New Al Qaeda Web Ad Threatens 'Big Surprise'

[GHook93]

Quote by: billybobama Just a thought. Could it be that the Bush Administration never intended to capture or kill Usama Bin Laden or destroy Al-Queada. If they did how could they scare all the coward ass Republicans?

In that case when a Democrat gets elected to the Presidency and doesn't capture OBL, you will make the same assumption?

[The Decider]

Quote by: xyzer [b]Thanks for the trip into past history Decider? I was expecting this resurrection of the good old 'indirect consequences' ploy! Yep things really haven't changed in the past quarter century or so? Who was that ancestrally related ruler of Iran? The Shah? Just an impediment to a religiously generated shift to the tribal dogma of Islam ?

xyzer, didn't you make a big deal about "an Iranian strongman sitting on one of the largest supplies of cheap energy in the world(oil)," implying that Iran doesn't need nuclear power plants? I think those were your words. Unfortunately, the US government has accepted Iran's desire for nuclear power plants since the early 1970's. It now opposes those plants because of fears over nuclear weapons production. That's a seperate issue. I'm challenging your argument that Iran couldn't possibly NEED nuclear power when in fact our nation has accepted that claim for many years--until Iran no longer wanted our friendship.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: GHook93 In that case when a Democrat gets elected to the Presidency and doesn't capture OBL, you will make the same assumption?

I would say that depends on whether that president says he WILL in the beginning.

[ruksak]

Quote by: billybobama I see you are good at spewing opinion, and referencing things that have zero to do with what I posted. If you can post anything meaningful besides usless opinion please do.

Who died and made you a moderator? 90% of all anyone does on these debate forums is "spew opinion". If ya wanna have a real debate, I can accommodate you on that quite well. Either respond to a rant intelligently, or don't respond at all.

Quote by: Autolykos Do take "absence of US government interference in the Middle East" to equal "allowing the Middle East to run wild"? It would seem so, but I would rather wait for confirmation from you. At any rate, I fail to see how minding our own business (as it were) would be "a danger to all of us that share this Earth". Could you expand on that?

Went right over your head, didn't it? I was speaking in terms of the proliferation and trade of radioactive bomb making technology/materials. If the US government just sits back and waits for the threat to materialize, than there will be a high price to pay for, as you so eloquently stated, "minding our own business".

Quote by: Autolykos Even if you're correct here, there's not much we can do about that. One cannot change the past. However, even here I suspect you're wrong. Certainly the Kuwaitis do not see "us" as infidels for "freeing" them

Is this how you debate? Taking things out of context and ignoring fact? Its a fact that many "radical" Muslims, and non-radicals as well, saw our presence in the Middle East during the first Gulf war as an intrusion. No, not the Kuwaitis. You injected that yourself while ignoring the obvious reference to other factions in the middle east.

Nice try though.

Quote by: Autolykos Sorry, I didn't realize that not only do we have an expert on Islam in our midst, but we also have a clairvoyant

One needs not be a clairvoyant to listen to the fanatic claims of a "big surprise" coming to our doorstep by way of Muslim extremist. WAIT! Isn't that what this thread is all about? The title of the damn thread is "New Al Qauda Web Ad Threatens Big Surprise". For christ sake buddy, how must I be a clairvoyant to read the thread title?
Sure this particular web threat is likely idle chatter, but history and common sense tell us that when we get hit again, it will likely be an escalated event.

Quote by: Autolykos Regardless, this does not a logical argument make. Try again. - Rob

Your turn.....................?

- Ken.

[Clarence]

how does a person with 32 posts claim to know what 90% of this forum contains?

the assertion of 'fact' is usually accompanied by a link or at least an example

[ruksak]

Quote by: Clarence how does a person with 32 posts claim to know what 90% of this forum contains?

Quote by: ruksak 90% of all anyone does on these debate forums is "spew opinion".

READ IT. COMPREHEND IT. I'm no rookie to debate forums, fella. A persons post count is not indicative of their knowledge or experience.

Quote by: Clarence the assertion of 'fact' is usually accompanied by a link or at least an example

I'm not hear to hold hands with you or anyone else. If you're so ignorant that I have to "prove" the Gulf war was seen as an intrusion to the Muslim world, than you need to hit that "back" button and show yourself the door.

Next?

[Matt W]

How about we all drop the cheap shots and debate here, hmm? :rolleyes:

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[jose]

if they really wanted to find Bin Laden, just send in the jehovah's witness´ Man they can find anyone

[ruksak]

Quote by: Clarence the assertion of 'fact' is usually accompanied by a link or at least an example

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the link that is required by some;

These events of the Gulf War fueled additional Islamic extremism. The change of face by Hussein's secular regime did little to draw support from Islamist groups. This action combined with the Saudi Arabian alliance with the United States and Saudi Arabia being seen as being on the same side of Israel dramatically eroded that regime's legitimacy. Activity of Islamist groups against the Saudi regime increased dramatically. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent blockade were some of the grievances listed by Osama bin Laden in his 1998 Fatwa.

[Clarence]

that was easy. which Islamist groups?

edit:the relevence of your # of posts is not about seniority or knowledge. I was just pointing something out about you to others.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Clarence that was easy. which Islamist groups?

What? That second statement was not a full sentence, only a fragment. Please rephrase if you would like a proper response.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Clarence edit:the relevance of your # of posts is not about seniority or knowledge. I was just pointing something out about you to others.

My post count is clearly visible for all to read. As well, you're posting of my post-count is irrelevant, as you did not comprehend my statement correctly. We are getting off-track here. Back to the matter at hand.

[xyzer]

bishop...posts and I wince...

you're "we are at war!" cries are nice, but don't be offended if many of us don't join you in crapping our pants.

Patriots don't crap in their pants when their country calls...cowards use that tactic! Where would the founding fathers have been if the general populace of the colonies just crapped in their pants under British oppression?


And there are the those who refuse to face reality and live in the indirect consequences world rationalizing last century events as pertinent to todays needs. and actions??
Instead they now say well Ahwannajihads threats against us and Israel aren't really threats? Irans justification for energy needs gives themn the license to enrich uranium(for weapons purposes) and then threaten to destroy Israel(you didn't answer that illogical premise) or how about our supporting the Shah? Was that somehow a reason for us to be blamed for unrelated murderous acts against our country and or our troops patrolling the streets of Iraq?

I hear the "corn flakes" crunching again Bishop? I wonder just who is doing the crapping? Our military fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or our leftist leaning pacifists hanging on to Cindy Sheehans coat tails?

[Rainbow]

A new al Qaeda propaganda ad, headlined "Wait for the Big Surprise"

Are they about to masturbate and/or commit a mass-suicide, publically ?

[The Decider]

Quote by: xyzer Irans justification for energy needs gives themn the license to enrich uranium(for weapons purposes) and then threaten to destroy Israel(you didn't answer that illogical premise)

That certainly wasn't my argument. I share your concern over a nuclear-bomb stockpile in Iran. I feel the same way about Pakistan and other potentially unstable nations with nuclear weapons capability.

However, Iran DOES have a case for nuclear power plants, the same case it made in the 1970's when the US sold it nuclear power plants and educated its nuclear scientists. That is simply a fact which you continue to deny. Why not frame your argument like this: "Iran's legitimate desire for nuclear energy can not justify the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Let them build wind farms and solar panels instead." That argument would reflect the facts. Whether it is realistic is another matter. Unless we declare war on Iran, and occupy that nation, we really have little leverage over its energy/weapons programs.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Rainbow Are they about to masturbate and/or commit a mass-suicide, publically ?

I think the use of the word "surprise" isn't proper here. It wouldn't be a surprise if Al Qaeda killed random people to support their ideology. It would be a surprise if they actually fought in a war as opposed to sneaking around like cowards.It would be a surprise if Al Qaeda apologized to the Muslim people for defacing their religion.

Surprise attack? Only in the sense that we didn't know where and when it would take place.

[bishop]

Quote by: xyzer I hear the "corn flakes" crunching again Bishop? I wonder just who is doing the crapping? Our military fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or our leftist leaning pacifists hanging on to Cindy Sheehans coat tails?

speaking of wincing, instead of responding to the point i made, you give me this blather. inserting all sorts of irrelevant comments like "founding father", "israel", "iran", "the shah", "cindy sheehan".... do you want to debate or just sound off?

[ruksak]

Quote by: bishop speaking of wincing, instead of responding to the point i made, you give me this blather. inserting all sorts of irrelevant comments like "founding father", "israel", "iran", "the shah", "cindy sheehan".... do you want to debate or just sound off?

I thought he addressed your post quite handedly. You complain hes just sounding off, by just sounding off?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: ruksak Went right over your head, didn't it?

I didn't think so, but then I wasn't aware that you were apparently speaking in code.

I was speaking in terms of the proliferation and trade of radioactive bomb making technology/materials.

Thanks for the clarification. In your previous post, it was not obvious that that was what you were talking about.

If the US government just sits back and waits for the threat to materialize, than [sic] there will be a high price to pay for, as you so eloquently stated, "minding our own business".

First off, I don't see how a threat would necessarily materialize if the US government "just sits back". Typically, it is aggressive actions that are met with retaliation. "Just sitting back" does not sound like an aggressive action to me.

Second, what makes you think that there would necessarily be "a high price to pay" for minding our own business? What do you consider to be a high price?

Is this how you debate? Taking things out of context and ignoring fact?

Did I not respond directly to your statement below?

We were seen as infidels for freeing the people of Kuwait.

Now then...

Its a fact that many "radical" Muslims, and non-radicals as well, saw our presence in the Middle East during the first Gulf war as an intrusion.

You did not seem to reference this in your quote above. In any case, "our presence in the Middle East during the first Gulf war" entailed far more than just "freeing the people of Kuwait".

No, not the Kuwaitis.

Then you agree with my earlier response.

You injected that yourself while ignoring the obvious reference to other factions in the middle east.

No. The reference was not obvious to me. But then again, I do not speak in code.

Nice try though.

Thanks! It looks like it was a successful one. :)

One needs not be a clairvoyant to listen to the fanatic claims of a "big surprise" coming to our doorstep by way of Muslim extremist. WAIT! Isn't that what this thread is all about? The title of the damn thread is "New Al Qauda Web Ad Threatens Big Surprise". For christ sake buddy, how must I be a clairvoyant to read the thread title?

Again, I was responding directly to an earlier statement of yours, namely:

Islam will always find an infraction on our part upon the Muslim world, ALWAYS!

My reference to clairvoyancy is that one cannot make predictions about the future without being clairvoyant (including that "Islam will always find an infraction on our part upon the Muslim world"). AFAIK, however, clairvoyancy is scientifically impossible.

Perhaps I should take the bait more and ask you what prompts you to make such a sweeping claim in the first place?

Sure this particular web threat is likely idle chatter, but history and common sense tell us that when we get hit again, it will likely be an escalated event.

Expand upon that, please. What parts of history and common sense do you think tell us such a thing?

Your turn.....................?

Done. However, I noticed that you seem to have deliberately ignored large parts of my previous response to you. I ask you to revisit those parts and try to answer them. Thanks in advance.

- Rob

[Clarence]

the biggest suprise for the american people was that a man our leaders trained to do insurgent warfare is the biggest terrorist threat to our country. I wonder just when exactly the Bush's and bin laden stopped being friends?