Originally posted by Strangelove
I never watch the Simpsons srugAnd no, there is no evidence that the DOHS has prevented potential terrorist threats, nor is there evidence that any such threats have been planned. Terrorist cells in the Middle East seem to be content with killing U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course..
Originally posted by KidRock
Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course..
EDIT: Also, even if there were terrorist attacks on the United States, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the DHS wasn't doing their job. It might just mean that terrorism attempts had increased.
Originally posted by KidRock
Except for the fact that there hasnt been a terrorist attack in the US since the war of course..
How long did it take Al-Queda to hit us again between the first WTC bombing and September 11th?
Geez, you act like there should be a terrorist attack every day. So much for your BS.
(and seeing as Global terrorism has increased, the chance of there being anothe rattack, despite US security efforts increases). Nothing about the situation has improved. Try thinking.
Originally posted by Alliance
How long did it take Al-Queda to hit us again between the first WTC bombing and September 11th?Geez, you act like there should be a terrorist attack every day. So much for your BS.
(and seeing as Global terrorism has increased, the chance of there being anothe rattack, despite US security efforts increases). Nothing about the situation has improved. Try thinking.
You= sitting there making accusations and throwing out more bullshit.
Me= stating the fact that there still hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war began. And if, as all those morons say, the war has increased terrorism why hasnt there been an attack yet?
Originally posted by KidRock
You= sitting there making accusations and throwing out more bullshit.Me= stating the fact that there still hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war began. And if, as all those morons say, the war has increased terrorism why hasnt there been an attack yet?
Which means nothing...
When was the last terrorist attack in the US before 9/11?
There was no war in that time and still no terrorism, not fighting against terrorists seems to have worked.
Also, both England and Spain fought in Iraq and both have been attacked, not to mention that 3346 United States soldiers have been killed in Iraq so far, that's more then 9/11 killed. Americans are still dying because of Terrorism, something that did not need to happen.
Originally posted by chithappens
Anyone remember the argument for the Iraq war? It was Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) not terrorism. They were never linked to begin with.Hell, according to the government there are more "terrorist cells" here than in Iraq. 😆
True, Al Qaeda had no links to Iraq , in fact Osama and Saddam were not really what you would call friends...
Originally posted by KidRock
You= sitting there making accusations and throwing out more bullshit.Me= stating the fact that there still hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war began. And if, as all those morons say, the war has increased terrorism why hasnt there been an attack yet?
Because there are RARELY attacks in the US and there is little or no historical basis on which to judge the frequencey of attacks.
UNder your perverted logic, Bill Clinton did a superb job of defendind the US from terrorists, because there were no attacks after he changed policies after the 1993 bombings. WOOO! Clinton teh Defender of Terrorism!
Come back when you're logical 13
Originally posted by Alliance
Because there are RARELY attacks in the US and there is little or no historical basis on which to judge the frequencey of attacks.UNder your perverted logic, Bill Clinton did a superb job of defendind the US from terrorists, because there were no attacks after he changed policies after the 1993 bombings. WOOO! Clinton teh Defender of Terrorism!
Come back when you're logical 13
I am discussing the wars going on. The wars have prevented terrorism in the United States since these wars have began. Until there is another terrorist attack in the US then the war is doing what it was suppose to do, combat terrorism.
*waits for another witty 12 year old insult followed by smiley face*
In the same way that the VA Tech guy blew 32 some bullets; same way if I decided to drive a truck bomb into a mall and jump out and not say a word; if a terrorist felt the urge to do something similar, they could do it. These are one man suicide missions, not militias. There is no real way to stop/predict that.
Same reason why it is hard to stop the militant groups in Iraq.
Originally posted by KidRock
I am discussing the wars going on. The wars have prevented terrorism in the United States since these wars have began. Until there is another terrorist attack in the US then the war is doing what it was suppose to do, combat terrorism.*waits for another witty 12 year old insult followed by smiley face*
Bill Clinton his policy did not destroy a nation put a country into a huge debt and have more then 3000 American soldiers killed, what he did was obviously far more effective.
Besides global terrorism in that time was a lot lower, and neither England nor Spain were attacked by Al Qaeda during that particular moment in time, unlike during the Iraq war when both were.
Ergo the war is not working at all. Besides Al Qaeda had no ties to Iraq, they weren't in Iraq they weren't doing anything with Iraqis they hated Saddam Hussein. If anything they would have worked against him instead of with him and they didn't even do that.
Originally posted by KidRock
I am discussing the wars going on. The wars have prevented terrorism in the United States since these wars have began. Until there is another terrorist attack in the US then the war is doing what it was suppose to do, combat terrorism.*waits for another witty 12 year old insult followed by smiley face*
Least I'm not ACTUALLY a 12 year old.
Lets examine your claims.
1. "The wars have prevented terrorism in the United States since these wars have began"
First, correlation doesn't mean causation.
Secondly, wars have prevented terrorism in the US since the wars have began? That means that magically when a war starts, there is no more domestic terrorism? Its a closed logical loop and a self-reinforcing statement based on nothing beside your own personal pig-headedness.
There HAVE been domestic terror attempts, as pointed out by the administration, but none have been successfully carried you. So clearly, the threat of domestic terrorism has not been removed by war.
2. If we ignore your hypocrisies and falsely assume what you say is correct (war prevents terrorism) then that means that when we are not at war, there is no terrorism..which is clearly historically false.
The topics are disjoint.
3. Britain was at war in Iraq...as was Spain, and BOTH nations had domestic terror attacks while they were at war. How is the US so radically different that your magical little conjecture applies to the US but not to the UK or Spain?
Basically you fail on all three levels. Your argument fails logically. YOur argument fails to describe the current situation. Your argument fails to describe past situations. Suck it up and move on.
Maybe you can go to Iraq and die and take the place of the good people who are over there fighting? It'd be better for the nation.
And here's your smilie: usaflag