Dems: explain to me...

[Evan]

I'm one to stay out of politics pretty much all the time.. and this is no different for me. I'm curious, though, with the recent rash of poltical threads, what you guys are hoping to accomplish? It all looks like a bunch of hard headed arguing that never goes anywhere to me.

that depends, a political discussion with no facts or information is worthless and ends up being a shouting match.
I burned out on political discussion after the 04 election and didnt touch them for a long time, but occasionally now Ill jump in one with some facts or to disprove a faulty point.
There are also a few (very few...) people on the other side of the political fence who I have talked to who dont have their heads up their asses and can make an intelligent argument (like my girlfriend) and I enjoy hearing their opinions and arguments, and often learn things.

like I said earlier, this thread is only half serious and patterned after Jacks republican hate-parade, and Im curious where its going. The "right" answer to my question is of course what Mikey pointed out. Stupid people everywhere (there just happen to be more stupid dems j/k )
I guess Im not surprised that in only a few posts it turned from "35% of all democrats think bush was in on 9/11" to "all the worlds problems are the republicans fault"

[Goodspeed]

And Goodspeed, if you enjoy proving yourself "superior" over a political debate we'll put you back in your place... maybe you should go buy a car.

Oh I know, I just love a good debate. You know I think you put it best in another thread when you said you don't believe in politics; I think thats very true. I don't either; I think its inherently flawed in this country. I'm only casually into politics, because I can't even grasp the immensity of our government, all its inner workings, and all its people fully. But when something strikes me as wrong, I'll say it is and why, and of course someone will think its right, and they'll say why, and thats where it all comes from. Evan and Rex and Andy and all us idiots on here are all good people, its all just fun really. Now get back to work. :wink:

[Evan]

Maybe our Policies are driving the growth of radical Islam?

ok, ill bite. now justify that comment with some real data. tell me what policies, and exactly how they are driving the growth. Tell me what our policies should be to not drive growth.

[Ginger]

They're paying me to post right now..

(26 cents)

[Goodspeed]

Maybe our Policies are driving the growth of radical Islam?

ok, ill bite. now justify that comment with some real data. tell me what policies, and exactly how they are driving the growth. Tell me what our policies should be to not drive growth.

I tried to justify his comment in my earlier post with the NIE due out soon and the past agency/state department reports that effictively conclude that our policies have increased terrorism

Furthermore, I want to make one thing clear. I don't dislike all Republicans. I dislike the Bush administration, and increasingly so do most repubs. Now I know Clinton pardoned a lot of people, but I do know that Bush shat on our legal system by pardoning Libby. Cheney thinks he is magically not part of executive branch to avoid a (Bush supported) subpoena to release information. They all think that they are above the law, and anyone who still supports them needs to get a clue.

[Andy]

Maybe our Policies are driving the growth of radical Islam?

ok, ill bite. now justify that comment with some real data. tell me what policies, and exactly how they are driving the growth. Tell me what our policies should be to not drive growth.

Evan, there's a bunch of books that directly address that.

Richard Clark's Against all enemies talks about where/how/when Osama got his start and how we got it wrong in the early days.

Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer talks about our policy failings in the past and present

I read this yesterday and it's what I based my comment about AQ gaining strength on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02443.html

[Andy]

Maybe our Policies are driving the growth of radical Islam?

ok, ill bite. now justify that comment with some real data. tell me what policies, and exactly how they are driving the growth. Tell me what our policies should be to not drive growth.

I tried to justify his comment in my earlier post with the NIE due out soon and the past agency/state department reports that effictively conclude that our policies have increased terrorism

Furthermore, I want to make one thing clear. I don't dislike all Republicans. I dislike the Bush administration, and increasingly so do most repubs. Now I know Clinton pardoned a lot of people, but I do know that Bush shat on our legal system by pardoning Libby. Cheney thinks he is magically not part of executive branch to avoid a (Bush supported) subpoena to release information. They all think that they are above the law, and anyone who still supports them needs to get a clue.

Let's not get on a bunch of tangents

[Evan]

5) Lastly, the CIA reports that AQ is actually growing in strength. This is policy failure at its core.

now that is bs. While al qaeda grows in strength, you cannot attribute that to our policy failure by any stretch of imagination.

Sure you can. Our policy of running off from chasing Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and starting a futile, destructive war that only serves to distract us and diminish our self-defense capabilities directly correlates to AQ growing stronger.

wrong. we did not run off from Afghanistan, we never left and we are still there. Just because CNN headlines moved on to criticizing Iraq doesnt mean we left Afghanistan, maybe you should broaden your information pool.

Then when we entered Iraq, which has since turned into a huge mess, AQ had the chance to regroup, re-organize, re-train and re-think their mission.

how exactly is hiding in caves, with the majority of their leadership killed, and their communication structure damaged regrouping and reorganizing?

They have used our occupation of Iraq to draw in supporters and recruit more terrorists.

Since the majority of Iraqi citizens support the overthrow of Saddam and the establishment of a democracy, where exactly are these new recruits coming from?
We have a larger radical islam base of terrorists, but this has more to do with the growth of....radical islam.
No moderate muslims wake up in the morning and all of the sudden decide to strap a bomb to their chest because the US is helping Iraq become a free democracy. The fact of the matter is that there is a much larger group of muslims that believe in radical ideals than your or political correctness is willing to admit.

The FBI, the CIA, the State Department, all agree that our war in Iraq has only served to increase terrorism and the threat to the United States.

that raises a gigantic BS flag right there. cite your source.
Everything I have read, including official reports (searching for links now) indicates that the war in Iraq has concentrated terrorists who would be attacking us here, to attacking us there. I seriously hope you dont think that terrorists attacking innocent people in the US is better than attacking professional soldiers with guns.

Secondly, what difference does it make to call it terrorism or islamic radicalism? Terrorism is a catchy scare word used by the media, our intelligence agencies know they are fighting radical islamists and thats all that really matters.

nope. Everything is run under the iron fist of political correctness. Any kind of targeted investigation into a group of muslims is because its not just the intel agencies who are fighting this,

Third, about Dems shutting down tools used to fight terrorism....In my mind, shutting down secret prisons, Abu Ghraib, and fighting Guantanamo aren't bad things. You talk about not knowing what to call our enemy being bad, I'm talking about using lawless torture methods that are entirely against our supposed American ideals being bad.

thanks for the ACLU opinion peice, but it doesnt prove anything. By the way - many of those "lawless torture methods" were not in the least bit illegal or torture at all, but were politicized by the same media that gives us al sharpton.

But I do love how you generalize a few 9/11 whack jobs as being representative of liberals in this country. That kind of attack-dog generalizing attitude is in fact, typical of most in republican party. How's that for a generalization :wink:

try to read the thread before posting shit like this, I quoted a survey (ie- data! from your above arguments you arent familiar with the concept) that positively IDs 35% of all democrats as "9/11 whack jobs" and asked for an explanation.

[Evan]

Evan, there's a bunch of books that directly address that.

Richard Clark's Against all enemies talks about where/how/when Osama got his start and how we got it wrong in the early days.

of course we did, the enemy of our enemy is our friend, so we supported him in afghanistan. thats just how global politics work. it was a fuckup, but it has zero bearing on the current state or how our current policies are promoting terrorism

Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer talks about our policy failings in the past and present

so paraphrase for me, im genuinely interested how our policies promote terrorism. everything Ive ever heard to that regard is lefty apologist bullshit that would have us in sharia law in 6 months. since political books usually pander to the left or the right to sell copies, i take everything with a grain of salt but Im interested.

ps- goodspeed start another thread on libby and comparisons of the clinton and bush administrations and id be happy to rip you a new one on the topic

[CaptainHenreh]

Maybe our Policies are driving the growth of radical Islam?

ok, ill bite. now justify that comment with some real data. tell me what policies, and exactly how they are driving the growth. Tell me what our policies should be to not drive growth.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what these guys said:


I guess I'm a military isolationist by philosophy, so "Our policies to not drive [terrorist] growth" are simple: Bring our military home save to protect embassies (which we should viciously and vicariously defend) and, uh, use our military to defend our country, and not our "interests".

The US has too many fingers in too many pies and has for many years. Maybe 166 [carl sagan]billion[/carl sagan] dollars could have been better spent building nuke plants, or in R&D for alternative fuels, or something like that. If the government is going to spend that kind of money (and FLUSH the US dollar down the toilet in the process?) then I'd like to see something come of it other than my brothers and sisters in body bags.

[Andy]

Evan, there's a bunch of books that directly address that.

Richard Clark's Against all enemies talks about where/how/when Osama got his start and how we got it wrong in the early days.

of course we did, the enemy of our enemy is our friend, so we supported him in afghanistan. thats just how global politics work. it was a fuckup, but it has zero bearing on the current state or how our current policies are promoting terrorism

Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer talks about our policy failings in the past and present

so paraphrase for me, im genuinely interested how our policies promote terrorism. everything Ive ever heard to that regard is lefty apologist bullshit that would have us in sharia law in 6 months. since political books usually pander to the left or the right to sell copies, i take everything with a grain of salt but Im interested.

ps- goodspeed start another thread on libby and comparisons of the clinton and bush administrations and id be happy to rip you a new one on the topic

Paraphrasing only innacurrately simplify the argument but you could borrow my copy if you want.

The funding of Osama wasn't and still isn't a 1 time fuckup. Everything we do in the world in the past and present has an effect on things now. That was one of the central themes of Hubris.

[Goodspeed]

5) Lastly, the CIA reports that AQ is actually growing in strength. This is policy failure at its core.

now that is bs. While al qaeda grows in strength, you cannot attribute that to our policy failure by any stretch of imagination.

Sure you can. Our policy of running off from chasing Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and starting a futile, destructive war that only serves to distract us and diminish our self-defense capabilities directly correlates to AQ growing stronger.

wrong. we did not run off from Afghanistan, we never left and we are still there. Just because CNN headlines moved on to criticizing Iraq doesnt mean we left Afghanistan, maybe you should broaden your information pool.

We never left, true. But we failed before we even started. Colin Powell wanted a much larger force than the 100,000 we sent; the administration didn't listen, and Bin Laden is still free. No matter how you cut it, the fact that he is still alive and that his organization still exists to the extent that it does is a failure, no ifs, ands, or buts. Every intelligence expert I have ever heard speak, in person or in the news, agrees that our war in Iraq took our focus away from dealing with actual terrorism in Afghanistan.

how exactly is hiding in caves, with the majority of their leadership killed, and their communication structure damaged regrouping and reorganizing?

Did you not hear about the NIE report stating that AQ is stronger than ever since 9/11? Many of the same people you support are saying they failed, c'mon man.

Since the majority of Iraqi citizens support the overthrow of Saddam and the establishment of a democracy, where exactly are these new recruits coming from?
We have a larger radical islam base of terrorists, but this has more to do with the growth of....radical islam.
No moderate muslims wake up in the morning and all of the sudden decide to strap a bomb to their chest because the US is helping Iraq become a free democracy. The fact of the matter is that there is a much larger group of muslims that believe in radical ideals than your or political correctness is willing to admit.

Iraqis support-ed us. They were all happy happy joy joy when invaded them, yes. And now we are just the lesser of two evils compared to AQ presence in the country now. We've already had this argument. I lived in the middle east for 9 years, and I already told you my viewpoint on the issue of radical islamists and where they come from.

that raises a gigantic BS flag right there. cite your source.
Everything I have read, including official reports (searching for links now) indicates that the war in Iraq has concentrated terrorists who would be attacking us here, to attacking us there. I seriously hope you dont think that terrorists attacking innocent people in the US is better than attacking professional soldiers with guns.

The report ÔÇ£says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,ÔÇØ said one American intelligence official.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/...fa&ei=5088

The hell are you talking about? Where did I say I want terrorists to attack innocent American civilians? My point is that our War on Terror only increased international terrorism, which it has. That myth of Iraq centralizing terrorism is exactly what the administration bought into. Did you read official....White House reports? I wouldn't whipe my ass with those.

The truth is that Al Qaeda has adapted. They have stopped their grand plans such as blowing up 10 airliners simultaneously, and are now going after soft targets with simple plans, like car bombs in London. They can recruit European citizens and send them to the States since they do not need Visas to enter the country. We are still very much at risk, but we can't not fault ourselves here. Our focus on Iraq has strained our armed forces, and we don't have enough to actively pursue Al-Qaeda along the Afghan/Pakistan border, allowing them to continue to plan their attacks. It's really, really simple.

thanks for the ACLU opinion peice, but it doesnt prove anything. By the way - many of those "lawless torture methods" were not in the least bit illegal or torture at all, but were politicized by the same media that gives us al sharpton.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe holding people without rights or charges against them for 5 years is against international law.

try to read the thread before posting shit like this, I quoted a survey (ie- data! from your above arguments you arent familiar with the concept) that positively IDs 35% of all democrats as "9/11 whack jobs" and asked for an explanation.

Lol...a survey. I do not believe in political surveys or polls. How about you cite your sources (besides a possibly flawed "survey"). There are all sorts of biases in the media, and all sorts of ways to screw up, intentionally or not, a poll or survey. I'd like to know where that survey was taken, and who was asked. If you haven't noticed, I have never used a poll or survey in my argument, because they are weak at best.

[Evan]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what these guys said:

paraphrase? I read a lot of that, and summaries, and never came to the conclusion that we made them fly planes into our buildings?

I guess I'm a military isolationist by philosophy, so "Our policies to not drive [terrorist] growth" are simple: Bring our military home save to protect embassies (which we should viciously and vicariously defend) and, uh, use our military to defend our country, and not our "interests".
The US has too many fingers in too many pies and has for many years. Maybe 166 [carl sagan]billion[/carl sagan] dollars could have been better spent building nuke plants, or in R&D for alternative fuels, or something like that. If the government is going to spend that kind of money (and FLUSH the US dollar down the toilet in the process?) then I'd like to see something come of it other than my brothers and sisters in body bags.

I agree, this is a major reason that I wasnt a big fan of the Iraqi war (believe it or not) even back in 03 when everyone was gung-ho on it. But what does that have to do with the terrorism issue?
We didnt choose to have them attack us. Years of apathy, ignoring little attacks, and even helping them fight christians in the balkans during Clinton's administration got us 3,000 dead civilians 6 years ago. Bringing our boys home will only result in more attacks.

[CaptainHenreh]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what these guys said:

paraphrase? I read a lot of that, and summaries, and never came to the conclusion that we made them fly planes into our buildings?

I won't paraphrase, I'll quote from the report, available in it's entirety here:
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf">www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf</a><!-- w -->

...Many Americans have wondered "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?"

Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as ÔÇ£your agents.ÔÇØ Bin Ladin has stated flatly, ÔÇ£Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.ÔÇØ14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to AmericaÔÇÖs support for their countriesÔÇÖ repressive rulers.

Bin LadinÔÇÖs grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al QaedaÔÇÖs answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: ÔÇ£It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.ÔÇØ If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al QaedaÔÇÖs leaders said ÔÇ£desires death more than you desire life.ÔÇØ15

[Evan]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what these guys said:

paraphrase? I read a lot of that, and summaries, and never came to the conclusion that we made them fly planes into our buildings?

I won't paraphrase, I'll quote from the report, available in it's entirety here:
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf">www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf</a><!-- w -->

...Many Americans have wondered "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?"

Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as ÔÇ£your agents.ÔÇØ Bin Ladin has stated flatly, ÔÇ£Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.ÔÇØ14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to AmericaÔÇÖs support for their countriesÔÇÖ repressive rulers.

Bin LadinÔÇÖs grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al QaedaÔÇÖs answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: ÔÇ£It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.ÔÇØ If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al QaedaÔÇÖs leaders said ÔÇ£desires death more than you desire life.ÔÇØ15

come on Rex, I know you are smarter than that. A quote from Osama Bin Laden is not a conclusion of the report nor is it meant to be.

The extremists have been using threats and violence as a political weapon for years, example being the elections in Spain last year.
These people are not at war with our policies, they are at war with us and will not stop until we are conqured, this is a fundamental belief of their brand of islam.
But if you truly believe that appeasement will make them happy little muslims, then tell me what europe did, with its huge multiculturalism (and we thought political correctness was bad here!) and moral relativism to spur all these attacks we have been seeing in Europe especially recently? (from educated doctors no less)
Tell me what Scotland did to the muslims for fucks sake!

[Evan]

and back to the original topic:

First Muslim in congress implies that Bush was behind 9/11
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ush114.xml</a><!-- m -->

[Evan]

Goodspeed what were you saying about the new york times article on an as yet to be released NIE report?
well, its released, and not surprisingly, the new york times didnt paint the whole picture.

We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-QaÔÇÖida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

of course its not all peace and puppydogs, the terrorism threat is definately growing, but it doesnt blame any policy on this.

I agree that Iraq is a breeding/training ground for terrorists, but that does not directly translate to terrorism at home, only increased fighting in that iraq cesspool (at least until we pull out)

[Goodspeed]

and back to the original topic:

First Muslim in congress implies that Bush was behind 9/11
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ush114.xml</a><!-- m -->

Well, that guy is an idiot. Every religion has its whackjobs and loudmouth blowhards, its just unfortunate that he was elected to any form of representative power. I don't see him as being any different than say, Pat Robertson who said the Iraq War was a righteous Christian cause or that we should assassinate the president of Venezuala. Both are idiots. I hope you don't take this guy to be representative of Muslims.

On the Iraq War and terrorism, I'm looking in the long term, something our government and leaders haven't done for the past century or so. Iraq is becoming ever more of a breeding ground for terrorism, and I think it'll become more and more of a "real" threat to us because of the war we started there, kind of ironic. I don't think we'll be rid of the mess that is Iraq for a very, very long time.

Oh and

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...98,00.html

Al-Qaeda is using its growing strength in Pakistan and Iraq to plot attacks on U.S. soil, heightening the terror threat facing the United States over the next few years, intelligence agencies concluded in a report unveiled Tuesday.


I never expected the NIE report to assign blame, I just knew they'd assess the situation. Regardless, I highly doubt that a government security agency(ies) would, in their own report, blame government policy for anything concerning this issue. I think they've concluded that while we've become a harder target to hit, that doesn't mean that they've stopped trying and will soon adapt and be able to strike.

[JackoliciousLegs]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get into this...
In the same light that you didn't really give much credence to the crazy right wingers, I'll do the same for the lefties. There are crazies everywhere as previously stated.

3) Had we had a more narrow target, we probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq. The justifications for this war has changed from Al Qaeda is in bed with Saddam to WMD to fight for Democracy. When did we start caring about democracy in the 3rd world?

now we are reeeeaaaallly way off topic

Woh woh woh... Bush makes this about the war on terror... and so did you. Forgive us if we pursue that idea.

5) Lastly, the CIA reports that AQ is actually growing in strength. This is policy failure at its core.

now that is bs. While al qaeda grows in strength, you cannot attribute that to our policy failure by any stretch of imagination.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/washington/18assess.html?ex=1342411200">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/washi ... 1342411200</a><!-- m -->

The Iraq war has spawned Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as the ÔÇ£most visible and capable affiliateÔÇØ of the original terrorist group, inspiring jihadists around the world and drawing money and recruits to their cause. The explosion of radical Internet sites has created self-generating cells of would-be terrorists in many Western countries. Lebanese Hezbollah, rarely considered likely to attack in the United States, now ÔÇ£may be more likely to considerÔÇØ doing just that in response to a perceived threat from American forces to itself or its sponsor, Iran.

[JackoliciousLegs]

But if you truly believe that appeasement will make them happy little muslims, then tell me what europe did, with its huge multiculturalism (and we thought political correctness was bad here!) and moral relativism to spur all these attacks we have been seeing in Europe especially recently? (from educated doctors no less)
Tell me what Scotland did to the muslims for fucks sake!

You are absolutely right. There is a fundamental philosophy in Islam that separates us from them. Honestly, there have been points when Palestinians could've put their guns down. They use the argument that either a) it's a religious fight (which will then have no end) or b) they're on our land. For b, it seems like the same sort of issues the jews had in Germany. 6mil killed but you don't see Jews bombing the Germans. They are fundamentally different. We can NOT fight them. Israel is proof, and now the US is becoming it too. We can't ignore them, and France is proof of that. We need to try plan C. A mixture of sectarian policies and immense restraint.