To: Sub-Driver
LOL. This is what apparently some believe.
To: Sub-Driver
the solution to stopping global terrorism lies in finding the secret word to break the spell and to turn these anti-Western, anti-Semitic, blood-thirsty religious fanatics into our partners in peace.
New leak: The secret word is "Nuance".
3 posted on
09/25/2006 4:49:30 AM PDT by
motzman
(zoom zoom)
To: Sub-Driver
So the lesson to be learned is that not fighting terrorism reduces terrorism according to the media and the left? Tell that to those who died in previous terrorist up to 9/11/2001
4 posted on
09/25/2006 4:50:57 AM PDT by
MAD-AS-HELL
(How to win over terrorist? KILL them with UNKINDNESS.)
To: Sub-Driver
Fighting terrorists does not create terrorists, it only draws out those so inclined.
5 posted on
09/25/2006 4:52:34 AM PDT by
exnavy
(God bless America)
To: Sub-Driver
as one senior CIA official said, folks in the intel business are supposed to keep their mouths shut about classified reports, and wed like to continue getting our fat government paychecks for essentially playing a guessing game and writing memos. More truth in Scrappleface than, say, the NYT! ;-)
6 posted on
09/25/2006 4:52:52 AM PDT by
maryz
To: Sub-Driver
This is exactly what they are saying isn't it?
The problem is that there are still too many Clinton era holdovers in the CIA. They need to clean house.
7 posted on
09/25/2006 4:56:44 AM PDT by
Brilliant
To: Sub-Driver
The present leftist/MSM template. The real issue is that Islam provides the ideological fertilizer and the field in which this crop of terrorists grow.
Of course, those who are invested in the template were the ones who were involved in leaking the report and in filtering that leaked report into articles and talking points that were published, emailed and faxed. We are left without any news as to whether this *classified* report had a wider discussion of terrorism or even if the section that was leaked was the contrary opinion, or a dissenting view.
If a person parachutes into a remote valley in the tribal area of Pakistan, an area where most children were only educated in a school where the day's lessons only consisted of memorizing the Koran and related teachings, an area where Islamist culture is the mother's milk of the society, and tried to arrest a member of a tribe known to enforce Islamist teachings, not a single person in the west would be surprised when his friends, relatives and fellow worshipers came to his aid.
In that case, would the resulting violence be "our fault"? Would it be "our fault" that we would be "less safe"?
Having the criteria being whether or not we are "less safe" entirely misses the point. It is like saying we should pay a ransom demand lest we suffer the wrath of the kidnapper.
People who almost cheer a report that claims we are "less safe" because we overthrew Saddam never care to think, much less publish those thoughts for rebuttal, of what today's world would be like had the US allowed Saddam to remain in power, especially given last week's performance of the Kooks With Oil at the United Nations.
If we think things are bad now, they could be much worse.
Rather than blame the US for being "less safe", I think it is much more plausible to conclude that we are seeing the harvest rush- the fruit ripening from the madrassas, and from the worldwide network of Saudi-funded Wahhibist mosques and recruiters. The line of suicide bombers doesn't suddenly form in the desert based on no context and no long period of development. It is instead a pipeline that started to be filled years ago. Part of our burden and cost in dealing with the Jihadist War (a more honest title than the GWOT) is in absorbing what comes out of the end of that pipeline. We will only start to win the JW when we suppress or destroy enough of that pipeline. But, until we deal with the ideology that nurtures and encourages jihadists to line up to be blown up, we will be at war.
How to become more safe? The Jihadists demand that the West accept their "invitation" to Islam. As we ponder this "invitation", we are offered Islam's Three Choices: convert, submit or die.
My question to the left: is your decision going to be based only on what will make you more "safe"? It doesn't matter what you choose, does it, unless there really is a God?
To: Sub-Driver
It really must be a challenge to write good satire these days. Used to be when I read an article from "Scrappleface" or "The Onion" I would laugh at its downright absurdity. These days one needs to read through nearly to the end before saying, "This is a joke, right?"
10 posted on
09/25/2006 5:46:43 AM PDT by
Mygirlsmom
(This Mess is a Place!!!)
To: Sub-Driver
I heard fat Teddy quoting an intel report last night as part of his Bush-bash of the day, and it sounds like this is the report he was quoting.
To: Sub-Driver
Neville Chamberlain believed much the same thing about the Nazis. If you just give Hitler that part of the Sudaten Land he wants then he will go away and eventually their won't be any Nazis.
12 posted on
09/25/2006 6:43:20 AM PDT by
The Great RJ
("Mir wölle bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
To: Sub-Driver
And appeasing terrorists emboldens terrorists.
13 posted on
09/25/2006 6:45:44 AM PDT by
LIConFem
(Just opened a new seafood restaurant in Great Britain, called "Squid Pro Quid")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson