Quote from: sana8410 on September 29, 2014, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: umair127 on September 29, 2014, 06:36:26 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on September 29, 2014, 06:28:52 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on September 29, 2014, 06:15:25 PM

Lessons learned: We were safer under bush because he really did have al qaida on the run and without money to finance their terrorism. That leaving Iraq created a void that terrorist filled just like bush warned and the military predicted. And that IED's in the ME are preferable to IED's in America. BTW if you take the subways in NYC, they're the planned target for terrorist IED's.

I always appreciate your sense of humor, like the post above.

"Safer under Bush". Wowee Skipper. Um, just to remind you it was Bush ignoring warnings that bought us 9/11 the greatest act of terrorism in our history. And it has been under Obama that zero acts of terrorism have happened on our soil. And safer under bush got hundreds of thousand of Iraqi's killed, millions displaced and nearly 5,000 of our young men and women dead.

Bush had what warnings of 9/11? The FBI could not trace those that were listed by the CIA. So those that occurred in Bostow on 9/11 were not during the time this adminstration? Shallow thoughts are obvious. You do manage to keep the lies aout Araq. You do sound like one under the Sharia law.

As some other guy said once in other thread "they said it would be airplane attacks, but they did not say where" (paraphrase)

Yea, how silly of the enemy to not provide the flight numbers.

Yes you are silly. The start of the investigation started under Klintoon. The information was what after that? Or is it your type of alleged thought the FBi could not think about it? No remember of Boston? Shall it be to much to ask what about the population in Minnesota? Dare we ask about those that travel to the ISIS? Would the attach on this nation be pointed at this or that party? Or is the response from this or that party the result? Keep up the representation.