That happened in his first year. There is no way it can be blamed on Bush.
It happened because of Clinton's incompetence. And just how many terrorist attacks happened in the rest of his administration?
To clarify: there were several instances and attacks that were believed to be terrorist acts. But calling an event an act of terror is basically a matter of preference as opposed to something solid. While there are certain events like 9/11 that fall squarely into the terrorism category, there are those like the 2002 beltway snipers that dirty the water.
The beltway snipers were just nut jobs, and Americans. "Terrorism" is a largely undefined, and probably undefinable term, but I think most Americans associate the term with larger-scale, mass attacks (leaving snipers out), and with foreigners in general and Muslims in particular. Thus, in most people's minds the Oklahoma City bombing was not a terrorist attack, while the WTC attacks (both times) were. Certainly the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, and Fort Hood were as well. The anthrax attacks were (assumedly) associated with the Word Trade Center, and embassies and military installations on foreign soil don't necessarily count as attacks on America (in most people's minds. I disagree).
The FBI defines terrorism as "Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping," with some slightly different verbiage for domestic and international. There is no provision given to religion or nationality. Islamic terrorism is very real thing, and I think general ignorance to other forms blinds a lot of people.
Except very few people work for the FBI. John Q Public defines things a bit differently than Johnny Law, and I tend to use the common man's terminology when I'm talking about the common man. Silly me. It's just a strange habit I have, I guess.
Let me be plain: as the average, non-law enforcement American citizen would generally define terrorism, America did not suffer another terrorist attack after 911.
And I'm not sure what your belief is, but the OKC bombing was 100% a terrorist attack, and anybody who believes otherwise is wrong, both factually and morally.
By your definition, but I doubt you'd have very many people agreeing with you.
Timothy McVeigh was an American, and bombed the Murrah building - a federal building - in retaliation for the government attacking it's own citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Terrorism, by its very name, intends to induce fear and panic to achieve its goals, and thus is almost ALWAYS aimed at innocent civilians. McVeigh's goal was to hurt the government, not innocent civilians; he achieved his goal.
No. No, you're just wrong on this. Terrorism does not have to originate from a foreign place, thus the term domestic terrorism, which describes both the location and nationality of the people perpetrating it. And I find it hilarious (and deeply, deeply disturbing) that you make a very clear distinction between "the government" and "innocent civilians," as if those federal workers were somehow less than somebody who's not. Terrorism targets both civilians and government, not necessarily at the same time, though. The truck driver in Nice targeted civilians, and so did the Boston bombing and several others.
You're getting hung up on semantics. I'm not saying terrorism is only "X". What I'm saying is that the average man on the street, in America, does not equate an American packing a rental truck with fertilizer and blowing up a government building or an American walking into a packed theater and shooting the patrons with terrorism. Perhaps these incidents fit the legal definition, but not the common one. To the average Joe it is only terrorism if it is preceded by a shout of "Allahu Akbar," or at the very least if it was orchestrated by men in turbans.
And please try to use a little intelligence here. I think I made it clear, when referencing the government vs innocent civilians, that I was talking about optics.
To Timothy McVeigh those office workers were the government. Hell, what is a government if not a collection of people? In fact, most people have a poor opinion of "the government", and anyone working in a government office is "the government".
Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, hate "America" (or whatever Western country), but usually murder random citizens instead of attacking the "government".
People like to make fun of him simply because they like to make fun of him. Every single stupid thing he does gets recorded and broadcast like a "Hey, remember when this stupid guy was in charge?" Plenty of other politicians do stupid things (past and current presidents included), but whether or not their events get broadcast largely depend on whether or not it fits with an agenda
People like to make fun of him simply because they like to make fun of him. Every single stupid thing he does gets recorded and broadcast like a "Hey, remember when this stupid guy was in charge?" Plenty of other politicians do stupid things (past and current presidents included), but whether or not their events get broadcast largely depend on whether or not it fits with an agenda
That's what I figured but I couldn't find anything about it being faked. It looks like it really happened at the 2008 Olympics. But it's easy for anyone to unfold something and initially hold it wrong. How many times have any of us opened a sweater at Christmas and held it up backward for a second?
It happened because of Clinton's incompetence. And just how many terrorist attacks happened in the rest of his administration?
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping," with some slightly different verbiage for domestic and international. There is no provision given to religion or nationality. Islamic terrorism is very real thing, and I think general ignorance to other forms blinds a lot of people.
Let me be plain: as the average, non-law enforcement American citizen would generally define terrorism, America did not suffer another terrorist attack after 911.
Timothy McVeigh was an American, and bombed the Murrah building - a federal building - in retaliation for the government attacking it's own citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Terrorism, by its very name, intends to induce fear and panic to achieve its goals, and thus is almost ALWAYS aimed at innocent civilians. McVeigh's goal was to hurt the government, not innocent civilians; he achieved his goal.
To Timothy McVeigh those office workers were the government. Hell, what is a government if not a collection of people? In fact, most people have a poor opinion of "the government", and anyone working in a government office is "the government".
Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, hate "America" (or whatever Western country), but usually murder random citizens instead of attacking the "government".