Instead of criticizing the govt's failure to prevent terror, media demonize Trump

[Patrickt]

The government is as likely to stop all mass killings, whether terrorist, nuts, or a combination as they are to stop murders in Chicago or end corruption in Washington, D.C. The government has some chance to stop large complicated plans like the one that took out the WTC towers but attacks by one or two men will still happen.

 

[fmw]

No..they don't actually. Mohammed liked Jews...he even emulated them and lived among them in Medina and considered the Jewish tribes that didn't betray him to be his allies.

Mohamed sent his army across the middle east and north africa to convert the people to islam by the sword. Those who wouldn't convert were put to the sword. He was finally stopped in southern spain. Sound familiar?

 

[Moot]

So all muslims have thought we are at war with them for over 10 years now?

Why don't you ask one, yourself?

 

[Moot]

Mohamed sent his army across the middle east and north africa to convert the people to islam by the sword. Those who wouldn't convert were put to the sword. He was finally stopped in southern spain. Sound familiar?

Except,...Mohammed never left the Arab peninsula in his life and died shortly after uniting the Arab tribes. So he couldn't have gone to Spain or ordered an army into N. Africa.

I think the Byzantines conquered the Vandals in Spain and N. Africa before Mohammed was born. The Byzantines were probably just as bad as any other conquering hoards forcing their beliefs on others.

 

[Visbek]

Mohamed sent his army across the middle east and north africa to convert the people to islam by the sword. Those who wouldn't convert were put to the sword. He was finally stopped in southern spain. Sound familiar?

As noted, "Mohammed" did no such thing. Mohammed died in 632; Christians and Muslims first started fighting for territory in Spain in 711.

Wars over territory were also downright common in the world until.... 1945. The English in particular were rather rambunctious; they constantly invaded Scotland, Ireland, Western France, participated in the Crusades, fought with Spain, fended off Napoleon, conquered half of Southeast Asia, the Middle East and forced China to import opium.

Similarly: "Conversion by the sword" was hardly exclusive to Muslims or Arabs. examples include the suppression of ancient Roman religions when the Emperors finally adopted Christianity; or Charlemagne forcing the pagan Saxons to convert to Christianity after conquering them, including slaughtering thousands at Verden; or forced conversions in Spain in the 15th Century; or persecutions in Goa during Portuguese occupation.... the list goes on.

 

[fmw]

Except,...Mohammed never left the Arab peninsula in his life and died shortly after uniting the Arab tribes. So he couldn't have gone to Spain or ordered an army into N. Africa.

I think the Byzantines conquered the Vandals in Spain and N. Africa before Mohammed was born. The Byzantines were probably just as bad as any other conquering hoards forcing their beliefs on others.

You didn't read my post. I didn't say he went to Spain I said he sent an army.

 

[Vern]

Please Vern, I know you love to lie about this stuff,

poor fletch, you not liking facts doesn't make me a liar.

but tell me what the warnings were that Bush ignored then tell me what he should have done in light of those "clear" warnings.

well this one from the 9-11 commission is pretty clear.

In July 2001, an FBI agent in the Phoenix field office sent a memo to FBI headquarters and to two agents on international terrorism squads in the New York Field Office, advising of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin” to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools.The agent based his theory on the “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending such schools in Arizona.8

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

Yep, thats pretty clear. Oh look, you have a back up narrative in case I posted a warning: "what should he have done". that's easy. he should have done something. See, we know for a fact Bush doing nothing didn't prevent 9-11. We can only wonder if Bush hadn't ignored the clear and repeated warnings maybe he could have prevented 9-11. What a coincidence 9-11 helped his secret Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. speaking of which

Then tell me how you found out about his 'secret day 1 agenda.' Did Cheney tell you? Thanks.

No silly, Cheney didn't tell me. Bush and his treasury secretary did.

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”


Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq? - CBS News

I await your predictably hackish reply.

like "wah wah you lie about stuff" hackish? please fletch, try to respond like an adult to my post this time.

 

[Fletch]

poor fletch, you not liking facts doesn't make me a liar.



well this one from the 9-11 commission is pretty clear.

In July 2001, an FBI agent in the Phoenix field office sent a memo to FBI headquarters and to two agents on international terrorism squads in the New York Field Office, advising of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Ladin” to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools.The agent based his theory on the “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending such schools in Arizona.8

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

Typical Vern dishonesty. Lets take a look at what the report says immediately following the part you quoted:

"The agent made four recommendations to FBI headquarters....His recommendations were not acted on. His memo was forwarded to one field office. Managers of the Usama Bin Laden unit and the Radical Fundamentalist unit at FBI headquarters were addressees, but they did not even see the memo until after September 11. No managers at headquarters saw the memo before September 11 and the New York field office took no action.

As its author told investigators, the Phoenix memo was not an alert about suicide pilots. His worry was more about a Pan Am Flight 103 scenario."

That is from page 272 of the 911 Commission report. Notice, vern, how there is no hint that the President viewed this memo as your dishonest post suggested. Whats more, the report continues:

"If the memo had been distributed in a timely fashion and its recommendations acted on promptly, we do not believe it would have uncovered the plot"


You able to follow all of that, vern? What your own link--The 911 Commission report--demonstrates is what I asserted earlier: that your accusations against Bush are lies, pure and simple. And since the rest of your post only builds upon this falsehood, there is no reason to respond to it. But thanks again for living up to the very low expectations I have of you.

 

[Casper]

Apparently it's more fashionable to demonize Trump and guns rather then attack the real perpatrator: Radical Islam.

Correction: Mental Illness.

 

[coldjoint]

Correction: Mental Illness.

: apology.

 

[Vern]

Typical Vern dishonesty. Lets take a look at what the report says immediately following the part you quoted:

"The agent made four recommendations to FBI headquarters....His recommendations were not acted on. His memo was forwarded to one field office. Managers of the Usama Bin Laden unit and the Radical Fundamentalist unit at FBI headquarters were addressees, but they did not even see the memo until after September 11. No managers at headquarters saw the memo before September 11 and the New York field office took no action.

As its author told investigators, the Phoenix memo was not an alert about suicide pilots. His worry was more about a Pan Am Flight 103 scenario."

That is from page 272 of the 911 Commission report. Notice, vern, how there is no hint that the President viewed this memo as your dishonest post suggested. Whats more, the report continues:

"If the memo had been distributed in a timely fashion and its recommendations acted on promptly, we do not believe it would have uncovered the plot"


You able to follow all of that, vern? What your own link--The 911 Commission report--demonstrates is what I asserted earlier: that your accusations against Bush are lies, pure and simple. And since the rest of your post only builds upon this falsehood, there is no reason to respond to it. But thanks again for living up to the very low expectations I have of you.

Oh look, you're already getting your excuse ready when you cut and run. But Fletch, before you cut and run, how exactly are my "accusations against Bush are lies, pure and simple"? You didn't really make that clear. See, I said Bush ignored clear and repeated warnings. You just posted that the "managers" at the Usama Bin Laden unit and the Radical Fundamentalist unit at FBI headquarters didn't read a memo addressed to them. I'm not sure why you're so happy and relieved at that. And I'm not seeing the part that makes me a liar. Please explain.

And fletch while you celebrate the 9-11 commission happily concluding that that one memo may not have been enough to "uncover" the plot why wasn't it was enough to stop it or even try to stop it? methinks you celebrated prematurely. You don't have to know the terrorists' exact plans to increase security or put the country law enforcement on alert. Did they really sit around and say "mmmmm al queda is taking flight lessons (in multiple locations) and we know this because we knew to monitor flight schools but if only we knew their exact plans so we could do something" Too bad you already posted your "cut and run excuses" because I would like to know why you think it was okay to nothing just based on that one memo. well actually Bush did less than nothing. It seems that the Minneapolis FBI thinks the same guy who ignored the Phoenix memo sabotaged their search warrant request. Here's the guy who got the phoenix memo arguing with the Minn FBI. This too is in the 9-11 commission.

There was substantial disagreement between Minneapolis agents and FBI headquarters as to what Moussaoui was planning to do. In one conversation between a Minneapolis supervisor and a headquarters agent, the latter complained that Minneapolis’s FISA request was couched in a manner intended to get people “spun up.”The supervisor replied that was precisely his intent. He said he was “trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center.” The headquarters agent replied that this was not going to happen and that they did not know if Moussaoui was a terrorist

Yea, that's two clear warnings of TERRORISTS IN FLIGHT SCHOOLS. But I guess if we only look at that one memo instead of all the clear and repeated warnings, you can almost make a case that doing nothing was okay. almost. Can you imagine if President Obama ignored clear and repeated warnings like that how conservatives would obediently rant and rave. I don't have to imagine, you guys held him accountable for an imaginary Benghazi warning. Again, its a shame you already posted your "cut and run excuses"

 

[Fletch]

Oh look, you're already getting your excuse ready when you cut and run. But Fletch, before you cut and run, how exactly are my "accusations against Bush are lies, pure and simple"? You didn't really make that clear. See, I said Bush ignored clear and repeated warnings.

And that is the lie, dear vern. It seems your struggle with the truth has left you completely confused as to where the fiction your mind invents ends and the facts begin. Let me put the question to you directly then observe as you squirm away: exactly how can you accuse Bush of 'ignoring' a warning that never made it to his desk? Let me now answer for you since you wont/cant answer honestly--you are simply lying in order to smear the man.

You just posted that the "managers" at the Usama Bin Laden unit and the Radical Fundamentalist unit at FBI headquarters didn't read a memo addressed to them. I'm not sure why you're so happy and relieved at that. And I'm not seeing the part that makes me a liar. Please explain.

I just did. You posted an incomplete quote from the 911 report in order to make a false, hackish claim. I get it. That's what you do. No worries, I cleaned up the lie for you.

 

[Vern]

And that is the lie, dear vern. It seems your struggle with the truth has left you completely confused as to where the fiction your mind invents ends and the facts begin. Let me put the question to you directly then observe as you squirm away: exactly how can you accuse Bush of 'ignoring' a warning that never made it to his desk? Let me now answer for you since you wont/cant answer honestly--you are simply lying in order to smear the man. I just did. You posted an incomplete quote from the 911 report in order to make a false, hackish claim. I get it. That's what you do. No worries, I cleaned up the lie for you.

Mmmm, I think I understand your ‘secret code’ now. You assume Bush may not have seen that specific memo so you happily conclude that he couldn’t ignore it and magic presto I’m a liar. the problem with your “logic” is the entire Bush administration ignored the memo so I can state “Bush ignored the memo”. And don’t forget, Bush has a documented history of ignoring the warnings about 9-11. Yea, the PDBs. What a lucky break for his secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. I cant help but think you want to whine about me instead of discussing Bush’s official policy of ignoring the clear and repeated warnings (even the ones we know he read) and how Bush’s policy benefited his secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq.

And did you notice nobody seemed to get in trouble for not reading the memo. Even stranger, the guy who sabotaged the Minneapolis FBI’s search warrant request got promoted. Hooray. Another actionable memo was not only ignored but effort was put into thwarting the Minneapolis FBI. You cant even use the "oops, it just fell in the cracks" excuse you so happily accept for the first memo.

Although the last thing the FBI or the country needs now is a witch hunt, I do find it odd that (to my knowledge) no inquiry whatsoever was launched of the relevant FBIHQ personnel's actions a long time ago. Despite FBI leaders' full knowledge of all the items mentioned herein (and probably more that I'm unaware of), the SSA, his unit chief, and other involved HQ personnel were allowed to stay in their positions and, what's worse, occupy critical positions in the FBI's SIOC Command Center post September 11th. (The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!)

You don't get to use the "oops, it just fell in the cracks" for the Minnieapolis report like you happily accept for the Phoenix memo. Effort was put into pushing the Minneapolis report into the cracks. Both reports were actionable but no action was taken. the PDBs were actionable and again no action was taken. What a lucky break for Bush’s secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq.

 

[Fletch]

Mmmm, I think I understand your ‘secret code’ now. You assume Bush may not have seen that specific memo so you happily conclude that he couldn’t ignore it and magic presto I’m a liar.

That's right. You intentionally posted a sliver of a story from the 911 report figuring that no one would bother to check up on your context-dropping, hackish claims. Well, I checked up and the report, itself, proves that your attempt to smear Bush was nothing more than a typical vern fabrication.

the problem with your “logic” is the entire Bush administration ignored the memo so I can state “Bush ignored the memo”.

Yes, that is how you operate. You use half-truths and bogus stretches of logic to push your dishonest, hackish narrative. I busted you vern, so whine all you want.

 

[imyoda]

Every day there are many perfect examples of the hard core political and ideological bias in mainstream media, and just as anyone could have predicted, they prove, yet again, that their primary goals are; A. Protect democrats from any potential criticisms that may hurt their chances for election, B. Create a new and dishonest narrative that shifts America's attention from the real problems, to issues that progressives are trying to advance, and last but certainly not least, C. ENDLESSLY VILIFY REPUBLICANS!!

We had a terrorist attack on a gay club, leaving dozens dead or wounded. This could have been avoided considering how much more invasive our multiple, redundant intelligence agencies have become under Obama, and yet they failed miserably because they had this guy under surveillance, but then apparently decided he was a good guy!

Then they allowed a suspected terrorist to buy guns!! Are you kidding me? We already have regulations on the books that prevent felons, drug dealers, mentally disturbed people from buying guns!

That means that the gov't, under Barack Obama are to blame for these repeated attacks! The gov't failed, period!

But what do the media focus on mostly now, a comment made by Trump that he predicted this would happen, and his comment that Obama doesn't seem to grasp the problem. In other words, a typical political comment made by a politician is FAR more of an issue than 50 dead gay people! Do we see these activist journalists criticizing the president for the repeated failures to stop terrorist from killing people? No, never..... That doesn't accomplish their goals....

We ALL know that if any Republican had presided over this many attacks without preventing them, in spite of having a gov't that monitors millions of Americans, that Republican would be blamed and crucified by this same media.

We saw them blame Bush every time anything went wrong, for 8 years..... These people really don't care about the victims, all they care about is ideological advancement, otherwise theyd be consistent in their criticism.

Before you can claim so.......

You must read/hear all of the news reported.......

BTW

Stop your whining........

 

[Vern]

That's right. You intentionally posted a sliver of a story from the 911 report figuring that no one would bother to check up on your context-dropping, hackish claims. Well, I checked up and the report, itself, proves that your attempt to smear Bush was nothing more than a typical vern fabrication. Yes, that is how you operate. You use half-truths and bogus stretches of logic to push your dishonest, hackish narrative. I busted you vern, so whine all you want.

Context dropping? Smear? You obviously have a secret code for ‘context’ and ‘smear’ because I said Bush ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11. I then posted a blurb from the 9-11 commission of a jaw dropping , fall off your chair memo concerning TERRORISTS IN FLIGHT SCHOOLS that the Bush and his admin completely ignored. The only context you’ve added to this discussion is to whine about me and say we don’t know if Bush read that memo. You want to ignore the context of the entire Bush admin ignoring all the warnings about 9-11 and you want to ignore the context that we know Bush read the PDBs. That’s why you want whine about me. It avoids the pesky context of Bush ignoring the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11.

For future reference, this is what “context dropping” looks like. you posted this blurb from the 9-11 commission:
"If the memo had been distributed in a timely fashion and its recommendations acted on promptly, we do not believe it would have uncovered the plot"

You happily want to ‘interpret that as “hooray, it doesn’t matter Bush did nothing”. No silly, nothing excuses bush ignoring the clear and repeated warnings and doing absolutely nothing. We know that because I added the context that the exact details are not required to something to try to stop 9-11. But lets add the context of the very next sentence in that same paragraph.

It might well, however, have sensitized the FBI so that it might have taken the Moussaoui matter more seriously the next month.”

So the very next sentence says its not good that Bush ignored the Phoenix memo. It tries to say it in a very nice way maybe sorta Bush shouldn’t have ignored it. The problem I have is that both reports were “jaw dropping fall off your chair” sensational. I wouldn’t need to be “sensitized” to be aware of the importance of either one. And I don’t even work in the Usama Bin Ladin unit and the Radical Fundamentalist unit at the FBI. Its “jaw dropping fall off your chair” sensational that no one at either unit of the FBI did anything. context is not your friend if you're trying to make excuses for Bush ignoring the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11 and doing nothing.

 

[code1211]

Every day there are many perfect examples of the hard core political and ideological bias in mainstream media, and just as anyone could have predicted, they prove, yet again, that their primary goals are; A. Protect democrats from any potential criticisms that may hurt their chances for election, B. Create a new and dishonest narrative that shifts America's attention from the real problems, to issues that progressives are trying to advance, and last but certainly not least, C. ENDLESSLY VILIFY REPUBLICANS!!

We had a terrorist attack on a gay club, leaving dozens dead or wounded. This could have been avoided considering how much more invasive our multiple, redundant intelligence agencies have become under Obama, and yet they failed miserably because they had this guy under surveillance, but then apparently decided he was a good guy!

Then they allowed a suspected terrorist to buy guns!! Are you kidding me? We already have regulations on the books that prevent felons, drug dealers, mentally disturbed people from buying guns!

That means that the gov't, under Barack Obama are to blame for these repeated attacks! The gov't failed, period!

But what do the media focus on mostly now, a comment made by Trump that he predicted this would happen, and his comment that Obama doesn't seem to grasp the problem. In other words, a typical political comment made by a politician is FAR more of an issue than 50 dead gay people! Do we see these activist journalists criticizing the president for the repeated failures to stop terrorist from killing people? No, never..... That doesn't accomplish their goals....

We ALL know that if any Republican had presided over this many attacks without preventing them, in spite of having a gov't that monitors millions of Americans, that Republican would be blamed and crucified by this same media.

We saw them blame Bush every time anything went wrong, for 8 years..... These people really don't care about the victims, all they care about is ideological advancement, otherwise theyd be consistent in their criticism.

In fairness, during the Bush years, the media blamed Bush for everything.

After the Bush years, they blamed Bush for everything.

Most Liberals, and this includes about 90% of the media, blame Bush for all bad things that happened at any point in the 20th Century and over the following years through yesterday.

So, it wasn't just the 8 years he was in office.

Blaming Bush is like smoking. Very difficult to quit. Not just a habit; an addiction.

 

[Fletch]

Context dropping? Smear? You obviously have a secret code for ‘context’ and ‘smear’ because I said Bush ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11. I then posted a blurb from the 9-11 commission of a jaw dropping , fall off your chair memo concerning TERRORISTS IN FLIGHT SCHOOLS that the Bush and his admin completely ignored.

You repeating this lie does not make it any less of a lie. In order to 'ignore' something, wouldn't you need to first know that that something exists? I mean, you have many posts here that I do not respond to. Am I ignoring them? Or am I just not aware that they exist? Surely, even you have the ability to see the difference. And you do, of course, which is why what you claimed about Bush is such an obvious lie. But rather than admit it, you just double down. Because I like you vern and have sympathy for your plight, I am going to offer you a bit of help here. You see, I want you to recover. I want you to be able to tell the truth and engage in honest discussion of political matters. The first step is to admit that you lied vern. You accused Bush of 'ignoring' something that he didn't know existed. That, my poor little friend, is impossible. Before you can ignore something, you have to have some level of awareness of its existence. That is just definitionally true. Now that this is clear to you, it is time for you to step back, man up and admit that your original accusation against Bush was factually incorrect--a lie. Once you do this, you might actually gain a kernel of credibility with me. Until then, however, it will be impossible to view anything you say as anything other than dishonest hackery. Best of luck old friend.

 

[Vern]

You repeating this lie does not make it any less of a lie. In order to 'ignore' something, wouldn't you need to first know that that something exists? I mean, you have many posts here that I do not respond to. Am I ignoring them? Or am I just not aware that they exist? Surely, even you have the ability to see the difference. And you do, of course, which is why what you claimed about Bush is such an obvious lie. But rather than admit it, you just double down. Because I like you vern and have sympathy for your plight, I am going to offer you a bit of help here. You see, I want you to recover. I want you to be able to tell the truth and engage in honest discussion of political matters. The first step is to admit that you lied vern. You accused Bush of 'ignoring' something that he didn't know existed. That, my poor little friend, is impossible. Before you can ignore something, you have to have some level of awareness of its existence. That is just definitionally true. Now that this is clear to you, it is time for you to step back, man up and admit that your original accusation against Bush was factually incorrect--a lie. Once you do this, you might actually gain a kernel of credibility with me. Until then, however, it will be impossible to view anything you say as anything other than dishonest hackery. Best of luck old friend.

You like me? I’m touched. But fletch, if you like me why do you call me a liar because you assume Bush didn’t read the Phoenix memo? My point was that Bush ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11. We know for a fact he ignored the PDBs. That proves my point. If you want to pretend Bush didn’t ignore that specific memo because you assume he didn’t read it, you go right ahead but you need more than wishful thinking to call me a liar. I have no problem saying he ignored that specific memo because his entire administration ignored it and Bush has no excuse not to know about such a “jaw dropping fall of your chair “ report. And again, we know he ignored the PDBs. Fletch, instead of putting effort into calling me a liar, put some effort into explaining how its possible Bush didn’t know about the Phoenix memo and how he doesn’t seem the slightest bit perturbed he didn’t know. Think about it, you are literally posting

“I’m guessing Bush did not know about that piece of paper hence you’re a liar. Also it’s perfectly acceptable that Bush was so out of touch he didn’t know about the FBI reports and its nobody’s fault they didn’t tell him and he doesn’t seem upset in the slightest that nobody told him. I have to cling to that narrative because it’s impossible for me to accept that Bush ignored the FBI reports as well as the PDBs because the only explanation is he let it happen. For some inexplicable reason I’m okay with him ignoring the PDBs.”

So now that we’ve settled that you like me and Bush ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11 can we discuss why Bush would ignore them? I say because it helped his secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. What do you say?

 

[imyoda]

Every day there are many perfect examples of the hard core political and ideological bias in mainstream media, and just as anyone could have predicted, they prove, yet again, that their primary goals are; A. Protect democrats from any potential criticisms that may hurt their chances for election, B. Create a new and dishonest narrative that shifts America's attention from the real problems, to issues that progressives are trying to advance, and last but certainly not least, C. ENDLESSLY VILIFY REPUBLICANS!!

We had a terrorist attack on a gay club, leaving dozens dead or wounded. This could have been avoided considering how much more invasive our multiple, redundant intelligence agencies have become under Obama, and yet they failed miserably because they had this guy under surveillance, but then apparently decided he was a good guy!

Then they allowed a suspected terrorist to buy guns!! Are you kidding me? We already have regulations on the books that prevent felons, drug dealers, mentally disturbed people from buying guns!

That means that the gov't, under Barack Obama are to blame for these repeated attacks! The gov't failed, period!

But what do the media focus on mostly now, a comment made by Trump that he predicted this would happen, and his comment that Obama doesn't seem to grasp the problem. In other words, a typical political comment made by a politician is FAR more of an issue than 50 dead gay people! Do we see these activist journalists criticizing the president for the repeated failures to stop terrorist from killing people? No, never..... That doesn't accomplish their goals....

We ALL know that if any Republican had presided over this many attacks without preventing them, in spite of having a gov't that monitors millions of Americans, that Republican would be blamed and crucified by this same media.

We saw them blame Bush every time anything went wrong, for 8 years..... These people really don't care about the victims, all they care about is ideological advancement, otherwise theyd be consistent in their criticism.

It seems to me yall are playing the victim card.............