Terror Attacks Against US At All-Time High

[NotNow]

 Re: Terror Attacks Against US At All-Time High
« Reply #32 on: Today at 12:11:53 AM » Quote  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: NotNow on Yesterday at 11:59:43 PM
Thank you Sam.  And I say God bless to them as well.  I have lost a few good friends, and I will think of them and pray for them this holiday weekend.

Jim, do you believe that if we completely pulled out of the Middle East, the region would be better off and we would not suffer any attacks by Muslim extremists?

Please dont pretend you give a shit about the Middle East on any other level than some paranoid need to feel safe and to have oil.  Just stop, this concern for Mid Easterners is fake!

I am trying to wrap it up with you, but you just can't stop can you?  You don't know me or what my concerns are.  That is obvious.


Quote
Do you think that they would see our withdrawal as weakness, and then press on attacks and demands for withdrawal of our support for Israel?

It would seem weak to some, but only to those who already "hate us for our freedoms" lol!  Israel has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, don't pretend like you know anything about Israel, because you don't know shit.

It does appear that someone doesn't know "shit".  You might want to review recent Middle Eastern history.  Ever been to Israel?  Think that the families of those Israelis that were killed by suicide bombers that were compensated by Saddam would agree withyou?  Do you think that Israel felt "involved when Saddam was firing missiles at them?  I don't claim to be an expert on Israel, but I have visited on an official basis several times and I know that they are a little more concerned about terrorism than you are.  And yes, they might even have a little fear in their minds after the leader in Iran threatened to wipe their country off the face of the Earth. Did you know something different?  I would be interested in hearing what insight you had on the Israeli's.


Quote
Would it stop then?

Would what stop?

Radical Islamic terrorism.


Quote
Or would the next demand be to but out in Pakistan when an Islamic government took over?  

Well since America enabled the Taliban who knows what they would do in Pakistan.

So how is it that America enabled the Taliban?  Serbs?  You are OK with the US staying home when Pakistan is overthrown by Islamic radicals?


Quote
Do you think that Iran is capable of using a nuclear weapon?

Clearly they are not, or if they were and as crazy as some of YOU claim, they already would have!

So you don't think that their threat to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and their threats of war with the US are "crazy"?  When they actually successfully develop one, then yes I think they will use it.  


Quote
What should be the response to that if they do?  A UN resolution? An Israeli nuke response?  An American nuke response or invasion?  

Can you tell me the first and only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on a population?

The United States against the Japanese Empire after an unprovoked attack.  We saved a lot of AMERICAN lives by doing that.  But you wouldn't have used it, would you?


Quote
The point of all these questions is to point out the fallicy of appeasement.  Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Just LOL...  You are perpetuating a false argument here.

I don't think so, and Teddy is on my side!

[Jim]

Thank you Sam.  And I say God bless to them as well.  I have lost a few good friends, and I will think of them and pray for them this holiday weekend.

Jim, do you believe that if we completely pulled out of the Middle East, the region would be better off and we would not suffer any attacks by Muslim extremists?  Do you think that they would see our withdrawal as weakness, and then press on attacks and demands for withdrawal of our support for Israel?  Would it stop then?  Or would the next demand be to but out in Pakistan when an Islamic government took over?  Do you think that Iran is capable of using a nuclear weapon?  What should be the response to that if they do?  A UN resolution?  An Israeli nuke response?  An American nuke response or invasion?  

The point of all these questions is to point out the fallicy of appeasement.  Speak softly and carry a big stick.

NN, the fallacy is that you see policy change as appeasement.  I could point out the whole Constitutional position on the issue but I'll save that part for another debate/post.

I'll try and answer each of your specific questions.   And before I go on, I want you to know that my wife spent 6 years in the AF.  She was in Qatar twice.  And my brother was a marine for 6 years having met his wife in Iraq.  So my views are not anti-military...I'm quite pro-military actually.  I just want you to understand my position comes from experiencing the problems or knowing those that have seen it all first hand.

Question 1:
Jim, do you believe that if we completely pulled out of the Middle East, the region would be better off and we would not suffer any attacks by Muslim extremists?
The region being better off is subjective.   But then again, I cannot see how we have stabilized anything.  Consider that we've put in power many of those tyrants, how are we really helping things?

Attacks against us would definitely drop IF we changed policy.  Completely cease?  No way to know though I do suspect a few would still harbor hatred if we've killed most of their family, had soldiers rape their family, destroyed their village, etc...   No doubt we do good there but we also do damage on unspeakable levels too.  The good never erases the bad to those that were affected by it.

Question 2:
Do you think that they would see our withdrawal as weakness?
Quite the opposite actually.  Remaining bullheaded and failing to acknowledge the truth and facts is the weak way.  It take real balls to admit when you are doing something wrong.  Nothing can be weaker than ignoring mistakes simply to show strength.

Question 3:
Do you think that they would press on attacks and demands for withdrawal of our support for Israel?
Possible.  But that's irrelevant.  As I said, a policy change is not appeasement.  We aren't giving in to their demands.  We are understanding our role and applying it better.  

Question 4:
Would it stop then?  Or would the next demand be to but out in Pakistan when an Islamic government took over?
Again, irrelevant.  Withdrawing from Israel would be on our own accord.  So continuing demand from the ME would still have no bearing on the policy.  But the real question is who are we to decide which government should and should not control Pakistan?   The people of Pakistan did not elect our officials so why are our officials dictating Pakistani government?  That makes our government a dictator by proxy.  How do you think we would feel if the Pakistani government decided we needed a different government, started bombing us, rounding up people in DC and imposed their own government and people?  When you put that shoe on the other foot, it starts to look less like the glass slipper we think we're giving them and more like an acid filled boot.

Question 5:
Do you think that Iran is capable of using a nuclear weapon?
Are we not members of the UN?  Do we not sit on the UN Security Council?  Did we not create and abide by the International Atomic Energy Agency?  Then with all this, why do we feel it necessary to circumvent the very agency's we've created to handle nuclear energy and weaponry with our own, very failed, anti-nuclear weapon enforcement?

Question 6:
What should be the response to that if they do?  A UN resolution?
If they do then the UN will decree them in violation of international nuclear weapon laws.  A response should never be unilaterally from us.  If they are a true thread then align with the whole world to oppose it.

We can speak softly and carry a big stick.  But we aren't.  We aren't speaking at all and we're aggressively attacking with a whole lot of big sticks and a lot of underhanded political trickery.

The irony is 'speak softly and carry a big stick' is very much the policy I'm alluding that we adapt.  It means communicate will all yet protect yourself when threatened.   We don't communicate with the ME and we are the aggressor.  Our policy now is strike first, ask questions later.

[NotNow]

A little education for you NN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-FLIBkTg8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbDMam_jGVk&feature=related


Quote from: NotNow on Today at 12:12:19 AM

JC,

You are right.  You are entitled to your opinion.  I strongly disagree with you, and I am disappointed when I hear someone rattle of the "blame America" talking points.  

Basic and primitive are probably good descriptors for me.  Life has taught me that most things are pretty basic.  If it walks like a duck, in real life it is probably a duck.  Think of me as stupid or scared if you wish.  I have spent my life under arms, and a few years on our present battlegrounds.  I see people who want to hurt and take from others every day.  The GI Bill even provided me with a BS degree so that I can cover a pretty good sized stain on my wall.  

I'll agree to disagree with you.  And I wouldn't share that 9/11 opinion of yours in any of the places that I frequent, if I were you.


What is it that makes you think America is above "blame" or question for its foreign policy decisions?  The connections between the involved parties are not coincidence.

What makes you think that the terrorist are NOT to blame?  How are you justifying killing innocent people?

As I have said before, it is a terrible tragedy when an innocent person dies, I just dont make a distinction between innocent people from America or Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan or where ever.

Um, OK.  And you believe that America is intentionally targeting innocents like the terrorist?


Quote from: NotNow on Today at 12:12:19 AM

I'll agree to disagree with you.  And I wouldn't share that 9/11 opinion of yours in any of the places that I frequent, if I were you.


Can you please explain this point, are you threatening me because it surely seems like you are.  

LOL...I'm warning you that you will get your ass kicked sideways by most everyone if you spout that opinion out.  

[samiam]

And in this corner

[JC]

A little education for you NN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-FLIBkTg8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbDMam_jGVk&feature=related


Quote from: NotNow on Today at 12:12:19 AM

JC,

You are right.  You are entitled to your opinion.  I strongly disagree with you, and I am disappointed when I hear someone rattle of the "blame America" talking points.  

Basic and primitive are probably good descriptors for me.  Life has taught me that most things are pretty basic.  If it walks like a duck, in real life it is probably a duck.  Think of me as stupid or scared if you wish.  I have spent my life under arms, and a few years on our present battlegrounds.  I see people who want to hurt and take from others every day.  The GI Bill even provided me with a BS degree so that I can cover a pretty good sized stain on my wall.  

I'll agree to disagree with you.  And I wouldn't share that 9/11 opinion of yours in any of the places that I frequent, if I were you.


What is it that makes you think America is above "blame" or question for its foreign policy decisions?  The connections between the involved parties are not coincidence.

What makes you think that the terrorist are NOT to blame?  How are you justifying killing innocent people?

As I have said before, it is a terrible tragedy when an innocent person dies, I just dont make a distinction between innocent people from America or Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan or where ever.

Um, OK.  And you believe that America is intentionally targeting innocents like the terrorist?


Quote from: NotNow on Today at 12:12:19 AM

I'll agree to disagree with you.  And I wouldn't share that 9/11 opinion of yours in any of the places that I frequent, if I were you.


Can you please explain this point, are you threatening me because it surely seems like you are.  

LOL...I'm warning you that you will get your ass kicked sideways by most everyone if you spout that opinion out.  

Clearly the people who decided to fly planes into the towers are guilty, they are the perpetrators of a terrible crime, and they killed people who did NOT deserve to die.  However, it is worth analyzing their stated reasons for attacking America and their relationship to American foreign policy.  Their are many people far smarter than I am who acknowledge America's role in the 9/11 attacks.  I am not saying that those who committed this atrocity should be absolved of guilt, however I am saying America should acknowledge the reasons and attempt (really hard) to prevent carrying out those policies which have subjugated and stolen from foreign people WHO NOW wish us harm.  

Yes, America has intentionally targeted civilians, or targeted cities without regard for civilian casualties.  Please watch Fog of War with Robert S. McNamara, he will confirm this charge.  More recently there were the attacks on Al Jazeera early on in the invasion.  

That's great that you would justify assaulting someone for expressing their opinion and using their first amendment rights to do so.  I know you don't care about the charge but if you simply cant have a discussion and disagree without resorting to violence you are pretty basic.

I love America's potential, its ability to do some pretty amazing things but when it gets off track it is up to patriots to set it right again!

[NotNow]

Jim,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

NN, the fallacy is that you see policy change as appeasement.  I could point out the whole Constitutional position on the issue but I'll save that part for another debate/post.

I would probably agree with your Constitutional argument.  

I'll try and answer each of your specific questions.   And before I go on, I want you to know that my wife spent 6 years in the AF.  She was in Qatar twice.  And my brother was a marine for 6 years having met his wife in Iraq.  So my views are not anti-military...I'm quite pro-military actually.  I just want you to understand my position comes from experiencing the problems or knowing those that have seen it all first hand.

Thank both of them for me.  And you.  I know it is difficult to hold down the home while the soldier is deployed.  Military spouse is a very under appreciated occupation.

Question 1:
Jim, do you believe that if we completely pulled out of the Middle East, the region would be better off and we would not suffer any attacks by Muslim extremists?
The region being better off is subjective.   But then again, I cannot see how we have stabilized anything.  Consider that we've put in power many of those tyrants, how are we really helping things?

The alternative is an eventual Middle Eastern strongman, a dictator.  We have stopped any well organized attacks on our country.  I agree that it is time for the governments there to take over their own security, but I would keep well prepared bases.  Which tyrants are ours?

Attacks against us would definitely drop IF we changed policy.  Completely cease?  No way to know though I do suspect a few would still harbor hatred if we've killed most of their family, had soldiers rape their family, destroyed their village, etc...   No doubt we do good there but we also do damage on unspeakable levels too.  The good never erases the bad to those that were affected by it.

I don't think that they would stop attacking us.  Hatred for the unbeliever is taught to the very young.  We have not killed whold families except the most strident families.  We have not had many (that I know of ) rapes of families.  Crimes of individual soldiers have been prosecuted.  And I don't know of any villages that we destroyed "on our own".

Question 2:
Do you think that they would see our withdrawal as weakness?
Quite the opposite actually.  Remaining bullheaded and failing to acknowledge the truth and facts is the weak way.  It take real balls to admit when you are doing something wrong.  Nothing can be weaker than ignoring mistakes simply to show strength.

Well, I guess that depends on what the "truth" is doesn't it?

Question 3:
Do you think that they would press on attacks and demands for withdrawal of our support for Israel?
Possible.  But that's irrelevant.  As I said, a policy change is not appeasement.  We aren't giving in to their demands.  We are understanding our role and applying it better.  

Withdrawing from protecting our interest and giving up on an ally of sixty years would definitely be seen and taken as as a victory for radicals there and a defeat for us.

Question 4:
Would it stop then?  Or would the next demand be to but out in Pakistan when an Islamic government took over?
Again, irrelevant.  Withdrawing from Israel would be on our own accord.  So continuing demand from the ME would still have no bearing on the policy.  But the real question is who are we to decide which government should and should not control Pakistan?   The people of Pakistan did not elect our officials so why are our officials dictating Pakistani government?  That makes our government a dictator by proxy.  How do you think we would feel if the Pakistani government decided we needed a different government, started bombing us, rounding up people in DC and imposed their own government and people?  When you put that shoe on the other foot, it starts to look less like the glass slipper we think we're giving them and more like an acid filled boot.

OK, I am good with that.  Do you let them have the nukes?  I say we have to make sure that they are destroyed .

Question 5:
Do you think that Iran is capable of using a nuclear weapon?
Are we not members of the UN?  Do we not sit on the UN Security Council?  Did we not create and abide by the International Atomic Energy Agency?  Then with all this, why do we feel it necessary to circumvent the very agency's we've created to handle nuclear energy and weaponry with our own, very failed, anti-nuclear weapon enforcement?

The UN?  Really?  No, there is a reason when people are in real trouble, they call for the US, not the UN.

Question 6:
What should be the response to that if they do?  A UN resolution?
If they do then the UN will decree them in violation of international nuclear weapon laws.  A response should never be unilaterally from us.  If they are a true thread then align with the whole world to oppose it.

Again, the UN?  Like the "strong " response to Iran thumbing their noses at the UN resolution?  

We can speak softly and carry a big stick.  But we aren't.  We aren't speaking at all and we're aggressively attacking with a whole lot of big sticks and a lot of underhanded political trickery.

The irony is 'speak softly and carry a big stick' is very much the policy I'm alluding that we adapt.  It means communicate will all yet protect yourself when threatened.   We don't communicate with the ME and we are the aggressor.  Our policy now is strike first, ask questions later.

I think that we communicate pretty well.  We send delagations and the Secretary of State all over the Middle East.    I still don't think we are "striking first" . I think we are "still responding".

[JC]

An interesting debate

On 9-11
Noam Chomsky debates with Bill Bennett
CNN, May 30, 2002
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: They are two best selling authors with two very different takes on terrorism. In his book, "9-11," Noam Chomsky accuses the United States of being a terrorist state. He says the war in Afghanistan is wrong, states that in recent history, America has committed acts of terrorism, and maintains that America's foreign policy is hypocritical.

In Bill Bennett's "Why We Fight," he says the war on terror is morally just. He maintains that democracy and human rights are America's noblest exports, and that we must be prepared to respond to anti-American critics. Talk about a war of words.

Well, Bill Bennett joins us now from New York, and Noam Chomsky joins us from Boston. Welcome, gentlemen. Great to have both of you with us.

BILL BENNETT, AUTHOR, "WHY WE FIGHT": Thank you.

NOAM CHOMSKY, AUTHOR, "9-11": Hello.

ZAHN: I would like to start off, professor, by reading a very small excerpt from your book where you write that nothing can justify crimes such as those of September 11, but we can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies, which are, after all, hardly a secret. What are you referring to here?

CHOMSKY: Well, for example, the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism. It is by no means the worst, and it continues right to the present, so for example...

ZAHN: Bill Bennett, your response to what the professor said, and then we will let him pick up from there.

BENNETT: It's quite extraordinary to hear a supposedly learned person call the United States a leading terrorist nation, one of the leading terrorist nations in the world. It's false and very treacherous teaching. In the situation Mr. Chomsky is talking about, of course, the United States supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The condemnation or judgment by the World Court was not that it was terrorism, but that we supported some unlawful activity. However, when there were free elections in Nicaragua, and Mrs. Chamorro took office, all the lawsuits, all the complaints against the United States were dropped, when you had a democratically elected country.

We have done more good for more people than any country in the history of the world. What I want to know of Mr. Chomsky is if he believes we are a leading terrorist state, he is obviously welcome in the United States, why do you choose to live, sir, in a terrorist nation?

CHOMSKY: First of all, the World Court condemned the United States for what it called "the unlawful use of force and violation of treaties."

BENNETT: Which is not terrorism.

CHOMSKY: That's international terrorism.

BENNETT: No, it is not.

CHOMSKY: Yes, it is exactly international terrorism.

BENNETT: No, it is not, sir.

CHOMSKY: Furthermore, the escalation to attack undefended civilian targets is just a classic illustration of terrorism. And furthermore, it continues right to the present, as I was saying, so for example...

BENNETT: It's quite...

CHOMSKY: May I continue?

BENNETT: Sure.

CHOMSKY: In the late 1990s, some of the worst terrorist atrocities in the world were what the Turkish government itself called state terror, namely massive atrocities, 80 percent of the arms coming from the United States, millions of refugees, tens of thousands of people killed, hideous repression, that's international terror, and we can go on and on.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Before you go further, let's give Bill a chance to respond to respond to the Turkish string (ph) of this -- go ahead, Bill.

BENNETT: America responsible for hideous repression and refugees? Why is it, Mr. Chomsky, whenever there are refugees in the world, they flee to the United States rather than from the United States? Why is it on balance, Mr. Chomsky, that this nation, when it opens its gates, has people rushing in? Why is it that it is this nation the world looks to for support and encouragement and help? We rebuilt Europe twice in this century, after two world wars. We liberated Europe from Nazi tyranny. We have liberated Eastern Europe in the last few years from communist tyranny, and now we are engaged in a battle against something else.

When we went in to Kabul, even the "New York Times" in mid- November showed pictures of people smiling at the presence of American troops, because this country was once again a force for freedom, and a force for liberation. Have we done some terrible things in our history? Of course we have. But as Senator Moynihan has pointed out, our people find out about them from reading the newspapers and watching television. When you look at this nation on balance, in terms of what good it has done and what bad it has done, it is grossly irresponsible to talk about this country as a terrorist nation, and to suggest, as do you in your book, that there is justification, moral justification, for what happened on 9/11. For that, sir, you really should be ashamed.

CHOMSKY: You should be ashamed for lying about what is in the book, because nothing is said -- in fact, the quote was just given, nothing can justify the terrorist attacks of September 11. You just heard the quote, if you want to falsify it, that's your business.

BENNETT: No -- well, I...

CHOMSKY: Just a minute -- did I interrupt you? Did I interrupt you?

ZAHN: Professor, let me jump in here, but implicit in that -- aren't you saying that you understand why America was targeted?

CHOMSKY: Do I understand? Yes, so does the U.S. intelligence services, so does all of scholarship. I mean, we can ignore it if we like, and therefore lead to further terrorist attacks, or we can try to understand. What Mr. Bennett said is about half true. The United States has done some very good things in the world, and that does not change the fact that the World Court was quite correct in condemning the United States as an international terrorist state, nor do the atrocities in Turkey in the last few years -- they are not obviated by the fact that there are other good things that happen. Sure. That's -- you are correct when you say good things have happened, but if we are not total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, we will pay attention to our own crimes. For one reason, because that's elementary morality -- elementary morality. For another thing, because we mitigate them.

ZAHN: All right, professor, I'm going to have to leave it there with you, Bill Bennett, and we have got to leave it to about 20 seconds.

BENNETT: It there any nation that acknowledges its errors and its sins and its crimes and the things it has done that are not consistent with its principles more than the United States? No, there is not.

This is also the man, just let it be said for the record, who said that the reports of atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were grossly exaggerated. This is the man who said when we engaged the Soviet Union that we...

CHOMSKY: No, it's not. But that is...

BENNETT: I didn't interrupt you -- that we were continuing the Nazi effort against Russia. Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country. Of course, there is a mixed record in this country, why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?

CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.

BENNETT: I think you should say greatest -- I think you should say greatest a little more often.

CHOMSKY: If you want to be a hypocrite...

(CROSSTALK)

BENNETT: I think you should acknowledge its virtues a little more often, Mr. Chomsky.

CHOMSKY: And you should acknowledge its crimes.

BENNETT: I do. Read my book. You will see it.

CHOMSKY: No, you never do. No, sorry. And if you want to...

BENNETT: I am reading other people's books.

CHOMSKY: If you want to know what I say, do not listen to Mr. Bennett's falsifications of which I just gave an example.

BENNETT: Read both books.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, we are going to have to cut off both of you there. Noam Chomsky, Bill Bennett, thank you for both of your thoughts, and I think probably the best course of action anybody can take out there, is buy both of your books so they can make their own judgment.

BENNETT: That's fine.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time.

CHOMSKY: Yes.

Chomsky much more eloquently sums up my position.

[NotNow]

Yeah, he is wrong too. 

Have a good night JC.

[JC]

LOL...I'm warning you that you will get your ass kicked sideways by most everyone if you spout that opinion out.  

Could you be more ironic here?  Do you see the irony in our disagreement and this statement?

[buckethead]

Much to the dismay of my fellow conservatives, I have found Chomsky to be on target quite often. I don't buy into his positions as an absolute, but I most certainly agree that the US has it's military "nose" in other peoples business.

I don't consider the US a terrorist nation, but I do recognize the need for us to withdraw from our self asserted role as enforcer of the will of the "one world" elites.

[JC]

Much to the dismay of my fellow conservatives, I have found Chomsky to be on target quite often. I don't buy into his positions as an absolute, but I most certainly agree that the US has it's military "nose" in other peoples business.

I don't consider the US a terrorist nation, but I do recognize the need for us to withdraw from our self asserted role as enforcer of the will of the "one world" elites.

I appreciate you voicing your opinion!  I know I am stereotyping to a degree, but its nice to know there are some conservatives who are willing to take an introspective look at American Foreign policy.