Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>"George Bush bombed the WTC and anybody who doesn't instantly subscribe to that is having illusions." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!<<<
Laugh away and prepare to laugh at one of your own. Lou Dobbs (rock ribbed conservative) just learned about the new book by the 9/11 commission and is calling for the government to be investigated regarding the 9/11 lies that's been documented.
"ROMANS: Now, Kean and Hamilton say all the inaccuracies have fueled conspiracy theorists, they've stymied the investigation, and Lou, damaged the credibility of this government.
DOBBS: Well, this government doesn't deserve much credibility, does it? In point of fact, if all of the after-action reports are untrue, for whatever reason, that's a lie, because they were asserted as the truth by people who knew better or should have.
ROMANS: And really troubling, the Department of Defense's own inspector general report that was declassified showed that if the same thing happened again, you'd have the same chaos and the same misreporting or lies afterward.
DOBBS: Incompetence and ineptitude on the part of this government on September 11th and in the weeks and months leading up to it are established. The fact that the government would permit deception after a deception, whether honestly, if you can call it that, honestly intended or not. But the fact that they were continue and perpetuate the lie, suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on and what is demonstrably an incompetent and at worst deceitful federal government.
Christine Romans, thank you very much. Incredible."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/09/ldt.01.html
If he does he did a lousy job of convincing them he was on to something good.
>>>I was disappointed by the appearance of arrogance on the part of Joe last night<<<
That's what a lot of CT voters kept saying. "Joe's not one of us anymore. Arrogant, too big for his bridges." Also.........why has he been getting stronger support from far right republicans than from moderate democrats which is is supposed to represent? Because he really represents the former?
>>>blah...can't mount a real war...irrelevant....BRIG<<<
Terrorists can't mount a real war.........so the war on terror is.......not real?
"Again and again in his primetime speech, the president attempted to bind the Iraq counter-insurgency to the broader "war on terror" started by the September 11 attacks, trying to rebuild a connection in the public mind that has given way to scepticism about the justification for the invasion.
"This war reached our shores on September 11 2001," Mr Bush said, pointing to links between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian extremist thought be behind many of the suicide attacks in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden. "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September ... if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi ... and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden," the president said."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1517011,00.html
>>>yep...arm the side that can win it...brilliant...<<<
Brilliant except it looks like 50 new terrorists are born for every one that's killed.
"Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" marched through the streets of Baghdad's biggest Shiite district Friday in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-08-03-iraq-rally_x.htm?csp=34
>>>these blind liberal fools just don't get it do they...<<<
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=12475263&txt2find=bush
>>>Can you show me where I said I was against abortion in those 42 posts.<<<
"Well, while I don't have a problem with ABORTION, I do have a problem with ABORTION purely because of sex..."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=10423261&txt2find=abortion
So abortion is ok as long as it's not the result of sex? You're against abortion extel.........I just want you to know that.
>>>I do not assume they are social conservatives, nor do I fit that categorization<<<
Really? This from a simple subject search of your posts this year:
Abortion: 42 posts
Gay marriage: 23
Same search for Sox Fan:
Abortion: 1
Gay marriage: 0
So......you lied.
>>>there is no murder in war.....BRIG<<<
3 U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murder
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/19/iraq/main1729623.shtml
8 U.S. troops charged with murder
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/21/hamdaniya/index.html
Four More GIs Charged With Rape, Murder
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900178.html
>>>I think lieberman was the last honest man<<<
I tell what sunk him was not necessarily his support for the war (a lot democrats do) or his coziness with Bush but this:
"On Wednesday, Sen. Joe Lieberman argued that anyone who questions President Bush’s credibility while the country is at war puts the nation in danger. Lieberman, 12/7/05:
It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/10/lieberman-flashback/
I think a lot of people said....."ok, it's your right to support the war and the president but don't tell fellow democrats they have to give up their first amendment rights in favor of a republican president you happen to support". He really blew himself out of the water with that one.
>>>seabass... you haven't explained anything! Answer my question in the previous post!<<<
You sound like my hysterical first wife. Kimberly....? Either way.......the only question you asked was whether I thought the best thing to to is nothing and I already answered that. Pulling out of Iraq? Why not? At least a gradual redeployment to neighboring countries to see what happens. It's already out of control, much of it due to our troops presence so what's wrong with giving the locals a chance to sort their differences out on their own? By the way, 5 years after 9/11 and you sound panicky and scared as if it happened yesterday. As pathetic as that is, at least take some pride in the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rove depend on people like you for the survival of their careers. In other words, you're not completely useless.
just heard on the local news.....Lieberman's toast
>>>and you propose we do nothing about it?<<<
I'll try to explain now as plainly as I can since you seem to have problems: Expressing unhappiness with "staying the course" is not the same as a proposal to do nothing. I've repeated my own thoughts here time and again which is more than can be said for you. But trust me.........you too will one day abandon stay the course. It will happen when Bush announces the new plan and it is later reported by Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly as a foreign policy stroke of genius.
>>>You continue to make my point about the foolishness of the libs position again and again<<<
You want foolishness? Look no further than to the Bush doctrine you keep drooling over. Even the grandfather of american conservatism is too embarrassed to be a part of it any longer.
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."(William F. Buckley Jr.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp
>>>There are absolute values. There is right and wrong in most situations.<<<
So using bogus intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation a defenseless third world country that posed no threat to us is one of the rights?
ROFLMAO!!!
>>>The strategy, plainly mapped out again and again is to first go after the conditions needed for the terrorists to thrive.<<<
You mean like conditions we've created in Iraq and assisted in creating in Lebanon?
>>>Their financial support. The countries where they had existing support- training grounds etc.<<<
A wasted effort if you in the process allow anti-american sentiment to boil over in terrorist producing regions. Drug dealers keep finding new ways to get dope across our borders but you don't think Saudi Arabia can figure out how to transfer funds to their favorite terrorist charity behind our back?
>>>WHat exactly is YOUR approach then??? Be even handed and ignore the problem like Clinton did?<<<
You can be even handed without ignoring the problem. For now though, this is how the arabs see it which whether you like it or not is a big part of the problem:
"Israel is a funded state. Despite its own relatively healthy economy, it continues to receive aid from the US, in disproportion to both the country’s population and needs.
The financial aid alone that Israel receives from the US allows it to purchase tanks, helicopter gunships, F-16 war planes, machine guns and bullets – all of which it uses to commit human rights violations against the Palestinian people on a daily basis.
The Israeli government is the largest recipient of US financial aid in the world, receiving over one-third of total US aid to foreign countries4, even though Israel’s population comprises just .001% of the world’s population and has one the world’s higher per capita incomes.
Israel’s GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories."
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/US_Aid_to_Israel.htm
>>>and those 100s of thousands had how many tanks, how many F15s, how many whatever<<<
excuse me but if the criteria for a dangerous terrorist is that he's armed with tanks, F15's and whatever, why are we fighting the w.o.t. in the first place? We've known all along they never had any of that.
>>>the strategy is to destroy the regimes that aid and abet the terrorists -- too bad that is so complicated that you are unable to understand<<<
I understand the idea and I also understand that not only isn't it working but it's also counterproductive. Are you stupid or just in denial? $500 billion so far over 3 1/2 years in Iraq, elections and all and this is what we have to show for it.
"Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" marched through the streets of Baghdad's biggest Shiite district Friday in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-08-03-iraq-rally_x.htm?csp=34
"Iraq's prime minister sharply criticized a U.S.-Iraqi attack on a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad, exposing a rift with his American partners on security tactics, as 24 people were killed Tuesday in a series of bombings and a shooting."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml
>>>Typical labial political correctness. They're not terrorists, they are freedom fighters.<<<
Of course they're terrorists. Who said otherwise? But I understand........your mind just goes into tilt mode when forced to deal with an approach to the problem other than killing them all and it makes you say stupid things. So back to the question you avoided: How do you suggest every potential terrorist in the world is tracked down, identified and killed? Cause that IS the primary strategy of the war on terror, correct? Or is it to make them change their life style by invading their turf and establishing democracies......like in Iraq?
>>>They live in a culture of death, and trying to "understand" their culture is a waste of time....... Many Muslims are going to die- there is no way around this terrible truth.<<<
There's really not that much to understand. Stay out of our business and we'll stay out of yours says Bin Laden.
"In the video, bin Laden accused Bush of misleading Americans by saying the attack was carried out because Al Qaeda "hates freedom." The terrorist leader said his followers have left alone countries that do not threaten Muslims.
"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said.
He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
"Bin Laden has unquestionably suffered a moral failure of enormous proportions. But to say that he orchestrated the September 11 attacks simply because he is a bad man, and that what he hates about the U.S. must be those things, like freedom and God, that we hold to be the most good, is grossly oversimplifying. Bin Laden’s hatred for the United States is located in the complex history of American foreign policy in the Middle East."
http://www.brunchma.com/~acsumama/com/com092801.html
So where do you think we stand a better chance of reducing the threat.......by trying to find and kill every muslim capable of terrorism among the 1 BILLION muslims around the world or by phasing in a more even handed approach in dealing with the middle east?
>>>During World War 2 I may have said "Nuke Germany" and your response would have been....."Rawnoc's solution is to kill all whites."<<<
Wrong again but now you're getting closer to why I said what I said in the first place. Your overall commentary and your nuke strategy for Lebanon seems race related so the response during WW 2 may have been......"Rawnoc's solution is to kill off the aryan race".
>>>Ready to admit that I never said anything within light years of saying that "all arabs should be eliminated"<<<
Within light years would be a stretch. You didn't say kill all arabs but you recommended nuking one arab country. Question is what you recommend doing with the rest of them after 3.8 million Lebanese have been pulverized. Think perhaps you set off a reaction that leaves you no choice but to nuke away till they're all gone?
>>>because you think celebrating babies being killed is human nature if you're simply the underdog.<<<
You schmuck. We're not talking about a softball game here but about 35 years of US/Israel dominance of the region. You think maybe 35 years of underdog status has had a cumulative effect on the hatred? And maybe the Israeli slaughter of 18,000 Lebanese, PLO and Syrians in 1982 still lingers in some people's minds?
"It is estimated that around 17,825 Arabs were killed during the war. There are different estimates of the proportion of civilians killed. Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that 5,515 people, military and civilian, were killed in the Beirut area only during the conflict, and 9,797 military personnel (PLO, Syrian, and others) and 2,513 civilians were killed outside of the Beirut area.[7] Approximately 675 Israeli soldiers were killed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War
>>>Ready to admit that I never said anything within light years of saying that "all arabs should be eliminated"<<<
I already set the record straight by referencing your own posts.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=12496324
>>>Just stop cheering for the people who cheer for babies getting killed, k, chief?<<<
Try to get your emotions in check and then go back and read the 20 posts of mine you keep babbling about. What you see as my support for terrorism are attempts on my part to understand why they act the way they do. I detest their behavior as much as you do but I think the only way to find a long term solution is to figure out what the root cause of their behavior is. I have no idea what it is but you can guess and you have to start somewhere. Killing them off slowly one by one is obviously not working as demonstrated both in Iraq and Lebanon and searching for a better way does not mean support for terrorists. Understand?
Like I said, you're a coward. Show me anything I have said that even remotely qualifies as support for "people dancing in the street when babies get killed."
You "forgot" the most important part:
Show me where I expressed the support you're talking about.
>>>You "forgot" to include when quoting me that I said "the entire country" - you quoted the entire thing but left that out in your attempt to prove I said all Arabs.<<<
Oh, sorry. Much better idea to just nuke one arab country and then hope the remaining arabs will understand and make peace. Should have given you credit for that idea.
>>>You are so dishonest it is sickening. No wonder you support people dancing in the street when babies get killed.<<<
Show me where I expressed the support you're talking about. As for most right wing sissies, you let emotions get in the way of sound reasoning.
>>>Wow your logic is warped. 43,000 almost entirely in one city is the same as 700 because the 700 come from a population that is smaller?<<<
Sorry but it's your math that's warped. The british death toll of 43,000 was the total for a 15 month long conflict.
Lebanon's 700 figure is for less than one month. Interpolate that and you probably end up around 850 for the full month which equals 12,750 for the same 15 months it took the brits to lose 43,000.
43,000 dead out of a population of 47,000,000 equals less than 1/10th of 1% compared to Lebanon's 12,750 dead out of a population of 3,700,000 which equals 4/10th of 1%.
You can't understand this?
>>>Pretty incredible anyone would try to justify this isn't it?<<<
Like I already said to rawnok who posted something equally stupid:
Typical Bush republican reasoning. Anyone who doesn't buy their argument wholesale is justifying the opposite view. I'm not defending irrational hatred. I'm trying to understand where it's coming from.
You really can't tell the difference between justifying and contemplating?
>>>Obviously I never said the answer is killing all Arabs.<<<
Your own posts:
Won't be missed. Nuke 'em.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12493137
Just nuke the entire country. I mean, seriously, would anybody miss them that much? I wouldn't.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12488606
>>>If you can't see the 43,000 civilian English slaughtered vs. 600 nazi military dead as more lopsided then I can't help you.<<<
Israel has lost 90 people - most of them soldiers - which amounts to approx. 1/10,000 of 1% of its population of 6,5 million. That's almost exactly the same ratio as Germany's 600 dead out of their 60 million population.
And again....Lebanon's population is 3,700,000 and they have lost 700 people in less than a month which equals an annual death toll of about 10,500 or 4/10th of 1% versus the British loss of 1/10th of 1%.
Looking strictly at numbers, the difference is slight. Looking at the actual consequences on the ground, the difference is huge since the brits staved off the invasion and the Lebanese had Israeli ground forces inside their border in less than two weeks.
>>>Incredible that you make excuses for that.<<<
Typical Bush republican reasoning. Anyone who doesn't buy their argument wholesale is justifying the opposite view. I'm not defending irrational hatred. I'm trying to understand where it's coming from. You think exterminating all arabs is the answer to peace and I think you're nuts.
>>>the Nazi attack on London for many months was far more cruel, destructive, deadly, and Great Britain far more defenseless.<<<
Far more cruel? How's one bomb dropped from an airplane more cruel than the other if it lands next to you?
More deadly? Great Britains population in 1941 was roughly 47,000,000 meaning their death toll was less than 1/10th of 1% from the 12 month blitz. Lebanon's population is 3,000,000 and they have lost 700 people in less than a month which equals an annual death toll of about 10,500 or 4/10th of 1%.
Far more defenseless? I disagree. They withstood invasion which the Israelis accomplished in two weeks in Lebanon.
"British defenses were much improved by this time. The Bristol Beaufighter, with airborne radar, proved effective against bombers with ground-based radar guiding night fighters to their targets. An increasing number of anti-aircraft guns and searchlights were radar-controlled, improving accuracy. From the start of 1941 the Luftwaffe's losses mounted ( 28 in January, 124 in May).
The Germans failed to defeat Britain, or at least prepare the invasion."
http://www.answers.com/the%20london%20blitz
>>>Oh my. Somebody needs to pick up a history book, my friend.<<<
You're missing the point. You can argue that Great Britain was the underdog but they were not an underdog to the extent Lebanon or the Palestinians are against Israel. The brits still had an air force (albeit a weak one) where Lebanon's only defense are primitive, ground based rocket launchers and the palestinians don't even have that. You don't think decades of this incredibly lopsided fighting is what has bred the irrational hatred you point to among these arabs?
So you think Great Britain's versus Germany is a good comparison to Israel versus Lebanon? Great Britain was virtually defenseless during WW 2?
>>>There difference is every time a civilian dies in Lebanon nobody cheers. Every time a baby is killed in Israel, there is a party in the streets elsewhere.<<<
Familiar with the tendency of humans to root for the underdog? Israel with an air force that rivals ours in terms of sophistication is trashing - by air - a country that for practical purposes doesn't even have an air force, never mind one backed unconditionally by the world's only super power. A super power no less that just trashed, invaded and occupied another defenseless arab country. Tell me again you can't figure out why the arabs are getting emotional about this.
>>>A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words...<<<
As I said the other day when somebody else posted the same picture:
You forgot the picture of the Israeli soldier dropping bunker buster bombs on apartment buildings from the safety of an airplane 20,000' above.
Everything is relative.
>>>I, personally, like Rudy but I'm not sure he could achieve as much in DC as he did in NYC<<<
Problem is (imo) that he could achieve a lot but it would be achievements based on the current republican platform which 65% of the US population can't stand. People vote for politicians they like on a personal level all the time and then get confused when he doesn't represent their views at all (idiot in chief GW Bush probably holds the record).
Just watch republican Rudy Giuliani get elected president by a country that gives the current republican president and the republican congress approval ratings in the 30's and 20's respectively. Fact is, Rudi - for the most part - admires the politics and behavior of those losers or Rudi wouldn't be a republican.
"Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship."
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/08/paul_krugman_ce.html
Al Qaeda leader: "We're growing".
Qaeda Leader Says Terror Group Growing
CAIRO, Egypt, Aug. 5, 2006
(AP) Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader announced in a new videotape aired Saturday that an Egyptian militant group has joined the terror network.
The Egyptian group, Gamaa Islamiya, is apparently a revived version of a militant group that waged a campaign of violence in Egypt during the 1990s but was crushed in a government crackdown.
"We announce to the Islamic nation the good news of the unification of a great faction of the knights of the Gamaa Islamiya ... with the Al Qaeda group," Ayman al-Zawahri, the deputy leader of al Qaeda said in the videotape aired on the Al-Jazeera news network.
Al-Zawahri said the Egyptian group was led by Mohammed al-Islambouli, the younger brother of Khaled al-Islambouli, the militant who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat in 1979 and was later executed.
Mohammed al-Islambouli left Egypt in the mid-1980s and was believed to have been in Afghanistan working with al Qaeda-leader Osama bin Laden, said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on militant groups.
It was the first time that al Qaeda has announced an Egyptian branch, but it was not clear whether the new version of Gamaa Islamiya really has a presence on the ground in the country. Its previous incarnation was largely eliminated by the government crackdown, and its leaders later announced a truce from prison. It has not claimed any attacks since the late 1990s.
Rashwan said al-Zawahri's claim was likely just propoganda.
"This is media talk from Ayman al-Zawahri. The Gamaa Islamiya has its own leadership and they said they have already rejected joining al Qaeda in the past," he said. "Gamaa Islamiya has no command outside Egypt. They have dissolved in Egypt."
Egypt has seen a string of terror bombings against tourist resorts in the Sinai Peninsula since October 2004, killing 98 people. Egyptian authorities have said those attacks were carried out by a group calling itself Monotheism and Jihad, with links to Palestinian militants.
Many experts believe Monotheism and Jihad is at least inspired by al Qaeda and may have some operational links, but the Egyptian government has not announced any connection.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/05/terror/main1868145.shtml