PDA

View Full Version : Why does the regime ...



LWW
02-16-2011, 06:44 AM
... refuse to call terrorists terrorists?

Are we so PC that we feel obliged as a nation to not use words that may hurt the feelings of those that wish to murder us?

Any thoughts?

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-16-2011, 10:30 AM
We are not really against all terrorists or all terrorism, as a national goal up to the equivalent of war.

We didn't take on the task of fighting the Basque separatists, the Tamil Tigers, the IRA if they were still active, etc. Those terrorists target interests apart from our vital national interests (they're attacking the local governments where they live). We would never look to have a military presence in Spain to help track down and eliminate the Basque terrorists, unless and until (and it hasn't happened) they turn to targeting us.

Also, we are USING terror organizations like the MEK, formerly used al Qaeda in our Balkans war under Clinton, etc.

William French Smith was Reagan's first Attorney General, and although few may now remember it, terrorism was a big issue in the '80s. The administration wanted to get a law outlawing terrorism, but Smith's analysis and report was that, however one might try to define terrorism, many of the US's own tactics would qualify as that very thing.

Same thing with Israel's policies of collective punishment and other tactics they use.

So, rather than try to make some distinction between terrorism we like and that is ok, and bad terrorism, and/or to REALLY commit ourselves against all terrorism, which we don't want to do and cannot really do, we now talk about violent extremists of a certain brand.

LWW
02-16-2011, 12:06 PM
Thanks for two things:

1 - Not answering the question.

2 - Admitting that the Clinton regime embraced al Qaeda, few on the left are willing to face up to this.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-16-2011, 05:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Senate Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-Maine) complained that the Obama administration "is refusing to acknowledge that violent Islamic extremism is the ideology that fuels attacks." Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) went to criticize "some people in the executive branch of government," for not using the phrase "Islamic extremists."

Great. The talking points from Rudy Giuliani's foolish presidential campaign continue to resonate with the leaders of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

As part of the same hearing, Philip Mudd, the former deputy director of the Office of Terrorism Analysis at the CIA, told the committee this rhetorical push is off-base. "As somebody who wants to kill the ideology," Mudd said, "I think we ought to call them what they hate to be called. They like to be called 'terrorists.' They like to be called 'Islamic radicals.' They hate to be called 'murderers,' and that is what they are.... Call them 'murderers.'"

Lieberman responded, "I'm unconvinced."

What a surprise.

It's probably worth noting that just a few years ago, the Bush/Cheney administration launched a new effort to change the way U.S. officials communicated on this issue. In fact, Bush/Cheney issued guidelines, entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication," urging officials to stop describing extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," and to drop "Islamo-fascism" altogether. "It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo said in bold italic lettering.

Karen Hughes later conceded, "We ought to avoid the language of religion. Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have."

Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman apparently don't care. </div></div>

LWW
02-17-2011, 04:03 AM
What, if anything, was the point there?

They are homicidal murderers.

They aren't suicide bombers ... they are homicide bombers.

Extremists are people who support the terrorists. Terrorists are those who participate in the acts of terrorism.

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 04:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

They aren't <span style='font-size: 17pt'>suicide bombers </span>... they are <span style='font-size: 17pt'>homicide bombers.</span>


LWW </div></div>

Thanks for the laugh. LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To control thought
“ By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness </div></div>


Fox viewers might swallow that crap, not me.

Q

LWW
02-17-2011, 04:49 AM
So you are of the belief that their intent is just to kill their own self and not to kill as many innocents as possible?

How dare you excuse such butchery.

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 06:06 AM
so,


..I disagree with you're terminology,


..That means I, ............. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">excuse such butchery. </div></div>

??????????

This why there can be no comprimise with the looney Right, ie you.

Thanks for such a clear example of the lunacy.

Q

LWW
02-17-2011, 06:19 AM
http://www.mickbaltes.de/af/foto2008_04.jpg
Truth is to you like a crucifix is to Dracula.

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 06:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.mickbaltes.de/af/foto2008_04.jpg
Truth is to you like a crucifix is to Dracula.

LWW </div></div>


Right ........that's why <u>you</u> are changing the subject and <u>I'm not</u>.

Q

LWW
02-17-2011, 06:52 AM
Actually the subject is why the regime refuses to call terrorists terrorists.

You have been on a deflection jihad.

But ... you already knew that.

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 06:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2 - Admitting that the Clinton regime embraced al Qaeda,</div></div>

You mean the republican controlled Govt did.


Q

LWW
02-17-2011, 07:07 AM
Sorry ... the POTUS conducts foreign policy.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-17-2011, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What, if anything, was the point there?

They are homicidal murderers.

They aren't suicide bombers ... they are homicide bombers.

Extremists are people who support the terrorists. Terrorists are those who participate in the acts of terrorism.

LWW </div></div>

This talking point is beyond lame. I've not heard it recently, because I think even those who attempted to impose some politically correct terminology for their own partisan interests were ashamed and embarrassed by how stupid their alleged point is.

Would a remote controlled bomb like say an IED, triggered by a radio signal quite far away from the explosion, not involving the bomber's suicide, NOT be a 'homicidal bombing,' and that person, not a homicide bomber?

Yes, both the remote control guy and the suicide bomber are committing homicide bombings. But the suicide bomber does it AND commits suicide, which requires a bit more than a homicidal tendency alone.

Insisting that we leave out the part where the bomber knowingly kills himself at the same time (an act some lefties consider suicide) simply butchers the facts on the altar of political correctness for no apparent reason that makes sense.

eg8r
02-17-2011, 01:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We didn't take on the task of fighting the Basque separatists, the Tamil Tigers, the IRA if they were still active, etc. Those terrorists target interests apart from our vital national interests (they're attacking the local governments where they live). We would never look to have a military presence in Spain to help track down and eliminate the Basque terrorists, unless and until (and it hasn't happened) they turn to targeting us.
</div></div>Then why did Clinton go after Milosevic?

eg8r

LWW
02-17-2011, 06:08 PM
That is hereby nominated for shameless excuse for terrorists post of the year.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-18-2011, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We didn't take on the task of fighting the Basque separatists, the Tamil Tigers, the IRA if they were still active, etc. Those terrorists target interests apart from our vital national interests (they're attacking the local governments where they live). We would never look to have a military presence in Spain to help track down and eliminate the Basque terrorists, unless and until (and it hasn't happened) they turn to targeting us.
</div></div>Then why did Clinton go after Milosevic?
</div></div>

The pretext to go to war there was alleged genocide, not terrorism. Claims of mass burials of hundreds of thousands bulldozed into pits. Clinton's claims were as false as Bush's later claims, but nobody remembers that. (Among the reasons were essentially no combat fatalities in a high altitude air war, plus the NWO types wanted to invent a new kind of supposedly legitimate, just war, the humanitarian concerns war.) No such mass graves were ever found. Far from fighting terrorism, we used elements of al Qaeda and the murderous drug-dealing Kosovo Liberation Army.

Qtec
02-18-2011, 03:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry ... the POTUS conducts foreign policy.

LWW </div></div>

Who funds it?


Q

Qtec
02-18-2011, 03:18 AM
mass graves (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/10/mass-grave-serbia-kosovo-ethnic-albanians.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Acting on tips from witnesses, Serbian war crimes prosecutors have discovered a mass grave believed to contain the bodies of 250 Albanians who were killed in Kosovo during the 1998-99 war there, <u>then transported to Serbia and secretly buried to hide the atrocities, officials said Monday.</u>

The burial site — hidden beneath a small building and a newly built parking lot — is the fourth mass grave of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo that has been found in Serbia since 2001. Two others were discovered in Kosovo. In each case, most of the bodies were those of civilians, including women and children.

The latest discovery is another example of the mass atrocities that were committed during the bloody Serb crackdown on the Kosovo separatists that killed at least 10,000 people and left nearly a million displaced.

Hundreds of bodies of slain ethnic Albanians have been exhumed in Serbia and returned to Kosovo since Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was ousted from power in a popular revolt in 2000

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/10...l#ixzz1EIhG6tAb (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/10/mass-grave-serbia-kosovo-ethnic-albanians.html#ixzz1EIhG6tAb)
</div></div>

Q

LWW
02-18-2011, 04:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry ... the POTUS conducts foreign policy.

LWW </div></div>

Who funds it?


Q </div></div>

Irrelevant point.

The answer is the taxpayer.

LWW

Qtec
02-18-2011, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry ... the POTUS conducts foreign policy.

LWW </div></div>

Who funds it?


Q </div></div>

Irrelevant point.

The answer is the taxpayer.

LWW </div></div>

What joy. LWW caught out by his own tactic and proceeds to duck and dive..

You can't have it both ways.

Q...LMAO

LWW
02-18-2011, 05:38 AM
Actually I can ... now go convince the mirror that you "WON" again.

I'm sure Gee and Stench are cheering for you.

LWW

eg8r
02-18-2011, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The pretext to go to war there was alleged genocide, not terrorism.</div></div>So, is alleged genocide reason enough to go to war but not terrorism or are you just pointing out a difference between the two? Both included going after the bad guys that were not attacking the US.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-18-2011, 04:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The pretext to go to war there was alleged genocide, not terrorism.</div></div>So, is alleged genocide reason enough to go to war but not terrorism or are you just pointing out a difference between the two? Both included going after the bad guys that were not attacking the US.

eg8r </div></div>

I am not in favor of multiplying more reasons it's supposedly valid to go to war. Self-defense when attacked, or when we are about to be attacked imminently, and defense of allies when a defense alliance is at stake and they are attacked, should be the only times war is contemplated.

If we are 'fighting' the TACTIC of the use of terror, then we have an endless war forever that can never be won or be over. And that is nonsense, unless you want an all-powerful dictator type presidency, as envisioned by the Bush administration in their doctrine of the unitary executive. By their two theories, nothing could constrain the president from his judged right course in wartime, AND that wartime was going to go on indefinitely. Insane, corrosive of our republic, and expensive enough we've already been pushed to the brink of insolvency by the first two such adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Credible economic estimates are that these things will have cost $3 TRILLION DOLLARS, and for what enhancement of our security exactly?

At least an excuse of fighting genocide would be far more limited to just the one example being raised, and that would be somewhat better. But this was, as I said, a pretext, to control the land over which the Caspian Basin oil production would be shipped, eventually through Afghanistan (and the real reason we're there as well), to the voracious energy consumers, India and China. And an excuse to come up with another reason that the world powers (aka, NWO types) can use aggression against a sovereign nation in a case other than self-defense, which is a very bad precedent that should be avoided.

LWW
02-18-2011, 05:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The pretext to go to war there was alleged genocide, not terrorism.</div></div>So, is alleged genocide reason enough to go to war but not terrorism or are you just pointing out a difference between the two? Both included going after the bad guys that were not attacking the US.

eg8r </div></div>

Not quite.

Afghanland and Iraq both attacked US citizens.

In the Balkans we were actually helping those who had attacked us.

LWW

Qtec
02-18-2011, 07:07 PM
Don't get sucked into that pretext crap S. Its a strawman. Pretext sounds to me like an excuse, not a reason.

What was happening was ethnic cleansing. It was slash and burn. Something had to be done. This was real and happening. Sarejevo was surrounded and they were firing shells into the market place- targeting civilians- and using snipers to pick off individuals crossing the street.

There was a pretext given to justify the Iraq invasion. We all know that the pretext then was wrong. This is not the case in the Balkans.

Q

Qtec
02-18-2011, 07:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Iraq both attacked US citizens. </div></div>

When? Where?

You claim to be intelligent but this must be the 100TH time I have asked you to provide a link.



Q

LWW
02-19-2011, 05:08 AM
Are you seriously that ignorant of reality?

From the reich wing nut jobs at CBS News:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(CBS) <span style='font-size: 11pt'>U.S. officials say Abu Abbas, a notorious Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean, has been captured by U.S. forces in Iraq.</span>

Abbas, who had moved to Iraq to escape the reach of American law enforcement, is wanted for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American passenger who was shot and tossed overboard. ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The PLF faction under Abbas was a conduit for Saddam Hussein's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Israel's Shin Bet intelligence service reported earlier this year that Israel captured several Palestinians who trained at a PLF camp in Iraq and were told by Abbas to attack an Israeli airport and other targets.</span>

Abbas, either 61 or 62, had eluded arrest since four of his followers hijacked the Achille Lauro as it sailed from Egypt to Israel in October 1985. They demanded that Israel release 50 imprisoned Palestinians.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>During the hijacking, his followers shot and killed Jewish American passenger Leon Klinghoffer, 69. The hijackers then tossed Klinghoffer and his wheelchair off the cruise ship.</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The hijacking ended Oct. 9 after Egypt negotiated with the hijackers. Abbas, who helped negotiate the surrender, and the four hijackers were flown out of Egypt on a jet that was intercepted by U.S. Navy fighters and forced to land in Sicily.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Tensions arose as soon as the plane landed. Armed U.S. and Italian soldiers faced off, each side demanding custody of the hijackers. The situation was only resolved after feverish telephone calls between Premier Bettino Craxi and President Reagan.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The Italians took custody of the four and promised to try them, but refused to detain Abbas, saying the evidence compiled by Washington was insufficient and that</span> h<span style='font-size: 17pt'>e held an Iraqi diplomatic passport.</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Within two days, he slipped out of the country.</span></div></div>

http://www.husseinandterror.com/jpeg%20pics/08sized.jpg

http://www.husseinandterror.com/jpeg%20pics/82.jpg

http://www.mickbaltes.de/af/foto2008_04.jpg

<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>ARRGGGHHHH!!!! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/16/iraq/main549591.shtml)</span></span>

Saddam attempts to assassinate George Herbert Walker Bush (http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html)

Saddam funds murder of 36 Americans (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)

Saddam's embassy diplomat participates in nail bomb which murder American citizen (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)

Saddam issues bonus check to Palestinian family whose child detonates self killing US citizen (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)

Saddam provides safe have for Abu Nidal, murderer of 5 Americans (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)

US court rules Saddam and Al Qaeda linked together (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)

Q ... this is where you bury your head in the sand and claim victory.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-19-2011, 10:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't get sucked into that pretext crap S. Its a strawman. Pretext sounds to me like an excuse, not a reason.

What was happening was ethnic cleansing. It was slash and burn. Something had to be done. This was real and happening. Sarejevo was surrounded and they were firing shells into the market place- targeting civilians- and using snipers to pick off individuals crossing the street.

There was a pretext given to justify the Iraq invasion. We all know that the pretext then was wrong. This is not the case in the Balkans.

Q

</div></div>

Ethnic cleansing, perhaps. But it was the alleged genocide that was the organizing principle. So I continue to believe as I did at the time that there was not a sufficient reason to go to war, and that the war was prosecuted using war crime methods (wholly unproportional destruction of civilian use infrastructure in what amounted to terrorist tactics-- make the civilians scream and bleed and die of thirst and starve, and use these effects on non-combatants to try to alter the policies of their country's leadership, and try to have them REMOVE their leadership to stop the punishment of the innocents. That is classic terrorism).

Soflasnapper
02-19-2011, 10:48 AM
Summary judgment from that federal judge proves nothing. There was no defense disputing the charges, so of course he found for the plaintiffs. Do you think he even had a hearing of the evidence, when no defense showed up for the trial?

Abu Nidal is said to have been a contractor for Mossad, by various former Mossad agents. Oddly, if that was not true, he remained unmolested by Israeli vengeance in the West Bank for years until he died of natural causes, while the Israelis had no trouble executing various Hamas leaders at will during that time.

Gayle in MD
02-19-2011, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Iraq both attacked US citizens. </div></div>

When? Where?

You claim to be intelligent but this must be the 100TH time I have asked you to provide a link.



Q </div></div>

He is giving us another biased opinion for his La La Land, perch at the foot of FUX NOISE.

The whole world knows, Bush lied us into a war in IRaq, by fixing the intel, to his determination, pre election, to go after Saddam.

When the Bush cabal, decided to lie to Powell, lie to Congress, Lie to the U.N. and lie to the world, used statements from a KNOWN LIAR, NICKNAMED CURVE BALL, for his many proven lies, BY OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTER TERRORIST EXPERTS, they committed TREASON.

They should all be prosecuted for Treason, and for War Crimes.


Bush admitted, NO WMD were found. The right is still telling that lie, over and over. the British Memo, stated clerly, the administration was fixing their intel, to their agenda, to invade annd occupy Iraq.

The only ones who were advantaged, were the American Oil Corporations, in collusion with by their White House OIL cronies, all of them formerly in the oil industry, cheney meeting secretly with energy Czars, and the result was record breaking profits, for big oil, and huge deficits and debts, for America, huge contracts in Iraq, for American Oil Corporations.

It's all so obvious. The right, is the party of deniers.
G.

pooltchr
02-19-2011, 12:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
It's all so obvious. The <span style="color: #FF0000">left</span>, is the party of deniers.
G. </div></div>

There, I fixed that for you.

Steve