3,109 Forum Posts by "JakeHero"
At 7/3/07 09:05 PM, Nitroglys wrote: An organization of killing who's members are limitless.
Their numbers are not limitless. If you sincerely believe this I suggest you take a remedial mathematics class.
sounds pretty hopeless to me.
A common symptom of liberalism, defeatism.
What is a couple of high ranking official if they can replace him.
I don't know whether or not you realize what a hierarchy is, but typically the most competent are at the top. The more al-Qaeda officers we kill the harder it becomes for al-Qaeda and such other terror groups to operate. Infact, one military analyst stated that the reason all these terrorist attacks have been foiled is because they're losing more and more experts in the fields of terrorism and are being runned by less skilled and expert leaders.
Hell thats if they need a high ranking offical.
Considering international terrorist need to coordinate their activities on a worldscale, get finances, and piece together the operation, gain munitions, then yes, it's a certainty they need leaders to orchestrate all the above.
most terror cells are just a couple of guys with bombs. No leadership their other than their internet sourse.
Way to prove you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701610346 /Al-Qaeda.html
Im sorry i can't stand for something that is just a huge money hole.
Then you should hate welfare and entitlement programs. Why don't you come out against those?
Here we are throwing billions of dollars at the problem but the hole only seems to get deeper.
Right, because ousting Al-Qaeda out of one country is deepening the hole and killing thousands of islamofascists. Do you not realize that the world is a better place with these assholes dead?
The war on terror isn't working, it has only escalated it.
I'm pretty sure when the US retaliated against Japan that the war also escaladed. Your thinking would dictate that WW2 wasn't worth fighting.
And a full scale invasion could solve this.
Um, yes it does. If we overturn countries where terrorist have asylum, then this means they'll have one less base of operation and place to funnel money, weapons, and recruitment.
Unless we can invade and control every country that hates us we will be always in fear of that missle from long away.
Some countries are more prone to support terrorist. Your point is invalid.
And its been how long since the collapse of the soviet union. I think were pretty well screwed on controling what seeps out of that country now.
Another leftwing show of gutlessness! Tell me, would you prefer it if we stopped trying to prevent these kind of devices from falling into terrorist hands or allowing them have free-reign on what they can acquire? It seems to me you are consistently trying to give the terrorist every advantage by cutting the legs from under our attempts to prevent such things from transpiring.
Ya i said ignoring won't help the problem.
That's all you've proposed. By that, I mean you're quick to criticize military action to purge terrorism, but do not have an alternative. So one could assume you're apathetic about terrorism and would do absolutely nothing to stem it from occuring again in the US.
But i never said it was a problem we had to deal with.
I guarantee if you said that to a person whi's family member died in the embassy bombing, 1995 WTC Bombing, 2001 WTC Bombing, people kidnapped in Kenya, the other people kidnapped and killed, USS Cole sabotage they'd punch you in the face.
Im offically over 9/11.
I don't think lefties gave two shits about it from the begining.
I was over it when we lost the 3000th troop, i was over it when we lost the first troop.
Right, because running away from a problem like a chickenshit because the going gets tough is how wars are won. I can imagine what your ilk were saying during WW2 "I was over Pearl Harbor when the first american soldier died." Do you know what would happen if your brand of thinking was what American politicians went by? We'd of left WW2 and allowed Imperial Japan to expand and Nazi Germany go uncontested. Infact, I wonder what would happen to every war we've fought if the politicians thought the same way you did.
The entire middle east conflict has accomplished nothing to benifit the war on terror.
So you're saying killing terrorist, turning their infastructure upsidedown, taking the fight to them has accomplished nothing? You have a very interesting view on victory.
We have yet to get Osama,
Blame Bush and Clinton for that.
Afganistan and Iraq are in shambles,
And no shit. I doubt there's a place on earth that would be the epitome of prosperity after being involved on the losing side of a war.
Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism,
You really have no idea what you're talking about? Are you going to tell me those Baathist deathsquads and Sunni militants aren't terrorist?
nor did he even have WMDs. It just see the war on terror as a failure and no longer support it.
Let's see, ballistic missiles, scud missiles, sarin gas, mustard gas, nerve gas, depleted uranium and even enriched uranium.
Ya, what a success Afganistan was.
It was a military success.
We came in bombed the shit out of towns,
Infastructure*
ran the taliban out then got sidetracked with Iraq.
And there's your problem.
Since then The taliban has taken power once again and the people of afaganistan are in as just as much danger as they were before the war.
You're ignorance is really getting on my nerves. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?
storyId=6251075 They have NOT taken control and are still struggling, but they fight on. Right now NATO controls Afghanistan. Jesus fucking Christ, dude, get some better facts.
Obviously we are the same.
Yeah, because we target civilian and use woman and children human shields, not to mention deliberately blow up ONLY civilian buildings.
dumbshit.
We entered Iraq Illegaly and attacked without the approval of congress.
Congress voted and approved of Iraq. The UN has no say on what goes down between the US and Iraq when they're being bribed by Saddam via Food for Oil Scandal.
We have a man in power that also knows only power, and knows what he(and his friends) wants and will do anything to get it.
I guess it's beyond leftwingers to make a dictator allusion to Bush. *sigh*
post continuation coming up.
There's a reason people are born infertile. Why can't humanity allow evolution to take course?
At 7/3/07 09:30 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: She has the right to be mad,
Then why should she be mad if it isn't sex?
So HighlyIllogical, let's say I get married or any other schmoe. While we're married I get a receptionist to blow me, my wife finds out I was getting a bj. Would she have the right to be mad at me because fellatio is sexual or is she in the wrong since sematics dictate oral sex isn't sex, according to you?
At 7/3/07 07:30 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:At 7/3/07 07:22 PM, JakeHero wrote: Ravariel, do you think Clinton should of got jail time for what he did?What did he do again?
Because he didn't perjure himself. And I'm dead serious.
Lying under oath and perjury + obstruction of justice.
At 7/3/07 02:21 PM, Nitroglys wrote: Right there you admit the war on terror is hopeless.
No, I don't. I said you can't kill terrorism since it's a word, but you can kill as many terrorist as possible. Their numbers aren't limitless, even right now al-Qaeda is declining because their high-ranking officers and masterminds are repeadedly killed.
It is just another problem we are throwing mass amounts of money and american lives at and it will never get better.
This is the stupidity and folly of leftwingers: if the fight looks to arduous or hard give up. So tell me, how is ignoring terrorist going to help? It seems to me it's better we're actively trying to get them than sitting around with our thumbs up our ass saying terrorist don't exist or aren't a big problem.
We have enough sattilites, spies, and intellegence that we will know whenever a silo goes up. We can criple them sevirely without being in the country for more than hour. A full scale invaision is not the answer.
I don't know whether you realize this, but Russia doesn't have track of all it's WMDS. Not only that, but smallpox and anthrax are easily proliferated, ths means they could acquire Cold Era WMDs or make their own with all the components surfacing.
Ignoring won't help the problem.
Because that's all your argument amounts to. You don't want to endure or spend the money on combating terrorism because it's "throwing mass and money and american lives at the problem" despite taking an aggressive stance is the only reasonable strategy.
But who said terrorism was a major problem. Car bombs aren't going off in our streets. Just the streets of countries we've invaided.
It's a problem when it takes the lives of 3000+ americans. Leftwingers get more hysterical when some retarded kid jokes to death on a toy, because the corproation didn't ensure it was "safe," but go out of their way to undermind us or even apologize for the terrorist.
Like i said before a full scale attack isn't the answer.
It was with Afghanistan and it would be with Pakistan(Even though I'm in favor of eradicating that whole hellhole with biological warfare) and Iran. These people are savages and understand power, not negotiation like some would love to believe.
we can do just as much as damage from the skies as we can on the ground, if not more.
Um, that's considered warfare. And since the Useless Nuisance has forbidden the use of clusterbombs and bunker-busters it'll be harder to get these assholes from airstrikes alone.
The War on Terror is the problem. it just gives them targets and reasons to blow us up.
What do you mean "Gives them a target and reasons to blow us up?" You saying that these islamofascists had a reason after we invaded Afghanistan?
Ravariel, do you think Clinton should of got jail time for what he did?
At 7/3/07 01:05 AM, Bolo wrote: Hey, if we're gonna talk old-time presidential pardons, let's talk about Caspar Weinberger, almost a casualty of the Iran-Contra affair, but pardoned in a rather timely manner by another one of the active participants in the affair—Geroge Bush. I guess spur-of-the-moment, unwarranted pardons run in the family.
Okay, let's dance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_par dons_controversy
At 7/2/07 11:59 PM, Ravariel wrote: Wait, are you guys saying it's cool that Bush commuted Libby's sentence because Clinton did it for Rich? Or are you saying we can't be annoyed with it because a previous pres who shares our party did it?
No, more like "It's fair play since a President has the right to pardon, and you should consider not being so partisan." I haven't said once in this thread I agree with Bush's decision, I'm pointing out hypocrisy.
At 7/2/07 09:01 PM, Bolo wrote: Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States.
But he did commit and crime and was pardoned because he was friends with Clinton, correct?
100 million dollars is exactly 400 times as much money as Scooter Libby is now required to pay under the bargain.
How does that Clinton cock taste, Bolo?
Anyone who regurgitates "You can't kill terrorism" go away. You're an idiot and would not contribute anything more to this thread. I am aware you can't kill terrorism, what I want to do is kill as many as possible and prevent them from acquiring biological and nuclear capabilities.
So tell me you're strategy for stopping terrorism? Sending them a fruitbasket or just ignoring the problem?
Anyone remember Bill Clinton and Marc Rich? Didn't think so.
Some of the responses in this thread has confirmed everything I said about leftwingers and terrorism.
....the Threat of Terrorism?
It seems to be more people seem concerned with the fundamentalist that spout creationism than the fundamentalist that blow themselves up. Is this naivity just a symptom of liberalism or is it people are too idiotic to comprehend their miserable lives are in jeopardy?
Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmToGmw2DDw In it Bill Maher makes an ass out of himself and proves he has no understanding of worldwide terrorism.
It's not just the Bill Mahers that are ignorant of the dangers rising, it's mainstream liberalism. I'd say that this man, Christopher Hitchens, is the only kind that actually understands how much of a problem terrorism and the people involved in it are. Don't take my word, just read these few quotes from a few prominant leftist.
"Anthrax did not come from a cave in Afghanistan," but from "[t]he same people who blew up the building in Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, the terror attack in Atlanta, Georgia - those same anti-union forces....'Ashcroft is using the FBI as one weapon, the IRS as another weapon, and leaks to the right-wing media as another weapon' to 'destroy the leadership' of organized labor." -- Jesse Jackson at speech to AFL-CIO in Dec, 2001
Jesse Jackson blaming someone else...............other than the whiteman, but not surprisingly the wrong person.
"This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor to create Empire America. If you go along like sheep that is what will happen." -- Jim McDermott (D - WA)
"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" --Michael Moore, Michaelmoore.com, September 12
Gee, I don't know Michael Moron, maybe the terrorist are more concerning with blowing up your lardass than they are about petty American politics?
"Patriotism threatens free speech with death. It is infuriated by thoughtful hesitation, constructive criticism of our leaders and pleas for peace. It despises people of foreign birth. It has specifically blamed homosexuals, feminists and the American Civil Liberties Union. In other words, the American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder. Whom are we calling terrorists here?" -- Barbara Kingsolver, novelist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 27
Well, Barbara Kingsolver, if it wasn't for that patriotism no wars would of been fought and your fugly feminist ass would be nothing more than someone's sex slave. Tell you what, don't like American policy? Move to another country where they can ban your religion or take away your economic rights?
"My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war." -- Katha Pollitt, The Nation, October 8
It sad when an elementary school girl is smarter than her dumbshit mother.
Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." -- Bill Clinton explains to a Long Island, N.Y., business group why he turned down Sudan's offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden to America in 1996 .
I can't make a comment here. Bill Clinton is actually being honest about how ineffective a military leader he was.
You gotta understand people, I'm not using this thread to attack leftwingers solely for the reason I despise them, I'm doing this because of how exceedingly frustrating it is to have such a large demograph, that is utterly oblivious of the danger, is actually calling some of the shots and continuing with their partisan idiocy and second-guessing. I'm going to agree with Cellardoor here, leftwingers are willing to harm ans sacrifice American lives if it suits them politically.
Take a look at some of the agendas of the islamofascistsd:
http://www.blue-oceans.com/psychology/terror_
psych.html#Anchor-Psychology-47857
http://www.alanalexandroff.com/Byman.htm
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32759.pdf
Wake up, people, and leftwingers, quit being the apologist for terrorist.
At 7/2/07 02:45 AM, inclusivedisjunction wrote: The economy is so bad, people have to work 2 jobs.
)
No, it means you don't know anything.
I wonder why Jane Fonda wasn't tried for treason, to go off topic for a moment.
At 6/28/07 02:30 PM, SovietClock wrote: Well, at least you're admitting you're going to hell. lol
No no no, God claps whenever a Communist dies. Why do you think the USSR was such a shithole, shitty socialist governmet?
don't answer that
At 7/2/07 12:01 AM, jervic wrote: No one even knows what the word fucking means anymore.
No, you're thinking of goth. Everybody has a pretty good idea of what emo is: listens to shitty music, whiney little bitches, no one likes them, and they deserved to be shot on sight. It's funny, when it comes to emos preps, rich kids, jocks, nerds, gear heads, goths, special ed kids, normal kids all have something to beat up on, emos. Anyone ever heard of emo hunting? Look that up on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
This is not my joke, but one circulating on the internet, but I thought you'd all appreciate the humor(note I made ONE change). In retaliation of TheSovereign's thread.
Yep, the Democratic National Convention Schedule came out early this year. This is how it is planned to proceed.
Boston, Massachusetts
6:00 PM - Opening Flag Burning Ceremony
6:05 PM - Pledge of Allegiance to the U.N.
6:15 PM - Secular Prayers by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton
6:30 PM - Antiwar Concert by Barbara Streisand
6:40 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast
7:00 PM - Tribute to France
7:10 PM - Collect Offerings for al-Zawahri Defense Fund
7:25 PM - Tribute to Germany
7:45 PM - Antiwar Rally (Moderated by Michael Moore)
8:25 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast
8:30 PM - Terrorist Appeasement Workshop
9:00 PM - Roundtable Discussion of Taxes: "Calling for Higher Taxes on Others While You Pay None"
9:15 PM - Bill & Hillary Clinton Host a Seminar on "The Successful Selling of White House & Air Force One Mementos on eBay"
9:20 PM - Gay Marriage Ceremony (Both Male and Female Couples)
9:30 PM - * Intermission * Special Guest Soloist Jane Fonda
10:00 PM - Posting the Iraqi Colors by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins
10:10 PM - Reenactment of Kerry's Fake Medal Toss
10:20 PM - Howard Dean Screamfest 'Yeeearrrrrrrg!'
10:30 PM - Seminar: "The Boy Scouts and Other Paramilitary threats to National Security"
10:40 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast
10:45 PM - Abortion Demonstration (NARAL)
11:00 PM - Multiple Gay Marriage Ceremony (Threesomes, Mixed and Same-Sex)
11:15 PM - 'Maximizing Welfare' Workshop
11:30 PM - 'Free Freedomfighters in Gitmo' Pep Rally
11:50 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast
12:00 AM - Obama discusses how to be more effectively the world's bitch 2008 Sealed With A Kiss
12:01 AM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast
12:02 AM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast
Comments please.
At 7/1/07 12:43 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: The whitehouse website has a speech by bush saying he found mobile bio-labs in iraq. LOL. It's about 2/3s down if you're too lazy to read the whole speech.
So how does this prove he lied to go to Iraq?
Right, so did Canada fight to gain its indepence or did they just wait until the British Monarchy got bored with the toy?
At 7/1/07 12:13 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: They do that all the time. When have you ever seen a reporter ask Bush Jr. why he lied to the people about WMD's in Iraq?
Because that reporter would be libel to be sued for misinformation and slander.
At 6/30/07 08:08 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:At 6/30/07 08:03 PM, Memorize wrote: They're about as wacko as the PC liberals.troll.
You're the one to talk, asshole.
At 6/30/07 08:03 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: What idiot does that? I sure don't.
The point stands. Just because they'res a fringe of religion that pisses everyone else doesn't warrant an entire topic, just like a fringe of atheism that pisses everyone off doesn't deserve a topic either.
At 6/30/07 07:56 PM, AfroJustice wrote: you take me 2 srsly. he said tax w.e the fuk he said to tax (2 long and dense) and i said its a better idea to tax the rich. i didnt say that no one was taxed so we should tax the rich
n im guna tel u taht teh rich iz alrdy taxd
It's nice seeing the welsh bomb something else instead of anything Protestant.
At 6/30/07 06:47 PM, AfroJustice wrote: or we could just tax the rich, much simpler and mor effectivce.
Once again, you prove you're an idiot. The rich are already taxed, along with everyone else. Never post again.
Atheists annoy me, but you don't see me making topics about how they menstrate about Nativity Scenes on private properties?
Just to chime in: the geneva convention doesn't apply to insurgents or any other terrorists so we could shove bamboo-chutes up their fingernails and no one could do shit.
At 6/30/07 12:08 AM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: As long as the message is strictly political, then they should be able to portray it.
Is that so? Does this mean I can wear a tshirt to school that says "I support Jim Craw laws and the lynching of (insert n-word)s"?
