Al Qaida threat worse under Obama

[Jack Fate]

Everything is worse under BO. All of you who voted for this fake should apologize to the rest of us.

 

[logical4u]

Al-Qaida warns of new attacks deadlier than before - Yahoo! News

"al qaida spokesman warns Obama that militants groups may launch attack on united states that would kill more people than previous attacks"

Not that you should never believe what one of these goons says, but come on -- they're just shouting propoganda. The threat is not better or worse under Obama -- it's the same. And I do believe that under Obama, we've stopped quite a few terrorist attacks. Although, not enough. One person killed from a terrorist attack is one person too many, but not nearly as many as were killed on 9/11.

We have been stopping terrorist attacks all along since 9/11. One of the phew things I think Bush gets some credit for is the fact that not even a minor attack was carried out on our soil in the 7 years after 9/11. Bush stood up and fought for the controversial tools needed to fight this fight, and once Obama got into office he didn't move to take the tools away now did he. Nope he is using him just the same.

You did not mention the assasination of a soldier (I believe in Tennessee) by a muslim 'extremist', because the soldier 'was killing muslims'.
You did not mention the wacko 'extremist' (of the muslim sort) that killed 27 people on a Texas fort.
You did not mention the guys(pretty sure they were muslim 'extremists', too) that came very close to setting off bombs in the US.
Keep your head in the sand. It will be okay if you just keep repeating it.

 

[Jeremy]

Show me the "census" figures dipshit. Did they go around knocking on caves if they didn't mail it back?

i truly hope you aren't as ignorant as that post sounds.

Hopefully not as ignorant as someone that get's their words of wisdom from Springsteen.

 

[logical4u]

Al-Qaida warns of new attacks deadlier than before - Yahoo! News

"al qaida spokesman warns Obama that militants groups may launch attack on united states that would kill more people than previous attacks"

so i guess that should totally and finally and completely shut down the rightwingnut rant that al queda was happy president obama was elected.

cool.

Obama and the democrats make it easier. They tend to defend and protect 'bad' behavior; they want to 'understand' the problem, not stop it. Rinse the koolaid out of your eyes; if someone (other than a repub) is breaking the law, the excuses start, then telling those wronged that they should be the bigger people (just let the lawbreakers get away with it). See: the black panthers obstructing whites from voting in Philadelphia, the 'undocumented' (illegal) workers, a perjuring president, etc, etc, etc.

Muslim 'extremists' were partying for the dem win, because they saw it as being closer to bringing down the 'west'. You might want to check were you live, because to the muslim 'extremists', you are part of the west. For them, your choice is conversion (to islam), subjugation (as a second class citizen without rights) or death.

Sorry, I am being silly, put the koolaid back in your eyes and repeat: it will be okay, it will be okay.

 

[Old Rocks]

Al-Qaida warns of new attacks deadlier than before - Yahoo! News

"al qaida spokesman warns Obama that militants groups may launch attack on united states that would kill more people than previous attacks"

Not that you should never believe what one of these goons says, but come on -- they're just shouting propoganda. The threat is not better or worse under Obama -- it's the same. And I do believe that under Obama, we've stopped quite a few terrorist attacks. Although, not enough. One person killed from a terrorist attack is one person too many, but not nearly as many as were killed on 9/11.

We have been stopping terrorist attacks all along since 9/11. One of the phew things I think Bush gets some credit for is the fact that not even a minor attack was carried out on our soil in the 7 years after 9/11. Bush stood up and fought for the controversial tools needed to fight this fight, and once Obama got into office he didn't move to take the tools away now did he. Nope he is using him just the same.

Pure bullshit. Prior to 9-11, the Bush admin was making light of "President Clinton's obsession with Al Queda". Clinton had weekly cabinet level meetings with the people in charge of keeping track of the terrorists. The first such cabinet level meeting in the Bush admin was scheduled, ironically, for 11Sept01. Bush totally ignored the terrorist threat in spite of over 50 warnings from our own and foreign intel agencies, including that of Russia. Some of the warning were even specific as to the method and target.

Under our present President, we have been taking out Al Qaeda people publicly in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And, yes, there has been collateral damage, innocents whose only crime was being related to and in the same house as the terrorists. But how many people were killed in Iraq when invaded that nation on the basis of lies. And Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9-11.

The Bush admin allowed, by negligence, 3000 Americans to be murdered on 9-11. Then they allowed the mastermind of that mass murder to get away. Hell of a hero you have there.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not that you should never believe what one of these goons says, but come on -- they're just shouting propoganda. The threat is not better or worse under Obama -- it's the same. And I do believe that under Obama, we've stopped quite a few terrorist attacks. Although, not enough. One person killed from a terrorist attack is one person too many, but not nearly as many as were killed on 9/11.

We have been stopping terrorist attacks all along since 9/11. One of the phew things I think Bush gets some credit for is the fact that not even a minor attack was carried out on our soil in the 7 years after 9/11. Bush stood up and fought for the controversial tools needed to fight this fight, and once Obama got into office he didn't move to take the tools away now did he. Nope he is using him just the same.

You did not mention the assasination of a soldier (I believe in Tennessee) by a muslim 'extremist', because the soldier 'was killing muslims'.
You did not mention the wacko 'extremist' (of the muslim sort) that killed 27 people on a Texas fort.
You did not mention the guys(pretty sure they were muslim 'extremists', too) that came very close to setting off bombs in the US.
Keep your head in the sand. It will be okay if you just keep repeating it.

You failed to mention the number killed in Oklahoma City by a whacko like you.

 

[sangha]

This entire thread shows that the right believes and trusts Al Queda.

 

[jillian]

Obama and the democrats make it easier. They tend to defend and protect 'bad' behavior; they want to 'understand' the problem, not stop it. Rinse the koolaid out of your eyes; if someone (other than a repub) is breaking the law, the excuses start, then telling those wronged that they should be the bigger people (just let the lawbreakers get away with it). See: the black panthers obstructing whites from voting in Philadelphia, the 'undocumented' (illegal) workers, a perjuring president, etc, etc, etc.

Muslim 'extremists' were partying for the dem win, because they saw it as being closer to bringing down the 'west'. You might want to check were you live, because to the muslim 'extremists', you are part of the west. For them, your choice is conversion (to islam), subjugation (as a second class citizen without rights) or death.

Sorry, I am being silly, put the koolaid back in your eyes and repeat: it will be okay, it will be okay.

any suggestion that I am more accepting of terrorists than you is a) dishonest; b) a figment of your imagination; and c) an indication that you cannot distinguish between democrats and the extreme left. nuance escapes you. i can assure you that i have no tolerance for terrorists. but i can also assure you that i am not so ignorant as to think the way to deal with terrorists is to invade countries that didn't attack us and depose the leaders of sovereign countries.

lack of nuance and bullying tactics don't prove your anti-terrorist bona fides.

 

[logical4u]

We have been stopping terrorist attacks all along since 9/11. One of the phew things I think Bush gets some credit for is the fact that not even a minor attack was carried out on our soil in the 7 years after 9/11. Bush stood up and fought for the controversial tools needed to fight this fight, and once Obama got into office he didn't move to take the tools away now did he. Nope he is using him just the same.

You did not mention the assasination of a soldier (I believe in Tennessee) by a muslim 'extremist', because the soldier 'was killing muslims'.
You did not mention the wacko 'extremist' (of the muslim sort) that killed 27 people on a Texas fort.
You did not mention the guys(pretty sure they were muslim 'extremists', too) that came very close to setting off bombs in the US.
Keep your head in the sand. It will be okay if you just keep repeating it.

You failed to mention the number killed in Oklahoma City by a whacko like you.

I demonstrate a giant whole in your statement and you want to call me 'Tim'? Great debate, careful with that thought process, your brain can't take much more. LOSER.

 

[Jack Fate]

Not that you should never believe what one of these goons says, but come on -- they're just shouting propoganda. The threat is not better or worse under Obama -- it's the same. And I do believe that under Obama, we've stopped quite a few terrorist attacks. Although, not enough. One person killed from a terrorist attack is one person too many, but not nearly as many as were killed on 9/11.

We have been stopping terrorist attacks all along since 9/11. One of the phew things I think Bush gets some credit for is the fact that not even a minor attack was carried out on our soil in the 7 years after 9/11. Bush stood up and fought for the controversial tools needed to fight this fight, and once Obama got into office he didn't move to take the tools away now did he. Nope he is using him just the same.

Pure bullshit. Prior to 9-11, the Bush admin was making light of "President Clinton's obsession with Al Queda". Clinton had weekly cabinet level meetings with the people in charge of keeping track of the terrorists. The first such cabinet level meeting in the Bush admin was scheduled, ironically, for 11Sept01. Bush totally ignored the terrorist threat in spite of over 50 warnings from our own and foreign intel agencies, including that of Russia. Some of the warning were even specific as to the method and target.

Under our present President, we have been taking out Al Qaeda people publicly in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And, yes, there has been collateral damage, innocents whose only crime was being related to and in the same house as the terrorists. But how many people were killed in Iraq when invaded that nation on the basis of lies. And Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9-11.

The Bush admin allowed, by negligence, 3000 Americans to be murdered on 9-11. Then they allowed the mastermind of that mass murder to get away. Hell of a hero you have there.

"by negligence". That's funny. If Bush is reponsible for 9/11 then Roosevelt is responsible for Pearl Harbor. Your argument about Iraq is old and tired. Democrats voted to give the authority to invade. The fact that you and them want to distance yourselves from that fact is neither here nor there.

 

[Jack Fate]

Obama and the democrats make it easier. They tend to defend and protect 'bad' behavior; they want to 'understand' the problem, not stop it. Rinse the koolaid out of your eyes; if someone (other than a repub) is breaking the law, the excuses start, then telling those wronged that they should be the bigger people (just let the lawbreakers get away with it). See: the black panthers obstructing whites from voting in Philadelphia, the 'undocumented' (illegal) workers, a perjuring president, etc, etc, etc.

Muslim 'extremists' were partying for the dem win, because they saw it as being closer to bringing down the 'west'. You might want to check were you live, because to the muslim 'extremists', you are part of the west. For them, your choice is conversion (to islam), subjugation (as a second class citizen without rights) or death.

Sorry, I am being silly, put the koolaid back in your eyes and repeat: it will be okay, it will be okay.

any suggestion that I am more accepting of terrorists than you is a) dishonest; b) a figment of your imagination; and c) an indication that you cannot distinguish between democrats and the extreme left. nuance escapes you. i can assure you that i have no tolerance for terrorists. but i can also assure you that i am not so ignorant as to think the way to deal with terrorists is to invade countries that didn't attack us and depose the leaders of sovereign countries.

lack of nuance and bullying tactics don't prove your anti-terrorist bona fides.

The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 means nothing. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism and a direct threat to peace. The Clinton administration knew that. Your argument is old and tired and doesn't line up with the facts.

 

[logical4u]

Obama and the democrats make it easier. They tend to defend and protect 'bad' behavior; they want to 'understand' the problem, not stop it. Rinse the koolaid out of your eyes; if someone (other than a repub) is breaking the law, the excuses start, then telling those wronged that they should be the bigger people (just let the lawbreakers get away with it). See: the black panthers obstructing whites from voting in Philadelphia, the 'undocumented' (illegal) workers, a perjuring president, etc, etc, etc.

Muslim 'extremists' were partying for the dem win, because they saw it as being closer to bringing down the 'west'. You might want to check were you live, because to the muslim 'extremists', you are part of the west. For them, your choice is conversion (to islam), subjugation (as a second class citizen without rights) or death.

Sorry, I am being silly, put the koolaid back in your eyes and repeat: it will be okay, it will be okay.

any suggestion that I am more accepting of terrorists than you is a) dishonest; b) a figment of your imagination; and c) an indication that you cannot distinguish between democrats and the extreme left. nuance escapes you. i can assure you that i have no tolerance for terrorists. but i can also assure you that i am not so ignorant as to think the way to deal with terrorists is to invade countries that didn't attack us and depose the leaders of sovereign countries.

lack of nuance and bullying tactics don't prove your anti-terrorist bona fides.

I did not say you 'accepted' terrorists, merely 'tolerated' them (is that nuanced enough for you?).
If the dems and libs are so different, can you show me which 'dems' did not support the liberal agendas being pushed in congress this year? Sorry lets use nuance: one says they have morals and are upstanding, but then they vote with the people that are voting our rights and dollars into the control of the gov, you can say you see the difference, I see the results.

Saying you want the best for the country and then laying down for 'the left' to walk on you doesn't look any different than 'left' to me. Maybe it is just a perception thing. Keep your nuance; it is dishonesty.

 

[jillian]

The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 means nothing. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism and a direct threat to peace. The Clinton administration knew that. Your argument is old and tired and doesn't line up with the facts.

what was the cost/benefit of invading iraq?

i've seen your posts. you say nothing but are very good at tossing around rightwingnut talking points.

 

[Jack Fate]

The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 means nothing. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism and a direct threat to peace. The Clinton administration knew that. Your argument is old and tired and doesn't line up with the facts.

what was the cost/benefit of invading iraq?

i've seen your posts. you say nothing but are very good at tossing around rightwingnut talking points.

The cost/benefit has nothing to do with it. The facts are the facts. The Clinton administration was positive on regime change and 9/11 gave us a good excuse.

I'm glad you read my posts. Hopefully, you will learn something. But, since you're a lefty moonbat, I doubt it.

 

[my2¢]

Adam Gadahn, I wonder if he's on the capture or kill list of U.S. citizens that many were speaking against a few months ago?

Most Wanted Terrorist - Adam Yahiye Gadahn

 

[jillian]

The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 means nothing. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism and a direct threat to peace. The Clinton administration knew that. Your argument is old and tired and doesn't line up with the facts.

what was the cost/benefit of invading iraq?

i've seen your posts. you say nothing but are very good at tossing around rightwingnut talking points.

The cost/benefit has nothing to do with it. The facts are the facts. The Clinton administration was positive on regime change and 9/11 gave us a good excuse.

I'm glad you read my posts. Hopefully, you will learn something. But, since you're a lefty moonbat, I doubt it.

the cost/benefit has EVERYTHING to do with it for thinking people.

you not being one, wouldn't understand that.

and no one could learn anything from you except in opposite world.

as for me reading your posts, don't get too puffed up. i kind of see you as comic relief.

 

[Valerie]

Show me the "census" figures dipshit. Did they go around knocking on caves if they didn't mail it back?

i truly hope you aren't as ignorant as that post sounds.

Hopefully not as ignorant as someone that get's their words of wisdom from Springsteen.

I swear I found the key to the universe in the engine of an old parked car.


Just sayin'

 

[Dr Grump]

Everything is worse under BO. All of you who voted for this fake should apologize to the rest of us.

Only if you apologise for the Chimp if you voted for him. Without doubt, one of the worst presidents in history, and certainly in my life time - and I was around when Raygun was president, too...

 

[Jack Fate]

what was the cost/benefit of invading iraq?

i've seen your posts. you say nothing but are very good at tossing around rightwingnut talking points.

The cost/benefit has nothing to do with it. The facts are the facts. The Clinton administration was positive on regime change and 9/11 gave us a good excuse.

I'm glad you read my posts. Hopefully, you will learn something. But, since you're a lefty moonbat, I doubt it.

the cost/benefit has EVERYTHING to do with it for thinking people.

you not being one, wouldn't understand that.

and no one could learn anything from you except in opposite world.

as for me reading your posts, don't get too puffed up. i kind of see you as comic relief.

And she trots out the old tired "thinking people" routine. Why, of course. Everyone who agrees with you is intelligent and everyone who has a different opinion is stupid. With an argument like that, how can you lose? Funny stuff.

Now when are you going to offer a rebuttal to my point that even the Clinton administration favored regime change in Iraq? Your turn.

 

[Dr Grump]

The cost/benefit has nothing to do with it. The facts are the facts. The Clinton administration was positive on regime change and 9/11 gave us a good excuse.

I'm glad you read my posts. Hopefully, you will learn something. But, since you're a lefty moonbat, I doubt it.

Being positive on regime change and invading a country that costs American lives are two different things.

The only thing I learn from your posts is that all you Neocon, right-wing conservative whackjobs offer no solutions; bitch and whine; and don't seem to have an independent train of thought..

carry on...