The only reason there is Moslem terrorism is because of the Great Satan United States and its evil leader George Bush.

Oh, wait, what does Thailand have to do with either the United States or George Bush? Do you think that killing innocent people is just the Moslem terrorists way of getting attention?

22 bombs rock southern Thailand
SUTIN WANNABOVORN

Associated Press

BANGKOK — Nearly two dozen bombs exploded almost simultaneously Thursday inside commercial banks in southern Thailand, killing two people in a region bloodied by a Muslim insurgency, police said.

The homemade bombs, which were triggered by mobile phone signals, were placed in garbage bins, at newspaper stands and near seats where customers wait for service in the banks in Yala province, said Major General Paithoon Choochaiya who heads the provincial police. At least 28 people were injured.

Authorities said two suspects were detained. A review of close-circuit video showed that some of the explosives were planted by women, police said.

Some of the apparently small devices were hidden in women's handbags or inside books carried by teenagers in school uniforms, said Lieutenant General Ongkorn Thongprasom, the army chief in the south.

“We received some intelligence reports, but we did not anticipate it would happen inside banks, especially on the last day of the month. We don't believe they are that cruel,” Gen. Ongkorn said.

Banks are normally crowded at the end of the month with customers withdrawing funds from their deposited salaries.

Deputy Prime Minister Chitchai Wannasathit said authorities had learned the rebels were planning a major attack Thursday to coincide with the founding day of Bersatu, believed to be an umbrella group for Thailand's rebel groups.

“I ordered them [authorities] to take precautions and prevention but this incident still occurred,” he said.

The bombs were set off in 22 of Yala's 30 bank branches, both in the provincial capital and outlying districts.

“It's scary. We can't estimate the damage yet,” said Pridiyathorn Devakula, head of the Bank of Thailand, the country's central bank.

The Islamic Bank of Thailand was among those attacked, according to reporters at the scene. The bank, set up in five southern provinces by the government, was created according to Muslim law, which prohibits interest.

More than 1,500 people have been killed in the insurgency since early 2004, most of them in the Muslim-dominated southern provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani. The rebels are seeking to separate from Thailand, where Buddhists form the vast majority.

Targets of the rebels have included in the past government officials, school teachers, policemen, Buddhist monks and many Muslims suspected of collaboration with the government. Bombings, drive-by shootings and beheadings occur almost daily.

Last weekend, suspected insurgents killed the highest-ranking officer to die in the south since 2004. Colonel Suthisak Praertsri and another soldier died when a bomb exploded under their vehicle in Yala.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060831.wthaibombs0831/BNStory/International/home

I'm not aware anybody has ever said the only reason terrorists exist is because of Bush.

What is clear is that Bush has potentially increased the risk to the American people for terrorist attacks.

the more you over think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the sink.

I'm not aware anybody has ever said the only reason terrorists exist is because of Bush.

What is clear is that Bush has potentially increased the risk to the American people for terrorist attacks.

Which is why we haven't had a repeat of 9/11.

Which is why we haven't had a repeat of 9/11. Hey frogger wanna buy my 'anti-terrorist rock'? Its this rock I found that has the magical powers of destroying terrorists. In the 10 years I've had it I haven't seen one single terrorist...I was gonna put it on ebay but I'll sell it to you for $50..

Which is why we haven't had a repeat of 9/11.

Thats why I said potentially. Personally I think the risk of terrorism is no different than the risk of being struck by lightning or winning the loto.

One thing is clear - the amount of people ready, willing & wanting to be terrorists has been increased 100 fold by Bush. I bet we've spent $1 million for every new terrorist recruit. And when I say terrorist - I mean the people who are willing and potentially capable of being involved in a suicide mission attack within the US - I'm not talking about the bunch of insurgents in Iraq who have fuck all to do with any risk to the US. (incidentally, I wonder how much we spent to create each insurgent in Iraq - it has to be well over $100K per insurgent - the money would have been much better spent buying textbooks for schools.)

I'm not aware anybody has ever said the only reason terrorists exist is because of Bush.
Not Bush alone, but when asked about the actions of the radicals, Googs blamed "the West":
"I'm not saying it's America's fault alone. It's just the way America and the West have decided to fix the situation."

Some people do believe that the victims are guiltier than the actors.

Regardless of what we do - the existance of terrorists is fundamentally not "our fault". They are the ones who choose to fly planes into buildings, it's their choice and it's their responsibility.

What is our fault is poor decision making that has spent money & lives with the only concrete outcome is the actual increase in terrorist recruitment & not much else. Certainly we have undoubtedly done many things right in the so called "war on terror", but it is overshadowed by what we have done wrong. Saying that we are guilty of bad decisions doesn't make us guilty of any actions terrorists may make. That is solely their choice.

We are answerable to ourselves, not to their actions. We can question the effectiveness of our actions but that does not mean such questioning leads to a conclusion that we are responsible for the actual actions of radicals - even if our actions have created more radicals.

Hey frogger wanna buy my 'anti-terrorist rock'? Its this rock I found that has the magical powers of destroying terrorists. In the 10 years I've had it I haven't seen one single terrorist...I was gonna put it on ebay but I'll sell it to you for $50..

No thanks, Quarterton. You keep it. It goes so well with your tin foil hat.

George Bush has made some mistakes in the fight against terrorism but had the United States simply rolled over after 9/11 as was done after terrorists attackes under both Carter and Clinton the danger would have been worse.

We were attacked because we were perceived as weak and unwilling to respond to attack. Carter begged the Iranians and his only other response to the taking of the U.S. embassy was an ill planned and quickly aborted rescue mission. Clinton did nothing when the Cole was attacked, nothing when the World Trade Center was attacked the first time, nothing when the embassies in Africa were attacked. He only responded when he wanted to take attention away from his own person actions and that response was a missile attack on a peaceful factory.

Bush did some things wrong but at least he did something.

My biggest fear is that the Democrats will take control of the government and will continue their course of doing nothing.

George Bush has made some mistakes in the fight against terrorism but had the United States simply rolled over after 9/11 as was done after terrorists attackes under both Carter and Clinton the danger would have been worse.

We were attacked because we were perceived as weak and unwilling to respond to attack. Carter begged the Iranians and his only other response to the taking of the U.S. embassy was an ill planned and quickly aborted rescue mission. Clinton did nothing when the Cole was attacked, nothing when the World Trade Center was attacked the first time, nothing when the embassies in Africa were attacked. He only responded when he wanted to take attention away from his own person actions and that response was a missile attack on a peaceful factory.

Bush did some things wrong but at least he did something.

My biggest fear is that the Democrats will take control of the government and will continue their course of doing nothing.1. You could say that Clinton didn't do the right thing, but to say that he did nothing is just wrong. (By the way, after the embassy bombings Clinton launched missiles at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, directly targeting bin Laden. The attack on the factory in Sudan wasn't his only response).

2. It's easy to use hindsight and say what should have and shouldn't have been done. How many people were calling for the invasion of Afghanistan after the attacks in the 90s? How many people wanted a war on terrorism before 9/11? None of those things were on anyone's agenda until 3000 people were killed. You can't blame Democrats alone when everybody made the same mistake.

George Bush has made some mistakes in the fight against terrorism but had the United States simply rolled over after 9/11 as was done after terrorists attackes under both Carter and Clinton the danger would have been worse.

You're spinning off on a tangent again. Who ever said the US should do nothing after 9/11?

We were attacked because we were perceived as weak er..no we weren't. I'm convinced you either simply live in a dream world or you are addicted to simply making things up.

Bush did some things wrong but at least he did something. So doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing? Doing nothing is unacceptable, but doing the wrong thing is far more unacceptable. The problem is only an idiot would have followed the path Bush has followed - that is a serious problem and cause for concern. Bush's policies will ultimately result in thousands of American deaths.

My biggest fear is that the Democrats will take control of the government and will continue their course of doing nothing. My biggest fear is a republican congress will continue to allow Bush to follow the wrong path.

You're spinning off on a tangent again. Who ever said the US should do nothing after 9/11?

No tangent at all, Drew. Many things GWB did were right and some were wrong. What he did was better than what Carter and Clinton did. What they did gave the impression the United States was a paper tiger.

er..no we weren't. I'm convinced you either simply live in a dream world or you are addicted to simply making things up.

And I'm convinced you simply don't know what you are talking about. Terrorist had attacked the U.S.S. Cole and the response was minimal, terrorists had previously attacked the World Trade Center and the response was minimal, terrorists had attacked our embassies in Africa and the response was minimal. We were perceived as weak and unwilling to respond in any meaningful way and that is one of the reasons the planes were flown into the World Trade Center.

So doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing? Doing nothing is unacceptable, but doing the wrong thing is far more unacceptable. The problem is only an idiot would have followed the path Bush has followed - that is a serious problem and cause for concern. Bush's policies will ultimately result in thousands of American deaths.

You have an annoying habit of twisting what people say, Drew. You have done it before and you are doing it again. I didn't say doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing at all. I said that some of the things George Bush did were wrong. That doesn't mean that everything he did was wrong or that I think doing the wrong thing was good. I am wondering if you are either just the type person who purposely twists post or if you are simply too dumb to understand what is posted.

My biggest fear is a republican congress will continue to allow Bush to follow the wrong path.

Different strokes for different folks. I would rather have the wrong things Bush has done corrected than have the Democrat surrender monkies in charge.

What he did was better than what Carter and Clinton did. What they did gave the impression the United States was a paper tiger.

And I'm convinced you simply don't know what you are talking about. Terrorist had attacked the U.S.S. Cole and the response was minimal, terrorists had previously attacked the World Trade Center and the response was minimal, terrorists had attacked our embassies in Africa and the response was minimal. We were perceived as weak and unwilling to respond in any meaningful way and that is one of the reasons the planes were flown into the World Trade Center.
In 1993, after the first attack on the World Trade Center, Clinton was in office for a matter of days, not an entire year. You cannot hold that against Clinton. However, Clinton in 1993 (after the first attacks on the WTC) put Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah who were behind these attacks, behind bars. Clinton also stopped the terrorist bomb plot against the US embassy in Tirana, Albania.

Clinton in 1993 also tripled the counter terrorism budge for the FBI. He destroyed 20 Al Queda cells in more then 20 countries. He also created a top-level national security post to coordinate all federal counter terrorism activity. Clinton put in place simulations to see how local, state, and federal officials should/would respond to a terrorist attack.

“By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism then any president before him,” Barton Gellman reported in the Washington Post.

In 1996 Clinton wanted more antiterrorism money however the Republicans in the senate fought against this. They controlled Congress, and always objected and shot down his bills with the Republican’s voting party lines. So it was the Republicans who were to blame for this “terrorism” you see now. The Republicans were the ones who cut and stopped Clinton from doing what he wanted to do in anti-terrorism funding.

Clinton officials met with Condoleeza Rice and other Bush appointees, and gave then warnings on terrorism and Osama Bin Laden. Bush and his cronies ignored them, and did nothing but cut terrorism, and ignore even more warnings.

“Overall, I give them very high marks,” Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counter terrorism in the Reagan State Department, told the Washington post, “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger”

Bremer said that Clinton, “correctly focused on bin Laden” and “by any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any President before him,” Barton Gellman reported. He also said Clinton was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”

Clinton Paid 'Lip Service' to Terror Attacks, Expert Charges
Matt Pyeatt, CNSNews.com
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001
An increasingly bold series of terrorist attacks targeting American interests was met with tough talk from former President Bill Clinton but little action, according to terrorism experts asked to analyze the U.S. response to attacks between 1993 and 2000.
Larry Johnson, formerly with the CIA and the State Department and the current CEO of the Business Exposure Reduction Group, said he believes Clinton's weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
"The Clinton administration paid lip service to the notion of combating terrorism through some money added, but generally kept it as a very low priority," Johnson said.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing
On Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people and injuring thousands. The bomb caused extensive damage to the complex. Osama bin Laden is suspected to have been behind the attacks.
In reacting to the attack, Clinton urged calm.
"I would plead with the American people and the good people of New York to keep your courage up and go on about your lives. I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this," Clinton said.
Clinton assured Americans that he had put forth "the full, full resources of the federal law enforcement agencies - all kinds of agencies, all kinds of access to information - at the service of those who are trying to figure out who did this and why."
He also said he would implement a policy of "continued monitoring."
Clinton said the United States was "absolutely determined to oppose the cowardly cruelty of terrorists, wherever we can."
All Talk, No Action
Despite his rhetoric, Clinton made no changes in policy to prevent additional attacks, Johnson said.
"From the time President Clinton took office until May of 1995, a Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 39, sat in the National Security Council, in the In Box of one of the officials with no action taken. The significance of PDD 39 is that it was the document defining what the missions and roles were of combating terrorism," Johnson said.
"Despite what happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, the Clinton administration did not finally act on [PDD 39] until after the attack in Oklahoma City," Johnson said, referring to the 1995 attack in which an American, Timothy McVeigh, detonated a bomb outside the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.
"The only reason for that is because in the two weeks prior to Oklahoma City, the front page of both Newsweek and Time Magazine carried the question: 'Is President Clinton Relevant?'"
Chuck Pena, senior defense analyst for the Cato Institute, agreed that Clinton's actions after the 1993 attack failed to match his words. But, Pena said, the circumstances were different than they are today.
"[Clinton's] actions were not necessarily 100 percent reflective of his rhetoric, nor were they effective." However, "there are some reasons for some of that. At the time, we were not looking at four or five thousand casualties as a result of a single terrorist act."
1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
On June 25, 1996, terrorists attacked the U.S. military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding hundreds more.
Shiite militant terrorists with connections to bin Laden are thought to have been responsible for the attacks.
In a televised statement, Clinton addressed the nation with news about the bombing:
"The explosion appears to be the work of terrorists. The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," Clinton said. "America takes care of its own."
Johnson said Clinton did nothing of the sort.
According to Johnson, early indications were that the explosive used in the bombing of the Khobar Towers came out of the Becca Valley in Lebanon. A year later, however, Clinton restored full diplomatic relations with Lebanon including lifting travel restrictions and trade restrictions, Johnson said, "without requiring them to locate, arrest, apprehend or compensate U.S. citizens. He just let it go."
Pena said one must consider that terrorism was not the high-priority issue it is today.
"Part of it reflects, at that time, a certain tolerance for terrorism that was, compared to September 11, pretty small scale. I think the Clinton administration may have been overly cautious about not wanting to respond disproportionately to the terrorist acts that were perpetrated."
1998 Embassy Bombings
On Aug. 7, 1998, terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 258 people. More than 5,000 were injured.
The attacks were blamed on bin Laden's terrorist group, al-Qaeda, which by this time had developed into a worldwide network.
On Aug. 20, 1998, Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan.
"Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today," Clinton said at the time.
He told Americans that U.S. intelligence had uncovered information tying the bin Laden terrorist network to the embassy bombings.
"With compelling evidence that the bin Laden network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act," Clinton said.
"Afghanistan and Sudan have been warned for years to stop harboring and supporting these terrorist groups, but countries that persistently host terrorist have no right to safe havens," he added.
Johnson said Clinton's tough talk again yielded no results.
"Clinton was always good about biting his lip, tears welling up in his baggy eyes and talking about, 'We're waging a new war on terrorism,' and yet also during this period he basically cut the heart out of CIA," Johnson said.
2000 USS Cole Bombing
On Oct. 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole as it sat in the Yemeni port of Aden. The bomb killed 17 U.S. sailors. American officials quickly linked the attack to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Global News Wire reported Clinton's response:
"If, as it now appears, it was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act," he said.
"We will find out who was responsible, and hold them accountable. If their intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail, utterly."
Clinton ordered U.S. Navy ships into the Yemeni region and directed ground forces to step up their security measures.
"They spent a lot of money but it was always a symbolic gesture without the substantive approach," Johnson said.
The Bush administration, according to Johnson, is handling the issue differently since Sept. 11. However, Johnson is waiting to see if Bush will keep his promise to continue the war on terrorism even after the campaign in Afghanistan is over.
"Bush is now drawing the line in the sand and going after the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. The proof will be if he goes after the next terrorist camps, which are in Lebanon. Those are the largest terrorist camps," Johnson said.
Robert Maginnis, vice president of policy at Family Research Council, said, "There seems to be a willingness to confront the adversaries by Bush no matter where they may be and to keep everything on the table.
"This president has been serious. 'We are going to take everything that we have and whatever it takes will be available for the commander on the ground.' But Clinton seemed to have been so hesitant about using the power that was available to him to go after the bad guys. That, I think, sent the wrong sort of signal," Maginnis said.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/142108.shtml

That's pretty funny, Frogger. In another thread you bashed OD for using the Boston Globe as a source. Now here you come back with NewsMax!!

That's a bit of the "do as I say not as I do" dontcha think?

Nice article, except they don't take into account that the Republicans controlled Congress. Nor did you refute anything from the actual post I made, you just posted someone else's opinion.

No tangent at all, Drew. Many things GWB did were right and some were wrong. What he did was better than what Carter and Clinton did. What they did gave the impression the United States was a paper tiger. Neither Carter nor Clinton faced a "9/11" so the comparison is worthless. We can be certain that had 9/11 not occured that GWB would be doing even less than Clinton. Whatever Clinton or Carter did - they did far better than GWB, because they didn't get us into an unwinnable war that held absolutely zero benefit for the US with 2600+ dead, no end in sight. Whatever Clinton & Cartner did - they were outstanding in comparison to the idiot GWB, and Carter was terrible & Clinton was a disgrace.

You have an annoying habit of twisting what people say, Drew. You have done it before and you are doing it again. I didn't say doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing at all. I said that some of the things George Bush did were wrong. Sorry, but calling you on what you write is not twisting your words - the words come from you not me. You didn't just say some of the things GWB has done were wrong you said & I quote "Bush did some things wrong but at least he did something." This clearly is a statement that you believe doing something is what is important. Hence my valid question - "So doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing?" To attempt the validation or glossing over of wrong action by saying - well at least it's better than nothing is wrong thinking. No. Doing nothing is far better than doing the wrong thing, especially when the wrong things we have in question here are very much wrong & few right things have been done. That's the key element you either fail to see or comprehend it seems.

To take it a step further, it would have been best to leave things as they were after 9/11, rather than making things even harder for us by taking the wrong course of action which has led us to becoming even less secure.

To take it a step further, it would have been best to leave things as they were after 9/11, rather than making things even harder for us by taking the wrong course of action which has led us to becoming even less secure.

I agree. Funny that the average 17 yr old in the US sees this pretty clearly, yet GWB cannot see it at all.

Of course - doing nothing wouldn't be the right course either, but had we not invaded Iraq then i think the war on terror would be almost won by now.

but at least were so paranoid that flights get grounded on a regular basis.