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.