Dean - where to start with your ignorance andf aburdity?
Within a few years, the Nazis had taken much of Eastern and Western Europe - yet these scary Muslims - whom YOU compare to the Third Reich and Soviet Union - have only watched Israel - their declared nemesis, GROW in power - in fact, the more the Arabs and Muslims scream about the death of Israel - the stronger Israel becomes - how do YOU explain that - and more so - why should we fear an "enemy," that can't even take out a country the size of Rhode Island (Israel)
9/11 was no fluke - we agree on that - it was about two dozen men armed with BOX CUTTERS - who herded SLEEPY COMMUTERS to their deaths. Why do Warpublicans feel they can stop that kind of terrorist with military action? There's a billion Muslims in this world - and all sorts of damage they can do that our military will be powerless to stop - but keep fear mongering - it's only cost us 4000 soldiers (with tens of thousands of wounded) - with no results to show for our blood and hundreds of billions of dollars. Has Al Qaeda been diminished with our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Are they any less dangerous? Are there still box cutters out there and sleepy commuters?
Are there Dean?
And for the record - we NEVER kick Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan - nor did they OWN it (I see why you don't source anything - you couldn't) - Al Qeada were GUESTS of the Taliban - far more popular there than the American invaders. But I suppose YOU, like our President - doesn't read a newspaper...
Well, I guess he told you, Dean. We sleepy commuters have no response to such reasoned presentations. And, I have to agree--the President, and the rest of us should start reading a newspaper. Perhaps the NY Times?
with no results to show for our blood and hundreds of billions of dollars. Has Al Qaeda been diminished with our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
You obviously haven't been following the news. Al Qaeda has been attritted by some 2/3, by most estimates. Their terrorist tactics in Iraq alienated Sunnis all over the Mideast, destroying their movement's support.
Additionally, we have nascent liberal democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, with free elections and the begininings of free press, freedom of assembly, free speech, etc.
nor did they OWN it (I see why you don't source anything - you couldn't) - Al Qeada were GUESTS of the Taliban -
They were part of the ruling coalition, a military arm of the Taliban that assassinated the Taliban's enemies (not merely "guests"). They effectively owned the country.
Uh, so are you admitting that invading Iraq and defeating one of the few secular regimes in the middle east, allowing it to become a target for "islamofacist" takeover, was a strategic blunder?
The problem I have with your post is that by claiming "25 million liberated iraqis" is a good thing, you have to ignore that fact that in "liberating" them, we enabled them to kill each other and become prey to islamic fundamentalists.
Until the right can come to terms with this reality, it's credibility on these issues is completely shot.
Islamofascism is the ideology most people are referencing to when speaking of terrorism.
I think Bush announcement of 'War on Terror' was aimed at much broader target. It was a declaration of war against any acts of terror, anywhere in the world. It was a warning to IRA, Tamil Tigers etc, as well as Islamic terrorists: if you commit an act of terror, you are an enemy of the US.
Just like Iraq was not only about WMD, the War on Terror was not only about Al Qaida. We were going to change the whole World and make it safe for Democracy (if anyone still remembers that). But we were sabotaged by our own Democrats.
"You obviously haven't been following the news. Al Qaeda has been attritted by some 2/3, by most estimates. Their terrorist tactics in Iraq alienated Sunnis all over the Mideast, destroying their movement's support.
Additionally, we have nascent liberal democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, with free elections and the begininings of free press, freedom of assembly, free speech, etc."
Did you read that off a White House press release?
"nor did they OWN it (I see why you don't source anything - you couldn't) - Al Qeada were GUESTS of the Taliban -
They were part of the ruling coalition, a military arm of the Taliban that assassinated the Taliban's enemies (not merely "guests"). They effectively owned the country."
No, they just own the American military who's been unable to defeat them. And the Taliban still exist throughout Afghanistan, as does sympathy for their cause - if not their methods (because Sunnis are dying).
Al Qaeda is an ideology - a loose banding of similar minded people who despise the mess America (and Europe) have made of the Middle East in the name of expansionism and oil lust. Al Qeada - at least as they've been caught (or killed in iraq), have come from numerous ME and European countries - and they even got a few from America. You think you're beating Al Qeada? You think the Sunnis are now pro-American? Pro Israel? You think we're winning?
Even as the President of Iran readies a visit to the Iraqi parliament?
"Sleepy commuters, the bastards! Another Bush failure."
His greatest. No matter what happens, history will remember a Republican White House and Congress that ignored all warnings and did NOTHING until 9/12. And then they got THAT wrong!
America - since 9/11, has been marked by failure after failure after failure.
Terrorism cannot be eliminated completely, but if it is diminished at all, it will have to be by showing them that it's now working. Unfortunately for us though, or government continually takes actions that prove that terrorism is working against us. The whole point of al Qaeda waging war against us was to get us entangled in an endless war in the middle east that would kill Americans and drain our resources for an extended period. And hey, what do you know, that's exactly what happened. The worst way to stop someone from using a tactic is to show them how well it's working.
If you set out to kill or incarcerate anyone who might be a terrorist, you give those who are not ample reason to become one.
Our administration's goal has at times appeared to be "kill our enemies as fast as we can." By being so indiscriminate about how this is applied, we've only made more enemies, which we now have to kill.
We're making enemies faster than we can kill them. But that's okay, because Bush'll be back in his Presidential Library in February, where he'll not be forced to read anything more disturbing than storyes of pet goats or by fawning lickspittles.
Did you read that off a White House press release? Not a single word is accurate...
Every word is accurate, according to numerous independent sources. Obviously you have little interest in reality, but merely wish to wallow in your own partisan ignorance.
Uh, so are you admitting that invading Iraq and defeating one of the few secular regimes in the middle east
Saddam was not especially secular. His regime was built around the Sunni sect, broadcast the call to prayer on national TV every day, built huge mosques everywhere, and Saddam himself had a Koran written in his own blood. And his state was second only to Iran in funding Islamofascist terrorist groups.
The problem I have with your post is that by claiming "25 million liberated iraqis" is a good thing, you have to ignore that fact that in "liberating" them, we enabled them to kill each other and become prey to islamic fundamentalists.
They were doing both of those things to a much greater extent before the invasion. The average number of deaths attributable to the regime was 7,000 per month; no month since their fall has approached that number.
If you set out to kill or incarcerate anyone who might be a terrorist, you give those who are not ample reason to become one.
That hasn't remotely been our policy. If it were, we would see the kind of mass internment of Muslims that Japanese-Americans suffered in WW II.
Our administration's goal has at times appeared to be "kill our enemies as fast as we can." By being so indiscriminate about how this is applied, we've only made more enemies, which we now have to kill. We're making enemies faster than we can kill them.
The evidence says the opposite is the case. Spend some time at Michael Totten's site; Sunni Iraqis have realized that what we offer is far superior to the death and torture of Al Qaeda, and they have come over to our side en masse. Also, support for terrorism is dropping rapidly all across the Mideast, because of the events in Iraq.
You say "secular" as if that alone is an unalloyed good. The Soviet Union was a secular state and it was one of the greatest evils to ever torment this world. Secular or religious is not the key - behavior is, and saddam's Iraq failed on any test of rational or good behavior.
Of the 16 majority Muslim countries included in the survey, 15 have shown waning enthusiasm for terrorism in general and suicide terrorism in particular, it says.
The most striking declines are in Lebanon, where in 2007 34 per cent of people say suicide bombings are justified compared with 74 per cent in 2002. There has been a similar decline in Pakistan from 33 per cent to 9 per cent and in Jordan from 43 to 23 per cent. Only among Palestinians, where 70 per cent say suicide attacks are sometimes or often justified, do a majority continue to support it.
We are not creating more terrorists. Indeed, we are decreasing the number who find terrorism acceptable -- even as we have trained 500,000 Iraqis in the ISF to fight at our side against terrorism.
FEAR! More FEAR! Be very AFRAID of those guys in the caves of Pakistan. Give up your civil liberties because they might, someday, possibly, manage to pull off another attack and kill 0.001% of us again someday.
And then we'll have to go kill a few hundred thousand more people in a country that had nothing to do with the attack. Maybe Nigeria this time - they've got lots of oil. And we'll spend a few $Hundred Billion more tax dollars making Halliburton and Exxon even richer, spend the blood of a few thousand more American troops and further destroy our military, our reputation and our Constitution.
Tell you what. All you terrorized right-wingnuts can go cower under your beds in fear of imaginary Islamofascism (the term is an oxymoron). You might even be able to find a few nuclear bomb shelters left over from the folks who were equally terrorized by the 'red menace'. You all should be happy together.
Soon after 9/11, Bush made a speech that this was a "new kind of conflict" and I actually believed he understood the nature of this war. To be effective and gain victory over Al Queda, we needed an approach that was international, covert, something more akin to the Moussad's elimination of the Munich bombers. Al Queda and their ilk need no country or land, so no military action can defeat them. I was totally unprepared for Bush's innane, ill-concieved, naive and utterly STUPID response. To attack Iraq? This very real war against these fanatics is too important to lose simply because you want to support Bush and his failed ideas. This article only points out that the term "terrorism" is too broad, too inacurate and Bush's ham-handed policy has failed becuase of it.
Besides, it isn't impossible to eliminate a tactic. I'd say we've pretty well eliminated the tactic of using nuclear weapons.
I think you might be a little too optimistic there, but in case you're right, we didn't do it by setting out to kill all the people that might use nukes against us. No, we used that disgusting lily-livered liberal tactic of diplomacy appeasement through (gasp!) the UN.
Face it, different enemy tactics require different tactical responses. A massive conventional threat requires a massive conventional (or nuclear) response. A massive nuclear threat requires diplomacy and/or extremely accurate space weapons. Terrorism requires intelligence-agency work and the occasional assassination (see Mugniyah).
It's like saying, if we tripled the police force and had mandatory 10 year sentences, then there would be no crime. Therefore, we should stop policing all criminals!
"terrorism is a tactic. communism and nazism are ideaologies. it's impossible to eliminate a tactic."
So what?
Burglary and rape are also tactics. It's impossible to eliminate them. But we should fight them, no?
(BTW, we haven't actually eliminated communism and Nazism as ideologies, have we? But it's nice to have mitigated the problem.)
2.24.2008 4:01pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
... if you completely discount and ignore our actions over the last 6.5 years.
I mean, surely invading two countries didn't have any effect or alter reality in any good way.
Within a few years, the Nazis had taken much of Eastern and Western Europe - yet these scary Muslims - whom YOU compare to the Third Reich and Soviet Union - have only watched Israel - their declared nemesis, GROW in power - in fact, the more the Arabs and Muslims scream about the death of Israel - the stronger Israel becomes - how do YOU explain that - and more so - why should we fear an "enemy," that can't even take out a country the size of Rhode Island (Israel)
9/11 was no fluke - we agree on that - it was about two dozen men armed with BOX CUTTERS - who herded SLEEPY COMMUTERS to their deaths. Why do Warpublicans feel they can stop that kind of terrorist with military action? There's a billion Muslims in this world - and all sorts of damage they can do that our military will be powerless to stop - but keep fear mongering - it's only cost us 4000 soldiers (with tens of thousands of wounded) - with no results to show for our blood and hundreds of billions of dollars. Has Al Qaeda been diminished with our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Are they any less dangerous? Are there still box cutters out there and sleepy commuters?
Are there Dean?
And for the record - we NEVER kick Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan - nor did they OWN it (I see why you don't source anything - you couldn't) - Al Qeada were GUESTS of the Taliban - far more popular there than the American invaders. But I suppose YOU, like our President - doesn't read a newspaper...
No, keeping sucking down administration propaganda and military lies. And sleep soundly tonight...
Because the Surge has worked...
Because the Surge has worked..."
So, THAT'S what that sucking sound is. Those bastards.
"it's impossible to eliminate a tactic."
Yeah, that's why those pesky kamikaze pilots still wreak havoc on everyday picnics.
Ask the 3,000 who died on 9/11.
terrorism is a tactic. communism and nazism are ideaologies. it's impossible to eliminate a tactic.
Islamofascism is the ideology most people are referencing to when speaking of terrorism.
Besides, it isn't impossible to eliminate a tactic. I'd say we've pretty well eliminated the tactic of using nuclear weapons.
You obviously haven't been following the news. Al Qaeda has been attritted by some 2/3, by most estimates. Their terrorist tactics in Iraq alienated Sunnis all over the Mideast, destroying their movement's support.
Additionally, we have nascent liberal democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, with free elections and the begininings of free press, freedom of assembly, free speech, etc.
They were part of the ruling coalition, a military arm of the Taliban that assassinated the Taliban's enemies (not merely "guests"). They effectively owned the country.
The problem I have with your post is that by claiming "25 million liberated iraqis" is a good thing, you have to ignore that fact that in "liberating" them, we enabled them to kill each other and become prey to islamic fundamentalists.
Until the right can come to terms with this reality, it's credibility on these issues is completely shot.
Just like Iraq was not only about WMD, the War on Terror was not only about Al Qaida. We were going to change the whole World and make it safe for Democracy (if anyone still remembers that). But we were sabotaged by our own Democrats.
Ask the 3,000 who died on 9/11. "
Ask them if we should invade Iraq?
Even the dead ain't that stupid!
Additionally, we have nascent liberal democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, with free elections and the begininings of free press, freedom of assembly, free speech, etc."
Did you read that off a White House press release?
Not a single word is accurate...
They were part of the ruling coalition, a military arm of the Taliban that assassinated the Taliban's enemies (not merely "guests"). They effectively owned the country."
No, they just own the American military who's been unable to defeat them. And the Taliban still exist throughout Afghanistan, as does sympathy for their cause - if not their methods (because Sunnis are dying).
Al Qaeda is an ideology - a loose banding of similar minded people who despise the mess America (and Europe) have made of the Middle East in the name of expansionism and oil lust. Al Qeada - at least as they've been caught (or killed in iraq), have come from numerous ME and European countries - and they even got a few from America. You think you're beating Al Qeada? You think the Sunnis are now pro-American? Pro Israel? You think we're winning?
Even as the President of Iran readies a visit to the Iraqi parliament?
You have a strange definition of success!
His greatest. No matter what happens, history will remember a Republican White House and Congress that ignored all warnings and did NOTHING until 9/12. And then they got THAT wrong!
America - since 9/11, has been marked by failure after failure after failure.
How's that Bush economy treating you?
Right - everything was going great until the Democrats refused to vote for Bush's war...
Oh wait, they did.
Our administration's goal has at times appeared to be "kill our enemies as fast as we can." By being so indiscriminate about how this is applied, we've only made more enemies, which we now have to kill.
We're making enemies faster than we can kill them. But that's okay, because Bush'll be back in his Presidential Library in February, where he'll not be forced to read anything more disturbing than storyes of pet goats or by fawning lickspittles.
Every word is accurate, according to numerous independent sources. Obviously you have little interest in reality, but merely wish to wallow in your own partisan ignorance.
Uh, so are you admitting that invading Iraq and defeating one of the few secular regimes in the middle east
Saddam was not especially secular. His regime was built around the Sunni sect, broadcast the call to prayer on national TV every day, built huge mosques everywhere, and Saddam himself had a Koran written in his own blood. And his state was second only to Iran in funding Islamofascist terrorist groups.
The problem I have with your post is that by claiming "25 million liberated iraqis" is a good thing, you have to ignore that fact that in "liberating" them, we enabled them to kill each other and become prey to islamic fundamentalists.
They were doing both of those things to a much greater extent before the invasion. The average number of deaths attributable to the regime was 7,000 per month; no month since their fall has approached that number.
That hasn't remotely been our policy. If it were, we would see the kind of mass internment of Muslims that Japanese-Americans suffered in WW II.
Our administration's goal has at times appeared to be "kill our enemies as fast as we can." By being so indiscriminate about how this is applied, we've only made more enemies, which we now have to kill. We're making enemies faster than we can kill them.
The evidence says the opposite is the case. Spend some time at Michael Totten's site; Sunni Iraqis have realized that what we offer is far superior to the death and torture of Al Qaeda, and they have come over to our side en masse. Also, support for terrorism is dropping rapidly all across the Mideast, because of the events in Iraq.
Try again.
We are not creating more terrorists. Indeed, we are decreasing the number who find terrorism acceptable -- even as we have trained 500,000 Iraqis in the ISF to fight at our side against terrorism.
And then we'll have to go kill a few hundred thousand more people in a country that had nothing to do with the attack. Maybe Nigeria this time - they've got lots of oil. And we'll spend a few $Hundred Billion more tax dollars making Halliburton and Exxon even richer, spend the blood of a few thousand more American troops and further destroy our military, our reputation and our Constitution.
Tell you what. All you terrorized right-wingnuts can go cower under your beds in fear of imaginary Islamofascism (the term is an oxymoron). You might even be able to find a few nuclear bomb shelters left over from the folks who were equally terrorized by the 'red menace'. You all should be happy together.
I think you might be a little too optimistic there, but in case you're right, we didn't do it by setting out to kill all the people that might use nukes against us. No, we used that disgusting lily-livered liberal tactic of
diplomacyappeasement through (gasp!) the UN.Face it, different enemy tactics require different tactical responses. A massive conventional threat requires a massive conventional (or nuclear) response. A massive nuclear threat requires diplomacy and/or extremely accurate space weapons. Terrorism requires intelligence-agency work and the occasional assassination (see Mugniyah).
So what?
Burglary and rape are also tactics. It's impossible to eliminate them. But we should fight them, no?
(BTW, we haven't actually eliminated communism and Nazism as ideologies, have we? But it's nice to have mitigated the problem.)
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.