Is Terrorism......................

[Crazy Horse]

And these idiots want us to let them run the country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2728921

Dawggie (785 posts)       Sun Jan-20-08 06:24 PM
Original message
Is terrorism that is not sponsered by a government a crime or an act of war? 
 Let's ask this of our candidates.

Look at the costs of considering it an act of war.

Look at how all nations poured out their hearts to us right after 9-11.

Look at the world opinion of the US today.

Look at over a million Iraqi dead.

Look at the number of amputees and injured American soldiers whose lives have been forever wounded by the considering it an act of war.

Look at the families of the dead whose husband, wife, mother, father, daughter or son will cause tears on every birthday forever.

Look at the billions of dollars that could have helped Americans with healthcare, education and to bolster the economy.

Now ask: What good has come of a "war on terror" that has lasted longer than WWII?


Yes, the economy is terrible.

Yes, healthcare is a mess.

but don't forget why we elected a democratic congress such a short time ago.

We need to end the war.

Bonobo (1000+ posts)      Sun Jan-20-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is the key question we should have demanded be answered 7 years ago. 
 If we had properly called it what it was -namely a crime- none of this should could have happened.

 

ixion  (1000+ posts)       Sun Jan-20-08 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. historically, it's been treated as criminal
 Edited on Sun Jan-20-08 06:29 PM by ixion
it was the bush regime who decided to make it military. This was, of course, a heinous and has done nothing but make the situation worse. It has also been used at every turn to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 
 

DJ13 (300 posts)      Sun Jan-20-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Crime
 Act of war means military is the solution, but as we've seen with both Iraq and Afghanistan military actions are too blunt to effectively deal with individual groups of terrorists.

Those are best dealt with through law enforcement, be it ours or the host country's.

And if the host country doesnt want to deal with it, thats where diplomacy and/or threats of various kinds by our country comes into play. 

 


This is why we don't trust your cheeto eatin asses with security of this great nation.

[ih8hippies]

after reading this.... I just had to go drop a liberal. Don't worry, I flushed it. Twice.

[Carl]

DJ13 (300 posts)      Sun Jan-20-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Crime
 Act of war means military is the solution, but as we've seen with both Iraq and Afghanistan military actions are too blunt to effectively deal with individual groups of terrorists.

Those are best dealt with through law enforcement, be it ours or the host country's.

And if the host country doesnt want to deal with it, thats where diplomacy and/or threats of various kinds by our country comes into play.

Like what dumbass?

What threats were we going to make that did`nt involve military action at some point to back them up.
That these stupid motherf....s with a grade school maturity level think they understand the ways of the world is laughable.

That last sentence alone is enough to disqualify them from having anything to do with the security of the USA.

[Lord Undies]

DJ13 (300 posts)      Sun Jan-20-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Crime
 Act of war means military is the solution, but as we've seen with both Iraq and Afghanistan military actions are too blunt to effectively deal with individual groups of terrorists.

Those are best dealt with through law enforcement, be it ours or the host country's.

And if the host country doesnt want to deal with it, thats where diplomacy and/or threats of various kinds by our country comes into play.

Hey, DisjointedJackass13, here's a clue to help you figure this out:

Law enforcement is reaction.  That means it's too late.  Your DUmmie ass will be dead.  

[Attero Dominatus]

Bonobo  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Sun Jan-20-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is the key question we should have demanded be answered 7 years ago.
   
If we had properly called it what it was -namely a crime- none of this should could have happened.
   Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Hey DUmbass, Bill Klinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue and we took hit after hit. The first Word Trade Center attack, the khobar towers, the embassy bombings, USS Cole.

[Splashdown]

This is the seminal difference between me and them. Is terrorism a law enforcement issue? Is it a national defense issue?

This is why I can never vote for one of them for president.