Professor X,
I hate to say it, but you really shouldn’t even waste the energy it takes to type to respond to some of this shit with well thought out posts. The very nature of the people who the Bush marketing machine targets is a lack of understanding of history coupled with a firm “America Right or Wrong” attitude. I think that the veracity with which his supporters react is evidence that they have felt very suppressed for years, and grew to despise intellectualism in general, so posts like that are just anti-intellectual backlash. I mean, what real, rational human being really says “fuck it, just give me an open window and an RPG!”? Incidentally, the blind followers of OBL, Saddam, et al, have a very similar profile. I am glad you type out your well thought out posts. I hate that so many people just don’t get it.
“I’ll stick with this. You asked if 9/11 was acceptable. Any American who would answer yes to that question would be a traitor. That brings into question why it would be asked in the first place. That is basic logic. I can see you don’t show any on this subject. That is not even an insult, just the truth”
Professor-
IT’s not basic logic your offering it’s convoluted logic. It wasn’t a trap just a question.
Try this for a logical answer that leaves no gray are “NO”. That’s how I would logically answer the question. Instead of trying to analyze how I asked the question try answering it. See nobody thinks your a traitor and it’s meet your logic test. (see it’s not lost on me. Yeah Iguess if you answered yes you would be some sort of traitor r at least an apologist for terrorism. Your previous posts were certainly confusing that’s why I asked you to clarify in the first place.
Rangertab75- Direct and to the point…as always. Good man and stay safe. Good men never let evil triumph.
Roy Batty- WTF are you talking about. This is not an attack, just asking. I actually thought we were having an interesting political discussion, albiet from opposite sides of the political spectrum. People do that around election time and of all places on a political forum…geez…who would of thought.
[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
Trust me, the guerilla attacks could not have been reduced had we approached it differently. Do you think if those assholes care if we had taken our time and gained more support for the war?? Fuck no!! As far as they’re concerned, we are in their country and they don’t like it. They think we are waging a war against Islam and diplomacy doesn’t mean a damn to them. [/quote]
Hmmm, if they think we are waging a war against Islam, you are saying that propaganda tactics over time would have had no effect at all? If you are saying that, how do you know this? By the way, your post didn’t offend me at all. I just found it funny that many republicans on this site claim that they attack no one with insults and that democrats are the only hostile ones in this election yet so many republicans on this site try their best to hurl insults. Yours was a very weak attempt. Don’t ever get caught in a “yo mamma” fight…you don’t have the wits.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hmmm, if they think we are waging a war against Islam, you are saying that propaganda tactics over time would have had no effect at all? If you are saying that, how do you know this? By the way, your post didn’t offend me at all. I just found it funny that many republicans on this site claim that they attack no one with insults and that democrats are the only hostile ones in this election yet so many republicans on this site try their best to hurl insults. Yours was a very weak attempt. Don’t ever get caught in a “yo mamma” fight…you don’t have the wits.
[/quote]
Professor X -
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, sorry. You were probably serious about the “yo mamma” fights comment. Motherfucker, I’ve been in FIREFIGHTS. Ya know, the kind where I aimed at a human being and pulled the trigger…and they tried to do the same to me. You don’t even know the meaning of “shit hitting the fan”. You wanna talk about wits?? Let’s see you get up and run when you see glowing tracer rounds whizzing right past your face. Let’s see you kick in a door not knowing if there’s someone on the other side with an AK flipped off safe. I would love to see your face as you hear rounds slapping into the side of the helo that you just so happen to be sitting in. Let’s see how your wits hold up when you’re calming a buddy of yours down after he took two in the chest; your hands soaked in his blood. Then after that, if your wits are still holding up, try to look his wife in the face as she’s handed a folded American flag. Listen here, son. You might be a big ol’ boy, but that’s about as far as it goes. You still have a lot of ‘growing’ to do. RLTW
rangertab75
I hate that some people just don’t get it either. Great post.
Here is a great article by someone who “get’s it”.
It’s time to factor in how many Iraqi’s would have been put into torture chambers/killed while we dithered. You acknowledge the inevitability of the war, but apparently the French/German/Russian approbation is important enough to risk our national security/Iraqi lives on. I strongly disagree.
Imagine having cancer on your arm. You’ve had it metastasize twice (Iran/Kuwait) given you many scares (firing on our planes/trying to assassinatie GHBush/supporting Palestinian terrorists/Al Qaeda). You know it has to come off. Do you wait?
Come on over to THE CHALLENGE, Professor X. Your guy, Kerry, is only a day away from becoming as terrific a President as he is a candidate!!!
JeffR
Professor X,
You are in way over your head with Ranger.
I would consider acknowledging his superior knowledge on the topic of current conditions Iraq.
Perhaps thanking him for his service would be in order.
Just a friendly suggestion.
JeffR
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
I hate that some people just don’t get it either. Great post.
Here is a great article by someone who “get’s it”.
http://www.hacer.org/current/US128.php[/quote]
Jack –
Paul Johnson is pretty cool – and he has the insight that only a former socialist (way back when) can really muster. Have you ever read any of his work? I like his History of the American People – he’s very readable.
Prof X,
You wrote:
“Since when is “invading Iraq based on Saddam being a mad man” interchangeable with “invading Iraq because there are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and SADDAM HAD DIRECT TIES TO 9/11”? This little “flip flop” of facts doesn’t pass as truth. Saddam doesn’t go home and magically morph into Bin Laden like some overpriced Power Rangers toy.”
We had dozens of reasons for invading Iraq. If you belong to the “anybody but Bush” mob, check google. Type in Bill+Clinton+Iraq. You will hear the same reasons/suspicions given by W’s administration for invasion.
“What would I have done differently? How about, use the same special ops tactics that somehow reported the presense of imaginary WMD’s to track down Bin Laden even if it was against that country’s wishes. React to any military efforts to stop them if they were found out while focusing the majority of the campaign on propoganda efforts to slowly change the minds of the people in Iraq (this process would take years but hopefuly would ready the people for a true change of government later). Explain to the American people that Bin Laden is being searched for while working hard to create an alliance that would hold together in search of the man (realizing that running into war without solid proof of where the man was would lead to loss of that alliance).”
Soverignity is more than a word to most countries. How would we “react” when they defended their soverignity? Please explain.
“Wait, fewer people got killed in that scenerio so the Republicans must hate it.”
That is a reckless, irresponsible, ignorant, and unwarranted comment.
Please apologize immediately.
JeffR
[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
Let’s see how your wits hold up when you’re calming a buddy of yours down after he took two in the chest; your hands soaked in his blood. Then after that, if your wits are still holding up, try to look his wife in the face as she’s handed a folded American flag. Listen here, son. You might be a big ol’ boy, but that’s about as far as it goes. You still have a lot of ‘growing’ to do. RLTW
rangertab75[/quote]
I am military as well, however, my job is not on the front lines. I respect every man and woman out there. In light of that, I am one of the people who has the job of making sure they are healthy enough to continue fighting. You are preaching to the choir. My father was military as am I. If your goal was to compare battle scars, you failed in one tiny aspect…if I was someone who needed to hear that, I wouldn’t be military. If this has become some “I deserve more credit than you” bullshit story, you can hold your next reply in. We are ALL doing this together. Your men and you would be no where without people like me doing our jobs as you do yours. Only some pompous halfwit would assume otherwise. Keep showing your true colors.
Well said Ranger…some kids just don’t get it.
This is pretty good:
Also, here’s some more info on the OBL video:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33063.htm
October 31, 2004 – Osama bin Laden doesn’t seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden’s newest tape may have thrust him to the forefront of the presidential election, but what was not seen was the cave-dwelling terror lord talking about the setbacks al Qaeda has faced in recent months.
Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape ? of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday ? bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.
On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military’s unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border.
A portion of the left-out footage includes a tirade aimed at President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, claiming the war in Iraq is purely over oil.
The tape also sparked some concern that an attack aimed at disrupting Tuesday’s election may be planned.
But those who have seen the tape have said there was no specific information regarding an attack.
“We are taking this very seriously,” said one counterterrorism official. “This is cause for great concern and we are certainly going on higher alert because of this.”
The Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a joint FBI-CIA intelligence-gathering organization, has drawn up possible attack scenarios for officials to look out for ? based on information gathered from communication intercepts and interviews with al Qaeda detainees.
The most extreme of those scenarios includes a multi-pronged biological- and chemical-weapons attack; more airline hijackings; assaults on financial institutions with the use of car and truck bombs and an attack similar to the Madrid subway bombing in march.
Many believe that the ringleader of any possible attack is Adnan Shukriagumah, a 28-year-old Saudi-born Guyanese man who grew up in South Florida.
A $5 million reward has been offered for Shukriagumah, who has bomb- making skills, is trained to fly commercial jets and has been linked to Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta.
Intelligence reports say Shukriagumah has hooked up with the El Salvadorian street gang, MS-13, which is known to be very adept at smuggling drugs and people into the United States. With Post Wire Services
Even more info on the OBL video:
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2004/11/01/bin_laden_or_alaa.php#001542
Bin Laden or Alaa?
November 01, 2004 05:32 AM
MEMRI is reporting that the version of Bin Laden’s speech that we heard Friday was mistranslated in a key section:
[Begin MEMRI excerpt] "The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera(1) on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to “each U.S. state,” designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words “ay wilaya” (which means “each U.S. state”)(2) to mean a “country” or “nation” other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: “Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.”
The Islamist website Al-Qal’a explained what this sentence meant: “This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, ‘Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,’ it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn’t treat all American people as if they’re the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections.” [End MEMRI excerpt]
So: Bin Laden is now accepting surrenders on a state-by-state basis. Now read this:
Alaa, an Iraqi, writing at The Mesopotamian:
[Begin Alaa Excerpt] "Thus, regardless of all the arguments of both candidates the main problem is that President Bush now represents a symbol of defiance against the terrorists and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. That is not to say that they like the democrats, but that they will take such an outcome as retreat by the American people, and will consequently be greatly encouraged to intensify their assault. The outcome here on the ground in Iraq seems to be almost obvious. In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to ?cut and run? to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies? commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything.
On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the ?insurgent elements? here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many in the U.S. don?t quite appreciate how high the stakes are…" [End Alaa Excerpt]
I’m with Alaa. How about you?
[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
Motherfucker, I’ve been in FIREFIGHTS. Ya know, the kind where I aimed at a human being and pulled the trigger…and they tried to do the same to me. You don’t even know the meaning of “shit hitting the fan”. You wanna talk about wits?? Let’s see you get up and run when you see glowing tracer rounds whizzing right past your face. Let’s see you kick in a door not knowing if there’s someone on the other side with an AK flipped off safe. I would love to see your face as you hear rounds slapping into the side of the helo that you just so happen to be sitting in. Let’s see how your wits hold up when you’re calming a buddy of yours down after he took two in the chest; your hands soaked in his blood. Then after that, if your wits are still holding up, try to look his wife in the face as she’s handed a folded American flag. Listen here, son. You might be a big ol’ boy, but that’s about as far as it goes. You still have a lot of ‘growing’ to do. RLTW
rangertab75[/quote]
Everyone appreciates the service of the men and women in our military.
But not all of the men and women in the military appreciate what Bush has done to put them in that situation and keeping them there on revolving tours of duty. Just like many of us not in the military don’t appreciate what he has done to start this “never-ending war” that is causing you, your friends and others to die.
He went about it the wrong way, and he was told beforehand what it would take to win this war, but he didn’t listen, and now, more and more are dying.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
He went about it the wrong way, and he was told beforehand what it would take to win this war, but he didn’t listen, and now, more and more are dying.[/quote]
Can you tell me how many would’ve died had we gone about it another way? No? Why not? The fact is, you don’t have a clue. While one person might have been advising the President of “one way” another person was advising him that it was better to do it “this way”. But, the sheeple never seem to realize that there’s more than one way to look at things. A President; however, makes the best decision he’s equipped to make. There is no way in the world you can claim that doing it another way, would’ve suffered less casualties. That is simply naive to think so.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
There is no way in the world you can claim that doing it another way, would’ve suffered less casualties. That is simply naive to think so.[/quote]
Does this mean you believe that it could not have been handled better and that there were absolutely no mistakes made that someone else would have handled differently?
Some observations by Christopher Hitchens concerning the OBL tape, and some of its implications outside of U.S. borders:
http://slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108966&
[Scroll down about half way if you follow the link]
EXCERPT:
I am more morose about the dispelling of my once-promising induction about the demise of Osama Bin Laden. It had seemed to me that his people a) craved proof of his survival and b) had craved it enough to produce some bogus proofs while c) failing to come up with anything persuasive. Given this, and given that mere proof of life is inherently easy, and remembering how loquacious the diseased old buzzard used to be, I thought it was pardonable to speculate that his jolly voice had somehow been stilled.
Yet there he apparently was again, looking a bit distracted but nonetheless up-to-the-minute with the recycled taunts and jeers of Michael Moore. Who can imagine, as Bin Laden asserts, that the “Pet Goat” moment in Florida gave extra time to the 9/11 psychopaths, who were limited only by an air-traffic control delay at Newark airport? Still, I suppose it is assumed in al-Qaida circles that every little innuendo helps.
I do not believe that Bin Laden sends Da Vinci-style cryptography through his videos. (He seems to have more direct means of passing on his instructions.) But there are some not-so-cryptic elements in the latest sermon that have escaped attention. First, the open?and repeated?endorsement of collusion with Saddamists. This is stated twice. It is no less suggestive for being coupled with forceful attacks on the “infidel” ideology of “the socialists.” Notwithstanding their deformities, says Bin Laden, “there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interest of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders.” This will not, of course, embarrass those who continue to believe that cooperation between “secular” Baathists and Islamists is improbable by definition. Nothing embarrasses such ideologues; neither the invocation of jihad by Saddamists nor the solidarity with embattled Baathists expressed by Bin Laden.
Then there is the prospective list of countries to be liberated by holy war. In the order given, these are “Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.” The last two on the list are old hat: Bin Laden is of part-Yemeni origin, and his loathing for the Saudi regime is notorious. It might also be assumed that he detests the Pakistani authorities, since they have assisted, however grudgingly, in his ignominious eviction from Afghanistan. Nigeria is of interest, because it is now only in the early throes of an attack by fundamentalist thugs who seek to impose sharia law on all Muslims and on a huge number of non-Muslims as well. You may remember their attempt to stone to death Amina Lawal, for her crime of having given birth to a baby. One might want to pay attention to this additional warning, of an attempt to turn a near-failed state (with large oil resources) into a full-fledged rogue one. Morocco has been the scene of a campaign of Islamist violence for some time: a campaign notable for the additional demand that Spain be reconquered for the one true faith. As for Jordan, I could be mistaken but I was struck by the remark of one analyst quoted in the New York Times who said that Bin Laden was running for re-election as the president of Islamic militancy. In that case, he might have been aware of the rival candidacy of Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, who began his career of crime with a declaration of war on the Jordanian ruling house.
Yet in every report that I read, including in serious newspapers, the entire emphasis was on the possible effect of this ranting tape on tomorrow’s election. Parochialism like this, which is present in both parties, causes one to moan and whimper.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest collection of essays, Love, Poverty and War, is forthcoming.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
There is no way in the world you can claim that doing it another way, would’ve suffered less casualties. That is simply naive to think so.
Does this mean you believe that it could not have been handled better and that there were absolutely no mistakes made that someone else would have handled differently?[/quote]
I’m sure there were some expectations that were not met and some things that happened that were complete surprises. Does that equate to mistakes? Sure. Can someone else handle it differently? Sure. Better? Nobody knows, but in comparison to prior wars, this one has been handled very well. Why does it matter what I believe? Look at the history of wars and compare them to today’s conflict. Also, keep in mind that our previous wars did not have 24/7/365 liberal media news coverage.
More coincidences indicating Michael Moore is serving as OBL’s “useful idiot” (in Lenin’s original meaning of that term) - This one is more disturbing than OBL talking about goats:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_11_00.shtml#1099296725
[Jim Lindgren, November 1, 2004 at 3:12am] Possible Trackbacks
Was Bin Laden’s threat to attack Red States anticipated by Michael Moore?–
A reader writes to point out that the new translation of Bin Laden’s threat (interpreted by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_11_00.shtml#1099287101
as Bin Laden threatening to attack states that vote for Bush and pass over states that vote for Kerry) also brings Bin Laden even further in line with Michael Moore.
As Larry Ribstein recently reminded us (tip to Althouse),
on September 12, 2001 Moore was skeptical whether Bin Laden had done the attacks and suggested that it made no sense for Bin Laden to attack in New York and Washington, DC, because these areas did not vote for Bush:
[Begin Moore excerpt] "In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race ? you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all. . . . .
Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California ? these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity...Let's mourn, let's grieve, and when it's appropriate let's examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in." [End Moore excerpt]
If the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and the Islamist website translated by MEMRI are right in their translations and interpretations,
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_11_00.shtml#1099287101
then sometime over the last three years, Bin Laden has recognized Michael Moore’s “insight” that it would make no sense to kill people in states that didn’t vote for Bush. Moore, of course, after making his bizarre and creepy comments, quite emphatically calls it “insanity” to kill “anyone” in this way.