The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations have "legitimate claims", Sen. Barack Obama stated in an interview today with the New York Times.

 

 

Statements like these absolutely scare the bejeezus out of me when it comes to Barack Hussein Obama.

The presidential candidate compared Hezbollah to Hamas, stating they both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."

 

***I see nothing wrong with that AT ALL, we have seen how well our current mindset the last 8 years have gone.

^How do they have legitimate claims? You can't use diplomacy with terrorists, it doesn't work.

The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations have "legitimate claims", Sen. Barack Obama stated in an interview today with the New York Times.

 

 

Statements like these absolutely scare the bejeezus out of me when it comes to Barack Hussein Obama.

 

:thumb:

 

I agree.

Our policies over the last thirty years (Republican AND Democrat) have legitimized the claims terrorist groups have. Why do they hate the United States? Because we have constantly been two-faced with most of them about every single issue. Can you negotiate with terrorists? Probably not. But when the United States consistently throws their weight around and bombs anybody we don't care for, like their policies, like their leaders, etc. how does you separate that from terrorism?

It amazes me that we really have people on here that defend terrorists....Absolutely amazing.

The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations have "legitimate claims", Sen. Barack Obama stated in an interview today with the New York Times.

 

 

Statements like these absolutely scare the bejeezus out of me when it comes to Barack Hussein Obama.

 

I see the bolded part on BGP every day. This absolutely drives me nuts. Why do we not refer to McCain as "John Sidney McCain III?" I understand the Hussein part might be the same as Saddam, but is it anything more than a scare tactic to include it every time you write the name?

 

How many people, good and bad, in world history have shared names? Should Obama's parents have anticipated in 1961 that a dictator with a common name would take over some little middle eastern country 18 years later? And what about the "holy one" of the Republican Party, one Ronald Reagan? You know, "the one" who never did anything wrong if you listen to the GOP. He sent money his entire presidency to fight a war against Iran. Who did he send that money to? Someone with the name of Hussein.

 

Bottom line, using Obama's middle name is ridiculous. There are many things you can call Obama out on, but using a given name to scare people? C'mon Republicans, you're better than that.

It amazes me that we really have people on here that defend terrorists....Absolutely amazing.

 

Didn't Reagan, Bush, et al. send money to the Afghan fighters during the Soviet war? Weren't they propping up terrorists? Then today we speak out against them because they turned on us. What about that isn't two-faced?

Didn't Reagan, Bush, et al. send money to the Afghan fighters during the Soviet war? Weren't they propping up terrorists? Then today we speak out against them because they turned on us. What about that isn't two-faced?

 

They turned on us and started killing innocent people, drove planes into our buildings, etc. You know what you're right, we should be friends with them, even though their goals are to wipe us off the map...

^How do they have legitimate claims? You can't use diplomacy with terrorists, it doesn't work.

 

The "kill em' all" approach doesn't necessarily work either.

It amazes me that we really have people on here that defend terrorists....Absolutely amazing.

 

Who is defending terrorists or terrorism?

They turned on us and started killing innocent people, drove planes into our buildings, etc. You know what you're right, we should be friends with them, even though their goals are to wipe us off the map...

 

Okay, the turned on us. True. When does it stop? To stop al-Qaeda, I have no doubt that we are likely using some other group somewhere in the Asian mountains (Northern Alliance in Afghanistan or something similar). Will they not turn on us as well when we do something to anger them?

 

I ask these questions because there has to be a time when it stops. I'm not sure talking with them will answer the questions. I'm pretty sure repeatedly killing them won't answer the questions, either.

Does an organization's claims get thrown out the window when they resort to violence and civilian deaths?

Okay, the turned on us. True. When does it stop? To stop al-Qaeda, I have no doubt that we are likely using some other group somewhere in the Asian mountains (Northern Alliance in Afghanistan or something similar). Will they not turn on us as well when we do something to anger them?

 

I ask these questions because there has to be a time when it stops. I'm not sure talking with them will answer the questions. I'm pretty sure repeatedly killing them won't answer the questions, either.

 

There is a time when it stops.

 

That time is when they are all dead. All of them.

 

Sorry.

There is a time when it stops.

 

That time is when they are all dead. All of them.

 

Sorry.

 

Fair enough. But until all of them are dead, isn't it just as likely that they are using the same logic about America? If everybody on every side dies, who wins? And who is "all of them?" How do we distinguish? How do we know?