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

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Whos the terrorists??? where are they attacking now??


Uh, in your case, I guess that would be the Protestants from Northern Ireland? But wait! Maybe they think the same about you? What are you doing, or did you do in the past to invite their attacks on you? And what did they do now, or in the past to make you attack them?

As to your previous posts, most of us get it that the biggest target is often the easiest to choose to attack. And when our government was preoccupied more with "issues" (sorry!) taking place in the Oval Office than out in the world, well, you see what can happen.




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherin
There is no counter, there is no cure. It serves no purpose...


I disagree.

There is both a cure and preventative measures you can take as a nation. This "terrorism happens" stance is one of the reasons terrorism does happen. You allow it to be considered a normal form of human action. I see no way how your stance would prevent or even limit terrorist actions. Such lackadaisical attitude only serves to embolden further and larger attacks.
The cure is getting the average "Joe" over there thinking that Terrorism is not a valid response to things.


There are multiple ways to combat terrorism. The "drain the swamp" analogy works but not completely. We need to offer a way to introduce Real Democracy and Freedom into the Arab Middle East. It will be a long process, similar in ways to the Cold War, taking about just as long. It will take, Military, Economic, Diplomatic means and persistence to bring about these changes. Doing nothing, ensures that the problems will fester and grow.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Maybe people think since its 911 America is on its toes again.Lightening cant strike twice.Sure the hack hope they are wrong.With Bin Laden out there and other terrorist who hate us,we will never be safe any place again.Just think who would have ever thought those Towers would have came down?It still blows my mind to this day.1993 should have been the wakeup call,not 2001.


But America was attacking other nations for the last 50 years. Most noticeably in the middleast. Osama is from the middleast, strange. OMG strange coincidence here or what.

The world hates what you do. The world hates when you leave footprints over their nations. They hate when you kill their families. They hate you taking their oil, their recourses. They hate your arrogance over them. They hate it so much, you make all these other nations look like they are the terrorists, you make them look like they are all evil. Yet America is still killing, its stil in war. It never ever stops. But when it hit home in America, we hear the victim, like you've described clearly alienstar, well done.

Your really lost. You still don't understand why America was attacked, even in 1993.


Some people here, really just want to send the message out, that America has done nothing wrong in any of it. And oh we just got attacked. Sure its not our fault. This is brainwashed crap.

The world has been sending out the messages for years, before 9/11. Even now you still don't get reality. What your doing in those countries.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Whos the terrorists??? where are they attacking now??


Uh, in your case, I guess that would be the Protestants from Northern Ireland? But wait! Maybe they think the same about you? What are you doing, or did you do in the past to invite their attacks on you? And what did they do now, or in the past to make you attack them?

As to your previous posts, most of us get it that the biggest target is often the easiest to choose to attack. And when our government was preoccupied more with "issues" (sorry!) taking place in the Oval Office than out in the world, well, you see what can happen.


LMAO.. Oh how this is funny.


I'm waiting for someone to read that. I'm going to have to educate you on this topic. lol.....

Firstly I live in the Republic. We don't hear the bombs up there gasp I know. Secondly The south of Ireland has had peace since 1921, that's nearly a century of not attracting terrorism. The history is of England wanting to take over Ireland. We struggled and fought for our independance ever since the vikings. Northern Ireland is now a peaceful state official. Catholics and protestants have now, come to terms and want to move on. They want peace. They've realised fighting each other was no use. They didn't attract terrorism. it was a civil war. Something is now working, you might want to learn something from them. A nation which is now peacful. glad you brought it up anywho.


Thirdly we never for once said Protestants are the terrorists, and I'm sure they would say the same thing about us Catholics


OMG.. I don't think I need to say anymore. I feel embarrassed for you.

EDIT: If a guy from N. Ireland read's your post. He wil be laughing hysterically. Just shows how little yanks can actually talk about the world.



[edit on 18-6-2008 by mind is the universe]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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.


So, if any of you barackophiles says that McCain is too old, is that a smear? What about if you say that McCain would be "Bush III", is that a smear? Under your own definition, I think those and all the others we've been seeing from the barackophiles would qualify as a smear.

Deny hypocrisy!
Oh, BTW, HISTORY! shows that appeasement never works.




No, Because with old age coems dimentia,something that would significantly change the American direction.
Mccain being Bush III? yes, thats a major worry.
Why? because 76% of people agree here, that the US is heading in the WRONG DIRECTION! Illegial wars, wiretapping, gitmo... this isnt America, its Nazi Germany, and Mccain has shown he intends to do nothing BUT following the Bush Tune.


To have a atttitude about someone because there black is ignorant, because being black doesnt mean you act a certain way or do something specific. It just means your not white, which unfortunately is hard for some people to grasp.

But being OLD does make you act differently, and following failed policies of a HATED president means you arent doing whats best for the people.

So your saying, that if you dont back preemptive warfare against nations who the GOVERNEMNT declares a possible threat your an appeaser?

give me a break.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I agree with some of your post, in the sense that if you have good relations with a country it's citizens won't want to bomb you. I don't think you quite got what I was saying about terrorism. My point is there is no real way to fight terrorism, a militaristic response is totally uneffective. You can only try and prevent it and take it if it happens.

Peace and democracy in the middle east would greatly reduce the number of people willing to kill themselves for a terrorist cause, but the US is not the right entity to establish that, because the west has always sided, nay, created, Isreal, which is the whole problem there. The West is part of the conflict, it's ludicrous to think we can ever be successfull mediation.

And then you have the whole ordo ab chaos elitist manipulation of events, and these people need their boogeymen or they cannot get populations to accept policies which are against their best interests.

Considering all these aspects the only real solution to terrorism is to ignore it. Bad things happen, and the statistical probability is low enough as to be irrelevant, while the number of casualties that exist on top of terrorism from overplaying it is very real and relevant, and tragic and preventable.

You have been suckered into bloody war because of pride and emotional imaturity. Sorry to be harsh, but the response to 911 is ruining the world. It's time to pull back and let cooler heads clear the mess and start the healing process.

And please, don't say embolden, it makes your whole post sound like a neocon hack.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


Again I respectfully disagree. Doing nothing plainly didn't stop the attacks of AQ, they just kept going on to bigger and more destructive attacks. We did "ignore" the first terror attacks of AQ, how did that work out? I forget. Do you think that suddenly AQ will just say, "well they are ignoring our attacks, lets just give up"? Would AQ still be in Afghanistan as guests of the government if we had decided to not do anything militarily?

There most definitely is a military approach to dealing with Terrorism. Do you think the U.S. was wrong to take out the Taliban and deny AQ a safe haven in Afghanistan? By using your military you can deny sanctuary to Terrorists or make the price for sheltering them so high that you don't do it. It is by no means the only front on this war. Applying economic and Political pressure is are the other two main fronts along with unifying intelligence gathering and sharing among all countries.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 

It means that even with all those unconstitutional abilities, it has not helped to get the boogyman Bin Laden. Yet as Obama was pointing out, they had no problem catching and convicting the terrorists from the '93 WTC bombing without all those tools. That was the whole point of the article, but it has been twisted to make it sound like he wants to remove all ability to catch terrorists, which is false.

In the future, I will try to be more clear, for those that are lurking and waiting for a chance to criticize my posts.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


We won't agree using AQ as an example, because you see it as an autonomous group and I see it as a politically manipulated secret service creation that exploits it's members for ulterior agendas.

In the bigger picture of terrorism I maintain that it's better to ignore on it an official level, which means maintaining minimal media coverage and dealing with it as discretely as possible through police and intelligence operatives and international cooperation. It is not a casus belli. If you deflate the public reaction to it you destroy it's motivation, as the terrorists won't blow stuff up if it dosen't get a media orgy.

As for afghanistan, while there is probably no love lost for the taliban, it does seem to be another bogus war, although better disguised than iraq, which is more focused on guarding poppy fields and contractors than on actually finding terrorists. So while I originally thought it was a good idea, time has made me change my mind about it. These days I think it was just another scam by Bush and Cº.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
That is not what he said and you know it.

All the rest of the civilized countries treat terrorism as a police matter... like it or not bush the idiot's preemptive policies run counter to international law and treaties and do us far more harm than good.

I hope you are being paid well for your time jamie... you continue to post threads that stretch the meanings of statements and facts almost to the breaking point... if I was doing your work I would want to be compensated well... and take a good shower afterwards because I know I would be feeling dirty afterwards.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Grover, do you contend that we need to treat AQ just like any other terror organization? They have turned into a threat against multiple nations, not just one like most previous terror groups. IMO, the threat AQ poses will take more than just treating it as a crime/police matter.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I suspect that if you disband the CIA, AQ will wither and die. The two go together like a thorny bush and manure.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 



You are entitled to your opinion. I think it is incorrect. Sure the U.S. made some strange and bad bedfellows fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, but to say the U.S. controls AQ now or even then, is a stretch. Show me some documentation of that which is recent. No 80's material please.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Terrorism is a clear and present danger to us, and by us, I mean the worlds peaceful workaday folks, not just Americans.

Yet the ways in which we fight it are every bit, if not more, important as the actual fight itself. Terrorists are thugs, criminals, whatever word you care to use, I agree with that premise. In fighting them, do we stoop to their level? Or do we show that we are as we say we are, better and more civilized. That means open and fair trials for those captured. No more detention without trial. Treat them as what they are, criminals.

I know they won't give us the same concideration, yet that's what separates us from them isn't it? We're civilized, they're not, right? Howzabout we prove it by acting like it.

We won't beat the terrorists, of whatever sort, by becoming like them.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Attacking other countries, violating international law, killing civilians by the tens of thousands...Do you people want to fight terrorism this way? Dont people think that this kind of behavior will only incourage more hostility toward the United States? And for all of those who think being in Iraq has anything to do with terrorism...all but two of the 9/11 hijackasses were from Saudi Arabia. Why dont we invade Saudi Arabia? if any country needs to be bombed in to oblivion it's them because of blatant and terrible human rights abuses, oil price fixing and militant extremism.
Just kidding, no country should be bombed, the effective way to discourage terrorism is to be a responsible world citezen.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Yes, because secrete service documents are so plentifull and available that just asking for them invalidates someone's position.

No, do some reading and browsing yourself if you want to have an open mind, and perhaps you will come to the same conclusion I have. Lord knows it took me long enough, so don't expect me to change your mind with some sort of magic information bullet, it dosen't work that way. Here's the gist of it:

At the top of society there is a slimeball of convuluted interests and shady relations dominated by a businessman and banking mafia linked with esoteric organisations like churches and to old money royal and not so royal families. These are the people secret service secretely serve, and you can tell by just watching the number of agents that swarm around them in any royal parade or bildeberg meeting or whatever. These people have connections to everything, from banking to bombing. And in this picture the CIA, as well as other organisations like it, are just tools. Ordo ab Chaos is the world you live in. Feel free to disagree but this is the worldvision I have out of personal experience and self education. These are the reptilians Icke talks about, not actual reptiles but people motivated by their lower brains, people that are predators to their fellow man. This is the reality you need to fit terrorism into, not just the isolated individual bombing stuff up and not just another nation attacking you. It's more complicated than that, and everyone is part of the equation.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
So, the gist of what i walk away with from this thread is that the OP asserts we should attack any nation "WE" deem hostile.

Our definition, historically, has been anyone who offends us is hostile.

Vietnam never attacked us
Afghanistan never attacked us, but the government refused to turn over the terror suspects

Iraq never attacked us, though we were offended that they had WMD's (and i firmly believe they did)

Korea never attacked us
Grenada
Germany in WW1 and WW2 never attacked us


so yeah - lets see.
If we go by the logic of the OP here, you could pretty much say we should attack every major government in the WORLD except for Great Britain and France, whom both have their noses permanently encased up george bush's you-know-what.

There's a just cause for world peace.
Issue a threat to anyone who says "america sucks"
"well if America sucks, then you can just DIE! BOMB THEM"

Look for that on John McCains website come october.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I say that if we don't abide by international law and standards of behavior, no one will.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
So, the gist of what i walk away with from this thread is that the OP asserts we should attack any nation "WE" deem hostile.


No, not at all. The gist is that pledging to fight terrorism with a law enforcement, after-the-fact, strategy is not going to stop suicide bombers.

How do you think Obama plans on prosecuting people who fly planes into buildings?

Just curious...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe

Originally posted by alienstar
Maybe people think since its 911 America is on its toes again.Lightening cant strike twice.Sure the hack hope they are wrong.With Bin Laden out there and other terrorist who hate us,we will never be safe any place again.Just think who would have ever thought those Towers would have came down?It still blows my mind to this day.1993 should have been the wakeup call,not 2001.


But America was attacking other nations for the last 50 years. Most noticeably in the middleast. Osama is from the middleast, strange. OMG strange coincidence here or what.

The world hates what you do. The world hates when you leave footprints over their nations. They hate when you kill their families. They hate you taking their oil, their recourses. They hate your arrogance over them. They hate it so much, you make all these other nations look like they are the terrorists, you make them look like they are all evil. Yet America is still killing, its stil in war. It never ever stops. But when it hit home in America, we hear the victim, like you've described clearly alienstar, well done.

Your really lost. You still don't understand why America was attacked, even in 1993.


Some people here, really just want to send the message out, that America has done nothing wrong in any of it. And oh we just got attacked. Sure its not our fault. This is brainwashed crap.

The world has been sending out the messages for years, before 9/11. Even now you still don't get reality. What your doing in those countries.


You should do your history homework before posting stuff like this. The reason Bin Laden hates America is because he didn't like his home country of Saudi Arabia relying on our military for support back when Iraq invaded Kuwait. If you remember, he was our ally back in the Cold War.

Why do you think it is so evil for our country to defend ourselves against people who proudly proclaim their hatred of us and the fact that they attacked us? Also, we don't take anyones oil. It annoys me to no end when morons like you say that. We buy our oil from Saudi Arabia just like you and countless other countries do. I'm sure that the countries that were under the control of the U.S.S.R, Iraq, Afghanistan, the countries that were under Nazi and Japanese control in WW2, and all the other countries that we have liberated would agree with your sentiment that "The world hates when you leave footprints over their nations."






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join