I'm more confused than Ari Sharon asked to address the Quakers.
U.S. Spy Agencies: The War In Iraq Has Fueled Terrorism Across The Globe...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml
I opposed Iraq from the outset. I absolutely believe it has fueled global terrorism. But this does not mean we should pull out now. As Colin Powell predicted, we broke it. Now what do we do?
What a mess. I've got no great ideas. Just concern.
but I think we goddamned well better figure it out fast, and suggest that cutting our losses should be the default position.
I suspect that international settlement may be necessary, and wouldn't be surprised if we paid the bill thru the UN.
What a massive fuckup. What can we expect when we elect a moron?
People seem to heve this image of terrorists as normal people who read the paper one day and decide to become terrorists. These are brainwashed freaks who believe that strapping a bomb to themselves and running into a crowded room is a noble thing.
The logic that we cause terrorism through our actions is absurd. It also seems to be what liberals believe.
Oh, please.
The fact that terrorists existed and practiced terrorism PRIOR TO the US invasion/occupation of Iraq starting in 2003 in no way precludes the further growth of terrorism. Ain't that plain?
We may not "cause" terrorism through our actions, but is it beyond your ken to conceive that US actions, as perceived and experienced by already-aggreived and preternaturally hostile and sweaty third world unmentionables, might, just might, be used by them as a justification/reason/motivation/rationalization/excuse/pretext/cause, no matter how full of BS some of us may think it, for the acts they undertake?
And that some of the "causes" may have existed prior to 2003?
Just a thought.
They indeed may be brainwashed. Anyone who straps explosives to himself with the purpose of killing whatever civvies and other bystanders are unfortunate to be near at hand is someone who has a poor grasp of cause-and-effect [as in exactly how does this address any political grievance you have?] or someone with an extremely high level of devotion to his cause, whatever that might be. If the latter, then our disagreement comes down to an evaluation of the worth of his cause, since self-sacrifice for an abstract ideal in western cultures is often thought to be an extremely brave act and evidence of the highest devotion to that abstract ideal. [Fer example, right off the top of my shiny head, Nathan Hale, being walked to the gallows, "I regret that i have but one life to give for my country."] I do not know what the various Walids, Muhammeds, Khalils, Ibns, Faouds, Rashids et. al. say and think as they hit the detonator, but isn't it possible that at least one of those fellows thinks of himself as acting out of the highest ideals and the best motivations?
Of course, as Americans we know they're full of BS if they oppose us.
"Anyone who straps explosives to himself with the purpose of killing whatever civvies and other bystanders are unfortunate to be near..."
What a revealing statement. I agree. Very "unfortunate".
Do you consider yourself an apologist for terrorism? I'm not trying to bait you. I really want to know how you think you come across. Nathan Hale??? Which cafe' did he suicide bomb?
I used to thimk you were just a contrarian liberal. I was wrong . You are the real deal.
I'm more confused than Ari Sharon asked to address the Quakers.
You obviously didn't care for the part about self-sacrifice for an abstract ideal, even though the "ideal" may be viewed by many as pure BS.
You are of course free to interpret what I cyberscrawl as you wish -- but I don't think that what i've written can be construed by many as favorable to the suicide/homicide/martyrdom bomber types. That last section, it's more like thinking out loud.
I didn't think "unlucky" would have worked. Insufficient gravitas. Please suggest a word you feel properly captures the situation, if you would be so kind.
I'm not a contrarian liberal, nor a contrarian conservative. Just contrary to the received wisdom of AIPAC and The Likud and the NeoConMen and DoctorGonzo re the USA's stakes in anything relating to the Israeli/Pally/Arab/Moslem conflict.
BTW, what do you rthink was on Shamir's mind when he assassinated UN type Count Bernadotte? What was going through Begin's mind when he teror-bombed the King David Hotel? Don't tell me that you're an apologist for terrorism, depending upon whose commits the terror, and the passage of sufficient time to allow events to recede into historical memory and historical forgetfulness.
[But you see, Begin and shamir didn't give their lives for their cause -- Begin and Shamir took the lives of others for the cause of Israeli Zionism. Hasn't that ever been pointed out to you before today by me?]
One DoctorGonzo per Board is sufficient.
...aside from the French and WW2 is it not the natural order of war that an opposing force indeed arms up, recruits and expands hostilities to the best of its ability in the hope of winning?? You did know that right???
The problem with this one is it is driven not by economic conquest but religious nutjobs so it is likely this one will take awhile. Just pray these asshats don't get their hands on some serious weapons...but of course liberals would say they'd never have done that anyway if it weren't for the current administration. But you know they eventually would have...right?
BTW, I belive said report was making the Washington rounds back in April. No coincidence that elections are looming eh!
We had already won WWII at 5 years. These guys -- Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, the GOP congress...they're just simply and utterly incompetent. But you'll continue to make excuses for them because you are a blind follower.
You are very revealing of yourself by stating a 5 year statistic. Five years into what? Since what. 9/11 of course. The real problem is that far too many (like you) believe that the "war"/"conflict"/"whatever" began on 9/11. It's been raging at times, smoldering at others since when? Long before 9/11. Cole bombing? African embassy bombing? 1993 WTC bombing? Beruit barracks bombing? Munich Olympics? Hijackings of 1970's? Inception of Israel? World War ONE ends?
What the hell does WWII have to do with anything analagous? I know that you were trying to compare the HUGE scope of WWII with this, but they simply aren't similar enough to compare.
OK, let's make more WWII comparisons. From 1939 until 1943 the Allies were getting their asses kicked and handed to them (repeatedly), in Europe and the Pacific. So, we didn't see a turning point until 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way through the war. Therefore, maybe, just maybe we have another 5 years or 10 or 20 or 85 years to go.
-- Modified on 9/26/2006 7:56:56 PM
the history of Israel with the history of the United States. FYI, for most of us it is not the same thing.
1st of all, "wars" are between states. The terrorists here are various muslim groups, none with a territory or population to defend. (If you want to except Lebanon, Iran, Palestine, then explain why we haven't invaded them.)
These groups are more like, and should be treated more like, pirates than legitimate states.
I wasn't the one comparing the present situation with ANY war, S4 was. In following his lead I called it a war and then a "conflict" or "whatever" obviously recognizing the hypocracy of calling it a war.
I think your thread was misplaced and really aimed at s4.
But acutally, while no one has admitted it yet or said it out loud, I think that we and Israel are presently at war with Iran.
What, if anything, makes you think it will turn around at some point in the futrure under the current Management and the curse they have us on?
Iraq is in a mess, in some places. Some things and places worse, yes. Many places much better than before.
But the War on Terrorism, excuse me, Conflict with terrorism, no no "Our efforts to restrict the negative affects of terrorism" are much further along, toward an eventual solution than they would otherwise have been.
When one takes drastic action, do things sometimes get worsre before they get better? sheesh, wake up.
Oh, and which "Many places" are "much better" than when Bush started this monumental disaster that is know as the Iraq war? Please tell us.
As always, you ignore the point. Or maybe you just can't see it.
I never said I had any expectations as to WHEN. I have no fucking idea when. It doesn't really matter. Go back to your own WWII analogy.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&Search=world%20war%20one&SearchType=1&Author=gfd&DayFrom=30&DayTo=0&MessageID=35893&frmSearch=1
Do you think FDR thought to himself, "Gosh, if things don't start getting better soon, we'll just have to quit this war."?
The most shining example of where things are much better is in the Kurdish provence, but I'm sure you won't even acknowledge that much.
I mean, wasn't WWII over after 5 years? So you are saying this Iraq thing could keep getting worse for decades and it doesn't matter? We should just "believe" we are on the right track even though things are getting worse and worse and worse? What kind of thinking is that? Are you serious?