wrote in message
...
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.

Bush's fault?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
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?


If I were president, my overall "flavor" would've been "**** national
borders". If I think he's in your country, it's not your country until OBL
is mine.

Gee. You are actually starting to sound like GWB ..... only worse.

Eisboch

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.

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.

Eisboch

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:33:27 -0500, WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:58:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:22:23 GMT, Duke Nukem
wrote:

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


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.

Worked for the Russians in Lebanon.

Yes it did, they learned a lesson.


Was that when the Russians decided to cool their jets after one or more of
their favorite operatives or diplomats were delivered in a less-than-healthy
condition? I'm vague on the details and which period of time they relate
to....


I have no links, nor do I have proof...

I heard that just before the hostage crisis, they kidnapped a Russian.

Shortly thereafter, the heads of the captors were seen rolling down the
street.

End of Russian hostage taking.

Sort of. I remember it very well for reasons we won't get into here.

A Russian "diplomat" and his bodyguard was kidnapped off the streets
during the spate of kidnappings common then.

They were released six hours later.

The Russian KGB sent a messenger to the Hezbollah group doing the
kidnapping with a simple message - we know who you are, who your
famlies are and where they live.

That's all it took.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
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?


If I were president, my overall "flavor" would've been "**** national
borders". If I think he's in your country, it's not your country until
OBL is mine.

Gee. You are actually starting to sound like GWB ..... only worse.

Eisboch



When one of my fillings from childhood deteriorates, my dentist says "You
want novocaine while I fix this? It'll only hurt for about 8 seconds and
I'll tell you when." We don't use novocaine. The filling gets fixed. It
hurts for 8 seconds.

GWB didn't do things like this. He had no idea how long it would hurt. Not a
****ing clue.

wrote:
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.


You didn't answer the question. You made a statement, provided two
quotes form GWB and my made another statement.

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?

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.

As it is now we have OBL looking over his shoulder every few minutes.
Any time he hears and airplane or helicopter he has to run to a new
hiding place. How powerful a had of a terrorist organization can you be
when you are scurrying around like a rat from hiding place to hiding place?

It would be better if OBL died of some natural cause not in the struggle
for Islamic supremacy.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
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.


He knows what he's been told to think. Isn't that good enough?


And you do not think. Worked for the Russians. And even if it does not
accomplish anything other than removing 20 people that believe in Jihad, it
does accomplish that. 1000 Jihadist == 20,000 fewer Jihadists.

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?

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?


Eisboch