Another big RNC lie bites the dust

[red ufo]

Originally posted by Mulholland
Edited for content. -Z-man..

Gee do you call people &*^$$% and @$%^ too! People who use towel-head on messageboards typically are across the board racists.

Edited for content. -Z-man

[island911]

. . .says the guy wearing the tin-foil hat.

[speeder]

Originally posted by araine901
I am sure you read that about DHS but my oldest brother is a GS17 and runs dentention and trasportation for DHS and sits in the meetings with the big dogs and has a different perspctive. They have foild many, many more attempts of terrorist attacks than get published. They dont publish them all becuase they do not want to identify thier methods of detection. I can tell you this, there are about 20K less terrorist in the world. It is begining to be a dead end job.

Are you counting dead "collateral" people in Iraq, (civilians, children, etc.), as terrorists? I mean hey, if they had lived w/ a limb or two missing they probably would have joined the resistence, right?

Otherwise, I have no idea where we have killed 20k people during this administration. Do you count every poor pathetic bastard conscripted into Saddam's Army as "a terrorist"? Just asking, for statistical purposes.

Bush has made us 20 million new enemies in the world, that's for sure. And the "how many attacks since 9/11" argument wouldn't pass the first day of logic 101 at any community college, for chrisakes. That would make Clinton a better "war President" in your view.

[Z-man]

Mulholland: please refrain from personal attacks and racial slurs.

Thank you,
-Zoltan, OT Moderator.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Denis -- c'mon. 20 Million new enemies? When was *that* census taken? And then you go on to fault someone else's logic? That's just silly.

JP

[Burnin' oil]

For the record, I do not swill Pabst. . . I swill Burgermeister

[tabs]

Speeder you were told a bit of information..thats not really out there for public consumption...

1. Many attacks were foiled

2. The Security forces in the world have picked up 20,000 people who are "terrorists".


Both U and I know the information we get through the media is heavily filtered for content. Now you have 2 pieces of information which you can use to fill in the blank spaces with.

So don't be so quick to knock something in a knee jerk fashion to fit your ideological stance.

[Superman]

Way ta go, Z-man.

I wonder how many people we would have to kill in order to get rid of the folks that hate us and might attack us in the future. Anybody think that's what we're doing? No, I don't either. So we must be....

Trying to intimidate the existing terrorist so they are too scared to attack us. How many attackers do you guys think we've scared off so far? How scared would you be, if you were a terrorist and now the country you hate is bombing your brothers and sisters in their homes?

[Overpaid Slacker]

supe - you argue with yourself very well; setting up arguments you can't have and knocking them down yourself. But sometimes you give in too easily to your overwhelming force of will.

Is intimidating the existing terrorist what we "must be" doing? Very categorical, conclusory statement, w/o analyzing and/or discounting other options. But it's a 72 at the Superman Open.

Now maybe intimidating the existing terrorist is something we are doing, but, willfully or not, you've omitted other elements of what we actually are doing, including (1) dissuading (not "scaring") some would-be terrorists from taking up arms as they know there is now a terrible price to pay; (2) destroying means to attack us; (3) providing a forum in which we're right there, ready to be attacked (and to able to better defend ourselves); (4) seizing assets that were otherwise available to be used against us; and perhaps most importantly (5) making it very plain to countries that would harbor and/or abet terrorism that we will make things difficult on them. The fewer places terrorists are welcome, the fewer there are likelier to be and (hopefully) the easier it will be to find them.

How scared would you be, if you were a terrorist and now the country you hate is bombing your brothers and sisters in their homes?

If you're already a terrorist, it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference, would it -- you're already a terrorist. You've already acted or conspired to act against the West and you hate us already. If we can scare you, great; if we can't then see items (1) - (5) above. Or else we could do nothing, which we tried for more than a decade and you still hated and attacked us.

Then again, if your brothers and sisters are also terrorists, and they're being "bombed in their homes" (to continue the hystrionic level of discourse here) then it is effective policy in that they're dead, whether you're "scared" or not. And if they're "innocent" well, you brought it on them with your terrorism, and it's doubtful you feel guilt about that to the extent you recognize or would even consider taking responsiblity for the consequences of your actions.

This blameAmericaFirstLastandAlways fascination with a fiction that we and our allies are magically only or predominantly killing "innocents" is pathetic. But hey, you seem to have fallen for it, and you're not alone in that. PT Barnum was wayyy off; he'd never encountered modern Liberal anti-war "arguments" I guess.

At the end of the day, I don't care about killing them, or how many we've got to kill; if they are or want to be a threat to me or my countrymen, directly or indirectly, or to the peace and stability of a country, a region or the world, kill 'em. All of 'em. Unintended deaths of foreign "innocents" abroad vs. intentional killings of allied innocents here or abroad is a tough, stoic calculus, but I'll err on the first side of the ledger to minimize the second.

There's no snarky comment or dismissive label in the leftist arsenal (I can't believe I just typed that -- "leftist arsenal" hee hee) that can make me ashamed of saying that.

JP

PS -- I agree with the props to Z-Man, though. Sic 'em Zoltan!!!

[tabs]

If a Leftist had an arsenal he would be a Repblican...

[tabs]

Super... I understand why the Jihaddys hate us.....we don't have clean hands, and in truth we are not responsible for the whole mess..it takes 2 to Tango...yet understnding their pain does me no good, they for whatever reason are out to kill me...I have to defend me and mine....

I am a strong believer that if you know how the enemy thinks you can use that against them....it's just good business...

And that is one of the things I dislike about the Neocon's Foreign Policy they don't take the time to understand things and work off their own preconceived notions..sometimes to their detriment....

[tabs]

I find the Conseratives don't work both sides of the equation to correct their own thinking...remember in math you were taught to work the equation backwards to correct your own work.

[red ufo]

Tabs, the neocons toolbox is the US military as the first and only way to deal with arabs. Bill Krystel of the weekly standard wrote the NPAC doc begging for American to be attack. Oh, he got lucky! I'm sure he and RUMsfield were so glad everything worked according to plan.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by tabs
I find the Conseratives don't work both sides of the equation to correct their own thinking...remember in math you were taught to work the equation backwards to correct your own work.

Good example, I forget about stuff like that................all the hours spent on math. Wasted.

[Superman]

Tabs, you make sense sometimes. Intelligence is one of the good reasons for "diplomacy" (which means coddling terrorists only when neocons are interpreting this as a suggestion by liberals).

Golly Slacker. Well, I guess I should just write this stuff off as the "tone" of the OT board. I suggested that the two potential goals are:

1) Scaring
2) Killing

And you mention just one more, not several. The new one is the idea that we take away their means of violence. Their means of violence can be replaced, so I'm not sure this is a serious goal. And besides, I'm asking. I am. What do we intend to do? This whole Iraq/Saddam/terrorist/AlQueda/BinLaden/terrorist/Saddam/Iraq thing has got a tone of hysterics to it, and I'd like to reduce it to a rational, strategic discussion. So, let's look at your other remarks:

"Now maybe intimidating the existing terrorist is something we are doing, but, willfully or not, you've omitted other elements of what we actually are doing, including

(1) dissuading (not "scaring") some would-be terrorists from taking up arms as they know there is now a terrible price to pay;

How does this differ from “scaring?”

(2) destroying means to attack us

Again, unsustainable in the long or even intermediate run, and probably the short run as well;

(3) providing a forum in which we're right there, ready to be attacked (and to able to better defend ourselves)

How does this differ from scaring/intimidating?;

(4) seizing assets that were otherwise available to be used against us; and perhaps most importantly

(5) making it very plain to countries that would harbor and/or abet terrorism that we will make things difficult on them

So, “scaring,” right?.


One of the smartest things I have heard since the very beginning, is the tracking of financial resources. That seems like a fruitful endeavor, but off the topic of military action against Iraq. Tracking money is done by geeks.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Supe -

How are they different? Let me count the ways

Dissuading "would-be" terrorists is different from scaring actual terrorists. Don't take up the cause -- don't become a terrorist in the first place. We can do that by example, by providing alternate uses (some might call it "hope") for a better life, so a strong motivator to become a terrorist is lessened. That's different.

I disagree with the sustainability of destruction of means. Saddam's oil money was a means; his provision of support and weapons were means. I didn't say completely erasing all means, but making it harder and more expensive to wage a terrorist campaign makes it more difficult to be a terrorist. We've seized or destroyed a lot of armaments and materiel. One price of that is vigilance, no doubt. I think the marginal returns will increase over time, as funds/materiel become scarcer.

If we're there, and they attack us there, I don't think that's "scaring" alone -- though an element of it is intimidation, sure. I didn't read your piece as acknowledging efficacy in killing (if you meant that I just plain missed it). So this amounts to killing -- they attack us, we kill them... fewer terrorists. An ancillary benefit is that they're coming to us -- we don't have to go into Iran or Syria or wherever to find them. They seek us out in Iraq and Afghanistan b/c we're right there -- targets "easier" to find and easier to attack than having to bring the fight to the US.

As far as non-combat strategy, we've seized a lot of funds that could (I'd say probably would, but that's just MHO) go to funding terrorism. Not only don't they have the money to spend, but now we do (in some cases).

As far as the nations go, we're not "scaring" terrorists as much as we're letting the gov'ts know that they stand to lose quite a bit if they host/train/fund terrorists-- and they've got a lot to gain ($$$) if they stop. This is depriving terrorists of havens -- not really "scaring" them.

I'd read your post to mean, essentially, bombing doesn't deter terrorists by scaring them and it's what we "must be" up to (to the exclusion of other things)-- with that I disagree. Sounds like you and I aren't too far apart after all. Especially on the geek thing.

JP