General Clark on Fighting Terror

[freeandfun1]

Not really. When was the last time (before 9-11) that we were attacked. 1993?

So, 8 years between WTC attacks. We've made it four since the last one. I don't consider that success (yet). We shall see.

1993? Do you live in a cave??

Let's review...

February 26, 1993 - 1st WTC, New York, NY - 6 US Citizens killed - No response by USA

June 25, 1996 - Khobar Towers Bombing, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - 19 US Servicemen Killed - No response by USA

August 7, 1998 - US Embassy Bombings, Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - No reponse by USA

Nairobi, Kenya
213 Killed, estimated 4000 injured

Salaam, Tanzania
12 killed, 85 wounded

October 12, 2000 - U.S.S. Cole, Port of Aden, Yemen - 17 Sailors killed, 39 wounded - No response by the USA​

U.S.S. Cole

September 11, 2001 - WTC, New York, NY and Pentagon, Washington D.C. - 2,985 killed, numerous more injured - One Helluva response.​

World Trade Center

Pentagon​

Notice. Before we responded after 911, the US was being attacked on average, once every 2.1 years.

Since 911 U.S. interests have not been attacked.

How have you determined that the last time we were attacked before 911 was 1993??

 

[Max Power]

Considering that we have been in open war with al-Qaeda for almost four years, I'd say we're doing pretty good.

How so?
First of all, I don't really think we're in "open" war with al queda.

Second of all, according to the US government, terrorism is worse now than it has ever been (since they started keeping track, 1985).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002243262_terror16.html

The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

 

[Max Power]

1993? Do you live in a cave??

Is illiteracy a requirement for this board?

See post #19 in this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=305615&postcount=19

If you would like to count attacks on US interests overseas, then we are attacked almost daily these days... in which case we have been attacked hundreds of times since 9-11.

 

[freeandfun1]

Is illiteracy a requirement for this board?

See post #19 in this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=305615&postcount=19

If you would like to count attacks on US interests overseas, then we are attacked almost daily these days... in which case we have been attacked hundreds of times since 9-11.

You seem to be the only illiterate one here... US Embassies are considered US soil. We were not at war (well, our side wasn't) during the times of the bombings referred to. Where are US interests attacked daily these days? War is war, there is a huge difference between now and then. You are just trying to avoid the facts to fit your position. It ain't gonna work here. If you want to counter my point, then please do so in a literate and substantive manner. Don't just blab... facts, facts, fact.... they are all that matter.

The truth is the truth... not just what you want the truth to be...

Oh, and post 19... well that is nothing but you again avoiding facts by providing nothing to consider... nothing substantive. If you want to just spout crap without being intelligent in your discussion, why not just go to DU? They will all agree with you over there as there nobody cares about facts. You would fit in just fine!

 

[freeandfun1]

Again, people having trouble with the reading comprehension.


I didn't "forget" anything.

This post says nothing... you are just avoiding the question. You are the one exhibiting illiterate traits.

 

[ThomasPaine]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-10-london-clark_x.htm



The flypaper strategy of "they'll attack us there instead of here" doesn't work. Retaliation doesn't work.

Considering that we're just going to "stay the course," it's only a matter of time before we're hit again.

surely you have the answer somewhere in a mayonnaise jar...

 

[5stringJeff]

How so?
First of all, I don't really think we're in "open" war with al queda.

 

[Max Power]

You seem to be the only illiterate one here... US Embassies are considered US soil.

As are US military bases. And Prisons.

We were not at war (well, our side wasn't) during the times of the bombings referred to.

I thought we weren't at war now?

I thought the war was over. Mission Accomplished!

Where are US interests attacked daily these days?

Iraq, Afghanistan.

 

[freeandfun1]

How so?
First of all, I don't really think we're in "open" war with al queda.

Well, as 991 proved, they are in an "open" war with us... so we better take it serious.

Jeff is right...

 

[ThomasPaine]

As are US military bases. And Prisons.


I thought we weren't at war now?

I thought the war was over. Mission Accomplished!


Iraq, Afghanistan.

all the bad people will go away, it's all Bush's fault, we deserve to be hit by terrorists, any solution but a military one, Bush lied people died, Iraq is creating terrorists, terrorists are just misunderstood and need a Zoloft and a hug, lefty half-brain.. Did I get that right? Wouldn't want to mischaracterize.

 

[freeandfun1]

As are US military bases. And Prisons.

And your point? You said we were not attacked. Then what were all those events? BBQ's gone awry?

I thought we weren't at war now?

Again, your ignorance shines through... Bush said, "Mission Accomplished" which it was for the ship he visited. He never said, "The War is Over" now did he?

Iraq, Afghanistan.

Yes, d'oh! We are now at war... can't you get that through your frigg'n childish and idiotic head?

Reply with something concrete and not just the same ole same ole rehashed over and over again and containing nothing substantive. Please exercise my mind... you are not giving me anything to consider... you are just rehashing the stuff you hear at your favorite liberal site that consists of a bunch of wannabes that possess not a bit of intellect.

 

[Max Power]

And your point? You said we were not attacked. Then what were all those events? BBQ's gone awry?

No, I said we were not attacked HERE.
Here, being the United States of America. I'll find you a map if you need one.

Again, your ignorance shines through... Bush said, "Mission Accomplished" which it was for the ship he visited. He never said, "The War is Over" now did he?

You're right.
He said "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Yes, d'oh! We are now at war... can't you get that through your frigg'n childish and idiotic head?

With who exactly? Terror? Drugs? You can't be at war with an idea or an inanimate object.

 

[freeandfun1]

No, I said we were not attacked HERE.
Here, being the United States of America. I'll find you a map if you need one.

No, you and Jeff had an exchange and this is how it went:

Sorry, missed that part. But don't you consider it a success that we have not been attacked here in the US?

Not really. When was the last time (before 9-11) that we were attacked. 1993?

So, 8 years between WTC attacks. We've made it four since the last one. I don't consider that success (yet). We shall see.

I can read and there is no "here" in that conversation.

You're right.
He said "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

We had prevailed. We had unsat Saddam as leader of Iraq. What part of that do you not get?

With who exactly? Terror? Drugs? You can't be at war with an idea or an inanimate object.

With terrorist and those that harbor them... can't you get that? Or do you just not want to get that?

 

[Max Power]

No, you and Jeff had an exchange and this is how it went:

I can read and there is no "here" in that conversation.

Surely you must be joking.

Sorry, missed that part. But don't you consider it a success that we have not been attacked here in the US?

 

[freeandfun1]

Surely you must be joking.

My bad...

But I stick with the point that we were continually attacked. Until we finally responded. Don't forget, the millennium. bomber was stopped by a good customs guard that noticed something awry... not because of any intel we had. Frankly, we got lucky.

 

[Gunny]

all the bad people will go away, it's all Bush's fault, we deserve to be hit by terrorists, any solution but a military one, Bush lied people died, Iraq is creating terrorists, terrorists are just misunderstood and need a Zoloft and a hug, lefty half-brain.. Did I get that right? Wouldn't want to mischaracterize.

Nihilist, not isolationist. One who is in complete denial of everything.

 

[Zhukov]

Al-Qaeda has changed; Bush strategy also needs to shift
By Weasley Knob Clark

As the follow-up reports emerge from the strikes on the London transit system, it's not too early to begin drawing the implications for our own security efforts.

Not too early? If we draw useful conclusions from this attack it is way too late. Nothing useful is learned from what happened. It only reinforces what we should already know. It only affirms that we should be doing certain things that we perhaps aren't because of insufficient funding or manpower. What happened in London...shouldn't have.


In the first place, whatever the merits of the war in Iraq, it should be clear that we still face a threat at home.

Gee, thanks Einstein.

Relentless pressure by the CIA, Special Forces and many other national intelligence and police efforts has made the old, centralized structure of al-Qaeda unworkable.

Another way would be to say the old, centralized structure has been 'destroyed'.

And we need to keep up the pressure.

He's on a roll!

But al-Qaeda's new threat is decentralized.

But? Don't you mean 'therefore'? Or do you mean the threat is decentralized in spite of the unworkability of centralization....you half-wit.

Thursday's attacks in London have all the earmarks of such a "franchise" operation, locally planned and resourced with relatively modest means, emulating al-Qaeda without the vulnerabilities of centralized resourcing and direction.

You know something we don't know yet there Weasley?

Preventing attacks probably can't be accomplished by the administration's preference for taking out "state sponsors."

Why not? Care to elaborate? Guess not.

And it's going to be very difficult to employ military means.

I dunno, seems to be working so far...

National intelligence efforts, special police activities and local community policing efforts, which focus on identifying and targeting terrorist individuals and organizations, are required.

Wow, why didn't the Administration ever think of that!?!?! Wait...

But fighting terrorism at home isn't just a matter of "killing terrorists." Terrorists aren't born that way. They are created by their interaction with their surroundings. To win this war, we must defeat the ideology of terrorism, depriving angry young people of their ability to justify their hateful actions in the name of Allah.

Like, say, promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Great idea Weasley! We should try that....

This will require not only strong Islamic condemnation of terrorists and their acts, but also a winning dialogue within Islam to defeat Koranic interpretations seeking to justify the use of force against innocent people. We need to encourage "moderates" in Islam to debate, to proselytize and to win over potential terrorists. They are the only ones who can do it.

And you're telling us this why? Do you want to tell them what to say, or are you content to tell us what we should tell them to say? Or how about....you know what, let's move on.

The latest example: directing the Department of Homeland Security to submit a national strategy for the protection of U.S. transportation by April 1, 2005. The strategy still hasn't been delivered.

You're right. Let's just put out whatever, just so long as it makes the deadline. Who cares if its effective, workable, or even well thought out.

And we are long overdue in forming a volunteer civil defense effort that would not only strengthen our security but also give Americans an opportunity to contribute. Volunteers would be recruited to serve part time on an unpaid basis. They would be trained in emergency response, security procedures and assist in a terrorist incident.

Here you go numbnuts.

http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/content/programs/citizencorps/index.asp

You really are a moron.

Both here at home and in the global community, there can be no spectators in winning the war against terror.

That sounds suspiciously like "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" there Weasley. Careful.

.

 

[Gunny]

.

 

[Avatar4321]

Forgive me for believing in freedom and liberty, thus being a liberal.
Pitiful arrogant statist.

The idea of force cannot work against SUICIDE bombers... they are willing to kill themselves. They are not afraid of force. Not to mention, there can be no retaliation against the perpetrators of a suicide attack.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: ...oh wait you are serious. liberals aren't for freedom and liberty. liberals are for big government, higher taxes. more rules against personal freedoms. Hence why I am a conservative. I desire to conserve the freedoms entrusted to us in the United States constitution while liberals are trying to "free" themselves from the document that gives them their freedom.

Funny, people were saying the same thing in WW2 with the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. You cant beat them with force because they are willing to die to make the kill. It wasn't true then. It's not true now. If they are willing to die for their cause. Let's give them a hand instead of pretending 911 did not happen and living in a fantasy world where we believe if we do absolutely nothing in the world, we will be safe. It just isnt going to happen.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you ask me, it's only a matter of time before we're attacked here... regardless of the freedoms the Bush administration feels like taking away from us... mostly because the Bush administration doesn't feel like taking away the freedom of illegals crossing the border illegally.

And what freedoms have you lost, Homer?