Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (13401)	5/22/2004 12:38:26 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

John. You said...." If bin Laden could have chosen one response, it might have been that we invade Iraq. First, it was a secular Arab government, as much his enemy as ours. Second it was a stabilized Arab populace with almost no terrorist presence."..... dictionary >>> .... concerned with worldly affairs rather than spiritual ones..... not involving religion.... sadam was a sunni muslom who used terror to control the majority shia muslims and the Kurds. Minority sunni mosloms controlled Iraq through terror. sadam prayed 5 times a day just like any other muslim. sadam is a religious nut bar and even had the koran written in his own blood. You and many others fall for that Iraq was secular crap. It's all about religion in the middle east has been for thousands of years.

To: Road Walker who wrote (13401)	5/22/2004 4:29:26 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 14610

John, What a thorough, and correct, IMO, analysis of the methods and goals of al Qaeda. This paragraph in particular, in which you outlined how perfectly the American response fit like a hand in a glove, is of particular importance: If bin Laden could have chosen one response, it might have been that we invade Iraq. First, it was a secular Arab government, as much his enemy as ours. Second it was a stabilized Arab populace with almost no terrorist presence. Third it could be used as proof of what he has been saying all along; that beyond the support of the illegitimate monarchies, the Christian US has started a crusade against the Arab Muslims. Fourth, it would destabilize and weaken other governments throughout the Arab ME. With our irrational and non-proportional response, we gave him exactly what he wanted. Iraq is a huge win for Al Qaeda. Why the right can't see this mystifies me. Despite their claim of being "more patriotic than thou", their chest-beating and headlong rush to do precisely what al Qaeda wants is far more dangerous to the US's reputation, and ultimately to our safety as a nation, than the left's wish that there be a rapid end of the grisly business we've gotten into in Iraq. Here's to your post not falling on deaf ears.

To: Road Walker who wrote (13401)	5/22/2004 10:54:25 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

What I think that you don't get, is that the people who are playing directly into Al Qaeda's hands are the people like you who want to appease them and who fight the people who would eliminate the threat. I don't give a rat's ass what their motivations are. Your minimization of the Nick Berg beheading by saying that we are playing into their hand by being outraged is absurd. The proper response to the whole event is outrage and the pursuit of eliminating the people who find it to be an acceptable tactic. Again, the people who are killing and are dedicated to continue killing, the al qaeda members are not playing into al qaeda's hand. It is YOU who is playing directly into their hand.

To: Road Walker who wrote (13401)	5/23/2004 9:25:01 AM
From: arno	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

John, Just as I thought....you didn't bother to respond to any of my post.....Well, at least you didn't use the term "romp", again. Instead you posted another long winded diatribe about nothing we've done or are doing is right.... You need to realize....and here's the key point....the war in Iraq is but a part of the whole war on terrorism. And it is very fortunate that those who wish to do us harm have congregated in one place. As for Al Qaeda, you state... we need to fight them in a cold, impersonal, merciless way. Are you so naive to think we are not? Just because it's not on the nightly news doesn't mean we aren't exacting heavy losses on them. Just how many terrorist cells in Europe and elsewhere do you suppose have just disappeared in the middle of the night? I don't know the answer to this, but early on it was stated that most of the war would be fought silently....things that we will never hear about. Many documents and computers were captured containing incriminating information.... As for OBL's desire for us to invade Iraq, you stated... 1.) ... it was a stabilized Arab populace I nearly peed my pants with this one! Stabilized? I guess so....if you call oppressed people that are held in check with the murder of millions of their countrymen. Jeez....you crack me up. Along with...almost no terrorist presence Well....one thing for sure...the reign of terror from Saddam is over. 2.) ...it would destabilize and weaken other governments throughout the Arab ME. Yup....Libya saw the light and gave up their nukes....thereby weakening their 'military'. You keep saying....our irrational, non-proportional response Do you mean military or journalistic? If journalistic, I will agree with you there. Our news media keeps on showing their true colors and they keep offering proof they are not interested in anything other than headlines. However, if you mean an irrational military response...I will agree, to a point....because I think we should've outlined the Sunni triangle, gave people 20 minutes to drop their guns and get out. Otherwise, they will have front row seats to the un-Godly spectacle of being in a B-52 arc-light raid. Boom, done, history... You stated...I cringe when I read the angst ridden, outraged posts of this thread. Get some guts, folks. Try to understand that you are responding like a puppet, Al Qaeda is pulling your strings. You are playing right into their hands by supporting policies that destabilize, at the precise moment that we need to stabilize and bring together the world in a common cause. I prefer this... <fontcolor=red>I cringe when I read the angst ridden, outraged posts of people who blame the U.S. and George Bush for all the worlds ills. Get some balls, folks. Stand up to those who want to kill you. Try to understand that you are responding like a puppet, Al Qaeda is pulling your strings and wants you to run away. You are playing right into their hands by wanting to tear down the policies that attack those who would kill you, at the precise moment that we need to stand together as a country and realize these bastards won't rest until the last American is dead.</font> You stated....We as a country, as well as the rest of the civilized world, have to come together in the common goal of ridding the earth of this vermin. OK, OK, I've waited to throw the "bullshit" flag on this. The rest of the world had a chance to stand up and be counted when it came time to confront the evil bastards. They (the UN) backed down....just like the gutless chicken shits they are. Listen John, to back out and runaway from the equivalent of some little dog biting our toe...will forever brand us as people who can't stomach a good fight. And it will not stop them from attacking us... You say..... leave the patriotic outrage on the doorstep and look at this from a logical and pragmatic perspective.... I say....lets leave the partisan bullshit out of it and keep attacking those who will attack us. I do know that for each one we kill, there's one less to hunt down later. arno