2000 - Now dead

[Annie]

Who are they? Al Queda? Sunni insurgents?


Any evidence for this statement?


Now, let's look at this analytically. Al Queda attacked Madrid last year, right? So, apparently, "they" aren't exclusively "there."

IIRC, terrorist attacks worldwide are on the RISE, not including Iraq, which means that "they" are pretty much all over.

And if you're going to say "Yeah, but they aren't attacking HERE, and that's what matters," well, you could've made the same argument on 9-10-01.

We did on 9/10/01 and before. That brought us 9/11/01. Good point.

 

[Zhukov]

Just what I thought. 2000 or two million, it doesn't matter to you guys.

The number alone is of course irrelevant. It doesn't matter to us, and it doesn't matter to you. What matters is: why. Is the reason why they died worth it, or not? If it's worth it, it will take as many as it takes. If it's not worth it, one is too many. You can judge for yourself of which opinion you are, but I find it a bit disingenous to suddenly become concerned because 2000 is a nice round number.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The number alone is of course irrelevant. It doesn't matter to us, and it doesn't matter to you. What matters is: why. Is the reason why they died worth it, or not? If it's worth it, it will take as many as it takes. If it's not worth it, one is too many. You can judge for yourself of which opinion you are, but I find it a bit disingenous to suddenly become concerned because 2000 is a nice round number.

No no no no way you can accuse me of being disingenuous, which, by the way is a word that has lost all meaning on this board because it has been thrown around way too much. I have been harping on the needless loss of life in this war since its beginning, even before I joined this forum. Nobody can accuse me of being disingenuous when it comes to being concerned for the lives of our soldiers. I "support our troops" because I want them to return home safely before they are killed or maimed in the name of a war that more than half the country now doesn't support and nobody knows the real reasons for.

What matters here is that people are being killed, period. The milestone of 2000 dead simply puts the issue into a clearer focus. Disingenuous? HA! Whenever we talk about the troops, I am usually one of the only ones on this forum who talks about their safe return home. To me, there is nothing more unfair than to waste young people's lives for old people's politics. Did any of you read the NYT today? They devoted a large section of their paper to listing the mugs and names of all soldiers that have died so far for this "cause." How many potential artists, writers, actors, comedians, doctors, lawyers, etc. will never share their gifts with the world now but would have had a chance to if not for this war? Answer? 2000 and counting. And nobody's even counting the losses on the other side.

 

[Bonnie]

The anti-war Left couldn't wait for the death of the 2,000th soldier in Iraq. Peace activists have been gearing up for protests, vigils, and other events this week to mark the completely bogus milestone. Why 2,000? Was the 2nd or 555th or 1,678th death not as worth mourning as any other death with nice round numbers?

Cindy Sheehan barely contained her macabre lust for the spotlight in preparation for the artificially constructed, media-hyped occasion. "I'm going to go to Washington, D.C., and I'm going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I'm going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan told a reporter last week as the death count neared her lottery number pick.

"And I'll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I'll go back and do the same thing," she vowed.

This time, Sheehan's public relations team would be wise to make sure she tries not to look like she's having so much fun. The carnival-like atmosphere that surrounded her arrest at the White House last month did little to convince military families that Sheehan and her pink lingerie-clad Bush-bashing brigade have the troops' best interest at heart.

Those "911 was an inside job" and "Castrate Cheney" signs didn't help much either.


U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, director of the force's combined press center, is pushing back against the inevitable media tide. He deserves our support. In an e-mail to the press that should be disseminated far and wide, he properly challenged the anti-war movement's number as a phony excuse to protest.

"I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq," Boylan wrote on Tuesday, according to the Associated Press (which has been among Sheehan's most ardent sycophants). "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."

Indeed. These are people, remember, who liken Iraqi terrorists to America's Minutemen during the Revolutionary War.

Who oppose not only the war in Iraq, but also the invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Who believe the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and at Shanksville, Pa., were a Bush conspiracy with Israel and/or Saudi Arabia.

Who applaud when left-wing professor Ward Churchill gloats about "chickens coming home to roost" and suggests that the peace movement should support the fragging of American troops.

Who use the names and images of dead American soldiers against their families' wishes to propagate anti-Bush hatred.

Who believe Saddam Hussein should be freed and Guantanamo Bay emptied.

Who carry around banners that proclaim "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY SHOOT THEIR OFFICERS."

Lt. Col. Boylan reminded the media that "the 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action is just as important as the first that died and will be just as important as the last to die in this war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in over two generations." He advised journalists to pay as much attention to the true milestones in the war -- including the momentous events of Iraqis voting, training for the police and security forces, and joining the new government.

"Celebrate the daily milestones, the accomplishments they have secured and look to the future of a free and democratic Iraq and to the day that all of our troops return home to the heroes welcome they deserve," Boylan urged.

For the "peace activists" who hate the president with far more energy than they could ever muster in genuine support of our troops, this simple request to appreciate the fruits of hard-fought freedom is too much to ask. And too much for them to bear.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/10/26/172900.html

 

[Bonnie]

Leftist ‘Progressives’ bewail 2000 troop deaths. What about a Muslim global slaughterhouse?
By J. Grant Swank Jr. (10/25/05)

The major evening TV news bewailed the 2000 troops who have lost their lives in New Iraq freedom establishment.

Of course, there’s another way of looking at it. It’s this: What about the 2000 troops who yielded up their lives willingly in order to stave off Muslim murderers from killing off all non-Muslims global as well as furthering the democracy in New Iraq.

The far-left "Progressives" rarely get reality. This is one of those significant historical moments when they really don’t get reality.

The plain truth is that if these 2000 brave servicemembers — as well as many more yet to willingly lay down their lives — did not see through their commitment to the military, the Islamic killers international would romp about New Iraq, taking all into bloodbath maximum. Then they would move on to neighboring countries, particularly laying low every freedom-based nation for Allah’s sake.

The Islamic claim is world rule. Their deity proclaims it. The Koran espouses it in every killing paragraph. The Muslim slayer thrives on blood in the streets.

Fact: The world is not perfect. Fact: someone somewhere will always be yielding up a life for liberty’s cause. Fact: someone somewhere will hate that someone so as to cut him off at the knees.

What the "Progressives" refuse to realize is reality. They want a perfect world which they cannot produce themselves. Then when non-"Progressives" do not dish it up, they find fault with mere mortals who cannot bring nirvana to planet Earth.

Continuing on with their unreal rant, the "Progressives" then wail over every sacrifice given to keep the peace, maintain the democracy, and further freedoms elsewhere.

One would dread to imagine what it would be in the USA if "Progressive" John Kerry sat in the Oval Office. He and his ilk would have already welcomed the Allah devotees who would have sprung from their sleeper cells to move the Council on America-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to Pennsylvania Avenue.

With Allah devotees entrenched in American culture, liberal newsmakers would no longer be alive, though they would have used their airwaves to support Islamic killers international with every chance they had to demote the real news facts. Liberal Democrats would no longer be living, though they hindered every patriotic American encouraging multinational troops in New Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet it is these very obstacles to truth and reality who actually conclude they would be warmed and coddled by the Islamic invaders once the multinational servicemembers moved out of New Iraq, once the US troops came home to hug Cindy Sheehan, and once US President George W. Bush was scurried back to Crawford. LOL

This is a day for celebrating the courage of 2000 troops as well as the many more who will follow in their commitment to plant freedoms wherever possible.

It surely is not a day to call it quits in New Iraq, though this evening’s major networks proclaimed as much with their showing of caskets after caskets. That story in itself was a slap in the face to every body lying in those caskets, though the liberals continue to be so unreal as to not realize it.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/9876

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Wow Bonnie very partisan articles as usual. Everybody knows that the news media looks for anniversaries and milestones like this to write about. 2000 is just a number like every other number, but remember the year 2000? It was just another year yet many thought the world would end and the celebrations were larger than normal. Why? Who knows, maybe the three big zeros are more attractive to people subconsciously. Or maybe it's just because it's a nice big round number.

Anybody can put a spin on why people pay attention to the number "2000" more than they do another number. But what's really sad about this is that everybody knew it was going to happen. It's a sad fact that more people will die for this stupid war, it's just that 2000 is a milestone like it or not. You can't say "libs could'nt wait" for there to be 2000 deaths when everybody knew it would happen anyway. Nobody wants these kids to die over there and claiming they do only makes you look foolish.

You can't blame anti-war people for calling attention to the deaths of 2000 Americans, especially when they were caused by the Republican whitehouse's war policy. Demanding the reasons for war and protesting the deaths of 2000 Americans does not make "liberals" evil or un-American by any means.

Before you gnash your teeth at liberals for demanding accountability for this war and for demanding the safe return of our troops so more of them don't die, you might want to take a look at your own party and ask them why it has been so "necessary" for these soldiers to die in the first place.

 

[theHawk]

How many potential artists, writers, actors, comedians, doctors, lawyers, etc. will never share their gifts with the world now but would have had a chance to if not for this war? Answer? 2000 and counting. And nobody's even counting the losses on the other side.

And another question you might want to ask yourself is, how many potential artists, writers, actors, comedians, doctors, lawyers, ect will never share their gifts with the world if terrorists and totalitarian governments were allowed to run around freely killing all they want or oppressing poeple? My guess it it would be alot more than 2000 plus however many Iraqi "innocents" have died.

At least these people are dying for a cause, even if you don't believe in it, as opposed to the tens of thousands that die in this country to needless crap like vehicle accidents, drug use, or smoking.

All I know is when I volunteered to join the U.S. Military I accepted the fact that I could die. Did I want to die? Of course not, neither did any of the 2000. But I always told myself, if I had to die I would like it to be in the uniform, for a cause. I personally can't think of a more honorable way of going out. But hey...thats just me...

 

[Bonnie]

Wow Bonnie very partisan articles as usual.

Well thanks partisan doesn't always mean wrong

Everybody knows that the news media looks for anniversaries and milestones like this to write about. 2000 is just a number like every other number, but remember the year 2000? It was just another year yet many thought the world would end and the celebrations were larger than normal. Why? Who knows, maybe the three big zeros are more attractive to people subconsciously. Or maybe it's just because it's a nice big round number.

And that is some great spin on your part bravo!!!

Anybody can put a spin on why people pay attention to the number "2000" more than they do another number. But what's really sad about this is that everybody knew it was going to happen. It's a sad fact that more people will die for this stupid war, it's just that 2000 is a milestone like it or not.

Did you bother to even read the articles or were you just thinking about this repsonse........?

You can't blame anti-war people for calling attention to the deaths of 2000 Americans, especially when they were caused by the Republican whitehouse's war policy. Demanding the reasons for war and protesting the deaths of 2000 Americans does not make "liberals" evil or un-American by any means.

Never said that!! Just either foolishly blinded by politcs or more concerned about getting power back as to put America in harms way.

Before you gnash your teeth at liberals for demanding accountability for this war and for demanding the safe return of our troops so more of them don't die, you might want to take a look at your own party and ask them why is has been so important for these soldiers to die in the first place

The only thing Im gnashing my teeth at these days is the absurd and dangerous notion that just as Iraq is starting to get on it's feet we pull out, the terrorists dance in the streets thinking they have won the war the war on terrorism and get brazen enough to pull another 9/11 or worse so that liberals can again blame Bush for not protecting everyone!!! Does that bit of rationalization ever pass through your head????? Or are you just so resentful of Bush being president that you are snowblind??? Demanding accountabliltiy is one thing, demanding we pull out now is not even arguable.

Here are some numbers for you

ABC, CBS Barely Mention Iraq Constitution
The CBS Evening News and ABC's World News Tonight barely mentioned the fact that 79 percent of Iraqis had voted to adopt a new constitution. Instead, ABC and CBS stressed the point that U.S. soldier deaths in Iraq had reached 2,000. On Countdown, Al Franken repeated his joke about executing White House officials while host Keith Olbermann made fun of MRC President Brent Bozell, calling him "Red Beard the Pirate." Letterman rattled off his "Top Ten Ways to Cheer Up George W. Bush."
Read more in Wednesday's CyberAlert.

ABC, CBS and NBC Skip Army Soldier’s Heroics; ABC and CBS Downplay Democratic Constitution

Morbid Networks Tout Iraq
War’s “Milestone”

Aligning themselves with Cindy Sheehan, network news shows touted the 2,000th death of an American serviceman in Iraq on Tuesday. Anticipating what anchor Aaron Brown termed “another milestone” on Monday’s NewsNight, CNN’s Tom Foreman suggested left-wing activists were not trying to be exploitative: “War protesters are carefully saying the 2,000 dead should not be played for political advantage.” The next day, CNN’s cameras were among those broadcasting Sheehan’s rainy photo-op on the sidewalk in front of the White House.

Tuesday’s evening broadcasts deemed the death count far more significant than the adoption of Iraq’s first democratic constitution. Officials yesterday announced that an overwhelming 79 percent of Iraqis voted in favor of the new constitution back on October 15, but if you had sneezed, you'd have missed hearing about it on either the CBS Evening News or ABC's World News Tonight.

CBS anchor Bob Schieffer delivered only this single sentence — “Iraq's government announced today that voters did approve the country's new constitution in this month's referendum” — before moving on to a full story about the 2,000th death. Schieffer saved time for this snide aside: “More than 90 percent of the 2,000 who died in the war have died since the President declared major combat was at an end in May 2003.”

On ABC, anchor Elizabeth Vargas only briefly noted how “in Iraq today, there was a milestone on the road to democracy: The official results show that a new constitution was ratified by an overwhelming margin.” That was it for Iraqi democracy. ABC chose as its lead story what Vargas called the “terrible milestone” of 2,000 killed in Iraq. Viewers saw two stories: Martha Raddatz on the anguish of Army medical personnel and Barbara Pinto on parents in an Ohio town who have lost sons in Iraq.

The NBC Nightly News devoted a full story to the 2,000 “milestone” followed by a piece from Iraq which began with the overwhelming approval of the constitution by 79 percent, what reporter Richard Engel at least called “a historic milestone” before he provided a general status report on the war, stressing both the ongoing violence and how “there are some bright spots,” such as more jobs.

This morning, all three broadcast shows led with the death count. CBS’s Hannah Storm announced: “We're marking a grim milestone this morning, as 2,000 American soldiers and Marines now have died in the war in Iraq.” ABC’s Jake Tapper at least pointed out “the war in Iraq can be viewed through any number of positive milestones: the capture of Saddam Hussein, the first election, or the ratification of the constitution,” before launching into his report on 2,000th death. On NBC’s Today, Richard Engel limited his coverage on Wednesday to the 2,000th death, although he acknowledged that “U.S. troops here in Iraq are not holding any special events.” Indeed, the military does not deem it a “milestone” in Iraq. (See box.)

A recent MRC study of this year’s Iraq war news found the networks had already produced 400 evening news stories noting America’s war casualties, far more than those discussing episodes of heroism on the part of those same troops. Indeed, on Tuesday morning only FNC’s Fox & Friends and CNN’s American Morning showcased Army Specialist Darrell Green, who thwarted the suicide bomber who tried to destroy Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel on Monday, saving many lives. Green’s captain told CNN that while “this was definitely a large explosion...this was a success story thanks to soldiers like Specialist Green.”

ABC, CBS and NBC didn’t interview Specialist Green or mention his heroics. Evidently, they don’t consider him to be as newsworthy as the 2,000 victims of Bush’s war. -- Brent Baker and Rich Noyes

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

 

[GotZoom]

If you ask me, 2000 heroes.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Just what I thought. 2000 or two million, it doesn't matter to you guys. The killing is rationalized because it's in the name of the ol' red, white and blue.

WOw,,,,pretty obvious you dont even listen to what people say.

 

[Zhukov]

You can judge for yourself of which opinion you are, but I find it a bit disingenous to suddenly become concerned because 2000 is a nice round number

I have been harping on the needless loss of life in this war since its beginning, even before I joined this forum.

.....

What matters here is that people are being killed, period.

Thank you for conceding my point. For you the number '1' was too much. Ultimately the number 2000 is of no more real relevance to you than 1 or 1000 or 5000. It is simply another occasion for you to complain.

 

[Zhukov]

nobody knows the real reasons for.

I know the reasons. So do many other people here and around the world.

Here's one of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf

 

[Bonnie]

MRC Study: Networks Paint Dark Picture of War Effort, Emphasizing Terrorist Attacks and U.S. Deaths

TV’s Depressing, Defeatist
Coverage of Iraq War

Millions of Iraqis walked to the polls on Saturday and apparently approved a democratic constitution, more progress for that embattled country. Back in January, the three broadcast networks devoted huge resources to Iraq’s first free elections, and the anchors celebrated the high turnout and relative tranquility of the day. On that first election day, CBS’s Dan Rather enthused that Iraqis saw “the potential for a future brighter than many people thought possible before the vote.”



This time around, network coverage was more muted and the tone more ambivalent. On Friday, the night before the vote, the networks held their Iraq coverage to a single story, balancing security worries with predictions of a high turnout. Unlike in January, none led with the Iraqi vote: ABC’s World News Tonight started off with a story on the bird flu, the CBS Evening News led with Karl Rove’s testimony, while the NBC Nightly News made inflation their headline of the day.

The day after Saturday’s success, NBC anchor John Seigenthaler offered a positive lead: “The people of Iraq took another step this weekend toward self-government.” But reporter Mike Boettcher quickly warned: “With the issue of the constitution almost settled, Iraqis face a host of other questions about how to unite a fractured nation. Those will require more than just a simple yes or no answer.”

With the exception of those January elections, ABC, CBS and NBC have stuck with their “Iraq is a quagmire” theme all year. A new MRC study of every broadcast evening newscast from January 1 to September 30 computed the extent of the networks’ doom and gloom coverage:

■ TV’s Iraq coverage has been extremely pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as discussed a positive development (just 211 stories, or 15%).

■ TV’s gloom is growing. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent, while bad news stories swelled to 73 percent, a ten-to-one disparity.

■ Terrorist attacks were the centerpiece of TV's war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks, more than any other topic.

■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generosity of American soldiers. Just eight stories recounted episodes of heroism by U.S. troops, while nine told about American soldiers helping individual Iraqis. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

Visiting Iraq last August, NBC’s Matt Lauer was startled when a group of soldiers told him troop morale was high. “Don't get me wrong here,” Lauer told the soldiers. “I think you are probably telling me the truth, but a lot of people at home [are] wondering how that could be possible?” Army Captain Sherman Powell zinged the pessimistic press corps, telling Lauer: “Sir, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I'd be pretty depressed as well.”

Here’s the good news: Iraq’s army is getting stronger, its infrastructure is being rebuilt and democracy is taking root. But the networks often bury this progress beneath the bad news of daily attacks and U.S. deaths. Are reporters too busy looking for the next Vietnam to appreciate the real story of American accomplishment in Iraq? -- Rich Noyes

For more, see TV's Bad News Brigade

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2005/fax20051017.asp

 

[Hagbard Celine]

And another question you might want to ask yourself is, how many potential artists, writers, actors, comedians, doctors, lawyers, ect will never share their gifts with the world if terrorists and totalitarian governments were allowed to run around freely killing all they want or oppressing poeple? My guess it it would be alot more than 2000 plus however many Iraqi "innocents" have died.

But dude, we're not fighting terrorism anymore. We started-off fighting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and then we invaded Iraq. Now we're fighting ethnic Sunnis with a few terrorists sprinkled in who came to Iraq from other countries. We're fighting a battle we started with the Ba'ath party when we took out their leader.

At least these people are dying for a cause, even if you don't believe in it, as opposed to the tens of thousands that die in this country to needless crap like vehicle accidents, drug use, or smoking.

I agree with you here. Compared to those who die of accidents and drug use, the reasons for our soldier's deaths are a lot more meaningful. But our government isn't always righteous in what it does. Invading Iraq was a knee-jerk move by our government in mine and a lot of other people's opinions. I still don't understand why the administration was so gung-ho about invading Iraq when the intelligence evidence supporting military action was so shaky and circumstantial. Nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are much more involved with terrorist groups than Iraq ever was, so why didn't we invade them? Or better yet, why invade a country when it is the terrorist cells you are after in the first place? It just doesn't make sense to me. I think other actions could have been taken to fight terrorism that would not have resulted in a war with Sunni Arabs and the deaths of 2000+ Americans and an un-countable number of Iraqi men, women and children.

All I know is when I volunteered to join the U.S. Military I accepted the fact that I could die. Did I want to die? Of course not, neither did any of the 2000. But I always told myself, if I had to die I would like it to be in the uniform, for a cause. I personally can't think of a more honorable way of going out. But hey...thats just me...

Would it have mattered to you if you thought the cause was not righteous? Or would you have just accepted your possible fate and not questioned your leader's motives?

 

[Max Power]

man that ended pretty quickly. I was hoping for some incoherent banter followed by a few off the wall one-liners. How disappointing.

You'll have to excuse me for having other stuff to do.

But, I do find your evidence laughable at best.

Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm
He later retracted his statements and issued an apology for his presentation to the UN.
"I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now,"
He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he said.

LOL. You're using evidence that has been apologized for.

 

[OCA]

I agree it is crazy. 1000/year is probably one of the least deadly wars in history.

About 1500 hundred of them were needless. If only Bush would get his damn hands off the video game controller and hand it to the Generals. Lord what a mess, it seems we have zero control of any sector of Iraq if a freakin cement truck can drive practically up to a hotel entrance.................

 

[OCA]

How are these men dying so that I don't have to deal with more bombings in my homeland?

How is this taking the fight to the enemy, if 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia?

As i've stated before Saudi Arabia is not in anyway an ally of ours and the fact that we haven't torn them a new asshole yet, OIL BE DAMNED!, is beyond me.

The man/woman has a point.

 

[OCA]

Doesn't matter if they're from Iraq. What matters is that they're in Iraq. If they weren't there, they'd be here, and if they were here, we'd have 2000 dead civilians, which, in my mind, is far worse than 2000 dead soldiers. If civilians are dieing from foreign powers, it means the soldiers, by choice or not, aren't doing their jobs.

I'm not arguing with you but just want to ask a question; have we established that ALL terrorists are in Iraq now? If so who the hell was that in Bali, London and Madrid?

 

[OCA]

Lets see. Terrorists want to bomb America. They got through 3 major times and had uncounted efforts thwarted. Americans attack their base of operations so the terrorists goto defend their base instead of carrying out offensive plans. Sounds like a simple strategy to me. What part didnt you get?

Born Saudi Arabian and worked for Al queda in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever they asked them to. Which included in America. Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia but hasnt been there for quite some time and is most despised by the Saudis. Since he is Saudi Arabian we should ignore that he was based in Afghanistan and Iraq and attack the Saudi's? Thats a pretty f'd up logic to me.

Yes Insein you are correct that there are no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, my personal belief though is that we will be attacked again and the perpetrators of that attack will have been in country since long before 9/11.

 

[OCA]

basque sepratists funded by the cia

You're not serious my friend.