TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
In that case wouldn't God have made Bush president, so Bush can take credit as his chosen one?
I imagine it's in that place that certain people, who are loathe to give Bush any credit whatsoever, hide things. There are many such people in P&N.
You'll see the same sort of attitude in the coming years in here from people who are loathe to give Obama any credit whatsoever. My opinion won't change on those sort of people. Will yours?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Mugs ask the right question by askin about some of my contentions, "Is this just speculation on your part? Or do you have some verification of this?"
And the honest answer is no, Ossama Bin Laden and I are not exactly on speaking terms, so I am just asking these questions as somewhat of a chess player.
Because a good chess player has to ask two simultaneous questions, (1) What is the meanest nastiest thing I can do to the other side. (2) And what is the meanest nastiest thing I would do to my side if the sides of the board were suddenly switched.
And at least in a chess game, if anything, understanding your own vulnerabilities is by far the most important.
Certainly we can regard the rather effective US effort to strangle Al-Quida financing and support has been better than the Russian response of roll over and play dead when Bin Laden and friends were freedom fighters in Afghanistan. And after 911, the USA and allies have done much to decimate the ranks of Al-Quida leadership, limiting the damage they can do.
But still, reading our own NIE, which States quite clearly, that Al-Quida is now stronger than it was during 911, meaning Al-Quida too has done much to recover while rebuilding its operational capacity.
So its hard for me to believe that Al-Quida does not have the capacity to again strike the USA anytime it wants to. Especially since GWB&co and home land security has done so little to build up our defenses or harden our border security, port security, chemical plant security, infrastructure security, or the countless other ways in which we could be easily attacked.
Clearly Al-Quida has this capacity, yet it is not using it, and if not, we must ask why not? Exactly what the Al-Quida plans are is a mystery to me, so I am making some guesses on what the strategy might be.
And the honest answer is no, Ossama Bin Laden and I are not exactly on speaking terms, so I am just asking these questions as somewhat of a chess player.
Because a good chess player has to ask two simultaneous questions, (1) What is the meanest nastiest thing I can do to the other side. (2) And what is the meanest nastiest thing I would do to my side if the sides of the board were suddenly switched.
And at least in a chess game, if anything, understanding your own vulnerabilities is by far the most important.
Certainly we can regard the rather effective US effort to strangle Al-Quida financing and support has been better than the Russian response of roll over and play dead when Bin Laden and friends were freedom fighters in Afghanistan. And after 911, the USA and allies have done much to decimate the ranks of Al-Quida leadership, limiting the damage they can do.
But still, reading our own NIE, which States quite clearly, that Al-Quida is now stronger than it was during 911, meaning Al-Quida too has done much to recover while rebuilding its operational capacity.
So its hard for me to believe that Al-Quida does not have the capacity to again strike the USA anytime it wants to. Especially since GWB&co and home land security has done so little to build up our defenses or harden our border security, port security, chemical plant security, infrastructure security, or the countless other ways in which we could be easily attacked.
Clearly Al-Quida has this capacity, yet it is not using it, and if not, we must ask why not? Exactly what the Al-Quida plans are is a mystery to me, so I am making some guesses on what the strategy might be.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Chosen to serve as president, sure. If you are trying to reach for something beyond that, you are just dabbling in idolatry.
Then you are even more of a moron than I had realized.
Sure, and the there are those who assume things to give Bush credit for, such as yourself.
Of couse.
I don't see any reason why it should.
we haven't had a single terrorist attack during Obama's presidency, clearly he's even better than GWB at keeping terrorists away too.
Hey guys, we only had one catastrophic terrorist attack during Bush's presidency! Quite an accomplishment!
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Oh wow, that's cool... I didnt realize that AQ was to blame for the dotcom bubble, the mortgage bubble, the subsequent astronomical and viral "bail outs," the wasteful spending brought on by our corrupt Congress, and all of the other crime and corruption on wall street.
Thanks for clearing that up for us... at least we know who to blame now! :roll:
Why bother with KSA when we can instead base ourselves in nearly every other country in the ME and Central Asia? Yep, that sure worked out in OBL's favor all-right... at least his two precious mosques are untainted! :roll:
Clearly...
...
Seriously, where you clowns come up with this shit!?
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
lmao...
Clearly invading other countries on false pretenses (or the hilarious pre-emptive war ideology) isn't the smartest way to make America safer. & maybe, just maybe if all of these new "security" agencies are being created... they should maybe focus on uhm.... security?
borders, ports & yes even airports are all shit. You wouldn't believe the state of the "security" @ Dulles International Airport in 03/04 when I worked there. It was pure fucking jokes. It was funny because the training built me up thinking I was going to be hunting terrorists, detecting bombs, etc. & all just ended up being a bunch of retards from management down who didn't have a clue about anything.
Also, 50% of all luggage ticks & vibrates. LMAO....
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have had only one such catastrophic foreign inspired terrorists attack in our nations entire history.
The McVeigh attack does not count because its homegrown, Pearl harbor does not count because it came from a foreign State,
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Let's see...
1983: Marine Barracks, Beirut... 241 dead, 60 wounded.
1993: WTC... 6 dead, 1042 wounded. What? not enough bodies for you? That's cool, I guess. Bill Clinton didn't think so either, which may be why he never even bothered to visit the site...
1996: Khobar Towers... 20 dead, 372 wounded.
1998: U.S. Embassy bombings... 223 dead, ~4085 wounded.
2000: USS Cole... 17 dead, 39 wounded.
I guess it all depends on how you define the word "catastrophic." Perhaps we should poll the family members of the wounded and deceased to see what they think... but, anyone who believes that the war against terrorists started in 2001 is an idiot.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,802
- 8,381
- 136
If the baddies really wanted to, they would have; which leaves the question: What has Bush specifically done to prevent the baddies from attacking us since 9/11? And, why hasen't he come up with all the proof and evidence to back up his oft-stated insinuation? Because that's as close as he's ever come to claiming that he himself prevented the nation from being attacked since 9/11.
He has alluded to it, he has hinted at it, he has backhandedly claimed credit for it on numerous occasions, yet he never once made a direct statement that he in fact did prevent any further attacks and what he actually did to prevent the attacks that never came.
That kind of elusive jibber-jabber from him says only one thing for sure: He's making suggestive comments in the hopes that it sticks. He can't come right out and plainly claim credit because he's forced to embed his doublespeak with the escape clause of plausible deniability, which for him has been a chronic habit acquired out of necessity.
He has alluded to it, he has hinted at it, he has backhandedly claimed credit for it on numerous occasions, yet he never once made a direct statement that he in fact did prevent any further attacks and what he actually did to prevent the attacks that never came.
That kind of elusive jibber-jabber from him says only one thing for sure: He's making suggestive comments in the hopes that it sticks. He can't come right out and plainly claim credit because he's forced to embed his doublespeak with the escape clause of plausible deniability, which for him has been a chronic habit acquired out of necessity.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Nah, we ultimately bear the blame for all of it ourselves, but AQ played key part tricking us into blowing a fortune in Iraq and elsewhere, which was exactly their intent.
I'd bet most would be reasonable enough to acknowledge the difference in scale between those attacks and 9/11, though some people are obviously prone to hyperbole.
the Bush/ Cheney administration did not protect the US from a terrorist attack.
they had dozens of warnings that 9-11 was a bad week to fly, and chose not
to ground the planes.
2 of the warnings came out in local papers, those received by Willie Brown &
Salman Rushdie.
Paul Thompson aggregated each of those in the 9-11 Timeline at
http://www.historycommons.org/...sp?project=911_project
when Condo. Rice says they "had no idea" about air-liners being used in an
attack, she is 100% lying. the guy that blew up the bombs in 1993 at the
WTC had plans on that subject in his possession.
they had dozens of warnings that 9-11 was a bad week to fly, and chose not
to ground the planes.
2 of the warnings came out in local papers, those received by Willie Brown &
Salman Rushdie.
Paul Thompson aggregated each of those in the 9-11 Timeline at
http://www.historycommons.org/...sp?project=911_project
when Condo. Rice says they "had no idea" about air-liners being used in an
attack, she is 100% lying. the guy that blew up the bombs in 1993 at the
WTC had plans on that subject in his possession.
Bush should have done more to prevent 9-11.
You have the infamous Phoenix memo, which details Al-Qaeda's plot to attack targets in the US using hijacked airplanes. You had the heads of several intelligence agencies saying to watch out for an attack. This was definitely forseeable and Bush fell asleep at the wheel.
I suggest people read the following website. It details a lot of the shortcomings of the administration during 9-11, complete with sources.
http://911research.wtc7.net/
You have the infamous Phoenix memo, which details Al-Qaeda's plot to attack targets in the US using hijacked airplanes. You had the heads of several intelligence agencies saying to watch out for an attack. This was definitely forseeable and Bush fell asleep at the wheel.
I suggest people read the following website. It details a lot of the shortcomings of the administration during 9-11, complete with sources.
http://911research.wtc7.net/
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
Even if Bush kept the terrorists from laying ruin to the US, Bush did a good job of laying things to ruin himself.
After a while, the terrorists probably realized there was no need to kick us while we're down.
After a while, the terrorists probably realized there was no need to kick us while we're down.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Seeing our troops pour into the entire ME and Central Asia was not AQ's intent. OBL more than likely expected an air strike or two, not several hundred thousand soldiers in his own backyard. Until 2001, the U.S. had reacted to AQ's existence with kid gloves.
Our response to 9/11, however, was well beyond OBL's wildest nightmares.
When 60 minutes interviewed the Delta team leader who was on the trail of OBL in Tora Bora, he stated that OBL was overheard (intercepted) apologizing to his men; and that OBL himself said that our response was way beyond anything he had ever imagined.
Like LL, and others, you're giving AQ way too much credit.
In terms of scale, the attacks are certainly different. However, the tone of LL's sentence seemed to imply that none of the other attacks -- which resulted in over 500 dead -- qualified as "catastrophic," which is bullshit...
What word will you use to describe any future attacks that are larger in scale than 9/11?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I very much doubt that contention, while most Al-Quida operatives are undoubtably busy fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not take all that big of a group to plan and carry out acts of terror in the USA or else where. Nor has it stopped Al-Quida attacks ranging geographically from England to Indonesia and all the way to the Philippines, an as far South as Africa. Yet nothing at all on US soil? Not even an attempt. I hardly think Al-Quida would deal with incompetents like Richard can't even light his shoes correctly Reed or Hose Pedia.
And score a point for palehorse, I should have qualified my my statement that NEVER has the US suffered a foreign brewed terrorist attack of the magnitude of 911, with the qualifier of ON US DOMESTIC SOIL. And while 1042 injured, in the 1993 trade center bombing sounds impressive, most of those were simply treated smoke inhalation caused during the panic of the evacuation.
Elias824
Golden Member
- Mar 13, 2007
- 1,100
- 0
- 76
Indeed one of the big qualifiers to be a terrorist is having a decent education, you cant send a guy to strike in the US if he cant speak English very well, or make a bomb by himself.
Al-Quida is a very large organization with many separate cells, some are more interested in the US then others. If I am not mistake the Philippines has their own war on terror to fight Al-Quida in that region. Either way, they can strike at the US much easier in Afghanistan/Iraq so the don't really need to be on our soil at this point.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Providing the means for our leaders to trick us into letting them further raping our economy into their own pockets was AQ's intent. The means and extent by which our leaders did that was obviously well beyond AQ's expectations, and I never said anyhing to suggest otherwise.
I'd call this a lame semantic argument I have no interest in continuing.
OP, The real question is if there was proof he prevented terrorist attacks, How would this change your viewpoint of GWB? You seemed obsessed with his failure and yet you offer no support for your argument.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The Elias24 point of "Indeed one of the big qualifiers to be a terrorist is having a decent education, you cant send a guy to strike in the US if he cant speak English very well, or make a bomb by himself.
Al-Quida is a very large organization with many separate cells, some are more interested in the US then others. If I am not mistake the Philippines has their own war on terror to fight Al-Quida in that region. Either way, they can strike at the US much easier in Afghanistan/Iraq so the don't really need to be on our soil at this point.",
somewhat dodges the question of is GWB keeping us safe." From what I can read, Al-Quida has operatives from many national groups that are native english speakers and some of them are "white."
At least in the case of 911, Al-Quida choose only Saudis, to send a message and to hopefully drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia, but could have picked a more diverse set of Nationalities
instead but would have lost the hoped for blame it on the Saudis hope.
I can mostly only conclude that AL-Quida has deliberately chosen not to attack us again as their option, but if or when they change their minds, such attacks are very doable because GWB has failed to harden our defenses. And now its official, the GWB watch has ended with one and only one horrific 911 sized event on domestic US soil occurred on his watch, will we see Obama take further steps to harden US defenses?
Because at any time, Al-Quida could change their mind, and again launch such an attack on US domestic soil. For all we know, it could be all ready to go, and just waiting for an order to trigger it. If such an Al-Quida attack is still in the early planning stages, it could take a long time to put together.
Al-Quida is a very large organization with many separate cells, some are more interested in the US then others. If I am not mistake the Philippines has their own war on terror to fight Al-Quida in that region. Either way, they can strike at the US much easier in Afghanistan/Iraq so the don't really need to be on our soil at this point.",
somewhat dodges the question of is GWB keeping us safe." From what I can read, Al-Quida has operatives from many national groups that are native english speakers and some of them are "white."
At least in the case of 911, Al-Quida choose only Saudis, to send a message and to hopefully drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia, but could have picked a more diverse set of Nationalities
instead but would have lost the hoped for blame it on the Saudis hope.
I can mostly only conclude that AL-Quida has deliberately chosen not to attack us again as their option, but if or when they change their minds, such attacks are very doable because GWB has failed to harden our defenses. And now its official, the GWB watch has ended with one and only one horrific 911 sized event on domestic US soil occurred on his watch, will we see Obama take further steps to harden US defenses?
Because at any time, Al-Quida could change their mind, and again launch such an attack on US domestic soil. For all we know, it could be all ready to go, and just waiting for an order to trigger it. If such an Al-Quida attack is still in the early planning stages, it could take a long time to put together.
(A) If there was proof (or at least a shred of evidence) that Bush's actions/policies prevented another 9/11-style attack, then he'd be justified in claiming he kept America safe. Instead, we have claims with zero logic or support to back them up.
(B) I'm not obsessed with his failure, I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy of Bush and his greatest supporters claiming that he kept America safe. For all we know, doing absolutely nothing could have kept us safe, or who knows? We could attribute it to anything, up until and including my theory that 9/11-sized attacks are timed with incoming presidents.
I've offered just the right amount of support for my argument, problem is, yourself and the folks claiming "Bush kept us safe" can't do the same thing.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I have to agree with Deal Monkey, but the person who may become in a better position to say will be the new head of homeland security. Because Janet should be asking what plots aimed at US soil were intercepted and averted under the GWB watch. Information she may have to evaluate in the very near future but information that may not be shared with the general public for decades for intelligence secrecy reasons.
Something neither here or there until details are released to the general public, but we could get a clue if Obama starts relaxing wiretap and similar types blanket surveillance that do violate basic constitutional rights.
Something neither here or there until details are released to the general public, but we could get a clue if Obama starts relaxing wiretap and similar types blanket surveillance that do violate basic constitutional rights.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter