This so called President is nothing but a terrorist at best

[shanm]

Originally Posted by DSK

That's ridiculous. Partial Cherokee doesn't qualify you to whine about being barred by a 'no blacks allowed" policy!

It.was.a.joke. I was implying her NBA policy is an only "white nazi" policy. She seems like a racist bitch.

Didn't she call the POTUS a TERRORIST, without offering any proof? If she was some kid from Afghanistan, who got his parents murdered by a drone strike, well, that'd be a different story. Instead she has the gall to play the gender card. Sweetie, we're not not taking you seriously because of the fact that you're a woman. We're not taking you seriously because your very first post contained as much logic and rationale as a pile of shit.
Ever hear of IB Hankering or LustyIdiot? they're the exact same way. No one takes them seriously either.

As for the comments on your appearance, that was a little out of hand. I'm fully aware how sensitive women are about their appearance, and even a joke can be off limit sometimes. I apologize. You look exceptionally good for your age, and anyone on here would fuck you without a single thought.
Except LLIdiot. He's a flaming faggot.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'd like to hear from the families of the innocent men, women and children who have been killed and injured by US drone strikes on who they think terrorists are. When they blow up innocent people it's "terrorism". When we do it it's "national security". Bullshit. Terrorism is terrorism.

A "true" American does not justify or condone the wrongdoings of his/her government.

We agree on that. It's the american exceptionalism argument. The same rules don't apply to us is the attitude they take.

[Whirlaway]

It is how AssUp rolls; and why he has been voted Dipshit of the Year many many times....

And, don't expect AssUp to be ashamed. Sociopaths don't connect with that emotion.

Originally Posted by DSK

This is a hateful and unnecessary post. She is not calling you any names, and is stating her opinion, which she has the right to do.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Whirlaway]

Conducting a war against those who want to destroy us isn't terrorism....

War is ugly; innocents get killed.......it is the way war should be. War is suppose to inflict harm, destruction and chaos on the enemy and their populations. It is why war should be avoided...and quickly confronted when your enemies take the offense.

Clinton ignored Bin Laden's declaration of war against us; we ignored the first WTC bombing in 1993 and multiple attacks before 9-11.

Of course our enemies will call us terrorists, but you don't have to join them in their chants!

Iran’s supreme leader rallied his country shouting, “Death to America!” along with the unruly crowd.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'd like to hear from the families of the innocent men, women and children who have been killed and injured by US drone strikes on who they think terrorists are. When they blow up innocent people it's "terrorism". When we do it it's "national security". Bullshit. Terrorism is terrorism.

A "true" American does not justify or condone the wrongdoings of his/her government.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Sociopaths don't connect with that emotion.

Which emotions does Trendy and his/her fellow Idiot's connect with?

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

That's all you got? Out of all that, that's the one thing you can say? Tell me why someone killing in the name of Islam is somehow worse than someone killing in the name of christianity? Just explain that to me. We can argue about the crusades and who attacked who first until we're blue in the face, but the crux of the matter is that both sides thought god was on their side and condoned their killing of another human being. That's fucked up. That's what religion reduces you to. Murdering another human being because they don't believe in the same fairytale as you. Just think about that for a minute and how fucking stupid that is.

You and your kind are really fucked up !
What group in this world has not committed atrocities ?
Just because a group did wrong 500- 700- 2000 years ago, is it right to do evil against others today ? So Christians should go out an look for "Romans" to crucify ??? So islamist have a license to rape and pillage because 700 years ago.......blah, blah, blah. That is such an asinine perspective you embrace.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by shanm

It.was.a.joke. I was implying her NBA policy is an only "white nazi" policy. She seems like a racist bitch.

Didn't she call the POTUS a TERRORIST, without offering any proof? If she was some kid from Afghanistan, who got his parents murdered by a drone strike, well, that'd be a different story. Instead she has the gall to play the gender card. Sweetie, we're not not taking you seriously because of the fact that you're a woman. We're not taking you seriously because your very first post contained as much logic and rationale as a pile of shit.
Ever hear of IB Hankering or LustyIdiot? they're the exact same way. No one takes them seriously either.

As for the comments on your appearance, that was a little out of hand. I'm fully aware how sensitive women are about their appearance, and even a joke can be off limit sometimes. I apologize. You look exceptionally good for your age, and anyone on here would fuck you without a single thought.
Except LLIdiot. He's a flaming faggot.

First, I do understand that we all have different "mental sets" of what certain word meanings are. Understand, the word "terrorism" does not always mean violence, it also means intimidation. IMHO, this man is certainly quite polarizing in that he/politicians, these days use the dichotomies rich/poor, black/white, corporations/capitalism etc. in order to pit one against the other, (that is the emergence of intimidation) instead of conveying to "we the people" how we can all work together (that is a leader). Then came more intimidation to SCOTUS at the 05 State of the Union address when he wished to scold them in front of the world to do what, intimidate? A true leader would have taken them aside and said "this is my opinion, not have been a pompous azz and scolded people who were old enough to wipe his azz when he was a baby, its called respect. There were many in between then and now but I would like to illuminate on "the now". The most recent form of intimidation by this POTUS has been to our Police Officers, instead of to the criminals who were the ones to put themselves in harms way by being the miscreants that they are. No one likes to be stopped or arrested, but if you are taught respect for the law, (which is any societies backbone/buttress), you comply to the officers command. So once again, intimidation is used because they, "the officers are racist", instead of using the moment as a learning experience for blacks.

Of course, the subject at hand in the OP was on giving Iran what they want, instead of taking it to Congress aka the American people, and discussing the matter, but then again, why would he do that, he has gotten away with soo much, (comprehensive bailout to Cuba) because Congress has not got the cahunas to stand up to him for fear the race card will once again be thrown at them.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

We agree on that. It's the american exceptionalism argument. The same rules don't apply to us is the attitude they take.

With the difference, of course, being that they fucking started it. And, that we lack the intent to kill those innocents unlike the religious psychopaths who have no qualms or regrets regarding whoever gets killed and who, in fact, unlike us, target innocent civilians and non-combatants intentionally.

While loss of innocent lives is always regrettable, war is going to produce collateral damage. I am comfortable that we do everything possible to minimize it. In fact, I would be willing to bet that we refrain from many many opportunities to kill folks who desperately need killing because of the danger of collateral damage.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Conducting a war against those who want to destroy us isn't terrorism....

War is ugly; innocents get killed.......it is the way war should be. War is suppose to inflict harm, destruction and chaos on the enemy and their populations. It is why war should be avoided...and quickly confronted when your enemies take the offense.

Clinton ignored Bin Laden's declaration of war against us; we ignored the first WTC bombing in 1993 and multiple attacks before 9-11.

Of course our enemies will call us terrorists, but you don't have to join them in their chants!

Iran’s supreme leader rallied his country shouting, “Death to America!” along with the unruly crowd.

Clinton wasn't the only POTUS ignoring things whirlytard.....

Transcript of the August 6, 2001 Daily Presidential Briefing (remind me...who was POTUS on that day? Five weeks before 9/11? Fuck you.)

Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US



Saturday, April 10, 2004 Posted: 6:51 PM EDT (2251 GMT)

Story Tools

RELATED
• Al Qaeda threat briefing released




YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
White House
Acts of terror
Al Qaeda
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?



The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.
Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.
Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by timpage

With the difference, of course, being that they fucking started it. And, that we lack the intent to kill those innocents unlike the religious psychopaths who have no qualms or regrets regarding whoever gets killed and who, in fact, unlike us, target innocent civilians and non-combatants intentionally.

While loss of innocent lives is always regrettable, war is going to produce collateral damage. I am comfortable that we do everything possible to minimize it. In fact, I would be willing to bet that we refrain from many many opportunities to kill folks who desperately need killing because of the danger of collateral damage.

We get back to the old "moral equivelent" argument that was being pushed back in the Cold War years, where many chided the US for demonizing the Soviet Empire. "They are just as good as we are, only different". It was, as President Reagan said, and evil empire.
If Islam disappeared tomorrow, the World would be a much better place. The teachings of the Prophet Muhammad are in direct conflict with the freedoms and values that we, as Western Democracies, value.

.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by shanm

It.was.a.joke. I was implying her NBA policy is an only "white nazi" policy. She seems like a racist bitch.

Didn't she call the POTUS a TERRORIST, without offering any proof? If she was some kid from Afghanistan, who got his parents murdered by a drone strike, well, that'd be a different story. Instead she has the gall to play the gender card. Sweetie, we're not not taking you seriously because of the fact that you're a woman. We're not taking you seriously because your very first post contained as much logic and rationale as a pile of shit.
Ever hear of IB Hankering or LustyIdiot? they're the exact same way. No one takes them seriously either.

As for the comments on your appearance, that was a little out of hand. I'm fully aware how sensitive women are about their appearance, and even a joke can be off limit sometimes. I apologize. You look exceptionally good for your age, and anyone on here would fuck you without a single thought.
Except LLIdiot. He's a flaming faggot.

Only lying, brain-dead jackasses like you don't take facts seriously, shamman.

Originally Posted by timpage

Clinton wasn't the only POTUS ignoring things whirlytard.....

Transcript of the August 6, 2001 Daily Presidential Briefing (remind me...who was POTUS on that day? Five weeks before 9/11? Fuck you.)

Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US



Saturday, April 10, 2004 Posted: 6:51 PM EDT (2251 GMT)

Story Tools

RELATED
• Al Qaeda threat briefing released




YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
White House
Acts of terror
Al Qaeda
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?



The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.
Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.
Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Read it again, Little Timmy-tard.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Republicans prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and go 'blah, blah, blah, I can't hear you'.

Says the immature jackass who puts you on "ignore" when you beat him in every argument.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by rioseco

You and your kind are really fucked up !
What group in this world has not committed atrocities ?
Just because a group did wrong 500- 700- 2000 years ago, is it right to do evil against others today ? So Christians should go out an look for "Romans" to crucify ??? So islamist have a license to rape and pillage because 700 years ago.......blah, blah, blah. That is such an asinine perspective you embrace.

You're missing the point entirely. As most of your ilk did. It's not asinine. No one is saying it's ok, goddamn. He's simply saying that no one is perfect. No one religion has the market cornered on violence. No, he's not saying they're right in what they're doing. He's spoken out against violence in the name of Islam HUNDREDS of times, but you don't want to hear that because it doesn't fit your story of him. So you ignore it and just keep filling your head with the hate. Wake up man.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

We get back to the old "moral equivelent" argument that was being pushed back in the Cold War years, where many chided the US for demonizing the Soviet Empire. "They are just as good as we are, only different". It was, as President Reagan said, and evil empire.
If Islam disappeared tomorrow, the World would be a much better place. The teachings of the Prophet Muhammad are in direct conflict with the freedoms and values that we, as Western Democracies, value.

.

This is a little simplistic. If all murderers disappeared tomorrow the world would be better off too, but it ain't happening. The arrogance with which we carry ourselves puts people off. Especially people we would like to build alliances with. And that last part is the exact reason our form of government won't work over there. It's why we set up free elections and they elect the muslim brotherhood into power. We think that given free elections, they will elect the candidate we want them to, but their values are in direct conflict to ours. We have to learn to coexist or we will simply have continued problems, over and over.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Being president of the USA requires you to deal with people that are not friends to us. Sometime negations are in order for the good of the country.

Yes little eva, sometimes "negations" are in order. That's why Odumbo keeps trying to negate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our system of checks and balances, the separation of powers, the Freedom of Information Act, the 501(c) tax code, our national security, respect for law enforcement, and our long-standing foreign allies, to name just a few. Yes little eva, your man Odumbo is quite good at "negations"... negotiations, not so much.