Bush Haters, Islamofascists Unite

Golgo-13, I said what I said out of anger and deleted it. (top post on the previous page of this thread)

Note, the assertion was never a "link", but a similarity in goals (both want fundamentalist theocratic governments).

Allow me to clear the air. I do not believe that the DNC is talking to Al Qaeda. I am sure that AQ would be disgusted with the DNC.

My point was that both parties seemingly have similar goals. That is by chance and not by design.

However, the parroting of DNC talking points by AQ is quite humorous.

As far as w4rma and the link between Bush and AQ?

I am going to concur with previous posters. I think you will be a tremendous asset.

Click to expand...

Yep. I think we've got a regular rock star here.

It's an election year though, I guess that makes it OK to tear down our leaders that are doing what they said they would do.

Click to expand...

Exactly. We were told it was gonna be long and difficult, and involve more than just Al Queda but countries too, but after the the ease and quickness of Gulf War I people heard what they wanted to hear.

Folks, we can't bring back the 1990's "end of history" or "peace dividends" no matter how hard some might wish it.

Wow, that totally changes my mind, w4rma. You were right all along. And to think, if I hadn't seen it in a communist cartoon, I would still think you were a liberal idiot.

Doonesbury has always been the paragon of truth and is unbiased to boot

Well now...

... in every third world state...

Click to expand...

I wonder which of 50 they might be.

throwweight - welcome. Being true to your nom de plume, you have thrown some weighty material into the fray.

All: we're having a wonderful chit-chat, but I often wonder if the bin Ladens of the world aren't monitoring our (read USA overall, not just us THR-ers) I-net forums, "news" commentators, "article" writers, politicos, and assorted others, and just giggling while we eat each other - the old "divide and conquer". After a while they'll just ride up on their steeds and swing their Saracen Blades and finish the job easily.

I'm seriously considering detuning the so-called "news". News, (North, East, West, South) is a happening - an event either in progress or completed. A road chase is news. A bombing is news. A wedding and a death are news. Everything else is opinion - educated or otherwise, but opinion. How many times do you hear a talking head say "I think..."? Who made the T-Head an expert? And even an expert who says "I think..." is barking an opinion.

I think (there I go - a Talking Finger) news should be reported, opinion... well there's so much of that out there that at least one opinion might work out as a real news item - then maybe not.

Anyway - I wander... just wishing we'd stop giving those guys something to laugh about. Remember - "A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand".

My 2 or 3¢

-Andy

I'll have to disagree. The post that started this was nonsensical.

I'm sure both political parties are trying to make whatever points thay can out of every news event. But to somehow equate the opposition to Bush with Al Qaeda is about the lowest form of demagogery I've seen.

So I guess you guys are right that he'll fit in here just fine...

Your just saying that because your on the wrong side.

This new kid's alright.

A fan!

Sorta odd about the notion that secular Saddam wouldn't associate with the ultra-religious Al Qaida. All my reasonably-long life I've run across references whereby "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." is an Arabic concept. (Sure, others behave that way, but I'm speaking about the original source insofar as writings.)

To me, then, it is readily believable that Saddam offered some form of covert support to Al Qaida operatives. What? I dunno. I think nobody could "prove" the absence of free transit between Iran and Syria, e.g., or that there was or was not monetary support--but some amount of such support was probable.

As far as Saudi Arabia, why would we have any interest in invading? One invades in order to overthrow a regime. Al Qaida wishes that Saudi Arabia were free of the House of Saud, which of course is the ruling regime. That some of the royal family have provided support to Al Qaida will not save nor excuse the others who haven't supported it, and who are the ones actually ruling.

Art

Yep, Malone...I'm digging out my pompoms.

Do you believe that al qaeda's in Iraq now? This should be interesting.

Had a girlfriend with a hairy butt that used to tell me the same thing.

That was a joke.

Saddam supported the Palestinian suicide bombers with posthumous payments to the family. There are all type of documents found so far indicating a link with Al Qaeda, which were found in.....Baghdad. Meetings, notes, hierarchical structures, (Christmas cards?)...

The enemy of my enemy is a valid premise. Both entities despise the US. Both entities despise our support of Israel. Both entities despise our presence in the ME, particularly Saudi Arabia.

I think Art has it right.

The enemy of my enemy is a valid premise.

Click to expand...

Of course it is, and yet Malone's assured us all along that they could never work together. Funny how they seem to be doing just that, huh?

Wow. Not even an attempt to rebut. Instead, Art obliges with "it is readily believable." Textbook case of innuendo.

I'll willingly grant that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But what that justifies is further investigation, not action -- and particularly not the initiation of violence. Violence predicated on innuendo is unjustified. It remains so even if something good comes out of it.

The enemy of my enemy is a valid premise. Both entities despise the US. Both entities despise our support of Israel. Both entities despise our presence in the ME, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

Somehow I'm having trouble deciding if the above quote applies to the DNC or the the mainstream press...

Just a thought, not even an opinion, but as to enemy of my enemy....., even Stalin and Hitler got along for a while for expediency, both knowing it would end violently, only Hitler knowing exactly when.

Yes, it is possible. The possibility of an event occuring does not equate to that event having occured.

Let's put this one to rest.

"No name-calling" must be hard to parse. And here I thought that request was formulated in easy-to-grasp, standard English...