Terrorism Down

Well, I kind of mentioned it because the current administration has actively gone after terrorists with a focus on serving them bullets instead of arrest warrants. This seems to be working and the numbers show it. We need to keep hunting them down instead of waiting for them to come to us.

Blah blah LEFTISTS blah blah blah STUPID ANTI-AMERICAN LEFTISTS blah blah LIBERALS blah blah WEENIES blah blah blah LEFTISTS.......

l

.

If I can respond for Dave K.
Newt's manual....Federalist Papers....Newt's manual....Nixon....Newt's manual....Federalist Papers....Federalist papers..... Newt's Manual.... Geneva Conventions....Geneva Conventions....smear campaign....Newt's Manual....McCarthy....Newt's manual. (grin)

... Ashcroft ... reactionary judges ... neocons ... Hannity

Oh, and it can't hurt to add in a few more Newt's manual, Newt's manual, ...

Evie

So you agree that most of the terrorists in Iraq would be causing trouble, destruction, and death somewhere else if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Death and destruction are pretty bad no matter where they are is what I would agree to.

I am not yet sufficiently callus and hardhearted that I feel much less bad about death and destruction merely because it happens to innocent men, women, and children who are not my countrymen. I hope that I never reach such a state.

Dan

My post didn't say in the US, it said somewhere else.

The point wasn't it was better to be in Iraq.

Point was terrorists kill innocents everywhere. Right now they may be converging on/in Iraq.

I'll even grant the conflict has made it easier to recruit for them. But the point is, terrorist kill everywhere they can to make a political point.

Right now, they feel the easiest targets for the most publicity are coalition forces and Iraqis who cooperate in trying to rebuild their country.

So they congregate in Iraq and kill there. Otherwise, until they are apprended or killed in battle, they will kill and maim whereever they can find a target to make the news and intimidate those that oppose them.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

And my point is that the terrorism that is going on in Iraq is in large part not counted in the report.

If it were, it's unlikely we'd be discussing a decrease in terrorism activity.

Dan

Possibly not, I'll admit to not knowing how the numbers are accounted.

And I'm not sure how you would count them if you did. Each individual instance in basically a war zone with terrorist would be like counting every firing on US troops invading Afganistan as a terrorist act too.

But counting it all as one continuing act would be unrealistic too.

I can't even imagine a realistic method of evaluation that would relate what happens in Iraq to what happens in the rest of the world.

But even while expressing concern over the events in Iraq, let's be glad there isn't more around the world right now also.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

So Dan, you were an enthusiastic supporter of the ousting of Saddam because he also ran up a large tally of innocent, helpless victims?
Everyone has complained about the Bush administration targeting Saddam, even before 9/11. I say good job to them mainly because the best-fitting description for the actions of him and his government is evil. Perhaps using 9/11 as a motivator wasn't exactly good, or maybe instead 9/11 served as a wake-up call to our nation that there are evil people out there trying to hurt us, and the Bush administration (gasp) acted on the nations desire to protect itself. Whether or not the administration was of one mind, or whether or not he wanted to take Saddam out before the attacks doesn't matter. We're probably not getting the whole story anyway, so its best not to trust just the few stories that have come out (anyone ever played the game telephone?).