Welcome to PatsFans.com

Do the terrorists love the Republican Party?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Nov 26, 2007.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,985
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +592 / 24 / -19

    If we had a Democratic president, I have no doubt the righties would be blaming the drop in attacks on the idea that the terrorists want the Democrats to win.

    I think it's quite possible that the terrorists want the Republicans to win, since the last 8 years have been terrific for them. Not only was the secular Saddam taken out, the radicals in Iran were able to exploit American aggression in ME to elect one of their own. Furthermore, we are losing ground in Afghanistan and terrorists are taking steps in Pakistan. They even scored major victories against our ally Israel in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

    The Republican approach to wiping out terrorism has instead made them stronger and that's a fact. Terrorists love Republicans. Isn't it obvious?

    On the other hand, if we had a Democratic president, and the righties claimed the drop in attacks was a result of the terrorists wanting the Democrats to win, I would point out nevertheless that's a good thing. Whatever the reason the terrorists are laying low in Iraq is good, even if it's because they want the Republicans to win.
     
  2. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .


    Joseph Goebbels would have loved this kind of talk.


    //
     
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,718
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +1,143 / 5 / -10

    Yes you will have a drop in attacks in Iraq if there is a Democrat President, instead of attacking Baghdad they will be attacking Baltimore.
    :bricks:
     
  4. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .... and it will be "Bush's fault".


    //
     
  5. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Well, if you define hiding in a cave instead of running a country, or getting killed as soon as they show their face instead of travelling with impunity as being "terrific for them" then I agree wholeheartedly!

    Maybe there is some merit to the idea that a policy of preemption and agressively pursuing terrorists increases anti-US sentiment, but we know from such tragedies as 9/11 and the USS Cole bombing that a foreign policy of burying our heads in the sand and hoping for the best does not deter terrorist groups from attacking (and both Clinton AND Bush deserve blame for those policy decisions by the way). As much as you might like to think we'll be more well-liked if only we'd leave everyone alone you are mistaken. The American way of life is an insult to these fanatics no matter what action we take, and they will not decide to leave us alone if we'd just pack up and go home. They need to be weeded out using every bit of technology, human intelligence, and military force we have and be eradicated. I would have to guess that the US having that as a stated goal is not what terrorist groups are looking for, though I'm also definitely NOT of the mind that Al Qaeda is out there rooting for Obama in 2008.
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,985
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +592 / 24 / -19

    I merely think we need a two pronged strategy. Aggressive diplomacy backed by both economic and military power. Bush did not use aggressive diplomacy and has squandered our economic and military power.

    Considering the odds, I think Al Qaeda must feel sort of like the Philly Eagles should feel this morning. They took on giants and made a game of it. I'm sure Al Qaeda feared our military might when it was a threat rather than show of force. Our show of force hasn't gotten us anything yet.
     
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I doubt they distinguish between Dem and Rep. We're all equal infidels or whatever epitaph they use. Who here could distinguish between a Sunni and Shia on September 10, 2001?
     
  8. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If the last 8 years have been so great for the terrorists, then why have they not successfully carried out an attack on American soil since 9/11...? What, do you think they're just not trying to...?

    What Patters wants us to believe:

    1) The terrorists were incredibly weak and feeble in 2001 when they carried out the most successful terrorist attack of all time, and

    2) The terrorists are much more strong now when they haven't done squat on American soil in the past 6 years.

    Gotta say I don't see the logic in that.... :confused:
     
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,985
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +592 / 24 / -19

    (1) We've done in many respects a good job tightening our internal security
    (2) The US mainland is not their prime objective. They are focused on the ME.
    (3) Why come here to kill Americans, when you can do it over there and, not only that, it contributes to your ME objectives?

    They were weak and feeble but hit it big. (On any given day ....) The fact that they couldn't follow up with anything even in the immediate aftermath showed how weak they were. But, weak doesn't mean powerless, and even a single crazy person can do a lot of harm with hard work, imagination, and commitment.

    I don't think they'll use many resources here as long as they can fight us in the backyard of their Muslim enemies, whether that enemy was Saddam or is King Abdullah.
     
  10. PATRIOTS-80

    PATRIOTS-80 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,786
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    ROFL. Deep down inside you enjoy debating with him, don't you Patters. You just had to respond. :D
     
  11. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Certainly you agree Bush would deserve some credit for that, wouldn't you..?
    Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding ... !!! Praise the Lord Jesus Christ Almighty, thank you thank you thank you...!!

    You've just summarized the #1 reason I support the war in Iraq..!! Halleluia, Halleluia, Halleluia..!!

    By fighting them over there, they aren't coming to fight us over here!!!!!

    We've shifted the front lines of the War on Terrorism to Iraq instead of New York City and Wash. DC. Terrorists are attacking our fully armed and trained professional soldiers instead of innocent and helpless civilians going about their daily routines. And they're finding our military is certainly a wee bit more qualified and capable of resistance, aren't they..?

    It took them about 4 years to kill the amount of Americans in Iraq as they killed here in 1 single day. And they suffered far greater casualties over there as compared to over here. It is no longer 3,000 dead Americans for 19 dead terrorists.
    Amen, brother, and I hope you are absolutely right in that statement.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2007
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,718
    Likes Received:
    278
    Ratings:
    +1,143 / 5 / -10

    TV Beheadings
    Gassing women and children
    New Best Seller in the middle east "How To Beat Your Wife"
    If a women gets Raped, they "Whip The Women"
    Prostitutes get "Stoned To Death In Public"
    Thieves have hands amputated
    Women not allowed to drive or ride in the front seat of the family car.
    Women have to cover their faces (Hillary should be made to do this)
    Why do we never see pictures of Dogs or Cats in the middle east (do they eat them)
    Why is the subject of Dogs or Cats never mentioned, do they hate them?
    Have The Dixie Chickens ever held a concert in Iran.
    Has Madonna ever held a "Crotch Rubbing Concert" in Iran.

    If Bush has kept the Head Hunter Bombers out of America will we ever know about it?

    THEY'RE NOT ALL BAD
    :bricks:
     
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,985
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +592 / 24 / -19

    Of course, no person is a complete failure.

    They've killed 4,000 Americans in Iraq and 10s of 1000s of Iraqi civilians, and they've turned us into a pariah state and used that as a means of recruiting and increasing their ranks. (In fact, some say they are gaining on us in Afghanistan.) I don't know why that makes you happy. The idea is to save American lives, and it's no more possible to defeat terrorists through war than it is to defeat murderers. Furthermore, as a result of taking out Saddam and destroying Iraq, we also destroyed Iran's biggest enemy, allowing Iran to devote its resources to developing nukes. Your view is shortsighted, and I think you should place more value on our troops. Just because someone signs up and is prepared to die doesn't reduce the meaning of their death.
     
  14. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It doesn't make me happy, but here's the flaw in your reasoning: If we hadn't have gone over there, do you think that after September 11 then they would have just left us alone..? Like, September 11 was it and once they finished that, they would have stopped attacks on American civilians..?

    If we hadn't have done what we did, we would probably be suffering a September 11th style attack on an annual basis. I don't know why this makes you happy and why you want to help terrorists slaughter innocent American civilians here at home. To each his own, I guess...
     
  15. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    They were routed in Afghanistan, and are being routed in Iraq, they're not making a game of it at all. Our military, rather than being just a show of force like you suggest, is a pretty clear real threat to the fanatics that are dying in large numbers every time they engage US forces in battle.

    We currently use the 2-pronged strategy you suggest, what most Democrats are suggesting now is a 1-pronged approach: Cut and run, meaning we talk a good game about fighting terrorism on a global scale, but when things get tough we pack up and leave them free to do what they want. Back to the original point of the thread, do you honestly think a terrorist would prefer someone elected in 2008 that says we're staying in Iraq until the country is settled and extremist groups can't seize hold, or someone that says we're leaving ASAP, consequences be damned?

    I can understand disagreeing with going into Iraq in the first place, but the fact is we're there now, and if we leave now won't it make the situation much, much worse than it already is?
     
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,985
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +592 / 24 / -19

    Actually, there have been reports that they and their allies are making great progress in Afghanistan and control up to half the country.

    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Taliban_Afghanistan/2007/11/26/52280.html

    They are also committing more acts of violence in Pakistan, and some believe they are working with Iran somewhat. Yes, there appears to be some progress in Iraq (but only in terms of violence), but it's probably too early to tell. At any rate, if they wanted Saddam out, they succeeded. If they wanted Iraq splintered and severely depressed to create a climate for extremism, they have not yet failed. The current state of Iraq surely supports severeral of Al Qaeda's objectives. One of their stated objectives was to make the US spend so much money, the US could not sustain the war a optimal levels.

    We are not using diplomacy, except to a limited degree. As far as cutting and running, a nation has to act in its own interests. If you want to insult Reagan by saying he cut and run from Lebanon that's your right. But, I assume you are merely playing politics with that tired old phrase so will only apply it to the Democrats. We are not going to win the war on terrorism by seeding the ground with tragedies that will haunt families and communities for decades to come. Someone in Iraq who lost a child due to this war is just as likely to forgive the US as someone who lost a child in 9/11 will forgive Al Qaeda.

    I believe they don't care, but I honestly believe that the war on Iraq has turned a relatively rag tag group into a legitimate international organization. I don't think Al Qaeda was terribly strong prior to our invasion, but now, for anyone who hates the Unites States, Al Qaeda must seem attractive. I think on 9/11 they got all the breaks, but the fact that they couldn't follow it up, even before we had more security in place tells me they weren't all that strong.

    We're the raison d'etre that the extremists use to justify their misdeeds. We are the cause celebre that they use to recruit others into their ranks. When we leave (which should be done in an intelligent way), real progress towards peace will be made, though there will certainly won't be an immediate end to violence.
     
  17. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I do believe Reagan cut and run from Lebanon, and I do think it was the wrong move. I'm not using the phrase cut and run lightly, that is really their game plan right now. Pull US troops out of Iraq and create a power vacuum. If we do that, and the next major attack on US soil comes from planning and funding from a terrorist regime that rises in Iraq, it would be unforgiveable. Just as if Iran is allowed to make a nuclear weapon and decides to use it it would be unforgiveabe that we stood by and did nothing because the UN didn't feel like doing anything about it (their solution to every world problem by the way).

    You're right the situation in Afghanistan right now is not good, I hope to see NATO up its troop levels and continue their recent offenses against Taliban and other extremist elements there.

    I disagree with your assessment that Al Qaeda has been empowered by US policy since Sept 11. At that time they were a major international terrorist group, not a ragtag bunch as you say. Their numbers are still supposedly not back to the levels they were at before 9/11, they have no command structure to speak of, and their funding has been drastically cut. Granted, there is still a lot of work to do, and they are attempting to regroup and strengthen. To me, all the more reason to continue having a strong presence in the ME, and promote a policy of preemption.

    To diplomacy, I can't see examples where we could find a diplomatic solution (although it is the end of the day, so I might just be a little slow right now). We can't negotiate with terrorist groups, there's nothing to compromise on, unless we go ahead and change the US over to an oppressive theocracy! We ARE trying diplomacy with Iran and Pakistan, and the results have not been great. What else should we be doing diplomatically?

    And yes, anti-American feelings are a good recruiting point for AQ, but we didn't do a damn thing to those Saudis that flew planes into the WTC on 9/11 and they still wanted us dead.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2007
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,451
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +911 / 7 / -3

    Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to type all that.
     
  19. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    And after all the trillions of dollars we have sent to Saudi to buy their oil....



    //
     
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,985
    Likes Received:
    322
    Ratings:
    +592 / 24 / -19

    You may believe it was the wrong move, but cut and run implies cowardice, while I presume you believe that Reagan made a strategic decision. Am I wrong? Do you think those who favor leaving Iraq are afraid, or do you think there is a legitimate argument for leaving Iraq, whether you agree with it or not?

    The main reason to pull out of Iraq is that our presence is an organizing tool for our enemies. If we pull out, it doesn't mean we have no involvement, it means that we work behind the scenes and aid our allies in economic ways as well as military ways. We will continue to have a responsibility to Iraq, since we're the ones who created the mess. But, the best way for that country to heal is for the people of that country to come together, and I don't think that will happen as long as the US is there.

    Our efforts to stop terrorism are failing. Since Bush's foreign policy, both N. Korea and Iran have made significant progress with nukes; Osama has not been caught; we have not won in Afghanistan; there are more attacks in Pakistan; and Iraq is hardly a victory. Our current strategy is making the world a more dangerous place and making our enemies stronger. We need to fight terrorism and fight it aggressively, but as I've said all along, war is no more likely to wipe out terrorists as it would wipe out murderers or rapists. War in fact fuels terrorism by giving them a cause to rally around.

    It was Reagan who started the mess in Afghanistan, yet too many righties continue to advocate the same approach. At this point, I don't know what the answer is in Afghanistan.

    Ragtag is certainly an understatement, but I don't think Al Qaeda was the threat then that it was today. I think they hit it big on 9/11, and the fact that they followed up with nothing anywhere shows that they lacked depth and numbers. I think they are stronger today then they were in 2001, but maybe weaker than they were a year or two ago. At any rate, I think anti-Americanism is general is a more powerful force today in many parts of the world and that will feed violence down the road unless the United States develops a more sophisticated foreign strategy, one that relies on carrots but keeps the stick in view.

    We can use diplomacy to splinter our enemies and build formidable coalitions. We can use it to help impoverished areas improve economically so that people are less desperate. We should be working very hard through the UN and our allies to build strong coalitions and better strategy ways of combatting terrorism. I think the key to defeating terrorism is international police work, education, pressing bad countries (like Saudi Arabia) to reform, etc.

    There will always be madmen and criminals, no matter how hard we try, but the goal should be to isolate them and not turn them into heroes against an overarching, dishonest big bully who kills willy nilly. Let's remember that most of the media in the ME does not present a western perspective, so people there do not see Al Qaeda and the US in the same black and white terms that we are convinced of.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>