Understanding terrorism

[mrnoodle]

mari mari mari. Don't be taking quotes out of context. In the very next line, I said you might be able to find a post I made that was hyperbolic, but that the one in question wasn't it.

Also, the post you are referring to is obviously satirical in nature, riffing on what many of us perceive to be extreme leftist goofiness; it doesn't look, sound, or feel the same as "Bush is a lying Nazi pig who steals elections and kills babies for oil and I hope he DIES!!!!!11"

Monkey, dude. There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq. They're coming out of the woodwork from neighboring countries, using Iraq (instead of the US) as their holy battleground for Allah. If they have any political motivation at all, it is on the leadership level. There, they know that they have allies in the American media who are determined to weaken our resolve in order to nullify a presidency they oppose. They can almost taste a pullout, and they know if they can keep pecking away at the edges of our military, we'll leave and let them have their power back.

American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.

War is rapidly becoming the Rights plantation. Maintaining the problem by assisting terrorist recruitment overseas is comparable to the parts of the welfare system that hold people down rather than helping them up. The left has its teachers, professors, and social workers to protect, while the Right answers to military contractors and their employees. Its the same game with the same rules, solving problems is counter-productive.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Monkey, dude. There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq.

Keep thinking that.

If they have any political motivation at all, it is on the leadership level.

Yeah. I'm sure the invasion of a Middle Eastern nation isn't a major factor in the rank and file's decision to join. I'm sure they're just clamoring to join because they don't like "our model".

[mrnoodle]

They're clamoring to join because American culture represents all that is immoral, anti-Islam, pro-Jew, and otherwise despicable in the eyes of Allah. If they die while fighting us, they will automatically be rewarded beyond measure in the afterlife, regardless of past sins. They have a very different perception of what is noble, glorious, or even right than you or I do, as much as we disagree. Trying to apply western standards to what an arab terrorist thinks or feels is as accurate as saying Garfield represents the thoughts of cats.

The word "model" was not mine initially, please don't forget that.

While we're here, did you know that the AP has uncovered a shocking occurance of the Pentagon politicizing the war dead? That's just sick. I can't read any more, I'm going back to the Cindy Sheehan coverage.

[lookout123]

the gravestone issue is a complete non-issue in my mind. AS LONG AS the family has the choice, which apparently there have been some mistakes that need to be corrected.

in the past if you saw a soldier's gravestone and noted the date you could make a pretty safe assumption of where they died. there was no need to have WWII or Korea engraved. in today's environment of "non-war" there are two completely separate combat theaters and if i were KIA i would want it noted which one i was involved in.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

mari mari mari. Don't be taking quotes out of context. In the very next line, I said you might be able to find a post I made that was hyperbolic, but that the one in question wasn't it.

I couldn't resist. You did sort of leave yourself wide open, there. I'll be good. I promise!

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

--snip--

Monkey, dude. There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq. They're coming out of the woodwork from neighboring countries, using Iraq (instead of the US) as their holy battleground for Allah. If they have any political motivation at all, it is on the leadership level. There, they know that they have allies in the American media who are determined to weaken our resolve in order to nullify a presidency they oppose. They can almost taste a pullout, and they know if they can keep pecking away at the edges of our military, we'll leave and let them have their power back.

American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.

Hey, mrn, do you even read your own posts? Or are you more of a perfomance artist, just firing them off blindly, like some beat poet of the blog generation? Should I be listening for content and consistency or is it more the flow, the rhythm?

There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq. They're coming out of the woodwork...

Usually the phrase "coming out of the woodwork" means a surprising increase from an unknown source. So what is it: Not more or yes more?

...they [the terrorists] know that they have allies in the American media who are determined to weaken our resolve in order to nullify a presidency they oppose.

This falls squarely in "artistic speech" land. You don't seriously contend that there are allies of terrorists in the American media, do you? If you do, I would like to see some evidence, an example. Cite, please. Wouldn't that make them terrorists too, or close to it? "Nullify a presidency"? What? Who are you suggesting is trying to nullify a presidency? It sounds like the terrorists, from your statement. Do you really mean opposition to policies? Opposition to positions of one side or the other or the other is what this country's all about, indeed, what the latest spin is on our "mission" in Iraq, to give them choice too.

They can almost taste a pullout, and they know if they can keep pecking away at the edges of our military, we'll leave and let them have their power back.

A pullout. Ok, this is a substantive issue. I sense you're opposed to a pullout from your remarks. What is the alternative to a pullout? A stay-in? Do we agree that we're not staying in Iraq indefinitely? If we do agree, and I hope and believe we do, then let's start talking about the "not-indefinite" part. When? How? And importantly, START!

Surely you don't think that merely talking about that inevitable phase of the operations there gives aid and comfort to the enemy? Bah. What would you do? Stay, stay, stay, stay, then up and leave in the middle of the night? WooHoo! Surprise! Hell no. We're leaving or we're staying. What is it? If we're leaving, then let's talk about it. If we're staying, then we damn sure need to talk about that, too. But this talking about leaving and actually doing about staying is bogus.

As to the return of power, damn skippy somebody's gonna get the power back. Isn't that why we undertook this adventure??!! Check this, we do not want the power in Iraq. Do you disagree? Then hand it over, dammit. I reckon you're p'ticular about just who you hand power over to, am I right? "We" want to hand the power over to the people "we" want to have the power, people, what, inclined toward gratitude, eh? Maybe I'm off base here, but there's a phrase for that, and it's not flattering.

American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.

If this were true, there'd be a helluva lot more listening to liberals today, since there's plenty not going right. But do you hear a lot of liberal voices in Iraq? I don't either.

I just don't see you as an authoritative voice regarding "American liberalism". You regularly attack and deride Liberal points of view, and worse, you assign the label "liberal" when you intend "libel". You clearly consider "liberal" a defamatory remark. Charitably, you miss the point, sir.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

They're clamoring to join because American culture represents all that is immoral, anti-Islam, pro-Jew, and otherwise despicable in the eyes of Allah.

And most would be perfectly happy to let Allah punish that without help.

There are two interpretations of jihad. The interpretation of the hardcore terrorists is that it means to kill all non-Muslims. The interpretation of the moderate Muslims is to defend Muslim lands from invasion. The former group is the one you are talking about, and it is a much smaller group. By invading a Muslim land, we are bringing the second, much larger, group into play.

[Undertoad]

If the moderate ones are defeated, then, it would hurt the cause of the hardcore ones?

[mrnoodle]

Sorry you didn't get the first part of that. It was a bit sloppy, I'm distracted from my post writing by actual work . Here are the Cliff notes:

1) Terrorists from other countries are operating in Iraq. They're not "new", implying that Iraqis are rebelling against our occupation by becoming terrorists. They already existed, and are being dispatched by

2) their leaders, who are the only ones operating under any sort of political agenda. The bombers themselves are religiously motivated, tricked by their handlers, or paid.

3) The left wants our international policy to fail. That's because they hate Bush. They hate Bush because he "stole" 2 elections from them. Since they can't beat him at the ballot box, they want to make sure his presidency is nullified in the history books. Meaning, any successes are to be undermined and any failures are to be inflated in importance. This serves another purpose, however. By constantly harping on Bush and trying to make his effort in Iraq fail (for partisan politics' sake), they are -- perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not -- working for the same goal as the terrorists. This makes them de facto allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I will spend my lunch hour digging up the actual US news reports that are used by Arab leaders as anti-American propoganda. asshole, I was going to eat instead.

4) Pullout. Yes we should leave eventually. Why not start now, you ask. Because if we leave before we have empowered the Iraqis to run their own antiterrorism operations, we have wasted our time. We are not only rebuilding their country, we are protecting their own citizens from the many scattered terrorist groups who all would vie for power in our absence. Iraq wants us out, but it does not want us out *now*, not if it intends to ever be free from terrorism.

To make it clear that I am now moving on to a different thought, I will implement "white space."
















I don't care if they like us or not. The endgame here is to make it unprofitable for terrorists to operate in the middle east, and therefore eliminate their ability to operate internationally on any significant scale. Iraq is an important piece of that puzzle. Get the fuck over the fact that you lost the damn election, and try backing your COUNTRY for a change instead of indulging in an eight year whining rant that doesn't advance your cause, but DOES embolden the enemy.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The former group is the one you are talking about, and it is a much smaller group. By invading a Muslim land, we are bringing the second, much larger, group into play.

That's the first time I've heard it explained in a way that makes sense. But it's still wrong. If the second group harbors, funds, and defends the first group, screw em. They now belong to the first group as well.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If the moderate ones are defeated, then, it would hurt the cause of the hardcore ones?

No. The hardcore ones feed off of the pain and death which would result from the defeat of people defending Muslim lands from invasion. Their goal is to goad us into killing as many moderates as possible, to prove what a danger we are to the survivors.

[mrnoodle]

So we should base our military strategies around the propoganda of the enemy? This isn't a PR campaign, this is a military campaign. We can't win the former until we win the latter. Repeat, we MUST win in Iraq, regardless of how anyone feels about the cause of the war, the president who engaged it, or any other factor. We can't pull another Somalia or Vietnam this time. Much more is at stake.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

That's the first time I've heard it explained in a way that makes sense. But it's still wrong. If the second group harbors, funds, and defends the first group, screw em. They now belong to the first group as well.

That's easy to say, but it doesn't hold up. Plenty of Americans sent money to the IRA, out of sympathy for Irish independence. Plenty of Americans have sympathy for Irish independence, but sent no support. Most Americans didn't think about it either way in their daily lives, but might have had an opinion (informed or not) if asked.

Now, knowing what the IRA did with the money, it's easy to say that the first group is just as responsible as the IRA itself, and that would be reasonable. But if your response is "screw em", and you initiate a campaign that causes some people in the first and second groups start to actually join the IRA, and gets the third group to start thinking about the IRA's cause more seriously - causing some in group three to move to groups one and two - you are worse off than you were before.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

--X--

Repeat, we MUST win in Iraq,

--X--

Simple, but not easy question: Will you define this please?