Can terrorism be stopped by any President?
 

Sometimes I wonder if it really matters who is President. Does the President of the US have enough power to completely stop terrorists? It just seems like there is so much hatred in the world today, I mean the muslims and jews have been going at it for centuries, how does one person change that? Just wondered what others thought...

I have always thought that wars are fought against proper nouns, like states or organizations. Waging war against concepts like "terrorism" can only lead to more frustration.

Terrorism cannot be won by any president. Terrorism will never cease to exist, but a president can make terrorism either better or worse, in our current situation, he is making it worse.

Absolutely not. No matter how many terrorists we kill there will always be more who are willing to become martyrs. We can make it more difficult for the terrorists to have a sucessful attack, but eventually we will get hit again.

It really pisses me off when people want to look at the fact that we haven't had an attack since 9-11. You can count on one hand the amount of terroist attacks that have occured within the US (ie USS Cole and embassy attacks don't count) and they have been far apart. If we lived in Isreal, where terrorist attacks occur on a regular basis and then there is a sudden decline, then yes you could take credit for it but not in a country that has only had a couple such attacks.

How is our president making it worse? By "making the terrorists mad" and promoting recruiting? If you catch a rapist that has been raping women in your neighborhood, is that just going to make other rapists angrier so you just let him off the hook and try to reason with him. Appeasment doesn't work.

We are killing and capturing terrorists everyday, and more important, killing and capturing their leaders and siezing thier funds. There is nothing else that Kerry or anyone else could do to more effectively stop terrorists before they reach our country.

The question is, "Is civilization worth fighting for?"

Presidents, Ministers and leaders will always come and go.

Good and Evil is here to stay.

The world is a mathematical balance of Positives and Negatives in every possible form (physicaly, chemistry, state of mind...)

I like how the war on terror is becoming more inclusive each day. Our war on terror started with Al Queda and related groups. It then spread to the groups attacking Isreal. Then it included ELF and the mob. Other nations are joining us in this war. Of course they add the rebels, the freedom fighters and the opposition party to the list. Russia adds the Chechans. China adds its Muslim groups. Mexico adds its Indian rebels.

Terrorists are everywhere. I read in the Tallahasee, Florida paper that three members of the track team were arrested under Terror laws for exploding a home made firework on the Track Coaches lawn. Ann Coulter even called John Kerry a traitor and accused him of helping Terrorists.

I wonder if I'm a terrorist?

The concept is too general.

Threats can be dealt with effectively, yes.

Can terrorism be stopped? I don't know if it can ever be completely stopped. As long as there is a group who feels sufficiently oppressed by a governmental entity, there will be terrorism.

As far as whether we as Americans - or our President - can ever eliminate the threat of terror, it depends on us. As fun and politically expedient as it is for us to say, "They hate us 'cause of our freedom," it is completely off the mark and ignores the real reason they hate us. We all know deep down the root of terrorist activity against the U.S. is based on two things: our support of Israel, and our hegemonic ways.

The problem, as I see it, is that we are unable to admit our often brutal role in overthrowing foreign governments, supporting tyrannical leaders in other countries, and demanding more of our allies than we are willing to give in return. We see the world as somehow owing us for the favors we do, even if those favors are unwanted and unhelpful. Watching one of the numerous Sunday morning talking head shows, I heard an administration official - which one escapes me - complaining that the Iraqis are not grateful enough to us for what we've done for them. He either failed to realize, or refuses to acknowedge, that possibly, just possibly, the Iraqis are not grateful because they do not see us as doing them any favors, even if they did hate Saddam Hussein.

We have deluded ourselves as a nation into believing that every action we take in foreign countries is somehow synonymous with our liberation of European cities during WW2, and we expect - if not demand - that the citizens of these countries genuflect at our benevolent actions. We kid ourselves into thinking that we know what is best for these people, even if they don't recognize it, and then we are shocked when they don't adorn their streets with rose petals at our arrival.

If we are serious about diminishing the threat of terror against us, we have to admit that just because we can enter any country we want and demand they adhere to our beliefs of freedom and business (WTO, for instance), doesn't mean that we should. And when we do, we better be ready to expect resistance.

If instead, we want to pretend that terrorists hate us because of our freedom, then we will never truly understand why they hate us. Tough talk might work great in Hollywood movies, but in reality it makes us look arrogant and ignorant, all at once. Simplifying and reducing deep-rooted hatred to an easy catchphrase will only serve to guarantee that we will always be a target.

It is the above thinking that you will get if you vote for Kerry: America is a ruthless, imperialistic country that is hell bent on world domination.

What makes this country great, along with christianity that you seem to be against, is that they want to make the world a better place, and there is a moral right and a moral wrong, good and evil. Killing 3000 innocent people only for the reason of to kill innocents is wrong. Killing children on buses and in malls in Israel is evil. They are not fighting against an oppressive government and its soldiers, they are fighting against freedom.

I know there have been civilian casualties that we have inflicted, but we have done everything to minimize them. They, on the other hand, celebrate when a Israeli child is dying in their mothers arms.

You say we demand more of our allies than we are willing to return? Look at the causuality rate and expense that the U.S. has had for wars going back 100 years, also all of the foriegn aid for food, drugs, AIDS relief, etc that we send every year. Ask Franch, Britain, Poland, etc if they would have rather us sit out WWII. Ask the Afgani women if they would rather have the Taliban still in power, or Russians if they would still like to be communist.

I would have to agree with the above. I simply wish we were a bit more capable in figuring out which to deal with, and how to do it.

That a load of crap, we don't do stuff to make the world a better place. We do stuff to make our life easier. If we were to do what is right, we would of intervine in the WWI and WWII much earlier. If we do what is right, we would of send much of our resources to Africa to help those who are hungry and needy. If we do what is right, we wouldn't have so many groups hate us now wouldn't we?

The terrorist don't just hate us because of our idea and our so called freedom. They hate us cause our international policy prop piss them off in a way.

Long summary short. I don't give a flying fuck what religion they are. However, if someone trying to press there believe on me, then I would dislike them very much. (Those damn jahova witness, they just don't know when to leave you alone till you threaten them....) This little example you can use to the US international policy as well.

Good and evil are here to stay, true. It just seems to me a lot of the evil is focused on doing harm to Americans. We have to stop and think -- what is our government doing that attracts the attention of that evil?

Maybe we can help transform some of it. Maybe we can help diffuse some of it.

We definitely can't destroy all of it, though. The idea that such an approach can ever be successful is misguided.

I don't recall anywhere in my post taking a position on the candidates. If you chose to see the world in such black and white, us or them terms, then there is no use discussing this further.

Again, I don't recall mentioning Christianity or my stand on it. I didn't realize that trying to engage in meaningful discussion over the possible causes of terrorism was equated with being anti-christian. And regarding freedom, please read my post again regarding the meaninglessness of stating they hate us because of our freedom. That argument is simplistic and shallow, which was the exact point of my post.

Yes, terrorists celebrate the deaths of those they hate. What does this have to do with why they hate us?

If you think for a second that we are altruistic and give of ourselves only because we are so generous, then you are mistaken. Every dollar we spend in foreign aid is done so with strings attached. A favor given with a favor expected is no favor at all. We don't do these things out of the goodness of our hearts, regardless of what political ads may say. We do it only if it serves our best interests.

I appreciate your views, but you are missing the point of what I am saying. Simplifying extremely complex issues through the use of jingoistic language does not serve us in the long run. It might help sell Toby Keith CDs, but it does not make us any safer.

Terrorism is such a broad category to begin with. If addressing the problem in the middle east, then no, an American President will not be able to stop the attacks without committing acts of heinous atrocity. I don't believe in a country as vast as the United States that attacks can all be prevented. Our borders are not secure, and the country is simple too big to keep an eye on.

The war on terrorism can be no more won than the war on drugs or the war on communism. Presidents can be differently abled at stoping the effect of terrorism but none can eliminate it by any non Machiavellian means. Also the term terrorist is ever changing and each person has a different view of what terrorism means. I believe George Bush is a terrorist because he keeps announcing of possible attacks against the US and making people afraid.

Nope. Not a chance. To cut down on it, just alleviate the legitimate portions of their complaints.

Terrorism will never die however the world could be made safer.

Would you have women walking around in burkhas? Would you give up intoxicants? Would you give up your worldly possesions and live like an ascetic? Would you give up your right to choose your leaders? Would you give up your right to bear arms? To Free speech? No cheap airfare? No IMAX theaters? No Corvettes? No Sushi? No Jessica Simpson? No LASIK? No Laz-Y-Boys? No Playboy Channel? No NBA? No Indianapolis 500? No Epcot Center? No Vegas? No Super Bowl? No Rolling Stones? No Telluride or Aspen? No iPods? No scuba diving lessons? No $1000 digital cameras? No cosmetic surgery? :eek:

Their complaint is that the infidels (and those who cooperate with them) are rich, free & prosperous and they're not. They have to figure out how to solve that one on their own.

The only way to get rid of terrorism is to unite the world under a common cause where everyone is working for eachothers benifite. It can be done but it would probably take a very major disaster or threat to the whole world.

while i wouldn't mind a world with no jessica simpson, that is a very narrow-minded simplistic veiw. they don't hate our freedom or our prosperity. the hate our intervention into their society. they hate our attempts to change them, to westernize them. they hate the encroachment of our culture into theirs. the hate the loss of power they have as people become more secular and women get more power. they don't hate us because we're rich and free, they hate us because we push our values on them. oh, and cause we support the jews. damn jews. :D

Take a look at your signature, and at your name for that matter, both trivialize Christianity.

Well of course we do it in our self interest, even though what we get back is not even close to what we gave. But what is the problem with doing things in the self interest of America if it help others in the process. Lets say that the war in Iraq was ONLY done for oil. Along the way to securing that oil we freed a oppressed nation and removed a dictator that had already killed millions of his own people and tried to take over another country. I don't see the problem.

I don't see it as a complex issue, and it is not. They want to kill us, so we instead of sitting on our asses and letting it happen are going to go after and kill or capture every last one of them we can find. People say this is not a war against Islam, but it is. When not one Muslim leader speaks out against the beheadings or the deaths of children we have to assume that Islam as a whole supports these actions and the militant Islamics. The Koran repeatedly calls for the death non believers, and they are just following their murdurous religion.

Well, *I* would mind it if something were to happen to our poor Jessica and her gorgeous, bountiful golden breasts; I like to fantasize about them and look at them as often as possible!

And I hear you, but...I don't buy it. Everyone encroaches into everyone else's culture these days. They call it globalization: every country has immigrants, everybody is doing business with eachother. Jets, internet, cellphones, fax machines, satellites have removed the geographical distances between cultures. So now, people have to learn to play nice with eachother, no matter their cultural differences. They have to mind their manners. This intermingling has exposed the paranoia, insecurity and dysfunction of some countries, who have chosen instead to withdraw from civilized society and adopt counter-productive tactics for dealing with the outside world. One of the ways of coping would be with belligerence and aggression, foolishly branding whole societies as 'Infidels' and religiously unpure and unworthy. Its pure phobia based on fear, envy, powerlessness, confusion, ignorance and intolerance.

Excuse me, I have to google jessica simpsons breasts now.

eh, i've seen (imo) better, but to each his own. :D


and i agree with you on this. but while they have to mind their manners, so do we. if you notice, it's not the entire arab world that's the problem, it's the fanatics. it's not as simple as one poster above said "they hate our freedom."

so i think a lot of good reasons for the causes of terrorism have been mentioned in this thread... and aside from some people who will be a problem no matter what (think of the southern baptist preacher to thinks everyone not southern baptist is going to hell, the kkk's ignorant racist views, etc), we can do a lot to keep those people who hate just to hate, who hate because we aren't like them, from gathering followers who are more moderate but feel pushed to extremes because their views aren't even being heard, let alone acted on.

Giving someone an order to follow through with a mission or task doesn't really need that much effort.

Even the laziest drunk could stop terrorism.

I believe what we are failing to realize is that the situation has gone beyond terrorism, on to guerilla warfare. Just because it isn't being fought in a jungle somewhere, doesn't take away from the fact that the tactics are the same. Terrorism is fought by trying to contain, and prevent the incidents of terror, guerilla warfare is fought like any other war...wipe the fuckers out. If innocents are injured or killed, tough shit; their main goal is to do the same to our civilians...

Possibly the mass consuming habits we North Americans have (including Canada)... gimme gimme gimme !

It is ironic of course that we did not intervene earlier precisely because of people who felt that what was happening in Europe was "none-of-our-business", much like those who have spoken out against the war here.

In other words, damn you, America for not acting sooner, and damn you, America for acting at all.

It grows wearisome.

This is the heart of the Iraq argument. How far do you let a cruel dictator go until you finally interviene and remove him. Obviously in WWII Europe waited too long until they were unable to handle the situation and seriously needed help.

How far should we have let Saddam go? Here is what we knew before we invaded (post war intelligence is usless and hindsight is always 20/20).

1. He had already attemped to take over Kuwait and probably would have continued to other countries in the middle east.

2. He had huge amounts of chemical weapons that he already used on Iraqi citizens killing hundreds of thousands.

3. 16 UN resolutions had already been in effect including the last one that said if he still neglected to comply force would be used.

4. Weapons inspectors had been repeatedly kicked out and were unable to go to many locations and interviews scientists was either denied or unfruitful because of the fear of retribution from the scientists by the Iraqi government.

5. Iraq continued to be hostile towards U.S forces in the area, frequently engaging U.S. war planes enforcing the no-fly zones put in place.

6. Saddam was "reimbursing" the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

7. Iraqis that fled to other countries acknowledges the human atrocities by Saddam, his sons, and other military figures to the Iraqi people like raping girls in front of their families, the killing or mutations of men, women, and children, etc.

8. After Afganistan was invaded, it was well known that Al Quida members took up refuge in Iraq, and the fear was them coming across or purchasing WMD from Saddam or other officials.

The U.S. saw a major growing threat and went to the U.N. to get a resolution to get approval for the use of force. The resolution was blocked by 3 coutries that we later find out was involved finacially with Iraq and was being bribed by means of the Oil for Food Program.

We saw the opportunity to remove the Saddam regime before he became an imminant threat and took the opportunity given all of the available information we had.

If France, Germany, and Russia had been involved do you really think that the outcome of the war would have been any differnt? There would still be the same situation with insurgents trying to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy.

In that case, seeing as no Jewish or Christian leaders have spoken out about it, I have to assume that all of Judaism and Christianity supports acts such as these (article entitled, "Schoolgirl Target of Israeli Hate"):

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sect...category=World

That would be a valid analogy, if saddam was hitler. Fortunately, saddam was no hitler, he didn't take over most of the middle east, and he wasn't a threat to the freedoms of the rest of the world.

What is terrorism?

Inflicting damage on innocent people? Who is innocent? Are you? Look at the clown that's running America. He has created an enemy of you, but you let him.

Terrorism is subjective. During the 70's Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. The ANC threw grenades into churches where the 'enemy' prayed, they threw grenades into 'bars' where the enemy drank, and put bombs outside the schools where the enemy learned. Well let's just look at these terrorists today. Mandela is a hero of the highest order. All that's changed is the point of view, which side you're looking from. If you attempt to dominate you are creating oppression, if you attempt to empathise you create harmony. I know great Americans, I know great Jews and I know great Arabs. Not all Americans are as thick as Bush, not all Jews are greedy and not all Muslims are terrorists. Most Americans, Arabs and Jews just want a nice place where they can bring their kids up in peace, pray to their gods and experience community. The real terrorists are those that consistently make decisions that are motivated by greed and self rightiousness, be they politicians, corporate shareholders or religious fanatics.

isn't there some sort of internet law about mentioning hitler in online discussions?

Saddam didn't have as many people to work with.

1 million killed in Iran-Iraq war.
1.5+ million killed because of sanctions.
Untold hundreds of thousands killed as dissenters or enemies of the regime.

The worst kind of evil in this world is complacence, too bad Saddam didn't meet the necessary criteria as a mass murderer.

that would maybe be interesting, mojo, if the history of american foreign policy since world war 2 did not reveal, as self-evident, that the americans do not and have not cared about despots, about murderous regimes, so long as they were politically convenient. while this history is not pretty to investigate, it is easy enough to do--and maybe knowing about it would prevent you from being chumped so easily by this latest, most desperate justification for war floated from the bush people.

but no matter: to the question:
to the extent that an american president might be in a position to alter the nature of american-dominated capitalism around the world, maybe he or she would be in a position to reduce the threat of "terrorism" by reducing some of its causes. because to argue that "terrorists" act out of some essential quality that is coterminous with religion, say, is to argue for and about nothing. people are driven to desperate actions by the situations in which they find themselves---these situations have causes--the political options that might otherwise have channelled dissent/desperation would have to be largely inoperative as well--this too has causes.

"terrorism" is a political act.

so it stands to reason that the american president could do things that would reduce it. whether he or she would do these things is a different matter.

as for "protecting" the states from the consequences of its policies, direct and indirect, without addressing those policies--no....all this self-blinding way of thinking does is make the slide into a kind of fascism lite easier to rationalize. you are not safer for it.

Roachboy, I'm not being "chumped" by anybody. American foreign policy has been very fucked up in the past and to this day, I don't refute that at all. But I do believe that Saddam was a sociopath and the world is a better place with him gone. I have always said that, like I said complacence is the greatest form of evil. What is wrong with having Saddam gone? Sure there are others that should be taken out too, if I had my way Kim Jong Ill's head would be on a fucking stick, and African Warlord's along with Militant Islamic leaders and mullahs would be crucified at half time on monday night football games. But for the time being Saddam will have to do.

Godwin's Law. If you mention Hitler, the Nazis, or the Third Reich in an online discussion, you automatically invalidate your argument. However, if it's pertitnent to the discussion (say, like World War 2) then it is ok to mention those three entities.

I guess it's immediately clear which warmongering (edited out - due to loud thudding) you'll be voting for.

What is wrong with ridding the world of these other war mongers is that ultimately the US is enforcing it's own regime on the rest of the world, and it's unwelcome in most of Europe, most of Asia, most of Africa. Do the rest of the world a favour and keep your greedy high and mighty attitude at home. The foreign policy is doing terrible damage to the US reputation, it has turned 'neutrals' into 'anti's'. I recently went to a 9-11 party where the US was the butt of every joke. Personally I felt the theme was in terrible taste but there's a lot of aggression being stirred up by the 'Big Brother, Defender of the World' act. Luckily I've met many classic, brilliant Americans who restore my faith. and give me hope that things can change before Bush starts WW3.

Did you hear that loud thud????

That was the level of discourse in this thread.

There is a huge difference between hyperbole and this comment.

KMA, I have edited my comment, I apologise for using foul language in your fine company.

roach-

The history of American foreign policy really shows us nothing consistent as the manner and tone has changed over and over again. We were not popular decades ago and we are not popular today, nothing has really changed there:

i.e.

1) Before Nixon: Vietnam, etc.

2) Nixon Admin: Stained the office of the President in many country's eyes

3) Carter Admin: Royally f'd up in the middle east and probably could be held to blame for some of the problems that we have in that region today.

4) Reagan Admin: There was worldwide anti-US and anti-Reagan sentiment in the 80's.

5) Bush Sr. Admin: Gulf I, War for Oil, etc.

6) Clinton Admin: How many terrorist attacks against us? Another stain on the office of the President regarding Monica in the eyes of the world. Somalia? Haiti? Bosnia? Aspirin Factory? The largest attack on Iraq to that date., etc., etc.

To say that the anti-US sentiment is new is ridiculous. To say it is W's fault is equally ridiculous. We are not in a popularity contest. There is no way to appease everybody all of the time. Regardless of how we conduct foreign and domestic policy, our actions will be unpopular to somebody.



"people are driven to desperate actions by the situations in which they find themselves"

I would have to disagree here. The terrorists are two well funded to be in a "desperate situation". We are infidels, pure and simple. I have read parts of the Quran and remember some of the comments about how infidels should be treated (i.e. tear them limb from limb, etc.). The only way this is political is because their religion controls their politics.

Even if we remove our influence from foreign countries, we would still be infidels. We would still be the enemy. I don't remember us declaring jihad on them, it was the other way around. Some of the ideals we have as Americans are infectious, regardless of how these ideals spread. Even if we went isolationist and didn't spread democracy and capitalism, some people would still want what we have. Not to mention the countless countries that rely on the very money that comes from a system that you abhor. What kind of anti-US sentiment would occur if we turned off the old money spigot? If we pulled out of the World Bank? If we called in all of our loans to other countries? If we stopped sending billions and billions in aid?

I know this is an arguable position, but I am not of the opinion that we forced "Westernization" in the Middle East. Part of the whole "Westernization" concept is some people want what we have. Having been to many countries around the globe, I can see why.

That's an excellent question, one which I think the answer is a resounding "no."

There are many different types of terrorism and it's quite impossible to control every facet.

neutone -

Your language doesn't bother me. It was your comment in its entirety.

While it may reflect your own personal opinion, you used it as an attack on another member that was merely stating his own opinion. You lose the argument instantly by stooping to that level.

You can say the same things in a different manner, with more respect, and get your point across. A better worded reponse would continue the discussion rather then send it spiralling. That way, you do not alienate the person you are speaking with.

/also: I supported Presidents in the past that I didn't agree with. I may disagree with them, but I still respect the position that they hold. Regardless of who is in the White House, the position must be respected.--that's my opinion.

It is a perfectly valid analogy, because Saddam was trying VERY hard to be Hitler.

Hitler a) invaded Poland, and justified it to the world. The world shrugged and said "Ok". Hitler went on to annex Austria, etc.

Saddam b) invaded Kuwait, and justified it to the world. The US responded.


Hitler a) rounded up Jews, Gypsies, gays, and other "undesireables" and killed them. The world said, "it's Germany's internal affair.

Saddam b) rounded up Kurds, Shiites, political opponents and killed them. The US asked the UN to follow through on their sanctions. The UN said no. (France said, "hell no"). The US acted.

Hitler a) simply wanted America to stay out of the war or since we were aiding England, to sue for peace after Japan attacked us. His real goal was to just take over western Europe. There were those in America that thought this was ok.

Saddam b) simply wanted America to stay out of the war while he took over most of the Arabian pennisula. There are those in America that think this would have been ok.

Saddam invaded kuwait, hitler invaded most of europe. No comparison. Intent alone does not a threat make. You have to have the capabilities, which saddam clearly did not. Do you honestly think saddam was capable of taking over the middle east? On top of that, do think he would then follow that with an attempt to take over the entire free world? The same saddam with the same iraqi army that couldn't put up more than a two week struggle against the u.s. army?

The people who thought hitler was none of their business were being shortsighted. I doubt there is much evidence, especially in light of the whole "no wmd's at all" thing that would portray the iraqi threat as anything more than marginal. While saddam would maybe appreciate the comparison, I think it is laughable that you would put saddam on the same level as hitler.

Besides, i thought that ww2 analogies were always in poor taste. Or is that only when the anti-bush crowd employs them?

That, to me, is a dangerous, dangerous thought.

Have you not seen all of the James Bond movies? Spectre/Dr. No/Goldfinger had nothing but intent and were definitely a threat to the entire world.

Anyway, I'm sure you get my point.

Intent is the first sign of a threat and it is also the best place to stop a threat.

I would much rather stop a terrorist that intends to blow up a building rather then arrest him after he actually committed the act.

to answer the question posted by the thread, not to respond to anyone:

no. it can't. you can't stop an idea.

No, it's not a dangerous thought. Intent without ability means that nothing is going to happen. By definition. If i walk by my neighbor's yard and his pit bull starts barking at me from behind the fence and i know that the only thing separating me from death by pit-bull is the leash and the fence, that doesn't give me the right to shoot the dog. The intent to harm is there, the means to harm are not. Besides, there can be a huge chasm between percieved threat and actual threat, just ask our presidential candidates.

Anyways, bond movies aren't the best representations of reality. Very few known spies are internationally renowned playboys.

Intent is the first sign of a threat, but if that intent is supported by little along the lines of actual danger preemption can be a little counterproductive.

-and-

The war in iraq and the war on terrorism are separate issues.

to add to what filtherton said, james bond didn't deal with people with the "intent" to do dasterdly things. they were actually "trying" to implement them.

some one who thinks "hmm... i want to blow up this building" but doesn't know how or have the means is no danger. and unless you want to start prosecuting people for thought crimes, there's nothing that should be done to him. once he starts going out and buying supplies to make explosives and drawing up plans, then you can stop him.

Wow, just wow.

What is this person's next step? To collect the means to act on his intent. Then people die. This person is a danger regardless of what stage of the game he is in. If you can catch one of these guys in the planning stage rather then then after the act itself, you can save countless lives.

BTW, intent is a crime, I doubt I have to list different crimes where this is applicable.

Intent is the years of planning before 9/11.

Intent is the thought in somebody's mind that maybe we should fill a raft with explosives and float it next to a naval warship.

Intent is some dumb kid, mad at the gov't, thinking about how he can blow up a federal building.

Intent is just the first stage in a deadly and destructive act.



The funny thing is how this argument is used.

Take Columbine. There was a lot of intent by two kids that you wouldn't think would have the means to carry out such an act. Guess what? They took that intent, formulated a plan and carried it out.

Now, who is in trouble?

The police for not acting on the known intent.


This is a double-standard argument. You (collective) criticize for not "protecting you" when there are clues to the intent. Then you criticize for acting progressively and going after people that have the intent.

Yes, intent is dangerous. People die when you think otherwise and the case history is on my side for this argument.

By the way, the Bond reference was a joke. A little levity.

yes, and you'd be right, had i said that. in fact, said almost the opposite.
besides, it was mostly directed at mojo's post, which was immediately above mine. it didnt follow directly into the rest of the post.

totally disagree with you on the causes of "terrorism"--reverting to religious identity as a way to rationalize the political actions of organizations gets you no place. if you want to understand something about fundamentalism, you would probably have to look at instances like the f.i.s. in algeria, link it to other, subsequent movements--in nearly every case, you would find specific political grievances, caused by specific situations (which may or may not follow from american-style capitalism--since the question had to do with the states, i pitched my response that way--but at this level, it would not hold) translated into the language of fundamentalism for tactical reasons--later, things would shift, but you would have to argue the point in each case--and no matter which instance you chose to look at, the sequence would be political grievance (widely construed) mobilization, translation into a more religious type of language.

on the question of intent: it is really difficult to prove intent. it usually operates only as a post hoc rationalization for particular sequences of action. you cannot act on intent--you cannot arrest anyone because of what they might do, you cannot authorize an invasion based on possible problems in the future. the law does not work that way, national, international, etc. it simply does not.
that you would buy the bush administrations next-to-most-desperate line in rationalizing iraq is unfortunate. better to see what that line is in fact.

hey, nothing like take a snippet of my post to suit your purpose! (maybe you should work for the RNC!)my full quote...

intent is not the years planning 9/11. that's called "planning." intent is thought to do something. have you ever heard some one say "i intend to paint the kitchen this summer." but when do they have the paint? have they starting "planning" when and how and what color they're going to paint it? no, that'd be planning to paint it.

think about how many times someone has thought "god, i want to kill that bastard!" about someone that's really pissed them off. how many actually do it? should they be arrested for that thought? no.

if somebody intends to do something, watch them. when they start planning it and youknow they're gonna do it, then stop them (hopefully) before they go through with it. but you can't arrest someone for their thoughts, they may just decide 20 minutes later that it's not something they want to do.

once he starts to "collect the means to act on his intent" then get 'em. but not before, he hasn't done anything wrong.

As said by someone else in Politics, while Saddam was committing his mass murders and acts of genocide, the US did nothing. It took someone to threaten their oil supplies before they acted. If he'd just stuck to gassing Kurds he would've been fine.

Kuwait is hardly most of the Arabian peninsula. Anyway, as we all know, the Arabian peninsula has shitloads of oil that the US needs whereas Western Europe does not - possibly why they stayed out of WWII until they were directly attacked themselves but didn't bat an eyelid when it came time to kicking the crap out of Iraq twice?

It strikes me as ironic that people are defending the US policy of international meddling as it got a notorious despot like Saddam out of power when it was the policy of international meddling that put him in power in the first place.

I would have to agree with that. If you have a knife stuck in your leg, you don't just mop up the pus occurring as a result of it and then wonder why it keeps coming back. You remove the source - then the pus will disappear as well (not the most eloquent of analogies I know, but it's early and I'm tired). So back to the original thread question, I think a President could stop terrorism if he wanted to.

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't saddam invade kuwait because they were slant drilling into saddams oil fields?

Considering how little of our oil comes from Iraq/Kuwait, this is a spurious argument and always has been.

What is sad is that we had to jump through all these hoops in order to do something. It took someone as bad as Hussein and STILL countries like France, Germany and Russia protected him (of course, we know why now...billions of dollars in bribes and oil contracts).

We certainly can't get a UN mandate or support to do something about the mass genocide that goes on in Africa daily. Or when we do, we are looked at as "Imperialists".

Yes, but imagine how much can come from there now? Anyway, the price of oil is as important to the US as the oil itself.

Saddam was protected by the US for long enough when it suited them too. For the US to accuse other countries of looking after their own interests first is yet more hypocrisy.

If you really want to do something about the genocide in Africa, then go it alone. Lack of international support didn't stop you in Iraq after all.

Saudi Arabia pretty much controls the price of oil, which is one reason we are so friendly with them.

I wasn't "accusing", but pointing out that very same hypocrisy, which exhibited itself here and elsewhere as people lauded the "noble French, Germans" et.al. for opposing the war.

We already did, in Somalia. No one else gave a shit while the people there stopped butchering each other to attack us. Now they are back to butchering each other.

Also, I am getting DAMN tired of being called a hypocrite.

In any time of political turmoil, especially when involving OPEC member countries (such as when Iraq invades Kuwait), the influence Saudi or even OPEC as a whole has over the price of oil diminishes drastically. This has never been more clearly demonstrated than right now.

I don't see how Germany and France were being hypocritical. They may have questionable ethics, but I don't see any hypocrisy in their actions. Unless you can show me otherwise. Maybe I'm wrong.

I also don't remember calling you a hypocrite. Unless you are the US.

The US did not act alone in Somalia nor on their own initiative, and to say that "no-one else gave a shit" is doing a great injustice to the 20+ other countries who were part of that UN deployment. They were deployed after the UN asked for assistance from its members to be part of a UN peacekeeping force to protect the UN humanitarian mission there and to ensure that food aid reached the populace and did not fall into the hands of the warlords. In fact, it was widely suspected at the time that Bush the First only agreed to the deployment in order to create a problem for Bill Clinton, who had already been elected president and was due to take office a month later.

Anyway, we've drifted right off the topic of discussion, so I'll leave it there.

let's talk about hypocrisy with reference to iraq.

during the reagan administration, because of the iran-iraq war, the americans sold iraq serious weapons systems, and said nothing about the gassing of the kurds because, at the time, the administration believed hussein's claim that the objective was military and that the kurds who died were, in a sense "collateral damage"
all this because iraq was, at the time, politically convenient.
iran was the problem. hostage crisis and all that. remember?

after hussein's invasion of kuwait (motivations aside), things changed.
but that for domestic political purposes, to sell the first gulf war.
the americans did not give a shit about the kurds at the time the gassing happened.
the americans did not give a shit about the kurds during the period when they were encouraged to organize resistance and then were left to be crushed after the first gulf war.
the americans do not give a shit about the kurds now.

on the annoying "noble france and germany" and its inverse "france and gemany: hyprocrites"---a pair of terms operational in rightwing land and nowhere else---the fact is that france and germany and a majority of the security council did not support bushwar because the administration made no compelling case for war at any particular time.
neither france nor germany has been a great hero of international pacifism; neither is run by a pacifist. the fact is that the bush administration fucked up--they presented a shabby, obviously false case the premises of which were undercut within minutes by the un inspectors reports. ever since that vote, the administration and its think tank apparatus have been blowing a smoke screen about that vote, trying anything and everything to divert attention from the fact of the matter: the americans had no case for war.

if there is hyprocrisy in all this, it clearly sits with the american right. not even with the americans in general (restricting myself here to talking about iraq--in the longer historical frame, there is plenty of blame to be shared by all factions within the american oligarchy)

back to the question at hand: an american president could in fact do something to diminish terrorism, whatever that is.
but this president cannot and will not.
the conclusion i have come to is: if you are concerned about fighting terrorism, then you pretty much have to oppose george w bush.

Let me clarify something real quick regarding my definition of intent (that might be part of the confusion regarding my post).

To me, intent includes everything up to the action itself. I think planning is part of the intent. (i.e. I intend to go to the store. If I get in an accident on my way to the store and never make it, my original intent was to go to the store, regardless of where I ended up)

While I agree about thought crimes, I am referring to someone who "intends" to do something, hasn't done it yet, but has the desire. If your definition of intent only includes the thought, then my argument will not work for you. I believe, however, that intent includes a whole lot more then the thought itself.

hannukah harry - yes I did use part of your post but I understood the rest. I think that someone that wants to blow up a building has a probability of trying to find the means to do so. Using my definition of intent, the person is in a very dangerous stage, and if he can be stopped, then we should do so. Maijnly because I think intent involves more then just a hairbrained idea floating in somebody's mind.

BTW - To everybody that thinks intent is not a crime, look again. It is a crime, you can be arrested, tried, convicted and go to jail for intent. In our legal system, the definition of intent includes posing a threat (i.e. he didn't shoot me, but he intended to - ADW, etc.). Rather then go into every example, I am sure that everybody here is aware of the crimes in our country that involve intent. If, for some reason, you think intent is not a crime in the US, I will post more examples to further my point that intent is a crime and (by definition in our judicial system) is more then just a thought in somebody's head.

a threat is an act in itself, and is prosecutable in itself.
it is an expression of an intent, yes--but to reverse expression of intent and intent itself is faulty logic.
you cant be prosecuted for intent, which is purely inward...that is why you can only go after someone who writes "i will burn down your house" but not after someone who sits on a log thinking the same thing.

at any event, there is no argument from or about intent that justifies the iraq war---the case was clear, it was based on nothing, now the right is foundering--this is one of the arguments they have come up with--and it is even weaker than the first rounds of arguments were.

obviously if part of the fight on terrorism, whatever that is, is teaching by example the respect for the rule of law, the bush administration is doing a fine fine job.

roach -

I was referring to this part of your post. My point being that our foreign policy has not been consistent enough to flatly state that we do or do not do something in a specific time period. We have gone after regimes that could be considered politically convenient, but we also have gone after regimes that are ify on that category. Somalia would be one example. We went after a warlord that wasn't politically advantageous to us, strictly under the guise of a humanitarian cause. Guess what? It failed miserably and our soldiers got killed needlessly.

There are other examples, but I am sure you understand where I am coming from. I just think your statement was too over-generalized. On the flip-side, there are very few countries in this world where we don't have a political concern for some reason or another.

kma--good that you pointed out what you were referring to--i did not get that part. sorry.

i would agree that my statement was too general--but for the cold war period, it is pretty accurate, sadly. and even now, it is more accurate than not. on the other hand, you could see somalia as an example of the problems that successive administrations have had since reagan in fashioning a general logic for american foreign policy...there seems to be a nostaligia for something like the cold war an the way it appeared to simplify the world. the bush squad seems to think that the "war on terror" whatever that is might function as a surrogate--but of course that is insane.

if you want to talk about people being killed needlessly, we could talk more about iraq...

First off, let me go backwords: I think the President can stop terrorists but terrorism itself can not be stopped.

As far as Iraq, we have terrorists coming from all over the world to fight the best-trained soldiers in the world. Before we had to flush them out, now they are coming out voluntarily. While we still have a lot more to flush out, I am all for as many terrorists as possible coming to Iraq and turning themselves into targets. It is the first time that we have an actual battlefield with which to take on terrorists. People will die and innocents will be killed, I understand and accept this. Also, this is not a hypocritical notion on my part either as I have been in harm's way, voluntarily, a few times.

roach - while you and I will never agree, this is how I see it. To me it is not needless.

kma--understood on the agreement part.
but remember that it is only after the fact that organizations fitting the bush description of "terrorist" are relevant at all in iraq--here again, the arguments for war were specious. the problem, i suppose, comes in whether you accept those arguments--i do not, never have, and so therefore everything that is happening in iraq seems to me needless. which is not the faultof the people getting shot/shot at--rather it is the fault of the present administration.