A repug said to me today 'No terrorist attacks in US since 9/11'

[tyedyeto]

'That proves the war in Iraq is good for the US'. I told the person that it doesn't mean squat. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I also re-iterated that Saddam's Iraq was so secular, he wanted nothing to do with Al-Queda, but the person insisted Saddam was a gung-ho Bin Laden supporter. In hindsight, what could I have said to help counter what was said?

Also, in this conversation, WMDs (chemical) were brought up and I put forth the opinion that the US sold him those chemical weapons years ago during the Iraq-Iran war. That basically stopped the conversation, since the person could not refute that one.

It's times like this that I wish I had an encyclopedia brain.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. How Brilliant. Hmmm. "There hasn't been an attack since the last one"

What a brilliant mindset that is. :eyes:

[Mika]

69. Bush has been on a constant terra attack from 9-11 forward.

The PNAC terra attack has been ongoing ever since.

[ClassWarrior]

2. So Bush** has made only one massively fatal mistake in the area of...

...domestic security. Give him a cookie.

NGU.

[hiaasenrocks]

3. That's a common talking point, I've found.

And it begs the question, if they want to use the "no attacks in the United States x years" as a measure of success, then do they give credit to President Clinton for the lack of attacks between 1993 and the time he left office? I'm just guessing here, but I bet they wouldn't. Hypocrites.

[noahmijo]

9. Ha I just got done typing that point-ya beat me to it

:toast:

[hiaasenrocks]

47. LOL, I saw that.

Funny.

[tyedyeto]

16. I've found they always talk about the USS Cole

to counter no other attacks during the Clinton admin, even tho it didn't happen on US territory.

[hiaasenrocks]

48. Well, that's why you have to talk about this in terms

of "attacks on the US mainland" or something like that.

If they want to use attacks overseas, hell, let's start a list of them that have happened during *'s tenure. :)

[rucky]

49. If they open that door...

London Subway, Bali (x2), Chechyna...

Global terrorism is off the charts since * started trying to get rid of it.

[zbdent]

68. If they use the Cole, then point out

how many terrorist attacks have gone on in Iraq - BY THEIR DEFINITION!

[MrSlayer]

4. How about "Bush caved in to the terrorists"?

The reason Bin Laden started hating us was because we had troops in Arabia. 9/11 happens and Chimp pulls the troops out of there, which is what they wanted. No terror attacks anymore. Bush is a coward and an appeaser.

[tyedyeto]

6. Holy shit... I never thought about that one

I know that was the main reason given for Bin Laden to hate us 'infidels' but totally forgot about that until now.

Thanks.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

17. I forgot about that too. Do you have any links/articles on that?

[greenman3610]

41. of course, He's given them everything they wanted

and more

[KC21304]

5. Tell him there were no terrorist attacks in US

between 1993 and 2001 either. And if Gore had been allowed to take office in 2001 there probably wouldn't have been one in 2001. And if the Republican Congress had listened to Gore on airport security in the 90's there Surely wouldn't have been a 9/11.

[northzax]

27. that's not true

there were two terrorist attacks in the US between 1993 and 2001, and one more in 1993.

World Trade Center, New York City 1993
Alfred Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City 1995
Olympic Park, Atlanta, 1996.

of course, two of these were committed by Freeper-sympathizers, and all three have been brought to justice, without a war.

[tyedyeto]

29. Home-grown terrorists, so to speak n/t

[northzax]

33. terrorism is terrorism

no matter from whence it comes.

[cosmicone]

7. What about the anthrax attacks?

They happened after 9/11 right here and the culprit is still at large with no clue as to his/her identity. It happened on *'s watch.

Perhaps we should invade virginia and NJ where the letters were mailed!

[tyedyeto]

11. Was that an international terrorist action or

someone domestic taking advantage of an unstable situation? Will we ever know?

[janedoe]

60. It was "encouragement" to vote in favor of the PATRIOT ACT

Didn't you notice that the only folks receiving the anthrax letter were the hold-outs for the PATRIOT ACT.

[noahmijo]

8. After the '93 terrorist attacks there was no terrorist attack on US soil

by Islamic fundamentalists for the entire 8 year Clinton term.

Gee by that logic every freeper should be praising Clinton right?

[mmonk]

10. Tell him the administration

has outed our CIA operations that track WMD's in the region. Ask him are we really safer as a result?

[Individualist]

12. You could have used his hero's own words

In November 2003, Bloody George said that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

[Canuckistanian]

13. Make HIM counter with some facts

That's where wingnuts always fall, on the FACTS and the DETAILS and the TRUTH.

[leftofthedial]

14. anthrax attacks happened after 9-11

also ignores the fact that the bushgang coulkd and should have stopped 9-11 in the first place

plus the optional and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq gutted our ability to respond to domestic disasters like Katrina

also there are more Murkan casualties in Iraq than there were on 9-11

[TahitiNut]

15. So, they're claiming that Bush/Cheney control when and where they hit??

That would seem to be one likely conclusion. :shrug:

[tyedyeto]

21. I like that answer!

I am a MIHOP but more of a LIHOP kind of mentality- and that really does fit right in your answer.

[journalist3072]

18. You should have reminded your friend

That Al Qaeda has proven that they are a very patient organization.

Tell your friend they should be worried about the fact that Al Qaeda hasnt' struck yet again on U.S. soil. It likely means they are gearing up for "the big one" (which would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park).

[buddysmellgood]

19. So the puke is admitting that 9/11 was Dubya's fault, and is stating that

the next attack will be Dubya's fault.

[tyedyeto]

26. The person never admitted it was the Chimp's fault

What do you say when the other person does not believe there will ever be another terrorist 'attack' while * is around? I said, just wait, Al Queda supporters hate us even more now than they did before 9/11 and this country is a prime target since we have invaded another country.

[buddysmellgood]

72. I'm just saying, that by the same logic, he would have to blame Dubya

for 9/11. Also by that logic, 9/11 would somehow not have happened if we had just attacked Iraq sooner.
There already have been terrorist attacks since 9/11, all over the world. Attacking Iraq hasn't helped our allies. The only reason there wouldn't be a terrorist attack with Dubya around is if he controls them.

[adigal]

20. I wonder about that flight in NYC right after 9/11

and the blackout in the northeast. Do you think we are told everything? Or only what they absolutely must tell us.

And I just finished reading a great book by Nelson DeMille: Night Fall, about TWA Flight 800, which his character discovers was taken down by a MISSILE, as over 200 witnesses claimed at the time. Very intriguing book.

[Pathwalker]

22. Tell her Tony Blakley is advising * to let a terrorist attack

"get through on American soil" to improve his poll #s. He said so on Tweety's show, and again on the MacLaughlin Group - where they shouted him down. The professional republicans WANT another terrorist attack here!!!

[aquart]

23. You could burst into paroxysms of laughter

Doubling over and over again, until finally the last giggles subside and you say, "Oh, wait. Were you serious?"

And then double over again, gasping between laughter, until he wanders away, uneasy about his possible faux pas.

[tyedyeto]

28. Damn, I wish I could have done that!!!

I was starting to get so worked up, I walked away instead.

[upi402]

24. they are letting * ruin america

and are patient, something neocons are not

[Crazy Guggenheim]

25. They were so afraid of Bush that the "Terrorist Alerts" dried up right

after the 2004 Election.

:popcorn: :applause: :woohoo: :patriot:

[janedoe]

62. What an interesting coincidence....

;-)

[Crazy Guggenheim]

66. Gives me an idea for a new thread. Thanks.

:popcorn:

[unkachuck]

30. I didn't get bit...

....by a rabid dog today, thank God for Republican rule....

[For PaisAn]

31. You could mention that

we're just fucking lucky there hasn't been a terrorist attack. Imagine if there had been and then think about how this Bush handled Katrina. Then give him/her a big shudder.

Or you could just say to this repugnant one "Gee, you seemed a lot smarter than that" What's he/she gonna say? "Uh, no, no I'm not"

[asjr]

32. We have been attacked on a daily basis by the

WH and the Republicans. Now that is what I call terrorism.

[jobycom]

34. 2100 dead soldiers. 1100 dead Americans in NOLA. 100K dead innocent people

in Iraq.

Who needs terrorists when we have Bush to kill us all?

[Gregorian]

35. The fact that 9/11 even happened, is what you say.

We now know that the president knew... Ok, I also don't have an encyclopedic brain. It sucks.

The very fact that 9/11 happened, or worse, that it was allowed to happen, indicates the level of either incompetency or conspiracy in Bush's administration.

Not only knowing that they were here, were planning on attacking with planes, and even sitting while it was happening. But also the PNAC which declared that they NEEDED something like that to happen, in order to further their agenda, are all key in revealing the truth behind what is really going on. Not that there hasn't been another attack. That is just a diversion. A smokescreen to attempt to validate an inept and corrupt president.

Well, that sucked. And besides, repubs don't listen. So fuck 'em. Who cares what they think as long as we don't let them get back in control.

[For PaisAn]

37. You just gave the best response

"And besides, repubs don't listen. So fuck 'em. Who cares what they think as long as we don't let them get back in control."

[tyedyeto]

43. Nice comebacks

Thanks for the help

[janedoe]

63. add to that, a blocking of all investigations into what happened

Naw, let's not investigate. Let's know let anyone see how it happened. Instead, let's give a raise to anyone who acted incompetently. Those who acted competentlly must be fired immediately. (They are a security risk to the next "event." They may get in the way of allowing it to happen and we just can't risk that!)

[marbuc]

36. Saddam was an extreme ego-maniac

He supported no one but himself, especially not someone that could threaten his status.

[janedoe]

64. Amazing! Imagine being able to pull off ALL those stories...

that we've been told, and without a single person helping him.

Gee.... he is really powerful.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. I haven't been mugged since I've been wearing this shirt...

This shirt clearly prevents muggings!:eyes:

[For PaisAn]

39. LOL

:rofl:

[tyedyeto]

42. .

:rofl: Love it

I hope this old brain remembers that response next time I get into one of these conversations!

[niyad]

40. remind your friend of the PDB of 9/21/01-which stated that iraq had

absolutely NOTHING to do with the events of 9/11. but then, chimpboy never paid attention to the PDB of 6 august, so he probably didn't pay any attention to this one ten days later, either:



Report: 9/11-Iraq link refuted days after attack
Magazine says administration refused to give key docs to Senate committee

Ten days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush was advised that U.S. intelligence found no credible connection linking the attacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein, or evidence suggesting linkage between Saddam and the al-Qaida terrorist network, according to a published report.

The report, published Tuesday in The National Journal, cites government records, as well as present and former officials with knowledge of the issue. The information in the story, written by National Journal contributor Murray Waas, points to an abiding administration concern for secrecy that extended to keeping information from the Senate committee charged with investigating the matter.

In one of the Journal report's more compelling disclosures, Saddam is said to have viewed al-Qaida as a threat, rather than a potential ally.

Presidential brief
The president's daily brief, or PDB, for Sept. 21, 2001, was prepared at the request of President Bush, the Journal reported, who was said to be eager to determine whether any linkage between the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraqi regime existed.

And a considerable amount of the Sept. 21 PDB found its way into a longer, more detailed Central Intelligence Agency assessment of the likelihood of an al-Qaida-Iraq connection.

. . . . . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/

[SlavesandBulldozers]

44. an "encyclopedia brain" is not what you need to reason with that guy.

what you need is a "pop-up brain with lotsa pictures". . . if you get my drift.

[tyedyeto]

46. I was nowhere near any pop-ups or pics

at the time. All I had at my availability was my brain, which let me down even tho I did get a couple of jabs in.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

45. Tell him "That was one sure bad pilot" ...........

:popcorn:

[zbdent]

70. Plus the fact that Bush claimed he saw the first plane hit the first tower

live and on TV - when the towers would not be news (pre-attack) and the focus of all the cameras.

Then, if Bush was watching live coverage of the first tower being hit, that would mean that he would have had foreknowledge of the actual attack, something that Bush has denied - "No one could have anticipated that terrorists would strike buildings with planes . . ."

[tyedyeto]

50. Thanks for all your help tonight

I shall be better informed and hopefully more eloquent the next time this situation arises.

Now, though, it's off to dreamland for a good night's sleep.

Again, thanks to all of you!

[niyad]

51. another response is, "I don't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed

person"

[For PaisAn]

54. An all time favorite

Good one.

[niyad]

52. another response is, "I don't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed

person"

[hopeisaplace]

53. Tell him you couldn't possibly enlighten him on

1. Able Danger, 2. PNAC, 3._________, 4._________ and more...

(fill in the blanks with intriguing headers happening under the radar..things that haven't really made the TV yet...could even give names of key people who are associated with the * Admin...)

Invite them to read up on these particular things/people...

Don't bother to explain anything...leave them intrigued...if they want you to explain it, tell them its like you trying to explain heart surgery after reading the procedure, so its best for them to read it themselves...

I've actually done this myself, regarding conversations about election 2004..I say well, there's a lot of information that hasn't made it to MSM, "you should look up Election Fraud on the net"..you may find it very interesting...told a guy the other to look up GAO Report (GOA-sorry forget the order)...mentioned NEO-CONS to someone and they wanted information on what that was, I suggested they can get info on the net about it...

IMO allowing people to inform themselves and avoiding driving your/our position home to them, is more effective in opening minds

[For PaisAn]

55. Smart suggestion

because if they're really interested in the truth then they will look it up and if they're not interested then why should we be wasting our breath. And yes, the wall is up when they're in a face to face but if they read it themselves then perhaps something might be able slip through the brick wall surrounding their minds.

[hopeisaplace]

56. You got it

plus, when they visit one site, it leads them to another, etc...more reading...which is EXACTLY how I made my way to DU...:)

[Rex]

57. You could have said how Saddam is NOW a OBL supporter.

Before our illegal invasion of Iraq, Saddam hated OBL's guts and would have blown his head off. Today he would embrace any help from they guy. Explain cause & effect to a freeper and watch their ears burn.

[countmyvote4real]

58. Why should they strike us here when they can strike us on their home turf?

Our military (and the private contractors) are the invasion/occupation force in Iraq. How is that working for the Iraqi people?

• Their infrastructure has been destroyed and still remains to be rebuilt.
• The assault on their country has included armaments of depleted uranium (a toxin that keeps on poisoning) and white phosphorous. These are chemical weapons that in the hands of Saddam Hussein would be used as a justification to stop him from using them.
• Abu Ghraib. “We came to save you from the oppression of Saddam so that we could do it do it to you our way.” This is really where we lost the battle to them and the world; and exposed the false pretenses of the invasion and continued occupation.
• Paul Bremmer drafted a Constitution that deprived Iraq of any further rights to their own resources and required them to outlaw any future use of their own seeds in favor of the royalty driven seeds of Monsanto.

I do not blame the troops on the ground, but they are the face on the ground of the * policies that plague these people. If statistics are right, 80% of the insurgency attacks are retaliations from the Iraqis themselves. That means that the other 20% are from outside terrorist forces that have come there to attack us at the scene of our crime.

That’s not to say that the * invasion is entirely at fault, but it clearly mishandled the opening of this Pandora’s box. Like Yugoslavia before the death of Tito, Iraq was a multi-cultural state held together by the tyranny of the leader. When the strong (tyrannical) leadership was lost it gave way to a long and bloody civil war that is still being resolved. Under the leadership of the UN and NATO it is on the mend.

The Iraq conflict has neither organization leading the way to unification. They have rightly removed themselves from this snafu. Instead, we have the dishonest ** policy of making their invasion/objective fit the facts of the day. Pick a day, find a spin; “Please, just don’t let me give up this oil. I found it first, well not really, but Chalaby signed it over to me.”

I shed many tears for the innocents lost in the transfer from Saddam to Bush**. And I sleep (under the influence) because I could not sleep otherwise. I’m sure ** is a big time abuser. How else could he remain so wrong?

[janedoe]

59. How many attempts were there?

We know how well Bushco responds with a week's notice. Look at the response to Katrina.

About 9-11, they had a response time a lot faster.
Amazing, how FEMA was in NYC the night before, just waiting for the event.

What changed?

[killbotfactory]

61. Bin Laden started Al-Qaeda because he wanted to FIGHT Saddam

But the saudi's would't let him and let us do it instead.

Republicans don't have to revise history when they just simply ignore it.

[ddeclue]

65. This is an idiot's argument...

The fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here argument is an idiot's argument.

Anybody (beginning with Tsun-Tsu and the Art of War) knows it is always much easier to defend your hometurf than to go on another man's turf and fight him there for control of his home. We are voluntarily giving up the advantages of a sympathetic population, and accepting language barriers, cultural barriers, religious barriers, much longer and more difficult logistical requirements among many other advantages.

The Repugnicans are just ignorant and arrogant yahoos who think they know everything and are always right. They don't have the first damned clue and I recommend you tell them to join the Marines right away and volunteer for Iraq if they are so gung ho for it. If they aren't willing to put their money (and their ass) where their mouth is then they need to shut the hell up and sit the hell down.

When they restart the draft, they need to draft all the Repugnicans first since they were (and are) so gung ho for this war in Iraq.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[zbdent]

67. There were no terrorist attacks on US soil

between March 1993 and the time Clinton left office . . .

[laruemtt]

71. because *bushco hasn't found it

to their advantage to produce or allow one just yet. the fact that he produced or allowed 9/11 (depending on where you fall in that continuum) should have been enough to make them dump their king. weird.