Terrorist sympathizers!

[SiteWolf]

whoa.......you guys OK in here? I generally stay out of this forum...at least posting in it...'cause I simply don't follow this stuff like you guys do.....

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

So, you're in favor of increasing the troop level ... oh, wait, did I misunderstand your conclusion?

Nick

What the hell, an actual question sort of on the topic and not attempted character assinination (that in a couple cases is borderline slanderous) because someone doesnt agree with someone else...with a subtle jab thats almost funny? The kids are all right.

Id like to see some kind of withdrawal. But that wont happen. The executive is led by a coward, and so are both houses of Congress. Both trying to pass the buck on each other and/or force the next guy/girl to fix it. Real leadership there.

There's just something that's not right though with the United States using a private mercenary army. We have the best military in the world, and Bush is resorting to using....banana republic tactics? In the incident above Blackwater was escorting a bunch of State Dept. guys. Yep cant let the troops mingle with such people, the truth might slip out to them. And now you have Condi having the State Dept stonewall on the investigation into Blackwater. Sure has that crooked cop/mobster protecting each other vibe going to it. But that's par for the course from this administration.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

Of course, once the "occupation" was of a Democratic brand, the lot of you hypocrites will finally shut your yaps.

The second a democrat becomes president this will instantly no longer be an occupation.

And I can 100% guarantee a democrat will be doing the exact same as the president if they become president.

Why do I know this. The answer is in post six of this thread.

I am going to have to have a little discussion of the use of the word autocratic. If the word was being used properly it would mean that the president is the only person involved in this. In fact the use of the word autocrat should not be plural at all. The last time I checked the congress was involved as well. Now I know one side of the political spectrum does not want to be involved except for removing most of the troops.

Now let's try to regain some sense of civility around here so we don't sound like we are all living in Washington.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by BlackDiamond

Hey,

Why? They should show the flag draped caskets as they arrive in the USA for everyone to see.

Might help the American people really see how useless the conflict in Iraq has been.

Might want to show the events of 9/11 to remind the American people that these nut case terrorists want to do (and did), no matter what country they're from.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by P562045

The second a democrat becomes president this will instantly no longer be an occupation.

And I can 100% guarantee a democrat will be doing the exact same as the president if they become president.

Why do I know this. The answer is in post six of this thread.

I am going to have to have a little discussion of the use of the word autocratic. If the word was being used properly it would mean that the president is the only person involved in this. In fact the use of the word autocrat should not be plural at all. The last time I checked the congress was involved as well. Now I know one side of the political spectrum does not want to be involved except for removing most of the troops.

Now let's try to regain some sense of civility around here so we don't sound like we are all living in Washington.

Maybe you should have watched the last Democrat debate. All of the big three directly said that could not promise to remove the troops from Iraq since they said they would have no idea what the situation there would be.

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by spoc22

Might want to show the events of 9/11 to remind the American people that these nut case terrorists want to do (and did), no matter what country they're from.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. You make this too easy.

You should hold off on posting until you have something, anything, that ties Iraq to the $9.11 (oops, there I go again) 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

and in what is becoming a quarterly feature, care to overlook Salman Pak's ties to anti-U.S. terror acts, yet again?

Honkey, please. If you've got some link between Iraq and Al qeada and the attacks on New York and Virginia on September 11th, 2001, please elaborate them here. If you've got something, put it out for the rest of us to read & judge. Geez, at least some of us actually include references to back up what we have to say here.

Edit: I see you (or someone else) has deleted your response. Well, I quoted it, so at least I don't look like the crazy one here.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

... which is, the civilian death toll in the U.S since 9/11/01 stands at 0.

In the aftermath of what followed here, I missed this.

I assume you meant from terrorist attacks.

You seemed to have forgotten about the 5 people who died from the anthrax mailings after 9/11.

But since no one connected that to Saddam, I guess it doesnt count.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

Honkey, please...

I've personally cleared freezer space for a couple hundred Marines, murdered in their sleep by folks you seem to admire and defend, and trained at Salman Pak.

I don't owe you a mother ----ing thing.

Spin that, -------.

Edit: I see you (or someone else) has deleted your response. Well, I quoted it, so at least I don't look like the crazy one here.

I did.

I'm over your petty political rants.

You and the other -true- terrorist sympathizers on these boards are either oblivious to the fact of what you are, or are just so politically self righteous you just do not care.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

You seemed to have forgotten about the 5 people who died from the anthrax mailings after 9/11.

But since no one connected that to Saddam, I guess it doesnt count.

Great. A baker's half dozen for your side.

Keep up the good work.

I'm over it.

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

In the aftermath of what followed here, I missed this.

I assume you meant from terrorist attacks.

You seemed to have forgotten about the 5 people who died from the anthrax mailings after 9/11.

But since no one connected that to Saddam, I guess it doesnt count.

No one has connected any attack on the U.S. to Saddam. That's what drives these Fascist Neo-Con conservatives over the edge. They've got nothing on which to base their arguments, other than to declare anyone who disagrees with them terrorists. I can only imagine how frustrating that must be.

[hork]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

No one has connected any attack on the U.S. to Saddam.

that's hardly surprising given there is no link. add to that the fact that bin Laden and Hussein were too diametrically opposed to one another in their stance on religion to form any kind of alliance (tenable or otherwise) even against a common enemy.

but since when have we ever let facts get in the way of a good scare tactic?

the funny thing is you hear folks call those who oppose the Iraq invasion sympathizers, traitors, apologists, etc. When in reality most (except of course the real sympathizers and apologists) had no problem at all with seeking out those responsible for the attacks in Afghanistan.

It's just many of us don't believe that possibilities warrant conviction. After all it is quite possible that someday Canada might invade, should we nuke Quebec next? Better safe than sorry right?

Of course some would call that a leap in logic and downright silly. But those would be the same folks who try to tie homosexual marriage to bestiality and child abuse. Or the same folks who sit at home safe and sound at their PCs screaming and hooing for the next invasion wherever it may be (just so long as it's a dirty muslim nation that is).

However, no matter how off the path those folks might be they do have the right to state their claims. Let's just hope that our military remains strong enough after all this stretching to protect that right in the future.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

No one has connected any attack on the U.S. to Saddam.

So you promise there is absolutely no connection at all ever between Iraq and terrorism?

That is rather interesting because that is one of the reason Mrs. Clinton and other democrats hopefuls are running around saying we need to keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely.

There is also a very simple reason for this once again. Does it help the democrats if there is one?

[P562045]

No it does not help the democrats because if there is a connection between the two that might be a reason to stay in Iraq right?

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by spoc22

The article said, "Officials with knowledge of the case said it is active, although at an early stage. They spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, which has heightened since 11 Iraqis were killed Sunday in a shooting involving Blackwater contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad." and naturally you concluded that the killed Iraquis were just average guys hanging out and were innocently murdered.

Well now we know.

Blackwater faulted by U.S. military: report
Fri Oct 5, 5:24 AM ET

U.S. military reports from the scene of a shooting incident in Baghdad involving security contractor Blackwater indicates its guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force, The Washington Post reported on Friday.

At least 11 Iraqis were killed in the September 16 incident, which has outraged Iraqis who see the firm as a private army which acts with impunity.

Citing a senior U.S. military official, the Post said the military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault.

"It was obviously excessive. It was obviously wrong," a U.S. military official speaking on condition of anonymity told the newspaper.

"The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP (Iraqi police) or any of the local security forces fired back at them," the official was quoted as saying.

The Blackwater guards appeared to have fired grenade launchers in addition to machine guns, the official told the Post. He said U.S. soldiers had reviewed statements from eyewitnesses and video footage recorded at the scene.

An Iraqi Interior Ministry official and five eyewitnesses described a second deadly shooting involving the same Blackwater guards minutes after the incident in Nisoor Square, the Post reported.

The FBI is leading a State Department investigation of the incident, which occurred as Blackwater escorted a diplomatic convoy in western Baghdad. The Pentagon and a joint U.S.-Iraqi team are also looking into the incident.

North Carolina-based Blackwater has said its guards reacted lawfully to an attack on the convoy they were protecting.

In previously unpublished remarks prepared for delivery at a congressional hearing, Blackwater Chairman Erik Prince said the Blackwater guards "came under small-arms fire" and "returned fire at threatening targets," the Post reported.

Portions of the remarks dealing with the incident were left out of his testimony after the Justice Department warned Blackwater the incident was under investigation, it reported.

The Post did not say how they obtained these remarks.

Blackwater is also under scrutiny over other shooting incidents involving Iraqis.