When the enemy senses weakness, they attack

[drivebymedia]

They smelled Dubya's fear in 2001 and made the little sucker pay ....

 

[bendog]

So the bar to protecting America is not having ambassadors killed? I mean Slick had something like 200 killed and a thousand injured in Osama's embassay attacks.

 

[konradv]

We should be acting rather than reacting.

Just send a few "Big Uglies" where they are hiding in the uncontrolled area of Yemen. They will get the message.

When we act the right whines about the civil rights of terrorists. How many drones strikes have there been and all we hear about is that civilians or Americans have died? When similar things happened under Bush people were called Al Qaeda-sympathizers for saying the same thing. There's also silence when it comes to the fact that those responsible for Benghazi are being brought to justice. If you ask me, the whole issue is an ODS sufferers hypocrite-fest.

First criminal charges filed in Benghazi attack probe - CNN.com

 

[candycorn]

But how many ambassadors were killed under Bush's watch?

An American has to be an ambassador before you care?

Didn't say that.

You're arguing that US diplomatic posts were attacked under the Bush administration as a counter to Obama's fuckup of Benghazi. I am arguing that it doesn't compare because under Bush, no ambassadors were killed while 1 was killed under Obama.

But an American was killed; does it matter that it wasn't an Ambassador?

 

[candycorn]

Never happened under bush...

No, under Bush we got 9/11. And who can forget this gem?

Also this:

Cue the rationalization by the right wing loons...hop to it ladies.

Bump.

 

[drivebymedia]

Never happened under bush...

No Americans were killed by terrorists under Bush?

None in Iraq, for example?

None in the WTC for example?

 

[Billo_Really]

Never happened under bush...

WTF are talking about?

9/11 happened under Bush!

 

[candycorn]

Never happened under bush...

WTF are talking about?

9/11 happened under Bush!

I think he's trying to say that in all of the embassy attacks under Bush, no Americans were killed which, somehow, is supposed to mean something. In any event, it's not true; David Foy was killed.

At this point, usually the right wing rationalization machine kicks in and states that he was killed incidentally to the attack or that since he wasn't an ambassador, the death is meaningless.

It's pretty pathetic.

 

[Camp]

The enemy, any enemy, senses weakness when apposing commanders are restricted in the way in which they can mount attacks or defend their forces.
The greatest American weakness has been well known by it's enemys since Vietnam. The wil of the American people can be degraded to the point that the population will simply refuse to support the continuation of a war. Hence, a prolonged war with a constant stream of casualties is benificial to any enemy at war with America.
Unlike the Vietnam War when the left led the protest and thus limiting commanders and acceptable tactics, the War on Terror is being weakened by the right, which uses tactics of the commanders as politcal issue's. Drones are one. Ben Ghazi is another. They call for the limited use of our most succcessful weapon and tactic, Drones. They take a terrorist victory and make it a huge issue, which only encourages further attacks on the same kind of targets. We should be cheering for the Drone attacks and brushing off our defeat at Ben Ghazi with a "win some loose some" attitude that says to the terrorist it was only a small victory at a small battle that does not and will not make any difference in the way we conduct our war against them.

 

[Billo_Really]

I think he's trying to say that in all of the embassy attacks under Bush, no Americans were killed which, somehow, is supposed to mean something. In any event, it's not true; David Foy was killed.

At this point, usually the right wing rationalization machine kicks in and states that he was killed incidentally to the attack or that since he wasn't an ambassador, the death is meaningless.

It's pretty pathetic.

Not to mention that Bush's neoconic foreign policy agenda had a lot to do with ramping up the hatred for American's in ME country's.

People tend to get pretty pissed off when you bomb the shit out of their neighborhoods.

 

[Billo_Really]

The enemy, any enemy, senses weakness when apposing commanders are restricted in the way in which they can mount attacks or defend their forces.
The greatest American weakness has been well known by it's enemys since Vietnam. The wil of the American people can be degraded to the point that the population will simply refuse to support the continuation of a war. Hence, a prolonged war with a constant stream of casualties is benificial to any enemy at war with America.
Unlike the Vietnam War when the left led the protest and thus limiting commanders and acceptable tactics, the War on Terror is being weakened by the right, which uses tactics of the commanders as politcal issue's. Drones are one. Ben Ghazi is another. They call for the limited use of our most succcessful weapon and tactic, Drones. They take a terrorist victory and make it a huge issue, which only encourages further attacks on the same kind of targets. We should be cheering for the Drone attacks and brushing off our defeat at Ben Ghazi with a "win some loose some" attitude that says to the terrorist it was only a small victory at a small battle that does not and will not make any difference in the way we conduct our war against them.

The use of drones is American terrorism.

 

[Camp]

The enemy, any enemy, senses weakness when apposing commanders are restricted in the way in which they can mount attacks or defend their forces.
The greatest American weakness has been well known by it's enemys since Vietnam. The wil of the American people can be degraded to the point that the population will simply refuse to support the continuation of a war. Hence, a prolonged war with a constant stream of casualties is benificial to any enemy at war with America.
Unlike the Vietnam War when the left led the protest and thus limiting commanders and acceptable tactics, the War on Terror is being weakened by the right, which uses tactics of the commanders as politcal issue's. Drones are one. Ben Ghazi is another. They call for the limited use of our most succcessful weapon and tactic, Drones. They take a terrorist victory and make it a huge issue, which only encourages further attacks on the same kind of targets. We should be cheering for the Drone attacks and brushing off our defeat at Ben Ghazi with a "win some loose some" attitude that says to the terrorist it was only a small victory at a small battle that does not and will not make any difference in the way we conduct our war against them.

The use of drones is American terrorism.

That opens some new areas of debate. What is the definition of terrorism? Are there not degree's and level's of terrorism? Is a terrorist attack on civilian targets meant to terrorize the civilian poplulation the same as an attack on a military target that kills innocents the same? Does the intent of the attack make a difference? Is a specific attack meant to kill and maim the innocent the same as a military attack that causes collateral casaulties?
I respect the argument that collateral damage is never acceptable. Attacks should almost never be made with the knowledge that their will be acceptable collateral damage. Every situation is different, but like I said, I respect the opinion that some have that our Drone attacks are acts of terror.

 

[Moonglow]

It was exactly the right thing to do....I would urge us to reduce the number of embassies and consulates permanently...what are we gaining by having any of them open?

Better to reduce the number of enemies by all means necessary.

How would you like us to get rid of you?

 

[Moonglow]

The enemy, any enemy, senses weakness when apposing commanders are restricted in the way in which they can mount attacks or defend their forces.
The greatest American weakness has been well known by it's enemys since Vietnam. The wil of the American people can be degraded to the point that the population will simply refuse to support the continuation of a war. Hence, a prolonged war with a constant stream of casualties is benificial to any enemy at war with America.
Unlike the Vietnam War when the left led the protest and thus limiting commanders and acceptable tactics, the War on Terror is being weakened by the right, which uses tactics of the commanders as politcal issue's. Drones are one. Ben Ghazi is another. They call for the limited use of our most succcessful weapon and tactic, Drones. They take a terrorist victory and make it a huge issue, which only encourages further attacks on the same kind of targets. We should be cheering for the Drone attacks and brushing off our defeat at Ben Ghazi with a "win some loose some" attitude that says to the terrorist it was only a small victory at a small battle that does not and will not make any difference in the way we conduct our war against them.

Look at how the traitorous repubs act, why if they are not in charge they cheer our enemies

 

[clevergirl]

This administrations Benghazi-gate has emboldened Muslim terrorists. Obama is a cluster-fuck in a suit of the right "color" nothing more. He makes white liberals feel good about themselves. To hell with the condition and safety of our country when you can claim you voted for the black guy. Impeach the idiot bastard!

 

[Moonglow]

see what i mean.

 

[Londoner]

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Ronald Reagan and the death of 200+ Marines

President Cut and Run

Reagan ordered innocent soldiers into a war zone and forbid them from loading their weapons, making them "sitting ducks" in the words of one of his advisors. He tied their hands behind their backs and marched them into slaughter. Then he promised to keep troops there until the guilty parties were punished . . . but of course he cut and ran . . . (and then covertly sold weapons to Iran, the worlds leading terrorist nation). When Reagan pulled out of Lebanon, it created a power vacuum for Islamic Terrorists, who turned it into a breeding ground.

What a joke.

The two largest terrorist attacks against Americans happened under Republican Presidents.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain advised Obama to take the recent threat seriously and shut down the embassies. Then Graham made this public statement in support of Obama.

"Benghazi was a complete failure. The threats were real there. The reporting was real, and we basically dropped the ball. We've learned from Benghazi, thank God, and the administration's doing this right."

 

[Moonglow]

The thing that really makes the USA weak is the constant in-fighting of our parties and our populace over political parties.

 

[candycorn]

see what i mean.

Nothing but hate
Nothing said when Bush allowed Americans to die

 

[Billo_Really]

That opens some new areas of debate. What is the definition of terrorism? Are there not degree's and level's of terrorism? Is a terrorist attack on civilian targets meant to terrorize the civilian poplulation the same as an attack on a military target that kills innocents the same? Does the intent of the attack make a difference? Is a specific attack meant to kill and maim the innocent the same as a military attack that causes collateral casaulties?
I respect the argument that collateral damage is never acceptable. Attacks should almost never be made with the knowledge that their will be acceptable collateral damage. Every situation is different, but like I said, I respect the opinion that some have that our Drone attacks are acts of terror.

How do you think you'd feel if another country's military was flying un-manned drones over your neighborhood, knowing that at any time, 24/7, night or day, your next breath could be your last? Everytime you hear a drone overhead, you run for cover. Or you try to calm your crying children down. Or even to sleep at night. Any population with those things flying overhead, is in a constant state of terror.