Another big RNC lie bites the dust
 

Despite being proven wrong earlier this year, Bushies have continued to repeat what they know is a lie: the 'the world has become a safer place since the invasion of Iraq.'

It wasn't true earlier this year, and the terror threat is on the rise dramatically:

--------------excerpt----------
NBC News findings run counter to recent Bush administration claims
By Robert Rivas and Robert Windrem
NBC News
Updated: 10:43 a.m. ET Sept. 2, 2004

NEW YORK - As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year.

In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. On Tuesday, the number of civilians killed by terrorists totaled 38 — 10 at a subway entrance bombing in Moscow, 16 in a bus bombing in Israel and 12 Nepalese executed in Iraq.

Moreover, the level of sophistication is increasing. Terrorism experts point in particular to the attacks apparently carried out by Chechen rebels during that 10-day period. The rebels, whose top military commanders have been Arabs, are operating at a whole different level.

--------------full article-----------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

How many attacks on America since 9/11? I would imagine a presidents job is to keep us safe first. Since he cannot enforce laws in other contries it seems a bit retarded to think we can control what happens in other countries. But the UN could fix it right? Are they done in Bosnia yet?

LOL, get off it man, it ain't selling. Dissect words and twist em all day, no one can hear you. The average trailerpark, Pabst swilling, dope smoking flunky knows what was meant by that statement. Apparently you(and your corhorts) do not, so live it up.

The future safety of Americans and the rest of the world is in better shape than it would have been if we had done nothing. Please post an article from the forth dimension showing what the attacks would have been HAD we done nothing. See my point? Hell, you saw it before but choose to twist. My new nic for you is Chubby Checker:)

Araine, previously, it was 9 years between attacks on America. so we won't have a true measure of success for a while, but DHS is so ridiculously underfunded and ineffectual, I wouldn't bank on it.

But the point is the Bushies are claiming to have made the world safer and it's a lie.

I'll take your word for it.

Wait, wait, wait! The left wing pu$$ies cry when we do anything to anybody in defense of the USA. Now they are going to ***** about the USA not solving the problem for the entire planet? Come on guys only John Kerry can have things both ways.

And then, lol, instead of saying "I disagree with his statement" you call him a liar. Good stuff man, now where's my Pabst:)

Hey tech when you find a new article on the internet to paste does it go something like this: "ooh ooh awhhh yeah oooh gotta post this....this il' get em'....oh yeah cut-paste...ooooh..."

Geez...

I am sure you read that about DHS but my oldest brother is a GS17 and runs dentention and trasportation for DHS and sits in the meetings with the big dogs and has a different perspctive. They have foild many, many more attempts of terrorist attacks than get published. They dont publish them all becuase they do not want to identify thier methods of detection. I can tell you this, there are about 20K less terrorist in the world. It is begining to be a dead end job.

araine: I have no doubt terrorist attacks have been foiled, just like they were before the *30th* government department was created to help deal with it.

The entire DHS budget is equal to how many weeks of the Iraq war? What percentage of international cargo containers coming in to US ports are screened? About how many illegals cross the border every day?

Geez you guys, give tech a break . ..it's not like he's simply trying to deflect the mainstream topic of Zell Millers speech last night. ;)

Besides, he has a valid point.:cool: . . . now what was the NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism back on Sept. 10th, 2001? . . .analysis said we were safer then, than we are now; right? :rolleyes:

Tech, c'mon, you can do better than just throwing-out baseless spun crap like this.

Ya know, if you claimed that 'Bush can't have any idea if we're safer now' I would have a bit of respect for the argument, but c'mon. .."NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism --says Boosh Rong" . . .puh-lease.

Fighting terrorism is like fighting fire. The way you lib's talk, it's like you're saying "send the FD back to the barn. . .what they have been fighting is helping nothing.'

They also don't want to scare the American people...

You've been listening to KPFK haven't you?...The left wing labor unions simply want more union thugs at the ports...that is the only reason they make an issue out of it.

How many legals cross the border every day?....Republicans would have handled this long ago, but every time we give it a go, you liberal cry "RACIST!!!"...Which will happen if Bush does do something about illegals.

Another example of Democrats manufacturing a problem and then either blaming or slandering Republicans when they offer a solution.

But but but but... lol... Look man I know it looks bad for ya right now, but things could change. Don't go gettin all weird just yet, you want to maintain your credibility incase this surge slows down.

"I John Kerry vow to search .8% more cargo containers than George W Bush". Yea run with that:)

I don't think this is a "lie" "biting any dust" but it's food for thought. My first questions are -- who determines whether a death is related to a terrorist incident? Second, who determines whether it's a "terrorist incident"? Are roadside bombings in a war zone in Iraq "terrorist" attacks? It'd be convenient if they were if you really wanted to try to do was dis Bush and not inform. FTR, the link isn't working for me, so I don't know if they deal with it.

Also, as has been alluded to, many of the attacks are those which we haven't been directly trying to (even if we were able) to prevent. Many of the losses cited above have to do with Chechen rebels attacking Russia -- this is not a front we're engaged on, frankly -- and it's impossible for us to be so. It is unreasonable to so broadly construe terrorist attacks and global safety to include what Russia deems to be an internal conflict it will not allow the world to intervene upon.

It's intellectually sloppy (or really conveeeeeeenient) to lump attacks predicated on an "internal" civil war that the US has no ability to influence with islamofascist terrorism around the world. Tech, you split hairs and find "distinctions without a difference" all over the place; you can't honestly tell me you don't see the difference here. Just put down the knee-jerk Bush hatred crap for one day; you may wind up a happier person.

JP

I wouldn't consider it a 'lie' per se; it's just one another unprovable jingle of the RNC, carrying no more weight than Pepsi's "the choice of a new generation" or Mazda's "zoom zoom!" OTOH, the average trailerpark, Pabst swilling, dope smoking flunkies who make up the bulk of the GOP's AM-radio worshipping support base take this as the Gospel according to George and parrot it incessantly.

The actual lie bit the dust several months ago when they had to 're-state' their numbers in the terrorism report.

Even better, I love the statistic these yahoos throw around "20k terrorists dead" "75% of Al Quaeda cells eliminated" - so, when did they do the census?

Kerry Koolaid -the choice of a new generation.

hmmm. . .not so good

Kerry Bandaid- the choice of a new generation.

Yea, that sticks. :cool:

Island -

{snort, snicker:D}

Does anybody here think the DNC is a paragon of virtue? That Kerry will be anymore honest than GW? Why do U think the Democrats are fighting so hard they want their noses back in the trough. Further than that the faction that is in control of the Democratic party at the moment is the Socialist Wing of the party that is controled by Limosene Liberals...Elitests that want to tell you how to live, because they are smarter and better looking than you are..after all they graduated from Harvard and U... well are trailer trash...

The other Democratic Party choich is the Bill Clinton....Used Car Saleman ideology....of situational ethics...the ends justify the means..win at any cost but win. It doesn't matter if the country sinks a little lower theres still table scraps at the top.

Those are your choichs in the Democratic Party..one of Bankrupt ideals...

Edited for content. No personal attacks allowed. -Z-man.

Gee do you call people &*^$$% and @$%^ too! People who use towel-head on messageboards typically are across the board racists.

Edited for content. -Z-man

. . .says the guy wearing the tin-foil hat.

Are you counting dead "collateral" people in Iraq, (civilians, children, etc.), as terrorists? I mean hey, if they had lived w/ a limb or two missing they probably would have joined the resistence, right? ;)

Otherwise, I have no idea where we have killed 20k people during this administration. Do you count every poor pathetic bastard conscripted into Saddam's Army as "a terrorist"? Just asking, for statistical purposes.

Bush has made us 20 million new enemies in the world, that's for sure. And the "how many attacks since 9/11" argument wouldn't pass the first day of logic 101 at any community college, for chrisakes. That would make Clinton a better "war President" in your view. :rolleyes:

Mulholland: please refrain from personal attacks and racial slurs.

Thank you,
-Zoltan, OT Moderator.

Denis -- c'mon. 20 Million new enemies? When was *that* census taken? And then you go on to fault someone else's logic? That's just silly.

JP

For the record, I do not swill Pabst. . . I swill Burgermeister

Speeder you were told a bit of information..thats not really out there for public consumption...

1. Many attacks were foiled

2. The Security forces in the world have picked up 20,000 people who are "terrorists".


Both U and I know the information we get through the media is heavily filtered for content. Now you have 2 pieces of information which you can use to fill in the blank spaces with.

So don't be so quick to knock something in a knee jerk fashion to fit your ideological stance.

Way ta go, Z-man.

I wonder how many people we would have to kill in order to get rid of the folks that hate us and might attack us in the future. Anybody think that's what we're doing? No, I don't either. So we must be....

Trying to intimidate the existing terrorist so they are too scared to attack us. How many attackers do you guys think we've scared off so far? How scared would you be, if you were a terrorist and now the country you hate is bombing your brothers and sisters in their homes?

supe - you argue with yourself very well; setting up arguments you can't have and knocking them down yourself. But sometimes you give in too easily to your overwhelming force of will.

Is intimidating the existing terrorist what we "must be" doing? Very categorical, conclusory statement, w/o analyzing and/or discounting other options. But it's a 72 at the Superman Open.

Now maybe intimidating the existing terrorist is something we are doing, but, willfully or not, you've omitted other elements of what we actually are doing, including (1) dissuading (not "scaring") some would-be terrorists from taking up arms as they know there is now a terrible price to pay; (2) destroying means to attack us; (3) providing a forum in which we're right there, ready to be attacked (and to able to better defend ourselves); (4) seizing assets that were otherwise available to be used against us; and perhaps most importantly (5) making it very plain to countries that would harbor and/or abet terrorism that we will make things difficult on them. The fewer places terrorists are welcome, the fewer there are likelier to be and (hopefully) the easier it will be to find them.

How scared would you be, if you were a terrorist and now the country you hate is bombing your brothers and sisters in their homes?

If you're already a terrorist, it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference, would it -- you're already a terrorist. You've already acted or conspired to act against the West and you hate us already. If we can scare you, great; if we can't then see items (1) - (5) above. Or else we could do nothing, which we tried for more than a decade and you still hated and attacked us.

Then again, if your brothers and sisters are also terrorists, and they're being "bombed in their homes" (to continue the hystrionic level of discourse here) then it is effective policy in that they're dead, whether you're "scared" or not. And if they're "innocent" well, you brought it on them with your terrorism, and it's doubtful you feel guilt about that to the extent you recognize or would even consider taking responsiblity for the consequences of your actions.

This blameAmericaFirstLastandAlways fascination with a fiction that we and our allies are magically only or predominantly killing "innocents" is pathetic. But hey, you seem to have fallen for it, and you're not alone in that. PT Barnum was wayyy off; he'd never encountered modern Liberal anti-war "arguments" I guess.

At the end of the day, I don't care about killing them, or how many we've got to kill; if they are or want to be a threat to me or my countrymen, directly or indirectly, or to the peace and stability of a country, a region or the world, kill 'em. All of 'em. Unintended deaths of foreign "innocents" abroad vs. intentional killings of allied innocents here or abroad is a tough, stoic calculus, but I'll err on the first side of the ledger to minimize the second.

There's no snarky comment or dismissive label in the leftist arsenal (I can't believe I just typed that -- "leftist arsenal" hee hee) that can make me ashamed of saying that.

JP

PS -- I agree with the props to Z-Man, though. Sic 'em Zoltan!!!

If a Leftist had an arsenal he would be a Repblican...

Super... I understand why the Jihaddys hate us.....we don't have clean hands, and in truth we are not responsible for the whole mess..it takes 2 to Tango...yet understnding their pain does me no good, they for whatever reason are out to kill me...I have to defend me and mine....

I am a strong believer that if you know how the enemy thinks you can use that against them....it's just good business...

And that is one of the things I dislike about the Neocon's Foreign Policy they don't take the time to understand things and work off their own preconceived notions..sometimes to their detriment....

I find the Conseratives don't work both sides of the equation to correct their own thinking...remember in math you were taught to work the equation backwards to correct your own work.

Tabs, the neocons toolbox is the US military as the first and only way to deal with arabs. Bill Krystel of the weekly standard wrote the NPAC doc begging for American to be attack. Oh, he got lucky! I'm sure he and RUMsfield were so glad everything worked according to plan.

Good example, I forget about stuff like that................all the hours spent on math. Wasted.:D

Tabs, you make sense sometimes. Intelligence is one of the good reasons for "diplomacy" (which means coddling terrorists only when neocons are interpreting this as a suggestion by liberals).

Golly Slacker. Well, I guess I should just write this stuff off as the "tone" of the OT board. I suggested that the two potential goals are:

1) Scaring
2) Killing

And you mention just one more, not several. The new one is the idea that we take away their means of violence. Their means of violence can be replaced, so I'm not sure this is a serious goal. And besides, I'm asking. I am. What do we intend to do? This whole Iraq/Saddam/terrorist/AlQueda/BinLaden/terrorist/Saddam/Iraq thing has got a tone of hysterics to it, and I'd like to reduce it to a rational, strategic discussion. So, let's look at your other remarks:

"Now maybe intimidating the existing terrorist is something we are doing, but, willfully or not, you've omitted other elements of what we actually are doing, including

(1) dissuading (not "scaring") some would-be terrorists from taking up arms as they know there is now a terrible price to pay;

How does this differ from “scaring?”

(2) destroying means to attack us

Again, unsustainable in the long or even intermediate run, and probably the short run as well;

(3) providing a forum in which we're right there, ready to be attacked (and to able to better defend ourselves)

How does this differ from scaring/intimidating?;

(4) seizing assets that were otherwise available to be used against us; and perhaps most importantly

(5) making it very plain to countries that would harbor and/or abet terrorism that we will make things difficult on them

So, “scaring,” right?.


One of the smartest things I have heard since the very beginning, is the tracking of financial resources. That seems like a fruitful endeavor, but off the topic of military action against Iraq. Tracking money is done by geeks.

Supe -

How are they different? Let me count the ways :D

Dissuading "would-be" terrorists is different from scaring actual terrorists. Don't take up the cause -- don't become a terrorist in the first place. We can do that by example, by providing alternate uses (some might call it "hope") for a better life, so a strong motivator to become a terrorist is lessened. That's different.

I disagree with the sustainability of destruction of means. Saddam's oil money was a means; his provision of support and weapons were means. I didn't say completely erasing all means, but making it harder and more expensive to wage a terrorist campaign makes it more difficult to be a terrorist. We've seized or destroyed a lot of armaments and materiel. One price of that is vigilance, no doubt. I think the marginal returns will increase over time, as funds/materiel become scarcer.

If we're there, and they attack us there, I don't think that's "scaring" alone -- though an element of it is intimidation, sure. I didn't read your piece as acknowledging efficacy in killing (if you meant that I just plain missed it). So this amounts to killing -- they attack us, we kill them... fewer terrorists. An ancillary benefit is that they're coming to us -- we don't have to go into Iran or Syria or wherever to find them. They seek us out in Iraq and Afghanistan b/c we're right there -- targets "easier" to find and easier to attack than having to bring the fight to the US.

As far as non-combat strategy, we've seized a lot of funds that could (I'd say probably would, but that's just MHO) go to funding terrorism. Not only don't they have the money to spend, but now we do (in some cases).

As far as the nations go, we're not "scaring" terrorists as much as we're letting the gov'ts know that they stand to lose quite a bit if they host/train/fund terrorists-- and they've got a lot to gain ($$$) if they stop. This is depriving terrorists of havens -- not really "scaring" them.

I'd read your post to mean, essentially, bombing doesn't deter terrorists by scaring them and it's what we "must be" up to (to the exclusion of other things)-- with that I disagree. Sounds like you and I aren't too far apart after all. Especially on the geek thing.

JP