You are almost correct here. If the Media ignores them, then terrorists have no way to braodcast their message. The media is their biggest weapon.
Now take your head out of the sand and
complete that thought. Who has kept this in the media spotlight for the last 5 years? The terrorists or your poor excuse of a president? Thus the president is doing the work of the terrorists.
As a general statement I agree with you on this. But my comment was NOT that generally made.
You claimed a purpose for the terrorists that could not be achieved by the use of terrorism, thus ignoring them would defeat that purpose.
I would say that less than 0/1% were not affected.
Fuzzy on math? Less than 3,000 were killed on 11SEP01 in a nation of just under 300 MILLION, so that is 0.001% of the US population. Many of them were not US citizens either.
While more than 5 times that - 16,000 - were murdered last year in the US by US citizens. And the same for every year after 11SEP01.
I would be more worried about being murdered in the US than about getting killed in a terrorist attack.
Then there were 14 times that from traffic deaths -
42,443 deaths in USA in 2001 - and the same for every year after 11SEP01
I would be much more worried about being in a fatal traffic accident than about getting killed in a terrorist attack.
I guess I don't have to mention 911. They are very capable hitting us.
Take however many attacks you think we've stopped on the US, then multiply that by alot.
Funny thing is, if you had mentioned
26FEB93 you might have made points for being able to connect some of the dots.
1993: World Trade Center bomb terrorises New Yorkquote:
An emotional Mario Cuomo, New York's state governor, told journalists: "We all have that feeling of being violated. No foreign people or force has ever done this to us. Until now we were invulnerable."
"It felt like an airplane hit the building"
Bruce Pomper, eyewitness
The immense blast happened at 1218 local time in the Secret Service's section of the car park underneath and between what are New York's tallest buildings.
Rahman's organisation, the Islamic Group, is believed to have links to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, accused of carrying out the 11 September attacks.
Of course most republicans had their collective heads in the sand, because they were more concerned about a blow job than national security.
Multiply zero by as big a number as you want and it is still zero.
Between 26FEB93 and 11SEP01 there were zero terrorist attacks on US soil. That is 8 years and 9 months. With NO added security measures.
Given that record, the fact that there have been none on US soil since 11SEP01 is not surprising -- even without a single security precaution taken since 11SEP01 we would not be "expecting" one.
The Botch administration has made the use of terror such a big part of their political platform that it would be impossible for them to stop a terrorist act and NOT trumpet it to the world so they could show a POSITIVE result.
Conclusion: there have been
NO terrorist attacks that the Botch administration has stopped. Good thing, given their general level of accomplishment on any topic they try.
The violence going on in Iraq right now is primarily caused by extremist shia and extremist sunni carryout out attacks against each other; instigated by former bathists and foreign fighters to destabalize the government.
So you agree that they have devolved into civil war between factions due to the removal of government structure by the Botch administration and their failure to comprehend the vacuum they were creating.
But again, this is not what the argument was about. YOU characterised the ones fighting and killing US soldiers as "bad"
Message 124If you mean he is responsible for soldiers'/sailors'/airmen/marines' deaths in the GWOT, then I'll say that's innacurate. Bad guys with bad toys caused those deaths.
... and that is what my comments relate to, not to the general state of affairs going on in Iraq due to the incompetence of the Botch administration and their lack of understanding.
So you haven't answered the comment in relation to the ones that are fighting and killing US soldiers. You could take your head out of the sand and address the issue eh?
I've talked to many. While there are issues, they are most definately glad we are there and Saddam is out of power.
Many is not ALL. This is pure anecdotal evidence and is self-selecting for only those who say this wanting to say it to you. What they tell other Iraqi we don't know.
Talk to the ones that have had their families blown up by US bombs even though they have had nothing to do with the fighting and the picture is different.
The surveys I have seen that look at the public attitude of all Iraqi in an unbiased manner:
What Iraqis Really Think - Wednesday, September 10, 2003quote:
They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq.
Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%.
That was 3 years ago. Too bad they didn't choose a constitution or government modeled on the US one ... (oops eh? ... what happened there? Guess those 37% lost out.)
Religious Leaders Ahead in Iraq Poll - Friday, October 22, 2004quote:
More than 45 percent of Iraqis also believe that their country is heading in the wrong direction, and 41 percent say it is moving in the right direction.
Within the Bush administration, a victory by Iraq's religious parties is viewed as the worst-case scenario.
But in another blow, one out of three Iraqis blames the U.S.-led multinational force for Iraq's security problems, slightly more than the 32 percent who blame foreign terrorists, the poll shows. Only 8 percent blame members of the former government.
And that is still before Abu Ghraib. Before the US was seen as being as bad as Saddam had been.
quote:
A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.
That's not a good place to be.
New Poll: 71 Percent Of Iraqis Want U.S. Forces To Withdraw Within A Year - September 27, 2006quote:
- A large majority of Iraqis-71%-say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”
- Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
- More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.
Looks like your anecdotal evidence comes from the 1 in 7 Iraqi in that last 14% number ... or it comes from before US popularity shrank to that level.
I've seen the intellegince. I've been to Salmon Pak.
This means nothing, really: you haven't said anything to give your opinion credence. You've seen "something" designed to make you think what you are doing is justified? Have you been to Disney World too?
There is no connection between Iraq and the terrorists behind the trade tower attack. Take you head out of the sand and look at the facts.
So FDR is responsible for all the US Servicemen and innocent German citizens that were killed in WWII?
Yes.
I guess he was responsible for the 6 millions jews that were tossed into ovens too.
No. Don't be silly.
I bet he even signed the order.
With a little work you could try for the stupidest comment on the board award. Or you could take your head out of the sand and look at the facts.
The point is clear: the commander in chief is the one who sends soldiers into harms way, he commits them to a course of actions that result in their deaths and the deaths of innocents.
The
justification for it is that this is a lesser evil than not sending them, but that does not alleviate his responsibility for sending them, and it certainly REQUIRES his responsibility for assuring that it IS IN FACT a lesser evil than not sending them.
From the results it looks to me like
more evil has been done by invading Iraq that would have occurred without invading Iraq, and it isn't over by half yet.
Another Botch Administration triumph of incompetence eh?
I understand that I took an oath to defend to the Constitution of the United States and to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief. If you are going to follow this logic, you must also blame every member of Congress, for they authorized the invasion, funded it, and continue to fund it.
Notice that you took an oath to follow the orders of the
Commander in Chief, and not of congress. Notice that congress did not
send the troops to Iraq. Notice that congress was
lied to in order to get that authorization. Notice that if you take your head out of the sand and look at who is responsible for troops being in Iraq there is one answer: Schwubbia. The buck stops there.
Oh, you want to marginalize them? How exactly? What master plan do you have up your sleeve to cut off their recruiting? Read some history. BTW if you want to marginalize them, cut off media coverage of thier attacks.
If you would take your head out of the sand you would see that the one person most capable of cutting off media coverage of their attacks is the one person who is making sure they are revisited again and again in the media, every chance he gets.
If you would take your head out of the sand you would see that I already told you how you marginalize them. You deal with the issues that cause people to become terrorists.
Look at history yourself. Look at why the IRA stopped terrorist attacks in England, look at why Hamas got elected in Palestine. The Israel model for fighting terrorists is a failure. Adopting it for Iraq has also been a failure.
Items on thier grievance list: Wipe Israel off the map. Turn the US into an Islam State. Return the Caliphate.
These things will never be irrelevant to them.
Ya gotta love the propoganda regurgitators with their collective heads in the sand eh?
Once again -- it is impossible to force a nation's character to change by making terrorist attacks, so those "
grievances" really can be ignored as totally irrelevant and impractical.
What you do to marginalize the terrorists is to make it irrelevant to the rest of the population.
You do that by treating people as people, and work for international standards of freedom, liberty, justice, equality, and respect for basic human rights.
That also means that you don't let the thugs that murder innocents off easy either, but that you deal with them as the criminals they are, and you treat them as the social misfits that they are.
You do NOT glorify them by dedicating a superpower to a "war" against them and constantly trumpet about how much they have terrorised you.
The Botch Administration policy is a FAILED policy, they have created more terrorists than they have destroyed and they have accomplished nothing against the terrorists that attacked the towers -- not once but twice.
Take your head out of the sand and look at the facts.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
