Is this country bleeping stupid?!?!?!
ci5ic
02-04-2003, 09:05 PM
What a bunch of morons is all I can say.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/868533.asp?0cv=CB20
Here's the synopsis:
— As competing factions jockeyed to decide a Ground Zero template for the future, officials Tuesday narrowed their choice of urban-design proposals to two — one by Studio Daniel Libeskind and one by the THINK team. Libeskind’s design proposes a 1,776-foot tower and would make visible “the great slurry walls” that descend into the bedrock foundations of Ground Zero. THINK envisions a lattice-work scaffolding even higher, soaring 2,100 feet. Both would be the world’s tallest towers.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall... apparently, the original two towers were just too short, and we should give terrorists a much bigger target. :rolleyes:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/868533.asp?0cv=CB20
Here's the synopsis:
— As competing factions jockeyed to decide a Ground Zero template for the future, officials Tuesday narrowed their choice of urban-design proposals to two — one by Studio Daniel Libeskind and one by the THINK team. Libeskind’s design proposes a 1,776-foot tower and would make visible “the great slurry walls” that descend into the bedrock foundations of Ground Zero. THINK envisions a lattice-work scaffolding even higher, soaring 2,100 feet. Both would be the world’s tallest towers.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall... apparently, the original two towers were just too short, and we should give terrorists a much bigger target. :rolleyes:
Graphik Styles
02-04-2003, 09:08 PM
supposedly america wants to "show up the terrorists" by building bigger towers to tell them that they are stronger as a nation and shit..............
IMO.......stupidest shit ever.........i agree wit ci5ic if they get blown up again then america's gonna be pissed........why not prevent it by not building bigger towers again!!!:rolleyes:
IMO.......stupidest shit ever.........i agree wit ci5ic if they get blown up again then america's gonna be pissed........why not prevent it by not building bigger towers again!!!:rolleyes:
Oz
02-04-2003, 09:09 PM
:huh:
I do beleive the unequivocable answer is yes.
I do beleive the unequivocable answer is yes.
WakkaWu
02-04-2003, 09:17 PM
I disagree.Leaving ground zero as ground zero would make Alkyda think they won.Secruity is the answer.
Oz
02-04-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
Alkyda
:rolleyes:
Al-Qaeda maybe?
Alkyda
:rolleyes:
Al-Qaeda maybe?
Genesis2
02-04-2003, 09:25 PM
how the hell would I know
ci5ic
02-04-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
I disagree.Leaving ground zero as ground zero would make Alkyda think they won.Secruity is the answer.
Security does not = building bigger targets.
Oh, and in a sense, they did win... not the war, but they certainly won the battle. They kicked our ass pretty hard. Why give them a second, easier chance?
I disagree.Leaving ground zero as ground zero would make Alkyda think they won.Secruity is the answer.
Security does not = building bigger targets.
Oh, and in a sense, they did win... not the war, but they certainly won the battle. They kicked our ass pretty hard. Why give them a second, easier chance?
SilverLotus340R
02-04-2003, 09:38 PM
are those buildings "memorium" buildings..or are they gonna be more freakin offices where people die because there is no room to get out..
i agree..in this case..bigger is not better..bigger gets ppl killed
im starting to think about moving away from this country its so stupid...i mean Bush ...ah..nevermind i wont start on that elf
i agree..in this case..bigger is not better..bigger gets ppl killed
im starting to think about moving away from this country its so stupid...i mean Bush ...ah..nevermind i wont start on that elf
Oz
02-04-2003, 09:44 PM
Come to Australia. No one wants to bomb us because we're insignificant and pacified (mostly through drinking too much)...
speediva
02-04-2003, 09:58 PM
I say we essentially re-build what stood there, but keep some memorial in mind somehow...
NSX
02-04-2003, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Oz
Come to Australia. No one wants to bomb us because we're insignificant and pacified (mostly through drinking too much)...
hehe...I'm not sure about Insignificant...Aussie's have got some power!
Crocodile Hunter!
I think its the only country to have the Chevrolet Monaro?
Anyways, your quote sounds a bit like Canada too; except were significant of course! :D
Come to Australia. No one wants to bomb us because we're insignificant and pacified (mostly through drinking too much)...
hehe...I'm not sure about Insignificant...Aussie's have got some power!
Crocodile Hunter!
I think its the only country to have the Chevrolet Monaro?
Anyways, your quote sounds a bit like Canada too; except were significant of course! :D
JD@af
02-04-2003, 10:29 PM
A rather pessimistic editorial, Ci5ic, but I have to agree. I have talked to no one in Manhattan that would work there if towers were rebuilt, in one fashion or another. As sure as I was that the Bucs were going to trounce the Raiders in the Superbowl, if rebuilt, I would be even more confident that it was just a question of time before the towers were destroyed again.
I am all for a memorial, and I am all for making the site into productive working space. But for shit's sake, even a 30-story building will afford lots of space for new businesses (or old ones for that matter), and be small enough to blend right into the lower Manhattan skyline. Even if Bin Laden were not to direct another attack on the proposed towers, there are lots of other fundamentalists with motivation and capital to work with (if you need a refresher on how hated America is, check out some of the footage of people celebrating the space shuttle Columbia tragedy). More than any other place on earth, another set of towers would be an open invitation for attack - you might as well put a large bullseye on the sides of the new buildings.
I am all for a memorial, and I am all for making the site into productive working space. But for shit's sake, even a 30-story building will afford lots of space for new businesses (or old ones for that matter), and be small enough to blend right into the lower Manhattan skyline. Even if Bin Laden were not to direct another attack on the proposed towers, there are lots of other fundamentalists with motivation and capital to work with (if you need a refresher on how hated America is, check out some of the footage of people celebrating the space shuttle Columbia tragedy). More than any other place on earth, another set of towers would be an open invitation for attack - you might as well put a large bullseye on the sides of the new buildings.
Jimster
02-04-2003, 10:37 PM
If they rebuild big towers then who the fuck will occupy them??? No-one- People are no way going to go back to the WTC if they build the towers bigger- hence there'd be one helluva lot of moneyt lost.
Build them small- or just make a park
Build them small- or just make a park
ci5ic
02-04-2003, 11:31 PM
Another point is that it's not necessary to have all those offices in the same place... in this day and age of internet and other technology, you could scatter those offices all across the US and it would still function fine, and wouldn't give terrorists a centralized target.
JD@af
02-04-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by ci5ic
Another point is that it's not necessary to have all those offices in the same place... in this day and age of internet and other technology, you could scatter those offices all across the US and it would still function fine, and wouldn't give terrorists a centralized target. True. I've heard that there is in fact enough existing vacant office space in Manhattan alone to relocate every square foot of office space that was destroyed Sept. 11th.
Another point is that it's not necessary to have all those offices in the same place... in this day and age of internet and other technology, you could scatter those offices all across the US and it would still function fine, and wouldn't give terrorists a centralized target. True. I've heard that there is in fact enough existing vacant office space in Manhattan alone to relocate every square foot of office space that was destroyed Sept. 11th.
WakkaWu
02-05-2003, 06:04 AM
They got the WTC because they bombed us twice before...u.s.s. Cole(I think it was that one)and the first time Osama bombed the WTC.And what did Clinton do?Nothing but going on with chasing teenage girls through the White House.
And yes,it will be for offices.And yes,people will come running because there are thousands out of jobs right now in New York.
Just because we were attacked,you can't stop living your life.You can't hide in your house for the rest of your life.Life goes on.
I say we essentially re-build what stood there, but keep some memorial in mind somehow...
I totally agree Saturn.
Security does not = building bigger targets
I meant airport security.If we had more airport security and new who was flying our planes,I think it never would have happened.
And yes,it will be for offices.And yes,people will come running because there are thousands out of jobs right now in New York.
Just because we were attacked,you can't stop living your life.You can't hide in your house for the rest of your life.Life goes on.
I say we essentially re-build what stood there, but keep some memorial in mind somehow...
I totally agree Saturn.
Security does not = building bigger targets
I meant airport security.If we had more airport security and new who was flying our planes,I think it never would have happened.
lordvektra
02-05-2003, 10:52 AM
I have to disagree, truthfully the only way we MAY have the security to stop stuff like this in the future is if we continue on with stuff like the "Homeland security Act" and the "Patriot act". Basically make it all right and easier for the government to watch other countries and our own. There is no way we can have highly trained agents posted at all the airports in America and metal detectors or any other detectors can be fooled. I believe we must not dwell on the past but if we don’t learn from it history will repeat itself. Tell me what is the point of 2 huge towers… to save our pride? Americans are good at that. To rebuild the towers will cost lots of money, which we could use on many different things we can use to protect us and they make an easy target for anyone who wants to prove a point. Like I said, what’s the point of these towers besides our hurt pride?
kicker1_solo
02-05-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by ci5ic
The bigger they are, the harder they fall... apparently, the original two towers were just too short, and we should give terrorists a much bigger target. :rolleyes: I don't think they would want to take out a studio :confused:
They took out the twin towers for a reason, not because they were two tall buildings, but what existed in the buildings. They're not gonna bomb the hell out of this studio tower just because it's tall.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall... apparently, the original two towers were just too short, and we should give terrorists a much bigger target. :rolleyes: I don't think they would want to take out a studio :confused:
They took out the twin towers for a reason, not because they were two tall buildings, but what existed in the buildings. They're not gonna bomb the hell out of this studio tower just because it's tall.
S Brake
02-05-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by SilverLotus340R
im starting to think about moving away from this country its so stupid...i mean Bush ...ah..nevermind i wont start on that elf Then fucking do it. If you don't like the US or our leaders, by all means hate the US somewhere else.
im starting to think about moving away from this country its so stupid...i mean Bush ...ah..nevermind i wont start on that elf Then fucking do it. If you don't like the US or our leaders, by all means hate the US somewhere else.
ci5ic
02-05-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by kicker1_solo
I don't think they would want to take out a studio :confused:
They took out the twin towers for a reason, not because they were two tall buildings, but what existed in the buildings. They're not gonna bomb the hell out of this studio tower just because it's tall.
I'm completely aware of that fact. But if we rebuild, and the same things exist in the new buildings, it will still be a target because of it's symbolism and it's relationship to our economy.
I don't think they would want to take out a studio :confused:
They took out the twin towers for a reason, not because they were two tall buildings, but what existed in the buildings. They're not gonna bomb the hell out of this studio tower just because it's tall.
I'm completely aware of that fact. But if we rebuild, and the same things exist in the new buildings, it will still be a target because of it's symbolism and it's relationship to our economy.
WakkaWu
02-05-2003, 02:05 PM
Then fucking do it. If you don't like the US or our leaders, by all means hate the US somewhere else
I agree.I work with this person that is upsessed with Spain and Spanish countrys.She always is saying how she is going to go to Mexico and protest again America.She always talks about how bad America is.I always tell her...If she don't like it here,then why is she still here.Its Ridiculous because they obviously love it here or they wouldnt be here.Same with you Lotus,you think our leaders are so terrible and so is the country and you got it so bad here,then go to Iraq.
I agree.I work with this person that is upsessed with Spain and Spanish countrys.She always is saying how she is going to go to Mexico and protest again America.She always talks about how bad America is.I always tell her...If she don't like it here,then why is she still here.Its Ridiculous because they obviously love it here or they wouldnt be here.Same with you Lotus,you think our leaders are so terrible and so is the country and you got it so bad here,then go to Iraq.
Scott 02
02-05-2003, 02:34 PM
I here it all the time. Like Wakkawu said Lotus, either stay here were it is safer or go to Iraq were I here that US will start to drop bombs on them.:eek: :) Alot of people hate this country and thats their choice. Most all of them are big losers anyway that have no jobs.
taranaki
02-05-2003, 02:58 PM
The's a lot of people talking utter crap in this thread,but I believe that it is their right to do it if they wish.Bush supporters should remember that he was elected by the narrowest of margins,and there is a sizeable body of American who don't want him as their president.Those people who are suggesting that citizens who dislike Bush should leave the U.S. clearly do not understand democracy,the U.S.constitution,or the real world.Intolerance brought the World Trade Center down,it would seem that some people have learnt nothing from it.
Back on topic,presumably the decision as to what to build on the site should remain with the owners of the land that it occupies[with the usual input from the city planning department].The World Trade Center was never of any importance to me personally,and I doubt if any replacement structure will have any place in my life either.
Back on topic,presumably the decision as to what to build on the site should remain with the owners of the land that it occupies[with the usual input from the city planning department].The World Trade Center was never of any importance to me personally,and I doubt if any replacement structure will have any place in my life either.
S Brake
02-05-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
The's a lot of people talking utter crap in this thread,but I believe that it is their right to do it if they wish.Bush supporters should remember that he was elected by the narrowest of margins,and there is a sizeable body of American who don't want him as their president.Those people who are suggesting that citizens who dislike Bush should leave the U.S. clearly do not understand democracy,the U.S.constitution,or the real world.Intolerance brought the World Trade Center down,it would seem that some people have learnt nothing from it.
i was replying to silverlotus. He simply stated that he is thinking about moving because the country is so stupid. go ahead and re-read his post. he didn't say much at all about bush.
And who cares about margins, like dom says doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning.
The's a lot of people talking utter crap in this thread,but I believe that it is their right to do it if they wish.Bush supporters should remember that he was elected by the narrowest of margins,and there is a sizeable body of American who don't want him as their president.Those people who are suggesting that citizens who dislike Bush should leave the U.S. clearly do not understand democracy,the U.S.constitution,or the real world.Intolerance brought the World Trade Center down,it would seem that some people have learnt nothing from it.
i was replying to silverlotus. He simply stated that he is thinking about moving because the country is so stupid. go ahead and re-read his post. he didn't say much at all about bush.
And who cares about margins, like dom says doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning.
WakkaWu
02-05-2003, 04:14 PM
I'll say this much,Clinton was one of the worst presidents this country has ever had if not the worst.Bush isnt the best we ever had,but by far better than Clinton.Clinton made half our military into queers too.And also sat on his ass and did nothing the first two times Bin-Laden got us.Oh wait,he didnt sit on his ass the whole time,hahaha,"oh Monika,meet me in Lincolns bedroom please!"
Scott 02
02-05-2003, 04:16 PM
:thumbup: :hehehe: Great point.... Its the truth too
WakkaWu
02-05-2003, 04:33 PM
lol
Jimster
02-05-2003, 05:32 PM
OK so clinton was a bad president- care to elaborate on why?
Because when Clinton handed his presidency over to Bush the US economy was a LOT better than it is now- with Dubya in charge. Clinton is also an extremely intellegent man- he has made many post presidency speeches with some of the most intellegent points that are relevant to the turbulent modern times. WakkaWu- although you have already shown us you are a redneck- and a damned thick one at that- you have a n inability to support anything you say so just go sit in the corner or something.
As for this whole Lewinsky bs- HOW does that affect Clintons role as president? I mean if he wants to fuck other women then that is his personal life and his business- it has NOTHING to do with his professional life.
Back to the issue at hand- Airport security is lame- all non-US citizens get checked thouroughly at US airports- but US Citizens go straight through- so what if a US-citizen Al Qaeda sympathiser decides to board a plane??? nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeoooooowmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....BO OM!!!!!!!! There goes the WTC towers again. It is simple- The towers were a monstrosity in the first place- so why not create more smaller buildings that blend in better with the New York Syline????
EDIT: This is getting political- time to move to the politics forum
Because when Clinton handed his presidency over to Bush the US economy was a LOT better than it is now- with Dubya in charge. Clinton is also an extremely intellegent man- he has made many post presidency speeches with some of the most intellegent points that are relevant to the turbulent modern times. WakkaWu- although you have already shown us you are a redneck- and a damned thick one at that- you have a n inability to support anything you say so just go sit in the corner or something.
As for this whole Lewinsky bs- HOW does that affect Clintons role as president? I mean if he wants to fuck other women then that is his personal life and his business- it has NOTHING to do with his professional life.
Back to the issue at hand- Airport security is lame- all non-US citizens get checked thouroughly at US airports- but US Citizens go straight through- so what if a US-citizen Al Qaeda sympathiser decides to board a plane??? nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeoooooowmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....BO OM!!!!!!!! There goes the WTC towers again. It is simple- The towers were a monstrosity in the first place- so why not create more smaller buildings that blend in better with the New York Syline????
EDIT: This is getting political- time to move to the politics forum
taranaki
02-05-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by snowboarder
And who cares about margins, like dom says doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning.
As victories go,it's a false one.Only 28%of Americans actually voted him in his supporters are outnumbered almost 3 to 1 by people who either don't want him or don't care.
and as for WakkaWu's comments.........:rolleyes: What the hell has Clinton got to do with the argument?he's not in the running as an alternative to the current President.I love the way the Republicans pull him out of the hat whenever their favourite draft-dodger gets criticized.
And who cares about margins, like dom says doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning.
As victories go,it's a false one.Only 28%of Americans actually voted him in his supporters are outnumbered almost 3 to 1 by people who either don't want him or don't care.
and as for WakkaWu's comments.........:rolleyes: What the hell has Clinton got to do with the argument?he's not in the running as an alternative to the current President.I love the way the Republicans pull him out of the hat whenever their favourite draft-dodger gets criticized.
Jimster
02-05-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
and as for WakkaWu's comments.........:rolleyes: What the hell has Clinton got to do with the argument?he's not in the running as an alternative to the current President.I love the way the Republicans pull him out of the hat whenever their favourite draft-dodger gets criticized.
Loving that last line- They'd have an easier time critisizing Al Gore than Clinton. It really is justa sign of desperate resorts when the heat is put on them :rolleyes:
and as for WakkaWu's comments.........:rolleyes: What the hell has Clinton got to do with the argument?he's not in the running as an alternative to the current President.I love the way the Republicans pull him out of the hat whenever their favourite draft-dodger gets criticized.
Loving that last line- They'd have an easier time critisizing Al Gore than Clinton. It really is justa sign of desperate resorts when the heat is put on them :rolleyes:
DaFoo
02-05-2003, 06:20 PM
In case you didn't notice, the one with the frame around it is not that tall, just the frame is. The buildings inside of it are at a 'normal' height with the other buildings around it. If a plane were to hit it, it would not kill thousands of people, just ruin part of the frame. To actually hit the building part would be next to impossible.
v10_viper
02-05-2003, 06:32 PM
I'd like to see them get past out security now to run a plane into there. and if they find some other way who cares, the F-16's are running so tigh up there if an unintroduced plane flew within the radius of NY F-16s would have it gone in no time. not sure what their armament is but if they're carrying sparrows them things have a 28 mile range, so with the advanced radar they're carrying lets see anything happen to them buildings. i truly hope they build them, we shouldn't let Bin Towel Head scare us like that.
Scott 02
02-05-2003, 07:27 PM
Loving that last line- They'd have an easier time critisizing Al Gore than Clinton. It really is justa sign of desperate resorts when the heat is put on them
Why critisize Al Gore? He In my opinion he would have been better than Bush right now. All Bush is doing is finishing what Daddy left off with. His last name has a history of screwing people. Is Brother i believe screwed thousands over an oil business in Texas. This name has some bad history and if you Jimster aske me to back this up....Well i basically did. Al Gore has seen the Vietnam war. He was around that stuff. This guy is sitting laughing at Bush now at all the mistakes he has already made. The bottom line is...Gore would have made a better President than Bush. Questions???
Why critisize Al Gore? He In my opinion he would have been better than Bush right now. All Bush is doing is finishing what Daddy left off with. His last name has a history of screwing people. Is Brother i believe screwed thousands over an oil business in Texas. This name has some bad history and if you Jimster aske me to back this up....Well i basically did. Al Gore has seen the Vietnam war. He was around that stuff. This guy is sitting laughing at Bush now at all the mistakes he has already made. The bottom line is...Gore would have made a better President than Bush. Questions???
Jimster
02-05-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Scott 02
Why critisize Al Gore? He In my opinion he would have been better than Bush right now. All Bush is doing is finishing what Daddy left off with. His last name has a history of screwing people. Is Brother i believe screwed thousands over an oil business in Texas. This name has some bad history and if you Jimster aske me to back this up....Well i basically did. Al Gore has seen the Vietnam war. He was around that stuff. This guy is sitting laughing at Bush now at all the mistakes he has already made. The bottom line is...Gore would have made a better President than Bush. Questions???
Agreeed (For once :D) But I never really compared Al Gore to Bush (He is still a better man for the job than Bush) I was more comparing him to clinton- who is indeed one of the best Presidents America has had since the 50's :)
Why critisize Al Gore? He In my opinion he would have been better than Bush right now. All Bush is doing is finishing what Daddy left off with. His last name has a history of screwing people. Is Brother i believe screwed thousands over an oil business in Texas. This name has some bad history and if you Jimster aske me to back this up....Well i basically did. Al Gore has seen the Vietnam war. He was around that stuff. This guy is sitting laughing at Bush now at all the mistakes he has already made. The bottom line is...Gore would have made a better President than Bush. Questions???
Agreeed (For once :D) But I never really compared Al Gore to Bush (He is still a better man for the job than Bush) I was more comparing him to clinton- who is indeed one of the best Presidents America has had since the 50's :)
Scott 02
02-05-2003, 07:57 PM
Your right about compairing with Clinton. Thanks for agreeing with me. :) Maybe this should go to the political forum.
Jimster
02-05-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Scott 02
Your right about compairing with Clinton. Thanks for agreeing with me. :) Maybe this should go to the political forum.
It is in the political forum- but there is a re-direct in COT :)
Your right about compairing with Clinton. Thanks for agreeing with me. :) Maybe this should go to the political forum.
It is in the political forum- but there is a re-direct in COT :)
WakkaWu
02-06-2003, 05:52 AM
Mr.T,Clinton has plenty to do with the subject.The fact is that he sat on his ass and did nothing the first time Bin-Laden got us.
Jimster-Can you possibly go on damn thread without saying something negative to me?Damn red neck.
And please explain how I am a redneck.
And it wasnt Clinton that brought the country out of debt.It was the republicans.
Jimster-Can you possibly go on damn thread without saying something negative to me?Damn red neck.
And please explain how I am a redneck.
And it wasnt Clinton that brought the country out of debt.It was the republicans.
taranaki
02-06-2003, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
Mr.T,Clinton has plenty to do with the subject.The fact is that he sat on his ass and did nothing the first time Bin-Laden got us.
And it wasnt Clinton that brought the country out of debt.It was the republicans.
Just what has Clinton got to do with the proposed shape of the new building?You rednecks are obsessed with the guy!And check out your economy now,because under Bush,it's falling apart.Even the damn NZ dollar is up against the greenback.....:eek:
Mr.T,Clinton has plenty to do with the subject.The fact is that he sat on his ass and did nothing the first time Bin-Laden got us.
And it wasnt Clinton that brought the country out of debt.It was the republicans.
Just what has Clinton got to do with the proposed shape of the new building?You rednecks are obsessed with the guy!And check out your economy now,because under Bush,it's falling apart.Even the damn NZ dollar is up against the greenback.....:eek:
Cbass
02-06-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
Mr.T,Clinton has plenty to do with the subject.The fact is that he sat on his ass and did nothing the first time Bin-Laden got us.
Are you referring to the WTC bombing, or the attack on the USS Cole? It was never proven Bin Laden had anything to do with that, and it's only recently that it's been attributed to him.
In fact, it hasn't been proven that he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, except that a few of the hijackers passed through his training camps. If you really want to get into it, 2 of those hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east... When we ask for proof, we are told we can't be given any, as it would comprimise their intelligence sources.
My private suspicion is that Osama Bin Laden is a boogieman that the US has been using for the last decade, a face for terrorism, and now they've pinned 9/11 on him, because they don't know who did it. My private speculation only, of course... flame away.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
And it wasnt Clinton that brought the country out of debt.It was the republicans.
:huh:
Explain this to me... Sure, Clinton balanced the books by looting social security, but the first thing Bush did when he got in office was give a huge tax cut to big business!
Pssstt, in case you didn't know, the US is still in debt, in fact, considerably more debt since Bush started his "support the rich, they need all the help they can get" campaign.
Mr.T,Clinton has plenty to do with the subject.The fact is that he sat on his ass and did nothing the first time Bin-Laden got us.
Are you referring to the WTC bombing, or the attack on the USS Cole? It was never proven Bin Laden had anything to do with that, and it's only recently that it's been attributed to him.
In fact, it hasn't been proven that he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, except that a few of the hijackers passed through his training camps. If you really want to get into it, 2 of those hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east... When we ask for proof, we are told we can't be given any, as it would comprimise their intelligence sources.
My private suspicion is that Osama Bin Laden is a boogieman that the US has been using for the last decade, a face for terrorism, and now they've pinned 9/11 on him, because they don't know who did it. My private speculation only, of course... flame away.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
And it wasnt Clinton that brought the country out of debt.It was the republicans.
:huh:
Explain this to me... Sure, Clinton balanced the books by looting social security, but the first thing Bush did when he got in office was give a huge tax cut to big business!
Pssstt, in case you didn't know, the US is still in debt, in fact, considerably more debt since Bush started his "support the rich, they need all the help they can get" campaign.
WakkaWu
02-06-2003, 05:23 PM
Just what has Clinton got to do with the proposed shape of the new building?You rednecks are obsessed with the guy!And check out your economy now,because under Bush,it's falling apart.Even the damn NZ dollar is up against the greenback.....
Somebody before on this thread brought up that it would make another,larger target.But if Clinton did something the first time,the WTC would still be here.Im not upsessed with him.I hate the guy.If I had the chance,I'd put a bullet in his head.And our economy is bad because things need to be done which require large amounts of cash.
Are you referring to the WTC bombing, or the attack on the USS Cole? It was never proven Bin Laden had anything to do with that, and it's only recently that it's been attributed to him.
They both were Bin Laden,he took credit for them.And would you defend him.Huh,Im redneck.Ok.
In fact, it hasn't been proven that he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, except that a few of the hijackers passed through his training camps. If you really want to get into it, 2 of those hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east... When we ask for proof, we are told we can't be given any, as it would comprimise their intelligence sources
It HAS been proven that it WAS him.Remember all those tapes we aquired from him?He took credit for 9/11 in those tapes.If there are two hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east,then they never boarded any of the planes that crashed that day.
My private suspicion is that Osama Bin Laden is a boogieman that the US has been using for the last decade, a face for terrorism, and now they've pinned 9/11 on him, because they don't know who did it. My private speculation only, of course... flame away.
Again,why would you defend him?It was him.He has the largest terrorist organization in the world.And he's the only terrorist leader that has the money to pull a attack like 9/11 off.And again,the tapes.He admitted in them that he did it.
Explain this to me... Sure, Clinton balanced the books by looting social security, but the first thing Bush did when he got in office was give a huge tax cut to big business!
Pssstt, in case you didn't know, the US is still in debt, in fact, considerably more debt since Bush started his "support
Um, who do you think pays "big business taxes"? I can't wait to hear this.
And if Clinton had done something about the 5 or 6 Al Queda attacks made on Americans during his term, where 415 Americans DIED, we wouldn't have had 911 and we wouldn't have had to use the surplus (which is bogus anyway) to fight terrorism. Bill Clinton gave us 911, and Bill Clinton gave us the debt we're in now.
Somebody before on this thread brought up that it would make another,larger target.But if Clinton did something the first time,the WTC would still be here.Im not upsessed with him.I hate the guy.If I had the chance,I'd put a bullet in his head.And our economy is bad because things need to be done which require large amounts of cash.
Are you referring to the WTC bombing, or the attack on the USS Cole? It was never proven Bin Laden had anything to do with that, and it's only recently that it's been attributed to him.
They both were Bin Laden,he took credit for them.And would you defend him.Huh,Im redneck.Ok.
In fact, it hasn't been proven that he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, except that a few of the hijackers passed through his training camps. If you really want to get into it, 2 of those hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east... When we ask for proof, we are told we can't be given any, as it would comprimise their intelligence sources
It HAS been proven that it WAS him.Remember all those tapes we aquired from him?He took credit for 9/11 in those tapes.If there are two hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east,then they never boarded any of the planes that crashed that day.
My private suspicion is that Osama Bin Laden is a boogieman that the US has been using for the last decade, a face for terrorism, and now they've pinned 9/11 on him, because they don't know who did it. My private speculation only, of course... flame away.
Again,why would you defend him?It was him.He has the largest terrorist organization in the world.And he's the only terrorist leader that has the money to pull a attack like 9/11 off.And again,the tapes.He admitted in them that he did it.
Explain this to me... Sure, Clinton balanced the books by looting social security, but the first thing Bush did when he got in office was give a huge tax cut to big business!
Pssstt, in case you didn't know, the US is still in debt, in fact, considerably more debt since Bush started his "support
Um, who do you think pays "big business taxes"? I can't wait to hear this.
And if Clinton had done something about the 5 or 6 Al Queda attacks made on Americans during his term, where 415 Americans DIED, we wouldn't have had 911 and we wouldn't have had to use the surplus (which is bogus anyway) to fight terrorism. Bill Clinton gave us 911, and Bill Clinton gave us the debt we're in now.
D[X]P
02-06-2003, 06:47 PM
yes thats a great idea- a park in that stinking city would be very helpfull for the enviornment
screw bush hes a fag
screw bush hes a fag
WakkaWu
02-06-2003, 07:22 PM
Oh we can see your very intelligent.It would be great for the environment.I don't think it would make much of a difference in the second largest city in the world.And God put the environment here for human use anyway.Now I understand that your 13 years old,but please try to make sense the next time you reply.:)
Cbass
02-06-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you referring to the WTC bombing, or the attack on the USS Cole? It was never proven Bin Laden had anything to do with that, and it's only recently that it's been attributed to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They both were Bin Laden,he took credit for them.And would you defend him.Huh,Im redneck.Ok.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, it hasn't been proven that he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, except that a few of the hijackers passed through his training camps. If you really want to get into it, 2 of those hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east... When we ask for proof, we are told we can't be given any, as it would comprimise their intelligence sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It HAS been proven that it WAS him.Remember all those tapes we aquired from him?He took credit for 9/11 in those tapes.If there are two hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east,then they never boarded any of the planes that crashed that day.
Actually, it hasn't. There was one video tape, of a man in a dark room, poor quality film, on an angle, that talked about the attacks. We are supposed to believe this is Osama Bin Laden, when every other film he has made, even when in caves, has been shot with professional equipment and excellent lighting.
As a matter of fact, up until the invasion of Afghanistan, Bin Laden denied he had anything to do with the attacks. He never claimed responsability for the first WTC attack. I'm not sure about the USS Cole, that could very well have been him.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My private suspicion is that Osama Bin Laden is a boogieman that the US has been using for the last decade, a face for terrorism, and now they've pinned 9/11 on him, because they don't know who did it. My private speculation only, of course... flame away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again,why would you defend him?It was him.He has the largest terrorist organization in the world.And he's the only terrorist leader that has the money to pull a attack like 9/11 off.And again,the tapes.He admitted in them that he did it.
I'm not defending him, I'm stating my beliefs... You have a strange train of thought to think I defend Osama Bin Laden... In all interviews in the Middle East, he denied involvement, and I don't see why he would lie when he knew the Americans were coming for him anyways. Usually, when you pull off something like that, you do a press release, which he never did. Do you smell the US propaganda mill at work? I do.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain this to me... Sure, Clinton balanced the books by looting social security, but the first thing Bush did when he got in office was give a huge tax cut to big business!
Pssstt, in case you didn't know, the US is still in debt, in fact, considerably more debt since Bush started his "support
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, who do you think pays "big business taxes"? I can't wait to hear this.
And if Clinton had done something about the 5 or 6 Al Queda attacks made on Americans during his term, where 415 Americans DIED, we wouldn't have had 911 and we wouldn't have had to use the surplus (which is bogus anyway) to fight terrorism. Bill Clinton gave us 911, and Bill Clinton gave us the debt we're in now.
5 or 6 Al Qaeda attacks, eh? Why don't you list them, and show which ones they claimed responsability for, instead of just the ones the US said were their work.
Guess what, those 415 Americans died not because of Bill Clinton, but because of US foreign policy. Turns out when you make it a policy not to play fair internationally, some people object to it. Turns out some of those people object to it so strongly, they are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans... Of course, that's just because they're jealous of the US, isn't it :rolleyes:.
If the US is so strapped for cash, why does Bush think it's a good idea to cut taxes by trillions of dollars? That certainly seems like a good idea :rolleyes: And all you can do is bitch about Clinton.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you referring to the WTC bombing, or the attack on the USS Cole? It was never proven Bin Laden had anything to do with that, and it's only recently that it's been attributed to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They both were Bin Laden,he took credit for them.And would you defend him.Huh,Im redneck.Ok.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, it hasn't been proven that he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, except that a few of the hijackers passed through his training camps. If you really want to get into it, 2 of those hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east... When we ask for proof, we are told we can't be given any, as it would comprimise their intelligence sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It HAS been proven that it WAS him.Remember all those tapes we aquired from him?He took credit for 9/11 in those tapes.If there are two hijackers turned up alive and well in the middle east,then they never boarded any of the planes that crashed that day.
Actually, it hasn't. There was one video tape, of a man in a dark room, poor quality film, on an angle, that talked about the attacks. We are supposed to believe this is Osama Bin Laden, when every other film he has made, even when in caves, has been shot with professional equipment and excellent lighting.
As a matter of fact, up until the invasion of Afghanistan, Bin Laden denied he had anything to do with the attacks. He never claimed responsability for the first WTC attack. I'm not sure about the USS Cole, that could very well have been him.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My private suspicion is that Osama Bin Laden is a boogieman that the US has been using for the last decade, a face for terrorism, and now they've pinned 9/11 on him, because they don't know who did it. My private speculation only, of course... flame away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again,why would you defend him?It was him.He has the largest terrorist organization in the world.And he's the only terrorist leader that has the money to pull a attack like 9/11 off.And again,the tapes.He admitted in them that he did it.
I'm not defending him, I'm stating my beliefs... You have a strange train of thought to think I defend Osama Bin Laden... In all interviews in the Middle East, he denied involvement, and I don't see why he would lie when he knew the Americans were coming for him anyways. Usually, when you pull off something like that, you do a press release, which he never did. Do you smell the US propaganda mill at work? I do.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain this to me... Sure, Clinton balanced the books by looting social security, but the first thing Bush did when he got in office was give a huge tax cut to big business!
Pssstt, in case you didn't know, the US is still in debt, in fact, considerably more debt since Bush started his "support
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, who do you think pays "big business taxes"? I can't wait to hear this.
And if Clinton had done something about the 5 or 6 Al Queda attacks made on Americans during his term, where 415 Americans DIED, we wouldn't have had 911 and we wouldn't have had to use the surplus (which is bogus anyway) to fight terrorism. Bill Clinton gave us 911, and Bill Clinton gave us the debt we're in now.
5 or 6 Al Qaeda attacks, eh? Why don't you list them, and show which ones they claimed responsability for, instead of just the ones the US said were their work.
Guess what, those 415 Americans died not because of Bill Clinton, but because of US foreign policy. Turns out when you make it a policy not to play fair internationally, some people object to it. Turns out some of those people object to it so strongly, they are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans... Of course, that's just because they're jealous of the US, isn't it :rolleyes:.
If the US is so strapped for cash, why does Bush think it's a good idea to cut taxes by trillions of dollars? That certainly seems like a good idea :rolleyes: And all you can do is bitch about Clinton.
WakkaWu
02-06-2003, 08:33 PM
Actually, it hasn't. There was one video tape, of a man in a dark room, poor quality film, on an angle, that talked about the attacks. We are supposed to believe this is Osama Bin Laden, when every other film he has made, even when in caves, has been shot with professional equipment and excellent lighting.
Actually there were about 5 tapes.And you must be blind to not see him clearly.Because I did.And the angles were rights in front of his face.
As a matter of fact, up until the invasion of Afghanistan, Bin Laden denied he had anything to do with the attacks. He never claimed responsability for the first WTC attack. I'm not sure about the USS Cole, that could very well have been him.
It doesnt matter if he didnt claim he was responsible for the WTC attacks untill the invasion.He still admitted he was.And he took credit for all the others too.
I'm not defending him, I'm stating my beliefs... You have a strange train of thought to think I defend Osama Bin Laden... In all interviews in the Middle East, he denied involvement, and I don't see why he would lie when he knew the Americans were coming for him anyways. Usually, when you pull off something like that, you do a press release, which he never did. Do you smell the US propaganda mill at work? I do.
Sure as hell sounds like your defending him.And in almost all interviews in the middle east he took credit for his attacks.And why would he lie when he knew we were coming after him?Because thats what people.People will do ANYTHING do dig themselves out of a whole.And why wouldn't it be him that did the attacks anyway?He hates us.He hates our wealth.He hates our freedom.
5 or 6 Al Qaeda attacks, eh? Why don't you list them, and show which ones they claimed responsability for, instead of just the ones the US said were their work.
WTC,USS Cole, and the first WTC attack,and 2 or 3 military base bombings.
Guess what, those 415 Americans died not because of Bill Clinton, but because of US foreign policy. Turns out when you make it a policy not to play fair internationally, some people object to it. Turns out some of those people object to it so strongly, they are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans... Of course, that's just because they're jealous of the US, isn't it .
They did die because Clinton.Why didnt he do anything when he KNEW it was Osama Bin Laden the first time he attacked us?They are jealous...what other reasons would they have to do it?
If the US is so strapped for cash, why does Bush think it's a good idea to cut taxes by trillions of dollars? That certainly seems like a good idea And all you can do is bitch about Clinton.
The US isnt strapped for cash.But do you like paying taxes?Thats not all that I do.But when we put the biggest POS this country has ever had as president into that position,then you have tons to complain about.Especially when someone who loves the man like you makes ignorant comments.
Actually there were about 5 tapes.And you must be blind to not see him clearly.Because I did.And the angles were rights in front of his face.
As a matter of fact, up until the invasion of Afghanistan, Bin Laden denied he had anything to do with the attacks. He never claimed responsability for the first WTC attack. I'm not sure about the USS Cole, that could very well have been him.
It doesnt matter if he didnt claim he was responsible for the WTC attacks untill the invasion.He still admitted he was.And he took credit for all the others too.
I'm not defending him, I'm stating my beliefs... You have a strange train of thought to think I defend Osama Bin Laden... In all interviews in the Middle East, he denied involvement, and I don't see why he would lie when he knew the Americans were coming for him anyways. Usually, when you pull off something like that, you do a press release, which he never did. Do you smell the US propaganda mill at work? I do.
Sure as hell sounds like your defending him.And in almost all interviews in the middle east he took credit for his attacks.And why would he lie when he knew we were coming after him?Because thats what people.People will do ANYTHING do dig themselves out of a whole.And why wouldn't it be him that did the attacks anyway?He hates us.He hates our wealth.He hates our freedom.
5 or 6 Al Qaeda attacks, eh? Why don't you list them, and show which ones they claimed responsability for, instead of just the ones the US said were their work.
WTC,USS Cole, and the first WTC attack,and 2 or 3 military base bombings.
Guess what, those 415 Americans died not because of Bill Clinton, but because of US foreign policy. Turns out when you make it a policy not to play fair internationally, some people object to it. Turns out some of those people object to it so strongly, they are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans... Of course, that's just because they're jealous of the US, isn't it .
They did die because Clinton.Why didnt he do anything when he KNEW it was Osama Bin Laden the first time he attacked us?They are jealous...what other reasons would they have to do it?
If the US is so strapped for cash, why does Bush think it's a good idea to cut taxes by trillions of dollars? That certainly seems like a good idea And all you can do is bitch about Clinton.
The US isnt strapped for cash.But do you like paying taxes?Thats not all that I do.But when we put the biggest POS this country has ever had as president into that position,then you have tons to complain about.Especially when someone who loves the man like you makes ignorant comments.
boingo82
02-06-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Just what has Clinton got to do with the proposed shape of the new building?You rednecks are obsessed with the guy!And check out your economy now,because under Bush,it's falling apart.Even the damn NZ dollar is up against the greenback.....:eek:
I don't like Bush all that much either, but your logic is absurd. Yep, Bush caused the 9/11 attacks. :bloated: Yep, I guess he caused the dot-com crash too, seeing as he wasn't in office yet. Don't blame Al Gore, he only invented the internet. :p
Everyone blames the economy on the current president, whomever he is at the time, as though it's possible for one man to totally change the state of the economy in mere months. :rolleyes: That kind of thing takes years to fully go into effect.
Just what has Clinton got to do with the proposed shape of the new building?You rednecks are obsessed with the guy!And check out your economy now,because under Bush,it's falling apart.Even the damn NZ dollar is up against the greenback.....:eek:
I don't like Bush all that much either, but your logic is absurd. Yep, Bush caused the 9/11 attacks. :bloated: Yep, I guess he caused the dot-com crash too, seeing as he wasn't in office yet. Don't blame Al Gore, he only invented the internet. :p
Everyone blames the economy on the current president, whomever he is at the time, as though it's possible for one man to totally change the state of the economy in mere months. :rolleyes: That kind of thing takes years to fully go into effect.
Jimster
02-06-2003, 11:09 PM
Since Bush has been in the chair- Unemployment has risen, The dollar has fallen sharply- in the case of the NZ dollar- the NZ rose 15 cents against the US, former allies have soured to him, the economy has gone through a period of recession- now can you please tell me what he has done other than throw money at his fellow rich brat-pack?
That TAPE was in Arabic- so either you speak arabic or you can read OBL's mind- because quite frankly I don't trust the US media as far as I can throw them. and there has so far been only one tape- you proabably dreamt the rest :rolleyes: Has it ever been proved Bin Laden was behind these attacks? Never- he may claim responsibility- but perhaps he is trying to get attention to further his cause? He doesn't hate your wealth either- Bin Laden is a VERY wealthy man- in fact has over US$2 billion in assets- He like myself- hates your foriegn policy.
Clinton was not a war mongerer- he was a diplomat- look at what he managed to do in Israel- through his diplomatic means- he created a peace between Sharon and Arafrat- Bush comes into power- it turns to shit. Also Clinton simply wanted proof that OBL was behind all this- what if he was apprahended but it wasn't him who did it? It could havev been a very embarrasing situation for the US. Although I do think he was behing the USS Cole.
And how am I a redneck? I am a strong leftist- we are the ones that don't like the rednecks- so sod off. Redneck :)
That TAPE was in Arabic- so either you speak arabic or you can read OBL's mind- because quite frankly I don't trust the US media as far as I can throw them. and there has so far been only one tape- you proabably dreamt the rest :rolleyes: Has it ever been proved Bin Laden was behind these attacks? Never- he may claim responsibility- but perhaps he is trying to get attention to further his cause? He doesn't hate your wealth either- Bin Laden is a VERY wealthy man- in fact has over US$2 billion in assets- He like myself- hates your foriegn policy.
Clinton was not a war mongerer- he was a diplomat- look at what he managed to do in Israel- through his diplomatic means- he created a peace between Sharon and Arafrat- Bush comes into power- it turns to shit. Also Clinton simply wanted proof that OBL was behind all this- what if he was apprahended but it wasn't him who did it? It could havev been a very embarrasing situation for the US. Although I do think he was behing the USS Cole.
And how am I a redneck? I am a strong leftist- we are the ones that don't like the rednecks- so sod off. Redneck :)
Cbass
02-07-2003, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it hasn't. There was one video tape, of a man in a dark room, poor quality film, on an angle, that talked about the attacks. We are supposed to believe this is Osama Bin Laden, when every other film he has made, even when in caves, has been shot with professional equipment and excellent lighting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually there were about 5 tapes.And you must be blind to not see him clearly.Because I did.And the angles were rights in front of his face.
No, there was only one tape regarding the 9/11 attacks, and I have seen it many times. You can't make out any facial features except for the nose. It's incredibly low resolution, very dark, and completely different than any other Bin Laden tape. If there were more tapes regarding it, they would have been played many times on CNN over the last year and a half.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, up until the invasion of Afghanistan, Bin Laden denied he had anything to do with the attacks. He never claimed responsibility for the first WTC attack. I'm not sure about the USS Cole, that could very well have been him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesnt matter if he didnt claim he was responsible for the WTC attacks untill the invasion.He still admitted he was.And he took credit for all the others too.
:huh: Did you pay attention to a single statement I made? He DENIED having anything to do with them. DENIED! If he did have ANYTHING to do with them, he would have made a PRESS RELEASE, which he does whenever he does anything of any importance.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not defending him, I'm stating my beliefs... You have a strange train of thought to think I defend Osama Bin Laden... In all interviews in the Middle East, he denied involvement, and I don't see why he would lie when he knew the Americans were coming for him anyways. Usually, when you pull off something like that, you do a press release, which he never did. Do you smell the US propaganda mill at work? I do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure as hell sounds like your defending him.And in almost all interviews in the middle east he took credit for his attacks.And why would he lie when he knew we were coming after him?Because thats what people.People will do ANYTHING do dig themselves out of a whole.And why wouldn't it be him that did the attacks anyway?He hates us.He hates our wealth.He hates our freedom.
That has got to be the single most ignorant statement I have read in my time on AF. Nothing he would say would change the Americans coming after him, he had to go underground.
You're right on 1 out of 3 counts, he hates you. As for the other two points, I can only blink in disbelief at how you can believe that. He hates your country, as do many people, myself included, for the actions of your government. Aside from how they treat your own people, America really is like a big bully around the world, whenever their interests are at stake. America doesn't play fair, enough with it's closest neighbours and trade partners, Canada and Mexico. The US takes every chance to fuck Canada they can get, often in illegal trade practices. When Canada takes the US to international trade court, the US ties up the court for months, until Canada gives up. Canada get's off easy, compared to the numerous South and Central American nations who have had legitimately elected governments overthrown by "rebels" funded and trained by the CIA.
If you're hated by billions, at least find out WHY you're hated by billions.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 or 6 Al Qaeda attacks, eh? Why don't you list them, and show which ones they claimed responsibility for, instead of just the ones the US said were their work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTC,USS Cole, and the first WTC attack,and 2 or 3 military base bombings.
When I said show the ones they have claimed responsibility for, I meant it :rolleyes:
You know, the ones that can't simply be attributed to him by the US government? This is part of my "boogieman" theory.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Publications/ICPR/ICPR469_3.asp
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess what, those 415 Americans died not because of Bill Clinton, but because of US foreign policy. Turns out when you make it a policy not to play fair internationally, some people object to it. Turns out some of those people object to it so strongly, they are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans... Of course, that's just because they're jealous of the US, isn't it .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They did die because Clinton.Why didnt he do anything when he KNEW it was Osama Bin Laden the first time he attacked us?They are jealous...what other reasons would they have to do it?
:huh:
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the US is so strapped for cash, why does Bush think it's a good idea to cut taxes by trillions of dollars? That certainly seems like a good idea And all you can do is bitch about Clinton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US isnt strapped for cash.But do you like paying taxes?Thats not all that I do.But when we put the biggest POS this country has ever had as president into that position,then you have tons to complain about.Especially when someone who loves the man like you makes ignorant comments.
Where do you get any impression that I have any feelings towards Clinton at all? This seems like strong projection on your part. You stated this:
"And if Clinton had done something about the 5 or 6 Al Queda attacks made on Americans during his term, where 415 Americans DIED, we wouldn't have had 911 and we wouldn't have had to use the surplus (which is bogus anyway) to fight terrorism. Bill Clinton gave us 911, and Bill Clinton gave us the debt we're in now."
Thus making it look like the current economic problems of the US are Clintons fault, again dragging him into a completely irrelevant discussion (this seems to be a common republican theme). Even if you blame the economic woes starting when Bush got in, EVEN if you blame September 11th on him, which is flatly ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to say that, Bush did the one single thing that hurt the economy the most. When tax revenues were needed more than ever, he gave a trillion dollar tax cut to big business. Apparently this is going to help the economy in some way, not just pad the already bursting wallets of the obscenely wealthy men who run your country.
Clinton did not "give you 911" and he certainly didn't give you the debt you're in now, US economic policy over the last century have. Perhaps you should actually research what you are talking about before you start voicing incorrect statements.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it hasn't. There was one video tape, of a man in a dark room, poor quality film, on an angle, that talked about the attacks. We are supposed to believe this is Osama Bin Laden, when every other film he has made, even when in caves, has been shot with professional equipment and excellent lighting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually there were about 5 tapes.And you must be blind to not see him clearly.Because I did.And the angles were rights in front of his face.
No, there was only one tape regarding the 9/11 attacks, and I have seen it many times. You can't make out any facial features except for the nose. It's incredibly low resolution, very dark, and completely different than any other Bin Laden tape. If there were more tapes regarding it, they would have been played many times on CNN over the last year and a half.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, up until the invasion of Afghanistan, Bin Laden denied he had anything to do with the attacks. He never claimed responsibility for the first WTC attack. I'm not sure about the USS Cole, that could very well have been him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesnt matter if he didnt claim he was responsible for the WTC attacks untill the invasion.He still admitted he was.And he took credit for all the others too.
:huh: Did you pay attention to a single statement I made? He DENIED having anything to do with them. DENIED! If he did have ANYTHING to do with them, he would have made a PRESS RELEASE, which he does whenever he does anything of any importance.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not defending him, I'm stating my beliefs... You have a strange train of thought to think I defend Osama Bin Laden... In all interviews in the Middle East, he denied involvement, and I don't see why he would lie when he knew the Americans were coming for him anyways. Usually, when you pull off something like that, you do a press release, which he never did. Do you smell the US propaganda mill at work? I do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure as hell sounds like your defending him.And in almost all interviews in the middle east he took credit for his attacks.And why would he lie when he knew we were coming after him?Because thats what people.People will do ANYTHING do dig themselves out of a whole.And why wouldn't it be him that did the attacks anyway?He hates us.He hates our wealth.He hates our freedom.
That has got to be the single most ignorant statement I have read in my time on AF. Nothing he would say would change the Americans coming after him, he had to go underground.
You're right on 1 out of 3 counts, he hates you. As for the other two points, I can only blink in disbelief at how you can believe that. He hates your country, as do many people, myself included, for the actions of your government. Aside from how they treat your own people, America really is like a big bully around the world, whenever their interests are at stake. America doesn't play fair, enough with it's closest neighbours and trade partners, Canada and Mexico. The US takes every chance to fuck Canada they can get, often in illegal trade practices. When Canada takes the US to international trade court, the US ties up the court for months, until Canada gives up. Canada get's off easy, compared to the numerous South and Central American nations who have had legitimately elected governments overthrown by "rebels" funded and trained by the CIA.
If you're hated by billions, at least find out WHY you're hated by billions.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 or 6 Al Qaeda attacks, eh? Why don't you list them, and show which ones they claimed responsibility for, instead of just the ones the US said were their work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTC,USS Cole, and the first WTC attack,and 2 or 3 military base bombings.
When I said show the ones they have claimed responsibility for, I meant it :rolleyes:
You know, the ones that can't simply be attributed to him by the US government? This is part of my "boogieman" theory.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Publications/ICPR/ICPR469_3.asp
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess what, those 415 Americans died not because of Bill Clinton, but because of US foreign policy. Turns out when you make it a policy not to play fair internationally, some people object to it. Turns out some of those people object to it so strongly, they are willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans... Of course, that's just because they're jealous of the US, isn't it .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They did die because Clinton.Why didnt he do anything when he KNEW it was Osama Bin Laden the first time he attacked us?They are jealous...what other reasons would they have to do it?
:huh:
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the US is so strapped for cash, why does Bush think it's a good idea to cut taxes by trillions of dollars? That certainly seems like a good idea And all you can do is bitch about Clinton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US isnt strapped for cash.But do you like paying taxes?Thats not all that I do.But when we put the biggest POS this country has ever had as president into that position,then you have tons to complain about.Especially when someone who loves the man like you makes ignorant comments.
Where do you get any impression that I have any feelings towards Clinton at all? This seems like strong projection on your part. You stated this:
"And if Clinton had done something about the 5 or 6 Al Queda attacks made on Americans during his term, where 415 Americans DIED, we wouldn't have had 911 and we wouldn't have had to use the surplus (which is bogus anyway) to fight terrorism. Bill Clinton gave us 911, and Bill Clinton gave us the debt we're in now."
Thus making it look like the current economic problems of the US are Clintons fault, again dragging him into a completely irrelevant discussion (this seems to be a common republican theme). Even if you blame the economic woes starting when Bush got in, EVEN if you blame September 11th on him, which is flatly ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to say that, Bush did the one single thing that hurt the economy the most. When tax revenues were needed more than ever, he gave a trillion dollar tax cut to big business. Apparently this is going to help the economy in some way, not just pad the already bursting wallets of the obscenely wealthy men who run your country.
Clinton did not "give you 911" and he certainly didn't give you the debt you're in now, US economic policy over the last century have. Perhaps you should actually research what you are talking about before you start voicing incorrect statements.
WakkaWu
02-07-2003, 06:00 AM
No, there was only one tape regarding the 9/11 attacks, and I have seen it many times. You can't make out any facial features except for the nose. It's incredibly low resolution, very dark, and completely different than any other Bin Laden tape. If there were more tapes regarding it, they would have been played many times on CNN over the last year and a half.
Well,I Dont know what you had seen,but I saw 4 or 5.And in all of them it looked like they had a light show going.They were played many times.
Did you pay attention to a single statement I made? He DENIED having anything to do with them. DENIED! If he did have ANYTHING to do with them, he would have made a PRESS RELEASE, which he does whenever he does anything of any importance.
NO.He CLAIMED responsibility for the attacks.
Nothing he would say would change the Americans coming after him, he had to go underground
REALLY:bloated: But he would still deny his responsibilty for a few months before we find the tapes.
If you're hated by billions, at least find out WHY you're hated by billions.
No,Im hated by communists.Why?BEcause they hate freedeom.Such as Sadam Hussien,Osama Bin Laden, and Fedel Castro.
When I said show the ones they have claimed responsibility for, I meant it
Ok,he didnt admitt to some of them,But they were him.
Thus making it look like the current economic problems of the US are Clintons fault, again dragging him into a completely irrelevant discussion (this seems to be a common republican theme). Even if you blame the economic woes starting when Bush got in, EVEN if you blame September 11th on him, which is flatly ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to say that, Bush did the one single thing that hurt the economy the most. When tax revenues were needed more than ever, he gave a trillion dollar tax cut to big business. Apparently this is going to help the economy in some way, not just pad the already bursting wallets of the obscenely wealthy men who run your country.
He had much to do with the economic problems.
Well,I Dont know what you had seen,but I saw 4 or 5.And in all of them it looked like they had a light show going.They were played many times.
Did you pay attention to a single statement I made? He DENIED having anything to do with them. DENIED! If he did have ANYTHING to do with them, he would have made a PRESS RELEASE, which he does whenever he does anything of any importance.
NO.He CLAIMED responsibility for the attacks.
Nothing he would say would change the Americans coming after him, he had to go underground
REALLY:bloated: But he would still deny his responsibilty for a few months before we find the tapes.
If you're hated by billions, at least find out WHY you're hated by billions.
No,Im hated by communists.Why?BEcause they hate freedeom.Such as Sadam Hussien,Osama Bin Laden, and Fedel Castro.
When I said show the ones they have claimed responsibility for, I meant it
Ok,he didnt admitt to some of them,But they were him.
Thus making it look like the current economic problems of the US are Clintons fault, again dragging him into a completely irrelevant discussion (this seems to be a common republican theme). Even if you blame the economic woes starting when Bush got in, EVEN if you blame September 11th on him, which is flatly ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to say that, Bush did the one single thing that hurt the economy the most. When tax revenues were needed more than ever, he gave a trillion dollar tax cut to big business. Apparently this is going to help the economy in some way, not just pad the already bursting wallets of the obscenely wealthy men who run your country.
He had much to do with the economic problems.
Cbass
02-07-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're hated by billions, at least find out WHY you're hated by billions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No,Im hated by communists.Why?BEcause they hate freedeom.Such as Sadam Hussien,Osama Bin Laden, and Fedel Castro.
Actually, you're hated by people who love freedom, the freedom the US takes away from them, by overthrowing their governments, keeping dictators like Pinochet and the Saud family in power, and protecting Israel from the United Nations(you know, the guys you are using as a legal pretense to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation).
When the US sees something they want, they take it, and they don't stop for even a second to consider the impact on other people, or the thousands of lives it will take to get it.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I said show the ones they have claimed responsibility for, I meant it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok,he didnt admitt to some of them,But they were him.
A terrorist goes to the trouble of pulling off a large scale attack, and he doesn't even claim responsibility? That defeats the purpose of the attack, and he would never do that. He may be a fundamentalist and an extremest, but he's not stupid.
How do you know he was responsible for those attacks? You don't, you just assume it's true because CNN told you to.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus making it look like the current economic problems of the US are Clintons fault, again dragging him into a completely irrelevant discussion (this seems to be a common republican theme). Even if you blame the economic woes starting when Bush got in, EVEN if you blame September 11th on him, which is flatly ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to say that, Bush did the one single thing that hurt the economy the most. When tax revenues were needed more than ever, he gave a trillion dollar tax cut to big business. Apparently this is going to help the economy in some way, not just pad the already bursting wallets of the obscenely wealthy men who run your country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had much to do with the economic problems.
He had much to do with keeping the problems at bay during his term, he didn't cause them. When Bush got in, instead of continuing with Clintons policy of controlling the problem, he fanned the flames by cutting taxes for the rich, with an excuse that is so unbelievable, it is funny.
The current situation does not have nearly as much to do with Clinton as it does with Bush, and the tactic of bringing up Clinton is only used to divert attention from the fact that the Republican party is looting your country's economy.
www.whatreallyhappened.com
Give that a read, they are decidely anti Israeli, but they never lie.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're hated by billions, at least find out WHY you're hated by billions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No,Im hated by communists.Why?BEcause they hate freedeom.Such as Sadam Hussien,Osama Bin Laden, and Fedel Castro.
Actually, you're hated by people who love freedom, the freedom the US takes away from them, by overthrowing their governments, keeping dictators like Pinochet and the Saud family in power, and protecting Israel from the United Nations(you know, the guys you are using as a legal pretense to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation).
When the US sees something they want, they take it, and they don't stop for even a second to consider the impact on other people, or the thousands of lives it will take to get it.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I said show the ones they have claimed responsibility for, I meant it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok,he didnt admitt to some of them,But they were him.
A terrorist goes to the trouble of pulling off a large scale attack, and he doesn't even claim responsibility? That defeats the purpose of the attack, and he would never do that. He may be a fundamentalist and an extremest, but he's not stupid.
How do you know he was responsible for those attacks? You don't, you just assume it's true because CNN told you to.
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus making it look like the current economic problems of the US are Clintons fault, again dragging him into a completely irrelevant discussion (this seems to be a common republican theme). Even if you blame the economic woes starting when Bush got in, EVEN if you blame September 11th on him, which is flatly ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to say that, Bush did the one single thing that hurt the economy the most. When tax revenues were needed more than ever, he gave a trillion dollar tax cut to big business. Apparently this is going to help the economy in some way, not just pad the already bursting wallets of the obscenely wealthy men who run your country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had much to do with the economic problems.
He had much to do with keeping the problems at bay during his term, he didn't cause them. When Bush got in, instead of continuing with Clintons policy of controlling the problem, he fanned the flames by cutting taxes for the rich, with an excuse that is so unbelievable, it is funny.
The current situation does not have nearly as much to do with Clinton as it does with Bush, and the tactic of bringing up Clinton is only used to divert attention from the fact that the Republican party is looting your country's economy.
www.whatreallyhappened.com
Give that a read, they are decidely anti Israeli, but they never lie.
WakkaWu
02-07-2003, 03:17 PM
Actually, you're hated by people who love freedom, the freedom the US takes away from them, by overthrowing their governments, keeping dictators like Pinochet and the Saud family in power, and protecting Israel from the United Nations(you know, the guys you are using as a legal pretense to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation).
Who did the US take freedom away from??Besides people in prison.And they even got it made in there!Whos government did we overthrow that wasnt already free?And we use the UN to check Iraq out and there weapons.Not to invade them.Thats the UN's job.
When the US sees something they want, they take it, and they don't stop for even a second to consider the impact on other people, or the thousands of lives it will take to get it.
Please explain?:bloated:
A terrorist goes to the trouble of pulling off a large scale attack, and he doesn't even claim responsibility? That defeats the purpose of the attack, and he would never do that. He may be a fundamentalist and an extremest, but he's not stupid.
O he would never do that.Not that nice of a guy.:bloated: And I guess you met him and you two grew up on the same street together too.
How do you know he was responsible for those attacks? You don't, you just assume it's true because CNN told you to.
Its my opinion that he did it.Just like its your opinion that he didnt.
Im not even going to respond to your last two paragraphs there so ridiculous.
Lets get back to the subject shall we?
Who did the US take freedom away from??Besides people in prison.And they even got it made in there!Whos government did we overthrow that wasnt already free?And we use the UN to check Iraq out and there weapons.Not to invade them.Thats the UN's job.
When the US sees something they want, they take it, and they don't stop for even a second to consider the impact on other people, or the thousands of lives it will take to get it.
Please explain?:bloated:
A terrorist goes to the trouble of pulling off a large scale attack, and he doesn't even claim responsibility? That defeats the purpose of the attack, and he would never do that. He may be a fundamentalist and an extremest, but he's not stupid.
O he would never do that.Not that nice of a guy.:bloated: And I guess you met him and you two grew up on the same street together too.
How do you know he was responsible for those attacks? You don't, you just assume it's true because CNN told you to.
Its my opinion that he did it.Just like its your opinion that he didnt.
Im not even going to respond to your last two paragraphs there so ridiculous.
Lets get back to the subject shall we?
taranaki
02-07-2003, 03:28 PM
this thread has deteriorated beyond the point where either side is bringing new ideas to the argument......If you want to continue banging your heads against each other,try doing it on the PM system.
Cbass
02-07-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, you're hated by people who love freedom, the freedom the US takes away from them, by overthrowing their governments, keeping dictators like Pinochet and the Saud family in power, and protecting Israel from the United Nations(you know, the guys you are using as a legal pretense to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who did the US take freedom away from??Besides people in prison.And they even got it made in there!Whos government did we overthrow that wasnt already free?And we use the UN to check Iraq out and there weapons.Not to invade them.Thats the UN's job.
Try the Guatemalans in 1954, the Iranians in 1953, The Iraqis in 1963, the Chileans in 1973, Nicaragua in the '80s, and next they're going after Iraq, although this time at least they're being honest enough to admit it's them invading. That would probably be the only thing they are being honest about.
Here's an article about how the CIA created the Taliban
http://www1.minn.net/~nup/6nov2001.htm
Not too much info here, but a lot of good links about CIA operations around the world...
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/books/KillingHope.html
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A terrorist goes to the trouble of pulling off a large scale attack, and he doesn't even claim responsibility? That defeats the purpose of the attack, and he would never do that. He may be a fundamentalist and an extremest, but he's not stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O he would never do that.Not that nice of a guy. And I guess you met him and you two grew up on the same street together too.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know he was responsible for those attacks? You don't, you just assume it's true because CNN told you to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its my opinion that he did it.Just like its your opinion that he didnt.
Im not even going to respond to your last two paragraphs there so ridiculous.
Lets get back to the subject shall we?
Let's just drop this issue, as neither of us are going to convince the other :hehehe:
I have no opinion on whether or not he did it, but logically, if he had done it, he would have claimed responsibility, not denied it...
If you'd like, I can provide more instances of the CIA overthrowing legitimately elected goverments around the world, and replacing them with brutal dictators.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, you're hated by people who love freedom, the freedom the US takes away from them, by overthrowing their governments, keeping dictators like Pinochet and the Saud family in power, and protecting Israel from the United Nations(you know, the guys you are using as a legal pretense to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who did the US take freedom away from??Besides people in prison.And they even got it made in there!Whos government did we overthrow that wasnt already free?And we use the UN to check Iraq out and there weapons.Not to invade them.Thats the UN's job.
Try the Guatemalans in 1954, the Iranians in 1953, The Iraqis in 1963, the Chileans in 1973, Nicaragua in the '80s, and next they're going after Iraq, although this time at least they're being honest enough to admit it's them invading. That would probably be the only thing they are being honest about.
Here's an article about how the CIA created the Taliban
http://www1.minn.net/~nup/6nov2001.htm
Not too much info here, but a lot of good links about CIA operations around the world...
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/books/KillingHope.html
Originally posted by WakkaWu
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A terrorist goes to the trouble of pulling off a large scale attack, and he doesn't even claim responsibility? That defeats the purpose of the attack, and he would never do that. He may be a fundamentalist and an extremest, but he's not stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O he would never do that.Not that nice of a guy. And I guess you met him and you two grew up on the same street together too.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know he was responsible for those attacks? You don't, you just assume it's true because CNN told you to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its my opinion that he did it.Just like its your opinion that he didnt.
Im not even going to respond to your last two paragraphs there so ridiculous.
Lets get back to the subject shall we?
Let's just drop this issue, as neither of us are going to convince the other :hehehe:
I have no opinion on whether or not he did it, but logically, if he had done it, he would have claimed responsibility, not denied it...
If you'd like, I can provide more instances of the CIA overthrowing legitimately elected goverments around the world, and replacing them with brutal dictators.
WakkaWu
02-07-2003, 07:25 PM
Try the Guatemalans in 1954, the Iranians in 1953, The Iraqis in 1963, the Chileans in 1973, Nicaragua in the '80s, and next they're going after Iraq, although this time at least they're being honest enough to admit it's them invading. That would probably be the only thing they are being honest about.
Again,we took nobodys freedom away.If Iraq doesnt even have freedom to begin with.And were invading them do they don't nuke us first!Makes perfect sense.
The CIA NEVER supported BinLaden or the Taliban.That site is full of BS and you are ignorant if you believe it.Its no different than CNN.Its called the press.There hardly ever right.
Let's just drop this issue, as neither of us are going to convince the other
I totally agree with you.
Again,we took nobodys freedom away.If Iraq doesnt even have freedom to begin with.And were invading them do they don't nuke us first!Makes perfect sense.
The CIA NEVER supported BinLaden or the Taliban.That site is full of BS and you are ignorant if you believe it.Its no different than CNN.Its called the press.There hardly ever right.
Let's just drop this issue, as neither of us are going to convince the other
I totally agree with you.
taranaki
02-07-2003, 08:17 PM
This thread has gone off topic,and is turning into yet another shouting match between republican and democrat.Kinda tedious,because we have plenty of those going already.Thread closed.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026