Thread: Terrorist attacks in 2005...

http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2005nctcannexfinal.pdf

Read the report and answer the following questions:

1. Which religious group suffered the most from terrorist attacks?
2. Which group was responsible for the largest share of attacks?
3. Which country was deadliest for U.S. citizens?
4. Which country was ranked number 1 in attacks?
5. How many Americans died from terror attacks in 2005?
6. What is the non-U.S. share of fatalities (percentage)?
7. Of the terror attacks in 2005 how many resulted in fewer than 9 fatalities?

Originally Posted by surasak

5. How many Americans died from terror attacks in 2005?

Zero in the states because George W. Bush is doing a damn fine job!

Hey Boon Mee ... glad to see you're back onboard with the program

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Hey Boon Mee ... glad to see you're back onboard with the program

Yeah...I was getting a little wobbly on Dubya for a spell but as you say, I'm back in his corner again. His administration is the only thing that is keeping the violent Islamo-fascist hordes from taking over the free world.

^ what ? are you back on Kool Aid ?

Whinge, whinge and more whinge, but yet to find a lib/left/looney brave enough to suggest (in public, no less) how the Dems would have responded to 9/11, if they were in the hotseat.

What many lowbreds fail to realise is that the scourge of radical Islam is unprecedented. For the slow of mind, this means the free world has never before faced such a threat to its way of life if not its very existence. Because of this, we have no social or military textbooks, no lessons to learn except those we create ourselves, and no choice but to fumble along, making blunder after blunder until we get it right, if we ever do. Meanwhile, the apologists will continue to remind us that Islam is a peaceloving religion with a few bad apples...some conservative apologists say as many as 99% are peaceloving, and for those naive enough to accept such a figure - this leaves 1%, and 1% of 1.2bn is 10,000,000, the entire population of a large fecking city.

Sadly, getting it right is something we're unlikely to do with today's crop of gutless leaders terrified of being tagged as un-pc and egged on by politically correct champions of society that seem suicidally bent on protecting the rights of a scourge that proudly and defiantly states its determination to destroy that very society. Laughably true, but the weaknesses of democratic values and principles are no match for those with no rules, who routinely use our democratic niceties to undermine, and to ultimately destroy what most decent people profess to cherish.

I would rather support a politician who recognises the threat and tries to do something about it, mistakes, blunders and all, than one who would find reason after reason to appease the charms of Allah's finest.

keda

Originally Posted by Keda

I would rather support a politician who recognises the threat and tries to do something about it, mistakes, blunders and all, than one who would find reason after reason to appease the charms of Allah's finest.

Was / is there any threat to the US? I think GW butcher set it up. He's treating you like a dog. Confusing you with mixed messages. "Bin Laden is the most dangerous person". "Bin Laden ain't our priority".

Who said that?

And recently he claimed that "America's in the safe hands". A few months ago he was moaning about possible attacks and intelligence failure.

Does it ring a bell?

Give people homework and they end up skipping class. No wonder Johnny is ignorant and works at Wal-Mart.

Originally Posted by sir burr

It was a mistake to switch the focus from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Not in short term political terms though.

GWB and his cronies managed to orchestrate another 4 years out of it.

In real terms though.
An absolute disaster.

^Exactly.

The critical resources needed for Afghanistan are being diverted and this allows the Taliban to regain lost ground. The amount of money being spent per capita in Afghanistan right now is pathetic...around $30 each per year, I believe.

Originally Posted by Macha

Originally Posted by Keda

I would rather support a politician who recognises the threat and tries to do something about it, mistakes, blunders and all, than one who would find reason after reason to appease the charms of Allah's finest.

Was / is there any threat to the US? I think GW butcher set it up. He's treating you like a dog. Confusing you with mixed messages. "Bin Laden is the most dangerous person". "Bin Laden ain't our priority".

Who said that?

And recently he claimed that "America's in the safe hands". A few months ago he was moaning about possible attacks and intelligence failure.

Does it ring a bell?

On the contrary, Bin Laden is a nothing, if/when he is taken out nothing will change except the perception, to some fools, that we have somehow become safer.

Also, I would rather support Bush, who recognises the global threat of Allah's finest even if they're not actually marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, than one who would call for calm because they haven't actually reached number 1600 and there is no irrefutable proof that they intend to do so.

keda

My neighbor is a threat to me. Therefore, I have the right to kill him.

My proof? Because I said so.

I feel for you.

keda

Is this the twilight zone ? It's like listening to Al Gore in 2004 going on and on about how George Bush overreacted to terrorism, Alqueda, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and then remembering in 1992 he said GWB's daddy ignored the very same things.

Some people do not realise or studiously try to ignore the fact that ObL did not come off the production line the day after GWB was elected, but was actually up and active with virtually unhindered finance and travel throughout the Clinton era.

Sad fecks.

keda

Ah, yes, bin Laden...who was he trained by again?

I'm missing something here.

Oh, yeah, what about Ho Chi Minh? Same employer perhaps?

Originally Posted by surasak

I'm missing something here.

Well, at least your honest.

The Talibans being wiped out was a good thing, unfortunately with everything with American military, it was an half-assed job. Best Army in the world. My ass. The Brits only being second behind. Try the Syrian and they would wiped out both American and Birtish asses. Even Iran would do a better job.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Try the Syrian and they would wiped out both American and Birtish asses. Even Iran would do a better job.

You're probably right. But only because their rules of engagement aren't encumbered by political correctness.

Did you know that during Vietnam the US pilots wern't allowed to bomb anything with a Red Cross flying over or painted on it ? The VC quickly caught onto this and started painting them all over the place... especially on strategic bridges.

America is the only country in the world that can never lose a single battle and lose a war.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Did you know that during Vietnam the US pilots wern't allowed to bomb anything with a Red Cross flying over or painted on it ?

Right, and that's why they would bomb innocent villages instead. Oh yeah, very effective. No wonder you lost the war, you were targetting the wrong people. Exactly like Iraq.

Where are the rules of engagement when you are deliberatly shooting civilians and call it collateral damages ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Did you know that during Vietnam the US pilots wern't allowed to bomb anything with a Red Cross flying over or painted on it ?

Right, and that's why they would bomb innocent villages instead. Oh yeah, very effective. No wonder you lost the wars, you were targetting the wrong people. Exactly like Iraq.

There were alot of dopers and draftees in that war.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

Originally Posted by keda

Some people do not realise or studiously try to ignore the fact that ObL did not come off the production line the day after GWB was elected, but was actually up and active with virtually unhindered finance and travel throughout the Clinton era.

He is still travelling in Pakistan, so what has changed ? nothing.

surasak:

Ah, yes, bin Laden...who was he trained by again?

I'm missing something here.

Oh, yeah, what about Ho Chi Minh? Same employer perhaps?


I believe ObL was trained by the West and if so, so what? At the time he was a friend, one imagines. To be fair we are still low on the learning curve, but may eventually suss out that the allegiance of certain types of people is as frivolous as the wind.

Also, high-level alliances often have a built-in option for the participants to learn or not learn, but either way it has to be done by trial and error.

And your mention of HCM in this context, demonstrates little more than what a very silly person you are, implying as it does that our guardians should know in advance precisely how things are going to shape up before we educate or provide financial or political or other support to any foreigner, be they students or established leaders. Well then, why not go the whole hog and demand we extend your foolishness to ourselves, so that every job throughout the Western world is held by the most suitable person?

Sure, if we could read the future or otherwise never make an error in judgement, it may be that niether ObL nor HCM would have ever made a headsline...silly boy, go stand in the corner - and take your fellow mugs with you!

keda

Originally Posted by keda

To be fair we are still low on the learning curve

Hence the reasons why you will lose this war and all the others in that imaginary War on Terror