fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
"Aresenal?" LOL
War on terror called failure
- Thread starter 97silverlsc
- Start date
"Aresenal?" LOL
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Are we resorting to pointing out spelling flaws as a valid debate point? We all make them from time to time...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
First of all, Johnny makes spelling errors ALL THE TIME.
Secondly, he was attacking Calabrio by telling him he needed to join a 12-step program. Might as well have called him an addict. Duh.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and Johnny's by far the WORST OFFENDER IN THIS FORUM.
Johnny, "Spiro Agnew" buddy.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
I don't keep track of peoples grammatical and spelling mistakes here, I'm sure I make many myself in return.
That's one way to look at it, another would be... He was telling Calabrio not to take what people say out of context and 'knee-jerk', something we all have done. Is the glass 'Half-Full' or 'Half-Empty', take your pick.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
In October 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign in the wake of a financial scandal. Shortly thereafter, "Tonight Show" host Dick Cavett made a curious observation: "Spiro Agnew," he pointed out, is an anagram of... "Grow a penis!"
Nice personal attack, clever too.
JohnnyBz00LS said:
I didn't take anything out of context:
If only there was a 12-step program that could develop your comprehension skills.
For the past few years, McVeigh has been the standard argument made by leftist as a means of deflecting attacks on Islamic terrorists and- taking a free shot at Christianity. And it's a baseless charge.
And if you really take a look at the Oklahoma bombing, you'll find more suspicious connections to Islamic terrorist than you will find any connection to Christian fundamentalists.
Raveneyes point was very clear and I addressed it directly, thoroughly, and politely. Perhaps, someday, if you ever have the luxury of having truth on your side, Johnny, you'll be able to respond in the same manner.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Fine, McVeigh was not a good example of a terrorist christian. James Kopp would be more appropriate for that argument.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You're going to a lot of trouble to tie terrorism with Christianity. You must really hate Christians.
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You've named one person, who committed a crime, under the delusion he that had done so because of his moral or religious convictions.
Of course, he was completely rejected and publically condemned by the ENTIRE Christian community. Conservatives will not defend him and supported the death penalty for him.
This would be in stark contrast to the response of Muslim terrorist and, if nothing else, the lack of condemnation from their community, especially outside of the United States.
But you've only named ONE Christian terrorist who killed ONE abortion doctor.
Face it, you can't compare the two. There is no cult of death within Christianity.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Must I google everything for you??
Google.....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=christian+terrorist&btnG=Google+Search
Eric Robert Rudolph:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1196-2003Jun1?language=printer
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/christian-terrorist-rudolph-sentenced.html
some satire........
http://www.brainsnap.com/node/199
http://www.bettybowers.com/fbi.html
Pat Robertson:
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/robertson_bin_laden.html
"Army of GOD"
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/army_god.html
The KKK:
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/KKK.asp?xpicked=4&item=18
A whole section in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Take your pick, the similarities between "muslim terrorist" and "christian terrorist" are overwhelming. "Christian terrorism" is NOT an obscure, rare phenomenon. Muslim terrorists are denounced by mainstream muslims just the same.
Google.....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=christian+terrorist&btnG=Google+Search
Eric Robert Rudolph:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1196-2003Jun1?language=printer
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/christian-terrorist-rudolph-sentenced.html
some satire........
http://www.brainsnap.com/node/199
http://www.bettybowers.com/fbi.html
Pat Robertson:
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/robertson_bin_laden.html
"Army of GOD"
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/army_god.html
The KKK:
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/KKK.asp?xpicked=4&item=18
A whole section in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Take your pick, the similarities between "muslim terrorist" and "christian terrorist" are overwhelming. "Christian terrorism" is NOT an obscure, rare phenomenon. Muslim terrorists are denounced by mainstream muslims just the same.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Nope, I only hate sinners who think they are "holier than thou".
97silverlsc
Dedicated LVC Member
The Wreckage in the China Shop
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times
Published: June 29, 2006
After all the sound and fury of the past few years, how is the U.S. doing in its fight against terrorism?
Not too well, according to a recent survey of more than 100 highly respected foreign policy and national security experts. The survey, dubbed the "Terrorism Index," was conducted by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The respondents included Republicans and Democrats, moderates, liberals and conservatives.
The survey's findings were striking. A strong, bipartisan consensus emerged on two crucial points: 84 percent of the respondents said the United States was not winning the war on terror, and 86 percent said the world was becoming more — not less — dangerous for Americans.
The sound and fury since Sept. 11, 2001 — the chest-thumping and muscle-flexing, the freedom fries, the Patriot Act, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the breathtaking expansion of presidential power, Guantánamo, rendition, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars — seems to have signified very little.
An article on the survey, in the July/August edition of Foreign Policy, said of the respondents, "They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack." More than 8 in 10 of the respondents said they believed an attack in the U.S. on the scale of Sept. 11 was likely within the next five years.
Many of the respondents played important national security roles in the government over the past few decades. They included Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as secretary of state under George H. W. Bush; Anthony Lake, a national security adviser to Bill Clinton; James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and was in that post on Sept. 11th; and Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
Noted academics and writers who specialized in foreign policy and national security matters also participated in the survey.
"Respondents," according to a report that accompanied the survey, "sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks.
"The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America's intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index's experts said that creating the office of the director of national intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror."
The respondents seemed, essentially, to be saying that the U.S. needs to be smarter (less like a bull in a china shop) in its efforts to combat terrorism. "Foreign policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration's performance abroad," said Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a participant in the survey. "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."
The respondents stressed the importance of ending America's dependence on foreign oil, saying that could prove to be "the single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror." Eighty-two percent of the respondents said that ending the dependence on foreign oil should have a higher priority, and nearly two-thirds said the country's current energy policies were making matters worse, not better.
"We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East," said Mr. Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director.
The respondents also said it was crucially important for the U.S. to engage in a battle of ideas as part of a sustained effort to bring about a rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world. That kind of battle requires more of a reliance on diplomacy and other nonmilitary tools.
If the respondents to this survey are correct, the U.S. needs to be moving in an entirely different direction. The war against terror cannot be won by bombing the enemy into submission. The bull in the china shop may be frightening at first, but after a while it's just enraging. We need a better, smarter way.
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times
Published: June 29, 2006
After all the sound and fury of the past few years, how is the U.S. doing in its fight against terrorism?
Not too well, according to a recent survey of more than 100 highly respected foreign policy and national security experts. The survey, dubbed the "Terrorism Index," was conducted by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The respondents included Republicans and Democrats, moderates, liberals and conservatives.
The survey's findings were striking. A strong, bipartisan consensus emerged on two crucial points: 84 percent of the respondents said the United States was not winning the war on terror, and 86 percent said the world was becoming more — not less — dangerous for Americans.
The sound and fury since Sept. 11, 2001 — the chest-thumping and muscle-flexing, the freedom fries, the Patriot Act, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the breathtaking expansion of presidential power, Guantánamo, rendition, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars — seems to have signified very little.
An article on the survey, in the July/August edition of Foreign Policy, said of the respondents, "They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack." More than 8 in 10 of the respondents said they believed an attack in the U.S. on the scale of Sept. 11 was likely within the next five years.
Many of the respondents played important national security roles in the government over the past few decades. They included Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as secretary of state under George H. W. Bush; Anthony Lake, a national security adviser to Bill Clinton; James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and was in that post on Sept. 11th; and Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.
Noted academics and writers who specialized in foreign policy and national security matters also participated in the survey.
"Respondents," according to a report that accompanied the survey, "sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks.
"The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America's intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index's experts said that creating the office of the director of national intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror."
The respondents seemed, essentially, to be saying that the U.S. needs to be smarter (less like a bull in a china shop) in its efforts to combat terrorism. "Foreign policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration's performance abroad," said Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a participant in the survey. "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."
The respondents stressed the importance of ending America's dependence on foreign oil, saying that could prove to be "the single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror." Eighty-two percent of the respondents said that ending the dependence on foreign oil should have a higher priority, and nearly two-thirds said the country's current energy policies were making matters worse, not better.
"We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East," said Mr. Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director.
The respondents also said it was crucially important for the U.S. to engage in a battle of ideas as part of a sustained effort to bring about a rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world. That kind of battle requires more of a reliance on diplomacy and other nonmilitary tools.
If the respondents to this survey are correct, the U.S. needs to be moving in an entirely different direction. The war against terror cannot be won by bombing the enemy into submission. The bull in the china shop may be frightening at first, but after a while it's just enraging. We need a better, smarter way.
97silverlsc
Dedicated LVC Member
Al Qaeda Strategic Vision: Engage the U.S. Overseas, Not at Home
June 27, 2006 10:09 AM
Maddy Sauer Reports:
Al Qaeda's strategic vision involves challenging the United States and its allies overseas using small- to medium-scale attacks, according to an online book available on extremist websites that has become the seminal jihadi textbook. The first English translation of the text is being circulated this week among DOD and government policy circles.
The translation is being released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. As ABC News reported last month, the Center has been translating thousands of declassified insurgent and extremist documents that were seized in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Abu Bakr Naji, an al Qaeda insider and author of the book, "The Management of Savagery," believes that the 9/11 attacks accomplished what they needed to by forcing the U.S. to commit their military overseas. He says 9/11 forced the U.S. to fall into the "trap" of overextending their military and that "it began to become clear to the American administration that it was being drained."
He says that al Qaeda shouldn't be focused on any more of those kinds of attacks for now.
"The focus is on mid- to small-range targets in the region and not go after big symbolic targets like the Twin Towers," says Will McCants, a fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, who translated the 268-page document.
McCants describes Naji as a highly placed, well-informed insider whose book lays out the big strategic vision of al Qaeda.
McCants believes that Naji is very concerned that a large-scale attack, such as the aborted chemical attack that would have targeted New York City subways in early 2003, would alienate al Qaeda's constituency. "Naji is wary of initiating that sort of attack because right now he feels al Qaeda has the upper-hand in the public relations battle," said McCants.
While written in 2004, Naji was already inferring that the war in Iraq was shaping up to be exactly what al Qaeda wanted.
"Naji believes the way you really hurt empires is to make them commit their military far from their base of operations," according to McCants.
According to Naji, this strategy has two main benefits. First, there is the propaganda victory of forcing a superpower to challenge al Qaeda directly.
"The point is to make them come in," McCants said. "You'll be seen as fighting the crusaders directly so you'll win over the public."
Second, it also puts pressure on local governments, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who face domestic pressure once they are associated with the United States.
Not to mention the situation within the United States. Naji believes that by committing militarily overseas, the U.S. will drain itself economically and face domestic pressure from within.
"That's the way they want to get to the U.S.," said McCants.
Full transcript of Naji's text at:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp
June 27, 2006 10:09 AM
Maddy Sauer Reports:
Al Qaeda's strategic vision involves challenging the United States and its allies overseas using small- to medium-scale attacks, according to an online book available on extremist websites that has become the seminal jihadi textbook. The first English translation of the text is being circulated this week among DOD and government policy circles.
The translation is being released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. As ABC News reported last month, the Center has been translating thousands of declassified insurgent and extremist documents that were seized in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Abu Bakr Naji, an al Qaeda insider and author of the book, "The Management of Savagery," believes that the 9/11 attacks accomplished what they needed to by forcing the U.S. to commit their military overseas. He says 9/11 forced the U.S. to fall into the "trap" of overextending their military and that "it began to become clear to the American administration that it was being drained."
He says that al Qaeda shouldn't be focused on any more of those kinds of attacks for now.
"The focus is on mid- to small-range targets in the region and not go after big symbolic targets like the Twin Towers," says Will McCants, a fellow at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, who translated the 268-page document.
McCants describes Naji as a highly placed, well-informed insider whose book lays out the big strategic vision of al Qaeda.
McCants believes that Naji is very concerned that a large-scale attack, such as the aborted chemical attack that would have targeted New York City subways in early 2003, would alienate al Qaeda's constituency. "Naji is wary of initiating that sort of attack because right now he feels al Qaeda has the upper-hand in the public relations battle," said McCants.
While written in 2004, Naji was already inferring that the war in Iraq was shaping up to be exactly what al Qaeda wanted.
"Naji believes the way you really hurt empires is to make them commit their military far from their base of operations," according to McCants.
According to Naji, this strategy has two main benefits. First, there is the propaganda victory of forcing a superpower to challenge al Qaeda directly.
"The point is to make them come in," McCants said. "You'll be seen as fighting the crusaders directly so you'll win over the public."
Second, it also puts pressure on local governments, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who face domestic pressure once they are associated with the United States.
Not to mention the situation within the United States. Naji believes that by committing militarily overseas, the U.S. will drain itself economically and face domestic pressure from within.
"That's the way they want to get to the U.S.," said McCants.
Full transcript of Naji's text at:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp
The K.K.K. is not a religious organization. Nor is it endorsed by ANY segment of the Christian community.
Pat Robertson doesn't resemble a terrorist in anyway.
Army of GOD and Eric Rudolph... a non-organized group and a murderer.
You are delusional. And, like clockwork, you're attempting to draw a parrell to a world-wide jihad to a handful of disorganized kooks. The attempt to draw a similarity is dishonest.
You say it is not obscure or rare, but you can only name two people and one rag-tag, tiny, disorganized group. You can't get much more obscure or rare than that. Furthermore, this tiny group is universally, publically, and formally condemned by ALL branches of Christianity.
And no, we have only seen the most half-hearted denouncement of terrorism from mainstream muslim here and we certainly haven't seen it outside of this country.
Pat Robertson doesn't resemble a terrorist in anyway.
Army of GOD and Eric Rudolph... a non-organized group and a murderer.
You are delusional. And, like clockwork, you're attempting to draw a parrell to a world-wide jihad to a handful of disorganized kooks. The attempt to draw a similarity is dishonest.
You say it is not obscure or rare, but you can only name two people and one rag-tag, tiny, disorganized group. You can't get much more obscure or rare than that. Furthermore, this tiny group is universally, publically, and formally condemned by ALL branches of Christianity.
And no, we have only seen the most half-hearted denouncement of terrorism from mainstream muslim here and we certainly haven't seen it outside of this country.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I see more of a resemblance between Johnny and the terrorists. They both hate America and George W. Bush.