Democrats & Liberals Archives

"War on Terror" Mantra

Immediately after 9/11 all America was united and countries all over the world - including many so-called “enemies” - were united with us in our grief and in our fervent desire to bring the international gang called Al Qaeda to justice. President Bush unleashed his “war on terror” mantra, which had the effect of scaring Americans out of their wits, fracturing our civil rights, making a mockery of our system of justice, reducing our ability to halt the growth of terrorism and trapping us in an endless war in Iraq. Americans are polarized and the rest of the world has increasing contempt for America.

I have felt like this for a long time. Now I see that Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security advisor, feels the same way. In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, labeled "Terrorized by 'War on Terror'", Brzezinski says:

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

"Culture of fear" - this is the brother of "war on terror." We are saturated in fear. We see it everywhere. Whenever you fly you must arrive 2 hours and sometimes 3 hours early. Why? So your luggage may be inspected. I visited a court building recently. I had to empty my pockets and was scanned like a thief. Many private companies are doing the same thing. I suppose pretty soon we will be inspected before being allowed into a department store or a movie house.

We're so scared of "terror," we are building a big fence to keep Mexican illegals out. We've had illegal immigrants for a long time, and we did not worry much about it. But now the public is so afraid of "terror" the anti-immigration movement is becoming hysterical.

We're so alarmed, we think it worthwhile to reduce civil liberties, make torture legal and approve the spying on Americans. We think it's OK for the president to label anyone he wants as an "enemy combatant" and then close the justice system in his face. The government asks people to report individuals who act suspiciously.

The "war on terror" has profoundly transformed our society - and not for the better. We used to be an open society; it's becoming more closed. Americans were filled with confidence; now we worry a lot more about "terror." We were optimists; we're turning more pessimistic. We were tolerant and glorified diversity; today suspicion fills the air.

Did the "war on terror" help us get rid of terrorists? No way. The world is filled with more terrorists today than when 9/11 hit us. The "war on terror" was used to intimidate and stampede us into a war with Iraq. The results are horrendous: Loss of American troops and hundreds of billions of dollars. A civil war in Iraq. An increase of terrorists in Iraq and in nearby countries. A precipitous fall in the standing of America around the world.

The first step for getting rid of terrorists is to get rid of the "war on terror" mantra. It scares our people and emboldens the terrorists. Instead of thinking in terms of fear, surveillance and suspicion, and closing our society in order to achieve "security," we must return our society to its democratic ideals of openness, freedom, justice and tolerance.

Instead of a "war" we should look at Al Qaeda as an international gang of murderers. We then may use the UN and our investigative contacts with other nations - plus military means, if necessary - to find these murderers and bring them to justice. This calls for excellent coordination and cooperation among nations; not belligerence.

To reduce the number of terrorists in the world, we must affect the hearts and minds of Muslims and others who tend to demonize America. For this we need not a military war but an information war. Indeed, I hate to use the word "war" altogether because our aim should be to help, not destroy. We want to supply information in order to help countries with their structural, social, educational, medical, economic and security problems. We want to use diplomacy to achieve cooperation among nations for the benefit of the entire international community.

We want to demonstrate to the world that we still are what we used to be: a benign power that seeks peace everywhere. Let's drop the "war on terror" mantra and substitue something like "swaying hearts and minds."

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 26, 2007 7:16 PM
Comments
Comment #213829

I don’t claim any political party. The only thing I’d like you to explain is, how do you reason with a group of people such as Al Qaeda when their sole purpose is to kill anyone who dosen’t believe as they do and would rather die than talk to an infidle.

Posted by: KAP at March 26, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #213831

Paul, thanks for the great laugh…replace War on Terror with “swaying hearts and minds”. Isn’t that lovely, sounds like something from a 1940 Big Band movie. When do you suggest our fighting force place the flowers in the barrels of their guns? Hippies never die…they just grow old and (your choice of word(s).

Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2007 7:51 PM
Comment #213836

Paul,

Liked the post, some good points. I kind of see the reaction after 9/11 like that of a parent with a screaming baby in a restaurant. Like after 9/11 the parent will have a gut first reaction. After 9/11 our reaction was fear and imposed limits to our freedom, the parent’s reaction is to give attention to the child so they will quiet. This is a reinforcing behavior. Thus, the more the baby wants attention, the more they will cry to get it as this is what they have learned gets them attention. Likewise, the more we react with fear and new restrictions to our own liberty, the more our enemies will try to attack.

Bush had the opportunity here to begin to “train” our enemies. By not reacting, and instead ignoring the behavior of our enemies, they would eventually realize that terror attacks are not an effective method. Instead, Bush told us that they hate us for our freedom, then he dedcided the best way to change that was to eliminate those freedoms. Go figure. Now we are neither safe, nor free.

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 8:19 PM
Comment #213855

We constantly hear about our loss of freedom from the left side. Yet nobody is afraid to write. People say all sort of terrible things about the president w/o fear of reprisal. Muslims feel free to say anti-American things and when a group is kicked off a plane, they act like Rosa Parks and sue.

So the U.S. sure is oppressive. People are afraid to speak against the president…well maybe not. People fear to speak out about the government…no not that either. Critics of the government lose their jobs…well, no in fact they make more money. Surely the press just parrots the government line…when last have you seen that?

So by NONE of the usual criteria is this an oppressive country. I guess it might be true that the mastermind of 9/11 was treated poorly. Frankly, if he can still talk and he has both his … the authorities treated him better than I would have hoped.

Posted by: Jack at March 26, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #213859

Jack-

I am assuming your post is in reference to mine [arrogant?]. I would encourage you to look over the bill of rights. Then, consider some of the recent legislation. Patriot act, patriot act II, etc … now, count how many of the original 10 amendments that still apply. I see religion, guns, and … we don’t have to house soldiers. The rest can be easily denied to any one now.

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #213861

‘a benign power’???

What the hell is that?

You really think the rest of the world will have more respect if we do nothing but talk?
We have an enemy that is taking over by using fear - chopping off heads, car bombs, suicide bombers - and you think they will respect ‘talk’.
We are where we are because of ‘talk’.

You really believe Bush is using fear?
It does not compare - because you ARE still talking, and I assume your head is on , maybe not on straight, but it’s on none the less….

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 26, 2007 10:04 PM
Comment #213864

Bugcrazy-

Our enemy seeks to bring attention to perceived injustices. They have us playing right into their hands. Instead of bombs, or talk, we should have led a coalition of the willing to isolate and ignore them. No aid, no trade, just ignore. By now we could have had them begging to talk, just like a little kid who needs attention. Instead, we gave them the reaction and attention they wanted.

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #213867

‘ignore them’ ?

How could you ever expect that to happen when our own media shows al queda propaganda?

Instead of showing things that are going right, being accomplished … why is it that the ‘left’ can’t understand that we need more GOOD news even if you hate Bush. The enemy needs to see that our side is accomplishing things… suck it up for our country’s sake - for God’s sake. You don’t have to love Bush …. good news will diminish their power.
Bush is NOT running again. Why can’t the dems say they want to win and will do what it takes to win???

‘coalition of the willing to isolate and ignore them’

Are you speaking of our supposed allies who want to continue trade with nations who are dangerous? because it is in their countries financial interest?
Yes.. we do it also.
We change presidents and parties in power every few years… the rest of the world responds to this - our being so polarized is doing nothing but aid our enemies and make our allies unsure of what to do.
I don’t care who’s in power - D or R - as long as someone can stop the bullshit.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 26, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #213869

YOu feel your freedom of speech has been abridged? How? You seem to have no trouble. Freedom of religion? How? Freedom of the press? Assembly?

Everybody here feels absolutely no threat to say what they want. The NYT publishes classifed material with impunity. The only people who might be afraid to demonstrate on a college campus would be Bush supporters.

This whole thing is just silly. None of you feels any threat to any of your freedoms, certainly not freedom of speech.

One of the real weaknesses of our modern Western cultures is that radicals can pretend to be oppressed. They volunteer to get arrested knowing that it will be the kind of fun experience. In a real threat situation, they would behave differently.

Put it like this. They will shout and scream at the cops or the authorities. Do you think they would do the same thing to a crime figure who might actually hurt them?

It is pathetic and childish to claim oppression where none exists. You guys simply do not deserve the disctinction we would give to real rebels.


jrb

Our enemy blows up children, cuts the heads off of civilians, stones women who do not submit. I seriously doubt if they are scandalized by anything we do. They probably enjoy messing with us through out soft laws.

What trade boycott are you talking about. Saddam dodged sanctions very effectively and that was the best the world could do.

We ignored the terrorists during the 1990s. They did not ignore us.

Posted by: Jack at March 26, 2007 11:09 PM
Comment #213874

Jack-

What trade boycott are you talking about. Saddam dodged sanctions very effectively and that was the best the world could do.

Sure, he got around some of the sanctions. He was also begging to negotiate. I realize, however, this hardly makes my point as Saddam was a secular dictator and not a religious fundamentalist—very different as you know. Yet, in my original comments I wasn’t referring to Saddam either [9/11 attack—i.e. Al Qaeda]. So, it really doesn’t back-up your contention either. I was suggesting a hypothetical situation that I propose would have done more for us following 9/11.

We ignored the terrorists during the 1990s. They did not ignore us.

True, the 90’s weren’t attack free. Yet, we also didn’t REALLY ignore them in the context I am suggesting here. What I am suggesting is based upon the psychology of stimulus/response as well as the practice of behavioral reinforcement. Our enemies are trying to affect a specific agenda through provoking us to response. They seek to diminish our influence in their region and, indeed, throughout the world. They have, thus far, provoked a response from us that has been successful in achieving their goal. Thus, I say, if we had ignored them, entirely, we would be better off. It is like when your 2 yr old curses for the first time. If you laugh, they will think you are pleased and repeat. If you ignore and don’t curse in front of them they will, eventually, stop.

I realize the notion is uncomfortable to consider initially. I also understand it would be difficult and complex to achieve total isolation, if even thoroughly possible. Yet, I still believe it would have been, at the very least, equally effective to this “war on terror.”

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 11:38 PM
Comment #213878

Bugcrazy-

you wrote:

Bush is NOT running again. Why can’t the dems say they want to win and will do what it takes to win???

Please tell me what it would look like if we “win” i.e. what objectives need to be achieved to constitute a “win.”

We change presidents and parties in power every few years… the rest of the world responds to this - our being so polarized is doing nothing but aid our enemies and make our allies unsure of what to do.

This hasn’t changed since … around 1789. So what do you think is different now?

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #213887

Jack, If you would want to protest the Bush Administration and to do so you would be placed in a “free speech zone” several miles from where you would want to be to protest would you consider that a violation of your free speech rights?
If during the Administration who’s desire for secrecy at the highest levels of government are a well known fact, the Patriot act would pass then almost immediatly be abused by the FBI would you not worry that the next to be abused mught be you?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2007 12:22 AM
Comment #213903
So the U.S. sure is oppressive. People are afraid to speak against the president…well maybe not. People fear to speak out about the government…no not that either. Critics of the government lose their jobs…well, no in fact they make more money. Surely the press just parrots the government line…when last have you seen that?

Place this paragraph back in 2003. There you go.

I guess it might be true that the mastermind of 9/11 was treated poorly. Frankly, if he can still talk and he has both his … the authorities treated him better than I would have hoped.

One needs to talk to him or his lawyer to get news about his…
Wait. No one can. His…, if any, are in Gitmo, which is not the US.

Effective leaders counterfights terrorism in backstage, protecting both their people from being exposed to fear and themselves from using fear power for political gain. In the process, they also hide their efforts against terrorists from too much publicity. Yes, that means you need to recognize you won’t totally prevent another terrorist attack on your soil forever, but I failed to see how the current Bush war on terror prevent it either.

You win against terrorism when you stop being terrorized. And it’s easier to stop it at first stage: fear.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 27, 2007 5:04 AM
Comment #213904

bugcrazy,

We have an enemy that is taking over by using fear - chopping off heads, car bombs, suicide bombers

No, they’re using knifes, bombs and, sadly, the fear that we allows such behavior to spawn in us.
They don’t have this fear. We make it. Alone.

We could not. At least not publicly.
Ask any competitor if they fear a combat. They do, most of the time. But they refrain to show it.

Since 9/11, the US show its fear widely.

Or, to be precise, its most loud voice in the word did it. Yep, the people in the White House. They talk about mushroom clouds over NYC or London. They talk (and even fake play) about antrax. They play setting up and down every month a terrorism level. They step down from most basic universal human rights, using torture and putting people forever in jail. They only care counting their casualties. They see enemies everywhere, even in former allied nations. They fear to show at soldiers funerals. They fear reporting the greatest and most founded army of the world can’t secure a middle east land since 4 years, leaving it open to civil war.

We are where we are because of ‘talk’.

Nope. You are where you are because your country CHOOSE to go in Iraq, to much in fear about 9/11 to even critic the Bush reason(s) to go in Iraq.
Except Iraq was unrelated to 9/11. It was moving most of your troops from Afghanistan where they were seeking Al Quaida leaders to another unrelated land.

You really believe Bush is using fear?

Yes. He even help to keep it at this level since 6 years. What should have matter is not keeping americans in fear of terrorism but actually counterfight effectivly terrorism.
6 years later, he doesn’t.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 27, 2007 5:26 AM
Comment #213905
The enemy needs to see that our side is accomplishing things… suck it up for our country’s sake - for God’s sake.

Then make these good things actually happened, in a such heavy way that nobody, even the “enemy”, could avoid seeing it. Stop talking about doing it and do it.

Your country have the most powerfull army of the world. Your country is the richest of the world. I failed to undertsand how come, after 4 years, these good things can’t be everywhere in Iraq to be seen by everybody!

If your country can’t, no nation can.
Alone.

Are you speaking of our supposed allies who want to continue trade with nations who are dangerous? because it is in their countries financial interest? Yes.. we do it also.

So true. Every nation continues trading with nations some consider dangerous because it’s in their financial, strategical or ideological self interest.
There is no small profit in a globalized free trading world.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 27, 2007 5:45 AM
Comment #213906
The only people who might be afraid to demonstrate on a college campus would be Bush supporters.

Jack, again, put such claim back in 2003.

Our enemy blows up children, cuts the heads off of civilians, stones women who do not submit.

They were doing exactly the same long before 9/11. In fact, since islam radicalism exists.
Still, nobody in the US were terrorized by them, then.

Only since Bush “better there than here” line was broadcasted during years upon americans they started to irrationnally think it could happens in their country soon.

What trade boycott are you talking about. Saddam dodged sanctions very effectively and that was the best the world could do.

Yeah, right, ask North Koreans.

We ignored the terrorists during the 1990s. They did not ignore us.

Indeed. I wonder who (and why) ignored memos about Al Quaida imminent risk, though. Can’t be americans people, as they never got it.
Anyone to help me here?

Posted by: Jack

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 27, 2007 5:55 AM
Comment #213909

We have an enemy that is taking over by using fear - chopping off heads, car bombs, suicide bombers
‘No, they’re using knifes, bombs and, sadly, the fear that we allows such behavior to spawn in us.
They don’t have this fear. We make it. Alone.’

I wasn’t talking about us.

‘I failed to undertsand how come, after 4 years, these good things can’t be everywhere in Iraq to be seen by everybody!’

Neither one of you ‘get it’.

Everything bad is shown all the time… hardly ever anything good …
How do you teach a child something? By pointing out the bad in all they do and never the good?
How do you win a ball game? By pointing out everything your players do wrong and never right?

How do you gain support for something?
How do you turn a losing situation around?

The Dems could say ’ If there is more of this
-point out a success or two- we will have troops coming home by ?’08 anyway…

The Dems are using fear tactics also, and they aren’t all against Bush.


Posted by: bugcrazy at March 27, 2007 8:23 AM
Comment #213912

bugcrazy,

No, they’re using knifes, bombs and, sadly, the fear that we allows such behavior to spawn in us. They don’t have this fear. We make it. Alone.

I wasn’t talking about us.

Oh, so you are NOT talking about our fear but enemy’s own fear and the way he’s using it to chop off heads, car bombing and suicide bombing?

Sorry, it make no sense to me.

I failed to undertsand how come, after 4 years, these good things can’t be everywhere in Iraq to be seen by everybody!

Neither one of you ‘get it’.

Everything bad is shown all the time… hardly ever anything good …

And the single reason can only be… media bias?
Hurray for Okham’s Razor!

How do you teach a child something? By pointing out the bad in all they do and never the good? How do you win a ball game? By pointing out everything your players do wrong and never right?

You point out the good and the bad.

Doesn’t mean that if you do it right, your child/team will be successfull automagically. For each winner, there is a loser. Does US can’t lost anything, even doing its best (which is not the case in Iraq war!)?

Who are you kidding?! You won’t always win. That’s life. Deal with it. Learn the loser lessons. That how one, one day, will eventually win.

How do you gain support for something?

By convincing people to support it. I guess many are not yet/anymore convinced Iraq war is winnable.

How do you turn a losing situation around?

By actually winning it. Not by saying you’re winning it.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 27, 2007 9:17 AM
Comment #213917

Philippe

You know I am a bit of a barbarian on this one and I speak only for myself here. I do not want to have anyone speak to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed thorough a lawyer. I really do not care if they torture or kill him. I will not pretend to be ashamed that he might have been made uncomfortable. My only concern would be to find out what he knew so that we could stop his friends from doing similar things. We might argue about what techniques work best. That is all.

When we are done with him, I want him to be a despondent shadow of the man he once was. I do not want him ever to go back to being a proud and virile enemy of my country. A man who has done such a thing as he did should be broken or dead. I prefer broken. Is that barbaric enough?

Posted by: Jack at March 27, 2007 9:34 AM
Comment #213920

Jack and bugcrazy,

Defend away. Even the sheep are waking up to this failure of an administration. The logic behind the argument is flawed. It’s sounding more and more desperate every day. Blaming the media for not reporting the positive aspects of a clusterf**K is classic “Bush sheep” speak. The justifications are almost laughable. When you guys listen to Rush and Hannity you don’t laugh like the rest of us. You repeat what they said over and over until it begins to sound like rational thought. It begins to actually make sense somehow. Wow.

Paul,

So true.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 27, 2007 9:48 AM
Comment #213921
A man who has done such a thing as he did should be broken or dead. I prefer broken. Is that barbaric enough?

Still with or without balls, He won’t get any virgin when dead, anyway. They have huge virgins shortage these years.

Whatever. Indeed, between death and suffering the rest of your life, forcing someone to endure the later is more barbaric.

That’s, BTW, an argument point about ethanasia.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 27, 2007 9:52 AM
Comment #213926

Paul,

“To reduce the number of terrorists in the world, we must affect the hearts and minds of Muslims and others who tend to demonize America.”


Can’t. The terrorists have already brainwashed and “terrorized” the “moderate” muslims.


“Americans were filled with confidence; now we worry a lot more about “terror.”“


That’s called 9/11; we can’t wait for these pigs to attack (again!) or get their hands on weapons to use against us.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 27, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #213931

Jack: Your willingness to surrender all your constitutional rights for a little faux security distresses me. rahdigly’s postings make it clear he neither deserves nor has earned freedom… but, you…. How about returning to the Founders’ thought which understood executive power to be evil and always in need of a massive counter-balance (the judiciary & legislative powers combined)…. the only real threat to America is the “unitary executive” bull that the Bushies are pushing on us…. Osama and Co may be able to kill a few of us, as they’ve done, but whatever happened to “give me liberty or give me death”? Death is preferrable to the state of slavery that BushCo is offering. What is really amazing is how NO Bushie is willing to give his/her life for this country… better to let the “poe” folk assume that cost since they don’t matter since they cannot contribute to GOP campaigns… I am at an age where few things surprise me…. however, the cowardness of the GOP does amaze me… let other folk’s children die, they don’t really count….

Posted by: Mathieu at March 27, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #213933

rahdigly gives us a false dichotomy: the slavery of fundamentalist Islam vs the slavery of fundamentalist Christians, the Constitution be damned.

In the old days, we considered folks like rahdigly to be the traitors they are.

Unfortunately, Americans have allowed the GOP to brainwash them, to call those who support tyranny patriots, those who support democracy traitors.

The only traitors are those (including rahdigly) who are limp-wristed cowards to stand up for the freedoms that are the heart and soul of America. rahdigly is just to ready to sacrfice others to fight for his rights to barf GOP bullshit.

I be God damned if I am going to allow this slander… I’ve give 35 years of my life to this country as a military officer…. I fought for the Constitution… I did not fight for the GOP and I certainly did not fight for George W. Bush.

Posted by: Mathieu at March 27, 2007 12:40 PM
Comment #213935

NO Phillipe….

The psycho muslims are scaring the piss out of the so-called moderate muslims with beheadings, car bombs, suicide bombers …
You think that isn’t causing problems when it comes to winning the hearts & minds?
You think they aren’t using our own lifestyle & moral convictions against us?
You think the fact that it always looks like we are losing and/or giving up doesn’t work against us?

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 27, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #213937

It just dawned on me. The likes of rahdigly could care less about Constitutional rights…. the rights that are set forth in the Bill of Rights to protect those who have something to contribute to the Nation, to society… people who are creative, people who are intelligent, people who are educated, people who have a sense of reality, of the world beyond themselves… people unlike Mr. rahdigly who has no vision for American except his parochial pleasure to the detriment of the coutry…. Hence, we should not be surprised by rahdigly’s affinity for King George, Mr. Hitler, Bush43 and for every other totalitarian fascist who has ever lived… the question is whether we, the people of the United States, will permit the small-minded people of the world, rahdigly, to denigrate the blessings that his intellectual superiors have secured for this country, by their sweat, blood, tears, and lives for this country.

Posted by: Mathieu at March 27, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #213938

Wow Mathiew.
If you fought for the Constitution, then you should explain to Paul how the “war on terror” mantra is no different than the “war on guns” mantra. Both used fear to take away rights afterall.
I love how people convince themselves that listening in on terrorists phone calls is wrong but limiting or taking away their 2nd Amendment right is ok.
Or, as with most leftists beliefs, is it not the same thing when its the left violating Constitutional rights and individual freedoms?

rahdigly
Whats up with ol Mat’s response to you? We’ve been told for the past 6 years how its only crazy right-wing Christian neocons who call people traitors and “limp-wristed” cowards. (meaning gays) (or fags and homos to people like Mathieu)
Could it possibly be that the Dems were wrong about something? Nah.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #213940

kctim,

Try to remember that G.W. and the GOP don’t want to take Democrats rights. They want everybody’s.
You don’t have a right to own a gun? I live in liberal N.Y. and can own one.
“War on Terror”: Thousands of deaths, thousands of wounded, billions spent, torture, kidnapping, strained military, hurting world reputation, more angrier terrorists etc.

Invented kctim “War on Guns”: A brief waiting period.

You’re right, they’re exactly the same.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 27, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #213941

Mathew,

“rahdigly’s postings make it clear he neither deserves nor has earned freedom… but whatever happened to “give me liberty or give me death”?.. What is really amazing is how NO Bushie is willing to give his/her life for this country.”


What about the anti-Bushies?! Will any of them “give his/her life for this country?” Would they do it with a different commander in chief, or would they do it at all?!!!

I enlisted in the Military in the 90’s, my Commander in Chief was Clinton, whom I didn’t like and wouldn’t vote for; yet, I never wished we lose conflicts just to get at Clinton and label him “incompetent”.

And, by the way, the “Give me liberty or Give me death” line was a war cry, not an anti-war (blame America) cry!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 27, 2007 1:23 PM
Comment #213945

Andre
FEAR is what was used for both. With both, we lost rights.
You are saying its ok to use fear to take away rights as long as certain things don’t happen and I say it is never ok for govt to take away our rights.

And no, neither I nor you have a right to own a gun anymore. We must now get permission in order to practice that Constitutional right.

Now, to keep things in context, could you tell me why it is ok to tell people that thousands will die if govt doesnt monitor who owns a gun but it is wrong for govt to tell people that thousands will die if govt doesnt listen to terrorists phone calls? Should we make it a 7 seven waiting period in order to make a call in private? You know, get permission from the govt. to practice your Constitutional right to privacy.

Yeah, I know. Its just “different” isn’t it. The evil Christian Republicans and their leader, Bush the tyrant, want to rule the world.
This type of hypocrisy is why things will only get worse for us and for future generations of Americans.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #213948

Would I get in trouble if I told the next person to equate being against the war as being anti-American to “Go F yourself”?

This article sums up my support of Paul’s post:A young woman seemed to break down in anger. If “we” left Iraq, she said in a quavering voice, the jihadists, the “terrorists”, could come here to America. They would attack us right here…And I realise that (she) isn’t spouting this stuff about “jihadists” travelling from Iraq to America because she supports Bush. She is just frightened. She is genuinely afraid of all the “terror” warnings, the supposed “jihadists” threats, the red “terror” alerts and the purple alerts and all the other colour-coded instruments of fear. She believes her president, and her president has done Osama bin Laden’s job for him: he has crushed this young woman’s spirit and courage. That, it seems to me, is the Bush legacy.

kc,

The FISA law gives immediate authority for an immediate threat followed by review. There’s no waiting period required in the current law. You know, the one of many that Bsuh doesn’t think applies to him.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 27, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #213960

Dave-

Great point. Ultimately, Bushco has done Bin Laden’s work for him. Yet, the worst part about it is a good 50% of our country’s population doesn’t realize that is what happened.

KCTim-

I see the point you are making. To an extent I think you are right but I would disagree with your charge that it is ONLY those on the left who have been behind this. As a California liberal, I firmly support gun ownership. I feel the founding fathers of this nation gave us the right to bear arms for one very good reason: To protect ourselves from the tyranny of our leaders. We are supposed to be allowed to own comparable weapons to the US military. I suppose they didn’t foresee nuclear technology, oops. My point is: unless you want to advocate here and now the right for every Tim McVeigh to own a nuke, this conversation quickly devolves into a question of where to draw the line. Can we own grenades, how about SAMs, or .50 cal vehicle mounted weapons on the roof of every soccer mom’s suv? Sure, there are those who think it would be better to outlaw guns all together. Many of those do call themselves liberals. However, there are far less of those types among my fellow liberals than you seem to believe. It seems, at least to me, that the vast majority are simply looking for a responsible balance.

Mathieu-

Mucho props senior [immagine the tilde]. You, sir, have hit the bullseye! But go easy on rahdigly. It is hard to be such a foreigner hating biggot with such a foreign name. Like a jew wearing a swastika, he overcompensates so no one will think he is … gasp … a muslim.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 3:05 PM
Comment #213963

‘It seems, at least to me, that the vast majority are simply looking for a responsible balance.’

Like with gay rights? Civil Unions are good but not exactly what gays want - will they call for a responsible balance? No.
Seems there is a lot of ‘my way or the highway’ on both sides.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 27, 2007 3:18 PM
Comment #213964

bugcrazy-

I’m not sure how you thought I was referring to gay rights. But in case my post was ambiguous, with respect to the comment you selected, I was saying that most liberals want a responsible balance regarding gun control.

While a little off topic, if you wish to discuss gay rights we can. However, I see it as a distinctly separate issue than gun control. To me, gay rights is an issue of equal protection. Additionally, I am uncertain why conservatives are against increased income and all of a sudden anti-monogamy.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #213968

kctim,

“The evil Christian Republicans and their leader, Bush the tyrant, want to rule the world.
This type of hypocrisy is why things will only get worse for us and for future generations of Americans.”
I don’t recall calling you evil. I thought it but I didn’t say it;)
Let’s just say that when a right gets taken away that forces me to apply for a license, it sucks but I stand by my ealier post that the “war on terror”has been far more harmful to America.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 27, 2007 3:44 PM
Comment #213972

Andre
Then we are even.
I still stand by my earlier post that ALL of our rights are worth fighting for, not just the ones we care about.
And if we don’t work together to keep ALL of our rights, they will keep disappearing, one by one.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 4:04 PM
Comment #213977

KCTim-

“And if we don’t work together to keep ALL of our rights, they will keep disappearing, one by one.”

So true my friend, so true.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment #214008

“U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job.”

But soldiers making decisions in a hostile and deadly environment can be held accountable? And then get crappy healthcare when they get hurt?

Whatever…

Posted by: jrjr at March 27, 2007 7:24 PM
Comment #214046

jrb,
‘We change presidents and parties in power every few yearsâ€� the rest of the world responds to this - our being so polarized is doing nothing but aid our enemies and make our allies unsure of what to do.
This hasn’t changed since … around 1789. So what do you think is different now?’


I can’t believe this needs to be explained to you.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 27, 2007 9:26 PM
Comment #214055

Paul,

The “war on terror” is (for a majority of the 2004 presidental electorate) an effective use of propoganda by the fascist part of the Republican party (a.k.a. “neo-cons”—but I prefer to call a spade a spade). How else do you expect an idiot like Bush to get the very slim majority packed with the rest of the idiots to vote for him?

Also, as much as it pains me to even give the appearance of agreeing with “Jack,” I couldn’t care less what happens terrorists captured in association with the 9/11 attacks. But right in there with them is Fascist George W. Bush, head of Al Queada in America, one of the most unfortunate “Americans” to be born in the 20th century. He is as much a terrorist as these others. He is worse because he targets his own people for death. I feel fortunate to have only, temporarily, lost some freedom (The Fascists won’t remain in office forever—Thank God!). There are more than 3,200 great Americans that lost much more than most of us have. They lost the life given to them by God, and taken from them by a Fascist idiot for whom death is entirely too good!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at March 27, 2007 9:53 PM
Comment #214056

Bugcrazy-

Yes, somehow I was not born a mind reader. What you are thinking needs to be communicated for me to comprehend it. I know, shocking!

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 9:53 PM
Comment #214062

It’s a small, small, SMALLER world.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 27, 2007 10:04 PM
Comment #214065

So, you are arguing that globalization has changed the ease with which a nation is able to isolate a rogue organizaton?

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #214119

When are we going to talk about Congressmn Issa’s homosexual encounters at Kent State University in the early 1970s?

Posted by: Jim at March 28, 2007 8:05 AM
Comment #214120

Bugcrazy,

The psycho muslims are scaring the piss out of the so-called moderate muslims with beheadings, car bombs, suicide bombers …

Oh, now it does make sense. They used the moderate muslims fear. Right.
But… how comes these scared moderate muslims happened to be all americans then, a majority of americans even? Because, IIRC, a majority of americans agree(d) on the “better there than here” line, which can’t mean anything else than they fear radical islamists beheaders to land on american soil.

Okay, I’m teasing.

You’re right, terrorists are using fear. Iraqis’s fear. Who failed to secure Iraqis? Who used to give them security before? Who don’t give them security today?

I still remember how US medias were joking about the massive “ali baba” lootings. It was the first sign that the new power in the block wasn’t up to its security duties, as occupant. How funny, isn’t it?

You think that isn’t causing problems when it comes to winning the hearts & minds?

The most funded and powerfull army of the world failing to protect iraqis from fearing terrorism is, agreed, not helping to win their hearts and minds.

You think they aren’t using our own lifestyle & moral convictions against us?

You mean tortures and unaccounted jail at Gitmo and Abu Grail moral bankrupt didn’t provides as much ammo to terrorists than the supposed US media bias and opposants to Iraq War?

Yeah, right.

You think the fact that it always looks like we are losing and/or giving up doesn’t work against us?

Then stop losing. Do what it needs to win it.
Who is in charge of Iraq War, US medias or the US government?

Stopping that it always *looks* like you’re losing won’t make such a difference until what anybody on the ground will *see* it in reality.


Posted by: bugcrazy

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 28, 2007 8:17 AM
Comment #214133

Bugcrazy,

The psycho muslims are scaring the piss out of the so-called moderate muslims with beheadings, car bombs, suicide bombers …

Oh, now it does make sense. They used the moderate muslims fear. Right.
But… how comes these scared moderate muslims happened to be all americans then, a majority of americans even? Because, IIRC, a majority of americans agree(d) on the “better there than here” line, which can’t mean anything else than they fear radical islamists beheaders to land on american soil.

Okay, I’m teasing.

You’re right, terrorists are using fear. Iraqis’s fear. Who failed to secure Iraqis? Who used to give them security before? Who don’t give them security today?

I still remember how US medias were joking about the massive “ali baba” lootings. It was the first sign that the new power in the block wasn’t up to its security duties, as occupant. How funny, isn’t it?

You think that isn’t causing problems when it comes to winning the hearts & minds?

The most funded and powerfull army of the world failing to protect iraqis from fearing terrorism is, agreed, not helping to win their hearts and minds.

You think they aren’t using our own lifestyle & moral convictions against us?

You mean tortures and unaccounted jail at Gitmo and Abu Grail moral bankrupt didn’t provides as much ammo to terrorists than the supposed US media bias and opposants to Iraq War?

Yeah, right.

You think the fact that it always looks like we are losing and/or giving up doesn’t work against us?

Then stop losing. Do what it needs to win it.
Who is in charge of Iraq War, US medias or the US government?

Stopping that it always *looks* like you’re losing won’t make such a difference until what anybody on the ground will *see* it in reality.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 28, 2007 10:21 AM
Comment #214141

‘So, you are arguing that globalization has changed the ease with which a nation is able to isolate a rogue organizaton?’

No jrb — and Phillipe
Why do you always see things opposite?

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 28, 2007 11:38 AM
Comment #214211
Why do you always see things opposite?

Because I’m french, and as one I love opposition?
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 28, 2007 8:55 PM
Comment #214222

I don’t always see things opposite. It has simply been very difficult to figure out what you are trying to say because you have, thus far, refused to actually make anything closely resembling a coherent point.

Posted by: jrb at March 28, 2007 10:07 PM
Post a comment