Of course terrorist attacks are possible. In fact, they have happened before. I recall a few specifically, but that's not the point. People seem to think that the world has been safe since 9/11, when that's not the case. There have been attacks in parts of Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and, yes, even North America, including the United States. Unfortunately, we don't hear about many of these. I was astounded just looking for some examples of terrorist attacks since 9/11, and I couldn't do my argument justice without providing links to the lists of terrorist attacks by year.

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

And yes, there have already been terrorist attacks in 2009.

Most of us, as Americans, very rarely hear or pay attention to a terrorist attack, and this becomes evident when one sees how many actually take place. Many Americans think that the only attacks happen in the Middle East, by Muslim extremists, but these lists show the huge amount of attacks really happen in the world, in areas across the world from the Middle East, by groups of all kinds. There have been terrorist attacks before, there are now, and there probably will be in the future.

It is sad, but true.

[This is a continuation of an argument from this debate in response to thePyg: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What_is_your_worst_nightmare#arg32262]

Comparing Lincoln to Bush...or rather saying what Lincoln did was more extreme than Bush is preposterous. Lincoln was faced with a civil war...Bush has terrorists from half way across the world that can at most make a shoe bomb. I'd say there's a slight difference between saving the Union and dealing with some pissed off Muslims who may or may not pose a threat.

Then you go on to site other historical examples of atrocities committed by American presidents...why not pull an Andrew Jackson: take all the land of people in the middle east, and then force them into reservations? How about we just send them over in ships as slaves? Just because we have done bad things in the past does not justify the actions of the present. And once again I have to stress that WWII was a little more serious then our current threat.

1. I think you should stop watching so many heist movies and stick to the facts, like the fact that .5% of all state prisoners escape...but that's state prisons, and terrorists would be held in federal prisons. Guess how many people escape from federal prisons...virtually none. Maybe one every 4 years

http://www.slate.com/id/1007001/

2. So you think that terrorists will gain vital information by reading the newspaper or watching t.v.? Well then any U.S. citizen is a potential terrorist...I guess we should tap everyone's phone lines...wait, Bush already did that (smart guy, I guess people don't give him enough credit).

3. Yes, all the homegrown terrorists who will risk their cover just to bail out their buddies from a maximum security federal prison...now I'm scared, not because I think they can, but because I had no idea we were dealing with an enemy that stupid.

Yes, they are possible. And we cause the desire to enact them.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -Ben Franklin

Why do we need a thousand different debates on the same issue?

Personally I believe this is a pointless debate.

Of course they are possible! You could have debates from both sides about whther it is or not but asking whether they are possible is like asking whether water is a liquid!

"I didn't even know the Constitution protected terrorists"

Pyggy...Can you give us a heads up on where in the Constitution it states that?

Of course I believe that terrorist attacks are not only possible but probable the world over. I believed that well before 9/11! We will continue to be in danger and I do not believe there will be any end to it unless countries do their own policing and wish to start coughing these beasts up and delivering them to the World Court.

I do not believe in torturing prisoners, no matter who they are. President Obama has already said that Gitmo will not be closed until every prisoner is accounted for, tried or sent to another prison to await trial. Some may even be released to their country of origin if I understand that correctly. All of this should take between eight months to a year to accomplish.

He discussed these issue(s) with Obama, and Obama doesn't really seem to believe him. Anyone who would actually close down Gitmo couldn't possibly realize the danger we are in. Or maybe, he really is trying to pander as much to the liberals as possible.

I'm pretty sure Obama believes him. As french pointed out, there are always terrorist attacks, there always have been, and there will most likely continue to be. Obama, being a pretty bright guy, probably understands this. One may question why Bush didn't believe Clinton before 911, when he was warned that Osama was determined to attack, and Bush ignored him.

That aside, what proof do you have that Gitmo keeps us safe? According to every source, Taliban is now just as strong as it was on 911. So I guess torturing and unlawful imprisonment wasn't exactly a solvent.

Then there's the issue of the Constitution. That document that seems to get in the way of all of the Rove style Conservative plots.

Spying on her citizens, torture, and imprisonment without any kind of representation. These are not things that a free country should be involved in. Even if it were to make us a little less safe, which there is no proof of anyway.

Another thing (I) noticed was how Conservatives are made fun of for believing that we can be attacked by terrorists, and that we need strong defenses against possible attacks. We all remember the Jon Stewart eating out of a bowl of popcorn while Brit Humes describes a terrorist plot. It's pretty fuckin' annoying really. It's as if the attacks on 9/11 never occurred, the way some of these assholes act. They really don't take terrorist threats seriously, and say "o please, what are the odds of that happening? You have to think about the rights for terrorists guys, you know, the Constitution". I didn't even know the Constitution protected terrorists... hell, even the Geneva Convention doesn't protect terrorists (yet, the Liberals really want to make it so that it does).

The funny part isn't that a terrorist attack is going to happen. The funny part is that a segment of the Republican Party is still trying desperately to use that fear to consolidate its power and push through bad policies, ie Iraq, the Patriot Act, and Gitmo.

After 911 Bush and his administration were given basically a blank check by the American people and most of the world, along with our hearts and hopes, and miles of rope. He used all this to start a war in a country with no connection to those terrorists, with no WMDs, and while Sadam was a bad guy, he would not even make the top 20 list of worst dictators. And by some astronomical coincidence, the only people coming out of this war better for the ware, are companies directly connected to that administration, such as Halliburton. That is why it is funny, when again these betrayers of the American faith try and use fear of a terrorist attack to gain the hearts and minds of Americans... or maybe just make them so scared it doesn't matter. Either way, it is kind of funny.

Jon Stewart is a New Yorker. I promise you, he, and every liberal and conservative in New York are very aware of the possibility of a future terrorist attack. I promise no one thinks that possibility is funny, or impossible.

Many though have come to the conclusion that changing who we are as a people is not worth whatever illusion of safety cowering like mice in a church fire may offer.

But aside from all that. Do you believe that we are still in danger? And do you believe that we must defend this country, even if it means keeping terrorists caught on the battlefield in a secret prison where they play Drowning Pool for 48 hours straight. Or are the rights of the terrorists just that important to you?

This is a fallacy. You can both believe that we are still in danger, and at the same time not believe that we should torture.

Torture does not keep us safer. People who are tortured do not betray secrets they otherwise would not have.

Had Gitmo been run without torture, and had the detainees there, at some point been given some representation, had at any point there been made an effort to actually determine true guilt or innocence of the ones held there, then it would not have to be closed.

But it has become a blight on our country, and no amount of fear justifies its continued operation.

Yes terrorist attacks are possible.