It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why We Haven't Had More Attacks Before Bush!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
You are not on my side: you are on theirs.


tmac100,


First: there are no sides here, only opinions....
Second: I do not see evidence of anyone attacking your posts, you are simply coming on a bit strong and therefore get strong replies
Third: I agree with most of your findings with regards to the gradual incorporation of the word "Terrorist" into modern language over the past decade or so, and intensifying under the Bush regime (well duh. 9/11 made sure of that)

If you are trying to convince me, don´t bother, I need no convincing of the existence of an evil agenda. If you are trying to convince others, just try to be less defensive and engage in serious debate without indulging in putting your opinion across like a steamroller and you might find the answers you are looking for by democratic consensus.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by HardToGet]




posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
What are you talking about. The very simplicity of the points and questions I ask the answers for should convince you to not rest till the other side answers, plain and done!

The simplicity of the points and questions as it stands with their dancing around it shows who is desperate. Your efforts, even for the sake of lives, should always and only be against those evading the debate. As they evade, lives are lost without accounting, and the stage is set for more lives to be lost as they justify the absurd principles that are taking place.

It's best you not rest till the other side comes clean, at least for the sake of lives.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The other side you are referring to, where are they supposed to be? Here on ATS?

I am not sure what you are looking for, every time someone tries to debate with you, you immediatly bite their heads off, insult them, and leave no room for debate whatsoever.

Who should answer your (mostly) rhetorical questions? Neo´s Oracle?

Not sure she is online, let me check....

Again, there are no sides. You seem to me just trying to push your own standpoints through pure monologue without leaving room for dialogue under a pretext for saving lives.

Why should we crown you king and trust in you?

In an anonymous environment like this there are no absolute truths or answers, just debate and discussion. For any other activities you need to form your own militia or political party and seize power yourself, you just cannot do that in here.

Opinions are expressed and discussed in here, and if you´re lucky you may find new insights and ideas from those discussions, nothing more.

That´s what I´m talking about.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Why don't you leave debate for your own false accusations? Who can disagree with your bigoted ideas? You act as if you also never heard of the word FREEDOM. You completely ignored my point! You are another one who will work to leave the questions unanswered to then fill in what is supposed to be the answers with false accusations.

I am even asking for simple questions to be answered. As they use their trained talents to avoid answering to the destruction of lives, you tell me I'm biting their heads off.

Alright then, you request the simple request I'm making in your own words then.

Every point I put in the last post you ignored. Your effort will be against the right side. It is nothing new.

Now don't complain. Just answer the points and issues clearly since lives hinge upon them. See the title of the thread?

You think all this is anything new to me? There are reasons why the world is being turned up-side-down. The reasons are far more than the actual people who are doing this.

See the title of the thread? On my website is shown dialogues that show your accusations are monotonous and well-planned. I already told you that since you claim to even agree with me and see that lives are being lost because of the false ideas being spread, you are to spend no time attacking the side of right. Since you actually never were on the side of right, what can I expect of you? I told you about the questions and points being ignored, and you come back and ignore them to make attacking accusations against the one demanding the answers that can save lives. You expect everybody to fall for that?

[edit on 8-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
It's like the same thing with President Bush. The constitutional soldiers are begging for body armor. The fifth-column treason team comes and brushes the concern completely aside and accuse those who even bring it up. They then turn on those who want the soldiers protected and say they are biting the President's head off, insulting the president, being disrespectful of the reputation of the President when the president doesn't care about his own reputation himself. One very ominous man is preserved and struggled for by his propaganda team with no regard to the thousands of lives!

Bush-hater! Bush-hater! they say. He only sends our sons and daughters to war to die. How can anyone possibly hate him, while I am hated on internet forums by the same strange people! The same strange people who will in the future decree that minorities must be destroyed for the sake of the majority! Totally different than how they are acting now!

[edit on 8-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
you asked why there were less terror attacks before bush. there weren't. you can call all those other attacks what you want but they are terrorism.

that said, Blame Reagan for the current state of the planet. He kowtowed to terrorists after they bombed the barracks. By pulling out, they learned the "great giant" can be beaten.

Blame the CIA and its many cohorts that trained and armed the very same folks who are now fighting us.


Don't get me wrong. Bush isn't doing anything to help the situation. Making things worse in many (many many) ways but don't sit there and say the islamic fundamentalists loved us until he was sworn into office. That's beyond ignorant. It's downright moronic.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
You then knew what followed, but ignored it. If it is then true that there were always terror attacks, and then the Nazicon claim that Bush has the right idea on how to fight it which makes this a NEW DAY and the Constitution "Outdated," how long back was the Constitution "outdated?"

Only the enemies of the Constitution would conclude that it was "outdated" on the very day of its creation, since, according to you, terrorism was always around since the beginning even though you ignored my request for even usage of the term in our textbooks, our lives, even the Google Archives system as compared to when Bush arrived. You merely returned and repeated the lie.

Whether you stand on your head or not, I know that this concern was less and less the further back we went till it spiked during the Bush Administration you guys insist must be made king for failing to protect us.

You will persist till damnation day, but you cannot tell me that even in my textbooks as I was growing up through elementary and high school as compared to now that this concern was even around. That's why you guys insist we must give up that "mentality" where we sat back and knew the government was protecting us till we were able to laugh at terrorist threats until Bush came.

You guys, of course, are free to repeat this well answered issue and prevent the discovery of the truth some more.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
you ignored my request for even usage of the term in our textbooks, our lives, even the Google Archives system as compared to when Bush arrived. You merely returned and repeated the lie.


(taken from wikipedia)
The term "terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, which is based on the Latin verb terrere (to cause to tremble), [5] It dates back to 1795 when it was used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". Jacobins are rumored to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves. The English word "terrorism" was popularized in English when it was used by the conservative Edmund Burke, an outspoken opponent of the French Revolution in general, as well as the Terror. Acts described as Jacobin Club "terrorism" were mostly cases of arrest or execution of opponents as a means of coercing compliance in the general public. According to Juegensmeyer, they were public acts of destruction which inflicted a public sense of fear due to the lack of military objectives.



Originally posted by tmac100You will persist till damnation day, but you cannot tell me that even in my textbooks as I was growing up through elementary and high school as compared to now that this concern was even around. That's why you guys insist we must give up that "mentality" where we sat back and knew the government was protecting us till we were able to laugh at terrorist threats until Bush came.



don't blame your crappy education on me. I guess, growing up, you never studied "the troubles" in Ireland, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Munich Olympics, the Achilles Lauro (spelling?), the Israel/Palestinian "conflict" etc. I guess, growing up, you never read a news paper.

You can sit here and bash bush all you want. He's a dangerous dolt and you'll find few who will argue on his behalf. But I will, once again, tell you that terrorism and terrorists have been around far longer than he has. The word is only more prevalent now because, thanks to Ronnie Reagan, terrorists know the US can be swayed by their violence. His actions led to the many attacks on US interests since then and Clinton's failure to act like a man when they attacked the WTC in 93 (not terrorism in your book I guess) quite possibly resulted in a second, more eventfull attack.

I can stand on my head. I can also chew gum and walk. Oh, and I can recall my history classes, my current events classes and some of the more profound events I read about in the papers when I was younger.

peace.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
On my website is shown dialogues that show your accusations are monotonous and well-planned.


And what is your website? prisonplanet.com... ?



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Crakeur,

Can you tell me why every strange person responsible for the absurd way that America is being run cannot see the plainest questions, and when they can't, they cover it up by saying that those who ask the questions have crappy education or have mental problems?

I want straight answers from the most crooked of people. So I am going to ask again:

If Terrorism was back since the beginning of this country, gage for us the usage of the expression for the entire history of this country till President Bush.

Do you see the question, dude? If everyone was as true and straight as Judge Judy, you may be swinging from the gallows by now. Because everybody may have crappy education, but they can see a clear question.

There was indeed trouble all throughout the history of this country, but it wasn't referred to as TERRORISM .

As a matter of fact, the current reference is FORCED for everyone to believe that Bush is following the only correct approach to combat terrorism which makes the Constitution and the Geneva Convention declarations "OUTDATED." That is what you strange people of the Fourth Reich told us.

If that is therefore true, another question I, with my "crappy education" have seen before:

WHEN THEN WAS THE CONSTITUTION "OUTDATED" SINCE TERRORISM, ACCORDING TO YOU GUYS, IS NOW OUTDATED BECAUSE OF TERRORISM, BUT THEN CLAIM TERRORISM, AS WE REFER TO IT, WAS ALWAYS AROUND.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
you should reread post one in this thread which simply asks why we didn't have more terror attacks prior to Bush taking office. If you want to play semantics, and claim that events such as the 93 WTC bombing weren't terror attacks because they were called something else, so be it. There's no debating you on that approach.

That said, I agree that the word is more widely used now. Perhaps it is a result of our finally joining the rest of the globe in having to deal with these kinds of attacks. Perhaps it was merely because, prior to '01, the threat was mainly viewed as an overseas problem and, as such, it wasn't as big a threat to out daily lives.

With that, I give you some history of the use of the word.
www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/10/28/IN159328.DTL

By the 1990s, people were crying terrorism whenever they discerned an attempt at intimidation or disruption. Hackers who concocted computer viruses were cyberterrorists, cult leaders were psychological terrorists.


President Jimmy Carter said this: "When I was president, we dealt with terrorism in the form of explosions, aircraft hijackings, and things of that kind, but there was not a worldwide awareness of it. Leaders were concerned, however, and we acted to try to control it."
(source) www.britannica.com...
so it did exist when Carter was president and, like I said, it was more of a "their" problem than an "our" problem.

In the 60's and 70's we saw a rise in the number of groups being referred to as terrorist organizations.

Through the 1960s and 1970s, the numbers of those groups that might be described as terrorist swelled to include not only nationalists, but those motivated by ethnic and ideological considerations. The former included groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (and its many affiliates), the Basque ETA, and the Provisional Irish Republican Army, while the latter comprised organizations such as the Red Army Faction (in what was then West Germany) and the Italian Red Brigades. As with the emergence of modern terrorism almost a century earlier, the United States was not immune from this latest wave, although there the identity-crisis-driven motivations of the white middle-class Weathermen starkly contrasted with the ghetto-bred malcontent of the Black Panther movement
source: www.cdi.org...


In July 1985, former United States President Ronald Reagan addressed the American Bar Association on the subject of terrorism.............


President Reagan’s tirade was provoked by a spectacular plane hijack at Beirut Airport which had occurred a few days earlier.

Source: Terrorism Then and Now


The bulk of the attacks against the US began in 79 and with Reagan's troop withdrawl they intensified. Yes, they were overseas but they were against the US.
Were they all called terrorism? The overseas acts were. The things that happened here were often not. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. They didn't classify it that way tho.

Interestingly, Police Commissioner Kelly (NYC PD) gave a list of 17 events that he thought Michael Chertoff should be aware of now that he is cutting the terror aid to my fair city. Many of the things listed in his timeline happened here in my city prior to 9/11. Muslim extremist shooting Yeshiva students on the Brooklyn Bridge was the one that I most remembered. Was that terrorism? Yes, however, when it happened it was still deemed part of the Arab/Israel conflict, even if it did take place a few miles from my home.

So, yes, you are correct in stating that we used the word less. However, your initial post and the basis of this thread seems to ask why all the attacks seem to take place after Bush takes office and that is clearly not the case.

Now, you are going to say I still don't understand you, even though it is clear to me that you are simply twisting the thread around to alter the main point since it has been shown that this b.s. has been going on for hundreds of years.

So, with that in mind, Peace.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
An attack is only considered an "Act of War" when it is committed by a Nation, State or Government. All of the events that have been stated here can be considered acts of terrorism. Around the time of the Olympic massacre in Germany it was decided that acts like the massacre were to be treated as criminal acts, in order to deny political credability to the organizations committing them. After 9-11 President Bush's Declaration of War on Terrorism made it a military and political issue instead of the criminal one that it was.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
The question was not answered again! That's why I say no wonder the big bad ol' "Conspiracy Theorists" bother you guys so much!

Let's repeat it again for those who demand we accept their credibility the questions that have the potential to save lives summed up into one:

What would have happened if, in response to terrorism we are being lied to always existed, from the beginning, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin told us we were subject to arrest and detainment on an accusation without charge or due process because they failed to protect us?

Why did Benjamin Franklin tell us that they who will submit a measure of their liberties for security deserves neither liberty nor security?

Crakeur, don't come back with your repeats that terrorism always existed and pretend I am not asking you these questions anymore. Because if you do that, you will have to persevere and demand that we respect your credibility.

These are the questions that can yet save lives.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100What would have happened if, in response to terrorism we are being lied to always existed, from the beginning, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin told us we were subject to arrest and detainment on an accusation without charge or due process because they failed to protect us?


I'm not even sure if I fully understand what you are saying there but I think you're asking what would have happened if a president said we would arrest and detain someone because the gov't failed to protect its people. That is not the question originally posed.

let me quote your thread title. "why we haven't had more attacks before bush"

we have. there's no discussion on that aspect.

you might think that the presidents of our past, doing nothing, meant no attacks. That is not the case. Bill Clinton, hero to the people, launched a dud into the desert after the WTC was attacked in 1993, by TERRORISTS. Had he shown some balls to the world, rather than to Monica Lewinky, the events of 9/11 might have been put off or stopped altogether. Before you start crying about Clinton, let me remind you that he's not alone in the wrong action committee. Reagan screwed up the most, as mentioned earlier. Other presidents have done little or nothing to combat what was, originally, a "foreign" problem. Foreign in the sense that it wasn't happening on our soil.

and here's an interesting article about Thomas Jefferson and his battle against terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Don't evade or ignore this question anymore Crakeur:

Since you claim terrorism was always around despite your own party telling us about a New Day or situation that has arisen that requires different principles, and you are saying that Bush policies are the most effective...

Are you telling us that when the Constitution was first penned, the American people should have been informed that they are subject to arrest and detainment indefinitely without charge or due process by any president that fails to protect them?

Why did Benjamin Franklin tell us that they who consent to give up a measure of their liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security?

Why does Bush and his supporters ignore this quotation from Ben Franklin and refuse to comment about it? You telling us America must be stupid even when it was first formed?

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Don't evade or ignore this question anymore Crakeur:



stop changing the question


Originally posted by tmac100
Since you claim terrorism was always around despite your own party telling us about a New Day or situation that has arisen that requires different principles, and you are saying that Bush policies are the most effective...


my own party? how do you know where my vote goes? Let me give you a clue. I find politicians in general to be a disgusting bunch of sleazeballs that do nothing, unless it somehow translates into more for them. I neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm an American. I vote based on what I feel is right and whom I feel will do the job best. Sadly, neither side gives much of an option. If Hil is the next "great white hope" to come from the democrats, I feel we are equally as doomed as whatever head we get from the republcans.


Originally posted by tmac100

Are you telling us that when the Constitution was first penned, the American people should have been informed that they are subject to arrest and detainment indefinitely without charge or due process by any president that fails to protect them?


show me where I have ever said it is ok to arrest and detain anyone for any period of time without charge or due process. You said there wasn't any terrorism before bush and I merely pointed out how completely ludicrous that comment was, with examples.



Here's the problem, as I see it. You started a topic with the hopes of bashing the Bush administration (which is really original and exciting by the way.) It turned out that the manner in which you approached this backfired and now you are attempting to turn your inane claims around so as to allow you to pontificate on the ills of the neocons. Well, sadly, you are chasing windmills. Every single poster in this thread seems to think that there was terrorism before Bush (again, referencing your original claim). Bush haters and lovers (if there are any willing to admit it) alike.

So, rather than sit here and say I am not answering your questions, which I think I did, why don't you write an op/ed piece about how Bush is using the word Terrorism to maniuplate the public opinion and how his administration has co-opted the media with fantastical tales of terrorism when, in reality, it has existed for centuries and was never quite as fearful due, largely in part, to it's lack of public mentioning.

By the way, the concept of the white house over-using the T word to further their agenda has been done ad nauseum here, there and everywhere.

you have wasted so much energy here. As soon as you went with the secondary tact on the point(lessness?) of this thread, you began beating the proverbial dead horse.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I'm not sure I understand your question tmac100...

There have been at least 20 (very conservative number) attacks against the US before Bush.
Since Bush there has been 9/11.....and that's it.

Last I checked 20 > 1

What exactly are you asking? Or trying to point out?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Whosoever don't understand the question, then leave and don't worry about it. Too many have claimed my posts are not understood before others like them then dialogued and attempted to deceive.

You all are doing what you have to do, including Crakeur covering over his ignoring of the points and questions by accusing me of changing the question.

Again for the IQs of those who did not make America:

Are you saying that since Bush policies is the most effective against terrorism and terrorism was always around, the Constitution was outdated the day it was created and the American forefathers were supposed to have told us that we must expect to be detained and imprisoned forever without due process if a president fails to protect us?

Let's say this is the 3rd time this is asked just for your benefit and assume you are going to have to ignore it again.

It is clear President Bush doesn't care about his reputation. Isn't it safe to say that everyone else who comes from the Inquisitions don't?

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
I keep hearing all this junk about the USS Cole, etc.

Those things to us were more acts of war. We always had acts of war.



I'd say flying jet aircraft into buildings killing thousands of people would qualify as an act of war!



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Are you saying that since Bush policies is the most effective against terrorism and terrorism was always around, the Constitution was outdated the day it was created and the American forefathers were supposed to have told us that we must expect to be detained and imprisoned forever without due process if a president fails to protect us?



so that's the elusive, cryptic, poorly worded question you've been trying to find an answer to?

Bush's policies are neither more effect nor less effective. His are either more overt or more plentifull. As I have said (repeatedly), terrorism has been happening for centuries. Some presidents combat it directly (Bush, Jefferson) and some do little other than make a lame effort to show they are combating it (Clinton and others). Reagan was on both sides. He withdrew troops after one attack and bombed Gaddafi's compound after another.

Terrorism will happen. Can one president's policies make us safer than the others? Perhaps, for a time, but there will always be those that disagree with the powers that be. The islamic fundamentalists are currently saying that their distaste for Americans is a result of our backing of Israel and our presence in the Middle East. If we up and left and told Israel we were going to remain neutral on all aspects of Israel, Palestine and the Middle East, do I think the fundamentalists will stop their acts of terror against US interests and suddenly embrace us as a nation? Not a chance. We don't follow their set of beliefs and that, according to their thinking, is a reason for us to be destroyed.


Originally posted by tmac100

It is clear President Bush doesn't care about his reputation. Isn't it safe to say that everyone else who comes from the Inquisitions don't?


Your use of the english language has, at times, had me stunned. I can't even begin to understand this last question. Is it the same as the first? Is it another version of the no terror before Bush conundrum?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join