Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Al Qaeda claim to 9-11 Bodes Ill

By darkonc in Op-Ed
Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:11:14 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)

If you haven't heard it yet, you soon will. Osamma has finally claimed responsiblity for 9/11. I think, however, that it's a really bad sign. I think it means that all of the goodwill that flowed to the US In sympathy for the attack has now been fully squandered -- and probably much more.

After the attack, people all over the world -- including (and especially) Muslims condemned the attack on the world trade tower as an unwarranted attack on (mostly) innocent civilians (the attack on the Pentagon was mostly ignored). Although Al Qaeda hinted that they were responsible, they didn't directly claim responsibility. I think that this was mostly due to the outpouring of sympathy for US citizens who were affected by the attack.

Since then, the US has invaded Iraq, with very little international support (much of it given grudgingly). The invasion of Iraq has very quickly turned into an American quagmire that is giving some Americans flashbacks to Vietnam. More than a thousand American and allied soldiers have died in Iraq, and estimates of civilian casualties are now ranging as high as 100 000 with no real end in sight. Low end estimates are in the tens of thousands.

The result of this massive and ongoing death and destruction in Iraq has been the rapid bleeding off of any support for the US position in the Middle east and the Muslim world. Where there was once support (or at least tolerance) for the US position in the Middle East, it has now been been replaced by fear and antipathy to the point where Al Qaeda now sees no downside in admitting to carrying out the attacks.

So, what does this do for Bush's much-touted war on terror?? Nothing good, I'm afraid. If you remember how The Bush Administration pushed an atmosphere of fear and loathing in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to justify their excesses in response to it, that sort of fear is also used by other terrorists to justify their own excesses. People afraid for their safety and survival will abide by much more extreme actions than they will when they consider themselves to be in relative safety.

The Bush Administration has (in different ways) pushed those feelings of fear in both the US and the Middle East. In the US it has been by portraying the nation (and, indeed, the entire West) as being on the brink of an abyss which the terrorists (read 'Muslim world') has been attempting to draw us into. This environment of fear has been used to justify the excesses which the US has since embarked on (the wildcat invasion of Iraq, denial of Geneva rights to prisoners, military excesses in Iraq, threatening other nations and limiting civil rights in the US).

It is those same excesses which have generated an environment of fear in the middle east... fears which, I'm sure, Al Qaeda and its allies have been quick to fan.

Rising extremism is its own justification. Once it takes hold, extremism on either side becomes justification for rising extremism on the other and vice-versa. Bush (and with him, America) has fallen into the extremism trap -- a trap laid by Bin Laden -- and he's showing no signs of even recognizing that he's in it, much less crawling out.


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Related Links
o Osamma has finally claimed responsiblity for 9/11
o 100 000
o Also by darkonc

Display: Sort:
Al Qaeda claim to 9-11 Bodes Ill | 134 comments (131 topical, 3 editorial, 1 hidden)
Michael Moore = Traitor (1.62 / 29) (#1)
by Psycho Dave on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 09:12:07 PM EST

Osama has obviously gotten ahold of a copy of the disgusting piece of "Blame America First" propaganda known as "Fahrenheit 911". He references it several times in his speech. Michael Moore should be shot! Or at least have his Krispy Kremes taken away...

(Fuck, I just can't pull off a right wing troll.)

It really doesn't work without the lobotomy /nt (2.16 / 6) (#2)
by localroger on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 09:45:34 PM EST

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min
[ Parent ]
Usually not a problem (none / 1) (#3)
by khallow on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 10:27:57 PM EST

Most people come with that feature. The ones that don't are usually dead or in a coma.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

yourself included (nt) (1.20 / 5) (#8)
by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 11:35:00 PM EST

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
goes without saying, cts (nt) (none / 1) (#31)
by khallow on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:40:57 PM EST

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Heh, I almost modded this comment down... (none / 1) (#14)
by israfil on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 07:13:16 AM EST

... as a right wing troll.  Didn't get the joke for a sec.


i. - this sig provided by /dev/arandom and an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards.
[ Parent ]

Troll? (none / 1) (#15)
by schickl on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:34:06 AM EST

I thought I was on hannity.com for a brief moment.

[ Parent ]
ror! (none / 1) (#16)
by GenerationY on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:35:23 AM EST

[you deserve it if only because you tried]

[ Parent ]
Fuck, there's only one thing easier than a RWT (none / 0) (#18)
by RandomLiegh on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 01:22:48 PM EST

and that's teh patented speling troll. You were just in too much of a hurrty getting FP to work up a proper RWT. ;)

Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
[ Parent ]
Simple Equation: Oppose Bush = You Traitor (3.00 / 4) (#20)
by Peahippo on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 02:25:33 PM EST

I just can't pull off a right wing troll

What do you mean? You did the job. You implied Moore was some anti-American dolt, added his latest movie as implied "aid and comfort", and then naturally went to the next step: traitor, shoot, gnaaarrr!.

That's the "Right-Wing Three Step" dance move. It's very easy to do, however, so it doesn't earn you any points.

[ Parent ]
Hahaha.... (2.66 / 3) (#25)
by kcidx on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 03:39:43 PM EST

Haven't seen it, have you?

It's alright....you can admit it.

Saying F911 is a "blame america first" movie is like saying Bowling For Columbine was an anti-gun movie.

Both statements show that the person either didn't watch the movie at all, and is listening to way too much Rush, or they did watch it, with serious preconceptions, and thus didn't grasp anything that was going on in front of them.

[ Parent ]

I know...I know... (none / 0) (#26)
by kcidx on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 03:41:28 PM EST

I bit..

[ Parent ]
Sure (1.66 / 3) (#32)
by jeremyn on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:48:05 PM EST

Because implying that the best way to stop criminal scum murdering people is to take guns, especially concealable handguns away from those who could defend themselves and others makes you pro-gun? Or quoting NRA speeches out of context, or implying that a NRA meeting that had been planned a year ago should be moved because people had been killed without being able to defend themselves?

Just the law school shooting where students had to run to their cars to get their guns to stop the scumbag who'd already killed three people because of the red tape to get a concealed carry permit disproves that. BfC is by a man who claims the America is mean-spirited because people can get guns and the ammunition they need to defend themselves. That's anti-gun. And it's wrong.

[ Parent ]

on the other hand (3.00 / 4) (#33)
by MX5 on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 07:33:24 PM EST

BfC pointed out that Canada had just as many guns per capita as the US, yet they didn't have nearly the murder rate north of the border. Moore made it clear, at least to me, that he thought the climate of fear in the US was the main reason for the high murder rate, and seemed to prescribe a dose of socialism (or at least a good social "safety net") as the best way of combating the problem.

At least, that's the way I read the movie. The trolling of Charlton Heston was a sideshow to fill it all out to feature-length.

"Next week on the programme, bats. Are they really blind or are they just taking the piss?" -tfs
[ Parent ]

Distribution (none / 0) (#35)
by jeremyn on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 07:59:48 PM EST

If you rob a Canadian farmhouse, you can reasonably expect that the occupants may be armed. If you mug someone in a dark city street, the chances of them being able to defend themselves is far lower. Also, there are far less gangs in Canada than in the US, and seeing as the vast majority of murders are committed by gangs with illegal guns, less gangs mean less gun crime and murders in general.

[ Parent ]
Uh.. (3.00 / 2) (#56)
by Kwil on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:49:34 PM EST

..that's funny, I thought the same thing about the US with respect to farms and city-dwellers.

While your gang reference is likely true, this just turns the question to why are their far fewer gangs in Canada? The answer likely has something to do with the social safety net taking out some of the fear that drives people to feel they need to be in a gang for survival.

So it looks like if you finished your train of thought, you'd find yourself at the same place Moore was at.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

[ Parent ]
Gangs have nothing to do with a social safety net (none / 0) (#94)
by cdguru on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:54:19 PM EST

They have everything to do with power and money. In the US ruling over a section of your city brings you power and money because you control the drug trade. Defending your territory is required because somebody else wants your territory - because they have none or want to enlarge theirs.

Why doesn't Canada have a gang problem? I don't know - maybe the people that want to fight to own something move down to the US and all Canadians are sheep. Maybe it is because after being slaves for 100 years the blacks decided they better own something.

There is no way you can convince me that they join gangs and defend their "turf" because they don't have free health care.

[ Parent ]

Oddly enough, the two things most highly valued... (none / 0) (#99)
by kcidx on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:57:55 PM EST

...in the US, and consequently the world...

They have everything to do with power and money.

[ Parent ]

The problem is the attitude. (none / 1) (#112)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:40:40 PM EST

For americans, it seems like guns are considered a right, and a toy. Canadians are far more likely to recognize them as dangerous tools.

I remember going to an Science Fiction convention in Oregon and being just short of horrified to hear teenageros talk about playing with guns like they were friggin CD players.

I Don't hunt, so my only real access to guns was to be trained how to use them properly. Most people I know who have guns use them to hunt.

As for gangs, it's possible that part of the reason why gangs are far less common in Canada is that Canada has a much better social net. In the US, if you're really poor, about the only way that many people can see out of that ongoing desparation would be crime. In canada, he social net makes sure that everybody has at least their minimal needs taken care of... Less desparation -> less crime.

This difference is slowly changing as the provinces are cutting back on welfare availability and funding.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]

So you didn't understand the movie... (none / 1) (#58)
by kcidx on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:53:43 PM EST

....that's not my problem.

Why do you have to point out the fact though?

[ Parent ]

who cares? (1.03 / 28) (#4)
by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 10:28:43 PM EST

anyone who can find sympathy in the cause of al qaeda are people already lost. playing the game of "who sympathises with us most" is a stupid game. playing the game of "kill the fucking terrorists and clean up the fucking basket case middle east" is the correct game, even if the whole world hates us.

international politics is not a popularity contest: just ask north korea! international politics is about your agenda, tooth and nail. and the agenda is kill bin laden and shut down al qaeda. and if the whole world despises us for it? if the world doesn't approve of our methods?

fuck the whole world, fuck them all, let the whole world burn american flags every day, hang the us president in effigy and never buy a can of coca cola again: WHO FUCKING CARES


how can i say this? how can i be so arrogant?

very simple: if you are not willing to fight al qaeda and osama bin laden simply on the principle of who they are and what they stand for, then you are not worthy of a second thought. for real. if what al qaeda does: bali, madrid, etc... and al qaeda's stated goal: fundamentalist islam the world over under a glorious pantheocracy, is not enough for you to oppose them, then end of story: fuck off, i have nothing to say to you.

that you have to consider your dislike of the us in regards to your approval of going after al qaeda, you are simply not a person who understands anything of morality. you are not worthy of respect, you are not worth talking to, get lost, fuck off, end of story. for real.

taking the us into consideration on whether or not you oppose or embrace al qaeda is like wondering if you should give satan a blow job or not because your husband didn't buy you roses for your anniversary.

now al qaeda and bin laden i respect... why?


i HATE al qaeda, but i RESPECT al qaeda. those who oppose the war in iraq? those who hate the us simply on the grounds of the royal fuck ups it makes in the pursuit of ending communism and now ending global terrorism?

i have no respect for you, your entire message is basically this: "don't fight, there's nothing worth fighting for". or "yes, fight, but i have a better way to fight than invading iraq".

"oh you do? good, what is it!"

"hold on a second, i'll get back to you in a few years..." or "well, let's talk about it in the un and after a lengthy committee send saddam a nasty letter"


the world does not revolve aorund the us, osama bin laden is not the anti-us... the world is not that black and white. al qaeda has an agenda all its own, and if the us turned into a giant lake tomorrow, al qaeda would throw an office party, and then continue right on with their murderous agenda.

imagine that!

the only people who think al qaeda is some sort of ghost of us cold war sins past are simply morons who don't know much about the world. being blindly pro-us is stupid, so is being blindly anti-us. the mirror image of stupidity is just more stupidity. basing your entire world view on what the us does is stupid, but some morons don't understand that that same thought is the root of being anti-us, as well as being pro-us.

it's a big world out there, there's more in the world than the fucking united states.

imagine fucking that!

what, you think al qaeda is fighting against greenhouse emissions? you think they are fighting against ashcroft? you think they are fighting against corporate globalism? AL QAEDA IS ASHCROFT IN HIS WILDEST DREAMS! so you want to fight the pussy paper tiger ashcroft because he's easy to squash? OR DO YOU WANT TO FIGHT THE REAL FUCKING MONSTER WHO REALLY THREATENS YOU?!

al qaeda is the largest threat to world peace today, and you must fight them- PERIOD. NO CONDITIONS. because if you have conditions, you don't understand exactly what you are dealing with in the likes of al qaeda and what they think of YOUR WAY OF LIFE. and if you honestly believe the us is a bigger threat to your way of life than al qaeda, you simply don't understand anything, and are not worthy of convincing of anything: you don't have very good education or perception, you are not worthy of respect.

you are worthy of being ignored, for failing to understand what is at stake and who the real enemy is in this world. so you hate the usa for the fuck ups it makes in the fight against international terror and the bullshit fuck ups it made in the cold war? fine. i don't fucking see you denouncing what the soviets did or what al qaeda does, i simply see you as a sycophant: latching on to the biggest guy in the house, clinging to the us for your world view, even if it is in simple kneejerk opposition to the us, and not a single moral, principled stand against the largest evil in the world. not single original idea about opposing al qaeda. just flotsam and jetsam.

if on your lips is a ten paragraph condemnation of the us... and not a single sentence reserved for al qaeda, even if when pressed you go "oh yeah, i hate them too" well then FUCK YOU, AND I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK.

condemnation of al qaeda should be first and foremost in your mind if you have a genuine sense of moral outrage, and anything the us does to fight the fuckers al qaeda is a good thing BECAUSE I DON'T SEE YOU DOING A FUCKING THING, I DON'T SEE YOU ADVANCING A VALID ALTERNATIVE.

the world hates the us?




the world either helps us on the simple principle that opposing al qaeda is the right thing to do, or the world can FUCK OFF.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

I am absolutely in awe. (3.00 / 3) (#5)
by Esspets on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 11:26:15 PM EST

That was hands down the longest rant I have ever seen on K5.

[ Parent ]
Circletimessquare's formatting (3.00 / 5) (#10)
by QuantumFoam on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 12:38:59 AM EST

gives the illusion of length. When every sentence is a paragraph, it looks longer than it is.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Applause (2.00 / 2) (#6)
by QuantumFoam on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 11:28:17 PM EST

I'd have to agree with you for once. This has been brought to the public attention on a daily basis for the last few months: British papers endorse Kerry, The Economist endorses Kerry, France and the rest of the EU endorse Kerry. The EU and the rest of the world won't like us if we re-elect Bush.

Fuck them. Global politics are not a High School Prom King/Queen election. Will France invade us if Bush is re-elected? They can try. I'll drive to the East coast with a crate of popcorn and watch the landing get wiped out by armed rednecks before the military even shows up. Will the EU stop trading with us if NOT-Bush isn't elected? No. They will just cry for a few days and be complete bitches for the next four years.

How many electoral votes does France have? Zero, and there's a good fucking reason: Every nation is looking out for their own interests, and France's interest in preserving it's bribe money from pre-war Iraq and our interest in (none of the justifications our fucking president actually gave were valid, but let me go out on a limb here) preserving national security by enforcing decade-old UN resolutions which the UN had failed to even try to enforce were mutually exclusive.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

yeah but i'm a kerry voter ;-P (nt) (none / 0) (#7)
by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 11:33:24 PM EST

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Good for you (none / 1) (#9)
by QuantumFoam on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 12:37:58 AM EST

Don't support the guy who started the war, just the guy that gave him permission and has had a long history of being unopposed to war, at least until the point where Howard Dean made being antiwar popular among the Democratic contenders. John Jacobson is a whole lot better than Jacob Johnson.

I am not a Bush voter, if that was your implication. My vote has already been wasted on a third party.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Bush supporter in denial (1.09 / 11) (#11)
by Wah on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 03:24:51 AM EST

My vote has already been wasted on a third party.

I guess backing into an ass-fucking is somehow preferrable than running away from it?

just the guy that gave him permission and has had a long history of being unopposed to war

HAHAHAHA.  That's rich.  Guess what was the first thing Kerry did in Congress?  Think mid-80's.  Think Iran.  Think 'global terrorist network'.  Think 'Ollie'.

Now google.
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

Douuuuchebaaaaaag (2.00 / 3) (#19)
by Esspets on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 01:46:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
uh huh (3.00 / 3) (#12)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:01:48 AM EST

fuck the whole world, fuck them all, let the whole world burn american flags every day, hang the us president in effigy and never buy a can of coca cola again: WHO FUCKING CARES

but on the other hand, when you proclaim that the u s should bring democracy to the world because "they're all human beings, we should care" ... for some mysterious reason, the world doesn't believe your sincerity

odd, isn't it?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]

the us won't bring democracy to anyone (2.00 / 2) (#13)
by circletimessquare on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:09:39 AM EST

democracy is simply the birth right of every living human being

and anyone who helps remove the obstacles to that birth right does a good thing

it has nothing to do with the us

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

what the hell are you talking about (none / 0) (#51)
by chacho on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:10:26 AM EST

Democracy is not a fucking "right," you dolt. the understood "birth rights" in our country are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which i would think you'd know, given your sig... Democracy is a political system, not a "right." Way to back up your long-ass troll with flawed arguments, idiot.

[ Parent ]
i honestly believe (none / 0) (#71)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:18:48 AM EST

that all human beings on this planet are equal, and all deserve to live under democracy, and all societies are headed towards that

democracy is not an american thing, it is a human thing

globalization is not a synonym for americanization

and resisting it is like resisitng the tides

the inexorable pull of history is towards pandemocracy, the only thing that remains to be written is when and where it each society joins the inevitable, whether america exists or not

it's simply justice at work, this pull towards democracy

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'd prefer a good benevolent dictator any day (none / 0) (#85)
by willie on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 06:50:10 AM EST

What about my rights?

Give me someone that knows what they're doing, not someone that can fool the masses into thinking that they know what they're doing.

[ Parent ]

you'd prefer a dictator to democracy? (none / 0) (#87)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:56:48 AM EST


i really don't think i need to say anything else on the subject to make my case, you just made it for me

because anyone else reading this thread can easily ascertain exactly what kind of fruitloop i am talking to

you obviously don't have the faintest idea of the real world ramifications of what you are talking about

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, go dictators! (none / 0) (#119)
by willie on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 05:02:15 AM EST

My comment was mean to be tongue-in-cheek irony that pointed out the flaw in your arguement, but I think you kinda missed it.

Regardless, I am an evil single-minded fanatical fruitloop who isn't smart enough to know whats best.
How about you go blow all the fuckers like me up who don't agree with your point of view before they do some damage? Fuck the world, remember?

Oh, and while we're insulting each other, you're a fuckhead.

[ Parent ]

you can't shame me as an absolutist (none / 0) (#120)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 07:57:19 AM EST

when you talk in absolutes yourself

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Absolutism (none / 0) (#126)
by willie on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:41:42 AM EST

I think you need help clarifying your arguments. Try a dictionary or Wikipedia

[ Parent ]
Have or be forced into democracy? (none / 0) (#134)
by sukiari on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 04:09:08 AM EST

"that all human beings on this planet are equal, and all deserve to live under democracy, and all societies are headed towards that democracy is not an american thing, it is a human thing globalization is not a synonym for americanization and resisting it is like resisitng the tides the inexorable pull of history is towards pandemocracy, the only thing that remains to be written is when and where it each society joins the inevitable, whether america exists or not it's simply justice at work, this pull towards democracy" So any horrible things that the USA does under the cloak of democracy is OK? Including helping terrorists network with each other as we have done?

[ Parent ]
Democracy is the right of all??? (none / 0) (#110)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:21:32 PM EST

If so, then the US's original sin was supporting the likes of Saddam, the Shaw of Iraq, the various non-democracies in the middle east, Agusto Pinochet, and a host of other despots in South America snd around the world.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]
That should have bee shaw of *IRAN* N/T (none / 0) (#111)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:25:38 PM EST

Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]
cold war sins (none / 0) (#123)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 08:43:41 AM EST

do not bear on today's world

people bring up us cold war sins all the time... and conveniently forget soviet cold war sins

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

stop crying already (1.50 / 2) (#17)
by fhotg on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:49:40 AM EST

there is much more pitty than hate for those of your obsession.
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]
pity, hate, laughter, whatever (1.50 / 2) (#44)
by circletimessquare on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:43:04 AM EST

if you're not helping me, fuck off

because i don't really care what you think of me, as i don't see anything tactically superior in your position or anything morally superior in your pov

what i see of you, i don't see anything worthy of respect or discussion

so goodbye

enjoy your life

speak of me all you want

go on with your bad self, you yell and screa about my words and actions until you ar eold and gray: enjoy yourself at my expense, it's nothing to me

but i am not giving you a second thought because you haven't given me anything that indicates you have my peace or safety in mind in your thoughts or your intentions

simply put:

you're not my enemy

and you're not my friend

so you simply don't matter


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

more simply put (none / 1) (#48)
by fhotg on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 07:06:48 AM EST

simply put:
you're not my enemy
and you're not my friend
so you simply don't matter

In other words: collateral damage.
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]

it can only be collateral damage (none / 0) (#70)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:14:31 AM EST

if it's something you hit by mistake that matters to you

how do you matter to me again?

you've made it quite clear you don't care about me or my fate

so exactly what motivation have you given me for caring about you again?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yep the rest of the world (none / 0) (#22)
by the sixth replicant on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 02:55:28 PM EST

doesn't care: that's why most of the world is capturing al Quaeda operatives as the US just talks about it


[ Parent ]

oh i see (none / 1) (#45)
by circletimessquare on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 03:44:45 AM EST

the us is doing nothing

ok, got it

thanks for the wonderous insight and your enormous contributions

much love


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hitting the wrong targets... (none / 0) (#132)
by EKzwo on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 02:31:24 AM EST

Well, the US certainly do a lot, but their actions are currently doing a lot, but bombing whatever country is disliked by the president wont contribute to anti-terror efforts. Actually, american forces are now so heavily engaged in Iraq (not in the terrorist's harbour Afghanistan) that "another Afghan war" could not be fought, if there was another nation harbouring terrorists (who knows? - American intelligence? they "knew" exactly where Saddam was hiding vast stockpiles of WMDs...).

I'll try to keep this simple for you: Just consider you wouldn't like peanut butter. Going into your store and destroying all of their stocks would not make much sense as there are millions stores that sell peanut butter nationwide. So you would try to make sure their supply would run out.

Given this goal, you could either burn down each peanut plantation in the US or convince each farmer not to grow them. Since you are not familiar enough with ways to use words that allow others to accept your point of view, you would simply drive through the whole country burning down any peanut bush you find.

This would take serveral years, giving the farmers enough time to grow new plants thus not eliminating but considerably reducing the effect of your actions. Your approach would be much more effective, if you asked your neighborsto join in on your task, so there would be a number of mentally ill sweeping peanuts of the country. Since your neighbors wont join in without questioning, you would ask their children that do not question your arguments, but also do have little mobility.

I guess you agree that there is a point in investing a little effort in getting the grown-ups to join you, but now there is another point: When you burn a farmer's plantation, he will be mad at you and try to plant new peanuts, but if you managed to convince him that it is better for him and the rest of the world to switch the crop, he would never plant them again. Since there will allways be some that disagree or wont give in to arguments, you would still have some plantations to burn, but despite the higher effort in convincing each and every farmer in the long term this approach is vastly more efficent.

I hope you got the point, because now I'll try to get back to what actually happended: The US got sick on strawberry marmelade, so it burned one or two plantations from a major producer (Afghanistan) to then turn its attention to the destruction of a major peanut butter producer (being accompanied by a handful of youngsters), but even failing in accomplishing this task (mission not so acomplished), so that this producer now starts producing strawberry marmelade, too.

What makes this so sad is that even if G.W. would suddenly get a new message from his god that he should try more intelligent approaches once in a while, convincing those who support the terrorists to stop it for their own as well of the world's sake, it would be almost impossible for them to accept even the best arguments due to the miscredit the Western World now has to bear in the Arab World. If you do not give a ++whatever++ about Ali Hamdi of Syria, why should he care about you or any number of US citizens, no matter how many Al-Quaida might want to kill? Especially if it might pose a threat for him to reveal information on terrorism.

I guess that the average inhabitant of the Arab peninsula was rather neutral, maybe a little in favor about the US, but after the illegitimate attack on Iraq, noone would dare to side with the US.
(Irony ON) That's a very sound way to eliminate the support for terrorism. (END of irony)

Why am I telling you this? I don't think you are even close to be willing to realize that your opinion is based on wrong assumptions. I think I need some sleep.

[ Parent ]
democracy is a FUCKING POPULARITY CONTEST [nt] (none / 0) (#77)
by Fuzzwah on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 01:32:26 AM EST


i hate the way

cts writes


The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
[ Parent ]

agree (none / 0) (#131)
by EKzwo on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 01:17:47 AM EST

He used a large amount of space and a tiny scope of words to state nothing but his very opinion and no information whatsoever. *sigh*

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 1) (#84)
by drsmithy on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 06:46:38 AM EST

very simple: if you are not willing to fight al qaeda and osama bin laden simply on the principle of who they are and what they stand for, then you are not worthy of a second thought.

If that's all America was doing, they'd probably have more support...

[ Parent ]

The CIA made Bin Laden... (3.00 / 2) (#86)
by sukiari on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:48:14 AM EST

This is our mess. We made Bin Laden into what he is today. When the USSR was in Afghanistan, we used him for our purposes. We then abandoned and then vilified him. Your post shows you to be the most malleable type of ignorant fool. Hopefully you're not old enough to vote! Learn a little history. We made Bin Laden, and we got a prize (9/11) for it. In fact, he's told us that if we stop fucking around in the middle east, and stop arming Israel to the teeth, that he'd leave us alone. I for one say we take him up on his offer. Get the hell out of there, leave the experiment into Zionism to themselves, leave the Muslims to themselves, and let the region stabilize or destabilize. Terrorists don't hate America because we're free. That's brainwashing bullshit fairy tale thinking. They hate us because we have proven to be ogres.

[ Parent ]
If we made him, (none / 0) (#93)
by cdguru on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:45:52 PM EST

Then we better clean up our mess!

Leave him alone? I don't think so. All we would be doing is putting off the eventual showdown. And, if we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, we will be facing "the Islamic bomb". For some reason, Pakistan has decided not to try to nuke Israel or the US. Odd, but we need to be thankful of that. Perhaps they really want to nuke Deli instead of us. It probably doesn't matter. Iran, on the other hand, will certainly threaten Israel with destruction, and they would probably accept (happily) a couple of their cities being destroyed as long as they "got" Israel. See, MAD strategies don't work when one side has a martyr complex.

Oh, and the terrorists don't hate us because we're free - they hate us because we insist on exporting our culture, economy and everything else to their part of the world. We're rubbing their noses in the fact that they are living in squalor when the poorest American is 100 times better off than their middle class. Of course they hate us. And, they are going to continue to hate us until there is a general collapse and everyone in Europe and the US is living in a bombed-out squalor like them or they win and live like kings with us as their newly converted subjects.

[ Parent ]

Nobody said to leave BinLLadin alone (none / 0) (#109)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:17:36 PM EST

The point was to stop jerking around the people of the middle east. Theory being that if people feel respected and safe, they're less likely to become terrorists.

"Treat someone like an enemy for long enough and they'll get the hint".

Bush's boon to Al-Qaeda is that many muslims now feel that they have nothing to lose by becomming terrorists.. If I killed your mother and your brother and made you feel like a piece of shit, you'd be much more likely to become a terrorist, too.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]

Yes, LEAVE THE MUSLIM HOLY LAND TO ITSELF!!! (none / 0) (#116)
by sukiari on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:29:25 AM EST

Pakistan hasn't nuked anybody, but we're not in Pakistan trying to Democritize them.  Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons because they know it's the only way to force America to a diplomatic solution.  We don't go around invading nuclear powers, now, do we?

The terrorists don't hate us because we're richer than them either.  That's more bullshit brainwashing fairy-tale thinking.  Why aren't Muslim terrorists attacking Sweden, or Iceland, or New Zealand?  It's because those countries are leaving them alone!

For over a thousand years Crusaders have been fucking around in the Holy Land.  Every Crusade has ultimately collapsed.  We're in there to Democritize them this time, instead of Christianizing them, but do you think there's a difference from their point of view?  This whole mess would disappear if America stopped arming Israel, withdrew our troops from Muslim middle eastern countries, and just left them to their own destiny.  Our latest crusade is doomed to failure like all the rest in history.

[ Parent ]

this is amazing (none / 0) (#122)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 08:41:21 AM EST

islamonazis bent on creating a 13th century theocracy fly airplanes into office towers in a secular country...

and wthe us is the crusaders!

your blindness is stupefying!

Why aren't Muslim terrorists attacking Sweden, or Iceland, or New Zealand?

because they are attacking bali and chechnya and madrid you dumb blind fuck!

give it time and maybe those places WILL show up on their agenda!

the us wants to export democracy, and the isalmonazis want to export theocracy... pick one! do you think you have the luxury of not deciding and staying out of it?

you're so provincial and sheltered in your worldview, it's dumbfounding your ignorance of other peoples and cultures

democrayc is not an american concept, freedom is not the sole province of the west

believe it or not, it's a human concept

but saying that makes me a fundamentalist christian crusader



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

We made Bin Laden? (none / 1) (#117)
by cr8dle2grave on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 04:02:02 AM EST

How do you figure?

The US was hardly the party principally responsible for what transpired in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. That responsibility lies most obviously with the now defunct--in fact, if not not presently in spirit--Soviet regime.

The domestic Afghani resistance movements which sprung up to counter Soviet occupation weren't a US creation. The US definitely provided these groups logistical and material assistance through its Pakistani intermediaries, but there is no reason to believe that the situation would have played out altogether that differently had the US not involved itself. Those US supplied Stinger missles certainly made for some painful Soviet loses, but even at its most pitched height the Soviets were maintaining something in the area of of a 10 to 1 casualty rate. The Soviets were locked into a war of attrition with a guerilla force which had more willing bodies at its disposal than they had resolve.

The US had no significant part whatsoever in motivating the emergence of the pan-Islamic Jihadist movement which brought large numbers of mostly Arabs to Afghanistan to fight a war they were disposed to look on as a religious obligation. Just another case of coinciding interests. If any one country is primnarily responsible here, it's not the US but Saudi Arabia--by way of its finacial and operational support.

Or did you mean to suggest the US played a more immediate and personal role in "creating" Bin Laden?

Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera

[ Parent ]
what utter bullshit (none / 0) (#121)
by circletimessquare on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 08:34:38 AM EST

bin laden is not the ghost of cold war us sins past

bin laden has an agenda all his own

beleive it or not, you uneducated fuck, not everything that goes in the world is started by the all omnipotent all knowing usa

believe it or not, you dimwitted provincial fool, there are other peoples and societies and cultures out there, all capable of creating their own movements and ideas and saints and madmen

if the usa turned into a giant lake tomorrow, bin laden would not shout "allah ackbar!" and become a sheep farmer!

he would go right on with his murdeorus agenda: the creation of a 13th century theocracy the world over

how is such a stupefying dumbstruck concept possible?


the concept might be difficult for you to digest you inbred fool, but there's actually a big world out there beyond the borders of the us

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

"Own Agenda" (none / 0) (#133)
by sukiari on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 04:06:02 AM EST

Sure, buddy. It is because you say it is.

[ Parent ]
It Hardly Matters (2.43 / 23) (#21)
by Peahippo on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 02:51:22 PM EST

I dunno about you all, but Bush impresses me as the kind of man who already has the "nuked American city" post-event speech all planned out. He's willing to push things to that point, since militarization of the world only fits into his viewpoint (the sick mixture of Capitalism, poverty, and Christian Rapture theory). Since he's surrounded by an incredible security apparatus, it's very likely he'll avoid or escape anything that happens, so it'll just be the peasants who have to suffer from military and terrorist strikes.

We may as well just call him King George. He has all the power and attitude of the old European royals. The Dukes and Barons of American society tend to support him. About half of the dumbass peasants think he's appointed by God, and the other half fear him. Yes, "King George" fits quite well.

Even if the King is deposed by January 20th, just think what the next Republican President will try to do. The last 3 (Reagan, BushI, BushII) set the stage for worldwide use of nuclear weapons. In 2009, President J. Falwell will take office on Jan. 20th, then launch a nuclear strike on N. Korea on Jan. 21st.

Fascism. America has lusted after it for years. It's now unstoppable. If I were you, I'd make sure I was armed, and had a enough canned goods and gold coins in storage.

Indeed (none / 1) (#28)
by GenerationY on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 05:49:43 PM EST

King George would fit very well indeed.

His Majesty was all powerful and all knowing. But he wasn't quite all there...

[ Parent ]

well, as long as you've mentioned it (none / 0) (#29)
by pyramid termite on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:31:53 PM EST

England in 1819

An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying king,--
Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow
Through public scorn,--mud from a muddy spring,--
Rulers who neither see, nor feel, nor know,
But leech-like to their fainting country cling,
Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow,--
A people starved and stabbed in the untilled field,--
An army, which liberticide and prey
Makes as a two-edged sword to all who wield,--
Golden and sanguine laws which tempt and slay;
Religion Christless, Godless--a book sealed;
A Senate,--Time's worst statute unrepealed,--
Are graves, from which a glorious Phantom may
Burst, to illumine our tempestous day.

Percy Bysshe Shelley

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]

Consider this... (2.33 / 3) (#41)
by jd on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:13:59 AM EST

Rapture theory talks a lot about the end of the world. A lot of Derby-ist apocolypse literature talks about the end of the world, the wiping out of a third of the world's population, etc.

President Reagan seriously believed the end of the world WAS nigh and there's strong evidence that he would have been very willing to turn the Book of Revelation into an actual event.

President Bush is a little less blatant about his end-of-the-world beliefs, but it is entirely possible that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a part of an ongoing attempt to bring it about.

(After all, in the eyes of Derbyists, Christ can't begin His thousand-year reign of the World until civilization has been destroyed. They really do see it as their duty, therefore, to be a part of that destruction.)

As a trivial aside, the Book of Revelation does not end with Christ's thousand-year reign. After Christ's reign, it talks of Satan rising up and having his thousand years of power, only then being overthrown and defeated.

Derbyists might like to consider, then, that democracy and civil liberty is about a thousand years old. Maybe this is Christ's "reign" and Bush's militarism is the foretold rise of Satanism. Hey, if you're going to apply religion to politics, it fits better than the Reagan/Bush doctorine.

[ Parent ]

Hello (1.16 / 12) (#23)
by ChaosMage on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 02:59:17 PM EST

Jews did WTC Al Queda did WTC Therefore; Al Queda is Jews. |=|

wtf? (none / 0) (#50)
by chacho on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:07:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe you missed that conspiracy theory... (none / 0) (#55)
by davidduncanscott on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 10:32:40 AM EST

the one that 9/11 was a Jewish plot to bring America into increased involvement in the Middle East. It went with the "all the Jews in the towers had advance notice" rumour.

Now that OBL has more or less taken credit, one theory or the other has problems, unless, of course, OBL is a Zionist tool.

[ Parent ]

Virginia, the forgotten victim of 9/11 (1.66 / 3) (#24)
by thankyougustad on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 03:00:16 PM EST

the attack on the Pentagon was mostly ignored

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

it was a military target (nt) (none / 1) (#37)
by circletimessquare on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 11:39:58 PM EST

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So was Pearl Harbor. (nt) (none / 1) (#39)
by Tyler Durden on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:07:11 AM EST

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE is a troll here at k5, even the editors, even rusty! -- LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

casualties (none / 1) (#43)
by Delirium on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 02:14:48 AM EST

Casualties inside the Pentagon: 125

Casualties in Pearl Harbor: 2,403

[ Parent ]

Not by me (none / 1) (#54)
by davidduncanscott on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 10:29:17 AM EST

I had a cube from which I could see the Pentagon (sorry, I was late to work that morning, although for anybody concerned with whether or not there really was a plane I could introduce them to eyewitnesses.)

At any rate, I haven't forgotten, and I hope always to remember Flight 93 as well -- it's just possible that those people saved my life.

[ Parent ]

0, Virginia sucks (n/t) (none / 0) (#68)
by debillitatus on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 07:51:15 PM EST

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

the attack was mostly obscured, for (in)security (none / 0) (#97)
by toliman on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:03:42 PM EST

if you look at the press coverage, the reason becomes more obvious that it wasn't a plane that collided and exploded, i.e. there is no collateral damage to the surroundings, the damage is confined to a small 10-15 meter section on the outside floors, and there's no debris around the crash site.

if it was a plane, it would have to be gliding in without fuel, without wings, and without engines, not even debris of wings/engines. the blast radius travels through the building in a linear direction, like a missile. the impact & heat is not substantial enough to ignite or melt the shrapnel pieces, each having enough velocity to travel several miles once sheared off the main fuselage, and there is no debris spotted anywhere else in virginia, as would be plainly obvious if a car/home/roadway/forest/ building was now embedded with small pieces of aircraft steel.

so yeah, i'd be asking more about what exactly crashed into the pentagon myself, but unless you somehow get a senate level hearing, it's likely going to remain very very classified.

i suppose the options are insurgents within the US military, stolen/misplaced weapons, local paramilitary or domestic US terrorists, or foreign agents with a very high level of skill, launching a strategic /guided missile from a domestic/commercial aircraft, or a military jet / vehicle. the options are that it was a military operation with military precision, or a very lucky fluke from am untrained militia/terrorist member.

i don't recall the eyewitness reports, and most all footage has been confiscated, it would be suggestive at best to speculate, but the evidence does not match for a very heavy, fast moving  aircraft at ground level to fly into a concrete structure, and leave no debris.
---------- Toliman ----------- Toliman.org. now defunct after the cripping of .au broadband.
[ Parent ]

I've heard this (none / 0) (#98)
by thankyougustad on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:32:58 PM EST

but then, an aquantice who works for the DoD assures me he saw the plane.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
Eye witness (none / 0) (#104)
by Alannon on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:09:35 PM EST

A friend of mine was across the river and watched the plane crash into the pentagon from her office window. And it was, in fact, quite clearly a plane.

[ Parent ]
The pentagon had been reinforced (none / 0) (#108)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:08:03 PM EST

The section of the Pentagon that was hit had been recently reinforced against the possibility of car-bombs, etc.. This contained most of the blast force. Casualties were low because it hadn't been fully re-populated.

As for plane debris not being left on the outside, remember that the airxraft had a forward inertia of over 400 miles/hour. That should be enough to embed any debries in the face of the building or further in.

In new York, I believe that most (if not all) of the aircraft debries that were found shot all the way thru the building.. For the pentagon, that would leave plane bits in the center courtyard.

Besides, if there was ever a legitimate military target in the US, I'd say that the pentagon would be it. Not as good a poster boy for gaining sympathy as the (entirely civilian) WTC towers, which had 10 times the victims.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]

Only time in history that black box not recovered (none / 0) (#127)
by mrt on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:27:33 AM EST

on a land based crash.

Since the introduction of the black-box flight recorder, there are only three instances of a black-box not being recovered from a over-land crash, and they all occurred on 11 Sep 2001.

At the WTC site, jet-engines were recovered, and with the buildings collapsing an all, there was a much smaller chance of that happening than at the Pentagon.

As for debris being embedded in the walls, perhaps you should look at some photos before putting that theory forward to avoid looking a fool.

Casualties were low because it hadn't been fully re-populated.

Yes, but the 2 million dollar question is "Who died in the Pentagon?". That is something that has recieved no coverage at all (that I've seen, if you have a link, please share).


I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
[ Parent ]
-1, "L'effroyable imposture" /nt (none / 0) (#128)
by Battle Troll on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:24:37 AM EST

Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Terrorists (2.64 / 17) (#27)
by Baldrson on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 05:22:52 PM EST

giuseppe furioso writes to the NY Times:
In your op-ed piece today ( The Osama Litmus Test: NY Times, 10/30/04) you call Osama bin Ladin ''this monster who killed 300 of our fellow citizens''. What then do you call George Bush who initiated a war against Iraq that has already resulted in more than one hundred thousand civilian deaths in a country with one tenth the population of the United States. And in the very next sentence you call him " this villain ". What then was Menchem Begun who ordered the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 which caused the deaths of 22,000 civilians? And do you have a name for his top general, the current Prime Minister of Israel who permitted the slaughter of 1500 mostly women and children at the Shabra and Shitlla refugee camps by a Christian militia unit that was under his operational command.

You call bin Ladin ''a deranged killer'' in the very next paragraph. What do you call the first President Bush who ordered a genocidal blockade of Iraq and of his successor Bill Clinton who continued it until it accounted for the deaths of over one and a half million human beings? And do you have a name for Madelaine Albright, who when asked by ''Sixty Minutes'' reporter Leslie Stahls if the deaths of 500,000 children from the blockade had been ''worth it'', did not hestitate and answered an emphatic, ''yes, I think it is worth it''.

You state that your reaction to the latest bin Ladin tape was that , '' he reminded everyone of the moral indignation we all felt on and after Sept 11'', as though the attack on the Twin Towers is the gold standard of the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Let me give you a little history lesson Dave: since its initial use as a weapon of war, the airplane has been responsible for at least 2,000,000 civilian deaths. And the United States is clearly in first place, accounting for probably 90% of that figure, while Britain is a distant second and the Third Reich an even more distant third.

-------- Empty the Cities --------

Geneva rights? (2.00 / 7) (#30)
by jeremyn on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 06:34:15 PM EST

Captured uniformed soldiers of a nation get rights under the Geneva convention. Spies don't get Geneva convention rights. Terrorists don't get Geneva convention rights. They're lucky to be alive.

When you don't wear a uniform, there is no way to distingush between you and a civilian. Terrorists are responsible for many unnecessary deaths.

Who defines (3.00 / 9) (#40)
by jd on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:59:23 AM EST

what a "terrorist" is? Bush has already redefined the term several times, to split it from the conventional meaning of a person fighting by means of terror. The Taleban are classed as terrorists, even though those were State-run soldiers in State-provided uniform. The Americans simply chose not to recognize them.

Many of the Iraqi "insurgents" are soldiers from the former Iraqi regime, making them legitimate and recognized resistance forces. Yet, again, they are classed as terrorists.

I'm not saying I agree with their actions or methods - I don't - but I do believe that the whole "terrorism" thing has been kidnapped by Bush and distorted for political gain.

Terrorists are groups such as ETA and the IRA, though these days the IRA is involved in the legitimate political processes that (might) eventually resolve Northern Ireland's long-standing problems.

The term has been horribly distorted to include environmental groups ("eco-terrorists") and the above-mentioned internationally-recognized bodies. It has become a label that can be used by whoever is in power to denigrate and humiliate anyone who thinks other than they do.

In my opinion, the abuse of language to control the reactions of the populace is the control of people through the emotion of fear. And that, my dear, IS terrorism.

[ Parent ]

expanding scope (none / 0) (#88)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:20:18 AM EST

It could be said that what you do is no better than the thing you're complaining about. Bush expands the meaning of terrorism to include states and their military. You expand the meaning to include anyone who makes such a statement. If expanding the meaning in order to provoke fear is terrorism, doesn't your statement make people angry or afraid of Bush? ;)

Still, I think you're not really treating the Bush doctrine fairly. From my understanding, he wasn't calling Taliban soldiers and Iraqi Republican Guards terrorists, the charge was more against the heads of state that they were complicit with terrorist actions. The claim was that the regimes were terrorist. It's similar to the division that we recognize easily in this country, that you can disagree with the government but support the troops, except that in those cases we disagree with the government and have to suppress their troops in addition to any terrorists that may be operating there.

Even now, in Iraq this administration is claiming that we are fighting former Baathists and terrorists. I don't think that when Iraqis dress up as police and launch a surprise attack, that this qualifies as being in uniform, for example. While they use this type of deception, they loose the status as soldier, just as Patrick Henry (an American revolution patriot) was hanged as a spy while operating without a uniform.

Both insurgency and terrorism is going on in Iraq. Because we face both challenges, they tend to be treated the same especially by the media and thus the confusion on the public perception. And maybe this confusion is exploited, but I think if the administration made this exact claim, the detractors would seize on it. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this administration has said that all of the insurgents are terrorists. If you can, guide me to some instances if they do; I'd rather avoid the somewhat typical online rhetoric we hear from either side.

I drank what?

[ Parent ]
Civilians (none / 1) (#80)
by driptray on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 02:59:31 AM EST

When you don't wear a uniform, there is no way to distingush between you and a civilian.

Yes, and the hundreds of innocent civilians in Guantanamo, and the thousands in the prisons of Iraq are testament to this.
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Irregular forces have Geneva rights. (3.00 / 2) (#107)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:56:33 PM EST

Irregular forces with an identifiable chain of command have Geneva convention rights.

The exception is meant to apply to 'spies' and clandistine resistors pretending to be civilians.
Most of the fighters captured in Afghanistan don't seem to qualify for the exception.

BTW: Under bush's criteria, the armed 'independant contractors' who are assigned to do even vaguely combat-related duty in Iraq and Afghanistan would also be susceptible to the Geneva convention exception -- and there are a LOT of them who would now have no protection (either legal or moral).
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]

Geneva rights! (none / 0) (#130)
by EKzwo on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 12:50:57 AM EST

In order to qualify for the protection of the Geneva Convention you must - besides being introduced to an aligned chain of command (not neccessarily an organized army or even a nation) - be identifyable as a combattant, thus not concealing your weapons whilst conduction military operations, and there must be a distinctive visual mark allowing both your own and enemy troops to determine on which side you are. Just to make this section complete, no, you may not use your enemies' method of visual identification (e.g. leave his flag on a captured tank). If you do, you loose the protection of combattants founded on the Geneva Convention.

This is where things are getting interesting. While e.g. spies and mercenaries(!) are non-combattants according to the Geneva Convention, they may not be treated in any way that pleases their capturers. The GC requires that these people must - if there is any doubt about their status - be treated like POWs, if their status is clear, they must have a fair trial infront of a non-aligned court that will sentence them to whatever punishment applies to their crimes (e.g. murder if they killed a soldier what would be considered a normal act of warfare and thus no crime if commited by a combattant).

So, if you compare that to Guantanamo, we have: Non-combattants (according to the Bush administration) that are held captive (but not given the rights of POWs - e.g. not being forced to state anything else but their name and rank) and face - if at all - trials in front of military courts (that would otherwise judge on members of their own military, only, so you can't consider these non-aligned). They are held there for an unlimited amount of time without being on trial or just even having ever seen any inquisitor (just consider yourself being suddenly imprisoned with no court to appeal to and no charges to rebut).

Another interesting question is, which law should be applicated to these cases - the US law? since when does the US law apply to Afghanistan? so should the courts' decisions be based on the Sharia law that was effective in Afghanistan at that time? I did neither find an answer to that question nor - even more disturbishing - any qoute that would hint that the Bush administration is eager to impose any law at all.

Now, that may seem a little far off for most of you guys, but if you lived in AFG and any relative would be captured and displaced to Guantanamo (given that you neither know on which accusations and whether they are true) - what would your sentiments towards the capturers be, if you would recieve the information summed up in the paragraph above? Sure, this wont lead to people blowing up skyscrapers in the US, but it does give you a clue why US troops are - impartial from what their media offices would like you to think - failing so hard on gathering any human intelligence about terrorist and Taleban activity in either AFG or Iraq. The more paranoid a person will be, the more likely he will fear that he might one day be captured on similar - maybe nonexistant - charges and will join whatever kind of resistance there is. This is why the US military is under constant attack not only from Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists (that, just BTW could not have operated under the Saddam regime as he feared any force that was not under his complete control), but also from previously nonaligned civilians.

I see that there is neither a solution fighting terrorism in a completely different way nor a way of getting out of the Iraqi mess Bush drove the US into that will please any party, but the lack of considering non-military options, sideeffects, consequences and the incredibly naive approach towards those who share the most bitter burden from these politics (and these are certainly not the US citizens) showed to be way to effective in getting things from worse to even more worse.
Woooops, I'm leaving the topic, so I will just stop discussing this isse.

[ Parent ]
Why this Michael Moore Fan wants Bush to Win (2.52 / 17) (#36)
by harrystottle on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:57:23 PM EST

Like it. But I suspect you've got little chance of getting voted up.

I was toying with the idea of putting this up as Diary item but I think it is pertinent here. It is an email I sent to Michael Moore on the 23rd of August. (I added a couple of links for this article)

Dear Michael

I'm one of your loyal brit fans. My (American) wife and I sent 23 copies of Stupid White Men instead of Christmas cards in December 2002 (after watching your live show at the Roundhouse). We've watched F9-11 twice and intend to get the DVD as soon as you release it (please make sure that you don't let the distributors do something stupid like "Outfoxed" which is only available for "region 1" (the USA) so we can't watch it over here).

I think we qualify as "committed"!

My only (major) criticism of F9-11 was the absence of any explicit reference to the "Project for a New American Century" in the film. (at least, none that I recall) You obviously know about that and how it is virtually the blueprint (drafted and published in the mid to late 90s) for what the Bush administration has been putting into practice since 9-11. Its exclusion must have been a strategic decision. I'd be fascinated to know your reasoning.

In any case, you'll be surprised, in the light of my obvious support for your cause, to hear that I'm hoping for a Bush victory in the November election. You might be interested to know why.

In short, whoever wins the next election, I am painfully confident that things (meaning terrorism generally and particularly attacks against American - and British - interests) are going to get a lot worse rather than better. If that were to happen under a Democrat president, the Republicans, with the help of the supine American media, will be able to blame them and return to power for another attempt at re-imposing their repressive puritanism on America and the rest of the world.

We need it to become very VERY clear, not just to the world but to republican voters in particular - even to Fox News - exactly who is responsible for the mess we are going to be in by, say, 2008. We need, above all, for the PNAC, its authors and its supporters to be thoroughly exposed, revealed and reviled for the dangerously naive simplistic apologists for imperialism that they really are. We need to have and to see their approach to world affairs as thoroughly discredited as fascism was by the Second World War. We need the American voters to understand that they cannot create a world in their image and nor can they operate in isolation from the rest of the world.

Putting the democrats back in the White House half way through the implementation of the master plan will just muddy the water, perhaps even give the GOP a breathing space to regather their forces and do a "better" job next time.

Your film has clearly already done an enormous amount to wake up "middle America" to the fact that they are sleepwalking towards a Police State. I fear, however, that a narrow Democrat victory will not provide the necessary mandate to roll that repressive tendency back under the stone from which it emerged. I fear that the only way you - as a Nation - will exorcise that demon permanently is to let the religious right and its conservative supporters impose the kind of total control over society which appears to give them wet dreams. Then, when the next 9-11 happens and kills twice as many Americans despite the burgeoning Police State and despite the overarching alleged Security; only then will middle America understand that the repressive approach is just as disastrous as the complacency which allowed the first attack. Only then will they begin to understand that Security which impinges on Liberty is utterly self defeating. And only then will we see enough Americans remembering that they are supposed to be the "Land of the Free" and turning on their puppet masters to tear them limb from limb (metaphorically, of course).

That might make it look almost like I'm "hoping" for a successor to 9-11 and 6000 more American victims. Of course I don't. But I'm convinced it - or something worse - is inevitable and, if you've got to have it at all, then we need it to happen on Bush's watch, with Herr Rumsfeld running the show. We need their failure to be absolute and unequivocal.

For me, therefore, the best result this time round would be a clear Bush victory - more than 55% - so that there is no question, this time round, of his legitimacy as President.

The worst result would be a narrow Democrat victory (50:50) which would not provide a mandate for change. It would just expose the continuing split in the American psyche. If the Democrats are to win, then their victory must be so overwhelming that it leaves no shadow of a doubt in the minds of the authors of the PNAC that their philosophy has been utterly rejected by the American citizenry. So my second best result would be a Democrat victory by a margin of, say, 70% to 30% or something of that ilk.

It is indeed possible - if the feedback you're getting from (ex) republicans is representative - that such a massive victory is achievable. Realistically, though, the result is likely to be a narrow victory for one side or the other, in which case, it has to be the Republicans. You need to give them all the rope they need to hang themselves.

I recognise that this entails forcing America to live through the agony of 4 more years of Bush and that is a huge sacrifice to ask his enemies to make. In the longer term, however, it will mean that Bush-like emperors will become much less likely in future. The rest of the World needs that reassurance.


Harry Stottle

Mostly harmless
you just dont have a clue do you (1.20 / 5) (#46)
by forgotten on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 05:01:04 AM EST



[ Parent ]

I agree that (possibly) the best thing (2.66 / 3) (#47)
by the sixth replicant on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 06:22:06 AM EST

for America is another 4 years of the neocons. Ther American people really need to see how radical these people are. But of course there is also a side of me that doesn't want W in for 4 more years. One of them is that he and his administartion might fuck up the world so much that we can't reverse the damage they have done (cough Reagan cough Iraq cough). Also if they do get out of office they would just go on a witch hunt, as they did with Clinton, making it impossible to have any other views heard other than those of the christian right.


BTW I think you do have a clue.

[ Parent ]

Umm (none / 0) (#102)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:46:43 PM EST

The neocons completely discredited themselves during the Cold War.  Perhaps you've heard of this.  They were revealed as paranoid dreamers whose opposition to diplomacy with the USSR set back the end of the Cold War and caused many, many deaths in the peripheral South and Central American conflicts.

And they still came back.  They're fucking Freddy Krueger.  The only way they'll stop screwing up the world is if they're not allowed access to power.  Democrats have to win for this to happen.

Understand this:  America is not learning the hard lessons from what it has already done.  Perhaps the international community has trouble seeing this, but most Bush supporters believe completely the lies the admin has spread, including those that have been debunked years ago, like the Iraq/9-11 ties.  They refuse to stop believing false things.  4 more years of Bush won't teach them any lessons that the last 4 didn't.

[ Parent ]

agree and disagree (none / 0) (#115)
by maccha on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:58:13 AM EST

The neocons completely discredited themselves during the Cold War.

Unfortunately the only thing average American voters learned from the cold war was a conditioned response to the word "socialism".

They were revealed as paranoid dreamers whose opposition to diplomacy with the USSR set back the end of the Cold War and caused many, many deaths in the peripheral South and Central American conflicts.

This is all so true, and yet so totally irrelevant to voters.

The only way they'll stop screwing up the world is if they're not allowed access to power. Democrats have to win for this to happen.

No. By definition, if they were not allowed access to power then democracy would have to lose.

America is not learning the hard lessons from what it has already done.

America is powerful enough that it doesn't need to learn lessons. The learning process will not start until the country is sufficiently weakened that it has no alternative.

It will take at least another 4 years of benighted neo-con leadership to make America that weak.

(Or am I just talking a load of crap?)

[ Parent ]
Neocons can't get power on their own (none / 0) (#124)
by Mason on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 03:52:51 PM EST

The neocon foreign policy agenda doesn't carry that much clout.  Conservatives aren't really in love with it.  In 2000 they thought they were voting for a guy who would strengthen our military while at the same time never engage in the military interventions or nation-building that they'd decried under Clinton.  Instead, they got the neocons and their wacky schemes.

Neocons cannot survive in a democracy on their own.  If Bush had campaigned under a slogan of "Invading and Remaking the Middle East", he wouldn't have even carried Texas. They only ever have access to power as parasites on the social conservative movement.  While I feel that the theocrat/neocon/conservatarian axis needs to be pretty well invalidated, giving them more power is not the way to do it.

Nor is it acceptable to just let them burn out America.  America is stretching the limits of our volunteer army at the moment, but if we experienced a WW-style mobilization there'd be more than enough power to devastate pretty much anything you care to name.  We couldn't rule it or rebuild it, but we could hurt the world.  Letting the neocons keep on running the show and hoping that they'll weaken America is just a farce;  a "weak" America would scare them shitless, and there would be a draft.

America can recover from Bush.  Jesus, you guys make it sound like we've been infected by ebola or something.  Fighting conservatives in the corporate-run media is hard and demoralizing, but it's about the only game in town.  Have a little faith in the American Left, though.  We're angry but calm, vast but organized.  We don't want to eliminate any voices from our democracy, or dominate the national discourse, but we'll be damned to hell before we let these people shame America again.

We've recovered from worse than Bush.  Give it a chance.  Ignorance is always self-defeating, reason will always triumph in the long run.

[ Parent ]

i actually agree with your thinking (none / 0) (#118)
by the sixth replicant on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 04:13:37 AM EST

but i think they only way to weed the republicians is to destroy the christian right's strangle hold on the GOP and, I'm sorry to say, the only way of doing that (without a full blown civil war) is to discredit them totally. The trouble is that the chrisitian right have "won" the moral battles (qv Clinton) and the neocons have "won" the Cold War. Yep they won't see the error of their ways until maybe its too late. But if you just push them to the side (as a Dem win will do) they will still be waiting in the wings and fucking up every non-neocon policy in their way.

Of course if we do let them win then we'll be so mush closer to a WWIII. One not fought with tanks but fought with dirty bombs - maybe we're there already.


PS Is it me or does Bush's administration look like the administration of chickenhawks you'll get if they just played FPS video games all the time and never understood about the tragedy of war.

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily (none / 1) (#125)
by Mason on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 04:08:08 PM EST

Republicans represent a small population that votes heavily and has a lot of money to influence the media.  Democrats represent a large population that doesn't vote very often and has pretty little media clout.  As the majority of Americans gets more socially aware, educated, and media-savvy, the right doesn't stand a chance with its current coalition.  Hence the desperation, hence the need for ridiculously aggressive media control, hence the need for voter suppression, particularly among minority populations.

The Christian Right keeps losing ground.  Gay marriage was supposed to be the social wedge issue that defined this race.  Now we have both Cheney and Bush saying that they essentially taking Kerry's "liberal" position of supporting the right of states to decide about gay marriage.  There are a lot of stupid reactionary religious Americans, but just not enough to allow bigotry to pass as public policy.  Abortion is about the only wedge left, and bans on the most controversial procedures (which are almost never used anyways) are taking a lot of punch out of the pro-life movement.

History has shown us that progressivism always tends to win, given enough time.  Even with the surge of fundamentalist Christians, their basic beliefs are far more moderate than the religious right of prior decades.

The Republican party is twisted, yes, but not beyond repair.  If McCain had won in the 2000 primary then this would be a fundamentally different nation, regardless of how he did against Gore.  There are moderate Republicans and social conservatives who aren't fundamentalist in nature.  They need to fight in order to win their party back from the far-right.

[ Parent ]

More bush (3.00 / 3) (#53)
by Fred_A on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:36:49 AM EST

Well, I too think it would be a good thing if Bush got reelected, mostly so that counter powers to US dominance finally got organized in Europe. A real backlash towards the US seems to be a good thing for the worls in general IMO.

Your point holds water too though.

Fred in Paris
[ Parent ]

How sad (none / 0) (#89)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:48:33 AM EST

Is this a fair summary: "Since people are going to die anyway, I want their deaths to politically support my ideas."

On the one hand, it's obvious that you oppose Straussian philosophy, but on the other hand you're not opposed to using similar Machiavellian tactics.

I'm having a hard time reading this any other way.

I drank what?

[ Parent ]
Au Contraire (none / 0) (#92)
by harrystottle on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 01:42:41 PM EST

>>Is this a fair summary: "Since people are going to die anyway, I want their deaths to politically support my ideas."

>>On the one hand, it's obvious that you oppose Straussian philosophy, but on the other hand you're not opposed to using similar Machiavellian tactics.

>>I'm having a hard time reading this any other way.

I hope I can help. You have the emphasis exactly 180 degrees out. No, I do not want their (or any) deaths to support my ideas.

Nor, however, do I want to see a democrat administration be blamed for the inevitable security failures (and resultant deaths) which we are going to witness over the next few years and which are entirely attributable to the neocon mishandling of the problem. It is clear that America is, by and large, confused and ill informed about what has been done in their name. I believe it will take another Bush term to clarify the issues for the majority of Americans.

I do not, incidentally, believe that there will necessarily be MORE deaths as a result of a Bush re-election, because Kerry will be forced (unless he gets a huge mandate and both houses return Democrat majorities) to pursue roughly similar security policies.



Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
American memory is short-term (3.00 / 2) (#95)
by CivisHumanus on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 06:13:19 PM EST

The Empire always was, is and will continue to proliferate.  Rest assured, a few terrorist attacks under 4 more years of a Bush administration is not going to change anyone's minds within the administration, nor the voting public.

The shenanigans of the high-priests of American foreign policy are well-documented and reach back many decades : Philippines, Mexico, Indochina, South America, the middle-east. The list is long, and the conquest of Iraq is only the latest.

You must be joking if you think foreign policy will get a rude awakening and turn 180 degrees after 4 more years of a failed Bush administration instead of, god-forbid, being strengthened.

In 228 years of documented American history, have you any proof that lends credence to your theory ?

[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (none / 0) (#96)
by harrystottle on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 06:39:16 PM EST

I'll consider your question and get back to you.

Meanwhile, in any case, I may be having second thoughts...

(well, more like one thousand and second but who's counting...)


Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
After 4 more Bush years A Republican replacement? (none / 0) (#105)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:41:50 PM EST

If Bush stays in for another 4 years and proves his failure, what you'll see in the last year or so is a 'republican revolt' where they pretend to turn their back on them as they find a replacement who will really take the terrorists to task (probably by more HR violations and hatred).

They will lay the blame on bush, but could easily continue the repressive policies once they've replaced him.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]

Quaint but misguided (none / 0) (#101)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:39:35 PM EST

It would be lovely if American Dems could just leave Bush and crew holding the bag.  Trust me, most of us have more than a little trepidation for what the next 4 years will hold for Kerry.  The second he's in power every attack on an American soldier will become a horrific tragedy, whereas before they were ignored as commonplace and dull.  Iraq is unstable and just as likely to get worse, no matter who is at the helm, and Kerry would take the fall for all that.

But in the end, we Dems are idealists.  Bush has done so much damage that sitting back with a tub of fried chicken and watching him flail about in his fantasy world for 4 more years would certainly be the easier option, but we just can't ignore the real people who get hurt and killed by it.  Being handed "control" of a deteriorating situation is a nasty burden, but we can only let so much injustice be done in our name and with our money.

In many ways you fail to understand the state of perpetual blindness that many Americans live in.  A Bush re-election would completely reinforce the cognitive dissonance that has allowed about half our electorate to believe demonstrably false things for extended periods of time.  The best solution is to try and snap people back to reason as quickly as possible;  the longer they spend inhabiting a fantasy world the more they buy into the lies it is based upon.

I have no illusions about how rough the next 4 years will be, and how Bush's defeat will stir up a nest of angry Republican hornets, who will be obsessed with Kerry's defeat at any cost to the nation.  It still has to be done.  Eight years of Bush would be twice as damaging as four, and with a Supreme Court seat coming open soon this could be a very different nation if Bush is allowed to remain in office.

It'd be nice of socially aware folk on the other side of the pond could offer us a little solidarity on this one.

[ Parent ]

I don't agree (none / 0) (#103)
by Nyarlathotep on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:11:09 PM EST

Europe is going going to stand up to the U.S., and neither is China.  No one is going to take the neo-cons down if they take over.  We need to prevent the U.S. from becoming Nazi Germany, not try to fast forward to the end of the carnage.  To do this, we need are periodic examples of good leadership.

Fiscal concervatives are defecting to the democrats now.  Kerry can not help but do a better job gainning foreign asistance in the reconstruction / retreat in Iraq, which will please fiscal conservatives.  He can use Clinton's fool proof budget balancing "pay as you go" tricks too.  With periodic bursts of obvious sanity, like Clinton and Kerry, the fiscal concervatives will eventually jump ship.

Your saying that circumstances are everything to a president, but that is just not true.. being able to think outside of ideological boxes is incredibly powerful.

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]

Kerry is able to change course. (none / 0) (#106)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:46:31 PM EST

Kerry is able (and, I hope, willing) to change course from Bush's happy wandering into Bin Laden's minefield. Yes, he'll probably hit a few more mines on the way out, but it's far better than 4 more years of wandering thru the minefield, and then having to find your way out.

In either case, a Democrat sucessor is going to have to deal with the hole that the republican have dug for us... the only question is: How deep will the hole be? Bush is really good at digging America it's own grave.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]

-1 (1.00 / 2) (#42)
by Run4YourLives on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 02:03:48 AM EST

Learn how to use parentheses (brackets).

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
Last paragraph is gold (2.94 / 19) (#57)
by Patrick2 on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:29:38 PM EST

Rising extremism is it's own justification. Once it takes hold, extremism on either side becomes justification for rising extremism on the other and vice-versa.
It needs to be repeated over and over again. Too many people on this board seem to have lived in a terrorism vaccum for too long to learn about this phenomenon.

If you look at the US's cultural relative, Europe you see a long history of learning from trial-and-error approaches.

Northern Ireland and Spain have to deal with deeply rooted terrorism for decades. They employed all sorts of measures yet no amount of force has shown lasting results. To the contrary negotiations have paved the way in N. Ireland. Force has failed due to the limitations imposed by the civil-liberties of society.

The US government pretends that there has never been a comparable terrorism problem requiring new approaches. This assumption as well as the argument derived from it are simply not true. The differences are marginal and the solution paths differ even less.

The only thing truly new about international terrorism is the way it is perceived by US citizens and other likewise terrorism-isolated nations.

Examples? (none / 0) (#114)
by DoorFrame on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:47:08 AM EST

The examples you give a poor analogies for the current situation.  They're both internal terrorists carrying on internal struggles with internal goals.    The terrorists in Spain and England both wanted an independent state built on terrority held by their home nations.  The same cannot be said about the current international terrorist situation.  Al Qaida doesn't want to an independent state within the US.  I don't think anyone would be very happy if Bin Laden set up a little fort in Alaska, including him.

 To say that current situation is not unique is fine, but you've got to back it up with examples that show that it's not unique.  

[ Parent ]

examples (none / 0) (#129)
by Patrick2 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:13:47 PM EST

The analogies are rather closely related considering the role of society and its government. If you look at them as historical blueprints you will be disappointed. Contrary, the analogies hold true for its impact on society and the available countermeasures for government.

Terrorism is just the mean to an end.

From the perspective of a democratic society terrorism is an illegitimate attempt to influence policy. It does not matter to the victims what passport the terrorist had nor does it matter what (il)legitimate goals they claimed to have. The solution paths are similar too and include among strong-arm politics also a review of that said policy to strengthen the more peacefully-minded yet sympathizing people.

This also applies to the US. The terrorists want a certain policy to be changed. It may be a new feature that they are the first to demand a foreign policy change but then again it does not matter on either the problem or the solution side. This is why I brought up these countries.
Both the IRA and the ETA struck also targets on foreign soil making it international terrorism as well. Additionally, you might want to look at the hijackings of the 70s and 80s, the redbrigades or the RAF at that time in Germany. The last two were successfully obliterated by weakening their social support.

[ Parent ]

Muslims are way hardcore (1.25 / 4) (#66)
by debacle on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 04:27:02 PM EST

Much more hardcore than, say, fat lazy christians.

And the Jews (In the US at least) are too fucking ignorant to bother.

For these reasons, the Middle East freaking rocks.

It tastes sweet.

agreed (none / 0) (#69)
by dammahum on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:54:03 PM EST

jesus = celibate pacifist
muhammad = great conquerer with 13 wives

[ Parent ]
Where in the Bible says Jesus was celibate?(nt) (none / 0) (#73)
by cburke on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:40:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Guess it depends on who you talk to (none / 0) (#76)
by UCF BullitNutz on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 01:01:16 AM EST

seems like he may have had a fling with Mary Magdalene according to some sources. However, in the KJV and other mass-endorsed versions (especially the fundie-endorsed versions) it alludes to his celibacy. No way really to tell without somehow asking Jesus himself. Or "hisself" if you're from one of those areas. So, start praying, I guess. I'll just take the pretense that it's all up in the air (excuse the pun) at face value, as I tend to be apathetic about religion in that field.
" It ain't a successful troll until the admin shuts off new user registration for half a year." - godix
[ Parent ]
Jesus was gay (none / 0) (#82)
by Herring on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:09:40 AM EST

He was having a hot scene with Judas but it all went wrong and Judas went off in a hissy fit. Read that bit about the betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane. It all makes sense.

Say lol what again motherfucker, say lol what again, I dare you, no I double dare you
[ Parent ]
Christians were once "hardcore", too (none / 1) (#81)
by ak1 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 03:55:33 AM EST

About 1000 to 500 years ago, Christians were at least as "hardcore" as today's Muslims.

Remember the Crusades? Christians are still known cruel cannibals that slaughter innocent and roast and eat their children. That's what they really did on their way from Europe to Jerusalem. The same with Spain: during the time where Muslims ruled there, Muslim, Christians and Jews happily lived together, with no ethnic issues. Then some other Christians tried to "free" Spain from them, and did not only drive most of the Muslims out of "their" country, but also chased Jews and Gnostics, and put them on "trial" (torture, that is) before the Spanish Inquisition.

The current phenomenon of Islamic extremism is not unique to Islam - it can be observed in almost any religion, also in "Western" ones.

[ Parent ]
This has nothing to do with Terrorism (1.33 / 3) (#67)
by D Jade on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 05:53:08 PM EST

So, what does this do for Bush's much-touted war on terror?

Who cares? It's quite obvious that the "benevolent" leader of the US needs a new advertisement for his election bid... That's all it's about... "See what will happen my fellow countrymen: Osama did blow up the WTC and he'll blow you up too if you vote for John Kerry."

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive

The weird thing (none / 0) (#100)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:25:42 PM EST

Strikes me strange that all the pundits call this video as helping Bush.  It hasn't changed the polls, and the reason why is simple:  the fact that Osama exists demonstrates Bush's fundamental failure.

So while the punditry foams about the tape, a decent number of voters are just waking up to realize that the man who attacked us and killed thousands still hasn't been caught, and they don't like how that feels.

[ Parent ]

No (1.00 / 8) (#74)
by ShiftyStoner on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:43:09 AM EST

 In a little place I like to call realety. The truth is bush is the terrorist, the enemy, the patholigical liar, the mass murderer, the coward, the manipulative psychopath.

 The fact is no one knows who is reasponsible for the trade towers attacks. Bush quickly, almost imediatly if you remember put blame on al quida. Who knows, maybe Bush himself is reasponsible for the attack. Either that or he has no idea who did it, either way, osama was just a scapegoat. Because somone had to be held responsible, why not somone you allready hate.

 The thing about the tape is, those arent really osamas words. Thats why this is the first youve heard of him take full responsibility. Because an american is reasposible for the speach. being an American they automaticaly assume osama was behind sep 11th.

 Anyways, the goal of this speach is obviously to get Bush relected. Why would osama want that?
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler

Translations (3.00 / 2) (#78)
by theantix on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 02:41:00 AM EST

The thing about the tape is, those arent really osamas words. Thats why this is the first youve heard of him take full responsibility. Because an american is reasposible for the speach. being an American they automaticaly assume osama was behind sep 11th.

Here is a transcript by that always-USA-friendly Aljazeera.  If you're going to try to apply a conspiracy theory to this, it's not that the translation was faked.  I'm sorry, but that would be so fucking easy to catch that wouldn't even make sense.  On the other hand, it would be much simpler to fake the entire tape.

Anyways, the goal of this speach is obviously to get Bush relected. Why would osama want that?

Assuming that the tape was real, UBL has a lot of good reasons to want Bush in office.  The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were ideal marketing for his resistence movement, and if you've read anything about UBL you'd know that he is more than happy to live in a nondescript cave in abject poverty for indefinate periods of time.

You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]

Bin Laden for Bush (3.00 / 2) (#83)
by anno1602 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:47:13 AM EST

Anyways, the goal of this speach is obviously to get Bush relected. Why would osama want that?

Easy. If we assume that Bin Laden's goal really is a war of the cultures - west against middle east - his strongest ally in reaching that goal is Bush. It takes two to party, and Bush has immediately responded very aggressively and is somewhat extremist in his views. With a guy who is that easy to manipulate in charge of the US and so willing to ecalate the conflict, the goal of a war will be so much easier to reach than with a President whose goal is de-escalation.
"Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." - Murphy
[ Parent ]
Ignoring the rest of your posting: (3.00 / 2) (#91)
by MKalus on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:42:32 PM EST

Anyways, the goal of this speach is obviously to get Bush relected. Why would osama want that?

Because Bush does a very good job to alienate the world. If he has another four years the damage he most likely will do to the international relations will put the US so far outside of the rest of the world that they are practicaly isolating themselve.

I guess Iraq already shows that "Pax Americana" will not happen.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

Muslims really likes America? (none / 1) (#113)
by Gerhard on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:37:17 AM EST

including (and especially) Muslims condemned the attack on the world trade tower ...
Including - Yes.
Especially - I don't think so. (I must have missed the mass anti AlQaeda marches)

Al Qaeda claim to 9-11 Bodes Ill | 134 comments (131 topical, 3 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!