US anounces terrorist attacks on its citizens in Germany

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


if you want to copy Oerdin you're welcome too.

I'm not copying him- I read newspapers and watch television reports. As I recall, the media spoke of (and still refer to) 'attacks'- plural.

If you're too dense to be able to count above one, that's your hard cheese.

Surely Bush shouldn't be penalized for terrorist attacks we successfully prevented. That's more of a credit to him...

Who's penalising him ? I believe the criteria was 'terrorist attacks'. Not 'successful terrorist attacks'.

How exactly did Bush 'prevent' Reid from detonating his explosives ?

Ried was overpowered by passengers and crew- not 'Homeland Security' .

I don't even remember the incident.

I'm sure there's an awful lot you don't remember. Again, your amnesia or ignorance has nothing to do with whether or not a terrorist attack occurred.

Doesn't make for very good terrorism, does it?

What 'doesn't make for good terrorism' ? The fact that you can't recall it ?

Even so, you can hardly claim that there's been some dramatic surge in terrorism in the United states since Bush.

I haven't claimed that.

Terrorism no one notices isn't particularly effective or important, don't you think?

It depends, I suppose, on the level of awareness of the person being asked.

Given your lack of knowledge of successful terrorist acts and attempted terrorism in the United States I place no great store in either your opinion of terrorism domestic or global or your 'survey'.

One event, two perspectives:

Israeli officials view the incident differently.

"Though there is no clear-cut evidence that this gunman is related to a terror organization, it's the most logical assumption that when someone opens fire on an El Al counter in an international airport, most likely this is a terror attack," said Ephraim Sneh, Israeli transportation minister.

"We have warnings that these terrorist organizations [will] try to hit Israeli and Jewish targets all over world so we have no reason to assume that this is something different than a terrorist attack," Sneh said.

McLaughlin praised the quick action of the three, saying many more would have been killed without the timely response.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/04/la.airport.shooting/

But what was your 'well-informed' response ?

Doesn't make for very good terrorism, does it?

I'm sure these people will have found that probing analysis most gratifying:

He shot dead a 20-year-old female El Al ticket agent -- an Israeli national -- and a 46-year-old man who was a diamond importer, investigators said.

[Provost Harrison]

US anounces terrorist attacks on its citizens in Germany

I still don't understand why the US would want to carry out terrorist attacks on its citizens in Germany

[Straybow]

Why stop with the Beltway Sniper? There's also the sniper(s) shooting at drivers on I-95 in Florida.

What about school shootings? Aren't they terrorist attacks, too?

[DinoDoc]

Out of curiosity if the arguement is over terror attacks on US soil, why are we talking about an attack (Reid) that had it roots in Charles De Gaulle International Airport?

[Kuciwalker]

Who's penalising him ? I believe the criteria was 'terrorist attacks'. Not 'successful terrorist attacks'.

I believe the criterion was "under Bush, terrorism has reached an all-time high, not only in US, but on a global scale" actually. And I'm only disputing the first half of that.

molly
What 'doesn't make for good terrorism' ? The fact that you can't recall it ?

Yes. It was pretty obvious that was my point. And you knew that, because you responded:

It depends, I suppose, on the level of awareness of the person being asked.

The purpose of terrorism is to make people afraid. If it goes unremembered by most then it wasn't particularly effective.

Who's penalising him ? I believe the criteria was 'terrorist attacks'. Not 'successful terrorist attacks'.

I haven't claimed that.

Tough luck, that's what I've been arguing about. A criticism of my selections of events isn't really meaningful outside of that argument.

btw, Reid's attack happened in Europe. Oops!

[Kuciwalker]

To recap, Ollie's statement ranged from disingenuous at best (there's been no increase in the number of terrorist attacks that's particularly meaningful to the American population) to ludicrously absurd at worst.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I believe the criterion was "under Bush, terrorism has reached an all-time high, not only in US, but on a global scale" actually. And I'm only disputing the first half of that.

Yes, but you also believe that four attacks on one day are somehow only counted as one- even when more intelligent older people can point out to you that '9/11 attacks' means more than one took place.

Perhaps you should try an English language refresher course, with particular attention to be paid to the formation of plurals...

During his years in charge, terrorism has reached an all time high, not only in US, but on a global scale.

There's what Chemical Ollie said. 'Terrorism', you'll note.

As defined by the U.S. Dept. of Defense:

... "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

Here's what you replied:

We had more terrorist attacks on American soil during the Clinton administration than under Bush.

Hmm. Not much detail of the terrorist attacks during Clinton's two terms, I notice.

So you went from the broad 'terrorism' to 'terrorist attacks'- which are not the same thing.

'Terrorism' would also include within its remit attempted or unsuccessful attacks.

Again you said:

Surely Bush shouldn't be penalized for terrorist attacks we successfully prevented.

Given that the criterion was 'terrorism' , nobody was 'penalizing' Bush for anything.

Now on to our English studies again:

The purpose of terrorism is to make people afraid.

It is indeed. Notice- in the U.S. Defense Department's definition, it says nothing about the numbers of people being made afraid.

If it goes unremembered by most then it wasn't particularly effective.

Who is this 'most' ? You, and some random schlubs you talked to. I'm, like, SOO impressed by the validity of your deeply exhaustive survey.

In any case, you are missing the point.

Even someone slow-witted would be able to tell the difference in 'effectiveness' or 'newsworthiness' between, say, an unplanned attack by a lone gunman who shoots staff or passengers at an El Al counter in a Los Angeles' airport and a trained group who plan an attack on three separate targets in the United States using four hijacked aeroplanes as improvised missiles.

I suspect not many remember the Lod or Rome airport shootings, or that many Americans were that aware of the number of terrorist attacks on European targets iin the 1970s and 1980s- unless they involved U.S. citizens, as did Lockerbie and the Berlin disco bombing.

Awareness, by the way, clearly means something different to you than it does to me.

btw, Reid's attack happened in 'Europe' .

Oh really.

December 22, 2001 -- Reid boards American Airlines Flight 63, which is following the same route as the flight he'd missed a day earlier. Ninety minutes later he allegedly tries to use a match to light explosives hidden in his shoes, and is subdued when passengers and crew jump on him and strap Reid to his seat. Doctors aboard the aircraft sedate him. Plane diverts to Boston, Massachusetts, and Reid is arrested and charged with interfering with a flight crew.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/07/reid.timeline/index.html

Why he was charged in the United States and not 'Europe':

RICHARD COLVIN REID, a/k/a ABDUL-RAHEEM, a/k/a ABDUL RAHEEM, ABU IBRAHIM,

defendant herein, did, on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, attempt to commit murder of one and more than one of the 183 other passengers and 14 crew members on board American Airlines Flight 63.

All in violation of Title 49, United States Code', :Section..
46506(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section'1113.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/01/reidindictment.pdf

Oops!

Right back at ya.

there's been no increase in the number of terrorist attacks that's particularly meaningful to the American population

And you and the schlubs are the judge of this ?

ludicrously absurd

Mmm, lucky Ollie. Not just 'absurd', but 'ludicrously absurd'.

High praise from someone who has trouble with plurals.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
To recap, Ollie's statement ranged from disingenuous at best (there's been no increase in the number of terrorist attacks that's particularly meaningful to the American population) to ludicrously absurd at worst.

Keep spinning. The man was extremely clear and factually correct in what he said and you're just trying to find a way to get out of the pwnage you so richly deserve in this thread. He got you just admit it like a man.

[Chemical Ollie]

I note that I don't even have to log in to keep the debate going

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I still don't understand why the US would want to carry out terrorist attacks on its citizens in Germany

Can you understand why the US (or at least all of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff) would want to carry out terrorist attacks on its citizens in the USA?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html