1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Will they finally go after the real terrorists?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by PLC1, Jun 30, 2008.

  1. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,939
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State


    Why in the world would they resist going after Bin Laden and his fellow cockroaches, when they said they were committed to a "war on terror"?



    And they still aren't going after the real terrorists? This is what they should have done about the 12th. of September of 2001.

    Just how bad has the situation been allowed to get?



    That's pretty bad, don't you think?

    Of course, Bush's decision to invade Iraq, which we all know by now was a mistake of the first order, has made it more difficult to go after those who attacked this country:




    Will the Bushistas finally and at long last do what should have been done seven years ago, or are they still hunting for those elusive nukular devices in Iraq?

    Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/w...=th&adxnnlx=1214849764-QzVRyvVrCixu1QuO+ZhZPg

    ____________________________
    The candidates keep talking about change. If we don't get our fiscal house in order, we'll all be on the street corner asking for change.
     
  2. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    The real problem here is that Pakistan has stated that any such missions will be considered an act of war. The President of Pakistan must toe a delicate line here to maintain his own power. Further, if we basically walked into a war with Pakistan the extremist element in Pakistan would seize power with ease. But I suppose that is of no concern, after all Pakistan is simply a nuclear power.
     
  3. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This has always been an appeaser red herring - Osama personally doesn't count for a tinker's dam. If Osama were offed (and he might already be dead because of US military action) al qaeda would simply replace him. What matters is al qaeda's worldwide organization, which has been decimated by the US and its allies. The appeaser attempt to fixate people on Osama is simply a way to distract people from this fact. If Osama WERE proven to be dead, the Bushophobes would simply change gears, and come up with a new bogus tactic.
     
  4. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,939
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Except that it isn't just Bin Laden:

    Who did you think the "appeasers" are trying to appease, Bin Laden, or Musharrif?
     
  5. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry - retired officers have no access to intelligence, and therefore don't know the current situation.



    All of them - Ahmadminejad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, the north koreans, Chavez, Castro - basically any thug with a gun.
     
  6. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Ever heard of the old boy network....better than official sources
     
  7. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,939
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    You, on the other hand, have access to intelligence, and know that Al Qaeda isn't taking refuge in the tribal areas of Pakistan and growing stronger and more numerous. That makes me feel so much better!

    And, of course, appeasing thugs with guns is on the agenda of every true liberal on the planet, that is to say, anyone willing to acknowledge that invading Iraq has turned out to be a costly mistake and distracted us from the real war against radical Islam, aka the "war on terror."
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    See my above post on why all of this is basically irrelevant as to what is happening in Pakistan. We can not do anything without Pres Mushareff.
     
  9. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,939
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Mushareff might just hoot and beat his chest to appease the factons in his own country who hate the US and want him out of power because he says he is a friend to the US. I don't think his hooting will amount to more than a lot of noise. What is he going to do against the forces of the US? Sure, it would be much better to have him on our side, but if he isn't, he isn't. Those tribal lands are only a part of Pakistan on the map anyway, not in any real sense do they show allegiance to Mushareff or to Pakistan.
     
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Unless you want to occupy Pakistan then your logic makes no sense. If we incite anti-Mushareff factions in Pakistan he will lose power in a hurry. That brings in a much more radical regime. This is simply not acceptable to the United States because Pakistan is a nuclear power and we cannot afford to basically force Musareff out of power in favor of a more radical regime.

    His hooting is not because he is going to oppose the US forces should we come in, it is because he will be outed from power in favor of a more radical regime, which we cannot allow.
     
  11. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,939
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    So you think Mushareff has us over a barrel, afraid to do anything without his OK, which in turn depends on the radicals in his own country giving their permission for him to give his permission for us to go after the people who attacked us seven years ago.

    Well, you may be right, and if you are, then we are in an indefensible position, aren't we?

    Meanwhile, we're spending billions every day fighting in Iraq, and for what?
     
  12. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    "I do wonder if it's in fact the case that al-Qa'eda has really reconstituted itself to a pre-9/11 capability, and in fact I would say I seriously doubt that. Their top-level leadership is still out there, but they're not communicating and they're not moving around. I think they're symbolic more than operationally effective." -Ryan Crocker, US ambassador in Baghdad and former ambassador in Islamabad

    I think killing or capturing Bin-Laden - PUBLICLY - would have horrible repercussions. We need to kill the dude, and never talk about it, which means you and I wouldn't know that it had happened.
     
  13. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,939
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    We need to capture Bin Laden, not kill him, at least not publically. The last thing we want is to give the cockroaches a martyr.
     
  14. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Did you ever watch the Nuremberg trials?

    We don't want to capture him publicly either!

    Seriously, think this through.... Bin Laden, on trial in the US, broadcast to billions of people in hundreds of nations, listening to him incite sympathizers to act against the US.

    Since you don't want to give him martyrdom, I guess we cannot give him the death penalty for killing 3000+ Americans... Just gonna lock him up like any other 2 bit criminal?

    Thats a really, really bad idea.
     
  15. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/bin_laden_family_link_to_bush.html

    My guess is they know and have always known where Osama is. And that he agreed to take the fall. Just a theory of course..

    Just a theory..

    Remember George W. begging his aides when they could invade Iraq? He was itching for an excuse at the get-go. He got one. 9-11

    ??? Nah! ?...

    Scratch that theory, it's too difficult to entertain..
     
Loading...

Share This Page