Posted on 05/07/2006 3:10:45 PM PDT by churchillbuff
...A plan for the administration? Free advice is worth the price, but here goes:
[snip]
Issue 1: Iraq, Afghanistan and the age of terror. On these, stabilize, fortify, succeed. Keep America safe. ...Find Osama--it is a scandal that the man who started the new era is still free, still taunting the West, still inspiring those who see the world as he does. It was a mistake to think finding him was not as important as a wider war on terror. Finding him is key. It is almost five years since he did what he did. Get him, try him, kill him.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Ya, we can put Osama on trial like Moussoui(sp?)
You said: "There IS such a thing as retribution..."
Yes there is. Some also call it Revenge. Others decry it as momentarily vengeful, satisfying some personal desire to "get even"...and ordinarily not meaningful enough for nations to bother with. A childish notion... justifying silly "tit for tat"...unlikely to solve or address root causes or solve real problems. But ,Thanks for the reminder.
Oh and Thanks for your condescending remarks on my limited knowledge of terrorism...I actually have been reading and keeping up on the 'folklore" published by our think tanks and others about the subject for the last several years. No expert at all, I do usually detect raw pig-headed ignorance of the basics as the will sometimes arise and might even offer an opinion.
I realize how aggravating that must be to those who only use the left-wing MSM as their only source of information on the subject. But those types are always ready with idiotic notions and McGyver-like opinions on everything. Besides, like you, they are almost always angry at the "time-o-day" anyway.
Take care of those nerves.
I was responding in-kind; you started it with the attitude that you're right and I don't know what I'm talking about and too stupid to know what 'hierarchical' means.
You have no idea whatsoever where I get my news from and your commenting of such is naive to say the least. There is an intrinsic national emotional value to seeing OBL caught and brought to pay for his crime, regardless of whether he is/was still in control of some or all of the terrorist ideology...
the video released just before the 2004 election - who was that, Ed McMahon?
I basically agree with you. But after seeing how bad our domestic border policy is here I suspect we could be doing more to find OBL.
OK! You are right.
Of course always being right is of no consolation in the battle of ideas...it has a persistent way of 'typecasting" that results in decidedly one-way communications...and inevitably decidedly lonesome ones at that.
All of your "syndrome" has been characterized, at one time or another, as a "tyranny of self-will". The rest of us will happily disagree with each other and not take offense...some may even find joy in changing their minds.
A key to an "out" in all this "fun" is to consider attacking the message rather than the messenger. It really does work...it's called conversation or discourse.
Killing the two Hussein brothers WAS a big deal, especially to the Iraqis. Killing them and capturing Saddam made the Iraqis less fearful that the old regime would come back, and has allowed us to get a government and a constitution in Iraq. Personally, I feel a LOT safer with Saddam out of power (I suggest you read some of the documents jveritas has translated).
If the tax cuts didn't help you, I am sorry. MOST Americans were helped by those cuts, and the entire nation has benefited from the rebound that the economy has taken.
As far as the Taliban...they are NOT in charge of Afghanistan any more; a democratically elected government is. This is also a big deal, since Afghanistan has NEVER had an elected government. Rights for women in that country is also a big deal, although since you don't care about anything that doesn't affect you personally I can see why this is not important to you.
I had tried to be polite, but I see that insult and mocking are your preferred methods of discourse. I therefore am inclined to ignore anything further you have to say, as your arguments are simply "what do I get out of this?" and aren't worth the time it would take to answr you.
Oh come on. Prove to me that that video couldn't have been produced 10 years ago. Besides, why is it the only time the media show Osama now is from the ancient tape of him walking on a mountain with a walking stick? You would think if they had anything more recent they would use it. But it is understandable. They don't want to dig down under tons of rubbish to find his body.
Oh, of course it was Osama in that pre election tape. You see, it's only natural that a jihadi would go from mentioning Allah every sentence (the first tape) to sounding like a washed-up hippie poli-sci professor talking about red states and blue states. (the pre-election tape)
Having a certain kind of device dropped on your head does that to one. (Remember the "earthquake" in Afghanistan?)
Oh yeah? My cousins' best friend's sister's classmate founded Best Buy and is doing quite well.
he mentioned current events in iraq in that video, how could it have been 10 years old?
What he said in that tape could have taken place at any time in the last 5 years. Tell me what part of this shows it is recent: He accused Bush of reacting slowly to the September 11 attacks, saying: "I never thought that the supreme leader would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face the terrifying events alone at the time they were in need for him." Refering to next week's elections, he told Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or (President George W.) Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands ...." Claiming responsibility for the attacks, bin Ladin said, "we decided to destroy towers in America," because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation." He added that "the reasons to repeat what happened" on 11 September 2001 remain.
how did he know Kerry was going to be the 2004 nominee, if he made the tape in 2002 for example.
You are reading into this something that isn't there. He never said Kerry was going to be or was the candidate. He just said "Kerry".
why would he have mentioned Kerry if he recorded the speech in 2002? Who was Kerry at that point - nobody.
If you say so, it must be true:
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.