• 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!

Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
if you took them out first, you may not have to worry about the foreigners....
Click to expand...

Perhaps if the foreigners minded their own business, nothing would have occured to cause me to want blood ...
 
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and attacks on the Taliban, since they were directly linked to Al Qaeda. It was when the U.S. invaded Iraq and made Afghanistan the back seat that the "war on terror" lost all my support. If the target is and always has been Al Qaeda, then it should remain that way, instead of triggering more insurgency by invading unrelated countries and making their populations hate the West for generations.

The U.S. is more of a target now than it ever has been. I agree that the war must continue, because the flood gates are now opened. If the war stops, the U.S. will lose face, and terrorist networks will declare victory. Then the U.S. will see attacks on its soil on an even grander scale.

But the economy dictates that the war must end sometime. So, in the end, I believe Bush's biggest fallacy was to declare a never-ending war on terrorism as a whole. If he limited it to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, maybe we'd be seeing real results right now. All we get now are mixed messages, and a report here and there about leaders being killed. So what? Al Qaeda is a non-centralized terror network... they probably have hundreds of leaders, all operating different cells independently, with successors waiting.
 
Laila said:
Well done but 'winning the war' is impossible
How does a country plan to defeat a ideology?
Click to expand...
Not impossible.

We do it in a similar as we handled the Nazi's but in a 21st century manner. Keep thumping them every time they turn around.

It's either them or us.

I hope the Israeli's keep pounding the Palestinians. I hope they keep at this for months. Hamas sends in one rocket, Israel stuffs 30 into the place it came from. If there is a school, mosque or hospital in the vicinity... tough darts.

You asked for it, you'll get it... in spades. That has to be the message. Zero tolerance.
 
zimmer said:
Not impossible.

We do it in a similar as we handled the Nazi's but in a 21st century manner. Keep thumping them every time they turn around.

It's either them or us.

I hope the Israeli's keep pounding the Palestinians. I hope they keep at this for months. Hamas sends in one rocket, Israel stuffs 30 into the place it came from. If there is a school, mosque or hospital in the vicinity... tough darts.

You asked for it, you'll get it... in spades. That has to be the message. Zero tolerance.
Click to expand...




Hear! hear! you want jihad, you got it.
 
Laila said:
Iraq absolutely.
Afghanistan is more of a grey area.
Click to expand...

The United States did have to attack the Taliban, in retaliation to what happened on Sept. 11th. I do agree that sometimes force is needed, and, at that time, Bush made the right decision in regards to Afghanistan. He had the whole world behind him, too, including most Middle Eastern countries.

After that, we all know what happened next. If Bush would have solely focussed on Afghanistan, this world would be a different place. Unfortunately, Afghanistan looks like a lost cause at present, as there is not near enough troops there to stabilize the country.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I would? actually I'd probably drag the terrorists who are launching rockets from my shed out into the street and hang them as a warning to all of them that this is what happens when you bring your little jihad to my schools, towns, churches, backyards........
Click to expand...

And you would probably die in the process. Your situation and your ability to act in the way you say you would is based completely on the fact that you live in America, in relative peace, and with the protection of the government...not in some depressed area of Pakistan, Iraq, or Lebanon ran by heavily armed, ideologically twisted militants who would just as soon cut your child's head off in front of you as look at you. Your psychological disposition and bravery are products of your life in the U.S. Had you been raised in those other countries under similar conditions it's arguable that your disposition might be a bit different.
 
Lerxst said:
And you would probably die in the process. Your situation and your ability to act in the way you say you would is based completely on the fact that you live in America, in relative peace, and with the protection of the government...not in some depressed area of Pakistan, Iraq, or Lebanon ran by heavily armed, ideologically twisted militants who would just as soon cut your child's head off in front of you as look at you. Your psychological disposition and bravery are products of your life in the U.S. Had you been raised in those other countries under similar conditions it's arguable that your disposition might be a bit different.
Click to expand...





:lol: no ****. it's called hyperbole..... if all my neighbors tolerated, some liked the terrorists and most feared them, stringing em up might just get me killed. And yes, these savages have no qualms about killing thier own. Which is another reason why dealing with it now is better than letting it fester and letting these people who have to live amongst this suffer in my opinion.
 
I believe we must continue to carry the fight directly to the extremists. We must take direct action to combat them otherwise we abandon our citizens and our other interests to the extremists and allow them to operate against us at their leisure. We cannot allow that.

However, it is our very recent use of big stick/cowboy militaristic tactics in the Middle East (as well as our past addiction to influencing the governments of other nations to our way of thinking regardless of the costs to the people of those nations) that have hindered our ability to actually gain significant ground on the core issues behind the formation and growth of extremist terror cells.

Now I realize I'm going to garner the cat calls of the "you liberals just want to blame America" and that's fine. It's typical ignorant group think like that which keeps partisan politics alive and well here at DP and abroad. But the fact is that America does have a long standing historical stake in the way things have unfolded in the Middle East (as well as many other regions of the world). We are not solely to blame of course, much of Europe as well as the Middle Eastern governments themselves share equally in the credit for what has become of the Middle East. All were forces in shaping the region and fertilizing the ground for growth of extremist elements. The invasion of Iraq was just the culmination of decades of ignorance or simple disregard for the geopolitical dynamics of the region. It was going to be our way or the highway. We were right, they were wrong. However we weren't really right and our actions gave birth to a whole new generation of extremists.

We aren't just fighting an idealism, we are fighting the ghosts of past failures as well. The idealism is a very real dynamic of this "War on Terror" in that it is a primary fuel for what drives our enemy and we, as Americans...as Westerners...cannot defeat it. WE CANNOT DEFEAT IT. It's not tangible, we cannot bomb it away. It has to die out though moderate evolution of the geopolitical situation in the region. Take a look at the mentality of Al Qaeda for prima facia evidence of what I say. They took years to plot, plan, train, and finally execute their attacks. We not only have long standing, deep rooted terror cells acting out...we have a whole new class of recruits that are just as motivated to kill and destroy. They can look back out our history, the history they know (not what we are contented to tell ourselves about ourselves) and find plenty of reason to lash out. We trained and supported men who exploited their own people for the benefit of themselves and their paymasters...the U.S. and Europe. Combine this history with the very real and very distinct religious differences of the region and you have some extremely volatile ingredients...that we ignored. That we continue to gloss over and not talk about because it "undermines the war effort" and it's "liberal apologistics."

We are right in taking the fight to our enemy, they are trying to kill us. But we cannot continue to walk around with this cowboy swagger and simply say "**** 'em, bring it on!" We have to act with discretion, we have to act with caution, and we have to make sure we get it right. We cannot afford to continue making monumental blunder in foreign policy at the tip of a bayonet.

Being a patriot is loving one's country and doing what is best for it. Self-examination and coming to terms with our past transgressions is the only way we can ever hope to not repeat those mistakes in the future. That is not being "un patriotic" yet it's very frequently inferred. The invasion of Iraq was not all that long ago when you compare that time line to the backdrop of our historical involvement in Middle Eastern affairs. At some point we as a nation have got to stand up to the hawks among us who decry "patriotism" and shout down those that don't agree with them calling them "traitor, terrorist sympathizers, and apologists." It's not a conservative/liberal or Republican/Democrat thing. It's an American thing and we've got to get a hold of it or we can look forward to decades more of the same old same old.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Is there any other kind?
Click to expand...

Obviously not.
I wonder what the hell he thinks a martyr is?
If he'd grown up Catholic, he'd damn sure know.
 
1069 said:
Obviously not.
I wonder what the hell he thinks a martyr is?
If he'd grown up Catholic, he'd damn sure know.
Click to expand...

Peanut Martyr and Jelly time....
banana.gif
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: no ****. it's called hyperbole..... if all my neighbors tolerated, some liked the terrorists and most feared them, stringing em up might just get me killed. And yes, these savages have no qualms about killing thier own.
Click to expand...

I understand it's hyperbole, it's just that kind of bravado that aggravates the debate here because it completely dismisses the actual situation of those who are living the nightmare everyday. It's just an example of the counter point to those who are coming in here and suggesting that we need to do more than just press "fire," we need to critically examine not just our enemy, but the places from which they came, their strain of religious belief, their social structure, their whole environment...as well as our own...before we can truly figure out how to "win."

Which is another reason why dealing with it now is better than letting it fester and letting these people who have to live amongst this suffer in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes, but dealing with it now doesn't in any way encompass how to neutralize the threat posed. I know you realize that we have to approach this thing from multiple angles, I just don't understand why you don't express this more.

We can still be right, and we can still be the good guys...and we can still manage to accept and own up to our own failings in the situation.
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
The United States did have to attack the Taliban, in retaliation to what happened on Sept. 11th. I do agree that sometimes force is needed, and, at that time, Bush made the right decision in regards to Afghanistan. He had the whole world behind him, too, including most Middle Eastern countries.

After that, we all know what happened next. If Bush would have solely focussed on Afghanistan, this world would be a different place. Unfortunately, Afghanistan looks like a lost cause at present, as there is not near enough troops there to stabilize the country.
Click to expand...

In retaliation, exactly.
It wasn't to make the world safer. It was for revenge.
US has never had such a attack to such a large scale and when it did occur it shocked many people and straight afterward they felt anger and wanted revenge. That is what i noticed.
US did not want to bring democracy to Muslim countries, i saw and i still see Iraq and Afghanistan to a extent as a way for the US Government to get revenge for what happened to them. I did not see justification for it.
Straight after 9/11, i could see within my own community and mosque a slow radicalization of the boys and my youngers brothers towards the US.
The West demonstrated when it attacked 2 countries, [Afghanistan can be argued ofc] that it is just as bad as the terrorists it wanted to remove.

United States/UK/Coalition of the willing did a great disservice to democracy imo in the Middle East.

He HAD the world on his side.
Bush had a wonderful way of removing the sympathy of 9/11.
Even Muslims understood the need to bring the people behind it to justice and to a level, i can agree with Afghanistan and Taliban but to then go straight to another country was then moved above justice for 9/11 and onto a attack on ME/Muslim countries and was seen to a lesser extent an attack on Islam itself.
Bush had set the tone of the wars the second he used the word "crusade".
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
It's either them or us.

I hope the Israeli's keep pounding the Palestinians. I hope they keep at this for months. Hamas sends in one rocket, Israel stuffs 30 into the place it came from. If there is a school, mosque or hospital in the vicinity... tough darts.

You asked for it, you'll get it... in spades. That has to be the message. Zero tolerance.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that ridiculous mentality,
If being on your side means i have to support military action which will result in civilian deaths and increase the problem rather than resolve it then i will not be on either side.
I do not support terrorism but i refuse to support those actions.

I hope EU/UK cuts off all trade to Israel and shuns it from the international community but we can't all get what we want.
 
Laila said:
In retaliation, exactly.
It wasn't to make the world safer. It was for revenge.
US has never had such a attack to such a large scale and when it did occur it shocked many people and straight afterward they felt anger and wanted revenge. That is what i noticed.
US did not want to bring democracy to Muslim countries, i saw and i still see Iraq and Afghanistan to a extent as a way for the US Government to get revenge for what happened to them. I did not see justification for it.
Straight after 9/11, i could see within my own community and mosque a slow radicalization of the boys and my youngers brothers towards the US.
The West demonstrated when it attacked 2 countries, [Afghanistan can be argued ofc] that it is just as bad as the terrorists it wanted to remove.

United States/UK/Coalition of the willing did a great disservice to democracy imo in the Middle East.

He HAD the world on his side.
Bush had a wonderful way of removing the sympathy of 9/11.
Even Muslims understood the need to bring the people behind it to justice and to a level, i can agree with Afghanistan and Taliban but to then go straight to another country was then moved above justice for 9/11 and a attack on ME/Muslim countries and to a lesser extent a attack on Islam itself.
Bush had set the tone of the wars the second he used the word "crusade".
Click to expand...

I have to disagree to a large extent with the "revenge" theory. I know it's popular among the crowd critical of Bush (count me among them), but I think it's off base. I believe the wider agenda among the Neo-Cons was to take advantage of the opportunity to actually invade Iraq, unseat Saddam, and seat a government friendly to a U.S. influence in the region. It fit their strategy for rebuilding America's defenses perfectly. They just didn't really plan it out at all. It was a rush to war to seize and opportunity and Bush & Co. thought that it would be a cakewalk. They simply disregarded the geopolitical environment of Iraq, and to a large extent the entire Middle Eastern region, and went for it.

While Bush probably wanted revenge, the invasion was more motivated by a group strategy, and I don't think revenge was on their minds. I think "sphere of influence in an oil rich region" was.
 
1069 said:
Obviously not.
I wonder what the hell he thinks a martyr is?
If he'd grown up Catholic, he'd damn sure know.
Click to expand...

I thank god I`m not catholic. As to "what is a martyr"? Jesus Christ,we are talking about two dead Al-Queda leaders...A whole different breed of GOOD MARTYRS. Nice shooting CIA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom