Go to WHO IS THIS GUY CALLED ARIEL?
- Add a comment
- Go to IT WAS THE LIBERALS, NOT THE CONSERVATIVES WHO CREATED al-QUA' EDA
ccnews...
...so you still believe we're fighting a 'war on terror', do you.
And that victory is our only option.
Hmmm...
So precisely how are you expecting 'terror', an abject noun, to surrender?
Just wondered.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on September 20, 2005 at 10:56 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel...
...I didn't fully expect you to understand my comments in full. It was partly for other readers who stop by. Don't worry if some of it went over your head.
When you write, "you presumably think that it was acceptable for them to hobnob...with the likes of Milosovic and Karadzic while the Bosnians were being slaughtered" you are, once again, mistaken. I don't think it was at all acceptable. All I was pointing out that America arming Saddam was unacceptable, too. And that's just one example of America's massive foreign policy cock-ups!
Yes, I bash Bush, but he's just the latest and worst in a long line of eejits in the White House.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on September 20, 2005 at 10:53 AM
| link to this | reply
ccnews
Thank you for your comment. You are indeed correct
posted by
ariel70
on September 20, 2005 at 3:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Libs blame Bush for everything, last year it was the flu now the weather
biggest thing now with al Queda is this: who can best solve the problems and win the war on terror? It's at least got to sense with a sense that there is a war and that it must be won, that victory is our only option. The liberals are no where near such thoughts.
Cheers! and good post
posted by
itisdone
on September 20, 2005 at 3:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Damon
Thank you for your long, and largely irrelevant comment. I would suggest that, before you accuse me of sloppy, or non-existent research, you wait until you've read the second part of my post.
Like so many other people in here, your comments have far more to do with your own agenda that with anything that it written in a post. Anything that runs counter to your views can be dismissed as mere finger pointing ; what a contribution to rational debate,
Ref; the behaviour and the actions - or rather toal lack of action of the EU representatives during the Balkan war ; you presumably think that it was acceptable for them to hobnob, and I use the word advisedly, with the likes of Milosovic and Karadzic while the Bosnians were being slaughtered. The behaviour of the weaselly Hurd and co made me ashamed to be British
posted by
ariel70
on September 20, 2005 at 2:40 AM
| link to this | reply
I Find It...
...darkly amusing how much credence America places on labels such as conservative and liberal. As IO've said many times before, it doesn't just serve to dumb down a debate to a lowest common denominator, it also serves to CLOSE down a debate, by suggesting that whatever 'they' say is worthless as they are just <
>.
Equally amusing is your line, "the vacillating and cowardly E.U. representatives sucking up to murderous dictators" which presumably wishes us to forget that the US administration armed and supported Saddam (who, if I read the current rhetoric correctly, was a murderous dictator) in a long and bloody war against Iran. That's the trouble with finger-pointing; there's always three fingers pointing back on oneself!
So in this post, on the strength of two opinion pieces, you've decided that Clinton is to blame for al-Qaeda. More finger-pointing. Look - no matter how you choose to spin it, bin Laden was trained and funded by the CIA in the late 70s, and it was he who led the US-backed mujahadeen forces against the Soviet invaders through the 1980s. Yes, of course they were also involved in the Balkans - part of their policy is to support Muslims wherever they are being down-trodden by non-Muslims, just as any group would look after their own under threat - but the story stretches way back before then.
Simplifying it does no one any favours.
Oh, and if you want a good source, check out "The New Jackals" by Simon Reeve. It's not an article in Time. It's a heavily referenced book, with interviews of CIA operatives who were involved in the whole Afghanistan charade.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on September 20, 2005 at 2:21 AM
| link to this | reply
twodog
Thank you for your comment.
A veil of obscurity has been drawn over the 1990s, precisely because it shows the Clinton administration in a bad light,
In the second part, I'll quote chapter and verse, and give several sources that can be researched ; including a Congressional inquiry.
Catch up with you soon
posted by
ariel70
on September 20, 2005 at 12:22 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70
After spending day after day researching the history of terrorism, terrorists groups, and al-Qaeda, I am ashamed to admit the information in your post completly escaped me. In fact, I didn't even look at the nineties decade in East Europe for information. Thanks, guy, the post was extremely informative and actually gives more credence to much of the information I managed to dig up on terrorist activities, and brings into focus information I couldn't confirm well enough to post. Good post, ariel, good post.
posted by
twodog
on September 19, 2005 at 3:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Flame
Thank you for your long comment.
Galloway is a self-seeking, cynical, opportunistic fruitcake, with not one vestige of honour or honesty.
After years of flying off on occasions to suck up to Saddam, and giving him full support in whatever medium was insane enough to propagate his views, he has founded the Respect Party in Britain.
He has sucssfully courted the Muslim vote, and is now Respect Party MP for an East London constituency.
To have invited this man to speak in America shows to what depths of ignorance and cynicism liberals have sunk. it is equivalent to the invitations offered to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, for all three show by their cations that they are supporters of terrorism.
Nobody should believe a word that Galloway utters
posted by
ariel70
on September 19, 2005 at 8:44 AM
| link to this | reply
OH, so great your piece, to an extent that I do not know which adjective to use to qualify the light you have brought in this long running debate. But I am very sure that, your piece will certainly attract toward you the wrath of the Clintonians. What is more striking is your piece is the reverse of what a British MP called George Galloway who operates like a wind mill,has been trying tell the world in a debate recently held in New york. Galloway drives me mad. A million thanks for your clarity.
posted by
Flame-thrower
on September 19, 2005 at 8:04 AM
| link to this | reply