Four people have been charged. One is in custody in New York. Three suspects in total are in custody. One is still at large in Trinidad.

According to sources, the suspects have been identified as: Russell Defreitas, Abdul Nur, Kareem Ibrihim and Abdul Kadir.

Sources said a cargo worker at JFK allegedly began to plot attacking the US last July or August. The cargo worker sought help in carrying out a plan and went to an FBI informant, who gathered information about the plot.

The cargo worker is a U.S. citizen with roots in Guyana. Sources said he may be a former government official in Guyana.

Sources said counter-terrorism officials have been following the plot for a little less than one year.

Sources said the plot involved a plan to blow up a BuckEye jet-fuel pipeline at JFK setting off a potential massive explosion. BuckEye provides fuel to all three NYC-area airports.

Sources said the plot involved putting explosives inside the fuel pipeline but realized that "it was not technically feasible."

Sources said the planning stages of the plot involved surveillance of JFK airport as well as scouting out US properties in Guyana for possible attacks.

Aviation officials said there is no major threat to air travel related to this plot since it was caught in the developmental stages.

One law enforcement official said: "[There was] credible intent to commit violence but it was not operational."

A press conference is scheduled for 1 p.m. this afternoon.

But I thought there was NO terror threat

FRetort: The Saturday Nooner | Drudge Retortrom


Israeli agents 'helped Entebbe hijackers'
Posted Jun 1, 2007 12:17 PM PST
Category: ISRAELI SPYING


I am keeping this near the top of the page because I think this is an important story and more than that, this is a real test for the US mainstream media.
This story, that Israeli intelligence agents helped stage an act of terror to frame the PLO with is a major story. It has bearing not only on current events like 9-11, but on a possible motive behind the attacks on USS Liberty and USS Cole.

So, we wait patiently to see how much coverage this story, which is prominent on the foreign press, receives from ABCNNBBCBS.

My prediction is, "damned little."

The defy is hurled, networks. Let's see you prove you are not under the control of pro-Israeli interests. says M.R.

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11. ( see more of Michael Riverio's commentary in www.whatreallyhappened.com )

www.telegraph.co.uk

The Neocons always say: We are fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them here.

Ummm..... I don't think the terrorist got the memo you dumbass Neocons! Guess what, terrorists can walk and chew gum at the same time, they can fight us there and here and everywhere.

Let's end the Iraq War now.

But Wait .. aren't YOU the guy who posted the following story that was DESIGNED to SMEAR JEWS ??

""A google news search for the name "Yehuda Abraham" likewise yields nothing, despite the fact that the New York City Orthodox Jew sold Russian made, shoulder launched, surface to air missiles to undercover FBI agents with the understanding that they'd be used against commercial aircraft in the United States. Abraham was sentenced to five years he too will soon be released, yet the media chooses to ignore this story and focus on Don Imus."

Now lets examine this your next lie TaliBANI

Upon looking at the FBI web site the first thing we notice is the date which is July 18, 2003. You don't bother to mention this happened almost 4 years ago. But the date is the least of your lie. According to the FBI:

"Criminal charges were also filed against Yehuda Abraham, the owner of Ambuy Gem Corp. in New York City, for allegedly helping to arrange the delivery of a $30,000 down payment between the cooperating witness and Lakhani. Abraham, 75, of New York, who also owns a money remittance business, was arrested today and charged with operating an unlicensed money transmitting business."

Now read it Bani ... so you learn the truth and stiop spreading UGLY lies

"U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie of the District in New Jersey and FBI Director Robert Mueller and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in Washington, announced the filing of a criminal complaint charging Hemant Lakhani with attempting to provide material support to terrorists and attempting to sell arms without a license. Lakhani, 68, of London, England, flew from London to John F. Kennedy International Airport on Sunday and was arrested yesterday by Special Agents of the FBI/Newark Joint Terrorism Task Force, as he was meeting with a government cooperating witness to complete the sale of a single shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile."

Hemant Lakhani is the name of your arms merchant and NOT Abraham ... so your Jew baiting bullshit conspiracy theories are exactly that - bullshit ugly lies, half truths all to spread anti semitism or are you going to claim that's NOT what you were doing and I'm some Zionist demon who's accusing you of something your innocent of.

I checked two of your stories and both are troublesome at best

and here's the link to the FBI



Now why would ANYONE believe the LIES you post here about tjis particular subject ? Obviously you have some problem with Jews and all you really want to do is smear them...

Fuck you Asshole .....

You have no credibility when it comes to any of this ...

The Entebbe story is a complete joke considering the source. The mainstream media won't bother with it because its

Some guywho was told some story by some other guy ... is that supposed to be evidence BANI ? Maybe in your fucked up perverse Jew hating world but in the real world, it doesn't sail.

The story if true would have had to have Idi Amin as part of the "plot" GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK

And furthermore TALI bani ... WHY is it you insist on ALWAYS CHANGING the subject whenever there's some event like these terrorists who were planning to blow up the fuel lines at JFK .. WHY ARE YOU CHANGING THE SUBJECT? Doesn't fit your Jew conpsiracy theories?

Could it be you don't want anyone to focus on the real threat we and the entire civilized world faces?

Are you only about "Jew conspiracies" and if so TALIbani .. then how do you figure the Lebanese now blasting the crap out of the Islamists who beheaded four of their soldiers and robbed banks in Lebanon currently using human shields in a Palestinian refugee camp? Are those also your usual Jew spies ?

Why do suppose the Arab League is supporting these Lebanese who are pounding the Palestinians ... is that also some Jewish plot TALIbani ?

Your so full of shit your eyes are brown

member, what's the matter? Disappointed they weren't successful so you could scream "WE ARE NOT SAFE!"?

Reuters: Four people have been charged. Three suspects are in custody: Russell Defreitas, aka Muhammed, a Guyana national, Kareem Ibrihim and Abdul Kadir. Suspect Abdul Nur, a citizen of Guyana, is believed to be in Trinidad and is still at large.
* * * *


Russell Defreitas was AKA "Mohammad".

Hmmm. So we have a Mohammad, a couple of Abdul's, and a Kareem. They sound suspiciously to come from the same religious movement, but I can't remember which one. Roman Catholics, maybe? Jews? Hindus? Maybe I'm missing one . . .
Can someone help me out, to save me from having to Google it?

One of the alleged plotters, Abdul Kabir, is a former member of the parliament of Guyana, and was arrested in Trinidad.

Crap ?

Trinidad authorities found a bomb at the residence of two members of an Islamic group and have arrested the men, police said yesterday.

The men, members of Jamaat al Muslimeen, were arrested Friday during a raid by army soldiers and police. They were caught packaging the bomb, which was equipped with wires, timers and antennae, said a senior police superintendent who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the Press.

Police Commissioner Trevor Paul confirmed newspaper and television reports about the arrests, the bomb and the men's association with the Islamic group. He said the men were being detained for questioning.
"I cannot divulge too much information as the investigations are still in the preliminary stage," Paul said.

Police refused to identify the men, saying they will do so if they are charged and make a court appearance. They provided their ages - 31 and 32 - and said they were renting accommodations in a home located in Arima, 16 kilometres (10 miles) east of Port of Spain.

Police received intelligence that the men planned to detonate the bomb before leaving the island. Police found passports and airline tickets for a flight departing yesterday, but wouldn't say where the men were going.

The incident comes during a preliminary inquiry into terrorism charges against Jamaat al Muslimeen leader, Yasin Abu Bakr. The charges against him stem from a November 4 sermon in which he called for war against rich Muslims who refuse to pay zakaat, an Islamic tithe for the poor.

A judge could decide whether Abu Bakr will stand trial when the inquiry wraps up on Thursday.
In 1990, Abu Bakr's group bombed police headquarters, stormed Parliament and took the prime minister and his Cabinet hostage in a rebellion that left 24 people dead.

The rebels surrendered after they were promised amnesty. The government withdrew the amnesty and prosecuted them, but the charges were dismissed on appeal.

Trinidad also has experienced a rash of bombings this year: four bombs were detonated in Port of Spain and St James, on the capital outskirts, between July and October, injuring about 25 people. Police haven't charged anyone in those bombings and haven't said they believe Jamaat al Muslimeen was involved.

But I thought there was NO terror threat

Posted by GZlives

no dumb ass..the mantra was we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here..

Now we are fighting them all over the world until the end of time.. sort of like Israel and the entire middle east. this war will never be over. There is always someone that will want to destroy America or Israel..


The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result..wow are we stupid or what?

AnAmerican,

I'm pretty sure that Member has no desire to see any terrorist succesfull. However he does follow the blowback theory put forth by the 9/11 commission and the CIA. The fact that there was even a single threat in the US since then pretty much disproves the over there so not over here theory.

I guess that reality is unpatriotic though right?

Hmmm. So we have a Mohammad, a couple of Abdul's, and a Kareem. They sound suspiciously to come from the same religious movement, but I can't remember which one. Roman Catholics, maybe? Jews? Hindus? Maybe I'm missing one . . .
Can someone help me out, to save me from having to Google it?

RIR, for everyone who isn't on the radical far left, please explain why 6 years after 9-11 the border is still wide open.
And please explain how being in Iraq prevents terror attacks from US citizens and people from the Caribiean?


Nobody but the far left kooks claim the war on terror isn't real. The dispute is that it can be won by bombing and invading insignificant countries while simultaneously ignoring fundamental national security issues.

Where is our port security? Why did our President try to sell our ports to Dubai?
No action in Iraq prevents an attack on JFK.
Where is the strategy for the Global War on Terror? We're wearing half a suit of armor. Fell the draft?

I thought the democrats said terrorist arent real.Now dems stop the stupid act and the mouth running.

I thought the democrats said terrorist aren(')t real.
Posted by jjdj1187

Well, perhaps what you think and what is reality are two separate things. Care to share a link to show where this was said?

Wow they're Muslims?

Holy shit that is so out of charecter! I can't believe this...

Well don't let this affect your judgement of Islam on the whole... Don't let 100,000,000 bad apples spoil the bunch people...

But I thought there was NO terror threat

Posted by GZlives

Well, only if you listen to the Republicans. The war on terror is an "away game". We're fighting them "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here". I always thought NY was "over here" but apparently not, according to the GOP.

So this plot, which amazingly shows up a year late but in time to help the Bushies try and convince us that Iraq, and Guyana are the front line in the GWOT, was solved by police methods and without having to eavesdrop warrentlessly, shows how far off base everything the right has been saying about how to fight the GWOT.

Face it, the righties are just pissed the plotters didn't pick Reagan National as a target that would hurt America's heart, but JFK instead.
Or maybe the terrorists are Republicans...

OMG, Guyana terrorists tried to attack us. Now we need to invade Chile

There's no need To build Muslim Footbath's Nationwide. Dubya just has them come to Crawford so they can swap spit and walk hand in hand.

I thought the democrats said terrorist aren(')t real.
Posted by jjdj1187

Well, perhaps what you think and what is reality are two separate things. Care to share a link to show where this was said?

Posted by TFDNihilist

dont feed the troll.. guys like do not add to the discourse and should be perma banned.

Zatoichi? Back?

I believe there is another reason for these arrests at this point in time. It's easy to say there was fear that one of them was getting ready to fly the coup. I just wonder is there a bit of deflection going on here. Watch the news next week for something that]s very important and potentially damaging but will be overshadowed by this story. Just my tidbit, I could be wrong.

Just my tidbit, I could be wrong.

Posted by slbow43


That's what everyone said about the 6 terrorists arrested in Cherry Hill, NJ a month or so back. If it were just an upping of that color system, or a warning from DHS I'd say you have a point, but these were actual arrests of actual terrorists plotting to kill Americans...

And again its just so shocking it needs repeating, those actual terrorists I mentioned above... turns out they were Muslims... I know... go figure right? Who saw that twist coming?

I'm not impressed by arresting folks with mideastern surnames and accusing them of plotting something.

Someone argue with me: The only REAL acts of terrorism this nation has seen since 9/11/01 have been committed by Republicans. herm

Bush's fault if he stops them, Bush's fault if he doesn't - do many of you ever listen to how rediculous you sound?

nytimes.com headlined the Bush immigration legislation troubles today and second-lined this terrorism story.

"Plot Was Unlikely to Work, Experts Say, Citing Safeguards and Pipeline Structure"

Muslims want to kill americans? Wow, what a thought.

If wacko libs on this site, blame this president for 9-11, then you must give him credit, and the gov't credit, for unfoiling this disgusting plot. Somehow though, I really don't see the libs doing that.

If wacko libs on this site, blame this president for 9-11, then you must give him credit, and the gov't credit, for unfoiling this disgusting plot. Somehow though, I really don't see the libs doing that.

Posted by FormerLib at 2007-06-03 08:15 AM | Reply

You mean this Bogus so called Plot?? Get Real had this of been a REAL DEAL do You think they would have broadcasted it?? I don't think so.

Larry

That's what everyone said about the 6 terrorists arrested in Cherry Hill, NJ a month or so back. If it were just an upping of that color system, or a warning from DHS I'd say you have a point, but these were actual arrests of actual terrorists plotting to kill Americans...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole
******************************
*****

I never questioned those arrests. These are however suspicious to me because they weren't even close to pulling this off. The thing people need to realize about any of these arrests and wanting to give Bush credit is that these are made possible by tips given to law enforcement and normal police work. I'm not aware of any policy that Bush has advocated that has helped in this regard.

It seems to me the battle is here rather than in Iraq where they say it is. The only credit Bush deserves is the credit for NOT securing that border post 9/11. If he's so afraid the terrorists will come here why is he playing politics with the damn border. He doesn't need the approval of Congress for anything with regard to that he just needs to do it. So, for you Bush supporters until he does that anything else he supposedly does to "make us secure" is just "smoke and mirrors".

And again its just so shocking it needs repeating, those actual terrorists I mentioned above... turns out they were Muslims... I know... go figure right? Who saw that twist coming?

Rob, I'm not arguing with you. But I'd like to know how you square the fact that we have a President who walks hand in hand with Muslims, our President tried to sell control of our ports to Muslims, Haliburton just moved thier headquarters to a Muslim country, and 3500 of our soldiers have died so that another Muslim country can implement Sharia law.

Our leadership sure isn't acting like they're trying to kill us. Our leaders are in bed with them. Hardly a position of strenght to defend this country.

How likely do you think this country would be to bomb Dubai if that's where the terrorists were hiding?
It's one thing to bomb Somalia. It's quite another to bomb Haliburton's shiny new headquarters.

Again, I'm not arguing with you, just trying to figure out why the Right still supports its leadership.

My take on this whole plot is simply this. The normal police system works.

We didn't have to send in Jack Bauer to torture people. We didn't have to send anyone to Gitmo. We didn't need the Patriot Act. Didn't need to suspend any constitutional rights, not even 'minor' ones.

And most certainly didn't need the war in Iraq to keep us safe.

"You mean this Bogus so called Plot?? Get Real had this of been a REAL DEAL do You think they would have broadcasted it?? I don't think so." Posted by LARRYMOHR

Hey, Larry, smart boy. You and I both know that anyone named Abdul Nur, Kareem Ibrihim, or Abdul Kadir would NEVER be involved in something like that. They are being FRAMED! However, that guy, Russel Defrietas, he could have been up to something, don't ya' think?


"According to sources, the suspects have been identified as: Russell Defreitas, Abdul Nur, Kareem Ibrihim and Abdul Kadir."

"But I'd like to know how you square the fact that we have a President who walks hand in hand with Muslims"

Pretty broad brush to be painting with.
ALL Muslims shouldn't be condemned. Many are even more victimized then the rest of us are. Some have even stepped up and spoken out at a great deal of risk. Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat are two very courageous moderates who have stepped up.

"How likely do you think this country would be to bomb Dubai if that's where the terrorists were hiding?"

If Dubai refused to turn them over I think its very likely but that wouldn't really happen would it? The only reason we struck in Afghanistan was the Taliban wouldn't turn them over. Had they done so, I doubt we would have attacked.

Of course then the question of why Iraq ? The rationale was Saddam's ability to share WMD at some point. Many here have some strange notion that countries like Iran or Iraq under Saddam can be trusted not to share with in Iran's case their proxy terror organizations. Those notions in my opinion defy reality and in a big way. Hezbollah was given long rang missiles and had they had Iran had nuclear warheads, the missiles would have been nukes and today much of the ME would be irradiated since Israel would certainly have responded in kind. That's the element many here don't take into consideration when discussing what would happen if Iran shares ... and that results in Israel being nuked. If that happens, the entire region will light up and no one wants that ergo why Iran must be stopped.

Iran must be stopped because the brain dead GZ and his ilk are paranoiac delusional? I don't think so. If anybody is at risk for being nuked, it's Iran. Besides, if Hezbollah really has long range missiles, Israel would be the first to know. Evidence please?

Four Arrested in Plot to Destroy Airport

Reality check. This is good news. Though you wouldn't be able to tell from reading a lot of the posts on this thread.

"The longer-range Zelzal missiles, manufactured by Iran and capable of reaching Tel Aviv, have also not been fired at Israel, and the IDF believes this is because it destroyed almost two-thirds of these in the Hizbullah arsenal."

RED ALLERT RED ALLERT SPAMMER IN THE AREA PLEASE BE ADVISED. The National Spammer Service has issued a Severe Spammer Warning Affecting the Immediate Area. Chances of Copy and Pasting is greatly anticipated.

Larry

Ray ... wake up already. If anyone sounds brain dead its YOU !!!

Bla bla bla bla bla

It's no secret that the US and Israel are planning a major attack on Iran, so what are you worried about GZ?

Intelligence officials believe one reason why Hezbollah has not yet fired a Zelzal missile into Israel is that it needs a green light from Iran and Syria before any action that could turn the conflict into full-scale regional war.

That green light is an attack on Iran. Let the fireworks begin.

SO Ray ...

we have the evidence that Israel bombed the shit out of most of Hezzie's Zelzal long range missiles during last summer's war.

Then, we have the evidence that they've now been resupplied

And we have the statements by Iranian leadership that yes in fact they have supplied Hezbollah with long range missiles.

We have this being reported in Israeli press and non Israeli press alike, and we also have reports in military news ...

And so are you still unconvinced ?

Iran will share their nukes as they share all their weapons and as they finance and back terror all over the world. That's the reality that you and so many "useful idiots" seem to really want to ignore, but the evidence is just overwhelming and luckily the Israelis will not sit back and wait for anyone to protect them.

Jews learned the hard way back in Europe that NO ONE will lift a finger on their behalf and you can believe that at some point, they will indeed do what has to be done and take out or at least push back Iran's nuclear program no matter what the backlash will be in the world community - even though most will privately, especially the Sunni Arab regimes, be extremely grateful.

Do I appear to be worried?

I only worry about all the "useful idiots" like you.

You're all almost as much if a threat as those who would blow up JFK and murder soldiers at Ft Dix etc., because you continue, despite all evidence to the contrary, to insist that none of this is real and that somehow its all the fault of either the US or Israel when that's simply ridiculous.

I don't give a shit about Israel. They wanted to live there, so tough shit for being so stupid. If we are ever attacked again, I blame the Washington elite for dragging us into this Israeli tar pit. You should know that by now.

"If we are ever attacked again, I blame the Washington elite for dragging us into this Israeli tar pit. You should know that by now."

Is it your contention that without Israel we, or the world, would have no problems with Muslims?

Jest
Israel + oil + imperialism + constant intervention = trouble with Muslims.

The US has been the ME's neighborhood bully for the past 60 years. It explains why no other country has the problems we have with Muslims.

Reality check. This is good news. Though you wouldn't be able to tell from reading a lot of the posts on this thread.

Posted by Bowa

I've read the entire thread, and besides Larry, who doesn't say it's good this was stopped? Us freakys think it's good because it shows how lame Bush's WOT is, as once again thsese guys are caught using good old fashioned Police work, and not any of the methods the NeoCons are forcing down our throat.

And JJ, I'm still waiting for that link or quote where "The Democrats" said that terrorists are not real. I know you read these threads and I am giving you the benifit of the doubt that your opinions are based on experience and not just pulled out of your ass. So go ahead prove me wrong, show me the quote.

Nice V2.0 sed...

"Edwards said that very clearly when he said there is no war on terrorism, it is a bumper sticker. So there must be no terrorist threat either."

So ...not buying into the GWOT bullshit is being a "scaredy cat" Dem?

Because the Dems don't piss themselves with terror like the Reps do at the mention of the AQ they are, somehow, the cowards here?

Ill logic.

Be Well.

PS: To clarify that. There is terrorism in the world. That is not in question. The real question is what is causing the surge in terrorism. The answer is the continued occupation of Palestine and Iraq. Anybody who thinks War Eternal in the ME will bring world peace or keep America safer has bought into the fear-mongering and is obviously unable to think beyond bumper sticker arguments.

Gnubsy: Has anyone told you recently that you are the most Christless person we have ever had the displeasure of being exposed to?

Hezbollah was given long rang missiles and had they had Iran had nuclear warheads, the missiles would have been nukes and today much of the ME would be irradiated since Israel would certainly have responded in kind.

Posted by GZLives at 2007-06-03 10:51 AM

This is exactly why you should be less worried about Iran getting a nuke or passing it to Hezbollah. Iran knows there would be retaliation in-kind if it's used. Deterrence has worked for years where as these conventional battles are NOT working. You people that keep promoting attacking Iran have you thought about what comes after that? No you haven't and neither have your friends in the WH just like they didn't in Iraq.

Just for the record, I don't want Iran to have a nuke anymore than the next American. One of the things we have to come to grips with is that Iran is a sovereign nation. Who in the hell are we to try to dictate to a sovereign nation. That sounds like a George Bushism. What you do is hold them accountable for their actions. In other words if their fingerprints show up on the wrong thing or in the wrong place then there will be hell to pay. Deterrence worked with the Soviets and I'm willing to give it a try here. It's obvious we don't have a clue about what to do with a nation once we beaten their army. And I also don't think you all realize how exposed we are at the border and we keep talking about attacking other nations. Think people, think!!!!

Norm I hate that we are dependent on the Middle East for our energy needs... my biggest problem with Bush is his favoritism towards Oil... After 9/11 I would have liked for him to begin a massive project to build nuclear power plants along with forcing in drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and anywhere we can find a single barrel to get us off Muslim oil, then if they fucked with us we could reply without care of consequences. But he didn't do that and that is a failure on his record. (BTW I think any profits made from domestic drilling should go to research for fuel cell cars and other alternative engeries).

But I will say this for Bush and this is the reason I still support him. At least he responds to the terrorists with some real force instead of lobbing a missile or two into a tent as was the actions of Clinton/Gore, and would have been the reaction of Gore on 9/12.

I will say this for Bush and this is the reason I still support him. At least he responds to the terrorists with some real force instead of lobbing a missile or two into a tent as was the actions of Clinton/Gore, and would have been the reaction of Gore on 9/12.


Praise our Great President........without him Saddam the real cause of 911 would still be laughing at us...the unstopable american military will continue OUR crusade to stop the horde and get the oil that is rightfully ours........

"I will say this for Bush and this is the reason I still support him. At least he responds to the terrorists with some real force instead of lobbing a missile or two into a tent as was the actions of Clinton/Gore, and would have been the reaction of Gore on 9/12."

Bush is a terrorist who causes a surge in global terrorism in order to satisfy a corporate agenda.

His War is not part of the cure it's part of the problem.


"Praise our Great President........without him Saddam the real cause of 911 would still be laughing at us...the unstopable american military will continue OUR crusade to stop the horde and get the oil that is rightfully ours........"

Hey Wob,

Still wanna argue that there aren't assholes still brainwashed by all that 9/11=AQ=Saddam Bushit they was spinning.

AF is Spud's "case in point"

The "Head Case", in fact.

Be Well.

then if they fucked with us we could reply without care of consequences.

that's what i'm talkin bout!......make them sucker glow in the dark.

"Bush is a terrorist who causes a surge in global terrorism in order to satisfy a corporate agenda."

This is as silly as your contention that Israel is committing a "genocide" on a population that's actually increased by 9X since 1948 ... the only genocide in history where the population has actually increased.

Know what SPUD ?
You suffer from an acute case of EXAGGERATION.

This is as silly as your contention that Israel is committing a "genocide" on a population that's actually increased by 9X since 1948 ... the only genocide in history where the population has actually increased.

You can't fault the Israelis for not trying.

This is as silly as your contention that Israel is committing a "genocide" on a population that's actually increased by 9X since 1948 ... the only genocide in history where the population has actually increased.



Why they should show some respect to their benefactors, INGRATES!

I will say this for Bush and this is the reason I still support him. At least he responds to the terrorists with some real force instead of lobbing a missile or two into a tent as was the actions of Clinton/Gore, and would have been the reaction of Gore on 9/12.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

****************************

I believe it's called responding with the appropriate amount of force given the damage you have suffered. Three thousand non-military American citizens were NOT killed on Clinton's watch so you have no way of knowing what Clinton's or Gore's response would have been. Then again they could have packed their bags like Reagan did in Lebanon. Clinton was smart enough to realize there are consequences to war. Bush was informed, but he didn't listen. Now who is surprised by that?

Additionally, going into Iraq was NOT a response to a terrorist attack. However, the end result can certainly lead one to believe we are terrorists ourselves. So, please tell us again why you still support Bush. Get the facts clear in your head. Bush doesn't know what in the hell he is doing and the more stupid things he does the closer he brings us to annihilation. Look at what's happening with Russia right now! Maybe a smart project but you have a stupid administration executing it. And we all know that it is little if any threat to Russia; however, you have to know how to play the game and Bush is in over his head!

Three thousand non-military American citizens were NOT killed on Clinton's watch so you have no way of knowing what Clinton's or Gore's response would have been.

PLEASE don't stop the fun Rob is the original deadender, now watch him respond. You can come back tomorrow if there is anything Rob has it is plenty of idle time.

Three thousand non-military American citizens were NOT killed on Clinton's watch so you have no way of knowing what Clinton's or Gore's response would have been.

I can look at the response from attacks carried out by muslims all throughout the 90s... They viewed terrorism as a crimnal matter, one for the courts and law enforcement. Judging by their actions after numerous attacks, no one can say that they would have attacked Afghanistan with full military force, or even actual boots on the ground.

Look at what's happening with Russia right now!

I'd be more worried about China then Russia (but even them not for another 10 years)... at least their military (especially their Navy) isn't crumbling around them... Russia is trying to act like their still something to fear. MAD still applies to them, they won't attack us with nukes and we wouldn't attack them. They're worried that this missile shield, which shows amazing potential, will eventually take away the one thing they have that even remotely measures up to us.

Rob_The_A_Hole,

I'll just say your logic and conclusion regarding Clinton or Gore show you are a heavy Bush kool-aid drinker. It's a weak comparison and actually is more supportive of mine...."appropriate amount of force given the damage you have suffered". In some cases terrorism is a criminal matter. Every terrorist act is not state sponsored. So given that it's not state sponsored please tell me who in the hell are you suppose to go to WAR with?

Secondly, you seem to be stuck in the past with regard to Russia and the concerns there too. Ever heard of land-based or rail-based ICBMs? Well Russia has plenty of them and they don't require the use of the Navy as you alluded to. Once again I'm discussing annihilation and you're discussing conventional battles. That's not the point. But you know, that's exactly how the Bush administration acts also.

Suppose this just turns into a cold-war type military race. How does that help us given the enormous debt China and others carry for us now? It doesn't, it puts us in greater jeopardy. Point is this is a problem we don't need now. Even if the missile system worked, which last I read it didn't, where are the credible threats. Iran doesn't have nukes now, they have yet to master the process not to mention to mount it on a missile that could reach the US. This is a stupid chess move which the response was very predictable.

Kennedy was ready to go to war to stop the Soviet Union from putting missiles in Cuba, our backyard. Given that, I would think Russia has a legitimate concern for our attempt to place missiles in their backyard. History has a way of repeating itself if only some would study and learn from it. It would have been helpful prior to attacking Iraq also.

PS Since this group never got operational, I think it was a bad idea to put ideas in someone elses head by publicizing it.

Well Russia has plenty of them and they don't require the use of the Navy as you alluded to.

I didn't say they needed their navy to support their nuclear arsenal, I was merely pointing out that there military is not what it was, and even what it was was never a match for us. The only thing the Soviets and now the Russians have is a comparable nuclear program. Which is why they are nervous about the Defense Shield, because it has great potential and could eliminate the one area where they are on par with us. But they still wouldn't attack us with their weapons because Mutually Assured Destruction still applies.

I'll just say your logic and conclusion regarding Clinton or Gore show you are a heavy Bush kool-aid drinker

Bullshit, my analysis of the Clinton Administration is spot on, they experienced attack after attack and at best retaliated with proportional force and at worst not at all. There is absolutely no evidence you can show from the 8 years they were in office that could make anyone believe a Gore Administration would have invaded Afghanistan. You can say pretty confidently that they would have bombed the shit out of them, but you can't say they would have invaded.

Even if the missile system worked, which last I read it didn't, where are the credible threats

Where did you read that? Have you looked into all the different variations of it? have you heard of THAAD?

The missile defense shield couldn't stop an attack from Russia and Putin knows this. Putin is not going to go to war over a missile shield designed to stop 1-5 missiles when he has thousands.

You're using the Bush administration of scare tactics to try and get your way...

There is absolutely no evidence you can show from the 8 years they were in office that could make anyone believe a Gore Administration would have invaded Afghanistan. You can say pretty confidently that they would have bombed the shit out of them, but you can't say they would have invaded.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Any President would have invaded Afghanistan with the world's blessing and help after 9/11.

Most others would have stayed there with sufficient force to win it decisively, rather than bail and leave a situation still not going swimmingly 5 years later.

PS ROB

You'll get a kick out or the video I linked above.

Any President would have invaded Afghanistan with the world's blessing and help after 9/11.


The goal in 1993 was to blow up the base of one tower knocking it into the other taking them both out. There was zero military response for what could have been an even more catastrophic day then September 11. The Khobar towers in 96, the embassy bombings in 98, the Cole in 2000, all met with at best cruise missile strikes...

So why would anyone believe that year after year a policy of small or no retaliation at all would all of a sudden switch to balls out invasion and occupation for 5 years?

Right, but I'm the KoolAid drinker...

You'll get a kick out or the video I linked above.

Posted by AllAmerican

Okay that's just ridiculous... lol

OK, you believe I don't. But you did show your union with Bush's thinking--world domination. What you haven't figured out is 1) it's an illusion and 2) there's a terrible price to pay for attempting it.

You still haven't addressed a credible threat for a missile system of that type located in that region nor have you addressed the possibility of a cold-war style military race that's not needed.

Also, I'd like to know who I'm trying to scare and "get your way" with. This is factual stuff. We are in debt over our head and Bush is making an adversary out of someone whom he didn't need to.

Further you have no way of knowing what Putin's next move would be, more speculation I might add. However, it sounds like your stupid enough to take the risk. Just what would we benefit from that risk? Think risk/reward. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

ROB

Clinton was president for weeks when the 1993 WTC attack happened.

Not only were all the bombers arrested within days, the mastermind hunted down and languishing in prison, but the REAL effort at fighting terrorism began then. Not only did he establish our first antiterrorism task force and identify Al Qaeda, but he took a lot of shots at Bin Laden as well.

Sadly, Bush dismantled the Bin Laden desk as part of his hunt for info to build a case to attack Iraq and take out Saddam, and before 9/11 remove the destroyers and subs within range of a shot.

Ya, Bush really blew it with Putin - an ally in the war on terror before he got his hands on him.

Further you have no way of knowing what Putin's next move would be

Sure I do... It won't be nuclear war. Is MAD a new term to you?

Also, I'd like to know who I'm trying to scare and "get your way" with.

You're saying that if we push ahead with a basic and rudementary missile defense system it will start a nuclear world war III... it won't.

You still haven't addressed a credible threat for a missile system of that type located in that region nor have you addressed the possibility of a cold-war style military race that's not needed.


Rogue nations... possibly ex-soviet bloc nations that still have nukes, North Korea, china, Future Iran... Not Russia.

Why would Putin start stocking up on Missiles when he already has thousands and our system right now at best couldn't stop a fraction of his arsenal?

See when you boil it all down this defensive system is of no threat to Russia... Russia knows this... they're not going to go to war over a system that couldn't stop them even if it were fully functional. You trying to scare people into thinking NYC is getting nuked tomorrow of this shield is pretty silly.

but he took a lot of shots at Bin Laden as well.


Yeah and passed on all the ones that actually would have gotten him... might want to research the Clinton admin shutting down a strike when we knew where he was because there may have been some UAE princes in his hunting party...

Further you have no way of knowing what Putin's next move would be

Sure I do... It won't be nuclear war. Is MAD a new term to you?
***************************

So that's KNOWING what his next move is going to be? You had a hard time in school didn't you?

ROB

You know well the statements of Ben-Vineste taking 9/11 Commission testimony about why Bush didn't take his shot. There wasn't a Prince in sight, but lots of 'rubble'.

Clinton: 70 shots
Bush: 0

Bush was president for 9 months before 9/11

Also, I'd like to know who I'm trying to scare and "get your way" with.

You're saying that if we push ahead with a basic and rudementary missile defense system it will start a nuclear world war III... it won't.

******************************
***

A nuclear world war III.....when did we have nuclear world war I and II. Point is, is it worth the risk????? By the way I raised another issue a cold-war military race which costs money. Is massive debt a new phrase to you?

So that's KNOWING what his next move is going to be? You had a hard time in school didn't you?

Posted by slbow43


What do you think his next move will be? War? You're out of your fucking mind.

Ya, sure.

Bush was president for 9 months before 9/11

0 shots, NO effort whatsoever to get Bin Laden

AFTER 9/11? No Bin Laden 6 years later.

But, he 'really doesn't think about him much', 'he's not that important'.

Obviously

Point is, is it worth the risk

There is no risk... you're scare tactics aren't working sweetheart... Putin will not go to war over a missile defense shield that is of no concern to his nation. He has thousands of missiles, this system could never stop him... the US also has thousands of missiles and would respond to any attack in the same way destroying both our nations... Mutaully Assured Destruction. It has kept our nations at peace for decades and it will continue too...

AA, you have nothing to say about 3 documented cases of Clinton stopping what would have been an assured kill of Bin Laden?

How about this line from the article:

It describes how Bill Clinton's administration turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to help to capture Bin Laden when he was living in Khartoum in the early to mid-1990s.

Nothing to say about that either huh?

Bush was president for 8 months before 9/11, Clinton 8 years... I guess Al Qaeda just recruited, planned, trained and executed really quickly... all in just 8 months...

ROB

Putin could have been an ally. Bush completely blew it.

Mutually Assured Destruction is still the deterrent it was when the Cold War ended while I was an adult in my 40's.

But, on the 'War on Terror' Bush blew yet another golden opportunity to have allies and partners in this effort, rather than alienating them - as he's done around the world - when we needed them the most.

I'm not going to argue Bush vs Clinton vis a vis Bin Laden.

Point is....he's still on the lam 6 years after the largest attack on the U.S. in my lifetime - with every single citizen behind the hunt but two....Bush and Cheney.

But, on the 'War on Terror' Bush blew yet another golden opportunity to have allies and partners in this effort, rather than alienating them - as he's done around the world - when we needed them the most.


How many Russian Soldiers have fought along side Americans in any theatre of the War on Terror?

with every single citizen behind the hunt but two....Bush and Cheney.

Posted by AllAmerican


How many troops are in Afghanistan right now? How many coalition? How many Afghani?

Rob,

That kool-aid is bound to have bad health consequences. I'm not you're "sweetheart", I'm thoroughly heterosexual. And if you don't see uncontrolled massive debt as detrimental to our nation you aren't worth the time this discussion takes.

Oh and Rob, does MAD apply only to Russia because if it doesn't just curious to know why you all insist on antagonizing Iran over a nuclear development? Just food for thought, not really interested in your babbling response.

Peace.

I'm not going to argue Bush vs Clinton vis a vis Bin Laden.


LMAO... not now anyways... 4 documented cases where he could have been killed long before Bush even took office... and now you don't want to argue it.

We know Bin Laden is in Waziristan in Pakistan (after escaping from Afghanistan).

But, hey. We can't invade a country with WMD's now, can we?

Oh and Rob, does MAD apply only to Russia because if it doesn't just curious to know why you all insist on antagonizing Iran over a nuclear development? Just food for thought, not really interested in your babbling response.

LMAO... I love that... you make a silly statement... probably know it is too and then think you can just bail? HAHAHA... you loser...

Mutually Assured Destruction. Meaning that if a nuclear engagement ensues all parties are destroyed and there is no winner. How is our destruction assured if war with Iran broke out when they at best would have a few nukes with no delivery system and we have thousands of nukes with rockets that could reach from here?

MAD applies when the destruction is mutually assured... hence the phrase... Mutually Assured Destruction... you are an idiot.

ROB

There's no arguing the fact that Clinton DID take shots and Bush took ZERO....STILL !!!

There's no arguing the fact that Clinton DID take shots and Bush took ZERO....STILL !!!

Posted by AllAmerican


Yes he did take shots, but called off the ones that would have actually killed him?

Bush has taken no shots at Bin Laden? You sure you don't want to take that back? I'm pretty sure there was a huge war with lots of bombings and a mountain range called Tora Bora and a bunch of other military actions designed to kill/capture him...

But, hey it's 'Hard werk finding a 6'7" man on dialysis.

Especially if he attacked us.

Can't go into a country with WMD's to get Bin Laden, can we? Hmmm

But, hey it's 'Hard werk finding a 6'7" man on dialysis

Clinton found him 4 times and said no each and every time.

Can't go into a country with WMD's to get Bin Laden, can we? Hmmm

Posted by AllAmerican


You really think if we had credible evidence of where he is that we wouldn't strike? Come on... that's just silly. Pakistan wouldn't attack us for killing Bin Laden even if he were in their borders.

What charges was he to be held under Rob?

Who gives a fuck... Being an enemy to the United States... I'm sure they could figure something out... they had to know he was up to something bad Tony, else why would the Sudanese have offered him?

You really think if we had credible evidence of where he is that we wouldn't strike? Come on... that's just silly. Pakistan wouldn't attack us for killing Bin Laden even if he were in their borders.

Hmmmmm. A 6'7" guy on dialysis among shorter tribesmen in pakistan? Medicine trail? Equipment trail? Bush seems more interested in pandering to a dictator than rooting out a lot of trouble in an area the size of Israel, and the area he's suspected of being in the size of Connecticut.

So, why haven't we tried? Are 5000 armed Al Qaeda and Taliban too many for us to tackle? (1% of the number of 'insurgents' in Iraq we repeatedly are told we're 'rounding the corner on'. You know, the ones sneaking into and out of Afghanistan to attack us and leave Afghanistan STILL shaky and unsafe 5 years later?

The Taliban who still control large areas of Afghanistan because they're allowed to train and find safety in a little province in Pakistan? The remaining Al Qaeda members?

Ever heard of infared? Drones? Satellites? Recon?

If Bush wanted to he could take over that entire province in 2 weeks and help the Afghani people tremendously, as well as U.S. and NATO forces.

they had to know he was up to something bad Tony, else why would the Sudanese have offered him?

Gee Rob, I'm so glad you find the notion of probable cause not to be a hindrance in your 20/20 hindsight. While anyone can be held today post Patriot Act, that wasn't the case in 1996.

I guess Britain should have imprisoned Hitler in 1930 and the rise of Nazi Germany never would have happened. No Crime, no incarceration. Its called the Rule of Law.

And talking about attacks isn't the same as doing them, and in 1996 all OBL was guilty of was talking, which again isn't a crime.

So, why haven't we tried?

That's a fucked up thing to say about the thousands of soliders and intel personnel in the region who are actively trying to find him.

The guy is in hiding and supported by the Afghani and Pakistani citizenry because they support the Islamic Radicalism that existed before we got there... The Afghani people were helped tremendously, and they chose to try to go back to the way they were...

OH and he could be 9'2" and it wouldn't matter if he never left his cave/hut/house.

Ever heard of infared? Drones? Satellites? Recon?

yeah, all of them have been used to find him before and will be used to find him again... the difference is, this time we don't have a skirt chasing pussy in office and he will take the shot when it is available instead of whiping his tears away crying about the legal ramifications of killing the Al Qaeda leader.

Has not been any attacks since Clinton left office.9-11 was his fault for acting like Edwards saying terrorist arent real.

Who gives a fuck... Being an enemy to the United States... I'm sure they could figure something out... they had to know he was up to something bad Tony, else why would the Sudanese have offered him?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


Clinton fucked up in not using the Presidential Magic Preemptive kaleidoscope terrorist threat detector.

And talking about attacks isn't the same as doing them, and in 1996 all OBL was guilty of was talking, which again isn't a crime.

Posted by tonyroma


And as we clearly see that type of thinking gets thousands of Americans killed in numerous attacks...

Clinton fucked up in not using the Presidential Magic Preemptive kaleidoscope terrorist threat detector.



Posted by Zap


I guess Sudan was borrowing it when they said they would give him to us... They knew he was a problem, they knew he was going to be a bigger problem and wanted to hand him over to us.

And as we clearly see that type of thinking gets thousands of Americans killed in numerous attacks...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Thanks for the Laugh!

feel safer rather...

I guess Sudan was borrowing it when they said they would give him to us... They knew he was a problem, they knew he was going to be a bigger problem and wanted to hand him over to us.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Sudan, Hmmmm if they thought he was going to be a problem why didn't they off him?

I know they thought he'd get a fair trial in the US.

Brilliant!

And as we clearly see that type of thinking gets thousands of Americans killed in numerous attacks...

Call Tom Cruise and fire-up the Pre-Cog anti-terrorist division....

No matter what anyone plans, if we have good intelligence and proper defensive protection planning, our odds increase dramatically. Sorry, until Bush 43, this nation didn't practice pre-emption as a doctrine. With the failing situations in Iraq and Afghanastan only a moron would fail to understand why.

Bin Laden hadn't been accused of masterminding an attack on the U.S. or anywhere else when Sudan offered him up.

What were we going to try him for? Having a big mouth?

Well, SIX years AFTER we've been attacked we aren't attacking the likeliest place he could be. No no no. Can't go into Pakistan can we? Can't help our dictator friend there control his own country either can we?

Na. Let's let Al Qaeda and the Taliban have a safe haven where they can train for the next run down the mountain to kill us at will.

With the failing situations in Iraq and Afghanastan only a moron would fail to understand why.

Posted by tonyroma


Afghanistan was preemption? Oh right, you think Oli North and Dan Quayle carried out 9/11... that would make it preemptive I guess...

What were we going to try him for? Having a big mouth?


if that would have kept him from leading a very dangerous terrorist organization responsible for multiple attacks and thousands of deaths, yeah... that's what we should have tried him for.

The Sudan wasn't offering him to us for having a "big mouth." There were reasons for it... we should have taken him... Bush would have taken him.

LMAO... I love that... you make a silly statement... probably know it is too and then think you can just bail? HAHAHA... you loser...

Mutually Assured Destruction. Meaning that if a nuclear engagement ensues all parties are destroyed and there is no winner. How is our destruction assured if war with Iran broke out when they at best would have a few nukes with no delivery system and we have thousands of nukes with rockets that could reach from here?

MAD applies when the destruction is mutually assured... hence the phrase... Mutually Assured Destruction... you are an idiot.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole
***************************

I'm sorry I forgot I was communicating with a nutcase. One that thinks we have had two nuclear wars and things he knows what Putin's next move will be.

The concept here is if we the US are capable of totally annihilating you (Iran) then we have nothing to worry about if you attempt to create a weapon that could threaten us. Because you (Iran) assuredly know you would cease to exist if it were ever used. So that being the case tell me again why you all are so hell bent on attacking Iran. Don't bother I really don't want to hear your excuse to attain world domination.


Further you stated "there is no risk" with pursuing the missile system. Only a FOOL would make such a statement. NO RISK? Further debt due to an arms race? Not a risk? Return to nuclear standoffs between the two countries...not a risk? You know the kind where B-52s or B-1s are sitting on the runways constantly running as further deterrent. Not a risk? What about the stand down of other nuclear weaponry that have taken place over the years due to competent diplomatic discussions? Not a risk? Man you are really and uneducated, dense fool who doesn't know a thing about what you're talking about and I don't say that lightly.

The Sudan wasn't offering him to us for having a "big mouth." There were reasons for it... we should have taken him... Bush would have taken him.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


And Sudan didn't off a 'Big Problem', Why?

And Rob uses his history analyzer to reveal what Chimpy would have done.

A Shame Chimpy didn't read his PDB?

Afghanistan was preemption?

Use your head instead of your mouth! Did I say Afghanistan was a pre-emption?

Afghanistan is failing because Bush decided to pre-emptively invade Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan. What if after D-Day, or late 1944, Roosevelt decided to pull troops from Europe and ship them to China to open another front against the Japs? Think that might have had an effect on Hitler's eventual defeat?

ROB

We shouldn't NEED anyone offering him now.

We NEED to go take him and his idiot minions by force. He's the world's most wanted man, yet he didn't get a small percentage of the effort in finding him Saddam did. And Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11, or any other time.

All that stands in the way is the DESIRE to do so. Bush didn't HAVE the DESIRE or he would never have removed the subs and destroyer cruise missles out of range when he took office - after URGENT WARNINGS by Richard Clark that he posed the largest threat.

Not even AFTER the final blame for the Cole attacks was placed on Bin Laden - RIGHT AFTER BUSH TOOK OFFICE !!

Oh Rob_A_HOle....I wasn't bailing per se, I just have better things to do than to have discussions with idiots who are hell bent on war by any means necessary. Chow.

Man you are really and uneducated, dense fool who doesn't know a thing about what you're talking about and I don't say that lightly.

Perhaps you should say it dimly, then he might understand....

One that thinks we have had two nuclear wars and things he knows what Putin's next move will be.


Whoa... what? two nuclear wars what? I think we've had two world wars, and that you are implying there will be a third one that is nuclear if we have a missile shield in Europe, but I never said we've had 3 Nuclear wars...

Putin's next move will not be war... and can say that with 100% certainty.

So that being the case tell me again why you all are so hell bent on attacking Iran

When did I say we should? For the record I don't think we should until we have irrefutable evidence that they are about to get a nuclear device. You asked if MAD applies to Iran, I said it doesn't.

Further debt due to an arms race? Not a risk?

You still haven't answered why there would be an arms race when Putin's current arsenal could defeat any missile shield for the forseeable future...

Back on topic, how did the authorities even here about these guys? I hear it was a tip from an informer. Meaning even with all our 'wire tapping' and what not, we wouldn't have heard about them, at least not until much later, if we didn't have an informer.

Bush is the only guy in the world who could even get Russia talking about an arms race post-Cold War. And piss 'em off to no end too.

Now, THAT's some serious f-ing up

BIGJOHN

I'll bet the had a guy on the inside talk to the Feds.

However, I think it's incredibly stupid to have broadcast a plan that wasn't even operational to every like minded individual in the world. Stupid.

Probably another Karl Rove brilliant move to gain a point in the polls while putting us at greater risk now that every terrorist minded person has a brand new idea thanks to them.

But the idea was pretty stupid, so maybe that isn't a bad thing.

and can say that with 100% certainty.

Leave to Rob what is Rob's. Only Bush and Rob can see the future with certainty.

Amen

ROB

18,000 troops are non-Afghanis 18,000

Using your math, we should have more than been able to stablize Iraq by now. Heck, our 180,000, plus the British 7,000, plus the Iraqi Keystone Army's......batallion, right? ONE batallion ready to be on their own after 4 years. WOW !! Impressive !!!

LOL

BIGJOHN

Nothing a handful of shoulder fired rockets couldn't have accomplished. You can buy them all over the place.

You still haven't answered why there would be an arms race when Putin's current arsenal could defeat any missile shield for the forseeable future...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

The same reasoning YOU endorsed when Chimpy saw in Iraq a perceived thread to be dealt with immediately. As well current threat perceived in Iran.

Oh I forgot Bush Good, Putin Bad, but he used to be good.

You're a 9/11 Conspiracy Assclown... you are unqualified to call anyone stupid.

Wouldn't that make me more qualified Einstein? LOL!!!!

And I didn't call you stupid. You did that on your own.

moron: a term for somebody with significant learning difficulties and impaired social skills

Case in point, not understanding simple history and not playing well with others....

Rob,

"Whoa... what? two nuclear wars what? I think we've had two world wars,.."

You might want to review YOUR statement around 11:21 a.m. today.

The concept of MAD does apply as the foundation is deterrence. It applies to Iran also.

"You still haven't answered why there would be an arms race...."

The issue is risk. You say there was NO RISK. The fact that there is a discussion about whether Putin will or will not update missile technology or anything else blows your statement of NO RISK out of the water. That's part of the risk right there ignoramus.

But I thought there was NO terror threat

Posted by GZlives at 2007-06-02 01:39 PM

One could also say this was a criminal act that was caught by normal police work as pointed out by NORM.

No need to send in the army navy or marines.

The War on Terror is a scam and you know it.

Wasting Billions of Dollars in Iraq when we could be cleaning up our act at home is a crime.

Go ahead and buy into the Bullshit about the War on Terror. Buschco and the NEOCONS are only making us more hated which does NOTHING to make us safer at home.

Win the Hearts and Minds by setting a good example and showing the rest of the World how Democracies are supposed to work NOT by acting like an Imperial Power from the Roman Empire.

"The War on Terror is a scam and you know it."

You are either deranged or seriously naive to think the war on terror is a scam ... its no scam. Jihad is a serious hreat and growing.

Care to show us any evidence to the contrary?

"Go ahead and buy into the Bullshit about the War on Terror. Buschco and the NEOCONS are only making us more hated which does NOTHING to make us safer at home."

And now who sounds like the "bumper sticker" ?

"Win the Hearts and Minds by setting a good example and showing the rest of the World how Democracies are supposed to work NOT by acting like an Imperial Power from the Roman Empire."

You need to do a bit of reading about the subject before pretending you know anything about it.

Start by reading up on "ummah" and what it means. Follow that by reading about Muslim Brotherhood, its origins and goals.

"The concept of MAD does apply as the foundation is deterrence. It applies to Iran also."

It DOES NOT apply to those who believe death fighting the infidel is martyrdom. In that case death is welocmed and desired. There can be no deterrence when the very threat is desireable

GZ

I have to say from the months I've read your posts you sound a whole lot more interested in Israel's well being than America's.

GZ,

I've dealt with you on this issue before. You want America to fight Israels battles that's the first issue and I don't subscribe to that notion. I do subscribe to Israel defending itself though.

Secondly, you think ALL Muslims are driven by that crazy ideology and they are not. Third, as I pointed out to you before if they wanted to be annihilated by the US then they have the means to induce that act now. They don't need a nuclear weapon to induce us into a response such as that. You appear to blinded by your own racist hatred for or fear of Muslims rather than intelligently dividing the wheat from the tares.

GZ,

Are you of Jewish heritage?

as long as we are unwilling to kill the innocent mad will not work with radical islam
jasman

You might want to review YOUR statement around 11:21 a.m. today.

Okay, here it is:

You're saying that if we push ahead with a basic and rudementary missile defense system it will start a nuclear world war III... it won't.


A nuclear World War III, NOT the Third Nuclear War... get it? Big fucking difference... you've got a lot of balls calling someone else stupid after that... I'm embarassed for you.

the innocent mad

The innocent mad need to be hospitalized.

As for MAD the point is in not to fighting a war based the assumption it would be un-winable and counter productive because the destructive potential. It doesn't work if you have nothing to lose.

See: Suicide Bomber

A nuclear World War III, NOT the Third Nuclear War... get it? Big fucking difference...

Pointlessly Priceless.

"
I have to say from the months I've read your posts you sound a whole lot more interested in Israel's well being than America's"


Well then
A. You can't read very well
B. You believe you can read minds
C. Since you don't know what you're talking about regarding one issue, you probably don't very much about anything else.
D. You're extremely presumptuous


Because I happen to be interested in a particular interest doesn't mean anything more then I'm interested in that particular issue and if you think it does then YOU have a problem - NOT me.

"Because I happen to be interested in a particular interest" = because I happen to be interested in a particular issue

"Because I happen to be interested in a particular interest" = because I happen to be interested in a particular issue

Posted by GZlives


"Because I happen to be invested in a particular issue."

Third time is the charm!

And what difference does it make what my heritage is?

What's your heritage and why the fuck would I care?

I suggest SLBOW that you do some work on yourself .. especially your memory before you stick your foot in your mouth again and embarrass yourself.

Find that evidence yet ?
Yeah I thought so

yeah whatever you say Zap

yeah whatever you say Zap

Posted by GZlives

That was to good to let pass.....

You are either deranged or seriously naive to think the war on terror is a scam ... its no scam. Jihad is a serious hreat and growing.

Care to show us any evidence to the contrary?

I am sorry but would YOU care to remind us how long Jihad has been going on? How long have Americans been the Infidels to them?

The world has always been a dangerous place. You are the fool if you think Bush has made us any safer by whacking the ME Hornets nest. An intelligent response to 911 was to take the battle to Afghanistan in cooperation with NATO and FINISH the job.

did we do that NO! we squandered the GOOD WILL OF THE WORLD.

And made a left turn to whack on a hornets nest. We had Saddam contained Politically and Militarily and Iraq NEVER attacked us.

All the reasons used by Bushco were LIES.


We have only made the situation worse.

Your "War on Terror" is Bushit and you know it.

These crimes are CRIMES committed by a handful of criminals NOT COUNTRIES and should be investigated as such. You have WARS against countries not crime lords.


More funding and personnel to the FBI, CIA, NSA, or any other three letter agency that fights international crimes would have been appropriate. More funding for securing the Borders would have been appropriate. More funding for Securing Chemical and Fuel Depots would have been appropriate. More funding for CDC would have been appropriate. More funding for HEALTHCARE would have been appropriate. More funding for protection of Transportation Systems and Port security would have been appropriate. More funding for protection of our food supplies would have been appropriate.

Attacking Iraq was deranged not appropriate.

You need to do a bit of reading about the subject before pretending you know anything about it.

yeah people hate us so we should kill them

what excellent foreign policy! I don't need to know anymore to know that is a self defeating policy. sounds to me like YOU want to emulate them!

GZ,

I've been working but I will get back to you. You seem quite agitated. Did I strike a nerve? Grow up, be a man or whatever you are and quit whining.

You might want to review YOUR statement around 11:21 a.m. today.

Okay, here it is:

You're saying that if we push ahead with a basic and rudementary missile defense system it will start a nuclear world war III... it won't.


A nuclear World War III, NOT the Third Nuclear War... get it? Big fucking difference... you've got a lot of balls calling someone else stupid after that... I'm embarassed for you.

************************

Sounds like you're splitting hairs to me. And what I said was there was a risk including nuclear war, military build-up race, unnecessary debt, etc., associated with this. You said "There is no risk". I said you exaggerating and showed you why. You have yet to address that or concede the point NO RISK.....you're a joke man a big one at that.

By the way I'm quite confident in myself I don't need your pity. You might want to check yourself though....

Four Arrested in Plot to Destroy Airport


These arrests against 'terrorists', besides being accomplished by lawful methods and good police work reveal plots that turn out to be no more than the pipe dreams of a few extremists who have been encouraged by 'moles' working for the federal government. They typically have not implemented any part of their nefarius plan and their 'organization' is mostly composed of uneducated idiots. Just look back at all the other 'plots': bringing down the Brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch and the Miami group composed of useless rejects that were 'planning' to blow up the Sears tower. These announcements are more about keeping certain people scared than they are about keeping anyone safe.

These announcements are more about keeping certain people scared than they are about keeping anyone safe.

Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2007-06-04 05:11 PM

EXACTLY RIGHT!

This type of fear mongering only scares (and is believed by) folks like GZ who have already drunk the Koolaide...

I thought the democrats said terrorist aren(')t real.Well, perhaps what you think and what is reality are two separate things. Care to share a link to show where this was said?

I thought the democrats said terrorist aren(')t real.Well, perhaps what you think and what is reality are two separate things. Care to share a link to show where this was said?



Uhhhh...how about John Edwards' "The War on Terror is just a bumper sticker."

**************************

I don't think that is saying "terrorists aren't real". I understand the issue with the "War on Terror". It's the same issue I have had with it since the phrase was concocted 5 or 6 years ago. How do you define "terror" and how do you define "winning"? The latter is the same issue we deal with in Iraq and probably to some extent Afghanistan too. Bush loves to take on challenges in which he is unable to articulate and/or define success. This was just one of the first in a long list.

If SBLOW speaks for you lefties, you are in worse shape than even I thought. What a sad state of affairs when your party stands up for nothing but obstructionism, cynicism, and elitism.The best quote, however, was by Legio:

this war will never be over. There is always someone that will want to destroy America or Israel..

If SBLOW speaks for you lefties, you are in worse shape than even I thought. What a sad state of affairs when your party stands up for nothing but obstructionism, cynicism, and elitism.

Posted by TheSlink

Spoken like a true fool.....I haven't suggested I speak for anyone other than me. You make these claims be intelligent enough to elaborate. In what way have I been an obstructionist, cynic, or elitist?

Cynicism: "Bush doesn't know what in the hell he is doing and the more stupid things he does the closer he brings us to annihilation."orI never questioned those arrests. These are however suspicious to me because they weren't even close to pulling this off. The thing people need to realize about any of these arrests and wanting to give Bush credit is that these are made possible by tips given to law enforcement and normal police work. I'm not aware of any policy that Bush has advocated that has helped in this regard.Obstructionism: To hell with all of this. We need to take our country back from those criminals in the White House now. And just letting them walk after all of the dirt they have done is NOT the answer. It sets a precedence that is sure to be followed down the road. If Obama or any other candidate really wants to get the public's attention, start talking about that and not just talking but doing something about it now. What is that something? IMPEACHMENT. Until then I personally don't want to hear anything they have to say on any thing else. It just doesn't mean anything. Just my humble opinion.Elitism (too many to count): By the way I'm quite confident in myself I don't need your pity.

GZ

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is at the heart of Arab and Persian animosity towards the West.

I've been to Israel many times. I don't like the way they treat Palestinians in the territories at all. Sure, you have a few zealots that attack Israel, but since most young Palestinian men are unemployed and opportunities are few what do you expect other than anger at the occupation of Palestinian lands, building of one settlement after another on land given to the Palestinians in treaties, and degrading treatment of average citizens?

Israel should do ALL it can to give the Palestinians their own homeland and make peace before the Arab population in Israel exceeds that of Jews in the near future.

So, YES. I am correct in my view that your support of Israel supercedes that of America. UNTIL the Palestinian issue can be peacefully resolved once and for all, and until Israel quits doing things like bombing Lebanon's newly built infrastructure to rubble - both things inflaming opinion against the U.S. for supporting Israel - we will be less safe.

"Uhhhh...how about John Edwards' "The War on Terror is just a bumper sticker."

It isn't even an intelligent thought. A war against a tactic??? It's idiotic.
A war against Al Quaeda would have been more appropriate but they couldn't name it that because if they did it would not have allowed for the "war" to be conducted against whomever they wanted. No, they would just be stuck fighting the guys who attacked us and not the guys sitting on a huge lake of oil.
You may be dull enough to actually believe in the "war on terror" but you should realized that those of us who aren't certainly aren't going to apolgize for not being stupid.
We predicted the tragedy that now is Iraq even during the years of collective stupidity in America when we were called traitors and such for criticizing the administration. And now you think you are going to lecture us about what is real and what is not real about the "war on terror." Please, stop kidding yourself, your intellectual abilities were proven incapable of discerning the truth a long time ago. You and the other Bush supporters are so yesterday.

I would imagine, by your criteria, I'm not only Bush supporter, but a Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, and the other 373 total Congressmen that voted for the Iraq War Resolution - looking at the exact same intelligence. The only "truth" you ever saw was an anti-war view no matter what."War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed state of moral and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."John Stuart Mill couldn't have said it better. Also, next time you call someone or something "idiotic," try spelling the words in the preceding sentence correctly ("Al Queada" - nice, lib).

Sounds like you're splitting hairs to me.

Well that's idiotic for two reasons... 1, there have only been two world wars and nuclear technology didn't exist until the very end of the second so there is no way you could call either of those a nuclear war... No one would ever say that so it was stupid to think I was saying that...

and 2, just reading my post it is clear that I was saying the third war would be nuclear according to you, not the third nuclear world war...

Its not splitting hairs... you're just not smart. the fact that you're sticking to this is embarassing...

TheSlink,

Oh I see you're from the fabric of "don't question us" and certainly don't condemn us. That's the Bush doctrine. But that day is coming to an end. Facts are facts if Bush knew what he was doing we wouldn't be in this mess. And, we do need to take our country back from this law breaking President. You got a problem with that, then tough. Call it whatever you want.

Its not splitting hairs... you're just not smart. the fact that you're sticking to this is embarassing...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

One stupid person's opinion and might I add the one who said "I know what Putin is going to do next" and "there's no risk". You can't get any dumber than that my friend. It's kinda stares you right in the face Bozo.

What law has he broken? God knows you whacko libs would have impeached him years ago if you had a leg to stand on. Truth is, you don't.

You can't get any dumber than that my friend.

Sure I could... I could accuse someone of saying that WWI was nuclear and then stick to it all day and night... now that would be fucking retarded...

Rob,

Did you know George Washington actually beat the Hessians with a Dirty Bomb during the American Revolution? Actually, I think Ghengis Khan was dropping nukes years before then.... :) You're wrong, SLBOW is right yet again. Smart fella, isn't he?

TheSlink-
Are you a GW fan?

You're wrong, SLBOW is right yet again. Smart fella, isn't he?

Posted by TheSlink


Fucking brilliant...

Talk about lowering the bar on the word "brilliant".

Keith Olberman's analysis of the relationship between security scares from 2002 to the present, and "bad" stories about the Bush/Cheney administration tonight was brilliant and very convincing.

The JFK "plot" is a classic example of this. This plot was so basic and undeveloped, but they make it a huge story. While the "surge" isn't surging, and Bush is going to have a hard time in Europe getting any support from any of the G8.
So scare us all you want, you lying creeps.

Genrally, I'm a fan of the United States. As our democratically-elected President, Bush deserves our support and respect. Should he be debated? Absolutely. Should he be questioned? Absolutely. Does he deserve the never-ending abuse that he has received? Absolutely not. He took a tough stand at a tough time (one that was overwhelmingly supported). Without the luxury of hindsight, he did what any elected representative in a similar capacity would have and should have done. Has he made mistakes? Absolutely. Has he kept us safe since 2001? Yes.

"Has he kept us safe since 2001? Yes."

Not hiding under your bed, anymore? Sheep.

The internets allows quick access to the actual meaning of words. Empowered by this knowledge I corrected THESLINK's take on SLBOW43's comments.

Scepticism: "Bush doesn't know what in the hell he is doing and the more stupid things he does the closer he brings us to annihilation."orI never questioned those arrests. These are however suspicious to me because they weren't even close to pulling this off. The thing people need to realize about any of these arrests and wanting to give Bush credit is that these are made possible by tips given to law enforcement and normal police work. I'm not aware of any policy that Bush has advocated that has helped in this regard.
Outrage: To hell with all of this. We need to take our country back from those criminals in the White House now. And just letting them walk after all of the dirt they have done is NOT the answer. It sets a precedence that is sure to be followed down the road. If Obama or any other candidate really wants to get the public's attention, start talking about that and not just talking but doing something about it now. What is that something? IMPEACHMENT. Until then I personally don't want to hear anything they have to say on any thing else. It just doesn't mean anything. Just my humble opinion.
Confidence: By the way I'm quite confident in myself I don't need your pity.

Elitism (too many to count):
I guess it must be more than ten.

I guess THESLINK's homeschool or Jesus Camp or Red-State Jeebus U is lacking in dictionaries.

Keith Olberman = Socialist ideologue. The UN Security Council resolution calling for "the severest consequences" in regard to Iraq was UNANIMOUSLY approved. France and Germany chose to flip-flop on the issue AFTER Iraq's non-compliance. Support from the hypocrites at G8 would be nice, but couldn't be further from necessary. I'd prefer to have Americans run America, instead of pandering to a bunch of left-leaning countries whose better days are well behind them.

Spin: DARTHCHENEY

TheSlink-
so, getting a yes or a no out of you is really out of the question...

The UN Security Council resolution calling for "the severest consequences" in regard to Iraq was UNANIMOUSLY approved. France and Germany chose to flip-flop on the issue AFTER Iraq's non-compliance. Support from the hypocrites at G8 would be nice, but couldn't be further from necessary. I'd prefer to have Americans run America, instead of pandering to a bunch of left-leaning countries whose better days are well behind them.

Posted by TheSlink at 2007-06-04 10:14 PM | Reply


The UN Security Council Retained Jurisdiction with regards to Iraq. They did NOT give Automacy with regards to AUthorization of the use of Military Force. That was to be decided AFTER the inspections took place and to decide what further steps to take. Please do get educated upon the subject matter better it will help You greatly.

Larry

Spin: DARTHCHENEY

Posted by TheSlink


Eat shit PINCHE.

The UN Security Council has absolutely NO JURISDICTION over the self-defense of the United States and US interests. The President, with the support of both the House and Senate, enforced the UN resolution because the spineless scum would not.

DARTHCHENEY, grow up. "Eat shit" is certainly sophomoric, wouldn't you say? WTF is PINCHE?

TheSlink-
The only reason I ask is that it seems as if most former avid Bush supporters are tempering their zeal, having at least acknowledged the probability that he has been really bad for the United States in many critical ways.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Larry

I have witnessed the same thing, Boyd, but I truly think it has more to do with his stance on immigration and the never-ending onslaught of negative press. Again, he's made mistakes - but he has made them in the process of trying to protect America. I can live with that a lot easier than I can live with a President who changes direction with every new poll. Hopefully our next President, whether from the right or left, will stand tough when it's needed as well.

God knows you whacko libs would have impeached him years ago if you had a leg to stand on. Truth is, you don't.

Posted by TheSlink

Hmmm...seems the Republicans were in control of Congress for the past 6 years until Jan of this year. So please tell me, with your brilliant self how that would have been possible. Particularly since Republicans were running lock and step on every stupid decision Bush made without once questioning his judgment. Come on brilliant one, you might want to request a little help from your other rightwing nutcases here.

Scepticism: "Bush doesn't know what in the hell he is doing and the more stupid things he does the closer he brings us to annihilation."orI never questioned those arrests. These are however suspicious to me because they weren't even close to pulling this off. The thing people need to realize about any of these arrests and wanting to give Bush credit is that these are made possible by tips given to law enforcement and normal police work. I'm not aware of any policy that Bush has advocated that has helped in this regard.
Outrage: To hell with all of this. We need to take our country back from those criminals in the White House now. And just letting them walk after all of the dirt they have done is NOT the answer. It sets a precedence that is sure to be followed down the road. If Obama or any other candidate really wants to get the public's attention, start talking about that and not just talking but doing something about it now. What is that something? IMPEACHMENT. Until then I personally don't want to hear anything they have to say on any thing else. It just doesn't mean anything. Just my humble opinion.
Confidence: By the way I'm quite confident in myself I don't need your pity.

Elitism (too many to count):
I guess it must be more than ten.

I guess THESLINK's homeschool or Jesus Camp or Red-State Jeebus U is lacking in dictionaries.

Posted by DARTHCHENEY

*******************

Little closer to the true definition of brilliant. But then considering the source of those that defined that previous rant as brilliant.....I understand. You know what they say, birds of a feather flock together.