+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 47

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?
    The opposition to Alberto Gonzales seems to think so.

    Since the early 1990s, al Qaeda has, at the very least, killed American soldiers and desecrated their remains in Somalia; urged the murder of all Americans — civilians and military alike — wherever on the globe they may be found; conducted simultaneous sneak attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, resulting in the mass murder of over 240 civilians (the vast majority of them Muslims and non-Americans); killed 17 American seamen in an attempt to blow up the destroyer, the U.S.S. Cole; murdered 3,000 Americans in hijack attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; and spearheaded guerrilla wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have killed well over a thousand American military personnel and countless civilians.

    In addition to killing civilians in sneak attacks — commonly, detonating bombs within nondescript cars parked or driven in broad daylight in densely populated areas — they also secrete themselves among their once and future victims. They wear no distinguishing insignia to segregate themselves as a militia. They use mosques and schools and hospitals to plan and store weaponry. They feign surrender and then open fire on unsuspecting coalition forces attempting the civilized act of detaining, rather than shooting, them. As for treatment of their own detainees, their practice ranges from execution-style homicide to beastly beheading — usually captured on film and circulated on the Internet to buck up the other savages while scaring the living hell out of everyone else.

    So here's an idea: Let's make a treaty with them.

    Let's reward this behavior with a grant of honorable-combatant status. Let's give them the same kind of benefits the Geneva Conventions reserve for soldiers who play by the rules: who identify themselves as soldiers; who don't intentionally murder civilians; who do not threaten schools, hospitals, and houses of worship by turning them into military targets; who grant quarter honorably; and who treat their captives with dignity and respect. Let's provide al Qaeda with "amenities such as dormitories, kitchenettes, sports equipment, canteens, and a monthly pay allowance in Swiss francs" — the Geneva prescriptions for POWs that Lee A. Casey and David Rivkin Jr. outline with characteristic clarity in the current issue of National Review.

    Of course, we'll have to find someone from al Qaeda able to sign the treaty. This is no small issue. Leaving aside the whole fugitive-on-the-lam problem, treaties, you see, are signed between and among nation states. Many nation states are repressive, but the nation-state as a concept is generally thought to be a human good — an organizing arrangement under which a variegated society can flourish. Al Qaeda, of course, is not a nation state. It is an international terrorist network. It's also not too variegated. It exists to terrorize and kill, which tends to chill a vibrant social order.

    Nevertheless, we can surely find someone to ink the deal. News recently broke that Abu Musab Zarqawi just got a big promotion, becoming al Qaeda's "Emir of the Jihad" in Iraq. Sure, it's not exactly our usual conception of a chief executive, a secretary of state, or a foreign minister. But Zarqawi, a Jordanian, finds himself in Iraq because right now that is the best place to kill Americans. That's the skill at which he is sufficiently adept to have gotten the gig because that's exactly what a high official in al Qaeda is supposed to do. Not your idea of the kind of entity you envision the good ol' U.S.A. signing treaties with? You are so 20th century!

    In fact, saying such things aloud may make progressive-minded humanitarian activists start thinking of you as one of those troglodytes who actually thinks sitting down to negotiate anything with such an entity, or granting it the tiniest concession, legitimizes and empowers it. These, obviously, are the same backward thinkers who have the temerity to suggest that giving Geneva Convention protections to terrorists rewards, therefore encourages, and therefore guarantees more terrorism. Talk about quaint.

    Quaint, of course, brings us to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel nominated by President Bush to be the next attorney general of the United States. Gonzales has been numbingly libeled for having called the Geneva Conventions "quaint." Naturally, this is not close to what he said. Rather, he asserted that the terrorist style of warfare had rendered "quaint" the notion that al Qaeda captives merited such Geneva-based provisions as "commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms and scientific instruments." Incidentally, he made this statement in a memorandum to his boss — that is, from the White House counsel to the president. In the height of mid-90s scandal, Democrats and the mainstream media tended to view the very thought of intruding on that relationship as an unspeakable violation of the attorney-client privilege and the end of the Bill of Rights as we know it. Now...they want the rest of the memos. Evidently, they've evolved.

    This, no doubt, is because Gonzales, aside from being an intimate of the sitting Republican president, is also, alas, one of those sticks-in-the-mud who thinks we shouldn't treat al Qaeda terrorists as if we had a treaty with them, and that we shouldn't accord the privileges and immunities of honorable warfare to barbarians. For such positions has be been castigated by a hastily assembled group of retired military brass with a recent history of anti-Bush activism, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the usual cabal of "human- rights activists" who, though they've never met a terrorist they wouldn't coddle, don't seem to get particularly whipped up over humans whose work day is interrupted by hijacked jumbo jets crashing through office windows.

    In any event, on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Gonzales. Critics are urging committee Democrats to question the nominee aggressively on the benighted administration policy of no Geneva protections for terrorists whose lives are singularly dedicated to annihilating Americans. Fair game, one supposes, but no senator should be allowed to take up the torch without at least answering a simple question: Do you favor a treaty with al Qaeda?

    The inarguable, inconvenient fact is we have no such treaty. Al Qaeda is not and, indeed, cannot be among Geneva's high contracting parties. It is not a country. The U.S. has for over two decades expressly rejected a treaty — the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions — that would have vested terrorists with Geneva protections. I hate to spoil the party, but if we're going to have such a treaty with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, it will have to be a new one.

    Under Article III of the Constitution, the consent of two thirds of the Senate's membership is required before a treaty can be approved. Although we haven't yet been able to arrange getting President Bush and Emir Zarqawi together for a signing ceremony, getting the senators on record — especially given the caviling over Gonzales — could really get the ball rolling. So let's ask them. All of them. Plain and simple, so the folks back home know just where you stand: Do you favor a treaty with al Qaeda?

    Does anyone think there are 67 yea votes on that one? How about ten? How about one? No. The fact is, outside a lunatic fringe, there's not a politician in America who would support something so absurd.

    The next attorney general's position on this matter is not a radical view. It's America's view. So ask away — it'll be good for all of us to know where everyone stands.

    — Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

    * * *

    This is from a year ago...funny how nothing changes. Liberals are even more interested in the rights of terrorists than they were then. Regular, normal Americans, however, are not.
    Last edited by pwrone; 01-20-2006 at 12:05 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Wipe out Iraq and throw them into turmoil because they MIGHT have WMD's but negociate with Osama Bin Laden who ordered planes crashed into the twin towers?

    What is to negociate? We were supposed to have gotten OBL over 4 years ago. I say put him and Bush into a boxing ring, whoever survives earned their life back.

    Lady Mod

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nunya
    Posts
    996

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Lady mod, don't worry, it won't be long before yirm, dchristie, umd, bacardi and ronnie of toronto are going to expose Bush as some sort of retard for not striking a peaceful negotiation with ubl. Will this happen after a terror attack, or before? That is the only real question.

  4. #4
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Our Native American people would say: the White man's treaty word is no
    good. If you want to know why we feel this way than consider what has
    happened to the land that was once our nation...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raider
    Lady mod, don't worry, it won't be long before yirm, dchristie, umd, bacardi and ronnie of toronto are going to expose Bush as some sort of retard for not striking a peaceful negotiation with ubl. Will this happen after a terror attack, or before? That is the only real question.
    Raider,

    I don't think that was a real offer from OBL, I think it was staged. And I doubt that any of the others you mention think the offer for negociation was any more legitimate than I did.

    Lady Mod

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    That's some incredible spin justifying the abuse and even torture of detainees in the so-called "war on terrorism".

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    pwrone,
    Don't ya think it's important to note your source?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0501050715.asp

    nationalreview.

    Founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., considered one of the godfathers of American conservatism, National Review, based in New York City, is one of the oldest and most influential conservative magazines in the United States. It regularly publishes the work of some of the nation's leading conservatives.

    In the early 1990s they had with the Heritage Foundation a joint venture called 'Town Hall'. This BBS became a forum on Compuserve in 1994 and in June 1995 the web site 'townhall.com' went live. Currently it is only a Heritage Foundation project called 'Townhall.com'.

    The current director of the National Review is Jeff Sandefer, President of the Texas-based energy investment firm Sandefer Capital.

    Might be some spin here. Be careful don't want ya to get to dizzy...

  8. 01-20-2006, 03:57 AM


  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raider
    Lady mod, don't worry, it won't be long before yirm, dchristie, umd, bacardi and ronnie of toronto are going to expose Bush as some sort of retard for not striking a peaceful negotiation with ubl. Will this happen after a terror attack, or before? That is the only real question.

    Ha..ha..ha..Exposing Bush as a retard is like "exposing" King Kong as a giant gorilla.
    Last edited by dante; 01-20-2006 at 04:05 AM.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nunya
    Posts
    996

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Three in a row! Good job lefties - you didn't even take a position. Did you learn that from Kerry?

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phinnly Slash Buster
    pwrone,
    Don't ya think it's important to note your source?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0501050715.asp

    nationalreview.

    Founded by William F. Buckley, Jr., considered one of the godfathers of American conservatism, National Review, based in New York City, is one of the oldest and most influential conservative magazines in the United States. It regularly publishes the work of some of the nation's leading conservatives.

    In the early 1990s they had with the Heritage Foundation a joint venture called 'Town Hall'. This BBS became a forum on Compuserve in 1994 and in June 1995 the web site 'townhall.com' went live. Currently it is only a Heritage Foundation project called 'Townhall.com'.

    The current director of the National Review is Jeff Sandefer, President of the Texas-based energy investment firm Sandefer Capital.

    Might be some spin here. Be careful don't want ya to get to dizzy...


    I believe the author is cited quite clearly....in case you didn't catch it:

    Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    I believe the author is cited quite clearly....in case you didn't catch it:

    Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
    - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
    Last edited by dante; 01-20-2006 at 05:46 AM.

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nunya
    Posts
    996

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Quote Originally Posted by dante
    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
    - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
    Crusty misquoting his president again. Here's the quote everybody. Please don't give too much credence to crusties "liberal" quoting practices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bush Press Conference 3-13-02
    Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

    THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

    Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

    So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

    And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

    Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

    But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

    And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

    Mike Allen. I'm working my way back, slowly but surely. Michael.
    Hear me now, believe me later: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020313-8.html

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raider
    Crusty misquoting his president again. Here's the quote everybody. Please don't give too much credence to crusties "liberal" quoting practices.



    Hear me now, believe me later: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020313-8.html
    Burying the statement in the rest of Bush's innane, incoherent and obdurate psycho-babble doesn't alter it one bit, as you would like to convince yourself. So, you can go back now and bury your nose nice and deep in your "commander and thief's" hole where it usually is. We've heard it all before. In the meantime, if you get a break, here's some more goodies for you to suck on in your spare time. Just a thought. After all the criminal spying on American citizens, guess when Bush heard about Bin Laden's latest threats. Yep..the same time we did. Ha! It's a case of the blind leading the stupid. Read it 'n' freep, RatTurd m'lad.

    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    The top CIA counterterrorism officer who tracked Osama bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan says the United States could have captured the terrorist leader if President George W. Bush and the American military had devoted the necessary resources to the hunt and capture.

    In addition, says Gary Bernsten, a decorated espionage officer, the post-Cold War downturn in recruitment and attention to espionage has left a crippled spy agency that will need a decade or more to build up its clandestine service for the U.S. war on terrorism.

    Berntsen led a paramilitary unit code-named "Jawbreaker" in the war that toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks.

    He says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the Bush administration was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent, allowing bin Laden to escape.
    Last edited by dante; 01-20-2006 at 06:55 AM.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    A more accurate transcription:

    "Again, you know, I don't know where he is. I, uh...heh...uh...I, uh, I, I repeat what I said, I truly am not that concerned about him." -- George W. Bush, 3/13/02

    I have the video if you really want to strain gnats.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu
    A more accurate transcription:

    "Again, you know, I don't know where he is. I, uh...heh...uh...I, uh, I, I repeat what I said, I truly am not that concerned about him." -- George W. Bush, 3/13/02

    I have the video if you really want to strain gnats.
    ROFLMAO, oh Raider will want to strain gnats. He'll strain them until he's convinced, (no time limit on that) he's won his argument. Whether or not he actually WON an argument is irrelevant, it's only what he perceives as victory that makes it a victory.

    Lady Mod

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Should We Make a Treaty with al Qaeda?

    Isn't the entire timing on this Osama offer rather interesting?

    1) President Bush is suffering from acute lack of popularity.
    2) It's a voting year.
    3) The war in Iraq is unpopular.
    4) Trouble in the White House.
    5) Illegal wire tapping under scrutiny.
    6) Iran about to be sanctioned.
    7) The military had to lower it's standards and offer more perks to
    increase recruitment. Army takes an Asvap as low as 41 now.
    8) Our own borders are woefully unprotected.

    Etc...etc...etc...

    Now, all of a sudden, Osama says "Watch out America, we are coming after you again"? Oh but let's make a deal.

    Oh please, if this isn't some ploy to make people check themselves and "come into line" with this administrations policies on this made up war on terrorism, nothing is.

    You know that Bush and company knows American's will not want to make a deal with a terrorist so you watch, we are about to lose more civil liberties, and declare some kind of war on Baghdad most likely. Justification for more reckless spending, more war. Keep Bush in control. Geez...

    Lady Mod
    *******************************************


    The 'Ism' at the Gate


    If you look at the past 100 years or so, you will see plainly that there has
    always been an "ism" at the gates.


    The old idea of controlling the people and increasing government power by
    warning of an "enemy at the gates" dates back to the Roman Empire, and
    probably well before that. It is among those tactics that are obvious to any
    dishonest person coveting power.


    The first isms at the gate were socialism, pacifism and anarchism; then came
    fascism; next was communism; and now it's terrorism. The advantage of all
    the isms is that they appeal directly to another ism - nationalism, which is
    about the only one of the isms the great mass of people can comprehend.


    Most people can't tell you differences between socialism, communism, fascism
    or anarchism, but everyone knows who he or she is, and who isn't one of the
    group. "By God, I'm an American, and those guys ain't."


    Don't feel insulted. The human brain is wired to recognize differences. Be
    honest. If you're white and you meet a black person, what first registers?
    His blackness. And vice versa. The priority of noticing differences was
    probably a needed survival skill when humans lived in caves. Most primitive
    tribes lived by the rule that every stranger was an enemy until he proved
    himself to be a friend. As a matter of fact, that's still a good rule to
    live by.


    What Americans ought to realize, however, is that the Establishment fans the
    fear about the current ism in order to increase its power and make money.
    You should know, for example, that American capitalists and American capital
    built a great deal of the Soviet Union's infrastructure, even long after the
    Cold War started. In fact, while Americans were dying presumably to fight
    communism in Vietnam, the U.S. was trading with communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and protecting it in Cuba.


    Establishment types never allow principle to interfere with their
    money-seeking. I recall a quote in a major financial newspaper by the then-
    president of one of America's largest banks. He had been asked if he felt
    uncomfortable making loans to communist Poland. "We don't care what kind of
    government they have," he said, "as long as they pay their bills."


    I cherish that quote, along with one from an anonymous Kuwaiti who, when
    asked why he was not fighting to liberate his country from Iraq, replied:
    "Why should I? That's what our American slaves are for."


    The war on terrorism is phony. True, 19 of Osama bin Laden's boys were able
    to hit us pretty hard, thanks to luck and our own government's incompetence.
    But that was one organization and one hit. President Bush, after he got his
    instructions from the Establishment, declared war on every underground
    organization in the world, 95 percent of which were not even thinking of us,
    much less thinking about attacking us.


    Colombian rebels are against the Colombian government; Irish Republicans
    oppose British control of Northern Ireland; Palestinian groups are fighting
    Israeli occupation; and so on and so on. People employing guerrilla-war
    tactics to seek independence, an end to occupation, the overthrow of a
    dictator or to attain some degree of autonomy are not our enemies.


    Bin Laden is our enemy, and we should have concentrated on him. As it is,
    President Bush's declaration of war on terrorism (a mistake on its face,
    because terrorism is a tactic, not a state) sent a message to every head of
    state in the world: If people oppose your government, call them terrorists,
    and you have our blessing to kill and torture to your heart's desire.


    The question is, When are we, the American people, going to stop being saps
    and realize that the foreign devils du jour are always designed to distract
    us from the ills, sins and injustices taking place in our own country? I
    suspect the answer is "never." I've come to believe that when the Founding
    Fathers said people were smart enough to govern themselves, they made a
    mistake. I, of course, include myself among the saps having believed in and
    been disappointed by many politicians.

    .
    Last edited by sojustask; 01-20-2006 at 05:04 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-26-2015, 07:52 PM
  2. GOP Rat Vermin Playing Politics With Nuke Treaty
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-21-2010, 07:25 PM
  3. Obama and Medvedev sign disarmament treaty
    By Yeah Well Fine Then in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-13-2010, 11:06 PM
  4. The Law of the Sea Treaty
    By BVR USA Liaison in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-11-2007, 07:14 AM
  5. All 9 Nuclear Powers Are Violating Non-Proliferation Treaty
    By Solve et Coagula in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-10-2006, 06:36 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 2001, accurate, act, action, actions, administration, age, agency, agreed, aid, al qaeda, aliens, alive, allowed, allowing, american, andrew, another, answer, appeal, appears, approved, arms, army, art, article, assembly, ation, attack, attacked, attacking, attacks, attention, attorney general, author, authority, auto, awarded, baghdad, banks, base, based, basically, beat, benefits, bet, bigger, bin, bin laden, bit, blood, boards, bombs, boo, book, borders, boxing, brain, break, british, broke, building, bush, buster, called, calling, camps, cannot, capital, captured, care, careful, cars, case, catch, center, cer, ceremony, chain, charter, che, child, citizenry, citizens, civil, civil liberties, clever, close, closes, coal, coddle, code, coming, commit, common, communism, communist, con, concerned, concession, condi, conservative, conservatives, contracting, coo, country, cove, credible, cuba, current, dan, david, day, days, dea, dead, death, decades, decision, declared, deep, delusional, demanding, democrats, demons, department, des, desire, destroyed, detonating, development, didn, differences, dig, direction, director, disqualified, dissidents, doesn, dog, don, double, dow, drew, duc, due, dying, early, earned, easily, effective, eliminate, eme, emergency, ended, ends, enemy, entire, environment, equipment, error, espionage, establishment, europe, eva, event, exists, expose, exposing, face, facing, fair, fans, favor, fear, federal, feel, feeling, feels, final, financial, finds, folks, forces, foreign, foundation, fra, france, future, gary, george, george w. bush, god, good, goose, gov, grant, great, group, groups, guarantee, guy, guys, had, hall, hands, hard, head, hear, heard, heart, hell, helped, heritage, hey, hide, hiding, high, his, hole, homicide, honorable, house, html, huma, human, humanitarian, humans, hussein, ial, identify, idiot, ignorance, ignorant, iii, ill, ime, impact, important, include, inconvenient, incredible, indoctrination, insulted, intelligence, inter, interested, involved, ion, iraq, ireland, islamic, isn, issue, jeff, jihad, john, joint, jones, joy, judiciary, judiciary committee, justices, kelly, kenya, kerry, killed, killers, kind, laden, lady, land, last, latest, leading, leaving, lee, legally, legitimate, les, lets, liberal, liberals, life, light, likes, line, live, lived, lives, living, loans, logic, lol, long, loose, lose, lot, luck, lunatic, mainstream, make money, making, martial, martial law, mass, master, match, matter, mea, medal, meet, member, membership, men, mentally, mention, militia, mind, minister, misinformed, moment, moral, more, nam, named, nation, national, need, needed, neo, network, newspaper, nice, normal, nose, note, nuke, offer, office, official, officials, only, open, oral, order, ordered, organization, organizations, oro, osama bin laden, overthrow, oxygen, part, party, pas, pathetic, patriot, peace, peaceful, pen, pentagon, people, person, persons, pictures, place, planes, play, ploy, point, poland, policies, policy, politician, pos, posing, position, post, poster, posters, posting, power, presiden, pro, process, productive, protect, protected, protecting, protection, public, published, quarter, question, quote, raise, ran, ranking, rated, rea, read, reagan, real, rebels, red, registers, regular, reich, releases, reminder, removed, rendered, represent, reserve, resigned, respect, rest, retired, reward, rich, ring, rio, rip, ron, ronnie, room, row, run, rushed, safe, safety, scientific, search, secretary, sen, senate, senate judiciary committee, senators, sense, september, serve, service, set, sexually, shoo, shooting, shouldn, signed, signing, simple, site, small, socialism, soldiers, soo, sorry, sort, source, speaking, special, specialty, spend, staged, star, start, starts, state, states, status, stay, sten, step, sticks, stop, stranger, strategy, stream, street, striking, stupid, style, suc, suck, sul, survival, swiss, system, tactics, taken, takes, taliban, talk, tanzania, targets, ted, terror, terrorist, texas, they, thinks, thought, thread, threaten, threatened, threats, throw, thugs, thursday, tie, time, times, timing, tired, tools, top, tor, toronto, tough, tourists, tower, towers, town, trac, track, trade, traitor, treatment, trolling, troops, trouble, truck, trust, tse, turd, turning, twin, types, ultimate, union, united, united states, urged, urgent, url, vic, vice, victory, video, view, vince, viola, violated, votes, voting, warfare, wars, waste, watch, weak, wearing, win, wire, wired, won, working, wow, wrong, yahoo, year, years, york

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •