Better late than . . .

[BT]

Both Hasan and the Detroit Bomber had contact with one Anwar Al-Alwaki

13 people were killed by Hasan. untold hundreds could have been killed by Abdulmutullab. I wouldn't call these phony attacks that did not kill anyone.

[Michael Tee]

<<Both Hasan and the Detroit Bomber had contact with one Anwar Al-Alwaki

<<13 people were killed by Hasan. untold hundreds could have been killed by Abdulmutullab. I wouldn't call these phony attacks that did not kill anyone.>>

al Awlaki is a preacher who hates the U.S., preaches jihad against it and praises anyone who attacks it.  There is no evidence whatsoever that he plans attacks, counsels individuals on how to attack, or shelters anyone who has committed an attack.

Actually, there's no difference at all between Awlaki and American preachers like Pat Robertson, who call for war on Iran, the assassination of Hugo Chavez and other acts of violence and mayhem.

Major Hasan and the Detroit bomber may very well be filled with hate for America because of the influence of al Awlaki in the same way that millions of Americans are filled with hate for Iran/Hugo Chavez/Muslims, etc.,  because of the influence of Pat Robertson and other preachers like him.

You are really making a stretch by claiming that because one listens to or corresponds with a hate-filled preacher, whether Christian or Muslim, that one is therefore a dangerous, trained terrorist and a member of an organized terror network.  Quite frankly, you are making no sense at all.  The Detroit bomber's "foiled attack" on a U.S. airliner was clearly a fake, a set-up by the American state security apparatus akin to the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident and no American was injured in the "attack;"  Major Hasan, as I indicated previously, was clearly a nut-case soldier going ballistic, as has happened many times in the past and will continue to happen many times in the future.  Clearly, apart from fueling the hatred, Awlaki had nothing to do with either of the "attacks."

Paul Craig Roberts makes a lot more sense than you do.  If there had been an organized attempt by a "terror organization" to attack Americans on American soil, you would think that ONCE - - just ONCE - - such an attack would have been made successfully.  As Mr. Roberts says, the fact that high-school misfits, fucked-up vets and disgruntled ex-employees pull this shit off all the time makes it obvious that there are no dedicated suicidal squads of trained, professional al Qaeda killers operating in the U.S. and never have been.

[sirs]

<<Both Hasan and the Detroit Bomber had contact with one Anwar Al-Alwaki

<<13 people were killed by Hasan. untold hundreds could have been killed by Abdulmutullab. I wouldn't call these phony attacks that did not kill anyone.>>

The Detroit bomber's "foiled attack" on a U.S. airliner was clearly a fake, a set-up by the American state security apparatus akin to the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident and no American was injured in the "attack;"  

And clearly you have evidence/proof of such.  We'll patiently wait to see some validation to your current unsubstantiated opinion

If there had been an organized attempt by a "terror organization" to attack Americans on American soil, you would think that ONCE - - just ONCE - - such an attack would have been made successfully.  

Again, thanks to Bush & the American people, such a large scale attack, such as 911 appears to have been averted.  At least for now.  But we will get hit again.

[BT]

You are really making a stretch by claiming that because one listens to or corresponds with a hate-filled preacher, whether Christian or Muslim, that one is therefore a dangerous, trained terrorist and a member of an organized terror network.

Define terrorist.

[Michael Tee]

<<Define terrorist. >>

  It's a highly subjective term.  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.   That's why I usually put it in quotes when I use it.

[BT]

<<Define terrorist. >>

  It's a highly subjective term.  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.   That's why I usually put it in quotes when I use it.

In the United States, what is the definition of terrorism?

[sirs]

<<Both Hasan and the Detroit Bomber had contact with one Anwar Al-Alwaki
<<13 people were killed by Hasan. untold hundreds could have been killed by Abdulmutullab. I wouldn't call these phony attacks that did not kill anyone.>>

The Detroit bomber's "foiled attack" on a U.S. airliner was clearly a fake, a set-up by the American state security apparatus akin to the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident and no American was injured in the "attack;"  

And clearly you have evidence/proof of such.  We'll patiently wait to see some validation to your current unsubstantiated opinion

As everyone else also notices......didn't think so

[Plane]

It asks the unanswerable question, if the "terrorists" are such a constant threat, how is it that they haven't been able to pull off any major attacks since the WTC attacks?

The question is not unanswerable , only he true answer is unbearable to the questioner.

Bush did right.

Was right .

Was effective.

If America shows weakness and uncertainty, the world will drift toward tragedy. That will not happen on my watch.
George W. Bush

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_W._Bush

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.
George W. Bush,

Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.
George W. Bush

We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
George W. Bush, September 7, 2003

Bush did right.

Was right .

Was effective.

============================================

That is hilarious.  

So what they can't get right in Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan, they got right in the U.S.A. ....?

Yes of course.

Are the attacks on the Kobar Towers and the American Embassys in Tanzinea and Kenya hilarious too?  Please ask your question again and be specific as to what you are really asking.

  Al Queda was causing a big attack every ten months or so while Clinton was President and the  response was either ineffective or nothing. The Al Queda attacks escalated .

 Attacking Al Queda suffeciently to actually weaken them turns out to have been a better choice. Even if we never can totally eliminate them, attacks suffecient to keep them miserable and weak can be managed , perhaps forever.

[Michael Tee]

When you cut through all the irrelevant bullshit (such as the declamations by George W. Bush on what Americans are or are not) and get back to the real no-bullshit world of common sense, the questions asked by Paul Craig Roberts remain curiously unanswered except by ludicrous and lame claims that "Bush got it right" that deny all common sense.

Has any participant in a war EVER gotten it SO "right" that in nine years of continuous warfare, that participant suffers not a single casualty?  The greatest minds in military history could not boast such an accomplishment, but Bush - - BUSH ! ! ! - - was able to "get it right."  Preposterous.

If the U.S.A. really IS in a "war" with ruthless, unscrupulous "terrorists" how is it that in nine solid years of this "war," not a single neocon, public official, soldier or soldier's family member has ever been assassinated on U.S. soil by a member of a "terrorist" gang or network?    THAT is the problem and that is why this "war" is, as Mr. Roberts so rightly says, a hoax.

[Plane]

Why nine years?

The Kobar towers , the Cole , the Embassy bombing... several other attacks directly attributable to Al Quieda?

Why not say fifteen years? Why not say twenty?

The enemy kept on growing and strikeing bigger targets escalateing their attacks and digging deeper in in Afganistan. They would never have quit untill someone got it right.

Bush got it right and your assertion otherwise is lucridous. The question asked is answered no other way , you may call it unanswerable because you find the truth unacceptable.

[Michael Tee]

<<Why nine years?>>

Because in nine years since the WTC attack, there has been no successful attack on ANY American in the U.S.A. by any so-called "terrorist" gang, cell, organization or network.  NONE.  Not a single neocon assassinated, not a single politician, public figure, etc.  You are "at war" with an enemy that has not inflicted one single casualty on you in NINE FUCKING YEARS?  Who are you kidding?  What military genius was ever able to wage war for nine years without suffering a single casualty?  Hannibal?  Alexander the Great?  Julius Caesar?  Robert E. Lee?  Now you are telling me that what they could never accomplish, George W. Bush has succeeded in doing?  Because HE "got it right" and all those other bozos got it wrong?  Really, plane, this IS kind of hard to swallow

<<The Kobar towers , the Cole , the Embassy bombing... several other attacks directly attributable to Al Quieda?>>

Obviously, if you push your forces into their territory, some of them who are not so thrilled to see you there are going to push back.  That explains both the Kobar Towers and the Cole, both of which were purely military targets a long way from home.  Their purposes were hardly innocent.  The Embassy bombings, while not attacks on military targets, were no indication either that Americans living at home in their own country were in any particular danger.  Obviously, you have people, countries and organizations around the world that hate your fucking guts and do not welcome you into their lands and homes and will gladly sacrifice their own lives to see that you do not stay too long there.  But the "War on Terror" is based on the aftermath of Sept. 11, on the theory that you are engaged in a "war" with a ruthless and wily opponent who is coming after you in your own homeland (thus the Department of Homeland Security) and that this extraordinary "threat" (which is in fact pure bullshit) needs to be defended with kangaroo-court military commissions replacing courts of law, with torture and illegal arrests and detentions, etc., all justified as "wartime" exigencies, despite the fact that there is no war.

<<Why not say fifteen years? Why not say twenty?>>

Because I'm counting from a genuine and real attack on Americans on American soil,  not from some imaginary event that might have taken place fifteen or twenty years ago.

<<The enemy kept on growing and strikeing bigger targets escalateing their attacks and digging deeper in in Afganistan. They would never have quit untill someone got it right.>>

Sure, that was because they did not want U.S. troops on Muslim land - - the escalations were against legitimate U.S. targets on Muslim soil.  The attack on the WTC was a criminal operation, not a war.

<<Bush got it right and your assertion otherwise is lucridous. >>

Ridiculous.  For reasons already given.

<<The question asked is answered no other way , you may call it unanswerable because you find the truth unacceptable.>>

I call it unanswerable because nobody's yet been able to answer it except in lame and ridiculous terms that defy common sense.

[Plane]

   You are makeing a seaparation in events that is confuseing you,...


    Al Queda declaired war on us twenty years ago, and never palced any limit on where or how many Americans it would kill. I deny their right to kill Americans or Canadians for reason of having American or Canadian feet on Arabian dirt.

They also never had a right to kill Tanzineans or Kenyans or Arabians who happened to be passing by an American when the Al Quada bombs would blow up.

Also your assertian that AlQueda couldn'tbe failing if they were real is lucridious , of course they could fail, I sincerey hope thay continue to fail.

We are the more powerfull contestant in the fight so we get to choose the venue. If we choose to choose the venue. This is something that Bush got entirely right. The Al Queda was a lot more effective when they go to pick where and when to strike and never needed to face Armed Americans. Americans who can shoot back tipicly kill Al Queda fighters at a rate that weakens them for future conflict , this we cannot keep up forever because we will eventually run low on targets.

[Plane]

By the way I also deny Al Queda the right to kill Swedes or Danes for drawing insulting drawings , I deny their right to kill Duchmen or DutchWomen for makeing Movies that insult Sharia Law.

Further I deny them the right to kill Spanyards or Englishmen for commuteing.


I fnally deny that Al Queda has any right to strike Christians or Muslims or Jews or Kiffir anywhere they find them vunerable just because they find them vunerable.

[Michael Tee]

<<Al Queda declaired war on us twenty years ago, and never palced any limit on where or how many Americans it would kill. >>

I don't know about "declaring war," I suppose if you have such a document or declaration, I'd be interested to see it.  Whether or not al Qaeda "declared war" on the USA is of minimal significance.  I could declare war myself on the USA tomorrow, but my mere declaration could not possibly have the effect of creating a real war.

Regardless of what they declared, they commenced a series of attacks against U.S. installations, both military and civilian, in their little corner of the world.  They also made two attacks on the WTC, the latter of which succeeded spectacularly.  The attacks on American lives and property abroad leave America with some choices to make - - pull out of places where some folks don't think you should be,  or defend yourselves by fortifying the properties and catching the attackers.  The attacks on American soil obviously require a beefing up of security, and it seems this has been done.

The problem with the creation, for propaganda purposes, of a fake "war" to deal with (a) isolated attacks on your military bases and ships in the Third World, (b) isolated attacks on your Embassies and (c) one spectacular attack on the US homeland which took less than 3,000 lives, is that the rhetoric of "war" is used to silence or diminish free and open debate inside America, give powers to the President that the Constitution never intended for him to have and mainly to justify and cover for wars of unprovoked aggression in the Middle East and the totally unnecessary expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in "defence" and "homeland security" which only a real war could ever justify.


<<I deny their right to kill Americans or Canadians for reason of having American or Canadian feet on Arabian dirt.>>

So what?  They deny the rights of the owners of those feet to put them on Arabian dirt.

<<They also never had a right to kill Tanzineans or Kenyans or Arabians who happened to be passing by an American when the Al Quada bombs would blow up.>>

No, only Americans can blow up the innocent and say, "Oooops.  Collateral damage."

<<Also your assertian that AlQueda couldn'tbe failing if they were real is lucridious , of course they could fail, I sincerey hope thay continue to fail.>>

There are failures and there are failures.  It's ludicrous to suggest that the test of their being real is whether they can nuke the Capitol, assassinate the Joint Chiefs of Staff and occupy the White House, but it's not ludicrous at all to suggest that their failure to assassinate on American soil one neocon, one public figure etc. in nine long years of "war" is evidence, not of their alleged "failure," but of their non-existence.  The "War on Terror" is sold on the threat to American lives in their home in the American homeland, not on what happened to the Kobar Towers or USS Cole.  It's sold with the frantic assurance that "this threat is DIFFERENT," it's a threat from within.  And it's used to jack hundreds of billions more from the American taxpayer.

<<We are the more powerfull contestant in the fight so we get to choose the venue. >>

That's the official line.  The fact is, you are the ONLY contestant in the fight, but you can't very well bomb villages in America, so you HAVE to "choose the venue" to be in Iraq or Afghanistan.

<<If we choose to choose the venue. This is something that Bush got entirely right. >>

Wake up, plane.   First he bamboozled you into agreeing that America was at war, THEN he told you that he was choosing the venue.  That is hilarious.  If you really were at war, the venue would be wherever al Qaeda decided it wanted to kill Americans.  But what you are saying is that in nine years, the "enemy" couldn't (due to the brilliance of Bush) infiltrate one agent or team into the US to score even one hit?  Ridiculous.

<<The Al Queda was a lot more effective when they go to pick where and when to strike and never needed to face Armed Americans. Americans who can shoot back tipicly kill Al Queda fighters at a rate that weakens them for future conflict >>

Yet strangely enough in nine years, shooting back and "weakening them for future conflict," it appears they are stronger than ever.  Go figger.

<<this we cannot keep up forever because we will eventually run low on targets.>>

Sure plane, let us know when THAT happens.  [jaw dropping in amazement at what a good fight you Americans can talk]

[BT]

So what?  They deny the rights of the owners of those feet to put them on Arabian dirt.

It's not Al Queda call to deny those feet. Until they reach the status of a sovereign govt , they are nothing but thugs.