Olbermann Rips Bush a new arsehole

[Q Classic]

I'm sick and tired of you Bush-bashing fact-based idiots using your East Coast intellectualista bull**** to try and justify your hatred of America.

Get over yourselves, and understand that really? Bush has protected us these past several years. Have we been attacked at home since 9/11? QE ****ing D.

[Dinner]

Were we attacked in the five years prior to 9/11?

[Drake Tungsten]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing

[Dinner]

The claim was that the US was not attacked on US soil. That was/is the claim being made by the Bush supporters and by the administration itself. Try again.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing

Can you help me, Drake. Which ones of those occured in America?

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't remember claiming that any of them did. I also didn't see Oerdin specifying that the attacks had to be on American soil.

But of course you guys don't want to include the Cole, African embassy bombings or Khobar Towers in this discussion. The fact that there were 4 major attacks on US interests worldwide in the five years up to and including 9/11 and not a single one since might belie your facile argument and seem to indicate that Bush's anti-terror efforts are doing something. God forbid...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't remember claiming that any of them did. I also didn't see Oerdin specifying that the attacks had to be on American soil.

You might want to look at the post he was responding to, from Q cubed.

The fact that there were 4 major attacks on US interests worldwide in the five years up to and including 9/11

More than 2500 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9/11 . . . in Iraq.

[Q Classic]

Oklahoma City, you fools. An attack on America. ON Clinton's watch, no less.

What a ****in' douchebag, that Clinton. Too busy distracted with getting his pecker into some poor page's mouth like that Democrat Foley. If only he'd provided Bush and his team with useful information about Al Qaeda, maybe we could have stopped 9/11.

[Drake Tungsten]

More than 2500 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9/11 . . . in Iraq.

Not all the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of terrorist organizations (far from it, actually). And wouldn't you rather have our military bearing the brunt of Al Qaeda's efforts rather than the civilians who died in the World Trade Center and the African embassies? Isn't that the whole point of Bush's oft-quoted aim to fight them over there so they can't hurt us here?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

More than 2500 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9/11 . . . in Iraq.

Not all the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of terrorist organizations (far from it, actually).

The Administration claims there is no difference between the insurgents and the terrorists, and for these purposes, they are correct.

As for the other argument, if you accept attacks on American forces, then you need to take the Khobar Towers and Cole bombings out of your list of attacks.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Administration claims there is no difference between the insurgents and the terrorists, and for these purposes, they are correct.

No, they aren't.

As for the other argument, if you accept attacks on American forces, then you need to take the Khobar Towers and Cole bombings out of your list of attacks.

Terrorist attacks on US soldiers in their housing complex in a friendly nation or on a US Navy ship in port is very different from attacks on US soldiers actively searching for and trying to kill terrorists in a war zone. The former are attacks on passive US targets who aren't doing anything to take the fight to the terrorists in return. The latter are the unfortunate cost of actively hunting down and engaging terrorist fighters.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The Administration claims there is no difference between the insurgents and the terrorists, and for these purposes, they are correct.

No, they aren't.

Ununiformed civilian actors using violence for political means. They are terrorists. They just aren't al-Qaeda.

Terrorist attacks on US soldiers in their housing complex in a friendly nation or on a US Navy ship in port is very different from attacks on US soldiers actively searching for and trying to kill terrorists in a war zone.

I disagree. Soldiers enforcing American hegemony by occupying Saudi Arabia or showing the flag in Yemen are little different from soldiers driving down the road and getting blown up by an IED. Iraq is a friendly government too, and Saudi Arabia and Yemen have an insurgencies of their own.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't remember claiming that any of them did. I also didn't see Oerdin specifying that the attacks had to be on American soil.

But of course you guys don't want to include the Cole, African embassy bombings or Khobar Towers in this discussion. The fact that there were 4 major attacks on US interests worldwide in the five years up to and including 9/11 and not a single one since might belie your facile argument and seem to indicate that Bush's anti-terror efforts are doing something. God forbid...

what about 7/7? if youre going to include attacks on america in other parts of the world why exclude attacks on allies involved in the war on terror? or do brits not count for much?

[Drake Tungsten]

Ununiformed civilian actors using violence for political means. They are terrorists. They just aren't al-Qaeda.

It could be argued that a large percentage of the native-Iraqi insurgency are using violence mainly to fight against control by a superior military force (American and Iraqi), not for mainly political purposes. That means they are guerillas, not terrorists.

The foreign fighters who are using violence to prevent the success of democratic governance in Iraq or trying to spark a civil war have mainly political motivations, however, making them terrorists.

Of course, there is some overlap between the two groups.

I disagree.

OK.

[Drake Tungsten]

Or do brits not count for much?

I don't see why you would consider attacks on the UK when trying to figure out how effective American counter-terrorism tactics have been in protecting American interests. The 7/7 attacks certainly matter, but only if you're discussing British counter-terrorism efforts or the overall counter-terrorism efforts of countries involved in the WOT.