Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-08-2006, 06:43 AM   #1 (permalink)
High Honorary Junkie
 
Location: Tri-state.
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?
macmanmike6100 is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 06:50 AM   #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
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.
nezmot is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:02 AM   #3 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
**Moved to Politics**
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:11 AM   #4 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:20 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
My opinion has been that we should treat it like what it is... a criminal act.

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.
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?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:23 AM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
dksuddeth, did you not read my post?
nezmot is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:26 AM   #7 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:27 AM   #8 (permalink)
Comedian
 
BigBen's Avatar
 
Location: Use the search button
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.
__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.
BigBen is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:30 AM   #9 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
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?
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:49 AM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezmot
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.
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.
kutulu is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 08:12 AM   #11 (permalink)
Registered User
 
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.
nezmot is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 08:53 AM   #12 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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.
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.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 09:03 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBen
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.
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.
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 09:07 AM   #14 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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....
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 09:11 AM   #15 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ianChildAbuse/

Criminals or culture, you decide.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 09:14 AM   #16 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 09:22 AM   #17 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
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.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 09:44 AM   #18 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBen
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.
Did you see Munich?
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 10:30 AM   #19 (permalink)
Rookie
 
Gatorade Frost's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBen
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.
We should call them: "Rainbow Six"
__________________
I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well."
Emo Philips
Gatorade Frost is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 10:39 AM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezmot
dksuddeth, did you not read my post?
I did read your post, my question was directed at charlatan. I thought the quotation made that clear. My apologies.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 11:13 AM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Bombing civilians and invading their countries does nothing but encourage more suicide bombers...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.
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.
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 11:25 AM   #22 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 11:45 AM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
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"!
Quote:
On many a workday lunchtime, the nominal boss of U.S. intelligence, John D. Negroponte, can be found at a private club in downtown Washington, getting a massage, taking a swim, and having lunch, followed by a good cigar and a perusal of the daily papers in the club’s library.

“He spends three hours there [every] Monday through Friday,” gripes a senior counterterrorism official, noting that the former ambassador has a security detail sitting outside all that time in chase cars. Others say they’ve seen the Director of National Intelligence at the University Club, a 100-year-old mansion-like redoubt of dark oak panels and high ceilings a few blocks from the White House, only “several” times a week.
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!

Last edited by host; 03-08-2006 at 11:50 AM..
host is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:06 PM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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.
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

Last edited by powerclown; 03-08-2006 at 12:13 PM..
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:09 PM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
host,

Have you thought about publishing your own website?
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:20 PM   #26 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
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.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:31 PM   #27 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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)?
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.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:31 PM   #28 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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
Really.

How many people do you think we are dealing with?

Do you think they are getting help from other governments?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:37 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Altered our own laws so we can be more like the repressive states they appear to want to create (how's that for irony)?
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.
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:39 PM   #30 (permalink)
Banned
 
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 !)
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062701856.html
Pentagon Ends New Work On D.C. Firm's Contract
MZM to Name New CEO as Relationship With Congressman Is Under Investigation

..Government procurement records show that MZM, which Wade started in 1993, did not report any revenue from prime contract awards until 2003. Most of its revenue has come from the agreement the Pentagon just cut off. But over the past three years it was also awarded several contracts, worth more than $600,000, by the Executive Office of the President. They include a $140,000 deal for office furniture in 2002 and several for unspecified "intelligence services."

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment....
Quote:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...9-1n5duke.html
Cunningham among those who flew on tiny S.D. air carrier
By Dean Calbreath
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 5, 2005

San Diego's Group W Transportation is a private air carrier so small that until recently its entire fleet consisted of a one-16th ownership stake in a Lear jet.

Yet Group W, owned by Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes, has provided personal air transportation for some high-profile passengers – including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who has flown on the jet to such locations as Idaho for a hunting trip and Hawaii for a golf tournament. .......

......Members of Congress cannot take free trips for campaign activities. Campaign laws require candidates to pay the equivalent of first-class commercial air fare when flying aboard corporate jets. However, since private jet travel is far more expensive than commercial air fare, politicians who comply with the law are getting an expensive gift from the company that owns the jet......

.......Feingold introduced a bill in the Senate last month that would require lawmakers to pay charter fares for such flights, rather than first-class fares.

"It's time to end the charade that says that the fair market value of a flight on a Lear jet is the same as the cost of a first-class plane ticket," Feingold said. "If that fiction is eliminated, the use of corporate jets as a lobbying tool will be history." .........

.......The investigations were launched after articles in the Union-Tribune raised questions about Cunningham's sale of his Del Mar-area home to Wade, who later sold it for a $700,000 loss.

Cunningham also lived aboard Wade's yacht, called the Duke-Stir, while in Washington.

MZM has received $163 million in federal contracts since 2002. Cunningham has said that as a member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, he supported funding requests benefiting MZM.

Since launching ADCS in the late 1990s, Wilkes has built relationships with key legislators on Capitol Hill. He and his close family members and business associates have donated more than $600,000 to congressional campaigns, mostly targeted at members of the Senate and House appropriations and armed services committees, which oversee the Pentagon budget.

In addition, Wilkes has spent $440,000 on lobbying activities, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that monitors government ethics issues. He also has repeatedly provided the use of his corporate jet to Cunningham and DeLay..........

......Fossel said each owner of the plane was entitled to 50 hours per year of flight time, although Group W upgraded its ownership this spring to one-eighth of a jet, guaranteeing 100 hours per year. Filings with the FEC show that in 2001 and 2003, Group W used much of its flight time to transport politicians.

During one weekend campaign swing in July 2003, DeLay used at least a quarter of Group W's 50-hour annual allotment on the jet.

DeLay flew the Group W jet from Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C., to John Wayne Airport in Orange County to appear at a campaign dinner for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach.

When the dinner was over, DeLay flew from Orange County to Seattle, where he appeared at a campaign event for then-Rep. Jennifer Dunn. Once that event ended, DeLay used the Group W jet to fly back to Washington, D.C.

The DeLay, Rohrabacher and Dunn campaigns, which jointly funded the trip, paid Group W a total of $3,057 – about what DeLay would have paid for a single hour on the jet, if he were paying for it on his own.

DeLay's spokeswoman, Shannon Flaherty, declined to answer questions regarding the Group W flight. "He has a lot of other things on his mind these days," she said. .......

...FEC records show that DeLay took his first Group W flight in June 2003 on a trip with Cunningham. The two legislators paid a combined total of $3,765 for the trip. DeLay also used the Lear jet to fly to a campaign event for Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, in July 2004 at a cost of $2,350. The political action committee of Rep. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, also paid $1,590 for tickets on the plane.
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....
host is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 01:08 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
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.

Last edited by powerclown; 03-08-2006 at 09:32 PM..
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:17 PM   #32 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:37 PM   #33 (permalink)
Getting Medieval on your ass
 
Coppertop's Avatar
 
Location: 13th century Europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I think we are on the right path to winning this war on terror.
Whew. Boy will I be glad when we've won the war on terror. I wonder if we'll have a VT day?
Coppertop is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:47 PM   #34 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:51 PM   #35 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
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.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 03:12 PM   #36 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
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".
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 03:42 PM   #37 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 04:20 PM   #38 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
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.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 04:27 PM   #39 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
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!
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 04:28 PM   #40 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Note....Sarcasm
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
 

Tags
terrorism

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:51 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360