1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why no AQ attacks? Maybe ... because of Bush?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Lyman_Bostock, May 30, 2008.

  1. This guy seems to think so, and it appears he isn't a Bush fan.

  2. Oz

    Oz Active Member

    I still wish he hadn't ignored that memo titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S."
  3. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Eight and a half years passed between the first WTC bombing and the attack on September 11th. So unless this fella's willing to stipulate that Clinton kept us safe from terrorism at home from 1993 to 2001, I'm not sure I buy the argument.
  4. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    If we hadn't moved mass amounts of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, I'm betting we'd be in a better position today.
  5. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    There was a scene in The Simpsons where a bear roams Springfield. Weeks later, the Bear Patrol is roaming with vans and helicopters and Homer says "The Bear Patrol is doing its job. Not a bear in sight."

    Lisa, correctly so, calls this specious reasoning, suggesting that a plain rock she picks up is actually a bear-blocking rock. Why? Because there's no bears around. Homer then offers to buy the bear-blocking rock.

    Applying that same concept here, we haven't been attacked since 2001, ergo Bush has kept us safe.

  6. Oh, you mean the "No shit!" memo?
  7. Conveniently ignoring the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya and the USS Cole bombing, I see.
  8. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Yep. It's called specious reasoning. It's a common logical fallacy.
  9. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Way ahead of you Doc. :D
  10. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Those happened abroad. Unless you're claiming Al Qaeda has nothing to do with U.S. troop deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  11. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Fucking hell. I just read the first line. I hang my head in shame.
  12. Boomer7

    Boomer7 Active Member

    "We all waited for terrorism's second shoe to drop, and, seven years later . . . nothing has happened.

    Other cities around the world became targets: Madrid, Glasgow, London and Bali; the entire nation of Denmark; and, of course, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Here in America, however, the focus moved from concerns over counterterrorism measures and the abuse of presidential authority to the war in Iraq, the subprime mortgage crisis, the failing economy, the public meltdown of Britney Spears, and now, the presidential elections.

    All this time Americans have been safe from suicide bombers, biological warfare and collapsing skyscrapers, while the rest of the world has been on red alert."

    Clubhouse leader for dumbest quote of the year. The U.S. hasn't been attacked since 2001. Madrid and London haven't been attacked by al-Qaeda since 2004 and 2005, respectively. The notion that we're "safe" while "the rest of the world has been on red alert" is frighteningly naive and idiotic.

    I don't know why the other shoe hasn't dropped yet (speaking of shoes, we're not giving Bush credit for foiling Richard Reid, are we?). Obviously, the federal government is more vigilant than it was prior to Sept. 11. But the author of this column clearly has no inner knowledge of how al-Qaeda works, nor any details of legitimate plots that were foiled. He just has a hunch that Bush's aggressive approach had "something to do with it." Thanks, Prof.

    For those who want actual facts on the subject, the always enlightening Peter Bergen (along with Paul Cruickshank) offers the following. Seems Bin Laden is burning his bridges even with his former supporters.

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page