jfern on London Terrorist Attacks

[??????????]

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?

[MODU]

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.".

You know that argument won't work because of the failure of Clinton to do anything about him in his last year in office.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[°Leprechaun]

When are the Republican heroes like Jerry Falwell going to blame this attack on liberals, homosexuals etc etc?

Who can ever forget what Cheney said about how if you don't vote Republican you are increasing the likelyhood of another terrorist attack?
I don't hear any Republicans calling *That* inappropriate.
Edwards was right; liar Cheney is unAmerican.

[TX_1824]

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.

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.

[°Leprechaun]

Has is ever occured to you people that you are seriously over-reacting. Yeah, maybe my comments were in-approiate.

Well, well... perhaps a bit of progress.

Well; 'over-reacting' best describes this thread.

[??????????]

Who can ever forget what Cheney said about how if you don't vote Republican you are increasing the likelyhood of another terrorist attack?
I don't hear any Republicans calling *That* inappropriate.

Because it wasn't. Cheney was dead on.

[°Leprechaun]

Who can ever forget what Cheney said about how if you don't vote Republican you are increasing the likelyhood of another terrorist attack?
I don't hear any Republicans calling *That* inappropriate.

Because it wasn't. Cheney was dead on.

dead wrong actually and a proven liar

[○∙◄☻¥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

[TX_1824]

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?

[°Leprechaun]

Don't forget that the same people who want us to get behind Bush on his invasion of Iraq, refused to support Clinton when he went to war against Iraq.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[TX_1824]

Don't forget that the same people who want us to get behind Bush on his invasion of Iraq, refused to support Clinton when he went to war against Iraq.

When did Clinton declare war on Iraq? He fired a few missiles and enforced the "no fly zone". He never sent in troops. Oh, and I did not support the war in Iraq. I wanted us to stay focused on Afganistan. Just because I'm Republican doesn't mean I support everything Bush does.

I didn't quote this, but I will support your stance on what Chenny said about voting Democrat. It was childish and unfortunate.

[TX_1824]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[TX_1824]

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.

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.

Today should prove that a determined enemy will attack. Blair knew Briton was a target and knew that plans were in place to attack them. He admitted as much today. However, they were still attacked and people died. Being prepared will only do so much, but eventually you may miss an opertunity to prevent an attack. Such is war.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[TX_1824]

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?

When was Tweed a conservative. In that manner, when was I a conservative. But that is beside the point. I conceed that, yes there was an intelligence failure by the government as a whole. It was just as much the fault of Clinton as it was for Bush, it just happened to fall on his watch. I conceeded that the war in Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. We should have stayed and finished the job in Afghanistan. This is the biggest problem I have with the Bush administration.

Also, I conceeded that I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Oh, how I was wrong there.

[TX_1824]

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.

Yes, politicians play politics with legislation. Both parties do it for political gains. They both put their political agendas before national security because neither one wants to give credit to the other. What is new with that? We haven't been a truly united country in a war/conflict since WWII.

I read what Clark has to say, and my response is.....uh, ok. Nothing new. I honestly don't have much to say in this regard.

[J. J.]

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. 

[The Duke]

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?

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[??????????]

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. 

 the only terrorist attack on US soil was the right-wing Oklahoma City bombing. 

Sponsered by Al Qaeda of course.

[KillerPollo]

Maybe it wasn't even terrorists who did it. What if Tony Blair purposely staged a terror attack in order to gain more support and make himself look like a hero?

dont take me for a quack for what i said! and jfern it's not Bush's fault. Maybe it wasnt even the quaeda! but we're meant to believe that w/ staged tapes, and responsibility videos!

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/former_mi5_agent_911_was_inside_job.htm