Obama on Terrorism: Let's Wait to Be Attacked?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Obama's entire attitude towards the threat of terrorism is to wait until the U.S. is attacked, and then prosecute the terrorists in criminal courts, giving foreign terrorist the same Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens.

I.e., under Obama's plan, a terrorist like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could announce he was coming to New York City with a band of radical muslims and the U.S. would be forced to wait until a crime was committed rather than try to stop the crime *before* it was committed.

Here's Barry O. describing his "plan":


Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists "within the constraints of our Constitution." He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

Source


This would be like allowing the Japanese to fly their squadrons of kamikazes all the way to Hawaii and wait until they dropped the first bomb before taking action.

Doesn't Obama recognize the reality of the threat?

If not, maybe this will help:




Great plan, Barack. Give enemies of the United States Constitutional rights while supporting a ban on U.S. citizens having guns in Washington D.C. I guess the terrorists deserve 2nd Amendment Rights but our own citizens who live in Washington D.C. don't.

Obama is displaying his naivety and intellectual elitism more and more each day.

Earth to Barry O..: You can't prosecute suicide bombers.




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Is this the change Barack Hussein Obama is promising?

Doesn't sound like change, it sounds like the failed policy of Bill Clinton that led directly to 9/11/01.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
And off the neocons go again, with the fearmongering.

There is nothing you can really do about terrorism, that's the reality of it. It is a small chance that everyone on earth lives with. There is no counter, there is no cure. It serves no purpose... unless you blow it up out of proportion, usually for an agenda other than actual terrorism and their supposed goals, which is what has happened in most of human history, the terrorists are sponsored by the people who want to fight them, it's easier than good governance.

Terrorism is, and will always be, statistically irrelevant. Now, the wars started because of it, those hurt. Guys starting these sort of threads should be ashamed of themselves.

Peace.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Is this the change Barack Hussein Obama is promising?

Doesn't sound like change, it sounds like the failed policy of Bill Clinton that led directly to 9/11/01.


Whether it's change or not it's an idiotic mindset. It's one of those things that sounds good to a college professor and might look good when you hear it in a college class, but this is the real world.

Why should a terrorist have a Constitutional right to have a gun but a citizen of Washington D.C. not be allowed to have a gun?

I don't get it...



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83... the U.S. would be forced to wait until a crime was committed rather than try to stop the crime *before* it was committed.




I don't understand how you get this statement from what he said?

Where did he say we wait? Where did he say the intelligence agencies and other law enforcement organziations would stop doing what they did BEFORE 9/11 and continued doing AFTER with very high success rates?

I'm not an Obama fan or a McCain fan, but I find your statement disingenous and poorly thought out.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Flag for you...some people dont think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a terrorist at all which baffles me
.I agree Obama has a poor poor stance on National Security and thats his biggest downfall.He appears to be a pushover.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
And off the neocons go again, with the fearmongering.


Standard liberal pattern. Start the discussion by insulting the poster. Thanks for another great example!




There is nothing you can really do about terrorism, that's the reality of it.


That's one reason I won't vote for a liberal like Obama. He believes the same thing.




Terrorism is, and will always be, statistically irrelevant. Now, the wars started because of it, those hurt. Guys starting these sort of threads should be ashamed of themselves.

Peace.



Statistically irrelevant? You're not serious right? I'm sure the families of the 3000 killed on 9/11 might disagree.

And what do you suggest I be ashamed of? That I pointed out Obama's idiotic attitude that we should give terrorists Constitutional Rights while we strip Constitutional Rights from our own citizens?

Or the stupidity in planning to prosecute suicide bombers?

Seriously, what do you think I should be ashamed of? Just for criticizing Obama?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Wow.What can i say?Obamas stance on terrorism is just going from bad to worse.These enemies of the US and her allies are not fracking around people.They will do anything and i mean anything to destroy Western ideals.They will use propaganda to undermine your religion,undermine financial institutions,corrupt your young peoples minds,anything to get you to turn on your own govt.
Of course ill be denounced as a fear monger ,war monger,a shill and a zionist.Hell ive even been accused of working for the chinese govt!Thats how paranoid some people are out there.Looking for ghosts when there are none to be found.
Whatever.You can believe what you want.Im not doing any convincing about nothing anymore.Just sit back and watch the show.I predict pretty soon theres going to be some fireworks in the Mid-East,and i know we will win!
Its the neo-cons!Its the Zionists!Its the Jews!
Yeah everybody except the real threat- terrorists.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Obama on national security

Barack Obama's Plan
Protecting Our Chemical Plants

Chemical plants are attractive terrorist targets because they are often located near cities, are relatively easy to attack, and contain multi-ton quantities of hazardous chemicals. While a number of plants have taken voluntary steps to improve security, there are still major gaps; and the federal government has never established meaningful, permanent security regulations. Senator Obama worked with Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to introduce comprehensive chemical plant security legislation that would establish a clear set of federal regulations that all plants must follow. The bill requires chemical facilities to enhance security, including improving barriers, containment, mitigation, and safety training, and, where possible, using safer technology, such as less toxic chemicals.
Keeping Track of Spent Nuclear Fuel

The nation has 103 operating nuclear power plants which annually produce over 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel that remains highly radioactive for many years. A report by the Government Accountability Office found inadequate tracking and security for spent nuclear fuel rods. Nuclear plants in Connecticut, Vermont and California have reported missing spent fuel in the last five years. Senator Obama introduced legislation to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling, and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.
Evacuating Special Needs Population in Emergencies

One of the most devastating aspects of Hurricane Katrina is that most of the stranded victims were society's most vulnerable members - low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, and disabled Americans. Too many states and cities do not have adequate plans in place to care for special-needs populations. Senator Obama introduced and passed legislation to require mandatory planning for evacuating people with special needs.
Reuniting Families After Emergencies

After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people struggled to contact family and friends following evacuation. Evacuees were forced to comb through dozens of databases in an effort to reconnect with loved ones. Senator Obama introduced and passed legislation to create a centralized, federal database to allow individuals displaced by an emergency to call one phone number or go to one website and post their location and condition. Family members and law enforcement officials would be able to use this same secure, centralized system to check the status of missing loved ones.
Keeping Our Drinking Water Safe

There are almost 170,000 public water systems in the United States. An attack on a drinking water system could contaminate or disrupt water service, thereby disrupting society, impacting human health and compromising critical activities such as fire protection. Senator Obama introduced legislation to provide $37.5 million over 5 years for drinking water systems to upgrade their monitoring and security efforts.
Protecting the Public from Radioactive Releases

Following reports that nuclear power plants in Illinois did not promptly notify local communities that tritium – a byproduct of nuclear generation – had leaked into the groundwater, Senator Obama introduced legislation to require nuclear plants to inform state and local officials if there is an unintentional leak of a radioactive substance. Chronic exposure to high levels of tritium can increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage.

On terrorism

War on Terrorism:

Obama has funneled many of his comments about the "war on terrorism" through his concerns with human and civil rights issues that it has raised. His campaign website establishes both small weapons proliferation and potential nuclear terrorism as significant global issues the U.S. must attend to.

Obama responded in strong terms to the passage of the Military Commissions Act in September 2006, which granted the Bush Administration wide latitude to define what would constitute the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He joined critique of the bill's suspension of habeas corpus for potentially innocent detainees with the accusation that the government was not addressing the actual issues:

"…We have Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own government's intelligence says is serving as Al Qaeda's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement five years after the fact."


What a joke...nothing at all on actual terrorism.

drinking water???ARE you serious for homeland security....That never really a problem!Our nuclear reactors???Who cares...worry about other countries missing fuel rods then our own!!!!



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

Where did he say we wait?


If the plan is to prosecute a terrorist as a criminal after the crime was committed, the implication is that we must wait until the crime was committed.

Since he said that terrorists be protected by the Constitution he is implying that some sort of due process would be implemented in the course of pursuing terrorists.

Use 9/11 as an example. Under Obama's plan, even if the U.S. had knowledge that the 19 terrorists were discussing a possible plan to hijack the aircraft, they would be protected from arrest because they could claim they were just expressing their 1st Amendment rights.

When they applied at the flight schools, they couldn't be denied getting flying lessons because that would be discrimination or racial profiling.

If 250 such potential terrorist booked an entire flight on a commercial airliner, the U.S. would have no legal basis to prevent them from taking off on the flight.

If al-Qaeda set up their own community in the U.S. and claimed they were a religious organization, they would be protected by the 1st Amendment when they preached murdering infidels.

Under Obama's plan, even if the U.S. suspected the terrorists were planning an attack, and even if they arrested them, the terrorists would need to be arrested and prosecuted, and possibly acquitted.

You mean you really can't see the holes in Obama's plan? Or do you think terrorists should be given Constitutional protection?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I am european, and my political stance is just left of center. I don't fit into your liberal - conservative mindset, since they're both right of center. And no, not left enough to be a commie.

Now that I got that clear, yes, terrorism is statistically irrelevant. There have been more lives lost fighting it that were lost during it, it's a no win situation to fight it. And as callous as this may sound, and i apologise to the victims families, but the event does not justify war. It is not an act of war. At most it is a politically motivated organised crime. It is an internal security issue, not a casus belli. It was twisted into one because of the emotional knee jerk response of the american people. And you have paid for that with 4000 more bodies. And you will never win a war on terror, because you're not supposed to. It is a psychological shackle keeping your whole nation in emotional misery and pushing you into economical poverty.

All of the above is valid regardless on whether 911 was an inside job or not.

Last time I checked there were 25 000 murders per year in the US and 42 000 deaths from auto accidents. Yes, from a statistical point of view terrorism is totally irrelevant.

Now, if terrorism ends up using a WMD the above might change, it might become relevant. But it will still be a crime, not an act of war that would justify foreign beligerance.

This is not being soft and weak, it is being strong enough to take the hit and not let the damage spread to other people. It is being strong enough to take it on the cheak, because there is nothing else you can do. It is being strong enough to realise that the only thing you can do vrs terrorism is to try and prevent it through policeing and intelligence.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Obama is trying to model Bill Clinton's policies for National Security almost vertbatim because he thinks alot of people viewed this quite favorably.

America slept during the Clinton years and were rudely awoken with 9/11. Terrorists roamed free to do as they please, as indicated by attack after attack (USS Cole, Embassies etc.). Bill did nothing.

Clinton's strategy was to reduce the US military exensively which he did. It hurt the US badly and still not totally recovered from that. At the time, China was not a rising Superpower and Iran wasn't on the cusp of Nuclear Weapons. NK didn't have three-state rockets that could hit the US mainland at the time.

With Bill's help, this was accelerated and acquired by these nations with China leading the way.

Now, Obama wants to do the same thing while all these other countries, including Russia once again, are building up big-time! They are building new rockets that can hit the US armed with Nuclear warheads.

Obama wants to remove missle defense.

China is knocking out satellites in the sky in aims of achieving a space military dominance. Top-down.

Obama doesn't want to arm space or defend against Chinese Lasers from knocking out satellites.

He wants the US to stop everything that will defend her, but meanwhile, these other countries have been and will continue to arm to the Teeth. It isn't because America has caused them to do so, it is simply because they can. Because they can, they will have agendas in push their weight around. China is already doing it by setting up military sites in Africa and on Islands technically owned by Vietnam and others. China will soon likely move into Western Russia looking for Oil and resources.

It goes on and on. Take your guard down and you are going to get clocked. This is the reality of the situation and always has been.




[edit on 17-6-2008 by jetxnet]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
Now that I got that clear, yes, terrorism is statistically irrelevant. There have been more lives lost fighting it that were lost during it, it's a no win situation to fight it.


This is why I would not vote for Obama. He seems to agree with you that fighting terrorism is irrelevant. God help us if he's ever responsible for protecting us.




Now, if terrorism ends up using a WMD the above might change, it might become relevant. But it will still be a crime, not an act of war that would justify foreign beligerance.


I get very discouraged about the prospects of the free world when I read comments like this. You seriously suggest that if Iranian terrorist set off a nuke in New York City we should call the police, investigate the crime scene, and convene a grand jury while the terrorists are driving their van to Washington D.C.

Un-freakn'-believable if you ask me.



This is not being soft and weak, it is being strong enough to take the hit and not let the damage spread to other people. It is being strong enough to take it on the cheak, because there is nothing else you can do. It is being strong enough to realise that the only thing you can do vrs terrorism is to try and prevent it through policeing and intelligence.



I at least thank you for verbalizing Obama's plan better than I could. His plan is exactly as you said -to take hit after hit.

Sorry, that's not my idea of a good plan. What's plan B?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Obama is trying to model Bill Clinton's policies for National Security almost vertbatim because he thinks alot of people viewed this quite favorably.



Great point!

Remember Clinton's infamous "Change you can Xerox" line?

All of Obama's policies are recycled from Carter and Clinton. Does he even CLAIM to have an original thought?

Seriously, I think people are going to be talking about Obama 5 months from now as another flawed, and failed, Democratic nominee who was all talk and no substance.

DOES he have any original ideas??? I haven't heard any yet, especially when it comes for foreign policy.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I cant believe the lengths some people are going to, to smear Obama, fundly enough i a few of those same names backing George and chanting death to IRAN!

Hell, maybe its that inner racist child coming out in everyone, who knows.

But one thing is for certain,

Under your ''logical'' reasoning of preemptive warfare, if America chooses Mccain, then I will be joining the rest of the world in launching pre-emptive strikes against America, because obviously, they will have become an imminent threat to peace on Earth.

We've all seen the consequences of pre-emptive war.
Wether its planned, or not.

If mistakes are made, and moles force a plan of attack that isnt warranted, the terrorists are the LEAST of your worries.

But I hate to say, its the lesser of two evils.
We cant go around punching everyone in the face because we believe one day, they might punch us.

The world doesnt work like that.

Instead of attacking people before they attack us, why dont we take away their reasons for attacking us?

Why dont we stop supporting militia's, terrorists and rogue states ourselves?

Its Logical to WAIT until youve been attacked, because that means you focus your efforts on STOPPING the attacks with security, intellegence.
911 doesnt count, because we had the intellegence, and the security but we had a sympathetic leader who felt it was better to ALLOW the attacks.

Attacks will happen, terrorists will exist. This imagination that says we can live in a utopia of completely happy people is wrong.
There's Blacks, Whites, Arabs, Jews, Indonesians, Japanese, Chinese, Tibetans..... There's always going to be deaths, attacks and conflict so long as humans run the show, and money runs the humans.

Us going around bombing everyone because they MIGHT attack us will do nothing but ensure that terrorist attacks come full throttle on every continent.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

I cant believe the lengths some people are going to, to smear Obama, fundly enough i a few of those same names backing George and chanting death to IRAN!

Hell, maybe its that inner racist child coming out in everyone, who knows.


Do you guys just keep these racist accusations saved on your clipboard to paste into any thread that criticizes Obama? And why is criticizing Obama always called a "smear"?




Its Logical to WAIT until youve been attacked,


No, it's the OPPOSITE of logic to wait until you're attacked. It might be politically correct to wait until you're attacked, but it's certainly not logical.

And yes, 9/11 counts. To suggest otherwise is about as dumb a thing as I've heard considering it was the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history.

So when do you think Obama wants to hold the trials for the 19 terrorists who attacked on 9/11? Oh yeah... that's right... they're all dead. Nevermind.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
once again i did not read all the posts before HAVING to reply to jamie, sorry if i repete anything.

jamie please think about what you are saying and maybe restate it, as it is painfully ignorant.

the idea that obama would have the government sitting around twittaling thumbs and whistling dixie with their eyes in the air while terrorists were about to attack the USA is simply dumb.

you dont have to blow something up or kill someone to commit a crime, did you know that?

did you know that if you are found with explosives, illegal arms, or are found with the intent to do harm you have committed a crime?

well it is true.

i know you guys dont like obama and that is fine it does not really matter, but at the least when you try to defame him do it with some though. this "let's wait to be attacked" is YOUR creation. it is YOUR refusal to think about what reality entails that leads you to make such a statement.

i know there are still a lot of americans who think "guns blazing" is the way to roll, thankfully these are the minority.

diplomacy actually works.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
Do you guys just keep these racist accusations saved on your clipboard to paste into any thread that criticizes Obama? And why is criticizing Obama always called a "smear"?





No, it's the OPPOSITE of logic to wait until you're attacked. It might be politically correct to wait until you're attacked, but it's certainly not logical.
And yes, 9/11 counts. To suggest otherwise is about as dumb a thing as I've heard considering it was the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history.
So when do you think Obama wants to hold the trials for the 19 terrorists who attacked on 9/11? Oh yeah... that's right... they're all dead. Nevermind.


I have a few minutes, so ill entertain this post!



Racist: because he's black, and it seems people are looking for anything and everything to make this man look like a sinner.
Smear: because in todays world if mud is thrown, no matter how fake SOME Will always stick. And modern day America seems more willing to believe than investigate. We can thank Idol, BigBrother and other pointless mind numbing bs media for that.

Point and Note:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Man Claims He Is Barack Obama's Homosexual Ex-Lover

www.abovetopsecret.com...
*Breaking* The Shocking Photo Of The Hindu Idol Barack Obama Carries For Good Luck

Everyones out there at the moment using anything they can to make him look less than human.

I was wondering how long it would take for the ol
'' Terrorism '' card to be played.

as animal intellegently said..

'' You think he's sitting around twiddling his thumbs ''??

no, he's not.
He'll be doing what every other ( except GW Bush ) president did, thats using your intellegence to STOP attacks, and guess what, it works.
They are going to get one, two, maybe three in, but they work.

And thast not even mentioning the FBI Links to Oklahoma, and WTC93 and the obvious lack of actionable USE on intellegence for 911.

911 DOESNT count, why? simple.

We knew, we knew for a long damn time it was coming.
We warned friends, we told stock brokers, we even got someone to insure the towers...

We ALLOWED it to happen.

Think, if we had of had someone in the whitehouse that genuinley WANTED to stop 911, he could have, EASILY.
you know why?

because he used intellegence... security... common sense...

He didnt go and just blast Saudi into the skies becuase imagine the collosal F'up we'd be in now?


by the way, the 19 hijackers, arent all dead!

you should do some reading!

Choose Mccain, go on, ive always wanted to be a part of history, because thats exactly what America will become.

HISTORY!



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Unless it was proved to be an act of war organised by the iranian government, of course. You had 911 with what was essentially a bunch of saudis and all you say to them is "please can you sell us cheaper oil?". Why would you take the threat to Iran if it were an iranian terrorist? There is no precedent.

Stop instrumentalizing terrorism for use in a beligerent foreign policy. The correct response to terrorism is to do your best to prevent it and to mourn the victims when you fail. There is no other viable reaction.

Everything else is the wounded lashing of a hurt animal. It is time to calm down and put some rational thought behind this issue, so as to be able to minimize the damage if the worse ever happens, and maybe, just maybe, be able to actually prevent it.

I garantee you one thing, if state sponsored terrorism stops being a viable terror tactic, if people stop being afraid, terrorist attacks will vastly decrease. America has far less enemies than it thinks it has, but one of them is itself.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join