Oh look, more Republican fear mongering.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Forget that America is less safe because of that bungling.

We're less safe? There were attacks before 9/11, and then there was 9/11.......please detail the attacks since 9/11.

[7960]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

You're right. We just diverted the vast majority of our troops and resources away from finding him. Big difference.

No.

1. C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden - New York Times

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever,".....

2. We are still in afghanistan and other places looking for bin laden. If you had millions at your disposal and were willing to live in caves you'd be hard to find, too.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

We're less safe? There were attacks before 9/11, and then there was 9/11.......please detail the attacks since 9/11.

Dude.. you have to try this new deoderant that I am wearing. It prevents tiger attacks. It totally works. Do you see any tigers around ? Told you it works!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

but we haven't given up on finding him

You're right. That's why I said essentially. It's a token attempt at this point.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Dude.. you have to try this new deoderant that I am wearing. It prevents tiger attacks. It totally works. Do you see any tigers around ? Told you it works!

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by 7960

No.

1. C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden - New York Times

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever,".....

2. We are still in afghanistan and other places looking for bin laden. If you had millions at your disposal and were willing to live in caves you'd be hard to find, too.

CNN.com - Document suggests bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora - Mar 24, 2005

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Dude.. you have to try this new deoderant that I am wearing. It prevents tiger attacks. It totally works. Do you see any tigers around ? Told you it works!

how long has it been since there has been a tiger attack on you?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

how long has it been since there has been a tiger attack on you?

None since he started wearing that deodorant.

All hail the Right Guard!!!

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

None since he started wearing that deodorant.

All hail the Right Guard!!!

anything less... would be sympathizing with the tigers

[WickedLou9]

"Correlation does not imply causality" is the fancy way of the tiger anaogy I was making.

[avsp]

The danger isnt really from terrorism in the USA anyway, ..., its from losing the wests ability to secure its energy supplies.

Also there is the accompanying threat of rising conflict & instability in MENA.

Moving on, its called terrorism for a reason, ..., thus the ads (IIUC), actually serve the terrorists cause.

Either way, campaigning in such a manner surely indicates a poverty of policies anyway.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You're right. That's why I said essentially. It's a token attempt at this point.

I'll tell my cousin he's involved in a token effort, even though he's still in afghanistan and still has the number of men he had before the CIA rearranged their part of the search.

(hint hint: the CIA isn't/wasn't the only one looking for him)

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Dude.. you have to try this new deoderant that I am wearing. It prevents tiger attacks. It totally works. Do you see any tigers around ? Told you it works!

Iyman Faris
Casey Cutler
William Karr / Tyler Poison Gas plot
Kevin James (plus 3 others)
Toledo Terror plot
Miami Bomb Plot v Sears Tower
Hudson River Bomb plot (arrests in lebanon by FBI)

That's arrests and detentions we know about. But of course you're right, nothing's been happening on the "terror prevention" front.

[7960]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

CNN.com - Document suggests bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora - Mar 24, 2005

.....and why did you post that?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

We're less safe? There were attacks before 9/11, and then there was 9/11.......please detail the attacks since 9/11.

Considering our poor handling of Iraq has bread a new generation of terrorists who now have considerable urban training, and to quote an official report, has become the "cause celebre" for jihadits, yes.

Seems a fairly obvious conclusion honestly. Deductive reasoning ftw.

More terrorists, better trained;
Greater risk of terrorism;
Less safe.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Considering our poor handling of Iraq has bread a new generation of terrorists who now have considerable urban training, and to quote an official report, has become the "cause celebre" for jihadits, yes.

Seems a fairly obvious conclusion honestly. Deductive reasoning ftw.

More terrorists, better trained;
Greater risk of terrorism;
Less safe.

So "more terrorists" because of "poor handling of iraq" is fairly obvious, but "no attacks since 9/11" because of "stepped up preventative action against terrorists" is not fairly obvious.

Wow, I need to go back to that logic professor and slap him around.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 7960

So "more terrorists" because of "poor handling of iraq" is fairly obvious, but "no attacks since 9/11" because of "stepped up preventative action against terrorists" is not fairly obvious.

Wow, I need to go back to that logic professor and slap him around.

Time fallacy. Clinton supposedly got "tougher" on terrorism after the first WTC bombings, and everyone would have said in August 2001 that we were doing a fine job of stopping terrorist attacks by Muslim fundamentalists within our nation, after there hadn't been one since 1993... Then 9/11 happened.

Just because we haven't been attacked again in the past 5 years doesn't mean we are preventing them from attacking us. It was 8 years between attacks last time.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Publius

Time fallacy. Clinton supposedly got "tougher" on terrorism after the first WTC bombings, and everyone would have said in August 2001 that we were doing a fine job of stopping terrorist attacks by Muslim fundamentalists within our nation, after there hadn't been one since 1993... Then 9/11 happened.

"Everyone would have said........."

Then why are people on Bush's balls for not preventing the 9/11 attacks? If "everyone would have said" we're doing a good job how can "everyone" then turn around and blame bush (bush administration, bush CIA/FBI/whatever) for not learning about and preventing 9/11?

Just because we haven't been attacked again in the past 5 years doesn't mean we are preventing them from attacking us. It was 8 years between attacks last time.

But it's still true that we haven't been attacked in 5 years. You think it's luck or our new and improved terrorist prevention policy?

And no, it wasn't 8 years. The Cole was bombed, american bases were attacked, american civilians (or places where american civilians were known to be, anyway) were attacked in asia. It was not 8 years.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 7960

"Everyone would have said........."

Then why are people on Bush's balls for not preventing the 9/11 attacks? If "everyone would have said" we're doing a good job how can "everyone" then turn around and blame bush (bush administration, bush CIA/FBI/whatever) for not learning about and preventing 9/11?

Those people are called partisan idiots.

But it's still true that we haven't been attacked in 5 years. You think it's luck or our new and improved terrorist prevention policy?

But under our old and supposedly busted terrorist prevention policy we went 8 years without being attacked. Thus by your logic, obviously the old policy is better than the new policy until we're at least 8 years out from 9/11.