Can someone explain how 9/11 deniers damage america?

[MaxOverlord]

I thought that Republicans were always right.

I'm always right everyone else is always wrong...oh wait.....

[Mr JP Fugley]

We need a leader that will talk to them in their language.

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

[brotherdoobie]

We need a leader that will talk to them in their language.

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

Bush...mumbles more than,he verbalizes.
:fightorflightsyndrome:

-bd

[MaxOverlord]

We need a leader that will talk to them in their language.

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

I second that motion Mr JP

[Mr JP Fugley]

I think that's exactly what they got.

In other news, if you have a group of people who hate everyone who isn't one of them.

If they declare that you have two options, join them or die.

Talking about it isn't one of my top options.

I second that motion Mr JP

Warmonger.

[brotherdoobie]

I second that motion Mr JP

Warmonger.

It's just Kevin.

-bd

[j2k4]

Don’t forget to mop that up before you go, not only will it attract flies but someone could slip in it and break their neck.

Only a liberal would "slip in it and break their neck", but that danger is easily overcome by affixing a ""DANGER!" sticker, which step I've taken to keep you out of trouble.

Also, could you tell me at all (at all) which Islamic terrorist organizations were represented in the various armed conflicts in which Clinton involved us.

What does that have to do with anything? A war is a war.

No, no it's not, and to say that it is reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by liberals.

Now can you tell us at all (at all) just what Iraq had to do with AQ and 911?

If you use the old AQ was in Iraq I will point out that Saddam was their enemy. Iraq is a distraction that hinders our fight against the terrorists.

It has never been proven that Al Qaeda was not there before Saddam was deposed, but, in any case, I've never hinged any of my arguments on that point.

If you say AQ is operating in Iraq now I will point out that the fighting involving AQ is a tiny percentage, nearly all the violence is civil war infighting. I will also point out that if they are in Iraq today that this occurred because of the invasion…….oh and world wide terror attacks were up 25% last year……so we must be safer. And once you have done that you could perhaps get back on thread.

Point being that Al Qaeda is there now, in whatever numbers, and fomenting others, as well as promoting civil strife, which effectively and greatly expands violence which can be attributed directly to them, you see.

As to the issue of increased terror attacks, you seem to have kept that tidbit close to hand.

Will you tell us now how many of these attacks were Al Qaeda affairs?

They only count for purposes of debate if they are Al Qaeda-sponsored, so I believe I'll disallow your point.

Nice distraction from the subject though. Back on point. The crying out “traitor/troop undermine /emboldened/aide and comforters” is nothing more than trying to silence instead of debate

And anyone who attempts to make hay saying that a "date certain" for withdrawal does not favor the enemy is (please forgive the lack of polysyllabic content in the following word; no other word is properly descriptive) stupid.

[vidcc]

What does that have to do with anything? A war is a war.

No, no it's not, and to say that it is reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by liberals.

Yes it is. The enemy may be different but war is war. And to try to excuse the behavior of the republicans as being somehow different reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by conservatives.

It has never been proven that Al Qaeda was not there before Saddam was deposed, but, in any case, I've never hinged any of my arguments on that point.

A faith based war


Ok let me say that it has been shown that there were some AQ in Iraq, BUT they were not there under a safe haven, and Saddam made efforts to stamp out/kill them in the same way he did with all threats to his power

Point being that Al Qaeda is there now, in whatever numbers, and fomenting others, as well as promoting civil strife, which effectively and greatly expands violence which can be attributed directly to them, you see.

And this is a direct result of this administrations actions. Yes???????

Yet the ones who were right about this before the war are somehow deemed less credible.

As to the issue of increased terror attacks, you seem to have kept that tidbit close to hand.

Will you tell us now how many of these attacks were Al Qaeda affairs?

They only count for purposes of debate if they are Al Qaeda-sponsored, so I believe I'll disallow your point.

look here I made a mistake, the figure is 29%

Nice distraction from the subject though. Back on point. The crying out “traitor/troop undermine /emboldened/aide and comforters” is nothing more than trying to silence instead of debate

And anyone who attempts to make hay saying that a "date certain" for withdrawal does not favor the enemy is (please forgive the lack of polysyllabic content in the following word; no other word is properly descriptive) stupid.

Then by the standards the are trying to place on the those that disagree with Bush now the republicans were "defeatist, wave the white flag cowards" while Clinton was in office. This "stupid" description also includes bush...remember he was quite clear about the need for timetables when it was Clinton in charge

Added This "date certain" is just a talking point, not what the bill said. I know you don't do "details" but the bill required the withdrawal from standing in the middle of the iraqis shooting at each other. It did not say withdraw all (or for that matter any) troops from fighting AQ in Iraq. Troops would remain for the reasons we have been given all along by Bush as to why we went there.....training Iraqi troops and actively combat the terrorists.
I will add that "bringing the troops home and ending this war" is also a talking point because of the same details.

But again this is all off thread.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=vidcc;1962288]

No, no it's not, and to say that it is reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by liberals.

Yes it is. The enemy may be different but war is war. And to try to excuse the behavior of the republicans as being somehow different reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by conservatives.

It has never been proven that Al Qaeda was not there before Saddam was deposed, but, in any case, I've never hinged any of my arguments on that point.

A faith based war


Ok let me say that it has been shown that there were some AQ in Iraq, BUT they were not there under a safe haven, and Saddam made efforts to stamp out/kill them in the same way he did with all threats to his power

Point being that Al Qaeda is there now, in whatever numbers, and fomenting others, as well as promoting civil strife, which effectively and greatly expands violence which can be attributed directly to them, you see.

And this is a direct result of this administrations actions. Yes???????

Yet the ones who were right about this before the war are somehow deemed less credible.

As to the issue of increased terror attacks, you seem to have kept that tidbit close to hand.

Will you tell us now how many of these attacks were Al Qaeda affairs?

They only count for purposes of debate if they are Al Qaeda-sponsored, so I believe I'll disallow your point.

look here I made a mistake, the figure is 29%

Nice distraction from the subject though. Back on point. The crying out “traitor/troop undermine /emboldened/aide and comforters” is nothing more than trying to silence instead of debate

And anyone who attempts to make hay saying that a "date certain" for withdrawal does not favor the enemy is (please forgive the lack of polysyllabic content in the following word; no other word is properly descriptive) stupid.

Then by the standards the are trying to place on the those that disagree with Bush now the republicans were "defeatist, wave the white flag cowards" while Clinton was in office. This "stupid" description also includes bush...remember he was quite clear about the need for timetables when it was Clinton in charge

You miss (for perhaps the thousandth time in your history on this board) the rather salient fact that 9/11 had not yet occurred, and the sea-change it occasioned had not taken place, either.

Unless you deny that it changed U.S. foreign policy significantly.

Perhaps you would prefer to argue that while it did, it should not have?

Added This "date certain" is just a talking point, not what the bill said. I know you don't do "details" but the bill required the withdrawal from standing in the middle of the iraqis shooting at each other. It did not say withdraw all (or for that matter any) troops from fighting AQ in Iraq. Troops would remain for the reasons we have been given all along by Bush as to why we went there.....training Iraqi troops and actively combat the terrorists.
I will add that "bringing the troops home and ending this war" is also a talking point because of the same details.

Sounds like backpedaling to me...

But again this is all off thread.

It's not off-topic until the author of this thread says so, and that's not you, is it.

[vidcc]

You miss (for perhaps the thousandth time in your history on this board) the rather salient fact that 9/11 had not yet occurred, and the sea-change it occasioned had not taken place, either.

Unless you deny that it changed U.S. foreign policy significantly.

Perhaps you would prefer to argue that while it did, it should not have?

Another talking point and another shining example of distraction comments made in the hope of silencing debate instead of substantiative reasoning.

Why is it that every time the Iraq war is discussed the right wing always brings up 911 as if Iraq had one thing to do with it and then suggest those that disagree with their view have somehow forgotten it?


I will say that American foreign policy did change significantly..... some incompetent republican president uses it to justify bad policy in a war that had nothing to do with it leading us into far more danger.

BTW. 911 hadn't occurred but we had been attacked, wasn't that attack big enough for those republicans to "change the way the world is viewed"?

Here's a scoop...... the "Iraq war" was won 4 years ago by the troops. What happened after that was a failed neo con ideological experiment at the end of a gun. That is what has led to the situation we see today. ( a shining example of your sig except nobody promised I will not say "told you so")

AQ are going to come after us if we are in Iraq or not. Iraq is hindering our fight against AQ