Oh, please, of course I was all for the war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. We directed most of our troops from the war in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden, to go after someone who did nothing to our country, and was a HUGE waste of time in Saddam Hussien. This is what bugs me most about our current president. How could you guys (as supporters of bush) allow him to do this? He directed 100's of ground troops to go in and hunt down Saddam Hussien, and now where is Bin Laden?Where is Bin Laden? Let me know how you answer to then Wife of a firefighter on 9/11.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Mar 18 2007, 09:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Oh, please, of course I was all for the war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. We directed most of our troops from the war in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden, to go after someone who did nothing to our country, and was a HUGE waste of time in Saddam Hussien. This is what bugs me most about our current president. How could you guys (as supporters of bush) allow him to do this? He directed 100's of ground troops to go in and hunt down Saddam Hussien, and now where is Bin Laden?Where is Bin Laden? Let me know how you answer to then Wife of a firefighter on 9/11.</div> Honestly, it doesn't matter if Osama Bin Laden is captured or not. He's not actively involved anymore like he used to be. We've captured/killed 90% of the people that were directly involved in 9/11. I don't think you understand how big of an area Bin Laden is in, you could sent 25,000 people out in those mountains looking for Bin Laden and they could be there for 50 years and never find him or a trace of him or his followers being, it's simply not that big a priority anymore. We still have tons of people and devices looking for him.
I think Bin Ladin is dead, I think he was probably killed when the airforce dropped a bunker buster on a cave, and the reason no one has found his body is because its burried under what use to be a cave.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Mar 18 2007, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think Bin Ladin is dead, I think he was probably killed when the airforce dropped a bunker buster on a cave, and the reason no one has found his body is because its burried under what use to be a cave.</div> I firmly believe he is alive, if he was dead it would have been found out by now. This government would love the news of Bin Laden's death, if he we dead, our informants and people on the inside would have found out of his dead by now, especially over a span of a couple of years. If he were dead, we'd here about it. Last month reports came out that confirmed he was still in contact with a limited amount of people inside the organization.
I don't think he's dead either, but theres no real proof either way..but anyway bcb u act like your sure then bin laden is no harm to our country anymore...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Mar 18 2007, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I firmly believe he is alive, if he was dead it would have been found out by now. This government would love the news of Bin Laden's death, if he we dead, our informants and people on the inside would have found out of his dead by now, especially over a span of a couple of years. If he were dead, we'd here about it. Last month reports came out that confirmed he was still in contact with a limited amount of people inside the organization.</div>IMO the news of his death will "be discovered" around the time of the 2008 election. About the same time that a terrorist attack happens.
A terrorist attack always seems to happen shortly after the election. after the 92 election is when they attacked the WTC the first time, and of corse 10 months after the 01 election they pulled of 9/11. From a tactically stand point its a sensible strategy, because if you attack before the election you still have the old president in office who knows how to do things until his successor gets in office, it also would give time to the successor to get up to speed on whats going on. Pulling an attack after the election is a smarter idea because sh*t gets lossed in the transition between presidencies.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I firmly believe he is alive, if he was dead it would have been found out by now. This government would love the news of Bin Laden's death, if he we dead, our informants and people on the inside would have found out of his dead by now, especially over a span of a couple of years. If he were dead, we'd here about it.</div>I understand your point, and I do agree that if the government had any real evidence that he was dead they would bring it out. especially during either the 04, or 06 elections. But just because this administration doesn't have proof he is dead doesn't mean he isn't. remember these are the same people who had proof that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction. If you are one of the nutjobs who believe Bushco is on a crusade against the Middle East than it makes sense for the government to keep him alive in the minds of the people. But on to real evidence he is dead. Most of the videos he makes seem to be talking about generic events, or be about things Al Qaida has had planed for some years. Bin Ladin very easily could have made a lot of videos to be released in the event of his death, remember he was suffering from some kidney element. Also, most his key guys have been arrested or killed, but no evidence of Bin Ladin has even been found that I have heard of. so that leads me to believe he is either dead, or hiding in a cave somewhere praying to Allah that he never gets found.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A terrorist attack always seems to happen shortly after the election. after the 92 election is when they attacked the WTC the first time, and of corse 10 months after the 01 election they pulled of 9/11. From a tactically stand point its a sensible strategy, because if you attack before the election you still have the old president in office who knows how to do things until his successor gets in office, it also would give time to the successor to get up to speed on whats going on. Pulling an attack after the election is a smarter idea because sh*t gets lossed in the transition between presidencies.</div>yes, I'm saying I think it will happen before the election to give the republicans an extra boost
Why would terrorist want a Republican in office again? Republicans are much more likely to bomb the living hell out of them compared to what a Democrat would. After 9/11 The US had invaded 2 countries, and conducted bombing missions in 11 more. following the Embassy attacks the US sent a few cruise missles into Afghanistan, and following the bombing of the Cole, the US did nothing. You could see another Cole style terorist attack, in that an oppertunity presents itself and the terrorist sieze it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Mar 19 2007, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why would terrorist want a Republican in office again? Republicans are much more likely to bomb the living hell out of them compared to what a Democrat would. After 9/11 The US had invaded 2 countries, and conducted bombing missions in 11 more. following the Embassy attacks the US sent a few cruise missles into Afghanistan, and following the bombing of the Cole, the US did nothing. You could see another Cole style terorist attack, in that an oppertunity presents itself and the terrorist sieze it.</div>How thick are you? I'm insinuating that the administration is going to stage a terrorist attack to get votes and half joking.
