Giuliani: Terrorists Never Attacked When Bush Protected Us

[jpyaks3]

You don't think that "US soldier" had an agenda the whole time that lasted for years? That's why terrorism is hard to defeat. It morfs and changes and adapts to find a way through the cracks. Like a ****rouch.

Nobody runs into an abortion clinic screaming, ALAHHHHHHH!

They may not run into the abortion clinic screaming but I bet they think that God is on their side or they are doing God's work.

[RedskinsTime]

So they don't use the Muslim name for "god" means that they don't believe they are doing "gods" bidding?? Classic denial. Christians have been murdering in the name of "god" far longer than the Muslims...

The Crusades were hundreds of years ago.. give it up

[Predicto]

You don't think that "US soldier" had an agenda the whole time that lasted for years? That's why terrorism is hard to defeat. It morfs and changes and adapts to find a way through the cracks. Like a ****rouch.

Nobody runs into an abortion clinic screaming, ALAHHHHHHH!

True dat.

Which is why it is so stupid to say that "we were safe under Bush and we a re less safe now."

These terrorists are trying all the time. Every once in a while they get through. That's reality, and its going to be reality for a long time. Obama has not told the Department of Homeland Security to stop trying to catch terrorists. Obama making a speech in Cairo saying "We do not hate all muslims, just the terrorists" - that did not cause Hassan to go off the deep end.

Guiliani is full of :pooh:

[Corcaigh]

The Crusades were hundreds of years ago.. give it up

Hundreds of years in a religious war really is not a long time.

The word Crusader still certainly has plenty of resonance in the Middle East.

[Mickalino]

I disagree. He acted independently and did not have material support or training from an identified terrorist organization, and so I don't think it's useful to classify it as a terrorist attack.

Is that the definition of a "terrorist attack" :

Having received material support or training from an organization ?

According to that definition, it would eliminate a whole lot of attacks, that are commonly considered terrorist.

[Larry]

Not at all. Im simply pointing out that what Giuliani was trying to say was in fact accurate.

By altering what he said, and by being deliberately careful about which facts you do and don't count.

[Capt Rich Fla]

No, they usually run into an abortion clinic screaming JESUSSSSSSSSS!!!!!

Yeah, someone getting an abortion saying Jesus. That's good stuff. :doh: Your right though. Even cathilics will do it. Well, they will call themselves catholic.

[Hunter44]

The Crusades were hundreds of years ago.. give it up

Tell that to Bush... In the first few days after 911 he said that this was a Crusade against terrorism and then someone reminded him that that was a bad idea...

So easy to dismiss all that the west has done over in the ME and people really wonder why we're considered the bad guys. I'm not giving a pass at the lunatics over there but to ignore history is to repeat it and we have a few lunatics over here as well.

[RedskinsTime]

The word Crusader still certainly has plenty of resonance in the Middle East.

Whether it does or it doesnt, it shouldn't.

Just because the Muslim world thinks a certain way about things doesn't mean we should alter anything we do to satisfy them.

[Capt Rich Fla]

True dat.

Which is why it is so stupid to say that "we were safe under Bush and we a re less safe now."

These terrorists are trying all the time. Every once in a while they get through. That's reality, and its going to be reality for a long time. Obama has not told the Department of Homeland Security to stop trying to catch terrorists. Obama making a speech in Cairo saying "We do not hate all muslims, just the terrorists" - that did not cause Hassan to go off the deep end.

Guiliani is full of :pooh:

We were safer under Bush. We took them into back rooms in Guantanimo and beat the info out of them. Yeah, it aint right, but neither is killing everyone on a plane.:mad: God forbid we hurt anyone's feelings. **** em! (that's just my opinion)

[RedskinsTime]

Tell that to Bush... In the first few days after 911 he said that this was a Crusade against terrorism and then someone reminded him that that was a bad idea...

So easy to dismiss all that the west has done over in the ME and people really wonder why we're considered the bad guys. I'm not giving a pass at the lunatics over there but to ignore history is to repeat it and we have a few lunatics over here as well.

Oh so you're comparing the lunatics that blow up busloads of people and fly planes into buildings to a president that used a not so politically correct word?

Give me a break.

[Corcaigh]

According to that definition, it would eliminate a whole lot of attacks, that are commonly considered terrorist.

Sure there are different definitions.

But where terrorism becomes a serious threat to society, rather than just a single crime scene, is the organization behind it and multiple sustained attacks.

[Mickalino]

Sure there are different definitions.

But where terrorism becomes a serious threat to society, rather than just a single crime scene, is the organization behind it and multiple sustained attacks.

The shooter in question may or may not have received material support or training from a terrorist group, however he had a long string of communications with them. That link should be enough to fit your definition.

[Hunter44]

Oh so you're comparing the lunatics that blow up busloads of people and fly planes into buildings to a president that used a not so politically correct word?

Give me a break.

Did I say that?? Come on dude, if we're to have a discussion don't make stuff up. Deal??.

That said, we did invade a country that did NOTHING to us, based on LIES and MISINFORMATION all to defend daddies honor.

Just a side thought, was Pearl Harbor a terrorist act??

[Burgold]

Despicable and pretty inexcusable.

I guess we should expect this from the party of "Vote for us or there will be mushroom clouds in your living room."

This is really terrible stuff and the fact that it hasn't been universally condemned by all in this thread is abhorant too. That some are even trying to defend it through semantic gamesmanship makes me sad as well.

[Predicto]

Despicable and pretty inexcusable.

I guess we should expect this from the party of "Vote for us or there will be mushroom clouds in your living room."

This is really terrible stuff and the fact that it hasn't been universally condemned by all in this thread is abhorant too. That some are even trying to defend it through semantic gamesmanship makes me sad as well.

Sad but not surprised.

[Kilmer17]

Despicable and pretty inexcusable.

I guess we should expect this from the party of "Vote for us or there will be mushroom clouds in your living room."

This is really terrible stuff and the fact that it hasn't been universally condemned by all in this thread is abhorant too. That some are even trying to defend it through semantic gamesmanship makes me sad as well.

Im saving my condemnation until here everyone on the left do the same for our current POTUS and Congress.

Im ashamed at you being ashamed.

He can be correct and it still be terrible.

[Corcaigh]

Whether it does or it doesnt, it shouldn't.

Just because the Muslim world thinks a certain way about things doesn't mean we should alter anything we do to satisfy them.

What?

Are you suggesting that we should ignore the history of the Middle East when talking about it?

[Larry]

Sure there are different definitions.

But where terrorism becomes a serious threat to society, rather than just a single crime scene, is the organization behind it and multiple sustained attacks.

So what you're saying is that (IYO) no, there haven't been any terrorist attacks under Obama, either?

[RedskinsTime]

What?

Are you suggesting that we should ignore the history of the Middle East when talking about it?

No, I'm saying that we shouldn't excuse their behavior because of a war that was fought hundreds of years ago.

Under that logic, I could blow up a bus in London because of taxation without representation.

[Kilmer17]

The outrage at Rudy should be that he is apparently blaming Obama. What I saw EARLY in this thread was outrage that he SEMANTICALLY omitted 9/11.

If this Rudy had said it correctly, then I think the condemnation here would have been near 100%. There is no point in blaming any POTUS for the actions of militant muslim terrorists.

[Corcaigh]

No, I'm saying that we shouldn't excuse their behavior because of a war that was fought hundreds of years ago.

No one excusing their behavior, merely that they're not the only ones to invoke their god when killing.

[ljs]

How so? It was a US soldier who went ape **** and shot a bunch of people. If he's a terrorist then when a Christian blows up an abortion clinic or hunts down a doctor and murders him/her then thats also terrorism, right??

I agree, call it all what it is. Why pick and choose??

Sure there are different definitions.

But where terrorism becomes a serious threat to society, rather than just a single crime scene, is the organization behind it and multiple sustained attacks.

someone is forgetting the WHY behind the Ft Hood attacks. The "why" is b/c he was a muslim who did not want the US to be in the middle east killing muslims. He contacted a terrorist group, plenty of evidence for that. He killed the other military members b/c of his faith- that is the same terrorist act as 9/11- just on a smaller scale. To call it anything other than terrorism is insane.

Despicable and pretty inexcusable.

I guess we should expect this from the party of "Vote for us or there will be mushroom clouds in your living room."

This is really terrible stuff and the fact that it hasn't been universally condemned by all in this thread is abhorant too. That some are even trying to defend it through semantic gamesmanship makes me sad as well.

I really don't see anyone on here defending Rudi's dumb comment. And you want to complain about Semantic gamemanship. Burgold, you are smarter than that. That **** happens all the time on here, both sides equally.

Pots calling kettles black all the time. Wah wah, your side did it so my side can do it.

People, 2 wrongs don't make a right. By Democrats always using the "Well the GOP did it>- or the GOP saying "Well the Democrats did it. **** you all sound like my 4 yr old nepew fighting with his sister.

[Corcaigh]

someone is forgetting the WHY behind the Ft Hood attacks. The "why" is b/c he was a muslim who did not want the US to be in the middle east killing muslims.

I'm not forgetting anything. You miss the point.

A someone who grew up in Ireland I think terrorism deserves very special treatment under the law because of the larger threat to society and the need to eliminate the organizations funding and orchestrating terror campaigns. I think the difference between a one-off event committed by a madman (for whatever reason he chose) and a sustained attack on society deserve quite different laws and police powers.

While that dude may have sent e-mails to extremists, if he was actually acting on their behalf I think have may have committed a much worse crime.

Labeling any act of violence committed by a crazy Muslim acting alone as a terrorist act doesn't serve a useful purpose IMO.

[Destino]

someone is forgetting the WHY behind the Ft Hood attacks. The "why" is b/c he was a muslim who did not want the US to be in the middle east killing muslims. He contacted a terrorist group, plenty of evidence for that. He killed the other military members b/c of his faith- that is the same terrorist act as 9/11- just on a smaller scale. To call it anything other than terrorism is insane.

And this is why the "war on terror" is confusing. He contacted them but he wasn't a member. He wasn't acting on orders or part of some plot. He was sympathetic and lost his marbles and shot up a military base. He was not however a member of the Al Qaeda.

It was not the same as 9/11 or any of the other attacks Al Qaeda has launched on the US. The major difference being that we aren't, despite moronic politicians, at war with an ideology. We are at war with specific groups that have chosen to attack us. There are many groups that share that ideology that hold political power with which we are not at war.

The loon at Fort Hood acted alone and for reasons that were his own. He was mad that he might be shipped off and was sympathetic to anti-US sentiment in the muslim world. He was NOT a member of the terrorist groups that we are currently hunting down across the world.

Claiming that he is the same thing is claiming that terrorism is now defined by "terrorism by exclusively Muslims... for matters concerning Islam". That is a poor definition of what is going on world wide at the moment.