# What should the Dem position on Islamic terrorism be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091 "2004-12-29T14:08:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/21 "2004-12-29T16:41:31Z")
I think **Manhattan’s** absolutely correct. The Democrats have to stop being correct, and start pandering to the lowest common denominator on terrorism. The American public doesn’t want to hear about the best way to actually fight terrorism based on past history, they want to hear that the troops are kicking butt Rambo-style. Once the Democrats are in power, they can do whatever they want to, and just keep telling the public that the troops are out there kicking butt, Rambo-style. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/22 "2004-12-29T16:42:53Z")
Not sure about what the Dems should do about terrorism but you might try ditching the condescending attitude. When you come out with statements and assumptions like: > [@](#): > > I just don’t believe that this vision will sell to the **mindless gucks** who re-elected Bush as president. To see why, here’s my analysis of what the conservative leaderships’ real response to terrorism was: \*Bolding mine. This kind of thing does not make people pro-Democratic party the next time around. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/23 "2004-12-29T16:45:54Z")
I think that the Democratic position on terrorism should be once every 5 or 6 years to lob a couple of tomahawk missiles somewhere near a terrorist camp that may or may not be abandoned and call it a day. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/24 "2004-12-29T16:46:13Z")
The Democratic Party’s position on Islamic terrorism should be the same as its position on any kind of terrorism - it should denounce terrorism in any and all forms and support efforts to combat it (stopping it completely is an impossibility). The steps needed to combat Islamic terrorism have to include not only armed conflict _aimed at readily identifiable targets_ (versus those efforts aimed at regimes that we don’t happen to support just because they don’t agree with our views on “truth, justice and the American way”), BUT also steps to addressing the underlying issue that gives rise to most of the hatred Islamic fundamentalists feel toward America to begin with (our lack of strong leadership in brokering some sort of begrudging peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians). I don’t really see that there’s much doubt about what the position should be - how you implement your position through your foreign policy is the difference between the parties. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/25 "2004-12-29T16:50:31Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > I do support Iraqi insurgents killing US troops. Thank you, **rfgdxm**. I thought for sure I would have to dig through old posts to find an example to back up my claim. You saved me the trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/26 "2004-12-29T16:59:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The public perception of the Democratic Party is that many of its members agree with the sentiments expressed above. This is such a delightfully ambiguous statement that it is equally accurate to say “few of its members agree with the sentiments expressed above.” It is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/27 "2004-12-29T17:07:38Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > In fact, many Democratic leaders – most even – have a sane, reasonable view of Islamist terrorism and a good understanding of how to oppose it. The same is true of most Democrats in general. They really only have to do two things. One, they have to nominate people with credibility on the issue. People who say one thing when the polls are one way and another when they think the polls are going the other way are not credible and that’s what Senator Kerry did during his campaign. The other thing is that they have to repudiate people like you. People who think this whole thing is politics to the point where you [freely admit that you don’t give a crap about accuracy and would rather see 25 million people fall into anarchy or worse than see a policy initiated by the President succeed](http://207.97.195.229/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5651874&postcount=39). If there was any truth to your assertion about what I’ve said, I’d be all agog with shame, but as there isn’t, I’m only puzzled why you think such a weak point is important. I do think the term “Chickenhawk War” accurately describes the Iraqi occupation, but I don’t think there’s any point in getting into a debate into the nuances of how hypocritical its supporters are, because the real point is that it appeals to the gucks – we’re calling Bush and Cheney and their cronies a bunch of CHICKENS, and everybody knows what that means. And we can make it STICK too, by simple repitition. The term “Chickenhawk War” forces the Pubbies to get all nuanced, trying to explain how “service” in the Air National Guard during Vietnam made Bush a strong war leader. But why don’t you go over to the other thread if you want to talk about that – maybe it’s because you know you don’t have any arguments with legs to work with in this thread? As for your prescriptions, I think they’re bad medicine for the Dems. Kerry had plenty of cred – he served in COMBAT in Vietnam, he knows what war is. His problem is, he attempted a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of the war on terrorism, and the gucks didn’t have the attention span to hear or understand it. What the Dems need is to say something like what has already been said earlier in this thread: “Our boys are KICKING ASS in Iraq. And they’re gonna KEEP ON kicking ass in Iraq until it’s safe for democracy!” No need to go into any nuanced details about minor differences concerning when Iraq is safe for Democracy and when it isn’t. That’s unimportant in election year politics. The thoughtful will read this sort of stuff online, the gucks would never understand it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/28 "2004-12-29T17:09:12Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > This is such a delightfully ambiguous statement that it is equally accurate to say “few of its members agree with the sentiments expressed above.” It is meaningless. No, it’s not. If you called 1,000 random Americans and read them **rfgdxm** ’s statement, and asked, “Of the Democrats and the Republicans, which party more closely identifies with the statement you just heard?” I am willing to bet that the Democrats would win the poll with substantial margins. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/29 "2004-12-29T17:12:18Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Well, the Republican Party certainly told Pat Buchanan to take a hike. Quite the reverse, IIRC. Buchanan quit the GOP when he decided they’d never be isolationist enough for his taste. I’ve been trying to think of \*any \* extremists, or hate groups, that the GOP has repudiated since embarking on the 1968 Southern Strategy of catering to white racists. Perhaps you can name a few? > [@Bricker](#): > > The public perception of the Democratic Party is that many of its members agree with the sentiments expressed above. Cite? Note carefully that this board is devoted to _fighting_ ignorance/ You and **manny** are gloatingly happy that your guys won, you can forgive any amount of lying or distortion required to do it, and the results so far have been disastrous. Perhaps you’d feel more comfortable on a board devoted to _celebrating_ ignorance instead? BTW, **manny** , who are you referring to when you say “pro-terrorists” in the context of US domestic politics, anyway? Please be explicit if you want to be considered to be “debating”. Reread **plnnr** ’s last - that sums up the OP’s question nicely. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/30 "2004-12-29T17:13:40Z")
> [@Testy](#): > > Not sure about what the Dems should do about terrorism but you might try ditching the condescending attitude. When you come out with statements and assumptions like: > > \*Bolding mine. > This kind of thing does not make people pro-Democratic party the next time around. > > Regards > > Testy Exactly. The OP’s position is: Republicans WANT terrorism to exist. In fact they purposely encourage terrorism in order to instill fear in Americans. Anyone who votes Republican (or at least for Bush) is stupid. With a position such as that, you don’t need to worry about what your stance on Islamic terror is-- you’ve already lost the majority of Americans. What is intensely ironic about the OP, however, is how often he likes to talk about [mouth foaming hatred](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5658393&postcount=106) on the right. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/31 "2004-12-29T17:13:41Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Well, the con position is already taken by the republicans. The pro position towards Islamic terrorism isn’t very desirable, but there are many on the extreme left who seem to advocate it. Right here on the SDMB you see a lot of sympathy for Palestinian terrorists and Iraqi insurgents who are killing our troops. The Democrats need to distance themselves from these people. I don’t see any amount of sympathy that can reasonably be called “a lot,” maybe you need to take off those Republican-tinted glasses when you read posts. Maybe you’re talking about all the posts where it’s been pointed out that when Americans kill Iraqi civilians, even when they’re doing their best just to get terrorists, it makes Iraqis mad at us … I wouldn’t call that sympathy, it’s just common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/32 "2004-12-29T17:16:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Cite? Any of a zillion polls showing the Dems are considered weaker on homeland security and terror issues. And my thought experiment above. Answer that question honestly. If 1,000 people were polled, what would the results be? > [@](#): > > Note carefully that this board is devoted to _fighting_ ignorance/ You and **manny** are gloatingly happy that your guys won, you can forgive any amount of lying or distortion required to do it, and the results so far have been disastrous. Heh heh heh. YOU THINK the results have been disastrous. I think they’ve been great. Your opinion was wrong before the election - what makes you think it’s right now? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/33 "2004-12-29T17:20:27Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > That would necessarily entail a renunciation of MoveOn. > > After all, they opposed even the war in Afghanistan. This position is far outside the mainstream of either party, in addition to being the wrong policy. > > When the Democratic Party dances to MoveOn’s drum, they lose credibility on national defense issues. Kick these guys to the curb, and they can start the long process of regaining credibility on national defense issues. > > It won’t happen before then, though. An unimportant point, guckwise. The gucks probably don’t even know what MoveOn is, much less what positions they advocate. Their response would be, “MoveON! KICKASS name! What do they do?” And the Dem response is, “They support our Democratic contender who wants to KiCK ASS in Iraq until Democracy is safe.” You can’t overestimate how dumb the debate has to be to win with the gucks. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/34 "2004-12-29T17:22:34Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I don’t see any amount of sympathy that can reasonably be called “a lot,” It’s right here in this thread! We’ve got a poster (on the left, no doubt) saying he supports insurgents killing US troops. The Conservative posters such as myself are outraged by it and I don’t see any Liberals even noticing it. I’d certainly say that wishing them luck in killing US troops can be considered “a lot” of sympathy. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/35 "2004-12-29T17:23:03Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > But you see, they’re not attacking just US troops. They’re attacking civilians specifically for the purpose of terrorizing them into submission. That makes them terrorists. What’s more, the terrorists aren’t the least bit interested in holding any kind of democratic elections or democratic process. There are several different factions among the terrorists, but the choices they offer seem to be either the garden variety fascism such Saddam’s or the Islamofascism such as Khomeini’s. > > So you’re supporting fascism, bub. But that’s hardly a surprise. Eh? You have identified all of the people currently engaged in fighting in Iraq and are able to individually isolate their motives? It’s really quite simple, people who are fighting an insurgency against a force who have invaded their country are _not_ engaged in terrorism. If more people could grasp that fact, this discussion could then return to attitudes towards actual terrorism. Which is a suprisingly easy issue to agree on in the main… ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/36 "2004-12-29T17:24:30Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > It’s right here in this thread! We’ve got a poster (on the left, no doubt) saying he supports insurgents killing US troops. The Conservative posters such as myself are outraged by it and I don’t see any Liberals even noticing it. I’d certainly say that wishing them luck in killing US troops can be considered “a lot” of sympathy. I also support the rights of the citizens of an invaded country to take up arms against the invaders. Do you not? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/37 "2004-12-29T17:29:26Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Huh??? I do support Iraqi insurgents killing US troops. By what sane definition of “terrorist” is locals killing the troops of an invading army? Terrorists strike at civilians, and not armed, enemy troops that are invaders. As for US troops, I suport them by saying the should be pulled out of Iraq. They don’t belong there. Um, the conservatives have a point here, rfgdxm. Saying things like this just plays into the Bush camp’s position. If you wanna see a Pubbie elected in 2008, and more in the Senate and House in 2006, keep saying things like that. You may believe them to be true, but the last election clearly showed that the unvarnished truth is not the way to power. the correct way to put your complaint now is, “The Iraqis resist now because they’ve been blown up so much and it makes 'em resentful, but once they get True Democracy, all will be well.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/38 "2004-12-29T17:31:33Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Huh??? I do support Iraqi insurgents killing US troops. By what sane definition of “terrorist” is locals killing the troops of an invading army? Terrorists strike at civilians, and not armed, enemy troops that are invaders. As for US troops, I suport them by saying the should be pulled out of Iraq. They don’t belong there. The funny thing is, I don’t see many of the Dems on the board coming out and saying how appalled at this statement they are. And I KNOW that many of the Dems on this board realize that the ‘insurgents’ in Iraq aren’t really targetting US troops anymore…but car-bombing, assassinating, suicide bombing CIVILIANS. Only an idiot who isn’t paying any attention to the news would fail to notice who is taking the lions share of the casualties these days in Iraq…namely the Iraqi citizens. And yet…where is the outrage from the left about statements like this? Where is the call to try and fight his ignorance…from the left? I know that many of the leftists/Dems on this board don’t agree with this statement…yet, I don’t hear anything from them. This sort of gives a certain impression…no? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > “We know we can’t defeat terrorism. We are not even going to try. Terrorism is good for us, it makes Americans unthinkingly support us out of fear. 9/11 worked for us politically, so will any other such attack – the terrorists can’t really do America much harm, even if they succeed in, say, nuking a major American city or spreading a neurotoxin or biowarfare agent it won’t affect America’s ability to make money and/or war too much. It’ll just cement us that much more firmly in power. So let’s invade a couple of Islamic countries to get the towelheads REALLY pissed off, set up some kind of half-assed agency that’ll do very little to prevent terrorist attacks but give us a great tool for attacking political enemies and hope for the best. Or worst, depending on your point of view. We might end up in charge of the whole Middle East if we play our cards right. One invasion might lead to another.” And the award for the biggest pile of steaming horseshit in an OP goes to… > [@Evil Captor](#): > > It’s been set forth that one of the areas that Dems are perceived as being weak on is in response to terrorism, specifically, Islamic terrorism, which is the leading brand of terrorism at the moment. The Dems are perceived as weak on terrorism because of a small minority of VERY vocal people on their side re-enforces the image that they are weak, against any kind of action at all, etc. Frankly I don’t think the Dems CAN do anything about this perception except ride it out and hope the whole terrorist thing just goes away and other issues come to the fore. Or, hope the Republicans fuck up SO bad that people are forced to turn to the Dems as the only alternative. I have serious doubts that the Dems will cut loose their more vocal anti-war element, or the more fevered factions in their party, so thats not really an option. I seriously doubt that, as a party, they will move to a more centrist stance, so thats really not an option either. I guess they are going to just have to wait and see what happenes…balls in the Republicans court and its their game to win or lose. The Dems are like that team every year in the NFL hoping someone will lose so they can get the wildcard slot… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/39 "2004-12-29T17:31:42Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > I think **Manhattan’s** absolutely correct. > > The Democrats have to stop being correct, and start pandering to the lowest common denominator on terrorism. The American public doesn’t want to hear about the best way to actually fight terrorism based on past history, they want to hear that the troops are kicking butt Rambo-style. > > Once the Democrats are in power, they can do whatever they want to, and just keep telling the public that the troops are out there kicking butt, Rambo-style. Those are not Manhattan’s sentiment’s they are mine, and I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/40 "2004-12-29T17:36:49Z")
> [@](#): > > And I KNOW that many of the Dems on this board realize that the ‘insurgents’ in Iraq aren’t really targetting US troops anymore…but car-bombing, assassinating, suicide bombing CIVILIANS But no-one has given any indication of being in anyway supportive of those actions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091.md?page=3)