• 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!

Creating Terrorists, Why do we continue to do it?

Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the people, through taxes withheld, so they are not entitlements and helped create the middle class.

both of them are a ponzi scheme, and as far as social security is concerned, it inhibits rather than increases the growth of the middle class.

If you are opposed to welfare, than pay everyone that works full time a living wage.

:confused: if i am opposed to keeping people in poverty i must instead make sure that they are unemployed in massive numbers?

Improving the lot of Americans is an admirable accomplishment, and the people rewarded FDR for it by electing him 3 times.

Even today, as I have referenced above, he is still considered one of the top 3 presidents, ahead of Thomas Jefferson.

:shrug: well, no one recently has accused the American people of being too up on their history, and a significant percentage are ideologically committed to pretending like all of the consequences of the FDR's programs were somehow beyond his control.
 
Last edited:
I don't need the nanny state extracting money from my checks...

Once you get a majority that feel Social Security and Medicaid are no longer needed, please be sure to let me know.
 
well, no one recently has accused the American people of being too up on their history...

Its not just historians that consider FDR one of the 3 best presidents, the majority of Americans that lived through that time also thought he was the best because they reelected him 3 times.
 
Once you get a majority that feel Social Security and Medicaid are no longer needed, please be sure to let me know.

to be completely honest, i can understand an older crowd feeling this way. They had so many people per retiree paying them SS up until retirement, and they are all taken care of... i suppose they would want the "nanny state" and that ever so elusive "big government" to leave them alone now. :doh
 
to be completely honest, i can understand an older crowd feeling this way. They had so many people per retiree paying them SS up until retirement, and they are all taken care of... i suppose they would want the "nanny state" and that ever so elusive "big government" to leave them alone now. :doh

Exactly why you don't see any Republican's stumping on doing away with either SS or Medicaid. Its a no win position.
 
Its not just historians that consider FDR one of the 3 best presidents, the majority of Americans that lived through that time also thought he was the best because they reelected him 3 times.

American Revolution Center

average score, as i understand it, is a 44. interestingly, republicans and moderates score higher than democrats :). Americans, frankly, are rather abysmal when it comes to history.

FDR was a big President; and the "he led us through the Great Depression" line has been very successfully sold to the American people (thank you teachers unions!) for generations now.

unfortunately, the facts don't back that narrative up. feel free to see my post above.
 
Once you get a majority that feel Social Security and Medicaid are no longer needed, please be sure to let me know.

Social Security started running a deficit last fall; Medicare's unfunded liabilities for the next few years are beyond budget-busting.

we are going to find out what it is like to not have them in their current form whether we want to or not, and we are going to have to find out soon.
 
the facts don't back that narrative up.

Revisionists can try to spin it any way they want but the "facts" were judged by the majority of Americans who lived through that period and they reelected him 3 times.
 
Social Security started running a deficit last fall;

Not a fault of the SS design. It is the fault of the government from stealing from the funds to pay for other things. Reagan began this practice. Al Gore proposed a lock box for the funds to protect them, but we chose the guy for president some would like to have a beer with instead.

Medicare's unfunded liabilities for the next few years are beyond budget-busting.

Mostly due to waste and fraud, both of which the health care reform addresses.

we are going to find out what it is like to not have them in their current form whether we want to or not, and we are going to have to find out soon.

Yeah, right after we run out of money to wage optional wars.;)
 
Not a fault of the SS design.

it is indeed. you can talk about the use of SS funds to cover for government spending if you like, but the fact is that the ponzi nature of Social Security (and Medicare) is inherent in our demographics.

It is the fault of the government from stealing from the funds to pay for other things. Reagan began this practice.

:doh!! Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson.

Mostly due to waste and fraud, both of which the health care reform addresses.

:rofl by offering billions and billions of dollars in incentives to make the problem worse?

and those unfunded liabilities aren't due to fraud and waste (though, since it is a government program, those are substantial); it's due to the fact that a larger segment of our population is living longer, and medical advances are more widely available to them.

Yeah, right after we run out of money to wage optional wars.

We pull back the US military and the linchpin of global security is gone. say goodbye to international trade and watch the world economy head into chaos as the globe devolves into regionalism.
 
Revisionists can try to spin it any way they want but the "facts" were judged by the majority of Americans who lived through that period and they reelected him 3 times.

:rolleyes: whatever. as i told you, the New Deal was brilliant political ploy, it was just a horrible economic program. you're response to a political metric is rather telling.
 
Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson.

Hmm, started earlier than I thought, little wonder then SS is in trouble.
"you first have to understand that the government has been robbing the Social Security trust for years--that is, spending Social Security tax proceeds on the rest of the budget, to the tune of about $200 billion a year. So although Social Security now enjoys a theoretical surplus of $2.5 trillion, what it really possesses is that amount in IOUs."


We pull back the US military and the linchpin of global security is gone. say goodbye to international trade and watch the world economy head into chaos as the globe devolves into regionalism.

Can you shoot me a link to the section in the constitution that makes the US responsible for global security?
 
:rolleyes: whatever. as i told you, the New Deal was brilliant political ploy, it was just a horrible economic program. you're response to a political metric is rather telling.

Yeah, its telling that I put more stock on the people's perspective that actually lived through that time when FDR helped the economy (and reelected him 3 times in gratitude), than I do on revisionist spin.
 
The recent terrorist attempt in the US and other attacks around the world should surprise no one.


Sen. Fritz Hollings
Former South Carolina Senator ~

Creating Terrorists


"On 9/11, Afghanistan and the Swat Valley in Pakistan were peaceful. We ran Osama bin Laden into the Swat Valley and now have ended up shooting lethal missiles from drones into villages, killing civilians, turning a peaceful valley into chaos, and causing two million refugees to flee. Refugee camps are hotbeds for energizing militancy, insurgency, and Al Qaeda. How do the Secretary and generals think one creates a terrorist?

Exactly the way my friend, Vice President Biden, suggests. Stay off-shore and lob artillery into the Valley, or with drones lob missiles into supposed militants' homes. You hit a home in my neighborhood and you've got a militant. I've become a believer in Osama -- a terrorist. Osama said the U. S. was engaged in a Crusade against Islam. Now, the U. S. deployed in Kuwait, having invaded Iraq, invading Afghanistan, and invading Pakistan, I'm a believer. Here I am peacefully reading my Koran and missiles from the United States hit my neighbor. You've got a militant. Come hell or high water I'm going to get you one way or the other. Yes, even learn to fly -- and kill myself to destroy your World Trade Towers."

Sen. Fritz Hollings: Creating Terrorism

July 31, 2008 - "The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida."

"the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure...."

"And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians."

"As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

"In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all."

Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure


What a ****ing crock of ****, we didn't create the two latest terrorists, one was an American doctor and one was the son of a rich banker, neither has had anyone they know killed by a U.S. missile, wake up the U.S. didn't create these terrorists Islamic imperialist supremacist expansionism created it.
 
Corroboration from across the pond ~


Author: Azeem Ibrahim, Research Fellow, International Security Program

This policy memo is based on Mr. Azeem Ibrahim's keynote speech to the Leaders' Summit on Security and Cohesion at Portcullis House, Westminster, London, on October 7, 2008.



The only way to beat terror long-term is to reduce the motivation to radicalize, and international and British trends will make it more urgent to do so

Summary

* Current counterterrorism policy has emphasized military action, imprisonment, cutting off terrorists' sources of finance, and denying them safe territory. These have had limited effectiveness, and recent trends indicate that they are only short-term solutions.
* The only long-term solution is to reduce Muslims' motivation to radicalize.
* Various trends over the next decades will make this more urgent. This policy memo identifies trends in four areas: the changing nature of terrorism itself, demographics, geostrategy, and the British domestic situation.
* Western governments have so far failed to reduce Muslims' motivation to radicalize in part because they lack credibility on the Muslim street, sometimes being regarded as a "contaminated brand."
* Governments can learn from a growing body of evidence how to effectively reduce Muslims' motivation to radicalize."
Reducing Terrorism over the Long Term - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

lol their motivation to radicalize is that they are born into a ****ing death cult and brainwashed in their mosques and madrassas since the cradle.
 
Thanks for your opinion. You will forgive me if I do not find it as credible as the sources I referenced above.

I'm sorry when exactly did the doctor or the trust fund baby in the latest Islamic terrorist attacks get harmed by the U.S. or know anyone who was harmed by the U.S.??? Face it my pc friend there is a common denominator in this equation and it isn't the U.S. it's the death cult of Wahhab.
 
The report I referenced is the most extensive research on terrorist groups to date, and today's Pentagon would have not commissioned their report if they were not credible. Additionally, their report findings are backed up by British Inquiries.

Where is your proof of apdst's credibility in discerning terrorists motives?

If you study is to be believed I suggest you provide a single example of a terrorist attacking the U.S. as an act of revenge for the U.S. having killed one of their friends, neighbors, or relatives. Just one single solitary example is all I ask.
 
Does he get lovely parting gifts? ..LOL :mrgreen:

You know Cat, you'll never get a right-winger to acknowledge the existence of blowback. These guys live, eat and breath interventionism. The fact that our actions have consequences is a foreign concept to them.

Provide a single solitary real world example of an Islamic terrorist attacking the U.S. as an act of revenge for the U.S. having killed one of their friends, neighbors, or relatives. Just one single solitary example is all I ask.
 
We killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the first Gulf war before the terrorists killed 3,000 of our civilians. What goes around comes around.

A) Saddam is responsible for those casualties he engaged in an imperialist campaign to conquer a peaceful country.

B) Which of the 19 hijackers was Iraqi again?
 
lol their motivation to radicalize is that they are born into a ****ing death cult and brainwashed in their mosques and madrassas since the cradle.

Their motivation to radicalize is neo-liberalism creating a host of failed states in muslim majority countries where natural resources are being abused by TNCs and predator multinationals to extract wealth and nation build at the behest of corporate oil.

I never understood the "indoctrination" argument. In theory being exposed to anything is indoctrination, and its more or less become a pejorative in the last 40 years....meaning whatever the person using ad hom attacks wants his opponents ideology to be viewed as.

Western culture and institution, as well as "nationalism" or "patriotism" could very well be the on the same tune as indoctrinary "radical islam" but people are so caught up in ethnocentrism they don't notice.

http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=140
 
Last edited:
A) Saddam is responsible for those casualties he engaged in an imperialist campaign to conquer a peaceful country.

B) Which of the 19 hijackers was Iraqi again?

Refresh my memory: Which nation gave arms to Iraq to fight against Iran in the 80's?
 
Refresh my memory: Which nation gave arms to Iraq to fight against Iran in the 80's?

Russia and France the U.S. provided less than .5% of total weapons sales to Iraq and in fact they mainly consisted of dual use items weaponized after the fact; such as, ambulances and helicopters.
 
Their motivation to radicalize is neo-liberalism creating a host of failed states

Islamism and despots created these failed states. Their motivation to radicalize is theocratic indoctrination, they don't scream "neo-liberalism is bad" before they kill innocent civilians they scream Allah Akhbar.

in muslim majority countries where natural resources are being abused by TNCs and predator multinationals to extract wealth and nation build at the behest of corporate oil.

Give me a ****ing break, living standards in Saudi Arabia for example are actually relatively high. Once again the latest Nigerian to try to off himself and hundreds of innocent civilians was a ****ing trust fund baby. Bin Laden himself is another trust fund baby. Poverty has absolutely **** all to do with it catch a clue.

I never understood the "indoctrination" argument. In theory being exposed to anything is indoctrination,

Um ya and being exposed to teachers and clergy who teach that it's the greatest thing in the world to martyr ones self for an imaginary man in the sky since the cradle it tends to indoctrinate one to become a terrorists.

and its more or less become a pejorative in the last 40 years....meaning whatever the person using ad hom attacks wants his opponents ideology to be viewed as.

You don't think it's bad to indoctrinate children from the cradle to the grave to kill innocent men, women, and children, is a bad thing?

Western culture and institution, as well as "nationalism" or "patriotism" could very well be the on the same tune as indoctrinary "radical islam" but people are so caught up in ethnocentrism they don't notice.

pfft, ya patriotism is exactly on the same level of badness as teaching kids that it's a good thing to bring the whole of dar al-Harb into the fold of dar al-Islam through offensive Jihad. :roll: Try listening to yourself.
 
Russia and France the U.S. provided less than .5% of total weapons sales to Iraq and in fact they mainly consisted of dual use items weaponized after the fact; such as, ambulances and helicopters.
Shhh. That doesn't fit in with is left-wing Hate America first approach spoon fed to him by his "professors." In fact, he would never know that precisely because it doesn't fit in with his "professor's" left-wing Hate America first viewpoint and so was intentionally never noted. :lamo

The guy sounds like a walking talking point.
 
Back
Top Bottom