The answer without a question

[aristide1]

When Clinton mistakenly bombed that aspirin factory, he was apparently trying to do the same thing.... striking a blow at terrorism.

Bush Sr armed Saddam and Iran, what does that say about him?
(We now continue re-writing history according to the great crusaders.)



Let's see how we've been warned about all of this in the past:

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. "

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. "

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. "

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without? "

I really liked the next one:

"I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center. "

Ring any bells?

Who said all this? Dwight Eisenhower
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... hower.html

Perhaps VanWaGuy can compare these statements to the ones made about dress stains.

[aristide1]

Hi,

I’m wondering what makes people certain that they would get the present right when they are unable to get even the past right? now, don’t go parroting the regurgitated lies that which are spewed onto the world by the mainstream media propaganda machine, please. As intelligent humans its beneath you, it’s a computer response, and the program is old lacking new updated lies !

Its painful to witness it.

Anything that interferes with one's circle of comfort, even reality, is met with ferocity, for the non-thinking.

[aristide1]

Terrorism isn't going to go away any time soon, but simply ignoring it, as many around here suggest, would be no better of a policy than what we are doing right now.

Makes a great cloak for imperialism too.

[JoeWPgh]

Neil.... I don't ever remember anyone ever claiming that the government of Iraq was responsible for 9-11. It was a co-ordinated attack by a bunch of people who share a common religion that uses terrorism to advance it's causes. They do not come from a single country...you know that, everybody knows that.

Our "war" over there is directed at the these people, and at terrorism in general......something the government of Iraq participated in. When Clinton mistakenly bombed that aspirin factory, he was apparently trying to do the same thing.... striking a blow at terrorism.

Terrorism isn't going to go away any time soon, but simply ignoring it, as many around here suggest, would be no better of a policy than what we are doing right now.

This is a treatise on Ignorance of Terrorism, Religion and Geo-Politics.
Iraq's responsibility was implied quite often by the Bush regime, and echoed repeatedly by it's Ministry of Propaganda, FOXNews.

Today's Arab terrorists wrap their political agenda in religion, much the same way as America's religious right does with theirs. I'm old enough to remember American religious terrorists who bombed abortion clinics, and threatened or outright killed providing doctors. That was terrorism to impose a social change, justified by religious fervor. The only real difference is in the scale.

To say invading Iraq was justified because they 'supported terrorism' is a weak and conflated argument. Almost every nation on the planet has engaged in activities that can be called terrorism, the USA included. Hell, it's how we won the Revolutionary War. At that time, hiding in the bushes and picking off officers was considered an appalling tactic.

It's difficult to see how Bush's blunder can be considered fighting terrorists when we don't even know who they are. To combat terrorism, you need good local intelligence. To achieve this, you need friends. You need people on your side. Thousands dead from 'collateral damage' does nothing to advance the ball here. All of those collateral damages were someone's mother, father, son, sister, cousin or friend. Killing people's family and friends is a pretty odd way to try to convince people to side with us.

[Bluefront]

"we don't know who the terrorists are"....... Maybe not by name, but they certainly fit a profile. They can be picked out at an airport easily enough, or a police line-up, because we know who they aren't.....with pretty much certainty. Of course it's not PC to do so, just realistic.

Take the dead 9-ll terrorists for instance.....their common profile would also include most of the potential terrorists we face today. It's a coincidence they all have the same religion? Don't think so....

Oh.....just why is it necessary for our local troll to spam every thread that gives him problems? Raising his post count perhaps......

[aristide1]

Oh.....just why is it necessary for our local troll to spam every thread that gives him problems? Raising his post count perhaps......

Perhaps VanWaGuy can answer this one.But perhaps he won't be all that objective. (Note how it's OK for BF to make ad hominem comments, but not anyone else.) That's the great thing about conservative standards, so many to choose from.

I've actually already answered your concern, but since it seems beyond your initial grasp:

Anything that interferes with one's circle of comfort, even reality, is met with ferocity, for the non-thinking.

Let's us all hope it sinks in a second time around, though looking at Neil's success rate I wouldn't hold my breath.

"we don't know who the terrorists are"....... Maybe not by name, but they certainly fit a profile. They can be picked out at an airport easily enough, or a police line-up, because we know who they aren't.....with pretty much certainty.....

Are you suggesting the success rate of the profiling is above 50%? How about is it better than the success rate of killing terrorists to civilians in Iraq? You will of course supply facts, because you're not known to make guesses and generalizations to make a point. There's a word for that too, can you remind us what it is?

[Ant6n]

"Feature & Brief" -- my comment

• "Any loss of American life is terrible" -- terrible is the qualification. It should read "any loss of life is terrible". And while it might be argued that you regret loss of life more if it is closer to home, I don't particularly believe it in the context of American supremacism (no, not racism; just the belief that Americans' life has more value, and that they are more entitled than the rest of the wolrd).
  
  "We have brought democracy to their country [Iraq], and to leave now would jerk that dream from thier hands." -- this uses a very general definition of both democracy and dream.
  
  "If these people really gave a flying fornication about Northern America the indiginous people would be in first place and not 8th..." -- I think that it is ordered according to the largest number of expected deaths, than largest number of people who's basic rights are affected. There are people in the world who try to not think in categories of _us_ and _them_.
  
  "World War 2 is a challenge for anyone who is against wars -- I'll admit that." -- I contest that. I think ww2 was pretty pointless alltogether, so many dead, so much destruction, more than 40 years of a split world. Of course most Americans start thinking how to _answer_ Pearl Harbor. The conflict started much, much earlier, possibly around 1914. Sure the end of the war brought a couple of useful things, but that doesnt mean that there was no way the thing could've been avoided as a whole -- the point of war not being the answer is that if there is a conflict, which escalates into war, there was probably some way to avoid it.
  
  "VanWaGuy...... Don't feed the trolls. (...)"/"Neil, you've been banging your head against the same wall so long that soon its shape will be like that of SpongeBob." -- contempt is a bad argument.
  
  "The list could go on.... the point is that we (all countries) waited too long to stop the German dictator, which could have been accomplished in the beginning. But we did stop the Iraq dictator, a fact some people don't seem to understand, although I think it should have been done at the time of Gulf War I." -- this is not an argument for war, but simply an argument that something should have been done about Saddam Hussein a long long time ago (maybe around the time when they were fighting against Iran? .. hint hint notch notch). I could imagine that a quarter of the money pumped into the right direction could've made a huge, possibly more positive, and less impact, no?
  
  "It is your lack of respect for others on here that I am reacting to. Your certainly do not have to agree with myself or Bluefront, but calling people names like you called him supremacist is uncalled for.
  ...
  Man, why can't I just ignore the trolls?" -- quite an ironic accumulation of statements, really. So emm, I guess calling somebody a supremacist is calling names, but calling somebody a 'troll' is I guess a descriptive term, which attempts to critizise somebody's dangeriously misguided view of the world?
  
  "I believe that WW ll can be considered the last honorable war." -- wow... just wow. It was on of the worst. ever. I guess that's the America-centric view talking.
  
  "Neil.....we all make mistakes. At the time, Iran was perceived as the greater threat." -- Isn't this in a way noticing that there might've been another way to tackle the conflict? (I like these "mistakes were made" statements; "hey, sure, it was a mistake. But our heart was at the right place. And this makes your argument wrong")
  
  "It's real easy to look back on a course of action, and criticize what was done, leading to the current state of affairs. The harder thing is to take the perfect course of action at the beginning.......rarely accomplished by anyone." -- sure thing, but this doesn't mean that a philosophy that attempts to avoid war (intsead of embracing it) and acknowledges that pretty much any conflict could've been solved in different ways than a war.
  
  "Doing nothing would have been the wrong course." -- why? My gut feeling says its true, too; however, I cannot find tangible arguments (that are not based on pride or lust for revenge, or fear). On a side note, why couldn't one have tried to make peace with 'em savage towelheads, starting with peace in Palastina?
  
  "When did we find our moral center?" -- where's Walli? Funny how there's such a big debate about morality, yet such an appalling lack of what might be considered a _moral center_.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello Carl,

Of course it's not PC to do so, just realistic.

You are just wrong. There are approximately 1.4 billion Muslims in the world -- making it the second largest religion today. And you Carl, know for a fact that every single one of them is a terrorist?! If this wasn't such an ignorant statement, then it might be funny...or something.

Take the dead 9-ll terrorists for instance.....their common profile would also include most of the potential terrorists we face today. It's a coincidence they all have the same religion? Don't think so....

Again with the broad statements. Are the members of the KKK Muslim? How 'bout them Irish bombers? What about the Crusaders -- what religion were they, I wonder? What persuasion was Timothy McVeigh? Or the UniBomber, or the folks who bombed the health care clinics? What God did Jim Jones believe in? Or, Kit Carson?

[nick705]

I don't ever remember anyone ever claiming that the government of Iraq was responsible for 9-11. It was a co-ordinated attack by a bunch of people who share a common religion that uses terrorism to advance it's causes. They do not come from a single country...you know that, everybody knows that.

Our "war" over there is directed at the these people, and at terrorism in general......something the government of Iraq participated in. When Clinton mistakenly bombed that aspirin factory, he was apparently trying to do the same thing.... striking a blow at terrorism.

Terrorism isn't going to go away any time soon, but simply ignoring it, as many around here suggest, would be no better of a policy than what we are doing right now.

"we don't know who the terrorists are"....... Maybe not by name, but they certainly fit a profile. They can be picked out at an airport easily enough, or a police line-up, because we know who they aren't.....with pretty much certainty. Of course it's not PC to do so, just realistic.

Take the dead 9-ll terrorists for instance.....their common profile would also include most of the potential terrorists we face today. It's a coincidence they all have the same religion? Don't think so....

So, just so we're clear - in the event of *any* terrorist incident, the Bluefront response is "let's bomb some ragheads, any of them will do."

If they are terrorists, what does that make you, by any consistent and meaningful definition? When completely innocent Muslims die as a result of your preferred course of action, should their countrymen retaliate by bombing anyone at random who shares your racial or religious profile? If not, why not?

[Bluefront]

I look at the terrorist problem from an American point of view.....sorry if that bothers non-Americans. Of course there's internal-generated terrorism right here, as everywhere. We just don't deal with it as a general problem, but rather on an individual basis, just like common street crime. But we cannot deal with terrorism directed at the USA from abroad, in the same manner.

This profiling thing causes much grief..... but it works. If cops in St Louis want to catch murderers and other criminals with the least amount of problems/effort, they don't stop cars driven by old white ladies (for instance). Same with the terrorists. If we want to prevent terrorist entry into the USA, we can use profiling at the gate (so to speak). It's not a 100% perfect method, but it's 100% better than what we're doing right now in this regard...which is nothing.

As far as striking at terrorism where it originates in the hopes that terrorism can be wiped out ........ completely futile as I continue to state. We only kill a few terrorists here and there, as well as many innocents. The attack of 9-11 had to be avenged, but also prevented from happening again. AFAIC......the avenge part has been addressed. The prevent part has barely begun...... too many gutless apologists out there who are afraid to do anything that is not 100% PC.

[aristide1]

I look at the terrorist problem from an American point of view.....sorry if that bothers non-Americans. ..... too many gutless apologists out there who are afraid to do anything that is not 100% PC.

I like the smell of coffee in the morning, the smell of desperation doesn't have the same appeal.

"I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly. "
Michel de Montaigne 1533 1592

[walle]

I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly. "
Michel de Montaigne 1533 1592

A wonderful statement with lots of truth in it, put it like this; if you don’t allow someone to observe their own brain working thru out their entire life, or have it work in irrelevant useless data sense (religion, much of the school system) you disable that person.

[blackworx]

BF, you repeatedly make the distinction between "doing nothing" and "doing something" even if that something deepens divisions and actively makes the situation worse.

Regardless of what you think the reaction of non-Americans here has been to your posts on this subject, taking what you term "an American view" of an international problem will never, ever produce a solution. It's not even the first step on the road towards one. If intense racial, religious and social screening were to be implemented at US borders (assuming 100% rejection of anyone who could possibly harbour a grudge which, under such a paranoiac policy, would be pretty much everyone) and any home-grown extremist Islamic terrorists were weeded out, what would be the result? A geographical United States supposedly safe from attack, surrounded by a world full of people even more angry than they already are. How then does the US keep its interests abroad safe? How to protect American expatriates and those working and travelling abroad? The US can't just throw a fence around itself and peer over the top pointing a gun at the rest of the world, saying: "Sorry guys, but I have to look after number one. As far as I'm concerned I've solved my terrorist problem."

It's not a 100% perfect method, but it's 100% better than what we're doing right now in this regard...which is nothing.

Unfortunately for anyone with the temerity to want to visit The Land of the Free, that is not actually true. What's more, it's pretty much the same argument used by Bush and Blair's governments to back up our invasion of Iraq.

[aristide1]

"Feature & Brief" -- my comment

"Any loss of American life is terrible" -- terrible is the qualification. It should read "any loss of life is terrible". And while it might be argued that you regret loss of life more if it is closer to home, I don't particularly believe it in the context of American supremacism (no, not racism; just the belief that Americans' life has more value, and that they are more entitled than the rest of the wolrd).

I'm not sure how saying "We are superior." in a plain sentence is any different than acting or implying others are inferior, as you have suggested.

So now if you believe you're superior to many others and there are no people superior to you what does that make you?

I think VanWaGuy knows the answer. The silence is deafening.

[aristide1]

So, just so we're clear - in the event of *any* terrorist incident, the Bluefront response is "let's bomb some ragheads, any of them will do."

Is that any different than ""Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset"?
http://www.hendersons.net/straitway/2001/03012001.htm

If they are terrorists, what does that make you, by any consistent and meaningful definition? When completely innocent Muslims die as a result of your preferred course of action, should their countrymen retaliate by bombing anyone at random who shares your racial or religious profile? If not, why not?

Justified and humorous, but still quite futile, given the direction of the question.

Current US problems are:

Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.

[and]

Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.

Bertrand Russell 1872 - 1970

These factors have been tremendous and well capitalized opportunities for Halliburton and the like. So well capitalized they won the 2004 election. Let see how much the "fear card" is played this year.

Have a problem with my diplomatic skills? Dial 1-800-Van-WaGuy.

[Bluefront]

....... I guess the local troll just likes to type out words that make no sense, and likewise quote cute little passages that don't apply to anything on the current topic.

If America followed the suggested line of reasoning advocated by some here.... after 9-11 we would have just covered up the hole, and sent condolences to the parents of the dead terrorists (don't want to upset anybody).

[aristide1]

... So emm, I guess calling somebody a supremacist is calling names, but calling somebody a 'troll' is I guess a descriptive term, which attempts to critizise somebody's dangeriously misguided view of the world?

....just likes to type out words that make no sense....

Did it occur to you that you're the only one?

....we would have just covered up the hole, and sent condolences to the parents of the dead terrorists (don't want to upset anybody).

You really don't recall do you? W put the Bin Ladens on a jet and bid his friends farewell right after 9-11. But were you trying to incite someone with this remark? Boy you really picked a winner with this one.

[spookmineer]

Why do Americans believe the problem started at 9-11? If you read up, you will see it's an accumulation of things taking place before that date, and far more complicated.

9-11 didn't happen "just" because the USA is a world power. There's more to it than that. 9-11 is a reaction to several actions.

[aristide1]

Why do Americans believe the problem started at 9-11?

Because they don't care to see anything passed their white picket fences (or their beer and cigarettes). And you can't find anything on the news if you tried. There's limited cable access to BBC and it takes brains and money to read "The Economist."

Please don't lump us all together.

[blackworx]

There's limited cable access to BBC

Heh - not exactly a paragon of unbiased investigative reporting itself these days, but I suppose compared to Sky News (our local Murdoch outlet) it's positively angelic. Also I've heard it is almost universally hated by, er, shall I say less moderate, Israelis, so they must be doing something right.

Edited to make the Israeli bit look less like it implied racial bias. Wouldn't want anyone mentioning the N word, oh no wait too late my bad.

[aristide1]

Also I've heard it is almost universally hated by, er, shall I say less moderate, Israelis, so they must be doing something right.

As opposed to here, where the press, pretty much exclusively owned by Murdoch and ClearChannel (does he own them too?), are still called by the extremists as the liberal media.

Too bad there aren't as many people as mad about that as they are about gun laws.

In the good old days the First Amendment was owned by the pornographers, but the FCC decided that Rupert was better.

[Ant6n]

If America followed the suggested line of reasoning advocated by some here.... after 9-11 we would have just covered up the hole, and sent condolences to the parents of the dead terrorists (don't want to upset anybody).

You are trying to sound sarcastic. But why would this 'solution' be bad, exactly?
It doesnt seem to involve revenge, or a some show of strength; so many people would consider it bad by default.

But no, the point is not to cover anything up. The exact oppossite should've been done; open a dialogue (instead of covering up the issue, covering up the past, and covering up bad responses with a bunch of wars).
Maybe an attempt at tackling the root of the problem. And by the way, I also agree that police-like action should've been utilized; most likely with global cooperation (starting a dialogue helps here) to combine resources, jursidiction and attack the legal issues around global terrorism (gitmo, probably not a long term solution).
This is what one could do if one believed that "war is not the anwer" (getting back to the original topic). That war is the answer seems to be a very common belief - just look at all those movies where something bad happens. The advisors tell the President, and then ask "when are we going to strike back". It doesn't even seem to be in the minds of people that there are other ways of tackling issues.

[Bluefront]

Ant6n..... it's probably because the "other ways" you speak of, usually don't work, and just show your enemies how weak you are. WWII is a good example.....for years trying to avoid another WW, Hitler was appeased every time he made an aggressive move. Obviously that never stopped him, and he became more and more aggressive.

I look at the current terrorist problem, which is not confined to the USA, in a similar fashion. Deal with it now, or when you're forced to at a later date, it will be a much harder problem.

[blackworx]

Hitler and Nazi Germany ≠ "The current terrorist problem"

[aristide1]

Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity.

He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak

Michel de Montaigne 1533 1592

[walle]

Bluefront,

Where are you getting your information from ? what triggered your assessment, other then your opposition ? this is not to offend you, but you really need to begin asking yourself these questions because you are truly, truly so far off base here.


Please note: I ask myself these questions all the time, why ? because its important to do so.

[aristide1]

Start with BF's sig, and we are already out of the bounds of respect and common decency. Then go to his argument, which is transparently silly in it's attempt to incite.

Do you see any improvement Walle?

[spookmineer]

WWII is a good example.....for years trying to avoid another WW, Hitler was appeased every time he made an aggressive move. Obviously that never stopped him, and he became more and more aggressive.

I look at the current terrorist problem, which is not confined to the USA, in a similar fashion. Deal with it now, or when you're forced to at a later date, it will be a much harder problem.

World domination can not be compared to "singular" terrorist actions. The goals are completely different.

The goal of terrorism is not military victory. That is the goal of armies and nations. The goal of terrorism is to win sympathizers for terrorist’s cause and increase their following.
...
In other words, the goal of terrorists is to cause their enemy’s leaders to fall upon their own swords, so to speak, in the eyes of the people.

Whether or not they reach that goal is beside the point.

[walle]

Don’t get me wrong aristide,

I'm not trying to have anyone submit to my opinion, but, I was hoping for a response; a response which would have answered your own question despite it openly directed towards me, so to speak.

[aristide1]

No problem.