Terrorism

[JOEBIALEK]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do?

The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism.

Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?

[woodman]

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do?

The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism.

Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?

Good post, Joe. I'm glad that someone understands what I (and many, many, many, many others) have been screaming about for the last year and 2 months.

We were not attacked by Iraq -
Iraq was not the homeland of those that DID attack us -
invading Iraq was not the appropriate response to our being attacked -

This is the message that has so far escaped the notice of all of the Bush-faithful - here and elsewhere, who keep on insisting that Dubya "did the right thing" and that "freeing the Iraqi people was a noble and worthwhile enterprise" - to which I must say ...

So what? How is this noble effort working out for us? From where I sit - not very damned well!

Someone should send your post to Dubya and Co. ... although I doubrt that it would have much (if any) effect on the chimp ... he can't even speak his native language! How can he be expected to make intelligent decisions regarding foreign affairs?

Again, congrats on a most intelligent post!

[jeskibuff]

We were not attacked by Iraq

And it's downright stupid to think that we need to wait until they attack for us to make a move. Clearly, Woodman, your senility has got the best of you. Iraq may NEVER have launched an attack on us, but they did have the capability and desire to manufacture and distribute WMD to those who would carry out such attacks.

Iraq was not the homeland of those that DID attack us

This is just another simpleminded association game you're playing. By your faulty logic, we should have attacked America because the OK City bombers were Americans. Jeez. Alheimer's must have taken quite a toll on you!

invading Iraq was not the appropriate response to our being attacked

Plain and simple, the invasion of Iraq was not a direct response to the 9/11 attack. When will you get that through your thick skull?? How many times do we have to repeat the same things? You will never understand, so why should we even try?

This is the message that has so far escaped the notice of all of the Bush-faithful - here and elsewhere, who keep on insisting that Dubya "did the right thing"

Oh, we hear your message. We just know that it has little base in reality.

...and that "freeing the Iraqi people was a noble and worthwhile enterprise" - to which I must say ...So what? How is this noble effort working out for us? From where I sit - not very damned well!

Spoken by someone who clearly cannot grasp the fact that transitions take time. You would have given up on Russia's independence efforts as they experienced the power struggles with their Mafia. You obviously have no understanding of the forces at work and that democracy and peace don't come at the flick of the switch. You are so totally clueless that I wonder how you misspent your younger years. Surely a man of some 70-some years should possess more wisdom than you are barely able to muster.

Good things take time. We heard the same crybaby crap out of you about the Bush economic plan. We endured it and said the EXACT SAME WORDS....GIVE IT TIME TO WORK! Now that it's worked, all you can do is redirect your complaints to some other area that you're not happy with. That leaves us to gloat...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? You were wrong then. You are wrong NOW! Get used to being wrong! That's the nice thing about being right....time eventually proves that you were right, then you get to gloat...like.......you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman?

Someone should send your post to Dubya and Co. ... although I doubrt that it would have much (if any) effect on the chimp ... he can't even speak his native language!

Fortunately, someone would filter out your crapola and it would end up in the White House dumpster. GWB doesn't need to be distracted by people who are still stewing over losing an election 3.5 years ago.

How can he be expected to make intelligent decisions regarding foreign affairs?

He's doing a FINE job in that regard, with some of the finest people in his cabinet. He's taken on a tough challenge, and those are usually the ones that politicians like to avoid. It's nice to have a true leader again, rather than that poor excuse we had from 1993 to 2000.

Again, congrats on a most intelligent post!

What??? Where??? Surely, you can't be referring to that post full of talking points straight out of DumbocraticUnderground, can you???

[trollgirl]

...about the whole thing, but I have to comment on the "We were not attacked by Iraq" line. After we kicked their collective ass in 1991, Iraq had over ten years to take revenge for their losses. They never did, so what makes you think they ever would? Militarily, Iraq seems to have been, then and recently, a paper tiger, maybe even a tissue paper tiger. ****, it's all about oil anyway...9/11 was just an excuse, duh...

Laz

[jeskibuff]

Jeskibuff, you were a bit hard on Woodman

And well I should have been. His comments are the same old ignorant chants we've heard out of liberals for quite some time now, despite all the information and counter arguments available. Enough has been written that any REASONABLE person using the science of logic and patterns of human nature should be able to put the pieces together and draw a decent conclusion. But when blind hatred for a person clouds your judgment, you end up like Woodman...a bitter old ignorant man. I've grown downright intolerant of ignorance, especially when it is based on such shallow, superficial evaluations like "he can't even form a proper sentence, so how can he make good decisions?" That's just plain idiocy in my book, and no one (including Woodman himself) would want to be judged according to the same standard he holds others to.

Iraq had over ten years to take revenge for their losses. They never did, so what makes you think they ever would?

It seems you (and others) believe that the ONLY way that Iraq could pose a threat to us is militarily. That's just ignoring the whole lesson we learned from 9/11. Al-Qaeda is no threat to us in military terms, either. Terrorism doesn't work by forming a standing army before it strikes. It would be nice if it worked that way, then we could have hard targets to attack with our own forces. 9/11 should have opened EVERYONE'S eyes to the fact that terrorists are a threat to our freedom and prosperity and they DON'T NEED to form a standard military force to do their damage. Libya didn't need an army to bring down Pan Am 103. Who knows whether or not that artillery shell containing Sarin was rigged to explode with the knowledge that it was a chemical weapon? Are there others in a stash somewhere? Will the terrorists learn from their mistakes and find a way to mix the binary elements so that the next explosion has the intended deadly effect? Will they even TRY to explode the next one? Will they dismantle the shells and use suicidal maniacs to mix the chemicals manually, then use other means to disperse the deadly potion? Will that happen in Iraq or in America? If it happens in YOUR city, Laz, and thousands of people die as a result, WHO WILL YOU BLAME? Bush??? Probably!

We know that Saddam supported terrorism. We know he had the desire and the means to produce such deadly weapons and didn't really care who did the dirty work for him. Fortunately, he now is incarcerated and no longer can channel the wealth of an entire nation into building deadly toys for others to use. Iraq might have been a "paper tiger" militarily, but thinking that we are only threatened by standard military force is ignoring every single lesson that you should have learned when 4 planes killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11.

it's all about oil anyway...9/11 was just an excuse, duh...

Going back to that lame reason, are you? I thought that you liberals were switching to a different excuse, seeing's how the "all about oil" doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. Well, keep trying to come up with screwy ulterior motives. The motive that makes entire sense under intense scrutiny is the pursuit of terrorism.

Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too.

Get all weepy-eyed for all I care. We are not terrorists because we pursue terrorists. Pursuing criminals does not make criminals out of policemen, despite their use of "naked force".

it is very obvious that this war is WAY phony

Good grief!

I'm certainly glad that you or like-minded people (Gore, Dean, Kerry, etc.) are not running this nation!

[Kursun]

...about the whole thing, but I have to comment on the "We were not attacked by Iraq" line. After we kicked their collective ass in 1991, Iraq had over ten years to take revenge for their losses. They never did, so what makes you think they ever would? Militarily, Iraq seems to have been, then and recently, a paper tiger, maybe even a tissue paper tiger. ****, it's all about oil anyway...9/11 was just an excuse, duh...

Laz

I don't think Jeskibuff is a bit hard on Woodman.
Actually Jeskibuff is a bit hard on himself.
Woodman's comments show that he is an intelligent and rational person.

[woodman]

... what a fershlugginer tirade you launched - not only once, but twice! Your ad hominem attacks against me personally only go to show your immaturity ... what are YOU anyway ... 24 going on 12? Your rudeness and lack of any semblance of "manners" is only exceeded by your childlike, simplistic belief in whatever the RPM (the Republican Propaganda Machine) cranks out for you to assimilate. Your mind's made up ... no one should try to confuse you with facts. Let me remind you that - "a mind is a terrible thing to waste". Stop wasting yours fer crissakes - wake up to what's actually going on in the world - if you cannot grasp the fact that the present administration does NOT have you or me or anyone else belonging to the so-called "middle class" at the top of its priority list - never mind the actual poor, then I cannot help you any further. Thanks to the "prez" that you endorse, the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" just keeps on widening, day after day. At this rate, both you and I could end up living on the street in a cardboard box. Oh, woe is us (including the brainwashed Republican faithful) who'll wake up one day to find out that their beloved party has betrayed them!

My only comment on your diatribe is regarding my criticism of Dubyas ability to speak his native tongue, and that you wouldn't think that I would want to be held up to the standards that I demand of others ... well, think again. Let me state it in the very simplist of terms:

It's my belief that someone that cannot speak the language as well as I do, is not fit to be the president of this great land ... period.

Now go take your afternoon nap. and hopefully get out of the right side of the bed next time.

[Justlisten2]

And it's downright stupid to think that we need to wait until they attack for us to make a move. Clearly, Woodman, your senility has got the best of you. Iraq may NEVER have launched an attack on us, but they did have the capability and desire to manufacture and distribute WMD to those who would carry out such attacks.

This is just another simpleminded association game you're playing. By your faulty logic, we should have attacked America because the OK City bombers were Americans. Jeez. Alheimer's must have taken quite a toll on you!

Plain and simple, the invasion of Iraq was not a direct response to the 9/11 attack. When will you get that through your thick skull?? How many times do we have to repeat the same things? You will never understand, so why should we even try?

Oh, we hear your message. We just know that it has little base in reality.

Spoken by someone who clearly cannot grasp the fact that transitions take time. You would have given up on Russia's independence efforts as they experienced the power struggles with their Mafia. You obviously have no understanding of the forces at work and that democracy and peace don't come at the flick of the switch. You are so totally clueless that I wonder how you misspent your younger years. Surely a man of some 70-some years should possess more wisdom than you are barely able to muster.

Good things take time. We heard the same crybaby crap out of you about the Bush economic plan. We endured it and said the EXACT SAME WORDS....GIVE IT TIME TO WORK! Now that it's worked, all you can do is redirect your complaints to some other area that you're not happy with. That leaves us to gloat...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? You were wrong then. You are wrong NOW! Get used to being wrong! That's the nice thing about being right....time eventually proves that you were right, then you get to gloat...like.......you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman? ...you were wrong, weren't you, Woodman?

Fortunately, someone would filter out your crapola and it would end up in the White House dumpster. GWB doesn't need to be distracted by people who are still stewing over losing an election 3.5 years ago.

He's doing a FINE job in that regard, with some of the finest people in his cabinet. He's taken on a tough challenge, and those are usually the ones that politicians like to avoid. It's nice to have a true leader again, rather than that poor excuse we had from 1993 to 2000.

What??? Where??? Surely, you can't be referring to that post full of talking points straight out of DumbocraticUnderground, can you???

Enough already jeskibuff!! Or should I call you Ed Gillespie!! Ahah!! Your secret identity has been revealed!! jeskibuff is Ed Gillespie! World renowned leader of the new third reich, otherwise known as the Republican National Committee Chairman, or just The Fuhrer!

[trollgirl]

...excellent post. Some time ago, I had a sharp spat with someone over at Audiokarma on this very subject. He reacted to what he thought I said, and I backpedaled but got to thinking. I have put myself in the other guy's shoes. A lot of folks picture a terrorist as an Arab with a bomb. I don't think an Arab would see it that way. It's easy to see the terrorist as wild-eyed, crazed, full of hate, but that's all media window-dressing. I submit that a terrorist is anyone whose actions produce terror in others, or in a target group. Cop to criminal, secret police to political opposition, riot police to demonstators, and all too often, soldier to civilian. We should remember that the people being killed over there are not "sand******s" (I hate that term, but I'm trying to make a point here), but ordinary people who are being shot up for not slowing down fast enough at a checkpoint, or their wedding gets strafed because they fired guns in the air (a tradition). I have read the accounts and seen the pictures - I have not looked away. I know this happens in war, but since it is very obvious that this war is WAY phony, it is that much more vile. A few clear-headed people have pointed out over the years that polital power is not persuasion, it is force, naked force when you get down it it. Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too.

Laz

[karl k]

...excellent post. Some time ago, I had a sharp spat with someone over at Audiokarma on this very subject. He reacted to what he thought I said, and I backpedaled but got to thinking. I have put myself in the other guy's shoes. A lot of folks picture a terrorist as an Arab with a bomb. I don't think an Arab would see it that way. It's easy to see the terrorist as wild-eyed, crazed, full of hate, but that's all media window-dressing. I submit that a terrorist is anyone whose actions produce terror in others, or in a target group. Cop to criminal, secret police to political opposition, riot police to demonstators, and all too often, soldier to civilian. We should remember that the people being killed over there are not "sand******s" (I hate that term, but I'm trying to make a point here), but ordinary people who are being shot up for not slowing down fast enough at a checkpoint, or their wedding gets strafed because they fired guns in the air (a tradition). I have read the accounts and seen the pictures - I have not looked away. I know this happens in war, but since it is very obvious that this war is WAY phony, it is that much more vile. A few clear-headed people have pointed out over the years that polital power is not persuasion, it is force, naked force when you get down it it. Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too.

Laz

As I said here months ago,(to the short sightedness of some others) it's all a matter of whose eye's your looking through. It's always good to take a step back and walk in someone elses shoes for a step or two as you make your decissions reguarding others.

"A few clear-headed people have pointed out over the years that polital power is not persuasion, it is force, naked force when you get down it it. Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too."

When you get down to it, anymore, persuasion(sp?) and force are one in the same. It doesn't matter if it is physical or manipulitive. Either way, we influence others here and abroad(in our own interest) when they aren't willingly giving their support. I fear pretty soon, we will stop asking "why" and start saying "so what".

Walk on.

[piece-it pete]

...excellent post. Some time ago, I had a sharp spat with someone over at Audiokarma on this very subject. He reacted to what he thought I said, and I backpedaled but got to thinking. I have put myself in the other guy's shoes. A lot of folks picture a terrorist as an Arab with a bomb. I don't think an Arab would see it that way. It's easy to see the terrorist as wild-eyed, crazed, full of hate, but that's all media window-dressing. I submit that a terrorist is anyone whose actions produce terror in others, or in a target group. Cop to criminal, secret police to political opposition, riot police to demonstators, and all too often, soldier to civilian. We should remember that the people being killed over there are not "sand******s" (I hate that term, but I'm trying to make a point here), but ordinary people who are being shot up for not slowing down fast enough at a checkpoint, or their wedding gets strafed because they fired guns in the air (a tradition). I have read the accounts and seen the pictures - I have not looked away. I know this happens in war, but since it is very obvious that this war is WAY phony, it is that much more vile. A few clear-headed people have pointed out over the years that polital power is not persuasion, it is force, naked force when you get down it it. Naked force produces terror, and I am saddened as I contemplate that we are now terrorists too.

Laz

Laz,

By your definition ALL gov'ts for all time (and in all wars) have actually been terrorist organisations. Was WW2 terrorism by Allied troops? Is there no difference between flying planes into civilian buildings & dropping food, then warnings, then bombs onto legitimate military targets?

And just how could we have pulled the foreign devils out of the Holy Land (US troops out of Saudi Arabia) without dismissing Saddam?

Pete

[trollgirl]

Just the way I like it!

jeskibuff:

I still think you're unfair to Woodman. You write about him like you know all about his political philosophy. I'm reasonably sure you really know little about him. I get a whiff that he is smeared as ignorant for simply disagreeing with you. Do we all have to be Neocons for our views to be respectable? For that matter, you call me a liberal - what a laugh!! Yes, I'd blame Bush for further incidents, having studied 9/11 in some depth. It looks like a black ops job to me, or as the bumper sticker says: "The truth is out there / infowars.com". Check it out. I have also studied the strategic situation in the middle east and the Caspian area, and I still stick to my guns - it's OIL OIL OIL. You said, "We know that Saddam supported terrorism." Remember, we used to support Saddam. The rest of the world is not stupid, and they see us set up one CIA asset/puppet after another, deposing them when they become unprofitable. The rest of the world, thus, does not hate us without cause.

pete:

It's a matter of point-of-view. If you look thru some eyes the government is a terrorist org. How about the eyes of an Amerindian as the U.S. calvary rides up? How about Armenians in Turkey, Serbs in Kosovo, Tutsis in Rwanda, the list of state-sponsored terrorism goes on and on. Only the Commies were honest in making this clear, and they surely practiced what they preached, making the twentieth century the bloodiest in history. In answer to your question, yes the allied troops in WWII were terrorists to the civilians who felt terror as their homes and cities were strafed and bombed. Allied civilains, ditto. War is terror and destruction (General Hawley Smoot said that war is a racket!). Bush's claptrap about liberation is just window dressing.


Laz

[piece-it pete]

Laz,

I understand your reasoning about war being terror to the civilians in the thick of it. I would argue that it was not the Commies but the Nazis. Although Stalin ended up killing at least as many of his own citizens as Hitler did. No difference between us & them?

That begs the question - what do we do about it? We cannot put down the forces that would control us without force. They didn't call it the "Peacemaker" for nothing. And if all gov'ts are terrorist organisations, what is the alternative? Anarchy?

"Claptrap". We might succeed in Iraq, at helping them build an honest gov't, they MIGHT be strong enough. This would have repercussions (good ones) for decades. Even if it's a miserable failure we have still removed a large source of unrest in the Middle East. That ain't window dressing!

Regarding "personal insults" & such, I feel very tolerant. This has not been a one-way street! If you can dish it out you'd better be able to take it. ("you" and "you'd" being used in the plural )

Pete

PS I assume I can count your vote for GWB ??

[trollgirl]

Laz,

I would argue that it was not the Commies but the Nazis. Although Stalin ended up killing at least as many of his own citizens as Hitler did. No difference between us & them?

That's just what Hitler said, "No difference! There is no difference!" That is, between his system and Stalin's system.

"Claptrap". We might succeed in Iraq, at helping them build an honest gov't, they MIGHT be strong enough. This would have repercussions (good ones) for decades. Even if it's a miserable failure we have still removed a large source of unrest in the Middle East. That ain't window dressing!

I hope you're right on that one!

Regarding "personal insults" & such, I feel very tolerant. This has not been a one-way street! If you can dish it out you'd better be able to take it. ("you" and "you'd" being used in the plural )

Pete, my skin is very thick, thank you.

Laz

PS I assume I can count your vote for GWB ??

PS You assume wrong...