Terrorist plot foiled in Germany - Page 3 - Jets Insider.com Forums

chicadeel · 09-07-2007, 04:02 PM

September 2003
President Addresses the Nation

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

October 2004

President's Remarks in Greeley, Colorado
Island Grove Regional Park Events Center
Greeley, Colorado

THE PRESIDENT: We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities.

Guys- Maybe this will help.

kennyo7 · 09-07-2007, 05:07 PM

[QUOTE=jets5ever]"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in [B]Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond [/B] so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities " -- That is the quote YOU attributed to Bush.

He clearly does say "beyond." You are a fool.

Again, I never once said I agree with Bush on this. I don't.

However, I will not stand for people intentionally distorting what he is saying, like cr did.

You can say whatever you want. You're too far gone to matter. But cr has at least some credibility.[/QUOTE]

You miss the point . The word "beyond" is meaningless. Your criticism of CR was warantless. Your are hopeless. Really, you are irrelevant

Warfish · 09-07-2007, 05:20 PM

[QUOTE=kennyo7]Dude, you are making things up. The words Bush used are very clear. [B][U]He did NOT say "beyond"[/U][/B] he specifically said Iraq and Afghanistan. Read the quote its in plain English.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jets5ever]"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in [B]Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond [/B] so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities " -- That is the quote YOU attributed to Bush.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kennyo7]The word "beyond" is meaningless.[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

kennyo7 · 09-07-2007, 05:38 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish]:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Stop being a robot. The word "beyond is meaningless" he could have said "we will fight them in every country in the world so we dont fight them here". The point is that it is ludicrous to think we wont have to fight them here just b/c we are fighting them elsewhere.

BTW fish, funny you didnt put this quote of Bush up :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]September 2003
President Addresses the Nation

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.[/QUOTE]

But hey, i would not be surprised if you bought into that stupid line.

Warfish · 09-07-2007, 06:06 PM

[QUOTE=kennyo7]But hey, i would not be surprised if you bought into that stupid line.[/QUOTE]

Of course you wouldn't. Sadly for you, assuming that would simply be wrong, presumptious and another sign that you cannot overcome your own massive ego.

Nothing new there, eh Ken? :rolleyes:

HDCentStOhio · 09-07-2007, 06:53 PM

[QUOTE=kennyo7]Stop being a robot. The word "beyond is meaningless" he could have said "we will fight them in every country in the world so we dont fight them here". The point is that it is ludicrous to think we wont have to fight them here just b/c we are fighting them elsewhere.

BTW fish, funny you didnt put this quote of Bush up :rolleyes:

But hey, i would not be surprised if you bought into that stupid line.[/QUOTE]
Whatever you say. The problem with liberals is that they have an unwarranted sense of intellectual superiority, and that Republicans are elected only because of the stupidity of the general public. Liberals such as yourself feel that their opinion is the only correct one, and they know better than the general public. You have demonstrated this attitude without a doubt in this thread.

kennyo7 · 09-10-2007, 08:46 AM

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Whatever you say. The problem with liberals is that they have an unwarranted sense of intellectual superiority, and that Republicans are elected only because of the stupidity of the general public. Liberals such as yourself feel that their opinion is the only correct one, and they know better than the general public. You have demonstrated this attitude without a doubt in this thread.[/QUOTE]

I dont think my opinion is the only correct one. Im willing to listen to all sides. But in this case the notion of fighting them abroad so we dont fight them here makes no sense to me. So whats your opinion? Do you think "we are fighting them abroad so we dont have to fight them here" makes any sense? If so please explain why we wouldnt have to fight them in BOTH places. How does a war engaged against a faceless enemy abroad prevent a dozen or so people from commiting terrorist attacks here in the USA?

PlumberKhan · 09-10-2007, 12:57 PM

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Liberals such as yourself feel that their opinion is the only correct one, and they know better than the general public...[/QUOTE]

Yeah...because there is no Republican administration in recent memory that has disregarded other peoples opinions and have felt they know things better than the majority of the general public...

HDCentStOhio · 09-10-2007, 01:42 PM

[QUOTE=kennyo7]I dont think my opinion is the only correct one. Im willing to listen to all sides. But in this case the notion of fighting them abroad so we dont fight them here makes no sense to me. So whats your opinion? Do you think "we are fighting them abroad so we dont have to fight them here" makes any sense? If so please explain why we wouldnt have to fight them in BOTH places. How does a war engaged against a faceless enemy abroad prevent a dozen or so people from commiting terrorist attacks here in the USA?[/QUOTE]
My opinion is that fighting them overseas definitely makes it more difficult to make attacks in the US. Are attacks still possible despite this, of course, just not as easy. However taking out their "comfort zones" abroad, making them feel "on the run" as well as a strong domestic security program including overseas wiretaps will make it that much harder.
This is a faceless enemy, you are correct. We will be "at war" against terror for a long time- in retrospect we probably have been for over 30 years. This is not a "neat" war in which an armistice treaty will be signed by a defeated sovereign nation. We must remain on the offensive as well as be defensive. As they say in football, sometimes the best defense is a strong offense.

PlumberKhan · 09-10-2007, 03:50 PM

[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]However taking out their "comfort zones" abroad...[/QUOTE]

Sounds great. I'm pretty sure the "terrorists" feel pretty god-damn comfortable in Northern Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

When do we get to take out those "comfort zones"?

09-07-2007, 04:02 PM	#41
chicadeel All Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,234	September 2003 President Addresses the Nation We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities. October 2004 President's Remarks in Greeley, Colorado Island Grove Regional Park Events Center Greeley, Colorado THE PRESIDENT: We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities. Guys- Maybe this will help. Last edited by chicadeel; 09-07-2007 at 04:20 PM.

09-07-2007, 05:07 PM	#42
kennyo7 All Pro Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 7,418	[QUOTE=jets5ever]"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in [B]Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond [/B] so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities " -- That is the quote YOU attributed to Bush. He clearly does say "beyond." You are a fool. Again, I never once said I agree with Bush on this. I don't. However, I will not stand for people intentionally distorting what he is saying, like cr did. You can say whatever you want. You're too far gone to matter. But cr has at least some credibility.[/QUOTE] You miss the point . The word "beyond" is meaningless. Your criticism of CR was warantless. Your are hopeless. Really, you are irrelevant

09-07-2007, 05:20 PM	#43
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=kennyo7]Dude, you are making things up. The words Bush used are very clear. [B][U]He did NOT say "beyond"[/U][/B] he specifically said Iraq and Afghanistan. Read the quote its in plain English.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=jets5ever]"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in [B]Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond [/B] so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities " -- That is the quote YOU attributed to Bush.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=kennyo7]The word "beyond" is meaningless.[/QUOTE] :rolleyes:

09-07-2007, 05:38 PM	#44
kennyo7 All Pro Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 7,418	[QUOTE=Warfish]:rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Stop being a robot. The word "beyond is meaningless" he could have said "we will fight them in every country in the world so we dont fight them here". The point is that it is ludicrous to think we wont have to fight them here just b/c we are fighting them elsewhere. BTW fish, funny you didnt put this quote of Bush up :rolleyes: [QUOTE]September 2003 President Addresses the Nation We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.[/QUOTE] But hey, i would not be surprised if you bought into that stupid line.

09-07-2007, 06:06 PM	#45
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=kennyo7]But hey, i would not be surprised if you bought into that stupid line.[/QUOTE] Of course you wouldn't. Sadly for you, assuming that would simply be wrong, presumptious and another sign that you cannot overcome your own massive ego. Nothing new there, eh Ken? :rolleyes:

09-07-2007, 06:53 PM	#46
HDCentStOhio longing for the days of Ronald Reagan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Long Island & Section 337 Posts: 4,859	[QUOTE=kennyo7]Stop being a robot. The word "beyond is meaningless" he could have said "we will fight them in every country in the world so we dont fight them here". The point is that it is ludicrous to think we wont have to fight them here just b/c we are fighting them elsewhere. BTW fish, funny you didnt put this quote of Bush up :rolleyes: But hey, i would not be surprised if you bought into that stupid line.[/QUOTE] Whatever you say. The problem with liberals is that they have an unwarranted sense of intellectual superiority, and that Republicans are elected only because of the stupidity of the general public. Liberals such as yourself feel that their opinion is the only correct one, and they know better than the general public. You have demonstrated this attitude without a doubt in this thread.

09-10-2007, 08:46 AM	#47
kennyo7 All Pro Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 7,418	[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Whatever you say. The problem with liberals is that they have an unwarranted sense of intellectual superiority, and that Republicans are elected only because of the stupidity of the general public. Liberals such as yourself feel that their opinion is the only correct one, and they know better than the general public. You have demonstrated this attitude without a doubt in this thread.[/QUOTE] I dont think my opinion is the only correct one. Im willing to listen to all sides. But in this case the notion of fighting them abroad so we dont fight them here makes no sense to me. So whats your opinion? Do you think "we are fighting them abroad so we dont have to fight them here" makes any sense? If so please explain why we wouldnt have to fight them in BOTH places. How does a war engaged against a faceless enemy abroad prevent a dozen or so people from commiting terrorist attacks here in the USA?

09-10-2007, 12:57 PM	#48
PlumberKhan HAIL SATAN! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,081	[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Liberals such as yourself feel that their opinion is the only correct one, and they know better than the general public...[/QUOTE] Yeah...because there is no Republican administration in recent memory that has disregarded other peoples opinions and have felt they know things better than the majority of the general public...

09-10-2007, 01:42 PM	#49
HDCentStOhio longing for the days of Ronald Reagan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Long Island & Section 337 Posts: 4,859	[QUOTE=kennyo7]I dont think my opinion is the only correct one. Im willing to listen to all sides. But in this case the notion of fighting them abroad so we dont fight them here makes no sense to me. So whats your opinion? Do you think "we are fighting them abroad so we dont have to fight them here" makes any sense? If so please explain why we wouldnt have to fight them in BOTH places. How does a war engaged against a faceless enemy abroad prevent a dozen or so people from commiting terrorist attacks here in the USA?[/QUOTE] My opinion is that fighting them overseas definitely makes it more difficult to make attacks in the US. Are attacks still possible despite this, of course, just not as easy. However taking out their "comfort zones" abroad, making them feel "on the run" as well as a strong domestic security program including overseas wiretaps will make it that much harder. This is a faceless enemy, you are correct. We will be "at war" against terror for a long time- in retrospect we probably have been for over 30 years. This is not a "neat" war in which an armistice treaty will be signed by a defeated sovereign nation. We must remain on the offensive as well as be defensive. As they say in football, sometimes the best defense is a strong offense.

09-10-2007, 03:50 PM	#50
PlumberKhan HAIL SATAN! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,081	[QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]However taking out their "comfort zones" abroad...[/QUOTE] Sounds great. I'm pretty sure the "terrorists" feel pretty god-damn comfortable in Northern Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. When do we get to take out those "comfort zones"?