So apparently warrantless spying wasn't really critical?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 18, 2007, 12:22 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/ts_ ... _bush_dc_5

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President Bush has decided not to renew a program of domestic spying on terrorism suspects, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday, ending a tactic criticized for infringing on civil liberties.
ADVERTISEMENT

Gonzales said electronic surveillance will be subject to approval from a secret but independent court, which Democrats in Congress and other critics have demanded during more than a year of fierce debate.

So this program that the administration insisted was absolutely necessary and vociferously defended suddenly isn't necessary now that it is politically inconvienient. Go figure...Bush: Backpedalling in 2007....There is his resolute leadership.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 18, 2007, 12:27 am

Rhetorical Question: Would it matter if it was critical?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 18, 2007, 12:33 am

"Secret but independent court". What exactly does that mean? Other than what it says.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 18, 2007, 12:59 am

Aslanna wrote:"Secret but independent court". What exactly does that mean? Other than what it says.

It means FISA I believe. Technically any Federal judge can issue the warrant...

Noel it might be possible that some condition exists or could exist which would make it critical...I can't concieve of it...And I think at such a point we would be under Martial Law already which would I believe obviate the necessity...I think it would have to be on the scale of an internal civil war...So it might matter but we all know I would still prolly argue against it. And scream and kick til it was repealed...that is my job as a hippy...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2007, 2:01 am

So the administration comes to your opinion and they are wrong for that also? Yet, you don't see how you just bicker because you love conflict?

Here's how it should go...."Oh, thank god the Bush Admin finally caved in and realized this policy wasn't right."

Holy shit already.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 18, 2007, 5:41 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:So the administration comes to your opinion and they are wrong for that also? Yet, you don't see how you just bicker because you love conflict?

Here's how it should go...."Oh, thank god the Bush Admin finally caved in and realized this policy wasn't right."

Holy shit already.

They didn't come to my opinion. They continue to insist the policy was right. But suddenly, for no apparent reason they agree to work with warrants after they insisted it took too long.

Here is how it should go..."We were wrong. We violated your constitutional rights for no good reason."

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 18, 2007, 9:51 am

I don't know about the "no apparent reason" part. They are getting closer to elections and the GOP doesn't want anything to help put Democrats back in the White House......and quite frankly neither do I. The one thing shown by this administration is that checks and balances do not work in today's political landscape with one party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency.

With the Dems back in control in Congress, I am hoping we can scrape a somewhat moderate candidate out and can't see much out there at the moment outside of McCain.

and for the record, not everyone was vehemently against what they were doing. Some of us understand that the peace and love crap only gets you so far you damn hippy.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 18, 2007, 12:13 pm

Personally I would like to see the Republicans gain back the Senate then have a Dem in the WH and them controlling the House. Thus the right bills get started but if it's some whacko "fell off the left side" bill the Senate can stop it...

Marb

Post by **Sylvus** » January 18, 2007, 12:52 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:and for the record, not everyone was vehemently against what they were doing.

Why wouldn't you be though, particularly with 20/20 hindsight? They were infringing on Constitutional rights, and the only reason I can see for finding that acceptable is if you felt that setting aside your rights was the only way to ensure the safety of yourself and your country. If it wasn't necessary, I would be outraged, particularly if I were one of those people who defended the policy from the get-go. As it is, I'm starting to become desensitized to outrage at this administration.

On the other hand, they said it was necessary before, and now it isn't? Were they lying then, or are they setting aside your safety for political gain now? Or have they solved all the problems that existed 2 or 3 years ago? Terrorism no longer a threat?

I can't wait until 2008.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 18, 2007, 1:42 pm

you didn't have to worry about the government violating people's constitutional rights in order to spy on them unless you were a terrorist.

everyone who did not support this is clearly a terrorist.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 18, 2007, 1:56 pm

They were infringing on Constitutional rights, and the only reason I can see for finding that acceptable is if you felt that setting aside your rights was the only way to ensure the safety of yourself and your country

I guess I am one of the people who does not mind them doing something fairly benign to my life in order to possibly spare us another attack. This is not like they are detaining you for a week or something for questioning.

Were they lying then, or are they setting aside your safety for political gain now?

Purely political gain. There is just no bi-partisan politics any longer. You are either Republican or Democrat and there seems there can be no common ground. Both parties look for anything they can cause a stir about and will relentlesly hammer at anything they perceive as a weakness.

I am sure I am viewed as some staunch republican on these boards, but I absolutely abhor the two party system and both parties we have today. I abhor the republicans a little less because I find they are at least a little closer to my views on policies that I tend to care the most about.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 18, 2007, 2:02 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I am sure I am viewed as some staunch republican on these boards, but I absolutely abhor the two party system and both parties we have today. I abhor the republicans a little less because I find they are at least a little closer to my views on policies that I tend to care the most about.

Just as you view me as some kind of liberal, when I'm pretty moderate and hate the two-party system.

I just happen to hate the party that is currently trying to bend me over and stick it in me more than the party that would like to be in the position to do so. And the Democrats seem like they'd at least use a little lube.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » January 18, 2007, 3:16 pm

wow, sounds like a new campaign slogan for the dems:

"We'll fuck you in the ass too, but we'll use lube and give you a reacharound!"

Note: sorry, but it struck me as funny.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2007, 3:17 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:and for the record, not everyone was vehemently against what they were doing.
Why wouldn't you be though, particularly with 20/20 hindsight? They were infringing on Constitutional rights, and the only reason I can see for finding that acceptable is if you felt that setting aside your rights was the only way to ensure the safety of yourself and your country. If it wasn't necessary, I would be outraged, particularly if I were one of those people who defended the policy from the get-go. As it is, I'm starting to become desensitized to outrage at this administration.

On the other hand, they said it was necessary before, and now it isn't? Were they lying then, or are they setting aside your safety for political gain now? Or have they solved all the problems that existed 2 or 3 years ago? Terrorism no longer a threat?

I can't wait until 2008.

Or are you fishing for any reason possible that makes the Republics the bad guy? LOL

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 18, 2007, 3:46 pm

I don't think anyone needs to fish. Plenty of smelly fish just laying around.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 18, 2007, 4:14 pm

Lalanae wrote: I don't think anyone needs to fish. Plenty of smelly fish just laying around.

Legs open again?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2007, 4:23 pm

Lalanae wrote: I don't think anyone needs to fish. Plenty of smelly fish just laying around.

Lalanae,

You can always make anyone you wish look bad. In fact, during every administration I can remember the opposing side has done just that. That is all they do. When are you going to get it? There are just as many just, true, pure-hearted wonderful human beings on the Republic side as there are on the Democrat side. Spin or a lack there of, is what delivers a mass consensus.

Let there be a good 8-16 years of pure Democratic rule and watch the shift. It's so predictably cyclical it's fucking nauseating.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 18, 2007, 4:23 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Or are you fishing for any reason possible that makes the Republics the bad guy? LOL

Please reread the statement that you quoted and point out where I say that "Republics" are bad. I spoke of the current administration (see #6). I am not affiliated with nor do I find any party inherently good or bad. Had I voted in 2000, without the benefit of the hindsight that I have today, I would have voted for Bush. After the traveshamockery they made of the executive branch after the first four years, I did vote for Kerry. Not for any love of Kerry, but because of my disdain for the incumbent. Please also note that an administration can be comprised of people from any political party. I believe Clinton had some republicans in his cabinet, I cannot say with certainty whether Bush has any non-republicans in his, but it's beside the point. Whatever the makeup, they're doing a bad job.

I would denounce any administration - be it Republican, Democrat, Independent or Whig - that so consistently violated the spirit of the Constitution, trampled the rights of its people, practiced horrible foreign policy, stuck to tremendously poor decisions and told outright lies that lead to the deaths of thousands of people. The party that they belong to is irrelevant.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 18, 2007, 4:23 pm

Just because you are mad at me for (in so many words) calling you a deluded idiot on another thread, don't confuse me with the $5 crack whores that frequent your mom's basement.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2007, 4:31 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Or are you fishing for any reason possible that makes the Republics the bad guy? LOL
Please reread the statement that you quoted and point out where I say that "Republics" are bad. I spoke of the current administration (see #6). I am not affiliated with nor do I find any party inherently good or bad. Had I voted in 2000, without the benefit of the hindsight that I have today, I would have voted for Bush. After the traveshamockery they made of the executive branch after the first four years, I did vote for Kerry. Not for any love of Kerry, but because of my disdain for the incumbent. Please also note that an administration can be comprised of people from any political party. I believe Clinton had some republicans in his cabinet, I cannot say with certainty whether Bush has any non-republicans in his, but it's beside the point. Whatever the makeup, they're doing a bad job.

I would denounce any administration - be it Republican, Democrat, Independent or Whig - that so consistently violated the spirit of the Constitution, trampled the rights of its people, practiced horrible foreign policy, stuck to tremendously poor decisions and told outright lies that lead to the deaths of thousands of people. The party that they belong to is irrelevant.

I applaud them for having the balls to do what is necessary to keep us safe. No attacks on our land for over 5 years since 9-11. And then to reduce it now shows they weren't tryign to make it some first step to a re-writting of the constitution os they can be the evil all knowing big brother some idiots thought this was all about.

I was affected. I'm saddened that some arab looking innocents suffered, but I'm fine with it. For the greater good a few people had to pay the price. The need of the many out weigh the need of the one or the few.

You choose to be a vile hate filled person, yet you mask it with concern for a small minority and wave your flag of progression and superior global caring. You make me sick.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 18, 2007, 5:01 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You choose to be a vile hate filled person, yet you mask it with concern for a small minority and wave your flag of progression and superior global caring. You make me sick.

When have I ever been hate-filled, short of my contempt for an ignorant, racist troll like yourself? That's laughable, by the way, that you'd call someone hate-filled. It's like rain on your wedding day... or a free ride when you've already paid. The only thing that I hate in this world is stupidity, so I guess maybe I can understand you seeing me as hate-filled. And what is this "small minority" I care for?

Had this, or any other, administration finished the job in Afghanistan, where fighting terrorism was actually helping keep us safe, I would have supported it. Had they gone after bin Laden, I would have supported it. I support wiretaps, when they make the miniscule effort it takes to follow the letter of the law in obtaining them.

Going to Iraq is not "to do what is necessary to keep us safe". In your view, where as long as you're safe you don't mind the suffering of others, how can you possibly think getting rid of Saddam helped keep you safe whatsoever? The man was not a threat to you in the early 1990s, and he was less of a threat to you in 2003. Going to Iraq definitely did nothing to make you safer, and it's arguable that it made you less safe. In the meantime, several thousand Americans and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives. For what?

You know, someone once said "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." I wish you'd take some time to actually learn from the man in your avatar, rather than just using him as a cute little response to people calling you what you are. That's what makes me sick.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 18, 2007, 5:11 pm

When have I ever been hate-filled, short of my contempt for an ignorant, racist troll like yourself?

So you deny hating OSU?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2007, 6:06 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You choose to be a vile hate filled person, yet you mask it with concern for a small minority and wave your flag of progression and superior global caring. You make me sick.
When have I ever been hate-filled, short of my contempt for an ignorant, racist troll like yourself? That's laughable, by the way, that you'd call someone hate-filled. It's like rain on your wedding day... or a free ride when you've already paid. The only thing that I hate in this world is stupidity, so I guess maybe I can understand you seeing me as hate-filled. And what is this "small minority" I care for?

Had this, or any other, administration finished the job in Afghanistan, where fighting terrorism was actually helping keep us safe, I would have supported it. Had they gone after bin Laden, I would have supported it. I support wiretaps, when they make the miniscule effort it takes to follow the letter of the law in obtaining them.

Going to Iraq is not "to do what is necessary to keep us safe". In your view, where as long as you're safe you don't mind the suffering of others, how can you possibly think getting rid of Saddam helped keep you safe whatsoever? The man was not a threat to you in the early 1990s, and he was less of a threat to you in 2003. Going to Iraq definitely did nothing to make you safer, and it's arguable that it made you less safe. In the meantime, several thousand Americans and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives. For what?

You know, someone once said "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." I wish you'd take some time to actually learn from the man in your avatar, rather than just using him as a cute little response to people calling you what you are. That's what makes me sick.

Keep calling me names, because you don't like being called out on your bullshit. Keeping making it about me, instead of your blind hatred for the government. Keep calling me a racist at every turn. Stupid? I'm quite certain I'm the opposite of stupid. Hmm, I forget what that's called right now, but I'm pretty sure I'm that.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 18, 2007, 6:48 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Keep calling me names, because you don't like being called out on your bullshit. Keeping making it about me, instead of your blind hatred for the government.

Man, you just don't get it. It's not blind hatred to judge the administration on the merits of their actions. In the direct aftermath of 9/11, I thought Bush did a pretty good job of uniting the country. I thought going after Bin Laden and invading Afghanistan was a good idea. Both of those things I said in the post that you label as blind hatred of government. Ever since 2002 or so, they've had a pretty lousy streak of poor decisions, and that's why I hold contempt for them and am eager to see someone else get in there that will (hopefully) make better decisions.

And I'm not calling you names, I'm using the appropriate adjectives to describe you. It's not because you're calling me out on my bullshit, until you described your efforts as such I didn't even realize that's what you were trying to do. I'm merely attempting to shame you into trying to become more informed and intelligent, but apparently that's pointless.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2007, 10:10 pm

Sylvus wrote: Ever since 2002 or so, they've had a pretty lousy streak of poor decisions, and that's why I hold contempt for them and am eager to see someone else get in there that will (hopefully) make better decisions.
.

What were they again? In the end, the Iraqi people have a real chance at a free society and there hasn't been an attack on US soil in over 5 years. It's been a good run.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » January 18, 2007, 10:23 pm

What were they again? In the end, the Iraqi people have a real chance at a free society and there hasn't been an attack on US soil in over 5 years. It's been a good run.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

<reads again>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Animale

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 19, 2007, 12:17 am

A previously unseen image of Midnyte smearing himself in DHS brand terrorist repellent.

9/10 doctors agree, keeps terrorists at bay.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 19, 2007, 12:24 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: You can always make anyone you wish look bad. In fact, during every administration I can remember the opposing side has done just that.

yeah, clinton got in trouble for getting his dick sucked. bush routinely shits on your contitutional rights, and lied to you so he couldstart a fucking illegal war that has cost over 100,000 human lives and half a trillion dollars.

you're such a fucking retard.

Tangurena · Post by **Tangurena** » January 19, 2007, 12:42 am

Arborealus wrote:
Aslanna wrote:"Secret but independent court". What exactly does that mean? Other than what it says.
It means FISA I believe. Technically any Federal judge can issue the warrant...

FISA has historically approved at least 99% of the the requests for secret wiretapping warrants that had been asked for. What the administration did was so illegal that they couldn't even get it past a group that had historically rubberstamped virtually everything.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 19, 2007, 1:15 am

Midnyte, I have a magical rock that keeps the house that it is kept in from burning down. Ever since I had it, my house never caught fire. Would you like to buy it?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 19, 2007, 3:09 am

Lynks wrote:Midnyte, I have a magical rock that keeps the house that it is kept in from burning down. Ever since I had it, my house never caught fire. Would you like to buy it?

He already has one of his own.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 19, 2007, 4:14 am

Lynks wrote:Midnyte, I have a magical rock that keeps the house that it is kept in from burning down. Ever since I had it, my house never caught fire. Would you like to buy it?

Lynks, that isn't the rock...it is the Bush Administration!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 19, 2007, 10:03 am

kyoukan wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: You can always make anyone you wish look bad. In fact, during every administration I can remember the opposing side has done just that.
yeah, clinton got in trouble for getting his dick sucked. bush routinely shits on your contitutional rights, and lied to you so he couldstart a fucking illegal war that has cost over 100,000 human lives and half a trillion dollars.

you're such a fucking retard.

If you think that is all Clinton did, perhaps you should review the laws of the US and check out that little perjury thing he had going on. I don't think many people cared about the blowjob aspect......but when he is on the stand and under oath and lies about something that stupid.....

And on another front, there would be no Afghanistan or Iraq, or 9-11 for that matter if Clinton could have been bothered to put his dick in his pants and go ahead and cap Bin Laden on one of the multiple oppurtunities he had at the time. I guess all those pesky attacks were not worth letting little willie suffer though.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 19, 2007, 10:35 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: You can always make anyone you wish look bad. In fact, during every administration I can remember the opposing side has done just that.
yeah, clinton got in trouble for getting his dick sucked. bush routinely shits on your contitutional rights, and lied to you so he couldstart a fucking illegal war that has cost over 100,000 human lives and half a trillion dollars.

you're such a fucking retard.

If you think that is all Clinton did, perhaps you should review the laws of the US and check out that little perjury thing he had going on. I don't think many people cared about the blowjob aspect......but when he is on the stand and under oath and lies about something that stupid.....

And on another front, there would be no Afghanistan or Iraq, or 9-11 for that matter if Clinton could have been bothered to put his dick in his pants and go ahead and cap Bin Laden on one of the multiple oppurtunities he had at the time. I guess all those pesky attacks were not worth letting little willie suffer though.

Bah, there you go using logic again. Kyo hates that. Just call names and stuff. That's the VV way.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 19, 2007, 12:47 pm

Ah I see the last 2 posters actually believe the bullshit spewed forth from the Republican juggerknot. Listen guys, Clinton had the SAME Terrorism expert in charge that Reagan and Bush Sr. had. If you would go back and check it was the Republican Senate that didn't want us policing the world. Most of the things they were saying in the 90s, Bush did exactly the opposite once he got elected and everyone thought it was freakin' grand... such hypocrites.

You are right though in that it wasn't the blow that got Clinton in trouble, except with the fundies who think that oral sex is a form of sodomy... but I digress. The real issue was that he lied under oath and got caught. However Kyo's point stands. He LIED under oath about a person matter that should have never been even brough up except for the fact that John Robert Starr couldn't find in evidence on his other invistigation and had already wasted over 30 million dollars of OUR money... he had to get something... WTF did it matter? it didn't matter.

And if lying is so bad... then Bush is the worst since we see him do it constantly. Maybe he isn't under oath at a trial but he IS under oath as the President of this great nation... I would say that is actually MORE important. Most Americans have now wisened up to the point that they take what the President says with a grain of salt because they assume he is lying by default... that's a much sadder situation than Clinton was ever in...

As I have said many times, 50 years from now History will see Clinton as one of the Greatest Presidents we have ever had and society will laugh that our government even asked about a person matter. Yet I'm sure Bush will be remembered as the worst or one of the worst who did the most damage possible to our great nation and the world.... that is of course unless the Fundies take control of the nation like V for Vendetta or something some people will probably still be worshipping Bush...

Marb

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 19, 2007, 3:07 pm

Marbus wrote:Ah I see the last 2 posters actually believe the bullshit spewed forth from the Republican juggerknot.

Marb

No Marb. That's just it right there. I don't believe those assholes anymore than the assholes on the left. I'm looking at, wait for it.......wait for it.... the bigger picture. After all the political bullshit, the media conspiracy theories, the supposed constitutional rights, the WOMD we never found....after all that goes away, what you have left is no attacks on US soil since 9/11 and you have the Iraqi people with a real chance at a free future.

Most everyone is stuck on the short term and little things. That is because that's what the political parties and the media want you to focus on that. That's how the political majority just got switched. That's how it always gets switched.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 19, 2007, 3:21 pm

...if Clinton could have been bothered to put his dick in his pants and go ahead and cap Bin Laden on one of the multiple oppurtunities he had at the time.

Yeah because Bush didn't blow his chance to "cap" Bin Laden... oh wait

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 19, 2007, 4:13 pm

Lalanae wrote:
...if Clinton could have been bothered to put his dick in his pants and go ahead and cap Bin Laden on one of the multiple oppurtunities he had at the time.
Yeah because Bush didn't blow his chance to "cap" Bin Laden... oh wait

???

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 19, 2007, 5:43 pm

You keep saying, "No attacks on US soil since 9/11." My question is, when was the last attack before that? And if you are going to count the embassy bombings in Africa, I would like to point out that our embassy in Greece was recently attacked. I don't know if you consider US Embassies as "American Soil" or not.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » January 19, 2007, 6:57 pm

Mid,

What is the COST of those things. You said early on in this process that you believed the benefits would outweigh the cost of this war and we needed to look at the "big picture" of freeing the entire middle east. I disagreed because I thought the risk of failure was too high for such a scenario.

Well, we are basically in a next to worst case scenario now. Iraq is a government on life support, and I would wager will be at least two countries in five years time when the Kurds back out. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. are emboldened by our failure, as by going in with only "the willing" we do not have the manpower/will/money to sustain another long-term occupation in the near to intermediate future. The UN (or other large groups of nations such as NATO, are really the only groups able to do these things. By ignoring their advice and spurning their help, we have created an environment where, by leaving, we are the ones at fault for the blood on the ground.

Basically, by going into Iraq the current administration has hamstrung our ability to make meaningful change in the world. We are stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place where all options are unpleasant. Not only do we need to think about how to make things better from here, but also on how we GOT here in the first place... which is a tale that all of us will need to take to heart.

Animale

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 19, 2007, 10:37 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:And on another front, there would be no Afghanistan or Iraq, or 9-11 for that matter if Clinton could have been bothered to put his dick in his pants and go ahead and cap Bin Laden on one of the multiple oppurtunities he had at the time. I guess all those pesky attacks were not worth letting little willie suffer though.

do you actually believe this incredible retardation that you spew, or does the flaw in your brain just compel you to mash the reply button and bang your fists on the keyboard until something remotely resembling what a free thinking human being would write shows up on your monitor?

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » January 19, 2007, 10:39 pm

Kargyle wrote:I don't know if you consider US Embassies as "American Soil" or not.

Technically, those are American soil.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 19, 2007, 10:42 pm

on one side of their mouths, clinton did a bad job as president because he allowed bin laden to attack america. on the other side of their mouths, america is safer because their hasn't been any attacks on it since 9/11, which occurred during the current president's administration.

I'm just at a complete fucking loss. ridiculing them does nothing. pointing out their enormous stupidity does nothing. they just keep posting and posting over and over.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 19, 2007, 10:53 pm

Vaemas wrote:
Kargyle wrote:I don't know if you consider US Embassies as "American Soil" or not.
Technically, those are American soil.

I know that, but I didn't know if Mid considered them American Soil.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » January 19, 2007, 10:54 pm

Kargyle wrote:
Vaemas wrote:
Kargyle wrote:I don't know if you consider US Embassies as "American Soil" or not.
Technically, those are American soil.
I know that, but I didn't know if Mid considered them American Soil.

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 20, 2007, 12:09 am

Kargyle wrote:
Vaemas wrote:
Kargyle wrote:I don't know if you consider US Embassies as "American Soil" or not.
Technically, those are American soil.
I know that, but I didn't know if Mid considered them American Soil.

Technically they are, yes. But, no I was not taking them into consideration in my point. Thank you though.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 20, 2007, 3:30 pm

My point Mid was that you keep saying no attack since 9/11, but to the best of my knowledge (and I haven't done any research) the last terrorist attack in side the US was the previous World Trade Center bombing in 93. So I don't think saying no attacks since 9/11 really means anything. But I haven't done any research so maybe there have been other since that I just don't remember.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 20, 2007, 5:12 pm

Kargyle wrote:My point Mid was that you keep saying no attack since 9/11, but to the best of my knowledge (and I haven't done any research) the last terrorist attack in side the US was the previous World Trade Center bombing in 93. So I don't think saying no attacks since 9/11 really means anything. But I haven't done any research so maybe there have been other since that I just don't remember.

But, it does mean something. 9/11 was a declaration of war on the US by the terrorists. You really don't think any attacks were foiled in the past 5 years? You really think 9/11 was the only planned attack on the US in over 5 years?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 20, 2007, 8:27 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: But, it does mean something. 9/11 was a declaration of war on the US by the terrorists. You really don't think any attacks were foiled in the past 5 years? You really think 9/11 was the only planned attack on the US in over 5 years?

9/11 was a declaration of war? Now, given you apparently believe everything the government says, they say Bin Laden is the mastermind of 9/11 (and he's greatfully accepted their recognition), so the declaration of war was waaaaay back in 1996 (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/ ... eline.html)

In the intervening 6 years, they managed to plan and execute 9/11, and everyone that's actually in a position to know their ass from their elbow agrees that there was likely nothing you could do to stop it.

So, nothing has happened in 5 years, wow, what an achievement. Every year you've joyfully thrown money and young men's lives away, shrugged off your previously dearly held constitutional rights, and generally pissed on the memories of your herioc forefathers, and your only achievement is that "an incredibly rare event, that has only happened a few times in your entire history, has continued to be rare". Good going.

The best part of course, is that the object of terrorism is terror. It's right there in the word for the slow in the class. Now, given you're about as terrorised as you can possibly be short of minutemen rounding up anyone that looks a bit arab and holding their own version of gitmo, there is no point in attempting an attack now. So, sure, wildly swinging your arms around in the dark to ward off an unseen attacker lets everyone know you're still pissing yourselves, so could well be delaying any planned attacks. Again, good for you.

You should get yourself a binky. Just as effective at making you feel irrationally secure and a lot cheaper than wars against unrelated countries.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 20, 2007, 11:16 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: But, it does mean something. 9/11 was a declaration of war on the US by the terrorists. You really don't think any attacks were foiled in the past 5 years? You really think 9/11 was the only planned attack on the US in over 5 years?
9/11 was a declaration of war? Now, given you apparently believe everything the government says, they say Bin Laden is the mastermind of 9/11 (and he's greatfully accepted their recognition), so the declaration of war was waaaaay back in 1996 (.

LOL, you answered it all yourself. What happened since 96?..........9/11/2001. That's what happened. It could have been prevented if we were on the look out for it.