KillingtonZone.com

JerseyGuy wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

JerseyGuy wrote:
OK, let's pursue your "realistic" angle: WHO, exactly, is the "enemy" and "his people"? WHO do we bomb first and then "send in troops to finish the job"? Or is your "comment on War" so non-place- and time-specific as to be practically useless?

The fate of the planet hinges upon your answer...

Radical Islamic Muslims.

Bomb Iran, Iraq, "Palestine", Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia

Please tell me this is one of your patented "I didn't really mean it, I was only joking, of course I was only exaggerating for effect" comments that you retreat from seven or eight posts later...

No, seriously. Are you kidding?

No, I'm not kidding.

That's the enemy, that's where the enemy lives.

Whether or not this is realistic/feasible or if this is what I would do if I could ... was not part of your original question.

What were you expecting, an "I don't know"?

An English news reporter, after 911 stated that the US has showed great restraint against our enemies. He seemed to feel we had every right to turn the majority of the Middle East into a Nuclear Glass parking lot. Why not? do to them before they do to you.

Dr. NO wrote:An English news reporter, after 911 stated that the US has showed great restraint against our enemies. He seemed to feel we had every right to turn the majority of the Middle East into a Nuclear Glass parking lot. Why not? do to them before they do to you.

Probably has something to do with the fact that the United States of America tends to be not want to kill innocent civilians... I'm not sure that incinerating innocents is something I'd really like to stamp our flag on - but thats just my opinion..

Wasn't too long ago when people on this board would claim that there were only a few bad guys causing most of trouble in the middle east...

Has that changed?

I guess the Christmas message here is...
"Merry Christmas to all!!!!
Unless you happen to live in a country where radicals are attempting to kill Americans or our allies in the name of Allah, then we reserve the right to turn your country into "glass" in the name of "oil""

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:No, I'm not kidding.

That's the enemy, that's where the enemy lives.

I think there's a "cell" in Patterson NJ.... Pretty sure there's a plane loaded up with bombs at McGuire AFB right now that could take the city out... thats close to where you live... maybe you could push the button!!!
Then you could be a part of the "War on terror"... and a hero!!!


Remember what Scrooge said(Staying in the Christmas Spirit)
"If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. "

Dr. NO wrote:An English news reporter, after 911 stated that the US has showed great restraint against our enemies. He seemed to feel we had every right to turn the majority of the Middle East into a Nuclear Glass parking lot. Why not? do to them before they do to you.

Lemme get this straight. Osama the nutcase has a beef with us (justified/unjustifed doesn't matter) and kills 3,000 innocent people. So we turn around and vaporize 30,000,000 innocent people. And somehow we're better than him??

Amazing logic there.......

The only one that should be vaporized are people that think like extremjibber.

ABushismaDay wrote:people that think like extremjibber.

Huh? You forget to type a full sentence?

Lemme get this straight. Osama the nutcase has a beef with us (justified/unjustifed doesn't matter) and kills 3,000 innocent people. So we turn around and vaporize 30,000,000 innocent people. And somehow we're better than him??

See, if you watched Loose Change all the way through, you'd be thinking that Osama really didn't do it and that 9/11 was an inside job executed by the Bush's power cartel in the CIA. All of which was done as rouse to justify an invasion of Iraq. The evidence is actually quite strong.

But then again, you'll have to watch the movie to see for yourself.

ski_adk wrote:

Lemme get this straight. Osama the nutcase has a beef with us (justified/unjustifed doesn't matter) and kills 3,000 innocent people. So we turn around and vaporize 30,000,000 innocent people. And somehow we're better than him??

See, if you watched Loose Change all the way through, you'd be thinking that Osama really didn't do it and that 9/11 was an inside job executed by the Bush's power cartel in the CIA. All of which was done as rouse to justify an invasion of Iraq. The evidence is actually quite strong.

But then again, you'll have to watch the movie to see for yourself.

Since I didn't watch the whole video, I can't say, but maybe you can.

What was the evidence that was "quite strong" in regards to all the "fake" 9/11 widows?

No fake 9/11 widows. They're very real. Thousands of people tragically lost their lives that day. Just that the blame might not be in the right place. Just watch the freaking video already. It's not that long. And then, after watching Loose Change, check out V for Vendetta if you haven't seen that either. Watching those 2 back to back while NORML will really get you thinking!

*edit* oh yeah...the evidence is quite strong enough to raise suspicions. That's what I meant to say.

ski_adk wrote:No fake 9/11 widows. They're very real. Thousands of people tragically lost their lives that day. Just that the blame might not be in the right place. Just watch the freaking video already. It's not that long. And then, after watching Loose Change, check out V for Vendetta if you haven't seen that either. Watching those 2 back to back while NORML will really get you thinking!

*edit* oh yeah...the evidence is quite strong enough to raise suspicions. That's what I meant to say.

Oh, guess I'll have to watch it over my break. I already watched V for Vendetta while NORML, many undertones in that movie

ski_adk wrote:No fake 9/11 widows. They're very real. Thousands of people tragically lost their lives that day. Just that the blame might not be in the right place. Just watch the freaking video already. It's not that long. And then, after watching Loose Change, check out V for Vendetta if you haven't seen that either. Watching those 2 back to back while NORML will really get you thinking!

*edit* oh yeah...the evidence is quite strong enough to raise suspicions. That's what I meant to say.

Is this like Iran Contra or something? "Even though there is no evidence, the mere fact that the alligations have been brought forward demands that we investigate" or something like that.

Dr. NO wrote: Is this like Iran Contra or something? "Even though there is no evidence, the mere fact that the alligations have been brought forward demands that we investigate" or something like that.

Iran Contra turned out to be a fact that resulted in indictments.

"Let me further make it plain to the assassins in Beirut and their accomplices, wherever they may be, that America will never make concessions to terrorists -- to do so would only invite more terrorism -- nor will we ask nor pressure any other government to do so. Once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilized nations must pay." -- Ronald Reagan, 18 June 1985

"Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands.... We did not -- repeat, did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." -- Ronald Reagan, 13 November 1986

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."
-- Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987

BadDog wrote:

Dr. NO wrote: Is this like Iran Contra or something? "Even though there is no evidence, the mere fact that the alligations have been brought forward demands that we investigate" or something like that.

Iran Contra turned out to be a fact that resulted in indictments.

"Let me further make it plain to the assassins in Beirut and their accomplices, wherever they may be, that America will never make concessions to terrorists -- to do so would only invite more terrorism -- nor will we ask nor pressure any other government to do so. Once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilized nations must pay." -- Ronald Reagan, 18 June 1985

"Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands.... We did not -- repeat, did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." -- Ronald Reagan, 13 November 1986

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."
-- Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987

But the congressional investigations to some of the alligations were held on speculation, not fact or evidence. It was a Witch Hunt because they hated Reagan. Sounds like we have the same thing. Have to investigate whether we have evidence or facts or just rumor of such.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Oh, guess I'll have to watch it over my break. I already watched V for Vendetta while NORML, many undertones in that movie

Haven't been able to sit throught the whole "Loose Change" myself yet ...

... but you might enjoy this, which is short, pre-dates "Loose Change", and has a pretty good beat:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/buddy.html