Understanding terrorism

[Griff]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

... why won't someone offer an alternative?

...do you really think that a roomful of people with powdered wigs can legislate him out of doing it? Really?

Noninterventionism.

No, but apparently Bush does. Minding our own business and building a model free society in America is our best defense.

[mrnoodle]

Two replies so far, and only one offer of an alternative solution -- noninterventionism -- which isn't a solution to our present condition at all. It's a policy stance, and subject to many factors that have nothing to do with the so-called war on terror.

Our model is what they despise. That's why they want us dead.

Troops aren't responsible for what the mission is....Their volunteerism is noble, but it is being exploited. Most volunteered before they knew how they were to be used. As for others, there are any number of reasons to volunteer, including a desire not to let someone else go in your place.

This is doubletalk. I haven't researched the number, but a great many volunteered specifically for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq after war had already begun. The idea that they are volunteering for some kind of peace corps mission and then being duped into killing civilians discredits their intelligence and their sacrifice.

The idea that they are volunteering to avoid "someone else [going] in your place" is just...I don't know. You're using this vast generalization to support your point, and your point is false. You usually catch others doing this -- physician, heal thyself.

Someone want to try for a real solution? Take all the time you want. You won't find one that works, and you won't hear your Dem leaders offering one that works, because the one that works is currently being implemented by none other than GW.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Someone want to try for a real solution? Take all the time you want. You won't find one that works, and you won't hear your Dem leaders offering one that works, because the one that works is currently being implemented by none other than GW.

Except it isn't working.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

This is doubletalk. I haven't researched the number, but a great many volunteered specifically for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq after war had already begun. The idea that they are volunteering for some kind of peace corps mission and then being duped into killing civilians discredits their intelligence and their sacrifice.

SNIP:

The U.S. military is looking for a few good men and women — or a few thousand.

According to the May 16 issue of Newsweek, the Army continues to fall behind its enlistment quotas, and missed its April goal by 42 percent,
recruiting only 3,821 of the 6,600 sought. Although recruitment was up from September through January, this is the third month in a row that the Army has failed to meet its goals.

Well, do the research next time before you make such a blatant error in your assumptions.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Someone want to try for a real solution? Take all the time you want. You won't find one that works, and you won't hear your Dem leaders offering one that works, because the one that works is currently being implemented by none other than GW.

Really? Do you suppose the families of those killed in the London subway bombing attacks would feel that GW's "plan" is working? If its working so great, how come we continue to send troops over there to fight and die? If its working so great, how come we still get treated to those little chance of terrorist attack barometers like the temperature predictions in the weather forecast? If what we've current got going on is "working", I'd hate to see "not working."

[Griff]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Our model is what they despise. That's why they want us dead.

This is the flaw in W's whole strategy. He doesn't get that for the Islamist on the street Americans in America are not relevant. Americans in the mid-east imposing non-model governments and proping up dictators are relevant to them. We gave up all moral authority in that part of the world by keeping the Shah in power, an interventionist policy not in keeping with the American model. It is simply unrealistic that an American oil man backed by the greatest army the world has ever known will be considered worthy of trust, no matter what his intentions.

[mrnoodle]

Not doing anything is worse. Much worse.

Army recruitment numbers aside, those who are in the military are in it as volunteers. The Sheehan whose mother is being mind-raped by the left and used as a puppet not only volunteered for duty POST-invasion, he volunteered for the specific mission that he died on.

Read more than just the lib talking points.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Griff

This is the flaw in W's whole strategy. He doesn't get that for the Islamist on the street Americans in America are not relevant. Americans in the mid-east imposing non-model governments and proping up dictators are relevant to them. We gave up all moral authority in that part of the world by keeping the Shah in power, an interventionist policy not in keeping with the American model. It is simply unrealistic that an American oil man backed by the greatest army the world has ever known will be considered worthy of trust, no matter what his intentions.

We did not give up any moral authority whatsoever. We are offering, for the first time, an opportunity for a truly populist government (one not run by a minority religious sect through fear and intimidation) to run the country of Iraq. The man in the street in Iraq does not care one whit for Bush's oil background -- that's totally a domestic partisan weapon. Try finding a leader in that part of the world who's not connected with oil. Or religion, for that matter. Any Arab hatred of Bush is due to his American-ness, which convicts him as a Zionist.

Domestic political hatred of Bush doesn't apply on the ground in the middle east, and no matter how much you try to bring it into play, it never will.

[Griff]

I forgot. I'm a reality based opponent of interventionism. We no longer live in a real world.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Our model is what they despise. That's why they want us dead.

That is only true of the most hardcore of hardcore terrorists. They are only able to recruit because of actual foreign policy issues.

This is doubletalk. I haven't researched the number, but a great many volunteered specifically for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq after war had already begun. The idea that they are volunteering for some kind of peace corps mission and then being duped into killing civilians discredits their intelligence and their sacrifice.

Your point was that saying the war was wrong was somehow not supportive of the troops. I provided some examples of why the mission is not indistinguishable from the troops. There is as much difference of opinion in the military as there is outside of it. By your logic, holding any opinion is disrespecting at least some of the troops.

The idea that they are volunteering to avoid "someone else [going] in your place" is just...I don't know.

That was one example of "any number of reasons"; the one I hear most often in interviews.

You're using this vast generalization to support your point, and your point is false. You usually catch others doing this -- physician, heal thyself.

You're the one who said this:

Our model is what they despise. That's why they want us dead.

You won't find one that works, and you won't hear your Dem leaders offering one that works, because the one that works is currently being implemented by none other than GW.

How do you define "works"?

[bargalunan]

Thank you MrNoodle for your long answer ! What a success !
And thank you for reading mine too.

1) 911 / USA / Irak
2) Thierry Meyssan and http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html
3) Solutions : don’t ask for immediate miracles !

The first time I saw the 911 attack, despite it’s a tragedy, I thought it was an opportunity to act wisely (USA would have been GREAT in trying to resolve world injustice and problems). ONLY USA have the power to do that, Europe is divided, Russia, France… too weak.
I’m sure you think USA do that ! But I don’t agree with the means they’re using :

- When Bush wants to bring justice, he’s not allowed to lie ! He MUST show the example in order that folks trust him. (Will your children trust you if you lie them ? I’m sure you act better than Bush does). Leaders must be the most worthy of respect of us. Even in a good purpose, US are not allowed to lie about mass murder weapons in Irak. They MUST respect the law of the ONU and not attack Irak before ONU decides it’s useful.
- Use of violence increases violence. Look at children or people.
- It’s a nonsense to declare war to COUNTRIES (Irak and Afghanistan) when on the other hand Bush says Al quaida is a NON GOVERNMENTAL terrorist movement that decides with self operating cells.
- So USA don’t have the right to change the government of those countries (even if it’s essential for Saddam Hussein, USA have to wait for ONU : I know it’s too long because when they have no interests, countries haven’t got the courage to interfere. Meanwhile in 1991 ONU allowed Gulf War 1.)

cf Griff : “You’ve responsibility of national defense. It does not give us the authority to do international offense”

Do you remember “Schindler’s list” when the chief of the Nazis camp realises that his power allows him to forgive ! That means do not reply by definitive violence but look for justice.



I would just like to know how Undertoad, MrNoodle or other people, answer to the questions asked by Thierry Meyssan and the link
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

These are just questions. If it can help you : IMAGINE IT OCCURRED IN FRANCE !

- It's the most surveilled area in the world but no video of the plane who attacked the Pentagone, has been shown by medias.
- “Payne Stewart, in 18 minutes had five F-16s around him in the middle of no where. In the most sensitive air corridor in the world, the eastern coast there, D.C./ New York, with these four planes all over the map. And they know there's been hijackings and Dick Cheney's in control “ “The fighters that were stationed in Virginia, just across the border from Washington, D.C., could have been flying at bust speed, which is max speed, they could have intercepted those planes in 15 minutes and saved all that tragedy. And the second airplane was 15 minutes behind the first airplane. So to think they didn't do anything about the second one makes it even more ludicrous”
- At the beginning medias said there were more than 4 planes. (like in the link)
- terrorists were Saoudian. Why Bush didn’t attack Saoudi Arabia ? It isn’t a democratic country, women’s rights are weak.
- the wallet of one terrorist was found at the bottom of a Twin Tower after they broke down. Isn’t it a wonderful luck ?
- why nobody found mass murder weapons in Irak despite Powell said they were there.

Are these questions justified ? Thierry Meyssan is trying to give an answer. What’s yours ?
What are the other possible answers ? I’m open to every kind of solution

If there’s no other possible answer : Do you think the conspiracy theory is really impossible ? If no why ? STILL IMAGINE IT OCCURRED IN FRANCE.

What do you think about the example of Hitler I’ve quoted before ? He used conspiracy theory.
I’ve forgotten p22 that Hitler accused communist terrorists from having set the Reischtag on fire (doesn’t it look like Twin Towers ?).
Is it crazy to ask these questions because it already happened before ?


Solutions :

Let other countries decide what they want to do with their own territories and wealth. Respect them. Other countries don’t have to interfere. For a while we can let ONU decide BUT in the future nothing warrants that ONU will be wiser than other countries it represents. So ONU isn’t a good permanent solution.

Why Irakian, Iranian, African and so many countries natural resources belong to occidental countries or companies. Isn’t it unfair ?

The problem is that the world economy is based on unfairness ! We must rebuilt economical laws like FORBID BANK SECRET that allows and fuels mafias, terrorists and secret services. In fact I think secret must be forbidden wherever you can..

US solution is the one of an ending world. Perhaps NOW we have no better one’s ! But we must be aware it’s a bad solution. (As for me I still don’t think it was made on this purpose to be a solution against terrorism)

I think the good solution begins by ourselves because Politician and other leaders symbolise the major part of people. (There’s a more esoteric explanation too but it’s too long to write, (see ‘egregore’ in French))
We must be aware of what and how rules the world. We must grow up, became wiser thanks to HUMANISTIC EDUCATION (to give everyone the possibility to realise his own desire) and SOCIAL HELP. So it’s not for tomorrow, maybe the day after tomorrow if Bush and other leaders could invest in social instead of weapons.

Girls instinctively know that and often don’t care about politic. They less do war either.

Undertoad : Thank you for letting us your data base. The Cellar is the beginning of a good political solution by getting us informed, and freely make one’s mind.
Hoping there will always be enough freedom to go on !


Bye

[BigV]

wolf -- don't worry, as soon as I close this window I'm going to get a burger. It's easy to argue from a completely emotional standpoint. Five uses of terms like "murder" and "innocent" to put the reader on the defensive, bolstered by one logical point (there are alternatives to meat), all based on the sacred cow of "good intentions". It's easy to be a lib. :P

Dude! You're right, it IS easy!



Just take five uses of emotionally loaded terms to put the reader on the defensive:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

...mind-raped by the left...used as a puppet...political hatred of Bush...simply pawns...their actions in theater are criminal..

and add one logical point:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Where's the solution?

Then hide behind a sacred cow:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

"taking the fight to them"

Piece of cake! You call it bein' a lib, but the sanctimonious self righteousness of your delivery shows you're taking it to a whole new level, all your own.

If a man is born and raised for no other purpose than to serve his God by killing infidels wherever he finds them, do you really think that a roomful of people with powdered wigs can legislate him out of doing it? Really?

Do I really think so? Yeah, and I'll tell you why. Because in spite of the galactic hipocrisy shown by GWB, he's mortal, and the hissy fit he's thrown during his occupation of the White House won't last. This republic has withstood greater threats than his apocolyptic tantrums. This "man born and raised for no other purpose than to serve his God" is just one jerk. A powerful and power-mad two faced shallow figurehead of a jerk, sure, but still just a jerk.

[mrnoodle]

dang, I haven't read this thread in awhile...

This could go on all day. Rather, it could if your examples fit the paradigm. How is "political hatred" too strong an emotive term for the diatribe you just posted? How does anything I said compare to even the mildest anti-conservative rhetoric?

You might be able to find a post where I'm guilty of what you're talking about, but it's not that one. You really think that the left isn't using a mother's grief for political advantage? Where were those same people when the father of one of the Rangers killed in Mogadishu and dragged naked through the streets refused to shake Clinton's hand at a medal ceremony? Oh, I remember. They were berating him for his "disrespect of the office of the President". Of course, he didn't say "May he rot in hell" like radar did. It would be hate speech coming from anyone but a lefty.

This "great republic", as you so rightly call it, didn't become great because of failure to respond to threats. It's quickly losing its luster, however, because of apologist attitudes which produce lines like:

That is only true of the most hardcore of hardcore terrorists. They are only able to recruit because of actual foreign policy issues.

HM? You can't be serious. There is a difference between a "hardcore" terrorist and the more mundane hobbyist? They are only able to recruit because of actual foreign policy issues?

By that reasoning, why aren't there thousands of willing American suicide bombers? Certainly the hatred is there.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

dang, I haven't read this thread in awhile...

This could go on all day. Rather, it could if your examples fit the paradigm. How is "political hatred" too strong an emotive term for the diatribe you just posted? How does anything I said compare to even the mildest anti-conservative rhetoric?

Personally, I'm rather fond of this:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

you know you aren't going to win this argument, though. your opponents don't accept any position that isn't anti-US. before opening your big mouth in the future, make sure your argument is based on the following suppositions:

(1) No religion is extreme except Christianity (as practiced by whitey)*

(2) All conflicts are, directly or indirectly, caused by the USA.

(3) Because of (2), if we are attacked, we are NOT to respond. We are to humbly cast our gaze upon the poor, pillaged Earth that our white people ruined, and try to understand why our enemies are so mad at us. Once we've determined our error, we must (humbly) beseech the United Nations to intervene on our behalf and determine what measures we must take to ensure that the offended party will no longer have reason to hate us.

(4) jaguar is a pinko, so even if you abide by points 1-3, you're still wrong. Your only recourse is to say 8 Hail Karls while masturbating furiously over a burning American flag.

* — Blacks are allowed by libs to be Christian, because they are better at singing gospel music (vocal ad-libs, matchy robes, swaying), and because Martin Luther King was a preacher.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

There is a difference between a "hardcore" terrorist and the more mundane hobbyist? They are only able to recruit because of actual foreign policy issues?

Of course there's a difference. That difference is the reason there are more terrorists now than there were before the Iraq war. People who weren't terrorists became terrorists.

By that reasoning, why aren't there thousands of willing American suicide bombers? Certainly the hatred is there.

Could you be more specific about how that reasoning applies? Hatred of what?

[wolf]

I'm thinking he's referring to hatred of the United States of America.