So How's That War on Terror Going?

Matthew Lee of the AP reports:

Terrorist attacks worldwide shot up 25 percent last year, particularly in Iraq, where extremists used chemical weapons and suicide bombers to target crowds, according to a new State Department report....

In its annual global survey of terrorism to be released Monday, the State Department says about 14,000 attacks took place in 2006, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan. These strikes claimed more than 20,000 lives - two-thirds in Iraq. That is 3,000 more attacks than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths.

Altogether, 40 percent more people were killed by increasingly lethal means around the globe....The number of child casualties from terrorist attacks soared by more than 80 percent between 2005 and 2006 to more than 1,800, while incidents involving educators were up more than 45 percent and those involving journalists up 20 percent, the report says.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I thought the general consensus on the war on terror is that it is a fiction and terrorism is not a threat or at worst a mild law enforcment nuissance to be taken care of in between SWAT raids to shut down unauthorized crationist peer review publications. Considering that, how can any of this be true?

  • ||

    You are soooo late on this one, Jesse.

    Anyway, yea, whatever...

  • Guy Montag||

    Yea, we should just try to talk to them. They are reasonable folks, just like the IRA and North Korea.

    The only reason they are attacking us is because we stole the wealth of the world and committing a genocide on them with no good reason.

    There, the party line is up for all to copy.

  • ed||

    I guess one could ask an Iraqi whether he'd prefer to die in a car blast or a torture chamber. A more meaningful measure would be Saddam-era deaths vs post-Saddam carnage.

  • 88Fingers||

    I don't care if attacks are up. Just more reason to blow the phuckers into millions of pieces.
    To slaughter an old potato chip commerical, "Make all the terrorists you want. We'll kill more."
    Besides, making terrorists shit themselves and blowing their guts into piss is about the only righteous use of my tax dollars I can think of these days.

  • ||

    Meanwhile, no attacks in the US. Remember, those attacks after 9/11 that everybody KNEW were coming? The ones that were inevitable? I see two possibilities here:
    A) The Jihadists decided they liked us after all
    B) Something we're doing is right

    However, I propose that we spend no time trying to figure out what we're doing right, and much more time shouting "Halliburton".

  • ||

    Increased terrorist attacks? That's impossible. Aren't we making the Middle East more secure with our presence? I will continue in disbelief as I sit here at my computer sipping a $5 cup of coffee.

  • Cesar||

    Dave-
    There have been two terror attacks since 9/11 in Spain and the UK. Spain had troops in Iraq at the time, and Britain still does.

    So if "fighting them over there so they don't come here" is so effective, why did two countries that had troops in Iraq get attacked? Why didn't, say, Sweden or Canada get attacked instead?

  • ||

    You need to read the article at the following link ...
    http://needsofthemany.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-if-i-were-to-tell-you-we-are-safer.html

    Terrorism has actually gone down around the world outside of Iraq. Proving that the world is safer because of the terrorists flocking to Iraq.

  • VM||

    "Why didn't, say, Sweden or Canada get attacked instead?"

    cuz the turbans aren't insulated?

    and ed - sadly, since controlling-power dispensed torture existed in post SH Iraq, the second comparison is probably better. sigh.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    Why didn't, say, Sweden or Canada get attacked instead?

    Colder weather.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    Well, that will teach me to check for VM comments before I hit the submit button. Anyway, the way I see it, the trick now is to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq but trick the terrorists into thinking they're still there. It's a win-win!

  • ||

    Some folk here are still conflating the war in Iraq with the "War on Terror".

    The reason we haven't had another attack on U.S. soil is not because of the war we're fighting in Iraq. Rather, it's the increased spying within the U.S. and the at-times over-zealous reactions to the most minuscule "threats" (see Boston, mooninites) that have kept another attack from occurring. Either that, or, like 9/11, these attacks take time to plot and we have yet to see the next one.

  • ||

    88Fingers = Hail Hitler Fingers?

    How...odd.

  • ||

    Remember, the war in Iraq is all about sectarian violence and the fight to instill a democratic government. The war on terror is a whole 'nother story.

  • ||

    Also, how much of this is due to dilution of the definition of "terrorism"?

    Seems like every couple of weeks some news story pops up where some poor schlub gets busted for jaywalking, and the authorities add insult to injury by charging him with "making terroistic threads" or somesuch.

  • ||

    Meanwhile, no attacks in the US. Remember, those attacks after 9/11 that everybody KNEW were coming? The ones that were inevitable? I see two possibilities here:

    A) The Jihadists decided they liked us after all
    B) Something we're doing is right


    I can see at least a third. Playing one of the lesser devil's advocate (perhaps Leviathan or Balial):

    C) 9-11 was an aberration and an opportunity and to the extent that there is an entity we can call "The Terrorists" they were never that serious about attacks in the United States.

  • 88Fingers||

    88Fingers = Hail Hitler Fingers?

    How...odd.


    Nah, mediageek. There are 88 keys on a piano. I play the piano. Granted, it's mostly Bach, Brahms and Wagner ...

  • ||

    "Why didn't, say, Sweden or Canada get attacked instead?

    Colder weather."

    And if you think the winters are bad, try the mosquitos in summer. They come in two sizes - small enough to get through the screen mesh and big enough to open the door by themselves.

  • Dave W.||

    Something we're doing is right

    I think LIHOP is due for a comeback in '08.

  • ||

    Cesar,
    I specifically said "No attacks in the US". I didn't say the war in Iraq was the be-all and end-all solution to terrorism. This is exactly what I was talking about in my post. We are so hyper-politicized about this that instead of saying "ok, what do we need to do differently, and what's working", we immediately turn it into a partisan fight. One day we are going to get the oh-so-shocking wake up call that our infighting doesn't protect us.

  • Cesar||

    Dave-

    You also strongly suggested that the reason we haven't had any attacks in the US since 9/11 was because of the war in Iraq. Thats a common neocon argument, and its specious reasoning. There have been two countries that have also fought in Iraq--Spain and Britain--which have had attacks on their soil since 9/11. Their fighting in Iraq didn't stop Al Qaeda from attacking them.

    Indeed, there are plenty of western nations that have *not* fought in Iraq (France, Belgium, Sweden, Canada, Germany, etc, etc etc)that haven't had any attacks.

    Meanwhile the two major European nations that *did* fight in Iraq, are the only ones that have been attacked. The war sure didn't seem to make them any safer!

  • ||

    Aresen | April 30, 2007, 4:14pm | #

    "Why didn't, say, Sweden or Canada get attacked instead?

    Colder weather."

    And if you think the winters are bad, try the mosquitos in summer. They come in two sizes - small enough to get through the screen mesh and big enough to open the door by themselves.


    Not only that, but the swarms, man, the friggin size of the swarms...

    I was up in a remote part of Manitoba last summer...I would literally run from the cabin of the truck I was driving to the front door of the place I was staying...only a few hundred feet...and the mosquitoes would still get in a few bites before I made it to safety.

  • ||

    Swillfredo-

    "C) 9-11 was an aberration and an opportunity and to the extent that there is an entity we can call "The Terrorists" they were never that serious about attacks in the United States."

    Why don't we have suicide bombers walking into bars with dynamite/propane tanks/fertilizer bombs and blowing Americans away on a regular basis? This seems like an extremely important question that George Tenet himself seems to have no answer for. We might want to figure it out.

  • ||

    Maybe we should pass a law that says that terrorist attacks in the US need to be distributed equitably. It would hardly be fair if NY got one again.

    And yes, something we're doing is almost assuredly right, it's just not very identifiable since it's burried deeply in all the things we're screwing up.

  • ||

    Hear, hear!

  • ||

    'Nah, mediageek. There are 88 keys on a piano. I play the piano. Granted, it's mostly Bach, Brahms and Wagner ..."

    Ah.

    Well.

    Carry on then.

  • Jesse_Walker_1944||

    So how's that "War on Nazi Aggression" going?

    Well, the AP reports that American deaths at the hands of Nazis have gone up every single year beginning in 1941.

  • ||

    Wait, chemical weapons? What are they referring to?

  • ||

    Why don't we have suicide bombers walking into bars with dynamite/propane tanks/fertilizer bombs and blowing Americans away on a regular basis? This seems like an extremely important question that George Tenet himself seems to have no answer for. We might want to figure it out.

    'cause it's hard to hang on to your will to die once you cross over the border.

    "America. What's not to love?"(tm)

  • Cesar||

    I'm really sick of neocons constantly comparing whats going on now to World War II. Its completely wrong and historically inaccurate on so many levels its sickening every time they do it.

  • ||

    Ok Ceasar, if you want to use my original post as a pretext for bashing the war in Iraq, go ahead. But you're arguing against things I didn't say or "strongly suggest". I purposely left it very open as far as the idea that we are doing "SOMETHING" right. My whole point was that we should figure out what's working rather than attack each other. The war in Iraq may be making a lot of jihadists die over there instead of attack over here. It might be better immigration screening. There might be better intel gathering. The war may have disrupted the jihadist's planning and communications. Maybe it's a little of everything. What bothers me is that most people don't seem to care.
    By the way, don't tell me that France hasn't had any attacks from radical Muslims. Oh sorry, they're "youths".

  • Cesar||

    "By the way, don't tell me that France hasn't had any attacks from radical Muslims. Oh sorry, they're "youths"."

    They have suburban gangs. But unless you are willing to put inner city gangs in the United States on the same level as Al Qaeda, don't tell me the gangs in France are "terrorists". They are petty, secularized criminals.

  • ||

    What about the riots over pictures of Mohammed? And the death of Van Gogh in Holland? The Bali nightclub explosions? The Iranian crackdown on neckties?

    These are all fronts in the War on terror!

  • ||

    They are gangs who have made it pretty clear that they will serve as the foot soldiers for radical Imams who want to establish Shari'a law in "Eurabia". European governments are rolling over and accepting this stuff because they are afraid of the violence commited by these Muslim gangs. This is already happening, we don't have to imagine a day when it might.

    Whether it's knocking down skyscrapers, or beating up innocent people on the street and burning thousands of cars, the goal is the same: Scare the shit out of the Infidels so that we don't stand in the way of Shari'a law and the worldwide Caliphate. They pretty open about this, why the confusion?

  • Greg Swift||

    There are other progressive issues. This president mismanaging the war, but its sad there's not more attention for nation-building here at home!

    There's no reason we can't win and spread freedom abroad while building sustainable systems here at home. The Franklin Roosevelt mention is good but would Bush or even Clinton know how to lead the world and America the way he did, or even the other Roosevelt, Teddy? I don't think so.

  • Cesar||

    Dave-

    I'll say it again. Theres little difference between the gangs in France and MS-13 in the United States. Niether have any ideological agenda--they just want money from drugs and prostitution.

    I know you want to see every little incident in the world through the lense of "GWOT" or "WORLD WAR IV" or the CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS or whatever grand title that was thought up for it today, but not every little thing that happens between middle esterners and westerners happens because they are "foot soldiers for radical imams".

  • ||

    Fighting terrorists is clearly counterproductive. If we just let them alone, they won't bother us. Didn't the years 1990 through 2001 show that ? To paraphrase Mark Steyn, we don't have any enemies, only friends with grievances to whom we haven't yet adequately apologized.

  • ||

    They are gangs who have made it pretty clear that they will serve as the foot soldiers for radical Imams who want to establish Shari'a law in "Eurabia". European governments are rolling over and accepting this stuff because they are afraid of the violence commited by these Muslim gangs. This is already happening, we don't have to imagine a day when it might.

    Umm... no. The French are ethnocentric and make it very clear that they do not accept Muslims into their country unless they convert close to 100% of their behaviors to mimic the French "culture." Even then it's a real toss up. The funny thing here is that the rioting and car burning is a symptom of exactly how French they actually ARE! Or do you not pay attention? The French riot when they are really upset as do the oppressed Muslims in poor Parisian suburbs. These youths however are not carrying out a radical Islamic agenda. They're acting as French as they know how.

  • Cesar||

    Once anyone brings Bat Yeor or Mark Steyn into an argument, they have left the realm of sanity.

  • edna||

    88Fingers = Hail Hitler Fingers?

    van buren street boys, eh?

  • ||

    Neocons didn't just get the shit end of the stick, they are the shit end of the stick.

    People of conscience really need to step in and let neocons know that they are truly terrible people. They're like lawyers, only worse.

  • ||

    "D.A. Ridgely | April 30, 2007, 4:03pm | #
    Why didn't, say, Sweden or Canada get attacked instead?

    Colder weather."

    The terrorists starve to death when Ramadan occurs during the summer. Midnight sun, you see.

  • ||

    People of conscience really need to step in and let neocons know that they are truly terrible people. They're like lawyers, only worse.

    Except that most lawyers are Democrats. ;-)

  • ||

    So you're telling me that when the British start banning "Piglet" figurines from the workplace, when news outlets are afraid to show cartoons, when the Dutch can't teach about farm life because pigs are involved, when the German courts allow Muslim males to restrict the travel of their femaale relatives, that none of that has to do with fear of violence from Muslim "youths"/gangs? It all just kind of fell from the sky and magically happened one day?
    So they're just gangs concened with drugs and money? Uh huh. So that invalidates them as foot soldiers for the Caliphate? I seem to remember...there was this other place where a lot of local gang leaders were mainly concerned with money and a drugs, but they could certainly be bought off to do the dirty work for the Mullahs. I think they called their gang "Taliban" or something like that.

  • Cesar||

    Dave-
    What in the hell does European immigration politics have to do with the war in Iraq, again?

    Go back to LGF, or better yet go talk to LoneWacko. Maybe he can tell you that the Muslim Conspiracy Against the 'West' (tm) is connected to the Reconquista of the United States by the Latino Hordes (tm).

  • Guy Montag||

    Niether have any ideological agenda--they just want money from drugs and prostitution.

    Muslum gangs run prostitution rings? I have been sadly unaware of this.

  • Cesar||

    Guy-

    They are "Muslim" in the same sense that members of the Guatemalan gang MS-13 are "Catholic".

    And yes, those French-Algerian gang members do run prostitution rings.

  • Guy Montag||

    So you're telling me that when the British start banning "Piglet" figurines from the workplace, when news outlets are afraid to show cartoons, when the Dutch can't teach about farm life because pigs are involved, when the German courts allow Muslim males to restrict the travel of their femaale relatives, that none of that has to do with fear of violence from Muslim "youths"/gangs? It all just kind of fell from the sky and magically happened one day?
    So they're just gangs concened with drugs and money? Uh huh. So that invalidates them as foot soldiers for the Caliphate? I seem to remember...there was this other place where a lot of local gang leaders were mainly concerned with money and a drugs, but they could certainly be bought off to do the dirty work for the Mullahs. I think they called their gang "Taliban" or something like that.


    Aren't pigs what a lot of extreme Muslims call Jews and others? Yes, they call them dogs too.

  • Guy Montag||

    And yes, those French-Algerian gang members do run prostitution rings.

    What kind of prostitutes do they have? Are they like porn star prostitutes or more like the icky south DC variety?

  • Cesar||

    "What kind of prostitutes do they have? Are they like porn star prostitutes or more like the icky south DC variety?"

    Neither. They're the "foot soldiers for the Global Caliphate" variety.

  • ||

    So how's that "War on Nazi Aggression" going?

    Well, the AP reports that American deaths at the hands of Nazis have gone up every single year beginning in 1941.

    In 1944 the public could watch little flags marching across the map toward the enemy capital and know their side was winning. There was demonstrable progress that could be compared to the costs in blood and treasure.

    Since the fall of Baghdad, the evidence of progress has been much less obvious. Maybe such evidence exists, but it has not been well publicized.

    Brookings compiles the evidence available here ...

    http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

  • ||

    What kind of prostitutes do they have? Are they like porn star prostitutes or more like the icky south DC variety?

    What I want to know is do they make them shave their mustaches off? ;-)

  • Guy Montag||

    In 1944 the public could watch little flags marching across the map toward the enemy capital and know their side was winning. There was demonstrable progress that could be compared to the costs in blood and treasure.

    Just prior to that they could see gasoline tankers blown up off the east coast and forest fires on the west coast caused by Japanese incindery baloons. All was suppressed from press distribution by the FDR administration.

  • Guy Montag||

    What I want to know is do they make them shave their mustaches off? ;-)

    Hopefully pits and legs too.

  • ||

    Dave,


    I for one, think you make some good points. How liberals can condone an unabashed patriarchal system that clearly subjugates women is a mystery to me. Wasn't it just in the Daily Brickbat that a woman who was raped by fourteen people was then beaten up by her brother for shaming the family?

  • ||

    "Except that most lawyers are Democrats."

    I don't doubt this, but it isn't true where I work. I think this applies to trial lawyers more than the corporate types. Of course, I get in trouble when I think.

  • Guy Montag||

    Just prior to that they could see gasoline tankers blown up off the east coast and forest fires on the west coast caused by Japanese incindery baloons. All was suppressed from press distribution by the FDR administration.


    Just prior to that they could see gasoline tankers blown up off the east coast by German subs and forest fires on the west coast caused by Japanese incindery baloons. All was suppressed from press distribution by the FDR administration.

  • Guy Montag||

    Jessee,

    Don't forget that tomorrow is May day.

  • ||

    Its all cause you fukkers wouldnt let us christers do our job and God got pissed and now He wont help us whip some muslim ass.
    So quit yer fukkin whinin.Jesus tried to make things better, but His pleading you denied.



    Is there areal ggod reason why we cant B-52 carpet bomb from the Nile to the Gobi desert with every hundredth warhead bein a nuke?
    It seems that oil platforms would be easier to operate on a plain of glass. Oil being the only resource we need from there.

    For 2 trillion dollars the united states could have all its stationary energy needs met from wind energy,one and a half times over. for 60 bucks a barrell why isnt everyone looking for domestic oil like in the eighties?


    in summation:
    if it preys five times a day, kill it. The world with a billion less muslims would produce less greenhouse gasses. (why hasnt al bore mentioned this, its a win win)

  • Guy Montag||

    It seems that oil platforms would be easier to operate on a plain of glass. Oil being the only resource we need from there.

    Apparently the french need their hookers and pimps. Cesar sounds like an expert on this.

  • ||

    "Just prior to that they could see gasoline tankers blown up off the east coast and forest fires on the west coast caused by Japanese incindery baloons. All was suppressed from press distribution by the FDR administration."

    And they could see the factories churning out tanks, armored cars, mobile howitzers, fighters, bombers, jeeps, ships, boats, guns, bullets, helmets, etc, etc, etc. By the thousands and millions.

    You guys don't seem to think this one's that important. A desultory effort to keep up with the destruction of our equipment is good enough, no need to trouble GM or Ford to convert their plants to produce weapons.

  • Guy Montag||

    no need to trouble GM or Ford to convert their plants to produce weapons.

    Especially since they already have plants dedicated to weapons production.

  • ||

    Just prior to that they could see gasoline tankers blown up off the east coast and forest fires on the west coast caused by Japanese incindery baloons. All was suppressed from press distribution by the FDR administration.

    Sorry, that's not true.

    From the LA Times, 15 Spetmeber 1942, "Jap Incendiary Sets Forest Fire", at ...

    http://gesswhoto.com/oregon-bombing.html

    From the NY Daily News, probably March 1942, "Fear 41 Lost on Torpedoed Ship Off N.J.", at ...

    http://njscuba.net/sites/images/rp_resor_newspaper.jpg

    During both World Wars the public was fairly well informed of both defeats and victories.

    By the way, I don't think you're a liar, just ignorant.

  • ||

    This report is from the State Department. Rice wants to blame all the worlds violence on Iran. (note the timing of the report and the connection between terror and Iran in the report) "" Although the designation of Iran is not new, it appears in the report that is being released as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice prepares to attend a conference of Iraq's neighbors, at which she has not ruled out a meeting with Iran's foreign minister."""

    If you read the article, it becomes easy to see that the report is somewhat disingenuous. The premises do not support the conclusion.

    """The numbers were compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center and refer to deaths and injuries sustained by "noncombatants," with significant increases in attacks targeting children, educators and journalists."""

    It totals NOT all of the TERRORIST attacks, but all attacks worldwide against "noncombatants" regardless of cause. It lumps all civilian attacks under the guise of terrorism. The conclusion should be that attacks against civilians are up, The report was not concerned with WHO was attacking the civilians. Well, it's not mentioned in the AP article anyway.

    It includes Africa.
    """However, it also details a surge in Africa, where 65 percent more attacks, 420 compared to 253 in 2005, were counted last year, largely due to turmoil in or near Sudan, including Darfur, and Nigeria where oil facilities and workers have been targeted."""

    Does that mean we need to send troops to Africa to fight the terrorist so they will not come here? But really now, who considers Dafur a "terrorist" problem? If it is why have we been turning our back instead of sending the appropriate amount of force to counter it? It's obvious that the State department does not consider Dafur a terrorist issue so why put those numbers under the guise of terrorism?

    Dave sez
    ""We are so hyper-politicized about this that instead of saying "ok, what do we need to do differently, and what's working", we immediately turn it into a partisan fight."" """My whole point was that we should figure out what's working rather than attack each other."""

    I couldn't agree with you more. Part of the problem is one of definitions. We haven't decided how to define the basic words. What is a terrorist or terrorism? If we turn to the FBI, their definition of terrorism is "…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, civilian population, or andy segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

    The problem I have with that is it outlaws violent democratic revolution, the kind this county was founded. That would make our founding fathers terrorist and Gen. George Washington one of the most successful terrorist ever since his terrorist movement actually founded a nation. Gen Sherman executed a scorched earth policy toward the south, certainly that definition would convict him. Hey, that trying to keep your county from breaking up excuse didn't help Milosevic. But this definition fits the Bush ideology that a foreign power needs to bring democracy to a population. Maybe that's why they like it.

    Until you define the basics it is not likey you can assess what is working or not.

  • Mike Laursen||

    How liberals can condone an unabashed patriarchal system that clearly subjugates women is a mystery to me.

    One can choose to condone or not to condone only those something that one has power or influence over. Before we march in to try to fix something wrong with another culture or nation, it's rational to estimate our chance of success and the costs.

  • ||

    You know, Bush is probably on the only business major that would publicly claim timelines, benchmarks, and budgets have a negative effect on a project.

  • ||

    """if it preys five times a day, kill it."""

    All Christians worth their salt pray at least five times a day.

    How many times do you prey in a day, brotherben?

  • ||

    Once,

    continually, without ceasing

  • ||

    Spetmeber is a perfectly cromulent month!

  • ||

    Dave said "Meanwhile, no attacks in the US.... I see two possibilities here: A) The Jihadists decided they liked us after all B) Something we're doing is right"

    There is another, more likely option: These things take time to plan. Remember it was almost 9 years between the car bomb attack at the WTC and the 9/11 attacks.

    Unfortunately, since we began our WoT these networks have successfully pulled off major attacks in Europe, and the Taliban has regrouped and is gaining strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These facts alone constitute stronger evidence that we are doing something wrong than the lack of attacks on US soil (which, even before the WoT, have always been few and far between) is evidence that we are doing something right.

  • ||

    brotherben: Don't you "Christers" have a little thing called a "Bible" that says the #1 most important thing is, "thou shall not kill"? Jesus, your Christians are some violent people. 9/11 looks like a minor flesh wound compared to the destruction that "Christers" have wrought on Iraq.

  • ||

    Does that mean Clinton had a great plan from 1993 until Bush screwed it up in 2001?

  • Mohandas K.||

    I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

  • ||

    "Jesse_Walker_1944 | April 30, 2007, 4:38pm | #
    So how's that "War on Nazi Aggression" going?

    Well, the AP reports that American deaths at the hands of Nazis have gone up every single year beginning in 1941."

    But four years ago Captain Flightsuit landed on the Abraham Lincoln and announced "Mission Accomplished".

    So now it's 1949 in your analogy. Hmm, so how many Americans did the Krauts or the Japs kill in 1949.

    And, Guy, read your history again. After 1942 none of the axis navies had any significant control over the sea war.

    German subs were more likely to be sunk after a few days at sea without sinking any allied shipping.

  • Mike Laursen||

    "Thou Shall Not Kill" shows up until 5th or 6th on the list, depending on which religious branch you are following.

  • ||

    I'm really sick of neocons constantly comparing whats going on now to World War II. Its completely wrong and historically inaccurate on so many levels its sickening every time they do it.

    Completely wrong?

    Open plans for world domination? Check.

    Totalitarian political philosophy? Check.

    Virulent anti-Semitism? Check.

    Use of torture and attacks against civilian populations? Check.

    Guttural, unintelligible speeches by leaders with unattractive facial hair? Check.

    The Nazis had better fashion sense and less opposition than today's Islamofascists, but there is little other difference between the two, at least that I can see. What is it, then, that so debilitated Cesar?

  • Guy Montag||

    "Thou Shall Not Kill" shows up until 5th or 6th on the list, depending on which religious branch you are following.

    And the proper translation/meaning is Thou shall not murder".

  • Cesar||

    "The Nazis had better fashion sense and less opposition than today's Islamofascists, but there is little other difference between the two, at least that I can see. What is it, then, that so debilitated Cesar?"

    Well, to start with they don't have a powerful industrialized state in the middle of Europe with some of the worlds best engineers, scientists, and technology. They also don't have tanks, an air force, a navy, or a vast army of highly trained soldiers.

  • Guy Montag||

    Apostate Jew,

    Those were put out on the national wire, not kept as local stories?

    Just goes to show you can't believe public television and other documentries like you used to.

  • Urkobold®||

    Urkobold SEES LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN Malvolio AND HOLE WHERE Urkobold DEFECATES.

  • Urkobold®||

    (SAME HOLE WHERE Urkobold FINDS BREAKFAST.
    MMMMM, VERY EFFICIENT CIRCLE OF LIFE)

  • ||

    brotherben, could you please explain the joke about killing a billion people with nuclear weapons. I don't get it.

  • ktc2||

    The "war on terror" is a pathetic mockery, like the "war on drugs".

    We have given the terrorists a whole country,Iraq, by removing the head thug who was not affiliated with them.

    Smart.

  • eugene||

    Maurkov, brotherben wasn't trying to be funny. When God tells you to post stuff on hit'n'run, you don't waste time trying to make jokes.

  • danb||

    I put together some charts showing the "old" terrorist attack data...

    http://dirtbaggery.blogspot.com/2007/04/fun-with-numbers-how-to-pass-off-total.html

    and some commentary about how it's all bullshit.

  • Bazil||

    I challenge any of you (or anyone in the world for that matter) to concisely and mutually exclusively define "terror" and "terrorists" that the war of response to 9/11 forced us to go after.

    You do that and there's a chance in hell this war in terror can be won.

    Defininig something vaguely is a double edged sword. The war was defined as a War on Terror (utterely inconherent since terror is an emotion and terrorism which it is meant to imply is a military tactic and not a cohesive enemy to go after) which I suspect was done so that all the old foes in the middle east (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hezbollah in Iran, Hamas, Baath Party in Syria and Iraq, Taliban, Mujahedeen e khalgh, Quds force, PKK etc...) could be attacked or threatened at will without any need to explain.

    As long as US ignores the most important element of the war on terror, the people who feel (rightly or wrongly) grieved by US, or Americans speaks of nuking and blowing up "Terrorists" first and then ask questions later (depending on who says it, it usually translates into Arabs, Muslims, Middle Easterners, anti-Israelis, or non-westerners) and after the said nuclear "cleansing" to have God or Allah "sort them out" there will not be an end to to the threats facing the US right now and hence no end to this "war on terror"

    And seeing the frothing "nuke em all" attitudes on this forum convinces me that we are far from reaching the point where we are sober enough to be intelligent about this war. Hence it will go forth for many more years, until we stop underestimating the fight and the foes and bother to learn about them so we can defeat them in a meaningful fashion.

    You can't threaten a suicide bomber with pain and suffering, the guy's ready to have hundreds of ballbearings rip through his body and make shreaded meat out of him.

    An IDEA can never be defeated by force. An idea can only be defeated by a better idea. We can do this, we just have to stop saying we're number 1 and start proving to the world why that title is well deserved.

  • Bazil||

    Guy

    You are probably a nice guy whom I'd love to have a beer with and hang out. But man your understanding of the diversity of muslims is really limited.

    The way we're applying the word "Muslim" to things these days is similar to calling the Holocaust a Christian crime since Hitler in Mein Kompf quotes the Bible more than any other source. Anyone who knows the nuance and diversity of "Christians" would see the falsehood of that argument. The same falsehood is being applied here.

    No offense dude but if you're interested in the subject you have a bit of prep work to do before you can speak as confidently as you do. Otherwise you'll get the Bill O'reilly syndrome: say what sounds logical to me first and then try to fix facts and stretch interpretations to show how right I am.

  • ||

    Cesar says: "Go back to LGF, or better yet go talk to LoneWacko. Maybe he can tell you that the Muslim Conspiracy Against the 'West' (tm) is connected to the Reconquista of the United States by the Latino Hordes (tm).", which marks the third time in this thread that he has completely made up and then argued against a point which I have never made. Where the hell did the Latino thing come from? Certainly not me.
    I've decided to create a Dave to Cesar Translator to smooth out any future confusion:

    If I say "I'm not comfortable with the situation at Gitmo, but I don't think everyone there should simply be let go", Cesar knows I mean "Birth control should be sold only to married couples".

    If I say "Muslims in Europe are using threats and violence to bring about Sharia Law", Cesar knows I mean "Those wetbacks can drown in the Rio Grande for all I care".

    If I say, "Iran is publicizing the fact that it intends to use nuclear blackmail to spread its theocracy", Ceasar knows I mean "Minority neighborhoods should be bulldozed and then donated to area country clubs so that their golf courses can be expanded"

    And finally, if I say "Closing your eyes to the Jihadists won't make them go away", Cesar knows that I mean "Jesus told me that there should be tax cuts for the rich, which are to be passed the same day we nuke New Zealand for showing a screening of 'Lawrence of Arabia' without using CGI to turn all of the Arabs into Sylvester Stallone".

    The dude sees right through me.

  • ||

    Guy Montag writes: "Especially since they already have plants dedicated to weapons production."

    Not enough!

  • Cesar||

    Well Dave, you are the one who brought up "Eurabia" as soon as I mentioned France. That told me a lot about where you are coming from.

  • ||

    But I will thank him for illustrating my original point, which is that it's important for us to discuss how we are/should be dealing with the Islamist threat; and how doing so seems to be instantly hampered by people who would rather get off on grinding their own ideological/ad hominem ax than talk about real threats to our country and Enlightenment civilization as a whole.

  • ||

    But I will thank him for illustrating my original point, which is that it's important for us to discuss how we are/should be dealing with the Islamist threat

    There is no islamist threat. Not to those in the West, at least. Certainly to a number of degenerate autocracies in the middle east (Re: Egypt, Saudi Arabia) that will go under in revolution sooner or later, but not us. We lost a couple of buildings, yeah, but lets be serious: was that really any threat to the existance of Western Civilization? I think not.

    How about the cold war? Having 2000 mult-warhead hydrogen bomb loaded ICBMs pointed at you, that's a threat to your existance. A couple of homocidal wackjobs? Shit, we don't even have to import them. We grow all we need here. Random acts of violence are the American status-quo.

    What kind of bizarro world do you live in where you think some sheik has chance of taking over the United States and forcing everyone to join the caliphate? You act like some nutjob in a dress who says he'll take over the whole world for Islam actually needs to be taken seriously. That's the stupid position.

  • Mike Laursen||

    OK, let's discuss how we are dealing with the Islamist threat. Why did our government: (a) open a prison in Guantanamo Bay; (b) deny habeas corpus for inmates of that prison; (c) decide it was too burdensome to file for warrants to conduct wiretapping on domestic calls to foreign destinations? Do you approve or disapprove of these methods of dealing with the Islamist threat?

  • ||

    Tacos mmm,

    Your statement requires an absolute ignorance of the critical importance of petroleum to maintaining the worlds standard of living.

    We lost a couple of buildings (and suffered massive economic losses) from simple actions managed out of caves in a thrid world country.

    How do you think the damage would scale up if the same people had unlimited time, space, money and technology to put together a new attack?

    That is what you have if the Islamists take over someplace like Saudi Arabia.

  • Mike Laursen||

    So, you're saying the Iraq War is really about protecting our oil supply? All other reasons that have been given are pretense? Funny, but I would gain a tiny amount of respect for the Bush Administration if they were to come right out and say that.

  • ||

    Your statement requires an absolute ignorance of the critical importance of petroleum to maintaining the worlds standard of living.

    I was waiting for the one. Now I get to say that reducing our reliance on petroleum products is far more important than chasing rocket-toting ragheads through the desert, and get to ask why YOU don't seem to be the ones getting this.

    That is what you have if the Islamists take over someplace like Saudi Arabia.

    You think Saudi Arabia is a source of unlimited time, space and money? If that were the case, then the people controlling it NOW wouldn't be threatened in any way, would they? Fortunately for all of us who like our women mostly naked, Saudi Arabia has oil, money, and sand. And that's about it. I think you'll find that when the Wahabists take over, they'll find it quite enough to hold Mecca. Like Martin Luther King, religious revolutionaries tend to make big speeches about changing the world, but all they really want is to ride around Montgomery in a bus. Not to mention that Persian Iran (and soon to be Shia Iraq) is going to prove quite a foil to the Arab Wahabis. The biggest mistake you can make is thinking that because they're all muslim, they're united. A world caliphate? Don't make me laugh. Uniting even a fraction of the middle east under a caliphate is a pipe dream.

  • Fluffy||

    "...simple actions managed out of caves in a thrid world country."

    That is precisely why the War on Terror cannot succeed.

    There is NO level of military victory we can achieve that will destroy enough of our enemies that you won't be able to have 19 guys meet in a cave somewhere and decide to fuck people up.

    We conquered Iraq militarily from end to end and have men on the ground who can kick in doors whenever necessary and we STILL can't stop terror attacks launched by guys with bomb factories in their basements.

    If the definition of victory in the WOT is attaining a state where we have used military force to make ourselves absolutely safe from asymmetric attacks launched by small cells of 20 men or less, we can't possibly win. They don't need Iraq or Saudi Arabia as a base. They can use any flophouse as a base.

  • ||

    Guy Montag:

    Yea, we should just try to talk to them. They are reasonable folks, just like the IRA...

    Well actually, it's exactly talking that has brought peace to Northern Ireland. And while you're listing the unreasonable, the war mongering and Israeli government first, neocons must be counted.

    Also, what Cesar said, which was:

    I'm really sick of neocons constantly comparing whats going on now to World War II. Its completely wrong and historically inaccurate on so many levels its sickening every time they do it.



    .

  • dhex||

    "If the definition of victory in the WOT is attaining a state where we have used military force to make ourselves absolutely safe from asymmetric attacks launched by small cells of 20 men or less, we can't possibly win. They don't need Iraq or Saudi Arabia as a base. They can use any flophouse as a base."

    this is tremendously helpful if you're part of a government planning War Without End.

    just sayin'.

  • Guy Montag||

    Well actually, it's exactly talking that has brought peace to Northern Ireland.

    No, that was their primary sponsors in the Soviet Union crumbling. The bucks Ted Kennedy was bringing from the US was peanuts.

    You really thought that timing was an accident, didn't you?

  • Cesar||

    "this is tremendously helpful if you're part of a government planning War Without End."

    Dhex-

    And thats exactly what I fear. My own government planning a never ending war as a justification to expan the state is much scarier than some nebulous "Islamist threat".

  • Guy Montag||

    There is NO level of military victory we can achieve that will destroy enough of our enemies that you won't be able to have 19 guys meet in a cave somewhere and decide to fuck people up.

    We conquered Iraq militarily from end to end and have men on the ground who can kick in doors whenever necessary and we STILL can't stop terror attacks launched by guys with bomb factories in their basements.


    I guess you missed the USA during the Weatherman Underground/SLA/every other Marxist revolutionary era.

  • Guy Montag||

    Guy Montag writes: "Especially since they already have plants dedicated to weapons production."

    Not enough!


    Then order more weapons if your objective is more weapons plants.

  • Guy Montag||

    Bazil,

    You are probably a nice guy whom I'd love to have a beer with and hang out. But man your understanding of the diversity of muslims is really limited.

    Try quoting what you are talking about and give your analysis of my understanding of the diversity of Muslims. I know there is quite a bit of diversity and, unless you are some sort of Liberal Arts blinded person, you would see that from my posts.

    Just because you think all Muslims/Blacks/Asians?etc. are alike does not mean that I do.

  • ||

    What kind of bizarro world do you live in where you think some sheik has chance of taking over the United States and forcing everyone to join the caliphate? You act like some nutjob in a dress who says he'll take over the whole world for Islam actually needs to be taken seriously. That's the stupid position."

    How about the world where Muslim communities in Western societies are increasingly being allowed to subject themselves not to the law of the land, but to their own laws? How about the world in which the Muslim population of the Netherlands is outpacing and could overtake the Dutch population within our lifetimes? That would be the same population that's trying to subject itself to Islamic laws and courts instead of the national European ones. Is that somehow not going to make a difference? My fear is not of a Sheik conquering the USA and ruling as our Caliph, it is of Jihadists disrupting our society to such an extent that the lives we live today will be over. How hard would it be to turn America into a place like Israel, where you're never sure if that Starbucks you're sitting in is going to blow up that day? What do you think will happen to your civil rights if an Islamist group (or nation) sets off a nuke in an American city? You don't like taking off your shoes at the airport? You don't like calls to Pakistan being tapped? You don't like Guantanamo? That stuff is going to look like a happy memory if Islamist attacks become a regular event. They don't have to win everything they want for us to lose our way of life.

  • ||

    This would be a good place to point out that so far, Islamist attacks have been an example of them hitting their targets as hard as they can. Our responses have been very very gentle compared to what we are capable of. Our own people are outraged if one of our soldiers shoots 3 civilians (and rightly so), but shrug off the thousands intentionally targeted by Baathist/Jihadist bombs as par for the course. We don't have to deal with neighborhoods that are havens for our enemies; we choose to allow their continued existence out of concern for civilians. Regardless of anyone's standpoint on this board, I think we can all agree that a sizeable enough attack against the US will lead to a situation where the only thing we give a shit about is destroying our enemies. All of you who will be up in arms if that happens might want to car about effectively destroying the Islamists before it gets to that point.

  • ||

    Unless, of course, you think that they just want to live in peace (Stoning raped women to death, etc), and we just come along and start trouble to steal all the oil. In which case, I know it's a cliche, but maybe you should go live under their rule if you truly feel that way.

  • ||

    Guy Montag:

    No, that was their primary sponsors in the Soviet Union crumbling.

    I think that their love for the Pope and the church woulda precluded the IRA from ever getting too cozy with the Commie creeps.

  • ||

    ...Not much "Liberation Theology" went on in the IRA.

  • ||

    Dave writes:

    Meanwhile, no attacks in the US. Remember, those attacks after 9/11 that everybody KNEW were coming?


    First, I don't see how Cesar is "bashing the war in Iraq." He's not. He's presenting a rational view of how the war in Iraq is not an effective deterrent against terrorism. Why do you seek to quickly frame his post with your biased commentary ("bashing?"), instead of addressing his points for what they are?

    And 2nd, I disagree with your contention that just because there hasn't been an attack since 9/11 doesn't mean one may happen. Just as I don't blame Bush for 9/11, I don't blame Clinton for WTC '93, and it doesn't necessarily follow that Bush "must be doing something right." So would you say Clinton got it right after the '93 WTC attack because no other attack from Islamic extremist happened on US soil?
    Since you didn't address TrickyVic's original point, here it is again:
    Does the fact that there were no terrorist attacks in the US by Islamic extremist from after the 93 attack on the WTC to 2001 mean Clinton was doing something right in the interim?

  • ||

    "brotherben: Don't you "Christers" have a little thing called a "Bible"

    This christer does in fact have a little thing. But I calls it "lil bro"

  • ||

    Guy Montag:
    I guess you missed the USA during the Weatherman Underground/SLA/every other Marxist revolutionary era.


    Really? You're comparing the GLOBAL "war on terror" to these little, petty U.S. BASED organizations? You're even more incompetent than I gave you credit for. That said, it's pointless for anyone to even try to debate this issue with someone who thinks the way you do.

  • ||

    brotherben,

    Why even bother with Christianity? Based on some of your comments here, I seriously doubt you'll be going to heaven based on Christian beliefs. Why not just give up the pretenses?

  • Guy Montag||

    Really? You're comparing the GLOBAL "war on terror" to these little, petty U.S. BASED organizations? You're even more incompetent than I gave you credit for. That said, it's pointless for anyone to even try to debate this issue with someone who thinks the way you do.

    So you are ignorant of their Soviet ties? Yea, don't bother arguing with someone who thinks groups that made frequent trips to Hanoi, got safe haven in Havana and other groups that got not quite as much help from the same sources are Marxist.

    Yea, that is just crazy thinking.

  • ||

    Regardless of their "ties", they were still small, petty, locally based organizations. SLA had what, 13 or 14 members? WU had maybe twice the amount, if that? It took the U.S. government several years to put an end to their violence, and many more years to actually capture most of them. This, two organizations that comprised locally of a total of under 30 people.

    So, again, how does this compare to the global war on terror?

    If you're comparing the two: If the government wasn't able to put a quick end to these organizations, and capture their members in a timely fashion, how do you even begin to think that they can put an end to this "war on terror"???????

  • matthew hogan||

    "Does the fact that there were no terrorist attacks in the US by Islamic extremist from after the 93 attack on the WTC to 2001 mean Clinton was doing something right in the interim?"

    Cool question, will steal.

  • Sean Healy||

    I think that their love for the Pope and the church woulda precluded the IRA from ever getting too cozy with the Commie creeps.

    What, do you get your talking points from Ian Paisley? Anyone who thinks the IRA is a Catholic organisation hasn't been paying attention. Yes, it's an organisation made up of Catholics on behalf of a Catholic community, but their ideology is basically national socialist. That is, they are nationalists in the narrow sense who adhere socialist economics (with plenty of thuggish enforcement). They don't care about religion; in fact, the Church is one of their long-standing antogonists. Go take a look at Sinn Fein's platform for the upcoming Irish election and then try to persuade me they'd have no truck with commies.

  • ||

    "someone who thinks groups that made frequent trips to Hanoi, got safe haven in Havana and other groups that got not quite as much help from the same sources are Marxist."

    I personally know people who went to Soviet Russia, and more recently to Cuba. None of them are Marxist. What about China? They're commie, and yet we do business with them. Is George W. Bush a Marxist? Nixon had ties to China, he's a Marxist right? Your idea that 'ties' to commie countries equals Marxism is laughable. I would call it crazy if I thought you really believed it, but I suspect this is one of those crazy positions people get stuck in when they can't admit error.

  • ||

    "Meanwhile, no attacks in the US."

    By Dave's logic, we need three more years without a major terrorist attack on the US to declare George Bush's anti-terror strategy to be as effective as Bill Clinton's.

  • dhex||

    "I think that their love for the Pope and the church woulda precluded the IRA from ever getting too cozy with the Commie creeps."

    don't confuse the provos with the larger ira. the provos were catholics; the larger ira was leftist.

    that said, "soviet ties" doesn't explain why things continued on as they did, but guy sees the world through orange-tinted glasses of great burning justice.

  • ||

    Nah, mediageek. There are 88 keys on a piano. I play the piano. Granted, it's mostly Bach, Brahms and Wagner ...

    That sounds like something Hitler would say.

    /ducks

  • ||

    Let's recap: Al Qaeda attacks us because of our extended military presence in Saudi Arabia. Our solution is to mount a full-scale military invasion and occupation of an additional Middle Eastern nation. In unrelated news, terrorist activity increases.

    Our worst step in the struggle against terrorism since 9/11 was our first: thinking of the struggle as a "war."

  • ||

    Ethan,

    I think it goes a bit far to say that our Saudi bases were "the" reason Al Qaeda attacked us.

    But as an enthusiastic fan of winguttia, I'll point out that in 2002 and 2003, various National Review authors commonly made the point that one of the reasons to support the Iraq War is that it would allow us to remove our "provocative" bases in the "Land of the Two Cities," and replace them with bases in Iraq.

    Of course, any other policy that took this provocation into account, they immediately labelled as the isolationist ravings of a BDS-infected Chamberlain clone.

    So, in conclusion, the authors at National Review, and their fans, are blessed with neither a practical understanding of the issues, or a strong sense of honesty.

  • ||

    Mr. dageek,
    You sir are abslutely accurate in your assessment of my behaviour. I apologize to you and to God for straying from the narrow way. I thank you for pointing out the error of my ways.
    I will strive from this day forward to pray fervently before commenting. I will also comment from purely scriptural God given reference for the edification of believers and the salvation of sinners.
    May God have mercy on me, a sinner.

  • ||

    Amen!

  • UBL||

    From my letter as translated by "The Guardian" on Sunday, November 24, 2002.

    Why are we fighting and opposing you?

    (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

    (a) You attacked us in Palestine ...

    (b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

    (c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis ...

    (d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of your international influence and military threats. ...

    (e) Your forces occupy our countries ...

    (f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq ...

    (g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital ...

    Peace be upon you.

  • Curmudgeon||

    This Humungus is a reasonable man. He can be negotiated with.

  • Fluffy||

    "I guess you missed the USA during the Weatherman Underground/SLA/every other Marxist revolutionary era."

  • Fluffy||

    "I guess you missed the USA during the Weatherman Underground/SLA/every other Marxist revolutionary era."

    Don't know what happened in that last post.

    Guy, you're making my point for me. I guess YOU missed the part where those groups [as well as the Red Brigade type groups in Europe] all went the way of the dodo with no military action.

    I would also say that if we got in our time machine and convinced the government to respond to the Weathermen, the SLA, the Puerto Rican separatists, etc., by bombing American urban areas, sticking large numbers of persons in extralegal detention, suspending habeus corpus, rounding up people who contributed money to charities and calling them "money launderers for terrorists", surrounded all our public buildings with acres of concrete defenses, put up security cameras on every street corner, etc., we would have lit a fire that would have increased the numbers and savagery of those groups a thousand fold.

    Everyone forgets the chief lesson of the Algerian insurgency, which was that if your acts of provocation can get the state to crack down hard enough, you'll win in the end because the populace will switch to your side en masse. We handed Iraq to Al Qaeda.

  • ||

    I think it goes a bit far to say that our Saudi bases were "the" reason Al Qaeda attacked us.

    Agreed. But it was a major factor in at least bin Laden's thinking.

    But as an enthusiastic fan of winguttia, I'll point out that in 2002 and 2003, various National Review authors commonly made the point that one of the reasons to support the Iraq War is that it would allow us to remove our "provocative" bases in the "Land of the Two Cities," and replace them with bases in Iraq.

    Ya see, it seems to me that it's just this sort of thinking (the argument you describe) that gets us in trouble. These National Review types (and others) think, "hey, it would be good for us if A, B and C came to be; thus I support an invasion that will kill many thousands of people and create A, B and C." If you don't like the consequences of having bases in a given place, don't have bases there.

  • Mike Laursen||

    How hard would it be to turn America into a place like Israel, where you're never sure if that Starbucks you're sitting in is going to blow up that day?

    If only Israel would take your advice and stop being so pacificist about the Islamic threat.

  • ||

    "By Dave's logic, we need three more years without a major terrorist attack on the US to declare George Bush's anti-terror strategy to be as effective as Bill Clinton's."

    If there had been another attack on US soil, you would be the first one posting here to say that it proves Bush's policy wasn't effective. If there hasn't been one, well that just doesn't count. Because.

    Perhaps security measures put into place during the Clinton administration were effective and did deter some attacks. I don't know. I'm not trying to lay this all at Clinton's feet, that was yet another assumption on the part of other posters here, although I will say that if he had non-symbolic responses to the Embassy and USS Cole bombings, Bin Laden would have been in the position he is today before, not after 9/11. Would this have stopped the cell from carrying out the attacks? I don't know. Then again, if 9/11 hadn't happened, a lot of you would be treating those who recognize the full potential of the terrorist threat as kooks. Oh, wait, you still do that anyway.

    By the way, I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to compare the terrorist environment of the Clinton era to that of today. You don't think the intensity has gone up a bit? If this were two nation-states fighting, the 90's would have been an era of skirmishes over borderlands, with today being an all-out invasion of the capital.

  • http://rfmcdpei.livejournal.co||

    Dave-

    Click on the link behind my screen name if you want a slightly more sane analysis of Muslims in Europe than that Mark "I'll give the insurgency six weeks" Styen.

  • ||

    My fear is not of a Sheik conquering the USA and ruling as our Caliph, it is of Jihadists disrupting our society to such an extent that the lives we live today will be over.

    You shouldn't be worried, then. That's not going to happen. The West is really peripheral to these conflicts, which are fundamentally about the internal politics of the middle east (all politics is local). We are involved only as long as, and to the degree that, we meddle in the middle east.

    Insofar as immigration into western Europe goes, Lothrop Stoddard had you beaten for years. A hundred years ago, all the anglos in America were going to be outbred by the "swarthy races" of southern Europe. Except, of course, that didn't happen. Because immigrant birth rates drop to match those of the "native" population after a generation or so. And then interbreeding blurs the distinction to the point of meaninglessness. Yes, there's friction between the native born Dutch and the immigrant community, but it's the kind of friction that you get between Coloradans and Mexicans, not some kind of strange jihad.

  • ||

    Just out of curiosity - is there some particular reason that joe comes to the HNR board to attack things he's read in National Review?

    In regards to the War on Terror (or whatever commonly defined term you use to target military operations against a trans-national threat composed of primarily of fanatic adherents to a particularly noxious, politicized form of Islam): just because the guy who wants you dead is smaller than you, it doesn't mean he can't come up with a way to make it happen.

    There was a legitimate argument about whether terrorism was a problem that is best left to law enforcement or the military. Law enforcement lost that argument conclusively.

    The US can choose to send the FBI and local sheriff and police departments after a significant contingent of armed and violent enemies who are plotting their attacks from bases in foreign countries, the US can even decide to vehemently ignore the jurisdiction issues that entails...

    But it's pretty clear that the US gov't has figured out that their police organizations don't have the necessary firepower (not to mention jurisdiction) to take down trans-national drug cartels, much less trans-national terrorist organizations.

    The militarization of civilian law enforcement organizations is the problem that directly stems from this, and IMO, conclusively shows that beefing up law enforcement into quasi-military organizations just leads to SWAT teams killing little old ladies in their bedrooms here.

    The bottom line: Other than the US military, which organization is suited to carrying out operations against heavily armed, foreign enemies? Here's a hint: The answer is not "civilian US law enforcement."

    Oh, and on the IRA-USSR link, here's a Nat'l Review article, just because joe loves them so much:

    www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-64062

    Of course, the IRA wouldn't have any truck with the USSR as far back as guy like Mick Fitzpatrick...

    http://www.answers.com/topic/mick-fitzpatrick

    Certainly there's no one who suspects that the IRA and the Soviets conspired to kill off Lord Mountbatten...

    http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/26/kgbirish.shtml

    While I think it might be a stretch to tie them directly together, it certainly isn't unbelievable that the Soviets would supply the IRA in the spirit of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally."

  • ||

    Tacos mmm,

    You said

    I was waiting for the one. Now I get to say that reducing our reliance on petroleum products is far more important than chasing rocket-toting ragheads through the desert, and get to ask why YOU don't seem to be the ones getting this.

    I get it and again you appear not to. What is your solution to reducing dependence on petroleum? Sprinkle a little bit of the magical "reduce reliance on petroleum pixie dust" all over the place?

    If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that many of the policies designed to reduce our petroleum dependence are ineffective and often environmentally destructive to boot.

    The hype over biofuels in the U.S. and Europe has had wide-ranging effects perhaps not envisioned by the environmental advocates who promote their use. Throughout tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia, rainforests and grasslands are being cleared for soybean and oil-palm plantations to make biodiesel, a product that is then marketed halfway across the world as a "green" fuel.

  • ||

    Tacos mmm,

    You said

    Fortunately for all of us who like our women mostly naked, Saudi Arabia has oil, money, and sand. And that's about it. I think you'll find that when the Wahabists take over, they'll find it quite enough to hold Mecca

    Lets get your major piece of ignorance out of the way first. The wahabists don't have to take over Saudi Arabia, they already control it. Somehow you missed the fact that the Saudi royal family is Wahabbi.

    The Saudi's use their vast amounts of money to fund the spread of wahabbi philosophy around the world, squeezing out more tolerant versions of Islam.

    Some of that money was also used to fund Bin Laden. It turns out money is much more important then you think it is.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    You said

    That is precisely why the War on Terror cannot succeed.

    There is NO level of military victory we can achieve that will destroy enough of our enemies that you won't be able to have 19 guys meet in a cave somewhere and decide to fuck people up.

    So what is your solution? How do we stop the 19 guys in a cave?

  • Mike Laursen||

    How do we stop the 19 guys in a cave?

    We can't.

    Which is why we should consider a completely different approach to defense and foreign policy. You've heard it before, but a good place to start is to ask why no terrorists have attacked Switzerland.

  • Cesar||

    Mike Laursen-,

    BUT, BUT, UR TEH CHAMBERLAIN!!!!!!

    Seriously you are right, our current interventionist foreign policy causes more trouble than it is worth.

  • ||

    I say: "The Nazis had better fashion sense and less opposition than today's Islamofascists, but there is little other difference between the two, at least that I can see. What is it, then, that so debilitated Cesar?"

    Cesar answers: "Well, to start with they don't have a powerful industrialized state in the middle of Europe with some of the worlds best engineers, scientists, and technology. They also don't have tanks, an air force, a navy, or a vast army of highly trained soldiers."

    Fair enough, but the Germans didn't have that stuff either in 1933. They built it over time, because Britain and France weren't willing to stop them.

  • ||

    "There was a legitimate argument about whether terrorism was a problem that is best left to law enforcement or the military. Law enforcement lost that argument conclusively.'

    ...says the guy who supported the military invasion of Iraq as the primary thrust of the War on Terror, and has since seen terror skyrocket.

    Tell us, rob, when you "conclusively won" that debate over the best strategy for fighting terrorism back in ought-three, did you put on a flight suit.

    How badly did the people making your side of the argument lose that debate? So badly that the Democrats now beat the Republicans on national security issues, and 2/3 of Americans want to put an end to the very Iraq War which has been at the center of your anti-terror strategy.

    And, oh yeah, the IRA in the 70s and 80s was a revolutionary Marxist organization, no doubt.

  • Cesar||

    Malvolio-

    Name *one* state in the Middle East that has the same potential Germany did in 1933.

  • ||

    ""By the way, I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to compare the terrorist environment of the Clinton era to that of today."""

    Dave, I agree. But after 9/11 Bush got the OK from Congress to use every bit of military might we had. That's something Clinton did not have. Bush had more available resouces than Clinton and Bush still didn't get OBL. We could debate excuses for Clinton. With a AUF from Congress and the world behind him, Bush has no excuse for not getting OBL.

    I believe you get results where you put your efforts. Saddam down, OBL still on the loose somewhere.

  • ||

    """So what is your solution? How do we stop the 19 guys in a cave?"""

    That's really, really tough. It's not as important to stop the 19 guys in the cave as it is to prevent the 19 guys from turning into 1900 guys in caves across the world. The way to do that is to politic their cause into obscurity.

  • ||

    "...says the guy who supported the military invasion of Iraq as the primary thrust of the War on Terror, and has since seen terror skyrocket." - joe

    Really? Would you like to link to a post where I posit that in Iraq invasion was the primary thrust against GWOT? You're not going to find one.

    "Tell us, rob, when you 'conclusively won' that debate over the best strategy for fighting terrorism back in ought-three, did you put on a flight suit?" - joe

    No, but I do wear an Air Force uniform to work every day, does that count?

    "How badly did the people making your side of the argument lose that debate?" - joe

    Who are you arguing with? Me or this nebulous, made up group of "the people making" what you are pretending is my "side of the argument?

    "So badly that the Democrats now beat the Republicans on national security issues, and 2/3 of Americans want to put an end to the very Iraq War which has been at the center of your anti-terror strategy." - joe

    Yeah, because it matters to me whether its Dems or Repubs running the show. Well, at least in your mind it does.

    Tell me again why you come to a libertarian web-site to argue about the things you read in Nat'l Review, again?

    It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you like to argue against people who aren't here arguing with you.

    Here's a helpful hint for your comments here: If you're going to compose posts that are 90% snark try to make the remaining 10% arguments against people who are actually posting here, instead of pretending that I'm one of "those people from the Nat'l Review."

  • ||

    "There was a legitimate argument about whether terrorism was a problem that is best left to law enforcement or the military. Law enforcement lost that argument conclusively." - me

    "...says the guy who supported the military invasion of Iraq as the primary thrust of the War on Terror, and has since seen terror skyrocket." - joe

    Can anyone reading this thread tell me what joe's comment has to do with the point that I made about military vs. law enforcement? I ask this because I'm having a really tough time believing that joe has anything to say about what I actually wrote, and has no arguments in his DNC talking points on this subject to counter my argument with other than "look over there - at the argument rob never made!"

    (Frankly, law enforcement does have an anti-terrorism role to play, but their counter-terrorism capability is very limited and I think that's a good thing. joe probably doesn't even understand the difference between anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism, but will undoubtedly Google and wikipedia until he can claim he does.)

  • ||

    ...is there some particular reason that joe comes to the HNR board to attack things he's read in National Review?

    Well, The Corner isn't an open blog like H&R, is it?

  • ||

    Not sure Rob, but I'm guessing he's making the issue "firepower" and that firepower has failed in Iraq.

  • Guy Montag||

    Hey you Ally hating folk, there is still time for you to form the Jefferson Brigade. Maybe Mr. Walker can be in charge of somthing in the Iranian insurgent effort.

  • ||

    I based the above on your statement here Rob,

    ""But it's pretty clear that the US gov't has figured out that their police organizations don't have the necessary firepower (not to mention jurisdiction) to take down trans-national drug cartels, much less trans-national terrorist organizations. """

    I'm just guessing.

  • ||

    Rick Barton -
    Ok, but isn't that like shooting the sheep-dog when the wolf is eating your sheep?

    "I'm guessing he's making the issue 'firepower' and that firepower has failed in Iraq." - TrickyVic

    Really? Where in his statement does he say anything like that? I've re-read it several times just now and STILL don't see the word firepower anywhere in his statement.

    I doubt joe would agree that firepower isn't useful in the counter-terror fight, he's repeatedly come out as a big supporter of the US invasion of Afghanistan.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement