On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:29:59 -0500, BAR wrote:


Again, what would you have done to capture OBL? We already have the
statements and quotes now please provide information on what you,
Thunder, would or would have done to capture or kill OBL?

Oh please, it isn't about Monday morning quarterbacking, it's about
desire. This administration put bin Laden on the back-burner, and it
seems to me, we should know why. Did you know, the CIA unit that was
tasked with capturing bin Laden was shut down in 2005? Why?

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based
uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam.
Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is
not that important.

If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't
disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a
symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact
that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about
us, doesn't it?

Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan.


It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.

Which public is that? The one greeting us with flowers and dances in the
street?

Folks who think the US is screwed up because we haven't captured bin Laden.


--
John H

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:19:29 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:29:59 -0500, BAR wrote:


Again, what would you have done to capture OBL? We already have the
statements and quotes now please provide information on what you,
Thunder, would or would have done to capture or kill OBL?

Oh please, it isn't about Monday morning quarterbacking, it's about
desire. This administration put bin Laden on the back-burner, and it
seems to me, we should know why. Did you know, the CIA unit that was
tasked with capturing bin Laden was shut down in 2005? Why?

"Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can
better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather
than on specific organizations or individuals, the Times reported."
--
John H

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked
us.

Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising
against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden
may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that
important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for
al-qiada.


Not under MY plan, he doesn't.

Enlighten us please.

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:29:59 -0500, BAR wrote:


Again, what would you have done to capture OBL? We already have the
statements and quotes now please provide information on what you,
Thunder, would or would have done to capture or kill OBL?

Oh please, it isn't about Monday morning quarterbacking, it's about
desire. This administration put bin Laden on the back-burner, and it
seems to me, we should know why. Did you know, the CIA unit that was
tasked with capturing bin Laden was shut down in 2005? Why?

You are the one making statements and assertions that GWB screwed by not
focusing all or our intelligence agencies and our military on the
capture of a single enfeebled man, OBL.

The movement is more important than a single man. The movement will
survive the capture and or death of OBL.

OBL dying in dark cave in the mountains is a good thing.

On Jan 16, 5:14*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:55:56 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:







wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:14:53 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
have lost touch with America, read this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html

Unbelievable.
The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture,
secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales,
no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands
seriously
wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without
health
insurance, incredible national debt.
And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam.

Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to
something
else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war on
terror".
That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that you feel
have
prevented an attack on U.S. soil.

The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for
a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or
even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated
terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that
is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is
unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry
specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens
all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists.

The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can
rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples
of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't
fight the war on terrorism with paper.

The notion of a "war on terror" is laughable. I have news for you. You
can't possibly win it by use of force.

Probably the only way to win is via force. *Extreme Force. *If a family
sends one of their own as an attacker, kill the complete family. *May not be
PC, but the message will get through very quickly.

That will never accomplish anything other than to create more terrorists. I
really don't think you understand the situation at all. Really.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly! Hell, most of the world now either hates us, or sees us a
bunch of Keystone cops bumbling through the world!

On Jan 16, 12:45*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 11:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





"BAR" wrote in message

news

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
have lost touch with America, read this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html

Unbelievable.
The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture,
secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales,
no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands
seriously
wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without
health
insurance, incredible national debt.
And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam.

Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to
something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war
on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that
you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil.

The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for
a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or
even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated
terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that
is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is
unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry
specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens
all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists.

The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can
rise
and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples of
those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't
fight
the war on terrorism with paper.

OK. But, you said the Bush legacy includes not one successful attack on
the
US by followers of Islam.

This positive thing didn't happen just because Bush is the president. You
need to connect it with physical measures taken to prevent the attacks.
Can
you name 2-3 measures which you believe prevented us from being attacked?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Because he believes Bush can do no wrong because he's a Republican
2. Rush said so
3. Hannity said so.
=======================

Actually, there *were* some measures that may have prevented the attacks,
but I need to know which ones Bert is referring to.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good luck!

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:19:29 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:29:59 -0500, BAR wrote:


Again, what would you have done to capture OBL? We already have the
statements and quotes now please provide information on what you,
Thunder, would or would have done to capture or kill OBL?

Oh please, it isn't about Monday morning quarterbacking, it's about
desire. This administration put bin Laden on the back-burner, and it
seems to me, we should know why. Did you know, the CIA unit that was
tasked with capturing bin Laden was shut down in 2005? Why?

About getting Bin Laden, I'm not sure if the blame lies with the
politicians or the military.
Don't know if a truthful history has been written, and I don't claim
to know all the facts. But I do remember how I felt when he was
trapped at Tora Bora and the job to get him was outsourced to
ragheads.
I thought that whoever was in charge didn't want to suffer the U.S.
casualties that boots on the ground there would mean.
Not the troops, they were ready as hell to get the cocksucker, and
would have died to get him. The leadership.
He got away because the leaders were pussies.
Tommy Franks or George Bush. Take your pick.
And that's how I still feel.
Bin Laden loose is a disgrace to America.
And anybody who disagrees can just kiss my ass in advance,
because I ain't going to argue about it.

--Vic

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:02 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch
100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.
What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?
Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked
us.

Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising
against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden
may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that
important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.
If we kill OBL he becomes a martyr and is good for recruitment, for
al-qiada.


Not under MY plan, he doesn't.

Enlighten us please.

Publish a picture of his detached head, toss all his parts in the
middle of an undisclosed ocean, and never say another word about him.
Of course the TV forensic pathologists will cry about not being able
to perform an autopsy, like they did with Bhutto, to find out how she
*really* died.

--Vic

wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:45 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 16, 11:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:





"BAR" wrote in message

news

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
have lost touch with America, read this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html

Unbelievable.
The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture,
secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales,
no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands
seriously
wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without
health
insurance, incredible national debt.
And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam.

Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to
something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the
war
on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions
that
you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil.

The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil
for
a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated
or
even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated
terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that
that
is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is
unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry
specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American
citizens
all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists.

The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can
rise
and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples of
those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't
fight
the war on terrorism with paper.

OK. But, you said the Bush legacy includes not one successful attack on
the
US by followers of Islam.

This positive thing didn't happen just because Bush is the president.
You
need to connect it with physical measures taken to prevent the attacks.
Can
you name 2-3 measures which you believe prevented us from being
attacked?-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Because he believes Bush can do no wrong because he's a Republican
2. Rush said so
3. Hannity said so.
=======================

Actually, there *were* some measures that may have prevented the attacks,
but I need to know which ones Bert is referring to.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good luck!

===================

He's lost track of the discussion by now. He's got a very short attention
span.