the meaning of jihad

Sunday Oct. 2, 2005, Norman Oklahoma. A man, believed to be Joel Hinrichs, blew himself up in an apparent suicide outside a football stadium filled with approx. 80,000 people. That’s the official story so far, but as details emerge it begins to look more like and act of jihad.

NORMAN, Okla. - One person was killed in an explosion near a packed football stadium at the University of Oklahoma on Saturday night in what authorities said appeared to be a suicide.

The blast, in a traffic circle about 100 yards from Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, could be heard by some in the crowd of 84,000, but university President David Boren said no one inside the stadium was ever in danger.

"We are apparently dealing with an individual suicide, which is under full investigation," Boren said in a statement. There was no information about the person who was killed, and no reports of any other injuries. yahoonews

Michelle Malkin has a number of anomalous rundowns on this story, as do a few others. The explosives Hinrichs used, TATP, were also used by Richard Reed, the shoe bomber. Hinrichs had also reportedly been going to the same mosque in Norman Oklahoma that Richard Reed had gone to.

This will be an interesting story to follow, even though the mainstream media have still failed to pick it up in any substantive way.

Shoe bomb suspect 'did not act alone'

...According to the French newspaper Le Parisien, the reported discovery of TATP links Mr Reid to two Islamic fundamentalist groups linked to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. bbc

Did Joel Hinrichs act alone? TATP is apparently a very unstable explosive. Hinrichs' death is likely a premature conclusion of martyrdom operations rather than a suicide meant to hurt no one but himself. More explosives were found in his apartment. (uodaily, Tapscott)

Hinrichs also attempted to purchase a large quantity of ammonium nitrate. (Used in the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh.)

Sources confirmed Tuesday night that at least one of the components in the bomb used by Joel Henry Hinrichs III Saturday night was a product called TATP.

Technically, TATP is triacetone triperoxide. However, it's called the 'Mother of Satan' by Islamist extremists. Experts say it is made by mixing common household items such as drain cleaner and bleach to create a white powder with a strong smell.

It's so volatile that it can explode even if it's merely dropped. It can even explode spontaneously, experts say.

There have been very few reports of TATP being used in the United States; however, there have been more documented cases overseas -- including Richard Reid, who was arrested after he used TATP in his shoe and tried to light it on a flight. news.yahoo

All these details are adding up to something interesting about Norman Oklahoma. Why Norman Oklahoma?

We are told that Richard Reed did not act alone. Guess where Zacarias Moussaoui went to flight school? Yeah, Norman Oklahoma. Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi also visited Norman Oklahoma. Nick Berg, beheaded in Iraq by Zarqawi,attended the University of Oklahoma in Norman. So far these are all weird coincidences that give me the idea that there is (or was) probably some kind of Al Qaeda network resources available in Norman OK.

This bombing as well as the recent Bali bombings are a reminder that we are in fact at war. There is an actual enemy. Pointing that out is not fear mongering as the left likes to put it. They've said they are coming here. They've laid out their reasons for doing this and it's not because Bush invaded Iraq. It's because we are not Muslim and yet we are powerful and Muslim nations are not.

Abu Bakar Bashir the leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, (Bali bombings), was interviewed recently and he knows unequivacably that we are in the midst of a war. Take note of what he says we must do to stop the terror.

Scott Atran: What are the conditions for Islam to be strong?

Abu Bakar Bashir: The infidel country must be visited and spied upon. If we don't come to them, they will persecute Islam. They will prevent non-Muslims converting.

SA: What can the West, especially the US, do to make the world more peaceful?

ABB: They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam.

SA: What if they persist?

ABB: We'll keep fighting them and they'll lose. The batil [falsehood] will lose sooner or later. I sent a letter to Bush. I said that you'll lose and there is no point for you [to fight us]. This [concept] is found in the Koran.

SA: Have you met Osama Bin Laden?

ABB: No, no. I want to though. After my release, I hope I can meet him.

SA: Where will you find him?

ABB: If he still exists - but how could I? I have sympathy for his struggle. Osama is Allah's soldier. When I heard his story, I came to the conclusion that he's mujahid, a soldier of Allah.

SA: You will always be on his side?

ABB: His tactics and calculations may sometimes be wrong, he's an ordinary human being after all. I don't agree with all of his actions. Osama believes in total war. This concept I don't agree with. If this occurs in an Islamic country, the fitnah [discord] will be felt by Muslims. But to attack them in their country [America] is fine.

SA: So this fight will never end?

ABB: Never. This fight is compulsory. Muslims who don't hate America sin. What I mean by America is George Bush's regime. There is no iman [belief] if one doesn't hate America.

SA: How can the American regime and its policies change?

ABB: We'll see. As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can't be ruled by others. Allah's law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace. thefirstpost.co.uk

Surrender. Sounds an awful lot like Cindy Sheehan to me.

Posted by Eric Simonson at October 6, 2005 2:27 AM
Comments
Comment #83916

Eric,

Sorry, but i do not think this guy speaks for muslims. Are there sincere muslims who want to harm us? Yes, i think so. Timothy McVeigh was a christian and he also wanted to harm us.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 4:10 AM
Comment #83964

Eric-
Have you been listening to anything we’ve been saying on the other side for the last four years? We’ve been telling you that we needed better counterterrorism here at home the whole time! Oh, but you folks have been telling us, “We’re fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here!”

Well jeez, if you’re alleging what you’re alleging here, that’s not working, now is it? In fact, it never can work, because all it is is the spin that this administration has put on having to fight an entrenched guerilla war it failed to nip in the bud.

Ironically, if you guys had admitted there was a problem earlier, you might have been able to get the resources in there to actually do something about it. But then, this is an administration that’s always been better at political strategy than that of policy.

As for your parting shot, I guess you don’t get what make many Americans resent this war. If Iraq is all part of the war on terror, then why can’t we stop the terrorism there? Why are we at their mercy there? You know that I’ve never advocated anything less than victory, but is this any way to win the war on terror, by fighting an extended guerilla war, without the men and strategies to snuff it out?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2005 7:08 AM
Comment #83973

Stephen:

You can conclude that we do not have the right strategy or the right number of troops in Iraq. But its entirely wrong to conclude that “we at their mercy there”.

I’ve talked to a number of people with backgrounds in federal law enforcement, military security and active military operations. They ALL say that enemies who don’t worry about their get-a-way or their safety (namely suicide bombers) are nearly impossible to stop without the most draconian efforts. And you know as well as I do that if draconian efforts were undertaken, the “left” would be howling about the loss of rights (and properly so).

The reality is that terrorism can never be stopped completely. There can always be an individual or a small group ala McVeigh who is willing to commit a terrorist act. And without complete invasion of privacy and martial law, it simply is unstoppable.

The bigger problem is evidenced by your post. You seem to be saying that unless the victory is 100%, and remains 100%, it isnt a victory. There are very few things in this world that achieve perfection like that, but some people still want it, as long as they don’t have the responsibility for providing it. Once they have that responsibility, they learn soon enough how impossible it is, and they come to their senses.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 6, 2005 8:38 AM
Comment #83979

Has anyone on this freaking planet read Jayna Davis’s book “The Third Terrorist”? This is all spelled out. The people doing this stuff are here. They have been here for a long time. Someone mentioned Mcveigh and yet no one has taken the time to read all of the evidence. Able Danger is covering the same material.

No one wants to put together the peices of 911, Oklahoma City, the first WTC bombing, and a host of other incidents because (just like yesterdays little peice of wonderful news about how the CIA isn’t going to investigate or reprimand any of the a**holes who allowed 911 to happen) some folks in our gargantuan beast of a “bureaucrat welfare society” government might find themselves behind bars for incredible negligence. The real guilty culprit is the FBI whose loyalty is far more to themselves and their salaries than to the citizens of this country.

Sometimes I think that the acts of the Islamists are allowed because it gives the MIB’s ever more excuses to build and implement the tools they will need to control us if we decide we’ve had enough of these pirates who steal our hard-earned money and give it to the lazy or to their wealthy freinds. It’s all just a game and the occasional jet hitting a building or idiot bombing a football game is just another move by a peice on the board towards the day when Orwell’s 1984 is the reality for all of us citizens (who after all are the real threat to anyone in a cushy government job).

Posted by: wayne at October 6, 2005 9:09 AM
Comment #83988

Stephen and all the rest of you with the same leftist opinions about Iraq ** If you want to just ‘bendover’ go right ahead. Just don’t try and take the rest of us with you. You are MISSING the WHOLE story. Your hate for Bush has put you in a ‘fog’.
Some of us aren’t stupid enough to believe that one person with a bomb strapped to their body will never show up at a football game because we are fighting in Iraq.
Some of us aren’t stupid enough to believe that ALL of the Al queda type terrorists are fighting in Iraq. They have had a LONG time to ‘recruit’ their followers and spread them out around the world. They don’t ALL have bombs strapped to themselves.
Their war is not just religious. It is a ‘political movement’ by terror. They want all countries ruled by Islamic Leaders. They have those in their own ‘faith’ who do not submit to their form of Islam that they are killing also.
Pay attention to how the Muslims, who are NOT assimilating into the FREE countries that they move to, are using their own laws against them to spread Islam. While we are fighting the more ‘radical’ members of Islam in the Middle East, the others are working behind the scenes. They know what they are doing. The terrorists are making the ‘moderates’ look like granny coming with an apple pie.
Germany for example: ‘Central Council of the Muslims in Germany’
They are working through the political process to meet their goal of converting Germany to an Islamic State. They are moving through the political process the teaching of Islam in public schools.
How about the U.S? ‘CAIR’
They are VERY much involved in the political process.
One of their “Action Alert”s:
‘ENHANCE UNDERSTANDING: Urge U.S. Representatives to Sign 2005 Ramadan Resolution’

First we should recognize Ramadan and announce that Islam is great. Then what? When was the last time our Representatives actually made a resolution announcing a particular religion is great?
Guess who they are getting most of their political support from?? - Democrats.

Ramadan in Iraq means use more killing to get their point across. It means one who blows themself up and kills innocent people gets to have dinner with Allah?

Timothy McVeigh is mentioned every time. Maybe he agreed with UBL. Maybe he was a Muslim convert in secret. We cannot ask him.
Even after it is proven someone is fighting for Al Queda, people they know say ‘He wouldn’t do that. He was so kind. So gentle.’
Same thing happened with BTK. Same thing happens with the serial killer or child molester down the street.

Posted by: bugcrazy at October 6, 2005 9:54 AM
Comment #83991

Tim McVeigh was not a Christian. To be a Christian is to be Christ-like. He did not fit the description.

Before I retired I worked with several hundred Muslim individuals. They came from Jordan, Iran, Iraq and Somali. The bulk came from Somali. I had the occasion to discuss with them at length about Islamic beliefs. Many of their beliefs were contradictory within their system. The overwhelming position was when I asked what was their reason for living and the response was nearly exclusive. They live to destroy Israel and kill Jews. That is not the peace most people are looking for. There mission will absolutely not be completed. In over 6,000 years of history there have been numerous attempts to “kill the jews” and none have succeeded in their mission. Sure some have died. But destroy them as a group or nation it will never, never happen. The battle of Armegeddon will show that some day.

Posted by: tom at October 6, 2005 10:01 AM
Comment #83997

I have been posting repeatedly that if we do not let another person into this country, the terrorism mechanism has been in place here for decades.

That guy (or someone else) could easilly have been inside the stadium if “they” had wanted him to be. He can be in your hospital, subway, office building, church, food store, movie theater, restaurant, nuclear reactor facility and so on. Let’s not exclude the drug research-development and distribution center.

These are the people we have already granted visa’s, work permits and even naturalized citizenship to. The 13 million illegal immigrants that we want to treat as regular citizens (even to the extent of giving Katrina money to) are another matter.

Posted by: steve smith at October 6, 2005 10:42 AM
Comment #84002

I agree that it’s nearly impossible to secure against somebody willing to die to attack you, but that’s only if you’re talking about force protection. Those people are stopped by other means. You can’t stop insurgencies by brute force alone unless you’re willing to make like Atilla the Hun and burn the place to the ground. You have to work the society around these people that enables them, supplies them, and teaches them to do these things.

You also have to get at them at the points they’re not expecting to be confronted. Don’t try and bust the suicide bomber when he’s wearing the vest and fingering the switch Bust the lab or the depot that gives him the explosives. Do that, and if they want to blow themselves up they’ve got to drink soda while eating pop-rocks.

Better yet, take care of the support system that encourages them. Make the Arab on the street question the insurgency’s means and actions. Bust the financial support. Muddle the religious fervor. Do what it takes to calm the place, and quarantine the country from those feeding the belligerence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2005 11:02 AM
Comment #84003

Joe-
I would just say that it doesn’t have to be 100%, just sufficient that people are not over the threshold necessary to justify continuing the insurgency.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2005 11:03 AM
Comment #84007

Coming back around to the Attilla the Hun concept is a great idea.

The “date salesman by day” and “insurgent,killer, terrorist by night” game plan cannot be stopped without very agressive warfare/tactics.

Posted by: steve smith at October 6, 2005 11:18 AM
Comment #84009

If we are going to find and punish scapegoats for the 9/11 attacks, perhaps we should also launch an investigation into the Clinto era fools who literally had Osama offered to them on a silver platter and declined the offer? But then we wouldn’t want to ever hold a liberal administration responsible for anything. Only Republicans should be subjected to a figurative ‘public lynching’.

Posted by: pige at October 6, 2005 11:22 AM
Comment #84010

Stephen:

Thanks for the clarification. I know we’ll disagree on this, but I think a lot of what you mentioned is what is happening. The US is trying to help rebuild Iraq (schools, infrastructure etc). By promoting the elections and constitution, the US is trying to show the average Iraqi that they have a voice. The US has disrupted many of the financial structures used by terrorists, such as the government of Afghanistan etc. The US has not done a good job of quarantining the borders—this requires not only US feet on the ground, but the help of other countries like Pakistan and Syria.

It would be fair to say the US isnt doing a good enough job in these areas, but not fair or accurate to say that the job isnt even being attempted.

The interesting part about stopping them before they strap on the suicide vests is that this goes on all the time, but its typically kept secret. Its well known that you hear about failures much more often than you hear about the intelligence successes that prevent an attack. That you dont hear about it doesnt mean its not happening.

The media hasnt helped our image with the Iraqi people by flaunting images such as Abu Ghraib endlessly. Dont misunderstand—-Abu Ghraib was a travesty that required reporting. I’m not condoning the actions there at all. Check out this recent occurrence reported in the BBC: “Gunmen in Iraq have killed five school teachers - all Shias - at a school near Iskandariya, south of Baghdad. A police spokesman said the gunmen had arrived at the school in two civilian cars, and led the five teachers and a school driver out before shooting them. Some reports said pupils had witnessed the murder, but police denied this.”

While this tragedy was widely reported, the only citations I could find on google were dated Sept 26 or Sept 27. It was treated as a rather normal newstory, and the culprits were called “gunmen” or “insurgents”. Forgive me, but this was an act of pure terrorism. They dragged 5 teachers (not soldiers, not govt officials) from in front of the children and executed them.

Had US soldiers dragged 5 “insurgents” from their homes and executed them in a public square, what would be the response? Would it be similar? Of course not—-it would be major news and would be repeated and discussed for months.

That begs the question: Why does the media portray “insurgents” who commit despicable acts of terrorism any differently than soldiers who commit despicable acts of abuse? Certainly what Lynndie England did was wrong, but she didn’t kill anyone, which makes her crime certainly less egregious than flat out murder.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 6, 2005 11:24 AM
Comment #84019

So much for islam being a ‘RELIGION OF PEACE’.


tom
In over 6,000 years of history there have been numerous attempts to “kill the jews” and none have succeeded in their mission. Sure some have died. But destroy them as a group or nation it will never, never happen. The battle of Armegeddon will show that some day.

And won’t the Muslims be suprised when they find out that ‘Allah’ aint who the thought he was.
Sorry guys NO SEVENTY VIRGINS FOR YOU.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 6, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #84023

I’m surprised no one on this side of the board has brought up the idea of reopening Manzanar and Tule Lake for the muslims among us…

Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2005 12:34 PM
Comment #84031

Dave,
Not surprising that you want to mention camps.
Do you know of any ‘mistakes’ Muslims have made or do you just want to point out the American mistakes?
Many Japanese and American Indians do not hold ‘mistakes’ the U.S. made in the same regard as you.
I have heard many Japanese say they understood the governments reaction and don’t hate it for it.
I have heard many American Indians describe the white man’s fight for America as a war. The whites won. The end.

Posted by: bugcrazy at October 6, 2005 1:02 PM
Comment #84033

Joe-
The trouble here is that you’re talking past us on this issue. None of us wanted things to get out of control like this. My belief is that this violence is the result of potential animosity that was unleashed by our removal of Saddam’s government and (most crucially) the failure to put an equally strong government in place in the first few days and weeks of our control. People have thresholds of inhibition in typical civilized society that prevents them from breaking the laws. When we invaded and failed to quickly restore law and order (or better yet, catch the fumbled authority immediately), we invited the kind of resistance we’re seeing here. You got to show people that there is no messing with you, that you are in charge, and that you won’t neglect to bring soldiers to a fight and leave them there until the trouble goes away.

That would have required many more soldiers than Bush and his people put into play. They wanted to a light mobile attack, and did not consider that military occupation is essentially sitting on a nation, the most immobile, constrained sort of military position possible. The insurgency has nothing to lose, except men, and those it can replenish. It only has to remain in the game, and we are playing far too fairly with them.

What about those who favor pulling out? Those people believe that we are not capable of winning at this point, that our continued presence today would mean that in a month’s time, more teachers and maybe even students would be dead.

Essentially, the problem of the Bush administration here is that it’s not adequately convincing the more pragmatic hawks or the pessimistic doves that their current strategy will do anything but dig us deeper into the hole. Americans do not lack the committment to tough it out, they just want a strategy they believe can actually make the cost in blood and treasure worth it. We need new ideas and new approaches and the sense that we have some hope of redeeming the awful mess this has become.

Present Americans with that, and they will do their damnedest to defeat these insurgents. Otherwise, we got to know our limits, or things will get worse.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2005 1:07 PM
Comment #84037

Stephen,

Have you been listening to anything we’ve been saying on the other side for the last four years? We’ve been telling you that we needed better counterterrorism here at home the whole time!

Uh, it doesn’t wash Stephen. Counterterrorism? Like don’t profile? That would be racist, or worse. Patriot Act? It’s a totalitarian takeover by the illigitimate Bush Administration. Interogate detainees? Just like Stalin and Pol Pot. Genocide.

Stephen, the problem you have here is that on the left, first and foremost ‘terrorists have rights’. Stopping terror is secondary to this. Thus you have the spectacle of left groups supporting murderers like Mumia Abu-Jamal. The left has no intention of fighting terror. They don’t think it’s even a problem. By and large they think we are the problem. American foreign policy is the problem. The US creates terrorists.

The sad thing is that the left and the terrorists actually agree on how to end this conflict. We stop fighting.

SA: How can the American regime and its policies change?

ABB: We’ll see. As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can’t be ruled by others. Allah’s law must stand above human law. There is no [example] of Islam and infidels, the right and the wrong, living together in peace.

That’s Jemaah Islamiyah. How does that differ from the left’s position that we must get out of Iraq and stop engaging the enemy where they are?

Oh, but you folks have been telling us, “We’re fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here!”

Here’s the thing, without fighting them over there we confirm our paper tiger status and we go nowhere. They must be defeated; militarily, politically, morally, abjectly and completely. You can’t do that with the ACLU mentality of the left. The battlefield cannot be only on US soil. That is defence, which is good, but not enough. It seems safer, but in the end it does not give you what you need to defeat them.

We need to do both. We need to root them out here, and grind them down over there. Creating a democratic Iraq is a huge defeat for Al Qaeda.

Stephen, what the left doesn’t understand is that Iraq is one battle. It’s not the war.

Posted by: esimonson at October 6, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #84050

Stephen:

Here’s the rub, and you know it as well as I do. Had Bush placed a government in control in the first days and weeks as you suggest, the “left” would have had a field day. Do you not recall the animosity with which the left savaged ideas of a “US placed government”? Even now, I hear comments about how the US is really in control and the government is just a figure head.

In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai was seen as a US tool, rather than a leader of his country, simply because the US backed him.

You see, its easy to NOW say that we should have done this or that. But the reality is that the anti war folks can find a negative in any situation. If the US placed a government, then the US is controlling the people with a puppet leader. If the US doesn’t place a government, then we should have controlled things better.

Funny, I didn’t hear people saying we should institute a government immediately back at the beginning of the war. Its only now that I start hearing it. Imagine that.

Stephen, you have some good ideas. I even agree that some of the strategies should change. I’d favor a harder line—-stop calling the bastards who murder innocent people “insurgents” and call them terrorists, because that’s what their acts prove them to be. Take em out by force. But remember, when Marine forces invaded Fallujah, wails and moans came from the antiwar left about how aggressive and unfair the US was etc. Again with the “there’s gotta be a cloud if there’s a silver lining” mentality.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 6, 2005 2:31 PM
Comment #84051

Did she miss the memo?
Barbara Boxer just went on television and said that the terrorists have NO interest in being part of any government. That controlling a country of their own is NOT one of their objectives. That Al Queda is just a loose network of terrorists. Basically that we should pull out of Iraq now and we really don’t have to worry about Al Queda taking over the country.
If that is what the LEFT believes…

Eric, where is my post from this morning?

Posted by: bugcrazy at October 6, 2005 2:36 PM
Comment #84054

So much fear! And such odd conceptions of Al Qaida, and Afghanistan!

1. Afghanistan is a puppet government. Karzai depends upon US forces for his security- he cannot trust his own people to protect him. Karzai represents a minority, what we used to call “The Northern Alliance.” This group was almost completely defeated by the Taliban, which derive their power from the majority Pashtun rural tribes. With the exception of Kabul, most of the country is in the hands of warlords, many of them former Mujihadeen leaders, and many former supporters of the Taliban.

Look, if you support the puppet government, fine. Perhaps there are good reasons to support a puppet government. But please don’t pretend it represents anything other than our effort to keep the Afghanistan under our thumb.

2. Pelosi is right. OBL and Al-Qaida are not interested in controlling their own country. Please make an effort to become informed. I’ve posted on this topic in the past. Al Qaida is our enemy. OBL is our enemy. Control of a country is not an objective of Al Qaida & OBL.

3. Oh, and the fear! Let’s see. We all know illegal immigration is rampant, and our borders are porous. Yet we haven’t had a terrorist attack in the US since 2001.

Doesn’t jibe, does it?

Put the fear behind you, folks. Let’s be adults about this, shall we? Yes, there will always be loons out there, the occasional crazy, and there are in fact people like OBL. But the sun is shining. The leaves are turning. Get a grip. Ignore the fearful crap spouted by the administration. Get over your fear. It’s ok. Really, it is. Come on out your shell. See? Smile. It’s ok.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2005 3:15 PM
Comment #84063

I guess this tread reinforces the thesis that you don’t HAVE to be paranoid to be a right wing extremist - but it helps.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 6, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #84071

Eric - This is a damn good article, and good quotes you have included. Bashir points out that ‘it is found in the Koran’ which is true. Much of what these Islamic warriors claim is from the Koran. Also, one more thing, - he claims the fight will never stop unless the world is governed by Islam. Sadly, he is correct. The fight is just now touching the Western world.

Posted by: Mike T. at October 6, 2005 4:32 PM
Comment #84073

“Afghanistan is a puppet government.”

Yes, better that it be a good-ol’, home-grown, socialist dictatorship that Democrats could support (see Saddam’s Iraq, Castro’s Cuba, Red China, North Korea, etc).

“Karzai depends upon US forces for his security- he cannot trust his own people to protect him.

The fledgling democracy cannot protect itself from a small number of lunatic death cult stone-age terrorists who murder people who disagree with them. Far better that we let the country go back to the days when people were summarily executed for being homosexual or for not wearing their burkas properly, then prop up a (shudder) “puppet government” (congrats there, you have the tired 60’s warmed over Marxist lingo down, dude).

“Pelosi is right. OBL and Al-Qaida are not interested in controlling their own country.”

Yes, all OBL and Al Qaeda want is dialogue, understanding and perhaps a few million dead Americans. Who could disagree with that? You and your lunatic Pelosi are correct - they don’t want a country the UN would recognize, what they want is to resurrect the Caliphate (just because female Senate Democrats would look far better in a burka is no reason to advocate for the world Caliphate).

“Yet we haven’t had a terrorist attack in the US since 2001.”

I’m sure that’s because there’s no threat. Please explain that to those blown to bits in Bali last week. Or London. Or maybe, possibly it’s because people in the adminstration and the federal government have been working their asses off since 2001 to prevent it.

But Democrat politicians have done a lot too - let’s see, they’ve whined, complained, actively undermined the Iraq war for cheap political gain, and they’ve given aid and comfort to terrorists. Good thing this war on terror is a bipartisan effort, otherwise there is a possibility that it might not go smoothly.

Posted by: Brian at October 6, 2005 4:33 PM
Comment #84074

phx8,

Put the fear behind you, folks. Let’s be adults about this, shall we? Yes, there will always be loons out there, the occasional crazy, and there are in fact people like OBL. But the sun is shining. The leaves are turning. Get a grip. Ignore the fearful crap spouted by the administration. Get over your fear. It’s ok. Really, it is. Come on out your shell. See? Smile. It’s ok.


Ah, yes. i see how much more sense it makes when you leave out the go shopping part.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 4:33 PM
Comment #84096

I have a great idea…All of you libs who don’t want to support the war can just forget about it. There is no draft and your cowardly little asses will be protected by our couragous fighting men, most of whom are right wing Republicans anyway. All you have to do is sit down, hang on and shut up and let the US’s fabulous war machine do it’s job.

Posted by: tomd at October 6, 2005 5:32 PM
Comment #84098

tom,

“your cowardly little asses will be protected by our couragous fighting men”

And your hiney is being protected by our courageous fightinh WOMEN, two of whom are my daughters.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 5:40 PM
Comment #84100

Jo,
I didn’t mean to be sexest. Please tell your daughters that I SINCERELY appreciate their sacrafice. And you are correct..The are protecting my hiney.

Posted by: tomd at October 6, 2005 5:54 PM
Comment #84114

Well, I’m very much a liberal, and I served as a B-52 Radar Navigator in the USAF, SAC, rank of Captain. Volunteered, btw.

Brian,
In general terms, I think we’ve done pretty well in Afghanistan. We’ve made mistakes, my hindsight is perfect, but that doesn’t mean we should not attempt to correct mistakes.
There’s no way the current puppet government will succeed. Karzai seems like a nice guy, but he represents a minority, he cannot trust his fellow Afghans, and in the long run he just doesn’t have a chance.
We have to find a way, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, to transition these governments to representative governments, representative in a way consistent with the cultures of those countries. Doing this in both Afghanistan & Iraq simultaneously is extremely diffictult, if not impossible. And, if it does happen, as eventually it surely will, whether we want it or no, the results will probably be hard to take. For a good example, take a look at Iran.

“Yes, all OBL and Al Qaeda want is dialogue, understanding and perhaps a few million dead Americans.”

That’s a pretty good description of the situation. Fortunately, OBL is not in a position to actively participate in operational planning. However, his words are poison, and he must be taken down.

As to the content of his message, the grievances need to be addressed. That doesn’t mean he gets what he wants- but the US needs to undermine that message, and make it irrelevant.

Foreign jihadists in Iraq are a huge problem. Withdraw US troops, and the Iraqis will have very little use for the foreigners. The Sunnis may provide safe haven, but then, they already are providing that.

No attack in the US? Why not? Is it because we’re doing such a great job? The Bush administration does deserve some credit. But consider again, the US borders are very porous, yet no attacks occur. Right? After a few cells were busted after 9/11, terrorists in the US have been few and far between.

The reason is that Al Qaida’s reach was always very limited. The attacks in London & Bali have been inspired by OBL’s words, but seem to have little direct operational connection.

“Democrat politicians have… actively undermined the Iraq war for cheap political gain, and they’ve given aid and comfort to terrorists.”

Oh Brian. Too many Democrats, such as Kerry, support the war. The politically unpopular thing has been to oppose it, at least until recently.

Personally, I think Bush pushed for the Invasion of Iraq for political gain, to whip up patriotism before the midterm elections, and distract the public from the economy. Disgusting.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2005 7:12 PM
Comment #84121

I’m starting to believe that there are two kinds of Republicans. One are people like Eric who would blame cancer on liberals if they could find a way. The second type, are the John McCain’s and Ron Paul’s who seem to be able to think logically about things.
Eric, how you throw in Cindy Sheehan in your article is beyond me. Your story has nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan and you try to attack her anyways.
It’s a shame that there are two kinds of Republicans, and the one that gets all the attention is the one who respects nothing. If people like Eric keep on recieving all the attention of what a Republican looks like, Republicans probably won’t be part of the legislative system for to much longer.

Posted by: ericsucks at October 6, 2005 8:08 PM
Comment #84130

Are isp’s or just screen names banned for critiquing the messenger?

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 8:30 PM
Comment #84141
Eric, how you throw in Cindy Sheehan in your article is beyond me.

You seriously don’t understand why he brought up Sheehan? Have you followed anything the woman has said recently? She’s basically recited every Islamofascist demand verbatim. She’s become a laughable caricature of peaceniks and a pawn of MoveOn.Osama.

Posted by: Bryan Williams at October 6, 2005 9:33 PM
Comment #84142
Timothy McVeigh was a christian and he also wanted to harm us.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 04:10 AM

Uh, no Tim McVeigh was NOT a Christian, Jo, and you should stop spreading this rumor. McVeigh was an atheist throughout his entire life. The MSM began spreading the rumor early on because it fits their agenda. The only relation McVeigh had with Christianity was a priest in his last town of residence who befriended him and attempted to get him to attend his church. Nothing ever came of it.

If you want to know something about McVeigh, you should read some of the dozens of books out there about him. You’ll understand (1) He never followed any Christian ideals and (2) There’s strong, circumstantial evidence that Filipino Islamists were behind the funding and training for the OKC bomb.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200205/ai_n9113667

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/777090/posts

Posted by: Bryan Williams at October 6, 2005 9:34 PM
Comment #84144
Timothy McVeigh was a christian and he also wanted to harm us.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 04:10 AM

Uh, no Tim McVeigh was NOT a Christian, Jo, and you should stop spreading this rumor. McVeigh was an atheist throughout his entire life. The MSM began spreading the rumor early on because it fits their agenda. The only relation McVeigh had with Christianity was a priest in his last town of residence who befriended him and attempted to get him to attend his church. Nothing ever came of it.

If you want to know something about McVeigh, you should read some of the dozens of books out there about him. You’ll understand (1) He never followed any Christian ideals and (2) There’s strong, circumstantial evidence that Filipino Islamists were behind the funding and training for the OKC bomb.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200205/ai_n9113667

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/777090/posts

Posted by: Bryan Williams at October 6, 2005 9:45 PM
Comment #84146

I personally believe that the language Sheehan uses is different from the Islamofacists that you speak of Bryan. The far left is far from Islamofacism. The far right has more in common with Islamofacism than the left will ever have. That is the greatest irony about this war on terror, it iss the exact same ideology that both sides use to persuade the masses that this war is just. Personally, I think the far right here and there both suck ass—it drives me crazy to think how you right wing lunatics have all the power in the world.

Posted by: ericsucks at October 6, 2005 9:47 PM
Comment #84147

Boo!

Sheesh. Does anybody believe Bush? Anyone at all? An announcement yesterday that Bush will deliver an “important” speech this morning. The speech this morning says absolutely nothing new; it does, however, mention terror again and again. Tonight, in time for the evening news, we hear NYC subways are threatened. Traffic Light O’ Death says Orange! Boo!

Oh wait. Homeland Security says the source is suspect.

Be afraid everybody. That’s what the Bush administration wants. This is all about fear.

Posted by: phx8 at October 6, 2005 9:49 PM
Comment #84149

ok… I know this is a side issue to the main discussion here but it has to be commented on…
tom (& you too Ron Brown)
“to destroy Israel and kill Jews”?… yes it’s true a whole bunch of people have had it in for the Jews, and overwhelmingly for the last 2000 years the main protagonists have been Christians. After all during the golden age of Islam (while christian europe ransacked Rome & was regressing to the stone age… the so called ‘dark ages’), the Muslim leaders of the middle east treated Jews pretty well. In fact with pretty much the same enlightenment that they experience in western nations today. It was during the ‘good’ christian crusades that these paragons of Christ decided the first people they wanted to ethnically cleanse were the Jews. It’s useful to pause on that point, note that Jerusalem was(is?) part of the Muslim world and Jews are living in peace side by side with Muslims… the only one who had a problem with that was… guess who? In fact up until the end of the world wars (note I am deliberately avoiding reference to the formation of Israel, we don’t need to go down that path… we are addressing some other issues here) Jews and Muslims were still living together in peace.
Let’s not forget that the Nazis saw themselves as ‘good’ christians. And if you were a blue eyed, blond aryan (and prepared to ignore the unpleasant stuff) everything about them would seem as christian as any nuclear family in small town USA.
During the constant (christian) sectarian conflicts in Europe the one thing both sides could agree on was picking on Jews… really tom… I’m happy for you to take your faith seriously (the Armageddon fixation makes me nervous though, plus there are plenty of good christians who would seem to base their support for Israel totally on what it says in Revelations… as if they want to bring the Big A about deliberately… and I’m not cool with that)
This Muslim vs Jews thing is there no doubt, but it’s relatively recent… if I was inclined to conspiracy I’d say that Opus Dei was behind it in some way (ok ok I’m busted… yes if I’m religious in any way I’m a disciple of Monty Python… now that’s a religion:)

Yes, there is a militant & intolerant brand of Islam which is held by a minority… they are in their own way… crusaders. The real way to win this ‘war’ is to do everything to ensure moderate Islam wins against them and brings about a new age of enlightment… they’ve done it before. You can do your part by meeting a few more muslims tom, try Indonesia… you’d be surprised. Of the 200 million or so, almost all are not like Abu Bakar Bashir. They are actually alot more like, well… any nuclear family in small town USA.

Posted by: jon at October 6, 2005 9:52 PM
Comment #84154

jon,

Your version of history is interesting.

Posted by: jo at October 6, 2005 11:31 PM
Comment #84158

Jo:

jon is essentially correct that Nazis potrayed themselves as the Good, Conservative, Christian Party fighting against evil Liberals. I can supply you with endless speeches given by Hitler et. al. on the subject. I should also point out that the Nazis never saw themselves as evil. They were the “Good Guys” fighting the Good Fight.

Posted by: Aldous at October 6, 2005 11:58 PM
Comment #84159

Eric-
You mistake draconian methods for effective ones. Look at Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two of worst human rights offenders. They produced just about every hijacker in the lot between them. Why? Because in real life, even the most tight-fisted dictatorship confronts limits to the reach and speed of its power, and the corruption that lets these people past becomes much more possible when the power wielded by officials approaches the absolute.

The Patriot act was a hasty bit of legislation, done without real study of the problem. It actually managed to scare people about their freedoms, which was quite a feat when the buildings the terrorists dropped were still smoldering, and people were waiting for the other shoe to drop.

The question of what creates terrorist is more complicated than some overgeneralized claim of America or Islamofascist being at fault. This is one of those “tumblers in the lock of time” type things. Terrorism of the type we fight now has some component in unwise or non-ideal policy choices on our part during and after the Cold War, but the main responsibility lies with irresponsible clerics and the fascists whose attempts to break traditionalists and Islamists enabled their perversion of Islam.

Unfortunately you try and tell us we support these people. You really think we’re that brain dead about our sense of self-preservation. Our idea of making piece with these societies is the encouragement of democracy and liberal principles, as opposed to continued support of the tyrants who so radicalized their population. You ever wonder why they resent us?

We won’t do ourselves any good by simple appeasement. We have our own legitimate self-interests that aren’t served by caving into militant Islam or the Isolationist elements there.

What we got to create is a less pathological siutation, and in some places, that might mean military intervention. In most places, though, it means shaping the culture, and that is something fairly difficult to do without people’s cooperation. It’s not an easy problem or solution, and I don’t mean to present it as such. This will take decades, barring some lucky, galvanizing incident.

Here’s the thing, without fighting them over there we confirm our paper tiger status and we go nowhere. They must be defeated; militarily, politically, morally, abjectly and completely. You can’t do that with the ACLU mentality of the left. The battlefield cannot be only on US soil. That is defence, which is good, but not enough. It seems safer, but in the end it does not give you what you need to defeat them.

We make ourselves worse than paper tigers by persisting in a losing strategy. More than merely harming our image, we harm our actual capability by beating our heads against the wall with a bad strategy. We need a working, winnable strategy. It’s unfortunate that it hasn’t fully registered with you that people like me aren’t just flapping our jaws when we tell you we want to win.

You don’t understand that this isn’t just a battle, it’s a full-scale war. It’s taking resources to fight it we could have used somewhere else, and really should have used somewhere else. As for my “ACLU attitude”, I think you know better. I think you know full well what my attitude is, but it doesn’t fit inside the box you’ve made for the average liberal.

I’ve been telling you that we’ve been fighting this war half-assed, without a serious strategical plan to isolate the insurgents and secure the territory. You think just because I’m a liberal, I want to do this in a weak fashion.

You ever seen Saving Private Ryan? Steven Spielberg is a textbook liberal, but when the time came to create a war film, he created one that was brutally realistic, yet patriotic and proud of the war effort. You guys evoked Omaha Beach, but without Spielberg, people would lack a visceral understanding of what you mean by it.

I think that describes most liberals: brutally realistic about these matters, but through that brutal realism, proud of the times where our country has fought the good fight, and thirsting for the chance to prove our mettle in such a manner.

But being brutally realistic about these matters, means being realistic about what happened here: our security was compromised. If we don’t get our act together here, we are no safer for our long period of peace here than the people going to work at the WTC on 9/11 were for the eight years of peace they had up till then. We’re only five years into our respite here. Now is not the time to get overconfident.

Creating a Democracy will not be a defeat for the insurgents. Creating a stable Democracy where they can’t operate freely will be, though. Otherwise, they have the opportunity to subvert all that we have gained, and that will be an awful shame.

Joe-

Here’s the rub, and you know it as well as I do. Had Bush placed a government in control in the first days and weeks as you suggest, the “left” would have had a field day.

Just tell me what it is about the potential for unfair criticism that justifies the failure to impose law and order? Anyways, I wasn’t talking about a puppet government. I was talking about our initial occupational authority.

It is not important what your critics will think of you, but what you actually get done. That’s the problem with the Republicans here: they obsess over issues of image and criticism, rather than more substantive worries.

To me, when I hear of a harder line, I think more soldiers, more territorial control- What I call it? That’s just words. Words don’t matter when people perceive the realities behind it. I don’t need to call somebody a homicide bomber in order to comprehend that they didn’t kill themselves and others in a blast for the lack of prozac. I don’t need to call them terrorists all the time to ensure my low opinion of their constant attacks on civilians.

Forget all the bullshit. It’s what we do that matters. Everything else is spin.

TomD-
We constitute forty percent of the army, don’t talk to us about not doing our part.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2005 11:58 PM
Comment #84161

Aldous,

i am eastern orthodox.. of the Syrian persuasion. Peaceful coexistence .. or death are the choices.

Posted by: jo at October 7, 2005 12:06 AM
Comment #84166

Stephen,

“Just tell me what it is about the potential for unfair criticism that justifies the failure to impose law and order?”

It matters because we ARE a democracy and the war will not be contained to a single president’s term(s). If the public is not sufficiently behind the effort and they get congress to pull out prematurely we will be in more trouble than even President Bush has painted.

This leads to a hesitant and, imo, inadequate military planning model.

Posted by: jo at October 7, 2005 12:16 AM
Comment #84187

“TomD-
We constitute forty percent of the army, don’t talk to us about not doing our part.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 6, 2005 11:58 PM”

Frankly Stephen, I’d rather you as libs would NOT do your part if it would stop all the whinning and crying.
Of course this is my opinion and I’m sure my opinion won’t change any minds on the left.

Posted by: tomd at October 7, 2005 4:18 AM
Comment #84188

jo
…sure history always comes in your preferred version… but I was at least fair wasn’t I?
And on your choices… is that because what there is of moderate and enlightened islam is not strong enough to stand up to the fundamentalists, or is it because of a political sect that resorts to the instruments of the police state?
Next door in Lebanon things seem to have at least made the break towards the better, and I notice a generation of open-minded US educated people in their 20s & 30s pushing it. You might have a better insight into this by being closer to the ground. I’m just relying on the TV, which is never the best option.

My point is there seems to be an overwhelming “us vs. them” mentality all through this blog… and every now and then it translates to Christians vs. Muslims. Which is the one guaranteed way to turn a bad situation into total disaster. Regardless of political persuasion, everyone seems a tad frustrated. You (disclaimer: I’m not a US citizen, so I won’t tell you what you should or shouldn’t do within the confines of your local politics) can’t leave Iraq, and simultaneously take one step forward & two back every day you stay there. No-one actually has an answer to the predicament, so the partisan infighting escalates.
It just might be that all of you in the western judeo-christian world really can’t do anything about it. Those who are of and prepared to re-modernise Islam are the real solution and the rest of us are passengers. No one is safe and won’t be for a while yet, but then we never were… welcome to the rest of the world as we’ve known it long before 9/11. Please just remember one thing… this is not an episode of the A-Team. There is no riding off into the sunset.

Posted by: jon at October 7, 2005 4:24 AM
Comment #84190

jon,


My point is there seems to be an overwhelming “us vs. them” mentality all through this blog

Too often i give way and respond to obviously partisan hacks intent on filling threads with rhetoric to obscure real discussion. There have been a few clean ones and some constructive dialogue hidden in the midst of many. i feel for the editors trying to offer substantive topics and issues only to have them hijacked within minutes sometimes.

Generally i objected to your portrayal of historical good relations of muslims with people of other faiths. If you suggest they treat(ed) others well, i suggest Israel coddles Palestinians.

And on your choices… is that because what there is of moderate and enlightened islam is not strong enough to stand up to the fundamentalists, or is it because of a political sect that resorts to the instruments of the police state?

Yes, Lebanon is seeing some movement on the religious front if not the racial front. And for today it would be a little of both. But as i said, i was speaking historically which began with wholesale slaughter and has slowed mostly today to the same political/social type oppression muslims find themselves under in Palestine/Israel.

…but you hit the bull’s eye here:

It just might be that all of you in the western judeo-christian world really can’t do anything about it. Those who are of and prepared to re-modernise Islam are the real solution and the rest of us are passengers.

Trying to improve relations without incuring wrath is a diplomatic tightrope i hope our current President does not attempt.

On the western side i think we should be playing a more peripheral/supportive role so i am torn with both wanting to strengthen and increase our troops there and recognizing there is really nothing more we can do. It will play out on the Middle East time table, not ours. Providing a place for democracy seems straightforward enough. It is the waiting for them to appropriate it and make it their own that is frustrating. We are done except for the dying. And i frankly do not want to see anymore death. It is in their hands now. We are at their mercy for who knows how long.

Looking down the road, from a purely personal perspective, i would suggest cutting back drastically on any ‘aid’ and rather allow them to successfully ‘negotiate’ great deals with us and brag of their superior trade skills. We may look like fools to the world.. but hey, it may take a bit of the edge off the world’s animosity toward us and make the whole world feel better about themselves! :)

Posted by: jo at October 7, 2005 6:15 AM
Comment #84205

Jo-
I agree. It’s been my position that we need to win this war regardless of how it began, because the mistakes Bush has made here have ensured that we will have a threat to our national security left behind otherwise.

Unfortunately Bush has put us in a position where sustaining this war might create a security problem in and of itself. In that case, we may have to weigh losing the ability to fight any war effectively with allowing Iraq to settle on its own.

There is, however, fortunately, another way we can do things. Unfortunately, it’s a path Bush is not willing to take. Bush must sacrifice his tax cuts, and ask Americans, one way or another to sacrifice as well. Otherwise, we don’t have the soldiers, and we certainly don’t have the resources. Additionally, people can see that Bush’s current plan isn’t doing the job. They need something they can put their faith in, and that will be a major reversal for Bush.

Bush doesn’t do major reversals.

The public needs a plan they believe has a chance to succeed. They do not want to turn around in a year and find our army depleted, inflation sky-high, or us still fighting the insurgence in a bloody war. We all want progress, and that will not come if all Bush cares about is what we think. What we think is irrelevant. It’s what he does that matters.

tomd-
We will do our part because we are not the cowards and traitors you paint us as.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2005 8:40 AM
Comment #84219

“Well, I’m very much a liberal, and I served as a B-52 Radar Navigator in the USAF, SAC, rank of Captain. Volunteered, btw.”

Congrats on that - I’m a Navy Commander and I’ve served for 17 years, including the first Gulf War, btw (Go Navy - Beat Air Force this weekend in Annapolis).

Your use of the term “puppet” reveals your clouded judgement. Karzai was elected (admittedly in an imperfect election but what election is perfect). How is he a “puppet”? Because he didn’t seize power and impose a socialist dictatorship “liberals” can live with?

OBL’s grievances need to be addressed? Perhaps we can drag back a few people from the 9th century and put them on trial, allow for the murder of every Jew in the world and blow up 4 million or so Americans. That should about take care of it. OBL should be happy as a clam at that point.

“Foreign jihadists in Iraq are a huge problem. Withdraw US troops, and the Iraqis will have very little use for the foreigners. The Sunnis may provide safe haven, but then, they already are providing that.”

The terrorists have almost no support among Iraqis at this point. They would have no logistical support either if we took out their masters in Syria and Iran. The war should be expanded to topple both of these illegitimate, terrorist supporting regimes. My argument with Bush is that he’s not being warlike enough.

“Too many Democrats, such as Kerry, support the war. The politically unpopular thing has been to oppose it, at least until recently.”

How do Democrats support the war? By whining, complaining and offering absolutely nothing in substance? By tacitly offering hope that if the terrorists hang on long enough, the pacifist Democrats will win an election and cut and run?

The Swift Boat Vets were absolutely right about LT John Kerry. He’s a selfish, stupid, egoist who sold out our troops in Vietnam.

“Personally, I think Bush pushed for the Invasion of Iraq for political gain, to whip up patriotism before the midterm elections, and distract the public from the economy. Disgusting.”

This is just inane. Congressional Democrats voted for the war prior to the 2002 elections and got beat like a drum anyway. Voting to authorize war against Iraq should have neutralized the issue, according to your delusion. The truth is that the public didn’t and still doesn’t trust Democrats on national security, because the only people Democrats are able to muster a fight against are fellow Americans.

Posted by: Brian at October 7, 2005 10:41 AM
Comment #84223

Brian,
Thankyou for your service to our great nation.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 7, 2005 11:29 AM
Comment #84224

Brian,

Well said. I for some time have suggested the possibility of a far more agressive war strategy even to the extreme of leaving a big hole where some of these idiots are hiding. Of course I get whacked by the Liberals for not caring about innocent people, etc.

American deaths in Iraq seem to increase in direct proportion to the sale or theft of backpacks.

Posted by: steve smith at October 7, 2005 11:45 AM
Comment #84227

This Islam “extremist” war against us “infidels”,
all non Islamic populations, can only be corrected
at very early childhood teaching levels. When
pure venomous hatred and religous “bullcrap” is
consistently fed to young receptive minds, more
living bombs are created for Islams Army. It will
be very hard to kill 80 million worthless souls
ruined with poisoned minds by their Mullahs so
lets put our best efforts at re-education and
rehabilitation of these abused people!
It will take a generation or two to see light
at the end of the dark Islamic tunnel which we
MUST find a way to confront EDUCATIONALLY!!
James

Posted by: James Howle at October 7, 2005 12:04 PM
Comment #84231

James,

Your goal of educating the culture and hatred out of an entire region of the world is extremely ambitious and, IMO not achievable.

Posted by: steve smith at October 7, 2005 12:28 PM
Comment #84235

“Brian,
Thankyou for your service to our great nation.”

Thanks much Ron, but this nation has done far more for me than I could ever possibly hope to pay back. The great thing about military service is that you serve in enough basket cases (e.g. Saudi Arabia), that you appreciate so much what this country is. That’s why so many of us are conservative.

Posted by: Brian at October 7, 2005 1:02 PM
Comment #84237

“I for some time have suggested the possibility of a far more agressive war strategy even to the extreme of leaving a big hole where some of these idiots are hiding. Of course I get whacked by the Liberals for not caring about innocent people, etc.”

Pearl Harbor was the tipping point 9/11 was not. After Pearl Harbor, no one was seriously thinking about our perception in the world, how other people think of us, etc., we were just worried about winning the damn war, and if that took bombing Hiroshima and Dresden into cinders, that’s what it took. We didn’t start the war, but we sure as hell finished it.

But then we had serious adult politicians then. Now we have one entire political party that was seemingly transported to 21st century from the 1967 summer of love, sex and hard drugs and another party that’s too timid to do what needs to be done.

The Israelis have said that if we don’t take care of the Iran nukes, they will. I hope we have the balls to take care of the Iranian nukes, but if they do, it’s just one more reason to love Israel.

Posted by: Brian at October 7, 2005 1:08 PM
Comment #84257

Brian,

“The terrorists have almost no support among Iraqis at this point. They would have no logistical support either if we took out their masters in Syria and Iran. The war should be expanded to topple both of these illegitimate, terrorist supporting regimes. My argument with Bush is that he’s not being warlike enough.”

Since Zarqawi’s organization has flourished, and the # of attacks by “Al Qaida in Iraq” has grown from nothing in 2002 to today’s horrific situation, and since there is a uncollected $25 million bounty for Zarqawi, it’s a safe assumption a substantial portion of Iraqi Sunnis back Zarqawi.

Escalating the war by attacking Syria & Iran is an insanely foolish idea. That course would alienate both Sunnis and Shias. It doesn’t even begin to address the problem with Saudi Arabia, from where over half the suicide bombers originate.

Israel is part of the problem. It is no more democratic than Iran. And please, before anyone disputes this, read up a little on the Israeli government & policies… no, that’s as far as I go, this should be a separate topic!

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2005 2:47 PM
Comment #84274

Nothing in 2002 to today’s horrific situation? Perhaps that was because Zarqawi was a “guest” of Iraq, as well as other terrorists such as Abu Nidal, as well as other terrorist groups, as well as terrorist training camps. It would have been entirely irresponsible of President Bush not to take out Saddam, especially after 9/11 and since regime change in Iraq was US policy since 1998 (Clinton Administration).

I also note how leftists taunted us Desert Storm vets after 1991 saying, “you lost because Saddam is still in power”. Now we’ve taken him out and apparently we’ve still lost because Zarqawi’s around.

Attacking Syria’s terrorist training camps and military bases would only alienate the remaining Baathists in Iraq, who don’t support us anyway.

“(Israel) is no more democratic than Iran.” This is an completely idiotic statement and reveals why it’s just a waste of time to even have a dialogue with the lunatic left. Please give me a few articles citing how peaceful demonstrations against the Israeli government are met with gunfire by the IDF. Please give me a few citations regarding opposition parties freely allowed to campaign for seats or oppose the Mullahs. You can’t because they aren’t.

The left was once a haven for intellectuals, it’s now a breeding ground for pseudo-intellectual poseurs and armchair quarterbacks with no solutions, only delusions.

Posted by: Brian at October 7, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #84282

Brian,
“Perhaps that was because Zarqawi was a “guest” of Iraq…”

Perhaps. Perhaps not. There is no conclusive evidence on his whereabouts then or now.

You know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush himself has stated that. And a policy of ‘regime change’ is not the same as invading.

I’m sorry those big bad leftists taunted you after the First Gulf War. Personally, I supported the First Gulf War, thought highly of Bush 41’s foreign policy in general, and agreed with the decision to leave Saddam in power.

Brian, I requested people read up on the topic before going off. Israel is no more democratic than Iran. That’s a fact. Do a little research and answer these questions:

1) Does Israel have a constitution?
2) Why does a religious symbol appear on the Israeli flag?
3) Jewish people have a right of return to Israel. Do others?
4) Can a person advocating a secular government run for office in Israel?
5) What is the basis for Israeli law?
6) Jewish people serve in the armed forces. Can others? What mechanism prevents this?
7) A Jewish person can purchase property anywhere in Israel. Can others?

Look, you can advocate support of Israel based on WWII & the Holocaust; but Israel simply isn’t a democracy unless you’re Jewish. It’s a little like saying a government in South Africa was a very fine, democratic thing because white people did so well under Apartheid.

In Iran, the Guardian Council can overrule Iranian democracy. In terms of democratic representation leaves a lot to be desired because of the Mullahs; but it’s a country on the right path, with more long term promise for the observance of human rights than Syria or Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2005 4:17 PM
Comment #84292

How do you equate this with Israel?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/world/main558295.shtml

“On June 16, More than 250 university lecturers and writers called on Khamenei to abandon the principle of being God’s representative on earth and to accept he is accountable to the people. The ruling clerics regard Khamenei as God’s representative and that his word cannot be challenged.

The demonstrations largely ended after the deployment of hundreds of security forces and unleashing of pro-clergy thugs armed with knives and batons to attack protesters.”

It’s interesting how our esteemed, unbiased, peace-loving media ignore the actions of the dictators in Iran, when peaceful, student demonstrations are met with murdering thugs.

But then of course, the Iranian students are against their anti-US government, rather than for them.

I would like to ask you how you could possibly consider a country who considers their “Supreme Leader” God’s representative on earth, is on the right path. How can you possibly spin Iran into a Democracy? The list of candidates is of one party and they are Government approved candidates, not popularly chosen.

I leave you with the best quote on this subject:

“How shady it is that our modern leftists and peaceniks can detect fascism absolutely everywhere except when it is actually staring them in the face. The next thing, of course, if we complete the historic analogy, would be for them to sign a pact with it. And this, some of them have already done.” – Christopher Hitchens

Posted by: Brian at October 7, 2005 4:34 PM
Comment #84302

Brian-
It’s a sad commentary on the war on terror if we can’t risk attacking terrorists that Syria is harboring because we’re trying to appease the party members of the dictator we just deposed.

There were no terrorist camps in Iraq worth real mention when we invaded. If there had been, you would have heard of them. Abu Nidal, I think, was shot dead by Saddam’s people, as a matter of fact. He did give haven to some terrorists, but not the ones who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

Maybe you Republicans would enjoy better popularity if you actually got results and got them in enough time to do some good. Oh, but that’s just asking too much.

As for your report, you linked directly to a mainstream media source, and if you actually bothered to ask us our thought, you’d probably get an opinion that runs like this: we agree with the people the Clerics had beat up and imprisoned. Aren’t we the people who compare Republicans to mullahs and ayatollahs when they try and push church into state?

I recall that the left weren’t the people agreeing with Hitler’s fascism before WWII. Ours was the president who prepared for war, and was ready for the worst when it came. But hey, that’s an inconvenient detail.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2005 5:04 PM
Comment #84305

The solution to the war in Iraq would be visible in a sattelite photo that showed the entire country with big holes in it (as if some kind of huge creature was leaving footprints as it walked across).

It would be accomplished like this :
A. Arrive at city 1, tell everybody to take what they want an get out.

B. Level city 1 to the ground leaving nothing

C. Arrive at city 2, tell everybody to take what they want and get out.

D. Level city 2 to the ground leaving nothing

E. Repeat steps A thru D until result is achieved.

Posted by: steve smith at October 7, 2005 5:07 PM
Comment #84306

“All of you LIBS who don’t want to support the war can just forget about it”

“TomD-
We constitute forty percent of the army, don’t talk to us about not doing our part”

Stephen, do you really believe 40 percent of the military are LIBERALS?
Many may be Dems, but liberals? No way my friend.

Posted by: kctim at October 7, 2005 5:12 PM
Comment #84338

Brian,
” Public opposition to Iran’s ruling clerical establishment is deepening, a student leader said Saturday, as officials reported that more than 4,000 people were arrested during this month’s pro-reform protests.”

That’s the lead paragraph from the article you link. Personally, articles like this one make me more optimistic about governance in Iran. It may take a long time, but eventually I believe they’ll evolve beyond the Mullahs, into a true, representative, essentially secular democracy. This is one of those cases where globalization works in our favor. There’s simply no reason to be antagonistic or belligerent with the Iranians; we can accomplish our aims peacefully, and perhaps even find ourselves allied.

We’re allied with the Israelis. Do you think the Israelis will ever evolve into a secular democracy?

Posted by: phx8 at October 7, 2005 5:47 PM
Comment #84342

Brian
Thanks much Ron, but this nation has done far more for me than I could ever possibly hope to pay back. The great thing about military service is that you serve in enough basket cases (e.g. Saudi Arabia), that you appreciate so much what this country is. That’s why so many of us are conservative.

Know just how you feel, I’m retired Air Foece.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 7, 2005 5:57 PM
Comment #84347

Stephen,
When I first enlisted in the Air Force in 1964 we had the draft. Most males 18 and over had to serve in some branch of service.
There were conservitives and liberials of every stripe serving.
After Viet Nam was over and Nixion stoped the draft fewer and fewer liberials enlisted. By the time I retired in 1984 around 85% to 90% for the military was conservitive.
My son is currantly in service and tells me that to find a liberial almost next to imposible.
So where do you get the 40% figure from?

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 7, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #84361

So much for Bush’s “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” statements.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 7, 2005 6:51 PM
Comment #84413

Ron Brown, kctim-
That’s what the surveys I’ve seen say. I could have misread them. I took a look at some similar ones, and it shows about the same proportions, except the Democrats constitute about half of the number with the other half taken by independents

I think it reflects something unhealthy in both parties that things are that way. Unquestioned trust on one side and cooked in suspicion on the other side, and between them a fracturing of the mainstream, middle class from the realities of war and its price.

We’re not a nation built to operate on unskeptical trust. We’re built to operate on informed consent, popular will, the elites being able to suggest and and persuade but not necessarily force their agenda on us.

This is my big problem with all the snarky comments made about elites: We don’t have to bow to anyone here in America, so we don’t have to tear down our elites to stand a chance of being their equals. It teaches us to treasure mediocrity, instead of taking advantage of our freedoms to become the real elite our laws and our constitution are supposed to allow us to be: people who have earned their status as the best, rather than stolen and conned and pedigreed our way into it. It’s not perfect in this country, but we don’t have to be so damn afraid of somebody thinking they’ve got a better idea. That’s what we all think. How many people post on sights like this to tell everybody how little they really know about these issues? Or how they hold a certain position, but think somebody elses is actually better?

The Real problem here is that the Vietnam war destroyed many liberal’s trust in their leaders. The war was a rock we Democrats bashed ourselves against until it crippled us. Right now, the Republicans are doing the same to themselves.

Leadership requires more than the stubborn adherence to some agenda. It’s judgment. It’s wisdom. It’s the damn results. And folks can’t wait forever on those things. I think it is long past the time when things should have been secure in that country, and if we were not so damned concerned with not appearing like occupiers, we could have had a short, productive occupation, and left the place clean so quickly that Bin Laden’s claims of our occupation being a prelude to imperial control would have fallen flat on their faces.

Instead, we persist in continuing that damn policy, which only keeps us their longer.

I support military victory in this war because instant withdrawal, however convenient, would just create a mess that either would require our intervention, or serve as a mocking example of our failure. I support policy change because I want this badly justified war over in the simplest, most permanent, most speedy fashion possible.

Then we can do what little we can to make our country safe, and our enemies’ lives more difficult.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2005 1:21 AM
Comment #84420

Stephen,
“I support military victory in this war…”

Military victory in Iraq? We already won a military victory in Iraq. Mission accomplished. Bush declared the end of military operations.

How can a military force convince one group they should be happy to be ruled by another group consisting of their enemies?

It’s not a military problem, it’s a political problem. Our occupying troops are part of the political problem.

But you’re right about poor leadership. The situation persists because the Bush administration depends upon fear. Too many Democrats lack the courage to stand up to the despicable tactics and strategies of the Bush admnistration.

Earlier, I asked a question: We all know US borders are porous, and that illegal immigrants flow into the country almost at will; yet no Iraqis have launched attacks within our borders since the invasion, nor has Al Qaida after 9/11; so why do we live in fear?

The Bush administration has stoked fear completely out of proportion to the situation.

Withdrawal from Iraq- and spare me the ridiculous false choice that we either stay at current troop levels or withdraw immediately and completely- withdrawal makes sense for US security interests.

We should not have removed Saddam; we’re sadly aware that it takes brutality to keep Winston Churchill’s colonial wet dream together as a country; but Saddam is gone, it’s done, and no one will shed a tear for Saddam. If the Sunnis and Shias and Kurds decide to have a king hell civil war, well, it was foreseeable from the beginning, and it’s a shame, but that is their choice, and we cannot go back to correct all the mistakes that resulted in this terrible situation.

We will have spent $350 billion, almost 2,000 lives, @ 14,000 wounded, and that’s just our own, never mind Iraqi dead and wounded.

Enough. This is not a situation where the military can win a victory. Time to draw down the troops. Get goin’ while the goin’ is good, because the US economy… well, that’s another topic. Maybe withdrawal will let us concentrate on Afghanistan before it gets totally out of hand, and, oh yeah, maybe we can once again get serious about OBL.

Posted by: phx8 at October 8, 2005 2:31 AM
Comment #84421

eric,

So what you’re trying to tell me, is that an extremely bright engineering student that should probably know beter, used an explosive compound so volitle that simply dropping it would set it off, and conceivably could have been thinking of commiting a terrorist act at a football game?

And you people accuse me of being a conspiracy nut.

Posted by: Rocky at October 8, 2005 2:59 AM
Comment #84441

Phx8,
I’m seriously afraid that if we followed your advice we would all be bowing to Mecca.

Posted by: tomd at October 8, 2005 9:28 AM
Comment #84442

Phx8-
I am for Military victory in that we can leave with the real mission accomplished- leaving Iraq a free and stable country. Anything less means we have to go back at some point to put out another fire. We broke this country, so we bought it. I acknowledge things are incredibly difficult right now, and I agree as to who’s to blame, but I’m not yet to the point where I think we have more to gain from leaving than from staying.

Let’s get the job done. It will be cheaper in the long run. So will taking the tax cuts off the books so we’ll be spending less of our future tax dollars on this.

tomd-
I’m afraid that we take your route, we’ll be fighting wars in that region forever. Beneath all the clash of civilzations rhetoric, what we have are people who are angered at being treated like the children of the world, people who firmly believe that our continued military battles are aimed at what they value most. We need to get things secure enough, and calm enough so they can understand our point of view on this, what brought us to this. We will never win in that region unless they understand that the defensive fear that they have for their women, their children, their nations, and their religion is what we have for ours. The worse conflicts are the ones where people fight for the same thing, in this case freedom from fear and oppression, yet talk past each other in understanding the other sides anxieties.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2005 10:12 AM
Comment #84455

Stephen,
Yes, we incurred a moral obligation to the Iraqis when we invaded their country, and we incurred a legal occupation as an occupying power. At what point will that obligation be fulfilled?

You can’t make people be free. You can’t make people practice democracy, particularly groups as disparate as the Iraqis.. For the Sunnis, whether it’s democracy or dictatorship or consititutional monarchy, it means being under the thumb of their enemies, the Shias, and the Sunnis will not accept that.

The obligation to the Iraqis is fulfilled, as much as we can possibly fulfill it, when we’ve made the opportunity available to the Iraqis.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we do not have the moral obligation to run the country for them indefinitely. The Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shias and the Hakims and the Sadrs and the Pesh Merga and the terrorists and Al Qaida in Iraq and the insurgents and the Badr brigades and the Mahdi Army and SCIRI and others will have to find a way to get along, unlikely as that now appears.

Tom,
That’s exactly the kind of fear I keep mentioning.

Get over the fear. It’s unbecoming.

Posted by: phx8 at October 8, 2005 12:17 PM
Comment #84456

For the Sunnis, whether it’s democracy or dictatorship or consititutional monarchy, it means being under the thumb of their enemies, the Shias, and the Sunnis will not accept that.

Not only do Islamics want to kill us because we’re not Muslim. But they want to kill each other because of some differance in doctrine.
And youall libs want to insist that Islam is a religion of peace.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 8, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #84460

Ron Brown-
If you look at our history, you has some pretty significant arguments about what kind of constitution we would create. What did folks do? They sat down, talked it out, decided what compromises needed to be made, and despite the differences that threatened to tear them apart, they united under one flag. If there’s one thing we failed to teach these guys, it’s that getting what you want in a situation like this is the surest way to get nothing but trouble in the end.

No, I think people can work out their differences, given the chance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 8, 2005 1:54 PM
Comment #84635

“so why do we live in fear?”

Good question phx8.
I think it is because we know this recent incident in OK was a failed terrorist operation and we know that it is only a matter of time before they succeed.
I say, we will have multiple attacks such as this one on US soil within a year and the govt will take advantage of the peoples fears once again.
I do not live in fear because of what this administration is doing, I am fearful because of what NO administration is willing to do.

Posted by: kctim at October 10, 2005 10:13 AM
Comment #84647

KC,
Good comment, though I disagree.
First, the kid who blew himself up. If you google “Joel Hinrichs,” articles by CNN and the OK newspapers conclude it was a suicide. The FBI concludes the same, that Hinsrich has no connection whatsoever with terrorism, and that he used hydrogen peroxide, not TATP.

About purchasing Ammonium Nitrate:

“Hinrichs acted strangely and was wearing a vest with what appeared to be wires in it when he asked for ammonium nitrate fertilizer.”

It sounds like this guy was mentally ill.

But the voices of fear, the right wing blogs ballyhoo this incident. The message is clear: “Be afraid!!!”

Coincidentally, the NYC subway supposedly was threatened. “Be afraid!!!”

We know illegal aliens enter the country at will. Yet no terrorist attacks occur within the US, none since 9/11, and the number of cells and suspects has dwindled to almost nothing these past two years.

I feel like the Godfather slapping Johnny Fontaine. Get over it!

Time to get over the fear, KC. Yes, lots of things can happen to us everytime we walk out our front door. Let’s regain perspective, and base foreign policy and concerns in proportion to their proper importance.

Gentleman’s bet, there won’t be any terrorist attacks within US borders in the next twelve months.

Posted by: phx8 at October 10, 2005 11:37 AM
Comment #84649

I think that the terrorists are afraid that we will wrap them in plastic sheeting and duct tape.

Posted by: Rocky at October 10, 2005 11:45 AM
Comment #84660

phx8
Funny how first reports that have not been filtered always have totally different info. than the final report.
Bet accepted. :)

Posted by: kctim at October 10, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #85685

All:

I am in no way connected with the above poster who is also named “Wayne”, he runs a blog @ babylonandon.blogspot.com. The way to tell us apart, I don’t have a hyperlink.

Just Passing Gas,
As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at October 13, 2005 6:00 PM
Post a comment