New York to be attack this time on the subway

Anon

Commy wrote:

Just look at the patterns. They somehow turned hijackers from Saudi Arabia working for an organization based out of Afghanistan into "Saddam Hussein was responsible." In order to invade Iraq. And people bought it.

A subway attack in NY could be blamed on any country, probably Iran maybe Syria.


edit:basically what GTFLYGIRL mentioned above.

You think Obama (because if what you say is true, he will be the one to make the final call), will be behind an attack on the NY subway, kill Americans, and then blame Perhaps Iran as an excuse to go to war with them?

You seriously believe this? You don't think anything has been learnt by 9/11?
You think the American public will buy this?

fuck

Pj_Gurl wrote:

You think Obama (because if what you say is true, he will be the one to make the final call), will be behind an attack on the NY subway, kill Americans, and then blame Perhaps Iran as an excuse to go to war with them?

No one is saying the US is "behind" the attacks, but it certainly plays well with their interests. And when the time comes to make the call, you think Obama will deviate from what his advisers tell him to do? You have Dennis Ross, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc., working with him, and you think he'll say "guys, let's think this through." This problem will be bigger than Obama, and based on the "research" given to him from the Pentagon, advisers, etc., he'll have to make a decision, and I doubt it'll be anything good.

You seriously believe this? You don't think anything has been learnt by 9/11?
You think the American public will buy this?

The American public is stupid/ignorant. That's ONE thing we should have learned from 9/11.

Anon

_outlaw wrote:

No one is saying the US is "behind" the attacks, but it certainly plays well with their interests. And when the time comes to make the call, you think Obama will deviate from what his advisers tell him to do? You have Dennis Ross, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc., working with him, and you think he'll say "guys, let's think this through." This problem will be bigger than Obama, and based on the "research" given to him from the Pentagon, advisers, etc., he'll have to make a decision, and I doubt it'll be anything good.

The American public is stupid/ignorant. That's ONE thing we should have learned from 9/11.

Damn right i think he will say 'let's think this through'. He has an obligation to our Country to do what's right and going to war against Iran is absolutely not.

And where do you think he is going to get the funds or the military to fund another war from? We have no money. We have no more military.

Edit to add: I disagree the American Public is that ignorant and stupid.

fuck

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Damn right i think he will say 'let's think this through'. He has an obligation to our Country to do what's right and going to war against Iran is absolutely not.

That's fine, but so far him appointing people like Rahm, who has shown a hawkish attitude towards the Middle East, supports Israel, and voted for the Iraq War, Joe Biden, who has also shown a hawkish attitude, supports Israel, and voted for the Iraq War, Dennis Ross... I mean the list just keeps going. When you have these people as your advisers, what is anyone supposed to think? That they won't be pushing for a war with Iran/Syria? That Obama won't listen to them? This isn't The West Wing...

And where do you think he is going to get the funds or the military to fund another war from? We have no money. We have no more military.

He thought we had money when he voted to give Bush blank checks, he thinks we have money to continue our occupation of Afghanistan...

Edit to add: I disagree the American Public is that ignorant and stupid.

That's fine, btu I don't think they've shown anything to prove me wrong, and no, voting for Obama doesn't count.

Anon

_outlaw wrote:

That's fine, but so far him appointing people like Rahm, who has shown a hawkish attitude towards the Middle East, supports Israel, and voted for the Iraq War, Joe Biden, who has also shown a hawkish attitude, supports Israel, and voted for the Iraq War, Dennis Ross... I mean the list just keeps going. When you have these people as your advisers, what is anyone supposed to think? That they won't be pushing for a war with Iran/Syria? That Obama won't listen to them? This isn't The West Wing...

No, i'm suggesting that they are there do to what Obama TELLS them to do.

_outlaw wrote:

He thought we had money when he voted to give Bush blank checks, he thinks we have money to continue our occupation of Afghanistan....

Obama did not vote for the war initially and he made it crystal clear that he supported funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.

_outlaw wrote:

That's fine, btu I don't think they've shown anything to prove me wrong, and no, voting for Obama doesn't count.

Is there anything they could do to prove you wrong?

Smellyman2

lastexit78 wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_india_shooting

I think this is the future of terror against America. Attacks on Americans visiting or living in other countries make for a lot easier target. Coordinating an attack in the US is a lot harder than it was 10 years ago.

Not really. You can tighten borders, pass patriot acts etc. but none of that comes close to stopping a few psychos from doing anything.

there is no winning a "war on terror" until you stop doing the things that are pissing them off.

catefrances

Smellyman wrote:

Not really. You can tighten borders, pass patriot acts etc. but none of that comes close to stopping a few psychos from doing anything.

there is no winning a "war on terror" until you stop doing the things that are pissing them off.

you know we cant do that. it makes us look weak. we will not allow terrorists to dictate our policy. blah blah blah. shame those in charge dont realise that passing patriot acts and all that jazz is exactly allowing terrorism to dictate policy.

digster

Hands bound wrote:

All I know is that I have a class-mate who was in the secret service and according to him, the intel for the past 4 years has been that there will be an attack ~6 months after Obama's inauguration.

It wouldn't surprise me at all. I'm just keeping myself and my family prepared.

So have they just been biding their time, then? I mean, even if Obama is an uber-liberal who'd completely gut intelligence, the apparatus probably wouldn't be non-existent for years; that means Al Qaeda's been able to attack us all this time, but just haven't felt like it? Hope that's not the case.

I just wish they'd get off their New York City fixation; don't really feel like wondering and worrying if there's a nuke going off next Monday.

MattyJoe

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

Who are animals whose ass we are kicking? The Iraqi civilians?? Yeah, killing thousands and thousands of innocent people, on top of poisoning them and future generations w\ DU rounds, doesn't really sit well w/ me.

You do realize this would all happen in Afghanistan too once we go back there in force, right? It's a WAR for Chrissakes. Our military is battling an enemy they're not accustomed to battling, an enemy which uses ultra guerrilla style tactics. They've had to cope with that and unfortunately the measures they've taken have caused the deaths of innocents. But it's all we can do. We either go after the terrorists or we leave because there is too much collateral damage. Take your pick.

You act as though we are deliberately targeting civilians. I don't know if that's because of all the propaganda you're constantly fed or what. Why don't we ever talk about how many people those terrorists have killed, not just over there, but in our own country! Is it worth it to let them continue because too many civilians are unfortunately caught up in the fight? We need to do what is necessary to rid the world of this terrible evil.

fuck

MattyJoe wrote:

You do realize this would all happen in Afghanistan too once we go back there in force, right? It's a WAR for Chrissakes. Our military is battling an enemy they're not accustomed to battling, an enemy which uses ultra guerrilla style tactics. They've had to cope with that and unfortunately the measures they've taken have caused the deaths of innocents. But it's all we can do. We either go after the terrorists or we leave because there is too much collateral damage. Take your pick.

You act as though we are deliberately targeting civilians. I don't know if that's because of all the propaganda you're constantly fed or what. Why don't we ever talk about how many people those terrorists have killed, not just over there, but in our own country! Is it worth it to let them continue because too many civilians are unfortunately caught up in the fight? We need to do what is necessary to rid the world of this terrible evil.

If it were necessary to kill 1 million Americans to stop Bin Laden, would that be ok?

Anon

Pj_Gurl wrote:

No, i'm suggesting that they are there do to what Obama TELLS them to do.

and looks like my president-elect agrees with me...

One last point I will make: I assembled this team because I'm a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions. I think that's how the best decisions are made. One of the dangers in a White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in groupthink and everybody agrees with everything and there's no discussion and there are no dissenting views. So I'm going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House.

But understand, I will be setting policy as president. I will be responsible for the vision that this team carries out, and I expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made.

So, as Harry Truman said, the buck will stop with me. And nobody who's standing here, I think, would have agreed to join this administration unless they had confidence that in fact that vision was one that would help secure the American people and our interests.