Author Topic: Terrorist dry runs in the US? (Read 2386 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #75 on:** July 28, 2007, 03:15:37 PM »

Mr No Name, do you propose killing their young children?

john9001 · « **Reply #76 on:** July 28, 2007, 03:35:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Mr No Name, do you propose killing their young children?

mr no name is not the one strapping bombs on young childern and telling them to be "martyrs" for islam.

again, you are preaching to the wrong people, talk to the terrorists.

Chalenge · « **Reply #77 on:** July 28, 2007, 03:59:06 PM »

xmarine I think you fail to realize the Shah in power was much better for the U.S. (and incidentally the entire middle east region) than the Shah out of power. It was the 'genius' Jimmy Carter that brought the Shah down. U.S. support at that point would have avoided the situation we are in now. Its amazing how the U.S. political arena can influence events around the world but it is a fact that it does. So when morons like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi go out of their way to attack a sitting U.S. President and his policies while a liberal Congress attempts to set a new precedent concerning which branch of the government actually commands the military our children are dying in Iraq.

You speak of history and history precedence and yet there is no precedence for our withdrawal at such an early point after liberation. Yet Congress holds the President to demands that history indicates will result in failure. Why does Congress want us to fail in Iraq? For petty reasons. Political reasons. Reasons that will allow them to hold Bush responsible but reasons that will ensure that the U.S. is hit again. They refuse to see that because they are ignorant and actually believe the compassionate line they feed us all the time.

I expect them to get their way. I expect we will be hit again. I expect a large faction of Muslims living here to rear up and strike out at us from within. I also expect the backlash to cause liberals to be held responsible in the end. They have power for now and we are not safe because of it.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #78 on:** July 28, 2007, 04:10:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chalenge
xmarine I think you fail to realize the Shah in power was much better for the U.S. (and incidentally the entire middle east region) than the Shah out of power. It was the 'genius' Jimmy Carter that brought the Shah down. U.S. support at that point would have avoided the situation we are in now.

It wasn't Carter that caused the downfall of the Shah. The Peacock Throne died as a direct result of the Shah and his cronies. It was the backing of the US that allowed the regime to last as long as it did.

ack-ack

Mr No Name · « **Reply #79 on:** July 28, 2007, 04:23:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Mr No Name, do you propose killing their young children?

YES (In caps so there is no misunderstanding), we have to fight the war on the same level the enemy fights it. When you fight a war with PC gloves on it is perceived as a weakness. They must know our resolve is as strong as theirs and treachery will be met with equal or greater treachery.

War is a nasty business, preferably avoided altogether but IF you are going to fight, always go all out to WIN.

Chairboy · « **Reply #80 on:** July 28, 2007, 04:43:01 PM »

I think that's abhorrent, and I bet there are plenty of folks here who quietly agree with you but don't want to say it. There certainly isn't an upwelling of protest against the idea, that's pretty telling about how 'civilized' the christian contingency is.

McFarland · « **Reply #81 on:** July 28, 2007, 05:17:53 PM »

Don't kill the children, kill the ones teaching them. And killing 16 years olds isn't killing children, childhood stops the moment you proclaim that you will die for Allah, and strap that bomb on. Once you know right from wrong, you are no longer innocent, and no longer a child.

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #82 on:** July 28, 2007, 05:39:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
that's pretty telling about how 'civilized' the christian contingency is.

carefully, not everyone!
but those who act (or would like to act) on the same level as this murders fit there very well.

Zombies.

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #83 on:** July 28, 2007, 05:47:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by McFarland
Once you know right from wrong, you are no longer innocent, and no longer a child.

and that happens at what age?
At the naive age of 16 ?

Chalenge · « **Reply #84 on:** July 28, 2007, 06:11:14 PM »

Maybe I have it wrong ack-ack but as I recall it was Carter that called for the release of prisoners of the 'religious' persuasion. His form of foreign policy was terrible and to look back you might think he took advice from... well its history now and too late to change matters.

Chairboy · « **Reply #85 on:** July 28, 2007, 06:14:53 PM »

Funny, still no objection to Mr No Name's explicit advocacy of killing young muslim children. The silence is... dare I say it... deafening.

Mr No Name · « **Reply #86 on:** July 28, 2007, 07:43:01 PM »

War is hell son...

bj229r · « **Reply #87 on:** July 28, 2007, 09:08:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Funny, still no objection to Mr No Name's explicit advocacy of killing young muslim children. The silence is... dare I say it... deafening.

Tom Tancredo said to threaten nuking Mecca if we get another major event on US soil....(I've yet to hear his exact phrasing) might give them pause

McFarland · « **Reply #88 on:** July 28, 2007, 09:23:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
and that happens at what age?
At the naive age of 16 ?

Once your old enough to know right from wrong, without your parents telling you, you are no longer innocent. When you kill a man, if you are 16, 12, 36, it's all the same. You did what you knew was wrong. Unless you are in the right, in which case you explain yourself. Maybe I'm still living in 1857, but it should still be this way. There weren't as many crooks then as there are now, so they must have been doing something right.

crockett · « **Reply #89 on:** July 28, 2007, 09:35:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
it is just a matter of time

once the dems pull us out of Iraq, they, the cheekboness, will be able to concentrate on the next attack on US soil ....

,,,, and of course it will be Bush's fault when it happens...

unlike the US, our enemy has time and patience on their side

You know I get so sick of hearing you right wingers act as if Democrats have no balls and are weak on terrorism.

You want the facts?

Less than a year after the Dems took control of Congress and the Senate, they passed legislation to fund the scanning that was suggested by the 9/11 commission at both our ports and for cargo planes entering the US.

Despite Republicans holding all the power the last 6 years since 9/11 they haven't managed to do this. Why? Because the Democrats put it as a top priority. So they didn't talk about doing it they "did it".

Also this week Democrats managed to get an extra 3 billion in funding for our US/Mexican boarder. That mean more boarder patrol troops on the ground "protecting our boarders".

Bush had planned to veto it because he thought it was too much money. Yea the guy that write blank checks to haliburton nonstop but an extra 3 billion was too much to spend on boarder security.

So once again we see Republicans talking the talk, meanwhile the Democrats are the ones walking the walk. Your Tough on Terror Republicans are just tough on terror when it's comes to talking like usual they never have any action to back the talk.

It's always the same, you want to listen to a bunch of talk about getting things done, you elect Republicans. However if you actually want to get anything done you better talk to the Democrats.