A terrorist detonates an atomic bomb or releases weaponized Ebola in a US City

[gautama]

Oh really?

Authorizing the use of our military does not constitute a declaration of WAR.

There is no way to declare WAR on an ideology. You have to have a specific entity or country to declare war against. You can't wage war against a concept.

Who won the War on Poverty? Who won the War on Drugs?

Well libtard, that's too bad because they are at war with us.

Whether or not you thumbsucking liberals want to acknowledge it or not.

they,,,who is...they ? a shadowy boogie man that could be anyone anywhere...after all if you are not with us ...you are with the terrorist...perhaps we could use sanctions on they like refuse them medical treatment ..groceries and gas for their car before we declare war on the theys

You definitely do NOT leave any doubt about your abysmal stupidity AND ignorance do you ?????

They ?????? THEY?????? WHO ARE "THEY" ?????????

Do Muslim doo-eating terrorists have to slice YOUR MOTHER's or Wife's or Daughter's toes.....one at a time. Then fingers.....one at a time. Then Legs, arms. Having them look like a bloody Baseball third base ? Then betwixt giggles do the ears, nose, eyes.....then with the final chop of the head make the similarity with the third base complete ???

What kind of a Libtard dimwit are you ?????

 

[Article 15]

Well libtard, that's too bad because they are at war with us.

Whether or not you thumbsucking liberals want to acknowledge it or not.

they,,,who is...they ? a shadowy boogie man that could be anyone anywhere...after all if you are not with us ...you are with the terrorist...perhaps we could use sanctions on they like refuse them medical treatment ..groceries and gas for their car before we declare war on the theys

You definitely do NOT leave any doubt about your abysmal stupidity AND ignorance do you ?????

They ?????? THEY?????? WHO ARE "THEY" ?????????

Do Muslim doo-eating terrorists have to slice YOUR MOTHER's or Wife's or Daughter's toes.....one at a time. Then fingers.....one at a time. Then Legs, arms. Having them look like a bloody Baseball third base ? Then betwixt giggles do the ears, nose, eyes.....then with the final chop of the head make the similarity with the third base complete ???

What kind of a Libtard dimwit are you ?????

Pure fear mongering hogwash.

If you are sitting behind your computer genuinely fearful that there is even a lottery ticket's chance that a terrorist is going to someday show up at your door and do something like this to you and your family then you are nuttier than I first thought.

 

[Ravi]

The fact is Frank even if some libs will never get it until a 911 happens in their town or someone that is close to them die by the hands of a terrorist. They'll change their tune fast then.

All Libs are conservative when it comes to their ever day life. They balance their check book, they live within their means. If they were true liberals why don't they practice what they preach? I mean come on they have a few extra hundred bucks a month why are they not giving that back to the IRS, or just going to the local walmart and handing it out.

You see all these policy's are fine with them because they haven't felt that pinch YET, but they soon will start to feel it and the sad thing is. Even then they will not admit it openly. They lack integrity, a character flaw of the worst kind brought to you by the Gov. Union Education system.

Exactly...look how New Yorkers, the biggest liberals on the planet, now cower in fear so much they're willing to give up their constitutional rights to show the terrorists how much they fear them.

 

[Ravi]

I nominate Quentin as most "The Poster Most Likely to be on Obama's Payroll"

The individual in my "masturbatory fantasy" is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME! It is an act of War.

Holding up a Liquor Store = Crime

Detonating atomic bomb in US city = Act of War.

Clue: Get One Today

Not only am I not on his payroll, I can't stand Obama. He's a terrible president.

Can't stand the Democratic party either. This isn't about politics. It's about the rule of law and foundational principles our country was founded on.

You can't throw out a principle when it's inconvenient, otherwise it isn't a principle. Likewise, you can't throw out the Constitution in the face of terrorism just because you're oh so frightened.

If the Russian military detonates an atomic bomb in a US city, it's an act of war. If a wacko, or group of wackos, detonates an atomic bomb in a US city, it's a massive crime.

All definitions throughout modern history have defined acts of war as the the actions of one nation against another. You can't just make shit up as you go.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to CrusaderFrank again..."

You can go on patting each other on the back until your palms bleed, the fact is neither of you has a leg to stand on which is why you've stopped even attempting to refute all the evidence I provided that directly contradicts all of your premises and claims and switched to lame attempts at ad hominems.

Jihadists have no standing under the US Constitution. NONE.

We're in Bizzaroland where US Marines must shout out Miranda warning before returning fire or capturing someone planting an IED.

US Democrats and Jihadists all want the same things out of life: end of US Civil Society

You really do get the win for most hysterical poster at USMB.

Are you willing to give up your guns to protect yourself from terrorism?

 

[QUENTIN]

Qwentin:

You are being intentionally dishonest and disingenuous.

We all believe in trials, not just you pontificating gasbag liberoidals.

We believe in trials for all persons accused of committing CRIMES.

Historically, until recently, we have never espoused the belief that enemy sabateours or spies deserve "trials" in our civilian criminal justice system for "crimes." For what THEY do is not a matter of criminal law. What they do is a matter of WAR.

You could NEVER get one of the Founders or Framers to accept YOUR stupid notion that terrorists deserve a criminal trial.

You go on pretending, though. I'm sure you can confuse a few newbie liberoidals along the way.

I'm not, I'm just familiar with precedent and law.

The terrorism suspects being discussed are not spies or saboteurs for the Iraqi or Afghani governments. So they're unrelated to the wars we're in.

As for spies and saboteurs, you're just wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about, as the facts demonstrate.

Since WWII, all the major cases of spies and saboteurs have been tried in US criminal court for their CRIMES.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried for spying and treason in criminal court for selling secrets to the Soviets. They were convicted and given the death penalty.

Robert Hanssen was charged with 15 counts of conspiracy and espionage in Virginia federal criminal court, plead guilty, and received life in Florence ADX supermax.

Aldrich Ames was tried in US criminal court for spying and received life in prison in a high security detention center in Allenwood, PA.

Earl Pitts and his wife were charged in New York criminal court with espionage and received 27-years in federal high security prison.

Harold Nicholson was charged with conspiracy and selling state secrets in US criminal court and received a 23 1/2 year sentence in federal high security prison.

George Trofimoff was charged with espionage in US federal court in Florida and received a life sentence in federal high security prison.

etc. etc...

The only spy or saboteur tried in military courts in the last 60 years is James Hall III who was a member of the military, an Army warrant officer and intelligence analyst, at the time of his crimes. He received a 40-year sentence in Fort Leavenworth military prison.

The eight German spies given military tribunal and executed in WWII were brought to the US on a Nazi military submarine, under orders from the Nazi government, and came ashore wearing German army uniforms, specifically so that they would be tried as POWs not spies if captured.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1866 that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2. This decision was recently upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008 when they ruled in Boumediene v Bush that Guantanamo detainees had a right to habeas corpus and access to US criminal courts under the United States Constitution and that military commissions were an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

Non-military persons are tried in civilian criminal courts, military persons are tried in military courts. This is how the system does, and has always, worked. None of you are appealing to any legal traditions, but are instead trying to do away with hundreds of years or precedent and the rule of law.

 

[namvet]

What should he be charged with?

he got vaporized along with you ya dumb fuck !!!!

 

[QUENTIN]

The extreme secrecy of the federal courts
By Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald

Once conservatives became embarrassed by their cowardly warnings that we would all be killed if we held a 9/11 trial in New York, they switched to a new argument: trials in a real court would lead to the disclosure of classified information that would help the Terrorists. In advancing this claim, they relied on the always-unhinged rantings of National Review's Andy McCarthy -- who has also suggested that Bill Ayers was the real author of Barack Obama's "Dreams from my Father"; attacked his own editors for pointing out the falsehoods of Sarah Palin's "death panel" claims, which McCarthy insisted were true; defended the Birther movement and dissented from NR's editorial rejection of it; and was excoriated by Rich Lowry for claiming that Obama "rather likes tyrants and dislikes America." This person -- someone who is often too fringe, hysterical and delusional even for National Review -- is the "legal expert" on which the Right is relying to claim that real trials will jeopardize classified information.

To see how false this claim is, all anyone ever had to was look at the Classified Information Procedures Act, a short and crystal clear 1980 law that not only permits, but requires, federal courts to undertake extreme measures to ensure the concealment of classified information, even including concealment from the defendant himself. Section 3 provides: "Upon motion of the United States, the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States." Section 9 required the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to consult with the Attorney General and Defense Secretary to develop rules to carry out the Act's requirements, and the resulting guidelines provide for draconian measures so extreme that it's hard to believe they can exist in a judicial system that it supposed to be open and transparent.

To see how severe these secrecy measures are, consider what is currently being done in the criminal case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first accused Terrorists sent by the Obama administration to New York to stand trial after being interrogated and tortured for years in CIA black sites and at Guantanamo with no charges:

To ensure that secrets do not leak, Judge Kaplan has imposed a protective order on all classified information, which may be reviewed by the defense lawyers only in a special "secure area," a room whose location has not been disclosed.

The order covers all materials that might "reveal the foreign countries in which" Mr. Ghailani was held from 2004 to 2006 -- the period when he was in the secret jails -- and the names and even physical descriptions of any officer responsible for his detention or interrogation, the order says.

It also covers information about "enhanced interrogation techniques that were applied" to Mr. Ghailani, "including descriptions of the techniques as applied, the duration, frequency, sequencing, and limitations of those techniques."

The defense lawyers, who had to obtain security clearance, cannot disclose the information to Mr. Ghailani without permission of the court or the government. Any motions they write based on the material must be prepared in the special room, and nothing may be filed publicly until it is reviewed by the government.

So, last Monday, when Mr. Ghailani’s lawyers filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges because of "the unnecessary delay in bringing the defendant to trial," they included only a few mostly blank cover sheets.

The rest of the motion, which presumably offers rich details about Mr. Ghailani’s time in detention, remains secret, and a censored version will be made public only after it is cleared by the government.

Does that sound like a judicial process incapable of concealing secrets, or does it sound more like a Star Chamber where the justice system operates in the dark, even to sheild government torture and illegal prisons from disclsoure? Many federal judges -- particularly in criminal cases -- are notorious for being highly sympathetic to the government. That's even more true in a case involving one of the most hated criminal defendants ever to be tried in an American court, sitting a very short distance from the site where he is alleged to have killed 3,000 people in a terrorist attack. And note that the law permits the judge no discretion: if the Government claims something is classified, then "the court shall issue an order to protect against the disclosure of any classified information." With some exceptions, ever since the "War on Terror" began, nobody has safeguarded government secrets as dutifully and subserviently as federal judges -- even when those secrets involve allegations of war crimes and other serious felonies. That's what DOJ officials mean when they keep praising Southern District of New York judges for their supreme competence and expertise in handling terrorism cases. Federal courts in general love to keep what is supposed to be their open proceedings a secret, but that instinct is magnified exponentionally in national security and terrorism cases.

Even during the Bush years, numerous defendants accused of terrorist acts were tried and convicted in federal courts -- John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, Ali al-Marri, Jose Padilla. Those spewing the latest right-wing scare tactic (Osama bin Laden will learn everything if we have trials!) cannot point to a single piece of classified information that was disclosed as a result of any of these trials. If that were a legitimate fear, wouldn't they be able to? Like most American institutions, our federal court system is empowered to shield from public disclosure anything the government claims is secret. Just look at the extreme measures invoked in the Ghailani case to see how true that is.

 

[concept]

Oh really?

Authorizing the use of our military does not constitute a declaration of WAR.

There is no way to declare WAR on an ideology. You have to have a specific entity or country to declare war against. You can't wage war against a concept.

Who won the War on Poverty? Who won the War on Drugs?

Well libtard, that's too bad because they are at war with us.

Whether or not you thumbsucking liberals want to acknowledge it or not.

they,,,who is...they ? a shadowy boogie man that could be anyone anywhere...after all if you are not with us ...you are with the terrorist...perhaps we could use sanctions on they like refuse them medical treatment ..groceries and gas for their car before we declare war on the theys

Thank you Alex Jones.

Did you check your corn flakes for IEDs this morning?

I'm sure I saw BOOOOOOSSSHHHHH rummaging around your kitchen...

 

[Liability]

they,,,who is...they ? a shadowy boogie man that could be anyone anywhere...after all if you are not with us ...you are with the terrorist...perhaps we could use sanctions on they like refuse them medical treatment ..groceries and gas for their car before we declare war on the theys

You definitely do NOT leave any doubt about your abysmal stupidity AND ignorance do you ?????

They ?????? THEY?????? WHO ARE "THEY" ?????????

Do Muslim doo-eating terrorists have to slice YOUR MOTHER's or Wife's or Daughter's toes.....one at a time. Then fingers.....one at a time. Then Legs, arms. Having them look like a bloody Baseball third base ? Then betwixt giggles do the ears, nose, eyes.....then with the final chop of the head make the similarity with the third base complete ???

What kind of a Libtard dimwit are you ?????

Pure fear mongering hogwash.

If you are sitting behind your computer genuinely fearful that there is even a lottery ticket's chance that a terrorist is going to someday show up at your door and do something like this to you and your family then you are nuttier than I first thought.

Yeah. Because any one of the roughly 3000 souls lost on 9/11/2001 who ever thought ("fearfully," at least) that terrorists might some day snufff out their life or the lives of any of their loved ones was just being

silly.


That argument is a loser from jump street. Being mindful that the scumbag shitfuckers ARE out to get us is not the same thing as cowering under the covers at night. I have seen that "argument" made many times before, but it remains an entirely disingenuous argument.

I mean, hell; I have smoke detectors in my house. I don't live in dread of fires.

 

[Liability]

Qwentin:

You are being intentionally dishonest and disingenuous.

We all believe in trials, not just you pontificating gasbag liberoidals.

We believe in trials for all persons accused of committing CRIMES.

Historically, until recently, we have never espoused the belief that enemy sabateours or spies deserve "trials" in our civilian criminal justice system for "crimes." For what THEY do is not a matter of criminal law. What they do is a matter of WAR.

You could NEVER get one of the Founders or Framers to accept YOUR stupid notion that terrorists deserve a criminal trial.

You go on pretending, though. I'm sure you can confuse a few newbie liberoidals along the way.

I'm not, I'm just familiar with precedent and law.* * * *

Wow. And you can even randomly highlight a letter in a correctly spelled word, too (albeit for no apparent reason).

I'm so very happy that you have what you consider some passing familiarity with precedent.

That's adorable.

Now, cite the precedent whereby the U.S. is somehow obligated to give terrorists a criminal trial.

(Wow. I can highlight all the letters of a correctly spelled word. This is fun!)

 

[Article 15]

You definitely do NOT leave any doubt about your abysmal stupidity AND ignorance do you ?????

They ?????? THEY?????? WHO ARE "THEY" ?????????

Do Muslim doo-eating terrorists have to slice YOUR MOTHER's or Wife's or Daughter's toes.....one at a time. Then fingers.....one at a time. Then Legs, arms. Having them look like a bloody Baseball third base ? Then betwixt giggles do the ears, nose, eyes.....then with the final chop of the head make the similarity with the third base complete ???

What kind of a Libtard dimwit are you ?????

Pure fear mongering hogwash.

If you are sitting behind your computer genuinely fearful that there is even a lottery ticket's chance that a terrorist is going to someday show up at your door and do something like this to you and your family then you are nuttier than I first thought.

Yeah. Because any one of the roughly 3000 souls lost on 9/11/2001 who ever thought ("fearfully," at least) that terrorists might some day snufff out their life or the lives of any of their loved ones was just being

silly.


That argument is a loser from jump street. Being mindful that the scumbag shitfuckers ARE out to get us is not the same thing as cowering under the covers at night. I have seen that "argument" made many times before, but it remains an entirely disingenuous argument.

I mean, hell; I have smoke detectors in my house. I don't live in dread of fires.

3000/300,000,000 in a one time shot that took years to plan and execute ...

I'm quite comfortable with my point.

Be mindful? Of course.

Buy into the fear mongering hyperbole like the post I was responding to? Not so much.

 

[Liability]

Pure fear mongering hogwash.

If you are sitting behind your computer genuinely fearful that there is even a lottery ticket's chance that a terrorist is going to someday show up at your door and do something like this to you and your family then you are nuttier than I first thought.

Yeah. Because any one of the roughly 3000 souls lost on 9/11/2001 who ever thought ("fearfully," at least) that terrorists might some day snufff out their life or the lives of any of their loved ones was just being

silly.


That argument is a loser from jump street. Being mindful that the scumbag shitfuckers ARE out to get us is not the same thing as cowering under the covers at night. I have seen that "argument" made many times before, but it remains an entirely disingenuous argument.

I mean, hell; I have smoke detectors in my house. I don't live in dread of fires.

3000/300,000,000 in a one time shot that took years to plan and execute ...

I'm quite comfortable with my point.

Be mindful? Of course.

Buy into the fear mongering hyperbole like the post I was responding to? Not so much.

I accept part of that distinction. The post to which you responded was graphic, perhaps, but I wonder if Daniel Pearl's wife would consider it unrealistic?

And the point of the 9/11/2001 example is not that the odds are 3,000 out of 300,000,000.

The enemies of the West ARE still planning. "Nations," like Iran, are still striving to acquire nuclear weapons. They ARE run by some of the same Islamofascist shitheads that thought the 9/11 atrocities were a good idea and ordained by Allah. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons capacity, is it truly that difficult to imagine a scenario whereby some of the folks who think like Ahmanazinutjob thinks might obtain nuclear weapons (from Iran) to take-on the Great Satan?

How many attacks have been thrwarted by the intel we obtained via the PATRIOT Act or the NSA "surveillance" program or similar efforts? How many of those would-be attacks would have been what the Islamofuckers liked to call a "spectacular?"

We need to be MORE than just "mindful." We need to be very proactive in obtaining EXACTLY that kind of ongoing intel. For I don't know about others, but I for one would not feel content in knowing (if there is some new 9/11 type attack someday) that it was "only" a few thousand or a few tens of thosuands of my fellow Americans who got slaughtered. Not if we COULD have prevented the bastards from "succeeding" but lacked the WILL to try hard enough.

 

[gautama]

Yeah. Because any one of the roughly 3000 souls lost on 9/11/2001 who ever thought ("fearfully," at least) that terrorists might some day snufff out their life or the lives of any of their loved ones was just being

silly.


That argument is a loser from jump street. Being mindful that the scumbag shitfuckers ARE out to get us is not the same thing as cowering under the covers at night. I have seen that "argument" made many times before, but it remains an entirely disingenuous argument.

I mean, hell; I have smoke detectors in my house. I don't live in dread of fires.

3000/300,000,000 in a one time shot that took years to plan and execute ...

I'm quite comfortable with my point.

Be mindful? Of course.

Buy into the fear mongering hyperbole like the post I was responding to? Not so much.

I accept part of that distinction. The post to which you responded was graphic, perhaps, but I wonder if Daniel Pearl's wife would consider it unrealistic?

And the point of the 9/11/2001 example is not that the odds are 3,000 out of 300,000,000.

The enemies of the West ARE still planning. "Nations," like Iran, are still striving to acquire nuclear weapons. They ARE run by some of the same Islamofascist shitheads that thought the 9/11 atrocities were a good idea and ordained by Allah. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons capacity, is it truly that difficult to imagine a scenario whereby some of the folks who think like Ahmanazinutjob thinks might obtain nuclear weapons (from Iran) to take-on the Great Satan?

How many attacks have been thrwarted by the intel we obtained via the PATRIOT Act or the NSA "surveillance" program or similar efforts? How many of those would-be attacks would have been what the Islamofuckers liked to call a "spectacular?"

We need to be MORE than just "mindful." We need to be very proactive in obtaining EXACTLY that kind of ongoing intel. For I don't know about others, but I for one would not feel content in knowing (if there is some new 9/11 type attack someday) that it was "only" a few thousand or a few tens of thosuands of my fellow Americans who got slaughtered. Not if we COULD have prevented the bastards from "succeeding" but lacked the WILL to try hard enough.

There is a certain tack one must take with flaming Libtards, and Article 15 is obviously one of them.

It is the height of idiocy to assume that you can insert even an iota of TRUTH about the BLATANTLY OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOUR , publicly displayed on National TV, of this Marxist, Muslimdoo eating PC protective Obami Salami.

It means nothing to these Libtard's that Obami-Salami has a MARXIST background.....IS A MARXIST.... and his present agenda confirms that.

The TWENTY YEAR tenure in the Black Racist Whackjob Church of his self-acknowledged "pastor, friend,and mentor" Wright whose self-confessed idol is the Most Notorious Anti-Semite, Whitey-Hating Black Racist Swine in America's History, Louis Farrakhan of the "Nation of Islam".....and then for this pathological LIAR to claim that he didn't know about Whackjob Wright's psychosis ?????

Obami's REPEATED self-acknowledged friendship with the UNREPENTANT, HOMICIDAL and MANIACAL TERRORIST Bill Ayers with whom he worked at ACORN as the Lawyer-in-chief prepping his scamsters on how to avoid veracity probes. Made numerous speeches together. And, from whose home Obami Salami kicked off his Senatorial Campaign ...... then, finally, when the heat was really turned on, came the repudiation of Ayers and I quote THE LIAR that Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood he knew".

I could go on and on......but one of the NUMEROUS RECENT LIES that I can't resist in spite of time and space constraints is Obami Salami's CONTINUOUS, STRIDENT, and FLAMBOYANT INSISTENCE that he would have "TOTAL TRANSPARENCY". Recently, one of his many speeches on this subject was aired on National TV where he claimed that: "all major policy decisions would be TELEVISED on National TV scrutinizing every congressman's every argument and position so that the voters would know how to vote." To show what a WHOPPER that is, I have only one word: PELOSI.

So......my point is that in spite of this BLATANT OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOUR, and ARROGANT LIES......nothing makes the slightest effect on the typical Libtards like article 15.

So, I assume that you obviously know that.

And, like me and the others like us.....you are are providing ammunition so that we can better refute these Obamatons to the scattered few naive Independents.

 

[Article 15]

3000/300,000,000 in a one time shot that took years to plan and execute ...

I'm quite comfortable with my point.

Be mindful? Of course.

Buy into the fear mongering hyperbole like the post I was responding to? Not so much.

I accept part of that distinction. The post to which you responded was graphic, perhaps, but I wonder if Daniel Pearl's wife would consider it unrealistic?

And the point of the 9/11/2001 example is not that the odds are 3,000 out of 300,000,000.

The enemies of the West ARE still planning. "Nations," like Iran, are still striving to acquire nuclear weapons. They ARE run by some of the same Islamofascist shitheads that thought the 9/11 atrocities were a good idea and ordained by Allah. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons capacity, is it truly that difficult to imagine a scenario whereby some of the folks who think like Ahmanazinutjob thinks might obtain nuclear weapons (from Iran) to take-on the Great Satan?

How many attacks have been thrwarted by the intel we obtained via the PATRIOT Act or the NSA "surveillance" program or similar efforts? How many of those would-be attacks would have been what the Islamofuckers liked to call a "spectacular?"

We need to be MORE than just "mindful." We need to be very proactive in obtaining EXACTLY that kind of ongoing intel. For I don't know about others, but I for one would not feel content in knowing (if there is some new 9/11 type attack someday) that it was "only" a few thousand or a few tens of thosuands of my fellow Americans who got slaughtered. Not if we COULD have prevented the bastards from "succeeding" but lacked the WILL to try hard enough.

There is a certain tack one must take with flaming Libtards, and Article 15 is obviously one of them.

It is the height of idiocy to assume that you can insert even an iota of TRUTH about the BLATANTLY OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOUR , publicly displayed on National TV, of this Marxist, Muslimdoo eating PC protective Obami Salami.

It means nothing to these Libtard's that Obami-Salami has a MARXIST background.....IS A MARXIST.... and his present agenda confirms that.

The TWENTY YEAR tenure in the Black Racist Whackjob Church of his self-acknowledged "pastor, friend,and mentor" Wright whose self-confessed idol is the Most Notorious Anti-Semite, Whitey-Hating Black Racist Swine in America's History, Louis Farrakhan of the "Nation of Islam".....and then for this pathological LIAR to claim that he didn't know about Whackjob Wright's psychosis ?????

Obami's REPEATED self-acknowledged friendship with the UNREPENTANT, HOMICIDAL and MANIACAL TERRORIST Bill Ayers with whom he worked at ACORN as the Lawyer-in-chief prepping his scamsters on how to avoid veracity probes. Made numerous speeches together. And, from whose home Obami Salami kicked off his Senatorial Campaign ...... then, finally, when the heat was really turned on, came the repudiation of Ayers and I quote THE LIAR that Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood he knew".

I could go on and on......but one of the NUMEROUS RECENT LIES that I can't resist in spite of time and space constraints is Obami Salami's CONTINUOUS, STRIDENT, and FLAMBOYANT INSISTENCE that he would have "TOTAL TRANSPARENCY". Recently, one of his many speeches on this subject was aired on National TV where he claimed that: "all major policy decisions would be TELEVISED on National TV scrutinizing every congressman's every argument and position so that the voters would know how to vote." To show what a WHOPPER that is, I have only one word: PELOSI.

So......my point is that in spite of this BLATANT OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOUR, and ARROGANT LIES......nothing makes the slightest effect on the typical Libtards like article 15.

So, I assume that you obviously know that.

And, like me and the others like us.....you are are providing ammunition so that we can better refute these Obamatons to the scattered few naive Independents.

You're are nothing but a raving lunatic who is scared of his own shadow.

A total nutter.

 

[Article 15]

Yeah. Because any one of the roughly 3000 souls lost on 9/11/2001 who ever thought ("fearfully," at least) that terrorists might some day snufff out their life or the lives of any of their loved ones was just being

silly.


That argument is a loser from jump street. Being mindful that the scumbag shitfuckers ARE out to get us is not the same thing as cowering under the covers at night. I have seen that "argument" made many times before, but it remains an entirely disingenuous argument.

I mean, hell; I have smoke detectors in my house. I don't live in dread of fires.

3000/300,000,000 in a one time shot that took years to plan and execute ...

I'm quite comfortable with my point.

Be mindful? Of course.

Buy into the fear mongering hyperbole like the post I was responding to? Not so much.

I accept part of that distinction. The post to which you responded was graphic, perhaps, but I wonder if Daniel Pearl's wife would consider it unrealistic?

And the point of the 9/11/2001 example is not that the odds are 3,000 out of 300,000,000.

The enemies of the West ARE still planning. "Nations," like Iran, are still striving to acquire nuclear weapons. They ARE run by some of the same Islamofascist shitheads that thought the 9/11 atrocities were a good idea and ordained by Allah. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons capacity, is it truly that difficult to imagine a scenario whereby some of the folks who think like Ahmanazinutjob thinks might obtain nuclear weapons (from Iran) to take-on the Great Satan?

Ahmadinejad isn't the boss in Iran. You and I both know that. If they do become nuclear capable and are actually dumb enough to try to use it they will hit Israel, not us. Either way, a nuclear attack from Iran guarantees their destruction.

How many attacks have been thrwarted by the intel we obtained via the PATRIOT Act or the NSA "surveillance" program or similar efforts?

I dunno ... several I would assume. Can you prove that without the Patriot Act they wouldn't have been thwarted?

How many of those would-be attacks would have been what the Islamofuckers liked to call a "spectacular?"

I dunno. Nor do you.

We need to be MORE than just "mindful." We need to be very proactive in obtaining EXACTLY that kind of ongoing intel. For I don't know about others, but I for one would not feel content in knowing (if there is some new 9/11 type attack someday) that it was "only" a few thousand or a few tens of thosuands of my fellow Americans who got slaughtered. Not if we COULD have prevented the bastards from "succeeding" but lacked the WILL to try hard enough.

I agree that we need to do our best to prevent these types of attacks from happening. Are you under the impression that I'm not?

All I did was call the fear mongering spade a fear mongering spade ...

 

[gautama]

3000/300,000,000 in a one time shot that took years to plan and execute ...

I'm quite comfortable with my point.

Be mindful? Of course.

Buy into the fear mongering hyperbole like the post I was responding to? Not so much.

I accept part of that distinction. The post to which you responded was graphic, perhaps, but I wonder if Daniel Pearl's wife would consider it unrealistic?

And the point of the 9/11/2001 example is not that the odds are 3,000 out of 300,000,000.

The enemies of the West ARE still planning. "Nations," like Iran, are still striving to acquire nuclear weapons. They ARE run by some of the same Islamofascist shitheads that thought the 9/11 atrocities were a good idea and ordained by Allah. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons capacity, is it truly that difficult to imagine a scenario whereby some of the folks who think like Ahmanazinutjob thinks might obtain nuclear weapons (from Iran) to take-on the Great Satan?

Ahmadinejad isn't the boss in Iran. You and I both know that. If they do become nuclear capable and are actually dumb enough to try to use it they will hit Israel, not us. Either way, a nuclear attack from Iran guarantees their destruction.



I dunno ... several I would assume. Can you prove that without the Patriot Act they wouldn't have been thwarted?

How many of those would-be attacks would have been what the Islamofuckers liked to call a "spectacular?"

I dunno. Nor do you.

We need to be MORE than just "mindful." We need to be very proactive in obtaining EXACTLY that kind of ongoing intel. For I don't know about others, but I for one would not feel content in knowing (if there is some new 9/11 type attack someday) that it was "only" a few thousand or a few tens of thosuands of my fellow Americans who got slaughtered. Not if we COULD have prevented the bastards from "succeeding" but lacked the WILL to try hard enough.

I agree that we need to do our best to prevent these types of attacks from happening. Are you under the impression that I'm not?

All I did was call the fear mongering spade a fear mongering spade ...

All you're doing is proving my point. And that is: you and your type are clueless. You are an easy prey for a Political Charlatan. Every country has political morons like you.

 

[xotoxi]

Catch him and waterboard him until he has given you some names.

 

[xotoxi]

Libruls hate answering question that ridicules them and show the folly of their "thinking"

I really don't understand what the fuck you are talking about.

Are you implying that liberals would want to charge him with a misdemeanor and give him a suspended sentence?

 

[Article 15]

I accept part of that distinction. The post to which you responded was graphic, perhaps, but I wonder if Daniel Pearl's wife would consider it unrealistic?

And the point of the 9/11/2001 example is not that the odds are 3,000 out of 300,000,000.

The enemies of the West ARE still planning. "Nations," like Iran, are still striving to acquire nuclear weapons. They ARE run by some of the same Islamofascist shitheads that thought the 9/11 atrocities were a good idea and ordained by Allah. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons capacity, is it truly that difficult to imagine a scenario whereby some of the folks who think like Ahmanazinutjob thinks might obtain nuclear weapons (from Iran) to take-on the Great Satan?

Ahmadinejad isn't the boss in Iran. You and I both know that. If they do become nuclear capable and are actually dumb enough to try to use it they will hit Israel, not us. Either way, a nuclear attack from Iran guarantees their destruction.



I dunno ... several I would assume. Can you prove that without the Patriot Act they wouldn't have been thwarted?



I dunno. Nor do you.

We need to be MORE than just "mindful." We need to be very proactive in obtaining EXACTLY that kind of ongoing intel. For I don't know about others, but I for one would not feel content in knowing (if there is some new 9/11 type attack someday) that it was "only" a few thousand or a few tens of thosuands of my fellow Americans who got slaughtered. Not if we COULD have prevented the bastards from "succeeding" but lacked the WILL to try hard enough.

I agree that we need to do our best to prevent these types of attacks from happening. Are you under the impression that I'm not?

All I did was call the fear mongering spade a fear mongering spade ...

All you're doing is proving my point. And that is: you and your type is clueless. You are an easy prey for a Political Charlatan. Every country has political morons like you.

Nothing has been proven. Where you walk cowering and afraid, I walk fearless and unaffected by those who wish to do us harm. When terror strikes, people like you are are the ones who give in to the terrorists. You are the ones calling for profiling, deportation, irrational wars, giving the gov't vast power in which to spy on their own people, and calling people who disagree with your policies traitors, anti-American, terrorist sympathizers, etc. The terrorists love to see that. For people like you the end always justifies the means no matter what they are. The worst part is that you can't win a war against terror no more you can win a war on poverty. So there is no end to justify your means. The threat is always there, it isn't going away. It's clear that you are the one who the terrorists feed on, not me. You are the one willing give up part of your way of life for some cozy feeling of security.

And as for me? When terror did strike and I wanted to do something about it, instead of hiding under my blankie and looking to the gov't to save me I went and signed a dotted line took a trip to the AOR and did my part.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmm lemme see, we caught a few guys after the first WTC attack and brought them to trial, how'd that work out for us, I mean putting aside that whole 9/11 thingy.