Terrorism? What Terrorism?
Dave Price
Michael Hirsh approvingly quotes perhaps the stupidest thing ever written:
"It is perhaps a paradox—and one that is fitting for the strangeness of our current age—that we will need to end the war against terrorism because we cannot end terrorism."Yes, if only we had applied this logic to Communism and Nazism, we could have avoided so much needless conflict; there are, after all, still a few Communists and Nazis, so clearly we cannot end Communism or Nazism. It's rather amazing someone this incapable of grasping the obvious writes for a major newsmagazine.
He then dismisses 9/11 as a fluke, apparently mistaking the last seven years of quiet here at home, the quite unexpected result of relentless pressure on Al Qaeda, as an indication that terrorism is no longer a problem (that 25 million newly liberated Iraqis still suffering regular suicide bombings might disagree apparently never occurs to him) and even more amazingly seems to think Hamas and Hizbollah aren't even really terrorists and don't need to be dealt with as such.
As for Al Qaeda themselves, well, they're hardly worth a war:
...such a band of murderous anarchists, who have about as much hope of achieving their grand dream of turning the Mideast into an Islamist caliphate as scientists have of proving one day that the moon is made of green cheese.Really? They owned Afghanistan till we kicked them out, and seemed to be well on their way to carving out a respectable piece of Iraq before Anbar's awakening and Petraeus' surge. And let's not forget Islamists of another stripe already run Iran. Absent American intervention, it might still be difficult for the fanatics to hold the whole of the old Caliphate, but their ambitions are not so unlikely as all that, and as 9/11 proved, they don't need to be world-conquerors to be a deadly threat.
Hirsh's last point is perhaps the most ridiculous:
Even in the tribal regions of Pakistan, safe haven to the newly regrouped Taliban and Al Qaeda, voters last week turned out radical religious parties because of their ineffectiveness. Al Qaeda and related terror groups are hardly the "heirs" to communism and totalitarianism, as Bush has described them.Yeah, great point, because we all remember how those Communists and totalitarians achieved and retained power by winning free and fair elections, impressing their electorates with skillful, effective rule. Bush's blindingly obvious point is precisely that Islamofascism abhors such representative notions, just as Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin did in their heyday.
... 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.