What is Terrorism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
What exactly could the U.S. do to prevent nations from developing nuclear programs outside of outright just invading and forcibly preventing them?

I’m sure the public would be up for that right?[/quote]

Which countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them? I’m curious?[/quote]

Germany, Japan, Iraq. [/quote]

The U.S. did not go to war with Germany and Japan to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons, and neither were on the cusp of becoming nuclear weapon states. There is no indication that Iraq was on the verge of nuclear capability prior to the Iraq War, or that it even had an active nuclear program. It was not a preemptive invasion, but a preventative one. Iraq was a war of choice that greatly injured American grand strategy.[/quote]

The question was “what countries have been prevented from developing nuclear weapons by the US invading them?”. The invasion of Germany most definitely stopped them from developing nuclear weapons. The reason why Germany was made the priority to defeat is because they could develop nuclear weapons. So I am right and you are wrong.

Besides that there were operations like the Telemark raid which were meant to stop the German nuclear program. There was a special group of Manhattan project scientists whose mission was to track the German program and to secure sites and scientists during the invasion. The Hiroshima bomb was made using intercepted Uranium that was intended for the Japanese to use.

Iraq was very much looking to reconstitute it’s weapons programs. Just because they weren’t far along the path that doesn’t change the fact that something needed to be done. [/quote]

Containment was working against Iraq, and it did not constitute an existential threat that warranted a preventive (as opposed to preemptive) invasion.

42

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too
[/quote]

Wrong. He as an American President has one duty above all others. To serve and protect the American people. Admittedly he didn’t know what that his decision would cost lives, but hindsight proves it to be a bad decision. IF he had to kill 100 Afghan civilians to stop 9/11, then that would be an easy choice looking back. To the President, American lives should be more important than any other countries citizens lives.
[/quote]

He is first bound by his own morality .

43

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

He is first bound by his own morality .
[/quote]

lmfao…

Clinton, the old racist, pro-abort that fucks anything that will let him…

Yeah, he is a “moral” man alright.

44

In America, terrorism is not committed by men with turbans, dirty beards and child-brides. Rather by left-wing, Marxist professors clad in tweed jackets, and horn-rimmed glasses sitting cross legged discussing baroque at your local coffee shop.

45

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

He is first bound by his own morality .
[/quote]

lmfao…

Clinton, the old racist, pro-abort that fucks anything that will let him…

Yeah, he is a “moral” man alright. [/quote]

I know it is hard to fathom but most people consider it moral not to kill innocent people

46

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
In America, terrorism is not committed by men with turbans, dirty beards and child-brides. Rather by left-wing, Marxist professors clad in tweed jackets, and horn-rimmed glasses sitting cross legged discussing baroque at your local coffee shop. [/quote]

what do these nefarious individuals do ?

47

(Cough)

Ayers, Bill

48

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

He is first bound by his own morality .
[/quote]

lmfao…

Clinton, the old racist, [u]pro-abort[/u] that fucks anything that will let him…

Yeah, he is a “moral” man alright. [/quote]

I know it is hard to fathom but most people consider it moral not to kill innocent people
[/quote]

Tell me about it.

49

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too
[/quote]

Wrong. He as an American President has one duty above all others. To serve and protect the American people. Admittedly he didn’t know what that his decision would cost lives, but hindsight proves it to be a bad decision. IF he had to kill 100 Afghan civilians to stop 9/11, then that would be an easy choice looking back. To the President, American lives should be more important than any other countries citizens lives.
[/quote]

It’s not clear that killing UBL prior to 9/11 would have prevented a large scale terrorist attack on US soil. Al-Qaeda’s organizational structure does not make decapitation a decisive victory.

50

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

He is first bound by his own morality .
[/quote]

lmfao…

Clinton, the old racist, [u]pro-abort[/u] that fucks anything that will let him…

Yeah, he is a “moral” man alright. [/quote]

I know it is hard to fathom but most people consider it moral not to kill innocent people
[/quote]

Tell me about it. [/quote]

watch the video , Bill Clinton did not blow up Kandahar because he would have killed innocent people trying to get Bin Laden

51

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too
[/quote]

Wrong. He as an American President has one duty above all others. To serve and protect the American people. Admittedly he didn’t know what that his decision would cost lives, but hindsight proves it to be a bad decision. IF he had to kill 100 Afghan civilians to stop 9/11, then that would be an easy choice looking back. To the President, American lives should be more important than any other countries citizens lives.
[/quote]

It’s not clear that killing UBL prior to 9/11 would have prevented a large scale terrorist attack on US soil. Al-Qaeda’s organizational structure does not make decapitation a decisive victory.
[/quote]

Not only that for his theory that Clinton was wrong because he had no ability to see the future is bumping bizarre .

Probably every decision of history could have been improved with hind sight

52

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
(Cough)

Ayers, Bill[/quote]

Bill Ayers is a Terrorist today ??

53

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

He is first bound by his own morality .
[/quote]

lmfao…

Clinton, the old racist, [u]pro-abort[/u] that fucks anything that will let him…

Yeah, he is a “moral” man alright. [/quote]

I know it is hard to fathom but most people consider it moral not to kill innocent people
[/quote]

Tell me about it. [/quote]

watch the video , Bill Clinton did not blow up Kandahar because he would have killed innocent people trying to get Bin Laden [/quote]

You completely missed my point.

However, I don’t know (but my gut tells me it wouldn’t) that things would be significantly different had Ol’ Billy made that “tough call” now than they are.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I have plenty to dislike about Clinton without trying to make this a partisan issue.

Should he have done it? Probably. Would it have completely changed the course of history significantly for the better? I don’t know, but don’t think so.

54

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

He is first bound by his own morality .
[/quote]

lmfao…

Clinton, the old racist, [u]pro-abort[/u] that fucks anything that will let him…

Yeah, he is a “moral” man alright. [/quote]

I know it is hard to fathom but most people consider it moral not to kill innocent people
[/quote]

Tell me about it. [/quote]

watch the video , Bill Clinton did not blow up Kandahar because he would have killed innocent people trying to get Bin Laden [/quote]

You completely missed my point.

However, I don’t know (but my gut tells me it wouldn’t) that things would be significantly different had Ol’ Billy made that “tough call” now than they are.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I have plenty to dislike about Clinton without trying to make this a partisan issue.

Should he have done it? Probably. Would it have completely changed the course of history significantly for the better? I don’t know, but don’t think so. [/quote]

the difference between you and I is I do not think we should have done it .

Maybe with the ability to see into the future , we would have put more resources into getting OBL . I see no reason to kill innocent people as means of operation . That is different than ACCIDENTS HAPPEN

55

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too
[/quote]

Wrong. He as an American President has one duty above all others. To serve and protect the American people. Admittedly he didn’t know what that his decision would cost lives, but hindsight proves it to be a bad decision. IF he had to kill 100 Afghan civilians to stop 9/11, then that would be an easy choice looking back. To the President, American lives should be more important than any other countries citizens lives.
[/quote]

It’s not clear that killing UBL prior to 9/11 would have prevented a large scale terrorist attack on US soil. Al-Qaeda’s organizational structure does not make decapitation a decisive victory.
[/quote]

Not only that for his theory that Clinton was wrong because he had no ability to see the future is bumping bizarre .

Probably every decision of history could have been improved with hind sight
[/quote]

No I am saying that because we know what happened, you cant call it the right the decision. You can pretty much say that it was the wrong one. But as Bismark said nothing is quite that cut and dry when dealing with matters over there and it might not have done any good. But given what we know now, not taking OBL out as when he had the chance was the wrong decision. I was merely contradicting you saying he made the right decision, which is horseshit.

56

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too
[/quote]

Wrong. He as an American President has one duty above all others. To serve and protect the American people. Admittedly he didn’t know what that his decision would cost lives, but hindsight proves it to be a bad decision. IF he had to kill 100 Afghan civilians to stop 9/11, then that would be an easy choice looking back. To the President, American lives should be more important than any other countries citizens lives.
[/quote]

He is first bound by his own morality .
[/quote]

Wrong here also. He is first bound by the laws of the land, then by duty to the people of the country who put him in office. Presidents believing that there own sense of morality supersedes the law of the land is what leads to egregious executive orders that essentially negate laws meant to protect our country.

And to say his morality had anything to do with it is purely naïve or just utter bullshit, one or the other. If you had said he had lost his taste for military operations after he ran with his tail between his legs from OBL trained Aidid in Somalia despite the military wanting to finish the job. He lost his nerve, plain and simple. You could argue that we shouldn’t have been there and I would give you that, but once we go you have to finish what you started.

57

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
(Cough)

Ayers, Bill[/quote]

Bill Ayers is a Terrorist today ??
[/quote]

Do we know he’s not still? He said he won’t comment on the number of bombing he is responsible for.

58

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

He is first bound by his own morality .
[/quote]

lmfao…

Clinton, the old racist, pro-abort that fucks anything that will let him…

Yeah, he is a “moral” man alright. [/quote]

I know it is hard to fathom but most people consider it moral not to kill innocent people
[/quote]

You’re a joke. Clinton’s decision had nothing to do with “innocent people” getting hurt. There were no innocent civilians with OBL when Clinton had a chance to put a hellfire up his arse. OBL was in the middle of no where playing falconry with a couple of members of the Qatari royal family - ie, multi-millionaire Islamofascists who were financing OBL - you know OBL? The guy who was the most wanted terrorist on the planet who had just massacred over five hundred Africans with suicide truck bombers in East Africa. And why didn’t Clinton kill him? Nothing to do with “civilians” - how many Serbian “civilians” were killed in US led NATO bombings in Kosovo? The reason Clinton didn’t kill OBL is because Clinton didn’t want to upset the Qatari regime because the US was and still is allied with the IslamoNazi terror regime in Qatar.. Understand?

59

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
(Cough)

Ayers, Bill[/quote]

Bill Ayers is a Terrorist today ??
[/quote]

For the left Ayers never was a terrorist. He was a freedom fighter. Take the example of Nelson Mandela. Most white folk who didn’t grow up in SA consider him a messiah - a kind of sin eater for white guilt. But white South Africans remember a Communist who broke with the ANC because they weren’t violent enough and then carried out assassinations and car bombers. A guy who suggested cutting the noses off blacks who disagreed with him. A guy who backed Castro and Arafat and gave the country’s highest award to Colonel Gaddafi. It’s easy to see why Mandela was Obama’s prophet and why he attached himself with such fervour to the anti-apartheid movement in the 80’s. Obama is a radical leftist - for him Ayers and Mandela are models of virtue.

60

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I ran across this last week and see some relevance , Clinton did not kill Bin Laden when he had the chance because he wanted to be morally superior to him .

Israel should do the same [/quote]

So over 3000 people were killed because of that decision but at least he feels morally superior. Sounds about right.[/quote]

Yes and he did the right thing too
[/quote]

Wrong. He as an American President has one duty above all others. To serve and protect the American people. Admittedly he didn’t know what that his decision would cost lives, but hindsight proves it to be a bad decision. IF he had to kill 100 Afghan civilians to stop 9/11, then that would be an easy choice looking back. To the President, American lives should be more important than any other countries citizens lives.
[/quote]

It’s not clear that killing UBL prior to 9/11 would have prevented a large scale terrorist attack on US soil. Al-Qaeda’s organizational structure does not make decapitation a decisive victory.
[/quote]

Not only that for his theory that Clinton was wrong because he had no ability to see the future is bumping bizarre .

Probably every decision of history could have been improved with hind sight
[/quote]

No I am saying that because we know what happened, you cant call it the right the decision. You can pretty much say that it was the wrong one. But as Bismark said nothing is quite that cut and dry when dealing with matters over there and it might not have done any good. But given what we know now, not taking OBL out as when he had the chance was the wrong decision. I was merely contradicting you saying he made the right decision, which is horseshit. [/quote]

With Hind Sight (ABILITY TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE ) all present decisions would be wrong . Every consequence could have a better scenario