Recommended Posts
Amazon 7
QuoteJust sometimes one needs to act on the strength of their convictions and do what they know to be right, not what is popular.
Oh THAT was what COL NORTH was doing.. with his clandestine activities outside of the chain of command and by providing plausible deniability to the administration.
He was right... the congress that makes the laws and has the responsibility for declaring wars... was wrong.
QuoteI will only say this what we don't appreciate is your disrespectful use of their deaths just so you can get you leftist view out there for reply. Hey you are entitled to your views as much as anyone, but how dare you use these mens lives and sacrifices for your own amusement. I dont know if you have ever worn a uniform in service of your country. If you haven't then you'll never understand and have no right,
"You'll never understand" - I thought we'd discussed this point already. Go read back over the thread. If we'll "never understand" then why bother to post?
Plus you say that he's entitled to his views and yet close by saying that he has "no right" to speak them. You've contradicted yourself in practically consecutive sentences.
And I'll tell you what is disrespectful of the deaths - the fact that our soldiers were sent over there on false pretences in the first place. No WMD found, and yet there are 500+ dead american soldiers and countless more mutilated. Now THATS disrespectful. You should save your indignation for the real roots of these problems.
gary350 0
QuoteI will only say this what we don't appreciate is your disrespectful use of their deaths just so you can get you leftist view out there for reply. Hey you are entitled to your views as much as anyone, but how dare you use these mens lives and sacrifices for your own amusement. I dont know if you have ever worn a uniform in service of your country. If you haven't then you'll never understand and have no right, if you have then shame on you. Semper Fi my brothers and sisters.
With all due respect, what a crock of shit. I am hardly amused that over 500 fine men and women have died for this corrupt, lieing administration. What I am is disgusted, and when Americans get disgusted, they have the right - some say DUTY - to speak out and try to change things.
Disrespectful my ass - I have the utmost respect for the people in our armed forces - so much that I want them to live, not die, or if they have to die, at least do it because it was necessary. In my book it would be disrespectful to look the other way and say nothing and do nothing to see that this doesn't happen again.
Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism!
P.S. Thank you for your service to America.
Michele 1
Phew! Dinner's done, the phone's stopped ringing (for the moment, anyway)....and on to the questions you asked me.
Where to start....
I actually think things started back in November of 1917, with the Balfour Letter/Treaty. It was the first step which began a long road of Jewish repatriation of Israel/Palestine. Britain endorsed the concept of partition in 1937, but with the advent of WW11, and the need to have a larger allied base in the Mideast, the Brits tried to back out of the agreement in 1939. This was a horrendously tumultuous time, and things were happening (the anihilation of the Jews) that were not known widely. (suggested research on Ben-Gurion - far too much to put in here.)
In 1948, Israel successfully pressed the Balfour agreement to an end which gave them a homeland. Some people believe that once the extent of the Jewish blood spilled became widely known and understood, there was a groundswell of sympathy, and this assisted in the creation of Israel. In 1949, Israel joined the UN.
~~~~
Hold that thought...
~~~~
Wahhabism is a form of militant Islam. Some 300 years ago,
Muhammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab came the desert of Arabia, and he became something of an outcast to his family (circa 1737). He immediately began public preaching with calls to his strict version of Islam. (I am still unsure of where he developed his views, tho. Sorry.)
At this time, the Ottoman Empire had governed in Arabia as an Islamic government,a nd had passed it's apex. It was declining, failing. Wahhab argued that the decline was caused by insufficient adherence to Islamic fundamentals. These were irrational, of course, but the fact that the Empire was failing nevertheless fueled a revolution of purism expressed in Wahhabism. Subsequently, this created a significant following of Wahhabism, which was strict, fundamentalistic, and extreme in it's behaviors.
Wahhabism enforced strict forms of prayer and a recommitment to the Islamic faith a second time, to Wahhabism. (another way to see it is similar to the practices of Bar/Bat Mitzveh, Communion, and Baptism). Additionally, from what I understand, as Islam springs from both the Old and New Testaments, and has lots of similarities to "western religion", Wahhabism also called for the focus to go back to Allah, and not so much on Mohammed (Mohammed was only Allah's spokesman, in effect). As these things go, because Wahhab stated that the fall from power was due to a lack of religious faith, a very strong contingent grew with that thought as primary.
Hundreds of years of indoctrination within Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism holds some of the political high cards. From what I understand (and I could be wrong) the royal House of Saud, a centuries-old dynasty, is Wahhabist. The royal House of Saud includes all the tribal divisions in Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabism is the root of their religious tradition. Religion is by far the dominant governance theme in Saudi Arabia. All laws, ordinances, and culture comes from a religious perspective, rather than a democratic one.
Further, Wahhabism teaches that one must be prepared to die in the attempt to expand - or indeed simply preserve - itself, be intolerant of any and all other religions, and to kill when warranted to accomplish the goal of expansion.
Additionally, Wahhabism differs from Islam in other ways, some of which include the concept that the observance of ritual is more important than intentions. An example of that is to not observe all the prescribed times for prayer is to be condemned as an unbeliever. If you don't do it right, you don't believe. Simple as that. Also, prayer through the Prophet is not permitted. That is considered idolatry. Compare that with the christian or jewish traditions, or even with mainstream islam, and you have a stark comparison.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O.K., back to Israel...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When Israel was established, it threatened the status quo, and alienated many surrounding countries. They saw it as a significant threat not only because land was given to them, but because of their religion. And to make matters worse, the Jewish culture changed from a predominantly MidEastern one, but because of the return of the jews from around the world, it became a melting pot, a society which women are allowed to be without headcoving in public, where women are allowed to vote, to own property, and so forth. Further, it was a democratic society similar to the US (perhaps then I should rightly call it a representative republic), which was 180 degrees from surrounding countries. And this was a huge threat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's add a third thread to this ever lengthening discourse, shall we?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The creation of a terrorist must take many steps and a certain personality. The only time in history where there were mass suicide bombings was Japan in the end stages of WW11.
There have been many studies done on what sort of person becomes a terrorist, and the main ingredients seem to be:
~Humiliation
~Alienation
~isolation (outcast-ism)
~Authoritarian personality
The last is more of a personality trait rather than a "happening". In the authoritarian personality, there is a balance of both submission and aggression - submission to someone/something for answers and guidance, a strict adherence to ritual and formalities, and aggression to those who are perceived as less than they, or a threat to their existence which must be done away with or terminated.
Putting it this way:
Joe has the authoritarian personality. Yet, the person who he looks to for answers and guidance rejects him in some way (add humiliation), Joe feels less than he is, and perceives himself to not have self worth (add isolation). Over a period of time, this isolation seperates Joe from the rest of what he knows (add outcast). Through it all, Joe is looking to have the authority figure replaced in his life, to have acceptance (as we all need) and belong, and to have an outlet for the aggression he feels.
We have seen this in the US in the people of Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and many others. What we haven't seen here is the aspects of state run religion, said religion being a strict form of Wahhabism.
Another form of bonding, or acceptance, is the religious ritual. Wahhabism has many strict rituals, most of which I don't know. But the bonding in that arena is huge (as it is with any organized religion).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Background done (aren't you glad?? ROFL...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am going to assume you don't need a rehash of all of OBL's actions leading up to 2001 and AQ's formation. Let me know if you do....
One of the interesting things I find about OBL is he has experienced rejection and isolation over and over again, and not just from his father. OBL has nations kicking him out, telling him he is unwanted. Because he still wants to be part of his homeland, he perceives things as "the interloper's fault"...and who would the interloper be? Israel, and the US.
He can't be upset with Saudi Arabia, the Sudan. He still cared about being accepted, and about being able to expand Wahhabism. That was his home, his turf. He can't hate them...so who can he direct this anger to?? Israel. But maybe not. Israel is the big kid on the block, because they have a significant military which has shown itself to be willing to strike harshly and immediately - Israel's motto is "shoot now, ask later", and it's worked because they are still there. And make no mistake, everyone knows Israel has nukes, and may well use them should they feel threatened enough. No, who's behind Israel? Who backs them? Britain (Balfour) and the US.
Now, add to all of this Iraq's invasion to Kuwait. And the US's actions in turning Hussein out of Kuwait. Now imagine what OBL thought: those damned interlopers coming into his neighborhood, violating the sacred spots of Islam and Wahhab. Flaunting the tenets of Wahhabism, desecration abounding. (OBL is an extreme kinda guy, you know? He doesn't think like you or I do....). His anger is piqued...and his direction focussed. It is far more than an "I burned my dinner" kind of anger, it is an affront to Allah, an insult to his god. And if he can't help his god - and can't expand Wahhabism - then he is failing as a religious person, as well.
1993 - WTC first try. But, why the towers? Why NYC?
NYC is the mecca for commercialism. It is the place people go to be "stars". It is a drawing card worldwide - like the song says, "if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere." While I dunno if OBL can quote Sinatra, that song is widely known for a reason - it embodies the perception of the rest of the world. NYC is the personification of materialism. I've been there several times, but before I went, I knew where I wanted to go shop - just because I could say "I bought this on 5th Ave." It is the center of the western world's money trading system (Wall Street). It houses the soap operas, the theatre. It really symbolizes, to many people, what America is about.
So the first attack didn't go well. Less than a dozen died. So OBL regrouped, and, with the help of Ramsy Yousef, developed a strategy (check out Project Bojinka). That failed plot germinated the concept of planes as missles...and what better target than the WTC? Heck, while they're at it, might only get one shot, let's assassinate the President and take out their war center so they cannot retaliate.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, compounding the tragedy of 9/11 with the additional burden and confusion of a dead president and no centralized communication for the US military. Had that occurred, you would have seen so much panic so widespread and deep it would not have been easily assuaged. Remember when Reagan was shot? No one knew who was in power; remember Al Haig? Yeah. But now add to that no quick answer, and no military command. Big problems....bigger than I can wrap my head around.
There are pages and pages I could write about it. Above you have years of thought and research. I could add many many more examples, expound and expand ad nauseum...but I'm tired, this has taken about 2 hours to write up, and my fingers hurt....
So why did OBL choose those targets? Symbolization, attempt at the largest strike he could, death to as many people as possible with the least amount of death to his AQ, destruction symbolic to his perception of destruction in his homeland and surrounding environs, and a fiery hatred borne from and fueled by years of anger, fundamentalist wahhabism, and rejection...
Or, alternatively, OBL could just be a fuckwad.
Hey, when I get to Ireland, Ian, can I jump with you? That'd be fun.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
QuoteWhy do you think someone would attack your country in such a horrible manner?? Personal opinion will do, I don't expect you understand it.
Where to start....
I actually think things started back in November of 1917, with the Balfour Letter/Treaty. It was the first step which began a long road of Jewish repatriation of Israel/Palestine. Britain endorsed the concept of partition in 1937, but with the advent of WW11, and the need to have a larger allied base in the Mideast, the Brits tried to back out of the agreement in 1939. This was a horrendously tumultuous time, and things were happening (the anihilation of the Jews) that were not known widely. (suggested research on Ben-Gurion - far too much to put in here.)
In 1948, Israel successfully pressed the Balfour agreement to an end which gave them a homeland. Some people believe that once the extent of the Jewish blood spilled became widely known and understood, there was a groundswell of sympathy, and this assisted in the creation of Israel. In 1949, Israel joined the UN.
~~~~
Hold that thought...
~~~~
Wahhabism is a form of militant Islam. Some 300 years ago,
Muhammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab came the desert of Arabia, and he became something of an outcast to his family (circa 1737). He immediately began public preaching with calls to his strict version of Islam. (I am still unsure of where he developed his views, tho. Sorry.)
At this time, the Ottoman Empire had governed in Arabia as an Islamic government,a nd had passed it's apex. It was declining, failing. Wahhab argued that the decline was caused by insufficient adherence to Islamic fundamentals. These were irrational, of course, but the fact that the Empire was failing nevertheless fueled a revolution of purism expressed in Wahhabism. Subsequently, this created a significant following of Wahhabism, which was strict, fundamentalistic, and extreme in it's behaviors.
Wahhabism enforced strict forms of prayer and a recommitment to the Islamic faith a second time, to Wahhabism. (another way to see it is similar to the practices of Bar/Bat Mitzveh, Communion, and Baptism). Additionally, from what I understand, as Islam springs from both the Old and New Testaments, and has lots of similarities to "western religion", Wahhabism also called for the focus to go back to Allah, and not so much on Mohammed (Mohammed was only Allah's spokesman, in effect). As these things go, because Wahhab stated that the fall from power was due to a lack of religious faith, a very strong contingent grew with that thought as primary.
Hundreds of years of indoctrination within Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism holds some of the political high cards. From what I understand (and I could be wrong) the royal House of Saud, a centuries-old dynasty, is Wahhabist. The royal House of Saud includes all the tribal divisions in Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabism is the root of their religious tradition. Religion is by far the dominant governance theme in Saudi Arabia. All laws, ordinances, and culture comes from a religious perspective, rather than a democratic one.
Further, Wahhabism teaches that one must be prepared to die in the attempt to expand - or indeed simply preserve - itself, be intolerant of any and all other religions, and to kill when warranted to accomplish the goal of expansion.
Additionally, Wahhabism differs from Islam in other ways, some of which include the concept that the observance of ritual is more important than intentions. An example of that is to not observe all the prescribed times for prayer is to be condemned as an unbeliever. If you don't do it right, you don't believe. Simple as that. Also, prayer through the Prophet is not permitted. That is considered idolatry. Compare that with the christian or jewish traditions, or even with mainstream islam, and you have a stark comparison.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O.K., back to Israel...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When Israel was established, it threatened the status quo, and alienated many surrounding countries. They saw it as a significant threat not only because land was given to them, but because of their religion. And to make matters worse, the Jewish culture changed from a predominantly MidEastern one, but because of the return of the jews from around the world, it became a melting pot, a society which women are allowed to be without headcoving in public, where women are allowed to vote, to own property, and so forth. Further, it was a democratic society similar to the US (perhaps then I should rightly call it a representative republic), which was 180 degrees from surrounding countries. And this was a huge threat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's add a third thread to this ever lengthening discourse, shall we?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The creation of a terrorist must take many steps and a certain personality. The only time in history where there were mass suicide bombings was Japan in the end stages of WW11.
There have been many studies done on what sort of person becomes a terrorist, and the main ingredients seem to be:
~Humiliation
~Alienation
~isolation (outcast-ism)
~Authoritarian personality
The last is more of a personality trait rather than a "happening". In the authoritarian personality, there is a balance of both submission and aggression - submission to someone/something for answers and guidance, a strict adherence to ritual and formalities, and aggression to those who are perceived as less than they, or a threat to their existence which must be done away with or terminated.
Putting it this way:
Joe has the authoritarian personality. Yet, the person who he looks to for answers and guidance rejects him in some way (add humiliation), Joe feels less than he is, and perceives himself to not have self worth (add isolation). Over a period of time, this isolation seperates Joe from the rest of what he knows (add outcast). Through it all, Joe is looking to have the authority figure replaced in his life, to have acceptance (as we all need) and belong, and to have an outlet for the aggression he feels.
We have seen this in the US in the people of Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and many others. What we haven't seen here is the aspects of state run religion, said religion being a strict form of Wahhabism.
Another form of bonding, or acceptance, is the religious ritual. Wahhabism has many strict rituals, most of which I don't know. But the bonding in that arena is huge (as it is with any organized religion).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Background done (aren't you glad?? ROFL...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am going to assume you don't need a rehash of all of OBL's actions leading up to 2001 and AQ's formation. Let me know if you do....
One of the interesting things I find about OBL is he has experienced rejection and isolation over and over again, and not just from his father. OBL has nations kicking him out, telling him he is unwanted. Because he still wants to be part of his homeland, he perceives things as "the interloper's fault"...and who would the interloper be? Israel, and the US.
He can't be upset with Saudi Arabia, the Sudan. He still cared about being accepted, and about being able to expand Wahhabism. That was his home, his turf. He can't hate them...so who can he direct this anger to?? Israel. But maybe not. Israel is the big kid on the block, because they have a significant military which has shown itself to be willing to strike harshly and immediately - Israel's motto is "shoot now, ask later", and it's worked because they are still there. And make no mistake, everyone knows Israel has nukes, and may well use them should they feel threatened enough. No, who's behind Israel? Who backs them? Britain (Balfour) and the US.
Now, add to all of this Iraq's invasion to Kuwait. And the US's actions in turning Hussein out of Kuwait. Now imagine what OBL thought: those damned interlopers coming into his neighborhood, violating the sacred spots of Islam and Wahhab. Flaunting the tenets of Wahhabism, desecration abounding. (OBL is an extreme kinda guy, you know? He doesn't think like you or I do....). His anger is piqued...and his direction focussed. It is far more than an "I burned my dinner" kind of anger, it is an affront to Allah, an insult to his god. And if he can't help his god - and can't expand Wahhabism - then he is failing as a religious person, as well.
1993 - WTC first try. But, why the towers? Why NYC?
NYC is the mecca for commercialism. It is the place people go to be "stars". It is a drawing card worldwide - like the song says, "if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere." While I dunno if OBL can quote Sinatra, that song is widely known for a reason - it embodies the perception of the rest of the world. NYC is the personification of materialism. I've been there several times, but before I went, I knew where I wanted to go shop - just because I could say "I bought this on 5th Ave." It is the center of the western world's money trading system (Wall Street). It houses the soap operas, the theatre. It really symbolizes, to many people, what America is about.
So the first attack didn't go well. Less than a dozen died. So OBL regrouped, and, with the help of Ramsy Yousef, developed a strategy (check out Project Bojinka). That failed plot germinated the concept of planes as missles...and what better target than the WTC? Heck, while they're at it, might only get one shot, let's assassinate the President and take out their war center so they cannot retaliate.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, compounding the tragedy of 9/11 with the additional burden and confusion of a dead president and no centralized communication for the US military. Had that occurred, you would have seen so much panic so widespread and deep it would not have been easily assuaged. Remember when Reagan was shot? No one knew who was in power; remember Al Haig? Yeah. But now add to that no quick answer, and no military command. Big problems....bigger than I can wrap my head around.
There are pages and pages I could write about it. Above you have years of thought and research. I could add many many more examples, expound and expand ad nauseum...but I'm tired, this has taken about 2 hours to write up, and my fingers hurt....
So why did OBL choose those targets? Symbolization, attempt at the largest strike he could, death to as many people as possible with the least amount of death to his AQ, destruction symbolic to his perception of destruction in his homeland and surrounding environs, and a fiery hatred borne from and fueled by years of anger, fundamentalist wahhabism, and rejection...
Or, alternatively, OBL could just be a fuckwad.
Hey, when I get to Ireland, Ian, can I jump with you? That'd be fun.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
rjf98 0
Keep your thanks. Again I state is is contradictory to insult my commander in chief and tell me I'm doing a good job doing his "dirty work."
I hope you feel better saying "thanks". What you are really saying is "I know you can't think for yourselves, and even if you could you wouldn't be strong enough to go to jail to not follow orders. Don't worry little sheep I don't blame you."
I choose DAILY to follow the orders of the president and bring freedom to others and protect your right to speak out. I don't appreciate your patronizing remarks.
I hope you feel better saying "thanks". What you are really saying is "I know you can't think for yourselves, and even if you could you wouldn't be strong enough to go to jail to not follow orders. Don't worry little sheep I don't blame you."
I choose DAILY to follow the orders of the president and bring freedom to others and protect your right to speak out. I don't appreciate your patronizing remarks.
Thanks for the history lesson Michele. I really enjoyed the read and thanks for the time and effort you put into this post to help enlighten us.
Will you Marry me?
Will you Marry me?
Michele 1
QuoteWill you Marry me?
Can we meet first?
Glad to share my opinion and some things I've learned along the way.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
QuoteQuoteWill you Marry me?
Can we meet first?
Glad to share my opinion and some things I've learned along the way.
Ciels-
Michele
hey, I look like my avatar. You can see I'm a real fun guy.
Amazon 7
Well put together Michelle...
but such language.....eeesh
MOMMY MOMMY she used the F word
but such language.....eeesh
MOMMY MOMMY she used the F word
rjf98 0
HAH!!! You lose Gravitymaster. Michele jumps at my DZ. I get to marry her first
No wait.. I'm married
Still though.... Way cool way cool
No wait.. I'm married
Still though.... Way cool way cool
gary350 0
QuoteKeep your thanks. Again I state is is contradictory to insult my commander in chief and tell me I'm doing a good job doing his "dirty work."
Clarification please.
So if, as an American citizen, I disagree strongly with the president on matters pertaining to our military, are you saying I should just not say anything?
Or, are you saying that it is OK to disagree with the president and even to talk about it, but if I do, I shouldn't say anything good about the people in the military at the same time (even if that is what I strongly feel) because it might seem contradictory or patronizing to you?
Michele 1
QuoteYou can see I'm a real fun guy
Oh great. A proposal from Pennywise the Clown...sigh...well, have you ever considered why I have no avatar? It's because I am invisible!
And loling at RJF....tell ya what. We need to jump together.
And Jeanne, I didn't use the Fword. I used a derivitive of it. HA! I just edited another post for cursing, so when you said that, I couldn't remember what I had said! LOL...
Glad you all enjoyed it. Hopefully, it will show some folks that history will tell us what's gone on, if we take the time, look for the genesis of things, and apply independent thought. 'Course, that tends to take the fun outta arguing sometimes, too. We've never had a thread about the Balfour treaty, you know?? LOLOL!
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Michele 1
We could start....but, um, let's not.
(That made me laugh out loud - thanks!).
LOLOL!
Ciels-
MIchele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
(That made me laugh out loud - thanks!).
LOLOL!
Ciels-
MIchele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
bor 0
Ian84 0
WOW!!! That was the most informative piece of writing I have seen in a long time. The fact that you spent 2 hours writing it makes me feel awfully guilty that I can't possibly match it. Its 6 in the morning and I'm about start a new job but you definitely took my mind off of it for a while.
Would you mind if I copy it and send it someone? I know they would appreciate the history.
That would be really cool Michele. I hope I'm off student status by then.
As for this topic, I think I'll be done with it now. I learned loads from it so I do not think its the waste of bandwidth that some people have have claimed. Thanks to all for your input.
Would you mind if I copy it and send it someone? I know they would appreciate the history.
QuoteOr, alternatively, OBL could just be a fuckwad.
QuoteHey, when I get to Ireland, Ian, can I jump with you?
That would be really cool Michele. I hope I'm off student status by then.
As for this topic, I think I'll be done with it now. I learned loads from it so I do not think its the waste of bandwidth that some people have have claimed. Thanks to all for your input.
rjf98 0
Quote
Or, are you saying that it is OK to disagree with the president and even to talk about it, but if I do, I shouldn't say anything good about the people in the military at the same time (even if that is what I strongly feel) because it might seem contradictory or patronizing to you?
What are you thanking me for? Defending your freedom? By saying we aren't safer than we were before you don't think I've actually done that. You don't seem to understand.... there is no difference between the Commander in Chief and those of us in uniform. We are as responsible as he is for what happened.
Really what are you thankfull for. Sounds to me like your thankful you don't have to go defend freedom, you just get to reap the benefits of it.
Don't waste your time saying thank you when you don't believe in the cause. It's two faced. I've got more respect for the hippies in the 70's that were willing to get tear gassed, bitten by dogs, hit with some police batons, and get shot at for what they thought was right than some two faced person that wants to say "thank you" but doesn't even know the meaning.
Hey, thank you for not spitting in my face, but at least when people like you were doing so it was obivous who the A holes were.
I just think that europeans know everything
You should audition at your local comedy club. With lines like that you have a bright future in comedy.
never pull low......unless you are
Faber 0
QuoteThat is your biggest mistake. The WTC WAS the target. The target WAS America's economic success and the symbol of Americas ECONOMIC power and the freedom of other nations to pursue monetary wealth.
i agree,i said it would have been better if it were a military target,such as Pentagon.I dont think the people in WTC should have been killed,neither do i think the people in Pentagon should have been killed but i can understand why they were killed.
Stay safe
Stefan Faber
Faber 0
QuoteBy verbally attacking soldiers that are willing to give there lives for what is right
your WRONG,we aint attacing the soldies,we are attacing thouse who desides were the soldies has to go to war.well thats my oppinion anyway
Stay safe
Stefan Faber
I will only say this what we don't appreciate is your disrespectful use of their deaths just so you can get you leftist view out there for reply. Hey you are entitled to your views as much as anyone, but how dare you use these mens lives and sacrifices for your own amusement. I dont know if you have ever worn a uniform in service of your country. If you haven't then you'll never understand and have no right, if you have then shame on you. Semper Fi my brothers and sisters.
I will be sure, always
SEMPER FI
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites