"Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001...

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

-- over two years without an attack on American soil."

So read Our Great Leader from his TelePrompter. He makes it sound like prior to HIS "war on terror", there were terrorist attacks daily in cities across the country - car bombs in Boise, suicide attacks in Moline, anthrax in our air ducts, botulism in our Big Macs and ricin in our Rice Crispy supply…

:wtf: Other than the first bombing of the WTC back in 93, and obviously (or not) the events of 9/11 - what acts of terrorism has Al Queda or any other organization perpetrated against the United States?

This administration has gotten the majority of the U.S. citizens undies in such a bunch that people believe Al Queda is lurking just around the corner near the day care center waiting for recess so they can blow themselves up and take as many of the kiddies as they can - all praise to Allah!

Am I historically/politically/religiously ignorant or naive for believing that:

A. Acts of terror against in the U.S. are not historically common or everyday or to be expected,

B. "hatred of our freedom" (Al Queda's) as a reason for terrorism is a load of wet green stinky bull shit,

C. After 9/11, or more specifically after this admin. took over, we will reap what they (the neocons) have sown for us, and that we can expect real attacks for years to come - or that if Al Queda isn't cooperative, than "something" else will happen to keep domestic terrorism in the front of everyone's mind?

[NYC]

1. He also implied that 9/11 was not the last of the attacks.

I don't remember his exact words.

[politick]

37. "...it is tempting to believe

that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting and false."

is the quote from the speech.

i still cannot get over how that eerie grin comes over his face every time he mentions the war on terror.

[NYC]

40. Thanks for

the exact wording.

[BigDaddyLove]

2. Was not 9/11 enough for you?

with regard to a terrorist attack against the U.S.

Do you want another to PROVE that Bush and Friends aren't doing all they can do to fight 'terrorism'? Will you be happy when 3,000 more Americans lose their lives?

[einniv]

4. What?

Where did he say anything like that?

He is merely commenting on the "no attacks in 2 years" "line".
And it is a line. That was my first thought too.... Is it unusual for 2 years to go by without a terrorist attack? Answer... No.
So is this some kind of accomplishment? Answer... No.
The whole world is clearly a more dangerous place than it used to be and so that means we are less safe not more. Whether its terrorist attacks here, attacks in Iraq against our armed forces, (empty?) threats from North Korea or any other country that has decided that the only good plan against the "New America" is to stand tough and be bold.

[BigDaddyLove]

6. My point is that.........

for people to sit around and say "there's no threat of terrorism to America, it's just a bunch of fear mongering by the Bush administration" must have missed the 3,000 or so deaths that occurred on 9/11 as a direct result of said terrorism.

It also seems that some would prefer to have something else happen so that Bush looks bad on defense....much the same way people want the economy to tank so it reflects poorly on Bush.

When Rush and Co. accuse the left of being Anti-American, it doesn't take much to come to that conslusion with these sorts of attitudes being banded about.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

12. I am NOT one of those people

who "would prefer to have something else happen so that Bush looks bad on defense". I would prefer we all get along and play nice on playground earth. In the words of that miscreant philosopher, Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along". The answer, in MY opinion is NO - not as long as the U.S. tries to force it's ways on the rest of the world and maintains a "you're either with us, or fuck off" attitude.

[Buffler]

13. Get along

In the words of that miscreant philosopher, Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along". The answer, in MY opinion is NO - not as long as the U.S. tries to force it's ways on the rest of the world and maintains a "you're either with us, or fuck off" attitude.

I guess then prior to the existence of the United States everyone did get along?!?!

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

16. we're not talking about pre 1642 or pre 1776 U.S. history

It's the year 2004 and I beleive humans in general and American humans in particular have the capacity and the compassion to build strong peaceful relations with less fortunate countries withough giving them the WWF Smackdown treatment.

[BigDaddyLove]

18. You are right to believe that.........

but so to did every other 'empire' that ever existed prior to this one have those same capacities, though they weren't acted on much....America in 2004 in not unique.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

23. I'd like to think that America 2004

with it's current intellectual and technological potential is far removed from witch burning, bloodletting, native American-annihilating, earth-centered universe beliefs, etc. etc...

Just because, as you say, "America in 2004 is not unique" doesn't mean that with vision and compasionate leadership it can't be unique.

You almost sound like you're in favor of a U.S. empire building ;-)

[BigDaddyLove]

32. America in 2004 in not unique..........

because human nature is what it is.

[Old and In the Way]

31. We do not know the root cause of terror.

If you were President on 9/11......wouldn't a complete and open analysis/investigation of all facts and information leading up to and during the events be your #1 priority? Don't 3,000 innocent Americans deserve this justice? Instead, this administration has done everything to stuff, distract, and stonewall this public knowledge.

So, you're right, I don't feel to safe. No one is fired (in fact some of the key people have been promoted) or reprimanded. Why should I believe that another event is impossible? If there was gross incompetence or LIHOP, that'd be a capital offense, I think....so we ought to be damn scared that the suspects still have their oily hands on the levers of power in this country.

And what should be the threshhold for a complete, objective (ie not controlled by either political party) and open investigation? 3000 Americans dying apparently dosen't meet the threshhold. Is it 10,000? 50,000? 100,000?

We spent $70MM and 8 years investigating the last popularly elected President, finally impeaching him because he lied about sex....FBI assets, which might have been better focused on terrorists learning to fly in the US, were used by the RW to rundown their favorite smear of the President.

But we can't get a House investigation of 9/11 into why 3,000 Americans lost their lives that day?

Tell me again who's committing treason?

[BigDaddyLove]

38. Then you don't feel safe for your own reasons..........

one of those reasons seemingly being that since the administration is actively blocking an investigation into what happened, then something else could happen and they would be in effect letting it happen.

So if you hold a belief similar to the one above, then you probably fear that it could happen again. Most Americans fear that it could happen again, but for different reasons. Either way, most everyone fears that it could happen again, and I think that that fear is nothing to dismiss as paranoia, or as irrational.

[Old and In the Way]

41. True, but the trick here is to figure which fear is grounded in

reality and which is fabricated.

Vote Terorism, vote Democrat.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

11. Thank you.

That is what I meant. It just sounds like the signd outside construction sited that say "120 days without a serious injury". The world IS a more dangerous place, ESPECIALLY for americans here and abroad - but the tone of the current administration is that 2 years without an inevitable terrorist attack IS an accomplishment and that it is only because of the policies of the Bush* administration that we have been spared another horible event. Statistically speaking, I don't buy it.

[non sociopath skin]

50. All those laws...

All those curbs on freedom. And Bush says, in effect, that the US is no safer. So what exactly does he think he's achieved.

Listening to him I was unaccountably reminded of the old joke about the visitor to a psychiatric hospital who sees a guy wandering around clashing two garbage can lids together.

And he asks, "What you doing that for?"

And the guy says, "I'm keeping elephants away."

And the visitor says, "But the nearest elephant is thousands of miles away."

And the guy smiles (a little like Bush does) and says, "So it works, you see."

The Skin

[lovedems]

3. I have state this in posts before. The reason Al-Quead hates

America is for geo-political reasons. I read David Corn's book, "The Lies of George W. Bush" and according to him, the biggest lie * has told the American people is "they" hate freedom loving people. Corn said the real reason we are hated is because Al-Queda does not want us in the middle east. They do not want us in Saudi Arabia (or anywhere else for that matter). It is a problem that has a solution, not an easy one though. But, if the American people knew there was a solution to this problem, the administration suddenly has to address the issue and not continue his "nation building." To minimalize the reason we are hated, is the biggest lie of all.

That is just one persons response to B. of your post. I simplified the case that Corn made as well.

[BigDaddyLove]

5. Good answer........

but I just can't help but think that they 'hate' us just as much because of what American society (with it's grossly over-exaggerated secular) represents to them.....it is the antithesis of what they would like to see in a society.

[lovedems]

10. That is what the administration wants you to believe

That they don't like that women wear pants or skirts that show their legs (for example). According to Corn, OBL does not concern himself with the American way of life, he concerns himself with American occupation of middle eastern lands. Like I said above, this is simplified. Corn touches on it a great deal in his book and makes a better argument than I can in one or two posts.

But I believe Corn, OBL doesn't really give a shit what we do in America, he gives a shit about America does in other countries. He thinks we are desecrating holy muslim landmarks. Should Americans leave the middle east and let OBL run it the way he wants? Corn says of course not, OBL is a sick, twisted person. But he points out that with debate there should be viable solution and by the administration lying to us about why we are hated, takes the debate out of our hands. If we are hated because we love freedom, how can you debate that? Americans wont give up their freedom to win the war on terrorism!

[BigDaddyLove]

15. You do a good job of summing up Corn's.........

argument, and I agree with both you and Corn, only I just feel that there is more to this 'hatred' than America's presence in Middle Easten lands...though I accept that as the MAIN reason.

I just think that American society does tend to unnerve fundamentalist Muslims, in the same way that Saddam wasn't on Osama's dinner party list because he was viewed as a secular ruler in what the fundamentalists believe should be a more religious state.....just my opinion.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

14. It may be the antithesis of what radical Islam wants to see, but

then again we have our own radical Christians who have God's direct dial number who tell us Muslims are moon-worshiping devils and that God says GWB was made president by God to do God's work i.e. spread U.S. Christian beliefs and values in places where it may not, historically speaking, fit with the local culture (and oh yeah - grab some Christian-God-Created oil fields while we're at it).

ALSO: a certain "they" who hates us and our freedom started out as rich Saudi playboy with family ties to the current administration before hearing the word of Allah and to coercing others to hijack jets with the promise of passel of virgins in paradise. I doubt we'll ever see OBL strapping C4 around HIS waist and yelling "god is great" before detonating it in a crowd of "infidels"

[Cat Atomic]

17. Then why not attack Sweden, or Norway, or South Africa, or...

Their are plenty of countries with western culture that'd be a hell of alot easier for middle eastern terrorists to attack than the US.

[BigDaddyLove]

20. I guess because my idea of their revulsion to secular......

societies as one of their motivations is just one of many.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

26. I'd say a bigger reason

is that Sweden and Norway etc don't go marching into sovereign countries (admittedly run by asshole megalomaniacs) and bomb the shit out of them under the guise of protecting America from WMDs etc. and impose our values on them. Simplistic, yes. But America as the bully on the world playground is bound to piss off lots of people who may already be at odds with our secular society.

As an aside: If I or my people were living in a refugee camp and Israelis were bulldozing my house and cuting down my olive groves, I'd be righteously pissed at them and the the country that provides them the most support.

[BigDaddyLove]

34. I guess you have a point........

but I think the World Trade Centers were taken down prior to us unilaterally invading Iraq.

......and as I said there are many reasons that 'they' dislike 'us', and I was pointing out that our society could very well be one of them.

[Old and In the Way]

35. They hate us for our freedoms, but like us for our airplanes.

From the cooperativeresearch timeline:

1993 (B): Bin Laden buys a jet from the US military in Arizona (the Pentagon approved the transaction). This aircraft is later used to transport missiles from Pakistan that kill American special forces in Somalia. He also has some of his followers begin training as pilots in US flight schools. These initial flight trainings come to nothing when details are later revealed in a court case about Operation Bojinka (see January 6, 1995).

[BigDaddyLove]

36. Makes sense.........

The American military industrial complex doesn't ordinarily differentiate between good and bad customers (morally speaking), when it comes to making a sale.

[mike1963]

42. Those countries don't have the symbolic landmarks we do (or did, sorta)

flying a 767 into a field of tulips would probably attract somewhat less attention.
:eyes:
Oh, that'd be Netherlands, I guess...lessee um, Norway? Blast a fjord?

[stopbush]

7. Huh? What about the anthrax letters...and deaths? What about the DC

sniper shootings? Don't those qualify as "terror?"

Oh, right, those were domestic attackers. The BAD guys are all those foreign bogeymen, especially the dark-skinned ones...and the French...and the Germans...sort of.

I'm surprised bush didn't say this: "The WTC has not been attacked in 28 months."

[zbdent]

9. Well, at least he wasn't saying anything about eco-terrorists

(hey, sometimes you have to take what you can!)

Eco-terrorists were one of the first people Rush wanted rounded up. Guess Rush wanted to leave Florida and ride his snowmobile through the national forests and shoot at the deer.

Yeah, right.

[mike1963]

43. I want Rush to drive his snowmobile into the Everglades.

:evilgrin:

[ProfessorGAC]

8. "And We're Still On Yellow Alert!"

That's what he should have said. The idea that we should have expected more attacks in 28 months is silly. We've had about 6 attacks on U.S. soil fomented by foreign agents of one kind or another in the last 50+ years. So, that's only one every 8.5 years.

Between the first WTC bombing and Sept 11, there were, well what do you know, about 8.5 years.

Uh, Li'l Georgie. That's more than 28 months! So, there's nothing exceptional about going 28 months without a terror attack. Stupid!
The Professor

[Old and In the Way]

19. We spend $400BB a year on Defense

(1) We can't protect Washington DC from attack 52 minutes after the 2nd plane hits the WTC?

(2) We can't eradicate 1500-2000 of the zealots who make up Al-Qaeda?

Does anyone else notice that since the end of the Cold War, there is no other legally recognized nation that threatens the US? So of course we have to create an "enemy" to justify the Defense Budget.

No doubt there are kooky criminals in the world, but we've had acts of terror since the 70s. We didn't need a Department of Homeland Security then...why now?

If we are really serious about fighting terror, we need to vote Democrat and take back our government. Then let's do a real investigation on:

(1) The Anthrax perps
(2) The Stock Market shorters
(3) What this administration knew on events leading up to 9/11.

As long as the Republican Party is dominated by people who are making obscene profits on oil, we'll be exposed to acts of terror....problem is we won't know who the instigaters are.

Anyone know where I can get a pack of Al Qaeda playing cards? It would be nice to know just who the players are in this "War on Terror"?

[Bridget Burke]

21. So we should just "get over" 9/11....

Since the Bush gang hasn't allowed another attack on US soil since then.

Hey, everybody ought to be allowed ONE mistake! And knock off that investigation, please....

[underpants]

22. When was the last attack BEFORE 9/11/01?

The Olympic park bombing in Atlanta?

Well that wasn't really "major" now was it?

April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City? That was major but that was one of our own (fucking rat bastard)

February 26, 1993? The first WTC attack.

So there was an 8 year gap, what is so great about 28 months? Did we occupy another country over any of those?

[jreedgt]

24. There were other attacks

Just for the misinformed on this board, this is what Al-Quida is known to, admitted, or suspected of doing:

In 2002, carried out bombing on 28 November of hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killing 15 and injuring 40. Probably supported a nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia, on 12 October that killed about 180. Responsible for an attack on US military personnel in Kuwait, on 8 October, that killed one US soldier and injured another. Directed a suicide attack on the MV Limburg off the coast of Yemen, on 6 October that killed one and injured four. Carried out a firebombing of a synagogue in Tunisia on 11 April that killed 19 and injured 22. On 11 September 2001, 19 al-Qaida suicide attackers hijacked and crashed four US commercial jets, two into the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the Pentagon near Washington, DC, and a fourth into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, leaving about 3,000 individuals dead or missing. Directed the 12 October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 US Navy members, and injuring another 39. Conducted the bombings in August 1998 of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others. Claims to have shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia in 1993 and to have conducted three bombings that targeted US troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992.

Al-Qaida is linked to the following plans that were disrupted or not carried out: to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila in late 1994, to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines in early 1995, to bomb in midair a dozen US trans-Pacific flights in 1995, and to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. Also plotted to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations in late 1999. (Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial.) In December 2001, suspected al-Qaida associate Richard Colvin Reid attempted to ignite a shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight from Paris to Miami. Attempted to shoot down an Israeli chartered plane with a surface-to-air missile as it departed the Mombasa airport in November 2002.

[Bridget Burke]

25. Please explain, then....

Why the largest attack on American soil--in fact, the one that killed more than any of the other "successes"--is something Bush continually cites?

I would think he should be ashamed to remind us.

[latebloomer]

29. Because he wants us to be continually afraid

so he can continue waging war and destroying our civil liberties.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

48. So, where's Osama?

The Afghanis offered to give him up if we could provide proof of his involvement in 9/11. None was offered & Afghanistan was invaded, giving him ample opportunity to escape through Pakistan--if, indeed, he was still alive. Now the Taliban is regaining power & Americans are still being killed in Afghanistan.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The reason for the war was "WMD" which have not shown up. Then, it was "teaching the Iraqi's democracy"; we may be forced, finally, to permit elections. The world knows that the the illegal invasion of Iraq was a neo-colonial power grab. And Americans are still being killed there. (Obviously, you don't care about all the other people killed in Afghanistan & Iraq.)

If Bush really cared about what happened 9/11, he & his cronies would not have delayed the investigation, limited its resources, & avoided supplying it with information. At the very least, that crime was allowed to occur through their criminal negligence. Yet they continue to use it as an excuse for whatever they want to do. How convenient.

[SpiralHawk]

53. Wait, wait, wait a minute. How do we know Osama is guilty

or complicit?

Has the Bush administration ever presented any evidence to us that bin Laden was involved?

And has bin Laden ever claimed responsibility or direct involvement?

I think the answer to both questions is no. If in fact there is evidence of his involvement, or even some kind of acknowledgement from him, then fine -- the US is justified in going after him.

But where's the evidence? Why is the Bush Administration stonewalling all investigations into 9/11?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

54. Okay, then...

Osama's main beef with the US is that we had our troops on his holy soil: Saudia Arabia.
If we're supposed to not back down to terrorists, then why did Bush pull all our troops from Saudia Arabia? We gave Bin Laden exactly what he wanted! If Osama was so damn important, then why did Bush attack someone thousands of miles away who nad no connections to Bin Laden?

Bush's bring up 9/11 is nothing but politcal flag-waving and jingoistic cheerleading so he can get elected on a policy of lies and blood and dead American soldiers.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

27. And so all of this just begs the question:

WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING IN IRAQ since not one thing you mention is related to Sadam, and why aren't we going after the REAL terrorists: Osama and AlQueda ?

[never cry wolf]

39. Yeah, too bad we had all our intelligence resources

pointed at Sadaam in 2002, maybe we could have prevented some of this.

[Old and In the Way]

28. Did you ever wonder?

Why we know Al-Qaeda did all these bombings, but no one seems to know who AL Qaeda is? I mean, except for UBL/OBL, we have a very amgiguous understanding of who makes up this band of terrorists. I wonder why that's the case?

What ever happened to that Pakistani ISI General who delivered $100,000 to Atta?

Why'd we let the bin Laden relatives and other very rich Saudi's hope on planes without questioning right after 9/11?

Why is James Baker leading the defense of Saudi Arabia in a billion dollar lawsuit brought by the families of 9/11 victims?

Why did the US Government open an air corridor to planeloads of Pakistani/Al Qaeda fighters before commencing to bomb mountains in Afghanistan? (As an aside, I wonder if that ended up to be groundwork preperation for a pipeline?)

And whatever happened to "draining the swamp"? I recall GWB was going after the financial sources of Al Qaeda. Why'd he take a left hand turn and go after Iraq? Did Poppy sit him down and explain the facts of life to him?

Seems to me there are 2 groups today that are benefiting enormously from the "War on Terror"....Al Qaeda(The Base) and the RNC. Sorta like one a mutually co-enabling couple.

[skypilot]

30. Someone posted a few weeks ago...

...that (if I understood correctly) there really is no terrorist group known as Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is actually the name of a terrorists training ground. In fact, al Qaeda translates as the Base. If I understand, al Qaeda is just a kind of generic, catch-all term for various terrorists groups. I've probably oversimplified it a bit but that is my understanding and recollection of that post.

[Old and In the Way]

33. Oddly, Republicans refer to their core constituency as "The Base", too.

Or is it odd?

I know one thing. Vote in a Democratic President and Congress and the "War on Terror" will be over in 6 months. And I think we'll be mighty surprised about what we learn along the way.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

44. I'm more worried I'll be hit by a SUV

driving to the grocery than have a encounter with a terrorist. The odds don't warrant the current hysteria the Bush criminal gang is generating.

[FDRrocks]

46. 1812

was the last succesful foreign attack on the main land of the US, according to Chomsky in 9/11.

[Bridget Burke]

49. 1916!

"In the early morning darkness of March 9, 1916, guerrillas of the Mexican Revolution under General Francisco 'Pancho' Villa attacked the small New Mexico border town and military camp at Columbus -- the site of what is now Pancho Villa State Park.

"As the sun rose on the morning of March 9, 1916, the center of Columbus, New Mexico was a smoking ruin. Word of Pancho Villa's attack on the town flashed by telegraph, making newspaper headlines throughout the nation. Camp Furlong, the Columbus military outpost, seethed with activity as fresh troops arrived by train and the U.S. Army prepared to pursue Villa into Mexico."

www.nmt.edu/~breynold/pancho.html

Pershing never found him.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

47. THREAD KILLER

This is my first post to generate any real discussion. WOO HOOOO!!

And now - it is time for this thread to DIE at my own hands.

[laruemtt]

51. it sounded like a threat

coming out of *'s mouth

[hippyleftist]

52. you mean it's 28 months since bush* MIHOP

[newyawker99]

55. Hi hippyleftist!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: