Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link

I am one of those who give the credit for the US not being attacked to Bush, rather he deserves it or not. The precedent always gets the blame or credit.

But what about the "millions of terrorists" we have created due to the wars

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am one of those who give the credit for the US not being attacked to Bush, rather he deserves it or not. The precedent always gets the blame or credit.

That's sort of silly, isn't it. If we were attacked again today, would you still blame Clinton? If not, where is your cut-off date when the blame shifts from the former President to the current?

Your statement also assumes that a terrorist attack(s) was planned (which would be Clinton's fault by your rational) and was prevented by Bush.

Originally posted by KidRock
But what about the "millions of terrorists" we have created due to the wars

Not sure about "millions", but don't you think a young guy who's lost his family and home is an easier recruit for terrorist groups?

Don't you think a young guy who sees "invaders" in his homeland more likely to leave his family and home and join up with a terrorist group who claim they're fighting we repel the invaders?

I love how some people seem to think Bush single handedly ceased terrorism as though there was never any military generals or C.I.A. operatives involved. Bush is just the face man. Any President will get the same attention; praise or blame.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I love how some people seem to think Bush single handedly ceased terrorism as though there was never any military generals or C.I.A. operatives involved. Bush is just the face man. Any President will get the same attention; praise or blame.

The stuff after is without a doubt a shit hole he built.

If the reps go down in the polls I bet we'll see a big terror "alert".

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I love how some people seem to think Bush single handedly ceased terrorism as though there was never any military generals or C.I.A. operatives involved. Bush is just the face man. Any President will get the same attention; praise or blame.
Yet he bears the blame any time something negative happens. While obviously it's not all his doing, his policies surely were a huge impact, no?

Originally posted by KidRock
But what about the "millions of terrorists" we have created due to the wars

Try abbreviating "the war against terror" T.W.A.T.

This is disgraceful. How is it that trash like this is still finding it's way on the General Discussion forum? Take this trivial crap elsewhere,people, like the off topic forum. The General Discussion forum is reserved for important and relevant issues, like the Biggie and 2pac beef.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am one of those who give the credit for the US not being attacked to Bush, rather he deserves it or not. The precedent always gets the blame or credit. I have a tiger-repelling rock you may be interested in.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I have a tiger-repelling rock you may be interested in.

Hahahaha.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Yet he bears the blame any time something negative happens. While obviously it's not all his doing, his policies surely were a huge impact, no? Dunno, even after 9/11 I was kinda not convinced that there would be day to day terrorist attacks now.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dunno, even after 9/11 I was kinda not convinced that there would be day to day terrorist attacks now.

Yeah, 7 years is long enough to make that joke

Originally posted by Robtard
That's sort of silly, isn't it. If we were attacked again today, would you still blame Clinton? If not, where is your cut-off date when the blame shifts from the former President to the current?

Your statement also assumes that a terrorist attack(s) was planned (which would be Clinton's fault by your rational) and was prevented by Bush.

There is no rationalization, and Clinton does share some of the responsibility. However, things changed on 9-11. Before 9-11 it was appropriate to treat the terrorists like criminals, but after, it required a different tact. Bush gets the credit for the out come of that tact. If the US was attacked today, then Bush would get the blame.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I have a tiger-repelling rock you may be interested in.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what you are talking about.
it's from The Simpsons.

There is a bear in the city and it eventually gets captured. Homer pushes all he can to get an anti-bear strike team which includes a fighter jet and all.
In a discussion Lisa points out there never was a bear prior to the recent event, she says that his actions won't attract/distract bears for the reason that bears are extremely rare and such and points out that the little rock she's holding is repelling tigers. Homer asks how she knows this to which she replies it doesn't: it's just a rock but you don't see any tigers around.
In the end Homer bus the rock, btw.

Originally posted by Jovan
it's from The Simpsons.

There is a bear in the city and it eventually gets captured. Homer pushes all he can to get an anti-bear strike team which includes a fighter jet and all.
In a discussion Lisa points out there never was a bear prior to the recent event, she says that his actions won't attract/distract bears for the reason that bears are extremely rare and such and points out that the little rock she's holding is repelling tigers. Homer asks how she knows this to which she replies it doesn't: it's just a rock but you don't see any tigers around.
In the end Homer bus the rock, btw.

Tigers can't fly airplanes into buildings.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tigers can't fly airplanes into buildings. Of course not, the tiger repellant works after all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tigers can't fly airplanes into buildings.
But a T-Rex can.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/972/trexpilotfm3.jpg

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

jam

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
I love how some people seem to think Bush single handedly ceased terrorism as though there was never any military generals or C.I.A. operatives involved. Bush is just the face man. Any President will get the same attention; praise or blame.

Yes yes we all know..any good that comes from this presidents administration wasn't done by Bush..yet all the bad things to come of it are allllll Bush's fault.


Originally posted by GCG
Try abbreviating "the war against terror" T.W.A.T.

How many Democratic think tanks did it take to come up with that?

Seven.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Yet he bears the blame any time something negative happens. While obviously it's not all his doing, his policies surely were a huge impact, no?

His policies? Again, this is what I am talking about. He's not in this alone. They are not just 'his' policies. I doubt 'he' alone came up with them. Also, one could easily argue it was 'his' policies that were a huge impact on the US being a target for terrorism in the first place, no?

Bush is certainly not responsible for terrorism.

there are many differences between his whitehouse and those ran by Clinton and Bush Sr, but there is no doubt that he is not the cause.

The Bush Doctrine, and the subsequent polarization of the Muslim world against America (this is hugely debatable, though it is without question the impact has been overall negative) may have spawned a Jihadi movement stronger than existed at 9-11, but he certainly doesn't deserve as much blame, as say, Nasser, whos authoritarian Egyptian police tortured members of the Muslim Brotherhood, essentially starting the modern philosophy of Jihad.

Originally posted by inimalist
Bush is certainly not responsible for terrorism.

there are many differences between his whitehouse and those ran by Clinton and Bush Sr, but there is no doubt that he is not the cause.

The Bush Doctrine, and the subsequent polarization of the Muslim world against America (this is hugely debatable, though it is without question the impact has been overall negative) may have spawned a Jihadi movement stronger than existed at 9-11, but he certainly doesn't deserve as much blame, as say, Nasser, whos authoritarian Egyptian police tortured members of the Muslim Brotherhood, essentially starting the modern philosophy of Jihad.

Yes, very well said.

Originally posted by GCG
Try abbreviating "the war against terror" T.W.A.T. What does that say about the war against terror supporters? shock

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does that say about the war against terror supporters? shock

It says that they're a bunch of pussies. Sorry for stating the obvious.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what you are talking about.

His point: You're assuming we weren't attacked again after 9/11 because of Bush/what he did. It's just as silly as saying "I have a rock; I'm not being attacked by tigers, ergo, this rock must repel tigers." Which I pointed out to one in the first page, just not in a comical manner as Xmarks did.

but, Bush's actions might be keeping mainland America safe

for instance, to kill a good number of Americans, arabs no longer have to travel to America, but to Iraq. God bless the President.

Originally posted by inimalist
but, Bush's actions might be keeping mainland America safe

for instance, to kill a good number of Americans, arabs no longer have to travel to America, but to Iraq. God bless the President.

Possible, I guess.

Yes, I've heard the "we don't have to fight them here, if we're fighting them over there" rhetoric many a time.

Originally posted by KidRock
But what about the "millions of terrorists" we have created due to the wars

I'm not sure CNN is doing much polling in rural Afganistan or Iraq. Besides, their electricity is only working for a hour or two a day; I'm sure they're busy e-hating us for our freedom between the hours of 1:15 and 2:45 pm and can't get a signal on their cell phones.

Do you try so hard to sound like the idiot stereotype?