There's no proof that Bush's actions prevented a terrorist attack

[StageLeft]

It's terrible logic and you're right there is no proof, it's the reasoning that appeals only to one of a juvenile intellect.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
While there is no proof for the notion, there's no proof against it either. It's impossible to prove either way. Regardless, let the smoke blowing commence on both sides.

So basically... You're admitting that we're supposed to take this administration's claims purely on good faith?

I think I'll stay here, in the real world, and let them provide the proof positive, if that'll ever even happen.

How fucking ludicrous.

We know where the Evidence is..it's in the vicinity of Myass and Lower Intestine.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
While there is no proof for the notion, there's no proof against it either. It's impossible to prove either way. Regardless, let the smoke blowing commence on both sides.

So basically... You're admitting that we're supposed to take this administration's claims purely on good faith?

I think I'll stay here, in the real world, and let them provide the proof positive, if that'll ever even happen.

How fucking ludicrous.

We know where the Evidence is..it's in the vicinity of Myass and Lower Intestine.

:laugh: Nice

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Firebot

My rock keeps tigers away, has never failed me yet.

And garlic keeps away the elephants and vampires. I can tell. I love garlic, and there are no elephants or vampires in my place.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In some ways, even 911 is a fallacy, the target was not the USA, it was the world trade center and its policies that was a primary motivator, and with the world trade center headquarters just happening to be located in the USA, we might ask, if it were located somewhere else, would that location have been targeted instead? But we had those warnings, the world trade center had been attacked before by another group by bombs in its basement. They didn't do much damage or kill many people, but it still identified the target.

Have you seriously forgotten that there were four planes hijacked on 9/11/2001?

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
You can never prove a negative. But, there have been terror attacks on several other countries after 9/11. I also find it unlikely the terrorists gave up trying to attack the US after 9/11.

There have been numerous thwarted attacks on American interests... mostly in other countries. Saying Bush action's prevented a terrorist attack... hmm I don't know. Maybe his letting the intelligence agencies do what they need to counts. As far as the attacks being stopped in other countries it was a combined effort and not just American intelligence agencies.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
You can never prove a negative. But, there have been terror attacks on several other countries after 9/11. I also find it unlikely the terrorists gave up trying to attack the US after 9/11.

There have been numerous thwarted attacks on American interests... mostly in other countries. Saying Bush action's prevented a terrorist attack... hmm I don't know. Maybe his letting the intelligence agencies do what they need to counts. As far as the attacks being stopped in other countries it was a combined effort and not just American intelligence agencies.

If you are going to place all of the ills of the world at his feet, then you have to give him credit for everything good also.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
You can never prove a negative. But, there have been terror attacks on several other countries after 9/11. I also find it unlikely the terrorists gave up trying to attack the US after 9/11.

There have been numerous thwarted attacks on American interests... mostly in other countries. Saying Bush action's prevented a terrorist attack... hmm I don't know. Maybe his letting the intelligence agencies do what they need to counts. As far as the attacks being stopped in other countries it was a combined effort and not just American intelligence agencies.

If you are going to place all of the ills of the world at his feet, then you have to give him credit for everything good also.

No you don't. What happens in other countries is not likely Bush's fault, I don't recall him being blamed. With the possible exception of Attacks where Iraq was a motivation. Even in those instances, Bush's fault would only be partial and indirect as the attacks were for those countries involvement.

Likewaise, if US cooperation aided other countries efforts in thwarting attacks, then Bush can be somewhat credited.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
You can never prove a negative. But, there have been terror attacks on several other countries after 9/11. I also find it unlikely the terrorists gave up trying to attack the US after 9/11.

There have been numerous thwarted attacks on American interests... mostly in other countries. Saying Bush action's prevented a terrorist attack... hmm I don't know. Maybe his letting the intelligence agencies do what they need to counts. As far as the attacks being stopped in other countries it was a combined effort and not just American intelligence agencies.

If you are going to place all of the ills of the world at his feet, then you have to give him credit for everything good also.

No you don't. What happens in other countries is not likely Bush's fault, I don't recall him being blamed. With the possible exception of Attacks where Iraq was a motivation. Even in those instances, Bush's fault would only be partial and indirect as the attacks were for those countries involvement.

Likewaise, if US cooperation aided other countries efforts in thwarting attacks, then Bush can be somewhat credited.

You do realize that there are people that believe Bush is responsible for everything that is bad, don't you?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
You can never prove a negative. But, there have been terror attacks on several other countries after 9/11. I also find it unlikely the terrorists gave up trying to attack the US after 9/11.

There have been numerous thwarted attacks on American interests... mostly in other countries. Saying Bush action's prevented a terrorist attack... hmm I don't know. Maybe his letting the intelligence agencies do what they need to counts. As far as the attacks being stopped in other countries it was a combined effort and not just American intelligence agencies.

If you are going to place all of the ills of the world at his feet, then you have to give him credit for everything good also.

No you don't. What happens in other countries is not likely Bush's fault, I don't recall him being blamed. With the possible exception of Attacks where Iraq was a motivation. Even in those instances, Bush's fault would only be partial and indirect as the attacks were for those countries involvement.

Likewaise, if US cooperation aided other countries efforts in thwarting attacks, then Bush can be somewhat credited.

You do realize that there are people that believe Bush is responsible for everything that is bad, don't you?

Those people should just be ignored, when they appear. It's most often the case that one just gets labelled that way so that they can be easily dismissed though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
While there is no proof for the notion, there's no proof against it either. It's impossible to prove either way. Regardless, let the smoke blowing commence on both sides.

So basically... You're admitting that we're supposed to take this administration's claims purely on good faith?

I think I'll stay here, in the real world, and let them provide the proof positive, if that'll ever even happen.

How fucking ludicrous.

And, as I predicted previously, the smoke blowing commences.

Damn, am I good or what?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In some ways, even 911 is a fallacy, the target was not the USA, it was the world trade center and its policies that was a primary motivator, and with the world trade center headquarters just happening to be located in the USA, we might ask, if it were located somewhere else, would that location have been targeted instead? But we had those warnings, the world trade center had been attacked before by another group by bombs in its basement. They didn't do much damage or kill many people, but it still identified the target.

Have you seriously forgotten that there were four planes hijacked on 9/11/2001?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat of a point mugs, but the plotters of the 911 attack had no way to predict that they would be so successful, and when the first two planes hit their targets, the other two planes became throw aways, to slake the Wahaitist outrage at GHB and the Sadie royal family for basing troops in Saudi Arabia during gulf war one.

Al-Quida was simply trying to kill as many birds as possible with one stone.

Had one or two of the first planes missed, history may have been far different.

Like it or not, it looks like Al-Quida built redundancy into their plan. Only the over confident think their plans will go off 100%.

 

[palehorse]

Most intelligence is declassified within 30 years of its collection or production.

So, for those who doubt Bush's claims, just hold your breath...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Most intelligence is declassified within 30 years of its collection or production.

So, for those who doubt Bush's claims, just hold your breath...

Considering the hilariously shitty 'terror plots' that the Bush administration has taken credit for 'thwarting', like those idiots in Florida, do you honestly think that if they had thwarted a significant terror plot against the US that they would not have found a way to publicize this? Seriously?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I believe rather strongly that Bush's actions while in office have left our country in greater danger. From enemies abroad and at home.

Not just his actions, but his inactions too. The man is completely incompetent and should have been impeached a long time ago, along with the crook pulling his strings from the second chair, but our congress unfortunately lacked the competence to do so.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In some ways, even 911 is a fallacy, the target was not the USA, it was the world trade center and its policies that was a primary motivator, and with the world trade center headquarters just happening to be located in the USA, we might ask, if it were located somewhere else, would that location have been targeted instead? But we had those warnings, the world trade center had been attacked before by another group by bombs in its basement. They didn't do much damage or kill many people, but it still identified the target.

Have you seriously forgotten that there were four planes hijacked on 9/11/2001?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat of a point mugs, but the plotters of the 911 attack had no way to predict that they would be so successful, and when the first two planes hit their targets, the other two planes became throw aways, to slake the Wahaitist outrage at GHB and the Sadie royal family for basing troops in Saudi Arabia during gulf war one.

Al-Quida was simply trying to kill as many birds as possible with one stone.

Had one or two of the first planes missed, history may have been far different.

Like it or not, it looks like Al-Quida built redundancy into their plan. Only the over confident think their plans will go off 100%.

Is this just speculation on your part? Or do you have some verification of this? Because the plane that hit the Pentagon flew straight to the Pentagon after it was hijacked. It didn't start toward NY and then change directions later. It also departed from Washington. The two that hit the WTC were hijacked from Boston. Why not hijack all four from Boston if they wanted to be sure to hit both towers? They had to have known that they wouldn't make it to New York on flight 77 if two planes had already attempted to crash into the WTC. They needed the impacts to be as close in time as possible to ensure success - that was clearly planned, and flying flight 77 to NYC does not fit into that plan.

I do agree that they built redundancy into their plan. That much is obvious from the fact that there were 4 hijackings. But I believe the redundancy was intended to ensure that they took down at least one of their four separate targets, not to ensure that they took down the WTC specifically.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This thread is inspired by commentary by Tara Wall, a Bush-appointee and deputy editor for The Washington Times, but something I find repeated ad nauseum around here.

Commentary: Bush will be vindicated

[...]

During my Oval Office interview with the president, I asked him to complete the sentence "President Bush was... [fill in the blank]."

He responded (uncharacteristically in third person): "President Bush was the president at a time when our nation was attacked, he clearly saw the dangers, he pursued the enemy, he put tools in place so the professionals could better protect the people, and the homeland was not attacked."

That is the legacy he wants. Popular or not, he kept America safe. And if nothing else, for that, he will be vindicated.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...9/wall.bush/index.html

While it's certainly possible that Bush's policies and actions post-9/11 prevented another attack, we have no way of knowing for sure if that's certain. The first WTC attack occurred in 1993, the second in 2001, a spread of 8 years during which Al Qaeda and affiliated groups attacks US interests overseas but not here in the homeland. We have no way of knowing whether these large-scale 9/11 style attacks are simply far and few between, require considerable advanced planning, or whether perhaps attempts were foiled.

This strikes me as nothing more than a combination of the logical fallacy of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because (on account) of this") and wishful thinking on Bush's part and by extension, the part of his supporters.

And don't even get me started about how 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch. Interesting to note how people conveniently excuse him from any responsibility and then go on to argue that he has kept our nation safe.

How come when it's negative that happenened to this country it's blamed directly with absoluteness to the President! Just like when the economy tanked, "well, he was on watch, so it's him who caused it. . .", or when 9/11 happened, "well, W was on watch so it was his fault for not stopping it before it happened", or when gas price was more than $4 a gal, "it was on his watch so it's him who caused all of this". However, if it's something positive, like no terrorist attack since 9/11, "well, I'm not sure this can be credited to him. It could be that the terrorist just didn't had enough, or B.S. this and B.S that but it certainly ain't GWB who should be credited for this!". WTF! So who do you credit the lack of terrorist attach in this country in the last 7 years? Nancy Pelosi? Reid? Obama? Queen Hillary? Of maybe UBL? Iran? WTF!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Jiggz
WTF! So who do you credit the lack of terrorist attach in this country in the last 7 years?

The same individual I credit with the lack of extra terrestrial invasion in the past 7 years, God.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Jiggz
WTF! So who do you credit the lack of terrorist attach in this country in the last 7 years?

The same individual I credit with the lack of extra terrestrial invasion in the past 7 years, God.

Where's your proof that ETs haven't already invaded?

 

[winnar111]

.

 

[Lemon law]

If we look at the Jiggz contention of "Originally posted by: Jiggz
WTF! So who do you credit the lack of terrorist attach in this country in the last 7 years?

And that answer may lie more with Al-Quida than it does with GWB. But if you are a puny organization like Al-Quida, and you can get the USA to bankrupt itself and jump off the nearest cliff, why should Al-Quida do anything at all to spoil a good thing from their viewpoint.

And therefore the real danger from Al-Quida may be, when we start to wise up, then and only then will Al-Quida need to hit us again to keep us headed for the nearest cliff.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: winnar111

When terrorists manufacture a crisis to test the nonexistent mettle of our surrender monkey President, you'll have your proof.

Given that Bush's response to Bin Laden's demand that the U.S. leave Saudi Arabia was to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, you might want to be careful about throwing around the term "surrender monkey".

 

[DrPizza]

Theodore Kaczinski (Unabomber) was a terrorist. He acted alone. He was never caught, and if it wasn't for publishing some of his work & his own brother turning him in, who knows if he would have ever been caught.

Tim McVeigh & Terry Nichols bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In reference to theories that he had assistance from others, McVeigh responded, "You can't handle the truth. Because the truth is, I blew up the Murrah Building, and isn't it kind of scary that one man could wreak this kind of hell?"

There's no way to guarantee complete safety. You can only go so far to prevent such attacks. Any claim that policies prevented terrorists from attacking the U.S. is merely hyperbole. You can limit it, but not prevent it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Jiggz
WTF! So who do you credit the lack of terrorist attach in this country in the last 7 years?

The same individual I credit with the lack of extra terrestrial invasion in the past 7 years, God.

Where's your proof that ETs haven't already invaded?

It is right next the the proof that Bush kept our country safe from terrorist attacks, in the realm of imagination.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Jiggz
WTF! So who do you credit the lack of terrorist attach in this country in the last 7 years?

The same individual I credit with the lack of extra terrestrial invasion in the past 7 years, God.

Where's your proof that ETs haven't already invaded?

It is right next the the proof that Bush kept our country safe from terrorist attacks, in the realm of imagination.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11. That's a fact. If people want to believe the FSM is repsonsible for that, I guess that's their choice.

Where's your proof that aliens aren't already among us?