Liberals, Do you want to see another terrorists attack on this country to tell cons " I told you so"?

Answer 1

Of course not. On the other hand, what makes you think it wouldn't be the conservatives saying "I told you so" if it happened? After all, aren't they the ones telling us that we need to be afraid and to give the government more power to keep us safe?

Answer 2

I don't think they want another terror attack.I think most liberals in general play down the threat of Islamic Fascism because they themselves,are afraid to confront it.So they hope that by playing the whole thing down and hiding everyone from this reality that the terrorists will go away.But you can only hide for so long.Think of it like a school yard bully.Have you ever met a bully that can be reasoned with? You can only hide for so long before that bully finds you.But when you stand up to them,its amazing how quick they leave you alone.Now have you ever herd of a terrorist that could be reasoned with? Same answer I assume.Its easy to compare them with school yard bullies.The reason why they keep messing with us is because we have not yet hit back hard enough.This is why Bin Ladin will never attack China.China is not an Islamic State so Bin Ladin hates them just as much as us.But Bin Ladin also knows that the Human Rights Watch (Which I prefer to call the Jihadist Rights Watch) does not exist in China.He knows China will hit back and wipe out anyone who stands in their way.Every time we tried to isolate ourselves from any major conflict we got attacked.What do we have to lose by sticking our noses in the worlds business.

Answer 3

There will be another foreign terrorist attack on the US because there are still people who hate us -- and crime is impossible to prevent.

Liberals don't need another terrorist attack to say "I told you so" -- and conservatives wouldn't listen even if they did.

Both sides are determined to view the world from the perspective of their philosophy -- and many on both sides will twist facts to justify their conclusions.

The bottom line is that all of the attempts by the current regime to prevent terrorism won't work -- because you cannot attack an idea using force -- and because restricting people in the US will not make the US any safer. It just gives the govt more power.

Answer 4

The function of ‘The War on Terror’ does not lie in the instruction of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain 'facts', processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since ‘The War on Terror’ is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like a poster or billboard, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.

‘The War on Terror’ must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in ‘The War on Terror’, the aim is to influence a whole people, it must avoid excessive intellectual demands on the public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of the ‘The War on Terror’ campaign, and not success in convincing a few scholars or young intellectuals.

The art of ‘The War on Terror’ lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our people do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once we understand how necessary it is for ‘The War on Terror’ to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results: It is a mistake to make ‘The War on Terror’ many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda such as ‘The War on Terror’ must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want them to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely canceled out.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration and its supporters, foreign and domestic, have taken extensive measures to ensure that this does not happen—at least until now. It’s a war of words, and the message that these criminals have propagated for 8 years is finally being seen for the fraud that it is.

Remember this when you vote in ’08.

Answer 5

Not only do I not want any terrorist attacks on the country, I also want a decrease in the number, reach, and power of terrorists and their organizations. i also want areas prone to promote and allow terrorism to be stabilized and helped to be our allies against terrorism.

Answer 6

No, I don't want to see another attack on the country.

We can ensure our safety by not electing presidents who go on vacation while ignoring security warnings that say things like 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside US".

Question for you. Does FOX news propaganda actually have to pass some sort of mental filter with you, or does it just settle into the outhouse-like recesses of your septic brain like a fat trucker taking a dump?

Answer 7

Is it liberals who STILL haven't secured the borders the airports or the seaports of this country?

Was it liberals who ignored the warnings of the Sept 11 attacks?
Was it liberals who resisted forming an independent 9/11 commission?
Was it liberals who refused to testify to that commission under Oath?
Was it liberals who hadn't implemented ONE of the Recommendations of that commission until the Dems got a majority in Congress last November?
Was it liberals who spent half that first nine months in office ON VACATION in Crawford Texas?
Was it liberals who defunded the FBI Counterterrorism unitby $150 Million in 2001?
Was it liberals who had not ONE meeting about terrorism in general or al Qaida in particular that first 9 months in office?
Was it liberals who told you paper slippers at the airport stop terrorism?
Was it liberals who got rid of Habeas Corpus in the US, that charming little rule which said you need to have a legitimate reason to arrest and incarcerate someone?
Was it liberals who want to listen in on your phone calls and read your emails?
Was it liberals who STILL HAVEN'T CAPTURED OSAMA BIN LADEN?

Answer 8

Why would anyone want another attack on this country for any reason?

Answer 9

wouldn't CONS want anothher attack on this country ? That way they can ***** and moan for another 20 years about the constant evil looming doom of an ambiguous "terrorist" threat ?

Answer 10

Not at all that would be a tragedy , I just wish we'd have better decisions about how to do this and how to allocate resources, and soon our side will fix it all making us genuinely safer and secure