jfern on London Terrorist Attacks

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. ... They're not a problem anymore." - George W Bush

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. ... They're not a problem anymore." - George W Bush

Oh PISS OFF!

Oh come, it was the right-wing talking points back before Al Qaeda struck again. Now it's suddenly bad to say?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, sorry, but I really do wish that Bush had spent more time actually going after Al Qaeda.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can you idiots please stop acting like I condone the acts?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can you idiots please stop acting like I condone the acts?

 You don't condone it but you certainly jumped on it fast enough as one of your anti-Bush talking points.  It was rather unseemly and in bad taste to play politics while the blood hadn't even dried. 

I suppose I shouldn't have. But I'm sure I wasn't the first person to politicize it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.

Even a mortally wounded aminal can attack.  Your attack was not on foreign policy, but on military policy.  It is unreasonable to assume, that attacks can not occur, even when we are winning.

The US media never criticized Bush for about a year after 9/11. My attack was on the war on terror, which has been neglected in favor of the war in Iraq.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In all seriousness, when may we resume to criticize Bush and Blair's foriegn policy? There is understandably a period of mourning after an attack like this, but how long does it last for? Jfern has a valid point, but when can it be discussed?

If we look to the American media after 9/11, it appears that we have to wait over a year.

Even a mortally wounded aminal can attack.  Your attack was not on foreign policy, but on military policy.  It is unreasonable to assume, that attacks can not occur, even when we are winning.

The US media never criticized Bush for about a year after 9/11. My attack was on the war on terror, which has been neglected in favor of the war in Iraq.

We are not discussing the media; we are discussing your comments.

If the media can praise Bush and never criticize Bush for a year, I can damn well criticize Bush whenever I want. You got a problem with that?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the media can praise Bush and never criticize Bush for a year, I can damn well criticize Bush whenever I want. You got a problem with that?

I have a severe problems with the accuracy of your claims, as do an increasing number of the posters here.  By the logic of your position, we were losing World War II because the Nazis launched an offesive in December of 1944.

You will also note that I have not been one of the numerous people on this thread that has said you should not be critical.  I critize your ideas, not your expression of them.

Then what were we arguing about? I wasn't making any claims, except that the media was rather un-critical of Bush for a while after 9/11.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thirteen Iraqi people died in two car-bomb blasts last night.  Did anybody even notice the news report?  Was it even featured on the evening news?

Something like 1000 protestors were attacked by Iraqi police, too. The media usually isn't that good at covering minor stories when they have a major story to cover. Of course usually their major story is something lame like the Laci Peterson case.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can you idiots please stop acting like I condone the acts?

WE are the idiots? WE didn't start this totally inappropriate thread!

Neither did I. I just made some random comment, but Pope PD decide that it needed it's own thread. Take it out on Pope PD.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can you idiots please stop acting like I condone the acts?

WE are the idiots? WE didn't start this totally inappropriate thread!

Neither did I. I just made some random comment, but Pope PD decide that it needed it's own thread. Take it out on Pope PD.

You knew exactly what you were doing when you chose that one particular sentance.  Don't even try to play innocent.

Has is ever occured to you people that you are seriously over-reacting. Yeah, maybe my comments were in-approiate. But so is all this mindless "you can't criticize Bush now". The  I can. The media sure as hell hasn't, so it's up to people like me to do their ing job. I reserve the right to criticize the worse President ever whenever the  I want. Ok, my post started out sounding a lot less diplomatic than it ended up, but that's because I'm getting sick of every idiot on this forum calling me a "terrorist coddler" when Bush failed to do sh**t to fight terrorism before 9/11.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush is the one who made terrorism an issue.

Um no.......remember 9/11? Oh yeah...you have the 9/10 mentality.

I have an 8/06/01 mentality. It's called "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush is the one who made terrorism an issue.

Um no.......remember 9/11? Oh yeah...you have the 9/10 mentality.

I have an 8/06/01 mentality. It's called "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.".

I bet you can't wait for the next bus to blow up, can you?

No. You have a one track mind.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We can play political games all day and get nowhere. They first attacked us in 1993. Remember the African embassies in 1998 and the Cole in 2000. Clinton had seven years, Bush had seven months. To blame Bush for everything isn't fair. Nor, I believe, blaiming Clinton for the attacks. An unchecked determined enemy will find a way to hit you.

Clinton got a large anti-terorism bill passed in 1996, but it wasn't what he wanted, it was watered down by the Republican Congress. Yes, World Trade Center 1 was attacked in both 1993 and was the first thing attacked on 9/11. Who would have ever guessed that WTC 1 would be a target by Al Qaeda after it had already been attacked by Al Qaeda.

Anyways, did Clinton do enough to fight terrorism? Probably not. But he did far more than Bush did pre-9/11. Clinton was cracking down on tax havens exploited by terrorists. Bush reversed that. Clinton warned the Bush adminstration that terrorism was a high priority. Bush ignored that. The millenium terrorist attack got stopped during the Clinton adminstration.

You really might want to read some more about Clinton and terrorism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.opednews.com/hersh_080404_republicans_sabotaged.htm

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush is the one who made terrorism an issue.

Um no.......remember 9/11? Oh yeah...you have the 9/10 mentality.

I have an 8/06/01 mentality. It's called "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.".

How many countless numbers of memos does the President get, any President, about those who wish to attack us? The information agencies have known since 1993 that bin Laden wanted to attack us. How many memos from 1993 to 8-6-01 did both Presidents receive stating that bin Laden wanted to attack us? Daily? Weekly?

Sure they get plenty of memoes, Bush got plenty of other memos on terrorism. The title of this one indicates that someone was really trying to get his attention. Unfortatenly for the WTC, Pentagon, and 4 planes, he didn't seem to pay much attention.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush is the one who made terrorism an issue.

Um no.......remember 9/11? Oh yeah...you have the 9/10 mentality.

I have an 8/06/01 mentality. It's called "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.".

How many countless numbers of memos does the President get, any President, about those who wish to attack us? The information agencies have known since 1993 that bin Laden wanted to attack us. How many memos from 1993 to 8-6-01 did both Presidents receive stating that bin Laden wanted to attack us? Daily? Weekly?

Sure they get plenty of memoes, Bush got plenty of other memos on terrorism. The title of this one indicates that someone was really trying to get his attention. Unfortatenly for the WTC, Pentagon, and 4 planes, he didn't seem to pay much attention.

You're impossible because you can't conceed any point. That is why everyone, besides MacFarlan, is vehemently arguing against you.

You haven't conceeded any point. Why should I care exactly how many conservatives are arguing agianst me?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Are you clairvoyant? You know what Bush is thinking before he does. Are you privy to every piece of information the President receives? Besides the WTC center, how many other valuable targets were out there to be attacked? If Bush locks everything down, than economic activity goes into gridlock. "Bin Laden plans on attacking the US." Ok, when and where and by whom and on what scale.? Imagine the size of enforcement needed and all those screaming about losing civil liberties and racial profilling without an event to base it on. Imagine if nothing happened? Damned if you, damned if you don't.

Richard Clarke, who has worked on national security for 4 Presidents, 3 of them Republicans has given an inside look at the anti-terrorism efforts. You could listen to what he says, or you could mindlessly bash him. The choice is yours.

There was already a 1996 anti-terrorism bill. Sure, civil liberties groups may have opposed it, but the Republicans watered it down anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree. At least it wasn't as big as 9/11, but maybe a larger attack might have been easier to stop.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anyways, did Clinton do enough to fight terrorism? Probably not. But he did far more than Bush did pre-9/11. Clinton was cracking down on tax havens exploited by terrorists. Bush reversed that. Clinton warned the Bush adminstration that terrorism was a high priority. Bush ignored that. The millenium terrorist attack got stopped during the Clinton adminstration.

Let's be honest, Clinton was president for 6.5 years after WTC I.  During that time, embassies and the Cole were attacked.  Bush was president for under nine months.  Clinton's response was totally ineffective; he largely regarded it as more of a "law enforcement" problem.  Even the successful stopping of the Seattle attack was treated in terms of "law enforcement."  It was this attitude that helped caused al-Qaeda to be so successful on 9/11.

Bush correctly realized that this isn't a "law enforcement" issue, though it does have a law enforcement component. 

However, after the WTC bombing, the only terrorist attack on US soil was the right-wing Oklahoma City bombing. Bottom line, what did Bush to fight terrorism before 9/11? If you were rational, and not partisan, you'd listen to what people like Richard Clarke have to say.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

George Bush says Al Qaeda is losing badly, jfern believes this statement to be untrue.  Let us calmly examine the evidence.

In New York and Washington attacks, Al Qaeda killed 3,000 people.  In the Madrid attacks they killed 198 people.  In the London attacks, they killed 37 people.  It appears that, objectively speaking, Al Qaeda's capacity to inflict damage on western cities has diminished dramatically.

Does jfern have a fact based response?  Or would he like to talk about the 8/06 memo or some other irrelevancy?

Concluding anything from those 3 data points is absurd. You're almost saying it's good that there was a terrorist attack that killed 37 people. And it's more than 37, anyways.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

However, after the WTC bombing, the only terrorist attack on US soil was the right-wing Oklahoma City bombing. Bottom line, what did Bush to fight terrorism before 9/11? If you were rational, and not partisan, you'd listen to what people like Richard Clarke have to say.

Ah, let's see, he let the terrorists into the country.  Oh, wait, that was Clinton. 

BTW, the Embassies are US soil; so technically was the USS Cole.

An embassy in Africa is a bit different from US soil in North America for logisical reasons.

Anyways, just because they're already in the US doesn't mean we can't catch them. We caught one of the 9/11 hijackers (except that obviously he couldn't participate) in August 2001. An FBI investigator concluded that he wanted to fly a plane into the World Trade Center. He was from Saudi Arabia. They wanted to investigate some more, but someone in the WH told the FBI: Saudi Arabia is our ally, we don't investigate allies.