The real October surprises in national newspapers (updated)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003777

Here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html?hp&ex=1098763200&en=fd35fdf4b6d46d61&ei=5094&partner=homepage

and if that isn't enough

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-24-insurgence-intel_x.htm

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Equally unimportant.

Yeah, terrorists with nukes, who cares?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I thought Saddam wasn't interested in nukes or WMDs?

It was just a happy, peaceful wonderful place.  Michael Moore told me so.

We're not talking about Saddam. We're talking about nationless terrorists. You know, like Al Qaeda? The IAEA was guarding it during the Saddam regime. The US didn't give a sh**t about guarding it.

Why anyone trusts you guys with a war on terrorism is beyond me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I thought you guys were more upset about the looting that took place at the local Baghdad museum?  Seems to me now that we're a few days out of an election, these weapons matter.

According to Kerry, this is the war wrong at the wrong place at the wrong time.  So who cares where these weapons go...wrong war...

I thought you guys claimed to be concerned about national security. We knew exactly were the 700,000-760,000 pounds of high powered explosives was until we invaded. Then we didn't inform the IAEA after they were missing, hoping that this story wouldn't get out.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We're not talking about Saddam. We're talking about nationless terrorists. You know, like Al Qaeda?

There is no such thing as nationless terrorists.

So the terrorists in Iraq own Iraq? Gotcha.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We're not talking about Saddam. We're talking about nationless terrorists. You know, like Al Qaeda?

There is no such thing as nationless terrorists.

riiiight.  And terrorist orginizations like the KKK are actually supported by uncle sam.   And the mafia doesn't exist either because it couldn't possibly exist without the sponsorship of the state.  Makes perfect sense, if your big on conspiracy theories anyway...

Let's look at this a few different ways:

Definition of Nation

na·tion (plural nations)
noun
1. people in land under single government: a community of people or peoples who live in a defined territory and are organized under a single government

Under that definition, it's taken that if someone live in an area with a government, that's a nation.  Where were the terrorists born?  Where are they living...in a Nation, thus not nationless.
--

2. people of same ethnicity: a community of people who share a common ethnic origin, culture, historical tradition, and, frequently, language, whether or not they live together in one territory or have their own government

Under this definition, the fact that they are Arabic or Muslim defines them as a nation, not nationless here either.
--

3. Native American people or federation: a Native American people or a federation of peoples
the Apache nation

4. land of Native American nation: a territory occupied by a Native American nation

Both of these definitions wouldn't even come close to the topic.
--

5. group with common interest: a group of people united by a common interest

This one is very interesting, so they are a Nation just by having a common interest.  hmmmm terrorism seems like it would fit this one.  They are all united, al Qaeda and HAMAS to name a few.  So whatever definition you use, they are not nationless.  They fit into a Nation, they were born somewhere in some nation, they live somewhere and have some government, and they are organized and set to a single goal.  Where are they nationless?

How about country? Where is the Al Qaeda capital? They are weakly allied, lots of splinter groups with a somwhat common goal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We really blew it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/