Boy they sure are a peaceful bunch

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 10, 2004, 4:03 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5947558/

Islamist group appears to claim Jakarta blast
Bomb near Australian Embassy kills 9, injures scores more
JAKARTA, Indonesia - Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian terror group linked to al-Qaida, purportedly claimed responsibility for a deadly car bomb attack outside the Australian Embassy in Indonesia, saying it was punishing Australia for supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 4:17 pm

More violence, muder, mayhem and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims? NO! This cannot be. Such a wonderfully peaceful religion keeps having it's followers doing these things...weird.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 10, 2004, 4:56 pm

I don't think you will bait anyone into defending these actions. What you WILL get someone to defend though is your notion that all muslims are terrorists. You and I both know that's about as fair as calling all white people serial killers.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 10, 2004, 5:05 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:More violence, muder, mayhem and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims? NO! This cannot be. Such a wonderfully peaceful religion keeps having it's followers doing these things...weird.

I remember at the RNC there were a group of bush supporting protestors protesting the anti bush protestors...

I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...it just goes to show that most Bush supporters are fucking racist bigots...all the muslims i know, even one who is a registered republican and very wealthy businessman is doing all he can to see bush loose the election, in fear of the bigotry that has been spawned partially by the bush admin

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 10, 2004, 5:08 pm

how about this one....

ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE HOMOSEXUAL SERIAL KILLERS WHO LIKE TO KILL MEN AND THEN HAVE SEX WITH THERE ROTTING SKULLS!!!!

Jeffery Dahmer and a few other sick white fucks who fit that description did, i never recall a muslim, jew, hispanic, etc doing so, so i guess ALL WHITE CHRISTIANS ARE HOMOSEXUAL NECROPHILIACS!!!!

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 10, 2004, 5:14 pm

Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:More violence, muder, mayhem and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims? NO! This cannot be. Such a wonderfully peaceful religion keeps having it's followers doing these things...weird.
I remember at the RNC there were a group of bush supporting protestors protesting the anti bush protestors...

I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...it just goes to show that most Bush supporters are fucking racist bigots...all the muslims i know, even one who is a registered republican and very wealthy businessman is doing all he can to see bush loose the election, in fear of the bigotry that has been spawned partially by the bush admin

While I'm firmly in the camp of "not all Muslims are terrorists" and I get along with just about anybody, tell your friend that if he's worried about bigotry and being in fear from the entire non-Muslim world, he should worry a shitload more about his fellow Muslims blowing something up or killing someone/100+ children instead of trying to claim it's all some fucking Republican witchhunt.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 10, 2004, 5:29 pm

Mak wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:More violence, muder, mayhem and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims? NO! This cannot be. Such a wonderfully peaceful religion keeps having it's followers doing these things...weird.
I remember at the RNC there were a group of bush supporting protestors protesting the anti bush protestors...

I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...it just goes to show that most Bush supporters are fucking racist bigots...all the muslims i know, even one who is a registered republican and very wealthy businessman is doing all he can to see bush loose the election, in fear of the bigotry that has been spawned partially by the bush admin
While I'm firmly in the camp of "not all Muslims are terrorists" and I get along with just about anybody, tell your friend that if he's worried about bigotry and being in fear from the entire non-Muslim world, he should worry a shitload more about his fellow Muslims blowing something up or killing someone/100+ children instead of trying to claim it's all some fucking Republican witchhunt.

...because one man is capeable of ending and/or greatly reducing international terrorism...
is what your essentially saying

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 10, 2004, 5:46 pm

Essentially what I'm saying is if a month could go by without a Muslim blowing something up or cutting off someone's head or torturing children then their image just might improve. I'd really like to believe Muslims when they say their religion is about peace, but it would be much easier to accept that if I could see earnest condemnation of terror from the Muslim community as a whole instead the "Oh, that's terrible (wink, wink)" I'm currently seeing.

I mean, when one of our good Christian boys blew something in an act of terrorism- Timothy McVeigh- what'd we do to his ass? That's right- he got the needle.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 10, 2004, 6:12 pm

Mak we do that to anyone that commits mass murder, regardless of race or religion. Poor example.

Cracc · Post by **Cracc** » September 10, 2004, 6:24 pm

ahem Actually.. the serial killer with the highest bodycount in modern history is from colombia Xzion.. Pedro Lopez.. aka The monster of the Andes.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 10, 2004, 6:33 pm

Cracc wrote:ahem Actually.. the serial killer with the highest bodycount in modern history is from colombia Xzion.. Pedro Lopez.. aka The monster of the Andes.

I dont know much about him but its safe to assume he didnt have sex with his victims skulls....

noone seems to realize, or want to realize that it is less that .005% of all muslims who are actually terrorist
Islam is the largest, or second largest religion on earth, also it is still the fastest growing religion on earth...its a bigass faith

Cracc · Post by **Cracc** » September 10, 2004, 6:38 pm

Nope, no skulls.. i think he did fuck them after he killed them tho..

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 6:57 pm

Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:More violence, muder, mayhem and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims? NO! This cannot be. Such a wonderfully peaceful religion keeps having it's followers doing these things...weird.
I remember at the RNC there were a group of bush supporting protestors protesting the anti bush protestors...

I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...it just goes to show that most Bush supporters are fucking racist bigots...all the muslims i know, even one who is a registered republican and very wealthy businessman is doing all he can to see bush loose the election, in fear of the bigotry that has been spawned partially by the bush admin

Then he is as irrational a person as you are.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 6:59 pm

Mak wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:More violence, muder, mayhem and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims? NO! This cannot be. Such a wonderfully peaceful religion keeps having it's followers doing these things...weird.
I remember at the RNC there were a group of bush supporting protestors protesting the anti bush protestors...

I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...it just goes to show that most Bush supporters are fucking racist bigots...all the muslims i know, even one who is a registered republican and very wealthy businessman is doing all he can to see bush loose the election, in fear of the bigotry that has been spawned partially by the bush admin
While I'm firmly in the camp of "not all Muslims are terrorists" and I get along with just about anybody, tell your friend that if he's worried about bigotry and being in fear from the entire non-Muslim world, he should worry a shitload more about his fellow Muslims blowing something up or killing someone/100+ children instead of trying to claim it's all some fucking Republican witchhunt.

BINGO!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 7:00 pm

Xzion wrote:
Mak wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:More violence, muder, mayhem and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims? NO! This cannot be. Such a wonderfully peaceful religion keeps having it's followers doing these things...weird.
I remember at the RNC there were a group of bush supporting protestors protesting the anti bush protestors...

I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...it just goes to show that most Bush supporters are fucking racist bigots...all the muslims i know, even one who is a registered republican and very wealthy businessman is doing all he can to see bush loose the election, in fear of the bigotry that has been spawned partially by the bush admin
While I'm firmly in the camp of "not all Muslims are terrorists" and I get along with just about anybody, tell your friend that if he's worried about bigotry and being in fear from the entire non-Muslim world, he should worry a shitload more about his fellow Muslims blowing something up or killing someone/100+ children instead of trying to claim it's all some fucking Republican witchhunt.
...because one man is capeable of ending and/or greatly reducing international terrorism...
is what your essentially saying

No asshole. You are completely missing the point. One man can't. A nation together behind the cause, can.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 10, 2004, 7:02 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Mak we do that to anyone that commits mass murder, regardless of race or religion. Poor example.

And shouldn't Middle Eastern countries react the same way? They seem much more willing to execute someone in the Middle East for offenses less serious than murder, after all. Do mass murders there get a free pass so long as they're Muslim? Seems that way, frankly.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » September 10, 2004, 7:04 pm

Xzion wrote:I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...

I think it's a sad day where, in a single thread, I simultaniously agree with Midnyte and Xzion.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 10, 2004, 7:06 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Mak wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:More violence, muder, mayhem and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims? NO! This cannot be. Such a wonderfully peaceful religion keeps having it's followers doing these things...weird.
I remember at the RNC there were a group of bush supporting protestors protesting the anti bush protestors...

I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...it just goes to show that most Bush supporters are fucking racist bigots...all the muslims i know, even one who is a registered republican and very wealthy businessman is doing all he can to see bush loose the election, in fear of the bigotry that has been spawned partially by the bush admin
While I'm firmly in the camp of "not all Muslims are terrorists" and I get along with just about anybody, tell your friend that if he's worried about bigotry and being in fear from the entire non-Muslim world, he should worry a shitload more about his fellow Muslims blowing something up or killing someone/100+ children instead of trying to claim it's all some fucking Republican witchhunt.
...because one man is capeable of ending and/or greatly reducing international terrorism...
is what your essentially saying
No asshole. You are completely missing the point. One man can't. A nation together behind the cause, can.

Maybe a nation togeather under John Kerry...all Bush has managed to do is polarize our nation more than it has ever been since the civil war and burn a bridge between world support for the war on terror (that we had for the first time in many, many years in our now abandoned campeghn in afghanistan) As a result of his policys, there is a much faster rate of terrorist growth, and general apprehension, and even raw hatred towards the US

If Bush concentrated on afghanistan, the war on terror...and stoped catering to the religious right on issues like abortion/gay marriage/ and stem cell research, given the period of time in our history he would have gone down as a great president...he will have managed now to do just the opposite

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 10, 2004, 7:15 pm

Xzion wrote:Maybe a nation togeather under John Kerry...all Bush has managed to do is polarize our nation more than it has ever been since the civil war and burn a bridge between world support for the war on terror (that we had for the first time in many, many years in our now abandoned campeghn in afghanistan) As a result of his policys, there is a much faster rate of terrorist growth, and general apprehension, and even raw hatred towards the US

If Bush concentrated on afghanistan, the war on terror...and stoped catering to the religious right on issues like abortion/gay marriage/ and stem cell research, given the period of time in our history he would have gone down as a great president...he will have managed now to do just the opposite

Quit changing the subject. This isn't about Bush and Kerry. It's about the Muslim community putting its foot down and saying enough is enough.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 7:22 pm

Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Mak wrote:
Xzion wrote: I remember at the RNC there were a group of bush supporting protestors protesting the anti bush protestors...

I remember seeing an obese white woman holding a sighn that said something like "islam for kerry" or "muslims for kerry"
This was actually ment to be an insult...it just goes to show that most Bush supporters are fucking racist bigots...all the muslims i know, even one who is a registered republican and very wealthy businessman is doing all he can to see bush loose the election, in fear of the bigotry that has been spawned partially by the bush admin
While I'm firmly in the camp of "not all Muslims are terrorists" and I get along with just about anybody, tell your friend that if he's worried about bigotry and being in fear from the entire non-Muslim world, he should worry a shitload more about his fellow Muslims blowing something up or killing someone/100+ children instead of trying to claim it's all some fucking Republican witchhunt.
...because one man is capeable of ending and/or greatly reducing international terrorism...
is what your essentially saying
No asshole. You are completely missing the point. One man can't. A nation together behind the cause, can.
Maybe a nation togeather under John Kerry...all Bush has managed to do is polarize our nation more than it has ever been since the civil war and burn a bridge between world support for the war on terror (that we had for the first time in many, many years in our now abandoned campeghn in afghanistan) As a result of his policys, there is a much faster rate of terrorist growth, and general apprehension, and even raw hatred towards the US

If Bush concentrated on afghanistan, the war on terror...and stoped catering to the religious right on issues like abortion/gay marriage/ and stem cell research, given the period of time in our history he would have gone down as a great president...he will have managed now to do just the opposite

Have you nto yet learned that terrorism is a global threat? The school in Russia...the two planes in Russia...Israel....Pakistan...Spain....any many many more.

Do you really think Kerry is better to fight this war on terrorism? Then why hasn't Kerry told us how he would do it? What's his grand vision that is better than America's current vision? Where's his passion for protecting America and its peoples?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 10, 2004, 7:23 pm

Well you have to catch them to execute them. The US hasn't managed to catch bin Laden with the best equipped most efficient military on Earth, what makes you think a "lesser" country can catch them?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 10, 2004, 7:32 pm

Kelshara wrote:Well you have to catch them to execute them. The US hasn't managed to catch bin Laden with the best equipped most efficient military on Earth, what makes you think a "lesser" country can catch them?

That's a valid point Kelshara.

But let's look at it from another angle.

All it would take is for one (1) single solitary Muslim to come forward and turn Bin Laden into the authorities. There are some number of Muslims who either know or suspect where he is holed up.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 10, 2004, 7:35 pm

Kelshara wrote:Well you have to catch them to execute them. The US hasn't managed to catch bin Laden with the best equipped most efficient military on Earth, what makes you think a "lesser" country can catch them?

Because these terrorists get a lot of tacit approval and support from the people in the areas in which they operate.

I remember the FBI trying to chase Eric Rudolph through the woods of NC for over five years- and they were stymied time and time again by locals that supported him. It was only a freak chance that led to his capture- a capture that would have occurred a lot sooner if he hadn't received support from his friends.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 7:37 pm

Kelshara wrote:Well you have to catch them to execute them. The US hasn't managed to catch bin Laden with the best equipped most efficient military on Earth, what makes you think a "lesser" country can catch them?

First of all, Bin Laden is just a front man...right?

Second of all, 75% + of the Al Qaeda has been killed. New groups have formed. But, that is too be expected. It's not a war you win in 3 days or 3 years. It will take a long time. Changing mind set and behavior isn't an over ngiht thing. You still have kids over there being trained to kill at the age of six, when normal children are playing soccer and little league. There is a problem there. You choose to ignore and cross your fingers another 9/11 doesn't happen. Thankfully, we have a leader who doesn't ignore it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 10, 2004, 7:39 pm

so this attack is in retaliation to your completely unjustified military invasion of another country that has left almost 50 thousand dead civilians, and the islamists are the violent ones?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 10, 2004, 7:42 pm

kyoukan wrote:so this attack is in retaliation to your completely unjustified military invasion of another country that has left almost 50 thousand dead civilians, and the islamists are the violent ones?

The negativity flows! It's the clasic glass half full or half empty question...

You prefer to consider the Iraqi population as half dead.

I prefer to think of the Iraqi population as half alive!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 7:42 pm

kyoukan wrote:so this attack is in retaliation to your completely unjustified military invasion of another country that has left almost 50 thousand dead civilians, and the islamists are the violent ones?

No, I'm sure you are right Kyo. These terrorists groups weren't flushed out at all. They just sprung out of no where to retaliate. Most terrorists didn't exsist until we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, they bound together to fight the evil bringer of freedom. Uh-huh. Weird how they didn't have this instant ability to bind together and free themselves from torture, genocide, etc. Very weird.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 10, 2004, 7:43 pm

winnow you have never once said anything remotely funny, you are collosally stupid, and nobody fucking likes you. stop posting.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 10, 2004, 7:44 pm

kyoukan wrote:winnow you have never once said anything remotely funny, you are collosally stupid, and nobody fucking likes you. stop posting.

Spell "collosally" right and I'll consider it.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 10, 2004, 7:44 pm

kyoukan wrote:so this attack is in retaliation to your completely unjustified military invasion of another country that has left almost 50 thousand dead civilians, and the islamists are the violent ones?

Yeah, they blew up an Australian embassy. In Indonesia. They sure got even with us, huh?

Somewhere in Norway's Svalbard archipelago there's a polar bear shaking in fear that some terrorist will vent his collective Muslim rage on him.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 10, 2004, 8:06 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Have you nto yet learned that terrorism is a global threat? The school in Russia...the two planes in Russia...Israel....Pakistan...Spain....any many many more.

Do you really think Kerry is better to fight this war on terrorism? Then why hasn't Kerry told us how he would do it? What's his grand vision that is better than America's current vision? Where's his passion for protecting America and its peoples?

See the bigger question is what is Bush's plan because quite honestly if there is a plan in action right now it hasn't created many results. Has global terrorism been reduced because of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq? Quite obviously by the degree that the playing field has expanded it has not been reduced. You are correct that terrorism is global threat because terrorist are not bent on conquering lands, they are in the business of advancing ideology.

Now how do you fight a war of ideology? Do you go out and wage war on countries that harbor terrorists? We've seen with Afghanistan that when you go and destroy the hornet's nest the hornets just disperse and move on to a new hive or hives as the case may be. Was it a mistake to topple the Taliban, no of course not, but it was a mistake to think that just because the main base of operations was destroyed that the terrorists would be easy to catch? We let them off the hook, instead of using the global support to try to rout out the other bases of terrorism throughout the world and follow the fleeing groups from Afghanistan we decided to fight a war in Iraq. So now we no longer have the support or assistance of the rest of the world.

This is going to be a tough fight because with each success the ideology grows stronger and with a lack of understanding on our part of what exactly the battle ground is they will continue to grow. We are seeing the terrorists take a step back away from attacking us to build up successes in less secure parts of the world and while I am sure there are a lot of people who think that as long as they are not attacking us then it's not our problem, as you stated terrorism is a global threat.

The big question for the near future is what is going to be the Russian response to these attacks, are they going to sit back? I doubt it, what happens when they decide to make a pre-emptive strike on ex-Soviet block Muslim countries? Do you think this will weaken the ideology or strengthen it?

That still leaves the question, how do you fight ideology? I honestly don't know whether Bush or Kerry, or more to the point the people they appoint know how to do this. However, I am quite sure that we have a better chance of gaining the cooperation of other nations under a new administration, the current one has shown a complete lack of diplomatic ability and I don't foresee a great change if it is re-elected, especially if Colin Powel is replaced as Secretary of State, not that he has much success at influencing the administration recently.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 10, 2004, 8:13 pm

kyoukan wrote:winnow you have never once said anything remotely funny, you are collosally stupid, and nobody fucking likes you. stop posting.

Kooky is... wrong... as usual!

I like Mid just fine.

I espcially enjoy that avatar of Queen Hillary.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 8:18 pm

Metanis wrote:
kyoukan wrote:winnow you have never once said anything remotely funny, you are collosally stupid, and nobody fucking likes you. stop posting.
Kooky is... wrong... as usual!

I like Mid just fine.

I espcially enjoy that avatar of Queen Hillary.

I know it's a repeat of what she said to me a week ago, but this time she was talking about Winnow. But, thanks though

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 10, 2004, 8:18 pm

How Kerry will fight the war on Terrorism...

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/spee ... _0227.html

Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism
Remarks of John Kerry

Los Angeles, CA - It’s an honor to be here today at the Burkle Center – named in honor of a good friend and one of America’s outstanding business leaders.

Day in and day out, George W. Bush reminds us that he is a war President and that he wants to make national security the central issue of this election. I am ready to have this debate. I welcome it.

I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure – with a stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned.

As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.

We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.

This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.

As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: “They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks.”

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

Like all Americans, I responded to President Bush’s reassuring words in the days after September 11th. But since then, his actions have fallen short.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.

In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment. The President’s budget for the National Endowment for Democracy’s efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton – hardly a way to win the contest of ideas.

Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.

George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the War on Terror – only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am Commander-in-Chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it.

We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances.

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs. We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.

It was local law enforcement working with our intelligence services which caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramsi Bin al Shibh in Pakistan and the murderer known as Hambali in Thailand. Joining with local police forces didn’t mean serving these terrorists with legal papers; it meant throwing them behind bars. None of the progress we have made would have been possible without cooperation – and much more would be possible if we had a President who didn’t alienate long-time friends and fuel anti-American anger around the world.

We need a comprehensive approach for prevailing against terror – an approach that recognizes the many facets of this mortal challenge and relies on all the tools at our disposal to do it.

First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world – and he has weakened it. What George Bush and his armchair hawks have never understood is that our military is about more than moving pins on a map or buying expensive new weapons systems.

America’s greatest military strength has always been the courageous, talented men and women whose love of country and devotion to service lead them to attempt and achieve the impossible everyday.

But today, far too often troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely. National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.

And families across America have had to collect funds from their neighbors to buy body armor for their loved ones in uniform because George Bush failed to provide it

The next President must ensure that our forces are structured for maximum effectiveness and provided with all that they need to succeed in their missions. We must better prepare our forces for post-conflict operations and the task of building stability by adding more engineers, military police, psychological warfare personnel, and civil affairs teams.

And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade.

Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act.

But the challenge for us is not to cooperate abroad; it is to coordinate here at home. Whether it was September 11th or Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have endured unprecedented intelligence failures. We must do what George Bush has refused to do – reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets. We must train more analysts in languages like Arabic. And we must break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement.

In the months leading up to September 11th, two of the hijackers were arrested for drunk driving – and another was stopped for speeding and then let go, although he was already the subject of an arrest warrant in a neighboring county and was on a federal terrorist watch list. We need to simplify and streamline the multiple national terrorist watch lists and make sure the right information is available to the right people on the frontlines of preventing the next attack.

But we can’t take any of those steps effectively if we are stuck with an Administration that continues to stonewall those who are trying to get to the bottom of our September 11th intelligence failures. Two days ago, the Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert refused the request of the bipartisan 9-11 commission for just a little more time just to complete their mission. This after the Commission has had to deal with an Administration that opposed its very creation and has stonewalled its efforts.

He didn’t hesitate to pick up the phone and call Denny Hastert to ram through his Medicare drug company benefit or to replace a real Patients' Bill of Rights with an HMO Bill of Goods. This President told a Republican fundraiser that it was in the “nation’s interest” that Denny Hastert remain Speaker of the House. I believe it’s in America’s interest to know the truth about 9-11. Mr. President, stop stonewalling the commission and stop hiding behind excuses. Pick up the phone, call your friend Denny Hastert and tell him to let the commission finish its job so we can make America safer.

Third, we must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

Fourth, because finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons. We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured. Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.

Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration’s decisions and mistakes – especially in Iraq – we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday.

And our safety at home may someday soon be endangered as Iraq becomes a training ground for the next generation of terrorists.

It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops. This also requires a genuine Iraqi security force. The Bush Administration simply signs up recruits and gives them rudimentary training. In a Kerry Administration, we will create and train an Iraqi security force equal to the task of safeguarding itself and the people it is supposed to protect.

We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions. And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

In Afghanistan, we have some NATO involvement, but the training of the Afghan Army is insufficient to disarm the warlord militias or to bring the billion dollar drug trade under control. This Administration has all but turned away from Afghanistan. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. His latest budget scorns that commitment.

We must – and if I am President, I will – apply the wisdom Franklin Roosevelt shared with the American people in a fireside chat in 1942, “it is useless to win battles if the cause for which we fight these battles is lost. It is useless to win a war unless it stays won.” This Administration has not met that challenge; a Kerry Administration will.

But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas. In failed states from South Asia to the Middle East to Central Africa, the combined weight of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education, and rapid population growth presents the potential for explosive violence and the enlistment of entire new legions of terrorists. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, almost sixty percent of the population is under the age of 30, unemployed and unemployable, in a breeding ground for present and future hostility. And according to a Pew Center poll, fifty percent or more of Indonesians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Palestinians have confidence in bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs”

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda. And we must support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grass-roots up. Democracy won't come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change.

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future – to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.

Finally, if we are going to be serious about the War on Terror, we need to be much more serious about homeland security. Today, fire departments only have enough radios for half their firefighters and almost two-thirds of firehouses are short-staffed. We should not be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in New York City. We need to put 100,000 more firefighters on duty and we need to restore the 100,000 police on our streets which I fought for and won in 1994 but which the Bush Administration has cut in budget after budget.

We need to provide public health labs with the basic expertise they need but now lack to respond to chemical or biological attack. We need new safeguards for our chemical and nuclear facilities.

And our ports – like the Port of Los Angeles – need new technology to screen the 95 percent of containers that now enter this country without any inspection at all. And we should accelerate the action plans agreed to in US-Canada and US-Mexico “smart border” accords while implementing new security measures for cross border bridges. President Bush says we can’t afford to fund homeland security. I say we can’t afford not to.

The safety of our people, the security of our country, the memory of our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, neighbors and heroes we lost on September 11th call on us to win this war we did not seek.

And our children’s future demands that we also do everything in our power to prevent the creation of tomorrow’s terrorists today. Maybe there’s no going back to the days before baggage checks and orange alerts. Maybe they’re with us forever. But I don’t believe they have to be. I grew up at a time of bomb shelters and air raid drills. But America had leaders of vision and courage in both parties. And today, the Cold War is memory, not reality.

I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror. I believe we must, not only for ourselves but for all who look to America as “the last best hope of earth.” I believe we can meet that ideal – and that’s why I’m running for President.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 8:22 pm

Dude. He is repeating all the things that are being done right now. I expect more from you Marb.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 10, 2004, 8:28 pm

Again, it's not a question of Bush or Kerry.

Bill Clinton sucked huge international dick and it did nothing to slow down terrorism. Trade Center I, the USS Cole, 2 US embassies in Africa, etc. should be ample proof of that.

What I'd like to see is, A) have people admit that ultimately, nobody is responsible for terrorism except the terrorists; and, B) have decent people in the Middle East police their own extremists.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 10, 2004, 11:29 pm

Mak wrote:Again, it's not a question of Bush or Kerry.

Bill Clinton sucked huge international dick and it did nothing to slow down terrorism. Trade Center I, the USS Cole, 2 US embassies in Africa, etc. should be ample proof of that.

What I'd like to see is, A) have people admit that ultimately, nobody is responsible for terrorism except the terrorists; and, B) have decent people in the Middle East police their own extremists.

I think we can all agree that in the 90s terrorism wasn't that important, mostly because none of the casualty heavy attacks were in the U.S. with the exception of Oklahoma City. Was that a mistake? Obviously, but the administration’s and our own apathy just didn't allow us to take it serious. Honestly was anyone on this board concerned about terrorism in the 90s?

Comparing that situation with our current one is way off base, we need an administration that can bring about a united front against the terrorist and our current one just isn't up to the job as they have proved for the last two years.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 10, 2004, 11:50 pm

Ronald Reagan said the biggest threat to the US after the fall of the Soviet Union would be international terrorism.. I think some of us did worry about it and others didn't.

Anyways I wanted to post something I read today that may have something to do with the topic at hand:

http://worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_12.html

Something I really agree witht his piece is this, "Only moderate Muslims can challenge and defeat extremist Muslims."

My view point is we have to give the moderate Muslims the power, and they will defeat there fanatics...basically the same principle if you look deep down into it that many of you liberals harp on being so scared about happening with the US and right wing christians.

I think taking out dictatorships in the region and installing more moderate forms of government will be the way to solve this increasing threat of international terrorism. Sitting back and apoligizing will only let them run wild till one day they do have WMDs.. Im personally tired of sitting around being hit and hit and it just keep getting worse and letting people sit in power that we know they'd have no more pleasure than to watch our whole country burn.

Thats why Kerry and Bush essentially agree on Iraq. Well Kerry agrees every other week.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 11, 2004, 12:06 am

See the problem with attempting to set up a democracy in the Middle East is that in order to do so concessions have to be made towards the religious hierarchy. The funny thing is that the countries that are controlled by military dictators have less of the religious influence, Pakistan for example.

This has actually been written about as far as the relations of the concessions made in Iran and Saudi Arabia. It was the idea that liberal institutions fail in the Middle East because of the incorporation of religion into the government. The religious hierarchies oppress the people and then blame the resulting economic struggles on the liberal influences in the government.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 11, 2004, 12:24 am

Sirton wrote:Ronald Reagan said the biggest threat to the US after the fall of the Soviet Union would be international terrorism.. I think some of us did worry about it and others didn't.

Such a shame that some ignored Reagan's cautionary warning. Bush is only halfway through repairing the damage done by Clinton's carefree party years in the White House.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 11, 2004, 12:30 am

Winnow wrote:
Sirton wrote:Ronald Reagan said the biggest threat to the US after the fall of the Soviet Union would be international terrorism.. I think some of us did worry about it and others didn't.
Such a shame that some ignored Reagan's cautionary warning. Bush is only halfway through repairing the damage done by Clinton's carefree party years in the White House.

Hmm and here I thought Bush was out to repair the "damage" done by both the Roosevelt administrations, at least that's the impression I get from his policies.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 11, 2004, 12:34 am

ronald reagan also fell asleep during policy meetings, frequently drooled on himself and shat in his pants because he was so fucking old and worthless that nancy's palm reader was running half the country by his second term in office.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 11, 2004, 12:40 am

kyoukan wrote:ronald reagan also fell asleep during policy meetings, frequently drooled on himself and shat in his pants

you do that already

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 11, 2004, 12:43 am

Good point you make Crav on democracy's, but it isn't what Im saying.

First off something has to be done there, because its gone out of control and it has been getting increasingly worse.

Attempting to set up a democracy?
Hey it would be idea if it holds, great! Hopefully someday, but I dont live in lala land either(like Kelsh.), so I don't get my hopes up.

Let me make it clear, Democracy is not exactly what Im saying...
Im for more moderate forms of government like Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, or better. Than the very anti-American govt's of once Saddam's Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Saudi Id like to take care of them aswell eventually, but now is not the time...Lets see if they keep moving toward cleaning up there own house. Pakistan is making alittle progress in this area aswell, its extremely hard process and takes many years. The main reasons these 2 govt's are moving more and more our way is that these same terrorist are trying to kill them aswell and because of our pressure.

Now if they take over the govt of pakistan(with nukes) like Iran, which could seriously happen...what do we do??...sit back and wait to be hit hard or do we pre-emptive strike?

Now answer which countries are Moderate and extreme?...Are any of those extreme countrys making serious movements towards the moderate views? Are they starting to crack down on the fanatics, enough so that they don't cause there own government to topple?

What is considered a moderate view?

"Only moderate Muslims can challenge and defeat extremist Muslims."

Unless we of coarse decided to get caveman style like in World War II....Thats what I feel my view is trying to avoid in the future and the best hope of avoiding a massive conflict like that in the future.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 11, 2004, 1:02 am

You can't be on both sides of the table. As long as you support Israel unconditionally nobody will take any attempts you makde in the middle east seriously. You can't give one extremist free reign and go after another. You can't sit and laugh at extremists in one part of the world and hti another because it is more beneficial to yourself.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 11, 2004, 1:31 am

I personally dont support Israel unconditionally.

AS far as administrations go I don't think any of them do aswell, but anytime peace talks happen some homocide bomber blows up civilians. Now I agree that Israel has there fair share of BS by bull dozing homes and taking land.

This is a different situation though this is not a fanatical group targeting the US like 9/11, cole, embassies or a international crisis like Gulf War I ect. ect. which got us involved in a different situation than Israel/palestine conflict but it does have links or reason for excuses.

Now our main difference is I see targeting civilians and militant leaders different, but I agree both those sides are guilty in keeping this conflict ongoing.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 11, 2004, 1:36 am

The problem is, Israel (and those who support them) let a minority of Palestinians dictate the peace protest. There will always be fanatics who wont settle for anything but the total eradication of Israel. These are everywhere, in all countries and all religions. What needs to be done is the peace protest needs to move forward while ignoring these people. Yes there will be bombs. Yes there will be casualties. But by going around in circles of violence you get nowhere.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 11, 2004, 6:42 am

Crav wrote:
Mak wrote:Again, it's not a question of Bush or Kerry.

Bill Clinton sucked huge international dick and it did nothing to slow down terrorism. Trade Center I, the USS Cole, 2 US embassies in Africa, etc. should be ample proof of that.

What I'd like to see is, A) have people admit that ultimately, nobody is responsible for terrorism except the terrorists; and, B) have decent people in the Middle East police their own extremists.
I think we can all agree that in the 90s terrorism wasn't that important, mostly because none of the casualty heavy attacks were in the U.S. with the exception of Oklahoma City. Was that a mistake? Obviously, but the administration’s and our own apathy just didn't allow us to take it serious. Honestly was anyone on this board concerned about terrorism in the 90s?

Comparing that situation with our current one is way off base, we need an administration that can bring about a united front against the terrorist and our current one just isn't up to the job as they have proved for the last two years.

Excuse me? It wasn't that important in the 90's? Maybe for a President busy getting blowjobs in the Oval Office it wasn't, but the rest of us thought it was. I listed several cases of terrorism in the 90's a little earlier in this thread- go ahead and scroll up. How old were you during the 90's?

For me, it became important in 1985 when a Muslim terrorist shot a disabled 69 year old American man named Leon Klinghoffer and then shoved him- and the wheelchair he was sitting in- off the deck of an Italian cruise ship.

If you weren't worried about terrorism in the 90's you weren't paying attention.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 11, 2004, 7:47 am

Mak wrote:
Crav wrote:
Mak wrote:Again, it's not a question of Bush or Kerry.

Bill Clinton sucked huge international dick and it did nothing to slow down terrorism. Trade Center I, the USS Cole, 2 US embassies in Africa, etc. should be ample proof of that.

What I'd like to see is, A) have people admit that ultimately, nobody is responsible for terrorism except the terrorists; and, B) have decent people in the Middle East police their own extremists.
I think we can all agree that in the 90s terrorism wasn't that important, mostly because none of the casualty heavy attacks were in the U.S. with the exception of Oklahoma City. Was that a mistake? Obviously, but the administration’s and our own apathy just didn't allow us to take it serious. Honestly was anyone on this board concerned about terrorism in the 90s?

Comparing that situation with our current one is way off base, we need an administration that can bring about a united front against the terrorist and our current one just isn't up to the job as they have proved for the last two years.
Excuse me? It wasn't that important in the 90's? Maybe for a President busy getting blowjobs in the Oval Office it wasn't, but the rest of us thought it was. I listed several cases of terrorism in the 90's a little earlier in this thread- go ahead and scroll up. How old were you during the 90's?

For me, it became important in 1985 when a Muslim terrorist shot a disabled 69 year old American man named Leon Klinghoffer and then shoved him- and the wheelchair he was sitting in- off the deck of an Italian cruise ship.

If you weren't worried about terrorism in the 90's you weren't paying attention.

Yes the average American was extremely concerned with terrorism during the 90s that must be why when Bush took office he made it a big priority I mean since the American populace was so concerned about terrorism I am sure that the recently elected president would have devoted a lot of time to their concerns. Tell me since you were so preoccupied with the danger of terrorism did you write to your congressman about it, and if you did how come he/she didn't attempt to make it a higher priority?

Individuals may have been worried about terrorism, but the American populace was not. Why? Well mostly it's because it happened outside of the U.S. Most people can't tell you where Tanzania or Kenya are located and you’re telling me that they were concerned about terrorists attacking our embassies there?

You ask what I was doing in the 90s well mostly I was entering college, was I aware that there were acts of terror being committed against U.S. interests? Yes I was, but unfortunately aside from a few snippets of the attacks with the relevant information there wasn't much else. Did it interest me, well only from the stand point of the evolution of non-traditional warfare in my study of military history? Should I have been more concerned about it, I think hindsight shows us that yes; every one of us should have been a lot more concerned.

You can argue that we should have been more concerned with terrorism in the 90s, but to attempt to recast our disinterest in a different light is wrong. If we had been serious about terrorism then what happened three years ago might not have occurred, but like I said earlier what we should have or could have done is irrelevant now. I do not claim to know what every American felt about terrorism in the 90s, however, if I am wrong and the American populace was concerned about terrorism then how come neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration made it a priority? That is until three years ago on this very day?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 11, 2004, 9:48 am

The average American didn't really care about terrorism until 9/11. Some might have given it some thought after Cole, but not much.