wow....what an offensive argument. it's like you reached some kind of pinnacle.

Allow me to make an observation about the liberal/leftwing reaction to the attacks....

The left loves to lecture about the laws of 'unintended consquences', for example, the violent situation in Iraq would, by their way of thinking, be an unintended consequence of the decision to invade. Fair enough.

But for some reason they believe themselves to be above the selfsame laws.

Answer me this question.

What is the unintended consequence of :

Painting your very own government as Nazis ?
Portraying your own Commander In Chief as a primate and a zealot ?
Attacking your own country at every turn.
Trying to 'understand' the terrorists?
Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions.

The intended consequence may be to turn up the level of vigilance on government activity, and quite rightly so.

But what of the unintended consequence ?

Terrorists winning the media war.
Aid and comfort to the enemy.
Fueling the fires of anti-americanism and hatred.
Showing the madmen that we care more about their freedoms than they do about ours.
Providing an intellectual safe-haven for radical-ideas on the basis of 'understanding the threat'

In if perhaps one of these unintended consequences were to allow a massive attack to take place, would they take any responsibility ?

Or are liberals immune to such laws ?

Well, I think we know the answer.

Remember when Abu Ghraib broke ? What did the liberals say ?

That Don Rumsfeld had 'created a climate' where abuse could take place.

Seems like they fail to recognize their own ability to 'create a climate' where terrorists can rely on public support for their viewpoints, if not their actions
(and, quite frankly there's plenty of support for their actions too)

Overall I'd just like liberals to be aware that taking the 'right path' (in thier view) does not mean they have no responsibilty towards their nation and the safety of their society.

Their actions, no matter how noble in ideal, also have consequences.

Something , from what I've seen, that they almost never concern themselves with.

Grey, i feel like you made a great argument, unfortunately i feel as though your it is nothing more than a sound refutation of some sort of caricature.

Who here is "Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions."?
Who here is "Attacking your own country at every turn."?
What is wrong with "Trying to 'understand' the terrorists?"?
Surely you know that even conservatives are guilty of trying to understand things too?
Who here is providing "Aid and comfort to the enemy."?
Are you seriously trying to claim that anyone on this board is committing treason?
By all means, give me some examples of liberals in this discussion engaging in these activities you've deemed so harmful.
No one here is attempting to justify terrorism.

As for the rape analogy, i don't think people are blaming the victim as much as trying to determine the motivation of the perpetrators. The rape analogy doesn't necessarily hold because the rape analogy assumes innocence on behalf of the victim. Anyone who believes america is the helpless woman walking down a dark street with a miniskirt on obviously hasn't been paying attention in American Jingoism class. Individual citizens are innocent, but america's hands have been bloody since the first colonists landed. Britain's shit is plenty rancid too. The difference between the british and the americans seems to be that the british don't rush to abandon their civil rights to feel safe when someone blows up some of their citizens, while americans, i think, are generally too shortsighted to care if their rights are slowly eroded.

Grey2000, I'd say that's a pretty good assessment.

Just as an example: in the Netherlands, a lot of "leftist" reporters and politicians have been bashing the US war on terror for years now. If an attack were to take place, I have no doubt whatsoever that they'll blame the US actions, and the fact our government "kissed Bush's arse". (Note: They'll also feel very sorry for the loss of life, and will hate the terrorists for it, but that's beside the point.)

That attitude creates an environment where extreme Muslims living here will feel that their actions are indeed justified. In effect, we are spreading Al-Qaida's propaganda more efficiently than they are themselves.

filtherton, you say that America's hands have been bloody since it was founded. But I'd say that everyone's hands are bloody. That includes the Muslim countries, third-world countries, *everyone*. We are no better than they are, but not worse either.

Well I never related my posts to other posts on this forum and indeed I find that most people here are fairly reasoned, but here's the point, the key point that I think most liberals miss, its not who's right, and who's wrong that I'm arguing.

I'm arguing that liberals can't absolve themselves from blame, and in fact should consider what the effect of their (well intentioned, perhaps) actions are.

Unintended consequences.

Do you think it is appropriate for people in iraq to blame bush for their local terrorist activities? I do. Especially after bush pointed out the how convenient it is that we get to use iraq as a staging ground in the war on terror instead of using the united states. We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. It didn't seem to work for britain, i wonder if it will work for us? I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't. Nothing will work, unless we figure out how to slow the creation of new terrorists. We certainly aren't going to kill them all without becoming just as bad as they are. As far as spreading propoganda for them, well, you couldn't do better than to desecrate the koran whilst indefinately detaining people whose link to terrorism may be tenuous at best. You couldn't do better than to tell them to "Bring it on".

Yeah, so everyone is an asshole. Why are you surprised when someone gets punched in the nose? Why do you feel like it's even possible to accept the fact that everyone is an asshole and still expect that no one will get punched in the nose? If you want the violence to stop, eventually someone is going to have to be the better person first.

What i'm saying is that arguing about what liberals do or do not do is pointless when you aren't actually talking to anyone who is liberal and also subscribes to the particular beliefs that you are referring to. There are plenty of liberals here, and the vast majority have absolutely zero in common with the picture you painted of liberals. What does that tell you about the values and beliefs your are ascribing to liberals in general?

I don't see liberals absolving themselves from blame. On this board or elsewhere. What I believe he was asking is to show us some examples of what you are talking about. Certainly the extremists on each side are bad. I think everyone can agree that Limbaugh and Moore are cut from the same cloth. Different ends of it, of course.

But you don't seem to be talking about the extremes. You say "most liberals". Who are they if they aren't on this board? Or ARE you talking about the extremists? I have no more desire to compare the worst of the left and the worst of the right. Been there 1000x already on these forums.

Don't you ?

Can you show me some examples of Liberals accepting blame as opposed to simply apportioning it to others ?

I doubt it - because the anti-war brigade cannot get their head around the idea that terrorists are encouraged by their stance. The idea that standing up for what they believe in can actually put the success of the fight against terrorism in jeopardy is entirely alien to most of them.

How exactly are the terrorists encouraged by liberals?

I think the right is to blame for terrorism and can't get their head round the idea that they encourage people to take up arms. Can you show me an example of Neo Cons accepting blame? This is a pointless line of argument isn't it?


We're told that standing up for what you believe in is what the terrorists want to destroy. Are you telling people they shouldn't take a stand? Are you unamerican or should america tear up the bill of rights and become a fascist state? When you said earlier that there are unintended consequences of 'Painting your very own government as Nazis?', ie pointing out that some aspects of policy are not too far removed from what happened in germany in the 1930's, do you acknowledge the consequences of not doing so?

And surely there's an unintended consequence of not trying to understand terrorists?

It's completely understandable that the barbarians would fight back. But you put quotes round 'understand' as if you think it's a silly thing to do! Surely if the Romans didn't try to understand and lost an empire, then that's not the right course of action now.

Maybe being less confrontational and more understanding when they were still powerful enough to hold an empire would have enabled them to keep it for longer. Ok, Rome wouldn't have been as powerful or rich, but how did the average Roman benefit from this power? I doubt they benefitted much from an expanding empire, just as the majority of people in the US don't today.

Not really a pointless line at all. There's been an awful amount of attention paid to the consequences of the governmeant actions, but very little on how anti-govt/war activities have consequences of their own.

Well, actually I'm not American at all, but I get your point.

How do you decide when attacking your government is aiding and abetting the enemy ? I don't know the answer to that, but it at least bears thinking about.

And lets face it no bill of rights has been torn up, has it ?
You can't have it both ways, absolute security and absolute liberty.

Oh, so that's what they do - 'point out' aspects of policy ?
The whole BushHitler brigade must somehow be a figment of my imagination.

Absolutely -A point which I acknowledge early in my original post, but we're talking about liberal-responsibilities here, not conservative.

Besides, which do you think pleases a terrorist more, being seen as an evil bastard who performs attrocities that are beyond the pale or,
being seen as a victim of US foreign policy, standing up for his rights ?

Reading all this, I was reminded that it is time to remind some here that you should ask yourself again, "how do I know what I know"? Before you post.

It is not a partisan, or an "anti-American", or a "terorist loving" activity to post this information. It does not "undermine the war effort" and "divide us in a time of war". The folks who are doing that, IMO, are our "leaders", and you if you take anything that they tell you at face value. Do the work it takes to be informed, and I can almost guarantee you, you'll "know" less because of it.
Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:
The quandry that I keep coming back to.....is.....I have a personal standard that makes me hesitant to open my mouth.....if I don't feel confident that I know what I'm talking about. Please tell me how you are able to get past all the uncertainty and doubt that I have because of the inconsistancies of what our federal officials have declared to us....via the MSM press....and on their own official websites.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=26

In this exchange, I respond to these comments....
and I haven't seen a response to my reply, since.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=29

Like in any battle understanding your enemy is an important step in defeating them. On another note, it seems that security is to be stepped up at London tube stations. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...id=158&tid=126
I don't think it's an effective implementation, I think the government just wants to be seen as doing something. It will, however, appease the fear of people using the tube and limit the liklehood of further attacks in the trains.

in a very cold light, i think the best summation that can be made of that argument is that he beleives some of us have failed nationalism.

the idea that there is joy to be had in human death, is of course only possible through some sort of us/them dichotomy and nationalistic ideology. so perhaps a lack of enthusiasm for america's death dealing is processed as rooting for the other team, since to the national...it is "obvious" that one would cheer for death, one side or the other.

grey--i normally dont do this quote myself thing, but in response to your post, i think this better than what i would write were i to address you directly.

suffice it to say that i see nothing other than a polite restatement of the old rightwing canard that dissent=aiding and abetting the enemy.

presumably, you would feel the opposite way if a "liberal" (another empty category) administration was in power and the conservatives in opposition--given your argument, i would assume, in which case, naturally, anything goes.

as to the content of your post, here goes:

I put quotes around understand because I don't think anyone can truly understand the warped ideas of these terrorists. The best you can do is guess their motives, based on your *own* experience. And I can only assume that your experience does not include a blind adherance to an extremist religion.

I'd say normal people cannot understand anyone willing to kill hundreds of innocent people just to draw attention. No sane person can understand someone that wants to kill people they never met for "insulting" their religion (or even because a religious leader *said* they insulted their religion).

I understand that Muslim extremists want us to stop supporting Israel (so they can kill the Jews), and leave the middle-east (so they can take over).
Then they'll demand control of Spain and the balkans. And then, because there are Muslims all over the world, they'll want to control all of it; after all, it's all part of the Muslim nation.

Do you understand why I think we'll lose everything if we are "understanding and less confrontational"?

a bit, but I think a two way strategy will wok much better than your "no understanding and just confrontational". Fight those who you are capable of fighting and winning against, understadn what fuels them and fight the reasons for the plague that terrorism is. Fight where you can change something for good.
Both fights so far, Iraq and Afghanistan, are not very successful.

What is your attempt of "confrontation"? invade anther nation? open up a new front whithout a plan what to do when the nation is invaded? Piss of some more people?

So far the ones who seem to be "all over the world" are we.

I understood there were some Muslim extremists who want the US to stop supporting Israel so that they'd stop oppressing Palestinians. Was I wrong?

/threadjack

P.S. I know Palestinians often suicide bomb the Jews, and I don't condone that.

a little over 57 years ago, i do remember the arabs and jews living together in harmony in a place called palestine, until the colonialists came through and divided the people and religions.

the arabs would rather live with the jews and have been for many centuries, and in relative harmony at that. but for an outside power to come in, support another race though monetary and military means, no wonder the arabs turned on their cousins. its this meddling in middle east affairs that ive been saying that turn ordinary people into terrorists. all they need is an excuse, and the west provides this to them.

obviously this is also the case in iraq, where the islamists needed an excuse to start a holy war, and bush and rummy gave them the green light.

Uh, no. Palestine was controlled by Britain for many years before Israel came into existence. Relations between Jews and Palestinians and the British weren't great, all the way around. In fact, they were downright awful.

And I find it difficult to believe that West + "meddling in middle eastern affairs" = terrorists. Islamic terrorism is vastly more complicated than that. Believe me - I think that pretty much everything Bush has done has worsened the situation - but Osama and many Islamic terrorists are just as interested in overthrowing what they perceive as illegitimate regimes in the Middle East, such as the Saudi regime.

alansmithee

its not about giving gratitude for doing away with a tyrant that they help put it. its the misery and suffering of a nation you help and continue to help plunder. regardless of whether you help take someone out of power, the us is still responsible for the political upheaval it has caused..pre-saddam, during the saddam era, and post saddam.

no, this isnt what i said. i was merely stating that to some, the pentagon and twin towers were considered legitimate military targets beacause of what they stood for, whereas the trains and buses are not seen as target for obvious reasons.

For everyone reading. Here's a helpful flash guide from the Guardian which briefly explains the history of the Arab - Israeli conflict. Before anyone thinks this is off topic, the British figure greatly into this story:

Arab - Israeli Conflict

No, my argument stood on it's own. I said exactly what I meant to. It has nothing to do with my supposed nationalism. It is a fact that in many places around the world, the news of the 9/11 attacks was greeted with celebration. It is also a fact that many people are trying to direct blame and focus away from the people who actually commit terrorism, and at the victims of terrorism. And some of these people feel terrorists to be justified in their acts.

i'd have to say that i'd agree wit most of you said. but the jews and palestinians werent at each others throats like that until the brits came into the picture. sure theres always tension and rivalry. besides, there wasnt the hatred that existed today. id agree that the brits were around for a few years, but they were the cause of the problem, by double dealing both sides and promising each side their own independant state, both of which happened to be the psame peice of land.

id agree that OBL would like to see the end of the saudi regime in no uncertain terms. but what fuelled his fire was the us having troops in saudi. you can still be an extremist and not be a terrorist. he gave himself an excuse.

when some say that terrorism is spawned by poverty, lack of education etc etc.. that may be true, but OBL definately did not fit this criteria. coming from an affluent and well respected family, he had an education, he was well spoken, he also had an extremist bent on religion. that doesnt make you a terrorist. what set him off what what he percieved as wrongs that he thought he could right..first the red threat in afghanistan and then the troops in saudi. like i said, all the need is an excuse, and political meddling is the perfect example.

Why is this? Don't maybe, oh, the people living there share some blame? If I remember, the people of Iran got sick of what they saw as meddling, and they overthrew him. Why not overthrow Saddam? And how is the suffering after-Saddam the US's fault? It isn't US citizens or soldiers planting roadside bombs targetting their own people.

No, the US is just a big, easy target. That's why the rest of the Western world is carefully left out of blame for situations like this. The US is the last superpower, and hence is an easy target.



What are the obvious reasons that trains and busses aren't the same type of target? What about the planes used to target the WTC and the Pentagon? Are planes somehow a more military target? I might even give you the Pentagon being a somewhat military target, but how is attacking the WTC any better than attacking trains and busses?

Not in my book! The U.S. is only the most powerful of all the imperialist countries, the rest of which I will NOT leave out of "blame" for situations like this.

However, my definition of "blame" is different than yours, so take it as you will. I've already tried to explain.

if you dont see the death and suffering of thousands in iraq as the fault of the US, i really dont think its worth my time. more people have died after the invasion and at a higher rate than during the saddam regime. yes, the political upheaval caused by this illegal invasion IS the fault of the US. anything after that is collaterally the fault of the invading army. there were no roadside bombs prior to the invasion. so ok, saddam ruled with an iron fist, but there wasnt the anarchy that exists today. how can the US not be to blame? and yes, the iraqis are partly to blame for those deaths through roadside bombs, but to wash the US's hands clean and call it collateral damage and blame it on the iraqis themselves is unequivocally wrong.

p.s. and its not just people dying caused by roadside bombs. how many innocents have been slain by indiscriminate US bombing or carelessness.



its not. and im not justifying the use of planes, nor the attack on the towers. im just letting you know that these people justify the attack on the towers because the WTC stood as a symbol of american might and monetary control over the entire world, as well as working with the "the zionists' plot to rule the world". although even within their own circles, this whole idea of killing innocents is questionable. for this reason, some islamic groups hesitated in condemning the 911 attacks initially, whereas the 7/7 attacks were condemned instantly by every islamic society and nation that i know.

And here we see how people can sympathize with terrorists. By this reasoning, if I get laid off at my job and go on a killing spree, I should be absolved. All GM execs should be arrested, because it was their policies that led to the rise of crime in Flint and Detroit. It wasn't the people commiting the crimes fault, they are apparently innocent.




There is no proof for anything you say here. It's obvious through even the mildest application of logic that in their circles, killing innocents isn't questionable. And I have yet to see any major country condemn the recent attacks, and very few who condemed the 9/11 attacks, even 4 years later.

i quite clearly do remember saying that insurgents were NOT free of blame, but also that we cannot make the US free of guilt.

this nonesense about killing sprees is an overkill. but if you want to play that game......if the GM went into your office, slapped you round a bit, gave you a bit of a beating and told you u were fired for no apparent reason except that one of ure superiors was a total dick, and because of that you went home and went a killing spree, i'd say that the GM would have some onus of responsibility..yes



well you obviously do not care to listen enough to these condemnations. i also rekon you cant off the top of you head name the 3 top muslim organisations in the US or any of the top US muslim scholars. (no google) so its obvious as to why you havent heard any condemnations..4 years later.

as for any major country condemning the recent attacks.. try egypt, palestine, lebanon, saudi off the top of my head. maybe try the english al jazeera website if need be. ignorance is not bliss.

as for the killing of innocents, i reiterate that the killing of innocents IS in fact questionable within muslim fundamentalists circles. being of a muslim origin myself, i have come across the whole spectrum of what is out there. and i have debated with most about these issues. some fundo's think its ok, other fundos do not. and there have been numerous internal debates about this issues within muslim organisations, families and individuals. you may not be privy to such information, but its happens. you can try and meet some muslims one day..you might surprise yourself.

Could we get this discussion back on topic?

Somehow people seem to think that this is about apportioning blame, and the rights and wrongs of George. W. Bush.

Yes there is a context in which these attacks have occured, so it is probably reasonable to refer to that context - but please start a new thread if you want to bounce this pointless American Party politics bollocks around.

We still don't know who was responsible for the London bombings, or exactly what the attacker's mode of operation was.

I heard someone come up with an interesting idea: Take out a full page ad in each of the daily papers, spelling out a message for those responsible for these attacks asking whoever is responsible to send a letter explaining just exactly what the fuck they want that will be printed in the same paper the very next week.

come on folks
 

I just think its sad that the terrorist win... every time this happens, they blow up a couple of bombs and ruin the lives of some many people, and what’s the first thing we do.... blame each other, not morn, not sympathize, not even revenge which I wont condone but would at least see as a rational response, we bicker amongst ourselves, who are all in some small parts victims and in a greater part targets to these people. Don’t think pre George Bush, pre Clinton, pre 9/11 anybody that had anything to do with the London bombings wouldn’t gladly place a bomb in anyone of your houses and watch you and your family die. We should be sad for those you were effected and glad it wasn't us.... instead we let there rage and hatred spark ours.... and if you don’t think that’s part of there big plan your dead wrong.
:confused:

Ah, Joe you are so right, but neither side listens they are so damned sure that they are right and that the other is the one that is the reason for the bombs.

They refuse to see we live in the same house and while the terrorists maybe playing with matches trying to start a fire.... we're soaking the house in gasoline and filling the rooms with dynamite.

Just a matter of time before the terrorists hit the right spot and unless we start working together and throw water on the matches..... it's all going to blow up.

All I can say to this is two words that liberals (and yourself whatever your political alignment) seem to have a problem remembering and using: personal responsibility.

You just proved exactly what I was saying. Civilized nations/people aren't debating if killing innocents is fine. This isn't something that any rational person needs to debate about.

And also, I checked al jazeera, and there was no mention of any arab nation condemning the London attacks.

pan:

i marvel at your busby berekeley argument each time you make it.
come on everyone, let's put on a musical. pull together as a team, etc.
in the interest of national unity....

but what are you really asking us to do?

the fact is that folk who are not conservative are listening to the conservative arguments--they simply do not accept them. what you find is almost no reciprocity--conservatives do not appear to take critiques of their positions seriously. ever. particularly not on this matter.


on the question of terrorism--whatever that is--you have alansmithee as the self-appointed representative of the "to attempt to work out why an attack might have happened is to sympthatize with terrorists" school.

among other things, in this thread he has tried to argue that "lifestyle" is not linked to the economy. he has tried to argue that the "motive" for this type of tactic is jealousy. he has tried to argue that if you link american policies--state and economic to name just two--to the causes for such attacks you are a effectively a sympathizer.

the prescription that we are offered--what should "we" do if any attempt to understand why this sort of thing happens means that we are sympthizing with the attackers?
kill em all let god sort em out.

the fact is that this kind of position heads off trying to understand what is happening around you.
it prevents coherence--it does not inform it--it is an obstacle.
it seems a perfect example of the mode of argument that i have tried to isolate several times in various threads of late: contemporary conservative argument is not about the world--it is about the individual conservative first, the mode of identification between the individual conservative and a sense of him or herself as articulated through the conservative media apparatus. features or claims about the world resonate primarily with a sense of self-identification as conservative, are legitimated that way--they are not about a coherent description of the world itself, they have nothing to offer anyone who does not identify as conservative a priori.

conservative argument is also about border generation and border patrol.
if folk from the right devoted anywhere near the intellectual energy to trying to work out why things are as they are that they expend on trying to distinguish an us from a them, the whole of political debate would be much better for it. but i think there is little chance of that happening until this ideology grinds itself to powder--which is a process that is well under way. but you never know with this kind of thing, really, until the process is over.

so most conservative argument on the question of "terrorism" are more about "i am conservative and you are not" than about anything approaching a coherent relationship to the question at hand.

where is there any room in this for compromise with people who do not identify as conservative? theirs is a kind of battle ideology. we who are not conservative are the primary enemy. the discourse of "terrorism" quickly devolves into a kind of running litmus test: are you for us or against us?
think about the implication of how alansmithee's arguments have run out here (he is not alone,,,there are others...i simply use his posts here as an example)...those of us who do not agree with me ARE terrorists. what the fuck is that? how do you expect there to be any room for compromise? even if i were personally to find compromise desirable, where would i start if by virtue of not accepting the right line, i am defined a priori as part of a fifth column?

but you claim, pan, that we should compromise?

how?

You can't seriously believe this. You don't take any critique as serious. If someone disagrees, they are labeled conservative, and anything they say is quicky dismissed. This is shown by your obvious disbelief that anyone could actually not accept your arguments-anyone who doesn't accept them is clearly not listening. There is no room in that reasoning for accepting criticism.


Where did I say that lifestyle has nothing to do with economics? Again, by dismissing what I say as a conservative argument, you save yourself the trouble of having to actually listen and try to understand what I am saying. Maybe if I were to fly a plane into your house you would sympathise and try to understand better.

As to the rest, you don't look into the cause of cancer when you have cancer, you just eliminate it. Afterwards is the time for looking into reasons and assigning blame, and working on prevention if it was your actions at fault. But it doesn't do any good to know that your smoking was to blame while you lay dying of lung cancer.

You could replace liberal, and that section is just as valid. You are just using conservative as a label for those who don't agree with you. And obviously, if someone doesn't agree with you, it's because of a personal failing of theirs and not the ridiculousness of your argument, right?

Your whole viewpoint boils down to this:

I have discovered everything living in my ivory tower, and any intellectual inferior (aka conservative) who disagrees with me is obviously wrong, so why should I try to understand anything they might say?

Why are they wrong? Because they're conservative and don't agree with me.

And why should I compromise when I'm obviously so right and they're obviously so wrong?

That's just it Roach, both sides are so freaking stuck with their views and unwilling to budge at all that there is nothing but animosity and hatred being spewed.

I mean, when on Thursday, the GOP talking heads spewing hate filled monologues how the bombings were the Left's fault..... that leaves very little to negotiate compromises with.

It's not a "let's do a musical..... Pollyanna...... etc" type attitude I am trying to convey. It is reality.

We are feasting on each other and so busy attacking the other because "they started it and they want it all their way" that the big picture seems to elude everyone. We cannot keep being divided and blaming each other. It's suicidal.

The economy is going into the shitter, we have massive debts, we have an infrastucture and tax base falling apart and we have terrorists feasting on our hatreds of each other.

Goddamn people wake the fuck up. We're in serious trouble and all we can do is point fingers and refuse to even try to negotiate compromises.

Hell, when Voinivich, Dewine and the other senators tried the GOP called them turncoats and are trying to find people to run against Voinivich and Dewine so they won't get re-elected. I mean come on.... we are in some serious shit when a party decides that if one of theirs tries to compromise and that person needs to be run out of office..... some serious warning bells should go off.

We are one serious tragedy away from watching ourselves totally go berserk and destroy each other. And for what? What the fuck is so important that one side feels the need to destroy the country. Abortion? The 10 Commandments being hung in public? Gay Marriage?

What we are doing to ourselves and our nation is far worse than ANYTHING the fucking terrorists can do to us.

When you have Rove or McCain or Limbaugh or Moore spewing nothing but hatred and demanding that we destroy the other side without so much as listening to them, nor can we give them acknowledgements of their good points (AND BOTH SIDES DO HAVE GOOD STANCES ON SOME ISSUES) nor can we even think of trying to compromise..... we are done.

Regardless of what the idiots on the Right say, regardless of what the morons on the Left want to preach........... this country was founded on compromise between the majority and minority and has compromised for the good of the country ever since..... well until now.

Perhaps it's because we are the lone super-power and there is no more boogey-man USSR to hate. Perhaps, because we have no true equal enemy outside we feel the need to feed within.

Heaven forbid both sides agree and work to better the country...... Heaven forbid one side takes the high road and says "fuck it you want to show hate and spew shit.... we won't, we'll be positive and ignore your games. We'll stick to issues and we'll get our fat lazy asses out of the office and into the townhalls and the village squares and maybe we won't have much of an audience at first but when people hear that we have positive ways and we don't use negativity and we don't go down to their level because we BELIEVE in what we say and our issues"..... the people will start coming.

Instead, both sides spew hatred and what that tells me is that neither side truly believes in what they are fighting for..... they are fighting just to be right and prove the other side wrong..... That's fucking insane.... no side is 100% right and no side is 100% wrong and to not even listen to what others say is ridiculous and suiciudal to our society as we know it.

I fucking give up.... if the Right wants to fucking destroy the Left and vice versa and destroying each other is more important than truly bettering the nation..... then fine destroy each other, kill each other off...... maybe in the end the terrorists will show mercy and realize nothing they can do will be worse than what we are doing to ourselves.

Some great points.

Alan, I may not agree with you much politically but I deeply respect that maybe you are seeing my point, as you see that it is both sides and "conservative" is simply replaced by "liberal" in the hatemongering. I truly hope so and I truly pray more do before it is too late.

alansmithee:
here is your post from a couple days ago:

i dont know, maybe you write in some code that i cant decipher--but all the appearances that your actual writing gives would lead me to think that you do, in fact, assume that the motive for "terrorism" is jealousy over lifestyle.

when i responded with what i assumed was obvious irony (maybe not--my apologies if i was obscure) that you were making a ridiculous seperation between "lifestyle" and what that "lifestyle" requires for support, you simply reiterated your argument that things were as you said they were.

the only way i would know whether you in fact think this way would be if we were to be able to sit around having a few beers in 3-d life and talk.
which would be fine...i hope that i do not give the impression that i would treat you as a human being the way i treat the arguments you make here.
we are on a messageboard...what is written is what i react to.

as for my inability to take your arguments seriously: well, i dont.
this has nothing to do with "hatred" or any of the other cliches that you might toss about to rationalize the fact that people simply do not agree with you. if anything, i assume that you--and most of the folk with whom i argue here who position themselves on the right--are more intelligent and flexible in your thinking than the arguments you run out let you appear to be.

i have assumptions about politics and its relation to trying to understand why the world in which we live is as it is--so do you. we disagree--and fundamentally disagree--about what constitutes basic data. what you tend to rule out seems to me important more often than not.

this is important because i do not think that politics is a simple question of opinion--i do not think that all positions are equivalent because folk happen to believe them.
this is not a question of religious committment--on those grounds, you would be right in your assumptions that there is a requirement that one simply allow others to believe as they like simply because they do so.

but if you conflate the two registers, debate is pointless. and maybe it is.
but if this is an index of how the political climate in the states is moving--then, brother, we are all fucked.
and whether we do or do not pay attention to exhortations to pull together as a team will make no difference whatsoever.

i do not see debate like arm wrestling--i am not interested in the illusion of winnning or losing arguments, really. what i am interested in is trying to argue that there is a wealth of material--of data--information--available that enables you to see the question of "terrorism" in different ways---what i am interested in, on this score, is trying to force a different set of assumptions about what is and is not relevant into the conversation. in the end, it may well be that you see this as an attempt to win some match with you--and while i do think that your politics would collapse if you looked at things differently, whether you as a name that tracks across the green box that is any given post agree or do not is not really that big a deal to me.

and no, alansmithee, i have not figured everything out. and i am not a particularly "ivory tower" sort--if i was, what would i be doing here? if what you say was true, why would i talk with you? what would be the point? i would simply assume that you and everyone else here was probably an idiot and go do something else. and so i find your argument on this count to not only be wrong but personally offensive. because, at bottom, you do not know me and so do not know what you are talking about.

i do see conservative ideology as dangerous. dangerous for anything approaching a democratic polity, dangerous as a logic for thinking about the world, dangerous as a politics for thinking about domestic issues.

if you want to have an actual debate about the types of assumptions that shapes how you or i might view the question of terrorism, then let's do it: all assumptions on the table..let's go. i would enjoy it coming from someone on the right for once--but i doubt you'll take me up on it. in the end, you find yourself backed into an uncomfortable place and you cop out by trying to present yourself as some kind of victim. your choice: just dont expect that it will have much in the way of positive impact on how seriously i take you. which does not, i suppose matter much.

there are perfectly legitimate reasons for anyone to not accept conservative ideology. this whole discourse within rightwingland that characterizes anyone who disagrees with you as motivated by hatred is a declaration of intellectual vanity that far outstrips anything you impute to me. yours is the position that works from the assumption that your arguments are above reproach. if you did not assume was much, why would the only recourse you have to explain differences of views is the empty dicourse of "hatred"? there are no rational grounds for not agreeing with conservative ideology: all dissent is equally irrational. how much more vain could you possibly be? seriously...i dont see how you could go any further in that direction. but in this case, the problem is not yours--it is the ideolgical structure you adhere to--these arguments circulate endlessly in conservative media orf all types. but it is vanity, alansmithee.

count me on the side of wanting to see a structured debate between roachboy and alansmithee!!

i've often wished we could have a moderated 'debate' type of format - people answering questions others asked, and not just dancing around where they want to go...

although we might have to get past each side thinking the other is too stuck up to talk :D

I would love to see a true debate of the issues, but my honest beliefs are that both sides hate each other so much and refuse to admit that the other may have a good idea that they have lost sight of what they truly stand for and how to achieve it.

This is a very well-written post that says nothing more than what I said before: Anyone who you disagree with is wrong, and not to be taken seriously. These people are considered conservatives. Conservatives are wrong, because they don't agree with me.

And somehow you don't see yourself doing the same thing that these shadowy conservatives are considered doing? You have described conservatives as people who force an us vs. them mentality, yet you do the very same thing. You believe your assumptions are right, and there's no other way of seeing the world. And anyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with your beliefs is inherently dangerous. You don't give any reasons why, you just constantly trot out conservative, because it's easier to deal with as a monolithic block. It requires less questioning from you-instead of trying to understand and deal with how you might be wrong, or at least re-examine your beliefs, labelling someone a conservative easily gets them out of the way. Because everyone knows that conservatives, are dangerous, divisive, illogical people, right? You don't even bother to say why conservative arguments aren't to be taken seriously, or why they are dangerous, or any other reason for what you claim.


I would take you up on your challenge about assumptions. I would be more than willing to. Because I AM willing to listen to a valid argument. I think you would be more likely to be "backed into a corner" simply because your dogmatism. I am more willing to be right, even if that means I have to change an opinion. You seem most worried about YOUR views being right, and protecting your world view from anything that might challenge it. That's why any compromise is so odious to you-it implies that there might be something wrong with how you see the world.

I only hope that the Republicans (or whoever is in power) are as right as most seem to believe they are, because I see more and more people like the above gaining voices in politics-people who aren't open to any new or differing ideas, and dogmatically follow whatever side they've allied themselves with, without examining WHY they believe the way they do.

Is this the real Alansmithee :hmm: ????? :lol: Would you stop making sense already....... damn agreeing with you too much in 1 day will make my head hurt.

how would be set this up so it did not devolve in to more of this kind of nonsense?

you insist on reducing the various points of dispute to questions of prior disposition on my part--this will get us nowhere.
you act as though you can speak to grounds for arguments that you have no way of knowing about.

so let me be clear:
i fundamentally disagree with your politics.
period.
the reasons i have for doing so do not correspond to your assumptions about why i disagree--if i felt conservative ideology provided an adequate description of the world, i would in all probability be a conservative.
but i dont.
how do we talk across this kind of basic disagreement?

well one way of trying would be to stop reducing my position to a cartoon and stop imputing ridiculous motives to me.

because your response above seems to me a kind of tedious exercize in projection on your part, alansmithee--again---this has happened over and over here----it is like you have to jam me into some tiny little box to explain to yourself why i do not see things as you do. and when it comes down to it, you simply invert the whole process and project all this back onto me.

when i post here i try to be quite specific: i try not to go after personal motivations and instead talk about types of argument, types of logic, that i see shaping what the poster is trying to say. i think i can talk about that and push it quite far without having to revert to speculations about motive. i can see why you might take it otherwise--but there is nothing i can really do about that, given that over and over i have tried to be as clear as i can that i see in your arguments, and in the arguments of other conservative folk who post here, particular patterns. and i talk about those patterns. you do not do me the same courtesy. if you want to continue anything like a dialogue, you have to do me that. on this point, i see no need to compromise. think of it as a ground rule. you agree to continue, you agree to that. they are, in a way, the same thing.

in conversation/debate on this board that has involved me with folk who are conservative, there has been a range of interactions--with artelevision, for example, things went in an interesting direction because despite the fact that we do not agree politically we could still talk. because we did not patronize each other up front by imputing goofy shit to each other, we have even been able to become friends. there is another type of argument that i run into here that has not offered the same kind of space--the ustwo model--sometimes your posts run into that place. i find him patronizing and uninformed--he finds me arrogant. and that is where things remain. nowhere to go, no real discussion to be had. i think that each of us has located a particularly effective way to irritate the other. so it is not that i will not listen--it is that i find myself sometimes being accorded some respect and according it in turn--and other times that respect is not forthcoming and things devolve quickly. and this particular type of devolution, because it follows the same pattern every time, is not interesting to me. i have alot going on in 3-d life and am increasingly feeling that i need not bother with it.

just so you know. i expect that you feel a parallel way about my posts--if so we push each other into these stupid places. it is not necessary--but you have to stop the kind of stuff i noted above or you will never know whether this particular type of conversation is the only one possible across political positions. maybe i'm wrong, but i take some of the more aggressive aspects of my posts to be reactive. one way to find out though: grant me this up front and if afterward i turn out to be an asshole, tell me. and i'll try to back off.

so there we are.

alansmithee, I hope that you, Pan, and roachboy will forgive me for "barging" in on your "back and forth", but I would like to satisfy my curiousity, and maybe reach a greater understanding about my inability to understand how you, and say... Marvelous Mary, gain and hold your convictions.

The following is a post from Marvelous Mary, which is a response to zen_tom:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=91489&page=2
(Near bottom of page)

zen_tom makes (IMO, anway) the easily defended statement that ,"Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and the US waging a war based on that issue", and Marvelous Mary countered with a reference to "UN SCR 687", and an article from a consrvative Harvard student periodical that offers it's own analysis of Charles Duelfer's 10/2004 WMD report, that is intended to persuade that the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq, and that Bush did not mislead, because.....only the U.S. administrations reaction to 9/11 intervened to blunt Saddam's "waiting game", whereby, when the U.N. sanctions ended, he would have put his dormant WMD programs in high gear, and emerged as a
menace to the world.. ... (my comments continue below MM's post....)
Marvelous Mary ended her response to zen_tom with:
alansmithee, as the self appointed, repetitive poster of the overwhelming evidence that Saddam did not possess WMD, and that key members of the Bush administration were either reported, in 2001 and 2002, to either agree
that he had not reconsituted his WMD programs, or are directly quoted as saying that, along with WH press secretary McClellan's Jan. 12, 2005 admission to the press that Bush agreed that no WMD were found, or were likely to be found, based on the Duelfer report, in areas outside of Iraq, such as Syria, and my recently posted quotes from Bush and Rice that:

and that Bush had claimed that:
In late January 2003, in his SOTU address, more than a month after Iraq had presented it's data and inventory of WMD and WMD programs to the U.N.,
Bush claimed that Iraq's WMD inventory, as a justification for war, included:
.....I am confident that it diminishes the credibility of any individual of any ideology to disagree that Bush misled and exaggerated to the point that he either could be called a liar, or incredibly misinformed to the degree that he was incompetent or inept.

Even with this body of formidible evidence, I still find myself having to post it again and again on these threads. The trend is that resistance to the evidence is shrinking.

My question to you is, in the face of this evidence, why do people still defend Bush with such anger, as MM did, and what do you think that it will take, as
far as evidence, if an admission from Bush himself is not sufficient enough for posts such as MM's to cease here? Why is is so difficult to process such straightforward, well documented arguments?

Now I'm a supporter of the war?????? Because I am speaking out against the fucking partisanship that is destroying us faster than the terrorists could ever dream of?

That's a new one.

I'm very vocal against the war in Iraq. Have been. But I am also a realist and if we are going to be there then let's do what we can to end it as quickly and with as few as possible casualties.

This fucking bickering over who is fucking right and who is fucking wrong has been getting us nowhere and is destroying us from within.

If some of you who choose to continue arguing your side and putting down the other without even so much as a legitimate civilized debate then you are the problem.

I was. I admit it, and there are issues I will still argue, but I have come to the conclusion that where the left and the right extremists see compromise and trying to work with each other as weakness, it's wrong. We share this country and our lives and happinesses are dependant upon this country moving forward. The only way we will ever move forward is to stop this "Fuck you I'm right and you're wrong" attitudes.

It's dividing the nation and right now we are about as divided as we have ever been since the Civil War.

When talking heads of 1 party sit and trash their political rivals on a horrendous day and blame the other side for allowing it to happen while the terrorists laugh at the fact we are feasting on each other and destroying ourselves far worse than they ever could....... something is seriously wrong here.

When days after the attackl people are pointing fingers and grandstanding and turning the horrendous event into a political attack....... something is seriously wrong.

When sides refuse to talk civilly and instead become more polarized..... something is seriously wrong.

Whether we like it or not, whether we deserve it or not, whether we want to believe it or not...... there are fucking people out there that have the sole intention in life to KILL us. And they are eventually going to become more dangerous and threatening unless we do something to stop them.

It's not a question of whether they will ever get "dirty bombs", "suitcase nukes" or viral diseases to spread true anguish and pain.......

It's a question of when.

And if we stay at each other's fucking throats and pay more attention to trying to win political brownie points.....WE WILL FUCKING DIE!!!!!!!

So grow the fuck up, get your shit together and start fucking getting along or we're dead. It is that plain and simple.

Do you think these terrorists give 1 iota who is right over here and who is wrong???????

No, they're laughing their asses off because they know the more we fight within, the more divided our house is..... the less we pay attention to what they are doing and they can plan their attacks and pull them off with little resistance.

I'm not going to sit here and watch fucking partisan assholes destroy my country, destroy what I love because they are too fucking arrogant and ignorant to listen to anyone that doesn't agree with them.

And if you disagree with what I say..... hey great that's what this country is about...... but YOU tell me how divisive partisan politics is helping us to beat the terrorists and not destroy the country.

I appologize for the language and the temper..... but people wake up and see that we are so divided we are truly destroying ourselves.

but pan--there are fundamental diagreements between positions.
i dont now what you have in mind when you complain about fragmentation--that is the nature of the democratic beast, even in its watered down american form. the only problem with fragmentation is when it reaches the point of impasse--and even that would only be a problem in a direct democratic system. right now, you have an extreme rightwing administration. you have supporters of that administration. you have lots of people who oppose both, and quite strongly.

fact is that i think, and will continue to think, that within this the problem is that the right is trying to shift the basis for political committment away from anything approaching a conventional standard for politics, toward a type of religious committment. bitch all you want about the result of that, but let's not pretend that the cause is other than it is. i do not know why you prefer to see the problem as being generated by all sides of the debate, when it is pretty obvious that there is one side whose positions are routinely floated as nonfalsifiable, and that side is the right.

i think that is the main point host was trying to make.
it is the same kind of point that i have been trying to make.
it is the same point that alansmithee tried to dodge by simply turning the argument around. if this debate ever transpires, i expect it will become pretty clear pretty fast where the limitations are, what their source and what their implications.

where do you get the idea that there is anything like a bloc parallel to the american right that opposes it? there is a vast diversity of positions that agree amongst themselves only about their opposition to this administration and the politics is embodies. to pretend that there is a fight between two symmetrical blocs is delusional--a delusion that suits the right just fine because it is one of their main tactics--to pitch their aggressive actions as responses, to confuse offense and defense in the minds of their loyalists. but it is wrong empirically, and will do you no good to hold onto conceptually.

maybe you are right that the good of this nation thing you refer to alot would be better served if it was less polarized--but the idea that this is simply something that happens because people are snarky and not a response to a concrete political situation created in large measure by the rise and consolidation of extreme right politics in the states is useless.

I chose this topic to share conversations between myself and a friend in London. We have shared political opinions for approximately three years. I consider him my mentor in getting me involved in politics, but we have disagreed often. (He was correct 9 out of 10 times). He offered this article in describing the differences between our press and his.

http:www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=5323

BLOG | Posted 07/11/2005 @ 2:52pm
Bugged by the Brits

Conservative radio and television personalities in the United States were unsettled after last week's bombings in London -- not because of the terrorist attack on a major western city, but because too few Londoners were willing to serve as props to support the right-wing ranting of the Americans. After one stoic Brit, who had blood on the side of his face, calmly described climbing out of a smoke-filled subway station, a Fox anchor exclaimed, "That man's obviously in shock."

Actually, the man appeared to be completely in control of his faculties, as did the British journalists who appeared that evening on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor." Host Bill O'Reilly, the king of the hysterics, had a hard time with the Brits, who simply were not as feverish as he had hoped -- and who were genuinely bemused when he started ranting about how much he hated Britain's highly regarded Guardian newspaper.

O'Reilly, like too many other American radio and television commentators, expected the British attacks to provide a new opportunity to hype support for the war in Iraq, gripe about "open borders" and generally spin sorrow and fear into political gold for the conservative cause.

It didn't happen, though not for lack of trying by the folks at Fox.

The Fox commentary following the London bombings was surreal. Brit Hume babbled about how the dip in stock values after the attacks meant it was "time to buy," Brian Kilmeade suggested that a deadly terrorist attack on a country where the G8 leaders were meeting "works to our advantage," and John Gibson bemoaned the fact that the bombs hit London and not Paris. "They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?" chuckled Gibson, the host of one of the network's "news" shows.

But the Fox personalities and their allies in right-wing talk radio found few takers among the British for their efforts to politicize the gruesome developments in the British capital.

Try as American conservative commentators did to get Londoners to echo their pro-Bush, pro-war line, the British generally refused to play along.

This does not mean that most Brits who were interviewed embraced calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq or other alternatives to the Bush administration's misguided approach to the so-called "war on terror." But it does mean that, instead of parroting propaganda, the Brits preferred to engage in thoughtful discussions about what had happened, why the terrorists targeted London and what ought to be done to prevent future attacks. Few topics were off limits.

Veteran journalist Gary Younge suggested that the attacks were "Blair's blowback" -- the bloody wages of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to back President Bush's disastrous decision to invade Iraq. Some members of parliament called for Britain to quickly withdraw its troops from the quagmire. Others suggested that Britain needs to get more engaged in promoting the Middle East peace process. There was no single response, no lockstep approach, because the Brits were angry enough -- and determined enough -- to put everything on the table.

Unfortunately, a thoughtful, nuanced discussion that was focused on finding solutions -- rather than merely venting or promoting a particular political agenda -- didn't fit into the Fox format.

The inability of American right-wing media to recognize honest discourse prevented most U.S. media outlets from recognizing that which was genuinely meaningful and moving about the British reaction.

For instance, U.S. media pretty much missed the one truly Churchillian response to the attacks -- that of London Mayor Ken Livingstone, a committed socialist and anti-war activist, who issued the following statement on the day of the attacks.

Snip: The mayors statement has been submitted to tfp before; see link.

Where's the proof? This is the problem with all of your arguments, they are all begging the question. Unless you already believe that it's just the right that is the problem, there is no proof.

How did I try to dodge anything? Again, there's no proof of this.

Again, unless you believe already that the right is unopposed, no evidence will support your claim. And hence, your claim is not sound.

You talk repeatedly about the conservative us vs. them menality, yet someone hardly conservative above just said that pan somehow supported the war. Because pan dared to disagree (that dissent thing you seem to find so great), he/she was instantly able to be labelled a war supporter (and probably also the dreaded conservative).

Again, if you fail to see the opperation of a liberal bloc in opposition to the neocon bloc, it is because you are purposely keeping your eyes closed.

(and btw, if asked for proof, I can actually provide this).

Here's is a video that admits there were bombing drills on the very day of the bombings, as well as the exact locations. For me its difficult to believe this coincidence. Is it unreasonable to belive that this spin off of Al Qaeda is not the prime suspect? Please take a look and tell me what you think.

Video: Bombing Exercises In London Underground

The bolded section is mine. In essence, what you are saying here is that if someone designated as "right" says something, it's "merely venting or promoting a particular political agenda". But when a "veteran" journalist said the bolded section, it's "a thoughtful, nuanced discussion that was focused on finding solutions".

And after doing a search and perusal of some of Mr. Younge's previous articles, it's obvious he would be the last one to vent or promote a particular political agenda [/sarcasm].

But hey, why let a perfectly good tragedy go to waste when political capital can be mined from it?

I have been in the north woods for the last week, I only heard about this, very briefly (10 seconds), on the one working radio in camp.

On the long drive back to civilization I pondered what the reaction on the TFP boards would be. There is obviously no surprise in that the usual posters were very predictable in their reaction to the attacks.

This predictability makes posting anything pointless.

So I will simply state my heart goes out to the families of the dead and maimed and I hope the terrorists come get brought to justice swiftly.

issues are discussed and conclusions are based. most muslims (99.5%) disagree with the killing of innocents. just because a few crazy fundo's think its ok does not mean that the majority condones it. debate is also used to try and change and convince them to think otherwise. its not healthy to have a shoot 'em down attitude like yourself..but each to his own.

'civilised/nations and people' ARE debating the killing of innocents in iraq btw.



i meant check aljazeera/arabic media outlets....aljazeera is synonymous for arabic news outlets...but i did some reserach for you...




Islamic Leaders Condemn the Bombing

footnote: it should be noted that al qardawi and tantawi are considered the highest and most respected and well known scholars in the islamic world today.

Amen Ustwo

Alan, this is the view of a Londoner I know that shared this article. Respectfully, we of the US with only two parties (that don't have a dime's worth of difference) really don't understand what is right or left in British politics. We are somewhat slightly right (centrist by British standards), and you have no idea about "left" if you haven't studied politics outside of the US.

The article is presented as a different view of the media between the US and Britain. But, once again... dialogue about the content is not possible. You attack the source, without offering a reasonable discussion.

Shall we just dispense with further comment? You will always be right, anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong, in any possible way you wish to choose. You have chosen sarcasm, and cherry picked a single comment in the entire article and twisted it to suit your politics.

I continue to hope that reasoned discussion can occur in this forum.

alansmithee, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it was not clear to you that the questions and examples in my last post here were directed solely at you, with a "courtesy" comment that was directed to three of you, influencing Pan, I'm presuming, to misunderstand that I was posting to you.
I have now quoted my comments in my last post, and removed all quote boxes that were included in my previous post, and marked your name with "BOLD" html tags. Kindly re-read it and respond in the interest of providing your insight. My experience is, that by re-posting the links and excerpts that
are displayed in my post, near the bottom of this page:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=91489&page=2

I am able to discourage further assertions by the same poster, anyway, that Saddam possessed WMD and had operational WMD programs in early 2003, and that Bush and members of his administration did not lie to or mislead the American people to an extremely troubling degree, about the WMD threat, and about what the administration knew pre-9/11 about even the idea that terrorists had the potential to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings.

alansmithee, the bottom line is: does the "quality" of an argument, i.e., posting linked quotes from the White House that the president no longer believes that WMD will be found in Iraq or in places like Syria, quotes from Powell and Rice two years before the invasion of Iraq, that Saddam has "not reconstituted WMD programs", and that the "no fly zones" were successful in preventing Saddam from even posing a "threat to his neighbors", have the effect that I perceive, by at least diminishing assertions similar to the ones that Marvelous Mary made in her post in my linked example page, just a day or two ago?

If you agree that it has that effect. is that the extent of documentation that you believe it will take to influence people who are more "Bush" than Bush, about these issues, to at least "stand down" ?

Different in what way?

I'd be curious as to how you would find this article to read...how would you characterize it, politically speaking, as being different from the US media 'viewpoint'?

From what I have been able to understand from the news and reading this forum, there are groups of people in the world who believe they are in a holy war (a religious jihad) with the U.S and the west (the great satan). They feel justified in bombing and killing civilians just as many nations at war have done in the past.

I don't think it will be possible to appease this religious fanaticism with what they percieve as good actions and understanding from the west. The only way to keep from getting killed is to declare all out war against this stealth enemy. I am not smart enough to know how to do this but I think it would probaby involve much clandestine activity with some very talented people working as spys. Surely we in the west can muster up some people capable of taking the war to the groups responsible. Something like some well placed bombs of our own placed in their training camps, etc..

Just like any other war the decision as to who the enemy is and which targets to hit will necessarily have to be made by the military. I have a hard time believing that Great Britain and the U.S. are in the dark as much as it appears in the news reports in regards to who is responsible for these attacks.

I find anyone who would actually resort to the actions these terrorists takes to be people that no amount of convincing will work. So the best thing to do is make it sure they don't hurt anyone else.

There is no debate. The civillians aren't the intended targets, and nobody thinks its good that they die. You can't say the same about terrorists and their mindset/tactics.



I'll bow to your knowledge about the islamic community on this, and say that anything I said about muslim org's and leaders not condemning these recent attacks was wrong. I also think it would help if statements like these were brought to the attention of more people, as it would probably (hopefully) lessen some of the anti-muslim sentiment found in the US.

As I just admitted above, I'm not always right, and if compelling evidence is brought to bear showing how I'm wrong, I'll gladly correct myself. So that's now out of the way.

As to the claim of "attacking the source and not the content", I was discussing the content. The content of the article is supposedly about how biased US media is, and the US media's inability to deal properly with tragedy. I was showing that the very comments that the blogger was using to supposedly show the levelheadedness and clear thinking of British media were, just maybe, as politically motivated as the comments attributed to the right-leaning portions as the US media. And how I "twisted" a comment that WAS DIRECTLY QUOTED IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE is beyond me.

And you are fooling yourself if you expect anyone to believe that the purpose of you posting that was to show some sort of unbiased account of the difference between British and US media. Us "conservatives" aren't as stupid as you'd like to believe.

I read your later post, and didn't read this one. My comments were based on what pan said. I might respond to your later one If I think there's enough difference to warrant it, but I think there was a couple of key things here that I didn't want to miss.

Here's one example of the compartmentalization that goes on. I'm a "conservative", as is MM. Therefore, we obviously hold the same convictions, right? So I obviously believe that Saddam has some WMD stashed up his ass. Also, this is apparently the position of black america, since i'm black and generalizations are the in thing for liberals. Also, union members all hold this position, fyi.

I will now continue in my appointed post as spokesman for conservatives, blacks, and union members (there's more, but I don't want to go through all the time listing the various sub-groups I am also representing).


I read the links you posted. Many I don't find credible whatsoever for supporting your claims. That being said, at the very least any rational person would have to assume form those quotes and the associated sources of many of them that there was no WMD in Iraq, and that Saddam had no functioning weapons program.

The "program in the wings" is an interesting idea, but to me seems little more than some after the fact rationalization for a particular issue that has little legs otherwise. It's little more than pretty conjecturing.

However, I would disagree somewhat that you proved your borderline libelous attacks. There was a body of evidence that suggested the possibility of WMD before Bush even took office.

I see it more like the admin decided that they had enough reasons to go to war in Iraq (and I'm sure we all could think of reasons why they would, good and bad) and WMD was what they thought would be the easiest reason to sell. It just happens that it was wrong in hindsight.

Why despite mountains of evidence to the contrary do some people still claim that Bush lost the '00 and '04 elections?

Sometimes people believe things despite evidence to the contrary. And if someone believes that strongly, possibly no amount of evidence would sway them. The manner in which info is presented can often also influence how it is received.

Sometimes it's simply best to ignore posts where people are too far gone from reality.

I am truly confused here. I'm an admitted Liberal and I truly believe one of the last hippies on the face of the Earth. So I am lost in how my saying the partisan politics is killing us is supported by a righty and my fellow lefties are attacking me like I have no idea what the Hell I am talking about.

Rob Reiner once said of All In the Family that the writers did not want to shove politics down people's throats that's why they made Mike just as bad as Archie in his views.

What we have is a nation that is so torn and so fucking positive they are right they refuse to truly debate. The attitude is "You either agree with me or you are wrong, wrong, wrong".

Look, after listening to Limbaugh Thursday I realized we are so polarized that we're toast. It maybe a defeatist attitude but look at this thread.

I have 1 person posting in agreement with me, and his and my politics are about as opposite as it can get at times. The people who's politics resemble mine are yelling at me, saying I don't understand that "debate, is healthy and keeps us moving forward" and I have the Righties ignoring me (except for Alan).

Debate is very healthy..... but we don't have debate anymore, we have people espousing their views and not giving an inch, not budging, not attempting to even see what the other side is saying. And in all honesty, both sides are so paranoid that the other may make a good point and have to be recognized for it, that a lot of debate gets so far off true topic and onto another issue, that by the time everything is said and done the debate comes down to "yes it is, you ignorant ass" and "no it isn't you son of a silly person." and NOTHING is accomplished but to have both sides turning away the people in the middle.

It's not just Bush who has this "you're either with us or against us" mentality. It's the whole f'n GOP and the whole f'n Dems and if you're in the middle or speak your mind in non agreement of an issue...... you may as well live in Siberia because noone takes you seriously. If you're a Dem. and you disagree on something..... you're a sellout, part of the problem because the "brainwashing" is starting to work on you, not informed enough to truly know or my favorite "not enlightened and still just a young soul that needs to be slapped in a couple lives so that you know the truth."

If you're a GOP and disagree, then you are "brainwashed by the Mainstream Media", not informed, a turncoat, not patriotic and my favorite, "not religious enough, HEATHEN."

I love the fact that my 2 senators Voinivich and Dewine found some balls and stood up to their party and tried to end some of the bullshit. It's sad though because the GOP are making them to be "not true conservatives, turncoats who need to be ousted from office."

Dems are just as bad.

So if someone speaks their mind and goes against the grain, that is what they have to look forward to? Isolation from their party? And you still want to sit there and tell me that these people, who have the best interest of their constituency and the nation, are to be exiled because they spoke out against their party and tried to do what was best for ALL not just for the select.

I know I sound like a fucking Memorex..... but come on people, we are on the verge of killing ourselves simply because we refuse to truly listen to those who break the mold and want to find solutions and not harp on problems, that always, no matter what the issue comes down to, end the same way==> "shut the fuck up ignorant ass", "fuck you son of a silly person" and nothing gets done.

There were many Dems that sold Clinton out, simply because he tried to work with both parties. It's why the Right hated him also. He was charismatic enough and had enough sense to try to find solutions that would work for both sides. And neither side wanted that. Because, compromise and finding middle ground means somewhere you have to admit you were not 100% correct.

And being 100% correct is all there is in politics these days. You are not allowed by your party to EVEN think there maybe another way, that both sides can agree on. If you so believe that there maybe middle ground.... see above..... it's Siberia and name calling for you.... by your fellow partisans. And of course the other party laughs at you and uses you to their advantage........ so your credibility is totally shot.

It's a great game of power the parties are playing and would rather play than truly help the country.

And so the terrorists laugh at us as they know that they have free reign while we destroy ourselves from within.

Stop the patisan politics, stop the polarization.... stop the fucking "I'm right you're wrong, shut the fuck up" attitudes.

Everyone can find the proof they want for their issue because somewhere down the line someone has biased and screwed with the information enough to support exactly what you want said on a certain issue...... sad thing is someone has done the exact same thing for the other side.

Just look at us on this board, because it is a microcosm of the whole (IMHO), the Left beatup the Right, the Right beat up the Left and no solutions are found, just further animosity and division. Those in the middle lose interest and become so disenchanted they don't truly give a fuck.... all they want is both sides to shut the fuck up because they have both sides telling them how stupid they are.

I know I was as big a partisan and one of "the elite" who believed my side was it. And what I realize and Thursady put the nail in the coffin so to speak..... I was no better than Limbaugh or O'Reilly .... I thought I was, but no, the problem is I had become so wrapped up in proving the other side wrong my arguments made no sense anymore, I was just out to prove how right I was and how wrong everyone else who didn't agree was.

The only thing I am 100% sure of now is that the fucking partisan politics and the division has got to end. We are in a critical state and we need to be united and find ways to live together and better our country and world before it's too late.

The terrorists don't give a damn about our politics and they are thriving on our infighting.....

at this point, i think that a more formal thread might be a good idea, something on the order of a debate-type thing.
seems like all of us keep moving back and forth across the threshold of getting down to maybe trying to either explain or perform an explanation for why political discussion keeps breaking down into the nonexchange of monologues.
i would be interested in trying something with pretty firm ground rules: maybe a q and a type format or something, i am not sure.
i will not have time over the next few days to devote to figuring out the format: if one of the comrades here has an idea of how this might work, please feel free to post it.


alansmithee: i think this flirting with the threshold process is particularly apparent in the conversation that we have been having.
i would of course be fine with anyone and everyone participating in the type of more structured conversation that we considered earlier.
and to forewarn you about the place of likely breakdown or talking-past in the debate-like thing, should it happen: my way of thinking about many political questions is shaped by a long marxian background--i do not understand myself as being a marxist at this point, simply because i do not see it as possible or useful any more--but when it comes to debating political questions, the types of arguments that i tend to start off with are marxist in style. i mention this because it sets up an obvious problem in that these types of arguments do not in general work at the same level as straight political arguments in the american context: they consider other data relevant and in different combinations. i mention this because i would prefer that you know this is coming and not allow it to simply grind any conversation into nothingness.


pan: in the end, i guess the main place that i diverge with you is that i do not see division as a basic problem. i think this divergence follows from basically different attitudes toward the idea of nation--you seem to work from it as a basic operational category: i see it as something that is becoming obsolete and is not worth either saving or worrying about trying to save.
i also do not see tfp as a microcosm, and so do not connect problems folk encounter here in talking across political positions with the state of anything outside itself.




this thread has drifted well beyond its initial premise--as is often the case here the question that has driven it that way has to do with in what way one can and should understand this category "terrorism"--i am not sure that any attempt to stage a structured conversation should start with this, simply because it is an obvious wedge issue.

Wow.................. just fucking wow............... That is one of the most elitist, defeatist, most arrogant things I have ever heard from anyone.

Wow. So because you see the nation as becoming obsolete, fuck trying to get along.

Trying to find ways to bring the nation together, is useless and shouldn't even be tried, according to you?

Wow................

So when the terrorists come and blow up our buildings and bring nukes and diseases ..... it's ok, because we are obsolete and not worth saving?

Because what you are saying (and please correct me if I am wrong, I truly want to be wrong):

it goes to follow that there is no use in trying to stop the terrorists, we are obsolete and not worthy of being saved?

Wow....... thank God you are an extremist on the very very far end, but it scares me because I have a feeling we have a lot of this attitude on the Left and the Right. And those are the ones that have some power and refuse to let the parties work together.

On the other hand, it is good that people are awakened to this attitude by the extremists who are in power so that the may lose their power and we can become united.

You maybe right in a way Roach, your belief and the ones similar on the Right side, may in effect start truly showing their agendas and wake the people up to how fucking divided we are and how there are those on both sides that want to keep us divided, for if we start working together, they have no power anymore.

pan, I don't want to speak for roach, but the way I read it, when he says the 'nation is obsolete', I think he means the concept of nationality is obsolete, not that the US is past caring about.

As an example, note how effective a non-national organisation like Al Quaida can be in comparison to the nations they choose to attack.

pan: ok, let me explain what i was saying. you got it wrong.

zen is basically correct: i was talking about the ideolopgy of nationalism in general. as for teh states, i live here too, friend, and so i am obviously concerned about what these things mean for the place in which i live.

if you actually think about how globalizing capitalism is developing, the functions that the nation-state had traditionally fulfilled are being transferred to the transnational level--think about the e.u. in political terms, and the confusion/problems that are attending it. if ytou think about economic power, environmnetal regulation,e tc etc, the processes are underway that will at one point make the nation-state--and the whole ideology of nationalism--a thing of the past.

obviously things are not there yet--but as i understand nationalism to be little more than the ideological expression of the nation-state, it would follow that as the former gives way to another formation the ideology becomes unnecessary.

and what has nationalism given us anyway? what i see in it is largely a history of massacres, from the colonial period through two world wars, through the present forms of militarized delerium. of course it also has provided flags to wave and illusions of unity to defend--but these seem to me little more than flip sides of the same thing.

it also was the framework within which complex systems of democratic accountability came to take shape--the pressure points that these patterns of democratic accountability relied upon have been transferring away from the nation-state level for 30 years now...production is no longer organized around nation-states--ownership is no longer bound by nation-states--patterns of economic co-ordination operate at the transnational level--the institutions that will come to regulate transnational capital flows are starting to take shape. increasingly, the institutions that had been amenable to pressure for organized groups of citizens in the context of the nation-state are disappearing, morphing onto a different level of organization.

i think the entire politics of the bush administration is shaped by these considerations--they react absolutely against it, because they know that if this process were to go forward on a multilateral, transnational basis, that their reactionary ideology would sooner rather than later find itself with nothing to talk about. so they took a huge gamble--that gamble was iraq--it was aimed against the un as a signifier for the entire process of transnational capitalism--not as such, but as something that in its logic rendered nationalism obsolete. the idea was to alter the situation by forcing the american military hegemon on top of these institutions--that way nationalism could collapse everywhere else, but in the states folk could pretend things were otherwise. this was not about you, this was not about me, this was not about the well-being of anyone--this was an act oriented around political self-preservation.

and the bush administration fucked it up---they lost. the consequence of this fuck up will play out for a long time. but they lost.

what do you think a nation is anyway? something eternal that you conflate with other types of collective identity formation? well, it isnt. do you think a nation is a thing, endowed with an essence, something outside of history? then you are fooling yourself. the modern nation-state is a product of the late 18th-19th centuries--it has a history, it served and serves a particular function, it is a social model coterminous with an older style capitalism. as the newer forms of capitalist organization take shape, the ideology will change eventually as well. ideology is a functional entity--it adapts people to the socio-economic situation in which they operate while at the same time providing them with a way of thinking they are doing something else. within that, it is the basis for arguments floated by the dominant order to legitimate itself.

so you find what i said to be arrogant and defeatist? well, pan, i dont know what to say to you--i dont think you understood what i was actually saying---maybe now it is a little clearer, though i am sure you will not like it any better.

suffice it to say that your busby berkeley model of this fiction you call the nation is like calling for a musical to take place on a sinking ship. you seem to think that if we all sing and dance together that the ship will decide not to sink. i have nothing against singing and dancing...but i really cannot fathom how you imagine that doing so is going to stop anything at the level of structural transformation. it does not even address structural questions--and it cant. and you are not interested in these questions, it seems. to which there is really nothing i can say.

as for the question of what this means for americans--and i am one, pan, like it or not--i dont know. sometimes i am more optimistic and sometimes i am less so. it is all speculation, really. what i do know is that the run the americans have had since world war 2 is coming to a kind of end--but i ahve no idea what the end will entail or how people will react to that. i hope for the best, prepare for the worst i suppose. but i do know one thing: the contemporary type of extreme right politics you see still floating about, steaming and degenerate, here and elsewhere, has nothing coherent to say about any of this and that if i am right (sometimes i hope that i am not) they will lead the states to absolute disaster in the longer run--unless this politics destroys itself--which i think it is on the way to doing. but that is another matter.

and in the end, how do you have any idea of wherther i am "an extremist" or not if you do not take the time to figure out what i am trying to say?

I understand but do you think Al Quida and the terrorists fucking care?

If we don't have a strong resolve and defense the terrorists are going to totally destroy everything we have and kill millions of innocents.

I am sorry being a confederation and having partisans running around with agendas that are what THEY want and not what is best for the nation, we allow this to happen.

It's bullshit, self righteous and hypocritical, to sit there and take advantage of what this great nation has to offer and then say, "it's really obsolete and not worth saving"..... as you accept college loans, or government help in someway: or "fuck those who don't agree with me, taxes are too high and the government is too over it's bounds." as you go camping in a national park, eat meat inspected by the USDA, drive on public roads and so on.

Roach's attitude will get thousands upon thousands killed and there is no fucking excuse for it except for some grand "I"m right, you're wrong" bullshit.

The terrorists are coming. There's a book out saying they have nukes..... whether they do or not I'm sure it's just a matter of time. I'm sorry I don't want to fucking fry or have radiation poisoning to look forward to for me or my children..... So we better fucking get our shit together and start finding ways to compromise and rebuild and save what we have.

Sorry, but for anyone to tell me this nation is not worth saving....... and expects to be taken seriously by me..... won't ever happen.

Perhaps I am old school, but this is the greatest nation on Earth when we work together but when we are divided we are the deadliest and most open to terror.

And I'll be damned if I let those inside or out destroy what I believe in.

I understand but as these terrorists don't fucking care if America is a sinking ship or not. They are coming to kill and harm as many people as they possibly can.

Right now what you are saying is not the time. The time will come and perhaps it will work. But now is not the time.

It all boils down to this. We either work out differences stand together and do what we can to defeat Al Quida or we kiss our sweet asses goodbye.

No "Busby Berkely" attitude here, it's a question of survival..... because the more divided we are the easier the terrorists have at destroying and killing millions. And they don't give a damn about our politics.

Do you think when they use a suitcase bomb in a NYC subway they're going to ask people before they get on the subway if they approve of Bush's policies or not? Do you think they are going to ask those at a DisneyWorld if America is the great Satan, as the gas the place?

Hell no. They have one mission and it is becoming clearer ............ destroy the West. Your attitude whether intentional or not only helps them.

You don't see the problem with these two statements? What you are espousing is nothing short of capitulation to the terrorists. I am unwilling to compromise with them. I suspect that if you or your child were one of the people to be killed as a required part of the "compromise", you would oppose such a compromise, too. Then again, maybe you would not...lots of communists went to their deaths in the various purges believing that they were dying for the greater good...

pan:
that is ridiculous.
see you in another thread--this one is getting nowhere.

pan, i think it's easy to say "let's work harder to get along" than it is to actually do it. case in point, Roach made a comment in 163 that totally lit you up.

rather than try to 'get along', which to me means trying to understand what the other is saying, and why, you went off.

I work hard to try to understand what Roach is saying, I don't always succeed (I wonder if I'm over 50% :D ), but I understood his basic point on that one. I sure didn't read it the way you did. I mention my reaction, because I think your reading of that was an example of reading in the worst possible light. We all do it. There are posters here who I'm most liable to read that way...

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just suggesting that 'getting along' starts at home. I work at it, but it's frickin hard...

I respect your right to hold this opinion. But I disagree.

I disagree about your first sentence about 80%, and completely disagree with second.

It's your opinion. Mine is different. But when you say that my opinion, or anyone's is helping the terrorists, you sure aren't trying to understand. You are preaching. You seem to know what's right, and what's wrong. I'm always somewhat envious of those with such certainty.

I'm not sure how you can reconcile that preaching with your comments of stopping the left/right rhetoric and getting along. But I'd be interested in reading your opinion.

Compromise within ourselves.... trash the partisan politics...... read all my posts before jumping to conclusions.

Not sure how being told we support terrorists with our opinions is anything but partisan politics.

I did read all your posts. I don't get it. Please see previous 2 posts of mine, as well...

Would apreciate your thoughts.

AWESOME NEWS: The anti-terror squad have homed right in on the bastards that bombed our public transport system. They're saying that all of them died in the exlosions and they have video footage of them all together at Kings Cross. They arrived from Leeds on an early morning train after meeting up en route at Luton. A car at Luton station has been found full of explosives and is currently the subject of controlled explosions. They've also arrested an individual in Leeds that is related to one of the bombers.

Bloody brilliant work in less than a week, don't you say ?

Very awesome news, Trib. :)

I just found this CNN.com report:

Tuesday, July 12, 2005; Posted: 5:43 p.m. EDT (21:43 GMT)


LONDON, England (CNN) -- Police are focusing their investigation of last week's terrorist attacks on four men who could have been suicide bombers, the head of the city's anti-terrorist police said Tuesday.

Police were led to the four men after the family of one reported him missing just hours after the bombings on the capital's transit system that killed at least 52 people, said Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke.

"The investigation quite early led us to have concerns about the movements and activities of four men, three of whom came from the West Yorkshire area," Clarke told a news conference.

"We are trying to establish their movements in the run-up to last week's attacks and specifically to establish whether they all died in the explosions."

Meanwhile, the British Press Association reported police found explosives in a car they believe was linked to the London blasts.

Police said bomb squad officers removed the explosives and planned to detonate them safely.

The car was parked in a train station car lot in Luton, which is 30 miles north of London and home to one of the city's three major airports.

Police closed the train station and the parking lot and cordoned off a 100-yard (-meter) area around it before investigation the vehicle.

Also Tuesday, Bedfordshire police said they were investigating another vehicle possibly connected to the bombings in a storage area in the town of Leighton Buzzard near Luton Airport.

At Tuesday's news conference, Clarke said three of the four men in question were from West Yorkshire, in northern England.

He said officers found personal documents bearing the names of three of the men near the train seats on three Underground trains where bombs exploded Thursday and personal property of the fourth man on the bus.

Clarke said it was "very likely" one of the men from West Yorkshire died in the bombings, which the government says bear the hallmark of al Qaeda.

Clarke said police arrested one man Tuesday while conducting a series of raids in West Yorkshire, about 200 miles north of London.

The news conference came hours after officers in Leeds, in Yorkshire, carried out a series of raids. Army bomb disposal experts earlier carried out a controlled explosion to gain access to a house in the Hyde Park area of the city.

Hundreds of residents from surrounding streets had to be evacuated as armed police took up position outside the house. Police also raided five other houses in the city.

London police have taken more than 700 witness statements and have had more than 2,000 calls to the anti-terrorist hotline, said Andy Hayman, London police assistant commissioner and head of specialist operations.

Officers are also reviewing 2,500 tapes of closed-circuit television footage from across the capital, as scores of families await news of loved ones feared killed.

In the capital two more victims were named. Jamie Gordon and Philip Stuart Russell were recovered from the site of the bus bombing in Tavistock Square, police said.

Meanwhile Tuesday, U.S. officials lifted a ban on about 10,000 U.S. military personnel based at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, both in the eastern English county of Suffolk, going into the Greater London area. (Full story)

Matt Tulis, a spokesman at RAF Mildenhall, earlier told PA: "We are concerned about the safety of our folks and are trying to do what we can to protect them. This is the best course of action right now."

The instruction to U.S. forces contradicted the message from politicians, including London's mayor, for people to return to the capital.

Britain's finance minister, Chancellor Gordon Brown, vowed Tuesday that the European Union would unite to defeat terrorism and clamp down on the financing that feeds it.

Brown said he would raise the issue of sanctions against countries that failed to act against terrorist financing on the agenda of an International Monetary Fund summit later this year.

Anxious families frustrated by the slow progress of police efforts to identify victims were asked to show patience Monday by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair.

Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed Britain would defeat the terrorists who inflicted the "murderous carnage of the innocent."

Talking of Britain's "revulsion" at the attacks, the prime minister told the House of Commons that 56 people were still hospitalized.

Blair said it seemed probable the London attacks were carried out by Islamic extremist terrorists. He said he knew of no specific intelligence that could have prevented the bombings.

London police revealed three additional confirmed deaths above the 49 already announced -- and said the number of dead was expected to rise further.

Forensics experts have said it could take weeks to identify all the bodies recovered, many of which were mangled in Thursday's attacks.

Police chief Blair said rescue workers were now recovering body parts, not entire bodies. He encouraged Londoners to go about their lives as normal, continuing to use the city's public transport systems but remaining vigilant.

Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the British Transport Police said police had "redoubled our efforts" to make people feel safe moving about the capital again.

"We say that London is open for business. If we don't do that, then the terrorists will have won and that's not what we want," Trotter said.

In their search for clues to the attacks, which also wounded 700 people, police urged the public to send in pictures and video taken with digital cameras or mobile phones at the bomb sites.

Authorities have warned Britain could face more terrorist attacks unless those responsible for the attack on London's transport network are captured.

While good work with respect to the investigation, I think it is devastating news if these guys were indeed suicide bombers and if the rumour that they were home grown is correct. It is relatively easy to close your borders against foreign threats, it is orders of magnitude harder to stop such threats if they are internal and unconcerned about their own lives.

Very true. It is going to be hard, and I am the one preaching it and look how it makes me hypocritical.

But people I'm not being Chicken Little here. They are FUCKING COMING and the partisan bullshit has got to stop.

I respect what Roach is saying and in time perhaps what he predicts will happen.... now is not the time.

Case in point: even if this is 1/2 true we need to start finding ways to get along and to weed out the terrorists.



link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

Opinions are necessary to a society and government like ours. they are necessary to ALL mankind, as is individuality.

However, there is a huge difference between opinion and respecting others and just saying "fuck you Lib/Cons. our side is right and your side is fucking wrong and we refuse to even listen. In fact we'll trash you until noone will listen to your side."

That is what we are getting. We are getting the "fuck you" and the finger pointing and unable to move forward.

I do believe perhaps with Bush going to Leahy and Reid for their opinions on the SC nomination, perhaps partisan politics is coming to an end...... or perhaps it is for PR and he has no intention of listening to them.

We just need to end the partisanship, compromise with each other and go after the true enemy with tenacity and a unity that cannot be broken.

I don't want to watch this country I love destroy itself from within anymore. There's been way too much hatred it's time to make peace with each other.... we have a true enemy that doesn't give a fuck about which side of abortion you are on, their only purpose in life is to kill us (and they have plenty willing to commit suicide to do it) and we best find out how to stop them.

The first step is Unity.

I agree highthief. Much that has been published lately says that Great Britain is a very open country including receiving folks that claim refugee status for their political beliefs. These folks may have become the internal threat. I really don't know one way or another. Maybe when the "believed to be" suicide bombers are identified, we can better assess this question.

It's impossible to reach a unified position when one group on "our side" offers as a "solution" the appeasement of the enemy. The way to deal with people who want to kill you is to kill them first, not to give them hugs and therapy while giving into their demands. I'm virtually POSITIVE that we could stop fundamentalist muslims from attacking the US if we only would change our Constitution to whatever fucked up vision of what a "proper Islamic State" should be they have. If we put all American women in Burquas, execute all homosexuals, kill all Jews, exterminate all but fundamentalist Islam as a religion, and bow to Mecca five times daily while obeying Sharia law, I'm sure we could have peace with them. Somehow, however, I doubt that they would settle for less than that, and I sure as hell would not allow that to happen.

Appeasement only emboldens your attackers.

I don't know where you can even begin to see me saying we need to compromise with the terrorists. I am saying GOP and Dems need to work on compromises with each other.

Nowhere am I saying we need to appease the terrorists. I don't think we could even if we tried. And trying would sell our country short.

However, it is necessary to stop the partisan bullshit and to come together and work as a nation to better ourselves and stand united. That is what I am arguing for.

It is extremely important for us as a nation to become united. This is a war, no matter how you slice it and the divisive partisanship and hatreds of each other is unhealthy in the protection of our security and the overall advancement of our nation.

Well, the problem is that the far left seems to be running the Democrats into the ground with their anti-war stance. Just take a look over at D.U. for an example of what I'm talking about. Doing nothing is no longer an option, and hasn't been since 9/11. Attacking Bush because we went into Iraq isn't helping, ESPECIALLY when so many Democrats in Congress voted FOR the IWR, and are now attacking him. When was the first time the term "quagmire" was used to refer to either Afghanistan or Iraq? I'll give you a hint: It was used by Democrats in office BEFORE a single US troop set foot in either country.

Frankly, I'd like to see us go to a WWII model. In WWII, once Pearl Harbor happened, almost everybody gave up their differences and worked TOGETHER. How was this possible? It was possible because there was a leftist in office, and the Right gave up their personal political axes for the good of the nation. (read up on the Isolationist movement and the German-American Bund for two examples) If there were a Democratic President in office after Clinton, and he had done EXACTLY what Bush has done, we'd be united behind him. But I don't honestly think (and this is not a reflection on people here, but rather a reflection on the far left as a whole) that the far left has it in them to cooperate for the greater good. They have an agenda to push, and will push it no matter what the cost is. In fact, I believe that the higher the cost is to the nation, the more they like it, because the ultimate goal of the Far Left is to destroy America to make the world safe for "progressive experiments" like the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia/Kampuchea. Now I don't believe that ALL Democrats are that way, but given Zell Miller's defection and the obviously famous "Joe-Mentum" of the 2004 primary season, I think the Cynthia McKinneys are much more in control of the Democratic party than the Joe Liebermans are.

Uh, Moose... the entire world was behind us after 9/11 and you could not have found greater unity among our people and our politicians in any other era or war.

I suggest we lost all of our international support and the bipartisan support of the President, when we were drawn into a preemptive war under false pretenses. Blame whomever you wish about whatever you choose to. Nothing is going to be discussed reasonably in this forum if the "debate" continues as this has.

No, we lost the "bi-partisan support" because we didn't sit by idly after having been attacked. Prior to going into Iraq, there were massive anti-war demonstrations around the world. If we had sat on our proverbial hands, the world would have stayed with us. We didn't, and pissed off a lot of people who were making a lot of money by taking outright bribes from Saddam Hussein. It's one thing for them to say "we're sorry you got attacked." It's quite another for them to say "We're sorry you got attacked, and we don't care if you piss in our ricebowl." And that's EXACTLY what we did....we took out a guy who was putting large quantities of petrodollars in their pockets illegally.

I think it's unfortunate that moosenose is such a firm supporter of murdering innocent people, but alas, that is his right as an american.

See what I mean??????

You are saying it is all the Lefts fault and their extremists but there is no fault on the GOP side at all.

That's the fucking partisanship that has to fucking end. We cannot afford to keep pointing fingers.

But if you choose to keep doing so. See where it gets you.

Yawn... any chance of a political dialogue here, or just ranting?

The part of the article i found to be most disturbing was this one right here:

And you have proof of this? Because the administration doesn't even have proof they admitted it.

But yet again, to you it is all the Left's fault..... no GOP is to blame whatsoever...... except those like Voinivich and Dewine (whom the GOP call turncoats and are working to make sure they won't get re-elected), who want to help end partisan politics because they see that it is killing us faster than the terrorists.

Where does it end?

Does it end when every single American agrees with you? Should your will be totally dictated to everyone else?

And in time when your side loses, should the next party in control's will be dictated to you?

Because without compromise that is what you are suggesting, your will is to be dictated to everyone and those who don't like it have no rights to say anything because you are the "majority".

It's bullshit to think that way and it's divisive to the entire nation..... or don't you care?

The more divided we are the easier it is for the terrorists to destroy us. The easier it is for us to lose democracy and our system all together and turn into a dictatorship.

Compromise between the majority and the minority is the most ESSENTIAL ingredient to keep our society moving forward and bettering itself. To believe otherwise leads to the end of our society.

The whole article is frightening, but yes it is scary to think that the USSR had nukes on our soil and never turned them over to us when they fell.

it's strange how this argument only comes out from the left when the left is out of power, while when the left is in power, their attitude is "fuck you, you're the minority and we can violate whatever rights of yours we want to."

Nixon resigned because he knew that if he was impeached, the Republicans wouldn't vote the Party line, they'd look at the evidence. Clinton PROVED that the left had no such moral fiber.

And BTW, what YOU see as "our society moving forward and bettering itself", many of us see as "the left destroying our culture and values to the detriment of our nation".

Once again, it's the right that has to cave in and sacrifice OUR core values for what YOU think. Sorry, we've had FAR too much of that. Ever hear of boiling the frog? No more. That's what the message of the past two presidential election cycles has been. The left has taken and taken and taken, and when the right says "fuck you, it's YOUR turn to give a little", the left screams "Partisanship!" and all kinds of other things.

That is your belief? Then so be it...... we'll see if division and being divisive just to be divisive (which in my opinion you are admitting to being) works and betters the country.

I don't believe it will.

Nowr do I believe the GOP will forever be in power and what by your beliefs should happen is the Dems to say "fuck you we're in power" and do whatever they want, and you should have no say.

We'll see what happens.... I hope the people in power truly do not have your sense of helping the country.

This proves that you have sour grapes towards the Dems and it shows me you just want to say "fuck you Dems." no matter what your party does.

Political revenge is a good way to run your country..... that sounds like what you are espousing. Not that your philosophies and beliefs are better, but that you just want revenge.

Must be truly painful to be so full of hate that you are willing to see the country disolve just for revenge purposes.

Some additional information on the bombers was reported at timesonline.co.uk:

July 13, 2005

The suicide bomb squad from Leeds
By Michael Evans, Daniel McGrory and Stewart Tendler



FOUR friends from northern England have changed the face of terrorism by carrying out the suicide bombings that brought carnage to London last week.
It emerged last night that, for the first time in Western Europe, suicide bombers have been recruited for attacks. Security forces are coming to terms with the realisation that young Britons are prepared to die for their militant cause.



Three of the men lived in Leeds and the immediate fear is that members of a terrorist cell linked to the city are planning further strikes. The mastermind behind the attacks and the bombmaker are both still thought to be at large.

The man who planted the bomb at Edgware Road was named last night as Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, the married father of an eight-month-old baby, who is believed to have come from the Leeds area.

Two other terrorists were Hasib Hussain, 19, who bombed the bus in Tavistock Square, of Colenso Mount, Leeds, and Shehzad Tanweer, 22, the Aldgate bomber, who lived at Colwyn Road, Leeds.

Police are still trying to identify the fourth, whose remains are believed to be in the bombed Tube train carriage on the Piccadilly Line. It is thought that he comes from Luton.

Armed police raided six addresses in West Yorkshire yesterday, including the homes of three of the men, who they now know travelled to Luton in a hired car last Wednesday to join the fourth man. They boarded the 7.40 Thameslink train to King’s Cross the next day, each armed with a 10lb rucksack bomb.

Police found a bomb factory in Leeds containing a “viable amount of explosives”. Explosives were also recovered from a car left parked near Luton station. The raids came after the discovery of driving licences and credit cards at the scenes of the explosions, and a telephone call from the mother of Hasib Hussain, who asked police to try to trace her son.

A relative of one of the bombers was arrested and taken to London for questioning. Intelligence agencies say that at least two of the men had recently returned from Pakistan. All four were British, but with origins in Pakistan. MI6, MI5 and British diplomats were in touch with the Pakistani authorities last night to try to track down any connections with terrorists there. Security sources confirmed that none of the bombers was on any MI5 file, although one had links to a person investigated by police.

The four were captured on CCTV cameras at King’s Cross Thameslink station, laughing together and carrying rucksacks, minutes before they set off for their targets at 8.30am on July 7.

an overview of the coverage of the attacks in london from today's guardian.
if you want to understand some of the more bizarre conservative takes on this, look no further than the always vile fox "news"....


source: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...527063,00.html

link to a guardian newsblog on the two minutes of silence observed in london today in memory of the victims of last week's bombings:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...e_silence.html