Obama's weak 'war' on terrorism

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by thepresident

 

My question was what WOULD people have done? If you wouldn't have invaded Iraq what would you have done with regard to the 9-11 Trace Center disaster? What would you have done to show Islamic hijackers and terrorists you would not allow planes to fly into buildings at home?

Also if you would not invade Iraq, do you support Obama bombing Libya, and if so why?

edit on 17-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I mean, really?

The best thing Bush and co could have conjured up is blowing up and invading a country
the did NOT contribute to 9/11???

That would be like burning killing a motorist in the car next to you as a response to a car
accident that happened on an entirely different day AND road.

I cannot believe you are even serious with that.

No I do not support Obama's bombing of Libya

Sure, let's go after the "bad guys". And not just them, but every country we think they may have passed through on their way to wherever they were going. Did they get some water from someone's well? Kill The Watergiver! Did they buy an apple at a village market? Pillage The Village! Did they pee on a bush? Nuke The Shrubbery! Heck, Let's just bomb them all and make no attempts to stabilize the situation. I mean, it's not like we have committed terrorist attacks on another country's soil. *wink wink* No, we are the good guys. We're just saving the world! Less brains and more brawn! WOOHOO!

Now who's the bad guys?

America: Land of The ME and Home of The Naive.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus If you wouldn't have invaded Iraq what would you have done with regard to the 9-11 Trace Center disaster? What would you have done to show Islamic hijackers and terrorists you would not allow planes to fly into buildings at home?

In regards to the whole 911 , Bush, Iraq thing, that seems to, wait, hold on.

I"ll let you hear it from your Heros mouth. First 14 seconds should do it,

reply to post by sonnny1

Second, your generalization, of lumping ANYONE into that "Republican" group, is wrong, almost childish.

I didn't say ALL, I said USUALLY. I don't hear very many liberals advocating going to war with the Middle East over embassy attacks from a few individuals that reside in the country.

Third, Nukes?

Glass parking lots, sorry.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Second, your generalization, of lumping ANYONE into that "Republican" group, is wrong, almost childish.

I didn't say ALL, I said USUALLY. I don't hear very many liberals advocating going to war with the Middle East over embassy attacks from a few individuals that reside in the country.

Third, Nukes?

Glass parking lots, sorry.

edit on 18-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

If you would have said Republican "Politicians" , I definitely, would have agreed with you.


I sure as hell, would never advocate Nukes. Heck, I would rather have even Nuclear Power, offline. Its way to dangerous.

reply to post by sonnny1


I wasn't even talking about the politicians, I was talking about the republican fan base.

Do you know how many times I've heard "JUST BLOW THEM ALL UP" from Reps? A million!

Democrats or liberals? Not once that I can recall.

It's clear Obama has handled the war on terrorism much more effectively in four years than the last president did in eight. With a dead al Qaeda leader and a wrapped up OIF campaign in his resume, I don't think Obama's too worried about a little foreign policy criticism.

I've been wondering if Romney somehow got in the WH, would he be worse, or better than Bush was? I think he'd be equally as bad.

Anyway, OP, I found that article was just bad. Here's one snippet I found enlightening

Why didn’t the White House warn Egypt it would cut off funding or worse? Obama missed his Reagan moment in a national crisis. His remarks seemed canned.

No shrapnel, Shirley, he's the President. I don't want him opening up a can in front of the world over four riot related deaths and some charred cloth.

Originally posted by Sek82

No shrapnel, Shirley, he's the President. I don't want him opening up a can in front of the world over four riot related deaths and some charred cloth.

I don't think "opening a can" is what he needs to do. I expect him to cut all aid to the country. Sorry if I feel those deaths were unwarranted. Obviously some people do, including those that want to see more Americans dead.

Originally posted by sonnny1Sorry if I feel those deaths were unwarranted. Obviously some people do, including those that want to see more Americans dead.

Have you ever looked into the USS Liberty Yet...

Thirty four Dead Americans, 174 Injured..

Or are they a Different Kind Of Unwarrented, Being they were Slaughtered by your "freinds".

reply to post by sonnny1


Let's just pretend for a second that foreign aid wasn't corrupt.

So you want to punish the whole nation of Libya over the actions of a few?

As you can see in the video a huge crowd of Libyans tried to say our ambassadors life after the attacks stopped, so clearly the majority must not want to kill Americans. If they did, the people trying to save his life would have been stopped.

Video taken by al-Bakoush and posted on YouTube shows Stevens being carried out of the room through a window with a raised shutter. "Bring him out, man," someone shouts. "Out of the way, out of the way!"

"Alive, Alive!" come other shouts, then a cheer of "God is great."

The next scene shows Stevens lying on a tile floor, with one man touching his neck to check his pulse. Al-Bakoush said that after that scene, they put Stevens in a private car to rush to the hospital.

www.wptv.com...

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by sonnny1Sorry if I feel those deaths were unwarranted. Obviously some people do, including those that want to see more Americans dead.

Have you ever looked into the USS Liberty Yet...

Thirty four Dead Americans, 174 Injured..

Or are they a Different Kind Of Unwarrented, Being they were Slaughtered by your "freinds".

So dead Americans only matter if it was over 45 years ago?

Pay no attention to Ameircans killed by the Nazis
Pay no attention to Americans killed by China,Russia
Pay no attention to Americans killed by the Vietnamese with aid from Russia,and China,

Pay no attention to the Americans who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan you know those people who were from Libya,Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,Pakistan, and Iran.

Come on now Americans who were murdered is a bad thing right?

RIGHT?

Never mind continue with the bigotry.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by sonnny1Sorry if I feel those deaths were unwarranted. Obviously some people do, including those that want to see more Americans dead.

Have you ever looked into the USS Liberty Yet...

Thirty four Dead Americans, 174 Injured..

Or are they a Different Kind Of Unwarrented, Being they were Slaughtered by your "freinds".

So dead Americans only matter if it was over 45 years ago?

Pay no attention to Ameircans killed by the Nazis
Pay no attention to Americans killed by China,Russia
Pay no attention to Americans killed by the Vietnamese with aid from Russia,and China,

Pay no attention to the Americans who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan you know those people who were from Libya,Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,Pakistan, and Iran.

Come on now Americans who were murder is a bad thing right?

RIGHT?

Never mind continue with the bigotry.

O Neo, Neo, Neo....

If you want to sit at the Adult Table, you gotta keep up.

The reason for bringing up the Liberty , is called Relevance (connected to the matter at hand).

Many time in conversation with Sonny, Seabag and such. I have brought up deeds done by their Overlords.

The claim not to be informed of the Liberty,ala, 34 Dead, 174 injured.

But now these recent deaths have them missing sleep, nightmares, because they wish to incite more Hatred.

Relevance.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


The liberty has no damn relevance nor Bush to a thread about Obama and his war on "terrorism".

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by sonnny1Sorry if I feel those deaths were unwarranted. Obviously some people do, including those that want to see more Americans dead.

Have you ever looked into the USS Liberty Yet...

Thirty four Dead Americans, 174 Injured..

Or are they a Different Kind Of Unwarrented, Being they were Slaughtered by your "freinds".

This "Zionist" thing again.

Yawn.



Seriously, I cant tell you how many times, this is brought up, by those who need to vilify them, at every turn.

Why dont you start a thread on it, instead of hijacking this thread?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Let's just pretend for a second that foreign aid wasn't corrupt.

So you want to punish the whole nation of Libya over the actions of a few?

As you can see in the video a huge crowd of Libyans tried to say our ambassadors life after the attacks stopped, so clearly the majority must not want to kill Americans. If they did, the people trying to save his life would have been stopped.

Video taken by al-Bakoush and posted on YouTube shows Stevens being carried out of the room through a window with a raised shutter. "Bring him out, man," someone shouts. "Out of the way, out of the way!"

"Alive, Alive!" come other shouts, then a cheer of "God is great."

The next scene shows Stevens lying on a tile floor, with one man touching his neck to check his pulse. Al-Bakoush said that after that scene, they put Stevens in a private car to rush to the hospital.

www.wptv.com...

edit on 18-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Really Spoke. The WHOLE story, hasn't been presented. Bottom line is this. Our embassies are being attacked.

This is about Obama and his Administration.

White House claims that the U.S. Embassy in Libya was attacked in a "spontaneous" protest against an anti-Islam film are being rebuked by multiple sources, and some are raising questions about the president's grasp of foreign policy.

White House version of Libya Embassy attack rebuked

You have admitted Obama was an idiot already. Why cant you just say hes failed at this also?

reply to post by sonnny1


Late to this thread, I haven't read through the whole thing yet. But, I just found this in an Al-Jazeera column from 9/20.

If elected, Romney's policies would further inflame Muslim opinion, giving further impetus to the Islamists' cause. We are lucky Romney is such a weak candidate.

I'm not sure what you'd make of this. Should Romney be favored because of this sentiment? It could be viewed that way, the Islamists want Obama and for that reason alone we should be wary.

Or do Romney and GOP actually represent an increased risk of violence?

And so it is that the right-wing, religious fundamentalists, and those on all sides favouring intensified conflict between the West and the Muslim world who are benefitting from the current round of angry demonstrations and violence.

I'll make it clear that I'm an Obama supporter, mostly for these reasons. I'm more Republican on domestic philosophy, though neither party satisfies me. You might already be aware of my stance from other threads.

So, I like hearing from both sides because I'm sort of split between the two.

Anyway, this is a really good article. It's main point is pointing out the the difficulties the West faces against Islam because of the limited nature of nation-states versus the nature of a global phenomenon like political Islam.

The historic vehicle of the rise of Western world power - the nation-state - suddenly seems to be a source of weakness and a path for international influence. The West is facing many threats to its continued wealth and power, in a context of relative world decline, but is unable to organise effective responses.

One of the reasons is that the problems and threats the West faces are irreducibly global in character. Political Islam is a perfect example. The threat posed to the West by militant Islam does not reside in any one country, but is ubiquitous. It is found in Afghanistan and Syria; in immigrant neighbourhoods in Birmingham, Marseilles and Detroit; in Indonesia and in Mali; and so on.

Going to go through the thread, hopefully learn some about the various positions and thoughts. Probably should have done that before posting, but I highly doubt this article is already in here.