Full Version: How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida?
Brilliant! A classic collection of numbers without context!
For those numbers to have any sort of significance you need to demonstrate the link between the growth of these populations and the growth of Al-Queda... I must have missed that part of your post. Yes, the population in the Middle East is young (and actually getting younger), but one of the key factors driving the population growth in countries like Saudi Arabia (for example) is in fact the increasing wealth of the population. Parents there receive large cash rewards for having children... Whereas in places like Afghanistan (not in the Middle East I know...) the birth-rate can be attributed towards internal strife and conflict.
This sort of "they're making MORE of them every day!" fearmongering is the worst kind of hyperbole. Nuances and root causes be damned; those Arabs are breeding and we're not safe until they stop, right?
The fact remains that the causes of extremism are diverse and context-specific; and while a high-birth rate may provide more cannon-fodder in fifteen or twenty years, the immediate causes and problems are what drives terrorism and extremism, and it is those causes which sustain it. Not the nursery full of impoverished-Arabs that you're describing.
For those numbers to have any sort of significance you need to demonstrate the link between the growth of these populations and the growth of Al-Queda... I must have missed that part of your post. Yes, the population in the Middle East is young (and actually getting younger), but one of the key factors driving the population growth in countries like Saudi Arabia (for example) is in fact the increasing wealth of the population. Parents there receive large cash rewards for having children... Whereas in places like Afghanistan (not in the Middle East I know...) the birth-rate can be attributed towards internal strife and conflict.
This sort of "they're making MORE of them every day!" fearmongering is the worst kind of hyperbole. Nuances and root causes be damned; those Arabs are breeding and we're not safe until they stop, right?
The fact remains that the causes of extremism are diverse and context-specific; and while a high-birth rate may provide more cannon-fodder in fifteen or twenty years, the immediate causes and problems are what drives terrorism and extremism, and it is those causes which sustain it. Not the nursery full of impoverished-Arabs that you're describing.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Dec 27 2007, 07:49 AM) 
Brilliant! A classic collection of numbers without context!
For those numbers to have any sort of significance you need to demonstrate the link between the growth of these populations and the growth of Al-Queda... I must have missed that part of your post. Yes, the population in the Middle East is young (and actually getting younger), but one of the key factors driving the population growth in countries like Saudi Arabia (for example) is in fact the increasing wealth of the population. Parents there receive large cash rewards for having children... Whereas in places like Afghanistan (not in the Middle East I know...) the birth-rate can be attributed towards internal strife and conflict.
This sort of "they're making MORE of them every day!" fearmongering is the worst kind of hyperbole. Nuances and root causes be damned; those Arabs are breeding and we're not safe until they stop, right?
The fact remains that the causes of extremism are diverse and context-specific; and while a high-birth rate may provide more cannon-fodder in fifteen or twenty years, the immediate causes and problems are what drives terrorism and extremism, and it is those causes which sustain it. Not the nursery full of impoverished-Arabs that you're describing.
For those numbers to have any sort of significance you need to demonstrate the link between the growth of these populations and the growth of Al-Queda... I must have missed that part of your post. Yes, the population in the Middle East is young (and actually getting younger), but one of the key factors driving the population growth in countries like Saudi Arabia (for example) is in fact the increasing wealth of the population. Parents there receive large cash rewards for having children... Whereas in places like Afghanistan (not in the Middle East I know...) the birth-rate can be attributed towards internal strife and conflict.
This sort of "they're making MORE of them every day!" fearmongering is the worst kind of hyperbole. Nuances and root causes be damned; those Arabs are breeding and we're not safe until they stop, right?
The fact remains that the causes of extremism are diverse and context-specific; and while a high-birth rate may provide more cannon-fodder in fifteen or twenty years, the immediate causes and problems are what drives terrorism and extremism, and it is those causes which sustain it. Not the nursery full of impoverished-Arabs that you're describing.
I don't disagree with your post, however, I was just pointing out that we will not be running out of a base of muslim extremists, not with the birthrate as it is headed now. No more needs to be read into those numbers than just that observation.
The growth of Al-Quaeda in areas they didn't exist before (like Iraq) have much to do with the negative impact of our invasion- we are creating the Al-Quaeda recruits, rather than preventing the growth of Al-Queada.
Here's the elephant in the room from the article that the author does not follow up on:
Thousands overseas and yet none, zero, nada in the United States. Does this seem possible or even probable? The article claims that there are no sleeper cells in the US (or at least that the FBI has detected none). Fine enough, but the article also points out that it only takes a few people with the most limited of resources to pull off a spectacular attack (see the Madrid bombings).
I'm not sure who is running around scared for their lives or buying duct tape or any of the crazy things that have been suggested here, but Islamicists remain a serious threat to this country. All it takes is one guy with a gun and no fear of death to drastically affect this country's (or any country's) future. Just ask Benazir Bhutto or anybody in Pakistan.
QUOTE
The FBI may not have uncovered much of anything within the United States since 9/11, but thousands of apparent terrorists have been rounded, or rolled, up overseas with U.S. aid and encouragement.
Thousands overseas and yet none, zero, nada in the United States. Does this seem possible or even probable? The article claims that there are no sleeper cells in the US (or at least that the FBI has detected none). Fine enough, but the article also points out that it only takes a few people with the most limited of resources to pull off a spectacular attack (see the Madrid bombings).
I'm not sure who is running around scared for their lives or buying duct tape or any of the crazy things that have been suggested here, but Islamicists remain a serious threat to this country. All it takes is one guy with a gun and no fear of death to drastically affect this country's (or any country's) future. Just ask Benazir Bhutto or anybody in Pakistan.
QUOTE
All it takes is one guy with a gun and no fear of death to drastically affect this country's (or any country's) future. Just ask Benazir Bhutto or anybody in Pakistan.
If that's all it takes, then Montana Militias, men suffering from depression and Ted Nugent are all serious threats to the future of the United States as well.
The fact remains that nobody has actually been convicted of participating in a credible U.S. terrorist attack since the 9/11 crackdown. Not a single person. Al Queda is a threat; but the threat remains an external one that is exaggerated at every turn.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Dec 27 2007, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE
All it takes is one guy with a gun and no fear of death to drastically affect this country's (or any country's) future. Just ask Benazir Bhutto or anybody in Pakistan.
If that's all it takes, then Montana Militias, men suffering from depression and Ted Nugent are all serious threats to the future of the United States as well.
The fact remains that nobody has actually been convicted of participating in a credible U.S. terrorist attack since the 9/11 crackdown. Not a single person. Al Queda is a threat; but the threat remains an external one that is exaggerated at every turn.
Yes it is an external threat, but is it exaggerated at every turn? This is a Presidential election cycle, is Al Qaida even a campaign issue for anyone?
Yes, steps have been taken, externally, to combat the external threat of the external Al Qaida. Nothing inside the United States (not much, at least) has changed except some annoying airport security measures.
The difference between Montana Militias and the threat posed by Islamicists is the scope. Some followers of Islam demand Sharia law and feel it is their duty to bring such to the heathens. Some followers are fanatical enough to blow themselves up to advance their views (or the views of Allah).
I am not saying that anyone in the US is in danger of an imminent attack. However, there is a real threat that should be dealt with and it has largely been swept under the rug under the moniker of "Iraq".
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 27 2007, 01:18 PM)
The fact remains that nobody has actually been convicted of participating in a credible U.S. terrorist attack since the 9/11 crackdown. Not a single person. Al Queda is a threat; but the threat remains an external one that is exaggerated at every turn.
I think just about anyone could agree with that last sentence Amlord. We have not really gone after Al-Quaeda to date- we have gone after some imagined threat in Iraq, while ignoring OBL in Afghanistan. But it hasn't stopped GW from using the "Al-Queada" card all along.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 27 2007, 02:33 PM)
Thousands overseas and yet none, zero, nada in the United States. Does this seem possible or even probable? The article claims that there are no sleeper cells in the US (or at least that the FBI has detected none). Fine enough, but the article also points out that it only takes a few people with the most limited of resources to pull off a spectacular attack (see the Madrid bombings).
The usual disconnect AM: you continue to believe people who continue to lie, obfuscate, and burn tapes while many of us don't believe a word they say. Just because they think someone is a terrorist does not make them a terrorist. You still believe what they say in the face of no facts or evidence.
But let's take your point a step further - let's pretend they have captured terrorists (Al Qaida or not) with overwhelming evidence people would have died. Why would an administration with popularity in the crapper keep a lid on this? Why wouldn't they advertise - without being overly specific - that the methods behind their madness is working? If all it takes is for one terrorist to get lucky, what is to be gained by not letting the American people know what to look for to help in this effort? What gain is there in hiding evidence of success?
Your view makes no plausible sense. First, the people perpetually lying would have to be truthful this time. Secondly, the public would be better served knowing what the risks are and where they might be found. If the government is arresting real terrorists under the assumption they can prevent it all without the nation's help, that is criminal negligence. As a supporter of the 2nd amendment from a collective standpoint, we have a right to know who our enemies are and afforded the opportunity to defend ourselves.
Finally, your point of view concedes some measure of competence. No matter what party is in power or who is in charge, that is an absurd premise. Our government sucks at everything they do and should be shrinking instead of bloating.
How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida and/or other Islamic terrorist groups to our own national security?
I think it is unfair to view the threat of Islamists and/or terrorist groups as only how it relates to our own security or our own nation.
It is a global threat, one we have been made to realize that does personally include us, but it is not only focused on us or our nation. Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Europe, Turkey, KSA. All of us face this threat to some degree because peace and stability rely on our equal and shared prosperity. Of course it is debatable if the threat is personal or more abstract but the concepts of peace, democracy, freedom and a world without totalitarian threat is a concept based on principled ideals. Some feel these ideals are a worthy enough cause even when they effect people on the other side of the world. I suppose if I read that the women in my own town were being punished for being raped or stoned to death, or if I read that people in my town would not allow non-muslims to even enter parts of the city I would feel the threat more personally or more closely but these things bother me no matter the origin of their occurrence. These are all threats to our future, what our world will become.
I think it is unfair to view the threat of Islamists and/or terrorist groups as only how it relates to our own security or our own nation.
It is a global threat, one we have been made to realize that does personally include us, but it is not only focused on us or our nation. Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Europe, Turkey, KSA. All of us face this threat to some degree because peace and stability rely on our equal and shared prosperity. Of course it is debatable if the threat is personal or more abstract but the concepts of peace, democracy, freedom and a world without totalitarian threat is a concept based on principled ideals. Some feel these ideals are a worthy enough cause even when they effect people on the other side of the world. I suppose if I read that the women in my own town were being punished for being raped or stoned to death, or if I read that people in my town would not allow non-muslims to even enter parts of the city I would feel the threat more personally or more closely but these things bother me no matter the origin of their occurrence. These are all threats to our future, what our world will become.
Bucket- I would agree with you too- I believe the entire muslim world is a threat to the status quo- and I would not want to live under middle eastern law, heck, I don't like living under quite a few western society laws 
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 27 2007, 10:02 PM)
Bucket- I would agree with you too- I believe the entire muslim world is a threat to the status quo...
Wouldn't this indicate then that the threat is indeed serious, and that serious responses are in order?
I Love it CR Iraq and Al-Q Had NO connection prior to 2003 ?
ok
I'll bite...
you might say "But, But, Iraq was a secular government that Al-q Hated they would NEVER take anything from Iraq"
so i guess the US was a muslim caliphite when we were helping them against the soviets in the 80's right?
ok
I'll bite...
QUOTE("random places around the net.")
99. Between April 25 and May 1, 1998, two of Bin Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim visited Baghdad for discussions with Saddam Hussein’s son – Qasay Hussein – the “czar” of Iraqi Intelligence.
100. The late Qusay Hussein’s participation in those meetings highlights the importance of the talks in both symbolic and practical terms. Upon information and belief, as a direct result of those meetings, Iraq again made commitments to provide training, intelligence, clandestine Saudi border crossings, financial support and weapons and explosives to Al Qaeda.
101. Iraqi Intelligence officials met with Bin Laden in Afghanistan several more times. A second group of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia were then trained by Iraqi Intelligence in Iraq to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia and other countries, which they later accomplished in an effort to carry out future terrorist acts of violence. A third group of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives received a month of sophisticated guerilla operations training from Iraqi Intelligence officials later in the Summer of 1998.
102. Despite philosophical and religious differences with Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden continually sought to strengthen and reinforce the support he and Al Qaeda received from Iraq.
103. Upon information and belief, documents recently found in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s intelligence service, reveal that an Al Qaeda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents reveal that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and Al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it ended with arrangements being discussed for Bin Laden to visit Baghdad.
104. In March 1998, Bin Laden had reportedly visited Baghdad for consultations. According to Giovanni DeStafant, an international lawyer visiting Baghdad on business, he encountered Bin Laden in the lobby of the five-star Al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad. They engaged in light conversation.
105. In mid-July, 1998, Bin Laden sent Dr. Ayaman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian co-founder of Al Qaeda, to Iraq to meet with senior Iraqi officials, including the Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this meeting was to discuss and plan a joint strategy for a terrorist campaign in the United States. Five months later, the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
106. Upon information and belief, Iraqi Intelligence officials pledged Iraq’s full support and cooperation in exchange for a promise that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda not to incite the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood inside Iraq to oppose, undermine or attack the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
107. During the July 1998 visit, Zawahiri toured a potential site for a new headquarters for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and went to an Iraqi military base and nuclear and chemical weapons facility near al-Fallujah in Iraq. Upon information and belief, Dr. Zawahiri observed training by Iraqi Intelligence officials of Al Qaeda operatives at the al-Nasiyirah military and chemical weapons facility in Iraq. In recognition of Bin Laden’s and Al Qaeda’s leadership role in the terrorist war against the United States, Iraqi officials allowed Zawahiri to assume formal command over the al-Nasiyirah training camp in the name of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
117. By mid-November, 1998, Saddam Hussein reportedly came to the conclusion (with the advice and prompting of his son and intelligence chief , the late Qusay Hussein), that a campaign of terrorist attacks against the United States, under the banner of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, was the most effective means of deflecting U.S. attempts to topple his regime.
118. Shortly thereafter, Iraqi intelligence officials reportedly met with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and Iraq reportedly agreed to join efforts in a detailed, coordinated plan for a protracted terrorist war against the United States. Iraq also reportedly agreed to provide Bin Laden and Al Qaeda with the assistance of an expert in chemical weapons, and Bin Laden reportedly agreed to hunt down Iraqi opposition leaders who cooperated with the United states against Hussein. In furtherance of this agreement, Bin Laden reportedly dispatched four hundred of Al Qaeda’s “Afghan” Arabs to Iraq to fight Kurdish dissidents.
119. In December 1998, after a standoff between the U.N. and Iraq and a discovery of weapons violations in Iraq, the United States with U.N. approval, led coalition of allies in a four-day air strike on Iraq. Iraqi Trade Minister Muhammed
Madhi Salah then stated that he expected terrorist activities against the United States to increase as a result of the bombing of Iraq. The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic cited the cooperation between Iraq, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in a late December 1998 editorial which predicted that President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.
120. The editorial noted that this type of cooperation was already taking place, considering that “Bin Laden was planning on moving to Iraq before the recent strike.”
142. Iraq knew in advance that Al Qaeda was planning to attack U.S. landmarks and civilians in September 2001 in Washington and New York and supported the planned attacks.
143. Upon information and belief, Iraqi news columnist Naeem Abd Mulhalhal has been connected with Iraqi intelligence since the early 1980s. As such, he has commented on matters of Iraqi political interest for the Al Nasiriyah newspaper, a weekly paper published in the provincial capital city of Al Nasiriyah. On September 1, 2001, he was honored for his “documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud Iraqis have accomplished” and praised by Saddam Hussein. In addition, Al Nasiriyah contains a military base that is believed to house a chemical weapons storage facility. Iraq had previously denied access to this base to U.N. weapons inspectors. It was visited by Zawahiri as early as 1998 and Al Qaeda terrorists trained there for several years.
144. On July 21, approximately six weeks before the September 11th attacks, Iraqi columnist Mulhalhal reported that Bin Laden was making plans to “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
145. Mulhalhal’s July 21 article further informed that Bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” Upon information and belief, this references a second Iraqi sponsored attack on the World Trade Center. This interpretation is further bolstered by another reference to New York as “[Bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.” (e.g. “New York, New York”) identifying New York, New York as a target.
146. Mulhalhal further indicated “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one in the same in the heart of a believer.” (Emphasis supplied). This appears to be a reference to the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon. The information was reported in an Iraqi newspaper whose editor-in-chief served as secretary to the late Uday Hussein’s Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists. The article expressed Iraqi admiration and support for Bin Laden’s plans and its appearance in the newspaper would clearly have to be endorsed by Saddam Hussein himself.
100. The late Qusay Hussein’s participation in those meetings highlights the importance of the talks in both symbolic and practical terms. Upon information and belief, as a direct result of those meetings, Iraq again made commitments to provide training, intelligence, clandestine Saudi border crossings, financial support and weapons and explosives to Al Qaeda.
101. Iraqi Intelligence officials met with Bin Laden in Afghanistan several more times. A second group of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia were then trained by Iraqi Intelligence in Iraq to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia and other countries, which they later accomplished in an effort to carry out future terrorist acts of violence. A third group of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives received a month of sophisticated guerilla operations training from Iraqi Intelligence officials later in the Summer of 1998.
102. Despite philosophical and religious differences with Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden continually sought to strengthen and reinforce the support he and Al Qaeda received from Iraq.
103. Upon information and belief, documents recently found in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s intelligence service, reveal that an Al Qaeda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents reveal that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and Al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it ended with arrangements being discussed for Bin Laden to visit Baghdad.
104. In March 1998, Bin Laden had reportedly visited Baghdad for consultations. According to Giovanni DeStafant, an international lawyer visiting Baghdad on business, he encountered Bin Laden in the lobby of the five-star Al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad. They engaged in light conversation.
105. In mid-July, 1998, Bin Laden sent Dr. Ayaman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian co-founder of Al Qaeda, to Iraq to meet with senior Iraqi officials, including the Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this meeting was to discuss and plan a joint strategy for a terrorist campaign in the United States. Five months later, the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
106. Upon information and belief, Iraqi Intelligence officials pledged Iraq’s full support and cooperation in exchange for a promise that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda not to incite the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood inside Iraq to oppose, undermine or attack the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
107. During the July 1998 visit, Zawahiri toured a potential site for a new headquarters for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and went to an Iraqi military base and nuclear and chemical weapons facility near al-Fallujah in Iraq. Upon information and belief, Dr. Zawahiri observed training by Iraqi Intelligence officials of Al Qaeda operatives at the al-Nasiyirah military and chemical weapons facility in Iraq. In recognition of Bin Laden’s and Al Qaeda’s leadership role in the terrorist war against the United States, Iraqi officials allowed Zawahiri to assume formal command over the al-Nasiyirah training camp in the name of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
117. By mid-November, 1998, Saddam Hussein reportedly came to the conclusion (with the advice and prompting of his son and intelligence chief , the late Qusay Hussein), that a campaign of terrorist attacks against the United States, under the banner of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, was the most effective means of deflecting U.S. attempts to topple his regime.
118. Shortly thereafter, Iraqi intelligence officials reportedly met with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and Iraq reportedly agreed to join efforts in a detailed, coordinated plan for a protracted terrorist war against the United States. Iraq also reportedly agreed to provide Bin Laden and Al Qaeda with the assistance of an expert in chemical weapons, and Bin Laden reportedly agreed to hunt down Iraqi opposition leaders who cooperated with the United states against Hussein. In furtherance of this agreement, Bin Laden reportedly dispatched four hundred of Al Qaeda’s “Afghan” Arabs to Iraq to fight Kurdish dissidents.
119. In December 1998, after a standoff between the U.N. and Iraq and a discovery of weapons violations in Iraq, the United States with U.N. approval, led coalition of allies in a four-day air strike on Iraq. Iraqi Trade Minister Muhammed
Madhi Salah then stated that he expected terrorist activities against the United States to increase as a result of the bombing of Iraq. The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic cited the cooperation between Iraq, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in a late December 1998 editorial which predicted that President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.
120. The editorial noted that this type of cooperation was already taking place, considering that “Bin Laden was planning on moving to Iraq before the recent strike.”
142. Iraq knew in advance that Al Qaeda was planning to attack U.S. landmarks and civilians in September 2001 in Washington and New York and supported the planned attacks.
143. Upon information and belief, Iraqi news columnist Naeem Abd Mulhalhal has been connected with Iraqi intelligence since the early 1980s. As such, he has commented on matters of Iraqi political interest for the Al Nasiriyah newspaper, a weekly paper published in the provincial capital city of Al Nasiriyah. On September 1, 2001, he was honored for his “documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud Iraqis have accomplished” and praised by Saddam Hussein. In addition, Al Nasiriyah contains a military base that is believed to house a chemical weapons storage facility. Iraq had previously denied access to this base to U.N. weapons inspectors. It was visited by Zawahiri as early as 1998 and Al Qaeda terrorists trained there for several years.
144. On July 21, approximately six weeks before the September 11th attacks, Iraqi columnist Mulhalhal reported that Bin Laden was making plans to “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
145. Mulhalhal’s July 21 article further informed that Bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” Upon information and belief, this references a second Iraqi sponsored attack on the World Trade Center. This interpretation is further bolstered by another reference to New York as “[Bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.” (e.g. “New York, New York”) identifying New York, New York as a target.
146. Mulhalhal further indicated “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one in the same in the heart of a believer.” (Emphasis supplied). This appears to be a reference to the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon. The information was reported in an Iraqi newspaper whose editor-in-chief served as secretary to the late Uday Hussein’s Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists. The article expressed Iraqi admiration and support for Bin Laden’s plans and its appearance in the newspaper would clearly have to be endorsed by Saddam Hussein himself.
you might say "But, But, Iraq was a secular government that Al-q Hated they would NEVER take anything from Iraq"
so i guess the US was a muslim caliphite when we were helping them against the soviets in the 80's right?
random places around the net..................
Sources please GA. You can find anything on the net. Its not that i wouldn't take your word at face value but....
Sources please GA. You can find anything on the net. Its not that i wouldn't take your word at face value but....
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Dec 27 2007, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE
All it takes is one guy with a gun and no fear of death to drastically affect this country's (or any country's) future. Just ask Benazir Bhutto or anybody in Pakistan.
If that's all it takes, then Montana Militias, men suffering from depression and Ted Nugent are all serious threats to the future of the United States as well.
The fact remains that nobody has actually been convicted of participating in a credible U.S. terrorist attack since the 9/11 crackdown. Not a single person. Al Queda is a threat; but the threat remains an external one that is exaggerated at every turn.
It appears then that a greater threat to US security -- that is the subject of the thread, or so I interpret it -- consists of our own people. We have a greater chance of being gunned down in church or at the mall today than before 9/11. Then there are the school shootings.
Just as an aside, my brother caught Ted Nugent performing at a casino in Minnesota. I guess that's becoming like the Branson of the Northland. The Nuge announced to the crowd while holding a semi-auto assault rifle that he had a whole semi truck full of them to hand out to the children. That was probably intended as a joke. Nobody laughed, and a few of my brother's NRA buddies said, "That's wrong. Real wrong, hey?" I'm pretty sure this happened before the church shootings in Colorado.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Dec 27 2007, 06:57 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 27 2007, 02:33 PM)
Thousands overseas and yet none, zero, nada in the United States. Does this seem possible or even probable? The article claims that there are no sleeper cells in the US (or at least that the FBI has detected none). Fine enough, but the article also points out that it only takes a few people with the most limited of resources to pull off a spectacular attack (see the Madrid bombings).
The usual disconnect AM: you continue to believe people who continue to lie, obfuscate, and burn tapes while many of us don't believe a word they say. Just because they think someone is a terrorist does not make them a terrorist. You still believe what they say in the face of no facts or evidence.
But let's take your point a step further - let's pretend they have captured terrorists (Al Qaida or not) with overwhelming evidence people would have died. Why would an administration with popularity in the crapper keep a lid on this? Why wouldn't they advertise - without being overly specific - that the methods behind their madness is working? If all it takes is for one terrorist to get lucky, what is to be gained by not letting the American people know what to look for to help in this effort? What gain is there in hiding evidence of success?
They have advertised prominent captures. Does the name Khalid Sheikh Mohommed ring a bell? Richard Reid? Khalid al-Mashhadani? Perhaps you just aren't paying attention.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Dec 27 2007, 06:57 PM)
Your view makes no plausible sense. First, the people perpetually lying would have to be truthful this time. Secondly, the public would be better served knowing what the risks are and where they might be found. If the government is arresting real terrorists under the assumption they can prevent it all without the nation's help, that is criminal negligence. As a supporter of the 2nd amendment from a collective standpoint, we have a right to know who our enemies are and afforded the opportunity to defend ourselves.
Finally, your point of view concedes some measure of competence. No matter what party is in power or who is in charge, that is an absurd premise. Our government sucks at everything they do and should be shrinking instead of bloating.
Finally, your point of view concedes some measure of competence. No matter what party is in power or who is in charge, that is an absurd premise. Our government sucks at everything they do and should be shrinking instead of bloating.
I can't argue against your opinions. But they are just that--opinions. Most people would agree that the government does a decent job arresting people. Ask the million plus members of our federal jail system.
This isn't about whether or not the government is competent, it is about whether or not there is a threat from Al Qaida and other militant jihadists. I believe there is. Not in the sense of "Oh my God, I'm going to be blown up today" but in the sense that there is a movement that wants Sharia law implemented and will use any means necessary to achieve that, including murder, kidnapping, beheadings, rape, and if all that fails, outbreeding us to get a major voting bloc (see Europe for examples of this). These folks don't have the same worldview that we do.
Like I said in previous posts- they ARE a serious threat- but panic and pimpin' the dead of 9/11 to run off an invade a country that has nothing to do with ANY of this until we forced thier hand would be a non-serious, as far as dealing with this problem, as you can get.
A serious response would be a sane approach, and we have not had that to date. We started a serious approach when we invaded AFghanistan in order to find the perps, then it all fell apart shortly after that event.
Iran is a great example- they were not our enemies until we forced them to be our enemies. We are STILL dealing with the greed and arrogance of the 50s with that nation.
A serious threat, yes, not serious enough to invade the wrong country though- NOT serious enough to throw out the constitution either.
In other words, about the same seriousness that we should plan for a meteor strike. And I do think we should plan for a meteor strike as well, in fact, I think we should spend alot more resources on that as well- because it WILL happen- just when- and the more we study where big meteors are located, and tag them and game them to understand when it will hit next.
But I don't think we should spend 1.6 trillion dollars, waste thousands of soldiers lives, to "go to war" with the meteor either.
That response would be silly, stupid, misguided, whatever you want to call it.
Here is the deal- it seems that with every issue that comes up in America today, we have this shrill cry of "he/she will sell us out to Al-Quaeda", similar to the Nazi stuff I printed before- you know, anyone that doesnt' agree with policies "wants the terrorists to win". - Similar to Blackstone's comments on Iraq "if we leave Iraq, Al-Quaeda will win/become emboldened" or whatever, when there was no SERIOUS presence of AQ prior to us being there- the silly hysteria we have shown towards AQ IS disproportionate of the threat, similar to the giant threat we face with monkey's flying out of various posters butts.
A serious response would be a sane approach, and we have not had that to date. We started a serious approach when we invaded AFghanistan in order to find the perps, then it all fell apart shortly after that event.
Iran is a great example- they were not our enemies until we forced them to be our enemies. We are STILL dealing with the greed and arrogance of the 50s with that nation.
A serious threat, yes, not serious enough to invade the wrong country though- NOT serious enough to throw out the constitution either.
In other words, about the same seriousness that we should plan for a meteor strike. And I do think we should plan for a meteor strike as well, in fact, I think we should spend alot more resources on that as well- because it WILL happen- just when- and the more we study where big meteors are located, and tag them and game them to understand when it will hit next.
But I don't think we should spend 1.6 trillion dollars, waste thousands of soldiers lives, to "go to war" with the meteor either.
That response would be silly, stupid, misguided, whatever you want to call it.
Here is the deal- it seems that with every issue that comes up in America today, we have this shrill cry of "he/she will sell us out to Al-Quaeda", similar to the Nazi stuff I printed before- you know, anyone that doesnt' agree with policies "wants the terrorists to win". - Similar to Blackstone's comments on Iraq "if we leave Iraq, Al-Quaeda will win/become emboldened" or whatever, when there was no SERIOUS presence of AQ prior to us being there- the silly hysteria we have shown towards AQ IS disproportionate of the threat, similar to the giant threat we face with monkey's flying out of various posters butts.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 28 2007, 10:50 AM)
Like I said in previous posts- they ARE a serious threat- but panic and pimpin' the dead of 9/11 to run off an invade a country that has nothing to do with ANY of this until we forced thier hand would be a non-serious, as far as dealing with this problem, as you can get.
A serious response would be a sane approach, and we have not had that to date. We started a serious approach when we invaded AFghanistan in order to find the perps, then it all fell apart shortly after that event.
Iran is a great example- they were not our enemies until we forced them to be our enemies. We are STILL dealing with the greed and arrogance of the 50s with that nation.
A serious response would be a sane approach, and we have not had that to date. We started a serious approach when we invaded AFghanistan in order to find the perps, then it all fell apart shortly after that event.
Iran is a great example- they were not our enemies until we forced them to be our enemies. We are STILL dealing with the greed and arrogance of the 50s with that nation.
Iran is a great example of what? This doesn't make sense.
Yes, there are risk assessment that need to be done, but the probability of a terrorist strike on US interests is far higher than a major meteor hit (or any of several Mega Disasters that the History Channel likes to talk about).
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 28 2007, 07:50 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 28 2007, 10:50 AM)
Like I said in previous posts- they ARE a serious threat- but panic and pimpin' the dead of 9/11 to run off an invade a country that has nothing to do with ANY of this until we forced thier hand would be a non-serious, as far as dealing with this problem, as you can get.
A serious response would be a sane approach, and we have not had that to date. We started a serious approach when we invaded AFghanistan in order to find the perps, then it all fell apart shortly after that event.
Iran is a great example- they were not our enemies until we forced them to be our enemies. We are STILL dealing with the greed and arrogance of the 50s with that nation.
A serious response would be a sane approach, and we have not had that to date. We started a serious approach when we invaded AFghanistan in order to find the perps, then it all fell apart shortly after that event.
Iran is a great example- they were not our enemies until we forced them to be our enemies. We are STILL dealing with the greed and arrogance of the 50s with that nation.
Iran is a great example of what? This doesn't make sense.
Yes, there are risk assessment that need to be done, but the probability of a terrorist strike on US interests is far higher than a major meteor hit (or any of several Mega Disasters that the History Channel likes to talk about).
At this point, a meteor strike is a greater risk than a terrorist strike, if we take all terrorist strikes on US soil since the 1950s.
You actually stand about the same chance of dying by terroristic attack as you do being executed legally in the US!
- http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Iran is a great example- they were not our enemies until we forced them to be our enemies. We are STILL dealing with the greed and arrogance of the 50s with that nation.
This seems like a pretty straight forward generalization to me. You are implying without taking numerous other factors into context, that the Islamic Republic of Iran would not exist had it not been for American greed in the 1950's. For example, the 1950's were a time of some considerable hardship for those democratic nations of Europe which had relied, and were still relying on cheap oil from Iran in order to build up their resources in the face of a not inconsiderable threat from the USSR. I agree that this imbalance in oil trade was detrimental to the population of Iran. I disagree that this imbalance was the sole product of 'greed' however, and I certainly don't see how the Islamic revolution of Iran is America's responsibility. To imply that supporting the Shah of Iran is akin to responsibility for the Islamic revolution is akin to saying that no matter what the USA had done in Iran, it would still bear that responsibility.The fact is, the Islamic Republic of Iran is your enemy because you are kuffar. Plain and simple. No actions you undertkae, or don't undertake will change that fact. It is exactly the same as with Pakistan's pathological hatred of India. You need to stop thinking that the world revolves around the actions of the USA and understand that other people have their own agenda's.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Here is the deal- it seems that with every issue that comes up in America today, we have this shrill cry of "he/she will sell us out to Al-Quaeda", similar to the Nazi stuff I printed before- you know, anyone that doesnt' agree with policies "wants the terrorists to win". - Similar to Blackstone's comments on Iraq "if we leave Iraq, Al-Quaeda will win/become emboldened" or whatever, when there was no SERIOUS presence of AQ prior to us being there- the silly hysteria we have shown towards AQ IS disproportionate of the threat, similar to the giant threat we face with monkey's flying out of various posters butts.
What your forgetting is that unless Iraq is seen to be a viable state, al qaeda will claim any American pull out as a victory regardless of the facts. The war against Islamic terrorism is a war of idea's and the opinions of al qaeda's base need to utterly destroyed, in their minds. You can't kill every Muslim extremist, but you can prove them to be wrong. For better or worse, Iraq has become a major front in the war on terrorism, not because the USA is fighting al qaeda there, but because the USA is competing against Islamic extremism there and the winner will be the last ideology standing. On one side is democracy, capitalism, profit and the prosperity these promise, and on the other, jihad and all that that implies.
In any sane rational debate the conclusion would be foregone, but when debating with the religious mind one cannot simply assume rational arguments will prevail. One must demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, the validity of one's idea's. In this 'war on terror', this means Iraq must be held until it can maintain itself against the forces of extremism.
Arguing the invalidity of the invasion of Iraq so many years after the fact is pointless. Iraq was always going to collapse, the USA simply used 9/11 as a justification to pre-empt another Iranian style take over by the mujahideen.
Moif- I would like to see our reaction to these threats fall somewhere between the inaction of the Euros and the over reaction of the US. We will NEVER win in Iraq, as far as you are talking about- the BEST we can hope for his a shia state that isn't totally aligned with Iran, maybe a mild rival at best. We took a secular state and turned it into a religious state. Iraq will NEVER be a secular state that we want it to be- that is completely unrealistic as suggesting that Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or any other muslim state will be anything other than what they are - Muslim caliphates.
The idea that Iran is our enemy simply because of our non-islam stance is overly simplistic and niave- it can be said that our foray into Iran is what led to the total destruction of any part of the idea of a secular state that happens to be muslim.
The reaction to extreme corruption and exceses by the Shah, and other parts of the Ottoman empire, was the move to a religious goverment- the natural reaction to extreme corruption is the polar opposite (as viewed by the religious anywhere)- to go to the clergy, they will "rebuke" the corrupt.
I work with three Iranians right now, one of them is my unit Dr. She was an engineer in Iran- and no, she was never required to wear the Burka either.
It is nice to work with someone that has seen all of this for thier own eyes, and has some balance to what is and what isn't true about Iran.
As was pointed out to me by a motorcycle adventurer that toured Iran, "they know everything about our culture, they have tons of information about us, but precious little goes the other direction"
Even the most reform minded Iranian that was alive then, and those that were born after , know the US's very evil role in that country- and the fact that they have "thier own George Bush" in todays Iran, they blame on the US. He has mishandled the economy badly, tee'd off poeple he shouldn't have, and generally messed things up- and they blame his election on the US as well- he would never had a "base" if not for the Shah.
It is our over-reaction to "communist threats" that caused much of the pain and suffering in the world today.
We backed some of the worst monsters the world has ever seen, and large parts of the world knows that, and hates us for it- it is NOT because we are not muslim- but rather, who we unleashed upon them, all around the world.
Much of the world, if allowed to find thier own path, would have been just fine without us, and if anything, if the Soviets interfered, would have had the burden of the hate instead of us.
Basically, in the US, we have a cycle of "wars" that "need" to be fought so politicians can either be voted in, or hold, thier seats. Doesn't matter if the "war" needs to be fought, it just matters what corporate palms are greased and which of the gullibles fears need to be played upon.
In Iran- we literally stole thier oil, we didn't pay for it in other words, and took it anyway, prior to the Shah. We installed a brutal dictator NOT of thier choosing, so ya, that makes folks hate that foriegn entity pretty strongly.
Charlie Wilson said it best "we didn't ask them to fight, they fought with whatever they had, I will be damned if I will let them fight with stones and sticks"- Amazing how little Reagan really had to do with anything over that- how a liberal democrat was the real lone voice here
But THAT would be the correct way to fight this problem- to allow someone else to do the oppressing, and then help those that are fighting to throw off the oppressor- NOT "nation building" as we have seen failure after failure of this policy.
When we identify a "serious threat"- we need to NOT think about how this will personally enrich some corporations and allow some personal ambitions to win the day- but rather- what will really harm the enemy?
Helping Afghanistan rebuild right after the Soviets left would have been the smart thing to do- but was never done.
Islam is no more monolithic and one leader specific than Christianity is- there are millions of Islamic followers that LIKE the west- just not it's excesses- but WE as the US, radicalize those that would have not been angry at us by, you know, invading thier country and killing off hundreds of thousands of thier poeple.
To even debate Al-Quaeda like it is a single, monolithic entity is to totally mistake the enemy itself. AQ in Iraq may or may not have any contact whatseover with any other AQ- they may just take it upon themselves to call themselves that, and make plans on thier own- this is thier strenght- the ability to have secret converts, and funnel them money for low-tech terrorist activities.
The 7 arrested that were mentioned before are a perfect example- too bad they appeared to be no threat at all
They just took it upon themselves to 'be AQ in the US"- in other words, just a bunch of hate filled idiots with a cause to join, and they ain't white, so the KKK is out
As long as we have stupid policies, we will have an enemy. I think if we approach the problem much more sanely, and really, in the end, in a much more patriotic manner, rather than "hey, lets help the corporations help themselves to some loot" like we see, no matter which party is in power, for the last few decades.
How about apologizing to the Muslim world for invading Iraq, for installing the Shah, and bascially doing everything wrong every time we have had any dealings wtih them- with the exception of the balkans, and once upon a time, the Afghanis?
Then, heaven forbid, stop meddling in thier countries, and Europeans, you know, need to riegn in thier abuses in European countries- this would be a good start.
I would like to see it somewhere in the middle of the two extremes we have here, the US extreme on one side, and the "oh my, wouldn't want to be called a racist" attitude of the Euros on the other side.
yes, islam is a threat to western freedom.
Surviving them is probably going to mean finding some happy medium in our dealings with them, no matter however they treat themselves in thier own borders and lands.
BTW- Moif- we bear 1000% of the blame of the islamic revolution in Iran- the shah never would have come to power without the CIA.
The idea that Iran is our enemy simply because of our non-islam stance is overly simplistic and niave- it can be said that our foray into Iran is what led to the total destruction of any part of the idea of a secular state that happens to be muslim.
The reaction to extreme corruption and exceses by the Shah, and other parts of the Ottoman empire, was the move to a religious goverment- the natural reaction to extreme corruption is the polar opposite (as viewed by the religious anywhere)- to go to the clergy, they will "rebuke" the corrupt.
I work with three Iranians right now, one of them is my unit Dr. She was an engineer in Iran- and no, she was never required to wear the Burka either.
It is nice to work with someone that has seen all of this for thier own eyes, and has some balance to what is and what isn't true about Iran.
As was pointed out to me by a motorcycle adventurer that toured Iran, "they know everything about our culture, they have tons of information about us, but precious little goes the other direction"
Even the most reform minded Iranian that was alive then, and those that were born after , know the US's very evil role in that country- and the fact that they have "thier own George Bush" in todays Iran, they blame on the US. He has mishandled the economy badly, tee'd off poeple he shouldn't have, and generally messed things up- and they blame his election on the US as well- he would never had a "base" if not for the Shah.
It is our over-reaction to "communist threats" that caused much of the pain and suffering in the world today.
We backed some of the worst monsters the world has ever seen, and large parts of the world knows that, and hates us for it- it is NOT because we are not muslim- but rather, who we unleashed upon them, all around the world.
Much of the world, if allowed to find thier own path, would have been just fine without us, and if anything, if the Soviets interfered, would have had the burden of the hate instead of us.
Basically, in the US, we have a cycle of "wars" that "need" to be fought so politicians can either be voted in, or hold, thier seats. Doesn't matter if the "war" needs to be fought, it just matters what corporate palms are greased and which of the gullibles fears need to be played upon.
In Iran- we literally stole thier oil, we didn't pay for it in other words, and took it anyway, prior to the Shah. We installed a brutal dictator NOT of thier choosing, so ya, that makes folks hate that foriegn entity pretty strongly.
Charlie Wilson said it best "we didn't ask them to fight, they fought with whatever they had, I will be damned if I will let them fight with stones and sticks"- Amazing how little Reagan really had to do with anything over that- how a liberal democrat was the real lone voice here
But THAT would be the correct way to fight this problem- to allow someone else to do the oppressing, and then help those that are fighting to throw off the oppressor- NOT "nation building" as we have seen failure after failure of this policy.
When we identify a "serious threat"- we need to NOT think about how this will personally enrich some corporations and allow some personal ambitions to win the day- but rather- what will really harm the enemy?
Helping Afghanistan rebuild right after the Soviets left would have been the smart thing to do- but was never done.
Islam is no more monolithic and one leader specific than Christianity is- there are millions of Islamic followers that LIKE the west- just not it's excesses- but WE as the US, radicalize those that would have not been angry at us by, you know, invading thier country and killing off hundreds of thousands of thier poeple.
To even debate Al-Quaeda like it is a single, monolithic entity is to totally mistake the enemy itself. AQ in Iraq may or may not have any contact whatseover with any other AQ- they may just take it upon themselves to call themselves that, and make plans on thier own- this is thier strenght- the ability to have secret converts, and funnel them money for low-tech terrorist activities.
The 7 arrested that were mentioned before are a perfect example- too bad they appeared to be no threat at all
They just took it upon themselves to 'be AQ in the US"- in other words, just a bunch of hate filled idiots with a cause to join, and they ain't white, so the KKK is out
As long as we have stupid policies, we will have an enemy. I think if we approach the problem much more sanely, and really, in the end, in a much more patriotic manner, rather than "hey, lets help the corporations help themselves to some loot" like we see, no matter which party is in power, for the last few decades.
How about apologizing to the Muslim world for invading Iraq, for installing the Shah, and bascially doing everything wrong every time we have had any dealings wtih them- with the exception of the balkans, and once upon a time, the Afghanis?
Then, heaven forbid, stop meddling in thier countries, and Europeans, you know, need to riegn in thier abuses in European countries- this would be a good start.
I would like to see it somewhere in the middle of the two extremes we have here, the US extreme on one side, and the "oh my, wouldn't want to be called a racist" attitude of the Euros on the other side.
yes, islam is a threat to western freedom.
Surviving them is probably going to mean finding some happy medium in our dealings with them, no matter however they treat themselves in thier own borders and lands.
BTW- Moif- we bear 1000% of the blame of the islamic revolution in Iran- the shah never would have come to power without the CIA.
QUOTE
Arguing the invalidity of the invasion of Iraq so many years after the fact is pointless. Iraq was always going to collapse, the USA simply used 9/11 as a justification to pre-empt another Iranian style take over by the mujahideen.
So now we invaded Iraq to protect it from takeover from 'Islamofascists'.........you should write speeches for our current administration Moif.
Does anyone else remember that Iran was afraid of the Taliban
QUOTE
Iran and Afghanistan, two of the most profoundly fundamentalist Muslim countries, sit side by side, but common faith doesn't make them friendly. In fact, each despises the other's brand of Islam. Now Iran's Shi'ite leaders and the Sunni Taliban militia that has nearly succeeded in imposing its rule over most of Afghanistan are threatening to turn an ancient theological schism into a fighting war.
But then something changed driving the two together..............hmm what was that again, oh yeah Iraq.
QUOTE
The American government has accused Iran’s Quds force, an elite arm of the Revolutionary Guards, of arming and training Shi’ite extremist groups in Iraq. Afghan officials fear that Iran has overcome its theological differences with the largely Sunni Taliban to fight a bigger enemy.
Point is Moif, that the supposed massive uprising of Islamofascists ready to destroy western civ was nicely fractured and full of hate for each other--as they have been in the Middle East for centuries and why they have never been a serious threat for so long is that just like all fanatic conservative freaks they hate anyone who is not exactly like them and dares to voice a different view. Even here in the states you see on a minor level the attempt to unify the evangelicals and other denominations with groups like the Catholics -- who generally to the evangelicals I have known are clearly in league with satan -- because of the successful rise of secular thought and not using 'god' to live life and make decisions.
fundementalists are all the same -- use the global warmers if you are more comfortable. Any attempts to see their "inconvenient truth" differently or suggest different solutions gives rise to an almost pathological hatred from some of their more hardcore fundie elements.
We did help give rise to the fundementalist elements of Iran because we helped an abusive government for no reason better than profit, and Moif, thats something people remember.
QUOTE
You need to stop thinking that the world revolves around the actions of the USA and understand that other people have their own agenda's.
You need to remember that most muslims are not of the Al Quaeda branch, but also just don't care much for us and like most non Americans -- even your fellow euros Moif, like to see us falter. Some out of hatred, some out of jealousy but most, like human nature can almost predict, simply because we are different in belief from the rest of you. but no active drive to eliminate us. AQ are the exception but of the minority.
We had massive support worldwide after 9/11 and had we simply gone after AQ like the criminals they are using law enforcement methods and our intelligence groups we probably could have been very successful in our fight against the terrorists. Instead we have indeed helped manufacture a sense of brotherhood among disparate enemies and given them common cause against us with very clear evidence they can point to daily. troops in middle east with no end in sight -- the propaganda gift that keeps on giving.
I believe that if we do withdraw from iraq sooner than later we can collapse the growing unity and let nature take its course and let the enemies of our enemies remember that they hate everyone and get back to the infighting i am sure they are nostalgic for. I would also throw in that if we threaten the oil paychecks by developing Alt energy sources we can not only use to lower our need for their oil BUT also sell to India and China and lower their dependence on oil --and desire to pay the high oil costs-- the funding for many terrorist groups will dwindle in an attempt to maintain profits. and possibly give the fundementalists new target at home to focus on as they feel betrayed.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Moif- I would like to see our reaction to these threats fall somewhere between the inaction of the Euros and the over reaction of the US. We will NEVER win in Iraq, as far as you are talking about- the BEST we can hope for his a shia state that isn't totally aligned with Iran, maybe a mild rival at best. We took a secular state and turned it into a religious state. Iraq will NEVER be a secular state that we want it to be- that is completely unrealistic as suggesting that Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or any other muslim state will be anything other than what they are - Muslim caliphates.
Now you are making assumptions as to what it is we want. First. Who is 'we'? To which homogenous group do you refer? 'We' is a very broad term in this context and I do not believe there is any one single agenda which can be summed up so nicely as you have just attempted to do. Second. The Bush administration (or one might choose to term it the 'American military-industrial complex') may very well have an end goal which is as unrealistic as you choose to describe, but I'd like to see where the actual evidence for that end goal is. I see nothing to indicate that the desired outcome in Iraq should become a 'secular state that we want it to be'. On the contrary, I find the Bush administration has been quite vague in its stated goals refering only to democratic elections and a viable Iraqi state. If this is indeed their end goal (as opposed to misleading rhetoric for American domestic consumption) then that goal is well under way to being met.
Third. Where do you get the idea that any one has forced Iraq to become a religious state? Iraq is no more a religious state now than it was under Hussein.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
The idea that Iran is our enemy simply because of our non-islam stance is overly simplistic and niave- it can be said that our foray into Iran is what led to the total destruction of any part of the idea of a secular state that happens to be muslim.
It is only overly simplistic if you choose to ignore the stated justifications of the Iranian clergy. Why do you suppose they refer to the USA as 'the great Satan' and not for example, 'the great enemy'? America is identified as being the antithesis of the Islamic ideal upon which the Iranian revolution was based. Yes, many Iranians turned to Islam because of the oppressive regime of the Shah, but to suggest that the revolutionaries and their spiritual leaders were also so motivated is to ignore the facts. The majority of Iranians supporting their returning Ayatollah were motivated by religious ideology.QUOTE(CruisingRam)
The reaction to extreme corruption and exceses by the Shah, and other parts of the Ottoman empire, was the move to a religious goverment- the natural reaction to extreme corruption is the polar opposite (as viewed by the religious anywhere)- to go to the clergy, they will "rebuke" the corrupt.
If that were true, the Poland would be a Catholic theocracy right now. You said I was being overly simplistic and yet I find you are hoist by your own petard. QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Even the most reform minded Iranian that was alive then, and those that were born after , know the US's very evil role in that country- and the fact that they have "thier own George Bush" in todays Iran, they blame on the US. He has mishandled the economy badly, tee'd off poeple he shouldn't have, and generally messed things up- and they blame his election on the US as well- he would never had a "base" if not for the Shah.
Right... so according to some people you've met, the election of Amadinajad is all the fault of the USA. So who is to blame for the election of GW Bush?
I'm sorry to be sarcastic CR, but you can't seriously expect me to accept that the people of Iran are so childish and immature that although they can produce doctors and nuclear power stations, they can't vote in an election without being influenced by the CIA's support of the Shah... Are you being frank with your self? It seems to me like you've accepted some codswollop about who exactly is responsible for what, ...hook line and sinker. Just because some Iranians tell you their interpretation of why their country became a basket case religious state hardly means that they're not merely passing on to you their own self delusions. The fact is, being a citizen of a state hardly qualifies any one as an expert. I've met plenty of Iranians too, and Iraqi's and Turks, Kurds, Arabs and Pakistani's and if there is one generalized trait to be found amongst these people, it is an extreme unwillingness to accept any sort of responsibility for the mess their own countries are in. In fact, according to these people, its never their fault. Its never their countries fault, nor their culture's fault and certainly not due to their precious religion. Its always some one else's fault, more often than not, the USA.
It doesn't matter what the facts are. A group of Muslims, from a terrorist group identifing itself as Islamic, can carry out an appalling attack on civilians (anywhere on planet Earth you care to mention) and justify the entire atrocity by quoting the Koran and yet its some how its always America's fault when the event is explained after the fact. Your trouble appears to be, you've heard it said so many times, you've started to believe it.
Iranians in the west can conjure up all manner of excuses as to why their country went off the rails, but the facts speak for themselves. It is named the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a country governed by a theocracy which holds power by Islamic law and by popular support amongst the population.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
It is our over-reaction to "communist threats" that caused much of the pain and suffering in the world today.
Indeed not. It is the communist threat that was that is responsible for the destabilized nature of the world today. QUOTE(CruisingRam)
We backed some of the worst monsters the world has ever seen, and large parts of the world knows that, and hates us for it- it is NOT because we are not muslim- but rather, who we unleashed upon them, all around the world.
Once more you are making generalized assumptions that fit only your own flawed perception. Large parts of the world indeed! To whom do you refer? Most people in my experience have an ambiguous relationship to the USA and any dislike stems from various factors, most of which can be summed by petty jealousy and a strong dislike for having American culture shoved into one's face day and night.I find most people like the USA. Even amongst Muslims. All this talk of hatred stemming from the support of dictators is the sort of agitprop one expects from extreme left wingers bearing a grudge. The fact is, all western nations supported the dictators to whom you refer, as did a lot of third world nations also. The reasons why were numerous and complex.
The reason why it gets brought up today in a debate regarding the real threat of al qaeda is because it is a convenient stick with which to beat a wicked dog. A means of making the USA look bad by ignoring reality in favour of bias. The cold war justified a lot of excesses, by all nations, not just the USA. Even squeaky clean nations like Sweden were busy supporting 'the worst monsters the world has ever seen' and for the same reasons as always. Survival.
Just as was the case with Josef Stalin.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Much of the world, if allowed to find thier own path, would have been just fine without us, and if anything, if the Soviets interfered, would have had the burden of the hate instead of us.
Your memory is conveniently short CR. The USSR was hated, passionately. There is no question of any 'if' either. The Soviet Union was active in every single country in the world, actively promoting communism, spreading its influence and supporting plenty of 'monsters'. The democratic nations, led by the USA and the UK acted in kind because there was no other viable alternative. People like Hugo Chavez exist and with enough support from the USSR were able to simply take power. Chavez is a case in point. He tried to take power and failed. Now he rules at the whim of hs people instead of by military force. That is only the case because the USSR was defeated by the USA.
Today, standing alone, the USA bears the brunt of antipathy by people who conveniently forget why the USA acted the way it did. In the mean time, other agenda's but communism still exist, just as they always have and always will. As I've said many times before on this forum, the world does not revolve around the USA.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Basically, in the US, we have a cycle of "wars" that "need" to be fought so politicians can either be voted in, or hold, thier seats. Doesn't matter if the "war" needs to be fought, it just matters what corporate palms are greased and which of the gullibles fears need to be played upon.
Maybe you are right, but I'm afraid I belong to an old school of thought that says, adults are responsible for their actions. My opinion is Americans are intellectually lazy. I do not believe any war 'needs' to be fought simply to keep vested interests in power. I believe the people of the USA have allowed themselves to be manipulated because it was the easiest thing to do. If you want to talk about responsibility than don't point the finger at GW Bush, the military industrial complex, Reagan or corporate palms. Look at yourself and the people around you.
Earlier on you refered to 'we'. I assume that is who 'we' is.
I'm afraid I have run out of time. Its so late its now early and I must depart. Sorry I've only responded to the first half of your post. No doubt I've written enough for you to reply to. I'll try to answer Christopher in the morning.
Um, you don't watch too much American news do ya Moif? Rumsfeld believed we would be welcomed with open arms as liberators. Freedom, the American dream, beating the evil Saddam. You would be suprised at how crazy this administration really is. They are religious fanatics of thier own- and your European senses of personal responsibility and such that you described- don't apply to the neo-cons in any way, shape or form. If anything, they are far more like the Ayatollah's and Iman's than a liberal western democracy leader. They do "what is good for the poeple" even when 70% or more of the poeple DON'T feel that way.
To me, leaders that are leaders on the basis of thier religious rank = a religious state- you can call it whatever you want, but when Al-Sadr is in power because he is going to be an Ayatollah, and will most likely end up running that country, you have a religious state.
It wasn't a religious state when we went in there- it was a secular state.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=782202
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century
Just read the wiki thing on the PNAC that has driven the administration for the last (nearly) 8 years- they have been vague about Iraq, simply because they thought it would be over quickly and have a quick W in thier column, move on to the next country for "pax americana"
"the great Satan" came about because of our association with the Shah, and thier hatred of everything that had to do with the Shah. The poeple alive today running the country were victims of the Shah- that makes for powerful feelings, and of course they call us the "great Satan"- we established the Shah. Not a jump at logic here bro!
I'm sorry to be sarcastic CR, but you can't seriously expect me to accept that the people of Iran are so childish and immature that although they can produce doctors and nuclear power stations, they can't vote in an election without being influenced by the CIA's support of the Shah... Are you being frank with your self? It seems to me like you've accepted some codswollop about who exactly is responsible for what, ...hook line and sinker. Just because some Iranians tell you their interpretation of why their country became a basket case religious state hardly means that they're not merely passing on to you their own self delusions. The fact is, being a citizen of a state hardly qualifies any one as an expert. I've met plenty of Iranians too, and Iraqi's and Turks, Kurds, Arabs and Pakistani's and if there is one generalized trait to be found amongst these people, it is an extreme unwillingness to accept any sort of responsibility for the mess their own countries are in. In fact, according to these people, its never their fault. Its never their countries fault, nor their culture's fault and certainly not due to their precious religion. Its always some one else's fault, more often than not, the USA.
No, but once something is done- it is very hard to un-do it, and it radicalizes poeple as well- in the case of the Shah, and our meddling, it absolutely shaped Iranian politics to this day- similar to creating an Israel in the Middle east, a country that had not existed in 2000 years! - you throw something like that into a mix of poverty and extreme religion- you have an explosion on your hands.
I agree- I have always wondered "you know, the Iraqis are killing themselves en masse with suicide bombers in order to force out the Americans- where was all this willingness to die when Saddam was in power" -
but responsibility for one's country is a two edged sword- those countries haven't had the opportunity to find thier own way- one super power or the other has meddled and meddled- how can they take responsibiility for behavior outiside thier borders?
Remember- we ALSO supported Saddam's chemical warfare against the Iranians- a very, very evil thing we did there- that is recent history Moif- all those that survived those chemical attacks, maimed by them- are they supposed to hold thier leaders responsible for Chemical attacks by an aggressive enemy? They know who sent those chemicals to Iraq- they have seen the pics of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam too ya know?
I agree that, at some point, those middle eastern countries will have to have the very European outlook of accepting some personal responsibility for thier behaviors- no doubt, if they ever want to move outside the 7th century
However- I have no say in that, and niether do you. But what I can say is this- I can tell my own country to stop meddling in other's affairs, creating enemies where there were none before, and make even minded decisions about real threats- instead of acting on a type of new imperialism that we have been promoting for the last 50 odd years.
We were a much better country when we looked to our own affairs and not others.
America is as bad as any of those groups you mentioned when it comes to a "culture of victimization"- we too blame everyone but the USA for our problems- and make the LAMEST excuses ever- have you ever heard "they hate us because of our freedoms" - I mean, who is dumb enough to believe that? Well, the same USA that creates Doctors and Engineers have Doctors and Engineers saying that exact thing.
There are only one or two forays outside our borders where WE were not only the bad guy, but downright evil- I have seen some of it myself in Central America- where we supported some of the most vicious thugs in the world, baby rapers and murderers, the whole lot of them, and had Reagan declaring they were the moral equivilent of our founding fathers
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/8/reaga...e_butcher_of_my
The 8 years Reagan was in office represented one of the most bloody eras in the history of the Western hemisphere, as Washington funneled money, weapons and other supplies to right wing death squads. And the death toll was staggering–more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 killed in the contra war in Nicaragua. In Washington, the forces carrying out the violence were called “freedom fighters.” This is how Ronald Reagan described the Contras in Nicaragua: “They are our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers.”
Since this is "democracy now"- I expect some will discount it outright- but I don't care- I was there for a portion of that, and, if anything, they are being overly kind to the butcher of central America- Reagan.
Guatamala was NOT destabilized because of a real fear of communist aggresion- but because the Chiquita banana corporation wanted to keep thier slave plantations.
You see moif- the problem is- we take a SERIOUS threat like Muslim extremism, use it as a boogeyman, and further an evil agenda by opportunists. I have lived through a great deal many 'wars" in my lifetime, let's see if I can remember them all? 1) War on Drugs 2) War on Poverty 3) War on Terrorism 4) War against communism
I probably missed a couple- just about any politician that wants to stay in power in the US needs to trot one out- but do you see a pattern here?
We take an occasional, improbable enemy of the US, that may or may not be a 'real" threat- and then use it to further some personal agenda.
We have the new boogeyman now, and we haven't seen this type of war on America freedoms since Lincoln.
Like I said- Al-Quaida is certainly a threat, but we don't need another boogeyman for poeple like Blackstone to justify bad behavior of the US.
WE need to take personal responsibility for OUR actions, before we start demanding the same of others.
To me, leaders that are leaders on the basis of thier religious rank = a religious state- you can call it whatever you want, but when Al-Sadr is in power because he is going to be an Ayatollah, and will most likely end up running that country, you have a religious state.
It wasn't a religious state when we went in there- it was a secular state.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=782202
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century
Just read the wiki thing on the PNAC that has driven the administration for the last (nearly) 8 years- they have been vague about Iraq, simply because they thought it would be over quickly and have a quick W in thier column, move on to the next country for "pax americana"
"the great Satan" came about because of our association with the Shah, and thier hatred of everything that had to do with the Shah. The poeple alive today running the country were victims of the Shah- that makes for powerful feelings, and of course they call us the "great Satan"- we established the Shah. Not a jump at logic here bro!
I'm sorry to be sarcastic CR, but you can't seriously expect me to accept that the people of Iran are so childish and immature that although they can produce doctors and nuclear power stations, they can't vote in an election without being influenced by the CIA's support of the Shah... Are you being frank with your self? It seems to me like you've accepted some codswollop about who exactly is responsible for what, ...hook line and sinker. Just because some Iranians tell you their interpretation of why their country became a basket case religious state hardly means that they're not merely passing on to you their own self delusions. The fact is, being a citizen of a state hardly qualifies any one as an expert. I've met plenty of Iranians too, and Iraqi's and Turks, Kurds, Arabs and Pakistani's and if there is one generalized trait to be found amongst these people, it is an extreme unwillingness to accept any sort of responsibility for the mess their own countries are in. In fact, according to these people, its never their fault. Its never their countries fault, nor their culture's fault and certainly not due to their precious religion. Its always some one else's fault, more often than not, the USA.
No, but once something is done- it is very hard to un-do it, and it radicalizes poeple as well- in the case of the Shah, and our meddling, it absolutely shaped Iranian politics to this day- similar to creating an Israel in the Middle east, a country that had not existed in 2000 years! - you throw something like that into a mix of poverty and extreme religion- you have an explosion on your hands.
I agree- I have always wondered "you know, the Iraqis are killing themselves en masse with suicide bombers in order to force out the Americans- where was all this willingness to die when Saddam was in power"
- but responsibility for one's country is a two edged sword- those countries haven't had the opportunity to find thier own way- one super power or the other has meddled and meddled- how can they take responsibiility for behavior outiside thier borders?
Remember- we ALSO supported Saddam's chemical warfare against the Iranians- a very, very evil thing we did there- that is recent history Moif- all those that survived those chemical attacks, maimed by them- are they supposed to hold thier leaders responsible for Chemical attacks by an aggressive enemy? They know who sent those chemicals to Iraq- they have seen the pics of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam too ya know?
I agree that, at some point, those middle eastern countries will have to have the very European outlook of accepting some personal responsibility for thier behaviors- no doubt, if they ever want to move outside the 7th century
However- I have no say in that, and niether do you. But what I can say is this- I can tell my own country to stop meddling in other's affairs, creating enemies where there were none before, and make even minded decisions about real threats- instead of acting on a type of new imperialism that we have been promoting for the last 50 odd years.
We were a much better country when we looked to our own affairs and not others.
America is as bad as any of those groups you mentioned when it comes to a "culture of victimization"- we too blame everyone but the USA for our problems- and make the LAMEST excuses ever- have you ever heard "they hate us because of our freedoms"
- I mean, who is dumb enough to believe that? Well, the same USA that creates Doctors and Engineers have Doctors and Engineers saying that exact thing. There are only one or two forays outside our borders where WE were not only the bad guy, but downright evil- I have seen some of it myself in Central America- where we supported some of the most vicious thugs in the world, baby rapers and murderers, the whole lot of them, and had Reagan declaring they were the moral equivilent of our founding fathers
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/8/reaga...e_butcher_of_my
The 8 years Reagan was in office represented one of the most bloody eras in the history of the Western hemisphere, as Washington funneled money, weapons and other supplies to right wing death squads. And the death toll was staggering–more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 killed in the contra war in Nicaragua. In Washington, the forces carrying out the violence were called “freedom fighters.” This is how Ronald Reagan described the Contras in Nicaragua: “They are our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers.”
Since this is "democracy now"- I expect some will discount it outright- but I don't care- I was there for a portion of that, and, if anything, they are being overly kind to the butcher of central America- Reagan.
Guatamala was NOT destabilized because of a real fear of communist aggresion- but because the Chiquita banana corporation wanted to keep thier slave plantations.
You see moif- the problem is- we take a SERIOUS threat like Muslim extremism, use it as a boogeyman, and further an evil agenda by opportunists. I have lived through a great deal many 'wars" in my lifetime, let's see if I can remember them all?
1) War on Drugs 2) War on Poverty 3) War on Terrorism 4) War against communismI probably missed a couple- just about any politician that wants to stay in power in the US needs to trot one out- but do you see a pattern here?
We take an occasional, improbable enemy of the US, that may or may not be a 'real" threat- and then use it to further some personal agenda.
We have the new boogeyman now, and we haven't seen this type of war on America freedoms since Lincoln.
Like I said- Al-Quaida is certainly a threat, but we don't need another boogeyman for poeple like Blackstone to justify bad behavior of the US.
WE need to take personal responsibility for OUR actions, before we start demanding the same of others.
QUOTE(christopher)
So now we invaded Iraq to protect it from takeover from 'Islamofascists'.........you should write speeches for our current administration Moif.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not a fan of the Bush administration. I have been arguing for several years now that I think the Iraq war was really all about Iran. This is not my attempt to suddenly provide a new excuse for the actions of the Bush administration. The reason why I believe Iran is the focus behind the war is because I do not believe any of the official excuses offered. The only reason that makes sense for the USA to occupy Iraq is to prevent Iranian expansion post Saddam Hussein.
Some people argue that GW Bush is solely responsible for this war, but I am afraid I do not accept that the 'madness of King George' out weighs the vested interests of the USA and its ruling elite. GW Bush is at best a willing muppet for the group loosely known by its political opponents as the Military-Industrial complex.
QUOTE(christopher)
Point is Moif, that the supposed massive uprising of Islamofascists ready to destroy western civ was nicely fractured and full of hate for each other--as they have been in the Middle East for centuries and why they have never been a serious threat for so long is that just like all fanatic conservative freaks they hate anyone who is not exactly like them and dares to voice a different view. Even here in the states you see on a minor level the attempt to unify the evangelicals and other denominations with groups like the Catholics -- who generally to the evangelicals I have known are clearly in league with satan -- because of the successful rise of secular thought and not using 'god' to live life and make decisions.
fundementalists are all the same -- use the global warmers if you are more comfortable. Any attempts to see their "inconvenient truth" differently or suggest different solutions gives rise to an almost pathological hatred from some of their more hardcore fundie elements.
We did help give rise to the fundementalist elements of Iran because we helped an abusive government for no reason better than profit, and Moif, thats something people remember.
I'm sure they do since as you say people have selective memories when it comes to justifying their hate.fundementalists are all the same -- use the global warmers if you are more comfortable. Any attempts to see their "inconvenient truth" differently or suggest different solutions gives rise to an almost pathological hatred from some of their more hardcore fundie elements.
We did help give rise to the fundementalist elements of Iran because we helped an abusive government for no reason better than profit, and Moif, thats something people remember.
The American support for the Shah of Iran was never just about greed. It was also about security. Trying to deny this now is to pretend there never was any threat from the USSR. You can pretend that if you wish, but it makes your arguments ring hollow when you ask 'why they have never been a serious threat for so long'. The answer is obvious. Prior to 1989, the world was locked into a political dead lock between two ideological opponents and this ideological struggle effected every country, including Persia.
The USA supported the Shah because if they hadn't the USSR would have run Persia and controlled its oil. It wasn't greed. It was common sense.
QUOTE(christopher)
You need to remember that most muslims are not of the Al Quaeda branch, but also just don't care much for us and like most non Americans -- even your fellow euros Moif, like to see us falter. Some out of hatred, some out of jealousy but most, like human nature can almost predict, simply because we are different in belief from the rest of you. but no active drive to eliminate us. AQ are the exception but of the minority.
CR made this point too and its just plain wrong. The majority of Europeans, (I'd even say world citizens) do not hate the USA. They have an ambiguous attitude at worse and a favourable, understanding view at best. Various minorities, nearly all left wing, hate the USA and make certain their hatred is loudly proclaimed, but these minorities only speak for themselves, and in my experience, most of them also have a tendency to use the USA as a convenient excuse for their own biased ends.
I'd wager this is equally so for most Muslims.
QUOTE(christopher)
We had massive support worldwide after 9/11 and had we simply gone after AQ like the criminals they are using law enforcement methods and our intelligence groups we probably could have been very successful in our fight against the terrorists. Instead we have indeed helped manufacture a sense of brotherhood among disparate enemies and given them common cause against us with very clear evidence they can point to daily. troops in middle east with no end in sight -- the propaganda gift that keeps on giving.
Yes, perhaps this is true. So what? What I'm wondering is, what alternative do you have? Say you want to limit Iran's influence and you know Saddam Hussein's grip on power is coming to an end sooner or later. Say you know that the power vacuum left by Saddam Hussein will leave Iraq wide open to Iranian influence. How do you prevent that?
From what I've read on this site, most anti war proponents would have allowed Iran free reign. Is that what you would have prefered? Imagine Iraq, and its oil, controlled by Iran's clerics and imagine the influence this would have given them on the region.
You say the USA has manufactured a sense of brotherhood in the Muslim world. I say this brotherhood was already there. It just never had the political means to express itself in any measure until Khomeni returned to Persia and founded the Islamic Republic of Iran.
QUOTE(christopher)
I believe that if we do withdraw from iraq sooner than later we can collapse the growing unity and let nature take its course and let the enemies of our enemies remember that they hate everyone and get back to the infighting i am sure they are nostalgic for. I would also throw in that if we threaten the oil paychecks by developing Alt energy sources we can not only use to lower our need for their oil BUT also sell to India and China and lower their dependence on oil --and desire to pay the high oil costs-- the funding for many terrorist groups will dwindle in an attempt to maintain profits. and possibly give the fundementalists new target at home to focus on as they feel betrayed.
There is still no viable alternative to oil so your argument is nothing but a castle in the sky. Letting nature take its course means allowing the weeds to grow. Nature destroys order. Your idea would allow Iran to spread into Iraq and set up another Islamic Republic.
Internal divisions and differences of doctrine with other Muslim groups makes no difference to the threat posed by Iranian expansion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Um, you don't watch too much American news do ya Moif? Rumsfeld believed we would be welcomed with open arms as liberators.
Did he really CR? Or did he just tell the voters exactly what they wanted to hear?
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
To me, leaders that are leaders on the basis of thier religious rank = a religious state- you can call it whatever you want, but when Al-Sadr is in power because he is going to be an Ayatollah, and will most likely end up running that country, you have a religious state.
Al Sadr, an Iranian muppet if ever I saw one, is not in power though is he....? He has not gained much at all, in fact if anything, I'd say he's been successfully marginalized by the US invasion and for all his static and rhetoric, he is powerless to take over for so long as the state of Iraq is protected by the US military. The only way al Sadr can take over now is if the US pull out and leave the field open for Iran.QUOTE(CruisingRam)
"the great Satan" came about because of our association with the Shah, and thier hatred of everything that had to do with the Shah. The poeple alive today running the country were victims of the Shah- that makes for powerful feelings, and of course they call us the "great Satan"- we established the Shah. Not a jump at logic here bro!
Yes, but why use the word 'Satan' as opposed to 'enemy'? Ayatollah Khomeni identified the USA as more than just a supportr of the Shah (even the Shah didn't qualify as the 'Great Satan'). He identified America as the root cause of all evil in the world today and the reason why he did that is because America is the strongest bastion of all the freedoms which an Iranians style Islamic theocracy is opposed to. I don't think you really grasp just how much the Iranians clerics really hate your freedom CR.
QUOTE
"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."
-- Ayatollah Khomeini
-- Ayatollah Khomeini
How would you like to be a stand up comedian in a country run by some one like that CR?
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
America is as bad as any of those groups you mentioned when it comes to a "culture of victimization"- we too blame everyone but the USA for our problems- and make the LAMEST excuses ever- have you ever heard "they hate us because of our freedoms" - I mean, who is dumb enough to believe that? Well, the same USA that creates Doctors and Engineers have Doctors and Engineers saying that exact thing.
No doubt true, but not quite the truth. 'They' do hate you for your freedoms, 'they' being the mujahideen in power in Iran. - I mean, who is dumb enough to believe that? Well, the same USA that creates Doctors and Engineers have Doctors and Engineers saying that exact thing. QUOTE(CruisingRam)
I agree- I have always wondered "you know, the Iraqis are killing themselves en masse with suicide bombers in order to force out the Americans- where was all this willingness to die when Saddam was in power"
Saddam Hussein was a Muslim which makes all the difference in the world to a Muslim. Ynsha Allah and all that. QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Remember- we ALSO supported Saddam's chemical warfare against the Iranians- a very, very evil thing we did there- that is recent history Moif- all those that survived those chemical attacks, maimed by them- are they supposed to hold thier leaders responsible for Chemical attacks by an aggressive enemy? They know who sent those chemicals to Iraq- they have seen the pics of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam too ya know?
Of course. What they haven't seen, or rather, what they've chosen to ignore is the Iranian clerics who sent children in human wave attacks against the Iraqi machine guns. Blame is an easy game. So much easier than taking resonsibility for one's own actions. QUOTE(CruisingRam)
I agree that, at some point, those middle eastern countries will have to have the very European outlook of accepting some personal responsibility for thier behaviors- no doubt, if they ever want to move outside the 7th century
so who says they do?QUOTE(CruisingRam)
We were a much better country when we looked to our own affairs and not others.
No you weren't. You were a poverty stricken, racist bunch of illiterates who ruled by the gun and the almighty dolllar. As far back as the 1860's your country's vested self interests left my country, and many others in economic ruin. There has never been a time when the USA existed in a soap bubble. It has always existed in competetion with other countries.QUOTE(CruisingRam)
WE need to take personal responsibility for OUR actions, before we start demanding the same of others.
Yes, and as always this must start with the individual. As long as the American electorate is indifferent to the political process then you will continue to be ruled by those who have the support of 30% of the population. America needs to wake up and reform its political process and that is only going to happen if the American's themselves wake up. Sorry for the sporadic OT nature of my reply, as always at this time of year my time is limited.
CR:
You wrote:
"'the great Satan' came about because of our association with the Shah, and thier hatred of everything that had to do with the Shah."
Please, read the Quran. Find out just what crime/sin shaitan [satan] is guilty of. Here, I'll save you some time:
And if an evil whisper from Shaitân (Satan) tries to turn you away...
And so the believers' support site provides this handy advice to the faithful:
Let the Qur'an and dhikr be your constant companions; if at any time Shaitan whispers an evil suggestion in your soul, flee to Allah immediately for refuge...
And so the antipathy has always been about our penetrating culture, seen as rather decadent in the eyes of some. As the one soul wrote:
The United States is seen as a civilization that unleashes the dark forces of Satan. The Koran describes Satan as "the insidious tempter who whispers...
And so back to us whispering our decadence into the wind, as even The Atlantic recognizes:
"It is surely in this sense that the Ayatollah Khomeini called America the great Satan."
And as Martin Amis wrote in The Observer [The Guardian UK]:
"Still, one way or the other, Qutb is the father of Islamism. Here are the chief tenets he inspired: that America, and its clients, are jahiliyya (the word classically applied to pre-Muhammadan Arabia - barbarous and benighted); that America is controlled by Jews; that Americans are infidels, that they are animals, and, worse, arrogant animals, and are unworthy of life; that America promotes pride and promiscuity in the service of human degradation; that America seeks to 'exterminate' Islam - and that it will accomplish this not by conquest, not by colonial annexation, but by example. As Bernard Lewis puts it in The Crisis of Islam
'This is what is meant by the term the Great Satan, applied to the United States by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Satan as depicted in the Qur'an is neither an imperialist nor an exploiter. He is a seducer, 'the insidious tempter who whispers in the hearts of men' (Qur'an, CXIV, 4, 5).
Lewis might have added that these are the closing words of the Koran. So they echo."
The problem that you have here is simply that your disdain for all things religious prevents you from trying to understand the meaning of the faith of some and just how that faith motivates their lives. We have the same phenomenon here, when some rail against "Hollywood" and its evil message that corrupts and pollutes the minds of our youth. And so "Hollywood" is the great satan for some here at home. In any event, please simply understand that your vision of "satan" is not their vision of "shaitan" and so much is lost in the translation.
Now going back to the late Shah, what was the symbol of protest? The women veiling-up [as it were]? The problem is that while the late Shah's father had decreed compulsory de-veiling, on assuming power, the late Shah reversed his father's decree and gave women the option to veil or to not veil. So what were some saying by veiling-up? That we don't want or need your Westernized-whisper? The late Shah was simply the little shaitan because we, the great shaitain, had whispered in his ear and corrupted his soul. In that precise sense, you have the order reversed, since not the Shah and then us by association, but rather us and the Shah by association. And Savak wasn't the corruption but instead that Western suit and tie and those women serving in military uniform [that last is considered a very dangerous idea by some, since having women bearing arms in defense of the nation brings with it the obvious implication that as defenders of the nation some are entitled to their civil rights, including their equality].
Lastly, as you can hopefully now appreciate, DaytonRocker is otherwise wrong, as their current goal is not to win the war by beating us here at home, but instead, some win their war by driving us out and then building that Cone Of Silence that shuts out our whisper. More correctly, that's Phase I. Then when some have their imagined ummah, dedicated to the cause, then Phase II and our more local extermination. That's their vision, and in the "their" are both Osama and Khomeini, though those two might have their differences between them.
You wrote:
"'the great Satan' came about because of our association with the Shah, and thier hatred of everything that had to do with the Shah."
Please, read the Quran. Find out just what crime/sin shaitan [satan] is guilty of. Here, I'll save you some time:
And if an evil whisper from Shaitân (Satan) tries to turn you away...
And so the believers' support site provides this handy advice to the faithful:
Let the Qur'an and dhikr be your constant companions; if at any time Shaitan whispers an evil suggestion in your soul, flee to Allah immediately for refuge...
And so the antipathy has always been about our penetrating culture, seen as rather decadent in the eyes of some. As the one soul wrote:
The United States is seen as a civilization that unleashes the dark forces of Satan. The Koran describes Satan as "the insidious tempter who whispers...
And so back to us whispering our decadence into the wind, as even The Atlantic recognizes:
"It is surely in this sense that the Ayatollah Khomeini called America the great Satan."
And as Martin Amis wrote in The Observer [The Guardian UK]:
"Still, one way or the other, Qutb is the father of Islamism. Here are the chief tenets he inspired: that America, and its clients, are jahiliyya (the word classically applied to pre-Muhammadan Arabia - barbarous and benighted); that America is controlled by Jews; that Americans are infidels, that they are animals, and, worse, arrogant animals, and are unworthy of life; that America promotes pride and promiscuity in the service of human degradation; that America seeks to 'exterminate' Islam - and that it will accomplish this not by conquest, not by colonial annexation, but by example. As Bernard Lewis puts it in The Crisis of Islam
'This is what is meant by the term the Great Satan, applied to the United States by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Satan as depicted in the Qur'an is neither an imperialist nor an exploiter. He is a seducer, 'the insidious tempter who whispers in the hearts of men' (Qur'an, CXIV, 4, 5).
Lewis might have added that these are the closing words of the Koran. So they echo."
The problem that you have here is simply that your disdain for all things religious prevents you from trying to understand the meaning of the faith of some and just how that faith motivates their lives. We have the same phenomenon here, when some rail against "Hollywood" and its evil message that corrupts and pollutes the minds of our youth. And so "Hollywood" is the great satan for some here at home. In any event, please simply understand that your vision of "satan" is not their vision of "shaitan" and so much is lost in the translation.
Now going back to the late Shah, what was the symbol of protest? The women veiling-up [as it were]? The problem is that while the late Shah's father had decreed compulsory de-veiling, on assuming power, the late Shah reversed his father's decree and gave women the option to veil or to not veil. So what were some saying by veiling-up? That we don't want or need your Westernized-whisper? The late Shah was simply the little shaitan because we, the great shaitain, had whispered in his ear and corrupted his soul. In that precise sense, you have the order reversed, since not the Shah and then us by association, but rather us and the Shah by association. And Savak wasn't the corruption but instead that Western suit and tie and those women serving in military uniform [that last is considered a very dangerous idea by some, since having women bearing arms in defense of the nation brings with it the obvious implication that as defenders of the nation some are entitled to their civil rights, including their equality].
Lastly, as you can hopefully now appreciate, DaytonRocker is otherwise wrong, as their current goal is not to win the war by beating us here at home, but instead, some win their war by driving us out and then building that Cone Of Silence that shuts out our whisper. More correctly, that's Phase I. Then when some have their imagined ummah, dedicated to the cause, then Phase II and our more local extermination. That's their vision, and in the "their" are both Osama and Khomeini, though those two might have their differences between them.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Dec 26 2007, 01:06 PM)
If terrorism is so easy, why aren't terrorists sniping at our shopping malls and football games? Collapsing tunnels? Destroying our electrical service? Poisoning our food?
Gee, you think it might possibly be because it's been made difficult for them somehow?
QUOTE
Nobody - and I mean nobody - would give terrorists WMD. No leader is that foolish.
Apart from the fact that some leaders may indeed be foolish enough to think they could control terrorist outfits, there are still means (such as bribery) by which terrorists could get a hold of WMD materials without the consent of governments. This is especially true in politically and economically dysfunctional countries.
QUOTE
Contrary to the fear mongering perpetually used by the Bush administration supporters, terrorists are not trustworthy enough to be handed the power to destroy the supplier's own country no matter what weaponry is used.
And here's where your credibility comes crashing down like a WTC tower. You know perfectly well that it's not just "Bush administration supporters" who've been raising these concerns. They've been raised by leaders on both the left and right, here as well as in Europe. Only those on the libertarian fringe try to pretend that it's not a problem.
Now you may be willing to put your life in the hands of the sanity, prudence, and competence of these backward governments (because that's what your ideology demands), but that doesn't mean anyone with an ounce of common sense would be willing to do so.
QUOTE
The bottom line is, Al Qaida or any other terrorist cell could not survive here. They cannot blend, cannot be supplied weaponry without a conspiracy too large to manage, and could not survive. If Arabs took their fight to our shores, America would be uninhabitable to them. So, from a simple military strategy standpoint, it would be foolish for Al Qaida to fight us here or inflict significant damage (if they could).
I don't think you're fully understanding this "terrorism" concept. It's not military in nature. It's all about inflicting the maximum damage with the minimum commitment of resources.
edited to add:
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 28 2007, 07:18 AM)
It appears then that a greater threat to US security -- that is the subject of the thread, or so I interpret it -- consists of our own people. We have a greater chance of being gunned down in church or at the mall today than before 9/11. Then there are the school shootings.
Actually, just for the record, the subject of the thread is only the threat posed by jihadist terrorist groups. The debate question doesn't ask for any comparisons to other threats, real or imagined. All it's concerned with is the actual level of harm that these terrorist groups can inflict on the U.S., by whatever means.
Blackstone- AMs comparison is VITALLY important to the debate, and you simply want to exclude it because it shows how low on threat priorities Al-Quaeda has been all along.
When you say "Al-Quaida is a threat"- you need some context of how big a threat it is- in other words, you MUST compare it to other threats to rate it- in the top 100 threats that face Americans everyday, it doesnt' make that list. Perhaps in the top 1000, but remember, it is STILL less of a statistical threat than the monkey problem we talked about earlier
Our own poeple make a MUCH more serious threat to our safety than external threats- off the scale, when compared to Al-Queada threats. there are literally thousands of threats Americans face every day, serious threats, yet they have statistically 0 threat from Al-Qaida.
When you say "Al-Quaida is a threat"- you need some context of how big a threat it is- in other words, you MUST compare it to other threats to rate it- in the top 100 threats that face Americans everyday, it doesnt' make that list. Perhaps in the top 1000, but remember, it is STILL less of a statistical threat than the monkey problem we talked about earlier
Our own poeple make a MUCH more serious threat to our safety than external threats- off the scale, when compared to Al-Queada threats. there are literally thousands of threats Americans face every day, serious threats, yet they have statistically 0 threat from Al-Qaida.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 30 2007, 05:01 PM)
When you say "Al-Quaida is a threat"- you need some context of how big a threat it is- in other words, you MUST compare it to other threats to rate it-
You're displaying a really bizarre penchant for trying to decide on your own what the subject is of a thread that you didn't start. And you're just plain wrong here - in order to assess the seriousness of a threat, all that's needed is to assess how much damage it can do; that is, what adverse consequences can be realistically expected from it.
Example: the 1993 attack, but for dumb luck having nothing to do with security precautions that we had taken, could very easily have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That's a threat assessment. Examining what effect that would have had in the Muslim world, and hence on the recruitment prospects for AQ and other terrorist organizations - that's another threat assessment.
Now if you don't think that's worth discussing all by itself, then no one's forcing you to participate.
No, it is because it doesn't fit into your threat assesment, and shows how ridiculous the hysteria behind buying duct tape and color coded threats have been, if you don't like the fact that the threat assesment falls outside your likes or dislikes, by all means, bow out
All here refuse to be buttonholed into some "yes/no" answer by you, and you don't like it- too bad.
If you don't like the answers, don't participate- but threat assesment, risk management etc is ALWAYS prefaced by prioritizing. Risk management, threat assesment etc, it is impossible to gauge any of it without taking all threats as a whole, and prioritizing them from 'no threat at all" to "eminent danger".
don't like that? again, too bad, get over it
How much damage can monkeys flying out of your butt do Blackstone? I would assume it would be very damaging to your person, and taken alone, you could say that monkeys flying out of your butt is a VERY serious threat- but it is not eminent, now is it?
Same with Terrorist threats, lightening strikes, death by pit viper etc.
In anything you do, on a day to day basis, has some form of threat assesment and risk management. You climb in your car, I doubt you do a logical, detailed risk management survey- if you did, you may not climb in that car- as it is possibly the single most dangerous thing you do in your life, and you do it every day, if you are an average American. I doubt you go over the stats of how likely you are to die, each day, in your commute to work. You may even forget to wear your seatbelt- a FAR FAR FAR more dangerous to you, every day, than any AQ threat, real or percieved.
Okay- AQ is a serious threat, but so is driving your car every day. You simply are dodging the issue , and engaging in a total lie NOT to compare one threat to another. That is what risk management and threat assesment is all about- how much of a threat is it, and how do we manage that risk?
How many resources do we task to that threat, and in order to do that, we need a logical threat assessment.
In your 1993 example- there was no need to do anything- because the terrorists determined it wouldn't work by thier failure- your "what if" we had changed this or that in 1993 would have been a horendous waste of resources, because it was never attacked again in that matter- they changed tactics.
So your threat assesment would be horribly wrong in trying to guard against a van full of explosives- and we had no indications from the 1993 bombing that the next attack would come from the air.
This is the area we get into th basic competent nature of Bill Clinton- he acted correctly. He tasked the CIA to *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** this threat. He committed resources to gathering more intel on the threat itself. then, he started going after the threat, in a sane, competent manner. He rattled some sabres, made some bold statements- but his actions were never rashed, rarely ill concieved, and very competent, for the most part. His administration identified OBL and Al-Quaida, and he took steps, rational steps, with no preconcieved plan to act on some ideology, but rather, reacted in a manner that was sane and competent, taking as much action as neccessary, while generally keeping moderate elements moderate.
GW came in to office with a cross to bare regarding Iraq, and was looking for an excuse to invade. He used risk management and threat assesment to justify the invasion, NOT really to harm AQ- AQ wasn't there
and this forms the basis of the debate- they ARE a serious threat. Sure. so are alot of other things. Like meteor strikes and monkeys flying out of Blackstone's butt
Monkeys flying out of Blackstone's butt is VERY serious, and could cause SERIOUS harm to Blackstone.
but it is unlikely to happen.
You can't divorce one from the other, and be honest on any level.
All here refuse to be buttonholed into some "yes/no" answer by you, and you don't like it- too bad.
If you don't like the answers, don't participate- but threat assesment, risk management etc is ALWAYS prefaced by prioritizing. Risk management, threat assesment etc, it is impossible to gauge any of it without taking all threats as a whole, and prioritizing them from 'no threat at all" to "eminent danger".
don't like that? again, too bad, get over it
How much damage can monkeys flying out of your butt do Blackstone? I would assume it would be very damaging to your person, and taken alone, you could say that monkeys flying out of your butt is a VERY serious threat- but it is not eminent, now is it?
Same with Terrorist threats, lightening strikes, death by pit viper etc.
In anything you do, on a day to day basis, has some form of threat assesment and risk management. You climb in your car, I doubt you do a logical, detailed risk management survey- if you did, you may not climb in that car- as it is possibly the single most dangerous thing you do in your life, and you do it every day, if you are an average American. I doubt you go over the stats of how likely you are to die, each day, in your commute to work. You may even forget to wear your seatbelt- a FAR FAR FAR more dangerous to you, every day, than any AQ threat, real or percieved.
Okay- AQ is a serious threat, but so is driving your car every day. You simply are dodging the issue , and engaging in a total lie NOT to compare one threat to another. That is what risk management and threat assesment is all about- how much of a threat is it, and how do we manage that risk?
How many resources do we task to that threat, and in order to do that, we need a logical threat assessment.
In your 1993 example- there was no need to do anything- because the terrorists determined it wouldn't work by thier failure- your "what if" we had changed this or that in 1993 would have been a horendous waste of resources, because it was never attacked again in that matter- they changed tactics.
So your threat assesment would be horribly wrong in trying to guard against a van full of explosives- and we had no indications from the 1993 bombing that the next attack would come from the air.
This is the area we get into th basic competent nature of Bill Clinton- he acted correctly. He tasked the CIA to *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** this threat. He committed resources to gathering more intel on the threat itself. then, he started going after the threat, in a sane, competent manner. He rattled some sabres, made some bold statements- but his actions were never rashed, rarely ill concieved, and very competent, for the most part. His administration identified OBL and Al-Quaida, and he took steps, rational steps, with no preconcieved plan to act on some ideology, but rather, reacted in a manner that was sane and competent, taking as much action as neccessary, while generally keeping moderate elements moderate.
GW came in to office with a cross to bare regarding Iraq, and was looking for an excuse to invade. He used risk management and threat assesment to justify the invasion, NOT really to harm AQ- AQ wasn't there
and this forms the basis of the debate- they ARE a serious threat. Sure. so are alot of other things. Like meteor strikes and monkeys flying out of Blackstone's butt
Monkeys flying out of Blackstone's butt is VERY serious, and could cause SERIOUS harm to Blackstone.
but it is unlikely to happen.
You can't divorce one from the other, and be honest on any level.
Do you agree with the overall assessment in this Foreign Affairs article? How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida and/or other Islamic terrorist groups to our own national security?
Yes and no. I agree that al Qaeda has proven to be a smaller threat to the U.S. than I would have expected six years ago. But it is still a significant threat to many, including our allies and Americans abroad, and it's foolish to dismiss it by comparing it to bathtub drownings or meteor strikes. It's pointless to compare statistical risks of things in such different categories. There's no moral component to a drowning accident or a natural disaster, no guilty party to pursue. During the bad old days of lynchings, far more black Americans died of heart disease than were ever at risk of lynching. But it would be obscene to use that fact to argue that a crackdown on the KKK was an overreaction to the problem of lynching.
Al Qaeda was badly damaged by the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan, but some of its leaders had escaped to Pakistan by 2002. There, they've found a mostly safe haven, since our nominal ally, Pakistan, has never exercised state power in the mountains along the Afghan border. Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups continue to train fighters and plot terrorist attacks from these areas. The "home-grown British" terrorists who committed the 7/7 tube bombings trained in Pakistan.
As for "fear-mongering," I see more of that in the CruisingRam's hysterical warnings about our founding documents being converted into bathroom tissue. (I hear Cheney uses the Fourth Amendment to clean up after a bout of the flying monkeys...)
Yes and no. I agree that al Qaeda has proven to be a smaller threat to the U.S. than I would have expected six years ago. But it is still a significant threat to many, including our allies and Americans abroad, and it's foolish to dismiss it by comparing it to bathtub drownings or meteor strikes. It's pointless to compare statistical risks of things in such different categories. There's no moral component to a drowning accident or a natural disaster, no guilty party to pursue. During the bad old days of lynchings, far more black Americans died of heart disease than were ever at risk of lynching. But it would be obscene to use that fact to argue that a crackdown on the KKK was an overreaction to the problem of lynching.
Al Qaeda was badly damaged by the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan, but some of its leaders had escaped to Pakistan by 2002. There, they've found a mostly safe haven, since our nominal ally, Pakistan, has never exercised state power in the mountains along the Afghan border. Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups continue to train fighters and plot terrorist attacks from these areas. The "home-grown British" terrorists who committed the 7/7 tube bombings trained in Pakistan.
As for "fear-mongering," I see more of that in the CruisingRam's hysterical warnings about our founding documents being converted into bathroom tissue. (I hear Cheney uses the Fourth Amendment to clean up after a bout of the flying monkeys...)
I hear you Jobius- now you are getting into the spirit of it all 
BUT- I must disagree- in one small area- we STILL had resources, research and whatnot going on regarding heart disease in blacks, and certainly didn't OVER react to lynchings.
We didn't roll tanks into the entire south, start bombing the houses of suspected KKK members, and pretty much destroy the entire infrastructure of the entire south in 1968 now did we?
No, we tasked law enforcement, rooted them out and used several techniques to punish them, from allowing civil lawsuits to criminal pursueing the ringleaders. We broke them by taking away the base they knew best- thier nieghbors. We certainly didn't bomb entire schools where we thought they might be hiding, now did we?
To take your scenario even further- on top of that, we didn't invade south africa because of lynchings in the US either, now did we?
A better example is violent crime in the US vs the threat from Al-Quaida. Do we re-task most of our resources of the law enforcement community to watching out for Al-Quaida while we remove those same resources from fighting violent crime?
The duct tape and color coded alerts really happened- this is the reality of the results of fearmongering. The Patriot act really happened. Rendition of innocent civilians really happened. torture really happened. Invading a country needlessly wasting the lives of thousands of soldiers- that really happened.
That would be the empirical, measurable results of basically using the constitution (figuratively) as toilet paper and the end result of the fear mongering. Real, measurable results of the fearmongering.
Law enforcement resources are very limited, and stretched thin almost everywhere, all the time- that is one reason so many libertarians , and many others for that matter, want to see us stop wasting resources, limited, finite resources, on victimless crimes so we CAN really focus on external and internal threats to our safety.
Fearmongering is how American poltics have worked for some time, and we are making things worse, not better. War on Poverty- LBJ- started a host of social programs- maybe well intentioned, but still playing on the fears of the American public. War on Drugs- same thing. We always need something to be afraid of so we can get this or that resource tasked to where, if someone were to sanely look at the problem, is a waste of finite resources.
So, yes, AQ is a threat. If we ignore it completely, and stop paying attention to it completely- that would be stupid as well. But, violent crime in America is a far more serious threat to ALL Americans, and we need to put that serious threat in some kind of rational perspective.
BUT- I must disagree- in one small area- we STILL had resources, research and whatnot going on regarding heart disease in blacks, and certainly didn't OVER react to lynchings.
We didn't roll tanks into the entire south, start bombing the houses of suspected KKK members, and pretty much destroy the entire infrastructure of the entire south in 1968 now did we?
No, we tasked law enforcement, rooted them out and used several techniques to punish them, from allowing civil lawsuits to criminal pursueing the ringleaders. We broke them by taking away the base they knew best- thier nieghbors. We certainly didn't bomb entire schools where we thought they might be hiding, now did we?
To take your scenario even further- on top of that, we didn't invade south africa because of lynchings in the US either, now did we?
A better example is violent crime in the US vs the threat from Al-Quaida. Do we re-task most of our resources of the law enforcement community to watching out for Al-Quaida while we remove those same resources from fighting violent crime?
The duct tape and color coded alerts really happened- this is the reality of the results of fearmongering. The Patriot act really happened. Rendition of innocent civilians really happened. torture really happened. Invading a country needlessly wasting the lives of thousands of soldiers- that really happened.
That would be the empirical, measurable results of basically using the constitution (figuratively) as toilet paper and the end result of the fear mongering. Real, measurable results of the fearmongering.
Law enforcement resources are very limited, and stretched thin almost everywhere, all the time- that is one reason so many libertarians , and many others for that matter, want to see us stop wasting resources, limited, finite resources, on victimless crimes so we CAN really focus on external and internal threats to our safety.
Fearmongering is how American poltics have worked for some time, and we are making things worse, not better. War on Poverty- LBJ- started a host of social programs- maybe well intentioned, but still playing on the fears of the American public. War on Drugs- same thing. We always need something to be afraid of so we can get this or that resource tasked to where, if someone were to sanely look at the problem, is a waste of finite resources.
So, yes, AQ is a threat. If we ignore it completely, and stop paying attention to it completely- that would be stupid as well. But, violent crime in America is a far more serious threat to ALL Americans, and we need to put that serious threat in some kind of rational perspective.
How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida and/or other Islamic terrorist groups to our own national security?
To answer your question with a question...relative to what? Relative to other "threats?" "Threat" is an intentionally ambiguous term in this regard. Do I feel threatened by Al Qaeda? Not in the least. It is more likely that I slip on a banana peel and then my ambulance gets hit by a meteor on the way to the hospital than for me to die of a terrorist attack. The odds point to the conclusion that I am more likely to be killed just walking outside right now than for Al Qaeda to kill me. So are the steps we have taken to prevent this completely improbably event from happening necessary? I say no. Al Qaeda has no army, no navy, no air force. It cannot deprive me of liberty and it cannot coercively tax me. I do not fear Al Qaeda any more than a local hood who wants my wallet. Al Qaeda cannot occupy the United States, the state of New York, or New York City and impose their will on me...even if they wanted to. We are the most powerful nation in history and we are constantly fearing a couple thousand thugs from third world countries who live in caves and kill a couple of Americans every so often. Anyone who wishes to convince me that Al Qaeda is the incarnate of Satan's army needs to do more than quote some verses from the Quran.
To answer your question with a question...relative to what? Relative to other "threats?" "Threat" is an intentionally ambiguous term in this regard. Do I feel threatened by Al Qaeda? Not in the least. It is more likely that I slip on a banana peel and then my ambulance gets hit by a meteor on the way to the hospital than for me to die of a terrorist attack. The odds point to the conclusion that I am more likely to be killed just walking outside right now than for Al Qaeda to kill me. So are the steps we have taken to prevent this completely improbably event from happening necessary? I say no. Al Qaeda has no army, no navy, no air force. It cannot deprive me of liberty and it cannot coercively tax me. I do not fear Al Qaeda any more than a local hood who wants my wallet. Al Qaeda cannot occupy the United States, the state of New York, or New York City and impose their will on me...even if they wanted to. We are the most powerful nation in history and we are constantly fearing a couple thousand thugs from third world countries who live in caves and kill a couple of Americans every so often. Anyone who wishes to convince me that Al Qaeda is the incarnate of Satan's army needs to do more than quote some verses from the Quran.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 30 2007, 06:57 PM)
You simply are dodging the issue , and engaging in a total lie NOT to compare one threat to another.
And how exactly can I be dodging my own question? What you're all sore about is that I'm not talking about what you want to talk about.
Likewise, how is it a lie for me not to talk about what you want to talk about? Do you know what the word "lie" means? I just don't see how you can possibly make a cogent argument of any kind when your own words make no sense at all.
QUOTE
In your 1993 example- there was no need to do anything- because the terrorists determined it wouldn't work by thier failure-
Let this stand as a shining example of your logic. Because some kid plays with matches and nothing bad happens, it therefore must mean that there's no danger in playing with matches.
Never mind the fact that in both instances, it's nothing but pure random chance that prevented something far more serious from happening. I just hope no one invites you to play Russian Roulette.
I am hoping you misunderstood me- in 1993, preparing for another similar attempt on the WTC would have done no good at all, correct?
What would you have done different, without 20/20 hindsite?
I believe Clinton did it EXACTLY right- he went after the perps, increased the CIAs budget, tasked them to find out who these poeple were, and started gathering intel- in fact, as we now know, Clinton even tried to pass the info on- it got lost in the shuffle, by incompetance or unfortunate happenstance, either way- without 20/20 hindsite- what would have been done different?
Leder's argument is essentially my view as well, as is DRs, DTOMs etc.
So, if you don't like my words, I will quote Leder's.
What would you have done different, without 20/20 hindsite?
I believe Clinton did it EXACTLY right- he went after the perps, increased the CIAs budget, tasked them to find out who these poeple were, and started gathering intel- in fact, as we now know, Clinton even tried to pass the info on- it got lost in the shuffle, by incompetance or unfortunate happenstance, either way- without 20/20 hindsite- what would have been done different?
Leder's argument is essentially my view as well, as is DRs, DTOMs etc.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Dec 30 2007, 03:49 PM)
How serious a threat is al-Qa'ida and/or other Islamic terrorist groups to our own national security?
To answer your question with a question...relative to what? Relative to other "threats?" "Threat" is an intentionally ambiguous term in this regard. Do I feel threatened by Al Qaeda? Not in the least. It is more likely that I slip on a banana peel and then my ambulance gets hit by a meteor on the way to the hospital than for me to die of a terrorist attack. The odds point to the conclusion that I am more likely to be killed just walking outside right now than for Al Qaeda to kill me. So are the steps we have taken to prevent this completely improbably event from happening necessary? I say no. Al Qaeda has no army, no navy, no air force. It cannot deprive me of liberty and it cannot coercively tax me. I do not fear Al Qaeda any more than a local hood who wants my wallet. Al Qaeda cannot occupy the United States, the state of New York, or New York City and impose their will on me...even if they wanted to. We are the most powerful nation in history and we are constantly fearing a couple thousand thugs from third world countries who live in caves and kill a couple of Americans every so often. Anyone who wishes to convince me that Al Qaeda is the incarnate of Satan's army needs to do more than quote some verses from the Quran.
To answer your question with a question...relative to what? Relative to other "threats?" "Threat" is an intentionally ambiguous term in this regard. Do I feel threatened by Al Qaeda? Not in the least. It is more likely that I slip on a banana peel and then my ambulance gets hit by a meteor on the way to the hospital than for me to die of a terrorist attack. The odds point to the conclusion that I am more likely to be killed just walking outside right now than for Al Qaeda to kill me. So are the steps we have taken to prevent this completely improbably event from happening necessary? I say no. Al Qaeda has no army, no navy, no air force. It cannot deprive me of liberty and it cannot coercively tax me. I do not fear Al Qaeda any more than a local hood who wants my wallet. Al Qaeda cannot occupy the United States, the state of New York, or New York City and impose their will on me...even if they wanted to. We are the most powerful nation in history and we are constantly fearing a couple thousand thugs from third world countries who live in caves and kill a couple of Americans every so often. Anyone who wishes to convince me that Al Qaeda is the incarnate of Satan's army needs to do more than quote some verses from the Quran.
So, if you don't like my words, I will quote Leder's.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Dec 30 2007, 11:06 PM)
I am hoping you misunderstood me- in 1993, preparing for another similar attempt on the WTC would have done no good at all, correct?
OK, perhaps I did misunderstand you. But in that case, your point really has nothing to do with the debate question. This isn't about what to do about terrorism (that's a whole separate discussion), only about assessing the level of harm it can realistically be expected to inflict. Same answer for your other two questions.
QUOTE
Leder's argument is essentially my view as well
I noticed. His post made all the same points you did. Let me start off by asking the two of you this, if I may: Do you agree that the 1993 attack failed not because of the difficulty level of pulling it off, but only because the terrorists made a simple planning error? In other words, do you agree that all of the actual hard work that would have been needed to successfully pull it off had been in fact been done?
Because to me, it seems that the logistical equivalent (obviously not the moral equivalent) would be someone sneaking into the White House, making his way past the Secret Service, getting within point-blank range of the President, aiming his gun, pulling the trigger, and the gun jams. To me, that wouldn't be the time to get all complacent about the level of security that the President enjoys, just because he was completely unscratched by the incident.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Dec 30 2007, 11:36 PM)
QUOTE
Leder's argument is essentially my view as well
I noticed. His post made all the same points you did. Let me start off by asking the two of you this, if I may: Do you agree that the 1993 attack failed not because of the difficulty level of pulling it off, but only because the terrorists made a simple planning error? In other words, do you agree that all of the actual hard work that would have been needed to successfully pull it off had been in fact been done?
Because to me, it seems that the logistical equivalent (obviously not the moral equivalent) would be someone sneaking into the White House, making his way past the Secret Service, getting within point-blank range of the President, aiming his gun, pulling the trigger, and the gun jams. To me, that wouldn't be the time to get all complacent about the level of security that the President enjoys, just because he was completely unscratched by the incident.
Blackstone, lets attempt to look at the "threat" level of Al Qaeda from