Who are THEY and how do we deal with them?
 

Terrorists. I've started to notice an increasing paranoia about their capabilities, their inhumanity, their desire to destroy the west etc. But who, exactly are THEY?

The discovery that at least 3 of the 4 London bombers were born and bred in Britain, shows that the idea of stamping out terrorism abroad will not solve the problem, we now have to contend with violent dissent within our own borders.

Unless we are willing to turn on those people within our own communities based solely on what they believe, how do we protect ourselves from further attack?

To those people who are calling for a "kill them all, let god sort them out" policy, how would you conduct such a strategy within your own national borders?

I believe that these recent events show us how impotent and outdated our military adventures have become when we can still be reached from within our own borders.

So, here's an open question, what do we do?

I want to state firmly that I am not interested in any party politics here - I don't want to see links pointing to speeches made by American politicians, nor do I want to see any partisan blame-calling. I want this thread to show how you personally would deal with this new and disturbing twist on the War with Terror. By all means argue with one another, but keep it on topic "Who are they, and what would you do to deal with them."

Aha! You've stumbled on the central problem to Bush's insane "war on terror!" Now, don't get me wrong - I don't for a minute think Bush & Co. doesn't realize this is a problem. They're just hoping YOU don't realize it's a problem.

See, Bush has figured out what the Nazis knew. Give the people a nebulous, unseen enemy who can't ever be completely defeated and they'll follow you down any dark path you care to lead them. It worked fabulously with the Nazis - - hey the Jews are evil, they're our enemy, you won't be safe unless Hitler the Great is here to protect you from them.

And Bush has an even better "in" than Hitler did - his enemy really DID hurt us. Only trouble with this war on terror is that even though the terrorists are real, we can't ever find them all. It's like trying to kill all the mosquitos. It's just not gonna happen.

Now, even though I think Bush is pretty stupid, I don't think he's too stupid to actually believe he can find and eliminate every terrorist on the planet. He's just hoping YOU'RE too stupid to realize it. It was mainly through scaring the living hell out of the public that these bad terrorists are coming to get us that Bush was able to win re-election. The truth is, MOST terrorists in the world didn't give a crap about hurting us until we started invading their homelands or the lands of their neighbors. Moving into Iraq did nothing but piss off the entire middle east (not to mention the rest of the world). How that's making us safer from the terrorists is a great question - and the answer is simply that it's not.

So, since we cant' possibly find them all, and since pissing them off usually results in them attacking citizens, perhaps it's not a real good idea to keep up this Rambo posturing.

Seems to me that if we stopped doing the things that piss the terrorsts off (things like interfering in another country's affairs even though it's none of our business), then they'd leave us alone.

That's not excusing their attacks - it's just being realistic. If I play soccer with a hornet's nest and get stung, I'm not gonna go trying to exterminate every hornet. It can't be done, even though I'm bigger and stronger. What I AM gonna do is learn from my past mistakes and stop dicking around with hornets nests. The hornets will still be out there but since I don't piss them off, they'll save their energies for attacking things that do.

On CSPAN last night, a liberal Russian/American author was speaking to an audience about his book, which dealt with the Iraqi war.

A middle-aged American lady with long graying hair and an extravagant neck-scarf stood up and asked:


"IS THERE ANYTHING BEAUTIFUL LEFT IN IRAQ - OR DID WE BLOW IT ALL UP YET?"


I thought my head was going to explode.

shakran..

although i agree with most of your post, just a few things id like to bring up concerning the 'leave them alone, and they'll leave us alone' mentality.

i doubt anyone pro bush and the 'war on terror' would buy what you just said. for them it would be an admission of defeat that a great nation like the US would stop invading other nations because they didnt want to be attacked. it would be like walking out with ure tail between ure legs, and 'they' (the terrorists) would take it as a moral victory. so i'd say fat chance to anything remotely similar to that happening. but i do agree with you that by sending in your troops and interfering in other peoples business, stampeding in and trashing the sense of pride and honour, that this could be the cause of much hatred against the US and west in general.

There is little, in my opinion, that can be done in the short term to halt the terrorist mentality. If however, we decide to take a long term approach to the underlying reasoning behind a Jihad.....we may be able to slow the tide, and at the very least make recruiting the foot soldiers of this "War" more difficult. The invasion of Iraq was...again, in my opinion, counter productive if the intent was to stop terrorism.
As we are now commited to occupation of a large middle eastern country, I find it extremely unlikely terrorist activity will slow in the immediate future, with luck, and leadership, perhaps we can revisit the diplomatic approach in 5-10 years. For now....I think we have to accept a Warfare mentality, and be prepared for the inevitable backlash it will create.

The United States has started the worst kind of War.....One that has no clear , definable enemy, or purpose. Logic Dictates it cannot be won.

How well did the diplomatic approach work prior to Iraq?

If their governments foster this mentality, there is very little diplomacy can do if they tell us to fark off.

what was they "diplomatic approach" against terrorism you are speaking of?

Newbie's contribution
 

There was no diplomacy in the run-up to the Iraq war. There was arm-twisting, posturing, feigned attempts at obeying international law, and a secret war engaged months before the official invasion date began. That was not diplomacy; that was bullying.

If the diplomacy argument is based on the "12 years" that is oft mentioned by Bush supporters, then I would say that as far as Iraq was concerned, diplomacy was working (a heck of a lot better than today's conditions, at least). Saddam was effectively contained within his own borders. I would argue that this method was only partially successful, though, because a half of a million children died in Iraq under a lengthy half a generation of economic sanctions. These sanctions went on too long and were not tweaked when problems arose. Of course, imposing illegal no-fly zones on the country and bombing every time someone walked across the desert with a gun didn't help matters very much.

Now with the war on terror, I would say that this war has no clear enemy, no clear parameters for victory, no clear strategy for attaining goals (which are unknown), and impossible to do. I agree with the opening post that conducting a "war on terror" only serves to provide the pretext for massive military spending, massive expenditures for equipment, sweetheart contracts to friends of governmental officials, loss of civil liberties at home, demonization of the opposition party (Democrats), and a poll-boost on demand (terror alert!). Osama Bin Laden and Zarquawi are both Emmanual Goldsteins in Oceana's war on Eastasia...(or is it Eurasia?). Double-plus good!!

When Americans realize they have been played as saps in this war (and they are waking up to it), there will be hell to pay for the party in power.

Sorry I stopped reading there. The sanction claim was total bullshit. You HAVE heard of what is going on investigating the 'oil for food' program right?

Cease fire violations are not subject to diplomacy. Sorry, but the burden of proof was always on Saddam.

One thing I will mention on terrorism, and I do not want to get into a huge political debate. In the west bank, there are images of kids being taught to be suicide bombers, dressed as them. Babies dressed as them. In schools this is part of the education system.

When you ask about terrorism to me, it is the ability for this brain washing to go on, that is where the issue is.

Bush is the most stupid evil genius in the history of fascism!

The situation is grave, but not impossible. We can, and must, defeat the Jihadists, who, by the way, declared war on the West in 1996, long before Chimpboy Chickenhawk Bush became Furher.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../icon_melt.gif


:lol:

burden of proof on invader when war is the issue
 

When going to war, the causus belli always falls upon the invading country, not the country invaded. And how can one prove a negative? Saddam didn't have the weapons and the inspectors were well on their way to confirming that before Bush pulled them out and had his British friends "sex up" a thin case for war.

Objection
 

Firstly, I object to the word "bullshit" being used to describe what I posted. I recommend using words that are not meant to incite anger. You can make your point without deriding me. I joined here to avoid that kind of language.

Second, yes, I have heard of the oil for food program scandals. These are scandals that US private corporations had a very deep hand into, as well. My argument was based on nuance. The program was partially successful. It was successful in that it contained Saddam within his own borders and showed him that obtaining WMD's was impossible, but the oil for food program was not a success in that many, many Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions, which furthered hatred towards the West.

I would also argue that the corrpution in the oil for food program was small potatoes compared to the corruption from US private companies in the present occupation. 8.8 billion dollars is missing with no accountability at all, and that was just the occupation up until the point Paul Bremer left and handed over sovereignty. I am afraid that Iraq has been a place that very ill-mannered people from multiple countries have used to launder money or make shady business deals for years after Gulf War 1. Sadly, the US is now almost the exclusive holder of that title, now.

Here is an article describing what happened to the US company names on the oil for food program scandal list in the Deulfer report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct7.html

If ....By Chance......we can manage to maintain a civil discourse in this thread.....it will stay open.

If Not.......You all know the drill

This is where we failed to be adult....by the way

all downhill from there

Zodiak, those were PRIVATE (note the emphasis here) US corporations (not government-sponsored), unlike the UN council members from France, Germany, and Russia who were being bought off by Saddam.

That would be Clinton's tough talk/ignoring terrorist attacks for 8 years.

Which led to 9/11.

tough talk != diplomacy
ignoring != diplomacy


But nice try of bringing some humor to politics, I almost laughed but the joke was a bit too old

I have no problem turning on them for "what they believe". It's OK for them to believe in Islam. It's NOT OK for them to believe in a form or offshoot of Islam (or Christianity, or Animal Liberation, or whatever) that advocates killing Americans. There's a crime called "conspiracy" that comes along with advocating that people commit criminal acts. It doesn't matter where it takes place...be it at an anti-war rally or in a mosque.

If you seriously advocate overthrowing the government or hurting people in violation of the law, you at LEAST belong in prison.

If somebody issues a Fatwa calling for people to kill Americans, they should be arrested or killed, depending on the circumstances and their location.

Wasn't Arafat up for a "Nobel Peace Prize"?

After his first speech to the UN, he should have been jailed or killed.

Negotiating with Terrorists just empowers them.

Ever hear of a guy named Sirhan Sirhan? It's been going on for a long time...

I'm surprised to be the first to SUPPORT Zodiac. First, welcome to TFP. Second, I completly argee with you.
These UN imposed sanctions (mainly backed by the US) killed more people than we'll ever know. The Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies believe that as many as 70% of Iraqi women are suffering from anaemia as a direct result of the sanctions. By 1996, malnutrition in children had gone up to 23%. Disease has spread and gone unchecked because hospitals and health centers went unrepaired and unmaintained since 1991. School enrolment dropped to 53%. The country was in deep poerty as a direct result of the sanctions. (source: http://www.casi.org.uk/guide/problem.html)

In 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Committee noted that: "the effect of sanctions and blockades has been to cause suffering and death in Iraq, especially to children"
The Humanitarian Panel of the Security Council wrote in March 1999:"Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war"

Not to mention (yes, for the millionth time) that there were no links between the attacks on 9/11 and Iraq.

Again, welcome to the community. :thumbsup:

As well as, for the millonth time, no one really claimed a link between Iraq and 911. The link was Iraq and al-queda and terror in general.

Remember the speech that Bush made not one month ago? Remember when he was talking about Iraq? Remember when he mentioned 9/11 5 times in the speech, when talking about Iraq? They are still trying to create an association between Iraq and those responsible for 9/11. The Bush administration needs support for the war, and terrorism (based on the 9/11 atttacks) is the best motive of control at their fingertips right now. Many people still mistakenly believe that Iraq was in some way connected to at least one of the terrorist attacks on Americans.

Will, he never claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11; he just saying that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. He made the statement on 9/11 that anyone who supports, funds, or harbors terrorist are with the terrorists. What part of that is hard to understand? (And if you like, we can go through all the links.....again). He also said that it will be a war unlike any war we have previously fought and will probably last long after he's out of office.

Has he made errors in the war in Iraq? Undoubtedly, mostly in his seemingly unwillingness to fight the war like a war. However, to keep rehashing and rehashing with Michael Mooresque single mindedness, that his claims that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 is both frustrating and insulting to ones intelligence

The statement in bold is saddly very true. If in fact we went in as occupiers rather than liberators, set up POW camps instead of letting them just 'go home', sealed the borders and took direct control of the economy things would in fact be better in Iraq and the transition to a democracy would be easier.

so let me get this straight:

in order to maintain the bushline on "terrorism"--bogeyman of the decade--what you have to do it falisfy history when it comes to un sanctions program against iraq--to do that requires that you repeat the bankrupt and dishonest line floated by the administration's media lackies in the run-up to the war as if nothing has come to light since that debunks the whole of it.... you have to repeat claims not taken seriously in real time by the unsc, not taken seriously by anyone not already a true bushloyalist from 2001---as if nothing has happened.

it seems that the ultraright has stopped even trying to make arguments and is now in a mode of compulsive repetition.
but i do not know how this type of repetition has come to be confused with compelling argument.

while i suppose that there is something kind of quaint about this type of thing in principle, in fact all that i see above from the ultraright folk is a rehearsal of sound byte-level claims that are completely without foundation...that conservatives--who by now must be really quite limber after a few years of doing the contortions required to maintain the illusion that bushlogic on the question of "terrorism" is coherent--would prefer to believe that iraq had something to do with terrorism in a world not particular to themselves is evident--but this is more about the psychological situation their boy george has put them in than it is about the situation factually.

seems to me that this repetition strategy puts the ultraright in a space of public abjection. that they seem not to recognize that only reinforces the abject state. arguing with the ultraright is like trying to play music with a bassplayer who only knows one riff, but who thinks the situation is otherwise.....whose mode of interacting is to play that one riff slower then faster then slower. but it is the same riff. it is always the same riff. there is no possibility of conversation under these conditions--it is almost like the only possible source of legitimation they have left is to force threads to collapse.

the effect of this compulsive repetition is to cover threads with a think blanket of tedium and to cause one to marvel at the power cognitive dissonance must have, given the energy with which the ultraright works to avoid it.

i guess it must simply be easier for the ultraright to divert things onto the iraq war than to ask themselves about questions that arise with reference to the bogeyman "terrorism"--whether the category functions analytically (it doesnt)--what it is about (keeping the ultraright afraid?)---what makes anyone think that, in a complex world in which there are a thousand reasons to mobilize politically in opposition to what exists, that there is a single entity "they" with a single coherent agenda "terror"? of course if you refuse to even start looking at social realities, this kind of argument might have some weight--but this refusal is a function of other, absurd beliefs, such as what you see on fox news is adequate as information, that soundbytes on tv can provide any complexity when it comes to covering violence, whether political or not...the problems raised by this category "terrorist"--which start with erasing any coherent political motive to any given action and the displacement of motive to ridiculoius questions like "jealousy" and so forth---are so far-reaching that if you think about the signifier at all you are driven to the conclusion that it is an instrument the bush administration has chosen to float and exploit for their own purposes, that its primary objective is keeping the supporters in line by enabling them to imagine that by supporting the administration they are defending their "way of life"....the category "terrorist" is about mobilizing people on the basis of what they fear most--death--which they can displace onto an "agent" who is everywhere and nowehre, inside and outside, all at once.

:confused:

I cant exactly makeout what youre trying to say here other than you think that there is no terrorist threat.

let me make it very very simple for you:

there are threats--there are always threats--but the cateogry "terrorist" will let you understand nothing, explain nothing, anticipate nothing, prevent nothing.

"terrorism" is not about describing the world, analyzing political or social problems, or anything of the sort: it is an empty signifier whose primary function is to give people in the states--right now primarily those on the far right--something to be afraid of.
maybe read "the main in the glass booth" sometime and you'll find a remarkably similar argument for the importance of structuring fear in legitimating other, equally questionable types of government.

the notion of "terrorism" seperates actions from any possible political motive. by doing that, the category make analysis impossible. if analysis is impossible--because the cateogry is so vague and stupid at the same time--then anticipation is impossible. from this it follows that coherence is also impossible--i am sure that folk who work in fashioning responses to particular groups which engage in particular actions are only vaguely oriented by the category "terrorist"--so it seems a category that floats from public consumption and is about structuring anxiety--and that is about maintaining support for this administration--it is not about the world.

there is no "them".

there is no single "terrorist mentality"

if you want to understand how and why the states might find itself threatened, you cannot avoid the tedium of doing actual research, looking at concrete situations, looking at history as it plays into these situations,..you would look at particular agents engaged in particular tactical situations...if the problems really is "islamic fundamentalist" groups, then it makes some sense to actually research the question of these groups, who they are, where they are, why they mobilize, what they mobilize to achieve, and maybe from there work out how and why a larger-scale action might be mounted, if it is. thing is that this research is quite easy to carry out--it is just a question of doing basic searches and some work. the intellectual and political laziness of conservatives on this is really amazing to me.

from this thread and other such--the right has nothing to say, but they say it over and over, as if by refusing to acknowledge problems they will go away.

The perfect answer.

Sure there is, and we know who they are: They tend to be young, Muslims men who want to see Western Civ go down in flames. It's not hard to figure out. True, it's not very PC to point this out. but then again, should we be listening to the same people who scream that the TSA needs to search 80yo Norwegian grandmas at the same rate as 22 yo Muslim men? I think not

Them: The people driving bomb-rigged trucks into mosques, markets and crowds of children.
Them: The people supporting such actions.

Its really not that difficult people.

Gee, and here I thought it was the cute 20 year old girls that TSA likes to search :rolleyes:

The Oklahoma City bombing had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalists. There is only one attack on American soil that threatened and took American lives as a result of anti-American Muslim men: 9/11. The fact of the matter ios that, also, the attacks on 9/11 were NOT inten ded to take lives as much as they were to take down buildings that represented wealth, power, and military. With three planes loaded with fuel, they could have hit a stadium during a sporting event and took out 50 times what they did on 9/11. Actually, there is no evidence that a terrorist goal is to murder as many Americans as possible. To the contrary, most terrorist groups are more concerned with those living in America turning against our government. We are more important to them alive.

The terrorists are, as roachboy so elequantly put, "an empty signifier whose primary function is to give people in the states--right now primarily those on the far right--something to be afraid of." As I've said before, terrorism is the new communism. It is a powerful tool of fear that is used to keep people under control. It is no more complicated than that.

Perhaps you and others should read OBL's letter to the American people. Sure, he may have wanted the people to vote Democrat this past Nov, but that really wasnt going to be enough in their eyes

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_08...pinion_02.html

Ah yes, I get all my news from Panama.....

try this link http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm
or this thread http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=90135

On Feb 26th 1993 islamic terrorist bombed the WTC for the first time, killing 6 people and injuring 1,042

Better yet, here's a rundown of islamic terrorist actions against the united states and her citizens from after the iranian hostage crises until 9/11.

1983
April 18
Sixty three people, including the CIA's Middle East Director, are killed and 120 injured in a 400 lb. suicide truck bomb attack on the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The driver is killed. Responsibility is claimed by Islamic Jihad.
October 23
Simultaneous suicide truck bombs on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000 lb bomb destroys a US Marine Corps base killing two hundred and forty one Americans; another fifty eight Frenchmen are killed when a 400 lb device destroys one of their bases. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.
December 12
US Embassy in Kuwait targeted by Iraqi Shia terrorists who attempted to destroy the building with a truck bomb. The attack was foiled by guards and the device exploded in the Embassy fore-court killing five people.

1984
March 16
CIA station chief in Beirut, Lebanon, William Buckley, was kidnapped by the Iranian backed Islamic Jihad. He was tortured and then executed by his captors.
April 12
Eighteen US servicemen killed and eighty three people injured in bomb attack on restaurant near USAF base in Torrejon, Spain.
September 20
Suicide bomb attack on US Embassy in East Beirut kills twenty three people and injures twenty one others. The US and British ambassadors were slightly injured in the explosion which was attributed to the Iranian backed Hezbollah group

1985
February 7
Under the orders of narcotrafficker Rafael Cero Quintero, Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique Camarena Salazar and his pilot were kidnapped, tortured, and executed.
March 16
US journalist Terry Anderson is kidnapped in Beirut, Lebanon, by Iranian backed Islamic radicals. He is released in December 1991.
June 9
US academic, Thomas Sutherland, at the American University, Beirut, Lebanon kidnapped by Islamic terrorists and held until November 18, 1991.
June 14
A Trans World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hizballah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, during which one American hostage, a U.S. Navy diver, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.
August 8
Three US servicemen and seventeen injured in Red Army Faction bomb and gun attack on Rhein-Main airbase, Germany.
September 12
US academic at the American University in Beirut, Joseph Cicippio, seized in Beirut by Iranian backed Islamic terrorists. He is released on December 1, 1991.
October 7
Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seized an Italian cruise liner in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 hostages. One U.S. passenger was murdered before the Egyptian Government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages' freedom.
October 21
American businessman Edward Tracy kidnapped in Lebanon by Islamic terrorists and held for almost five years until August 11, 1991.

1986
March 30
A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens Airport, killing four U.S. citizens.
April 5
Two U.S. soldiers were killed, and 79 American servicemen were injured in a Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin, West Germany.

1987
January 24
American citizens Jesse Turner and Alann Steen were seized in Beirut by Islamic terrorists. Turner was held until October 22, 1991 and Steen is released on 3 December

1988
February 17
US Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgens, kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian backed Hezbollah while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation in southern Lebanon.
April 14
The Organization of Jihad Brigades exploded a car bomb outside a USO Club in Naples, Italy, killing one U.S. sailor.
August 8
Pakistan president Zia Al Haq and US ambassador are killed, along with thirty seven other people, when a bomb explodes on a C-130 Hercules aircraft just after take off from Bahawalpu, Pakistan. December 21
Pan Am Boeing 747 blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft at Frankfurt Airport, Germany. All 259 people on the aircraft were killed by the blast.

1993
February 26
World Trade Center in New York, USA, attacked by a massive bomb planted by Islamic terrorists.
April 14
Iraqi intelligence service attempt to assassinate former US President, George Bush, during a visit to Kuwait.

1995
March 8
Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.
July 4
In India, six foreigners, including two U.S. citizens, were taken hostage by Al-Faran, a Kashmiri separatist group. One non-U.S. hostage was later found beheaded.
August 21
Hamas claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb in Jerusalem that killed six and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.
November 13
Seven foreigners, including a number of US servicemen, are killed in bomb attack on National Guard training centre at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

1996
June 25
Islamic radical terrorists opposed to the western military presence in the Gulf region, explode a truck bomb next to a USAF housing area at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and 385 injuring more.
November 1
In Sudan, a breakaway group from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) kidnapped three International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) workers, including a U.S. citizen, an Australian, and a Kenyan. On December 9, the rebels released the hostages in exchange for ICRC supplies and a health survey for their camp.


1997
February 23
A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."

1998
August 7
US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salem, Tanzania, heavily damaged by massive bomb attacks. US intelligence blames Islamic groups linked to Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden.
December 28
Yemini militants kidnap a group of western tourists, including 12 Britons, 2 Americans, and 2 Australians on the main road to Aden. Four victims were killed during a rescue attempt the next day.

2000
August 12
In the Kara-Su Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four U.S. citizens hostage. The Americans escaped on August 12.
October 12
In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Ladin were suspected.
December 30
A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the U.S. embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front is allegedly responsible.

2001

September 11
Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. More than 3,000 U.S. citizens and other nationals were killed. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism.

--------------------------------------

I will agree with you on one point. Terrorisim is the new communisim, you see, before islamic terrorists, it was red army terrorists and communist separitist groups in central and south america that were using terrorism as a means of advancing their agendas. so you're right. but it doesn't make the arguement against islamic terrorists wrong.

You are the last person who I would think would be faulting people for the source material.

i fail to see how rehearsing outlines of the cartoon "terrorist" in any way helps to legitimate the category.
everyone is aware of what the "terrorist" is supposed to mean in the vacant little world that is particular to american conservatism.

if you read through the "defining" features listed by ncb and stevo--with a characteristic aside from ustwo---you will see a demonstration of the point i was trying to make earlier.

that you repeat this terminology and rehearse what everyone already knows about it really does not help if your point is that---somehow----the notion of "terrorist" or "them" is functional.

addendum:
then i saw this from stevo:

which is just funny. another way of saying the same thing: just as for the john birch set (what once was a whackjob marginal far right position now informs mainstream conservative ideology--go figure) "communism" was an empty signifier that gave the birchers something to hate with no knowledge and great intensity, so now "terrorist"....funny how committed the right is to the world as western film. black hats, white hats. simple world for simple minds.

btw: so that an even more idiotic trajectory does not get set up by this: no-one is denying that the states might face political threats from people. the claim is that the category "terrorist" of "them" is worthless for thinking about them, much less doing anything.

:lol: thank you for clarifing raochboys point even more.

And what can we do with this precious analysis of yours?
Hunt every musilm who is younger than 22y?

Don't you think it could be more useful to have some better information?
I know you Administration loves fishy intel but...

We need to know more about the different terrorist groups, about their motivations and so on. I said it numerous time already but you right winger are happy to fight a vague "symptom" rather than exaim and fight the illness

I think the american people have knowledge of the dangers of terrorists when it is them that attack us and our allies. How terrorisim is abstract is beyond me. To say that there is no "them," are you saying there is not such thing as an islamic terrorist?

Are you trying to say that islamic suicide bombers are just every day normal people trying to express themselves politically and its useless to try and seperate them from the rest of the populatation?

It surely surprises you but one of the London terrorists was a normal guy before.
The MI5 checked him and they thought he was unsuspicious

So are you saying it is useless to try and separate suicidal mass murderers from the rest of the popupation?

We know their motivations and so on. They pronouce it every chance they get. Sorry, but this is something we cant fight with hugs and understanding. God knows I wish it were

beforewhats a 'normal guy' to you?

and stevo ... for the record..islamic jihad is a palestinian group. it had nothing to do with the killing of american marines at that base. what you are thinking of is Hizbollah. if i were you i'd be checking my sources. i stopped reading the article after that.

normal enough not to be suspicious to the MI5.
So apparently he had no strong ties to extremist terror groups when they checked him, or they failed to find those links.

They;re committed to the same outcome....no Jews in Israel

"Mark", Tecoyah? I'm not clear on your meaning.

The new topic explains it. :)

And there were references to Iranian-back Islamic Jihad, which was meant to say Hizbollah as well. Just because two terror organizations' names were mixed up doesn't mean the attacks listed never happened.

This reminds me of a scene in 'The Life Of Brian'......

Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea .....
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.

--------------------

I don't believe ANYONE has suggested hugs. To continue saying that degrades the conversation; and putting words in the mouths of others is pretty insulting. How about we all stop doing that?

And to put 'hugs' and 'understanding' in the same sentence degrades the value of 'understanding'. Is that your intent? Do you see NO value in understanding your opponent?

Understanding how they* recruit.
Understanding their* tactical methods.
Understanding their* strategic (specific) aims.
Understanding their* relationships with other organizations.
Understanding the specific flows of money within their* organizations.

*the use of 'they' and 'their' refers those that actually have connection to acts of violence.

I'm sure there are more...


I don't think anyone on this board would argue that getting "understanding" of those things is a bad idea. Or related to "hugs". Anyone on the NCB side of things want to say that understanding those things is bad or usless? If not, then please stop with the rhetoric that "understanding" is a problem.

What I get out of Pacifier/Roachboy's posts is that talking about generalities, and hyping up the fear level is useless. I have no idea why anyone could, or would, disagree with that.

Good post, but that's not what he's infering:

What he wants to say is that it's ultimately America's fault in the eyes of terrorists. We cant fight terrorism looking thorugh the enemy's eyes.

Also, you're not correct about the hugs thingy. There are people on the left side of the spectrum who have suggested as such, so it's not a stretch for me to suggest so. Here's one example:

Melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love." -- Shirley MacLaine on her anti-terrorism policy

ncb:

your primary point of departure appears to be that odious little pep talk rove gave to loyalists a few weeks ago. you repeat the same logic, use the same words, yet you pretend this is your argument. this appears to be how folk from your side of the political spectrum operate, however: through the internalization of talking points. which is the best proof i know of exactly what the right really means when they talk about individualism.

your decision to cite shirley maclaine is really funny.
is shirley an autonomous state?
does she have an anti-terrorism policy?
can i get a passport that would make me a citizen of shirley maclaine?
and of course the question that would most concern me as a right-thinking american: can i launder money in shirley maclaine?

she would be a smaller state than sealand. that is pretty impressive.

Unless Shirley MacLaine is posting on this board (where is Sixate, anyway?), WTF is your point? We have conversations with a pretty small group of people. If you aren't attempting to understand (OMG, that word again) the posts of those that disagree with you, on TFP, what are you doing?

If you are argueing with the whole world, good luck and god bless. I'll not be reading you anymore. If you want to discuss current events with the members here, bring it on.


If someone would care to respond to Pacifier's posts, or RB's, what a great conversation we could have. I'd sure learn something. But I don't hold much hope. I continue to see those on the 'left' respond to points of those on the 'right', and those on the 'right' respond to nutjobs somewhere out there.

But I'm sure I'm just biased and crazy...

I've heard you express this idea before. That conservative folk internalize talking points they hear and then take that arguement as their own. I'm sure this is how you perceive it.

But I can tell you from my own experience that there have been many times that I read a newsstory, see a bit on tv, or get in a conversation with another person about a topic or current event before I hear anyone else's opinion on the matter (and days before a 'talking points' memo is delivered to my doorstep).

I then develop my own opinions and ideas about whatever issue is at hand. Sometimes I keep those opinions to myself (say if I'm by myself and I'm reading a newsstory) or I may begin a dialogue with someone if I am in company.

More often than not, if its a big enough story, the next day there's a buzz. Rush says this, the whitehouse says that, some fox news contributor says whatever. And you know what, I say to myself, "hey, thats just what I thought" - not all the time, but more often than not.


I think possibly because you don't think like a conservative you don't understand that I (we) are not being told what to think or how to think it. We formulate our own opinions and ideas, and it just so happens, they are often similar. Its not a suprise to me that like-minded folk come to the same conclusions independent of one another. I find it mildly insulting that you dismiss someone's opinion because it is similar to an official memo or right-wing 'talking points'. Try to understand the possibility that people can come to their own conclusions without the help of big brother.

ok stevo.

but i find this repetition happening over and over on this board and elsewhere.

i dont know, maybe it's just a really really long string of coincidences.

maybe it's a function of operating within a tightly controlled media environment within which there is no operational distinction between information and political spin on information.

of the two, the second seems most plausible, dont you think?


btw: to clarify--i dont have anything against people who are conservative as people. i really dont......i disagree with conservative politics, and argue against that politics....but i do find the tight co-ordination of conservative opinions unsettling at times, in a stepford wives kind of way.

Its also possible that once people arrive at their own conclusions, as similar as they are to 'official talking points,' a person then takes the talking points as their own. and individual opinions can get blurred and it appears as tho the right has only one stance or one idea on a particular issue. I will agree that there is little distinction between information and political spin on information, but then again, you just have to know where to look.

---add---

But I read the same NYTimes articles and Washington Post articles as you do, yet we arrive at different conclusions. There has to be some distinction between information and political spin on it. I would have to say the info comes first, but it depends on where you hear it first.

stevo,

with regards to my last post, i only brought it up to make a point that if these sources cannot get it right, then you should be wary of them. that was all. but after googling it, here is what i found...

so yeah..hezbollah does use it too. my apologies. u learn something every day.

I agree with shakran.

"Only trouble with this war on terror is that even though the terrorists are real, we can't ever find them all. It's like trying to kill all the mosquitos. It's just not gonna happen." - shakran

This is my exact thought about this "War". I'm really not sure what the US and it's allies are trying to accomplish. They are fighting people who are willing to blow themselves to pieces, They are teaching their children to become what they are. I really don't think there is a way to stop terrorism.

It could be slowed down within our own country with heavy security in hot spots that may be prime targets for terrorists to strike..But that's the thing, They can strike anywhere, If it's a populated area..Then it's a prime target.

I would like to think that if america and it's allies pulled out and left them to live their lives, They would do so..But, Bush's ego is too big for that and I don't think it would stop them from attacking the wests soil even if every country involved in this "war" pulled out.

So..I think that their is no right way to deal with Terrorists or Insurgents..whatever you want to call them.
They are a different type of Cancer that most likely will never be cured.

Thank you for trying to clarify what I was goning to sad but you were wrong. So I would be very pleased if you stop reading things in my posts that I didn't said.
At no point I said "it is americas fault", at no point i said "hug the enemy" :mad:

boatin listed perfectly what I meant, an additional important point would be:

Understanding what moviates someone to become one of them*

a remarkably sane intervention from a politico......
somehow this line of interpretation of the phantom "terrorism" has been excluded from the hysteria-based discourse on the topic particular to the states.