chanel
Silver Member
The Obama Administration can't even use the "t-word" when someone shouts "Allah Akbar" Nuff said?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then when Bill attempted to protect the American people, the Retards refused to let his legislation pass, refused to take Bills investigations seriously, & are responsible for 911.
Another point, I notice the Retards are no longer interested in "saving face" anymore, but want desperately to get out of the ME? Sounds like they are supporting terrorists to ME, and wanting to embolden the enemy. You know in your heart we must stay there and continue the two US troop KIAs a day, or we are going to be called chicken for running off like the Russians did in defeat.
Discuss.
Then when Bill attempted to protect the American people, the Retards refused to let his legislation pass, refused to take Bills investigations seriously, & are responsible for 911.
You'll need to be more specific than that.
Exactly what legislation?
When, who, and how did anyone not take his investigations seriously?
Another point, I notice the Retards are no longer interested in "saving face" anymore, but want desperately to get out of the ME? Sounds like they are supporting terrorists to ME, and wanting to embolden the enemy. You know in your heart we must stay there and continue the two US troop KIAs a day, or we are going to be called chicken for running off like the Russians did in defeat.
Who is advocating cutting and running from Afghanistan or Iraq?
PS: Do me a small favor and please don't use that disgusting word for mentally handicapped people. I work with handicapped people and it's not very becoming for a Liberal to be so intolerant by it's usage.
I post troll bait and it morphs into a sincere and interesting discussion.
I can't decide if that makes it an epic win or an epic fail.
While I agree with you and do not use that word, I have two things to say about your post. 1) Good luck with that and 2) you have probably just encouraged an influx of the usage of that word... don't say, I did not warn you.
Immie
While I agree with you and do not use that word, I have two things to say about your post. 1) Good luck with that and 2) you have probably just encouraged an influx of the usage of that word... don't say, I did not warn you.
Immie
Thank you ....and I already considered that.
However, the usage of it only reflects very poorly upon the person using it.
While I agree with you and do not use that word, I have two things to say about your post. 1) Good luck with that and 2) you have probably just encouraged an influx of the usage of that word... don't say, I did not warn you.
Immie
Thank you ....and I already considered that.
However, the usage of it only reflects very poorly upon the person using it.
Agreed, but trust me, most don't consider that when they use it.
Immie
I don't think in a civilized society there is ever a case where terrorism is excusable.
So when I hear "progressives" making excuses for it (usually blaming American policies) I tend to think they just might be a tad soft on the whole idea.....maybe that's just me, eh?
Or when you get news of another terror attack, the Liberals (the MSM) always warn us not to jump to conclusions....despite the hypocrisy that they jump to conclusions whenever they think they just might be able to pin it on a right-leaning culprit (ie: Arizona shootings).
Right now the Germans are calling the attack on our Airmen a terror attack, but he Administration is being slow to just come out and say the obvious.
Heck, they don't even want to call them terror attacks anymore!!!
And you don't work for the State Department, where every word uttered by the United States has the possibility of putting us in even greater jeopardy.
So saying they are "man-made disasters" instead of terror attacks somehow lessens it?
I seriously doubt that ANYTHING we label them would make one iota of difference to the actual terrorists.
This isn't the first political message board I've been a member of.
Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright are only two public examples that I can actually show a link to.
But the fact is that I heard (or read) "progressives", just normal everyday people, excuse acts of terror usually by blaming America in some fashion.
They also vehemently attacked Bush for measures he took to keep us safe....everyone knows that.
You also I'm sure realize that Al Qaeda attacked us first while Bill Clinton was in office.
The 911 Commission later agreed that his approach to dealing with terrorism was weak. The wall that his administration erected between the CIA, NSA, and FBI actually caused our intelligence agencies not to share information that may well have prevented 911.....remember "connecting the dots"? Treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue only was also very lame. We also now know that his administration called-off air strikes that would have killed Bin Laden. The Clinton years saw our intelligence agencies gutted of "on the ground" intelligence because he didn't like the fact that sometimes you have to deal with unsavory characters to glean intelligence.
These are things that make one wonder about how serious Liberals are about combating terror.
The Obama Administration can't even use the "t-word" when someone shouts "Allah Akbar" Nuff said?
The Obama Administration can't even use the "t-word" when someone shouts "Allah Akbar" Nuff said?
It means God is Great in Arabic. So now everyone who speaks some version of Arabic is a terrorist? That's surprising coming from you, Chanel, one of those on the right with more common sense than some of the others.
Discuss.
It's democrats that want terrorist trials in normal court rooms in New York City rather than military tribunals one be one reason, imo.....
It's democrats that want terrorist trials in normal court rooms in New York City rather than military tribunals one be one reason, imo.....
lol i love this flipped talking point....
Trial by military commission of the Guantanamo detainees
Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007. One detainee, David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence.[6] Two cases were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007, and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007.[7] One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade. The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system. The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved.