# Bob Woodwards new book



## DiveCon

> A new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward describes the Obama  administration as barraged with warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks  on U.S. soil. President Obama told Woodward in an interview for his "Obama's  Wars," "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent  it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever. . . we absorbed it and we are  stronger."



Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war


discuss


----------



## Kat

Amazing.


----------



## KissMy

!!!!!!!!


----------



## Missourian

Didn't Obama learn anything from Vietnam?


----------



## ConservativeDad

Missourian said:


> Didn't Obama learn anything from Vietnam?



How could he?  He was still sitting on Uncle Frank's lap reading the communist manifesto when Vietnam was a current event...


----------



## R.C. Christian

I can't wait to own this. I'd wager that the political infighting is worse than we ever imagined


----------



## R.C. Christian

ConservativeDad said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Obama learn anything from Vietnam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could he?  He was still sitting on Uncle Frank's lap reading the communist manifesto when Vietnam was a current event...
Click to expand...


That doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.


----------



## Capitalist

Obama Says U.S. Can Absorb Terror Attacks
       Posted by Guest Contributor on Tuesday,  September 21, 2010,  9:55 PM            
                       	                                         	              -By Warner Todd  Huston





Eh, dont worry, America. If there is another  9/11-like terror attack, The One says that we can absorb it and just  become stronger because of it. Its as if he wants it to happen, or  something!
 In his latest book, Bob Woodward encountered a President Obama that  seemed to casually blow off worry of another terror attack. The  Washington Post gave us a sneak  preview of Woodwards newest tome where Obama acted so flippantly  toward another 9/11. (my bold)
Woodwards book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by  warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and  confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview  with Woodward in July, the president said, *We can absorb a terrorist  attack.* Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11,  even the biggest attack ever *we absorbed it and we are stronger*. ​Linky....


----------



## chanel

Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.

Unbelievable.


----------



## mudwhistle

Bob Woodward is releasing a book on Obama that is going to expose secret meetings between the Boy King, his advisers, and generals that in my opinion were what I expected but will take months...maybe years to explain away. I've been telling everyone here this is what he's all about but now the truth will be unavoidable.

The book points out a President that is completely absorbed with politics in just about every decision including the war in Afghanistan, terrorist attacks in the United States, and an incredibly stupid six page war plan Obama gave to his generals. 

Obama actually said that we can absorb terrorist attacks worse then 9/11. He also said if he doesn't get out of Afghanistan in 2 years he will lose the Democrat Party. And the nerve of this guy, he actually gave his generals a war plan asking them what they thought of it. Of course the generals felt it was ridiculous but the fact that somebody that has zero military experience would even attempt to write a war plan just spells out the audacity of this guy. 

I'm afraid the truth about Barry will be impossible to hide now.

merged-del


----------



## Kalam

mudwhistle said:


> Obama actually said that we can absorb terrorist attacks worse then 9/11.



Can we not?


----------



## California Girl

chanel said:


> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.



On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.


----------



## Kalam

California Girl said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
Click to expand...


In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kalam said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
Click to expand...


Osama Bin Laden is dead along with just about all of his original Lts. And a lot of new ones as well.

Neither war was pointless you terrorist supporting shit stain.


----------



## hipeter924

California Girl said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that *we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them*.
Click to expand...

But that would be islamophobic and racist. Prison for you.


----------



## Kalam

RetiredGySgt said:


> Osama Bin Laden is dead along with just about all of his original Lts. And a lot of new ones as well.


I guess they found a pretty good impersonator. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf5wr9l5E3Y]YouTube - Osama bin Laden - 2010 Audio Tape[/ame]

Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mullah Omar send you their regards and remind you that they, too, are very much alive. 



RetiredGySgt said:


> Neither war was pointless you terrorist supporting shit stain.


Not if the objective was to destroy or ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, no, but it's my understanding that this wasn't actually the goal of either war. "Terrorist supporting"? No, I'm afraid that pointing out your failure to kill your highest priority target isn't tantamount to giving him my support.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
Click to expand...

Curious.  When talking about Americans and the USA, I use the first person.


----------



## Ravi

Capitalist said:


> Obama Says U.S. Can Absorb Terror Attacks
> Posted by Guest Contributor on Tuesday,  September 21, 2010,  9:55 PM
> -By Warner Todd  Huston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, dont worry, America. If there is another  9/11-like terror attack, The One says that we can absorb it and just  become stronger because of it. Its as if he wants it to happen, or  something!
> In his latest book, Bob Woodward encountered a President Obama that  seemed to casually blow off worry of another terror attack. The  Washington Post gave us a sneak  preview of Woodwards newest tome where Obama acted so flippantly  toward another 9/11. (my bold)Woodwards book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by  warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and  confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview  with Woodward in July, the president said, *We can absorb a terrorist  attack.* Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11,  even the biggest attack ever *we absorbed it and we are stronger*. ​Linky....


You must be weaker...how sad.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kalam said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama actually said that we can absorb terrorist attacks worse then 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we not?
Click to expand...


It's a ridiculous idea.

As President he is tasked with defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic yet his innate complacency or feeling of inevitability allows him to think that a worse attack then 9/11 can be easily dealt with. This reveals his inner thoughts on the matter and explains why his answer during the Democrat debates to the question "What would you do to prevent another terrorist attack in the US" his answer was to make sure we had good first responders. He knows we'll have one, accepts it, and he may not do everything in his power to prevent it. He instead worries about the cleanup effort and how he will deal with the effects of it rather then prevent it in the first place.


----------



## California Girl

Kalam said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
Click to expand...


OBL was only ever a 'face'. 

Look at what we did.... in Iraq and Afghanistan.... Ask yourself 'what are Americans capable of if it happens again'.... because, next time, we won't be so fucking nice about it.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curious.  When talking about Americans and the USA, I use the first person.
Click to expand...


I don't identify with the US Military or its "War on Terror" blunder. We were attacked on September 11th. You responded by launching this campaign of destruction. 

In my hierarchy of loyalties, America falls below God, humanity as a whole, and my family and friends. I don't see that changing any time soon.


----------



## mudwhistle

This book will blow the lid off the White House. How this man thinks is his main weakness not his intelligence or lack thereof. 

He believes that deep down America is evil and we deserve to be brought down to the same level as everyone else. 

If you want America to become a bigger version of Israel....leave this guy in there and it will be so. Nobody will feel safe. 

This statement alone *"We can absorb a terrorist attack"* gives encouragement to our enemies and literally holds up a welcome sign to anyone who feared coming to this country to plan and carry out more terrorist attacks on our soil. It plants ideas in the minds of terrorists that it's not just a pipe-dream because even our President has accepted the possibility.


----------



## California Girl

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
> 
> 
> 
> Curious.  When talking about Americans and the USA, I use the first person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't identify with the US Military or its "War on Terror" blunder. We were attacked on September 11th. You responded by launching this campaign of destruction.
> 
> In my hierarchy of loyalties, America falls below God, humanity as a whole, and my family and friends. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Click to expand...


Yep.... a campaign of destruction - over just 3,000 people. Imagine what we're gonna do if it happens again. Cuz this is the USA being proportional in its response. Like I said, next time, we won't be so nice.


----------



## Kalam

California Girl said:


> OBL was only ever a 'face'.


Not so at all. He participated in combat and has always been deeply involved in organizing finances and recruitment. As we've seen, he can also plan and oversee the execution of terrorist operations. His life story is one of a man whose stubborn commitment to his beliefs led to almost everything he had being taken away - his Saudi citizenship was revoked, his family disowned him, he was kicked out of his home country as well as Sudan, and even the Taliban stated their willingness to see him put to trial for his alleged involvement in 9/11 (before the War in Afghanistan, of course.) He is the world's most wanted man and doesn't seem to care.

It's a shame that this determination is so misplaced and that his foolish hatred has caused him to flail blindly, without any concern for who is in the way. In that respect, he's similar to America in the aftermath of 9/11. 



California Girl said:


> Look at what we did.... in Iraq and Afghanistan.... Ask yourself 'what are Americans capable of if it happens again'.... because, next time, we won't be so fucking nice about it.


I don't doubt it, and I can tell you that another American blunder in the Muslim World is all that sits between al-Qa'idah and a huge, fresh batch of recruits. Keep in mind also that Afghanis and Iraqis haven't been the only victims of the "War on Terror." When most Americans haplessly cast their lots with their belligerent leaders in the White House and Congress in 2001, they secured the destruction of an enormous amount of our civil liberties and, to some extent, our national economic wellbeing. If another attack of 9/11's magnitude occurs, I hope you don't value your privacy too much, because Big Brother will most certainly be watching you if he isn't already.


----------



## Si modo

Yup, Kalam equates OBL to the USA.

What a disgusting little piece of shit.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Yup, Kalam equates OBL to the USA.
> 
> What a disgusting little piece of shit.



It's amazing how clear your view becomes when it isn't clouded by jingoism.


----------



## California Girl

Kalam said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> OBL was only ever a 'face'.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so at all. He participated in combat and has always been deeply involved in organizing finances and recruitment. As we've seen, he can also plan and oversee the execution of terrorist operations. His life story is one of a man whose stubborn commitment to his beliefs led to almost everything he had being taken away - his Saudi citizenship was revoked, his family disowned him, he was kicked out of his home country as well as Sudan, and even the Taliban stated their willingness to see him put to trial for his alleged involvement in 9/11 (before the War in Afghanistan, of course.) He is the world's most wanted man and doesn't seem to care.
> 
> It's a shame that this determination is so misplaced and that his foolish hatred has caused him to flail blindly, without any concern for who is in the way. In that respect, he's similar to America in the aftermath of 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what we did.... in Iraq and Afghanistan.... Ask yourself 'what are Americans capable of if it happens again'.... because, next time, we won't be so fucking nice about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't doubt it, and I can tell you that another American blunder in the Muslim World is all that sits between al-Qa'idah and a huge, fresh batch of recruits. Keep in mind also that Afghanis and Iraqis haven't been the only victims of the "War on Terror." When most Americans haplessly cast their lots with their belligerent leaders in the White House and Congress in 2001, they secured the destruction of an enormous amount of our civil liberties and, to some extent, our national economic wellbeing. If another attack of 9/11's magnitude occurs, I hope you don't value your privacy too much, because Big Brother will be watching you if he isn't already.
Click to expand...


So what? Recruit 'em. We'll kill 'em. You recruit some more, we'll kill them too. We can go around as long as it takes for extremists to learn.... it's an easy lesson.... "Don't fuck with us, or we will fuck with you" and you will always lose. 

Personally, if we have to bomb every fucking Muslim country back to the stone age, that's fine with me. If you keep coming, we will make every single country a fuckin' car park. And then, you will have something to whine about. 

Learn to keep your fucking shit in your own country and stay out of ours. Then we have no problem. If you're a Muslim, and you are an American, you are welcome to practice your religion as you see fit.... until you support the enemies of your country. If you support the enemies of America, you are no longer an American and you can leave.... willingly... or by force.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Kalam equates OBL to the USA.
> 
> What a disgusting little piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how clear your view becomes when it isn't clouded by jingoism.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means, likely because you're high and/or tripping, again.

I only know that you are a disgusting little piece of shit who equates OBL with the USA.

Nothing personal, really.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kalam said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osama Bin Laden is dead along with just about all of his original Lts. And a lot of new ones as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they found a pretty good impersonator.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf5wr9l5E3Y]YouTube - Osama bin Laden - 2010 Audio Tape[/ame]
> 
> Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mullah Omar send you their regards and remind you that they, too, are very much alive.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither war was pointless you terrorist supporting shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the objective was to destroy or ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, no, but it's my understanding that this wasn't actually the goal of either war. "Terrorist supporting"? No, I'm afraid that pointing out your failure to kill your highest priority target isn't tantamount to giving him my support.
Click to expand...


Everyone knows that killing one man will never end Islamic radicalism.


----------



## Kalam

mudwhistle said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama actually said that we can absorb terrorist attacks worse then 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a ridiculous idea.
> 
> As President he is tasked with defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic yet his innate complacency or feeling of inevitability allows him to think that a worse attack then 9/11 can be easily dealt with. This reveals his inner thoughts on the matter and explains why his answer during the Democrat debates to the question "What would you do to prevent another terrorist attack in the US" his answer was to make sure we had good first responders. He knows we'll have one, accepts it, and he may not do everything in his power to prevent it. He instead worries about the cleanup effort and how he will deal with the effects of it rather then prevent it in the first place.
Click to expand...


Let me be clear when I say that I despise Obama as a leader and think that he's a bootlicking coward who will always base his decisions on political expediency rather than principle. Still, I think that you're reading too deeply into his comment. I think it's true that the United States can endure a larger terrorist attack (the Constitution is another story.) I don't think that we'll have to do so in the foreseeable future, though, and I haven't seen any indication that Obama thinks that either.


----------



## skookerasbil

Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war


OK........how hard did I laugh when I saw this up on DRUDGE this AM as the lead story??



*Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war*

By Steve Luxenberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 22, 2010; 12:11 AM 


_
President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward. 

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page "terms sheet" that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in "Obama's Wars," to be released on Monday. 

According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives. 



Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, *"We can absorb a terrorist attack.* We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger." _





Talk about a political bombshell s0ns??!!!!!!!! Should resonate real well with Reagan Democrats and independents!!

People have been saying it now for about 18 months........"This guy doesnt get it!!"

Well now.........................


Thank you Mr Woodward!!!

merged- del


----------



## California Girl

mudwhistle said:


> Bob Woodward is releasing a book on Obama that is going to expose secret meetings between the Boy King, his advisers, and generals that in my opinion were what I expected but will take months...maybe years to explain away. I've been telling everyone here this is what he's all about but now the truth will be unavoidable.
> 
> The book points out a President that is completely absorbed with politics in just about every decision including the war in Afghanistan, terrorist attacks in the United States, and an incredibly stupid six page war plan Obama gave to his generals.
> 
> Obama actually said that we can absorb terrorist attacks worse then 9/11. He also said if he doesn't get out of Afghanistan in 2 years he will lose the Democrat Party. And the nerve of this guy, he actually gave his generals a war plan asking them what they thought of it. Of course the generals felt it was ridiculous but the fact that somebody that has zero military experience would even attempt to write a war plan just spells out the audacity of this guy.
> 
> I'm afraid the truth about Barry will be impossible to hide now.



I'm looking forward to it, Woodward is a good writer. I wonder what his take will be?


----------



## California Girl

How many fucking threads do we need on the same topic? 

Are you not capable of including your thoughts into pre-existing threads? Moron.


----------



## Kalam

mudwhistle said:


> Everyone knows that killing one man will never end Islamic radicalism.



Nor will invading two countries. This is a war of ideas, and the presence of non-Muslims on the battlefield has diverted a lot of attention away from our internal struggle against heresy and toward the more immediate problem of foreign militaries occupying Muslim lands.


----------



## California Girl

Kalam said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that killing one man will never end Islamic radicalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will invading two countries. This is a war of ideas, and the presence of non-Muslims on the battlefield has diverted a lot of attention away from our internal struggle against heresy and toward the more immediate problem of foreign militaries occupying Muslim lands.
Click to expand...


If those countries would stop allowing terrorists to train within their borders, we would have to invade them. But they did, so we invade. Don't like it? Easy answer - don't harbor terrorists. I thought we'd made that real clear.


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that killing one man will never end Islamic radicalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will invading two countries. This is a war of ideas, and the presence of non-Muslims on the battlefield has diverted a lot of attention away from our internal struggle against heresy and toward the more immediate problem of foreign militaries occupying Muslim lands.
Click to expand...

There was nothing 'internal' about your struggle with heresy.  You decided to make that others' problems.

You don't like the consequences of you and your brethren's actions.

So, we and others have given you the opportunity to grow up or die.


----------



## Nate

> Woodward&#8217;s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, &#8220;We can absorb a terrorist attack. We&#8217;ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever&#8230; we absorbed it and we are stronger.&#8221;



I am by far not an Obama supporter but out of curiosity what would you have rather he said? "America would fall if hit by another Terrorist attack" or "We will never have another terrorist attack"
The man is condemned no matter what he says...


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> I have no idea what that means,


I thought that my message was rather clear. You're blinded by your jingoism and are unable to move beyond your Pavlovian outrage over America being compared to our enemies. 

You should stop and consider your reaction to my post. That same kind of angry reaction from Americans is what led to Afghanistan being invaded in spite of the Taliban's tenuous connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They were a much larger and more stationary target than Al-Qa'idah and were deemed "good enough" to attack in Usama's stead; the country wasn't about to go a whole month without spilling somebody's blood over what happened, their lack of guilt notwithstanding. 



Si modo said:


> likely because you're high and/or tripping, again.


Nope. 



Si modo said:


> I only know that you are a disgusting little piece of shit who equates OBL with the USA.
> 
> Nothing personal, really.


Alright. If you aren't interested in having a discussion in spite of our disagreement, I'm sure somebody else is.


----------



## Ozmar

So let me get this straight: President thinks America could survive another terrorist attack= bad? It's not like Obama is saying we will have another one... I imagine the OPer would bitch twice as hard if Obama said "we couldn't."

The Commander in Chief made a war plan, then asked his generals what they thought of it? Say it ain't so! The military mustn't have a civilian leader who from time to time leads that military!

The president plays politics? I'm not even going to touch this one...


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that means,
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that my message was rather clear. You're blinded by your jingoism and are unable to move beyond your Pavlovian outrage over America being compared to our enemies.
> 
> You should stop and consider your reaction to my post. That same kind of angry reaction from Americans is what led to Afghanistan being invaded in spite of the Taliban's tenuous connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They were a much larger and more stationary target than Al-Qa'idah and were deemed "good enough" to attack in Usama's stead; the country wasn't about to go a whole month without spilling somebody's blood over what happened, their lack of guilt notwithstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> likely because you're high and/or tripping, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only know that you are a disgusting little piece of shit who equates OBL with the USA.
> 
> Nothing personal, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alright. If you aren't interested in having a discussion in spite of our disagreement, I'm sure somebody else is.
Click to expand...

Obviously, even though I explicitely stated that is was nothing personal, you took it personally.  You might find that getting a grip on your reactionary emotions might serve you better.

"Taliban's tenuous connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks"?


Yes, you are definitely high and/or tripping.  Or, just nuts.

Hard to tell.


----------



## California Girl

Nate said:


> Woodwards book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, We can absorb a terrorist attack. Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever we absorbed it and we are stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am by far not an Obama supporter but out of curiosity what would you have rather he said? "America would fall if hit by another Terrorist attack" or "We will never have another terrorist attack"
> The man is condemned no matter what he says...
Click to expand...


I would have preferred a strong, clear statement - ya know, as befitting the Office of President of the United States. 'Absorb' it? Yea. Destroy the foundations of whoever attacks us, and those who harbor them... and financed it.... THAT's what we pay the POTUS for.


----------



## Si modo

Nate said:


> Woodwards book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, We can absorb a terrorist attack. Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever we absorbed it and we are stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am by far not an Obama supporter but out of curiosity what would you have rather he said? "America would fall if hit by another Terrorist attack" or "We will never have another terrorist attack"
> The man is condemned no matter what he says...
Click to expand...

I agree.  I don't see much that is condemnable in what he said, either.


----------



## Nate

California Girl said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodwards book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, We can absorb a terrorist attack. Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever we absorbed it and we are stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am by far not an Obama supporter but out of curiosity what would you have rather he said? "America would fall if hit by another Terrorist attack" or "We will never have another terrorist attack"
> The man is condemned no matter what he says...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have preferred a strong, clear statement - ya know, as befitting the Office of President of the United States. 'Absorb' it? Yea. Destroy the foundations of whoever attacks us, and those who harbor them... and financed it.... THAT's what we pay the POTUS for.
Click to expand...


What I got from it(yeah, I know everyone's going to see it differently) is that's exactly what he said. No matter what a terrorist group does to us not only will we survive but we will also thrive.


----------



## masquerade

I wonder if Obama can absorb my shoe in his balls.  First I'd have to find them.


----------



## Ringel05

Kalam said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
Click to expand...


Actually cooler heads prevailed as time went on past 9/11.  If OBL is still alive then he has been contained to simply being a figurehead in a prison of his own construction.  It would be a mistake for the west to capture, try and execute or simply find and kill him with confirmation.  This would make a martyr out of him, swelling the ranks of radical jihadists world wide by the tens of thousands.  Better to let him fade into obscurity and if he still is alive by that time then make the move.


----------



## Ozmar

I imagine your shoes are on your feet.


----------



## skookerasbil

California Girl said:


> How many fucking threads do we need on the same topic?
> 
> Are you not capable of including your thoughts into pre-existing threads? Moron.




C'mon California............get a life!!


Anyway.......the story broke just about 2 hours ago.................so *fAiL*


----------



## Capitalist

chanel said:


> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.





California Girl said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
Click to expand...


You just have to get used to mass murder.
Whats the matter with you?
I guess Obama is safe on the golf course, FORE!
ps
Note: It's not "terrorist group", it's "_man_ caused _disaster group".
_BTW: Only a sociopath would say &#8220;we can absorb it&#8221;.


----------



## California Girl

skookerasbil said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fucking threads do we need on the same topic?
> 
> Are you not capable of including your thoughts into pre-existing threads? Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon California............get a life!!
Click to expand...


I have one, thanks. And, I've learned to read, comprehend, think critically, and even create threads about topics.... what I haven't quite mastered is the ability to start 3rd, 4th and 5th threads on the same fucking topic. I guess I'm just too smart for that.


----------



## skookerasbil

California Girl said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fucking threads do we need on the same topic?
> 
> Are you not capable of including your thoughts into pre-existing threads? Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon California............get a life!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have one, thanks. And, I've learned to read, comprehend, think critically, and even create threads about topics.... what I haven't quite mastered is the ability to start 3rd, 4th and 5th threads on the same fucking topic. I guess I'm just too smart for that.
Click to expand...



Well, were certainly real proud of ya!!!!


----------



## Nate

Capitalist said:


> BTW: Only a sociopath would say we can absorb it.



That is one thing I have to agree with though... Absorb!?! What the hell does that even mean. This wouldn't be like the blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants he would love to get passed.


----------



## skookerasbil

I love the Israeli approach.............they hit us, we bomb the living shit out of them, into complete submission if necessary.
I laughed my ass off in the summer of 2007 when Beirut got bombed back to the stone age.

This is going to be the future of course...............you hold the state responsible to keep the nuts in line...........or hell comes to your doorstep and tough the fcukk shit on you.


----------



## loosecannon

> Woodward quotes Petraeus as saying, "You have to recognize also that I don't think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. It's a little bit like Iraq, actually. . . . Yes, there has been enormous progress in Iraq. But there are still horrific attacks in Iraq, and you have to stay vigilant. You have to stay after it.* This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives*."



war without end

This from Sept 12, 2001



> The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now &#8212; with somebody &#8212; and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.



Hunter S. Thompson on 9/11  Totally Gonzo


----------



## Care4all

Capitalist said:


> Obama Says U.S. Can &#8216;Absorb Terror Attacks&#8217;
> Posted by Guest Contributor on Tuesday,  September 21, 2010,  9:55 PM
> -By Warner Todd  Huston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, don&#8217;t worry, America. If there is another  9/11-like terror attack, The One says that we can &#8220;absorb it&#8221; and just  become &#8220;stronger&#8221; because of it. It&#8217;s as if he wants it to happen, or  something!
> In his latest book, Bob Woodward encountered a President Obama that  seemed to casually blow off worry of another terror attack. The  Washington Post gave us a sneak  preview of Woodward&#8217;s newest tome where Obama acted so flippantly  toward another 9/11. (my bold)
> Woodward&#8217;s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by  warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and  confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview  with Woodward in July, the president said, &#8220;*We can absorb a terrorist  attack.* We&#8217;ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11,  even the biggest attack ever&#8230; *we absorbed it and we are stronger*.&#8221; ​Linky....



do you think it would have been better for him to say we could not handle another terror attack and would fall to pieces if we had another one, letting terrorists world wide know this....?

I don't!


----------



## Trajan

from what I saw there are several embarrassing comments well, depending on your level of Obama worship etc. that is.

I'll pre-order at amazon, wait for the book to come out  and  I will read it....yea Woodward got me. 
( so did the lefty duo Heliman and Halprin as  I bought and read 'Game Change'...thumbs down... I should have known when the NY times said it was "objective and took shots at everyone"...epic fail).

Look he writes books to _sell,_ just like that wiener Scott McClellan. Its coming out now? A month before an election, red meat for cons and R's. Good marketing. 

We'll see.


----------



## Charles_Main

DiveCon said:


> A new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward describes the Obama  administration as barraged with warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks  on U.S. soil. President Obama told Woodward in an interview for his "Obama's  Wars," "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent  it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever. . . we absorbed it and we are  stronger."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war
> 
> 
> discuss
Click to expand...


So basically what we learn is Obama's Major decisions about how to proceed in Afghanistan were driven by a desire to not lose the support of his Party.

Hmmmm


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Obviously, even though I explicitely stated that is was nothing personal, you took it personally.  You might find that getting a grip on your reactionary emotions might serve you better.


Hmm...

Only one of us is responding with insults. I know that I haven't been reacting emotionally to anything in this thread; I'm having a great day! 



Si modo said:


> "Taliban's tenuous connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks"?
> 
> Yes, you are definitely high and/or tripping.  Or, just nuts.
> 
> Hard to tell.


When I see a person whose only recourse seems to be responding to every post with name-calling, I assume that this person must not have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion. How about you?


----------



## WillowTree

DiveCon said:


> A new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward describes the Obama  administration as barraged with warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks  on U.S. soil. President Obama told Woodward in an interview for his "Obama's  Wars," "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent  it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever. . . we absorbed it and we are  stronger."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war
> 
> 
> discuss
Click to expand...


What's to discuss? obie wan is an idiot. case closed. "true story"


----------



## Kalam

California Girl said:


> If those countries would stop allowing terrorists to train within their borders, we would have to invade them. But they did, so we invade. Don't like it? Easy answer - don't harbor terrorists. I thought we'd made that real clear.


Justify it to yourself in whatever way you need to, CG. By all accounts, the Karzai regime is extremely corrupt and ineffective. No amount of bolstering from NATO is likely to change that after a decade of failure. Over 1,000 US soldiers and 300 billion dollars have been spent on a campaign that has failed to... 

Kill Usama bin Ladin, the leader of the group that perpetrated the terrorist attacks;
Kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the "brains" of al-Qa'idah;
Kill Mullah Omar, the leader of the group that you hold guilty by association;
Establish an effective government or military.

Three-hundred billion dollars. And many have been brainwashed to think that this money couldn't have been put to better use. That's a lot of money you spent "teaching a lesson" to the Taliban, a group that had no ambitions outside of Afghanistan's borders. Of course, that's less than half of what you've spent on an even more pointless conflict!


----------



## Charles_Main

Kalam said:


> That's a lot of money you spent "teaching a lesson" to the Taliban, a group that had no ambitions outside of Afghanistan's borders.



Sure and that is why when confronted with a chance to cooperate and turn over UBL, they chose to say Fuck you come and get him.


----------



## WillowTree

Kalam said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
> 
> 
> 
> Curious.  When talking about Americans and the USA, I use the first person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't identify with the US Military or its "War on Terror" blunder. We were attacked on September 11th. You responded by launching this campaign of destruction.
> 
> In my hierarchy of loyalties, America falls below God, humanity as a whole, and my family and friends. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Click to expand...


Aren't we blessed? Why yes we are. Who wants vile shitheads like you on our side. Not me!


----------



## edthecynic

Capitalist said:


> Obama Says U.S. Can Absorb Terror Attacks
> Posted by Guest Contributor on Tuesday,  September 21, 2010,  9:55 PM
> -By Warner Todd  Huston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, dont worry, America. If there is another  9/11-like terror attack, The One says that we can absorb it and just  become stronger because of it.* Its as if he wants it to happen,* or  something!
> In his latest book, Bob Woodward encountered a President Obama that  seemed to casually blow off worry of another terror attack. The  Washington Post gave us a sneak  preview of Woodwards newest tome where Obama acted so flippantly  toward another 9/11. (my bold)
> Woodwards book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by  warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and  confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview  with Woodward in July, the president said, *We can absorb a terrorist  attack.* Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11,  even the biggest attack ever *we absorbed it and we are stronger*. ​Linky....


Just more CON$ervoFascist PROJECTION.
Only the GOP are allowed to hope and pray for more 9/11s so their Party can be appreciated.

The Raw Story | Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush

*Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush*
Josh Catone
Published: Sunday June 3, 2007

In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and* I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said* to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette


----------



## Kalam

WillowTree said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious.  When talking about Americans and the USA, I use the first person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't identify with the US Military or its "War on Terror" blunder. We were attacked on September 11th. You responded by launching this campaign of destruction.
> 
> In my hierarchy of loyalties, America falls below God, humanity as a whole, and my family and friends. I don't see that changing any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't we blessed? Why yes we are. Who wants vile shitheads like you on our side. Not me!
Click to expand...


Looks like Si Modo isn't the only one who's feeling a little upset today!


----------



## WillowTree

Care4all said:


> Capitalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Says U.S. Can Absorb Terror Attacks
> Posted by Guest Contributor on Tuesday,  September 21, 2010,  9:55 PM
> -By Warner Todd  Huston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, dont worry, America. If there is another  9/11-like terror attack, The One says that we can absorb it and just  become stronger because of it. Its as if he wants it to happen, or  something!
> In his latest book, Bob Woodward encountered a President Obama that  seemed to casually blow off worry of another terror attack. The  Washington Post gave us a sneak  preview of Woodwards newest tome where Obama acted so flippantly  toward another 9/11. (my bold)
> Woodwards book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by  warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and  confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview  with Woodward in July, the president said, *We can absorb a terrorist  attack.* Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11,  even the biggest attack ever *we absorbed it and we are stronger*. ​Linky....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think it would have been better for him to say we could not handle another terror attack and would fall to pieces if we had another one, letting terrorists world wide know this....?
> 
> I don't!
Click to expand...


It would have been better if he'd kept his big fat assed mouth shut.


----------



## WillowTree

Kalam said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't identify with the US Military or its "War on Terror" blunder. We were attacked on September 11th. You responded by launching this campaign of destruction.
> 
> In my hierarchy of loyalties, America falls below God, humanity as a whole, and my family and friends. I don't see that changing any time soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we blessed? Why yes we are. Who wants vile shitheads like you on our side. Not me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like Si Modo isn't the only one who's feeling a little upset today!
Click to expand...


Upset? I'm enjoying watching you anti American terrorist ass kissing swill. And to realize we're damn sure lucky not to have your loyalty. What's to be upset about?


----------



## Kalam

WillowTree said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we blessed? Why yes we are. Who wants vile shitheads like you on our side. Not me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Si Modo isn't the only one who's feeling a little upset today!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Upset? I'm enjoying watching you anti American terrorist ass kissing swill. And to realize we're damn sure lucky not to have your loyalty. What's to be upset about?
Click to expand...


You tell me. I hope everything's going well for you today, Willow.


----------



## WillowTree

Kalam said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Si Modo isn't the only one who's feeling a little upset today!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upset? I'm enjoying watching you anti American terrorist ass kissing swill. And to realize we're damn sure lucky not to have your loyalty. What's to be upset about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tell me. I hope everything's going well for you today, Willow.
Click to expand...


It is, weather is beautiful. I'm enjoying the most luscious scrumtdilious BLT on GOD's green earth.


----------



## Charles_Main

WillowTree said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upset? I'm enjoying watching you anti American terrorist ass kissing swill. And to realize we're damn sure lucky not to have your loyalty. What's to be upset about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. I hope everything's going well for you today, Willow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, weather is beautiful. I'm enjoying the most luscious scrumtdilious BLT on GOD's green earth.
Click to expand...


Actually it is more blue that green


----------



## Kalam

WillowTree said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upset? I'm enjoying watching you anti American terrorist ass kissing swill. And to realize we're damn sure lucky not to have your loyalty. What's to be upset about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. I hope everything's going well for you today, Willow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, weather is beautiful. I'm enjoying the most luscious scrumtdilious BLT on GOD's green earth.
Click to expand...


Well except for the bacon, that sounds like something I'd like to be doing.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Kalam said:


> This is a war of ideas,.



The west has  done  a piss poor job @ home to promote western culture or to be truthful about Islam.


----------



## strollingbones

i will wait till i have read the book before i comment


----------



## DiveCon

skookerasbil said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fucking threads do we need on the same topic?
> 
> Are you not capable of including your thoughts into pre-existing threads? Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon California............get a life!!
> 
> 
> Anyway.......the story broke just about 2 hours ago.................so *fAiL*
Click to expand...

your off by about 6 hours


----------



## saveliberty

I imagine terroritsts will attack us at some point soon.  Is that really the sort of thing you want in print?  Interesting that it appears not everyone is a yesman in the adminstration.  I find that a good thing actually.


----------



## midcan5

There are several things to consider when critiquing Woodwards recent birth and new book. This is a liberal administration, Limbaugh does not dictate the rules and regulations. Tough situations require thought and debate, look only at JFK's administration and the debates over Racism, the Bay of Pigs, and the Thirteen days. Or even Eisenhower over Korea and the Red Menace.  Does anyone want the failures due to ideological restrictions that brought us illegal invasions and the near collapse of the entire economy under Booosh?  Had Woodward read or understand a bit of history he may have approached his new world differently. But they are born too often these soothsayers of the obvious.


----------



## DiveCon

midcan5 said:


> There are several things to consider when critiquing Woodwards recent birth and new book. This is a liberal administration, *Limbaugh *does not dictate the rules and regulations. Tough situations require thought and debate, look only at JFK's administration and the debates over Racism, the Bay of Pigs, and the Thirteen days. Or even Eisenhower over Korea and the Red Menace.  Does anyone want the failures due to ideological restrictions that brought us illegal invasions and the near collapse of the entire economy under Booosh?  Had Woodward read or understand a bit of history he may have approached his new world differently. But they are born too often these soothsayers of the obvious.


what the FUCK does Limbaugh have to do with Bob Woodward?
this has to be one of the most ridiculous stretches i have EVER seen


----------



## strollingbones

it must be hard being muslim in the south...we are all about the pig...and dogs.....we like our dogs too


----------



## Kalam

Nah, I was born and raised here. When I decided to take things seriously and stopped eating pig, I never looked back because I've always liked chicken and beef better. I like being here anyway; you can't get half decent sweet tea anywhere else. Or good grits.


----------



## Kalam

And yeah, dogs never bothered me anyway since they're everywhere and I grew up around them. I'm just not supposed to keep one myself. I don't know why a lot of the guys from overseas are afraid of them, but it's funny seeing grown men freak out and hide behind furniture when someone's little dog runs out and starts barking at them.


----------



## strollingbones

why the hating on dogs....i can understand the pig thing.....back in the day eating pig could be dangerous...but not now...what else cant you eat?


----------



## strollingbones

there is an hbo special "my trip to al quaida" where the guy talks about muslims and dogs and how bitterness stems from one prison that would tie the men up and allow wide dogs to fuck them

how it radized the current leaders etc


----------



## Si modo

Kalam said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't identify with the US Military or its "War on Terror" blunder. We were attacked on September 11th. You responded by launching this campaign of destruction.
> 
> In my hierarchy of loyalties, America falls below God, humanity as a whole, and my family and friends. I don't see that changing any time soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we blessed? Why yes we are. Who wants vile shitheads like you on our side. Not me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like Si Modo isn't the only one who's feeling a little upset today!
Click to expand...

You can't help being dishonest.

But you are a good little Muslim - lying and being a willful victim.


----------



## Trajan

midcan5 said:


> There are several things to consider when critiquing Woodwards recent birth and new book. This is a liberal administration, Limbaugh does not dictate the rules and regulations. Tough situations require thought and debate, look only at JFK's administration and the debates over Racism, the Bay of Pigs, and the Thirteen days. Or even Eisenhower over Korea and the Red Menace.  Does anyone want the failures due to ideological restrictions that brought us illegal invasions and the near collapse of the entire economy under Booosh?  *Had Woodward read or understand a bit of history he may have approached his new world differently. But they are born too often these soothsayers of the obvious.*



Your Kennedy blurb is self gratuitous, its missing , well a great deal, especially taking Obama and some of his positions into account, Kennedy made as many if not more costly decisions that turned into ( or not) mistakes than the 3 you ascribed.

How would a study of history helped him, how is that germane?  he apparently called it as he saw it. 

and that last sentience is gibberish, at least to me...explain please.


----------



## JiggsCasey

ROFLMAO!!!!

Woodward book during Bush years of dysfunction = Liberal pablum, not to be trusted...
Woodward book during Obama years of dysfunction = Gospel...


----------



## DiveCon

JiggsCasey said:


> ROFLMAO!!!!
> 
> Woodward book during Bush years of dysfunction = Liberal pablum, not to be trusted...
> Woodward book during Obama years of dysfunction = Gospel...


the difference being Woodward is a liberal

of course a fucking moron like YOU wouldnt get that


----------



## Trajan

pwned, double word score, yahtzee etc...


----------



## Kalam

strollingbones said:


> why the hating on dogs....i can understand the pig thing.....back in the day eating pig could be dangerous...but not now...what else cant you eat?



We just aren't supposed to keep dogs unless they're for hunting or security. Oh, and we aren't supposed to hunt for sport, which I guess is another Southern thing. 

We can't consume pork, blood, alcohol, or carrion, or any food that contains one of those things in noticeable amounts. We also can't eat something if it was killed in the name of another god or if it was killed in an especially painful way. There's a certain way your supposed to slaughter animals, too, but it can be hard to find meat like that over here so that doesn't matter as much.


----------



## Kalam

strollingbones said:


> there is an hbo special "my trip to al quaida" where the guy talks about muslims and dogs and how bitterness stems from one prison that would tie the men up and allow wide dogs to fuck them
> 
> how it radized the current leaders etc



Yeah, I've heard about them doing stuff like that to prisoners. Basically using their culture or religion against them.


----------



## Kalam

Si modo said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't we blessed? Why yes we are. Who wants vile shitheads like you on our side. Not me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Si Modo isn't the only one who's feeling a little upset today!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't help being dishonest.
> 
> But you are a good little Muslim - lying and being a willful victim.
Click to expand...


Whatever you say. I hope tomorrow's a happier day for you.


----------



## JiggsCasey

DiveCon said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!!
> 
> Woodward book during Bush years of dysfunction = Liberal pablum, not to be trusted...
> Woodward book during Obama years of dysfunction = Gospel...
> 
> 
> 
> the difference being Woodward is a liberal
> 
> of course a fucking moron like YOU wouldnt get that
Click to expand...


LOL.... riiiiiiiiiiight.... whatever you need to keep telling yourself, 'o great champion of situational ethics and compromised values.

So, because he's "liberal" he's lying when he writes about your hero. But telling the God's honest truth when he's writing about the "fellow" "liberal" president. Of course.

Why don't you step up to the plate, tough guy, and show the forum how/why Woodward is considered "liberal," exactly. Because he took down your demigod, Dick Nixon?

Surely the Boy King would agree to spend all that time with Woodward - more than any other journalist - even though "everyone" knew he was a known "liberal."  Surely a liberal journalist like Woodward would keep quiet about his Plame notes, and buy, hook-line-and-sinker, the vast array of WMD fraud like Woodward did.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard called Woodward "the best pure reporter of his generation, perhaps ever." .... Yeah, not exactly a "liberal" journal, in fact, it's pretty much the bible for neo-fascists.

Anyhow, good try, rage-fueled crazy man.


----------



## DiveCon

Kalam said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> why the hating on dogs....i can understand the pig thing.....back in the day eating pig could be dangerous...but not now...what else cant you eat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just aren't supposed to keep dogs unless they're for hunting or security. Oh, and we aren't supposed to hunt for sport, which I guess is another Southern thing.
> 
> We can't consume pork, blood, alcohol, or carrion, or any food that contains one of those things in noticeable amounts. We also can't eat something if it was killed in the name of another god or if it was killed in an especially painful way. *There's a certain way your supposed to slaughter animals, too, but it can be hard to find meat like that over here so that doesn't matter as much*.
Click to expand...

um, kosher meats


----------



## DiveCon

JiggsCasey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!!
> 
> Woodward book during Bush years of dysfunction = Liberal pablum, not to be trusted...
> Woodward book during Obama years of dysfunction = Gospel...
> 
> 
> 
> the difference being Woodward is a liberal
> 
> of course a fucking moron like YOU wouldnt get that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.... riiiiiiiiiiight.... whatever you need to keep telling yourself, 'o great champion of situational ethics and compromised values.
> 
> So, because he's "liberal" he's lying when he writes about your hero. But telling the God's honest truth when he's writing about the "fellow" "liberal" president. Of course.
> 
> Why don't you step up to the plate, tough guy, and show the forum how/why Woodward is considered "liberal," exactly. Because he took down your demigod, Dick Nixon?
> 
> Surely the Boy King would agree to spend all that time with Woodward - more than any other journalist - even though "everyone" knew he was a known "liberal."  Surely a liberal journalist like Woodward would keep quiet about his Plame notes, and buy, hook-line-and-sinker, the vast array of WMD fraud like Woodward did.
> 
> Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard called Woodward "the best pure reporter of his generation, perhaps ever." .... Yeah, not exactly a "liberal" journal, in fact, it's pretty much the bible for neo-fascists.
> 
> Anyhow, good try, rage-fueled crazy man.
Click to expand...

of course you dont get it again

a liberal writing negative things about bush would be expected
a conservative writing bad things about Bush would be eye opening
a conservative writing bad thing about Obama, again, expected
a liberal writing bad things about Obama, once again, eye opening


----------



## DiveCon

jiigs once again proving me correct to call him a fucking moron


----------



## Sheldon

Capitalist said:


> Obama Says U.S. Can Absorb Terror Attacks
> Posted by Guest Contributor on Tuesday,  September 21, 2010,  9:55 PM
> -By Warner Todd  Huston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, dont worry, America. If there is another  9/11-like terror attack, The One says that we can absorb it and just  become stronger because of it. Its as if he wants it to happen, or  something!
> In his latest book, Bob Woodward encountered a President Obama that  seemed to casually blow off worry of another terror attack. The  Washington Post gave us a sneak  preview of Woodwards newest tome where Obama acted so flippantly  toward another 9/11. (my bold)
> Woodwards book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by  warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and  confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview  with Woodward in July, the president said, *We can absorb a terrorist  attack.* Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11,  even the biggest attack ever *we absorbed it and we are stronger*. ​Linky....



I'm not seeing what the issue is. 

I don't think Obama is wrong on this. The opposite of Obama's comment would be something like "America would collapse with another 9/11". I think we're stronger than that. At least I hope we are.

Maybe the objection is coming from the word "absorb", implying that we were unaffected. I think a better word would have been "survive".


----------



## Kalam

DiveCon said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> why the hating on dogs....i can understand the pig thing.....back in the day eating pig could be dangerous...but not now...what else cant you eat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just aren't supposed to keep dogs unless they're for hunting or security. Oh, and we aren't supposed to hunt for sport, which I guess is another Southern thing.
> 
> We can't consume pork, blood, alcohol, or carrion, or any food that contains one of those things in noticeable amounts. We also can't eat something if it was killed in the name of another god or if it was killed in an especially painful way. *There's a certain way your supposed to slaughter animals, too, but it can be hard to find meat like that over here so that doesn't matter as much*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> um, kosher meats
Click to expand...


It's a little bit different. When we do it, the animal is made to face Makkah and I believe we cut slightly different parts of the throat. But yeah, it's similar enough that most people accept kosher meat, including me.


----------



## Ravi

I think a great platform for the GOP/Tea Party to run on would be: If we are attacked again we will fail as a nation and the terrorists will win.


----------



## JiggsCasey

DiveCon said:


> a liberal writing negative things about bush would be expected
> a conservative writing bad things about Bush would be eye opening
> a conservative writing bad thing about Obama, again, expected
> a liberal writing bad things about Obama, once again, eye opening




LOL.... So, when challenged to do so, you can't point to anything that supports your claim that Woodward is liberal. Just keep squawking it, and hope no one challenges you on it.

Once again, hung out with Bush more than any journalist. Covered for Plamegate. Supported WMD fraud with zero critical analysis.

But you keep right on making up shit. It's what you clowns do.


----------



## California Girl

DiveCon said:


> jiigs once again proving me correct to call him a fucking moron



I feel for ya, Dive, I really do. It's frustrating to constantly have to explain the fucking obvious to the terminally stupid.


----------



## JiggsCasey

California Girl said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> jiigs once again proving me correct to call him a fucking moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel for ya, Dive, I really do. It's frustrating to constantly have to explain the fucking obvious to the terminally stupid.
Click to expand...


Oh, hey there. It's the pundit who insisted Glen Back was "factually accurate," then disappeared from the thread when challenged on the notion.

Clearly, you haven't learned when to stop running your mouth at the expense of your floundering reputation around here.

"Terminally stupid".... now there's some rich irony.

Like I've always said... Hear a dubious con man claim? Worry not...  just lift the rock, shine some light, and watch the bugs scurry for cover.


----------



## California Girl

JiggsCasey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> jiigs once again proving me correct to call him a fucking moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel for ya, Dive, I really do. It's frustrating to constantly have to explain the fucking obvious to the terminally stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, hey there. It's the pundit who insisted Glen Back was "factually accurate," then disappeared from the thread when challenged on the notion.
> 
> Clearly, you haven't learned when to stop running your mouth at the expense of your floundering reputation around here.
> 
> "Terminally stupid".... now there's some rich irony.
Click to expand...


I 'disappeared' because I was back in the US, having fun. Annoying, I know, but my life does not revolve around your whining. I'm tired of cleaning up your drool.


----------



## saveliberty

JiggsCasey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> a liberal writing negative things about bush would be expected
> a conservative writing bad things about Bush would be eye opening
> a conservative writing bad thing about Obama, again, expected
> a liberal writing bad things about Obama, once again, eye opening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.... So, when challenged to do so, you can't point to anything that supports your claim that Woodward is liberal. Just keep squawking it, and hope no one challenges you on it.
> 
> Once again, hung out with Bush more than any journalist. Covered for Plamegate. Supported WMD fraud with zero critical analysis.
> 
> But you keep right on making up shit. It's what you clowns do.
Click to expand...


In the time period Woodard started at the Washingotn Post, I'd say the burden of proving him a conservative would fall unto Jiggs.


----------



## JiggsCasey

California Girl said:


> I 'disappeared' because I was back in the US, having fun. Annoying, I know, but my life does not revolve around your whining. I'm tired of cleaning up your drool.



Right... whatever you need to tell yourself, good little Bushie loyalist. 

Meanwhile, that thread is still there waiting for you to return, even though you've managed to spend an inordinate amount of time on this forum in the 3-4 weeks ever since. Must just be "having fun."


----------



## JiggsCasey

saveliberty said:


> In the time period Woodard started at the Washingotn Post, I'd say the burden of proving him a conservative would fall unto Jiggs.



Sound con man logic...

Your ally: Woodward's a LIBERAL!

Me: Show examples please. How could a liberal get away with X, Y, Z?

Your ally: <crickets>

You: The burden is on YOU to prove he's not conservative!!!

LOL.....


----------



## saveliberty

JiggsCasey said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the time period Woodard started at the Washingotn Post, I'd say the burden of proving him a conservative would fall unto Jiggs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sound con man logic...
> 
> Your ally: Woodward's a LIBERAL!
> 
> Me: Show examples please.
> 
> Your ally: <crickets>
> 
> You: The burden is on YOU to prove he's not conservative!!!
> 
> LOL.....
Click to expand...


I said prove he's conservative.  You quoted me in the opposing position.

Whether he is or is not a liberal doesn't seem to matter.  He is equally as through and all Presidents, including Obama, seem to fear his journalistic style and work ethic.


----------



## California Girl

JiggsCasey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'disappeared' because I was back in the US, having fun. Annoying, I know, but my life does not revolve around your whining. I'm tired of cleaning up your drool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... whatever you need to tell yourself, good little Bushie loyalist.
> 
> Meanwhile, that thread is still there waiting for you to return, even though you've managed to spend an inordinate amount of time on this forum in the 3-4 weeks ever since. Must just be "having fun."
Click to expand...


Ok..... I probably dreamed being in Boston with my twin for our birthday. Glad you were able to clarify that for me. I would have thought I'd know more about my own life than you but clearly not. 

You could make a career out of being a moron, you're that good at it.


----------



## JiggsCasey

California Girl said:


> Ok..... I probably dreamed being in Boston with my twin for our birthday. Glad you were able to clarify that for me. I would have thought I'd know more about my own life than you but clearly not.



What are you, 15? 

I didn't dispute you were "away." I simply acknowledged the fact that you've been here quite a bit since that thread, and never could bring yourself to return to it and defend your retarded position on the matter. You were shown your hero's numerous factually INaccurate statements, ... you punted, squawked "context!" and bailed.

Get it yet?



California Girl said:


> You could make a career out of being a moron, you're that good at it.



Again, keep telling yourself that. I wear your desperate assertions as a badge of honor, as this exchange proves you're completely out of bullets.

You're not fooling anyone here, sunshine.  I'm not only quite smart, but I'm also completely onto your typical conservative talking point bullshit....  And you hate that.

You earned this kind of accountability the moment you sent that pissy private message my way back in February. 

So again, how "factually accurate" IS Glenn Beck? You know, the pundit you "don't support," yet run to defend in any thread bearing his name.


----------



## DiveCon

JiggsCasey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..... I probably dreamed being in Boston with my twin for our birthday. Glad you were able to clarify that for me. I would have thought I'd know more about my own life than you but clearly not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you, 15?
> 
> I didn't dispute you were "away." I simply acknowledged the fact that you've been here quite a bit since that thread, and never could bring yourself to return to it and defend your retarded position on the matter. You were shown your hero's numerous factually INaccurate statements, ... you punted, squawked "context!" and bailed.
> 
> Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make a career out of being a moron, you're that good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, keep telling yourself that. I wear your desperate assertions as a badge of honor, as this exchange proves you're completely out of bullets.
> 
> You're not fooling anyone here, sunshine.  I'm not only quite smart, but I'm also completely onto your typical conservative talking point bullshit....  And you hate that.
> 
> You earned this kind of accountability the moment you sent that pissy private message my way back in February.
> 
> So again, how "factually accurate" IS Glenn Beck? You know, the pundit you "don't support," yet run to defend in any thread bearing his name.
Click to expand...

what a little PUSSY you are

your neg rep comment was more what YOU are than me
buyt you are totally fucking delusional


----------



## WillowTree

DiveCon said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..... I probably dreamed being in Boston with my twin for our birthday. Glad you were able to clarify that for me. I would have thought I'd know more about my own life than you but clearly not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you, 15?
> 
> I didn't dispute you were "away." I simply acknowledged the fact that you've been here quite a bit since that thread, and never could bring yourself to return to it and defend your retarded position on the matter. You were shown your hero's numerous factually INaccurate statements, ... you punted, squawked "context!" and bailed.
> 
> Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make a career out of being a moron, you're that good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, keep telling yourself that. I wear your desperate assertions as a badge of honor, as this exchange proves you're completely out of bullets.
> 
> You're not fooling anyone here, sunshine.  I'm not only quite smart, but I'm also completely onto your typical conservative talking point bullshit....  And you hate that.
> 
> You earned this kind of accountability the moment you sent that pissy private message my way back in February.
> 
> So again, how "factually accurate" IS Glenn Beck? You know, the pundit you "don't support," yet run to defend in any thread bearing his name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a little PUSSY you are
> 
> your neg rep comment was more what YOU are than me
> buyt you are totally fucking delusional
Click to expand...


The little coward neg repped you? did it hurt?


----------



## DiveCon

WillowTree said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you, 15?
> 
> I didn't dispute you were "away." I simply acknowledged the fact that you've been here quite a bit since that thread, and never could bring yourself to return to it and defend your retarded position on the matter. You were shown your hero's numerous factually INaccurate statements, ... you punted, squawked "context!" and bailed.
> 
> Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, keep telling yourself that. I wear your desperate assertions as a badge of honor, as this exchange proves you're completely out of bullets.
> 
> You're not fooling anyone here, sunshine.  I'm not only quite smart, but I'm also completely onto your typical conservative talking point bullshit....  And you hate that.
> 
> You earned this kind of accountability the moment you sent that pissy private message my way back in February.
> 
> So again, how "factually accurate" IS Glenn Beck? You know, the pundit you "don't support," yet run to defend in any thread bearing his name.
> 
> 
> 
> what a little PUSSY you are
> 
> your neg rep comment was more what YOU are than me
> buyt you are totally fucking delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The little coward neg repped you? did it hurt?
Click to expand...

the pussy mnegged me, but i negged him first
no big deal
its not even a gnat effect
but the comment was more what he was than me
but the little pussy has PM's off so i couldnt tell him that way


----------



## The T

DiveCon said:


> A new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward describes the Obama administration as barraged with warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. President Obama told Woodward in an interview for his "Obama's Wars," "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever. . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war
> 
> 
> discuss
Click to expand...

 
I was listening to Limbaugh today and he likened Obama's comments to this guy [General Buck Turdgison aptly played by George C. Scott] in the movie _Dr. Strangelove._

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8"]YouTube - Listen To Buck, Use your Nukes[/ame]

It's an apt illustration of Obama's answer. In the scenario? We accidentally send a B-52 over to Moscow to bomb 'em to nuke 'em, and we can't call it back. So we're having a meeting in the War Room, The Situation Room of the White House with the president. 

The general says to the president that we could still be counter-attacked and the losses we had would be still bearable...or _absorbed_, and we would still come out on top.

It in effect is still taking a chance...playing with other people's lives...while missing the point. Let us not put ourselves in the situation in the first place.

Obama's attitude is much like that general.


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious.  When talking about Americans and the USA, I use the first person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't identify with the US Military or its "War on Terror" blunder. We were attacked on September 11th. You responded by launching this campaign of destruction.
> 
> In my hierarchy of loyalties, America falls below God, humanity as a whole, and my family and friends. I don't see that changing any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.... a campaign of destruction - over just 3,000 people. Imagine what we're gonna do if it happens again. Cuz this is the USA being proportional in its response. Like I said, next time, we won't be so nice.
Click to expand...


With this crew in the White House they'll just clean up the bodies, figure the white oppressors that were murdered had it coming to them, and tell us that we must reach out to our attackers and let them know we aren't a threat to them anymore.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kalam said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that killing one man will never end Islamic radicalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will invading two countries. This is a war of ideas, and the presence of non-Muslims on the battlefield has diverted a lot of attention away from our internal struggle against heresy and toward the more immediate problem of foreign militaries occupying Muslim lands.
Click to expand...


The fact that Muslims are obsessed with heresy and foreign militaries in your lands is the cause of the conflict. The bigotry that this statement shows is the real threat here...not the fact that other religions exist or that other world powers were forced to protect you from your neighbors and from yourselves.


----------



## JiggsCasey

DiveCon said:


> the pussy mnegged me, but i negged him first



Glad we're quite clear on that, pre-pubescent ADHD sufferer. Take your Ritalin!!



DiveCon said:


> no big deal
> its not even a gnat effect



Obviously it is, considering you're losing your mind over it and going on full tilt.



DiveCon said:


> but the comment was more what he was than me
> but the little pussy has PM's off so i couldnt tell him that way



My lack of interest in having rage-addled, mouth-frothing Bush Leaguers flood my in box with ineffectual drivel doesn't make me a "pussy," no matter how many times you need to tell it to yourself. What it is is just plain ole' boring. It is kinda cowardly sending violent PMs on the internet though, pussy.

I'm right here, I'm not going anywhere. So if you have more crazy to shovel, keep it right here in the public forum for all to enjoy. I'd only cut and paste your PM vitriol here anyway, so consider yourself saved from embarrassment. Well, until your next dumb post.


----------



## DiveCon

JiggsCasey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the pussy mnegged me, but i negged him first
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad we're quite clear on that, pre-pubescent ADHD sufferer. Take your Ritalin!!
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no big deal
> its not even a gnat effect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it is, considering you're losing your mind over it and going on full tilt.
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the comment was more what he was than me
> but the little pussy has PM's off so i couldnt tell him that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My lack of interest in having rage-addled, mouth-frothing Bush Leaguers flood my in box with ineffectual drivel doesn't make me a "pussy," no matter how many times you need to tell it to yourself. What it is is just plain ole' boring. It is kinda cowardly sending violent PMs on the internet though, pussy.
> 
> I'm right here, I'm not going anywhere. So if you have more crazy to shovel, keep it right here in the public forum for all to enjoy. I'd only cut and paste your PM vitriol here anyway, so consider yourself saved from embarrassment. Well, until your next dumb post.
Click to expand...

my telling you what a pussy you are and laughing at you is not in any way shape or form "rage"
you pathetic pedantic pissant


btw, dipshit
turn on your pm's and we'll see


----------



## blu

California Girl said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OBL was only ever a 'face'.
> 
> Look at what we did.... in Iraq and Afghanistan.... Ask yourself 'what are Americans capable of if it happens again'.... because, next time, we won't be so fucking nice about it.
Click to expand...


made the Taliban stronger and gave iran a whole region to control?


----------



## blu

California Girl said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious.  When talking about Americans and the USA, I use the first person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't identify with the US Military or its "War on Terror" blunder. We were attacked on September 11th. You responded by launching this campaign of destruction.
> 
> In my hierarchy of loyalties, America falls below God, humanity as a whole, and my family and friends. I don't see that changing any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.... a campaign of destruction - over just 3,000 people. Imagine what we're gonna do if it happens again. Cuz this is the USA being proportional in its response. Like I said, next time, we won't be so nice.
Click to expand...


killing in between 500k to 1 million (or it is more now) people is proportioned?


----------



## blu

Si modo said:


> Yup, Kalam equates OBL to the USA.
> 
> What a disgusting little piece of shit.



quite simple minded you are, because thats not what he said at all


----------



## blu

California Girl said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> OBL was only ever a 'face'.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so at all. He participated in combat and has always been deeply involved in organizing finances and recruitment. As we've seen, he can also plan and oversee the execution of terrorist operations. His life story is one of a man whose stubborn commitment to his beliefs led to almost everything he had being taken away - his Saudi citizenship was revoked, his family disowned him, he was kicked out of his home country as well as Sudan, and even the Taliban stated their willingness to see him put to trial for his alleged involvement in 9/11 (before the War in Afghanistan, of course.) He is the world's most wanted man and doesn't seem to care.
> 
> It's a shame that this determination is so misplaced and that his foolish hatred has caused him to flail blindly, without any concern for who is in the way. In that respect, he's similar to America in the aftermath of 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what we did.... in Iraq and Afghanistan.... Ask yourself 'what are Americans capable of if it happens again'.... because, next time, we won't be so fucking nice about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't doubt it, and I can tell you that another American blunder in the Muslim World is all that sits between al-Qa'idah and a huge, fresh batch of recruits. Keep in mind also that Afghanis and Iraqis haven't been the only victims of the "War on Terror." When most Americans haplessly cast their lots with their belligerent leaders in the White House and Congress in 2001, they secured the destruction of an enormous amount of our civil liberties and, to some extent, our national economic wellbeing. If another attack of 9/11's magnitude occurs, I hope you don't value your privacy too much, because Big Brother will be watching you if he isn't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? Recruit 'em. We'll kill 'em. You recruit some more, we'll kill them too. We can go around as long as it takes for extremists to learn.... it's an easy lesson.... "Don't fuck with us, or we will fuck with you" and you will always lose.
> 
> Personally, if we have to bomb every fucking Muslim country back to the stone age, that's fine with me. If you keep coming, we will make every single country a fuckin' car park. And then, you will have something to whine about.
> 
> *Learn to keep your fucking shit in your own country and stay out of ours. *Then we have no problem. If you're a Muslim, and you are an American, you are welcome to practice your religion as you see fit.... until you support the enemies of your country. If you support the enemies of America, you are no longer an American and you can leave.... willingly... or by force.
Click to expand...


will we stay out theirs? can they attack us when we don't?


----------



## blu

Kalam said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a ridiculous idea.
> 
> As President he is tasked with defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic yet his innate complacency or feeling of inevitability allows him to think that a worse attack then 9/11 can be easily dealt with. This reveals his inner thoughts on the matter and explains why his answer during the Democrat debates to the question "What would you do to prevent another terrorist attack in the US" his answer was to make sure we had good first responders. He knows we'll have one, accepts it, and he may not do everything in his power to prevent it. He instead worries about the cleanup effort and how he will deal with the effects of it rather then prevent it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me be clear when I say that I despise Obama as a leader and think that he's a bootlicking coward who will always base his decisions on political expediency rather than principle. Still, I think that you're reading too deeply into his comment. I think it's true that the United States can endure a larger terrorist attack (the Constitution is another story.) I don't think that we'll have to do so in the foreseeable future, though, and I haven't seen any indication that Obama thinks that either.
Click to expand...


there was a really good and rather lengthy article from stratfor on what would happen if we were attacked again. they also compared the results to a number of other western countries and israel. of course we could handle it the best without even getting into details beyond the size of our country and the size of our military


----------



## blu

California Girl said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that killing one man will never end Islamic radicalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will invading two countries. This is a war of ideas, and the presence of non-Muslims on the battlefield has diverted a lot of attention away from our internal struggle against heresy and toward the more immediate problem of foreign militaries occupying Muslim lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If those countries would stop allowing terrorists to train within their borders, we would have to invade them. But they did, so we invade. Don't like it? Easy answer - don't harbor terrorists. I thought we'd made that real clear.
Click to expand...


what terrorists did iraq harbor?


----------



## R.C. Christian

Kalam said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiery deaths; mass annihilation; parentless children. No biggie. Might even solve that unemployment problem.
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
Click to expand...


It was really not ever about 9-11. Osama is likely dead and unimportant in any event. What is important to the U.S., however, is control of central asia and projecting it's power so that any emerging superstate, namely China, would think twice about challenging the United States in Central Asia.  So in fact from a standpoint of foreign policy the Iraq war was a complete and utter success in that context.


----------



## blu

skookerasbil said:


> I love the Israeli approach.............they hit us, we bomb the living shit out of them, into complete submission if necessary.
> I laughed my ass off in the summer of 2007 when Beirut got bombed back to the stone age.
> 
> This is going to be the future of course...............you hold the state responsible to keep the nuts in line...........or hell comes to your doorstep and tough the fcukk shit on you.



i like how you ignore gaza and lebanon.....


----------



## blu

loosecannon said:


> Woodward quotes Petraeus as saying, "You have to recognize also that I don't think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. It's a little bit like Iraq, actually. . . . Yes, there has been enormous progress in Iraq. But there are still horrific attacks in Iraq, and you have to stay vigilant. You have to stay after it.* This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> war without end
> 
> This from Sept 12, 2001
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now  with somebody  and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunter S. Thompson on 9/11  Totally Gonzo
Click to expand...


----------



## DiveCon

blu said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor will invading two countries. This is a war of ideas, and the presence of non-Muslims on the battlefield has diverted a lot of attention away from our internal struggle against heresy and toward the more immediate problem of foreign militaries occupying Muslim lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If those countries would stop allowing terrorists to train within their borders, we would have to invade them. But they did, so we invade. Don't like it? Easy answer - don't harbor terrorists. I thought we'd made that real clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what terrorists did iraq harbor?
Click to expand...

abu nidal


----------



## blu

Kalam said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those countries would stop allowing terrorists to train within their borders, we would have to invade them. But they did, so we invade. Don't like it? Easy answer - don't harbor terrorists. I thought we'd made that real clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Justify it to yourself in whatever way you need to, CG. By all accounts, the Karzai regime is extremely corrupt and ineffective. No amount of bolstering from NATO is likely to change that after a decade of failure. Over 1,000 US soldiers and 300 billion dollars have been spent on a campaign that has failed to...
> 
> Kill Usama bin Ladin, the leader of the group that perpetrated the terrorist attacks;
> Kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the "brains" of al-Qa'idah;
> Kill Mullah Omar, the leader of the group that you hold guilty by association;
> Establish an effective government or military.
> 
> Three-hundred billion dollars. And many have been brainwashed to think that this money couldn't have been put to better use. That's a lot of money you spent "teaching a lesson" to the Taliban, *a group that had no ambitions outside of Afghanistan's borders*. Of course, that's less than half of what you've spent on an even more pointless conflict!
Click to expand...


the key part that most people don't get. they were even willing to hand bin laden over!


----------



## blu

Charles_Main said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of money you spent "teaching a lesson" to the Taliban, a group that had no ambitions outside of Afghanistan's borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and that is why when confronted with a chance to cooperate and turn over UBL, they chose to say Fuck you come and get him.
Click to expand...


actually they said 'show us proof' and we didn't


----------



## blu

R.C. Christian said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was really not ever about 9-11. Osama is likely dead and unimportant in any event. What is important to the U.S., however, is control of central asia and projecting it's power so that any emerging superstate, namely China, would think twice about challenging the United States in Central Asia.  So in fact from a standpoint of foreign policy the Iraq war was a complete and utter success in that context.
Click to expand...


really? because the iraq war was a collosal fuckup that gave a number of other countries (iran, russia, and so on) the balls to openly defy us knowing that we wouldn't be able to do much about it


----------

