United States Could 'Absorb' Another Terror Attack, Obama Says in Woodward Book

reply to post by maybereal11


You're not getting it (and I'm answering you).

Obama's "we can absorb another attack" stance is nothing more than the equivalent of two fighters standing toe to toe with one saying hit me with your best shot, we can take it. That strategy NEVER makes the other person say well, OK and then slink away. If they have any cojones at all they will take you up on your offer. And so one of these days some terrorist organization or country like north korea or iran will go ahead and take a swing ...

Originally posted by centurion1211
Economically and psychologically the last 9 years have shown that we cannot absorb another 9/11 style attack.

Then we are not worthy of existence. Countries like Russia and Germany were leveled for large part, and both recovered and live well. We lose, in a single event, same number of people that we lose in a month in road accidents, and all of a sudden this is a Biblical event we can't absorb. And then you proceed to discuss cojones.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Obama's "we can absorb another attack" stance is nothing more than the equivalent of two fighters standing toe to toe with one saying hit me with your best shot, we can take it

Patently wrong. It's like "hit me if you can, but even if you dare and bruise me I'll break every bone in your body"

reply to post by babybunnies


You are right it was a typo, but too late to fix it, now. Actually you are right, when it benefits the government agenda we get inundated with propaganda of another terrorist attack, but the truth is that everyday is a new terror scare going on, but no always you get to hear about it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by centurion1211
Obama's "we can absorb another attack" stance is nothing more than the equivalent of two fighters standing toe to toe with one saying hit me with your best shot, we can take it

Patently wrong. It's like "hit me if you can, but even if you dare and bruise me I'll break every bone in your body"

Except obama abhors the military, so I doubt if anyone seriously fears a military response from the U.S. while he is president.

Remember, the democrats prefer to call terrorist attacks in the U.S. "police matters" best handled by civilian courts, so what or who would we be "breaking bones" with?

Patently true ...

all obama is saying is that as a people, as americans, we will survive, and not give in, to another terriost attack if one occurred...what's wrong with you people. what?? are we all just going to crumble into the ground?? another terriost attack is likely in the future. no rational leader would come out and say " we will NEVER have a terriost attack again"

Maybe Im taking out of context

But I can absorb a punch in the face but that doesn't mean Ill be able to get back up.
Hey Idea
Why dont we just stick his piddly little ass out in front and see how much of a attack he can absorb.

Originally posted by jimmyx
no rational leader would come out and say " we will NEVER have a terriost attack again"

You're correct. The obama administration has never said that.

Where you are wrong, however, is that they also never admit when there has been a terrorist attack, pretending they are keeping us safe when they are not by hushing up the stories in the MSM.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by centurion1211
Obama's "we can absorb another attack" stance is nothing more than the equivalent of two fighters standing toe to toe with one saying hit me with your best shot, we can take it

Patently wrong. It's like "hit me if you can, but even if you dare and bruise me I'll break every bone in your body"

Except obama abhors the military, so I doubt if anyone seriously fears a military response from the U.S. while he is president.

Remember, the democrats prefer to call terrorist attacks in the U.S. "police matters" best handled by civilian courts, so what or who would we be "breaking bones" with?

Patently true ...

"Obama abhors the military"?? veterans now getting help (that bush refused) don't think so, soldiers families now getting help (that bush refused) don't think so...what military you talking about?
the terriosts are just thugs, small groups of murderous criminals, there is no terriost army, no nation of terriosts, no government of terriosts.
under clinton, the first group of terriosts that bombed the WTC are now in prison for the rest of their lives...apparently the "civilian courts" worked just fine then.

And his obvious ploy is working. It keeps the fake, hyped fear of terrorists alive in the mind of the public.
It reinforces the believe in the fake government story of 9/11.
It justifies the stripping away of all civil rights and the totalitarian power being taken by the government.
It prepares the mind of the public for potential future government terrorist attacks on US people.

And it continues to deflect from the fact that the real threat to US national security is the government itself.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by centurion1211
Obama's "we can absorb another attack" stance is nothing more than the equivalent of two fighters standing toe to toe with one saying hit me with your best shot, we can take it

Patently wrong. It's like "hit me if you can, but even if you dare and bruise me I'll break every bone in your body"

Except obama abhors the military, so I doubt if anyone seriously fears a military response from the U.S. while he is president.

Remember, the democrats prefer to call terrorist attacks in the U.S. "police matters" best handled by civilian courts, so what or who would we be "breaking bones" with?

Patently true ...

"Obama abhors the military"?? veterans now getting help (that bush refused) don't think so, soldiers families now getting help (that bush refused) don't think so...what military you talking about?
the terriosts are just thugs, small groups of murderous criminals, there is no terriost army, no nation of terriosts, no government of terriosts.
under clinton, the first group of terriosts that bombed the WTC are now in prison for the rest of their lives...apparently the "civilian courts" worked just fine then.

Yes, obama abhors the use of the military - if that makes it any clearer for you.

That doesn't mean he doesn't feel sorry for troops injured in battle by others using those dirty, disgusting, mean, and nasty gun thingies.

reply to post by Intelearthling

Obama is the wrong guy for this job.

This is the quote that kills me...

Despite warnings of another attack, he suggested the United States could weather a new strike.

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger," Obama reportedly said.

According to the book, Obama said, "I have two years with the public on this" and pressed advisers for ways to avoid a big escalation in the Afghanistan war.
...
While Obama ultimately rejected the alternative plan, the book says, he set a withdrawal timetable because, "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

Otherwords, when push comes to shove, he would rather lose more innocent Americans than lose Democratic party members.

Originally posted by Section31
Otherwords, when push comes to shove, he would rather lose more innocent Americans than lose Democratic party members.

What on Earth does the resilience of the American people and terror threat in the US have to do with the Afghan campaign?

Originally posted by centurion1211
Except obama abhors the military, so I doubt if anyone seriously fears a military response from the U.S. while he is president.

Just give it up, Centurion, and fight another day. You can't save this argument but you can save your reputation.

Obama does not abhor the military. Last time I checked, troop levels in Afghanistan are robust and drone attacks in Pakistan at all time high. Hardly a dove of peace, this prez.

What he does abhor is the utter stupidity of frivolous and disasterous campaigns like one in Iraq. I hope GWB burns in hell for that.

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by maybereal11

 

You're not getting it

Obama's "we can absorb another attack" stance is nothing more than the equivalent of two fighters standing toe to toe with one saying hit me with your best shot, we can take it. dn:

Are you being purposely dishonest? Are you just confused? Do those political goggles skew your vision so much that you actually believe this?

Fortunately we have his actual quote to consider in comparison to your mindless bashery and political spin.

fear mongering
The statement was a response to those internal political forces looking to use fear...like the GOP Masters ..Cheney, Rumsfield and Rove employed to convince Pres. Bush to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11...which diverted undeniably precious military resources when we should have been hunting Osama-Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan..

Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Not trading punches
We will do everything possible to prevent another 9-11...it's right there...did you read his quote?

During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by centurion1211
we cannot absorb another 9/11 style attack.

And if Pres. Obama had said what you just said..."We can't absorb another 9-11"...what do you think the headline would be that you'd be repeating from Rush and Glen right now?

We have survived civil war, plus a dozen others…what would be much more damaging than any terrorist attack imaginable would be empowering politicians that spout the defeatist trash you just posted above…as a pretext for invading another country to make the Military Industrialists and American oil Barons like the Koch Brothers a few extra Billion dollars.

Tell me, if the GOP return to power and the fear mongering begins anew, what country is next on the invasion agenda? While Osama-Bin-Laden still wanders the mountains of the Afghan and Pakistani border?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by centurion1211
Except obama abhors the military, so I doubt if anyone seriously fears a military response from the U.S. while he is president.

Just give it up, Centurion, and fight another day. You can't save this argument but you can save your reputation.

His reputation was destroyed yesterday when he had to resort to making fun of my disability via U2U after I pointed out his hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Intelearthling
"Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me once shame on me."

I'm sorry! To mess up that quote again... there's almost NO excuse for it!

Ah! Man! Really "effed" that one up. I was trying to put the quote into more acceptable language from the original and got it wrong anyway. I hope anyone who reads it knows what I mean. For anyone that doesn't know it's "Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice shame on me."

Anyway, yes Obama said that and he's right. We COULD absorb another terrorist attack. And we would carry on if such a dreadful thing happened.

I'm not saying we can't phsically endure another attack, which I know full and well we can. But what about the emotions that would be the result of another attack. I'm talking about the anger that it'll produce. The chaos, hatred and discrimination that would inevitably ensue. The nation would be torn apart internally which is exactly what the terrorists would want. Anyone who thinks it won't be torn apart after a terrist attack needs to look at the anti-Muslim sentiments that's going on now.

What's the point that FOX is trying to make here? That Obama wants another attack? What a bunch of crap!

A month ago, John Bolton made a comment that upset many people. It was in effect that Obama would take security matters serious if Chicago were to be nuke in a terrorist attack but when Obama says something to the same effect, no one takes notice or the ones who criticized Bolton seems to care less about a comment that is no different from his comes out of Obamas mouth.

Of course we can absorb another terrorist attack if it were to happen but who's going to control the absolute madness that will be the direct product of such an attack?

"Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me." Hah! I knew I could get it right!

reply to post by maybereal11


Michigan Man Caught With AK-47 In Dearborn Park Is Radical Islamist/Blogger/Doctor-in-Training

www.hyscience.com...