Will there be another "9/11" ?

Let's get some things straight. Not ALL neocons are Jewish. There is a large contingent of evangelicals in there as well.I believe you pointed to Buchanan as well, and he makes that statement in his book. So if you want to fight about it, go to him first. Its pretty straightforward that Cheney and Rummy and Bush and Wolfowitz and Ashcroft are Xian.Second, jewish does not equate to zionism. That would be a bigoted statement to make. Not all jews that make it into power are zionist, though it would not surprise me that zionists would tend to seek power more than other jews (zionists being political radicals by nature) and so create a correlative statistic toward that direction.It is bizarre for anybody to be holding on to a 3000+ year old myth that God will come to reward the jews if the have a temple in Israel, or the 2000- year old myth that God will have an apocalyptic battle there to reinstall Jesus.I mean bizarre to actually defy one's actual national interests to try and make that happen. Or short of the religious angle, sell out this nation's interests for another racist nation state's glory. Just as it was bizarre for all the germans in the US who went to help the "fatherland" in ww2.You oughta tone down the jewish angle and focus on facts. You were already called a bigot and now I'm starting to feel embarassed having defended you. This last post of yours pretty well pushed that border.The truth... some of it you have assessed correctly... is bad enough without excessive hyperbole, including blaming whole groups for the actions of select numbers. Uhmmmm... that ain't gonna help either. But that's my opinion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There's a truckload of assumptions behind your argument. One, that the attacks are monotonically increasing. Most wars involve increased combat until one side is defeated. Another, that an alternative strategy (which you haven't presented) would be more effective. Typically leftist, you can't engage my arguments with evidence, so you turn to invective. I assure you I'm not an idiot.In any case, yes, one must examine the motives of one's enemies. But the assumption that "if they are attacking us, it must be because we've wronged them in some way", is a mere assumption, common among Western liberals. There are a whole range of reasons, however, outside of avenging real wrongs, why people attack others. The SS didn't attack Jews because the Jews had wronged them. They simply wanted the Jews dead.Yes the terrorists have reasons for attacking us. Their reasons, not ours. Personally, I have very little patience to listen to the "legitimate concerns" of people who lure 7 year old children out with chocolate bars to be shot in the back as they run away. Wrong on both counts, and your presupposition that acts of war necessarily involve state entities is also wrong. I doubt if you know very much about reality. You certanly don't do well engaging ideas outside of the canon of coleege campus leftists.

Yes, I've heard of ETA. Basque separatism has a whole range of representatives, including moderates who have succeeded in getting some regional autonomy much more with their methods than ETA ever did with terrorist methods. But ETA is fairly orthogonal to Al Qaeda.When your heartbeat returns to normal after the shock that, yes, conservatives aren't all ill-informed Bubbas, post a reply.

Ah, but most wars are fought against nations who can be made to surrender, not against distributed, cellular networks of fanatics who will brook no surrender but death."Most wars", in other words, is not an example that can apply here. This is not a war. This is something we've never fought on this scale before. Hw about a strategy grounded in reality and not wishful thinking? How about a strategy where we increase our domestic security instead of leveraging our defense assets in needless occupation? How about a strategy where we foster community among nations instead of divisive unilateralism? I didn't say that it must be. But couldn't it be? Couldn't terrorism be motivated, in part, to accomplish legitimate objectives? Absolutely. But to say "everything we do is right and proper; we must never change our foreign policy in the light of terrorism" is arrogant idiot nationalism, and accomplishes nothing.I'm not saying that we give in to terror. But for God's sake, where's the harm in figuring out why the hell they want to kill us so damn bad, and doing something about it? By all means, quote the sections of international law that substantiate your assertions.This isn't a war, P, but this isn't just some civilian crime problem. We've never been in a situation like this; we've never fought an enemy whose weapons are distributed organization and global media.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-18-2004 11:54 PM

I never said all conservatives are ill-informed, but I am reading one that consistently makes comments which appear to be ill-informed.This reply of yours did not change that fact. I did not say you did not know about ETA, I asked because your ignorant comments that the rest of the world was finally catching up to the US on the war on terror was ridiculous and suggested perhaps you didn't.I notice that you dodged every single point in order to address that one single minute comment, and then ended on an ad hominem attack. So for the record... no response and ad hominem.When your brain catches up to speed that just because a person does not like GW they are not necessarily a liberal, or against him on how he is trying to take care security threats because of a liberal bias, and instead based on facts and careful analysis... post a real reply to my last post.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

But the assumption that "if they are attacking us, it must be because we've wronged them in some way", is a mere assumption, common among Western liberals.

---

Did you take a poll in order to come to that conclusion? I know quite a few liberals, and I know none who make this type of statement. I think you are now the one guilty of invective.-

quote:

---

There are a whole range of reasons, however, outside of avenging real wrongs, why people attack others. The SS didn't attack Jews because the Jews had wronged them. They simply wanted the Jews dead.

---

These two statements seem to be contradictory. I doubt that the SS "simply wanted Jews dead". I would bet that there were reasons the SS wanted Jews dead; probably several different reasons are applicable for different members of the SS.--

quote:

---

Yes the terrorists have reasons for attacking us.

---

Which is the point people are trying to make.-

quote:

---

Personally, I have very little patience to listen to the "legitimate concerns" of people who lure 7 year old children out with chocolate bars to be shot in the back as they run away.

---

Ah, more invective. At any rate, this completely diregards the question of whether the complaints of the terrorists are legitimate complaints shared by many people, most of whom are not terrorist, and whether addressing these legitimate complaints might not only make make many people happier, but also have the side-effect of reducing the likelihood of terrorism. How's that for left-wing "invective"?-

quote:

---

Your presupposition that acts of war necessarily involve state entities is also wrong.

---

It's not a presupposition. It is a basic part of the definition.--

quote:

---

I doubt if you know very much about reality. You certanly don't do well engaging ideas outside of the canon of coleege campus leftists.

---

For someone who complains about people turning to invective, you sure do make interesting statements.

What do you think the is goal of Muslim Extremist terrorists?What do you think is the goal of Basque terrorists?What do you think is the goal of terrorists in general?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because "community among nations" is at best an abstraction, and is often impossible due to cultural, economic, ideological, or other differences. Kerry regards the fact that France, Germany, and the UN won't work with the US as "divisive unilaterlism". He seems to regard the contributions of the UK, Italy, Poland, Australia, Japan, and smaller contingents as trivial. But together they amount to 26,000 troops in Iraq.I've news for you. If Kerry wins, he's not going to get a single French infantry company in Iraq. France will not assist the US. Period. Their current foreign policy is based on opposing US initiatives. They are not allies in any meaningful sense of the term, and arguably have not been since 1918. And in terms of military capability, it's no great loss to not have the French as part of the coalition.Germany is another matter. Arguably, they have constitutional issues with sending forces outside of Germany. They did however manage to work around those in Bosnia, IIRC. No harm at all, indeed it's vital. However, suppose the answer is largely "we hate you because you are not fundamentalist Muslims". Do you want to become a fundamentalist Muslim? I certainly don't.If there were reconcilable differences, negotiation would be an option. The differnces are not reconcilable. Therefore, we fight.Yes, you'll bring up Israel. Answer this question: Does the state of Israel have a right to exist, or not ?

I'm sorry, you seem to have misunderstood. We were speaking of the war on terror, not the war in Iraq. Then of course, that's nothing we can do anything about. But no reasonable person would suggest that thousands of Arab men would sign up for certain death just to kill us because we don't believe the same thing as they. How would you know? You're the one that thinks finding out constitutes "appeasement."You have no idea what motivates terror, because to you, it's treason to even ask. I don't give a fuck about Israel. We're talking about the war on terror.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-19-2004 07:00 PM

I don't see a dichotomy between the two. Obviously you do, but I'm not going to accept your view as Received Wisdom. Provide evidence. Well, there you go. Are the terrorists "reasonable people" ? Strawman. I don't think you, Kerry, or the Democrats are treasonous. I do think the strategy you (plural) propose, to the extent that it is a strategy at all, is worse than the current course.Again, if you think otherwise, provide evidence. Arguments of the form "any idiot can see I'm right" won't cut it. Since the majority of the terrorist groups have as a stated objective the destruction of the state of Israel, the topic is IMO germane. However, if you feel unprepared to discuss it, we'll defer it.

None of the people who attacked us on 9/11 were Iraqi, nor had any of them recieved any sort of funding or support by the Iraqi government, or any agent thereof.Iraq has not contributed substantially to Al-Qaeda, nor has Al-Qaeda had any significant presence in Iraq until recently. In fact Osama bin Laden had, on numerable occasions, railed against the strictly sectarian Hussien government.The war in Iraq has not reduced terror nor resulted in the capture of any major leaders of Al-Qaeda, except those who were dumb enough to enter that country in order to coordinate attacks against our troops. The war in Iraq has not increased domestic security, but rather, exacerbated weaknesses by diverting troops and resources.I don't know how else I can substantiate that these two things have nothing to do with each other. In fact it's rather incumbent on you now to explain the material connection between these obviously separate things. Well, there's way too many of them for them all to be crazy. Clearly they heard something from the terrorist side that they liked, that resonated with them and their condition.There's too many of them for them to just be monsters or crazy people. These are reasonable people who have been convinced that unreasonable actions are necessary. How could it get any worse than the current course? Well, I don't know anything abut Israel. I think we support them to a greater degree than seems merited by their size, strategic value, or claim. But I wouldn't be surprised if much of the nuance of the Israel situation was beyond me.

You are underestimating the power of religious belief. You are also igoring what they want: Islamic-led states, like the Taliban, starting with existing Arab countries, and then beyond to all.The suicidal terrorists believe that Allah will reward them. They are convinced that the cause of Muslim-led nations is their "fatwa". It is not just the United States, either. Ask Russia, Serbia, Indonesia, etc. where violence from Muslim extremists have nothing to do with Israel or the US. But, clearly the US and Israel are taking the main interest, at the moment, because that is a holy land for Muslims and is a unifying force among Arabs.

Now that's a more reasonable analysis. To say, though, that they're killing Americans hundreds of miles away simply because they're not Muslims is just absurd.But I agree that theocracy is their goal. Oh, certainly. Let me ask you this, though - does a man with much to lose become a suicide bomber?I think people join terrorists for the same reason people join gangs in this country.

Crash already did a good job outlining some of the evidence they are NOT the same. But he also brought up something which is more important, YOU have to provide the evidence that they ARE the same.Frankly the evidence has already been reviewed by intel and congress and the word is in... there was NO connection between the terrorists we are fighting and Iraq, just as there was no WMDs.That's why Bush only speaks about it being good because Saddam was a bad guy and that a democracy in that region will set an example for other nations to follow. No terrorism.And by the way, it has also been pointed out... again by intel sources and Congressional reports... that now terrorists have the option of using Iraq as a base. It was denied them before, but in a truly free Iraq, why wouldn't organizations (one's not opposed to the Iraqi gov't itself) be able to set up shop there and operate?Hindsight is supposed to be 20/20. I'm trying to figure out what you are still hanging on to when the facts are pretty much out in the open. Frankly I don't think that many terrorists these days are reasonable. HOWEVER, it always comes down to who the terrrorists are and what their goals are.The Taliban and Al-Qaida sprang from the terrorist organizations WE set up in order to fight a resistance campaign against soviet occupiers. You tell me, were they reasonable then? Were those legitimate goals?We funded numerous terrorist groups throughout central and south america... the CIA had a terrorist training facility within the US until a couple years back for that purpose... for the purpose of undermining "oppressive" governments. Were those people reasonable? Were those legitimate goals?If you remember right, the US was supporting at least vocally the Chechen separatists against Russia, until 9-11 happened, and only NOW we view them as unreasonable terrorists.Terrorism is a tool, which is why the idea of a "war on terror" is itself unreaonable. We would and WILL use it when we need to, and we will support it when we need to. Just as we did back in the revolutionary war... and in some parts of WW2.The important aspect is to judge goals of organizations and whether they are capable of being reached through diplomatic measures. That's funny, because that is all you have used. For certain, evidence has shown that under Bush we commited vast numbers of troops material and money to a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism.They were not likely to even supply WMD technology to our adversaries. HOWEVER, we have gotten in bed with two major dictatorships, one which was intrumental in forming the Taliban and friendly to Al-Qaida, and as it turns out ALREADY SOLD WMD THECHNOLOGY TO OUR ENEMIES. Did you miss that in the news, or were you simply not sharing that here?What's worse we supported Pakistan simply slapping the wrist of the head scientist that sold the technology. What the hell kind of message does THAT send? Boy, you have really missed the boat. The MAJORITY of terrorist groups? I guess by this you must not have included any terrorist groups with light skin or are Xian radicals of some kind.I want you to back that claim up paisano. Show me a list of all terrorist groups currently in operation and show me that the MAJORITY have as their STATED OBJECTIVE the DESTRUCTION of Israel. I think we both know how much hot air that was.Anyhow let's start rolling on this issue. The terrorists we are currently concerned with are Islamic Extremists. In specific Al-Qaida. They certainly do support either the removal of Israel from occupied lands or total removal of the state of Israel. They wander on this in main part because it is not their primary focus.You act like you know something, or that we don't need to know more about them, but clearly we (or you) do.What happened is that after successfully removing Soviet forces from Afghanistan, the organizations which we helped set up, have decided to extend there work to throw our influence out of the region as well.Rational or not, they view our troops on Saudi Soil, and armaments used against Palestinians, as equal to Soviet troops on Afghan soil, and there arms being used against Afgans.Their goal is NOT total domination of the world. Their goal is removing our forces and influence from their region.If you think that is something unreasonable, then I have to wonder what you thought of:1) Manifest Destiny
2) Monroe Doctrine
3) Zionism
4) Bush DoctrineIndeed I would love for you to compare/contrast the four above with the STATED GOALS of our current terrorist enemies.And getting back to Israel, it was formed without question by a number of terrorist organizations. They not only killed Palestinians, they killed British and US forces. Such terrorist organizations continue to exist and kill innocent civilians. They killed Rabin when he was negotiating with Palestinians, and now are threatening to kill Sharon for just giving up a small parcel of land.Shortly after 9-11 it was discovered that a faction of the JDL had plans to burn mosques and kill a US congressman. That didn't get very huge headlines... I suppose because they weren't AGAINST Israel.Many organizations against Isreal, in part or in whole, are reacting to very real situations. They are after all in violation of many UN resolutions, perhaps more than Iraq, for a longer period of time. They continue to break all international laws respecting war and treatment of prisoners. And the latest internal Israeli squabbles show rather clearly they have never intended to get to a negotiating table with Palestinians. They HAVE rejected the roadmap.So are people against this, unreasonable?You appear to have a very limited grasp of reality. Perhaps it is because you feel you do not need to know something which you really should?This message has been edited by holmes, 09-20-2004 05:17 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What on earth are you talking about. There is a sacred mosque in the area, but under no cricumstances is the Palestinian-Israeli issue... or let's say the Islamic radical's problem with Israel... based on that area being HOLY LAND.That land is HOLY to zionists and evangelicals. Which means members of Jewish and Xian faiths.It was zionists in conjunction with some sympathetic Xians who set the nation of Israel up and are expanding it against international law, in order to get as much of their HOLY LAND as possible.The Palestinians are made up of Xians and Muslims and are being oppressed for not fitting into the picture of a Jewish majority government on those Jewish HOLY LANDS.Perhaps you ought to take a closer look at the situation. Israel is a Holy Land to Jews and Xians and a rallying point for them.If that wasn't the case we'd be dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli issue in a much more rational fashion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)