aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Gore Calls for Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet to Resign Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Gore Calls for Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet to Resign" Watch "Gore Calls for Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet to Resign" New topic
Author

Gore Calls for Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet to Resign

Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
<h3>Gore Denounces Bush's Iraq Policy</h3>
<h4>Former Vice President Calls for Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet to Resign</h4>
<JOKE>
The video is out! It's called GORE GONE WILD!

Order now!

"Brought to you by the people who gave you Girls Gone Wild!"
</JOKE>

NEW YORK -- Al Gore delivered a fiery denunciation Wednesday of the Bush administration's "twisted values and atrocious policies" and demanded the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA director George Tenet.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57543-2004May26.html

(Funny thing is that Gore got more votes than Bush as you all know... But it's a Republic, not a direct democracy here people, the whining is over... )
[ May 28, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Alicea ]

Tony Alicea
Senior Java Web Application Developer, SCPJ2, SCWCD
Resident Troll
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 31
The guy who gets less votes gets to be presidente ? Wow!!!
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
We use a system based on an electoral college so winning votes isn't enough. You also need to win states. The idea was to prevent a regional candidate from winning a lot of votes in one section of the country and becoming president without a mandate from the people across the country.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Jeffrey Hunter
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 305
Perfect, just what Al Qaeda and all the other terrorist organizations want--disrupt the current administration in a time of war. What a classic example of how an inferior force can achieve victory against a superior military (Sun Tzu would be proud).

Apparently the hunger for power and playing politics is more important the winning the war to some people. Here we are, quarreling with each other, busying ourselves with assigning blame, and all the while our troops are getting shot up, blown up and burned for the cause. I have no bones with criticizing the current administration, but calling for resignations? Please, while you're at it why not shed your colors and go fight for the other team.

I suppose Gore would have done so much better as a war-time president? How would he have responded to the attack on our homefront on September 11? Impose sanctions? Go to war? Regardless of how he would have reacted given this hypothetical, he would be open to the same criticisms, as would any administration. And be sure, I would be denouncing those criticisms same as I am here. Seperate yourself from the bandwagon, forget about democrats and republicans, forget about winning the election, and think about winning the war.

I myself do not necessarily like George W., but what is for certain, is that Gore, and individuals like Gore, will never have my support. He's a puppet of a greedy group of politicians who have one thing in mind--getting into the White House.

Show me a democrat who will lead this country, and I will support him. But what they are offering now, well, it's shameful. Shameful because we're winning the war overseas, but we just may be losing it on our own turf.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Jeffrey Hunter:

Apparently the hunger for power and playing politics is more important the winning the war to some people. Here we are, quarreling with each other, busying ourselves with assigning blame, and all the while our troops are getting shot up, blown up and burned for the cause. I have no bones with criticizing the current administration, but calling for resignations? Please, while you're at it why not shed your colors and go fight for the other team.


Perhaps they want a change in order to win the war. Remember that the "war" is not just about Iraq, its about fighting terrorism. Some people feel that Bush's actions are increasing not decreasing the threat from terrorism and are against him because of that. Calling for a resignation is not necessarily being against the war. In WWII Chamberlain was forced to resign and was replaced by Churchill who turned out to be a more suitable leader for the war - changing a leader does not mean that a country is giving up.

The other thing that may be influencing people's decision is that this is not a war of direct defence - Bush chose to attack Iraq. Some people do not think that Iraq was a threat and do not think that the US should have attacked. To them, "troops are getting shot up, blown up and burned" because of a fundamentally bad decision by Bush et al.

If people just said to themselves "its a war, so we won't question the government at all", then the government could do what ever they wanted. The fact that the people are questioning the government is a good thing for democracy and a good thing for making sure that the government are doing the best thing. If nobody questioned the government during war time, then whats to stop the government just having a continual series of small wars to stay in power?
[ May 27, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
Don Stadler
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 451
I think that Al should follow his normal modus operandi in such matters. He shoudl file suit in Federal Court to have the three officials dismissed. I'm sure he can find a sympathetic judge somewhere....
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
JK: Some people do not think that Iraq was a threat and do not think that the US should have attacked.
I bet those same people didn't think Afganistan was a threat, prior to 9/11. Which, btw, didn't stop them from condemning Connie Rice, Rummy, and George Dub for not doing enough prior to 9/11.

Gore is making a grab for power. He hurt the Dems with his arrogance during the last election, now he's hurting them in this one.


"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by John Dunn:
JK: Some people do not think that Iraq was a threat and do not think that the US should have attacked.
I bet those same people didn't think Afganistan was a threat, prior to 9/11. Which, btw, didn't stop them from condemning Connie Rice, Rummy, and George Dub for not doing enough prior to 9/11.

Gore is making a grab for power. He hurt the Dems with his arrogance during the last election, now he's hurting them in this one.


This brings up an interesting issue. Lets say that the country is at war and party A are in power. Party B thinks that party A is not running the country very well and has a bad strategy to do with the war. Should party B:
1) Say nothing because its unpatriotic not to support the government in a time of war or
2) Campaign for things to be done differently.

I'm sure that if there was a war on and the Dems were in power, the Republicans would probably be complaining - thats what opposition parties do. There's very few issues that all parties would agree on.

As for making a grab for power, lets be realistic - all politicians want power (exept perhaps S. Ghandi ) and all parties will try to get it.
[ May 27, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
all politicians want power
Not all. John McCain and Bob Dole went out of their way to support Clinton during Kosovo. (But then again, both could personally relate to the soldiers.)

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

As for the Dems criticism, keep in mind that they didn't do much during their last reign...
[ May 27, 2004: Message edited by: John Dunn ]
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Oh my, did a badger or desert rat get killed?

Gory Al Gore is a perfect "democrat" politician... Let others do the dirty work then shove then aside like so much dirt and of course lay the blame squarely on those who had to do your dirty work for you.

Had Clinton taken a harsher stance against Al Qaeda and Iraq Bush wouldn't have to clean up the mess left behind by Clinton's attempts to apeace the terrorists by doing nothing even though they kept hurting US interests.


42
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24184
    
  34

I'm still waiting for my medal.


[Jess in Action][AskingGoodQuestions]
Jeffrey Hunter
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 305
Originally posted by Joe King:


In WWII Chamberlain was forced to resign and was replaced by Churchill who turned out to be a more suitable leader for the war - changing a leader does not mean that a country is giving up.

[ May 27, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]


This was a vastly different scenario where Chamberlain was siding with the facists and hoping Germany and Italy would play ball. It was clear to the power structure in England that if Chamberlain continued in office, Germany would overrun France, hop skip and jump over the Channel, and swallow London whole.

As I've stated before, I have no qualms with criticizing the current administration, even in time of war, but when criticisms become blatant political rhetoric with little purpose other than to upset the current command structure so another party can assume office, well, this is the travesty.

So, this begs the question--exactly what monumental transgression, what severe misfeasance warrants the removal of the current administration?
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
So, this begs the question--exactly what monumental transgression, what severe misfeasance warrants the removal of the current administration?


For Al Gore who never forgave the president for winning the elections Gore tried to subvert, the very existence of the current administration is an abomination that should be fought at all points no matter the consequences.

If he has to sacrifice the US armed forces (all 200.000 or so) in Iraq and Afghanistan to Al Qaeda in order to achieve his goals of deposing the president he'll not blink a moment to do it.
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 897
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

If he has to sacrifice the US armed forces (all 200.000 or so) in Iraq and Afghanistan to Al Qaeda in order to achieve his goals of deposing the president he'll not blink a moment to do it.


Where did you get this information from? This is Al Gore we're talking about, not Dr Evil in his mountain lair. Or do the Democrats have access to the "Alan Parsons Project"?


Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8815
    
    5
Ernest,

Can you order one of those medals for me too?


Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
Originally posted by Bhayangara Mandan:
The guy who gets less votes gets to be presidente ? Wow!!!

I know a Prime Minister who hasen't won a single parliamentary election till date. But I think I m happy about it


-Mumbai cha Bhau
Nick George
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 04, 2004
Posts: 815
Originally posted by Jeffrey Hunter:

Apparently the hunger for power and playing politics is more important the winning the war to some people. Here we are, quarreling with each other, busying ourselves with assigning blame, and all the while our troops are getting shot up, blown up and burned for the cause.


Perfect, just what Bush and Rumsfeld and all the other big buisness organizations want-- people blindly following them in a time of war, becuase they drape themselves in the Flag. What a classic example of how people can maintain and expand power while performing wrong deeds.

One thing: I will allow anyone and everyone to tell me how manipulating and insincere Gore is being AFTER you explain how a man can stand up in from of the American public and lie shamelessly about Iraq's stockpiles of Weapons of mass destruction (thus far nonexistant), its nuclear capabilites (told as fact despite the fact that the CIA repeatadly told the White House that this was false), stockpiles of chemical weapons (told as fact despite a report from his own DefenseIntelligence Agency that �there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons��) and links to Al-Qaida (obviously fictious to anyone who knows anything about the Mid-East; Al-Qaida is strongly religous and shiite, Saddam is sunni). When Clinton lied about with whom he was having sex, he was impeached. Bush's lies (admit it... they were lies) lead to the expendature of $125 billion, 500 dead Americans and thousands of dead Iraqies (admit it... they're humans). Reconcile that, and You can tell me about how opportunistic Gore is being.

Hey... A little reminder... the power-hungry Gore isn't running for president anymore!!!


I've heard it takes forever to grow a woman from the ground
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Now before everyone gets whipped up, let me observe that is seems the topics most likely to inflame in MD are news stories posted with little or no comment. It seems doing this has the general effect of saying, "Go off on this to your heart's content!" From me to y'all, please let's not heed that call.

Gore has made his statement: the statement itself is a fact. What his statement contains is an opinion. And just like any old statement from you or me, his opinions have some kind of informing principle. Whether it's what's truly best for the country, nothing less than Democrat campaign strategy, or nothing more than Gore negotiating for power on the national stage, it's still just a statement.

It's an election year. Let's please not sing in the key of outrage every time some politician makes a power move. It's going to be a long enough election year. It's also going to be a heavily-edited MD if we don't pace ourselves.

I offer the posters here so far some time and thought on toning it down.

The country thrives on this kind of exchange in politics, and always has. As the now-cliche observation goes, the Chinese character for 'crisis' is represented by the underlying ideograms for 'danger' and 'opportunity.' Think of that when you see our national political figures making their moves. Now, more than ever, is their chance to make hay. They'd be stupid to sit back and do nothing.


Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Jeffrey Hunter
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 305
Originally posted by Joseph George:

...explain how a man can stand up in from of the American public and lie shamelessly...


Easy.

He's a politician.

If you accuse those of us who support the administration as blindly following our leaders like some lobotomized monkeys, then I must beg your pardon and disagree. Though I'm the first to admit that Bush has his own agenda, I hardly believe he, or any other American president, would use war as a tool to control and expand the constituency. I certainly agree that the intelligence gathered and offered at the time Congress agreed to go to war may have been less than accurate, but I definitely believe that we are there for good reason.

Bush's lies didn't lead to anything. Two Boeing jets and a handful of terrorists dropping our towers lead to everything.

And on another note, if we are going to use the body count of dead Americans and Iraqis to gain statistical favor, let's be sure we realize exactly what we are saying. To me, these soldiers did not die in vain, and they certainly did not die so the current administration could gain points in the political arena.

Finally, I could care less about Gore. He's probably off inventing the next-generation Internet.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Jeffrey Hunter:

If you accuse those of us who support the administration as blindly following our leaders like some lobotomized monkeys, then I must beg your pardon and disagree. Though I'm the first to admit that Bush has his own agenda, I hardly believe he, or any other American president, would use war as a tool to control and expand the constituency.


Despite what people may think from my previous posts, I do not think that Bush is evil. I don't think that he decided to invade out of need for personal power. I think he's a man of principles, its just that those principles are misguided. He's had his heart set on invading Iraq since long before 11/9/01 and that desire blinded him to the possibility that the intelligence may be wrong. I suspect that he was also told only what people thought he wanted to hear - it may well be that his advisers suspected intelligence was flawed, but didnt pass this suspicion on to the president. I think he made a grave mistake, but he didn't do it out of desire for personal gain. The people I worry most about are the people behind the presedent - the people whispering in his ear, encouraging him and writing his speeches. Its their motives that are not clear. Bush is just a guy with his eyes set upon a simple goal, stumbling along without looking at the alternatives - determined to reach the goal that he thinks is right, and following him, hanging on to his coat tails, are the rest of the neo-cons. They are the one's I'm suspicious of.


Two Boeing jets and a handful of terrorists dropping our towers lead to everything.


Unfortunatly this is true - the attacks on 11/9/01 have lead to something that is unrelated - Iraq. I'm not saying that there weren't other reasons for attacking Iraq (good or bad), but Iraq was an enemy of Al-Queda and would hardly of helped them do an attack that would not only increase Al-Q's image, but bring the Americans to war. The WTC attacks have been used as a reason and a mandate to smooth over any cracks in arguments against the government. They have become the trump card, used shamelessly by people to accuse critics of the government of being unpatriotic and terrorist supporters. If it wasn't for these attacks, there is little doubt that the US government would not have had sufficient popular support to attack Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. 11/9/01 has become like the USS Maine, a terrible event used as an mandate for unrelated actions.
[ May 28, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
Nick George
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 04, 2004
Posts: 815
JH: Easy.

He's a politician.

me: That is zero justfication for his actions.

JH: I certainly agree that the intelligence gathered and offered at the time Congress agreed to go to war may have been less than accurate

me: Lies. How can you be so blase about being baldfaced lied to, leading to a war?

JH: Bush's lies didn't lead to anything. Two Boeing jets and a handful of terrorists dropping our towers lead to everything.

me: 9/11 lead to Afghanistan. Now, here's a fact for you, indisputable... Iraq is not connected in any way to 9/11!!!

JH: To me, these soldiers did not die in vain, and they certainly did not die so the current administration could gain points in the political arena.

me: Oh, that's awfully nice to hear from someone sitting at home on their computer. That's good. They died for a good purpose. They died because of Bush's lies.
[ May 28, 2004: Message edited by: Joseph George ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
As the president said in his speech shortly after 9/11, this is not a war against Al Queda, this is a war against all terrorists. Iraq was connected to terrorists throughout the Middle East even if they weren't directly tied to Al Queda. Supporting one terrorist group is the same as supporting Al Queda since they are all tied together in their hatred.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Joseph George:
and links to Al-Qaida (obviously fictious to anyone who knows anything about the Mid-East; Al-Qaida is strongly religous and shiite, Saddam is sunni).


"Anyone who knows anything about the Mid-East", huh? Bin Laden is Wahabi, which is considered a Sunni sect. Al-Qaeda has ties to both Sunni and Shiite groups. Iran for instance is Shiite, but there are many well known connections between the Iranians and Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda makes alliances of convenience all the time, regardless of whether or not the affiliation is primarily Sunni or Shiite. What's the saying... "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Al-Qaeda has long since publicly supported the Palestinian terrorist movement for some time now. This includes Shiite organizations such as Hezbollah. These are the same organizations being supported by the Sunni Syrian regime by the way, as well as the former Iraqi regime.
Jeffrey Hunter
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 305
Lies. How can you be so blase about being baldfaced lied to, leading to a war?


It is perhaps unfortunate at times, but I consider myself a realist, and as such, I've accepted the fact that politicians lie. I can afford to be so blase about it because:
  • I'm a blase kind of guy
  • I don't believe Bush's lies led to anything--he's no omnipotent war-making machine that can cannive his way into a war simply by purporting some facts and asking nicely.


  • JH: To me, these soldiers did not die in vain, and they certainly did not die so the current administration could gain points in the political arena.

    ME: Oh, that's awfully nice to hear from someone sitting at home on their computer. That's good. They died for a good purpose. They died because of Bush's lies.



    I fail to see what my location has to do with anything. For all you know, I'm on the beaches of Cozumel pontificating from my chase lounge while making the next Corona commercial and getting a sun tan. Are we all not guilty of armchair quarterbacking here? Do any of us know all the facts?

    Regardless of what your serving up, I don't believe soldiers are dieing because Bush lied to Congress.

    I believe soldiers are dieing because they are fighting a war against terrorism, a war which began when those handful of individuals crossed the ocean and attacked us on our homefront.

    I believe they are dieing so our country will be a safer place in the future. Perhaps, once this war is concluded, countries will reconsider harboring and aiding terrorist organizations which have an organized interest in killing Americans and American allies.

    But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I should just suck down the rest of my Corona and commiserate with associates about how we've been lied to, how our president is such a loathesome character and how great it would be if we never went to Iraq in the first place because it's all just a tragic political game. Poor us.
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    JG: 9/11 lead to Afghanistan. Now, here's a fact for you, indisputable... Iraq is not connected in any way to 9/11!!![/b]

    Iraq harbors and supports international Islamic terrorist groups. An international Islamic terrorist group carried out 9/11. Good enough.

    JG: Oh, that's awfully nice to hear from someone sitting at home on their computer. That's good. They died for a good purpose. They died because of Bush's lies.[/b]

    Whether or not you, me, or anyone else here chooses to believe they died for what you consider a good cause is irrelevant. The only one it matters to is the people over there and to some extent their families.

    And just stop the "Bush lies" nonsense.

    lie - n. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

    Unless anyone here has proof beyond doubt that a) false statements were made, and b) these statements were made deliberately knowing they were false, then just stop it. This constant shrieking about "lies" when nobody here (including me) has even the slightest clue about what the actual truth really is has become way beyond tiresome.

    Do I think the intelligence picture may not have been complete and that there was conflicting intelligence? That seems to be the case, but nobody here at least has the first clue to what extent this is the case. When intel report A and supporting information says Saddam has a strong nuke program and there is suuporting evidence, and intel report B says he doesn't have much of a program and there is supporting evidence, what do you do? You have to hedge your bets. All the President can do is choose to trust the intel rather than someone like Saddam, do what he thinks is best for the country given what all the advisors are telling him, and hope for the best.

    Btw, we've already found individual Sarin and Mustard Agent munitions (not to mention other numerous banned weapons and programs). We didn't find the stockpiles they may have come from, but they had to come from somewhere, didn't they?
    [ May 28, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
    Michael Ernest
    High Plains Drifter
    Sheriff

    Joined: Oct 25, 2000
    Posts: 7292

    Joseph George -

    Are you using 'ME' to mean 'me'? Since those are my initials and I use that format often, I'd appreciate it if you went with lowercase or your own initials to avoid confusion.

    Thanks.
    Jim Yingst
    Wanderer
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jan 30, 2000
    Posts: 18671
    Also because once someone else quotes your text with "ME" it loses context (unless ME refers to Michael Ernest of course).

    On a more general note:

    As noted previously, this is the sort of topic that gets tempers flaring. Seems OK for now, but I see things slowly escalating. I generally don't have the patience to play referee on every post, as that just leads to more micromanaging as I have to deal with "why'd you edit my post but not his post" etc. I'm more inclined to simply close or delte thread entirely when they get out of hand. So please bear in mind - if you want to continue having these political discussions here, remember to do your utmost to keep the tone of the discussion as friendly as possible. Thanks.


    "I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
    Hussein O'Baghdadi
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 20, 2003
    Posts: 40

    Al-Qaeda has ties to both Sunni and Shiite groups

    As a person from the middle east, let me tell you :
    al qaeda is a fanatic sunni organization.
    al qaeda give a 10000 $ for killing a shitte person !!!
    so they will never deal with iran.

    but there are many well known connections between the Iranians and Al-Qaeda.

    do you have proves ? please don't give a links to the lies that CIA and FBI create.

    Al-Qaeda has long since publicly supported the Palestinian terrorist

    now the palestinians are terrosists and isreal is angel
    isreal is killing, destructing , assassinaing the palestinians , they have the right
    and the palestinians are fighting for their counrty and their freedom, they are terrorists.
    what is the diff btw the resistance and the terrorist ?
    if I want to think like you, americans are all terrorists when they were fighting the english, frensh,
    spanich occupations.
    all the americans are terrorists during the civil war.
    what you call the the american soldiers at abo guraib ? good soldiers, performing their duties ?
    Jason, if you like Mr. bush or isreal very much, you are free, but don't try to reshap and change
    the truth.
    Jeroen Wenting
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 12, 2000
    Posts: 5093
    Hussain, I suggest you look up a history of violence in the ME which was NOT written by the PLO or an Arab organisation.

    You'll find out just what the PLO and their offshoot groups like Hamaz and Hezbollah have been up to since the 1960s which can easily be described in 2 words: "NO GOOD". A slightly longer description would read something like "complete dominance over the Middle East and elimination of the Jewish race and religion".

    To that effect they tried to stage violent coups in Syria and Jordan when those countries harboured them. Both were struck down with massive loss of PLO lifes, including tens of thousands of non-combattants used by the PLO as human shields (which is I remind you an abomination unto Allah).
    They aided the Iraqis in Kuwait in 1990/1991 in the hope of being given Kuwait to run as their own country. In this they killed many Kuwaiti citizens, another abomination unto Allah as the Q'Uran says clearly that the killing of another Believer (which include Jews and Christians as it extends to all people of the Book where the Book is the Old Testament which is part of your religion as well) is herecy.
    They all but succeeded in the Lebanon, overthrowing the Christian/Muslim government there and turning the country into chaos for a decade until the combined forces of Syria and Israel restored some semblance of stability there (the one time Syria and Israel had a common goal ever, despite fighting each other as well as the PLO and their cronies).
    Now they try the same inside Israel, closer than ever to their historical goal of eliminating the state of Israel and the murder of its people.
    They use suicide as a weapon, another abomination unto Allah for doesn't the Q'Uran explicitly forbid suicide?
    It's also an abomination unto Allah to kill Jews who are people of the book.

    Israel is defending itself, attempting to focus on the gang leaders as much as possible. But those terrorist leaders hide inside communities with civilians for the very purpose of causing women and children to become collateral damage and PR for the PLO in their death.

    No, the PLO aren't the nice friendly peace loving people you make them out to be.
    They're as bad as Al Qaeda if not worse in that their goal is nearer and they have a far better PR engine that causes much of the outside world to think they're not terrorists at all.
    In that they're similar to the IRA in Ulster, except of course they're a LOT more violent and where the IRA has some honour and will keep a temporary truce the PLO has none.
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    what is the diff btw the resistance and the terrorist ?

    A freedom fighter attacks the soldiers of their enemy. A terrorist blows up buses full of children.
    Mohan Panigrahi
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Sep 28, 2001
    Posts: 142

    what is the diff btw the resistance and the terrorist ?

    A freedom fighter attacks the soldiers of their enemy. A terrorist blows up buses full of children.


    Any amount of generic explanations are not good enough. The factual and actual definition of terrorist is :

    When one kills israeli children he is terrorist, when one kills palestinian children he is a freedom fighter.

    From my observations I can offer a tax-free advice : When one fails to condemn an obviously heinous act, one can safely conclude that one's prejudices are taking over one's moral scruples. All terrorists acts are heinous no matter who commits them.
    Paul McKenna
    Ugly Redneck
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jul 08, 2000
    Posts: 1006
    Originally posted by Mohan Panigrahi:
    Any amount of generic explanations are not good enough. The factual and actual definition of terrorist is :

    When one kills israeli children he is terrorist, when one kills palestinian children he is a freedom fighter.

    From my observations I can offer a tax-free advice : When one fails to condemn an obviously heinous act, one can safely conclude that one's prejudices are taking over one's moral scruples. All terrorists acts are heinous no matter who commits them.


    Well.. if I were to apply the same generalization to the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, I presume one could state that bystanders who were killed in Afghanistan were also victims of US terrorism??? :roll:


    Commentary From the Sidelines of history
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    When one kills israeli children he is terrorist, when one kills palestinian children he is a freedom fighter.

    Not quite... When one kills Israeli children he is a terrorist, when one hides behind Palestinian children he is a cowardly terrorist.

    Israelis would gladly kill Palestinian terrorists without harming children but the terrorists hide behind children to protect themselves. Palestinian terrorists strap bombs to themselves and blow up a bus full of 6 year olds. They aren't interested in killing soldiers. They only want to create terror. "Give me what I want or I will kill your children," is the call of the Palestinian terrorist.
    Nick George
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Apr 04, 2004
    Posts: 815
    A thousand appologies to Michael Ernest.. A missunderstanding... i never made the connection that ME was your initials; i thought that was a generally used format. I like it though!
    I will edit it appropriatly, ifin the real ME doesn't mind me coping his style.

    Back to the Issues:

    just a couple things:
    Whomever posted that definition of a "lie" did an excellent job... I think that definition is most applicable in this instance, the man lied.

    As to his lies not doing anything, that's nonesense, he was able to get us to go to war.

    finally:
    Well.. if I were to apply the same generalization to the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, I presume one could state that bystanders who were killed in Afghanistan were also victims of US terrorism???


    The nomenclature is unimportant. The fact is, when they flew airplanes into civilian buildings, it was wrong. When we kill Afghani civilians, it is wrong. Ingenious use of the passive voice, Paul. Separates the act of killing from the Americans.
    [ May 28, 2004: Message edited by: Joseph George ]
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
    Well.. if I were to apply the same generalization to the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, I presume one could state that bystanders who were killed in Afghanistan were also victims of US terrorism??? :roll:


    The US does not target innocent civilians. In any war, innocent civilians will die but that does not make those acts into acts of terrorism. A terrorist looks to kill the innocent to create fear. The US only wants to stop the terrorists from killing the innocent.
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by Joseph George:
    The nomenclature is unimportant. The fact is, when they flew airplanes into civilian buildings, it was wrong. When we kill Afghani civilians, it is wrong. Ingenious use of the passive voice, Paul. Separates the act of killing from the Americans.
    In fact the nomenclature is critical. A policeman who kills an innocent civilian by mistake when trying to stop a murderer is not a murderer. Yes, it is wrong but it can not be compared to the act of the murderer. In fact, under the law the murderer may be held guilty for the death of the innocent civilian.
    Paul McKenna
    Ugly Redneck
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jul 08, 2000
    Posts: 1006
    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:


    The US does not target innocent civilians. In any war, innocent civilians will die but that does not make those acts into acts of terrorism. A terrorist looks to kill the innocent to create fear. The US only wants to stop the terrorists from killing the innocent.



    [Cough! Cough!] My comments were supposed to be sarcastic!!
    Paul McKenna
    Ugly Redneck
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jul 08, 2000
    Posts: 1006
    [RANT]

    You know what frustrates me? Its the blind naivety of Liberal Americans / Muslims etc. It frustrates me no end that these people do not realize that history is repeating itself. The same extremists from the same part of the world terrorized India in the past, in the same manner and, it was the same liberalism that led to India's downfall.

    Case: Indian subcontinent (as it is known now) in the early years was pretty much similar to US. The subcontinent region was made up of different states with vibrant diversity and thriving civilization. Alas, that same diversity led to its downfall when one state started bickering with the other over matters of culture, philosophy etc. Outsiders, from the middle east, exploited this bickering quickly and invaded. Later on more powerful forces such as the British applied the classic "Divide and Rule" philosophy with great success.

    Outside forces will win this war if they realize that the victims of their acts are too decent to repel them. At this point in time, I am bit optimistic about the fate of the west. But not too optimistic!

    Moderate muslims also need to realize that these extremists are not earning their sect a good name. The extremists are creating indelible impressions of hate on the rest of the world. The lack of condemnation from the moderates is appalling to say the least.

    [/RANT]
    [ May 28, 2004: Message edited by: Paul McKenna ]
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
    [Cough! Cough!] My comments were supposed to be sarcastic!!


    I know that, but there are certain people who would read that and go, "Woo hoo! Paul finally agrees with us!"
    Mohan Panigrahi
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Sep 28, 2001
    Posts: 142

    Well.. if I were to apply the same generalization to the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, I presume one could state that bystanders who were killed in Afghanistan were also victims of US terrorism???


    It does not help to apply the right logic to get wrongresults. It may help to increase the no of posts though
     
    I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
     
    subject: Gore Calls for Rumsfeld, Rice and Tenet to Resign