Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Rainy Parade;698484]umm, what? first of all... where's the name calling? if you mean "teabaggers" well that term has been used quite a bit all over the spectrum of mainstream media so that was not meant as name calling even though we can all giggle at the thought of glenn beck with someone's nuts in his mouth.

as for your portrayal of someone alledgedly wishing there more mcveighs, okay... as if YOUR heroes on Fox aren't stirring the pot calling guys like that patriots.


and, oh by the way, Obama has largely continued the Bush-Cheney doctrine of no real jury trials for terrorists. they are not coddling terrorists, no matter what Rush Limbaugh is telling you.

but go ahead and blame "the liberals" or claim that Obama is "sort on terrorism." whatever makes you feel better.[/quote]

Wow. So much media parroting here...can't even respond to such drivel.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Buster;698486]Wow. So much media parroting here...can't even respond to such drivel.[/quote]


oh, hi Pot.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Rainy Parade;698484]umm, what? first of all... where's the name calling? if you mean "teabaggers" well that term has been used quite a bit all over the spectrum of mainstream media so that was not meant as name calling even though we can all giggle at the thought of glenn beck with someone's nuts in his mouth.

as for your portrayal of someone alledgedly wishing there more mcveighs, okay... as if YOUR heroes on Fox aren't stirring the pot calling guys like that patriots.


and, oh by the way, [B]Obama has largely continued the Bush-Cheney doctrine of no real jury trials for terrorists. they are not coddling terrorists, n[/B]o matter what Rush Limbaugh is telling you.

but go ahead and blame "the liberals" or claim that Obama is "sort on terrorism." whatever makes you feel better.[/quote]

Thats just not correct as Bush look at these people as terrorist and Obama by his own word says they are criminals. In this case Obama is going to use the court which is correct because it happened here and he is a citizen. Those four guys Obam wanted to try in NY was a different story on how the two look at these guys differently and sorry that was going to be a jury trial.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=firstdown;698491]Thats just not correct as Bush look at these people as terrorist and Obama by his own word says they are criminals. In this case Obama is going to use the court which is correct because it happened here and he is a citizen. Those four guys Obam wanted to try in NY was a different story on how the two look at these guys differently and sorry that [B]was going to be a jury trial[/B].[/quote]


but will it be? no.

and good job by Bush making these guys "enemy combatants" and talking about "war" because that's what they want. they want that attention, they need to feel like they are waging a war against us and giving them that status emboldens them.

do a little research on how every other country deals with them as criminals, tries them, and locks them away successfully. these worst of the worst can and would easily lose every trial cuz most of them are so dangerous and the terrorism laws are so strong. no reason to be afraid of our system. here we are allegedly defending our freedom and championing our great democracy and then not abiding by it ourselves.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Rainy Parade;698489]oh, hi Pot.[/quote]

Yeah the last few posts leading up to this on both sides were definitely pot and kettle. (or the worst of our political dialogue.)

The guy was headed to Pakistan, and he admitted he had some taliban training (i believe) HOWEVER he also had been living the "american dream", had an MBA, wife, kids. Who knows what exactly drove him past the point, the foreclosure? the taliban?

Just glad the bomb fizzled and he was caught by an effective police response.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Rainy Parade;698493]but will it be? no.

and good job by Bush making these guys "enemy combatants" and talking about "war" because that's what they want. they want that attention, they need to feel like they are waging a war against us and giving them that status emboldens them.

do a little research on how every other country deals with them as criminals, tries them, and locks them away successfully. these worst of the worst can and would easily lose every trial cuz most of them are so dangerous and the terrorism laws are so strong. no reason to be afraid of our system. here we are allegedly defending our freedom and championing our great democracy and then not abiding by it ourselves.[/quote]

You just made my piont. Bush treated them as enemy combatants and Obama is treating them as criminals. Your other post you said he was pretty much continued the Bush doctrine. Which one is the correct way I really could not say. Remember though most of the guys Bush had to deal with where captured durn war and not on our grounds.

What scares me is that they have now failed three times, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, and now this guy. Each time if their devise would have worked they would have succeeded and its just a matter of time before our luck runs out.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=firstdown;698512]You just made my piont. Bush treated them as enemy combatants and Obama is treating them as criminals. You other post you said he was pretty much contiuen the Bush doctrine. Which one is the correct way I really could say. Remember though most of the guys Bush had to deal with where captured durn war and not on our grounds.

What scares me is that they have now failed three times, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, and now this guy.[B] Each time if their devise would have worked they would have succeeded and its just a matter of time before our luck runs out.[/B][/quote]

Well, I imagine that a big part of the reason that their devices didn't work is because they have to be designed around our security regulations, so in that sense it's still a win for our system. For example, he used a fertilizer that was easier to get, because it was less explosive. Had he gotten the correct fertilizer mix, one would hope that the flag would have prevented the situation all together. You can't stop terrorists (home grown or otherwise) from trying, you just hope there are enough blockades in their way to stop them or minimize them.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;698514]Well, I imagine that a big part of the reason that their devices didn't work is because they have to be designed around our security regulations, so in that sense it's still a win for our system. For example, he used a fertilizer that was easier to get, because it was less explosive. Had he gotten the correct fertilizer mix, one would hope that the flag would have prevented the situation all together. You can't stop terrorists (home grown or otherwise) from trying, you just hope there are enough blockades in their way to stop them or minimize them.[/quote]

I know we cannot stop an attack put to have three fail for what ever reason we have been very lucky. I'm actually surprised at how poorly this guy built this bomb and he had training.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

Our biggest asset in combating terrorists is that they tend to be not so bright people. Someone with half a brain cannot be stopped with road blocks. They simply don't have the brain power to pull off an attack. The universe is nice like that.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=firstdown;698512]You just made my piont. Bush treated them as enemy combatants and Obama is treating them as criminals. Your other post you said he was pretty much continued the Bush doctrine. [/quote]


not really.
"criminals" and "enemy combatants" is pertains to word choice by Bush, Obama, you, and me, is only about semantics. those semantics make a slight difference in elevating their self-perception of their status as "warriors vs. america" but in actual practice, Obama is still sticking to "military tribunals" or "locked away with no charges/due process" just like Bush/Cheney.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Buster;698478]First of all, grow up and stop pretending to be like your heroes on the Comedy News Network with the immature, offensive name calling.

Pretty much all of the major media and a lot of politicians don't want to admit it's a Muslim. [B]A lady on NBC actually said on the air she's disappointed that this wasn't another white Timothy McVeigh[/B] because it only makes people racist for thinking of Muslims when terrorist attacks occur. What kind of insane, twisted thinking is that? Wishing there are more McVeighs?

Wake up...they've been attacking us since the late 1970s. There's more than a trend, there's an all-out war to kill you and I. They won't let one of us go because we pretend we support them and stand up for their "rights"...they'll kill you and me without caring...because we're Americans. All of the "tolerance" and "understanding" in the world won't spare you.

This Administration's "terrorists have rights too, lets read them their rights and allow them to be silent and get a lawyer after trying to murder hundreds or thousands of Americans" views are going to get us all killed.

There are 3 legal exceptions to the Miranda Rights, one being PUBLIC SAFETY. Even if this terrorist was a legal citizen, we don't need to treat them like they are a bank robber...they're trying to kill Americans in mass. Get info out of them, care about their feelings later. This is now 2 attempted attacks in a row that the process was botched in favor of the terrorist.[/quote]

Are you talking about Contessa Brewer, because what she said was:

“There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way, or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way,” Brewer said Tuesday during a radio interview with host Stephanie Miller. “I mean, they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”

“So, there was part of me really hoping this would not be the case, that here would be somebody who is not that defined,” she continued. “I mean, he’s accused, he’s arrested, you know, I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said, I mean, we know even in recent history you have the Haitari militia from Michigan who have plans to, let’s face it, create terror.”

Read more: [url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36772.html#ixzz0n4jtX2zI]Rush Limbaugh, Contessa Brewer terror comments ripped - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com[/url]

Maybe you want to call that insane, twisted thinking but then what do you call this?

“Of course, he’s a Democrat. Who knows how many times he voted and where,” Limbaugh said. “I would love if this guy were a member of ACORN.”

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[URL="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWM0MmU3NzliZWY0OTE2NjhhMWY3Yjg0YThlMWUzMTY="]Joana Goldberg[/URL]:

[QUOTE]When the Times Square story first broke there was a part of me that said, “Man, I hope it’s not some white militia nutjob.” When I saw the news this morning that it was a Pakistani, the same small part of me was relieved. I don’t want to speak for many conservatives on this, but I know I’m speaking for more than just myself.

And, I will simply assert that I believe lots of liberals had something very close to the opposite series of reactions (here’s one small example of what I’m talking about). If this had been some Tim McVeigh type, Frank Rich would know exactly what he was going to write for his Sunday column, and he would be excited about writing it. I don’t want to say he’d be happy about it (and he certainly wouldn’t be happy about the murder victims if the bomb went off). But he would certainly be smug and righteous and full of a certain emotion that looks a lot like the glee one feels when you get to say “I told you so.”

Instead, that state of mind no doubt describes quite a few conservatives this morning. [/QUOTE]

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=SmootSmack;698519]Are you talking about Contessa Brewer, because what she said was:

“There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way, or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way,” Brewer said Tuesday during a radio interview with host Stephanie Miller. “I mean, they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”

“So, there was part of me really hoping this would not be the case, that here would be somebody who is not that defined,” she continued. “I mean, he’s accused, he’s arrested, you know, I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said, I mean, we know even in recent history you have the Haitari militia from Michigan who have plans to, let’s face it, create terror.”

Read more: [URL="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36772.html#ixzz0n4jtX2zI"]Rush Limbaugh, Contessa Brewer terror comments ripped - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com[/URL]

Maybe you want to call that insane, twisted thinking but then what do you call this?

[B]“Of course, he’s a Democrat. Who knows how many times he voted and where,” Limbaugh said. “I would love if this guy were a member of ACORN.[/B]”[/quote]

Comments like this from Hannity and Rush are just to stir the pot. Every time the pot stirs their wallets grow. I don't even think they beleive i nhalf the crap they spew they just want deeper pockets.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

Speaking of Rush did you hear he suggested that environmentalists bombed that oil rig in order to sabotage the oil companies? :doh:

I thought he was leaving the country already.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Mattyk;698540]Speaking of Rush did you hear he suggested that environmentalists bombed that oil rig in order to sabotage the oil companies? :doh:

I thought he was leaving the country already.[/quote]


Perfect example there is no way he believes they should do that but he says it for shock value.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

Well I'll have to say the same thought has crossed my mind because of the timing of this to Obama saying we are going to open more areas for off shore drilling.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

first, what is the difference between trying them as criminals, or enemy combatants? isn't the end result the same? i know one is tried in civilian court. and the other in military court. is that the only difference?

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=dmek25;698577]first, what is the difference between trying them as criminals, or enemy combatants? isn't the end result the same? i know one is tried in civilian court. and the other in military court. is that the only difference?[/quote]


well i dont know all the legalese... but i dont care what you call them. just charge them with something, make them aware of the charges, and then have a real trial. i dont think that's coddling them. everyone should have due process. most of these guys can/would be easily convicted and locked away. and then the ones you hear about being held from age 14-19 with no charges and no contact with family cuz they threw a rock or some shit... they can be let go.

imagine if an american was held overseas indefinitely with no charges/trial, etc...

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

Did we ever close the Gitmo detention camps? I know we did move a lot out, but don't remember any finality.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;698590]Did we ever close the Gitmo detention camps? I know we did move a lot out, but don't remember any finality.[/quote]

Shhhhhh....we want everyone to forget about that place.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=dmek25;698577]first, what is the difference between trying them as criminals, or enemy combatants? isn't the end result the same? i know one is tried in civilian court. and the other in military court. is that the only difference?[/quote]

There is a big difference between criminal and enemy combatant. A criminal is allowed a trial by jury, complete with a competent lawyer, and the evidential standards are high. Military tribunals, on the other hand, do not contain a real jury, can be held without representation for the defense, and standards of evidence are ridiculously low. Criminal trials attempt to deliver real justice; military tribunals are essentially kangaroo courts.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

I really tried my best just to read through the posts and move on, but I just want to say a few things and let it be.
[B]
Firstdown[/B], a few of your assertions are just flat out off base. One of the chief criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy is that it's not a radical departure from Georg Bush. In fact, except for some changes to the interrogation techniques and the personnel actually conducting the interrogation, most people on the right, and I've said this before, have no problem with how he's executing the war on terror and more broadly his foreign policy.

As far as the usage of the word enemy combatants v. the word terrorist v. criminal, I don't know. He called this last guy a terrorist for what it's worth. But these guys aren't stopping because we choose to use one word vs the other, and I'm 100% certain they don't give a shit whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. We tend to cast these aspersions and question who's more patriotic and who's tougher on war, but terrorists just want to inflict massive damage and kill tens of thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. So can we put to rest this argument that Obama is not tough (contrary to tons of evidence) and his predecessor was a bad ass. The fact that we've had something like 3 prosecutions in military tribunals vs. nearly 300 in a civilian courts should be an indication of how tough it is to get an actual conviction in military court. So again, the issue isn't whether we call them enemy combatants or terrorists or anything else, but where are we most likely to get a conviction. And regardless of your politics, our civilian courts have been overwhelmingly successful at putting these bastards away for life!

[B]Buster[/B], a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? As far as this recent incident, how do you suppose we get around the Constitution and try an American citizen as a terrorist and not read him his rights where there's no precedent for it?

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;698590]Did we ever close the Gitmo detention camps? I know we did move a lot out, but don't remember any finality.[/quote]

It's not closed yet, but there's a good chance most of them get re-located to a facility in Illinois that's operating well below capacity.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=12thMan;698610]It's not closed yet, but there's a good chance most of them get re-located to a facility in Illinois that's operating well below capacity.[/quote]

I think they'd rather stay in Gitmo!



Man that's a snarky line, better used on Ohio or Montana.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;698612]I think they'd rather stay in Gitmo!



Man that's a snarky line, better used on Ohio or Montana.[/quote]


Yeah, it's a shame we spent all that coin on that facility and will shut it down. I'm all for the reasons, but what a waste.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=12thMan;698607]I really tried my best just to read through the posts and move on, but I just want to say a few things and let it be.
[B]
Firstdown[/B], a few of your assertions are just flat out off base. One of the chief criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy is that it's not a radical departure from Georg Bush. In fact, except for some changes to the interrogation techniques and the personnel actually conducting the interrogation, most people on the right, and I've said this before, have no problem with how he's executing the war on terror and more broadly his foreign policy.

As far as the usage of the word enemy combatants v. the word terrorist v. criminal, I don't know. He called this last guy a terrorist for what it's worth. But these guys aren't stopping because we choose to use one word vs the other, and I'm 100% certain they don't give a shit whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. We tend to cast these aspersions and question who's more patriotic and who's tougher on war, but terrorists just want to inflict massive damage and kill tens of thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. So can we put to rest this argument that Obama is not tough (contrary to tons of evidence) and his predecessor was a bad ass. The fact that we've had something like 3 prosecutions in military tribunals vs. nearly 300 in a civilian courts should be an indication of how tough it is to get an actual conviction in military court. So again, the issue isn't whether we call them enemy combatants or terrorists or anything else, but where are we most likely to get a conviction. And regardless of your politics, our civilian courts have been overwhelmingly successful at putting these bastards away for life!

[B]Buster[/B], a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? As far as this recent incident, how do you suppose we get around the Constitution and try an American citizen as a terrorist and not read him his rights where there's no precedent for it?[/quote]


good post, thanks.

even "liberals" like Glenn Greenwald constantly hammer obama with criticism on the fact that he is just like Bush as far as not giving due process/fair trials to these guys.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=12thMan;698607]I really tried my best just to read through the posts and move on, but I just want to say a few things and let it be.
[B]
Firstdown[/B], a few of your assertions are just flat out off base. One of the chief criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy is that it's not a radical departure from Georg Bush. In fact, except for some changes to the interrogation techniques and the personnel actually conducting the interrogation, most people on the right, and I've said this before, have no problem with how he's executing the war on terror and more broadly his foreign policy.

As far as the usage of the word enemy combatants v. the word terrorist v. criminal, I don't know. He called this last guy a terrorist for what it's worth. But these guys aren't stopping because we choose to use one word vs the other, and I'm 100% certain they don't give a shit whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. We tend to cast these aspersions and question who's more patriotic and who's tougher on war, but terrorists just want to inflict massive damage and kill tens of thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. So can we put to rest this argument that Obama is not tough (contrary to tons of evidence) and his predecessor was a bad ass. The fact that we've had something like 3 prosecutions in military tribunals vs. nearly 300 in a civilian courts should be an indication of how tough it is to get an actual conviction in military court. So again, the issue isn't whether we call them enemy combatants or terrorists or anything else, but where are we most likely to get a conviction. And regardless of your politics, our civilian courts have been overwhelmingly successful at putting these bastards away for life!

[B]Buster[/B], a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? As far as this recent incident, how do you suppose we get around the Constitution and try an American citizen as a terrorist and not read him his rights where there's no precedent for it?[/quote]

It's disgusting to hear senators and congressmen say we shouldn't mirandize a US Citizen and even worse revoke their citizenship before they're convicted. It is as if the Constitution isn't good enough for them or marginally good enough when it suites them.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=dmek25;698577]first, what is the difference between trying them as criminals, or enemy combatants? isn't the end result the same? i know one is tried in civilian court. and the other in military court. is that the only difference?[/quote]
Civilian court has totaly different rules then military court. For one a military court uses people that know law to determine if your guilty and a civilian court well uses civillians. Civilians also givees them more rights to procedures like getting read your rights which alot of these guys in gitmo did not have their rights read to them. Like I said I suport Obama in convecting this guy here because he is an American and he was in the US at the time.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Lotus;698604]There is a big difference between criminal and enemy combatant. A criminal is allowed a trial by jury, complete with a competent lawyer, and the evidential standards are high. Military tribunals, on the other hand, do not contain a real jury, can be held without representation for the defense, and standards of evidence are ridiculously low. Criminal trials attempt to deliver real justice; military tribunals are essentially kangaroo courts.[/quote]

I guess you have not sat in a court room in some years. Lady places hot coffee in lap gets burn and wins millions. Guy climbs up shelving in store and win millions. Etc....

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=12thMan;698607]I really tried my best just to read through the posts and move on, but I just want to say a few things and let it be.

[B]Firstdown[/B], a few of your assertions are just flat out off base. One of the chief criticisms of President Obama's foreign policy is that it's not a radical departure from Georg Bush. In fact, except for some changes to the interrogation techniques and the personnel actually conducting the interrogation, most people on the right, and I've said this before, have no problem with how he's executing the war on terror and more broadly his foreign policy.

As far as the usage of the word enemy combatants v. the word terrorist v. criminal, I don't know. He called this last guy a terrorist for what it's worth. But these guys aren't stopping because we choose to use one word vs the other, and I'm 100% certain they don't give a shit whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. We tend to cast these aspersions and question who's more patriotic and who's tougher on war, but terrorists just want to inflict massive damage and kill tens of thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans. So can we put to rest this argument that Obama is not tough (contrary to tons of evidence) and his predecessor was a bad ass. [B]The fact that we've had something like 3 prosecutions in military tribunals vs. nearly 300 in a civilian courts should be an indication of how tough it is to get an actual conviction in military court. [/B]So again, the issue isn't whether we call them enemy combatants or terrorists or anything else, but where are we most likely to get a conviction. And regardless of your politics, our civilian courts have been overwhelmingly successful at putting these bastards away for life!

[B]Buster[/B], a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? As far as this recent incident, how do you suppose we get around the Constitution and try an American citizen as a terrorist and not read him his rights where there's no precedent for it?[/quote]
That number of 300 if I'm correct is over years and has nothing to do with Obama.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=firstdown;698626]I guess you have not sat in a court room in some years. Lady places hot coffee in lap gets burn and wins millions. Guy climbs up shelving in store and win millions. Etc....[/quote]

Actually 3 weeks ago I went to a lecture by a military intelligence officer whose job is to fight terrorism. My post above reflects what he told me face-to-face after the lecture.

edit: Specifically, I went to a lecture by Mr. Tom Parker, who has taught counterterrorism at the Defense Institute for International Legal Studies, Yale University, and Bard College. He was a counterterrorism official for the British government and has taught counterterrorism techniques in various countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=firstdown;698556]Well I'll have to say the same thought has crossed my mind [B]because of the timing of this to Obama saying we are going to open more areas for off shore drilling.[/B][/quote]

I thought I saw that dude on the grassy knoll off Kennedy too.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Buster;697551]That's idiotic. I hope you're just attempting a bad joke.


Interestingly enough, it was parked outside Viacom, where they product offensive garbage like South Park and MTV.

It it was a Muslim who did this (it usually is), they're probably mad about some Mohammed jokes on a cartoon. As we saw with the rioting and murders all over Europe a few years ago, a simple comic strip can send millions of them them into riots and killing sprees.

Ahem...

[URL="http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/nyc/pakistani-taliban-claims-responsibility-20100502-ac"]Pakistani Taliban Claims Responsibility[/URL]

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100503/ts_nm/us_pakistan_taliban_mehsud_5"]Pakistan Taliban leader alive, threatens U.S. attacks - Yahoo! News[/URL]

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100503/ap_on_re_as/times_square_car_bomb_claim_3"]Pakistani Taliban promise US attacks post-NY scare - Yahoo! News[/URL]

[URL="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-03/pakistani-taliban-chief-vows-attacks-on-u-s-in-video-update2-.html"]Pakistani Taliban Chief Vows Attacks on U.S. in Video (Update2) - BusinessWeek[/URL][/quote]
I find Fox News much more offensive than MTV personally.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Buster;697563]I didn't even know that. I don't watch it, never will. I just know they're constantly out to offend everyone whether they carry Bibles or bombs. Someday, it could really backfire on them.[/quote]
Let me save you some time, don't be offended for other people, only yourself

Being offended for other people is the same mentality that these fanatics are using.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Buster;698478]First of all, grow up and stop pretending to be like your heroes on the[B] Comedy News Network[/B] with the [B]immature, offensive name calling[/B].

[/quote]
looool

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=12thMan;698607]

[B]Buster[/B], a simple question - What is Obama doing different from Bush or any other president in terms of giving rights when and where needed to terrorists according to the rule of law? [/quote]
whatever Faux News and the fwd's in his inbox are telling him

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=firstdown;698626]I guess you have not sat in a court room in some years. Lady places hot coffee in lap gets burn and wins millions. Guy climbs up shelving in store and win millions. Etc....[/quote]
lady is dumb as shit but also has her pants and undergarments fused to her vaginal skin due to the coffee being served above the legal serving temperature

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=firstdown;698626]I guess you have not sat in a court room in some years. [/quote]


[quote=Lotus;698643]Actually 3 weeks ago I went to a lecture by a military intelligence officer whose job is to fight terrorism. My post above reflects what he told me face-to-face after the lecture.
[/quote]


firstdown, what's that trendy word going around the internet these days? oh yea, it's FAIL.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=tryfuhl;698666]looool[/quote]

Man, that sad funny. Makes you want to smack him in the face while shouting "wake up from stupid" or some such.

Re: The "almost" Times Square Bomb
 

[quote=Mattyk;698540]Speaking of Rush did you hear he suggested that environmentalists bombed that oil rig in order to sabotage the oil companies? :doh:

I thought he was leaving the country already.[/quote]

:doh:


He often says things like this because he knows gullible liberals and media outlets will make fools of themselves by repeating and believing it. It's a take on how President Bush "bombed" the levies because he wanted to kill black people.

His satire is always based on actual statements by actual idiots.

:D