Fighting the terrorists over there so that we don't have to...

[skypilot]

...fight them here.

I was thinking about this piece of Bush nonsense last night and it really hit me just how ridiculous it is. What does he mean by not having to fight the terrorist here? I don't think that anyone is or was ever afraid that the terrorist were going to launch an invasion on the US and try to fight us on some US battlefield. They don't operate that way but that doesn't mean that in some way we won't have to fight them here. If Bush and his supporters think that we are keeping the terrorists so busy in Iraq that they don't have time to think about or plan an attack in the US then they are living in denial. Frankly, I think that we don't really KNOW how to fight the terrorists HERE because it's not something that we've had to deal with much during our history. And this administration which hasn't had one conviction on a terrorism charge REALLY doesn't know how to fight the terrorists here. It seems to me that this "fight the terrorists over there" business will lull some Americans into a false sense of security--the same kind of "pre-9/11 mindset" that Cheney pretended to be concerned about. What mindset could be more pre-9/11 than the belief that the terrorists are "over there"?

[Vickers]

1. Dude, are you saying you *don't* support the troops?

:eyes:

I love the way a guy who avoided military service talks about taking ANY fucking fight ANY fucking where.

[annabanana]

2. makes sense to me....

There is a finite number of terrists, see? And every one that we kill there won't be able to come over here. And every one, from every country that harbors terrists ALWAYS go to where the Americans are armed and ready for them, see?

And none of them have families who will turn INTO terrists after we kill them.

lalalalalalalalala :eyes:

[maxsolomon]

5. the finite number of terrorists = 100 million (or so)

believe me, they arent' spread too thin to multitask. they can do iraq, chechnya, and plan an attack on american soil or interests simultaneously.

not that they're going to pull off an in-country attack. more likely an overseas embassy or western tourist site a la indonesia.

[skypilot]

6. Lalalalalala, indeed.

I guess a more succinct way of saying what I'm trying to say is:

By repeating this particular talking point, Bush supporters are drifting right back to the pre-9/11 mindset in which terrorists were "over there".

I guess they didn't learn the "lessons of Sept.11" after all.

[stellanoir]

3. how's about not fighting them at all. . .?

We have enraged the entire Muslim world due to sheer greed, avarice, insensitivity, and total idiocy which goes far beyond the pale.

How can we redeem ourselves. . .? I haven't a clue. We've fueled the flames that lead to 9/11 by total disregard for the lifestyles and beliefs of the cradle of civilization.

Unlike Vietnam, these people are not Buddhists (most forgiving). They're Muslim (eye for an eye-least forgiving). I worry greatly for my son's future .

[ComerPerro]

4. Its a good thing we won't ever have to "fight them here"

because, we would be in for quite a fight.

The right wing, who supposedly supports this war, won't even put their money where their mouth is and actually enlist to go protect our freedoms.

And I sincerely doubt that they would even have the nerve to defend this country if we were invaded.



But I am off topic.

I completely agree. I have always thought that statement was such bullshit. As though we would actually have an invading terrorist army that would show up with tanks and guns... the idea is completely absurd.

I think they spread a lot of this bullshit party to feed the freeper fantasy of fighting and killing (although, once again, if they actually wanted to fight all they would have to do is enlist and go to Iraq, but they are cowards) and to scare people into submission.

[MSgt213]

7. If anything we are the ones who are too busy in Iraq to do anything else

Iraq is not only drawing our limited supply of ground troops to the brink, but its draining our finanical resources, it's taxing our civilian and military (security)leadership's brain power and not allowing those individuals to concentrate on protecting us better and it has total broken the chance for us to get any ally to go along with us in the future.

Bush speaks in simple terms to a lot of americans that vote but for the most part, don't seem to want to think. Thinking is apparently too messy or difficult for us as a people. "Fighting terrorist's over there so we don't have over here" is a simple term with no meaning behind it because Bush has never had to explain to anyone what the details are.

Terrorists have never thought they could stand up toe to toe with any army. If they thought they could win that way there would be no Israel right now because it would have been over run long ago. Israel has better intelligence on these groups then any country on earth. Israel has an army that could completely destroy any of their enemies. Israel has the best airline security in the world. When there is an attack within Israel's borders they go over to the other side constantly and strike back. Israel still gets hit on a daily basis by terrorists.

I think this problem might be a tad bit more difficult to get a handle on then "Bring em on" and "fight them over there" and getting stripped search at the airport.

[merh]

8. (SIGH!) My younger brother believes this junk!

He has 2 kids under the age of four. He is a cop and his wife a nurse. I tried to warn them about the draft and explain to them about *'s lies, but "as long as we are fighting them over there, yada yada yada" ... :shrug: :cry:

The wife thinks the shrub is sexy! :puke:

Someone needs to develop a antidote for the KOOL AIDE!

[democratreformed]

9. That bit of nonsense is one of the ones that really irk me.

I've heard actual people repeat it. So stupid. Doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

[skypilot]

10. The reason I was thinking about it...

...was because Al Franken's dittohead friend was reduced to repeating it on the AL Franken Show yesterday. I'm just so fucking sick of these idiots repeating and repeating and repeating this shit without stopping to analyze it just a little.

[democratreformed]

14. Me too! Makes me wanna knock some sense into their heads.

Even though I wouldn't really HIT anybody.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skypilot]

13. You need to read more.

"...sit back as Clinton did...":eyes:

Get a fucking clue. When Clinton tried to do anything other than "sit back" and be impeached the Repub started screaming "Wag the dog!!" and "No war for Monica!!!" Fuck you. You won't be here long.

[skypilot]

15. Wow!! the Mods aren't screwing around today.

That guy got in all of ONE post and then ZAP!!!

[DubyaSux]

12. Sure...

...with that logic, we should just build dirty hospitals.

After all, let's fight the germs on our own terms and see if we're more successul.

[Redleg]

16. Another example of simplistic neo-con thinking.

Sounds more like a post-decisional justification to.

[skypilot]

18. "Post-decisional justification" is too many syllables...

...to waste on these morons. Let's try "post-fuck up spin".

[Redleg]

20. I like it!

Yes, we liberals do tend to use fancy words when we could say things more simply.

[lectrobyte]

17. I agree. That statement (and I hear it a lot, it's beaten into military

families) makes no sense to me. Especially in light of "invasion". Does anyone doubt that our adventure in Iraq has probably created more terrorists than there were before?

[AntiFascist]

19. If * gets reelected....

He'll be turning this into a full-on religious war in no time. If people like Yusaf Islam are supporting terrorism because of their religious idealism, and reaction to Christian supported aggression, then you know he's only a tip of an iceberg. Someone ought to wake up the "security moms." When we target mosques in the ME, one can guess what we sacrifice next.....