Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Chaos said:
Indeed!
Lest we forget the US intelligence that was gleefully provided to Iraq when they were busy killing our other enemy de` jour at the time, Iran.
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
Patrick said:
Actually terrorist is a good all encompassing word. Islamofacists leaves out the far-right wing militias, possibly PETA, the IRA, people who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors, and the violent folks from that infamous WTO meeting in Seattle.
It is not a war crime but I agree that it is without precedent in the USA.
Deliberately targeting and killing thousands of civilians isn't a war crime??! Then there's no such thing as a war crime.
What do you mean by "its" religion? The US isn't supposed to have any religion.
Excuuuuuuuuuse me for sloppy language. I should have said the predominant christian religion, or any of the religions espoused by what the IFs refer to as "infidels".
Few Europeans however, would understand your diatribe regarding the defence of the democratic ideals. They would have as little clue as to what you are talking about as I do.
Really? I said the defense with force when necessary. If there were a book entitled "Military Defense of Democratic Ideals by Europeans Since 1945", it would be a very thin book.
The point is that the only answer you have to attacks on US soil is to make attacks of your own.
What would work? Praying to Allah? The terms of the conflict have been set by the IFs themselves. They don't stop, they don't surrender, they are happy to commit suicide - they themselves have put in place the logic that requires their destruction.
Your inability to understand, or even begin to consider, the background of the terrorists is what makes you weak.
A completely baseless statement. With the murder of Russian schoolchildren, which the Russians have called their 9/11, I think the Russians now understand. Likewise the Saudi rulers now understand, after the bombings there. I guess your understanding awaits the murder of thousands in your own country.
Au contraire, the US needs to realize that no amount of bombing (short of genocide) will eradicate muslim radicalists.
I didn't give any particular emphasis to bombing, I in fact called for new military strategies - please read more carefully.
Deliberately targeting and killing thousands of civilians isn't a war crime??! Then there's no such thing as a war crime.
What do you mean by "its" religion? The US isn't supposed to have any religion.
Excuuuuuuuuuse me for sloppy language. I should have said the predominant christian religion, or any of the religions espoused by what the IFs refer to as "infidels".
Few Europeans however, would understand your diatribe regarding the defence of the democratic ideals. They would have as little clue as to what you are talking about as I do.
Really? I said the defense with force when necessary. If there were a book entitled "Military Defense of Democratic Ideals by Europeans Since 1945", it would be a very thin book.
The point is that the only answer you have to attacks on US soil is to make attacks of your own.
What would work? Praying to Allah? The terms of the conflict have been set by the IFs themselves. They don't stop, they don't surrender, they are happy to commit suicide - they themselves have put in place the logic that requires their destruction.
Your inability to understand, or even begin to consider, the background of the terrorists is what makes you weak.
A completely baseless statement. With the murder of Russian schoolchildren, which the Russians have called their 9/11, I think the Russians now understand. Likewise the Saudi rulers now understand, after the bombings there. I guess your understanding awaits the murder of thousands in your own country.
Au contraire, the US needs to realize that no amount of bombing (short of genocide) will eradicate muslim radicalists.
I didn't give any particular emphasis to bombing, I in fact called for new military strategies - please read more carefully.
However, ending terrorism is not as simple as finding "them" and destroying "them" since the "them" is in a nearly constant state of change; in other words there is no single threat to eliminate.
I am not unaware of the great difficulty of the task. The difficulty of the task doesn't reduce the necessity of the task. The problem of fighting them using new methods is a principle that has been around a long time: "When fighting a war, don't try to fight it as if it were the last war." As for many times in history, this is a new type of war and needs new thinking. To the degree that people (and there are such, e.g. liberal/left lawyers trying to spring captured IFs) insist on using, e.g., Clinton-think in fighting what is essentially WW4, they are engaging in "Maginot Line" approach.
I am not unaware of the great difficulty of the task. The difficulty of the task doesn't reduce the necessity of the task. The problem of fighting them using new methods is a principle that has been around a long time: "When fighting a war, don't try to fight it as if it were the last war." As for many times in history, this is a new type of war and needs new thinking. To the degree that people (and there are such, e.g. liberal/left lawyers trying to spring captured IFs) insist on using, e.g., Clinton-think in fighting what is essentially WW4, they are engaging in "Maginot Line" approach.
True, and the right wingers would claim that it is the de-factor 'official' religion of the United States, and that any argument about 'seperation of church and state' is 'unconstitutional' and never at all what the founding fathers intended. Some of these Christian supremacists at least grudgingly make some concessions for *maybe* Catholics and Jews having some rights, too.
Ah, shaddup!
Ah, shaddup!
As for the 'unprecedented' nature of 9/11, there was the Oklahoma bombing
What silliness. Yaaaa, Tim had a network of cells all over the world. He had access to zillions of dollars. He operated with impunity from a foreign country. He carried out bombings in several foreign countries. He swore to kill every american.
What silliness. Yaaaa, Tim had a network of cells all over the world. He had access to zillions of dollars. He operated with impunity from a foreign country. He carried out bombings in several foreign countries. He swore to kill every american.
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
Patrick said:
I don't think that anyone would suggest or believes that we should turn the other cheek in regard to terrorists who attack this country. It does not follow, however, that the US should strike out blindly or at targets that had nothing to do with the attack on the towers - Iraq, for example. Further, the war in Iraq is specifically a diversion both of resources and intelligence from "the war on terror", which, incidentally is really a war when it suits George Bushes purposes for it to be one and not a war when it does not. Furthermore, how do you go to war with a tactic or a strategy? Terrorism is not an entity it is a tactic.
I believe as does virtually every other American I am certain, that we should pull out the stops going after any person or groups of persons that attack the US. Pulling out all the stops when going after terrorists does not involve sending in tanks and artillery and fighter bombers into countries at random or leveling cities. It mean putting all your intelligence resources into determining who is responsible and into locating that and taking them out. I see that jackass Cheney specifically linking the war on terror with the US occupation of Iraq. At best, the war in Iraq has been a hugely expensive waste of resources and lives that has done nothing but distract us from finding and bringing the terrorists to justice. At worst, it has been a brutal, imperialistic and illegal attack on a country that was not threat to us.
Lest we forget the US intelligence that was gleefully provided to Iraq when they were busy killing our other enemy de` jour at the time, Iran.
You don't get that episode at all. Iran and Iraq were for a while in a stalemate. Then the U.S. provided help when the tide turned strongly against Iraq ONLY to prevent the emergence of an islamofascist superstate, with all that that would imply for the middle east, not because they loved/admired/wanted to protect per se Saddam.
You don't get that episode at all. Iran and Iraq were for a while in a stalemate. Then the U.S. provided help when the tide turned strongly against Iraq ONLY to prevent the emergence of an islamofascist superstate, with all that that would imply for the middle east, not because they loved/admired/wanted to protect per se Saddam.
I don't think that anyone would suggest or believes that we should turn the other cheek in regard to terrorists who attack this country. It does not follow, however, that the US should strike out blindly or at targets that had nothing to do with the attack on the towers - Iraq, for example.
It doesn't follow that the available choices are only "turn the other cheek" or "strike out blindly", and I haven't advocated either one.
"Further, the war in Iraq is specifically a diversion both of resources and intelligence from "the war on terror", which, incidentally is really a war when it suits George Bushes purposes for it to be one and not a war when it does not."
\Whether the Iraq war was a good idea or not doesn't obviate the need to fight the IFs, the subject of this thread.
Furthermore, how do you go to war with a tactic or a strategy? Terrorism is not an entity it is a tactic.
Another person who needs to read more carefully - I SAID new strategeies and methods etc have to be devised.
I believe as does virtually every other American I am certain, that we should pull out the stops going after any person or groups of persons that attack the US. Pulling out all the stops when going after terrorists does not involve sending in tanks and artillery and fighter bombers into countries at random or leveling cities.
(sigh) I didn't say "going after any person or groups of persons that attack the US. Pulling out all the stops when going after terrorists does not involve sending in tanks and artillery and fighter bombers into countries at random or leveling cities."
It doesn't follow that the available choices are only "turn the other cheek" or "strike out blindly", and I haven't advocated either one.
"Further, the war in Iraq is specifically a diversion both of resources and intelligence from "the war on terror", which, incidentally is really a war when it suits George Bushes purposes for it to be one and not a war when it does not."
\Whether the Iraq war was a good idea or not doesn't obviate the need to fight the IFs, the subject of this thread.
Furthermore, how do you go to war with a tactic or a strategy? Terrorism is not an entity it is a tactic.
Another person who needs to read more carefully - I SAID new strategeies and methods etc have to be devised.
I believe as does virtually every other American I am certain, that we should pull out the stops going after any person or groups of persons that attack the US. Pulling out all the stops when going after terrorists does not involve sending in tanks and artillery and fighter bombers into countries at random or leveling cities.
(sigh) I didn't say "going after any person or groups of persons that attack the US. Pulling out all the stops when going after terrorists does not involve sending in tanks and artillery and fighter bombers into countries at random or leveling cities."
evildave
Unregistered
E
Patrick said:
Don't forget that 'Timmy' destroyed a building full of people. Timmy didn't have a lot of money. He didn't need a lot of money to execute his horrible little plan.
Neither did the 9/11 hijackers. Credit cards were all they needed, and even after blowing themselves up, it's a sure bet that additional credit card offers arrived in their mailboxes. The ability to 'finance terrorism' was as far away and as complex as filling out an application form that showed up in their mailbox. After all, as a suicide killer, the interest rates probably don't matter. Mastercard, Visa and American Express financed this terrorist operation, not an 'international network'. Well, OK, Mastercard, Visa and American Express ARE technically an international network, but not the one targetted for 'financing terrorism'.
All they needed was for a few people to get some simulator time to get the feel of maneuvering the plane and read navigation instruments (stick it in GPS mode and figure out which way to the target). They could have had that training anywhere. They came to the U.S. and stuck it on the credit cards, or paid cash from cash advances. The fact that they didn't want to bother with the whole flight school curriculum indicates they didn't have a lot of cash to spend. They only needed four 'drivers', and enough muscle to back them up. Even the box cutters were cheap.
The previous WTC bombing was also done on a shoestring budget. They RENTED a van to do the bombing, and packed it full of explosive junk. They assembled it in a cheap apartment and at a personal storage shed place, drove it in, and lit the fuse.
To imagine it took the concerted efforts of a whole 'international terrorist network' working full time for someone to do this sort of damage is the silly notion.
The government warns us about 'explosive beer coolers', yet any idiot with a rental car and a book of matches could do incalculable damage in the Western United States. They could probably fly in and set fire to whole states every late summer for the rest of their lives, and never be caught at it.
The lesson taught by 9/11, is that vast destruction does not require high-tech systems, vast organizations, vast financing, etc. It only requires exploitation of systems already in place, by people who don't care about human lives.
Don't forget that 'Timmy' destroyed a building full of people. Timmy didn't have a lot of money. He didn't need a lot of money to execute his horrible little plan.
Tim had his one shot, and now he's dead. Al qaeda continues to operate, challenging governments all over the world, including within just the last several days the indonesia bombing and probably the Russia school assault and aircraft bombings. They changed the policies of several governments, brought down the spanish government, and have hit the american economy with what is probably tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of direct and indirect economic impact if you add everything up, not even including the iraq war. The simplicity of tools of implementation doesn't imply simplicity in the thinking or lack of resources of the enemy, on the contrary it confirms their genius and formidable nature. They are WAY above Tim's league, and the comparison remains ridiculous.
Tim had his one shot, and now he's dead. Al qaeda continues to operate, challenging governments all over the world, including within just the last several days the indonesia bombing and probably the Russia school assault and aircraft bombings. They changed the policies of several governments, brought down the spanish government, and have hit the american economy with what is probably tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of direct and indirect economic impact if you add everything up, not even including the iraq war. The simplicity of tools of implementation doesn't imply simplicity in the thinking or lack of resources of the enemy, on the contrary it confirms their genius and formidable nature. They are WAY above Tim's league, and the comparison remains ridiculous.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
evildave said:
Paraquat? Yeah, and how much effect has that had?
Fantasy worlds are nice. You can always imagine how the US could just wipe out the Evil Opium with Magic Dust. And ignore how many people will inhale the Magic Dust. Because that's Not Your Problem™. Just like all the leftists imagined that the Magic Sanctions would solve all problems, and nobody would die. Except then it became politically expedient to say that it made children die. And that's Not Your Problem™ either. And You Didn't Say It, It Must Have Been Somebody Else. All sorts of fun things can happen when there is no accountability. Let's Just Find a Way to Split the Water Molecule Without Energy. What, you can't? You Pawn of the Scientific Establishment.
evildave
Unregistered
E
The comparison is that they both killed a lot of people. The Oklahoma city victims are just as dead, and their families just as aggrieved. Who cares whether it was one guy or a thousand?
And the credit card companies are still alive and untouched by the tragedies, BTW. Good political supporters of both parties.
It is in exactly the same league, when viewed from the perspective of *killing lots of people* or *doing lots of damage*. Al Qaeda just had more people to work with than Timmy and his friend (though it's still up in the air whether they had additional help), and a bigger plan. The international terrorists still use truck bombs. Just like the one that blew up the UN in Iraq.
Anybody with a few credit cards can finance something every bit as horrible as all of al Qaeda did. It took just a little more teamwork was all.
The lesson taught is that a terrorist has all he needs within the U.S. to do murder and mayhem without taking the risk of importing things besides bodies. Heck, they could probably find some religious/racial supremacists and other extremists right here in this country who would kill to 'harm Israel' if it came down to it.
One idiot in a car with his kid sniped people at random for weeks, and terrorised several states with a deer rifle. They had the news telling people to zig-zag walking out of stores to make themselves more difficult targets, and they were doing it. Firing from the trunk.
One idiot with some anthrax and god-only-knows how many copycat idiots with anonymous white powders and some stamps and envelopes. Had the whole nation jumping every time dust stirred.
One idiot living in a shack with a junk yard nearby. Sent out bombs made of trash in packages. Blew people up for years and probably never would have been caught without his 'manifesto' and his brother.
Every successful terrorist so far has used SIMPLE techniques, and SIMPLE equipment. They financed inexpensive operations with through CONVENTIONAL means. A day job. Credit cards. A plan.
The pattern is repetitious, and it's quite wondrous that people buy into this 'international network' B.S. as a requirement for terrorism.
This is a long-term threat that no war will ever make go away. Disgruntled people still go 'postal' in the U.S. without any apparent 'organisation' assisting them at all, and can potentially cause extreme damage on the same scale as any 'international' terrorists.
'Fight Back'? Against whom? Where? How? Any two bit moron who has re-enacted a Jack@$$ episode or two can make a pipe bomb and be a terrorist if he gets it in his head to be.
This is the REAL threat. What the government would like is for you to do is focus on scary things that are far away. The up-close and simple things that made the 9/11 attack and OKC attack and other attacks possible are just too available, simple and relatively unpreventable.
And the credit card companies are still alive and untouched by the tragedies, BTW. Good political supporters of both parties.
It is in exactly the same league, when viewed from the perspective of *killing lots of people* or *doing lots of damage*. Al Qaeda just had more people to work with than Timmy and his friend (though it's still up in the air whether they had additional help), and a bigger plan. The international terrorists still use truck bombs. Just like the one that blew up the UN in Iraq.
Anybody with a few credit cards can finance something every bit as horrible as all of al Qaeda did. It took just a little more teamwork was all.
The lesson taught is that a terrorist has all he needs within the U.S. to do murder and mayhem without taking the risk of importing things besides bodies. Heck, they could probably find some religious/racial supremacists and other extremists right here in this country who would kill to 'harm Israel' if it came down to it.
One idiot in a car with his kid sniped people at random for weeks, and terrorised several states with a deer rifle. They had the news telling people to zig-zag walking out of stores to make themselves more difficult targets, and they were doing it. Firing from the trunk.
One idiot with some anthrax and god-only-knows how many copycat idiots with anonymous white powders and some stamps and envelopes. Had the whole nation jumping every time dust stirred.
One idiot living in a shack with a junk yard nearby. Sent out bombs made of trash in packages. Blew people up for years and probably never would have been caught without his 'manifesto' and his brother.
Every successful terrorist so far has used SIMPLE techniques, and SIMPLE equipment. They financed inexpensive operations with through CONVENTIONAL means. A day job. Credit cards. A plan.
The pattern is repetitious, and it's quite wondrous that people buy into this 'international network' B.S. as a requirement for terrorism.
This is a long-term threat that no war will ever make go away. Disgruntled people still go 'postal' in the U.S. without any apparent 'organisation' assisting them at all, and can potentially cause extreme damage on the same scale as any 'international' terrorists.
'Fight Back'? Against whom? Where? How? Any two bit moron who has re-enacted a Jack@$$ episode or two can make a pipe bomb and be a terrorist if he gets it in his head to be.
This is the REAL threat. What the government would like is for you to do is focus on scary things that are far away. The up-close and simple things that made the 9/11 attack and OKC attack and other attacks possible are just too available, simple and relatively unpreventable.
This is a long-term threat that no war will ever make go away. Disgruntled people still go 'postal' in the U.S. without any apparent 'organisation' assisting them at all, and can potentially cause extreme damage on the same scale as any 'international' terrorists.
You give no reasons why it won't ever go away. I don't accept your mysterious ability to tell the future. And even if it doesn't "go away", so what? Many things in life require endless repetitive effort. Disease, taxes, crime, and liberals never go away - still they have to be fought.
'Fight Back'?
Against whom?
Al Qaeda.
Where?
Wherever they are.
How?
With innovative tactics, weapons and intelligence. Not being an expert in those areas, I don't know what they are, but a simple look at history will show you that is how wars are won - e.g. the British radar development in WWII. As I said, this should be the focus of our efforts now, not frisking old ladies in airports.
You give no reasons why it won't ever go away. I don't accept your mysterious ability to tell the future. And even if it doesn't "go away", so what? Many things in life require endless repetitive effort. Disease, taxes, crime, and liberals never go away - still they have to be fought.
'Fight Back'?
Against whom?
Al Qaeda.
Where?
Wherever they are.
How?
With innovative tactics, weapons and intelligence. Not being an expert in those areas, I don't know what they are, but a simple look at history will show you that is how wars are won - e.g. the British radar development in WWII. As I said, this should be the focus of our efforts now, not frisking old ladies in airports.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,529
Not a good enough plan Patrick. My (much better) plan is to use "brilliant" tactics, weapons and intelligence. Unfortunately, just like you, I Have no Idea what tactics, weapons and intelligence is required but I've done all the hard word deciding they need to be "brilliant"...I'll let the underlings figure out the details.... Maybe an orbiting death ray or something....Patrick said:
evildave
Unregistered
E
You naively think that getting rid of 'Al Qaeda' would make people stop engaging in senseless acts of violence and destruction?
What a dream world you must live in.
It is INSANE to believe that nobody will behave like terrorists ever again if we magically stamp out 'al Qaeda'.
It is INSANE to believe that nobody will devise a new form of attack.
It is INSANE to believe that terrorists will be more than inconvenienced by measures that attack their 'funding' or their 'networks'. IT HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARY for successful terrorist attacks. Our OWN banking networks are what they used. Credit cards.
It is INSANE to believe that terrorists HAVE to import anything through 'secret' means to do vast damage. IT HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARY for successful terrorist attacks. If they can get the bodies in, or the message in to willing bodies, the attack can happen.
It is INSANE to believe that foreign terrorists are required for extremely damaging terrorist acts in America. We have plenty of home grown nut-jobs who have done or attempted massive damage in the past, and will have nut-jobs capable of it for any foreseeable future where human beings populate the Earth.
What a dream world you must live in.
It is INSANE to believe that nobody will behave like terrorists ever again if we magically stamp out 'al Qaeda'.
It is INSANE to believe that nobody will devise a new form of attack.
It is INSANE to believe that terrorists will be more than inconvenienced by measures that attack their 'funding' or their 'networks'. IT HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARY for successful terrorist attacks. Our OWN banking networks are what they used. Credit cards.
It is INSANE to believe that terrorists HAVE to import anything through 'secret' means to do vast damage. IT HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARY for successful terrorist attacks. If they can get the bodies in, or the message in to willing bodies, the attack can happen.
It is INSANE to believe that foreign terrorists are required for extremely damaging terrorist acts in America. We have plenty of home grown nut-jobs who have done or attempted massive damage in the past, and will have nut-jobs capable of it for any foreseeable future where human beings populate the Earth.
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,092
Patrick said:
I use the words I choose to accurately convey my meaning. I don't have any specific problem with "islamofascists"; my beef is with those who use terrorism as a tactic.
Indeed, the terrorists who have had the most direct impact on my life have nothing to do with Islam, they were Christians.
Somewhat agree on this. Talk of making bomb proof aircraft or missile proof aircraft, or fool proof airport security, is fairly futile. Yes it's a good idea to have security at airports, but it is not and never will be fool proof.
I don't know about you, but the current US president seems to feel it's a good idea.
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
Patrick said:
He became a trusted ally as soon as he declared war on Iran, and stayed your trusted ally right until his troops entered Kuwait.
There are lots of Timmies like him out there. Good, honorable, American "patriots" - like you, I guess, except that they direct their paranoia against your government instead of muslims. The willingness for indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is the same.
And besides, McVeigh killed 168 IIRC, the 9/11 terrorists killed about 150-160 each, so I guess you should be as paranoid about "patriotic" Americans like yourself as about muslims.