Skip to main content

View Diary: Relationship talk (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the "war on terror" has killed more Americans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leftyboy666

    than Al Qaeda did. Not to mention all the dead innocent  Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis (who Americans don't really care about anyway).

    Does that strike you as. . .  I dunno . .  a wee bit counterproductive?

    •  Since you jumped in to answer the question I will (0+ / 0-)

      ask it again. In all your rhetoric you have not answered the question I posed. Are you saying that the United States and other governments all around the world should stop going after Al Qaeda and other extremist groups that have killed tens of thousands of people from Nigeria to the United States and all points in between?

      Should they stop or shouldn't they? That's the question. It's pretty straight forward.

      •  don't be silly. nobody is suggesting we let them (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Indiana Bob

        alone.

        Terrorism is a law enforcement problem, not a military problem.  When Tim McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed several hundred people, we didn't invade anyplace, we didn't curtail any civil liberties, we didn't send drones to kill people without trial---we arrested him, tried him, and executed him, using the plain old ordinary civil criminal justice system. Just like the British government did with the IRA, the Spanish Government did with the ETA, and the Italian Government did with the Red Brigades. And the IRA, ETA and Red Brigades are all gone now.  

        Al Qaeda, on the other hand, after having the longest war in American history waged against it, is just as strong as it was before, because every time we drop a bomb or kill a civilian somewhere, we win new recruits for Al Qaeda and make people there hate us even more.

        Law enforcement, works.  Never-ending war, does not work.

        •  exactly! (0+ / 0-)

          I remember when Kerry was running against Bush and said essentially the same thing, to his credit at the time.

          But the right-wingers and the press started howling, so Kerry, instead of thoughtfully explaining the problem with using war against a crime, ran as fast and as far away from those correct comments as he could (to his tremendous discredit).  After that every speech talked about how many terrorist he was going to kill.

          This situation is made worse by the fact, even according to our own government, that we are creating more terrorist than we are killing.

          It reminds me of that quote from my favorite movie Casablanca:

          And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds, thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast.
          I am NOT comparing us to Nazis, but the dynamic is the same.

          Of course that may be a feature, not a bug.

          Great comment Larry.

          Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

          by Indiana Bob on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 06:00:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um...Kerry is backing the drone program.... (0+ / 0-)
            •  ummm...yes, I am talking about 2004 (0+ / 0-)

              Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

              by Indiana Bob on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 10:06:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And? He is backing it now, so Kerry the person you (0+ / 0-)

                cited for promoting a law enforcement strategy in 2004 is for the drone program. Which seem to say Kerry doesn't feel drones in and of themselves are SO WRONG.

                •  Not sure what you are trying to prove (0+ / 0-)

                  All I said was that, back in 2004, Kerry correctly stated that Terrorism is a law enforcement issue.  The fact that he has changed his mind doesn't matter, unless I am misunderstanding you.  At the time he made a correct assessment.

                  Barak Obama at one time said that whistleblowers were important for transparency

                  When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.  "Such acts of courage and patriotism . . . should be encouraged rather than stifled."
                  Now the Administrations has pursued leak prosecutions relentlessly, more than all other presidents combined.  That doesn't make what he originally said incorrect.

                  Call your representative and senators and the white house (lack of capitalization intended) to STOP this crazy warmongering with Iran, please.

                  by Indiana Bob on Tue Jun 04, 2013 at 01:31:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Law enforcement issue? That sounds great if (0+ / 0-)

          the terrorists are within the United States. How are we going to get terrorist who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan after they've sent people over to blow up a building in the U.S.? For example, do you think the New York City police could go get them?

          This illustrates why I ask this question. Many of you as President would have no idea how to deal with this issue, yet you gather around the computer everyday to sling arrows at Barack Obama. Your response was:

          don't be silly. nobody is suggesting we let them alone
          Yet you are arguing against using deadly force to get them. Even if it were a law enforcement issue, how would you propose getting them in the foothills of some mountain, by sending in our police with hand guns like we do on the streets in our cities? While they launch IEDs at us? Is that how you would "not let these people alone"? I think you are vastly out of your league here, trying to dictate how the President and career military people go after these people.

          Even guys who are Democratic military guys, like Wesley Clark, are not saying we should send law enforcement personnel into Afghanistan and Yemen to get people who are attacking us with bombs.

          Your solution does not make any sense.  

          •  um, we have this thing we call "extradition" (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps you've heard of it?

            PS---if it had been handled like it should have been, as a law enforcement matter, there wouldn't be any troops or IEDs there. And we would not be manufacturing new terrorists with every bomb we dropped.

            •  Who is going to extradite these guys hiding out in (0+ / 0-)

              the mountains of Afghanistan? Are you kidding me? Do you think if the President could have these people captured and sent in handcuffs to our police here, we would be fighting there?

              And in terms of breathing more terrorist, you just said we should not let them alone, you are contradicting your own statement....

              If we are not to leave them alone, are you suggesting we go over there and get them with our bear hands? So we don't make them unhappy and incur more terrorists?

              For your information, terrorists were attacking people all over the world before 2003. I seem to recall they blew up the twin towers before the "so called" war on terror.....

              •  (shakes head) (0+ / 0-)

                You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you . . . .

                The Afghan government offered to extradite Bin Laden before the invasion.  All they wanted in return was to see some evidence that he actually did it (a not unreasonable request which is made in extradition courts all over the world every single day). The Taliban went so far as to have a religious court rule that it was OK to extradite Bin Laden, because he had violated the Islamic rules of hospitality.

                The US refused to even discuss it.  We wanted the war instead.  Like you, we were as a nation filled with emotional vengeance, and nothing less than bombs and a trail of dead Muslims would satisfy us.

                And for YOUR information, those terrorists all around the world were arrested and extradited, which is why they are now in jail.

                But since you are so bound and determined to have your war, let me ask YOU a question (and ANSWER it this time): When does your war END? Does it end when everyone who planned 9-11 is dead?  That was years ago.  Does it end when Al Qaeda's entire leadership at that time is dead, whether they helped plan it or not?  That happened years ago too--many of the people we are killing now were pooping their diapers back when 9-11 happened. Does the war end when every current member of Al Qaeda is dead no matter whether they were members back then, or even BORN back then, or not?  Does the war end when the name "Al Qaeda" no longer exists and nobody anywhere on earth uses that name again--and if so, what happens in five weeks or two years or fifty years when some group somewhere in, say, Sumatra calls itself "Al Qaeda" --does that mean the war starts again?

                When does your war end?  Or is it supposed to NEVER end, ever?

                Do tell.

                •  Shaking my head.... Show proof that Bin Laden was (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Fulgour

                  involved in 9/11 attacks? I mean really? Bin Laden himself in a video in 2004 said he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

                  http://www.nytimes.com/...

                  He has said he was responsible for the attacks countless times. Oh, I guess you don't believe Bin Laden himself, right?

                  And in terms of extradition, the Taliban was against extraditing Bin Laden

                  the Taliban said that God would protect them if the world tried to "set fire" to Afghanistan for sheltering bin Laden, who is accused of leading terrorist cells around the world from his sanctuary and training camps in Afghanistan. The Taliban broadcast on Tuesday also called on all Muslims to wage holy war on America if it attacks the poor and war-ravaged central Asian country
                  .

                  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/...

                  The Yemen government was also against extraditing Al-Qaeda leader, Anwar al-Awlaki.

                  Yemen would not extradite U.S.-born radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki to the United States if he were captured. "The U.S. has requested the extradition of other Yemeni citizens, but we refused to turn them over because our constitution prohibits the extradition of Yemeni citizen to another country -- and this would apply to al-Awlaki," he said.
                  http://www.cnn.com/...

                  Extradition might work for some but certainly not for all....

                  As far as when will the war end? The Afghan war will end next year in 2014 and, like the President, I don't think we can win a continuous war on terror. But I think we can surely address terrorst organizations that have declared war against a nation and have attacked said nation. The response to such events should be dictated by the events themselves.

                  •  OK, so you don't know what "extradition" means (0+ / 0-)

                    No point talking further with you until you learn something about it.

                    •  Uh-huh, so you see an article from CNN discussing (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Fulgour

                      the refusal of Yemen to honor the U.S. "EXTRADITION" request. And you are saying I don't know what "extradition" means? CNN I guess doesn't know what it means either....

                      See? These are the kinds of silly arguments, most of them directed at the President, that goes on in this community.

                  •  ps--once again, you didn't answer my question. (0+ / 0-)

                    So I'll ask again:

                    ut since you are so bound and determined to have your war, let me ask YOU a question (and ANSWER it this time): When does your war END? Does it end when everyone who planned 9-11 is dead?  That was years ago.  Does it end when Al Qaeda's entire leadership at that time is dead, whether they helped plan it or not?  That happened years ago too--many of the people we are killing now were pooping their diapers back when 9-11 happened. Does the war end when every current member of Al Qaeda is dead no matter whether they were members back then, or even BORN back then, or not?  Does the war end when the name "Al Qaeda" no longer exists and nobody anywhere on earth uses that name again--and if so, what happens in five weeks or two years or fifty years when some group somewhere in, say, Sumatra calls itself "Al Qaeda" --does that mean the war starts again?

                    When does your war end?  Or is it supposed to NEVER end, ever?

                    Do tell.

      •  ps--you didn't answer my question either, so I (0+ / 0-)

        will ask again:

        Do you think it is even just a wee bit counterproductive when our own "war on terror" kills more Americans than the terrorists do?

        Yes or no. That's the question.

        •  If by "our war in terror" you loop in the war in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fulgour

          Iraq, which Barack Obama opposed and I opposed, it is counterproductive.

          But as we are discussing Barack Obama's war on terror, and more specifically, which was the subject of this cartoon, the issue of "drones" I don't think it is counterproductive.

          The drone program is a tactic, just like the terrorists use of IEDs and suicide bombers in cities to kill as many people as possible a tactic.

          And as a tactic, the drone will kill less innocents than Al Qaeda or any other terrorist would love to do: Setting off bombs in major cities and at major events to kill as many innocent people as possible.

          But you have the right solution, turn this into a strictly law enforcement issue and send our police overseas with handguns and handcuffs and arrest them....

          •  answer. the. goddamn. question. (0+ / 0-)

            Do you think it is even just a wee bit counterproductive when our own "war on terror" kills more Americans than the terrorists do?

            Yes or no. That's the question.

            Just answer yes, or answer no.

            Quit waving your arms and just answer the goddamn question.

            Geez.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site