ranks i missed a refresh im with hyperwaders there's lots of choices of solutions.. just don't choose among the represive violent ones in any situation and 50percent of our problems would go away. everything else has to do with coercion.
/you don't want to hear about mine.. though maybe it would make a difference to you if i told you i was a combat veteran.. i won't go into it, get off it. then we sort of have something in common. i've attended (army)a couple of warrish type things (panama and gulf 1). /calling people names doesnt help anything. if you don't like it from others don't do it yerself.. stating the obvious? why? did i call you something already? i thought i deleted all that. /i might use the word ignorant because that implies you are missing information. I'm familiar with the definition. /other than that i deleted several references to lower species from my post before i sent it.. please try to do the same Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thought i did. did one slip under the radar? /i will continue to stand on the concept of peace through peace. to a degree I find that admirable. /peace through bludgeoning is unjust period.. you paint black and white in a sea of shades of gray. at the level of a government, basic ethics just doesn't necessarily apply because there is no "right answer" to some questions IMO. my for instance being "if you regulate x then there is a 40 to 80 percent chance that you'll kill 100 people this week but you'll save 29923838 10 years from now". please tell me who should die. the 100 now or the 103104083 later? what if you don't have a realistic estimate, just your gut? what if you have overwhelming evidence where there is a 99% probability from every thing you know tha tyou have to kill you own child today to save the world tomorrow? IMO, the whole of politics is filled with these types of dillemas. an honest man with the mandate to do his best in the interest of his country finds himself in a position I do not envy. Of course it's not that big of a deal for someone who doesn't care. Anyway. /i really don't understand how anyone can argue any different. i felt the same way for a very long time.
First Run: A view askew?° First Try I'm seeing two specific parts here that I haven't meshed in my brain quite yet, so perhaps I'm looking at it from the wrong angle, but I'll start with this: There is wisdom here that I do not deny, but rather limit to a condition whereby we might presume, conclude, determine, or otherwise arrive at the value X to represent the number of terrorists existing on any given day. If this base number declines as we pick off terrorists, then I think we're examining a sound strategy. But I feel--and in the long run must endeavor to determine for sure--that X is at least remaining constant, if not growing, as time passes. And that's where my sense of disagreement arises. Perhaps in a theoretical field, the idea still bears merit, but it seems to me that people who were mere spectators rooting for "their team" might be prepared to take the field whereas a different political and military strategy might not have called them to arms. Here I'll admit to sloth: I'm too lazy to go look up a link. I've posted around here a political cartoon, I think by David Horsey or Steve Benson, that shows a split-frame with Rumsfeld on the one hand declaring that events have had no negative impact on recruiting while the other shows a terrorist recruiter voicing his full agreement. And therein lies the danger I perceive. A counter-strategy isn't just "Iraqnam," but "Iraqestine." We might pause for a moment to recall the recent topic about the IDF training US military hit squads, for lack of a better phrasing. If the terrorists can draw this out and cast the American occupation as something akin to Israeli methods regarding the Palestinians, they'll dent the American prestige that Bush's strategy has made so vulnerable. Would it be petty to include that the Iraqi contributions to terror had the full endorsement of at least two United States presidents? I consider it important insofar as we might consider here Saddam Hussein, or even the Legend of Osama bin Laden.° He has one last chance to be of service to the world, and that is by taking down key players that helped make his reign of terror possible, including our Defense Secretary. And I'm not referring to anything like Schwarzkopf's blunder at the table during cease-fire talks; you can't account for every possible insanity brought forth by someone like Hussein, and while they should have seen it coming, yes, people make mistakes, and I won't hold Schwarzkopf morally responsible for allowing the gunships back in the air. But the Rumsfelds, Chiracs, and others who helped arm the Hussein regime. He ought to crow proudly on his way down about how he "conned" Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration, about how Chirac was so willing to sell him what he needed. He can still hurt the Bush administration insofar as he can give them a black eye on his way down. But by and large it does seem a sound strategy, though I question its produce and intent. I'm looking for something to illustrate the concern without resorting to severe analogies like the soundness of certain Nazi strategies. The severity is unwarranted. But perhaps that hint can suggest the mechanics of idea that I'm describing. It's a sound strategy, if . . . . Notes: ° A note on the title - I was really trying to avoid "(Insert Title Here)." Maybe that decision was unwise. ° Legend of Osama bin Laden - Not to be superstitious, but I referred to the legends of OBL and Saddam Hussein only days ago, and shortly thereafter Hussein was roped in. So I might as well push the Legend of OBL. Can't hurt, can it?
where?! i missed it, i soo want that toon, i've been saying it for a year, um with so many others i guess heh
It's about your view of man Call me cynical but I really don't think that the actions of the U.S. still have a causal relationship with regards to the amount of "new" terrorists that are lining up to fight. I really think that the gauntlet has been thrown down and there is no picking it up. We are in this fight for a long haul and our best strategy is to promote more freedom of thought in the Muslim world. We have got to attack this problem at the Madrassa level. There are ten year old kids in Pakistan being taught that a woman who bears any flesh in public is going to hell. How we combat that sort of assinine, backwards, stone-age thinking will be the best measure of how we are really doing with regards to combatting terrorism. When you have 10 year old kids, who can't read, but can recite the Koran, (as if that somehow makes them educated) growing up to think that the highest station they can acheive in life is to fight the West, you have a problem that can't be solved with bombs. It's the duty of the West to get deeply entrenched in this culture to explain to these poor bastards that we aren't the source of their misery. It's their refusal to join the rest of world in accepting the inevitability of progress. The Wahhabi wingnuts would have them believe that man is inherently evil, that women are evil, that progress is evil, etc., etc. That's what always amazes me about the Blame America First crowd when it comes to the issues of the ME. They actually think we are to blame for these people being stuck in the dark ages. Last time I checked Wahhabism didn't come out of the West.
Ranxer, and anyone else who wants it; a short note for 15ofthe19 Ranxer, (and Wes) and anyone else who wants it, Okay, I decided sloth wasn't enough of an excuse. Link: Horsey on Iraq: "Translating Donald Rumsfeld's Pronouncements," October 24, 2003. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) A Short Note for 15ofthe19 Something about not establishing and funding the madrassas with American money goes here.
You lost me tessie Are you making a point or not? I opened that cartoon link. Surely that's not the meat of your post, is it?
The United States and Madrassas By Martin Schram | Sunday, September 21, 2003 Looking back, it seems unbelievable that the U.S. government would ever hatch such a scheme. But during the presidency of Ronald Reagan — when all vision was still focused on the Cold War — the United States got itself into the business of sponsoring militant Islamic schools for Afghanistan, then a nation under the influence of the Soviet Union. Martin Schram explains. THanks for the link tiassa, i just printed 10 of those =)
Let's be plain Counterterrorism Method A: Go out hunting terrorists with lethal force in any foreign land regardless of international mandate- apprehend or kill every one. Minimize "collateral" killing all you can. Counterterrorism Method B: Deal with crimes with civil police action, and with international cooperation. Don't be an oppressor, and don't support oppressors. Keep your constituency well apprised of the actions being taken to identify and remove the sources of terrorism. Desist and divest from activities causing harm, oppression, and resentment. The efficacy of Methods A and B have already been demonstrated. Terrorism, perhaps the world's 2nd oldest profession, persists after diligent implementation of either Method A or B. However, acts of terrorism increase under Method A, and decrease with method B. We would have a seemingly simple choice, in a simple country where national issues and responses were revealed and popularly considered. But it is not so simple. Does an increase in terrorist activity strengthen the Bush Administration's political position? Has the Bush Administration exhibited honesty in foreign policy? Method A is attractive in Washington. Method A is appealing to exceptionalism, anger, and desire for power. Method A easily builds its own momentum, can become even, well... a Crusade. But we have no stomachs for Crusade, especially one that unexpectedly tears your ears, pounds your chest, shatters your street into a sickening tangle of misshapen brick, metal, and body parts. We don't want it: Crusades jump all rules and borders now. After we see the horror and loss vividly enough through insight, through a camera lens, with our own eyes, or with our own wounds, Method A will clearly have been a mistake. We don't have to go through all that to put Method B into action. Technology propels the lethality of battlefields shockingly to peaceful cityscapes, but it can also transport calming solutions to cauldrons of hate before they explode into conflict. It's a simple choice, that is hardly considered, but very real.
Has anybody seen a show called "The Lone Gunman?" It aired on Fox Televison TV on March 2, 2001. In the show, the bad guys control a passenger airplane by remote control with intentions of flying it into the World Trade Center. The villains were from the arms industry; the motive being to inflame the public and thereby increase arms sales to use gainst “terrorists.”
Notes around 15ofthe19 No, it's just a reflection on an important aspect of the discussion. Ranxer Backatcha. It wasn't sloth this time out, but the need to feed (the child that is). At any rate, some links: • Chossudovsky, Michael. Who Is Osama Bin Laden? Montreal: CRG, 2001. See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html • Moran, Michael. "Bin Laden comes home to roost." MSNBC.com, August 24, 1998. See http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp • Rashid, Ahmed. "Osama Bin Laden: How the U.S. Helped Midwife a Terrorist." The Public i, September 13, 2001. See http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm • Islam, Shamul. "The creation called Osama." The Hindu, September 27, 2001. See http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/creat.htm Edit: I forgot to actually include the Chossudovsky link. Whoops.
Does any one remember Custer?. This dumb ass of a president we have surely does not know history: Why the hell send in 130k troops right to the heart of muslims ideology fundamentalists. This war is not seen as a liberation it is seen by many as a Jihad, borders in Irag are not been protected properly everyday people are entering to battle our troops, surely many lives will be lost on both sides. At least daddy had the decensy to get the un approbal and went there not alone but with much help from the world community. This dumb ass, thought he could handle it alone, slowly he is going to drain this country on his quest for oil. http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=72396 http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1071251599224&p=1012571727162 And as yet no evidence of any WMD comes out of Irag, though things are looking up, with the ones we've planted by now, with the capture of Saddam soon will see the "good news" (WMD found were Saddam said they were) to make this sob so popular as to defenetly get the vote for next year. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...till_no_mass_weapons_no_ties_to_911_no_truth/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/121703stageddiscovery.html He might just pull out Osama out of his ass to seal the cofin for next year. Albright seems to think so. LOL.. http://www.prisonplanet.com/121703hidingbinladen.html Meanwhile they use the tactic of keeping dumb ass americans afraid of attack within our borders as highly probable. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6345-2003Dec16.html Actually bush would love another attack here, this would prompt the Patriot Act to it's fullest, be damned with the constitution, wipe your ass with the Bill of Rights, Prison State, is comming. http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws149.htm http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/global/wacquant.htm http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/pris-a10.shtml This "war on Terroris" reminds me of Orwel's 1984, here have a read and see if you can see the similiarities of this fiction novel with the reality of today. http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ Godless.
Thanks for the links T Very interesting reading. I especially enjoyed the PublicI article. I don't recall hearing about the CIA's snatch squad in 1997 prior to this article. Would like to hear more about that and why they decided to abort. It would be nice to think that if they had been successful in apprehending him that we might not have had 9/11, but I'm not convinced that Bin Laden was even relevant to that operation by 1999. There are indications that the attacks were planned for many years and that they would have been carried out with or without Bin Laden still in the picture. What did you think about Madeleine Not-to-Brights assertion that we might already have OBL on ice and ready to trot out next september? I thought it was highly unprofessional of Kondracke to repeat something on the air that was said off the record in the Green Room, but even more ridiculous for a for a former Head of State to engage in such absurd speculation.
It is a mistake to fixate on individual personalities in the conflict now escalating between the United States and revolutionary Islamists. OBL is not the source of these troubles- he is emblematic of a struggle persisting even now after his probable death. Personal revenge for his complicity in 9-11 would have unpreditable but certainly not a calming effect on the larger conflict. There is no heirarchy to dismantle on the side of this conflict that is intent on toppling Mideast governments perceived as corrupt Western puppets, and that is intent on evicting American and Western military forces from the region. As foreign intervention, chaos, poverty, and despair intensifies, these movements are gaining in popularity. Each affected country under this onslaught must bolster its own legitimacy domestically, addressing its own corruption and inequality in order to remove the motivations of revolutionaries. Each affected country must conduct investigation, arrest, and public prosecution of terrorists, enhancing their own stability and legitimacy. US diplomacy and support could have (and once had) very significant influence in these efforts that keep critical aspects of national unity and pride intact, in a region riddled with dangerous, complex, and subtle fault lines of political power. Several regimes in the Mideast are fragile, and reform and survival is more advantageous than collapse and rising fundamentalist influence. As the West fixates on individuals and organizations, and in unilateral pursuit of them causes insult to powerful sentiments of religion, ethnicities, nationalities, and human pride, the result is uncontrollable radicalization of the disaffected majority, who in modern times have access to funds, communications, and techology to cause large-scale disruption on a global scale. We don't have to back down. We have to undertand the situation, and fight smarter and more cooperatively, to avoid actions that acutely exacerbate the problems that trouble us.
.. and terrorism is war. The self proclaimed philosopher wesmoris thinks that there are a finite number of terrorists out there and we should “piss off” .. “ such that they come out to play”. Has the philosopher ever asked himself the question “what makes a terrorist?” or does he “think” that terrorists are born terrorists? “Terrorism” is as legitimate (and effective) type of warfare as any other.
/and terrorism is war. brilliant. /The self proclaimed philosopher wesmoris i am instinctually compelled to attempt understand stuff. i also seek wisdom. that makes me a philosopher. what is your problem with that. are you just an asshole? /thinks that there are a finite number of terrorists out there and we should “piss off” .. “ such that they come out to play”. this discussion is about supposed to be about strategy. i think if you have an enemy that is hiding away, it's better to do something to draw them out. of course it's possible that they'll just forget their your enemy and stop fighting after hiding for a while. that is a risky assessment. at this time yeah there are a defined number of terrorist who are members of groups, etc. who would see the end of the western way for a number of reasons. i'm not saying that these reasons are invalid. I'm saying that they make them our enemy, and as long as they believe in their reasons (which could be perfectly valid) we have to kill them before they kill us. /Has the philosopher ever asked himself the question “what makes a terrorist?” or does he “think” that terrorists are born terrorists? Why are you an asshole? You try to imply I'm stupid. You think that helps? We can take the opportunity to benefit each other, or you can act like a little bitch like hype with your passive aggressive bullshit. What shall it be? A terrorist is pretty simple. They are not born that way, they are shaped that way and it's not really right or wrong, just fundamentally opposed. If you for instance, think I am an infidel and should die for it - and are willing to train to kill me and seek out methods by which to do so - it is my surival imperative to kill you before you get the chance to kill me. I am not a terrorist, because I don't want to personally kill anyone. From a valid perspective, the US government is a terroristish kind of thing, as from the perspective that directly opposes it, the exact same reasoning is applicable. /“Terrorism” is as legitimate (and effective) type of warfare as any other. Where did I imply it wasn't? It's still warfare, and has to be addressed as such.
417 US soldiers died. Much more Iraqi people lost their lives. (Civilians deaths estimated at least 7376 and military death was between 13,500 and 45,000.) All based on Bush's unilateral opinion, or your doctrine of mouse bait. Because none of the death hurt you. It's easy to wage a war at others' cost. Just like Mahathir said, "they get others fight and die for them." What kind of war is it? The "librated" Iraqis said, Quote, "Through opinion polls we now know a great deal about what the people of Iraq think of the invasion of their country. According to the recent Gallup poll, 43 per cent believe America invaded to "rob Iraq's oil"; 37 per cent to get rid of Saddam Hussein; 6 per cent to change the Middle East in the interest of Israel; 5 per cent to assist the Iraqi people; 4 per cent to destroy WMDs; 1 per cent to introduce democracy. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/16/1068917668650.html
For 15ofthe19: re - Albright I've read through Lakely's article for the Washington Times: I think there's a number of things we must consider: • The article makes it sound as if Albright offered the comment without prompt, without relevance, entirely of her own motivation. I doubt this idea because it places her in too much of a vacuum at the moment she said it. • It makes for a story. • I technically have no problem even with Howard Dean's words; he just shouldn't be saying them at times like that. • We must consider that Madame Secretary Albright's words are well within the range of sentiments imagined or believed by many Americans. • Which is why I don't entirely understand the big deal about either Dean or Albright. Do we look at our friends who espouse similar ideas and treat them with similar contempt, or is it a professional distinction, that she is Madeleine Albright and shouldn't be influenced by such speculation? • In the event of the latter, I look to Kondracke and question his integrity. • Nonetheless, Kondracke merely points out that journalists are bound to have only "professional" friends, as genuine people should be smarter than to say anything like Albright said around anyone in alleged news media. Two point deduction to Albright for her naîvete: Never trust someone like Kondracke to be intelligent when there's ratings at stake. Journalists serve a social purpose, but part of the price is that they simply should not be trusted in the confidence of friendship or even marriage. That said, there are a couple of problems with Albright's words that nobody seems to be talking about. • While it is plausible, especially in light of the administration's record, that Bush might have known something was coming, Dean needs to realize that the people need to sit in quiet confidence, discussing among themselves, and not in a public forum, such ideas until that evidence arises. Despite Americans' habit of wild speculation, wild speculation against the grain is simply unacceptable to most, and Dean ought to be smart enough to know that. • To the other, in Albright's case, she needs to stop and consider the size of the whopper she's suggesting, even in jest. I repeat here the point that during my youth (e.g. Reagan years) to even speculate that America the Beautiful would come to look anything like this was considered anti-American. The most controversial sections of the USA-PATRIOT Act are the kind of intrusion that we used to write off to the damned Commies. As a measure of how far we've come in my lifetime, I point to Madeline L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time, an award-winning children's book that consistently makes the top twenty most-protested books lists. The story contains a strong anti-Communist message, but in recent years, the character and idea of "IT," a sinister governing force holding an entire planet in its sway, has come to be perceived as a slam against the American post-capitalist Information Technologies age, and the book has been protested on the grounds that it advocates Communism. Albright seriously needs to consider the size of the whopper she's suggesting. The run-up to the Iraq war set a new standard in political fiction; admittedly, even I figured we would have found WMD by now. So it's fair to question the gullibility of the American people, but come on ... if we had Bin Laden, the economy would have demanded his presentation a long time ago. It is beyond my capacity to seriously consider the possibility that we already have Osama Bin Laden. That reality would simply transcend all measure of governmental transgression. To suggest a scandal, even in jest, of such ludicrous magnitude . . . . • Of course, that all points back to Kondracke, who chose to take her seriously in exchange for ratings. Albright should have known better, but so should Kondracke. I think the only reason that it's an issue at all is because the people pushing the issue in the media have that little respect for the American people. There's a lot going on in the world, and suddenly we get overcoverage of a significant event--yes, I'm happy we have Saddam, but that's not the only thing that happened for those forty-eight hours. So the Halliburton tab gets put aside--I'm not worried about conspiracy, merely the intelligence or lack thereof of the American collective mentality so well-defined by news media--for Saddam's capture, and then coming off that story, we get a FOX News scandal that really is overblown. The Times article mentions McDermott's (D-WA) suggestion that the US has known where he is for a while and decided to go get him for political timing. There's a few things to note about that, as I don't see a huge scandal going on: • We in the Seattle area are used to this. McDermott is officially "doing his job" in this case. Seriously--we continually endorse this fellow up here. He may catch sh@t for the way he goes about his job--opposing the Bush administration, opposing the war, traveling to Iraq in search of peace, and so forth--but we like it enough up here that he keeps getting rehired. We'll see what the future brings. • Although the Times article is the first I've heard about it (that's how not-out-of-character this is for McDermott, though I can't imagine the P-I resisting the story ... I'll check in on it) I see where that will become a very popular conspiracy theory. DEBKAfile, which is generally of pro-Israeli political persuasions, suggests that we did not "capture" Saddam inasmuch as he was handed over. It's an interesting article. McDermott's assertion may become a very popular conspiracy theory, and tends also to work toward Albright's expectation that she would not be taken seriously. My official opinion is that if Albright's words are news enough for Kondracke to rush the story to the air, well, it speaks ill of FOX News' audience. The moral of the story seems to be that if you're of any prominence whatsoever, you cannot trust anyone around you when you choose to be a human being and not a celebrity. The response of Scott Reed, a GOP consultant, actually does more to hurt the party and the Bush administration than it does to help it. Mr. Reed apparently forgot that it's not just Democrats and liberals who wonder about these things. I doubt conservative conspiracy theorists will rush to a Democratic ticket, but as the last election came down to one state and a whole heap of unresolved controversy, the GOP should learn from Mr. Gore and not alienate their marginal support by demeaning plausible suggestions in such a manner. There are plenty of responses. To demean is just irresponsible, because there are some right-wingers out there who are paranoid and conspiracy-prone, and some of them believe anti-Israeli and other odd theories that could still prove to have some merit, though probably not truth in representation of history. It's an interesting news item insofar as it demonstrates the cotton-candy nature of the American political mentality. Inflated, oversweetened, and blown about by the wind while the pinkos and the bluebloods rumble about the town. And it's no better in a bucket than it is on a stick. Two cents in the fountain ....
