Terrorist attacks in London

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I agree MBC. I think we should have taken him when the Sudan offered him up.

Well, except that there is no evidence that this ever occurred.

According to the 9/11 Commission report's statement: "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Well, except that there is no evidence that this ever occurred.

According to the 9/11 Commission report's statement: "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

Except for the audio tape of Clinton saying what he said. Hmmm....Clinton contradicts the 9/11 commission report. So either Clinton is a liar, or the commission report is horribly flawed.

In regards to your next posting, in terms of why are we talking about Clinton, you said we should be focusing more on capturing Bin Laden, critical of the current adminstration not getting him yet. My point is that the responsibility lies with the previous administration. Based on Clinton's own words, we could have had him, making the current search for him a non issue.

The world wasn't safe prior to Iraq. Terrorist attacks existed before Iraq. Terrorist roles and activities were increasing prior to Iraq. But I suppose our actions in Iraq are responsible for all the ills of terrorism.

I can think of a way to make us safe from terrorism - let's completely capitulate to terrorist demands. That's all that will do it, because they are not interested in peaceful coexistence.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

My point is that the responsibility lies with the previous administration. Based on Clinton's own words, we could have had him, making the current search for him a non issue.

No, the responsibility now lies with the current administration. Regarding the Clinton quote you offered, you left out the part where he mentioned that at the time, he had committed no crimes against the US. There was nothing to hold him on at the time.

The world wasn't safe prior to Iraq. Terrorist attacks existed before Iraq. Terrorist roles and activities were increasing prior to Iraq. But I suppose our actions in Iraq are responsible for all the ills of terrorism.

I never said that our actions in Iraq are responsible for all the ills of terrorism. They are fueling the fire though by providing a breeding ground for new terrorists.

WASHINGTON - The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004.

The number of “significant” international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed Monday on the numbers by U.S. State Department and intelligence officials.

Tripled. Perhaps you could explain how our actions in Iraq are making the world safer because, today especially, I'm just not seeing it.

I can think of a way to make us safe from terrorism - let's completely capitulate to terrorist demands. That's all that will do it, because they are not interested in peaceful coexistence.

Or we could focus on the actual terrorists and not get sidetracked by attacking other countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.

[sunnygirl]

As a personal policy, I make no comments on politics whatsoever. I send my thoughts and prayers to the victims of this senseless tragedy and their families.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by sunnygirl

As a personal policy, I make no comments on politics whatsoever.

Smart girl. What are your thoughts on sex, drugs and rock n roll? I love 'em!

[€uroMeinke]

Democrat or Republican I think these bombings just underscore the fact that terrorist attacks are an inevitable part of our lives. You can't protect everything and everyone from possible attack, which means we have to accept our vulnarability and take our chances - just like we do whenever we leave the hosue.

Perhaps someday we'll eliminate Alqueda, but as long as their are disgruntled people in the world, there will be a subset who will use terroism as a tool to express it. I'm not sure if there really is a way of preventing it, but I think in the long term the answer lies more in getting people to be satisfied in their lives and situations instead of "weeding them out."

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Regardless, here we are talking about Clinton. I wasn't aware that he was still president. Perhaps we could talk about the actions of the guy who is actually in charge now? You know, making the world safer from terrorism and all that stuff.

I'm looking at CNN right now and the world doesn't look much safer.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Hmm, been doing some thinking over the past few minutes.

I really didn't intent to have a political debate on this subject, not today anyway. My original intent was to only post that I felt very badly for the people in the UK. And yet, my anger over the fact that Bin Laden is probably responsible led me to make my remarks concerning him. I can see now that this wasn't the best, or most respectful, time to get into all of that though. I should have followed Prudence's lead and held my tongue.

Sorry for the derail and any offense it may have caused.

[scaeagles]

Bows to the wisdom of MBC and admits to poor judgement myself.

As far as getting people "satisfied with their lives and situations", I don't think that is even an issue with terrorists. Their jihad is against the infidel, and as long as the infidel exists, they will fight and try to kill the infidel. I don't hear them calling for food or water or medicine, I hear them calling for the destruction of Isreal and Jews and any who would support them. I hear them demanding Islamic law be followed. They hate the culture of the west. I don't see a way to make them satisifed without complete surrender to what they wish for socially and religiously.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Bows to the wisdom of MBC and admits to poor judgement myself.

As far as getting people "satisfied with their lives and situations", I don't think that is even an issue with terrorists. Their jihad is against the infidel, and as long as the infidel exists, they will fight and try to kill the infidel. I don't hear them calling for food or water or medicine, I hear them calling for the destruction of Isreal and Jews and any who would support them. I hear them demanding Islamic law be followed. They hate the culture of the west. I don't see a way to make them satisifed without complete surrender to what they wish for socially and religiously.

I think that message only flies with the down and outs - you don't see many shiek suicide bombers.

But the only viable alternative I see, is something horrificly geuesome - it means full and complete genocide, becasue as long as one of them lives, it's a threat. I'm not sure I have the stomach for that, though I'm certain of it's effectiveness.

That said, at the moment we can do nothing to satisfy the jihadists - what work we do now can only be realized in future generations - should Iraq truely become a thriving (econmically successful) democracy, that is a win for us. I think we have to find ways to make their movement irrelavent - I think most people just want to live their lives in peace.