Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Quick and Dirty Leftist's Guide to Arguing against the War on Terrorism
Right Wing News ^ | September 28, 2002 | John Hawkins

Posted on 09/28/2002 12:52:43 PM PDT by zapiks44

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last
To: COB1
"If we back him in a corner, he is definitely going to attack!"

Ugh. You're right. That one is classic. We don't want to provoke a madman, after all. Let's just hide under our beds and maybe he'll go away.

61 posted on 10/13/2002 7:23:17 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: COB1
Here's a hint. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. It doesn't substantiate your argument. It takes a real man to avoid name-calling.
62 posted on 10/13/2002 9:23:26 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
just read that thread. I see that a certain demidog is posting there. Be advised, he is one of the most irrational, far left libertines on FR. Note the arrogance with which he dismisses our efforts against Saddam Hussein. The sad thing is, he doesn't seem to understand how far LEFT-WING he really is.

I notice that you don't have the balls to flag me. I opposed Clinton's foreign policy as well. If I was a leftist I would defend Clinton. I don't. At any rate, this isn't about left and right. If Iraq had committed an act of War against the US, I would be in support of action against the nation. They haven't. And so I don't.

If you start going down the "pre-emptive" road, at what point is it justified for a nation to attack us "pre-emptively?"

63 posted on 10/13/2002 9:29:52 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
"at what point is it justified for a nation to attack us "pre-emptively?"'

I know it wasn't publicized very much, but we've already been attacked!
We were attacked by the nation of Islam.
I'm sorry you missed that event.
There may be some obscure news articles which can give you the details.

64 posted on 10/14/2002 6:55:47 AM PDT by COB1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: COB1
I know it wasn't publicized very much, but we've already been attacked!

Not by Iraq and not by Afghanistan. And the operative word was "justified." I'm sorry that you have such a problem reading. Perhaps you should seek help.

We were attacked by the nation of Islam.

Have we arrested Luis Farrakan yet?

65 posted on 10/14/2002 6:59:41 AM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Nothing I've read indicates that Farrakan was involved in these attacks.
Conversely, everything I've read indicates that the people who did this to us live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia and other places scattered across the globe.
We're not after the countries. We're after the people they harbor who would bring death and destruction to the U.S.
Wake up, Demidog!
You know that if we don't hit them, they will hit us again and again!
I don't want to see another WTC!
66 posted on 10/14/2002 7:11:59 AM PDT by COB1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: COB1
Nothing I've read indicates that Farrakan was involved in these attacks.

You said that the attacks were carried out by the "nation of Islam." That is Farrakan's orginization. Make up your mind.

everything I've read indicates that the people who did this to us live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia and other places scattered across the globe.

Then you've been reading the wrong sources. All except one or two of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Afghanistan. A couple were from Pakistan.

Notice how we don't attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

We're not after the countries.

Then why are we replacing regimes in Afghanistan and claiming that it is necessary to do so in Iraq as well? Seems like you either have extremely limited understanding or are so willing to support this administration that you'll ignore blatant contradictions.

We're after the people they harbor who would bring death and destruction to the U.S.

Which is why we've totally ignored Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Right.

67 posted on 10/14/2002 7:20:58 AM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Bush Doctrine states that we will go after terrorists and those that help/aid/harbor them. Saddam has helped/aided/harbored terrorists. We want to prevent him from giving WMD to terrorist groups that have trained in Iraq and that Saddam has financially supported.

So its only preemptive in terms of who shot first. Iraq is in violation of the Bush Doctrine and will be dealt with accordingly.
68 posted on 02/20/2003 11:26:29 AM PST by CaptainJustice (Get RIGHT or get left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: CaptainJustice
BUMP

Human civilization had better wake up soon and get as serious about its survival as the seventh-century savages of Islam are about our annihilation!
SLEEPING AMERICANS ARE EASIER TO KILL.
Do not be lulled to sleep by the Religion of Peace defenders.

Click here and never forget the face of Islam and what it wants for you infidels.

69 posted on 02/21/2003 10:50:00 AM PST by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson