You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
I think like James, and you have to take the war to the terrorists, but not like Bush did. You can't just put yourself at odds with entire regions of the globe, it's got to be done quietly, with the CIA, Navy SEALS, Special Ops going in and taking care of things. We're not gonna make things better if we invade, say, Syria or Iran. That's just warmongering wishful thinking.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Ha! Nice try to complicate it, but I've already told you I dont have the answers
I'm pointing out your method doesnt work, by your logic terrorist attacks against Israel should have ceased decades ago when they first went into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and massacred part of the population.
Or is that different terrorism to your terrorism?
Not an Israeli expert, but don't they always pull back a foot after gaining an inch? Of course they still have a problem with terrorism. Their strategy emboldens them. Until they completely occupy those territories(and possibly Lebanon) and wipe out Hamas, they are going to continue to have problems.
Notice the link between them moving in with tanks and a decrease in attacks until the tanks pull out? 
Terrorists don't get to murder civilians when they themselves are being murdered.
Was really hoping to hear your solution to that hypothetical scenario since you have an interesting stance on terrorism, but since you dodged it, I'll assume you would take a Clinton type stance of ignoring it while more of your citizens are murdered. Does anybody have all the answers? Just because all the answers don't exist doesn't mean you give them carte blanche.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. In the 90's IIRC the only domestic attack was the Empire State building of 93. (The Okla City bombing was a different kind of terrorist which I believe we're not referring to, yet if you do include them, you'd have to include the 2002 Anthrax attacks under Bush). So if you're counting overseas terrorist attacks, you'll need to include the suicide bombers & insurgents in Iraq & Afghan killing innocent soldiers at checkpoints & the military escorts of the oil trucks. Which I'm sure greatly outnumbers those from the 90's.
Huge difference between the Clinton attacks and the Bush attacks is we weren't in a constant state of war under Clinton. With Bush(and now Obama), there are two large battlefields for various terrorist elements to gravitate towards. Clinton didn't have that excuse. Unless you consider murdering innocent marines in barracks, hotels, and ships the same as killing a soldier in a war zone.
I think you know the difference, and while I know you are a Clinton supporter in general, his stance on this issue simply cant be defended.
Yeah I wasn't referring to Oklahoma, as that was an entirely different type of terrorism. Yeah those anthrax attacks were definitely terrorism, but also falls into that same category as Oklahoma.
you have to take the war to the terrorists
Yeah, and its mind boggling so many people in the world(including various world leaders) don't understand this basic fact. People think if you either ignore and/or reward terrorists for murdering innocent people that the problem is gonna go away.
As I've stated several times in this thread, there's only one thing that terrorists understand, and that same thing is the only thing that gets them to eventually stop, and that's violence.
but not like Bush did
Iraq was a mistake. Obviously. It took our eye off the ball we should have been looking at(Afghanistan), and forced us to deal with issues that didn't need to be dealt with it at the time. Iraq was boxed in, and we could have issued a rain check on that conflict. Regardless of anyones stance on that issue, we had the right to invade that country. Iraq was in violation of several UN resolutions, and had been violating them since Clinton. The WMD excuse didn't even need to be used to go in there. Afghanistan should have been turned into a parking lot long before we made a move on Iraq.
Regardless of mistake or no mistake, we're there now. We're not leaving now either. Our troops(including Evo member Flagg) are over there killing these people so we don't have to worry about them blowing up malls and shit over here.
We're not gonna make things better if we invade, say, Syria or Iran. That's just warmongering wishful thinking.
If a true link ever surfaces between our troops dying and Syria and Iran either financing or actually participating, then yeah its time to send the B-1's and B-2's over Damascus and Tehran.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Huge difference between the Clinton attacks and the Bush attacks is we weren't in a constant state of war under Clinton. With Bush(and now Obama), there are two large battlefields for various terrorist elements to gravitate towards. Clinton didn't have that excuse. Unless you consider murdering innocent marines in barracks, hotels, and ships the same as killing a soldier in a war zone.
But that goes against the entire premise of your debate! You stated numerous times that more violence against terrorists reduces terrorism, but now your saying because its taking place in a war by terrorists it won't count?! Which is it
When you respond to terrorism with massive amounts of violence, it tends to lower the chances of future terrorism.
The only time terrorism is allowed to thrive is when fantasies of negotiating with them and/or appeasing them are put in place. ..
Bill Clinton is a terrorist's wet dream. Bush, faults and all, is a terrorist's worst nightmare. On Clinton's watch, you could murder 19 year old soldiers by the dozens and not have to worry about anything. Do it while Bush or Putin was in there, your entire family was buried in rubble...
We already know when looking at terrorism by the decade that when the US places mass murder on the table as the response to terrorists, it drops the rate of terror attacks about 99.9%...
Simple solutions work. Its when you veer away from those simple solutions that they become emboldened because they know there's no consequences to their actions...
I have yet to see terrorism increase when the Unites States responds to it using force.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
But that goes against the entire premise of your debate! You stated numerous times that more violence against terrorists reduces terrorism, but now your saying because its taking place in a war by terrorists it won't count?! Which is it
Can you link me to my post where I say it doesn't count? I simply said there's a difference in giving terrorists blowjobs during peace time and fighting them on an already existing battlefield.
If you're gonna try and dig for a contradiction, gonna need to do a better job. I understand that you(and a few others) don't agree with my stance on this issue, and I respect that, but digging for phantom contradictions will get you the same place Clinton got with his nonchalant stance on terrorism....nowhere.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Can you link me to my post where I say it doesn't count? I simply said there's a difference in giving terrorists blowjobs during peace time and fighting them on an already existing battlefield.
FWIW it was this, I guess I didn't quote it.
Huge difference between the Clinton attacks and the Bush attacks is we weren't in a constant state of war under Clinton. With Bush(and now Obama), there are two large battlefields for various terrorist elements to gravitate towards. Clinton didn't have that excuse.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
Of course you quoted it. Its a few inches above my post. I'm not fucking blind. You're quoting a post you claim is some sort of contradiction and me trying to have it both ways.
In your words...
But that goes against the entire premise of your debate! You stated numerous times that more violence against terrorists reduces terrorism, but now your saying because its taking place in a war by terrorists it won't count?! Which is it
So lets break down my post line by line...
Huge difference between the Clinton attacks and the Bush attacks is we weren't in a constant state of war under Clinton.
This is just a general fact which even Helen Keller's ghost sees.
With Bush(and now Obama), there are two large battlefields for various terrorist elements to gravitate towards.
So is this.
Clinton didn't have that excuse.
Was Clinton fighting two separate war fronts against terrorism? So where is this issue where I'm apparently trying to have it both ways? Where do I say it "doesn't count" because we are at war?
I'd also like to know how those three sentences go against the premise of my stance on this issue.
So if you're counting overseas terrorist attacks, you'll need to include the suicide bombers & insurgents in Iraq & Afghan killing innocent soldiers at checkpoints & the military escorts of the oil trucks. Which I'm sure greatly outnumbers those from the 90's.
Lets tackle this again, and I'll say the same thing but hopefully in a way thats less confusing...
Of course we're counting overseas attacks. Take away both WTC bombings, you have to.
I already listed several of the attacks on Clinton's watch(and there's more). He was not bogged down in two wars, so where was the response? If you think Bubba avenged these deaths, maybe you should try and establish contact with the victims families and see how they feel about that. Terrorism thrived on his watch because of his sidestepping of this issue, which is what I've been saying all along.
Under Bush we had 9/11, and when he retaliated, in a development that is apparently shocking, terrorist attacks dropped. Are soldiers being killed on the battlefield? Of course they are. Usually when in a war zone there is a chance of death. When you're hunting down terrorists, you're not always gonna make it out alive.
On Clinton's watch, soldiers were killed by terrorists while sleeping in their beds with no consequences to the terrorists. On Bush's watch, the soldiers that die do so while going after the terrorists who murdered American civilians and our troops.
You seriously don't see the difference between the two, and think someone who does is trying to have it both ways?
Wow...
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
On Clinton's watch, soldiers were killed by terrorists while sleeping in their beds with no consequences to the terrorists. On Bush's watch, the soldiers that die do so while going after the terrorists who murdered American civilians and our troops.
This will be my last post on this subject. If your trying to make the arguement that less people were killed by terrorists by Bush's philosohphy than Clintons, then I ask: Which had more terroristic deaths of people in their regime, Bush or Clinton? (not including 9/11, but deaths in Iraq do count)
If you say Clinton, well I haven't looked up the numbers, but I'd have a hard time believing that one.
Basically the contradicition I find is that you state we need to essentially fight fire with fire. Then when I brought up the deaths involved when fighting this fire, you stated well it happened during a war. Well, yeah, that was what you were advocating when you said fight fire with fire, wasn't it?
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
9/11 is just as much (if not more) Clinton's fault than Bush's.
I feel bad for the dead and injured troops and their families, but there hasn't been a major attack on US citizens since the post 9/11 crackdown. Troops know what they are signing up for...people going to work are just going to work. It's hard to consider the deaths equal.
Re: Warship arrives as pirates’ options dwindle
9/11 is just as much (if not more) Clinton's fault than Bush's.
I've been leaving 9/11 out of it for that reason. I'm not putting it 100% onto Bush, so that's why I'm not including the 4,000 deaths which occured. Not really fair to say it's 100% his fault. More a regime/CIA/FBI failure too, than any 1 individual.
