Originally posted by tmac100
state the entire history of this country and tell us when Middle Eastern Muslim extremists came into existence
Radical islamist movements and arab nationalist movements only start working together sometime after the colonial and mandate era. For a long while
the focus there was, after the euros were gone, attacking and disrupting their own governments, so we see a series of coups upon coups, just like with
Baathism in Iraq. Then the focus seems to really be on Israel and westernism.
So relatively recently, depending on your outlook.
Why didn't the US accept the principles of George Bush from the start of this country after it won its liberties?
Well, right after the revolution the United States went to war with a foreign muslim power over the issue of piracy because it was interfereing with
trade in one part of the world. So attacking foreign muslim powers over terrorism because of an actual devastating attack within the US borders isn't
exactly a stretch. Hell, when America was still limited to the eastern seaboard it decided that european powers weren't allowed to interfere with
politics on the entire North and South American continents. So give the Monroe Doctrine, the 'Bush Doctrine' ain't all that arrogant or
Why didn't President George Washington claim the right to pre-emptive war without the approval of anybody?
. He specifically stated that the US shouldn't get invovled in interational agreements that cut down on its sovreignty. Washington
would've never checked with the sheiks in arabia or the dukes in italy before attacking what he perceived to be a clear threat.
Where were the Muslim extremists back then during the days of President George Washington? THEY WERE RIGHT THERE STILL!
We weren't concerned with arab terrorists, we were concerned with terrible Natives.
You mean the Constitution was "outdated" and we needed the Patriot Act back then just as the Constitution was born??
Huh? No, it wasn't necessary back then, because there weren't suicide squads of barbary pirates raiding NYC. Hell, the US was still using militias
in the Civil War, but I don't think it would make sense to disband the army today. We didn't have an Air Force back then either.
it is amazing how an unprecendented war
What's unprecedented about the Iraq War??? The Japanese bombed the US and we declared war on Germany. We attacked the Kaiser in wwi, and then only
when the tide had turned. What's unprecedented about attacking a country that is openly hostile to you, armed, dangerous, and funding international
Go back to the history of this country then. State when Muslim extremists attacked us then. ATTACKED US and not other countries.
Since you have ignored the multiple instances of attacks, what would be the point of having everyone repeat themselves? Fanatical muslims attacked
the US in the Tripolitan War. They attacked the US in the Phillipines. They attacked the US in Lebanon. They attacked Twin Embassies. They attacked
US warships. They attacked the Twin Towers. And then, after practically no response, they finally destroyed
the Twin Towers, attacked the
Pentagon, and had another attack that was only prevented at the last minute. The US has been directly attacked, overseas AND domestically by
islamist terrorists for a very long time now. What, precisely, are you confused about?
State when, back then, we must empower any president with the power to arrest, detain and kill anyone without charge and due process
The US has allways
had the ability to take people and do this, its called war
. As far as citizens, you're probably right, the, what,
two, US citizens that have been detained from all this, who were caught domestically, yeah, they're probably going to have to go to a civil court.
The Patriot Act doesn't give the president the ability to snatch a citizen up off the street, flay him in a basement, and then put a bullet in his
how my bubble would burst if I don't listen to the Bush propaganda team.
*high fives baastetNoir* Gooooooo TEAM! Now lets go Police the World!
When Middle Eastern pirates kidnapped American soldiers, when was the Patriot Act needed then?
Please explain why laws giving the president more ability to deal with terrorists within the US would've been needed to deal with Pirates in north
africa in the 18th Century??? How many 'cells' of barbary pirates were planting bombs in boston back then?? The president back then dealt with the
problem by sending men with guns to go and kill
anyone that supported the piracy. They suceeded, and there's no more babary pirates, or
they're at least not raiding US shipping lines. Today, the equivalent to the babrary pirates are spread out throughout the world and within the US,
so OF COURSE there's going to be an increased ability of the government to monitor, track, and detain people. Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpsus
in the Civil War. And if you think that the Patriot Act is bad, then you'd probably not have liked the Alien and Sedition Act, which the
and that was exactly during the 8 years of Bill CLinton. Lets put the blame on whom deserves it.
Honestly though, 911 was just so out of left field that no one was prepared for it, and we'd've never really
been able to stop it, by having
all these invasive measures at the airports, etc, back then. Heck, 911 happened and people still
complain about having to take their shoes
off. Clinton could've done something, Bush the elder could've done something, and Bush the Younger could've done something. Blame is pretty well
spread out. I don't recall too many people in the public clamouring for an invasion of the Sudan when bin laden was there, or even when the Taliban
was taking over Afghanistan, or even after bin laden attacked the cole and went to afghanistan. So even the public was asleep at the wheel on that