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

reply to post by winged patriot


We all know Bush/Cheney are honest people.

well if america minded ther own bussiness they wouldnt have any reason to fear terrorism.





[edit on 24-6-2008 by gate13]

Originally posted by jamie83

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

Obama was referring to the first terrorist attack on the WTC when explosives were used, not 9-11. Which completly validates his original idea in the quote. Also, his idea of dealing with attacks afterwards does not negate the CIA's role in our affairs, which consists of scouting out these terrorists before they attack.

It's blatantly obvious you are going to rediculous lengths to bash Obama, but i suggest you read your own sources thoroughly before making foolish assumptions about them.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by WinoBot]

Originally posted by WinoBot

Originally posted by jamie83

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

Obama was referring to the first terrorist attack on the WTC when explosives were used, not 9-11. Which completly validates his original idea in the quote. Also, his idea of dealing with attacks afterwards does not negate the CIA's role in our affairs, which consists of scouting out these terrorists before they attack.

However, the question still is what would Obama do with CIA information on a possible attack? Would he follow the Clinton model of taking a poll to see what to do (and get "taken care of" in the Oval Office while waiting for the results), or proactively go after these people to try and prevent the attack? So far, based on his statements, he seems to be more on the Clinton side.

It's blatantly obvious you are going to rediculous lengths to bash Obama, but i suggest you read your own sources thoroughly before making foolish assumptions about them.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by WinoBot]

To many others, it's just as blatantly obvious you are going to ridiculous lengths to defend Obama, but i suggest you read your own candidate's statements thoroughly before making foolish assumptions about them.

i just watched a commercial about barack and he says i beileve for my country and want to keep people safe. well if you think this will work than your in for a long time in the white house.

#%*& barack obama

republican power

The whole problem with our "War on Terror" is that we treat heinous crimes as acts of war. as a consequence, innocent people are slaughtered by our own hands, our treasury is drained, the economy goes in the tank, and the principal bad guy still gets away.

I fail to see how a criminal justice approach could do any worse. In fact I am certain it would be better. This is what the English did with the IRA and bombings stopped. Perhaps the gung-ho War on Terror bunch should take a step back and see what is really happening in the world. The best tool against terrorism is intelligent domestic and foreign policy. To lead our country we need a clear thinker, not a pitbull.

It takes courage to live by our constitution in times of trouble, but we will be safe and right if we are diligent not afraid to live free.

Originally posted by bobsled54
i just watched a commercial about barack and he says i beileve for my country and want to keep people safe. well if you think this will work than your in for a long time in the white house.

#%*& barack obama

republican power

Flowby haircuts for all - go JESUS!

[edit on 24-6-2008 by mental modulator]

Obama wants to wait to be attacked before responding with military force? That's EXACTLY what George Bush did. Days, even months, before 9/11 the FBI and CIA warned the Bush Whitehouse that a terrorist attack was imminent. What did Bush do? Absolutely nothing to prevent the attack. Bush responds by launching a U.S. led war against Afghanistan which makes sense since this is the home base of the Taliban who are linked to Bin Laden. However, making a dire situation worse, Bush then decides to attack Iraq on the basis of totally false and fabricated "evidence" that is leaked from his Whitehouse to the press.

I would trust Obama more that Bush to actually ACT on warnings from our intelligence agencies. Bush has already proven that right-wing Republicans would rather ignore warnings and then fabricate evidence.

Sorry folks, if you are against Obama's stance on terrorism then you must be completely against Bush's policy as well since it represents what NOT to do when an attack is imminent (e.g. let it happen).

Open your eyes, 9/11 was just like Pearl Harbour, both were preventable and both served as an excuse to launch the U.S. into war._javascript:icon('')

Jamie are you being payed for your efforts??? This is a reach...
I figure you would consider flinging a turd into Obama's grill and then point out that the man is a sh&T eater!
Hate on!!!

[edit on 24-6-2008 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by WinoBot

Obama was referring to the first terrorist attack on the WTC when explosives were used, not 9-11. Which completly validates his original idea in the quote. Also, his idea of dealing with attacks afterwards does not negate the CIA's role in our affairs, which consists of scouting out these terrorists before they attack.

It's blatantly obvious you are going to rediculous lengths to bash Obama, but i suggest you read your own sources thoroughly before making foolish assumptions about them.

Which attack Obama was referring to is not relevant. What IS relevant is he thinks terrorists should be given Constitutional rights and that terrorist attacks should be handled by the courts. By definition, the courts can only address crimes after they've been committed. That's not going to protect people from being attacked in the first place.

And no, just because I can point out the idiocy of any number of Obama policies doesn't mean that I hate him. Characterizing every criticism of Obama as "hate" says more about those making that false characterization than it does about the people they're accusing of hating Obama.

Obama can and would appoint Supreme Court Justices favorable to his views. His Muslim brotherhood would most-likely get out of their evil doings.

It will be interesting to see what blatent arrogant yet idiotic thing Obama will do next. The last one was changing the President's Seal in a most disrespectful way. Now he's pulled it (of course!).

Bush may be a Clown, but Obama makes him look like one of the wise old founders of yesterday.

can any one answer me why any one would want to attack america in the first place?

Source


Dude it seems that you do dislike Barry O a whole bunch, maybe hate is the wrong word here... But upon reading this quote I did not read "lets wait to be attacked!"
Nowhere? It seems like you are just trying to create an arguement for arguments sake. In essence you are implying that Barry O would allow an attack to occur, just because he is, lazy, stupid, evil, sick or god knows what. You usually come with some logic but this was the wrong manner to present your doubts on his human decency.
For one, you are spinning this in logic free manner.

Such a question on Barrys judgment would belong to the realm of humanity and insanity. A realm of action and inaction, do and won't... The text you used is the incorrect kind of information to gather a persons propensity towards evil. The quote was only indicative of post crime/act action and Barrys leanings.

Second Barry is referring to a judicial matter, a matter of prosecution and punishment.
Courts, jurisdiction, prisoners rights and interpretation of the constitution... This statement if interpreted and not wildly spun speaks of his likely interpretation of the constitution, prisoners right in contrast to Bush's policies.

Your assertion of the meaning behind Barrys quote is illogical because you are taking a statement which encompasses after the offense matters of crime and punishment (his subject matter). Transposing this logic into the offensive/defensive realm of military and pre offense law enforcement (your subject matter).

The ACTION of committing or plotting terrorism- a crime- is military/law enforcement issue (yours). Will he (Barry) protect and act preemptively in a timely fashion???.

The Barry quote is a legal matter because it involves the ACTION OF prosecuting an act of terrorism which is an act of the past/or likely future. How will the terrorists be punished for alleged crimes, when, where and in which venue will justice be served???.

These matters are very separate - an example is you never see a cop passing official sentence on a criminal, do you? Or judge pulling out his 9 and hand cuffing a suspect?
Your logic is as logical as anyone of the two above scenarios.


Barry's statement is Judicial - your assertion is a defense/military + moral matter--
your whole case would be tossed out!

Provided you had a relevant quote your argument Would have held because you introduced conjecture!

You'd better start a new thread tomorrow--If I read between the lines and spun a tad then I would be justified to say HATE ON!

[edit on 25-6-2008 by mental modulator]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by jetxnet
most-likely get out of their evil doings.
.

What did this mean??? I would like to debate-- please clarify with some facts.

Hate on!

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by WinoBot

Obama was referring to the first terrorist attack on the WTC when explosives were used, not 9-11. Which completly validates his original idea in the quote. Also, his idea of dealing with attacks afterwards does not negate the CIA's role in our affairs, which consists of scouting out these terrorists before they attack.

It's blatantly obvious you are going to rediculous lengths to bash Obama, but i suggest you read your own sources thoroughly before making foolish assumptions about them.

Which attack Obama was referring to is not relevant. What IS relevant is he thinks terrorists should be given Constitutional rights and that terrorist attacks should be handled by the courts. By definition, the courts can only address crimes after they've been committed. That's not going to protect people from being attacked in the first place.

Yes it is relevant because your arguement hinges on his (Barry's) statement.This whole post is misleading. You should have titled your post...
" terrorists and their treatment"Barry's stance -

Its Barry's belief that everyone should receive legal recourse that pisses you off!
Well say it straight up!
You're like my bloody wife, she says she has a headache... two hours latter I find out the headache is really something I have done or said.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Obama wants to wait to be attacked before responding with military force? That's EXACTLY what George Bush did.

Bush's fault? That's pure BS and you know it. The blame for 9/11 falls squarely on Clinton - for being more preoccupied with what was happening at the Oval Orafice and for turning down the Sudan when they wanted to hand over bin Laden (for legal reasons ).

Anyone understands that 9/11 took years to plan, and that those years took place under the Clinton administration.

Originally posted by jamie83


Which attack Obama was referring to is not relevant.

It is absolutely relevant. you made up this huge scenario about how we can't bring justice to suicide bombers after they blow themselves up... but the first attack was not suicide bombers, so yes, a jury should decide what to do if, god forbid, some clown decides to set bombs off somewhere.

and obviously you have never heard of going to jail for Conspiricy to commit a crime. Sort of like how kids are arrested when they find a hit list in there room...

Pick up a damn book.