Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 23, 2009, 01:19:59 pm
Obama's press secretary announced that the Obama administration will refer to the "war on terror" now as "challenges". Good to know that our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are battling challengers rather than jihadists or terrorists.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Conan71 on January 23, 2009, 02:13:07 pm
Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Hawkins on January 23, 2009, 02:20:15 pm
Did we win the "war on drugs?"
A "war on poverty?"
The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.
The British dropped the term over a year ago.
Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: pmcalk on January 23, 2009, 02:42:05 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?
No, he did not. He signed the executive order that reversed the global gag order that prohibited any funding that went to any organization that even offered information about abortion. He didn't sign anything for "tax payer-funded abortions." Please.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: sgrizzle on January 23, 2009, 02:45:55 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?
War on Pregnancy?
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: sgrizzle on January 23, 2009, 02:48:45 pm
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?
No, he did not. He signed the executive order that reversed the global gag order that prohibited any funding that went to any organization that even offered information about abortion. He didn't sign anything for "tax payer-funded abortions." Please.
So none of these places perform abortions or use federal funding?
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 23, 2009, 02:48:57 pm
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?
No, he did not. He signed the executive order that reversed the global gag order that prohibited any funding that went to any organization that even offered information about abortion. He didn't sign anything for "tax payer-funded abortions." Please.
Here's an article on the subject: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban "WASHINGTON – In a long-expected move, President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option, officials told The Associated Press on Friday. Liberal groups welcomed the decision while abortion rights foes criticized the president. Known as the "Mexico City policy," the ban has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since GOP President Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. President Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but President George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office. The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method." I think you are splitting a very fine hair PM. Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: TURobY on January 23, 2009, 03:02:23 pm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.
I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 23, 2009, 03:07:54 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Did we win the "war on drugs?"
A "war on poverty?"
The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.
The British dropped the term over a year ago.
Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion. BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists. Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard: http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: sgrizzle on January 23, 2009, 03:09:43 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.
I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.
According to some Health & Human Services definitions, it ceases to become a fetus once viable, so during the last half of the third trimester. Just going along with the semantics route..
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: TURobY on January 23, 2009, 03:15:36 pm
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.
I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.
According to some Health & Human Services definitions, it ceases to become a fetus once viable, so during the last half of the third trimester.
Just going along with the semantics route..
I'd like to see those definitions. I'm not disagreeing with you that Health and Human Services may define a fetus differently, but every medical definition that I've seen describes the object as a fetus from the eighth week from conception until childbirth. Just curious as to how they might define it.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: MDepr2007 on January 23, 2009, 03:20:33 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.
I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.
According to some Health & Human Services definitions, it ceases to become a fetus once viable, so during the last half of the third trimester.
Just going along with the semantics route..
I'd like to see those definitions. I'm not disagreeing with you that Health and Human Services may define a fetus differently, but every medical definition that I've seen describes the object as a fetus from the eighth week from conception until childbirth. Just curious as to how they might define it.
We can all find a different definitions to anything so it suits our way of thinking. If not just re-write it, just like the Bible has been many times over[;)]
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 23, 2009, 03:24:10 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.
I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.
According to some Health & Human Services definitions, it ceases to become a fetus once viable, so during the last half of the third trimester.
Just going along with the semantics route..
I'd like to see those definitions. I'm not disagreeing with you that Health and Human Services may define a fetus differently, but every medical definition that I've seen describes the object as a fetus from the eighth week from conception until childbirth. Just curious as to how they might define it.
Here's something for you semantic folks out there: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/babysamuel.htm
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Conan71 on January 23, 2009, 03:36:14 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Ole George interfering with your sacred right to kill babies is about to end.
I know I'm playing semantics here, but it's not a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus.
What difference does it make what it's called? For many, it's simply re-active birth control for those without common sense enough to use contraception. Before you libbers jump on my assertion, the overall incidence of abortion due to rape or incest is incredibly low, I believe less than 5%. I do believe that abortion is a personal moral decision and honestly don't see where the abortion policies of the previous admin are problematic. I simply don't believe the government should play enabler, nor finance the practice of it.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 23, 2009, 03:39:39 pm
I don't get it. What's the point there Guido?
At 21 weeks it looks like a baby? I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The question wasn't if a 21 week old fetus looks like a baby, it was when is it medically defined as a baby. Which is a linguistic argument akin to magma and lava and has no moral bearing on the abortion debate.
What I find more telling is that the MD performing the surgery attest that he reach in and took the hand out and held on to it, asserting that it was totally anesthetized. The photographer says that such was not the case. Why do you have to argue that a conscious being to make the picture interesting?
At 21 weeks the fetus has a brain about the size of a squirrel but lacks that intellectual level. The brain doesn't even really START to develop for a couple more weeks. More than a month from being responsive to stimulus. What I'm saying is the implied storyline that a concerned baby reached out and grabbed a hand simply isn't plausible... at least not medically.
So yep. A 21 week fetus looks like a baby. Stick that in your semantics pipe and smoke it!
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: TURobY on January 23, 2009, 03:46:37 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What difference does it make what it's called?
Guido said that it was a "sacred right to kill babies". I corrected him by letting him know that medical definitions provide that it is a fetus until birth, not a baby. I wouldn't have chimed in if he had instead said that it was a "sacred right to kill fetuses".
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 23, 2009, 04:42:14 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What difference does it make what it's called?
Guido said that it was a "sacred right to kill babies". I corrected him by letting him know that medical definitions provide that it is a fetus until birth, not a baby.
I wouldn't have chimed in if he had instead said that it was a "sacred right to kill fetuses".
I appreciate your point, believe me. My statement was specifically addressed to PM. We are polar opposites on this issue. As to the medical definition of baby and fetus; who really cares. There is a 100% chance (absent abortion or fetal demise) that this "fetus" will eventually become a human being. CF: What's the matter with you? The only point I was making with the photo is that this "fetus" has very human or "baby" features in an effort to blur what many believe is a very bright demarcation line between fetus and baby. You sometimes look for a fight where there isn't one. [:)]
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Gaspar on January 23, 2009, 04:49:58 pm
I like it.
Sometimes challenges require carpet bombing.
We are experiencing some challenges with the auto industry aren't we?
Hmmm?
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: pmcalk on January 23, 2009, 05:58:48 pm
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Did you see that he signed the order for tax payer-funded abortion?
No, he did not. He signed the executive order that reversed the global gag order that prohibited any funding that went to any organization that even offered information about abortion. He didn't sign anything for "tax payer-funded abortions." Please.
So none of these places perform abortions or use federal funding?
Conan said that he signed an order for tax payer-funded abortions. No money goes to performing an abortion. Period. It is for family planning and health, including aids prevention and sex education. The gag order prohibited money from going to any organization that even mentioned abortion. So, under Bush's rule, if a patients asks where can I get an abortion, and the organization answers the patient's question, they would lose all of their funding. Whatever your thoughts on abortion, if it is legal, then a doctor should be able to answer that question without going out of business.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 23, 2009, 06:12:50 pm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
CF: What's the matter with you? The only point I was making with the photo is that this "fetus" has very human or "baby" features in an effort to blur what many believe is a very bright demarcation line between fetus and baby. You sometimes look for a fight where there isn't one. [:)]
I'm flat out in a pissy mood. Tons of [stuff] piled up on my desk that I would far rather deal with than the item which I HAVE to get done this evening because I'm an idiot and said I would. Which is why I am still at work and will be for a good long while. I told my secretary earlier today that I wasn't taking calls (to try and get this done) and some [jerk] client demanded to speak with me. That didn't help. I hate people. Starting Monday I'm going on a lawsuit rampage. My firm has a backlog of small BS cases to clean out and I'm going to spend next week just suing the crap out of people. It will put me further in the hole on the rest of my world, but it will sure make me feel good about myself. /vent and back to work.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 23, 2009, 07:13:41 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I like it.
Sometimes challenges require carpet bombing.
We are experiencing some challenges with the auto industry aren't we?
Hmmm?
Are you suggesting that we carpet bomb Detroit? [:P]
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 23, 2009, 07:20:11 pm
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
CF: What's the matter with you? The only point I was making with the photo is that this "fetus" has very human or "baby" features in an effort to blur what many believe is a very bright demarcation line between fetus and baby. You sometimes look for a fight where there isn't one. [:)]
Starting Monday I'm going on a lawsuit rampage. My firm has a backlog of small BS cases to clean out and I'm going to spend next week just suing the crap out of people. It will put me further in the hole on the rest of my world, but it will sure make me feel good about myself.
/vent and back to work.
If there is any general or professional liability cases, see ya in court counselor. Remember, the statute of limitations for all personal injury cases is three years not two years--so take your time. (just kidding)
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Hawkins on January 24, 2009, 03:47:14 am
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Did we win the "war on drugs?"
A "war on poverty?"
The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.
The British dropped the term over a year ago.
Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.
BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.
Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:
http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard
Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police." That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do. My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House. The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican. Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on. You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it. We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops. Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up). And now that date has arrived.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 24, 2009, 07:48:45 am
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Did we win the "war on drugs?"
A "war on poverty?"
The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.
The British dropped the term over a year ago.
Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.
BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.
Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:
http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard
Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."
That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.
My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.
The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.
Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.
You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.
We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.
Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).
And now that date has arrived.
Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Bush's ineptitude I guess. Illegal wiretaps; pray tell what you are talking about? The Patriot Acts? You mean the statute that Obama voted to extend. How about those illegal wiretaps. I guess you just forgot that Obama voted in favor of FISA and telecom immunity. As far as Gitmo goes, where do you think the terrorists plucked from the battlefield should be held? How about right here in Tulsa--maybe your neighborhood? Also, how about answering the meat and potatoes of my response to your post about terrorism being a police/FBI matter. Interesting that when confronted with legal realities about that pre-9/11 mentality you chose to either ignore them or punt. Unfortunately for you (and now us because we have to deal with you), your BDS has obviously resulted in historical revisionism. Please, get the facts straight before you run your mouth. It's kinda embarrassing.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: rwarn17588 on January 24, 2009, 09:22:07 am
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Did we win the "war on drugs?"
A "war on poverty?"
The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.
The British dropped the term over a year ago.
Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.
BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.
Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:
http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard
Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."
That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.
My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.
The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.
Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.
You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.
We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.
Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).
And now that date has arrived.
Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11.
The anthrax attacks after 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack? I guess you have a weird criteria for such a term.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 24, 2009, 10:13:19 am
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Did we win the "war on drugs?"
A "war on poverty?"
The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.
The British dropped the term over a year ago.
Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.
BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.
Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:
http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard
Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."
That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.
My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.
The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.
Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.
You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.
We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.
Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).
And now that date has arrived.
Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11.
The anthrax attacks after 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?
I guess you have a weird criteria for such a term.
Okay, Who farted in here?
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: rwarn17588 on January 24, 2009, 01:22:09 pm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Did we win the "war on drugs?"
A "war on poverty?"
The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.
The British dropped the term over a year ago.
Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.
BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.
Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:
http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard
Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."
That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.
My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.
The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.
Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.
You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.
We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.
Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).
And now that date has arrived.
Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11.
The anthrax attacks after 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?
I guess you have a weird criteria for such a term.
Okay, Who farted in here?
So ... You don't answer my question. Instead, you toss out an immature retort. I'm disappointed. You're a fairly smart guy; you can do better than that.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 24, 2009, 03:00:36 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Is this the sort of reputation improving action you are referring to; Obama wanting a waiver to his own ethics rule? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziUW5G6n054&eurl=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/24/brown-bashes-obama-dont-make-ethics-rules-you-wont-follow
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 24, 2009, 03:10:51 pm
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Did we win the "war on drugs?"
A "war on poverty?"
The term "War on Terror" was vague, lacked a clear cut strategy, and showed the incompetence of the former administration's handling of 9/11.
The British dropped the term over a year ago.
Terrorism is a Police/FBI matter anyway. Going to "war" over terrorist attacks does not present a straightforward path to any victory, and it successfully blurs the lines between military and police, criminal justice and military tribunals.
I'm thankful we now have confident, fresh leadership that can help restore America's hope and reputation as we move forward.
--
Calling the war on terror "challenges" should really make a difference then. After all, what's most important is the name of the mission and not it's successful completion.
BTW, terrorism is a police/FBI matter? How do you plan on serving indictments on these terrorists living in foreign countries? I bet the Taliban would have arrested Osama and turned him over if we just would have asked. If it is a police matter, should the terrorists get Miranda warnings? Can they "take the Fifth"? How about search warrants; should the arresting officer in a foreign land be required to show probable cause? If so, do they make the showing to a U.S. judge or the host nation's judge? How about issuing witness subpoenas. Should the FBI or our soldiers go knocking on cave doors to serve them? These people have no problem with strapping bombs to themselves or their children to kill innocent people in huge numbers. They are not criminals, they are terrorists.
Your myopic and BDS-driven take on this issue is both sad and laughable. Please take this as intended, you should never, ever again go full retard:
http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=tropic-retard
Well if you're going to get all worked up about it and throw stupid movie clips in there, watch the first few minutes of "Team America: World Police."
That is the global reputation Bush gave us. Obama has a lot of repair work to do.
My biggest gripe with the "war on terror," however, is how it threatened U.S. citizens. Its amazing how successful the 9/11 attack was at destroying our constitutional liberties, thanks to the narrow minded vision of the Bush White House.
The Patriot Acts, illegal wiretaps, Guantanomo Bay, this kind of crap is disgusting and unAmerican.
Someday a church could be labeled a "terrorist organization" and all of its members--U.S. Citizens no less--could be held without legal representation!! That is the slippery road the "War on Terror" has put us on.
You know, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. The FBI handled it.
We did ask the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They didn't. Our military went in. I am still in favor of this decision, however the operation was handled poorly, and we didn't have enough of our own men on the field at Tora Bora, and Bin Laden escaped. Good job, Bush. And it is HIS FAULT, as Commander-in-chief, he botched the capture of Bin Laden by relying to heavily on local militia instead of our own troops.
Then this totally "retarded," (to use you're own terminology) 'War on Terror' declaration served NO PURPOSE and was doomed from day one to be forgotten at a later date (Kind of like that STUPID RETARDED color-coded terror alert system they cooked up).
And now that date has arrived.
Just wow. You managed to spew all that, yet cleverly omit that this country has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11.
The anthrax attacks after 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?
I guess you have a weird criteria for such a term.
Okay, Who farted in here?
So ...
You don't answer my question. Instead, you toss out an immature retort.
I'm disappointed. You're a fairly smart guy; you can do better than that.
No RW, it was not a terrorist attack. The anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Bruce Ivins, a now-deceased bio scientist, not al Qaeda or any other middle eastern terrorist organization that is the subject of the war on terror. If you label Ivins' anthrax attacks as terrorism (and in the context of this "war on terror" name change), then heck, let's throw in the DC sniper and that idiot OU student that blew himself up in 2005 as terrorism too.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Wrinkle on January 24, 2009, 04:15:30 pm
It's being reported BO now favors the 'super wedgie' as opposed to Tickle-Torture. But, this rankled many of his base since most of them were once subjected to this form of 'torture' when they were in school.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 24, 2009, 04:23:15 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
It's being reported BO now favors the 'super wedgie' as opposed to Tickle-Torture. But, this rankled many of his base since most of them were once subjected to this form of 'torture' when they were in school.
That was freakin' hilarious. Well done.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Wrinkle on January 24, 2009, 04:33:22 pm
Earlier, the 'Pink Belly' was removed from the table of consideration as being 'far too violent'.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 24, 2009, 04:45:09 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Earlier, the 'Pink Belly' was removed from the table of consideration as being 'far too violent'.
Now I know the swirlee will be equated with waterboarding, so that's out. I am curious about purple nurples/ruby boobies and wet willies. They might be too violent as well.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 24, 2009, 06:28:08 pm
On Obama's executive order scaling back the global gag order, apparently he has hacked off the Vatican:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5igKGopxWlT9SgXvlsDg_2zKcNlrw
Countdown to first priest molestation reference in an effort to either marginalize Catholics or change the subject 3...2...1
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Neptune on January 24, 2009, 07:07:26 pm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
On Obama's executive order scaling back the global gag order, apparently he has hacked off the Vatican:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5igKGopxWlT9SgXvlsDg_2zKcNlrw
I wasn't aware that the Bush administration had a "hush hush" policy when it came to raping kids.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: Neptune on January 24, 2009, 07:09:54 pm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
No RW, it was not a terrorist attack. The anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Bruce Ivins, a now-deceased bio scientist, not al Qaeda or any other middle eastern terrorist organization that is the subject of the war on terror. If you label Ivins' anthrax attacks as terrorism (and in the context of this "war on terror" name change), then heck, let's throw in the DC sniper and that idiot OU student that blew himself up in 2005 as terrorism too.
Therefore, Timothy McVeigh, not a terrorist.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: guido911 on January 24, 2009, 07:10:42 pm
Folks in this thread are in rare comedic form. Props this time to Neptune.
Title: "War on Terror" Renamed
Post by: we vs us on January 31, 2009, 09:49:05 pm
Finally, a little corroboration on Guido's thread! "War in Terror "fading" in Obama Administration" (http://"http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_ON_TERROR?SITE=AP") quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The "War on Terror" is losing the war of words. The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.
[snip]
During the past seven years, the "War Against Terror" or "War on Terror" came to represent everything the U.S. military was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the broader effort against extremists elsewhere or those seen as aiding militants aimed at destroying the West.
Ultimately and perhaps inadvertently, however, the phrase "became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
[snip]
White House officials say there has been no deliberate ban on the war-on-terror phrase. And it hasn't completely disappeared. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has used the wording in briefings, and it's still in vogue among some in the Pentagon and State Department.
Asked about Obama's avoidance of the phrase, Gibbs said the president's language is "consistent with what he said in his inaugural address on the 20th. I'm not aware of any larger charges than that."
So, there's no new terminology, just a dialing back of the old rhetoric. So Guido, don't go stowing any of the old buzzwords up in your closet shelf just yet. You can still use them. You just have to THINK about how you use them from now on.
|