Your Rections to the Third/Last Presidential Debate

[Dis]

I'm getting slow in my old age. I just noticed the typo in the thread title, and the poster who made the post. We know what's on his mind.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So a guy who orchestrated the attack of 9/11--amongst other attacks--wasn't a threat to the U.S.?

not at the time Bush made that statement. No he was not a threat. He ceased to be a threat around November of 2001 I believe.

And there are those that believe Bin Ladin was not responsible for 9/11, and Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft were responsible for it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dissident
not at the time Bush made that statement. No he was not a threat. He ceased to be a threat around November of 2001 I believe.

And the case for this is what? Did you believe he wasn't a threat after the WTC bombing in 1993? The USS Cole bombing? The Kenyan embassy bombings?

Does the fact that Al Queda was able to strike in Spain, Malaysia and Egypt (perhaps) with such deadliness in more recent times not make you think they just might still be able to penetrate here?

And there are those that believe Bush was not responsible for 9/11, and Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft were responsible for it.

What is the point of this utter non-sequitur?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So a guy who orchestrated the attack of 9/11--amongst other attacks--wasn't a threat to the U.S.?

The level of personal implication by OBL still hasn't been demonstrated. 9/11 could very well have happened without his help or direct financial support. There is a huge gap between illiterate Afghans going to training camps in the middle of the desert, living a nomadic lifestyle, and those few "soldiers" who actually went to America. There is no strong evidence that the eradication of the former will correlatively lead to a diminution of the threat posed by the latter.

Even with OBL dead, do you really think that the likelyness of a terrorist attack in America will decrease?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


And the case for this is what? Did you believe he wasn't a threat after the WTC bombing in 1993? The USS Cole bombing? The Kenyan embassy bombings?

Does the fact that Al Queda was able to strike in Spain, Malaysia and Egypt (perhaps) with such deadliness in more recent times not make you think they just might still be able to penetrate here?



What is the point of this utter non-sequitur?

November 2001 is the date I put there. Not December of 2000 (after the Cole attack)

As for the recent attacks, I believe they were organized by someone else. Al Quida will go on, but without Bin Ladin.

[GePap]

Mark Shields made an interesting observation- essentially that the vote an incumbent president gets come election day is almost always, if not always, indentical to what the president got in the last polls as his support- according to him this was true for Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton.

If this is true, it will be interesting to see where Bush's poll numbers are on Oct 30. If he is at 48% at that point, things will be EXTREMELY close.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Did you just say that Osama Bin Ladin is no longer a threat? The fact that he hasn't been killed or captured makes him a threat for two reasons: 1.) He can (and all signs point to "is") still plot against the United States - 2.) He is a symbol to the Islamist terror movement. To deny that he's still a threat is silly.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


The level of personal implication by OBL still hasn't been demonstrated. 9/11 could very well have happened without his help or direct financial support. There is a huge gap between illiterate Afghans going to training camps in the middle of the desert, living a nomadic lifestyle, and those few "soldiers" who actually went to America. There is no strong evidence that the eradication of the former will correlatively lead to a diminution of the threat posed by the latter.

Even with OBL dead, do you really think that the likelyness of a terrorist attack in America will decrease?

9/11 was pathetically easy. People act like this was a well coordinated strategic attack. All he did was look at the internet to find some flights on large planes travelling accross country at the same time.

Taking over aircraft was very easy at the time. Even I could do it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Even with OBL dead, do you really think that the likelyness of a terrorist attack in America will decrease?

Not substantially at first, but the moral blow to his partisans plus the moral boost to the west would be considerable. The fact is that Bin Laden was charismatic draw for AQ, and were it demonstrated the U.S. killed him, it would be considered a major victory in the terror war. Half of the war is, after all, propaganda.

[Dis]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Did you just say that Osama Bin Ladin is no longer a threat? The fact that he hasn't been killed or captured makes him a threat for two reasons: 1.) He can (and all signs point to "is") still plot against the United States - 2.) He is a symbol to the Islamist terror movement. To deny that he's still a threat is silly.

perhaps you guys are right.

I'm just trying to figure out what Bush was thinking. It's the only possible thing I can come up with.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dissident
November 2001 is the date I put there. Not December of 2000 (after the Cole attack)

The point is that Bin Laden has never just orchestrated an attack and gone away. He has never ceased to be a threat after an attack. That's the kind of thinking that leads to more attacks.

If you think Bin Laden still isn't plotting AQ moves, I'd say you're being quite naive.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'm just trying to figure out what Bush was thinking. It's the only possible thing I can come up with.

I'll tell you exactly what he was thinking:

"I have to discount the Bin Laden threat because I want people to think Saddam is the real danger."

Pretty simple, actually.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The point is that Bin Laden has never just orchestrated an attack and gone away. He has never ceased to be a threat after an attack. That's the kind of thinking that leads to more attacks.

If you think Bin Laden still isn't plotting AQ moves, I'd say you're being quite naive.

as I've said. I'm stretching here. I'm just trying to figure out what the hell Bush was talking about.

But you have to admit taking over Afghanistan and capturing 75% of Al Quida leaders has helped in the war on terror and has to have decreased the threat on America.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dissident
But you have to admit taking over Afghanistan and capturing 75% of Al Quida leaders has helped in the war on terror and has to have decreased the threat on America.

The U.S. and the new government control about 10% of Afghanistan. The rest are warlords, many of them AQ sympathizers.

The 75% number is bull, that was pointed out quickly after Bush tried to use it. We have no idea what percentage of AQ leadership we've taken out, and certainly the propaganda of the Iraq war has helped replenish their ranks.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Not substantially at first, but the moral blow to his partisans plus the moral boost to the west would be considerable. The fact is that Bin Laden was charismatic draw for AQ, and were it demonstrated the U.S. killed him, it would be considered a major victory in the terror war. Half of the war is, after all, propaganda.

Perhaps, but the fundamentalist Muslim cause in general has many symbols to draw upon, and I suppose many local-level leaders (how many El-Sadrs are they?), so that the death of Bin Laden could very well fuel the terrorist cause or at best have an insignificant effect.

Not that I wholly disagree with the idea of getting him, but I think that the best way to hunt terrorists without charging against windmills is to undermine their revenue sources with a strong financial police, and then think about positively influencing the political situation in the ME. Spending billions to secure wastelands in the middle of nowhere doesn't sound like something that should be a priority.