You know, the high terror alert for christmas day.
What is your point?
Did you not hear about the flights from paris being canceled because of possible Al-Qaeda infiltration? Was that just a ploy by the US?Or maybe it was a legit threat.
You are right about people being clueless, thanks for demonstrating that for us.
Did you not hear about the flights from paris being canceled because of possible Al-Qaeda infiltration? Was that just a ploy by the US?Or maybe it was a legit threat.
You are right about people being clueless, thanks for demonstrating that for us.
LOL, having a bad day are you?
I guess from you reply that you are unable to answer the question.
I guess from you reply that you are unable to answer the question.
Thanks for playing.
What was the question? I do not understand gibberish. Ask me with actual word groups. Use english grammar, that is what I understand. If you have to, type a little slower.
I am sorry, it was my fault, i forgot you are in the land down under. You guys speak a little funny, or is it us?
Terror alert level Orange or "High" does not mean an imminent threat, that would be Red or "imminent" threat level. Get the difference?
It is designed to keep all agencies in sink with intel that is coming in. They have compiled intel and have determined that there is a high possibility of a terror attack. Get it?
What was the question? I do not understand gibberish. Ask me with actual word groups. Use english grammar, that is what I understand. If you have to, type a little slower.
LOL. For you I shall type slowly.
There was an increased terror alert. Yes?
That was the reason for this thread. Yes?
There have been many such terror alerts. Yes?
How many ended up with actual terror? None?
So, being sarcastic (and I will be the first to admit that sarcasm doesn't always come across from the printed word), I asked my question.
Perhaps I should never have read about the boy who cried wolf as a boy. Who knows?
The correct answer to my question was "no, we are still here".
You answered otherwise, for what ever reason you had.
I am sorry, it was my fault, i forgot you are in the land down under. You guys speak a little funny, or is it us?
Terror alert level Orange or "High" does not mean an imminent threat, that would be Red or "imminent" threat level. Get the difference?
It is designed to keep all agencies in sink with intel that is coming in. They have compiled intel and have determined that there is a high possibility of a terror attack. Get it?
It is pretty simple, no?
Our news reports suggested hard evidence for an attack on New York on christmas day.
As I said above ( and take it with the humour that may, or may not come across) I see such reports and shake my head.
Al-qaeda hit the US and the every wacky Muslim group cheered and considered it a rallying cry. Saddam praised it, they all did. The wacko wing of Islam declared war on the US and freedom, if all of the other terrorist acts did not convince anyone. All of us here are their enemy whether we like it or not. get used to it.
As far as WMD, all of you lefties will be eating your accusations, IMO, very soon. There has been rumors about proof of nuclear material being sent out of Iraq, along with eyewitnesses. Next week will be very interesting, I think.
My .02
Sorry I've heard this one before.
Many times.
AKA. It's getting kind of late in the game for this one.
Funny how you don't sound so middle of the road all of a sudden.
If I think that the Pres. will be proven right by Saddam Insane and his actions, that makes me, what? Right of Center?
If I do not rail against and pile on this administration, that makes me a NeoCon, or whatever the term today is?
Do you really want to get into the "I told you so" argument?
You Libs got very little left to go against this president. I just think it will be less as time goes on thats all.
The president tried to sell us on the idea that Saddam was an immanent threat. This isn't so and couldn't be so. Even if he had the WOMD he had no way to deploy them in sufficent quantity to pose a threat answerable by war.
He didn't have anything to do with 911.
That's really all you need to know.
And NaplesX that's plenty to have against him! Even if you don't weigh in the cost in lives let's talk about the money it cost and what it's done to the deficit.
This war was based on nothing. Mr. Bush picked an easy target to distract the american public from what was going on here economically and to feather his own nest politically. There is no other conclusion you can draw. It' really very obvious.
About it being less as time goes on the debt he's piled up will be with us throughout the rest of my lifetime ( I'm 50 ). I think that's quite enough to have against him.
This man needs to be out of the Whitehouse and soon. Another 4 years would see further erosion of our economy and probably more war. He's dangerous and needs to go.
The president tried to sell us on the idea that Saddam was an immanent threat. This isn't so and couldn't be so. Even if he had the WOMD he had no way to deploy them in sufficent quantity to pose a threat answerable by war.
He didn't have anything to do with 911.
That's really all you need to know.
And NaplesX that's plenty to have against him! Even if you don't weigh in the cost in lives let's talk about the money it cost and what it's done to the deficit.
This war was based on nothing. Mr. Bush picked an easy target to distract the american public from what was going on here economically and to feather his own nest politically. There is no other conclusion you can draw. It' really very obvious.
About it being less as time goes on the debt he's piled up will be with us throughout the rest of my lifetime ( I'm 50 ). I think that's quite enough to have against him.
This man needs to be out of the Whitehouse and soon. Another 4 years would see further erosion of our economy and probably more war. He's dangerous and needs to go.
By the way I'm registered independent.
What page of the "Democratic talking points" hand book is that in?
Bush did not state "imminent threat" That was a creation of your political party. He plainly stated exactly the opposite.
Like I said, I put little credence in your far left rhetoric, Just as I dismiss the opposite end of the spectrum. SH was a threat to just about every nation in his region, along with the US, UK and Israel and their allies.
Give us all a break from your revisionist blather. Please.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
You guys don't get it do you?
Al-qaeda hit the US and the every wacky Muslim group cheered and considered it a rallying cry.
Replace Al-queda with Bush.
US with Afganastan and/or Iraq.
Muslum with American.
Conclusion? People are stupid, everywhere.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Heh?
You know, the high terror alert for christmas day.
Originally posted by xenu
You know, the high terror alert for christmas day.
What is your point?
Did you not hear about the flights from paris being canceled because of possible Al-Qaeda infiltration? Was that just a ploy by the US?Or maybe it was a legit threat.
You are right about people being clueless, thanks for demonstrating that for us.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What is your point?
Did you not hear about the flights from paris being canceled because of possible Al-Qaeda infiltration? Was that just a ploy by the US?Or maybe it was a legit threat.
You are right about people being clueless, thanks for demonstrating that for us.
LOL, having a bad day are you?
I guess from you reply that you are unable to answer the question.
Thanks for playing.
Originally posted by xenu
LOL, having a bad day are you?
I guess from you reply that you are unable to answer the question.
Thanks for playing.
What was the question? I do not understand gibberish. Ask me with actual word groups. Use english grammar, that is what I understand. If you have to, type a little slower.
Terror alert level Orange or "High" does not mean an imminent threat, that would be Red or "imminent" threat level. Get the difference?
It is designed to keep all agencies in sink with intel that is coming in. They have compiled intel and have determined that there is a high possibility of a terror attack. Get it?
It is pretty simple, no?
Originally posted by NaplesX
What was the question? I do not understand gibberish. Ask me with actual word groups. Use english grammar, that is what I understand. If you have to, type a little slower.
LOL. For you I shall type slowly.
There was an increased terror alert. Yes?
That was the reason for this thread. Yes?
There have been many such terror alerts. Yes?
How many ended up with actual terror? None?
So, being sarcastic (and I will be the first to admit that sarcasm doesn't always come across from the printed word), I asked my question.
Perhaps I should never have read about the boy who cried wolf as a boy. Who knows?
The correct answer to my question was "no, we are still here".
You answered otherwise, for what ever reason you had.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am sorry, it was my fault, i forgot you are in the land down under. You guys speak a little funny, or is it us?
Terror alert level Orange or "High" does not mean an imminent threat, that would be Red or "imminent" threat level. Get the difference?
It is designed to keep all agencies in sink with intel that is coming in. They have compiled intel and have determined that there is a high possibility of a terror attack. Get it?
It is pretty simple, no?
Our news reports suggested hard evidence for an attack on New York on christmas day.
As I said above ( and take it with the humour that may, or may not come across) I see such reports and shake my head.
Originally posted by xenu
LOL. For you I shall type slowly.
There was an increased terror alert. Yes?
That was the reason for this thread. Yes?
There have been many such terror alerts. Yes?
How many ended up with actual terror? None?
So, being sarcastic (and I will be the first to admit that sarcasm doesn't always come across from the printed word), I asked my question.
Perhaps I should never have read about the boy who cried wolf as a boy. Who knows?
The correct answer to my question was "no, we are still here".
You answered otherwise, for what ever reason you had.
yes we are still here. Sorry.
Originally posted by NaplesX
yes we are still here. Sorry.
I forgive you.
Next time though!!!
Originally posted by xenu
Our news reports suggested hard evidence for an attack on New York on christmas day.
As I said above ( and take it with the humour that may, or may not come across) I see such reports and shake my head.
Me too.
I have not heard anything from the whole returned AirFrance flights, yet.
Originally posted by NaplesX
yes we are still here. Sorry.
Sorry for the tone, every time I comment on a thread in AO I get into a huge fiasco, so I came in ready to fight, I guess.
This is not the first time that a news report has suggested that a terror attack is imminent, then nothing.
Perhaps instead of calling the analysts clueless, I need to call the reporters clueless.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Sorry for the tone, every time I comment on a thread in AO I get into a huge fiasco, so I came in ready to fight, I guess.
Nothing wrong with that. Gets the blood circulating.
It look like we had a faliure to communicate.
Originally posted by xenu
Shoud we, down under, assume then that the news reports coming out of America are being "sexed up" for us?
This is not the first time that a news report has suggested that a terror attack is imminent, then nothing.
Perhaps instead of calling the analysts clueless, I need to call the reporters clueless.
yeah they are trigger happy, or maybe punch drunk on news or something.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You guys don't get it do you?
Al-qaeda hit the US and the every wacky Muslim group cheered and considered it a rallying cry. Saddam praised it, they all did. The wacko wing of Islam declared war on the US and freedom, if all of the other terrorist acts did not convince anyone. All of us here are their enemy whether we like it or not. get used to it.
As far as WMD, all of you lefties will be eating your accusations, IMO, very soon. There has been rumors about proof of nuclear material being sent out of Iraq, along with eyewitnesses. Next week will be very interesting, I think.
My .02
Sorry I've heard this one before.
Many times.
AKA. It's getting kind of late in the game for this one.
Funny how you don't sound so middle of the road all of a sudden.
Originally posted by xenu
There was an increased terror alert. Yes?
That was the reason for this thread. Yes?
There have been many such terror alerts. Yes?
How many ended up with actual terror? None?
I'll continue with that:
Is it a GOOD thing that there haven't been any actual terrorist events? Yes.
Do the U.S. officials keep "crying wolf"? Maybe, but I'd rather have that than the alternative.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry I've heard this one before.
Many times.
AKA. It's getting kind of late in the game for this one.
Funny how you don't sound so middle of the road all of a sudden.
So let me get this straight:
If I think that the Pres. will be proven right by Saddam Insane and his actions, that makes me, what? Right of Center?
If I do not rail against and pile on this administration, that makes me a NeoCon, or whatever the term today is?
Do you really want to get into the "I told you so" argument?
You Libs got very little left to go against this president. I just think it will be less as time goes on thats all.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So let me get this straight:
If I think that the Pres. will be proven right by Saddam Insane and his actions, that makes me, what? Right of Center?
If I do not rail against and pile on this administration, that makes me a NeoCon, or whatever the term today is?
Do you really want to get into the "I told you so" argument?
You Libs got very little left to go against this president. I just think it will be less as time goes on thats all.
The president tried to sell us on the idea that Saddam was an immanent threat. This isn't so and couldn't be so. Even if he had the WOMD he had no way to deploy them in sufficent quantity to pose a threat answerable by war.
He didn't have anything to do with 911.
That's really all you need to know.
And NaplesX that's plenty to have against him! Even if you don't weigh in the cost in lives let's talk about the money it cost and what it's done to the deficit.
This war was based on nothing. Mr. Bush picked an easy target to distract the american public from what was going on here economically and to feather his own nest politically. There is no other conclusion you can draw. It' really very obvious.
About it being less as time goes on the debt he's piled up will be with us throughout the rest of my lifetime ( I'm 50 ). I think that's quite enough to have against him.
This man needs to be out of the Whitehouse and soon. Another 4 years would see further erosion of our economy and probably more war. He's dangerous and needs to go.
By the way I'm registered independent.
Originally posted by jimmac
The president tried to sell us on the idea that Saddam was an immanent threat. This isn't so and couldn't be so. Even if he had the WOMD he had no way to deploy them in sufficent quantity to pose a threat answerable by war.
He didn't have anything to do with 911.
That's really all you need to know.
And NaplesX that's plenty to have against him! Even if you don't weigh in the cost in lives let's talk about the money it cost and what it's done to the deficit.
This war was based on nothing. Mr. Bush picked an easy target to distract the american public from what was going on here economically and to feather his own nest politically. There is no other conclusion you can draw. It' really very obvious.
About it being less as time goes on the debt he's piled up will be with us throughout the rest of my lifetime ( I'm 50 ). I think that's quite enough to have against him.
This man needs to be out of the Whitehouse and soon. Another 4 years would see further erosion of our economy and probably more war. He's dangerous and needs to go.
By the way I'm registered independent.
What page of the "Democratic talking points" hand book is that in?
Bush did not state "imminent threat" That was a creation of your political party. He plainly stated exactly the opposite.
Like I said, I put little credence in your far left rhetoric, Just as I dismiss the opposite end of the spectrum. SH was a threat to just about every nation in his region, along with the US, UK and Israel and their allies.
Give us all a break from your revisionist blather. Please.