Quote:

---

Unagipie said:

Quote:

---

JesusChrist said:
I would have bombed them myself, but I wouldn't put it in a memo.

---

Why? You're basically saying you would carry out acts of terrorism, because that's what it would be. Bombing the Al-Jazeera headquarters is simply attacking a civilian target. Those who would die in the attack would be unarmed civilians.

Is this honestly the mentality of the Pro-War crowd? That bombing civilian targets intentionally is acceptable simply because you don't like a news station's reporting bias?

Exactly what justification is there to bomb a civilian target such as the Al Jazeera station?

---

That's pretty much the mentality of Al Qaeda. 

Quote:

---

Force your opponent out in the open

---

Quote:

---

nk about my scenario. We bomb the pope's funeral and we release a doctored Bin Laden tape that no one can trace. Bin Laden may be alive or dead, who knows if he can refute it? If he is alive and does try to refute it, it usually takes over a month to get his message out from the pipeline. He doesn't comment on day to day events. If he wanted to come out publicly and protest, we would have him in a second. He could do nothing, but if he did he would blow his cover.

The people that we are fighting are using terrorism agaist us. I respect that in a way that other people don't. Terrorism is quite effective. The way that they attack us is quite effective. I would like to be effective against them.

You could send an ambulance filled with explosives into a hospital in Cairo tomorrow, and you could kill thousands. You could then release a tape on the internet that claims the bad guys are rejoicing again, and that Egypt should have done more to oppose the US. What happens with public opinion on the Arab Street? I think that selective terrorism is a good idea for victory.

---

Quote:

---

JesusChrist said:


When the pope died I had a post that suggested it might be beneficial to bomb the pope's funeral and blame it on the terrorists. I think it could have done a lot to sway public opinion. The pope was loved in many countries and many cultures, including Arabia. He was probably the most loved pope in arabic history. Bombing him and pinning that on Bin Laden would have been a coup.

---

Quote:

---

Unagipie said:
That's pretty much the mentality of Al Qaeda. 

Quote:

---

Force your opponent out in the open

---

Un-armed civilians are not anyone's opponent. Nothing would come from bombing Al Jazeera other than a massive international outcry. Video tapes of bloodied and injured Qataris in business suits and hijabs would forever be ingrained in the public mind like Abu Ghraib.

Finally, if such a thing did happen, Bush would never hear the end of it. It would forever be cited as an example of blatant militaristic terrorism.

I don't see any motivation why you would want to bomb innocent people other than the possibly that you simply hate Arabs.

Also, I actually believe Bush is telling the truth that this memo is utter non-sense. I honestly don't think Bush would do something so brash as to committ a blatant war crime outside of Iraq when he had a tough enough time trying to sell the case for war with Iraq in the first place. My guess is, a British government official who personally wasnt in sync with the war policy fabricated the memo to emberass both Bush and Blair.

---

Quote:

---

DirtMcgirt said:
Government doesn't work remember? I don't doubt more of this stuff would go on but the chance of them actually pulling it off untouched is slim to none. Even they know that. Some low-level, traitorous, enemy of freedom, democracy, and everything the US stands for would squeal for sure.

---

Quote:

---

JesusChrist said:

That is the weak point in my argument.  We could never get it done without it getting out.  But to my credit, some people still believe that the US was behind 9-11, so you could use that lunatic fringe to not even comment on this new outlandish dribble.

Personally I don't think that the government could pull it off.  I think a private affiliation that supports America would have a much better chance.  But you did expose the weakness of my argument.  It would probably get out, and if it ever did it would be a disaster.

That is not to say that fighting terrorism with terrorism wouldn't be effective.  If terrorism is effective, fighting it with all you have would be effective too.  I wouldn't mind if we played dirty.  Fuck them.

---

in your own words you said you would have bombed the popes funeral and blamed it on our enemy... i asked you if it were possible 911 were an inside job... could "a private affiliation that supports America" have pulled off the destruction of the twin towers? remember... these are your words, not that of some in the "lunatic fringe"... this is your "new outlandish dribble"...

here's a scenario for you... release an biological agent within an inner city that is demographically democrat/liberal and has a high concentration of poor. we kill 3 birds with one stone...

we eliminate part of a political group hellbent on "destroying" america...

we eliminate a small part of an economic group within society that has proved to be nothing more then a social burden on our system...

we rekindle a renewed sense of patriotism and support for the war on terrorism... the presidents numbers would surely blow through the roof!

surly my plan has just as much, if not more potential to rally americans against the scumbags we face as your plan to bomb the popes funeral... THINK BIG BRO!


these are your words behind your own ides's... YET, you don't consider yourself part of a "lunatic fringe" ?

if you make it to heaven jesus is going to stick his holy foot square up your retentive ass...


cateyes

Quote:

---

JesusChrist said:

Quote:

---

DirtMcgirt said:
Government doesn't work remember?  I don't doubt more of this stuff would go on but the chance of them actually pulling it off untouched is slim to none.  Even they know that.  Some low-level, traitorous, enemy of freedom, democracy, and everything the US stands for would squeal for sure.

---

That is the weak point in my argument.  We could never get it done without it getting out.  But to my credit, some people still believe that the US was behind 9-11, so you could use that lunatic fringe to not even comment on this new outlandish dribble.

Personally I don't think that the government could pull it off.  I think a private affiliation that supports America would have a much better chance.  But you did expose the weakness of my argument.  It would probably get out, and if it ever did it would be a disaster.

That is not to say that fighting terrorism with terrorism wouldn't be effective.  If terrorism is effective, fighting it with all you have would be effective too.  I wouldn't mind if we played dirty.  Fuck them.

---

Un armed civilians are not your enemy. You don't fight terrorism by killing the civilians of a country that is an ally with the United States

Qatar for Christ's sake. It's like lashing out at Al Qaeda by bombing Japanese civilians

Quote:

---

JonnyOnTheSpot said:
so far we have three of the shroomery's most right wing pro-war posters sitting here after months of spouting their holier than thou rhetoric about how evil the terrorists are and how righteous the war is, and now they're dropping the act and exposing themselves for what they are: hypocrites.

You sit here claiming you would commit terrorist acts, like it's no big thing. You've become what you despise. thats what blind unchecked hatred does to you i guess. Anyways, do us all a favor and omit all the bullshit moral finger pointing from your posts from now on, because now everyone sees that any judgments of morality coming from you three is nothing but bullshit, and is basically the american version of something osama bin laden would say to his constituents.

---