This report from the Pentagon basically says exactly what I've been saying that the war on terror is not a military type action & is a fight against criminals, a law enforcement type issue.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060905-033639-5554r

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 (UPI) -- The United States should rethink the label it uses for what is known as the "global war on terror," the chief of strategic planning on the Pentagon's Joint Staff said Tuesday.
What is needed, said Army Col. Gary Cheek, is to recast terrorists as the criminals they are.
"If we can change the name ... and find the right sequence of events that allows us to do that, that changes the dynamic of the conflict," said Cheek at the Defense Forum Washington, sponsored by the Marine Corps Association and the U.S. Naval Institute.
"It makes sense for us to find another name for the GWOT," said Cheek. "It merits rethinking. I know our European allies are more comfortable articulating issues of terrorism as criminal threats, rather than war ... It ought to be our goal to partner better with the European allies so we can migrate this from a war to something other than a war."
The "war" moniker elevates al-Qaida and other transnational terrorists, giving them legitimacy as an opposition force to the United States. It also tends to alienate Muslim populations in other countries, who see the war as a war on Islam, and feel they need to support al-Qaida as a matter of defending their faith.
It also tends to frame the fight as one in which the Defense Department has the primary role, when it is becoming increasingly clear that the "long war" against global terrorism is going to be won on other fronts -- economic, political, diplomatic, financial. Other government agencies and departments must become more engaged; only they have the expertise to help other countries take the actions necessary to defeat terrorists. "

Hehe...they already did remember the "global struggle against violent extremism" (G-SAVE)...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_struggle_against_violent_ex tremism

Excellent!

Let's parse this.

First off, the goals of criminals or a criminal organization and a terrorist or terrorist organization are far, far different. Criminals engage in their activities to enrich themselves doing things that are against the law.

The ideals and goals of terrorism are totally different. Their primary goal isn't about getting rich off of other people's goods, property or hard work. It's about ideaology. It's about bringing political change through coercion. It's about attacking a nation's interest. Terrorism IS a form of warfare. It's the weapon of the weak. It's what happens when a group of people wish to bring about some kind of political or ideaological change but don't have the strength to directly fight the nation or country they're opposed to. Whether it's the Irish Republican Army attacking British INTERESTS in Northern Ireland or Hamas attacking Israel to "liberate" Palestinian lands from the Jews or the Al-Qeada types attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq to try and destroy America's will to fight in Iraq. It's about a kind of warfare, a guerilla war. It's about tactics. It IS a form of warfare. Law enforcement is about keeping the peace amongst the civilians, when it comes to war, THAT job falls directly into the hands of the military.

Hamas, Al-Qeada, the Taliban, Bin Laden and his minions, the Iranian and Syrian governments for that matter are NOT interested in robbing jewelry stores or running drugs or extorting the local butcher. They're interested in FIRST ridding the Middle East of Western Influence, no Israel, no American presence ANYWHERE in the Middle East, no Western ideas on politics or government. THEN it's about spreading their brand of Islam throughout the world. They've made inroads in Africa and in Asia, they've got a well of discontent young Muslim men throughout Europe who are left out of the mainstream of European society and are looking for some kind of salvation, some kind of guidance. And seem more than willing to go and "martyr" themselves by blowing up airliners, subways, building and try to behead Prime Ministers. We've got Saudi Arabia exporting wahabism, we've got Ahmandinejad STATING that Iran WILL engage in "low intensity warfare" against the West and win. Oh, and did I mention that he is working on nuclear weapons? The worst thing we've got is profligate idiots believing that a threat on this scale is going to be handled by Officer Friendly with a few arrests, a couple of traffic tickets and a very stern lecture to terrorists, sorry I mean criminials, that it's not nice to try and blow things up in the name of Allah. GEEZUS CHRIST! It's silly, assinine, stupid and dangerous to be so dense as to believe terrorism is, was or will be a "law enforcement" issue. Wake UP!


We have an entire region of the world that was once the pinnacle of civilization that has spent the past 5 centuries decaying to the point that the only difference between the Middle East and Sub Saharan Africa is the fact that the Arabs are sitting on top of oceans of the oil. Even with oil, and some 500 BILLION in profit that oil brought over the years, the Middle East is mired in corruption, tyranny, poverty, hypocracy and massive human rights abuses. Rather than stop and say "gee, what went wrong" the Bin Laden types in the Middle East have decided it's all the West's fault and the only answer is to try and bring the West down. Does THAT sound like a law enforcement issue?


Some quotes from the article.........

If we can change the name ... and find the right sequence of events that allows us to do that, that changes the dynamic of the conflict," said Cheek at the Defense Forum Washington


We can call the global war on terror an Easter Egg Hunt and it's not going to change the goals and methods of the Bin Laden types by one iota.


I know our European allies are more comfortable articulating issues of terrorism as criminal threats, rather than war

What he's saying is that the Euroweenies aren't "comfortable" calling a spade a spade. I got news for the Euroweenies, it ain't the KKK, the Mafia, the Christians, the Boy Scouts or the Good Cheer Commitee that are blowing up subways, buses, airplanes, buildings or sawing people's heads off on TV or issueing death threats over silly cartoons. It's the Islamists. It's people like Bin Laden and Ahmandinejad. The Euroweenies don't want to acknowledge that fact. The Euroweenies would be gung ho to arrest some 19 year old kid making bombs in his basement and call Islamic Terrorism a "law enforcement" issue. It's quite something else something else to go looking for Bin Laden in Pakistan or warning Ahmandinejad that if doesn't stop trying to acquire the Bomb he's going to have his ass kicked. It's never easy to screw with the Islamists, THEY hit back, dammit.


The "war" moniker elevates al-Qaida and other transnational terrorists, giving them legitimacy as an opposition force to the United States. It also tends to alienate Muslim populations in other countries, who see the war as a war on Islam, and feel they need to support al-Qaida as a matter of defending their faith.


The "war" moniker means that we're taking the threat of the Al-Qaida types seriously. It means that the U.S. WILL use ANY means to track down and destroy terrorists.

Also, I'm sick and tired of the West having to bend over backwards to assure "moderate" muslims that we're not at war with them. I want to know what THEY are saying about US in their Mosques. If they're listening to people preaching the Jihad, it's time to deport some of these people.


when it is becoming increasingly clear that the "long war" against global terrorism is going to be won on other fronts -- economic, political, diplomatic, financial. Other government agencies and departments must become more engaged; only they have the expertise to help other countries take the actions necessary to defeat terrorists. "


I've got to thank this idiot for stating that water is wet. Of course it's going to take law enforcement and diplomacy to help win the war on terror. Without the strength and swiftness of the military, we're going to be fighting this "war on terror" with one hand behind our back. Which is EXACTLY what the terrorist want us to do, dammit.

The guy from the Pentagon makes absolute perfect sense in what he wrote. I can't fault a single thing he wrote because it's so damn obviously correct and right on the money.

It doesn't matter what the goals of terrorists are - it doesn't change the fundamental fact that they are criminals. You cannot have a nation at "war" with a band of crminals. The military has pretty much zero role in defeating terrorism.

For example, stopping Iran from getting Nukes may be a military action, but stopping Iran from getting nukes has zero to do with the war on terror. It's seems people are content (and it's evident in your post Darth) with rolling up everything related to the middle east and calling it part of the "war on terror" - it's just plain silly.

For example, stopping Iran from getting Nukes may be a military action, but stopping Iran from getting nukes has zero to do with the war on terror. It's seems people are content (and it's evident in your post Darth) with rolling up everything related to the middle east and calling it part of the "war on terror" - it's just plain silly.

Drew,

Let me get to the bottom line here. We can't afford to lose in the Middle East. We can't afford to let the Radical Islamists make the Middle East their private fiefdom, and I will support anything that harms the Islamists, dammit.

Darth and Drew,
The crux of the problem is not terrorism itself but the growth of Islamism in the Middle East and elsewhere. Terrorism is the worst product of the rise of this ideology, along with the deterioration of human rights and economic progress.

The prevention of specific terrorist acts is in fact primarily the job of law enforcement and intelligence, and not the military. Deploying the 82nd Airborne to London wouldn't have prevented the recent attempted attacks there; efforts by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, however, did prevent them.

On the other hand, curbing the growth of Islamism is a completely different (and much larger) operation. It requires a combination of political, economic and social efforts, as well as military action in certain cases. Such was the case with Afghanistan and is currently the case with Iraq. Even in countries where military action is not warranted or prudent, other measures can be taken to assist in the social and political changes needed to hamper the spread of Islamism.

Additionally, contrary to what Darth said, it is absolutely critical that moderate Muslims don't view the war as being against them. It will be impossible to move them away from Islamism and adopt a new ideology if they view the proponents of that ideology as their enemies. Our success is contingent upon how people in the Arab and Muslim world view us and our values; because in the end, the frontline of a war of ideologies is within people's minds.

Drew,

Let me get to the bottom line here. We can't afford to lose in the Middle East. We can't afford to let the Radical Islamists make the Middle East their private fiefdom, and I will support anything that harms the Islamists, dammit.

I agree with you in essence.

But, radicals are not a problem unto themselves - they can be radical all they want so long as they don't export violence to the west. Radical is afterall defined dependant upon your perspective. The issue for us is violent radicals (of any religious persuation) The problem with this is that radicals are not confined to the ME. Europe & Asia is FILLED with radical muslims and there are no doubt many already living here and elsewhere across the globe.

With our current policies of starting pointless wars that have no benefit to us and have great benefit to radicals - giving them cause & reason to exist, then we certainly will lose because it becomes a recruitment drive for radicals and makes us look weak & beatable. Plus, the cost of such endeavours weakens our economy in the long run by mounting up incredible sums of debt. The Iraq war $500 billion has all been paid for with credit (loaned from countries like China)

Iraq has put back any progress in the ME 10 - 15 years at least. A war against radicalism can ultimately only be won in the minds of the people who potentially can become radicalized. We can't kill 1.26 billion muslims, no matter who much some people might like that idea.

Darth and Drew,
The crux of the problem is not terrorism itself but the growth of Islamism in the Middle East and elsewhere. Terrorism is the worst product of the rise of this ideology, along with the deterioration of human rights and economic progress.

The prevention of specific terrorist acts is in fact primarily the job of law enforcement and intelligence, and not the military. Deploying the 82nd Airborne to London wouldn't have prevented the recent attempted attacks there; efforts by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, however, did prevent them.

On the other hand, curbing the growth of Islamism is a completely different (and much larger) operation. It requires a combination of political, economic and social efforts, as well as military action in certain cases. Such was the case with Afghanistan and is currently the case with Iraq. Even in countries where

Additionally, contrary to what Darth said, it is absolutely critical that moderate Muslims don't view the war as being against them. It will be impossible to move them away from Islamism and adopt a new ideology if they view the proponents of that ideology as their enemies. Our success is contingent upon how people in the Arab and Muslim world view us and our values; because in the end, the frontline of a war of ideologies is within people's minds.

Excellent post Jester.

Such was the case with Afghanistan and is currently the case with Iraq. but military action is what cause the rise of islamism in Iraq.... Terrorism IS a form of warfare. Warfare is a form of terrorism.

I'm going to post a few replies, then I'll link to an article by Amir Taheri that explains Iraq and America's role in that country. I'll ask any who read my responses to read the article as it has some excellent insights and explains why I'm so adament about support the war in Iraq, dammit.


But, radicals are not a problem unto themselves - they can be radical all they want so long as they don't export violence to the west.

The first problem is that the Islamists ARE exporting terrorism. 9/11 is the most potent example of the Islamists wishing to export their ideology worldwide. I've said it over and over, the Islamists aren't going to leave the West alone. We're in a war whether we wish to be or not.


Point number 2 is the idea that the Islamists can do as they will, so long as they don't "export" their brand of Islam. This smacks of the U.S. getting cozy with all kinds of pro-American thugs, something that guerilla and freethinker just love to pronounce and denounce. Rightly so, I think they've got a point.


With our current policies of starting pointless wars that have no benefit to us and have great benefit to radicals - giving them cause & reason to exist, then we certainly will lose because it becomes a recruitment drive for radicals and makes us look weak & beatable. Plus, the cost of such endeavours weakens our economy in the long run by mounting up incredible sums of debt. The Iraq war $500 billion has all been paid for with credit (loaned from countries like China)

The Middle East embracing democracy and all its trappings which include self determination, human rights, governmental responsibility, tolerance, oppurtunity to better oneself will be of enormous benefit to the U.S., as modern democracies don't go to war with one-another, dammit. Agree or disagree with Bush, but he did do something DECISIVE about the problem of Islamists in the Middle East. Something that no other nation on Earth has chosen to solve. Look to Iran for what happens when the world refuses to stand up against tyranny.



The prevention of specific terrorist acts is in fact primarily the job of law enforcement and intelligence, and not the military.


We need to use every means at our disposal to combat terrorism, and we need to use those methods decisively and without hesitation. I've not stated that law enforcement has no part, it has done well in foiling plots in the U.S., Canada and England. I'm stating that the problem of the war on terror is primarily a military one at present.


Additionally, contrary to what Darth said, it is absolutely critical that moderate Muslims don't view the war as being against them. It will be impossible to move them away from Islamism and adopt a new ideology if they view the proponents of that ideology as their enemies. Our success is contingent upon how people in the Arab and Muslim world view us and our values; because in the end, the frontline of a war of ideologies is within people's minds.

The U.S. isn't at war with Islam. It's against the Bin Laden types. We get too careful with targetting the radicals and we're going to be seen as weak. "Moderate" muslims aren't going to side with a West that is weak or dithering or too damn sensitive to do what needs to be done. The Radical Islamists WILL kill those who do not do as say and the "moderate" muslims know this. Example will be what states Western policy about Islam. If one wishes to practice Islam in peace, we're not going to bother them. Start preaching the Jihad and you're going to get clobbered. THAT is the only way the "moderate" Muslims are going to be able to decide to not embrace the Radical Islamists ideals, dammit.

Our success is contingent upon how people in the Arab and Muslim world view us and our values; because in the end, the frontline of a war of ideologies is within people's minds.

Strength first, then teaching. FIRST the West MUST stand up to the Radicals, then and only then, can the West teach Muslims about the benefits of toleration, capitalism, why having people who rule on behalf of Allah is a bad idea, human rights and a host of other ideals that have made the West so successful, dammit.


http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19942

Agree or disagree with Bush, but he did do something DECISIVE about the problem of Islamists in the Middle East.An excerpt from A Man Without A Country by Kurt Vonnegut:

I was once asked if I had any ideas for a really scary reality TV show. I have one reality show that would really make your hair stand on end: "C-Students from Yale".

George W Bush has gathered around him upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka Christians, and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or PPs, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences. To say somebody is a PP is to make a perfectly respectable diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete's foot. The classic medical text on PPs is The Mask of Sanity by Dr Hervey Cleckley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia, published in 1941. Read it! Some people are born deaf, some are born blind or whatever, and this book is about congenitally defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays. These were people born without consciences, and suddenly they are taking charge of everything. PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!

And what syndrome better describes so many executives at Enron and WorldCom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may say to or about them? And they are waging a war that is making billionaires out of millionaires, and trillionaires out of billionaires, and they own television, and they bankroll George Bush, and not because he's against gay marriage. So many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick. They have taken charge. They have taken charge of communications and the schools, so we might as well be Poland under occupation. They might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do. What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. They are going to do something every fuckin' day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they don't give a fuck what happens next. Simply can't. Do this! Do that! Mobilise the reserves! Privatise the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! Fuck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my ass! There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: only nut cases want to be president. This was true even in high school. Only clearly disturbed people ran for class president.

http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=06/03/24/013248&mode=nested&tid=25

The rise of any political movement or religion is always the reaction to some kind of treat from a foreign source when not a local one. The rise of Nazism happened after the Great War because of the terrms impossed onto them. If US gets out of those countries, any Islamism on the rise to get them out of their lands will simply end. Islam has been around for a long time, and has not gone beyond that area of the world, their expansion ended long ago.
Today, or for the past 150 years, it is all about the Western expansion for markets and appropriation of natural resources from the poor countries, the Western world doesn't give a damn about religion, just money.
Leave the Muslims alone, get out of their lands and everything will be fine.
US found and made them the new enemy after the end of the Soviet Union, US needs an enemy to keep their greedy engine very well lubricated.

Leave the Muslims alone, get out of their lands and everything will be fine.
US found and made them the new enemy after the end of the Soviet Union, US needs an enemy to keep their greedy engine very well lubricated.

Exactly.

Fantastic point.

The first problem is that the Islamists ARE exporting terrorism. 11/09 (11SEP01) is the most potent example of the Islamists wishing to export their ideology worldwide. I've said it over and over, the Islamists aren't going to leave the West alone.
What happened in New York (not including the auto/self bombing of the Pentagon), was "REVENGE" not "terrorism", when you start seeing it as it really was, then you'll understand what your government and the corporations do to other countries. Leave the East be by themselves, and keep the fuckin' West in the West, and there will not be any more REVENGE attacks. US inside US, Britain inside Britain, and any other imperialistic country within their borders to start seeing who the evil was.

I'm going to post a few replies, then I'll link to an article by Amir Taheri that explains Iraq and America's role in that country. I'll ask any who read my responses to read the article as it has some excellent insights and explains why I'm so adamant about support the war in Iraq, dammit.
No need to post your replies, sincerely they do not from from a normal human brain. Do you realize how much bullshit you've poured?
All that Bushit rhetoric tells me how smart the right wing is. Who the hell do you guys think you are, to go and pretend to "TEACH", where do you get that idea that you can teach anything, you've got a lot to learn yet. And where do you get the idea that you are better than everyone else? Dammit!
In what fundamentalist fuckin' church did you learn all that crap? Holy shit, I just can't believe it!
Dammit!

Strength first, then teaching. FIRST the West MUST stand up to the Radicals, then and only then, can the West teach Muslims about the benefits of toleration, capitalism

This sums up the root of the problem. The idea that we are on a high horse ready to TEACH the savages. I agree that we should deal directly with direct threats in a ruthless manner, but the idea that our goal is to TEACH them to be like us is pretty dumb. They don't want to be like us & they don't have to be like us. Radical extremists are a tiny tiny part of muslim populations. Of course we have grown their numbers significantly by our stupid actions. Showing strength doesn't mean showing outright stupidity.

I do believe that criminals should be dealt with as criminals.
I am interested in seeing how many people, Christian and Jews, will be in the streets protesting in New York when Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad ("Israel must be wiped off the map") is there this month to speak to the U.N.

If a few million would show up to scream at this little bastard he may quite seeing the U.S. citizens as pussies.

He will probably not see this though, because many are pussies.

Darth and Drew,
The crux of the problem is not terrorism itself but the growth of Islamism in the Middle East and elsewhere. Terrorism is the worst product of the rise of this ideology, along with the deterioration of human rights and economic progress.

The prevention of specific terrorist acts is in fact primarily the job of law enforcement and intelligence, and not the military. Deploying the 82nd Airborne to London wouldn't have prevented the recent attempted attacks there; efforts by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, however, did prevent them.

On the other hand, curbing the growth of Islamism is a completely different (and much larger) operation. It requires a combination of political, economic and social efforts, as well as military action in certain cases. Such was the case with Afghanistan and is currently the case with Iraq. Even in countries where military action is not warranted or prudent, other measures can be taken to assist in the social and political changes needed to hamper the spread of Islamism.

Additionally, contrary to what Darth said, it is absolutely critical that moderate Muslims don't view the war as being against them. It will be impossible to move them away from Islamism and adopt a new ideology if they view the proponents of that ideology as their enemies. Our success is contingent upon how people in the Arab and Muslim world view us and our values; because in the end, the frontline of a war of ideologies is within people's minds.
That was a very good post, Jester.

Our success is contingent upon how people in the Arab and Muslim world view us and our values; because in the end, the frontline of a war of ideologies is within people's minds. too late...Iraq, Lebanon, Gitmo and Abu G are already everpresent and no one has been held accountable.

too late...Iraq, Lebanon, Gitmo and Abu G are already everpresent and no one has been held accountable.Things like Abu Ghraib might have cost us some points, but it doesn't equate to permanent failure.

and the other 3?

I also forgot the lynch pin... Depleted Uranium...hard to forgive people when they poison your home for billions of years.

Also remember these people have far longer attention spans and patience then your average American.

No need to post your replies, sincerely they do not from from a normal human brain. Do you realize how much bullshit you've poured?
All that Bushit rhetoric tells me how smart the right wing is. Who the hell do you guys think you are, to go and pretend to "TEACH", where do you get that idea that you can teach anything, you've got a lot to learn yet. And where do you get the idea that you are better than everyone else? Dammit!
In what fundamentalist fuckin' church did you learn all that crap? Holy shit, I just can't believe it!
Dammit!

Please don't use my "dammits," socialist, they are unique to me. Come up with your own epithets if you must, leave mine alone, dammit.


The one who needs to learn is YOU, not me, so please read slow and perhaps absorb a bit of knowledge.

The West achieved the pre-eminence it enjoys today because the West WAS WILLING TO LEARN. From all peoples. The Chinese emperors had knowledge of the compass and the printing press, but kept them as closely guarded state secrets. The West learned about both. The printing press paved the way for mass printings of books and mass literacy that lead to an educated public. The compass sparked a revolution in navigation and enabled Westerners to navigate the world's oceans. Did I mention gunpowder, which was Chinese in origin, that revolutionized warfare and gave the West an unparalled advantage over others.

The West learned about "arabic" numerals from the Muslims as well as the concept of zero as well as our own heritage in the form of the writings of Greek philosophers that were lost to the West. The West acquired the writings of several Muslim philosophers and it stirred quite a debate amongst the Europeans. It has been said that Islam was Europe's teacher and they are quite right.

It was the West that came up with the idea of the "noble savage." Meaning that the ways of different people may be alien, their ideas may be totally radical, their philosophies may be totally unheard of, YET we in the West just might learn something from differing peoples. The West, going all the way back to the times of Plato may well think lesser developed people as "savages" but we tack on the term noble to that name. The West WAS willing to learn.

The West took other people's ideas and inventions, the printing press, arabic numerals, astronomy, math, gunpowder, philosophy even food and started a revolution of their own.

The West underwent the renaissance, the enlightenment and the scientific revolution. The West questioned, QUESTIONED man's role on Earth and sought to learn how things worked. The West came up with the idea of Democracy, where a government is responsible to its people and people have a say in how that government is ran. The West invented science, the study of how things work and how those findings can be used to make things better. Capitalism and the idea of private property. The idea that it's noble to engage in buying and selling is something that is very new in world history. A merchant or trader was seen as the scum of the earth by Imperial China, in India and I don't think the Muslims thought much better of them as well. Trade built wealth, the ideas of private property and patents gave protections to those who did invent new things from being taken from a vengeful government or angry lord. Capitalism, democracy and science paved the way for ordinary people born in humble circumstances to rise to wealth and their ideas to change the world. I can point to the Wright brothers, Henry Ford, Igor Sikorski, Thomas Edison, Einstein and Bill Gates. ALL of whom were born in humble circumstances, and all of whom changed the world with their ideas and inventions. Has it ever occured to you to wonder why it has only been in the past two hundred years or so that so many of our "modern" inventions came about when man has been around for 50,000? Has it ever occured to you to wonder why it's the U.S. that came up with so many of our modern inventions when there are cultures that are so much older than our own? Could it be because America was founded on the principles of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Scientific revolution that has deep roots in Europe?


NOW, the thing with these examples I've pointed out about the West willing to learn is that the Muslims, the Chinese, those in India not only didn't learn, but were not INTERESTED in learning when Europe was undergoing its own revolution. Europe was willing to learn from others, the rest of the world wasn't interested, thank you very much. Take a look around and see the results. Europe in general and America in particular live a kind of lifestlye undreamed of by even the most poweful rulers in centuries past. That wasn't an accident, dammit.


I invite the Middle East to learn from us the way we learned from them.

Our Founding Fathers knew better than to give preferential treatment to ANY particular religious group, doing so causes religious strife and war. I invite the Muslims to learn the same.

Our Founding Fathers knew that they could be inspired by Christian principle when it comes to the rights of people, the inalienable rights, but it was the people who had to manage their day to day affairs. NO holy book covers every single situation or law. THAT has to be done by people. I invite the Muslims to use the Koran as an inspiration in laying a base for their societies, but the day to day laws must be done by the common man.

Our Founding Fathers knew better than to have a leader who claims to speak on behalf of God. It's hard to argue when a ruler states he is God's agent on Earth and you will do as I say. That's a short path to religious wars and attrocities.

Our Founding Fathers knew the value of a Representative style of Government. A Government that is responsible to the people. The Muslims NEED to ditch the corrupt governments that enrich themselves off of the citizens and uses them as pawns in various holy wars with Israel, dammit.


The Muslims need to learn the value of toleration. Toleration need not mean acceptance. One can disagree with another's religion, one may think another's belief are dead wrong. But one MUST PUT UP WITH another's belief. As it is, Sunni and Shia MUSLIMS can't really stand each other. THAT hostility has to be toned down, dammit.


Right now, capitalism is against the teachings of the Koran, yet it's the bedrock of every single modern society on the planet. That has to be gotten rid of, dammit.


I've been called arrogant because I believe that the Middle East needs to learn from us about the way a nation should be ran. Yet I'll ask if its more arrogant for someone who lives in the pinnacle of civilization who believes that others can have what I enjoy here in America IF they can learn our ways, or for someone who lives here in America and can look on a corrupt, decayed, impoverished society and actually believe that they like living that way, or that it would be arrogant to try and show them a better way.

Please don't use my "dammits," socialist, they are unique to me.

So you're the guy that owns the *dammit* copyright.......?!?!?

Wow.

And here I thought it was in common use prior to your birth.

Please don't use my "dammits," socialist, they are unique to me. Come up with your own epithets if you must, leave mine alone, dammit.

Of course, I didn't copy the whole post for what you readd up here, but DAMMIT! your post is the perfect example of what characterize most of the people who think like you. "Arrogance" at it's best. The only thing wrong about your thinking is that several slow minded people might think that they are the holy fuckin' truth"

Ah! the whites, always "teaching" something from their perfect society.

Oh!, and before I forget... Once again "dammit!"

Ahem, can we please stay on topic and not get bogged down in the semantics of minor expelatives?

The concept of War vs. Criminal acts is an interesting one. I agree that these rogue militant groups are more criminal organizations than actual armies, but there is also the issue of sympathetic governments. If the government won't work to stop these criminals, then I'm afraid that military action must be called in as a viable option. A prime example here would be of Lebanon and Hezbollah.

I also agree that winning the hearts and minds of the general populace is a crucial measure. Without support/aid/recruitment, eventually, these groups will lose all power. I would not be so blind as to say that we can eradicate all terrorism forever; after all, all it takes is one crazy nut with a bomb to shake the world. However, by drawing upon the support of the people in these countries where terrorists originate, we can nip the problem at the bud.

Moving onto Iraq. I do not see the initial invasion of Iraq as a war on terror. However, I do see it as an invasion of a potentially dangerous and certainly hostile country. By wrapping it in with the war on terror, the White House was able to gain much of the public support it needs. Before you go and shun them for this, just remember: only very rarely in history has the government actually said what it means. While they may not have been up front about it, I believe that their goals were nonetheless valid.

Finally, if things turn out well (It's a lot of work, but it will eventually happen), Iraq will serve as an important friendly nation in that region, a potential base of operations, and act as a small sphere of influence.


Just my 3 cents.

I agree that military action may be needed if governments are actively harboring terrorists groups - but beyond Afghanistan that is going to be very rare indeed.

Bush talks about winning the "war on terrorism" but it's a mindset that drives terrorism - for every terrorist you kill 2 more will replace him. It's not winnable by military action. The only way to defeat the war on terror is to neutralize the threat via strong intelligence & law enforcement work & to address the root causes of terrorism.

Give this man a cookie!

I agree that military action may be needed if governments are actively harboring terrorists groups - but beyond Afghanistan that is going to be very rare indeed.
Moving onto Iraq. I do not see the initial invasion of Iraq as a war on terror. However, I do see it as an invasion of a potentially dangerous and certainly hostile country. By wrapping it in with the war on terror, the White House was able to gain much of the public support it needs. Before you go and shun them for this, just remember: only very rarely in history has the government actually said what it means. While they may not have been up front about it, I believe that their goals were nonetheless valid.
Actually you can kiss all chance of public support for invading a 'terrorist harboring country' good by thanks to Iraq. Bush himself has hurt the war on terror by using lies to get what he wants.

I must add this point as well. People are calling for the US to use terrorist tactics to stop terrorism. Now if your goal is to stop terrorists and terrorism this is counter productive in that you have literally created more terrorists yourself. If the goal is to stop anti-US terrorism it will not work because, as drew and everybody and their mom has pointed out (though many daft bastards refuse to listen) you create 2 more terrorists to replce one.

Bush talks about winning the "war on terrorism" but it's a mindset that drives terrorism - for every terrorist you kill 2 more will replace him. It's not winnable by military action. The only way to defeat the war on terror is to neutralize the threat via strong intelligence & law enforcement work & to address the root causes of terrorism.


My biggest problem with labelling the war on terror as a "police action" is that I don't want any options taken off the table. It has been pointed out to me, time and time again, how valuable law enforcement and police work are and will be in fighting terrorism, and I won't argue that point. But there will be times and places where a military strike, a cruise missile or the 82nd airborne can and should be used to nuetralize something big, Osama Bin Laden, a training camp, a shipment of uranium or whatever. Law enforcement is not in the business of killing suspects or razing terrorist sites. Terrorism as a "law enforcement" issue could very well get bogged down in subpeonas and warrants and probable cause, a WAR on terror means that any and all means can be used to defeat terrorists, right now, right away. I don't want to lose that flexibility. Keep in mind that terrorists are AT WAR with us, they WILL use any all means to do as much harm as possible. No regard to civilian casualties, no regard to who may be innocent and who is not. Don't make the mistake of trying to fight this war, and it IS a war, with one hand tied behind our back, dammit.



Of course, I didn't copy the whole post for what you readd up here, but DAMMIT! your post is the perfect example of what characterize most of the people who think like you. "Arrogance" at it's best. The only thing wrong about your thinking is that several slow minded people might think that they are the holy fuckin' truth"

Ah! the whites, always "teaching" something from their perfect society.

Oh!, and before I forget... Once again "dammit!"

Socialist, if you find yourself unable to refute my points and feel you have to resort to the hurling of epithets and name calling, please don't bother to reply, dammit. Your post was chock full of nothing, and I wasted my time.

My biggest problem with labelling the war on terror as a "police action" is that I don't want any options taken off the table. Why does labelling the war on terror correctly take any options off the table? I can't see the logic in that statement.

there will be times and places where a military strike, a cruise missile or the 82nd airborne can and should be used to nuetralize something big, Osama Bin Laden, a training camp, a shipment of uranium or whatever. Perhaps, and if so fine, but it's not going to be a very common occurance.

Terrorism as a "law enforcement" issue could very well get bogged down in subpeonas and warrants and probable cause This is the normal procedure for arresting suspects & cannot be avoidd. You cannot send a cruise missile into a house in NYC because a terrorist cell is living there. Any terrorist threat is going to be from people inside our borders.

Keep in mind that terrorists are AT WAR with us, they WILL use any all means to do as much harm as possible. True, but we can assume they are not very capable. There are 1001 means they could use if they were capable & so far they have done nothing since 9/11.

it IS a war, with one hand tied behind our back, dammit. It's no more a war than the "war on drugs"

The prevention of specific terrorist acts is in fact primarily the job of law enforcement and intelligence, and not the military. Deploying the 82nd Airborne to London wouldn't have prevented the recent attempted attacks there; efforts by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, however, did prevent them.

On the other hand, curbing the growth of Islamism is a completely different (and much larger) operation. It requires a combination of political, economic and social efforts, as well as military action in certain cases. I can't upon anyghing said here, it's just right, I just have something to add.

The very earliest stages in a terrorist attack are most detectable at the local law enforcement level. However, local law enforcement does not do conspiracies very well. They are not set up to do investigations outside of their own jurisdictions or to share information or to be privy to the bigger picture.
There are cases in New York State where middle eastern men have been caught trespassing at water reservoirs with cameras and video cameras and have gotten trespass summonses.
In another instance a company that manufacutures ambulances reported three were stolen. Although authorities theorize that they would make the perfect car bomb, the story was pretty much a local event.
Authorities on every level are reluctant to label anything as "terrorism". Even spectacular international plots, such as the planned blowing up of planes last month were written off by some as "home grown" terrorism. People are reticent to acknowledge a bigger picture.

Not as proof, but as an anecdotal theory: The same people who claim that we are now more vulnerable to terrorism don't acknowledge small local events as potential terrorist plots. These two ideas are not compatible.
The explanation can only be that these are parts of bigger conspiracies, but we don't have the capacity to see it.

Nobody said it was a local law enforcement issue.

Plus - the inefficiency of law enforcement / intelligence in general doesn't mean it isn't a law enfocement issue - it just means law enforcement / intelligence needs to improve. Maybe if we had spent $500 billion in that area.....jeez it's so pathetic it's almost funny. Certainly the threat is right up there - statistically falling just behind being hit by an asteroid while walking down the street.

$500 billion is a lot of money ($2000 for every man woman & child in this country) - you could strengthen the borders, put in any kind of space age technology you could dream of in airports, employ thousands of border agents, the list is endless. Instead what do we do? We create a fucking windfall for a few companies that serve the defense industry (oh & also kill 2600 American kids and maime 20,000 more) & we do bugger all for the American people. I repeat - Bugger all for the American people.

The invasion of Iraq is the biggest fucking pile of shit money grab in the history of civilization. Pretty soon we will have killed more Americans in the response to 9-11 than died in 9-11.

Nobody said it was a local law enforcement issue. The stage of a terrorist plot that is the most detectable and vulnerable always falls upon the shoulders of local law enforcement. It will often manifest itself as a minor crime or suspicious behavior.

To attach these events to a bigger picture or to detect more behind the scenes occurrences will require efforts on the part of law enforcement about which many people feel somewhat squeamish.

The stage of a terrorist plot that is the most detectable and vulnerable always falls upon the shoulders of local law enforcement. It will often manifest itself as a minor crime or suspicious behavior.

To attach these events to a bigger picture or to detect more behind the scenes occurrences will require efforts on the part of law enforcement about which many people feel somewhat squeamish.

But apparently you don't feel very squeamish when it comes to sending the military off on $500 billion wild goose chases and 2600 american kids dying for nothing.

Local law enforcement have a role to play, but ultimately the war will be won by countries - the US, those in Europe & Asia working together very closely in sharing intelligence. Unfortunately we seem to have pissed off most other countries and left them thinking we are the biggest threat to world peace, the biggest abusers of human rights & nothing we say can be trusted.

Go Bush go!.....What a fucking dullard dimwitt. How one person's bad decisions could turn the goodwill felt across the globe world after 9-11 into where we are today is totally incredible.

But apparently you don't feel very squeamish when it comes to sending the military off on $500 billion wild goose chases and 2600 american kids dying for nothing.
Drew, both my posts merely pointed out the limitations of local law enforcement. I made no comparisons between military and law enforcement.
I don't know what made you so defensive about those posts which only imparted information to those who are uninformed about law enforcement, and may be putting WAY too much faith in their ability in this matter.
Calm down, I'm not picking any fights here.

My biggest problem with labelling the war on terror as a "police action" is that I don't want any options taken off the table. So then your complaint is that the police haven't been militarized to the point where they have missles and bombs? Cause frankly thats one of the few differences between our current police force and the military.

In another instance a company that manufacutures ambulances reported three were stolen. Although authorities theorize that they would make the perfect car bomb, the story was pretty much a local event.
Authorities on every level are reluctant to label anything as "terrorism". Even spectacular international plots, such as the planned blowing up of planes last month were written off by some as "home grown" terrorism. People are reticent to acknowledge a bigger picture. A uhaul truck would make a perfect car bomb as well and they are easier to rent or steal then an ambulance and even more conspicuous. Its completely stupid for that to be labelled as "possible terrorist threat".

And you seem to have missed all te stupid shit that has been labelled terrorist lately. How about the guys with 500 mobile phones? OMG!!1!! TERRORISTSS!!1!1! no wrong. And they were needlessly imprisoned by some jackass chicken little with a badge.
Pretty soon we will have killed more Americans in the response to 9-11 than died in 9-11.Too late...

It's obvious to anyone with a mind that the terrorists have absolutely nothing to offer. They're just barbarians determined to get power over others. But because they claim to represent Islam many Muslims empathise with them and get caught up in their campaign.

So there's a big challenge for the west: to convince the majority of Muslims that Osama bin Laden and his gang don't represent them; that they are merely criminals who need to be brought to justice.

1. A uhaul truck would make a perfect car bomb as well and they are easier to rent or steal then an ambulance and even more conspicuous. Its completely stupid for that to be labelled as "possible terrorist threat"
2. And you seem to have missed all te stupid shit that has been labelled terrorist lately. How about the guys with 500 mobile phones? OMG!!1!! TERRORISTSS!!1!1! no wrong. And they were needlessly imprisoned by some jackass chicken little with a badge.

1. No my friend. As Eric Rudolph showed at abortion clinics, the second event is usually more deadly than the first one because it is more crowded.
After the WTC attacks in '93 and '01, emergency responders got instant access everywhere. An ambulance is much more effective than a UHaul. You lack the imagination or experience to see that.
Don't call it stupid when you don't understand something.

2. I think one of the most interesting people in the 9/11 film was Richard Clark. He was the hero of the left when he claimed that the Bush Administration wouldn't listen to him.
The funny thing is, though, if he were saying those things today, you'd be calling him paranoid and criticizing him.

If you witnessed the first steps of 9/11 (taking pictures of the buildings, "dry-runs" on the planes, etc...) you'd be calling them BS.

So there's a big challenge for the west: to convince the majority of Muslims that Osama bin Laden and his gang don't represent them;
I think that's a little unfair to Muslims. The vast majority of them already know that.

brooks - theres a vast difference to seeing guys watching places day in day out and assuming they are up to something

as oppossed to...

"Someone stole my Denny's uniform...OMG what if it was terrorists!!!!!!"

In the year 2000, if someone had laid out the 9/11 scenario to you, you would have laughed at them and made a similar comment to the Denny's remark. And even today, you clearly didn't see the significance of stealing emergency vehicles.

You've staked out a position in which you have it both ways. People charged with these responsibilities have to think of absolutely everything. The plots that you don't understand, you can laugh at. The ones that succeed, you can say should have been prevented.

I don't think you know what it's like to be charged with terrible responsibilities. Your hindsight, though 100% accurate, is useless.
Fortunately there are people who do understand what has to be done, and have probably prevented other incidents.

But you are not among them, and wouldn't be up to the task.

9-11 occured because the higher ups in the FBI and other agencies repetedly twated investigations into the hijackers. There was no lack of evidence or laws to restrictive to figure out what was going on. These guys were sytematically given a free pass by higher ups.

So why is it that then the higher ups at 'intelligence' agencies fuck up that the American people have to pay for it? That those guys who wittingly or not abetted the hijackers still have their jobs (no figure heads don't count) but all Americans are now suspects.

And regardless of wether or not you trust Bush do you trust the next president? How about the one after that? and after him?...

1. 9-11 occured because the higher ups in the FBI and other agencies repetedly twated investigations into the hijackers.
2. There was no .... laws to restrictive to figure out what was going on. 1. I don't know what this means.
2. That's just not true. How about when they arrested Moussaoui, had his computer, but were too bogged down by the red tape to look at it.
Just imagine what might have been if they could have looked.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249500,00.html

Originally Posted by 500lbguerilla
1. 9-11 occured because the higher ups in the FBI and other agencies repetedly twated investigations into the hijackers.

1. I don't know what this means.

I believe he meant -- "9-11 occured because the higher ups in the FBI and other agencies repetedly thwarted investigations into the hijackers."

Which is true.

That's just not true. How about when they arrested Moussaoui, had his computer, but were too bogged down by the red tape to look at it.Red tape had nothing to do with it. The agents in Minneapolis had filed their request for a warrant in writing. The paperwork was done. The request was denied because of incompetence at FBI headquarters, plain and simple.

I believe he meant -- "9-11 occured because the higher ups in the FBI and other agencies repetedly thwarted investigations into the hijackers."
Which is true.I agree with you on this. But I have the feeling that you think there's a conspiracy between the lines somewhere.

Entirely to many people involved for there to have been a conspiracy, IMHO.

how many do you think would need to be invovled?

Keep in mind that the government, particularly 'intelligence' apparatus operate on need to know basis' with national security laws to stop any leaks.

A few key players are all that is needed.

Theres also incompetence (or the excuse there of). Go read on what Sibel Edmounds was saying about how broke the system is...the FBI had tons of tapes around to be translated not because they couldn't but because they wanted to pretend they didn't have enough translators so they could request more money

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/31/1616221