Bush's Incompetence Could Have Caused Last Week's Bombings

[No Limit]

Yes, another example of Republicans making this world a match safer place [/sarcasm]

In 2004 the Bush administration leaked a name of someone involved in a British terrorist sting to raise the terror threat level. This lead to the British being forced to arrest their suspects prematurely probably allowing many to go free. Today ABC news reported that Thursday's bombers were actually tied to that investigation:

The Independent newspaper, citing police sources, said one of the four had been linked loosely to a plot to build a large bomb near London. It did not identify the suspect. The newspaper said police described the link as a low-level "association."

That appeared to be a reference to a ring cracked in March 2004, when eight men were arrested across southern England in an operation that led to the seizure of half a ton of ammonium nitrate, a chemical fertilizer used in many bomb attacks. Several have been charged and face trial.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=939904

Meaning this might have been stopped last year.

Here is more info on the 2004 sting:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/terror.wrap/

 

[outpost]

So what your saying, is that you want ghey butt sechs?

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

Yes lets point fingers at Bush, it was all HIS FAULT for the bombing... Dude you are really a nice piece of work, its the terrorists fault it happened, nobody elses. You should quit pointing at fingers at people that had no involvement in the bombings.

 

[FictiousWill]

Every day I feel more often that sane unbrainwashed people are a dying breed. Thanks for the article, No Limit, though I can't say that anything the current administration does surprises me any more. It makes me sick, sad and angry.

 

[Raziaar]

It didn't take long for people to start pointing fingers. Well, I mean other than day one, with CptStern.

 

[CptStern]

/me points finger

 

[No Limit]

I love these people; I post cold hard facts of how this could have been prevented if Bush didn't **** up and instead of trying to disprove what I say you all attack me personally. Frankly yall can kiss my ass; I'm sick of this. My point is up there for you to refute; if you can't do that shut the hell up.

You would have a better argument if you posted that it was Clinton's fault.

 

[Thadius Dean]

It's not the fact that it's the terrorists fault, it's the fact that Bush could have done something about it.

 

[Tr0n]

Butt sechs for everyone!

 

[Lemonking]

wow its strange...one of those provoking threads again ots not Bushs fault.
just as FictiousWill said it the terrorists fault.



btw Bush is not the Police or FBI you know

 

[No Limit]

wow its strange...one of those provoking threads again ots not Bushs fault.
just as FictiousWill said it the terrorists fault.



btw Bush is not the Police or FBI you know

*Bangs Head Against Wall*

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

If you wanna blame anyone it would be chemist, that ironically studied here in NC at NCSU. He made all the bombs, and learned most things from our chemical programs.

 

[outpost]

So you still want that butt sechs?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It's not the fact that it's the terrorists fault, it's the fact that Bush could have done something about it.

First, thats bull. What about the conscious of the young boys persuaded to place the bombs in the Double-Decker buses?

Second, what could Bush do in a country not run by him? Further, there's been no proof either Government knew what was coming -- so again, its a really stupid idea to believe its some kind of "Tin-Foil" hat conspiracy because you cant figure out how the terrorists bested an entire countries security.

*Bangs Head Against Wall*

Life gets better once you stop doing it! *grabs No Limits head, and drags it away from the crater pockmarked in the wall*

If you wanna blame anyone it would be chemist, that ironically studied here in NC at NCSU. He made all the bombs, and learned most things from our chemical programs.

Yep.

Please remember, the terrorists made their choices, and their choices were indepedent of both the British and American governments.

 

[gh0st]

*Bangs Head Against Wall*

You should quit doing that, its causing you to make threads like this one.

 

[el Chi]

I love these people; I post cold hard facts of how this could have been prevented if Bush didn't **** up and instead of trying to disprove what I say you all attack me personally. Frankly yall can kiss my ass; I'm sick of this. My point is up there for you to refute; if you can't do that shut the hell up.

You would have a better argument if you posted that it was Clinton's fault.

To be honest mate, whether the Bush administration screwed up with their strategy there may be partly true, but it's not the main reason for the attacks. It's probable that, had they NOT done that, the attacks would have still gone ahead, possibly earlier. Who knows? It's impossible to say and, at this point, it's pretty immaterial; the attacks have happened, an investigation is underway, the chances of anyone investigating this avenue (let alone calling someone on it) are slim-to-none, it wouldn't do any good if they DID, and Londoners are still defiant.
I'd say that last point matters most.

 

[MilkMan12]

I love these people; I post cold hard facts of how this could have been prevented if Bush didn't **** up and instead of trying to disprove what I say you all attack me personally. Frankly yall can kiss my ass; I'm sick of this. My point is up there for you to refute; if you can't do that shut the hell up.

You would have a better argument if you posted that it was Clinton's fault.

Oh my ****ing God. Seriously Im beginning to think your joking about all this shit your saying and youre just trying to make us argue. Seriously do you read your godamn posts...let alone sources (should I even call them that?)...what about your thread titles...they are even funnier than you and your arguments. Last night I opened up the politics forum...every thread that was visible on my screen was started by you and had an extremely stupid title. You remind me of Peter Griffin. I already posted my argument in a dif thread...read it instead of just creating new topics for every result you get on google when you type "Bush sucks" or "I hate bush" or "Bush is stupid".

Heres a link to my argument by the way http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=86394&page=8 .. Scroll down...I would like to see you try to argue with that...seriously I need a good laugh.

 

[Teta_Bonita]

Bush's Incompetence Could Have Caused Last Week's Bombings

Yes, another example of Republicans making this world a match safer place [/sarcasm]

In 2004 the Bush administration leaked a name of someone involved in a British terrorist sting to raise the terror threat level. This lead to the British being forced to arrest their suspects prematurely probably allowing many to go free. Today ABC news reported that Thursday's bombers were actually tied to that investigation:



http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=939904

Meaning this might have been stopped last year.

Here is more info on the 2004 sting:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/terror.wrap/

could have? probably? might have? dude, sounds like your getting a little desperate. There's no way you can blame Bush for this, cause frankly, you don't know jack shit about what "could have", "might have", or "probably" happened. 'Hey, No Limit, you "could have" gone out and cock-slapped all the terrorists to death and saved the day! but you didn't, so obviously its your fault that london got bombed!' For all you know, if the Bushies hadn't have leaked the name of that terrorist and they all did get busted, the london bombings could still have occured. The thing is, you don't know- nobody knows; that's why this thread is a complete pile of useless wank. My point is: If the terrorists responsible for the London bombings had been arrested a year ago, other terrorists could have easily taken their place. Whatever dumb things bush did doesn't make a difference.

 

[Lemonking]

fugging pwned Bonita

 

[Raziaar]

could have? probably? might have? dude, sounds like your getting a little desperate. There's no way you can blame Bush for this, cause frankly, you don't know jack shit about what "could have", "might have", or "probably" happened. 'Hey, No Limit, you "could have" gone out and cock-slapped all the terrorists to death and saved the day! but you didn't, so obviously its your fault that london got bombed!' For all you know, if the Bushies hadn't have leaked the name of that terrorist and they all did get busted, the london bombings could still have occured. The thing is, you don't know- nobody knows; that's why this thread is a complete pile of useless wank. My point is: If the terrorists responsible for the London bombings had been arrested a year ago, other terrorists could have easily taken their place. Whatever dumb things bush did doesn't make a difference.

Its either stopping too many terrorists, or not stopping enough terrorists.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Let's just forget about the Jihad they declared on free nations because of what we have. Not to mention they hated us for going on their land during the gulf war. Other than a Jihad, must all be bush's fault, for umm well err hey isn't a jihad a holy war? Hmm, well must be Bush's fault because everything negative is LOL OMG!!1

 

[CptStern]

Let's just forget about the Jihad they declared on free nations because of what we have. Not to mention they hated us for going on their land during the gulf war. Other than a Jihad, must all be bush's fault, for umm well err hey isn't a jihad a holy war? Hmm, well must be Bush's fault because everything negative is LOL OMG!!1

well it's not like you dont give them a reason to hate you

 

[Raziaar]

well it's not like you dont give them a reason to hate you

Do I really have to dig up the mass grave photos that Saddam caused, Stern, that were unearthed?

 

[OCybrManO]

Let's just forget about the Jihad they declared on free nations because of what we have . . . hey isn't a jihad a holy war?

Read this, this and this... and ask any Muslim you might know.

As far as I've seen/heard/read anywhere... most modern forms of Islam do not persecute non-Muslims. I haven't encountered any that say otherwise, but I say "most" because I don't want to make generalizations. There probably is a small group that does... just like how a small number of Christians use(d) the Bible as justification for spousal abuse, racism, holy wars, etc.

 

[CptStern]

Do I really have to dig up the mass grave photos that Saddam caused, Stern, that were unearthed?

do I need to bring in the Iraqi water treatment assement document again? or how about that Madeline albright quote?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You mean that dumb quote that could mean anything from Chocolate Milk Shakes, to Chocolate Milk Children? Oh, I love that one!

 

[gh0st]

do I need to bring in the Iraqi water treatment assement document again? or how about that Madeline albright quote?

rifk he's going to post that thing analyzing Iraq's water infrastructure that could mean anything and a Madeline quote that she apologized for did you steal those from another forum too stern? we're going to have to Google every post you make to make sure you aren't stealing.

 

[brink's]

Man, you guys really hate eachother, these arguments just go on and on with no solution wanted or needed. Everyone has there own narrow view on how this world works and in their mind it couldn't work any other way, so it's defended at all costs, with constantl posting of circumstantial evidence that some how relate to each sides theory. Honestly, after you guys finish writing in one of your many 9page+ threads about how good or bad bush is( which is what most of these threads come down to), does anything really change besides increased hatred for eachother? Certainly not eachothers political opinions, thats for sure. This site used to be great for political insight and disscussions, now it just turns into a giant bitchfest.

There are some great political thinkers on this site, but this is getting out of hand.