Understanding terrorism

[mrnoodle]

Ocean = our idiots can't take a donkey over the border to fight for the cause.

"We can't hurt anybody, it will be misconstrued and even more people will dislike us" is the opposite of the attitude that will win the war. If 100,000 terrorists are killed and that causes 20,000 to join the cause, that's 80,000 to our favor. We're not worse off because of the new 20,000

If the Brits bombed a town because it was infested with terrorists, I feel sorry for the non-terrorists who died. Not sorry enough to allow the terrorists to hide under their skirts, however.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The behavior of a minority of individuals indicts the whole country (vis-a-vis American actions).

I'm not indicting the whole country. I'm indicting the administration that fights tooth and nail every attempt to investigate the widespread abuses in the many detention centers the US operates. The coverup is worse than the crime, for the purposes of PR.

And we didn't invade a country on false pretenses. As I recall, we didn't ask for their permission in the first place.

We did get bad intel on WMD, but that was only one of several reasons Bush gave at the time. It was the sexy one, but not the only one. At any rate, dragging this up every time you are forced to admit that we need to win this war is bad form.

The rest of them didn't hold up either, which is why he went with WMDs. And I've been referring to the invasion the whole time. Why the surprise?

[mrnoodle]

But there is no equivalence between the number of terrorists and how angry the left is that we went to war.

[Happy Monkey]

Well, a majority of the country now feels that Iraq was a bad idea, so it's not just the "left" anymore. And I expect the growth of that number does have a link to the failure of the war to curb terrorism.

As for those who were against the war from the start, it was the expectation that becoming the agressors in an invasion would be counterproductive in the war on terror. The realization of that expectation is more an occasion for sadness than anger, I guess.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No. The hardcore ones feed off of the pain and death which would result from the defeat of people defending Muslim lands from invasion.

So Afghanistan was a mistake then?

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Well, a majority of the country now feels that Iraq was a bad idea, so it's not just the "left" anymore.

Because they are constantly bombarded by agenda-driven media that steadfastly refuse to report anything that might be construed as positive for this administration.

Exactly. my. point.

Originally Posted by 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.

I have read on the various military forums that our soldiers are discovering members of other mid-east nations among those fighting the US troops in Iraq. Some of these inviduals may qualify for the label "terrorist." Some may be no different from any soldier who joins to fight in a cause he believes in. My friend who is Canadian who joined the US army and fought in desert storm - was he dispatched by the Canadian leadership? The French came to our assistance in the War for Independence. The French were politically motivated to do this because they were on the outs with Great Britain at the time. I'm not sure of your point here. The peoples of the Muslim world believe what they believe, just as we do. I agree with you assessment of the bomber's motives, but I think your list is rather short. I suggest that there are other motivating factors.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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.

You are deliberately mis-interpreteting the stance of those to the left of the political spectrum. I do not presume to be the spokesperson for such a large group of people, but nowhere have I come across any statement from a democrat or someone of a liberal persuasion who says, "I want the US to fail." My feeling is that given the current situation the US is DOOMED to fail. This thought brings me no joy, as you seem to believe. I would rather that my country succeeded, thank you very much. I don't see how it can. Just become some Islamic terrorist bombs the London subways or commits some other act of atrocity, does not mean that I consider this individual to be my new best friend. I do, however, look at cause and effect, and I see how US foreign policy has created a reason for the terrorist to act as he did - a reason is not an excuse, by the way. There is no excuse for the slaughter of innocent civilians. Just because I feel Bush's actions are wrong, does mean that I rejoice in the death of children at the hands of an Islamic fundamentalist, nor does any other member of "the left." If I cannot speak out against the actions of my government which I feel are wrong without being accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then I might as well go live in North Korea or some other totalitarian regime.

No one is forcing you to give up your lunch hour. You feel strongly enough that you decided to make that choice, so don't try to guilt trip us over your own free decision of what to do with your lunch break.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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.

The Iraqui's must have the WILL to run their own anti-terrorism programs. So far, I have seen the US do nothing that will fill a significant number of Iraqui's with this desire. As it currently stands, with current policy, hell will freeze over first.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

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.

See above. What different thought?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

--snip--As for those who were against the war from the start, it was the expectation that becoming the agressors in an invasion would be counterproductive in the war on terror. The realization of that expectation is more an occasion for sadness than anger, I guess.

Sadness, AND anger. And helplessness, futility, astonsishment, bewilderment, confusion, resignation, and determination, among others.

Sadness at the profligate needless waste of American lives in a futile, wrongheaded, ill-conceived and poorly executed aggressive war of invasion. Sadness at the loss of life for all who died.

Anger, well, I seemed to have covered this already.

Helplessness at the continuing flailings of an administration that doesn't know where it's going or how to get there but confidently presses the pedal to the metal while observing "We're making good progress". Progress is a vector quantity, having magnitude and direction.

Futility at the prospect of looking at the same evidence and seeing those in power draw the wrong conclusions, time after time.

Astonishment at the seemingly willful inability of the loyal opposition in our country to disregard evidence, facts and truth as mere inconveniences in pursuit of the elusive "victory" (or "security" or "freedom").

Bewilderment from being surrounded by a swarming array of moving targets and shifting goals, an overall lack of direction.

Confusion at the constant changes in the messages from our leaders: WMD, democracy, terrorists, al-Qaeda, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, oil, GWOT and The Fight Against Global Aggression or whatever it's called today...

Resignation to the fact that our country is on a path that takes enormous efforts to change, and that popping a vessel over today's idiot takes away one more chance to make a difference tomorrow.

Determination to work as hard as possible that the mistakes of this period in our history be remembered and learned from and not repeated.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So Afghanistan was a mistake then?

Afghanistan was started at a time when most of the world, even many moderate Muslims, had sympathy for the US. We took advantage of that to invade a country that had a direct and certain connection to the attack on our soil that generated that sympathy. Afghanistan wasn't even remotely close to the recruiting value of Iraq.

[mrnoodle]

For those of you who get nerd boner over the whole footnoted, annotated thing in your political argyments, here's the text of an interesting presentation on the AFC, the antiwar organization in WWII that gained notoriety when its poster child, Charles Lindbergh, showed himself to be a Nazi supporter.

Some of the parallels to today's situation are striking, even though the political parties are reversed. But my favorite part was in the endnotes:

Roosevelt had told the nation during a fireside chat in December 1940 that “the Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world.” Therefore “the United States had no right or reason to encourage talk of peace, until the day shall come when there is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all thought of dominating or conquering the world.” He also rejected any notion of a negotiated peace, since such a peace “would be only another armistice, leading to the most gigantic armaments race and the most devastating trade war in all history. And in these contests the Americans would offer the only real resistance to the Axis powers.” Cole, Roosevelt, p. 343.

Roosevelt was a neocon! Be still my heart.

[Hobbs]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or not.

My point was the terroists use this opportunty for bad publicity for the Americans soldiers. U.S. miltary + kids = death and distruction. The obvious culprits are of course the freedom fighters, but the blame gose to the U.S. eventhough it is obvious who is at fault. The insurgent propoganda machine keeps on rolling along.

[Undertoad]

In Iraq most attacks are on other Arab Muslims, so who is being recruited for what now?

[richlevy]

Basically, we have a war between people who find Fox News completely unbiased and truthful, and people who think the same of Al-Jazeera.

It would be nice if the skeptics could be left alone.

[bargalunan]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The behavior of a minority of individuals does NOT indict a whole country (vis-a-vis terrorism).

I will remember this sentence (vis-a-vis US politics) : Mrnoodle does NOT indict whole US people !

[mrnoodle]

For that, I am immensely gratified. Have you heard some of those people?