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.

 

Congratulations President Bush, 6 yrs. with no terrorist attack on US soil!

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I haven't heard much mention of this in the always biased liberal media but it is worth mentioning. I think after 9-11 occured no American would have suspected that in the next 6 years there would be no terrorist attacks on US soil, that we would enjoy unpresidented prosperity, nearly full employment and no recessions. The current president deserves credit where credit is due!




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I, for one, thank the fearless leader for our safety, health and freedom.

*locks door, boards up windows, takes gun and watches Fox News Special on "ZOMG Terror is watching you sleep"*

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Sytima]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Problem...Reaction....Solution...

Terrorism..."Help us government"...loss of civil liberties...



A wise man once said..."Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Sure i can give credit where credit is due.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Choronzon]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
There has not been another attack because the first served it's purpose.
The second should be on it's way shortly.
The population is getting calm lately.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
There was a fair gap between the first and second WTC attacks, so I honestly don't put it much on the shoulders of Bush.

Like most things in this government, sometimes it works ok, mostly it doesn't, and it's been in low gear for longer than bush has been around. Too bad he didn't do jack to fix it.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


If Bill or Hill had been in charge either would have claimed credit big time and the liberal media would have it all over the news. So I will claim credit for Bush 2!



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


um... bush isn't really responsible for any of that... at all. if anything, the reason that there hasn't been another attack is that it takes a long time to plan an attack... and if you just knocked out 2 of the largest buildings in the world, you're not going to go for a smaller attack.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I think i'm going to be sick.





Our president is protecting us and loves us dearly, so much so, that he's going to do a mercy killing on all of us one day soon.




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch

If Bill or Hill had been in charge either would have claimed credit big time and the liberal media would have it all over the news. So I will claim credit for Bush 2!


Ok, but I wouldn't give those losers much (if any) credit either, so the side is really irrelevant.

Enjoy your trench.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   


and if you just knocked out 2 of the largest buildings in the world, you're not going to go for a smaller attack.
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Hi Madness, I should remind you that the shameless killers seem to have no problem with blowing up cars, busses, trains and subways in countries who are our allies.




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


um... ok, you're acting as if there's a massive terrorist network. there are many unconnected attacks occurring in the world

and before you label them shameless killers, look at the allies of the USA
then look at the USA.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally by Madness,
um... ok, you're acting as if there's a massive terrorist network.

Didn't say that.



before you label them shameless killers

They kill indiscriminately including women and children of their own, they do it in spite of prohibitions in their holy book the Koran, they do it fully realizing their actions will only result in more killing. Shameless seems like a good discription.


look at the allies of the USA
If one of our troops participated in indiscriminate killing they would face endless lawyers. No moral equivalency here.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch

originally by Madness,
um... ok, you're acting as if there's a massive terrorist network.

Didn't say that.


you equated all terrorist attacks on the allies of the USA to 9/11...



before you label them shameless killers

They kill indiscriminately including women and children of their own, they do it in spite of prohibitions in their holy book the Koran, they do it fully realizing their actions will only result in more killing. Shameless seems like a good discription.


sounds like the US military...
the same US military that bombed a civilian target because saddam might have been in the area...





look at the allies of the USA
If one of our troops participated in indiscriminate killing they would face endless lawyers. No moral equivalency here.


no, they wouldn't. the USA does it all the time, actually. we label the deaths of civilians as "collateral damage"

and i said look at the ALLIES of the USA..
like israel, big one there. they kill more civilians than the accused "terrorists" that they're fighting.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   


you equated all terrorist attacks on the allies of the USA to 9/11...
I think that if they could, some group somewhere in the US would blow up something, even a car of bus. They would do it on Mohamed's birthday or other key date. Terrorist attacks occur in other western countries because they are easier prey than the US. The fact that they have not been able to stage another US attack is probably because they are too disorganized, on the run and we have an inside track on them, at least so far.
My guess is they will wait till there is a weaker administration in power before taking another shot.


no, they wouldn't. the USA does it all the time, actually. we label the deaths of civilians as "collateral damage"
Our troups have rules of engagement. We have rules now we had them in Nam. Individual soldiers have to be very careful when they pull the trigger.
Is there collateral damage when someone higher up the chain of command orders a bombing of a likely target, of course. But targets are not indiscriminately sellected. Again there is no moral equivalency between their indiscriminate bombing of civilians and the way we are conducting the war IMHO.


like israel, big one there. they kill more civilians than the accused "terrorists
I remember Hamas purposely placing their own civilians in front of their military targets in the last war. They were asking for civilian casualties so they could go to the media and point to the nasty Israelies.


[edit on 12-9-2007 by plumranch]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Well I know some people will laugh and scoff at this thread, but it is true.

I live in New York City and in the days after 9/11 many, many people were afraid another attack could happen at any time. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd bet that six years later there wouldn't be another attack on U.S. soil.

So all of us should give credit where it is due -- so far the Bush admin has been very successful in thwarting further attacks.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
I think that if they could, some group somewhere in the US would blow up something, even a car of bus. They would do it on Mohamed's birthday or other key date.


...are you aware that not all terrorists are muslims? like... you know, oklahoma city, that wasn't a muslim extremist attack right there...



Terrorist attacks occur in other western countries because they are easier prey than the US. The fact that they have not been able to stage another US attack is probably because they are too disorganized, on the run and we have an inside track on them, at least so far.
My guess is they will wait till there is a weaker administration in power before taking another shot.


"weaker"?
do you mean one that doesn't step outside it's constitutionally powers?


Our troups have rules of engagement. We have rules now we had them in Nam. Individual soldiers have to be very careful when they pull the trigger.


yeah... exactly, the rules we had back in 'nam... those worked out so well



Is there collateral damage when someone higher up the chain of command orders a bombing of a likely target, of course. But targets are not indiscriminately sellected. Again there is no moral equivalency between their indiscriminate bombing of civilians and the way we are conducting the war IMHO.


oh... but there is. terrorists aren't just people that indiscriminately hate, such is a horrid caricature made up by the media. terrorists have end goals, they plan out attacks to meet them. many attacks we label as "terrorist" are attacks on a barracks or military installation...
terrorists don't indiscriminately select targets, they do so carefully..



I remember Hamas purposely placing their own civilians in front of their military targets in the last war. They were asking for civilian casualties so they could go to the media and point to the nasty Israelies.


adjust your scopes for a second... look back through the history of the conflict. your views tend to extend to a distorted view of the conflict perpetuated by the USA

firstly... i think you're confusing hezbollah with hamas... something not hard to do when informed only by the mainstream media.

secondly, israel is a nation that is illegally occupying the lands of another nation, founded on lands stolen from the ancestors of the people of that nation, that regularly kills civilians in retaliatory attacks... except they forget to point out that they're the ones that started the cycle of violence.

edit to add:djohnsto77, i also remember the days following 9/11... i also remember hearing people say that they were afraid of another attack within a short span...
but that's different than a 6 year span. people were afraid of a chain of attacks, initially. but then once you get further removed it's actually less likely that an attack is imminent.

however, the title is misleading. i'd consider that we've had thousands of terrorists on US soil... for each inch of american flesh could be considered as such, and thousands of soldiers have been wounded by "terrorists"

[edit on 9/12/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   

By madness:
...are you aware that not all terrorists are muslims?
Yes, but 99% of terrorists are Muslim. An activity not condoned in their Koran and most of their victims are Muslims. Go figure!


do you mean one that doesn't step outside it's constitutionally powers
Our Senate and Congress are controled by the Dems. If what Bush (the Executive Branch) is doing is not constitutional the Dems would stop them pronto!


yeah... exactly, the rules we had back in 'nam... those worked out so well
We do not have the same rules of engagement as we did in Nam. I'm just saying that we had rules in both engagements. IMO those rules helped the enemy win that war.


terrorists aren't just people that indiscriminately hate
Try to explain that to the families of the victims of 9-11 and hundreds of other terrorist bombings around the world.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Here! Here! plumranch! great post a flag and two stars to you sir!



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
Yes, but 99% of terrorists are Muslim. An activity not condoned in their Koran and most of their victims are Muslims. Go figure!


true, the actions they take are frowned upon by the koran...
but
i'm just going to call you out on this: you pulled that number from your rear.




Our Senate and Congress are controled by the Dems. If what Bush (the Executive Branch) is doing is not constitutional the Dems would stop them pronto!


...it's a small majority. they'd need 66% to get anything done.



We do not have the same rules of engagement as we did in Nam. I'm just saying that we had rules in both engagements. IMO those rules helped the enemy win that war.


actually, the only reason we had that war was our own mistakes following the second world war...
it was actually our fault that the vietnam war started, because we refused to help the nationalist that would eventually turn to communism, ho chi min


Try to explain that to the families of the victims of 9-11 and hundreds of other terrorist bombings around the world.


...ok, so they kill people, that must mean they're just full of hate...

and nice job dropping my point on israel.

the truth is, the USA is the #1 supporter of terrorism in history. we're currently supporting anti-governmnet terrorists in iran, but that's just because we'd rather do that then talk with their government.

another simple truth is that we support a state that is responsible for breaking UN resolutions, killing civilians, and is founded on the theft of land (that last one is a similarity to the USA)... israel.

the issue is that the word "terrorist" has become what "communist" was, it's a scapegoat word. there's doublethink involved in using the word to describe guerrilla fighters trying to evict an invading force. we call them terrorists, yet what we are now, and what one of our allies is, is just as bad.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I think i'm going to be sick.





Our president is protecting us and loves us dearly, so much so, that he's going to do a mercy killing on all of us one day soon.



I second that. i just threw up in my garbage can
I must be tripping right now. I have to be seeing things. I must be on drugs. I dont believe i just came across a thread saying we need to give credit where credit is due and that person is president bush. I need to wake up right now i have to be dreaming. I think im going to throw up again.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join