US war on terrorists and terrorism

[HenryBHough]

End the "war" now.

Shut down TSA.

Open the borders.

Strike out at random with nuclear hellfire if anyone strikes anywhere in America.

Might not end terrorism right away but, guaranteed, it WILL end when there's nobody left alive.

But I bet once the radioactivity has worn itself out "Global Warming" will no longer be of concern.

 

[occupied]

......Or, people could try being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. The op represents part of the problem as well as some of the replies.

When complete hacks point the finger at each other instead of pointing it at the real enemy, the enemy wins. The war isn't between these lock step leftists and lock step righties. The war is between western civilization and Islamists.

There is no "war" because you cannot declare "war on terror". Bush jr tried and failed miserably.

It's a war alright, at least it is now, we created a war that creates an endless stream of adversaries, we have no choice but to fight it now. The MIC must be terribly proud of their invention.

 

[PredFan]

President Obama did the right thing by not going. With over 1.7 million in attendance at the rally, tons of police dignitaries, and the general population of Paris, under these conditions, there is no way that the SS could provide the kind of protection that the most powerful man in the world needs when he travels. Yes, other dignitaries were there, none of them are as powerful as our president, and none of them are as threatened as our president.

His not going does not make him any less decisive in his determination to fight terror. His adminstration has brought more terrorists down than any other in history.

End of story.

and in the spirit of the day:

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

 

[PredFan]

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There is no "war" because you cannot declare "war on terror". Bush jr tried and failed miserably.

I did not claim we are at war with "terror"

We are at war with Islamists, as I said.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

End the "war" now.

Shut down TSA.

Open the borders.

Strike out at random with nuclear hellfire if anyone strikes anywhere in America.

Might not end terrorism right away but, guaranteed, it WILL end when there's nobody left alive.

But I bet once the radioactivity has worn itself out "Global Warming" will no longer be of concern.

Funny sig.

Take part of a statement out of context, lie about it and RWs will line up to agree with you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

President Obama did the right thing by not going. With over 1.7 million in attendance at the rally, tons of police dignitaries, and the general population of Paris, under these conditions, there is no way that the SS could provide the kind of protection that the most powerful man in the world needs when he travels. Yes, other dignitaries were there, none of them are as powerful as our president, and none of them are as threatened as our president.

His not going does not make him any less decisive in his determination to fight terror. His adminstration has brought more terrorists down than any other in history.

End of story.

and in the spirit of the day:

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

Wishful thinking on your part.

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

Not true but since Bush didn't bother killing terrorists, its moot.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no "war" because you cannot declare "war on terror". Bush jr tried and failed miserably.

I did not claim we are at war with "terror"

We are at war with Islamists, as I said.

You can't go to war against individuals or an ideology.

Terrorists are just international criminals and it is the job of the police (ever heard of Interpol) to deal with them.

 

[PredFan]

President Obama did the right thing by not going. With over 1.7 million in attendance at the rally, tons of police dignitaries, and the general population of Paris, under these conditions, there is no way that the SS could provide the kind of protection that the most powerful man in the world needs when he travels. Yes, other dignitaries were there, none of them are as powerful as our president, and none of them are as threatened as our president.

His not going does not make him any less decisive in his determination to fight terror. His adminstration has brought more terrorists down than any other in history.

End of story.

and in the spirit of the day:

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

Wishful thinking on your part.

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

Not true but since Bush didn't bother killing terrorists, its moot.

Really Luddley? Just how fucking stupid are you? I mean, I know you are a progressive so you are quite stupid, but how far does your ignorance go? What do YOU think Bush went into Afghanistan for?

Idiot.

 

[occupied]

President Obama did the right thing by not going. With over 1.7 million in attendance at the rally, tons of police dignitaries, and the general population of Paris, under these conditions, there is no way that the SS could provide the kind of protection that the most powerful man in the world needs when he travels. Yes, other dignitaries were there, none of them are as powerful as our president, and none of them are as threatened as our president.

His not going does not make him any less decisive in his determination to fight terror. His adminstration has brought more terrorists down than any other in history.

End of story.

and in the spirit of the day:

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

Wishful thinking on your part.

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

Not true but since Bush didn't bother killing terrorists, its moot.

Really Luddley? Just how fucking stupid are you? I mean, I know you are a progressive so you are quite stupid, but how far does your ignorance go? What do YOU think Bush went into Afghanistan for?

Idiot.

His actions were not those of a man looking to just get Al Qaeda, he wanted to own the place the Russians couldn't hold on to. Far too grandiose a response to the reality of the situation. The proof is what happened when we finally had them cornered at Tora Bora.

 

[PredFan]

President Obama did the right thing by not going. With over 1.7 million in attendance at the rally, tons of police dignitaries, and the general population of Paris, under these conditions, there is no way that the SS could provide the kind of protection that the most powerful man in the world needs when he travels. Yes, other dignitaries were there, none of them are as powerful as our president, and none of them are as threatened as our president.

His not going does not make him any less decisive in his determination to fight terror. His adminstration has brought more terrorists down than any other in history.

End of story.

and in the spirit of the day:

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

Wishful thinking on your part.

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

Not true but since Bush didn't bother killing terrorists, its moot.

Really Luddley? Just how fucking stupid are you? I mean, I know you are a progressive so you are quite stupid, but how far does your ignorance go? What do YOU think Bush went into Afghanistan for?

Idiot.

His actions were not those of a man looking to just get Al Qaeda, he wanted to own the place the Russians couldn't hold on to. Far too grandiose a response to the reality of the situation. The proof is what happened when we finally had them cornered at Tora Bora.

Irrelevant. The point is that the left said that killing terrorists only created more terrorists. I guess it doesn't if Obama kills terrorists right?

 

[occupied]

President Obama did the right thing by not going. With over 1.7 million in attendance at the rally, tons of police dignitaries, and the general population of Paris, under these conditions, there is no way that the SS could provide the kind of protection that the most powerful man in the world needs when he travels. Yes, other dignitaries were there, none of them are as powerful as our president, and none of them are as threatened as our president.

His not going does not make him any less decisive in his determination to fight terror. His adminstration has brought more terrorists down than any other in history.

End of story.

and in the spirit of the day:

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

Wishful thinking on your part.

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

Not true but since Bush didn't bother killing terrorists, its moot.

Really Luddley? Just how fucking stupid are you? I mean, I know you are a progressive so you are quite stupid, but how far does your ignorance go? What do YOU think Bush went into Afghanistan for?

Idiot.

His actions were not those of a man looking to just get Al Qaeda, he wanted to own the place the Russians couldn't hold on to. Far too grandiose a response to the reality of the situation. The proof is what happened when we finally had them cornered at Tora Bora.

Irrelevant. The point is that the left said that killing terrorists only created more terrorists. I guess it doesn't if Obama kills terrorists right?

Oh no, the rule still proves true but we are now stuck with it, no American president will ever be able to dial back the war on terror, no one wants to be attacked for being soft on them now do they?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

President Obama did the right thing by not going. With over 1.7 million in attendance at the rally, tons of police dignitaries, and the general population of Paris, under these conditions, there is no way that the SS could provide the kind of protection that the most powerful man in the world needs when he travels. Yes, other dignitaries were there, none of them are as powerful as our president, and none of them are as threatened as our president.

His not going does not make him any less decisive in his determination to fight terror. His adminstration has brought more terrorists down than any other in history.

End of story.

and in the spirit of the day:

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

Wishful thinking on your part.

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

Not true but since Bush didn't bother killing terrorists, its moot.

Really Luddley? Just how fucking stupid are you? I mean, I know you are a progressive so you are quite stupid, but how far does your ignorance go? What do YOU think Bush went into Afghanistan for?

Idiot.

His actions were not those of a man looking to just get Al Qaeda, he wanted to own the place the Russians couldn't hold on to. Far too grandiose a response to the reality of the situation. The proof is what happened when we finally had them cornered at Tora Bora.

Irrelevant. The point is that the left said that killing terrorists only created more terrorists. I guess it doesn't if Obama kills terrorists right?

Killing terrorists does in fact create more terrorists.

But as already correctly noted, no US politician would dare advocate for a different policy in the event another 9/11 should occur.

The 'war on terror' is indeed a failed policy, a failed policy we'll stick with where those in Washington are more afraid of frightened, angry voters than terrorists.

 

[PredFan]

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

Wishful thinking on your part.

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

Not true but since Bush didn't bother killing terrorists, its moot.

Really Luddley? Just how fucking stupid are you? I mean, I know you are a progressive so you are quite stupid, but how far does your ignorance go? What do YOU think Bush went into Afghanistan for?

Idiot.

His actions were not those of a man looking to just get Al Qaeda, he wanted to own the place the Russians couldn't hold on to. Far too grandiose a response to the reality of the situation. The proof is what happened when we finally had them cornered at Tora Bora.

Irrelevant. The point is that the left said that killing terrorists only created more terrorists. I guess it doesn't if Obama kills terrorists right?

Killing terrorists does in fact create more terrorists.

But as already correctly noted, no US politician would dare advocate for a different policy in the event another 9/11 should occur.

The 'war on terror' is indeed a failed policy, a failed policy we'll stick with where those in Washington are more afraid of frightened, angry voters than terrorists.

I agree, tell that to Luddley.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You are correct, he would be in danger. That's because the whole world hates that asshat.

Wishful thinking on your part.

When Bush was president the left said killing terrorists only created more terrorists.

With Obama as POTUS, the left says killing terrorists is a wonderful thing.

Not true but since Bush didn't bother killing terrorists, its moot.

Really Luddley? Just how fucking stupid are you? I mean, I know you are a progressive so you are quite stupid, but how far does your ignorance go? What do YOU think Bush went into Afghanistan for?

Idiot.

His actions were not those of a man looking to just get Al Qaeda, he wanted to own the place the Russians couldn't hold on to. Far too grandiose a response to the reality of the situation. The proof is what happened when we finally had them cornered at Tora Bora.

Irrelevant. The point is that the left said that killing terrorists only created more terrorists. I guess it doesn't if Obama kills terrorists right?

Killing terrorists does in fact create more terrorists.

But as already correctly noted, no US politician would dare advocate for a different policy in the event another 9/11 should occur.

The 'war on terror' is indeed a failed policy, a failed policy we'll stick with where those in Washington are more afraid of frightened, angry voters than terrorists.

Both you and occupied are exactly right.

This is why we're stuck with the Patriot Act.

No president wants to be the one who has another huge attack and have to answer his critics on having ended that disaster.

 

[Menerva Lindsen]

Elsewhere, some posters are whining because President Obama is not planning to go to France because those whose job it is to protect him say he would be at an unacceptable risk. Some here say President Obama has not and is not fighting terrorists and terrorism. So, for their reading pleasure -

The Terrorist Notches on Obama’s Belt
The list of senior terrorists killed during the Obama presidency is fairly extensive.


There’s Osama bin Laden, of course, killed in May.


Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki as of today.


Earlier this month officials confirmed that al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan.


In August, ‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed.


In June, one of the group’s most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in Pakistan. In Yemen that same month, AQAP senior operatives Ammar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed. In Somalia, Al-Qa’ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed.


Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest of Younis al-Mauritani in Quetta.


Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud was killed in Pakistan.


In September of that month, Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top was killed in Indonesia, and AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan was killed in Somalia.


Then in December 2009 in Pakistan, al Qaeda operational commanders Saleh al-Somali and ‘Abdallah Sa’id were killed.


In February 2010, in Pakistan, Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar was captured; Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani was killed; and Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar was killed.


In March 2010, al Qaeda operative Hussein al-Yemeni was killed in Pakistan, while senior Jemayah Islamiya operative Dulmatin - accused of being the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali bombings – was killed during a raid in Indonesia.


In April 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq leaders Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.


In May, al Qaeda’s number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri was killed.


In June 2010 in Pakistan, al Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi was killed.


Remember when Rudy Giuliani warned that electing Barack Obama would mean that the U.S. played defense, not offense, against the terrorists?


If this is defense, what does offense look like?

Note that the above is dated 9/30/2011.

Even though Bush's War dead tops one million, on the 2013 anniversary of the 9/11 attack, Bush again said

"To be honest with you Oprah, Bin Laden wasn't really on my radar,"
While the right whines about Benghazi, they ignore what happened under Bush.

A List of Deadly Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Targets Under President George W. Bush, 2001-2009

Here is a chronology of the deadly terrorist attacks on United States embassies, consulates and traveling U.S. personnel during the presidency of George W. Bush. The list below does not include foiled attacks or those that did not result in fatalities (other than those of the attackers). The descriptions for each incident are excerpted from the University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database.

Then there's this -


Bush Interrogated Terrorists to Get Information; Obama Kills Them With Drones

(CNSNews.com) - What's the difference between harsh CIA interrogation techniques and drones that kill civilians, a reporter asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday. The reporter noted that the lethal use of drones has "actually increased under this administration."


Earnest did not explain the difference, except to say that the U.S. works in "close consultation and cooperation with local governments and making sure that it's local forces that are taking the fight on the ground to these extremist elements."


Earnest also said the U.S. military and intelligence community takes "enormous precautions" when targeting terrorists to eliminate or minimize the impact on civilian populations.

According to Human Rights Watch, "Targeted killings have been a hallmark of this administration's counterterrorism strategy. Obama sharply increased the use of armed drones (begun under George W Bush), which have conducted lethal strikes against alleged terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The strikes have killed hundreds of people, including civilians, and some have clearly violated international law."


Facts show that Bush let them go.

Obama kills them.

Really?? the first question is: Who did nominate them as terrorists' leaders? Obama has raised them or made them up. Then he has financed them. Fighting them is his hobby like a golf now.Are you ready to accept every killing somewhere in the world like a combat action against the world terrorism?