America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,188 comments
  • 1,744,884 views
Rudy Giuliani: "Before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic attacks inside the United States"

YpmGF4p.gif
 
True.

Bush did 9/11.

But what makes it all the more egregious is that he says it in the same breath as he says "I was there at ground zero".

Jet fuel can't melt Republican conspiracies.

There was also the 1993 WTC bombing which happened maybe a year before Giuliani became the Mayor Of New York.
 
Funny, well not really, how the headline fails to include what Giuliani actually said in order to purposely distort his position. You don't read the article you quote and go on discussing things that happened more than 20 years ago which bear no relevance to what Giuliani said either.
“Under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States,”
If you give him a little leeway for rounding and poor grammar, he's obviously talking about the 2001-2009 period from 9/11 to Obama's inauguration. How many successful Islamic terror attacks were there in that period? What's the conspiracy theory here?
 
If you give him a little leeway for rounding and poor grammar, he's obviously talking about the 2001-2009 period from 9/11 to Obama's inauguration.

And leeway he shall not have. Poor grammar means comic effect.

What's the conspiracy theory here?

None. People find it amusing that dodgy syntax leads to something mildly amusing. It's happened with politicians since time immemorial.
 
And leeway he shall not have. Poor grammar means comic effect.

None. People find it amusing that dodgy syntax leads to something mildly amusing. It's happened with politicians since time immemorial.
So your assumption is he forgot about 9/11. Makes sense.
 
A massive fire, 60 miles outside Los Angeles and 4% in control, has caused the port of Los Angeles (Long Beach) to shut down. :eek:
 
Last edited:
The US Justice Department has said it will discontinue the use of private prisons, having found that such facilities are both "less safe and less effective at providing correctional services than those run by the government". However, this will not apply to state prisons, which host the vast majority of prisoners.
 
Am I the only one that finds Americas hostility to Chinese claims in the South China Sea ironic whilst they hold a stolen part of Cuba in the form of Guantanamo.
 
But it very much is.
Maybe under the Alanis Morissette definition of irony, but not under the actual definition of irony. At the moment, you could accuse the United States of hypocrisy, but there's a distinct difference between what China is doing and what America has going in Cuba. But no irony.
 
Maybe under the Alanis Morissette definition of irony, but not under the actual definition of irony. At the moment, you could accuse the United States of hypocrisy, but there's a distinct difference between what China is doing and what America has going in Cuba. But no irony.
There is a difference obviously but from anyone apart from their own national view its a land grab all the same.
 
There is a difference obviously but from anyone apart from their own national view its a land grab all the same.
No, not at all.

For one, Guantanamo Bay has been leased by the Americans for over a century; the original idea was to establish a naval presence in an area of increasing strategic importance. The only way the lease can be terminated is by the mutual agreement of Washington and Havana, so it doesn't matter how much the Castro regime wanted to cancel it as America has to agree to it - and so long as there is strategic value in holding Guantanamo, they won't agree.

As for China, it's really more of a "sea grab". By developing, fortifying and establishing a military presence on previously uninhabited islands, atolls and cays, they move their territorial boundary outwards and make a greater claim to the South China Sea as part of their territorial waters. The area has always been a tangled skein, as China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan have claimed parts as their own (which usually overlapped), but China has always claimed the whole sea as their own.
 
Am I the only one that finds Americas hostility to Chinese claims in the South China Sea ironic whilst they hold a stolen part of Cuba in the form of Guantanamo.
You probably are. Especially since the cases aren't at all similar. Besides, as @prisonermonkey points out, Guantanamo wasn't stolen in the first place.
 
This day 15 years ago was the last day America was united.
RIP to all the victims and the troops who were later deployed.
 
Has suing other nations ever been successful?

RT is pro-Russian-agenda website, expect loaded information for next 20 miles.
The only reason i used RT was because i was reading another article and this came up as a Live article, its on every media outlet out there.

What is interesting is in this: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/september-11-bill-saudi-arabia-veto/

Clinton said she would support this Bill, which makes me wonder if she is either lying or the Saudis forgot to pay her foundation recently.
 
Average centre of the population since 1790. An increasingly southern shift since the 1920s is interesting but it's still, even after 200 years, still just about inside the eastern half of the continental 48.

US_Mean_Center_of_Population_1790-2010.PNG
 
I find this news kinda funny
http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...s/news-story/db5526a86ed43a1d6325d0c0a829e8f2

Yes the 9/11 attacks are not funny, but the fact that American victims can sue Saudi Arabia seems amusing to me.
Can the Iraqi victims sue America over the wrongful deaths of all those civilians killed by a war that over claimed WMDs or from ISIS which was born from said war?
No
Presumably the official answer is that Iraqi WMD victims should petition their own government to create their own equivalent of the JASTA act so that Iraqi lawyers can also get in on some of this action. Indeed as the White House claims, the US act may open up US diplomats and servicemen to litigation in other countries.
 
Back