Just a thought...

1. There was not a shred of hard evidence linking any terrorists with 911 (ref: Hardball - MSNBC)(documents, plans, wire taps, maps, tapes etc)
2. Entire homeland defense system will be spending billions and millions of manhours to prevent future acts of terrorism.
3. Most of the 911 terrorists did not have a criminal record.

Here is my question. If we could not and can not prevent gang wars (motor cycle, las vegas), crimes by home grown gangs, crimes by mafia (organized criminals) - then what it is that we have that will prevent terrorist acts? :confused:

Can we conclude that the key performance indicator of Homeland Defense is how well we eliminate gangs, mafias, organized criminal units?

I think what might be happening is the switch from beacon of freedom to evil empire. It is possible the American Reich is about to be installed.

I'm starting to wonder, though, if Dubya might just blow his re-election along the way somewhere. I don't think the people will put up with it if everything's still a mess come election day.

There's always hope.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I'm starting to wonder, though, if Dubya might just blow his re-election along the way somewhere.

Not necessarily... Lessons can be learned from Saudis who keep the terrorists at bay by paying them... did somebody say ransom???

As they say...politics make strange bedfellows... or something like that...

I don't think US has democracy so it is tough to participate this discussion.

Originally posted by tiassa
I think what might be happening is the switch from beacon of freedom to evil empire.

I think many of us in other countries don't get this at all. I personally have never seen the USA as a beacon of freedom. Rather, I have seen that USA politicians and television have been telling the world for decades that they are a beacon of freedom. Completely different things.

How very true adam. The CIA monitors everything that happens in America not as obviously as the KGB did but they are still there in the shadows watching everything. *lol*

I just heard a discussion on how to handle terrorism.

America is currently acting like in a cartoon. All the good guys back up sheriff Bush who will go and eliminate the bad guys. They do not consider the root of the problem. They think they can wipe out all terrorists.

Europe has dealt with terorists for as long as we can remember. We strike hard when necessary, but we also try to figure out the root of the problem. We talk with Arab states and try to negotiate to take away negative feelings towards the west.

but we also try to figure out the root of the problem

Who are we?...not happening...Colin Powell could have solved it but he is alone in this politically charged atmosphere. Too many old timers cannot think new ideas....everyone has their own agenda...feeling safe...talking tough.

"we", to give an example, are Europeans who let Northern Irish people govern themselves, cause we tried to understand IRA and others instead of trying to wipe them out.

Terrorists are evil from one point of view. They are desperate, undereducated, poor and evil from another point of view.

If a state negotiates with terrorists, other terrorists will get the idea that they should blow up civilians to get what they want too. The PIRA (Provisional Irish Repblican Army) as well as the Loyalists (protestant militia) were both wrong to target civilians just as the Palestianians are wrong to target civilians.

There is no excuse that justifies targeting civilians. This is not freedom fighting. The USA has backed "freedom fighters" in the past, and this has undercut our moral authority to combat terrorism. Yes, civilians will die in any and all wars; however, specifically targeting civilians is wrong and not acceptable.

I didn't say that terrorism is not wrong. Cuz it is VERY wrong. And it is not a bad idea to strike hard. But you can't wipe them all. You have to consider additional sollutions.

the sheriff is not doing this. I can understand that. But it is not right.

Are we saying that if there is a group that wants to fight to overthrow Sadam, we should not support that group because Sadam says they are terrorists?

Well, I personally don't think the US should support any group that actively targets and attacks civilians. That's my definition of a terrorist group, anyways. Unfortunately the US has supported true terrorist groups before.
However... Just because Saddam says they're terrorists does not mean they're terrorists. If they're attacking civilians, they're terrorists, and do not warrant support.
Also, just for the record, I understand the getting to the root of the problem idea, but one should never ever <b>EVER</b> appease enemies. If you honestly think the best idea is to appease terrorists by giving them what they want, or a piece of what they want, I think you need to look at world history a bit more to see why that's a bad idea.

Give a moth a cookie... and he's gonna want a glass of milk. :p

The IRA did not get wat it want. Northern Ireland is still not a part of Ireland. They didn't give in to terrorists, but looked at the problem and tried to solve it.

I don't think USA should be supporting terrorists who fight a regime, like in Irak. It's like trading something bad for something worse, cause most likely the terrorists are going to take control when the fight is over.

But sometimes I don't think there are other possiblities. In Afghanistan, the USA would have suffered great losses if they wouldn't have joined up with the rebels. (funny how the same people can be rebels and terrorists)