Giuliani: Terrorists Never Attacked When Bush Protected Us

[Mickalino]

I would love to be protected by bush

[Larry]

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.

Or perhaps people are pointing out (correctly) that "terrorism" is not defined as "being a member of al Qaeda".

[Thiebear]

Anti-American isn't the only brand of terrorism.

Its the one that kills in the tens/hundreds/thousands and not 'ones'.

Islamic terrorism also kills other 'non-conforming' islamists in the hundreds..

Major terrorist attacks since 9/11

Thursday 7 July 2005 16.38 BST

[*]Article history

Ambulances stand at the ready in front of King's Cross station following the London bombings. Photograph: Martyn Hayhow/AFP/Getty Images

March 2002, Israel

Three bombs, independently planned but all timed to coincide with the Passover festival. One hits a Passover dinner at a hotel in Netanya, killing 20 people. Another in Tel Aviv kills 29 and a suicide bomber attacks an Arab-owned restaurant in Haifa and kills 14. October 12 2002, Bali, Indonesia

Car bombs outside nightclubs popular with foreign tourists kill 202 people, 91 of them Australians. An Indonesian Islamist group with Al-Qaida links is blamed.

October 23 2002, Moscow

Chechen gunmen and women take over a theatre and hold everyone inside hostage. They later shoot dead several of the hostages. Russian troops use gas to subdue the hostage takers, and kill 50 of them. However, the gas also kills 179 of the hostages.

May 16 2003, Casablanca, Morocco

Five bombs targeted at Jewish and western people in the city kill 41, mostly Moroccans. Six Europeans also die.

May 12 2003, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Suicide bomber attacks on residential compounds inhabited by westerners kills 34 people. Al-Qaida blamed.

November 20 2003, Istanbul, Turkey

Truck bomb attacks on the British Consulate and the HSBC bank kill over 60 people, including the British consul general in the city.

March 11 2004, Madrid

Explosions aboard four commuter trains arriving at Atocha station during the morning rush hour. Bombs were in backpacks, and detonated using a mobile phone, killing191 people and injuring 1,800. Spanish government of Jose Maria Aznar at first suggests the Basque separatist group Eta is to blame, but later concedes the attacks were the work of Islamists. Popular anger at being "misled" leads to victory of the opposition at a general election a few days later.

September 1 - 3 2004, Beslan, Russia

Islamist gunmen take over 1,000 hostages, mostly children, at a school in North Ossetia. After a three-day siege many of the hostages are killed in an explosion in the school gym, after which Russian troops storm the building. The final death toll is over 330, many of them children. 800 more are injured.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/terrorism.uk1

[Thiebear]

if you want just 2010 here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010

the big one: January 1 105 100+ Pakistan Lakki Marwat, Pakistan A suicide car bomber drove his explosive-laden vehicle into a volleyball pitch as people gathered to watch a match.[1]

2009 is huge and broken up by month:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009

its a damn shame some of the host countries put up with their people doing this.

March 23 25 45 Iraq Jalawla, 25 civilians are killed after a suicide bomber detonated at a Kurdish funeral. "Dozens" are reported to have been wounded.[101]

[mjah]

Why the Palin reference?

Self explanatory. (Except maybe to her. Tee hee.)

I THINK he was trying to say that there were no succesful acts of terrorism on US soil after 9/11 on Bush watch. And that there HAS been under Obama.

I think thats an incredibly short sighted, retarded, hurtful thing to say. I think he came off like an idiot even TRYING to say it.

Not to mention that it's clearly wrong, as previously noted in this thread.

If he tried to share that factually incorrect statement, and ended up sharing a different factually incorrect statement instead, then he's in worse shape than his 66 years would suggest.

His entire act consists of maybe three talking points. Who knew that his limit was four?

But I do agree with your last sentence.

[DeanCollins]

Why do Republicans keep embarrassing us ? :doh:

They do such stupid things, sometimes I wonder if they're actually Democrats posing as Republicans, in order to give the GOP a bad reputation.

You have to get half your brain sucked out to join the party.

[Rufus T Firefly]

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.

Too bad he wasn't even close to being correct, no matter what twisted standard you use to judge it.

Forget 9/11, he was still compltely wrong. Somehow the shoe bomber doesn't count, but the underwear bomber does.

Not to mention Anthrax, LAX, and other events.

He was wrong. Just say so.

[Capt Rich Fla]

I wonder if the CIA and other intelligence agencies aren't letting a few attacks slip through because Obama is :paranoid: black. hmmm, could the MAN be trying to ruin Obama? Some think THEY killed Kennedy. Wouldn't ignoring signs of an up coming attack, and not letting them be known ruin a man's legacy as president?

How has this thread gone 8 or 9 pages and not gone racial! :yikes: I threw this little nugget in there so I could sit back and :munchout:. You know damn well someone's thinking it! Not a bite?! Not a taker?! Ya'll must be growing up.

[mjah]

How has this thread gone 8 or 9 pages and not gone racial! :yikes: I threw this little nugget in there so I could sit back and :munchout:. You know damn well someone's thinking it! Not a bite?! Not a taker?! Ya'll must be growing up.

Obvious troll was obvious. :whoknows:

[NoCalMike]

Personally I would consider shooting an abortion doctor or blowing up an abortion clinic terrorism, because the intent is to terrorize whether the actual amount of death is small or not, it is a method in order to put fear into any place and anyone that offers the service.

Terrorism is terrorism, whether it is anti-american/jihad-related or not.

I don't think it is fair or accurate to say just because the guy wasn't shouting "Allah is great" that it means it wasn't terrorism.

I mean when a group like ELF sets some SUVs a'blaze, and even makes sure there are no people around to get hurt, it is still classified as ECO-Terrorism, right?

[Thiebear]

nm i read it wrong...

[jpyaks3]

I think for an act to be terrorist there needs to be three elements present. 1. The act must be committed to advance an ideological goal or set of goals. 2. The act must target civilians. 3. The acts must be an attempt to coerce a government or ruling body not just simply creating terror amongst the population, there has to be a larger goal.

The amount of deaths or damages is entirely irrelevant, abortion bombings, church arsonists, and suicide bombers all fit the bill, I don't think the DC Sniper killings fit the bill because they weren't committed as part of a larger ideological effort and were just done to create terror. As of now I don't think the Fort Hood shootings or any other shootings at the work place unless there are concrete motives that show that his attack was part of a larger effort rather then just one man snapping.

[Thiebear]

The amount of deaths or damages is entirely irrelevant, abortion bombings, church arsonists, and suicide bombers all fit the bill, I don't think the DC Sniper killings fit the bill because they weren't committed as part of a larger ideological effort and were just done to create terror. As of now I don't think the Fort Hood shootings or any other shootings at the work place unless there are concrete motives that show that his attack was part of a larger effort rather then just one man snapping.

once you get up in the thousands it is no longer a nuisance terrorist act on the world stage..

DC sniper was trying to kill his woman, and was hiding it by killing others.. (totally different)

[jpyaks3]

once you get up in the thousands it is no longer a nuisance terrorist act on the world stage..

DC sniper was trying to kill his woman, and was hiding it by killing others.. (totally different)

Thats why I classified the DC Sniper acts as not terrorism, while it terrorized the population of DC there wasn't a larger ideological goal there.

[Larry]

I think for an act to be terrorist there needs to be three elements present. 1. The act must be committed to advance an ideological goal or set of goals. 2. The act must target civilians. 3. The acts must be an attempt to coerce a government or ruling body not just simply creating terror amongst the population, there has to be a larger goal.

Some time ago, I posted a poll on ES, attempting to get the Tailgate to arrive at a consensus as to exactly what does or doesn't count as terrorism.

I was frankly surprised at the results. Granted, I intentionally picked things that I figured would be close to the borderline. (I didn't see a whole lot of purpose behind a poll asking "Was 9/11 terrorism?")

However, I was really surprised, for example, that every single person who attempted to define terrorism included "attacking civilians" in their definition, yet the #1 poll option, the case where Tailgate comes the closest to unanimous agreement that "This is terrorism", is an attack on soldiers in a war zone.

(Might be a good time to bump the thread, and see if opinions have changed.)

(Mods: Is there an option to allow people to change their votes in polls?)

[Burgold]

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.

Listen. The guys who tried to blame for 9/11 were fools and idiots. Giuliani has just put himself in that camp. Anyone playing politics with this issue is a miserable person. Apparently, that may include you. I know you like playing games, but this is one area where politics as usual truly sucks.

[chow184]

And there was a success under Obama. Ft Hood.

And guess what, that nutjob stewed for 8 years under bush as well. If your going to place blame do it equally.

[Bliz]

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.

What about the fact that Ft Hood was an attack on military personnel, not civilians? To me, that fact alone puts it in a different category.

But of course all of this comparison of Bush v. Obama on successful terror attacks is stupid. There are a lot of reasons why an attack might be successful or not successful. If we do foil one, it may be because of the hard work and quality of our intelligence community (the ones we don't hear about), the acts of civilians with no connection to the govt who manage to stop it (shoe bomber), or pure dumb luck (millenium bomber, device malfunctions).

Giuliani is awful, and the things he and Cheney are saying on the talk show circuit are for the purpose of putting party over country, and lining their pockets. It does nothing to make us "more safe"...

[DeanCollins]

I count 2 major events under bush. The first obviously is 9/11 (which technically could be 3 seperate domestic attacks). The next would be Richard Reid and the shoe Bomber (which is similar to the attack attempted by this Nigerian kid.

So I guess "Let's Roll" doesn't count? :doh:

[jpyaks3]

Some time ago, I posted a poll on ES, attempting to get the Tailgate to arrive at a consensus as to exactly what does or doesn't count as terrorism.

I was frankly surprised at the results. Granted, I intentionally picked things that I figured would be close to the borderline. (I didn't see a whole lot of purpose behind a poll asking "Was 9/11 terrorism?")

However, I was really surprised, for example, that every single person who attempted to define terrorism included "attacking civilians" in their definition, yet the #1 poll option, the case where Tailgate comes the closest to unanimous agreement that "This is terrorism", is an attack on soldiers in a war zone.

(Might be a good time to bump the thread, and see if opinions have changed.)

(Mods: Is there an option to allow people to change their votes in polls?)

I personally would call an attack on a checkpoint asymmetrical warfare rather than a terrorist action.