Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/10/2004 4:26:53 AM EST
Just more reason to kill every terrorist on the face of the earth. No prisoners. No quarter.


Daniel Pearl refused to be sedated before his murder...


Daniel Pearl 'refused to be sedated before his throat was cut'
By Massoud Ansari in Karachi
(Filed: 09/05/2004)


Horrifying new details of how Daniel Pearl, the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter, met his death have emerged from the interrogation of new suspects by Pakistani police.

Pearl, who was kidnapped in Karachi in January 2002, knew for several hours that he was about to be killed, but resisted repeated attempts to sedate him, police now believe.

He was fully aware of what was happening when the Arab extremists who took control during his final days cut his throat, according to information gleaned from Pakistani militants now in police custody.

Shocking video film of Pearl's murder, seen around the world via the internet, was in fact a partial reconstruction of what had happened a few moments earlier, officers have been told.

The camera operator made a mistake and missed the moment of his death, which his murderers then re-enacted, before decapitating the reporter.

The revelations have fuelled anger among police investigators that at least a dozen leading suspects in the kidnap and murder of the 38-year-old journalist have been arrested, but have not been charged or tried in connection with his death.

Some have been accused of unrelated - and mostly lesser - offences. The three most recently captured suspects have not yet been charged, and their arrests have never been officially announced.

The only cases brought so far in connection with Pearl's death have been those against Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the British-born al-Qaeda terrorist, who was convicted of kidnap and conspiracy to murder the American journalist, and three others who played relatively minor roles in the kidnapping.

All were given life sentences for conspiracy to kidnap, but are now appealing against their convictions in the country's high court. Pakistani authorities are said to be reluctant to put the new suspects on trial lest their evidence helps the first four win their appeals.

A legal official said: "No matter what Sheikh is guilty of, if the police were forced to change their account of what happened because of newfound evidence, he might be given the benefit of the doubt on everything else, and be set free immediately."

Omar Sheikh, the mastermind of the kidnapping, set the trap which lured Pearl to his captors. He put the reporter in touch with a man who, he pretended, would introduce him to an extremist Muslim leader whom Pearl wished to interview.

Contrary to evidence given during Omar Sheikh's trial, police now believe he may not have been present when Pearl met Sajid Jabbar, the go-between, at a Karachi restaurant. It was after the meeting that Pearl disappeared.

Investigators say that senior officials in the Sindh police - the force responsible for Karachi - are "petrified" that if militants arrested in the past year were tried for their part in Pearl's murder, their earlier case against Omar Sheikh might unravel in the courts.

One official close to the investigation said: "Even if these men have admitted their roles in the kidnapping and killing of Daniel Pearl, we simply cannot charge them because of its impact on that earlier case."

Police have pieced together new details of how Pearl was held in captivity for two weeks, and eventually killed, from those involved - including two who witnessed his final hours.

Many of the details were unknown even to Mariane Pearl, the reporter's widow, who wrote a moving memoir about his death, A Mighty Heart.

They now believe that Pearl was not forcibly abducted from the restaurant, but at first went willingly with Sajid in his car, while four other militants followed. He was driven to the house on the outskirts of Karachi where he was to be held and killed.

There, four others who would guard Pearl dragged him inside at gun-point, tying his hands and blindfolding him. "Even at this point, Pearl didn't realise that he was already in trouble, and kept asking why they were behaving like this," one of those in custody told police.

He was held for two weeks before he was killed but made at least one escape attempt - according to the arrested men, just three days before he was murdered.

"He tried to scale the wall but couldn't do it because both his hands were tied," one told police. His captors said that Pearl had difficulty sleeping.

They brought him English-language newspapers and magazines to help him pass the time and let him exercise inside the room.

His efforts to converse with his captors were limited since they could speak only broken English. However, one said: "He made clear that he was a Jew and his wife a Buddhist. He used to imitate the way she prayed, and sing hymns and songs whenever he thought about her."

Eventually, Saud Memon, who is believed to be al-Qaeda's chief financier in Pakistan and owned the house where Pearl was held, contacted a group of Arab extremists who took over custody and decided he would be killed.

Armed with a video camera, three Arabs arrived, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, third-in-command of al-Qaeda - since handed over to the Americans.

For the first time, police have now identified the others as Abdul Rahman and Nasrullah - both Kuwaiti nationals fluent in Arabic, Balochi and Persian. Authorities are still searching for them.

On the day Pearl died, two of his Pakistani guards were present: Ali Khan, arrested just two weeks ago, and Fazal Karim, an employee of Saud Memon. One recently told interrogators how the Arabs tried to sedate Pearl, first by injection, then by doctoring his tea.

"I think he understood that he was going to be killed and refused to accept tea or to gulp pills. He even did not allow himself to be injected."

Before he was murdered, they forced him to relate his Jewish background and express sympathy with detainees in Guantanamo Bay before putting the knife to his throat once - and then again, a second time, owing to the faulty camera.

One of those present told police: "When they were slaughtering him in front of me I thought it was a bad dream. I had seen the cutting of a goat or chicken many times, but had never seen a human being slaughtered in front me."

Karim is among those who have been arrested and jailed for other crimes: narcotics smuggling, in his case. Investigators fear that Khan will also escape prosecution for his part in Pearl's capture and death.

Five others who took part in Pearl's capture or guarded him are behind bars for their part in unrelated sectarian killings, and Pakistani authorities have no plans to press charges related to Pearl. Authorities have yet to reveal publicly that they are holding three of the suspects: Khan, Naeem Bokhari and Faisal Bhatti.

Last night members of Pearl's family said they wanted all those involved in the journalist's death brought to book, and urged Pakistani authorities to hasten the hearing of Omar Sheikh's appeal.

In a statement to The Sunday Telegraph, Mariane Pearl and her parents-in-law, Ruth and Judea Pearl, said: "We are eager to see justice served and the truth come out. We are especially waiting to see a just conclusion of Omar Saeed Sheikh's conviction and the apprehension of all those involved."


Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:42:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 4:44:02 AM EST by EdAvilaSr]
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:45:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr:
I am sure the Democrats and the press will soon join the "arab world" that was so outraged about the shameful treatment of prisoners by our people,and will condemn Pearl's MURDERERS!



Exactly.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:52:54 AM EST
I am surprised by the so called life sentences, If Pearl had been a muslim and not an American from NJ, the savages responsible would surely have faced the Axe. I follow this with some interest as Pearl was a High school classmate and close friend of one of my best friends.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:53:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr:
I am sure the Democrats and the press will soon join the "arab world" that was so outraged about the shameful treatment of prisoners by our people,and will condemn Pearl's MURDERERS!



Exactly.




You guys hold your breath on that one.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:57:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr:
I am sure the Democrats and the press will soon join the "arab world" that was so outraged about the shameful treatment of prisoners by our people,and will condemn Pearl's MURDERERS!



Exactly.




You guys hold your breath on that one.



The Dems have no pity except for what will gain them votes.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:57:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr:
I am sure the Democrats and the press will soon join the "arab world" that was so outraged about the shameful treatment of prisoners by our people,and will condemn Pearl's MURDERERS!




Yea...

Something about feathers.... birds..... and what was it.... flocking together or something?

-LS
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:02:54 AM EST
This kinda shit pisses me off so bad I could give a rats ass what we are doing to Iraqi prisoners right now
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:03:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 5:06:12 AM EST by Hawkeye]

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr:
I am sure the Democrats and the press will soon join the "arab world" that was so outraged about the shameful treatment of prisoners by our people,and will condemn Pearl's MURDERERS!



Exactly.




You guys hold your breath on that one.



Oh I see...you WANT us to turn blue pass out and die. Thanks.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:10:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr:
I am sure the Democrats and the press will soon join the "arab world" that was so outraged about the shameful treatment of prisoners by our people,and will condemn Pearl's MURDERERS!



Exactly.




You guys hold your breath on that one.



Oh I see...you WANT us to turn blue pass out and die. Thanks.





No, I WANT you to stay pissed off until every last man remotely involved in 9/11, daniel pearl, fallujah, etc, ad nauseum, has faced an angry American and ceased breathing.


I WANT us to stay pissed off until the november elections are over with a win in our corner so we'll still have the man at the wheel who can see this through.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:14:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
No, I WANT you to stay pissed off until every last man remotely involved in 9/11, daniel pearl, fallujah, etc, ad nauseum, has faced an angry American and ceased breathing.


I WANT us to stay pissed off until the november elections are over with a win in our corner so we'll still have the man at the wheel who can see this through.



Good posting!
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:00:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By EdAvilaSr:
I am sure the Democrats and the press will soon join the "arab world" that was so outraged about the shameful treatment of prisoners by our people,and will condemn Pearl's MURDERERS!



Exactly.




You guys hold your breath on that one.



Oh I see...you WANT us to turn blue pass out and die. Thanks.





No, I WANT you to stay pissed off until every last man remotely involved in 9/11, daniel pearl, fallujah, etc, ad nauseum, has faced an angry American and ceased breathing.


I WANT us to stay pissed off until the november elections are over with a win in our corner so we'll still have the man at the wheel who can see this through.



Pissed?

Brother, you have NO idea.......My true feelings, well, those wont get discussed here.


I still dont know why you want Ed Sr. and i to both hold our breath like that. You do know it will cause us to pass out in regards to this situation...right?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:03:46 AM EST
Some of these posts are amazing! Hawkeye posts some new information on a barbaric act of terrorism and you guys turn into an election year mud slinging?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:05:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Some of these posts are amazing! Hawkeye posts some new information on a barbaric act of terrorism and you guys turn into an election year mud slinging?


there's only one man running that can deal with terrorism...
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:06:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
No, I WANT you to stay pissed off until every last man remotely involved in 9/11, daniel pearl, fallujah, etc, ad nauseum, has faced an angry American and ceased breathing.



Can do!
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:11:08 AM EST
Hawkeye,

I do have an idea. I realize I'm preaching to the choir. I just think what I said needs to be said often, 'cuz when you preach to the choir, they're not the only ones listening. I hope this thread stays on page 1 until november.


And I bet the way you feel is pretty much the way I feel.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:21:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Hawkeye,

I do have an idea. I realize I'm preaching to the choir. I just think what I said needs to be said often, 'cuz when you preach to the choir, they're not the only ones listening. I hope this thread stays on page 1 until november.


And I bet the way you feel is pretty much the way I feel.



You are correct. And, I'm pretty sure you do feel the same lost likely.

I was just starting to think I had done you wrong somehow and you WANTEd me to suffocate.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:25:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Some of these posts are amazing! Hawkeye posts some new information on a barbaric act of terrorism and you guys turn into an election year mud slinging?


there's only one man running that can deal with terrorism...




Why exactly do you feel Mr.Bush is the ONLY president who will deal with terrorism? Do you honestly believe Kerry would go easy on Al-Qeada or is this just election year horse shit to run up a post count? Personally, I think its moronic to think any president would allow 9-11 to go unanswered. Hell, I think past presidents would have made terror their #1 priority, not Iraq. I'm certainly no fan of Kerry, but to make statements that he personally would go soft on terrorism is moronic.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:28:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Some of these posts are amazing! Hawkeye posts some new information on a barbaric act of terrorism and you guys turn into an election year mud slinging?


there's only one man running that can deal with terrorism...




Why exactly do you feel Mr.Bush is the ONLY president who will deal with terrorism? Do you honestly believe Kerry would go easy on Al-Qeada or is this just election year horse shit to run up a post count? Personally, I think its moronic to think any president would allow 9-11 to go unanswered. Hell, I think past presidents would have made terror their #1 priority, not Iraq. I'm certainly no fan of Kerry, but to make statements that he personally would go soft on terrorism is moronic.



Yes, Kerry would deal with terrorism, but not the way it needs to be dealt with. Personally, I'd rather have a Reagan (circa 1985) or a T. Roosevelt in office, but Bush ain't too bad, and he's LIGHT YEARS ahead of kerry.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:34:50 AM EST
If I knew I was going to die I don't think I would take it calmly simply waiting for them to cut my throat. They would have to shoot me or bet me till I passed out.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:36:47 AM EST

The camera operator made a mistake and missed the moment of his death, which his murderers then re-enacted, before decapitating the reporter.


the al qada dude taking video of the USS COLE made the same mistake too.

...oh yea, and the terrorist camera operator in the movie "true lies" screwed up & missed something as well.

what is it with these fucking retards & cam-corders?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:37:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Some of these posts are amazing! Hawkeye posts some new information on a barbaric act of terrorism and you guys turn into an election year mud slinging?


there's only one man running that can deal with terrorism...




Why exactly do you feel Mr.Bush is the ONLY president who will deal with terrorism? Do you honestly believe Kerry would go easy on Al-Qeada or is this just election year horse shit to run up a post count? Personally, I think its moronic to think any president would allow 9-11 to go unanswered. Hell, I think past presidents would have made terror their #1 priority, not Iraq. I'm certainly no fan of Kerry, but to make statements that he personally would go soft on terrorism is moronic.



Yes, Kerry would go easy on terrorism. Give me a quote, a statement even a paraphrase from his campaign that indicates otherwise. You can't. He has given no indication that he would aggressively pursue terrorists. He has outlined NO plan for this fight.

Secondly, what in the hell makes you think that the conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism? There are loads of evidence to the contrary that you are simply neglecting. Not the least of which is the sheer volume of non-Iraqi combatants stirring up the shit as we speak.

We can fight the war on terror over there, or we can sit back and wait to fight it here. Seems like an obvious choice to me.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:46:20 AM EST
Honestly? Yeah, I think Kerry would be soft. Very soft. Much like Klinton was.
93 WTC attacks, USS Cole, African Embassies, etc. No meaningful retaliation. Just my $.02.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 6:52:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By TWIRE:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Some of these posts are amazing! Hawkeye posts some new information on a barbaric act of terrorism and you guys turn into an election year mud slinging?


there's only one man running that can deal with terrorism...




Why exactly do you feel Mr.Bush is the ONLY president who will deal with terrorism? Do you honestly believe Kerry would go easy on Al-Qeada or is this just election year horse shit to run up a post count? Personally, I think its moronic to think any president would allow 9-11 to go unanswered. Hell, I think past presidents would have made terror their #1 priority, not Iraq. I'm certainly no fan of Kerry, but to make statements that he personally would go soft on terrorism is moronic.



Yes, Kerry would go easy on terrorism. Give me a quote, a statement even a paraphrase from his campaign that indicates otherwise. You can't. He has given no indication that he would aggressively pursue terrorists. He has outlined NO plan for this fight.

Secondly, what in the hell makes you think that the conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism? There are loads of evidence to the contrary that you are simply neglecting. Not the least of which is the sheer volume of non-Iraqi combatants stirring up the shit as we speak.

We can fight the war on terror over there, or we can sit back and wait to fight it here. Seems like an obvious choice to me.



And it's as simple as that. Iraq is the place to be now if you're a young, single terroist looking for 72 virginians. Much as I'd like a chance to fight a few of 'em myself, I think as a whole we're WAY better off fighting them over there. Of course, there are times when I wonder if the sheeple here aren't going to have to wake up to RPG's in their own streets before they realize how big this fight really is.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:00:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 7:05:46 AM EST by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
Yes, Kerry would go easy on terrorism. Give me a quote, a statement even a paraphrase from his campaign that indicates otherwise. You can't. He has given no indication that he would aggressively pursue terrorists. He has outlined NO plan for this fight.



I'm sorry but it was you who decided that Kerry will "not fight terrorism". I place the burden to proof for such a wild statement on your door step.


Orginally Posted By TWIRE:
Secondly, what in the hell makes you think that the conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism? There are loads of evidence to the contrary that you are simply neglecting. Not the least of which is the sheer volume of non-Iraqi combatants stirring up the shit as we speak.



Attacks by Iraqi fundamentalists and one crazy, power hungry cleric's militia is a far cry from another 9-11. Their has also been no intell to point out a large scale Al-Qeada involvment in Iraq.




We can fight the war on terror over there, or we can sit back and wait to fight it here. Seems like an obvious choice to me.



I fail to see how we are stopping another 9-11 by fighting in Iraq. As I just stated, their has been zero intell that the true threat of terrorism on American soil, Al-Qaeda is behind anything more than a small percentage of the attacks in Iraq. Proven conections between Al-Qaeda and the ex Iraqi govermant --- ZERO. Do you really believe that upper level terrorists like Atta are being used in Iraq? The scumbags that are trained to the point of conducting attacks are American soil are ceretainly not being "wasted" (in their eyes) with the low level attacks our boys are enduring in Iraq.

Dam, now you've sucked me into hijacking Hawkeyes thread.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:36:14 AM EST
Removing Saddam and his Bathist Arab-socialist dictatorship offers the potential of a democratic, and more important, free-market, Iraq. If it works, it will be a major step in rolling up Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. Granted, it might very well not work, but the Democrats only offer up a police investigation approach that doesn't grapple with the root cause.

Furthermore, liberal Democrats tend to blame US government forign policy and support for Israel for Arab hate. Bill Clinton said something to the effect that 9/11 was due to slavery in America's past (among other things). This is wrong, and misses the real point: Islamics hate us because of our success and power as a culture. In short, they are jelious of their successful rival. That's why a free-market Iraq, and the success it would bring, is so important.

Not to mention, countries like Iraq inherently pose a terrorist threat, since we can't "deal" with the likes of Saddam to catch terrorists, etc. (if it wasn't for the first Gulf War we might have been able to apply pressure to Saddam to get him to play along, but by 2000 Saddam's Iraq was a potential terrorist hiding ground of the first order).
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 7:56:13 AM EST
1. I watched the infamous movie of the Islamist facists murdering the Russian soldier by "slitting his throat" and beheading him...all in about 30 seconds or less of video. That was the single most repulsive thing I have ever experienced in my entire fifty seven years. I've seen dead and dying before, but nothing prepared me for the un-fucking-believable savagery I saw that day. Subsequently I watched a Frontline show on the Taliban/Al Qa'eda and they discussed how they kill prisoners. They had this executioner who used a knfe. The dude calmly discussed his chosen profession with assurance, calm and without a trace of either remorse or guilt. They explained that beheading with a blade was the preferred method of execution.

Pearl's death is but one of many such murders by these savage fuckers. I just wish that our leaders would ditch the PC bullshit and start telling the American sheeple the truth abou these monsters and that we are in WW III and just how the enemy treats prisoners. Taken in the grand context of POW treatment over the centuries, what our guys have done to the EPWs is not bad at all.

2. Now...on the thread hijack: Bush IS the only man running for president that can win WW III for us. Kerry's abysmal liberal past actions, and his voting record speak volumes about how he would deal with terrorists. He has stated in the media WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION that he believes that this isn't a just war...but is rather a "police action." I heard his state that he would not have gone to war, rather he would end the war and use diplomacy, the UN, the World Court, and the FBI to track down the terrorists and "bring them to justice". I can just seek small squads of paramilitary men trying to track down and capture/kill world terrorists. Rigggghhtt!

This anti-war worldview is so typical of liberals of his ilk. His statements say who he is and what he would to. If Kerry wins, you can plan on a reprise of Jimmy Carter style administration. For you young-un's, you need to review that fool's presidency and see how badly he hurt the United States. His actions or lack of...are a major reason we are in this war now.

What we need now as a leader is a cowboy; someone who sees things in black and white; who sees evil and SAYS it is evil; who is willing to DO THE RIGHT THING, regardless of the PC conswquences...someone who recognizes the threat to the United States constitution and to the future of the world and is willing to ACT to try and save us and the rest of the world.

Liberal appeasement will NOT work with Islamo-facist terrorists just as it failed with Hitler. I actually thought we'd never see another World War...silly me. Last night, I realized my 4 year old grandson may fight in this one. Miz LWilde didn't like that at all.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 8:14:02 AM EST
HEY! My thread is getting hijacked!!



Cool. Carry on.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:00:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
Yes, Kerry would go easy on terrorism. Give me a quote, a statement even a paraphrase from his campaign that indicates otherwise. You can't. He has given no indication that he would aggressively pursue terrorists. He has outlined NO plan for this fight.



I'm sorry but it was you who decided that Kerry will "not fight terrorism". I place the burden to proof for such a wild statement on your door step.


Sorry, you weren't prepared to pick up the gauntlet.


From Worldnetdaily

Kerry would abandon terror war
Begin dialogue with regimes, apologize for mistakes by Bush

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at WorldNetDaily's online store and save 71 percent off the cover price.
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."


Orginally Posted By TWIRE:
Secondly, what in the hell makes you think that the conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism? There are loads of evidence to the contrary that you are simply neglecting. Not the least of which is the sheer volume of non-Iraqi combatants stirring up the shit as we speak.



Attacks by Iraqi fundamentalists and one crazy, power hungry cleric's militia is a far cry from another 9-11. Their has also been no intell to point out a large scale Al-Qeada involvment in Iraq.





We can fight the war on terror over there, or we can sit back and wait to fight it here. Seems like an obvious choice to me.



I fail to see how we are stopping another 9-11 by fighting in Iraq. As I just stated, their has been zero intell that the true threat of terrorism on American soil, Al-Qaeda is behind anything more than a small percentage of the attacks in Iraq. Proven conections between Al-Qaeda and the ex Iraqi govermant --- ZERO. Do you really believe that upper level terrorists like Atta are being used in Iraq? The scumbags that are trained to the point of conducting attacks are American soil are ceretainly not being "wasted" (in their eyes) with the low level attacks our boys are enduring in Iraq.

Dam, now you've sucked me into hijacking Hawkeyes thread.



I never said anything about what level of terrorists were operating in Iraq. But clearly SOME are present and operating. The Shiite problem is a separate issue and predictably part of the power vacuum in the region. If there is no link, why Salman Pak? Why non Iraqis fighting in the region?

I'll admit that you can do a search for Al Queda links to Iraq and find as many 'pro' arguments as 'con'. But which conclusion makes more sense?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:29:29 AM EST
These guys and the guy (Pakastani), who sold nuclear secrets to other countries need to be eliminated in the most painful way possible. I hope our government gets these guys, even if it means forceably taking them from Pakistan.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:39:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 10:53:05 AM EST by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
From Worldnetdaily

Kerry would abandon terror war
Begin dialogue with regimes, apologize for mistakes by Bush

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at WorldNetDaily's online store and save 71 percent off the cover price.
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."



What the hell does this article mean? This your proof? Personally, it looks like Kerrys reffering to Iraq not the true threat to America - Al Qaeda. Do you really believe a sitting American President is going to stop hunting down Al-Qaeda? Its totally out of the question and I think you know that. Al-Qaeda will continue to be target #1, no matter who is president. Even if I don't agree its been our current administrations #1 priority. I think they were far more worried about Sadam than Osoma. How much safer would America be if the same resources and manpower had been placed to hunt down Al-Qeada rather than invade Iraq? Iraq was zero threat to us and our original invasion proved that fact. Their army was a joke and how many WMD's have been found? Hell, the Islamic fundamentalists that we cut loose are proving to be much better opponents. Sadam had them well under control.



Originally Posted By TWIRE:
I never said anything about what level of terrorists were operating in Iraq. But clearly SOME are present and operating. The Shiite problem is a separate issue and predictably part of the power vacuum in the region. If there is no link, why Salman Pak? Why non Iraqis fighting in the region?

I'll admit that you can do a search for Al Queda links to Iraq and find as many 'pro' arguments as 'con'. But which conclusion makes more sense?



Sadam kept very tight controls on Islamic Fundamentalists. Hell, he tortured and placed many of them in jail. He knew they were also his enemy. They want a purely Islamic state based on thre Koran, not a military dictator. Osoma himself even praised his downfall and capture in one of his video tapes. No question that plenty of non Iraqi fundamentalists have flocked to Iraq to fight America, its their newest Jihad. I just do not agree that these are Al-Qaeda trained terrorists capable of attacking U.S. soil. Even the experts agree that the War in Iraq has done nothing but help Al-Qaeda recruiting and fund raising. I truely worry about Iraq slipping into a cival war. This would certianly help Al-Qaeda also, the ungoverned areas without laws would be great Al-Qeada command/training centers and their vast sums of cash would be a great asset to one side or the other. They did the same thing to the Taliban in Afghanistan - bought support with lots of cash and raw recruits eager to fight on their side.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:01:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 11:07:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By LWilde:
1. I watched the infamous movie of the Islamist facists murdering the Russian soldier by "slitting his throat" and beheading him...all in about 30 seconds or less of video. That was the single most repulsive thing I have ever experienced in my entire fifty seven years. I've seen dead and dying before, but nothing prepared me for the un-fucking-believable savagery I saw that day. Subsequently I watched a Frontline show on the Taliban/Al Qa'eda and they discussed how they kill prisoners. They had this executioner who used a knfe. The dude calmly discussed his chosen profession with assurance, calm and without a trace of either remorse or guilt. They explained that beheading with a blade was the preferred method of execution.

Pearl's death is but one of many such murders by these savage fuckers. I just wish that our leaders would ditch the PC bullshit and start telling the American sheeple the truth abou these monsters and that we are in WW III and just how the enemy treats prisoners. Taken in the grand context of POW treatment over the centuries, what our guys have done to the EPWs is not bad at all.

2. Now...on the thread hijack: Bush IS the only man running for president that can win WW III for us. Kerry's abysmal liberal past actions, and his voting record speak volumes about how he would deal with terrorists. He has stated in the media WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION that he believes that this isn't a just war...but is rather a "police action." I heard his state that he would not have gone to war, rather he would end the war and use diplomacy, the UN, the World Court, and the FBI to track down the terrorists and "bring them to justice". I can just seek small squads of paramilitary men trying to track down and capture/kill world terrorists. Rigggghhtt!

This anti-war worldview is so typical of liberals of his ilk. His statements say who he is and what he would to. If Kerry wins, you can plan on a reprise of Jimmy Carter style administration. For you young-un's, you need to review that fool's presidency and see how badly he hurt the United States. His actions or lack of...are a major reason we are in this war now.

What we need now as a leader is a cowboy; someone who sees things in black and white; who sees evil and SAYS it is evil; who is willing to DO THE RIGHT THING, regardless of the PC conswquences...someone who recognizes the threat to the United States constitution and to the future of the world and is willing to ACT to try and save us and the rest of the world.

Liberal appeasement will NOT work with Islamo-facist terrorists just as it failed with Hitler. I actually thought we'd never see another World War...silly me. Last night, I realized my 4 year old grandson may fight in this one. Miz LWilde didn't like that at all.



Please educate me and tell me about the civilized and proper deaths "you have witnessed" , as many of the deaths I have seen were savage, stark, and distasteful in nature. So like I said please educate me ????
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 12:03:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
From Worldnetdaily

Kerry would abandon terror war
Begin dialogue with regimes, apologize for mistakes by Bush

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Kenneth R. Timmerman
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."



What the hell does this article mean? This your proof? Personally, it looks like Kerrys reffering to Iraq not the true threat to America - Al Qaeda. Do you really believe a sitting American President is going to stop hunting down Al-Qaeda? Its totally out of the question and I think you know that. Al-Qaeda will continue to be target #1, no matter who is president. Even if I don't agree its been our current administrations #1 priority. I think they were far more worried about Sadam than Osoma. How much safer would America be if the same resources and manpower had been placed to hunt down Al-Qeada rather than invade Iraq? Iraq was zero threat to us and our original invasion proved that fact. Their army was a joke and how many WMD's have been found? Hell, the Islamic fundamentalists that we cut loose are proving to be much better opponents. Sadam had them well under control.



Originally Posted By TWIRE:
I never said anything about what level of terrorists were operating in Iraq. But clearly SOME are present and operating. The Shiite problem is a separate issue and predictably part of the power vacuum in the region. If there is no link, why Salman Pak? Why non Iraqis fighting in the region?

I'll admit that you can do a search for Al Queda links to Iraq and find as many 'pro' arguments as 'con'. But which conclusion makes more sense?



Sadam kept very tight controls on Islamic Fundamentalists. Hell, he tortured and placed many of them in jail. He knew they were also his enemy. They want a purely Islamic state based on thre Koran, not a military dictator. Osoma himself even praised his downfall and capture in one of his video tapes. No question that plenty of non Iraqi fundamentalists have flocked to Iraq to fight America, its their newest Jihad. I just do not agree that these are Al-Qaeda trained terrorists capable of attacking U.S. soil. Even the experts agree that the War in Iraq has done nothing but help Al-Qaeda recruiting and fund raising. I truely worry about Iraq slipping into a cival war. This would certianly help Al-Qaeda also, the ungoverned areas without laws would be great Al-Qeada command/training centers and their vast sums of cash would be a great asset to one side or the other. They did the same thing to the Taliban in Afghanistan - bought support with lots of cash and raw recruits eager to fight on their side.



So your contention is that the John Kerry and United Nations would MORE aggressively pursue terrorists than Bush? That is a fucking joke. Once again, offer a SINGLE statement that he has made that supports your position.

As for proof, I asked you before to display some evidence that John Kerry would aggressively pursue terrorists. You declined, and laid it on my doorstep. So, after a three-second internet search I choose to post a few paragraphs from ONE of the twenty or so articles that popped up. And you seem shocked at the inadequacy of what was offered. Well, no shit, asshole! I am not going to post endless text from 20 sources just so you can announce 'not good enough.' It was meant merely of an example of Kerry's bullshit. And in that sense, it sufficed.

I worry about civil war in Iraq as well, but for different reasons. First, Iraq as a country is just a bunch of random lines on the map. It ought to be three countries (or states, if you will) at a minumum based on ethnicity alone. Secondly, and more importantly. I think we ought to take off the kid gloves. Screw winning hearts and minds. There is no peace without victory. Do you think Kerry would advocate this? Hell, no. As stated in the article you dismissed, he would turn it over to the UN, a guarantee for civil war and further bloodshed IMO.

(Please God, let My Active Topics come back to life)

Link Posted: 5/10/2004 2:36:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 2:43:38 PM EST by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
Well, no shit, asshole!



Relax Francis! It always makes me laugh when somebody "bows up" and types a statement into a keyboard that they would never have the balls to say to your face. I would refrain from such statements in the future. If this conversation is over your head, my suggestion is to move on.


Originally Posted By TWIRE:
I worry about civil war in Iraq as well, but for different reasons. First, Iraq as a country is just a bunch of random lines on the map. It ought to be three countries (or states, if you will) at a minumum based on ethnicity alone. Secondly, and more importantly. I think we ought to take off the kid gloves. Screw winning hearts and minds. There is no peace without victory. Do you think Kerry would advocate this? Hell, no. As stated in the article you dismissed, he would turn it over to the UN, a guarantee for civil war and further bloodshed IMO.



Do you have any expierence or read a single article on unconventional warfare? It certianly does not sound like it. I'll say in all honestly that I cannot agree with a single point you've made.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 2:58:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
Well, no shit, asshole!



Relax Francis! It always makes me laugh when somebody "bows up" and types a statement into a keyboard that they would never have the balls to say to your face. I would refrain from such statements in the future. If this conversation is over your head, my suggestion is to move on.


Originally Posted By TWIRE:
I worry about civil war in Iraq as well, but for different reasons. First, Iraq as a country is just a bunch of random lines on the map. It ought to be three countries (or states, if you will) at a minumum based on ethnicity alone. Secondly, and more importantly. I think we ought to take off the kid gloves. Screw winning hearts and minds. There is no peace without victory. Do you think Kerry would advocate this? Hell, no. As stated in the article you dismissed, he would turn it over to the UN, a guarantee for civil war and further bloodshed IMO.



Do you have any expierence or read a single article on unconventional warfare? It certianly does not sound like it. I'll say in all honestly that I cannot agree with a single point you've made.



Va_Dinger,

You just got P0wNed bad.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 3:59:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Some of these posts are amazing! Hawkeye posts some new information on a barbaric act of terrorism and you guys turn into an election year mud slinging?


there's only one man running that can deal with terrorism...




Why exactly do you feel Mr.Bush is the ONLY president who will deal with terrorism? Do you honestly believe Kerry would go easy on Al-Qeada



Yes, he would, just like Clinton did.


or is this just election year horse shit to run up a post count?



Oh, you mean like you Demonrats?


Personally, I think its moronic to think any president would allow 9-11 to go unanswered.


Well, you are wrong. First WTC attack, Africa embassy attacks, attack on the USS Cole, Nothing, nada, zip from your hero, Bubba.


Hell, I think past presidents would have made terror their #1 priority, not Iraq. I'm certainly no fan of Kerry


Yes, you are. And if you don't believe that Iraq has anything to do with terror, it is only because you are pulling John Kerry's wool over your own eyes.


, but to make statements that he personally would go soft on terrorism is moronic.


No those statements are not, but you certainly are moronic to believe the bullshit you just posted.

Kerry would go through the UN, he voted against just about every piece of equipment the guys are using, and he is SOFT on defense, period.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:04:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
Yes, Kerry would go easy on terrorism. Give me a quote, a statement even a paraphrase from his campaign that indicates otherwise. You can't. He has given no indication that he would aggressively pursue terrorists. He has outlined NO plan for this fight.



I'm sorry but it was you who decided that Kerry will "not fight terrorism". I place the burden to proof for such a wild statement on your door step.


Orginally Posted By TWIRE:
Secondly, what in the hell makes you think that the conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism? There are loads of evidence to the contrary that you are simply neglecting. Not the least of which is the sheer volume of non-Iraqi combatants stirring up the shit as we speak.



Attacks by Iraqi fundamentalists and one crazy, power hungry cleric's militia is a far cry from another 9-11. Their has also been no intell to point out a large scale Al-Qeada involvment in Iraq.




We can fight the war on terror over there, or we can sit back and wait to fight it here. Seems like an obvious choice to me.



I fail to see how we are stopping another 9-11 by fighting in Iraq. As I just stated, their has been zero intell that the true threat of terrorism on American soil, Al-Qaeda is behind anything more than a small percentage of the attacks in Iraq. Proven conections between Al-Qaeda and the ex Iraqi govermant --- ZERO. Do you really believe that upper level terrorists like Atta are being used in Iraq? The scumbags that are trained to the point of conducting attacks are American soil are ceretainly not being "wasted" (in their eyes) with the low level attacks our boys are enduring in Iraq.

Dam, now you've sucked me into hijacking Hawkeyes thread.



NO, YOU HIJACKED IT ALL ON YOUR OWN.


Some of these posts are amazing! Hawkeye posts some new information on a barbaric act of terrorism and you guys turn into an election year mud slinging?


You come in to this thread not upset about what happened to Daniel Pearl, but upset that someone might criticize your boy, Lurch.

I am sure the other leftist morons, including Imbroglidiot, agree with you.

You clowns are upset about the so-called "abuse" of Iraqi prisoners and don't seem to give one little hoot about Pearl, the 4 dead Americans that were burned, dragged through the streets, and hung off a bridge, or any of the GIs killed over there.

Y'all constantly deny that you are not leftists, but it is a fucking lie.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:06:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
From Worldnetdaily

Kerry would abandon terror war
Begin dialogue with regimes, apologize for mistakes by Bush

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at WorldNetDaily's online store and save 71 percent off the cover price.
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."



What the hell does this article mean? This your proof? Personally, it looks like Kerrys reffering to Iraq not the true threat to America - Al Qaeda. Do you really believe a sitting American President is going to stop hunting down Al-Qaeda? Its totally out of the question and I think you know that. Al-Qaeda will continue to be target #1, no matter who is president. Even if I don't agree its been our current administrations #1 priority. I think they were far more worried about Sadam than Osoma. How much safer would America be if the same resources and manpower had been placed to hunt down Al-Qeada rather than invade Iraq? Iraq was zero threat to us and our original invasion proved that fact. Their army was a joke and how many WMD's have been found? Hell, the Islamic fundamentalists that we cut loose are proving to be much better opponents. Sadam had them well under control.



Originally Posted By TWIRE:
I never said anything about what level of terrorists were operating in Iraq. But clearly SOME are present and operating. The Shiite problem is a separate issue and predictably part of the power vacuum in the region. If there is no link, why Salman Pak? Why non Iraqis fighting in the region?

I'll admit that you can do a search for Al Queda links to Iraq and find as many 'pro' arguments as 'con'. But which conclusion makes more sense?



Sadam kept very tight controls on Islamic Fundamentalists. Hell, he tortured and placed many of them in jail. He knew they were also his enemy. They want a purely Islamic state based on thre Koran, not a military dictator. Osoma himself even praised his downfall and capture in one of his video tapes. No question that plenty of non Iraqi fundamentalists have flocked to Iraq to fight America, its their newest Jihad. I just do not agree that these are Al-Qaeda trained terrorists capable of attacking U.S. soil. Even the experts agree that the War in Iraq has done nothing but help Al-Qaeda recruiting and fund raising. I truely worry about Iraq slipping into a cival war. This would certianly help Al-Qaeda also, the ungoverned areas without laws would be great Al-Qeada command/training centers and their vast sums of cash would be a great asset to one side or the other. They did the same thing to the Taliban in Afghanistan - bought support with lots of cash and raw recruits eager to fight on their side.



Typical leftist bullshit. Providing proof is not good enough if it proves them wrong, which they usually are.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:08:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 4:12:06 PM EST by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
Well, no shit, asshole!



Relax Francis! It always makes me laugh when somebody "bows up" and types a statement into a keyboard that they would never have the balls to say to your face. I would refrain from such statements in the future. If this conversation is over your head, my suggestion is to move on.



Since when would idiotic leftist drivel be over anyone's head? It seems that something staring you right in the face, such as Kerry's own words, are over your head. Of course, people like you only repeat what Lurch tells them to.

How do you know whether he, or anyone else on here, has the balls to say it to your face? You might be surprised, tough guy.


Do you have any expierence or read a single article on unconventional warfare? It certianly does not sound like it. I'll say in all honestly that I cannot agree with a single point you've made.



You don't agree because you are a Democrat, period.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 4:53:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 5:04:57 PM EST by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:


I am sure the other leftist morons, including Imbroglidiot, agree with you.

You clowns are upset about the so-called "abuse" of Iraqi prisoners.




LARRYG, this is the second time you have personally attacked me for my opinion. I made no personal attacks in my posts and backed up my statements with facts. Something I notice you have never done. Why, becuase you have no idea what we are talking about. On a side note, I WOULD LOVE FOR YOUR PUNK ASS TO TRY AND SAY ANY OF THESE TO MY FACE. Trust me, you would be picking your ass off the floor. You are the worst kind of internet forum scumbag. A weak little man who makes bold statements becuase he knows he safe behind a keyboard.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:11:17 PM EST
I missed the part where you backed up your opinions with facts.

Mind repeating yourself?
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:15:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:


I am sure the other leftist morons, including Imbroglidiot, agree with you.

You clowns are upset about the so-called "abuse" of Iraqi prisoners.




LARRYG, this is the second time you have personally attacked me for my opinion. I made no personal attacks in my posts and backed up my statements with facts. Something I notice you have never done. Why, becuase you have no idea what we are talking about. On a side note, I WOULD LOVE FOR YOUR PUNK ASS TO TRY AND SAY ANY OF THESE TO MY FACE. Trust me, you would be picking your ass off the floor. You are the worst kind of internet forum scumbag. A weak little man who makes bold statements becuase he knows he safe behind a keyboard.



Where are your facts? You got owned. It was on. You got served.
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:28:24 PM EST
Truth matters not to a Democrat. They do not deal in the truth; they deal in tactics. Conservatives want liberty for all. Democrats want money from a few and addiction from the rest. Kerry is a limp dick on defence. He is a typical liberal intellectual who is too stupid to wipe his own ass.

My question for AZ is this: whose money do you want?

Mahatma
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 5:30:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
1. I watched the infamous movie of the Islamist facists murdering the Russian soldier by "slitting his throat" and beheading him...all in about 30 seconds or less of video. That was the single most repulsive thing I have ever experienced in my entire fifty seven years. I've seen dead and dying before, but nothing prepared me for the un-fucking-believable savagery I saw that day. Subsequently I watched a Frontline show on the Taliban/Al Qa'eda and they discussed how they kill prisoners. They had this executioner who used a knfe. The dude calmly discussed his chosen profession with assurance, calm and without a trace of either remorse or guilt. They explained that beheading with a blade was the preferred method of execution.

Pearl's death is but one of many such murders by these savage fuckers. I just wish that our leaders would ditch the PC bullshit and start telling the American sheeple the truth abou these monsters and that we are in WW III and just how the enemy treats prisoners. Taken in the grand context of POW treatment over the centuries, what our guys have done to the EPWs is not bad at all.

2. Now...on the thread hijack: Bush IS the only man running for president that can win WW III for us. Kerry's abysmal liberal past actions, and his voting record speak volumes about how he would deal with terrorists. He has stated in the media WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION that he believes that this isn't a just war...but is rather a "police action." I heard his state that he would not have gone to war, rather he would end the war and use diplomacy, the UN, the World Court, and the FBI to track down the terrorists and "bring them to justice". I can just seek small squads of paramilitary men trying to track down and capture/kill world terrorists. Rigggghhtt!

This anti-war worldview is so typical of liberals of his ilk. His statements say who he is and what he would to. If Kerry wins, you can plan on a reprise of Jimmy Carter style administration. For you young-un's, you need to review that fool's presidency and see how badly he hurt the United States. His actions or lack of...are a major reason we are in this war now.

What we need now as a leader is a cowboy; someone who sees things in black and white; who sees evil and SAYS it is evil; who is willing to DO THE RIGHT THING, regardless of the PC conswquences...someone who recognizes the threat to the United States constitution and to the future of the world and is willing to ACT to try and save us and the rest of the world.

Liberal appeasement will NOT work with Islamo-facist terrorists just as it failed with Hitler. I actually thought we'd never see another World War...silly me. Last night, I realized my 4 year old grandson may fight in this one. Miz LWilde didn't like that at all.



Please educate me and tell me about the civilized and proper deaths "you have witnessed" , as many of the deaths I have seen were savage, stark, and distasteful in nature. So like I said please educate me ????



I never said the deaths I witnessed were "civilized" or "proper". Nothing could be further from the truth. You assume something which has no basis in fact.

What I said stands. All deaths of humans, especially the needless ones caused by the hatred of others, is disgusting. Those burned Americans hung from the bridge structure were pretty damn bad. The pictures of young Israeli and Palestinian kids killed by bombs and rifles are very hard to take. All are terrible.

That said...I repeat my previous statement: That film clip was the most violently disgusting thing I have ever seen, bar none.

Just to fulfill your morbid curiosity...the deaths I have been unfortunate enough to witness first hand have involved aircraft crashes, gunshots, auto accidents and terminal illnesses.
Top Top