Who's tougher on terror?

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: povertystruck
Don't you mean the catholic church? I'm a christian (specifically prodestant), but I'm not a pope worshipper.

Yes, posted edited. Thx.

 

[JellyBaby]

I would try to spread the side of Islam I think is real, the side that's animated by love. I would publicly challenge Islamic states when the repress their people and channel the hate that generates toward us.

Moonbeam, I'm not sure you can inject love into people....it's best delivered through contagious means.

I'm pretty sure Democrats would not support your appropriating any funds for anything to do with religion. For good or ill they are striving to remove all traces of religion from our lives, and with it, all spirituality.

 

[LunarRay]

Beemster,
I don't think Minister Farrakhan would entertain this dialog in the US giving his hard line beliefs. I'd suggest a real effort to identify the Islam of peace and love as the Islam that has been perverted by evil. The place for this is as close to Mecca or Medina as possible and run by scholars of Islam and not anything but. What is derived from this with no input from non Muslim folks is derived. Good or ill let it be as it may. Only in this way will all Muslim folks be compelled to follow. Hopefully it would be a good outcome. In any event, Paradise does not await the terrorist, hell does and for the sake of the atheist, worms. The more we bomb the more we show we are the evil we are referred to as. But, we can't allow terrorist activity to have its way with us and other folks. Call a cease fire and a general summit of all the leaders of Islam to see if what they are doing or supporting is Islam or some evil of this world..

 

[Moonbeam]

The point I'm trying to make, I think, is that we have to engage the debate on what is the meaning of Islam. The principles that our country were founded on are, in my opinion, thoroughly Islamic and had their origins and development there. We are born of the same fire as illuminated all religions. As with politics, only a liberal view can save us. Radical Islam is of the conservative side. It's the "I'm the only one right" crowd.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The point I'm trying to make, I think, is that we have to engage the debate on what is the meaning of Islam. The principles that our country were founded on are, in my opinion, thoroughly Islamic and had their origins and development there. We are born of the same fire as illuminated all religions. As with politics, only a liberal view can save us. Radical Islam is of the conservative side. It's the "I'm the only one right" crowd.

Yeah, I see your point.. include the who we are in all of it so they can have a commonality of reference. When they attack us they attack themselves..

The ITOOR crowd have already determined right and it must be right because they said it was and that is too cemented to engage this.

 

[tcsenter]

Perhaps the commission will explain why members of the bin Laden family were spirited out of the United States on orders from the White House before they could be questioned by the FBI.

Because the FBI never wanted to question them.

Since Osama has been a 'most-wanted' terrorist for several years before 9/11, the entire Bin Laden family has already been under heavy government scrutiny. They've all been questioned, multiple times, and all evidence strongly suggests that the family wants nothing to do with their estranged and indeed disowned son or his terrorist activities. They've been completely cooperative and forthcoming.

What is the FBI going to ask them this time?

"Are you really, really, really, super duper, triple-dog-dare-with-a-cherry-on-top sure that you don't know where Osama is or how he can be found?"

Its been settled, done deal, nothing left to ask them about.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dari
a full scale war, not unlike Enduring Freedom, would've done the trick. On military affairs, clinton was a puss. If he had balls he would've been much more aggressive against al qaeda. But somalia left him shook and scared. Bin Laden saw this and kept the missions going. Clinton needs to spend time with 9/11 victims/families so he can see how is phuck ups affected ordinary americans.

I seriously doubt that Clinton would have gotten approval for a full scale military assoult on the Taliban and Al Queda from the Republican in Congress.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dari
a full scale war, not unlike Enduring Freedom, would've done the trick. On military affairs, clinton was a puss. If he had balls he would've been much more aggressive against al qaeda. But somalia left him shook and scared. Bin Laden saw this and kept the missions going. Clinton needs to spend time with 9/11 victims/families so he can see how is phuck ups affected ordinary americans.

I seriously doubt that Clinton would have gotten approval for a full scale military assoult on the Taliban and Al Queda from the Republican in Congress.

The same knee jerk isolationist Republicans who condemned Clinton for not starting a war... hmm...

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dari
a full scale war, not unlike Enduring Freedom, would've done the trick. On military affairs, clinton was a puss. If he had balls he would've been much more aggressive against al qaeda. But somalia left him shook and scared. Bin Laden saw this and kept the missions going. Clinton needs to spend time with 9/11 victims/families so he can see how is phuck ups affected ordinary americans.

I seriously doubt that Clinton would have gotten approval for a full scale military assoult on the Taliban and Al Queda from the Republican in Congress.

The same knee jerk isolationist Republicans who condemned Clinton for not starting a war... hmm...

Red are you sure? Everyone knows that the Republicans are Neo-Con, baby killing war mongers that would lie to start a war. Simply because Clinton was president wouldn't stop them from their world domination goals.

 

[tcsenter]

I seriously doubt that Clinton would have gotten approval for a full scale military assoult on the Taliban and Al Queda from the Republican in Congress.

Nor would have Bush from the Democrats in Congress...until 9/11 gave us the moral legitimacy to do so.

The same knee jerk isolationist Republicans who condemned Clinton for not starting a war... hmm...

Care to provide any verifiable quotes of these Republicans who 1) opposed Clinton's efforts to strike at Al Qaeda and 2) condemned Clinton for "not starting a war"?

 

[Bigdude]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
These terrorist folks expect to die and go to paradise while doing Alah's work... threaten them with bombs or whatever... it is Allah's will that they die when they die... if the mission they are embarked on does not succeed it too is Alah's will... the terrorist is immune to the poison of threat. This is how they think... we must find another way to eliminate the threat... because it is real, seems to me.

We eliminate them by killing them, all of them!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Dari
a full scale war, not unlike Enduring Freedom, would've done the trick. On military affairs, clinton was a puss. If he had balls he would've been much more aggressive against al qaeda. But somalia left him shook and scared. Bin Laden saw this and kept the missions going. Clinton needs to spend time with 9/11 victims/families so he can see how is phuck ups affected ordinary americans.

do you remember who started vietnam? if you want war, both parties are equally capable, don't even pretend otherwise.

and which party retreated from vietnam?

and as for being a puss.. think reagan pulling out of beruit with tail between legs after hundreds of marines died in a barracks bombing. showing terrrorists that their tactics grow fruit..

 

[0roo0roo]

read chapter 16 of al frankens new book damning for bush.