Hardly.

American Al Qaeda Leader Says U.S. Embassies a Prime Target
August 05, 2007 9:03 AM

Quote :

"['American'] al Qaeda leader Adam Gadahn says al Qaeda will continue to target the United States at home and overseas, singling out U.S. embassies as a target, in a new Internet video released by as Sahab, the propaganda wing of al Qaeda."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/08/american-al-qae.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3449373

Maybe the terrorists don't really mean it when they say they are going to attack us. "Psych! LOL! We're just messin' with your head, man! JK, The Terrorists "

8/6/2007 9:19:10 AM

Given that they've blown up two of our embassy's already and are shelling a third on a regular basis, I would say that this announcement by Mr. Gadahn is hardly a shocking revelation.

8/6/2007 9:24:19 AM

Dang, the illuminati can't even get a real arab now? They gotta get an American and call him an al qaeda sympathizer?

Btw, when the government uses statements like this on the public, it is indeed scaremongering. I don't feel the least bit threatened by anything in that article. So long as the government is hard at work on the intelligence and money trail side of things, I'll rather be more concerned about the drunk driver when I'm coming in from the bars than of any terrorist attack I might be caught up in.

Bring the troops home.

8/6/2007 9:27:57 AM

that's not scaremongering. Nobody is denying that Al Qaeda and other terrorists target the US, or US Embassies in other countries (those are no-brainers. if you can't get into the US, just go after US properties in other countries!)

Scaremongering is a politician getting on TV saying "they want to kill you. Yes, you - the housewife in Podunk City, Iowa. Your kids are not safe. They will kill every last one of us, unless you elect me. ... and the Gays. they want to kill your kids too. and rape them. if we allow them to get married, your kids are in danger. The gays. and the terrorists. Elect me, or they will kill and rape your children."

8/6/2007 10:11:51 AM

^^^ Apparently, it's a revelation that some liberals need to have, since many of them describe any reference to the obviously real threat of terrorism as "scaremongering" or some such.

^^ So, when the government tells the truth, which is mostly based on statements like these from and actions by terrorists, it's "scaremongering"? BTW, you're not telling me anything about car accidents--I got T-boned on Sunday--but the driver wasn't drunk and I survived, which I'm sure will disappoint some here.

^ Some liberals seem to me to be denying the probability of attacks here and abroad.

8/6/2007 10:46:19 AM

Quote :

"^ Some liberals seem to me to be denying the probability of attacks here and abroad."

And what exactly is that probablity, huh? Let's take the last 25 years. How many terrorist attacks have their been in the last 25 years? 10? 100? Let's say 100 just to overestimate to help YOUR point. 9125 days have passed in the last 25 years, and we'll guess 100 attacks. So, that means that 1.09% of all the days in the past 25 years, we've been "under attack. "

Now, how many square feet of the US has been attacked? How many square miles? 50 square miles, we'll guess? We'll overestimate just to help you out. There are 3537441 square miles in the United States. That means that in the entire US, over 0.001% of the United States has been attacked.



So, in the past 25 years, 0.001% of the US has been attacked 1.09% of the time.


I'm shaking in my boots.

8/6/2007 10:53:51 AM

Quote :

"So, when the government tells the truth, which is mostly based on statements like these from and actions by terrorists, it's "scaremongering"?"

agentlion explained it artfully.

When the right says the left is the party of defeat and another terrorist attack will happen if they are elected...well, damn billy bob I bettur vet' fer a republurcan so dem gawd darm turrists don't hurt me whilst imma out huntin a darm whut tale on mah land.

8/6/2007 11:01:45 AM

8/6/2007 11:14:42 AM

on a more disturbing note, the US can't find roughly 1/3 of the small arms sent to Iraq:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20137021/

Way to run a war guys,!!!! (and an unnecessary one at that)......so with all the noise about Iran supplying Iraqi opposition with arms, it looks like american taxpayers are the real culprits.

OMG, INVADE OURSELVES....IF WE DON'T GET US HERE, THEN WE'LL GET OURSELVES...WELL, HERE.

8/6/2007 11:18:25 AM

Please explain your head in the sand pic sir.

Oh, and if you could include bold, quotes, italics, and rolleyes when you do it, it would be much appreciated.

I wanted the authentic hooksaw experience. If you aren't coming with that, stay at home with your porn old man.

8/6/2007 11:23:42 AM

Al Qaeda isn't a strongly connected group anyone. YOU can start saying you hate American and claiming you're al qaeda and the media would label you as such.

Also, Gadahn has made numerous threats in the past that were specific threats, that never resulted in anything. It's very likely this is more of the same... this is probably part of his strategy though as a terrorist.

8/6/2007 11:55:30 AM

Quote :

"When the right says the left is the party of defeat and another terrorist attack will happen if they are elected"

Yeah, because Rudy Guiliani speaks for the whole Republican party when he stumps at some podunk town

Both parties fearmonger, because fear is a powerful force. Republicans scare hicks by overstating the risks of terrorism, and Democrats scare hippies by overstating the risks of global warming.

8/6/2007 11:59:42 AM

Quote :

"Republicans scare hicks by overstating the risks of terrorism, and Democrats scare hippies by overstating the risks of global warming."

only difference is, we have proof that terrorism takes human lives

8/6/2007 12:08:01 PM

^^ Or Michael Chertoffs gut, right?

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 12:14 PM. Reason : gotta step around the shit in the thread]

8/6/2007 12:09:05 PM

i was talking more of the thousands of americans who died in 9/11 and in american embassies, etc...unless you wouldnt attribute the deaths of the people who died in the WTC to terrorism?

i mean shit all those stories you post about deaths in iraq...hey theres more proof that terrorism takes lives, idiot

8/6/2007 12:11:49 PM

Or the President, even

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Quote :

"Bush described al-Qaida's burgeoning operation in Iraq as a direct threat to the United States. Bush accused critics in Congress of misleading the American public by suggesting otherwise. "That's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying, 'He's probably just there to cash a check,'" Bush told troops at Charleston Air Force Base."

The left is trying to mislead you, they want you to let a man with a mask and a gun walk freely into your bank and shoot you!

8/6/2007 12:13:12 PM

MAN BILLY BOB I GOTSTA VOTE FOR A DEM-U-CRAT CAUSE I DONT WONT THA BIG BAD GLOBAL WARMIN TO COME AND KILL US ALL OH PLEASE SAVE US FROM OUR INCOMPETENT SELVES

8/6/2007 12:15:22 PM

I SAW THAT

8/6/2007 12:21:03 PM

This is a thread about terrorism and republican fear mongering.

#1, It was dumb to point out that left wingers do the same thing about global warming
#2, It was even more dumb to try and make that a basis for annoying drivel

8/6/2007 12:35:45 PM

terrorism has tangible victims unlike global warming, your party's favorite topic of scaremongering

8/6/2007 12:39:58 PM

Some people would say that global warming has tangible victims.

Also, you seem to be implying that because terrorism has definitively killed people, then it can't be used as scaremongering, which is clearly untrue.

8/6/2007 12:56:38 PM

not implying that at all...simply saying theres undeniably tangible victims from terrorism...people want to downplay it as a threat but its certainly more of a real threat than what may or may not happen with the climate

what tangible deaths has global warming caused? did people never get heat stroke before 100 years ago? had nobody ever died from a tsunami before automobiles and factories were around?

8/6/2007 1:01:09 PM

Quote :

"people want to downplay it as a threat"

What people? And how are they downplaying it? How should it be played?

8/6/2007 1:13:09 PM

tww downplays it you fucking bald faggot

8/6/2007 1:19:42 PM

How are they downplaying it?

8/6/2007 1:25:20 PM

people like you act like theres no way you and your boyfriend could ever be affected by terrorism

8/6/2007 1:30:52 PM

Quote :

"its certainly more of a real threat than what may or may not happen with the climate"

especially now that we have bred the next generation of american hating muslims in Iraq, armed them, and created an environment for them to broadcast their propaganda.

8/6/2007 1:33:11 PM

I'm sorry that you can't read and comprehend my position, but being more concerned with being killed by a drunk driver because the threat is MUCH higher than terrorism does not mean I don't believe I'll ever be affected by it.

8/6/2007 1:33:17 PM

being killed by a drunk driver is more probable than being killed by terrorism and a shitload more probably than being killed by what may or may not happen with the weather and climate

^^did we breed the japs who attacked pearl harbor too

8/6/2007 1:34:39 PM

This is a thread about terrorism and republican fear mongering.

#1, It was dumb to point out that left wingers do the same thing about global warming
#2, It was even more dumb to try and make that a basis for annoying drivel

8/6/2007 1:35:59 PM

we already skipped over that the last time your dumbass said it

ps: the thread is about LACK of fear mongering

i've only corrected you about 20 times so far today...average day...saddest thing is you still dont realize you're wrong

8/6/2007 1:36:41 PM

^are you on the administration's payroll?

i mean you're trying awfully hard to make people scared, so what if they don't feel threatened, I don't feel any more or less safe than before 9/11.

Quote :

"did we breed the japs who attacked pearl harbor too"

I can't see how that relates.



[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 1:36:47 PM

So why do you insist on trying to add global warming to the discussion when it doesn't belong in the discussion?

Is it because you are a worthless troll or because you are an idiot and can't debate anything properly?

Quote :

"ps: the thread is about LACK of fear mongering i've only corrected you about 20 times so far today...average day...saddest thing is you still dont realize you're wrong"

If that is the case, then what point did you fail to make about global warming?


The more you type and actually try to think for yourself, the more you end up looking the fool.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:39 PM. Reason : *]

8/6/2007 1:37:37 PM

I'm trying to make people scared?? how come everybody ignored Prawn Star's comment?

Quote :

"Republicans scare hicks by overstating the risks of terrorism, and Democrats scare hippies by overstating the risks of global warming."

do you feel any more or less safe about the climate? i dont

Quote :

"So why do you insist on trying to add global warming to the discussion when it doesn't belong in the discussion?"

why do you keep talking about drunk driving? that has nothing to do with this discussion and should never have been mentioned in the thread,/]

8/6/2007 1:38:45 PM

Quote :

"people want to downplay it as a threat but its certainly more of a real threat than what may or may not happen with the climate"

Actually, they're both equally real threats. The nature of the threat is different obviously, which means the way it's measured as a threat is different, but they are both threats that are real, but they are real in different ways.

Quote :

"what tangible deaths has global warming caused? did people never get heat stroke before 100 years ago? had nobody ever died from a tsunami before automobiles and factories were around?"

So what are you saying then? Let's assume that global warming is occurring as the scientists say, are increased deaths over time as a result not a cause for a concern? Or a lesser cause for concern than increased deaths due to terrorism?

It's usually the right accused of fear mongering with terrorism, when it's actually Bush's policies that have caused an INCREASE in the threat of terrorism. So it's not really possible for them to bandy that line, without coming off as fools or hypocrites. There's also not really much disagreement that terrorism is a problem, the disagreements are in the solutions, with the left aptly accusing the right of being unable to control it.

With global warming, there is even more unified support in politics for it being a problem, with most of the controversy being in the media, not with the actual politicians. Global climate change is on a vastly different time scale than terrorist attacks.

8/6/2007 1:39:37 PM

Quote :

"Let's assume that global warming is occurring as the scientists say, are increased deaths over time as a result not a cause for a concern? "

that would assume that global warming is occuring as the scientists say and that increased deaths over time will result...i havent seen any of those results happen

8/6/2007 1:41:09 PM

Quote :

"why do you keep talking about drunk driving? that has nothing to do with this discussion and should never have been mentioned in the thread,/]"

It's valid in a debate about republican fear mongering regarding terrorism when it can be shown that the threat of bodily harm by a drunk driver is higher than a terrorist.

Your "omg the left fearmonger too" is an empty statement and adds nothing to the conversation.

8/6/2007 1:42:40 PM

Quote :

"i havent seen any of those results happen"

How would you expect those problems to manifest themselves?

8/6/2007 1:43:18 PM

^i dont...but they say they'll manifest themselves in 100 years or so...long enough where they wont be here to be held accountable

8/6/2007 1:43:39 PM

Quote :

"^i dont...but they say they'll manifest themselves in 100 years or so...long enough where they wont be here to be held accountable "

You didn't answer the question.

I'm not asking you if you think they would manifest themselves.

I'm asking you that if you believed in anthropogenic climate change, what kinds of things would you think would result that could cause deaths? Hypothetically, how would you expect the problems of climate change to manifest themselves?

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ho]

8/6/2007 1:46:33 PM

i did answer the question...i dont think there will be any severe problems with climate change...maybe in a few hundred thousand years there will be some problems from a changing climate

8/6/2007 1:48:36 PM

wow, we're completely off topic already and only on the first page.....

8/6/2007 1:49:39 PM

Take the damn climate change talk to the climate change threads for chrissakes.

8/6/2007 1:49:47 PM

how can you have a thread about scaremongering and terrorism and not bring up GW scaremongering...everybody's partisan views show up before too long

8/6/2007 1:54:26 PM

^ Thats like Hitler and Reichstag fire.

OK, it isn't at all. I just wanted to make sure that we got the Hitler comparison out of the way on page 1.

8/6/2007 1:55:50 PM

Quote :

"how can you have a thread about scaremongering and terrorism and not bring up GW scaremongering...everybody's partisan views show up before too long"

Well, if there weren't already 3 different threads in the past few months covering all the same information, it wouldn't be a problem.

8/6/2007 2:02:09 PM

Quote :

"i did answer the question...i dont think there will be any severe problems with climate change...maybe in a few hundred thousand years there will be some problems from a changing climate "

You're answering a different question that you made up in your head.

I don't blame you for not answering my question though, because it undermines your position, which was my objective.

8/6/2007 2:48:03 PM

^^^Godwin's Law for the loss.

8/6/2007 2:52:04 PM

^^its a bullshit question...it assumes that there actually is a problem...asking about a hypothetical undermines nothing

8/6/2007 3:16:10 PM

How was lunch?

8/6/2007 3:18:00 PM