Why is the left weak on terrorism ?

Over the years terrorist attacked our embassies,bases,ships and mainland. The left absorbs the attack and accepts defeat, they dont even think about retaliation and if they do think about it they would just shoot words instead of bombs,missles, and troops to kill the threat. When they do use bombs and missles, they shoot a couple of missles and drop a few bombs thinking the problem is sovled. Ground troops is out of the picture because they think they are risking american lives. After the event of 9/11 bush engaged the taliban with words backing up those words was troops, bombs and missles. He knew that he would be risking american lives in afganghistan fighting the rebels and he knew that he would be putting more american lives in danger at home if he didnt engage the threat with full military force. Whats up with the democrats ? Why cant they deal with terrorism this way ? Why is it they pass up every chance to kill terrorist when they have it ? The answer is they are too soft and weak. Everyone here knows its yet know one bothers to talk about it. Anyone who says the democrats retaliated they are speaking bull, its bull becuase if they did retaliate it would be on the news. When republicans retaliate it is on the news. Its not on the news for democrats becuase they retaliate in a weak way or dont do anything at all. Republicans know how to get the job done
when it comes to dealing with terrorism or other threats, they know how to protect america.

one more thing: Clintons anti-terrorism policy was a joke.

The last 'left' President actually stopped terrorists from flying planes into buildings (see Project Bojinka). I fear you've fallen pray to another urban legend, SNOPES debunks some of it HERE.Also, check out Cheney's record as Secretary of Defense. It's lucky we even have a military after him.

We are all aware of the effectiveness of Clinton's lame efforts. The strongest response he ever had was to bomb an aspirin factory.

To answer the author, there are some in America who are sympathizers and apologists for the terrorists. They want them treated fairly. They would give them aid and comfort, succor, and a place to lay their head while they were awaiting trial for murdering Americans. They think of their efforts as somehow noble and humanitarian, and they think that all the terrorists really need is someone to love them, and then the terrorist would magically morph into a beautiful, gentle, radiant being, his lost inner child finally emerging..

These sympathizers are ashamed of the fact that they are Americans, but too afraid to leave this great nation. So they feel they must tear it down at every opportunity they get, because they don't want to alienate their socialistic dissident brothers around the globe.

Some of these delusional apologists are actually members of our military.

Well terrorism wasnt a HUGE international issue untill after sept 11... after bush decided to go nuts and bomb everyone...

The left isnt weak on terrorism, they just combat it in a less 'in your face' way... its call subtlety and diplomacy... both of which are valuable traits in a leader... both traits which bush and the right dont seem to have grasped.

So to conclude my short response... left does not equal weak, it equals subtle. Right does not equal strong it equals brash, violent action. (which in turn pisses the terrorists off which in turn causes them to attack more westerners, which in turn leads us to the mess the world is in right now).

conduct a "war on terror" the same way one conducts a military campaign. There are no "front lines". The lines are everywhere. This pres's greatest mistake was to try to make it like a military exercise. The left is NOT weak on terrorism or defense. Again, you have fallen prey to the repeated and repeated statement drummed into your head by the right.

Wow, I love to see the insane lies that left wing propoganda efforts actually intstill into some peoples heads as fact. The truth is...you really believe Billy did a good job. What a shame for you, and for all of the people who think for themselves in this world (we call them conservatives). Everyone is at a loss for thought processes like this.

Thinking people are conservatives? Usually all I hear from that corner are erroneous facts which have come out of Limbaugh or O'Reilly's mouths. The two bluster boys who speak hardly any truth and do no real due diligence into what they speak of. I believe Al Franken took care of O'Reilly one day, and I personally painted Limbaugh in a corner one afternoon after having to lie to get past his screening process. Limbaugh stuttered during what I was saying and asking. It was only after I was cut off the phone that he again came up with some more whoppers. Most CONservatives do not think for themselves.

Why is the left weak on terrorism??

Maybe because they poll too many people on what they think, rather then taking a stand and being the leader like they ought to.

Kerry apparantly has a plan, but has yet to state what it is...

After all he says we can't fight communism all over the world, but never had a plan on how we can help it ... He never has come up with any plan, just says what he'll do and promises to do em, when is he ever going to state his plan, his argument, and tell us why it would work??

Because he's insecure, he cares too much what people think about him, thats why he'll go to some people and say he drives SUV'S and is proud of it, then goes down the street to the next guy and says how bad they are for the environment...

The media portrays him as a flip flopper, and i'll think i'll side with that...
He is what he is...


that's why the left is weak on terrorism because they have no plan, all they can do is bitch and moan about the opposer being wrong, never proved it, never debated why, just ran his mouth...

I guess if you don't pay em off you don't really have anything else to go on if your a lefty... oh well, such is life if your a liberal.

No plan, no man... Just insecure bungholes...

[edit on 28-6-2004 by TrueLies]

Interesting stuff about Bojinka, I've always wanted more info about that.

But how does that show that Clinton did anything? I read through and found in the 'discovery' section:



So, what? We were just 'lucky' during Clinton's presidency?

IMO, Clinton reacted to terrorist attacks (arguably weakly) but didn't really do anything about the problem. That's a law enforcement way of handling things, which may look ok till 3000 people are killed.

He made us look like we wouldn't stand up for ourselves - like abandoning the action in Somalia after taking casualties. OBL himself has pointed that out in an interview:



Yup, Clinton helped us out there, didn't he?

Now, you can probably tell I didn't/don't like Clinton,but when Khalid Mohammed was captured in Pakistan, he said this:


(taken from Free Republic but source is UK Times - but requires subscription)

So IMHO that's doing something...

Subtle? SUBTLE??
You actually think these animals understand or have patience for sublety? Are hijacking and crashing three passenger jets, and beheading almost any Western hostage they take the hallmarks of subtlety? The only thing these "people" understand is action.

If someone burns down your neighbor's house and murders your other neighbor without being brought to justice, and you know for a fact that they want YOU dead too, what do you do? Negotiate for your safety and the safety of your family?
NO. You would either make damn sure that they're captured and never see the light of day, or you would kill them YOURSELF first.

There is a very interesting quote I found many years ago and it rings true most of the time:

"THE NATION THAT FEARS BECOMES FEARED".

Think about it. If one needs translation I am available.

Number one Im not a Democrat, but I do have something to say on this subject. I personally can't stand terrorism, however at the same time I do wish to know why these people hate us so much. Is it because we are richer and enjoy freedom? Or is it because of America's globalization tactics, and secret CIA wars? I just want to know the truth for once, and if they insist on killing innocent people then lets put a little terror into them.

I personally believe that Bush was right on with his decisions to take the fight to the terrorists. I also believe that if Clinton was in office during 9/11 he would have responded like a wet napkin. He would have sat around and cried woe is us, and then debated the issue so long that more than likely OBL would have struck again. Clinton wasnt a president of action, he was just a smooth legal ease talker, and a flat out liar on most occasions. Both Bush Presidencies have shown them to be men of action, and action is what we need in this day and age. As noted above in another post try explaining Subtlety and compromise to those families who lost loved ones in NY, DC, and Penn. This is my first post in the pit so you vets take it easy on the new guy.

The only thing that I can see is that the few radicals over there who are educated are smart enough to realize that they can bend Islam around their own selfish and evil desires. They give themselves the titles of holy men and the ignorant masses believe that these men must have received the word of god if they call themselves Ayatolla or whatever the titles are. They then fill the peoples heads with the rubbish that everyone outside of islam are infadels and must be cleansed from the earth. Thus you have people running around who are brainwashed into truly believing that if they strap dynamite around their waist and walk into a crowd of non-believers and blow everyone up then they will go to paradise and be granted scores of virgins and riches beyond measure. If only they could see that they are just pawns in the hands of madmen.

Your post above sounds also like the current administration. They also prey on the ignorance of the masses, and with repeated, repeated, repeated sayings have the people that listen to them singing the same mantra. This has been true of many a conservative over the last few years. Repeat it often enough and the people think it's true. Much like the following statement: "I invented the internet", said Al Gore. Nope it was never said. The Republicans managed to turn something good Gore had done into a lie by repeated repetition. See how that works?

Actually terrorism was a huge problem even 20 years ago, but you know how the liberal media likes to pick and choose what to print, you know, being more interested in party politics, and pushing their own agenda while putting people around the world in DANGER!

Oh and if you want play good cop maybe you should think about the planes flying into the wtc on 911 before you go and blame bush ... I like how you liberals try to sugar coat things and make them all nice and fuzzy so that you can avoid admitting fault while putting people in danger...




Ok well you were probably a zygote when this was going on but America had no respect around the world when johnson and carter were in office, I don't think you remember Iran aholes holding Americans hostage when Carter was in office, but when Reagan came in he laid the # down, and guess what, they let them go.. They wouldn't # with the U.S after that...
Same goes with Clinton / Bush...

Your right the left is subtle, which is why we get #ed with more , which is why more bombings happened under Clinton's watch, which why it came to the point of having planes blown into both towers killing more then 3,000.

I guess subtle leadership does a country good....


I guess thats why there hasn't been a bombing at a U.S embassy under Bush's watch, or another wtc attack...

I guess Bush's iron fist is actually keeping American's safe...

Too bad Clinton couldn't say that for himself... He's too busy explaining himself to the press about his past lies and sexual affairs.

Your logic makes me sick... And your the type of person that is endangering Americans because your too ignorant to admit when your party is wrong, just like the media.
And if something worse does happen to the American people i'm going to blame it on you guys, you guys are so #ing ignorant and stubborn it's absolutely discusting...

Even just a little logic in your thick brains would help America, just a little, but I know it's too much to ask... You guys are so far gone, I don't know why the right even bothers explaining things away or even coming down to your level for that matter...

I swear civilization hasn't progressed over the past 10+ because of you tards. We're too busy catering to you ninnies who just don't get it and i don't think ever will.

Terrorism became a huge international issue because of Sept. 11, 2001, not what happened afterwards. The World Trade Center was the financial center for the entire planet (it wasn't called the World Trade Center for nothing!), and this terrorist attack decimated the downtown of one of the largest cities on the planet. Also, Sept. 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating terrorist attacks on anyone, anywhere, ever...

I disagree that you can use subtlety and diplomacy with terrorists; while I do agree that they are important traits of leadership -- so is knowing when they won't work. The U.S. used that approach with terrorists from 1950 - 2001, and the terrorist attacks only got worse and more frequent leading up to Sept. 11, 2001. You can't use diplomacy on someone who wants to kill themselves, who looks forward to destruction. You can only use diplomacy on someone who is self-preserving, and only uses destruction as a last, desperate resort... (like the vast majority of people and nations on Earth)

I think the mess the world is in right now is everyone's fault. You could write an entire book on how complicated international politics has led to Sept. 11, 2001, and its aftermath...

...However, if we're going to look at it purely from the U.S.'s point of view, the major mistakes that come to my mind are (1) President Reagan should not have left Afghanistan to rot after the USSR withdrew from the country in the 1980's; we should have came in and helped the nation rebuild back then; (2) similarly, President Bush Sr. should have finished the job and took Iraq away from Saddam Heussein in 1991, when the U.S. had lots of international support; and (3) President Clinton should not have simply ignored terrorism and hoped it would go away. If these things had been done, Iraq would have been a democratic republic for almost 10 years now, and Afghanistan for almost 20 years now. But I guess better late than never, eh?

My point is, there is plenty of blame to go around, no matter what country you're talking about, what leader you're talking about, or what political persuasion you are. What we should all worry about now is, how do we get out of this mess?

I do believe in using subtlety and diplomacy whenever possible, but when they both fail, sometimes the use of force is the only option available. Classic examples include tyrants like Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte; all attempts at diplomacy with these men failed, and in the end only the use of force could end their reigns of terror.

Absoulutely, Right-On, Amen!!!