Huh? Terrorists???

[Undesired Walrus]

double post.

 

[Quad4_72]

Surely you can see that this is purely an emotional argument, and not a rational one. How I might feel in a hypothetical situation is neither here nor there. Only facts matter, and the fact is that most people in the USA are far, far more likely to be hurt by lightning or drunk drivers than they are to be hurt by Al-Qaeda operations.

Why do you think it's essential that you band together with others to "eliminate terrorism", as opposed to banding together in an attempt to "eliminate" lightning, domestic violence, alcohol abuse, tobacco use and what-have-you?

Personally I think it's simply that people like forming herds to trample external enemies, and that this is far more fun for them than tackling more serious local problems.

It seems that I am the only one here concerned with external threats. Whether you guys like it or not, terrorism IS a threat. 9/11 is proof of that. If they can pull off such an intricate attack as that, what might happen if they got their hands on a nuclear device? The devastation would be unimaginable. To let them do as they please is unacceptable. 9/11 was an attack against our country. Do you guys really feel no anger from 9/11? Do you not feel for your fellow Americans who lost their lives on 9/11? the way I see it, an attack against ANY of my fellow Americans is an attack against me, and I won't stand for it.

 

[MIKILLINI]

In who's best interests is our policy serving? Empire? Corporate? Financial? All the above? Is this in the best interests of it's citizens? Do they care? Are we really spreading democracy? or right wing ideology in the form of control for the empire's best interest instead of democracy for the other country's best interest?

 

[mr rosewater]

Kevin could care less, I don't think he's from the U.S..

 

[Pardalis]

"Threat" implies some danger, so there is some fear involved. But it's true that we shouldn't let it control us. It's a balance between being aware of the threat, and business as usual. Denying the threat altogether is as senseless as letting fear guide political decisions.

 

[Quad4_72]

Kevin could care less, I don't think he's from the U.S..

Ah. I see. Well that makes much more sense to me now. Ok Kevin nevermind then.

 

[Quad4_72]

"Threat" implies some danger, so there is some fear involved. But it's true that we shouldn't let it control us. It's a balance between being aware of the threat, and business as usual. Denying the threat altogether is as senseless as letting fear guide political decisions.

Well said.

 

[g4macdad]

It seems that I am the only one here concerned with external threats. Whether you guys like it or not, terrorism IS a threat. 9/11 is proof of that. If they can pull off such an intricate attack as that, what might happen if they got their hands on a nuclear device? The devastation would be unimaginable. To let them do as they please is unacceptable. 9/11 was an attack against our country. Do you guys really feel no anger from 9/11? Do you not feel for your fellow Americans who lost their lives on 9/11? the way I see it, an attack against ANY of my fellow Americans is an attack against me, and I won't stand for it.

Why are you alone then? You sit content as our leader attacks an innocent country. Why don't you demand more action where Al Qaeda operates? You are impotent and weak with fear.

 

[Pardalis]

Obviously, this is a horrible national tragedy!
We must band together to eliminate all alcohol; and cars, too, just to be sure.

Let the War begin!

I somewhat disagree with your colorful characterization.

Terrorism is not just a personal security issue. Of course statistically speaking the chances of one being killed in a terrorist attack are slim (even though it could be argued that it depends on the scale and technique of the attack) but terrorism is also about ideology, and it has alot more world wide political implications than drunk driving.

There is a current of dangerous Islamic fundamentalism that is sweeping the Middle East, an ideology that is clearly stating its intentions. If we let it unchallenged, the balance of power in the world could very well turn in their favor, and terrorism could rapidly become a much more significant and imminent problem.

 

[Quad4_72]

Why are you alone then? You sit content as our leader attacks an innocent country. Why don't you demand more action where Al Qaeda operates? You are impotent and weak with fear.

I am weak with fear? Lol. You don't know me pal. If I am weak with fear then why do I keep begging to get deployed to ANYWHERE in the middle east? And I took a look at the pole. It says that you think Al Qaeda is a CIA invention. Where is your proof of this?

 

[Quad4_72]

I somewhat disagree with your colorful characterization.

Terrorism is not just a personal security issue. Of course statistically speaking the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are slim (even though it could be argued that it depends on the scale and technique of the attack) but terrorism is also about ideology, and it has alot more world wide political implications than drunk driving.

There is a current of dangerous Islamic fundamentalism that is sweeping in the Middle East, an ideology that is clearly stating its intentions. If we let it unchallenged, the balance of power in the world could very well turn in their favor, and terrorism could rapidly become a much more significant and imminent problem.

Once again you take the words right out of my mouth. I am having trouble relaying my points in writing right now, but your stance seems to coincide with mine. (I may be a BIT more drastic though )

 

[WildCat]

Terrorism is not just a personal security issue. Of course statistically speaking the chances of one being killed in a terrorist attack are slim (even though it could be argued that it depends on the scale and technique of the attack) but terrorism is also about ideology, and it has alot more world wide political implications than drunk driving.

A drunk driver, or thousands of them, does not cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to the economy of the country, as 9/11 did. 3,000 lost their lives, many times that amount lost their jobs.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Funny. That's how I KNOW they aren't much of a threat. If the worst the can do is hijack some planes and crash them into buildings, then we're in the clear. 9/11 was a display of their tenacity, but it was always a display of their sheer weakness.

Tony, can you walk me through that bit of logic please?

It struck me as a display of tenacity, patience, and creativity. How so "weakness?"

Confused.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

My point was that no matter what they can do. The West can visit it back upon them 1000 fold.

On whom? These guys have shown that they go to ground fairly competently. Who is there to hit if they are in their holes?

They are fighting a losing battle.

Yes, opening a new franchise in Iraq is a sign of their failure. How are they losing? What are they losing?

I'm just trying to put things into perspective and cut through the right-wing pro-war hysteria.

You picked an odd way to do that, one which makes little sense relative to what the AQ operatives have been up to since 2003.

Tony, I am going to toss an idea at you, from Bonaparte.

"The moral is to the physical as three is to one." OK, it's a bon mot, but let's toss in 'symbolic' for "moral" and consider the non linear, non proportional effects some symbols have.

Abu Ghraib: the guy with the hood, and gal pointing at some guy's dick, the dog pictures. Minor events with immense symbolic impact, over time.

Your own remark on the two towers up a few, about how the physical destruction wasn't a show stopper, but the disproportional damage (see Zig's comment a few below yours) was to

the economy
confidence
the airline industry

over the short term.

AQ is fighting the battle of symbols, perceptions, and fear. They physical is only now and again necessary to continue the momentum of their effort.

I wonder sometimes whether or not the Bush team has a grip on what the nature of the war AQ is fighting is. I often think the Bush gang lose sight of it. I saw some hints of that "over there" but as I was rather busy, didn't have a lot of time to reflect.

DR

 

[Tony]

How so "weakness?"

Because they had to steal planes to carry out their attack against an undefended civilian target, and attack which, in the end, caused relatively little damage and hardly any (except for the lives lost) lasting damage. If they weren't weak, why would they resort to such ineffective tactics? If they were strong, we would have suffered a much more debilitating attack and it would have been carried out by either bombers, cruise missiles and/or a real military.

 

[Tony]

On whom?

Mecca, Medina.

Yes, opening a new franchise in Iraq is a sign of their failure.

Boggled is right. What are you talking about? You're pulling an Oliver. The Iraq conflict is largely irrelevant to the long term struggle of Islam against the West.

How are they losing? What are they losing?

How are they winning? What are they winning? You clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Back-up a few paces, stop trying to show you have a point to make, and read what I'm actually saying.

You picked an odd way to do that, one which makes little sense relative to what the AQ operatives have been up to since 2003.

Unless AQ and the wider Islamo-fascist movement have developed some advanced war making technology sine '03 that would rival and have supremacy for the next few decades over the the modern American military as we know it, it's irrelevant.

Tony, I am going to toss an idea at you, from Bonaparte.

"The moral is to the physical as three is to one." OK, it's a bon mot, but let's toss in 'symbolic' for "moral" and consider the non linear, non proportional effects some symbols have.

Abu Ghraib: the guy with the hood, and gal pointing at some guy's dick, the dog pictures. Minor events with immense symbolic impact, over time.

Your own remark on the two towers up a few, about how the physical destruction wasn't a show stopper, but the disproportional damage (see Zig's comment a few below yours) was to

the economy
confidence
the airline industry

over the short term.

AQ is fighting the battle of symbols, perceptions, and fear. They physical is only now and again necessary to continue the momentum of their effort.

I wonder sometimes whether or not the Bush team has a grip on what the nature of the war AQ is fighting is. I often think the Bush gang lose sight of it. I saw some hints of that "over there" but as I was rather busy, didn't have a lot of time to reflect.

DR

???

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because they had to steal planes to carry out their attack against an undefended civilian target, and attack which, in the end, caused relatively little damage and hardly any (except for the lives lost) lasting damage. If they weren't weak, why would they resort to such ineffective tactics? If they were strong, we would have suffered a much more debilitating attack and it would have been carried out by either bombers, cruise missiles and/or a real military.

I may respond to this tomorrow, it is a bit late. Short point: the "weak" canard seems based on the narrow view of what relative "strength" is between two parties. They need not, like any terrorist, overthrow us, or have the capability to launch sustained campaigns to do us harm, or damage. The rest we tend to do to ourselves, since they use the moral/symbolic far more than the physical/kinetic effects against us.

More later, perhaps. Tired. Long day.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Mecca, Medina.

That isn't Al Q territory. That is Saudi Territory, and holy land to a lot of Muslims. [/quote]

Boggled is right. What are you talking about? You're pulling an Oliver. The Iraq conflict is largely irrelevant to the long term struggle of Islam against the West.

No, the Iraq conflict has allowed Al Q to expand into Iraq, and to do so very publicly, which had not previously been the case. The successful opening of the new franchise was after the US invaded, and the first manager was Zarqawi, his first meal served the heads of four "contractors" in Fallujah. AQ in Iraq is a growth industry for Al Q.

How are they winning? What are they winning? You clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Back-up a few paces, stop trying to show you have a point to make, and read what I'm actually saying.

I read it, and it made no sense. What do you assess Al Q's aims to be?

Unless AQ and the wider Islamo-fascist movement have developed some advanced war making technology sine '03 that would rival and have supremacy for the next few decades over the the modern American military as we know it, it's irrelevant.

The term we will discuss tomorrow is assymetrical warfare.

???

Yes, I see, you also don't seem to understand the level Al Q is operating on. No matter, we can chat tomorrow.

DR

 

[Tony]

I may respond to this tomorrow, it is a bit late. Short point: the "weak" canard seems based on the narrow view of what relative "strength" is between two parties. They need not, like any terrorist, overthrow us, or have the capability to launch sustained campaigns to do us harm, or damage. The rest we tend to do to ourselves, since they use the moral/symbolic far more than the physical/kinetic effects against us.

This is tautological. It's only "moral/symbolic" because we make it so. If we kept things in perspective, as I'm trying to do, and you seem to be against, we strip them of that power to inflict that kind of damage. And I disagree, for them to win, that is to say, for them to achieve their goal of a global Islamic state, they do need to overthrow us and have the capability to launch sustained attacks.

 

[Tony]

That isn't Al Q territory.

I wasn't talking about Al Qaida.

and holy land to a lot of Muslims.

Umm, that's the point. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. Seriously, you need to understand what's being discussed before you butt in.

No, the Iraq conflict has allowed Al Q to expand into Iraq, and to do so very publicly, which had not previously been the case. The successful opening of the new franchise was after the US invaded, and the first manager was Zarqawi, his first meal served the heads of four "contractors" in Fallujah. AQ in Iraq is a growth industry for Al Q.

This doesn't explain how Iraq is relevant.

I read it, and it made no sense. What do you assess Al Q's aims to be?

You obviously didn't read it or understand it. If you did, you would have realized that I haven't mentioned al-quaida or Iraq. I'm not talking about Al Qaida. I'm looking at the larger picture. I'm talking about Islamic fanaticism and terrorism and their longterm goals of an Islamic state and the threat they pose to America, the West and the free world in general..

The term we will discuss tomorrow is assymetrical warfare.

Don't waste your time. I'm well aware of the term.

Yes, I see, you also don't seem to understand the level Al Q is operating on. No matter, we can chat tomorrow.

And I see you haven't got a clue about what I'm talking. Unless you can demonstrate an understanding of what I'm saying, you'll be talking to yourself tomorrow.