither air power alone nor even more conventional "shock and awe" tactics can defeat a well-trained, well-equipped guerrilla insurgency. Even if we knew where Iran's nuclear facilities were located. Moreover, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left the American military substantially over-stretched, and it is doubtful that even the Karl Rove super-spin machine could get the American people to muster any appetite for yet another uncertain and expensive military adventure. Thus, the one avenue still open to President Bush is the one he most fiercely rejects: direct talks between the US and Iran and Syria. Syria's last attempt at a rapprochement with the US, several years ago, was rejected out of hand by the Bush administration. And, as Mike Wallace's recent "60 Minutes" interview with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran made clear between the lines, a dialogue with the US is the only option his country might find attractive. Nothing would confer more legitimacy and dignity on the Iranian regime than engagement by the world's remaining superpower. And neither Iran nor Syria can afford to risk being isolated from the rest of the world. Conferring legitimacy and dignity on the Iranian and Syrian regimes should not be the rationale for engaging these regimes. The objective should be serious face-to-face diplomacy that leaves Iran and Syria in no doubt that there are rewards for cooperation and penalties for rogue conduct. Talks through proxies and threats in the Security Council are clearly not getting the job done. At the end of the day, President Bush may be compelled to defer his "democracy now" rhetoric for realpolitik. He may actually have to authorize direct talks with Iran's populist demagogue leader as well as with the Syrian leadership. This would doubtless trigger many in his party to label Mr. Bush as the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century. He would have to swallow his "birth pangs of a new Middle East" agenda and risk dealing with a cataclysmic rebellion from his party's far-right wing. But the more important question is how effective a lame duck administration - weakened by a bungled war, support of a questionable Lebanese adventure, and plummeting public support - would be if such negotiations ever got started. For example, does the US still have the leverege to persuade Iran to exercise its influence over Hezbollah? And Syria to cease being Hezbollah's supply line? The prospects are not great, but may not be totally bleak. After all, there is only one USA. And talking to Iran and Syria doesn't mean George W. Bush would jump on Air Force One and head for Tehran or Damascus tomorrow. It has been 26 years since the US government had any official relationship with Iran. For the past six years, the president has tried to outsource negotiations with Iran to the EU3. And it has resisted talking with Syria at all, though Syria might be an easier task since the US still has diplomatic relations there. Re-starting a genuine diplomatic dialogue with both these countries would likely begin with a lengthy series of much lower-level contacts. These would probably focus on narrower issues, rather than on any grand bargain. With luck, a framework for expanded and higher-level discussions might emerge. The parties might be able to identify and execute a few confidence-building measures. Eventually, far down this road, Secretary Rice would participate. All of this would be to prepare the ground for the president. Critics of this option will point out that while Iran and Syria are talking to the US, Iran will be buying more time to develop its nuclear weapon and creating more sectarian violence in Iraq, Syria will be busy re-supplying Hezbollah, and both countries will be using US engagement to enhance their prestige in the world, while continuing to espouse the destruction of Israel. And they could be right. That's why the US should seek the cooperation of the major powers in the UN. But first the Bush administration needs to get over its notion that engagement is appeasement. The US "engages" with many unsavory regimes throughout the world - and showers its financial largesse on many of them. On a purely practical level, what choices does America have when it has run out of good options? The best of the remaining bad options may be talking. And nobody ever died from talking. -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

Wombat Super Guru 4 Member # 557 posted August 22, 2006 09:48 AM quote: Originally posted by Synergy: We can indeed negotiate with terrorists. I don't know about that. You've been terrorizing this board for years now and all attempts to negotiate with you have failed miserably! It's to the point that people just outright insult and belittle you b/c they're sick of you flogging deceased equines. Still you persist. I have to admit you do, on occasion, make valid points, but your obcessive harping overshadows the strength of your arguments more often than not. I've even tried approaching you out of concern. You didn't even respond. Now you've gone and spammed up one of my threads. I just can't even take you seriously anymore. -------------------- - Disclaimer: there are exceptions to every rule. Posts: 5468 | From: NC | Registered: Mar 2003 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted September 02, 2006 08:45 PM Talking to the Taliban by liberal catnip - Saturday, September 02, 2006 -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged

61markh11 Super Guru 3 Member # 702 Member Rated: posted September 03, 2006 11:09 AM Negotiating with terrorist, like negotiating with school bully = waste of time and money. Terrorist, like school bully knows that if he can get your lunch money, that he will see what else he can get. School bully stops picking on you when you show strength by hitting him back. Know this from personal experience. School bully became very good friend afterwards. -------------------- Mark G. Huebner USN(Ret.) "The party which, in its drive for unity, discipline and success, ever decides to exclude new ideas, independent conduct or insurgent members, is in danger." John F. Kennedy "Very few of the so-called liberals are open-minded. . . . They shout you down and won't let you speak if you disagree with them" John Wayne "Evil seeks to maintain power by suppressing the truth or misleading the innocent" "War is hell. If you are up against an enemy, use all means at your hand. Take no pity." Hillbilly 3 Jan 2007 Posts: 2000 | From: Martinez, GA / Bagram, Afghanistan | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

61markh11 Super Guru 3 Member # 702 Member Rated: posted September 03, 2006 11:09 AM OOPS, double post. [ September 03, 2006, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: 61markh11 ] -------------------- Mark G. Huebner USN(Ret.) "The party which, in its drive for unity, discipline and success, ever decides to exclude new ideas, independent conduct or insurgent members, is in danger." John F. Kennedy "Very few of the so-called liberals are open-minded. . . . They shout you down and won't let you speak if you disagree with them" John Wayne "Evil seeks to maintain power by suppressing the truth or misleading the innocent" "War is hell. If you are up against an enemy, use all means at your hand. Take no pity." Hillbilly 3 Jan 2007 Posts: 2000 | From: Martinez, GA / Bagram, Afghanistan | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Hill_Billy Ascended Super Guru Member # 2424 Member Rated: posted September 03, 2006 02:07 PM YES!!!! By all means! Negotiate! Tell them where to come here in America so we can thank them for the hatred that they and you are forever showing! Then we could exterminate them all. You wanna call me an old goat? That is sooooooo cute! You want some of this goat butt, Sin? I know you do. Love AND kisses, hb -------------------- Happiness is a warm gun. John Lennon Posts: 1461 | From: Warsaw, Missouri | Registered: May 2005 | IP: Logged

61markh11 Super Guru 3 Member # 702 Member Rated: posted September 03, 2006 03:27 PM Hill Billy weren't you a member of the "Goat Locker?" The Chief's Mess for those of you who don't understand Navy lingo. So of course you're an "old goat" -------------------- Mark G. Huebner USN(Ret.) "The party which, in its drive for unity, discipline and success, ever decides to exclude new ideas, independent conduct or insurgent members, is in danger." John F. Kennedy "Very few of the so-called liberals are open-minded. . . . They shout you down and won't let you speak if you disagree with them" John Wayne "Evil seeks to maintain power by suppressing the truth or misleading the innocent" "War is hell. If you are up against an enemy, use all means at your hand. Take no pity." Hillbilly 3 Jan 2007 Posts: 2000 | From: Martinez, GA / Bagram, Afghanistan | Registered: Apr 2003 | IP: Logged

Chipper Guru Member # 2787 Member Rated: posted September 03, 2006 06:41 PM Negotiate? What do they want? They want the US forces out of Arab countries and for us to end our aid to Israel. Both of these will eventually happen. In fact I believe in the long term it would be in our best interest. Now how to do this is tricky. The first thing we need to do ASAP is develope an alernate energy program that doesn't have oil as its base. E-85 cars, hybrids, bio-diesel etc. We can also get all the oil we need from shale with this kind of program. Nuclear power plants would help. With this in the works we agree to their demands. Except one thing. We want bin Laden's head on a stick so we can parade it in NYC. We don't want him dead or alive, just dead. In exchange for his head, we will meet his/their demands. Bin Laden preached he wanted to be a martyr for his cause. Now his his chance to do so and to stop sending others out to kill themselves for him. Either we get bin Laden or we call his bluff and make him out to be a coward. Thirdly, we move 150,000 or so troops out of Iraq and place them along the Afghanistan border to hunt for bin Laden. Just to show we mean business. Fourth we must get Iran involved. They too have opened the window for negotiations. They want to be normal too. I suggest we apologize to them for overthrowing the Massad govt., supporting the Shah and SAVAK, and condemn as a war crime our support of Iraq in helping them gas the Irani troops. We allow Iran to develope nuclear power, but only under close scrutiny to insure their enrichment program stays within the bounds of commercial power operation. We might even get a contract or two out of this. Israel will have to make due with the 91 billion or so we have already given it. Once achieved, our final warning will be that an attack against the US by Al-Qaida will be seen as an attack of all of Islam against the west and we will vaporize all of Islam's holy sites should one occur, so Saudi Arabia- get your $hit together. [ September 03, 2006, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Chipper ] Posts: 446 | From: Athens, Ga. | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged

Synergy El Presidenté de Nascar Member # 1052 Member Rated: posted September 05, 2006 09:44 PM Talk to Mullah Omar, if it saves British soldiers' lives quote: Comment Talk to Mullah Omar, if it saves British soldiers' lives Hamid Karzai admits what our leaders can't: to achieve security in Afghanistan, he must do a deal with the Taliban Simon Jenkins Wednesday September 6, 2006 The Guardian This time there are no excuses. Every scrap of intelligence warned the government not to fight a war against insurgency in south Afghanistan. Ask the CIA, MI6, the former service chiefs Lord Inge and Lord Guthrie, and Nato allies who thought the then defence secretary, John Reid, was mad. Ask the Americans, who were losing more men than in Iraq and were wisely withdrawing. Read the reports published throughout 2004/5 that the Taliban were back in strength. These were veteran guerrillas, well armed, who could count on the tacit support of tens of thousands of tribal militias. What made Tony Blair think he could beat them with just 4,000 soldiers? The Soviets lost with 120,000. Article continues This expedition ranks among the stupidest in recent British history - and there is serious competition. It was undertaken under the aegis of Nato, designed for a different purpose and notorious for incoherent decision. This meant British forces would not be masters of their fate but at the mercy of a caravanserai of some 36 nations in Kabul, most with no intention of getting hurt. When I met the effervescent Lieutenant General David Richards, currently head of Nato operations, in June, I shared the view of all who visit British troops on the ground. I was impressed by their morale and technical competence. But such visits (which rarely stray off base) risk buying into the dangerous assumption that military competence can compensate for political folly. These British soldiers are not fighting "against terrorism" or dying "for democracy". They are dying because the Americans wanted out and George Robertson, the political head of Nato, craved a purpose in life. (The same Robertson, as defence secretary, protected the Eurofighter, aircraft carrier and Trident budgets at the expense of less glamorous kit now desperately needed in Helmand.) What baffled me was Richards's naivete about the Taliban, on whom there was already a copious and alarming literature. He was full of "Malayan inkspot strategies", winning "hearts and minds" and not fighting the American way, such as bombing and strafing civilians. Richards said he had enough troops to do the job and was gung ho. I left his office in a daze. Was this how the British set off to the Dardenelles? None of the objectives set by Reid in January was achievable. Commons bombast about gallant troops driving the "remnants of the Taliban ... into their last bastions", eradicating poppies and building schools, clinics and democracy, was drivel. So was Reid's talk of the "fundamental difference" between US counter-terrorism and British reconstruction. Semantics about rules of engagement and "not firing a shot" was equally hollow; in Helmand the British are consuming ammunition faster than at any time since the second world war. British ministers involved in this war are way beyond their pay grade. Asked by Lord Astor last year about the troop balance between Iraq and Afghanistan, the defence minister Lord Drayson (recreation: sword-fencing) replied dismissively: "My lords, I am sure that noble lords will want to join me in congratulating the noble lord on his birthday." The aid minister, Hilary Benn, denies that British troops are waging war, "but supporting a process of reconstruction". Kim Howells of the Foreign Office wants to "defeat the drugs trade" and plans to waste �270m doing so. Armchair generals are bad enough, but armchair ministers are a menace. Within three months of their full deployment, British troops have reportedly had to abandon the "platoon house" strategy of securing bases in isolated towns and villages. They were being pulverised by Taliban mortars. The publicity attached to the Nimrod disaster at the weekend was excessive. Any plane can crash. Death tallies, on both sides, are merely a sign of failure. To have to kill 200 young Afghans to secure a village for a day indicates that hearts-and-minds is not working. This is classic Vietnam syndrome, the military fantasy that war is a setpiece battle against a finite enemy (in this case "1,000 terrorists"). It implies that when 1,000 are dead, you have won. The Afghans beat the Soviets in the 1980s by generating exactly the spirit of nationalist insurgency now fuelled by the brutality of the Nato occupation, especially its casual use of air power. When the Taliban seized control in 1994, they offered the country a sort of order, and even prosperity, based on opium. There is no doubt that they will return, at least to the south. Kabul cannot stop them. Nato certainly cannot. For Blair and Reid, architects of the current deployment, to lump the Taliban in with al-Qaida, 9/11 and the Sunnis in Iraq is an invitation to false strategy. British troops in their �1bn camp in Helmand are as trapped politically as they are militarily. The government is in denial. Finding a way out of this morass is near impossible. British policy is in hock to Blair's Nato machismo, and early withdrawal is hard to imagine. Since British troops cannot conceivably "defeat" the Taliban, sending reinforcements will merely add to the latter's target list. The present retreat from hearts-and-minds to search-and-destroy may be important for troop morale, but it is the same failed policy adopted by the Americans in Iraq's Sunni triangle. And the Taliban make Iraqis look amateur. They fight as units, are better equipped and have rich allies over every border. Karzai, besieged in Kabul, knows one thing. He must do a deal with the Taliban as he has with the northern and western warlords. His spring appointment of gangsters and drug-runners as police chiefs and commanders may have appalled his foreign paymasters. But Karzai has only one way to survive outside his capital: buying support from those who can repay with security. In the south that is commanders in league with the Taliban, even if it means Mullah Omar returning to Kandahar. The British could then argue that they have roughly honoured the pledge to achieve security. Either way there is no alternative to negotiation. This is not a war that can be won on the battlefield. A prolonged campaign of attrition, as proposed by Des Browne, Reid's successor, would demand a terrible cost in lives and money. The Taliban can fight for ever. It is no good politicians in London shouting: "We cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan." Such chest-beating at the expense of other people's lives should be actionable. Blair and his colleagues have willed on the army a war they knew it cannot win. The least they owe it is an exit strategy. -------------------- Faites l'amour, pas la guerre Make love not war Posts: 21434 | From: underground aquifer | Registered: Jul 2003 | IP: Logged