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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (7463)	2/10/2006 12:56:13 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

To: ahhaha who wrote (53342) 2/10/2006 2:54:38 AM From: mishedlo Read Replies (1) of 53381 You must be the stupidest asshole on the planet, next to Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld. It is interesting that you launched an unprovoked unilateral attack against me. I hadn't posted to you in many months when you decided to take shots at me when I made a comment to calculated_risk. Exactly how do you propose we get "them"? By strengthening weak countries to prevent Al Qaeda bases, by covert activities, by bounties, by investigation into the activities of traitors. For every innocent person we kill there are 10 new terrorists with a grudge against the US. For every innocent person they kill there are 10 new people with a grudge against Al Qaeda. What about that do you not understand? Nothing that comes from you. What comes from you and your 'crat friends is the run-away-from-evil theory of defense. It's based on the assumption that everyone is rational like you. You're so rational, so why did you launch the unprovoked attack against me? Are you proposing WWIII to wipe every Moslem off the face of the earth? That's what the 'crats will do when their isolationism approach causes the US to be surrounded. Are you the next Hitler? Hitler was a national socialist. Just like you. You have Neville Chamberlain's approach, rapprochement, with evil. Hitler wasn't evil according to your theory of ignoring trouble. Chamberlain found Hitler rational and so he thought Hitler could be trusted. According to your theory if Britain had simply ignored Hitler, he would have gone away. I propose that if we mind our own business we have little to fear from "them" whoever "them" is. You don't know the enemy so you propose to ignore them. Then, according to you, they will go away. Why will they go away? Because you can assure everyone that their intentions are peaceful when they have stated they want to take the world back to the 14th century. They have a crusade going, and we are going to stop it. You are asking how to stop "them" from getting us. No. I'm asking who will stop them from getting you. The answer, is no one, except Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, your enemies. You don't even know who "them" is. They aren't impossible to find and the world is slowly finding them. That wouldn't happen with 'crats in power. With 'crats in power you would be killed. Well "them" keeps getting bigger and bigger as we keep killing innocent people by mistake hoping to get "them". How does ignoring the enemy spare the innocents? You think the enemy exists only because we provoke them. You think that we could maintain behavior that wouldn't provoke them. Bin Laden's motivation wasn't due to provocation. Bin Laden is motivated by a desire to take the world back to the 14th century and rid it of technology which brings exposure to degenerate behavior. This is an offensive threat, not just a reactive threat. Bin Laden wants to change the world into his preferred conception of it. It's the same old stuff, seen in Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Colonel Green, Malthuvis: world domination. They all wanted to do good by remaking the world in their conception and doing it by force. Bush took a minor problem and made it worse. 911 was a "minor problem"? How about all those innocents who were killed? 911 was the result of the Clinton Admin letting the CIA and the military stagnate. You can't blame Clinton too much because he was merely doing what the majority of Americans wanted, but leadership often requires going against what the majority wants. The 'crats wanted to spend the "peace dividend" on social programs. What identifiable benefit came from those programs? Nada. Zilch. Actually what came from them was negative, more programs which induce in the populace more government dependency, and a greater vulnerability to outside threats. The only thing you got right is how minor Bin Laden is (or was), being the head of nothing. You still don't get it. Bin Laden laid out the concept of his tyranny, but Al Qaeda just uses it and him for its own independent purpose. What purpose? World domination. You say Al Qaeda only operates where the US interferes. The US doesn't interfere in Indonesia, but Al Qaeda operates there anyway. But morons like you have caused people to make him their idol. Which people? All those media types who are hell bent on pulling down the Bush Admin? People now want to emulate Bin Laden. What people? The same people you want to ignore? The more innocent people we kill the more of "them" there will be. The more enemy we kill the more the innocent will expose the guilty. You are stupider than I thought. Everything you say is based on trust yet you don't trust. Pakistan was behind the US after 911. Polls show it. Pakistan is still behind the US. Every nation and almost every person is, whether they feel they can admit it or not. Do a search now and see what those polls now say: Bin Laden is now a hero in Pakistan. Your "truth" at the end of the link bow? If someone says something and they provide a link to their comments, then it must be true. This is how you've maintained your selective "knowledge". Like the total complete asshole moron you are, you ignore the source of the problem. You don't want to make this personal, do you? Bin Laden even told us what it was: US troops on sacred Arab soil. So in all of your stupidity you propose we solve the problem by sending more troops in the region. It is the muslim authorities in those countries that want us there. Do you propose to withdraw from Afghanistan? Did Al Qaeda take over that country because of US presence there? You're finished here.

To: ahhaha who wrote (7463)	2/11/2006 2:34:31 PM
From: Solid	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

Wow...did he really say this? Had US troops not been on "sacred Arab soil" and had we not stupidly backed Israel no matter what Israel did, there would be no Al Qaeda or Bin Laden to worry about in the first place. Without Israel's destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor and under a policy of not on "sacred Arab Soil" Saddam would have already incinerated you. Please tell me how non-interference guarantees the peace. Is that part of the 'crat's "cross the line" defense theory? It should be getting clearer to anyone reading this that YOU and your 'crat associates are the true enemy. Great response to racism and ignorance. The dis-quieting grandeur of ignorance a mind will engender when feed misinformation is vast indeed. Does this guy really intend to come across anti-Semitic as most of the rest of the world just as openly already is? Sure seems so. He should be writing the head of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, Hitler’s modern twin brother. Only Churchill saw Hitler coming and had the balls to say it while the rest of Europe fiddled on and stumbled into the Nazi mess of WWII leaving America to save their collective bacon. Ayatollah Khamenei has grand and glorious lie's to speak of Israel and those of Jewish heritage as well. He wants Europe to embrace them and bring them to live in Europe so the state of Israel will no longer exist. He is trying to teach his younger generation that the holocaust never happened, just a Jewish lie. And it was Israel who bombed the reactor in the 80's as you pointed out. When the same pathetic apathy and liberalism that eats at our nations original and once strong soul now was just gaining a head of steam and held others in check and restrained to act. Saved the worlds bacon at the time, not just there own. There are many in Iran and Iraq who do not appreciate the country being held hostage to the fanatics, but I digress. I give you all the credit in the world for taking the time you did to answer that post. At times you have the patience of a saint. Understandably that at rare times may help to open a sliver of understanding in an open mind. When assistance to see a broader view of the consequence of actions or inaction more clearly, fails over time and the balance shifts, larger scale violence becomes more inevitable. The violence is not from the truly wise but the true zealots, the extremists -that too many liberals and 'crats and yes even republicrats knowingly and unknowingly support- who in turn could care less for them and the weakling stances they advocate. They'll be the first to be eaten alive in the wave to return to the 700th century rule of fundamental Islam as the virus grows and mutates worldwide if unchecked. I defer to former NYC mayor Ed Koch. He supports the war in Iraq. When asked why as a liberal 'crat he supports President Bush on this he said several hundred million of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims ARE in agreement with the more fundamental tenets of their faith and though he is liberal he is, '...not stupid.' Sage insight indeed. What was the catch line to that 60’s tune, Ball of Confusion…’And the band played on…’