# Why is there the war on terror?



## Monadnock (Nov 6, 2006)

Watch how radical Islam is teaching their kids. See what radical Islam has in planned for the West.

[URL="http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm"]http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm[/URL]This is what the war on terror is about.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2006)

Or maybe this is what its about...

Oil, Smoke, and Mirrors


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 6, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Watch how radical Islam is teaching their kids. See what radical Islam has in planned for the West.
> 
> http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htmhttp://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htmThis is what the war on terror is about.



Interesting find... scary stuff. a good reminder of why there needs to be a war... the scariest part is the children already accepting the propoganda...


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 6, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Interesting find... scary stuff. a good reminder of why there needs to be a war... the scariest part is the children already accepting the propoganda...


 
Even scarier is the complete rejection of this reality by 50% of our own population.


----------



## Kensai (Nov 6, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Interesting find... scary stuff. a good reminder of why there needs to be a war... the scariest part is the children already accepting the propoganda...


 
Needs to be a war? *Hmmm*.... Fighting fire with fire is always dangerous. 

Sorry mate, not having a dig at you, but I'm concerned with the _needing_ to have wars. Wars can be fought in many ways, the better informing of people on every side of the debate, and a more responsible media in the West are for starters as important to me in resolving this issue. This isn't a standard war, side x against side y, who will have a military conflict and whoever wins is right. This is Vietnam on everybodies doorstep, every day of the week, and it needn't be. IMHO. 

It's difficult to reconcile with fanatics, but ask yourselves this, are you convinced that you aren't just a little bit fanatical in your own beliefs (to everyone not just you MrH), that we ARE right in enforcing democracy in an Islamic area/state? Who are we to do so? WE'RE the West?!? So? So what? We all have beliefs that we maintain deathlike grips on. Radical Islam could be de-radicalised, but it won't be through war. That much I can assure you. This is a religion that has fought the west to a standstill before, during the Crusades. The War On Terror? Or The Reasoning Against Terror? In many ways we have the wrong people leading us, the world over. Men in suits with vested interests, or radical imams with the same. It's not often I'd agree with John Lennon, but "fighting for peace is a bit like ****ing for viginity". My tuppence.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 6, 2006)

Kensai said:


> It's difficult to reconcile with fanatics, but ask yourselves this, are you convinced that you aren't just a little bit fanatical in your own beliefs (to everyone not just you MrH), that we ARE right in enforcing democracy in an Islamic area/state?



Those in power make the rules 

Europe enforced it's political systems and Christianity on the world not too long ago.  Of course America rebelled and made a really big cup of tea in the end...



> Radical Islam could be de-radicalised, but it won't be through war.



I agree fully, the way to get a group that thinks you have done them great wrong to stop wanting to do you great wrong is not by blowing up there country and friends / family.



> It's not often I'd agree with John Lennon, but "fighting for peace is a bit like ****ing for viginity". My tuppence.




War has solved a lot of issues, and in some cases has been pretty neccessary for one side to get involved.  America needed to fight the British, The Allies needed to fight Germany, etc.  Those where very real threats that could not be dealt with any other way.

And the language of the war is interesting.  "Terrorists" yes, unless they win, or from there sides perspective.  Where the French revolotion fighters terrorists?  Chopping off the heads of the aristocrats?  WOuld calling them terrorists and destroying there land and killing them off have supressed them?  Or added fuel to there fire?

I guess what I am saying is that it is easy to look at them and see the violent nature and realise something must be done as they are a threat, if on a minimal level compared to say... Germany in WW1 & WW2, or the USSR durring the cold war.  But people aren't "born" that way, this story of why they hate the west goes back many generations, and neither side is innocent in it.

The west _may_ have the moral high ground based on the current situation, but there have definately been times when it did not.  And from a Middle Eastern perspective, it's debateable if it does now.


----------



## Kensai (Nov 6, 2006)

War has solved issues? Perhaps, but it also left 50-60 million dead in WWII, and around 10 million in the "Great" War. Having served in the 2nd Gulf, war definately leaves an unpalatable taste to say the least, and if it's the only way to solve our problems, then this species deserves what it gets. I'll live as a hermit in the south pacific with my family, and just surf as and when I can. :ultracool Ya'll can have big willy fights, just leave me and mine out of it.  

But on the whole, je agree with ya, good post mate.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 6, 2006)

Kensai said:


> War has solved issues? Perhaps, but it also left 50-60 million dead in WWII, and around 10 million in the "Great" War.



Yup, that it did.  But what would the cost of not fighting back have been?

If Hitler had been able to conquer Europe, what would the world look like? Would less people have died?

War is bad, but until all sides agree on that it will occasionally become neccessary to prevent a worse situation.


----------



## Kensai (Nov 6, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Yup, that it did. But what would the cost of not fighting back have been?
> 
> If Hitler had been able to conquer Europe, what would the world look like? Would less people have died?
> 
> War is bad, but until all sides agree on that it will occasionally become neccessary to prevent a worse situation.


 
Aahhahhaaa.... "maybe's". Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what would have happened. I think you could argue that the occassional byproducts of war could be beneficial, ie the suffragette movement after WWI and women gaining political status etc, I just think it's a shame that it took 10 million deaths to do that. I could talk about this over a pint all day in fact. Shame I'm at work.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 6, 2006)

it's hard to find a moral high ground in this one.

on the one hand, there's an alarming number of islamic men who are willing to die to stick it to us.  and they're willing to kill children and noncombatants to do it.

on the other hand, america's foreign policy over the past 60 years has directly contributed to the number of men who feel like terrorism is an honorable career path.

logically and realistically, america needs to defend itself.  but i can't find a moral basis here, just a survival basis.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 6, 2006)

Good article by Orson Scott Card:  The Only Issue This Election Day

Won't change any minds; those who disagree will continue to disagree, but some of you might like it.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 6, 2006)

interesting article, but isn't card kind of a whackjob?


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 6, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> interesting article, but isn't card kind of a whackjob?


 
What do you mean?  He's the author of a lot of books that I've enjoyed - Ender's Game, Alvin Maker - and he started writing essays after the WTC attacks.  Don't know if that makes him a 'whackjob'.  He seems to have followed the same path I did: Left-leaning, but disappointed in the Democratic response to 9/11 and the following events.


----------



## TonyMac (Nov 6, 2006)

If propoganda was so effective I'd be more worried about the pope having been in the hitler youth.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 6, 2006)

Can a "War on Terror" be won?

Or is it just a circle, the more America does to stamp it out, the more people on the other side decide to take up the cause as there country, family, friends, jobs, and everything else in there lives are being destroyed by it?


----------



## Kensai (Nov 6, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Can a "War on Terror" be won?
> 
> Or is it just a circle, the more America does to stamp it out, the more people on the other side decide to take up the cause as there country, family, friends, jobs, and everything else in there lives are being destroyed by it?


 
Think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head there me ol' mucker.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 6, 2006)

TonyMac said:


> If propoganda was so effective I'd be more worried about the pope having been in the hitler youth.





> Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth - membership being legally required after December 1936, but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith.



Not a very viable point... same thing with the communist in many countries. Kind of non-optional.

still, I get your point...


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 6, 2006)

TonyMac said:


> If propoganda was so effective I'd be more worried about the pope having been in the hitler youth.


 
there is a difference between joining and organization that might conflict with your faith when you are an ornery 14 year old than having your faith be defined by those tenants from day one of your birth.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 6, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> This is what the war on terror is about.


 
No. The so-called "War on Terror" is about creating and maintaining the PNAC's "Pax Americana" (their words, not mine): a new world order under American leadership.

A number of senior officials within the Bush administration --- Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and so on --- and even President Bush's own brother Jeb have been calling for the military occupation of Iraq since at least as far back as 1997. The pretense that this has anything to do directly with 9/11 or combating global terrorism is a farce. The "War on Terror" was just a marketing scheme to get us in the Middle East.

The reason, of course, that we are in Iraq is because of its strategical location in relation to the rest of the Middle East (makes for a great base of operations in the region) and the oil revenue it was believed it would produce for us.

Of course, things haven't worked out for the PNAC and the Bush Administration as well as they'd have hoped, but that is often the case with ideologues.

Laterz.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 6, 2006)

I dunno....that sounds a little too much like a conspiracy theory to me.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 6, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> I dunno....that sounds a little too much like a conspiracy theory to me.


 
Except that, it's no conspiracy. It's public knowledge.

www.newamericancentury.org

Laterz.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 6, 2006)

can it still be a conspiracy if it's public knowledge?

sounds like it's both.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 6, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> can it still be a conspiracy if it's public knowledge?
> 
> sounds like it's both.


 
*shrug*

You're free to call it whatever you wish.

However, the facts are that many signatories within the PNAC are now senior officials within the Bush Administration, that they called for the military occupation of Iraq as early as 1997, and have called for the establishment of a "Pax Americana" via increased military spending and expansion months before the 2000 presidential election.

Those are the facts and, as someone else has previously said, they aren't neutral.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2006)

A conspiracy is defined as two or more people planning to do something illegal.  The entire Bush Administration as been involved in conspiracies from the get go.

There is no War on Terror.

There is only a war for "Pax Americana."

And a war against OUR freedom.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 6, 2006)

The simple answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is this.

When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail. ​When George W. Bush became president, he staffed his administration with veterans from the cold war and military. George W. Bush became president without ever having left the North American continent, and was notably and remarkably incurious about other parts of the world. George W. Bush put in place policies to reduce diplomatic efforts around the world, feeling that 'Nation Building' was a task in which the country should not engage. 

Sure, Colin Powell's astronomical efforts to free the crew of the E-5 from China were diplomatic in their entirety, but those were an abboration. And the rest of the administration resented him for being successful.

When 911 happened, all of the former Secretaries of Defense and Undersecretaries of Defense, and Defense Policy Board alums reached for the only tool they knew how to operate. As a wonderful irony, even the Secretary of State - the chief diplomat for our country - was retired military - his whole life learning combat. 

A wonderful thought experiment might be to imagine a Bush administration staffed with Bishop Tutu, George Mitchell, Richard Holbrooke or similar diplomats, on September 10, 2001.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 7, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Good article by Orson Scott Card:  The Only Issue This Election Day
> 
> Won't change any minds; those who disagree will continue to disagree, but some of you might like it.



If you bother to read some of the news out of the middle east or places like WWW.Memri.org you can see that a lot of what he predicted already seems to be coming to pass. People talk about this war being more about perceptions than military might. Well, a lot of people in that part of the world are looking at things going on right now in the election and wondering if they should try to fight the Islamic facists or knuckle under and support them.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 7, 2006)

People can conspire all they want to. Even if Bush did, he couldn't have taken any related action to it, unless he had a legitimate reason to do so, or pull it off. An outright attack on our soil by THEM caused his reactions. 

No matter your politics of this, or the president, the problem exists, and left unchecked, will rear it's head again. We did pander and cater to those areas for many years, and all they did, was, take one shot after another. At least those that are trained to fight this are, instead of it coming against our citizens. The problem won't go away, because we pull out and leave, or politically cater to them. Don't blame the president and his policies, when it was thier actions that caused them.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> We did pander and cater to those areas for many years, .


 
I'm wondering if you heard about the nationalities of the terrorists. 

First Osama bin Laden. 
Second Ayman Al Zawahiri
Third, 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001 hijackers

Would you say our policy concerning the nationalities of these people has changed since the 'War on Terror' began? Or are we still pandering to them?

Really, it seems like we aimed our 'hammer' at the wrong nail.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 7, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> People can conspire all they want to. Even if Bush did, he couldn't have taken any related action to it, unless he had a legitimate reason to do so, or pull it off. An outright attack on our soil by THEM caused his reactions.


 
The problem is that the "THEM" that attacked us (I presume you are referring to 9/11) had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein. 

Well, not before our invasion, anyway. Howard Dean had it right in 2004. There was no real Al Queda presence in Iraq prior to our occupation of that country, but they're sure as hell there now. Our military actions have emboldened the terrorists and expanded their power and influence, not weakened them.

In any event, I personally don't believe George W. Bush was behind any of this. In my opinion, he is just an insipid puppet for the PNAC. The real president of the United States of America is Richard Cheney. That's also one of the reasons that Donald Rumsfeld hasn't been fired yet, either, even though there are widespread sentiments by both military and ex-military personnel that he is incompetent. Rumsfeld, like Cheney, is one of the signatories of the PNAC.

That being said, you are right about one thing. The Bush Administration did use 9/11 as an opportunity to initialize their "Pax Americana" agenda. Unlike others, I am not willing to go as far to say that they orchestrated 9/11, but it is glaringly obvious they used that tragedy as an excuse to begin their campaign of military imperialism.

May your choices be good ones this afternoon.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 7, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> If you bother to read some of the news out of the middle east or places like WWW.Memri.org you can see that a lot of what he predicted already seems to be coming to pass. People talk about this war being more about perceptions than military might. Well, a lot of people in that part of the world are looking at things going on right now in the election and wondering if they should try to fight the Islamic facists or knuckle under and support them.


 
Yup, MEMRI is a good resource.  Rantburg keeps a pretty good roundup of happenings in the middle east also.


----------



## searcher (Nov 7, 2006)

Just aquestion for everyone on this subject.   If the Muslims are not all like this , then why have they not "rooted out the problem" themselves?   I am not being negative here, but it does beg the question.   If your faith is under attack would you not want to get rid of the attackers, even if they were within?    Help me out with this one.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 7, 2006)

searcher said:


> Just aquestion for everyone on this subject. If the Muslims are not all like this , then why have they not "rooted out the problem" themselves? I am not being negative here, but it does beg the question. If your faith is under attack would you not want to get rid of the attackers, even if they were within? Help me out with this one.


 
They live in fear. Anyone who does not support their cause is killed.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2006)

searcher said:


> Just aquestion for everyone on this subject. If the Muslims are not all like this , then why have they not "rooted out the problem" themselves? I am not being negative here, but it does beg the question. If your faith is under attack would you not want to get rid of the attackers, even if they were within? Help me out with this one.


 
Why haven't the Catholics 'rooted out the Protestants'?

Why haven't the Protestants 'rooted out the Evangelicals'?

Why haven't the Evangelicals 'rooted out the Baptists'?


Do not complain about the splinter in my eye . . . . 

or something like that. 

Maybe the Muslems are just being good Christians.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 7, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Even scarier is the complete rejection of this reality by 50% of our own population.


On the part of the right, of course.
Sean


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:


> On the part of the right, of course.
> Sean


 
LOL..Everyone see what I mean now?


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 7, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Except that, it's no conspiracy. It's public knowledge.
> 
> www.newamericancentury.org
> 
> Laterz.


 
Mountains out of molehills, anyone?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 7, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> LOL..Everyone see what I mean now?


What makes you think we can waltz in, erase nation states, Kill hundreds of thousands of people, and expect that to stop the average kid from making his mark against us? You are living in the bubble; its about to pop.
Sean


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 7, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Watch how radical Islam is teaching their kids. See what radical Islam has in planned for the West.
> 
> [URL]http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm[/URL]This is what the war on terror is about.


 
Jesus Camp

Now, I've always been of the opinion that one should clean up their own yard before they point fingers at the neighbors.  *shrug*  YMMV.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:


> What makes you think we can waltz in, erase nation states, Kill hundreds of thousands of people, and expect that to stop the average kid from making his mark against us? You are living in the bubble; its about to pop.
> Sean


 
I'm talking about the war on terror. Your misguided assumptions about what I think have diluded your own credibility at this point so I'll defer answering such blather until after a few cold ones, when it is even more amusing.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 7, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> I'm talking about the war on terror. Your misguided assumptions about what I think have diluded your own credibility at this point so I'll defer answering such blather until after a few cold ones, when it is even more amusing.


Exactly when do we win? After we have killed the whole religion?


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:


> Exactly when do we win? After we have killed the whole religion?


 
I don't know. Maybe you should actually watch the video that was linked at the beginning of the thread.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 7, 2006)

*Moderator Note:

Please keep the conversation at a mature and respectful level.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator*


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 7, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> The problem is that the "THEM" that attacked us (I presume you are referring to 9/11) had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Well, not before our invasion, anyway. Howard Dean had it right in 2004. There was no real Al Queda presence in Iraq prior to our occupation of that country, but they're sure as hell there now. Our military actions have emboldened the terrorists and expanded their power and influence, not weakened them.
> 
> ...


 
Well, overall, you're right Iraq and "them" were seperate issues. Bin Laden should've been dealt with in entirety before anything was done with Iraq. They were isolated and of no direct threat. However, there was a few of "them" that were in Iraq, at certain times. Let's just say, that they weren't unfriendly with each other.

As for the terrorist presence, you're right there too. However, I think, since we are in the middle of their "turf", we are forcing their hand, to come out and fight, as opposed to emboldening and empowering them. They were already a presence throughout the world, and had the influence in that region, more so before our military actions. Better they fight our troops there, than our citizens here. It's also probably why they were "let" into Iraq. Sure is better than going to other nations, and looking for them, or putting those nations between a rock and hard place, to deal with them or us.

Overall, They are present, and were present. Irregardless of your politics, this was true. You can hate the right or the left, but, "they" were going to, and have to be dealt with at some point.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 7, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I'm wondering if you heard about the nationalities of the terrorists.
> 
> First Osama bin Laden.
> Second Ayman Al Zawahiri
> ...


 

No argument there. They were Saudi's for the most part. But, in terms of my statement, didn't we pander to them for years? I would say so. Just the fact of not addressing them harshly due to "relations" would qualify. I think we still are too. More could be and should be done. don't think it's just them though, They are in all of those nations. Call them by different names, but, they are still of the same philosophy, and committing the same actions. I feel all of what has gone on, unfortunately, is the tip of the ice berg. Radical Isalm is the enemy to the world, and exists in a lot of places. The war is going to expand, and the rest of the nations are going to have to make an unpopular choice. The problem was allowed to grow too big. They won an election to take control of a country, officially.


----------



## searcher (Nov 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:


> Exactly when do we win? After we have killed the whole religion?


 

This is a very real possibility.   It may be one of those, "It will never happen" items, but the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably thought the same thing.   Not to sound to cliche', but extreme circumstances require extreme measures.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 7, 2006)

These extremeists chose to fight. They will fight irregardless of our politics, and actions. This has been proven true. The world, as a whole, has to stop dragging it's feet and make a real choice, to unify and deal with this threat.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 7, 2006)

First, there were no 'THEY' in Iraq prior to the United States invasion. Had 'THEY' been there, Saddam Husseins Feddayeen secret police would have eliminated them. One can not portray an accurate picture of where we are, unless one can accurately describe from where we came. 

Second, I refer the posters to the Greek legend of the Hydra. By whatever name you call it, a military campaign against a religous idea will result in a Hydra response. It becomes a war that can not be won.

Of course, winning is not the point.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 7, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> First, there were no 'THEY' in Iraq prior to the United States invasion. Had 'THEY' been there, Saddam Husseins Feddayeen secret police would have eliminated them. One can not portray an accurate picture of where we are, unless one can accurately describe from where we came.
> 
> Second, I refer the posters to the Greek legend of the Hydra. By whatever name you call it, a military campaign against a religous idea will result in a Hydra response. It becomes a war that can not be won.
> 
> Of course, winning is not the point.


 

Correct, on the first point. But, in the end of his time, not true on the second. Their politics toward "us" was the same. There were certain individuals, one with one leg? A hospital? sound familiar. I'm sure in a locked down state, he just snuck in and remained un noticed. A blind eye was turned to him and certain others. 

However, what is, is. "They" are there now. Does it really matter where they are? We have to deal with them irregardless. Better they come to our military, right? Better that those who have been dealt with, have right? Would you rather have those individuals still running around doing what they were doing?

Bottom line is "They" Exist. are doing what they are doing, and will continue to do so, no matter where.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 8, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> The problem is that the "THEM" that attacked us (I presume you are referring to 9/11) had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussein.



The problem with that sort of statement is that none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Palestine and Al- Queda never mentioned the plight of the people there until after 9-11. And yet, if we are to deal with the problem of Islamic terrorism it is taken as a given that we have to deal with the issue of Palestine.

The whole situation involving Islamic terrorism is not only limited to the hijackers that attacked us in the past, but also the religion, the culture, the governments that deal with the terrorists and a whole lot more. So to try to say that we should only concentrate on Al- Queda and not Iraq because they attacked us is kind of like saying that we should not care what the Israelis do to anyone because they are not us. If you look at things at a deeper angle, Iraq was involved in the larger problem, not the direct attacks.

But the Iraq thing has been kind of done to death here has it not? What is current is the message that this election has sent to the world. No matter the reasons people voted for a Democratic victory, the world is seeing it as proof that American does not have the stomach for the long battle against the forces of Islam. Take a look at the news of the world on the internet- not just cnn and you will see the message that this was about how Americans have had enough of their people killed and are voting to retreat.

The irony is that congress does not have the power to pull troops back from Iraq. The most they could do is threaten to stop funding for  the troops in the field. And that would be suicide for them. What we can expect for the next few years is a lot of meetings and hearings by the Democrats to drive home the point with the voters that they need to put them in power in the white house in the next election.

But the world sees what is going on and realizes that the American people will not support those that fight against Islamic terrorists. Al Queada will trumpet this and point to Vietnam, Beruit and Somalia and say that anyone in the middle east that supports America will end up like the South Vietnamese government. The fighters will be inspired by this proof that their strategy of killing enough Americans will make the people cut and run works and they will continue to do more of the same. Not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and future battles.

The people and the governments of the region will realize that if they don't cut deals with extreme Islam, they can only bet on a couple more years of protection and support from America. Which choice do you think they will make?

Before 9-11, many governments in the region made devil's deals with the forces of extreme Islam. They would not fight us, nor would they fight them. Their security forces looked the other way when things were being done under their noses and they funneled millions of dollars of Danegeld to the terrorists through front organizations. They showed their devotion to the cause by having their children taught hatred toward the west in schools and having their state- controlled media have story after story about how Jews run a world- wide conspiracy and America wants to take over the world.

It took the words, "You are either for us or against us" to stop this type of thing. That and a willingness to move an army half way across the world and take out a couple of governments. The gains we have made have not been because we asked, "could you please stop running stories in your official newspapers about how Jews need the blood of a muslim for a traditional pastry?" They would not risk a bullet from the Islamists for just words from us. They would if they feared us doing something and thought they could count on us protecting them as best we could. So we have made small gains in reducing the amount of goverment support for the hatred against us.

But now, they are looking at this election and realizing that America might not do anything to them if they slacken on their commitment and reach out their hand again to the Islamic terrorists. All the stories in their textbooks and media that preach hatred of the West and christianity will seep back in. The rulers from Musharef to Mubarak will not be as eager to stand up to the message of hate and the forces that work against America because they have seen that the American people will not be around when the Islamic militants come knocking. Better then to lay the groundwork for Osama and his type to be guests than be tossed out by them.

People may not have thought that they were voting to tell the Islamists that their strategy of terrorism was working. But that is the message they will get.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Correct, on the first point. But, in the end of his time, not true on the second. Their politics toward "us" was the same. There were certain individuals, one with one leg? A hospital? sound familiar. I'm sure in a locked down state, he just snuck in and remained un noticed. A blind eye was turned to him and certain others.
> 
> However, what is, is. "They" are there now. Does it really matter where they are? We have to deal with them irregardless. Better they come to our military, right? Better that those who have been dealt with, have right? Would you rather have those individuals still running around doing what they were doing?
> 
> Bottom line is "They" Exist. are doing what they are doing, and will continue to do so, no matter where.


 
I contend you are wrong on every point. 

To suggest a 'blind eye' was turned is not in accordance with the evidence. It is like blaming the Terminator for that kid who went and fought for the Taliban. I mean, hey, the kid grew up in California, right? Who cares that he left the country before Arnold became governor? Who cares that there are millions of citizens doing all sorts of crap in the state. The Governor is responsible for everything that occurs there, and tacitly allows Mr. John Walker Lind to become a terrorist. 

I do not think our military should be used as 'fly paper'. We put the Army in green and tan so they blend in with their surroundings. We don't paint big Red and White Circles on their uniforms. To suggest that we deploy them to become targets seems to be the exact opposite of 'Support the Troops'. 

The purpose of a military is to kill people and capture land. We'll we seem to be accomplishing that pretty good. We have annexed a Fifty-first state. And we keep killing people. The problems is, by making Iraq part of the United States, and by killing the people in Iraq, we are (in the words of SecDef Rumsfeld) creating more terrorist than we are capturing or killing. The metrics are messed up. 

The United States Government has demonstrated the perfect example of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'. The 'BlowBack' we are going to receive from this mis-adventure will certainly justify everything you are saying. But, to not recognize it as the coming 'BlowBack' is to be naive.


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 8, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> . The world, as a whole, has to stop dragging it's feet and make a real choice, to unify and deal with this threat.



except the world as a whole has far greater threats to deal with don't they? there are dozens of insurgent wars going on right now, there's the major ones you know like Dafur, Sri Lanka and there are the dozens of ones that don't make the news, as in Nepal, the Philipines, India/Pakistan, South America and most other parts of Africa. 

then of course there's corruption, famine and natural disasters. most of these places just neither have the resources nor a concern for our terrorist issues. many of the people living in these regions live in terror as just a daily aspect of life. 

but if by world you mean the western world-- that already has happened-- it's been a unified front -- especially after the wake up calls in madrid and london.

just don't expect to much help from the rest of the planet...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 8, 2006)

searcher said:


> This is a very real possibility. It may be one of those, "It will never happen" items, but the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably thought the same thing. Not to sound to cliche', but extreme circumstances require extreme measures.


Thank God that way of thinking just got voted out. LOL
Sean


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 8, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:


> Thank God that way of thinking just got voted out. LOL
> Sean


 
I think Michael Stipe's party just got voted in..

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feeeeel fiiiiine..."


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I contend you are wrong on every point.
> 
> To suggest a 'blind eye' was turned is not in accordance with the evidence. It is like blaming the Terminator for that kid who went and fought for the Taliban. I mean, hey, the kid grew up in California, right? Who cares that he left the country before Arnold became governor? Who cares that there are millions of citizens doing all sorts of crap in the state. The Governor is responsible for everything that occurs there, and tacitly allows Mr. John Walker Lind to become a terrorist.
> 
> ...


 

Well now, everyone should disagree with you. You are not consistent with your own arguments. So, I guess you're arguing, just to argue then?

First you said that "they" were never in Iraq, or the secret police would have hunted them down etc..

Now, they were there, but it's not the fault of the Iraqi government. Because you can't blame so and so etc..

Come to a real stance, make your points, then stick to them. If "They" didn't and don't really exist, which is what you're saying, then who did Lind go off and join up with? They had to exist right? You are contradicting yourself.

You can't have it both ways.

As for my points being wrong: They exist, they did exist before all of this, They are there, They were there, and they will keep doing what they do and have done.

What is wrong?

As for the blowback, It happened anyway, before we did anything. Remember the Cole, all of the embassies bombed, the first WTC bombing? "THEY" can't be ignored sir. They have to be dealt with, and you can't talk to them, or negotiate with them.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 8, 2006)

jazkiljok said:


> except the world as a whole has far greater threats to deal with don't they? there are dozens of insurgent wars going on right now, there's the major ones you know like Dafur, Sri Lanka and there are the dozens of ones that don't make the news, as in Nepal, the Philipines, India/Pakistan, South America and most other parts of Africa.
> 
> then of course there's corruption, famine and natural disasters. most of these places just neither have the resources nor a concern for our terrorist issues. many of the people living in these regions live in terror as just a daily aspect of life.
> 
> ...


 

Yes, the world does have all of that going on, I never said that it didn't, or alluded to it, and it is horrible. However, with all due respect to the topic, all of that has nothing to do with it. If you want to discuss those issues, start a new thread.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 8, 2006)

Can we all be honest here please? Lay down our politics, about the right, left, or middle. The real truth is the terrorists really do exist. They have committed attacks, and will continue to do so. They have to be dealt with in a military manner, like it or not, no matter who runs congress, and the presidency. When we were less warlike and talked (Clinton's years), we were attacked multiple times, when we were more aggresive, they attacked, (and we uncovered plans for more). They are going to attack people! What should the real action on our part be?

Please leave out the personal politcs. The enemy has none, and will take/has taken action(s).


----------



## Marginal (Nov 8, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Come to a real stance, make your points, then stick to them. If "They" didn't and don't really exist, which is what you're saying, then who did Lind go off and join up with?


The American Taliban? Wasn't he affiliated with the Taliban?


In Afghanistan?


The same Taliban Frist has publicly advocated giving Afghanistan back to?

Apparently that particular THEY aren't that THEY if Frist publicly is comforting them. 



> They have to be dealt with, and you can't talk to them, or negotiate with them.


So contain them with relevant police actions. Nationbuilding obviously isn't doing the trick.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 8, 2006)

Marginal said:


> The American Taliban? Wasn't he affiliated with the Taliban?
> 
> 
> In Afghanistan?
> ...


 
Police action is not the Military's role. That's where "they" were, and in charge of a government. Nation building isn't easy, look what we had tio do, in the US's history. Hundreds of years and we're still arguing, and finding our way. You think, after a few years these countries should get it? Forget what is seen on the news, they report only the negatives. Listen to the troops about all of the progress that has been made.


----------



## jazkiljok (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> These extremeists chose to fight. They will fight irregardless of our politics, and actions. This has been proven true. The world, as a whole, has to stop dragging it's feet and make a real choice, to unify and deal with this threat.





Hand Sword said:


> Yes, the world does have all of that going on, I never said that it didn't, or alluded to it, and it is horrible. However, with all due respect to the topic, all of that has nothing to do with it. If you want to discuss those issues, start a new thread.



it's not said to start a new set of topics it was stated as to give proper perspective to the facile and general idea about the "whole world" having to stop dragging it's feet. 

i find my comments relevant to your statement and therefore relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

O.k. But, instead of continuing to try to "respond" for the sake of arguing, how about, doing what I said above and answering the question.

Originally Posted by *Hand Sword*
_Can we all be honest here please? Lay down our politics, about the right, left, or middle. The real truth is the terrorists really do exist. They have committed attacks, and will continue to do so. They have to be dealt with in a military manner, like it or not, no matter who runs congress, and the presidency. When we were less warlike and talked (Clinton's years), we were attacked multiple times, when we were more aggresive, they attacked, (and we uncovered plans for more). They are going to attack people! What should the real action on our part be?

Please leave out the personal politcs. The enemy has none, and will take/has taken action(s)._

Or,

How's this for a question to all of you: Why shouldn't there be a war against Terrorism?


----------



## searcher (Nov 9, 2006)

I am with you HS.   I have several students that are currently serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan.   I get reports form them regularly and they will tell each of you the same.   We have to do this to keep these nuts from breaching our borders anddoing more of the same.   If "police action" is not what we should be using the military for, at this current time, then who do we use?   The only way we will ever be rid of this problem is to strike a decisive blow to the terrorists.   The problem is that this is easier said than done.   Our soldiers ARE doing the best that they can, but CT is a very different beast to battle.   Trust me, it sucks.

Going back to the original question.   The reason we have a war on terrorism is because we should never have to deal with things like 9/11/01 ever again.   We can stop and bring everyone home, but it may be you oryour family that will be the next victims of terrorist action.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> How's this for a question to all of you: Why shouldn't there be a war against Terrorism?


 
As I have said previously, the so-called "War On Terror" is a farce. It's a marketing scheme whose purpose is to get the American people and the people of other countries to "buy" what the PNAC is "selling". 

They're trying to scare you into buying into their global agenda. And, you know what?? It's working.

A more proper term would be the "War For Pax Americana" or the "War For American Hegemony". That would at least be an honest description of our purpose in Iraq (and, in the near future, probably Iran).

Once again, the signatories of the PNAC have called for the military occupation of Iraq since at least as far back as 1997. Letters from individual members (such as Wolfowitz) also indicate such a plan may have been in place from as early as 1992. These people have been planning our military invasion of Iraq pretty much since the first Gulf War ended (Bush Sr. was apparently smart enough not to buy into such idiocy). The idea that it is in any way connected to international terrorism is a fantasy.

A few months before the 2000 presidential election, the PNAC published a letter outlining their "vision" for America's strategic, political, and military future. This involved a dramatic increase in both the spending and global expansion of our military forces, all in an effort to secure American economic and political interests throughout the globe, an process referred to as "Pax Americana". Iraq was considered top priority on that list, given its strategic location in the region and the oil revenue it could potentially provide.

Hey, I love to pretend as much as the next guy. But, let's call a spade a spade.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> They exist,


 
define 'They' ...Are you talking Al Qaeda, or Islam Al Jamiha?

Or do you believe the world is broken down between the 'Good' and the 'Evil' and you are describing 'They' as all the evil in the world?



Hand Sword said:


> they did exist before all of this,


 
Al Qaeda did exist in Afghanistan.

Islam Al Jamiha did exist in the northeast mountains of Iraq. Under the safety net of the United States No Fly zone. Completely out of the scope of Hussiens' Iraq and Fedayyeehn.



			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> They are there,


 
They are there now. 

But we are still unclear as to how to define 'They' ... because most of the 'They' in Iraq, are the pissed off Sunni's who are afraid of being ethnically cleansed by the Government the United States put in Place in Iraq.

Sure, there are some terrorists in Iraq, but, they are a small percentage of the disruptive entities in Iraq. And they were not there before the US Military.




			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> They were there,


 
Again, Islam Al Jamiah  did have training camps in the northeast mountains of Iraq - the area where the Kurds had been operating as an independent country since 1992 - Under the protection of the United States Air Force.

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, this organization was, at best, very loosely influenced by Al Qaeda, and hardly an affiliate. After the invasion, the one legged guy changed the name of his operation - which was loosely affiliated with Islam al Jamiha - to Al Qaeda in Iraq. 

This was a Brilliant Marketing Stroke - because it was bought by Bill O'Reilly and passed on to his sycophants, and from that echo chamber assimliated to the uninformed.



			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> and they will keep doing what they do and have done.


 
If the United States military disappeared from Iraq today ... the Sunni and Shi'ite militias would eliminate any of the terrorists in the country. Islam Al Jamiha - or Al Qaeda in Iraq - would have bigger worries than where the next Bradley Fighting vehicle was going to be. Really, they'd be looking for the Mahti Army. That would be getting their attention.




			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> As for the blowback, It happened anyway, before we did anything. Remember the Cole, all of the embassies bombed, the first WTC bombing? "THEY" can't be ignored sir. They have to be dealt with, and you can't talk to them, or negotiate with them.


 
Now you are conflating two different organizations, to different ideaologies into one. You are trying to paint everything in the world in a single color. The inability, or unwillingness, to discern the difference between bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the civil unrest in Iraq is getting our soldiers killed. 



(and the spelling of Islam Al Jamiha throughout this post is incorrect, I apologize for that, but the facts about this organization are not in dispute)



P.S. - And the President often tells us that Iraq is part of the War on Terror because the leaders of Al Qaeda says it is - claiming bin Laden said Iraq is the central front of the war on terror. I don't believe that Osama Bin Laden should be directing American Foreign Policy. Mr. President, You need a better reason than that.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> {terrorists} They have to be dealt with in a military manner, like it or not, no matter who runs congress, and the presidency. When we were less warlike and talked (Clinton's years), we were attacked multiple times, when we were more aggresive, they attacked, (and we uncovered plans for more). They are going to attack people! What should the real action on our part be?
> 
> Please leave out the personal politcs. The enemy has none, and will take/has taken action(s).


 
It is your belief that terrorist need to be dealt with in a military manner. I am not so convinced.

I wonder what your statements are concerning President Clinton's military attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. - Yet you claim we 'talked'. Please show one negotiation with Al Qaeda.

You state multiple attacks ... WTC '93 - African Embassies - '99 -  Cole '00 - That is six years between attacks. Bush still has a way to go.... Unless you count Indonesia, London, Madrid. Then the clock needs to reset. 

And the CIA was not convinced Al Qaeda was involved in the Cole until after the Bush administration came to power ... What action did Bush take in military retaliation for that attack?

To claim that the 'enemy' does not have politics is to be completely ignorant of the enemy, and will no doubt result in failure. Without understanding your enemy, how can you defeat him?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Listen to the troops about all of the progress that has been made.


 
Seems to me the Troops published an editorial earlier this week telling us what progress has been made.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 9, 2006)

For those who lean toward a more Jacksonian approach, here's an interesting article by Thomas Sowell.  Going Quietly?  Enjoy.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 9, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> I think Michael Stipe's party just got voted in..
> 
> "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feeeeel fiiiiine..."


If blowing up the middle east and alienating ourselves from the rest of the world was the alternative. I feel fine too.
Sean


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I wonder what your statements are concerning President Clinton's military attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. - Yet you claim we 'talked'. Please show one negotiation with Al Qaeda.



Please, it is clear that by "talked" he was talking about making statements and not about negotiations.

And those attacks you mention were pretty much just cruise missle attacks on buildings. Not quite the same thing as taking out the Taliban in Kabul.

But why are people refusing to admit that there are Islamic terrorists out there that want to kill non Muslims? I see more railing against the Republican Illuminati than talk about some of the things you can find at www.memri.org.

And guess what, these folks are not going to go away because we think nice thoughts. We need the military, we need the political process and we need to understand the problem. Just one or two of the three is not going to be enough. I do not think that anyone here is saying that we do not have to worry about the politics of the situation. But I am shocked to see that some people seem to think that the military is useless when dealing with terrorists.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 9, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> But why are people refusing to admit that there are Islamic terrorists out there that want to kill non Muslims?


 
Because any feasible "War On Terror" ended the day our troops set foot in Iraq.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Police action is not the Military's role.


Nationbuilding is not the millitary's role. 



> That's where "they" were, and in charge of a government. Nation building isn't easy, look what we had tio do, in the US's history.


Yes, and it's even harder when you are trying to build a nation with an unwilling population as the germ. 



> Hundreds of years and we're still arguing, and finding our way.


 
That's overstating what's going on in the US. It's a firmly established nation, and the stuff we routinely bicker about is totally meaningless. (Abortion, flag burning, pledge of allegeance, ten commandments, Republican vs Democrat.)  Certainly doesn't lead to routine violence in the streets, it doesn't destablize the government etc.



> You think, after a few years these countries should get it? Forget what is seen on the news, they report only the negatives. Listen to the troops about all of the progress that has been made.


 
Why? They had no reason to be in Iraq. Afghanistan was understandable, but the administration's compelte lack of interest in Afghanistan has screwed the pooch. 

Further, if nationbuilding is a long and hard road, and the troops are making great gains, why has the funding been rolled up by Bush already?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Not quite the same thing as taking out the Taliban in Kabul.


 
The Taliban would have given us Osama anytime we wanted.  The real reason the Taliban had to go was the failed deal with Unocal.  The invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11.  Hell, the US was telling the Indian government in August of 2001 that we'd have troops on the ground before the snow flew.



> But why are people refusing to admit that there are Islamic terrorists out there that want to kill non Muslims? I see more railing against the Republican Illuminati than talk about some of the things you can find at www.memri.org.


 
The problem is how the threat is being presented and how its being dealt with.  The Republicans have turned Muslim into the new ENEMY in order to justify WWIV.  They've ramped up everybodies FEAR so they could ram through their policies in the middle east.  

Terrorism has GROWN exponentially because of Republican policies.  



> And guess what, these folks are not going to go away because we think nice thoughts. We need the military, *we need the political process and we need to understand the problem*.


 
What we are seeing is blowback from our support of Isreal and our attempts to monopolize middle eastern oil.  Many americans don't want to understand the problem, because responsibility for some of this in our laps.



> But I am shocked to see that some people seem to think that the military is useless when dealing with terrorists.


 
How useful has it been so far?  Terrorism has grown because of all of the military action we've undertaken.  A wise man once told me that fighting for peace was like ****ing for virginity.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> As I have said previously, the so-called "War On Terror" is a farce. It's a marketing scheme whose purpose is to get the American people and the people of other countries to "buy" what the PNAC is "selling".
> 
> They're trying to scare you into buying into their global agenda. And, you know what?? It's working.
> 
> ...


 

You could be very right in your assumptions, However, There is a terrorist element in the world, conducting those activities. They have and will attack. So, what should be done? Why shouldn't it be done?


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> define 'They' ...Are you talking Al Qaeda, or Islam Al Jamiha?
> 
> Or do you believe the world is broken down between the 'Good' and the 'Evil' and you are describing 'They' as all the evil in the world?
> 
> ...


 
1st question : Does it matter what name each "group" is called by? They are all doing the same things, with the same intentions. I wouldn't call what they do, as part of the "good" side. 

 Let's be realistic too, they aren't being ethnically cleansed. A certain dead person and his co horts started this. The Iraqi government has extended a hand to get these groups involved with the government.

Would they cleanse the foreign fighters if wer left, or would they cleansen each other, which isd going on, and we are trying to stop. I think it would be a hell of a lot worse for Iraqi's if we just left outright.

I think I did address the differences earlier, saying that the insurgents were killing the foreign terrorists as well, as well as ratting out their locations and activities to pur, and Iraqi  troops.

This arguing of the "facts" could go on and on, and it's pointless. As I requested sir, to another "arguer", lay down your politics and answer the real question. Why shouldn't there be a war against terrorism?


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> It is your belief that terrorist need to be dealt with in a military manner. I am not so convinced.
> 
> I wonder what your statements are concerning President Clinton's military attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. - Yet you claim we 'talked'. Please show one negotiation with Al Qaeda.
> 
> ...


 
  O.k. what would be a convincing way to deal with this problem, in your eyes? Never talked to al queda, but, talked and placated to those nations for years under his admininstration. Downsizing the military, spreading them thin, a pandering foreign policy, doesn't embolden these groups to pull of attacks here? You don't need the CiA to confirm, when a group claims responsibility for it. I say who cares which "group", As far as I'm concerned, it's one big group of jerks. You're right, they do have politics, I made a mistake. They want everything Islam, they way they see it, and everything that's not, will be destroyed.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Because any feasible "War On Terror" ended the day our troops set foot in Iraq.


 

For this argument, There is some validity to that. Iraq was a seperate issue, that didn't need to be addressed, the way we did, at that time. Al Queda should have had all of our resources go to it, and it's destruction, with Bin laden captured.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

Marginal said:


> Nationbuilding is not the millitary's role.
> 
> Yes, and it's even harder when you are trying to build a nation with an unwilling population as the germ.
> 
> ...


 
You're right, But, I never said that they should nation build.

Nation building isn't easy. I wouldn't say that the whole people are unwilling germs, huge amounts, both genders, have taken part to do this. A small group is the germ.

No violence in the streets over our "meaningless" topics of arguiment? You're not serious on that one are you? Destabilizing a government? I guess getting voted out of power wouldn't qualify. How about all of the spending/ man hours needed needed for those issues. I'm sure it doesn't hurt a government from funding what's really needed, hurting how they are viewed.

Afghanistan is the issue that should have been dealt with fully. No argument there. I wouldn't say it's been a lack of interest though. Different set of circumstances, and it's more stable there.


For everyone, No matter your hatred for the Iraq situation, the fact remains that it is going on, and will be for a while. This arguing is pointless. If you want to Fight so bad, for the sake of fighting, Go and join the troops on the ground. They could use your fire and tenacity. If not, could we please stop this. 

 What are the real solutions, instead of all of the coulda, woulda, shoulda's ?


----------



## Seeking Zen (Nov 9, 2006)

[FONT=&quot]Ok...so the world is heading towards the "global village".  We live in free cities and countries, which have laws to enforce basic common rules, which are agreed upon to uphold a basic common denominator of what is acceptable.  When one acts outside these laws, we feel safe knowing that these people will be hunted down and punished.  Why then is it suddenly wrong to expand this form of thought to a global scale.  If in the "global Village" some fall below the common accepted denominator why is suddenly wrong to hold them to account. Why does it become "interference". Be it a home invasion and murder, terrorists, or mass abuse of human rights, or genocide.  Do the victims not deserve protection and prevention?
When I hear " what gives us the right to force freedom and human rights on any nation" I have to ask...if these core values are not to be promoted or enforced are we not saying that freedom and basic human rights are only for those who are born into them. [/FONT]


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

Good post! I would also point out, as this becomes more so, and Countries lose their Identity, in favor of the global point of view, more and more of the violence is going to come. That's the reason for the Fascist Islamic fighting and attacks. Their surroundings are moderating, and becoming part of the world family.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 9, 2006)

One thing I suggest we take from the small and apply large is the fact that this board is filled with Martial Artists and from that we derive ways of dealing with threats, both with verbal deflection if possible or physical violence if needed and then what must be done if phsycial violence is required.


----------



## Seeking Zen (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Good post! I would also point out, as this becomes more so, and Countries lose their Identity, in favor of the global point of view, more and more of the violence is going to come. That's the reason for the Fascist Islamic fighting and attacks. Their surroundings are moderating, and becoming part of the world family.



[FONT=&quot]Good point!
For all that "thinking globally" is all the rage.  Few seem to seem to notice the forced acceptance Radical Islam is unleashing in Europe.  As you say as a result the fear of cultural offence not mention the basic fear of retaliation.  This is not going away by pretending it is not happening.  History tells us before peace there is conflict. Victory creates peacediplomacy keeps the peace.  Diplomacy has never created peacerather postponed the inevitable until the cycle completes as stated above.  Take North Koreais Diplomacy go stop a nuclear attack by them or whoever the sell the technology to. No.  It is howeverpostponing an eventuality.  Which leads to Iran.  Should world postpone the inevitable the downward spiral we are witnessing or end the threat and use diplomacy to mitigate the result?[/FONT]


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

Good point back! Why is there a war on terrorism? Because Radical Islam has declared war on the rest of the world and took aggressive actions.


----------



## Seeking Zen (Nov 10, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Good point back! Why is there a war on terrorism? Because Radical Islam has declared war on the rest of the world and took aggressive actions.



 That would be a rather long post! Many scholars have debated the core issues for years. A short answer of my opinion 

  Dictators / Theocratic Leaders/ Radical Icons

   Dictators / Theocratic Leaders rape and pillage their own people. Control all information fed to their population.  Allow Radical Icons to teach firebrand Islam admonishing the masses that the west is responsible for their plight.  Thus creating a boundlessly huge unpaid army to carry out acts that destabilize regions an influence Governments that Dictators / Theocratic Leaders cannot openly.   All leading to the belief that the west with its godless lifestyle needs to be eliminated before it envelopes Islam. In other words they fight the common denominator mentioned beforesimply because they will then lose power over the masses should people have a choice.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 10, 2006)

:cheers: 

Good job on the summation.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The Taliban would have given us Osama anytime we wanted.  The real reason the Taliban had to go was the failed deal with Unocal.  The invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11.  Hell, the US was telling the Indian government in August of 2001 that we'd have troops on the ground before the snow flew.



You had me going for a second. Next time you should put some sort of emoticon in to let us in that you are trying to make a joke. It was only the fact that you didn't post some sort of link that let me know that you were taking some self- depreciating humor at your own reputation here. :cheers: 

As for the idea that Iraq was/is totally divorced from the debate about the war on terror, I will point you to an old post of mine since I don't want to type they same thing again.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=615397#post615397

And if you take a look at what Seeking Zen just wrote, you see another great point on the matter. There are a hell of a lot of things we need to deal with when talking about the problem. We just can't limit it to one aspect.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The Taliban would have given us Osama anytime we wanted.


 

It's nice to have wishful thinking, but, if your memory serves, you'll remember, the Taliban was asked to do that, before the invasion of Afghanistan. You should also remember that they refused. Maybe, the Pakistani's will do so now?


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 10, 2006)

Ladies and Gentlemen of Martial Talk, the weekend has arrived. We get to go out, and do whatever, eat whatever, see whoever, and drink whatever. Our troops cannot do so, and some will never be able to do anything ever again. They are fighting, and they are not fighting ghosts. Irregardless of our politics here, or anyway, our feelings about the military, in general, or any of our beliefs to the who, where, and why of the situation, as a whole, The troops situation will not change, theyll be fighting and dying. All sides of the Aisle should acknowledge this, realize it, and show them respect. Please, all of us enjoy our free time here, and stop the fighting. All of our arguments have merit, if, at the very least, due to us expressing ourselves, in a genuine manner. None of us wanted this situation to happen. Instead of these long, well thought out, and very creative arguments, could we please use those qualities to really come up with actions and policies to address the problem. 

Everyone have a great weekend, and may all of our loved ones be safe as well.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> O.k. what would be a convincing way to deal with this problem, in your eyes? Never talked to al queda, but, talked and placated to those nations for years under his admininstration. Downsizing the military, spreading them thin, a pandering foreign policy, doesn't embolden these groups to pull of attacks here? You don't need the CiA to confirm, when a group claims responsibility for it. I say *who cares which "group*", As far as I'm concerned, it's one big group of jerks. You're right, they do have politics, I made a mistake. They want everything Islam, they way they see it, and everything that's not, will be destroyed.


 
You have entirely too many misremembered and incorrect facts driving your assumptions and positions. And when they are pointed out to you, you tell those who are exposing reality to "put politics aside". 

Well, it is not political to review the facts. It is not political to demand accountability. It is just inconvienent for your argument that using the military to purge an religion from the planet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> It's nice to have wishful thinking, but, if your memory serves, you'll remember, the Taliban was asked to do that, before the invasion of Afghanistan.


 
All the Taliban asked for when asked for was the evidence of his complicity in 9/11.  The US did not provide this.

Heck, on the FBIs most wanted list, 9/11 isn't even listed as something Osama is wanted for.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

What the heck is going on here?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You had me going for a second. Next time you should put some sort of emoticon in to let us in that you are trying to make a joke. It was only the fact that you didn't post some sort of link that let me know that you were taking some self- depreciating humor at your own reputation here.


 
It was no joke.  Look it up.  Anyway, nice dig...


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> All the Taliban asked for when asked for was the evidence of his complicity in 9/11.  The US did not provide this.
> 
> Heck, on the FBIs most wanted list, 9/11 isn't even listed as something Osama is wanted for.
> 
> ...



You weren't joking? You honestly believe what you write?

Even for you, this is a bit beyond the norm.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> It is just inconvienent for your argument that using the military to purge an religion from the planet.



This has been a day for amazement. Up until the election, it seemed that the case was that for the sake of the country and the men in uniform that the Iraq policy was bad.

Now we see that those most pushing for a Democrat control of the congress think that the military is being used to purge Islam from the planet. I expect that from Al Queada, not those pushing for the Democrats.

Now I know just how badly we have been misled.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Now we see that those most pushing for a Democrat control of the congress think that the military is being used to purge Islam from the planet. I expect that from Al Queada, not those pushing for the Democrats.


 
Don, you are on my ignore list, so normally I don't respond to your ramblings. 

However, when you mis-state what I have said, you earn a reply. 

I am not stating the the military is being used to banish Islam from the planet. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. It seems that Hand Sword's point is that the military is the only option, and all Muslems' are the problem. 

It is Ann Coulter thinking that the United States should "Invade their Nations, kill their leaders and Convert them to Christianity." That seems also to be the President's point of view. And Hand Sword's point of view. Perhaps it is yours too. 

But, congratulations, you have succesfully baited me to responding to you. Good Job.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I am not stating the the military is being used to banish Islam from the planet. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. It seems that Hand Sword's point is that the military is the only option, and all Muslems' are the problem.
> 
> It is Ann Coulter thinking that the United States should "Invade their Nations, kill their leaders and Convert them to Christianity." That seems also to be the President's point of view. And Hand Sword's point of view. Perhaps it is yours too.



Excuse me, I never said what you say I did. I quoted you correctly. You talked about the military being used to eliminate Islam from the planet. Hand sword never talked about that. And he never said that the military was the only thing we should use against them. He talked about how there are people using Islam as an excuse to attack the west. I do not see anything in anyone's posts about destroying Islam as you portray.

There is a threat from Islamic terrorists. That is not to say that Islam is the enemy. Hand Sword would agree with me, but your comments are totally off the mark.

BTW, I did not know I was on your ignore list, nor that people could view things by people on that list. How does that work?


----------



## Seeking Zen (Nov 10, 2006)

Unfortunately, Bin Laden is only a face on a morphing beast.  We can expect the face to change with every attack or declared victory. As for the whole UNCOL theory, just because Farenhiet 9/11 called itself a documentary  does not mean it is factual. I think when the fate of life as whe know it is at risk.  One should consider more than Michael Moores half cocked, and I might add profitable, theories. The fact that so many see this opportunists drool as gospel does not say much for our use or appreciation of free thought.


----------



## Seeking Zen (Nov 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> It seems that Hand Sword's point is that the military is the only option, and all Muslems' are the problem.



 No one is saying that all Muslems' are the problem. In fact at this point in time  Muslems have the most to fear from their own militant wings than we do.  Moderate faithful, and peaceful Muslems are being slaughtered everyday by their "brothers". Which is why there is such a loud silence when it comes to condemnation of Islamic Terrorism. They are terrified of retaliation.  Governments turn a blind eye, to hold onto power.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 10, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> You're right, But, I never said that they should nation build.


I suppose, but then, the entire post was defending nationbuilding, so you can see how I might have gotten that impression. 

The millitary's role is national defense. I can see police actions falling under that umbrella (Perhaps if I sex the term up... Call it something like "surgical strikes") moreso than I can see nationbuilding.



> Nation building isn't easy. I wouldn't say that the whole people are unwilling germs, huge amounts, both genders, have taken part to do this. A small group is the germ.


Split hairs it you like. Usually it's the louder more racous elements that tend to dictate how things will ultimately go. Just look to the roving bands of thugs that routinely threathened, beat up, and tortured (tarred and feathered) moderates who disagreed with them during our own nation's emergence. 



> No violence in the streets over our "meaningless" topics of arguiment? You're not serious on that one are you?


 
Well, yes. Unless you've seen mass rioting over "judical activism" that I haven't in recent weeks. 



> Destabilizing a government? I guess getting voted out of power wouldn't qualify.


 
I wouldn't count changes in power acheived exclusively though due political process as a destabialization of the government. I call that what it is, the governmental structure working as it was designed. (Hopefully the Constitution will be restored though due process as well.)



> How about all of the spending/ man hours needed needed for those issues.)


 
I'm sorry, but that just doens't compare to people breaking into your house in the middle of the night and gunning you down because of your religious leanings.



> Afghanistan is the issue that should have been dealt with fully. No argument there. I wouldn't say it's been a lack of interest though. Different set of circumstances, and it's more stable there.


 
Afghanistan wouldn't be an issue at all if we hadn't overstretched the millitary by going into Iraq. 



> What are the real solutions, instead of all of the coulda, woulda, shoulda's ?


 
There aren't any. We were forced into a pointless mire, and there's no way to extract ourselves from that mess without inflicting injury to both sides, and staying where we are nets us the same results.


----------



## Seeking Zen (Nov 10, 2006)

Sorry...
Technical Question...being new!

When I go to the Screen that has the heading " 			Latest Reputation Received"

there are comments that I don't see listed on thread. I would like to respond to them.  What am I missing?

Thanks in advance I'm sure it is something obvious and I am being a tool


----------



## airdawg (Nov 10, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Watch how radical Islam is teaching their kids. See what radical Islam has in planned for the West.
> 
> [URL]http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm[/URL]This is what the war on terror is about.


 
The scariest thing to me is, this is propaganda. I don't doubt that it is true, I know that it is, but think about it... I don't speak the language, do you? Who is really behind this war? Religion, or something else?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> You weren't joking? You honestly believe what you write?
> 
> Even for you, this is a bit beyond the norm.


 
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html



> On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Ladens Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Ladens _Most Wanted_ web page, Tomb said, The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no _hard evidence_ connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.


 
This may come as a surprise to a lot of people...


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 11, 2006)

We have gone over that  matter. And among other things, a lot of us pointed out that if Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for 9-11 but was rather framed for it by the goverment, it is silly to assume that they would not pressure the FBI to play along. There is a lot more to the story that we dealt with on that thread about 9-11 conspiracies.

But I do realize where those that oppose the idea of a war on terror come from thanks to you. It all clicked into place. 

You think that a conspiracy running the goverment- call it the Illuminati, PNAC, the Zion Elders or whatever, and they did things like kill thousands of Americans on 9-11 to get an excuse to build a pipe line across Afghanistan (after someone convincing  the Taliban to publically refuse to give up Osama- or maybe that was just because the entire world media is part of the plot) and seize power and you think we have to stop Evil America from destroying the world. That is why you want the US to leave Japan to deal with a more _progressive_ nation like China without America. That way they will be controlled and more likely to bring in changes that you support.

You honestly think that if America was severely disarmed that the attacks would stop because it is all a conspiracy. America is the evil empire and must be stopped.

I am still getting my mind around this idea and bewildered as to how you can honestly think it, so maybe you can tell me if any of my points are wrong. Don't try to convince me of what you are saying, just point out how I am wrong (if I am) with the way you view the world.

Oh, and Seeking Zen, lookin the rules sections for answers to your questions. The short verison is that when someone withmore than 50 point and positive reputation gives a point of reputation they can also leave a message as well. You can tell people what you liked about what they write as well as give them some reputation. It looks like with only a few posts, a lot of people already like what you write.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2006)

Um, whatever...

So, why doesn't the FBI specifically list 9/11 as something he is wanted for?

Why are there so many inconsistancies in the government's story regarding the War on Terror?

Why are there so many "coincidences?"

For example, this chain of coincidences...in the mid 90s Unocal attempts to put pipeline through Afghanistan, in 98 Unocal pull out because Taliban prove to be "unreasonable", as soon as Bush is elected in 2000 they begin to negotiate with the Taliban on behalf of American Oil companies, in July of 2001 those negotiations breakdown, in August of 2001 American diplomats tell Taliban officials to "accept our carpet of gold (the pipeline) or accept our carpet of bombs,", also in August of 2001 American diplomats inform the Indian government that "we would have troops on the ground in Afghanistan before the snow flies."  In the meantime, the CIA is meeting with Bin Laden in Pakistan despite being on the FBI's most wanted list.  9/11/2001.  Troops on the ground in Afghanistan.  Taliban ousted.  Former Unocal spokesmen Hamid Karzai placed in power.  Pipeline deal signed.  American military bases built along its route.

For more information on this, check here.

And now it looks like the US may give Afghanistan back to the Taliban!

So, what the heck is going on here?  It certainly cannot be the convoluted and grossly inaccurate story the government is pushing on the American people?  How do YOU explain all of THIS stuff?


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 12, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Um, whatever...



I will take that as a yes.

So we can see what some of the people that urge us not to fight a war on terror come from and what motivates them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I will take that as a yes.
> 
> So we can see what some of the people that urge us not to fight a war on terror come from and what motivates them.


 
Um, whatever...

As long as you keep practicing this form of intellectual dishonesty, this discussion is pointless.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 12, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Um, whatever...
> 
> As long as you keep practicing this form of intellectual dishonesty, this discussion is pointless.



Oh, "intellectual dishonesty"? I guess you have set the tone for this discussion. But I loathe to stoop to your level.

But please tell me how I am being intellectually dishonest? I asked you to point out any mistakes in what I thought your belief's and motivations were, and you did not. Instead, you posted more conspiracy theory stuff. So, as one of the biggest protestors against us taking the fight to the terrorists, I have to conclude that at least some of the people that don't want us in Afghanistan and having a military able to fight are motivated by the same beliefs. The question is how much of the number and their influence on the movement.

Or maybe you are saying I am intelletually dishonest because I refuse to believe lunatic theories about a super effecient cabel inside the goverment that would kill thousands of its own people just to lay an oil line for Unocal in Afghanistan. In short, you call me dishonest because I will not agree with you.


----------



## Seeking Zen (Nov 12, 2006)

It is interesting how George Bush orchestrated such a scheme within eight months of being office. Creating a network of mysterious, rich, shadowy powerbrokers, negotiating and planning a successful massive terror attack, creating fall guys, UN resolutions, coalition building, .....Let alone pipeline schematics...incredible really. How does he do ityou know, while controlling the media, and disinformation propaganda, not to mention keeping the illuminati and Masons in line? (Sarcasm off)


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 12, 2006)

*=============
Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Jonathan Randall*
*-MT Moderator-
*


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> You have entirely too many misremembered and incorrect facts driving your assumptions and positions. And when they are pointed out to you, you tell those who are exposing reality to "put politics aside".
> 
> Well, it is not political to review the facts. It is not political to demand accountability. It is just inconvienent for your argument that using the military to purge an religion from the planet.




Misremembered facts, and assumptions? So there were no attacks against us?  These people that caused our country's actions do not exist, and don't have their positions? 

With all due respect, I asked for everyone to stop the political argument going on. ALL of us! Each side has it's own facts in an argument. I wanted to stop our fighting, and get to the Real Solutions. I have asked all to get to the solutions, instead of all of the "yelling" going on.

Where did I ever say That was my argument, or ever argued that? 



michaeledward said:


> I am not stating the the military is being used to banish Islam from the planet. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. It seems that Hand Sword's point is that the military is the only option, and all Muslems' are the problem.


 
Talk about putting word's in someone's mouth. I would appreciate if YOU would refrain from putting word's in people's mouths.

Once again, You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You refuse to give any ideas about how to deal with what's going on, inspite of being asked repeatedly, and, you attack everyone else's ideas. Instead of just saying "that's wrong", That shouldn't be done" etc.. Try contributing for real, by taking a stance and supporting it.

If you have all of the facts, then you know the situation, inside and out, so.....What should be done to correctly deal with the problem?


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 12, 2006)

Marginal said:


> There aren't any. We were forced into a pointless mire, and there's no way to extract ourselves from that mess without inflicting injury to both sides, and staying where we are nets us the same results.


 
Thank you for contributing to this argument.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 12, 2006)

Seeking Zen said:


> It is interesting how George Bush orchestrated such a scheme within eight months of being office.



When dealing with members of this debate, you have to understand that in their view of the world, both parties are part of a greater conspiracy. Call it the Military- industrial complex, the Illuminati, PNAC or the Freemasons, it has been going on for a long time and even our media is in on the conspiracy.

Yes, the people that spout this sort of thing are lunatics IMO. But unless you realize what they are really trying to say whenever they propose something like pulling troops out of Afghanistan, then you are doomed to be decieved by them. We can hardly get them to agree on the best way to fight terrorism when they think that Bin Laden is in contact and probably working with the CIA. And anything they propose to stop terrorist attacks in the future- such as ripping apart American might to make us less of a target, is really part of their desire to get rid of what they see as the real threat to peace- America and its system.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 13, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Oh, "intellectual dishonesty"? I guess you have set the tone for this discussion. But I loathe to stoop to your level.


 
Thanks for another in a stream of insults, Don.  I think that you are being intellectually dishonest because you have basically made a bunch of stuff up regarding what I think and then you are trying your hardest pin this strawman to me.  

I'm not going to respond any further if this is the only level of discussion in which you are capable.

If you want to know what I think, you don't have to make it up.  You can read my posts.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Thanks for another in a stream of insults, Don.  I think that you are being intellectually dishonest because you have basically made a bunch of stuff up regarding what I think and then you are trying your hardest pin this strawman to me.



Exactly how have I made up stuff. Please show me. I can show you threads where you press the case that someone in the goverment blew up the twin towers and blamed it on Al Queada. In this thread you argue that the Taliban would have turned over Bin Laden anytime we wanted _despite_ what the whole world saw when they refused. Your explination is that the Illuminati/FNAC/Freemasons/military-industrial complex wanted to build a pipeline across Afghanistan.

I have read your posts. Where exactly did I make a mistake? Just be aware that I can find your prior posts to point out what you previously posted.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 13, 2006)

Thread Locked Pending Review.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 13, 2006)

_*Thread has been reviewed and will remain locked.  Please take this time to review our Terms of Service and General Posting Rules available at the RULES link on the blue menu bar near the top of every page.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Admin.*_


----------

