About that decline in terrorism we told you about....

[jrydberg]

I agree it's a senseless thing to happen and a real shame. I guess my point is, the suicide bombings in Israel are targeted at Israelis. Not that this matters to someone who gets caught up in it, but the impact on overall US policy is not the same as if the terrorist deliberately targeted Americans.

The fact is, terrorist attacks across the globe have the potential to impact Americans since our citizens travel all around the world.

Does terrorism in Israel affect the US? Certainly... perhaps I overstated things in saying it has no bearing. My point is that such attacks affect us only peripherally. A report on the number of attacks directed at US citizens would be more indicative... though still not the whole picture.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I agree it's a senseless thing to happen and a real shame. I guess my point is, the suicide bombings in Israel are targeted at Israelis. Not that this matters to someone who gets caught up in it, but the impact on overall US policy is not the same as if the terrorist deliberately targeted Americans.

The fact is, terrorist attacks across the globe have the potential to impact Americans since our citizens travel all around the world.

Does terrorism in Israel affect the US? Certainly... perhaps I overstated things in saying it has no bearing. My point is that such attacks affect us only peripherally. A report on the number of attacks directed at US citizens would be more indicative... though still not the whole picture.

Oh, I understand what you are saying, but I kind of felt like Hammas and Hezbollah hate Americans as much as Israelis. I remember when it seemed like only the cities on the outskirts were targets. Now it seems like terrorists are bolder and target cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem too. Cities with larger tourist populations.

In essence, we all want the same thing anyway! All terrorism to end.

I also heard something on the news that said that Bin Laden may be getting money from his family, although the family denies it.

 

[peachgirl]

Funny, I posted this same information on a thread where it was suggested that I should be frightened about the increased threat of terrorism should Kerry be elected President. This little tidbit of news pretty much stopped that ridiculous argument in it's tracks.



Spin till you get dizzy, but the true facts of the matter are that terrorism has gotten much worse since Bush took office. The truth is that they have increased by well over 1/3 since 2001.

It's also a fact that apparently the war on terror isn't succeeding as they attempted to claim.

More truth is that Bush administration has a tough time giving accurate information to the public. As I said in the other thread, how many passes do they get using the excuse that they just made a mistake?

I consider American citizens being held hostage, being shot and getting their heads cut off to pretty much be terrorism. It doesn't have to happen on American soil to be of concern to Americans.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by peachgirl
As I said in the other thread, how many passes do they get using the excuse that they just made a mistake?

As a fellow human and someone who probably also makes mistakes, how many passes would you like to get? Remember, this is like your wireless telephone plan: ask for too few and you could end up on the receiving end of a severe, neverending bashing, but choose too many and you'll end up wasting them.

 

[theSurlyMermaid]

Originally posted by izzy
Weren't the 9/11 terrorists in our country during that 3 year timeframe planning the attack - all under the Clinton administration's "watchful" eye?

Yes, and the reason they were over here was thanks to the stationing of our troops in Saudi Arabia under the first Bush administration's "watchful eye".

 

[dmadman43]

Kerry has fought in a war and knows the harshness of it, that's more than GWB can say

Puh-leeze! That requirement is going to disqualify just about everyone running for President in 10 years. I guess it was a miralce, then, that FDR and Truman managed to win WWII.

Well, one thing we do know: Kerry will be able to give us better insight as to why soldiers committ abuse and atrocities. I mean, he personally "knows the harsheness" of that, too.

 

[battricia]

I'm just curious to know whether people consider the anthrax deaths, or the sniper attacks in the VA area to be terrorist attacks? Personally I do, but since I don't have much say in anything, what does everyone else think?

Both of these things happened after september 11, 2001.

tricia.

 

[jrydberg]

Well, first off, I think it's a bit ridiculous to speculate about what terrorism will do if *insert candidate here* wins. Terrorism will continue to be a major threat regardless of who wins the election. So I agree, that was a ridiculous argument.

As for mistakes, the pre-war Iraq intelligence was flawed for many reasons, which have little if anything to do with partisan politics. The intelligence was flawed while Clinton was in office as well. It's not something that suddenly came up when Bush took over.

I don't know why the terrorism report was incorrect, but do you honestly think someone skewed the numbers for political gain? Of course they'd realize that the true numbers would come out eventually and any political gain would be more than nullified by that. There is no motivation whatsoever to fabricate something that is easily proven to be incorrect.

It's also a fact that apparently the war on terror isn't succeeding as they attempted to claim.

If by succeeding you mean stopping terrorism in the short term, then no, it isn't. However, I believe that it will succeed in lessening terrorism in the long run. You obviously disagree, but I think that can be chalked up to an honest disagreement over the effects of Bush's policies.

 

[Lanshark]

Have people forgotten about the Cole and the Embassy bombings under the previous administration?

 

[dmadman43]

consider American citizens being held hostage, being shot and getting their heads cut off to pretty much be terrorism. It doesn't have to happen on American soil to be of concern to Americans

Did you consider American soldiers getting blown up on US ships terrorism? Did you consider US citizens getting killed in the WTC terrorism... not in 2003, in 1993? Did you consider citizens getting blown up in embassies terrorism? Did you consider the bombing of 19 soldiers in Saudi Arabia in 1997 terrorisim? Did you consider the still unexplained "crash" of TWA 800 terrorism?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by battricia
I'm just curious to know whether people consider the anthrax deaths, or the sniper attacks in the VA area to be terrorist attacks? Personally I do, but since I don't have much say in anything, what does everyone else think?

Both of these things happened after september 11, 2001.

tricia.

By defintion ,they weren't terrorist attacks, anymore than the shooter in Austin in the 60's was a "Terrorist", or anymore than Ted Bundy was a terrorist, or the person that poisoned Tylenol was a terrorist.

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by Lanshark
Have people forgotten about the Cole and the Embassey bombings under the previous administration?

No we haven't!

Nor have we forgotten the bombing in Beirut back during the Reagan Administration (Otober 1983) that killed 243 American Marines!

Geeze!

 

[jrydberg]

We could play this for hours and get nowhere. How many terrorist attacks occurred in a given year/decade/presidency is not really the point, IMO. It's how we respond to those attacks that's the important issue.

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by jrydberg
We could play this for hours and get nowhere. How many terrorist attacks occurred in a given year/decade/presidency is not really the point, IMO. It's how we respond to those attacks that's the important issue.

You are correct that it really doesn't matter when (year/decade/presidency) but I couldn't help myself in making a response to a post that blamed the previous administration.. That was what I tried to illustrate.

Maybe not very well?


(Please bring th DB back!)

 

[peachgirl]

There sure is a lot excuse making going on here.

No matter, there is simply no arguing about the fact that they got this one very wrong and using the report to claim that their war on terrorism is working was a mistake.

By Powell's own words, this was a mistake that should not have happened...

"All sorts of alarm bells should have gone off" when the data were being compiled, Powell said, but he denied that the figures were skewed for political purposes.

 

[Lanshark]

Bobbles


I was in no way blaming the previous administration. The point was that attacks did happen before 9-11. They happen under all administrations. Democrat and Republican. 9-11 was different. I believe it would have happened no matter who was in office. That was the point. Maybe I didn't illustrate that very well either.

 

[jrydberg]

Fair enough, Bobbles... wasn't picking on you in particular.

peachgirl, you're absolutely right. No way the mistake should have happened. And certainly they should have made absolutely sure about it before making a claim that it supports their policy on the war on terror. No argument there.

 

[peachgirl]

No way the mistake should have happened. And certainly they should have made absolutely sure about it before making a claim that it supports their policy on the war on terror. No argument there.

I agree with you, the reasons for the mistake and the interpretation of what the real statistics mean are matter of political debate and personal opinion.

Thanks for your posts, it's nice to read one now and then that doesn't defend their "side" just because it's the side they happen to favor.

 

[Patch'sD]

Yes it was a mistake and the administration admitted it. Was it political, No, to powerfull to have comeback at you. I am still waiting for Clinton's saying it was a mistake that he did not have Sex with the woman. I am still trying to figure out what kind of car Kerry drives.