• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Carter Wants U.S To Fund Terror

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,920
Reaction score
2,473
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I'm sorry.. to me your begining to sound like a terrorist sympathizer or appologist. Your rationalizing the targeting of innocent civillians. These are not millitary targets, they are woman and children at a cafe or theater.

Nice. Combines a reduction to the absurd with an exercise in sophistry. Useless.

Both of you: essentially, I just posted a set of conditions that form a rough argument, and the best either of you have got is to say "No it's not!"

That's the reasoning of a child. Try actually saying why it's me being an "apologist," or why my arguments are a useless exercise in sophistry. If you can't do that, I think you are (or ought to be) forced to admit that you've got nothing.

Anyway, to clarify: No, I am not a terrorist sympathizer. But I think that terrorism is born of circumstances that are very morally ambiguous and simultaneously emotionally disquieting; and absent our recognition of our own considerable role in creating those circumstances, we will never be rid of terrorism.

I have a child myself, and it's my worst fear that some significant harm would come to her. So I understand the gravity of the matter under discussion. It's precisely that recognition that impells me to argue the point.

So, this shouldn't be so hard: explain why, when your own children are being killed and when there is absolutely no possibility of making this stop without killing the children of the people who are doing the killing, doing so remains unjustified. Answer that question satsifactorily, and I'll shut up.
 

Saboteur

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ThePhoenix said:
I have come to the conclusion that the liberals persistent hostility toward those who are fighting this war shows whose side they are really on. I may not like what Saudi stands for on one side but they like Pakistan are doing something to help us in this fight and this in itself shows me they are better then most liberals. The way I see it liberals don't fully understand the importance this War on Terror, sometimes you have to use those you do not agree with, such as Saudi to help win. And they are helping America where liberals are hurting.

The Democrats have been waffling in this war and muddying the issues, They hve been creating doubt and confusion therefore weakening our position in international relations, and as Bush said; “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists“. Liberal Dems show that they are for the latter.

Hey whatever helps you sleep at night.:roll:
 

Saboteur

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ashurbanipal said:
Terrorism is a point of view--I think it's clear we ought to fund Hamas provided they use the funding to help the Palestinian people.

Terrorism is a point of view I agree....

If someone invaded this country I sure as hell would be fighting tooth and nail with anything I could get my hands on! Car bombs included!
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,920
Reaction score
2,473
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I have come to the conclusion that the liberals persistent hostility toward those who are fighting this war shows whose side they are really on.

Brilliant observation, Watson. The entire world is describable in such binary terms, you know. Or, at least, people with a complete lack of maturity or intellectual fortitude think so.

I may not like what Saudi stands for on one side but they like Pakistan are doing something to help us in this fight and this in itself shows me they are better then most liberals.

Would it interest you to learn that the head of the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence Service--who incidentally has to be approved by the USDCI by treaty), Mahmoud Ahmad, wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 in August of 2001? Would it interest you to learn that the same man was partially in charge when we pulled back from Tora Bora and let the Pakistanis go in, where they subsequently "lost" him, even though he was "surrounded?"

The way I see it liberals don't fully understand the importance this War on Terror

What war on terror? The way I see it, you're talking about a war for GOD--that is, Gold, Oil, and Drugs. I guarantee you that I didn't reach that conclusion lightly.

sometimes you have to use those you do not agree with, such as Saudi to help win. And they are helping America where liberals are hurting.

If "America" could be substituted for "Goodness and Right" without issue, you'd have a case. My position is that America has been guided by some very evil politicians for a long time, and that the American people have been fed a highly selective and manufactured view of the world. If people really knew what has been done in our name, things wouldn't be as they are. 9-11 would never have happened.

The Democrats have been waffling in this war

You know, I've always wondered what it is about changing one's mind that's so bad. It seems like a mark of wisdom to me to change one's mind in the face of new evidence or superior argumentation. Only dumbasses don't change their minds.

Look, let's try this analogy:

Suppose your child comes home from school one day and complains that another child beat him up and stole his lunch money. You ask if he told a teacher, and he says that the teacher told him that he'd just have to live with it. So you go to the school the next day and ask the teacher about it. The teacher tells you that in fact she received your child's lunch money and that he has been trying to get this other child in trouble for some time by making false accusations, and that in fact your child is the one who may have been beating the other child up, though so far there are only suspicions of this. Do you maintain the same beliefs you did before--i.e. that your child was victimized and the school didn't do anything about it? Is it a case of "staying the course" and proclaiming that if you're not with your child, you're against him? Or is it more reasonable, in the face of new evidence (i.e. that the lunch money isn't missing) to punish your child for such behavior?

Similarly, when it was asserted that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, and all the evidence available to the average American was in support of this case, it made sense to support the war. But when it turns out that there were no WMD's, that there were no ties to Al Qaeda (in fact, they were enemies), that Saddam was not the genocidal maniac he was made out to be, why is it reasonable to continue to defend the Iraq war?

When we discover that our own government probably knew considerably more about the impending attacks than was previously thought, when we discover that as early as May of 2001 we had plans to go to war with Afganistan in October 2001, is it reasonable to think that we're on some noble crusade against terrorism?

and muddying the issues

Code for "raising legitimate concerns."

They have been creating doubt and confusion

If there weren't a reason for having doubts and confusion, we'd have hardly gotten very far.

therefore weakening our position in international relations

Our position ought to be weakened.

and as Bush said; “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists“. Liberal Dems show that they are for the latter.

First of all, I'm not a democrat. I am a liberal, but I'm not for terrorism any more than I'm for the war we're waging. I'm for what's right and just. Whereas we have wrought so much death and destruction in the world, we deserve whatever fighting back we encounter.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,920
Reaction score
2,473
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
a point of view?? like one group sees them as terrorists while the other sees them as freedom fighters??

More or less, that is what I mean.

that wasnt even good in Ireland when the British were there.

Why is that relevant?

how can you say that!?? funding terrorism of any kind is never a good thing.

Stop paying your taxes, then.

and if you do, you can be assured that the money that goes "to the people" will be about 1% of the actual money given to them as the rest will either go to buying weapons or to line their own pockets!

An oddly familiar arrangement.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't get your panties in a twist. In reality we've been sponsoring Hammas for decades. Officially we ceased giving them aid directly in the 80s but we have been shoveling money to them through a middle man ie the palestinian puppet governments.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Looks like I must have hit a liberal nerve somewhere...
Now if I can just find the artery..:mrgreen:
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The ways of Islam are savage and have been since its violent inception. Responding to those ways with diplomacy only recognizes them as a legitimate means of expressing dissent.
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just about any time we drop a bomb on a market place or launch a missile at a shopping mall, we're doing exactly that. Or, try all these links:

absolute garbage!!!

If we drop bombs on any such area, it is because there are TERRORISTS hiding amongst the civilians.

they are no longer "innocent" if they knowingly harbor terrorists.

and you will NEVER convince me that the American military intentionally targets market places, or shopping malls just for the hell of it.

it just doesnt happen.

WE ARE NOT THE TERRORISTS, no matter how bad liberals want us to be.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The ways of Islam are savage and have been since its violent inception. Responding to those ways with diplomacy only recognizes them as a legitimate means of expressing dissent.


thats retarded. The islamic civilizations that followed were one of the greatest and most tolerant in the post-classical world.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,920
Reaction score
2,473
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
absolute garbage!!!

If we drop bombs on any such area, it is because there are TERRORISTS hiding amongst the civilians.

they are no longer "innocent" if they knowingly harbor terrorists.

and you will NEVER convince me that the American military intentionally targets market places, or shopping malls just for the hell of it.

it just doesnt happen.

WE ARE NOT THE TERRORISTS, no matter how bad liberals want us to be.

Quite a few assumptions. Our own soldiers (and maybe I posted this in the other thread I'm arguing in right now--it's hard to keep track) admit that they are ordered to kill civilians, including women and children, and that they follow those orders. Also in that other thread is what I think is a pretty impeccable analysis of the relative moral strengths of our tactics.

they are no longer "innocent" if they knowingly harbor terrorists

Do you really think that most people in Iraq or Afganistan know that a terrorist has just shown up for dinner in the house next door? Do you always know what your neighbors are doing?

and you will NEVER convince me that the American military intentionally targets market places, or shopping malls just for the hell of it.

To the extent that you take that attitude, you will continue to live in a fantasy world.

WE ARE NOT THE TERRORISTS, no matter how bad liberals want us to be

You think I want us to be terrorists?
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Quite a few assumptions

actually I didnt assume anything. If you KNOWING ALLOW TERRORISTS TO LIVE AMONGST YOU, then you have no one but yourself to blame when the bombs start falling.

would you report a known child molestor living next door to you to the police?

Our own soldiers (and maybe I posted this in the other thread I'm arguing in right now--it's hard to keep track) admit that they are ordered to kill civilians, including women and children, and that they follow those orders

I would give anything to speak to one of those soldiers.

Do you really think that most people in Iraq or Afganistan know that a terrorist has just shown up for dinner in the house next door? Do you always know what your neighbors are doing?

absolutely. having Al Queda members in your neighborhood aint exactly the same thing as my neighbors kid stealing something from the corner grocery.

I know 90% of the families on my street.....what they do for a living, and who is home during the day. we watch one anothers homes. its called being vigilant.
if a terrorist moved into my neighborhood, you can bet someone would notice.

To the extent that you take that attitude, you will continue to live in a fantasy world.

the ones living the "fantasy" are the ones that claim American soldiers are the bad guys.

You think I want us to be terrorists?

I think liberals spend an awful damn lot of time trying to convince the rest of us that American soldiers are doing awful things, and that terrorists deserve the same bennifit of the doubt, and legal council the rest of the free world derserves.....and to me, thats just pure B.S.
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Saboteur said:
Hey whatever helps you sleep at night.:roll:
What would make me sleep at night is to send all the whinning leberals on a one way flight with Carter to Iraq and let them fight alongside of those so called freedom fighters. After all, They are on their side of this war.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,920
Reaction score
2,473
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
ProudAmerican,

I'm getting ready to get on an airplane, and I'll be out of town for a few days.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/kill-afghans.htm

This is one of those interviews mentioned. I've got two other similar links somewhere, but I'm pressed for time and can't find them at the moment. I've seen these stories quite a bit on the memoryhole and other such websites.

If you're not aware of what the memoryhole does, you might find it pretty interesting: they save news stories that anyone in power might find uncomfortable. They are bipartisan, doing so on the right and left (you may notice they have several stories in their archives about screwy things that Hillary Clinton has said and would rather not be reminded of, for instance). By watching these sites over a period of time, I've read maybe five or six such accounts.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ProudAmerican said:
Jimmy Carter makes Bush look like a Harvord Grad........oh wait.....Bush is a Harvord Grad.

Carter is a moron.

it shouldnt surprise anyone that he would side with the enemy.

Carter's IQ is only about 150. I don't know what Bush's IQ is, but I would venture to say it is about 100. This is just an observation based on his actions and his lack of articulation with his words.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
alphieb said:
Carter's IQ is only about 150. I don't know what Bush's IQ is, but I would venture to say it is about 100. This is just an observation based on his actions and his lack of articulation with his words.

No example better illustrates the limits of IQ than Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan. In youth Carter was a top student, graduating from the US Naval Academy before eventually earning a master's degree in physics. Reportedly he was so smart that he only opened his books to help his classmates with homework. After 7 years in the navy - including a stint as an engineer in the first nuclear submarine - Carter made it to the rank of Lt. Cdr. (equivalent to Lt. Col.). To this list of accomplishments one may add Carter's talent for poetry. As ex-President he won the Nobel Peace Prize - another distinction. Reagan on the other hand was never spectacular academically - to put it mildly. Taking classes in sociology (or economics) in a small farm college, Reagan really "majored in extra-curricular activities." He always touched his books the night before exams, and managed to graduate with a C. By all academic standards Carter was a star and Reagan was a dud. Had they taken an IQ test, there should have been no doubt who would have done better (Carter - by a huge margin). Yet once in the White House, their performances were hardly what one would expect from their "IQ's." The fact is, Reagan was incredibly intelligent in ways that matter if one has to be the President.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
alphieb said:
Carter's IQ is only about 150. I don't know what Bush's IQ is, but I would venture to say it is about 100. This is just an observation based on his actions and his lack of articulation with his words.
Another tidbit...

George W. Bush can be likable and charming. But, as the New York Times pondered in a front-page article on June 19, 2000, "is he smart enough to be president?"

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.)

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students — hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities.

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient — an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind."

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,822
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Don't get your panties in a twist. In reality we've been sponsoring Hammas for decades. Officially we ceased giving them aid directly in the 80s but we have been shoveling money to them through a middle man ie the palestinian puppet governments.

I heard an interesting interview on NPR with a former Israeli ambassador shortly after the Palestinian election in which he speculated that the dire need for international funding for the Palestinian Authority would in effect compel Hamas to take responsibility for policing terrorist activity against Israel more than any other administration has - chiefly because of the intense spotlight they will have on them due to their own violent history. We should also keep in mind that Hamas has stuck to a cease-fire agreement, I think for over a year now. The latest attacks in Israel have been perpetrated by Palestinian Islamic Jihad (at least I think that's what they're called - correct me if I am wrong). Perhaps, if we look at this situation with a little more open-mindedness, we could see where an organization like Hamas could be much more effective at controlling terrorist activity than a more "mainstream" beaureaucratic one. If they have the determination to do so - which remains to be seen. I do believe in the perpetuality of irony, though. So does history.
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
No example better illustrates the limits of IQ than Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan. In youth Carter was a top student, graduating from the US Naval Academy before eventually earning a master's degree in physics. Reportedly he was so smart that he only opened his books to help his classmates with homework. After 7 years in the navy - including a stint as an engineer in the first nuclear submarine - Carter made it to the rank of Lt. Cdr. (equivalent to Lt. Col.). To this list of accomplishments one may add Carter's talent for poetry. As ex-President he won the Nobel Peace Prize - another distinction. Reagan on the other hand was never spectacular academically - to put it mildly. Taking classes in sociology (or economics) in a small farm college, Reagan really "majored in extra-curricular activities." He always touched his books the night before exams, and managed to graduate with a C. By all academic standards Carter was a star and Reagan was a dud. Had they taken an IQ test, there should have been no doubt who would have done better (Carter - by a huge margin). Yet once in the White House, their performances were hardly what one would expect from their "IQ's." The fact is, Reagan was incredibly intelligent in ways that matter if one has to be the President.

Most of the 'A' Students
end up working for the 'C' Students
 
Top Bottom