Since we have had no attacks and numerous arrests around the world of cells wouldn't it make sense that he is doing the right thing? Don't give hate give me
facts if you feel different.
2006-12-19 18:14:14 · 10 answers · asked by josh m 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Don't forget after9-11 terrorists -Osama etc.said they attack the U.S. and show the world we are weak, dumb luck I think not.
2006-12-19 18:42:27 · update #1
we didn't have attacks before that but again after 9-11 terrorists said they would keep attacking to show the world we were weak I haven't seen any.
2006-12-19 19:03:14 · update #2
You make a good point. There haven't been any more attacks here on American soil. The conspiracy idiots dismiss this out of hand and consider it proof that the US was behind the attacks. If that was the case then why not follow it up with an occasional additional attack to reinforce the siege mentality in Americans? After discounting the ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy inside job morons it is a fair question to wonder if the Bush policies haven't actually made America safer? I honestly don't know what to think. The invasion of Iraq has not turned out as planned, unless the plan was to wade into a fight that seems to have no end. All of our efforts being placed into Afghanistan would have seemed like the better course and really make sure that the Taliban and Osama and his rover boys were exterminated once and for all. Even so, it might be that the plan was simply that the terrorists had demonstrated that they wanted to fight, on 9/11 you conspiracy idiots, and the theory was little more than better to fight them in Iraq than here. Afghanistan was a little too unaccessable to act in that capacity. Ted Kennedy has claimed that Iraq has become a terrorist magnet but maybe that was the idea all along. Better to fight them there where the innocent women and children who were bound to get killed in the fighting wouldn't be Americans. It's a harsh reasoning but perhaps that is what has prevented the war on terror from being fought, since 9/11, on American soil.
2006-12-21 03:58:36 · answer #1 · answered by kfc13571 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I just feel like its dumb luck. There have been no attacks as of yet because no one wants to attack us. I used to laugh watching NY1 in the morning talking about a heightened level alert and how there were bomb sniffing dogs and military police at 34th st and Times Square train stations. Tell me, if I wanted to strap a bomb to my chest and ride the train into Manhattan from any of the other 4 boroughs of NYC and blow the train, station and all the people up, what would stop me?
The World Trade Center was attacked what, a whole 7, 8 years earlier before the idiots decided to drive a plane into the towers? Trust me, if they wanted to do another attack, there's nothing stopping them.
I moved to Georgia this year from NYC, and I admit, its been quiet on the news as far as terror attack warnings, unlike my daily news watch in NY. You obviously don't come from any of the places affected by the attack, because what I've just said is resonated by the majority of New Yorkers. Imagine waking up every morning to the media telling you there's a possibilty of another attack every morning on your daily commute and let's see how you feel about Bush's policies and Osama showing us we're weak. The mere fact that we live by a code of colors telling us what to expect each day and every little loud sound and smoke brings back memories of 9/11 has made us weaker. I think owning up to that fact will allow us to put our heads together and become stronger instead of putting up a strong 'front'. Because that's all it is, a front. And to me, it's just p!ssing the terrorists off even more. Let's not forget to mention the media constantly giving terrorists new and improved ways to kill us. I swear if these news channels don't sit and think out what new, sensitive information should we give out today? I could go on and on-but that's how I feel, I hope you now understand why.
2006-12-20 02:20:18 · answer #2 · answered by mybootyisthatbig79 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think that the invasion of Afghanistan was great... and that netted the majority of the arrests...
I would like to get Osama and his top brass though still... that is the main failure in my mind...
maybe he's not a threat anymore... but I don't like to take chances with him... we ignored him in the 90s and it backfired big time... I don't want to do it again...
and then the "war on terror" basically stopped after Afghanistan
Bush said iraq wasn't about terror when we invaded, and sure some terrorists have came in... but no major leaders, that we know of, no major movements, that we know of... just killing some of the more minor players in terrorism from what I have seen...
that's where I don't really like what he has done...
I still want Osama's head...
I think that Bush did hurt them in Afghanistan, which hurt their ability to attack, but I'm afraid they are rebuilding in Pakistan and the Sudan... and we aren't doing anything about it...
Osama would also say that he is living proof that Americans are weak... he hit us hard and lived to tell about it... that kind of pisses me off...
2006-12-20 02:20:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Who can say what the terrorists have planned, but world domination seems to be their goal.
I guess I do not see the various factions within radical Islam as being worth the focus, since they will unite against their common enemy, the US and our allies.
I do not think there is one American who does not want Osama captured, assuming he is still alive. But I do not see the hunt for Osama as a mutually exclusive goal like some do.
And I doubt the government will be advertising its efforts to find Osama.
2006-12-20 02:57:41 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We had terror attacks before 9/11. The 1st WTC attack in 93, the embassy bombings, attack on the USS Cole, Khobar towers bombing. The most we ever did in response was to bomb an aspirin factory.
2006-12-20 03:59:29 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is hard to justify wasting $500B, killing 3000 brave Americans and about 100,000 Iraqis and turning world opinion against us as "success" but if that is your stance, go ahead and try and justify it.
The WTC attacks were a lucky "once in a lifetime" kind of thing. You are literally more likely to get hit by lightning than die in a terrorist attack.
Bush and his cronies just saw the chance to invade Iraq, enrich their buddies and fulfill their imperialist dreams so they grabbed it.
Too bad the rest of us have to clean up the mess now.
Can we raise a special tax for special Bush supporters like you so that the rest of us don't have to pay for this war you wanted so badly?
2006-12-20 03:14:32 · answer #6 · answered by James A 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
well you didn't have attacks before either, however, Afghanistan was a necessary disaster, but Iraq 225 billion for a state that oppose both Iran ad bin laden? just dumb. more Americans have died in Iraq looking for something that didn't exist than bin laden killed, so bush as far as terrorism is a disaster. he is now twisting the Iraq disaster to being a war on terrorism which it wasn't and never was
2006-12-20 02:58:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you 100%. But ask people of a certain political persuasion, and they will claim it's because "they" talked to them and the terrorists don't want to hurt anyone and just want to talk. LOL....sorry...couldn't help laughing at myself for that one...
2006-12-20 04:40:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would also make sense if the damage was all self inflicted to lead us into a series of wars for profit.
2006-12-20 02:43:03 · answer #9 · answered by Jared H 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
9/11 was the work of George Bush not OBL
http://www.loosechange911.com
2006-12-20 02:21:38 · answer #10 · answered by Patriot 1 · 1⤊ 7⤋