Al Qaeda supports impetuous McCain!

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Al Qaeda supports impetuous McCain!
68
Wed, 10-22-2008 - 2:33pm

Well, what do you know! Al Qaeda supporters support McCain--- wanting him to continue costly war.


http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Al_Qaeda_supporters_endorse_impetuous_McCain_1022.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Thu, 10-23-2008 - 5:53pm
What about it?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 2:00am

A political solution does not necessarily mean that you "negotiate" with al-Qaeda. It simply means that you look for ways to cut off their "oxygen" other than killing them outright. Why? Because the more you try to kill them, the stronger they grow.

In that context, it would for example have been a good idea to 1. really have taken absolute and effective control of ALL of Afghanistan quickly, and 2. meanwhile work extremely hard on a solution (political solution) for the tribal areas of Pakistan.

If added to that, a real initiative had been launched to solve the Palestinian issue, we could probably have been looking at a very different picture today.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 10:43am
I don't think anyone can take entire control of Afghanistan, let alone the tribal area along the borders of Pakistan.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 12:01pm

The tribal areas are governed by the Taliban and al-Qaeda. How exactly is that in our interest? That is where bin Laden fled to and where he is most likely holed up now. If we had no hope of controlling Afghanistan or catching bin Laden, then why did we go there and stay there? We should just have dropped a few random bombs on Osama's camp and have gone home, in that case.

ETA: Rereading your post I see that you place the Tribal Areas in Afghanistan. I am talking about the Tribal Areas, so-called, in Pakistan.




Edited 10/24/2008 12:04 pm ET by sild
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 12:24pm
Um....I would guess the video was posted because of the contents of it, not to show "someone who supports the media." Yet you replied with no answer whatever to the contents of the arguments/thoughts contained in the video clip. That's certainly your right, of course, but it's a bit odd that you felt motivated to comment with a frankly confusing non-sequitur about "supporting the media," but nothing about the CONTENTS of that media clip.

Konichiwa, Bitches!
McCain LOST???

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 3:32pm
I didn't like the reporter, is that better?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 5:15pm

MUCH better!

It gives the reader of your words the correct impression that you didn't dig what you heard and saw in the segment - and aren't fond of the anchor - but don't have any specific refutation of the actual CONTENT.

Thanks for clarifying.


Konichiwa, Bitches!
McCain LOST???

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 6:28pm
It's hard to refute something that is asinine from a reporter. Not worth my time. I've already said that I feel that it is a reverse psychology, even before the McCain camp said anything. So what exactly would you like me to refute?

Pages