Posted on 04/21/2013 8:32:57 AM PDT by Abakumov
Understood. All the more reason for him to send his Sasquatch wife to some innocuous event halfway across the country instead of a hospital room with a suspicious Saudi national who is allegedly scheduled for deportation next week.
If it comes out the Saudi in the Hx was an accomplice, thar would mean Moochie could be indicted. She is a common US citizen.
"What difference does it make?"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same,
or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children
and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
President Ronald Reagan
I find an assumption in this sentence amazing. It is that a successful attack by definition means that somebody in the government "failed."
If anybody remembers the days after 9/11, we all assumed that attacks would be ongoing. In fact, this is apparently the first successful bombing by Islamic extremists in America since then, 11.5 years.
If anybody in 9/12 had prophesied that in the next 12 years we would lose only three more American lives to Islamic bombs in America, he would have been laughed down.
There are at minimum some millions of Islamic extremists in the world wanting to attack America and Americans. One bombing in almost 12 years under such circumstances is amazing success, not failure.
This illustrates what I consider one of the most irritating aspects of the American character, common to both right and left. This is the assumption that in any conflict with others, we are in control. That if we have difficulties, it's not because the other side fights with skill or cunning, but ONLY because we screwed up.
This is at the root of leftist criticisms of the Iraqi invasion as having "no exit strategy." It assumes that we're the only player on the board, as if any battle plan survives contact with the enemy. There are (many!) legitimate criticisms of our actions in Iraq, but the notion that all would have gone smoothly if we had the "right" plan is not one of them. The other side gets a vote in war.
That's a leftist critique. A rightie equivalent is the claim that any successful attack on Americans (now that Obama is president) can be only because the government is either A. incompetent, or B. complicit.
While either or both may be the case, the charge should be proven, not assumed. Sometimes attacks succeed because it is not possible to guard everything all the time. Not without setting up a totalitarian society, and probably not then.
Lo, the truth about Islam has been spoken by...I still can’t believe it...of all people...http://joemiller.us/2013/04/bill-maher-comparing-violence-of-islam-to-christianity-liberal-bullsht/ you must watch this video, Bill Maher sounds like the voice of reason, I never thought I would ever agree with Maher but when he’s right he’s right.
Bookmarking for later...
Not true. Ask any LEO at any one of the Boston colleges how many of their female students have been raped by the ME males. Then ask what happened to the rapists. The answer will be they were on a plane immediately back to Saudi Arabia, UAR, Yemin, whatever.
I’ll compromise a little then. Fat is ok, but stupid isn’t.
Who remotely triggered these bombs?
IIRC, there have been several shootings across the country where the shooter was a muslim...
In those days we knew that if the Soviet Union had a free press, the crime and corruption of the leaders would be exposed and the leaders would be gone. And now, I am wishing Pravda would take over news broadcasting and investigating in America.
Just would like to point out that Lee Harvey Oswald also made trips to Russia.
It doesn’t make sense these two were over here and just suddenly became violent American hating boys. Everyone who knew them are puzzled. How could they jump from being ok to American hating vicious killers with knowledge of sophisticated bomb making?
Had to be some influence.
So did Bill Clinton.
The most logical assumption is that the bombers themselves did.
OK, agreed, Obama must go. We have one rather large problem, though....
Who in the Hell do we replace him with?????
I haven’t heard of or know of one qualified, patriotic American that I’d feel comfortable replacing him with that would do what NEEDS to be done. Got anyone in mind?
The problem with the assumption that a caliphate is likely is that it a caliphate means absolute control by a caliph. One man, which means all other ambitious men in the caliphate must submit to his rule.
I content that Muslims have in recent years provided absolutely zero evidence that formation of such a state is likely. Quite to the opposite, the various groups contending for power are more likely to result in smaller and less cohesive states than larger combinations.
All Islamists proclaim the desirability of a caliphate. But every one of their leaders sees himself as the caliph. Not a recipe for unity.
“Just would like to point out that Lee Harvey Oswald also made trips to Russia.”
“So did Bill Clinton.”
yeah, but I wasn’t talking honey traps...
1. Intelligence failure...
2. The foreign connection...
3. Islamic radicalism...
4. The sleeper cell...
And
5. Obama administration SLASHED budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45 per cent…
Actually the most important question is which government leaders will be called to accountability for their failures and who will replace them that is actually competent to protect the homeland?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.