Quote :

"The terrorists have no borders to protect, or capital to defend."

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/05/27/ap2777507.html

5/27/2006 5:36:02 PM

your point?

5/27/2006 5:44:53 PM

that iraq thing?

5/27/2006 5:46:20 PM

your point?

5/27/2006 5:52:38 PM

^^

5/27/2006 6:06:06 PM

ok seriously, your point?

5/27/2006 6:22:33 PM

Quote :

"The terrorists have no borders to protect"

Flip-flop.

5/27/2006 6:24:43 PM

you're going to have to give me more than "flip-flop" and "that iraq thing" in order for me to get this thread

if that makes you feel better than me, have a smile at my expense, and then go ahead and tell us what the fuck is going on in this thread

5/27/2006 6:26:29 PM

^

5/27/2006 6:30:51 PM

i dont see how this is a flip-flop
unless you are trying to make the argument that because he said iraq had ties to terrorism he implied that all terrorists had borders

5/27/2006 6:32:26 PM

the president calls the iraqis that attack us terrorsts.

if the terrorist have no borders, then fighting them within the borders of iraq makes no sense.

5/27/2006 6:34:33 PM

so you are just using poor logic

i mean thats what i figured, but its good to know for sure

5/27/2006 6:40:13 PM

uhm

yeah

i liked this thread better when i had no clue what was going on

now i just feel sorry for you

this is two winners back to back for you

5/27/2006 7:11:25 PM

I am the decider.

5/27/2006 7:14:25 PM

Quote :

"the president calls the iraqis that attack us terrorsts. if the terrorist have no borders, then fighting them within the borders of iraq makes no sense."

ok mr smarty pants, what do YOU propose?

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 2:13 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2006 2:11:57 AM

fighting terrorist everywhere, not just one country

5/28/2006 7:53:26 AM

Afghanistan?

Pakistan?

Phillipines?

United States?

Indonesia?

And I'm sure there are other countries where we have an intelligence or military presence and/or intelligence sharing agreements for the express purpose of fighting terrorism. Plus, we're not the only country that expends resources on anti-terrorism activities.

5/28/2006 10:34:26 AM

Quote :

"the president calls the iraqis that attack us terrorsts. if the terrorist have no borders, then fighting them within the borders of iraq makes no sense."

This is idiotic. I would have more respect for you if your theory involved edomites.

We're fighting terrorists all across the world, and almost everywhere it is within the borders of some particular country. Christ, find an acre of land on the planet that isn't a part of any country.

5/28/2006 11:08:52 AM

^ Exactly. We fight them where we can and work to build new allies who will help us fight the terrorists. However they aren't exactly forthcoming these days. We've got Pakistan fighting terrorists in their country, and other western nations doing their damned hardest to find and root out cells located in their country (and other western nations). However we can't just go stomp around in other countries without their permission. (Like Iran, perhaps, which hasn't had the best record as far as state-sponsored terrorism goes.) As such, we fight them where we can, with the hope/assumption that as time goes on we will find political and military ways to root out terrorists in other countries in the future.

It's not a working short-term strategy, of course. If we can't gain access to one shithole where terrorism is sponsored against western nations, we'll still be fighting it everywhere else.

5/28/2006 11:35:25 AM

^^how do you know it doesnt?

5/28/2006 4:31:41 PM