Foiled Terror Plots Against America Since 9/11

[Keystone Phil]

Why is this being scoffed at?  Since when is protecting the country a laughable offense?  That's really pretty sick, folks.

Sadly, it's not surprising considering who made the comments.

[Keystone Phil]

What is scoffed at is the implication that protecting America from terrorism only became a concern once we had a conservative Republican President.  And one must wonder if, by implication, we are being asked to believe that Barack Hussein Osama will be much less interested in protecting America than his Republican counterpart.

No where in this thread was any of that even implied. Save the hack remarks for another thread.

[Keystone Phil]

What is scoffed at is the implication that protecting America from terrorism only became a concern once we had a conservative Republican President.  And one must wonder if, by implication, we are being asked to believe that Barack Hussein Osama will be much less interested in protecting America than his Republican counterpart.

No where in this thread was any of that even implied. Save the hack remarks for another thread.

Even if it wasn't, Naso is kinda notorious for Terrorism=Republican good threads....

Ok but that wasn't the point here.

[Keystone Phil]

Why do you feel the need to make this personal?  There was nothing hackish in what I said.

It was totally hackish since no one mentioned what you were talking about. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I understand. So I can just assume that you'll say that Bush is worse than Hitler, right? I can't just sit back and wait for you to say it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good, mature attitude!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Except...no one has done that though so your justifications for that assumption failed.

[Keystone Phil]

Sorry Phil.  You just don't get it.

Don't get patronizing with me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right. Here's what I have to say now...

Bush is not Hitler.

I said that because you were going to say it at some point. You won't say it now because I defused your talking point.

Leave the kid games for the kids, pal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, wow!

Whose being the kid now and whose name calling? Please remind me.

Please don't tell me that it's "mature" to pre-empt some attack you dreamed up to fulfill your hack quota for the day.

[Keystone Phil]

Sorry Phil.  You just don't get it.

Don't get patronizing with me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right. Here's what I have to say now...

Bush is not Hitler.

I said that because you were going to say it at some point. You won't say it now because I defused your talking point.

Leave the kid games for the kids, pal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, wow!

Whose being the kid now and whose name calling? Please remind me.

Please don't tell me that it's "mature" to pre-empt some attack you dreamed up to fulfill your hack quota for the day.

Take a deep breath, Phil.  Relax.  It'll be okay.

I have nothing to relax about. I just feel sorry for those that resort to "I'm going to do whatever I want. I knew you guys were going to say x,y and z so I had to attack before you did!"

You're like sixty years old, right? Isn't it time to distance yourself from the thirteen year old girl arguments?

Hmmm...I guess not. After all, you were asking about Rin Chan earlier...

It's ok, pal. Take a deep breath. Relax.

[Keystone Phil]

Nothing immature happening on this end.  But foolish, perhaps.  I really shouldn't be wasting my time defending myself against you of all people.  But I have learned something.  In another thread, I was trying to clarify exactly what was and was not "troll-like" behavior.  While so many of your posts aimed at other folks are interesting, helpful and insightful...for some reason...your responses aimed at me are classically trollish.  I'm not sure why, but I accept that a group this large can never exist without certain personalities clashing.  That must be us.

Classically trollish? Dude, I said that your comments about Republicans attacking Clinton were hackish and they were. You defended it with, "Well, someone was going to say it so I had to act! I'm right! You're wrong!" And then when no one said it, you resorted to, "Well, I scared them away!"

I have nothing against your personally. I really don't. You decided to get personal when I simply asked that hack statements should be saved for other threads. You decided to attack me because I'm...unpopular on the Internets! Oh no! How will I go on now? And then you said nothing "immature" on your end? Come on now.

You made some partisan hack statement in "defense" of something that never happened. When you had the chance to take it back, you decided to come after me personally. I don't go after you personally, pal. I decided to in the last post since your previous post was full of jabs.

[Keystone Phil]

You have completely misunderstood.  I take it personally when someone calls me a hack.  Because, if anything, I bend over backwards not to be hackish...while still trying to retain something of my liberal identity.  If you poll most of the Pubbies and Indies here, my guess is they will back me up.  Maybe not...and if I so, I have misread myself big time.

I think, for the most part, you aren't a hack but you made a hackish remark. That's all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, listen, it really doesn't bother me but you said it in so many words. You said, "He's awfully popular and I would just hate to get on his bad side..."

That's clear sarcasm about me actually being unpopular.

What is scoffed at is the implication that protecting America from terrorism only became a concern once we had a conservative Republican President.  And one must wonder if, by implication, we are being asked to believe that Barack Hussein Osama will be much less interested in protecting America than his Republican counterpart.

No where in this thread was any of that even implied. Save the hack remarks for another thread.

Oh come on Phil, this isn't Meet the Press.

Reading between the lines isn't hackish when there's something to be read.

I don't know what this not being Meet the Press has to do with anything. It was an unnecessary hackish remark and it's only justified with, "Well, you were going to say it anyway and you're lying if you claim that you weren't going to." There was no implication in Naso's post that Bush and the GOP are the only ones that care about/protect us from terrorism.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil is a little...defensive. This could be a problem if/when he decides to seek elective office.

I stand up for what I believe in so it's always "defensive" to the other side. Of course there's no real objection here so it needs to be made personal.

Xahar is mind blowingly annoying. This is a problem every day he lives his life.

I don't need advice from an eleven year old on how to conduct myself politically, pal. Thanks though.

Also your standard excuse from you and Duke for the "Obama will win Kansas" and whatnot spam.

Except that that was about a specific topic concerning a state that was argued, in the past, to possibly swing. This was simply a topic based on attacks foiled since 9/11 and nothing to do with what happened in the past.

[Keystone Phil]

Also your standard excuse from you and Duke for the "Obama will win Kansas" and whatnot spam.

Except that that was about a specific topic concerning a state that was argued, in the past, to possibly swing.

In one post quite a few months earlier.

...by one of your more respected Obama fanatic supporters.

Anyway, since then we haven't been on anyone's case about Kansas going for Obama. We've moved on to other pie in the sky predictions.

[Keystone Phil]

Also your standard excuse from you and Duke for the "Obama will win Kansas" and whatnot spam.

Except that that was about a specific topic concerning a state that was argued, in the past, to possibly swing.

In one post quite a few months earlier.

...by one of your more respected Obama fanatic supporters.

Anyway, since then we haven't been on anyone's case about Kansas going for Obama. We've moved on to other pie in the sky predictions.

Which is kind of my point, you "preemptively" mock Obama supporters over nitpicks from awhile back, which is exactly what you're attacking JSojourner over doing.

Here's another example: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=77387.0

Please note who the first person to reply to this thread which is supposedly full of delusional Obama supporters is.

I have said several times that I don't speak for Duke. He does do it far too often.

I attacked JSojourner for doing so in a topic not related to Bill Clinton and his record fighting terrorism. It's not the same.

[Keystone Phil]

and sent our nation to war with a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Terrorism isn't just about 9/11.

[Keystone Phil]

and sent our nation to war with a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Terrorism isn't just about 9/11.

Just like the war in Iraq wasn't just about WMDs... but that's not necessarily a good thing.  $$$$  What an ingenious way to transfer large sums of money from hard working Americans to the pockets of the President's buddies.

Just like every other war has been just about "$$$$" right?

[Keystone Phil]

What was the main objective of going into Iraq?  WMDs?  Al Queda? 

Hell, even if Bush had said "we need to remove Saddam Hussein from power" from the beginning, that would have been at least a little better.  Sure, he may not have been popular for it, but by now people would have said "well, we accomplished our main objective and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."  Instead, we're left with "well, at least Saddam Hussein is gone and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."

Actually, I don't know about everyone else but I remember that the WMD argument wasn't the only reason for going in.

I know it might not seem to be the case five years afterwards but removing Saddam from power will be much better when you take a long term look at things.

[Keystone Phil]

I agree, the world is a better place without Saddam. However, there are still many dictators throughout the world without which the world would also be a much better place, particularly for the oppressed people in these countries....You know...like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba.....even China...

You have to pick your battles. Sorry if that sounds cynical but it's the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it is our duty to liberate every country with military force. We have put appropriate pressure on other countries through different means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From "our" perspective? You're German, correct? You don't share "our" perspective.

Iraq was definitely more dangerous when it came to physical force compared to countries like China, Cuba and Zimbabwe. We have to handle North Korea and Iran a bit differently but military action should never be taken off the table.

[Keystone Phil]

I've made quite clear that I'm half-American, and even registered to vote

Never knew that.

[Keystone Phil]

This is exactly the point.

If the case made was humanitarian.... fine.

That was always one of my reasons and the administration did use it as a reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree but we know that the target is Islamic militants.