It’s really pretty simple if you look at the facts.

requires a pretty big leap of faith where Jay is concerned.

Well, let’s be real here Jay. That claim is a response to the Bush and Republican claim that invading Iraq has made us safer. I don’t believe it has made us safer, in part because there is no evidence that it has. Bush and Clinton’s record on domestic terrorism is virtually same, the sole significant difference being that the worst attack in American history occurred on Bush’s watch. Bush has achieved this record at an infinitely greater cost, in lives and money, to this country than Clinton. Now if you want to add terrorist attacks against US interests around the world, it’s patently obvious that Bush has a worse record than Clinton. There have been more consulates and embassies bombed or attack on Bush’s watch than Clinton’s. It’s really pretty simple if you look at the facts.

I understand why you don’t want to explain yourself about how you categorize terrorist attacks against US military installations and personnel. There is no distinction to be made between the marine barracks bombing in 1983 and the truck bombing of the Green Zone in 2007, except in numbers of casualties. In both instances US forces were on active duty in hostile environments. Same with the USS Cole attacks. I find it interesting that you could write this about the “less safe” statement: “I don’t have to prove you wrong. You have to prove that you’re right” while refusing whatsoever to argue in favor of your position that it’s a “stupid assertion that troops are victims of terrorist attacks.”

Your hypocrisy aside, I believe we are less safe because Bush’s policies in achieving his remarkably pathetic record on terrorism, at home and abroad, have increased resentment and hatred toward America among the very populations we need to win to our side. This in addition to the fact that terrorist attacks around the world have risen every year since 9-11. Indeed, the two are connected. One of the key elements in combating terrorism is reducing sympathy for the terrorist cause among the general populations of the countries they operate. Antipathy and suspicion towards the US has increased since we invaded Iraq. Poll after poll has shown that Bush squandered the sympathies of the world after 9-11.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/27/news/pew.php

Where terrorists have lost support among local populations, that has been the result of the terrorist’s actions themselves: People don’t like it when people kill or maim innocent people. They don’t like it when terrorists do it and they don’t like it when they perceive the American military doing it. In other words, al-qaeada’s strategy in Iraq backfired on it. Iraqis where turning against al-qaeada long before the surge kicked in. But however much al-qaeda might be currently contained in iraq, it is not contained globally and if we want to build on and sustain military successes we have to start focusing on winning the ideological front. We can’t do that with more of the same policies of Bush under McCain. All McCain wants to do is continue applying the same blunt force strategies with will only eventually tip the ideological and rhetorical scales back into al-qaeada’s favor. There can be, in other words, no long term military solution to terrorism. I think history has proven that.

Now would like to make the case for how the invasion of Iraq has made us and our interests around the world more safe? Would care to explain why the barracks bombing in Lebanon was a terrorist attack but a truck bombing of the green zone isn’t?

How about humvees full of soldiers driving back to the Green Zone (i.e., not actively engaged in combat operations, but returning to barracks AFTER combat operations) being blown up by bombs buried by the side of the road? Explain to me how that is not an act of terrorism.

Even more pathetic is jay’s inability to concede that Gore would have taken Richard Clark’s warnings much more seriously which would have, at the very least, increased the chances of 9/11 being unsuccessful.

At the very least he might have had at least ONE meeting on terrorism during his first term prior to 9/11.

Hey, wait, Jay: I thought you guys went to Iraq to fight the terrorists, right? I mean, they’re OBVIOUSLY terrorists, that’s why Bush says the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply. If they’re terrorists, and people are killed in their attacks, then aren’t they victims of terrorist attacks?

I thought Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t count anyway, since he was captured with the law enforcement approach.

Watch it, he’s going to compare you to me if you keep calling him a liar.

The claim has been initiated by Jay. The claim is “I saw the quote from Obama that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice.” I disagree. Now, present the case for why this quote exists. I don’t have to prove you wrong. You have to prove that you’re right.

But you can’t, because you’re a liar, the quote doesn’t exist, and you’re too much of a pathetic little coward to admit it.

Yeah, so you said the claim was “that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice.”

Still waiting for that quote. Three comments in this since you said that. Where’s the quote, Jay?

Do I need a counter like the RNC website?

Actually, the American intelligence community said America was less safe. There was a recent NIE report to that effect, but you knew that because we’ve debated this in the past.

“In addition, I’m not going to explain the difference to you between soldiers actively engaged in combat operations being killed while in action as opposed to Marine barracks being bombed and a docked warship refueling being bombed. If you cannot understand the difference, that’s your problem.”

Translations: I can’t respond to your post, so I’m going to insult you instead.

What about the American embassy? The Green zone has been attacked. So have American civilians working in Iraq. Kidnappings. Beheadings. Etc. Are these terrorist attacks? Or is your definition of a terrorist attack even more fluid than that?

The claim has been initiated by Obama and other Democrats. The claim is, “We’re less safe.” I disagree. Now, present the case for why we are less safe. I don’t have to prove you wrong. You have to prove that you’re right.

In addition, I’m not going to explain the difference to you between soldiers actively engaged in combat operations being killed while in action as opposed to Marine barracks being bombed and a docked warship refueling being bombed. If you cannot understand the difference, that’s your problem.

9/11 Truthers are like the people getting laid at the Special Olympics. They are all fucking retards.

We all should begin flying the American Flag upside down to signal crisis of massive proportion in this country.

PEACE

Al Qaeda or, by whatever name the United States government/media tagged this nebulous enemy, did not perpetrate the 911 attack. Usama bin Laden laid claim strictly for press and propaganda purposes.

911 was conducted by Saudi Arabian Wahhabist clerics/money men using military trained converts. Who really is Mohamed Atta?

Saudi Arabians are the lead foreign fighters in Iraq. The Iraq War is fueled by Saudi madrasses from across the only open border to Iraq.

The United States is benefactor/protector to it’s chief enemy and adversary Saudi Arabia who declared war on September 11, 2001.

Not entirely. If the only “evidence” you have that were more safe is that we haven’t been attacked on US soil since 9-11 then you have proved nothing as well. Where is your evidence that our invasion of Iraq has made us safer? There is none. Zero. It’s just rhetoric.

Given that we had seen nothing on the scale of 9/11 before 9/11 it hardly makes sense to suggest that we’re safer because there hasn’t been such a massive attack since.

At the same time, as midderpidge pointed out in another thread, US installations and interests have been the targets of terrorist attacks since 9-11 and our invasion of Iraq:

US Consulate, Karachi 2002
Gaza Strip US diplomat convoy bombed 2003
US Embassy bombing, Tashkent Uzbekistan 2004
US consulate attack, Jeddah Saudi Arabia 2004
US Embassy Attack, Damscus Syria 2006
Bagram Airbase Bombing, Pakistan 2007

It also seems odd to me that you would include the USS Cole bombing on your list of pre-9-11 attacks but then dismiss the countless terrorist attacks against US military installations and personnel since our invasion of Iraq. If the sole difference is that we weren’t “at war” when the USS Cole was bombed that’s flimsy at best. Any where US military personnel are stationed they are potential targets of terrorist attacks, whether they’re living on Khobar Towers or the Green Zone in Baghdad.

Driving a truck bomb up to the Green Zone in Baghdad, as happened in April 2007, is no different than driving a truck bomb up to the Khobar Towers, even though we weren’t “at war” in Saudia Arabia or not. If declaring war is all it takes to turn a terrorist attacks into something else unclassifiable, then you’re just talking semantics. A truck bomb is a truck bomb is a truck bomb.