A great article on terrorism

[jeskibuff]

This guy (Robert Andrews) sums it up quite nicely and hits the nail on the head!

The article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-03-02-andrews-edit_x.htm

Some excerpts: The fundamental problem is not terrorism and terrorist organizations, but one of religion, at least as viewed by Islamic extremists. Terrorism is a means to an end, not an end itself. Terrorism is the means chosen by these "holy warriors," who believe that it is their religious duty to kill Americans and that if they die in the attempt, they will be rewarded in paradise. when your only tool is a hammer, you try to make all of your problems look like nails. we tiptoe around the brutal fact that an extremist portion of Islam considers itself at war with us. By ignoring this insurgency's religious mainspring, we avoid facing the monumental job of draining the radical Islamist fundamentalist swamp that will produce successors to today's bin Ladens and generations of suicide "martyrs" to continue their war against us. organizations can be taken down more easily than deep-seated religious beliefs can be changed. Yet, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry recently described the terrorist threat as a matter for "intelligence and law enforcement," as though al-Qaeda were just another criminal gang and the answer were to arrest Islamic terrorists and haul them into our courts. We pay too little attention to the fact that the jihadists also are at war within Islam. Few of us understand that bin Laden and his al-Qaeda have killed far more Muslims than Americans. An ominous silence spreads as intimidation and assassination still the voices of moderate Muslims. The jihad will end only when the Islamic world sees bin Laden and his like as heretics, not holy warriors. Such rethinking has to come from within Islam. It cannot be imposed from the outside Islam is undergoing change. It will be difficult for those outside of it to influence that change. But we have no choice but to try.
Nicely put, Robert! Why is it that Democrats can't seem to understand this? You nicely explained the root of the problem, but idiots like Michael Mooron believe that the Islamic fundamentalists are attacking Americans because of "Western policy and influence" on their backwards societies. Kerry clearly doesn't have a grasp of the problem. Despite the logic displayed in your excellent article, these people STILL won't get it, but as you said " we have no choice but to try" to get them to understand.

[woodman]

So, John Kerry "doesn't have a grasp of the problem" but George W. Bush does? By invading Iraq and turning that entire country into chaos, he's somehow trying to bring about a change in Islamic thinking? Really? Does this make the slightest bit of common sense? I find it quite surprising that someone like you - a strong supporter of Dubya would praise this article by Robert Andrews so strongly since it really serves to point out just how misguided Dubya's policies have been in his "war on terrorism". The jist of the article would seem to indicate that bombers and helicopters and tanks and 140,000 American troops are NOT what's needed to change fanatical Islamic thinking. I contend that such things are actually having the opposite effect - contrary to what ol' beady-eyed George W. keeps trying to get us to believe.

Bush has gotten us into one helluva mess over there, for reasons OTHER than what he's stated ... how long is it gonna take those that support that chimp to realize this? Before he was elected he publicly stated that "he didn't believe that the U.S. military should be used for nation-building" - while he was secretly trying to figure out a way that he could "get Saddam". The man has lied through his teeth from day one, and continues to do so on a daily basis! When one-half of the population can see this quite clearly, what's keeping the other half stubbornly supporting him ... maintaining that he's been doing a good job ... making the "right" decisions? IMO, he's been making one helluva mess of things and we need to replace him and his partner-in-crime ... The Dick. I think that John Kerry will make a good president, but of course only time will tell. They all talk a good game when they're running for office ... telling the people what they want to hear. In any event, he couldn't be as bad as what we're stuck with now. I'm more than ready to give him a chance - but you're not?

[jeskibuff]

By invading Iraq and turning that entire country into chaos, he's somehow trying to bring about a change in Islamic thinking? Really? Does this make the slightest bit of common sense?
Once again, Woodman, you've got it a bit mixed up. GWB didn't make the chaos in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorists are responsible for that. With your reasoning, the storming of Normandy on D-Day was chaos created by the U.S. and her allies. Certainly many Americans died on that day. The first half hour of "Saving Private Ryan" clued many people in about the horror of that day and the lives sacrificed. But without such an effort, Hitler would've remained in power and the estimated 50 million people who died because of him would've been multiplied many times over. You're one of the 50% of the U.S. population that doesn't have the vision to realize that. You would've argued against the invasion of Normandy.

Place the blame where the blame belongs. Allowing an evil to fester just allows that evil to grow and become more powerful. Facing it down requires courage and the realization that there is always turmoil during radical transition, but a wise man knows that it is better to address the problem early rather than later.

I don't have the time to address your other points right now, but I'm sure JSE, Tug and Piece-It-Pete will probably address them before I get around to it.

[JSE]

Hey Woodman,

"By invading Iraq and turning that entire country into chaos, he's somehow trying to bring about a change in Islamic thinking? "

This is one thing that Irks the hell out of me. Iraq is not in Chaos. If anything it's in better condition now than before we went in. Are there extremist causing problems? Sure, but the whole country is not in Chaos despite what the media wants you to believe. We are rebuilding roads, schools, goverment buidlings, electricity facilities, oil fields, etc. The country is better off now than before. An believe it or not, the majority of people in Iraq are glad we came and overthrew Saddam. I know, I know, that's not what CNN tells us. It takes some time, but there is actually alot of stories about the good we are doing and the appreciation the people of Iraq have shown to us. That's not juicy though! Most networks want shock and awe. They want body counts.

"I think that John Kerry will make a good president, but of course only time will tell."

How in the world could anyone in their "rightmind" say this at this time? He has two answers for everything. He was for the war, he was against the war. How can anyone know what he really thinks when he seems to just say whatever the crowd he's talking to wants to here regardless of his past statements. If you said, I think John Edwards will make a good president, then I could better understand. But Kerry? How can anyone know this? He has not given any consistent answers or views on anything. Is that who we want leading our Country?

And why are you so cocerned with Iraq in realation to the original post? I thought you left minded folks thought Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism? :D

JSE

[Bryan]

I remember seeing this on Drudge (paraphrasing at it probably isn't word for word but you'll get the general idea): If the world were allowed to vote in the USA's presidential elections Kerry would win. My only question to that is when does the world have the USAs interest at heart?

[Chris]

Overall, I liked his article. His shot at Kerry sort of cheapened it for me though. I wish more people would really put more effort into understanding terrorism - who the terrorists are, what they hope to accomplish, why they want to take down America, why they use the tactics they do, and how the best way to combat them would be. I like Andrews' 4 objectives he laid out to fight terrorism. I think our waging war on nations who are thought to harbor terrorists will get us in trouble eventually - especially with our intelligence being questionable right now.

One point that needs to be discussed is the fact that some Muslims can't see how a military unit that kills innocent people indirectly is less atrocious than a terrorist group that targets innocent people - especially someone close to, or involved in the conflict. Innocent people die either way for one cause or another - how is one way justified and the other isn't? How would you explain it to someone? In my opinion, terrorists are extreme political fanatics who fight dirty and use religion to justify their actions. But the bottom line is, we are willing to risk our lives fighting for what we believe in, and so are they. We don't like the fact that they target innocent lives, and they don't like the fact that we force our way of life on everyone. We feel our cause is just, as do they - isn't that how all conflicts work?

I think in order for us to be able to combat terrorism, we have to be extremely efficient in how we pursue and take out the extremists who head up the terrorist movements. As Robert Andrews said, we have to do more to shield American Muslims battling intimidation and violence in our society and help other moderate Muslim nations battle extremists. If we don't show support for moderate Muslims, we'll never have their support in battling terrorism. And without their support, all we can do is wage war left and right, which I seriously doubt will get us any closer to our goal than we are today - which is what makes me uncomfortable with Bush's plan to fight terrorism.

Nicely put, Robert! Why is it that Democrats can't seem to understand this? You nicely explained the root of the problem, but idiots like Michael Mooron believe that the Islamic fundamentalists are attacking Americans because of "Western policy and influence" on their backwards societies.
Hey Jeskibuff, question for ya - what brings an educated Islamic fundamentalist to blow himself up in order to take out some Americans or western supporters? Are you saying it has nothing to do with his hatred on western policy and influence? Then why does he hate America so much? What affect does America have on his culture that threatens him to the point that he feels he has to take such extreme measures? I'd love to get your opinion. Hopefully I agree - otherwise I guess I'll just be another one of those "idiots" :) Just curious, do you call everyone who doesn't share your opinion an idiot? Sarcasm aside, good article.

[bturk667]

Funny, when I read - in its entirety - what it is that Mr. Andrews wrote, and your excerpts in their full context, I getting something else out of it! You posted this excerpt: " when your only tool is a hammer, you try to make all of problems look like nails." Funny, how come you didn't include the entire sentence that it came from? How about a look at the entire paragraph?

"Our stragety tends to focus on organizations rather that the ideologies that feed them. Reflexively, our military planners and intelligence services assess the enemy's military position. Customarily, planners arrange adversaries by order of battle, then stack up military units to oppose them. This is how we destroyed Saddam Hussein's divisions in Iraq, for instance. So it is not surprising that the military planners and intelligence agencies now are trying to target something concrete, such as a 'terrorist organization.' Here is the part of the sentence you left out! "BUT THAT'S JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE ADAGE THAT when your only tool is a hammer, you try to make all of your problems look like nails."

See, I read that as President Bush's "only tool is a hammer." Also, when he writes "you try to make all your problems look like nails." the "you" that he is referring to is George W. Bush! When he writes, "Our strategy tends to focus on organizations rather than the ideologies that feed them."
Whose strageties do you think he is writing about. It seems to me that since President Bush is "The Commander and Chief" he sets the strageties! Also, when he writes, "So it is not surprising that the military planners and intellegence agencies now are trying to target something concrete, such as 'terrorist organizations.' " This is when he writes about the "hammer." I don't think he agrees with this approach, which is set forth by our leaders, Bush is one of them isn't he? No I'm sorry, he is the biggest one. Seems that Mr. Andrews is question our President, as well as our military and intelligence agencies.

In your third excerpt you forgot to write the first few sentences. It think that when these sentences are included, your excerpt takes on a different meaning.

Here they are: "The other problem is America's hypersensitivity toward religion. Since 9/11, (wait, here it is!) PRESIDENT BUSH and other LEADERS never miss an opportunity to announce that we are not at war with Islam. True, we are not. But to prove this," now you know the rest, since this is were your excerpt begins! See, he mentioned Bush, which you never mention in your post. Predictable!!! But you do include an excerpt when Mr. Andrews mentions John Kerry. Again, so predictable!!!

It seems to me that one could come to the conclusion, at the very least, that WE ALL, including President Bush Conservatives, and Republicans, how did you put it? Oh yeah," can't seem to understand this."

Jeskisbuff, very nicely SPUN! I tip my hat.
Have a nice day!

[jeskibuff]

Overall, I liked his article. His shot at Kerry sort of cheapened it for me though.Why do you consider that a cheap shot? Kerry will be subject to many such "cheap shots" because he's on the record of saying such contradictory statements. Furthermore, since he's been so vocally critical of GWB's handling of the war in Iraq, it's fitting that those who agree with GWB's methodologies defend what's right with them and criticize the logic of the people who think THEY have the answers!

I wish more people would really put more effort into understanding terrorismI wholeheartedly agree. Do you feel you have a good understanding, yourself?

I think our waging war on nations who are thought to harbor terrorists will get us in trouble eventually - especially with our intelligence being questionable right now.I'd rather err on the side of caution. If the intelligence was totally wrong on Iraq (and I DON'T believe that it was), we've rid the world of a barbaric despot who murdered hundreds of thousands of people and openly supported terrorism. The same goes for the Taliban. I'd rather have the "trouble" of people thinking that we're too aggressive than have the "trouble" of giving these barbarians another clean shot at us. Israel is a good example of this...when they hit back hard in 2002 with assaults into Jenin and other West Bank towns, the Palestinians started taking a REAL hard look at their failed leadership.

One point that needs to be discussed is the fact that some Muslims can't see how a military unit that kills innocent people indirectly is less atrocious than a terrorist group that targets innocent peopleI think many Muslims DO understand the difference. It's just that when your society is being controlled by terrorists, you have to go along, or die. Palestinians who voice opposition to the policies of Hamas and Islamic Jihad get dragged out in the streets, beaten and killed. Iraqis who spoke out against Saddam got a bullet in their head.
The flip side to this problem is that others are so tainted by their "education" that they think that a suicide bombing is just and a targeted retaliatory strike is not. Palestinians are taught at an early age to hate Jews. It's in their textbooks. Pakastani and Afghan madrassas teach young children to hate the "infidels". If you saw Sunday's "60 Minutes" episode about North Korea, you'd have seen the efforts that Kim Jong Il takes to indoctrinate citizens about the evil United States. They're even twisting Anne Frank's Diary to liken Bush to Hitler. I'm sure many N.Koreans see through the propaganda, but are they stupid enough to speak their minds? You play Kim Jong Il's game or your life as you know it will end!

Innocent people die either way for one cause or another - how is one way justified and the other isn't?Well, if I play devil's advocate, Allah would delight in the death of an infidel, would he not? He would also delight in one so devoted to him, that they sacrifice their own lives to kill infidels, would he not? He would be angered when the infidels kill a follower of Allah. So the death of an innocent infidel is good, but the death of a follower of Allah, whether innocent or guilty, is an affront to the Almighty Allah and must be avenged!

We don't like the fact that they target innocent lives, and they don't like the fact that we force our way of life on everyone.We DON'T force our way of life on everyone. We let these countries be as backwards as they want to be, and therein lies the problem. By the way, how many McDonalds do you think are in Kabul? Tehran? Damascus? Khartoum?

We feel our cause is just, as do they - isn't that how all conflicts work?Somewhat. The volume of surrendering Iraqis during both Gulf wars should say something about their belief in their "just" cause. Evidently many Germans believed in the Third Reich and the slaughter and imprisonment of millions of innocents. How so many could consider that "a just cause" worth fighting for is beyond my comprehension.

If we don't show support for moderate Muslims, we'll never have their support in battling terrorism. And without their support, all we can do is wage war left and right, which I seriously doubt will get us any closer to our goal than we are today - which is what makes me uncomfortable with Bush's plan to fight terrorism.I think we're just not seeing the big picture. As mentioned in another thread, the victories in Iraq are largely being ignored by the American media. I'm hoping Bush puts together a nice series of political ads with stories of Iraqis reunited with their children (freed from prisons), men without ears kissing pictures of GWB (their ears were cut off because they deserted their military posts in Gulf War I), or an Iraqi holding up one of the more than one hundred new newspapers, relishing in one of their many new freedoms. How about the Afghan women who no longer are under the brutal oppression of the Taliban? They can pursue careers once again! If providing freedom is not showing support for ALL Muslims, moderate or not, I don't know WHAT is!

what brings an educated Islamic fundamentalist to blow himself up in order to take out some Americans or western supporters?"Educated" is the key word here, Chris. The trouble is that they're getting their "education" from one source, and it's a VERY narrow education. That "education" says that this life on Earth is not worth living and that they'll reap far greater rewards in paradise (with 72 virgins) if they do Allah's dirtywork for him.

Are you saying it has nothing to do with his hatred on western policy and influence?Very little. It's the politics of blame. Arafat and his corrupt organization keep Palestinians in squalor and endless cycle of violence, successfully directing all the blame towards Israel. Saddam deprives his people of medicine and food, builds 19 opulent palaces and blames the U.N. embargo for the misery of the people. Kim Jong Il pours the wealth of his nation into the military while his countrymen starve or do hard labor in prison camps. But he blames the U.S. for the suffering. This blame game should be so obvious to us free people, but it goes right over the heads of liberals like Sean Penn and Michael Mooron.

What affect does America have on his culture that threatens him to the point that he feels he has to take such extreme measures?This is just a red herring, Chris. His problem is not America. His problem is his society who keeps him immersed in poverty, squalor and blood. Add the religious fervor of radical Islam and he'll take "extreme measures" to fight this strawman enemy.

I guess I'll just be another one of those "idiots" :) Just curious, do you call everyone who doesn't share your opinion an idiot?No...just those who refuse to look at another point of view. There's only ONE option for many people, and for most of these idiots I refer to, that option is to blame Bush for the ills of the world. Of all the people on this board who throw out an opposing viewpoint to my own, I feel that you are the most reasonable. You THINK about an issue. You have your own perspective, state it, but are looking for the truth of the matter, not just to jam your viewpoint down someone else's throat.

I actually seek out opposing viewpoints...that is why I frequently visit DemocraticUnderground. 99.99% of what I find there is sewage, but there's an occasional worthwhile insight to be had. So...in short, if you don't share my opinion on something, I'd like to hear it. Just be prepared to defend it...explain WHY you believe it to be true. This is something that I have no doubt YOU can do. But with some others, I have REAL doubts! :D

how come you didn't include the entire sentence that it came from? How about a look at the entire paragraph?I did read the entire paragraph and fully anticipated that some people (Bush-bashers) would read it as an anti-Bush statement. But the paragraph is talking about military planning and conquering an enemy the way we've been used to fighting for centuries. The tactic has always been a fight against a defined enemy...easily recognized and generally within a defined set of borders. But this "war on terror" is a new animal. The enemy could be living amongst us. Our "hammer", the military machine can't be used to conquer this enemy. GWB spoke this soon after the 9/11 attack. "It's a new kind of war", he said. That doesn't mean we CAN'T use the old military tactics in places where it can be effective, does it? It certainly was effective in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I don't see ANYTHING else that could have evicted those despots from power as well as that "hammer" was wielded.
I didn't include the "entire sentence" because I just pulled out excerpts that I thought were of great interest. I pointed to the entire article so you could read it yourself in its entirety.

when he writes "you try to make all your problems look like nails." the "you" that he is referring to is George W. Bush!Again, this is reading it the way YOU want it to read. It is referring to the set of governmental organizations (CIA, FBI, Pentagon, intelligence) and the fact that major changes have to be made to get us out of the "boxes" that these agencies have become accustomed to working out of. GWB has made great strides in trying to achieve these changes...getting more interagency communication to work (the FBI didn't share information with the CIA, and vice versa), creating the new Homeland Security department. Sorry to tell you, but GWB has been diligently working to improve our toolset so that we just don't have a hammer to work with.

In your third excerpt you forgot to write the first few sentences. It think that when these sentences are included, your excerpt takes on a different meaning. Here they are: "The other problem is America's hypersensitivity toward religion. Since 9/11, (wait, here it is!) PRESIDENT BUSH and other LEADERS never miss an opportunity to announce that we are not at war with Islam.No...those omitted sentences don't change things at all. While I agree that Americans (particularly Democrats) are hypersensitive to religion ("why can't we all just get along"..."Imagine no religion...it isn't hard to do"...), GWB did the right thing to state that we are not at war with the peaceful elements of Islam. We are not out to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth. However, we DO need to recognize that radical Islam is the fuel that feeds terrorism today and it would be stupid and naive if we just pretended that all Muslims are peace-loving and want to live in harmony with non-Muslims. This is what Robert Andrews is referring to.

Now Bruno, you need to understand the concept of an excerpt. First of all, it is against many copyright laws to cut-and-paste an entire article. You should also know that if you want somebody to read something that you think is important, a link to the article JUST DOESN'T CUT IT! So you do a little marketing! You throw some teasers out. You pull out the things that you find most interesting. Hopefully, that will provide the incentive for someone to click on the link and read the entire article.

Now, if I wanted to slant the words the way that you're implying that I'm doing, I wouldn't have included the link to the whole article, would I have? It appears that I was successful in getting you and some others to read the entire piece, but we read things different ways, don't we? It's interesting to get different perspectives and to see things from a alternate angle and be able to intelligently discuss those viewpoints. Just don't try to accuse me of "spinning" the article my way, because that JUST DOESN'T FLY!

[okiemax]

I think Robert Andrews is right about the religous and cultural roots of terrorism. What I find puzzling is his belief that the US should influence an Islamic reform in a way that the transformed religion or religions would no longer tolerate the radicalism necessary for terrorism. I thought it was resentment of American influence that fueled terrorism in the first place. Wouldn't the policy Andrews is advocating run the risk of becoming a driver of terrorist recruitment?

[Chris]

"Educated" is the key word here, Chris. The trouble is that they're getting their "education" from one source, and it's a VERY narrow education. That "education" says that this life on Earth is not worth living and that they'll reap far greater rewards in paradise (with 72 virgins) if they do Allah's dirtywork for him.
I was actually referring to those who were educated enough to show that they're smarter than the average uneducated, poverty-stricken Iraqi/Saudi/Yemeni who blames his poverty on oppressors and feels he has little to live for anyway. We both know religion is being used by the radicals in order to lead terrorists to do the things they do. My point was, they are taught to hate Americans and western influence from a religious standpoint - which is at leastt part of the reason they do what they do. My question, is how are they led to believe so fiercely that the western influence is what is causing the problems in the middle east? My belief is they see an outside nation (western nations) getting involved in their business and making things worse (in their minds), which strengthens their hatred.

I don't know if I have a good understanding of terrorism myself - it obviously requires more education in psychology and social science than I have, but I feel I have a better grasp than some just out of common sense. You made some good points, and at least I can see more of where you're coming from.

[tugmcmartin]

The war on terror, and thus terrorism, is as much a cultural war as anything else. Islamic fundamentalists who are really at the root of our terrorist problems feel very threatened by what our culture may bring to their region. I'd imagine the thought of women walking down the streets of Kabul in bikinis is as frightening to them as the idea of gay marriage and polygamy is to a lot of people in the United States. It basically comes down to clashing cultural ideals that threaten to erode the foundations of our respective beliefs. And it really isn't all that hard for me to believe that people could be full of such hatred for our culture. There are a lot of fairly detestable things we put up with. But therein lies the problem. At what point are we putting other freedoms we enjoy and cherish into jeopardy in order to erase the detestable things. Its a fine balancing act that I think the US has walked pretty well for the last 230 years. These other cultures seem willing to cast away certain freedoms that we consider innate and inalienable in order to preserve their very strongly held religous beliefs. We cannot and should not impose our will on other cultures anymore than they should on ours. And that, my friends, is why the war on terror is a noble but lost cause.

Is that enough rambling?

T-

[FLZapped]

I was actually referring to those who were educated enough to show that they're smarter than the average uneducated, poverty-stricken Iraqi/Saudi/Yemeni who blames his poverty on oppressors and feels he has little to live for anyway. We both know religion is being used by the radicals in order to lead terrorists to do the things they do. My point was, they are taught to hate Americans and western influence from a religious standpoint - which is at leastt part of the reason they do what they do. My question, is how are they led to believe so fiercely that the western influence is what is causing the problems in the middle east? My belief is they see an outside nation (western nations) getting involved in their business and making things worse (in their minds), which strengthens their hatred.

I don't know if I have a good understanding of terrorism myself - it obviously requires more education in psychology and social science than I have, but I feel I have a better grasp than some just out of common sense. You made some good points, and at least I can see more of where you're coming from.


I'm not sure educational level has anything to do with it. The children who attend mosks of the radical Islamic element are taught from the early childhood to hate the US and Israel.

It further gets reinforced by the news media, which is apparently controlled by the same radical element.

BTW - don't think for a moment that terroism is always violent. Right now, the Arabs in the oil cartel are manipulating the price of oil in an attempt to disrupt our economy and influence the outcome of our election. Aparently they believe they can maipulate Kerry if he were president - something they haven't been able to do with Bush.

-Bruce

[jeskibuff]

I was actually referring to those who were educated enough to show that they're smarter than the average uneducated, poverty-stricken Iraqi/Saudi/YemeniDidn't Mohammed Atta have a degree in architecture? I believe Osama had a civil engineering degree, too. They're probably the exception to the rule...especially Atta who completed a suicide mission. But a modern education can't overpower a fierce belief in doing Allah's will and gaining Allah's favor by annihilating the infidels. The uneducated ones are just easy fodder for the smarter ones to manipulate. From this article about Atta: (http://www.jsonline.com/news/attack/sep01/atta92801.asp) "Religious activism is no longer confined to the poor classes."

how are they led to believe so fiercely that the western influence is what is causing the problems in the middle east? My belief is they see an outside nation (western nations) getting involved in their business and making things worseDo they really care about the plight of the Middle East? Did the Taliban really care about making life better for the average Afghani? NO! They cared more about controlling everything the way they felt would please Allah. That meant keeping the women covered and downtrodden, blowing up historical statues that recognized a religion other than Islam, and murdering anyone who disagreed with their style of domination. Don't you think that if millions of Jews who lost everything during WWII and built a nation from scratch can pick themselves up out of the ashes, then hundreds of thousands of Arabs surrounded by oil-rich "sympathetic" neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) can get themselves out of squalid ghettos after over 50 years? Why can't they? Maybe because their leaders Yassir and the Palestinian Authority pocket billions of dollars by keeping them oppressed? And they accomplish this by blaming the U.S. and Israel! And the "Blame America Firsters" like Michael Mooron succeed in duping Americans into thinking that the U.S. is responsible for the problem through propaganda vehicles like "Bowling For Columbine" and the soon-to-be-released "Fahrenheit 9/11". :rolleyes:

I thought it was resentment of American influence that fueled terrorism in the first place.Well, terrorism has been around for A LONG TIME, but the Islamic flavor that we have nowadays has been alive and well in Israel for the last century WITH NO American influence. The Indians get their own flavor of Islamic terrorism over the disputed territory of Kashmir. Christians in the Sudan have been slaughtered BY THE MILLIONS since the mid-80s by Islamic terrorists, with NO American influence. What about Russia and Chechnya? It's a LONG list, okie! It's convenient for the "Blame America Firsters" to think that it's something wrong that America did to spark 9/11 and incidents like the Cole or the 1993 WTC bombing. Just get it straight from the horse's mouth, okie! Osama himself declared that the primary reason for the 9/11 attacks was because American troops were stationed in the HOLY LAND of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. It didn't matter that those troops suffered and died to liberate Kuwaiti Muslims from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. They were INFIDELS on holy ground and this was an affront to Allah which must be avenged! Never mind that they were welcomed by the sovereign government of Saudi Arabia.

You made some good points, and at least I can see more of where you're coming from.Once again, you show your capacity to consider the merit of someone else's point of view, and that just reinforces my perception that you're looking for the answers and the truth rather than just launching your artillery from your end of the battlefield. And yes, you do seem to have a good bit of common sense. The "bad news" is that common sense is not a trait of liberals. If you keep applying it, you'll find yourself dumping long-held beliefs and moving quickly away from those defective philosophies. :D

Islamic fundamentalists who are really at the root of our terrorist problems feel very threatened by what our culture may bring to their region...We cannot and should not impose our will on other cultures anymore than they should on ours.But do we really "impose" our culture on them? Yes, our industries want to sell their goods to the world, but do we build theatres in Riyadh and drag Arabs kicking and screaming in to see "Gigli" or "Attack of the Clones?" Their government is so oppressive that the Saudi citizens do all the prohibited "western" things in the privacy of their own homes. Don't blame us that some of them resent our influence on their repressive society. They can live in their own protective bubble for all we care, but when they strike at us because they don't like our culture intruding into theirs, they're overstepping their bounds. It's their own citizens who want the freedoms that we enjoy, but they probably do have a point with not wanting to see "Gigli". It can be argued that they're overstepping their bounds by restricting the freedoms of their own people. That's not our fault...it's theirs!

The man has lied through his teeth from day one, and continues to do so on a daily basis! When one-half of the population can see this quite clearly, what's keeping the other half stubbornly supporting himFor 8 years, Democrats could not recognize a liar if one (or two) occupied the Oval Office. I often contemplated just what it would take to get Clinton-lovers to see through the can-do-no-wrong Clinton haze. The man lied under oath, yet his followers still loved him. Here's my theoretical situation: if old Slick Willie raped Princess Diana in full public view, would people still love him? The same people idolized the Princess. Would they look the other way like they did with ALL his other antics? It's a tough call, because Clinton followers defy all logical conventions. Now these same people keep accusing Bush of being a liar. They say they can see this clearly and want us to believe that it's true. Our standards obviously differ. I'll call Clinton a liar and they'll call Bush a liar. Of course, some of us are right. Some take a while, but they eventually become enlightened (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1014810).

I think that John Kerry will make a good president...I'm more than ready to give him a chance - but you're not?We've got a known quantity with Bush. He's been solidly consistent throughout his term, and that makes him easy to defend. Upon cursory inspection, Kerry falls apart like a puff pastry. His views are all over the map and he has no consistency. Vote your heart, Woodman. I know that WON'T be for Bush, but take your gamble. I'll go with the man who has consistently made the kind of decisions I feel are logical and rational.

[bturk667]

Funny, you seem to know exactly what Mr. Andrews is writing about, but anyone who sees it differently seems to be getting wrong. I like your mention of copyright laws; good argument, again nice. Typical from a Bush supporter! Again, it seems that we will just have to agree that we disagree, typical!

[jeskibuff]

Funny, you seem to know exactly what Mr. Andrews is writing about, but anyone who sees it differently seems to be getting wrong.While I agree that I can't be precisely accurate as to what Mr. Andrews' words mean, I must say that I've already pointed out areas where your theory doesn't hold much water. I'll repeat it for you, this time in slightly different words: just days after 9/11, Bush clearly stated that this is a DIFFERENT kind of war and we won't be able to fight it the way we've been used to fighting. Rearranging the government to respond to such threats is in effect "expanding our toolbox". Bush's words and actions trump your theory, Bruno.

I like your mention of copyright laws; good argument, again nice. Typical from a Bush supporter!Well Bruno, we actually agree on two counts! Yes, it IS a good argument, as it is based on common sense and... Yes, it is typical for a Bush supporter (I prefer the "conservative" label, by the way) to go out of their way to present a sound, rational and logical explanation for someone who doesn't seem to understand something. It is also typical for the liberal recipient of that explanation to reject the substance, common sense and simple truth supporting it, instead choosing to believe in a nonsensical conspiracy theory that is a much better fit for their agenda. :rolleyes:

[bturk667]

You say my theory does not hold water. What, you think your's do?
One question: What does Michael Moore have to do with anything?
I just do not see what point your trying to make other than to bash the Democrats. So if I'm a Bush basher, then your just as big as a Kerry/Democrat basher; welcome to the club!

Lastly, I have only really bashed Bush over the Iraqi war, which he deserves! I gaurentee, if he was a Democrat all you "Conservatives," is that better, would have roasted him over what he did! Just like the Conservatives tried roasting Clinton for going into Bosnia! Funny, no one seems to have a logical or rational explination when they oppose the man in office do they? I believe that my arguments are just as logical and rational as your's!

[jeskibuff]

You say my theory does not hold water. What, you think your's do?I gave several reasons why my analysis of his words was on target. I also gave examples of why your analysis was off-base. Instead of getting into a "IS NOT....IS TOO!!" volley, why not be SPECIFIC why my analysis is faulty and yours is correct?

What does Michael Moore have to do with anything?He seems to be the champion of the "Blame America First" crowd. Have you seen that piece-of-crap propaganda "Bowling For Columbine"? The first person that comes to my mind when I think of people who are totally clueless about the causes of terrorism is Michael Mooron. It's just association, I guess!

I just do not see what point your trying to make other than to bash the Democrats.I don't "bash" the Democrats. I bash faulty logic and inept reasoning. I despise ignorance and the unwillingness to venture outside the safety of one's belief system in order to test the truthfulness of that system. I despise the cowardice of people who accuse others of being idiots and cowards, but won't allow an opposition voice into a discussion, as is commonplace on low-life sites such as DemocraticUnderground. I despise people who TALK about their precious freedoms, but are eager to take away other's freedoms at the blink of an eye. I despise the fact that someone like Jack70 will put together a thoughtful and insightful post only to get criticized by someone who responds with a totally braindead post like this one (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=11130#post11130). I've run into this so many times. The now-banned bozo Troll once entreated me to explain my position on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I took the time to put together a decent explanation, hoping to get some intelligent debate, but just got a standard "you're an idiot" response, typical of someone who doesn't have what it takes to make an intelligent or thoughtful response. I bash lazy thinking, and coincidentally, I believe that liberals have cornered the market on THAT! Put together some thoughtful dialogue and insight instead of just responding with "you're an idiot" and maybe you'll enjoy the respect that comes along with that, whether or not your opposition agrees with you.

if he was a Democrat all you "Conservatives," is that better, would have roasted him over what he did!Nope. Sorry. That just doesn't cut it. I can justify most all of Bush's responses, measuring them against what I feel is right. When he does something I'm not thrilled with, I say so. My biggest complaint was around April 2002 when he was pushing Ariel Sharon to withdraw troops from the West Bank. I felt that was grossly hypocritical of him at the time.

[bturk667]

I also gave several reasons why my analysis of his words were on target. I also gave examples why your analysis was off-base. If you want to know what I wrote to that fact, look at my intial response to your post!

Since you use Michael Moore, then I would like to use Rush Limbaugh. He is without a doubt the most clueless piece of $H!T that I have ever heard utter a word on politics, social issues, and of course drug enforcement! Form now on I choose to call all drug addicts "Limbaugh's" just as he call blowjobs "Lewinski's."

Your paragraph that you start off with "I don't bash the Democrats" I like. I feel the same way. I however, will never stop bashing Bush over the Iraq War! Just can't let that one slide, sorry! Other than that I don't bash bush, rather I question some of his judgement. The same way I question any of our leaders.

Know I guess you feel I am wrong, but from reading your post, I feel that if a Democrat would have handeled Iraq the way Bush has, you would have been all over him. Why do I feel this way? Well, I read your third paragraph, and I just can't see how you justify the war? But I guess we will never see eye to eye on this subject.

Also, I really liked when you said,"I despise the fact that someone like freedoms, but are eager to take away other's freedoms at the blink of an eye." I could not agree more. Very nicely put.

That being said, one question: What are your feelings about what is going on in Getmo?