Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I can think of one other indivdual who used this technique of command. I mean hell, *I* use that technique at work now and then.
....too much over-the-top inunendo. If Bush is doing a "horrible" job on terrorism how could you tell?
FYI, innuendo can't be over the top.
As for the second question: um, read the paper? Look at highly coordinated terrorist attacks all over the globe? Look at highly coordinated terrorist attacks at American targets in Iraq?
Bush's two top advisors on terrorism leading up to 9.11 are now trying to get him out of office.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
If Bush is doing a "horrible" job on terrorism how could you tell?
Because the bush invaded Iraq and because large-scale terrorism is still very much alive and well (see: madrid). Not to mention that the top of al-qaeda is still unaccounted for.
You lost me..........there were sporadic attacks overseas before nailing America on 9/11.......
Wow, you did get lost there: the measure of how well Bush is doing against "terrah" is the situation ONCE HE'D NOTICED IT WAS A PROBLEM. Hence, my comments about coordinated attacks.
....too much over-the-top inunendo. If Bush is doing a "horrible" job on terrorism how could you tell?
There's no way that you and I can tell if he is or is not. Diverting time and attention to dethrone a two-bit dictator instead of focusing on the prize--OBL the figure-head leader of Al Qua'ida is strong indication though. The actual proof will be in the pudding so to say.
Personally, I'm not focusing on the administrations fight on terror. Its simplistic to think that anyother man would have acted much differently than Bush has with regards to terror except I believe few other presidents would have attacked Iraq as a means of reducing the threat of Al Qua'ida.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I can think of one other indivdual who used this technique of command. I mean hell, *I* use that technique at work now and then.
Bush's two top advisors on terrorism leading up to 9.11 are now trying to get him out of office.
Because the bush invaded Iraq and because large-scale terrorism is still very much alive and well (see: madrid). Not to mention that the top of al-qaeda is still unaccounted for.
Then the Israelies are really, really bad at the terror game. There might be an index as to the cunning of the opponent here.
annnnnnndddd......anybody who wants to imply that 9/11 attacks were believable before they occured is not being honest. Maybe one person in a million thought the al-Queada was capable of what they did---complete paradigm shift.
Then the Israelies are really, really bad at the terror game.
Yes. They are. If Israel and England have taught us one thing, it is this: shooting at terrorists doesn't make them go away.
Quote:
annnnnnndddd......anybody who wants to imply that 9/11 attacks were believable before they occured is not being honest. Maybe one person in a million thought the al-Queada was capable of what they did---complete paradigm shift.
anybody who wants to imply that 9/11 attacks were believable before they occured is not being honest. Maybe one person in a million thought the al-Queada was capable of what they did---complete paradigm shift.
Personally, I'm not focusing on the administrations fight on terror. Its simplistic to think that anyother man would have acted much differently than Bush has with regards to terror except I believe few other presidents would have attacked Iraq as a means of reducing the threat of Al Qua'ida.
That part I agree with---the enormous breauracracy in place would probably push any president the way Bush went .
You lost me..........there were sporadic attacks overseas before nailing America on 9/11.......
you made the statement
Quote:
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
which, to me, implied that because we have not seen an attack on US soil or US goods by Al Qua'ida since 911 thus Bush is doing a good job. My question is if that is indeed the logic then how long does Al Qua'ida usually go between attacks anway. How do we know they are not waiting for some event such as a presidential election? We don't. We don't know if BushCo has forestalled any attacks or mitigated the danger of attacks.
Yes. They are. If Israel and England have taught us one thing, it is this: shooting at terrorists doesn't make them go away.
No. WTC 93, USS Cole, Kenya.
Your not being honest, 9/11 COMPLETELY SHOCKED America. Car bombs are nothing like flying a plane into the Pentagon. Powell was visably shaken on television.
which, to me, implied that because we have not seen an attack on US soil or US goods by Al Qua'ida since 911 thus Bush is doing a good job. My question is if that is indeed the logic then how long does Al Qua'ida usually go between attacks anway. How do we know they are not waiting for some event such as a presidential election? We don't. We don't know if BushCo has forestalled any attacks or mitigated the danger of attacks.
good question, but 2 1/2 years? It's ambigous, true---but then so is this thing with Bush's performance.
Your not being honest, 9/11 COMPLETELY SHOCKED America. Car bombs are nothing like flying a plane into the Pentagon. Powell was visably shaken on television.
Just admit I'm right so I can go back to work.
No, he has a point. Shooting wont make the bad men stop. The French learned that in Algeria. The Britsish have N.Irealand, The Russians had Afganastan, the Israelies have the palastinians, Spain has the Basque Seperatists... We have been shooting at terrorist since the term was first coined (during the French revolution). Socio-political changes are what make the bad men stop.
No, he has a point. Shooting wont make the bad men stop. The French learned that in Algeria. The Britsish have N.Irealand, The Russians had Afganastan, the Israelies have the palastinians, Spain has the Basque Seperatists... We have been shooting at terrorist since the term was first coined (during the French revolution). Socio-political changes are what make the bad men stop.
shooting them---that's pretty problematic. I think the problem with that (although it throws you back to the "kill 'em all" option) is this underlying theme that America is a Great Evil force that exports porn, homosexuality, feminism, colonialism, etc. I don't think that if we abandoned the mideast that the harrasment would stop. Maybe the physical colonialism would end, but not the cultural.
The other problem is with Islam itself, undeluted, it does terrible things to economies---it is a mindset stuck at 650A.D. It hasn't had a reformation---and isn't really equiped for one. I think that there will be a showdown on some level in the future between that ideology and the ideology of the West, which is still fairly Christian in it's underpinnings.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
Bush "didn't tell him" to do this or that "but he just knew"? Clarke has his own "brilliant " past as well.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I can think of one other indivdual who used this technique of command. I mean hell, *I* use that technique at work now and then.
Originally posted by dmz
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
I take that as a statement not a question . . .
Originally posted by dmz
....too much over-the-top inunendo. If Bush is doing a "horrible" job on terrorism how could you tell?
FYI, innuendo can't be over the top.
As for the second question: um, read the paper? Look at highly coordinated terrorist attacks all over the globe? Look at highly coordinated terrorist attacks at American targets in Iraq?
You lost me..........there were sporadic attacks overseas before nailing America on 9/11.......
Originally posted by dmz
If Bush is doing a "horrible" job on terrorism how could you tell?
Because the bush invaded Iraq and because large-scale terrorism is still very much alive and well (see: madrid). Not to mention that the top of al-qaeda is still unaccounted for.
Originally posted by dmz
You lost me..........there were sporadic attacks overseas before nailing America on 9/11.......
Wow, you did get lost there: the measure of how well Bush is doing against "terrah" is the situation ONCE HE'D NOTICED IT WAS A PROBLEM. Hence, my comments about coordinated attacks.
Originally posted by dmz
....too much over-the-top inunendo. If Bush is doing a "horrible" job on terrorism how could you tell?
There's no way that you and I can tell if he is or is not. Diverting time and attention to dethrone a two-bit dictator instead of focusing on the prize--OBL the figure-head leader of Al Qua'ida is strong indication though. The actual proof will be in the pudding so to say.
Personally, I'm not focusing on the administrations fight on terror. Its simplistic to think that anyother man would have acted much differently than Bush has with regards to terror except I believe few other presidents would have attacked Iraq as a means of reducing the threat of Al Qua'ida.
Originally posted by Harald
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I can think of one other indivdual who used this technique of command. I mean hell, *I* use that technique at work now and then.
Too late I already invoked Goodwin.
Originally posted by giant
Bush's two top advisors on terrorism leading up to 9.11 are now trying to get him out of office.
Because the bush invaded Iraq and because large-scale terrorism is still very much alive and well (see: madrid). Not to mention that the top of al-qaeda is still unaccounted for.
Then the Israelies are really, really bad at the terror game. There might be an index as to the cunning of the opponent here.
annnnnnndddd......anybody who wants to imply that 9/11 attacks were believable before they occured is not being honest. Maybe one person in a million thought the al-Queada was capable of what they did---complete paradigm shift.
Originally posted by faust9
There's no way that you and I can tell if he is or is not.
Well, there is madrid
Originally posted by dmz
Then the Israelies are really, really bad at the terror game.
Yes. They are. If Israel and England have taught us one thing, it is this: shooting at terrorists doesn't make them go away.
annnnnnndddd......anybody who wants to imply that 9/11 attacks were believable before they occured is not being honest. Maybe one person in a million thought the al-Queada was capable of what they did---complete paradigm shift.
No. WTC 93, USS Cole, Kenya.
Originally posted by dmz
anybody who wants to imply that 9/11 attacks were believable before they occured is not being honest. Maybe one person in a million thought the al-Queada was capable of what they did---complete paradigm shift.
Think again:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html
Originally posted by faust9
Personally, I'm not focusing on the administrations fight on terror. Its simplistic to think that anyother man would have acted much differently than Bush has with regards to terror except I believe few other presidents would have attacked Iraq as a means of reducing the threat of Al Qua'ida.
That part I agree with---the enormous breauracracy in place would probably push any president the way Bush went .
Originally posted by dmz
faust 9:
You lost me..........there were sporadic attacks overseas before nailing America on 9/11.......
you made the statement
There have somehow been NO terrorist attacks in since 9/11 and Bush is some kind of evil buffoon?
which, to me, implied that because we have not seen an attack on US soil or US goods by Al Qua'ida since 911 thus Bush is doing a good job. My question is if that is indeed the logic then how long does Al Qua'ida usually go between attacks anway. How do we know they are not waiting for some event such as a presidential election? We don't. We don't know if BushCo has forestalled any attacks or mitigated the danger of attacks.
Originally posted by giant
Well, there is madrid
There was also Bali.
Originally posted by midwinter
Yes. They are. If Israel and England have taught us one thing, it is this: shooting at terrorists doesn't make them go away.
No. WTC 93, USS Cole, Kenya.
Your not being honest, 9/11 COMPLETELY SHOCKED America. Car bombs are nothing like flying a plane into the Pentagon. Powell was visably shaken on television.
Just admit I'm right so I can go back to work.
Originally posted by faust9
you made the statement
which, to me, implied that because we have not seen an attack on US soil or US goods by Al Qua'ida since 911 thus Bush is doing a good job. My question is if that is indeed the logic then how long does Al Qua'ida usually go between attacks anway. How do we know they are not waiting for some event such as a presidential election? We don't. We don't know if BushCo has forestalled any attacks or mitigated the danger of attacks.
good question, but 2 1/2 years? It's ambigous, true---but then so is this thing with Bush's performance.
Originally posted by dmz
Your not being honest, 9/11 COMPLETELY SHOCKED America. Car bombs are nothing like flying a plane into the Pentagon. Powell was visably shaken on television.
Just admit I'm right so I can go back to work.
No, he has a point. Shooting wont make the bad men stop. The French learned that in Algeria. The Britsish have N.Irealand, The Russians had Afganastan, the Israelies have the palastinians, Spain has the Basque Seperatists... We have been shooting at terrorist since the term was first coined (during the French revolution). Socio-political changes are what make the bad men stop.
Feb-1993 First attack of WTC
Aug-1998 Attack in Kenya
Oct-2000 Attack of the Cole
Sep-2001 Second attack of WTC
Al Qua'ida has been know to go significantly long periods without attacking the US.
Originally posted by faust9
No, he has a point. Shooting wont make the bad men stop. The French learned that in Algeria. The Britsish have N.Irealand, The Russians had Afganastan, the Israelies have the palastinians, Spain has the Basque Seperatists... We have been shooting at terrorist since the term was first coined (during the French revolution). Socio-political changes are what make the bad men stop.
shooting them---that's pretty problematic. I think the problem with that (although it throws you back to the "kill 'em all" option) is this underlying theme that America is a Great Evil force that exports porn, homosexuality, feminism, colonialism, etc. I don't think that if we abandoned the mideast that the harrasment would stop. Maybe the physical colonialism would end, but not the cultural.
The other problem is with Islam itself, undeluted, it does terrible things to economies---it is a mindset stuck at 650A.D. It hasn't had a reformation---and isn't really equiped for one. I think that there will be a showdown on some level in the future between that ideology and the ideology of the West, which is still fairly Christian in it's underpinnings.