So if terrorists had attacked us again, on Goerge's watch, it wouldn't have been his fuckup?lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhh I see, so if we were attacked again, the liberals would never think to use that event against Bush and push further their agendas. Why do I not believe that?
Did the neocons use 9/11 to push forward their own agendas?lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhh I see, so if we were attacked again, the liberals would never think to use that event against Bush and push further their agendas. Why do I not believe that?
Exactly what I was waiting to hear, and now you know why the democrats were waiting for it to happen. It woulda been pushed as another Bush fuck up. Glad we could agreeReciprocity wrote:
So if terrorists had attacked us again, on Goerge's watch, it wouldn't have been his fuckup?lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhh I see, so if we were attacked again, the liberals would never think to use that event against Bush and push further their agendas. Why do I not believe that?
Ummmmmm like what? Tighter security? yeah I guess soTheAussieReaper wrote:
Did the neocons use 9/11 to push forward their own agendas?lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhh I see, so if we were attacked again, the liberals would never think to use that event against Bush and push further their agendas. Why do I not believe that?
I think he'll keep slipping bombs out from beneath his sleeves.Mekstizzle wrote:
Yeah, what a bitch. He should've gone there and told the Muslim world, that they are infact, their enemy
Go-go house demolition!
lolTheAussieReaper wrote:
Did the neocons use 9/11 to push forward their own agendas?lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhh I see, so if we were attacked again, the liberals would never think to use that event against Bush and push further their agendas. Why do I not believe that?
WOO the scary NEOCONS
Yeah they are the Real Threat.
You even know what a neocon is without checkin wiki first ?
5 bucks says you don't
Real threat? lol I asked lowing if he thinks the neocons pushed forward their own agenda post 9/11. Evidently it must only be liberals who would do such a thing.Vax wrote:
lolTheAussieReaper wrote:
Did the neocons use 9/11 to push forward their own agendas?lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhh I see, so if we were attacked again, the liberals would never think to use that event against Bush and push further their agendas. Why do I not believe that?
WOO the scary NEOCONS
Yeah they are the Real Threat.
You even know what a neocon is without checkin wiki first ?
5 bucks says you don't
Typical tree hugging over the top environmentalist types they are.
asked and answered, let me also add thanks to the "neocons" no new terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Is that the agenda you had in mind or something else?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Real threat? lol I asked lowing if he thinks the neocons pushed forward their own agenda post 9/11. Evidently it must only be liberals who would do such a thing.Vax wrote:
lolTheAussieReaper wrote:
Did the neocons use 9/11 to push forward their own agendas?
WOO the scary NEOCONS
Yeah they are the Real Threat.
You even know what a neocon is without checkin wiki first ?
5 bucks says you don't
Typical tree hugging over the top environmentalist types they are.
I coulda sworn you were talking about these guys until I reread your post...Vax wrote:
lolTheAussieReaper wrote:
Did the neocons use 9/11 to push forward their own agendas?lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhh I see, so if we were attacked again, the liberals would never think to use that event against Bush and push further their agendas. Why do I not believe that?
WOO the scary NEOCONS
Yeah they are the Real Threat.
You even know what a neocon is without checkin wiki first ?
5 bucks says you don't
Thought I'd pose the question since you seemed certain a liberal would try to get away with it.lowing wrote:
asked and answered, let me also add thanks to the "neocons" no new terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Is that the agenda you had in mind or something else?
Are they the only ones?
ya lost meTheAussieReaper wrote:
Thought I'd pose the question since you seemed certain a liberal would try to get away with it.lowing wrote:
asked and answered, let me also add thanks to the "neocons" no new terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Is that the agenda you had in mind or something else?
Are they the only ones?
That explains a lot, really. There's some confusion about what the neocons areunnamednewbie13 wrote:
I coulda sworn you were talking about these guys until I reread your post...
lol so i guess if there was a liberal president in power there would have been another attack after 911... because they're weak and spineless and talk on arab tv blah blah.lowing wrote:
asked and answered, let me also add thanks to the "neocons" no new terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Is that the agenda you had in mind or something else?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Real threat? lol I asked lowing if he thinks the neocons pushed forward their own agenda post 9/11. Evidently it must only be liberals who would do such a thing.Vax wrote:
lol
WOO the scary NEOCONS
Yeah they are the Real Threat.
You even know what a neocon is without checkin wiki first ?
5 bucks says you don't
Typical tree hugging over the top environmentalist types they are.
cmon do you really think that there was no attacks after 911 because bush was in power? i think it had more to do with the terrorists deciding to quit while they were ahead. have there been any threats recently that security has stopped? no. its not that they're being stopped. they're just not trying.
Many of America's problems stem from our relations with the Muslim world. Obama is doing something known as "diplomacy" which has been a bit lacking since Reagan.
He is trying to make a strawman here. He took your earlier comment about how 'liberals' would likely use another terrorist attack during bushes watch Against him, and making it sound as if you said 'Nobody else would ever do that' -- which you didn't actually say -- and countering it with n e o c o nslowing wrote:
ya lost meTheAussieReaper wrote:
Thought I'd pose the question since you seemed certain a liberal would try to get away with it.lowing wrote:
asked and answered, let me also add thanks to the "neocons" no new terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Is that the agenda you had in mind or something else?
Are they the only ones?
So now the discussion gets to be redirected at ....his target of choice...
See how this works ?
Bin Laden's stated objective was to sucker the US into military involvement in the ME, much easier to kill Americans in the ME than in the US, and the US fell for it.cmon do you really think that there was no attacks after 911 because bush was in power? i think it had more to do with the terrorists deciding to quit while they were ahead. have there been any threats recently that security has stopped? no. its not that they're being stopped. they're just not trying.
Hence no need for more attacks on the US.
Fuck Israel
Oh, for the friendly days of Carter...djphetal wrote:
Many of America's problems stem from our relations with the Muslim world. Obama is doing something known as "diplomacy" which has been a bit lacking since Reagan.
Iran demands more appeasement.
The US "stood against the Iranian people in the past 60 years," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during an address in the western region of Khermenshah.
"Those who speak of change must apologise to the Iranian people and try to repair their past crimes," he said.
"The White House has offered to extend a hand if Iran "unclenched its fist".
President Barack Obama discussed the possibility of a softening of US policy towards Iran in an interview recorded with a Saudi-owned Arabic TV network on Monday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 855444.stm
The appeasement train keeps on rolling!
The US "stood against the Iranian people in the past 60 years," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during an address in the western region of Khermenshah.
"Those who speak of change must apologise to the Iranian people and try to repair their past crimes," he said.
"The White House has offered to extend a hand if Iran "unclenched its fist".
President Barack Obama discussed the possibility of a softening of US policy towards Iran in an interview recorded with a Saudi-owned Arabic TV network on Monday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 855444.stm
The appeasement train keeps on rolling!
i'm too tired to be right all the time.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Oh, for the friendly days of Carter...djphetal wrote:
Many of America's problems stem from our relations with the Muslim world. Obama is doing something known as "diplomacy" which has been a bit lacking since Reagan.
I thought he actually wanted us to invade countries in the middle east so that they could drain our resources, bankrupt us, make the whole muslim and arab world hate us, and divide us politically.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bin Laden's stated objective was to sucker the US into military involvement in the ME, much easier to kill Americans in the ME than in the US, and the US fell for it.cmon do you really think that there was no attacks after 911 because bush was in power? i think it had more to do with the terrorists deciding to quit while they were ahead. have there been any threats recently that security has stopped? no. its not that they're being stopped. they're just not trying.
Hence no need for more attacks on the US.
Surely any reasonable person could he see he failed at that.
He had a damn good shake at that one, though.make the whole muslim and arab world hate us
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Bush did 9/11!
You are wrong plain and simple, attacks have been stopped before they could be carried out, where have you been?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
lol so i guess if there was a liberal president in power there would have been another attack after 911... because they're weak and spineless and talk on arab tv blah blah.lowing wrote:
asked and answered, let me also add thanks to the "neocons" no new terrorist attacks in the US since 911. Is that the agenda you had in mind or something else?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Real threat? lol I asked lowing if he thinks the neocons pushed forward their own agenda post 9/11. Evidently it must only be liberals who would do such a thing.
Typical tree hugging over the top environmentalist types they are.
cmon do you really think that there was no attacks after 911 because bush was in power? i think it had more to do with the terrorists deciding to quit while they were ahead. have there been any threats recently that security has stopped? no. its not that they're being stopped. they're just not trying.
http://www.heritage.org/research/Homela … bg2085.cfm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html
and although we will never know, I would put money on the fact that the US would have been attacked again if Gore or Kerry were in office. SInce they would have done nothing about it, just like Clinton did nothing for the attacks under his watch.
Then why all of the attempts?Dilbert_X wrote:
Bin Laden's stated objective was to sucker the US into military involvement in the ME, much easier to kill Americans in the ME than in the US, and the US fell for it.cmon do you really think that there was no attacks after 911 because bush was in power? i think it had more to do with the terrorists deciding to quit while they were ahead. have there been any threats recently that security has stopped? no. its not that they're being stopped. they're just not trying.
Hence no need for more attacks on the US.
Yes because the Muslim world LOVED the US before Bush "invaded" Iraq. You guys really need to wake up about your beloved Muslim world.uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
I thought he actually wanted us to invade countries in the middle east so that they could drain our resources, bankrupt us, make the whole muslim and arab world hate us, and divide us politically.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bin Laden's stated objective was to sucker the US into military involvement in the ME, much easier to kill Americans in the ME than in the US, and the US fell for it.cmon do you really think that there was no attacks after 911 because bush was in power? i think it had more to do with the terrorists deciding to quit while they were ahead. have there been any threats recently that security has stopped? no. its not that they're being stopped. they're just not trying.
Hence no need for more attacks on the US.
Surely any reasonable person could he see he failed at that.
Last edited by lowing (2009-01-28 04:13:11)