Any chance you wanna respond to my actual post?Poseidon wrote:
I'm not necessarily talking about me alone. I'm talking about america as a whole.lowing wrote:
Has YOUR letters arrived opened?Poseidon wrote:
Spying into our phones, mail, and every other form of communication they can think of is.
Over 5 years! Amazing! Wow! Maybe on domestic soil you consider that "good", but places around the world are still getting them. Spain, India, Pakistan...just to name a few.
Very easily. Just like 9/11 after the WTC basement bombing. They're waiting for the opportune time. It's like an asteroid impact, it's not if, it's when.
I didn't say that if we stopped fighting they'll go away. We still need to combat them, but not with our troops. There needs to be some other plan, and if they can figure out one, well, good for Patraeis (sp).
Are YOUR phones bugged?
Has YOUR PC been confiscated?
If so, they have a good reason, if not, what are you bitching about? That they did these things to suspected terrorists? This is why your ideals are hated.
Sounds like these countries need to fight against terrorism.
Are there not people trying to prevent "asteroid impact" before it happens? If your attitude was adopted, we would say screw it, an asteroid is going to hit us anyway. Pardon those of us that want to try and prevent asteroid impacts as well as terrorists attacks. Don't worry though, if we succeed you will be alive to bitch about both.
Not combat them with our troops?? It seems the decade of the 90's Clinton's diplomacy did dick, to protect us.
So if diplomacy doesn't work, and you say troops is not the answer, what is?
What, I can't worry about other people's liberties! Okay then. I'll just give a shit about everyone and let them fend for themselves. Good plan.
And I also never said we shouldn't try to prevent a nuke attack or terrorist attack from happening! We should, as long as civil liberties aren't taken away via spying or whatever it may be. Reminds me of T2 Judgement Day/T3. You can postpone it, but you can't stop it.
Let me end one of the key points in the "debate" -- IRAQ IS NOT PART OF THE WAR ON "TERROR." It has jack shit to do with finding anyone remotely related to the attacks that happened on sept. 11 and it sure is hell not the location to where we should be focusing our hunt for terrorist plotting to attack AMERICAN SOIL...hold on a sec i take the second part half back because now we are obviously breeding some nice future American haters there so that's probably a half truth .
LOWING --- Admit it the Patriot Act VIOLATES our constitution and if you can't get that into your head then you are fucking lost bro...the entire system you are trying to PROTECT from the evil bin laden is being raped with bull shit protectionism powers that are short sighted and ineffective as hell.
LOWING --- Admit it the Patriot Act VIOLATES our constitution and if you can't get that into your head then you are fucking lost bro...the entire system you are trying to PROTECT from the evil bin laden is being raped with bull shit protectionism powers that are short sighted and ineffective as hell.
yeah I think once someone else gets elected they'll pawn some other Muslim country, kind of ignorant but thats what we have been doing dont think we are going to stop till we kill all of the Muslims on the planet.
Lowing lowing lowing. It should be how long after we pull outta iraq and afghanastan will there be another terrorist attack?lowing wrote:
How long do you think it will be, after the election of a democratic president, to the next terrorist attack in the US.
Or do you think once we retreat from Iraq and dissolve the Patriot Act, and put terrorists rights as the leading concern of our nation, that we will all live in peace?
I give it 1.5 years.
Once again they did the same thing 60 years ago, they just didn't have some snappy catch phrase attached to it. During war sacrifices have to be made, until you get that into your head, you are lost.Fen321 wrote:
Let me end one of the key points in the "debate" -- IRAQ IS NOT PART OF THE WAR ON "TERROR." It has jack shit to do with finding anyone remotely related to the attacks that happened on sept. 11 and it sure is hell not the location to where we should be focusing our hunt for terrorist plotting to attack AMERICAN SOIL...hold on a sec i take the second part half back because now we are obviously breeding some nice future American haters there so that's probably a half truth .
LOWING --- Admit it the Patriot Act VIOLATES our constitution and if you can't get that into your head then you are fucking lost bro...the entire system you are trying to PROTECT from the evil bin laden is being raped with bull shit protectionism powers that are short sighted and ineffective as hell.
No terror attacks since 911 after multiple attempts, is hardly "ineffective". Better yet, explain to me what has to happen to show these steps are effective, if not the absence of terrorism on our soil?
And how many attacks were there by muslim extremists before 9/11?
Dec 29, 1992 Aden, Yemen: Al Qaida terrorists target two hotels housing US Marines.PureFodder wrote:
Ok, lets have a look at how many terrorist attacks there have been on American Citizens in the last few presidencies.lowing wrote:
Do ya really really wanna compare what the republicans have done to combat terrorism as compared to the democrats when they were in power?? Do ya really?Poseidon wrote:
oh yes, because republicans have made this country incredibly safe! thanks dubya!
Not looking too good for GWB.
Feb. 26, 1993 New York City: 1st WTC bombing.
Nov. 13, 1995 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Bomb explodes outside a building occupied by a US military contractor.
June 25, 1996 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: Truck bomb explodes outside US military housing complex
Aug. 7, 1998 Nairobi, Kenya and Salaam, Tanzania: Bombs explode outside US embassies in both cities.
Oct. 12, 2000 Aden, Yemen: USS Cole attack.
All of these are Al Qaida attacks that happened during Clinton's 8 years. Aside from 9/11, how many attacks against US citizens have occurred on Bush's watch?
It depends on 2 things...lowing wrote:
How long do you think it will be, after the election of a democratic president, to the next terrorist attack in the US.
Or do you think once we retreat from Iraq and dissolve the Patriot Act, and put terrorists rights as the leading concern of our nation, that we will all live in peace?
I give it 1.5 years.
1. how much we improve domestic security (including border security)
2. how many countries we piss off from now on...
For the most part, the ball is in our court. We can continue to be paranoid warmongers, or we can be sensibly reluctant to interfere with foreign affairs.....
So all those IEDs in Iraq are, what, presents?The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Dec 29, 1992 Aden, Yemen: Al Qaida terrorists target two hotels housing US Marines.PureFodder wrote:
Ok, lets have a look at how many terrorist attacks there have been on American Citizens in the last few presidencies.lowing wrote:
Do ya really really wanna compare what the republicans have done to combat terrorism as compared to the democrats when they were in power?? Do ya really?
Not looking too good for GWB.
Feb. 26, 1993 New York City: 1st WTC bombing.
Nov. 13, 1995 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Bomb explodes outside a building occupied by a US military contractor.
June 25, 1996 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: Truck bomb explodes outside US military housing complex
Aug. 7, 1998 Nairobi, Kenya and Salaam, Tanzania: Bombs explode outside US embassies in both cities.
Oct. 12, 2000 Aden, Yemen: USS Cole attack.
All of these are Al Qaida attacks that happened during Clinton's 8 years. Aside from 9/11, how many attacks against US citizens have occurred on Bush's watch?
It's not as if the recruiting and planning happened in the short time Bush was in office when 9/11 happened. The US actions and resentment was allowed to build high enough with the previous administration to allow for the execution of 9/11. Most of the people who were in the positions of setting the policy and were responsible for our security were appointed by Clinton when the attacks happened. That is a fact.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Dec 29, 1992 Aden, Yemen: Al Qaida terrorists target two hotels housing US Marines.PureFodder wrote:
Ok, lets have a look at how many terrorist attacks there have been on American Citizens in the last few presidencies.lowing wrote:
Do ya really really wanna compare what the republicans have done to combat terrorism as compared to the democrats when they were in power?? Do ya really?
Not looking too good for GWB.
Feb. 26, 1993 New York City: 1st WTC bombing.
Nov. 13, 1995 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Bomb explodes outside a building occupied by a US military contractor.
June 25, 1996 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: Truck bomb explodes outside US military housing complex
Aug. 7, 1998 Nairobi, Kenya and Salaam, Tanzania: Bombs explode outside US embassies in both cities.
Oct. 12, 2000 Aden, Yemen: USS Cole attack.
All of these are Al Qaida attacks that happened during Clinton's 8 years. Aside from 9/11, how many attacks against US citizens have occurred on Bush's watch?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Iraq is a theater of war, where we are on the offense against terrorists. What did Clinton do to fight against the attacks that happened on his time?
Exactly. It's like people want to believe that everything was peachy-keen and terrorism didn't exist until big old bad GW Bush was elected.Kmarion wrote:
It's not as if the recruiting and planning happened in the short time Bush was in office when 9/11 happened. The US actions and resentment was allowed to build high enough with the previous administration to allow for the execution of 9/11. Most of the people who were in the positions of setting the policy and were responsible for our security were appointed by Clinton when the attacks happened. That is a fact.
Last edited by The Stillhouse Kid (2007-03-14 13:23:22)
No, you're on the defensive. The terrorists weren't there, you invaded, they came to attack you. US is on defensive.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Iraq is a theater of war, where we are on the offense against terrorists. What did Clinton do to fight against the attacks that happened on his time?
Clinton did authorize many operations to gather intel and attempt to apprehend terrorists. I'm not so sure what exactly happened in Afghanistan with our special forces near the end of his term, but what I do know is that 9/11 occurred mostly because our intelligence agencies weren't properly cooperating with each other. That's not the fault of any president -- that's a systemic issue.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Iraq is a theater of war, where we are on the offense against terrorists. What did Clinton do to fight against the attacks that happened on his time?
Clinton also knew that Bin Laden was behind every one of the attacks I listed in my earlier post, and yet when the government of Sudan offered to have him handed to us, Clinton refused.Turquoise wrote:
Clinton did authorize many operations to gather intel and attempt to apprehend terrorists. I'm not so sure what exactly happened in Afghanistan with our special forces near the end of his term, but what I do know is that 9/11 occurred mostly because our intelligence agencies weren't properly cooperating with each other. That's not the fault of any president -- that's a systemic issue.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Iraq is a theater of war, where we are on the offense against terrorists. What did Clinton do to fight against the attacks that happened on his time?
I could be mistaken, but I thought the plan was to extradite Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia for the crimes he had committed there, but when Saudi Arabia rejected this proposition, Bin Laden had already escaped Sudan before we could take him as our own prisoner.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Clinton also knew that Bin Laden was behind every one of the attacks I listed in my earlier post, and yet when the government of Sudan offered to have him handed to us, Clinton refused.Turquoise wrote:
Clinton did authorize many operations to gather intel and attempt to apprehend terrorists. I'm not so sure what exactly happened in Afghanistan with our special forces near the end of his term, but what I do know is that 9/11 occurred mostly because our intelligence agencies weren't properly cooperating with each other. That's not the fault of any president -- that's a systemic issue.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Iraq is a theater of war, where we are on the offense against terrorists. What did Clinton do to fight against the attacks that happened on his time?
Al Qaida has a real sore nerve for when the US "interferes" with middle eastern countries. I believe we knew full well that invading Iraq would attract terrorists. It would be foolish to think otherwise.Bubbalo wrote:
No, you're on the defensive. The terrorists weren't there, you invaded, they came to attack you. US is on defensive.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Iraq is a theater of war, where we are on the offense against terrorists. What did Clinton do to fight against the attacks that happened on his time?
you in 1988, 1993, 1996 or 1998, 2000?Bubbalo wrote:
And how many attacks were there by muslim extremists before 9/11?
Sudan offered to arrest Bin Laden and turn him over the the US for prosecution or watch his every move and report on them. The Clinton administration came up with the plan to extradite him to Saudi Arabia for trial, but the Saudi government was in favor of assassination, which was not an agreeable option for the US. So in the end Bin Laden was expelled from Sudan, at the request of the White House, and he returned to Afghanistan.Turquoise wrote:
I could be mistaken, but I thought the plan was to extradite Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia for the crimes he had committed there, but when Saudi Arabia rejected this proposition, Bin Laden had already escaped Sudan before we could take him as our own prisoner.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Clinton also knew that Bin Laden was behind every one of the attacks I listed in my earlier post, and yet when the government of Sudan offered to have him handed to us, Clinton refused.Turquoise wrote:
Clinton did authorize many operations to gather intel and attempt to apprehend terrorists. I'm not so sure what exactly happened in Afghanistan with our special forces near the end of his term, but what I do know is that 9/11 occurred mostly because our intelligence agencies weren't properly cooperating with each other. That's not the fault of any president -- that's a systemic issue.
The real failure of the Clinton administration's handling of terrorism was treating it as a criminal act that should be prosecuted, rather than an as act of war.
Fair enough... This is a chapter of our foreign policy that I'm still learning about. For obvious reasons, it's hard to find sources on it.
Which are outnumbered by attacks in Iraq since 9/11lowing wrote:
you in 1988, 1993, 1996 or 1998, 2000?Bubbalo wrote:
And how many attacks were there by muslim extremists before 9/11?
You should read Losing Bin Laden
Which are outnumbered by the score of terrorists/insurgents killed since 9/11. At least now something is actually being done about the problem.Bubbalo wrote:
Which are outnumbered by attacks in Iraq since 9/11lowing wrote:
you in 1988, 1993, 1996 or 1998, 2000?Bubbalo wrote:
And how many attacks were there by muslim extremists before 9/11?
It doesn't matter how long, we will deal with it & move on from there. Let go of your fear.
I'll look into it... but Clinton is far from being the sole cause of our terror troubles. We wouldn't be in this mess if we hadn't taken such an active role in Middle Eastern conflicts in the first place.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
You should read Losing Bin Laden
The more we get involved over there, the more enemies we make.
Which are outnumbered by the number of new recruits. Personally, I'd rather nothing was done as opposed to actively encouraging terrorism.The Stillhouse Kid wrote:
Which are outnumbered by the score of terrorists/insurgents killed since 9/11. At least now something is actually being done about the problem.Bubbalo wrote:
Which are outnumbered by attacks in Iraq since 9/11lowing wrote:
you in 1988, 1993, 1996 or 1998, 2000?