Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[tvashtarkatena]

Die, all of you, you verbose motherfuckers!

 

 

....3......2......1......

 

[olyclimber]

YOU!

 

need to get a grip

[tvashtarkatena]

You really are my wife, aren't you?

 

Get a Grip

Edited February 16, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

It would indeed be naive to think that our actions have no influence on their motivations or behavior, but it would be equally absurd to insist that the Islamists have no aims, agenda, or ambition of their own apart from a tit-for-tat response to what they consider provocations by the West, or that there aren't forces outside of the US, and outside the scope of the current geopolical situation that play a significant role in catalyzing Islamist militancy and violence.

 

 

 

 

I don't get your Hamlet reference, heer Jay, but I think my crude synopsis of what you stated is really not as far off as you are trying to suggest. Anyway, I agree with the above quote: I have never argued that we are going to stop terrorism by adopting this or that foreign policy. Our current actions in Iraq are certainly adding fuel to the fire, though, and I think the baldfaced cynicism of those who say "the ends justifies the means" and "f*ck the rest of the world if they won't go along with us" is truly undermining any shred decency we may have held as a nation and, in a real way, our own democracy suffers along with our International image.

 

And what is this critique of my argument style in light of your constant refrain about latte sipping metrosexuals?

 

I wasn't critiquing your style, just pointing out that it didn't contain an argument, even though you presented it as such. This "synopsis" is little more than a means of evading arguments that you can't formulate an effective response to, or that address topics that you aren't familiar with. "Muslim Brotherhood? Huh? Shut-up drainhole! Shut-up!"

 

It's a shame that you didn't get the Shakespeare quote, since it's so apt.

[mattp]

I wasn't arguing, JayB, because I see little point in debating your "arguments" as your basic premise is so whacked that there really is no argument. You seem to think our posture in the world has no impact on the recruitment or stimulation of terrorism, but I think our foreign policy actually does. Either way, I think attacking countries that pose no threat to us and have not attacked us, and kidnapping people for torture in secret prisoners is not the way to go. You apparently think it is.

 

Arguments about whether or not the rage about cartoons in a Scandanavian newspaper or riots in the suburbs of Paris prove your point that the bad guys just hate America are way wide of the mark.

 

[Dechristo]

this thread requires peristalsis

[sheaf_stout]

it looks like Rednose set all your jon kerry heads bobbin in the same direction.

 

[kevbone]

Die, all of you, you verbose motherfuckers!

 

 

....3......2......1......

 

 

Whats up Mr. I post the same shit in different threads?

[foraker]

it looks like Rednose set all your jon kerry heads bobbin in the same direction.

 

what? get tired of talking about kidney stones and male pattern baldness already?

[sheaf_stout]

it looks like Rednose set all your jon kerry heads bobbin in the same direction.

 

what? get tired of talking about kidney stones and male pattern baldness already?

 

I don't know anything about kidney stones or baldness. Is that what you prefer to talk about now? I'm sorry but I don't feel like partaking in that sort of discussion. Truly a stange lot some of you are.

[sheaf_stout]

MattP, In general I see you are trying to vindicate or absolve your favorite party from responsibility.. I will come and read what you have to say when I have more time on my hands...

 

Go back and read my posts here and in virtually every other thread on this topic, Mr. Stout. I have a tremendous amount of disdain for spineless and opportunistic politicians on the Democratic side of the aisle and I said that going along with the authorization force without real discussion of what everybody knew was (and was not) going on was a dereliction of duty.

 

All I see is whining. In general I don't think your babble is very interesting.

 

This thread should be renamed the "The Architects of Peace. All battles fought from Fort Living Room". Since you've got all this figured out I'll be expecting your names on the next political ballots.

 

JayB, you made some half hearted attempt to capitalize on my previous response for whatever reason. Maybe to take a torch and continue the argument. Your remark seems to suggest I was calling terrorists uneducated or unsophistocated. That's not what I said or implied. Let me reiterate - let the middle east money dry up. I wasn't even talking about terrorists....

 

For those of you here who think that islam is a religion of peace and moderation ... I laugh at you. The last time I checked most people who fly planes into large buildings and bomb random innocent societies for religious wacko beliefs are Islamic. I suppose the logical start in your investigations would be to start looking at buddhist monks.

 

Anyway, carry on with your war discussion,bald heads, kidney stones and whatever drama you feel the need to spew forth.

[JayB]

I wasn't arguing, JayB, because I see little point in debating your "arguments" as your basic premise is so whacked that there really is no argument. You seem to think our posture in the world has no impact on the recruitment or stimulation of terrorism, but I think our foreign policy actually does. Either way, I think attacking countries that pose no threat to us and have not attacked us, and kidnapping people for torture in secret prisoners is not the way to go. You apparently think it is.

 

Arguments about whether or not the rage about cartoons in a Scandanavian newspaper or riots in the suburbs of Paris prove your point that the bad guys just hate America are way wide of the mark.

 

I think that your refusal to engage in a serious discussion is is a consequence of that fact that the scope of both your interests and your learning is confined to contemporary American politics, and that you are aware of the fact that discussions of realities extend beyond your temporal partisan myopia quickly leave you out of your depth.

 

 

 

[JayB]

I honestly don't recall responding to one of your posts, but all of the evidence suggests that international terrorists usually come from a privileged, well-educated elite with substantial connections to the West. This bears pondering in light of the argument that Islamic terrorism is a response to poverty, etc.

[mattp]

I suffer from Temporal Partisan Myopia? Get a grip. Now you're sounding like Fairweather or Sheaf Stout.

 

I've slammed the spineless democrats on this board every chance I get and my premise in this very thread is that I'd like to see the archticts of this war held accountable but it would only do some good if it led to some discussion and movement AWAY from the partisan politics that have allowed this whole mess to be foisted upon us.

 

Your suggestion that I have limited interest in your argument comes closer to the mark. I honestly do not believe it is a serious argument to claim that second generation immigrants are the ones who go to college and study revolution 101 while they drive the SUV's bought by the sweat of their parents' hard work or that the riots outside Paris were caused in significant part by the French welfare state, or that either of these things has anything to do with broader responses to American foreign policy as it affects the rate or intensity of international terrorism. I see it as an intellectual game with the end result being similar to calling all liberals latte sipping metrosexuals - and implying that this has something to do with the value or validity of their viewpoint - but little more.

 

Meanwhile, I've been busy with work and have not had time to engage in all the fun so I'm relegated to looking at the board once a day and responding to the general tone rather than your ten brilliant mini-points of the day. I'll try and do better.

 

 

[Stonehead]

Osama is here

[Crux]

"this thread requires peristalsis"

GoLytely upon the infidels, for they know not what they spew!

 

[mattp]

I honestly don't recall responding to one of your posts, but all of the evidence suggests that international terrorists usually come from a privileged, well-educated elite with substantial connections to the West. This bears pondering in light of the argument that Islamic terrorism is a response to poverty, etc.

 

Your "argument" might bear pondering if someone here was actually arguing that terrorists come from poverty. I don't think they are. Saddam may have thought so, when he offered $25,000 to the families of anybody killed in a suicide attack, and it may well be that most of those who blow themselves up on a bus in Jerasulem or Haifa do in fact come from poverty. Notwithstanding your inconclusive postulation about the personality traits of terrorists it may be true that many terrorists in fact do come from poor backgrounds but we all know that Bin Laden was rich and the 911 guys were not poor villagers. Either way, the straw man you are taking swipes at is just that: it has not really been the argument here that poverty fuels terrorism - has it?

 

I've said that going on a rampage in response to 911, invading countries that never attacked us and blithely triggering the killing of hundreds of thousands, setting up permanent camp in the middle of their oil fields, firing up a program of torture and detention that makes us look just as bad as our "enemies," and making speech after speech about a war of civilizations, calling it a crusade, and talking about Islamofacists is clearly going to motivate a significant angry backlash against the U.S. You have not directly disagreed, but argued about priviledged well educated elite who you state would seek to blow up bombs in the U.S. anyway.

 

We've discussed elsewhere the fact that clearly a dramatic and at least partial military response to 911 was needed, but our actions in the last five years have not been calculated to reduce terrorism - at least our actions on the military and political front. Maybe some of the efforts to interrupt funding of terrist training camps have.

 

It is my belief that we have taken a right turn, and are headed for more and escalating conflict on this war against terrorism. I would like to see a national dialog about this as we do in fact have a choice. We can still fight global terrorism and I believe we could probably work to secure our access to oil without the torture programs, without the rhetoric that smacks of the Roman empire and the crusades, and without making it our policy to invade and occupy countries that pose no threat to us, or to favor axis of evil rhetoric and threats of bombing over dialog and engagement with nations like Iran and Korea.

[joblo7]

self inflicted terrorism is an old ruse with a new twist. imperialism needs conquest.we have the means, why should we not conquer the world? public opinion? we can change that too. enter 'the manhattan renovation project'. next , demonize iran and invade their beige ass. the whiteys eat that shit up like mcdoo.

fear not the truth, but your mind's comfort.

[tvashtarkatena]

For those of you here who think that islam is a religion of peace and moderation ... I laugh at you. The last time I checked most people who fly planes into large buildings and bomb random innocent societies for religious wacko beliefs are Islamic.

 

You know better than to indulge in this kind of logic. By the same thinking, both Tim McVeigh and myself are of Irish descent, so all Irishmen must be terrorists. McVeigh was also raised Christian. Ditto. And on and on. Other flip side, several of the 911 team were not even all that religious.

 

Most terrorist attacks occur to move a political, not religious, agenda forward. Statistically, if you look at the majority of suicide bombings to date, they've been carried out by Palestinians (strong political agenda), Tamil Tigers (completely political agenda), and various insurgent factions in Iraq (primarily political agenda). The majority of sectarian violence in Iraq, for example, is Sunni verses Shiite (or rival factions within those groups fighting each other), to settle old political scores from Saddam's time and secure the lion's share of oil riches for the future. It has little to do with the religious doctrine of Sunniism vs Shiism.

 

To broadbrush the various conflicts in the Middle East and surroundings as primarily religiously motivated is to miss the main causes of these conflicts by a wide margin. Yes, in some instances, Islam is used as a tool for radicalization, but it is not the primary motivator in getting actual individuals to pick up a gun or a bomb and act. There is no hope of coming up with any real solutions as long as this thinking prevails.

Edited February 19, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[foraker]

If you take away someone's simplistic pigeon-hole, what are you going to leave them to cling to?

[Crux]

Pigeon peristalsis?

[joblo7]

history is historically written by the very people who keep you from the truth.

 

that way they keep doing their lowest denominator crap unimpeded.

 

someday history will try to teach our children that some beige guys with plastic knives renovated manhattan.

 

 

[sheaf_stout]

 

[Dechristo]

V7, why the recurrent racist theme?

 

Take a lesson from Ghandi and King, Jr. You aren't gonna defeat that kind of thinking by using the same weapons...

 

... that is, if you're truly interested in seeing an end to it.

[tvashtarkatena]

Al Qaeda Chiefs Seen to Regain Control

 

Can one of you 'non-armchair warriors' explain how this happened to me?