UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (66) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 58868  
Subject: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 5:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Obama Still Doesn't Get It.



<<More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaida in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.>>




http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2010...




He should be added to the catch at Guantanamo and receiving intensive interrogation right now.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Volucris Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22524 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 1:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
A guy with burning underwear is the same as the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Hyperbole much?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22525 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 2:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 66
I'm coming to the conclusion that Republicans wake up in the morning and ask themselves what they can do to be bigger hypocrites than they were yesterday. What ever it is, it seems to be working.

Let's see, we have an airline passenger who had known ties to al-Quaeda, bought a ticket with cash, checked no luggage and was flagged as a possible threat. He foils security and his plot is disrupted by passengers.

The part where the increasingly doddering Charles Krauthammer becomes apoplectic is when the attempted bomber is charged with federal crime, is given a trial by jury, and goes to prison. Wait! Krauthammer actually had no problem with that at all, nor did any other conservative that I'm aware of, when Richard Reid was the attempted bomber.

The basic details of each incident are damn near identical, and so is the way each president handled it, with the exception that Obama seems much more engaged on this topic. Bush didn't mention the Richard Reid incident for nearly a week, and then only in passing in a press conference when he got back from vacation. Reid of course was then tried in federal court, convicted, and went to federal prison, where he is today. That all happened on Bush's watch and nobody had any problem with how he handled it then, certainly none of the caterwalling hypocrites we hearing from now.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22526 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 4:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<A guy with burning underwear is the same as the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Hyperbole much?
>>


The bomb was supposed to blow up the plane, not set the guy's pants on fire.


We got lucky that time, same as with the shoe bomber.

Are you suggesting that "The system worked!"?




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22527 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 4:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"<<A guy with burning underwear is the same as the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Hyperbole much?
>> "

Libs don't care as long as 'someone else' gets blown up.....

The guy probably came within a hair of killing 300 people on the plane and maybe 1000 on the ground...just imagine if the plane had hit a Walmart or Kroger store....or 300 flaming burning pieces set 3000 houses on fire quickly with burning jet fuel and other things? And bodies starting falling on highways and interstates around the airport?

Geez....

I'm sure the libs are voting for 'not guilty' for all the terror suspects....... likely send them back home for six weeks probation.....and release....

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22529 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"For the record, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was arrested (by American police) tried (in an American courtroom) and is now serving two life sentences without the possibility of parole. In a SuperMax prison in Colorado."


YEah..yeah....we have a guy here who was convicted of six life sentences....he is up for parole after 20 years....as a serial rapist....that had at least two dozen known victims.......

In a few years, folks will get tired of keeping Reid in prison.....they'll find a reason to 'trade him' back to somewhere in exchange for someone the Somalis or Yemini's capture...maybe a plane load of Americans on an airliner that was successfully intercepted by a armed MIG fighter over the Middle East.......and had land at some rebel base........

The guy should have faced a firing squad.......that would have eliminated that possibility...


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22530 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 5:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<The part where the increasingly doddering Charles Krauthammer becomes apoplectic is when the attempted bomber is charged with federal crime, is given a trial by jury, and goes to prison. Wait! Krauthammer actually had no problem with that at all, nor did any other conservative that I'm aware of, when Richard Reid was the attempted bomber.>>



At the time Reid did his thing, George Bush was preparing the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to take the war that had been declared against us to our enemies.

Putting that fact in the context of the event, you think Bush's response was too tepid?





Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rainphakir Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22531 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 5:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
<<<At the time Reid did his thing, George Bush was preparing the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to take the war that had been declared against us to our enemies.

Putting that fact in the context of the event, you think Bush's response was too tepid?>>>


Bush invaded Afghanistan in Oct 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%...

Reid the shoe bomber: Dec 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)

Bush took it to em in Iraq: March 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War


Perhaps you meant to say " At the time Reid did his thing, George Bush was forcing real world events to fit his agenda"? yes?

No, Bush's response was poorly planned, from the POV of US security. It has worked well for Haliburton.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Volucris Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22532 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 7:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Are you suggesting that "The system worked!"?

Nope - I'm saying Pearl Harbor was not equivalent to the underwear bomber.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Volucris Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22533 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 7:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 27
Libs don't care as long as 'someone else' gets blown up.....

The guy probably came within a hair of killing 300 people on the plane and maybe 1000 on the ground...just imagine if the plane had hit a Walmart or Kroger store....or 300 flaming burning pieces set 3000 houses on fire quickly with burning jet fuel and other things? And bodies starting falling on highways and interstates around the airport?


Wow! Just wow. This was the most idiotic thing I've read all year. But the year is young - so you have time to top it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22535 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 8:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
tele: "he guy probably came within a hair of killing 300 people on the plane and maybe 1000 on the ground...just imagine if the plane had hit a Walmart or Kroger store....or 300 flaming burning pieces set 3000 houses on fire quickly with burning jet fuel and other things? And bodies starting falling on highways and interstates around the airport?"

Volucris: "Wow! Just wow. This was the most idiotic thing I've read all year. But the year is young - so you have time to top it."

You re the idiot...in this case

the reason the perp waited until the plane was approaching for landing was just for that...

to blow up over populated areas....and to rain down airplane parts over highly populated areas.

I don't know about Detroit specifically...but if you are flying into Dallas from the Northwest...you are over suburbs for the last 15 minutes of the flight....with thousands of people per square mile.

And if a plane explodes over land...just where do you think all the bodies wind up? If you remember, the DC-10 that blew up off the New England coast had over 100,000 parts fished out of the water.

Now, just imagine 100,000 parts falling on suburbia....and a lot of them flaming with a thousand or more gallons of jet fuel.....set on fire......

ANd 300 bodies.......

The first 'knee jerk' reaction was to insure that this would not happen on other flights by trying to make sure the perp couldn't be trying to set off his/her underwear during the landing procedure....over populated areas.....where it would be highly visible and have maximum 'fallout' (pun intended).

Libs are pretty up tight, aren't they?

It would have been 'a horror movie' type scenario......

t
t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22537 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/3/2010 9:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Wow! Just wow. This was the most idiotic thing I've read all year. But the year is young - so you have time to top it.
>>



Do you really want to quibble about how many would have died had that bomb gone off?




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: totolapse Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22539 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 10:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I stopped paying attention to K when I read his columns on the failure of the Reagan era as Reagan left office. I know it is hard to come up with a column regularly, but K seems to make his money by constantly whining. I don't think he has the intellect to enlighten or explain, just whine.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MATZOID Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22541 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 10:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
That all happened on Bush's watch and nobody had any problem with how he handled it then, certainly none of the caterwalling hypocrites we hearing from now.

Not to mention that the system in place NOW was put in place and run for 7 YEARS by the previous admin.

Unless, of course, some ConRep would like to identify the precise change to airport security under Obama that allowed this person to pull an nearly identical stunt as the shoe bomber. After 8 years of airport security experience after 9/11.

Section, paragraph, and a link to the official govt docs will do nicely. Thanks.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: InconclusiveFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22542 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 11:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"That all happened on Bush's watch and nobody had any problem with how he handled it then"

So what's the problem?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22543 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 12:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 33
So what's the problem?

This president is black and a Democrat. Some people just can't forgive him for that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22548 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 4:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
The guy probably came within a hair of killing 300 people on the plane and maybe 1000 on the ground...just imagine if the plane had hit a Walmart or Kroger store....or 300 flaming burning pieces set 3000 houses on fire quickly with burning jet fuel and other things? And bodies starting falling on highways and interstates around the airport?

If it were that easy or even likely to kill that many people in any of the manners which you describe, the US military would have weaponized this a long time ago. Turns out, it's mostly just a scare tactic.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: InconclusiveFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22549 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 5:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"This president is black and a Democrat. Some people just can't forgive him for that."

To me he could be from planet P and have green skin and I'd still think he's making the wrong decisions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22551 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 7:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
spookysq:"Ff it were that easy or even likely to kill that many people in any of the manners which you describe, the US military would have weaponized this a long time ago. Turns out, it's mostly just a scare tactic."

Oh....how silly the libs are.

During WW2, the US burned down 25 sq miles of Tokyo......killing more people in one night that died in the Hiroshima bomb explosion...... it created a firestorm from INCENDIARY devices.

For over 100 years, folks have been dropping incendiaries onto enemies...and burning them.

During WW2, we dropped thousands of tons of 'napalm'.....jellied gasoline....all over the pacific islands to get rid of the enemy...burn the jungle and burn them out. Those were a few hundred pounds...

NOw imagine thousands of gallons of jet fuel flaming down on urbia and surburbia......you think, say, a mile long stream of flaming jet fuel, dumped over a major metrolpolitan area, won't set anything on fire?

You probably need to read up on fires..

If the bomb had gone off, the experts said it would have set the main fuel tank right below is seat off....blowing the plane apart....in a giant fireball......

300 bodies falling down....10,000 plane parts...pieces of luggage.....parts of bodies....seats......and everything else....

WE already now what happens when a fuel tank blows up....the plane off Long Island......100,000 pieces......and giant flash in the sky......and poof....no more plane and no more lives of the people on board....

You guys would do anything to protect your pathetic weak president....who couldn't even bother to interrupt his golf game to find out what was going on...and when he got on 2 days later seemed to know less than Average Joe did from watching network TV....clueless.




t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22552 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 7:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
""This president is black and a Democrat. Some people just can't forgive him for that.""

Let's get the facts right..half black.....and he'd probably be happier if you called him AFrican American......you know..that continent with NIgeira(home country of the perp) , Kenya, Togo(where the perp went to boarding school)..........

Why should anyone want to forgive him for being a ultra left wing socialist? One who does not have the best interests of the US in mind? One who is out to strangle capitalism and replace it with Chavez like socialism?

Democrat? No...that's only a cover for totally red inside socialist ..and his cabinet which worships Mao....and Chavez.....and ALinksy....


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22554 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 8:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<"This president is black and a Democrat. Some people just can't forgive him for that.">>



Actually, Obama hasn't been as bad as I expected. In a number of ways he is carrying out George Bush's 3rd term.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22555 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 8:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
During WW2, the US burned down 25 sq miles of Tokyo......killing more people in one night that died in the Hiroshima bomb explosion...... it created a firestorm from INCENDIARY devices.

Lol. Are you seriously suggesting that I have no knowledge of incindiarary weapons?

In any event, you completely ignored the point. That attack required roughly 300 aircraft and involved nearly HALF A MILLION weapons! Which is to say that the OP, who was waxing terrorized about the VAST devestation a single damanged plane could cause was clearly off his or her rocker.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22556 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 9:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
who was waxing terrorized about the VAST devestation a single damanged plane could cause was clearly off his or her rocker.



or MUS'g


-b
..... sees alot of that here <g>

. NTTAWWT!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22557 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/4/2010 10:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Which is to say that the OP, who was waxing terrorized about the VAST devestation a single damanged plane could cause was clearly off his or her rocker."

And a single plane each didn't bring down 100 million tons of steel in NYC?

one plane....one 100 story building....the NYC subway system.....and it could have been even worse....

and it was repeated a second time just to show you what ' a single plane'could do.


NOw, when you say 'a single damaged plane' I guess you weren't referring to a commercial airliner full of jet fuel and 300 people......

or were you?

It's amazing how the libs will stick up for the sorry a$$ Obama no matter what.

One plane can do an amazing amount of damage....

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22559 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 3:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
And a single plane each didn't bring down 100 million tons of steel in NYC?

one plane....one 100 story building....the NYC subway system.....and it could have been even worse....

and it was repeated a second time just to show you what ' a single plane'could do.


LOL! You crack me up. You wish to change the weaponization now? At first, it was hundreds of pieces of burning debris killing thousands of people. Now you've given up that and invoked 9/11. Which is to say, you have admitted that a single panty bomber damaging an aircraft is NOTHING like 4-5 individuals directing the plane at a large mass. About only thing the two have in common, weapon characteristics wise, is that they include airplanes. The actual damage mechanisms, frag for the panty bomber, impact for 9/11, are nothing alike.

Other than that, you're just out of your mind if you really want to try and talk weapons with me.

-spookysquid

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zathrus1 Big gold star, 5000 posts 10+ Year Anniversary! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22560 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 6:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4

LOL! You crack me up. You wish to change the weaponization now? At first, it was hundreds of pieces of burning debris killing thousands of people. Now you've given up that and invoked 9/11. Which is to say, you have admitted that a single panty bomber damaging an aircraft is NOTHING like 4-5 individuals directing the plane at a large mass. About only thing the two have in common, weapon characteristics wise, is that they include airplanes. The actual damage mechanisms, frag for the panty bomber, impact for 9/11, are nothing alike.

Other than that, you're just out of your mind if you really want to try and talk weapons with me.

-spookysquid


Basically, T is going just keep blabbering until he says something that will get you to wet your pants out of abject fear. He'll keep trying to conjure up some circumstance, no matter how far it is from the actual facts.

I wonder what it must be like to be so afraid. Every day. Always trying to find the next problem to be afraid of. And once you find it, you find the cause of that problem - and it always seems to be that black fella in the White House. When you realize he's the problem, you can feel good about directing all your hate toward him. That'll fix the situation somehow.

I know it's a life that some people choose. It makes them happy in some way. It sure seems like a poor way to live your life though.

Zath

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22561 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 10:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Looks like spooky is pulling the typical left wing Alinsky moves over and over..

First he claims a 'single plane' can't cause mass casualties...it takes a fleet of WW2 bombers, each dropping a few tons of incendiaries to destroy more buildings and people than an a-bomb...

It seems he forgot about9-11 when he wrote that...

THen, suddenly spooky had to admit 'a single plane' could cause mass casualites..

Then he got into semantics about whether the plane was 'directed' to hit the target.

Duh....you blow up a plane over Manhattan it is going to hit something and the probability is a building.

YOu blow up a plane over suburbia, and those flaming pieces and bodies are most likely to hit all over subdivisions, shopping centers and highways.

Just what you need on xmas eve to have 100,000 plane parts, ten thousand gallons of flaming jet fuel, bodies, falling on urban streets with major plane parts potentially taking out hundreds, and the possibilities of major fires.

Amazing libs....

You can't have your cake and eat it too, spooky....


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22562 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<LOL! You crack me up. You wish to change the weaponization now? At first, it was hundreds of pieces of burning debris killing thousands of people. Now you've given up that and invoked 9/11. Which is to say, you have admitted that a single panty bomber damaging an aircraft is NOTHING like 4-5 individuals directing the plane at a large mass. About only thing the two have in common, weapon characteristics wise, is that they include airplanes. The actual damage mechanisms, frag for the panty bomber, impact for 9/11, are nothing alike.>>



Trying to trivialize the threat airliner bombings represents is ludicrous.


We were very lucky that the recent lap bomb and the shoebomb didn't go off. Both should have killed hundreds.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22563 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I wonder what it must be like to be so afraid. Every day. Always trying to find the next problem to be afraid of. And once you find it, you find the cause of that problem - and it always seems to be that black fella in the White House. When you realize he's the problem, you can feel good about directing all your hate toward him. That'll fix the situation somehow.




i think it might work the other direction: scary Muslim man in WhiteHouse ..Scary SCARY.

what sort of st*** can I make up that will get others as afraid?

Panty bombers!
Death panels!!
??

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22564 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 2:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Trying to trivialize the threat airliner bombings represents is ludicrous.

What's worse? Panicing (and attempting to panic those around you) about an improbable threat scenario, or making fun of the foolish idea that is dreamed up in panic, and later defended, then manipulated when that idea is proven not so scary?

We were very lucky that the recent lap bomb and the shoebomb didn't go off. Both should have killed hundreds.

Hundreds? Really? What leads you to believe that?

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22565 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 2:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<We were very lucky that the recent lap bomb and the shoebomb didn't go off. Both should have killed hundreds.

Hundreds? Really? What leads you to believe that?

-spookysquid >>


c
Quibble, quibble, quibble.


Why you guys want to trivialize these incidents I do not understand.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUptoten Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22566 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 2:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Trying to trivialize the threat airliner bombings represents is ludicrous.

What's worse? Panicing (and attempting to panic those around you) about an improbable threat scenario, or making fun of the foolish idea that is dreamed up in panic, and later defended, then manipulated when that idea is proven not so scary?

We were very lucky that the recent lap bomb and the shoebomb didn't go off. Both should have killed hundreds.

Hundreds? Really? What leads you to believe that?

-spookysquid

I am reminded ot the McCarthy era Red scare. Now it's the Islamic Terrorist era scare. Tele is too young to remember the 50's, but he would have fit right in, fighting imaginary enemies.

What bummed me out in the 50's was the laws passed to get rid of Mad Comic book, and its sister pub, Cracked. The magazine substitutes just weren't the same. Surely one of the least effective ways of combating the dreaded Commies.

Count Uptoten

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22567 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What bummed me out in the 50's was the laws passed to get rid of Mad Comic book, and its sister pub, Cracked. The magazine substitutes just weren't the same. Surely one of the least effective ways of combating the dreaded Commies.


wow.

i don't recall the comix .. the mags were pretty raucus --a little surprised either was allowed in your little Texas town <g>


... but you win some lose some.

getting rid of Mad may not have helped against the Commies,
but St.Reagan getting "under god" into the pledge certainly did!


=

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22568 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Hundreds? Really? What leads you to believe that?"

We need to forgive spooky for being a LIB ARTS major at NYU....probably the most ultra left wing socialist university in the country east of the Rockies...

We need to forgive spooky for reading books 'above a 2nd grade level'. WHo knows...? Maybe spooky is up to 6th grade now.

Especially since spooky says in the profile that spooky is a sophomore..that would make spooky about 19 years old....a minor.....

Give spooky some actual working experience...say 10 years...of paying all the Obama taxes, the NYC tax, the NY state tax.....medicare...SS......and spooky will be singing a different tune......

I had a dormmate probably like spooky...when I was 19 in engineering school.... went off the deep end...starting listening to talk radio out of NYC late at night..this in the 60s when the anti-war movement was getting started....he turned into a full blown hippie...flunked out of college......got invited to go to Vietnam for paid trip.....decided instead to show true colors and run off to Canada.....where he spent about 10 years before sneaking back into the US and living in Greenwhich Village.....

I imagine spooky is going off the deep end like he did......lib universities will do that to folks. The anti-dote is actually getting a job and paying your own bills.

Likely now spooky is living off the good graces of his parents who are footing the bill.....

Give spooky 10 years of paying taxes..and the tune will change...

hee he..

t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22569 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 3:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"What bummed me out in the 50's was the laws passed to get rid of Mad Comic book, and its sister pub, Cracked. The magazine substitutes just weren't the same. Surely one of the least effective ways of combating the dreaded Commies."

You jest...I remember Mad Magazine......my college's 73 man squamish team made the front page of one issue!......

That was in the 60s.....

I don't remember Cracked..but then again, I didn't have the money for comic books either before college, during it...and sure didn't waste money after college on comic books.....

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22570 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 3:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Give spooky 10 years of paying taxes..and the tune will change...

hee he..>>


Heh, heh! Id's say that's entirely possible ---- happened to me anyway.


In the good old days circa 1967-68 I was an SDS member in Seattle and worked with several people who went on to careers as terrorist bombers for the Weatherman faction of the SDS.

Trim Bissel was one wanted by the FBI who eventually came in from the cold.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22574 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Telegraph, you must have missed the part in my profile where I say

"But I might be lying".

Not that it matters, but for the record:

-Over 30
-Married
-Father of 3
-8 years active duty USN, 2 years reserve
-DoD Contracting supporting the Air Force
-Subject matter expertise: Intelligence and targeting
-Experience includes numerous strikes to include the much vaunted (and failed) Decapitation strike during OIF. My work was on the cover of Newsweek.

-spookysquid, who enjoyed your condescension.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22575 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 6:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Spooky says:

""-Over 30
-Married
-Father of 3
-8 years active duty USN, 2 years reserve
-DoD Contracting supporting the Air Force
-Subject matter expertise: Intelligence and targeting "

Then again you might be lying......so that means you have no credibility with me....

Sorry..can't have it both ways..

I gave up reading Newsweek when they got to be as blatantly lib as the Times....

Lots of perps have also been on the front cover of Newsweek. I'm sure the Nigerian will be near the top of the list for inclusion in the next issue, too......


t

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22579 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 7:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Then again you might be lying......so that means you have no credibility with me....

Fair enough. However, I'd like to point out two things.

First, which of us has shown a consistent and clear understanding of weapons effects? You at first claim that a single aircraft destroyed in the air could rain down hundreds of burning shards possibly killing thousands. As proof, you site an attack made by hundreds of aircraft (not just one) using hundreds of thousands of weapons (not just hundreds) over a densley populated city made completely of wood. Once this was pointed out, you defend your assertion that "airplanes are dangerous" by siting how a single (two singles), directed airplane was used to kill thousands, without noting that this has nothing to do with your original premise of the possible consequences of a single suicide bomber blowing himself, and possibly the plane, up in midair. Of the two of us, I have at least been consistent.

Second, I clearly stated that I might be lying. Those who have known me for any length of time know this is a fabrication, but I had thought that a simple inspection of my profile would obviously indicate that there were some mistruths in there. If I tell you the sky is green while standing under a sunny blue sky, are you going to call me a liar, or just think I'm joking?

I gave up reading Newsweek when they got to be as blatantly lib as the Times....

I wasn't referencing it for the articles (I personally don't enjoy reading it either). I was talking about the cover only.
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/pub/s?f=PRN/prnpub&page=1...

-spookysquid

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: GusSmed Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22580 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 8:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
so that means you have no credibility with me....

Telegraph.

Talking about credibility.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5110/572yx6.jpg

- Gus

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22581 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 8:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Not that it matters, but for the record:

-Over 30
-Married
-Father of 3
-8 years active duty USN, 2 years reserve
-DoD Contracting supporting the Air Force
-Subject matter expertise: Intelligence and targeting
-Experience includes numerous strikes to include the much vaunted (and failed) Decapitation strike during OIF. My work was on the cover of Newsweek.

-spookysquid, who enjoyed your condescension. >>



Personally, I have no reqason to doubt your expertise Spooky.

However, after seeing all the quibbling about the likely casualties from BLOWING A PASSENGER AIRLINER UP IN THE AIR, it makes me think President Obama is on the right track scorching the competence of national security specialists which might include Spookysquid:

A grim-faced President Barack Obama declared Tuesday there was a deep failure of national intelligence in the botched Christmas Day airliner terror attack over Detroit, telling the nation the government had enough information to thwart potential disaster but could not "connect those dots."

Speaking after a blunt meeting with his security team, Obama said there had been even more "red flags" than had already been acknowledged: that an al-Qaida affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula planned to strike the United States and that it was working with the man who ended up accused of trying to blow up a plane with nearly 300 passengers and crew aboard.

"The information was there," Obama said, blistering agencies and analysts for not figuring out the threat - but without singling any out by name.





Obama seemed to "get it" today." The same can not be said for many of those quibbling about how many hundreds of people would have been killed had the shoe bomber's bomb and the most recent bomb gone off.



Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22584 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/5/2010 10:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"If I tell you the sky is green while standing under a sunny blue sky, are you going to call me a liar, or just think I'm joking?"

If you told me the sky was green while standing under a sunny blue sky...

I'd know you were a liar.

Thanks for making that point.

I wouldn't have to call you anything.

I rest my case.

You convicted yourself.



t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22585 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 5:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If you told me the sky was green while standing under a sunny blue sky...

I'd know you were a liar.

Thanks for making that point.

I wouldn't have to call you anything.

I rest my case.

You convicted yourself.


OR

I was joking. Humor comes in many forms. Apparently, not so much with you. But, whatever.

-spookysquid, noted liar

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22586 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 5:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
However, after seeing all the quibbling about the likely casualties from BLOWING A PASSENGER AIRLINER UP IN THE AIR, it makes me think President Obama is on the right track scorching the competence of national security specialists which might include Spookysquid:

You're calling me incompetent because, as a targeteer who works for the Air Force, I didn't properly screen a passenger? Is that supposed to actually make sense, or were you just grasping at straws and trying to sound clever? Either way, you failed.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GusSmed Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22587 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 5:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Is that supposed to actually make sense, or were you just grasping at straws and trying to sound clever?

Isn't it about time you put him in the p-box and did your best to pretend he doesn't exist? It's not like he's likely to include more thinking or facts in future posts.

You did get a couple of 8-rec posts a while back in this thread, but that's a small reward for having to read his posts.

- Gus

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22588 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 5:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Telegraph,

P.S. attacking me does nothing to prove that you have at any point been consistent or correct in this thread. Which, you know, you haven't been. Just saying.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22589 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 5:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Isn't it about time you put him in the p-box and did your best to pretend he doesn't exist? It's not like he's likely to include more thinking or facts in future posts.

Probably. I didn't start out reading his posts, just responding to something or other on best of. I don't usually go out of my way to read her posts.

You did get a couple of 8-rec posts a while back in this thread, but that's a small reward for having to read his posts.

Lol. Well, unlike my usual recwhoring self, I didn't actually make those posts for the recs. I just like talking about weapons effects, even if they are unconventional. Macabre to be sure, but when you work in a given industry, that's what you tend to be interested in I guess.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GusSmed Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22590 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 5:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I just like talking about weapons effects, even if they are unconventional.

I can just imagine. So, we build this 710,000 pound missile, at a cost of $200 million per round, with a warhead of 80 grams of PETN. D'ya think it'll be more effective than a Tomahawk?

I have a similar weakness for talking about game mechanics and photography signal / noise calculations.

- Gus

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22591 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 6:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
what sort of st*** can I make up that will get others as afraid?

!Commies!
Socialists at coming!
Gubmint Beurocrats are a gonna determine what socialized healthcare that commie intellecual doctors will allow you.
Gubmint is destroying our small family farms! (partly true)
Ecoterrorists are in control of the climate scientists.
Al Gore can make billions of dollars!
The U.N. is a gonna steal our drinking water (i.e. scary brown people who are socialist commies are coming).
Elitist collectivist cheese eaters are gonna take our guns away.
Windpower will destroy the view of rich Americans (who own oil stocks).
Enviro's are stealing your viagra.
Granola's are trying to stop the Chemical Companies from makeing a better world through chemistry!

I could go on and on, people are such noobs, espeically the bet wetting there is a terrorist under my bed conservatives these days.

The John Birchers look postively sane and rational these days compared to the GOP and its *core*.

md (Just to be clear the purple helicopters are the ones we have to worry about)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22592 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 7:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
spooky:"You're calling me incompetent because, as a targeteer who works for the Air Force, I didn't properly screen a passenger? "

No...you were supposed to find and target the terrorist camp where the perp went to learn how to make his bomb...and kill the terrorists who had the knowledge and the goods to make the bomb....

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22593 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 8:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I want to thank everyone for stringing out this thread. It really made my day to click on this board and have this thread title as the exclusive business of the day.



Sincerely,


Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22594 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/6/2010 8:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<However, after seeing all the quibbling about the likely casualties from BLOWING A PASSENGER AIRLINER UP IN THE AIR, it makes me think President Obama is on the right track scorching the competence of national security specialists which might include Spookysquid:

You're calling me incompetent because, as a targeteer who works for the Air Force, I didn't properly screen a passenger? Is that supposed to actually make sense, or were you just grasping at straws and trying to sound clever? Either way, you failed.

-spookysquid >>



Of course I know nothing about your professional qualifications in the national security field/business.

I do wonder though about the extent to which you have quibbled about the loss of life that would have occurred has the shoe bomber/panty bomber had better designed ordinance.

Yesterday President Obama took the national security apparatus to task for not being more alert to these kinds of problems. If your efforts to trivialize the threat and damage in any way are characteristic of that national security apparatus, it sounds to me like President Obama's concerns are justified.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22595 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 12:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

No...you were supposed to find and target the terrorist camp where the perp went to learn how to make his bomb...and kill the terrorists who had the knowledge and the goods to make the bomb....


I did, or tried at least. Don't blame me if Bush lacked the political will to conduct an attack in a country other than IZ or AF.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22596 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 2:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<No...you were supposed to find and target the terrorist camp where the perp went to learn how to make his bomb...and kill the terrorists who had the knowledge and the goods to make the bomb....

I did, or tried at least. Don't blame me if Bush lacked the political will to conduct an attack in a country other than IZ or AF.

-spookysquid
>>



So your complaint is that Bush was limiting himself to wars in only two countries?


I find it hard to reconcile this post with other posts where you repeatedly quibbled about how many hundreds of people the shoe bomber and panty bomber would have killed had their ordinance gone off.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22597 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 10:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So your complaint is that Bush was limiting himself to wars in only two countries?

I think you have me confused with Telegraph. She was the one complaining about not killing enough terrorists or something. I was merely explaining why that was, and that it was not for lack of effort on my part or the part of the intelligence community.

I find it hard to reconcile this post with other posts where you repeatedly quibbled about how many hundreds of people the shoe bomber and panty bomber would have killed had their ordinance gone off.

When your day to day job involved quibbling on the EXACT fuze setting and attack azimuth will kill the most people in a given area or inside a given building, you just tend to be like that. One of the consequences of having a professional military is you get a society with people who think like this for a living. Though I don't agree with his character's views in general, Jack Nicholson's line in A Few Good Men seems appropriate here:

"You have no idea what it takes to defend a country."

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22598 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 10:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
spooky: "I did, or tried at least. Don't blame me if Bush lacked the political will to conduct an attack in a country other than IZ or AF."

The last I checked, Obama has been the US President for the last year,not George Bush.

The last I checked, it was Obama who released dozens of Yeminis, with some of them going back to their home countries, and becoming the leaders in the Al Queda cells there, and setting up bomb schools. NOt George Bush.

Last I checked, Obama has authorized strikes in Pakistan, and that is not part of Iraq or Afghanistan. I see no reason why Obama could not have taken out targets in Yemen, other than Obama has been so busy apologizing and bowing to the leaders in the Middle East...that he only had time to blow off HIS reports of terrorist activities in Yemen.

Isn't it fun how libs always try to lay the blame on 'George Bush'? Even though Obama has been in charge for a year? Even though Obama has 'targeted' dozens if not hundreds of targets not in IZ and AF?

That is what is 'spooky'....


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22599 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 10:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I do wonder though about the extent to which you have quibbled about the loss of life that would have occurred has the shoe bomber/panty bomber had better designed ordinance.

Dude, I'm a targeteer. Measure with a micrometer, chop with a 2000lb JDAM. And also see my previous post.

Yesterday President Obama took the national security apparatus to task for not being more alert to these kinds of problems. If your efforts to trivialize the threat and damage in any way are characteristic of that national security apparatus, it sounds to me like President Obama's concerns are justified.

Do you know where I can get a hold of unlimited resources and manpower to try and prevent every improbable or low collateral damage threat out there? Didn't think so. In the mean time, we'll have to keep resorting to worrying about the threats that are A. the most probable and/or B. the ones with the highest kill count. Quibbling over how leathal a given attack will be is absolutely vital in that analysis.

I get that you don't do intel or targeting, but spare us your lame attempts at trying to score political points at their expense.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: temsike Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22600 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 10:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Arguing with certain nutters on this board is like trying to teabag and eat a fluffernutter simultaneously <grin>.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22603 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Though I don't agree with his character's views in general, Jack Nicholson's line in A Few Good Men seems appropriate here:

"You have no idea what it takes to defend a country."

-spookysquid >>


Ummm. You do seem to have things in common with that character, including an inability to communicate with others and explain your motivation and reasoning. Or perhaps you don't consider it worth the time and effort, or find the public too dense to be worth the effort.

It amounts to the same thing in the end.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22604 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 11:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Yesterday President Obama took the national security apparatus to task for not being more alert to these kinds of problems. If your efforts to trivialize the threat and damage in any way are characteristic of that national security apparatus, it sounds to me like President Obama's concerns are justified.

Do you know where I can get a hold of unlimited resources and manpower to try and prevent every improbable or low collateral damage threat out there?>>


You give a perfect example of the problem I have with your approach with the remark above.

The shoe bomber and panty bomber, and the 9/11 bombing WERE critical threats to American security. The two attempted airliner bombings would each have killed hundreds had the bombs gone off, and the 9/11 attack changed American history, so great was it's impact.

Yet you repeatedly trivialize these attacks and offer excuses about why nothing can be done. This seems to be EXACTLY the attitude President Obama scorched a couple of days ago.

You are apparently satisfied with the efforts you and your national security peers are making to protect the country. But frankly, most people would say THEY STINK!

Unfortunately, you appear to be part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. Al Chaida is taking advantage of your attitude to carry out repeated attacks on the United States, and the only reason he hasn't had success lately is that he lacks good bomb makers.





Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22606 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 12:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I can just imagine. So, we build this 710,000 pound missile, at a cost of $200 million per round, with a warhead of 80 grams of PETN. D'ya think it'll be more effective than a Tomahawk?

It all depends on your goal. In some cases, the TLAM would be far more favorable due to the smaller warhead. Big warhead = higher collateral damage. Also, the TLAM may or may not be more accurate, depending on how this 710,000 flying bomb is guided. Is it piloted remotely with a camera, is it guided by GPS, semi-active laser tacking? It likely doesn't matter too much, as that's a hellabig bomb, so accuracy becomes less important as blast radius becomes bigger than the accuracy range.

So, if the intent is to strike the third story of an office building in downtown whereever, I'd say the TLAM is more effective. If the intent is to stop a ground force advance in the open (like a field or highway) of soft targets like trucks or troops, then the flying bomb would be much preferable.

Also, penetration capability may be important. If the structure you wish to strike, or a certain spot within that structure, is heavily reinforced, the larger kinetic mass will be preferable. The Pentagon is a very good (though horrible) example of this (and also proof as to why it was NOT a missile attack, as some conspiracy theoriests claim). The large body will have enough substance to withstand the destructive force or mass versus mass up to a certain depth. TLAM certainly has some capability, but nothing like the demonstrated penetration capability of an airliner.

-spookysquid

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22607 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ummm. You do seem to have things in common with that character, including an inability to communicate with others and explain your motivation and reasoning. Or perhaps you don't consider it worth the time and effort, or find the public too dense to be worth the effort.

It amounts to the same thing in the end.


Part of my "communication" with you is a factor of your "communication" with me. When all you offer is quick one or two line insults and a complete avoidance of whatever point I was making, why are you surprised when you get only brief explanations back?

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22608 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 12:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yet you repeatedly trivialize these attacks and offer excuses about why nothing can be done. This seems to be EXACTLY the attitude President Obama scorched a couple of days ago.

I would suggest that you A. have mischaracterized most of my participation in the thread to suite your own lame purposes and B. continue to misunderstand the nature of what I am describing.

A. I am interested in weapons effects. How many people are killed by a given effect is of professional interest to me. It's what I do. That is not a reflection on my views of human life, or whether I really care if Americans die, or whatever other nonsense you are implying about me or the intelligence community, simply professional curiosity.

B. Yes, it is actually impossible to protect against every threat. What about that don't you get? That some aspects of our security aparatus failed, I do not dispute. All programs and processes have a failure rate. If I were try to score political points, I'd say that since this is largely an unchanged program from the Bush admin, this failure reflects upon that admin's system implementation more than the current one. That said, I also acknowledge that the current admin, who assumed that the system was "good enough" based upon the unending streams of praise for the Bush admin in the form of "never been successfully attacked on our home soil since 9/11 thanks to W". So while the failure falls on Bush, the responsibility to fix and "own it" falls to Obama, as with all the other crap he inherited from Bush.

As for my part, Telegraph criticised me for not attempting to kill every terrorist, real or potential, in the world. Again, unlimited resources and manpower, but now we have to add political will to execute in an AOR that is not currently "at war". Bush, and Obama, lacked that will. We know, or suspect, a LOT of terrorist locations, but for a variety of reasons, it may not appear to be "worth it" at the time. And by worth it, I mean it may cause more political ire globably than that one target is worth.

-spookysquid, looking forward to the two sentence dismissal and insult that will follow this

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22609 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 12:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You are apparently satisfied with the efforts you and your national security peers are making to protect the country. But frankly, most people would say THEY STINK!

I thought you and your conservative brethren thought it was GREAT because "we haven't suffered any attacks on the homeland since 9/11". That's funny!

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22612 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 1:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<B. Yes, it is actually impossible to protect against every threat. What about that don't you get? That some aspects of our security aparatus failed, I do not dispute. All programs and processes have a failure rate. If I were try to score political points, I'd say that since this is largely an unchanged program from the Bush admin, this failure reflects upon that admin's system implementation more than the current one. That said, I also acknowledge that the current admin, who assumed that the system was "good enough" based upon the unending streams of praise for the Bush admin in the form of "never been successfully attacked on our home soil since 9/11 thanks to W". So while the failure falls on Bush, the responsibility to fix and "own it" falls to Obama, as with all the other crap he inherited from Bush.>>



I find this a much more reasonable analysis of the problem than other posts I saw.

But saying that we can't protect against EVERY threat is too easy to say. Al Chaida has a history of using passenger airliners against us. That has proved to be an effective weapon in terms of causing mass casualties.

Obama has taken steps to start more intensive, physical searches of people fitting certain profiles. That sounds like it may be worthwhile, despite the fact that it will amount to "racial profiling" by some people, and perhaps invite the use of terrorists who don't fit the profile to defeat it.

Israel has taken effective steps to defeat these kinds of attacks. So I suggest your claim that we can't defend against "every attack" doesn't mean we can't defend against this kind of attack on civilian airliners, if we have the will to do so.

We probably need to get quite a bit smarter about how we do that, and be willing to rethink the use of methods we have rejected so far for political reasons, such as racial profiling objections.

And perhaps you and your national security buddies could claim some credit for the ordinance of the shoe bomber and panty bomber being of poor quality and not exploding. It could be that your efforts in attacking Al Chaida have degraded their bomb making ability by killing off critical personnel.

After all, even if Al Chaida can slide it's operatives through holes in our security, it avails them not if the bomb doesn't go off, their operative is captured and pumped for intelligence that can be used against them. (perhaps too bad he was permitted to lawyer up and escape questioning in Guantanamo).

Perhaps that's a form of redundancy in security which has, in fact, protected up from those attacks being effective. Just guessing, of course.




Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22614 of 58868
Subject: Re: George Bush Was Right Date: 1/7/2010 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I find this a much more reasonable analysis of the problem than other posts I saw.

But saying that we can't protect against EVERY threat is too easy to say. Al Chaida has a history of using passenger airliners against us. That has proved to be an effective weapon in terms of causing mass casualties.

Obama has taken steps to start more intensive, physical searches of people fitting certain profiles. That sounds like it may be worthwhile, despite the fact that it will amount to "racial profiling" by some people, and perhaps invite the use of terrorists who don't fit the profile to defeat it.

Israel has taken effective steps to defeat these kinds of attacks. So I suggest your claim that we can't defend against "every attack" doesn't mean we can't defend against this kind of attack on civilian airliners, if we have the will to do so.


Agreed. It was a mistake for Obama to assume that Bush era policies were effective. One more thing for him to clean up I suppose.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (66) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement