Home› A Moving Train
Options

peace-lovers are al qaeda supporters.. apparently

darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
edited August 2006 in A Moving Train
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/11/headline-news-lamont/

i guess i am one of them then... being someone who is anti-war/anti-violence. this really does disgust me, especially for a journalist from a supposed inteligent news service. if it was someone on fox i would prob laugh.......
DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Options
    aoifeaoife Posts: 126
    ya that always gets on my nerves, when someones got a good argument the opposition just labels them as a terrorist or in different circumstances a communist just to dismiss them
    "If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic then all of your efforts would have been in vain. England will still rule you through her capitalists ,landlords and commercial institutions"
  • Options
    Vedderlution_BabyVedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,545
    I'm a terrorist of peace. The hawks like me least. I will bomb you with love. My warplanes are shaped like doves. While everyone one else is throwing their war, I'm just left out, wanting for more.
  • Options
    monkey spankermonkey spanker Posts: 283
    who would al-qaeda rather have in the senate? lieberman, or lamont?
  • Options
    Vedderlution_BabyVedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,545
    Seems like terrorist activity exploded after Bush came into power. I'm not saying those are facts, but that's what it seems like. So, if an ongoing war on terror creates more terrorists and violence and cause for al qaeda...then who would they really want?
  • Options
    Human TideHuman Tide Posts: 319
    monkey spanker wrote:
    who would al-qaeda rather have in the senate? lieberman, or lamont?

    Who gives a flying fuck? Why should the speculative opinion of Al-Qaeda even be discussed in our process of electing officials. American political decisions should be based upon our own analyses and opinions, irrespective of what Al Quaeda or anyone else believes is in their own interest.

    Such characterizations of candidates are utterly moronic and it blows my mind that anybody is dumb enough to follow that line of reasoning.

    I admit it - I oppose the Iraq war. I therefore love Saddam, rape, torture, terrorists, and the elimination of political dissent.
  • Options
    monkey spankermonkey spanker Posts: 283
    "Seems like terrorist activity exploded after Bush came into power."

    huh, no terrorists attacks since 9/11. i bet we can agree that neither of us thought we would go 5 years without being attacked. we just pay more attention now, and thats a good thing..although i believe the threat is exaggerated.

    and for the people that think iraq creates more terrorists...what would al-zarqawi (sp) have been doing if there were no war in iraq? would he have been running a plumbing company? would he be an accountant? or would he be planning terrorist attacks?
  • Options
    Human TideHuman Tide Posts: 319
    monkey spanker wrote:
    and for the people that think iraq creates more terrorists...what would al-zarqawi (sp) have been doing if there were no war in iraq? would he have been running a plumbing company? would he be an accountant? or would he be planning terrorist attacks?

    Yea, like those dumbasses at the National Intelligence Council.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

    By the way, what kind of following did Zarqawi have before the Iraq war? Your point is ridiculous. It was the Iraq war that increased his prestige and earned him the reputation and following. While he certainly had activities before the war, he was not a Bin Laden with a huge movement.
  • Options
    Vedderlution_BabyVedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,545
    I suppose you're right, it did explode after 9/11. DO you think that the current occupation of Iraq by U.S. western troops has not prompted more young males in that area to take up terrorism? Yes, there would still have been terrorist if the U.S. never went, but now the recruiters have examples. Now they can say "See, I told you they would come to kill us all. Do you see that tank? That tank is here to kill you. We must kill them first." Whether you agree with the war or not, its hard to ignore that.
  • Options
    keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Thats just sad.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • Options
    Vedderlution_BabyVedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,545
    How in the hell can I support Al qeada when I don't support war in any way? That's kinda funny.
  • Options
    ladygooddivaladygooddiva Posts: 4,169
    sure allways ...bla bla bla why can´t somebody can´t tell them first to think and than to talk...
  • Options
    RockinInCanadaRockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    It is quite obvious why there is a current movement to smear the peace movement...because this side is afraid finally...first we were not being taking seriously...now they are spending time trying to associate us with terrorists and smear us with lies....let them....because we are finally starting to win this battle...the evidence is all over...to anti-war candidates winning primaries, the support to re-investigate 9/11 and how the US government mis-handled it is growing, the prespective Democratic win in Congress, the beginning of a campaign blitz by Faux News to slander the peace marchers, etc.

    I take this is as positives we are getting to them...lets keep it going...the voices of reason will soon drown out the fear and war mongerers....and finally and hopefully get this world back on track....
Sign In or Register to comment.