?!?! Whaaaaatt???!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Nolan-Vinny-Sam, Jan 16, 2004.

  1. Freaking aaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!


    When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al Qaeda leader.

    But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year


    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/2020/predator030624.html


    rot in prison
    scummmmmmmyyyyyyaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    .:confused: Who's the enemy of the state?.scumyaa drops the ball again!!!:eek:

    maxpi, Maverick74, doubter, (tripack) I WANT A COMMENT FORM all YOU neocon chickenhawks warmongering crapheads, scumya & cabal supporters.:confused: hell's bells man!!! Pabst? jem? what say thou:confused: :eek:

    BTW I'm still waiting your comments on my last post [01-15-04 04:54 AM]
    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=408936#post408936
     


  2. ....so let me get this strait..... You are complaining that he didn't proactively attack Bin laden and Afghanistan to prevent the actions of 9-11.......but you are totally against him proactively attacking Iraq in light of the changed world after 9-11???? Im just checking before I comment....which is it that you wanted him to do??
     
  3. com'on man get real!!!! I expected Mavman.. :)
    1.Iraq. Are you one of them crapheads that still believes Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?????. scumya and co has already admitted no link between Iraq and 9/11 posted here numerous times.:p
    2. Wasn't Osamabinlandin on top of the most wanted (dead or alive) list since the Kenya US embassy bombings??:confused:
    He was on our military sights LOCATED, TARGETED, AND READY TO BE TAKEN OUT, early 2001, but scumya let it go!!!!!!!! .:( it stinks to high heaven

    You have the audacity to compare taking one person out (already wanted dead or alive) with 2 wars, 500 billion dollars later and countless dead???
    :confused:I dunno if yer plain stupid, or can't see it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So i've entertained your question. Surely you'll find something else.
    Safe bet would be.. ummm I'll wait...Nice deflection though. lumping Iraq- 9/11 together "again" but hey! scumya's brainwashing works still very well. :D
    But I digress... it's not even funny anymore..:(
     


  4. Nice diversion but I will ask it again, this time in simple terms so even you will undersand:

    1) Are you saying that in early 2001, during Bush's first month or two in office, You would be supportive of him launching missiles into Afghanistan to attempt to take out Bin laden????? Yes or No?

    2) if Yes to above, are you saying you are against a premptive strike against iraq ? YEs or no?

    ...Of course, if your answer is No to #1, then your point of discussion is pointless because you would be against Bush taking action or not taking action.. that is what Im trying to ascertain before further debate.
     
  5. maxpi

    maxpi


  6. Hey Vinny,

    I am certain some spook came on Kudlow & Cramer (pretty sure it was K &C) and said our snipers had him 3 times. Our men. 1st time - no shot waiting for green light to come down; 2nd time was some bs waiting for air support and 3rd time I dont remember. Others may recall the show. The guy seemed credible.
    Doesn't matter - I'd have fired Franks months before if I was the top man.

    Geo.
    :mad:
     
  7. :D okay, one more time...simpler terms so you don't get confused....:D
    Do you understand the concept of unprovoked preemptive war/invasion against another sovereign nation? VS taking out one person that has already attacked our embassies AND ALREADY WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE?? shhhheeeeeshhhh... are you brain dead or what?:confused:your last paragraph/reasoning is nonsensical/pointless.
    Taking out osama (a single person that already attacked/destroyed our embassies) is not preemptive neither unprovoked, nor a war against a country.:eek: sheeeeshh your reasoning sounds awfully familiar...... :D READ MY PREVIOUS POST TO YOU AGAIN....:D

    :cool: com'on timmy you CAN do better than that.:cool:
    If you can't see the points/answers, then yer absolutely right, better no further debate here. No problem..fully understandable:)
     


  8. Nice diversion but I will ask it again, this time in simple terms so even you will undersand:

    1) Are you saying that in early 2001, during Bush's first month or two in office, You would be supportive of him launching missiles into Afghanistan to attempt to take out Bin laden????? Yes or No?

    2) if Yes to above, are you saying you are against a premptive strike against iraq ? YEs or no?

    .....are you incapable of answering?
     
  9. ....on the one hand, you look in hindsight at Bin Ladin and say we should have taken him out because he caused 9-11 months later.....On the other hand, You are against taking out the Saddam regime even though they had failed to comply with a cease fire and were a threat and a danger to the entire region.....is this your point?.
     
    #10     Jan 16, 2004