|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 14, 2009 12:06:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on Jul 14, 2009 12:15:29 GMT -5
Hmm. So, they told their self-limited audience how bad those nasty liberals are, and showed their huge balls and ability to rationally defend their position by sticking it away in the corner of their website where no-one who'd point and call "bullshit" is reasonably likely to look.
Can't they just wank away in private?
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 14, 2009 12:15:46 GMT -5
Oh boy! They pulled out my favorite argument ever. "With George W. Bush in office, we have not had another attack since 9/11/2001." Well, yeah, let's just totally ignore that the 9/11 attack did happen, and that the Bush Admin ignored intelligence report that stated Al Quida was determined to attack the US. So let's just totally ignore that there might have been a chance to prevent the attacks. Morons.
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on Jul 14, 2009 12:20:39 GMT -5
And let's deftly ignore the Madrid bombings, the Bali bombings, the London Tube Bombings and a few other little doozies directly related to the Commander-in-Chimp's war on an abstract concept. Because they happened to foreigners, and they aren't even real people. Heck, that was a solution to immigration, deftly played by Bush.
I also like "So what if we didn't find Bin laden, He's dead, and the tapes are fake". I'm sure that's a line they'll faithfully stick to should Osama release another opus on the world.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 14, 2009 12:22:11 GMT -5
Not to mention that we have been attacked since (anthrax, anyone?) and that the war in Iraq alone has killed thirty times more people than another 9/11 would have. But most of those were muslims, so who cares?
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jul 14, 2009 12:41:30 GMT -5
Oh boy! They pulled out my favorite argument ever. "With George W. Bush in office, we have not had another attack since 9/11/2001." Well, yeah, let's just totally ignore that the 9/11 attack did happen, and that the Bush Admin ignored intelligence report that stated Al Quida was determined to attack the US. So let's just totally ignore that there might have been a chance to prevent the attacks. Morons. Yep. I like how they bring up the attack in 93 under Clinton and then go on to blame him for terrorists attacks outside the US. BUT ignore similar attacks under Shrub. Under the "logic" they use for Shrub, one can use to say Clinton also defended us. Not a single new attack by Islamic fundamentalists since until a year into Bush's term, you know. But then saying what is true isn't the point. It's only important to spew propaganda and being consistent gets in the way of that.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 14, 2009 16:23:11 GMT -5
Dammit, their free shirt section doesn't actually have anything for free. I wanted an idiotic shirt.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 14, 2009 16:40:13 GMT -5
They are also very much mistaken.
Also, for the record, there was not one terrorist attack on US soil in 2001.
There were over 20.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 14, 2009 16:41:47 GMT -5
They are also very much mistaken. Also, for the record, there was not one terrorist attack on US soil in 2001. There were over 20. What were they? Anthrax has been mentioned, but I don't think there were 20 cases of that.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 14, 2009 16:43:18 GMT -5
All the rest were domestic.
Just like all the terrorist attacks on America's soil since.
You want some scary stuff, google William Krar.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Jul 14, 2009 17:14:00 GMT -5
Wow the hillbillies finally got an Edumacation and started their own business (instead of sucking on the teat of welfare, and hating minorities for doing the same). I have to admit its a decent set-up considering I have seen militia websites (which I am sure this site supports is someway) and they totally fail compared to this site.
|
|
leo
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by leo on Jul 14, 2009 17:15:09 GMT -5
Do they sell American Taliban t-shirts?
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 14, 2009 17:45:08 GMT -5
I dunno, I recall seeing one funny shirt there that had a picture of Kim Jong Il with an afro with the caption, "When You've Got Nukes, You've Got Seoul."
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 14, 2009 18:34:42 GMT -5
Oh boy! They pulled out my favorite argument ever. "With George W. Bush in office, we have not had another attack since 9/11/2001." Well, yeah, let's just totally ignore that the 9/11 attack did happen, and that the Bush Admin ignored intelligence report that stated Al Quida was determined to attack the US. So let's just totally ignore that there might have been a chance to prevent the attacks. Morons. I love Bush and Co's primary defence: "Not including the single worst terrorist attack on US soil, no more American white civilians were killed by external terrorists in the mainland and on the balance of things than the average presidency." Narrow much?
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 14, 2009 18:36:34 GMT -5
I will, however, address the letter:
And how will you exploit the emotion of a national tragedy this time?
I feel the need to remind conservatives that not single one of the 19 hijackers was Iraqi or Iranian.
No shit, Sherlock.
The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Christian Patriots, Lord's Resistance Army, Army of God, Iron Guard, Lambs of Christ, Jewish Defense League, Irgun, Tamil Tigers, military government of Myanmar and the army of Lon Nol would like a word with you, you hypocrite.
Need I remind you that beginning in the Carter administration and extending through the Reagan administration, the CIA helped train and fund the people who attacked us in 1993, 1998, 2000 and 2001? Al-Qaeda started as the mujahideen, religious fascists whom our nation aided in their fight against the Soviet Union. See Operation Cyclone for details.
Yes that's so much worse than what Bush did. Look, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, and I should point out that not all liberals consider themselves Democrats, but we still haven't captured or killed bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri. In fact, we came close to capturing him when we invaded Afghanistan under Bush, but he decided to allow the Pakistani forces to finish the job, and they let him slip through their fingers. Then, instead of focusing on bin Laden, Bush decided to go way the fuck out into left field and attack Iraq by fixing evidence and manipulating the American people into thinking Saddam Hussein was developing or had already developed nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, was intent on using them on the U.S. and/or Israel, and had a connection with the 9/11 attacks--all utter falsehoods.
We've only had four major attacks on U.S. soil that I can think of, excluding attacks on U.S. embassies. Pearl Harbor, the '93 WTC bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11th attacks. Only three of those happened in my lifetime. Of those three, two occurred during the Clinton administration. Of those two, only one was perpetrated by al-Qaeda. The largest attack was that of 9/11 which occurred on GEORGE W. BUSH'S WATCH. He was warned several times about a plot to attack the U.S. which would involve planes and high profile targets such as the WORLD TRADE CENTER. He fucked that up and we were attacked. Then he proceeded to fuck up further by abandoning the search for bin Laden and attacking a dictator who had nothing to fucking do with the situation. You're right when you say we haven't been attacked on the mainland since then. Perhaps they're distracted or perhaps they're still plotting. I don't know. But what I do know is that thousands of our own troops and troops from allied nations are maimed and dead, roughly one million Iraqis have been killed by Coalition forces since 2003, Spanish trains have been blown up, British buses have been blown up and leaders such as Benazir Bhutto have been assassinated. And even if we haven't been attacked on the mainland again yet, that doesn't mean we're more safe.
I disagree. I think Bush has made the world less safe through the use of torture, preemptive war, and a neverending assault on our environment and civil liberties.
So, they did have something to do with the Iraq War, you misogynistic, homophobic, ignorant Internet Tough Guy?
So, because we think there may be an attack on us some time we can ignore international law and invade random countries, kill a bunch of brown people and try to take their resources? Great logic, Republicunt.
No, if Clinton employed that tactic we would have been stuck in the Iraq quagmire and we would've been attacked on 9/11.
He's quite good at sending out messages from beyond the grave, isn't he?
Even though the voice on the tapes has been verified as authentic by the CIA? My God, it's the ghost of bin Laden!!!!!!!111!!1
He seems to elude our forces fairly easily. Try the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Yet all evidence suggests he's alive and kicking. Besides, if we killed him, he'd probably have been declared a martyr by now by al-Qaeda.
Because that's what Arabs eat, right?
Again, new tapes with his voice. You fail.
That's like saying, "Well, we can't find that serial killer, but he hasn't attacked in quite a while, so he's irrelevant." If a Democrat botched the terror war as much as Dubya did, you'd be calling for his head. If a Democrat invaded Afghanistan and failed to catch bin Laden in 8 years time, you'd be calling him a failure of a President. And that's precisely what Bush was: a failure.
Yes, because if we keep torturing and murdering people and bomb some more countries the world would love us more than if we used diplomacy. Even Reagan could meet with Soviet leaders. For Christ's sake, Nixon met with Mao Tse Tung. Quit your bitching about diplomacy and drop the macho, neanderthal attitude.
Because acting just like our enemies will make us free!......Or something....
Again, we were attacked on his watch. Secondly, his strategy failed. Bin Laden is still out there and we're stuck trying to police the streets of TWO nations at the same time.
Happy 9/11? Yeah, you're not a sick fuck at all, are you? - DevilsChaplain
|
|