Tuesday, September 11, 2007
We can't forget 911. Literally.
Forget 911? How can anyone possibly forget 911 when the politicians seeking re-election keep cramming it down our throats day in and day out? Have you had a day since 911 when someone hasn't mentioned it in radio, print, or television? And now with General Petraeus and the neo-con administration trying to justify continuing another mistake, we will be reminded of 911 again.
911. 911. 911. 911.
Forget 911? How about remembering 911 for once? We have been kept scared to death for the last 6 years. We were told to buy duct tape to the point that Home Depot was out of stock and duct tape was being sold on eBay. We were told to make "safe rooms" as if Saddam (who had nothing to do with 911) was going to fly buzz planes spraying us with anthrax, sarin, vx, or mustard gas that he didn't have. We were told 911 was the excuse used for attacking Iraq, killing 4700 of our soldiers and taking our eye off of Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for 911.
We have been living in fear since 911. The events and loss of life of that day has been used for political purposes, constantly reminding us that something bad will happen if we don't remember 911. The Mexicans will cross the border and kill our children if we don't remember 911 and build a wall. Al Queda will plot to kill your kids if we don't remember 911 and tap your phones. The terrorists will kill your family if we don't remember 911 and scan your grandma's breasts for explosive before boarding a plane. And according to Vice President Dick Cheney, the terrorist will kill you, if you don't remember 911 and vote the right way.
Well Dick, and George, and every politician who will stoop low enough while draped in the flag, to scare the hell outa people with their false "Remember 911" reminder, I don't need a two bit politician or a right wing radio loud mouth, or a young chickenshit conservative who won't join the service, or any other moron, to tell me to "Remember 911".
On Sept 10, 2001 George W. Bush was too busy cutting taxes for the wealthy, making deals with the Taliban to build oil pipelines for his buddies, and ending a month long vacation. And on 9/11 America paid for his laziness.
Don't ever forget: 911 happened on Bush's watch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
killing 4700 of our soldiers
Try again, John.
constantly reminding us that something bad will happen if we don't remember 911.
Yep. If you don't remember 911, you won't be able to call the fire department.
The terrorists will kill your family if we don't remember 911 and scan your grandma's breasts for explosive before boarding a plane.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting we shouldn't scan passengers for explosives? Or are you saying we should apply some sort of profile?
On Sept 10, 2001 George W. Bush was too busy cutting taxes for the wealthy
Following the tax cuts, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 34 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 75 percent of people paid 16 percent of all taxes.
Your notion that the rich are getting away easy at the expense of the middle class and poor is rooted in ignorance of the facts.
And remember please, whenever an ass like matt comes out with the old "There have been no terror attacks in the US since 9/11 so Bush's war must be working!", get in his face and ask "Oh really? and we caught the ANTHRAX MAILER when exactly??" And considering that very few Americans live in skyscrapers, while every American has a mailbox, the threat of mailed anthrax to the bulk of American citizenry is much greater than the threat of a terrorist parking a truck bomb out in front of their suburban ranch home.
And considering that very few Americans live in skyscrapers, while every American has a mailbox, the threat of mailed anthrax to the bulk of American citizenry is much greater than the threat of a terrorist parking a truck bomb out in front of their suburban ranch home.
That's kind of silly. After all, every American has a wristwatch, but few Americans live in Washington, DC. Thus, let's cut security in the District and be on the lookout for watch bombs.
The odds don't seem to bear out your assertions. The 9/11 attacks on four targets killed just under 3,000 people. Call it 750 deaths per target, plus billions of dollars in property damage and over $1 trillion in stock losses.
The anthrax attacks took the form of seven letters and killed five people, an average of less than one death per target. Property damage was minimal.
There goes matt, disrespecting terrorist victims again!! How dare you slander and minimize the losses of these Americans, you vile scumbag!!
The 9/11 attack took huge amounts of planning, money, and utilized a technique which likely wouldn't work again. The anthrax attacks took very little, were nicely anonymous (perp still at large), and could easily be run again. Which is the greater threat to us today?
There goes matt, disrespecting terrorist victims again!! How dare you slander and minimize the losses of these Americans, you vile scumbag!!
Minimize? I stated the number of deaths. Are you aware of more deaths beyond the ones I mentioned?
"Property damage was minimal."
Um, hello?
Also there is the usage of minimize as in "to denigrate the importance of something." As in "Limbaugh minimized the contributions of FDR".
Basically this was snark at getting in a pre-emptive right wing style fake rage-gasm, such as the one going on now over the Moveon ad abaout Betrayus
And for eight years before George W. Bush ever became president, Bill Clinton degraded our readiness, ignored intelligence, told us there were WMDs in Iraq, and let Osama get away while he was getting his d*ck sucked by a government employee on government time.
And yet somehow the Bush administration was supposed to overcome those eight years of failure in less than eight months.
"Oh it's all Clinton's fault!" Oh give it a rest!
In this time the United States hasn't caught those responsible for the Cole bombing, Osama Bin Laudin, or the Anthrax Letter sender.
We choose our footware to go to the airport based on how quickly you can slip it on or off because we take off our shoes because they might be bombs! We put our toileties into little baggies because, OH NO! Someone might be able to carry chemicals to make an explosive! Meanwhile, our ports still go unprotected. I'd like security measures that make sense!
Aren't you tired of being scared of our own shadows? If the answer to terrorism is to cower in fear, then the terrorist won!
You don't want to know MY solution to terrorism.
Greg,
Does it have something to do with invading Iran on Magic Sparkle Ponies?
I'm ashamed of both parties for politicizing the event.
The way I see it, the tactic of hijacking aircraft became virtually useless to terrorists shortly before 10:06 a.m., near Shanksville, Pennsylvania six years ago today.
Some posts of John's I love more than others, and this is one of them.
Sign me,
Disciple of John
Greg - let me guess. Would it involve the needless deaths of millions? Glad my vote cancels out yours.
No -- the purposeful deaths of millions.
There is a difference.
Oh geez.... Greg blamed Clinton?
That is rich. You guys have got nothing left in your party, but pointing fingers and not taking responsibility for anything.
Greg is a typical republican, so stay away from the mens room.
Yall really should read some of the wing-nut, terroristic stuff Greg writes about Muslims on his blog.
Scary stuff when you know this is coming from a public school teacher.
Well, anonymous is clearly a liar.
I write nothing terroristic about Muslims.
If you have the courage, why don't you point to one of those "terroristic" posts.
Greg,
Perhaps this will serve as a reminder.
Everyone please click. He slams Islam, Allah, camel-humping (expletive deleted) and Muhammad.
It's really ugly and it says a lot about Greg.
It's enough to take the sparkle off the pony.
The link sure sounds like Greg to me. And asking for the "purposeful deaths of millions" suggests to me that he is a complete lunatic.
I remember when Greg called Mexican's "Wetbacks" and he claimed he didn't know it was a slur. Uh. right.
You know, Greg, this is pretty bad stuff. Maybe you really need to move on to another blog.
http://bayareahouston.blogspot.com/2006/11/rhymes-with-hate.html
Oh, goody! The compilation of out-of-context quotes!
As presented at the time, they were inaccurate, and that compilation remains so today. And none of them, not a single one, included a terroristic threat against Muslim -- although one of them did point out that if he continued to make terroristic threats against the state of Israel, there could be consequences.
So if you have a lick of intellectual honesty, drop by and take a look at the response from last year.
Seriously Greg, it is time you moved on.
"Someone needs to volunteer to give Ari, the rotten bastard, a ride out of town. Behind the back of a pickup truck." --John Cobarruvias
"if you [held up a sign] I would put my boot so far up your ass that your breath would smell like desenex for a week." --John Cobarruvias
Actually that last one is pretty clever, John.
Thanks, Matt, for reposting it for us.
Seriously Greg, you need to not only move on, you need to get some serious mental health counseling.
Anyone who openly advocates for killing millions of people (and I doubt you were talking about Episcopalians) needs psychiatric help.
Seriously. Those are the words of a dangerously deranged individual (even for a right winger).
I agree. Matt is a useless wussy, but Greg sounds dangerous.
Desenex.
Now THAT is funny!!!!!!!
Anyone who openly advocates for killing millions of people (and I doubt you were talking about Episcopalians) needs psychiatric help.
Greg didn't advocate for nuking the Middle East. To the contrary, his statement suggested deterrence, which is the proper role of nuclear weapons.
Desenex.
Now THAT is funny!!!!!!!
Not particularly. It's a tired old attempt at a joke, and a rather disgusting one.
Here's John making the Desenex threat in June 2006. Here's John threatening the Secretary of Defense in August 2006. Here's John doing it again August 2006. Here's John rehashing the threat in April 2007.
How about some new material, John?
And seriously, if your toe fungus is so entrenched that it can resist treatment for nearly a year, seek medical attention.
Matt - here are Greg's words, cut and pasted as he wrote them, referring to my comment that his solution to terrorism would involve the needless deaths of millions:
"No -- the purposeful deaths of millions."
Which of those words is unclear to you, Matt? He did not say what you said he did - he said exactly what I just quoted - and I say they are the words of a dangerously deranged human. Jesus, if you are going to defend someone, at least read his words first.
Your the one suggesting the deaths of millions -- I'm simply commenting that they would be purposeful, not needless.
On the other hand, I've yet to see anyone point to an actual terroristic threat by me -- though plenty by John.
Your the one suggesting the deaths of millions -- I'm simply commenting that they would have to be be purposeful, not needless, for me to support them.
On the other hand, I've yet to see anyone point to an actual terroristic threat by me -- though plenty by John.
We need to build a wal between the US and Mexico or else the Mexicans will steal my job, my money, and my girlfriend.
(and Matt's fiance)
Anonymous, your continued accusations of homosexuality are despicable. If you have a shred of class, you'll retract your most recent one.
Greg, I think your line of thought is utterly disgusting.
I sincerely believe you are either joking, deluded, brainwashed, have an IQ substantially lower than optimum beer temperature, or are just plain evil.
Please, do tell exactly what circumstances or goals could possibly make the "purposeful" killing of a million human beings beneficial.
I seem to recall this little incident known as WWII. We killed several million human beings.
Oh, yeah, by the way -- we won.
And Bob, the purpose WAS victory for America and American values.
This group of putzes here would have been ready to withdraw to Canada well before D-Day.
We've already had this conversation, Greg
As Greg's blog recalls it, I said:
...it's completely invalid to compare our War on Terror to WWII. It compares better with the crusades.
On December 8, 1941 we declared war. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't declare war against a tactic. We've invaded two countries (so far) and the War on Terror is just beginning.
So, should we invade Saudi Arabia before or after we nuke Iran?
And Greg said:
Personally, Bob, I don't support nuking Iran or invading Saudi Arabia -- I believe we should invade Iran and use the neutron bomb on Saudi Arabia so that we don't damage the oil wells.
And as for the notion of the War on Terrorism, i agree with you -- we need to call it the Crusade against Jihadi Islam and finish the job that was begun by Charles Martel.
Or at least continue it until the Muslim equivalent of Martin Luther emerges to reform Islam into a truly peaceful faith.
To which Bob optimistically replied:
All through this thread I've suspected that you were engaging in parody, and have eagerly awaited a punch line.
"I believe we should invade Iran and use the neutron bomb on Saudi Arabia so that we don't damage the oil wells."
That's a good one Greg!
|| Posted by bob, June 29, 2007 07:12 PM ||
And that line of comments, as you can probably tell, involved me being a smart-ass.
Post a Comment