http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=terrorism&ia=ahd4

This is pretty much right on.

There has to be a political or ideological motive behind it. Could there have been with the anthrax attacks? Sure. Could it have been a random psycho? Sure.

But until we hear otherwise, I’m hesitant to put it into the same category as OKC, 9/11, 7/7……

They spread terror. The made people believe that the postal office could be the delivery vehicle for a biological attack. The effects were long lasting and still present today.

Sheesh. Some people.

You can find that link anywhere.

Take your head out of your butt.

Perhaps go to msnbc and see for yourself.

“As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare.”

SO, yes, ANTHRAX. DC Sniper counts too. As do any church burnings, ELF bombings, the EL AL ticket counter attack, and the 2004 NYC Republican national convention.

Again…..go look up terrorism. You’re igorant of the real definition.

The only way the anthrax attacks would be a terrorist attack is if were able to link it or prove that it was committed by a person or persons with the sole intent of coercing, intimidating, or forcing the powers that be or the citizenry of this country to bend to their will.

I’m not saying it wasn’t…..heck, it probably was, but until we know who and why, you can’t truly by defnition call it a terrorist attack.

Kinda funny that no “terrorist organization” claimed it either. Christ, those vermin post things on youtube and take credit for their actions. They even have media wings.

I’m just sayin….you’re ignorant of what terrorism is and you’re just calling it one for certain because you want to add it to the tally to make Bush look bad.

Total terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 – 0

Thank you George W. Bush.

Oh….and the Iraqis have met 15 of 18 benchmarks. Or is this just “right wing media propaganda?”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374603,00.html

You people crack me up. Not one shred intellectual honesty among any of you.

ANTHRAX!

How many times does it have to be said before you figure it out?

Uh, yeah, dude. A right wing movement.

And if you want to parse the numbers on which president, Clinton or Bush, was more effective against domestic terrorism, homegrown or otherwise, it’s pretty much a dead heat. There were 2 attacks under Clinton’s watch and 1 under Bush, only that one was 9-11, with a body count over three times the number of OK City’s. Do you want to change the comparison to number of dead Americans due to terrorist attacks?

The point being that’s absolutely ridiculous to trumpet “no terrorist attacks since 9-11″ as some evidence of success. The frequency of foreign terrorist attacks on US soil under Clinton and Bush is exactly the same.

Thank you George W. Bush!!!1!

Nope, doesn’t count. Not specific enough.

There’s dense and then there’s event horizon dense.

Now go look up Marxist.

“It counts the same as the anthrax attacks, difference in body count not withstanding. Unless Tim McVeigh was an al Qaeda operative, in which case you made your point.”

I don’t think a reasonable person would put the anthrax on par with the OKC bombing. Body count does matter. And we still know nothing about the anthrax, where as McVeigh, although a nut, could be linked to some sort of movement. A Saturday night in Detroit is more deadly than the anthrax attack. I see your point, a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack, but that’s pretty lame to compare the two. One was a failure of monumental proportions (as was 9/11) and the anthrax……uh…..not sure yet. Could have been a random sicko. Could have been…..who knows?

Thank you Lucky Astrology Mood Watch!

J, you miss again the anthrax attacks, the attacks against U.S. embassies abroad, etc. You need to phrase it as I said: “Total terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens within the continental U.S. and not U.S. territories abroad that were both successfully executed and had a body count of more than 100 since 9/11: 0.” Otherwise it’s simply factually inaccurate.

See, I get that you want to pretend Bush has had any kind of positive effect against terrorist attacks, otherwise you wouldnt keep using the zero figure, but being able to pretend requires that you say something thats technically true when you’re trying to mislead people, and your blurb simply isnt true in that technical sense, whereas my version is.

Here’s another example, when the Right tries to argue the economy’s doing fine by pointing out “Fewer people are on unemployment” but they will Not say “More people are working,” even though thats directly what they’re trying to imply, because it’s not true factually. Do you see now how important it is to carefully craft your dishonest talking point before making it? Hope I could be of some help, and keep on fighting the bad fight.

It counts the same as the anthrax attacks, difference in body count not withstanding. Unless Tim McVeigh was an al Qaeda operative, in which case you made your point.

Do you believe we can shoot and bomb our way out of the problem of religious extremism? Do you think Iranian ‘vermin’ will one day say ‘oh well, they deposed one of our country’s most popular figures, the American CIA and Israeli Mossad taught SAVAK agents how to interrogate anti-Shah students, they started an unnecessary war against our neighbor, but they’ve killed enough of us and we’ve had enough of this?’ If so, I respectfully disagree.

Do you really think immediately pulling out of Iraq is going to bring about world peace or something?

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone suggest this. Let me tell you what I think might happen, though. We start dealing with the Islamic world in a more sensible, less bull-headed narcissistic fashion, and a lot more of those ’swing-terrorist’ Muslims who might end up living their lives or radicalized by injustice (actual or perceived) will lean towards the former and not the latter. Sure, there will always be religious fundamentalism anywhere you go, but we can try to stop stoking the fires quite so much.

“Total foreign terrorist attacks between 1993 and 9/11/01: 0. Thank you President Clinton.”

I guess Oklahoma City doesn’t count? Or is that not now considered a terrorist attack?

Total terrorist attacks on US soil (there, happy?) since 9/11/01: 0

Thank You George W. Bush.

And as for linking terrorist attacks in other countries across the globe to Iraq, that’s ridiculous. Al-qaeda and it’s network existed long before that. Newflash to idiot libs: islamic fundamentalists didn’t just come about on 9/11. We should have been fighting them for decades, but the previous administrations ignored these vermin. (Waiting to see who will call me “racist” for calling islamic fundies vermin……)

Do you really think immediately pulling out of Iraq is going to bring about world peace or something? Do you think they would NOT be angry about infidel presence in Afghanistan or something? If you do believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

They’ve been after us for decades. Marxists please remove your heads from your butts.

Might be? Might be?

Gawd.

ROFLMAO. Yes, of course, you don’t. You do, however, believe that terrorists time their attacks to the election of a new president to “test their resolve” just because Joe Lieberman said so. Sheesh. So fucking stupid.

Total foreign terrorist attacks between 1993 and 9/11/01: 0. Thank you President Clinton.