Violent Muslims............

[NDSUFREAK]

Oh, so you are one of those people...so is Usama Bin Laden a fake person too?

You just had to ask, didn't ya? Well, prepare yourself for one helluva answer.

Oh trust me I expect it. I've had multiple encounters with these conspiracy theorists and it is entertaining to see them go on about nothing

[kalm]

We can try to get along, but the reason for reading and thinking is to realize we're not taking this to them, they are bringing it to us and have for 14 centuries.

It is the Muslim imperative to do so in their scriptures. It is not the religion that we are fighting, but the theo-political construct that it sets up of all government and actions being subject to Sharia law.

It is unschooled not to see that we have either the Chamberlin response of appeasement which will not work or the Churchill response to defend ourselves through resistance. The response of live and let live will not work because we are not the aggressors.

Do you really think there are people out there who believe we should appease the radicals?

[LeadBolt]

We can try to get along, but the reason for reading and thinking is to realize we're not taking this to them, they are bringing it to us and have for 14 centuries.

It is the Muslim imperative to do so in their scriptures. It is not the religion that we are fighting, but the theo-political construct that it sets up of all government and actions being subject to Sharia law.

It is unschooled not to see that we have either the Chamberlin response of appeasement which will not work or the Churchill response to defend ourselves through resistance. The response of live and let live will not work because we are not the aggressors.

Do you really think there are people out there who believe we should appease the radicals?

I believe one such person sits in the Oval Office. Luckily the head of the CIA and Defense department do not share those views.

[kalm]

Do you really think there are people out there who believe we should appease the radicals?

I believe one such person sits in the Oval Office. Luckily the head of the CIA and Defense department do not share those views.

Aghanistan, Libya, predator drones, Bin Laden.

[dbackjon]

After all these years, I'm still not convinced that the US landed on the Moon...

They clearly did - but the space race was to cover up the landing of the Transformers on the dark side of the moon. I know this is true - I saw the trailer for the movie about it at the theater last night.

[grizzaholic]

After all these years, I'm still not convinced that the US landed on the Moon...

They clearly did - but the space race was to cover up the landing of the Transformers on the dark side of the moon. I know this is true - I saw the trailer for the movie about it at the theater last night.

What did you go to see, or did you just go to watch the trailers and commercials and then get up and leave?

[LeadBolt]

I believe one such person sits in the Oval Office. Luckily the head of the CIA and Defense department do not share those views.

Aghanistan, Libya, predator drones, Bin Laden.

The President continues to, in essence vote "present" on all these.

Here are excerpts from an article on Bin Laden, the likes of which the mainline press won't publish:


Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.”

The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/06 ... e-trigger/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

Aghanistan, Libya, predator drones, Bin Laden.

The President continues to, in essence vote "present" on all these.

Here are excerpts from an article on Bin Laden, the likes of which the mainline press won't publish:


Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.”

The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/06 ... e-trigger/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh now your're just picking nits. You stated that Obama wants to appease muslims. He clearly does not.

[dbackjon]

They clearly did - but the space race was to cover up the landing of the Transformers on the dark side of the moon. I know this is true - I saw the trailer for the movie about it at the theater last night.

What did you go to see, or did you just go to watch the trailers and commercials and then get up and leave?

Trailer was before the screening of the year's best film, Fast Five

[dbackjon]

Violet Muslim

[AZGrizFan]

I believe one such person sits in the Oval Office. Luckily the head of the CIA and Defense department do not share those views.

Aghanistan, Libya, predator drones, Bin Laden.

Negotiating with terrorists....

[kalm]

Aghanistan, Libya, predator drones, Bin Laden.

Negotiating with terrorists....

Unless you're a conk, then it's called "keeping America safe", "tough on terrorism"...

[AZGrizFan]

Negotiating with terrorists....

Unless you're a conk, then it's called "keeping America safe", "tough on terrorism"...

Nope. Been against it from the beginning. But would you not classify that as "appeasing the radicals"?

[kalm]

Unless you're a conk, then it's called "keeping America safe", "tough on terrorism"...

Nope. Been against it from the beginning. But would you not classify that as "appeasing the radicals"?

Using predator drones, escalation in Afghanistan, killing Bin Laden, wiretapping, etc? No. Now if you want to talk about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Duplicity - perhaps. I think that would be Leadbolts strongest position. But it also happens to be what many presidents before him have done.

[AZGrizFan]

Nope. Been against it from the beginning. But would you not classify that as "appeasing the radicals"?

Using predator drones, escalation in Afghanistan, killing Bin Laden, wiretapping, etc? No. Now if you want to talk about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Duplicity - perhaps. I think that would be Leadbolts strongest position. But it also happens to be what many presidents before him have done.

I'm talking specifically of agreeing to negotiate a settelment with known terrorists.

[kalm]

Using predator drones, escalation in Afghanistan, killing Bin Laden, wiretapping, etc? No. Now if you want to talk about Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Duplicity - perhaps. I think that would be Leadbolts strongest position. But it also happens to be what many presidents before him have done.

I'm talking specifically of agreeing to negotiate a settelment with known terrorists.

Refresh my memory

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

They clearly did - but the space race was to cover up the landing of the Transformers on the dark side of the moon. I know this is true - I saw the trailer for the movie about it at the theater last night.

What did you go to see, or did you just go to watch the trailers and commercials and then get up and leave?

Those trailers were not real, they were spliced into the film by Mohammed Atta, hes alive and well.................he sells popcorn and soda at the Cineplex.

[LeadBolt]

The President continues to, in essence vote "present" on all these.

Here are excerpts from an article on Bin Laden, the likes of which the mainline press won't publish:


Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.”

The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/06 ... e-trigger/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh now your're just picking nits. You stated that Obama wants to appease muslims. He clearly does not.

To name a few things, Obama's 2009 speech in Egypt (have your read it?), his stance on Palestine, his support for the mosque in NYC near the twin towers (how often does a US President get involved in a local zoning matter?), his deffrence to the Saudi king, his use of US government funds to pass a Kenyan constitution in 2010 that made Muslim courts equal to Kenyan government courts among others, I'd say he is appeasing.

The point on his inaction on Bin Laden was in reference to your use of that as a proof of him being hard on Muslims to show that he was not and basically he was manipulated into action he was not aware of until it had begun. A thinking person would as why was he reluctant to act on Bin Laden. Since, as you pointed out with the drones, we continually violate Pakistan's airspace to track down Al Queda, that doesn't seem like a reason.

For the drones and the wars you point to, Obama inherited them and is taking steps to wind them down...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I heard Obama has a "wide stance" on Palestine, it was the only thing him and Larry Craig agreed on.

[Grizalltheway]

Oh now your're just picking nits. You stated that Obama wants to appease muslims. He clearly does not.

To name a few things, Obama's 2009 speech in Egypt (have your read it?), his stance on Palestine, his support for the mosque in NYC near the twin towers (how often does a US President get involved in a local zoning matter?), his deffrence to the Saudi king, his use of US government funds to pass a Kenyan constitution in 2010 that made Muslim courts equal to Kenyan government courts among others, I'd say he is appeasing.

The point on his inaction on Bin Laden was in reference to your use of that as a proof of him being hard on Muslims to show that he was not and basically he was manipulated into action he was not aware of until it had begun. A thinking person would as why was he reluctant to act on Bin Laden. Since, as you pointed out with the drones, we continually violate Pakistan's airspace to track down Al Queda, that doesn't seem like a reason.

For the drones and the wars you point to, Obama inherited them and is taking steps to wind them down...

Drone attacks have increased significantly under Obama. Keep cranking that bullshit machine, though.

[Wedgebuster]

He should have given the pirates more time to negotiate..

[LeadBolt]

To name a few things, Obama's 2009 speech in Egypt (have your read it?), his stance on Palestine, his support for the mosque in NYC near the twin towers (how often does a US President get involved in a local zoning matter?), his deffrence to the Saudi king, his use of US government funds to pass a Kenyan constitution in 2010 that made Muslim courts equal to Kenyan government courts among others, I'd say he is appeasing.

The point on his inaction on Bin Laden was in reference to your use of that as a proof of him being hard on Muslims to show that he was not and basically he was manipulated into action he was not aware of until it had begun. A thinking person would as why was he reluctant to act on Bin Laden. Since, as you pointed out with the drones, we continually violate Pakistan's airspace to track down Al Queda, that doesn't seem like a reason.

For the drones and the wars you point to, Obama inherited them and is taking steps to wind them down...

Drone attacks have increased significantly under Obama. Keep cranking that bullshit machine, though.

Drone attacks began in 2006, Obama became President in 2009. Can you point to a source that give the number of attacks by year?

[Grizalltheway]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

If its a me or them thing then I will take psychopath any day of the week.


Also Did you read the article I posted..............the funny thing is.....9-11 wasnt anywhere in the article you fu*king retard.

Oh and youre wrong all the hijackers that took over the planes were muslims. Spear me the psychobabble jagoff if you dont believe a plane can bring down a building then dont but dont try to get any rational person to buy your nonscientific BS.

Dumbfucker- Many of the allged "hijackers" have turned up alive around the world- that means the government story is a lie.

When will the passengers from the planes start reappearing?


What science did you get your degree in, spando? Serious question.

[houndawg]

Aghanistan, Libya, predator drones, Bin Laden.

Negotiating with terrorists....

Arms for hostages.....