5 female captives released regarding Jill Carroll

[CrAz3D]

The prisoners released were all a "coincidence" as the news stated here. Hmm, interesting.

heh, I'm guessing coincidence really means "in direct relation to"

[dx]

I believe it was Bush who said that, I'm not fully sure so I don't want to go and start bashing him 

[CrAz3D]

Probably someone in the news just speculating.

But I totally believe that it is related, related & retarded

[Adron]

Adron, you are wrong. The only thing that this shows is that you are ready to bash the United States the 1st chance you get without knowing any details. This also shows that your posts should never be taken seriously unless proven otherwise.

You already proved that your posts can never be taken seriously a long time ago. And that there is a very convenient "coincidence" that the US has engineered to pretend to not give in to terrorist demands.

[iago]

Probably someone in the news just speculating.

But I totally believe that it is related, related & retarded

You already proved that your posts can never be taken seriously a long time ago. And that there is a very convenient "coincidence" that the US has engineered to pretend to not give in to terrorist demands.

Woah, Adron and crAz3D can't be on the same side! 

[Arta]

Not if you kill them all

You can't. That's why the war on terrorism is pointless, as I've previously asserted.

[iago]

Not if you kill them all

You can't. That's why the war on terrorism is pointless, as I've previously asserted.

Exactly! 

If you decided to nuke the Middle East, I'd make it my goal in life to get nuclear technology and set it off in the USA. 

[Grok]

The prisoners released were all a "coincidence" as the news stated here. Hmm, interesting.

Before the 5 female prisoner's coincidental release, I felt something was different about the White House's response toward Jill Carroll being taken hostage.  I said it in another thread and it is still there.

The coincidental release of 5 female prisoners, which happens to be part of what the captors are demanding, is of no surprise to me.  I expect further concessions to the terrorists for Jill Carroll's release.

Why?  I do not know.  But read the text of the latest news on this.  It states that support for her release has come from everyone, and goes down a list of groups around the world asking her to be unharmed and freed.

I really believe the US has called in all favors worldwide on her.  So why is this different?  They have not done this for any other captured person.  Why her?

Perhaps we only negotiate with terrorists when they kidnap the correct person.

[CrAz3D]

Not if you kill them all

You can't. That's why the war on terrorism is pointless, as I've previously asserted.

Exactly! 

If you decided to nuke the Middle East, I'd make it my goal in life to get nuclear technology and set it off in the USA. 

I didn't say nuke 'em, if we did then there would be too much nuclear fallout & it'd be obnoxious to go in & take the oil
We could just contine what Saddam did & use chemicals to kill off the people

[Warrior]

You can't kill them ALL, you can pick them off until they collapse from no funding/leadership

You divide them up and pick off thier big boys and they'll run and hide like they're mostly doing now. We're embarassing them and they hate it which is why they abduct people and set off pathetic car bombs. So let's see, they went from flying planes into buildings to car bombs. That seems like a step in the right direction imho.

Listen, I don't know about you guys but when someone attacks my country I for one want revenge and I want whoever did it tortured in the most inhumane way possible.  If someone attacked YOUR country and killed THOUSANDS of people, you'd be pretty ticked too.
We have muscles and we can flex them whenever the hell we want to beat the shit out of whoever the hell we want, and no one is going to stop us from killing terrorists regardless of what they "think" because plain and simple they weren't in the US on 9/11 to watch people die as the towers collapsed.

[Grok]

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Nothing.  That has been settled.

The people taking American hostages such as Jill Carroll are doing what?  Demanding they get to attack the US again?  No, they are demanding release of the hostages WE have in captivity, their wives and girlfriends, and mothers.  If your wife/girlfriend/mother were held by Saddam Hussein, who had invaded your state and installed a new government of his own, what would YOU do?  Take this question very seriously because that is what the hostage-takers are facing.  These people are defending their homeland and attempting to recover their families from the invaders.

Every time some gets you to equate Iraq with 9/11, we lose.

[CrAz3D]

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Nothing.  That has been settled.

PSSST, we're talking about terrorism, terrorists attacked NYC on 9/11/01.

[dx]

The prisoners released were all a "coincidence" as the news stated here. Hmm, interesting.

Before the 5 female prisoner's coincidental release, I felt something was different about the White House's response toward Jill Carroll being taken hostage.  I said it in another thread and it is still there.

The coincidental release of 5 female prisoners, which happens to be part of what the captors are demanding, is of no surprise to me.  I expect further concessions to the terrorists for Jill Carroll's release.

Why?  I do not know.  But read the text of the latest news on this.  It states that support for her release has come from everyone, and goes down a list of groups around the world asking her to be unharmed and freed.

I really believe the US has called in all favors worldwide on her.  So why is this different?  They have not done this for any other captured person.  Why her?

Perhaps we only negotiate with terrorists when they kidnap the correct person.

Exactly, let's see if we could negotiate with a black hostage? Pfft.

[Warrior]

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Nothing.  That has been settled.

The people taking American hostages such as Jill Carroll are doing what?  Demanding they get to attack the US again?  No, they are demanding release of the hostages WE have in captivity, their wives and girlfriends, and mothers.  If your wife/girlfriend/mother were held by Saddam Hussein, who had invaded your state and installed a new government of his own, what would YOU do?  Take this question very seriously because that is what the hostage-takers are facing.  These people are defending their homeland and attempting to recover their families from the invaders.

Every time some gets you to equate Iraq with 9/11, we lose.

Let's see, terrorists attacked 9/11 and terrorists are attacking soldiers in iraq. I'm not arguing Saddam vs 9/11 I'm arguing Terrorists vs Terrorist and why the US chooses to go after them. I thought I had made that pretty clear but obviously not. Now, the way I see it they should be negotiating with US since frankly they dont hold anything that we want. They are at our mercy not the other way around and I think they only options they should have is surrender or die.

[Invert]

We have iago tell us that there is no "effective ways to stop terrorism by force"
I gave him an example of an Israeli soldier shooting and killing a terrorist before he has a chance to set off his bomb. iago comes back and says "If a terrorist did that, then Israel declared war on the terrorist's country and started attacking their cities, then no, that doesn't stop the terrorists." I'm glad iago can guess on the end result of an "If".
Let's see, United States attacked Afghanistan (a terrorist's country) and we have not had an act of terrorism in the United States since then!

iago also wrote "I didn't say 'violence won't stop a terrorist', obviously it will.  I said it won't stop terrorism, which is completely different." According to him "force" will not stop terror attacks but "violence" will. According to iago he believes that there is no relation between a terrorist and terrorism.
This sort of non-logical liberal thinking is why I consider it to be a mental disability.

Let me try to explain this using logic:
A terrorist commits an act of terror. This behavior is referred to as an act of terrorism.
When a terrorist is killed he is no longer able to commit any or any more acts of terror.
If no acts of terror are committed there is no more terrorism.

Also notice the word selection of liberals, in this case iago used the word "violence" to my example. So he implies that when an Israeli soldier kills a terrorist before he blows himself up he is committing an act of violence and not defending himself.

iago uses the argument that if you kill one more will come. You are right more will come, but there is not an unlimited amount of terrorists so in that case you kill more that come. It's called discouraging the enemy.

Pay attention to the things iago writes; "If you decided to nuke the Middle East, I'd make it my goal in life to get nuclear technology and set it off in the USA." Should we take him and his arguments seriously?

It seems that logic is the liberal's worst enemy so they do not support it.

We have Arta screaming that "the war on terrorism is pointless" when in fact since the United States declared the war on terrorism the United Stated has not had another terror attack. To me it's not pointless and it works.

We have Grok tell us that he felt something different about the United States releasing multiple prisoners that included 5 females amongst them. He writes "is of no surprise to me" about the release of 5 females amongst other prisoners that officials stated have nothing to do with Jill Carroll's abductors demands. All this because he had a feeeeeeling. Just to remind you that her abductors wanted all woman prisoners released and not just 5 but who knows, Grok had a feeeeeeling. We all know when a liberal has a feeling it's as good as a fact to them.

Jill Carroll is a liberal Muslim-extremist sympathizer and by my standards is an anti-American reporter. We should not commit any troops to go search for her. To me a soldier's life should not be put in danger just because some nut case went to Iraq fully understanding the dangers got what she deserved. Hamas made a request for her safe release, you have to wonder why they would do that for an American when they despise Americans. This is an old Arabic saying "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

As for Grok trying to piece a conspiracy theory together I wish him luck, maybe he will find aliens being kept at Area 51. Grok do you have a feeling about Area 51?

Once again notice the language used by liberals, in this case Grok. Grok wrote "they are demanding release of the hostages WE have in captivity". He does not call them prisoners he calls them "hostages". I'm guessing Grok had a feeeeeeling about them being innocent and them being held in jail for no reason. He must have had a feeeeeeling about them being honest Iraqi citizens that the evil United States snatched from the streets of Iraq and thrown in prison. Once again an example of how a feeeeeeling is just as good as a fact for a liberal.

After all of this I figured something out; if you want to make the liberals angry all you have to do is defend the United States.

Liberalism is a mental and moral handicap.