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

[Red Dawn]

I do believe that we'd be much safer if Bush had never become President.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
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.

The problem with your statement is you imply that had there been no Iraq war we would have taken the money spent there and used it on homeland security and there is no evidence at all to back up that happening.

You are also forgetting the disrupting effect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are having on al Qaeda and other terror groups.
Some terror experts thought that we should have been bombing the terror training bases in Afghanistan during the 90s, and whenever Osama rebuilt one or built a new one we should have bombed it again. The idea was that by constantly destroying their infrastructure we would make it harder for them to plan their attacks on the outside world.
Now with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorist are focusing most, if not all, their attention on what is going on over there. The terrorists work on ways to fight the US there in Iraq instead of work on ways to kill Americans here on American soil. Combine this with the intense pressure we are putting on their leadership and you see the huge disruptive effect we are having on these terror groups ability to plan large scale operations. 9-11 took years to plan and prepare for and right now the terror groups can?t go a few months without one leader or another being rounded up or killed.
In theory all this should be making us safer at home.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You are also forgetting the disrupting effect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are having on al Qaeda and other terror groups.

You are forgetting the recruiting windfall the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan are giving al Qaeda and the other terror groups.

 

[dahunan]

9/11 would have happened no matter who did it .. and the US would have attacked someone so the defense industry could boom again
http://killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UuAVuuGkV8&eurl=

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: 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.

Even the State Dept. says terror attacks have increased drastically in the last few years. And as for your "NOTHING to do with the US" line, try telling that to people in London and Madrid.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I do believe that we'd be much safer if Bush had never become President.

:thumbsup:

 

[dahunan]

BTW, How did the Pentagon plane strategically hit the area that would kill the absolute least amount of DoD Personnel.. the area that was under renovation..

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
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.

The problem with your statement is you imply that had there been no Iraq war we would have taken the money spent there and used it on homeland security and there is no evidence at all to back up that happening.

You are also forgetting the disrupting effect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are having on al Qaeda and other terror groups.
Some terror experts thought that we should have been bombing the terror training bases in Afghanistan during the 90s, and whenever Osama rebuilt one or built a new one we should have bombed it again. The idea was that by constantly destroying their infrastructure we would make it harder for them to plan their attacks on the outside world.
Now with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorist are focusing most, if not all, their attention on what is going on over there. The terrorists work on ways to fight the US there in Iraq instead of work on ways to kill Americans here on American soil. Combine this with the intense pressure we are putting on their leadership and you see the huge disruptive effect we are having on these terror groups ability to plan large scale operations. 9-11 took years to plan and prepare for and right now the terror groups can?t go a few months without one leader or another being rounded up or killed.
In theory all this should be making us safer at home.

How many nuclear power stations and electric car recharge stations could we have built for $420 Billion pissed away in Iraq and Afghanistan? Lots and Lots of R&D into cars making it a reality...In effect cutting off the terrorist life-line, what's been called the largest transfer of wealth in human history to these fanatics. Since we don't know how to fight wars anymore, aka scorched earth, that's really where we need to be. Starve the beast and make them realise a policy of peace is more profitable.

Not just oil either - We should include no more aid for any ME country with thier abominable human rights records. No more aid until woman have rights. No more aid until infidels can testify in court against muslims... etc etc etc. Incredibly we still give aid to Saudi Arabia and even Hammas. GWB is all talk as far as I'm concerned and getting his buddies rich off war profiteering while doing nothing about the actual threat..

No more immigration of saudis, egyptians etc which instead Bush has actually increased the quotas for!!! You know the guys who attacked USA and are tought, with thier governments sanction the most virulent anti-americanism and form of islam.

Osama and his crew are safer than before 9/11. Protected in country which we can not go, our "ally" pakistan, and more revered than ever with lots of copy cat terrorist orgs exponentially growing in numbers with confidence and money due to USA's failures on the battlefeild and contiuned welfare to the middle east.

Dubya is a promoter of Radical islam. Just go to any militant forum they love him.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 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.

still doesn`t make you right.....right -- wrong define iether....somebody will always have an opposite definition...rofl

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: 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.

First, i'm not saying bush is directly responsible for all those attacks. He is indirectly responsibile for them mainly because of the policies and treatment of foreign nations by the bush administration. Even if you go through with a fine tooth comb and seperate incidents that YOU don't consider as terrorism still it shows a large number of incidents at the start of his office. Between what you post in this form and wikipeida, wikipeida is a more reliable source for ovbious reasons I don't have to explain. As far as these incidents not happening in the United States. This is typical of an ethnocentric to say just because it's not the US who cares. Foreign relations is very important and if other counteries feel we are affecting them of course they will feel diferently.