Well you can *know* what ever about terrorist, but you can't
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-08-23
In Reply to: This shows you exactly how much you know about the terrorists. sm - sm
preach about and demand change in the corruption in other countries and then not even be interested in the corruption in your own country.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
no, not a lie. He is not a terrorist
but he certainly has ties to, and support from, some very very questionable people, and yes from terrorists. That makes him lacking in judgment at best, and certainly of questionable motives and character.
They don't care how terrorist's think...
They'd have to read what Middle Eastern experts - you know, people who have lived in or are from the Middle East would have to say. That would involve critical THINKING. Bush flaunted repeatedly the fact that he never consulted anyone about the situation in the Middle East before going to war. The only folks he consulted were...you guessed it - Rummy, Wolfy and the gang.
Terrorist Bush
Bush Told Blair of 'Going beyond Iraq'
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian UK
Saturday 15 October 2005
George Bush told Tony Blair shortly before the invasion of Iraq that he intended to target other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which, he implied, planned to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Bush said he wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan, according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men on January 30 2003.
The note is quoted in the US edition, published next week, of Lawless World, America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, by the British international lawyer Philippe Sands. The memo was drawn up by one of the prime minister's foreign policy advisers in Downing Street and passed to the Foreign Office, according to Mr Sands.
It is not surprising that Mr Bush referred to Iran and North Korea, or even Pakistan - at the time suspected of spreading nuclear know-how, but now one of America's closest allies in the war on terror. What is significant is the mention of Saudi Arabia.
In Washington, the neo-cons in particular were hostile to the Saudi royal family and did not think they were doing enough to quell Islamist extremists - 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers were Saudis. But the Bush administration did not in public express concern about any Saudi nuclear ambitions.
In September 2003, the Guardian reported that Saudi Arabia had embarked on a strategic review that included acquiring nuclear weapons. Until then, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella despite the worsening relationship between Riyadh and Washington.
It is not clear how Mr Blair responded to Mr Bush's remarks during the telephone conversation, which took place on the eve of a trip to Washington for talks with the US president.
In his book, Blair's Wars, John Kampfner says that at the meeting the two leaders agreed to concentrate not just on Iraq ... but also the Middle East. But that was taken to be a reference to Palestine. Mr Blair wanted Mr Bush to express concern about the plight of the Palestinians to appease the Labour party.
Mr Blair at the time was careful to avoid any suggestion that the Bush administration intended to target other countries after the invasion of Iraq. However, for the first time he suggested there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
After the invasion, Washington adopted a calmer approach towards Iran, leaving it to Britain, France, and Germany to pursue a diplomatic course.
Despite hard evidence that Pakistan was deeply involved in exporting nuclear technology, the Bush administration embraced President Pervez Musharraf as an ally against al-Qaida. Washington's relations with Saudi Arabia remain cool. Mr Sands does not shed further light on the issue.
Bush the terrorist
I see the world and the majority of America realizing, finally, that Bush is incompetent, a fool, not to be trusted and as much a terrorist as Osama..OMG, even conservative republicans are speaking out against Bush..Time to stop defending a fool, if you ask me..these next months/years will show the reasons for war were all lies, this whole administration is corrupt..These are great times for honest law abiding hard working Americans who did not drink the Kool-Aid..
They obviously believe there's only one terrorist in the world
I just don't understand why they think Bin Laden is the only terrorists. There are several major terror cells in the world all bent on destroying Western culture and Israel. I personally think Bin Laden is dead anyway.
Terrorist links
Can you PROVE beyond a shadow of DOUBT that this is TRUE?? sheesh!!
How exactly is it that a terrorist dresses? n/m
x
Don't forget a son of a terrorist.
x
You must mean a terrorIST attack, because sm
We are attacked by people who call themselves terrorists. Unless of course, you have terror attacks like some people have panic attacks.
The terrorist's best friend.
Is the Taliban on your Christmas card list as well?
You seem to have swallowed the leftist lies hook, line, and sinker.
Let's not forget to honor those hard-working, industrious Nazis while we're at it.
And the Sudanese guerrilas.
And the lonely, struggling serial killers and child molesters and suicide bombers.
We have had plenty of terrorist
AND after 9/11.
- USS Cole.
- 2000 New Year attack attempt at Los Angeles Airport, but stopped at Port Angeles, WA ferry terminal during Clinton.
- New York Bomb Subway in 1997 with Clinton in office.
My gosh, there is a whole list of terrorist attack attempts.
Now I am known as a terrorist and an extremist?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/protest-grows-report-right-wing-radicalization/
The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun or are a returning war veteran.
That's what House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday in response to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of the rise of right-wing extremist groups.
Smith, who said the report on "right-wing extremism" amounts to "political profiling," said that DHS is "using people's political views to assess an individual's susceptibility to terror recruitment." He joins a growing chorus of protest from irate conservative groups that are protesting the report's findings.
The report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," released last week by DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis, said while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, it suggests acts of violence could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and it singles out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.
A senior Republican Judiciary Committee aide tells FOX News that the Obama administration "should immediately retract the report and apologize," saying that according to the report, pro-lifers, anyone who lost their jobs or are one of the thousands of military veterans who have fought to prevent another 9/11 could be suspect.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report Wednesday, saying it is part of an ongoing series of assessments to provide information to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on "violent radicalization" in the United States.
"Let me be clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States," Napolitano said in a statement. "We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence."
The report follows a similar report released in January by DHS that detailed left-wing threats, focusing on cyberattacks and radical "eco-terrorist" groups like Earth Liberation Front, accused of firebombing construction sites, logging companies, car dealerships and food science labs. The report notes that left-wing extremists prefer economic damage on businesses to get the message across.
"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights," said Smith. "That's like saying if you love puppies you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."
U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-FL, told FOX News he was "offended" by the report's suggestion that returning troops could be potential targets for extremist groups.
"I am very offended and really disturbed that they would even say our military veterans, our returning war heroes would be capable of committing any terrorist acts," he said. "Where do they get off doing that? I demand an apology from [Napolitano] and even the President of the United States."
Veterans' groups are also taking issue with the report, which says disgruntled vets are considered coveted recruits for groups looking for "combat skills and experience."
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists," the report reads. "[DHS] is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."
Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, said the report represents a "gross misunderstanding and oversimplification" of the country's service members.
"It's amazing they would single out veterans as a threat to this country," said Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq. "It underscores a pervasive belief that some are trying to spread that veterans are victims and we're coming home as damaged goods that need to be coddled instead of celebrated."
The report prompted a harsh and swift reaction for the American Legion on Tuesday. In a letter to Napolitano, American Legion National Commander David Rehbein blasted the report as incomplete and politically-biased.
"The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," Rehbein wrote. "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."
Napolitano said in her statement on Wednesday that she was aware of the letter, and plans to meet with Rehbein sometime next week.
"I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary."
"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not nor will we ever monitor ideology or political beliefs," read Napolitano's statement. "We take seriously our responsibility to protect civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."
Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said DHS' latest report "clearly appears to censor right-wing opinion," while its earlier assessment of left-wing extremists does not.
"I must say it's chilling, it worries me a great deal," London said. "I never have encountered a time in American life when condemnation of a president is not permitted. This really did strike me as odd, indeed."
London called on President Obama to repudiate the right-wing report.
"What is the message here? That conservative organizations are not permitted to engage in any language that might be described as unfavorable to the president," London said. "Keep in mind this is entirely subjective to begin with."
What is YOUR definition of a terrorist? nm
x
Or one might think you are an Islamofascist terrorist sympathizer. nm
The answer is, there is no terrorist threat. sm
That sums it up.
Occupation is the ultimate terrorist act.
Let's get something straight here. Israel is the occupier and Palestine is the occupied. Steal their land, blockade their supplies, invade them, kill and maim them, impose a police state, sabotage their economy and THEN call them the terrorists...self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever heard one. You have not one leg to stand on here. Terrorism breeds terrorism. Israel has not only cornered the marked on chaos in Palestine, but throughout the region as well. Bloodshed is their middle name. They wrote the book on savagery.
No dear. Perhaps massacres turn you on, but they certainly do not make me giddy. Nobody twisted my arm when I formulated my opinions on this issue, since it is based on my own life experiences, just like yours are. Wanna talk monsters? From where I sit, those would be the Israeli population who sits idly by in their complicity and turn a blind eye to the moral outrage on which they base their nationalism. That's the only thing that burns me.
Israel kicks the holy heck out of itself every time it goes on another one of its bloody rampages. The whole rest of the world, with the exception of the US (whose motives are none too clean either) abhors this behavior and no amount of self-righteous indignation is going to change that fact. My other post already addressed the sheer folly of your suicide bomber reference.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the objective of Hamas missile fire is to bring attention of the world back to Palestine, the long forgotten and ignored, but as long as they are occupied, it is not that difficult to understand why they would like to blow Israel off the face of the earth. Since you are not in charge of Hamas militia, you hardly can pretend to be able to predict their future operations, except to parrot the endless propaganda you hear on US mainstream media.
As far as the Stone Age is concerned, Israel would like to think of itself as being all modern and civilized, but they can never join those ranks as long as they remain the occupying war criminals they have been since day one.
HAMAS is a terrorist group
nm
Santa protecting children from a terrorist
what's wrong with that?
and just where is the terrorist going to put that TNT--in the manager?
I guess if you were Santa you'd just try to give the terrorist a big ole hug...
You know it's pretty darn sad that Christmas is so darn political this year. This is a neutral statement because it's happening on both sides, liberal and conservative
Iraqi terrorist training camps?
Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon. There was never any real proof of training camps in Iraq. As far as terrorists having been in Iraq at one time or another....it's a middle eastern country.....they were way down toward the bottom of the list of terrorist hang-outs.
In my opinion, McCain is just as bad as the terrorist people because he obviously just wants to get
x
Towel-headed terrorist? Is that how you see ALL Moslems
a young man visiting his Kenyan relatives in search of his roots who is paying respect to his family and his host nation by donning traditional Dashiki and head gear. I also see a sense of pride in his expression...something that he is entitled to have. When in Rome...
McCain? A soldier who served his country with honor, came home and dumped his crippled wife and mother of his children, traded her in for a younger model, then turned around years later and exploited his POW status for political gain.
Where do you see this domestic terrorist stuff? I'd be interested in sm
viewing your list of what "they" (and who are "they"?) are classifying as dom terrorists?
As for Reagan, there was a good-sized depression in the early 1980s (which you proby don't remember, being of the Iraqi war vet age) - his policies were good for the rich but nobody else.
The longer this goes on, the bigger terrorist breading ground sm
Iraq becomes. This is getting past ridiculous. Now, I don't think we should just pull out, but I think we need to let them have it, and there will be more US casualties, and get out ASAP.
Are there any good books on *the radical terrorist mind*? sm
and whose the author?
Any ideas on how paying down too much debt could be a terrorist threat?nm
Or disagreeing with Bush gets you labeled a terrorist sympathizer?
The most absurd label to date.
Great, Obama has "class" and a terrorist friend
nm
On terrorist ties, since topic is popular for the moment
McCain link to private group in Iran-Contra case.
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/sections/politics/ci_10655363
October 9 after Palin and McCain called him a terrorist
someone yelled out 'kill him' but of course McCain's people say they cannot be sure if it was towards Ayers (spelling?)or Obama.
"Traitor, terrorist, treason, liar, off with his head"
You think this happened only in one place?
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/16/missouri-voter-sues-over-mccain-campaign-hate-speech/
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Grandmother_sues_McCain_for_hate_speech_1017.html
You could try googling "hate speech McCain rallies" and sift through the 516,000 hits yourself.
And you think that terrorist attack was planned in just a few months during his presidency?
nm
Who honestly cares, as long as the terrorist threat was stopped. sm
Until all of you stop your Bush rabid hatred, the terrorist threat is not only lost on you, you look for something more sinister and it all has to point to Bush. This is really disturbing.
Police putting names of activists on terrorist lists. sm
Dissent is patriotic. I wonder how many people are on these lists. It's creepy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245_pf.html
Are you seriously calling OBAMA a terrorist? shame on you and ... unAmerican, unpatriotic!
nm
You cannot call an apartheid occupier and state sponsored terrorist "democracy"
Israel is a US-sponsored puppet regime, just like Saddam was in the 80s and the Shah of Iran was in the 60s and 70s. We all know how they ended up. JTBB said it well before in a post a few days back. They are no more than a bishop in a regional chess game.
Israel's so-called wealth and war chest has been amassed on the backs of US taxpayers over the years and their land has been "fertilized" with generations of Palestinian blood that deeply soaks its fields, alley ways, highways, byways and city streets. One of those geographic shortcomings is the water they fill their swimming pools with while they cut Palestinians off from their anemic water supplies. Nice folks, those Israelis.
The Palestinians do not have to "paint" themselves as anything as long as they are occupied and blockaded. That speaks for itself. Denying the occupation ranks right up there with denying the Holocaust. Shame on you. For the last time, you cannot bring God into the ungodly. You would do well to put your spiritual self into a meditative trance and read up on the real history of the region.
|
