• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What are the Dems plans for radical Islam?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Good luck hiding under your bed.
No time to hide... I'm too busy guarding your bed from fake terrorists.

Fair enough, but while you're doing that, what AREN'T you protecting us from? Everything has an opportunity cost, and while I admire your commitment to making skittish suburbanites feel safer, doing so means a more real threat is probably going unaddressed.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Good luck hiding under your bed.
No time to hide... I'm too busy guarding your bed from fake terrorists.

Funny, I live in Manhattan. Work right next to the Chrysler building. Walk by the WTC site all of the time. I am not scared, nor will I ever be. I'd rather take my .0000000000012% chance of getting killed by a terrorist than worry about it. Go ahead and march around without questioning why, how likely it's needed, or what we should do to really prevent it. I'd rather also take that risk than certainly give up something by either living differently or giving up any rights. You are guarding against overblown threats.

100% of losing a right through insecurity vs a .0000000000012% chance of getting killed by a terrorist seems like a losing proposition.
The following are false assumptions:
1) that I am consumed by fear - sometimes I am very afraid, but I will never let it consume me.

2) that I -only- wish to fight the terrorists, and not cure the disease of radicalism itself - (which we are simultaneously doing by going to the source of the problem = radical mosques with radical imams, poverty, illiteracy, our addiction to fossil fuels, etc.)

3) that I honestly care what you think of me.

Some of us "Ignirant soljerz" spend nearly every waking moment hoping and praying that our leaders find a better way to fight this thing; and, ultimately, a way to end this thing.

At the same time, I do not expect everyone around me to walk around in fear. However, I do expect everyone to recognize the very real threats that are held at bay every day by men and women willing to stand in the way. When you consistently dismiss the threat as something barely more than a nuisance, you are disrespecting, and perhaps even endangering, those who face the very real threat every day.

And the threat to American lives is not only in Iraq - This war is being fought, on the ground, around the globe, 24 hours a day... every day.

The entire GWOT is a catch-22 at this point. On one hand, it is much safer and strategically sound to keep it invisible and in the shadows (out of the public view); while, on the other hand, I sometimes wish that the general public could see the reality of the real battles being waged around the world. Perhaps in knowing the reality, they'd finally begin to grasp the true dangers; and, *gasp*, perhaps they'd actually support the efforts with something more than a 99 cent ribbon on their cars.

/rant
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Good luck hiding under your bed.
No time to hide... I'm too busy guarding your bed from fake terrorists.

Funny, I live in Manhattan. Work right next to the Chrysler building. Walk by the WTC site all of the time. I am not scared, nor will I ever be. I'd rather take my .0000000000012% chance of getting killed by a terrorist than worry about it. Go ahead and march around without questioning why, how likely it's needed, or what we should do to really prevent it. I'd rather also take that risk than certainly give up something by either living differently or giving up any rights. You are guarding against overblown threats.

100% of losing a right through insecurity vs a .0000000000012% chance of getting killed by a terrorist seems like a losing proposition.
The following are false assumptions:
1) that I am consumed by fear - sometimes I am very afraid, but I will never let it consume me.

2) that I -only- wish to fight the terrorists, and not cure the disease of radicalism itself - (which we are simultaneously doing by going to the source of the problem = radical mosques with radical imams, poverty, illiteracy, our addiction to fossil fuels, etc.)

3) that I honestly care what you think of me.

Some of us "Ignirant soljerz" spend nearly every waking moment hoping and praying that our leaders find a better way to fight this thing; and, ultimately, a way to end this thing.

At the same time, I do not expect everyone around me to walk around in fear. However, I do expect everyone to recognize the very real threats that are held at bay every day by men and women willing to stand in the way. When you consistently dismiss the threat as something barely more than a nuisance, you are disrespecting, and perhaps even endangering, those who face the very real threat every day.

And the threat to American lives is not only in Iraq - This war is being fought, on the ground, around the globe, 24 hours a day... every day.

The entire GWOT is a catch-22 at this point. On one hand, it is much safer and strategically sound to keep it invisible and in the shadows; while, on the other hand, sometimes I wish the general public could see the reality of the real battles being waged around the world. Perhaps in knowing the reality, they'd finally start grasping the true dangers; and, *gasp*, perhaps they'd finally support the efforts with something more than a 99 cent ribbon on their cars.

/rant

I see what you're saying, but with all due respect, you're not engaged in the "war for the free world" either. Calling terrorism a nuisance isn't right (and, all BS aside, who's really used that word?), but there has to be a middle ground between terrorism not being a problem and terrorism being the all consuming obsession of our nation that it currently is.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74 However, I do expect everyone to recognize the very real threats that are held at bay every day by men and women willing to stand in the way. When you consistently dismiss the threat as something barely more than a nuisance, you are disrespecting, and perhaps even endangering, those who face the very real threat every day.

Nope, by recognizing that Iraq is no threat to us and wasn't from the start AND recognizing that terrorism and the threat has increased because of the clusterf@ck in Iraq we are only respecting our soldiers if we not have them involved in this farce. OF course they'd also be much less endangered if we pulled them out of this BS.

 
Originally posted by: Aimster
& Iraq had what to do with radical Islam?

N O T H I N G

That's a stretch. Just take a look at the place now, there are plenty of radical Muslims. We didn't create them, they've been there the whole time. The only difference between now and then is that the iron fist of Saddam was keeping them in check. Just because the US invasion of Iraq stirred up the hornets nest doesn't meant the hornets weren't there before.
 
The people of Iraq are not a threat to the West.

They are a threat to themselves because they want power. Sunnis had power for a long time and they loved it. Now the Shittes have power and the Sunnis are mad. They are attacking each other for power.
What does their fight have to do with us?
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Aimster
& Iraq had what to do with radical Islam?

N O T H I N G

That's a stretch. Just take a look at the place now, there are plenty of radical Muslims. We didn't create them, they've been there the whole time. The only difference between now and then is that the iron fist of Saddam was keeping them in check. Just because the US invasion of Iraq stirred up the hornets nest doesn't meant the hornets weren't there before.

Poppycock.

Reconsider your post and try again.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Aimster
& Iraq had what to do with radical Islam?

N O T H I N G

That's a stretch. Just take a look at the place now, there are plenty of radical Muslims. We didn't create them, they've been there the whole time. The only difference between now and then is that the iron fist of Saddam was keeping them in check. Just because the US invasion of Iraq stirred up the hornets nest doesn't meant the hornets weren't there before.

Poppycock.

Reconsider your post and try again.

Actually he was correct; do you really think the war radicalized people overnight? Between Boberfett's and Aimsters posts you find the truth; they were radical already and kept in check by Saddam; now however they are in a power struggle for the rights to run the country, oil revenues, etc.
 
Topic: What are the Dems plans for radical Islam?

What is Europe?

It's simple really, we need to open our arms, our hearts, and be assimilated. It takes a bigot or a racist, or an Islamophobe to be bothered by a few radicals using unpopular rhetoric. There is no war. There is no threat, except from George W Bush. America is the big bad evil in the world, we must stop America!

There, I bolded the explicit end of the Democratic line of thought on the subject of Islam. Least that?s my perception of what they've been telling us these past 6 years.
 
There were radical Sunnis and Shiites long before we invaded Iraq. You can pretend that they didn't exist before, but that's just being ignorant. The only thing we did was allow them to crawl out from under the rock where Saddam was keeping them. Just look at who is being killed and that'll tell you all you need to know. There are hundreds of Iraqis dying daily compared to a few US soldiers. If it was simply the US that "radicalized" them they'd be ambushing our soldiers. Instead you have Iraqis killing Iraqis, which means they were only ever waiting for an opportunity to kill each other.
 
It's a civil war....
it has to do with people fighting for power.

that is not a danger to my way of life or yours. I am not Iraqi, are you?
 
I would say Iraq has very little to do with dealing with radical Islam. Except in that leaving it in ruins we leave to become another pre-US-invasion Afghanistan.

So then, how do you respond to my assertion that the Democratic plan for radical Islam is that America must be stopped?
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
It's a civil war....
it has to do with people fighting for power.

that is not a danger to my way of life or yours. I am not Iraqi, are you?

Are you talking to me? Read my post again. I never said Iraq was a danger to me or anyone in the US. But your claim was that Iraq had nothing to do with radical Islam, and that is 100% false.

If there were two factions of Christians killing each other in the US in an attempt to gain power, wouldn't you call those radical Christians? Two factions, split down a religious line, killing other people. Sounds pretty radical to me.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Aimster
It's a civil war....
it has to do with people fighting for power.

that is not a danger to my way of life or yours. I am not Iraqi, are you?

Are you talking to me? Read my post again. I never said Iraq was a danger to me or anyone in the US. But your claim was that Iraq had nothing to do with radical Islam, and that is 100% false.

If there were two factions of Christians killing each other in the US in an attempt to gain power, wouldn't you call those radical Christians? Two factions, split down a religious line, killing other people. Sounds pretty radical to me.

Yet there were, back in the US Civil War. Iraq isn't about "radical" anything, it's just humans being humans.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: sandorski
Poppycock.

Reconsider your post and try again.
Do you ever have anything useful to say?

I pretty much given up on "useful". It's just a waste of time in P&N.

To answer the question more clearly: I'll contribute "useful" when there's actually a serious attempt to discuss something approaching reality.
 
democratic plan for radical islam: treat it like a minor nuisance. that's all clinton did. meanwhile, 911 was planned, embassies were bombed, etc. etc..
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Aimster
It's a civil war....
it has to do with people fighting for power.

that is not a danger to my way of life or yours. I am not Iraqi, are you?

Are you talking to me? Read my post again. I never said Iraq was a danger to me or anyone in the US. But your claim was that Iraq had nothing to do with radical Islam, and that is 100% false.

If there were two factions of Christians killing each other in the US in an attempt to gain power, wouldn't you call those radical Christians? Two factions, split down a religious line, killing other people. Sounds pretty radical to me.

You do know the Bible has been the cause of more civil wars than the Quran, correct?
 
So, the Republican plan, as I gather from some of the posters here is - genocide, I mean many posters here keep carping about "the problem" that needs to be dealt with so just come out with it...


Originally posted by: johnnobts
democratic plan for radical islam: treat it like a minor nuisance. that's all clinton did. meanwhile, 911 was planned, embassies were bombed, etc. etc..

It must hurt to face that Bush ignored warnings about possible attacks on the U.S. b.b.b.b.but CLINTON!!!!!
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
You do know the Bible has been the cause of more civil wars than the Quran, correct?
The bible had a head start. Apparently more than a few Muslims are dedicated to closing that gap.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Aimster
You do know the Bible has been the cause of more civil wars than the Quran, correct?
The bible had a head start. Apparently more than a few Muslims are dedicated to closing that gap.

civil wars are a threat to the nations where they take place.

we are not in Iraq.
 
I think it is obvious that the Democrat plan for 2008 will be to point at Iraq and call it a failure and try to win based on that alone.

Their ?plan? will be to do something better than the Republicans have done. But they will avoid having to actually spell out that plan in detail. Why go through all that effort when you can just point at the war instead?

So the question for the American people becomes what is better. The failed Republican plan or the non-existent Democrat plan?
In a battle of equals the Democrats probably win. However, the candidates will most likely have a huge effect on this and a good Republican might be able to overcome the failures of the war if they can frame the issue properly.
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
civil wars are a threat to the nations where they take place.

we are not in Iraq.
What about al Qaida? They ARE in Iraq. Do we just walk away and leave them be?
 
Back
Top