Republican debate thread

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are 100% wrong in your belief that the terrorits problem is with the government and not the people of the US. Their problem is with our ideals, our freedom and our status as infidels.

They have said that very plainly, and I see no reason not to believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shortly after 9/11 I watched an interview with an American reporter who had recently interviewed Bin Laden (before the attacks). He said that Bin Laden appeared very smart and articulate, and wanted three things:

1. U.S. to stop supporting Israel.

2. U.S. to end the embargo on Iraq at the time, as innocent children/people were dying from lack of food.

I forget what the third was, maybe for us to get out of the Middle-East in general with our oil interests and such? In any event, all 3 of these points are perfectly reasonable. Yes, Israel might be eradicated after we stop giving them tanks, but that's not really our problem. They also might have to try to make nice. If U.S. citizens want to support Israel's military with private donations they can feel free.

Anyway, for a while after 9/11 there were a bunch of Americans (college students) who did think it was largely our fault, and I agreed. In the last couple of years though, all public opinion has shifted to the belief that the terrorists just want us eradicated because we're not hardcore Muslims.

I don't know what the real story is, but I do recall reading some messages from terrorists in the last year or two that blamed the U.S. citizens for voting the wrong people into office - and again, that's a reasonable position.

[/ QUOTE ]


As Rudy Guiliani told the last person who blamed the US for 9/11, and then tried to donate money, "Stick your $10 million up your robe."

Honestly, the idea that its the United States' fault that over 3,000 innocent people died at the hands of ISLAMIC TERRORISTS is not only insane, it's an insult to all of us who lost people on that day.

A reasonable posistion? Here's a REASONABLE poisistion, I support abortion. So, that's reasonable right? Now how do I go about expressing my views? Do I bomb a church? Do I try to kill any person in office that disagrees with me? NO, I do not. I write a letter, I voice my complaints in public protest, or on in a public forum. I do NOT kill 3,000 innocent people to make my point. My god.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are 100% wrong in your belief that the terrorits problem is with the government and not the people of the US. Their problem is with our ideals, our freedom and our status as infidels.

They have said that very plainly, and I see no reason not to believe them.


[/ QUOTE ]

For the extreme members of Al Qaeda this is probably true, but they gained a huge amount of support in the moderate islamic world after the US invaded Iraq. I dont see why its so hard to understand that bombing the [censored] out of people pisses them off.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is impossible for someone to not be guided by their core beliefs (be they faith based or ethical) in their decision making.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they chose to stop and realize their core beliefs might be off-base it would be far from impossible. Not making any statements about right vs. wrong... but I don't understand what is impossible about it unless people want to be unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Examination and change of core beliefs is not the same as them not influencing your decisions and positions.

I will retreat from "impossible" however, in the very narrow case where the decision involves conflicting but independent core beliefs. An example is Giuliani's position on abortion. He has a core belief that abortion is wrong, and he has a core belief that it is not a Federal issue. Since he was and wants to be part of the legal system those beliefs trump his personal beliefs.

However, in any decision that is nuanced and involves an isolated core value, one cannot reliably distance oneself from those beliefs. Numerous psychological studies have shown that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course my core beliefs effect all my positions, and I don't expect Christians to be any different. Their beliefs and faith are free to impact on their decisions and positions....but then those positions need to be defensible. Thats the difference. Allowing Faith to impact decisions is fine, allowing faith to do so is unacceptable.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is impossible for someone to not be guided by their core beliefs (be they faith based or ethical) in their decision making.

[/ QUOTE ]
If they chose to stop and realize their core beliefs might be off-base it would be far from impossible. Not making any statements about right vs. wrong... but I don't understand what is impossible about it unless people want to be unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Examination and change of core beliefs is not the same as them not influencing your decisions and positions.

I will retreat from "impossible" however, in the very narrow case where the decision involves conflicting but independent core beliefs. An example is Giuliani's position on abortion. He has a core belief that abortion is wrong, and he has a core belief that it is not a Federal issue. Since he was and wants to be part of the legal system those beliefs trump his personal beliefs.

However, in any decision that is nuanced and involves an isolated core value, one cannot reliably distance oneself from those beliefs. Numerous psychological studies have shown that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course my core beliefs effect all my positions, and I don't expect Christians to be any different. Their beliefs and faith are free to impact on their decisions and positions....but then those positions need to be defensible. Thats the difference. Allowing Faith to impact decisions is fine, allowing faith to do so is unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand the distinction between capital Faith and lower faith.

[rpr]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are 100% wrong in your belief that the terrorits problem is with the government and not the people of the US. Their problem is with our ideals, our freedom and our status as infidels.

They have said that very plainly, and I see no reason not to believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]
The former head of CIA's Bin Laden unit (Scheuer) disagrees.

If you really believe that, you must believe everything Bush says. They may dislike us because of our culture, but they attack us because of our foreign policy.

It is true Bin Laden wants to conquer all Muslim countries to unite them to launch a war for a one world Muslim government, establishing a global Caliphate under Sharia law. But so far, the terrorists haven't been invading other countries. And it seems Bin Laden mostly wants the U.S. out of Muslim countries which seems to trump even our support of Israel.

[rpr]

Just to be clear, I believe the U.S. should support Israel.

I don't blame our foreign policy on 9/11 because there's only room for one king in this chaotic world. I do blame the government for being incompetent and ignoring warnings.

My problem is with Israel being a "Jewish state", same with Saudi Arabia being a "Muslim state".

I support globalization as it is inevitable and natural. But I'm skeptical of only the CFR and multi national corporations dictating what defines our future global order which to me is as great of a threat to liberty and individual freedom as a global Caliphate would be.

This is what the national dialogue should be about, considering the war on terrorism is quickly changing our country and the world.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are 100% wrong in your belief that the terrorits problem is with the government and not the people of the US. Their problem is with our ideals, our freedom and our status as infidels.

They have said that very plainly, and I see no reason not to believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shortly after 9/11 I watched an interview with an American reporter who had recently interviewed Bin Laden (before the attacks). He said that Bin Laden appeared very smart and articulate, and wanted three things:

1. U.S. to stop supporting Israel.

2. U.S. to end the embargo on Iraq at the time, as innocent children/people were dying from lack of food.

I forget what the third was, maybe for us to get out of the Middle-East in general with our oil interests and such? In any event, all 3 of these points are perfectly reasonable. Yes, Israel might be eradicated after we stop giving them tanks, but that's not really our problem. They also might have to try to make nice. If U.S. citizens want to support Israel's military with private donations they can feel free.

Anyway, for a while after 9/11 there were a bunch of Americans (college students) who did think it was largely our fault, and I agreed. In the last couple of years though, all public opinion has shifted to the belief that the terrorists just want us eradicated because we're not hardcore Muslims.

I don't know what the real story is, but I do recall reading some messages from terrorists in the last year or two that blamed the U.S. citizens for voting the wrong people into office - and again, that's a reasonable position.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has got to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever heard. What do you propose?...letting the terrorists elect leaders for the US?
Its a real shocker that terrorists don't like who we elected....99+% of them are infidels. We could appease them and give in to all thier demands, and then they would come up with a new list of more drastic demands....all culminating to the demand of mass conversion to Islam.

The US govt doesnt like Chavez, ahmedineJihad, Castro, jong-Il, and others....but we are not hijacking planes, blowing up thier embassies and killing civilians of those countries. If we did though....would that be a reasonable position?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The US govt doesnt like Chavez, ahmedineJihad, Castro, jong-Il, and others....but we are not hijacking planes, blowing up thier embassies and killing civilians of those countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, the history of Latin America is full of cases where the US murdered innocents or enabled their murders to keep those in power it wanted to and keep any challengers from arising. It clearly engaged in terrorism using an honest definition of the word.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The US govt doesnt like Chavez, ahmedineJihad, Castro, jong-Il, and others....but we are not hijacking planes, blowing up thier embassies and killing civilians of those countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, the history of Latin America is full of cases where the US murdered innocents or enabled their murders to keep those in power it wanted to and keep any challengers from arising. It clearly engaged in terrorism using an honest definition of the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, not to excuse it, but political assassination cannot even remotely be equated with terrorism

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The US govt doesnt like Chavez, ahmedineJihad, Castro, jong-Il, and others....but we are not hijacking planes, blowing up thier embassies and killing civilians of those countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, the history of Latin America is full of cases where the US murdered innocents or enabled their murders to keep those in power it wanted to and keep any challengers from arising. It clearly engaged in terrorism using an honest definition of the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, not to excuse it, but political assassination cannot even remotely be equated with terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

The US did a lot more than assassinations. And as a tangent, if al Qaeda tried to blow up the White House, you can bet your last dollar our leaders and media would call it a terrorist act.