Understanding terrorism

In other words, you were a spook for the navy who never saw real combat. I rest my case.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by marichiko

...for the navy...

Hey, hey, hey!

Lay off the navy or I'm gonna come over there and we'll have a real slap fight!

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Hey, hey, hey!

Lay off the navy or I'm gonna come over there and we'll have a real slap fight!

Did I say anything against the Navy? No. My point was merely that UG seems to have been more involved in covert type operations rather than battlefield situations. I would have made the same comments if he had said he was a Russian language specialist and cryptographer for the Army or Air Force. The men who serve and have served in the Navy are as honorable and brave as any other members of our Armed Forces. I write of men (and women) who serve in the US Army and Air Force because these are the people I know first hand. My father served in the Army, as did a close friend of mine. My father's brother, my uncle Leland, served in the NAVY in WWII and saw action in some of the great naval battles of that war. I respected my Uncle Leland as much as I did my Dad. There is a large Army base where I live and the Air Force Academy is located here, also. The last I heard, there are no naval bases located in Colorado, in case no one has noticed.

Originally Posted by Brianna

Mar only respects the military branch her dear ol' dad was in. Don't you know that? It helps to know where people are coming from, TS. I don't think she served in ANY branch, though.

Wrong on the first part, correct on the second. I did actually talk with a NAVAL recruiter back in the 70's and give serious though to enlisting with the Navy. However, I wanted to go in as an officer and they told me I needed to finish my degree before they would consider allowing me to enlist and go through officer's candidate school. By time I finished my degree, I had gotten married and my life took a different direction. :p

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Did I say anything against the Navy?

Joke, dear, joke.

That's what the smiley and the mention of a slap fight were to indicate.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The US backed Saddam as long as we had a use for him. Why don't you have the honesty to admit this?

Ah but I do: I recall our giving intelligence support to Iraq when they were shooting at Iran, with whom we ourselves were all but at war with at the time. This strategy worked pretty well, too: set one asshole regime to bleed another monstrous regiment of assholes, and you end up with both these troublemakers seriously weakened. We took the anti-American zip right out of Iranian policymaking -- military-age kids are terrorist-age kids too, and since neither Iran nor Iraq were any too brilliant at fighting that war, that demographic got bled white, particularly in Iran -- and that was just what we needed.

Set a gangsterish dictator to strangle a fanatical absolutist mullah -- tough to find the downside.

As an aside, why do you think that was an answer to the actual question I posed, Marichiko? Immaturity cropping up again? Sorry, but I have zero patience with unrighteousness pretending to righteous wrath. I have this minor flaw: I resent being lied to.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Set a gangsterish dictator to strangle a fanatical absolutist mullah -- tough to find the downside.

Think about that seriously for 10 seconds. Why do they hate us? Just like all authoritarian types you ignore what really happens to the people you play your games with.

[Trilby]

Mar only respects the military branch her dear ol' dad was in. Don't you know that? It helps to know where people are coming from, TS. I don't think she served in ANY branch, though.

[Mr.Anon.E.Mouse]

So I've read pretty much most of te posts in this thread and have concluded that y'all really haven't concluded much, other than terrorists are bad, m'kay?

On understanding terrorists... Why complicate it by assuming their justifications and then poking holes in them? There are no justifications, there are no good reasons to perpetrate suicide bombings and inflicting injury, mayhem, and death on innocent civilians. Trying to involve U.S. policy in the cause and effect of terrorism is just plain stupid. It shouldn't matter if every 'Murican pissed on the Koran and called Allah a pig farker. There's really no rational, sane reason to do what these nut cases are doing.

Try understanding folks that target men, women, and children alike in their attacks. Can you honestly even begin to get your head around that? I sure can't and the first thing I feel is dispair when I even try. The next thing I feel is a desire to protect mine and myself from these folks, even if it means supporting military action, which is just so contrary to my character.

Ultimately, I think it is the goal of these terrorists to cause these mental disruptions and psychic traumas. It's one hell of a tactic and used only both folks I'd label as evil.

[Trilby]

kudos, Mouse. I agree. But now tw is going to regale us with some really convoluted shit about...well, you'll see.

[Bullitt]

Indeed, its allll about the details here sometimes

[Urbane Guerrilla]

TW, where your argument fails is that we are not, contrary to your claim, "forcing democracy" on anyone, as we know that doesn't work very well. What the military force we apply does do is to remove the obstacle to democracy a tyrannical regime presents, by pulverizing the regime, or in Iraq's case, less pulverizing than sublimating: it evaporated in front of us.

While Vietnam may not at this time have democracy, we can take comfort in that it really doesn't have Communism either, big C or small, except as a sort of state religion you're supposed to believe in if you want a job in government. On the streets it's capitalism and small businesses.

Turning to Richlevy: most of the rest of your arguments, sir, are and likely will remain the preposterous rationalizations of those who want this war against tyrants who would prefer oppressing us to leaving us alone to be lost, immediately, and at any cost. I have nil respect for such people and such opinions; America should win her wars. Is there something so wrong in this?

Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher? You will not be able to answer this question, Rich; I know your sort. Handwaving about a waste of your time is ridiculous, and a rationalization for the moral cowardice you daily offend with. Phooey! You will sidestep, dance, expostulate, obfuscate, and evade. What you won't do is fight terrorism nor tyranny -- which constitute threats to the Constitution and the several States to which we've both sworn. Too much a waste of your precious, inviolable time. Wow.

This is why my manner indicates contempt. You can't back up the convictions your post says you hold, name or no name. If you think my book is crayon (not that you believe even that), you think terribly poorly, which is par for the antiwar types in here. They may satisfy themselves with their "reasons" to undermine and fail at this war on tyranny -- but their reasons don't satisfy me.

The recruiting stations stop taking them at thirty-nine, and I've got more military time and decorations than you do anyway, as you admit. So Phooey again; your bleatings don't impress.

You've done a fine job of making yourself the issue for a couple of posts, but this is an end to it. We now return to the matter of terrorism, and its proper excision.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

TW, where your argument fails is that we are not, contrary to your claim, "forcing democracy" on anyone, as we know that doesn't work very well.

The US government demands that Iraq have their constitution written and approved by 15 August. That sounds exactly like forcing a government down their throats. Furthermore, the US government has put restrictions on what can and cannot be in that constitution.

Meanwhile, history demonstrates that when democracy is pushed down their throats, bad things like Civil War occur. Brent Scowcroft (a closest friend of George Sr) was discussing this as a real possibility maybe one year ago. Now reporters in the 'field' are reporting civil war as a more likely consideration with each month.

The Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani is recently been quoted saying, "the Kurdish people have the right to secede.''

Meanwhile, one of the underlying themes from the founding members of "Project for a New American Century" was to fix the Middle East and Central Asia; to impose democratic structures on these nations. Those are underlying concepts behind pre-emption. We will fix these people because they cannot fix themselves. Stable democratic governments do not occur when those governments are unilaterally imposed by an exterior force. We even tried to do that in Vietnam. All we ended up with was the most corrupt government in the region. Furthermore, we ended up destabilizing governments in adjacent nations.

Liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. The people must sweat and bleed to eventually 'earn' their own government. If democracy is so good, then democracy will occur naturally. But a democracy imposed on a nation just will not work. George Jr is trying to impose democracy upon Iraq. America has even issued deadlines. Next on the list: Iran.

One of the underlying principles behind "Project for a New American Century" is pre-emption - to unilaterally force a change upon them. In fact, many of the most right wing members of this group have openly called for imposing democracatic institutions on these nations.

America is trying to impose democracy, in part, because the George Jr administration was surprised that democracy did not happen in the first seven months after "Mission Accomplished" was declared. The George Jr administration's own principles just assumed democracy would spring up when the people were liberated. They failed to learn the lessons of history. Those people must take the first steps to liberate themselves. In Iraq, they did not. America is forcing changes upon them - complete with deadlines.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Turning to Richlevy: most of the rest of your arguments, sir, are and likely will remain the preposterous rationalizations of those who want this war against tyrants who would prefer oppressing us to leaving us alone to be lost, immediately, and at any cost. I have nil respect for such people and such opinions; America should win her wars. Is there something so wrong in this?

Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher? You will not be able to answer this question, Rich;

So you are now floating the notions that:

1) Saddam Hussein was oppressing us.
2) Saddam Hussein was resonsible for 9/11?

For someone whose job it was to collect intelligence, you seem to have picked up a few pieces of which %99.9999999999 of the rest of the world is ignorant. Did you receive these on a special radio in your bomb shelter or did the tin foil hat slip one day and let them in?

I will fight enemies who pose a 'clear and present' danger along with anyone else, but I'd like the next guy over in the foxhole to be sane. Maybe those recruiters are smart to set some limits.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by richlevy

So you are now floating the notions that:

1) Saddam Hussein was oppressing us.
2) Saddam Hussein was resonsible for 9/11?

1) No. The tyrants I speak of are al-Qaeda and their ilk, who behave most tyrannously to not only Christendom, but about everyone else, to judge from al-Zarqawi's pronunciamentos telling Muslims to avoid democracy. Terrorist attacks are tyrannical methods, are they not? And opposing democratization of the social order means support for tyrannical governance instead, does it not?

I do apologize for being a little unclear as to which particular tyrants I was assailing. (It's still very important that you've never done anything of the kind yoursel owing to your appallingly limited conception of liberty. News flash, Richie: liberty is not and shall not be the exclusive property of the United States.)

2) No again. Isn't it astonishing how many of the soft-on-tyranny sort of Americans believe that some other Americans believe Saddam launched it? Well, the left wouldn't be so recognizable if it weren't for its ill-founded ideas. Personally, I couldn't name one single American who believes Saddam had anything more to do with 9/11 than Hitler had to do with Pearl Harbor. And I couldn't name a single American who did think that way that I couldn't show him that he was mistaken.

Fortunately for the nation, you guys are gullible enough to think we're about as smart as you are -- it keeps you wasting your efforts to undermine the rest of us. You instead spend your time in futilities, and lose elections -- repeatedly.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I will fight enemies who pose a 'clear and present' danger along with anyone else, but I'd like the next guy over in the foxhole to be sane. Maybe those recruiters are smart to set some limits.

Sooo... you're in denial about the idea that widebody jetliners into buildings might pose a danger to the Republic that is both clear as could be and as present as the rubble pile left in downtown Manhattan. Sounds about like what I ought to expect from the likes of you, Rich.

Fighting against tyranny is what sane people do, Rich. You, in what appears to be some of the most grossly misplaced egotism to be found anywhere on the 'Net, aren't fighting the tyranny. Son: you don't qualify to fight in the next metaphorical foxhole from me.