Spain rocked by 4 seperate bombs by Terrorist Group Etta

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by islstl, Dec 3, 2004.

Page 2 of 3
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Fair enough. Mogadishu occurred early on Clinton's watch, not Bush's.

    But you are misinfomed about who sent in the SOF. According to the record, Operation PROVIDE COMFORT, the humanitarian relief mission that began in August 1992 was implemented by GHW Bush. Operation RESORE HOPE, the military intervention, was also implemented by GHW Bush in December of 1992 a month before turning the problem over to Bill Clinton.

    I did not list the Mogadishu deaths in the terrorism list because they were casualties incurred in one of our military operations, rather than terrorism deaths.
     
    red55, Dec 5, 2004
    #11
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Sourdough, Kerry never served a day as president, he was just a politician trying to get elected. He is irrelevant to the issue. Clinton was the last democratic President.

    What incident are you referring to, here?

    Well, I asked you in the last post to provide some evidence to support your assertion that the democrats were weak on terror and instead, you challenge me to prove they're not. That ain't the way it works, amigo. You've been making a lot of bold statements and you must back them up with evidence when challenged before issuing a counter-challenge.

    If you really want to get into a historical debate, you'll find me ready with a reponse. I've previously pointed out that Clinton stopped the Millenium Bombing plot (did you miss that?) I'll also be happy to remind you that Clinton also tried twice to kill Osama bin Ladin with cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan, but Pakistan tipped him off each time. George W. Bush did not make a single operation against Al-Qaida before 9/11.

    There's a lot more, I'll give you a teaser. I can cite Richard Clark's and Condoleeza Rice's remarkable testimony before the 9/11 Commission. There is also a very revealing book out by the former chief of the Osama unit in the CIA “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.”

    But it's your move. What is your evidence that the democrats are weak on terrorism? I know you don't like Democrats, but that is not evidence. After 9/11, any president would have leaped into action. Show me a republican president who took more action against terrorists before 9/11 than Bill Clinton.
     
    red55, Dec 5, 2004
    #12
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    well, in general the democrats have alot more "peace at all costs" voters in the party. the kind of people who will refuse to go to war even if inaction makes us less safe. these are the people who democrats have to please to get elected. these are the people that pushed kerry in a dovish (we need to try harder with diplomacy) direction when howard dean was having success in the primary.

    we dont need to try harder with diplomacy. we are not leading a bull**** coalition of the coerced. we need to operate as unilaterally as we want and destroy and kill and bomb and be aggressive. more republicans think that way than democrats. sure, you have your zell millers and joe liebermans, but not enough of them.

    in general democrats project military and foreign policy weakness to the world, because they are the party of liberal peaceniks, while the republicans often get support from hard-line aggressive defense through offense zell miller types. the american people seem to agree with this opinion.
     
    martin, Dec 5, 2004
    #13
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    A list of your opinions is not evidence supporting Sourdough's thesis, martin.

    They are interesting though, if rather revealing, and seem to be characterized by:
    Unsubstantiated allegations: "democrats project military and foreign policy weakness"; "the kind of people who will refuse to go to war"
    Uninformed stereotyping: "party of liberal peaceniks"
    Misguided speculation: "democrats have a lot more 'peace at all costs' voters in the party"; "the American people seem to agree."
    Inflammatory suggestions:"we need to operate as unilaterally as we want and destroy and kill and bomb and be aggressive"

    I'd like to see a logical retort presenting some evidence or examples to support your allegations, but a simple rant is not very convincing.
     
    red55, Dec 5, 2004
    #14
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    well, we both heard john kerry whine about how bush didnt do enough to get the world on board, and the "global test", and generally decry the lack of diplomacy. have you not heard kerry make these remarks?

    what should i care about diplomacy relative to US autonomy in decision making in the war against terrorism? thats weakness. how isnt it?

    isnt howard dean a powerful democrat? isnt he a complete coward in terms of national defense? does he not represent a powerful segment of the democratic party? look at the support he had (pre-yeahhhhhh!).

    it is clear republicas are the stronger and more committed party when it comes to national defense. it is not like i am making this up, the majority of americans agree with my perspective.
     
    martin, Dec 5, 2004
    #15
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    also, what you call: "Uninformed stereotyping: "party of liberal peaceniks""

    i call truth. i have seen thousands and thousands of these people at protests in manhattan. i talked to many of them, and they are pro-kerry, anti war democrat liberal peaceniks. these people have no place in the republican party.

    and then you say:

    "Misguided speculation: "democrats have a lot more 'peace at all costs' voters in the party";"

    you cant possibly be implying that more of these type people are republicans than democrats.

    and then: "Inflammatory suggestions:"we need to operate as unilaterally as we want and destroy and kill and bomb and be aggressive"

    yes that is opinion, and somewhat inflammatory. but i am right, just like always.
     
    martin, Dec 5, 2004
    #16
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Therefore all democrats are such in your twisted logic. Consider this: SabanFan has stated that he is a democrat. If he admits to being a "liberal peacenik", I'll kiss a baboons ass on main street.

    I imply nothing. I clearly state that you are speculating and have given no evidence to support this statement.

    Self-righteous, argumentative, and delusional, just like always.
     
    red55, Dec 5, 2004
    #17
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    i neither said that nor meant it. learn logic, learn to read. when i say the democratic party is the party of liberal peaceniks, it doesnt mean exclusively. it is the party of the kennedys also, but i aware there are people in the party who are not kennedys. see how that works? the republican party is the party of gun toting, bible thumping idiots. not exclusively. see, i have even made a little example with bad republicans in it so you would understand.


    right, if you imply anything i will demostrate that what you are implying is wrong. any realistic person knows that everything i have said in my last couple posts is true. you won't even oppose it. you refuse to even "imply" opposition. it is a smart choice on your part. i would only dismantle your weak claims. you probably agree with me, but dont like to admit it.

    everyone is aware that a larger percentage of the democrats than republicans are weak cowards when it comes to fighting wars. why argue otherwise? i have seen and talked to them.

    of course i admit i am argumentative, and i am right, and you know it. your best course of action now is to be silent.
     
    martin, Dec 5, 2004
    #18
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Oh, no. I've clearly pulled your chain on this one and I'll yank it one more time. I see you have once again reached that point where you have exhausted your logic and are resorting to grandiose pronouncements.

    Not a shread of evidence here or any numbers or sources to back your claims. You just make things up and say ludicrous things like "America agrees with me" or "anybody knows what i say is true" or "everyone is aware" and become increasingly shrill as you realize you cannot answer my challenge. You're just trying to add credit to your argument by making up testimonials instead of providing some documentation.

    See above: Self-righteous, argumentative, and delusional. Thanks for the succinct confirmation.

    This thread has been derailed and is starting to bore me. So get in your last little rant, but it's adios for me.
     
    red55, Dec 6, 2004
    #19
  10. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    you can continue to deny it all you like, but we both saw the debates, and we heard kerry discussed what i mentioned earlier. it isnt my opinion that kerry often made claims that bush acts too unilaterally and does not pass the "global test" and fails with diplomacy. and it is a fact that kerry lost because americans see republicans as stronger on national defense.

    have you noticed the election results? is that not enough evidence?


    kerry even said he thought the osama tape helped him lose, because it scared people.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139060,00.html

    you are aware that scared people vote for the guy who they believe will keep them safe?

    "A Washington Post/ABC News poll of 1,202 adults before the start of the convention found that 52 percent trusted Bush to do a better job handling the war in Iraq, compared with 40 percent for Kerry. The July 22-25 poll said 55 percent trusted the president to wage a more effective U.S. campaign against terrorism, versus 37 percent for Kerry. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points."

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2001991778_kerrysecurity29.html

    are you going to continue to deny that democrats are widely percieved as weaker on national security issues? how many more polls proving it will i need to post? will 5 be enough? i bet i can find 5. just how intellectually dishonest are you?

    what sourdoughman said is right. the republicans are the party of strong security and defense, democrats have more weak peaceniks in the party. do you think howard dean would get votes in the republican party?

    you are attacking me, and calling me self-righteous and delusional, but you are not addressing my points because you cannot.
     
    martin, Dec 6, 2004
    #20
Page 2 of 3

Share This Page