A serious question for my friends from the left in this forum

[Kandahar]

Ahh, maybe you haven't noticed but we are at war in Iraq........Sadly people die in wars.........Better we kill the terroirsts on the streets of Baghdad then the streets of NY......

The point is that you're either counting terrorist attacks on American soil, or you're counting all terrorist attacks on Americans worldwide. You can't use one standard for Clinton and the other standard for Bush, then expect anyone to take the comparison seriously.

OH and WTC1, Kolbar Towers, and the USS Cole are American soil.............

Of those three, only the World Trade Center qualifies as American soil. The Kolbar Towers and USS Cole don't count unless you're also counting the terrorist attacks in Iraq.

 

[AK_Conservative]

UH HUH and? Tell me something I dont know. :lol:

Jk, I got what your saying.

LOLOL :rofl

The problem i have with savage is that he thinks he is gods gift to this country and the way he talks says it too!

 

[SKILMATIC]

The point is that you're either counting terroist attacks on American soil, or you're counting all terroist attacks on Americans worldwide. You can't use one standard for Clinton and the other standard for Bush, then expect anyone to take the comparison seriously.



Of those three, only the World Trade Center qualifies as American soil. The Kolbar Towers and USS Cole don't count unless you're also counting the terroist attacks in Iraq.

The majority of terroists attacks in iraq are countered towards the iraqi people not the americans. The attacks that Pride has maentioned were countered against solely americans. So you cant use that standard either.

The only one to use is how many were done on american soil. The Bush admin only had 1.

"The terrorist saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole,"

"The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves and so they attacked us,"

Take a wild guess who noted this?

 

[Kandahar]

The majority of terroists attacks in iraq are countered towards the iraqi people not the americans. The attacks that Pride has maentioned were countered against solely americans. So you cant use that standard either.

There have been plenty of attacks in Iraq that WERE directed specifically at Americans.

The only one to use is how many were done on american soil. The Bush admin only had 1.

And the Clinton admin only had 2. That's an average of one every four years for Clinton, and one every four-and-a-half years for Bush...hardly statistical evidence that Bush's terrorism policy has prevented lots of attacks that Clinton's wouldn't have.

"The terrorist saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole,"

"The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves and so they attacked us,"

Take a wild guess who noted this?

George Bush.

The funny thing is, now that we HAVE the "courage and character to defend ourselves," as he calls it, American deaths worldwide from terrorism are significantly higher. Terrorist attacks worldwide are significantly higher. And it's too early for Bush to claim any kind of statistical victory in terms of terrorist attacks on American soil.

 

[SKILMATIC]

There have been plenty of attacks in Iraq that WERE directed specifically at Americans.

Yes but like I said, most of them were not. 90% of the casualties from terrorist attacks were iraqi people.

And the Clinton admin only had 2. That's an average of one every four years for Clinton, and one every four-and-a-half years for Bush...hardly statistical evidence that Bush's terrorism policy has prevented lots of attacks that Clinton's wouldn't have.

No, it is. Because 9/11 wouldnt have happened if clinton had an iron fist. That wouldve made the bush admin have 0. But because of his apathy there continued to be terrorist attacks on US soil. Remember, bush was just elected to office when 9/11 occured. This had nothing to do with his policies as president but everything to do with prior policies. You have to look at the big picture. We will see the effects of bushes policies not necassarily now but in the long term.

The funny thing is, now that we HAVE the "courage and character to defend ourselves," as he calls it, American deaths worldwide from terrorism are significantly higher. Terrorist attacks worldwide are significantly higher. And it's too early for Bush to claim any kind of statistical victory in terms of terrorist attacks on American soil.

No this is also not true. There have been far less american deaths after 9/11. The amount of terrorist attacks have increased but you have to look at the scale of the attacks. They are no longer using large scale attacks because their funding and man power has severely depleted. They are merely using car bombs. And car bombs are a dime a dozen so of course these types of attacks are more prevelent. On the other hand, let them attack where they want. As long as its not on US soil and its not killing our boys abroad then I dont care. However, there hasnt been an attack on american soil for nearly 5yrs. And I beleive that will continue as long as someone does something about the border issue. This issue right here will undermine all of our efforts abroad, IMO.

 

[Kandahar]

Yes but like I said, most of them were not. 90% of the casualties from terrorist attacks were iraqi people.

That's still a lot of attacks. And it doesn't change the fact that there ARE SIGNIFICANTLY more terrorist attacks directed at Americans abroad now than there were under Clinton.

No, it is. Because 9/11 wouldnt have happened if clinton had an iron fist. That wouldve made the bush admin have 0. But because of his apathy there continued to be terrorist attacks on US soil. Remember, bush was just elected to office when 9/11 occured. This had nothing to do with his policies as president but everything to do with prior policies. You have to look at the big picture. We will see the effects of bushes policies not necassarily now but in the long term.

Fair enough, but then you guys need to stop citing the fact that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in America since 9/11 as some kind of vindication for Bush's policy, when in reality it's too early to tell like you said.

No this is also not true. There have been far less american deaths after 9/11. The amount of terrorist attacks have increased but you have to look at the scale of the attacks. They are no longer using large scale attacks because their funding and man power has severely depleted. They are merely using car bombs. And car bombs are a dime a dozen so of course these types of attacks are more prevelent.

Large-scale terrorist attacks have always been less common than the car-bomb variety. However, both the large-scale attacks and the small-scale attacks worldwide have increased since George Bush took office.

On the other hand, let them attack where they want. As long as its not on US soil and its not killing our boys abroad then I dont care.

I'd agree with that (at least from a political perspective). However, again, the number of attacks against Americans abroad is much higher now than it was when Clinton was president.

However, there hasnt been an attack on american soil for nearly 5yrs.

The same could be said about the period from April 1995 to September 2001, even with a president in charge who (according to you) didn't do anything about terrorism. So if we accept that premise, it seems that all you REALLY need to go 6.5 years without a terrorist attack is some luck, rather than a war on terror. Therefore how can you claim that George Bush deserves credit for the lack of attacks since 9/11, and it isn't just dumb luck like the 1995-2001 period?

 

[Lucidthots]

~The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.~ George Orwell

 

[Billo_Really]

It isn't a matter of hating Bush. It's a matter of accountability. If I don't do my job right, I get layed off. There's got to be something seriously wrong in this country by the sheer volume of Constitutional debates were having. You would expect this would be a given. But were actually discussing what rights we have left!

He's un-qualified for the office. Which has resulted in him naming other un-qualified people for important positions that have resulted in compounding disaster and tragedy when they occured.

He threatens to veto a bill outlawing torture! We incarcerate people without charges that is opposite to what our country was founded on. Remember the term, "Innocent until proven guilty"? There's a very good reason that was adopted.

We attacked a country that did nothing to us. But what's more appauling than that, is our reaction to it.

I don't hate Bush. But I do hate all these lame ass excuses people make for is behavior. Just open your eyes. Do you not see how we are now viewed by the rest of the world? And before you lay that bullshit line about how we are America and we don't give a damn about what the rest of the world thinks about us, I want to tell you that if this is what your about to say, then that is prima facia evidence that we are not in Iraq to help Iraqis. Because we don't give a damn about what the rest of the world thinks. And since Iraq is part of the rest of the world, that includes them.

I think it is also quite obvious that Bush does not give a damn about what Americans think. His stonewalling of Supreme Court nominees. Brownie your doing a good job. Him blowing off the CIA and running with his own dillusional story about how Iraq is trying to get uranium, WMD's, UAV's, mushroom clouds, the list just goes on and on and on...

So I just want to ask all my neo countryman the line in the Bob Dylan song:

"How many times can a man turn his head pretending he just doesn't see?"

 

[SKILMATIC]

That's still a lot of attacks. And it doesn't change the fact that there ARE SIGNIFICANTLY more terrorist attacks directed at Americans abroad now than there were under Clinton.

Again your wrong. The amount of americans that these attacks were carried out against were very few compared when Clinton was in office. Remember car bombs were targeted against a few soldiers here and there. We have only lossed about 200 to terrorist attacks in iraq. The rest have been due to sniper fire or other heated assaults. However the amount of americans targeted under the clinton admin have been several thousand in just the WTC bombings alone. That attack was directed towards tens of thousands of people. The Cole was directed towards another 2thousand people. And thats just 2 of the terrorist attacks carried out under clintons admin. So again your wrong the amount of americans targeted were insurmountably more in clintons admin.

Fair enough, but then you guys need to stop citing the fact that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in America since 9/11 as some kind of vindication for Bush's policy, when in reality it's too early to tell like you said.

Well there hasnt. I was not vindicating it at all was just citing it as a fact. And again so far there hasnt. But only time will tell.

Large-scale terrorist attacks have always been less common than the car-bomb variety. However, both the large-scale attacks and the small-scale attacks worldwide have increased since George Bush took office.

No theres not. The only large scales you hear is the ones in spain and london. Thats 2 that are at least 5thousand miles away from the US. And again those werent perpetrated against any US people. So I dont even awknowledge those. We are talking about attacks against americans on US soil and abroad. It is a known fact that under clintons admin there have been several attacks perpetrated against Americans. Now there isnt any large scalers against americans. Small scales only in iraq nowhere else in the world.

However, again, the number of attacks against Americans abroad is much higher now than it was when Clinton was president.

Yes, but remember small scalers not larg scalers is what were are getting at. Not to mention they are some 10thousand miles away. So you and I and our posterity is safer for it. They can only attack with car bombs on their soil. They dont have the compassitation to carry out and fund attacks abroad anymore cause if they could they wouldve already done so seeing as how we have pissed them off alot lately. :lol:

The same could be said about the period from April 1995 to September 2001, even with a president in charge who (according to you) didn't do anything about terrorism. So if we accept that premise, it seems that all you REALLY need to go 6.5 years without a terrorist attack is some luck, rather than a war on terror. Therefore how can you claim that George Bush deserves credit for the lack of attacks since 9/11, and it isn't just dumb luck like the 1995-2001 period?

No because

DCI Counterterrorist Center
March 1998

The number of international terrorist incidents in 1997 was only slightly higher than in 1996, when recorded incidents were fewer than at any time since 1971, but US interests worldwide remained a primary target for terrorists. A total of 304 international terrorist incidents were recorded during 1997, as compared to 296 in 1996. US citizens and facilities at home and abroad were the targets of approximately 40 percent of international terrorist attacks, up from 25 percent in 1996, although only seven US citizens lost their lives to terrorism and 21 were injured in 1997 as compared to 25 killed and 510 injured in 1996. There were 13 recorded incidents of international terrorism on US soil in 1997

And that was just 97. Do I need to submit info for each year dude? I cant beleive you are this ill informed when it comes to this subject. 13 terrorist attacks on US soil dude! And that was only on one year of clintons admin. Gee I think bush already won by a landslide buddy. And this info was from the Counterterrorism Center itself.

I can basically serve this stuff for you in every year cause I know my stuff. Care to ask me? I will be delighted to pass on this info and if you dont beleive me I will be delighted to submit links for everything.

 

[Lucidthots]

Evidence suggests that the FBI was involved in the first WTC attack, as well as the OKC bombing.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Evidence suggests that the FBI was involved in the first WTC attack, as well as the OKC bombing.

Hey did you know the FBI and the CIA planned the attacks on the USS Cole? Also the train bombs in spain and london were carried out by secret service men put in place by Condaliza Rice. She was inchrage and the mastermind of the whole thing. Did you also know that going to the moon was a hoax. And that louise farrakhan went on a alien mothership where he spoke to elijah mohammed?

 

[Kandahar]

Again your wrong. The amount of americans that these attacks were carried out against were very few compared when Clinton was in office. Remember car bombs were targeted against a few soldiers here and there. We have only lossed about 200 to terrorist attacks in iraq. The rest have been due to sniper fire or other heated assaults.

There's a very fine line between "terrorist" and "insurgent" if you aren't going to count the victims of sniper fire as victims of terrorists in Iraq.

However the amount of americans targeted under the clinton admin have been several thousand in just the WTC bombings alone. That attack was directed towards tens of thousands of people. The Cole was directed towards another 2thousand people. And thats just 2 of the terrorist attacks carried out under clintons admin. So again your wrong the amount of americans targeted were insurmountably more in clintons admin.

So now the standard is how many people it was "directed at" rather than how many people were killed? I guess the guy that sent anthrax was "directing" his attacks at millions of reporters and politicians, making him one of the worst terrorists in the world?

Well there hasnt. I was not vindicating it at all was just citing it as a fact. And again so far there hasnt. But only time will tell.

Fair enough.

No theres not. The only large scales you hear is the ones in spain and london.

And Indonesia. And Morocco. And Saudi Arabia. And a few in Iraq. And Indonesia again.

Thats 2 that are at least 5thousand miles away from the US. And again those werent perpetrated against any US people. So I dont even awknowledge those. We are talking about attacks against americans on US soil and abroad.

It seems the standard of what we're exactly measuring changes every time I ask you this question.

If you're counting attacks on Americans abroad, you have to count every single soldier that has died in the insurgency in Iraq.

It is a known fact that under clintons admin there have been several attacks perpetrated against Americans. Now there isnt any large scalers against americans. Small scales only in iraq nowhere else in the world.

I guess it depends on how you decide what is primarily an attack on Americans and what is not.

Yes, but remember small scalers not larg scalers is what were are getting at. Not to mention they are some 10thousand miles away. So you and I and our posterity is safer for it. They can only attack with car bombs on their soil. They dont have the compassitation to carry out and fund attacks abroad anymore cause if they could they wouldve already done so seeing as how we have pissed them off alot lately. :lol:

But then, they weren't attacking us much on our own soil anyway. Two terrorist attacks during Clinton's eight years (only one caused by Islamic extremists) and one under Bush's 4.5 years.

And that was just 97. Do I need to submit info for each year dude? I cant beleive you are this ill informed when it comes to this subject. 13 terrorist attacks on US soil dude!

I'd love to see what they're counting as a "terrorist attack," because I certainly don't remember 13 attacks on US soil in 1997 or any other year.

There were two terrorist attacks of any importance on American soil under Clinton: The 1993 WTC bombing, and the bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

 

[Lucidthots]

Hey did you know the FBI and the CIA planned the attacks on the USS Cole? Also the train bombs in spain and london were carried out by secret service men put in place by Condaliza Rice. She was inchrage and the mastermind of the whole thing. Did you also know that going to the moon was a hoax. And that louise farrakhan went on a alien mothership where he spoke to elijah mohammed?

SKILMATIC.........are you ready to get "spanked" again?

Please tell me what happened to the OKC Fed building......please.......how did it blow up?

 

[cnredd]

SKILMATIC.........are you ready to get "spanked" again?

Please tell me what happened to the OKC Fed building......please.......how did it blow up?

Wrong thread...

Go to "Conspiracies" and start one up, if you feel the need...

But don't dilute this one...

 

[Canuck]

~The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.~ George Orwell

More Highly Credible Whistle Blowers Identifying Global 'Al-Qaeda' Terrorism as State Controlled
Looking back at the Bali bombing and new whistleblowers

Paul Joseph Watson | October 18 2005

During an interview for an Australian documentary, former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid unequivocally fingered the Indonesian authorities as the true culprits behind the 2002 Bali bombings.

Wahid said the authorities were acting at the behest of Western intelligence agencies.

Other sources used for the documentary were adamant that there were no Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups in existence that were not controlled by intelligence agencies.

The RIGHT is the least of the LEFTS worries
IT has become a matter for EARTH
BUSH and his globalists have drawn the heat from the right for good reason no real American can accept his actions
even the REP congressmen are deflecting his pov
soon the whole world will gaze down on USA
AND we may make USA shake
THE left is galvanised get rid of bush ,the right falls to pieces trying to defend his policies


Indonesia has become renowned for rampant corruption and state involvement in terrorist atrocities. Sources told the film makers that government connected establishment figures are carrying out an agenda of depopulation in the targeted areas by lowering the value of property and resources, then buying it on the cheap.

The United States government had advance knowledge of the October 12 2002 Bali bombing. They passed that knowledge on to the Taiwanese government and told them to keep the information top secret.

Hours before the bombing took place, the US withdrew all its administrative staff and diplomats from Indonesia, citing a 'security threat'. The British government also received the same warning but this wasn't passed on to any relevant authority or the hundreds of victims carelessly making their way to a beach party.

The plastic explosives used in the attack were of military origin and were used primarily by the US military.



Immediately after the bombing, the FBI, the Australian Secret Service and British secret police swooped in to the bomb site and ruthlessly took charge of the investigation, much to the anger of the Indonesian authorities and the Balinese police.

Why were they so eager to take control? Were they attempting to cover their tracks and lead the other unwitting investigators away from any other conclusion but that the bombing was carried out by suicide bombers?

The very organization blamed by the authorities for the bombing responded by saying the attack was the work of the CIA, Mossad and Australian Secret Service.

Back in July we released an article which called for, "all governments who still operate outside of the control of the Globalists to come forward and join humanity in unveiling the real terrorists who are attempting to deform the world into a prison planet."

This was a plea for all credible whistleblowers, and especially those within government, to shine a spotlight on the true face of terrorism,

"We are calling on all whistleblowers to reveal themselves now and stand with us in the corner of truth and the future of this species. These bastards are indiscriminate killers and withholding information only paints a bigger target on your forehead. Your words need to be heard."

"On a governmental level the challenge is here before you. Either scream from the rooftops about government orchestrated terrorism or sit back and watch your country become a victim of it as it is wrestled away from your hands and placed in the domain of a black and cancerous global dictatorship."

Since this article the crescendo if credible individuals blowing the whistle on government sponsored terror has increased.



After British SAS officers were caught dressed in Arab garb, shooting at police and, according to some sources, allegedly driving a car filled to the brim with explosives, the Iranian government came out and accused the US and Britain of staging car bombings in Iraq and also being behind bombings in Iran in an attempt to destabilize the government.

Meanwhile, in the US, the so-called threat to attack the New York Subway was admitted to be a hoax. This of course was only released after Mayor Bloomberg's approval ratings had increased and sufficient attention had been distracted away from the imminent indictments of top Bush administration officials.

The Globalists are reeling and exposure of government sponsored terror has them on the ropes. Some developments might even tempt us to speculate that they have backed off using terror to attempt further seizures of power. The Globalists are like junkies, every terror attack has less and less of a fear impact on the general public. Therefore the attacks need to increase in scale to have any real impact. However, increasing the scale only increases the size of the Globalists' dirty fingerprints all over the crime. They are frozen by the fear of being caught.

Is the move to push Bird Flu as the new boogeyman a shift away from the terror paradigm? It is possible but we should never underestimate the audacity of the Globalists.

The end goal remains the same. The complete militarization of America, the confiscation of every citizen's firearms, and the brutal desecration of liberty as we know it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/181005statecontrolled.htm

the left is galvanized against bush because his pov is not tolerable
the right is falling to pieces because it can not substanciate his pov
eventually the LEFT will have it's desired effect

 

[AK_Conservative]

You know what just aggravates the hell out of me, it shouldnt but does.

Why the hell dont you post anything else with your copy and pasted news articles?

 

[SKILMATIC]

There's a very fine line between "terrorist" and "insurgent" if you aren't going to count the victims of sniper fire as victims of terrorists in Iraq.

No theres not. Terrorists are terrorizers insurgents insurge. There are major differences. I dont understand how you see it as a thin line.

So now the standard is how many people it was "directed at" rather than how many people were killed? I guess the guy that sent anthrax was "directing" his attacks at millions of reporters and politicians, making him one of the worst terrorists in the world?

No the standard was always the scale of the attacks. Anthrax was only a myth and he only targeted a small office building. So millions were out of the question. The target sum was around 100people.

And Indonesia. And Morocco. And Saudi Arabia. And a few in Iraq. And Indonesia again.

Please explain.

It seems the standard of what we're exactly measuring changes every time I ask you this question.

If you're counting attacks on Americans abroad, you have to count every single soldier that has died in the insurgency in Iraq.

No it doesnt it always been the same. And no insurgents arent the same as terrorists. Do you even know what an insurgent is?

I guess it depends on how you decide what is primarily an attack on Americans and what is not.

Well where else are car bombs going off around americans? I know in my city there arent any. How about yours?

I'd love to see what they're counting as a "terrorist attack," because I certainly don't remember 13 attacks on US soil in 1997 or any other year.

Well thats simple, a terrorist attack of course. Terror is terror in my eyes incase if youve forgotten it doesnt necassarily have to be al qaeda or the taliban. If you want to know more I encourage you to read the about the Counterterrorism intelligence department. It will give you more insight on the subject.

There were two terrorist attacks of any importance on American soil under Clinton: The 1993 WTC bombing, and the bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Of importance to you, but all attacks perpetrated against any american is important to me. I count all that which were perpetrated against who have killed and injured americans.

 

[Lucidthots]

Of importance to you, but all attacks perpetrated against any american is important to me. I count all that which were perpetrated against who have killed and injured americans.

SKILMATIC opposes terrorism, unless it is perpetrated by the Government, in which case he just ignores it or blames imaginary people.

 

[SKILMATIC]

SKILMATIC.........are you ready to get "spanked" again?

Please tell me what happened to the OKC Fed building......please.......how did it blow up?

WHAT? I thought you beleive the supermarket tabloids? All you are is full of conspiracy theories with no scientific or common knowledge about simple matters at hand. Keep beleiving in your Farrakhan. Im sure theres a comet coming around for you soon that you can just hop on and float away. :lol:

 

[Lucidthots]

WHAT? I thought you beleive the supermarket tabloids? All you are is full of conspiracy theories with no scientific or common knowledge about simple matters at hand. Keep beleiving in your Farrakhan. Im sure theres a comet coming around for you soon that you can just hop on and float away. :lol:

So explain to me, how did the OKC building get blown up?

 

[SKILMATIC]

SKILMATIC opposes terrorism, unless it is perpetrated by the Government, in which case he just ignores it or blames imaginary people.

Well that makes you a mental disorder cause the government would never do that and why would they? Its a rediculous conspiracy theory much like your theory that Bush blew up the levies to flood the black parts of town.

 

[Lucidthots]

Its a rediculous conspiracy theory much like your theory that Bush blew up the levies to flood the black parts of town.

Whose theory?

Once again.....SKILMATIC goes into his "imaginary" world.

 

[Canuck]

Hey did you know the FBI and the CIA planned the attacks on the USS Cole? Also the train bombs in spain and london were carried out by secret service men put in place by Condaliza Rice. She was inchrage and the mastermind of the whole thing. Did you also know that going to the moon was a hoax. And that louise farrakhan went on a alien mothership where he spoke to elijah mohammed?

your being dumbed down you need at least a mountain of circumstancial
evidense before claiming things
there is a big difference of what you call garbage and accounts that have some facts

 

[Lucidthots]

Its a rediculous conspiracy theory much like your theory that Bush blew up the levies to flood the black parts of town.

SKILMATIC.........are you arguing with me......or just people inside your own head?

 

[Lucidthots]

......... much like your theory that.........

This is absolutely hillarious!

SKILMATIC is hearing IMAGINARY voices now, of me making arguments inside his own head!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!