Is terrorism overplayed in politics/media?

[BrewCityBuck]

I understand the hundreds of attacks from terrorists over the last 35 years, all the people that have died, attacks like the Marine barracks in Beiruit, the USS Cole, 9/11...But honestly, I listen to conservative radio, presidential speeches, C-SPAN and it's honestly half of what they talk about. With all the other problems in the world terrorism dominates discussion 10 fold...do you think it's too much? Do you think politicians are using it as a political tool? Would terrorism be as big an issue if it were a 'different' group doing it?

 

[SirLaker]

Hell no it's not too much. Terrorism as far as radical Muslims is just starting to come out in the media. People don't want to face it, terrorism is a HUGE problem. First off, Americans need to realize how big a deal this is. People don't understand why we are in the middle east in the first place. If 9/11 showed us anything it is that terrorism is something that cannot be taken lightly. These radical Muslims are scum, straight scum brainwashed people who think doing these horrific acts is justified by their religion. Let me tell you something, the Muslim religion is a great and enlightened belief just like many others like Christianity etc. But it's how you interpret the words in the Qu'ran. These brainwashing terrorist sons a bitches justify their wrongs by saying that they do it for Allah and other similar reasons. But the Qu'ran does not tell them to kill the other non believers and to be a suicide bomber it's the terrorists thinking themselves. That is what makes the terrorists from the Middle East so horrible, it's that they beleive they are doing it for good and for God or Allah. THEY THINK THEY ARE RIGHT. They are not right of course because you can't kill 3,000 innocent people, hijack planes, and other acts of terrorism and be right. The media Needs to show what is going on over there so we, the American people know what is going on over there and that it is a serious problem. As of right now, there is progress with the new plan as the borders to Iraq are secure, or at least a lot more secure than before. They need to help Iraq become it's own democracy and be able to fight it's own battles so Osama has to fight over there and not here in the U.S. which if that did happen again would just be a disaster. Terrorism IS a big deal and should be overplayed by the media/politics. The Anna Nicole Smith, the crazy diaper astronaut, Brittney Spears haircut etc. is what is being overplayed not terrorism.

 

[KobeBryant_24]

I want a president that will do anything on the fight against terror. That's really the only good thing about George Bush....although we are in the wrong country right now

 

[redneck]

No its not overplayed, Terrorism is the new communism/Facism. both were huge threats to world safty, as terrorism now. Lakersfan has it right, these people are not jobs, but the problem is that even if its only 1% of Muslims who feel that way, there are about a billion of them in the world, so about a million are nutjobs. and like 9/11 proved, it doesn't take a million of them to hurt this country. hell, one with a fertilizer bomb could do a lot of damage. I'm glad the government is taking Issue with this though, and I think had Iraq not turned into a quagmire, that quite possibly the US would be invading a lot more middle eastern countries, possibly trying to create a new world order over there.The Government has missed the issue with terrorist on one front though, the domestic nutjobs. groups such ALF, ELF, ARM, ALA, CFA ect are all big time threats to America. I'm actually more afraid of these people than I am of Al Quida.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LakersFan247 @ Feb 21 2007, 12:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hell no it's not too much. Terrorism as far as radical Muslims is just starting to come out in the media. People don't want to face it, terrorism is a HUGE problem. First off, Americans need to realize how big a deal this is. People don't understand why we are in the middle east in the first place. If 9/11 showed us anything it is that terrorism is something that cannot be taken lightly. These radical Muslims are scum, straight scum brainwashed people who think doing these horrific acts is justified by their religion. Let me tell you something, the Muslim religion is a great and enlightened belief just like many others like Christianity etc. But it's how you interpret the words in the Qu'ran. These brainwashing terrorist sons a bitches justify their wrongs by saying that they do it for Allah and other similar reasons. But the Qu'ran does not tell them to kill the other non believers and to be a suicide bomber it's the terrorists thinking themselves. That is what makes the terrorists from the Middle East so horrible, it's that they beleive they are doing it for good and for God or Allah. THEY THINK THEY ARE RIGHT. They are not right of course because you can't kill 3,000 innocent people, hijack planes, and other acts of terrorism and be right. The media Needs to show what is going on over there so we, the American people know what is going on over there and that it is a serious problem. As of right now, there is progress with the new plan as the borders to Iraq are secure, or at least a lot more secure than before. They need to help Iraq become it's own democracy and be able to fight it's own battles so Osama has to fight over there and not here in the U.S. which if that did happen again would just be a disaster. Terrorism IS a big deal and should be overplayed by the media/politics. The Anna Nicole Smith, the crazy diaper astronaut, Brittney Spears haircut etc. is what is being overplayed not terrorism.</div> So you think as long as we are stationed in the middleeast Usama Bin Laden is just going to fighting us there? Osama should just be taken out of the picture entirely, he's not even involved in operations anymore, his selected followers select the few leaders (like leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq) and they take over. It doesn't matter if we are in Iraq or not, his most skilled fighters (people he and his leaders trained in Afghanistan/Pakistan is the 1990's) are going to be working on attacks in the US and all over the world, don't think that just because we are in Iraq...all the battle will be fought over there...that's something ignorant conservatives always say, 'we have to fight the battle therre so that the battle doesn't move to the shores of the US'...it's a load of bullsh**. Most of the terrorists we are killing in Iraq are not the ones that we have to worry about coming to this country, they don't have the skills to pull off 9/11 kind of attacks, there are very few terrorists that can do it...most of the people we are killing in Iraq are poor brainwashed youth Al-Qaeda and others find in slums all over the middleeast. What we do have to worry about is the 5% that are smart enough, and have the skills down the road from this war. Usama Bin Laden and his leadership that we have been catching, most of them got their experience/training in the Afghan/Russian war....With the Iraq war right now, we are training a whole generation of future terrorists. Iraq right now is terrorist training camp...we might be killing tons of them right now, it looks good short term, but long term this is a disaster because there are going to be thousands of Iraq/US 'veterans' that return home will skills they will use for the next 20 years against us and we have no way of knowing if they were in Iraq or not....

 

[SirLaker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Feb 21 2007, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you think as long as we are stationed in the middleeast Usama Bin Laden is just going to fighting us there? Osama should just be taken out of the picture entirely, he's not even involved in operations anymore, his selected followers select the few leaders (like leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq) and they take over. It doesn't matter if we are in Iraq or not, his most skilled fighters (people he and his leaders trained in Afghanistan/Pakistan is the 1990's) are going to be working on attacks in the US and all over the world, don't think that just because we are in Iraq...all the battle will be fought over there...that's something ignorant conservatives always say, 'we have to fight the battle therre so that the battle doesn't move to the shores of the US'...it's a load of bullsh**. Most of the terrorists we are killing in Iraq are not the ones that we have to worry about coming to this country, they don't have the skills to pull off 9/11 kind of attacks, there are very few terrorists that can do it...most of the people we are killing in Iraq are poor brainwashed youth Al-Qaeda and others find in slums all over the middleeast. What we do have to worry about is the 5% that are smart enough, and have the skills down the road from this war. Usama Bin Laden and his leadership that we have been catching, most of them got their experience/training in the Afghan/Russian war....With the Iraq war right now, we are training a whole generation of future terrorists. Iraq right now is terrorist training camp...we might be killing tons of them right now, it looks good short term, but long term this is a disaster because there are going to be thousands of Iraq/US 'veterans' that return home will skills they will use for the next 20 years against us and we have no way of knowing if they were in Iraq or not....</div>Wow there...way to jump off me saying Osama. I didn't mean him directly I was stating Osama as in terrorists in general.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

You didn't address my response to one of your points.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They need to help Iraq become it's own democracy and be able to fight it's own battles so Osama has to fight over there and not here in the U.S. which if that did happen again would just be a disaster.</div>

 

[Roaming]

<u>Hell Yeah</u>, I think it is overplayed, espicially in politics in media, its always terrorist this, terrorist that, he is hiding WMD's, he is a terrorist, etc... One of the reasons Bush went into Iraq was because he thought Saddam was a terrorist. In fact he was, but did he really possess any threat to the U.S? No. Did he really hide WMD's? No. Did he persecute American people? No. So Why does Bush go after Hussein? just because he doesn't like the way he is running his own country? Well thats not a good enough reason.But here is what pisses me off, why wouldnt Bush then go after Fidel Castro? Isnt he a dictator as much as Saddam? doesn't he torture people, just like Saddam? Its just because Bush wants to keep his ties with the Cubans, and wants them to be allies with the Cubans. I believe after the UN had completed there search in Iraq and found no WMD's, Bush should have grabbed his and the millitary's ass out of the Middle East. I dont believe no bullsh*t about Bush fighting terror by dethroning a random dictator.

 

[SirLaker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Feb 21 2007, 07:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You didn't address my response to one of your points.</div>What was your response? That most of the terrorists can't attack us over here. bullsh**. Al-Qaeda gets more than enough funds to get a flight to get to the U.S. and do any number of things. The point is that we have to TAKE THEM OUT over there, them being the radical terrorist groups and we have to teach Iraq to become it's own democracy so they can defend themselves and fight their own battles so we don't have to. If they aren't able to defend themselves then the US will always be in fear of another 9/11 attack.

 

[SirLaker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaptorFan#1 @ Feb 21 2007, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><u>Hell Yeah</u>, I think it is overplayed, espicially in politics in media, its always terrorist this, terrorist that, he is hiding WMD's, he is a terrorist, etc... One of the reasons Bush went into Iraq was because he thought Saddam was a terrorist. In fact he was, but did he really possess any threat to the U.S? No. Did he really hide WMD's? No. Did he persecute American people? No. So Why does Bush go after Hussein? just because he doesn't like the way he is running his own country? Well thats not a good enough reason.But here is what pisses me off, why wouldnt Bush then go after Fidel Castro? Isnt he a dictator as much as Saddam? doesn't he torture people, just like Saddam? Its just because Bush wants to keep his ties with the Cubans, and wants them to be allies with the Cubans. I believe after the UN had completed there search in Iraq and found no WMD's, Bush should have grabbed his and the millitary's ass out of the Middle East. I dont believe no bullsh*t about Bush fighting terror by dethroning a random dictator.</div>The difference between Castro and Saddam was that Saddam was believed to have WMD. It's easy to say that he doesn't have them now and point the finger at Bush. But the truth is that if you are going to say Bush was wrong for that, you have to also point your finger at Blaire, Bill Clinton, Congress (including Hilary Clinton) etc. who all had suspicion along with Bush that there were WMD and backed him up in that respect. When someone as powerful as Saddam was is believed to have Weapons of Mass Destruction and is an evil dictator you have to assume the worst and uncover the truth. What if Bush,Clinton, Blaire and Congress were all right and there were WMD? See, we would never know unless they searched and it is always better to be safe then sorry.EDIT: Oh and George Bush SR should have taken care of Saddam back in the early 90's instead of directing his son to do what he should have.

 

[redneck]

I agree that GHWBush should have gone into Baghdad during the gulf war, back then there was a lot more support for the US, not just in the international community but many, possibly a majority, of Iraqis would have supported it as well.George the Junior did have reason to believe Saddam Hussien had WMD. Saddam used them against the Kurds in 88, the Iranians between 80-88, and possibly used them against the US in 91. Saddam also is a natorious liar, He lied to the previous 5 US presidential adminsitrations numerous times.Castro is left to his own accord because the US F*cked with him and lost. granted if the US really wanted to remove him they'd do more than just send in poorly trained CIA, and disidents.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LakersFan247 @ Feb 22 2007, 12:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What was your response? That most of the terrorists can't attack us over here. bullsh**. Al-Qaeda gets more than enough funds to get a flight to get to the U.S. and do any number of things. The point is that we have to TAKE THEM OUT over there, them being the radical terrorist groups and we have to teach Iraq to become it's own democracy so they can defend themselves and fight their own battles so we don't have to. If they aren't able to defend themselves then the US will always be in fear of another 9/11 attack.</div> What does Iraq's being able to defend themselves have to do with us fearing another 9/11 type attack? My point was not bullsh** about most terrorists not being able to be used in big terrorist attacks in the US. It's true. Only around 5% of terrorists have the skills/can be trusted to come over here. They only send their best to the US.

 

[yankshater213]

Is terrorism overplayed in politics and media? Hell yeah it is. That being said, it's still a giant topic for concern. It's way too much talked about, and I think some fear of future terrorist attacks is just because of how the media portrays certain news and situations. Don't get me wrong terrorism is a HUGE topic in the world right now, but the media blows it way out of proportion.

 

[SirLaker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Feb 22 2007, 05:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What does Iraq's being able to defend themselves have to do with us fearing another 9/11 type attack? My point was not bullsh** about most terrorists not being able to be used in big terrorist attacks in the US. It's true. Only around 5% of terrorists have the skills/can be trusted to come over here. They only send their best to the US.</div>If Iraq can defend themselves then they can help us fight meaning less troops on the ground over there. That being said one of the biggest reasons are troops are there in the first place are to kill those '5 %' of terrorists that could attack American soil. Also, if we are over there they will be a lot more preoccupied fighting us there than than attacking us over here. We can't let them take complete control of the middle east and Iraq while letting Iran cooks up a plan with no supression.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LakersFan247 @ Feb 22 2007, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Iraq can defend themselves then they can help us fight meaning less troops on the ground over there. That being said one of the biggest reasons are troops are there in the first place are to kill those '5 %' of terrorists that could attack American soil. Also, if we are over there they will be a lot more preoccupied fighting us there than than attacking us over here. We can't let them take complete control of the middle east and Iraq while letting Iran cooks up a plan with no supression.</div> Huh? Al-Qaeda is not going to take over complete control of the middleeast, Al-Qaeda doesn't even have a base anymore...and there's no way they could take over Iraq either. Iran won't do anything, even with a nuclear weapon, Israel won't let it happen... Our military could sit in Iraq for the next 10 years and kill thousands of radical islamists, it's never ending. Our troops being there to kill the '5%' is just a moronic statement, us being there is training them like what happened with the Russians/Afghan war...We aren't helping our future situation. Al-Qaeda is never just preoccupied with Iraq, they always have opperations going on all over the place.