No war on terror?

Quote:
I. The threat of terrorism is wildly exaggerated.
the reason the United States has not been attacked since 9/11 is that terrorists are far less powerful than the White House claims. “If al Qaeda operatives are as determined and inventive as assumed, they should be here by now. If they are not yet here, they must not be trying very hard


I wonder what Spain, England, and Bali would have to say about that.

Quote:
II. Al-Qaida barely exists at all as a threat.

We’re overstating their capability, because we can’t believe that there isn’t a more nefarious explanation for the fact that we haven’t been attacked.


See answer above.

Quote:
IV. Iraq will not, and could not, fall to al-Qaida.He lied then and he is lying now.


By accusing the president of lieing he has lost any credibility he may have had. It is painfully transparent his only goal is to vilify Bush and do whatever he can to trash America's image around the world.

Quote:
I. The threat of terrorism is wildly exaggerated.
the reason the United States has not been attacked since 9/11 is that terrorists are far less powerful than the White House claims. “If al Qaeda operatives are as determined and inventive as assumed, they should be here by now. If they are not yet here, they must not be trying very hard


I wonder what Spain, England, and Bali would have to say about that.

Hard to say. All of those terror attacks did far less damage than they might have, and were directed against "soft" targets. How many such targets are there in America, do you think?

Quote:

Quote:
IV. Iraq will not, and could not, fall to al-Qaida.He lied then and he is lying now.


By accusing the president of lieing {sic} he has lost any credibility he may have had. It is painfully transparent his only goal is to vilify Bush and do whatever he can to trash America's image around the world.

Hm. Let me ask you... do you think Bush was being truly serious on Monday when he said that civilization is in danger of falling to this threat? If his proposed steps to meet the danger he says is there don't match the claimed danger -- and I don't think they are by a long shot -- how do you see that discrepancy?

Quote:
All of those terror attacks did far less damage than they might have, and were directed against "soft" targets. How many such targets are there in America, do you think?


By soft targets, I suppose you mean civilians. I know we have tons and tons of soft targets. The point to remember though is in five years we haven't had a single attack here although we know they have tried.

Quote:
If his proposed steps to meet the danger he says is there don't match the claimed danger


How do we know whether or not he's right and how long do we wait to find out? We know these muslims want islam as the only religion on the planet. We know they are very patient and have been slowly spreading across the planet over the past several decades. And we also know they will not stop until they succeed or until they are killed. How would you suggest we handle this situation?

Quote:
All of those terror attacks did far less damage than they might have, and were directed against "soft" targets. How many such targets are there in America, do you think?

By soft targets, I suppose you mean civilians. I know we have tons and tons of soft targets. The point to remember though is in five years we haven't had a single attack here although we know they have tried.

Actually, I mean unguarded or poorly-guarded targets. There are millions of potential places terrorists could strike today far more easily than on 9/11 if they were in place and willing to do something. You can probably think of several dozen here in Greensboro if you take a few minutes. I know I can.

But you know, that's the whole point of terrorism, isn't it? Make your target too nervous to operate normally, waste resources endlessly on a threat you never intend to actually carry out. Bin Laden and co will never need to lift a finger for the rest of their lives -- unless they really feel like it.

Quote:

Quote:
If his proposed steps to meet the danger he says is there don't match the claimed danger

How do we know whether or not he's right and how long do we wait to find out? We know these muslims want islam as the only religion on the planet. We know they are very patient and have been slowly spreading across the planet over the past several decades. And we also know they will not stop until they succeed or until they are killed. How would you suggest we handle this situation?

What I'm saying is that if there seriously is a danger to the very existence of this country, or even "civilization" as we know it, our government is not acting like it. When Hitler, Moussolini and Tojo threatened the world's civilization, America became a huge military fighting machine.

What are we doing today? Trying to lure high school kids to join up with street basketball tournaments. If Bush really felt there was an immediate threat to this nation that required military might, why isn't he asking to institute a draft, preparing to invade every corner of the world where terrorists are hiding and -- you know -- have a real war? The most sensible answer is that such actions wouldn't suit his purpose, whatever that might be. Whether sensible answers apply here, it's hard to really tell.