You can't deny Bush this:

[wjk]

I believe improved intelligence sharing has made us safer from major sponsored terror, but there is little or nothing that can be done by any government entity about “sudden jihad syndrome”, a term some apply to a self appointed jihadist. I don’t believe any political party can be held accountable for some of these types of attacks (at least without stripping us of many freedoms). If so, please explain.

Here is an expanded list to add to those mentioned in a previous post. These all have a possible religious component.

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/suddenjihadsyndrome.htm

The sight has a political bias, but the names are linked, so check them out before debunking. They were all in the news, though not necessarily reported as terrorism. Google them if you distrust the sight.

There will be attacks by self appointed jihadists. The big question is: How will it be reported? Now we’re back to the media debate. What do they chose to report or not report? How do they choose to report it? Domestic crime or radical Islam? How does the media define terrorism? Does it need to have a religious component? What do we consider a “major” attack?

 

[wjk]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Interestingly, that happened right at the start of Clinton's presidency -- he had only been in office a few weeks when the attack occurred.

It's unlikely any policy he set in those weeks contributed or allowed it to happen. Ie. if the attack was policy related, it would be related to Bush I's policies.

Now, if the attack had happened nine months into his presidency then a very reasonable argument should be made about his responsibility.

True. I can't debate that point, but some would say the same about 9/11 and the Clintons. Some of the 9/11 attackers were under suspicion in the 90's, as was OBL. Years of planning went into each attack, I would guess. I believe there is no shortage of blame to go around. I also believe that the pres is not alone in blame, or credit. We had dems in congress under Bush 1, and pubs under Clinton. I think we now have a greater chance of stopping major terror as a result of the current admin.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from wjk:

I believe improved intelligence sharing has made us safer from major sponsored terror, but there is little or nothing that can be done by any government entity about “sudden jihad syndrome”, a term some apply to a self appointed jihadist. I don’t believe any political party can be held accountable for some of these types of attacks (at least without stripping us of many freedoms). If so, please explain.

There's no question that intelligence sharing has improved due to the 9/11 commission's recommendations.

Sadly, given that terrorism is up massively from before 2003, it is also clear that the country is in more danger than we were before Iraq.

There will be attacks by self appointed jihadists. The big question is: How will it be reported? Now we’re back to the media debate. What do they chose to report or not report? How do they choose to report it? Domestic crime or radical Islam? How does the media define terrorism? Does it need to have a religious component? What do we consider a “major” attack?

Well if you watch Fox, in order to be reported the attacks have to be either done by a Muslim, or by a woman in a bikini.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from wjk:


There will be attacks by self appointed jihadists. The big question is: How will it be reported? Now we’re back to the media debate. What do they chose to report or not report? How do they choose to report it? Domestic crime or radical Islam? How does the media define terrorism? Does it need to have a religious component? What do we consider a “major” attack?

The American media is under a new PC doctrine where they're increasingly hesitant to mention the religious affiliation of "terrorists".(a word that's ALSO out of vogue-too judgmental)

That's why these days you see a lot of folks being identified in the media as "rebels", "insurgents", "separatists" ect. Nine times out of ten when you see those code words you can replace them with "Islamic extremists". And when you read the code phrase "government forces" that refers to the secular, democratic government under attack.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from wjk:

True. I can't debate that point, but some would say the same about 9/11 and the Clintons. Some of the 9/11 attackers were under suspicion in the 90's, as was OBL. Years of planning went into each attack, I would guess.

Absolutely. However, there was one difference between the two presidents: one repeatedly worked to make terrorism a priority before 9/11. Clinton added $300 million for anti-terrorism, attacked Bin Laden (and was attacked by Republicans as "wagging the dog.")

In fact, Deputy CIA Director and Republican John McLaughlin said "Bill Clinton agressively pursed Osama bin Laden. I have to give Clinton a lot of credit for his agressiveness in getting bin Laden."

Another Republican described him as "obsessed" with Bin Laden.

And this was before 9/11.

Contrast that to the current president, who took a record amount of vacation days before 9/11, whose administration did not hold a single cabinet level meeting on terrorism before 9/11, proposed cutting the terrorism budget and was fixated with a missile shield. Even after getting a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US" he didn't even put the airports on alert.

Bush even came out and said that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency” about al Qaeda.

I believe there is no shortage of blame to go around. I also believe that the pres is not alone in blame, or credit. We had dems in congress under Bush 1, and pubs under Clinton. I think we now have a greater chance of stopping major terror as a result of the current admin.

Well it's good that you still have confidence in the Republican party and the administration. I don't.

You can check the Terrorism Knowledge Base online if you wish to break down attacks by date, country of origin, and so on. But suffice to say we're in a lot more danger now.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

The American media is under a new PC doctrine where they're increasingly hesitant to mention the religious affiliation of "terrorists".(a word that's ALSO out of vogue-too judgmental)

Well that, and also because it's meaningless given that there are over a billion Muslims of all different sects.

No more meaningful than describing a nut who shoots up a church or mall as "Christian."

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Well that, and also because it's meaningless given that there are over a billion Muslims of all different sects.

No more meaningful than describing a nut who shoots up a church or mall as "Christian."

The relgious affiliation of the Beltway Sniper is certainly a less important mention than ignoring the religion of forces involved in civil wars.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

The relgious affiliation of the Beltway Sniper is certainly a less important mention than ignoring the religion of forces involved in civil wars.

So headlines about Ireland should have read "Christian Kills 30 Christians In Bomb Attack"

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from bigdavediode:

So headlines about Ireland should have read "Christian Kills 30 Christians In Bomb Attack"

You're telling me the IRA wasn't identified as a Catholic organization? That the British loyalists weren't called Protestants?

 

[ssrrkk]

So we haven't had a large meteor collision -- therefore our astrophysicists must be geniuses. We haven't had a major earthquake in the East Coast -- go seismologists! We haven't had a major foreign terrorist attack before Bush so all presidents before were counter terrorist gurus. We haven't had a (place an event here that occurs so rarely that any type of conclusions from it's number of occurrences would be meaningless) so we must be the best!!!