'Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win'

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:08 pm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html

That is terrorism, too.

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:09 pm

he is right he got my vote

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:44 pm

GG, Rudy. Campaign of fear.

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:05 pm

MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

There's only one condition under which one can make such a statement with the required certainty to have such a statement bear any relevance: you control when and where those terrorist attacks occurr.

I seriously doubt that Guliani is in control of the terrorists. BS statement. Next...

Not that you'll hear any meaningful statements from democrats either, or any politician before an election for that matter...

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:16 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:he is right he got my vote

If he is right then Rudy is in bed with the terrorists. There is simply no way any candidate can say with certainty that he can stop them from committing acts of terror on American soil.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:24 pm

Roody wrote:If he is right then Rudy is in bed with the terrorists. There is simply no way any candidate can say with certainty that he can stop them from committing acts of terror on American soil.

in bed with terrorists that is a statement i would expect from a conspiracy theorist

we haven't had an attack on America soil since 9-11, democrats are already doing their best to hurt our soldiers and hurt our fight against terrorism and our morale by saying we are losing the fight. If the liberal dems get their way we will be back like when clinton was president and attacks will be a lot easier.

People get complacent and because nothing happens they believe they are all safe and sound but they have no idea how many attacks the govt helped foiled or stop.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:29 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:in bed with terrorists that is a statement i would expect from a conspiracy theorist

I didn't say he was in bed with terrorists I said if he thinks he can guarantee no terrorism then he has to be in bed with them. Fact is he cant guarantee it.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:33 pm

Roody wrote:I didn't say he was in bed with terrorists I said if he thinks he can guarantee no terrorism then he has to be in bed with them. Fact is he cant guarantee it.

might want to reread the entire article

He was referring to a terrorist attack on the scale of 9-11

big difference

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:39 pm

Yes, I understand that he said they will try, but the absurdity of his general remarks remains no less. His thinking is bigtime scary. We already have 1 President who lives off the policy of fear we dont need another.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:45 pm

Roody wrote:Yes, I understand that he said they will try, but the absurdity of his general remarks remains no less. His thinking is bigtime scary. We already have 1 President who lives off the policy of fear we dont need another.

majority of republicans/conservatives agree, so it is not just Rudy, he just telling us what we want to hear, though I personally believe Rudy will be the best at fighting terrorists. He is not afraid to stand up and stay strong against terrorism

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:54 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:majority of republicans/conservatives agree, so it is not just Rudy, he just telling us what we want to hear, though I personally believe Rudy will be the best at fighting terrorists. He is not afraid to stand up and stay strong against terrorism

Security is definitely what Rudy is known for. No doubt about that.

Lefty · Post by **Lefty** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:00 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:majority of republicans/conservatives agree, so it is not just Rudy, he just telling us what we want to hear, though I personally believe Rudy will be the best at fighting terrorists. He is not afraid to stand up and stay strong against terrorism

The majority of republicans/conservatives use fear to take focus off the campaign issues. Instead of speaking about topics Americans are concerned with they use this tactic to pull together the sheeple and dito heads that can't think for themselves with trash. Same old BS.

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:03 pm

Lefty wrote:The majority of republicans/conservatives use fear to take focus off the campaign issues. Instead of speaking about topics Americans are concerned with they use this tactic to pull together the sheeple and dito heads that can't think for themselves with trash. Same old BS.

but it is a valid fear that the difference

Terrorism is a real issue, but democrats trying to get it off the table because they know they have no way of doing it better

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:09 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:but it is a valid fear that the difference

Terrorism is a real issue, but democrats trying to get it off the table because they know they have no way of doing it better

Terrorism is a valid issue, but it's not the only issue.

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:12 pm

How is he so certant?

What determins the scale an attack? The best attack is the one you don't kow about. If the food suuply or water supply were contaminated with any kind of bioagent, would we know before it was too late?

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:14 pm

One has to really ask themselves how great the President has done on security. Our borders and ports are so porous it's a joke. It's my opinion we have been more lucky then good when it comes to security.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:27 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:majority of republicans/conservatives agree, so it is not just Rudy, he just telling us what we want to hear, though I personally believe Rudy will be the best at fighting terrorists. He is not afraid to stand up and stay strong against terrorism

lol.....he gonna take a tour in fallujah?....not afraid to stand up to terrorists

you act like he's manning a .50cal on a hummer

What danger is Rudy in and exactly how has he defeated the menace before ?

Lefty · Post by **Lefty** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:57 pm

If Rudy is thinking of himself as clairvoyant, then he should be taken with the same seriousness of a Nigerian spammer with a lucrative money offer. PLEASE

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:48 pm

Roody wrote:One has to really ask themselves how great the President has done on security. Our borders and ports are so porous it's a joke. It's my opinion we have been more lucky then good when it comes to security.

That's actually a very good point. Let's see....the numbers of al Qeada now vs the day after 9-11. More or less? The CIA indicates that the numbers are more than quadrupled.

Let's see....the #1 enemy from 1998 till January of 2000 was bin Laden. After that apparently it was Saddam.

So 9-11 happens an who do we focus on taking out? bin Laden or Saddam?

I really find the topic hilarious, Burke. Nice find!

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:42 pm

The fact of the matter is, It's FAR more likely that you or I will get struck by lightning in the next 8 years than we will be killed in a terrorist attack. There are many more issues at stake than this, and frankly its not at the forefront of my concern.

Do you realize that there have been no terrorist attacks on american soil since I quit smoking pot? Obviously my drug usage was funding terrorist activities, and now that I have quit, they are underfunded and crippled.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:58 pm

Blisster wrote:The fact of the matter is, It's FAR more likely that you or I will get struck by lightning in the next 8 years than we will be killed in a terrorist attack. There are many more issues at stake than this, and frankly its not at the forefront of my concern.

Do you realize that there have been no terrorist attacks on american soil since I quit smoking pot? Obviously my drug usage was funding terrorist activities, and now that I have quit, they are underfunded and crippled.

dude

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:06 pm

Blisster wrote:The fact of the matter is, It's FAR more likely that you or I will get struck by lightning in the next 8 years than we will be killed in a terrorist attack. There are many more issues at stake than this, and frankly its not at the forefront of my concern.

Do you realize that there have been no terrorist attacks on american soil since I quit smoking pot? Obviously my drug usage was funding terrorist activities, and now that I have quit, they are underfunded and crippled.

right here is the problem, see this is why i don't want a democrat in office you dont think terrorism is much of a problem and have become complacent, this is exactly what the terrorists wants

this is not just about me or you getting killed it about protecting our country from terrorism, that is the main job of the federal govt. Nothing else will matter if the terrorists pull off the job of destroying major cities across this country

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:07 pm

downhill wrote:That's actually a very good point. Let's see....the numbers of al Qeada now vs the day after 9-11. More or less? The CIA indicates that the numbers are more than quadrupled.

Let's see....the #1 enemy from 1998 till January of 2000 was bin Laden. After that apparently it was Saddam.

So 9-11 happens an who do we focus on taking out? bin Laden or Saddam?

I really find the topic hilarious, Burke. Nice find!

And has there been anymore attacks since 9-11 on our soil?

And how many times have we stopped attacks from happening? that is the bottomline.

You mentioned #1 enemy from 1998 to 2000 was bin laden why didn't clinton do a thing? maybe if he had 9-11 would have never had happened. But no he was too busy getting off on his interns

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:11 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:right here is the problem, see this is why i don't want a democrat in office you dont think terrorism is much of a problem and have become complacent, this is exactly what the terrorists wants

this is not just about me or you getting killed it about protecting our country from terrorism, that is the main job of the federal govt. Nothing else will matter if the terrorists pull off the job of destroying major cities across this country

Translation:

Blisster is a terrorist

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:11 pm

Izzo wrote:Translation:

Blisster is a terrorist

i never said that so please stop putting words in my mouth and stop with calling people a terrorist it gets really old

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:14 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:right here is the problem, see this is why i don't want a democrat in office you dont think terrorism is much of a problem and have become complacent, this is exactly what the terrorists wants

this is not just about me or you getting killed it about protecting our country from terrorism, that is the main job of the federal govt. Nothing else will matter if the terrorists pull off the job of destroying major cities across this country

no, Im not complacent, there's more at stake than just "fighting terrorists". We can't ignore other issues, ignore trampled freedoms etc, just out of fear of terrorism. The point of terrorism is for terrorism to become our key concern in day-to-day life. Looks like its worked on you.

:edit: and I do not believe that "protecting our contry from terrorism" is the main job of the federal government.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:14 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:i never said that so please stop putting words in my mouth and stop with calling people a terrorist it gets really old

I call 'em like I see 'em. He can't fool me.

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:16 pm

Izzo wrote:I call 'em like I see 'em. He can't fool me.

dude

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:16 pm

Blisster wrote:no, Im not complacent, there's more at stake than jstu "fighting terrorists". We can't ignore other issues, ignore trampled freedoms etc., jsut out of fear of terrorism. The point of terrorism is for terrorism to become our key concern in day-to-day life. Looks like its worked on you.

it is a day to day concern for our govt and is not for general public and should be that way, but it only like that now because our govt is and able to fight. The democrats rather pull out of Iraq declare the war a losing war, let the terrorists win which is what they will do when we pull out and just hope we never get anymore attacks.

Take that away and sooner or later we are going to be having attacks left and right and then the American people will be saying what happened why didn't anyone do anything?

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:17 pm

Blisster wrote:dude

whatever Mr. Defensive

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:19 pm

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:37 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:

David · Post by **David** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:11 pm

Ghosthunter wrote:in bed with terrorists that is a statement i would expect from a conspiracy theorist

we haven't had an attack on America soil since 9-11, democrats are already doing their best to hurt our soldiers and hurt our fight against terrorism and our morale by saying we are losing the fight. If the liberal dems get their way we will be back like when clinton was president and attacks will be a lot easier.

People get complacent and because nothing happens they believe they are all safe and sound but they have no idea how many attacks the govt helped foiled or stop.

I don't know. The Iraq war is supposedly over ("Mission Accomplished" -GWB). What was accomplished? Iran has been emboldened, Iraq is in chaos, Our moderates allies in the Middle East are under fire. Does this sound like the recipe for security? While I can accept the argument that negotiations are best done from a position of strength, what has been done to bring a peaceful finalization?

knightmare · Post by **knightmare** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:36 pm

well, he knew when the last one was going down.. I guess GULAG-ani is saying even if Hillary wins, a 9/11 event before she takes office--and Bush declares martial law, thus never leaving the office of President.

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:33 pm

You know Knightmare, it's not like I've never explored that possibility in my mind. I know the laws to do such a trick are in place. But I do wonder if the propaganda could be sufficient to sell such a sleight of hand to the US, given the current situation. And actually, I very much doubt it would work - this time.

panicattack · Post by **panicattack** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:14 am

The man is a fool. There is no way that every terrorist act or even most of them can be anticipated and stopped. He is just using fear to get more votes.

Deal with the problem at its source. Go democrats.

triniwasp · Post by **triniwasp** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:26 am

The only long-term, viable solution to terrorism, is diplomacy.

Xpunge · Post by **Xpunge** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:42 am

Burke wrote:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html

That is terrorism, too.

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Rudy is another canidate that is un-electible.

His social liberalism will turn most conservatives. This is just a attempt to gain favor with the likes of neoConservatives.

EvilAjax · Post by **EvilAjax** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:39 am

I hate Giuliani.

Worst mayor ever. btw, that's a period.

knightmare · Post by **knightmare** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:16 pm

EvilAjax wrote:I hate Giuliani.

Worst mayor ever. btw, that's a period.

right on*, whether or not he knew about it, or if there was a conspiracy, etc.. blah' blah'-- bottom line is there was a attack on his watch. And he handled it about like Ray Nagin did in N.O.