Clinton did not do enough.....

[Charade]

For starters, by not invading other countries when we don't have to. It's now become clear that the war in Iraq has increased rather than decreased the terrorists threat. Let's not mkae that mistake with the next country.

Second, by not maintaining a network of prisions where innocent people are held and tortured without any recourse.

Terrorism isn't something new. It didn't start with 9-11.

 

[denisenh]

Regime change (method NOT specified) in Iraq was US policy created by the Clinton administration.

I can say with a good amount of certainty that the difference between Clintons mode of operation and Bushs are not something that they have in common.

 

[denisenh]

Terrorism isn't something new. It didn't start with 9-11.

No kidding, and it won't end with the Bush/Iraq war....not even close.

 

[dcentity2000]

Terrorism isn't something new. It didn't start with 9-11.

True.

Anyone know what the earliest example of terrorism is (hint: I don't know) - the oldest I know of is Guy Fawkes.



Rich::

 

[salmoneous]

Terrorism isn't something new. It didn't start with 9-11.

I didn't say it did - you completely ignored what I said and disagreed with something I didn't say. Odd.

Let's try again. You asked how we can reduce the terrorist threat. I gave two suggestions - not invading other countries if we don't have to and not holding and torturing innocent people in prisons with no recourse.

You got a problem with either of those ideas?

 

[wvrevy]

Keith Olbermann took an in-depth look at Clinton's comments when he was ambushed on Faux News. It's on YouTube. Just search for Keith Olbermann and you should find it pretty easily.

Don't listen to the spin and outright LIES coming from the right. Get the facts...THEY certainly don't want you to.

 

[ChrisFL]

Nobody said we should ignore terrorism. Just that our goal in dealing with terrorism should be to reduce the terrorist threat, not just to kill a bunch of terrorists.

How??

Well thats the billion dollar question, isnt it?

Certainly taking out the terrorist group leadership would be a good start and one that Bush & Co. still won't fully take.

Invading a soverign muslim country which had nothing to do with said terrorist group doesn't help much toward that either.

Taking away the reasons for the radical groups to hate us should be top priority...and that should start with minimizing why we're involved in the middle east to begin with...OIL

 

[LuvDuke]

I didn't say it did - you completely ignored what I said and disagreed with something I didn't say. Odd.

Let's try again. You asked how we can reduce the terrorist threat. I gave two suggestions - not invading other countries if we don't have to and not holding and torturing innocent people in prisons with no recourse.

You got a problem with either of those ideas?

You see Charade is quoting Bush, who tried to BS the NIE summary that Iraq is creating more terrorism and terrorists, by saying just about what Charade said: There were terrorists before he invaded Iraq.

Some people saw the BS strawman for what it was and others swallowed it whole.

 

[wvrevy]

Chris, the right doesn't WANT answers to that question. Anything you say, they simply label "appeasement" and call you "un-American." Any attempt to actually look at the root causes of terrorism that either 1) objectively analizes US policy in the region or 2) doesn't immediately point the finger elsewhere, preferably at that nasty false religion of theirs - is doomed to bring about nothing but attacks from the right.

They aren't interested in what causes it or how we came to this point. They only want to know how they can use it to further their own goals.

 

[crcormier]

Chris, the right doesn't WANT answers to that question. Anything you say, they simply label "appeasement" and call you "un-American." Any attempt to actually look at the root causes of terrorism that either 1) objectively analizes US policy in the region or 2) doesn't immediately point the finger elsewhere, preferably at that nasty false religion of theirs - is doomed to bring about nothing but attacks from the right.

They aren't interested in what causes it or how we came to this point. They only want to know how they can use it to further their own goals.

Very well put.

 

[ChrisFL]

Chris, the right doesn't WANT answers to that question. Anything you say, they simply label "appeasement" and call you "un-American." Any attempt to actually look at the root causes of terrorism that either 1) objectively analizes US policy in the region or 2) doesn't immediately point the finger elsewhere, preferably at that nasty false religion of theirs - is doomed to bring about nothing but attacks from the right.

They aren't interested in what causes it or how we came to this point. They only want to know how they can use it to further their own goals.

Sigh, yes I know...if it doesn't deal with guns or bombs the right wingers can't understand it.

 

[Charade]

I didn't say it did - you completely ignored what I said and disagreed with something I didn't say. Odd.

Let's try again. You asked how we can reduce the terrorist threat. I gave two suggestions - not invading other countries if we don't have to and not holding and torturing innocent people in prisons with no recourse.

You got a problem with either of those ideas?

But your statement presumes that if we didn't go into Iraq (do you mean Afghanistan too?) and subsequently created the "black" prisons and "torture" (I purposely used quotes because I believe that some of the methods used are, IMO, not what I would consider torture) we would be able to get a better handle on the terrorism fight and reduce it.

I disagree. Simple as that.

You have to face the fact that their agenda is a very simple one. Kill or force infidels to convert. Honestly, how do you negotiate or reason with or reduce that threat? I want them to stop. I'm sure you do to. I don't think we've done anything (recently) to make them want to kill us anymore than they already did.

Sure, some of the things we've done have angered them and made them even more determined but they weren't about to just stop on their own because of something we would be willing to do. If they don't want to stop on their own, the only solution IMO, is to kill them before they kill us. It's up to Islamic moderates to reign in their extremists.

 

[salmoneous]

But your statement presumes that if we didn't go into Iraq (do you mean Afghanistan too?) and subsequently created the "black" prisons and "torture" (I purposely used quotes because I believe that some of the methods used are, IMO, not what I would consider torture) we would be able to get a better handle on the terrorism fight and reduce it.

Well, that's basically the conclusion of our intelligence agencies.

You have to face the fact that their agenda is a very simple one. Kill or force infidels to convert.

Whose agenda? There are two very different groups - the small group who have already dedicated themselves to terrorism, and the vastly larger group who haven't.

Honestly, how do you negotiate or reason with or reduce that threat? I want them to stop.

You are right - it's tough to deal with those who have already decided to become terrorists. But you can do things to stop people from becoming terrorists in the first place.

Or, more to the point, there are things you can do that will encourage people to become terrorists. The view of our intelligence agencies is that the Iraq was is one of those things. One of the big things we can do to reduced the threat of terrorist is to stop doing things - invading countries when not necessary - torturing innocent people in prisons with no recourse - that turn non-terrorists into terrorists.