CSNbbs

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/10/...ay-threat/

This is why you dont pull all of the troops out. THis is also why we should be scared sh*tless that this guy keeps getting surprised by actions occurring in the world under his watch.

They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

Exactly. Have you seen what people in some of these cities do when they win a championship of some sort? Now imagine what they will do when they've been told that a bomb that has exploded in their city contained some sort of radiation.

(07-10-2014 04:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/10/...ay-threat/

This is why you dont pull all of the troops out. THis is also why we should be scared sh*tless that this guy keeps getting surprised by actions occurring in the world under his watch.

We shouldn't have gone in the first place. No matter how many troops we sent in or how long we stayed, their government would have fallen and country exploded into war. Many said this would be the out come before we went in over a decade ago. The only thing that kept them from fight was the fear of Saddam and his Fedayeen. He was terrible and needed to die, but in a place as unstable as Iraq he is, as bad as it is to say, the only type of person who can keep both sides in check by making fear him. Iraq and Afghanistan have never had a stable government last more than 50 years in their history. I hate so say because there good people there that just want to live their lives and be left alone, but those are two places that should be walled off from the rest of the world. There is no fixing or stabilizing them.

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

This is mostly correct. They could explode a shopping bag full of bananas, call it a dirty bomb, and people would fall over themselves in panic.

Even an very well designed and well executed dirty bomb is unlikely to cause significant actual damage. What damage it would cause would likely be expressed in statistical estimations of cancer rates occurring many years down the road.

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

Obama is systematicly and intentionally destroying this country and 47% still support him. He is truly an usurper.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

This has nothing to do with Bush. Obama INHERITED a stable and democratic Iraq. Obama withdrew everyone, and this is what you get.

Al Qaida was dessimated under Bush. Just two years ago, Obama said Al Qaida was on the run. ISIS is all on Obama.

And Boko Haram is all on Obama and Hillary.

This is Obamas issue. Even if we never went into Iraq in the first place, it wouldn't matter. We didn't go into Syria, and look at that place now.

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault?

Because Obama had 6 years.

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And the vast majority of the white powder sent through the mail was harmless, but it didn't stop a large portion of this country from losing their minds. I was serving on our hazmat team at the time and spent more time in Level A suits for those couple months that the rest of my career combined. The OT was great though, so I'm not complaining.

Quote:And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

There's a meme running around Facebook that is about the most appropriate response to the above quoted drivel

(07-10-2014 07:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And the vast majority of the white powder sent through the mail was harmless, but it didn't stop a large portion of this country from losing their minds. I was serving on our hazmat team at the time and spent more time in Level A suits for those couple months that the rest of my career combined. The OT was great though, so I'm not complaining.

Quote:And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

There's a meme running around Facebook that is about the most appropriate response to the above quoted drivel

Some people overreacted to a perceived threat. So what? That's a lot better than people dying.

(07-10-2014 07:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

This has nothing to do with Bush. Obama INHERITED a stable and democratic Iraq. Obama withdrew everyone, and this is what you get.

Al Qaida was dessimated under Bush. Just two years ago, Obama said Al Qaida was on the run. ISIS is all on Obama.

And Boko Haram is all on Obama and Hillary.

This is Obamas issue. Even if we never went into Iraq in the first place, it wouldn't matter. We didn't go into Syria, and look at that place now.

Iraq was more stable under Hussein than it's ever been since. And it's never been much of a democracy unless you consider a Shia government a democracy. It was such a wonderful democracy that as soon as we're not there to hold their hands, after 10 years no less, it falls apart.

Bush spent so much time worrying about Iraq he forgot that it was Bin Laden that attacked us. And it only took him a few months, if that, to forget.

(07-10-2014 07:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 07:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And the vast majority of the white powder sent through the mail was harmless, but it didn't stop a large portion of this country from losing their minds. I was serving on our hazmat team at the time and spent more time in Level A suits for those couple months that the rest of my career combined. The OT was great though, so I'm not complaining.

Quote:And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

There's a meme running around Facebook that is about the most appropriate response to the above quoted drivel

Some people overreacted to a perceived threat. So what? That's a lot better than people dying.

Oh, and people wouldn't overreact to ISIS announcing they had detonated a uranium laced bomb in a high population area wouldn't be deadly? Large groups of panicked people are extremely dangerous. How safe do you think it would be for hundreds of thousands of panicked people to try and flee Manhattan Island all at once?

(07-10-2014 07:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]Some people overreacted to a perceived threat. So what? That's a lot better than the cause of people dying.

FIFY. When you have massive evacuations, people will die as a result. In the event of a dirty bomb, unnecessary evacuation will result due to political concerns. People will disregard the inevitable deaths that would come with evacuation, but they could never forgive inaction in the face of a perceived risk, regardless of whether there is any real likelihood of damage coming from that event.

(edit: I acknowledge I am shifting focus from the anthrax attacks post 9/11 to the possibility of a dirty bomb. But, my point is that the reaction is a probably a greater risk than the event itself.)

(07-10-2014 07:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 07:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

This has nothing to do with Bush. Obama INHERITED a stable and democratic Iraq. Obama withdrew everyone, and this is what you get.

Al Qaida was dessimated under Bush. Just two years ago, Obama said Al Qaida was on the run. ISIS is all on Obama.

And Boko Haram is all on Obama and Hillary.

This is Obamas issue. Even if we never went into Iraq in the first place, it wouldn't matter. We didn't go into Syria, and look at that place now.

Iraq was more stable under Hussein than it's ever been since. And it's never been much of a democracy unless you consider a Shia government a democracy. It was such a wonderful democracy that as soon as we're not there to hold their hands, after 10 years no less, it falls apart.

Bush spent so much time worrying about Iraq he forgot that it was Bin Laden that attacked us. And it only took him a few months, if that, to forget.

"Iraq was more stable under Hussein than it's ever been since"

Exactly, This Current "Hussein " has Sure made a mess of it !

Hey Man I didn't give them that **** I was hitting the bong. At least they only nuked Philly.

(07-10-2014 05:16 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/10/...ay-threat/

This is why you dont pull all of the troops out. THis is also why we should be scared sh*tless that this guy keeps getting surprised by actions occurring in the world under his watch.

We shouldn't have gone in the first place. No matter how many troops we sent in or how long we stayed, their government would have fallen and country exploded into war. Many said this would be the out come before we went in over a decade ago. The only thing that kept them from fight was the fear of Saddam and his Fedayeen. He was terrible and needed to die, but in a place as unstable as Iraq he is, as bad as it is to say, the only type of person who can keep both sides in check by making fear him. Iraq and Afghanistan have never had a stable government last more than 50 years in their history. I hate so say because there good people there that just want to live their lives and be left alone, but those are two places that should be walled off from the rest of the world. There is no fixing or stabilizing them.

Looked pretty good until Obama phucked it up.

I just desise the pompous, self fulfilled liberal response to the debacle brewing in Iraq: "Iraq is a catastrophe. Told you so"

(07-10-2014 10:16 PM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 05:16 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/10/...ay-threat/

This is why you dont pull all of the troops out. THis is also why we should be scared sh*tless that this guy keeps getting surprised by actions occurring in the world under his watch.

We shouldn't have gone in the first place. No matter how many troops we sent in or how long we stayed, their government would have fallen and country exploded into war. Many said this would be the out come before we went in over a decade ago. The only thing that kept them from fight was the fear of Saddam and his Fedayeen. He was terrible and needed to die, but in a place as unstable as Iraq he is, as bad as it is to say, the only type of person who can keep both sides in check by making fear him. Iraq and Afghanistan have never had a stable government last more than 50 years in their history. I hate so say because there good people there that just want to live their lives and be left alone, but those are two places that should be walled off from the rest of the world. There is no fixing or stabilizing them.

Looked pretty good until Obama phucked it up.

I just desise the pompous, self fulfilled liberal response to the debacle brewing in Iraq: "Iraq is a catastrophe. Told you so"

WUT? 600,000+ dead. sectarian violence, rape, murder, kidnappings, IEDS, Fallujah, UN office being bombed, the bombing of the Al-Askai Mosque (the Golden Mosgue), Sadr City. Things were a chite sandwich long before 2008.

Try reading the history of the area, it was going to happen, said before we even went in. Unless you want to keep a permeant force there of around 60,000, then maybe.

(07-10-2014 11:27 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 10:16 PM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 05:16 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2014 04:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/10/...ay-threat/

This is why you dont pull all of the troops out. THis is also why we should be scared sh*tless that this guy keeps getting surprised by actions occurring in the world under his watch.

We shouldn't have gone in the first place. No matter how many troops we sent in or how long we stayed, their government would have fallen and country exploded into war. Many said this would be the out come before we went in over a decade ago. The only thing that kept them from fight was the fear of Saddam and his Fedayeen. He was terrible and needed to die, but in a place as unstable as Iraq he is, as bad as it is to say, the only type of person who can keep both sides in check by making fear him. Iraq and Afghanistan have never had a stable government last more than 50 years in their history. I hate so say because there good people there that just want to live their lives and be left alone, but those are two places that should be walled off from the rest of the world. There is no fixing or stabilizing them.

Looked pretty good until Obama phucked it up.

I just desise the pompous, self fulfilled liberal response to the debacle brewing in Iraq: "Iraq is a catastrophe. Told you so"

WUT? 600,000+ dead. sectarian violence, rape, murder, kidnappings, IEDS, Fallujah, UN office being bombed, the bombing of the Al-Askai Mosque (the Golden Mosgue), Sadr City. Things were a chite sandwich long before 2008.

Try reading the history of the area, it was going to happen, said before we even went in. Unless you want to keep a permeant force there of around 60,000, then maybe.

try lecturing to someone that isn't immune to bullish!t.

hey, I guess Afghanistan won't go to hell after President Pretentiousness bugs out. it was "the good war".