Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush

[Liability]

[SIZE=+1]Bin Laden was 'in our grasp'[/SIZE]
But Cheney needed him 'at large' to scare us
Link Excerpt:
Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops at Tora Bora when those Bush bastards made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue him with massive force, a Senate report says. The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says. John Kerry has ineffectively long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get Bush's former partner when they were holed up in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan in December 2001."

Newsflashes for our stupid Canadian asshole fellow member, Jay Cansuck.

(1) Your post is stale "news" (Quick: there is a breaking report from Jay Cansuck that President Lincoln has been assassinated!) but the shit you breathlessly "report" here isn't actual news.

(2) The alleged "news" was merely partisan shit from a partisan political Party in the U.S. Senate currently dominated by the uber-liberoidal asslickers known as the Democrat Parody.

Oh and, your stupid post is off topic here.

Go back to tipping some cows, now, ya Back bacon sucking and beer swilling leaky douchebag.

 

[Liability]

Sure.

The 9/11/2001 attacks by the Islamoshitfuckers was designed to coerce the American citizens into doing --- uhm --- errr --- ahhh ---

Get real.

You are simply full of shit.

* * *

Remove your head from your rectum, wipe the shit from your eyes and learn to read.

I wasn't referencing 9/11 - I was speaking generally and gave as a specific example Talibon actions in Afghanistan - not 9/11.

Nice try though. Now use your toilet paper to some useful purpose.

As everyone who CAN read and who HAS integrity and honesty can plainly see (explaining your failed efforts to say otherwise), what I posted WAS completely responsive to the bullshit YOU tried to disseminate.

Your fascination with shit, however, is duly noted.

No "in other words" required. I said you were engaged in quibbling, and I was right. You were. You still are.


Nope.



Nope. Close to it, but not by any actual menaingful definition.

Are the folks that spike trees in lumber lots terrorists?

Nope.

...and Oklahoma City bombing?


Not that it matters - you and I don't share a common definition upon which to base any debate.

If it doesn't matter, and you recognize as much, then ASKING is a sign of just how stupid you are. But, since you chose to ask, I'll deign to answer your stupid question. Oklahoma City ALSO fails to qualify as "terrorism" by any RATIONAL test using a valid definition of "terrorism."

You DID manage to grunt out one factually correct assertion. YOU and I do not share a common defintion because YOU, as usual, find it necesary to resort to a fundamentally flawed, dishonest and self-serving one.

I'll say it again: WITHOUT the element of "coercion of government" no definition of "terrorism" makes any actual sense in that anything defined so haphazardly as the way YOU seek to define it becomes indistinguishable from any mere crime. A killing spree is NOT always terrorism, for example, using a valid defintion of "terrorism." By contrast, if YOUR daffynition is used, any killing spree by some mutant fucker WOULD be able to be classified as "terrorism."

You libs are prone to such sloppy thinking. Words lose meaning or have no fixed meaning in your muddled world view.

 

[Coyote]

As everyone who CAN read and who HAS integrity and honesty can plainly see (explaining your failed efforts to say otherwise), what I posted WAS completely responsive to the bullshit YOU tried to disseminate.

Your fascination with shit, however, is duly noted.

You are simply full of shit.

You want to "debate"? That's amusing. I thought you were the fucking liberoidal leftard spewing vapid shit about your political adversaries.

Wait.

I almost forgot the lib rule: When YOU do such shit, it's fine. When it's done to you, it's "wrong."

So, on balance, you once again appear to be simply full of shit -- to overflowing.

For a moment I thought you were serious sweetcheeks.

If it doesn't matter, and you recognize as much, then ASKING is a sign of just how stupid you are. But, since you chose to ask, I'll deign to answer your stupid question. Oklahoma City ALSO fails to qualify as "terrorism" by any RATIONAL test using a valid definition of "terrorism."

Oh, there is that word "definition" and it appears that your determination of "valid" rests solely on a select requiring political extortion of governments through threats and then violence when those demands aren't met. That your only tactic of debate is ridicule is quite telling.

You DID manage to grunt out one factually correct assertion. YOU and I do not share a common defintion because YOU, as usual, find it necesary to resort to a fundamentally flawed, dishonest and self-serving one.

Which one would that be since I quoted multiple ones .... ?

I'll say it again: WITHOUT the element of "coercion of government" no definition of "terrorism" makes any actual sense in that anything defined so haphazardly as the way YOU seek to define it becomes indistinguishable from any mere crime. A killing spree is NOT always terrorism, for example, using a valid defintion of "terrorism." By contrast, if YOUR daffynition is used, any killing spree by some mutant fucker WOULD be able to be classified as "terrorism."

I'll agree that a "killing spree" is not in and of itself terrorism. I agree that coercion is a factor. However, you limit it to a coercion (through prior demands) of a government is the only acceptable criteria that distinquishes a terrorist from Mr. Joe-Going-Postal, but that's a fallacy.

The definition: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. does exactly that.

Mr. I'm-Pissed-Off-at-Society, who decides to let off some roadrage steam is not coercing in an attempt to further any political or social objectives. Mr. I'm-Going-to-Blowup-Abortion-Clinics and Ms. I'm-Going-to-Spike-Oldgrowth-Trees are.

You libs are prone to such sloppy thinking. Words lose meaning or have no fixed meaning in your muddled world view.

 

[Liability]

As everyone who CAN read and who HAS integrity and honesty can plainly see (explaining your failed efforts to say otherwise), what I posted WAS completely responsive to the bullshit YOU tried to disseminate.

Your fascination with shit, however, is duly noted.

You are simply full of shit.

For a moment I thought you were serious sweetcheeks.

]

I ain't your sweetcheeks, ya dopey twerp.

And of course, as I could have predicted, you "forgot" to include you rather heavy handed reliance on the shit motiff.

I understand. You're a lib and libs have a glaring tendency to be hostile toward the truth.

Don't fret it.

Oh, there is that word "definition" and it appears that your determination of "valid" rests solely on a select requiring political extortion of governments through threats and then violence when those demands aren't met. That your only tactic of debate is ridicule is quite telling.

You probably didn't even realize that your "conclusiuon" was entirely disconnected from your premise there. The VALIDITY of the correct definition rests upon the mandates of logic. Thus, as you prove time and time again, you have no hope of ever getting a handle on it.

* * * *

I'll say it again: WITHOUT the element of "coercion of government" no definition of "terrorism" makes any actual sense in that anything defined so haphazardly as the way YOU seek to define it becomes indistinguishable from any mere crime. A killing spree is NOT always terrorism, for example, using a valid defintion of "terrorism." By contrast, if YOUR daffynition is used, any killing spree by some mutant fucker WOULD be able to be classified as "terrorism."

I'll agree that a "killing spree" is not in and of itself terrorism. I agree that coercion is a factor. However, you limit it to a coercion (through prior demands) of a government is the only acceptable criteria that distinquishes a terrorist from Mr. Joe-Going-Postal, but that's a fallacy.

I never once said anything about PRIOR demands. You do not have a valid right to modify MY arguments to make your putrid attempt at an argument. The fallacy is all yours.

The definition: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. does exactly that.

ANd no, that definition is CLOSE to being accurate, but it falls short.

Mr. I'm-Pissed-Off-at-Society, who decides to let off some roadrage steam is not coercing in an attempt to further any political or social objectives. Mr. I'm-Going-to-Blowup-Abortion-Clinics and Ms. I'm-Going-to-Spike-Oldgrowth-Trees are.

No. Not necessarily. Mr. Road Rage is not seeking to coerce anybody into anything. But abortion clinic bombers also may not be seeking to accomplish ANYTHING other than to serve their own unilarteral notion of payback. And the guys who spike trees might be attempting to cause some havoc, but not necessarily to obtain any particular objective.

You libs are prone to such sloppy thinking. Words lose meaning or have no fixed meaning in your muddled world view.

Yes. You libs are rather cuckoo in that regard. Glad you can agree with me.

 

[Alvin]

Go back to tipping some cows, now, ya Back bacon sucking and beer swilling leaky douchebag.

Classy. Real classy.
Such wit and wisdom has finally brought me round to your arguement. I feel somwhat honoured - nay - humbled to be present when such gems of wisdom are bestowed.

Seriously; Thank you.



- Bugger I replied to the wrong post again. Didn't I?

 

[noose4]

Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush's Term"

Now I've heard of revisionist history but REALLY?

I guess Dana has never heard of that whole September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack.

Hey stupid, she was referring to the years after 9/11.

The anthrax attacks happened after 9/11

 

[Liability]

Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush's Term"

Now I've heard of revisionist history but REALLY?

I guess Dana has never heard of that whole September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack.

Hey stupid, she was referring to the years after 9/11.

The anthrax attacks happened after 9/11

Hey stupid, that doesn't make them "terrorist" attacks.

If you can't tell us definitively WHO did it, then you certainly cannot tell us WHY he (or they) did it.

And despite what you addled libbies "think," the motivation for doing an act is the key to determining whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism."

 

[Coyote]

I ain't your sweetcheeks, ya dopey twerp.

You most certainly are my "sweet cheeks" - your twat is eminently pinchable.

And of course, as I could have predicted, you "forgot" to include you rather heavy handed reliance on the shit motiff.

...what - you mean my single post aimed at helping you clear your vision and reducing your tendancy towards anatomical impossibilities? Typical ungrateful conservative.

I understand. You're a lib and libs have a glaring tendency to be hostile toward the truth.

Don't fret it.

Fret? Never. Don't sweat the small stuff. I seek only to enlighten you and help you discern truth from fiction, facts from rhetoric and to bridge the gap over hyperbole. However, I'm pragmatic. This may well be a Herculean endeavor when it comes to conservatives.

You probably didn't even realize that your "conclusiuon" was entirely disconnected from your premise there. The VALIDITY of the correct definition rests upon the mandates of logic. Thus, as you prove time and time again, you have no hope of ever getting a handle on it.

You have yet to show, beyond a spew of words implying it is an open-ended definition - how the definition I use is not "correct".

I never once said anything about PRIOR demands. You do not have a valid right to modify MY arguments to make your putrid attempt at an argument. The fallacy is all yours.

You are right, you did not say that. My apologies.

You said:

You, of course, face the exact same problem with the Anthrax attacks. The SUBSEQUENT FBI "suggestion" as to what Ivins may have wanted clearly falls FAR short of his shit being a "terrorist" attack for the exact reason. One cannot ask the gubmint to do or refrain from jack-shit if one is acting without making any simultaneous demands.

Yet demands don't have to be simultaneous to be terrorism. The terrorist act itself can precede demands (you don't give in to us, there will be more of this coming).

ANd no, that definition is CLOSE to being accurate, but it falls short.

How?

No. Not necessarily. Mr. Road Rage is not seeking to coerce anybody into anything. But abortion clinic bombers also may not be seeking to accomplish ANYTHING other than to serve their own unilarteral notion of payback. And the guys who spike trees might be attempting to cause some havoc, but not necessarily to obtain any particular objective.

Abortion clinic bombers and tree spikers may or may not have a larger agenda of coercion, therefore each case would have to be looked at individually wouldn't it? Abortion clinic bombers - seeing failure at trying to convince the government to stop abortion turn instead to intimidating providers and users of the clinics to stop them directly. Tree spikers are similar with their targets being the lumbar industry.

The definition: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives - would still fit and would exclude those who are simply getting their jollies off through violence.

Yes. You libs are rather cuckoo in that regard. Glad you can agree with me.

Indeed. Cuckoo for Cocoapuffs.

 

[Coyote]

Hey stupid, she was referring to the years after 9/11.

The anthrax attacks happened after 9/11

Hey stupid, that doesn't make them "terrorist" attacks.

If you can't tell us definitively WHO did it, then you certainly cannot tell us WHY he (or they) did it.

And despite what you addled libbies "think," the motivation for doing an act is the key to determining whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism."

Exactly.

 

[Liability]

The anthrax attacks happened after 9/11

Hey stupid, that doesn't make them "terrorist" attacks.

If you can't tell us definitively WHO did it, then you certainly cannot tell us WHY he (or they) did it.

And despite what you addled libbies "think," the motivation for doing an act is the key to determining whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism."

Exactly.

That's why I have been saying it time and time again only to have it DENIED by idiot liberoidals (of which you have been vocal loud idiot spokesman of late, oddly enough).

That's right.

Motivation COUNTS.

If a jerkoff commits a nurder spree (mass killings over a period of time) -- even if it does happen to cause some degree of horror or terror in the local citizenry, that does NOT mean that he has committed an act of terrorism.

But the same conduct COULD constitute acts of terrorism IF the purpose had been to induce terror as a way of coercing the government to do a certain thing or to refrain from certain behavior.

If one FAILS to include the element of political coercion, however, the former conduct could EASILY be confused with terrorism. Sloppy definitions from sloppy-thinking liberoidals lead to sloppy and often erroneous conclusions!

 

[Coyote]

Hey stupid, that doesn't make them "terrorist" attacks.

If you can't tell us definitively WHO did it, then you certainly cannot tell us WHY he (or they) did it.

And despite what you addled libbies "think," the motivation for doing an act is the key to determining whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism."

Exactly.

That's why I have been saying it time and time again only to have it DENIED by idiot liberoidals (of which you have been vocal loud idiot spokesman of late, oddly enough).

That's right.

Motivation COUNTS.

That is what I have also been saying.

If a jerkoff commits a nurder spree (mass killings over a period of time) -- even if it does happen to cause some degree of horror or terror in the local citizenry, that does NOT mean that he has committed an act of terrorism.

I agree - unless the motivation is to coerce the citizenry in furtherance of political or social objectives.

But the same conduct COULD constitute acts of terrorism IF the purpose had been to induce terror as a way of coercing the government to do a certain thing or to refrain from certain behavior.

Or coerce the citizenry or a certain portion of the citizenry.

If one FAILS to include the element of political coercion, however, the former conduct could EASILY be confused with terrorism. Sloppy definitions from sloppy-thinking liberoidals lead to sloppy and often erroneous conclusions!

Inducing terror as a way of coercing the goverment or a segment of the citizens to do or refrain from doing something is sloppy how? Seems pretty clear cut. You have a clear motivation (stopping abortions) - a clear action (blowing up clinics) and a clear demand with consequences (stop providing abortions or I'll keep doing this).

 

[noose4]

Hey stupid, she was referring to the years after 9/11.

The anthrax attacks happened after 9/11

Hey stupid, that doesn't make them "terrorist" attacks.

If you can't tell us definitively WHO did it, then you certainly cannot tell us WHY he (or they) did it.

And despite what you addled libbies "think," the motivation for doing an act is the key to determining whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism."

hey shit for brains people were terrorized by them and government was on alert when they happened, for a supposedly well educated lawyer you aint too bright.

 

[Liability]

The anthrax attacks happened after 9/11

Hey stupid, that doesn't make them "terrorist" attacks.

If you can't tell us definitively WHO did it, then you certainly cannot tell us WHY he (or they) did it.

And despite what you addled libbies "think," the motivation for doing an act is the key to determining whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism."

hey shit for brains people were terrorized by them and government was on alert when they happened, for a supposedly well educated lawyer you aint too bright.

He Loosey,

Regardless of how smart I am (in your ignorant and worthelss asshole opinion), I'm clearly worlds smarter than the smug piece of shit you are. You schmuck.

ANYbody can be afraid or "terrorized" by such aberrant behavior, you dickless asslicking moron.

BUT, no meaningful definition of "terrorism" relies solely on the reaction of a population to some acts of violence. Your dadffynition (like the ones employed by so many mindless drone liberoidals) is meaningless. Libtards like you are like that.

If it were otherwise, ANY acts of violence (especially such shit as serial killings, etc.) would "qualify" as "terrorism," and that would deprive the word "terrorism" of ACTUAL meaning. It would be indistinguishable from mere criminal behavior, you moron.

So sorry you little noggin was often dribbled violently like a fucking basketball since the tragic moment of your foul birth, you fucking assmuncher.

Best regards,

your pal,

Liability

 

[noose4]

Hey stupid, that doesn't make them "terrorist" attacks.

If you can't tell us definitively WHO did it, then you certainly cannot tell us WHY he (or they) did it.

And despite what you addled libbies "think," the motivation for doing an act is the key to determining whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism."

hey shit for brains people were terrorized by them and government was on alert when they happened, for a supposedly well educated lawyer you aint too bright.

He Loosey,

Regardless of how smart I am (in your ignorant and worthelss asshole opinion), I'm clearly worlds smarter than the smug piece of shit you are. You schmuck.

ANYbody can be afraid or "terrorized" by such aberrant behavior, you dickless asslicking moron.

BUT, no meaningful definition of "terrorism" relies solely on the reaction of a population to some acts of violence. Your dadffynition (like the ones employed by so many mindless drone liberoidals) is meaningless. Libtards like you are like that.

If it were otherwise, ANY acts of violence (especially such shit as serial killings, etc.) would "qualify" as "terrorism," and that would deprive the word "terrorism" of ACTUAL meaning. It would be indistinguishable from mere criminal behavior, you moron.

So sorry you little noggin was often dribbled violently like a fucking basketball since the tragic moment of your foul birth, you fucking assmuncher.

Best regards,

your pal,

Liability

How the fuck did you graduate grammar school never mind Law school? My god I pity anybody foolish enough to hire you as a lawyer, they would get the electric chair for a speeding ticket.

 

[Liability]

hey shit for brains people were terrorized by them and government was on alert when they happened, for a supposedly well educated lawyer you aint too bright.

He Loosey,

Regardless of how smart I am (in your ignorant and worthelss asshole opinion), I'm clearly worlds smarter than the smug piece of shit you are. You schmuck.

ANYbody can be afraid or "terrorized" by such aberrant behavior, you dickless asslicking moron.

BUT, no meaningful definition of "terrorism" relies solely on the reaction of a population to some acts of violence. Your dadffynition (like the ones employed by so many mindless drone liberoidals) is meaningless. Libtards like you are like that.

If it were otherwise, ANY acts of violence (especially such shit as serial killings, etc.) would "qualify" as "terrorism," and that would deprive the word "terrorism" of ACTUAL meaning. It would be indistinguishable from mere criminal behavior, you moron.

So sorry you little noggin was often dribbled violently like a fucking basketball since the tragic moment of your foul birth, you fucking assmuncher.

Best regards,

your pal,

Liability

How the fuck did you graduate grammar school never mind Law school? My god I pity anybody foolish enough to hire you as a lawyer, they would get the electric chair for a speeding ticket.

Ah, Loosey. Even by your typically tired lame-ass failure of a "standard," that ^ posting effort was abysmal.

When you have nothing (and you always do), it shows.

 

[noose4]

He Loosey,

Regardless of how smart I am (in your ignorant and worthelss asshole opinion), I'm clearly worlds smarter than the smug piece of shit you are. You schmuck.

ANYbody can be afraid or "terrorized" by such aberrant behavior, you dickless asslicking moron.

BUT, no meaningful definition of "terrorism" relies solely on the reaction of a population to some acts of violence. Your dadffynition (like the ones employed by so many mindless drone liberoidals) is meaningless. Libtards like you are like that.

If it were otherwise, ANY acts of violence (especially such shit as serial killings, etc.) would "qualify" as "terrorism," and that would deprive the word "terrorism" of ACTUAL meaning. It would be indistinguishable from mere criminal behavior, you moron.

So sorry you little noggin was often dribbled violently like a fucking basketball since the tragic moment of your foul birth, you fucking assmuncher.

Best regards,

your pal,

Liability

How the fuck did you graduate grammar school never mind Law school? My god I pity anybody foolish enough to hire you as a lawyer, they would get the electric chair for a speeding ticket.

Ah, Loosey. Even by your typically tired lame-ass failure of a "standard," that ^ posting effort was abysmal.

When you have nothing (and you always do), it shows.

It is often said that He who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for a client, but now it is said anybody that would hire you to represent them must be a drooling retard and batshit crazy.

 

[Liability]

How the fuck did you graduate grammar school never mind Law school? My god I pity anybody foolish enough to hire you as a lawyer, they would get the electric chair for a speeding ticket.

Ah, Loosey. Even by your typically tired lame-ass failure of a "standard," that ^ posting effort was abysmal.

When you have nothing (and you always do), it shows.

It is often said that He who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for a client, but now it is said anybody that would hire you to represent them must be a drooling retard and batshit crazy.

Insipid post ^ by Loosey reaffirms the unavoidable conclusion that Loosey can't even do "ad hominems" all that well.

Such a poor pathetic trite little loser he is.

Feel free to try again, though, Loosey.

 

[noose4]

Ah, Loosey. Even by your typically tired lame-ass failure of a "standard," that ^ posting effort was abysmal.

When you have nothing (and you always do), it shows.

It is often said that He who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for a client, but now it is said anybody that would hire you to represent them must be a drooling retard and batshit crazy.

Insipid post ^ by Loosey reaffirms the unavoidable conclusion that Loosey can't even do "ad hominems" all that well.

Such a poor pathetic trite little loser he is.

Feel free to try again, though, Loosey.

This is that great wit you supposedly have? Great nick name, must have taken you hours to come up with loosey. Your comedic talents are epic, you should go audition for Saturday Night Live.

 

[Liability]

It is often said that He who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for a client, but now it is said anybody that would hire you to represent them must be a drooling retard and batshit crazy.

Insipid post ^ by Loosey reaffirms the unavoidable conclusion that Loosey can't even do "ad hominems" all that well.

Such a poor pathetic trite little loser he is.

Feel free to try again, though, Loosey.

This is that great wit you supposedly have? Great nick name, must have taken you hours to come up with loosey. Your comedic talents are epic, you should go audition for Saturday Night Live.

Loosey:

(A) As you knew when you posted it, I have called you Loosey for a long time. No need to lie just because you feel (justifiably) embarrassed by your pitiable posting efforts.

(B) You are still proving that you have no skills at all in the ad hominem department. So sad. You have no skills at all, this means.

But, keep trying. It's ok.

 

[noose4]

Insipid post ^ by Loosey reaffirms the unavoidable conclusion that Loosey can't even do "ad hominems" all that well.

Such a poor pathetic trite little loser he is.

Feel free to try again, though, Loosey.

This is that great wit you supposedly have? Great nick name, must have taken you hours to come up with loosey. Your comedic talents are epic, you should go audition for Saturday Night Live.

Loosey:

(A) As you knew when you posted it, I have called you Loosey for a long time. No need to lie just because you feel (justifiably) embarrassed by your pitiable posting efforts.

(B) You are still proving that you have no skills at all in the ad hominem department. So sad. You have no skills at all, this means.

But, keep trying. It's ok.

Briliant!!! Comedy GOLD!!!! You could give Nipsey Russell a run for his money!!!!