Thread: Example of terrorist "courage" ?

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Must be nice to only see the world in black and white. I guess the biggest advantage is that it must save you a lot of thinking, and since you have everything so clearly sorted out, there is nothing more to learn, right?

Odd how we view each other from the same perspective now tisn't it ? And here I thought I viewed the world in shades of grey

What is it that you've done in recent years to show you've expanded your learning and view of the world exactly?

Not a figgin thing I spect'.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

In fact you remind me a bit about my wife

Well, he is a sailor princess, what else would you expect

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

...
the enemy is entirely cruel and evil and must be destroyed....these are some of the basic realities of life, and anyone who says otherwise is broadcasting - knowingly or otherwise - falsehood.

Well, that's what "they" say about you as well.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

How come I never see anybody like CMN, MtD, Stroller, Butterfluffy, Snaffie, and so many others commenting on the despicable actions of the insurgents ? Should I take that as confirmation that you truly believe what they are doing is right ? Your silence speaks volumes in my book. And don't even think you can twist that comment into some moral higher ground.

I have not been silent, your memory span is rather short. You do not know my comments on other fora, but there is enough here to show what I think.

And I guess the rest of us find no need to state the bloody obvious. But for SK's benefit - yes, the insurgents killing civilians are deplorable. The ones fighting against the coalition forces, on the other hand, have my respect. As do anyone fighting against an occupying force, be they Americans, Russians, Chinese or Israeli.

Originally Posted by stroller

You lose credibility everyday with your continued lies and evasion of arguments.

Dude, guess I should be happy about at least having credibility to lose. I've already accepted that you're morally bankrupt.

You're a total fool. Thanks for asking.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

we are not fighting for oil

There are a couple of factors to the U.S. over-throwing the Iraqi government.

One of those factors is, oil.

Another factor is, China.

If the U.S. does not get into the reserves, which likely have more oil than Saudi Arabia, there could be problems in maintaining the lifestyle in the U.S.

right on.


It is THE factor or there'd be a new embassy in downtown Rangoon (or that wierd ass new capital they're building).

Originally Posted by Covertjay

It is THE factor or there'd be a new embassy in downtown Rangoon (or that wierd ass new capital they're building).

Do you have insider scuttlebutt the rest of us ain't priviledged to ?

On the topic of Oil,

Iraq is not the only place the U.S. is trying get oil from.

The U.S. government is now pressuring Canada to extract oil from the Sands. Canada has wanted to save it for later, but the U.S. is pressuring for 'now.'

The Caucus region has plans for pipelines in Georgia, Azerbaijan, and other areas. There has been major, major, competition between Russia and the U.S. for this pipeline work and assessability. The U.S. government has flushed about 1 billion dollars down the drain vis USAID to make sure the Republic of Georgia tilts towards the U.S., which Shevardnaze did in the 1990s.

Note the recent debate over Alaska, and the showdown between Senator Stevens and Senator Maria Cantwell. The oil debate in Alaska has started a nasy fight.

Dependency, is....dependency.

Most good in the U.S. is moved by trucking.

Americans are heavily dependent on automobiles in the suburbs and even the cities for their own transportation. The economy is heavily linked, and dependent upon it.

^ still this doesn't explain the speculation on oil price markets. Surely this is a scam. I don't think we are running out of oil, more like an opportunity to maximize returns for Bush and friends with such high prices.

I will make the bet that as soon as our snake oil salesman leave the White House, oil prices will be back to normal and we will all forget about the immediate shortage of oil. Remember Enron and the fake California Energy crisis ? same same but different

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ still this doesn't explain the speculation on oil price markets. Surely this is a scam. I don't think we are running out of our oil, more like with such high prices, it's an opportunity not to miss to maximize returns for Bush and friends.

I will make the bet that as soon as our snake oil salesman leave the White House, oil price will be back to normal and we will all forget about shortage of oil. Remember Enron and the fake California Energy crisis ? same same but different

There's a good article in the latest issue of "Money" magazine that talks about oil prices over the last 35 years.

^
^ So butterfly you mean that the only weapons of mass distruction Iraq has is oil??

Bush and friends are the master of deception. Only fools fall for their honey pot.

Hehehehe.When is the APE gonna leave the white house??

I love the war on terrorism thing.Killing the civilians so that the terrorists would be terrorized.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ still this doesn't explain the speculation on oil price markets. Surely this is a scam. I don't think we are running out of oil, more like an opportunity to maximize returns for Bush and friends with such high prices.

I will make the bet that as soon as our snake oil salesman leave the White House, oil prices will be back to normal and we will all forget about the immediate shortage of oil. Remember Enron and the fake California Energy crisis ? same same but different

Bush could not influence the oil price significantly even if he tried to. If anything, the US is loosing out big time (and so are all other crude importing countries). with the current situation.

There is a lot of things you can blame the Bush administration for, but high oil prices are not really one of them. The US would like to see lots of cheap crude, like in the good old days, the problem is that demand has risen sharply in the last few years (China and to a lesser extent India), and the industry was been able to forsee this.

My guess is that we will have to live with high oil prices for at least a few years, until new fields are found, or current production capacity is increased.

And if you take inflation and the low value of the dollar into consideration, is oil really that much more expensive than, say, 20-30 years ago?

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Bush could not influence the oil price significantly even if he tried to. If anything, the US is loosing out big time (and so are all other crude importing countries). with the current situation.

There is a lot of things you can blame the Bush administration for, but high oil prices are not really one of them. The US would like to see lots of cheap crude, like in the good old days, the problem is that demand has risen sharply in the last few years (China and to a lesser extent India), and the industry was been able to forsee this.

I agree 100%

And, this is basically a known fact.

The Bush administration can NOT control the price of oil.

It's a demand issue - period.

This is exactly like those days in Econ 101: Here is a supply curve; here is a demand curve.

The U.S. needs oil to be relatively affordable.

Remember Lawrence Lindsey? He was the former Economic Advicer to George W. Bush. He also got pushed out.....

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Covertjay

It is THE factor or there'd be a new embassy in downtown Rangoon (or that wierd ass new capital they're building).

Do you have insider scuttlebutt the rest of us ain't priviledged to ?

I don't want to do more remedial than I have to. Read it again.

The terrorist are finally displaying some real courage ... even more than the liberals of the western world.

Iraqi Insurgents Want Two-Year Withdrawal Commitment


The amnesty plan offered by Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal al-Talibani appears to have broken a standoff with native insurgents in Iraq. The groups have replied by demanding a commitment to a two-year withdrawal plan of foreign forces from Iraq as a condition of their surrender:

Insurgents are demanding the withdrawal of all U.S. and British forces from Iraq within two years as a condition for joining reconciliation talks, a senior Iraqi government official said Wednesday. ... Iraqi government officials involved with the contacts with insurgents told The Associated Press that several militant groups sent delegates from their regions and tribes to speak on their behalf.
One of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of demands for secrecy in the talks, said the insurgents have so far rejected face-to-face talks, saying they fear being targeted by Shiite militias, Iraqi security forces and the Americans.
The official said the insurgents have demanded a two-year "timetable for withdrawal" in return for joining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's bid for national reconciliation.
The insurgents also said a condition for any future direct talks would be the presence of observers from the Arab League, Saudi Arabia and Iraq's influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars.

These demands do not appear too extreme and can form the basis of rational talks aimed at a national reconciliation. The involvement of the Saudis and the two Arab associations may not sit well with the new Iraqi government; after all, none of them have a particular fondness for democracy or self-determination, especially Saudi Arabia. However, Iraq will have to find ways to exist in tandem with all of them, and including them in this process might be a good start.
Interestingly, the insurgents tacitly admit the necessity of the foreign troops in their demand. They have not demanded an immediate withdrawal, or even one within 12 months. Foreign troops need to remain to ensure protection against the foreign insurgency, which Iraqis have grown to detest. As long as the native insurgents and Ba'athist dead-enders have stopped tossing bombs and firing bullets, the foreign troops pose no danger to them. More to the point, the Sunnis who make up the insurgencies fear Shi'ite militias more than the foreign troops. They need our protection from the Shi'ite vengeance that would surely erupt without some kind of stabilizing force to prevent it.
In this, the insurgents appear far ahead of the Democrats in Congress. They have spent the last few months demanding immediate withdrawals or at least timetables for such, with some calling for retreat as early as the end of this year. Even the insurgents see the folly of that idea. This demand acknowledges that the US and Coalition forces have succeeded in creating an effective and professional security force for Iraq, one that needs more training and seasoning before we can leave and expect stability and self-management in Iraq.
I wonder if the Democrats will have an explanation for why they want our troops to retreat faster than the insurgents have demanded.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

The terrorist are finally displaying some real courage ... even more than the liberals of the western world.

Let me ask you again, SK, are you a native English speaker?
I'm still searching for an explanation for the many 'misunderstandings' and the lack of meaning in some of your sentences.

Sk ? == 010101010101010101000101010101

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Sk ? == 010101010101010101000101010101

I thought it was time I tell you I'm an "Aviation Storekeeper" ... emphasis on aviation.

^Ah, you're the TaxFree shop manager