Any figures to back that up?

Sometimes I wonder if anyone on the 'right' has access to search engines.

This search took 0.0013 seconds.

Top result:

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

Don't make assumptions, tech. :rolleyes:

OK, so we've proven that terrorist attacks have been on the rise since 9/11. None have been on US soil. I agree with CoolChick and the others that you have a greater chance of dying stepping out of your front door than in a terrorist attack. IMHO, this is because of the vigilance of the people protecting our homeland.

So libs, who or what in your mind is protecting our homeland from these attacks? Still haven't heard a plausable answer other than "Nobody wants to attack us", which Techweenie just proved to be a very weak argument.

Mary Kay commandos?

Seriously, fark the party lines and back slapping. The world is becoming a much more dangerous place for everyone. This is not GWBs fault or Clinton's fault. The sad fact is that there are people that wish harm on other people. Always have, always will. The problem is how to keep deadly weapons including WMDs, and the means to deploy them, out of their hands. This isn't the 1900's anymore. We can't just pretend these people don't exist or that they are not motivated enough to pull the ****e off.

Imagine yourself as POTS, what means are you willing to employ in attempt to avoid a major event occuring in one our cities?

So yes cool chick, you are correct that some of this smacks of hysteria, but don't write it off completely. Today we might be safe, and commuting on the I-5 the most dangerous threat to my safety, but that does not minimize the terrorist threat which I believe to be very real. The harder we work this now the better cause it won't be getting any easier.

The libs don't have an answer for this one.

The most obvious answer would be that our military and our government have taken measures to protect us and those measures are working. Unfortunately this explanation would force the libs to say that Bush actually did something right, which would cause their heads to spin around like in the Exorcist.

The idea of a 4 year cycle being the cause is not supported by the facts. It's not like al Qaeda is the Dunkin' Donuts man..."Whoops, four years is up...time to blow something up."

In fact, as Tech posted, there have been multiple terrorist attacks throughout the world. Spain and England have both had major attacks on their soil during the "4 year cycle". Do you really think the terrorists would rather kill Spaniards than Americans??

Last point. If someone was on this BBS talking about two airplanes flying into the WTC and one into the Pentagon killing thousands, would that have been called hysterical pre-9/11?? Yes, it would.

The thought that talking about preventing further terror attacks is hysterical is the kind of thinking that left us so vulnerable to 9/11 in the first place. I say it again, it is not a matter of "if" we will get hit again, but "when".

dmool:

"harder to work on.., etc." you say?

How about actually addressing some issues here for a change:

1. close these damn borders
2. start analyzing and addressing root causes...

etc. i'm in a hurry i'll try to add more later.....

no damn terrorist is going to be stupid enough to lay out their plans on the phone. how about adopting some effective solutions for a change....???


Although I have to admit, I did like the Pakistan issue....but that in itself isn't effective alone.....

So Bush, who has started a war thousands of miles from home against a country they had no plausible hand in the 9/11 attacks - has tied our military up to the point that we can not fight another major battle and our supply of willing / able soldiers has fallen low enough that the military must offer $90,000 sign on bonus to get more people to sign up while leaving our borders WIDE open, and decided it perfectly legal to spy on thousands of AMERICANS has made us safer.......

Seems to me he has left to gates open and made sure we can't do a damn thing about it if push comes to shove.

To think I voted for him once.

I voted for Nixon, once. :(

I too think we'll probably be hit again. I too thank the military, the government and it's covert agents for helping to keep us safe.

But though I believe we need to protect ourselves, I still think the current administration is a bit over-the-top about the whole thing - sort of like the Wall Stree blast of 1920 - anarchists, espionage/sedition acts, Wilson and the Palmer raids.

1920's was supposed to be about the triumph of the Reds. Became the triumph of the consumer capitalism. Did Wilson/Palmer/J. Edgar Hoover protect us? Yes. Were they also exaggerating the level of the threat to consolidate power? Yes.

Nothing seems to have changed......but why should it?

Unstable times ALWAYS occur after a large "sea change" in the world. Look at the wars against Napoleon and the Revolutions of 1830. Look at WWI and the Red Scare. Look at WWII and the McCarthy/United Nations/NATO era.

We were pre-destined to have a period of challenge after the fall of the Soviets. And, lo and behold, here we have it. We must fight it. But it too shall pass......

Let the govenrment do it's job. They keep us safe. But don't let them go too far: only the military can win the battles, but only our freedoms can win the longer war - they're the lure that will eventually pacify the rest of the world.....

Agorophobia.:cool:

Not really. If someone can show that any additional measures that the Bush admin have implemented indeed have thwarted attempts that would not have been caught without those new measures, then yes, he did do something right.

What an incredibly clearheaded statement.


What the $*%(%*# are you doing on the OT Board???

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

CC, Can you please check some on the internet before posting things like the above again?

1. Totally agree with closing the borders
2. As well need to look at the root causes
3. Just where in the world do you get this drivel about the cell phones?

The London blasts were done by 5 terrorists living in London and they used cell phones to stay in touch. In fact if they had not tracked his cell phone calls, the 5th terrorist who fled England to Italy might still be on the run, so this will not wash.

As well they used the CCTV in the city of London to identify the bombers and picked them all up with this and cell phone tracking. Even Bush is not advocating that.

Please get off of this "they would never use cell or sat phone" crap because they are still using them today. Even the terrorists caught in Sydney Australia had a load of cell phones that they were going to use for communication. You have made this statement several times and its time to stop and realize that they will continue using land line, cell and sat phones as well as internet and various other means of communication. Thats why the intel pukes are listening to them!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4181454.stm

Joe A

I find the relationship between no terrorist attacks and Bush's policies about as related as ozone depletion and global warming.

What ozone depletion?

I think this thread asks a very important question.

And after thinking about it for a bit, I have one possible answer:

That the 9/11 attacks created great sympathy for the US.

That everything the US has done subsequent to the invasion of Afghanistan has eroded that sympathy.

That there may be too much of a price for Jihadist Islamic causes to pay if there is another such attack on American soil -- in terms of support within and without the Muslim world.

We know a little about OBL and co. They are very media-savvy and politically astute. They were quick to claim 'victory' at the announcement of withdrawal of 7,000 troops. They look heroic "beating" the US military. They may feel that continued attacks on civilian targets are not good for their cause.

Tech, I must say your possible answer is perhaps the silliest thing I have read in long time. Everyone hates America, even our allies.

You don't really believe that there have been no attacks because they are concerned about their image? When you are beheading civilian captives and fomenting muslim vs muslim violence and mayhem, would you really think about how it will play on CNN?

I think it has become much more difficult for them to operate, due to the activities of our and other Nations' security measures. This is going to be much tougher for us in 20-30 years. Our allies will be less able to help, due to the aging of their populations, and our enemies will be better able to attack, due to the boom in their populations. This is not going to be any 4 or 8 year cycle, it will be a long haul. I only wish our elected "representatives" would pull their heads out and start doing their jobs instead of trying to make the right or left look bad.

I guess short term memory is rampant.

If you weren't paying attention at the time, the US had the sympathy of pretty much the entire world after 9/11.