Top 9 reasons a Dem president couldn't handle the war against terrorists

[red states rule]

In a similar vein of "Air America" or "Moveon.org" then?

or Keith Liberalman, or Chrisy Matthews?

 

[trobinett]

I don't do ridicule. I am just pointing out that it is an non-objective and obviously biased source. That is all.

We use "non-objective", and "obviously biased sources", all the time, whats your point?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Lets get this straight. Im not going to allow you to go off on a tangent. Its your basic strategy when you are proven wrong.

You stated "Well there are a lot of inputs into Terrorism. If you want more specifics, there is poverty, low levels of education, the religious conflict which has been going on between Sunnis and Shiites, the blind desire for revenge against the Sunnis, since they were in power with Saddam. All of these factors contribute to local social disorder, is another factor in the creation of Terrorism."

I replied that those same conditions (as you stated above) exist elsewhere, but there is not terrorism or terrorists as we see in the middle east.

Its basic logic, if B supposedly causes A to occur, then it needs to be consistent in causing it at all times. When I point out a situation where B does not cause A to occur, that is proof that it is also not the cause where you are claiming it is.

Then you try to go on and make additional issues as the cause. SORRY, it dont work that way. Lets try again.

You claimed poverty, low education and religous conflicts cause terrorism, amongst other things. I am now pointing out to you again, that there are other parts of the world where all three of these exist, but yet there is no resulting terrorism, hence it cannot be the cause. Anything you claim about it is merely speculation, unless you have some way to prove it, which is impossible.

You don't have that same situation elsewhere in the world. Where do you have extremist Muslim factions change power, where the Sunnis committed horrible crimes against Shiites, and now the Shiites are in power they are retaliating for the years of bloodshed. You can't point me to a situation which is exactly identical to Iraq. Religion is surely part of culture, and these religious leaders are unique to the Middle East. .

Your original claim did not include extremists muslim factions changing power, nor the other things you state above.

But you do have the same situation in regards that you have other religions with a change in power, and you have other situations where there is terrorism being bred and NO CHANGE in muslim factions.
OF course nobody can point to another exact situation as Iraq, nor can you point to another situation that is exactly like Zimbawe, Iceland, USA, etc etc. Your standard is too high, impossible to achieve, hence the question would be moot.
All religous leaders are unique to their area. And all regions have religions and religous strife.

Don't be ridiculous. You're suggesting to eliminate crime by killing all of the criminals. There are 1.3 billion Muslims, surely you don't plan on killing them all? If a third of them are extremist, and you decide only to go against extremist Islam, that's more Muslims than the population of the US. Surely you don't plan to kill them all? I would say thanks for the laugh, but I find your ideas of mass killing very disturbing.

The number of extremist muslims is nowhere close to what you claim. Lets see your source of info,

 

[LuvRPgrl]

We use "non-objective", and "obviously biased sources", all the time, whats your point?

His point is he has nothing but lies and propaganda to support his agenda. Same as all the other treasonous cut and run liberals, democrats, "progressives", hahahhahahahahah, bwahhahahahhahahah

BWAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Progressives, give me a break. Just another in a long line of propaganda attempts to change perception by changing labels, but failing to change the substance of what is being described.

Liberalsim became associated with kooky ideas because its TRUE. CHANGING the label does not change the kookiness of your posistions.

 

[Hamiltonian]

You stated "Well there are a lot of inputs into Terrorism. If you want more specifics, there is poverty, low levels of education, the religious conflict which has been going on between Sunnis and Shiites, the blind desire for revenge against the Sunnis, since they were in power with Saddam. All of these factors contribute to local social disorder, is another factor in the creation of Terrorism."

I replied that those same conditions (as you stated above) exist elsewhere, but there is not terrorism or terrorists as we see in the middle east.

Its basic logic, if B supposedly causes A to occur, then it needs to be consistent in causing it at all times. When I point out a situation where B does not cause A to occur, that is proof that it is also not the cause where you are claiming it is.

Ok, run that basic logic through this scenario:

Does flipping a coin cause it to come up heads? Flipping the coin doesn't always result in heads, unless you're name happens to be Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. But if you stop flipping the coin, then it stop coming up heads. Flipping a coin is a causal factor in causing it to come up heads, yet it doesn't always result in the coin coming up heads.

So we could start out with a quarter, and it represents poverty, and having it come up heads is terrorism in a country. Now say we take two dimes which represent the other factors like extremist Islam and cultural repression. Super glue these two dimes to the tails side of the quarter. Now when you flip it, it is much more likely to come up heads. In fact, it will almost always come up heads. Take away all the coins and they don't come up heads because there's nothing to flip. You're right, it is just simple logic.

Then you try to go on and make additional issues as the cause. SORRY, it dont work that way. Lets try again.

You claimed poverty, low education and religous conflicts cause terrorism, amongst other things. I am now pointing out to you again, that there are other parts of the world where all three of these exist, but yet there is no resulting terrorism, hence it cannot be the cause. Anything you claim about it is merely speculation, unless you have some way to prove it, which is impossible.

Where else in the world do you have Sunni's ruling a country ruthlessly, and then the Shiites coming back into power, and all of the aforementioned factors that we have in Iraq? You keep saying that there are other places in the world, but you haven't listed a single one of them. I can list one for you, Kuwait. After the first Gulf War we saw the same thing happen in Kuwait. You haven't listed a single country: "SORRY, it dont work that way."

Your original claim did not include extremists muslim factions changing power, nor the other things you state above.

Follow the linked quote back to my original post, because that was the exact reply I gave you when you asked me to elaborate. The truth is there for everyone to see. Why are you concerned with this anyway if you don't think this is a factor in causing terrorism. You keep going off on a tangent about this, which is a tried and true tactic of trying to distract the argument away from your weak and unsupported main point.

But you do have the same situation in regards that you have other religions with a change in power, and you have other situations where there is terrorism being bred and NO CHANGE in muslim factions.
OF course nobody can point to another exact situation as Iraq, nor can you point to another situation that is exactly like Zimbawe, Iceland, USA, etc etc. Your standard is too high, impossible to achieve, hence the question would be moot.
All religous leaders are unique to their area. And all regions have religions and religous strife.

Stop making excuses. You have no evidence, so your argument is unsound unless you can find support to back up your premises. As a bare minimum you could try to draw support from picking countries which have a number of similar factors to Iraq, and then I could tell you why you don't have terrorism there, but you still have terrorism in Iraq.

The number of extremist muslims is nowhere close to what you claim. Lets see your source of info,

I never claimed that the number of extremist muslims was any level. I put out 1/3 as an arbitrary number. How many do you think you're going to have to kill then?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok, run that basic logic through this scenario:

Does flipping a coin cause it to come up heads? Flipping the coin doesn't always result in heads, unless you're name happens to be Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. But if you stop flipping the coin, then it stop coming up heads. Flipping a coin is a causal factor in causing it to come up heads, yet it doesn't always result in the coin coming up heads.

So we could start out with a quarter, and it represents poverty, and having it come up heads is terrorism in a country. Now say we take two dimes which represent the other factors like extremist Islam and cultural repression. Super glue these two dimes to the tails side of the quarter. Now when you flip it, it is much more likely to come up heads. In fact, it will almost always come up heads. Take away all the coins and they don't come up heads because there's nothing to flip. You're right, it is just simple logic. ?

Equating human behavior to the flip of a quarter is bizarre at best.

Where else in the world do you have Sunni's ruling a country ruthlessly, and then the Shiites coming back into power, and all of the aforementioned factors that we have in Iraq? You keep saying that there are other places in the world, but you haven't listed a single one of them. I can list one for you, Kuwait. After the first Gulf War we saw the same thing happen in Kuwait. You haven't listed a single country: "SORRY, it dont work that way." ?

I didnt list any cuz I stated the unique things in Iraq DONT happen anywhere else. But that proves NOTHING about the root cause of terrorism.

Follow the linked quote back to my original post, because that was the exact reply I gave you when you asked me to elaborate. The truth is there for everyone to see. Why are you concerned with this anyway if you don't think this is a factor in causing terrorism. You keep going off on a tangent about this, which is a tried and true tactic of trying to distract the argument away from your weak and unsupported main point.




Stop making excuses. You have no evidence, so your argument is unsound unless you can find support to back up your premises. As a bare minimum you could try to draw support from picking countries which have a number of similar factors to Iraq, and then I could tell you why you don't have terrorism there, but you still have terrorism in Iraq.




I never claimed that the number of extremist muslims was any level. I put out 1/3 as an arbitrary number. How many do you think you're going to have to kill then?

Pot Kettle Black

You made a claim. I refuted that claim. I gave a solid logical reason behind my refutation. Now, its simple, I will repeat it since you havent responded directly to it.

If the conditions you listed as the cause of terrorism, are also existing elsewhere, than that place should have terrorism also. BUt many dont, in fact, NONE do. The only common factor is their so called religion. But hey, when you have people following a war mongering pedophile as their phrophet, thats what you can expect.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Pot Kettle Black

You made a claim. I refuted that claim. I gave a solid logical reason behind my refutation. Now, its simple, I will repeat it since you havent responded directly to it.

If the conditions you listed as the cause of terrorism, are also existing elsewhere, than that place should have terrorism also. BUt many dont, in fact, NONE do. The only common factor is their so called religion. But hey, when you have people following a war mongering pedophile as their phrophet, thats what you can expect.

You're simply wrong about what I've said again. I've referenced Kuwait multiple times, like in the post you're quoting here. Kuwait has similar circumstances after the Gulf War. When the government of Kuwait returned to power, it started ruthlessly killing former Iraqis. That battle was essentially one sided though. Another example could be the Rwandan Civil War, but that was mainly a genocide. It was fueled by cultural tension between two cultural groups. The Tutsis were also a former high ruling class, that were turned into second class citizens. When they resisted, there was a massive genocide.

So you're saying that all people who follow Muhammad are terrorists? You mean that all Islamic countries should be seeing large amounts of Terrorism, like Indonesia, and Turkey?

 

[red states rule]

You're simply wrong about what I've said again. I've referenced Kuwait multiple times, like in the post you're quoting here. Kuwait has similar circumstances after the Gulf War. When the government of Kuwait returned to power, it started ruthlessly killing former Iraqis. That battle was essentially one sided though. Another example could be the Rwandan Civil War, but that was mainly a genocide. It was fueled by cultural tension between two cultural groups. The Tutsis were also a former high ruling class, that were turned into second class citizens. When they resisted, there was a massive genocide.

So you're saying that all people who follow Muhammad are terrorists? You mean that all Islamic countries should be seeing large amounts of Terrorism, like Indonesia, and Turkey?

Not all Muslims are terrorists

but all terrorists seem to be Muslims

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not all Muslims are terrorists

but all terrorists seem to be Muslims

His lack of understanding, and thinking I said "all muslims are terrorists (he will deny he thought that, he will say, "I only asked the question", but we all know to ask a question, the thought HAS TO come to you), shows a DEEP,

• 
  DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPP

MISUNDERSTANDING of basic logic. Its no wonder he twists and turns things, and clearly comes to wrong conclusions.

Because he can discuss, (but not necessarily understand) complex concepts, he believes it follows that he must have a good understanding of logic, but he fails to show that understanding over and over and over again.

I recently was able to, and did in fact, teach that basic concept of logic to my 9 year old and two 12 year olds.

 

[Hamiltonian]

His lack of understanding, and thinking I said "all muslims are terrorists (he will deny he thought that, he will say, "I only asked the question", but we all know to ask a question, the thought HAS TO come to you), shows a DEEP,

• 
  DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPP

MISUNDERSTANDING of basic logic. Its no wonder he twists and turns things, and clearly comes to wrong conclusions.

Because he can discuss, (but not necessarily understand) complex concepts, he believes it follows that he must have a good understanding of logic, but he fails to show that understanding over and over and over again.

I recently was able to, and did in fact, teach that basic concept of logic to my 9 year old and two 12 year olds.

I'm certainly familiar with the logic, and I didn't think you believed all Muslims were terrorist. That's why I asked the question, to prove a Socratic point. That makes getting on your high horse look so much more ridiculous. You had said

"But hey, when you have people following a war mongering pedophile as their phrophet, thats what you can expect."

Basically all Muslims follow this prophet, I was wondering if you expected Terrorism of them. So I asked, because I wanted to see if your answer would conflict with some of your "basic logic."

You said:

Its basic logic, if B supposedly causes A to occur, then it needs to be consistent in causing it at all times. When I point out a situation where B does not cause A to occur, that is proof that it is also not the cause where you are claiming it is.

Now following your logic, if I put in
B = following Muhammad
A = Terrorism

here's the conclusion: If following Muhammad causes Terrorism to occur, then it needs to be consistent in causing it at all times. Therefore, all Muslims are Terrorists. You've already acknowledged that this is an untrue conclusion, and since you still believe in your premises, the only conclusion left is that your basic knowledge is an invalid argument.

When it comes to logic, you validate the saying "those who can't do teach." Since your 9 and 12 year olds grasped this so easily, perhaps they could have taught you something right back if they had been reading this thread.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm certainly familiar with the logic, and I didn't think you believed all Muslims were terrorist. That's why I asked the question, to prove a Socratic point. That makes getting on your high horse look so much more ridiculous. You had said .

"But hey, when you have people following a war mongering pedophile as their phrophet, thats what you can expect."

Basically all Muslims follow this prophet, I was wondering if you expected Terrorism of them. So I asked, because I wanted to see if your answer would conflict with some of your "basic logic." .

Well, of course, human nature being what it is, you NEVER get a group of people to agree or follow something 100%, I thought you knew that. SO, my statement implies that SOME of them will become terrorists.
Its really beyond me how you could come up with any other considerations.

You said:

Now following your logic, if I put in
B = following Muhammad
A = Terrorism

here's the conclusion: If following Muhammad causes Terrorism to occur, then it needs to be consistent in causing it at all times. Therefore, all Muslims are Terrorists. You've already acknowledged that this is an untrue conclusion, and since you still believe in your premises, the only conclusion left is that your basic knowledge is an invalid argument.

When it comes to logic, you validate the saying "those who can't do teach." Since your 9 and 12 year olds grasped this so easily, perhaps they could have taught you something right back if they had been reading this thread.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Well, of course, human nature being what it is, you NEVER get a group of people to agree or follow something 100%, I thought you knew that. SO, my statement implies that SOME of them will become terrorists.
Its really beyond me how you could come up with any other considerations.

I didn't come up with the other considerations, I simply plugged them into the logic you gave. I'm glad you've seen the error of your ways, especially since you decided to go off on some tangent when you knew you had no evidence and I had just cited two examples.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I didn't come up with the other considerations, I simply plugged them into the logic you gave. I'm glad you've seen the error of your ways, especially since you decided to go off on some tangent when you knew you had no evidence and I had just cited two examples.

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

Besides, my comment was tounge in cheek.

Now, getting back on track, how is it that some peoples have the same circumstances on which you blame terrorism on, dont produce terrorists?

Oh, so sorry, Im not going to allow you to go off on a tangent so you dont have to face that one.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not all Muslims are terrorists

but all terrorists seem to be Muslims

IRA are Muslims!!
ETA are Muslims!!
Shining Path are Muslims!!

Holy cow Batman, never saw that coming....

 

[red states rule]

Ted Koppel Tells Shocking Truth About Iraq and War on Terror (Updated w-videos)
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 11, 2007 - 12:55.
Former “Nightline” anchor Ted Koppel was one of Tim Russert’s guests on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” As amazing as it might seem, he made some truly shocking and compelling statements about the Iraq war and the war on terror that virtually no Democrat or media member is willing to accept or report:

First, Koppel made it clear that America’s premature departure from Iraq would turn the entire Persian Gulf region into a battlefield between Sunnis and Shia, “something the United States cannot allow to happen”
Second, he said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the war on terror that “has been going on for the past 24 years” starting when “the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon” in 1983
Finally, he stated that America’s departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of when it occurs, will not represent the end of this battle, but, instead, that it is just “going to be a different war” after that point.
Here are the shocking excerpts in chronological order (MSN video available here with segment 1 at minute 14:10, segment 2 at minute 19:00, and segment 3 here):

Koppel: I made a little note here of something that Ambassador Khalilzad said to you a moment ago. He said, “The region will not be stable until Iraq is stabilized.” It’s the one thing nobody talks about. Everyone is concerned about the United States being in the middle of a civil war inside Iraq. But they forget about the fact that if U.S. troops were to pull out of Iraq, that civil war could become a regional war between Sunnis and Shia. And the region, just in case anyone has forgotten, is the Persian Gulf, where we get most of our oil, and, I’ve talked about this before, natural gas. So, the idea of pulling out of there and letting the region, letting the national civil war expand into a regional civil war, something the United States cannot allow to happen.

Amazing. For those interested, I wrote an article about this very subject in November. I must say I find it extraordinary that any major media figure is coming out so strongly and making such a declaration, especially on such a popular Sunday talk show.

Yet, the best was still to come, as a little later on in the discussion, Russert asked Koppel a very telling question:

Ted Koppel, you are tonight airing on the Discovery Channel a special called “Our Children’s Children’s War,” the “long war” as you call it repeatedly, that this war on terror is much more than just Iraq, and it’s going to go on for a long time.

Amazing. Did Tim Russert just accidentally admit that the war in Iraq is indeed a part of the war on terror? Shocking. Yet, not close to as shocking as Koppel’s answer:

It could go on, I mean, Gen. Abizaid with whom I spoke talked into terms of generations. And, if you think about two things, that’s not so hard to imagine. Number one, the Cold War after all, lasted 50 years. Uh, we didn’t know it when we began it. We didn’t know it, we didn’t know how long it was going to be when we were in the middle of it. But, it lasted half a century.

If you look back at the elements of the war against terrorism, that war was going on, and has been going on for the past 24 years. We just didn’t connect the dots. 24 years ago, the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. That was 1983, 241 Americans killed. In the interim between then and now you had two attacks on the World Trade Center, you had the blowing up of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, you had the attempt to blow up the U.S.S. Cole, you had the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in East Africa. This war’s already been going on for 24 years; we were just a little bit slow to recognize it.

Amazing. How many members of the Democrat Party or their media minions are willing to make such a claim? While you ponder that question, here was the third extraordinary statement by Koppel:

I see a lot of wishful thinking going on here in Washington right now. I mean when Congress talks about, first of all, setting these these milestones. And, the irony is if the Iraqis successfully meet the milestones, the implication is we stay. If they fail to meet the milestones we leave. That doesn’t make any sense at all. It ought to be the other way around. If they fail, we stay because they need us. If they succeed, we can start to pull out again.

So, I, I have this feeling that on the one hand, the Democrats are making a great deal of hay out of saying we have to get out of Iraq, and indeed we do at some point or another. But the notion that the war will be over when we pull out of Iraq, and even when we pull out of Afghanistan, you heard what Gen. Abizaid had to say, it’s not going to be over. It’s going to be a different war, but the war continues.

Wow. Shocking stuff that you won’t hear from most of the left, and virtually all of the media who are calling for troop withdrawals.

Bravo, Ted. Nicely done.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11343

 

[maineman]

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

Besides, my comment was tounge in cheek.

Now, getting back on track, how is it that some peoples have the same circumstances on which you blame terrorism on, dont produce terrorists?

Oh, so sorry, Im not going to allow you to go off on a tangent so you dont have to face that one.

doesn't it always seem that whenever conservatives get owned with their own words, they immediately claim that they were "tongue in cheek"?

 

[red states rule]

doesn't it always seem that whenever conservatives get owned with their own words, they immediately claim that they were "tongue in cheek"?

Unlike libs like Kerry, he does not make a habit of making "botched jokes" or say the comment was taken out of context

 

[Hamiltonian]

Now, getting back on track, how is it that some peoples have the same circumstances on which you blame terrorism on, dont produce terrorists?

Oh, so sorry, Im not going to allow you to go off on a tangent so you dont have to face that one.

Again, you have failed to cite any sort of evidence supporting any sort of point of yours. I've already responded to that question the last several times you've asked it, like asking you to cite examples of these circumstances.

 

[red states rule]

Meanwhile Dems do whatever they can to undermine the war, the US military, and Pres Bush


While Democrats target Petraeus
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
March 12, 2007


As the ill-named "surge" of U.S. troops to Baghdad goes forward, congressional Democrats -- more heavily than ever invested in failure -- are pressing ahead with their political campaign to ensure that Gen. David Petraeus's plans to take the war to the terrorists are never implemented. The word "surge" gives a false impression of the military campaign taking place in Iraq. It connotes some temporary increase in forces that would enable the terrorists to come right back as soon as Americans leave (something that has happened time and again in the past). Gen. Petraeus is going in the opposite direction. He plans to implement a longer-term counterinsurgency campaign that goes well beyond just killing and arresting terrorists to include moving U.S. troops out of their military bases and into Baghdad neighborhoods to protect Iraqi civilians.
At this point, with most of the reinforcements yet to arrive in Iraq, it is impossible to say with certainty that the new strategy will be successful. But there are a number of encouraging signs, as U.S. soldiers have begun leaving their large bases and move into neighborhoods in Baghdad. According to David Kilcullen, Gen. Petraeus's senior counterinsurgency adviser, sectarian fighting between Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs has declined by between 50 and 80 percent in various sections of Baghdad. Moreover, families are starting to return to the capital. Until approximately a month ago, between 500 and 600 Iraqi families per month fled Baghdad. During the past month, by contrast, between 600 and 1,000 families have returned there. Also, some of the Sunni insurgent groups who oppose the murderous rejectionism of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia have been holding talks with Iraqi and U.S. officials.
At the same time, Gen. Petraeus observed, terrorists have continued carrying out deadly attacks against health clinics and schools; car bombs have targeted college students in Baghdad; and on Tuesday more than 100 Shi'ite pilgrims were massacred in Hilla, located south of Baghdad. Gen. Petraeus points out that American forces face a long, difficult road to stabilize Iraq and has quite appropriately left open the possibility of sending in more troops if necessary to get the job done.
While Gen. Petraeus works to defeat the terrorists, his efforts are being undermined at every turn by congressional Democrats -- who sound like buffoons when they move away from their talking points. Christina Bellantoni of The Washington Times reported on a press conference held by the House Democrats on Thursday to discuss the specifics of their own Iraq proposal, during which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others incoherently stumbled over details of their plan, forcing reporters to stifle laughter. That's just another illustration of the poor quality of wartime leadership the nation currently has on Capitol Hill.


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070311-091128-9808r.htm

 

[T-Bor]

Agreed...The article says why a Dem president wouldnt have worked..Well a republican president did not work either. What the hell is this guys point ?

so because you belive Bush has done an exceptional job so far that means the dems will.............