It is no secret that there were more acts in the works imediately after, and even up till today. 9/11 was the tip of the iceberg for what was planned, and we did foil some serious plans. How many? No way to know, but I have read some reliable sources estimating conservatively at 500 attacks. Now, you tell me if these attacks could have been foiled pre 9/11. The United States has always been a reactive country, not proactive. It's unfortunate, but true. Now, if you have listened to the President very closely, we are now shifting gears to a proactive state.

I'd say there were some serious threats during the war. The alert level was raised accordingly, and understandably. Everyday that goes by without another attack is a victory.

 

I think you need to go do some research on embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and others. Clinton allowed this to go on for years because he was too busy getting head from his intern. He'd launch a few missiles at someone without asking and noone thought any differently. Bin Laden could've been captured years ago if Clinton had put his little dick to it. But he didn't, and look what happened. Pre-emption works, and it has always worker. There has never been a time in history where appeasement to terrorists or dictators has worked, and if you would show me one I would be most humbled.

No terrorism directly affecting the United States of America or its interests has occured since September 11th.

 

I think I said this in another post, but I will re-emphasise what 98CoupeV6 just said...... Clinton had the FBI investigate the USS Cole attack. A millitary on millitary attack was investigated by a domestic crime unit!!!! Since the begining of time, an attack like that is imediate cause for war. Clinton should've had the 7th Infantry Division at Binladen's cave after that!

 

Every weekend hundreds of thousands of males plan on getting laid. That, however, has nothing to do with their capabilities of actually getting some action.

Those were not terrorist attacks because they were not designed to cause terror. They were designed to destroy military hardware and personnel.


Read my posts again, tell me where I advocated a reactionary stance.

 

I stopped reading your post here. Read what I posted again, get your head out of your ass, and then comment.

 

I stand corrected. My appologies.

 

Regarding the title of this thread...

Why is it assumed that just because someone protests or openly disapproves of the war they are judged ignorant?

I understand that to oppose the war simply because of a distaste for Bush is an ignorant stance but not everyone who opposes the war thinks this way or has that as their main reason for doing so.

Just had to say that.

 

How does blowing up an embassy destroy military hardware and personnel? Embassy bombings are designed to push our face in the mud. The USS Cole can very easily be argued as terroristic...use some common sense, qt. Do you really think that any arab gives a shit if we have one less cruiser? No. The goal was to scare us out of the area.

 

It's one thing to voice your opinion against something. It's another to cause public disturbance, halt the flow of trafic, get in the face of people who just want to go to work or go shopping, fight, riot, anything else that breaks the law. An organized protest with a permit scheduled for a certain time, abiding by that permit, and staying out of the way of trafic and pedestrians can get more respect from the opposition than causing a raucus and making yourself look like a fool. That accomplishes absolutly nothing.

 

I would disagree. Causing public disturbances through peaceful protest is arguably the most effective method of protest available.

Sit ins were one of the key protest methods during the civil rights revolution.