Thread: Right-wing domestic terrorists

This kind of overlaps onto the "democracy" thread elsewhere on the board here, but it does seem like many governments of countries and in particular USA are involved in a battle of ethics between the democratic principles of loyalty to the majority of voters and loyalty to those special interest groups who can make or break a government with only a tiny proportion of the votes. Then you have the US media which is mainly controled by the Zionist lobby group. And the corporate sector who can control funding to political parties both directly and indirectly through financial interests of individual politicians and their families.
What you end up with is a government/media/corporate conglomerate alliance that seeks to control the voters rather than the other way around.
When governments have to keep lying to the people in order to keep them in check and the people start to wake up to it, well thats when revolutions start.

Originally Posted by Muadib

And as someone else noted, I just love when non-Americans comment on US politics... People shouldn't throw stones if they live in glass houses...

Care to explain this?

As for commenting . . . why shouldn't we?! The US, through many means influences our lives.

I doubt Australia has ever touched yours, we simply are not important or powerful enough nor do we have a large population to spread ourselves around, less than 8% of the US population . . . thank God.

Originally Posted by Muadib

And as someone else noted, I just love when non-Americans comment on US politics... People shouldn't throw stones if they live in glass houses...

Of course this is a generalisation, but it seems that Europeans at least have a better understanding of politics than the average American,
possibly due to a broader, more questioning, media viewpoint and a wider historical and cultural base.

I doubt anyone will shoot Khum BO just yet. Then they'd have Biden in office. If they took him out, OMG, it would be Pelosi.
I think the Euros here are rooting so hard for the dems coz they want America to be as dismal, uncreative, pessimistic, and down-trodden as Euro is. Real jealous folks over there.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

I doubt anyone will shoot Khum BO just yet. Then they'd have Biden in office. If they took him out, OMG, it would be Pelosi.
I think the Euros here are rooting so hard for the dems coz they want America to be as dismal, uncreative, pessimistic, and down-trodden as Euro is. Real jealous folks over there.

That 'bout says it all there Jet...as I've pointed out ad nauseum over time, it ain't a socialist paradise out there but they don't want to admit it...

I thought the Yanks gave up thinking everyone else was jealous of them a couple of years back? Used to hear a lot of it on the boards. Now its seldom uttered.

Originally Posted by Panda

I thought the Yanks gave up thinking everyone else was jealous of them a couple of years back? Used to hear a lot of it on the boards. Now its seldom uttered.

Do you believe that with the present administration Americans have cause to feel pride? Similar misery will soon be realized as was present toward the end of the Carter administration. Americans will be hanging thier heads in shame with the choices they made to run the country (into the ground).

Do you believe that with the Bush administration Americans have cause to feel pride VL?

At the moment, staunch Rightists are in a bit of a tizzy fit, lets face it. Your current bombast and umbrage is more a function of your humiliation at the Polls, the current state of disorder of your political party, and the electoral mandate given to the 'new broom'- plus the added momentum afforded by the mess the 'old broom' left behind. Your criticisms are knee jerk, ill considered, and Polemic. Mere hyperbole.

Heres a relevant question that maybe should be occupying your mind- how are you going to reform the GOP, make it relevant again? The USA currently lacks a credible opposition, it's pathetic.

History has yet to form a definitive judgement on the Obama administration, way too early for that. But one thing is for sure- it will not originate from your narrow and declining sector of the USA, politically speaking.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Americans will be hanging thier heads in shame with the choices they made to run the country (into the ground).

I thought they already done that when they booted out the rabid republicans?
Something at least to be a little bit proud of.

Originally Posted by sabang

Do you believe that with the Bush administration Americans have cause to feel pride VL?

At the moment, staunch Rightists are in a bit of a tizzy fit, lets face it. Your current bombast and umbrage is more a function of your humiliation at the Polls, the current state of disorder of your political party, and the electoral mandate given to the 'new broom'- plus the added momentum afforded by the mess the 'old broom' left behind. Your criticisms are knee jerk, ill considered, and Polemic. Mere hyperbole.

Heres a relevant question that maybe should be occupying your mind- how are you going to reform the GOP, make it relevant again? The USA currently lacks a credible opposition, it's pathetic.

History has yet to form a definitive judgement on the Obama administration, way too early for that. But one thing is for sure- it will not originate from your narrow and declining sector of the USA, politically speaking.

Stating that there was shame experienced during the Carter administration similar to what will undoubtedly be felt in the future with the current administration (actually already present whenever BO opens his mouth abroad 'apologizing' for America) does not logically lead to a conclusion that said statement was a pass for the policy errors exercised by the GWB administration.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

When you you start to approach literacy (your writings are a joke) I may acknowledge your existence. Otherwise, you remain a meaningless lowlife troll.

Actually, Butterfly makes far more sense than you do, on a varied platform of topics . . . and he does it in a language that is not his native tongue . . . can you beat that or even equal that?

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Stating that there was shame experienced during the Carter administration similar to what will undoubtedly be felt in the future with the current administration

So, now you are looking into the crystal ball and predicting the future based on a few months of trying to correct past failings . . . nice.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

actually already present whenever BO opens his mouth abroad 'apologizing' for America

It is certainly a step in the right direction, unless you continue to advocate the jack-boots and bomb policy which has killed so many of your own people as well as tens of thousands of others.

You just don't seem to get it that the old approach is exactly that . . . old, and that it doesn't work anymore.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by venturalaw

When you you start to approach literacy (your writings are a joke) I may acknowledge your existence. Otherwise, you remain a meaningless lowlife troll.

Actually, Butterfly makes far more sense than you do, on a varied platform of topics . . . and he does it in a language that is not his native tongue . . . can you beat that or even equal that?

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Stating that there was shame experienced during the Carter administration similar to what will undoubtedly be felt in the future with the current administration

So, now you are looking into the crystal ball and predicting the future based on a few months of trying to correct past failings . . . nice.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

actually already present whenever BO opens his mouth abroad 'apologizing' for America

It is certainly a step in the right direction, unless you continue to advocate the jack-boots and bomb policy which has killed so many of your own people as well as tens of thousands of others.

You just don't seem to get it that the old approach is exactly that . . . old, and that it doesn't work anymore.

Let's just agree to disagree. BTW, I never advocated "the jack-boots and bomb policy . . . " Neither did I advocate the run and hide policy of the Carter administration, or the just ignore/incompetent policy of the Clinton administration. You don't believe that the Clinton policy which allowed the US to be attacked repeatedly was correct, do you?

Originally Posted by venturalaw

actually already present whenever BO opens his mouth abroad 'apologizing' for America

I take that to mean you are a foreign policy hawk VL, OK. But saying BO is 'apologising for America' is just more Polemic. He hasn't.

And you cannot fail to have noticed that his diplomacy has actually received a lot of praise internationally- once again, I do not mean to cast an overwhelming approbation on Obama at this early stage in his Presidency, but when you compare him to the general opinion of the neo-cons approach to diplomacy- to put it bluntly, an abject failure- well, what specifically are you criticising?

venturalaw is your typical American dimwit

even his moniker speaks volume on what he stands for,

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by venturalaw

actually already present whenever BO opens his mouth abroad 'apologizing' for America

I take that to mean you are a foreign policy hawk VL, OK. But saying BO is 'apologising for America' is just more Polemic. He hasn't.

And you cannot fail to have noticed that his diplomacy has actually received a lot of praise internationally- once again, I do not mean to cast an overwhelming approbation on Obama at this early stage in his Presidency, but when you compare him to the general opinion of the neo-cons approach to diplomacy- to put it bluntly, an abject failure- well, what specifically are you criticising?

His approach to 'fix' the economy is illegal per se. Believing that the government can 'fix' the private sector is, at best, naive. Name one US government program that has been profitable. There are none. Therefore, I sincerely believe that his desire is not to fix, but to control. Many disagree. That's fine. And regarding Butterfly, and this is based upon my admittedly limited time here on TD, it's difficult to have dialogue with one who continues to insult, offering nothing in the way of debate or even civilized discussion. As he so eloquently suggested, Americans are typically dimwits. Butterfly appears to be more of a TD mascot than a meaningful contributor. Hence, I chose to ignore him.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by venturalaw

actually already present whenever BO opens his mouth abroad 'apologizing' for America

I take that to mean you are a foreign policy hawk VL, OK. But saying BO is 'apologising for America' is just more Polemic. He hasn't.

And you cannot fail to have noticed that his diplomacy has actually received a lot of praise internationally- once again, I do not mean to cast an overwhelming approbation on Obama at this early stage in his Presidency, but when you compare him to the general opinion of the neo-cons approach to diplomacy- to put it bluntly, an abject failure- well, what specifically are you criticising?

He has gotten that for nothing, in Europe mostly because the general consensus swings to the left of left-wing US policy, he was hailed as the new Messiah even before he had won, and certainly before he had shown what he is capable/or not capable of, in the dark corners of the world they are rolling around laughing at the sight of a black American president it is seen as the ultimate joke on white America, those places he could be a deaf dumb mute for all they care they would still backslap him with big broad grins on their faces.

He got clobberd when he went to the big summit in Europe mainly because his position was very weak to start with (none of his doing) but everybody likes a man who says yes and gives in to demands.

Whenever he is criticised here on TD many of you lot comes out with hey he has only been pres. for a few month, so equally you should not take to much in as positives at this early stage

Originally Posted by venturalaw

His approach to 'fix' the economy is illegal per se.

and you are a law expert ?

Originally Posted by Panda

I thought the Yanks gave up thinking everyone else was jealous of them a couple of years back? Used to hear a lot of it on the boards. Now its seldom uttered.

That's coz you are just flies to be swatted. They realised that you are of no consequence anymore.

Originally Posted by sabang

you cannot fail to have noticed that his diplomacy has actually received a lot of praise internationally

And what has he got for that? How many gitmo folks did England accept?
Let's look at it in the micro mode. Take Larv and his fekwit Aussie neighbour. Larv is civil and polite for a long time, asking the guy to remove the sandbags from the street so the rest of the neighbourhood doesn't flood. The guy refuses and gets nasty. The neighbours and pacifist owners do nothing to help. Larv has enough and clocks the guy. You Euros are pansies. Look at Spain -- terrorists bomb a train and they run back to their holes instead of standing up for themselves. No wonder you are all in Thailand -- you know your countries will all be muslim by 2020. Then it will be a fight between the Chinese and the muslims.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

And what has he got for that? How many gitmo folks did England accept?

How many gitmo folks are UK citizens? I dunno, maybe none. But my view is the UK should detain those. But I mean how trivial. Republican bombast. Think I'll concentrate on some real issues.

I would like to highlight the success of the macho bush administration in such arenas of conflict as iraq, afghanistan, georgia, n korea- it's a perfect record. Of failure.

The frail old men only feel more threatened when people listen to his younger, more attractive upstart neighbour, and ignore that old pensioner waving his stick and muttering to himself. Welcome to the shrinking membership of the GOP club.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

You don't believe that the Clinton policy which allowed the US to be attacked repeatedly was correct, do you?

First of all I'm not a Clinton fan, can you explain what you mean by this?

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by venturalaw

You don't believe that the Clinton policy which allowed the US to be attacked repeatedly was correct, do you?

First of all I'm not a Clinton fan, can you explain what you mean by this?

Neither am I a fan, and these are some of ther reasons why:

New York City - February 26, 1993

al-Qaeda plans and executes the first attack on New York's twin towers. Led by the criminally insane spiritual leader, Omar Abdel Rahman, they unleash a truck bomb at the base in an attempt to collapse the structure. Six are killed and over a 1,000 are injured. President Clinton promises to hunt those and punish those responsible. With the help of Janet Reno, the administration considers the incident only a criminal act, convicts six and judges the case closed.

Somalia - October 3, 1993

An impatient administration presses U.S. military based in Somalia to engage and capture Somali warlord Mohammed Adid while refusing to equip them with air gunships or heavy armor out of U.N. sensitivities. Al-Qaeda lieutenants train the local insurgency to ambush and counter-attack U.S. Rangers during a daring daylight raid. In a 15-hour firefight 19 American soldiers were killed while inflicting over 1,000 Somalis. An American soldier was dragged naked through the streets in celebration, and President Clinton promises to hunt those and punish those responsible. Days later Clinton announces an abrupt pullout of Somalia and the considers the case closed.

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - November 13, 1995

Militants strike U.S. military headquarters with a bomb inside a van. Five are killed. The administration sends FBI agents and President Clinton promises to hunt those and punish those responsible. After Saudi Arabia refusing to cooperate after beheading four chosen for blame of the terrorist attack, the administration considers the case closed.

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - June 25, 1996

Militants strike U.S. military barracks with a bomb inside a truck. Nineteen are killed. President Clinton promises to hunt those and punish those responsible. But absolutely nothing was done until a new G. W. Bush administration took office when a federal grand jury indicted 13 Saudis and a Lebanese. The Clinton administration considered the case closed.

East Africa - August 7, 1998

al-Qaeda conducts orchestrated attacks against U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Two truck bombs kill 224, including 12 Americans while injuring over 5,000. President Clinton promises to hunt and punish those responsible. Two weeks later he chooses an aspirin factory in Sudan to launch cruise missiles against. Thinking this meek show of force was enough to repel Islamic extremists from attacking the United States, the Clinton administration considered the case closed.

Aden, Yemen - October 12, 2000

al-Qaeda strikes a naval target, the destroyer U.S.S. Cole. With a small boat bomb they murder 17 sailors. The Yemenis quietly arrest eight and jails none. Though President Clinton promises to hunt those and punish those responsible, he does nothing to distract his vice-president, Al Gore, from continuing his presidential campaign. Choosing the election over justice, the Clinton administration considered the case closed.

New York City - September 11, 2001

al-Qaeda returns to New York planning and executing their second attack on the city's twin towers. Two airliners are hijacked and rammed into each sky scraper. The heat and damage done to the structures brought each tower to earth. al-Qaeda hijacks two other airliners that same morning. One crashes into the Pentagon in D.C. while the other crashes into a field in Ohio after passengers resisted foiled a plan believed to fly into D.C. President G. W. Bush promises to hunt those and punish those responsible and declares War Against Terror. He did not consider the case closed.

In August, 2002, NewsMax.com releases secret audio of then President Clinton admitting for the first time anywhere that he had the chance to take Osama bin Laden into custody, but he nixed the idea because he couldn't come up with a legal justification for the 9-11 mastermind's extradition The tape was recorded at a February 2002 business luncheon on New York's Long Island: "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. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." (End of excerpt)
While many Americans felt great pride in Bill Clinton's approach to terrorism, the Islamic world celebrated on September 11th, 2001.


Clinton's Failures as a President

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Well as much as I dislike Clinton I'm intelligent/cynical enough to see the inherent bias in that article,
so it's only value is as an exercise in blame transfer.

It says more about your own discernment than it does about Clinton.

Sorry, I'm not trying to distract from what your saying, but I think you need a stronger or at least more balanced case.

Ignore the editorializing - that's fine, and I agree with you to an extent. But the incidents occurred, except technically the 9/11 attacks, during Clinton's watch. Whatever he may have done in an attempt to stop the attacks, were ineffective. Bush implemented programs that resulted in no further attacks. That is history, not blame transfer.