Zarqawi said to be planning US hit

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: conjur
[ Hell, this administration isn't even trying to beef up our borders. In fact, it's doing the exact *opposite* via its latest budget proposal which will cut ~10,000 border patrol agents.

Good - let this come back to haunt Bush by bringing terrorism to our own home land because Bush has become lax. Americans will die and strike Bush down, as he deserves, for lying to them and spending all their money into debt and ultimately being unable to protect them.

This will be a fitting legacy to Bush's corrupt Regime of crownies.

You are a digusting person. How can a sane person WISH for a terrorist attack on US soil just so they could advance their radical political agenda? Seriously, you are a deranged person. Then you'll cry and whine when someone calls people like you anti-American.

Remember, a bomb doesn't differentiate between straights and gays, between conservatives and liberals, between democrats and republicans.

This is a no win situation for Bush. If a attack happens, it's his fault. If it does not, he lied about a possible attack. The government is doing their job by letting us know there are ACTUALLY terrorists plotting to kill millions of Americans. Duck your head in the sand if you wish.

 

[MCWAR]

I have to say, my thoughts on calling you guys liberals is all wrong. I know real liberals including a lot of my own family. Although misguided, their beliefs are truly based on compassion and fair treatment. You people (phillyTIM, conjur) are far from being liberals, I have read multple post of you wishing death on groups and individuals etc... The only thing you could be called is anti establishment, anti american, anti christion, anti-jew, pro- anarchist, pro death as long as it is someone who does not share your view. You want freedom to do whatever makes you feel good, and restrictions or death for those who do not share your sicko views.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
I have to say, my thoughts on calling you guys liberals is all wrong. I know real liberals including a lot of my own family. Although misguided, their beliefs are truly based on compassion and fair treatment. You people (phillyTIM, conjur) are far from being liberals, I have read multple post of you wishing death on groups and individuals etc... The only thing you could be called is anti establishment, anti american, anti christion, anti-jew, pro- anarchist, pro death as long as it is someone who does not share your view. You want freedom to do whatever makes you feel good, and restrictions or death for those who do not share your sicko views.

Edit: Oh please, read my sig.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: conjur
[ Hell, this administration isn't even trying to beef up our borders. In fact, it's doing the exact *opposite* via its latest budget proposal which will cut ~10,000 border patrol agents.

Good - let this come back to haunt Bush by bringing terrorism to our own home land because Bush has become lax. Americans will die and strike Bush down, as he deserves, for lying to them and spending all their money into debt and ultimately being unable to protect them.

This will be a fitting legacy to Bush's corrupt Regime of crownies.

You are a digusting person. How can a sane person WISH for a terrorist attack on US soil just so they could advance their radical political agenda? Seriously, you are a deranged person. Then you'll cry and whine when someone calls people like you anti-American.

Remember, a bomb doesn't differentiate between straights and gays, between conservatives and liberals, between democrats and republicans.

This is a no win situation for Bush. If a attack happens, it's his fault. If it does not, he lied about a possible attack. The government is doing their job by letting us know there are ACTUALLY terrorists plotting to kill millions of Americans. Duck your head in the sand if you wish.

The first attack could've been prevented, but Bush didn't give a sh*t about the 52 warnings given to him. He did NOTHING.

"9/11 wasn't his crowning achievement. It was a f8ckup from a guy on vacation."

Obviously, you don't care that the President is doing NOTHING AGAIN about stopping another terrorist attack and you support him, so in essence, you are condoning the laxness of his policies. Thus, it is YOU who don't care that a terrorist attack hits our soil. Blood will be on Bush's and YOUR (or anyone who supports him) hands.

 

[Miramonti]

These reports are most likely linked to the latest intelligence report.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: MCWAR
I have to say, my thoughts on calling you guys liberals is all wrong. I know real liberals including a lot of my own family. Although misguided, their beliefs are truly based on compassion and fair treatment. You people (phillyTIM, conjur) are far from being liberals, I have read multple post of you wishing death on groups and individuals etc... The only thing you could be called is anti establishment, anti american, anti christion, anti-jew, pro- anarchist, pro death as long as it is someone who does not share your view. You want freedom to do whatever makes you feel good, and restrictions or death for those who do not share your sicko views.

Examples please.

No kidding. Someone with a nickname of MCWAR is one to be tossing about complaints of indiscriminate killing. McWar is what's in the White House right now.

 

[MCWAR]

Darn! I knew I should have zipped my fly. Here comes Darkhawk28

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
Darn! I knew I should have zipped my fly. Here comes Darkhawk28

Obviously, you were called out and aren't man enough to stand up. Cheney off.

 

[MCWAR]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: MCWAR
I have to say, my thoughts on calling you guys liberals is all wrong. I know real liberals including a lot of my own family. Although misguided, their beliefs are truly based on compassion and fair treatment. You people (phillyTIM, conjur) are far from being liberals, I have read multple post of you wishing death on groups and individuals etc... The only thing you could be called is anti establishment, anti american, anti christion, anti-jew, pro- anarchist, pro death as long as it is someone who does not share your view. You want freedom to do whatever makes you feel good, and restrictions or death for those who do not share your sicko views.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darkhawk28
Quote:


Edit: Oh please, read my sig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is tha calling me out?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: MCWAR
I have to say, my thoughts on calling you guys liberals is all wrong. I know real liberals including a lot of my own family. Although misguided, their beliefs are truly based on compassion and fair treatment. You people (phillyTIM, conjur) are far from being liberals, I have read multple post of you wishing death on groups and individuals etc... The only thing you could be called is anti establishment, anti american, anti christion, anti-jew, pro- anarchist, pro death as long as it is someone who does not share your view. You want freedom to do whatever makes you feel good, and restrictions or death for those who do not share your sicko views.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: MCWAR
I have to say, my thoughts on calling you guys liberals is all wrong. I know real liberals including a lot of my own family. Although misguided, their beliefs are truly based on compassion and fair treatment. You people (phillyTIM, conjur) are far from being liberals, I have read multple post of you wishing death on groups and individuals etc... The only thing you could be called is anti establishment, anti american, anti christion, anti-jew, pro- anarchist, pro death as long as it is someone who does not share your view. You want freedom to do whatever makes you feel good, and restrictions or death for those who do not share your sicko views.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darkhawk28
Quote:


Edit: Oh please, read my sig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is tha calling me out?

I referred you to a quote from a famous Republican that would answer as to why we speak out, for better or worse. I expected at least a half-way adult response, but you answered with vulgarity. Typical, Mayor McCheese.

 

[Sunbird]

I think they shouldn't be called intelligence reports, they should get another name.

Best I could come up with is, guesses-and-conjectures-based-upon-possibly-real-information reports

 

[MCWAR]

posted by😀arkhawk28
quote:

I referred you to a quote from a famous Republican that would answer as to why we speak out, for better or worse. I expected at least a half-way adult response, but you answered with vulgarity. Typical, Mayor McCheese.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Calling for a terrorist attack is not the same as questioning the current administration.
What vulgarity?

 

[Sunbird]

Hey, I like fighting with Darkhawk28 sometimes too, but where did he ever call for a terrorist attack?

He just said you actually want it, if your a Bush supporter that is.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: conjur
[ Hell, this administration isn't even trying to beef up our borders. In fact, it's doing the exact *opposite* via its latest budget proposal which will cut ~10,000 border patrol agents.

Good - let this come back to haunt Bush by bringing terrorism to our own home land because Bush has become lax. Americans will die and strike Bush down, as he deserves, for lying to them and spending all their money into debt and ultimately being unable to protect them.

This will be a fitting legacy to Bush's corrupt Regime of crownies.

You are a digusting person. How can a sane person WISH for a terrorist attack on US soil just so they could advance their radical political agenda? Seriously, you are a deranged person. Then you'll cry and whine when someone calls people like you anti-American.

Remember, a bomb doesn't differentiate between straights and gays, between conservatives and liberals, between democrats and republicans.

This is a no win situation for Bush. If a attack happens, it's his fault. If it does not, he lied about a possible attack. The government is doing their job by letting us know there are ACTUALLY terrorists plotting to kill millions of Americans. Duck your head in the sand if you wish.

The first attack could've been prevented, but Bush didn't give a sh*t about the 52 warnings given to him. He did NOTHING.

"9/11 wasn't his crowning achievement. It was a f8ckup from a guy on vacation."

Obviously, you don't care that the President is doing NOTHING AGAIN about stopping another terrorist attack and you support him, so in essence, you are condoning the laxness of his policies. Thus, it is YOU who don't care that a terrorist attack hits our soil. Blood will be on Bush's and YOUR (or anyone who supports him) hands.

No, I realize that there are many holes in security. The cargo that comes in from ships is not inspected. Terrorists could easily smuggle some WMD. The border is more porous now than before 9/11. We are strip searching grandma's instead of the people we should be strip searching. Americans have gone to the pre-9/11 mentality. I never knew I supported the president.

How the heck can you say I don't care that the President is doing NOTHING? We are just as much at risk right now as we were on 9/12. We should thank the brave police officers of the NYPD and police officers all accross America for keeping us safe. Ray Kelly has done a great job.

I was replying to the disgusting comments by phillyTIM. And yes, this is a no win situation for Bush.

I want America to be safe and secure. I could care less about Bush or any other politician, I want whats best for America and its interests. Letting the public know once a while keeps us alert and reminds us that there are people out there that would murder millions of Americans if they had the chance.

Originally posted by: Sunbird
Hey, I like fighting with Darkhawk28 sometimes too, but where did he ever call for a terrorist attack?

He just said you actually want it, if your a Bush supporter that is.

Oh please, thats like saying democrats want another terrorist attack so they could blame it on Bush. Please stop with the insane generalizations.

 

[MCWAR]

posted by sunbird
quote:
Hey, I like fighting with Darkhawk28 sometimes too, but where did he ever call for a terrorist attack?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said he did. Go back to the top of the page and read.

 

[Sunbird]

Oh, sorry, my brain interpreted it wrong.

 

[Sunbird]

raildogg, so who's fault would it be if terrorist are able to attack the US?

Of course it for the most part the terrorists fault but since you are unlikely to know who they are and be able to stop them, you have to do something about what you have control over.

If you are Bush, you have to spend the money where necessary to make the borders more secure. If you don't, your not doing your job as president, and should be impeached.

As a citizen, you should report any suspicious activities to the relevant authorities.

And as a citizen you should have heard someone mention something about that Micheal Moore fellows film and where is shows 1 state trooper having to patrol some large number of miles of coastline on his own. And if you didn't. now you know.

Now, since Bush was elected leader, and thus is the representative of the majority of americans and what they aspire too for their country, that says something about those people that voted for him.

Maybe they shouldn't have voted, or they should have done some research on their candidate before voting for him.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Sunbird
raildogg, so who's fault would it be if terrorist are able to attack the US?

Of course it for the most part the terrorists fault but since you are unlikely to know who they are and be able to stop them, you have to do something about what you have control over.

If you are Bush, you have to spend the money where necessary to make the borders more secure. If you don't, your not doing your job as president, and should be impeached.

As a citizen, you should report any suspicious activities to the relevant authorities.

And as a citizen you should have heard someone mention something about that Micheal Moore fellows film and where is shows 1 state tropper having to patrol some large number of miles of coastline on his own. And if you didn't. now you know.

Now, since Bush was elected leader, and thus is the representative of the majority of americans and what they aspire too for their country, that says something about those people that voted for him.

Maybe they shouldn't have voted, or they should have done some research on their candidate before voting for him.

Whose fault?

Terrorists want to kill as many Americans as they can, and we have to stop them. We have to foil a terrorist attack EVERY time, they only have to get lucky once.

We know who the terrorists are, they are the Islamic radicals. Why are you saying we don't know who they are? The first step towards combating terrorism is identifying your enemy. Without doing so, you will never win the fight.

Vicente Fox and his cronies have Bush in their pockets. Thats the reason Bush is reluctant to close down the border. Remember, the Canadian border is just as dangerous as the Mexican border. There are many terrorists operating out of Canada.

Bush was originally elected by a minority of Americans. Gore got more votes. What does it say about the people that voted for him?

Well I don't vote much, but if I had the chance to vote in 2000, I would have voted for Gore.

You can't honestly tell me that a Democrat would have done things much differently than Bush. 9/11 still would have happened, maybe Iraq war would not have. But a the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil would remain. 9/11 hijackers took many years to plan out the attack.

And as a citizen you should have heard someone mention something about that Micheal Moore fellows film and where is shows 1 state tropper having to patrol some large number of miles of coastline on his own. And if you didn't. now you know.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. State trooper having to patrol coastline?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Sunbird
raildogg, so who's fault would it be if terrorist are able to attack the US?

Of course it for the most part the terrorists fault but since you are unlikely to know who they are and be able to stop them, you have to do something about what you have control over.

If you are Bush, you have to spend the money where necessary to make the borders more secure. If you don't, your not doing your job as president, and should be impeached.

As a citizen, you should report any suspicious activities to the relevant authorities.

And as a citizen you should have heard someone mention something about that Micheal Moore fellows film and where is shows 1 state tropper having to patrol some large number of miles of coastline on his own. And if you didn't. now you know.

Now, since Bush was elected leader, and thus is the representative of the majority of americans and what they aspire too for their country, that says something about those people that voted for him.

Maybe they shouldn't have voted, or they should have done some research on their candidate before voting for him.

Whose fault?

Terrorists want to kill as many Americans as they can, and we have to stop them. We have to foil a terrorist attack EVERY time, they only have to get lucky once.

:vomit; Enough with the parroting of the Propagandist.

We know who the terrorists are, they are the Islamic radicals. Why are you saying we don't know who they are? The first step towards combating terrorism is identifying your enemy. Without doing so, you will never win the fight.

Ok, start naming names and addresses. We'll send the Marines a-knockin'.

:roll:

Vicente Fox and his cronies have Bush in their pockets. Thats the reason Bush is reluctant to close down the border. Remember, the Canadian border is just as dangerous as the Mexican border. There are many terrorists operating out of Canada.

Many? Is the Canadian PM aware that there are many? The key to rooting out the terrorists is wide-ranging intelligence with the ability to report freely (without the fear of being fired for reporting nothing or that a suspect is innocent) and to apprehend when felt necessary. But, even then, the suspect must be granted due process (not like Guantanamo.)

Bush was originally elected by a minority of Americans. Gore got more votes. What does it say about the people that voted for him?

Gore or Bush? Be more clear.

Well I don't vote much, but if I had the chance to vote in 2000, I would have voted for Gore.

I wish I had

You can't honestly tell me that a Democrat would have done things much differently than Bush. 9/11 still would have happened, maybe Iraq war would not have. But a the possibility of a terrorist attack on US soil would remain. 9/11 hijackers took many years to plan out the attack.

Remember Richard Clarke? There's a reason he left his position (remember, his career began under a Republican president.) What did Bush do to combat the threat of a terrorist attack? Not a damned thing. Ashcroft stopped flying commercial amidst dozens of reports warning of airplane hijackings. What's that tell you?

And as a citizen you should have heard someone mention something about that Micheal Moore fellows film and where is shows 1 state tropper having to patrol some large number of miles of coastline on his own. And if you didn't. now you know.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. State trooper having to patrol coastline?

One state trooper patrols miles and miles and miles of Oregon coastline. How secure is that coastline?

 

[phillyTIM]

IF Bush was serious about protecting America, one of the FIRST things he would have done after 9/11 would have been to lock up the American borders, air-tight!

Bush continues to overlook the border problem, and that shows how not serious he is about protecting America. What a hypocrite and liar Bush is.

 

[Sunbird]

The problem is, you don't always know who the terrorists are.

Heck, I could be a terrorist and go explode a building tomorrow if I had the $ to buy the stuff I need. Nobody would be able to stop me with intelligence methods, only thing that could possibly stop me would be physical security measures/methods (bomb proof buildings and all kinds of other things like observant people. Thats why sleepers cells are such a problem.

And althought I wish Gore became president back in 2000, we will never know if that would have made any difference in how the warnings were handled, its a futile exercise. All we can do is prepare for the future.




Anyway, I just love playing devils advocate, so please don't take my posts personal, just have to point out any hipocracies in other posters and such, unfortunately I'm not immune to mistakes and saying hipocritical sounding things either.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Sunbird
Hey, I like fighting with Darkhawk28 sometimes too, but where did he ever call for a terrorist attack?

He just said you actually want it, if your a Bush supporter that is.

Actually, I didn't say that a Bush supporter wants it. I said that a Bush supporter would be responsible for supporting a President that has done nothing to prevent it. Nobody WANTS a terrorist attack.

And btw, I have fought with you before? 😉

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
IF Bush was serious about protecting America, one of the FIRST things he would have done after 9/11 would have been to lock up the American borders, air-tight!

Bush continues to overlook the border problem, and that shows how not serious he is about protecting America. What a hypocrite and liar Bush is.

And just how do you lock up the borders air tight?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
payback is hell, isn't it?

Payback? For what? You are just a douchebag.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: conjur

:vomit; Enough with the parroting of the Propagandist.

:vomit; Enough with ignoring a threat, just like people ignored it before 9/11

Ok, start naming names and addresses. We'll send the Marines a-knockin'.

:roll:

Can you ever be rational? If I knew their names I would have informed the authorities. Obviously the terrorists aren't 80 year old grandma's. We know who they are. Instead of strip searching some 80 year old grandma, look after the right group.

Many? Is the Canadian PM aware that there are many? The key to rooting out the terrorists is wide-ranging intelligence with the ability to report freely (without the fear of being fired for reporting nothing or that a suspect is innocent) and to apprehend when felt necessary. But, even then, the suspect must be granted due process (not like Guantanamo.)

Yes, Canada is a haven for terrorists. Just like America. Who is against due process?

Gore or Bush? Be more clear.

Sunbird had said that majority of the people had voted for Bush and it says something about them. Just to be fair, I reminded him that in 2000, majority of people voted for Gore, and what did that say about them.

Remember Richard Clarke? There's a reason he left his position (remember, his career began under a Republican president.) What did Bush do to combat the threat of a terrorist attack? Not a damned thing. Ashcroft stopped flying commercial amidst dozens of reports warning of airplane hijackings. What's that tell you?

Yes, I remember Richard Clarke. He's a counter terrorist agent. His book criticized several presidents in leading up to 9/11. Clinton has dirty hands in 9/11, even more so than Bush. This guy was clearly ignored and thats the reason he quit.

One state trooper patrols miles and miles and miles of Oregon coastline. How secure is that coastline?

How secure is the Canadian border? How secure is the Mexican border? The correct term should be "How insecure are the Canadian and Mexican borders"?