A terrorist attack doesn't mean "planes hitting buildings"

[sabra]

Lately, I have seen some consistency when it comes to Bush debates with Freepers. I usually hear the argument, he is keeping us safe from terrorists, and that there hasn't been another plane hitting building as a form of terrorism since 9/11/2001....

But when I start bringing up the Anthrax incidents, and that global terrorism is at it's highest levels, nope that doesn't seem to work.

[sui generis]

1. that's because if you stray outside their talking points

a static snow blizzard crosses from ear to ear, followed by a test pattern.

[Inland]

2. What they mean is, nothing has happened to them or their families

or friends. Sure, there's been more terrorism everywhere around the world, and as for the US, we've had 1600 dead Americans since 9/11, and thousands of wounded. But all they care about is their own skins. That's their measure of success. If the US is a house withe americans inside, and terrorists are gathering outside, Bush has taken our troops and contractors and shoved them out the front door in order to catch bullets and keept the terrorists busy while he takes the time to wreck social security, get more tax cuts for the rich, and put numnuts radicals on the fed judiciary.

[sabra]

3. Nice analogy, I'll use that for my next debate :-)

[FreedomAngel82]

4. It's not big enough

so it doesn't count. I think the next attack will be a bomb somewhere. Probably in the north east somewhere.

[killbotfactory]

5. remember that sniper guy?

glad he wasn't a terrorist. makes me feel a lot safer.

Or that guy who started planting pipebombs in the form of a happy face?

yeah.

But why would they bother coming over here, anyway? Bush sent thousands of soldiers right into their back yard.

[Drifter]

6. Actually, that is not true ...

Remember soon after 9/11, some Young Republican (14 yo) flew his cessna into an office building (Miami). He left a suicide note indicating his sympathy for Bin Laden.

Cheers
Drifter