+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways (/showthread.php?tid=67042)
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Greg the dogsitter - 11-26-2008
Kind of like this...
Person A: "I love going to parties and drinking egg nog!"
GtDS: "Yuck. I don't like alcohol in egg nog."
Here, I'm expressing my opinion, emphasizing that point which is most relevant and important to me. Person A may disagree, and I'll go so far to assume they do, but my assertion is only about my belief, not about what Person A thinks.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - kj - 11-26-2008
>>>the fact that the enemy is even thinking about doing things in the U.S. proves:
they are still around
Mission was NOT accomplished
and the theory that fighting them over there will not require us to fight them here is naive at best
He says it proves these things, none of which anyone would argue with. It must be a strawman who is arguing with the things he has proven, because it isn't anyone else. "the fact that the enemy is even thinking about doing things in the us proves: they are still around". Well, so what? Who said they weren't? kj.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Greg the dogsitter - 11-26-2008
I'll go back to my earlier point. That I assert something can mean I'm emphasizing its importance, not that I'm implying you disagree with it. If you agree with me, it seems easier to go with "I agree, but I also feel that..." rather than say I'm using a strawman approach.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Acer - 11-26-2008
Point taken about anthrax, but that was apparently some individual local nutcase, rather than a foreign terrorist attack in the sense I believe the original poster was referring.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - kj - 11-26-2008
mattkime wrote:
[quote=JPK]A friend of a friend (for what that is worth) is a Secret Service guy and says you would be shocked and amazed at the quantity and magnitude of the things that have been foiled, but never announced to the public.
and how does that compare to pre-9/11?
This would only be relevant if someone was arguing bush is doing a _better_ job thwarting terrorism than his predecessor. Then you could make a comparison. The only thing I would be comfortable saying is that an argument can not be made that he has done a poor job protecting us from terrorism. I might argue he's done a "good enough" job. I don't care if he did a better job than someone else. kj.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Greg the dogsitter - 11-26-2008
I'll admit that I ought to refresh my memory on this thread, but I have nothing to say besides what I've offered.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - NeverMind - 11-26-2008
JPK wrote:
Its not the foiled terrorist plots that you should worry about, its the unfoiled terrorists plots that suck.
A friend of a friend (for what that is worth) is a Secret Service guy and says you would be shocked and amazed at the quantity and magnitude of the things that have been foiled, but never announced to the public.
Is it better to know this or not?
I am amazed and thankful we have not had any significant occurrences since 09/11/01.
Even all the Bush haters around this forum should acknowledge that.
JPK
Your friend is lying to you.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - kj - 11-27-2008
NeverMind wrote:
[quote=JPK]
Its not the foiled terrorist plots that you should worry about, its the unfoiled terrorists plots that suck.
A friend of a friend (for what that is worth) is a Secret Service guy and says you would be shocked and amazed at the quantity and magnitude of the things that have been foiled, but never announced to the public.
Is it better to know this or not?
I am amazed and thankful we have not had any significant occurrences since 09/11/01.
Even all the Bush haters around this forum should acknowledge that.
JPK
Your friend is lying to you.
You have to be kidding. You basically agreed with him twice in this thread, and now you're going to disagree? Unless you're saying terrorists are running around all over the place, but either choose not to terrorize, or are too incompetent to accomplish even an attempted act of terror. kj.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Mac1337 - 11-27-2008
Wow, one little comment and it sets the board off. OK, let me try again. During the Bush presidency humiliating Bush became more important than beating the terrorists. Terrorists were called "insurgents" and were referred to as "freedom fighters". Why? Because in a fight between Bush and Abu whatever, they were routing for Abu whatever. Now every body here is going to jump up and down, but it is true. I bet you that there were politicians on the Hill that would wake up every morning, hoping to read the news of another IED going off and killing couple of US troops, then run to the microphones and say I was against the war. Reid would never say "the war is lost" if his man was in the White House. When you say such a thing, you are betting on losing the war to reap the political benefits. What else explains the deafening silence of the Democrats when the war turned around? Oh, about fighting them there vs. here ask the Talibans if they want the US out or not. The have no trouble answering the question.
Re: I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways - Dennis S - 11-27-2008
What is wrong with you people? You always go on about how G W Bush is saving us from terror, when he was the one who was supposed to be on duty when 9/11 happened in the first place.