BUSH: Why I CAN'T see voting for him.

[Peca277]

[ QUOTE ]
Unbelievable post.

Here's a few for ya:

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing

1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania

2000 USS Cole Bombing

All are thought to be connected to al Qaeda in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your quote is also a little unbelievable. I was speaking, although did not express it effectively, that there had not been an attack on US soil.

Terrorism by definition must be carried out against non-combatant targets. Khobar towers housed US Air Force personnel (legitimate military target), USS Cole (legitimate military target). The embassy bombings you could say were US soil, but US soil in Africa.

While I am not condoning these attacks committed by murderers, most likely Al-Qaeda, bringing military targets into the equation changes things. In that case, you need to count the numerous roadside bombs, beheadings, and insurgent attacks in Iraq as terrorist attacks. That would mean that yes, Clinton did not keep us safe from terrorists after 1993 WTC bombing, but also that Bush has not kept us safe from terrorists after 9/11.

[adios]

IMO you're being disingenuous. Your contention is that Clinton effectively countered terrorism and the facts just don't indicate that in the least. We can go into a debate on whether or not and when U.S. military personel are legitimate targets for terrorists (I say never, you say always) but the fact is that Clinton basically did very little in respose to all of these terrorist attacks including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers. Bin Laden was offered on a silver platter to Clinton but Clinton passed. Your position apparently is that none of these incidents could have possibly lead to 9/11 and I say that position is totally wrong and totally ignorant. If Clinton was so effective in countering terrorism then you must believe that the U.S. military action under Bush in Afghanistan in removing the Taliban and the al Qaeda terrorist training camps was an insignificant event.

[Utah]

I'll give you two:

1) My taxes went down

2) We finally pulled our head out of our ass and we started taking the fight to the terrorists

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism by definition must be carried out against non-combatant targets. Khobar towers housed US Air Force personnel (legitimate military target), USS Cole (legitimate military target). The embassy bombings you could say were US soil, but US soil in Africa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure exactly why but I think you may be oversimplifying a bit here.

If Timothy McVeigh had instead blown up some US military barracks thereby killing several hundred people, could that not still be considered terrorism?

[Peca277]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you're being disingenuous. Your contention is that Clinton effectively countered terrorism and the facts just don't indicate that in the least. We can go into a debate on whether or not and when U.S. military personel are legitimate targets for terrorists (I say never, you say always) but the fact is that Clinton basically did very little in respose to all of these terrorist attacks including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers. Bin Laden was offered on a silver platter to Clinton but Clinton passed. Your position apparently is that none of these incidents could have possibly lead to 9/11 and I say that position is totally wrong and totally ignorant. If Clinton was so effective in countering terrorism then you must believe that the U.S. military action under Bush in Afghanistan in removing the Taliban and the al Qaeda terrorist training camps was an insignificant event.

[/ QUOTE ]

My opinion isn't so much pro-Clinton as it is anti-Bush. I do not feel we are any safer from terrorism today than we were during the 90s. As has already been mentioned earlier, Clinton's staff warned Bush of Al-Qaeda and nothing was done until after 9/11 occurred.

With regards to the definiition of terrorism, I was referring to the academically accepted and standard definition. I do NOT think that a terrorist group's attacks are acceptable... but they are not technically "terrorism." That does not mean we shouldn't hunt down and kill the perpetrators.

I will agree with you that Bush going into Afghanistan was warranted, and he deserves praise for his actions. However, I think we would most likely disagree with what happens next. Going into Iraq diverted necessary troops away from the war on terror, and instead created a breeding ground FOR terrorism. There has been no evidence that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists... but now Iraq is chock full of them. To believe otherwise is a totally ignorant opinion (just using your words).

The war on terror is necessary, we just need someone who knows how to manage it better.

[Peca277]

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure exactly why but I think you may be oversimplifying a bit here.

If Timothy McVeigh had instead blown up some US military barracks thereby killing several hundred people, could that not still be considered terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

By the academic standard definition of terrorism, it would not. That being said, it does not by any means change the fact that he murdered 168 people. It's really all semantics. I was just trying to show that techincally what Adios was describing as terrorist attacks during Clinton's reign could be considered not "terrorism". To the American people, it's terrorism, to academics it's a legitimate military target. I definitely agree it is still very wrong.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
2) We finally pulled our head out of our ass and we started taking the fight to the terrorists

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly correct.

The fight against Islamic terrorism cannot be won by employing purely defensive means.

The starry-eyed folk who think that if we just don't do anything to piss them off, they will leave us alone, simply do not understand Islamic terrorism.

[Cyrus]

"I'll give you two [reasons to vote for Bush] :

1) My taxes went down..."

Can't contest that. (Same tax accountant I trust, as last year?... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

"2) We finally pulled our head out of our ass and we started taking the fight to the terrorists."

Hold it! There was no terrorism coming out of Baghdad. If you wanna claim that "one of Israel's enemies has been taken out, so therefore we should all rejoice", I could not contest that either!

But terrorists??! Nah.

If anything, here's what a British think tank had to say (in case you missed that link) : British think tank assesses Iraq war as "good for terrorists"

...That's one down. Now, about those taxes, can we talk deficits? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion isn't so much pro-Clinton as it is anti-Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that's why I stated you were being disingenuous. To view Bush without viewing events in prior administrations is disingenuous in my mind.

[ QUOTE ]
do not feel we are any safer from terrorism today than we were during the 90s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do.

[ QUOTE ]
As has already been mentioned earlier, Clinton's staff warned Bush of Al-Qaeda and nothing was done until after 9/11 occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given Clinton's responses to terrorism including refusing to accept Bin Laden when he's handed over on a silver platter, it's not that surprising to me that an 8 month old administration wouldn't view any purported warnings as that reliable or urgent. If it wasn't an urgency to Clinton why should Bush all of a sudden take on a sense of urgency. Changeing long standing U.S. policy radically is not easy.

[ QUOTE ]
With regards to the definiition of terrorism, I was referring to the academically accepted and standard definition. I do NOT think that a terrorist group's attacks are acceptable... but they are not technically "terrorism." That does not mean we shouldn't hunt down and kill the perpetrators.

[/ QUOTE ]

My take is that you offer it only to try and win an argument in lieu of acknowledging another viewpoint.


[ QUOTE ]
I will agree with you that Bush going into Afghanistan was warranted, and he deserves praise for his actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something Clinton didn't do but should have.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we would most likely disagree with what happens next. Going into Iraq diverted necessary troops away from the war on terror, and instead created a breeding ground FOR terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right I don't agree at all but that's not what you posted originally.

[ QUOTE ]
There has been no evidence that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists... but now Iraq is chock full of them. To believe otherwise is a totally ignorant opinion (just using your words).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I could point to many incidents where Hussein did "harbor" terrorists and there's no proof that the terrorist did not exist before hand. But you're very far from your original post which I find typical of the ABB faction, make some ridiculous assertion and when called on it change the subject. In this case it changed from Clinton effectively countering terrorism to why I believe the war in Iraq is wrong.

Saddam's Terror Ties

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just trying to show that techincally what Adios was describing as terrorist attacks during Clinton's reign could be considered not "terrorism". To the American people, it's terrorism, to academics it's a legitimate military target. I definitely agree it is still very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


I still don't think it is as simple as you are making it out to be.

According to your definition, had McVeigh attacked a military barracks, it would not be "terrorism" under the academic definition because that barracks would have represented a "legitimate" military target.

But would that have been a legitimate military target? McVeigh still would have been making the attack purely for political reasons, in order to make a political point. Similarly, the attacks by al-Qaeda on the Khobar Towers and USS Cole were not made for military purposes but rather for the express purpose of drawing attention to a political point. Also, all of the abovementioned attacks and McVeigh's actual attack involved killing people solely in order to make that political point.

The distinction I'm making here is that a military installation might be attacked either for: 1) military purposes or, 2) to make a political point. I think the phrase "legitimate military target" somewhat presumes the existence of some military goal. I don't think it can be said that either McVeigh or al-Qaeda had in those instances a military goal; rather their purposes were purely political (and their means was to kill as many people as possible in order to emphasize their political point).