I'm sorry, perhaps I've been unclear in the past. Have I not pointed out time and time again that terrorist groups need to be taken seriously and that we should go on the offensive to get them before they have a chance to attack innocent people?
The rise of homegrown terrorism inspired by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda proves that maybe--just maybe--we should have gone after them instead of starting a bloody civil war by conducting a botched occupation of what was a repressive and cruel, though secular, Arab dictatorship.
You mean like how Bill Clinton had more then 6 years, multiple terrorist attacks, and almost a 1/2 dozen opportunities to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden?
Because like I said above, the fact that terror attacks are happening--especially homegrown terror attacks like what Great Britain has been seeing--is, in fact, proof of the fact that
You mean to tell me that if Obama or either of the Clinton's were in power that there would be ZERO terrorist attacks? I am in complete shock over that statement. You state "the fact that terror attacks are happening", not "terror attacks are on the rise" or "terror attacks have risen higher then since X year". That's a blanket, bold statement that's completely untrue.
Or are you saying that terrorist attacks only started occurring because of George Bush's approach? Because if that is true, please explain the marine barracks attacks in the early 1980s, the Khobar towers attacks, the twin attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole attacks, the 1972 Olympic attacks, Oklahoma City Bombing. I could go on and on.
In short, my dear, right-wingers: Here on the left, we "get" terrorism. And one of the things we get is that you don't get it at all.
Oh I'm quite sure that you "get" terrorism in the sense that you understand what it is and how it works, but unfortunately my spineless friends, you don't take terrorism seriously and that's why terrorist groups and rogue nations have become emboldened in recent years and have started upping their attacks. Why do you think Britain was afraid that the US would drop a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan right after 9/11? Because they thought we would do it because we had a reputation as a fearsome enemy.
You have shown the world that parts of America are weak and easily fooled by propaganda. Now, do you suppose we'd have a lot of the problems we have currently if we dropped a 50 megaton nuclear weapon on Kabul or Khandahar? You can argue one way or another, but my money is that our enemies would be thinking: "America's not fucking around anymore".
Take a look around at your media spokespeople. Keith Olbermann consistently denounces attempted terror attacks such as the Fort Dix plots and the JFK fuel bomb plot as "unrealistic" and therefore not worthy of concern or added precautions. Now, had these attacks actually gone through and were successful, you'd hear Keith turn around and denounce the Bush administration for not doing enough to "connect the dots" like he does for the 9/11 attacks.
So you can't reasonably expect people to think you "get it" when you obviously don't. Hell, take a look at the comments in your own story, you can see with your very eyes how the left doesn't understand terrorism and why it needs to be taken seriously. Many of them think that the government had something to do with it. They think that the military or federal government planned 9/11 "with military precision", but on the same side of the coin, they think that the government is incompetent.
See, the meme constantly conveyed by Republicans to America through their media empire is that Democrats are just blind to the harsh realities of terrorism.
The funniest part of the "article" this moron posts about is when Rudy Giuliani rips into Democrats for their failed track record on terrorism. Please note, the guy doesn't dispute anything that Rudy is saying, he's just saying "they're picking on us".
or that we don't understand the threat that terrorism poses--despite the fact, of course, that the urban centers of population most likely to be hit by terrorists all vote in overwhelming numbers for Democrats, which should tell you something.
Yes, it tells me that in a city of 11+ million people, that a large portion of them are Democrats. There's a big shocker. Democrats tend to live in larger cities such as New York and Los Angeles, while if you go to Texas and other rural areas, you'll find a very large portion of Republicans.
Do you know why terrorists don't attack Houston? It's a very large city with many high profile targets. Because almost everyone in Texas has a gun and will kill someone that is threatening them or another innocent person without thinking twice, WHICH SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING. It should tell you that the spirit of America lies within these kinds of people: Doing what's right, defending your fellow citizen regardless of skin color, nationality, or religion, and more.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment