All Muslims Are Not Terrorists, But All Terrorists Are Muslims

[Dom182]

I saw that Southpark and it was hilarious. Anyone who thinks it's liberal bullshit should keep in mind that both of the creators are Republicans

Originally Posted by reality

Man, you are a perfect example as to why arguing political things is so useless. You're so fired up with patriotism that you didn't even asnwer his very simple question. "Why don't we invade Saudi Arabia and kill the terrorists on their soil?"

Actual answer: We attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia has a shitload of money circulating around in our economy. Iraq did not. Every political decision that is made relates directly and indirectly to profit and money. It's not that complicated. Government (Democratic or Republican) plays the patriotism card, and has been playing that card, for years to get people like you to buy into whatever they say.....kinda like erac. What a small world, huh?

They made a South Park episode making fun of people like you that are so gung ho for one political side or another. You should check it out. I think it's called "A little bit country." But, I bet you would find that unfunny and a bunch of "liberal bullshit." My advice: crack open a couple of beers and pop a vicadin so you can calm down and get that big vein in your forehead to subside.

The government of Saudi Arabia does not support terrorist. In fact terrorist from that country went to Iraq and Afghanistan to train to commit their acts of terror. Why, because these counties governments supported the acts of terror they were trying to commit. Iraq paid for training and reward money to the families of the suicide bombers. They had a training facility that included an old commercial airliner that they practiced hijacking planes with. And the Taliban openly supported terror training in their country.

So that is why we did not invade Saudi Arabia. By your logic, we would have to invade England next since 21 terrorist, born and raised in England, were just stopped from blowing up 9 airplanes headed to the USA.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The government of Saudi Arabia does not support terrorist. In fact terrorist from that country went to Iraq and Afghanistan to train to commit their acts of terror. Why, because these counties governments supported the acts of terror they were trying to commit. Iraq paid for training and reward money to the families of the suicide bombers. They had a training facility that included an old commercial airliner that they practiced hijacking planes with. And the Taliban openly supported terror training in their country.

So that is why we did not invade Saudi Arabia. By your logic, we would have to invade England next since 21 terrorist, born and raised in England, were just stopped from blowing up 9 airplanes headed to the USA.

Simmer down G.I. Joe. I'm not Cobra Commander. If you think the only reason the US went to Iraq was because of the war on terror, then you believe too much of what you hear. Profit plays an integral part in political decision making.

[MarbleCheese]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The government of Saudi Arabia does not support terrorist. In fact terrorist from that country went to Iraq and Afghanistan to train to commit their acts of terror. Why, because these counties governments supported the acts of terror they were trying to commit. Iraq paid for training and reward money to the families of the suicide bombers. They had a training facility that included an old commercial airliner that they practiced hijacking planes with. And the Taliban openly supported terror training in their country.

So that is why we did not invade Saudi Arabia. By your logic, we would have to invade England next since 21 terrorist, born and raised in England, were just stopped from blowing up 9 airplanes headed to the USA.

You have mixed a bunch of facts and then made an uninformed arguement.

The terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and trained in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Saddam paid money to 'Palestinian' suicide bombers in Israel ( this is a problem but it was going on for years before 9/11 and has nothing to do with this arguement, Saddam is gone)
The Taliban does support terrorism but the Taliban are in Afganistan (were most of the US troops have been moved to Iraq)
And by my logic I am not suggesting that you invade countries for foiled terror plots, only for actual terrorism. Like the terrorism of 9/11 conducted by Saudis trained in Afganistan and supported by Bin Laden who is from Saudi Arabia living in on the Afganistan/Pakistan border and hidden by both countries.
So you have lots of countries to invade because of 9/11 --
1) Saudi Arabia--can't do that because the world economy will be fucked.
2) Afganistan--that's a war that Russia couldn't win (remember Vietnam)
3) Pakistan--can't do that cause they have nukes.

So you invade Iraq, everyone hates Saddam from when daddy Bush fought him and he gassed his own people (it was in 1988 but better late than never).
Reality is right, politics is bullshit, especially when argueing with an uninformed person like yourself.

Originally Posted by MarbleCheese

You have mixed a bunch of facts and then made an uninformed arguement.

The terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and trained in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Saddam paid money to 'Palestinian' suicide bombers in Israel ( this is a problem but it was going on for years before 9/11 and has nothing to do with this arguement, Saddam is gone)
The Taliban does support terrorism but the Taliban are in Afganistan (were most of the US troops have been moved to Iraq)
And by my logic I am not suggesting that you invade countries for foiled terror plots, only for actual terrorism. Like the terrorism of 9/11 conducted by Saudis trained in Afganistan and supported by Bin Laden who is from Saudi Arabia living in on the Afganistan/Pakistan border and hidden by both countries.
So you have lots of countries to invade because of 9/11 --
1) Saudi Arabia--can't do that because the world economy will be fucked.
2) Afganistan--that's a war that Russia couldn't win (remember Vietnam)
3) Pakistan--can't do that cause they have nukes.

So you invade Iraq, everyone hates Saddam from when daddy Bush fought him and he gassed his own people (it was in 1988 but better late than never).
Reality is right, politics is bullshit, especially when argueing with an uninformed person like yourself.

3 Things

One - there was an Al Qeada training camp in Iraq.

Two - attempted terror attacks are still terror attacks. They still achieve the goal of striking fear in to the enemy and forcing the enemy to change their lives to deal with and live with this fear.

Three – failure to address the fact that the enemy tried to attack us but we got to them first is a failure to recognize we are at war. In my country attempted murder still lands you jail time.

[MarbleCheese]

You are losing American soldiers fighting a war with Iraqis who have no WMDs, no link to 9/11 and were weakened for 15 years under an American no-fly zone therefore not a threat to America.
I know it is deemed unpatriotic to question your leaders when you are 'at war' but when almost as many soldiers have died fighting 'terrorism' than citizens died from the actual terrorism (9/11) than it's time to ask questions.
I am merely questioning your belief in the reasons for why you are at war as told by the current administation.
I know it as strategically advantageous for the US to have permanent troops in the Middle East to add security to the area and Iraq is the best choice compared to Saudi Arabia, Afganistan or Pakistan. This is the reason for the invasion of Iraq and it was weakly vieled as a 'regime change' or a search for 'WMDs'. The excuses/reasons for the war are weak.
If they are truely fighting terrorism there are many more places before Iraq to invade.
If you are looking for regime change, why didn't you take him out in during the first gulf War or when he gassed his people in 1988.
If you hate WMDs why not attack Lebanon who have thousands of missles and are considered terrorists.
9/11 was loosely linked by the Administration to Iraq and that made it a decent place to set up up camp.
I have said this before, Bin Laden has said the reason for 9/11 was because America had troops on holy land in Saudi Arabia on the road to Mecca.
US needed a new place to put the troops and they also wanted to distance themselves from the cosy relationship with Saudi Arabia after all the terrorists came from there.

Therefore find a way to move the troops to Iraq... Mission Accomplished.

Originally Posted by MarbleCheese

I don't even remember what my original point was but I believe I was responding to the name of this thread and pointing out that there are other terrorists threats that aren't just muslim.
I have been filibustered by some timeline guy who believes that any attack on Israel in to last 40 years is a terrorist attack on the US. Terrorism is bad, we all agree but all your posts sound like they are written by Karl Rove.
Drop the campaign one liners and think for yourself for half a second.
"They hate us for our freedoms" "Attack them on their soil before they attack us here".
No one answered my last question so I will try another: Is the US alienating more possilbe terrorists by occupying Iraq and selling missles to Israel to bomb Lebanon, or are you feel safer since the "war on terror" began?

What did the Jews ever do to you?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What did the Jews ever do to you?

Dude MArble Cheese doesn't really think these things. He's just trying to create a stir. Noboday is that stupid come on don't give in to it. He's trying to get you upset.

I'd rather be dead than bleed red you pinko commie bastage

Originally Posted by MarbleCheese

You are losing American soldiers fighting a war with Iraqis who have no WMDs, no link to 9/11 and were weakened for 15 years under an American no-fly zone therefore not a threat to America.
I know it is deemed unpatriotic to question your leaders when you are 'at war' but when almost as many soldiers have died fighting 'terrorism' than citizens died from the actual terrorism (9/11) than it's time to ask questions.
I am merely questioning your belief in the reasons for why you are at war as told by the current administation.
I know it as strategically advantageous for the US to have permanent troops in the Middle East to add security to the area and Iraq is the best choice compared to Saudi Arabia, Afganistan or Pakistan. This is the reason for the invasion of Iraq and it was weakly vieled as a 'regime change' or a search for 'WMDs'. The excuses/reasons for the war are weak.
If they are truely fighting terrorism there are many more places before Iraq to invade.
If you are looking for regime change, why didn't you take him out in during the first gulf War or when he gassed his people in 1988.
If you hate WMDs why not attack Lebanon who have thousands of missles and are considered terrorists.
9/11 was loosely linked by the Administration to Iraq and that made it a decent place to set up up camp.
I have said this before, Bin Laden has said the reason for 9/11 was because America had troops on holy land in Saudi Arabia on the road to Mecca.
US needed a new place to put the troops and they also wanted to distance themselves from the cosy relationship with Saudi Arabia after all the terrorists came from there.

Therefore find a way to move the troops to Iraq... Mission Accomplished.

So your solution is to:
1) Bomb Saudi Arabia into submission
2) Let the Jews continue to be assaulted and killed at the hands of terrorists
3) Let Saddam stay in power to torture and kill
4) Do not attack the Taliban after 9-11

No wonder your party is unelectable.