Why do libs deny the threat of actual terrorists?

Question

They are good at conspiracy theories, in fact many have a masters in bs theories, but to deny that terrorists, terrorism, and their hate for us is not real is a little more than tabloid material

Troops are in Afgan. check it out

Answer 1

Modern Liberalism has embraced a victim v. oppressor ideology. They see the terrorists as the poor and down-trodden, instead of the suicidal killing machines they are.

Look at how they have idolized Che.

Answer 2

Show us where any liberal is denying the threat of actual terrorists? We aren't. You're not listening. You're hearing only what you and Fox wants you to hear. We've been saying all along that we want OBL and al queda squashed. Yet, GWB goes into Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. Why do you continue to lie? Answer me.

Ruth: Prove to us liberals that we think terrorists are poor and down troden. If our government actually went after terrorists after 9/11, then OBL would have been caught and Saudi ARabia would have had to answer some serious questions since 99% of the terrists on 9/11 were from that country and supported by people in that country. How dare you! You should be ashamed of yourself for not questioning the president on this matter and then pointing the finger at liberals since we are the ones that are demanding their capture and damanding accountability from our government for not doing so in the first place.

Ironically, a UK liberal progressive reporter and journalist by the name of Robert Fisk has been reporting on the dangers of Islamic extremism for over a decade and where were you then? Oh yes, you were watching FOX as Clinton's affair with Monica was costing the country billions to investigate. All the while the GOP was blaming him for his strikes in Afghanistan and the Sudan as 'wagging the dog'. Gee look where it got us for the GOP not looking at reality, we're having serious problems in the Sudan and we have had serious problems with OBL and his planned attack on 9/11. Perhaps there was something to Clinton's warnings about growing terrorism all along.

Answer 3

Oh good lord. I am a liberal, I do recognize the threat of terrorists. I just say, why don't we focus on the terrorist that causes the most destruction first - OSAMA.

Why are Cons satisfied with getting Saddam (which had nothing to do with 9/11) and not Bin Laden?

We have had more attempted attacks on our soil in the past 5 years than any 5 years in history. There have also been more attacks on Iraqi soil since we went in there than there has been in history. The terrorists are trying whether we are in Iraq or not. Killing 1000 of them a year over there doesn't decrease our attacks here.

The 9/11 attackers didn't come from Iraq. Seriously guys.

Answer 4

I don't deny that there is a terrorist threat. Barack Obama doesn't either. If you think he does, you just don't listen. Many Democrats believe that the war in Afghanistan is the war we should be fighting. Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Bin Ladin is in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, but Iraq? Many don't see the logic in connecting Iraq with the same terrorism as bin Laden. No doubt, Saddam was a horrible, evil dictator. But many believe this is the wrong war to be fighting.

Answer 5

It's not a denial of terrorists. It's just that terrorists have been around much longer than our country. Nothing new changed on 9/11. We've been attacked before by terrorists. What changed is that Bush relaxed his watch before they struck, ignored the warnings no other president ignored, and then used his inaction to put us on an aggressive war path while suppressing American Freedom. Read your history. The Bush Dynasty has close links to Hitler starting with Prescott Bush. Nothing has changed other than American ignorance. The motive is greed. There has been a mass shift of wealth from the American masses to a few very wealthy heads of Oil and Defense industries while the dollar tumbles to the peril of out of control spending on a fictious cause for war.

Answer 6

I am no liberal, never have been, yet I believe that the US policies and one sided behavior have made us a target. Maybe if we had not tried to dictate what kind of governments they have and helped put tyrannical leaders in place in some countries we would not be so hated there. Our thirst for oil and the politics to control the flow, have placed us and our country in harms way. Anyone that cannot see that is blind.

Answer 7

You are as they say now days so right on your statement after the question. One of the worst is John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton. There are too many to put down and they have to do something because they can't get the 60 that they can over ride the PRESIDENT to get a bill into law.
Bulldog

Answer 8

You know, that hamburger you had for lunch is a greater threat than terrorism. You're far more likely to die of heart disease or cancer than of a terrorist attack.

Maybe I think our soldiers should have finished the job in Afghanistan and gotten the REAL terrorist--Osama bin Laden--instead of contracting it out to guys who were as bad, if not worse, than the Talibastards. Why was Dubya in such a rush to invade Iraq?

And why are you such a hater?

Answer 9

They deny it because to admit that there really are terrorists is to admit Bush is right. They would much rather portray Bush as a terrorist than actually face the real world.

Answer 10

Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading exporter of global terrorism.