Democrats & Liberals: Archives

You are SO wrong. When people fly planes into our major cities and attack our capital, have no doubt…..IT IS WAR.

Paul:

I appreciate your intent and I agree with some of your thoughts. Allow me to point out a couple areas of disagreement.

1)

Militarization is accompanied by destruction of our civil liberties. Start with the 3-hour or 4-hour wait at airports to get on a plane for a 1-hour flight.

I hadn’t realized that convenient air travel was considered a civil liberty. I guess waiting at customs, lining up at rush hour at border crossings, or even trying to find a taxi in Manhattan might be next on the list of abused civil liberties.

2)You discuss terrorism as a crime, which of course it is. But lets not forget the amount of state sponsored terrorism, or the even more vast amount of terrorism allowed with a wink and a nod from governments. The reason the US engaged in war against the Taliban was to show the world that governments could not tacitly and secretly support terrorism with impunity.

3)You suggest that by defining terrorism, the international community will then revile it. If a country does not currently revile terrorism, a definition wont help. Terrorists know what they are doing, why they are doing it and the effect it has on other societies. Its not as if they dont know what it means to be a terrorist.

I like the idea of communicating with other intel agencies, as long as we can trust them and they can trust us.

The war on terrorism IS unwinnable, since a single person can be a terrorist. But….just as with the Mafia, we can seek to keep it in line by eliminating the easy accessibility of weaponry and financing.

Paul,

First of all…
Good Luck with that…

Secondly….The U.N.????
You’ve got to be kidding.

Then again, you are probably assuming that Bolton gets in there and staightens things out.

Interesting post, Paul. I liked the “Different Approach” section best - education, cooperation, responsiblity. Honestly, I’m still working on whether terrorists are evil or just want something so badly they’d die for it. There was an article in Time Magazine with an interview of a young would-be and wanna-be suicide bomber. If nothing else, it was clear the boy was impressionable and confused, taking solace in a path someone else laid out for him.

I’d rather hear from his leaders - the ones sending him to die. What are their goals? To remove the U.S. from world dominance? To fight against American ways (capitalism, non-traditionalism, etc)? To fight against infidels?

It’s sort of difficult defeating “terrorism” when you don’t know why they are fighting. You can slow it down, like any crime, by finding where the terrorists are hiding and preventing them from continuing their plan. But if you want to stop it…I guess that’s where you need to ask yourself: Can it be stopped? Even if we withdraw from Iraq and close down McDonald’s in countries other than the U.S., will terrorism against the U.S. continue, just for other reasons?

It may very well be that “safe and secure” is a thing of the past for America. Security lines, armed pilots, search and seizures…protective measures against a world that sees the United States as assailable. If we don’t lock ourselves down, our cities may wind up like Israeli towns, or like London tenfold. You’ll have to think twice everytime you consider public transportation.

But yes, having the world openly sharing ideology and information about terrorism is a good start. Making friends and preserving relations is a good start. And on my last opinionated note, perhaps some empathy towards cultures that are not like ours. Understand your enemy.

Discerner,

Since we chose to go alone into Iraq (let’s not forget Poland though…) and shirk the U.N., calling it a “paper tiger” for not going to war after Sadaam’s apparent non-compliance…people have been down on the United Nations.

I may have missed something, but weren’t they justified in not going to war? They saw the evidence of non-compliance and said it wasn’t good enough. And they were right. The fact we’ve changed our tune since and now it’s Iraqi Freedom instead of Iraqi Disarmament clears our conscience a little bit, but the U.S. is the one who misstepped, not the U.N.

Of course, I might be misreading your “You’ve got to be kidding” completely, and if so, I apologize.

Paul, Thomas_R,

Isnt’ what you’re talking about part of Bush43’s GSAVE? Maybe the Chimp woke up, realized how stupid he had been, and became a liberal at last?

Thomas_R,

Terrorism is now mainly in the provence of religious or racial extremists (Rwanda, Darfur, Serbia,… too don’t forget). Logic doesn’t apply there.

Paul, where have you been the last 33 years? Approaching this from a law enforcement aspect has failed miserably, and asking the U.N. to help out would be equivalent to asking Ted Kennedy to say something coherent, just won’t happen. It amazes me how calm and collected those on the left are when approaching the subject of how to deal with sub-humans that shoot school children in the back, blow up night clubs full of unsuspecting people, and behead others on live TV, yet if you mention that MAYBE aborting an unborn child is wrong, well that just sends them off the deep end. Seems to me your priorities are messed up, but hey just a conservative opinion.

Jay -

Just a point about priorities…

Do you know how many children under the age of 5 die each year due to poverty?

… 10 million

with respect to 9/11 - if that tragedy happened, but all the victims were children…

… once every 140 minutes, non-stop

Now how does spending $300B to fighting terror fit on that scale. One other point, abortion does even fit on the radar until we can take care of all the children we have to care for now.

Paul, you are consistently a voice of rationality. Of course terrorism is criminal activity. As you say, a country does not go to war against terrorism, unless that terrorism is unambiguously sponsored or at least quietly facilitated by a state. Afghanistan is perhaps a perfect example of where a war is necessary, given the Talibans hospitality for OBL and Al Queda, and its refusal to make him amenable to justice. Iraq is not, and never was a threat to the physical security of the Western nations. Or rather is was not a threat, prior to the unwarranted invasion. Of course Saddam was a monster. So what? the West in general and the US in particular have always dealt with monsters when it was expedient to do so, as they did during the Iran Iraq war. Bush had his own reasons for attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, and he had those ambitions long before 9/11. However, all of the huffing, and all of the puffing of the US military establishment will not pacify Iraq. That war was and remains a dsitraction from the battle against terrorism. That battle can only be fought on the same scale on which terrorism is fought; low intensity. Its a surgical process. It’s like if a doctor has a patient presenting with chest pains. He doesn’t decide to remove the heart and lungs to eliminate the pain for the very obvious reason that the solution would be worse than the problem. Battling terrorism is a policing issue. Intelligence gathering is the foundation stone of winning such a war, and in a global village, intelligence has to be shared internationally. That means being courteous to your friends, not dismissing them as “Old Europe” because they refuse to be your vassals. Together, as an international community, we can and will defeat this new fascism. But we will do it more quickly if we respect each others differences and points of view, rather than casting insulting comment across the Atlantic. As with individuals, so with countries. Do as you would have others do unto you. Au revoir!!

So Tony, are you advocating the abortion of all children everywhere to save them of the ills of the world?

Paul in Euro, I appreciate and accept the olive branch but I completely disagree with your approach to defeating terrorism. Does that make me unreasonable? These two sentences should never be used together “Of course Saddam was a monster. So what?”. By saying that, you forfeit your right to complain about the loss of life during this battle because by merely mentioning it demonstrates your callousness towards the death of probably over million people under Saddam’s rule. Those lives are just as important. This conflict will ultimately be won by the good people of Iraq once their military and security forces are in place and yet most everybody continues to completely underestimate them. People place more confidence in the terrorists abilities then the decent people of Iraq who are fighting for their country. In the end, this will be a law enforcement issue, but it will be an Iraqi and Muslim law enforcement issue, not ours.

—-
So Tony, are you advocating the abortion of all children everywhere to save them of the ills of the world?
—-

Yea- right — try again.

You have managed to advise President Bush to do what he is already doing. You don’t understand how much you agree.

1.DEFINE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM - We should go to the UN and enlist all nations in the definition of international terrorism as a crime. This will make terrorism something reviled by the entire world community.

The U.S. has been trying to do that for many years, without success. The UN is still trying to admit that there is such a thing as terrorism, that one man’s terrorist is NOT another’s freedom fighter. You can’t enlist the UN in the fight against terrorism if they refuse to admit it exists.

The UN is currently wrestling with this definition:

“The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance.”

When they do, we can talk about it. Until then, you can’t enlist the UN, even with the big assumption that the UN would be able and willing to act.

2. COORDINATE INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE - At the UN, we could arrange coordination among all national intelligence agencies for the purpose of apprehending terrorists and bringing them to justice.

We coordinate intelligence with many countries, even some nasty ones. You can’t do it at the UN because you can’t trust all the countries. Do you feel it would be useful to share data with Iran or N. Korea? Some states sponsor the terrorists. This is just naive.

3.JOIN INTERNATIONAL COURT - We should become a member of the Court so we may use it to try apprehended international terrorists.

You mean the ICC. The ICC has never apprehended even one terrorist. It depends on the member states, usually the U.S. or its NATO allies.

4.COOPERATE WITH OTHER NATIONS - In addition to cooperating with other nations about terrorism, we should also work towards an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and to mitigate catastrophes like AIDS in Africa and Asia.

We are doing all these things. At least cooperating with all nations who will cooperate. President Bush has greatly increased AIDS funding and the U.S. was already by far the biggest donor. Every president since Johnson has tried to work toward Middle East peace. We have some chance now that Arafat is dead, but it is still a long way off.

So I really don’t understand what you have against President Bush. He has been doing all the reasonable things you suggest.

Tony:

I’d find your argument more compelling if you had some reasonable solution to the deaths of all those children caused by poverty. It will be easy for you to answer that if the US were not spending money on the war in Iraq, we could divert that money to fight poverty. But we both know two things about that sort of answer: First, it would never happen that way, and second, even if it did happen, it would not alleviate the problem. So go beyond the easy answer and provide something with a possibility. I will look forward to your reasoned response.

A prominent African economist stated recently that aid to Africa is not the solution, for it does not solve the problem but only touches on the symptoms. This is not to say that those giving aid are doing wrong in any way, but rather to say they are misguided that their efforts will be anything more than short term.

There will always be issues important that can divert money from one area to another. Poverty will always be with us. It was with us during WWII when massive amounts of money were required to defeat tyranny. It was with us in the early 90’s as the US embarked on a costly policy to help stop genocide in the Balkan regions. It is with us now as we try to curtail the power that terrorism holds over people.

Were we to focus only on the poverty issue, all other issues would blow up in the face of the world. It is necessary to deal with many problems at the same time.

I hope your answer to my question provides some ideas of how to accomplish this.

To All,

Cliff,

Your comment here was deleted for violating our policy by referring to the commentor Bush as brainless. If you wish to keep your privileges here, observe our policy. No further warning will be forthcoming. —WatchBlog Managing Editor

Well it looks like the the WatchBlog Manager took the BUSH comment off the post…Thank you…

Note From WB Owner: Yes, I have deleted the offending posts and have initiated contact with the proper authorities to deal with the threats this user has left on WatchBlog.

Paul,

- We plan to arm PASSENGER planes so that they would be protected from portable surface-to-air missiles. Do you think this will help?

I think in this world we are living in it is a good idea to be prepared for anything. If we chose to not arm our passenger planes with defenses because we did not want to “militarize” out lifestyles and just one airliner gets shot down by a portable SAM then there are potentialy hundreds of lives that would be lost that could possibly have been saved.

- Could the “defense system” be used by some erratic pilot for “offense”?

I really doubt that there would be any “erratic” renegade airline pilots using a defensive mechanism (most likely flares or chaff)as an offensive weapon.

- Could it interfere with navigation?

Professional engineers would ensure that it would not interfere with navigation or maneuverability I am sure. That is their job and systems like these are already deployed on military cargo planes and air force one.

- Whom do you think this system would help more? The passenger? Or the defense company that gets the contract?

If an attack is repelled and people survive rather then die it is a great success. If no attack is met then atleast there is the possibility of using a defensive mechanism. As for US defense companies, they have american engineers on their payrolls who it would help. Not to mention the strengthening effect business in America has on the home economy.

- Best

I am extremely wary of ceding any of our power to the UN. As far as I’m concerned, the UN is a collection of personal agendas that are disharmonious by nature. Why would you want to give a council of our potential enemies (china?) power over some of the most dangerous people in the world? This goes without mentioning that OUR soldiers are dieing in Iraq - not French, German, Russian, or Chinese. So why would I want to give the countries mentioned above the power to decide the fate of criminals they did nothing to help capture?

Terrorism is a war, and it will rage with or without your consent.

Interesting post, Paul, and I agree with the sentiment.

We plan to arm PASSENGER planes so that they would be protected from portable surface-to-air missiles. Do you think this will help?

Yes. There have already been several instances of commercial planes being targeted by shoulder-fired missiles. The system being tested uses a laser to fry the missile’s tracking sensors, so there’s no danger of it being used as a weapon. It’s a good thing.

Now the government is talking of checking a huge data base to see if you are a “security risk.”

This is an even better idea. The only way to prevent another 9/11 is to make sure terrorists don’t get on board the planes in the first place. There’ll be arguments about what info goes into the db, and how secure it is, and how the data can be used, but it’s vital.

It should also shorten the security lines at the airport because the chances that a terrorist can even get a ticket will be so much smaller. No need for grandma to take her shoes and sweater off anymore.

I’d rather hear from his leaders - the ones sending him to die. What are their goals?

Thomas_R, we know what al Qaeda wants. They’ve made their demands public many times over the last decade:

• The end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state.
• The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from the Arabian Peninsula.
• The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands.
• The end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India.
• The end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera.
• And the conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resources and their sale at higher prices.

Obviously, we’re not going to negotiate with bin Laden, but there are opportunities in there to take away some of his support in the Muslim world.

Also, there was an interesting poll a while back showing that all Muslims want from America is some respect. Maybe it’ll help, maybe not. But it doesn’t cost us anything to listen.

Approaching this from a law enforcement aspect has failed miserably

Jay, maybe you didn’t get the memo from the Whitehouse. The “global struggle against violent extremism” is now a law enforcement and intelligence operation.

So I really don?t understand what you have against President Bush. He has been doing all the reasonable things you suggest.

Ah, so it begins. The great forgetting. President Bush flip-floped on counter-terrorism strategy, so the last four years of failed policy must be erased.

BTW, Jack, you’re right that our intelligence operations shouldn’t be run out of the UN, but I can’t believe you think the ICC should be apprehending terrorist. It’s a court, not a law enforcement agency.

—- off topic response —-
I’d find your argument more compelling if you had some reasonable solution to the deaths of all those children caused by poverty. It will be easy for you to answer that if the US were not spending money on the war in Iraq, we could divert that money to fight poverty. But we both know two things about that sort of answer: First, it would never happen that way, and second, even if it did happen, it would not alleviate the problem. So go beyond the easy answer and provide something with a possibility. I will look forward to your reasoned response.
—-

First - I don’t think it’s a solution based in money, but the having the needed resources available would be critical. It’s a matter of permanent engagement.

Africa and South America - while not being the only continents with high poverty / mortality rates, are where the bulk of the problem exists. We need to be engaged in the areas on a day-to-day basis… something similar to Germany or the UK. Right now we treat the poverty-struck areas of the world like a clinic treats a patient: temporary solution to the immediate symptom. As you stated - aid alone will not address the problems.

If we can truly engage with these various countries - in a singular, individual basis… on going support and economic stimulation and guidance, then we can bring these countries up to developed standards - over time. It’s not a quick fix or a natural fit for the us-and-them mentality that exists currently. The only way I see this occurring is for the US to have personal stakes in each country… it has to matter to us directly (not viscerally.)

Two - and this one sounds like hippie-dreaming, but here it goes: we have to move from motivation of fear to motivation of hope. My point of contrasting the #s of children dying vs deaths by terrorism is to focus on the limited scale to which terrorism really effects the world at large. (I can already see some of the replies this will get.) More people in the world die by illnesses related to poor oral hygiene that do by the hands of terrorist. Another way to view terrorism is - if it were a disease, with the limited number of people effected, the WHO (world health organization) might not even have a classification or name for it. At best, it would be classified as an orphan disease (one whose death/effect rates are so low that world-wide efforts are not warranted.)

The point: it’s the fear of terrorism that drives the focus on it – not the actual impact to human life. Just a rough guess, but if you take an average from the past 5 years – when terrorism has been at it’s highest, I’d be surprised (not exactly a factual base) if the deaths average over 1000 worldwide. I think there might be more people killed by lightning strikes. Now some people will rightly point out that even one person lost to terrorism is too much, but I would counter that one child lost to poverty or starvation is too many.

The problem with being driven by fear: fear is a hard beast to kill, and it always seems bigger than it is. Using violent means against fear has almost, if not always ended in failure. Violence increased the fear on both sides exponentially.

Hope, on the other hand, is a great motivator – and with it you can help with whatever you have to give. Time – money – education and advice – comfort and human assistance… You can see gains almost overnight, and there is no counter-resistance or hate created. Goodwill spawns more good will: hate and violence spawns more hate and violence (usually at ever-increasing levels.)

Result: If our US foreign policy was based on hope (more hippie-dreaming) and a main goal of ours was to save 10% of these children from starvation and raise them up out of poverty… Could anyone point to America as the great Satan or the evil empire? Of course some will, but would there be enough to spawn a worldwide movement against us?

Terrorism feeds on fear and ignorance – remove the fuel and the movement will die.

Tony:

Thanks for the response. I like the hippie dreaming and agree with it, though not necessarily the tactics you might use to create the dream. I think its safe to say that most everyone would want to eradicate poverty, but also that there are many different strategies of how to go about doing it.

The US spends a lot of money providing aid, resources, people and programs to indigent countries. The world as a whole ignores this and simply focuses on the negatives. Imagine what would happen if the US suddenly stopped all its programs to help other countries—-THAT is when the world would see how much the US truly does.

I’d agree we can do more as well.

You talk about hope being a motivator, but one problem you neglect to consider is the power that some governments want over their people. My sister was an aid worker in Sudan providing health care to the people. After 2 years, she was forced to leave because of threats from the Sudanese government. The upshot was that her aid group was making the govt look bad, so they forced the group out, despite the good works they were doing. The people wanted the help, but the govt wouldnt accept it.

So lets not forget that one measure that has to be taken is to figure out how to convince govts that it will be in their best interest as well as the best interest of the people. This is a tough one to do.

AP

I know the ICC can’t apprehend terrorist. I was countering Paul who wrote that we should join the ICC “so we may use it to try apprehended international terrorists.”

My fault. I didn’t make clear which parts I was quoting and which parts I was disputing.

The general point that I guess I failed to make is that the good suggestions that Paul is making, the U.S. has been trying to do for a long time. Some of the other suggestions are impossible. I often notice in these blogs that people come up with some ideas that they think they have invented and can’t believe nobody had tried them. Very often others have tried them. Sometimes they are actually doing something, more often they are tried and failed. This post was like that.

Speaking of things that tried and failed – Osama’s demands. We talked about this before. Osama has asked for things we can’t give him or things we aren’t doing. The U.S., for example, does not support oppression of Muslims by Russia, China and India. You probably know that we have some Chinese Muslims in custody that we can’t (won’t) send back to China for fear of repression. The market determines the world price of oil, as we occasionally learn to our cost. Osama may or may not understand these things, but in any case, he can’t have them.

I think we should show respect for all worthy people. It is hard to show respect for Osama, however. I was thinking about this yesterday. For decades I did my best in my small way to thwart the Soviet Union. I hated communism and the system it created. But I had to respect some of the achievements of the communists. They built badly, but they built. Osama knows only how to destroy. All his power, all the technologies he uses, are derivative. It is the difference between dealing with a lion and a rabid raccoon. Both are deadly, but the one deserves respect.

Yes - it’s a tough choice - but I have some ideas that have worked very well in the past.

Consider the tuna issue and the way environmentalist won that battle. It wasn’t a legal war, it was a PR war. I suggest that we put a good bit of money and effort into making the US known for it’s good works all over the world. Let’s send camera crews and documentary producers along with the money… let’s make sure that the world watches - and if local governments try to use force to keep our impede our good works, then lets make sure the world is watching… let’s make sure consumers are watching.

There will be governments that resist or ignore the market and world pressures - but we can bring other pressures to bear as well… I say let’s let Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald go up against the rogue elements in society. We need to present and fight with the things that the rest of the world loves so much about America…

No matter where you go in the world - there will always be sullen, well-educated students all glum about the woes of the world… but if the would-be foot-soldier-terrorists and support networks are busy living fairly happy lives - I don’t think there will be the driving force to launch worldwide violent attacks like we seen in the recent past.

tony,

Unfortunately the NYT had an article today interviewing a foot-soldier-terrorist recently arrested in Jordan. He said the reason he fought was because of a deeply rooted anger, widely held in Jordan, at the US for occupying Iraq and installing a Shiite gov’t. It has nothing to do with their economic circumstance or even a radical religious education.
As long as we behave unilaterally with a “white mans burden” attitude, we will be hated as oppressors. This war has cost us at least 12 years of decent PR and resulted in a recruiting bonanza for OBL et. al. Who knows how long it will take to get some back.

Dave

People in Jordan cheered when they saw pictures of the World Trade Center destuction. The war in Iraq may be an irritant, but it is more a pretext to those who hate for a variety of reasons, only some related to what we do.

The pathologies of terrorism are nothing new and the result of mostly home grown frustrations.

Why weren’t these clowns upset when Saddam murdered thousands of Muslims? Pretext. If it weren’t this, it would be something else.

It is wise to try to understand your opponents. Critics of the war on terror rightly point out that the U.S. needs to understand the motivation of the terrorist. But then they often turn around and assume that the motivation is all under the control of the U.S. and/or they believe what the terrorist tell them is their motivation. That is not understanding the enemy, it is mere capitulation.

Free people have faced down fascists and communists, who were much better opponents than the current crop of killers. They had sophisticated propaganda machines that told us why we were the cause of the trouble. There was a core of truth in what they said, but mostly it was a pack of lies and disinformation. Many people fell for it back then too.

Paul said:

“Committing a terrorist act is not, or should not be, a war but a crime - an international crime against which all nations can be enlisted to fight against, thus building international cooperation.”
1. I am assuming the international cooperation you are referring to is the cooperation of “Old Europe”.
2. This is impossible when:
a. They have no significant military machine, because they spend their money on social programs instead of defense. If I were in “Old Europe’s” position & someone declared war against me & I didn’t have a military, I would call it a police action & run to the UN for help.
b. Except for England, they have no stomach to fight.

“Bush and his administration seem to be coming to a similar conclusion. Administration officials no longer talk about the “war on terror”; they speak of the “struggle against violent extremism.”
1. This statement is a contradiction because you later quote the Bush administration as calling these terrorists supporting nations the “axis of evil”. The term is used in the same way Germany, Spain, Italy, & Japan was called the “axis powers” in WWII & has always been used by the Bush administration.

“Unfortunately, bin Laden is getting his way. He wanted to start a war between Muslims on one side and Jews and Christians on the other. If you look at the countries we are targeting, he appears to be winning.”
1. OBL has called for a “Jihad” against the west. The word Jihad means ”holy war” & it is amazing that OBL calls it a war (he was the declarer) & you call it a crime.
2. These battles are taking place all over the world in many countries & have been for many more years than 9/11. They are terrorist attacks against Christians & Jews.
“Unfortunately too, the war is isolating the U.S. from the world community. We have trashed the UN and drove allies away from us. People all over the world who previously loved the U.S., now hate us.”
1. First, “Old Europe” never loved us.
2. Secondly, the UN has been trashed by the UN.
3. Thirdly, you need to be brought up to date. An article found in the Washington Times, “German vote may reorient Europe”, By Andrew Borowiec, 07/29/05
“A new power lineup in the heart of Europe is expected after the forthcoming German elections, with more accent on trans-Atlantic relations and the role of East European countries.
According to French and German assessments, such a dramatic change would reflect disappointment with French President Jacques Chirac’s anti-Americanism and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s political weakness.
Some German analysts say Mr. Chirac’s strident opposition to the Iraq war has created a dangerous rift across Europe, pushing the new East European union members toward the United States rather than toward Western Europe.

The new orientation is expected to crystallize after Sept. 18 parliamentary elections in Germany, with polls showing that voters favor the conservatives and their leader, Angela Merkel.”
4. The French are pushing the agenda against the US because they want recognized as relevant. They will never love us.
“A war takes place between two or more nations.”
1. A war takes place between 2 or more enemies nations, & any country harboring these scum are our enemies.

“Calling terrorism an international crime and working hand-in-hand with the UN to conquer it will have many positive effects. Here are a few:
· World terrorism will be diminished significantly
· Instead of a militarized and fearful society, the U.S. will be its old self: a civil-liberties society
· Our world will be more peaceful
· U.S. will have more friends in other countries
You live in a dream world, I don’t think anyone reading this post could take these statements seriously..
AP said:
“Thomas_R, we know what al Qaeda wants. They’ve made their demands public many times over the last decade:”

You forgot the most important objective on the list: washingtonpost.com
Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says
By Gideon Long
Reuters
Friday, July 22, 2005; 10:57 AM
In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as “a sincere man who fights against evil forces.”
Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.
“I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,” he said.
I have stated on this post before, the goal of Islam is world domination. This is the reason why they send missionaries to all nations & look for disgruntled ignorant people to recruit. They are the fastest growing religion in the world & we should be terrified of a religion that promotes this kind of violence. When Muslin’s answer questions or makes statements or promises to a non-Muslim, he does not have to tell the truth. They are experts at language skills & can talk all around the truth without ever telling it.

Perplexed

—-
I have stated on this post before, the goal of Islam is world domination. This is the reason why they send missionaries to all nations & look for disgruntled ignorant people to recruit. They are the fastest growing religion in the world & we should be terrified of a religion that promotes this kind of violence. When Muslin’s answer questions or makes statements or promises to a non-Muslim, he does not have to tell the truth. They are experts at language skills & can talk all around the truth without ever telling it.
—-

This is bigotry. (And incase someone thinks I am being mean spirited…)

bigotry
NOUN: Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice.

You falsely mark a religion as the base of the terrorist movement - it is not. It is, however an excuse of fanatics on all religious extremes. I’ve seen very similar remarks with regards to American Indians, black / African Americans, Protestants / Catholics (Ireland), a whole host of indigenous people…

Usually, it is the motives of people with these similar remarks that have proven to be ill-intentioned. I’m not outright saying you have ill-intentions, but it immediately degrades the relevance of your posts.

“White man talk with forked tongue.” (Overused Hollywood Stereotype… )

Evidently you did not read the entire post.
Bakri stated to Reuters, “I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,”

I did not make that statement. It came from an Islamic cleric. Political correctness will be the death of the US & of Europe.

I listened to an interview of an Islamic cleric on NPR this morning. He lived in the Detroit area. When he was asked these questions, he answered them in circles. Basically, he answered nothing.

We are at war with Islam as the crusaders were in the early centuries. Does it make me a bigot to see history repeat itself?

You say we are dealing with a radial fringe & it appears the radical fringe are the clerics. The Islamic people will do what their clerics say, on fear of spending eternity in hell. Much like the the people of europe did in the dark ages. They answered to the pope & clerics of the catholic church.

Perplexed

Tony,

“Consider the tuna issue and the way environmentalist won that battle. It wasn’t a legal war, it was a PR war.”

I’m not sure how this relates to terriorism, unless you agree that some in the animal-rights movement are indeed terriorists.

I might agree with you there.
The tuna didn’t win, star-kisk in every store.
The poeple that buy tuna didn’t win, it just costs more.
Its seems the only winner was the dolpins feeding on tuna, or the fish tuna feed on, were the only things that really mattered.

That makes sence, people or their food supply, doesn’t matter as much as something that adds nothing to the party.

I guess its just a “PR” , “PC”, type of thimg that most don’t understand, kinda like protecting the endangered “Calif. jumping rat” while peoples homes burn down?

Tony:

I like your idea of sending cameramen with the money to show what good is being done. Unfortunately, that doesnt always have good outcomes——part of the reason is bias.

We embedded journalists with the troops—in some cases, good deeds were shown while in other cases, bad deeds were shown. The bad deeds, while outnumbered, were shown more often, in my opinion. An example would be the Iraqi insurgent who was shot by an American soldier who thought the Iraqi might be a suicide bomber. Despite the difficult choice the soldier had to make, it was presented to the world through the lens of how bad Americans and its soldiers are. It was a bad event, but what was often UNmentioned was that the cameraman was essentially anti-war. Did that color his view? Perhaps yes and perhaps no, but certainly deserved more mention than it got.

Tony, I agree that the US loses the PR battles when it comes to showing what good things we are doing around the world. That frustrates me since I feel we do so many good things. We do bad things too, but not to the degree that the world believes.

jack: “People in Jordan cheered when they saw pictures of the World Trade Center destuction.” that was the Palestinians.

I’m curious why people such as you and Perplexed are denying the quotes of an actual insurgent and instead are repeating outlier examples and the rhetoric pundits and politicians use here for their own personal gain and agendas?

Of course there’s a fundamentalist core that hate us. But, they are just the counterpoint to our domestic terrorists and extremists. It was our unilateral invasion of Iraq, based on lies, that reversed the sympathy we got from the moderate masses and turned them into haters of US. That’s why there is a never ending stream of insurgents and that’s why even Bush is changing his strategy. Did you read the latest on gSAVE?

jbod,

What evidence do you have that the camerman was antiwar and part of some UN conspiracy?

beagle -

The environmentalist won the battle they were fighting for - to make producers of tuna use dolphin-safe nets. They didn’t win by legal means (fighting in courts or Congress - those other less fruitful fronts.) They won by showing the world that tuna can be caught and processes without harming the dolphin. If became bad to buy tuna that wasn’t dolphin safe, and starkist changed their practices to reflect this.

btw - tuna prices did not go up. The tuna were not the ones in danger. environmentalists are not terrorist, but some of the don’t smell so good.

about camera ops - see environmentalist in above post… very similar. Nice guys, smell bad.

(Of course - I’m a camera op - but I don’t stink…)

—-
I listened to an interview of an Islamic cleric on NPR this morning. He lived in the Detroit area. When he was asked these questions, he answered them in circles. Basically, he answered nothing.

We are at war with Islam as the crusaders were in the early centuries. Does it make me a bigot to see history repeat itself?

You say we are dealing with a radial fringe & it appears the radical fringe are the clerics. The Islamic people will do what their clerics say, on fear of spending eternity in hell. Much like the the people of europe did in the dark ages. They answered to the pope & clerics of the catholic church.
—-

My previous post just pointed out that the statement was indeed bigotry. I do not know how you truly see the Islamic world, but what you posted was paranoid and wrong - whether you wrote it or quoted it.

I will say that your consequent response seems to reinforce the paragraph I responded to…

Tony:

Let me ask you a question. Was the goal of the Roman Catholic Church, during the Middle Ages, world domination? Jesuits were sent to the remote parts of the earth to convert heathens. Those that did not convert were killed. Even England fought against France & Spain because England had become a protestant country & had forsaken Catholicism.

This is not bigotry, it is history. Do you know enough about religious history to concede to these facts?

Now look at countries in the Far East, Africa, Europe, East Europe, Turkey, southern Russia, etc. These areas all suffer from Islamic terrorism. Long before we ever became involved with Iraq. Shall I tell you of stories of missionaries (catholic & evangelical) who were taken captive or killed in the Philippines, Indonesia, etc? Why were they taken captive? Because Islam is not tolerant of any other religion.

I am perplexed at your lack of understanding of the goals of Islam. You are either very stupid, or you are blinded by hatred of an administration, or by politcal correctness.

Perplexed

Tony,

“(Of course - I’m a camera op - but I don’t stink…)”

Sure, thats your story…lol..J/K

I would love to debate this topic in another more fitting thread. Untill then hopefully …

Why do I deny the statements of the actual insurgents? Because they are the enemy. Why should you think they would tell you the truth? Do you honestly have trouble understanding this? Theri goal is to create dissention. I guess they can fool some of the people all of the time.

It is hardly an outlier when crowds gather to cheer the collapse of the World Trade Center or the numerous threats and attacks before that time. Terrorists attacked in Turkey and Egypt – both countries which loudly and publicly broke with us over the Iraq conflict.

I bet you pay a lot for the used cars you buy and I bet you own whole life insurance and take out additional warranties on you electronic products.

jack,

I’ll be civil, unlike you were. I buy new cars, I have universal life, and I don’t buy the extended warrantees. As if that were relevent, but you were 0 for 3, as you are in the rest of your post.

He’s the enemy but why do you insist he lied? It’s just a kid who went on Jihad being interviewed in a hospital, not a trained operative. Is it beyond your capabilities to understand Bush was wrong? The neocon theory is that if we undermine a despotic regime in the mideast then the other regimes would start ot move towards democracy. He was wrong. First, the other regimes are giving democracy lip service and the peoples of those countries changed from loving Americans but hating our Gov’t to hating all of what we stood for.
2nd, you repeat the cheering crowd thing. Again, that was the Palestinians. They’ve have a whole generation to hate everyone. Talk about a f’d up society.
3rd, there was terrorism before this invasion and before 9/11. We are talking about how this made things worse.
4th, even Bush is stepping back. Read what he says about the “new” plan.

Perplexed, You write like a bible thumper. Are you a fundamentalist?

—-
I am perplexed at your lack of understanding of the goals of Islam. You are either very stupid, or you are blinded by hatred of an administration, or by politcal correctness.
—-

You are well named…

My point has nothing to do with religious history - it has to do with your assumption we are at war with Islam. We are not. We are at war (as if you could be at war with a ‘method’) with terrorism. I see no point in defining it by religion.

True Islam is less tolerant of violent acts than Christianity - I however would hope that no religion would condone violence in any form.

As far as your last sentence… I’m not sure why you would lower your argument to name calling and more assumptions.

—-
I bet you pay a lot for the used cars you buy and I bet you own whole life insurance and take out additional warranties on you electronic products.
—-
Well, that sheds a whole new light on everything. I’m guessing terrorist don’t buy Geico.

What evidence do you have that the camerman was antiwar and part of some UN conspiracy?

Posted by Dave at July 29, 2005 01:59 PM

First off, I made no comment that the cameraman was any part of a UN conspiracy, nor did I insinuate such. What I indicated was that the media did a poor job of explaining his viewpoint (PRO invasion viewpoints usually come with a disclaimer, I’ve noticed).

Thats not to say the incident did not happen—it most certainly did. But as with almost every story, there are two sides. In my opinion, one side is delivered most often.

There are many allegations that Kevin Sites, the cameraman, is anti-war. He denies them all. Google Kevin Sites and you’ll find the information you need. I probably should have used a clearer example than Sites, who may or may not be antiwar. I do believe that he should have turned his tape over to military officials to allow them to conduct an inquiry. If he then felt it was not done properly, he could have publicized his tape.

The ultimate point was that the general images of the US are negative. I dont think this is by accident, nor do I think it contains the whole truth.

Dave

The universal life policy is the same as whole life. Not to be funny about it – and I am not an insurance salesman – you might consider changing to level term.

I don’t take the word of my adversaries. This kid is probably just screwed up, yes. But he is saying the same thing that he has been told by his handlers. They tricked him. He is tricked. If it were not Iraq, it would be something else. The big attacks on the U.S. homeland occurred before Iraq.

We will continue to disagree about this. I think we do have to deal with the concept of the zero option – or lack of one. I can find many things wrong with the Bush policy. But he had to make a choice from among bad alternatives. We know what happened as a result of the Iraq invasion, but we don’t know what would have happened absent the invasion. There is no indication that Saddam would have fallen. An American back down would have made him stronger. The Oil for Food scandal shows how sanctions were breaking down. While Saddam was not operationally involved with 9/11, he definitely supported terror and had ties with Al Qaeda. Osama’s big compliant – that we had stationed troops in Saudi – was to hold him in check. No zero option.

I read an article once blaming the British for WWII. The author made a persuasive argument that if they had just let Hitler take over Poland, he would have been satisfied and we would have saved the world the greatest war in history. For the British, WWII was a war of choice. That was the argument some pacifist made. Who knows?

Speaking of believing the enemy, Osama’s biggest grievance against us was that we stationed troops in Saudi. They have gone now. Why doesn’t he call off his dogs or at least modify his rhetoric? Maybe he was lying.

Man – you conservatives are in a bad mood today? What gives?

—-
The real terrorist must be laughing their collective tails off. Maybe these far left Dems are the real terrorist…..
—-
I bet you pay a lot for the used cars you buy and I bet you own whole life insurance and take out additional warranties on you electronic products.
—-
I am perplexed at your lack of understanding of the goals of Islam. You are either very stupid, or you are blinded by hatred of an administration, or by politcal correctness.
—-

Wow… Come on, guys…. Group hug…

Tony

I often dont know who you are referring to in your posts, since you dont address anyone by name.

In one post you said “You are well named…”

I, for one, have no idea who or what you were referring to. Just an observation mingled with the hint of a possible suggestion of something you might choose to partially consider thinking about…..

JBOD,

You capitalized the N in UNmentioned. I thought it was intentional.

jack,

Unfortunately, the Rove spin of Saddam had ties to OBL is still around. He didn’t, it’s not even slightly substantiated that there was any functional association. I’m sorry I don’t have the NYT link to the interview. You might change your mind if you read it. As far as the choices, of course they’re difficult, and the ones made were bad and made things worse, IMO. But, you’re right, we will disagree on this.

Variable premium universal whole life (VUL) is not your father’s oldsmobile. We needed a tax advantaged approach to paying for our childrens college. Since we are relatively young and in good health we get the advantage of the low premiums associated with term insurance for the needed period with the investment advantage of an insurance plan without age restrictions. If you have the capital and too high a tax bill off your investments, maybe you should check out the VUL.

Dave - no operational connection with Saddam and 9/11, but lots of connection between Saddam’s and Osama’s organizations over more than ten years - enough dots to make a constellation.

the connection

Interesting re insurance.

it was a post to Perplexed - and his post to me..

—-
I am perplexed at your lack of understanding of the goals of Islam. You are either very stupid, or you are blinded by hatred of an administration, or by politcal correctness.
—-

I didn?t make clear which parts I was quoting and which parts I was disputing.

Sorry for not getting it. I knew you knew what the ICC was, that’s why I was surprised.

The war in Iraq may be an irritant, but it is more a pretext to those who hate for a variety of reasons, only some related to what we do… If it weren?t this, it would be something else.

The problem with that argument is you’re assigning the cure to the wrong target. Obviously there will always be people willing to indiscriminately kill for whatever reason. What you want to do is isolate the violent extremists from their support base.

If these guys aren’t getting any help from Muslims - better yet, if the Muslim community is actively working against them - then they can be apprehended and neutralized before they strike.

Jack, I’m sorry buddy, but you display a fundamental misunderstanding of how to neutralize terrorism. If a public statement by President Bush denouncing China’s treatment of it’s Muslim population helps a Muslim family decide they should tell a cop about cousin Atta the terrorist, then Bush should make that speech over and over and over again.

Bakri stated to Reuters, “I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,”

Bakri’s a wacko in the Dr. Evil tradition. Always has been. There’s a really good book, “Them”, by Jon Ronson. He spent a bunch of time with Bakri. The part where “hard-core” Islamic terrorist Bakri freaks out after catching a fish is priceless. What a buffoon.

BTW, Jack. I’m not surprised you’d point to “evidence” of Iraq/Osama connections in a book by that neo-con rag, The Weekly Standard. Why don’t I post a refutation by Geraldo Rivera and we can let two non-credible sources duke it out.

jack,

AP IMO is right, Weekly Standard is as “credible as mollusks.”

Just FYI; On 9/11/01 I went from “Bush Stole The Election” to “We are All Americans and he is our president” I always felt that despite any differences I had with our leaders, they did the right things for our country. In the 2 years following that day, I’ve become convinced he’s following an agenda where politics and preconcieved notions of how things should be outweigh the best interests of our nation and how things are. I don’t believe that any OBL-Saddam relationship mattered to Bush, he was going to attack anyway.
There are many people trying to prove things because they can’t believe Bush would lie. I felt the same way in the beginning of Watergate. Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me seems to apply in this case.

Dave

I also don’t believe Bush went after Saddam because of the Osama connection. There were lots of other reasons. I wrote a post about it on the other side called “Transformational Bush.”

But there were connections.

—
But there were connections.
—
There has been a wall of proof to the contrary… there was no connection between OBL and Saddam. Even Bush has admitted to this… and Cheney is flustered that people think that he ever said such connections existed.

If you have proof - then please show us.

my brother died in 9/11