<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2007, 08:01 AM) [snapback]511185[/snapback]</div> I would sanction actions in any of those countries if they were harboring Osama Bin Laden.(EDIT Im not referring to occupation of a country but rather a mission to apprehend or missile strike to kill Bin Laden. ) Hell ,I would even sanction action in Iraq if Osama Bin Laden were there.But hes not, AND AS IVE POINTED OUT BEFORE AlQueda in Iraq is NOT the Alqueda which attacked the WTC. They are a "franchise" (in name only) of the original AlQueda. Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe the media isnt showing the towers fall because it reminds Americans that Bush has completely ignored the prosecution of the crime.6 years later and Bin Laden is a free man . <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 12 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]511449[/snapback]</div> As far as I recall ,No one ever claimed AlQueda was in Iraq before the invasion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2007, 08:01 AM) [snapback]511185[/snapback]</div> I would sanction actions in any of those countries if they were harboring Osama Bin Laden.(EDIT Im not referring to occupation of a country but rather a mission to apprehend or missile strike to kill Bin Laden. ) Hell ,I would even sanction action in Iraq if Osama Bin Laden were there.But hes not, AND AS IVE POINTED OUT BEFORE AlQueda in Iraq is NOT the Alqueda which attacked the WTC. They are a "franchise" (in name only) of the original AlQueda. Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe the media isnt showing the towers fall because it reminds Americans that Bush has completely ignored the prosecution of the crime.6 years later and Bin Laden is a free man . <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 12 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]511449[/snapback]</div> As far as I recall ,No one ever claimed AlQueda was in Iraq before the invasion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 12 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]511431[/snapback]</div> Because he's taking a "for the greater good" and "the ends justify the means" stance. His goal is to get/keep us as angry as he is ... and if that means re-traumatizing thousands of men, women and children, then it's a small price to pay. Their mental health isn't nearly as important as being as angry as he thinks we should be. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 12 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]511431[/snapback]</div> My wife has PTSD as a result of her childhood. Seeing what she's had to deal with, I agree with you 100%, galaxee. I'd rather break both my legs, too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 12 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]511431[/snapback]</div> Because he's taking a "for the greater good" and "the ends justify the means" stance. His goal is to get/keep us as angry as he is ... and if that means re-traumatizing thousands of men, women and children, then it's a small price to pay. Their mental health isn't nearly as important as being as angry as he thinks we should be. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 12 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]511431[/snapback]</div> My wife has PTSD as a result of her childhood. Seeing what she's had to deal with, I agree with you 100%, galaxee. I'd rather break both my legs, too.
