Will You Elect Terror Or Not?

  • News
  • Thread starter omin
  • Start date

If elected, which presidential candidate is more likely to have a terror attack?


  • Total voters
    31
  • #1
187
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Cheney recently made a threat to Americans that if Kerry and Edwards made it to office, terrorists would attack.

So far, not ironically, it was Bush and Cheney that were in office during 911, not Clinton or Kerry.

Based upon what you've seen, read or heard that is worthy of taking into consideration please answer my poll question.

Here's the question:

Which 2004 presidential candidate, if elected, is more likely to have a terror attack against innocent Americans occur during their term as president?

Bush or Kerry?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
467
1
Based upon what you've seen, read or heard that is worthy of taking into consideration...
In other words, nothing you have posted.

Your poll is useless. All it in essence asks is "Who are you voting for in this election?"
 
  • #3
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
JohnDubYa said:
In other words, nothing you have posted.
JW, don't make this personal. :devil:
 
  • #4
LURCH
Science Advisor
2,549
118
I don't think either candidate matters to the terrorists, they want to kill Americans because we do not convert to Islam. In fact, I think it is a near-certainty that there will be terrorist attacks on the US during the next four years. However, I think Bush will do a lot more to impede their success. It may have been Bush in office on 9/11, but it was our "do nothing" policy under Clinton that led to the attacks. Up untill then, most Americans (including myself) believed and hoped that if we left the terrorists alone, they would leave us alone. The Democratic Party still seems to think so, but I believe that history has taught us otherwise.
 
  • #5
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
LURCH said:
The Democratic Party still seems to think so, ...
And you can substantiate this observation ??
 
  • #6
187
0
LURCH said:
I don't think either candidate matters to the terrorists, they want to kill Americans because we do not convert to Islam.
In Arabia, they say they want to kill us Arabs because we don't want to convert to their doctrine of Democracy. Bush isn't practicing Democracy and Freedom for Iraqis. Democracy is a result of the peoples will, not an invading murdering, theiving tyrants idea for Iraqis. It's obvious, there will today is to defend themselves by taking out as many ignorant brainwashed murderers called the US military. Any human naturally defends their homeland from invasion of murderous theiving thugs.

LURCH said:
In fact, I think it is a near-certainty that there will be terrorist attacks on the US during the next four years. However, I think Bush will do a lot more to impede their success.
Have you ever been in a physical scuffle in life? Would you say it's more likely that you would throw a punch if you were being talked to or being physically hit? Now, let me ask this question, do you think a policy of diplomacy increases the terror threat more than policy of war, or vice versa? And which is more significantly inciting of physical threat against America, diplomatic leadership Kerry offers or killing thousands of innocent civilians, what Bush has to offer? Bush isn't getting off scott free for Operation:Murder Iraqis, when the entire world voiced there stand against it. We need Kerry in office.

LURCH said:
It may have been Bush in office on 9/11, but it was our "do nothing" policy under Clinton that led to the attacks. Up untill then, most Americans (including myself) believed and hoped that if we left the terrorists alone, they would leave us alone.
Keep in mind what the sactions did to the innocent cilvilians in Iraq. That was hardly a do nothing policy. By default it was indirect murder of innocents. This policy was set up while Bush was in office. Clinton should have taken care of it, you're right. But not by murdering more Iraqi's like Bush is now doing.
 
  • #7
5
0
omin said:
It's obvious, there will today is to defend themselves by taking out as many ignorant brainwashed murderers called the US military. Any human naturally defends their homeland from invasion of murderous theiving thugs.
Your not an Iraqi, so dont pretend you know better what they want than the Iraqis themselves. Soon they will be able to speak for themselves, and theyre not gonna be nice to ppl like you. Now lets stay on topic.
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
LURCH said:
The Democratic Party still seems to think so, but I believe that history has taught us otherwise.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

you watch too much Fox News!
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
I voted equally likely. They [radicallized Islam] hate in the name of God not in the name of the US President. They are just a bunch of nuts, outcasts, criminals, and seriously, mentally screwed up people who could care less about what we do.
 
  • #10
devil-fire
how long did the attacks on 911 take to actually happen after the planing was finished? i thought it was years or something. i dont think it matters whos in office at the time of the attacks, but whos been in office while the plans started getting made an the terrorist's resolve is solidified

most of the people iv spoken with on the internet refer to bush as the person whos starting wars and not the usa, there is a notable distinction. i think that bush is going to draw more aggression then kerry but i do not think there will be any catastrophic terrorist acts in either outcome, or in the term after this one
 
  • #11
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
LURCH said:
It may have been Bush in office on 9/11, but it was our "do nothing" policy under Clinton that led to the attacks.
FWIW, Clinton did confront terrorism (e.g., 1998 missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan and indicting bin Laden) but, granted, not as much as Bush is now. 9/11 changed that political mindset.

Also, terrorists such as ObL were angry with the US prior to the Clinton Administration.

Could Clinton have done more? Now that could be a debate.
 
  • #12
467
1
Why are we blaming either President?
 
  • #13
5
0
Thats what im wondering too JD. There is absolutely no justification for what OBL has done and the blame should be put on him
 
  • #14
187
0
JohnDubYa said:
Why are we blaming either President?
Leaders have a responsibility for what is occuring and how we influence what occurs. Terror and war is an indications they are doing a less efficient job in this day and age.
 
  • #15
5
0
omin said:
Leaders have a responsibility for what is occuring and how we influence what occurs.
Yes they do. Why dont you listen to yourself and put the blame for terrorist attacks at the extremist leaders?

Terror and war is an indications they are doing a less efficient job in this day and age.
Thats where your wrong. How do you know there wouldnt be twice as much war and terror if the leaders had made diffrent choices?
Also dont forget, when you fight terrorists, theyre gonna fight back and i hope you agree with me, they should be fought(right?). Still by your definition, when you fight terrorists and they fight back, this is an indication that you are doing something wrong. After all, you were just hit by terrorists.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
19,251
5,251
Lurch's position is almost exactly mine, but I do agree with JD that we shouldn't be focusing on internal blame here, but external blame. OBL hates us because we are Americans, we're free, and we're not Muslims. No president can change that (unless, of course, they kill him - then he can't hate us anymore), but I do agree that Bush will do more to actively fight OBL. And that leads us to Lurch's Democrats and isolationism thing:

Show of hands - who here considers Democrats to generally be hawks and Republicans doves? Who considers Democrats to generally be in favor of globalization and Republicans against? And who here thinks isolationism has ever worked? Yeah, that's what I thought (I may need to start a new thread on that topic)...
 
  • #17
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
7
I voted "equal". Based on the interactions I've had with foreign students (including Arabs), the outside world can't see a whole lot of difference between Republican and Democrat. Arabs think they're both too liberal, and the rest of the world thinks they're both too conservative.
 
  • #18
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
51
I voted equal likelihood for both candidates. I don't think either one has the solution to terrorism (does anyone really?). Neither of their approaches to foreign policy is suddenly going to make the terrorists start loving us, despite any attempts on the part of their campaigns to convince you otherwise.
 
  • #19
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
738
Hmmm. I tend to agree the likelihood is equal. IMO, the heart of the problem is using the 'pound of cure' approach. Why would anyone sacrifice their own life to inflict a blow upon their 'enemies'? The naive answer is they have nothing left to lose. Is it just a coincidence they seem to share a universal sense of despair for the future given the status quo? Perhaps they are sick and tired of seeing their neighbors starve and die, of losing their parents due to lack of basic medical care, and watching their children living in such squalid conditions they are virtually assured of the same fate? People need hope for a better future: a sense of security if they fail and the possibility of rewards if they succeed. Hope is the ounce of prevention that is needed. If we give them jobs, debt, taxes, soccer practice, stress and moms who gripe when the grass gets too tall, or the house needs a fresh coat of paint, they won't be able to afford or have the spare time to blow up themselves, much less anyone else... they will just wish they did.
 
  • #20
5
0
Chronos said:
Hmmm. I tend to agree the likelihood is equal. IMO, the heart of the problem is using the 'pound of cure' approach. Why would anyone sacrifice their own life to inflict a blow upon their 'enemies'? The naive answer is they have nothing left to lose. Is it just a coincidence they seem to share a universal sense of despair for the future given the status quo? Perhaps they are sick and tired of seeing their neighbors starve and die, of losing their parents due to lack of basic medical care, and watching their children living in such squalid conditions they are virtually assured of the same fate? People need hope for a better future: a sense of security if they fail and the possibility of rewards if they succeed. Hope is the ounce of prevention that is needed. If we give them jobs, debt, taxes, soccer practice, stress and moms who gripe when the grass gets too tall, or the house needs a fresh coat of paint, they won't be able to afford or have the spare time to blow up themselves, much less anyone else... they will just wish they did.
Theyre angry about Palestine, not about their neighbour starving. Its a misconception that they do this because of poverty.
 
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
19,251
5,251
studentx said:
Theyre angry about Palestine, not about their neighbour starving. Its a misconception that they do this because of poverty.
Poverty is easier to fix anyway - many/most nations in the middle east have money if they choose to use it correctly. The problem is their mindset causes them to choose to misuse it. Worse, there are those who would simply use them as a pawn for their own nefarious puposes anyway. What would Hamas consider a better way for a teenager to help their cause/people: get an education or blow himself up at a bus station? I guess the answer depends on what that "cause" is though - sometimes it appears to me that terrorism isn't a means, its an ends.

And though I don't think poverty is the cause, rich people complain less. Prosperity would help the situation.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
187
0
Chronos said:
Hmmm. I tend to agree the likelihood is equal. IMO, the heart of the problem is using the 'pound of cure' approach. Why would anyone sacrifice their own life to inflict a blow upon their 'enemies'? The naive answer is they have nothing left to lose. Is it just a coincidence they seem to share a universal sense of despair for the future given the status quo? Perhaps they are sick and tired of seeing their neighbors starve and die, of losing their parents due to lack of basic medical care, and watching their children living in such squalid conditions they are virtually assured of the same fate? People need hope for a better future: a sense of security if they fail and the possibility of rewards if they succeed. Hope is the ounce of prevention that is needed. If we give them jobs, debt, taxes, soccer practice, stress and moms who gripe when the grass gets too tall, or the house needs a fresh coat of paint, they won't be able to afford or have the spare time to blow up themselves, much less anyone else... they will just wish they did.
Chronos,

You know what's up. That's why we need a diplomatic leadership. People just can't take watching their families die under this murderous theif and thug we have in office now.

But, how could you say equal, when you stated reasons that could induce the defensive nature of humans, those Iraqis. You said yourself, in essense, the effect of treating them as civil humans would decrease the time they think about watching there people die would leave them no time for the attacking back, because their would be nothing to defend against. Atleast I see the implication there.

We need leadership, not murderers in Washington.

Studentx,

There was no war, untill Bush started it. Is that hard to see? There was no basis for war, so that makes it murder. That's how we do things with civil logic and that applies at the macro level of insanity also.

911 left nobody to blame. It's too bad we didn't have proof of who did it. But, in the relative sense, it is Disneyland compared to what Iraq endured the last ten years. If you would stop leaving out the pain induced upon Iraqis by American leadership, you wouldn't be in so much disequilibrium on this issue.

And yes, it is the presidents fault if terror attacks occur, and if the economy is going bad, and especially if they start a war that creates horrible realities for everyone involved and is a huge waste of money. The business that goes bad is blamed on the manager on duty. That's how things work. And we have a horrible state of affairs today that began with this leaderships arrival.

There used to be a day when war might of been worth it to group of people encounter a new territory. Those days are over and will forver be over with our new circumstances, except say the idiotic doomsday psuedo-scientists. Iraq is getting us no where. It's nothing more than a Vietnam or Israeli idea that happened 50 years ago. It's an embarassment. Remeber I said that when WE ARE FORCED TO LEAVE, because it just will get too EXPENSIVE! It's not worth it. Watch how we leave, it will be painted up as a success, but in quantified reality it will only be a waste of money and stupidly induce dscars upon fellow human beings. The graves of soldiers will be in the honor of a Rich Man's War, a horrible, horrible mistake.
 
  • #23
5
0
omin said:
Studentx,

There was no war, untill Bush started it. Is that hard to see? There was no basis for war, so that makes it murder. That's how we do things with civil logic and that applies at the macro level of insanity also.
Get over it. You have an attitude of revenge, not being constructive.

911 left nobody to blame. It's too bad we didn't have proof of who did it.
Osama/ Al Quaeda claimed responsibility, and the Taliban was given a chance to hand him out but chose to protect him.

But, in the relative sense, it is Disneyland compared to what Iraq endured the last ten years.
What happens in Iraq is Disneyland to what happens in other places.

And yes, it is the presidents fault if terror attacks occur, and if the economy is going bad, and especially if they start a war that creates horrible realities for everyone involved and is a huge waste of money. The business that goes bad is blamed on the manager on duty. That's how things work. And we have a horrible state of affairs today that began with this leaderships arrival.
Its not a business, and the thousands of Iraqis that were killed by carbombs and tens of thousands in their families disagree with you about who is to blame. Stop pretending to be an Iraqi.
 
  • #24
187
0
I'm the one promoting diplomacy, not revenge. Quit smattering, student. Defense is natural to humans, I appaud the heroes defending there homeland against the murder and theif. I would do the same if it were America.

Smattering you are. Constructive is using diplomacy instead of bombs and forced so-called freedom with people who will never give in the defense of the murdering occupyers. Did you see how fast the last few years have gone by? The next four will go by just as fast, but the hero's who stand up the the murderous, thieving brainwashed thugs will have built more support among themselves and internationally. We don't like Bushes Operation Murder Iraqis to get oil, in the name of psuedo-democracy.

Prove where the evidence shows that Mr. Ossumption claimed responsibility and/or Al-Quadia. You're just like a Christian how claims there is a God and A savior Jesus, but you have no proof of a Diety or the nonsense miracles that those kinds of empty theories assert. In short, your theory has no evedence to back it up. I"m using the evidence of photos and number in major newpapers, but stip the stories of the views, just facts bub. So, your saying essetially nothing, which is just a propoganda theory of imagination said to you over and over to beleive. If you would have used the empirical logic scientists use to prove or disprove what was being promoted, you would understand it was never proven who did it.

You either care what happend to Iraqis or not. From the comment, you are deny a trinkle down sanctions holocaust. A million deaths, what is the number that is holocaust? Confront that fact that it is American Leader's direct resposibility of these million murders of Iraqis, instead of wiggling out with those weak nonsense comments. Facts speak, not cowardice bends in insultive language.

Again, Iraqis obviously know who has killed more of their people as it's printed in every major newspaper accross the globe. I'm not sure they are that bad at math and that blind not to see their dead. After all, they contributed some of the most significant theories in math than most civilisations on Earth. I'm sure they can count dead bodies better than you oh so far away.

Smattering does not means you've made a point. It means you are confused.
 
  • #25
467
1
A million deaths, what is the number that is holocaust?
In another thread I asked you to support your assertion with links to sources. Will you abide?
 

Related Threads for: Will You Elect Terror Or Not?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
54
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
5K
Replies
71
Views
8K
Top