• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Decrying attack, protesters overtake Islamist group's HQ in Benghazi [W:57]

j-mac said:
Well, you didn't like when Bush went in like a bull in a china shop with a military footprint, and now Obama has gone in with a criminal aspect approach to it, and drone killing, and you still don't like it.....What is it that you would do....?
Click to expand...

I've posted several times what we should have done, right after the attack of 9/11: We should have gone in to Afganistan and Pakistan with a small multinational force, captured or killed Bin Laden and his cohorts, then left.

Had we captured them, we should have rebuilt the twin towers with a dungeon in the basement, called it a "supermax", and allowed the perps to rot there.

We should not have attacked a secular state in the name of fighting radical Islam.
We should not have tried to remake Afganistan into a modern nation.
We should not be in the business of killing suspected terrorists by drone attacks.

We are a nation of laws, or at least used to be.
 
I think the opposite. I mean, killing bin Laden was cool but trying to nation-build Afghanistan was dumb. But invading Iraq? That was actually a rational response to Muslim extremism, but it was executed poorly. What a waste of an opportunity.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I've posted several times what we should have done, right after the attack of 9/11: We should have gone in to Afganistan and Pakistan with a small multinational force, captured or killed Bin Laden and his cohorts, then left.
Click to expand...

For how long might we expect you and others to constantly relive this? We can't turn back time, and instead of always decrying what should have been, we need to be in the here and now. And, now we have been attacked again, on 9/11, on US soil, and we have a President that is fiddling, rather than address the problems that lead to this, all for saving face in an election year....Disgusting.
 
j-mac said:
For how long might we expect you and others to constantly relive this? We can't turn back time, and instead of always decrying what should have been, we need to be in the here and now. And, now we have been attacked again, on 9/11, on US soil, and we have a President that is fiddling, rather than address the problems that lead to this, all for saving face in an election year....Disgusting.
Click to expand...

That's my mistake. I thought the question was what should have been done, rather than what should be done.

Clearly, what should be done now is precisely what is being done in Iraq and Afganistan: Starting to get out and wind down the war.

As for the attack on the embassy, that is a criminal action and should be treated as such both by Libya and the US.

Which is what looks to be happening.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's my mistake. I thought the question was what should have been done, rather than what should be done.

Clearly, what should be done now is precisely what is being done in Iraq and Afganistan: Starting to get out and wind down the war.

As for the attack on the embassy, that is a criminal action and should be treated as such both by Libya and the US.

Which is what looks to be happening.
Click to expand...

Well, everyone in the world seems to know that it was a terrorist attack, and not some car jacker, like you assert. But what the heck eh Ditto, after all it's only embassies that are being attacked, and diplomats killed, right? Nothing to get too worried over....Right? :roll:
 
j-mac said:
Well, everyone in the world seems to know that it was a terrorist attack, and not some car jacker, like you assert. But what the heck eh Ditto, after all it's only embassies that are being attacked, and diplomats killed, right? Nothing to get too worried over....Right? :roll:
Click to expand...

I'd get worried about being carjacked, or someone breaking into the house and shooting a few people. Those are crimes.

Just what is the difference between a violent crime perpetrated by extremists to further an agenda and any other violent crime?

How should this one be treated any differently?

If we call it a terrorist attack, does that mean we need to cower in terror, or lash out indiscriminately, or, exactly what?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'd get worried about being carjacked, or someone breaking into the house and shooting a few people. Those are crimes.

Just what is the difference between a violent crime perpetrated by extremists to further an agenda and any other violent crime?

How should this one be treated any differently?

If we call it a terrorist attack, does that mean we need to cower in terror, or lash out indiscriminately, or, exactly what?
Click to expand...

One may be an act of war if another country is involved; if not the crime can be tried through domestic laws and courts.

Terrorism is working effectively against the United States as we can see by the inept and misleading response by the US President and his Secretary of State, two amateurs in high office who have had no previous experience governing anything. They are both way out of their league and are making the world a more dangerous place
 
Grant said:
One may be an act of war if another country is involved; if not the crime can be tried through domestic laws and courts.

Terrorism is working effectively against the United States as we can see by the inept and misleading response by the US President and his Secretary of State, two amateurs in high office who have had no previous experience governing anything. They are both way out of their league and are making the world a more dangerous place
Click to expand...

That may well be true, and moreover, the previous administration starting wars and using terrorist attacks as an excuse made the world a more dangerous place.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That may well be true, and moreover, the previous administration starting wars and using terrorist attacks as an excuse made the world a more dangerous place.
Click to expand...

Again, constantly second guessing whether or not actions by the previous administration is irrelevant at this point. We have an AUMF in place against AQ, and instead of waging this war, Obama has conceded victory to the terror organizations. And to boot, has so screwed up ME policy, that the US is not even considered strong enough to ward off attack of our embassies...And his administration covered it up.

I tell ya, should Obama actually win the election, it may be short lived due to the numerous impeachable actions by this buffoon.
 
j-mac said:
Again, constantly second guessing whether or not actions by the previous administration is irrelevant at this point. We have an AUMF in place against AQ, and instead of waging this war, Obama has conceded victory to the terror organizations. And to boot, has so screwed up ME policy, that the US is not even considered strong enough to ward off attack of our embassies...And his administration covered it up.

I tell ya, should Obama actually win the election, it may be short lived due to the numerous impeachable actions by this buffoon.
Click to expand...

Is this the same Obama who finally got bin Laden and who sends predator drones to take out terrorist leaders? That Obama?
 
j-mac said:
Again, constantly second guessing whether or not actions by the previous administration is irrelevant at this point. We have an AUMF in place against AQ, and instead of waging this war, Obama has conceded victory to the terror organizations. And to boot, has so screwed up ME policy, that the US is not even considered strong enough to ward off attack of our embassies...And his administration covered it up.

I tell ya, should Obama actually win the election, it may be short lived due to the numerous impeachable actions by this buffoon.
Click to expand...

I can't stand Obama, but I have to agree with Dittohead on this one. If anything, Obama is being far too aggressive with his power. Using drones to kill everybody, including american citizens in countries we're not at war with, can be classified as many despicable things, but definitely not as weak.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Is this the same Obama who finally got bin Laden and who sends predator drones to take out terrorist leaders? That Obama?
Click to expand...

You do realize he did nothing to get Bin Laden, right? Everything was already done for him and all he had to do was say yes to a plan put out in front of him.
 
Henrin said:
You do realize he did nothing to get Bin Laden, right? Everything was already done for him and all he had to do was say yes to a plan put out in front of him.
Click to expand...

and yet, he'd been in office for what, three years? If everything had already been done, why didn't someone take out Bin Laden a lot sooner?
 
Dittohead not! said:
and yet, he'd been in office for what, three years? If everything had already been done, why didn't someone take out Bin Laden a lot sooner?
Click to expand...

Who knows? Maybe he needed three dozen empirical studies on the minutest of detail before he acted...But, if you think that ANY president in power wouldn't have given the go order then you are fooling yourself.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I can't stand Obama, but I have to agree with Dittohead on this one. If anything, Obama is being far too aggressive with his power. Using drones to kill everybody, including american citizens in countries we're not at war with, can be classified as many despicable things, but definitely not as weak.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. Obama's posture in the ME is one of soft peddling, and apology. Drone attacks aside, more troops have been killed in Obama's short time in office in Afghanistan, than in the entire war to that point.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Yet, it does surprise some people, and it disappoints others who seem to actually want a clash of civilizations sort of Armageddon.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. Dominionists are psychotic.
 
j-mac said:
Who knows? Maybe he needed three dozen empirical studies on the minutest of detail before he acted...But, if you think that ANY president in power wouldn't have given the go order then you are fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

When Henrin posted that "everything had already been done for him", just who did it? If "it", presumably meaning finding Bin Laden, had already been done before he took office, why didn't the person who found him take him out?
 
Dittohead not! said:
When Henrin posted that "everything had already been done for him", just who did it? If "it", presumably meaning finding Bin Laden, had already been done before he took office, why didn't the person who found him take him out?
Click to expand...

He was talking about the intel that had been gathered, and the verification process. Without intel during the Bush years Obama would not only be appeasing the ME, but OBL would still be alive as well.
 
j-mac said:
He was talking about the intel that had been gathered, and the verification process. Without intel during the Bush years Obama would not only be appeasing the ME, but OBL would still be alive as well.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see.

So, it is just another unsupported opinion then.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and yet, he'd been in office for what, three years? If everything had already been done, why didn't someone take out Bin Laden a lot sooner?
Click to expand...

Why would I answer such a silly question? The fact is that the intel on his location was known before Bush left office and the plan to take him out was made by military personal and then that plan was approved by Obama.
 
Henrin said:
Why would I answer such a silly question? The fact is that the intel on his location was known before Bush left office and the plan to take him out was made by military personal and then that plan was approved by Obama.
Click to expand...

So, Bush knew where Bin Laden was back in '08 or earlier, and decided just to let him be. I suppose that is consistent with his statement that he wasn't interested in getting Bin Laden.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, I see.

So, it is just another unsupported opinion then.
Click to expand...

I am aware that fact is inconvenient to your dislike of the previous administration, but without information gained through the capture, and exploitation of that information gained through methods in the Bush Presidency, Obama wouldn't have jack squat, and you know it. Hell, Obama should be thanking Bush instead of doing victory laps that embolden our enemies.
 
j-mac said:
I am aware that fact is inconvenient to your dislike of the previous administration, but without information gained through the capture, and exploitation of that information gained through methods in the Bush Presidency, Obama wouldn't have jack squat, and you know it. Hell, Obama should be thanking Bush instead of doing victory laps that embolden our enemies.
Click to expand...

Yet another repetition of the same unsupported opinion.

Bush said he wasn't interested in Bin Laden. Apparently, he was more interested in his nation building project in Iraq.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yet another repetition of the same unsupported opinion.

Bush said he wasn't interested in Bin Laden. Apparently, he was more interested in his nation building project in Iraq.
Click to expand...


Don't do that Ditto, I have more respect for you than that....Don't embarrass yourself like this...

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: With reports swirling that intelligence that helped locate Osama bin Laden began with information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Vice President Dick Cheney said it “wouldn’t be surprising” if interrogation techniques authorized by President Bush provided critical intelligence that led to bin Laden’s death.
“It’s an enhanced interrogation program that we put in place back in our first term,” Cheney told Jonathan Karl, in an interview we aired on ABC’s “Top Line” today.
“And I don’t know the details. All I know is what I’ve seen in the newspaper at this point, but it wouldn’t be surprising if in fact that program produced results that ultimately contributed to the success of this venture.”
Cheney continued: “It’s I think important to look at this as a continuum. I mean, it’s not just on one day you get up, bang, and you got Osama bin Laden. It’s the kind of thing where an awful lot of people over a long period of time, thousands have worked this case and worked these issues and followed up on the leads and captured bad guys and interrogated them and so forth.”
“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were a set of special, harsh tactics authorized by President Bush for use in limited circumstances to extract information from high-value suspects. President Obama ended the use of those techniques, including waterboarding.

Dick Cheney:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom