Foiled Terror Plots Against America Since 9/11

[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.

[JSojourner]

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.

[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.

[JSojourner]

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.

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.

I'll do my level best to give you a wide berth.

[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.

[JSojourner]

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.

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.

So for me, it got personal when you called me a hack here and a "worthless hack" in another thread.  When someone gets personal with me, I get personal with them.  But I never said you were unpopular.  Anywhere.  To the contrary, I think you're one of the more well-liked people here on the forum and that's great.  All I meant to say -- and I probably could have said it better -- was that I wasn't going to equivocate or back off because of that. And that's hardly an immature thing.  The immature approach would be to kiss ass.  Hell, I get accused by liberals of kissing too much blue avatar ass already! LOL

Anyway -- it's over as far as I am concerned. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[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.

[AkSaber]

Well I for one am just glad we haven't been attacked again. That's what I think the gist of this topic is.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If it's to be accepted at total face value - then fine.

But give Naso's constant threads on his fear that only Reps can protect America.

Forgive me if I doubt his specific motives.

[Хahar 🤔]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[...]

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.

Most Obama supporters on this forum: "Of course not! It's likely Obama!"

Hmm, let's see if a single person claims that.

Oh, well of course they won't now! One of the poster boys for the GOP-McCain supporters already called out them out on their stupidity.

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

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What about the anthrax? Oh, wait that only threatened control of the Democratically controlled Senate. It doesn't count as terrorism.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

Richard Reid was too stupid to know that he was allowed to take a lighter on board, and was too incompetent to light a match. Please, some of these terror plots failed only because of their own stupidity.

I'm so glad that folks who willing kill themselves as part of an attack are so much smarter. 

Richard Reid would have killed himself if he had been successful. If had been more competent, he would have been successful. Now, some credit for the attack failing does go to the people on the plane who subdued him, but it's really his own failure.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

BRTD is still obsessing about Obama winning Kansas? Something that was big months ago? How surprising!

It's also kind of disgusting at how light hearted people have taken the foiled terrorist attacks. I'm getting the sense that some of the left hate Bush so much that they secretly wish we'd be attacked and scoff at the ones we've stopped. For God's sake, let's all be thankful we haven't had any more bloodshed at home.

[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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

BRTD is still obsessing about Obama winning Kansas? Something that was big months ago? How surprising!

It's also kind of disgusting at how light hearted people have taken the foiled terrorist attacks. I'm getting the sense that some of the left hate Bush so much that they secretly wish we'd be attacked and scoff at the ones we've stopped. For God's sake, let's all be thankful we haven't had any more bloodshed at home.

Many of those attacks were foiled by nations that are full of "leftists" that "hate America"...

We don't scoff at what the Bush administration has done to foil specific terrorist plots.  I commend him for that.

But he has bankrupted our country by providing irresponsible tax cuts to the rich, ruined our reputation around the world, fueled more terrorists, and sent our nation to war with a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Of course now you can say "oh, things are going well"... but you can't just send a nation to war for no good reason and then say "well, we won, so what's the big deal"

[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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[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?

[Ban my account ffs!]

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?

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."

But you don't go into war just for the political side effects.  You go in with clear objectives. 

Oh well... there's no sense in arguing about it now because what's done is done and we need to focus on what's best for Iraq and the U.S.