Terrorism: an unbeatable foe

[jillian]

Iran, obviously, MUST get nuclear weapons to defend itself against the zionists, or be conquered and destroyed.

That's one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. You do understand that it's not Israel that's threatening Iran, but the other way around, right?

But of course, Iran should have nukes to turn Israel into a sheet of glass to please the nutters....

The way to prevent Muslim-type 'terrorism' is to get 'Christian' troops out of Muslim countries, obviously, and pay for the oil like anyone else. Bush and Blair, going against the experience of the last 100 years, believed imperialism was more effective. They were wrong.

Why are Muslim countries ok, but a jewish country isn't?

I'll wait.

 

[Reality]

The White House as ZERO control on what the Legislature wants to see or hear EXCEPT to cite Presidential privilage , which has nothing to do with the Senate and the House calling before it any or all the intell Agencies and receiving their own personal report, There are at least 2 members, a Republican and a Democrat on each committee that is cleared to hear ANY classification.

I love when you guys claim Bush lied to the Congress. PROVE it and explain how it is that he BROKE the law, which is what he would be doing if he lied to Congress, yet no action has been taken to date.

First of all, it is not incumbent on the president to tell congress anything.

Secondly, I never said he lied.

Thirdly, the poster above is completely correct. The Director of the CIA is a presidential appointee. For the millionth time, the Oval Office has virtually complete control over declassification.

For instance, Curveball. What congress was told was that German Intelligence reported a dissident who claimed to have been instrumental in developing mobile weapons labs. What Congress was not told, but what DIA and CIA knew, is that the German interrogators doubted his credibility and thought he was an alcoholic fishing for a green card.

What Congress was also not told is that Ahmed Chalabi, the chair of the Iraqi National Congress, a man who had been internationally campaigning for both the overthrow of Saddam AND his own placement as the next president of Iraq, was THE FUCKING COUSIN of the source.

So fine, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't lie. One of two things are true, however. Either they didn't tell the whole truth, which you or I would have to do in a court of law on a misdemeanor under the penalty of perjury, or they didn't vet the required due diligence and they were grossly negligent. In either scenario, they have and continue to bleed the American people 1 billion a month for their incompetence and have killed 4,104 American soldiers to date. Anyone who excuses their actions is equally responsible, and that included every congressman that does not vote for impeachment.

 

[Reality]

That's one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. You do understand that it's not Israel that's threatening Iran, but the other way around, right?

But of course, Iran should have nukes to turn Israel into a sheet of glass to please the nutters....



Why are Muslim countries ok, but a jewish country isn't?

I'll wait.

Stupid is as stupid does I guess. No, Iran shouldn't have nukes. Neither should Israel. Nobody is going to fire a nuke at each other in that situation. Radiation is a bitch. There is no way the Ayatollah is going to be responsible for Muslims, in Israel or in the West Bank (which is not Israel) being killed by nuclear radiation. Its not going to happen. But you zealots simply keep parroting these talking points like its based in reality.

Nobody cares about a Jewish country. What they care about is an expansionist Jewish country occupying what they see as Muslim land. What they care about is an European colony in the middle of the Middle East, which is what they see Israel as.

In 1999 less than a dozen "terrorist" attacks were successful or were thwarted in Israel. Why is that? Well, for starters, Barak started talking like Arabs were actually people, the first Israeli leader to do so basically ever. Secondly, there was real negotiations. Thirdly, there was a record number of Palestinians working in Israel. When people are working and feeding their family they tend to hate less.

Then Sharon walked through Al-Asqu/ Temple Mount, with his shoes on nonetheless, as a blatant slap in the face to the peace process. Not one single act has benefited Hamas more in its history. But then again, right wing Israelis want conflict. They get land with conflict.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You people need to learn the Constitution. The President has no power at all to prevent Congress from talking to and receiving independant reports from ANY Intell agency. If he tried to stop them he would be in violation of the Constitution and the Law.

He can NOT order the CIA or any other intell agency to lie or obstruct the Congress in any manner. Congress has at least 2 members of the Intel Committee in both Houses that can and do receive the exact same level of classification that the President has, BY LAW. As well as 2 others in other committees as required with the same classification.

If you are going to argue about our Government, do me the favor of actually learning how it works.

 

[Shogun]

That's one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. You do understand that it's not Israel that's threatening Iran, but the other way around, right?

But of course, Iran should have nukes to turn Israel into a sheet of glass to please the nutters....
Why are Muslim countries ok, but a jewish country isn't?
I'll wait.

uh, yeaaaaaaaa.. hear any JOHN BOLTON QUOTES today about israel striking iran AFTER the US election?


see, it's shit like this, Jillian.



No, the question you SHOULD be asking is WHY is it ok for a JEWISH nation to covertly assemble a nuclear arsenal that MAKES EVERY FUCKING ARAB NATION FEEL THAT THEY NEED ONE TOO?


its like the fucking nuclear arms race between the soviets and US all over again. Believe it or not, the world won't automatically assume that jews have everyone elses best intention in mind. Especially given how israel was created and flaunted the last 40 years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

uh, yeaaaaaaaa.. hear any JOHN BOLTON QUOTES today about israel striking iran AFTER the US election?


see, it's shit like this, Jillian.



No, the question you SHOULD be asking is WHY is it ok for a JEWISH nation to covertly assemble a nuclear arsenal that MAKES EVERY FUCKING ARAB NATION FEEL THAT THEY NEED ONE TOO?


its like the fucking nuclear arms race between the soviets and US all over again. Believe it or not, the world won't automatically assume that jews have everyone elses best intention in mind. Especially given how israel was created and flaunted the last 40 years.

Ya, cause after all the provocation and direct attacks on Israel they have of course used that arsenal, RIGHT?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

OK Am i the only one who sees that a war on Terrorsism won't do anything long lasting or ...

WE BEAT TERRORISM BEFORE IN MY LIFETIME. MAny terrorist groups of the 1960s, 70s, 80s, were defeated by us and nato countries and others,.

The IRA outlasted them all until recently and the Egyptian, Spanish and other terrorist were mostly nationalist until now.

In the eighties the Japanese terrorists, Palestinians offshoot groups, and the European/Irish terrorists who trained in Libya and Syria and Yemen and other places got together for a last hurrah. they all died away or were finally crushed

 

[BrianH]

OK Am i the only one who sees that a war on Terrorsism won't do anything long lasting or really all that helpful. I mean Terrorsism has been around since the done of man and it will be here in one form or another untill we are gone, or untill humans learn peace. So thats great the US charged into the middle-east and did a whole bunch of nothingness. Yeah sure we disrupted Al-quada and they are in hiding, now thats all good and fine, but what about all the other radicles in the world. I mean middle-easterns are not all terrorists. I mean lets look at a whole series of terrorists invading the US called GANGS. I mean if you truly belive we are in the middle-east for terrorism then ask yourself why aren't we occupying every country on earth. Because Terrorists are not a bunch of guys in caves with guns.Terrorism is all humans who use there great minds for death, including the US goverment.

peace

Ok, first off, terrorism has been defeated numerous times in numerous countries throughout history. Second, we have gang units all over the U.S. devoted to tracking down and prosecuting violent gang members. I hate to break it to you, but being in a gang is not illegal. Being in violent gang that commits criminal acts is, and we have people that spend the better part of their day tracking them down. I may not agree with how the war in Iraq is going, but you act as though the U.S. just blindly charged into the Middle East unprovoked...The U.S. was consistently and systematically attacked by middle-eastern terrorism since 1983. Sure, I think the U.S. should have kept it's nose out of the middle east in the early 1900s, but hey, you feed that decision every time you go on a road drip or drive across town.

FOXNews.com - List of Thwarted Terror Attacks Since Sept. 11 - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Looks like we're doing a decent job of stopping many in their tracks.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Ok, first off, terrorism has been defeated numerous times in numerous countries throughout history. Second, we have gang units all over the U.S. devoted to tracking down and prosecuting violent gang members. I hate to break it to you, but being in a gang is not illegal. Being in violent gang that commits criminal acts is, and we have people that spend the better part of their day tracking them down. I may not agree with how the war in Iraq is going, but you act as though the U.S. just blindly charged into the Middle East unprovoked...The U.S. was consistently and systematically attacked by middle-eastern terrorism since 1983.

good post...




...up until here.

Sure, I think the U.S. should have kept it's nose out of the middle east in the early 1900s, but hey, you feed that decision every time you go on a road drip or drive across town.

FOXNews.com - List of Thwarted Terror Attacks Since Sept. 11 - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Looks like we're doing a decent job of stopping many in their tracks.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

I tried to give you a pos rep, but even the board software is leery of you.

 

[BrianH]

good post...




...up until here.

About the first part. thanks

About the second, please explain.

 

[Zeddicus]

So when the CIA said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and intended to build more, they were lying, when they said They never funneled money or training to Osama Bin Laden, they were lying, when they said Iran has Nuclear weapon ambitions they were lying, etc etc etc, BUT when they said Valarie Plame was an undercover operative, they were the most truthful organization on the face of the earth?

yes
what has history ALWAYS shown? the people who run the countrys always no more then the people they are 'serving'.
I mean why tell the people the truth when they have people like you eating out of the plam of their hand.

 

[Rhys]

That's one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. You do understand that it's not Israel that's threatening Iran, but the other way around, right?

But of course, Iran should have nukes to turn Israel into a sheet of glass to please the nutters....



Why are Muslim countries ok, but a jewish country isn't?

I'll wait.

Have you perhaps heard of the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction? It appears to work, so I'm for it.

Lots of right-wingers believed Poland and Czechosolvakia were threatening Hitler. People believe all sorts of things, but it doesn't make them true, does it? Iran has not invaded someone else's land and driven out the natives, has it? What isn't okay is colonising other people's countries, whatever their religion. Without US interference I've no doubt that, as in South Africa, a democratic nonracist state could be established in Palestine and everyone could live peaceably together. It would be a good idea, don't you think, to avoid stock-responses and think sometimes?

 

[editec]

If society is a festering wound of social injustice, the pus that it festers is people willing to commit acts of terror in order to change that society.

Now you can kill those individual terrorists, but another one will inevitable take his place unless you solve the problem of the society which spawns them.

Two ways to solve that problem

1. genocide of that society

2. Solving the social injustice which drives people into becoming terrorists in the first place.

So generally speaking, the easiest, cheapest and best solution is to bind those wounds so that the social infection which spawns terrorism passes.

Most MidEast terrorism isn't aimed directly at our society, but at the societies in the mid-Eastern governments which we support.

Even our allies in the MidEast often blame us for the poverty, ignorance and social injustice which they themselves are mostly responsible for.

Many Palestinians hate us because they see that we support the government of Israel which they belive absues them

Many Egyptians hate us because we support the government of Egypt which is basically a dictatorship

Many Saudis hate us because we support the House of Saudi which is a monachy.

Some Iraqis hate us because we are there.

Some Pakistanis hate us because we influence their government in ways that don't benefit them

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

In many cases the thing that some people around the world hate the USA for is our support of their OWN GOVERNMENTS.

Since it is often not in our interests to topple their goverments for them (and bsides if we did that that nation would just spawnanother set of terrorists) and since in many cases it is beyond our ability to make their governments solve their own internal problems, it is likely that the problem of terrorism that seems to be our problem, cannot be solved BY US, no matter how many men we can put in the field.

Military strength alone can NOT solve terrorism, folks.

Social injustice is the mother of terrorism.

 

[Reality]

You people need to learn the Constitution. The President has no power at all to prevent Congress from talking to and receiving independant reports from ANY Intell agency. If he tried to stop them he would be in violation of the Constitution and the Law.

He can NOT order the CIA or any other intell agency to lie or obstruct the Congress in any manner. Congress has at least 2 members of the Intel Committee in both Houses that can and do receive the exact same level of classification that the President has, BY LAW. As well as 2 others in other committees as required with the same classification.

If you are going to argue about our Government, do me the favor of actually learning how it works.

Ok, you are right I guess that Congress was told that the most important intell source was actually a drunken cousin of a Shiite Iraqi exile loyal to Iran whom at the time the Bush admin saw as a potential successor to Iraqi rule.

Don't lecture me when you haven't a clue.

"The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches."

How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball' - Los Angeles Times

Exactly what congressional committee has the responsibility for communication with our allies' intelligence communities? Hint: There isn't one. Thats a foreign policy and thus executive branch responsibility.

But keep insulting people about what they don't know when your talking from Pluto. It makes me laugh.

 

[Reality]

Ya, cause after all the provocation and direct attacks on Israel they have of course used that arsenal, RIGHT?

Yet another clueless post. If you listen to the pundits, which you clearly do, you would believe that Israel keeps expanding through self defense. First regime on the face of the planet to do so. Reality doesn't quite meet up with that, but hey reality isn't important.

 

[Doug]

Terrorism -- defined as deliberate attempts to kill and injure civilians -- is just a tactic.

It is a tactic used by all serious people who have, or wish to acquire, power, when they feel that it is in their overall interests to do so.

The human species is slowly and fitfully moving toward acknowledging a set of universal ethics in which terrorism -- deliberate attempts to kill and injure civilians -- would be seen as wrong.

We in the West are a bit ahead of others in this. But this change is glacial. At the moment, most people, save for a few eccentrics, are very happy to see the women and little children of their enemies burned alive, or shot, or blown into bloody fragments. This is just the nature of the human animal.

Is the current movement of radical Islamists motivated by concern over "social justice"? Where they have had power -- such as in Afghanistan under the Taliban, or in those areas of Iraq which were controlled until recently by Al Queda -- can we say that they implemented "social justice"?

That seems quite a stretch to me. People who think this is so seem to be assimilating reactionary Islamic fundamentalism to communism. But these two movements have little in common.

What is true is that the ultimate driver for Islamic fundamentalism is the backwardness and stagnation of the Islamic world. The real -- as opposed to ostensible -- motivation for invading Iraq was to address this problem: the neo-con theorists of this invasion believed that Iraq -- a relatively advanced, relatively secular, and potentially oil-wealthy country -- could be kick-started into liberal democracy, thus triggering a reverse "domino effect" on the rest of the Middle East.

Although they were tragically wrong, it is not beyond possibility that, in its own way, slowly and with setbacks, and wading through blood to get there, Iraq may yet embark on a "normal" course of development, and become an Arabic Turkey. (That is, Muslim, but undergoing normal capitalist development, with the slow growth of the rule of law and the education of its population towards de facto secular norms.) However, we are talking decades here.

Thus I hope that President Obama does not precipitately withdraw our forces from Iraq. That would only be justified if he believed that there was either no chance at all of a reasonable democratic development, or that there was one, but that our presence was irrelevant to it, or a positive hindrance.

Those who believe the latter, must then ask themselves: if Iraq, why not Afghanistan?

 

[Reality]

If society is a festering wound of social injustice, the pus that it festers is people willing to commit acts of terror in order to change that society.

Now you can kill those individual terrorists, but another one will inevitable take his place unless you solve the problem of the society which spawns them.

Two ways to solve that problem

1. genocide of that society

2. Solving the social injustice which drives people into becoming terrorists in the first place.

So generally speaking, the easiest, cheapest and best solution is to bind those wounds so that the social infection which spawns terrorism passes.

Most MidEast terrorism isn't aimed directly at our society, but at the societies in the mid-Eastern governments which we support.

Even our allies in the MidEast often blame us for the poverty, ignorance and social injustice which they themselves are mostly responsible for.

Many Palestinians hate us because they see that we support the government of Israel which they belive absues them

Many Egyptians hate us because we support the government of Egypt which is basically a dictatorship

Many Saudis hate us because we support the House of Saudi which is a monachy.

Some Iraqis hate us because we are there.

Some Pakistanis hate us because we influence their government in ways that don't benefit them

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

In many cases the thing that some people around the world hate the USA for is our support of their OWN GOVERNMENTS.

Since it is often not in our interests to topple their goverments for them (and bsides if we did that that nation would just spawnanother set of terrorists) and since in many cases it is beyond our ability to make their governments solve their own internal problems, it is likely that the problem of terrorism that seems to be our problem, cannot be solved BY US, no matter how many men we can put in the field.

Military strength alone can NOT solve terrorism, folks.

Social injustice is the mother of terrorism.

I think this is largely a great post.

If you actually listen to what bin Laden says, he clearly states that the primary enemy is the oppressive regimes of the Middle East. Up until this point in his argument he gets almost universal support from the street.

Next, he'll speak of foreign influence in the Muslim world, especially the "Zionist Conspiracy" and American influence on the attempt to destroy the Palestinian people's identity. Through this point, again, he has almost universal support from the street.

When he starts blowing up innocent people, many people check out.

When he starts talking about replacing the regimes of the Middle East with purely Islamic monarchies, most people check out.

 

[Doug]

Bin Laden is not interested in replacing the oppressive regimes of the Middle East with regimes committed to "social justice". He wants to replace them with Taliban-like regimes.

It is theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely, that the people who follow Bin Laden think they are fighting for social equality and gay rights. If so, they are badly mistaken.

We are so used to seeing mass movements of poor people as exclusively Leftwing phenomena, that we automatically try to assimilate Islamism to that model. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There can be reactionary mass movements, as fascism was.

Not that Bin Laden and co. are a mass movement.

 

[Reality]

Terrorism -- defined as deliberate attempts to kill and injure civilians -- is just a tactic.

Terrorism is the use of violence for coercive political means. It has been engaged in by every regime that has ever used force as a means of policy. The tactic, as you noted, is not the problem.