BubberMiley's Terrorist Solution

[geoffrey]

Why are Al Queda and other insurgents in Iraq killing scores more Iraqis than non Iraqis? Is that defending Iraq? How so?

Nope, it sure isn't. They are easier targets, and al-Qaeda wants to scare the population into allowing a terrorist friendly regime to take over.

[Riverwind]

Nope, it sure isn't. They are easier targets, and al-Qaeda wants to scare the population into allowing a terrorist friendly regime to take over.

Wrong again. Al'Quada wants to make sure that Iraq turns into an Islamic theocracy like Iran. It has nothing to do with the West or terrorism.

[geoffrey]

Nope, it sure isn't. They are easier targets, and al-Qaeda wants to scare the population into allowing a terrorist friendly regime to take over.

Wrong again. Al'Quada wants to make sure that Iraq turns into an Islamic theocracy like Iran. It has nothing to do with the West or terrorism.

And an Islamic theocracy isn't anti-West or pro-terrorism? Hmm... Taliban...

[Hicksey]

So what do we do differently then? Lay down whenever they attack? Do nothing?

Terrorists are like school yard bullies - they attack because they want to provoke an over-reaction. If we stop over-reacting then the terrorists will go away.

Trying not to over react does not mean that we do not try to protect ourselves. It makes sense to spend money on security and law enforcement designed to catch plots before they happen.

Invading countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and constant use of rhetoric like the 'war on terror' is an over reaction.

We have to do society's equivalent of looking terrorists in the eye and showing them that we are not only not afraid of them but think that they are completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the Bush regime and has so completely undermined our position that it makes it very difficult to use this strategy now. That said, it could be used once Bush and the rest of the chicken littles are gone from the whitehouse.

Clinton did that for 8 years and prior to 9/11 Bush had done nothing to further infuriate them, how do you explain not only the more frequent attacks, but also the escalation of the severity of the attacks?

If ignoring them and prosecuting them when caught works, wouldn't the instances of terror go down? Would they not have given up before 9/11 seeing that the attacks weren't spurning the over-reactions they were looking for?

[Riverwind]

Clinton did that for 8 years and prior to 9/11 Bush had done nothing to further infuriate them, how do you explain not only the more frequent attacks, but also the escalation of the severity of the attacks?

The WTC was the only target of terrorist attacks within western countries. All other terrorist incidents occurred within Muslim countries and are not really our concern. More importantly, there would have been no 9/11 if the FBI and the CIA had acted on the intelligence they had available. IOW - there was no need to go to war to stop terror - good old fashion police work would have prevented it if the agencies with the responsibility had actually done their job.

To contrast, there have been two deadly terrorist attacks in western countries since Iraq war that are clear retaliation for the invasion. IOW - fighting terror with 'war' simply creates more terror.

[cybercoma]

Why would you stop the war because the terrorists are escalating their attacks?

What does that say to these fanatics who think blowing up, murdering and otherwise torturing civilians is the way to get their message across?

And please, don't give me that crap about how the US/UK, etc. have been murdering just as many if not more civilians. Collateral damage is most definitly NOT the same thing as actually using civilians as targets to create fear.

[Hicksey]

Clinton did that for 8 years and prior to 9/11 Bush had done nothing to further infuriate them, how do you explain not only the more frequent attacks, but also the escalation of the severity of the attacks?

The WTC was the only target of terrorist attacks within western countries. All other terrorist incidents occurred within Muslim countries and are not really our concern. More importantly, there would have been no 9/11 if the FBI and the CIA had acted on the intelligence they had available. IOW - there was no need to go to war to stop terror - good old fashion police work would have prevented it if the agencies with the responsibility had actually done their job.

To contrast, there have been two deadly terrorist attacks in western countries since Iraq war that are clear retaliation for the invasion. IOW - fighting terror with 'war' simply creates more terror.

That's not entirely true.

The barriers built up between the US alphabet agencies prevented that from happening. According to the commission, 9/11 was the key that opened up that barrier. Without that wakeup call 9/11 doesn't get stopped. Since then, you are correct in that we have prevented a few attacks in North America.

And I severely disagree that terrorism in embassies abroad and against our citizenry. IMO an attack on a Canadian embassy or if they were to perpetrate a USS Cole type attack against us -- that is an attack on Canada and should be treated severely.

The real reason this fight will last and will be hard to win is that we refuse to sink to their level. If we ignored the people that do the bombing and killed their families as they kill ours instead of meeting those that fight for us head on as we do them it would send a much more decisive message. We are fighting a politically correct war. If we faught as they do the war would end quickly, but that isn't politically correct and there are enough anti-war zealots that would froth at the mouth if we did that our politicians haven't the stones to even consider it let alone try it. Because we only react we make no gains. If we continue to fight this way, I agree that we may not win -- not because we do not have the ability but because the will to continue will erode among our citizenry.

This is just my opinion ...

Much like during Vietnam times, there are 3 combatants in this battle. There are those who wish to fight terror, the terrorists and anti-war liberals. The Viet Kong didn't win the Vietnam War. The US didn't lose Vietnam. L(l)iberals won that war with words. IMO the same thing is happening here. Those who seek to restrict how effectively we can fight and foster the defeatism at home will eventually cause us to lose. This is a war that CAN be won. It will be hard fought, but if we go in and beat them at their own game we can win.

[BubberMiley]

Why would you stop the war because the terrorists are escalating their attacks?

How about stopping the war because it was a stupid, illegal war to begin with, regardless of terrorist attacks?

There were terrorist attacks before; there will be terrorist attacks after. By your argument, we are allowing the terrorists to dictate to us what we do just by their existence.

[gerryhatrick]

Why would you stop the war because the terrorists are escalating their attacks?

Or if it was creating the very thing it claimed to be fighting?

Al-Q membership has exploded since Bush decided to make terrorism an electoral strategy.

[Argus]

Why would you stop the war because the terrorists are escalating their attacks?

Or if it was creating the very thing it claimed to be fighting?

Al-Q membership has exploded since Bush decided to make terrorism an electoral strategy.

Been looking over their membership lists, have you?

[jbg]

9/11 was an exception and would have remained an exception if the US had not responded so irrationally.

Compared to 9/11 itself, the US reaction was irrational?

[BubberMiley]

9/11 was an exception and would have remained an exception if the US had not responded so irrationally.

Compared to 9/11 itself, the US reaction was irrational?

Who compared?

[Riverwind]

The barriers built up between the US alphabet agencies prevented that from happening. According to the commission, 9/11 was the key that opened up that barrier. Without that wakeup call 9/11 doesn't get stopped. Since then, you are correct in that we have prevented a few attacks in North America.

That was my point. We already know what we need to do to prevent another 9/11. We should focus doing that and not on useless wars in far away countries.

And I severely disagree that terrorism in embassies abroad and against our citizenry. IMO an attack on a Canadian embassy or if they were to perpetrate a USS Cole type attack against us -- that is an attack on Canada and should be treated severely.

Attacks on embassies and other assets in foreign countries are simply one aspect of a civil war within these countries. IOW- we are victims of collateral damage in a conflict that has nothing to do with us and we should not react as if it does. The USS Cole was an attack on a military target and not equivalent to an attack on civilian targets like trains and buildings. Including it in a list of 'terrorist attacks' is disingenuous.

Those who seek to restrict how effectively we can fight and foster the defeatism at home will eventually cause us to lose. This is a war that CAN be won. It will be hard fought, but if we go in and beat them at their own game we can win.

History has proved that virtually every argument provided by the war mongers to justify the war was a pack of lies. We know from hindsight that VietNam would likely be a better place today if the US had let the communists take over a country that was not destroyed by a decade of war.

[jbg]

The barriers built up between the US alphabet agencies prevented that from happening. According to the commission, 9/11 was the key that opened up that barrier. Without that wakeup call 9/11 doesn't get stopped. Since then, you are correct in that we have prevented a few attacks in North America.

That was my point. We already know what we need to do to prevent another 9/11. We should focus doing that and not on useless wars in far away countries.

Breaking up the geographical contiguity of the "ummah" is a goal worthwhile in itself. I do not believe that Radical Islam can ever be reasoned with. I do not believe so called "moderates" are willing, or can prudently, stand up to the "radicals". Thus, I believe that war with Islam is inevitable. My vote is to do it over in the "ummah". Yours?

And I severely disagree that terrorism in embassies abroad and against our citizenry. IMO an attack on a Canadian embassy or if they were to perpetrate a USS Cole type attack against us -- that is an attack on Canada and should be treated severely.

Attacks on embassies and other assets in foreign countries are simply one aspect of a civil war within these countries. IOW- we are victims of collateral damage in a conflict that has nothing to do with us and we should not react as if it does. The USS Cole was an attack on a military target and not equivalent to an attack on civilian targets like trains and buildings. Including it in a list of 'terrorist attacks' is disingenuous.

Agreed, USS Cole is a close call, though at the time the US was not a belligerant force. Pearl Harbor would be a better analogy than September 11 for the attack. Different analogies, should be same result.

Those who seek to restrict how effectively we can fight and foster the defeatism at home will eventually cause us to lose. This is a war that CAN be won. It will be hard fought, but if we go in and beat them at their own game we can win.

History has proved that virtually every argument provided by the war mongers to justify the war was a pack of lies. We know from hindsight that VietNam would likely be a better place today if the US had let the communists take over a country that was not destroyed by a decade of war.

Agreed that Viet Nam was unwisely fought. Either go in, all out, to win, or don't go in at all. As far as the " argument provided by the war mongers to justify the war(s)" each war is different. In the case of the current war, I would not favor a public announcement that the war is against Radical Islam. Don't we have enough places going up in flames? I'd rather fight the Muslim tribes one at a time than unified.

[Hicksey]

Those who seek to restrict how effectively we can fight and foster the defeatism at home will eventually cause us to lose. This is a war that CAN be won. It will be hard fought, but if we go in and beat them at their own game we can win.

History has proved that virtually every argument provided by the war mongers to justify the war was a pack of lies. We know from hindsight that VietNam would likely be a better place today if the US had let the communists take over a country that was not destroyed by a decade of war.

I'll take capitalism over communism 1000 times out of 1000. Communism has never worked and never will. Communism is just a euphanism for oppression, poverty and a general lack of freedom. If you think people are better off poor, oppressed and under the rule of a dictator, IMO you're nuts.

[jbg]

I'll take capitalism over communism 1000 times out of 1000. Communism has never worked and never will. Communism is just a euphanism for oppression, poverty and a general lack of freedom. If you think people are better off poor, oppressed and under the rule of a dictator, IMO you're nuts.

Then why are people willing to lose their lives absconding in leaky boats from the Florida Keys bound for Cuba? Why are people shot by US troops trying to escape from South Korea to North Korea? Why was the Berlin Wall needed to keep people out of the Deutsche Democratic Republic a/k/a East Germany?

[jdobbin]

Then why are people willing to lose their lives absconding in leaky boats from the Florida Keys bound for Cuba? Why are people shot by US troops trying to escape from South Korea to North Korea? Why was the Berlin Wall needed to keep people out of the Deutsche Democratic Republic a/k/a East Germany?

They might try to leave Cuba in leaky boats even if they were in a democracy.

[Hicksey]

I'll take capitalism over communism 1000 times out of 1000. Communism has never worked and never will. Communism is just a euphanism for oppression, poverty and a general lack of freedom. If you think people are better off poor, oppressed and under the rule of a dictator, IMO you're nuts.

Then why are people willing to lose their lives absconding in leaky boats from the Florida Keys bound for Cuba? Why are people shot by US troops trying to escape from South Korea to North Korea? Why was the Berlin Wall needed to keep people out of the Deutsche Democratic Republic a/k/a East Germany?

The number of people moving from those countries to North America is much higher than the number that were going there.

People come here for hope. Despite all the efforts of liberals to create a nanny state, the dream of splendor and making it on one's own ingenuity still lives on here.

[LonJowett]

People come here for hope. Despite all the efforts of liberals to create a nanny state, the dream of splendor and making it on one's own ingenuity still lives on here.

Or maybe the so-called nanny state has created the stability for prosperity to flourish. All emperical evidence would suggest that, given the economic dominance of North America since the New Deal.

[geoffrey]

People come here for hope. Despite all the efforts of liberals to create a nanny state, the dream of splendor and making it on one's own ingenuity still lives on here.

Or maybe the so-called nanny state has created the stability for prosperity to flourish. All emperical evidence would suggest that, given the economic dominance of North America since the New Deal.

Don't think so myself. People flee welfarist Europe for more opportunity in Canada/US all the time. There needs to be a balance, I think the yanks are close, I think we are close on the other side of the line. The socialist Europeans are way off though.

[BubberMiley]

Don't think so myself. People flee welfarist Europe for more opportunity in Canada/US all the time.

People flee Canada and the U.S. for Europe too. Europe has one of the highest standards of living in the world, way better than ever. The countries that are doing terribly are the ones with no social safety nets.

But this has nothing to do with my terrorist solution. I don't have threads named after me every day.

Please continue to talk about me.

[Wilber]

People come here for hope. Despite all the efforts of liberals to create a nanny state, the dream of splendor and making it on one's own ingenuity still lives on here.

Or maybe the so-called nanny state has created the stability for prosperity to flourish. All emperical evidence would suggest that, given the economic dominance of North America since the New Deal.

Don't think so myself. People flee welfarist Europe for more opportunity in Canada/US all the time. There needs to be a balance, I think the yanks are close, I think we are close on the other side of the line. The socialist Europeans are way off though.

People go back and forth all the time. In a lot of fields the ability to get an EEC passport is not a bad thing to have if you want to expand your employment opportunities

[jbg]

Then why are people willing to lose their lives absconding in leaky boats from the Florida Keys bound for Cuba? Why are people shot by US troops trying to escape from South Korea to North Korea? Why was the Berlin Wall needed to keep people out of the Deutsche Democratic Republic a/k/a East Germany?

The number of people moving from those countries to North America is much higher than the number that were going there.

People come here for hope. Despite all the efforts of liberals to create a nanny state, the dream of splendor and making it on one's own ingenuity still lives on here.

I was being a bit facetious.

Or maybe the so-called nanny state has created the stability for prosperity to flourish. All emperical evidence would suggest that, given the economic dominance of North America since the New Deal.

Don't think so myself. People flee welfarist Europe for more opportunity in Canada/US all the time. There needs to be a balance, I think the yanks are close, I think we are close on the other side of the line. The socialist Europeans are way off though.

Most of the US's immigration was prior to the creation of any "nanny state". Even now, the US barely has a social safety net (not saying it should). Further, given the long waits for legal status, much less citizenship, most recent immigrants are not eligible for "nanny type" benefits for a long time after they arrive.

That explains why the immigrants that the US gets are generally of higher quality than the scum moving into Europe, and even many that Canada gets. Basically, it's "sink or swim" here.

People flee Canada and the U.S. for Europe too. Europe has one of the highest standards of living in the world, way better than ever. The countries that are doing terribly are the ones with no social safety nets.

Not many.