Are You A Terrorist Sympathizer?

Cap'n Slappy · Are You A Terrorist Sympathizer?

Have you noticed that for the last few years any time you disagree with the Republicans you are a "terrorists sympathizer". Former speaker Dennis Hassert said that the terrorist's wanted John Kerry to be president. Now, House minority leader John Boehner is using the same rhetoric to try and suppress a no confidence vote on President Bush's Iraq policy. Click on this link and join millions of Americans that says its time for this kind of politics to stop. http://www.democrats.org/noescalation

SkygreenLeopard

Depressing, yet not exactly "news." It's a tactic that's been used for decades. In the past, it was "Commie," now it's "terrorist sympathizer."

Our "friend," in a discussion that involved foreign policy, said that he is "not going to be one of those loose lipped Americans that Osama bin Laden is counting on."

Bill O'Reilly said right before the war began that Americans who opposed the war in Iraq would be considered "enemies of the state and need to shut up."(I have that on video)

flyupsidedown

there is some truth in them hills. If you oppose a sitting president in time of war in such a way as to weaken his fighting power and demoralize the fighting force , and encourage the recruiters of terrorist that, yes, Bin Laden was right, it will take tothe Americans have no stomach for blood and the fight it will take to win. I think it is fairly justified. Also there is a quote from a book that is worth checking up on - " at a fund-raiser he (Kerry) bragged of being privately endorsed by foreign leaders, but then declined requests by Bush to name those leaders. . . Kerry was finally forced to to renounce all foreign endorsements, although he had publicly received three from unsavory supporters - the communist dictator of North Korea, the socialist prime min.-elect of Spain, and the anti-semitic ex-dictator of Malaysia." Bill Sammon - STRATERGY It is a legitimate point of view. A soldier commented from Iraq , how can someone say they "support our troops" and oppose the mission we are committed to? Support us, support our mission to win.

he who must not be named

Hooah.

Sun, you forgot "Hippie".

Cap'n Slappy

So you should never oppose a sitting President in time of war? I think you generalize too much. This man has had a free hand for the last 6 years to do as he pleases. That's why we are in the situation that we're in now. It's every American's right to dissent and when a President is acting irresponsibly, as this President is, it's our duty to dissent.

flyupsidedown

Poppycock and, Yes I agree. It is our right to dissent. Greatly in fact. "Ours" as in citizens. Our Congressional leaders should use more wisdom when and how. There should be REAL statesmanship and leadership. You have members who don't even call the President by his title. They always refer to him as george bush. This is the highest office in the world, right now. They act like spoiled, undiscipline children. Where is the respect we should show the rest of the world, as an example of democracy during turmoil. I have to give credit to Speaker Pelosi. She has grown in a short time. She has learned, somewhat, the responsibilities of being the majority party. There needs to be Leadership and that's not spelled Ranting and Raving wild withdrawal plans.

THE CURE

I very rarely agree with Pirate's politics but I don't think we should blindly follow any president. I hope my congressman will always have the courage to question something he doesn't think is right and if that happens to be the judgement of the president so be it.

he who must not be named

Hence the checks and balances.

flyupsidedown

Hence the divisive national debate. Hence the diminishment of what political capital we had left in the world, hence the encouragement extended to those terrorists wanting to see President Bush weakened, hence the demoralizing and ambiguity effect among our troops in harms way, hence the schizophrenic foreign policy coming from any number of back seat foreign policy pundits in congress. If they want to show leadership they should agree on one (1) well thought out course of action which preserves what many have already died and been wounded for. Cut and run is not a foreign policy. President Bush even asked for their plan. Other than "we don't like you or what you're doing", I haven't heard one articulately presented for the American public. We need strength, unity and a "way forward".

he who must not be named

Well said. I would love to see my many colleagues, friends and work mates come back from the war. Their families are tires as I'm sure they are tired as well. But they continue to do their job.

Cap'n Slappy

Hillary has a plan to get us out that was posted in another thread. Check it out.

flyupsidedown

Did you reference a link? It didn't show.

pooweasel719

My fiance and I are both vehement opponents to this baseless war we are involved in. My parents spent extensive time in the Air Force working intelligence. My finace is also an active duty member of the United States Marine Corps. Does that make us terrorist sympathizers? I don't believe so. We both love this country, feel blessed to live here with the freedoms we have, and consider ourselves fairly patriotic. However, we also believe this is one of the worst 8 years of leadership we've had in a long while. And, if I were a member of the Senate or Congress, I wouldn't refer to Bush as "President" either--he doesn't deserve the title.

he who must not be named

pooweasel719:

How close would you say Clinton is to worst?

I wouldn't say that you are terrorist sympathizers. And just because you are a military member, doesn't mean that you have to support the war.

Cap'n Slappy

Clinton is worst? Worst what? The only way you should use Clinton and worst in the same breath is to say not having a Clinton in the White House is the worst mistake this country can make.

pooweasel719

I don't think Clinton did a bad job at all, I wouldn't consider him one of the worst presidents by a long shot. If you want bad presidents, look at William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, and of course, the current Bush.

flyupsidedown

hmmmmm . . . careful . . . I heard THAT name . . .slowly. . . count to ten. Too-- much-- to endure. DDDon't ththink II can make it. pressure is building . . . One ... two ... three ...... how could they evoke hhhhim. . . fffour ... fffive ... can't take it any longer . . . head about to burst . . . sss sss sssix . . . . .. arrrrgggghhhhhh!!!

You just had to bring up what his name, Clinton. Aside from being elected on the ursurped platform of the Republicans and being a self-aggrandizing liar who debased, almost beyond repair, the presidential office and who could have responded vigorously to the terrorist threat on his watch -- maybe even preempting 911 -- he was a real plum. A political genius and a survivor I'll give him, but he let down alot of idealistic young people eager to change this world for the better. He was Kennedy remixed, the fair-haired boy, Esau with the birth-right, who sold it for the bowl of porridge between his legs.

let's move on - - or will dems wistfully dream of Clinton ... Clinton ... Clinton for the next 40 yrs the way they do JFK. I'll tell who is worth listening to is Chris Dodd of Conn. The man can talk. He is just as wonky as Clinton was and has sponsored alot of bipartisan dynamic legislation in the past. There are some good people running this go around and they deserve to be listened to.

pooweasel719

Since you're so quick to compare Clinton to Kennedy, let's not forget that Kennedy was also quite a womanizer ("Kennedy's history of extramarital affairs, both before and during the White House years"). You called him a "political genius", well for crying out loud, *that* was his job, not to act as a moral compass for the country, but to lead us through policy. If you want a moral leader, look to your churches or temples, or within yourself. On to the accusation that he "let down alot of idealistic young people eager to change this world for the better." If there's one group of people he didn't let down, it was the 18-25 year old demographic. They more than anyone else, could give a $%^& about what the president does in his personal life. As for possibly pre-empting 9/11, well that's something that should have been taken care of by Bush Sr., lord knows he had enough opportunities. Young people are still optimistic, we are still eager to change the world for the better. Face it, there's nowhere to go but up, this country is dangerously close to rock bottom.

flyupsidedown

Right, okay. What? is womanizing some badge of honor now? Didn't Kennedy give us the Vietnam war? Where 50,000 sons and daughters were lost? For what? Political genius at politics. Not to be confused with Leadership. Doesn't take much leadership to lick your finger and turn with the wind. Yes, morality is part of the job. Without it you have no foundational authority for leadership. People have to respect you and look up to you, not because your a womanizing policy wonk of which Washington has no lack of, but because you're a person of character, not to be confused with charisma. Bush should have taken care of 911? after eight months in office? When Clinton had eight ( Cool

years of intelligence from which to spare America? Surely you jest. As for your generation not caring about the personal character of their leaders - you will get what you deserve - brace yourself.

Cap'n Slappy

I use to wonder how the Nazi's came to power in Germany back in the 30's. The German people were some of the most intelligent and well educated people in the world but they let a mad man take over and almost bring us to the brink of destruction. Here's how they did it:

flyupsidedown

One question. Who was Germany under attack from?

Cap'n Slappy

The Jew's. What difference does it make? We were attacked by Saudi Arabia and we invaded Iraq. That's like FDR declaring war on Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

flyupsidedown

Saudis, not Saudi Arabia. I believe they sacrificed themselves for alqaida ideals (and those ten virgins, of course) not for Saudi. Which, I believe evidence suggests Saddam was giving safe passage and harbor. The "case" is still "in court" as they sift through tens of thousands of documents of the regime. Don't assume you have no egg on your face to wipe off just yet.

Kestrel

flyupsidedown

I don't believe I said Iraq attacked us. As far as Saddam not supporting religious operatives you are wrong again, see http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2006/12/ You may personally believe what you like about Iran's danger factor. The whole world however through the United Nations is trying to prevent Iran from developing their "peaceful" nuclear capability for a good reason. 911 helped terrorists recruit. Iraq has just served to funnel them into our war machine so they can be confronted and killed. The price of freedom has always been expensive.

Kestrel

flyupsidedown

Agreed. But America is a can-do nation. With God's help surprises will be ahead

Kestrel

Needless to say, I think you're flying upside down on this topic... (Crummy attempt at humor)

flyupsidedown

agreed.

Cap'n Slappy

When are people going to realize that this whole fiasco was based on LIES!!. I'm sure you can find some obscure Iraqi document that you can translate however you want to suggest that Iraq was supporting terrorism. I'll go so far to say if all of our documents were laid bare there would be some that suggest that we support terrorism too.

flyupsidedown

Lies? That denotes a deliberate act of covering the truth. Didn't Russia's Putin agree Saddam had weapons? And Brittain's Blair, and China's, and the other middle-eastern countries, etc. Even Saddam never said he didn't have them. The Arab culture is a very sophisticated and hard to read. They have lying and deception honed to a fine art after thousands of years and thousands of wars. Sorry, it sounds stereotypical but the nationals I have met are nice people but they will tell you any whopper to save face. Can it be that Saddam wanted us to think he had them because it raised his stature in the region? He just underestimated our response. Arabs play the nuance game. We Americans when threatened with the prospect of a Saddam possibly underwriting or funneling weapons to alqaida and sustaining future 911's , can get real ugly. He was already underwriting the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel to the tune of $30,000 to the families of the murderers of innocent civilians. It is too simplistic to look at it black&white, " Bush is the evil empire " . I just don't buy it.

Kestrel

Unfortunately it doesn’t matter if you buy it. Muslims are buying it, and it is serving as war cry. A call to arms! Just like the Boston Massacre. Reality is twisted into perception, and the perception is that Bush is the evil empire, and therefore American bleeds. So while I wouldn't consider Bush a Terrorist Sympathizer, he actually has done more harm than a Terrorist Sympathizer. He has stirred up a nest of fire ants by banging it with a hornet nest.

Don't forget that Iraq attacked Israel in 1948 (Saddam wasn't in charge). Also, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. I would think that Saddam didn't take kindly to that.

I believe that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were fueled by the first Gulf War, and the subsequent persecution by Saudi Arabia. Would al-Qaeda eventually attacked us if we had not sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991, perhaps. But I have not seen proof of attacks by al-Qaeda against the USA before 1991. I wanted Saddam out of Kuwait, but one of the worst things we did was set up bases in Saudi Arabia and have troops stationed permanently there. I think it was Bin Laden who said that the USA never withdraws troops until defeated. We still have troops in England and Germany, but the USSR was defeated years ago.

One thing that comes to my mind is that Bin Laden is fighting this war in the wrong manner. He needs to take a lesson from history, and history shows that attacks against the civilian population actually encourage resistance. Attacks against civilians in the USA cause us to send troops. Instead, he should be focusing his attacks against military targets. When troop body counts rise, and our citizens at home do not feel threatened, that is when troops are withdrawn.

flyupsidedown

Funny thing about fire ants, if you don't stomp them out they just seem to grow worse. We had to make a move some time. They don't just go away because you ignore them.

Kestrel

There is over reaction, and ignoring them. Bush has done over reaction, and the USA (& world) is paying for his stupidity.

SkygreenLeopard

flyupsidedown

your right. before all this we only had the Uss Cole, 911 and our embassy in africa then there was beirut and on and on ... You have a nice little "thought" package all wrapped up "bush is to blame for world chaos" however history proves and will continue to prove it wrong.

Kestrel

SkygreenLeopard

flyupsidedown

No, don't tell me. Your dues are all paid up for the "blame it on America first" club - right? So, what semantic expression would you prefer if "war" is too distasteful a phrase? Hmmm? Maybe we'll declare a "resistance" or an "onslaught". Or maybe we'll declare an"effort". Islamic fascists need no one specific country/state to declare war from and then attack, which they did. It would be perfectly nice if they would oblige us and coalesce around one geographic spot. But they won't. They are international. They have hit the Australians, the Spaniards, America, UK, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others.

Bush stated that was the problem from earlier regimes, they classified it as a "criminal "offense". Problem is there stated goal is world domination and sharia law over the land. Bush isn't responsible for this "monster". This monster has been growing in nations allowing them to train their children in Islamic fascism, chanting "death to america". I remember us being called the "Great Satan" back in the 70's. They were avowing our destruction back then. They aren't after "Bush", they are after you (America) and your way of life. They simply hate the way you live and are willing to die (and pick up ten virgins) trying to bring you down. They know it isn't an impossibility. In one fell swoop they took down the twin towers and murdered thousands of innocents. A symbolic icon of the decadent west's capitalism.

President Bush was faced with 3,000 dead, the knowledge of sleeper cells in America, Saddam who harbored, who had wmd's and used them before, intelligence stating he had them still, a previous assassination attempt on a U.S. President, the prospect he might aid and abet the enemy with these weapons etc. What would you have done?

We needed to show our strength and refute the lie Osama perpetrated that the west was too weak and decadent, to divided, to respond. We needed and still need a democratic footprint in the middle-east. We need a presence there to keep at bay what will surely be at our shores in ever increasing increments.

Kestrel

How about I change that to "No, don't tell me. Your dues are all paid up for the "liberals blame it on America first" club - right?" Anyhow, I’m merely pointing out the mistakes the USA has made. We are voters in the USA, not a different country. It’s sort of like the drunk driver that hit me on US 158. I was not driving his car, but there are things I could have done to avoid the accident, such as not having tinted windows, not driving on Christmas Eve, and not turning left onto US 158. To not recognize mistakes made by this country is folly.

spitfire

flyupsidedown wrote:

flyupsidedown

Braaaavo! . . . Spitfire. Now if you will parachute down from your politically correct high horse and turn down the churlish shrieking.
What? . . . do you think I just made this up off of the top of my head? I have a close relative who has worked with the Arabs for some 20+ years. And I have met a few in the process. I'm not talking about American Arabs either. These are the "travel to the desert and sit with the Bedouins and be offered the choice goat eye-ball" kind of Arabs. Who said anything about inbred lying. That shows your willful ignorance of cultural norms. Did you know the Shia in Iran, when they want to lay with a prostitute, have a wedding ceremony first, then they have their fun and divorce afterward?

And yes, there is a difference between European nations and the U.S. where the Judeo/Christian influences train us that lying in any form is unacceptable. These Arab nations have willfully isolated themselves from Christian influence. Do you need a precedent? How about the bible - in Titus 1:12 speaking about the Cretians ". . . a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, hurtful beasts, idle and lazy gluttons. And this account of them is really true." Maybe you'll want to correct the Apostle Paul as well.

I stand by what I know. What has been your experience with Arabs?
Ignorant, says Webster, can mean Unaware or Uninformed. If there is an ignoramus to be found, you need to look no further than your mirror.[/i]

flyupsidedown

To Kestrel: You've made two references to "Operation Ajax", I guess to try and show how particularly "villanous" America is. I'm not convinced. Gov't's have a responsibility to their people and then their allies. It was a strategic issue. Put it in context. The Iranian leader was leaning socialistically, Russian style, just ten years after WW2, the height of the cold war. He was trying to ursurp Great Brittain's infrustructure and investment in developing oil in that country by nationalizing Iran's oil, breaking prior agreements to the contrary. That is grounds for an invasion. They did the least painful thing which was to undermine his leadership. He had to know he was playing with the big boys. He could have ended up much worse. England and America knew the stakes and chose their people over the Iranians. This aint the cub scouts. As for apologizing to Iran, only if it were in our best interest, not because I meant it.

Kestrel

flyupsidedown

They're not attacking us based on this incident. The Iranians actually like Americans I'm told. It is their screwball Ayatollah's wanting to conquer the world for Allah and subject everyone to Islamic law. After of course they bomb the Israelis to smitherings. Apologize to men who sent thousands of CHILDREN to run before their army so they would trigger the land mines? Not this week.

Kestrel

spitfire

flyupsidedown

whoa! nellie! who knew you were a woman? And who said I am a man? You've missed the point completely, a number of times. Who cares what percent? The point was the cultural norms of which you are not familiar. And yes, shrieking PC is standard response nowadays. It is boooooring. The point, missed again, was the differences between western nations i.e., europe, U.S. --- AND --- the muslim nations. Our christian influences as contrasted to their muslim influences. You can drop the "penis" inference. Sounds like some old and tired feminist comeback.

When did I say Jesus hated the Arabs? By the way God does hate, many things and we are actually commanded to hate as well. In the psalms it reads " all you who love the Lord, hate evil". It is no big deal. Hate can be good when it isn't directed toward people, but maybe a false religion.

I ask again, what is your real-world dealings with Arabs (nationals) of other countries? If you have none, you may want to listen up.

Kestrel

SkygreenLeopard

flyupsidedown

I'm finished. Enjoy each other. God help you.