Fox: British attacks "work to our advantage"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070005

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're reading too much into this, I'm afraid. The commentator clearly intended to suggest that it is to the "Western world's" advantage to be united when experiencing such an incident.

You don't understand how these people think. Condi said the Tsunami was an "Wonderful Oppurtunity".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're reading too much into this, I'm afraid. The commentator clearly intended to suggest that it is to the "Western world's" advantage to be united when experiencing such an incident.

You don't understand how these people think. Condi said the Tsunami was an "Wonderful Oppurtunity".

I think that anyone who understood how you think might immediatly go blind.

Hint: Republicans like playing disasters to their political advantage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're reading too much into this, I'm afraid. The commentator clearly intended to suggest that it is to the "Western world's" advantage to be united when experiencing such an incident.

You don't understand how these people think. Condi said the Tsunami was an "Wonderful Oppurtunity".

I think that anyone who understood how you think might immediatly go blind.

Hint: Republicans like playing disasters to their political advantage.

Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton (with OKC) never did that, BTW.  Not have current Democrats used the problems in Iraq to their "advantage," either.

Comparing the Iraq war to this misses greatly the point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I has nothing to do with "advantage" BTW.  It has to do with something happening and the response to it.  Problem is, you are so blind, that you cannot see when Democrats do this, thus you always assume the Republicans are "taking advantage of things".

9/11 is the worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic party, even though it was Bush's fault for giving terrorism a low priority.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, your continual attempts to spin expressions of sympathy and events that are personal tradedies into political fodder to attack your enemies sickens me.

I'm just pointing out how the Republicans are doing it.  your double standards.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, your continual attempts to spin expressions of sympathy and events that are personal tradedies into political fodder to attack your enemies sickens me.

I'm just pointing out how the Republicans are doing it.  your double standards.

We are not doing sh**t, you are the only one doing it.  And you need to stop.

What do you call "work to our advantage"? And what do I need to stop? Do you have a problem with our disaster of a President being criticized?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, die.

How compassionate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, die.

How compassionate.

That's right terrorist coddler.

You are low-life gutter scum that is more interested in bashing liberals than fighting terrorism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, die.

How compassionate.

"Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. ... They're not a problem anymore." - George W Bush

Indeed.  ^^Your compassionate insight on the bombings.

I will damn well criticize Bush whenever the  I want. Just because the ing media took over a year after 9/11 to be the slightest bit critical of Bush and still loves him today doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to point out the fact that he's the worst President ever. The Republicans are spinning this attack for political gain, but no, you don't want me to criticize this disaster?  these double standards.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, die.

How compassionate.

That's right terrorist coddler.

You are low-life gutter scum that is more interested in bashing liberals than fighting terrorism.

Paging Mr. Kettle...paging Mr. Kettle. Mr. Pot is on line 1.

I have been very consistant on that Bush should have done more to fight terrorism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're reading too much into this, I'm afraid. The commentator clearly intended to suggest that it is to the "Western world's" advantage to be united when experiencing such an incident.

You don't understand how these people think. Condi said the Tsunami was an "Wonderful Oppurtunity".

Troll.

Brilliant argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh? All of the G8 countries were involved with the war on terror in Afganistan. I think all but Russia sent troops. Yes, Canada, France and Germany, those countries that you love to bash sent troops. In fact the US accidentily killed some Canadians there.

You are seriously ed up if you see a terrorist attack near a meeting filled with leaders WHO ALREADY SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR as an oppurtunity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Huh? All of the G8 countries were involved with the war on terror in Afganistan. I think all but Russia sent troops. Yes, Canada, France and Germany, those countries that you love to bash sent troops. In fact the US accidentily killed some Canadians there.

You are seriously ed up if you see a terrorist attack near a meeting filled with leaders WHO ALREADY SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR as an oppurtunity.

There is a difference between supporting the war in Afghanistan and supporting the war on terror.  The war on terror covers (militarily) Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, Somolia, and Indonesia.  The war on terror covers (diplomatically) Syria, Iran, Lybia (resolved), Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, etc.  Not all in that meeting support the war on terror.

Where were the terrorists in Iraq before we invaded?
What are we doing about terrorism in Saudi Arabia?
Pakistan is a bit iffy in their support

Are you undermining the job of the Canadian, French and German troops in Afganistan?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Where were the terrorists in Iraq before we invaded? already answered that one
What are we doing about terrorism in Saudi Arabia?already answered that one
Pakistan is a bit iffy in their support already addressed that one

Are you undermining the job of the Canadian, French and German troops in Afganistan?

Are going to ask me the same questions over and over (which I responded to less than 24 hours ago, btw)?  Obviously you either don't read what I write or don't remember.

As far as the three countries listed, no, I'm not undermining their efforts one bit.  I am stating that they are not doing enough, as established wealthy nations, to police against terrorism globally (like I already said a few posts ago).

Well, I don't remember your answer. Sure, they could be doing more against terrorism, but so could we. Iraq has distracted us.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Iraq has distracted us.

Yes, that is your opinion, just as it's my opinion that these other nations are failing to live up to their duties as successful Western nations.

Here's something you probably don't know. After Spain withdrew from Iraq, earning mindless bashing from all of the right-wing corportate media, they sent a bunch of troops to Afganistan. That didn't seem to get reported anywhere. Quit relying on right-wing news sources like Fox, and you'll realize that the situation is more complicated. However, you're right many countries including the US could be doing more to fight the war on terror. The Iraq war has distracted us from fighting the war on terror, and burned up the a lot of good will. On 9/12/01, the French papers said "We are all Americans".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

After Spain withdrew from Iraq, earning mindless bashing from all of the right-wing corportate media, they sent a bunch of troops to Afganistan. That didn't seem to get reported anywhere.

I saw it. 

That's good, but it didn't get much coverage.


However, you're right many countries including the US could be doing more to fight the war on terror. The Iraq war has distracted us from fighting the war on terror

(again, your opinion0


You don't think that the diversion of resources from the war on terror (which even Gen. Franks complained about) and the loss of good will from the international community (before you start bashing Canada, France, or Germany, remember that they did send troops to Afganitsan) has hurt the war on terror?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's good, but it didn't get much coverage.

True, but it's up to people to be informed and not sit back and expect to be spoon fed news (both liberal and conservative domestic media missed it).

What liberal domestic media?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all, because I see the war in the big picture.  Afghanistan was the "revenge" strike against those who harborred the largest mass of terrorists which happened to include Bin Laden.  Iraq was our easiest strike in the region for the second side of the war on terror to show that the US means business as well as establish a modern freely elected government to change the political landscape in the region.  As it has been said here . . . the more free the society, the less likely terrorism with grow within their borders.  As a result of Iraq, and strong diplomatic pressure, Lybia caved.  So, it has been successful. 
[/quote]

"Meant business"? How about really going after Al Qaeda instead of getting all of troops tied down fighting in some random country just to show that we "meant business". If we had to invade a country, Saudi Arabia or the Sudan would have made more sense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Fox says global warming and Africa are worthless topics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.