Fort Dix Plot !

[Mayor McCheese]

you guys act on here as if Al Quida hasn't already won... with us invading Iraq, they have won.  They wanted to be put on the national showcase, and we did just that for them.  Due to this war, Al Quida's recruitment numbers has skyrocketed, even more hate us, and seeing as though we will never win this fight on terrorism (how can you fight a war against an idea, that failed when we fought the idea of communism in Vietnam), and dont say us winning the Cold War was a result of our fight against communism, no bloodshed was lost over that, just words were spoken.  Al Quida has already won, no matter the outcome of this lost war we are fighting.

I'm pretty sure they got on the national showcase when they flew several planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, etc and killed 3000 Americans.  But hey, that's just me.

You sound like Harry Reid, congratulations.

way to take out a minor part of my argument and attack it, where is your answer to this constant international attention bringing in new recruits for terrorism, or the money it is costing to fight an idea, something that is impossible to crush.  What about my points of Al Quida actually NOT being liked by the muslim world.  Or our way of dealing with the problem is killing Iraqi civilians, the same thing they did to us that got us so upset in the first place.  Congratulations, way to pin-point a small argument in my large-scale answer, you are a typical conservative, way to go Bill O'Reilly.

[augoman]

'Mayor', you don't intend to say that we are in Iraq INTENTIONALLY killing unarmed men, women and children whom are peacefully going about their daily business, do you?  If not, then, you misspoke...,

[Mayor McCheese]

'Mayor', you don't intend to say that we are in Iraq INTENTIONALLY killing unarmed men, women and children whom are peacefully going about their daily business, do you?  If not, then, you misspoke...,

I didnt mean we are "intentionally" killing terrorists, however when you are just killing men for the sake of them might being terrorists, essentially its the same.

[ChicosBailBonds]

you guys act on here as if Al Quida hasn't already won... with us invading Iraq, they have won.  They wanted to be put on the national showcase, and we did just that for them.  Due to this war, Al Quida's recruitment numbers has skyrocketed, even more hate us, and seeing as though we will never win this fight on terrorism (how can you fight a war against an idea, that failed when we fought the idea of communism in Vietnam), and dont say us winning the Cold War was a result of our fight against communism, no bloodshed was lost over that, just words were spoken.  Al Quida has already won, no matter the outcome of this lost war we are fighting.

I'm pretty sure they got on the national showcase when they flew several planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, etc and killed 3000 Americans.  But hey, that's just me.

You sound like Harry Reid, congratulations.

way to take out a minor part of my argument and attack it, where is your answer to this constant international attention bringing in new recruits for terrorism, or the money it is costing to fight an idea, something that is impossible to crush.  What about my points of Al Quida actually NOT being liked by the muslim world.  Or our way of dealing with the problem is killing Iraqi civilians, the same thing they did to us that got us so upset in the first place.  Congratulations, way to pin-point a small argument in my large-scale answer, you are a typical conservative, way to go Bill O'Reilly.

Mayor, it's a tough problem, no one is saying it isn't.

Here's the deal the way I see it, terrorism against the US and it's interests was WAY WAY UP in the 1990's.  The first WTC attack that "only" killed a few people but they wanted to bring the WTC down in 1993.  The attacks on the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, two US embassies, the Bali killings, the constant attacks on our allies like Israel.  For almost that entire decade we treated it like a "criminal matter".  We sat back, took it in the shorts and guess what, the attacks kept coming. 

Then of course there was 9/11.  That's when it all changed.

Is the current approach better?  I don't know, but at least we are proactively trying something.  Are you going to argue the previous approach which led to 9/11, the first WTC, attacks against US interests abroad was effective?

We finally got serious and we took the fight to them.  It may not be the right answer, but the answer under Bush's father and President Clinton wasn't getting the job done either...was it?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow, there's that crack NY Times again.   It's amazing they have any readers left, though the way they are heading with the subscriber numbers and stock price, it won't be long now.


http://newsbusters.org/node/12749

[Mayor McCheese]

you keep showing this newsbusters like its a qualified source... all it is are pissed off conservatives that don't like how the newspapers don't write what they want to hear.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Actually it's a site that uses the actual words of liberal outlets to call into question who they are.  At the end of the day, it's the NY TIMES article that says the very words that they aren't sure if there is a religious connection, not Newsbusters.  The NY Times hangs themselves, Newsbusters just does the heavy lifting in showing you how.

[Mayor McCheese]

Actually it's a site that uses the actual words of liberal outlets to call into question who they are.  At the end of the day, it's the NY TIMES article that says the very words that they aren't sure if there is a religious connection, not Newsbusters.  The NY Times hangs themselves, Newsbusters just does the heavy lifting in showing you how.

The Daily Show and Colbert Report takes straight video quotes out of things Republicans state, are they a qualified news source, not really, are they hilarious, you know it