• 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-Qa'ida resurging in Afghanistan

ObamacareFail said:
I did not claim that all of our strategy and tactics were successful......just our initial strategy in the aftermath of 9/11/01. With Afghanistan, the insurgency that rose after initially taking the taliban out of power was not handled well as the rules of engagement became ludicrous. The morale of the troops morphed from "High" to I just hope I survive this tour and make it home. And the idiot now in the oval office who was more concerned with pandering to the extreme left in his voting base only half heartedly engaged in the "surge" strategy that was successful in Iraq. ISIS formed because the idiot in the oval office was too slow to take threats seriously and declared red lines in Syria athat he was not willing to back up if crossed.
Click to expand...

Well yes, our initial strategy of starting an endless Global War On Terror brought under fraud was most successful, for sure.

IMO, Obama has been a most cooperative player in that endeavor.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Well yes, our initial strategy of starting an endless Global War On Terror brought under fraud was most successful, for sure.
Click to expand...

Too cynical for me. We are in a war on terror whether we like it or not. We did not start it, however what would you have us do? Just let the jihadists attack us at will? We were attacked multiple times before 9/11/01 and previous presidents to Bush merely treated it as law enforcement issues. At least since declaring a war on terror, we are at least fighting back.

IMO, Obama has been a most cooperative player in that endeavor.
Click to expand...

Not at all. The war on terror is just an annoyance to Obama. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything that was not already under way before he took office. His
intent is to leave ISIS to the next president.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Too cynical for me. We are in a war on terror whether we like it or not. We did not start it, however what would you have us do? Just let the jihadists attack us at will? We were attacked multiple times before 9/11/01 and previous presidents to Bush merely treated it as law enforcement issues. At least since declaring a war on terror, we are at least fighting back.



Not at all. The war on terror is just an annoyance to Obama. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything that was not already under way before he took office. His
intent is to leave ISIS to the next president.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely guilty of being cynical, no question. But being cynical does not necessarily mean one is wrong. Indeed, many times the cynical view is the correct view.

We are in a war on terror because certain barbarians inside the gate have PUT us in a war on terror, and kept us there.

Fighting back? That is an illusion. We essentially created AQ to fight the soviets, and now several flag officers are on record as saying we also created ISIS. We "fought back" in Syria for 14 months and did nothing but allow our bad guys to generate millions of Syrian refugees, and Russia goes in and bombs, and 2 months later our bad guys are in disarray and retreat, with Syria regaining much ground that it had previously lost.

Illusion, is what we see.

Obama has not been dragged kicking and screaming. He has engaged and re-engaged as he was instructed to do by those who tell him what to do. Our drones and manned aircraft have been more active under his administration than under Bush. We set up terrorists by way of our military action in Libya. Obama is a player. Bush gave us the USA Patriot Act, Obama has given us the NDAA amendments.

Leaving ISIS to the next POTUS is not really his plan, it is the plan of those who make the plans. His term of office expires soon, and nothing can change that. He is a puppet, nothing more.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I am absolutely guilty of being cynical, no question. But being cynical does not necessarily mean one is wrong. Indeed, many times the cynical view is the correct view.

We are in a war on terror because certain barbarians inside the gate have PUT us in a war on terror, and kept us there.
Click to expand...

Yes......barbarian islamic jihadists.......starting in 1993 with the first attempt to bring the towers down.

Fighting back? That is an illusion. We essentially created AQ to fight the soviets,
Click to expand...

That is an urban myth:


In two recent statements, Sen. Rand Paul made the unsubstantiated claim that the U.S. government once “armed” and “funded” Osama bin Laden. The CIA and several of its top officials deny that the U.S. ever recruited, trained, armed or funded bin Laden during the Afghan war over Soviet occupation in the 1980s. Bin Laden himself has denied it.
Although the specter of a CIA-bin Laden link has been raised often since 9/11, no evidence has emerged to back it up. The CIA did covertly finance and arm Islamic fundamentalist Afghan factions in the fight against the Soviets, but the CIA has long maintained that it did not support the Arab fighters — including bin Laden — who came to Afghanistan to fight in solidarity with a Muslim country.
The CIA official in charge of the U.S. covert operation in support of the Afghan fighters during the late 1980s told us Paul is perpetuating an “urban myth.”
The CIA website states unequivocally “that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden.”
In a 1993 interview, bin Laden himself said, “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help.”

Rand Paul’s Bin Laden Claim Is ‘Urban Myth’





and now several flag officers are on record as saying we also created ISIS.
Click to expand...

Myth...see above.

We "fought back" in Syria for 14 months and did nothing but allow our bad guys to generate millions of Syrian refugees, and Russia goes in and bombs, and 2 months later our bad guys are in disarray and retreat, with Syria regaining much ground that it had previously lost.

Illusion, is what we see.
Click to expand...

However again, Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything significant in Syria. The air strikes did not really start until it became a humanitarian crisis.

Obama has not been dragged kicking and screaming. He has engaged and re-engaged as he was instructed to do by those who tell him what to do. Our drones and manned aircraft have been more active under his administration than under Bush.
Click to expand...

Again...something already in progress when the moron took office.


We set up terrorists by way of our military action in Libya.
Click to expand...

It is another urban myth that striking at terrorists creates more terrorists. And we did not do all that much striking in Libya.


Obama is a player. Bush gave us the USA Patriot Act, Obama has given us the NDAA amendments.
Click to expand...

The Patriot Act made sense under Bush. Monitor phone calls if a known terrorist is on one end of the line. It is Obama who went nuts with the metadata on everyone's phone calls as well as spying on all of our allies.

Leaving ISIS to the next POTUS is not really his plan, it is the plan of those who make the plans. His term of office expires soon, and nothing can change that. He is a puppet, nothing more.
Click to expand...

It certainly is his plan to leave it to the next president. He is in nothing more then containment mode.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Yes......barbarian islamic jihadists.......starting in 1993 with the first attempt to bring the towers down.



That is an urban myth:


In two recent statements, Sen. Rand Paul made the unsubstantiated claim that the U.S. government once “armed” and “funded” Osama bin Laden. The CIA and several of its top officials deny that the U.S. ever recruited, trained, armed or funded bin Laden during the Afghan war over Soviet occupation in the 1980s. Bin Laden himself has denied it.
Although the specter of a CIA-bin Laden link has been raised often since 9/11, no evidence has emerged to back it up. The CIA did covertly finance and arm Islamic fundamentalist Afghan factions in the fight against the Soviets, but the CIA has long maintained that it did not support the Arab fighters — including bin Laden — who came to Afghanistan to fight in solidarity with a Muslim country.
The CIA official in charge of the U.S. covert operation in support of the Afghan fighters during the late 1980s told us Paul is perpetuating an “urban myth.”
The CIA website states unequivocally “that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden.”
In a 1993 interview, bin Laden himself said, “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help.”

Rand Paul’s Bin Laden Claim Is ‘Urban Myth’







Myth...see above.



However again, Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything significant in Syria. The air strikes did not really start until it became a humanitarian crisis.



Again...something already in progress when the moron took office.




It is another urban myth that striking at terrorists creates more terrorists. And we did not do all that much striking in Libya.




The Patriot Act made sense under Bush. Monitor phone calls if a known terrorist is on one end of the line. It is Obama who went nuts with the metadata on everyone's phone calls as well as spying on all of our allies.



It certainly is his plan to leave it to the next president. He is in nothing more then containment mode.
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to post all that. With all due respect, none of it is persuasive. All of it is worn out government talking points.

Some of us are a bit more resistant to government and media spin than others. :peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thank you for taking the time to post all that. With all due respect, none of it is persuasive. All of it is worn out government talking points.

Some of us are a bit more resistant to government and media spin than others. :peace
Click to expand...

It does not matter whether or not you think it's persuasive. It is reality. I respect that as a libertarian, you think that the USA can live in a bubble and not worry about jihadist terrorism, however that belief is not realistic. and the belief that we created Osama Bin Laden is an urban myth usually chanted by the left.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It does not matter whether or not you think it's persuasive. It is reality. I respect that as a libertarian, you think that the USA can live in a bubble and not worry about jihadist terrorism, however that belief is not realistic. and the belief that we created Osama Bin Laden is an urban myth usually chanted by the left.
Click to expand...

No, I do understand that we cannot live in a bubble. And we have certain international obligations, as suggested in the Constitution, international laws.

What you don't see is that the GWOT is a fraud built largely upon staged events. I see it, you don't. Some do, some don't.

We were all deceived on 911, without question. I was psychologically traumatized to some degree, and I know damn well I was not the only one. Deceived and traumatized, and that is under what conditions today's world view was incubated. George took the country to war under fraud and convinced the American people that torture was a good thing. Not much has changed under Barack, but the reporters all say his administration is deceptive and spins like a wheel.

Beware the Military Industrial Complex. :peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, I do understand that we cannot live in a bubble. And we have certain international obligations, as suggested in the Constitution, international laws.

What you don't see is that the GWOT is a fraud built largely upon staged events. I see it, you don't. Some do, some don't.

We were all deceived on 911, without question. I was psychologically traumatized to some degree, and I know damn well I was not the only one. Deceived and traumatized, and that is under what conditions today's world view was incubated. George took the country to war under fraud and convinced the American people that torture was a good thing. Not much has changed under Barack, but the reporters all say his administration is deceptive and spins like a wheel.

Beware the Military Industrial Complex. :peace
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you have a little bit of rationality mixed in with goofy conspiracy theories. How exactly were you deceived in regards to 9/11/01? Hopefully you are not one of those who believe that the US government took down the towers and fired a missile at the pentagon. Bush did not have to convince me that war was an appropriate response to 9/11/01. The attacks on that day amounted to a modern day Pearl Harbor. It would have been incredibly stupid not to go to war at least in Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to turn over OBL. As for torture.......in a conventional war, I would abhor it. However when international terrorism is involved, I accept it's use as a last resort. If the information gleaned can prevent another major terrorist attack involving mass innocent civilians casualties...then I am for them doing whatever is necessary to get the information. Terrorists are not a part of, nor do they respect or play by the rules of the Geneva Conventions.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Your problem is that you have a little bit of rationality mixed in with goofy conspiracy theories. How exactly were you deceived in regards to 9/11/01? Hopefully you are not one of those who believe that the US government took down the towers and fired a missile at the pentagon. Bush did not have to convince me that war was an appropriate response to 9/11/01. The attacks on that day amounted to a modern day Pearl Harbor. It would have been incredibly stupid not to go to war at least in Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to turn over OBL. As for torture.......in a conventional war, I would abhor it. However when international terrorism is involved, I accept it's use as a last resort. If the information gleaned can prevent another major terrorist attack involving mass innocent civilians casualties...then I am for them doing whatever is necessary to get the information. Terrorists are not a part of, nor do they respect or play by the rules of the Geneva Conventions.
Click to expand...

No, Bush did not have to convince you that war was an appropriate response to what you saw and what you were told about what happened that day. Indeed, only the strongest peace advocates were against a military response, and that is the intended result of a false flag.

Because what you saw and what you were told were not exactly as represented. To answer you questions without going too far off topic, we were deceived in many ways. As an aviator watching on TV, I knew there were serious problems with Shanksville. As everybody there agreed, there was no airliner to be found, no baggage, no passengers. Still I believed, willing to accept a glaring error.

NIST told us that burning office fires brought down the buildings, yet we just witnessed another example (there are about 20 others) of a tall modern building burning for an entire day and remain standing.

I copy your qualified approval of torture. Nonetheless, the GWOT is a hoax of epic proportions. Just curious as to why you mention the Geneva Conventions. Do you think they should exist, or be ignored?
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, Bush did not have to convince you that war was an appropriate response to what you saw and what you were told about what happened that day. Indeed, only the strongest peace advocates were against a military response, and that is the intended result of a false flag.

Because what you saw and what you were told were not exactly as represented. To answer you questions without going too far off topic, we were deceived in many ways. As an aviator watching on TV, I knew there were serious problems with Shanksville. As everybody there agreed, there was no airliner to be found, no baggage, no passengers. Still I believed, willing to accept a glaring error.

NIST told us that burning office fires brought down the buildings, yet we just witnessed another example (there are about 20 others) of a tall modern building burning for an entire day and remain standing.

I copy your qualified approval of torture. Nonetheless, the GWOT is a hoax of epic proportions. Just curious as to why you mention the Geneva Conventions. Do you think they should exist, or be ignored?
Click to expand...

Since I see the conspiracy theories as way off the rationality map, I will just address your last question. If you read the text of the geneva conventions, they do not apply to or cover terrorists not fighting under the flag of any specific nation. I only mentioned the geneva conventions for the sake of those who do not have the stomach for torture under any conditions....and to point out that even if the conventions legally applied to treatment of terrorists, they do not accord anything close to those considerations to their victims.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Since I see the conspiracy theories as way off the rationality map, I will just address your last question. If you read the text of the geneva conventions, they do not apply to or cover terrorists not fighting under the flag of any specific nation. I only mentioned the geneva conventions for the sake of those who do not have the stomach for torture under any conditions....and to point out that even if the conventions legally applied to treatment of terrorists, they do not accord anything close to those considerations to their victims.
Click to expand...

So I guess that means that it's OK to torture someone if they are not wearing the uniform of an established military?

Have you ever read 18USC2441? That is the statute that encodes our support for the GC. I have read it, and I am unable to find any statutory support for torture, as you suggest there is.
 
Thoreau72 said:
So I guess that means that it's OK to torture someone if they are not wearing the uniform of an established military?




Have you ever read 18USC2441? That is the statute that encodes our support for the GC. I have read it, and I am unable to find any statutory support for torture, as you suggest there is.
Click to expand...


As a last resort....absolutely. Whatever it takes:

Forbes Welcome
 
ObamacareFail said:
As a last resort....absolutely. Whatever it takes:

Forbes Welcome
Click to expand...


Great reply.

As for me, I don't need Forbes or anybody else to tell me what the statute says--I can read and understand it myself. Plus, I know right from wrong, as old-fashioned as that may seem.

You and Forbes may have abandoned the spirit and letter of Nuremberg principles, but I have not. :peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
Great reply.

As for me, I don't need Forbes or anybody else to tell me what the statute says--I can read and understand it myself. Plus, I know right from wrong, as old-fashioned as that may seem.

You and Forbes may have abandoned the spirit and letter of Nuremberg principles, but I have not. :peace
Click to expand...

Why are you mentioning Nuremberg? That was a temporary tribune set up to address war crimes that occurred in WW2....then when completed...it disbanded. It does not apply to the war on terror in any way whatsoever. And if you read and understand the article pointed out in the Forbes article then you should understand that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to islamic terrorists. And the third time, I am not a fan of torture. And I would reject it's use in any conventional war between nations. When it comes to international terrorism, I make an exception as a last resort. If for instance waterboarding a terrorist is what it takes to prevent the mass slaughter of thousands of innocent American citizens....I am okay with it. And I am quite sure that you or any other leftwinger who is claiming moral outrage over the torture of terrorists have a breaking point at which you would make an exception. What if the lives of your own loved ones depended on getting information from a terrorist in time to save them? It's easy to rant and rave that you would not accept torture under any circumstances, however I think most Americans if asked to choose between mass murder of Americans and waterboarding a murderous jihadist, would except the waterboarding. And in the aftermath of 9/11/01, many such attacks were stopped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom