• 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!

Al Qaeda Opens Branch in Indian Subcontinent

They announced a branch? Are they like a bank, with tellers and everything? :D

Seriously, all it takes is 10 guys and an Internet connection, and AQ can say it has a "branch." Issuing a communiqués is not a show of strength.

Or perhaps you're suggesting that if someone else was President, we would be invading Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria and a dozen other nations to try and kill every single person in the world who identifies as AQ....?

I have little doubt that this is exactly what president John McCain would be doing.

Except that Bush Junior corrected himself.....then explained that out with the War on Terror and it would not be like any other war we fought. Then explained that he knew Americans were War weary. But this was a War we cannot lose. That we must stay vigilant no matter how long the time.

He also mention Americans may not want the fight and the war to be over.....doesn't mean our enemy does.

In which he was correct and as our Enemy has shown.

Yeah, it's different because it's not a real war. It's not against a tangible enemy. It's against an ideology. And that's an unwinnable war. It's a war against anyone we don't like in the Middle East. Guess what, that's never going to go away. And we keep creating more enemies with our violence. The only way to win this war is not to fight it. We were supposed to "stay vigilant", basically forever, to allow our rights to be stripped away in the name of security, and to keep us afraid and thus complacent. The war on terror is literally the fake perpetual war from 1984.
 
I have little doubt that this is exactly what president John McCain would be doing.



Yeah, it's different because it's not a real war. It's not against a tangible enemy. It's against an ideology. And that's an unwinnable war. It's a war against anyone we don't like in the Middle East. Guess what, that's never going to go away. And we keep creating more enemies with our violence. The only way to win this war is not to fight it. We were supposed to "stay vigilant", basically forever, to allow our rights to be stripped away in the name of security, and to keep us afraid and thus complacent. The war on terror is literally the fake perpetual war from 1984.


Seems it was a bit more specific and accounted for AQ as being an Ideology. Which lets not forget Junior did say, it wasn't just our problem alone. Meaning the US.

The president's remarks came hours after the White House released its updated plan for combating terrorism. The document describes many successes in the war on terrorism, but warns that the nation faces an evolving threat from small terrorist networks and al-Qaeda, which is as much an ideology as a terrorist network. The document calls the administration's policy of spreading freedom and democracy the best means of countering that threat over the long haul. "America is safer, but we are not yet safe," the document concludes.

In his speech at the Capital Hilton in Washington, Bush said the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other Sunni Muslim "extremists" is no different from that posed by Shiite Muslim "extremists," who he said include the leaders of Iran and the group Hezbollah. He quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having said that if the United States wants to have good relations with Iran, it must "bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down." "America will not bow down to tyrants," Bush added to loud applause from the audience. .....snip~

Bush Warns Of Enduring Terror Threat
 
Everybody is. Tell me one person in history who was not partisan about something.... and be prepared to back it up please.

On this political forum, I use the terms first definition, which is loyalty to a party, of which I, but not only me, am not.
 
Here let me help you with this Monte.....as it just doesn't play out the way you describe with Junior. Now here is the Truth of the matter and it takes you straight to Junior's Speech. Note the date and how many years in to Juniors term.

Bush Warns Of Enduring Terror Threat
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006

President Bush issued a stern warning yesterday about what he called the continuing terrorist threat confronting the nation, using the haunting words of Islamic extremists to support his assertion that they remain determined to attack the United States. Abandoning his practice of only rarely mentioning al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Bush repeatedly quoted him and purported terrorist letters, recordings and documents to make his case that terrorists have broad totalitarian ambitions and believe the war in Iraq is a key theater in a wider struggle. "Iraq is not a distraction in their war against America" but the "central battlefield where this war will be decided," Bush said in an address before the Military Officers Association of America. In his speech, Bush said terrorist leaders' statements have made plain their goals, which he called the present-day equivalent of the "evil" aims of Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?" Bush said, adding that "we're taking the words of the enemy seriously."

Meanwhile, the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies issued a report saying that although the Bush administration has deprived al-Qaeda of sanctuary in Afghanistan and has prevented more attacks on U.S. soil in the past five years, it has not tracked down bin Laden or created "enduring security in Afghanistan." Moreover, the report said, the administration's attempts at public diplomacy are "undermined by perceived U.S. unilateralism." "What is missing from the . . . public discussion of all of this is some explanation of the phenomenon of radicalized Islam," said Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at CSIS and former Clinton administration official. "Why are there so many people out there who want to kill Americans and so many Westerners? Why is this such a durable phenomenon?" ....snip~

Bush Warns Of Enduring Terror Threat

BO peep said the War to Fight was Afghanistan. The War he lost. Not Iraq? Can you now See why BO clearly got it wrong and always had it wrong? What has happened with Iraq? Who did Bush say was with Bin Laden? Who knew about ISIL in Iraq? Who disregarded them and said they just need to be managed. Now says they need to be destroyed?

Yes how do we fix anything.....when there are those out there that will do anything to alter the truth. Notice what Reid and Kerry and the Demos said Monte. Note what their Big mouths stated. Now see how much they show themselves as the fools they really are, and always have been with all they have said and state these days.

Oh, and did BO deprive AQ a sanctuary in Iraq? What about Afghanistan?

I do not understand why you keep presenting Obama's failures in the Middle East as though I'm a supporter of his. I realise however that you partisans have difficulty comprehending that somebody could actually be critical of both Bush and Obama. Obama has been totally destructive in the ME, and SO WAS BUSH. Here, let me help you out a little. Just two months into the Iraq war, that dumb ass Bush was saying this,

Bush, May 5, 2003: Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they’re not a problem anymore.

These Photos Show The Physical Toll Of Being President Of The United States
 
I do not understand why you keep presenting Obama's failures in the Middle East as though I'm a supporter of his. I realise however that you partisans have difficulty comprehending that somebody could actually be critical of both Bush and Obama. Obama has been totally destructive in the ME, and SO WAS BUSH. Here, let me help you out a little. Just two months into the Iraq war, that dumb ass Bush was saying this,

Bush, May 5, 2003: Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they’re not a problem anymore.

These Photos Show The Physical Toll Of Being President Of The United States



Monte all Politics is partisan. Unless it is agreed upon. Yes and that's why I told you to note the date and to Bush Junior's correction on the matter. Which you completely denied it ever happened. But there it is in Black and White and with his Speech to top it off. Also with the Bi partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. So it is validated that Bush Corrected himself from 2003 and did so in 2006. There is no getting around that fact.
 
I have little doubt that this is exactly what president John McCain would be doing.



Yeah, it's different because it's not a real war. It's not against a tangible enemy. It's against an ideology. And that's an unwinnable war. It's a war against anyone we don't like in the Middle East. Guess what, that's never going to go away. And we keep creating more enemies with our violence. The only way to win this war is not to fight it. We were supposed to "stay vigilant", basically forever, to allow our rights to be stripped away in the name of security, and to keep us afraid and thus complacent. The war on terror is literally the fake perpetual war from 1984.

You mustn't be so negative. Think about how a war on an ideology could be open ended and the perennial benefits to the MIC!
 
Monte all Politics is partisan. Unless it is agreed upon. Yes and that's why I told you to note the date and to Bush Junior's correction on the matter. Which you completely denied it ever happened. But there it is in Black and White and with his Speech to top it off. Also with the Bi partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. So it is validated that Bush Corrected himself from 2003 and did so in 2006. There is no getting around that fact.

If by that you mean that its impossible to hold a political opinion, unless one is partisan, I categorically disagree with you. I, for one, am not a party to either the democrats or the republicans. At times I agree with GOP positions, and at times I agree with the democratic parties positions. Whereas partisans don't afford themselves that logic and objectivity. No, the partisan is staunch in his support of his party, and never EVER concedes that his party is wrong on an issue and the other party is right. You display this here endlessly. Obama can't possibly be wrong on everything, just as Bush can't possibly have been right on everything. But then let the true believer partisan tell it.

And that asshole changed his toon three years hence because he was wrong, and he's still WRONG, as evidenced by the fact that he wasted 4,500 soldiers lives, 1.5 trillion dollars, and tens of thousands, perhaps more Iraqi civilian lives, and al Qaeda LIVES. Was used by us to help topple Gaddafi, being used by us in an attempt to topple Assad. They live!!
 
Last edited:
If by that you mean that its impossible to hold a political opinion, unless one is partisan, I categorically disagree with you. I, for one, am not a party to either the democrats or the republicans. At times I agree with GOP positions, and at times I agree with the democratic parties positions. Whereas partisans don't afford themselves that logic and objectivity. No, the partisan is staunch in his support of his party, and never EVER concedes that his party is wrong on an issue and the other party is right. You display this here endlessly. Obama can't possibly be wrong on everything, just as Bush can't possibly have been right on everything. But then let the true believer partisan tell it.

And that asshole changed his toon three years hence because he was wrong, and he's still WRONG, as evidenced by the fact that he wasted 4,500 soldiers lives, 1.5 trillion dollars, and tens of thousands, perhaps more Iraqi civilian lives, and al Qaeda LIVES. Was used by us to help topple Gaddafi, being used by us in an attempt to topple Assad. They live!!

Each to their own and with their own partisanship. Hence your partisanship against 98% of what the US does to protect its own Sovereignty. With you none can be Right. Just other countries and with what they do an cause. Then there is no blame to them whatsoever. No bringing out what they caused or who started what. No blame as for their own actions.

Basically once the US shows up you make sure to point out how the US is at fault and to blame. Even if they were in the Right to do so. Or forced by treaty to do so. Or break their word and commitment.

Oh and Monte.....when the Repubs get close to that mark set by the Demos with 56k dead. Then you might have some ground to stand on with the loss of and waste of life.
 
Everything bad that happens anywhere in the world is 100% the fault of Barack Hussein Obama.
 
Each to their own and with their own partisanship. Hence your partisanship against 98% of what the US does to protect its own Sovereignty. With you none can be Right. Just other countries and with what they do an cause. Then there is no blame to them whatsoever. No bringing out what they caused or who started what. No blame as for their own actions.

Basically once the US shows up you make sure to point out how the US is at fault and to blame. Even if they were in the Right to do so. Or forced by treaty to do so. Or break their word and commitment.

Oh and Monte.....when the Repubs get close to that mark set by the Demos with 56k dead. Then you might have some ground to stand on with the loss of and waste of life.

I am decidedly NO partisan

par·ti·san
ˈpärtəzən/
noun
1.
a strong supporter of a party.
synonyms: supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion; More

And where do you get your 98% number from? My criticisms are of US foreign policies of intrigue!! War, exploitation, and killing of innocence, whereas your partisan position causes you to support all of that. And your claim that our ME policies are defending our sovereignty is pure HOGWASH. Your looking at imperialism! Hegemony!

Ukraine isn't NATO, dispite the fact that the West has attempted to make it such. So no article 5 commitment.

Oh, and MMC. One wasted American life gives me concrete ground to stand on.
 
Everything bad that happens anywhere in the world is 100% the fault of Barack Hussein Obama.

Totally false, while he's not the best on foreign policy, he's ok. And, there's plenty of other people around the world carrying out mischief.
 
Totally false, while he's not the best on foreign policy, he's ok. And, there's plenty of other people around the world carrying out mischief.

Sarcasm does not convey well on the internets.
 
Sarcasm does not convey well on the internets.

Lol, Sorry dude, actually I should have caught that based on other posts I've read of yours. Funny subtlety there with your s.
 
I am decidedly NO partisan

par·ti·san
ˈpärtəzən/
noun
1.
a strong supporter of a party.
synonyms: supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion; More

And where do you get your 98% number from? My criticisms are of US foreign policies of intrigue!! War, exploitation, and killing of innocence, whereas your partisan position causes you to support all of that. And your claim that our ME policies are defending our sovereignty is pure HOGWASH. Your looking at imperialism! Hegemony!

Ukraine isn't NATO, dispite the fact that the West has attempted to make it such. So no article 5 commitment.

Oh, and MMC. One wasted American life gives me concrete ground to stand on.



Champion and More, huh? Yeah and those that lead. :lol:

Pretty much from all your rants blaming both sides of the Aisle. Which concerns pretty much all of US Foreign Policy. Knowing there is no other. Sometimes War and exploitation have to be supported.....Correct? No the US isn't just out killing innocence. Or there would be a whole hell of lot more bodies and the attitude of that like the Russians. Also War is agreed upon in the country by Whom? That's Right.....takes an agreement to go to War. So much for your rant about Partisanship.

Also....I didn't state anything about ME policies concerning Sovereignty. I stated that even if any policies were about Sovereignty you oppose them. Unless it was specifically about the Physical security of the US. Which you already know.....Sovereignty and Foreign Policy do at times take place.

No it doesn't.....does the needs of the one.....outweigh the needs of the many?
 
Champion and More, huh? Yeah and those that lead. :lol:

Pretty much from all your rants blaming both sides of the Aisle. Which concerns pretty much all of US Foreign Policy. Knowing there is no other. Sometimes War and exploitation have to be supported.....Correct? No the US isn't just out killing innocence. Or there would be a whole hell of lot more bodies and the attitude of that like the Russians. Also War is agreed upon in the country by Whom? That's Right.....takes an agreement to go to War. So much for your rant about Partisanship.

Also....I didn't state anything about ME policies concerning Sovereignty. I stated that even if any policies were about Sovereignty you oppose them. Unless it was specifically about the Physical security of the US. Which you already know.....Sovereignty and Foreign Policy do at times take place.

No it doesn't.....does the needs of the one.....outweigh the needs of the many?

Yes, champion of the party and more!

When have I opposed a policy that would protect our nations sovereignty?

Yes, I can imagine any number of scenarios that we might engage in war, with a moral authority. But it would be defense against an attacking army. And I don't mean one that we aggravated, antagonised or provoked into attack.

And, if my posts are mere rants to you, and have no value, I don't know why you bother.
 
Yes, champion of the party and more!

When have I opposed a policy that would protect our nations sovereignty?

Yes, I can imagine any number of scenarios that we might engage in war, with a moral authority. But it would be defense against an attacking army. And I don't mean one that we aggravated, antagonised or provoked into attack.

And, if my posts are mere rants to you, and have no value, I don't know why you bother.


Did I say all your posts are rants? Even if some are justified.....this doesn't change the perception you put out with US foreign policy. I'm just telling you.....not coming down on you for it. Any treaty that the US breaks that could lead to a cause of war is about ones sovereignty.

Playing Defense don't win Wars Monte.....and if they do. They are the exception to the norm.
 
Did I say all your posts are rants? Even if some are justified.....this doesn't change the perception you put out with US foreign policy. I'm just telling you.....not coming down on you for it. Any treaty that the US breaks that could lead to a cause of war is about ones sovereignty.

Playing Defense don't win Wars Monte.....and if they do. They are the exception to the norm.

Ok buddy. Lets call a cease fire! ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom