Simple Question ChumpDumper or anybody else....

[Ignignokt]

Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?

[Ignignokt]

Winehole, this question is for u2.

[Gummi Clutch]

Possibly one of the most overrated Presidents of all time, hitting a gold mine due to pure circumstantial conditions regarding the break up of the U.S.S.R.

Only ray of hope seen by right wingers.

P.S-Ronald Reagan

[iggypop123]

reagan fucked up central america, but more remember the USSR. overrated not becaues he wanst good, but damn he isnt the best ever. hannity stop masturbating to this guy!

[PixelPusher]

"Soft on terrorism" wasn't much of a canard back in the 80's. With a rival superpower in the Soviet Union, and thousands of ICBMs pointed at each other, there's wasn't any need to inflate the "existential threat" of terrorism.

[Nbadan]

I think Iran-Contra made Ronny appear softer on terror than pulling out of Lebanon..

[ChumpDumper]

Sure, why not? He didn't benefit from hindsight just as Clinton did not, but the overall perception is the overall perception. Reagan's cut-and-run just doesn't get as much play in the states for whatever reason.

And yeah, Beirut, Iran-Contra, the deal for timing the release of the hostages and the purely politically convenient involvement of the US in the Soviet-Afghan conflict totally shit on any suggestion that Reagan considered the Islamic fundamentalist threat as anything serious at all.

[byrontx]

Reagan was a wus. Remember KAL 007? Remember 1000 Stingers going to Iran of all places (payback for gutting Carter)?

[boutons_deux]

Marines get their butts kicked, and St Ronnie pulls them out of Lebanon as fas as he could. That certainly was seen by Lebanon and their masters in Iran, already having kicked American's butt in the Tehran embassy without American reprisals, as a huge victory and encouragement to keep kicking America's butt with impunity.

St Ronnie was also the first Repug tool to start the financial deregulation rolling, cutting taxes on the rich while raising taxes on the poor, and signalling to corps with his massive firing of the air traffic controllers that war on (middle class) employees was encouraged.

And St Ronnie had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which simply bankrupted itself in Afghanistan while the price of oil plummeted (USSR's main source of $$).

[Winehole23]

We did cut and run from Lebanon, but I don't think it matters much whether that made Reagan appear soft on terror or not. A calculation was made that the US interest in Lebanon wasn't worth the risk to US troops, or that having troops there wasn't essential in order to secure whatever the US interest was at that time.

How that made us "look" wrt terrorism -- or to the terrorists -- was beside the point then. That we are even discussing it now only reflects how much 9/11 has turned us into idiotic, bedwetting security trolls.

Anyway, Reagan sort of made up for cutting and running in Lebanon by bombing Qaddafi's barracks.

[spursncowboys]

The idea was to not appease the Soviets. Lebanon had nothing to do with that. About Reagan getting lucky-no luck increased our defense spending, bankrupting USSR. In fact this is a silly argument that he got lucky. No intelligent person, apart from the elitist professors where you got your talking point, would say that what Reagan walked into or what he did was from luck.
Iran Contras- He got the Americans home. If a lib did it, you would be praising diplomacy. I think it is great that we were funding the contras. the ayatolla was carters problem that reagan inherited. For you libs who think we shouldn't be involved in international affairs-this was perfect.

[Winehole23]

Iran Contras- He got the Americans home. If a lib did it, you would be praising diplomacy. I think it is great that we were funding the contras. the ayatolla was carters problem that reagan inherited. For you libs who think we shouldn't be involved in international affairs-this was perfect.What about the missiles Iran got? Was that great, too?

[spursncowboys]

What about the missiles Iran got? Was that great, too?I hate America funding our enemy, even if it is the enemy of our enemy. However had Carter protected our allies, and not handcuffed the CIA, that would have never happened. Do you think that what Carter did about the coup in Iran was acceptable?

[clambake]

lol thinks reagan would have prevented the coup.

[ChumpDumper]

Iran Contras- He got the Americans home.So appeasing terrorists with gifts of US weapons is OK in your book -- especially when the terrorists just took more hostages to replace the ones who were released.

[spursncowboys]

So appeasing terrorists with gifts of US weapons is OK in your book -- especially when the terrorists just took more hostages to replace the ones who were released.
Wait so the Iranian students are terrorists? I bet if their last name was Smith, you wouldn't call them terrorists.

[spursncowboys]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522163362062796.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

[ChumpDumper]

Wait so the Iranian students are terrorists? I bet if their last name was Smith, you wouldn't call them terrorists.If they did the same things as the Iranian students and government did, I would.

Nice attempt to change the subject again. Good to see you're still angry about being wrong when you said Hasan's actions met every definition of terrorism.

[ChumpDumper]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522163362062796.html?m od=rss_opinion_mainTrying to change the subject again.

[spursncowboys]

If they did the same things as the Iranian students and government did, I would.

Nice attempt to change the subject again. Good to see you're still angry about being wrong when you said Hasan's actions met every definition of terrorism.
He did.

[boutons_deux]

"increased our defense spending, bankrupting USSR"

You Lie

The USSR was totally dependent for hard currency on petro-dollars, which greatly decreased with the last deep economic contraction after the Iranian Revolution oil shock.

Coupled with the expenses of years in Afghanistan, the USSR simply ran out of funds.

Had NOTHING to do with St Ronnie's bullshit Hollywood StarWars or military build-up. That was all predicated on the Robert Gates politicizing the CIA's reports to the WH to give the WH the "facts" it wanted, ie, that the USSR was a huge threat (when in fact it was industrially moribund and financially bankrupt) so the Repugs could enrich the MIC on false pretenses.

[ChumpDumper]

He did.Not the US Code definition I gave last night. Sorry you're still angry about it. Just accept you were wrong. It's not the first time.

[spursncowboys]

Trying to change the subject again.
I just think we could talk about how bad ass Reagan was on the anniversary of the berlin wall falling down. Lets look back at all the liberal loons who thought he shouldn't have told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Let's look at all the libs now who want appeasement policies and see how well they worked against Reagan and Bush's policies. Carter/Obama policy of making our enemies happy and denouncing our allies havn't done much, have they? Casey even is saying we need more troops in Afghanistan. Obama decried Bush for not having enough troops in Afghan, and what is he doing?

What president did not give money to our enemies?

[ChumpDumper]

I just think we could talk about how bad ass Reagan was on the anniversary of the berlin wall falling down.Great. Start another thread.

I know Reagan is the right's messiah and he must be thought of as perfect and infallible, but he wasn't. Quit doing for Reagan what you accuse Obama's supporters of doing for him.

[spursncowboys]

TITLE 18 Part 1 CH 113B Subsection 2331
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

For all the libs that think calling the war on terrorism a overseas contingency battle is necessary.

[clambake]

lol now tell us how the US won in vietnam.

[ChumpDumper]

TITLE 18 Part 1 CH 113B Subsection 2331
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

For all the libs that think calling the war on terrorism a overseas contingency battle is necessary.Right. Doesn't currently look like Hasan's actions meet that definition.

Thanks for confirming.

[Ignignokt]

Sure, why not? He didn't benefit from hindsight just as Clinton did not, but the overall perception is the overall perception. Reagan's cut-and-run just doesn't get as much play in the states for whatever reason.

And yeah, Beirut, Iran-Contra, the deal for timing the release of the hostages and the purely politically convenient involvement of the US in the Soviet-Afghan conflict totally shit on any suggestion that Reagan considered the Islamic fundamentalist threat as anything serious at all.


We did cut and run from Lebanon, but I don't think it matters much whether that made Reagan appear soft on terror or not. A calculation was made that the US interest in Lebanon wasn't worth the risk to US troops, or that having troops there wasn't essential in order to secure whatever the US interest was at that time.

How that made us "look" wrt terrorism -- or to the terrorists -- was beside the point then. That we are even discussing it now only reflects how much 9/11 has turned us into idiotic, bedwetting security trolls.

Anyway, Reagan sort of made up for cutting and running in Lebanon by bombing Qaddafi's barracks.



Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines.

You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist.

So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh.

In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism, since the barrack attacks would not qualify as terrorism.

[LnGrrrR]

Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines.

You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist.

So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh.

In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism, since the barrack attacks would not qualify as terrorism.

I'm not very familiar with the story, but civilians work in the Pentagon too. If he only shot active duty marines, that's one difference.

Of course, then you get into situations like Blackwater, who are civilian but are pretty much mercs... Not sure where those guys fall under.

[spursncowboys]

I'm not very familiar with the story, but civilians work in the Pentagon too. If he only shot active duty marines, that's one difference.

Of course, then you get into situations like Blackwater, who are civilian but are pretty much mercs... Not sure where those guys fall under.

Are you saying Blackwater could be considered terrorists?

[clambake]

Are you saying Blackwater could be considered terrorists?

why not?

[spursncowboys]

why not?
Can you show facts ?

[clambake]

Can you show facts ?

anyone thats covert, that can act with autonomy, well armed and sponsored by a state, easily could be classified as terrorist.

you wouldn't like another countries "blackwater" on your block.

[spursncowboys]

anyone thats covert, that can act with autonomy, well armed and sponsored by a state, easily could be classified as terrorist.

you wouldn't like another countries "blackwater" on your block.
So you don't have any facts?

[clambake]

So you don't have any facts?

you need to stop throwing the word "terrorism" around.

it may land on you.

[PixelPusher]

Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines.

You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist.

So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh.

In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism, since the barrack attacks would not qualify as terrorism.
So the point this thread was to continue a pissing match over semantics. It's too bad you're too invested in who gets to possess and blow into the mighty "Yur Terraist!" conch to see how invoking Reagan neuters the "existential threat" of terrorism. Back then, everyone considered terrorists a sensational threat, like serial killers and child molesters - not potential destroyers of civilizations worthy of an extensive national security overhaul. You would have been scoffed out of the security briefing if you tried that "existential threat" bullshit.

But hey, you need an enemy worthy of the Soviet Union, and if none are available, God Dammit you'll manufacture one!

[spursncowboys]

So the point this thread was to continue a pissing match over semantics. It's too bad you're too invested in who gets to possess and blow into the mighty "Yur Terraist!" conch to see how invoking Reagan neuters the "existential threat" of terrorism. Back then, everyone considered terrorists a sensational threat, like serial killers and child molesters - not potential destroyers of civilizations worthy of an extensive national security overhaul. You would have been scoffed out of the security briefing if you tried that "existential threat" bullshit.

But hey, you need an enemy worthy of the Soviet Union, and if none are available, God Dammit you'll manufacture one!
That sounds like the playbook of authoritarian govt. Are you saying you want terrorism to go back to when it was just a nuisance?

[ChumpDumper]

Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines.

You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist.

So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh.

In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism, since the barrack attacks would not qualify as terrorism.The US Code is the US Code. I never said it was the only definition of terrorism. Just one that currently did not fit the Fort Hood shooting. Certainly the US Code would not apply to a foreign country.

In conclusion, you failed miserably. You really thought you had something when you started the thread, didn't you?

:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

That sounds like the playbook of authoritarian govt. Are you saying you want terrorism to go back to when it was just a nuisance?

Isn't it still a nuisance dummy?

[Ignignokt]

The US Code is the US Code. I never said it was the only definition of terrorism. Just one that currently did not fit the Fort Hood shooting. Certainly the US Code would not apply to a foreign country.

In conclusion, you failed miserably. You really thought you had something when you started the thread, didn't you?

:lol

Which foreign country bombed the Marines in Beirut?

[Ignignokt]

The US Code is the US Code. I never said it was the only definition of terrorism. Just one that currently did not fit the Fort Hood shooting. Certainly the US Code would not apply to a foreign country.

In conclusion, you failed miserably. You really thought you had something when you started the thread, didn't you?

:lol

And if you want to play under that game... What code out of what ass, would define the bombings in Beirut as a terrorist act?

[Ignignokt]

So the point this thread was to continue a pissing match over semantics. It's too bad you're too invested in who gets to possess and blow into the mighty "Yur Terraist!" conch to see how invoking Reagan neuters the "existential threat" of terrorism. Back then, everyone considered terrorists a sensational threat, like serial killers and child molesters - not potential destroyers of civilizations worthy of an extensive national security overhaul. You would have been scoffed out of the security briefing if you tried that "existential threat" bullshit.

But hey, you need an enemy worthy of the Soviet Union, and if none are available, God Dammit you'll manufacture one!


Drivel.. drivel drivel..

You'd definately be scoffed out of a security breifing if you said Alqueda was a manufactured threat.

[ChumpDumper]

Which foreign country bombed the Marines in Beirut?Maybe you can show me how Beirut is in the United States and therefore subject to the US Code.

You must be really disappointed in yourself.

[Ignignokt]

Maybe you can show me how Beirut is in the United States and therefore subject to the US Code.

You must be really disappointed in yourself.

How did you make this all about hassan?

This is the original question.


Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?


you awnsered.


Sure, why not?

I don't know where you got the US code into this, That's spursncowboy's argument. I simply asked you your oppinion, not the US code.


Lol.. premature ejac eh?

[Ignignokt]

Maybe you can show me how Beirut is in the United States and therefore subject to the US Code.

You must be really disappointed in yourself.

Beirut the city, didn't blow up the Marines.

[ChumpDumper]

And if you want to play under that game... What code out of what ass, would define the bombings in Beirut as a terrorist act?I'm sure there could be several international agreements and local Lebanese laws that could apply, but the US code by definition certainly wouldn't legally apply, just as it currently doesn't seem to apply to Hasan -- I'm under the assumption that he would be tried under the US Military Code of Justice, and I couldn't tell you if they have a code for terrorism. It woldn't be necessary to have one to convict Hasan and put him to death.

The only point I made to SnC was that Hasan's actions did not meet every definition of terrorism as he claimed it did. It was really the only code I looked up because to disprove SnC's contention I needed only one. It's amusing that you took it as your personal jihad to try to make this the only definition of terrorism available to me in any argument, and your failure here is obvious and hilarious.

[ChumpDumper]

Beirut the city, didn't blow up the Marines.Beirut is in Lebanon.

Not the US.

[Ignignokt]

I'm sure there could be several international agreements and local Lebanese laws that could apply, but the US code by definition certainly wouldn't legally apply, just as it currently doesn't seem to apply to Hasan -- I'm under the assumption that he would be tried under the US Military Code of Justice, and I couldn't tell you if they have a code for terrorism. It woldn't be necessary to have one to convict Hasan and put him to death.

The only point I made to SnC was that Hasan's actions did not meet every definition of terrorism as he claimed it did. It was really the only code I looked up because to disprove SnC's contention I needed only one. It's amusing that you took it as your personal jihad to try to make this the only definition of terrorism available to me in any argument, and your failure here is obvious and hilarious.


So according to the US code.. Beirut didn't blow up the marines. Thanks for the input. Be relevant. It was just a simple question.

[ChumpDumper]

So according to the US code.. Beirut didn't blow up the marines. Thanks for the input. Be relevant. It was just a simple question.According to the US Code, the US Code does not apply to Lebanon.

[Ignignokt]

So according to Chumpdumper.. Reagan was soft on terrorism based on some Lebanese code which CHumpdumper admits he has no whereabouts or knowledge. Again how did you pwn anyone? Do imaginary yet to be determined Lebanese codes do the trick?

[ChumpDumper]

So according to Chumpdumper.. Reagan was soft on terrorism based on some Lebanese code which CHumpdumper admits he has no whereabouts or knowledge. Again how did you pwn anyone? Do imaginary yet to be determined Lebanese codes do the trick?There are myriad definitions of terrorism, legal and otherwise. The US Code has one. I have never restricted myself to one definition of terrorism

Hasan's attack could be considered a terrorist attack by any number of definitions, but not every one.

[Ignignokt]

Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?


According to the US Code, the US Code does not apply to Lebanon.

So according to the US code, the bombings in beirut are not classified as terrorism. Therefore Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorism based on that criteria.

Thanks for agreeing with me chump.

[ChumpDumper]

So according to the US code, the bombings in beirut are not classified as terrorism.According to the US code, the bombings in Beirut are not classified as terrorism committed in the United States because Beirut is not in the United States.

[Ignignokt]

There are myriad definitions of terrorism, legal and otherwise. The US Code has one. I have never restricted myself to one definition of terrorism

So.. based on your assesment of the Lebanon attacks.

Terrorism can be defined as..

A military strike.

and holding hostages.. because you argued iran as another example of Reagans soft tone on terrorism.

Thanks Chump. You have a more liberal definition of terrorism than spursncowboys.. didn't think that was possible.

[Ignignokt]

Original question.


Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?



Sure, why not?




Bat shit crazy retraction ensued...


According to the US code, the bombings in Beirut are not classified as terrorism committed in the United States because Beirut is not in the United States.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

So.. based on your assesment of the Lebanon attacks.

Terrorism can be defined as..

A military strike.

and holding hostages.. because you argued iran as another example of Reagans soft tone on terrorism.

Thanks Chump. You have a more liberal definition of terrorism than spursncowboys.. didn't think that was possible.As I said, there are myriad definitions, legal and otherwise. Your huge mistake was thinking I only subscribed to one.

[ChumpDumper]

Bat shit crazy retraction ensued...

:lmaoWhat makes you think the US Code on domestic terrorism applies to the country of Lebanon?

[Ignignokt]

As I said, there are myriad definitions, legal and otherwise. Your huge mistake was thinking I only subscribed to one.

So.. since you ascribe to many definitions of terrorism.. Reagan was soft and not soft.. yet soft.. but not soft... on terrorism.

Thanks, but I like simple awnsers to simple questions. :toast

[clambake]

i think reagan answered that question.

[Ignignokt]

What makes you think the US Code on domestic terrorism applies to the country of Lebanon?

Where did i say " THe US code applies to Lebanon."

Moreso.. Lebanon didn't attack the marines. Get History. Quick! Andale andale!

[Ignignokt]

i think military strikes are terrorist acts.

Man, Pixel Pusher has a point to pick with you.. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

So.. since you ascribe to many definitions of terrorism.. Reagan was soft and not soft.. yet soft.. but not soft... on terrorism.

Thanks, but I like simple awnsers to simple questions. :toastIs Lebanon in the US?

A simple yes or no will do. :toast

[clambake]

so, you'd rather assign a different answer than the one reagan gave you.

[Ignignokt]

Is Lebanon in the US?

A simple yes or no will do. :toast

Did Lebanon bomb the marines?

A simple yes or no will do. :toast

[clambake]

reagan gave you plenty of answers. what was his answer to the hostage taking?

[ChumpDumper]

Did Lebanon bomb the marines?

A simple yes or no will do. :toastNo.

Is Lebanon in the US?

A simple yes or no will do.

[Ignignokt]

so, you'd rather assign a different answer than the one reagan gave you.


So you agree with Reagan that military strikes are terrorist acts. Why chose to agree with him now?

[ChumpDumper]

reagan gave you plenty of answers. what was his answer to the hostage taking?Giving a terrorist country a couple thousand missiles.

[ChumpDumper]

gtown, do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

A simple yes or no will suffice. :toast

[Ignignokt]

No.

Is Lebanon in the US?

A simple yes or no will do.


Sure.. there's one in Ohio.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=lebanon+ohio&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Lebanon,+OH&gl=us&ei=cbD4SvK6KJPSMp7YlNsK&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQ8gEwAA

[ChumpDumper]

Sure.. there's one in Ohio.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=lebanon+ohio&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Lebanon,+OH&gl=us&ei=cbD4SvK6KJPSMp7YlNsK&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQ8gEwAAAre you saying that is where the Beirut Marine barracks bombing occurred?

A simple yes or no will suffice. :toast

[Ignignokt]

gtown, do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

A simple yes or no will suffice. :toast


Yo.

[clambake]

how did reagan respond to terror attacks?

[ChumpDumper]

Yo.That is neither a yes or a no.

Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

Yes or no?

[Ignignokt]

Are you saying that is where the Beirut bombing occurred?

A simple yes or no will suffice. :toast

Oh, that Lebanon. You got to get more specific, you know.. like how you're using US codes to argue for and against a foreign military strike being terrorist.:lol

[Ignignokt]

That is neither a yes or a no.

Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

Yes or no?

Nes

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, that Lebanon. You got to get more specific, you know.. like how you're using US codes to argue for and against a foreign military strike being terrorist.:lolAre you saying Ohio is where the Beirut bombing occurred?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[ChumpDumper]

NesThat is neither a yes or a no.

Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

Yes or no?

[Ignignokt]

how did reagan respond to terror attacks?

Are you asking how he Reagan responded to a military strike, like the one in Beirut rather than a terrorist attack?

[clambake]

Are you asking how he Reagan responded to a military strike, like the one in Beirut rather than a terrorist attack?

word it any way you like. will it help you answer your initial question?

[Ignignokt]

That is neither a yes or a no.

Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

Yes or no?

:lol.. There's no post by me in here claiming there is one single definition. I asked for your definition.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol.. There's no post by me in here claiming there is one single definition. I asked for your definition.And I said there are many.

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

Yes or no?

[Ignignokt]

No.

Is Lebanon in the US?

A simple yes or no will do.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying Ohio is where the Beirut bombing occurred?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Ignignokt]

And I said there are many.

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

Yes or no?

Ofcourse not.. we seem to disagree on that very definition. Can you ask me more obvious questions?

[ChumpDumper]

Ofcourse not.. we seem to disagree on that very definition.Not at all, you simply don't understand it.
Can you ask me more obvious questions?Can you actually answer them?

[Ignignokt]

And I said there are many.

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?

Yes or no?

So under what definition or code does not acting against military strikes define someone being soft on Terrorism?

Simple question.

[Ignignokt]

Not at all, you simply don't understand it.Can you actually answer them?

I understand why you're asking stupid questions. But just because you can't defend your original awnser doesn't mean you have to change the argument or make up some for other people. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

So under what definition or code does not acting against military strikes define someone being soft on Terrorism?

Simple question.If it's terrorism, and someone is soft on it, he is soft on terrorism.

I believe the Beirut bombing was a terrorist attack. You want it desperately to not be.

Good for you.

[ChumpDumper]

I understand why you're asking stupid questions. But just because you can't defend your original awnser doesn't mean you have to change the argument or make up some for other people. :lolThere was no need to defend it. It made perfect sense. You are the one who doesn't understand it. You can't even admit that the nation of Lebanon is not in the United States. I can't help you with that.

[Ignignokt]

Great. Start another thread.

I know Reagan is the right's messiah and he must be thought of as perfect and infallible, but he wasn't. Quit doing for Reagan what you accuse Obama's supporters of doing for him.

Don't have to this is my thread.. inwhich i asked the original question. If you want to play strawman.. you can start your own thread.

This is the original question.


Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?

You can thank me for redirecting you back to relevancy.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't have to this is my thread.. inwhich i asked the original question. If you want to play strawman.. you can start your own thread.

This is the original question.



You can thank me for redirecting you back to relevancy.And I said yes.

You're welcome.

[Ignignokt]

There was no need to defend it. It made perfect sense. You are the one who doesn't understand it. You can't even admit that the nation of Lebanon is not in the United States. I can't help you with that.

Just like you can't admit that the nation of lebanon didn't bomb the marines.


:lol...
Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?

US codes have nothing to do with this question.

Word of the day..

Relevance.

[clambake]

If it's terrorism, and someone is soft on it, he is soft on terrorism.

I believe the Beirut bombing was a terrorist attack. You want it desperately to not be.

Good for you.

are you saying he'd rather reagan be soft on military attacks?

[Ignignokt]

And I said yes.

You're welcome.

I'm glad i could help you.

So when are you going to start the Chump vs Strawman thread? I'd like to play along for giggles.

[ChumpDumper]

Just like you can't admit that the nation of lebanon didn't bomb the marines.I answered with a simple yes.



US codes have nothing to do with this question.You tried to make them have everything to do with it. Your fault.


Word of the day..

Relevance.Your attempt to apply the US Code to the nation of Lebanon was indeed irrelevant.

[Ignignokt]

If it's terrorism, and someone is soft on it, he is soft on terrorism.

I believe the Beirut bombing was a terrorist attack. You want it desperately to not be.

Good for you.

So you personally believe that attacks on the military are terroristic, right?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm glad i could help you.

So when are you going to start the Chump vs Strawman thread? I'd like to play along for giggles.Actually you made this strawman thread. I played along for giggles.

[ChumpDumper]

So you personally believe that attacks on the military are terroristic, right?Not all of them.

[Ignignokt]

I answered with a simple yes.


You tried to make them have everything to do with it. Your fault.

Your attempt to apply the US Code to the nation of Lebanon was indeed irrelevant.<------What! :lmao pathetic attempt.


I thought you were gonna start strawmen on your own thread.

[Ignignokt]

Not all of them.

So what makes the lebonese attack so special?

[clambake]

is it terror if we attack a foreign military?

[Ignignokt]

Actually you made this strawman thread. I played along for giggles.

LOL.. Fail. WHy don't you know the definition of a strawman. Me asking a question about your definition.. is not a strawman.

[Ignignokt]

is it terror if we attack a foreign military?

You see CHump.. Clambake wants to know! help us!

[PixelPusher]

I thought you were gonna start strawmen on your own thread.

You already did.


Drivel.. drivel drivel..

You'd definately be scoffed out of a security breifing if you said Alqueda was a manufactured threat.

[ChumpDumper]

I thought you were gonna start strawmen on your own thread.You started plenty today.


So what makes the lebonese attack so special?It meets several definitions of a terrorist attack. Reagan called the attackers terrorists, so why wouldn't you?

[clambake]

You see CHump.. Clambake wants to know! help us!

i was asking you, G.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL.. Fail. WHy don't you know the definition of a strawman. Me asking a question about your definition.. is not a strawman.Pretending it was the only definition I would ever use is indeed a straw man argument.

[Ignignokt]

You already did.

That's because it was in retalliation of your own post, which was riddled with them. WHy don't you post your original post in this thread.

After all, i was just illustrating absurdity by being absurd. :lol

[Ignignokt]

Pretending it was the only definition I would ever use is indeed a straw man argument.

I didn't pretend.. I asked you for your definition. You said you have many. So in essence according to you.. Reagan was both soft, and not soft on terrrorism. Since you have many definitions on terrorism.

[Ignignokt]

i was asking you, G.

I didn't say that the beirut military bombings/strikes were terrorism. That's Chump, C.

[clambake]

I didn't say that the beirut military bombings/strikes were terrorism. That's Chump, C.

how about this question: was reagan soft?

[Ignignokt]

how about this question: was reagan soft?

Ask the Soviets.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't pretend.. I asked you for your definition. You said you have many. So in essence according to you.. Reagan was both soft, and not soft on terrrorism. Since you have many definitions on terrorism.Since Reagan himself called it terrorism, and was soft on it, I'll go ahead and say that Reagan was soft on terrorism.

[Ignignokt]

how about this question: was reagan soft?

for having an avatar picture of the IRA and being Irish.. why do you have a hardtime struggling to define terrorism.

[ChumpDumper]

Ask the Soviets.Ask the terrorist who bombed the barracks and took hostages after Reagan gave thousands of missiles to Iran.

[whottt]

Was definitely soft of Reagan to pullout of Lebanon after declaring war on them.

Dude fucking delclares war on Lebanon, invades them, pulls out first time they fight back.

Clearly soft.


And also I agree that it's patently absurd to intimate Reagan even knew what the Soviet Union was much less had anything to do with their demise.

Dude's heyday was 40's and 50's Hollywood and he hung out with guys like John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, all those guys did was make movies back then plus it was a totally a political environment at that time. Trust me...you never heard the words communism and Hollywood in the same sentence back then.

I think I even remember one time Reagan being asked what a cold war was and he answered, it's war with snow? :lmao

Trust me, it's completely ludicruous to say Reagan had any agenda concerning, communism, the Soviet Union, or the Cold War when he was elected. He just wanted to be known for something other than bedtime for Bonzo.

When he supported the Afghan Rebels and they decimated the Soviet Army for pennies on the dollar? Reagan didn't even fucking know the Soviet Union was there, he was just trying to help foreign fighters take over Afghanistan from the Agfghani people.

That whole cozying up to Saddam Hussein and his socialist ideology before the Soviets did...Reagan just thought Saddam was a Republican with a nice tan and thought they needed more of them :lmao

Whole nuclear arms buildup? Reagan just liked nukes. It had nothing to do with the Soviet Union.

And finally, economic reasons were not why the Soviets fell...those dudes were fucking living high on the hog and just got careless.


:lmao Reagan, cold war, communism, 50's era Hollywood.

I haven't heard anything that ridiculous since McCarthy claimed Hollywood was being taken over by lefties. I mean look at Hollywood now...it's about as left as Bush is.

Can we back to serious threads please?

[clambake]

for having an avatar picture of the IRA and being Irish.. why do you have a hardtime struggling to define terrorism.

terrorist is something you call someone when you've felt bullied.

[Ignignokt]

Since Reagan himself called it terrorism, and was soft on it, I'll go ahead and say that Reagan was soft on terrorism.

And so by that logic, If any President called an act terrorism, and he was hard on it, you go ahead and say that he was on hard on terrorism.

So, I could be president, and call a dog bite an act of terrorism and react by putting it to sleep, you'd by your own logic would have to call me one badass mofo that is tought on teraist.

You're special.

[Ignignokt]

terrorist is something you call someone when you've felt bullied.


So that means the whole female population have been terrorist towards you?

[ChumpDumper]

And so by that logic, If any President called an act terrorism, and he was hard on it, you go ahead and say that he was on hard on terrorism.I think this particular act was indeed terrorism.


So, I could be president, and call a dog bite an act of terrorism and react by putting it to sleep, you'd by your own logic would have to call me one badass mofo that is tought on teraist.

You're special.You could never be president. You think the nation of Lebanon is in the US.

If you disagree with Reagan so vehemently, give us your reasons why he was so wrong in callinng the barracks attack terrorism.

[clambake]

So that means the whole female population have been terrorist towards you?

terrorist is a label you attach so that your future acts are considered "more palatable".

[Ignignokt]

I think this particular act was indeed terrorism.

Yeah, you awnsered that at first.. But didn't explain why? Still haven't. Waiting. it's been pages.


You could never be president. You think the nation of Lebanon is in the US.




No, i said the city of Lebanon was in Ohio.:blah



If you disagree with Reagan so vehemently, give us your reasons why he was so wrong in callinng the barracks attack terrorism.

because they were bombings aimed at the military.

[Ignignokt]

terrorist is a label you attach so that your future acts are considered "more palatable".

I don't consider the attacks in Beirut to be terroristic.

Why do you argue with ghosts?

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, you awnsered that at first.. But didn't explain why? Still haven't. Waiting. it's been pages.

You could never be president. You think the nation of Lebanon is in the US.

No, i said the city of Lebanon was in Ohio.:blahAnd you never answered this question:

Do you think the Marine barracks attack happened in Ohio?

Yes or no.


because they were bombings aimed at the military.So what definition are you using? They also bombed the embassy.

[clambake]

I don't consider the attacks in Beirut to be terroristic.
good. that way you don't have to call reagan soft.


Why do you argue with ghosts?

i thought the G was for ghost.

[Ignignokt]

And you never answered this question:

Do you think the Marine barracks attack happened in Ohio?


Do you think Beirut bombed the Marines?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you think Beirut bombed the Marines?Already answered.

Do you think the Marine barracks attack happened in Ohio?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Ignignokt]

Already answered.

Do you think the Marine barracks attack happened in Ohio?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Who said the marine barracks attack happened in Ohio?

Link?

[ChumpDumper]

Who said the marine barracks attack happened in Ohio?

Link?It's a simple question. Just make yourself clear here since you were the one who brought up Ohio.

Do you think the Marine barracks attack happened in Ohio?

Yes or no.

[PixelPusher]

After all, i was just illustrating absurdity by being absurd. :lol

k.

So you can stop bitching about strawmen now.

[jack sommerset]

Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?

This is how you answer a simple question.

No.

[SnakeBoy]

Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?

I don't think so. I think his response simply showed he had better judgement than the last president and the current one.


As 1984 began, it was becoming clearer that the Lebanese army was either unwilling or unable to end the civil war into which we had been dragged reluctantly. It was clear that the war was likely to go on for an extended period of time. As the sniping and shelling of their camp continued, I gave an order to evacuate all the marines to anchored off Lebanon. At the end of March, the ships of the Sixth Fleet and the marines who had fought to keep peace in Lebanon moved on to other assignments. We had to pull out. By then, there was no question about it: Our policy wasn't working. We couldn't stay there and run the risk of another suicide attack on the marines. No one wanted to commit our troops to a full-scale war in the middle East. But we couldn't remain in Lebanon and be in the war on a halfway basis, leaving our men vulnerable to terrorists with one hand tied behind their backs. We hadn't committed the marines to Beirut in a snap decision, and we weren't alone. France, Italy, and Britain were also part of the multinational force, and we all thought it was a good plan. And for a while, as I've said, it had been working.


I'm not sure how we could have anticipated the catastrophe at the marine barracks. Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that make the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have. Perhaps we should have anticipated that members of the Lebanese military whom we were trying to assist would simply lay down their arms and refuse to fight their own countrymen. In any case, the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president. Every day since the death of those boys, I have prayed for them and their loved ones.


In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:


1.) The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.


2.) If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.


3.) Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)


4.) Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.


-Ronald Reagan

[Winehole23]

Both of you guys are wrong.


According to your stipulations that deny Hasan's acts from being terroristic, the marine attacks were not terroristic because they were not being aimed at civilians, but marines. I never denied Hasan's acts were terroristic. I just asked the posters who said it's obvious to state their definitions of terrorism and show how it applies to the case. SnC is the only poster who even tried, and he failed miserably. All I said was convince me. I'm pretty sure there's a good argument out there somewhere. Too bad SpursTalk security trolls don't have one. You sure don't, gtown.


You could say, that this is different because the attacks were committed by foreigners. Well, then that's silly because that disqualifies Timothy Mcveigh from being terrorist. False dilemma. Terrorists can be foreign or domestic.


So the former disqualifies the attack on the pentagon on 911 as being terrorist, and the latter disqualifies Timothy McVeigh. Federal law doesn't.


In conclusion, according to your prerequisites of terrorism, Reagan was neither soft nor hard on terrorismI actually said something like this, but in your zeal to rip your own strawman to pieces, you seem not to have noticed.

Your set piece failed on delivery. So did your hysterical attempts to resuscitate it, page after page.

Hope you had fun. I thought it was pitiful.

[Winehole23]

i don't think so. I think his response simply showed he had better judgement than the last president and the current one.+1

[Winehole23]

1.) The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.Being peacekeepers in Lebanon wasn't. The attack on US troops there did not make it more so.


2.) If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.Both of these conditions are absent in Afghanistan.



3.) Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)The USA probably wouldn't have supported involvement in the Lebanese Civil War. GWB would say he doesn't run the country on the basis of polls, but Reagan took popular and Congressional support seriously.



4.) Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.Reagan may not have been tough on terrorism, but he was tough-minded about it. US national interests came before *tuff* posturing and macho cries for vengeance. Too bad 9/11 turned our brains into porridge.