Nuclear and/or biological attack "likely" by 2013....

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Evan

This is deliciously moronic. rofl. `

Way to poke holes in my argument. A+ for effort.

Do you even know how thoroughly your argument has been discredited? Why do you expect that people should have to refute the same tired lines again and again?

Its not really possible to discredit. If Bin Laden wasn't alive or free in 2001, you think the exact events would have unfolded the same way?

I'm not saying it's Clinton's "fault", I am one of those old fashioned folk who think that the blame lands on the people who commit an act. But to pretend like more couldn't have been done to get this asshole after Cole, Embassy bombings, and WTC 1, makes you look more partisan than usual.

 

[First]

^ Come on, you'd really have to be pretty ignorant not to know what Clinton has said about OBL and 9/11 the last few years. Look it up, we're not going to do your HW for you. Besides, which is more of a failure, pledging to get OBL, the plotter behind 9/11, and failing miserably for 7 years to do it, or failing to catch a guy the CIA didn't give the go-ahead to kill in the 90's?

Man, you're dumb. :laugh:

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Evan
^ Come on, you'd really have to be pretty ignorant not to know what Clinton has said about OBL and 9/11 the last few years. Look it up, we're not going to do your HW for you.

Besides,which is more of a failure, pledging to get OBL, the plotter behind 9/11, and failing miserably for 7 years to do it, or failing to catch a guy the CIA didn't give the go-ahead to kill in the 90's?


Man, you're dumb. :laugh;

Bold #1: Well, if Clinton said it, that's all I need! My apologies.

Bold #2: Failure to prevent something like 9/11 is far worse than failing to catch the person who is responsible after the fact.

Bold #3: <Insert some response to a childish insult that is bound to make P&N think I am cool, and make me appear more attractive to potential mates>

 

[First]

^ Ah, man, that's just sad.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: KDOG
Yes I know its a foxnews link, but its on other sources as well. I knew this was coming. As crazy as it sounds to talk about, I'd rather have the nuke than a biological attack..... I just hope its not both. I don't think it will even take them (whoever "them" is) five years. I think we'll have a major attack in 2 - 3yrs tops. I have a survivalist mentality that other people think is weird but when it hits the fan, I bet they'll have a different tune. And the weak leadership we'll have here soon won't be able to handle it at all in my opinion. I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything. Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace". Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?

Your editorializing is bunk. The news is that a bipartisan congressional panel declares that a chemical or nuclear terrorist attack is likely on American soil sometime in the next 5 years, IIRC. Heard it on TV news. There was no further explanation. However, we've been hearing similar prognostications ever since 9/11, and AFAIK nothing has happened. They arrested an airline shoe bomber who was kind of a dolt and blew it. That was not a sophisticated, planned and coordinated attack such as we saw a week ago in India. The Islamic extremist attacks have been happening in Europe and various Asian locations.

If anything, Obama came off as considerably more hawkish on bringing down Al Qaeda than John McCain during the runnup to the election.

IMO, a nuclear attack would potentially be far more disastrous than a chemical one. Of course the devil is in the details. However, nothing would surprise me. An attack may be imminent, it may not happen at all. You guys slandering the upcoming administration before they are even in office based on projected terrorism are really pretty slimey.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.

The election is over, superfly...save your slime material for 2012...God knows you people will need it.

If and when this attack happens, it won't be slime material. It'll be front page news, as everyone asks what George W. Bush did right from 2002-2008.

I've read this thread up to here. For the most part it sucks.

 

[extra]

I love how people blame obama (or blame bush, for that matter), instead of the people actually responsible for carrying out the acts of terrorism... ;\

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.

The election is over, superfly...save your slime material for 2012...God knows you people will need it.

If and when this attack happens, it won't be slime material. It'll be front page news, as everyone asks what George W. Bush did right from 2002-2008.

I've read this thread up to here. For the most part it sucks and is filled with brain dead morans.

Fixed

 

[Eeezee]

A nuclear attack might accidentally spark a nuclear war... no thanks

Besides, biological attacks leave infrastructure intact so long as you can quarantine quickly enough. But then, what if you don't quarantine fast enough? Hmm...

I can't decide which would actually be worse

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Like we haven't heard this before. If I told you $200 barrel oil was coming, but never gave a date and every time I did but it kept coming, what would that say about me?

Anyway, I will say that I would never live in a large city like NYC or Chicago. I have zero fear of ever being hit by a terrorist attack or even knowing anybody that is and had no problem getting on a plane soon after 911, but I belive that living in an exceptionally densely populated places with very fews ins/outs such as Manhattan island is literally just tempting fate. It is _clearly_ the place that would be hit if terrorist ever get a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb and I wouldn't want to be there for when it happens.

Seriously, when the zombie war comes those big cities will be the first to fall. It just makes no sense.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I think its reasonable, and probable, there WILL be another attack on direct US soil...I mean, it's happened many times before 9/11. They just get bigger and bigger. To blame a president for a terrorist attack like this is asinine. It's because we are AMERICA they attack us. We were called Satan long before GWB came into office.

Screw you!

We're the GREAT Satan. And don't you forget it.

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: extra
I love how people blame obama (or blame bush, for that matter), instead of the people actually responsible for carrying out the acts of terrorism... ;\

I think it's more a response to how they handled the attacks. Instead of properly investigating 9/11 & thinking about the best reaction for Americans would be, it was: go kill the Taliban, give absolute control to the executive, legalize torture, invade Iraq on false charges, make sure every gets their piece of the pie, etc.

Although, these kinds of things tend to be great for the economy & short-term for political parties, etc., but that's ok, it's our flawed system. It all works out in the end right?

:beer:

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.

How can people seriously think that way? Is Rush Limbaugh telling you this? I don't get it. How do you come to this opinion?

Originally posted by: winnar111
If and when this attack happens, it won't be slime material. It'll be front page news, as everyone asks what George W. Bush did right from 2002-2008.

Come on, seriously? If you believe that Bush has anything to do with the LACK of a terrorist attack from 02-08, then you've delusional. No president can claim that. If there are no attacks during Obama's first term, I wonder if you'd give him the same credit (probably not, because you're a partisan bitch).

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: KDOG
I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything.

Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace".

Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?

The "impending doom" was brought on by your hero Bush, not Obama.

I bet you'd even go so far as to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on Bush too, right?

 

[wwswimming]

about the 1918 flu - in 1997 New Yorker magazine ran an article about an expedition by USAMRIID personnel to recover live samples of the 1918 flu. This is a bug which somehow targets the young & the healthy. The mission was 'successful' - they dug up graves, they dug through the lung tissue of people who died in 1918, they took the samples home, the virus was still alive. & has a new home in the labs of USAMRIID.

http://www.geocities.com/nc_in.../1918_virus_hunt__.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/nc_in...1918_virus_hunt_2_.jpg

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Like we haven't heard this before. If I told you $200 barrel oil was coming, but never gave a date and every time I did but it kept coming, what would that say about me?

Anyway, I will say that I would never live in a large city like NYC or Chicago. I have zero fear of ever being hit by a terrorist attack or even knowing anybody that is and had no problem getting on a plane soon after 911, but I belive that living in an exceptionally densely populated places with very fews ins/outs such as Manhattan island is literally just tempting fate. It is _clearly_ the place that would be hit if terrorist ever get a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb and I wouldn't want to be there for when it happens.

Seriously, when the zombie war comes those big cities will be the first to fall. It just makes no sense.

Exactly! You won't be able to hide in the cities.

I bet you'd even go so far as to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on Bush too, right?

He blames his erectile dysfunction on Bush.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
You don't stop terrorism with violence and brute force. You have to get to the root of the problem, and this is something Bush and his cronies never understood.

What is the root of the problem? That I am not a muslim? That the country of Israel exists? That the U.S buys oil from the middle east?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
You don't stop terrorism with violence and brute force. You have to get to the root of the problem, and this is something Bush and his cronies never understood.

What is the root of the problem? That I am not a muslim? That the country of Israel exists? That the U.S buys oil from the middle east?

That ME countries don't have a functioning gov't and are overun with zealots, created by that state mismanagement, making them incapable of raising civilized Islamic persons. Converting to Islam is just the radical excuse of a vocal minority; the root of the problem is that they don't have an infrastructure/gov't that can keep people in line, and they're normally not close to democratic.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: KDOG
Yes I know its a foxnews link, but its on other sources as well. I knew this was coming. As crazy as it sounds to talk about, I'd rather have the nuke than a biological attack..... I just hope its not both. I don't think it will even take them (whoever "them" is) five years. I think we'll have a major attack in 2 - 3yrs tops. I have a survivalist mentality that other people think is weird but when it hits the fan, I bet they'll have a different tune. And the weak leadership we'll have here soon won't be able to handle it at all in my opinion. I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything. Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace". Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?

You are wishing for it too damn much.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: KDOG
I guess I have to spell it out. My personal beliefs are that Obama and his team (I mean c'mon - Hillary? Biden? pffft!) will be ultra-weak and wimpy in the face of a large attack. I see them going hat in hand to our enemies begging for mercy and giving them what they want. Yes, they haven't spent a day in office, but thats what I think of them. 'nuff said.

What is this? One whole follow up post and you run away. Wow! What an OP!:disgust:

 

[BassBomb]

better predictions by 2035 more at 6

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: KDOG
Yes I know its a foxnews link, but its on other sources as well. I knew this was coming. As crazy as it sounds to talk about, I'd rather have the nuke than a biological attack..... I just hope its not both. I don't think it will even take them (whoever "them" is) five years. I think we'll have a major attack in 2 - 3yrs tops. I have a survivalist mentality that other people think is weird but when it hits the fan, I bet they'll have a different tune. And the weak leadership we'll have here soon won't be able to handle it at all in my opinion. I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything. Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace". Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?

Trust me, unless it's a super contagious, super resilient, super deadly, super incurable disease (ie, it could be released basically anywhere in the world and cause massive devastation), you wouldn't prefer the nuke unless you dream of a Mad Max future.

Nukes are on a whole different scale than any other possible weapon, including dirty bombs. Even the smallest nuke kills billions, while the most deadly of anything else aren't likely to be beyond the hundreds.

The most effective terrorist target is still the trains and subways. Even a small bomb could kill hundreds, and the economic loss (if the right areas are targetted) would be immense. Not to mention it would have a large effect on many people outside of the initial attack as they could be stranded if public transportation was brought down. And a bigger bomb would be better used to attack bridges and tunnels, which would take months if not years to rebuild. Even with alternate routes, the inefficiency in traffic would cause major economic losses, and it would scare people away from commuting into major cities for a while.

I doubt Obama will risk going down as a pussy when it comes to War and fighting terrorism. Yea he campaigned as a anti-war candidate, but he did that to just get the sheeple's votes. He will probably be a bigger hawk than W, the difference is, he'll talk one way and act another.

If he turns out to be a war president, he won't be an occupier. No "war" initiated by Obama will last more than 2 weeks.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Even the smallest nuke kills billions, while the most deadly of anything else aren't likely to be beyond the hundreds.

If he turns out to be a war president, he won't be an occupier. No "war" initiated by Obama will last more than 2 weeks.

Quoted out the funniest parts of this post. (but theres more funnayz in there)

 

[Gothgar]

12,12,2012 is it? that is shortly before 2013

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Nukes are on a whole different scale than any other possible weapon, including dirty bombs. Even the smallest nuke kills billions, while the most deadly of anything else aren't likely to be beyond the hundreds.

By posting this, it is obvious that you have *no* clue what you are talking about.