Didn't 9/11 teach us anything?

[Gamingphreek]

THese are the most liberal forums anyone could ask for. I have been posting in these forums since ~1999-2000. Generally i stay out of P&N

BUsh didn't "pass" those opportunities up, something went wrong on all three of them.

Read the 9/11 commission report huh? Why dont i just watch Farenheit 9/11 the most liberal movie in existence!? Im sure the photos were faked for Kuwait :roll: . Last time i checked that wouldn't be entirely legal.

Just because the 9/11 commission report has been published doesn't mean it released all intel to us. There is much more inteligence that we dont know about or need to know about. That is why it is intel and not common knowledge. I think he would have invaded Iraq with or without Zarqawi. Saddam was a HORRIBLE ruler. He committed so many crimes, and hurt so many people.

-Kevin

 

[conjur]

Bush himself has admitted Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What more do you want?

There is NO evidence Saddam was involved.


NONE.


As for the satellite photos, just google for it, that is, unless you don't find the St. Petersburg, FL Times a reliable newspaper or the Christian Science Monitor either.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
THese are the most liberal forums anyone could ask for. I have been posting in these forums since ~1999-2000. Generally i stay out of P&N

BUsh didn't "pass" those opportunities up, something went wrong on all three of them.

Read the 9/11 commission report huh? Why dont i just watch Farenheit 9/11 the most liberal movie in existence!? Im sure the photos were faked for Kuwait :roll: . Last time i checked that wouldn't be entirely legal.

Just because the 9/11 commission report has been published doesn't mean it released all intel to us. There is much more inteligence that we dont know about or need to know about. That is why it is intel and not common knowledge. I think he would have invaded Iraq with or without Zarqawi. Saddam was a HORRIBLE ruler. He committed so many crimes, and hurt so many people.

-Kevin

So you deny all Published details and hold to the line that Bush has something somewhere that ties it all together?

I've got this land in Florida and the kicker is it contains a completely Privately owned Toll Bridge on a major Interstate. This thing rakes in cash bigtime, but I must soon retire and need to offload it, interested?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: raildogg
actually it has been confirmed there was al qaeda in Iraq before the war by USA. zarqawi has been there for a long time.

Did you just make that up?

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: conjur
Bush himself has admitted Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What more do you want?

There is NO evidence Saddam was involved.


NONE.


As for the satellite photos, just google for it, that is, unless you don't find the St. Petersburg, FL Times a reliable newspaper or the Christian Science Monitor either.

Good you should have no problem providing me a link from when he said this.

-Kevin

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: conjur
Bush himself has admitted Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What more do you want?

There is NO evidence Saddam was involved.


NONE.


As for the satellite photos, just google for it, that is, unless you don't find the St. Petersburg, FL Times a reliable newspaper or the Christian Science Monitor either.

Good you should have no problem providing me a link from when he said this.

-Kevin

Knowing conjur, he won't have a problem finding it. I would start on your pwnage acceptance speech if I were you.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I haven't been owned.

Also conjur make sure this is a valid speech and not something made up if you do find it.

-Kevin

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: dgevert
"Don't forget 9/11" he says.

WTF does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? NOTHING! Iraq had NOTHING to do with it. Hussein had NOTHING to do with it.

I'm sick of hearing this claim.

And we are sick of listening to crap like that.

Obviously Saddam did have a part in there. Have you ever wondered why the White House does not release every single bit of intelligence out to the American People. We had our reasons. You are putting Hussein up on a pedestal here, do you think he is a good guy or something. What about the genocide on those Kurds. What about the Terrorists he was hardboring. What about the invasion of Kuat... no we made the right moves.

-Kevin

"Hardboring"? Sounds very painful. I don't think terrorists would like to be hardbored.

Anyway, I recommend you read the 9/11 Commission Report which shows that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I also recommend you search the various threads up here where this topic has been beaten to death over and over and over and no matter how many times you may say, it doesn't make it true.

Oh, btw, the invasion of Kuwait? Do some research into the satellite photos the US used to justify going to war. The photos were faked.

actually it has been confirmed there was al qaeda in Iraq before the war by USA. zarqawi has been there for a long time.

You don't read the truth much, do you?

Zarqawi was in a camp in northern Iraq, in Kurdish-controlled terrority, protected by the U.S. No-Fly Zone. Hmmm...

BTW, did you know Bush had three opportunities to get Zarqawi and passed them all up? Hmm...wonder why? You don't think he wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, do you? Naaaah...

never ever heard of that before

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
THese are the most liberal forums anyone could ask for. I have been posting in these forums since ~1999-2000. Generally i stay out of P&N

BUsh didn't "pass" those opportunities up, something went wrong on all three of them.

Read the 9/11 commission report huh? Why dont i just watch Farenheit 9/11 the most liberal movie in existence!? Im sure the photos were faked for Kuwait :roll: . Last time i checked that wouldn't be entirely legal.

Just because the 9/11 commission report has been published doesn't mean it released all intel to us. There is much more inteligence that we dont know about or need to know about. That is why it is intel and not common knowledge. I think he would have invaded Iraq with or without Zarqawi. Saddam was a HORRIBLE ruler. He committed so many crimes, and hurt so many people.

-Kevin

your telling me. all these are tree hugging libbies, who underestimate the extremist muslims

 

[jpeyton]

Fortunately, if we get attacked within the next four years, we'll have nobody to blame except Bush.

Cheney himself said during the election campaign that electing Kerry could have dire consequences for our nation's security...well I sincerely doubt we are any safer with Bush in power.

Gaminphreek is nearly complete in his indoctrination. He's got most of the catch phrases down: Saddam was a bad man, 9/11 changed the world, he needed to be removed, al-Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, etc.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fortunately, if we get attacked within the next four years, we'll have nobody to blame except Bush.

Cheney himself said during the election campaign that electing Kerry could have dire consequences for our nation's security...well I sincerely doubt we are any safer with Bush in power.

Gaminphreek is nearly complete in his indoctrination. He's got most of the catch phrases down: Saddam was a bad man, 9/11 changed the world, he needed to be removed, al-Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, etc.

Saddam was a bad man and 9/11 did change the world forever. where is he wrong?

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fortunately, if we get attacked within the next four years, we'll have nobody to blame except Bush.

Cheney himself said during the election campaign that electing Kerry could have dire consequences for our nation's security...well I sincerely doubt we are any safer with Bush in power.

Gaminphreek is nearly complete in his indoctrination. He's got most of the catch phrases down: Saddam was a bad man, 9/11 changed the world, he needed to be removed, al-Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, etc.

How can you argue against his removal. He committed genocide (War Crime) against the Kurds. He cause horror among his people. He also effectively made it so that only he could be elected. There were no other names on the ballot, everyone trying to run against him was killed.

I dont want to get into John Kerry. I didn't agree with some of his ideas but i thought he was actually a good guy. With all of his party still throwing mud he concedes, and he doesn't push for any recalls or anything. I think that was true character, it had to take a lot of guts to admit defeat. I applaud him and Bush that they worked their differences out, and even gave each other some advice.

Again, how can you argue that Saddam was not bad!? What do you want him to come out and say "Im wrong please capture me"!!?

-Kevin

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fortunately, if we get attacked within the next four years, we'll have nobody to blame except Bush.

No. We'll still have Clinton to blame as well. He's first in line for blame.

Cheney himself said during the election campaign that electing Kerry could have dire consequences for our nation's security...well I sincerely doubt we are any safer with Bush in power.

It's just so hard to tell. Considering there hasn't been another attack on our soil though, I'm not sure I'm willing to take a chance on Kerry being in office instead.

Gaminphreek is nearly complete in his indoctrination. He's got most of the catch phrases down: Saddam was a bad man, 9/11 changed the world, he needed to be removed, al-Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, etc.

As are you in your indoctrination: Bush blah blah blah, Bush blah blah blah, Bush blah blah blah, Bush blah blah blah, Bush blah blah blah, Bush blah blah blah, blah blah blah Bush, Cheney blah blah blah, Rumsfeld blah blah blah......

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I haven't been owned.

I'm saying the odds are that you will be. Conjur is the master of research.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I haven't been owned.

I'm saying the odds are that you will be. Conjur is the master of research.

no, it only appears as getting owned is because these forums are full of pacifists

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: raildogg
I thought when 9/11 happened people should have gotten the idea that terrorists are really serious about murdering as many Americans as they can. 3,000 people died that day, New York's economy laid in ruins for much time, its finally coming back up thankfully.

But the point is that people to this day think terrorists cant do us any harm. I see it everyday, from people I meet to the people on these forums. They continue to underestimate the viciousness and the pure evil of these terrorist thugs who plan each day to murder as many Americans as they can.

I'm telling you if we ignore terrorists, which thankfully we are not thanks to Bush, there will be a much worse attack on USA.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone suggesting terrorists cannot do us any harm. On the contrary, I think most people on both sides of the aisle realize that the potential for terrorist attacks is real. The subject of debate is the appropriate response to this risk.

In my opinion, Bush's response to 9/11 was spectacularly incompetent. Some Presidents might have over-reacted, taking draconian actions far out of proportion to the risk. Other Presidents might have been too ineffectual, offering little to improve America's safety. Bush managed to do both.

Bush over-reacted in many highly-visible ways. He shamelessly exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to further his ideological agenda, diverting us into a reckless war that has inflamed the Muslim world, and that will, almost certainly, increase the risk of terrorism for a generation. He's made a mockery of our Constitution, our commitment to basic human rights, and our role as the leader of the free world.

While one might argue that 3,000 deaths warrants such an over-reaction, that is an emotional response, not a reasoned one. IIRC, over 40,000 people die each year in automobile accidents, yet we do not abandon due process to prevent auto fatalities. We do not trample our civil liberties to prevent auto fatilities. We do not invade other countries on trumped-up evidence to prevent auto fatalities.

Conversely, Bush has neglected less dramatic actions that would be far more effective in reducing the risk of terrorism. While we make a great show of harassing air passengers -- to prevent an attack that almost certainly can never happen again -- we do almost nothing to screen air cargo. We fret about a potential nuclear attack, yet we have yet to get serious about securing our ports, the most likely entry point for a nuclear device. Bush is all show and no substance.

9/11 happened because we were sleeping while the terrorists were planning the attacks. Our intelligence services failed us, but the sad thing is that noone was held accountable for it.

I agree. No doubt our intelligence services must bear some of the responsibility for this failure. The Bush adminsitration must shoulder the lion's share, however. They ignored multiple warnings that terrorism was a threat, and did essentially nothing before 9/11 to prevent an attack. Perhaps it would not have made a difference anyway, but there's no excuse for not trying.

Raildogg?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: raildogg
I thought when 9/11 happened people should have gotten the idea that terrorists are really serious about murdering as many Americans as they can. 3,000 people died that day, New York's economy laid in ruins for much time, its finally coming back up thankfully.

But the point is that people to this day think terrorists cant do us any harm. I see it everyday, from people I meet to the people on these forums. They continue to underestimate the viciousness and the pure evil of these terrorist thugs who plan each day to murder as many Americans as they can.

I'm telling you if we ignore terrorists, which thankfully we are not thanks to Bush, there will be a much worse attack on USA.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone suggesting terrorists cannot do us any harm. On the contrary, I think most people on both sides of the aisle realize that the potential for terrorist attacks is real. The subject of debate is the appropriate response to this risk.

In my opinion, Bush's response to 9/11 was spectacularly incompetent. Some Presidents might have over-reacted, taking draconian actions far out of proportion to the risk. Other Presidents might have been too ineffectual, offering little to improve America's safety. Bush managed to do both.

Bush over-reacted in many highly-visible ways. He shamelessly exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to further his ideological agenda, diverting us into a reckless war that has inflamed the Muslim world, and that will, almost certainly, increase the risk of terrorism for a generation. He's made a mockery of our Constitution, our commitment to basic human rights, and our role as the leader of the free world.

While one might argue that 3,000 deaths warrants such an over-reaction, that is an emotional response, not a reasoned one. IIRC, over 40,000 people die each year in automobile accidents, yet we do not abandon due process to prevent auto fatalities. We do not trample our civil liberties to prevent auto fatilities. We do not invade other countries on trumped-up evidence to prevent auto fatalities.

Conversely, Bush has neglected less dramatic actions that would be far more effective in reducing the risk of terrorism. While we make a great show of harassing air passengers -- to prevent an attack that almost certainly can never happen again -- we do almost nothing to screen air cargo. We fret about a potential nuclear attack, yet we have yet to get serious about securing our ports, the most likely entry point for a nuclear device. Bush is all show and no substance.

9/11 happened because we were sleeping while the terrorists were planning the attacks. Our intelligence services failed us, but the sad thing is that noone was held accountable for it.

I agree. No doubt our intelligence services must bear some of the responsibility for this failure. The Bush adminsitration must shoulder the lion's share, however. They ignored multiple warnings that terrorism was a threat, and did essentially nothing before 9/11 to prevent an attack. Perhaps it would not have made a difference anyway, but there's no excuse for not trying.

Raildogg?

The terrorists have been planned this attack for years, right? Even under Clinton's watch.

Sure the Bush administration got some "vague" warnings about some chatter in the terrorist community etc, but not specfic info. I mean noone predicted 4 planes to be hijacked and used as missles.

I think the problem lies in the CIA and FBI, there are way too many roadblocks you have to go through before the the info reaches to the top man in each agency. Hopefully things will be fixed

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fortunately, if we get attacked within the next four years, we'll have nobody to blame except Bush.

Cheney himself said during the election campaign that electing Kerry could have dire consequences for our nation's security...well I sincerely doubt we are any safer with Bush in power.

Gaminphreek is nearly complete in his indoctrination. He's got most of the catch phrases down: Saddam was a bad man, 9/11 changed the world, he needed to be removed, al-Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, etc.

Saddam was a bad man and 9/11 did change the world forever. where is he wrong?

Hahaha, all you PNAC circle-jerkers remind me of an "equation" that the Bush White House uses when arguing a point (credit to The Daily Show):

September 11 + X = You're Wrong, Shut The Fvck Up
Where X = Anything

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: dgevert
"Don't forget 9/11" he says.

WTF does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? NOTHING! Iraq had NOTHING to do with it. Hussein had NOTHING to do with it.

I'm sick of hearing this claim.

And we are sick of listening to crap like that.

Obviously Saddam did have a part in there. Have you ever wondered why the White House does not release every single bit of intelligence out to the American People. We had our reasons. You are putting Hussein up on a pedestal here, do you think he is a good guy or something. What about the genocide on those Kurds. What about the Terrorists he was hardboring. What about the invasion of Kuat... no we made the right moves.

-Kevin

"Hardboring"? Sounds very painful. I don't think terrorists would like to be hardbored.

Anyway, I recommend you read the 9/11 Commission Report which shows that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I also recommend you search the various threads up here where this topic has been beaten to death over and over and over and no matter how many times you may say, it doesn't make it true.

Oh, btw, the invasion of Kuwait? Do some research into the satellite photos the US used to justify going to war. The photos were faked.

actually it has been confirmed there was al qaeda in Iraq before the war by USA. zarqawi has been there for a long time.

You don't read the truth much, do you?

Zarqawi was in a camp in northern Iraq, in Kurdish-controlled terrority, protected by the U.S. No-Fly Zone. Hmmm...

BTW, did you know Bush had three opportunities to get Zarqawi and passed them all up? Hmm...wonder why? You don't think he wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, do you? Naaaah...

never ever heard of that before

You're kidding me, right?

You're in here debating 9/11 and such, but you are about the most uninformed person I've seen in here.

Edit: You and the gaming guy - does the stuff you are learning about in this thread have any effect at all on your opinions?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fortunately, if we get attacked within the next four years, we'll have nobody to blame except Bush.

Cheney himself said during the election campaign that electing Kerry could have dire consequences for our nation's security...well I sincerely doubt we are any safer with Bush in power.

Gaminphreek is nearly complete in his indoctrination. He's got most of the catch phrases down: Saddam was a bad man, 9/11 changed the world, he needed to be removed, al-Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, etc.

Saddam was a bad man and 9/11 did change the world forever. where is he wrong?

Hahaha, all you PNAC circle-jerkers remind me of an "equation" that the Bush White House uses when arguing a point (credit to The Daily Show):

September 11 + X = You're Wrong, Shut The Fvck Up
Where X = Anything

Hehe, nice equation.

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fortunately, if we get attacked within the next four years, we'll have nobody to blame except Bush.

Cheney himself said during the election campaign that electing Kerry could have dire consequences for our nation's security...well I sincerely doubt we are any safer with Bush in power.

Gaminphreek is nearly complete in his indoctrination. He's got most of the catch phrases down: Saddam was a bad man, 9/11 changed the world, he needed to be removed, al-Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, etc.

Saddam was a bad man and 9/11 did change the world forever. where is he wrong?

Hahaha, all you PNAC circle-jerkers remind me of an "equation" that the Bush White House uses when arguing a point (credit to The Daily Show):

September 11 + X = You're Wrong, Shut The Fvck Up
Where X = Anything

Hehe, nice equation.

Haha I saw that equation yesterday... here's the hilarious video:

Jon Stewart: "9/11 + X = STFU"

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: calbear2000

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Fortunately, if we get attacked within the next four years, we'll have nobody to blame except Bush.

Cheney himself said during the election campaign that electing Kerry could have dire consequences for our nation's security...well I sincerely doubt we are any safer with Bush in power.

Gaminphreek is nearly complete in his indoctrination. He's got most of the catch phrases down: Saddam was a bad man, 9/11 changed the world, he needed to be removed, al-Qaeda, 9/11, 9/11, etc.

Saddam was a bad man and 9/11 did change the world forever. where is he wrong?

Hahaha, all you PNAC circle-jerkers remind me of an "equation" that the Bush White House uses when arguing a point (credit to The Daily Show):

September 11 + X = You're Wrong, Shut The Fvck Up
Where X = Anything

Hehe, nice equation.

Haha I saw that equation yesterday... here's the hilarious video:

Jon Stewart: "9/11 + X = STFU"

Swweeeet, thanks for the link!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: dgevert
"Don't forget 9/11" he says.

WTF does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? NOTHING! Iraq had NOTHING to do with it. Hussein had NOTHING to do with it.

I'm sick of hearing this claim.

And we are sick of listening to crap like that.

Obviously Saddam did have a part in there. Have you ever wondered why the White House does not release every single bit of intelligence out to the American People. We had our reasons. You are putting Hussein up on a pedestal here, do you think he is a good guy or something. What about the genocide on those Kurds. What about the Terrorists he was hardboring. What about the invasion of Kuat... no we made the right moves.

-Kevin

"Hardboring"? Sounds very painful. I don't think terrorists would like to be hardbored.

Anyway, I recommend you read the 9/11 Commission Report which shows that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I also recommend you search the various threads up here where this topic has been beaten to death over and over and over and no matter how many times you may say, it doesn't make it true.

Oh, btw, the invasion of Kuwait? Do some research into the satellite photos the US used to justify going to war. The photos were faked.

actually it has been confirmed there was al qaeda in Iraq before the war by USA. zarqawi has been there for a long time.

You don't read the truth much, do you?

Zarqawi was in a camp in northern Iraq, in Kurdish-controlled terrority, protected by the U.S. No-Fly Zone. Hmmm...

BTW, did you know Bush had three opportunities to get Zarqawi and passed them all up? Hmm...wonder why? You don't think he wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, do you? Naaaah...

Clinton passed on Bin Laden 4 times...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Didn't 9/11 teach us anything?

Yes. It taught me that people who can use a great tragedy like 9/11 to forward their own personal agendas are extremely immoral and cannot be trusted.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: dgevert
"Don't forget 9/11" he says.

WTF does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? NOTHING! Iraq had NOTHING to do with it. Hussein had NOTHING to do with it.

I'm sick of hearing this claim.

And we are sick of listening to crap like that.

Obviously Saddam did have a part in there. Have you ever wondered why the White House does not release every single bit of intelligence out to the American People. We had our reasons. You are putting Hussein up on a pedestal here, do you think he is a good guy or something. What about the genocide on those Kurds. What about the Terrorists he was hardboring. What about the invasion of Kuat... no we made the right moves.

-Kevin

"Hardboring"? Sounds very painful. I don't think terrorists would like to be hardbored.

Anyway, I recommend you read the 9/11 Commission Report which shows that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I also recommend you search the various threads up here where this topic has been beaten to death over and over and over and no matter how many times you may say, it doesn't make it true.

Oh, btw, the invasion of Kuwait? Do some research into the satellite photos the US used to justify going to war. The photos were faked.

actually it has been confirmed there was al qaeda in Iraq before the war by USA. zarqawi has been there for a long time.

You don't read the truth much, do you?

Zarqawi was in a camp in northern Iraq, in Kurdish-controlled terrority, protected by the U.S. No-Fly Zone. Hmmm...

BTW, did you know Bush had three opportunities to get Zarqawi and passed them all up? Hmm...wonder why? You don't think he wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, do you? Naaaah...

Clinton passed on Bin Laden 4 times...

hah, good mention.