On Apr 24, 7:37*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 4/24/2013 5:59 PM, wrote:





On Apr 24, 4:04 pm, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:13:51 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
I really don't think either of them had/have much "smarts" *To pull
off the bombing, be free for 2 days and still be caught almost next
door to the crime? *They don't seem to have had any thought or
planning at all about what to do after the bombing.

Again with the head-scratching, wondering why these two weren't acting like CRIMINALS?

It's because they were TERRORISTS!

Terrorists are not criminals. They do not think like criminals. They do not act like criminals. They have a completely different agenda.

Terrorists have a message they want to send, and they want to make sure everyone knows who sent it.

Criminals are in it for the thrill of the crime.

The only thing that didn't go perfectly to plan was that the second brother wasn't made a martyr in a hail of gunfire.

Dennis, good to see someone here gets it. *I've been trying to get
that point across, but I'm accused of being "dense". *No one knows
what they were thinking , but part of it could be that like all these
Muslim terrorists, they were willing to sacrifice themselves by either
dying
or going to prison and taking as many others with them as possible.

How do you get inside the mind of someone who would place a bomb at the
feet of a child? I have no problem seeing soldiers killed in war because
the soldiers know what they signed up for, little kids aren't given that
choice by terrorists. o_O



You'd have to ask a liberal that question. They're the ones that
think we just need to understand these terrorists, what motivates
them and then solve the "real" problem. A good example of that
is Tom Brokaw. He was recently on Meet the Press saying that we need
to examine our use of drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq
because when we kill innocent civilians it creates a lot of people
that hate us and want to get us.

The problem of course is that he ignores the most basic facts.
Like that when Muslims blew up the WTC the first time in 1993,
we had no drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq. We had no
military operations or troops there at all. Muslim terrorists
subsequently committed a whole long list of attacks, everything
from the embassies in Africa, to the USS Cole. They topped it
all off with 9-11. And still, we had no drones killing people. If
anything, we were too cautious. For example, Clinton had the
opportunity to hit Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but would not because
he was concerned about possible collateral damage. These
Muslim extremists have a long ever changing list of what they
claim is our sin du jour that ****es them off.

And what would Brokaw and the libs alternative be? We track
an Al-Qaeda terrorist leader to a house in Pakistan. Now what?
Let him go? Call up Pakistan security forces so they can tip
him off? Invade Pakistan? How many civilian lives would that
cost? How many civilian lives would be lost in the next terrorist
attack if we don't take out the terrorist?

And all this is mighty strange behavior from Brokaw. Perhaps
he's starting to lose his mind. Wasn't it Brokaw who wrote a
book called The Greatest Generation? What did that greatest
generation do? They deliberately targeted civilians in Dresden,
Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc. and killed hundreds of thousands in
one night. Yet today when we do everything we
can to avoid civilian casualties, we're supposed to examine our
use of drones because sometimes civilians may get killed....
Go figure.

And to top it off, most of those "civilians" who wind up dead
because of a drone, know damn well who's sleeping in their
house, who's riding in their car, who they are having dinner
with. If they wind up dead in a war with terrorists, it's because
of the terrorist, not because of us.