Who's more dangerous?

Question

Who's more dangerous to America, a ist orginization who has promised to destroy us and convert us to thier militant form of islam, or an American President who is doing everything he can to stop them?

Answer 1

who do you think? these people who answer the President have no idea what a couple nuclear detonations by these evil radicals in this country would do to our way of life. our economy would crumble. our dollar would fall. we would be living in a nightmare. the fall of this great country wouldn't be far behind.
I sometimes think that's what most of these Bush-hating, anti-American nuts want. they're ashamed of our countries successes.

Answer 2

What's the point of "destroying us" and THEN "converting us to thier (sic) militant form of Islam"?

And which TERRORist organization is that? Al Qaeda? The Taliban? The Greek leftists who just attacked our embassy? The North Koreans? Iran? Mexico? YOUR house?

And what exactly has this President done to "stop them"?

.1 Osama bin Laden - Where's the ringleader, Osama bin Laden? Whatever happened to Bush "smoking him out of his hole"? Do they even LOOK for bin Laden in Afghanistan now? Or anywhere else for that matter? Kinda hard to tell, since bin Laden was never mentioned in the State of the Union address this year. Is this "Doing everything he can", when Bush doesn't even MENTION him??
http://www.cursor.org/stories/binladenforgotten.htm

Isn't the way Bush first spouted "Wanted: Dead or Alive" about bin Laden, then less than a year of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, Bush says, "I dont think too much about him," when reporters KEPT asking where bin Laden is? Don't conservatives, who call any plan to leave Iraq a "Cut and Run" manuever, consider the hypocracy of Bush's "Cut and Run" from Afghanistan, without capturing the ONE man who admitted responsibility for the Sept 11 2001 attacks?

2. Bush's Cabinet - Rumsfeld said looking for bin Laden was like looking for a "needle in a haystack", less than one month after the attacks in Washington and New York City (Oct 2001). Usually people use a phrase such as this to describe the futility of continuing a given action, in this case, pursuing and capturing bin Laden, ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN LESS THAN A MONTH SINCE THE ATTACKS. Was Rumsfeld giving up ALREADY?

This makes the most cowardly liberal on Earth look like Patton in comparison, yet, the conservatives say nothing.
What would the conservative reaction be if Hillary Clinton said, "Ahh , looking for bin Laden is like looking for a needle in a haystack."? They would haul out the gallows, start a whole bunch of expensive (but fruitless) investigations, and get on every news program possible, decrying the horrible injustice of doing nothing in the face of terrorism" But when someone as highly placed in Bush's cabinet says these exact words, less than one month after the Sept 11 attacks, and there is scarcely a ripple from the "liberally biased" media.
3. Domestic Security - This one is easy, that's why I left it for last. 5 and a half years after the attack son Sept 11 2001 and all our expensive Dept of Homeland Security has come up with is:
A. Paper airport slippers (oh yeah, and now no liquids of any kind: NO LIQUIDS??);
B. Plastic sheeting for your windows and doors.

Where are:
1. The manuals to law enforcement, instructing police and citizens on what to look for, to identify terrorist behavior? Some "How To Spot a Terrorist in the US" TV program or something?
2. Why did the Republican Congress take a $650 Million bill to increase security at our ports OUT of the federal budget? We are currently inspecting less than 5% of the cargo which enters this country. Is this "doing everything he can"? Was part of Bush's doing everything he can, to broker a deal where a company from Dubai, UAE (you know, the United Arab Emirates, where two of the Sept 11 hijackers came from, also the banks where the plot money went through were located?) would BUY several of our US ports?
http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/02/port_politics.html

Would you, as an American, accept a military occupation by another country here in the US? Say North and South were fighting again in a US civil war. Would you bless the invaders who destroy your neighborhoods and force your President to hide in a hole in the ground? How about the ones who gang rape your 16 daughter? Would you holdher down for them, singing their National Anthem the whole time they brutalize her? Im not saying Saddam was some saint, he was a despot and a criminal and a murderer, but knew better than to attack the US except in the press. Some of our behavior in Iraq (soldier gangrapes of Iraqi women, Abu Garaib prison, KBR serving expired rancid food to our troops) makes me wonder what has become of the American Ideal.
4. Does Bush and Company listening in on your phone conversations and reading your emails make you feel safer in this oh so dangerous world?
5. Or how about the fact GWB is a deserter from the Texas Air National Guard in a time of war (Vietnam)? Is this what makes him such a stellar military leader?

Answer 3

Islam is religion of peace. It opposes the brutal activities. Who so ever is committed in such activities are against Islamic teachings. Pres Bush being a puppet in the hands of Jews is creating fuss as fed by his godfathers, the Jews. As Jews wants to destroy Islam forever so they are using US and its allies as per that aim. So Jews are more dangerous who are using Christens against Muslims and on the other hand Muslims against Christens.
Jews are using the formula, ''Divide and Rule".

Answer 4

The president. The ist organization really has very limited power to do anything that attacks the core of what America is. A president on the other hand must be very careful. Tampering with the constitution is a direct assault on what it is to be American.

Answer 5

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
-- Bishop Desmond Tutu

Answer 6

Both can be pretty dangerous, right now I believe it is the president- since I believe he is waging war with others as well. For example: possibly the rest of the superpowers.

Answer 7

They are both dangerous. It sounds like the start of the Crusades again. Pick a side, either side, and you die. Another fine example of organized religion.

Answer 8

A terrorist organization who has promised(IRAN) to destroy the USA and convert the USA
to their militant form of ISLAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 9

Bat Man?

Answer 10

Both!Bec anything that hinders freedom or free will is dangerous!