Pages: 1 … 9 10 11

 

2006-07-23 00:31:22
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada
give me some information.  Tell me about some foiled attempts, Bush is responsible for tighter security but he's also responsible for American lives in the ME.  What attempts were foiled?  Were they under the Bush admin?
"McViegh was American, and he was a terrorist...what is the point"
damnit stop pretending you have no idea what I'm talking about

I think it's entirely possible that many groups jumped at the chance to claim responsibility for 9/11.  Al Q was widely accepted and then proclaimed the source of ALL terrorism (which is obviously false).  The Intelligence agencies have plenty of dealings with bin laden, I honestly have to believe Iraq, not Afgh. was over petrodollars.  There was alot of talk about this including some of mine in another thread.

It's been a long night I'll have to get back to you.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-23 00:31:59)

2006-07-23 05:13:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

give me some information.  Tell me about some foiled attempts, Bush is responsible for tighter security but he's also responsible for American lives in the ME.  What attempts were foiled?  Were they under the Bush admin?
"McViegh was American, and he was a terrorist...what is the point"
damnit stop pretending you have no idea what I'm talking about

I think it's entirely possible that many groups jumped at the chance to claim responsibility for 9/11.  Al Q was widely accepted and then proclaimed the source of ALL terrorism (which is obviously false).  The Intelligence agencies have plenty of dealings with bin laden, I honestly have to believe Iraq, not Afgh. was over petrodollars.  There was alot of talk about this including some of mine in another thread.

It's been a long night I'll have to get back to you.
do a search you will find plenty of articles of terror attacks that were exposed and put down, I mean, c'mon, for you to insist that no terror attacks failed to materialize in the US since 911 is rediculous. I know you gotta watch the news or pick a newspaper sometime.

As far as McViegh goes, I dunno what the point is, you mentioned him not me.

Yeah Bush is responsible for Anerican lives in the ME, he is also responsible for American lives in America, which is why he took a proactive stance on terrorism since 911. Anything wrong with that??

The war in Iraq only turned to issues of terrorism after Saddam was taken out. The terrorist moved in like roaches, an unexpected set back for the coalition. To solve the problem is NOT to leave Iraq to the terrorists, but to the emerging democratically elected govt.

Yeah Yeah the CIA trained and dealt with bin laden back in the 80's, so what, it was a different time then, and a different objective. Just because you might have been friends with someone in high school, who later murdered someone, doesn't mean you approve of his actions. Or are you saying that people should be allowed to bring up the fact that you were friends 20 years earlier and that might have something to do with the murder and you should be guilty.
2006-07-23 12:29:58
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada
I've never heard of any foiled attempts.  I brought up McVeigh because not all terrorists are MEastern.  A proactive stance for America and tight homeland security are good but the war in Iraq was still unneccessary.  There was less threat of terror in Iraq then than there is now because of the civil war happening.
You say the terrorists moved in like roaches, but they didn't, most of those people were Shiite muslim Iraqi citizens.  They've taken an interest in the new politics there (to say the least).

As for dealings with BL  I meant the ones in Saudi the day before the attack.  Consider for a moment that Bin Laden was never at large.  ( I don't believe for a second that in this day/age a guy in the desert can't be found with all number of sensors and satellites.)  Consider that he's been in some bunker in US making these tapes for the media.  It would make sense for the Bush admin to have him on hand and ready for punishment.
But more importantly you can see what's happening here, first it was Saddam, then insurgent shiites, now hesbollah.  It's just too convenient to be able to label them all as terrorists as soon as fighting starts.  According to you the war in Iraq turned into the war on terror but they are two seperate entities.   You could easily call Iraqi insurgents patriots of their country for fighting for their beliefs, the door swings both ways

Patriot/terrorist

EDIT: there was a foiled 'attempt' in Toronto

Edit: the one in florida, but, who knows if they really were 'terrorists' and not just hard to catch street criminals that had their status level 1upped?  The terrorist label HAS been wrong, what if it's just a tool to get anyone incarcerated if the need arises?  What if you were going to be put away for terrorism, you say "that would never happen because I don't commit acts of terror"  but they don't have to have any evidence of you doing anything to take you in, that's a fact.   Also, it's possible that some laws could change and make certain things you might do illegal sometimes (religion, liquor)  or some illegal things acceptable in the name of protecting the state.  That's a bad thing.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-23 13:24:07)

2006-07-23 14:20:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

I've never heard of any foiled attempts.  I brought up McVeigh because not all terrorists are MEastern.  A proactive stance for America and tight homeland security are good but the war in Iraq was still unnecessary.  There was less threat of terror in Iraq then than there is now because of the civil war happening.
You say the terrorists moved in like roaches, but they didn't, most of those people were Shiite muslim Iraqi citizens.  They've taken an interest in the new politics there (to say the least).

As for dealings with BL  I meant the ones in Saudi the day before the attack.  Consider for a moment that Bin Laden was never at large.  ( I don't believe for a second that in this day/age a guy in the desert can't be found with all number of sensors and satellites.)  Consider that he's been in some bunker in US making these tapes for the media.  It would make sense for the Bush admin to have him on hand and ready for punishment.
But more importantly you can see what's happening here, first it was Saddam, then insurgent shiites, now hesbollah.  It's just too convenient to be able to label them all as terrorists as soon as fighting starts.  According to you the war in Iraq turned into the war on terror but they are two seperate entities.   You could easily call Iraqi insurgents patriots of their country for fighting for their beliefs, the door swings both ways

Patriot/terrorist

EDIT: there was a foiled 'attempt' in Toronto

Edit: the one in florida, but, who knows if they really were 'terrorists' and not just hard to catch street criminals that had their status level 1upped?  The terrorist label HAS been wrong, what if it's just a tool to get anyone incarcerated if the need arises?  What if you were going to be put away for terrorism, you say "that would never happen because I don't commit acts of terror"  but they don't have to have any evidence of you doing anything to take you in, that's a fact.   Also, it's possible that some laws could change and make certain things you might do illegal sometimes (religion, liquor)  or some illegal things acceptable in the name of protecting the state.  That's a bad thing.
to all of this all I can say is, if are so obtuse as to refuse to accept the fact that indeed terror plots have been uncovered and put down, then it is hopeless to try and convince you of anything else. Especially since I told you 1000 times the war in Iraq was not for terrorism.
2006-07-23 14:44:58
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6852

lowing wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

give me some information.  Tell me about some foiled attempts, Bush is responsible for tighter security but he's also responsible for American lives in the ME.  What attempts were foiled?  Were they under the Bush admin?
"McViegh was American, and he was a terrorist...what is the point"
damnit stop pretending you have no idea what I'm talking about

I think it's entirely possible that many groups jumped at the chance to claim responsibility for 9/11.  Al Q was widely accepted and then proclaimed the source of ALL terrorism (which is obviously false).  The Intelligence agencies have plenty of dealings with bin laden, I honestly have to believe Iraq, not Afgh. was over petrodollars.  There was alot of talk about this including some of mine in another thread.

It's been a long night I'll have to get back to you.
do a search you will find plenty of articles of terror attacks that were exposed and put down, I mean, c'mon, for you to insist that no terror attacks failed to materialize in the US since 911 is rediculous. I know you gotta watch the news or pick a newspaper sometime.

As far as McViegh goes, I dunno what the point is, you mentioned him not me.

Yeah Bush is responsible for Anerican lives in the ME, he is also responsible for American lives in America, which is why he took a proactive stance on terrorism since 911. Anything wrong with that??

The war in Iraq only turned to issues of terrorism after Saddam was taken out. The terrorist moved in like roaches, an unexpected set back for the coalition. To solve the problem is NOT to leave Iraq to the terrorists, but to the emerging democratically elected govt.

Yeah Yeah the CIA trained and dealt with bin laden back in the 80's, so what, it was a different time then, and a different objective. Just because you might have been friends with someone in high school, who later murdered someone, doesn't mean you approve of his actions. Or are you saying that people should be allowed to bring up the fact that you were friends 20 years earlier and that might have something to do with the murder and you should be guilty.
I would hardly say that the terrorists were unexpected. If you invade a country, you generally pretty likely to meet some people that are pissed off enough to do something about your presence. That, and the fact that America was already hated enough in the ME, which handily enough just happend to be the area where terrorists like to hang out. I think if I thought at the time 'well gee, isn't that going to piss off a lot of people to the point of attacking Americans', some overpaid asshole in Washington, whose job it is to figure these things out, could probably jump to the same conclusion.
2006-07-23 19:21:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

give me some information.  Tell me about some foiled attempts, Bush is responsible for tighter security but he's also responsible for American lives in the ME.  What attempts were foiled?  Were they under the Bush admin?
"McViegh was American, and he was a terrorist...what is the point"
damnit stop pretending you have no idea what I'm talking about

I think it's entirely possible that many groups jumped at the chance to claim responsibility for 9/11.  Al Q was widely accepted and then proclaimed the source of ALL terrorism (which is obviously false).  The Intelligence agencies have plenty of dealings with bin laden, I honestly have to believe Iraq, not Afgh. was over petrodollars.  There was alot of talk about this including some of mine in another thread.

It's been a long night I'll have to get back to you.
do a search you will find plenty of articles of terror attacks that were exposed and put down, I mean, c'mon, for you to insist that no terror attacks failed to materialize in the US since 911 is rediculous. I know you gotta watch the news or pick a newspaper sometime.

As far as McViegh goes, I dunno what the point is, you mentioned him not me.

Yeah Bush is responsible for Anerican lives in the ME, he is also responsible for American lives in America, which is why he took a proactive stance on terrorism since 911. Anything wrong with that??

The war in Iraq only turned to issues of terrorism after Saddam was taken out. The terrorist moved in like roaches, an unexpected set back for the coalition. To solve the problem is NOT to leave Iraq to the terrorists, but to the emerging democratically elected govt.

Yeah Yeah the CIA trained and dealt with bin laden back in the 80's, so what, it was a different time then, and a different objective. Just because you might have been friends with someone in high school, who later murdered someone, doesn't mean you approve of his actions. Or are you saying that people should be allowed to bring up the fact that you were friends 20 years earlier and that might have something to do with the murder and you should be guilty.
I would hardly say that the terrorists were unexpected. If you invade a country, you generally pretty likely to meet some people that are pissed off enough to do something about your presence. That, and the fact that America was already hated enough in the ME, which handily enough just happend to be the area where terrorists like to hang out. I think if I thought at the time 'well gee, isn't that going to piss off a lot of people to the point of attacking Americans', some overpaid asshole in Washington, whose job it is to figure these things out, could probably jump to the same conclusion.
What you say makes sense, but the only option was to sit back and keep being attacked, while the UN choked on its own indecisiveness. I say this because last I checked Afghanistan was also part of the ME. Iraq only turned into a Islamic terror issue after Saddam was removed and all the terrorist from joining countries flooded in to keep Iraq unstable.

Funny how the LAST thing the terrorist want in Iraq is freedom, peace and stability, and you all knock Bush. The best part is, you all wonder how in the world I can draw a conclusion that you are sympathetic with the terrorists, and their agenda.
2006-07-24 19:42:59
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada
I guess if lowing told me it must be true.  1000 times over
2006-07-24 19:52:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

I guess if lowing told me it must be true.  1000 times over
Once again I will try and not confuse you with the facts since your mind is made up that we invaded Iraq to dominate the world and steal all the worlds oil.
2006-07-24 20:30:20
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada
http://www.bathroomjokes.com/fart/sound.htm
2006-07-24 21:14:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6854|USA

Spumantiii wrote:

http://www.bathroomjokes.com/fart/sound.htm
smartest thing you have posted in a long time
2006-07-24 21:21:59
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6730|Portland, OR USA
I just made a doody ... in my pants

Seriously, you're both better than this.

Attack the logic.  Attack the idea.  Attack the post, but don't get to this level at eachother.
2006-07-24 23:13:54
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6885|Canada

lowing wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

http://www.bathroomjokes.com/fart/sound.htm
smartest thing you have posted in a long time
I just knew it'd be your cup of tea
you think farts are smart
I'll remember to fart next time someone asks me a good question
2006-07-25 13:50:57
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6829
Another case where Bush's actions are illegal.  See how the Republicans are preparing to sue him:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14020234/?GT1=8307
2006-07-26 07:14:09
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6752|Southeastern USA
another case where congress doesn't like bush not doing what they tell him, spacter's whining because bush is sending these bills back to congress saying he thinks them unconstitutional, or in violation of national security, which is sorta his job, these actions have not been proven illegal, specters just throwing another one of his power struggle hissy-fits, and for reference, every other president has had full use of signing statements, the fact that they are from the same party doesn't mean they always get along, especially since they are each in different branches, in which case pissing matches like this are not unusual, if bush has done so many illegal things then why have they never developed past the accusation stage? Maybe because once investigation begins precedent and law turns out to be on his side.
2006-07-26 08:19:10
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6829

kr@cker wrote:

another case where congress doesn't like bush not doing what they tell him, spacter's whining because bush is sending these bills back to congress saying he thinks them unconstitutional, or in violation of national security, which is sorta his job, these actions have not been proven illegal, specters just throwing another one of his power struggle hissy-fits, and for reference, every other president has had full use of signing statements, the fact that they are from the same party doesn't mean they always get along, especially since they are each in different branches, in which case pissing matches like this are not unusual, if bush has done so many illegal things then why have they never developed past the accusation stage? Maybe because once investigation begins precedent and law turns out to be on his side.
What they are saying is by adding signatures which allow him to not abide by the law as written don't allow congress or the senate to debate, ratify, or uphold the law as written.  Most signatures are added for instruction by the President to, let's say how the law should be initiated.  Never has a signature been given to allow a president to disregard the law as written.  On another note, BushII has given more signatures to bills than all the other presidents combined.

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard