They are such incompetent idiots, we just cake-walked our way through Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oh, wait....
Or, US president ie. GW Bush.I for one am really glad that most of these people are idiots. Imagine how bad it would be if they were smart. Then again, if they weren't idiots they wouldn't be terrorists anyway.
And why is it so?
I beg to differ that "the man was never a real threat". He was definitely a threat, but he got caught in the sting before he actually was able to carry out anything. Anyone who was "seeking assistance in executing a terrorist attack" is a threat and should be permanently in jail.
Frankly I don't see what all the fuss about terrorists is about. Excluding 9/11 the vast majority of them fail badly.
We did cake walk through the fucking them up part which is what a military is built for. Actually, we did that outstandingly well, it was the rest of the political bullshit they tasked out .mil with that we didn't do so well. I am sure you would agree that those two shitholes didn't actually give the true might of our .mil a run for their money.
I guess Morocco is our next war target, do they produce a lot of oil or something?
Likely this.
Also, they're catching the low hanging fruit -- the unhappy, immature, emotionally adrift and needy kind that would post their intentions on OT along with how much money they make.
Not even Alexander the Great could conquer Afghanistan. The hubris of assumption is the worst fucking trait of any kind of military strategy.
It sure looked like we ran roughshod over the talitalitaliban in Afghanistan, and the Cheney/Wolfowitz bot in charge of things screwed the pooch in the end, but we really don't know, do we? meaning--should we make such assumptions of what would have happened?
If our military were so overwhelmingly dominant, then those errors probably would have long been fixed, no? They aren't. Military strategy isn't simply going in and shooting shit up--and certainly not in a place like this. dealing with the criminals [that we put] in charge of Afghanistan is all part of the overall military strategy.
:hmm:
Yes, because suicide bombers are something new, and rather unusual when carried by Muslims.
Maybe they should be apprehended after the fact.
I guess Morocco is our next war target, do they produce a lot of oil or something?
why did they even let him near the capitol?
just arrest him when he accepted the gun and fake bomb vest?
Extra charges. It takes 500 years worth of charges to get someone in jail for a dozen years...unless it is drugs.
They should have slipped some pot in the vest and then "found" it when they arrested him. He would easily do 50 years for the combined offenses then.
I admit my ignorance on the complexities of our justice system so I apologize for the question, are you bullshiting?
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/annual/section2.htmlMurder and Manslaughter
Offenders who have been sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter will serve an average of 19.1 years in prison under the minimum 85% of sentence served policy compared to 13.1 years under the old parole system and 12.2 years when early prison release existed (chart 8).
Murder and manslaughter offenders sentenced to prison in FY2003-2004 will serve an average of 20.5 years, compared to 12.2 years in FY1980-1981 and 9.8 years in FY1987-1988 (chart 9). Offenders convicted today of Second Degree Murder will serve more time in prison today, 21.6 years. They will serve significantly more time than the low of 6.5 years in FY1986-1987 (chart 11).
Robbery
Robbery offenders entering prison in FY2003-2004 will serve an average of 7.5 years compared to a low of 2.0 years in FY1987-1988 (chart 16). Offenders convicted of armed robbery will serve more prison time today, 10.1 years, than any time over the past 25 years and they will serve significantly more time today than the low of 2.8 years in FY1987-1988 (chart 17).