Is there such a thing as "soft on terror" ? Does that concept even make sense at all?

[Smith_3]

Last time I checked, there never ever was a government in the world that stood by and did nothing, when openly confronted by another group, domestic or foreign. Its just an inherent property of governments to try and maintain the integrity of the state. This equally applies to all "democratic" precidencies that the United States have ever had.

So what is this claim that the Democrats are "soft on terror" any more than an attempt to smear the opposition? The right wing claims that anyone is soft on terror who rejects the concept of universal domestic surveillance, lawless torture, arbitrary acts of war, and so on.

This is to be viewed in the same regard as their bickering, that the "left" is soft on crime, just because we don't constantly publicly jerk off to certain individual cases were due to a structual failure in our justice system, a guilty criminal got away unpunished. Moreover, whenever the suggestion is made to improve the system by investing more tax money into it, there is an outcry, as if problems could be solved simply by introducing even tougher laws into a system which is flawed not because of its lacks rules, but because the inability of the "small government" to enforce those rules consistently.

So what is their "real" definition of "hard" on terror and crime? What the right wing really means is, if a person seems guilty (or has the wrong skin color), we don't need an expensive trial. We can just pre-emptively execute the person to be on the safe side and satisfy the blood lust of the public. That saves tax money and does "justice" because "someone" was hung. Not necessarly the right person but that doesn't matter. Asking for the actual "guilty" person to be punished instead of simply the black/gay/foreign or whatsoever unpopular person, is "soft" on crime and terror and whatnot.

Right wingers truly are monsters.

[Benhurst]

1. About as much sense as "card-carrying communist," and that worked

for several generations.

[bdamomma]

2. they can take that term along with all their other misconceptions

and shove them.

[Bright Eyes]

3. Jesus was soft on terror.

He should have killed those tarrist' Romans. But He turned the other cheek. Jesus would leave America open to attack.

Hence why right-wingers don't actually follow his word.

[Virginia Dare]

9. Actually, Jesus WAS the terrorist..

I'm sure the Romans thought so, probably why they executed him after torturing him. Good thing we aren't such barbarians anymore.

[bryant69]

4. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense

It works; and as long as our representatives fail to challenge it, they aren't going to stop saying it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mrcheerful]

5. Soft on crime ring a bell? American sheeple are very well trained to accept

puke "code" words with little or no thought so long as it fits into their narrow views of the world. Just like the ideal that people take plea bargains because they are guilty and are trying to get off easy. Never mind the facts, it fills their need to accept the justice system as it is without wanting a change or changing it for the worst giving government more power over their lives. We are dealing with p[eople that never look beyond their belief systems until they find themselves in the middle of crap. Like the business person that believes pukes = protector of small business, Democratic = the down fall of small business, yet fail to realize that without customers there is no business so therefore pukes really = loss of business.

[blondeatlast]

6. Of course not. We could frame our opposition with "Hostile to liberty"

and actually have a verifiable argument.

American people live their lives in sound bites.

[EnviroBat]

7. I think being "soft on terror" means not living in constant,

government mandated fear. If your not afraid every moment of every day, then you are seen as a "soft on terror" traitor. I for one, am not afraid, so I guess I'm soft on terror. Maybe because I don't get a "hard on" for terror! I've heard Viagra can help with this...

[blondeatlast]

8. That's a good point, very good. How many times has the fear been used as

a cover up or diversion for trampling our civil rights--but the old lady down the street has no idea what they've done to the Constitution? (and I'm not kidding--one of my neighbors is afraid of the Sikhs on the next block--no amount of explanation on my part has helped...)

[EnviroBat]

12. Tell your neighbor that those Sikhs are terrified of this government.

A government 1000 x more frightening than any foreigners.

[blondeatlast]

13. Useless. She's a ditzy WASP Republican who has never had an original political thought.

My husband is Indian (Punjab) and she was afraid of him too--she started talking to me once about the "Arab in the old Lexus" (that would be him) and I pointed out to her that he was my husband. I wish I could adequately describe the look on her face... :rofl:

FWIW, I'm a WASP but was raised very, very progressive.

She's not a bright one at all. :shrug:

[Virginia Dare]

10. Yes, personally I'm soft on terror..

oh, and I hate America too. I'm a liberal Democrat, dontcha know.

[Orsino]

11. It's not designed to make sense.

It's an emotional appeal, and is supposed to halt rational thought, like all slogans.

[ck4829]

14. Reagan was soft on terror

Iran-Contra is proof of that.

[Threedifferentones]

15. Well the logic makes sense when you view "terrorists" as

a global network that one can wage war on. Some leaders really are better at waging wars than others. But if you recognize that terrorists are just nongovernmental groups who use violence for political means, the very idea of a war on terror is ridiculous. The term is subjective, you may have heard already but one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. And in general those groups have been ineffective in harming America, which is why terrorism is really a complete red herring, the result of careful propaganda. It just doesn't take that big of a toll on America, physically at least.

Moreover if terrorists get their way in many cases they will become "legitimate" armies in control of governments. Most any definitions of "war" and "terrorism" are strikingly similar, differing primarily in that one is "legal" and the other is not. Again terrorism is a perspective, and if a terrorist group can gain solid control of a big territory suddenly they are waging war, not terrorism, or so it would seem.

So one reason so many people get duped into anti-terrorist fervor is that they have never considered that in recent decades the U.S. army and intelligence agencies have terrorized far more people than any other group save perhaps the U.S.S.R., except now we have a decade and a half on them. All institutions that use violence for political motives are really terrorists. And the "terrorists" in Iraq are much more comparable in their situation to our great "founding fathers" than the American army has been in centuries.

That ignorance combined with fear of violent Muslims has fueled the rank and file of the "right's" constituency for years now. I suspect many of them are secretly channeling anger at how hard life is getting here with scapegoats like terrorists and immigrants, but that is harder to prove than the stupidity of the WOT.