I'll give you 10 bucks if you can go after terrorists and successfully stop them without starting a war.
New: I'm talking about peace with Al Qaeda and stuff.
Right now the Saudi's have several suspected terrorsits surrounded and they have arrested a few in relation to the Johnson beheading. Clearly, it did not take a war to find them. Only a brief police action using gathered intelligence.
What do I suggest? I suggest we take the gloves off. We hold the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria and and and responsible for the actions by people from and /or in their countries. To this point we have not taken the War on Terror to governments , with the exceptions of Afag and Iraq. It is time to do that. To be very blunt about it, we tell those governments "you take care of the terrorists in your country or we will take care of you." We chase them down whereever they hide as does Israel. Strike them in the streets of their countries and shoot bombs down their chimeneys. It is time to take control of this situation. I am tired of the "we had it coming " mentality in this country. We are right and they are wrong. Before we can bring peaceful, democratic life to that region, we need to conquear that region. We need to destroy the will of the people and kill the bad guys. This is where we need to go.
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
Resources are finite. To defeat and occupy Iraq, the United States has transferred special operations units from the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Because our military is stretched so thin in Iraq, we cannot threaten military action in Iran or North Korea, which has reduced our diplomatic leverage. The tradeoffs even extend to the nonmilitary sphere. The Bush administration's refusal to adequately fund security for U.S. chemical and nuclear plants, for inspections at our ports, and for the police officers and firemen who would be the first to respond to a terrorist attack is well-documented. Absent its enormous expenditures in Iraq, the administration could have far better addressed these threats--threats more urgent than a tyrant in Baghdad with nuclear dreams, but no nuclear plans.
What do I suggest? I suggest we take the gloves off. We hold the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria and and and responsible for the actions by people from and /or in their countries. To this point we have not taken the War on Terror to governments , with the exceptions of Afag and Iraq. It is time to do that. To be very blunt about it, we tell those governments "you take care of the terrorists in your country or we will take care of you." We chase them down whereever they hide as does Israel. Strike them in the streets of their countries and shoot bombs down their chimeneys. It is time to take control of this situation. I am tired of the "we had it coming " mentality in this country. We are right and they are wrong. Before we can bring peaceful, democratic life to that region, we need to conquear that region. We need to destroy the will of the people and kill the bad guys. This is where we need to go.
Please be more clear with your point. Are you suggesting that the US causes terrorism? I dont want to read too much into your response but if this is the case you really need to rethink what your saying.
Suggesting that the US ignites terrorism (the level of terrorism where people are being beheaded) is just insane. The cause and effect of terrorism argument is not legitimate. How do you justify some of the terrorist actions that have taken place? Car Bombings everyday in Iraq & Afghanastan killing innocent citizens of these countries, beheadings, the original WTC bombing, Hijacking passenger planes and flying them into buildings and killing thousands of people....all for what? What point is being made here? The fact is, this is madness and the US is not the cause of it. It is irresponsible to try and pawn off this level of fanatical lunacy on "the U.S.'s foreign policy".
Yes, the U.S. pretty much caused the whole geopolitical terrorist situation in the Middle East-- and yes-- with it's foreign policy. An excellent read on the subject is Mahmood Mamdani's Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. Not a bad book written not by a "fanatical lunatic" to use your words. It's a lot more sensible than you'd think. Here's the review from Publisher's Weekly.
Quote:
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Osama bin Laden?s pronouncements are rarely published in full in the United States, but transcripts of his messages-often available overseas-provide startling insight into the political, rather than religious, nature of his thinking. "Labeling us, and our acts, as terrorism is also a description of you and your acts," bin Laden said recently. "Our acts are a reaction to your acts." In this meandering rumination on modern-day terrorism, Mamdani takes a controversial step by agreeing with bin Laden, at least on this point; he argues that groups like al-Qaeda are generally motivated by legitimate political grievances with U.S. foreign policy. "In a nutshell," Mamdani writes, "the U.S. government decided to harness and even to cultivate terrorists" during the latter half of the Cold War as it sought to roll back the Soviet Union?s global influence. Now, with that legacy coming back to haunt its creators, Mamdani concludes that "no Chinese wall divides ?our? terrorism from ?their? terrorism. Each tends to feed the other." These ideas evolved from a series of talks the author gave at New York?s Riverside Church in the weeks after 9/11, and the book retains the informality of those discussions. There are flashes of inspiration, among them a thoughtful distinction between "political Islam" and "Islamic fundamentalism," two terms that are frequently and wrongfully used synonymously. There are also frustrating digressions, and Mamdani makes few attempts to address potential dissenters. Still, readers who can overlook these drawbacks will find that this study does make provocative connections across disciplines and continents-finding similarities, say, between Liberian and Zionist settlers. Mamdani is searching for big ideas, not nuances, and in this he is successful, making his book an important contribution to the national discussion on terrorism and Islam.
Before we can bring peaceful, democratic life to that region, we need to conquear that region. We need to destroy the will of the people and kill the bad guys. This is where we need to go.
To be very blunt about it, we tell those governments "you take care of the terrorists in your country or we will take care of you." We chase them down whereever they hide as does Israel. Strike them in the streets of their countries and shoot bombs down their chimeneys. It is time to take control of this situation.
... because that's working out sooooo well for the Israelis, right?
Yes, the U.S. pretty much caused the whole geopolitical terrorist situation in the Middle East-- and yes-- with it's foreign policy. An excellent read on the subject is Mahmood Mamdani's Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. Not a bad book written not by a "fanatical lunatic" to use your words. It's a lot more sensible than you'd think. Here's the review from Publisher's Weekly.
Chomsky seemed to like it. Probably won't sway you, though.
Edit: Bolded the especially relevent part.
Thank you for providing some insight into the resources that formulate your way of thinking. I would be less than honest if I said I do not enjoy reading the opinions (because thats what they are) for both sides of the argument. I must tell you that I think you are dismissing the fact that many of the core problems that result in terrorist activities in the middle east have been around long before the cold war and even the united states. Places like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and even Yemen all harbor or support terrorism and refuse to recognize Israel as having established a formal diplomatic government. Now the US's support for Israel may be cause for political debate but thats it (not war, not terrorism). Israel is a forward moving state who seeks to purge terrorism from the middle east. People around the world need to be educated on the absolute fact that there is a moral obligation not to cut peoples heads off, blow-up cars as political statments killing innocent people, and <insert your favorite variety of terrorist activity>. I dont like many of the things that are happening in the world as a result on our war on terrorism but I support it fully. I dont disregard that the US got in bed with OBL durring the Soviet movement into Afghanastan but I recognize that he had a much different political agenda at the time but is now a "fanatical lunatic". The thing that seperates forward thinking countries from the rest of the world is the recognition of diplomatic differences and the ability to agree to disagree. Thanks for the article I think I'll pick up the book, as it looks like an interesting read.
In Chicago, $1 can buy 4 meals for a homeless person. Imagine how far $1 goes in Africa, Asia or poor parts of South America.
It doesn't go as far, because the resources aren't there to gather and distribute the food. It's far easier to get a meal to a homeless guy in Chicago than a Rwandan refugee.
I'd like to also add that the probability of this food getting to those who need it, as it stands these days, is about nill- case in point, the UN and its inability to prevent starving Iraqis.
It's certainly a well-meaning notion to ponder feeding and clothing the world, but it is blatantly foolish to believe that establishing a "feed the world" program would make even the slightest dent in the primordeal terrorism soup. It is already shown that such a program simply succeeds in feeding/funding the dictator (and perhaps a small sect of loyalists to the dictator), rather than feeding his people. I'm not saying we should give up on "feed the world" programs. I'm just saying that no one yet knows how to do it legitimately and effectively, so offering it as a cure-all solution to world peace is laughable (at this point).
Comments
Originally posted by ipodandimac
I'll give you 10 bucks if you can go after terrorists and successfully stop them without starting a war.
New: I'm talking about peace with Al Qaeda and stuff.
Right now the Saudi's have several suspected terrorsits surrounded and they have arrested a few in relation to the Johnson beheading. Clearly, it did not take a war to find them. Only a brief police action using gathered intelligence.
Thanks, mail me the check. I could use the money.
EDit: Wow that didn't take long:Justice
See, you don't have to start a war, you can just go after PROVEN terrorists and remove them from existence.
Originally posted by Common Man
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
Resources are finite. To defeat and occupy Iraq, the United States has transferred special operations units from the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Because our military is stretched so thin in Iraq, we cannot threaten military action in Iran or North Korea, which has reduced our diplomatic leverage. The tradeoffs even extend to the nonmilitary sphere. The Bush administration's refusal to adequately fund security for U.S. chemical and nuclear plants, for inspections at our ports, and for the police officers and firemen who would be the first to respond to a terrorist attack is well-documented. Absent its enormous expenditures in Iraq, the administration could have far better addressed these threats--threats more urgent than a tyrant in Baghdad with nuclear dreams, but no nuclear plans.
Originally posted by Common Man
What do I suggest? I suggest we take the gloves off. We hold the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria and and and responsible for the actions by people from and /or in their countries. To this point we have not taken the War on Terror to governments , with the exceptions of Afag and Iraq. It is time to do that. To be very blunt about it, we tell those governments "you take care of the terrorists in your country or we will take care of you." We chase them down whereever they hide as does Israel. Strike them in the streets of their countries and shoot bombs down their chimeneys. It is time to take control of this situation. I am tired of the "we had it coming " mentality in this country. We are right and they are wrong. Before we can bring peaceful, democratic life to that region, we need to conquear that region. We need to destroy the will of the people and kill the bad guys. This is where we need to go.
better join the army.
http://www.chronicallybiased.com/index.php?itemid=523
Originally posted by Common Man
Oh those poor prisoners. Please! I don't remember them having their heads cut off! There is no comparison!
http://www.chronicallybiased.com/index.php?itemid=523
You actually don't feel sorry for them... wow...
Originally posted by rageous
That report is false. $17 million is not much money at all, and the are far more than 17 million starving people in the world.
In Chicago, $1 can buy 4 meals for a homeless person. Imagine how far $1 goes in Africa, Asia or poor parts of South America.
Originally posted by Playmaker
Please be more clear with your point. Are you suggesting that the US causes terrorism? I dont want to read too much into your response but if this is the case you really need to rethink what your saying.
Suggesting that the US ignites terrorism (the level of terrorism where people are being beheaded) is just insane. The cause and effect of terrorism argument is not legitimate. How do you justify some of the terrorist actions that have taken place? Car Bombings everyday in Iraq & Afghanastan killing innocent citizens of these countries, beheadings, the original WTC bombing, Hijacking passenger planes and flying them into buildings and killing thousands of people....all for what? What point is being made here? The fact is, this is madness and the US is not the cause of it. It is irresponsible to try and pawn off this level of fanatical lunacy on "the U.S.'s foreign policy".
Yes, the U.S. pretty much caused the whole geopolitical terrorist situation in the Middle East-- and yes-- with it's foreign policy. An excellent read on the subject is Mahmood Mamdani's Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. Not a bad book written not by a "fanatical lunatic" to use your words. It's a lot more sensible than you'd think. Here's the review from Publisher's Weekly.
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Osama bin Laden?s pronouncements are rarely published in full in the United States, but transcripts of his messages-often available overseas-provide startling insight into the political, rather than religious, nature of his thinking. "Labeling us, and our acts, as terrorism is also a description of you and your acts," bin Laden said recently. "Our acts are a reaction to your acts." In this meandering rumination on modern-day terrorism, Mamdani takes a controversial step by agreeing with bin Laden, at least on this point; he argues that groups like al-Qaeda are generally motivated by legitimate political grievances with U.S. foreign policy. "In a nutshell," Mamdani writes, "the U.S. government decided to harness and even to cultivate terrorists" during the latter half of the Cold War as it sought to roll back the Soviet Union?s global influence. Now, with that legacy coming back to haunt its creators, Mamdani concludes that "no Chinese wall divides ?our? terrorism from ?their? terrorism. Each tends to feed the other." These ideas evolved from a series of talks the author gave at New York?s Riverside Church in the weeks after 9/11, and the book retains the informality of those discussions. There are flashes of inspiration, among them a thoughtful distinction between "political Islam" and "Islamic fundamentalism," two terms that are frequently and wrongfully used synonymously. There are also frustrating digressions, and Mamdani makes few attempts to address potential dissenters. Still, readers who can overlook these drawbacks will find that this study does make provocative connections across disciplines and continents-finding similarities, say, between Liberian and Zionist settlers. Mamdani is searching for big ideas, not nuances, and in this he is successful, making his book an important contribution to the national discussion on terrorism and Islam.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Chomsky seemed to like it. Probably won't sway you, though.
Edit: Bolded the especially relevent part.
Originally posted by Common Man
Before we can bring peaceful, democratic life to that region, we need to conquear that region. We need to destroy the will of the people and kill the bad guys. This is where we need to go.
To save the village we had to burn it down.
Originally posted by Anders
To save the village we had to burn it down.
It remind me the story of a village called Ouradour .
Originally posted by Common Man
To be very blunt about it, we tell those governments "you take care of the terrorists in your country or we will take care of you." We chase them down whereever they hide as does Israel. Strike them in the streets of their countries and shoot bombs down their chimeneys. It is time to take control of this situation.
... because that's working out sooooo well for the Israelis, right?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123147,00.html
Originally posted by Common Man
Congratulations to the Saudis on a jpb well done.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123147,00.html
Hehe, those good ol' Saud's... Right up there with the pakistanis. Defenders of freedom ande the American way of life...
Yhiiiiha, silver!!!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yes, the U.S. pretty much caused the whole geopolitical terrorist situation in the Middle East-- and yes-- with it's foreign policy. An excellent read on the subject is Mahmood Mamdani's Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. Not a bad book written not by a "fanatical lunatic" to use your words. It's a lot more sensible than you'd think. Here's the review from Publisher's Weekly.
Chomsky seemed to like it. Probably won't sway you, though.
Edit: Bolded the especially relevent part.
Thank you for providing some insight into the resources that formulate your way of thinking. I would be less than honest if I said I do not enjoy reading the opinions (because thats what they are) for both sides of the argument. I must tell you that I think you are dismissing the fact that many of the core problems that result in terrorist activities in the middle east have been around long before the cold war and even the united states. Places like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and even Yemen all harbor or support terrorism and refuse to recognize Israel as having established a formal diplomatic government. Now the US's support for Israel may be cause for political debate but thats it (not war, not terrorism). Israel is a forward moving state who seeks to purge terrorism from the middle east. People around the world need to be educated on the absolute fact that there is a moral obligation not to cut peoples heads off, blow-up cars as political statments killing innocent people, and <insert your favorite variety of terrorist activity>. I dont like many of the things that are happening in the world as a result on our war on terrorism but I support it fully. I dont disregard that the US got in bed with OBL durring the Soviet movement into Afghanastan but I recognize that he had a much different political agenda at the time but is now a "fanatical lunatic". The thing that seperates forward thinking countries from the rest of the world is the recognition of diplomatic differences and the ability to agree to disagree.
Originally posted by bunge
In Chicago, $1 can buy 4 meals for a homeless person. Imagine how far $1 goes in Africa, Asia or poor parts of South America.
It doesn't go as far, because the resources aren't there to gather and distribute the food. It's far easier to get a meal to a homeless guy in Chicago than a Rwandan refugee.
It's certainly a well-meaning notion to ponder feeding and clothing the world, but it is blatantly foolish to believe that establishing a "feed the world" program would make even the slightest dent in the primordeal terrorism soup. It is already shown that such a program simply succeeds in feeding/funding the dictator (and perhaps a small sect of loyalists to the dictator), rather than feeding his people. I'm not saying we should give up on "feed the world" programs. I'm just saying that no one yet knows how to do it legitimately and effectively, so offering it as a cure-all solution to world peace is laughable (at this point).