All Hail the Mighty JaxSon!

**JaxSon** · August 2nd, 2004, 05:08 PM

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... 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** · August 2nd, 2004, 05:14 PM

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

**techs** · August 2nd, 2004, 05:34 PM

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

**gazzak** · August 2nd, 2004, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by JaxSon

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** · August 2nd, 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by techs

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

I gotta see this, PLEEEEASEE post a link.

**imaeditedbysowulo** · August 2nd, 2004, 05:51 PM

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** · August 2nd, 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by techs

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..."

**techs** · August 2nd, 2004, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by MobilePCPhysician

Please provide the link where it says, "we agree with techs on the Spain thing. That techs is one smart politico..."

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** · August 2nd, 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by techs

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** · August 2nd, 2004, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by techs

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** · August 2nd, 2004, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by JaxSon

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

Here's a link. Or you can just run down to your nearest bookstore pick up a copy and read it for yourself.

**WebHead** · August 2nd, 2004, 08:35 PM

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** · August 2nd, 2004, 09:15 PM

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/

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.

**TripleRLtd** · August 2nd, 2004, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

So, why did you post a link?

**imaeditedbysowulo** · August 2nd, 2004, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

So, why did you post a link?

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!