Is America still in threat of terrorism?
reply ur opinion with reasons pls....
quote:
Originally posted by jittujz
Is America still in threat of terrorism?
reply ur opinion with reasons pls....
When has it not been? From before and during the Civil War, to the Spanish American war, to the KKK, to the Communist and Nazi threats, to homegrown like Timothy Mc Veigh,,,, Any country at any time is in threat of terrorism.
Yes
More so now than before.......
Reason..?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/seal.gif)
Even though people got different opinion about terrorism, all conclude in the aspect that it is a real threat, which should be banned or even should be treated as crime.
but still there is one aspect which i want to mention about ....TERRORISM in One mans eye can be others defence against rudeness....
wat is ur opinion about Using terrorism as a way 2 achieve freedom to a country(which lack man power compared to the other)?
(Aside: This topic should be moved to politics.)
As Ghandi, Martin Luther King...even Woody Guthrie and others have shown us, there is another way. An oppressed minority (or majority) can achieve the same ends through peaceful protest. Killing innocent people in order to further a political cause is therefore unnecessary. It is slaughter; it is a sin, and all sons of Abraham...other cultures too...recognize it as such.
Occasionally, some fringe group will persuade its followers that killing women and children is a necessary, even righteous, tactic. That is a lie. These fringe groups are no better than street gangs, and they should be arrested and treated like the ordinary criminals that they are.
You talk of terrorism as a tactic for groups that lack the manpower to deliver freedoms to a country. I say that what these groups truly lack is the moral justification; the clarity of purpose; and the patience, courage, and confidence that it takes for to win through peaceful means.
If they had that, then they'd have all the manpower they need to change the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
(Aside: This topic should be moved to politics.)
As Ghandi, Martin Luther King...even Woody Guthrie and others have shown us, there is another way. An oppressed minority (or majority) can achieve the same ends through peaceful protest. Killing innocent people in order to further a political cause is therefore unnecessary. It is slaughter; it is a sin, and all sons of Abraham...other cultures too...recognize it as such.
Occasionally, some fringe group will persuade its followers that killing women and children is a necessary, even righteous, tactic. That is a lie. These fringe groups are no better than street gangs, and they should be arrested and treated like the ordinary criminals that they are.
You talk of terrorism as a tactic for groups that lack the manpower to deliver freedoms to a country. I say that what these groups truly lack is the moral justification; the clarity of purpose; and the patience, courage, and confidence that it takes for to win through peaceful means.
If they had that, then they'd have all the manpower they need to change the world.
....were'd I put my rosey glasses...ah, there they are....nope, doesn't read any better.
While you're out doing your sit in on Baghdad Square, don't be surprised when someone comes from behind and wacks your head off.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Quote....were'd I put my rosey glasses...ah, there they are....nope, doesn't read any better.
While you're out doing your sit in on Baghdad Square, don't be surprised when someone comes from behind and wacks your head off.
I say that terrorists should be hunted and treated like criminals. And somehow that puts us at risk? What's your recommendation? Seriously. I'd like to know how you plan to put the next few decades in perspective. At various places and times, people were scared of the mafia. Luckily people overcome those fears and act in ways that will accomplish something. I don't need adult diapers to get though the day. Do you? Seems like, if you are afraid of getting your head whacked off, then the terrorists have achieved their objective.
We don't need to live that way.
CL, while I don't disagree with you, one case that always gives me pause in the discussion of terrorism is John Brown--was he right or wrong? After all, he did use terror to accomplish his goals. I wouldn't argue that he was the reason that slavery ended, but he did free at least 11 slaves. Do the ends ever justify the means? I would argue no, but then I was never a slave. Perhaps I would argue that John Brown's murders were entirely justified, if I were one of the freed slaves. If you believe that John Brown was correct, then terrorism becomes less about immoral methods of war, and more about the actual ends. What ends justify terrorism? Surely those committing terrorism believe their cause is justification.
Abolitionists existed before and after John Brown. He didn't end slavery, and I think that by the time Harper's Ferry happened, the North and South were already tilting towards war. I consider Brown a historical sideshow; of the times, but not the martyr that started the Civil War.
Do the "ends ever justify the means?" I think that the means and ends are inseparable. I don't care how noble the cause, you can't support it through irresponsible actions. That's delusional thinking.
That goes for terrorists and neocons, alike. What's the difference?
Again, don't really disagree, and I am not trying to bait anyone into an argument. I just thought it might be interesting to have a philosophical discussion with someone whose opinion I respect. I don't think that the discussion of terrorism is quite so black and white sometimes. Specifically, the question of what constitutes terrorism and who is really innocent has many gray areas. I wasn't arguing so much about John Brown's grandious acts to make a statement (ie, Harper's Ferry), but about his specific acts freeing specific slaves. Was he justified in killing homesteaders in Kansas in order to free their slaves? The eleven slaves who were freed after Brown killed their masters probably feel so. If terrorism is a horrendous, brutal act carried out in order to strike terror in one's enemy, didn't we do just that when we bombed Hiroshima? I am not saying that we terrorized Japan, just saying its not always so clear. Was Hiroshima not terrorism because the women and children were not innocent? Because we were at war? Terrorism has been around forever, and has always been difficult to identify (kind of in the eye of the beholder). Was the Trojan horse a brilliant tactical move, or an early example of terrorism?
The same could be said for the word "patriotism". One persons patriot is another persons terrorist/freedom fighter/rebel/lunatic. Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, patriot, lunatic, or all of the above? Depends on who you talk to, but there are plenty of people who believe "patriot" is the correct term.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
The same could be said for the word "patriotism". One persons patriot is another persons terrorist/freedom fighter/rebel/lunatic. Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, patriot, lunatic, or all of the above? Depends on who you talk to, but there are plenty of people who believe "patriot" is the correct term.
That's right. The redcoats called us insurgents, then they quit and we became patriots. To the victor belong the semantics.
So was the American Revolution a "noble" war? Or was it just a war that we happened to win? Could we have won it by tossing more tea in more harbors? Search me, but I'm sure glad we did. That was then, and you'd think we'd be smarter by now.
My point is, there are plenty of struggles left for humans....heck, every day there will be struggles. But when we butcher each other, the point we were trying to make gets obscured.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Again, don't really disagree, and I am not trying to bait anyone into an argument. I just thought it might be interesting to have a philosophical discussion with someone whose opinion I respect. I don't think that the discussion of terrorism is quite so black and white sometimes. Specifically, the question of what constitutes terrorism and who is really innocent has many gray areas. I wasn't arguing so much about John Brown's grandious acts to make a statement (ie, Harper's Ferry), but about his specific acts freeing specific slaves. Was he justified in killing homesteaders in Kansas in order to free their slaves? The eleven slaves who were freed after Brown killed their masters probably feel so. If terrorism is a horrendous, brutal act carried out in order to strike terror in one's enemy, didn't we do just that when we bombed Hiroshima? I am not saying that we terrorized Japan, just saying its not always so clear. Was Hiroshima not terrorism because the women and children were not innocent? Because we were at war? Terrorism has been around forever, and has always been difficult to identify (kind of in the eye of the beholder). Was the Trojan horse a brilliant tactical move, or an early example of terrorism?
I guess it comes down to what is worth dying for and what is worth killing for. There's a difference. There are probably people out there willing to die for free checking, probably a few others willing to kill for it. I'd speculate that these are two very different, very stupid, sets of people. There's probably a third set of idiots who aren't willing to kill or die for free checking, but don't have any qualms at all about others dying or killing to keep their checking free. As far as free checking goes, I like it; I'll switch banks for it; but I'm not any of those idiots.
But there are certainly things that I would fight and die for, so on somebody else's scale, I'd be an idiot, too. Somebody else will always say you overreacted, you could've "talked that out", gone on strike, or whatever.
You just have to do the best you can and be willing to face the consequences. I think that people who are living in constant fear of decapitation are being played by Osama
and Cheney. The threat is real but not grave. It warrants global police work, spying on people and the flow of money. Fight it like you fight organized crime, with informants, bribes, targeted raids, etc. But this global bloodbath rhetoric is over the top, and unhelpful.
I think we might be on the same page.
I imagine I'm in a real minority on this subject, as with many other subjects, when I say I believe that the term "terrorism" is used way too broadly. When a person or group is labeled "terrorist", the term detracts from ones ability to understanding the causes behind certain actions (right or wrong) and their potential solutions.
It's not so much the term, the label is usually well earned, it's more that we really aren't interested in problem solving at that point. As a gov't, our only potential reactions to these types of actions are either violence or choosing to ignore for strategic purposes. There's rarely any real effort put into solutions.
It is a thin line between the terrorist and the patriotic. The edge of the razor is more easily defined. We today to the world are the greatest terrorist since the days of the Romans who lined the roads to the city with crosses on which they executed their enemies. We used nuclear devices on the women and children of Japan to show the enemy could not protect their families. We are terrorizing the people of Iraq as we are killing their women and children to demoralize the citizens to turn in our defined terrorist.
We fought a civil war, not about slavery, but about the right to tax the slaves. It was two years after the civil war had began (1862) before the slavery issue was brought up. Lincoln's wife was a southerner from a plantation destroyed. Remember our Alamo shrine? It was a church built by Mexico.
We terrorize the world with our nuclear threats but the only ones that fear us are the small countries the are trying to develop them. Those countries that have developed them also know of the retaliation time cycle where we cannot hide quick enough.
Being not a religionist person I can begin to see some things were foretold as one seeks to worship in the future that is not open to us as we use our noble justification for justification of our faults. It is all foretold when we look in the mirror.
America will always be under a threat of terrorism.
We (our government) have always known that there were groups who were plotting to attack us on our shores, it was the attack on 9-11 which really seared the idea into the public consciousness.
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
America will always be under a threat of terrorism.
We (our government) have always known that there were groups who were plotting to attack us on our shores, it was the attack on 9-11 which really seared the idea into the public consciousness.
We'll always be under a threat of home-grown terrorism too.
And if the terrorists did indeed "sear the idea into the public consciousness", then the terrorists already have a claim to victory. The lesson of 9-11 should be far broader than "theysa out ta gets us. Break out da guns."
Poor Jar Jar Binks impression IMO.
On this, and a few other forums, the most common response to almost any anti-terrorism tactic is "the terrorists can claim a victory."
No.
The terrorists can claim a victory because they were able to get past us and take down two great American landmarks and kill several thousand of our citizens. And if we continue doing what we were doing before 9-11 (which was virtually nothing) they'll do it again.
Home-grown terrorists? Sure there are, and more than likely they'll do something, too, But if we do nothing, they will attack, too.
I must say I do not understand this attitude that we should do nothing, because if we do, the terrorists will win.
Why do you think they're called "terrorists"? It has little to do with murder or destruction, and far more to do with "terrorizing", creating the fear of murder or destruction. Just like when those nutballs were sending envelopes full of flour during the anthrax scare, that is a terrorist act. Flour doesn't kill anyone, under the conditions of the time, flour was used to terrorize.
The short term victory is partially in knocking down buildings or mass murder, but it's far more that we know quite well that it will happen again. And we fear it, either because we know that no matter what we do we'll always be vulnerable to some degree. Instead of limiting those vulnerabilities, our gov't chose to invade and keep it's own people terrorized by the threat of "it will happen here again." That's exactly what Al Qaeda wanted. So yes, they're still winning. Al Qaeda knew quite well that they'd never win tactically. That was never the point. All they wanted was to be in it, and make us pay in treasure and blood.
You're analysis is way too simple. "They're out to get us, they're evil, get em." There are ways to win, that route just makes them multiply. "Al Qaeda" in all it's various forms is probably quite content to have us invade any country in the Middle East. It's the greatest recruiting tool they have.
That's kind of like saying that when a bank hires an off-duty cop, spends millions of dollars on video surveillance equipment, then the bank robbers have won.
Or when major retailers have those "item detectors" at the exits which occasionally go off, making an innocent customer wait while someone goes through their purchasers then the shoplifters have won.
When the buildings came down, you can bet the people within the terrorist rings rejoiced because they knew they indeed won. But I have a feeling that none of them party when they see us taking a defensive stance. I don't think even they consider that a win.
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
That's kind of like saying that when a bank hires an off-duty cop, spends millions of dollars on video surveillance equipment, then the bank robbers have won.
Or when major retailers have those "item detectors" at the exits which occasionally go off, making an innocent customer wait while someone goes through their purchasers then the shoplifters have won.
When the buildings came down, you can bet the people within the terrorist rings rejoiced because they knew they indeed won. But I have a feeling that none of them party when they see us taking a defensive stance. I don't think even they consider that a win.
You choose some interesting examples. What you describe is risk management. Bankers put in cameras hire guards to deter bank robbers. They also work with law enforcement in a coordinated strategy. They do what they need to do in order to reduce the risk to the point where their customers feel that they, and their money, are safe.
Banks don't declare "War on bank robbers". First, everybody knows that is a bunch of meaningless, rhetorical garbage. Second, even if it were a real strategy (and I don't believe that it is), it would be a really bad one. Who is the enemy? As long as they continue to keep the money in banks, there will always be someone new who will wave a gun around to get at it.
Everybody knows that somewhere, someplace, a bank will be robbed today. Yet, we don't live in fear of banking. Banks don't sensationalize the problem and blow it out of proportion. They don't try to scare you to death, either. Its not in their interest to do so.
Its not in America's interest to scare everyone, so why is that the message we hear from Bush and Co.? Because fear is good politics. Why are we "warring" on terror, when it makes more sense to police it? Because declaring "war" sounds tougher than "protecting the innocent". Regardless of how it sounds, its bad policy. Somehow, these idiots let the rhetoric drive the policy.
I wish they would declare "war" on closing up our ports and points of entry. I wish they would declare "war" on finding allies in other countries to spy on and arrest these terrorist creeps. You get it yet? This tough-talking, fear-baiting, rhetoric is no way to run a country.
Like the bank, we need workmanlike strategies to reduce our vulnerabilities, identify and find the bad guys, and bring them to justice. We need America to feel confident and secure, not scared. Then we can get back to business. If we can do that, then the tersts will NEVER win.
quote:
Like the bank, we need workmanlike strategies to reduce our vulnerabilities, identify and find the bad guys, and bring them to justice. We need America to feel confident and secure, not scared. Then we can get back to business. If we can do that, then the tersts will NEVER win.
Interesting choice of words. "We need America to
feel confident and secure. . ." Personally, I'd rather
be secure. We must go for much more than feelings.
^ That's fine. Then let's hear your plan to end bank robberies. How long is it going to take to win your war on bank robbers?
In the meantime, since bank patrons cannot BE 100% secure when they go to a bank, does that mean they should stop using banks altogether?
Exactly my point - you should never let your guard down. When you do, the robbers/muggers/burglars/terrorists win.
Don't let your friends pollute the earth. If you do, the terra-ists win.
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
Exactly my point - you should never let your guard down. When you do, the robbers/muggers/burglars/terrorists win.
We're not guarded. Port security has huge holes. We've barely tried at all to secure our borders. You're point doesn't even speak about "security" against terrorism. You've avoided it. Banks do, what our gov't does not do.
Banks do not try to scare you. Banks do not round up and kill those who could potentially be criminals, or all people that somebody pointed out as possibly being a criminal, or their relatives. Banks do not bomb suspected targets, create collateral damage and collateral fatalities. Banks do not purposefully spawn new criminals.
Our gov't does all those things under the rhetorical flag of "strike em there so they won't strike here." Invading a country does not prevent them from coming here. Like all terrorism, it's just a matter of time. We can reduce those possibilities by actually working on security at home. Until now, we have avoided security.
Yeah . . . thanks to the special interest groups, our hands are tied to do that which is necessary.
quote:
Originally posted by LilMikey
Yeah . . . thanks to the special interest groups, our hands are tied to do that which is necessary.
This should have been completed about the time we began the invasion of Afghanistan 5+ years ago. Up until recently, the GOP could have passed anything they agreed upon. They didn't agree. Congress and Bush were at odds with each other the entire time on immigration/border security. Primarily corporations on one side, weird little Neocon factions on the other. Token participation by immigrant rights groups (the fall guy).
I'm relatively certain that at least immigration laws and border security will finally be strengthened in the near future. If points of entry are controlled, it will give a big assist to intelligence and law enforcement.
Does anyone really think we can make ourselves safe from terrorism? It's good to be prudent, but building a wall across our southern border is preposterous. It comes from the same people who believe that gated communities are safer and downtown is dangerous.
I challenge anyone to name a large public operation in Tulsa that is safe from terrorists. The refineries, the port, the drinking water, the airports, the high rises... ad infinitum. I personally walked into the refinery looking for help one day and stunned the workers. It was innocent to me, since 911 was so recent it hadn't sunk in, but I completely avoided their security.
Its trite I know. But if you want peace, fight for justice not for resources. Talk to your neighbors before you put up a fence. Like one vet I saw interviewed on Fox this past weekend said, "War doesn't work. We need to try other stuff."
quote:
"War doesn't work. We need to try other stuff."
How profound. Tell that to the Jews who survived concentration camps and managed to be freed by Allied forces.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
"War doesn't work. We need to try other stuff."
How profound. Tell that to the Jews who survived concentration camps and managed to be freed by Allied forces.
Hugs! Lots of Hugs!
Hugs are to terrorists as Kryptonite is to superman.
Whatever happened to that pig bullet rumor?
If you look at the history of the modern day islamic terrorist groups,you will see that they are very paitent when it comes to their attacks.
They have no problem putting a few years in between attacks and dont ever think we will stop them.And each one gets bigger and bigger!
Wow, pork fat carpet bombs...
BTW, the bank analogy doesn't hold water.
Terrorist cannot be equated to bank robbers. The ultimate end game of bank robber is to take money not take lives; a HUGE distiction. The end game of a terrorist is massive loss of human life. We are aggressive against terrorists because of this distinction.
Also, we put police officers in banks to ward off bank robbers and put in place security measures like vaults and passwords to keep them out. We don't pretend there are no bank robbers when they are waiting outside the door.
The security measures used by banks are not on the scale that we use to prevent terrorist attacks, but that has more to do with the stakes if left unchecked. We are proactive against terrorists because the threat of mortal danger to great numbers is infinitely higher.
If every time a bank robber robbed a bank we had a massive loss of life then I think we would all be demanding far more in the way of protection.
Also, as far as I recall, I don't remember bank robbers forming clans such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda and forewarning people they were going to rob banks, and if they did, you can be we'd be ready for them when they came. More than likely they would be "pre-emptively" arrested for conspiracy to rob a bank if they telegraphed their intent like Al-Qaeda does.
Again today we see another terror plot foiled in the UK, on top of the one foiled last summer against the airlines. Proactive tactics save lives.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Banks do not try to scare you. Banks do not round up and kill those who could potentially be criminals, or all people that somebody pointed out as possibly being a criminal, or their relatives. Banks do not bomb suspected targets, create collateral damage and collateral fatalities. Banks do not purposefully spawn new criminals.
That's because robbers don't kill 3,000+ people at a time (more if they could) and do billions of dollars in property damage to iconic structures. Robbers don't try to ignite explosives in their shoes on full to capacity planes. Robbers don't seek to use chemical and nuclear weapons. Robbers don't profess an interest in wiping entire segments of the world off the map... I like my apple, how's your orange? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
That's because robbers don't kill 3,000+ people at a time (more if they could) and do billions of dollars in property damage to iconic structures. Robbers don't try to ignite explosives in their shoes on full to capacity planes. Robbers don't seek to use chemical and nuclear weapons. Robbers don't profess an interest in wiping entire segments of the world off the map... I like my apple, how's your orange? [;)]
It was one of your Pro-War buddies that brought up banks. A spectacularly useless analogy equating security at banks with the invasion of Iraq. To the point he was trying to make, the analogy was contradictory at best.
quote:
That's kind of like saying that when a bank hires an off-duty cop, spends millions of dollars on video surveillance equipment, then the bank robbers have won.
Or when major retailers have those "item detectors" at the exits which occasionally go off, making an innocent customer wait while someone goes through their purchasers then the shoplifters have won.
When the buildings came down, you can bet the people within the terrorist rings rejoiced because they knew they indeed won. But I have a feeling that none of them party when they see us taking a defensive stance. I don't think even they consider that a win.
Oranges are fer smashin'. Not fer lookin' at.
I think it was Chicken Little who equated the "war on terror" to a "war on bank robbers" you should re-read the first page...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I think it was Chicken Little who equated the "war on terror" to a "war on bank robbers" you should re-read the first page...
Ok. Have it your way.
I think one thing that's been overlooked in the war on terror is that security IS better than it was pre-2001.
It's not the "flypaper theory" in Iraq that's keeping terrorists from launching other attacks here; it's that it's harder for them to do so.
Airlines now have air marshals, which should have been implemented a long time ago. Security at airports is better. And the doors to the cockpits are reinforced. (Remember that whacked-out teenage kid earlier in 2000 or 2001 who kicked a hole in a cockpit door?)
Then you have Flight 93. People are no longer playing the "give the hostage-taker what he wants" playbook. Passengers are ready to take the gloves off, which is a good thing, and probably gives many would-be hijackers pause.
That's true. Even security at Sea Ports is much better than it was. It's not 100% yet. Security around Chemical and Nuclear facilities needs improvement. Intelligence and law enforcement appears to be more active and more coordinated.
The real danger is that as time goes on, we'll simply forget that these things need to be done. And the war itself is sort of a distraction from security. The administration asserts that our invasion of Iraq is preventative. If you believe that to be true, security isn't so necessary.
Robbers kill people all the time, but that's not the point. We weren't talking about the criminal's motives and objectives. We were talking about how society chooses to counter the actions of these criminals.
IMO, these bands of trrrrsts are plain criminals. For all intents and purposes, Al Qaeda is just a bunch of thugs at this point...just like bank robbers, the mafia, and street gangs. They do receive some support from theological nut jobs (which means the nut jobs are criminals, too), but they don't have open support from governments (anymore) and don't have open support from mainstream Islam.
Sure, they may have a Robin Hood-like appeal to larger groups of mainly impoverished muslims, and that's a problem. But I think that it is not the wacky ideology that is so appealing to these throngs. Rather, it is this notion of resistence to a superpower that has things all f'ed up. If we do better in the Middle East, then they do worse. That's a policy problem.
As for combatting the gangs directly, I think you use the same kinds of methods that you do to hunt organized crime. Go after the money. Use informants. Infiltrate. Isolate them. Protect the Public.
Fear, while politically useful for both the trrrrsts and Cheney, is not helpful. It hurts us as a nation and causes us to undermine the very foundation on which this country was built. War, though it has a certain rhetorical flare, is not a productive strategy either. Most of the throngs on the muslim "street" think that the US is warring on them. Again, it helps the bad guys more than it helps us.
We have to recognize that our strategies have failed. Every time Cheney mumbles "mushroom cloud"; every time we invade the wrong country for the wrong reasons; we inch our way towards the reality that everyone, except the trrrsts, wants to avoid.
Will we ever end up having to blow the sh*t out of some country again? Maybe. Afghanistan was the right move at the right time. But military action is just one tool in the toolbox. Somehow, the US left the rest of the tools back at the house. A small fraction of the money that is being spent on Iraq could be used to screen every shipping container that comes into this country. A tiny amount of that money could be used to bribe somebody into handing over Osama. A fraction of that money could be spent on building up relations with countries where these goons hide out, isolating and marginalizing them. Our bad.
quote:
Airlines now have air marshals, which should have been implemented a long time ago. Security at airports is better. And the doors to the cockpits are reinforced. (Remember that whacked-out teenage kid earlier in 2000 or 2001 who kicked a hole in a cockpit door?)
Then you have Flight 93. People are no longer playing the "give the hostage-taker what he wants" playbook. Passengers are ready to take the gloves off, which is a good thing, and probably gives many would-be hijackers pause.
Amen!
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I think it was Chicken Little who equated the "war on terror" to a "war on bank robbers" you should re-read the first page...
Clarification: 'Twas Wrinkle who brought in the bank robber analogy. I thought that was an ironic reference because we don't live in fear of bank robbers and feel compelled to declare war on them.
We do what Wrinkle said. We protect the public; make it hard for them to do what they do; and hunt them down. They're criminals. And I think the trrrsts are criminals, too.
I stand corrected by the Chicken!
So, do we support this group in the executive branch to stop terrorism? Do you support these procedures?
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=340571&rel_no=2
Seems unAmerican to support this type of rule...
quote:
IMO, these bands of trrrrsts are plain criminals. For all intents and purposes, Al Qaeda is just a bunch of thugs at this point...just like bank robbers, the mafia, and street gangs. They do receive some support from theological nut jobs (which means the nut jobs are criminals, too), but they don't have open support from governments (anymore) and don't have open support from mainstream Islam.
They don't need it. Al-Qaeda may be just a bunch of thugs, but they are constantly planning events which would cause mass death if executed (I.E. UK plane event). That doesn't even account for people like President Tom who has diplomatic ties to Russia/China and receives military equipment from them. Someone who is actively pursuing the bomb, and has stated that Israel and the US should be wiped off the map. How would you negotiate with him?
quote:
If we do better in the Middle East, then they do worse. That's a policy problem.
The problem is, we can't negotiate with people who feel as these individuals do, there is no "policy" that will solve this problem. We are not dealing with the Soviet Union who didn't want mutual annihilation. These idiots worship the day that such a scenario comes.
quote:
As for combatting the gangs directly, I think you use the same kinds of methods that you do to hunt organized crime. Go after the money. Use informants. Infiltrate. Isolate them. Protect the Public.
I agree that this is a large part of the picture, but by no means the whole. Whenever we attempt to put in place programs to accomplish these means we are told that civil liberties are being violated.
quote:
Fear, while politically useful for both the trrrrsts and Cheney, is not helpful. It hurts us as a nation and causes us to undermine the very foundation on which this country was built. War, though it has a certain rhetorical flare, is not a productive strategy either.
What one categorizes as fear, many including me, categorize as realisim regarding current events. It was a laze faire attitude towards terrorism that allowed 9/11. I'd rather not revisit that again.
quote:
Most of the throngs on the muslim "street" think that the US is warring on them. Again, it helps the bad guys more than it helps us.
I think you are hyperextending your point. I would highly doubt that most muslims in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia think that we are warring against muslims, Palestine maybe... If that was true, why are the Saudi's helping us formulate plans to deal with Iran?
quote:
Will we ever end up having to blow the sh*t out of some country again? Maybe. Afghanistan was the right move at the right time. But military action is just one tool in the toolbox.
Agreed.
quote:
Somehow, the US left the rest of the tools back at the house.
What makes you think this? Was it because we did use force? I recall 17 different violations of the Iraq War cease fire that were violated. Obviously Hussein was not interested in diplomacy anymore. Those tools only work if your opponent engages in honest debate.
quote:
A small fraction of the money that is being spent on Iraq could be used to screen every shipping container that comes into this country.
Agreed.
quote:
A tiny amount of that money could be used to bribe somebody into handing over Osama.
Already exists.
quote:
A fraction of that money could be spent on building up relations with countries where these goons hide out, isolating and marginalizing them. Our bad.
Building up relations with whom? Iran, President Tom? Musharraf? I thought we were friends with him. Karzai? I thought we were friends with him already.
Diplomacy only works with those who wish to engage in the process. The US enaged in plenty of debate and diplomacy before GWII as we had ample reason to go in after the cease fire of GWI was violated the first time, let alone 16 more times.
Why aren't more people demanding that we should have engage the Taliban diplomatically? Why are they so unlovable?
^"Diplomacy only works with those who wish to engage in the process. "
That's not US!
Surveillance of Soldiers' Blogs Sparks EFF Lawsuit
Defense Department Withholds Records About Army Blog Monitoring Program
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0131-01.htm
"According to news reports, an Army unit called the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell (AWRAC) reviews hundreds of thousands of websites every month, notifying webmasters and bloggers when it sees information it finds inappropriate. Some bloggers have told reporters that they have cut back on their posts or shut down their sites altogether because of the activities of the AWRAC. EFF filed its suit after the Department of Defense and Army failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about the blog monitoring program."
John Perry Barlow rocks!
This policing will be coming to a web site near you soon....perhaps even TulsaNow!