What are we going to do about terrorism?
 

I'm watching "The War Within," an incredible film about these fucking terrorists. What are we supposed to do? If the current administration's ways aren't working, what would you suggest *for the current administration* to do, since we have Bush in office until 2008?

It's a bit late now, but if we'd quietly infiltrated their organisations and ruthlessly killed off their leaders, rather than waging a brutal, indiscriminate, clumsy, noisy and arguably illegal war, we might have sorted it all out by now.

Instead we had to go romping about, stirring up hatred in the Arab world, exactly as Bin Ladin hoped we would.

My opinion has been that we should treat it like what it is... a criminal act. As with any policy on crime there needs to be a two headed approach.

1) Policing and prevention
2) Education

You can't solve any area that is plagued with crime without doing both of these things in concert.

Some would argue that that is exactly what is being done right now, I say that mobilizing the military (the world's largest) to chase down criminals merely legitimizes their cause and justifies their belief that the US (and it's allies) are imperialist powers.

It didn't help that the reason for going to Iraq has changed nearly as much as the wind.

How does one go about capturing the lead criminal with law enforcement when he's not in country but orders his accomplices on suicide missions?

dksuddeth, did you not read my post?

How does one go to war with said leader when he is not affiliated with any nation? How does one invade or go to war with a tactic?

Might as well go to war with the Schlieffen Plan.


The instances of terrorism within the borders of the west have been quite few (especially with in the US). Police your own borders. Work to educate the world.

Diplomacy takes longer than a bomb but it works better in the long run.

This may not be the most politically correct statement, but here goes:

I would create a team of operatives, their sole task would be to hunt down terrorists and kill them with extreme prejudice. A panel of judges (identities secret) would have veto power on the assasinations. The entire international intelligence community resources would be brought to bear.

These guys would be hard-core, extreme killers. Snipers, assaulters, demolitions, the whole gambit.

We would never know about them. They would leave no calling card. We would not parade them as heroes, nor mention thier existence. If caught, we would deny everything.

And they would be well funded. Very well compensated.

You have an oversimplistic view of the whole situation Nezmot, if you think ending our war with Al Qaeda would be as easy as putting people on the inside and killing them is a means we haven't tried, then I don't know what to tell you.

The fact is this is not just a group of you average criminals. There are several thousands of these "criminals", who are often concentrated in one region, and are heavily armed, that's why conventional military means are waged.

If we want to win this war, then we have to take off the gloves, swordfish the shit out of them, be more ruthless then they are. There are no quiet means of dealing with these people, they don't care for compromise, and at any rate any compromise that could be achieved is counter to our interests, so why even consider it?

As Mojo said, that just wouldn't work. AQ and similar terrorist organizations aren't organized like that. There aren't central bases (for the most part) and there is very little (if any) communication between cells. They do that for a reason, therefore no matter what your captors do to you, you can't reveal anything about the organization (and often little about your cell as well). These people don't spend all their time in masks with bombs strapped to themselves, many appear to be normal people. They go to work, have a family, etc. I'm sure in many cases, wives and children don't know Dad is a terrorist.

I think diplomacy is the long term 'solution' to terrorism. But diplomacy won't work on it's own. That's why we need a group that finds them, evaluates their threat level, and either eliminates them or takes them in for questioning.

Organised like what? With time, patience and enough good people, we could have flooded the 'training camps' in Afghanistan with our own people and built up a reliable intelligence network, one that would tell us what we have no hope of finding out now - for the reasons you describe.

Do you remember the most recent collapse of the Northern Irish assembly - and why that happened? It turned out that the IRA's second in command was a British agent. No wonder the IRA isn't a sizable threat any more. The British knew everything there was to know about them.

That's the kind of tactic we should have used against 'The Terrorists'. We get in, we wait (foiling attacks as they are planned) and, once we know everything we need to - we perform the coup de grace and finish them off once and for all.

Just so you know I think this is the most fundamentally flawed method you could ever have for fighting terrorism.

Criminals are motivated by greed or in some cases mental illness. They KNOW they are criminals, they are just out for themselves. These are not the motives we are facing. We are not just fighting 'terrorists' but the governments that support them. Are you going to 'educate' Iran, Saddam, the Taliban?

We are not fighting criminals, we are fighting a culture. A culture based around centralized power that regards being a homicide bomber the highest honor one can do. Mothers want their children to grow up to be living bombs (I'd be happy to show you pictures but can not on TFP). Perhaps we should arrest them for aiding and abetting?

Until the culture of these regions change, there will be no lasting peace, and until the governments are changed their will be no change in the culture.

You don’t' do that with cops.

Very interesting post...I could see this happening as well. With the Coalition spending so much in lives and currency in Iraq, I just don't see them leaving Iraq without maintaining some sort of permanent intelligence presence -- with one function being exactly as you describe above. As it stands now, I would imagine many, many contacts have been made, many relationships built, infrastructure developed, political alliances created, intelligence agents recruited...I see the Iraq of the future as a budding Middle Eastern 'intelligence foothold' for certain world powers - an ongoing presence in the region on a scale that has never existed before. The purpose of this presence will be to monitor foreign and domestic political activities, watch for potential terrorist activities, promote change and development in the Middle East, etc, etc. Too much has been invested to simply cut and run.

the problem is obvious: the category "terrorist" itself, which is little more than a political meme the function of which is to strip any trace of rational motivation behind a given action in order to set up precisely the types of responses you see above, mostly from folk who position on the right--the cromwell move: kill em all and let god sort em out.

"terrorism" says nothing--can say nothing--analytically about causes/motivations.
it does the opposite
so it can do and does nothing to shape any coherent thinking about responses.

if you assume it a legitimate signifer, then all kinds of bizarre edifices of chanelled revenge fantasy can take shape--including ustwo's surreal recapitulation of the huntington thesis---which one would assume had died out by now---but no, not in the jurassic park of outmoded conservative ideologies that constitues the big tent of right politics.

back to the op:

who is "we"?
why are there no questions being raised about the notion of "terrorism"?
on what possible basis does anyone assume that the cateogry is other than ideological, and that in the worst, most reductive sense of the term?

if one could impute irony to the responses here so far, they could be read as a kind of immanent critique of the category itself--look what happens if you take it seriously---all kinds of laughable outcomes.

maybe i'll do that....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ianChildAbuse/

Criminals or culture, you decide.

Ustwo...

I know you think that way. I know a lot of people think that way. That paradigm hasn't worked in the past and it isn't working now.

Bombing civilians and invading their countries does nothing but encourage more suicide bombers. Look at it this way, what if there was a nation more powerful than the US. Let's imagine that they invade the US. How many on this board would be willing to die to get rid of the invaders? Given the rhetoric that get's thrown about, I would hope this it would be a high number.

Yes, there are cultural differences. That's where the education part comes in. That's where diplomacy comes in.

You have to remember that these people strapping bombs to themselves are not living in a vacuum. There are tangible reasons why they do this. It isn't because they are evil. It's because they believe the same things (rightly or wrongly) that the fictional TFP members in the invaded US above believe. They are protecting their own.

This thread clearly illustrates the difference in thinking about and dealing with terrorism with respect to the right's view and the lefts. Ustwo's post is a perfect exaple of how the right views terrorism and the war on it, while roach's post illustrates how those on the left view the same problem. The rest are somewhere in the middle, as other posts in this thread show.
I guess I really don't have much to say other than to point out the obvious. Oh, that and I think Ustwo is right. But then thats my Jurassic park logic working out for ya.

Did you see Munich?

We should call them: "Rainbow Six"

I did read your post, my question was directed at charlatan. I thought the quotation made that clear. My apologies.

I disagree...they ARE evil. I agree with Ustwo: they are, currently, the Personification of Evil. They are like Klingons. There is no "protecting their own" or "fighting for country"....because as we see, given the chance they will slaughter their own at the drop of a dime. In Iraq, factionally speaking, they have no country (yet) nor seemingly the ability to compromise for one. They are unorganized, undisciplined, unprincipled, irrational, illogical, chaotic, unruly, disorderly, obstreperous, unscrupulous, unsavory, belligerent, barbarous, bungling, truculent, rebellious, ineffective, incompetent, inept, despotic and arbitrary. Speaking of the Islamofascists: they are not only evil, they are criminally insane. As we see, they are intolerant, hateful, fanatically religious, maladjusted killing machines out of step with the rest. Colonial demarcation only served to prevent unprecedented mass genocide: without it there would be no "Middle East", only a "Shiite Islamic Republic of Persia" (S.I.R.P.) stretching from Egypt to Pakistan. There is a reason why this region has been a part of one empire or another since time immemorial.

Obviously there is no justification for killing civilians. Fight and kill other soldiers all you want, but when you sink to the level of depravity that is the targeting -- the organized, institutional targeting -- of unarmed citizens, you place yourself in a mathematically unwinnable position. It is the criminal world moral equivalency to child molestation. There might be motivation (religious/sexual), but there is no justification in a world that functions under systems of secular law and order. It is a dirty game to be sure, and all involved surely have blood on their hands. Yet people are people, power is power, and the world is the world. There is strong and weak, and the strong cannot allow the weak to run the show. It is the lions who rule the jungle, not the hyenas. When has it ever been otherwise?

In saying this, I am not calling for their extermination, but for their rehabilitation. And I empathize, because they need help assimilating. So, they are getting help - they are getting 21st century shock therapy. I am hopeful. But first, they need to relinquish their delusions of grandeur and visions of Saladin and get back to work. They need to appreciate the benefits of free trade and open societies. They need to realize the power inherent in the word "compromise". They need to be willing to make deals with the major players. As we see, there is simply no tolerance anymore for the psychotic malcontent lurking in the shadows.

I am hopeful.

I would say that their actions are as evil as anyone who takes a life to forward a political cause. This is especially true when bombing civilians. Sadly neither side of this "war on terror" has hands free of blood.

Lemme get this straight.... Two days ago, I tried to get a discussion going here by bringing attention to issues that contradict "signs" that there is a true commitment by the leadership of this country to actually conduct the "War on Terror" in an earnest, honest, way that does not defy "common sense".

I started a new thread here, with the core issue....one that was akin to a punch in the gut for me, when I read it, and there was no response from anyone here.

Now, I observe the response to an OP on this thread that offers no information, yet it prompts discussion. I've wondered what it will take to get it through my head that the "theme" on this forum seems much more aligned to the theme of the entire site. The priority seems to be to promote and engage in "chit chat". "Informed" and "discussion" don't seem to require any linkage, and this thread is a "poster child" as an example of why I don't feel like I fit in here, and maybe an indicator of why the country is led by such mediocre and abysmal folks.

Consider that one of the two men who Randy Cunningham fingered as bribing him, a man who the second "Cunningham briber", Mitchell Wade of MZM (Wade just copped a plea in Federal Court, this week), has been reported to be the "mentor" of his "protege", the now convicted Mr. Wade, HAS NOT EVEN BEEN INDICTED! His name is Brent Wilkes. Wilkes best friend is Dusty Foggo, promoted to executive director of CIA, the #3 position in that agency, in Nov., 2004.

This is important enough to expose you to it...one more time. According to "Congressional Quarterly", main stream news organization with <a href="http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=about_mission">the most reporters posted to Capitol Hill....125....</a>

The 9/11 Commission "intelligence reform" recommendations were supposedly "implemented", yet we have this report, excerpted from CQ....

If... <h3>They're Evil !!!</h3>... Then.... WTF is this? Why wasn't Cunningham sentenced to death for selling out the rest of us, during "wartime", for his own, selfish gain ??? Why is Dusty Foggo still in his position, instead of being relieved of duty, pending the outcome of the new investigation at CIA? Get real....people. You're just repeating the talking points that you've been fed in speeches of the Crawford "brush clearer"!
I think that the "answers" to the this thread's OP, are available, and that they should be discussed. That requires that someone "bring up" the indicators that there is no official "commitment" to "fight" a "War on Terror". For that to happen, a requirement is an informed group of members. I don't see that there is such a group, because none of the subtle signs reveal that there is a "War"....only greedy, hypocritical, well connected, rich, mostly middle aged and older white men, "makin' money" on the hype that the shills whose campaigns that they've financed spew to the five consolidated major U.S. "news" organs.

The "terror" is the looting of the U.S. Treasury and the mountain of debt that we will leave as a legacy to our descendants, to finance false "hype" that, in response, sends the cash to the old rich, "connected" white men. There is a good chance that both Foggo and Wilkes "are CIA", and that Wilkes is actually "untouchable". The "fog" that the American public is immersed in is evident in the posts here, and the penchant for...when given the choice, to engage in "chit chat" instead of being interested in discussing real reports of the contradictions in what the U.S. government is actually doing to fight "the war". I know....I Know.... I'm just "pointing fingers"...I'm "too partisan"... that must be it!

Please re-read.
I said: "the organized, institutional targeting of unarmed citizens..."

The Coalition is not involved in organized, institutional, pre-planned attacks on ordinary citizens. The advance and development of Smart Weapons could further characterize this ideology.

The Bad Guys of course do not share this same ideology. They DO methodically plan out and kill civilians. There is a vital, critical, decisive difference to be made, I believe. And I am fully aware of the penchant of the anti-war brigade to overlook this difference or rationalize it away.

Reconstruction/Reformation = Good
Terrorism = Bad

host,

Have you thought about publishing your own website?

Powerclown... I can see the difference. I just don't see how you can possibly go to war with it.

They are not a nation. They are a relatively small group of people. Their efforts to do damage in the West are quite limited (if not spectacular). And yet, we have mobilized a couple of the largest armed forces in the world to combat them. Altered our own laws so we can be more like the repressive states they appear to want to create (how's that for irony)?

The only ones who are benefitting from a massive military response to this are weapons and logistics contractors (oh and terrorist recruiters).

I am glad to hear that you have hope for their rehabilitation. I share that hope.

In fact, if all we had to talk about was how things were progressing in Afghanistan I would be happy. That was justifiable military action. It is the idiocy of Iraq that clouds the issue.

A relatively small group of people supported by nations such as syria, iran, the former afghanistan, and saddams regime...

And this mess about altering our own laws, please point out which laws they were, because honsestly, I don't feel like I live in the repressive states they appear to want to create. I feel as freeright now as I did in 1999.

I think we are on the right path to winning this war on terror.

Really.

How many people do you think we are dealing with?

Do you think they are getting help from other governments?

Well, all I can say in response is that I'm just not surprised anymore by the cultural/political/ideological comparisons to dictatorships/hitler/fascism/etc/etc. Comparing bona fide police states to functioning democracies is curious to say the least. It has become sport, I understand - yet it's still curious. And humorous. :p

Excuse me, Powerclown... (This seems important enough to break my promise to myself not to enage you...after you did not afford me the courtesy of a response on this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...la#post1942213 to my post in a discussion that you initiated...)

I am wondering what opinion that you have advanced on these threads, concerning the "war on terror", has turned out to be the accurate "take" about how events would "play out"? Was it your "take" on WMD in Iraq, or "Good things happening in Iraq" ? Please stop taunting me, when you have no answers, and no outrage about these reports.

(The POTUS and the congressional leaders, in a "time of war", that you ardently and obviously, totally believe to be as they SAY it is... have been reported to be involved with the two bribers of Randy Cunningham... and they refuse to talk about. Signsonsandiego "broke" the Cunningham corruption story, it's own reporter did the investigative work to expose the corruption (treason ?????) that the congress and government investigatory agencies ignored !)
If you could only see yourselves.... repeating the talking points about the "threat of the terrorists", and the "War on Terror", blissful in your self imposed denial of the contradictions that scream of the pages of the newspapers that risk telling the rest of us, what IS HAPPENING....you might have some understanding about what I'm talking about....If you could see....

edit: host, I apologize for the hasty, patronizing response.

Please understand that I have no great love for Bush. I assure you I see his shortcomings as clearly as his fiercest critic. I could go into the minutiae of why I disagree with the findings in some of your reports and articles, but I won't waste your time. We've all gone over the issue here ad nauseum, and the basis of course lies in diametrically opposed core ideologies.

I'm sure you are aware that I and others of my political viewpoint can put together an assemblage of materials gleaned from the internet to support our opinions just as you do. There is no shortage of material of course -- simply a matter of time/energy expenditure. On one hand I understand your frustration, but really, I believe this to be self-inflicted - given your time and experience in these forums.

so wait---let me see if i understand this non-discussion correctly.

what stevo is saying in no. 17 is that faced with the choice between actually thinking about how issues are framed and simply following the framing that exists--no matter how obviously inadequate, no matter how dubious---the choice he--and the other conservatives who posted thereafter--would make is to follow.

in another thread, stevo at least laid out the basis for this--a kind of voluntarism according to which the taking of a stance mattered above all else. in that context, i could almost respect the position he outlined--but here it seems that the need to feel resolute works to obviate any possibility of being resolute in a coherent way. i woudl think that this might pose problems...but apparently not. go figure.

presumably the rationale for this particular display of resoluteness at the expense of coherence lay in the sad fact that the right is now in power. from this, the only conclusion i can draw is that because the right is in power, and because conservatives identify, for some reason, with the ideology for which the administration stands, then for them it follows that whatever the administration says or does is necessarily coherent, necessarily good.

but then i started thinking about what happens in this space, and it began to occur to me that maybe folk from the right who post here are trying out extreme versions of their politics here in a space that offers no pressure on them to be coherent or think independently or consider what they are doing and why they are doing it.
maybe these views are not viable in their everyday lives.
maybe the 3-d people they talk to in thsi way would laugh at them if they expressed these views in real life.
in here, laughing is confined to something that happens around the keyboard, during the act of typing, and does not translate into posts.
so maybe they can pretend no-one laughs.
they would be wrong, but who really cares?

or maybe this is a space that gives folk the chance to intellectually cross-dress, to try out the wardrobe of total, unreflective partisan loyalty and see how they look in it.

or maybe the point is an exercize in sustained submissiveness. maybe there is a charge to be had from it.

at least these speculations would explain the adherence to this kind of ridiculous "logic" you see from the right in this thread.

it certainly cannot be based on any standard of coherence.

i understand host's exasperation.
i find this kind exasperating as well.
that is why i am checking out of this thread.
it has become idiotic, and will no doubt remain idiotic.
worse, the critiques that would obtain have been made over and over and over again and--once again---conservatives here react by acting as though nothing had happened and by repeating the same old same old, using the same old kind of claims. they appear to refuse to even consider problems with their positions.
perhaps this follows from the politics they imagine that i or anyone else who would criticize ther views necessarily would hold, and they consider anything coming from such a position to be a priori wrong.
nice.

i am not sure what this is, but it is clear what it is not:
it is not a discussion.
it is not a debate.
it is not worth the time or effort to participate in.

Whew. Boy will I be glad when we've won the war on terror. I wonder if we'll have a VT day?

Hows this:

We watch carefully the actions of known terrorists, and wait until they strike (yes people will die, but they will regardless). Once we know who commited the terrorist act, we kill them, and follow the line to everyone with any assosiation with the aforementioned terrorists until anyone with the slightest tie to them is dead.

Rinse ...repeat.

Ten years down the road I guarantee there will be far fewer people willing to "lend a hand" to these people. As for known terrorist states....ever heard of a blockade.

So you recomend we operate death squads in other countries?

Thats not very progressive of you.

A blockade is an act of war Tecoyah, why not just go all out?

I find it dispicable the sense moral relativism people infer in regards to terrorists, or better yet cowardly sociopaths. Seditious doctrine applies, and that's why we won't win this "war".

Well we have to star with why they want to kill us. Is it because they hate freedom? Not really. Are they evil doers? Absurd. Is it because our government and corporations are interfering with their country to their detriment? Well duh.

Now we need to figure out what would make them stop. We can try to hunt them down like we've been doing. No one besides individuals with very high security clearence know if thet's been successful up to this point, and based on information that is leaked or available to the general public, it's really not going well. On top of that, we are seeing the slow erosion of civil liberties and the disconnect from our international allies. Seems like it's not working. So what else can we do? Well, we can cave and withdraw all military and economic interests from the Middle East. Does this mean the terrorists win? Well, yeah but so do we. Our dependence on foreign oil has cost us 500 billion(?) and the lives of thousands of soldiers just in the past 4 years alone. Not only that, but we have yet to see any real benifits from our investment (besides corporiate profits soaring, and the same corporations cutting jobs). So we basically set up Iraq and leave. Not only do we leave Iraq, but we leave EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. There is no reason for a democratic nation to have military bases in hundreds of countries. So we've pulled out all our troops...now what? We ask Afghanistan if we can go in and get Bin Laden. We ask for the support of the Afghani government, and in return we forgive their debt and give them aid. I'll bet we'd find him inside a week. When we extradite him to the US legally, we try him on international TV. We give him a fair trial (none of this holding without trial garbage). While I persoanlly don't think he's responsible for 9/11, I do think he has been responsible for many bombings and attacks, and thus needs to be brought to justice.

I'll bet anyone $5 that if this were to come to pass, global terrorism would drop off sharply, and terrorism on our own soil would drop to nothing.

Will that is an very ideal approach to the situation, one that however ideal, lacks any comprehension of power politics, foreign geo-political relations, or future vision for a nation that is at the current moment the sole hyper power. Again it has several over stated comments, or even fallicies in regards to civil liberties, the reality that nations, especially highly industrialized are run on oil, further that point to geo-political capital as other nations emerge (such as China which in 15 years time will account for 75% of the worlds consumption of oil), and how all of that effects the economy. On top of that it is greatly ignorant of the past reasons for military bases, as well as vision for the future. Having strategic military bases is like a condom, where you would rather have them and not need them, then need them and not have them.

As far as those people determined terrorists as not being evil? I find it absurd that you find it absurd. I call on your bet, and will side bet you that if your vision went down America would be a crippled shade of the nation it is now and has been in the past; although from reading your post here and other places, I don't doubt that you wouldn't want that.

Getting back on topic though, the major problem of the war on terror, like the war in Iraq, is that it has become entirely too political and it has severely hamstrung the military. I don't find myself offbase saying that it is almost a necessity to have lawyers embedded with the troops just to make sure we are operating according the anti-war, anti-America peoples wishes. In war you act swift and you act hard, that's why assholes like Al-Sadr, Zarqawi, towns like Fallujah, are really fucking up our shit, because people seem to have no concept of reality in that the bold stroke wins the battle. America loves it hegemony on the cheap, idealism and ambition without balls and grit!

Note....Sarcasm

Well I'd be interesting and hearing what you think should be done then.

One can be an idealist without being naive. Power politics are the reason there is global terrorism, so while I understand the natuer of power politics, I also recognise that it's absense would be a benifit in the "war on terrorism". As far as foriegn relations....well how are we doing in that department? On a scale of 1-10, 10 being Canada, and 1 being Nazi Germany, where do we fall? I suspect there is room for improvement, at the very least. How can we improve out global relations? It could be a simple matter of showing the rest of the world that we don't consider ourselves an empire, and then to prove it by renewing and trying to repair international relations. There is no hyper power in the world anymore. To state otherwise is to deny the last 7 years of US economics.
I think we all know that if things continue the way they are, we will not be able to compete with China economically, militarily, or diplomatically 15 years from now if we stay our current course...so it's irrelevenat to try and control middle east oil. Our military runs on money, money that our federal government doesn't have. Eventually, we will have to stop spending, or someone will ask to be paid back. Now, I'll admit that economics is not my strong suit (nor is spelling), but by my understainding, China is replacing the US as the economic hyperpower. If that's the case, and also taking into account how large their military is, we would have to back down if sometimes down the line they made a power play for the Iraqi, Irani, or Saudi oil. Technology can only help us so much.
Using your anaology: The only reason to have a condom is if you fuck people. Is it a good idea for us to be prepared to fuck people, espically our allies?
"Evil" is a subjective term. To call anyone or anything evil is to have an opinion. I'm sure one could argue that it's their opinion that terrorists are evil, but proving it is impossible. If my evil ytou mean morally wrong, then that's a matter of perspective. Fighting for one's home and religion is considered very moral for some people. I suspect that many terrorists see themselves as agents of God or their people. Every time a smart bomb misses a palace and hits a slum, killing 100 civilians, a terrorist gets his wings. They say we're evil, and we say they're evil, and neither side takes the time to find common ground or search for a REAL solution. It's absurd that both sides can't act like adults. Shame on them and shame on us.

I don't get why everyone is always yapping about repairing global relations, especially in how it relates to Iraq. It is just so naive to assume that every other country was taking some moral high road in being against the invasion, when the reality is plain and simple, they would enhance their own power at the expensive of our own.

I agree the current state of economics might not be as favorable as it has been in recent years, but China is no where near our equal economically, and they are still not close militarily. If Taiwan declared it's independence tomorrow and China made a move we would lay them to shreds as they have no lift capabilities and the 7th fleet would bury them. Our presence in Iraq curtails their growth or at the very least regulates, as such it is an asset to us; at the same time it does the same for Western Europe/and other Asian countries, therefore it's beneficial.

How are we fucking our allies? By doing something in our own interests? In that sense helping our allies hurts ourselves, that is a big nono, never lend to anothers power at your own expense. The analogy isn't about fucking people, it's just noting the reality that sometime, some place down the line, military action will be required. It is a necessity, and as a basis of government one of its sole purposes.

Evil is not a subjective term, I know some hear might like to think so. Decapitating civilians is evil, Flying civilians planes into civilian targets is evil, lynching christians in response to cartoons is evil, inciting civil war to forward a facist agenda is evil; again Seditious doctrine.

Also I have to ask, how in the hell do you figure OBL is not responsible for 9/11? Either as the predominant and widely accepted fact that he was the mastermind, at the very least he facilitated it. Please indulge me.

Working only for more power is ultimately self defeating. Globalization brings with it a price of what I call natioanl maturity. There has to be a general realization that we are now truely and completly interdependent. What happens to one country effects all countries. Invading Iraq didn't just muck up the Middle East. It has shown other countries that vast unilateral military action is the new tool of the "global free market econemy". This is going to show China, voted most likely to succede in their yearbook, that they can throw around their military in order to seize natural resources. THIS HURTS THE US. We obviously will not always be the top dog in the world, and since we kno that eventually we will need to bow to other superpowers, it's best to set an example that would benifit us in the long run. WHat if, 15 years down the line, China invades the Middle East and takes all the oil we're now spending hundreds of billions on. We will not get our monitary or military investment back in 15 years. So in this situation we've lost the money, the troops, and the resource. Why? Because we were greedy and let our reach excede our grasp. So even if you believe in US interests only this is a bad idea.
Ah but we're not talking about right this second. Foresight is always lacking in militarism. China has multiple agreements with Russia (or whatever it's called this week), which supplies them plenty of oil. China's expectation of growing future dependence on oil imports has brought it to acquire interests in exploration and production in places like Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. Despite its efforts to diversify its sources, China has become increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. Today, 58% of China's oil imports come from the region. We don';t have ANY contol over that percentage. We invade Iraq, and China gets MORE oil from the Middle East. By 2015, the share of Middle East oil will stand on 70%. Oh, BTW, did you know that China is a massive arms dealer? All they need to do isto continue providing weapons of mass destruction to Iran and the Sudan. They recently sold anti-ship cruise missles to Iran. Where we (the US) invade and conqour, China arms and makes deals. To ignore the obvious implications of that to international relations is to ignore the reason why China is such a threat to the US, particularly in the Middle East. Also, don't asssume that China is so militarily inferior to the US.
1) Nukes:
2)Conventional Forces:

China just increaset military spending by 14%...and they are not spending it on Iraq.
Military bases in the US = defensive. Military bases around the world = offensive. Militaries are NEVER supposed to be used offinsively. We have the technology to launch a military strike on anywhere in the world from US shores in under 12 hours (I don't have a link for this one, I asked my uncle who works in intelligence). The only reason to have military spread around the globe is a show of power and intimidation. Do you really want to be the school yard bully?
Hahahahahah!!! Awesome. Do you really want to get in an evil-off? Do you really want me to list all the evil things the US has done in the past 50 years?
You're more than welcome to join the ongoing discussion in Paranoia about 9/11. I would appreciate your input on my math in post #166, or my chemistry and physics in post #171.

Is this really the answer? Is this really the way to stop the Islamofacists from doing what they do?
Regardless of their words? Regardless of their deeds?

Because,
If we figure out why people rape, will it stop rape?
If we figure out why people steal, will it stop robbery?
If we figure out why people murder, will it stop murder?
If we figure out why people like fried foods, will it stop obesity?
If we figure out why people smoke, will it stop cancer?
If we figure out why people burn stuff, will it stop arson?
If we figure out why people do drugs, will it stop traffickers?
If we figure out why people cheat on their spouses, will it stop divorce?
If we figure out why people beat their kids, will it stop child abuse?
If we figure out why people idolize celebrities, will we stop Hollywood?
If we figure out why people join gangs, will there be less street crime?
If we figure out why people cook the books, will there be fewer Enrons?
If we figure out why people call in sick to work, will we improve economic efficiency?
If we figure out why people commit suicide, will we stop suicide?
If we figure out why people get depressed, will it stop depression?
If we figure out why people terrorize, will it stop terrorism?

Have you ever wondered why banks have locked vaults?
Have you ever wondered why man discovered how to use tools?
Have you ever wondered why people are so fascinated with space?
Have you ever wondered why the history of mankind is one of continuous strife, warfare, misery and suffering?
Have you ever wondered why organized governments, even peaceful ones, have armed militaries?
Have you ever wondered why people mutilate their own bodies?
Have you ever wondered why Hitler is a cult hero?
Have you ever wondered why people post pictures of their sexual organs in public? (I might do this too, but it wouldn't be pretty.)
Have you ever wondered why the porn/gambling/videogame industry worldwide is valued at over $450 billion?

I have to say, I am skeptical.
Is the answer, then, to be immersed in trying to decipher the myriad behaviors and motivations of people?
By deciphering the motivation of subjectivity?
Is there rationality to be found in the innately irrational?
Is it worth the time to figure out? Would an answer be good enough?
Would one have the fortitude to sustain that understanding?

Did the Romans have Psychiatrists?

Powerclown, please reread the quote you chose from my above post. I wrote: "Now we need to figure out what would make them stop." That quote goes beyond simply asking wehy someone does something. It moves onto the next tsep: learning how to control that behavior.
If we could figure out how to make people stop rape, then we could make people stop raping. If we could figure out how to make people stop comitting murder, then we could make people stop comitting murder. Do you understand?

I agree that it's not enough to learn why people do the bad things they do. You need to figure out what it would take to make them stop.

The romans had philosophy, but not formal psychology. Let me say this: I believe that no human behavior is completly irrational. War, which gave birth to terrorism, is not the solution to terrorism. I have found that in any situation in which two parties are posturing, mutuality is the first step towards a solution. Neither one of us, terrorists or imperial militaries, wants to be fighting. We should start from there.

If I recall, the terrorists do want to fight, is that not the premise of their Jihad?

Ah but as I said we have to find the reason why. The Jihad didn't come from nowhere and for no reason. The terrorists fight to an end. There is a goal. There is a reason for them to fight (whether you agree with them or not). It's just like our war on terror. We didn't just one day decide to go kill members of the al Qaeda. They have been linked to dozens (hundreds?) of terrorist attacks and attempted attacks all over the world. They threatened us, so we went after them - and ended up in Iraq...oh well.

Did you ever wonder why the al Qaeda does what it does?

I know why they fight...

Something to do with some tired old Caliphate reestablishment...

There is the fighting for honor because of the great embarresment of the Turkish Empire and all subsequent colonial bullshit...

Something about Eradicating the jews...

American presence in Saudi Arabia...

SOme pretty stupid bullshit if you ask me, and by and large that is some of their more legitimate claims.

I've heard a lot of people ask, "Why do the terrorists hate us?" I've considered a ton of political, economic, military, and even religious problems that occoured or are occouring between the US and the countries of the Middle East. There are plenty of reasons for them to hate us, but one thing should be made clear: Arabs are asking "Why do Americans hate us?". Please read the whole article linked and posted below, as it communicates exactly what I'm thinking.
The following article is from http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...MuslimsAsk.asp
This article was written no more than 2 weeks after 9/11.

Do the following news reports influence any of the posters here who unquestioningly believe the Bush administration's declaration of a "War on Terror", against "evil doers" who .....to consider the following questions:
If we really were in the middle of the fifth year of <b>fighting Mr. Bush's "war on terror", in earnest, against a "real" enemy</b> that actually was a formidable enough threat to justify the expense measured in American blood and treasure and the "bluster" that comes from the mouths of Bush, Cheney, et al, would I be able to ask the following questions and post the following observations.....would I, ....really??

I doubt it...but you don't...what would it take....for you to doubt it...to stop repeating the Foxnews and Bush/Cheney/Rove phrases, as you seem to...in unison.
No more talk of "they're evil".....or the "homicide bomber" "Foxism".

Is it not "odd" the the "number 1" named conspirator, Brent Wilkes, who bribed Randy Cunningham...paid him at least $636,000, is still walking around, unindicted? Odder still that Wilkes is the best friend of....until recently, an undercover CIA agent of 22 years, who is "number 3", at CIA? And even odder that the Union Tribune in San Diego just reported that
Is it "odd" that, if not for a newspaper reporter in San Diego, who "broke" the story that Randy Cunningham was taking massive bribes to sell his influence on Pentagon procurement decisions, to Wilkes and his protege, the now guilty Mitchell Wade, it would still be "business as usual"....Cunningham would still be in congress....pressuring the Pentagon to buy things that it didn't need to defend our country, in exchange for more cash from Wilkes and Wade.

Isn't it odd that the chairman Jerry Lewis of the congressional Defense Appropriations committee, even now avoids launching a formal inquiry into the damage to our defense....in wartime"... that Randy Cunningham actaully cost, or to find if other members of congress were also accepting bribes?

Isn't it odd that the White House <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000058.php">refuses to disclose</a> just what it paid Mitchell Wade's company...with the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701856.html">people's money</a>. for? Or....why Tom Delay or his pastor and former chief of staff, Ed Buckham, won't disclose what influence Brent Wilkes bought with the more than $500,000 that Wilkes paid to Buckham's ASG lobbying entity, which employed Delay's wife, Christine, to not perform a "no show" job.

Did congressman Bob Ney act "oddly", when he entered praise for Brent Wilkes in the congressional record, oddly reminiscent of a similar action that he performed on behalf of convicted lobbyists Abramoff and Michael Scanlon?

Isn't it odd that two scandals, "Abramoff" and "Cunningham" can involve so many government officials and so much money, with a commonality that much of the money enriched members iof the ruling politcal party and their election campaigns, but almost nobody here talks about them? Is it just easier to chat about a vague "war on terror" that does not change the behavior of those charged by the American people to manage it as quickly, efficiently, and as inexpensively, and...of course,
<b>AS OPENLY</b> as possible, with more serious enforcement of all laws, and with the stiffest possible penalties for those who break the law and weaken our security or are "war profiteers"? Isn't actually undermining the "war effort", a crime that deserves to be examined, discussed, and railed against, more vigoroulsy with the attention and vitriol directed against those who merely ask questions like the ones I am asking, or engage in peaceful protest and dissent as they lawfully conduct themselves as per past constitutionally guaranteed precedent?

Why, then the silence, the acceptance, the lack of curious comment, the lack of outrage, the blind, lockstep, recitation of conservative republican official talking points? Odder still, when we observe that the "support" for failure, duplicity, and by intentional negelect....open, unchallenged and uninvestigated corruption committed by key intelligence, defense, and congressional officials, duing wartime, and at the expense of all of us, even those who once called themselves "small government, "fiscal conservatives"!
<b>Odd that Foggo's identity was in a classified status as recently as earlier this year, but Wilkes was able to "go visit him" during his overseas assignments? Wouldn't it be more likely that Wilkes would not even know where in the world Foggo was, if his identity and his missions were classified?

Indeed...as recently as three months ago, this news report describes the CIA website's description of Foggo's "status:
</b>
<b>Damn "that host"...he doesn't believe our prezinent !!
What's wrong with that boy? Dosen't he know that we're a "nation at war"?</b>
Nope....I look at congressman Jerry Lewis's reaction to Cunningham's unlawful armtwisting of Pentagon procurers, and I have to conclude...no official probe by Jerry, no real committment to a "war". Foggo's still at CIA, Wilkes is walking the streets, unindicted. Must be a phoney war, or...... many officials are traitors....one or the other.....

I honestly wish I knew. Unfortunately my understanding of the depths of this issue is limited by time, and lack of motivation to deal with something that has been with us for centuries, as an immediate threat. My belief is simple:

Regardless of tactic, we will not end terrorism because we decide to kill terrorists.

The current "War" on terrorism is ,in my opinion, misguided and more a political tool than a serious attempt to address the core issues.

By occupying a country for undefined reasons (in the eyes of the terrorists), we have only made matters worse, and unfortunately justified (again in the eyes of terrorists) the reasons for the underlying hatred that leads to these actions.


I dont pretend to know the path to peace in this situation, but I do feel the direction we are going is counter productive if the desired result is less death and fear.

I had a wonderful and complex response written out and then I hit post while my wireless was off line... lost it all. Now I'm grumpy.


The gist of it was this. There will always be terrorism (one could argue that there always has been some form or another of it). This "war on terror" is just another piece of trumped up bullshit like "the war on drugs."

The people who are profitting from this are the people in the arms trade and logistics.

The occasional death in the West by terrorism from the Middle East is the price of doing business the way we do business in that region.

Given that reality the only way to mitigate against further attacks (because they are going to happen anyway) is to police and educate (i.e. diplomacy).


In other words, the realy solution is to wean our nations off oil. Stop the need for Middle Eastern oil and you stop the need to be in the region. End of confict. As this is *not* likely to happen... get used to terrorism and war.

First of all, perhaps the reason why this thread is a little more successful than your own is because I'm looking specifically for open discourse and would, at least, keep my thoughts on it specifically out for the moment. Regardless, I think it's a wonderful sign that just a short thought could spark so much debate.

Regarding the actual content of the thread, I think we see two sides pretty clearly: work with the world to achieve our goals or do so with strong military efforts.

I think that the seeming point of the war -- at least among those who wanted to go in the first place -- was to bring less death, less fear, and eliminate a specific threat. As we're all aware, terrorism is not a 'specific threat' (it's a methodology, an intelligent poster pointed out, rather than a clearly-delineated national body). Because of that, we've spent billions for troops, munitions, and equipment without an exit strategy.

What can Bush's administration do, I think? Not necessary to pull out of Iraq (although I'd prefer it to free up money for things like, I don't know, *education*) but most definitely necessary to get to Clinton-year diplomatic relation quality levels. Follow the money and stop it at the source.

Very broad, I know, so let's keep working on this (I kind of laughed a little, because it sounds as if this is our job). In any case, thanks for your comments

First we have to get our damn media out of our military's business. Terrorists don't need spy networks, they just need cable tv. But everyone's so trigger happy to be the first to expose some great evil that the US is doing, no one stops to think that they might be hurting our cause over there. The fact of the matter is that war is a nasty terrible thing, and until the last 40 years or so the general public was sheltered from all of the bad things that go on. Now everyone is almost to the point of saturation with war time coverage.

Secondly, I think we need to model our efforts after the Isrealis. If anyone knows how to survive over there its them. If they can fight off the rest of the middle east by themselves, then think of what we could do. Of course they are reminded about every month or so why they are fighting because its their neighbors that are getting blown up on busses and in the mall and coffee shops. While America is patriotic only when its convenient.

Will, something was uncovered last year that I'm guessing you didn't read. An excerpt goes something like this: http://cryptome.org/alq-terr-man.htm

And these are the people the left wants to reason with. These are the people we need diplomatic talks with. People that don't believe in diplomacy, but : "The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun." - I'm not making this shit up.

They have told us clearly why they do what they do. We are UNBELIEVERS so we are INFIDELS and we deserve to die. They want to create their islamic state, regain the glory of the caliphate. They have told us this, yet there are still people in this country that think terrorism stems from poverty and descrimination. IF that was true, then al-qaeda's stated goal would be to end poverty and descrimination of muslims world-wide, not to kill all the infidels and create an islamic empire. Until everyone can come to realize this is their stated goal and agenda - the REASON they fight us, the cause of their Jihad, then we will always have a divide in this country.

That is so sweet. Thanks Will. That is the nicest thing anyone has said about Canada in a long time.

*sniffle*

I owe you one, man.

Actually Stevo... those aren't the people I am talking about when I say we need diplomacy.

I am talking about strengthening ties to the millions of moderate Muslims. I am talking about reaching out to the people who are being taught by these ignorant Immams that spread the hate.

Part of the reason why they have some much power in the first place is that the nations like Iran (prior to the revolution) and Saudia Arabia have been propped up by the Western powers. Free Speech and freedome of assciation have been squashed out of existance, except in the Mosques.

Moderate voices in Iran were silenced in the face of their inability to combat the US led coup of Mossadegh. They were seen as ineffective. At the same time any public debate was squashed.

When the revolution came about in Iran it could be traced back to the coup of Mossadegh and the support of the increasingly tyrannical Shah.

In Saudia Arabia there have been a few attempts at democratic reform (reform in general) but those were squashed by the House of Saud who let's the more fundamentalist Immam's get away with what they want in order to maintain an unsteady hold on power.

Neither of these situations would exist without the west's support. Why the support? Oil.


I am not blaming it all on the West. I am saying that our need of oil and love of oil profits has lead us to continue to want remain in the Middle East. Because of its strategic importance to, well, everything in the West, we have often taken a heavy handed approach and bungled relations. We have aided in the creation of conditions that gave birth to the very terrorists that we now fight.

As I said above. Get used to it. We will never rid ourselves of terrorists. It is the price of doing business the way we continue to do business in that part of the world.

Going to war with it exacerbates the situation. Better to accept that it is going to happen. Police and defend against the inevitable (much like we do with crime) and work better our associations with the people on the ground so that we lessen the conditions that bring about "terrorists" in the first place (most importantly the people the Immam's recruit).

I agree that we need to strengthen ties to the millions of moderate Muslims. But where we disagree is how that is done. You can't have diplomatic talks with syria or iran, asking them to allow free speach and free expression. When they say no, how do you reach the oridnary muslim? I think by doing what we are doing in iraq, we are strenghtening the ties to moderate muslims. Don't take the media's word for it, take the moderate muslims in the regions word for it. By completing the job in iraq we are giving the iraqis the freedom they wouldn't have received through diplomatic talks with saddam. Once they have that freedom they are able to decide for themselves if they want to die for the Immams' cause or live a free life with the opportunity to do what they couldn't do before. They can get on the internet, not like the chinese can, but like westerners can, unrestricted, access to all sorts of information. Thats the gift we give the iraqis, the frredoms that would not have been given to them through talks with saddam.

Who are these moderate musilms?

I missed their last protest over terrorist acts.

There are iraqis that tell coalition troops where roadside bombs are, where the insurgents are hiding. There are iraqis that don't want any more war and only want to get on with their lives. While they aren't vocal against the islamofacists, I don't feel threatened by them. I would consider them to be moderate...

Stevo, my best response to this is to ask you to sit down and speak with a muslim about tha above quote: "The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun." The reality, as I understand it, is that there are almost no militant muslims in the world. I've read the Qu'ran several times, and the book preaches respect of other religions ESPICALLY Judism and Christianity (people of the book). Even the most right wing muslims know this to be true. The onyl people who fit into the "we're going to kil the infadels" catagory are maybe a few thousand muslims out of millions and millions. You know what? Other muslims hate them for it. Can you imagine if some Christian started a war because God told him to? Oh, wait, our president did. Hey, how do you think that makes us look to them? Maybe the same way they look to us!

Also, no one wants a muslim empire. They want a theocratic monarchy at most. The only thing they want is for us to leave. No military presence. No xommercial presence. No industrial presence. It's that simple.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...n-bahrain.html
http://www.vichaar.org/2004/08/06/in...nst-terrorism/
http://gopvixen.blogs.com/gop_vixen/...s_protest.html
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20051...0234-2315r.htm
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/20...ms_march_t.php

Very, very few Muslims support the terrorist actions of radical fundamentalists.

thanks for raising the level of this thread a bit, folks.

ambient condition no. 1 that explains something of the drift in this thread.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...802221_pf.html

the driver of this is obvious:
it is a direct function of how the entire "war on terror" has been framed since 2001. it follows from a choice, based on political expediency, made by the bush administration, concerning how best to market itself by marketing a new, vague "war."
the primary function of this "war" is, in the long run, to replace the cold war in providing an ongoing legitimation for reagan style military keynesian economic policies.

which makes of it an instrument in conventional domestic politics--an issue across which resources are diverted by a political party to the social faction that supports it most consistently.

the price of the focus on this vague, worthless category "terrorist" in this context=the structuration of a type of socially legitimate racism.

that the cateogry "terrorist" is a vague composite image of arabs=self-evident.

calls for the transformation of the united states into a state terrorist apparatus, the intermal political regime of which would be dictatorship, rationalized in the name of an absurd "war on terror"=displaced racism.

dictatorship=a political regime that is not bound by law. what folk from teh right above are calling for, whether they see it or not, is the reduction of the united states to a huge terrorist organization militarily. the discourse of "national will" that mojo in particular seems fond of is a rationalization for an (illegal) clampdown on domestic dissent.
the expediencies introduced by this administration--you know, illegal wiretaops and all that=fine with these same folk because they see legal parameters as an obstacle to efective state action. thsi kind ofshit comes directly out of carl schmitt. it si central to his notion of the state of exception, which, for him, requires dictatorship. teh argument, in this end, from schitt=efficiency of dictatorship. you should read some of his work. it is unnerving, particularly if you know the history of its usage as a legal rationale for fascism in germany.


the category "terrorist" is such that there is nothing to be done about it.
the category "terrorist" is about mobilization of political support in the united states for an otherwise wholly bankrupt ideology, and a wholly incompetent administration.
period.
another way: if you think about the world across the cateogry "terrorist" you are looking the wrong way around: this category is only useful if you are trying to explain a modality of political mobilization within the united states. the analytic question opened up via the category "terrorist" is the producton of consent in the united states.

as for conditions that obtain in the world: the cateogry "terrorist" strips any possible meaningful context away from a given action.
it unifies phenomena that have no reason to be unified.
corrolate:
most actions have been carried out by small, unrelated groups.
in some cases, you have continuity of organization--in many you dont.
it follows then that consistency of agency is the exception, not the rule. or is it? this is undecidable, isn't it? how do you fashion a coherent strategy if the most basic aspect of the object against which this strategy is to be directed contains this kind of undecidability at its core?

so even at the most rudimentary strategic level, the cateogry is an obstacle to thinking--not to speak of action.

another way: the category "terrorism" is an editorial position taken as to the content of the actions, not their origin---you cannot easily move from thinking about content to thinking about sources.

another explanation for the cateogry: it reflects the ideology of a vertically organized nation-state style military apparatus, which finds itself in a nearly intractable bind if it is called on to react to an enemy that is not organizationally the mirror image of itself. the strongest strategic element these small groups of militants have going for them is this organizational assymetry.
because nearly all military strategic thinking is predicated on conflict between nation-states....responses that attempt to blur the kind of problem posed by small horizontally organized groups into vertically organized nation-state style organizations results in situations of the blind application of force coupled with a total lack of feedback loops. so information concerning what the military is doing that would be available to the military itself as a mean to modulate its actions---this at the most basic level----would be problematic at best.
conflict would pit a vertically organized military apparatus against an enemy it cannot find.
in this context, recourse to torture is the worst possible move because it generates information shaped by the desires of the questioner--that is, fit to the system requirement that a "real' nation-state style military apparatus lurk somewhere behind the "fiction" of small horizontally organized units.
the outcome of this--moving in a striaght line logically and demonstrated repeatedly since 9/11/2001, is a variant of hysteria---the most likely outcome=death and destruction on a huge scale that would be totally ineffective in terms of stopping "terrorism"--

it is in fact worse than this: the very brutality and incoherence of this type of state terrorist action would function as a great recruiting tool for these organizations--while being worthless (except by chance) in terms of accomplishing a goal of fighting them.

conservative "resoluteness" in a context shaped by this type of ideological incoherence results in the support for state terrorism. period. because incoherent conflict motivated by fear of a phantom enemy that is everywhere and nowhere--particularly when supported by racism---results in nothing coherent, only endless violence.

but conservatives in the states--for whom nothing is materially at stake in all this--feel better.
so the category "terrorist" serves a therapeutic function.
nothing else.

caveat at the end of a long post: i am not saying that the u.s.does not have enemies nor am i necessarily saying that these enemies should not be fought--what i am saying is that nothing--and i mean nothing--coherent can or will happen so long as this idiotic notion of "terrorist" operates at any level in thinking about either these adveraries or conflicts. the thread itself demonstrates this: at each point where a coherent debate/conversation happened above acorss positions, it required a de facto abandonment of the category. that posters reverted to it in the end speaks to the therapeutic function of the category itself--they prefer to feel as though something is being done in the present context. i too think something is being done in this context--a fiasco is unfolding that will make the u.s. less safe---politically less credible----militiarily less imposing--because the outcomes of incoherence ideolgically, militarily play out as theater for the rest of the world. incoherent violence becomes what "we" are.

stevo, four hours before you made the mistake of representing discredited material, exposed in April, 2005 in the "Ricin Terrorist Trial" in the UK as a 2001 US DOJ propaganda "OP", most likely compiled and distributed in the '80's by a US intelligence agency for the benefit of "our side" in the war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan....

Here is the thread link, and an excerpt.....
(Written in response to Mojo_PeiPei "pulling" the same "material" out of his "hat"....or from....???)
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...62#post2022762

<i>Sorry to bring news that your "smokinggun" was discredited last year in the UK "ricin terrorists" trial. I wrote about it in a <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1751493&highlight=ricin#post1751493">TFP thread</a> that you posted to, but you apparently didn't read the news articles that I linked to... in April, 2005, when it happened...it was well reported in the UK and in the US. The "manual" that you cite, was exposed as a US DOJ misinformation "OP". It was apparently actually compiled in the '80's, possibly by one of our own intelligence agencies....</i>
Later in April 2005, the British Government forced the Guardian UK to remove the above article from it's website:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04...s_ricin_piece/ and it was later restored.........

So what exactly is the article saying Host? That the guide doesn't exist, or it is merely from an earlier time?

Here's the rest...Mojo_ please also read my response to you on
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...62#post2022762

...and...George Smith got a "plug" for his work on the trial....from the Post...

rarely do i get into politics but...
 

...i found this in thursday's 03-23-06 usa today... i know it's long but i found it very interesting - in fact it reminds me of the 60's - 70's when the theory was that russia was influencing the young in America against the Viet Nam war by promoting the nationwide protests... make them mad enough and they'll get careless - hank

linkage

btw, i spent a good 20 minutes looking for an appropriate thread for this rather than start a new one... think about it

George Orwell would have a field day with you guys. If I didn't think it would be pointless to try and get the most of you to put some real critical thought onto the subject, I would elaborate- but I don't have to, my views have already been expressed.

One thing I will say though: The war on terrorism isn't meant to be won- it cannot be. It's meant to do exactly what most have been doing in this thread- make you curious as to how to achieve victory without recognizing how absurd and impossible it really is, and then make you willing to take most drastic and unwise measures to try and achieve a victory.

Ergo erosion of liberties, u.s. effectively being a pseudo-democracy (and therefore a de-facto police state), and creating a "crisis of state legitimacy." This is how the terrorists win. You want to win the war on terror? Stop helping the terrorists win.

We can stop terrorism by removing the racist leaders who insist on attcking innocent people for personal profits.

Please make your mind up and either post to add to the discussion or not at all. The whole "too good for you guys and this conversation" genre of posts is pretty lame. If you'd just left this part (that I snipped above) out of your post, your main point would receive more attention - and maybe then we'd be approaching "enlightenment".

I'll elaborate for him. Orwell's 1984 depicted a country which was perpetually at "war" with an unseen, nebulous enemy. Because there was no clear definition of who the enemy was, the war never had to end. And the government used the war as a vehicle to control its people - by stripping freedoms in the name of fighting for the country's survival.

Sound familiar?

It really does seem like this administration is using 1984 as an instruction manual.

Shakran, I don't think Ubertuber was objecting to his arguement, rather he was pointing out that Rainheart, if he wants to contribute, should contribute. Shit or get off the pot. Don't waste everyone's time by coming in and coping an attitude that suggests all here are beneath him... That verges on flaming.

That said, I can agree that parallels can be drawn between the Orwell's ongoing wars with Eurasia.



So, in effect, you are agreeing with the Bush policy of removing Saddam... or are you talking about your own leadership being removed by the vote or impeachment?

There is a difference to note between our government and the former Iraqi government: one is the responsibility of the American people, the other is not. While there are many governments around the world that do terrible things, we (the people of the country where the government is in question) are responsible for fixing our own problems first and foremost. Can you imagine Nazi Germany going into a third world country and removing a dictator who was guilty of ethnic clensing?

I have no problem imagining this because they did. Protecting the Volga Germans from the terror of the Soviet autrocities (no worse than any other Ukrainians at the time) was a key excuse in the Nazi invasion of the USSR. There were others, and it certainly wasn't the most important, but it was included. A quick history lesson - the Volga Germans were Germans who immigrated to Russia (specifically to the Ukraine) in the mid 18th Century, primarily under Catherine II (the Great) and Alexander I. They built their own villages and weren't entirely integrated into the general population since German remained their dominant language and they remained primarily Catholic, although there was some erosion of both of those by the October Revolution of 1917. They were later persecuted by Soviet authorities for perceived complicity with the enemy, although there was significant resistance to Nazi rule by the VG's.

History lesson aside, let's remember of the true aims of the Nazi thrust into the USSR, specifically the Ukraine. They were after oil, and "liberating" the Volga Germans was an excuse on their way to reserves in Georgia and the rest of the Caucasus. Sound familiar to anyone?

You people act like we're in iraq barreling up the oil and shipping it to the US for free. This oil argument is old and dead.

no kidding. If we were there for oil, why am I paying $2.50 a gallon for gas?

Nothing like eliminating the competition to artificially inflate prices and post record profits.

Why would you be paying less?

Did the oil industry start running a non-profit venture?

If memory serves, the last time that the oil industry was hammered about fuel prices was right after katrina, when barrels of oil suddenly jumped to over $70 bucks a barrel because of fears of 'supply'. So seeing that we get most of our oil from comes from the western hemisphere, like canada, mexico, and south america it would only make sense that if we were suddenly trucking in millions of barrels of oil from iraq (of which we only get 19% from the middle east anyway) then supply would not be an issue, oil prices would drop in the US therefore making gas prices drop instead of rising like they have the last few weeks.

In addition, why invade iraq for oil? It seems kind of far away, as opposed to say, Venezuela. If we invaded venezuela for their oil it would be cheaper since its closer, it would yield at least as much. We'd still have the arguement that we're taking out a despot regime and liberating the people. But no, 9-11 was orchastrated by bush and his cronies for the oil (and ultimately a facist police state run by the trifecta of evil Bush-Rove-Cheney). If he's smart enough to pull that conspiracy off why wasn't he smart enough to blame venezuelan terrorists and invade south america? At least its in our hemisphere. Probably wouldn't have the problem with islamic extremists and a forien fuelled insurgency. Too bad I wasn't tapped when they were planning the 911 conspiracy.

We have this in the US... it's called the CIA. Field agents are often ex-military personnel highly skilled in specializations such as weapons, stealth, demo, etc. While their used to be more public use of them to assassinate foreign dignitaries, global "laws" stopped that. However, to assume that they do NOT still have such missions is ignorant. They have access to MUCH international intelligence. They also have personnel in place that DO monitor and "veto" or give the go-ahead to various tasks and operations. Agents in many positions are denied acknowledgement if caught. Also, they ARE well funded.

dksuddeth: there has actually been very little oil pumped out of Iraq at this point, it hasn't been stable enough to allow for exploitation... whether the US invaded for oil or not.

stevo: I don't support the theory that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government. I believe they used the fear of future attacks as a way to get what they wanted (i.e. invade Iraq). I don't think there is anyway to argue against that. It was just smart PR.

My belief is that this war was being planned well in advance of Bush winning the election. That it was on the agenda for Cheney and Rumsfeld from day one of their taking office.

This map of the Iraqi oil fields (http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf) was being passed around in closed meetings between Cheney and the heads of the US oil industry. At the same time, they were discussing the fact that sanctions against Iraq were about to be dropped. Corporations from around the world had tendered bids to exploit the various fields. This task force also had a list of these bids (http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf). There were no US companies on that list because the US would not allow it. The US oil industry was about to be shut out of the biggest untapped reserve of "easy oil" (i.e. easy to access) in the world.

One of the first things that the US did, after attacking Iraq, was declare all of those negotiated deals, null and void.

The US has had a long history of supporting the US oil industry. Iraq represents one of the greatest untapped reserves. To serve this up to Big Oil, makes strategic sense.

1) You get rid of a despot.
2) You might get a stable democracy in Iraq
3) You get oil reserves under the control of US corporations (i.e. oil and profit flow the the US)
4) Your friends in the oil industry are greatful for the additional income (this is remembered when you are out of office)

The think tank, New American Century, lays most of this out in detail (except for the profit to your friends, that just follows) in the missives found on their website.

I don't know why people are resistant to this, it makes perfect strageic sense when looked at it from the NAC point of view.

I wouldn't catogorize the arguement as old and dead, but I'm certainly not saying that this is the only motivating factor for us being there. Given that Bush started planning the invasion as early as 12/01, I think that there is more to it than a simple grab for oil. There was certainly an "unfinished business" mentality in the White House from the early days of the administration. There were other pertantent reasons, but I have no intentions of discussing them in this thread.

Wars are rarely if ever a single issue action, and this one is no different. Certainly the Nazis invaded the USSR for reasons other than the Caucasian oil fields, and I doubt that you'll find a historian alive who would be willing to public state that was the sole reason.

If 19% is an insignificant amount, please send me 19% of every paycheck that you get, Stevo. :D I promise to put it to good use. There's also the possibility that the intention to increase that percentage was circumvented by the unanticipated insurrection.

The oil is just one of the many profiteering moves that make businesses want the war to continue. The others include reconstruction (which attracts a large array of different businesses) and arms manufacturers.

The reason gas prices are high is because they are run by unregulated businesses. Imagine if the demand for oil dropped (and we all started driving hybrids)- would the price drop? No, it would raise, they would have to make the customer somehow pay for the lost profits.

If the supply of oil was at an all-time high, would the prices drop? Even if they did, I don't believe they would drop as much as they really should. Incentive for higher profits would be the same reason.

The aim of business in the industrialized economies of the world at the moment isn't to provide the customer with a decent product at a reasonable price- it is to perpetually increase profits by any means necessary. The implications are literally killing thousands. But they are actively attempting to raise the complicity of the populations in their respective nations, and doing quite well too.

In line with Charlatan's last post- I do want to point out that I don't believe there is one sole think tank responsible for shaping policies in government and businesses. There are a lot of institutions who take up the task of outlining the actions to conduct and measures to take for the United States. For example, the Daily Show makes a habit of interviewing such people to give a glimpse of how they think, and last night they were interviewing Michael Mandelbaum and were discussing his book "The Case for Goliath".

I searched for a video of the interview but I couldn't find it. Had I been able to, I could easily give you a direct translation of the policies that Michael Mandelbaum was supporting. If I do find it, I will post a link, make a transcript, and tell you what the message behind every sentence he utters is.

Regarding the question of what we are going to do about terrorism, I found the following Al Jazeera news video very enlightening on how difficult the solution to this problem is. I believe the woman gave very insightful information that I think most of us would agree with, but take special note of the response given her. "You are a heretic, and not worthy of rebuke."

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.a...050wmv&ak=null

I wouldn't say there is only one either, NAC is the just the most obvious (given the content of their arguments combined with the membership and it's affiliations with and within the current US administration).

Reconstruction is a good point as well. But so is war itself. Actually using the weapons means they have to replace them. There is big business in suppling the weapons and tools for war.

Seen in combination, these three things (war, reconstruction and ultimately oil) are good for the US economy. The seed of democracy and more or less, permanent precense in the Middle East, are good for foreign relations (at least as they are seen from a particular point of view).

If you mean the seed of democracy in the Mid East and such, well, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. To be honest I think that whole book, "The Case for Goliath" works out more as an attempt to rationalize away all the terrible negative effects of a war economy. We believe for example that democracy is a good thing, but in the context of how the system works in the United States, not many people would agree.

The problem I think is also that we assume there is a real democracy in the works across North America right now. But as far as I can tell, it's a very limited democracy and we fail to recognize it for it's problems. Realistically it seems effectively more like a hegemony than a democracy. In the U.S. and Canada alike, there is an indirect democracy where representatives are elected by the masses based on how the masses perceive those representatives. The problem is that once they are elected it is hard to get them out of office once their term expires, and they are not effectively bound to act as the electors wish for them to act. Instead, they are swayed by the people who help shape how the public perceives them, and who pay their expenses to allow them to step into office- and those are the people who run profitable businesses.

The businesses of course expect the legislators they have helped bring into office to help them make their businesses more profitable. On it's own this sounds harmless, but it can be deadly. Furthermore this type of democracy undermines the real point behind democracy, the very original definition which means "the common people rule". In reality it becomes "the elite rule". It can become, and I believe in many ways has become, the same crappy governments the common people have had to deal with for centuries.

Now, would you wish this upon every person in the world? Where do we get our balls telling the middle east to adopt our policies? It's effectively the same thing, but it fools their public into believing that it's better than it really is. Many of them understand this however, so many of them are not so quick to welcome "democracy" with open arms.

I'm not saying their hostage taking and terrorism and insurgencies are righteous, far from it. Terrorism is a threat to every person on earth and we need to unify in solidarity to stop it. But as they say, if you want to make the world a better place for all to live in, you have to start with the person in the mirror.

Like I said, as "seen from a particular point of view".

How it ultimately plays out is yet to be seen.