Bush has got to go

[sonofbarcelonabob]

(R)uffda! said:

Rule #2. Don't do what you would normally NOT do just because of how the terrorists might view it.

An example, if you think the terrorists would prefer W out of office (and I'm not sure that is true), that is NO reason to vote him into office.

Better example, just because I think BiK looks better with ears, that's no reason for him to cut them off.

Ruffdip, here's is your original reply to my post. How in the blue hell is anyone supposed to make sense out of this? You write in double-negatives, you give a political analogy that has no bearing on counterrorism actions, and the worst part is you made it all up.

Like I said, you gotta stop getting into arguments about topics you are ill-equipped to debate on.

[Deleted]

SonofBarcelonaBob said:

Ruffdip, here's is your original reply to my post. How in the blue hell is anyone supposed to make sense out of this? You write in double-negatives, you give a political analogy that has no bearing on counterrorism actions, and the worst part is you made it all up.

Like I said, you gotta stop getting into arguments about topics you are ill-equipped to debate on.

I could have written: "Do what you would normally do, regardless of what the terrorists want", but it wouldn't have been playing off of your post then, would it have?

I'm sorry I overtaxed your tiny brain. Your posts, of course, are always pure poetry.

Do me a favor and answer the question. Am I wrong?

Governments should do what they would have normally done, regardless of what the terrorists want.

If you admit that, you will see that Spain and the Phillipines were put in a tough spot. I don't agree with their decisions, but you are over-simplifying the decisions they had to make.

[J.S. Bach]

Barefoot said:

What money dumbass? I can't even buy me a friggin cup of crappy Coffee.

Perhaps because of the economy your party has continuing.

Go ask a Frenchman for a cup of coffee. He'll probably piss in a cup and hand it to you - you probably won't know the difference since you "thought" it was surely coffee from all of your "Intelligence". After all, some complete an incredible person told you it was coffee, so...it must be coffee.

Then you'll drink it and blame him for fooling you.

Ah, are all Republicans from the same mold?

[J.S. Bach]

SonofBarcelonaBob said:

If Barbara Bush (either one #41's wife or #43's kid) gets kidnapped, the US will negotiate for her release through diplomatic channels. BUT THEY WILL NOT PAY OR GIVE UP ANYTHING IN CONCESSIONS TO SECURE HER RELEASE. That is set in stone. She would die as a hostage before the US will make concessions for any terrorist group.

Will this apply to say...W himself or Cheney?

[sonofbarcelonabob]

(R)uffda! said:

I could have written: "Do what you would normally do, regardless of what the terrorists want", but it wouldn't have been playing off of your post then, would it have?

I'm sorry I overtaxed your tiny brain. Your posts, of course, are always pure poetry.

Do me a favor and answer the question. Am I wrong?

Governments should do what they would have normally done, regardless of what the terrorists want.

If you admit that, you will see that Spain and the Phillipines were put in a tough spot. I don't agree with their decisions, but you are over-simplifying the decisions they had to make.

Your amended statement makes more sense, now that you went out and grabbed your Wariner's textbook and fixed it. Your analogy to vote W out of office is still so far off base as to be ludicrous.

The Phillipine government is filled with dumbasses. If they weren't committed to stay the course, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The people of Spain are the true dumbasses for bowing to the terror tactics of the Islamic extremists that blew up the train. By voting in a government that will concede to the demands of terrorists they have put themselves more at risk to future attacks.

If the US (and the US military) were ever allowed to take the kid gloves' off and fight terrorism the way they want to fight terrorism, there wouldn't be a terrorist threat at all. But on the world stage, due process is everything, not to mention all the bleeding heart, tree-hugging, kumbaya-singing liberals (many of whom post on this forum) who would be up in arms alleging human rights violations the first time a story broke on a terrorist cell being busted up.

[sonofbarcelonabob]

J.S. said:

Will this apply to say...W himself or Cheney?

Both would be dead before we bow to the demands of terrorists.

[J.S. Bach]

SonofBarcelonaBob said:

...Barbara Bush (either one #41's wife or #43's kid)...

I thought it was just the same one person...hmmm...I guess that family isn't like that after all...

[Deleted]

SonofBarcelonaBob said:

Your amended statement makes more sense, now that you went out and grabbed your Wariner's textbook and fixed it. Your analogy to vote W out of office is still so far off base as to be ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous because BiK, for one, is making that argument. He says the terrorists want Kerry to win, therefore we should vote for Bush. This is a common argument coming from the GOP.

It's nonsense, of course. Both in terms of what al Qaeda wants and as a policy. But that's BiK for you.

The Phillipine government is filled with dumbasses. If they weren't committed to stay the course, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The people of Spain are the true dumbasses for bowing to the terror tactics of the Islamic extremists that blew up the train. By voting in a government that will concede to the demands of terrorists they have put themselves more at risk to future attacks.

So the fact that the previous government LIED about who was behind the attacks had no bearing? I would also contend that you do not know they would have won had there been no attacks.

But I agree. I think it was a mistake. After all, countries shouldn't act solely in their OWN BEST INTERESTS. They need to think about how their actions AFFECT THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

If the US (and the US military) were ever allowed to take the kid gloves' off and fight terrorism the way they want to fight terrorism, there wouldn't be a terrorist threat at all.

What the hell does this mean? Do you honestly think the sole answer is military? Or are you referring to torture, suspending civil liberties, etc. etc.? I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Please clarify.

But on the world stage, due process is everything, not to mention all the bleeding heart, tree-hugging, kumbaya-singing liberals (many of whom post on this forum) who would be up in arms alleging human rights violations the first time a story broke on a terrorist cell being busted up.

Oh. I guess that IS what you meant. It doesn't work for Israel and it won't work for us. I think the original post in this thread addressed this. You should read it.

[sonofbarcelonabob]

(R)uffda! said:

Oh. I guess that IS what you meant. It doesn't work for Israel and it won't work for us. I think the original post in this thread addressed this. You should read it.

On the contrary. It has worked very well for Israel over the past 50+ years. No one takes a harder line against terrorists. Kidnap a hostage and the IDF is likely to go in there and take out everything. Israel holds the power position in the struggle with the PLO, not the other way around.

It is Israel's willingness to fight fire with fire, and to negotiate from a position of strength, that has led to the normalizing their relationships with moderate Arab states, and to the peace treaties which have been forged with their Arab neighbors.

I don't see how you can say it doesn't work. If it didn't work, Israel as a nation wouldn't exist today.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

J.S. said:

Perhaps because of the economy your party has continuing.

Go ask a Frenchman for a cup of coffee. He'll probably piss in a cup and hand it to you - you probably won't know the difference since you "thought" it was surely coffee from all of your "Intelligence". After all, some complete an incredible person told you it was coffee, so...it must be coffee.

Then you'll drink it and blame him for fooling you.

Ah, are all Republicans from the same mold?

Republicans can think for themselves. I can't say the same thing about dummycrats. Aren't you the one having a fantasy relationship with Lily Kahumoku? Speaking of intelligence, you ought to take a good hard look in the mirror before you question mine. You are the one fooling himself. ;D

[Deleted]

SonofBarcelonaBob said:

On the contrary. It has worked very well for Israel over the past 50+ years.

Hahahahahahahahaha! 50+ years! Good one. It's been FIFTY PLUS YEARS! Doesn't that reflect on how effective it's been?

No one takes a harder line against terrorists. Kidnap a hostage and the IDF is likely to go in there and take out everything. Israel holds the power position in the struggle with the PLO, not the other way around.

No kidnappings. Suicide bombers. Someone blows up a bus and Israel bombs a neighborhood--civilians be damned. It does not work. And it's not working in Iraq.

It is Israel's willingness to fight fire with fire, and to negotiate from a position of strength, that has led to the normalizing their relationships with moderate Arab states, and to the peace treaties which have been forged with their Arab neighbors.

I don't see how you can say it doesn't work. If it didn't work, Israel as a nation wouldn't exist today.

It doesn't address the root of the terrorism. You can't ignore the causes. That isn't appeasement. It's reality.

Guess what? Terrorism doesn't exist in a vacuum. We all despise it, despise them. But you still have to ask what drives human beings to such extremes.

Once we lose sight of the fact they are human, the battle is lost.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

SonofBarcelonaBob said:

Your amended statement makes more sense, now that you went out and grabbed your Wariner's textbook and fixed it. Your analogy to vote W out of office is still so far off base as to be ludicrous.

The Phillipine government is filled with dumbasses. If they weren't committed to stay the course, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.


The people of Spain are the true dumbasses for bowing to the terror tactics of the Islamic extremists that blew up the train. By voting in a government that will concede to the demands of terrorists they have put themselves more at risk to future attacks.

If the US (and the US military) were ever allowed to take the kid gloves' off and fight terrorism the way they want to fight terrorism, there wouldn't be a terrorist threat at all. But on the world stage, due process is everything, not to mention all the bleeding heart, tree-hugging, kumbaya-singing liberals (many of whom post on this forum) who would be up in arms alleging human rights violations the first time a story broke on a terrorist cell being busted up.

Bravo Bob, best post I have read in a long time! You just punk'd these punks!!! ;D

[Barefoot In Kailua]

(R)uffda! said:

Hahahahahahahahaha! 50+ years! Good one. It's been FIFTY PLUS YEARS! Doesn't that reflect on how effective it's been?



No kidnappings. Suicide bombers. Someone blows up a bus and Israel bombs a neighborhood--civilians be damned. It does not work. And it's not working in Iraq.



It doesn't address the root of the terrorism. You can't ignore the causes. That isn't appeasement. It's reality.

Guess what? Terrorism doesn't exist in a vacuum. We all despise it, despise them. But you still have to ask what drives human beings to such extremes.

Once we lose sight of the fact they are human, the battle is lost.

Don't be so stupid (R)uffda, your inanity is pissing me off!

Who gives a rats' ass what drives these scum to such extremes. The only thing that will please these entities is the complete destruction of Israel. The Arabs rejected the UN's partition plan in 1947 that would have divided Israel bewteen the Israeli's and the arabs. Then they went on to attack Israel, and again in 1967. There should be NO negotiating, NO concessions, NO appeasement of terrorist entities. America should let Israel take care of itself. The Israeli's are more than capable of defending themselves against any enemy in the region. Screw the corrupt UN!

[J.S. Bach]

Ok, so people's replies (regardless of how irrational and irrelevant, which that post wasn't) piss you off but you get all defensive when somebody writes back about you?

[Barefoot In Kailua]

J.S. said:

Ok, so people's replies (regardless of how irrational and irrelevant) piss you off but you get all defensive when somebody writes back about you?

No just (R)uffda's replies piss me off. He thinks we ought to yield to Terrorists.