Those who say the war on terror isn't working

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Mar 12, 2004.

  1. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    561
    I now thier are a few out there who think the war on terror isn't working or
    has been put on the sidelines, I challange you to make your point.

    I think the train explosions in Madrid, Spain is proof enough that, that its the
    best Al Quaida can do.
    I will bet all my money Al Quaida is behind this, in the news they aren't saying its Al Quaida yet but I know it is.

    I just heard a little more about the train explosion in Spain.
    Did you know that is was done on the 11th of March and that was exactly 911 days after 9-11-01?
    They just said it on the news.....
    Also 3 explosions at once is another trait of Al Quaida.

    Any comments?
     
  2. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,386
    Likes Received:
    19
    I'm hearing today that a splinter cell of Al Quaeda has taken credit for the bombings.
     
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    I don't think the war on terror is working. Major terror is still happening (see Spain). Osama Bin Ladin is still operating and he's hiding in Pakistan. So where is our army? Bogged down in an Iraqi quaqmire, not hunting Bin Ladin in Pakistan.

    The anthrax terrorist has never been caught. No one has been prosecuted for 9/11.

    The war on terror is a joke. What exactly is working?
     
  4. CalcoTiger

    CalcoTiger Live Long and Prosper IVI

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    Messages:
    4,111
    Likes Received:
    1,877
    war on terror

    This is a war that will never ever be over. There will always be crazy people who think that this solves something.

    What kind of person does it take to commit these kinds of acts.

    People with no regard for human life and as long as Arabs and Jews hate each other and America thinks it can solve that problem there will be terroists.

    As long as people of any nation are taught hate against others it will be this way.

    America and the Soviet Union almost brought the world to Nuclear War because of fear and hate.

    What makes us think that we can solve this kind of problem when it has been around since the beginning of time.

    All we can do is try to stop as many as we can and do everything we can to stop them. But ultimately the terroist will succed sometimes and innocent people will die.

    Look at Timothy Mcvey. What kind of sick person could bomb a building where their was a daycare center with small children.

    We need to go back and rethink the way we deal with other nations. Throwing money at other countries is not the solution.

    Thats my 2 cents.

    Geaux Tigers
     
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934

    well, there has not been another attack on america, that is far and away the most important thing.
     
  6. phatcat

    phatcat Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, and how many terrorist attacks occurred here before that?

    By your logic, Bush and company screwed up our perfect home record.

    I guess you're right, it's time to fire the coach... :wink:
     
  7. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    561
    By your logic, how many more terrorist attacks do you want and how many people have to die?

    I'm sure you would rather have everything like it was before Sept 11.

    no airport security and no war on terror
     
  8. Vincent4Heisman

    Vincent4Heisman Freshman

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    3

    And by your logic the democratics allowed two attacks during their reign. One in '93 and one in 2000. The 1st World Trade Center and the USS Cole.

    If they (the administration) had done their jobs the right way instead of banging chicks in the Oval Office, maybe the attacks of 3 years ago wouldn't have happened... I don't know...

    You can't possibly turn this around and put the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders. If you try to, you are a bigger idiot than any of us have ever thought.
     
  9. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    what the hell are you talking about? 9/11 wasnt even the first terrorist attack on world trade. incredible, inexcusable ignorance.
     
  10. Macphisto

    Macphisto Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    11
    A month before Clinton left office, his administration was praised by two former Reagan counterterrorism officials. "Overall, I give them very high marks," said Robert Oakley, Reagan's Ambassador for Counterterrorism in the SD. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger." Paul Bremer, civie administrator in Iraq, said Clinton "correctly focused on bin Laden". Reagan lost more Americans in terror attacks than Bush I and Clinton combined, and his only response was the Libya bombing run in 1986.

    Thirty-eight days into Clinton's first term, and we get the first WTC bombing. So what did Clinton do? Well, those responsible (Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah) were all captured, tried, convicted, and currently sit behind bars in federal prison. And why did the plots to kill the Pope and blow up 12 US jetliners at once, attack the UN, FBI, and Israeli embassy in DC, the LA and Boston airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and the George Washington Bridge fail? Because Clinton was so soft on terror?

    Clinton tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI, and doubled counterterrorism funding overall. And created a top level national security post to coordinate all federal counterterrorism activity.

    His first crime bill contained stringent antiterrorism legislation, as did his second (which failed because House and Senate Republicans said it was a threat to civil liberties :grin: ). His administration sponsered a series of simulations to see how state, local, and federal officials should coordinate responses to terrorist strikes. He created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines.

    "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" the Washington Post's Barton Gellman said. Clinton's was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

    Clinton also signed an exectutive order authorizing the assasination of Osama bin Laden.

    After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, Clinton charged Richard Clarke to: "break up al Quaeda cells and arrest their personnel; systematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities; freeze its assets; stop its funding through fake charities; give aid to governments having trouble with al Quaeda (Uzbekistan, the Phillipenes, and Yemen); and, most significantly, scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the training camps and reach bin Laden himself. Clarke proposed supporting the Northern Alliance and putting special forces on the ground in Afghanistan. (from the 8/12/02 Time Magazine)"

    Sound familiar? A senior Bush administration official told Time Magazine that Clarke's plan ammounted to "everything we've done since 9/11." But it never went through, as the transitional Bush team ignored it.

    If anyone here was hurting Clinton's efforts against terrorism, its the Republicans on Capital Hill who spend $70 million investigating his penis (only to find out Newt Gingrich himself was porking a staffer while on his second wife).
     

Share This Page