All Hail the Mighty JaxSon!

[JaxSon]

Please form a single file line to the right so that you may kiss my ring finger.

Really, I'm flattered. Seems like techs just sits online all day and night just waiting for me to sign on. I realize now that he truly likes me.

j/k...even tho I don't seem to recall him ever mentioning wife and kids, I don't really believe he is gay. Of course, I could be wrong.

It is still amazing to me that someone like myself with a little over 300 posts can offset the constant barrage of someone who literally has ten times as many posts! But I have done just that. Even tho it was not my goal to get all of the political posts moved to another, new forum, it served my purpose...to get his hate filled garbage out of the mainstream of WD. So, I have succeeded.

I have also succeeded in getting that liberal weenie to get rid of all of those hate filled websites in his lame signature. (Of course, I predict that he will put them all back in after reading this.)

As many people have stated in many other posts, you can't convert people who have already made up their minds. I won't be able to convert the libs and they won't be able to convert me. It's the small number of the "undecideds" that need to be converted. And techs is doing just that for me by showing his true colors. Like the silly thread on why the rich need to be taxed more. That is true liberalism at its best...or worst.

And his constant paronoia that I might be a Bush plant just adds to my mystique!

Once again, I started my "crusade" after reading all of the cr*p in his stupid thread: 201 people might still be alive today in Spain... (http://forums.windrivers.com/showthread.php?t=56683) where he blamed Pres. Bush for the terror attacks in Spain.

He would have you believe that he only posted in response to my posts...but that's not the way it happened. But don't take my work for it. Don't take techs' word for it. Research it for yourself if you're really interested.

In conclusion, I may bounce in and out of here as my little heart desires just to see what's going on. But I also predict that this new forum will die a slow, painful death as very few people will actually click on anything in here.

ok, your turn.

[imaeditedbysowulo]

Just so you know you have been nominated in the race for president of the Politicos forum. Carry on.

[techs]

Just so you know the 9-11 commission agreed with me on the Spain thing.

[gazzak]

But I also predict that this new forum will die a slow, painful death as very few people will actually click on anything in here.

I agree, once the novelty has worn off.

[Zil]

Just so you know the 9-11 commission agreed with me on the Spain thing.


I gotta see this, PLEEEEASEE post a link.

[imaeditedbysowulo]

I too predict a slow painful death for this forum.

After about two weeks of celebratory threads in early November, this forum will be a ghosttown.

[MobilePCPhysician]

Just so you know the 9-11 commission agreed with me on the Spain thing.
Please provide the link where it says, "we agree with techs on the Spain thing. That techs is one smart politico..."http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[techs]

Please provide the link where it says, "we agree with techs on the Spain thing. That techs is one smart politico..."http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Gee, didn't you hear how the report said that our rapid build of forces in Iraq prevented us having enough troops in Afghanistan to finish the job?

[JaxSon]

Gee, didn't you hear how the report said that our rapid build of forces in Iraq prevented us having enough troops in Afghanistan to finish the job?

LOL...man, that is weak! No link, huh?!? I thought so.

[Zil]

Gee, didn't you hear how the report said that our rapid build of forces in Iraq prevented us having enough troops in Afghanistan to finish the job?


No, I didn't. Just post a link to the information and maybe you can save face.

[WebHead]

LOL...man, that is weak! No link, huh?!? I thought so.


Here's a link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393326713/qid=1091496764/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3718151-5051941). Or you can just run down to your nearest bookstore pick up a copy and read it for yourself. :)

[WebHead]

I'm not that old,.. but I'm definately old enough to remember when there was no such thing as a "link" to "click" on and still be able to prove a point. We used to say other things like, "Go read it in the newspaper". A link proves nothing.

[Major Kong]

Umm actually if you want the report itself you can download it from the GPO for free. Be warned y'all dial uppers it's 585 pages and 4.4 megs. There is also an Executive Summary that's only 35 pages and 344KB.

You can also download individual sections as it is broke down 13 Chapters with three Appendicies. Just go here and have at it >>> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/ http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif It's actually pretty darn good.




To answer Jaxson and Zil though from what I read there is quite a bit written in Chapter 12 of the document concerning Afghanistan and there is this written: Most difficult is to define the security mission in Afghanistan.There is continuing political controversy about whether military operations in Iraq have had any effect on the scale of America’s commitment to the future of Afghanistan.The United States has largely stayed out of the central government’s struggles with dissident warlords and it has largely avoided confronting the related problem of narcotrafficking.It does go on further to say that Afghanistan is a NATO challenge as pointed out with this bullet point: NATO in particular has made Afghanistan a test of the Alliance’s ability to adapt to current security challenges of the future. NATO must pass this test. Currently, the United States and the international community envision enough support so that the central government can build a truly national army and extend essential infrastructure and minimum public services to major towns and regions.The effort relies in part on foreign civil-military teams, arranged under various national flags. The institutional commitments of NATO and the United Nations to these enterprises are weak. NATO member states are not following through;some of the other states around the world that have pledged assistance to Afghanistan are not fulfilling their pledges.And again there is more about our presence:



The U.S. presence in Afghanistan is overwhelmingly oriented toward military and security work.The State Department presence is woe-fully understaffed, and the military mission is narrowly focused on al Qaeda andTaliban remnants in the south and southeast.The U.S.government can do its part if the international community decides on a joint effort to restore the rule of law and contain rampant crime and narcotics trafficking in this crossroads of Central Asia.There is not a specific mentioning of what techs has alluded to but I haven't read the whole report as of yet. I've still got a few pages to go. There is this from a summary I read before hand: The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or cap-turing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue. Not exactly what I would call anything new, but certainly an excellent observation.

Oops I was in such a hurry to make dinner I forgot to add that the attacks in Madrid are only mentioned once in the whole report and that's in the same breath as the 2003 Bali bombings. No mention is made supporting techs assertion in re to Spain. Nor have I read any correlation with Bali either. Actually what the report says is:
The 9/11 attack was a complex international operation, the product of years of planning. Bombings like those in Bali in 2003 or Madrid in 2004, while able to take hundreds of lives, can be mounted locally. Their requirements are far more modest in size and complexity.They are more difficult to thwart.
That don't sound much like an agreement with techs to me. Unless my poor old Alaskan eyes ain't focusing right. http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[TripleRLtd]

I'm not that old,.. but I'm definately old enough to remember when there was no such thing as a "link" to "click" on and still be able to prove a point. We used to say other things like, "Go read it in the newspaper". A link proves nothing.So, why did you post a link?http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sagrin.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[imaeditedbysowulo]

So, why did you post a link?http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sagrin.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif


In wrbby's defense, I must point out that the link he posted was completely worthless and no meaningful info can be gathered from it unless you buy the book. I guess what I'm trying to say is that he didn't really post a link. There's a link in his post, but it's not that kind of link to which you are referring.

Hope that clears things up!

[TripleRLtd]

The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or cap-turing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.
Not exactly what I would call anything new, but certainly an excellent observation.Ah, so we go back to the "new type of warfare"!!
Check here:http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/asymmetric.cfm#form
..what some call fourth-generation warfare. This primarily involves land forces (although targets can be naval vessels and air assets) — irregular or guerilla warfare carried out by groups motivated by ideology, revenge, lust for power, ethnicity, religion or some other unifying bond. Such irregulars often are associated with or supported by regular military forces, but in the late 20th century this was less often the case. In fact there are countervailing trends. There are more small groups or very loosely knit organizations which employ terror by threatening to or actually attacking civilian populations and infrastructure — the so-called asymmetric style of warfare. Some receive support, safe harbor, or encouragement from nations while others seem to operate with little support.
So wrbby, for a "Presential" nominee, I would think that you would be more "learned", Ya_know what I mean? And they call dubya "dumb"???
Alright, if you don't trust yourself when "clicking links", then buy every newpaper in the world and watch every freaking TV new show there is.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif








Or: you can try the local library.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[imaeditedbysowulo]

Ah, so we go back to the "new type of warfare"!!
Check here:http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/asymmetric.cfm#form

So wrbby, for a "Presential" nominee, I would think that you would be more "learned", Ya_know what I mean? And they call dubya "dumb"???
Alright, if you don't trust yourself when "clicking links", then buy every newpaper in the world and watch every freaking TV new show there is.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif








Or: you can try the local library.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


You know you quoted Major Kong not Wrbby right?

[TripleRLtd]

You know you quoted Major Kong not Wrbby right?DOH!!!http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Yeah, that was the point ima! I was agreeing with the Major!
Think about it like this:
I was enforcing his point! Like a counterpoint against Wrbby, the Pres candidate! Or, is it Wrbya?http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sagrin.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gifhttp://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[WebHead]

I have several points to clear up here:

1> I posted a link to purchase the book. That should satisfy two requests: The first was the need for "links". So I posted a "link" to satisfy the request. The second was the page the link pointed to. Amazon.com offers a way for those who are really interested in the subject to pick up a copy of the evidence to read for themselves. Major Kong merely went a step further and found a free electronic copy on the web. (WTG MK!) :thumbs:

B> It is your choice to vote or to not vote for me as president.

chapter 8> The vastness of my knowledge is limited only to the information I have at hand. It's not about knowledge, it's about good judgement, keen decision making skills and a proven record.

9> If elected, I promise to provide hyperlinks to Amazon.com for everyone!

[Major Kong]

Major Kong merely went a step further and found a free electronic copy on the web. (WTG MK!) :thumbs:

Why thank ya Webby but actually I can't take credit. In my job I deal with the Government Printing Office (GPO) website daily (downloading the latest Congressional Federal Register, Guidance Documents or regulations). The EPA info services shot me an email last week letting me know it was available for download. In all honesty I have the GPO home site bookmarked. There is a lot of good freebie info there. :thumbs:

D'OH I have now divulged one of my secret information places! I will have to kill you all! ;)

[imaeditedbysowulo]

In all honesty I have the GPO home site bookmarked. There is a lot of good freebie info there. :thumbs:

D'OH I have now divulged one of my secret information places! I will have to kill you all! ;)


Could you post a link please?
:devil:

[Major Kong]

Could you post a link please?
:devil:
For the main site it's just http://www.gpoaccess.gov
If your looking for the 9-11 Report in whole it's http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

It's a great site for government documents. Quite a bit of it is free, but some of it is fee based.
Another good feature that's not used that much is most individual agencies have FaxBack on several topics. They usually will fax the document to ya in just a couple of minutes. http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif The best one was for the USGS, but they eliminated the service. http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sad2.gif