Did Reagan/Bush not responding to the 241 Americans killed by terrorists in 1983 encourage them to commit more

Question

terrorist attacks (you know, the ones that Rushbo and his flock always bring up like the Twin Towers attack in February 1993)?

Answer 1

I think you have to go back farther than that to find out how our failures at the Presidential level basically started this whole terrorize America concept.

Try Iran in 1981. When Carter failed to deal appropriately it set the precedent that America will not respond. With the exception of the Bushes that has been the case ever since, not responding with the force necessary to accomplish the goal and Bush I failed as well in the first fight with Hussein by stopping before we finished the job.

Reagan could not gather the needed support in Congress to follow the plans in place, it was a democrat congress if you recall .
So lets put the blame on what is going on today were it rightfully belongs with Congress, then and now. How many democrats voted to fight terrorism whereever it was in 2001? How many are holding their fingers in the wind today to decide what to do, rather than doing the right thing even when it is not popular.

Congress makes me sick and the hypocrisy of the socialist democrats makes me angry.

Answer 2

Believe me, Presiden Reagan responded to this attack in many ways.

Covert ops, the firing of missles at Libya, strengthening Israel's defenses, SDI, winning the cold war so the communists couldn't fund terrorist, and many others.

His responses were sent all over the world- Afghanistan, (Supporting antSoviet clans) Poland- Financially backing Lech Walesa and Solidarity, Cuba-chasing them out of Grenada,

Reagan backed down from no man, fought ands defeated the evil empire, and got Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. All of this
was part of this plan.

If only we had SDI....

Answer 3

What did ol' Clinton do for us?

Notable Terror Attcaks under Clinton :
Kidnappings of U.S. Citizens in Colombia, January 31, 1993:
World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993:
Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993:
Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995:
Bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995:
Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995:
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside
the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military
personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups
claimed responsibility for the attack.
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997:
U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998:
USS Cole

Answer 4

That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!

That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.

The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.

That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.

Answer 5

Remember that in 1983 Russian alliances in the Middle East affected EVERYTHING in American policy.

The real threat of nuclear holocaust trumped every other consideration.

It is only because of Ronald Reagan that we have the luxury of "only" worrying about terrorism.

Answer 6

Let's see, what was the Republican response to terrorism that time? Oh, I remember, we invaded a defenseless thirdworld country (Grenada) that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. Coincidence?

Answer 7

nothing succeeds like success!