USA Today and AP uncritically reported GOP claims that terrorists will "follow us home" after Iraq withdrawal
SUMMARY: In recent articles on the standoff between President Bush and Congress over funding for the Iraq war, USA Today and the Associated Press uncritically reported Republican claims that terrorists in Iraq will "follow us home" if the United States withdraws its troops from the country. However, both news outlets did not report, as others recently have, that security and terrorism experts have challenged that view.
In a May 3 article, USA Today asserted that just days after President Bush's veto of the $124 billion war funding bill, "Republicans argued that Iraq is an important front in the fight against al-Qaeda militants that began with the Sept. 11, 2001" terrorist attacks. The article then uncritically quoted House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) asking: "Who doesn't believe that if we don't deal with terrorists in Iraq, we will be dealing with them on the streets of America?" Similarly, in a May 1 article on the standoff between Bush and Congress over funding for the Iraq war, the Associated Press uncritically reported the assertion by Matt David, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign spokesman, that U.S. troop withdrawals from Haiti in 2000 and Somalia in 1994 cannot be compared to the current situation in Iraq because "Haitians and Somalians [sic] do not want to follow us home and attack us on American soil." However, both the USA Today and AP articles did not report, as several news outlets recently have, that security and terrorism experts have challenged the view that terrorists in Iraq will attack Americans inside the United States once U.S. military forces exit Iraq.
USA Today reported that the House failed to override Bush's war funding bill veto but that "Democrats vowed to continue their efforts to end the Iraq war." The article then quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Boehner:
Congressional leaders from both parties predicted quick approval of emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday, after the House fell 62 votes short of overriding President Bush's veto of a bill setting a deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Democrats vowed to continue their efforts to end the Iraq war.
"The Congress will not support a permanent commitment to a war without end," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Republicans argued that Iraq is an important front in the fight against al-Qaeda militants that began with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "Who doesn't believe that if we don't deal with terrorists in Iraq, we will be dealing with them on the streets of America?" asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
The May 1 AP article contrasted Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) effort in 1993 to bring U.S. troops home from Somalia with his claim that setting a date certain for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is "like sending a 'memo to our enemies to let them know when they can operate again'":
In 1993, Sen. John McCain led an effort to cut off funds immediately for military operations in Somalia after a firefight in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. troops. The former prisoner of war in Vietnam brought a hush to the chamber floor when he asked what would happen if Congress failed to act and more Americans died.
"On whose hands rest the blood of American troops? Ask yourself this question," said McCain, R-Ariz.
Congress ultimately agreed to back President Clinton's request to give him until March 1994 to get troops out, with funding denied after that date. In 1999, Congress passed similar legislation prohibiting money spent to keep U.S. troops in Haiti after May 2000.
"When Americans are imperiled, ultimately the president has to bear that responsibility," Clinton said at the time of the Somalia vote.
Now, McCain -- a GOP presidential contender for 2008 -- says setting a date certain on the war in Iraq is like sending a "memo to our enemies to let them know when they can operate again."
The article then uncritically quoted McCain campaign spokesman Matt David claiming that comparing the two conflicts is "intellectually dishonest" because Somalis (whom David labeled "Somalians") were not going to follow U.S. troops home to fight Americans on U.S. soil:
Matt David, McCain's campaign spokesman, said it is "intellectually dishonest" to compare Iraq to Haiti and Somalia because of the volatility now in the Middle East and terrorist threat.
"Haitians and Somalians do not want to follow us home and attack us on American soil," David said in a statement.
Yet, as Media Matters for America has noted, according to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, "[m]ilitary and diplomatic analysts" say that a similar claim Bush has repeatedly made about the Iraq war -- that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here" -- "exaggerate[s] the threat that the enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland." The article continued: "U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States." Moreover, according to a March 18 Washington Post article, "U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts" have said that Al Qaeda in Iraq "poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland," as Media Matters also noted.
In addition, like the McClatchy article, a recent report from National Public Radio's All Things Considered explored Bush's oft-used defense of his Iraq war policy -- "If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone. They will follow us to the United States of America." NPR correspondent David Welna noted that "Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison repeated the president's claim, saying if terrorists are not defeated in Iraq, they will follow U.S. troops home." He added that "Utah Republican Orrin Hatch said the same. So did Arizona Republican John McCain."
Welna then cited experts challenging that claim. He reported that retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns considers that warning "propaganda" and that, according to Johns, "[i]t's actually leaving American forces in Iraq ... that increases the chances of a terrorist attack on the U.S." Welna also reported that retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "calls asserting that terrorists will follow U.S. troops home naive and poor rhetoric." Welna then featured a clip of Carafano saying: "There's no national security analyst that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and attack the United States -- that that's a credible scenario."
Welna also included a clip of Sen. John Thune (R-SD) arguing that "[w]e've got them pinned down" in Iraq and that the "United States military presence is there, and so, that's kind of where the fight is. And they are where the fight is." Welna then stated that, according to former CIA official Paul Pillar, "that's true," adding: "But only if you assume there's a fixed number of terrorists out there to bedevil the U.S." Pillar was then heard saying:
PILLAR: We are either engaging them or killing them in Iraq, or they're doing something else where we don't have a fixed number, of course. And the longer that we stay engaged in what has become in the eyes of the Islamist jihadists the biggest and foremost jihad, namely Iraq, the more likelihood we will breed even more terrorists.
Welna also reported that, according to Thomas Sanderson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the president and his allies are not likely to stop repeating that terrorists will follow us out of Iraq. That's because, for some, it's politically persuasive." Sanderson then said:
SANDERSON: I do think it has the effect of galvanizing support among a percentage of our population, but I think a lot of people won't buy it in the first place. Or number two: assume that we're already in that pipeline of attacks that the terrorists are planning.
From the April 30 edition of NPR's All Things Considered:
MELISSA BLOCK (co-host): During the recent debate over funding the war in Iraq, some of those opposed to a timetable for a troop pullout repeated something President Bush is fond of saying.
BUSH [audio clip]: If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone. They will follow us to the United States of America.
BLOCK: That was the president a couple of weeks ago at the White House. Among experts, however, there's widespread skepticism about that assertion, as NPR's David Welna reports.
[begin audio clip]
WELNA: Shortly before final passage last week of the war spending bill President Bush says he'll veto, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd [D-WV] rose on the Senate floor. Byrd chided the president for trying, in Byrd's words, to scare the pants off the public by suggesting the bill could lead to death and destruction in America.
BYRD: What utter nonsense. What hogwash.
WELNA: And yet, right after Byrd spoke, Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison repeated the president's claim, saying if terrorists are not defeated in Iraq, they will follow U.S. troops home. Utah Republican Orrin Hatch said the same. So did Arizona Republican John McCain, but in South Carolina, where he'd skipped the vote to campaign for president.
McCAIN: If we withdraw from Iraq, there will be chaos, there will be genocide. They will follow us home and it will be one of the worst challenges America has ever faced as a nation, and we need to see this thing through.
WELNA: Just as McCain fought in Vietnam, so did retired Brigadier General John Johns, a national security expert who helped develop counterinsurgency doctrine there. But Johns considers that "they'll follow us home" warning propaganda. It's actually leaving American forces in Iraq, he says, that increases the chances of a terrorist attack on the U.S.
JOHNS: The longer we stay there, the more we're going to create people who will volunteer to come here.
WELNA: That same point was made in the National Intelligence Estimate released last fall, says Senate Intelligence Committee member and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden.
WYDEN: So, if the administration feels that the real concern here is the prospect of terrorists coming to the United States or anywhere else, you ought to think about the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate is reporting that their policies are the ones creating more terrorists.
WELNA: But it's not only liberals like Wyden who questioned whether a U.S. troop pullout from Iraq would be the trigger of a terrorist attack on the American mainland.
CARAFANO: There's no national security analyst that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and attack the United States -- that that's a credible scenario.
WELNA: That's retired Army Lieutenant Colonel James Carafano, a specialist in international security threats at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Carafano calls asserting that terrorists will follow U.S. troops home naive and poor rhetoric.
CARAFANO: It's not that if the United States leaves Iraq that terrorists are going to come to the United States. The problem is if the United States leaves Iraq, the problems aren't going to go away. The problems then are going to go and fester.
WELNA: Still the president's allies in Congress, such as South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune, insists the Iraq war has kept terrorists at bay.
THUNE: We've got them pinned down. I mean, right now they are -- the United States military presence is there, and so, that's kind of where the fight is. And they are where the fight is.
WELNA: That's true, says Paul Pillar, a former deputy CIA counterterrorism chief who now teaches at Georgetown University. But only if you assume there's a fixed number of terrorists out there to bedevil the U.S.
PILLAR: We are either engaging them or killing them in Iraq, or they're doing something else where we don't have a fixed number, of course. And the longer that we stay engaged in what has become in the eyes of the Islamist jihadists the biggest and foremost jihad, namely Iraq, the more likelihood we will breed even more terrorists.
WELNA: Other experts question whether it's even possible to defeat terrorists in Iraq no matter how long U.S. forces are deployed there. Harvard's Jessica Stern thinks terrorists based there may well pose a threat to the U.S., but she says that's because the invasion of that country beefed up Al Qaeda's mobilization strategy.
JESSICA STERN (lecturer in public policy at Harvard University): I think that we really have created a very dangerous situation, and it will probably get more dangerous for civilians around the globe when U.S. troops leave Iraq -- but that will happen whenever we leave Iraq.
WELNA: Still, the president and his allies are not likely to stop repeating that terrorists will follow us out of Iraq. That's because, for some, it's politically persuasive, says Thomas Sanderson of the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies.
SANDERSON: I do think it has the effect of galvanizing support among a percentage of our population, but I think a lot of people won't buy it in the first place. Or number two: assume that we're already in that pipeline of attacks that the terrorists are planning.
WELNA: One thing all the experts agree on is it's not a question of if such attacks will occur, but when.
David Welna, NPR News, the Capitol.
When will the scare tactics end?
Haven't the midterms proven that folks ain't scared no more?
Just watching the GOP debate, apparently such scare tactics will not end until the Repubs are defeated.
BTW, 51 minutes in, still no fluffy haircut q's.
or jibcuts.
Huckeebee said something to the effect of th US being a country the puts life first then went on to use Mt Hood and VA coal mines and how the country scrambled to help. I wonder why he didn't mention Katrina? I can't stomach watching these men stand up there and pretend to be noble. They make my stomach turn.
Good point, I also noticed he didn't mention the aggressive mining safety deregulations that made all those deaths in VA possible.
After watching the GOP love fest tonight and the discussions on Iran its clear the fear factor continues.
Here is what I say to this "follow us home, better to have them kill our soldiers over there" hypothesis. Do this little thought experiment. Dress up like a middle eastern man, rent a big yellow truck, drive over to the CO-OP and try to buy a few thousand pounds of fertilizer. See? The cat is out of the bag, the only terrorist cels that can pull of operations in this country will have to be home grown, which incidentally is a serious under reported threat. (Probably because home grown terrorists don't control 40% of the known reserves of oil). The very reason the perpertrators of violence are so successfull in Iraq is the very reason they can't operate here, in Iraq they have community support, here they would be turned over to the police or other law enforcement issue. Whoops, I said it, terrorism is a law enforcement issue not a military issue.
that's correct. it is a law enforcement issue. when kerry said that, the republicans jumped all over him as surrendering to the terrorists. when bush said that, the republicans issued nary a word of disagreemant.
-ment.
Mostly, I agree with you. The struggle against terrorism is a matter that will not be quelled with blunt military force alone, it will require international cooperation with intelligence gathering, infiltration and ultimately prosecution of terrorists.
Where I diverge with you is with your statement that violent elements have community support. I have a hard time connecting community values with terror tacticians. Communities are comprised of people building things together for the benefit of each other. Saying Iraqi communities support violent extremists is basically the same as saying the Iraqi people are 10th century knuckle-draggers.
Underground networks can and do support terrorists, these networks are definitely different than communities. And on that note, I also agree that such underground networks do not thrive here and hence terrorists would have extreme difficulty hiding and plotting.
Such underground networks do not thrive here because we have a commonwealth, we all have a stake in the common good, we are in this together. Take away the common good principle and replace it with the conservative every man for himself idea then the sense of community erodes. In the absence of community the isolated individual is susceptible to radicalization.
What are you, some kind of COMMUNIst? Hee, Hee.
Each of us knows the truth of the matter, the differences being only in the way we say it.
This is my 'thought experiment', regarding how we best protect American lives against 'terrorism':
Imagine it to be sunrise, about 6am, on September 11, 2001...
Likewise imagine 140, 000 U.S. Troops occupying Iraq (not hard to imagine, except for the calendar date).
Now, how do 140,000 U.S. Troops in Iraq STOP the attacks that are about to occur, on the morning of September 11, 2001?
...make it 240, 000 U.S. Troops occupying Iraq... make it a million! How does that STOP in any way the attacks of September 11, 2001, or any 'terror' attack at all?
It doesn't.
And about the only folks that would try and convince you it does, are either too dumb to have their opinions count at all in these matters...
...or they have some private interest, some financial interest, in the occupation of Iraq by U.S. Troops...
...someone who has an interest in the hundreds of billions of dollars being siphoned out of the U.S. Treasury in the name of Iraq... someone like Halliburton, or anybody who promotes their revenues and their profits.
...and once you had realized, from the 'thought experiment' above, that no amount of U.S. Troops occupying Iraq on the morning of September 11, 2001, would have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001...
...then you're left still with your imagination, to figure out just what it was you'd do that early morning, to prevent those attacks from occuring.
The imaginations we require best in these matters, being those who understand Customs and Immigration (be careful fellow Democrats, on the 'immigration' issue... don't unwittingly throw out Border Security, in the name of some non-Security ideal)...
...Customs and Immigration, any and all Forces that protect our airports (and the traffic in and out of them), the FAA, the FBI (the CIA even!), all the various State Forces (and County and Municipal too)...
They could have all come to the American People's Defense that morning, and saved those 3,000 lives lost (most particularly, the FBI and the CIA and the even the FAA).
No amount of U.S. Troops in Iraq, would have done anything in the least, to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001.
[Now, how and when would we mobilize the most powerful armed forces the world knows, the U.S. Armed Forces, in the event of a 'terror' attack'?
Were we to identify any nation or government as having financed or directed such an attack, then it is against them the U.S. Armed Forces invade and occupy and go to WAR with...
...an act of WAR JUSTIFIED, and in the name of the American People's NATIONAL SECURITY...
JUSTICE and NATIONAL SECURITY is what such a WAR would serve
...which in the case of the attacks of September 11, 2001, has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with the president's "good friends" and business partners.]
Dunno there's somthing weird about waiting for the U.S. Marines to come home before you attack
Anyone who thinks that Al Qaeda is simply waiting for the U.S. military to leave Iraq before they attempt another plot within the U.S. IS A MORON.
True enough, we haven't been attacked since 9/11, but try convincing some of the "Coalition of the Willing" how inactive terror groups have been since 9/11:
March 2002, Israel Three bombs, independently planned but all timed to coincide with the Passover festival. One hits a Passover dinner at a hotel in Netanya, killing 20 people. Another in Tel Aviv kills 29 and a suicide bomber attacks an Arab-owned restaurant in Haifa and kills 14.October 12 2002, Bali, Indonesia Car bombs outside nightclubs popular with foreign tourists kill 202 people, 91 of them Australians. An Indonesian Islamist group with Al-Qaida links is blamed.
<!-- This site/section combo is not set up to show MPU's --> October 23 2002, MoscowChechen gunmen and women take over a theatre and hold everyone inside hostage. They later shoot dead several of the hostages. Russian troops use gas to subdue the hostage takers, and kill 50 of them. However, the gas also kills 179 of the hostages.
May 16 2003, Casablanca, MoroccoFive bombs targeted at Jewish and western people in the city kill 41, mostly Moroccans. Six Europeans also die.
May 12 2003, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaSuicide bomber attacks on residential compounds inhabited by westerners kills 34 people. Al-Qaida blamed.
November 20 2003, Istanbul, TurkeyTruck bomb attacks on the British Consulate and the HSBC bank kill over 60 people, including the British consul general in the city.
March 11 2004, MadridExplosions aboard four commuter trains arriving at Atocha station during the morning rush hour. Bombs were in backpacks, and detonated using a mobile phone, killing191 people and injuring 1,800. Spanish government of Jose Maria Aznar at first suggests the Basque separatist group Eta is to blame, but later concedes the attacks were the work of Islamists. Popular anger at being "misled" leads to victory of the opposition at a general election a few days later.
September 1 - 3 2004, Beslan, RussiaIslamist gunmen take over 1,000 hostages, mostly children, at a school in North Ossetia. After a three-day siege many of the hostages are killed in an explosion in the school gym, after which Russian troops storm the building. The final death toll is over 330, many of them children. 800 more are injured.
July 7 2005, London, EnglandA series of explosions ripped through London as suspected terrorist attacks on tube trains and a bus killed at least 38 people.
Hey, a general note to the good folks at MMFA, on this thread that concerns Iraq:
Rapid Response is the thing, the Rapider the better... this morning's NYTimes online, has about as offensive a piece of crap article, as the worthless carl hulse can write... he's blathering on about...
Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
...and there's not the least mask put on his partisanship in this article.
From the very first paragraph, he has the Senator's "proposal" as "injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war".
Gee, guess what carl?
I'm not running for president, and neither are the 76 million like me, who voted against Iraq on November 7, 2006... I want George W. Bush's authority to kill our Sons and Daughters in Iraq "reversed" also... so what does "presidential politics" have to do with me, and the 76 million like me, who want an end to George W. Bush's greedy and deadly occupation of Iraq?
The worthless hack hulse has also: "Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result. The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve."
Wow, the hack hulse is a Constitutional Scholar I guess, seeing as he quotes no authority at all, in that his observation.
And...
Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.
Unbelievable... not one single "adviser" or "aide" quoted as saying any such thing... not even alluded to as 'anonymous' or 'un-named' or anything else indicating that someone actually said such a thing...
Gee carl, I sure would like to trust a hack like you on this one, but I know better... do you really think your word is good enough to justify the above claim, without attaching (or indicating in any way) any named or un-named person to have said any such thing?
Essentially, this is all they have left. If they can't scare the American public into thinking that electing Democrats will result in hoary hosts of Turrists flinging themselves onto our shores, the Republicans are toast in 08. All they have on the domestic front are abortion and tax cuts, and I don't see those getting much traction for them in light of the putrid stench rising from the Bush administration these days.
This whole line of reasoning of, "They'll follow us home" is so disingenous, I don't even know where to start to pick it apart. Terrorism, of the sort that we're talking about here (radical followers of Islam) has been around for how long now? A long time if you look back at history, and historically, European countries were at a lot larger risk than the US, and still are, mostly because of where we are geographically in the world as compared to Europe. So in year's past, Europe did, and still does, bear the brunt of terrorist attacks, along with, yes, other Arab/Muslim nations.
McCain keeps throwing out there about the terrorists following us home. How are the "terrorists" going to get here? Where is their Air Force? Where is their Navy? How are they going to invade our shores? They're not, but what is probably inevitable, is that some sort of attack will happen in the US at some point in time in the near future. When you have a group of people, or even one person, who is willing to give their life to take innocent life, the chances of them succeeding in doing so is very good. It would be extremely easy for a person who wanted to perpetrate an attack to just do it here. Look at the VT shootings. Look at Oklahoma City. Just 2 examples of what one person with motivation, and nothing to lose, can do to a group of people.
Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't prepare for this, and shouldn't be aware of this, but we also shouldn't let it rule how we run this country, and how we live our lives. Because if we do cower in fear, as some republicans would want you to do (McCain, Bush, et all), and actually believe for one second that a democrat would want for this country to be attacked, well, then the terrorists have already won. I think that it is entirely possible that terrorist organizations like al Qaeda have already won some small battles in the US. Things like The Patriot Act, warantless wiretapping, checking people's mail, invasion of privacy violations, cracking down on dissenters, and other things of that nature that have happened since September 11th, 2001, they've already had an impact. If we, as a nation, continue to allow them to have this effect on us, little by little, things will get nibbled away. Don't live in fear. Don't let the terrorists win.
Wow, you guys are brilliant. So let me get this straight, we were hit on 9/11 by radical islamists in the worst foreign attack on US soil since the war of 1812. Since then we've uncovered sleeper cells in parts of the US, for exmple the cigarette smugglers who were giving money to Al quaeda and as pete pointed out our allies have been hit various times by the same sort of individuals. Additionaly, we've had small scale islamic radicals shoot jewish women in the name allah (Seatle, Wa), run over students in North Carolina and San francisco and snipe people along the east coast (DC sniper). You guys are 100% right this is exactly the time we should turn down our war on terror effort. Granted I agree with pulling out of Iraq and was never in agreement to go there in the first place but to blieve that it's impossible that it could happen again if we lower our guard is absurd. Give me a chance to try to grasp most lib thinking for a second, you're against the war in Iraq (i agree), but most libs also want to end the patriot act (which surveils possible terrorists) and are against what you call "torture" but offer no other way we could extract information from terrorists. So as far as I understand, most libs say "it's a law enforcement issue" but want to make it harder for law officers and homeland security to locate possible terrorists or to extract info from the ones we've captured that definately are terrorists. So how exactly is this pre-9/11 mentality going to help stop an enemy which has proved to be extremely resourceful. Oh i forgot one more example of why we need to be vigilant the whole "liquid bomb" dry run we and the brits stopped, my point is they're still out there and trying, it's not scare tactics if it's a real possibility.
Another attack will happen. It's really just a matter of time I think. Read my previous comments about it above this comment.
I don't think that most libs, as you like to lump people in, believe that a war on terror is a bad thing. We would just like for this war on terrorist organizations actually be against those organizations. The war in Iraq, is not taking down any terrorist organizations, and there have been many studies in the recent past that have said that the war in Iraq is probably the best recruiting tool the terrorists have ever had.
If we are to win the war on terrorism, which I think is impossible because it is hard to wipe out an idea, and or an ideaology, we need to be going at it a different way. Small units of specially trained counterterrorist soldiers should be infiltrating, and killing terrorists from the inside out of their organizations. We are not hunting terrorists where they live right now on a large scale effort, because if we were, we would have more forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia where a lot of terrorists and terrorist supporters actually reside and work from.
Some of the so called radical islamic attacks you cite that have happened in the US were very isolated incidents, not even remotely related to terrorist groups at all. Do I think terrorists are trying to carry out attacks on the US as a whole, or are trying to plan things? Of course they are, and they will be, and will continue to do so. As I said before, we can't allow that possibility, no matter how remote it may seem, to rule our lives.
The Patriot Act, hasn't been responsible for doing anything to thwart terrorism. What it has done is to invade our privacy guaranteed to us by the Constitution. As far as I know, there have been no documented cases, yet, where the Patriot Act has been used to thwart terrorists in the US. Same for the wiretapping. Are you willing to give up your freedoms for the sake of some illusion of security? It appears that you are, and fortunately, this is not what the United States is about.
So the solution is to wait to be attacked? How does that solve anything? As I've said before I don't hink the war in Iraq was a good idea and opposed it from the beginning but what is the solution? Accepting the inevitable attack is unacceptable we have to be proactive and try to deter any future attack.
"So the solution is to wait to be attacked? How does that solve anything?" --Sabastian Shaw
I think you are misrepresenting Magnolia's post. Magnolia described some proactive tactics. Are you just trying to pick a fight or are you really interested in an intelligent conversation? I am beginning to wonder.
Yeah, that was my bad, if you look below I said that maglover's ideas were actually pretty good but had some of their own problems as well. My point is that to just accept that we're going to get hit again is self-defeating.
Do you feel the same way about lightning? We do what we can to be pro-active about it. We ground our houses, buildings, but it will strike and kill people.
There is nothing wrong or self-defeating in pointing out the obvious. We will be hit again. It is simply a consequence of a free society. I am not going to deny reality in order to simply avoid being called "self-defeating". I think we can do many things to lessen the degree that people want to attack us. Getting out of Iraq may do that over time.
I agree with you that much of this problem could have been avoided if we never attacked Iraq in the first place. It seems disingenuous to attack liberals for a lack of solutions to a problem many of them desperately tried to avoid in the first place.
It is kind of like me telling my neighbor's children not to play with fireworks (especially indoors). Naturally, after their house burns down, my neighbor kids then ask me why I don't have any solutions for their problems now.
Good point on libs trying to avoid the Iraq war in the first place I guess I would have fit inot that catagory. To be 100% truthful I've only been into politics for about a year now. I Think I'm around that average age when most people start getting interested in politics, so I wasn't really interested in the debate leading up to the conflict. I guess I'm just trying to find alternative methods of avoiding another attack and I'm having a hard time locating them.
I have posted a few before. The bottom line is the ONLY way to PREVENT attacks is with intelligence. Now there is a military function in this fight but it is not the ONLY one. The military is a broadsword not a scalpel. Fine for killing not so good for delicate surgery. The dynamic we are looking for is GETTING the really bad people without alienating the moderates who are the most important people if we want to PREVENT terrorist attacks. There are many Muslims who think indiscriminate violence is blaspemous. We need them. The way to STOP terrorist acts before they are completed is with their co-operation. If the storeowner wonders why the guy who lives in a two room apartment just bought 100 gallons of bleach and 100 gallons of Mr. Clean what does he do? If he sees us as an enemy he does nothing, if he thinks its in his best interest he contacts the authorities and says some idiot bought enough chemicals to kill dozens of people with basically homemade chlorine gas. We NEED international co-operation that is key. We can make agreements with countries to allow the types of SEAL team groups that can effectively end dangerous groups to cross borders and get these guys where they are. International pressure and sanctions to countries that dont agree are key to this. This will NOT happen as long as terrorism is seen as an EXCUSE to invade whatever country Bush doesnt like. Some goodwill will help. Take some of that money we are spending on warfare and build some schools, hospitals, irrigation projects in poor areas of the middle east. Because its the right thing to do to help impoverished people everywhere. The goal is that they guy who would NEVER strap on a bomb but will turn a blind eye because he sees us as interlopers and aggressors NOT turn that blind eye, the guy who detests violence against innocents must consider the guys who bomb people part of the problem and not part of the solution. The most effective way to deal co-operatively even in a competition ever found is called the prisoners dilema. This strategy outperfors the most sophisticated competition strategies ever concieved. It is simple you BEGIN with a co-operative move. Then you return co-operation for co-operation and hostilie action FOR hostile action. After a hostile action you STILL return co-operation for co-operation. Clearly what we are doing now isnt hugely effective. I remember when France was hit with a series of subway bombings. They didnt invade a random country. They used their intelligence agency found out which group was behind it and killed them one by one over a period of a year or so. Always denying they were doing it but everyone knew differently. That was in the early 80's and they NEVER had any trouble with that group or any allied group (An Algerian radical group) ever again. This is the right method. Go strongly after anyone that attacks us and any of their collaborating allies. Do NOT multiply the enemies beyond what they need to be by simply defining them as enemies. Try to co-opt the masses of people with co-operation and aid. Intelligence, small, highly trained anti terrorism squads, international co-operation. No amount of punishment of large groups of people after the fact can PREVENT any terrorism only intelligence and good solid law enforcement and cooperation of the guy in the street. The water the terrorist fish swim in and cannot avoid. That is the only method of prevention
----"Give me a chance to try to grasp most lib thinking for a second ... most libs also want to end the patriot act ... offer no other way we could extract information from terrorists ... want to make it harder for law officers and homeland security..." blah blah blah"----
You have ample opportunity to "grasp most lib thinking", but it's obviously and certainly not where you've been grasping.
Novel idea: use your own brain, rather than the transcripts of right-wing talk show hosts.
Let's see I've already said I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning and wqant out now so how is that following "talking points"? Secondly my real question is if we do pull out and stifle our ability to identify terrorist at hoem through weakening the patriot act and trying to extract information "humanely" how are we going to stop another attack?
How is staying in Iraq going to stop a single attack in the U.S.? Do you know for a fact that any person we have captured and tortured in Iraq has given up any useful information? If so, how do you know that? Because Rummy told you so?
You're the one who accused us of wanting to pull out of the "War on terror" as if it and the Iraq war are one and the same. They are not. The war in Iraq is generating its own terrorists...how exactly will they "follow us home"?
Let's see, never said they'd "follow us home" and as I've already said I've never liked the war all I'm asking for is viable alternatives. Magnolialover suggested we have a number of covert squads to take out the terrorists by infiltrating their groups in places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. That's actually not a bad suggestion, the only problem with that is the vast number of terrorist supporters in those countries that would make it etremely difficult for that to work but at least it's a solution. I understand that the war in Iraq has been used into a recruitment tool by terrorists and that's one reason I opposed it to begin with. My question simply is if we get out and make it harder for our security agencies to identify terrorists here by stifling the patriot act and trying to extract information from known terrorist combatants through more "humane" (re: ineffective) efforts since the far left calls waterbording and sleep dep, "torture" what are some of the ways we can avoid another attack?
Sebastian,
You are creating a false dichotomy. Most thwarted terrorist attacks have been stopped by mundane intelligence or police work and simple observations of people simply doing their jobs. It isn't an either or situation.
We really don't know how or if the Patriot Act has been effective or not. It would be nice to have some data on that to help weigh its use against some of the Constitutional problems it may present.
It is also not known for a fact that torture has been entirely responsible for stopping any terrorist attacks either. It would be nice to have some reliable data on that as well. Other questions do remain, though. Do we really want to become more like the people we are fighting against? As a society, we need to think hard about that.
I agree with much of what you say but the only idea I've heard so far is law enforcement (which didn't help out before 9/11) and covert operations infiltrating terrorist groups which has it's problems as well. Obviously the war in Iraq was a bad idea but what other solutions do we have?
I disagree that law enforcement didn't help before 9/11. It captured almost all of the 1993 WTC bombers and many other terrorists -- without tending to create a great deal more in their place.
The 9-11 plot may simply have been too well implemented to be easily stopped with any methods short of the KGB. Do you really think we should clamp down to that degree, comrade?
Of course, we already know that terrorists would have a much harder time these days pulling off the same attack as they did on 9-11. Passengers would not sit idly by this time...nor would NORAD. So I am not sure any suggested tactical changes would have that great an effect regarding the attack on 9-11.
The 9-11 plot may simply have been too well implemented to be easily stopped with any methods short of the KGB.
I disagree. It could have been prevented by a competent administration.
Or by the elimination of Osama bin laden by Clinton.
I doubt killing bin laden would have had any effect on 9-11, but it would have been nice. It still would be nice if the current administration thought much about the guy enough to get him.
So now I'm a commie, ok. No I don't want to turn the cia into the kgb but tapping phones of people who are possible terrorist associates hardly seems like the road to a totalitarian state. Granted it needs oversight but again, what are viable alternatives?
All anyone ever wanted was oversight of the program to begin with. So I don't know why you would criticize the liberal position you apparently completely agree with. Puzzling.
See thats the thing. We arent looking for alternatives. Only the oversight. We arent against wiretaps just, if Americans are going to be tapped, get the darn warrant. That isnt too much to ask, what with the fourth amendment and all.
The whole point is that we need to be able to listen in as soon as possible, sometimes time is of the essence.
Again. No liberal is arguing against that. Your point is a strawman. Do you even take any time to familiarize yourself with liberal positions? You are spewing talking points and not making any sense.
FISA allows for retroactive warrants that can be obtained up to 72 hours after the call has been intercepted. The administration was asked if they need more time, but they simply ignored the entire warrant (oversight) function.
You need to familiarize yourself with the debate. So far, I have seen no difference between your position and the liberal one, yet you oddly are calling for a "liberal alternative" when none is needed. OVERSIGHT AND RULE OF LAW IS THE LIBERAL ALTERNATIVE HERE!!! No one I know has called for it to be completely shutdown either.
Sorry for yelling, but I thought I made the point clear in my earlier post. Do you understand now?
After rereading your post, it does sound like you agree with pulling out of Iraq. If that's the case, what's your beef with this particular topic?
I think the "missing link", or grey area, ifollows the accepted Republican either/or straw man. That is, in between invading other countries with our military and waiting to be attacked is an intelligent course of defense and pre-emptive strategy.
I don't disagree with the post, though there is a possibility that they could be more emboldened to attack again if we pull out. What I'm searching for is alternative strategies. As I've already said I think magnolialover's idea is intrigueing but we'd need cooperation from millions of people that don't like us in the least. I'm searching for the answers from the left which I haven't heard any except for "negotiation" which won't work. I know I came off a little strong but I keep hearing the side the cons are doing everything wrong in Iraq but I don't hear many solutions.
I think you are right about a lack of ideas. It seems that the previous actions by the Bush Administration have not left many easy alternatives.
For that matter, I don't see much from the right, that looks all that tantalizing either. "Stay the course" just doesn't have all that much appeal these days as it used to. Maybe I am missing something new.
I imagine the real solution would seem quite boring to most people. Some want to believe (wrongly) we can crush terrorism the way we beat the Nazi's -- with sheer united will and power. The real solution requires that we win hearts and minds faster than our enemy does and perhaps win back some converts. That includes the hearts and minds of people from other countries outside of the Middle East as well. Much can be gained in fighting terrorism with their help.
The sooner we get out of Iraq, the sooner we can get past our mistake and move forward.
I agree fully that nothing else good can come from us being in Iraq, I think the problem we face now is how do we get out without causing a humanitarian diasaster.
You stated most "libs" want to end the Patriot Act. False.
You stated most "libs" offer no alternatives. False.
You stated most "libs" want to make it harder for law officers. False.
All three of those statements are from the lips of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity & Co., et al.
All three are false. All three are smears.
It's not even worth arguing with someone who is so worshipful of right-wing talk show host lies.
What are the "solutions" offered by the left? BTW, you listed three cons I don't even listen to so I probably didn't get mt ideology from them.
---"...you listed three cons I don't even listen to so I probably didn't get mt ideology from them"---
As I very clearly said, you got your parroting points from right-wing talk show hosts. Those guys, "et al/& Co.". They're all of a same mindset. Those are the sources you are getting your so-called "ideology", simply because you won't find actual "facts" to bolster those (false) claims you made about "most libs".
Oh now I see! You're 100% right! Oh, wait, you still haven't given ANY solutions. Thanks Dave.
I think we may differ rather severely on how we would describe "humane" extraction of information from suspected terrorists.
This is one of my points of contention. How are we supposed to extract information from these hardened terrorists if things like sleep derivation and extreme temps are too taboo?
I think you miss a big point. If we indeed torture them, their "testimony" is obviously under duress. It is inadmissable in court. We could not make this criminal pay for his crimes and abide by the Constitution at the same time.
Secondly, the use of the methods you describe would seem to violate The Geneva Conventions, which are equal to the highest law of the land.
Thirdly, I don't think it is my job to offer alternatives. I will leave that to trained professionals. It is my job as a citizen to express my opinion at the way prisoners are treated by my government. I do not want to emulate my enemy in any regard.
But I think you're missing my points, they're not "torturing" them to prosecute them their doing it to get information to capture other terrorists and stop attacks. Secondly, many of these groups have already shown that they don't play by geneva's rules and the conventions don't specifically address terrorists or people who don't always fall under the jurisdiction of a country. And thirdly, I know it's not your job to come up with alternatives but the dems seem to have none as well. My point is that if the methods we're using are considered "torture" (and I guess it all depends on what your defintion of "is" is), what are the alternatives brought by those on the left
No we are torturing people and sending them to be tortured that is a fact. People have been beaten to death at Bagram Airforce base. Electric shocks to genitals according to Taguba. Sleep deprivation is an insidious form of torture ask Solzenitskin. An AMERICAN soldier recieved a verified brain injury which is still causing siezures when POSING as an Arab prisoner. Dont soft peddle this. There IS torture going on.
Links?
Here is one.
From FoxNews.com:
At least one military insider at Guantanamo has gone public with allegations of abuse — a military police officer who was injured after going undercover as a detainee.
National Guardsman Sean Baker said the attack occurred in November 2002, the month after Miller arrived in Guantanamo, when he was told to put on an orange detainee jumpsuit, get in a cell and wait for an Initial Response Force — the teams used to subdue misbehaving detainees.
From under the bunk, Baker heard the extraction team come in, he said in his latest comments during a CBS television program aired Wednesday.
"My face was down. And of course, they're pushing it down against the steel floor, you know, my right temple, pushing it down against the floor," Baker told CBS.
The incident was purportedly recorded, one of some 500 hours of tapes that the military has refused to publicly release.
Baker said he tried to tell his attackers he was a soldier but they repeatedly slammed his head against the floor. Baker was airlifted to a naval hospital in Virginia where doctors said he suffered a brain injury. He has been plagued by seizures since, he said.
Another one from FoxNews about Bagram homicides:
WASHINGTON — Military coroners have ruled as homicides the deaths in December of two prisoners at a U.S. base in Afghanistan, a military spokesman said.
A U.S. Army investigation of the deaths continues, said Col. Roger King, a spokesman for U.S. forces at the base in Bagram, Afghanistan.
The two prisoners died last Dec. 3 and Dec. 10 at the makeshift prison in the U.S. compound at the Afghan base north of Kabul. The autopsies that labeled the deaths as homicides found that the men had been beaten, and one had a blood clot in his lung, King said.
The Taguba Report link is below. It did not end up where I had intended it to be.
Thanks, I provided these links the last half dozen or so times I made this point. I figured by now it would be well enough known to just cite.
"But I think you're missing my points, they're not "torturing" them to prosecute them their doing it to get information to capture other terrorists and stop attacks." --sebastian
I disagree with your premise. They are torturing in the hopes of getting information. The person being tortured may not even be a real terrorist. There is no guarantee the information given is good or accurate. I haven't seen any data showing what percentage of information is indeed actionable or helpful at all. Most Al Qaida terrorists compartmentalize information to the degree that individuals really don't know much at all.
Besides, your argument is entirely amoral. The ends don't necessarily justify the means here. We have agreed to certain principles and we should not abandon them for some temporary sensation of success. We need to believe our system will prevail with our principles entact or else I would argue -- what was the point in winning?
"Secondly, many of these groups have already shown that they don't play by geneva's rules..." --sebastian
Doesn't matter. We signed the Conventions. They are equal to the highest law of the land. If we don't want to abide by them, then the right should suggest abrogating from them.
"the conventions don't specifically address terrorists or people who don't always fall under the jurisdiction of a country." --sebastian
That is simply a baseless repetition of the administration's self-serving reading of Article III and IV of the Geneva Conventions. Until status is determined by a competent tribunal, all prisoners are assumed to have a minimum of POW status. If a tribunal then concludes they are not indeed POW's, then the suspects would be labeled civilians and protected by international humanitarian law agreements. Any alleged unlawful acts should ultimately lead to a trial. No one's status falls outside of The Geneva Conventions. The administration is simply pulling a fast-one.
"And thirdly, I know it's not your job to come up with alternatives but the dems seem to have none as well." --sebastian
I guess we disagree on what we believe are "alternatives". I see not torturing as an alternative in itself that can lead to positive change. I see a return to more freedom as an "alternative". I guess it all hinges on how you want to frame the argument.
'My point is that if the methods we're using are considered "torture" (and I guess it all depends on what your defintion of "is" is), what are the alternatives brought by those on the left' --sebastian
I think you are creating another false dichotomy here. It isn't like we do not already have millions of ways at our disposal to gather information. We don't need to be amoral about it.
What alternatives would you suggest to a serial killer on how to spend his spare time? Might they all entail, some form of not killing people? Same concept here.
So if we're nice to them they'll spill the beans? You clearly didnt learn much from osama bin laden "we vlue death more than the west values life" quote. These people we're dealing with are illogical. Treat them with kid gloves and it'll only serve to hurt us in the long run. Gotta go now, I think we agree on some things but not others, but that's the progeny of politics
"So if we're nice to them they'll spill the beans?"--sebastian
I don't think it is that simple, but the way I see it, it has the benefit of not being amoral. I think it is a big mistake to assume the terrorists are "illogical". By our own standards, yes, maybe, but we need to understand their own kind of logic if we are to have any chance at beating them. Writing them off as "illogical" doesn't seem to do anyone any good.
From the Taguba Report:
11. (U) I reach this finding based on the actual proven abuse that I find was inflicted on detainees and by the following witness statements. (ANNEXES 25 and 26):
a. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company, stated in her sworn statement regarding the incident where a detainee was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis, “that her job was to keep detainees awake.” She stated that MI was talking to CPL Grainer. She stated: “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Grainer and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”
Mr Shaw's debate tactics:
1.Namecalling/Ridicule -- "Wow, you guys are brilliant."
2.Strawman Arguments
-- "You guys are 100% right this is exactly the time we should turn down our war on terror effort."
No one is arguing that. Personally, I do not regard the War in Iraq as a part of the "War on Terror" to begin with.
-- "Granted I agree with pulling out of Iraq and was never in agreement to go there in the first place but to blieve that it's impossible that it could happen again if we lower our guard is absurd."
Again...who is arguing that? Who precisely wants us to "lower our guard"? Maybe you believe that abiding by the Constitution is "lowering our guard". Please explain what you mean.
-- "...most libs also want to end the patriot act (which surveils possible terrorists)..."
"Most liberals" I know are against a few provisions in the Patriot Act, but do not want to "end" it entirely -- as you say.
-- "...and are against what you call "torture" but offer no other way we could extract information from terrorists."
I think you have been watching a little too much "24". This isn't a completely left-right argument. John McCain, who was tortured himself, is against such practices. Torture should not be condoned by any respectable country. It appears that you would prefer we act much more like our enemies than I do.
-- "So as far as I understand, most libs say "it's a law enforcement issue" but want to make it harder for law officers and homeland security to locate possible terrorists or to extract info from the ones we've captured that definately are terrorists."
I can't possibly speak for all liberals, but I definitely look at much of this as a "law enforcement issue". I don't see where proposed changes to the Patriot Act or not engaging in torture against terrorist suspects makes law enforcement's job any tougher as any information extracted from torture would likely be inadmissable in criminal court -- and for good reason.
Of course, the military should be used in some extreme instances where foreign governments will not reasonably cooperate or are unable to confront the problem within their borders on their own.
By and large, I agree with much of what Clinton did regarding terrorism. The suspected terrorists were individually hunted down using international cooperation from law enforcement. The suspected terrorists stood trial and are now largely serving long prison sentences for their actions. (I am mostly referring to the 1993 terrorists who attacked the WTC, although it applies to the arrest and capture of many other terrorists during the Clinton Administration.)
The Bush Administration is kind of trying to walk the line and using the "War on Terror" as a pretense to keep suspected terrorists locked away forever -- knowing that much of the evidence against the suspected terrorists would not be admissable in a normal criminal court. The "War on Terror" appears to be used as to allow members of the administration to avoid adhering to the Constitution in many ways. I do not agree with that.
I simply want my government to adhere to the principles of the Constitution and its amendments. No less.
Well said. I have heard several intelligence people interviewed who say that torture is not a very reliable way to get information. I'm sure that not all agree, but I think you're right; this notion among gung ho conservatives that you can always torture the truth out of suspects is based more on movies than fact.
I also find it funny, in a sad way, that the Bush administration has gradually had to admit that law enforcement and diplomacy have to be part of the "War on Terror". As I remember, Kerry was vilified as an "appeaser" for daring to suggest it.
Ironically, I firmly believe the Bush Administration has been using diplomacy and law enforcement the whole time. The vilification of Kerry was merely an attempt to appeal to a large sector of the American public which views such methods (wrongly) as largely ineffective.
After all, Arnold Schwarzeneger movies would have been much more uninteresting if he worked the phones to bring bad dudes to justice instead of an M-16 with a grenade launcher. Unfortunately that is the most apt way of describing what I believe to be the common understanding of such matters.
Most liberals I know dont want to end the patriot act just modify some of the more egregious civil liberties violations. You conservatives and your pre 1776 mentality dont seem to care much about civil liberties unless they have to do with the second amendment. I dont know of anyone that wants to lower our guard in fact if we leave Iraq, it would free up some resources to actually increase our ability to raise our defenses, which I for one am all for. As for torture its just plain evil. I dont care if it has benifits. If I needed money that wouldnt justify me robbing a bank to get it. The ends do not justify reprehensible means. For instance we MIGHT be able to subdue Iraq. When the Assyrians would conquer a city in ancient times they would sometimes take all the men and blind one in ten or cut off the right hands of one in seven. The point is to show there was no level of barbarity that they would not sink to in order to keep control. Perhaps we COULD do something like that just kill 500,000 Iraqis at random to show they would HAVE to accept our presence and stop being so inhospitable. Would that be worth the cost? What kind of nation would that make us? ACTIONS have consequences. Torturing people would completely invalidate any possible claim to being an ethical country. It would be saying we are willing to use barbaric means to get what we want. Now even if effective it changes who we are. It is good to be able to claim being a good people. That claim is worth a lot. Giving it up for the appearance of safety would change the very complection of who we are. The game is not worth the candle. It would also assure that if and when we fight another enemy NOT barbaric our prisoners WILL be tortured make no mistake about it if WE accept torture of others we give up any right to throw a fit when OURS are tortured by ANYONE, not just the evil men we are fighting now. By your logic the Germans would have been perfectly within THEIR rights to torture our men in WW2 as those men had military information that likely could have saved German lives. This excuse could ALWAYS have been used. It has always been rejected because we see ourselves as DECENT people. YOU would end that. YOU would tell the world we are not a decent people we are a cowardly people so scared of a a group of evil people we eschew all standards of decency so we can protect ourselves.
Thanks for mentioning WW2 since many o fthe countries regimes in the region were allied to the germans and still hold on to some of their influences Iran, for example. Speaking of "talking points" you repeat the lib "we have to stop "torture"" but you offer no other means of extracting information. These people don't care if they die, what are you going to do offer them a "light sentence". Again, all I'm looking for is answers, of which many of you seem to be pretty much bankrupt.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that there necessarily has to be an alternative to torture. Why? There are already millions of ways to get information as it is? Do you not consider them alternatives?
You never answered my question above? What alternatives would you suggest to a serial killer on how to spend his spare time? I would bet all of those alternatives you would suggest likely already exist, but simply don't involve murdering someone.
The thing is, is that with terrorism, or from what I've read on the subject in the recent past, is that a lot of terrorists complete these acts because they feel as if they have no other recourse to do so, and nothing to "lose" so to speak. They feel as if they can make a difference, by detonating themselves in the middle of a busy market, and make a statement. This is probably partly true.
How to defeat terrorism is not by shear will of force, or even by overwhelming force. Terrorism is an ideaology, and an idea, something born from the minds of some, actually, very intelligent people. Make no bones about it, a lot of the terrorists are sophisticated, and have a high level of intelligence amongst them. I think where we start to lose first, is that we believe that they are not smart, and that they are just "savages" that need to be hunted out and killed. This is not to say that we don't need to actively pursue terrorists with force, we do, because they actually do respect that aspect of things. As I mentioned before though, we have to go to the breeding grounds of terrorism. We have to catch them in the act of planning, and find out how this type of thinking and behavior is taught. We already have a pretty good idea of how this comes about, by the teachings of radical immans and others within the Muslim world, and as I mentioned before, we need to infiltrate their ranks. How do we do this? Special forces is a good place to start. Native speaking soldiers who can more easily blend into the fabric of their societies. Of course some white guy from Georgia isn't going to blend, but more ethnic recruits, who speak the languages (Farsi and such) can do it. And this would be more of an undercorver law enforcement type of action, but it would work, and when we do have the goods on a cell, or a group planning some sort of attack, this is when we bring in the force, arrest them, or take them out if it is required.
In order to completely stop terrorism, I think we need to give the terrorists something to actually lose. As I was mentioning before, there are a lot of people out there that want to do this country harm, and they feel as if they have nothing to lose. If we give them something to lose, they will think twice about it, and a loss of life for them is not what I'm talking about. We've seen time and again that terrorists will "martyr" themselves without thinking about it. How we give them "something to lose" I'm not sure. Think about improving their societies, giving them a choice of educational outlets (from what I hear a lot of radical teaching goes on within the madrassas or their schools), and showing them that America is NOT the great Satan that some of their leaders proclaim us to be, and change the ideaology around. That's the only way terrorism is ever going to stop. Killing terrorists, while it might make a dent, may just breed more terrorists. Think about yourself, and how you might feel if someone came into your house, in the middle of the night, killed a loved one, and left you alive. Would you seek revenge? Or would you just let it go? I think human nature in a lot of us would seek revenge.
Just some thoughts. We have to change the paradigm of terrorism, and the ideaology.
Then how do you explain terrorists attacking schools, buses w/children on them, etc.? To some extent (and though we shouldn't be there in the first place) some of the things we're trying to do is improve Iraqi way of life but the terrorists stand in the way of that progress.
Magnolia makes some very good and accurate points. I don't know much about the psychology of terrorists per se, but there is much out there about the psychology of suicide bombers. They appear to come from good homes and are often more wealthy and better educated than the general population. Pretty scary. They also seem to be just as sane as the general population.
There are many motives for terrorist attacks in Iraq. The different groups there have many different pollitical goals. Calling them crazy, evil, irrational or illogical isn't a very productive way of looking at the problem. It would be better to understand that every action has a reaction. There are motives for what they do, even if we can't possibly understand them completely.
Are you kidding me that we are improving or trying to improve the Iraqi's living or quailty of life? 75% of the deployed military personnel jusr responded to a DoD Survey that they do NO care what happens to the non-combatant civilians. Wishful thinking is a great way to humanize the de-humanization that is takin place in Iraq, otherwise, how could you live with your "the dream place in your mind?" Think for yourself, read, educate yourself, and FREE YOURSELF. At the end you'll be a happier person because you are NOT responsible for what Bush wanted to do in your name.
To say that Al Qaeda will follow us to America if we leave Iraq is pure hogwash. A cell of 19 terrorist attacked us on 911 i think, " the jury is still out on that one", and to infer that as long as we are keeping them busy in Iraq that they don't have enough men to put another cell together is as if to say there is only about a dozen terrorist left and they are to busy to plan an attack elswhere. Pure propaganda. It is because i speak out as i am doing here that i seen, and as my neighbor called to my attention a white utility van parked in an empty field accross the road. All window's on this van were darkened except the windshield, and two side door's with the two large rear window'a facing my house. When my neighbor and i made it obvious that we spotted them they immediately moved the van a hundred yard's down the road, and second's later came back and drove past my house and down the road. This is not paranoia, there has been enough happening to convince me and friend's that my web surffing is being monitored and manipulated. I am doing more than voicing my freedom of speach. I am not going to commit suicide and I Am Feerless In California.
Who's the terrorists? I think this excerpt from an AP article says it all:
"In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian."
"More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said."
Why do they hate us? Guess.
As always we let the Establishment play with us like puppets. Iraq, Iraq, what is the principal and I repeat principal reason for invading it and WHY we we'll never EVER leave? Paul Wolfowitz has stated that "we knew we had to leave the Saudi Bases but we couldn't leave Saddam in place without other Bases in the Region......" Whether he put Saddam there as an excuse or not is a matter or interpretation. However, given the facts that Bin Laden's main reason to launch a war against the US was his rage against the US Bases in the Region + the 9/11 attacks + the impossibility to quickly strike any group in the Region without solid GROUND US Bases made me believe Paul + Rumsfeld, et.al went through a list of countries in the ME to decide where it was easier to "make a slum dunk case:" Iran, Syria, Iraq. You can decide for yourself which one was easier and "apparently" had more unintended consequential benefits such as oil, threaten Iran, undermine and control the flow of important supplies to China and Russia, etc.? Iraq has all those and more. We got the Bases (10 of them underground plus the one at the International Airport + the Green Zone.) We also got a couple of prisoners’ camps with over 50.000 Iraqis.When McCain, Hilary, and many other Senators talk about withdrawing they talk about withdrawing to ...THE BASES and no back to the USA. We we'll never leave Iraq. The Iraqi people will never be free for the next 50-100 years!