Times Square, Christmas Airline Bombing Attacks Show...

[jbg]

Slowly but surely very slowly, the Obama Administration seems to be coming to the conclusion that the "Bushies" weren't so wrong after all.

Once upon a time, desert tribesmen in the Middle East, Asia Minor and Southern Asia (pre-Muslim actually) slaughtered each other with abandon. Islam came, and at least some of the internecine slaughter was abated, though not totally. The hostility of these desert tribes to outsiders, however, did not cease. Except of course when "commercial", read extortion opportunities arose on the Silk Road and other travel routes that traversed the region. Aside from Constantinople, the Muslim invaders met little resistance until they got as far as Tourres, France, the gates of Vienna, and India. When the Crusades (really a push-back against this violence) ended the Muslims were of little concern to the West. They built ships in order to avoid the necessity for overland crossings of hostile and dangerous lands. While there were some colonization and missionary efforts, in general the Ummah was paid little heed until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Fast forward to modern times. While making little productive use of Ummah lands, the Muslims pushed back violently at Western attempts to utilize even small parts of the areas now including the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan. But not all violence was related to Arab-Israeli problems.

After the end of the Viet Nam war, when it became clear that the West had little appetite for displays of military power, Arab atacks in Western lands became increasingly bold. The Munich 1972 Massacre, which has for whatever reason faded from memory, was utterly senseless and purposeless. This and other attacks, such as a German disco attack and Lockerbie (all addressed by coordinated cries of anguish and orchestrated hand-wringing) culmninated in September 11. The Western blow-back from that, the Afghan and Iraq wars (yes, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 but lots to do with other thumbs in Western eyes) halted attacks on U.S. soil, at least until the Fort Hood, the attempted attack on the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas 2009 and the attempted Times Square Massacre.

Clearly these attacks cannot and should not be addressed in criminal courts. The use of civilian due process gives the terrorists a platform to create a circus. Even worse, in "discovery" it creates an opportunity to expose counter-terror methods and endanger information assets. In other words, you dont' fight a war in Court.

Finally, the Obama Administration is conceding that there may be more to these attacks than individual madmen. See excerpts (indented) below:

May 5, 2010

Evidence Mounts for Taliban Role in Bomb Plot

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — American officials said Wednesday that it was very likely that a radical group once thought unable to attack the United States had played a role in the bombing attempt in Times Square, elevating concerns about whether other militant groups could deliver at least a glancing blow on American soil.

Officials said that after two days of intense questioning of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, evidence was mounting that the group, the Pakistani Taliban, had helped inspire and train Mr. Shahzad in the months before he is alleged to have parked an explosives-filled sport utility vehicle in a busy Manhattan intersection on Saturday night. Officials said Mr. Shahzad had discussed his contacts with the group, and investigators had accumulated other evidence that they would not disclose.

******

May 9, 2010

Obama Seeks to Ease Rules on Questioning Terror Suspects

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a new law allowing the prolonged interrogation of terrorism suspects without their being informed of their constitutional rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the suspect arrested in the Times Square bombing attempt had received training and probably money from the Taliban in Pakistan.

Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling, which limits how prosecutors can use statements made by suspects before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. Mr. Holder said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.

The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of sharp criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens, like Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani immigrant who was arrested in the Times Square case as he attempted to flee the country last week — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.

Mr. Holder, in an appearance on “Meet the Press” on NBC, characterized the administration’s stance as a “new priority” and “big news.”

“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”

*********

When I was in 9th Grade, we were taught the importance of "respecting indigenous cultures". If those cultures were prepared to live and let live, fine. Clearly they are bent on slaughter.

It is essential that leaders in "independent" Muslim lands must understand that unless they stop the operation of "training camps" and terminate the commute between their lands and the West of inflamed, trained operatives, serious harm will come. The West may be forced to inflict massive casualties and remove "independent status" if these lands are unwilling to ensure that their countries are not used as safe havens for lawlessness and terror.

[Sir Bandelot]

Clearly these attacks cannot and should not be addressed in criminal courts. The use of civilian due process gives the terrorists a platform to create a circus.

So JBG, are you advocating that American citizens who are even suspected of terrorism should have their rights suspended and be tried in a military court, like Joe Lieberman says?

[jbg]

So JBG, are you advocating that American citizens who are even suspected of terrorism should have their rights suspended and be tried in a military court, like Joe Lieberman says?

Do you have a better suggestion? If so explain it.

[Sir Bandelot]

Do you have a better suggestion? If so explain it.

Not yet, but this is your suggestion so let us explore it and see what it entails. Saying it should be done and actually doing it poses certain problems. Example Lieberman says they should be deported. But if they are US citizens, where would they go?

Second, do you feel comfortable with removing safeguards that protect the individual from being falsely accused. An ordinary citizen can get swept up by the legal process. They could be overwhelmed. Its possible to set someone up, by framing them and without those protections their lives can be permanently ruined.

I know there is a certain passionate desire to wipe out terrorists because they threaten to ruin your utopian society. They are the fly in the ointment, so to speak. Problem is that by going down this road you also risk eroding that utopian society by your own hand.

[Borg]

Slowly but surely very slowly, the Obama Administration seems to be coming to the conclusion that the "Bushies" weren't so wrong after all.

It is essential that leaders in "independent" Muslim lands must understand that unless they stop the operation of "training camps" and terminate the commute between their lands and the West of inflamed, trained operatives, serious harm will come. The West may be forced to inflict massive casualties and remove "independent status" if these lands are unwilling to ensure that their countries are not used as safe havens for lawlessness and terror.

Uh - Oh - Bush bashing frenzy will take place if you are not careful.

Massive casualties?

Western world will suffer massive casualties first as the lefties fight to keep the "moderates" in their country happy - meanwhile the "moderates" will continue to increase their base and strength so that in time they can become radical - and they will. No such thing as a moderate - they will ALL do as they are told when the time comes.

So the west will never act first - it has become weak and therefore doomed to dismal failure.

In fact western nations fear the islamic population within their own countries now. And rightfully so.

Islam will take over in time. And bring us all the wonders and glories of the modern world as they see it.

Borg

Edited May 10, 2010 by Borg

[Michael Hardner]

Islam will take over in time. And bring us all the wonders and glories of the modern world as they see it.

Borg

Your disdain for our system matches those who would bring it down. In fact a pluralistic society that allows for maximum freedom continues to be the system of choice.

[jbg]

Second, do you feel comfortable with removing safeguards that protect the individual from being falsely accused. An ordinary citizen can get swept up by the legal process. They could be overwhelmed. Its possible to set someone up, by framing them and without those protections their lives can be permanently ruined.

I think there is a more fundamental problem; the safety and liberty of long-time residents of our respective countries Those must take primacy to the rights of those out to destroy us.

There is always a tension, especially during wartime, between personal rights and public safety.

We have had similar problems in the past, which culminated in the internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent. In one of the Supreme Court cases considering the issue the Court in Hirabayashi v. U.S.stated:

The war power of the national government is ‘the power to wage war successfully’.

Hirabayashi v. U.S.

320 U.S. 81, 93, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 1382 (U.S. 1943)

The Court stated further:

There is support for the view that social, economic and political conditions which have prevailed since the close of the last century, when the Japanese began to come to this country in substantial numbers, have intensified their solidarity and have in large measure prevented their assimilation as an integral part of the white population.FN4 In addition, large numbers of children of Japanese parentage*97 are sent to Japanese language schools outside the regular hours of public schools in the locality. Some of these schools are generally believed to be sources of Japanese nationalistic propaganda, cultivating allegiance to Japan.FN5 Considerable numbers, estimated to be approximately 10,000, of American-born children of Japanese parentage have been sent to Japan for all or a part of their education.

Hirabayashi v. U.S. 320 U.S. 81, 96-97, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 1384 (U.S. 1943)

In the notorious Korematsu decision the Court stated:

It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers-and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies-we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders-as inevitably it must-determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot-by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight-now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.

Toyosaburo Korematsu v. U.S

. 323 U.S. 214, 223-224, 65 S.Ct. 193, 197 (U.S. 1944)

In the Japanese exclusion cases the decisions were egregious since, as the Court admitted, a large portion of the segregation of Japanese, and their insular conduct, was forced by the majority population of the United States. The situation with the current Muslim populations couldn't be more different. Their segregation is self-inflicted, and correctly implicates the logic of the Supreme Court's Hirabayashi and Korematsu decisions. People can avoid being "swept up by the legal process" by joining our society and integrating. They fail to do so at their peril.

In fact western nations fear the islamic population within their own countries now. And rightfully so. Islam will take over in time. And bring us all the wonders and glories of the modern world as they see it.

Your disdain for our system matches those who would bring it down. In fact a pluralistic society that allows for maximum freedom continues to be the system of choice.

See above. This unfortunately has taken on aspects of a war and needs to be handled accordingly.

[Michael Hardner]

See above. This unfortunately has taken on aspects of a war and needs to be handled accordingly.

It doesn't feel like a war. It feels like business as usual. So I'm not sure if you're advocating for additional measures.

[Sir Bandelot]

This unfortunately has taken on aspects of a war and needs to be handled accordingly.

Yes because the US was at war with Japan. Are you saying the US is at war with anyone from Islam? Of course that would be utter nonsense. Some of George Bush's friends are islamic.

[naomiglover]

Slowly but surely very slowly, the Obama Administration seems to be coming to the conclusion that the "Bushies" weren't so wrong after all.

Once upon a time, desert tribesmen in the Middle East, Asia Minor and Southern Asia (pre-Muslim actually) slaughtered each other with abandon. Islam came, and at least some of the internecine slaughter was abated, though not totally. The hostility of these desert tribes to outsiders, however, did not cease. Except of course when "commercial", read extortion opportunities arose on the Silk Road and other travel routes that traversed the region. Aside from Constantinople, the Muslim invaders met little resistance until they got as far as Tourres, France, the gates of Vienna, and India. When the Crusades (really a push-back against this violence) ended the Muslims were of little concern to the West. They built ships in order to avoid the necessity for overland crossings of hostile and dangerous lands. While there were some colonization and missionary efforts, in general the Ummah was paid little heed until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Fast forward to modern times. While making little productive use of Ummah lands, the Muslims pushed back violently at Western attempts to utilize even small parts of the areas now including the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan. But not all violence was related to Arab-Israeli problems.

After the end of the Viet Nam war, when it became clear that the West had little appetite for displays of military power, Arab atacks in Western lands became increasingly bold. The Munich 1972 Massacre, which has for whatever reason faded from memory, was utterly senseless and purposeless. This and other attacks, such as a German disco attack and Lockerbie (all addressed by coordinated cries of anguish and orchestrated hand-wringing) culmninated in September 11. The Western blow-back from that, the Afghan and Iraq wars (yes, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 but lots to do with other thumbs in Western eyes) halted attacks on U.S. soil, at least until the Fort Hood, the attempted attack on the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas 2009 and the attempted Times Square Massacre.

Clearly these attacks cannot and should not be addressed in criminal courts. The use of civilian due process gives the terrorists a platform to create a circus. Even worse, in "discovery" it creates an opportunity to expose counter-terror methods and endanger information assets. In other words, you dont' fight a war in Court.

Finally, the Obama Administration is conceding that there may be more to these attacks than individual madmen. See excerpts (indented) below:

May 5, 2010

Evidence Mounts for Taliban Role in Bomb Plot

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — American officials said Wednesday that it was very likely that a radical group once thought unable to attack the United States had played a role in the bombing attempt in Times Square, elevating concerns about whether other militant groups could deliver at least a glancing blow on American soil.

Officials said that after two days of intense questioning of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, evidence was mounting that the group, the Pakistani Taliban, had helped inspire and train Mr. Shahzad in the months before he is alleged to have parked an explosives-filled sport utility vehicle in a busy Manhattan intersection on Saturday night. Officials said Mr. Shahzad had discussed his contacts with the group, and investigators had accumulated other evidence that they would not disclose.

******

May 9, 2010

Obama Seeks to Ease Rules on Questioning Terror Suspects

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a new law allowing the prolonged interrogation of terrorism suspects without their being informed of their constitutional rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the suspect arrested in the Times Square bombing attempt had received training and probably money from the Taliban in Pakistan.

Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling, which limits how prosecutors can use statements made by suspects before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. Mr. Holder said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.

The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of sharp criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens, like Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani immigrant who was arrested in the Times Square case as he attempted to flee the country last week — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.

Mr. Holder, in an appearance on “Meet the Press” on NBC, characterized the administration’s stance as a “new priority” and “big news.”

“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”

*********

When I was in 9th Grade, we were taught the importance of "respecting indigenous cultures". If those cultures were prepared to live and let live, fine. Clearly they are bent on slaughter.

It is essential that leaders in "independent" Muslim lands must understand that unless they stop the operation of "training camps" and terminate the commute between their lands and the West of inflamed, trained operatives, serious harm will come. The West may be forced to inflict massive casualties and remove "independent status" if these lands are unwilling to ensure that their countries are not used as safe havens for lawlessness and terror.

Are you ever going to post where you're pasting your comments from or are you going to continuously take others' posts and make it sound like it's yours?

Source for jbg's post.

[jbg]

Are you ever going to post where you're pasting your comments from or are you going to continuously take others' posts and make it sound like it's yours?

Source for jbg's post.

Maybe it was the other way around. Which was posted first? I quite definitely did not cut and paste a DailyKos post. Check when JBG was banned there. I did a test post under another screen name at 4:53 Eastern Time and it clocked in as 1:53 p.m. Thus, the MLW post hit first, then whoever "Nature Freak" is cloned my post.

Edited May 10, 2010 by jbg

[naomiglover]

Maybe it was the other way around. Which was posted first? I quite definitely did not cut and paste a DailyKos post. Check when JBG was banned there.

Right.

This is the first time I'm bringing this up, but it's not this is not the first time you've done this.

[jbg]

Yes because the US was at war with Japan. Are you saying the US is at war with anyone from Islam? Of course that would be utter nonsense. Some of George Bush's friends are islamic.

No.

But we are at war with a somewhat amorphuous entity. I am not sure, myself, how best to fight this. But it is no doubt a war.

[Guest American Woman]

Right.

This is the first time I'm bringing this up, but it's not this is not the first time you've done this.

But he didn't do what you are accusing him of. Check the time of the post at Daily Kos; it went up here, first.

[nicky10013]

There is no other place to fight this "war" than in court because it's not a war in the traditional sense of the term. We're dealing with a criminal organization not unlike the mafia yet we don't bomb New Jersey. Though, that might not be a bad idea if anyone here has actually been there. No, the very values of our democracy insist that we use legal, democratic means to pursue this.

[jbg]

There is no other place to fight this "war" than in court because it's not a war in the traditional sense of the term. We're dealing with a criminal organization not unlike the mafia yet we don't bomb New Jersey. Though, that might not be a bad idea if anyone here has actually been there. No, the very values of our democracy insist that we use legal, democratic means to pursue this.

If this is a criminal operation, foreign states such as Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen are permitting the criminals to train and stage in their counties. This would still be cassus belli.

[nicky10013]

If this is a criminal operation, foreign states such as Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen are permitting the criminals to train and stage in their counties. This would still be cassus belli.

Maybe so. However, not taking the bait would be the optimal course of action. When attempting to defeat radicalism, whose sole purpose is to fight against an America of ugly stereotypes, perhaps not reinforcing them is a good thing.

[jbg]

Maybe so. However, not taking the bait would be the optimal course of action. When attempting to defeat radicalism, whose sole purpose is to fight against an America of ugly stereotypes, perhaps not reinforcing them is a good thing.

It seems we had far fewer attacks on American soil under Bush II post-911 (about 7 1/2 years) than under the first 15 months of the Obama-nation.

[nicky10013]

It seems we had far fewer attacks on American soil under Bush II post-911 (about 7 1/2 years) than under the first 15 months of the Obama-nation.

America is still fighting Bush's wars, so it's still Bush policy driving radicalism abroad. Furthermore, these attacks are planned over months and years. To assume that the day Obama came into power, a bunch of terrorists decided hey, we can get through security now is either highly ignorant or being intentionally obtuse.

[Guest American Woman]

America is still fighting Bush's wars, so it's still Bush policy driving radicalism abroad.

It's not just Bush's policies driving radicalism abroad any more than it's just U.S. policies driving it.

Furthermore, these attacks are planned over months and years.

Yes, they are planned over months and years, which really proves what I said above regarding Bush's policies not being the driving force, since 9-11 occurred so shortly after Bush took office.

To assume that the day Obama came into power, a bunch of terrorists decided hey, we can get through security now is either highly ignorant or being intentionally obtuse.

This I totally agree with.

[jbg]

Right.

This is the first time I'm bringing this up, but it's not this is not the first time you've done this.

Naomi is partly right that the idea for the post didn't come solely from my brain (not that her carping is particularly acute mental activity either).

When I wrote this post, I vaguely remembered reading this New York Times article (link). Excerpts below:

"A war is a war," Mr. McCarthy declared. A war is not a crime, and you dont bring your enemies to a courthouse.

********

We become headquarters for counterterrorism in the United States, he said. Not the C.I.A. Not anyplace in Washington. The U.S. attorneys office for the Southern District of New York.

From the countrys perspective, he said, its not a good thing. A prosecutors job, he added, is not the national security of the United States.

In June 1998, the office secretly indicted Osama bin Laden. Three months later, Al Qaeda blew up the two embassies.

I mean, we could go into the grand jury and indict him three times a week, Mr. McCarthy said. But to do anything about it, you needed the Marines. You didnt need us.

Edited May 12, 2010 by jbg

[nicky10013]

It's not just Bush's policies driving radicalism abroad any more than it's just U.S. policies driving it.

Yes, they are planned over months and years, which really proves what I said above regarding Bush's policies not being the driving force, since 9-11 occurred so shortly after Bush took office.

Fair points.

[JB Globe]

I think this post is a stellar example of confirmation bias and I'll begin by demonstrating several blatantly false statements and huge gaps of time that JBG has glossed over, pretending they never happened . . .

Slowly but surely Once upon a time, desert tribesmen in the Middle East, Asia Minor and Southern Asia (pre-Muslim actually) slaughtered each other with abandon.

A ridiculous sweeping generalization that spans dozens of civilizations and thousands of years, easily disproven . . .

All of those regions were major centres of civilization for most of their history. Many of those civilizations were pioneers in the rule of law in government for their time.

Examples - The Babylonians and Hammurabi's code of law, the Maurya Empire in South Asia and Ashoka's edicts for human rights and religious freedom

If JBG has examples that back up his claim, I'd love to see them.

Islam came, and at least some of the internecine slaughter was abated, though not totally. The hostility of these desert tribes to outsiders, however, did not cease. Except of course when "commercial", read extortion opportunities arose on the Silk Road and other travel routes that traversed the region.

I'd love to see this claimed backed up as well . . .

Islam was borne out of a mercantile tradition - Mohammed was a caravan trader, after all. So it makes sense that Islamic states saw the value in facilitating trade on routes like the Silk Road. They understood that guaranteeing protection for caravans, road maintenance, and supplying food & water were services that caravans would gladly pay a premium for. It was certainly more profitable for caravans to take a route through the Persian Samanid Empire in 800-1000 CE, for example, and pay the road tolls, and not have to worry about bandits, and get to your destination quicker. I don't call that extortion - I call that good business sense: provide a service that people are willing to pay a lot of money for.

What brought about periods of low trade wasn't "Muslim exploitation" but rather political instability where dynasties broke up along the route, leaving some sections civil war zones, case-in-point: the breakup of the Mongol Empire. Also no one wanted to trade with Europe during the black plague for obvious reasons.

And even if you were to call it extortion - how would that be any different than say, Britain's attempts to dominate the world's cotton market during the colonial period? If Islam is evil for "extorting Silk Road Trade" - what does that make Britain? Or are different rules applied to different societies depending on if they're "more or less like us?"

Aside from Constantinople, the Muslim invaders met little resistance until they got as far as Tourres, France, the gates of Vienna, and India.

Did you just really try to generalize Al-Andalus, the Ottomans, and the Mughals into one single entity based entirely on the fact that their religion was Islamic? That's like saying that Axumite Ethiopia, the Novgorod Republic, and 15th century Portugal were one in the same because they were all Christian, even though the were radically different from each other in terms of culture, political structure, and yes, even religion.

And that means that they dealt with the political and economic realities of their times in different manners, and they can't be painted with the same, crude brush.

Perhaps it's better to gloss over these differences because acknowledging them would ruin the "all Muslim civilizations are savage and evil" narrative that he's going for here.

When the Crusades (really a push-back against this violence)

The Crusades were primarily about gaining control of the Silk Road (for which, the port of Acre was the western terminus at the time) and setting up a lucrative pilgrimage system to the Holy Land. But it wasn't this Imperial motivation that made the Crusaders look bad in comparison to the Muslim coalition at the time - it was what they did while in the Holy Land (see: various massacres of civilians) that has caused modern historians to not look on them as shining examples of Christian history.

When the Crusades ended the Muslims were of little concern to the West. They built ships in order to avoid the necessity for overland crossings of hostile and dangerous lands. While there were some colonization and missionary efforts, in general the Ummah was paid little heed until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Seeing as how the Ottomans were part of the Ummah, I suppose that Europe was in fact concerned with a chunk of it . . . The Ottoman Empire was the biggest power in the region until it was surpassed by France. And huge swaths of modern-day Istanbul were trade districts for merchants from Venice, Genoa and others desperate to get their hands on Silk Road goodies.

[JB Globe]

Fast forward to modern times. While making little productive use of Ummah lands, the Muslims pushed back violently at Western attempts to utilize even small parts of the areas now including the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan.

One shouldn't be surprised that indigenous people push back at a colonial enterprise. What would you do if a foreign colonial power allowed foreigners to set up shop in your home and their population was twice the size of yours? I mean - look how freaked out you are that 1 million Muslims have settled in Canada at the request of the Canadian government. Imagine if the US was our overlord and decided to move in 60 million Muslims. You'd be running for your rifle in a second - now you know how the Palestinians must have felt in 1948.

After the end of the Viet Nam war, when it became clear that the West had little appetite for displays of military power,

So they subcontracted war to paramilitary groups and ruthless dictators who promised lucrative access to oil fields.

Arab atacks in Western lands became increasingly bold. The Munich 1972 Massacre, which has for whatever reason faded from memory, was utterly senseless and purposeless. This and other attacks, such as a German disco attack and Lockerbie (all addressed by coordinated cries of anguish and orchestrated hand-wringing) culmninated in September 11.

Hold on . . .

Munich was done by the PLO to get Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza.

The bombings of La Belle in Berlin and Lockerbie in the 80's were a Libyan government response to various attacks on Libyan ships in the Gulf of Sidra.

9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda in response to the presence of Western troops in the Middle East.

Only the later was carried out by an Islamist group. The fact that the actors in all cases happened to be Muslim isn't proof that "Islam is the problem" - especially they were all carried out for different reasons, and in the case of Libya and Palestine, were carried out for explicitly nationalistic reasons, not religious ones.

You might as well make a connection between the Crusades, the Napoleonic wars and WWI because all of the actors happened to be Christian - so therefore they are examples of Christian aggression.

the Afghan and Iraq wars (yes, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11 but lots to do with other thumbs in Western eyes) halted attacks on U.S. soil, at least until the Fort Hood, the attempted attack on the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas 2009 and the attempted Times Square Massacre.

Talk about moving the goal posts. Initially you listed all attacks by "Islam" against Western targets until 9/11 because you needed material to tar and feather Islam with. Now that you want to prove that Bush's time in office was successful against terrorism, you're only talking about "attacks on US soil" so that you can conveniently leave out the bombings in Madrid and London which happened under Bush's watch.

But never mind that - how are you going to mention the "panty bomber" of 2009 as evidence Obama is failing and ignore the "shoe bomber" of 2001? (Richard Reid)???

No really - they were both members of Al Qaeda, they both failed to ignite their explosives in-flight. The only difference is one hid the bomb in his undies, and the other in his shoes.

Oh, and one happened under Bush and one under Obama - but of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that you're ignoring one and mentioning the other, right?

This is the clearest example yet of your selective memory and reading

[DogOnPorch]

Seriously??? Why not kiss Taliban butt a little harder, eh?