How Many Times Have We Been Attacked Since 9/11

[rsmith6621]

......Other than Iraq and Afghanistan..

How many of our Embassy's have been attacked under Bush....How many of our Soldiers have been attacked outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.....

I am asking this because there is a OFFICE NUTCASE who keeps saying Bush has made us safer and I want to put it back in his face and shut him up. Im trying to draw a parallel between Bill Clinton.....and Shrub man.

[asthmaticeog]

1. 9/11 wasn't enough?

Don't bother trying to tell this assjack what time it is, it's not worth the blood vessel you'll burst. It's obvious he's a Koolaid fan. He'll just blame everything on either the Democrats and/or Bill Clinton anyway.

[ingac70]

2. Anthrax.

That was after 9/11

[robinlynne]

4. good one.

[galledgoblin]

14. it doesn't count if it was one of our crazies and not the "Islamofascists", didn't you know?

:sarcasm:

[ingac70]

17. We don't know who it was...

since it came on the heels of 9-11 we can only assume Osama sent it. ;-)

[magellan]

20. Who says? The Repubs?

So, they admit to only caring about deaths caused by foreign terrorists, huh?

[MetaTrope]

25. Since only Democrats were targeted, that doesn't count

[robinlynne]

3. Well, you can say that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, in spit of warnings

from Clinton, and from the CIA that he should pay attention to al-queda. That the presidential daily briefing in august of 2001 said "al queda determined to attack from inside the US", but he and Rice didn't do anything about it. That they were warned that it would be via hijacked airliners,etc. etc.

[BayouBengal07]

5. The reason we haven't been attacked is twofold.

(1) We disrupted Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

(2) We have a well adjusted domestic Muslim population. Think about it. Bali, Madrid, London- all done by homegrown cells in countries that have less than stellar relations with their Muslim minorities.

[theoldman]

6. Reason number three is that they have not tried.

Why attack us here when they can do it much easier in other parts of the world.

[Vogon_Glory]

26. To Further Elaborate On Reason Number Three

To further elaborate on reason number three, why should al Qaeda attack the US inside the continental US when Buckaroo Bush made it so much easier and cheaper for al Qaeda to attack US targets in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I oppose al Qaeda as much as most DU'ers do. However, I don't let my opposition to al Qaeda blind me to many of its strengths. One of those strengths, unfortunately, is mounting spectacular terrorist operations on shoestring budgets that would do other NGOs proud if those operations were done to help the poor or relieve suffering instead of causing death and destruction. As much as I hate saying it, I'd say that al Qaeda gets a bigger bang for its bucks than does Team Amurrica.

[ColbertWatcher]

22. Isn't the reason Al Qaeda hasn't attacked, because...

...they don't operate like that?

They bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, then hit it with planes in 2001.

That's how many years between attacks?

They are slow and methodical.

If Al Qaeda is going to attack anyone it's going to be Europe. They know they've scared us and with the GOP in charge, our freedoms have been taken from us; Al Qaeda's work is through.

Europe is next, IMHO.

[Vogon_Glory]

28. Possibly in the Caribbean or Asia

I keep wondering if al Qaeda might launch a strike at American targets in the Caribbean or in East Asia. I suspect that if they try to hit US targets in Mexico or certain other Central American countries, they'll succeed once and once only, not because of the effectiveness of the CIA or local intelligence services at deterring subsequent attacks, but because some of the drug cartels are using tourist hotels and shops to launder their drug money and take a very dim view of people interfering with their operations.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. Who knows?

I suspect Europe because of all the bombings. The one in London, the one in Madrid, all the rioting in France.

But then again, France is always rioting!

[rustydad]

7. Attacked?

Your question assumes that we were attacked, which in turn brings the assumption of *foreign attack*, outsiders. But in truth 9/11 was clearly an inside job. To make the point watch any video of the collapse of WTC 7. There is nothing else need be said. It was controlled demolition. Many questions remain but do not need to be answered in order to show it was an inside job. If any outside forces were in play they were Israeli and in league with elements of our government. Bob

[pretzel4gore]

19. yep. when you base a consequence on a fiction

that makes deriving 'roberts rules of order' from it so goddam easy a nitwit can do it. 911 was a f/x movie shoot, with an unlimited budget. David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty DISAPPEAR, on LIVE TV ferchrissake, and Dave is just a penny ante magician! mr pig has limitless budget, control of the New York/airport stage, all the actors, the newsmedia reporters/critics, and a fail safe plan that went off as planned...Jack the Ripper was identified in 1888, yet a thousand best sellers have been written about him, dozens of movies etc, over a hundred years! How did the pig do it? They controlled every aspect of the scam (Druit was an upper class twit, and he killed lower class women, so why would upper class twit police/press etc admit it?) and simply ignored the isolated news items that were true by giving equal time to every 1/2 baked (the grandson of Queen Victoria, ferchrissake!) theory that literally every literate englishman was forging and cooking up and so on....and it cost them nothing. After all, Saucy Jack was dead....

[krispos42]

8. Why not count the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Lots easier to get there then get here.



Of course, if you're only counting domestic terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals, then we had over eight years between the 1st and 2nd WTC attacks, so maybe we aren't due up for one yet.

[JackBeck]

9. Share this link with your office nutcase:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html">U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

And outside of the domestic anthrax case (which conveniently targeted high-level Democrats and the media), one can also make the argument that if our soldiers are being killed by "terrorists"...

[flvegan]

10. Since Bush let 9/11 happen outright, that's a false argument

by your office nutcase.

[Disturbed]

11. The 911 Attack was sufficient.

Al Q got what it wanted and so did the Busholini Regime.

[JackBeck]

15. Airbases closed in the ME and a profitable, privatized war

It's a "win-win" when some families do business together.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. I got news for your office nutcase:

That assface in the Oval Office has done more to harm America than any outside "terrorists" could ever have done.

He's the worst terrorist of them all.

Try to deny that.

Clinton left a budget surplus for that assface, don't forget. Now look at our economy, our infrastructure, our standing in the world, our state of decrepitude, the shrinking dollar, the disappearing jobs, the unbearable debt we owe to the Far East.

Ask your nutcase how that stacks up against Clinton.

[kentuck]

13. Honestly..

We have been attacked daily by the criminals in power. They have stolen our Constitution and our freedoms. They have done much more damage than the terrorists on 9/11, imho..

[Vincardog]

16. What Kentuck said

[ThomWV]

18. We have been under constant attack since January 2000.

And no matter how it seems at the moment our side is still losing.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Here's a handy comeback:

"Yep, Barack Obama is going to make one fine President, don't you think?"

Sprinkle in a few good words about Hillary and Teddy while he's trying to compose his retort and it's Kaopectate time!

--p!

[kentuck]

23. As if once wasn't enough..?

Under these incompetents?

[Muttocracy]

24. well, they'll just claim that's because they've blocked and scared the terrorists from doing it. nt

[Horse with no Name]

27. Nature attacked us

Remember Katrina?
Remember the GODAWFUL response of FEMA?
Bush can't even keep people on the mainland safe from a storm they knew was coming a week ahead of time.
This is what you can tell your friend. We haven't been attacked by other forces since 911 because they are STILL reaping benefits from that attack. Half of the country is still terrified of brown boogeymen and the entire country has stood idly by while our Constitution is being dismantled.
So...is bush keeping us safe? Not at all. 911 is the gift that keeps on giving.

[JoePhilly]

29. Try this ...

The first attack on US soil was early in 93 ... and the next was 911. That is LONGER than from 911 to today ...

Also notice that both were in a new President's first year ... probably intentionally.

And if they want to argue about other attacks on foreign soil ... point out that they can't do that unless they want to count all attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan AND all the other attacks on our allies.

And ... ask them why a war in Iraq keeps Al Qaeda from attacking here?? Ask if their position is that the 911 hijackers would have ABANDONED their 911 plans and gone to fight us in Iraq if we had invaded PRE-911 ... of course not ... and the terrorists don't abandon such plans now either.

Also ... ask them if they think that the terrorists have heard Bush say "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" ... and if they agree that the terrorists have heard this ... would the terrorists not then realize that they had been fooled initially ... and so didn't Bush really just tell them our secret plan ... and would they not return to trying to attack us here anyway?

The fact is that Al Qaeda is very patient ... they use Iraq as a way to distract out military ... they continue to grow in Afghanistan and Pakistan ... and they continue to PATIENTLY plan attacks on US soil from secret cells around the world.

[JoePhilly]

31. Other point ...

Ask them to list any actions Bush took regarding Afghanistan or Al Qaeda during his first 9 months ... meetings, anything ... the fact is ... there are none. Richard Clarke's book and Bob Woodward's first Bush at war book are excellent sources of what Bush did not do.

Also -- when Clinton launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan in 1998 in an effort to kill OBL ... the right wing and GOP screamed NO WAR FOR MONICA.

Seems they were more concerned with a BJ than with national security.

Clinton elevated Clarke's position after the 93 attack such that Clarke briefed Clinton regularly and directly ... and Clinton also appointed a Republican as his SECDEF in 96.

Clarke was marginalized by Condi and Bush on 2001 ... Bush never met with him until after 911.

[JoePhilly]

32. Last point ...

Ask them this ... do they think the fact that a rag tag bunch of cave dwellers has fought the greatest military in the history of the world to a STAND STILL in Iraq makes America look strong, or IMPOTENT.

Think about it ... they have a tiny band of crazies ... we have precision guided weapons ... and yet Bush's failed use of our military has made us look IMPOTENT to our allies and enemies.

AND ... with our military weakened as much as it now, AND with over 600 Billion spent ... it is clear that Bush has been out matched in this contest of strategic thinking.

They send a token force to Iraq to keep us busy, weakening our troop levels and costing us billions ... while they continue to grow.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Rosemary2205]

34. We need a war on mortgage lenders and oil refineries, not Iraq

The neighbor's didn't have to move in with aunt sally because of iraq.