That's because they're an integral part of the global war on terror - for the terrorist side.

AJ Strata over at the Strata Sphere has a great name for them: Jihad Deniers.

Where's the thread about the Debate Mark? I'm eager to post my opin's. And hear what others thought about it.

I agree that there cannot be any "war on terror." This is a tactic that people use, either in war, or for political reasons, or out of religious extremism.

Occasionally, "freedom fighters" employ what we would consider terrorism to advance their cause.

Well, I am voting for Bill Richardson anyway.

Wade

RIP GWOT - another asinine neocon tagline.

They are dhimmis.

RIP GWOT - another asinine neocon tagline.

The libs would prefer 'American Global Hegemonic War Against Peaceful Islamic Bunny Lovers'.

I shudder to think of ANY of these liberal milque-toast vanilla pastries gaining the White House, their answers on how to keep this nation safe were a load of feel-good shiite. Deer, every one of them, deer.

Its more or less a catch phrase. Without any specific plans or action items its about as meaningful as me declaring a war on "hate". Sure - everyone wants to get rid of terrorism and hate. But declaring war on it doesn't make any sense. You can't fight a war with an abstract concept. Of course you can fight specific terrorists - but thats something different.
The reason its important to distinguish the two is that its such an ambiguous statement to say that you want to have a "war on terror" you can't say if you agree or disagree with the policy - since there is NONE. What does your war on terror mean? Does it mean I spread peace and love through meditation? Does it mean i send commando forces into terrorist camps? Does it mean I go invade other countries? Does it mean I place embargos or what?? Who are we attacking?

Its a completely meaningless statement without specifying any specific plans or policies. Thats problem #1

Problem #2 is that when you allow someone to make a generic meaningless phrase like this you are opening the door to all sorts of problems

- either you support us or the terrorists..GWB

Nonsense - you can disagree with the policies that he is implementing because you believe they are failed and still want to fight terrorism

Finally - even what is specific is clearly non-sense. Saudi Arabia has been and remains the main exporter of terrorists, money for terrorists, and a prime supplier of terrorism. Yet we look the other way because they give us good deals on Oil. So its not about a war on terror - if it were - target number one would be Saudi Arabia - at the very least good old GWB wouldn't hold hands with the Saudi's.

Finally - even what is specific is clearly non-sense.

Hey, Dr. Dumbass, "nonsense" is not hyphenated. Also, Dr. Dumbass, we've been allies with the Saudis for a long time--long before you were a failed abortion.

You got beat up a lot as a kid, no?

fine - your right i cannot spell..

of course we have been allies with the Saudis for a long time - though the Bushes are particularly close..
I don't see how that changes anything- its still valid criticism

Well I watched the debate lastnight. The word "debate" being used lightly. The only two candidates that threw any bombs were Kucinich and Gravel. (In my opioin, neither of those two people have much a chance of making it to the White House.) I felt that Sen. Obama was the strongest of all. Although that isnt saying much. All candidates were horrible at actually answering the questions directly, and most of the time they seemed to filibustering away from the questions until their time was up. When asked "If, god forbid, we find that during this debate 2 US cities were attacked by terrorists, and we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that AQ was responsible, What would you do to change our military strategy overseas?" All who were asked repeated "I'd make sure that we had the intelligence to identify who attacked us"...pathetic. Obama actually used the question to attack the Bush Admin's handling of Hurricane Katrina, noting that 1st: "He'd make sure we had a good emergency plan ready to help those hurt during the attack.."...Now, I'm not saying that a good emergency plan is stupid; I'm merely giving examples as to how the candidates were deflecting from the questions in an attempt to slander the Bush Admin. It was painfully obvious that that was there intent. I want my leader to answer directly when confronted with tough questions. I dont want sugar-coated turds. I dont want to hear "well due the current admin's policy..blah, blah, blah". I'm tried of listening to politicians who dance around questions. I'll be watching the Rep. Debate next week and i'll be just as critical. I'm a Republican, but that doesnt mean that I'm a blind follower...Back to the debate. I thought Bill Richardson probably took the most time by far, and I couldnt help but wonder if maybe he was intentionally taking so much time. I figured he was trying to be extra-aggresive in an attempt to get some recognition in the media. I dunno though. Kucinich is a waste of time. Gravel was over-the-top aggressive, obviously representing the "moveon.org" mentality, and I felt that he was just there for the ride, instead of actually trying to be the next president. I felt Biden did a "fair" job. He has such an arrogance about himself, and I thought it was funny that Gravel called him on it. I often wonder why liberals here call Bush arrogant, but do not mention one word about someone like Biden. I felt Hillary's responses were too weak for my taste, although I did agree with her views on immigration. When she was asked about the VA shooting and what needed to be done in order to prevent another, her answer was about restricting guns from people who were mandated by the court to be dangerous. I agreed, but I felt she should've at least made an attempt to scorn the school for knowing Cho was a dangerous fellow. But I'll be fair and give her the benefit of the doubt and I'll assume that she simply did not have the time. And to be fair, the gun policy is much more important for the greater good compared to scorning the schools policies. Edwards was also a joke, I look forward to questions directed his way as he'll always give me a good chuckle. Overall, I was disappointed, maybe the next one will be much more in-depth. I'm not looking for a Bush-Bash fest. No one even made a direct response to Rudy Guiliani's comments from earlier this week!! If I had to pick from the 8 of them, I'd say that I would go with Obama, maybe Biden. Although issue-wise, (Sorry Liberals) I can not get myself to vote for someone who is pro-abortion, and who proposes a Uni-health care system.

fine - your right i cannot spell..

Did I say anything about your spelling? Hyphenation has nothing to do with spelling.

And it's "you're," as in you're an idiot...

yes - you're right my spelling and grammar are horrible when I am not proof reading...

but its completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand...

On what planet do the people live that say Obama won that debate? His answer on the attack of US cities was just embarrassing.

I'm guessing Biden would take "articulate" back.

These Democrats are so stupid and dangerous. For those who deny the GWOT a lesson from-

Yet another ex-Muslim site...
Apostates of Islam

Who we are:

We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some of us had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught never to question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the sin of disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits.

What is our goal?

We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth. We are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would like to see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to Quran and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam eliminated and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for oneness of mankind.

Freedom1, you're a gem--too bad these mind-numb parrots can't see the threat you so cleverly display, on a daily basis. What'll it take to wake them up?

"What'll it take to wake them up?" Posted by: keefer

Most likely, another 9/11, unfortunately. Meanwhile in Britain, today, Muslims demonstrating in front of a UK police station declared that one day Islam's flag will fly over Downing Street. No threat there/sarc.

Britain: Islamists Demonstrate Against Al Muhajiroun Arrests

About 100 Muslim men and women, some with scarves obscuring their faces, others waving placards and flags, walked from Regent’s Park Mosque to Paddington Green Police Station, where they believe outspoken Islamic militant Abu Izzadeen is being held with five others arrested Tuesday. ...

The protest began shortly after midday prayers at Regent’s Park Mosque, where Anjem Choudary, the former leader of the outlawed militant group al-Ghurabaa, addressed the crowd, demanding that they join him in protesting the detention of Izzadeen — a former spokesman for his group.

“You are living under oppression, the government is terrorizing the Muslim community,” he told worshippers. “It’s about time you stand together.”

The crowd, escorted by police, made its way to Paddington Green, waving placards and shouting slogans. Abu Saliyah, one of the speakers, said the British government was at war with Islam.

“They bomb us, and occupy our land, and here they arrest at you early in the morning!” he said, to cries of “UK — You will pay!” and shouts of “Allahu Akbar! (God is Great)”

But he predicted the ultimate victory of Muslims over their enemies. “One day, my dear Muslims, the flag of Islam will fly over Downing Street!” he said, to renewed shouts of “Allah Akbar!”

This seems to happen a lot in London these days. It wasn't like that when I was over there, but I left in '91. Sixteen years in this world can make a big difference...

kblack77,

When your posts first started to appear on this blog I thought the 77 referred to the date you graduated from college.

After reading more of your posts I decided that 77 was the year you graduated from HS.

After reading even more of your posts I concluded that 77 was the year you were born.

I am now convinced 77 refers to you IQ.

Nate..or is that Wade in French?

How many terrorists do you think were living before 911? Any guess will do since no one really knows except the thousands that were training in Salman Pak and Afghanistan during the Clinton era.

Oh, I forgot the terror group Abu Sayyaf that was funded by Saddam in the Phillipines during the '90s and......

Keefer,

The UK's capitulation to Shari'a law is happening faster and faster. Click the link and look at the picture of the Muslim woman in the full face veil (the niqab). It is unbelievably stupid (and dangerous) for UK judges to allow these veils in a court of law. Muslims just chip away at Western law day after day. What will they demand, next? Gender segregation in court rooms?

UK To Allow Niqab in Court: "Muslims Standing Trial To Hide Their Faces"

(Daily Express): MUSLIM women were yesterday given the full backing of the law to wear veils in court – even if they are standing trial for crimes. Defendants who are told they must remove their face-covering garment could even be allowed to give evidence in secret so as not to offend them. Senior judges ruled that religious dress – including the full niqab which leaves only the eyes exposed – should be allowed for anyone involved in a court case unless justice is threatened.

Can we declare a Global War on Keefer for being so blatantly abusive, while being propped by up the corrupt good ol' boys club of the sorriest excuse for a political blog on the web? Yes, yes we can.