Will we be safer from terrorists once Bush and his people are out of office

[jacko49]

Any attempt by the liberal minds in this forum to blame the bush administration for the terrorist acts anywhere in the world is deceiving,conniving and self servicing,can you imaging what would have happened if the lame Jimmy carter would have preside at this times?The Muslim fanatics faschist hated the west WAAAAAAAYYYYYY before you were born(FYI)they INTERPRET the KORAN to suit THEIR needs and desires,there are millions of peace loving Muslims who would give you their shirts off their back for help,but only a small bunch of hooligans gives the west grief.(included dictatorial UN elected states).
in the Muslim world the sense of vision is much more powerful then anything else,especially in the media for the masses,SO if the west would understand that,they would and should use crude force,for example,kill all the family and any relative in the world, of Mohamed atta,or any other "bad" name.needless American soldiers have died trying to be too friendly to the population which cannot switch sides because of fear of retribution from neighbors.if there is a sideway bomb on the road that kills troops,do you believe the surround 500 yards area residents DON'T know who PLANTED the bomb??then you are stupid too.everyone knows everything,its been like that for thousand of years.
stop pleasing the unpleased,stop the corruption on the inside (if there is)and move ahead and make a clean world on the anniversary of the dead of the innocents.

 

[Vic]

That's like a child who can't sleep asking if he'll be safer from the monsters in his closet if he turns the light on.

 

[senseamp]

Definitely will be safer, because neocons spread our military too thin instead of focusing on the terrorists.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: jacko49
Any attempt by the liberal minds in this forum to blame the bush administration for the terrorist acts anywhere in the world is deceiving,conniving and self servicing,can you imaging what would have happened if the lame Jimmy carter would have preside at this times?The Muslim fanatics faschist hated the west WAAAAAAAYYYYYY before you were born(FYI)they INTERPRET the KORAN to suit THEIR needs and desires,there are millions of peace loving Muslims who would give you their shirts off their back for help,but only a small bunch of hooligans gives the west grief.(included dictatorial UN elected states).
in the Muslim world the sense of vision is much more powerful then anything else,especially in the media for the masses,SO if the west would understand that,they would and should use crude force,for example,kill all the family and any relative in the world, of Mohamed atta,or any other "bad" name.needless American soldiers have died trying to be too friendly to the population which cannot switch sides because of fear of retribution from neighbors.if there is a sideway bomb on the road that kills troops,do you believe the surround 500 yards area residents DON'T know who PLANTED the bomb??then you are stupid too.everyone knows everything,its been like that for thousand of years.
stop pleasing the unpleased,stop the corruption on the inside (if there is)and move ahead and make a clean world on the anniversary of the dead of the innocents.

Isn't it funny that the same people who call anyone that disagree with them "liberals" are the same ones using the term "Islamo-fascist"?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Night201
So will they be easier on us?

Nooooooooooooo

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Night201
So will they be easier on us?

Maybe if you beg before they behead you they will suddenly change their minds eh?

I do not believe it.

 

[Kanalua]

no. They hated Clinton, they hater Bush Sr., they hated Reagan and so on. If you watched Path to 9/11 you'd see that the terrorist thought CLinton was satan. They hate America and Americans for what and who we are. A liberal nation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
That's like a child who can't sleep asking if he'll be safer from the monsters in his closet if he turns the light on.

You mean one day we'll wake up and realize we are asking the monsters?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is like asking are we safer after Katrina.

It is stupid to compare a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina and terrorism. They are two different things. It requires very specialied and trained people that have years and years of law enforcement experience to protect this country for terrorist. Because they will try to find all different ways to terrorize us. We can't for one see the enemy that we are fighting against directly. It takes a simple dopler radar and a technician to see a hurricane. This is a comparision that a republican (you) would use..... Mainly because they are trying to save themselves for why it took so long to mobilize during Hurricane Katrina

I like your post here because it makes me laugh my ass off, but there are alternative interpretations, such as what is the point of asking if you are safe after you've been through a disaster. You might be safer, personally, but the disaster has happened and the damage is everywhere and total. Bush is a disaster.

 

[straightalker]

Will we be safer from terrorists once Bush and his people are out of office

There is no gaurantee they will leave. But if they do leave, then yes, since they are are some of the main 9-11 terrorists, when they are gone that threat will be substantially reduced. The remaining domestic enemy terrorist threat will be from the elements that remain that do not leave with a President's Administration.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
It's hard to answer this because. I strongly believe most of the terrorism is due to the policies and treatment of the bush administration with foreign nations such as Iraq.

and

This may be true however, bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks. .

Steppin I think you need to go back and study the history of terrorism. EVERY major terror attack against this country, besides 9-11 took place BEFORE Bush was president, and we know they started planning for 9-11 LONG before Bush was elected.

"bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks"
Ummm since Bush took office in 2001, there has been all of ONE terror attack against this country. I am not sure how you can turn one attack in to "accelerated the frequency" of the attacks.
Let's look at the history of Al-qeada based attacks, or groups that ended up being linked with Al-qeada after the fact.
Feb 1993, first WTC bombing
June 1996 Khobar Towers
Aug 1998 Embassy bombings
Oct 2000 USS Cole bombing
Sept 2001 9-11
Since 9-11 number of major terrorism attacks against the US... 0
Five attacks under Clinton, one under Bush... oh yeah I am really starting to see how Bush's policies are the cause of "most" terrorism. :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Night201
So will they be easier on us?

I don't think the terror masterminds are going to wake up the day after the election and say "ahh, Bush is no longer president, I guess we can't call the US the great satan anymore... now what do we do?"

Let's face it, they hate us and nothing we do will stop them from hating us.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
That's like a child who can't sleep asking if he'll be safer from the monsters in his closet if he turns the light on.

You mean one day we'll wake up and realize we are asking the monsters?

No, I mean one day we'll wake up and realize that the monsters are our own creation.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
no. They hated Clinton, they hater Bush Sr., they hated Reagan and so on. If you watched Path to 9/11 you'd see that the terrorist thought CLinton was satan. They hate America and Americans for what and who we are. A liberal nation.

Do you get all of your facts from TV shows?

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
It's hard to answer this because. I strongly believe most of the terrorism is due to the policies and treatment of the bush administration with foreign nations such as Iraq.

and

This may be true however, bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks. .

Steppin I think you need to go back and study the history of terrorism. EVERY major terror attack against this country, besides 9-11 took place BEFORE Bush was president, and we know they started planning for 9-11 LONG before Bush was elected.

"bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks"
Ummm since Bush took office in 2001, there has been all of ONE terror attack against this country. I am not sure how you can turn one attack in to "accelerated the frequency" of the attacks.
Let's look at the history of Al-qeada based attacks, or groups that ended up being linked with Al-qeada after the fact.
Feb 1993, first WTC bombing
June 1996 Khobar Towers
Aug 1998 Embassy bombings
Oct 2000 USS Cole bombing
Sept 2001 9-11
Since 9-11 number of major terrorism attacks against the US... 0
Five attacks under Clinton, one under Bush... oh yeah I am really starting to see how Bush's policies are the cause of "most" terrorism. :roll:

I think you need to do some reading. Or maybe your reading is concentrated on just what you want to really see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks

^^This is a link of terrorist attacks in the world since the 11th century

1990 - 3 attacks
1991 - 2 attacks
1992 - 3 attacks
------------------Bill Clinton in Office-------------------
1993 - 10 attacks
1994 - 9 attacks
1995 - 12 attacks
1996 - 11 attacks
1997 - 5 attacks
1998 - 7 attacks
1999 - 8 attacks
2000 - 9 attacks

------------------Bush comes into office-----------------

2001 - 17 attacks (including 9/11 and the most since 1990)
2002 - 25 attacks
2003 - 21 attacks
2004 - 21 attacks
2005 - 25 attacks
2006 - 29 attacks and still counting (THE MOST TERRORISM ATTACKS SINCE THE 11TH CENTURY)
2007 - ?
2008 - ?


These are attacks that are all over the world. Most of them ovbiouslly happening since Bush has been elected. Even if you attribute these acts as a result of the Iraq war other counteries are being affected by US policies which was essentially what I was saying.....

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is like asking are we safer after Katrina.

It is stupid to compare a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina and terrorism. They are two different things. It requires very specialied and trained people that have years and years of law enforcement experience to protect this country for terrorist. Because they will try to find all different ways to terrorize us. We can't for one see the enemy that we are fighting against directly. It takes a simple dopler radar and a technician to see a hurricane. This is a comparision that a republican (you) would use..... Mainly because they are trying to save themselves for why it took so long to mobilize during Hurricane Katrina

I like your post here because it makes me laugh my ass off, but there are alternative interpretations, such as what is the point of asking if you are safe after you've been through a disaster. You might be safer, personally, but the disaster has happened and the damage is everywhere and total. Bush is a disaster.

You didn't really say much of anything that had substance besides maybe you reafirmed that you don't really particually care for Bush. Which wasen't there in the previous post until I used the word republican (you).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Night201
Topic Title: Will we be safer from terrorists once Bush and his people are out of office
Topic Summary: Everyone seems to hate Bush...

So will they be easier on us?

Originally posted by: spidey07

The resolve to do what is right even though it isn't "policitally correct". The steadfast drive to do the difficult job, to put your nose to the grindstone and do the right thing no matter what the cost.

That's resolve, that's why I love our President so much.

Not everyone hates him

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
It's hard to answer this because. I strongly believe most of the terrorism is due to the policies and treatment of the bush administration with foreign nations such as Iraq.

and

This may be true however, bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks. .

Steppin I think you need to go back and study the history of terrorism. EVERY major terror attack against this country, besides 9-11 took place BEFORE Bush was president, and we know they started planning for 9-11 LONG before Bush was elected.

"bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks"
Ummm since Bush took office in 2001, there has been all of ONE terror attack against this country. I am not sure how you can turn one attack in to "accelerated the frequency" of the attacks.
Let's look at the history of Al-qeada based attacks, or groups that ended up being linked with Al-qeada after the fact.
Feb 1993, first WTC bombing
June 1996 Khobar Towers
Aug 1998 Embassy bombings
Oct 2000 USS Cole bombing
Sept 2001 9-11
Since 9-11 number of major terrorism attacks against the US... 0
Five attacks under Clinton, one under Bush... oh yeah I am really starting to see how Bush's policies are the cause of "most" terrorism. :roll:

Umm, no. One attack under Clinton, one Attack under Bush, since you are only counting attacks on US territory. If you want to count all attacks by Al Qaeda, and you are counting military targets like USS Cole and Khobar Towers, you need to count all Americans killed by Al Qaeda in Iraq.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is like asking are we safer after Katrina.

It is stupid to compare a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina and terrorism. They are two different things. It requires very specialied and trained people that have years and years of law enforcement experience to protect this country for terrorist. Because they will try to find all different ways to terrorize us. We can't for one see the enemy that we are fighting against directly. It takes a simple dopler radar and a technician to see a hurricane. This is a comparision that a republican (you) would use..... Mainly because they are trying to save themselves for why it took so long to mobilize during Hurricane Katrina

I like your post here because it makes me laugh my ass off, but there are alternative interpretations, such as what is the point of asking if you are safe after you've been through a disaster. You might be safer, personally, but the disaster has happened and the damage is everywhere and total. Bush is a disaster.

You didn't really say much of anything that had substance besides maybe you reafirmed that you don't really particually care for Bush. Which wasen't there in the previous post until I used the word republican (you).

I have learned that the substance content of my posts are often directly proportional to the substance content of the reader.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
That's like a child who can't sleep asking if he'll be safer from the monsters in his closet if he turns the light on.

You mean one day we'll wake up and realize we are asking the monsters?

No, I mean one day we'll wake up and realize that the monsters are our own creation.

Well my question was really a 'heads-up advisory' that the basic dynamics that created the illusion is the Stockholm Syndrome and that we are now on the monsters team. The situation is hopeless, of course, because we have our sights fixed on answers that lie 180 degrees from where we look.

 

[nageov3t]

I think we'll be no more or less safer when Bush leaves office.

but it's a pretty solid bet we'd be a lot safer if we had never invaded Iraq and used that money for beefing up homeland security instead.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
It's hard to answer this because. I strongly believe most of the terrorism is due to the policies and treatment of the bush administration with foreign nations such as Iraq.

and

This may be true however, bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks. .

Steppin I think you need to go back and study the history of terrorism. EVERY major terror attack against this country, besides 9-11 took place BEFORE Bush was president, and we know they started planning for 9-11 LONG before Bush was elected.

"bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks"
Ummm since Bush took office in 2001, there has been all of ONE terror attack against this country. I am not sure how you can turn one attack in to "accelerated the frequency" of the attacks.
Let's look at the history of Al-qeada based attacks, or groups that ended up being linked with Al-qeada after the fact.
Feb 1993, first WTC bombing
June 1996 Khobar Towers
Aug 1998 Embassy bombings
Oct 2000 USS Cole bombing
Sept 2001 9-11
Since 9-11 number of major terrorism attacks against the US... 0
Five attacks under Clinton, one under Bush... oh yeah I am really starting to see how Bush's policies are the cause of "most" terrorism. :roll:

Actually, if you're going to count overseas attacks while Clinton was in office you need to count the number overseas while king george has been in office. The number of terror attacks has skyrocketed in the last few years during the bush admin. Can't have it both ways. Don't let facts or applying the same logic to both administrations get in the way of your agenda.

 

[Zebo]

It aint Bush, Thailand which has nothing to do with USA or Bush has had 1800 terrorist murders these last two years. Attacks on Buddhist monks, schoolteachers, farmers, and policemen in the south. The grievances of those Muslims are not about jobs and "poverty"; they are about the Thai being non-Muslims. That is their crime. And for that they must pay. They have no right, as Infidels, to rule over Muslims. It is wrong, it is unnatural, it is an offense against Allah, and his people. Just like in indonesia in the 1960's where 600,000 Chinese where murdered by Muslims had nothing to do with USA; Thailand, Sudan, India, Bangledesh, Malaysia etc today has nothing other than be infidels to warrant the slaughter. If you don't believe that bust out a skull cap or bible in any muslim country.. you will be dead in seconds.

AQ and every other terrorist org has told us thier goals but people just arn't listening.

Among the more benign removing of all foreign armies from all Muslim countries and detroying Israel and control Jerusalem. They wish to establish a world wide caliphate, a world wide single government muslim Emir and right now Osama would win that vote.

 

[laFiera]

hmmm...
last time i checked border is til not secured, and I would imagine if terrorists wanted to terrorize cities, all they have to do is do like the many illegal aliens do---easily cross the usa border, and carry out their operations.....Dont think bush and his admin have done anything to solve that problem...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
It's hard to answer this because. I strongly believe most of the terrorism is due to the policies and treatment of the bush administration with foreign nations such as Iraq.

and

This may be true however, bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks. .

Steppin I think you need to go back and study the history of terrorism. EVERY major terror attack against this country, besides 9-11 took place BEFORE Bush was president, and we know they started planning for 9-11 LONG before Bush was elected.

"bush accelerated the frequency of these attacks"
Ummm since Bush took office in 2001, there has been all of ONE terror attack against this country. I am not sure how you can turn one attack in to "accelerated the frequency" of the attacks.
Let's look at the history of Al-qeada based attacks, or groups that ended up being linked with Al-qeada after the fact.
Feb 1993, first WTC bombing
June 1996 Khobar Towers
Aug 1998 Embassy bombings
Oct 2000 USS Cole bombing
Sept 2001 9-11
Since 9-11 number of major terrorism attacks against the US... 0
Five attacks under Clinton, one under Bush... oh yeah I am really starting to see how Bush's policies are the cause of "most" terrorism. :roll:

I think you need to do some reading. Or maybe your reading is concentrated on just what you want to really see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks

^^This is a link of terrorist attacks in the world since the 11th century

1990 - 3 attacks
1991 - 2 attacks
1992 - 3 attacks
------------------Bill Clinton in Office-------------------
1993 - 10 attacks
1994 - 9 attacks
1995 - 12 attacks
1996 - 11 attacks
1997 - 5 attacks
1998 - 7 attacks
1999 - 8 attacks
2000 - 9 attacks

------------------Bush comes into office-----------------

2001 - 17 attacks (including 9/11 and the most since 1990)
2002 - 25 attacks
2003 - 21 attacks
2004 - 21 attacks
2005 - 25 attacks
2006 - 29 attacks and still counting (THE MOST TERRORISM ATTACKS SINCE THE 11TH CENTURY)
2007 - ?
2008 - ?


These are attacks that are all over the world. Most of them ovbiouslly happening since Bush has been elected. Even if you attribute these acts as a result of the Iraq war other counteries are being affected by US policies which was essentially what I was saying.....

That list you post is a list of ALL terror attacks in the world. Are you implying that Bush is responsible for
June 15 2006 "The LTTE detonate a claymore mine by a bus carrying 140 civilians in Sri Lanka"
Aug 21 "Russian racists place a bomb in a market in eastern Moscow"
May 7 "Multiple bomb explosions across Myanmar's capital Yangon kill 19 and injures 160"

Also your source is wikipedia, a user edited site. It is a good site for a lot of things, but it is not scholarly by any streach. Just about anyone can find any little attack that takes place in the world and throw it up there as a terror attack. It lists "Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, drives an SUV onto a crowded part of campus, injuring nine." as a terror attack? That is not a terror attack, that is a hate crime by a lone person, now if we found out Al-qeada put him up to it them we can call it terror.
I also think you could make a good argument that the number of reported terror attacks since 2001 is up simply because we are paying more attention to terror attacks around the world.
Furthermore, most of the attacks on that list have NOTHING to do with the US.
It lists 29 attacks in 2006, 6 in Iraq, 1 in Afganistan and 1 in Syria can be called "US related" the other 21 have nothing to do with our policies, read them if you don't believe me.

I still believe your original statement "I strongly believe most of the terrorism is due to the policies and treatment of the bush administration with foreign nations such as Iraq" is wrong. There were terror attacks before Bush was president just as there have been terror attacks after he became President. This "terror war" we are has been going on since at least the early 80s, we just weren't paying much attention.