People actually believe this crap?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Well, maybe you didn't, I can't recall, but I said in my post both SIDES, and by this I meant it is impossible to say that we haven't had attacks becasue of the Iraq war and it is impossible to say that we didn't have attacks before Iraq becasue of Clinton's good works.

"After this, therefore because of this" applies to both of these situations.

Precisely.

That is exactly my point. You can't say we have evidence for one (as Tooblue is saying) without saying we have equally as much evidence for the other. I tend to think we have evidence for neither.

We have NO IDEA why we haven't been attacked on US soil. We may know in about 20 years, but for now, it is all pure conjecture with no evidence.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Fallacious reasoning is diminishing the "evidence" with retrospective conjecture in the name of being right.

I have not suggested terrorism has stopped ... in fact I am stating it has escalated … notably in Afghanistan and Iraq and not the US! The simplest answer is Al Qaeda’s energy and resources yield the greatest efficacy battling the US and driving them out of the Middle East.

I AM saying the evidence points to placing equal blame on the Clinton admin as is placed on the current administration for terrorism.

I am having a hard time keeping track of your argument. I thought you were arguing that we had evidence that the war was stopping terrorism (i.e.- no attacks in the US since the war started). Now I think you are arguing that the blame for the war is equally divisible (who is arguing differently?).

You are correct that terrorism has escalated in Iraq. I think this is pretty clearly due to the US presence there (and there is lots of evidence for that argument). I am not sure what this has to do with saying the war is preventing terrorism here.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying and if so, then my bad. Still, the US was attacked by terrorists while Clinton was in office - the first time the World Trade Center was bombed, Feb. 26th, 1993.

You are correct. I was wrong. I was remembering the first bombing as having occurred during Bush I's presidency. In any event, that bombing was followed by 8 years with no domestic attack.

My poorly stated argument is that we can't say the absence of attacks in the US now is due to the war, given an 8 year absence of attacks in the US prior to 9/11 without a war.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Precisely.

That is exactly my point. You can't say we have evidence for one (as Tooblue is saying) without saying we have equally as much evidence for the other. I tend to think we have evidence for neither.

We have NO IDEA why we haven't been attacked on US soil. We may know in about 20 years, but for now, it is all pure conjecture with no evidence.

But the original position was somewhat broader than simply the cause of attacks here. There is MUCH evidence that we are killing terrorists and specifically Al Qaeda members. So that part is true and, if that is what you are after, that is a good and proven thing. The causative trail breaks down in trying to show that these particualr bad guys would have tried to attack us here but for our presence in Iraq. However, given the rather dramtaic effect we have had on Al Qaeda (Killing leadership; limiting travel, training and access, causing them to shift resources TO Iraq, etc.) it is more than mere conjecture that the fact that we have had no Al Qaeda sponsored attacks here may be becasue of the war on terror, even if it falls far short of proof. The efficacy of Clinton's efforts, without knowing what might have happened out of the public's eye, is mere conjecture, as you have pointed out.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You are correct. I was wrong. I was remembering the first bombing as having occurred during Bush I's presidency. In any event, that bombing was followed by 8 years with no domestic attack.

My poorly stated argument is that we can't say the absence of attacks in the US now is due to the war, given an 8 year absence of attacks in the US prior to 9/11 without a war.

No worries. I've made similar mistakes in the time line of events, as it's easy to do.

I'd like to believe that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 because we are fighting them in their yard not ours, but I don't believe that that is the primary reason. I believe that they are the type to plan extensively to carry out destruction in large amounts in the US, rather than random small attacks. Your pointing out that there was 8 years between attacks on the WTC is proof of that for me. My guess is that there will be something even more monumental than 9/11 down the road - when that is, I have no idea - but it will take them years to plan it and carry it out.

At the same time, I believe they do see the opportunity to kill Americans on their soil and are happy to do so, but they'l keep their eye on the prize, so to speak, to do something that will make 9/11 look rather insignificant.

[tooblue]

My original post:

Originally Posted by tooblue

To be blunt, there is a lot of truth in what he is saying, that’s why it is not just republicans or the president who is saying it ... I think you need to step back from your vitriol untoward skillz and Bush and reconsider the evidence.

Has there been an attack on the US since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Now that is not to say there will not be another attack, in fact we all know it will happen. Regardless, why would terrorists act on this continent when it is far easier to attack Americans in their own region with nearly as much effect as if they again attacked in the US?

Please tell me you are not so blinded by disgust to be naïve as to think it is all propaganda.

No where in there did I say terrorism stopped. No where did I state that it is absolute fact. Furthermore I freely admit that my comments are conjecture

Originally Posted by tooblue

My point is not weak because the evidence supports my conjecture.