Taliban eyes Pakistan :: Free Realms

#52 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 10:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Boon,

Quote Reply

#53 May 07 2009 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592343555699

Scholar

6,858 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Boon,

Quote:

Now THAT, is more scary than a terrorist attack.

Considering you don't believe terrorists exist that's not saying much.

You'll just say anything won't you.

▲ Page top

#54 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 11:08 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Boon,

Quote Reply

#55 May 07 2009 at 11:09 AM Rating: Decent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ryne,

Be fair everyone likes Mr Toades wild ride.

I'd say I've learned something from you people but that would be a lie. I already knew most of you despise the military and would rather have a discussion with a terrorist than simply take them out. 911 Occured because your boy Clinton didn't act. Not only that but you spent the first couple months of W's presidency dealing with the Gore recount nonsense. We all know W did everything he could to deal with radical MUSLIM terrorists.

But hey as long as you can say W bad Obama good that's all that matters to you.

This post is almost entirely false.

This seems to be the best way to deal with your discussions, since everything you say is factually wrong.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#56 May 07 2009 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

But hey as long as you can say W bad Obama good that's all that matters to you.

Your original post opener was you lauding how successful Bush was against the Taliban and ******** about how weak Obama is.

Pot? Kettle?

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#57 May 07 2009 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1633911671248

View User Forum

Sage

4,100 posts

Varrus wrote:

911 Occured because your boy Clinton didn't act.

Now move this up one administration and you've now lost both of your fucking feet to your own gun. You're like a goddamn contradiction gumball machine.

▲ Page top

#58 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 11:29 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,

Quote Reply

#59 May 07 2009 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Debo,

Quote:

This seems to be the best way to deal with your discussions, since everything you say is factually wrong.

What's false is you people not giving W his due for taking the fight to the muslims. WTF has any democrat president done in the last 30yrs to keep this country safe?

There have been exactly 2, and one of them has only been in office 5 months.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#60 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 11:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophiel,

#61 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 11:33 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#62 May 07 2009 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

There have been exactly 2, and one of them has only been in office 5 months.

So Carter negotiating with kidnapping terrorists doesn't count?

Forgive me, I was 0 years old when that happened. Remind me how that ended again?

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#63 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 11:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#64 May 07 2009 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592270513143

View User Forum

Sage

22,688 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

There have been exactly 2, and one of them has only been in office 5 months.

So Carter negotiating with kidnapping terrorists doesn't count?

To be fair, he was negotiating with the de facto government of Iran, and I don't exactly see how they can be classed as terrorists. And meaningful negotiation didn't really commence until after the Shah's death. First he tried throwing flaming helicopters at them, and I'd imagine that's a position you'd support completely.

▲ Page top

#65 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 12:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Mindel,

Quote Reply

#66 May 07 2009 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Mindel,

Quote:

To be fair, he was negotiating

Why was he negotiating anything?

Haven't you ever seen a hostage situation before? Smiley: dubious

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#67 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 12:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

Quote Reply

#68 May 07 2009 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

And he was. Simply saying he didn't do enough is nothing more than political posturing so you people can feel better about yourself.

Yeah, that pesky political posturing with facts while you continue to just say "It's true! They were so scared of Bush!" over and over.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#69 May 07 2009 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Debo,

Quote:

This seems to be the best way to deal with your discussions, since everything you say is factually wrong.

What's false is you people not giving W his due for taking the fight to the muslims. WTF has any democrat president done in the last 30yrs to keep this country safe?

Well, Clinton tried to capture Osama Bin Laden, and when that failed, had pointed memos left to his successor on the threat of ME terrorists.

He also gave his secretary a cigar. Which might not seem highly important, but probably was useful in some way.

And as for Carter, didn't they attempt a rescue mission and it went horribly horribly wrong? And I believe Iraq was invading around then, which put pressure on Iran to resolve the issue. I think Carter also personally went to meet the hostages once they were released. It was a while before I was around, so this is just what I've picked up way back in AP History in high school.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#70 May 07 2009 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Ash,

This isn't 24...the US govn doesn't, nor should it ever, negotiate with terrorists.

How about kidnappers?

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

#71 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 12:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,

Quote Reply

#72 May 07 2009 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

Quote:

unindicted

He was never charged with a crime. Without a crime it would be illegal to extract him; a violation of human rights. You could argue that Clinton's AG should have gotten him charged, but that's a different matter.

Edit: If I'm misinterpreting international law and unlawful extraction, please let me know. I just assume that you can't grab someone who has never been charged against their will and bring them to a new country.

Edited, May 7th 2009 4:46pm by LockeColeMA

Edit 2: To clarify my original point, Clinton did try to kill him after the Cole was bombed. Before then there had been no crimes he had been charged with:

Quote:

The former president said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, but the action was never carried out. Clinton said that was because the United States could not establish a military base in Uzbekistan and because U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to certify that bin Laden was behind the bombing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html

Apparently his reasoning for not getting him before was no one thought he had actually been involved in the BLack Hawk incidents or the WTC. Meh, that's Bubba's words at least.

Edited, May 7th 2009 4:50pm by LockeColeMA

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#73 May 07 2009 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

Liberals can't lie their way out of this one. Clinton turned down Bin Laden.

You forgot your cite.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

#74 REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 12:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophiel,

Quote Reply

#75 May 07 2009 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

hangtennow wrote:

Jophiel,

That doesn't invalidate what Clinton said. He was already suspected of one terrorist act. So don't pretend that Clinton did anything to stop Bin Laden because he sent a memo.

And yes did you hear what Clinton said?

p.s. you can't find this story and the link to the audio through the MSM. Liberal media 101.

Looking at the dates given, the memos were given in 2000, after Bin Laden had been charged and the government had looked more into his claims. You seem to imply that the memo to Bush was given in 1996, as that was before he was charged?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#76 May 07 2009 at 1:00 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

hangtennow wrote:

That doesn't invalidate what Clinton said.

You're awfully defensive about it. Is that why you "forgot" to include it?

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Taliban eyes PakistanFollow