English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

is it because they are allies of al Qaida?

because their allegiance all along was for selfish GOP political success and not with America's best interests at all?

because Bush's military failures are so astonishingly huge that they're now trying to underplay military importance?

I'm confused

2007-10-22 05:44:12 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

19 answers

I'm going out on a limb here, but it might be because we still haven't caught him. Oh that's right, he's dead...he was in a video a couple of months ago, but he's dead.

2007-10-22 05:47:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 7

Hah!!! I have not seen one thing from fellow conservatives saying that 9-11 or the death of bin-Laden and al Qaida is irrelevant. The war on terror finally was a two sided event after 9-11 for years the terrorists have been at war with us, we just ignored it and made our intelligence communities even blinder to the threats by regulations set up from the Church Commission in the 70's to the Clinton administrations wall between intelligence sharing. Conservatives seem to be the only one believing their is a reason to continue the pressure on the terrorists while the far left of the US is the one who almost makes al Qaida its ally in its hate america first venom.

2007-10-22 13:47:05 · answer #2 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1 0

Because that is what the intelligence and military advisors suggest. Sure, it might get some nice headlines for a day or two, but then what? Nothing's changed.

Going after bin Laden, when he really isn't that important, is wasteful of resources and won't accomplish much. It won't eliminate al Qaeda, nor will it cause even the least pause in the war against the terrorists.

But helping 2 Islamic countries oust and reject the jihadists and al Qaeda? That has much more benefits, especially long-term.

But so many of you are so blinded by your hatred of Bush to think logically about it all.

So, ousting oppressive regimes and installing democratic governments are military "failures"? I guess FDR was a military "failure" too.

2007-10-22 13:01:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I personally don't claim, or think that. Both are very relevant to the point America is at now, but there are also other important factors that have entered the arena with them, like who our next president will be. This has everything to do with "getting" bin Laden, and finishing the war in Iraq, AND USA making sure Iran doesn't get nukes!

2007-10-22 14:11:54 · answer #4 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 1 0

Hmm....
9/11 IS relevant. Bin Laden IS relevant. F@@k you and aligning me with Al Qaida. What party is being endorsed by terrorists and Al Qaida? Not the GOP that's for sure.

So now you support the troops and call them failures. That's similar to saying I don't support gangsters but agree with murder.

Yes, you are confused.

2007-10-22 14:02:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

No doubt the Tora Bora deal was a huge FUBAR and OBL got over the hill. Now do we waste entire army divisions chasing this guy all across the wastelands or git on to doing what is at hand.

Oh yeah I suppose you think just because you don't get your daily OBL update from the New York Post that we don't have people on that detail.

You don't believe anything else Bush says why do you believe we just stopped hunting OBL?

2007-10-22 12:57:04 · answer #6 · answered by CFB 5 · 2 2

My personal view of 911 is that it took about 5 to 6 yrs to plan and execute, it was executed with pinpoint millitary precision, lots of people must of been involved in the planning, preparation and execution of this barbaric act, when i first saw it on TV, it brought nothing but sadness for me, the extremists got there goal, world war III , where no one will win.

MOTHER NATURE AND HUMAN RACE WILL LOOSE.

2007-10-22 12:54:33 · answer #7 · answered by HI 2 · 3 0

Simon T, I think you misread the talking points. No one is claiming that 9/11 or Bin Ladin are no longer relevant. You misunderstood a line or two.

.

2007-10-22 12:54:02 · answer #8 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 5 1

Because bin Laden is a not factor. The only thing he can do is to make videos which unite islamic radicals and force them to fight harder and tougher by the tens of thousands. He's not a factor anymore. So goes con thinking, or lack thereof.

2007-10-22 12:52:38 · answer #9 · answered by Earl Grey 5 · 2 3

Yes, I agree. You are confused.

http://www.jihadwatch.org
busy bee's
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad
Even the Chinese know better: Where is he???
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-10/07/content_6154925.htm

Just us vast right wing conspiracy folks making up some better conspiracies... ask Hillary, we have tormented the poor lady for 15 yrs. I wonder why?!

2007-10-22 12:58:47 · answer #10 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 2 2

We claim that, really? I must have missed the memo. Or, you are just lying, which seems to be the best tool at the disposal of your average liberal. Can you cite anyone claiming either 9/11 or Bin Laden is irrelevant? You can't? Could it be because no one has? Allies of Al Quaida? Isn't that a bit immature for even someone as deluded by propoganda as you?

2007-10-22 12:50:34 · answer #11 · answered by Scott B 7 · 2 7

fedest.com, questions and answers