Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Are we safer?
Author Message
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
Are we safer?
Barack Obama ends his stump speeches, when speaking of the bad war with .....“and it hasn’t made us safer.”

hmm, interesting statement given the history and facts.

Nice incomplete run down of the actual history going back to 1988 of America, American Citizens and American Interest being attacked, by John Hindricker

Are we safer?

Quote:Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.

October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.


not that historical facts and analysis matter in politics, paticularly with a national media that is irrational and a shill for Socialism in the US whose worldview is so warped they've fallen off the ledge since the late 60's.....
05-27-2008 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,458
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #2
RE: Are we safer?
GGniner Wrote:2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

RIGHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

That's the sort of revisionist history you find among only the most delusional of people.

Since there hasn't been ONE ATTACK on an American abroad... I'm sure you'd feel just fine, safe, and dandy heading over to Iraq unarmed and without body armor, and working as a contractor. Not in the green zone either ... in the streets. Guess the thousands of dead soldiers were killed by bird flu. Same story for civilian contractors and media members too.
05-27-2008 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
perunapower Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 655
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 10
I Root For: SMU
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Are we safer?
Add these to your list.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

And just because we're in a war in Iraq doesn't mean that those terrorist attacks should go uncounted in your totals.
05-27-2008 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,458
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #4
RE: Are we safer?
perunapower Wrote:Add these to your list.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

And just because we're in a war in Iraq doesn't mean that those terrorist attacks should go uncounted in your totals.

Quote:2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.

2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

la la la la la la la can't hear you la la la la George W Bush is the greatest President of all time la la la la la la la war until the end of time la la la la la la viva neoconservatism! la la la la la la la anybody who doesn't agree with me is socialist la la la la la la la
05-27-2008 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #5
RE: Are we safer?
Yes and time will tell if it will last...But I dont lke the price of that safety. It has pushed us into a police state that likely will surely grow..right along with the size of government. Republicans can no longer claim to be the party of small government.
05-27-2008 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Are we safer?
perunapower Wrote:Add these to your list.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

And just because we're in a war in Iraq doesn't mean that those terrorist attacks should go uncounted in your totals.

those aren't on civilian targets but in a war zone...a distinction made I beleive. a good bit different than say people going to work at the WTC site.

the plots thwarted are whats interesting as they get to the heart of the policies taken. the Brooklyn Bridge is one interesting story
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2008 12:04 PM by GGniner.)
05-27-2008 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Are we safer?
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:03-hissyfit

perhaps you didn't read again, from bolded part....

Quote:It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.


meanwhile, violence is at a 4-year low in the Bad War, while things are not going so good in the good war. wonder if the media/dems will start labeling Afghanistan a bad war now....
05-27-2008 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
perunapower Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 655
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 10
I Root For: SMU
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Are we safer?
GGniner Wrote:
perunapower Wrote:Add these to your list.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

And just because we're in a war in Iraq doesn't mean that those terrorist attacks should go uncounted in your totals.

those aren't on civilian targets but in a war zone...a distinction made I beleive.

the plots thwarted are whats interesting as they get to the heart of the policies taken. the Brooklyn Bridge is one interesting story

I was talking about abduction and murder of journalists, cameramen, and contractors. I was talking about attacks on the US Embassy in Baghdad by mortar fire and rockets (not that embassies are considered "civilian", but you included embassy attacks in your list).
05-27-2008 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Are we safer?
perunapower Wrote:
GGniner Wrote:
perunapower Wrote:Add these to your list.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

And just because we're in a war in Iraq doesn't mean that those terrorist attacks should go uncounted in your totals.

those aren't on civilian targets but in a war zone...a distinction made I beleive.

the plots thwarted are whats interesting as they get to the heart of the policies taken. the Brooklyn Bridge is one interesting story

I was talking about abduction and murder of journalists, cameramen, and contractors. I was talking about attacks on the US Embassy in Baghdad by mortar fire and rockets (not that embassies are considered "civilian", but you included embassy attacks in your list).

I understand, but its still a war zone. a good bit different than say NYC when workers/civilians go to work and get killed by Jihadist.

its a distinction obviously, and I wouldn't doubt it a bit if American Citizens have been killed in Israel by Hamas or Hezzbollah suicide bombers since 2002.

the larger point is all the terror plots that have been discovered and thwarted before they materialized inside the US.
05-27-2008 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
perunapower Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 655
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 10
I Root For: SMU
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Are we safer?
GGniner Wrote:I understand, but its still a war zone. a good bit different than say NYC when workers/civilians go to work and get killed by Jihadist.

its a distinction obviously, and I wouldn't doubt it a bit if American Citizens have been killed in Israel by Hamas or Hezzbollah suicide bombers since 2002.

the larger point is all the terror plots that have been discovered and thwarted before they materialized inside the US.

It shouldn't matter. Those are Americans going to work in Baghdad (and many other places) getting killed by jihadists and terror groups.

I should hope that the US has been able to discover and thwart terrorist attacks inside the US before they materialize. We shouldn't have needed a wake-up call like 9/11 to force different departments to communicate to thwart such attacks.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2008 12:15 PM by perunapower.)
05-27-2008 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,852
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3214
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11
RE: Are we safer?
perunapower Wrote:I should hope that the US has been able to discover and thwart terrorist attacks inside the US before they materialize. We shouldn't have needed a wake-up call like 9/11 to force different departments to communicate to thwart such attacks.

While communications are somewhat better, they are not yet where they need to be. A big part of the problem is that (going back at least to the Clinton administration, and quite likely further) this whole effort has been treated in a law enforcement context rather than a national defense context. If one agency has information that might be useful in prosecuting a terrorist, but disclosure of that information to another agency might somehow impair the ability to prosecute later (and there are all kinds of "constitutional" gotchas which can cause that problem), then the first agency will not disclose the information. Admittedly some of this is turf protection rather than actual legal compliance--if I disclose it to you, you might end up prosecuting instead of me, and I'd lose credit for it, so I'm not gonna tell you. The only really viable idea behind creating the Department of Homeland Security was the hope that it could cut through some of this. But when you start talking about kicking over bureaucrats' rice bowls, it's going to take something stronger than a cabinet-level agency.
05-27-2008 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


cb4029 Offline
The spoon that stirs the pot.
*

Posts: 18,793
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 353
I Root For: Deez Nuts
Location: B'ham

Donators
Post: #12
RE: Are we safer?
NO

Just like the war on drugs.(Neverending) Once this war is over, there will still be terrorist. Next question.05-stirthepot
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2008 02:12 PM by cb4029.)
05-27-2008 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Are we safer?
Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:
perunapower Wrote:I should hope that the US has been able to discover and thwart terrorist attacks inside the US before they materialize. We shouldn't have needed a wake-up call like 9/11 to force different departments to communicate to thwart such attacks.

While communications are somewhat better, they are not yet where they need to be. A big part of the problem is that (going back at least to the Clinton administration, and quite likely further) this whole effort has been treated in a law enforcement context rather than a national defense context. If one agency has information that might be useful in prosecuting a terrorist, but disclosure of that information to another agency might somehow impair the ability to prosecute later (and there are all kinds of "constitutional" gotchas which can cause that problem), then the first agency will not disclose the information. Admittedly some of this is turf protection rather than actual legal compliance--if I disclose it to you, you might end up prosecuting instead of me, and I'd lose credit for it, so I'm not gonna tell you. The only really viable idea behind creating the Department of Homeland Security was the hope that it could cut through some of this. But when you start talking about kicking over bureaucrats' rice bowls, it's going to take something stronger than a cabinet-level agency.


Moussoui who they caught before 9/11 and was in custody is the prime example that the "Gorelick wall" stopped the proper authorities from knowing about. Today with the new measures, 9/11 would potentially have been thwarted since he would've been thrown in Gitmo and interrogated.
05-27-2008 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,458
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #14
RE: Are we safer?
cb4029 Wrote:NO

Just like the war on drugs.(Neverending) Once this war is over, there will still be terrorist. Next question.05-stirthepot

WINNER.
05-27-2008 03:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,852
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3214
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #15
RE: Are we safer?
GGniner Wrote:Moussoui who they caught before 9/11 and was in custody is the prime example that the "Gorelick wall" stopped the proper authorities from knowing about. Today with the new measures, 9/11 would potentially have been thwarted since he would've been thrown in Gitmo and interrogated.

Yes, but we didn't need Gitmo--or the patRIOT act--to have stopped 9/11. I said at the time of GWB's first inauguration that if I were in his shoes, then during the course of my inauguration speech I would have signed executive orders removing the Gorelick wall, ending the policy from the Ford administration that removes assassination of a rogue ruler from our policy arsenal (not advocating that we actually kill anyone, not then and not today, but as Richard Nixon said, you can negotiate a lot more effectively when you don't take any options off the table unilaterally), requiring all federal purchases to be recycled goods whenever possible, and a few others that I don't recall at the moment.
05-27-2008 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #16
RE: Are we safer?
cb4029 Wrote:NO

Just like the war on drugs.(Neverending) Once this war is over, there will still be terrorist. Next question.05-stirthepot

Hey...I was supposed to say that!!!03-lmfao
05-27-2008 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Are we safer?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...=rss_world


Quote:U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.
05-29-2008 11:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #18
RE: Are we safer?
cb4029 Wrote:NO

Just like the war on drugs.(Neverending) Once this war is over, there will still be terrorist. Next question.05-stirthepot

There are lots of "next" questions:

What should we do, stop the war on drugs and terrorists?

Would you prefer that the terrorists don't need to worry about fighting battles on their own turf which will allow them to concentrate on attacking us here - - again???

Would you prefer that Obama enter into talks with the terrorists to find out why they hate us so much so we can change our way of life to accommodate them?

Do I need to continue?
05-30-2008 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jh Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:

Donators
Post: #19
RE: Are we safer?
smn1256 Wrote:Would you prefer that Obama enter into talks with the terrorists to find out why they hate us so much so we can change our way of life to accommodate them?

Now you are just being silly.
05-30-2008 08:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #20
RE: Are we safer?
smn1256 Wrote:
cb4029 Wrote:NO

Just like the war on drugs.(Neverending) Once this war is over, there will still be terrorist. Next question.05-stirthepot

There are lots of "next" questions:

What should we do, stop the war on drugs and terrorists?

Would you prefer that the terrorists don't need to worry about fighting battles on their own turf which will allow them to concentrate on attacking us here - - again???

Would you prefer that Obama enter into talks with the terrorists to find out why they hate us so much so we can change our way of life to accommodate them?

Do I need to continue?

Yes...to drugs..and I mean ALL drugs.
Yes...Leave their nations and mind our business.
Yes...Talking is not a act of weakness, rather it is a act of strength.
Every time we as a nation have declared one of these "wars" on something that is really not tangible....We fail.

Poverty...fail
Drugs......fail
Terrorism..fail
Crime......fail
teen pregnancy...fail
poor education...fail
gang violence...fail
illegal aliens...fail

Do I need to continue?

Of course.. as I preach constantly....All of these things can be solved without force by the free market....Government is just a failure at about everything its trys to accomplish...except growing bigger and more powerful...step by step.05-stirthepot
05-30-2008 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.