Why Do People Not Grasp...

[JakeHero]

....the Threat of Terrorism?

It seems to be more people seem concerned with the fundamentalist that spout creationism than the fundamentalist that blow themselves up. Is this naivity just a symptom of liberalism or is it people are too idiotic to comprehend their miserable lives are in jeopardy?

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmToGmw2DDw In it Bill Maher makes an ass out of himself and proves he has no understanding of worldwide terrorism.

It's not just the Bill Mahers that are ignorant of the dangers rising, it's mainstream liberalism. I'd say that this man, Christopher Hitchens, is the only kind that actually understands how much of a problem terrorism and the people involved in it are. Don't take my word, just read these few quotes from a few prominant leftist.

"Anthrax did not come from a cave in Afghanistan," but from "[t]he same people who blew up the building in Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, the terror attack in Atlanta, Georgia - those same anti-union forces....'Ashcroft is using the FBI as one weapon, the IRS as another weapon, and leaks to the right-wing media as another weapon' to 'destroy the leadership' of organized labor." -- Jesse Jackson at speech to AFL-CIO in Dec, 2001

Jesse Jackson blaming someone else...............other than the whiteman, but not surprisingly the wrong person.

"This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor to create Empire America. If you go along like sheep that is what will happen." -- Jim McDermott (D - WA)

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" --Michael Moore, Michaelmoore.com, September 12

Gee, I don't know Michael Moron, maybe the terrorist are more concerning with blowing up your lardass than they are about petty American politics?

"Patriotism threatens free speech with death. It is infuriated by thoughtful hesitation, constructive criticism of our leaders and pleas for peace. It despises people of foreign birth. It has specifically blamed homosexuals, feminists and the American Civil Liberties Union. In other words, the American flag stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder. Whom are we calling terrorists here?" -- Barbara Kingsolver, novelist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 27

Well, Barbara Kingsolver, if it wasn't for that patriotism no wars would of been fought and your fugly feminist ass would be nothing more than someone's sex slave. Tell you what, don't like American policy? Move to another country where they can ban your religion or take away your economic rights?

"My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war." -- Katha Pollitt, The Nation, October 8

It sad when an elementary school girl is smarter than her dumbshit mother.

Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." -- Bill Clinton explains to a Long Island, N.Y., business group why he turned down Sudan's offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden to America in 1996 .

I can't make a comment here. Bill Clinton is actually being honest about how ineffective a military leader he was.

You gotta understand people, I'm not using this thread to attack leftwingers solely for the reason I despise them, I'm doing this because of how exceedingly frustrating it is to have such a large demograph, that is utterly oblivious of the danger, is actually calling some of the shots and continuing with their partisan idiocy and second-guessing. I'm going to agree with Cellardoor here, leftwingers are willing to harm ans sacrifice American lives if it suits them politically.

Take a look at some of the agendas of the islamofascistsd:
http://www.blue-oceans.com/psychology/terror_
psych.html#Anchor-Psychology-47857
http://www.alanalexandroff.com/Byman.htm
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32759.pdf
Wake up, people, and leftwingers, quit being the apologist for terrorist.

[K-RadPie]

Liberals are pussies who don't grasp the fact that in order for freedom to happen, terrorists need to be pwned, not sympathized with.

[animehater]

Seems people are more concerned with the earth than with the world.

If you don't get what I mean than shut the fuck up!

[Britkid]

At 7/2/07 05:42 PM, JakeHero wrote: Gee, I don't know Michael Moron, maybe the terrorist are more concerning with blowing up your lardass than they are about petty American politics?

You have to look at 'why', and then you get to American politics. These people don't like the American way of life and they think it is being imposed upon them even in their country. Terrorism is entirely unacceptable but prevention is better than cure.

Well, Barbara Kingsolver, if it wasn't for that patriotism no wars would of been fought and your fugly feminist ass would be nothing more than someone's sex slave. Tell you what, don't like American policy? Move to another country where they can ban your religion or take away your economic rights?

Hey, newsflash. America isn't the only free country anymore. And just because patriotism was the right way in the past, doesn't mean it's not outdated now.

It sad when an elementary school girl is smarter than her dumbshit mother.

Jingoism, yes. All the other stuff does sound a bit hippy, but definitely jingoism.

I can't make a comment here. Bill Clinton is actually being honest about how ineffective a military leader he was.

Haha, do you have any idea how many Muslims want to attack America? Some of them are just disillusioned radicals with neither the means nor the will to see it through. If America locked up everyone who wanted to attack them then Gitmo would be getting pretty full. Besides, what are you going to do? Swoop down on every Arab country and kidnap their citizens.

You gotta understand people,

That's rich.

I'm not using this thread to attack leftwingers solely for the reason I despise them,

Instead you are just looking for someone to blame for terrorism.

At 7/2/07 05:53 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Liberals are pussies who don't grasp the fact that in order for freedom to happen, terrorists need to be pwned, not sympathized with.

Right...let's invade every country with a few hundred terrorists, and then get a few thousand more.

[Elfer]

At 7/2/07 05:53 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Liberals are pussies who don't grasp the fact that in order for freedom to happen, terrorists need to be pwned, not sympathized with.

You can't stamp out terrorism just by killing a bunch of terrorists. Terrorism isn't a cohesive force, you can't irreparably cripple their forces. When you kill terrorists, new ones spring up in their place.

Do you even know why a person might be motivated to become a terrorist? Do you think they read about America in a newspaper and thought "Wow, look at all of these freedoms and good things. I guess I'd better dedicate my life to killing these people."?

[K-RadPie]

At 7/2/07 06:19 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/2/07 05:53 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Liberals are pussies who don't grasp the fact that in order for freedom to happen, terrorists need to be pwned, not sympathized with.

You can't stamp out terrorism just by killing a bunch of terrorists. Terrorism isn't a cohesive force, you can't irreparably cripple their forces. When you kill terrorists, new ones spring up in their place.

No, but you CAN equip and train anti terrorist forces around the globe to prevent terrorist attacks.

[SmilezRoyale]

"Hey, newsflash. America isn't the only free country anymore. And just because patriotism was the right way in the past, doesn't mean it's not outdated now."

VERY few countries other than the united states tollerate, none the less PROTECT a person who expresses veiws that challenge the initiatives of the government like leftists in america have. Even if it's legal in some, that doesn't mean that the government will still descide to do something if that same contraversial writer get's bricks thrown into her window.

As for Terrorism; as president i would Make a call for a bill called the PP act [Pathogen protection] which would forceivly dismantle every single US defense program [From police officers to Nuclear Defense] Just so the scientists could make accurate estimates as to how important our opressive police force, our savage military, and our self-spying phone tapping government inteligence is for protecting the safety of the nation.

[animehater]

At 7/2/07 07:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: [From police officers to Nuclear Defense]

Even police officers? You an anrchist boy?

[Nitroglys]

I watched that racist agenda pushing propaganda. The only thing it made clear is that Bush is not part of a cult bent on world destruction. But you cant say he is some kind of saviour, He kinda has a tendency to push us closer to an apocolypse, between starting your hated WWIII, and going full steam toward a 3rd ice age. It is obvious that the war on terror is more than a holy war against the blasphomous, it is a coorprate dream. with the Bush familes closest business friends being handed contracts to wage war and then to clean up afterward. So Maher was wrong about Bush being in the same sect but he has some of the same futures.

And like elfer said. you cant fight terrorism effectivly. There will be no WW3 steming from terrorism. There will be no former terrorism front. It Hasnt even touched america effectivly since 9/11.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/2/07 07:24 PM, animehater wrote:

At 7/2/07 07:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: [From police officers to Nuclear Defense]

Even police officers? You an anrchist boy?

I invision that they're would be so much destruction from 1 year of A united Free for all that They'd never make those stupid conjectures for atleast another 200 years or so.

[Noddys-Revenge]

What most people don't grasp is that terroism is barely a problem in the western world.

It kills few, injures few and causes little economic damage. The only thing is does is create pointless mass hysteria.

FFS Flu kills more people than terrorism.

And if your that devoted to tackling this problem when there are so many worse ones then some simple advice: Your not going deafeat terrorism with violence of your own as much as some people would love to believe.

[AapoJoki]

At 7/2/07 07:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: VERY few countries other than the united states tollerate, none the less PROTECT a person who expresses veiws that challenge the initiatives of the government like leftists in america have. Even if it's legal in some, that doesn't mean that the government will still descide to do something if that same contraversial writer get's bricks thrown into her window.

Except virtually every country in Europe. Well, unless you count Belarus and Russia. I'd say there are at least 50 countries in the world where it's legally and morally possible, sometimes even encouraged, to criticize the government radically, and the government will still protect your right to do so.

[JakeHero]

Some of the responses in this thread has confirmed everything I said about leftwingers and terrorism.

[K-RadPie]

At 7/2/07 07:33 PM, Noddys-Revenge wrote: What most people don't grasp is that terroism is barely a problem in the western world.

And I take it you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world?

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 06:17 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:

Hey, newsflash. America isn't the only free country anymore. And just because patriotism was the right way in the past, doesn't mean it's not outdated now.

It's just too sad that it's something people like you are severely lacking.

That's rich.

Too bad it's true...

Instead you are just looking for someone to blame for terrorism.

Now if we were talking about Bush, i'm sure you could list a whole slew of problems to blame him for, even if he made all of his decisions based on what he was told by the European Nations.

Right...let's invade every country with a few hundred terrorists, and then get a few thousand more.

Wow, you really have no idea what's happening over there, do you?

Haha, lefties are pathetic. They should be in Gitmo, then we should turn Gitmo into what they think it already is.

[dodo-man-1]

At 7/2/07 05:42 PM, JakeHero wrote: Why do People Not Grasp...
....the Threat of Terrorism?

Why do people overhype the threat of terrorism?

I'm not saying it's not a problem, but if it was that serious of an issue, we should have nuked Iraq or something by now. The government (and other people, apparently) have been complaining about the terrorist threat since 9/11. Yeah, we know, terrorism is bad, so shut up and DO something about it, why dontcha?

[Bolo]

At 7/2/07 05:53 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Liberals are pussies who don't grasp the fact that in order for freedom to happen, terrorists need to be pwned, not sympathized with.

This may be the most moronic single thing I've ever read. Congratulations on this prestigious honor.

Terrorism can't simply be "pwned", as has been evidenced by our lack of victory in Iraq. We tried pwnage, and it really takes a bitching long time to even make even a little progress. And lest I remind you that the longer troops are on the field, the more that are going to die. I don't think you all understand the gravity of this situation. You think the terrorist organizations can just be destroyed at any time, with our "massive superior force". And while we may actually have a massively superior force, the terrorists are like ants at a picnic. There's just too many of them, they're hard to distinguish, and even if you kill the queen of the colony, they'll still go on without hesitation — and perhaps with even higher resolve, because they're energized by martyrdom.

Even the greatest army on the face of the planet simply cannot win against 2 million civilians, and an enemy that blends seamlessly amongst them. We can comb the streets, and reduce their forces as much as possible, but there will always be more, because they can always recruit more from an endless chicken soup of Iraqis, angry at the US for invading its country without provocation, and killing its civilians—however accidentally—in the crossfire of our anti-terrorist war.

I've always been skeptical of the US's decision to pour so many resources into Iraq, instead of Afghanistan, where the terrorists were. If we had gone more extensively into Afghanistan, you would not see any opposition today about fighting terrorism. NONE. And this, I can guarantee you. Iraq has always felt too much like a scapegoat to me, instead of a real purposeful battlefield. This is probably a major reason why terrorists are gaining so much momentum in the Middle East; because we invaded the damn wrong country. We had justification to invade Afghanistan, but not any solid enough to invade Iraq.

Dammit all to hell. We need to either come up with a sweeping new strategy for victory in Iraq, or leave before suicide bombers decide to take out their frustrations on the US's doorstep.

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 09:27 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote:

I'm not saying it's not a problem, but if it was that serious of an issue, we should have nuked Iraq or something by now. The government (and other people, apparently) have been complaining about the terrorist threat since 9/11.

If 9/11 wasn't that big of a problem, then neither was Pearl Harbor. Neither are 3,000 soldier deaths.

Whatever.

Yeah, we know, terrorism is bad, so shut up and DO something about it, why dontcha?

Well... they are, and when they do, you people bitch and come up with excuses like: "you're just creating more".

[animehater]

At 7/2/07 09:27 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: we should have nuked Iraq or something by now.

I just stoped reading there.

[TheBasics]

The worst terrorist threat western nations can face is obviously nuclear. Since Americas airport security is tight now another 9/11 is not likely, at least not on that scale. Now a terrorist bringing a nuke into NYC bringing it to the heart of Manhattan and pulling the trigger can take millions of lives immediatly and millions more by radiation (like me i live in brooklyn)
And you can't say "well that type of security breach isn't possible!!!1" Then let me tell you something buddy it is, I live here and I can say that there would be no problem for somebody to smuggle a Bomb by means of Van/Truck into Manhattan. What can I say, those are one of the ways I expect that I might die. :( Damn terrorists

[dodo-man-1]

At 7/2/07 09:29 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/2/07 09:27 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote:

If 9/11 wasn't that big of a problem, then neither was Pearl Harbor. Neither are 3,000 soldier deaths.
Whatever.

It was a big problem. What I'm saying is that the after-effects weren't really so bad that we couldn't stop them right now.

Well... they are, and when they do, you people bitch and come up with excuses like: "you're just creating more".

What, exactly, do you mean by "you people?"

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 09:36 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote:

What, exactly, do you mean by "you people?"

The lower beings/species/humans. Whatever word you wish to fit in there.

[K-RadPie]

At 7/2/07 09:29 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 7/2/07 05:53 PM, K-RadPie wrote: stuff

more stuff

I never said anything about it being an easy process. Although maybe "pwned" wasn't the wordage I was looking for, more anti-terrorist troops need to be trained around the globe in places like Darfur and Iraq to maintain security in these places, discourage terrorist ideals among the youth, and above all, kick terrorist ass to the best of their ability.

[TheSovereign]

Yes, I totally argree. Terrorists are every where they have advanced weapons and could destroy America any second. Ther armies are vast and they have the lastest and greatest in weapons and training. If we do not kill every single Muslim they will take over the world!!!

[Memorize]

At 7/2/07 10:02 PM, TheSovereign wrote: Yes, I totally argree. Terrorists are every where they have advanced weapons and could destroy America any second. Ther armies are vast and they have the lastest and greatest in weapons and training. If we do not kill every single Muslim they will take over the world!!!

The typical Liberal: "3000 US deaths in a span of 4 years is a massacre! Too much!"
The typical Liberal in response to terrorism: "3000 deaths in a matter of 1 hour is nothing!"

Great. I love the logic.

[SuperDeagle]

Damnit I just hate it when people have to factor in human lives.

[TheBasics]

At 7/2/07 10:14 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Damnit I just hate it when people have to factor in human lives.

Seriously why can't we all be like the nazis.

[SyntheticTacos]

I see, JakeHero, you hate terrorism, so you supported a war that would spawn terrorism in a country that had no terrorist threat before. Smart.

[animehater]

At 7/2/07 10:43 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

:so you supported a war that would spawn terrorism in a country that had no terrorist threat before.

Well bitching about the past won't make the terrorists go away now will they?

[SyntheticTacos]

At 7/2/07 09:44 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 7/2/07 09:29 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 7/2/07 05:53 PM, K-RadPie wrote: stuff

more stuff

I never said anything about it being an easy process. Although maybe "pwned" wasn't the wordage I was looking for, more anti-terrorist troops need to be trained around the globe in places like Darfur and Iraq to maintain security in these places, discourage terrorist ideals among the youth, and above all, kick terrorist ass to the best of their ability.

Okay. I agree that the extremist left-wingers who think that the U.S. is worse than Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, China, etc. are nuts. But moderate Democrats are not the enemies here. What we need is a government that will be willing to defeat terrorism when it threatens, but not invade unrelated countries and spawn more terrorists. And then, when people said "Uh, let's not invade Iraq, Saddam has no WMDs and Al Qaeda doesn't even have a significant presence there", the hard right said they were terrorist sympathizers? How does that add up? How does wanting to prevent war in a country where you KNEW there would be a significant terrorist uprising count as sympathizing terrorists? All that aside (what's done is done, we're stuck knee deep in international political and violent shit in Iraq), what we need now is to stop pissing our allies off. When we piss them off, what do we create? More extremist left-wingers! More ACTUAL terrorist sympathizers, not people who want to prevent terrorism from starting! We don't need to bend over and take it from Europe, but we don't need to say "I STILL SUPORT BUSH LOLOLLOLOLOL" after the Bush administration that didn't destroy terrorism- it created it.

Now I'm somewhat iffy on what we should do in Iraq, but I think the best thing would either to admit that we screwed up and hightail it out of there, or put as much of our military effort into it as we can. No more halfway crap. The problem with the first is that it seems like we won't clean up our mess and just abandon the people; the problem with the second is that our mere presence in Iraq is creating so much anger. So either we withdraw and see what happens, or we actually send in our military to secure the country. A lot of our problems result from just staying in there with half of a presence leaving us more vulnerable to attack while simulataneously creating international fury and casualties.

But was Iraq the right country to invade if you want to stamp out terrorism? It sure doesn't seem so- there are a ton more there then there have been in a long time, if ever.

So don't apply the "pussy liberal terrorist sympathizer" label to me. :)