• 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!

Is the Obama administration doing a good job in protecting us from terrorism?

Is the Obama administration doing a good job in protecting us from terrorism?

  • Total voters
    35
Navy Pride said:
Do you have a reading problem............Clinton could have taken Bin Laden in the nineties when Sudan offered him on a silver platter and he was to busy getting BJs in the oval office.
Click to expand...

LOL.....Bin Laden attacked the US while your boy was sleeping on the job trying to figure out what he was supposed to be doing. You just simply cannot stomach the idea that the worst attack on US soil in the history of this country occurred on his watch and he left it to the next guy to get the job done that he couldn't accomplish. Face the facts.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....Bin Laden attacked the US while your boy was sleeping on the job trying to figure out what he was supposed to be doing. You just simply cannot stomach the idea that the worst attack on US soil in the history of this country occurred on his watch and he left it to the next guy to get the job done that he couldn't accomplish. Face the facts.
Click to expand...
Also, the story that Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton is a bald-faced lie: Hannity repeated lie that Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton; Lanny Davis to Hannity: "That's a lie" | Research | Media Matters for America

Reagan created bin Laden by selling arms to the men who became al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Bush Sr. did nothing about it.

Clinton tried to get him, and failed, but he did try. And while he was trying, the right-wingers accused him of trying to distract people from the investigation of his personal life. The right-wingers didn't care about protecting this nation from bin Laden then.

Bush Jr. was warned about him in August 2001. He ignored the memo because he was on vacation. Then he promised he would get bin Laden, "dead or alive," and had him surrounded in December 2001, and let him get away, because he was focused on his insane vendetta against Saddam Hussein.

Obama promised to get bin Laden. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. He even approved the plan while... wait for it... he was on vacation.

Democratic Presidents go on vacation and attack al-Qaeda. Republican Presidents go on vacation and ignore them.
 
obvious Child said:
Show me where he said this.



You're still not aware of the difference between the ticket counter and the arrival area are you?

Keep digging your hole.

You're confusing this:
View attachment 67154119

With this:

View attachment 67154120

You just showed you are either grasping for straws or you didn't bother to read what I wrote. Citing the international arrival location and arguing it's the same as the ticket counter that anyone can go up to have the same legal jurisdiction is insane.

Both Snowden and Nasseri were in the transit areas of the arrival sections. Not the ticket counters.



So? Now you are claiming a reference you (without evidence) claim is always thrown out isn't valid because you don't like Wikipedia?
Click to expand...

Ticket counter, arrival area ? What about the departure area ?
What does this have to do with the "international terminal" ? They all are with in the boundaries of the terminal.
An "international terminal" is a sovereign country's official port of entry.
El Al is located at the LAX Tom Bradley International Terminal. It's one building that serves most international flights. It's where customs, immigration, agriculture, foreign exchange, and TSA feel your junk are located.
It's known as the "Gate Way to the Capital of the Third World." aka Los Angeles.

Now the photos you posted don't look like LAX. The floors are shiny, no graffiti, no trash or Harikrishna people wearing orange dresses are visible. Defiantly so not L.A.

Re: 2002 attack at the El Al ticket counter located with in the LAX international terminal, there was some controversy if it was a terrorist attack or not. The State Department, Defense Department, Dept. of Justice all have different definitions for a terrorist attack. Local law enforcement called it a hate crime. Only the FBI under the DOJ called it a terrorist attack even though there were found no connections between Hesham Mohamed Hadayet and any known terrorist organizations. But the FBI said the motive was political so it meets the DOJ definition of being a terrorist attack. But what if Hesham Mohamed Hadayet just didn't like Jews or Israel ? Then it's just a hate crime.
 
Navy, if these are the kind of Fun With Semantics games you feel the need to play in order to whitewash other attacks from the Bush era, you've already lost the argument. Badly.
 
I voted no because I can't say he's doing a good job. Just the flagrant BS of classifying the Ft. Hood shooting as "workplace violence" on it's own would prompt me for a "no".
 
APACHERAT said:
Ticket counter, arrival area ? What about the departure area ?
What does this have to do with the "international terminal" ? They all are with in the boundaries of the terminal.
Click to expand...

Uh No.

Within airports are varying legal jurisdictions. If you're at the ticket counter, you're checking in to the flight which means you've already entered the country and are now leaving the country. You've moved well out of the transit area of the arrival section and moved out of customs and past immigration.

An arrival and transit area are different because you have not moved through customs and immigration and thereby entered the clear legal jurisdiction of the country owning the airport. A transit area is an international grey zone as a passenger has come off an international flight but has not gone through the requirements to have entered another country.

Arrival and transit areas ARE NOT the same as a ticket counter in this context. Nasseri wasn't allowed in the ticket area because he couldn't pass through customs as his transit documents were not valid at the time. If they were all the same, he could have gone where he pleased in the DeGaull International terminal..

An "international terminal" is a sovereign country's official port of entry.
Click to expand...

That does not mean the entire terminal functions the same way.

El Al is located at the LAX Tom Bradley International Terminal. It's one building that serves most international flights. It's where customs, immigration, agriculture, foreign exchange, and TSA feel your junk are located.
It's known as the "Gate Way to the Capital of the Third World." aka Los Angeles.
Click to expand...

So? You're making the bad argument that the entire terminal functions the same way legally. Which they do not. Why do you think that Snowden was hiding out only in the transit section of the arrival part of the Moscow international terminal? Because he had no legal right to move anywhere else. If the entire international terminal was treated the same, Snowden could have moved around as he pleased.

Now the photos you posted don't look like LAX. The floors are shiny, no graffiti, no trash or Harikrishna people wearing orange dresses are visible. Defiantly so not L.A
Click to expand...

This is completely irrelevant. The arrival photo is of the Moscow airport. The other, I have no idea. I just did a Google Image search.

Re: 2002 attack at the El Al ticket counter located with in the LAX international terminal, there was some controversy if it was a terrorist attack or not. The State Department, Defense Department, Dept. of Justice all have different definitions for a terrorist attack. Local law enforcement called it a hate crime. Only the FBI under the DOJ called it a terrorist attack even though there were found no connections between Hesham Mohamed Hadayet and any known terrorist organizations. But the FBI said the motive was political so it meets the DOJ definition of being a terrorist attack. But what if Hesham Mohamed Hadayet just didn't like Jews or Israel ? Then it's just a hate crime.
Click to expand...

It's pretty pathetic when you have to change definitions to avoid admitting that a Muslim who targeted Jews is not a terror attack in America.
 
Kobie said:
Navy, if these are the kind of Fun With Semantics games you feel the need to play in order to whitewash other attacks from the Bush era, you've already lost the argument. Badly.
Click to expand...

My bad, that was Apacherat, not Navy.
 
obvious Child;1062355491It's pretty pathetic when you have to change definitions to avoid admitting that a Muslim who targeted Jews is not a terror attack in America.[/QUOTE said:
>" Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter.

That is why preemption is being considered to be so important. In some cases, terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without the adversary realizing the nature of the threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world. But despite its popularity, terrorism can be a nebulous concept. Even within the U.S. Government, agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism use different definitions.


The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".

Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions..."< continue.-> Terrorism Research - What is Terrorism?
Click to expand...
 
APACHERAT said:
" Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter.
Click to expand...

And the relevance of this is what?

Are you seriously saying that a Muslim extremist who deliberately targeted Jews on American soil is not a terrorist attack?

At least you dropped your "Ticket Counter = Arrival Area" argument.
 
obvious Child said:
And the relevance of this is what?

Are you seriously saying that a Muslim extremist who deliberately targeted Jews on American soil is not a terrorist attack?

At least you dropped your "Ticket Counter = Arrival Area" argument.
Click to expand...

Your the one who brought up ticket counters and waiting areas, not I.
I had no idea where you were going with that.
 
APACHERAT said:
Your the one who brought up ticket counters and waiting areas, not I.
I had no idea where you were going with that.
Click to expand...

Actually, I just cited a bunch of terrorist attacks that occurred on US homeland since 2001 to point out to Navy that he was (as usual) wrong.

You went about claim it didn't count because it was at the international terminal. I then pointed out it happened at a ticket counter which falls outside of the legal justification argument you were giving.
 
Navy Pride said:
Do you have a reading problem............Clinton could have taken Bin Laden in the nineties when Sudan offered him on a silver platter and he was to busy getting BJs in the oval office.
Click to expand...

Bahahaha! "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US" and "BIN LADEN ATTACK IMMINENT" with details outlining the likelihood of hijacking aircraft and targeting New York City. But I guess the topiary-in-chief was too busy vacationing in Crawford or painting portraits of himself in a bathtub to read his briefings. I mean, we had an FBI informant LIVING with 11 of the hijackers in San Diego for God's sake and you're whining about not taking the Sudan up on an offer known to be bogus as if this mythical scenario of killing Bin Laden would have prevented it? :slapme:
 
obvious Child said:
Actually, I just cited a bunch of terrorist attacks that occurred on US homeland since 2001 to point out to Navy that he was (as usual) wrong.

You went about claim it didn't count because it was at the international terminal. I then pointed out it happened at a ticket counter which falls outside of the legal justification argument you were giving.
Click to expand...

And I was just saying that Navy Pride was actually referring to post 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, not all attacks that have been classified as being terrorism.

I've also have made the same mistake a couple of years ago on the Politico. I corrected myself and there was no longer an argument, everyone moved on.

Here's a question, would the mass shooting at the Washington D.C. Navy Yard meet the definition as a terrorist attack under any three of the federal government's definitions ?

An Associate of Aron Alexis quota Alexis as saying he wasn't happy with what was happening in America today. That's sounds political and would meet the FBI's definition for a terrorist act.

Personally from what I know, I think Alexis had a major brain housing malfunction.
 
APACHERAT said:
And I was just saying that Navy Pride was actually referring to post 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, not all attacks that have been classified as being terrorism.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is how do we define Al Qaeda? The organization itself is a loose association of people. We've had Islamic based terrorism in the US since 9/11. The guy who tried to car bomb NYC square. He had some ties. The semantics render this argument pointless.

Here's a question, would the mass shooting at the Washington D.C. Navy Yard meet the definition as a terrorist attack under any three of the federal government's definitions ?

An Associate of Aran Alexis quota Alexis as saying he wasn't happy with what was happening in America today. That's sound political and would meet the FBI's definition for a terrorist act.

Personally from what I know, I think Alexis had a major brain housing malfunction.
Click to expand...

Yes. It would. Merely because you have a mental problem does not mean you cannot terrorize people.
 
obvious Child said:
The problem with that is how do we define Al Qaeda? The organization itself is a loose association of people. We've had Islamic based terrorism in the US since 9/11. The guy who tried to car bomb NYC square. He had some ties. The semantics render this argument pointless.



Yes. It would. Merely because you have a mental problem does not mean you cannot terrorize people.
Click to expand...

The Al Qaeda today is not the same Al Qaeda back in 2001. It hasn't been for over six years now.
But todays Al Qaeda has expanded and is operating openly in most countries in the Middle East and Africa where they weren't operating back in 2008. The CIA said they are more dangerous today to America's interest than in 2008 but they are probably not able to launch a terrorist attack from Yemen upon the U.S. But they can with Muslim Americans and immigrants already living in America. And that's what we have been seeing.
 
APACHERAT said:
The Al Qaeda today is not the same Al Qaeda back in 2001. It hasn't been for over six years now.
But todays Al Qaeda has expanded and is operating openly in most countries in the Middle East and Africa where they weren't operating back in 2008. The CIA said they are more dangerous today to America's interest than in 2008 but they are probably not able to launch a terrorist attack from Yemen upon the U.S. But they can with Muslim Americans and immigrants already living in America. And that's what we have been seeing.
Click to expand...

The thing is by his actions the Arabs think he is weak. They test him and he backs down. Because of him they think our country is a paper tiger. In all of our history we have never been viewed this way by any country,
 
Navy Pride said:
The thing is by his actions the Arabs think he is weak. They test him and he backs down. Because of him they think our country is a paper tiger. In all of our history we have never been viewed this way by any country,
Click to expand...

It's just not the Arabs that think Obama is weak, most of the world leaders think Obama is weak including Putin.

The reason Al Qaeda declared war on America was because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The reason Osmama bin Laden thought he could attack America on it's own soil and get away with it was because he looked at America when Clinton was POTUS as being a paper tiger.

From Osama's bin Ladens first Fatwa:

>" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu..."< Bin Laden's Fatwa | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 23, 1996 | PBS
 
APACHERAT said:
It's just not the Arabs that think Obama is weak, most of the world leaders think Obama is weak including Putin.

The reason Al Qaeda declared war on America was because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The reason Osmama bin Laden thought he could attack America on it's own soil and get away with it was because he looked at America when Clinton was POTUS as being a paper tiger.

From Osama's bin Ladens first Fatwa:

>" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu..."< Bin Laden's Fatwa | PBS NewsHour | Aug. 23, 1996 | PBS
Click to expand...

and where is osama right now? oh yeah that's right, he is in hades now.
 
obvious Child said:
Doesn't matter. Global terrorism doesn't work in a vertical hierarchy. We've killed their #2 something like 21 times. That's a bad job to have.
Click to expand...

terrorist organization's can only succeed in getting recruits if they dehumanize their intended enemy and make it appear to their potential recruit that the united states is to blame for all of the problems in the world.

which is why the best way to win againist a terrorist orginization is to make them radical and out of touch with average people.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
terrorist organization's can only succeed in getting recruits if they dehumanize their intended enemy and make it appear to their potential recruit that the united states is to blame for all of the problems in the world.

which is why the best way to win againist a terrorist orginization is to make them radical and out of touch with average people.
Click to expand...

Okay, how do we do that without radicalizing the average person?

Pakistan isn't going well.
 
obvious Child said:
Okay, how do we do that without radicalizing the average person?

Pakistan isn't going well.
Click to expand...

that is because we are the ones doing the killing, which then feed's into the propaganda being created by terrorist organizations. i say if the terrorists are going to use suicide bombs againist us, we should be help trying to rebuild and protect the people, somthing that terrorists bomb's fail to do. when american soldiers are getting killed while helping people to rebuild their homes and their lives, actually doing things that benefit the people, do you really think that the average person would support a orginizations that sends suicide bombers to blow up targets of opportunity?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
and where is osama right now? oh yeah that's right, he is in hades now.
Click to expand...

Osama bin Laden believed if President G.W. Bush was anything like former President Clinton, that America's response after the 9/11/01 attacks would be no more than maybe launching a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles and that would be it. America a paper tiger, unwilling to put boots on the ground.

Clinton may had the talk but not the walk. Al Qaeda found out that Bush just did not have the talk but also the walk. Bush invaded Afghanistan ! #### ! he even put boots on the ground and invaded Iraq.

This scared our enemies throughout the world, they were in awe with Bush. Even Omar Gaddafi destroyed his WMD's in 2003 and came on board as an ally of the USA and it's war against Al Qaeda. Who do you think took over enhanced interrogations for the CIA ?

I think Obama has already sent out the message, America has returned to the paper tiger era with UAV (drone) strikes and even with Syria, threats of using Tomahawk cruise missiles, Clinton's weapon of choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom