How do you react to a terror attack?

[MindWars]

Conservatives immediately reach for their gun to calm it's nerves, "there there baby, I'll protect you. The mean terr'uhr'ists won't hurt you."

And the rest of us llaaauuugh.

And the liberals are always running to the abortion clinic right afterwards.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

And the rest of us llaaauu

And that's what we always notice about you. Zero regard for innocent lives

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I go on with whatever it is that I am doing because destroying our way of life is a terrorist's #1 intention. Why should they get whatever it is that they want?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[bodecea]

Seems like liberals always do the same things...

Or deny it was real....like what happened after Sandy Hook.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Conservatives immediately reach for their gun to calm it's nerves, "there there baby, I'll protect you. The mean terr'uhr'ists won't hurt you."

And the rest of us llaaauuugh.

And the liberals are always running to the abortion clinic right afterwards.

Ooooo, good one. lol

 

[IsaacNewton]

And the rest of us llaaauu

And that's what we always notice about you. Zero regard for innocent lives

Riiiight, that's why 'liberals' pass healthcare for millions that can't afford it and 'conservatives' take it away.

What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to go through to twist that around so it is opposite of what it is?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seems like liberals always do the same things...

Seems like the right do the same things too.

My first thoughts are "for fuck's sake", because I know why this is happening. I know that had the US political system been different Dubya wouldn't have been elected, Iraq wouldn't have happened, and these bombs wouldn't be going off.

I felt the world going in a positive way in the 1990s, and then from 2001 onwards the world has been going down to the depths, and all to satisfy the politicians desires to be in charge, to keep the people down, so they can control the people more easily.

And you have eight year olds who couldn't vote for these bastards, and they're the ones suffering.

 

[theHawk]

Seems like liberals always do the same things...

Seems like the right do the same things too.

My first thoughts are "for fuck's sake", because I know why this is happening. I know that had the US political system been different Dubya wouldn't have been elected, Iraq wouldn't have happened, and these bombs wouldn't be going off.

I felt the world going in a positive way in the 1990s, and then from 2001 onwards the world has been going down to the depths, and all to satisfy the politicians desires to be in charge, to keep the people down, so they can control the people more easily.

And you have eight year olds who couldn't vote for these bastards, and they're the ones suffering.

In other words:

• Blame a Republican President and talk about how our foreign policy recruits more terrorists.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seems like liberals always do the same things...

Seems like the right do the same things too.

My first thoughts are "for fuck's sake", because I know why this is happening. I know that had the US political system been different Dubya wouldn't have been elected, Iraq wouldn't have happened, and these bombs wouldn't be going off.

I felt the world going in a positive way in the 1990s, and then from 2001 onwards the world has been going down to the depths, and all to satisfy the politicians desires to be in charge, to keep the people down, so they can control the people more easily.

And you have eight year olds who couldn't vote for these bastards, and they're the ones suffering.

In other words:

• Blame a Republican President and talk about how our foreign policy recruits more terrorists.

No, in others NO, we're not going to go down to your level of deflection, nonsense and bullcrap. No, it is not like that.

Bush did what Bush did. It's history, it happened, there's nothing you can do to change that. What Bush did was reprehensible and will have a lasting impact on the world for 100 years or more. You coming on here and being like "oh, yeah, blame the Republican president, blah blah" doesn't change this FACT.

Why did the guy blow people up in Manchester?

Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says

"Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says"

Yeah, because of Syria and US foreign policy there. Bush's fault? Well Bush didn't invade Syria, he didn't bomb Syria, but he destabilized the region so much that Syria happened.

Why did Brussels happen?

Isis claims responsibility for Brussels attacks

"Isis claims responsibility for Brussels attacks 'in revenge for Belgium's role fighting militants in Syria and Iraq'"

Why did Madrid and London happen? Revenge, why did Paris happen? Revenge? They're all about revenge for US foreign policy. This foreign policy started post 9/11.

Why did 9/11 happen? Revenge for US foreign policy before this.

But the post 9/11 issue is there, what Bush did wasn't revenge for 9/11 because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saudi Arabia did though. So why invade Iraq? Well many Muslims have asked those questions and kids who didn't understand 9/11 (the Manchester bomber was 22, that means 16 years ago he was 8 years old) are seeing the world as a place where the US goes around fucking over Muslims.

And who got the ball rolling? Bush. So why do I blame Bush? Because he destabilized a region, caused Islamic fundamentalism to skyrocket, recruitment was easy-peasy. That's why I blame Bush.

Now, all you do is come on with your nonsense of "oh, you're blaming Bush again" as if somehow intelligent people are going to fall for high school bully level tactics. Fuck off.

 

[theHawk]

Seems like liberals always do the same things...

Seems like the right do the same things too.

My first thoughts are "for fuck's sake", because I know why this is happening. I know that had the US political system been different Dubya wouldn't have been elected, Iraq wouldn't have happened, and these bombs wouldn't be going off.

I felt the world going in a positive way in the 1990s, and then from 2001 onwards the world has been going down to the depths, and all to satisfy the politicians desires to be in charge, to keep the people down, so they can control the people more easily.

And you have eight year olds who couldn't vote for these bastards, and they're the ones suffering.

In other words:

• Blame a Republican President and talk about how our foreign policy recruits more terrorists.

No, in others NO, we're not going to go down to your level of deflection, nonsense and bullcrap. No, it is not like that.

Bush did what Bush did. It's history, it happened, there's nothing you can do to change that. What Bush did was reprehensible and will have a lasting impact on the world for 100 years or more. You coming on here and being like "oh, yeah, blame the Republican president, blah blah" doesn't change this FACT.

Why did the guy blow people up in Manchester?

Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says

"Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says"

Yeah, because of Syria and US foreign policy there. Bush's fault? Well Bush didn't invade Syria, he didn't bomb Syria, but he destabilized the region so much that Syria happened.

Why did Brussels happen?

Isis claims responsibility for Brussels attacks

"Isis claims responsibility for Brussels attacks 'in revenge for Belgium's role fighting militants in Syria and Iraq'"

Why did Madrid and London happen? Revenge, why did Paris happen? Revenge? They're all about revenge for US foreign policy. This foreign policy started post 9/11.

Why did 9/11 happen? Revenge for US foreign policy before this.

But the post 9/11 issue is there, what Bush did wasn't revenge for 9/11 because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saudi Arabia did though. So why invade Iraq? Well many Muslims have asked those questions and kids who didn't understand 9/11 (the Manchester bomber was 22, that means 16 years ago he was 8 years old) are seeing the world as a place where the US goes around fucking over Muslims.

And who got the ball rolling? Bush. So why do I blame Bush? Because he destabilized a region, caused Islamic fundamentalism to skyrocket, recruitment was easy-peasy. That's why I blame Bush.

Now, all you do is come on with your nonsense of "oh, you're blaming Bush again" as if somehow intelligent people are going to fall for high school bully level tactics. Fuck off.

Wow you are obtuse. Bush had nothing to do with Syria. Syria is Shi'ite and Bush never did anything to them. Obama on the other hand declared Assad unfit to lead and supported his forceful overthrow, encouraging the Sunni extremists to attack. Even though Syria never attacked us, or had any intention of attacking us. Same goes for Libya, it was completely stable then the Hussein called for regime change.

Saddam had a history of invading and going to war with his neighbors, he was the destabilizing factor in the Middle East. He also violated numerous UN agreements put in place after the first Gulf War. Perhaps it would had been better to leave him, who knows. But if you beleive that, then why would you support the overthrow of so many governments during the Obama years?

Obama did it knowing it would destabilize the entire Middle East and cause the migration crisis. He wanted Muslims to invade Europe and create social chaos.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seems like liberals always do the same things...

Seems like the right do the same things too.

My first thoughts are "for fuck's sake", because I know why this is happening. I know that had the US political system been different Dubya wouldn't have been elected, Iraq wouldn't have happened, and these bombs wouldn't be going off.

I felt the world going in a positive way in the 1990s, and then from 2001 onwards the world has been going down to the depths, and all to satisfy the politicians desires to be in charge, to keep the people down, so they can control the people more easily.

And you have eight year olds who couldn't vote for these bastards, and they're the ones suffering.

In other words:

• Blame a Republican President and talk about how our foreign policy recruits more terrorists.

No, in others NO, we're not going to go down to your level of deflection, nonsense and bullcrap. No, it is not like that.

Bush did what Bush did. It's history, it happened, there's nothing you can do to change that. What Bush did was reprehensible and will have a lasting impact on the world for 100 years or more. You coming on here and being like "oh, yeah, blame the Republican president, blah blah" doesn't change this FACT.

Why did the guy blow people up in Manchester?

Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says

"Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says"

Yeah, because of Syria and US foreign policy there. Bush's fault? Well Bush didn't invade Syria, he didn't bomb Syria, but he destabilized the region so much that Syria happened.

Why did Brussels happen?

Isis claims responsibility for Brussels attacks

"Isis claims responsibility for Brussels attacks 'in revenge for Belgium's role fighting militants in Syria and Iraq'"

Why did Madrid and London happen? Revenge, why did Paris happen? Revenge? They're all about revenge for US foreign policy. This foreign policy started post 9/11.

Why did 9/11 happen? Revenge for US foreign policy before this.

But the post 9/11 issue is there, what Bush did wasn't revenge for 9/11 because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saudi Arabia did though. So why invade Iraq? Well many Muslims have asked those questions and kids who didn't understand 9/11 (the Manchester bomber was 22, that means 16 years ago he was 8 years old) are seeing the world as a place where the US goes around fucking over Muslims.

And who got the ball rolling? Bush. So why do I blame Bush? Because he destabilized a region, caused Islamic fundamentalism to skyrocket, recruitment was easy-peasy. That's why I blame Bush.

Now, all you do is come on with your nonsense of "oh, you're blaming Bush again" as if somehow intelligent people are going to fall for high school bully level tactics. Fuck off.

Wow you are obtuse. Bush had nothing to do with Syria. Syria is Shi'ite and Bush never did anything to them. Obama on the other hand declared Assad unfit to lead and supported his forceful overthrow, encouraging the Sunni extremists to attack. Even though Syria never attacked us, or had any intention of attacking us. Same goes for Libya, it was completely stable then the Hussein called for regime change.

Saddam had a history of invading and going to war with his neighbors, he was the destabilizing factor in the Middle East. He also violated numerous UN agreements put in place after the first Gulf War. Perhaps it would had been better to leave him, who knows. But if you beleive that, then why would you support the overthrow of so many governments during the Obama years?

Obama did it knowing it would destabilize the entire Middle East and cause the migration crisis. He wanted Muslims to invade Europe and create social chaos.

Bush had nothing to do with Syria? Right.... so Bush didn't destabilize the region at all? Bush didn't create the conditions for al Qaeda and ISIS to grow? No?

I didn't say Bush did anything to them. We're not dealing with simple stuff here.

Yes, Obama did what Obama did, and I'm not saying Obama is blameless, however without Bush Syria wouldn't have been an issue for Obama. It's quite simple.

Saddam had a history of doing stuff. Yeah, him and loads of others. But Bush didn't invade those others, he invaded an OPEC member that was rich in oil and Muslim. He tried to use 9/11 as justification for invading a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 while Saudi Arabia got nothing.

Why would Obama want immigrants to invade Europe and create social chaos?

 

[Disir]

Yes, Obama did what Obama did, and I'm not saying Obama is blameless, however without Bush Syria wouldn't have been an issue for Obama. It's quite simple.

No. Obama thought he could just go in and play Arab Spring and that isn't how it worked out. At all. He had no problem whatsoever destabilizing the region. Hillary and Obama thought they could go in and fund the rebels and overthrow Assad. It was some of the most power resource grabbing crap.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, Obama did what Obama did, and I'm not saying Obama is blameless, however without Bush Syria wouldn't have been an issue for Obama. It's quite simple.

No. Obama thought he could just go in and play Arab Spring and that isn't how it worked out. At all. He had no problem whatsoever destabilizing the region. Hillary and Obama thought they could go in and fund the rebels and overthrow Assad. It was some of the most power resource grabbing crap.

Yes, Obama tried to do something and it has not worked out like that. In Libya he was just plain wrong for doing what he did, and was just having a continuation of previous policy, when he had seemed to want to go in a different direction.

But he didn't destablize the region. He didn't particularly help either, the region was already unstable.

Syria was just the sort of policy where the US knows what it wants, but doesn't want to risk anything to get it because they know it's not worth it. So they start things and then don't finish them, and this causes more problems.

 

[Disir]

Yes, Obama did what Obama did, and I'm not saying Obama is blameless, however without Bush Syria wouldn't have been an issue for Obama. It's quite simple.

No. Obama thought he could just go in and play Arab Spring and that isn't how it worked out. At all. He had no problem whatsoever destabilizing the region. Hillary and Obama thought they could go in and fund the rebels and overthrow Assad. It was some of the most power resource grabbing crap.

Yes, Obama tried to do something and it has not worked out like that. In Libya he was just plain wrong for doing what he did, and was just having a continuation of previous policy, when he had seemed to want to go in a different direction.

But he didn't destablize the region. He didn't particularly help either, the region was already unstable.

Syria was just the sort of policy where the US knows what it wants, but doesn't want to risk anything to get it because they know it's not worth it. So they start things and then don't finish them, and this causes more problems.

Obama absolutely destabilized the region.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, Obama did what Obama did, and I'm not saying Obama is blameless, however without Bush Syria wouldn't have been an issue for Obama. It's quite simple.

No. Obama thought he could just go in and play Arab Spring and that isn't how it worked out. At all. He had no problem whatsoever destabilizing the region. Hillary and Obama thought they could go in and fund the rebels and overthrow Assad. It was some of the most power resource grabbing crap.

Yes, Obama tried to do something and it has not worked out like that. In Libya he was just plain wrong for doing what he did, and was just having a continuation of previous policy, when he had seemed to want to go in a different direction.

But he didn't destablize the region. He didn't particularly help either, the region was already unstable.

Syria was just the sort of policy where the US knows what it wants, but doesn't want to risk anything to get it because they know it's not worth it. So they start things and then don't finish them, and this causes more problems.

Obama absolutely destabilized the region.

The region was already destabilized, unless of course you think Iraq didn't happen.

 

[Disir]

Yes, Obama did what Obama did, and I'm not saying Obama is blameless, however without Bush Syria wouldn't have been an issue for Obama. It's quite simple.

No. Obama thought he could just go in and play Arab Spring and that isn't how it worked out. At all. He had no problem whatsoever destabilizing the region. Hillary and Obama thought they could go in and fund the rebels and overthrow Assad. It was some of the most power resource grabbing crap.

Yes, Obama tried to do something and it has not worked out like that. In Libya he was just plain wrong for doing what he did, and was just having a continuation of previous policy, when he had seemed to want to go in a different direction.

But he didn't destablize the region. He didn't particularly help either, the region was already unstable.

Syria was just the sort of policy where the US knows what it wants, but doesn't want to risk anything to get it because they know it's not worth it. So they start things and then don't finish them, and this causes more problems.

Obama absolutely destabilized the region.

The region was already destabilized, unless of course you think Iraq didn't happen.

U.S.-Financed Groups Had Supporting Role in Arab Uprisings

 

[Disir]

Obama has threatened to veto the $612 billion National Defense Authorization Act – also known as House Resolution 1735, or the NDAA – because it contains provisions blocking the plans to shut down the detention camp at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, and because it avoids a cap on defense spending by padding a special account reserved for bankrolling wars. The Senate passed the NDAA on Wednesday with a veto-proof majority.

While the White House and the lawmakers are in dispute over the details, they appear to be in agreement on continuing to send military aid to the regime in Ukraine and the elusive “moderate rebels” in Syria.

Some $600 million has been earmarked for a program to support the “appropriately vetted” Syrian rebels, fighting against both the government in Damascus and Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS and ISIL).

Section 1225 of the NDAA allocates $531.5 million directly to the Syria Train and Equip program, and directs an additional $25.8 million to the US Army and $42.8 million to the US Air Force, to cover the costs of their participation.

The 2015 version of the NDAA allocated $500 million for the training and equipping of “moderate rebels.” Though the Pentagon hoped to have a force of 5,000 fighters by the end of 2015, the program has produced only a handful – literally. Top US military officials admitted only “five or six” rebels remained in combat after the first group was scattered by Al-Nusra terrorists in July. The second batch of rebels surrendered to Al-Nusra last month, with all their US-provided gear.
Pentagon funding bill on Obama’s desk: $600mn to Syrian rebels, $300mn to Kiev

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, Obama did what Obama did, and I'm not saying Obama is blameless, however without Bush Syria wouldn't have been an issue for Obama. It's quite simple.

No. Obama thought he could just go in and play Arab Spring and that isn't how it worked out. At all. He had no problem whatsoever destabilizing the region. Hillary and Obama thought they could go in and fund the rebels and overthrow Assad. It was some of the most power resource grabbing crap.

Yes, Obama tried to do something and it has not worked out like that. In Libya he was just plain wrong for doing what he did, and was just having a continuation of previous policy, when he had seemed to want to go in a different direction.

But he didn't destablize the region. He didn't particularly help either, the region was already unstable.

Syria was just the sort of policy where the US knows what it wants, but doesn't want to risk anything to get it because they know it's not worth it. So they start things and then don't finish them, and this causes more problems.

Obama absolutely destabilized the region.

The region was already destabilized, unless of course you think Iraq didn't happen.

U.S.-Financed Groups Had Supporting Role in Arab Uprisings

Yes, the point isn't that the Obama administration didn't help push the Arab Spring. My point was that the region was already in turmoil for the Arab Spring to even be able to take off.

 

[Disir]

Documents obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley show the US channeled funding through a State Department programme to promote democracy in the Middle East region. This programme vigorously supported activists and politicians who have fomented unrest in Egypt, after autocratic president Hosni Mubarak was ousted in a popular uprising in February 2011.

The State Department's programme, dubbed by US officials as a "democracy assistance" initiative, is part of a wider Obama administration effort to try to stop the retreat of pro-Washington secularists, and to win back influence in Arab Spring countries that saw the rise of Islamists, who largely oppose US interests in the Middle East.


Activists bankrolled by the programme include an exiled Egyptian police officer who plotted the violent overthrow of the Morsi government, an anti-Islamist politician who advocated closing mosques and dragging preachers out by force, as well as a coterie of opposition politicians who pushed for the ouster of the country's first democratically elected leader, government documents show.
Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists

And that isn't even touching the attempts to overthrow governments in South America.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Documents obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley show the US channeled funding through a State Department programme to promote democracy in the Middle East region. This programme vigorously supported activists and politicians who have fomented unrest in Egypt, after autocratic president Hosni Mubarak was ousted in a popular uprising in February 2011.

The State Department's programme, dubbed by US officials as a "democracy assistance" initiative, is part of a wider Obama administration effort to try to stop the retreat of pro-Washington secularists, and to win back influence in Arab Spring countries that saw the rise of Islamists, who largely oppose US interests in the Middle East.


Activists bankrolled by the programme include an exiled Egyptian police officer who plotted the violent overthrow of the Morsi government, an anti-Islamist politician who advocated closing mosques and dragging preachers out by force, as well as a coterie of opposition politicians who pushed for the ouster of the country's first democratically elected leader, government documents show.
Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists

And that isn't even touching the attempts to overthrow governments in South America.

Like Venezuela 2002?