Why is 'pro-terrorist' considered a democratic position?

[manifold]

Discuss.

 

[editec]

Why is 'pro-terrorist' considered a democratic position?

Why are rhetorical questions, rhetorical?

 

[spectrumc01]

Discuss.

What??????? I don't believe there is anyone who is pro terrorist, to include the terrorist him/herself. They consider themselves freedom fighters or patriots or soldiers of God.

This is a silly question.

 

[chanel]

There is a perception that liberals are surrender monkeys, moral relativists, pro-Muslim/anti-Christian, and weenies. Just sayin...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The Democrat party has been taken over by revolutionaries, the revolutionaries +terrorism nexus has long been established.

 

[driveby]

It's democrats that want terrorist trials in normal court rooms in New York City rather than military tribunals one be one reason, imo.....

 

[MaggieMae]

I didn't know it was.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is a perception that liberals are surrender monkeys, moral relativists, pro-Muslim/anti-Christian, and weenies. Just sayin...

Gee, I wonder where that "perception" comes from? The loudest and most hysterical. That would be the right wing noise machine.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Democrat party has been taken over by revolutionaries, the revolutionaries +terrorism nexus has long been established.

That's odd. I don't think it's been Democratic factions that have taken up arms, stocked up on ammo, formed little neighborhood militias, etc., in preparation for a takeover of the US government.

 

[chanel]

Well Maggie - as they say '"perception is reality" Maybe we should just look at their voting records on anti-terrorism efforts. Will they tell a different story than the noise machines?

 

[MaggieMae]

It's democrats that want terrorist trials in normal court rooms in New York City rather than military tribunals one be one reason, imo.....

Personally, I would have enjoyed watching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed dragged into a criminal courtroom for all to see, instead of behind closed doors at a military tribunal where the details would be screened before going public.

 

[TheSeeker]

Maybe saying they are "pro-terrorist" is a bit over the top, but perhaps it has something to do with Liberals constantly excusing terrorism as if there is a valid excuse for it.

 

[jgarden]

Why is 'pro-terrorist' considered a democratic position? - If this is refering to Israel, several prominent Israeli leaders were former members of Jewish "pro-terrorist" groups during the 1940's.

examples: Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir

 

[chanel]

And befriending people like Alwahari (sp?) and Iman Rauf.

 

[TheSeeker]

Maybe the question is written incorrectly?

I believe the government mandated terminology would be......

Why is 'pro-man-made disaster' considered a democratic position?

 

[Anachronism]

Those who have suggested that this is a perception issue are largely correct. When one looks at the comments and actions of many Democrats after any particular terrorist attack there seems to be less outrage or emotional of a reaction from the Democrat end of the political spectrum. Regardless of whether this is due to condoning the acts or simply attepting to be more level-headed about what's going on, that produces a negative viewpoint in the minds of those citizens who are reacting in a more emotional fashion to these events.

Additionally, like the moderate Islamic community, we don't hear a whole lot of anti-terrorist rhetoric from the left end of the political spectrum. This is an issue where most average citizens do not take a moderate approach to things. They want to see people come out with a vocal, solidly anti-terrorist message and we do not see that very often from the Democratic Party or its members. Instead we see a lot of moderate, middle of the road commentaries from that group, and it leaves the perception that these people are largely noncommital, if not pro-terrorist.

Lastly, when one looks at the reactions of the different Presidents of the United States to terrorist activities on their watch (embassy bombings, the USS Cole incident, the first WTC attack, and then 9/11) you see VERY different levels of response from the US Government. That definitely leaves a sour taste in the mouths and viewpoint in the minds of most Americans.

Just my thoughts on the topic, for whatever they're worth.

 

[TheSeeker]

I don't think in a civilized society there is ever a case where terrorism is excusable.

So when I hear "progressives" making excuses for it (usually blaming American policies) I tend to think they just might be a tad soft on the whole idea.....maybe that's just me, eh?

Or when you get news of another terror attack, the Liberals (the MSM) always warn us not to jump to conclusions....despite the hypocrisy that they jump to conclusions whenever they think they just might be able to pin it on a right-leaning culprit (ie: Arizona shootings).

Right now the Germans are calling the attack on our Airmen a terror attack, but he Administration is being slow to just come out and say the obvious.

Heck, they don't even want to call them terror attacks anymore!!!

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think in a civilized society there is ever a case where terrorism is excusable.

So when I hear "progressives" making excuses for it (usually blaming American policies) I tend to think they just might be a tad soft on the whole idea.....maybe that's just me, eh?

Or when you get news of another terror attack, the Liberals (the MSM) always warn us not to jump to conclusions....despite the hypocrisy that they jump to conclusions whenever they think they just might be able to pin it on a right-leaning culprit (ie: Arizona shootings).

Right now the Germans are calling the attack on our Airmen a terror attack, but he Administration is being slow to just come out and say the obvious.

Heck, they don't even want to call them terror attacks anymore!!!

Just to fill you in. I don't think you are getting the idea of this thread. You are new here. There was a recent thread (I could go look it up if I cared to, but I don't) that was worded similarly besmirching a Republican viewpoint. Manifold is famous for turning these kinds of questions around on those who ask them.

Democrats (and I am not one of them) are not pro-terrorism, but many of their position can be construed as being supportive of terrorists.

By the way, welcome to the world of USMB. Stick around, you might just find this mad house somewhat entertaining.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Maybe saying they are "pro-terrorist" is a bit over the top, but perhaps it has something to do with Liberals constantly excusing terrorism as if there is a valid excuse for it.

I see that happening only when some yahoo tries to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists. Of course they aren't.

 

[MaggieMae]

Those who have suggested that this is a perception issue are largely correct. When one looks at the comments and actions of many Democrats after any particular terrorist attack there seems to be less outrage or emotional of a reaction from the Democrat end of the political spectrum. Regardless of whether this is due to condoning the acts or simply attepting to be more level-headed about what's going on, that produces a negative viewpoint in the minds of those citizens who are reacting in a more emotional fashion to these events.

Additionally, like the moderate Islamic community, we don't hear a whole lot of anti-terrorist rhetoric from the left end of the political spectrum. This is an issue where most average citizens do not take a moderate approach to things. They want to see people come out with a vocal, solidly anti-terrorist message and we do not see that very often from the Democratic Party or its members. Instead we see a lot of moderate, middle of the road commentaries from that group, and it leaves the perception that these people are largely noncommital, if not pro-terrorist.

Lastly, when one looks at the reactions of the different Presidents of the United States to terrorist activities on their watch (embassy bombings, the USS Cole incident, the first WTC attack, and then 9/11) you see VERY different levels of response from the US Government. That definitely leaves a sour taste in the mouths and viewpoint in the minds of most Americans.

Just my thoughts on the topic, for whatever they're worth.

To your first point, it isn't a matter of "condoning" the act, it's usually defending the mechanism for dealing with it. For example, the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber. The accusations flew that "Obama didn't do enough to prevent those kinds of acts, blah blah blah." He inherited the same policies and procedures of Homeland Security that were already in place, so it's rather stupid to play silly blame games like that.

I've been posting on this board for nearly two years, and I've only seen an occasional post by someone "condoning" terror activity and admonishing the United States. I used to post on the AOL board before that, and rarely saw it there either.

I think you need to stop jumping to conclusions.