PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links


petegz28
03-26-2011, 10:29 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html



WTF has Obama gotten us into? This guy needs to go like, now. Yesterday isn't soon enough, even.

First we get into Libya when we shouldn't
Then he changes his story from regime change to whatever it is now
Then we get the whole "Kinetic" bullshit
He doesn't get any approval from Congress
He doesn't go on TV and address the American people to explain why we are engaging in a 3rd theater of combat
And now we find out the people we are helping in Libya are the ones who were\are killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan


You can't make this shit up, folks.

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

go bowe
03-26-2011, 10:50 PM
what's your source on this one, pete?

world net daily?

petegz28
03-26-2011, 10:51 PM
what's your source on this one, pete?

world net daily?

Hmm, good question. I guess the link at the top of the OP isn't what I was referring too?

AustinChief
03-26-2011, 11:22 PM
I've read this from various sources as well.. but they all seem to be quoting this same source. I'll wait for a second source but I wouldn't find it at all hard to believe.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-26-2011, 11:35 PM
This is a major blunder on our part. Obama again, is fucking up. I come down on the conservatives of this board for some of the shit they post, but make no mistake about it, I'm firmly on the side of Obama being a fuck up.

Direckshun
03-26-2011, 11:37 PM
what's your source on this one, pete?

Where else?

AustinChief
03-26-2011, 11:53 PM
Where else?

Um.. did you miss the link to the The Daily Telegraph?

MagicHef
03-26-2011, 11:54 PM
Where else?

Article invalidated! Good job!

Direckshun
03-26-2011, 11:58 PM
Um.. did you miss the link to the The Daily Telegraph?

Christ on a stick. You people fall for Drudge every time.

He's a Republican filter site.

Ghaddafi, or however we're deciding to spell his name today, has directly funded and directly participated in terror on Americans and across the globe.

Talking as if intervening on behalf of a rebellion against Ghaddafi is promoting terror is about the dumbest angle you can take.

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

There are about 10,000 legitimate reasons to be concerned about our actions in Libya. And this forum always targets the stupidest with telescopic precision.

Have at. Seriously. Decorate your worldview through Republican filters. It's clearly served you well this far...

Dave Lane
03-27-2011, 12:10 AM
I can't think of a single reason to not be involved in Libya on the level and the basis we are there. Its time for payback to Ghaddfi for Lockerbie and all the other terrorism he has sponsored, even confessed to. Add to that that he's an epic whack job and I'm perfectly happy to take him out.

The fucktards that were wildly applauding taking out Saddam who never carried out a terrorist attack on Americas, where are you now? I generally am opposed to wars, but if we are dropping a couple of bombs to get rid of a known terrorist that's change I can support.



Christ on a stick. You people fall for Drudge every time.

He's a Republican filter site.

Ghaddafi, or however we're deciding to spell his name today, has directly funded and directly participated in terror on Americans and across the globe.

Talking as if intervening on behalf of a rebellion against Ghaddafi is promoting terror is about the dumbest angle you can take.

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

There are about 10,000 legitimate reasons to be concerned about our actions in Libya. And this forum always targets the stupidest with telescopic precision.

Have at. Seriously. Decorate your worldview through Republican filters. It's clearly served you well this far...

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 12:15 AM
I can't think of a single reason to not be involved in Libya on the level and the basis we are there. Its time for payback to Ghaddfi for Lockerbie and all the other terrorism he has sponsored, even confessed to. Add to that that he's an epic whack job and I'm perfectly happy to take him out.

The ****tards that were wildly applauding taking out Saddam who never carried out a terrorist attack on Americas, where are you now? I generally am opposed to wars, but if we are dropping a couple of bombs to get rid of a known terrorist that's change I can support.

The thing is, we're not even taking him out. We're playing the role of facilitation, we're not invading, toppling, or occupying.

We're allowing events to play out on their own, and we're doing that by eliminating the biggest advantage Ghaddafi has: the air. And the even better news is that NATO is assuming control of this operation imminently, so this will not be perceived as an American intervention. It was an international intervention from the get-go. In other words, very low downside, very high upside.

After that, we'll let events play out however Libyans need them to.

Now again, I think there are a ton of concerns to have about this intervention. There has been no Congressional approval. The scope in which we are participating is quite limited. And the timing could have been a ton better.

But to try to link 9/11 kneejerk reactions to this is retarded. It's just assinine to believe that Obama is aiding and abetting terrorism by sending in airstrikes to Libya.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 12:18 AM
I can't think of a single reason to not be involved in Libya on the level and the basis we are there. Its time for payback to Ghaddfi for Lockerbie and all the other terrorism he has sponsored, even confessed to. Add to that that he's an epic whack job and I'm perfectly happy to take him out.

The fucktards that were wildly applauding taking out Saddam who never carried out a terrorist attack on Americas, where are you now? I generally am opposed to wars, but if we are dropping a couple of bombs to get rid of a known terrorist that's change I can support.

So you think that excuses the way he is going about it? Support the action or not, I have serious concerns about how King Obama is handling this. FFS, even Bush went to Congress AND the UN before we started Iraq.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 12:20 AM
Christ on a stick. You people fall for Drudge every time.

He's a Republican filter site.

Ghaddafi, or however we're deciding to spell his name today, has directly funded and directly participated in terror on Americans and across the globe.

Talking as if intervening on behalf of a rebellion against Ghaddafi is promoting terror is about the dumbest angle you can take.

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

There are about 10,000 legitimate reasons to be concerned about our actions in Libya. And this forum always targets the stupidest with telescopic precision.

Have at. Seriously. Decorate your worldview through Republican filters. It's clearly served you well this far...


WTF? I am not following along here.. I read this report on THE DAILY TELEGRAPH and other sources that were just quoting the same original source. I do not read Drudge so I'm not sure why you keep harping on that.

I am no fan of Qaddafi but since we don't plan to setup a friendly government then we need to take a long hard look at who we are allowing to take power. In this case, it's not like Egypt... Libya HAS NO CENTER.

So, if it turns out to be true that their are significant numbers of Libyan rebels who fought against the US or have direct ties to Al Qaeda... will you still support them?

Seriously, IF this turns out to be true.. do you still think they deserve our air support?

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 12:21 AM
So you think that excuses the way he is going about it? Support the action or not, I have serious concerns about how King Obama is handling this. FFS, even Bush went to Congress AND the UN before we started Iraq.

For the record, if there's a critique to be had about the Libyan airstrikes, perhaps the biggest complaint to be had should be about a lack of Congressional approval. The UN argument is just balls, because the UN unanimously approved the Libyan intervention, while they voted down toppling Saddam Hussein.

But, of course, Presidents have engaged in a ton of these interventions without overt Congressional support. Right now we're bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Yemen and I haven't heard two peeps out of you about those.

I guess because Drudge doesn't post about them. Whoops.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 12:22 AM
But to try to link 9/11 kneejerk reactions to this is retarded. It's just assinine to believe that Obama is aiding and abetting terrorism by sending in airstrikes to Libya.

I don't make any such ridiculous claim.. I only claim that we needed to take a long hard look at WHO we were supporting... in this case, the enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend... Hell they may not even be the lesser of two evils.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 12:25 AM
WTF? I am not following along here.. I read this report on THE DAILY TELEGRAPH and other sources that were just quoting the same original source. I do not read Drudge so I'm not sure why you keep harping on that.

I am no fan of Qaddafi but since we don't plan to setup a friendly government then we need to take a long hard look at who we are allowing to take power. In this case, it's not like Egypt... Libya HAS NO CENTER.

So, if it turns out to be true that their are significant numbers of Libyan rebels who fought against the US or have direct ties to Al Qaeda... will you still support them?

Seriously, IF this turns out to be true.. do you still think they deserve our air support?

I go through this same argument about Drudge every single Pete thread it seems. Rely on Drudge, and you're only going to get one side of the story, like this.

But forget it. If you can't see the perils of misinforming yourself though a Republican filter site, be my guest. I meant it earlier when I said "have at."

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 12:27 AM
For the record, if there's a critique to be had about the Libyan airstrikes, perhaps the biggest complaint to be had should be about a lack of Congressional approval. The UN argument is just balls, because the UN unanimously approved the Libyan intervention, while they voted down toppling Saddam Hussein.

But, of course, Presidents have engaged in a ton of these interventions without overt Congressional support. Right now we're bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Yemen and I haven't heard two peeps out of you about those.

I guess because Drudge doesn't post about them. Whoops.

I could care less about the Congressional approval.. that ship sailed LONG LONG ago... It's a silly argument.

I care about three things... #1 I won't go over my big concern again because I already have a full thread on it and #2 I'm not convinced that we should be supporting ANYONE in this fight and #3 Weapons... if we start to ARM the rebels... (which has been suggested) I WILL FLIP THE FUCK OUT.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 12:30 AM
I go through this same argument about Drudge every single Pete thread it seems. Rely on Drudge, and you're only going to get one side of the story, like this.

But forget it. If you can't see the perils of misinforming yourself though a Republican filter site, be my guest. I meant it earlier when I said "have at."

ok.. I will say this one last time... I DO NOT READ DRUDGE! I READ THIS ON THE DAILY TELEGRAPH WEBSITE. (which I got to by a link on Google News btw)

Will you please read the ARTICLE ITSELF http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 12:32 AM
Just to clear things up...

I am NOT one of the people who says that because al-Qaeda supports the rebels they must be terrorists... it doesn't work that way.

BUT when a rebel leader admits to recruiting troops to fight against the US.. I take notice...

I'd like to see more reports though.. it could be just ONE out of 1000s of rebel leaders... but if more reports start to crop up... then we have a problem.

Dave Lane
03-27-2011, 12:35 AM
So you think that excuses the way he is going about it? Support the action or not, I have serious concerns about how King Obama is handling this. FFS, even Bush went to Congress AND the UN before we started Iraq.

I think Obama was to slow to react personally, and was pleased in the end he waited for UN back up but he drug his feet way too long for me. I voted for Reagan and Reagan attacked Gaddafi without even a sniff of talking to anyone. I was happy a known terrorist was attacked then and now.

So if your are going to spit bile at someone pick on Reagan he's your target.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 12:35 AM
ok.. I will say this one last time... I DO NOT READ DRUDGE! I READ THIS ON THE DAILY TELEGRAPH WEBSITE. (which I got to by a link on Google News btw)

Will you please read the ARTICLE ITSELF http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

This is how Direckshun attempts to divert attention from the topic to help save his hero from looking bad. Note he has no link stating anything to the contrary.

Dave Lane
03-27-2011, 12:37 AM
Oh and that Reagan guy didn't he have some links to guys he fought to support. What was that guys name again? Osoma Von Laden or something.

Its all Reagan fault! He started everything!!!


There I feel better now..

petegz28
03-27-2011, 12:38 AM
I think Obama was to slow to react personally, and was pleased in the end he waited for UN back up but he drug his feet way too long for me. I voted for Reagan and Reagan attacked Gaddafi without even a sniff of talking to anyone. I was happy a known terrorist was attacked then and now.

So if your are going to spit bile at someone pick on Reagan he's your target.

Reagan was one air strike that ironically the French wouldn't allow Their air space to be used for. It was not a joining of a NATO action that had no stated goals.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 12:39 AM
Oh and that Reagan guy didn't he have some links to guys he fought to support. What was that guys name again? Osoma Von Laden or something.

Its all Reagan fault! He started everything!!!


There I feel better now..

Obviously you feel 2 wrongs make a right judging by your posts.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 12:42 AM
Oh and that Reagan guy didn't he have some links to guys he fought to support. What was that guys name again? Osoma Von Laden or something.

Its all Reagan fault! He started everything!!!


There I feel better now..

You'd think we might LEARN from those type of fuck ups... instead of using them to excuse Obama's current mistakes.

The problem is we have a dictator who has past attacks on America vs (what appears to be) radical muslims who hate America. (and some who fought against American troops recently)

I stay out of those types of fights myself.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 12:56 AM
You'd think we might LEARN from those type of fuck ups... instead of using them to excuse Obama's current mistakes.

The problem is we have a dictator who has past attacks on America vs (what appears to be) radical muslims who hate America. (and some who fought against American troops recently)

I stay out of those types of fights myself.

No shit. Let them kill each other.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 01:00 AM
You'd think we might LEARN from those type of **** ups... instead of using them to excuse Obama's current mistakes.

The problem is we have a dictator who has past attacks on America vs (what appears to be) radical muslims who hate America. (and some who fought against American troops recently)

I stay out of those types of fights myself.

The thing is...

We're not in the fight. We're letting them fight the fight.

Our mission is humanitarian. We wanted to prevent a bloodbath apocalypse in Benghazi, like there's been and continues to be in other rebel cities, and we're zero-ing out Ghaddafi's air forces.

That's it. We're letting them fight each other, but we're not going to let one side wear the others' skin if we can help it.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:01 AM
No shit. Let them kill each other.

On that note... that is another remote possibility that I have thought of as Obama's motivation... Give the rebels JUST enough support to keep the civil war alive. Qaddafi was on the verge of winning when we intervened. By keeping the fight alive, you may draw even more muslim extremists into the fight in Libya and out of any direct conflict with America or American forces in the region.

It's a fairly EVIL concept but possibly effective... but I don't think Obama is that Machiavellian.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:03 AM
The thing is...

We're not in the fight. We're letting them fight the fight.

Our mission is humanitarian. We wanted to prevent a bloodbath apocalypse in Benghazi, like there's been and continues to be in other rebel cities, and we're zero-ing out Ghaddafi's air forces.

That's it. We're letting them fight each other, but we're not going to let one side wear the others' skin if we can help it.

Again, I have said that Obama's actions so far don't have me up in arms... yet. I don't agree with what we are doing but I am more upset with the presentation then the actions themselves. The minute we start to ARM the rebels is when you will see me go crazy.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 01:04 AM
Again, I have said that Obama's actions so far don't have me up in arms... yet. I don't agree with what we are doing but I am more upset with the presentation then the actions themselves. The minute we start to ARM the rebels is when you will see me go crazy.

Well, go crazy, then. We arm Egypt, and guess what they're doing.

Dave Lane
03-27-2011, 01:05 AM
On that note... that is another remote possibility that I have thought of as Obama's motivation... Give the rebels JUST enough support to keep the civil war alive. Qaddafi was on the verge of winning when we intervened. By keeping the fight alive, you may draw even more muslim extremists into the fight in Libya and out of any direct conflict with America or American forces in the region.

It's a fairly EVIL concept but possibly effective... but I don't think Obama is that Machiavellian.

I do like that thought :) but I think the Muslim extremists aren't overly happy about the revolutions. A free and democratic government that helps the people is their worst nightmare.

Dave Lane
03-27-2011, 01:07 AM
My main thought in all this is the Republican hands are filthy dirty and to cast aspersions at this point I find more than entertaining.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:07 AM
Well, go crazy, then. We arm Egypt, and guess what they're doing.

Please don't try to equate Egypt and Libya. If you know ANYTHING about the region.. you'd know they are worlds apart. Also, when in the last few months did we arm rebels in Egypt? Nice try, but no dice.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:09 AM
So, if it turns out to be true that their are significant numbers of Libyan rebels who fought against the US or have direct ties to Al Qaeda... will you still support them?

Seriously, IF this turns out to be true.. do you still think they deserve our air support?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 01:10 AM
It should be noted that these popular revolutions completely defang the message of Muslim extremists, but I'll give those among us with votes for Sarah Palin on their record some credit: Obama palling around with terrorists has much better staying power.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 01:10 AM
Please don't try to equate Egypt and Libya. If you know ANYTHING about the region.. you'd know they are worlds apart. Also, when in the last few months did we arm rebels in Egypt? Nice try, but no dice.

My point: missed.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:11 AM
I do like that thought :) but I think the Muslim extremists aren't overly happy about the revolutions. A free and democratic government that helps the people is their worst nightmare.

Unfortunately that isn't true. The Muslim extremists in Libya can easily put a democratically elected extremist government in place. Libya is NOT Egypt.. as I said.. Libya HAS NO CENTER.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:15 AM
It should be noted that these popular revolutions completely defang the message of Muslim extremists, but I'll give those among us with votes for Sarah Palin on their record some credit: Obama palling around with terrorists has much better staying power.

Really? So, if the muslim extremists are a repressed MAJORITY and they rise up in a popular revolt... how exactly does that "defang the message"? You seem to think that muslim extremism is limited to the minority in every country.. and that is simply NOT TRUE. I'd be willing to bet it's true in Syria or Jordan and especially Egypt... but there are plenty of places that extremism has taken a much broader hold then you seem to realize. Like Libya or Yemen for example.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 01:17 AM
So, if it turns out to be true that their are significant numbers of Libyan rebels who fought against the US or have direct ties to Al Qaeda... will you still support them?

Seriously, IF this turns out to be true.. do you still think they deserve our air support?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question.

Eh. Your question is simple, but it takes a lot of unpackaging to address.

First off, I would have no doubt that many of the people in popular revolutions in Libya have had experience with a terrorist organization somewhere. We're talking about impoverished populations with 40% unemployment among young men. That's a recipe for unrest, and Al Qaeda will pay you. The revolution won't, but it does promise change.

I think the best thing you can do for countries like these is democratize them. Give these populations a chance to govern themselves, you'll see a society start to develop and radicalization will reduce.

Does that deserve a few hundred cruise missiles to help the good fight?

I'd say so.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 01:20 AM
Really? So, if the muslim extremists are a repressed MAJORITY and they rise up in a popular revolt... how exactly does that "defang the message"? You seem to think that muslim extremism is limited to the minority in every country.. and that is simply NOT TRUE. I'd be willing to bet it's true in Syria or Jordan and especially Egypt... but there are plenty of places that extremism has taken a much broader hold then you seem to realize. Like Libya or Yemen for example.

I would say that Muslim extremists are probably the minority in one country that I can think of, and that's Palestine. Which isn't a country, per se, but you know what I mean. And they feel that way because they believe they are under seige. The threat of destruction will radicalize you.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 01:25 AM
I would say that Muslim extremists are probably the majority in one country that I can think of, and that's Palestine. Which isn't a country, per se, but you know what I mean. And they feel that way because they believe they are under seige. The threat of destruction will radicalize you.

Edited.

I typed that wrong. It's late, my bad.

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:28 AM
Eh. Your question is simple, but it takes a lot of unpackaging to address.

First off, I would have no doubt that many of the people in popular revolutions in Libya have had experience with a terrorist organization somewhere. We're talking about impoverished populations with 40% unemployment among young men. That's a recipe for unrest, and Al Qaeda will pay you. The revolution won't, but it does promise change.

I think the best thing you can do for countries like these is democratize them. Give these populations a chance to govern themselves, you'll see a society start to develop and radicalization will reduce.

Does that deserve a few hundred cruise missiles to help the good fight?

I'd say so.

That's an extremely naive view. Democracy is a great thing and I'm all for it... but it does nothing to address the problem of poverty or extremism.

So your answer is... they may have fought against American troops and consider us "invaders" and infidels... BUT it's ok because they were poor.. so let's give them a hand and hopefully some day they will be better off and won't hate us anymore.

I'd love for you to point out a single Arab democracy where your theory came true. Ok that's not fair since their isn't a single Arab democracy. Unless you want to count the Palestinian Authority and that's a stretch. (Turkey and Lebanon aren't Arab countries)

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:33 AM
Edited.

I typed that wrong. It's late, my bad.

I knew what you were saying.. unfortunately you are wrong. Also unfortunately, I can't prove that. Extremists don't exactly have a census bureau. Off the top of my head, Libya and Yemen are perfect examples... Saudi Arabia is probably damn close.

Dave Lane
03-27-2011, 01:36 AM
Unfortunately that isn't true. The Muslim extremists in Libya can easily put a democratically elected extremist government in place. Libya is NOT Egypt.. as I said.. Libya HAS NO CENTER.

OK let me change that to a secular....

AustinChief
03-27-2011, 01:41 AM
OK let me change that to a secular....

OK, THERE I am 100% behind you... but secularism is directly proportionate to wealth... mostly in the form of a health middle class. I'm not at all convinced that we are anywhere close to seeing that happen in the middle east. Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt are the best bet for that... Libya and Yemen are possibly the worst.

And Lebanon is a very unique case... BUT I am heartened by the revolts in Syria... it bodes well for Lebanon.

Hog Farmer
03-27-2011, 02:36 AM
The way I see it , these middle east countries being in civil wars is a good thing because they're killing each other. The more dead ME people the better the world will be .

Chocolate Hog
03-27-2011, 03:35 AM
This isn't surprising when will you neo-cons learn middle east involvement only gives more power to Al Aqeada.

petegz28
03-27-2011, 08:28 AM
I don't understand the need for us to be involved in Libya at all? Dave Lane says Lockerbie, well, that 20+ years ago, Reagan tried to take out Ghadaffi after that, the French wanted nothing to do with it then as well as anyone else.

Suddenly this is an issue? Just a few years ago Libya was the model ME Arab country because they stopped all their "nuke stuff". We go poking our nose where it don't belong and we pay for it later. Now we are talking about arming the rebels. Seems we tried that before and now we are fighting the people we armed. It appears we are now re-arming some of them again. This is insanity at its finest.

And Obama has said the goal is not to remove Ghadaffi. Ok, so just WTF is the goal? We are helping them take out Ghadaffi but not really????

redsurfer11
03-27-2011, 08:51 AM
The thing is, we're not even taking him out. We're playing the role of facilitation, we're not invading, toppling, or occupying.

We're allowing events to play out on their own, and we're doing that by eliminating the biggest advantage Ghaddafi has: the air. And the even better news is that NATO is assuming control of this operation imminently, so this will not be perceived as an American intervention. It was an international intervention from the get-go. In other words, very low downside, very high upside.

After that, we'll let events play out however Libyans need them to.

Now again, I think there are a ton of concerns to have about this intervention. There has been no Congressional approval. The scope in which we are participating is quite limited. And the timing could have been a ton better.

But to try to link 9/11 kneejerk reactions to this is retarded. It's just assinine to believe that Obama is aiding and abetting terrorism by sending in airstrikes to Libya.




Soooo, When are you going to take on the "Human Shield Gig" ?

petegz28
03-27-2011, 08:55 AM
The thing is, we're not even taking him out. We're playing the role of facilitation, we're not invading, toppling, or occupying.

We're allowing events to play out on their own, and we're doing that by eliminating the biggest advantage Ghaddafi has: the air. And the even better news is that NATO is assuming control of this operation imminently, so this will not be perceived as an American intervention. It was an international intervention from the get-go. In other words, very low downside, very high upside.

After that, we'll let events play out however Libyans need them to.

Now again, I think there are a ton of concerns to have about this intervention. There has been no Congressional approval. The scope in which we are participating is quite limited. And the timing could have been a ton better.

But to try to link 9/11 kneejerk reactions to this is retarded. It's just assinine to believe that Obama is aiding and abetting terrorism by sending in airstrikes to Libya.

Wow. You started with your head in the sand wit this whole "we aren't trying to take him out talk"

You took your head out of the sand with the points about Congress and scope.

Then you shoved it right back in the sand with this naive take that we aren't actually aiding the people who want to take us out.
:doh!:

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 10:51 AM
That's an extremely naive view. Democracy is a great thing and I'm all for it... but it does nothing to address the problem of poverty or extremism.

Wrong.

I have no idea where you're getting this idea that democracy can't help poverty, my god. Democracy, permitting that it's functional, provides a population a ton more help to address issues of poverty than a dictatorship which neither feels nor cares about the effects of poverty.

History has proven me right time and time again on democracy's ability to quell extremism. There are almost zero examples of a country that's gone more extreme once it's democratized, and stayed that way.

So your answer is... they may have fought against American troops and consider us "invaders" and infidels... BUT it's ok because they were poor.. so let's give them a hand and hopefully some day they will be better off and won't hate us anymore.

Swing and a miss.

At least you sounded like an insipid cocksucker saying it, though. That had to be gratifying.

go bowe
03-27-2011, 10:51 AM
Hmm, good question. I guess the link at the top of the OP isn't what I was referring too?
just checking...

besides, them brits are as bad as al jazeera...

vailpass
03-27-2011, 10:53 AM
Christ on a stick. You people fall for Drudge every time.

He's a Republican filter site.

Ghaddafi, or however we're deciding to spell his name today, has directly funded and directly participated in terror on Americans and across the globe.

Talking as if intervening on behalf of a rebellion against Ghaddafi is promoting terror is about the dumbest angle you can take.

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

There are about 10,000 legitimate reasons to be concerned about our actions in Libya. And this forum always targets the stupidest with telescopic precision.

Have at. Seriously. Decorate your worldview through Republican filters. It's clearly served you well this far...

Sheep are funny.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 10:53 AM
I knew what you were saying.. unfortunately you are wrong. Also unfortunately, I can't prove that.

Well then you go on thinking it.

I'm sure your many hours of extensively studying the field have given you an extensive, accredited education on this particular field which gives your intuition an extraordinary amount of weight.

Otherwise, you'd just be broadly proclaiming bullshit with zero statistical backing.

Direckshun
03-27-2011, 10:56 AM
Wow. You started with your head in the sand wit this whole "we aren't trying to take him out talk"

Swing.

You took your head out of the sand with the points about Congress and scope.

And.

Then you shoved it right back in the sand with this naive take that we aren't actually aiding the people who want to take us out.
:doh!:

A miss.

I believe that's three strikes. By the rules of ChiefsPlanet, you must sit out the rest of the thread.