The first time, they rented a truck and tried to knock the towers down by detonating it in the underground parking garage.
When that failed, they regrouped, formed another plan, and meticulously set it in motion. Took years, but they accomplished their objectives, save for that heroic United flight.
The problem with Americans is that they have very short attention spans. They think if the war's not over in 2 or 3 years, it's 'old news' and they move on. If it's not on their TV screens every night, with flashing lights and music like an MTV video, they can't process the information. Out of sight, out of mind. Like the victims of 911 and the noble men and women fighting the war on terror. All forgotten, for the most part, by an impatient, clock-watching public.
Terrorists, on the other hand, know a little something about watching and waiting. In a religious war like they're fighting, time is measured in centuries.
So, I'm sorry, but your little theory just doesn't hold water, and was naive in the extreme.
The simple truth is that there has not been another attack on US soil since Bush has been in office.
Why don't you try to sound just a teensy bit thankful that your hide is safe, and not in a foxhole somewhere, or digging out of the rubble of a bombed-out apartment complex? A little dose of humility, and reality, goes a long way.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
on talking about the war in Iraq, per se, but more about the war on terror.
Does this mean he's targeted another country to "spread freedom" to? With 74% of the American public thinking Iraq was a mistake, I'd LOVE to see him try to sell another war to this Congress, after all his lies the first time.
Having 9/11 being an inside job is only a notch or two lower than using that tragedy to promote his own personal war against Iraq, so I don't think it would surprise me.
I don't know if I can stomach watching him or not, so I haven't decided yet.
Such bad, bad taste! Such a disrespectful man! (I forget...what are the other names he's been called by his honor-challenged haters?)
Dinner Honoring McCain to Be Hosted by Obama
Saturday, January 10, 2009; 2:30 PM
President-elect Barack Obama will host a dinner honoring Sen. John McCain, the Republican he tromped in the election, the night before his inauguration, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced yesterday, saying the gesture demonstrates Obama's "commitment to bridging the bipartisan divide."
The dinner will be one of a series that night: Gen. Colin Powell and Vice President-elect Joe Biden also will be feted.
"In these times of great challenge and great change, leadership requires rising above the same old narrow partisanship," Obama said on the PIC Web site. "Each of these distinguished Americans has spent his life in service to his country, at each and every moment placing the interests of America before issues of political party."
Congressional leaders from both parties will attend the dinners at the National Building Museum, Union Station and the Hilton Washington.
Disability is one thing...poor planning is another
I'm sorry for your situation, and I do believe people who cannot work due to a disability should have help. I'm not heartless. I'm really kind of stumped, because I thought employers and insurance companies could no longer deny/discriminate people a job and/or insurance because of pre-existing conditions. I know that you can't get disability insurance with pre-existing conditions, but again, it's my understanding that no one can be denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. My husband has diabetes and has changed jobs in the last five years and has gotten ins. with no problem.
The problem with most socialized medicine is that if you have a serious condition, say like cancer, at some point they quit treating you. This is what is happening in the U.K. as we speak. So, in a round about way that's being denied health care altogether. You have to then seek it out of pocket, and most of the time you have to leave your home country to pay for it out of pocket.
In a March 17th interview with The Hill, Specter said he absolutely would not switch parties:
"[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.
I'm not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.
I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. It's in the Constitution on separation of powers."
Thanks for the civics lecture, Arlen. Apparently this is just another one of those "inconvenient truths" that got to be more than you could actually live with, eh buddy?
Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, heavily criticized for his agency's slow response to Hurricane Katrina, is starting a disaster preparedness consulting firm to help clients avoid the sort of errors that cost him his job.
If I can help people focus on preparedness, how to be better prepared in their homes and better prepared in their businesses — because that goes straight to the bottom line — then I hope I can help the country in some way, Brown told the Rocky Mountain News for its Thursday editions.
Brown said officials need to take inventory of what's going on in a disaster to be able to answer questions to avoid appearing unaware of how serious a situation is.
In the aftermath of the hurricane, critics complained about Brown's lack of formal emergency management experience and e-mails that later surfaced showed him as out of touch with the extent of the devastation.
The lawyer admits that while he was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency mistakes were made in the response to Katrina. He also said he had been planning to quit before the hurricane hit.
Hurricane Katrina showed how bad disasters can be, and there's an incredible need for individuals and businesses to understand how important preparedness is, he said.
Brown said companies already have expressed interested in his consulting business, Michael D. Brown LLC. He plans to run it from the Boulder area, where he lived before joining the Bush administration in 2001.
I'm doing a lot of good work with some great clients, Brown said. My wife, children and my grandchild still love me. My parents are still proud of me.
Why in hell would I want to convey anything to terrorists but stay hell out of our country or they will die? You, on the other hand want them to like us....I couldn't give a rat's behind what terrorists think about us except that they know we will kick their asses all the way to the meeting with virgins they want so desperately to get their hands on.
If you want to stick flowers in their guns go ahead. I would like to stand back and watch that.
Besides, since when do we let terrorists
decide who is going to be our next President? Are we so insane that we let a suspect endorsement by a terrorist organization sway our votes one way or another? OMG! I honestly can't believe this! I'm wondering what the people in the Twin Towers or the people on those planes on 9/11 (especially the ones that fought the hijackers) would think about their country now? Makes me sad to think that there are people who would cowtow to terrorist organizations. We should really all know better than that.
We will never have terrorists
under control per se, but at least we can give power back to the Muslims who don't want us dead. The more control the terrorists have and the bigger area they have to work in....the more of a threat they are to us. That is what this war means to me.
As for Obama....he himself has ridiculed this war and yet states that he will find Osama Bin Laden. Is he not raging war here? Obama himself has said that he will not take military force off of the table. Who is to say that Obama won't pull us out of Iraq and sent us to Pakistan to rage war there. We can't fight terrorists in Iraq because that is wasteful and wrong, but Obama wants to go to Pakistan and hunt down terrorists....same thing isn't it. Talk about double standards.
He is going to be spending all this money with no funding and says he will save money ending this war but it sounds to me like he could be starting a war elsewhere and then what money will he use to fund his programs.....TAXES....TAXES.....TAXES.........ON EVERYONE!!! Including the middle class that he now supposedly is looking after even though he voted before to raise taxes on us middle folks. Nothing but rhetoric to get in the office.
and yes I dared to use the word TERRORISTS....strike us again on US soil....what will happen to us then? Will Obama go after them and strike back or will the US turn the other cheek to be struck again? If Obama goes after them and no other country backs us.....what will you say then?
The reason these leaders like Obama is because they see weakness. They see an opportunity for the US to fall and they are all chomping at the bit.
North Korea is still talking of launching their missile but hey....I guess since it can hit Alaska that is okay because maybe they will get Palin....huh? One less pub to worry about.
China says they hate us and blame us for the global economy issues and they are using all the money they get from our country to build up their defense.
The Taliban have already said they are planning a strike on Washington. Right there is a warning. So if the Taliban succeed....are ya'll gonna give Obama crap too for not stopping it like you did W. for 9/11 since they had "warnings."
Once again, the die hard party liners here refuse to see the mistakes in their own political party and all they can do is point the finger at the other political party.....which is why I'm an independent.
You all can go on and on about Bushy's war in Iraq but the botton line is this....would you prefer that terrorists still have control of that area? Would you prefer that the woman in that region be beaten by the taliban for talking to a man or not wearing the appropriate attire. Regardless of why we went there or not....we helped the Iraqi's. Yes we tortured to get information that would save people's lives while they captured our people and beheaded them.....yet we are the bad guys. Their whole purpose of existence is to wipe us out. They want us DEAD and now we can't even call them terrorists....are you kidding me?
Seriously.....what is your solution to this problem? Talking to terrorists who want us dead and have no problem blowing themselves up at the same time isn't going to work. The brutal beating of woman just because they exist and are inferior to men......and yet you never hear women's rights group protesting THAT.
But hey.....we have our warning from the Taliban and Obama is cutting money from defense.......makes sense.....doesn't it? I guess the only ones it makes sense too are the MSNBC watching, kool-aid drinking, far-left liberals who swoon everytime Obamanation reads from the teleprompter.
have died being waterboarded? How many terrorists have we brutally tortured to where they have begged for death? How many terrorists have had their head cut off at Gitmo?
It isn't like these acts are done merely for entertainment purposes. They were used to get information out of known terrorists. It was done in an attempt to save lives. It wasn't done in an attempt to destroy lives. All terrorists want to do is destroy us.
As for the treatment at Gitmo, they have it better than prisoners here in the US have it. They get reading material, food, clean clothes, etc. Of all the terrorists at Gitmo....how many were waterboarded? 2-3? Oh my. It isn't like we have waterboarded each and every terrorist and the ones we did waterboard were done because they were high up in the ranks that they would more than likely know more information/plans, etc.
As for my religious beliefs....I would much rather do what has to be done in order to keep our country, families, children, parents, etc. safe than to cuddle people who hate us and wish nothing upon us but death.
This shows you exactly how much you know about the terrorists. sm
And THAT has been the worst part about all this. Bush hatred has not only fried you to crispy critters, it has made you dangerously ignorant.
you are the ones helping the terrorists
It is Bush and you and people who think like you who have put us at risk. We now have a full fledged terrorist state/breeding ground in Iraq because of Bush's war..That has put us at great risk for decades to come. Before Bush invaded, we had a few radicals that if we kept our focus we could have hunted down in Afghanistan and eliminated. Instead Bush invaded Iraq for no go reason other than to have a presence in the Middle East for control of the Middle East. Where is bin Laden? Why are we fighting in Iraq? Why are we there? The real murderer is somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Yet, you people continue to back this war when there is no logical good reason to have entered into it or to stay there. You and your man Bush are helping the terrorists, you have given them every reason to continue to multiply and hate us even more. You are throwing oil on fire. I want to put out the fire.
How many terrorists attacks have we had since 911
nm
Christian Terrorists
Christian terrorism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible and other Christian tenets of faith. From the viewpoint of the terrorist, Christian scripture and theology provide justification for violent political activities.
Abortion clinics have been frequent targets of violence. Christian anti-abortion terrorists and terrorist organizations include the Army of God, The Lambs of Christ, Clayton Waagner, Mike Bray, James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill and Eric Robert Rudolph.
..and announce themselves as terrorists so we can shoot them. Iraq, London and 9/11 would teach us that they are much smarter and more covert than that. Besides, when the London bobbies waved their guns around they ended up killing a Brazilian electrician (I think it was Brazil).
I don't spend my days worrying about what if a terrorist shows up at my house. There really are too many other things in my life that are genuine to wonder about implausible situations such as the one you describe.
That might have worked, if all the terrorists were in Afghanistan. nm
.
There were no terrorists in Iraq... Saddam would not have
allowed anyone other than himself to be the terror! He would have had their heads if they were amassing there as he had TOTAL control of who and what was in his country. He also kept his peoples: the Sunis, the Shiites, and the Kurds on track. He would have never let a civil war happen. As stated, he had total control, now we have unleashed, and helped to create more, infidels.
You should be happy, the terrorists love you.
They are praying to Allah that Democrats will win in this election. Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If they succeed in forcing us to leave under these circumstances, the United States will suffer a stinging defeat in the war on terror. The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not—and no one likes it—we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis. We might as well run a white flag up the flagpole at the Capitol. But then, that would probably be fine with the left, too.
The fact that you think you can negotiate with terrorists....
shows you don't have a grasp of the threat. THEY scoff at diplomacy.
Look at history if you please. Europe loves America at will...when they need us, they love us. WHen they don't, they view us with disdain. If two World Wars have not taught you that, me repeating it here will not help.
And if they yell help again, we will be there, because that is what we do, because we are America. In the mean time, I could not care less if the average German is in love with Barack Obama. When the chips are down for US, they run like scalded dogs. But let them get in a crack, and who do they yell for? It ain't the UN and NATO. THAT is the real world.
Obama does not want to negotiate with terrorists.
nm
At least they're not Muslim terrorists
--
Aah, don't get stuck on color here.... Terrorists
they have been home grown right here in this country.....Ayers, Dohrn, just to name a couple. You know, Obama's pals that his supporters keep hearing the news media they get their info from tell everyone how he hasn't had any dealings with these two or the corrupt white multi-millionnaire realtor he has many associations with AND bought his 1.6 million dollar home from at a STEAL!
His name is Muslim. You want to pretend it's not? Now, that alone is not the issue...his Islamic relationship with terrorists in terrorist countries is the problem, of which you want to ignore. His Islamic teachings is also an issue, of which you also choose to ignore. His own family members say he is Muslim through and through. They say he is NOT a Christian, but of course, you know more than they I'm sure.
came from Sarah Palin. She got the ball rolling on attacking Obama's credibility. Actually she said Obama "palls around with terrorists." Then the McCain/Palin camp started in with the Ayer's subject, trying to dig up dirt on Obama. That is pretty much all they have done throughout the campaign is sling mudd. Obviously the American people are intelligent and not gullible because the majority are casting their votes for Obama.
May the better man win and that man is Obama.
Obama bringing terrorists to the US?
The president-elect's advisers QUIETLY craft a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials.
Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.
Sorry, but I want my tax dollars and priority to focus more on our economy, jobs, war, health care, then bringing terrorists to our country for court. Not a priority on my list. What is he up to, bringing terrorists to the US? Afraid to find out.
...to attack on 9/11. Likewise, it will be the TERRORISTS who will decide when and how to attack again.
I don't believe this has anything to do with WHO the President is, so while Bush shouldn't take the blame, he also shouldn't claim the credit for what the TERRORISTS HAVEN'T done. It's the timetable of the TERRORISTS that controls what does or doesn't happen.
The Republicans felt that another terror attack would be helpful to McCain's campaign (they came out and said so). I don't recall any Democrat uttering anything so UGLY in regards to Obama.
marks the location of current message within thread
