Page 1 of 1
War on Terror Scorecard
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:50 pm
by Dinsdale
The US has gained partial control of Kabul and Baghdad.
The United Arab Emirates has gained partial control of NY, Philly, etc.
Looks like the BODE reads:
Terrorists - 6
USA - 2
Ouch.
The September 11 commission's report released last year details a possible missed opportunity to kill bin Laden and raised concerns that UAE officials were directly associating with the al Qaeda leader as recently as 1999.
The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by UAE officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.
Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated "bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis," the report said.
"National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of bin Laden's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely," the report said.
The missile attack was never launched, and bin Laden moved on, the report said.
A month later, top White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke "called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden," the report said.
CIA officials hope to continue staking out the Afghan camp in hopes bin Laden would return and a possible strike could be launched.
But "imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke's phone call, the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted," the report said.
CIA officials were "irate" and thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden, the report said.
At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9/11 commission's assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents "a persistent counterterrorism problem" for the United States.
So, Clinton's boys were all about taking out Bin Laden, and when Clarke called the UAE government with concerns, OBL's training camp of many years mysteriously disappeared.
Yeah, W -- we don't need to worry about security, since there isn't any CONCRETE evidence that they were involved with an attack on American soil...just overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
We need to get rid of W NOW! Yet another act of treason to make certain people rich, at the expense of the well-being and safety of our country. We're not going to have a country left in 3 years -- it needs to be done now.
Re: War on Terror Scorecard
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:29 pm
by Jimmy Medalions
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:36 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
To paraphrase Ayman Al Zawahiri:
"Our Mujahidin joyfully give their lives in the struggles against the Satanic infidel, whilst the
American soldiers commit suicide out of despair."
DAMN, America! Don't that hurt like a bitch! Slapped like a girl by Ayman Al Zawahiri.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:01 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
He took it like a man.
Which is more than I can say for you cry-babies.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:32 am
by Jimmy Medalions
mvscal wrote:Naw. He just took it. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang...game over.
fixed
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:37 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
mvscal wrote:
This "joyful Jihad" song and dance is a bunch of crap. We mow these slappies down by the hundreds.
And yet, they keep coming. Melting down and shitting your pants right about now?
They strap on the Jihad, knowing full well they could get dusted tomorrow, and your boys
crap themselves trying to get the fuck outta Dodge.
One martyr gets gunned down. Three enlist.
America doesn't have the balls for a long, drawn out asymetric war. Nothing but pain and frustration awaits you.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:55 pm
by Nishlord
Martyred wrote:
One martyr gets gunned down. Three enlist.
Yeah, but more importantly, mvscal got a really violent wank out of it.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:07 pm
by Bizzarofelice
Jimmy Medalions wrote:game over
I suggested that one, but Dickie wanted the banner to say 'Mission Accomplished'.
Love,
Dubya
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:31 pm
by Mister Bushice
there are eleven billion muslims. We'll be neck deep in world war threee with them before they run out of bodies.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:35 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Best of luck with that. Let me know how it turns out.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:37 pm
by Mister Bushice
I was being sarcastic. Dude you really need to relax a little. It's friday. Have a can of beer.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:44 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Mister Bushice wrote: Have a can of beer.
One beer gets chugged down. Three more go in the fridge.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:50 pm
by Mister Bushice
I was speaking to mvs tight ass, but feel free to imbibe.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:37 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Mister Bushice wrote:I was speaking to mvs tight ass, but feel free to imbibe.
I'm sorry I interupted your regularly scheduled beating.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:48 pm
by upstart
Martyred wrote:mvscal wrote:
This "joyful Jihad" song and dance is a bunch of crap. We mow these slappies down by the hundreds.
And yet, they keep coming. Melting down and shitting your pants right about now?
They strap on the Jihad, knowing full well they could get dusted tomorrow, and your boys
crap themselves trying to get the fuck outta Dodge.
One martyr gets gunned down. Three enlist.
America doesn't have the balls for a long, drawn out asymetric war. Nothing but pain and frustration awaits you.
If you kill enough of them,thay stop fighting.
Gen.Curtis LeMay
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:53 pm
by Mister Bushice
I think it was close on a year ago that mvscal said we'd be running out of insurgents, but they just seem to still be increasing like cockroaches.
The "Iraq War" will end badly.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:15 am
by Mister Bushice
But you also indicated that we were doing well, and things were improving.
24 hour curfew says not.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:48 am
by upstart
Mister Bushice wrote:But you also indicated that we were doing well, and things were improving.
24 hour curfew says not.
In France thay had a 36 hour curfew a few weeks ago,does that mean
we lost WW2 ? Iraq is just the 2d battle in the War on Terror ,we have
years to go before we win.Can the liberals leave the politcal agenda
at waters ege and move on for the good of the country?
We are at War,A war we connot lose, if only for our Children.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:52 am
by Mister Bushice
Like Hell. Nothing happening in Iraq is protecting us here in America. Osama has branched out and is now attacking other countries.
300 billion in, I'd say our children have already lost.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:07 am
by SunCoastSooner
Martyred wrote:He took it like a man.
Which is more than I can say for you cry-babies.
Has Canada ever even really been in a war much less won one?
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:08 am
by Mister Bushice
mvscal wrote:Maybe that's because the war isn't fucking over yet.
Do you honestly think we'll make it to 5 years over there? where are you seeing progres that no one else is?
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:28 am
by Diogenes
Mister Bushice wrote:mvscal wrote:Maybe that's because the war isn't fucking over yet.
Do you honestly think we'll make it to 5 years over there? where are you seeing progress that no delusional Bush-hater is?
FTFY.
I could post articles to counter your DU talking points, but you just scroll past all my posts anyway. 
Oh yeah...
<<<Paging Bace>>>
<<<Paging Dims>>>
Spellcheck Alert, Aisle Five.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:09 am
by Diego in Seattle
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:52 pm
by Diogenes
We'll be out of a stable free Iraq at least five years before GWB (or I for that matter) is/(am) out of your dome.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:21 pm
by Dinsdale
upstart wrote:Can the liberals leave the politcal agenda
at waters ege and move on for the good of the country?
A pre-emptive war strike deviates from the status quo.
The war in Iraq would be an extremely
liberal policy. Opposing it would be taking a
conservative stance.
I know that throwing the word "liberal" around makes some people think it qualifies them to post political "takes," but you need to bring a little more than a radio talk show buzzword to the table -- like maybe knowing what those words you're throwing around trying to sound smart actually mean.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:40 pm
by Diogenes
The inability to leave politics 'at the waters edge' is (among other things) what differentitiates the 'vital center' of Liberalism from the left. For the still clueless, 'neoconsevatism' is a term invented by the left (MIchael Harrington, to be precise) to disparage true Liberals, who tended to support a proactive defense. After which said leftists morphed into 'liberals' in order to win at the polls, as they couldn't running as Radicals or Progressives or the 'New Left'.
Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Pat Moynihan....
Right-wing neocon bastards all.
Of course Dims knows all that, so now he can correct my syntax and speling.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:47 pm
by Gunslinger
Diogenes wrote:The inability to leave politics 'at the waters edge' is (among other things) what differentitiates the 'vital center' of Liberalism from the left. For the still clueless, 'neoconsevatism' is a term invented by the left (MIchael Harrington, to be precise) to disparage true Liberals, who tended to support a proactive defense. After which said leftists morphed into 'liberals' in order to win at the polls, as they couldn't running as Radicals or Progressives or the 'New Left'.
Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Pat Moynihan....
Right-wing neocon bastards all.
Of course Dims knows all that, so now he can correct my syntax and speling.
So, what you are saying is that Iran will get nukes and N. Korea won't lose them, because you fucking failed children will still be sucking the cock of the puppet shows, that perpetuate an "us vs. them" domestically?
Good to know you are part of the problem, now if we could all just move along and leave you behind. Sure someone can kick your carcass from time to time to see if you are still breathing, but you fucks have followed corruption based on sensationalism. "Oh, no Bruce is going to fuck David, gotta stop that!"
Meanwhile, our true enemies by their time and reinforcements and the American military is wasted. Yeh, the war is in Iraq, the longer Iran and N. Korea can keep us there, the more likely they get to be evil dictator fucks with bright shiny weapons.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:56 pm
by Diogenes
Gunslinger wrote:Diogenes wrote:The inability to leave politics 'at the waters edge' is (among other things) what differentitiates the 'vital center' of Liberalism from the left. For the still clueless, 'neoconsevatism' is a term invented by the left (MIchael Harrington, to be precise) to disparage true Liberals, who tended to support a proactive defense. After which said leftists morphed into 'liberals' in order to win at the polls, as they couldn't running as Radicals or Progressives or the 'New Left'.
Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Pat Moynihan....
Right-wing neocon bastards all.
Of course Dims knows all that, so now he can correct my syntax and speling.
You rang?
Just like clockwork.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:09 am
by Gunslinger
Diogenes wrote:Gunslinger wrote:Diogenes wrote:The inability to leave politics 'at the waters edge' is (among other things) what differentitiates the 'vital center' of Liberalism from the left. For the still clueless, 'neoconsevatism' is a term invented by the left (MIchael Harrington, to be precise) to disparage true Liberals, who tended to support a proactive defense. After which said leftists morphed into 'liberals' in order to win at the polls, as they couldn't running as Radicals or Progressives or the 'New Left'.
Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, Pat Moynihan....
Right-wing neocon bastards all.
Of course Dims knows all that, so now he can correct my syntax and speling.
You rang?
Just like clockwork.
Repetition works for children, pets and Republicans. I understand you are unable to come up with anything clever or an intellegent rebuttal, due to your audience.
Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:28 am
by Dr_Phibes
mvscal wrote:Maybe that's because the war isn't fucking over yet, you thumbsucking crybaby.
I have a jack and and spare tire if you want to borrow them
Ha Ha! The wheels, coming off. See what I did there?
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:24 pm
by al?
SunCoastSooner wrote:Martyred wrote:He took it like a man.
Which is more than I can say for you cry-babies.
Has Canada ever even really been in a war much less won one?
Martard is not really a fair representative of Canada. I think it's an Ontario thing.....but to your question SCS:
we've represented in a few skirmishes,
sin,
S. Africa, WWI, WWII, Korea......and everybody's favorite, 1812.
Did some work in the Balkans, Africa and the M.East as well.
Carry on.
