Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue' and praise the democrats!

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by beardman2

This doesn't seem too shocking to me. The people in the middle east are not ignorant of politics. they are supporting the enemy (figuratively) of their enemy (Bush).

Agreed. I'm not shocked either.

It is logical for the terrorists to support the political enemies of the President, who is making it harder for them to launch attacks against America.

They perceive the democrats as being the party that would go easier on them. People may disagree that the dems would be softer on terror, but that doesn't matter because the terrorists seem to think they would be.

That is one of the problems with the democrat party. The terrorists support them because they are perceived as not being as aggressive on terrorism as the Republicans.

Powerman mentioned earlier how he wished that the dems would make it clear that they would not tolerate terrorists. It would be VERY easy to do this, so I have no idea why the dems don't seem to try to make that clear. It makes me think that they really aren't willing to do much about terrorism.

If they made it clear that they wouldn't tolerate terrorists, then they would probably win a LOT more elections. Powerman is right.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

It looks like this isn't the first time that Jihad Jaara has made comments about the democrats.....

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
-----------------------------

As powerman suggested, the democrats should make it clear that they will not tolerate terrorists.

All they would have to do is make terrorism a large part of their platform, have party operatives and pundits talk about how the dems are going to be tough on terror, emphasize that they will be tough on terror during capaigns, etc. When they oppose the patriot act, they should PROPOSE other measures that they feel will work better. Their habit of OPPOSE OPPOSE OPPOSE without proposing viable alternatives has cost them dearly in the ideological struggle over terrorism. The dems hardly mention terror at all. It is always about the minimum wage, socialist health care, haliburton, trying to unearth scandals, and "bush sucks"....

The longer the dems keep doing what they are doing, the more terrorists will support them and the more they will be seen as the party that is soft on terror--whether they truly are or not.

Frank

[Cryogaijin]

So what if "terrorist" leaders endorse a policy of communication? If Hitler had endorsed Omaha beef farmers, would that make the beef farmers nazis? Would it make them wrong?

Now given that pelosi may very well have been comitting a felony when in these discussions, is there any real problem in opening up a dialog? How well do people on this board think that Bush understands the Middle East? I don't think he understands the issue at all, personally. My view of his foreign policy has been something like a bull in a china-shop. (Now granted he's had the specter of 9-11 hanging over his head his whole presidency, but I don't think that excuses some of his bullish actions.)

I have no problem with a President being firm with regard to foreign policy, however there is a difference between being firm and being agressive. I don't think Bush understands the difference between a Terrorist and a Partisan, nor do I think most media talking heads do.

People on this board like to throw around the term "Anti-American" or "America Hater" when someone suggests that some of the problems the country is in the country has made for itself. A good number of people don't understand the simple concept of action-reaction. Just as many countries are a touch annoyed with the US over our dirty tricks with the CIA, we have to keep in mind the actions of our military as well.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Cryogaijin

So what if "terrorist" leaders endorse a policy of communication? If Hitler had endorsed Omaha beef farmers, would that make the beef farmers nazis? Would it make them wrong?

Of course not. Were beef farmers directly related to the ideological struggle between freedom and tryanny during WWII? I don't think so. Are the comments of the terrorists directly related to our conflict with radical islam? Yes.

If Hitler had told Americans to withdraw from Europe, voiced support for the anti-war movement, and encouraged us to engage in a dialog with him would you have said "so what if the Nazi's endorse a policy of communication"???

As I recall, Hitler started a dialog with Great Britian and PM Neville Chamberlain. He appealed to those in Britian who opposed the war and wanted peace. He signed the Munich Agreement and promised not to attack Britian. He attacked them a few months later, not long after Chamberlain waved the peace treaty in the air!

The main issue here is not that the terrorists are endorsing a policy of communication, it is that they are endorsing Nancy Pelosi and the democrats. That is not good for the democrat party and it speaks volumes about their policy regarding terrorism.

If your enemy is supporting one of your political parties, then there is obviously a reason. The obvious reason that many terrorists support the democrats is because they know that the dems will not be as aggressive with them as Bush as been.

Do you think that the terrorists want negotiations? I don't recall them ever asking.

Originally Posted by Cryogaijin

People on this board like to throw around the term "Anti-American" or "America Hater" when someone suggests that some of the problems the country is in the country has made for itself. A good number of people don't understand the simple concept of action-reaction. Just as many countries are a touch annoyed with the US over our dirty tricks with the CIA, we have to keep in mind the actions of our military as well.

You won't find me throwing that term around. I don't think anyone has in this thread either. 90% of the time when someone calls someone an "america-hater" they are probably wrong.

I think that the democrats would probably have dominated the last several elections if they would speak up and declare that they will not tolerate terrorists. Perhaps a few of them have said it, but they have not gone out of their way to assure the American people that it is a priority. This makes me wonder what the reasons are for not doing so.

Frank

[Sparks007]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/d...diplomacy.html

Diplomacy.

[AZXD]

OK, if this ticks you off, sorry. But this is my view on the current situation.

When any cause it taken up, people will always be quick to label the actions of other as being good or bad. The situation with Pelosi is no different than any other action within our government. However, the true reasoning behind the labels is what is truly at stake. Via an imposed mindset we have been systematically conditioned to respond to the events that shape our daily lives.

Think about it.
We now have a constant barrage of media hype over the actions of others. We are continually reminded of what is right or wrong in a fashion that causes the individual to question whether what was originally labeled right should actually be labeled as wrong.

The actions of our President when he stated "You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror" in actuality has been developed into an US versus THEM mentality. The media, to the point of disparity we now face, has exploited this mentality.

Was the statement wrong?
I believe I understood the meaning as presented, yet as time has shown us, this methodology has taken us to the point that any opposition or questioning of the actions made by the President and his administration, is misconstrued to a level that means you are supporting the terrorists of the world. This mentality has deeply saddened me as the methodical manipulation continues.

Today we see our MSM taking up psychological arms against those who are in support/opposition to the views and decisions being used within government. The divide between the different political parties is probably greater now than at any other time in the short history of the United States.

Why?
The answer is that we are all being manipulated through the methodical use of propaganda. The propaganda is designed not to unite a country, but to create divisions. This is the result of a-strength-in-numbers statement that has real meaning. If you are unable to maintain control over those you are in charge of, divide those peoples into more manageable groups. For the questioning masses this now occurs via the dissemination of information that causes them to question the actions of those within the ranks, rather then the actions of our leaders.

We see this as daily attacks upon the differing views, that supposedly represent the people, as viewed by our elected officials. All parties involved are part of the problem. Some are aware of their actions, while others are so blinded by the events of the day, that they are unable to step back and realize what has happened. They are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

When we attack the actions of a political party member, we are in effect doing exactly as intended without allowing time for the actions to develop into what they may become.

Consider the almost instantaneous MSM attack against Pelosi for her trip to Syria. None of the MSM initially mentioned that members of another political party were with her. None of the MSM mentioned that members of another political party had preceded her. The MSM most assuredly did not initially state that her action might develop into something good.
Well actually some did, but they did so in a fashion that defies good journalistic habits. The MSM (writers) realizes that most readers scan read and if the first couple of paragraphs are read, the writer did a good job. Thus we found the reader missing the buried statements of other party involvement that were typically placed deep within the message being presented.

What was the message?
That the speaker of the house was off her rocker, defying the President and the White House, and creating a shambles of the United States Government.

So, why convey this message?
To help support the terrorists?
Surely that was not the intent, but look at what has developed. A government official was drug through the dirt by the masses. The MSM repeated their statements as often as necessary to convey the intended message, and we as part of the civilian population choose sides and started/continued to debate the outcome of the actions without first giving the actions a chance to develop.

Ok, so we choose sides. Oh wait, that was the intent of those who cannot control the masses.

Consider this statement “media coverage and terrorism are soul mates” from an article titled Terrorism as propaganda.

The intent of our MSM has and always will be, due to corporate ties, to disseminate information in a fashion that guides the viewer/reader toward a particular mindset. This is the reason we have channels and publications that cater to the differing mindsets of the masses. It is the reasons for the polls and the judging of message delivery. It is the reason we take up sides and state we are supporting a particular political party, when in reality we are often attacking the opposition via chosen wording designed to invoke a response.

United we stand, divides we fall,
really has true meaning in todays society. To control the masses one needs to propagate information in a fashion that causes a rallying cry to be heard throughout the nation.

Remember the displaying of our flag right after 9/11
Consider this history lesson from the Smithsonian over the MSM campaign that rallied a nation in 1942 then ask yourself why we are not as drawn together as a nation today as we were right after that terrible event. Then ask yourself why we are given threat levels on a daily basis and what signifigance is behind the reminder of a threat level that is now almost at the level it was prior to that day. Then ask if our mentality as a nation has been brought together, or permanetly changed by an act of terrorism, in a more negative way than one might realize.

Psychologically, we are fighting a battle within the ranks of the people, and we have our leaders and the MSM to blame for the fight and the outcome. What will they tell us next? But more importantly, what will we do to filter the information being presented and stop the brain washing actions of an over excited terror driven mentality that seems to be our government and Main Stream Media.

No wonder so many people can't wait for American Idol. It is mindless entertainment!

Remember, "You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror"

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Powerman is right.

Now that we have established that! I just wanted to see it again!

Seriously, Cryogaijin, I agree with what you say. Just because Bush is outwardly agressive, does not mean he is effective. As with you, I think it is very disturbing how "America Hater" is thrown around. It blows my mind how there are those in this society that believe we should keep a well armed malitia to keep the Government in check. Many on this board can talk about the 2nd all day long and come up with hundreds of doomsday senarios. Yet, many of those same like minded people will turn right around and stomp all over free speech. If you have anything bad, or contrary to say about the President and his administration, you are a facsist/commie/marxist/America hater. Traitor, leftist, liberal, unpatriotic, one worlder, wack job....That is insane. That is insane that any opposition is systematically squashed. This is exactly what the founding fathers talked about when they laid the foundation of this country. Freedom from our Government.

AZXD, my God, how refreshing! Between you and me, I get mad at myself when I get suckered into Us Vs. Them debates. The funny thing is I am not part of an US, I am just unhappy with the Them, so I get lumped into the Others. When I step back and look at the big picture it saddens me greatly for exactly what you said. Thank you.

Unfortunatly, you are now an America Hater, and now I must dismiss you for fear of appearing to be an America Hater sympathiser. I have a family to think about. I don't want to make the list. Oh crap...they are watching. I have to go you wacko, liberal, gun grabing, commie. America Hater...

[FrankRizzoXD40]

AZXD--I understand what you are saying and I agree with many of your points.

However, this thread is not a case of an "us vs them" mentality.

I don't really have to pick sides because the terrorists are doing that for me by declaring who they support in our elections. It is not hard to pick between the side of the terrorists and the side of our country.

We may all have different viewpoints on how to combat terrorism and that is fine. I don't subscribe to the "us vs them" mentality. I believe that almost all Americans (including a good part of the left) want us to be successful in combatting terror and protecting the country. Mant of us just have different ideas on how that should be done.

Now when we have our enemies openly declaring support for a political party, then that speaks volumes about the party, IMO.

The point that I was making with this article is that the terrorists support the democrats and there is a reason for that. The reason is that they are perceived as being soft on terror (regardless of whether or not this is true). This is a perception that they are going to need to address. They would absolutely dominate American politics if they could convince the American people that they were tough on terror. There is no doubt in my mind.

The dems should be asking themselves why this is happening. They should be thinking, "my god...why are the terrorists supporting our party? We don't want that....why are we being perceived this way? What can we do to get back on track??" Instead, they are worried about bashing the President whenever possible, socialist health care, "big oil", raising the minimum wage, haliburton....etc...

It's like they aren't even trying to come across as being tough on terror. They almost never present any alternatives to Bush's policies regarding terrorism. They just oppose everything he does and they come up with zero viable political alternatives. The GOP has made mistake after mistake, which has given the dems lots of opportunities to step forward with plans to solve certain problems. They have come up with almost none, except for oppose everything Bush does.

I disapproved when our representatives went to Syria, regardless of their political party. However, the democrats and Nancy Pelosi appear to be the favorite US politicians of our enemies. That is disgraceful, IMO.

Frank

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Now when we have our enemies openly declaring support for a political party, then that speaks volumes about the party, IMO.

You completely miss the point. Smoke and mirrors. You are a stubborn debater and the topics you choose are smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter who opposes Bush. The terrorist don't care about Pelosi. They probably couldn't say a single thing she talks about. They are doing it to stick it to Bush. They probably can't stand Pelosi either. But no, you say an endorsment from a terrorist speaks volumes about the one recieving the endorsment. That is silly. Smoke and mirrors, and we debate illusions as if it matters.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Powerman

You completely miss the point. Smoke and mirrors. You are a stubborn debater and the topics you choose are smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter who opposes Bush. The terrorist don't care about Pelosi. They probably couldn't say a single thing she talks about. They are doing it to stick it to Bush. They probably can't stand Pelosi either. But no, you say an endorsment from a terrorist speaks volumes about the one recieving the endorsment. That is silly. Smoke and mirrors, and we debate illusions as if it matters.

There are two reasons that the terrorists support the democrats:

#1. They believe that the democrats would not be as aggressive fighting terrorism as Bush has. They think this because they hear all the lefties demanding that we leave Iraq, withdraw from the M.E., complaining about the tactics that Bush has used to fight terror, etc....etc.... The perception that the dems are weak on terror is a well-earned one.

#2 is the reason you stated. They want to stick it to Bush because he is the one who is going after them. They want to see political support erode even further for Bush, because to them, Bush is their enemy. You know, the old adage, "an enemy of our enemy is our friend"??? Beardman2 alluded to this earlier.

You even admitted earlier that the dems should make it clear that they will not tolerate terrorists and I said you were right (as you happily pointed out).

This is not "smoke and mirrors". It is reality. There are reasons why evil will support those who seek peace with them and those who seek to be "nicer" to them. They know that these types of people will make it easier for them to accomplish their goals. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

Frank