Vote the Terrorists' Way

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I’ve decided party loyalty is more important than REALITY and America.[/quote]

Study: Terror Warnings Up Approval Ratings
Associated Press
October 27 2004
SYRACUSE, N.Y. – When the government issues a terror warning, the president’s approval rating increases an average of nearly three points, a Cornell University sociologist says.

“The social theories predict it, and anecdotally we know it to be true. Now we have statistical science to confirm it,” said Robb Willer, assistant director of Cornell’s Sociology and Small Groups Laboratory.

On average, a terror warning prompted a 2.75 point increase in President George Bush’s approval rating the following week, said Willer, who published his study in Current Research in Social Psychology, a peer-reviewed online journal…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/271004terrorwarnings.htm

Terror Trend

1995: In most countries, the level of international terrorism in 1995 continued the downward trend of recent years, and there were fewer terrorist acts that caused deaths last year than in the previous year.

1996: During 1996 there were 296 acts of international terrorism, the lowest annual total in 25 years and 144 fewer than in 1995.

1997: During 1997 there were 304 acts of international terrorism, eight more than occurred during 1996, but one of the lowest annual totals recorded since 1971.

1998: There were 273 international terrorist attacks during 1998, a drop from the 304 attacks we recorded the previous year and the lowest annual total since 1971.

1999: The number of persons killed or wounded in international terrorist attacks during 1999 fell sharply because of the absence of any attack causing mass casualties.

---- GOP takes over ----

2000: There were 423 international terrorist attacks in 2000, an increase of 8% from the 392 attacks recorded during 1999.

2001: Greatest terror attack in HISTORY occurs on US soil.

U.S. raises figures for 2003 terrorist attacks
‘Significant attacks’ at 21-year high, revised data show
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/

U.S. eliminates annual terrorism report
WASHINGTON - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government’s top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002243262_terror16.html

Terrorist Attacks Rose Sharply in 2005, State Dept. Says

22

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

---- GOP takes over ----

2000: There were 423 international terrorist attacks in 2000, an increase of 8% from the 392 attacks recorded during 1999. [/quote]

You do realize that Presidents don’t take office until after the new year? As in, Clinton was president until 2001?

You make it out as though that from the beginning to the end of 2000, the GOP was triggering more terror. But elections aren’t even until November, and no one takes office until 2001.

So if terror increased substantially in 2000, no problem, just find a reason that can’t be refuted in 2 to 3 seconds with the application of common sense.

23

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, first of all, no one knows what the hell ‘inadmissibility’ means here - you probably mean ‘impermissibility’, but I don’t want to actually make sense of your poorly written post if you didn’t intend it.
[/quote]

I think You are an idiot and I will go no farther with you than this:

inadmissibility

n : unacceptability as a consequence of not being admissible

24

Iraq = Vietnam

Terrorism = Communism (The Red Threat)

Bush = Nixon

Kissinger = Kissinger (yes, he’s back)

25

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, first of all, no one knows what the hell ‘inadmissibility’ means here - you probably mean ‘impermissibility’, but I don’t want to actually make sense of your poorly written post if you didn’t intend it.

I think You are an idiot and I will go no farther with you than this:

inadmissibility

n : unacceptability as a consequence of not being admissible

Inadmissible Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com [/quote]

So your strongest argument is " it must not be, therefore it cannot be"?

Now let us say for arguments sake that you are the 400 lbs gorilla in the cage and just don`t give a shit.

What happens then?

Do egomaniacs compare you to the Devil at a UN meeting?

Is the UN going to send you a letter where they disagree with you in the strongest possible terms?

And what will GWB have for lunch after he wiped his ass with it?

26

[quote]Petedacook wrote:

I think You are an idiot and I will go no farther with you than this:

inadmissibility

n : unacceptability as a consequence of not being admissible

Inadmissible Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com [/quote]

Fantastic. You swoop in with half-literate posts, and your only defense to questions you can’t answer is to call someone an idiot.

People are expected to defend their points of view in these forums. Time spent with you is time wasted.

27

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We don’t have to be there till the very last terrorist is dead. And they are terrorists, as the Iraqis have elected representatives.

We simply need to continue to train Iraqi Soldiers and Police. That is, up to a point our military leaders believe the Iraqi government can not be overthrown. Not re-eleted sure. Overthrown, no. And, that the Government can keep it’s provinces REASONABLY secure, without us.

We won the war. We don’t have to actually win the aftermath. We simply need to make sure the Iraqis can. Basically, make sure they have all the tools to finish up once we leave. Then we need to get out.[/quote]

Good post.

28

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We don’t have to be there till the very last terrorist is dead. And they are terrorists, as the Iraqis have elected representatives.

We simply need to continue to train Iraqi Soldiers and Police. That is, up to a point our military leaders believe the Iraqi government can not be overthrown. Not re-eleted sure. Overthrown, no. And, that the Government can keep it’s provinces REASONABLY secure, without us.

We won the war. We don’t have to actually win the aftermath. We simply need to make sure the Iraqis can. Basically, make sure they have all the tools to finish up once we leave. Then we need to get out.

Good post.[/quote]

You know you’re full of shit when Zap endorses your post.

How many soldiers and police were trained? How many of those are reliable?

Can you train them faster than the terrorists can recruit?

29

[quote]vroom wrote:
H2, man, you are getting pretty pathetic… [/quote]

Now he’s just throwing whatever bullshit he can find up here…this is like his fourth ridiculous thread in a month.

Let him talk to himself…he’s not even worth talking to.

Alright Headhunter…I’m off to smoke my dope.

30

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We don’t have to be there till the very last terrorist is dead. And they are terrorists, as the Iraqis have elected representatives.

We simply need to continue to train Iraqi Soldiers and Police. That is, up to a point our military leaders believe the Iraqi government can not be overthrown. Not re-eleted sure. Overthrown, no. And, that the Government can keep it’s provinces REASONABLY secure, without us.

We won the war. We don’t have to actually win the aftermath. We simply need to make sure the Iraqis can. Basically, make sure they have all the tools to finish up once we leave. Then we need to get out.[/quote]

Man I have heard this before…all of it…where did I hear it…oh yea, South Vietnam.

They said all this when American soldiers were fighting for their lives as ARVN units broke and ran away…

That was what, ten years worth of fighting? Well, we’re at four years right now, going on five in Iraq.

World War II was won in six years, the Civil War in four, World War I in four…and this is all we have to show for four years in Iraq eh?

What a cluster fuck this whole thing is. You fellas may as well keep calling it an, “insurgency” and not a “civil war” just so you can sleep at night.

Iraq is the exact same situation as Vietnam, except even more dangerous because of the oil that is there.

31

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We don’t have to be there till the very last terrorist is dead. And they are terrorists, as the Iraqis have elected representatives.

We simply need to continue to train Iraqi Soldiers and Police. That is, up to a point our military leaders believe the Iraqi government can not be overthrown. Not re-eleted sure. Overthrown, no. And, that the Government can keep it’s provinces REASONABLY secure, without us.

We won the war. We don’t have to actually win the aftermath. We simply need to make sure the Iraqis can. Basically, make sure they have all the tools to finish up once we leave. Then we need to get out.

Good post.

You know you’re full of shit when Zap endorses your post.

How many soldiers and police were trained? How many of those are reliable?

Can you train them faster than the terrorists can recruit?[/quote]

If Hillary is in the White House (ignoring Bill getting BJs in the back room), Howard is screaming like a spoiled child, and Nancy is Speaker, then NO they won’t be able to train them faster than terrorists can recruit. The terrorists will know that America has lost its manhood and the libs are now in charge. Terrorism wins if Bush and the republicans lose; done and done.

32

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Now, go vote Republican, like you know you should…unless you really do want to lose the GWOT, like most libs.

[/quote]
You make three asinine assumptions: 1) the war on terror is in fact winable; 2)the republicans are winning the war on terror; and 3) the war on terror is global. They are all absurd assumptions.

There can be no such thing as a global war on terror. You might as well have a global war on ignorance. Or better still, a “global war on people who flock to rhetoric for all their life’s answers.”

33

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We don’t have to be there till the very last terrorist is dead. And they are terrorists, as the Iraqis have elected representatives.

We simply need to continue to train Iraqi Soldiers and Police. That is, up to a point our military leaders believe the Iraqi government can not be overthrown. Not re-eleted sure. Overthrown, no. And, that the Government can keep it’s provinces REASONABLY secure, without us.

We won the war. We don’t have to actually win the aftermath. We simply need to make sure the Iraqis can. Basically, make sure they have all the tools to finish up once we leave. Then we need to get out.

Good post.

You know you’re full of shit when Zap endorses your post.

How many soldiers and police were trained? How many of those are reliable?

Can you train them faster than the terrorists can recruit?

If Hillary is in the White House (ignoring Bill getting BJs in the back room), Howard is screaming like a spoiled child, and Nancy is Speaker, then NO they won’t be able to train them faster than terrorists can recruit. The terrorists will know that America has lost its manhood and the libs are now in charge. Terrorism wins if Bush and the republicans lose; done and done.

[/quote]

Technically the terrorists have been winning.

If we were winning there would be, you know…less terror/terrorists…instead we have the opposite.

Your goal is less terror, right?

34

Lol, this is tripe.

Nobody outside the U.S. gives a shit about Republicans vs. Democrats. They remember the bombings caused by each.

A Democratic admin isn’t going to make any drastic changes, if it gets elected.

Nothing will change, it never does.

35

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We don’t have to be there till the very last terrorist is dead. And they are terrorists, as the Iraqis have elected representatives.

We simply need to continue to train Iraqi Soldiers and Police. That is, up to a point our military leaders believe the Iraqi government can not be overthrown. Not re-eleted sure. Overthrown, no. And, that the Government can keep it’s provinces REASONABLY secure, without us.

We won the war. We don’t have to actually win the aftermath. We simply need to make sure the Iraqis can. Basically, make sure they have all the tools to finish up once we leave. Then we need to get out.

Good post.

You know you’re full of shit when Zap endorses your post.

How many soldiers and police were trained? How many of those are reliable?

Can you train them faster than the terrorists can recruit?

If Hillary is in the White House (ignoring Bill getting BJs in the back room), Howard is screaming like a spoiled child, and Nancy is Speaker, then NO they won’t be able to train them faster than terrorists can recruit. The terrorists will know that America has lost its manhood and the libs are now in charge. Terrorism wins if Bush and the republicans lose; done and done.

[/quote]

Terrorize definition:

To fill or overpower with terror; terrify; coerce by intimidation or fear.

i.e. Vote for Republicans or you will be attacked again.

Big ol’ Wheezy is just a pansy that does not realize that he is more likely to win the lottery than get killed in a terrorist attack.

Nice!

Keep up the great work!

36

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We don’t have to be there till the very last terrorist is dead. And they are terrorists, as the Iraqis have elected representatives.

We simply need to continue to train Iraqi Soldiers and Police. That is, up to a point our military leaders believe the Iraqi government can not be overthrown. Not re-eleted sure. Overthrown, no. And, that the Government can keep it’s provinces REASONABLY secure, without us.

We won the war. We don’t have to actually win the aftermath. We simply need to make sure the Iraqis can. Basically, make sure they have all the tools to finish up once we leave. Then we need to get out.

Good post.

You know you’re full of shit when Zap endorses your post.

How many soldiers and police were trained? How many of those are reliable?

Can you train them faster than the terrorists can recruit?

If Hillary is in the White House (ignoring Bill getting BJs in the back room), Howard is screaming like a spoiled child, and Nancy is Speaker, then NO they won’t be able to train them faster than terrorists can recruit. The terrorists will know that America has lost its manhood and the libs are now in charge. Terrorism wins if Bush and the republicans lose; done and done.

[/quote]
What in the name of God is wrong with you?

I’ll repeat.

The terrorists could not give two shits about the party in power in the US.

The fighters in the Iraqi civil war don’t care either.

They do. Not. Care.

Bush is NOT doing a good job. Or else we’d have results. Bush is the problem (not the republican party, just this administration). “done and done”

37

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We don’t have to be there till the very last terrorist is dead. And they are terrorists, as the Iraqis have elected representatives.

We simply need to continue to train Iraqi Soldiers and Police. That is, up to a point our military leaders believe the Iraqi government can not be overthrown. Not re-eleted sure. Overthrown, no. And, that the Government can keep it’s provinces REASONABLY secure, without us.

We won the war. We don’t have to actually win the aftermath. We simply need to make sure the Iraqis can. Basically, make sure they have all the tools to finish up once we leave. Then we need to get out.

Good post.

You know you’re full of shit when Zap endorses your post.

How many soldiers and police were trained? How many of those are reliable?

Can you train them faster than the terrorists can recruit?

If Hillary is in the White House (ignoring Bill getting BJs in the back room), Howard is screaming like a spoiled child, and Nancy is Speaker, then NO they won’t be able to train them faster than terrorists can recruit. The terrorists will know that America has lost its manhood and the libs are now in charge. Terrorism wins if Bush and the republicans lose; done and done.

[/quote]

This is not about Hillary, or Bills blowjob.

It’s not about your asthma either.

At least Bill used his dick to get a blowjob. Bush uses his dick to think.
And he’s fucking up. What does the moran have to show for it 4 years after the invasion?

Still you want more of the same?
Still betting on your asthma to keep you safe eh?

38

HH is a terrorist.

i.e. Vote the way I want you to or else.

39

Vote with your dick! It is the only way.

40

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Lol, this is tripe.

Nobody outside the U.S. gives a shit about Republicans vs. Democrats. They remember the bombings caused by each.

A Democratic admin isn’t going to make any drastic changes, if it gets elected.

Nothing will change, it never does.[/quote]

So you think that there was little differance between the Clinton and Bush presidency’s. That is a pretty stupid position.