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

[cyclohexane]

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

why am I not surprised to hear this from loser111...

 

[JS80]

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.

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.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JS80

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.

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.

I have a rule about people who think fighting a war is all about being seen as a "pussy" or not. Try to guess what that rule is...

 

[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.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

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

So the president is responsible when the US gets attacked then. Gotcha, though I don't agree with you. Bush was not at all responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Hell, only a scant handful of hard left leaning posters here would agree with you on that. Welcome to that exclusive club. You have become what you despise. Congrats.

India's security minister resigned as a result of the Mumbai bombings. That certainly seems to be the standard.

The difference between 2001 and 2009 is that Bush has established intelligence and detention programs for the purpose of locating and killing radical Islam. If Obama chooses to dismantle them he does so at our peril.

 

[nageov3t]

mutant zombies?

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Two words: fear mongering.

You notice the cycle trend? Terrorists, Your children Children Kidnapped, Country Run out of Money and you living on the street, Terrorists again.

seriously, why do people still watch the news? There is no factual information present and it is so dang depressing.

 

[nageov3t]

can't say I've ever noticed that cycle...

 

[Rainsford]

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.

No, it will be worse than generic slime material. Taking advantage of terrorist attacks for partisan gain is among the most despicable things that has emerged in politics over the past several years. A terrorist attack would be front page news, your pathetic (but inevitable) attempts to blame Obama for any attacks should be relegated to the bullshit bin.

 

[manowar821]

They talked about this on NPR, too.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: umbrella39

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

So the president is responsible when the US gets attacked then. Gotcha, though I don't agree with you. Bush was not at all responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Hell, only a scant handful of hard left leaning posters here would agree with you on that. Welcome to that exclusive club. You have become what you despise. Congrats.

India's security minister resigned as a result of the Mumbai bombings. That certainly seems to be the standard.

The difference between 2001 and 2009 is that Bush has established intelligence and detention programs for the purpose of locating and killing radical Islam. If Obama chooses to dismantle them he does so at our peril.

You mean after dismantling the already present intelligence programs that were run by the previous administration in favor of a bunch of kneejerk responses that have probably made things worse, and removed any sort of goodwill our country has with other nations.

Not surprised to see the usual group on here fear mongering and hoping for a terrorist attack to prove that they are right.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Not surprised to see the usual group on here fear mongering and hoping for a terrorist attack to prove that they are right.

Can't wait for when we do get attacked and they blame Obama and chant BBB

Bring Back Bush Bring Back Bush Bring Back Bush Bring Back Bush Bring Back Bush

 

[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.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Two words: fear mongering.

This

 

[fskimospy]

I think we can both give credit to Bush for running the country without any attacks for 7 years and still accept the fact that another successful attack is a matter of when, not a matter of if.

That being said, I fully predict a right wing fagsplosion when this inevitable terrorist attack does occur, in which they will blame Obama for his weakness. In reality, and in many cases to my considerable disappointment, it appears that Obama will continue nearly all of the counter-terrorism stances of Bush, but it won't matter that the policies are the same to the hard core crazies on here. All they'll see is that a bunch of guys in beards decided to blow something up because Obama was willing to talk to Iran.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I just pissed myself with fear. :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At last, someone who understands why we are failing to win the so called war on terror.
Because not only do we fail to address root causes, our current actions add to the root causes.

But sadly, terrorism is an idea that cannot be killed, and an immensely old idea at that.
Worse yet, technology aids the terrorist more than it aids the status quo. And even a short range rocket loaded with biological weapons is a threat almost too horrible to contemplate. And while nuclear weapons might be a terrorist dream, making one is basically beyond their capacity, and making biological weapons is easily within terrorist means.

 

[OrByte]

I will start to get worried when Homeland Security busts out the terror threat level
"Color Charts" again.

so handy....so simplistic.... /sarcasm

God, how stupid were we to fall for that crap.... :|

 

[retrospooty]

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.

Fortunately for our country you are wrong.... On a side note, you are also paranoid, partisaned and kind of dumb.

 

[alchemize]

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.

Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's fault 🙂

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: alchemize

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.

Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's fault 🙂

Do you think that?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: alchemize

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.

Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's fault 🙂

Do you think that?

If he had gone after Bin Laden instead of wagging the dog from his cigar-capades with a couple cruise-missles on his camps, 9/11 may not have ever happened. A spectacular attack would have happened at some point, but not 9/11.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: alchemize

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.

Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's fault 🙂

Do you think that?

If he had gone after Bin Laden instead of wagging the dog from his cigar-capades with a couple cruise-missles on his camps, 9/11 may not have ever happened. A spectacular attack would have happened at some point, but not 9/11.

This is deliciously moronic. rofl. `

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: alchemize

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.

Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's fault 🙂

Do you think that?

If he had gone after Bin Laden instead of wagging the dog from his cigar-capades with a couple cruise-missles on his camps, 9/11 may not have ever happened. A spectacular attack would have happened at some point, but not 9/11.

This is deliciously moronic. rofl. `

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

 

[fskimospy]

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?