Jump to content
The Education Forum

Patriot Act: Good or Bad?


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The evidence includes eyewitnesses accounts that there was a midair explosion, which the government ignored, saying that the plane fell apart because the big ol' pilot was too hard on the rudder.

But I know you believe the government. So surely you also believe the government and its media when they tell us that 5 Americans died from terrorist anthrax attacks in October 2001.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anthrax incidents are surely puzzling.

You may or may not be right in characterizing them as deaths on US soil caused by terrorists.

I would note that these deaths occured almost immediately after 9-11-2001 (correct me if I nam wrong), before the initiatives of the war on terrorism were implemented. But again you may indeed be correct in calling them terrorist-related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may or may not be right in characterizing them as deaths on US soil caused by terrorists.

How could I not be right? They all died on U.S. soil. And who besides terrorists send people letters with anthrax in them?

I would note that these deaths occured almost immediately after 9-11-2001 (correct me if I nam wrong)

October, not almost immediately.

before the initiatives of the war on terrorism were implemented.

Initiatives were taken against anthrax attacks immediately after 9/11. Initiatives, that is, for Dick Cheney and few other high officials. They were given Cipro to take before October rolled around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, one could certainly call someone who sends anthrax through the mail a murderer.

I consider a terrorist someone who commits an act or acts of violence for a cause that is politically motivated. All terrorists need not be connected to Al-Quaeda of course.

I am just not sure that the anthrax deaths were "terrorist" by the definition I suggested. May very well have been but I am not aware of evidence to support such a conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz wrote

'So, Robert, if American security is as illusionary as you say it is, I imagine you can provide me with the names of American victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil post 9-11-2001.'

My response to your question, which you did not specify was required a yes or no answer, I might add

was in the very first line of my post.

"Since 9/11 President Bush has been President for a lengthy period of time, in which there have been no terrorist attacks"

You may take that, as it was intended as a No. If your intellectual victory makes you feel that you have defended the integrity of our 'protectors', I would submit that you serve no other purpose on this Forum other than being our own resident Gerald Posner, and that is not stated as a compliment.

Your agenda setting in regards to the Castro did-it, or the Ultimate Sacrifice (C-Day, what a joke) or whatever angle you are postulating these days, would be better served, if you attempted to interact with other members of the forum, as one human being to another, rather than 'couched in legalese and 'witness/cross-examination formats ala the aformentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Robert, all you said just obscures the fact that you cannot or will not answer my question with a "yes" or "no".

I'm still waiting for a "yes" or "no" answer from you as to whether Bush lied (see above) it's been a few months.

In court, if a witness was asked for a question that could be answered "yes" or "no" and he instead offered a bunch of claptrap, the judge would strike the response and order that the witness respond with a "yes" or "no".

In court if a witness repeatedly refused to answer a question the judge would cite him with contempt and send him to jail.

The point is simply that there has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since Bush launched the war on terror. I am sure there are classified records of terrorist attacks that have been prevented.

How do you know that there weren't twarted attacks under Clinton or that IF there were any attacks prevented under Bush II that they could not have been prevented without the Patriot Act and extra-judicial eavesdropping?

Don't forget that terrorist attacks were few and far between before 9-11 too. It is doubtful that Bush's tactic could have stopped TimothyMcVeigh or EricRobert Rudolph because they weren't on anyones radar screens it is also doubtful that they could have prevented the WTC bombings.

I'm not sure why the Bush Administration would keep attacks it had prevented classified when they have done everything they could to build up hysteria over terrorism.Obviously the terrorist groups would know that the attacks had not been carried out. They could publicize the fact that an attack had been prevented witjout revealing their methods.

One example of them building up hysteria is the whole "dirty bomb" scare. Few if any scientists believe that the radioactivity of such a weapon would kill anybody. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1135099312

No one died but according to one site there have been at least 6 bomb or arson attacks against abortion clinics since 9-11. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Are we totally secure from terrorist attacks? No, of course not, unfortunately. Are we safer because we have a president who recognizes the nature of the threat and understands that his first responsibility is to protect the safety of U.S. citizens? Of course we are.

You have yet to back your theory that we are safer because of Bush's tactics, just saying "of course we are" isn't enough. Also you mustn't forget how much the Bush administration ignored the threat of terrorism before 9-11

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...