Reason Morning Links: Times Square Bomb Suspect Arrested, Medical Pot Vote in D.C., Feds Hint at Apple Investigation

• Pakistani-American arrested in the Times Square bomb threat.
• Polls show most Americans support controversial Arizona immigration law.
• Eyjafjallajokull erupts again; more flights may be cancelled.
• D.C. council to vote today on bill to legalize medical marijuana.
• FTC, Justice Department may target Apple with antitrust investigation.

Comments

[Johnny Longtorso]

I just wanted to comment before Suki did.

[JW]

Use the farce, dick. Trust your undeserved smugness and inadequate self-awareness.

[Johnny Longtorso]

So liberals now think of us as pets?

[SugarFree]

No, they think of all humans as pets. Libertarians are just the ungrateful ones.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

+100

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Typical shallow nonsense. And I just love those assclown commenters talking about "every libertarian I know". Fuck. You don't know any libertarians, you lying sack of shit. If you did you sure as hell wouldn't talk to them.

[Rich]

Every Martian I know agrees with you.

[John]

They probably talked to a guy who had once read Atlas Shrugged. These clowns don't know anyone who doesn't share their world view.

[sage]

Because you aren't free unless you're free to dump mercury into the stream near your neighbor's well.

[Pope Jimbo]

How else are you supposed to get rid of those gubbment mandated compact fluorescent lights?

[BakedPenguin]

And I love the cuntsore who talked about dumping mercury uptream from someone's well "shutting up" a libertarian he talked to. Apparently, the libertarian he talked to didn't know about property rights, and that it was the government that abrogated torts on damages caused by pollution.

It reminds me of one moron who said that after reading Atlas in college, he posed a question to his roommates: if you could steal $5 of your friends money, why shouldn't you? Guess what! They couldn't find an answer! I have to assume they have absolutely no ethical values, don't mind viewing themselves as thieves, and that they value their friends less than $5. Those are probably the "libertarians" the assclowns claimed to speak with.

[sage]

What if liberals were housepets? And no taking the easy "brick in a burlap bag" approach either.

Cat: Hey, a clean litter box is a RIGHT! And I should be able to scratch and spray your couch whenever I want to!

[Chinny Chin Chin]

Cat: I'm gonna sit here and lick my bunghole while I dream up some more rights. Stay tuned.

[cynical]

"What if liberals were housepets?"

We would be living in a fair and equitable society.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Where do the feds get this bizarre idea that Apple will be able to corner the smart phone market? That's really stupid. Any advantage that Apple gains will be temporary at best.

Methinks that some people need to look up "competition" in the dictionary, because they don't seem to understand what it means.

[JW]

The DOJ will just do what they did for the MS anti-trust trial: artifically construct the "market" to exclude every other competor to Windows and viola! Monopoly!

[robc]

Every linux based smart phone I have tried has been better than the iphone.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Last night the MSNBC shriekers were more subdued about "terrorism" than I expected; they were too busy applying the Rahm Emmanuel Rule to the oil spill.

They did keep dropping the name "Timothy McVeigh" as if it were somehow relevant.

[MediaMatters posters]

Well, since the Christmas Bomber was unsuccessful, what HE did wasn't that big of a deal.

Now, when it comes to the Hutaree... throw their seditious asses in prison for life.

[jtuf]

Quite true. The left and the main stream media definitely have a double standard on violence. Bill Ayers's bomb actually went off, and the left stands by him.

[Johnny Longtorso]

Volokh: Comparing Left and Right Blogospheres

Volokh: Be Careful. Trust No-One. Shut Up.
(The Harvard email thing)

[Rich]

"Has anyone ever considered how much strife would be avoided if people did not feel the need to form and express opinions about technical and sometimes sensitive matters they aren't equipped to have meaningful opinions on?"

Naah. But IMO that would be terrorism.

[Abdul]

Pakistani-American arrested in the Times Square bomb threat.

This man is the best candidate for the Sideshow Bob defense: "Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?"

[Barack Obama]

No, but they DO give a Nobel prize for promising to do things you have absolutely no intention of actually doing!

[Rich]

Polls show most Americans support controversial Arizona immigration law.

Do polls show most Americans have read and understand the law? Although, I suppose it doesn't matter, since "Perception is Reality".

[JohnD]

So Rich, I supose YOU have read the law? Arrogant ass.

[Rich]

Why, yes, I have. If you haven't, enjoy here and here. I encourage folks to *actually* *read* (important) legislation themselves because, well, it helps reduce delusional argumentation.

[TXLimey]

Do you think the people who oppose the law have read it either?

[pgt]

Didn't the Arizona legislature have to enact that law so we could find out what's in it?

[Fluffy]

Don't worry - our military victories will make us safe from terrorism!

Because one day our military triumphs will be so complete that one crazy dude will not be able to build a car bomb and drive it to Times Square!

Really! Trust us! That day is coming! We are making progress on the Malabar Front every day!

[John]

But if the guy had been the angry American white guy the media so hoped he would be, you would be on here saying how there is no threat of terrorism. So when nothing happens you are on here calling anyone who thinks jihadist might be a threat a pants wetter. When something does happen you get to crow about how we are not really safe. Either way you get to bitch and strawman your opponents. It must be fun to be unfettered from the confines of shame.

[Barney Frank]

It must be fun to be unfettered from the confines of shame.

Oh, I assure you: It is.

[Fluffy]

John, my position on terrorism and "jihadism" is really very easy to understand.

I hold that "jihadism" in the sense of a worldwide movement to impose sharia on all infidels under a worldwide caliphate is a laughable, cartoon-character villain made up out of whole cloth by war mongerers. World Communism was a threat to the United States, but Jihadism is not. The United States essentially faces no serious external threats to its political or territorial integrity [and that includes China] and has not since the Soviet Union collapsed.

In terms of individual acts of terror, we will never and can never be safe from them, because they are too easy to commit [especially when a failed attack also "terrorizes"]. You can't get rid of terrorism any more than you can get rid of purse snatching. If one guy alone can do it, or if a small group of men acting together can do it, then it's absolutely absurd to believe you can stop it by military action.

So when I call the Free Republic crowd pants wetters, they're pants wetters because they buy into the delusion [including in absurd fantasy novels on the topic, which are hot sellers now] of the United States being conquered or subverted by the dreaded Muslim threat - and that's so stupid that if it's not due to mental retardation, it has to be due to cowardice. Has to be. Unless people are pretending to fear this even though they know it's absurd, in order to justify keeping the bombs falling.

And that is in no way contradicted by the statement that military action can't stop terrorism.

[John]

If military action can't stop it what can? Do we just do nothing and tell the odd few thousand or more people who would get killed under such a policy "sorry that is the price of doing business".

And further, how do you know military action doesn't stop terrorism? We have nothing but low level one off terror attacks since 9-11. It is at least possible that that is the case because our military has done tremendous damage to our enemies ability to attack us leaving them with only the odd incompetent lunatic rather than skilled terrorists. But you never even consider that possibility. Instead, you use the lack of big attacks to have it both ways. Because we still have attacks, it allows you to claim that military actions are no good (despite a complete lack of evidence). But, since we haven't had another big one you get to claim that there really isn't a serious threat beyond the odd goofball. Even if there is a big attack, you still win because you can then claim that military action failed.

The only thing consistent about your position is that it is always wish fulfillment on your part no matter what happens.

[Timon19]

Hey John? The absence of something isn't proof of a goddamn thing.

Other than the very occasional successful attack from an outside terrorist organization (I'll give you WTC I as a success), when have we had anything other than "low level one off terror attacks"?

[John]

Isn't the lack of attacks proof of some success on our part preventing them? My point is that there is no set of circumstances where Fluffy could ever be proven wrong. If we have a big attack, he gets to claim the military failed. If there is no big attack, he gets to claim the whole effort was a waste of time. It is classic heads I win tails you lose logic.

The point is not obvious that our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are not preventing a big attack. We don't know. I think it is at least possible that finding and killing radical islamists wherever we find them and making them commit to long drawn out insurgencies in Iraq in Afghanistan has taken away resources that they could have used against the US proper. I don't know that. But it is at least possible. It is also possible that we have done nothing to them. That they still have the same capability they always had. They certainly have the capability to build bombs and do big damage in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, they have some capability. So the question is if we left tommorrow and let them win in both places, would they stop trying to harm us and never turn any of those capabilities on the US proper? I don't think that is true. I think if we left, those bomb makers in Baghdad and Kabul would just have the time to train and send bomb makers to New York. But that is the question that needs to be answered.

[Timon19]

John, why are you making the assumption that Fluffy will argue that the military has failed if there's a successful attack here? The underwear bomber was nearly successful, and I don't think that anyone with a bit of sense would claim that his actions would have been preventable by military actions in SW Asia. On the other hand, his actions may have indeed been encouraged by same.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Like much of religion, what you posit is unfalsifiable.

[John]

That is what he claimed just now. He said "Don't worry - our military victories will make us safe from terrorism!" If there is an attack, he gets to claim that the military victories are either meaningless or counter productive. If there is not an attack, he gets to claim they are a waste of time. That is by definition a unfalsifiable claim.

My claim in contrast is nothing of the sort. I am saying that we have some pretty good evidence that we have broken up Al Quada's ability to organize. We have captured and killed tons of their leaders. We have killed 1000s of radicals in Iraq and Afghanistan who could be causing harm other places. And we have prevented them from having a country to train and plan unmolested like they did in Afghanistan. Isn't it at least possible that those actions have made it harder for them to stage a big attack?

[Timon19]

That's not the same argument, John. You adding your spin to someone else's argument is not a fair representation of their actual (if sarcastic) argument. Cut it out.

And actually, what you said just now makes Fluffy's argument a perfect manifestation of a lose-lose situation. It is quite possible that there is nothing that we can do now that will prevent things. Sometimes, life works that way.

Your claim, on the other hand, is saying that because there is a lack of some effect, that a particular action was the cause. That's not even remotely logical. Is it POSSIBLE? Absolutely. Anything is possible. But there is zero evidence of causation, nor can there be. There are far, far too many confounding factors and you're still screwed by the fact that you're using "negative proof".

As to your statistics: so we've killed a bunch of #2's, whatever the fuck that means. We've killed thousands of "radicals". So how many civilians have we killed (and the estimates of many of the more strident anti-war groups are almost certainly ridiculous, so don't think I endorse those numbers)? How many radicals have been created by adding further humiliation, conquest and death upon a region that has been so completely fucked by the West for much of the recent past? Revenge is a concept that is taken very seriously in most cultures of the region. Expecting people to understand and accept innocent friends and family dying so that people separated from everyone else by two oceans can "feel safe" is fucking stupid, John.

[John]

The country of Afghanistan under the Taliban harbored and supported a group that killed 2800 Americans and then refused to turn that group over. As a result of that, we invaded and removed the Taliban. The Taliban moved to NW Pakistan and has been making war against us trying to re-establish its rule over the country ever since.

What were our alternatives? We could have done nothing and let the people responsible for 9-11 get away with it. That was not an option. Once we were in Afghanistan, we could have made it punitive expedition and left after a year or so. But then the Taliban would have taken back over as soon as we left. They would have then killed everyone in the country who cooperated with us and claimed victory. How would that have helped? Our only alternative has been to do what we have done, which is fight a long protracted war until the Taliban either die or get tired of dying. I don't see any other option.

What is your option? Go home and hope for the best? Tell the world how sorry we are for defending ourselves? I love how in your world only Pakistanis have a right to be offended or a right to act in self defense. They harbor people who attack us and kill us and it is our fault for them being angry after we defend ourselves.

[Timon19]

John, if you're going to continue to make arguments for people who disagree with you, I'm done. You're not interested in arguing the merits of a certain course of action unless it's compatible with yours.

[John]

You haven't presented any courses of action. I don't see where we had any other options than the ones I listed. If you think there are others, give them.

[robc]

We could have taken out the Taliban (check) and left.

If they come back, repeat.

[John]

They would have come back. And we would be right back in there. There are not good options.

[MIke Laursen]

Suggested course of action: stop meddling in the affairs of foreign countries.

[swillfredo pareto]

And further, how do you know military action doesn't stop terrorism? We have nothing but low level one off terror attacks since 9-11.

So we were not involved in any sort of military action designed to decrease terrorism before 9-11? More to the point, more aggressive military action would not have changed the outcome that day, only the understanding that there are people on this planet who will fly a plane into a building given the chance.

[John]

But they were able to pull of 9-11 because they were able to operate and train terrorists in Afghanistan with little risk of US interference. Now they can't do that. They really have nowhere where they can set up and train without the risk of a US drone blowing them up. That makes doing business a lot harder. And it also may explain why this clown is not near as competent a terrorist as the ones on 9-11.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

John, I personally know a retired navy seal that was involved in missions inside Afghanistan to destroy terrorist training camps in the 90's.

[John]

I am not saying we did nothing. But what we did, clearly was not near the level of what we are doing now.

[swillfredo pareto]

They really have nowhere where they can set up and train without the risk of a US drone blowing them up.

Intervention is not free, it costs us both financially and in alienation. I assume that you believe the costs incurred attempting to make sure that there is no point on earth where terrorists can congregate is money well spent?

[John]

No it is not free. But the alternative is to let them congregate and hope they don't attack us. That doesn't sound like a plan to me. And as far as alienation goes, doesn't deterrence also work sometimes? And further, suppose we stopped fighting tomorrow. We just packed up and went home. We stopped attacking terrorist altogether. Would that cause them to like us and quit? Or would it cause them to think they had won and feel emboldened to do more? I think it would be the latter.

[Timon19]

Yes, we've deterred them spectacularly, so far! So much so that they've kept us engaged there to the point of Obama adding 40,000 troops! Huzzah for deterrence!

[John]

Whoever said things were easy or the choices always good? I think our choices are either fight these assholes over there for years or fight them here. But they are not going away and they are not going to give up if we are nice to them. It absolutely sucks. There are no good options.

[swillfredo pareto]

But the alternative is to let them congregate and hope they don't attack us. That doesn't sound like a plan to me.

That is a false dichotomy. I would start with a cost/benefit analysis. We can calculate the cost pretty easily. So give me the probability of attack and the expected number of deaths if we do nothing. Net out all of the additional deaths brought about through military interdiction. I don't begin to know the numbers but my gut tells me it is not sound policy. More Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq than ever would have died in terrorist acts had we not gotten involved. But political justification is another matter altogether.

[TrickyVic]

I propose a 10% anti-terror tax on income. If we are going to be serious it needs to be fund properly.

If you not for the tax, you're against the anti-terror effort.

[TrickyVic]

""But they were able to pull of 9-11 because they were able to operate and train terrorists in Afghanistan with little risk of US interference.""

The required training for the 9/11 attacks happened right here in the US, not overseas. It was the flight training that counted, not how to use a box cutter.

[gabe]

John wants to bomb Florida for training terorists.

[TrickyVic]

Everyone has their reason. 😉

[kinnath]

Police.

Terrorism is crime, not war.

[John]

It can be either depending on the circumstances. If you are operating a camp in Afghanistan or Pakistan training people to commit acts of terror and have bought off the local government to leave you alone, it is war. If you are a clown in New York buying diesel fuel, it is crime. It all depends.

[kinnath]

Killing civilians for political gain is a crime. It doesn't matter who does it.

We have yet to figure out how to pursue criminals that operate in lawless parts of the world. I don't think that calling that pursuit "war" makes things any better.

[John]

If you are training to hide within the civilian population to kill and terrorize people, you are not a civilian. You are a partisan and or a terrorist and you deserve what you get.

[TrickyVic]

"""If you are training to hide within the civilian population to kill and terrorize people, you are not a civilian. You are a partisan and or a terrorist and you deserve what you get.""

You're either in the military or your are a civilian.

[TrickyVic]

"""Killing civilians for political gain is a crime. It doesn't matter who does it""

Sure it does. If we do it, it's not a crime.

[Masked man]

They can't attack us if they aren't over here. Doesn't require bombing mud huts to keep them out.

[Tonto]

I have bad news for you about that snake bite, Kenosabe. Doctor says you are going to die.

[Osama bin Laden]

I hold that "jihadism" in the sense of a worldwide movement to impose sharia on all infidels under a worldwide caliphate is a laughable, cartoon-character villain made up out of whole cloth by war mongerers.

Who you callin' war mongerer, bitch?

[Osama bin Laden]

"I hold that "jihadism" in the sense of a worldwide movement to impose sharia on all infidels under a worldwide caliphate is a laughable, cartoon-character villain made up out of whole cloth by war mongerers."

Who you callin' war mongerer, bitch?

[Marshall Gill]

they're pants wetters because they buy into the delusion [including in absurd fantasy novels on the topic, which are hot sellers now] of the United States being conquered or subverted by the dreaded Muslim threat - and that's so stupid that if it's not due to mental retardation, it has to be due to cowardice. Unless people are pretending to fear this

So, basically if a person claims to fear something that you have decided shouldn't be feared then they are either retarded or a liar?

Just curious, what, exactly, makes you think you are qualified to make these judgments?

[Fluffy]

Reality.

If you tell me that you are deathly afraid that the ants in your backyard are going to grow to immense, brachiosaurus-type size, and stomp your house into splinters and kill you, I will conclude that you are either retarded, or insane, or lying.

And I won't have to ask your fucking permission to decide that, either.

[jtuf]

In 2006, Comedy Central depicted Mohammed in an episode called "Caroon Wars". This year, Comedy Central was afraid to depict Mohammed in an episode. We aren't facing the end of America, but there is a clear trend towards Shira law that must be stopped. We tend to lose liberty in bits and pieces, not through catestrophic changes. Just as the expanding drug war (cough medicine and ecstacy are now targetted) and growing socialism must be confronted, so should we address jihadism.

[MIke Laursen]

So, you're suggesting the military unleash a campaign of Mohammed cartoons? I'd put a Support Our Cartoonists bumper sticker on my car.

[gabe]

john,
smae argument can be used for you, when you witness a bomb explosion you say "see there is a threat, we must escalate the war and submit to more anal probes to keep us safe"...when you aren't seeing bomb attacks you say "see daddy government was keeping us safe by ramming his cocks in our asses, we haven't been kille dby terrorist yet, so it must be a good idea to open our asses up wider"

It must be fun to be unfettered from the confines of shame.

the difference is that your view displays a naive/bedwetting/bootlicking type thought process, while ours displays a cynical realistic understanding of how humans try to gain power over other humans.

[jtuf]

Actually, our fight on terrorism helped. We've knocked out the more experienced bomb makers and attacked training camps. The people left are relatively inept. The guy who built the Times Square bomb couldn't design one that worked.

[Timon19]

Would an American citizen of Pakistani descent been as motivated to attempt to blow up Times Square had our wars not been going on for the better part of a decade?

[John]

I don't know talk to the Pakistanis. They certainly have no problem plotting to attack countries like Sweden or Kenya who are not involved in wars. And even if they are, so what? Does that mean we should have done nothing about 9-11? Since he is a Pakistani not an Arab or an Iraqi, he is probably pissed off about Afghanistan more than anything. So, should we have not attacked Afghanistan because the Pakistanis would be mad at us? And does the thought ever occur to him that maybe the actions of radical jihadists is the reason we are bombing the shit out of northwest Pakistan? Or are Americans the only ones in the world expected to have any sense of self analysis?

[Timon19]

John, you know full well that the argument is not to have "done nothing about 9-11". Stop being a disingenuous prick.

[John]

If not invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban, then what? Send the cops in? Ask them nicely? Ask the UN to sanction them?

[Timon19]

Stop setting up strawmen. Knock it off.

[John]

Answer the question. If not invade and fight the taliban for the last nine years then what?

[Timon19]

We could have actually concentrated on finishing the job instead of distracting ourselves with Iraq and allowing the Taliban to slowly reconstitute to where it is now.

Now cut out the fucking strawmen, ass.

[John]

Finish the job how? The Taliban ran to Pakistan and launched an insurgency. The only way to finish the job is to do what we have been doing. And that is why this guy is so pissed off. Well tough shit. You harbor people that kill Americans, life is going to really suck for you.

[Timon19]

The guy who tried to blow up Times Square was an American. He wasn't harboring anyone.

[Masked man]

No, he wasn't an American. He was a Pakistani we let come over and gave citizenship to. If he had stayed in SW Asia, he would not have been a problem.

[Masked man]

Do we include Lon Tomohisa Horiuchi as a sheltered terrorist? The US government has harbored him for years.

[John]

I always said that the people who claimed the Iraq was a bad war but Afghanistan was the good war were lying. Now that Iraq has died down, they are going after Afghanistan just like they did Iraq. To some people, the US has no right to defend itself. Just take it up the ass and say how sorry we are for existing I guess.

[Timon19]

Fuck you, John. I was never against Afghanistan, until it started to drag on for eternity. This war has now lasted 3 years longer than the entirety of WWII. In fact, I was fairly neutral on Iraq until it became clear that we were essentially chasing ghosts there, hurting our ability to close out Afghanistan.

Die screaming, John, you disingenuous fuck.

[John]

So you only support wars as long as they are easy? If it was a just war then, how is it not a just war now? The Taliban are just as big of assholes now as they were then. And leaving and letting them win would be just as bad.

[Timon19]

John, we got into Iraq which necessarily distracted from Afghanistan. Had we closed out Afghanistan, there wouldn't be such a problem. Now that it's clear that we're chasing our tails in Afghanistan (due to screwing ourselves with the Iraqi distraction), continuing to waste young American lives fighting ghosts is criminal, never mind the no-win situation of bombing civilians along with insurgents.

We are literally throwing a chunk of a generation away based on some nebulous idea of "safety" from the vast brown horde from SW Asia.

[Dangerman]

Not easy, efficient. When a war is costing lives and money, but not yielding results or success, we call that 'losing a war'.

[jtuf]

We had troops in Japan for 2 decades after the surrender. There is a big difference between an active war and maintaining troops afterward. The active part of the Afghanistan was lasted less than a year. The troop patrols we currently have are equivalent to the 20 years of troop deployment in Japan. We are no where near being close to the sacrifice of WWII.

[robc]

The question is should we have aided the Shaw in the 50s? It has nothing to do with Afghanistan in the 00s.

[John]

But it is too late. We can't undo that. So, what do we do now? And also the guy the Shah kicked out was no picnic either. Maybe some people are just assholes and will always find an excuse to cause problems?

[robc]

We can stop repeating the mistake. See my post above.

Plan of action for Afghanistan:

1. Remove Taliban from power
2. Come home
3. If Taliban returns, see step 1, repeat as necessary.

Thats it. That is all we need to do.

[John]

Until we kill them or destroy them, they will always come back. We have to stay until they are gone, or the Afghans are strong enough to beat them off.

[robc]

Then why did we divert resources from the task?

Also, why do we have to stay? We have the ability to take them out easily, like we did last time. We can repeat what we did before over and over, if necessary.

[BakedPenguin]

Since they hate prostitutes so much, the Taliban can beat themselves off.

[robc]

But it is too late. We can't undo that.

Also, we can acknowledge that it was a bad idea and has led to blowback. All actions have blowback. That doesnt mean you shouldnt do them, it just means not sticking your head in the sand like Guliani and you.

Also, so fucking what the the guy the shah kicked out was a fucker? We shouldnt be deciding which of two guys some country is rules by. Ditto Iraq.

Afghanistan attacked us, it is different, but even then, who runs it is none of our business as long as it isnt the Taliban.

[Gabe]

Operation Ajax. American Intelligence agencies helped kill innocent women and children and blame it on Mossadegh in order to get Mossadegh removed from office....This was done to make sure BP got the oil revenue and not the Iranian government. I'm no socialist, but I also am not in favor of our government killing innocent people to protect revenue streams for big companies that are having disagreements with foreign governments. Putting the Shaw in power wasn't evena step toward free markets, the Shaw was a bigger tyrant than Mossadegh.

[Timon19]

Artie Shaw?

[gabe]

How about have the CIA and FBI reveal why they lied and hid evidence to the 9-11 comission as Max Cleland and numerous other participants have claimed. How about not escorting all teh bin ladens out of the country? and how about not having Bush telling the FBI to stop questioning Bin Ladens.

[Masked man]

The Taliban offered bin Laden up several times before 9/11. We didn't want him. They offered him up after 9/11 if we offered evidence he was involved. We refused. But yeah, send the cops in. A much better option to bombing innocents.

[John]

Bullshit. They never offered him up under conditions that were ever likely to happen. They said "convince us he is guilty and you can have him". Even the UN didn't buy that line of bullshit. Afghanistan was the most legal and most internationally supported war we have ever fought.

[Timon19]

Yeah, international support for our entry into WWII was pretty weak.

Christ, are you being intentionally stupid?

[John]

It wasn't supported to well by the half of the world that supported the Axis. Afghanistan literally had no country in the world that supported it. That was my point.

[Fluffy]

That would mean that the Iranian seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 was also justified, John.

We wouldn't give up our mass murderer just because they asked, either.

[John]

So it is your position we had no right to go into Afghanistan? We should have said "well we did keep the Shah, so I guess you guys have a right to keep Bin Ladin". Do you honestly think that any government would act that way in such a position?

Is there any point when you would support the US acting in its own defense. Are we so bad and so evil that we just need to let the world attack us and kill us out of penance for our past sins?

Seriously, what are you even talking about?

[gabe]

First step could have been to acknowledge that giving 40 million dollars to the Taliban in 2001 was a mistake.

Then if we had determined we didn't like the Taliban then sending in assassin squads to kill the top 50 in Taliban politics would help push the politics in a different direction...bombing wedding parties full of children was not a good idea and didn't make us safer...but you obviously believe anything your masters tell you...maybe you should join the army...I hear they need more true believers.

[John]

Just send in assassins like James Bond. Go away truther troll.

[Fluffy]

So it is your position we had no right to go into Afghanistan? We should have said "well we did keep the Shah, so I guess you guys have a right to keep Bin Ladin". Do you honestly think that any government would act that way in such a position?

John, I definitely would have supported a military mission to attempt to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan.

I just posted about the events of 1979 because you had gone off on your "Most legal, most moral war EVAH" tangent and I decided to see if you really thought that. Apparently, you think that IF AND ONLY IF we're talking about the United States.

Do you honestly think that any government would act that way in such a position?

Well, if you're saying that I should be "reasonable" and acknowledge that no government was going to split hairs about the history of the extradition of mass murderers in the aftermath of such an event, hey - I'll be happy to be reasonable.

In return, I expect that you'll completely stop claiming that the government of Iran is so horrible that we get to ignore their Non-Proliferation Treaty rights, and will stop advocating military action against them, etc. Because basically you're demanding that I accept that governments will take violent action when another government refuses to extradite a mass murderer, and cut them some slack when they do so. And I'll start doing that if you will.

[John]

We are not even talking about Iran? Iran is not an issue. We are never going to do shit and they are going to build atomic bombs and missiles to put them in. All we can do now is hope that you are right and they really don't mean anyone harm. At this point we are probably better off paying them protection money or sending them hostages and hoping for the best because we clearly don't have the nerve to confront them.

[Gabe]

"At this point we are probably better off paying them protection money or sending them hostages and hoping for the best because we clearly don't have the nerve to confront them."

john likes bootlicking so much he actually seeks out new boots to lick. John has the brain of a 15 year old sex slave that has never been let out of a basement...truly sad.

[John]

And further, the US launched the Afghanistan war with the support of the UN Security Council. Had the US allowed an armed band of thugs take the Afghan embassy staff hostage, the two situations would be analogous.

In the end Fluffy, nothing the US could have done would have met with your approval. It has in your view, no right to defend itself or act in its interests.

[Fluffy]

And further, the US launched the Afghanistan war with the support of the UN Security Council.

Statements and votes by a bunch of assholes in New York have no power to make the Iranian action evil if our action was good. They're either both evil, or both good - or at least "understandable", since that seems to have been your fallback position.

Had the US allowed an armed band of thugs take the Afghan embassy staff hostage, the two situations would be analogous.

That's right. Our action was actually WORSE. They took over a few hundred square yards of our territory and took ~100 of our people prisoner. We took over their ENTIRE COUNTRY and killed THOUSANDS OF THEM, and made THOUSANDS of people prisoner.

In the end Fluffy, nothing the US could have done would have met with your approval. It has in your view, no right to defend itself or act in its interests.

I'm forced into these arguments because of your insistence on claiming that the actions of the US are "the most moral EVAH" and so forth when on any other occasion if a country other than the US acted the same way you would go berserk about how they were as bad as Hitler.

When you start acknowledging that other countries have the right to defend themselves and the right to act in their own interests [and the right to seek revenge for outrages they suffer, which is a right you don't expressly name but which you implicitly demand over and over] then I'll stop pointing out your hypocrisy.

[John]

"When you start acknowledging that other countries have the right to defend themselves and the right to act in their own interests [and the right to seek revenge for outrages they suffer, which is a right you don't expressly name but which you implicitly demand over and over] then I'll stop pointing out your hypocrisy."

So because of the Shah, a bunch of Pushtins in Afghanistan had the right to harbor a Saudi who killed 1000s of innocent civilians? Yeah that makes sense.

You really are crazy fluffy. You are just nuts.

[Fluffy]

No, you dumbass.

I brought up Iran for one reason and one reason only:

Because you asserted that the Afghanistan operation was the most moral war ever and that no one can object to the conduct of the United States in it.

And I merely want you to admit that if this is the case, that you will no longer use the taking of the embassy hostages as evidence that Iran is a rogue regime that deserves to be attacked if it exercises its Non Proliferation Treaty rights.

THAT IS THE ONLY REASON FOR THIS SUBTHREAD.

[TXLimey]

WTC 1 attack - 1993
African Embassy bombings - 1998
USS Cole bombing - 2000
WTC 2/Pemtagon attacks - 2001
Invasion of Afghanistan - 2002
Invasion of Iraq- 2003

Your timeline is a little off Timon.

[jtuf]

Dude, Bin Laden is still complaining about the expulsion from Spain 5 centuries ago. There is no appeasing the jihadists.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

You have it exactly backwards. The Iraq & Afghan wars have greatly increased the Islamists ability to fight against regular armies. When you fight an enemy you are also training them on how to fight you. They try different tactics until they find one that is effective. The Iraqi & Afghan armies are infiltrated with insurgents. As we train those government's armies how to be modern armies we are also training our Islamist enemies.

[John]

IF that were true every insurgency that was ever fought would have been successful. In fact, few insurgencies are successful. By your logic, the act of fighting an insurgency just makes it stronger. History doesn't bear that out. In fact fighting insurgencies tends to defeat them.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

Those Palestinians are going to give up any day now.

[John]

They actually have. There hasn't been an suicide attack on Israel in years. If you build a wall and don't let them into your country, they can't launch an insurgency.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

No suicide attacks, but lots of rockets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....rael,_2010

[jtuf]

Exactly. With draw from Gaza and get rocket attacks. Stay in the West Bank and get calm.

[John]

They actually have. There hasn't been an suicide attack on Israel in years. If you build a wall and don't let them into your country, they can't launch an insurgency.

[jtuf]

In the 1960's the PLO attacked Jordan. Jordan bombed their refugee camps. The PLO quicky left Jordan and stopped making trouble for it. A couple of years ago, the Palistinians in Lebonon rose up. Lebonon attacked the refugee camps in response. The uprising died down, and they haven't attacked Lebonon since. I don't agree with bombing refugee camps. You can make a strong moral argument against bombing refugee camps. However, history has shown that it is an effective strategy.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

Wow, you think the Lebanese government won that conflict. You better do reading because no one agrees with you on that. Hezbollah controls all of southern Lebanon. That's why Isreal tried to invade a few years ago. If the Isreali army couldn't defeat Hezbollah, their is no way the very weak Lebanese army has any chance of doing so.

[jtuf]

Hezbollah is not connected to the refugee camps. The fight with Hezbollah was a separate fight. The Lebanese government decided to compromise with Hezbollah instead of fighting. Now Hezbollah is taking over. Once again you've proven my point. Keep fighting and the jihadists give up. Try to compromise and the jihadist take over in bits and pieces.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

My mistake Fatah Islam is a Sunni terrorist group that was in control of the refugee camps. Hebollah is a Shia Terrorist group. Hezbollah almost toppled Lebanon's government during the fighting & captured western Beirut. The government unfornately had to make peace with Hezbollah if it wanted to survive.

[robc]

There was a good article about a year ago discussing asynchronous warfare and the surprisingly high rate of victory for outmatched (size/money wise) groups fighting non-traditional wars. And there complete inability to fight traditional style.

[robc]

Found it

[John]

Thanks I will read it. But even if they do have a high rate of success, what is the alternative to fighting them? Unless you have a plan to buy them off or figure out some way to make them go away, we are stuck fighting them.

[robc]

No, we arent. We fight the Taliban only when they are in a standard position of power, not in the hills of Pakistan. If they come out in the open and take over Afghanistan, we strike. Put the war on the grounds that powers are good at.

Or use asynchronous techniques ourselves - such as Letters of marquee and reprisal.

[John]

But that would get old quick to. And it would totally suck for anyone in Afghanistan. They couldn't ever rely on us staying and would be punished for helping us.

I think you make a good point. I don't know that we need 100,000 people in Afghanistan. Why not leave 20,000, a ton of air power and SF, and just bomb the Taliban wherever we find them? I am not sure that wouldn't work just as well at a lower cost than what we are doing.

[robc]

But that would get old quick to. And it would totally suck for anyone in Afghanistan.

Thats the point. They wont let the Taliban back in power for that reason.

They couldn't ever rely on us staying

Yes. And? Self-fucking-reliance.

and would be punished for helping us.

Not if they dont let the Taliban back.

[John]

If we left, we couldn't prevent them from coming back. We could only kick them out after they came back.

[robc]

If we left, we couldn't prevent them from coming back. We could only kick them out after they came back.
reply to this

We couldnt prevent it, but the Afghani people could, if they were sick and tired of us coming back over and over.

[swillfredo pareto]

In fact, few insurgencies are successful. By your logic, the act of fighting an insurgency just makes it stronger. History doesn't bear that out. In fact fighting insurgencies tends to defeat them.

Tell that to the Viet Cong and the Mujahideen.

[John]

The Viet Cong were not successful. They were defeated. South Vietnam was conquered by the North Vietnamese Army in spring of 1975.

[swillfredo pareto]

The Viet Cong were not successful.

Define success. The occupiers left the country in ignominy and disgrace. We should all fail so miserably.

It's funny, the North Vietnamese did not consider the Americans to be the enemy; the real enemy was the government of the Republic of Viet Nam. We were just in the way.

[John]

They were not successful because they lost every engagement they ever were involved in and had ceased to be a significant military force by 1971. The fact that four years later a regular Army invaded and conquered the country, really doesn't say much for the Viet Cong.

[swillfredo pareto]

The fact that four years later a regular Army invaded and conquered the country, really doesn't say much for the Viet Cong.

Except that at the end of the day the VC cause (nationalism and reunification) won and the occupiers' cause (fuck only knows) lost. Nothing much

[Cabeza de Vaca]

John,

By your thinking America lost the Revolutionary War, because the British won almost all the battles. In war it doesn't matter who wins the most battles. What matters who can outlast the otherside.

[John]

Well, if the British had maintained control over the US, and Washington would have been defeated and reduced to a small band hiding in the northwest territory, and then four years later France had invaded and conquered the country from Britain, it would be a pretty big stretch to say Washington won the revolutionary war. The two wars are in no way analogous.

And the British didn't win almost all the battles. The British were totally defeated in the South and lost nearly every major engagement they were involved in. They also had an entire Army trapped and surrender at Yorktown. By the end of the war, the British controlled New York, Charleston, Savannah, and nothing more. That is hardly analogous to the US position in South Vietnam when the 1973 peace accords were signed.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

"Well, if the British had maintained control over the US, and Washington would have been defeated and reduced to a small band hiding in the northwest territory, and then four years later France had invaded and conquered the country from Britain, it would be a pretty big stretch to say Washington won the revolutionary war."

Well if, being the key words here.

[John]

That is my point. The American Revolution was nothing like Vietnam.

[Johan]

What insurgencies have we defeated?

[John]

Cuba, the Philippines, during the Spanish American War. The Iraqi insurgency is pretty much a spent force. They can still unload the odd car bomb, but they no longer control any ground or have any hope of toppling the government.

[Fluffy]

And we gained absolutely nothing worth gaining from defeating either one.

Every cost we inflicted on ourselves and others - material, physical, moral - was utterly wasted.

Yeah, those occupations were big wins all right.

[Fluffy]

To clarify, I'm referring to Cuba and the Phillipines here.

It's too early to be absolutely sure we won't gain anything worthwhile from the Iraqi occupation.

I was only talking about the more historically remote ones.

[TrickyVic]

"""Actually, our fight on terrorism helped. We've knocked out the more experienced bomb makers and attacked training camps.""

When have experienced bomb makers from that part of the world ever made it to the US? The first world trade center bombing? One could argue that the scrutiny for large fertilizer purchaces have done more to stop foreign bombers than any military action.

[gabe]

FBI informants supplied the materials for the first WTC bombing. Your ignorance of this disqualifies you from having anything useful to say.

[TrickyVic]

Who supplied the bomb maker, it the issue. The point isn't the materials. But since we cracked down on fertilizer sales, there have been no big fertilizer bombs used, regardless of who supplies it.

[Johan]

Yes FBI bomb makers suck to.

[Fluffy]

Our latest triumphs have brought the war within measureable distance of its end!

[SIV]

So is the Times Square suspect's motivation expanded access to affordable healthcare or that an African-American is President?

It can't be the deficit or he would have raged against the previous administration.

[Rahm Emanuel]

Might want to change that handle, which is awfully close to "SUV." People might get the wrong idea about you.

[Fluffy]

A suspicious SIV has been parked here at Hit and Run for a long time.

I think we have no choice but to detonate it remotely. For safety's sake.

[Al Gore]

SUVs don't need to be packed with explosives to be dangerous. They do that by their mere existence.

The science is settled.

[Chad]

*pant*pant*

[Xeones]

Our latest triumphs have brought the war within measureable distance of its end!

A parsec is measurable, right?

[wylie]

Depends on the availability of standard-candle stars near your target.

[SugarFree]

Heinlein as an excuse for libertarian-bashing.

I actually enjoyed the book, but I find the libertarian Heinlein to be very annoying especially in light of what has happened to the financial markets the last two years.

I09, why can't I stop reading you?

[JW]

My fear is that if I actually do ever meet someone from i09, my fist is going to suddenly, and without any conscious thought, accelerate, strike out and punch the smarmy shit right in the face.

I'm telling you, it will be an unconscious response to "Yeah, I blog for Gawker, why?"

[SugarFree]

I'd like it about 50% more if it had a Dr. Who-free feed.

[dbcooper]

+1

(Modern) Dr Who is god awful, as is their fawning over it.

[Pro Libertate]

No kidding. They must derive income from some networks and/or production companies, because no way that's a natural obsession.

[dbcooper]

They correctly described much of the shittiness of Heinlein though, even if they didn't always illustrate it from the text so well.

[Pro Libertate]

It's true. When I went to the meeting of the Libertarian Masons Who Are Illuminated, we planned the latest financial downturn.

[mr simple]

I love how anything that challenges their worldview is a strawman argument. There's no such thing as a non- benevolent government that causes hardship: strawman. Issues can't be objectively examined and applied consistently: strawman. It's thngs like his that make me wish I had my own blog to refute these ideas, but that's a lot of effort for something only I would read.

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

Eyjafjallajokull erupts again

That name is impossible to pronounce.

[Bj?rk]

Wimp.

[Sigur Ros]

You have to sing it.

[Xeones]

I09, why can't I stop reading you?

Sweet'n'Low, face it. Your pancreas is gone, and no amount of masochistic psychological self-flagellation is going to bring it back. It's time to move on, buddy.

[P Brooks]

I find the libertarian Heinlein to be very annoying especially in light of what has happened to the financial markets the last two years.

Heinlein works at Fannie Mae?

[Rich]

Heinlein works at Fannie Mae?

No, he has passed on. But I'll bet that *Heineken?* works at Fannie Mae.

[Makes Sense]

WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court is closing its iconic front entrance beneath the words "Equal Justice Under Law."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201.....urt_access

[WTF]

Fuck these server squirrels.

[P Brooks]

FTC, Justice Department may target Apple with antitrust investigation.

I'm surprised they waited so long.

[Colin]

The terrorist's motivation was clearly health care reform, just as Mayor Bloomberg intimated yesterday.

How much longer can we allow these wingnuts to speak freely?

[John]

Since the media can't score political points about this, this story will die. If it had been some crazy native, they would have milked it for months.

[Fort Hood Shooter]

"Since the media can't score political points about this, this story will die."

That's just silly.

[John]

You are all over the front pages these days aren't you? There have been so many in depth reports on the threat of radicals in the military. So much reporting.

[dbcooper]

Brit sniper gets two kills at 2.5km - new distance record apparently.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Ho.....ng_Taliban

Hey, British made weapon too (probably not designed though).

[dbcooper]

Actually Brit designed and owned.

[Evan]

Cops tased a 17 year old kid who ran on the field at the Phillies game last night.
http://tinyurl.com/2dv5jvb

[The Gobbler]

Serves the little fucker right.

[John]

I don't like cops and I don't like tazers. But, if you run on the field at a ball game, you pretty much deserve what you get.

[TrickyVic]

""I don't like cops and I don't like tazers. But, if you run on the field at a ball game, you pretty much deserve what you get.""

Come on, you don't really mean that. If the cop would have accidently pulled his real weapon and shot the kid dead, would he have deserved it?

[Maverick]

That kid is luck that he didn't get shot. Remember this episode?

[Pip]

FTA

The most notorious attack was the one on tennis star Monica Seles, who was stabbed in the back by an obsessed fan in April 1993 during a match in Hamburg, Germany

[dbcooper]

What kind of weirdo gets obsessed with women's sport?

[John]

No I don't mean it literally. But, look at the situation in Chicago where the guys jumped out on the field and beat up the 1st base coach a few years ago. If I am on the field and some nut jumps down and takes a run at me, I am going to assume he means me harm. It really is dangerous for the players. I am not sure I have a problem with them tasering the guy.

[TrickyVic]

""If I am on the field and some nut jumps down and takes a run at me, I am going to assume he means me harm.""

Are you sure your not on a SWAT team? The it's moving towards me therefore a threat is the reason dogs get shot in raids.

[John]

Come on. Look what happened to Monica Seles. Some lunatic jumps onto the field and you think that is just normal? Bullshit. Stay off the damn field.

[TrickyVic]

Shouldn't there be some effort to determine if it is in fact a threat? Just because it happened to someone else, doesn't mean it will always happen. That's they same justification cops use to shoot dogs.

But of course, stay off the damn field.

[Mike M.]

Sports fans sure become morons at a young age in Philly.

[Nipplemancer]

Philly fans of all sports are the biggest bunch of jerkoffs on earth and possibly this part of the galaxy.

[Evan]

But in the whole history of idiots running onto the field at ball games, I don't think anyone's been tasered on the field before. Where's he gonna escape to? No need for the taser.

[chaka]

watching some dude get tazed is way more awesome than that stupid hot dog race.

[P Brooks]

I09, why can't I stop reading you?

I have no idea; Gawker sites, always and everywhere, suck.

Hard. Really hard. Ron Hart style.

[DenverWill]

I don't know...for a while, while Leitch was still running it, Deadspin was all kinds of awesome.

[P Brooks]

17 year old kid who ran on the field at the Phillies game last night.

Teh domestic terrorism!

[Fluffy]

The thread up above was too convoluted, so I am moving my response down here.

You know why it's "heads I win, tails you lose", John? Because I'm right.

The reason that there is no outcome that can't disprove the claim that military action can't prevent terrorism is functional and not statistical.

A successful terror attack at a higher level than the pitiful attacks would have seen would require such meager resources that it can't be prevented militarily functionally. That's why neither the presence nor the absence of attacks has any bearing on the point.

Five men with weapons you can buy at any gun show can kill 100 people any time they want, just by showing up and trying. The Virginia Tech shooter is a pretty good demonstration of what one guy can get done. Five guys would do much better, because a single brave passerby or victim can't stop the attack by charging the shooter from behind, while he's reloading, etc.

If five guys - FIVE - who are pissed off about something decide to go to the Boston Garden during a Celtics or Bruins game to see how many people they can kill, they will be able to kill at least 100 before the cops take them down. If you're in the least bit intellectually honest, you will admit that this is the case.

So for a military effort to defeat terrorism, it would have to degrade anti-American forces to the point where there are no longer five people who hate America anywhere in the world. Including American citizens. Including converts to Islam. Including plain old freaks. How in the FUCK is it ever going to do that?

You're annoyed that I won't give you a solution. I'm not giving you a solution because it's my position that there isn't one. If people don't want to hear that politically, what fucking difference does that make to me?

I want to hear about the military solution that will stop five people who hate the USA from existing anywhere in the world at any time. That's what I'd be interested to hear.

So yeah, I'm mocking the claims of military triumph as Orwellian because the JOKE about the telescreen broadcasts in 1984 is that they promised a victory that could never come. That's why the post is a satire, John. Not because the military is bad and not because the USA is bad but because the strategy is so ill-fitted to the problem functionally that it can't succeed.

[John]

Can it prevent five guys from shooting a few people? No. But no one ever claimed it would. The idea is to prevent countries from supporting these people and letting them plan and launch attacks that kill 1000s or tens of 1000s. That is why you launch military action. And my claim is that the action has worked. We have prevented them from planning and launching big attacks. You are right, we will always have to live with the odd nut who shoots someone. But we live with that any way. It is not like Islamists are the only nuts in the world.

The issue is whether there really is a threat of terrorists killing 1000s as opposed to the one off nut. I say there is. I say 9-11 proved there is. Further, we have found all sorts of intelligence that says Al Quada would love nothing better than get a hold of Chemical or bio weapons and kill tens of thousands. One lone nut can't do that. You need big money, time and space to do that. And that is what military action denies them.

You may not agree with that. Maybe you think they will never do such a thing. Maybe you are right. The fact is neither one of us has access to enough facts to really know. I can respect your opinion that they will never launch a really big attack even if we did nothing. If that is your claim then make it. But the existence of one lone nut in New York says nothing one way or another about that.

And has it ever occurred to you that wars sometimes last more than a news cycle? It took the French 100 years to kick the British off the continent. Who is to say it won't take us 100 to finally end the threat of a big terrorist attack? You say that it won't because you don't like that answer and wish it were not true. So do I. But, our wishing doesn't make it so.

[TrickyVic]

"""It took the French 100 years to kick the British off the continent. Who is to say it won't take us 100 to finally end the threat of a big terrorist attack? ""

The problem is that they could spend the money to strike every 10 years, that would be 10 times in that 100 years, and we would have to spend the money every year for the 100 years to defend against a once in a decade attack.

I think both recent attempts, christmas day, and times square, have proven spending 600 billion a year in defense spending doesn't really cut it. It doesn't really matter how much you spend, they will find a way to make at least an attempt to show effort, which tells us it's still possible, which makes some people think we need to do more. At some point you can't do more. We get dimished returns for the cost.

[John]

I am not staying we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan forever. At some point you win and the countries can defend themselves and are in no danger of becoming a threat. We have hit that point in Iraq and need to go home. I am not sure when we hit that point in Afghanistan. Hopefully soon. And I am also open to the idea of leaving just enough people in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban from taking over and calling it a day. I am not convinced we need 100,000 people there.

And then maybe we quit for a while. At least with the big involvements. But, we will continue to operate in Yemen and the Horn of Africa and NW Pakistan and places like that and hunt and kill these people. We are probably stuck in a low level war for God knows how long.

[TrickyVic]

""We are probably stuck in a low level war for God knows how long""

What the hell is low level war? If we are at war, then there should be nothing low level about it. What you are actually talking about is the ability for the US to exercise it's military might on demand against whoever it deems an enemy. That's not war.

[John]

A low level war is what the British did with pirates. They hunted them down and killed them wherever they found them. I think that is what we are going to be doing with jihadists for a while.

[TrickyVic]

Is that really a war? War is so much more, it generally requires a commitment from the citizenry in giving up some rights for the duration. I'm not that familiar with what the Brits did. Did they attack pirates on land within sovereign nations or just in the water?

I think that is how we will be forced to deal with it. But I wouldn't want our government applying special war time priviliges against the citizenry in this case.

[MIke Laursen]

Did the British wait until the pirates were hanging out in a little seaside village, and then bomb the hell out of it, killing pirates, women, and children?

Do you think that all this shock-and-awe bombing we do might be creating some animosity towards the United States?

[Cabeza de Vaca]

John,

What makes you think the governments we put in place in Iraq & Afghanistan won't be a threat to America? Are the people who run those governments are friends? I think it is more likely they will end being countries like Iran, than long term allies.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

I meant our, not are. I tired today.

[gabe]

Fluffy,
give up...reading this argument is like watching "The Jerk".

John says "Hey someone is shooting at these cans! Somebopdy hates these cans! get away from these cans!" Fluffy tries to explain what is really happening and John argues.

Please join the military John...you can help save us all from terror. We will all appreciate you sacrifice please save us!

[John]

See what you have done Fluffy? You attracted Truthers to the site. Why did you have to go and do that?

[Fluffy]

The 9/11 attacks were undertaken by 19 guys and killed about 3000 people.

And you know what? They didn't really need training camps to do it. They needed airline tickets, which cost a few grand. And they needed to learn to fly an airplane, which costs a couple of grand.

All that running around with an AK-47 held over your head, and doing a high school obstacle course, that they show in training camp recruitment videos? Not really that big an element in the 9/11 attacks.

Your defense of military action therefore boils down to the idea that a group of 20 or less can't duplicate our 9/11 losses because our military action is preventing them from doing so. And I just don't see it.

You can MAYBE argue that all the Patriot Act 4th Amendment stuff has "worked", and that our intelligence community is busting up cells they can't manage to launch any coordinated attacks. Or you could argue that the most motivated radicals aren't devoting any time to attacks in the US because they'd rather attack our assets in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But even a handful of radicals, with little more training than CDL-A drivers' licenses, could still launch a devastating attack in the US, even after our trillion bucks and all those dead GIs.

[John]

"You can MAYBE argue that all the Patriot Act 4th Amendment stuff has "worked", and that our intelligence community is busting up cells they can't manage to launch any coordinated attacks. Or you could argue that the most motivated radicals aren't devoting any time to attacks in the US because they'd rather attack our assets in Iraq or Afghanistan."

That is exactly what I am arguing. And what seems to be happening.

"But even a handful of radicals, with little more training than CDL-A drivers' licenses, could still launch a devastating attack in the US, even after our trillion bucks and all those dead GIs."

How? 9-11 was a wiley coyote trick they are unlikely to pull off again. I am worried about Chemical or bio weapons. The odd car bomb or even air plane bomb would suck but would not be devastating.

[Fluffy]

OK, to put on my Tom Clancy hat for a minute:

1. 20 guys drive 20 stolen fully loaded fuel trucks into the exits of the Staples Center during a game, and then blow the trucks up using small explosives on the tanks.

2. 20 guys with semi-auto weapons converted to auto using instructions off the internet seal the exits to a Texas megachurch on a Sunday and kill all 1500 people inside.

3. On 4 consecutive Mondays, 5 guys walk into 5 big-city kindergartens with automatic weapons and kill everyone they can. [This would kill fewer people, but would probably result in proportionally more terror.]

4. 20 guys divide into teams of 4 and instead of driving the fuel trucks into the Staples Center they drive them into 4 major refineries and do as much damage as they can. [This would probably kill very few people, but has the potential to cause significant economic damage worldwide.]

I could keep going but I'd have to do some Googling on technical issues that would probably get me on a watch list.

[Gabe]

Fluffy is engaging in a ctivity tha any thoughtful person has done over the last decade. There are many ways we could still committ terror attacks if we wanted to. The ease of comitting one of these attacks(for someone with a IQ over 115 is= NOT John) leaves us to conclude.

1. Not that many people are trying to commit random mass murder terror attacks. Our government is lying to us quite a bit) and exagerating the danger from sharia law seeking islamofacist.

Once you understand this lie and then view the evidence and other lies our government tells us you see continuous stream of BS coming from our government.

John is a moron who believes the continuous stream of BS. He is a sick sick person. Part of it probably stems from his inability to think of ways to commit mass killings. He probably isn't not competent at what he does, has never made anything/ has no ability to make a plan and not tell people about it/ has no ability to think for himself etc. Don't worry John, your government loves you and it only takes your money to protect you and the Easter Bunny also hides eggs in your yard.

[TrickyVic]

""John is a moron who believes the continuous stream of BS.""

And Gabe is god's gift of knowledge.

I give John a fair amount of crap from time to time, but I think he's better than the average american. At least he seems to understand appeal to personal attack is for chumps.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

After watching the news recently. If I was Al-Queda I would thinking about blowing up offshore oil wells. Not well guarded & the enviromental impact is catastrophic.

[TrickyVic]

""I am worried about Chemical or bio weapons. ""

I'm not. Chemical attacks are overrated, yeah we can talk about what Saddam did, but he dropped hundreds of shells in a given area. Terrorist can't do that. Sure they could do something that might kill a dozen and sicken a few more dozen, but a successful car bomb in times square would do more damage. Even a successful suicide bomber with a vest would do more damage. You just have to use too much chemicals to get the job done. Now blowing up a chemical plant would be different, but you can't move those to a target.

Bio is a lot more difficult and hard to control. You could wipe out your own population trying to wipe out someone elses.

But you seem to be acknowledging that you believe while we fight them there, they won't come here. So why wouldn't 100,000 troops be better than 20,000 in that case. The more we could spread them out, the more resources they need to commit.

I wasn't aware that you were such a fan of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

[John]

I am not a huge fan of the Patriot Act. And Antrax would kill tens of thousands. Chemical could kill 100s. But you are probably right, it would disperse before it would kill too many people.

[TrickyVic]

""I am not a huge fan of the Patriot Act."""

You've argued its success. Ok, so maybe not a huge fan.

How much Antrax would it take to kill tens of thousands? That's my point. A hell of a lot more that what was mailed to Captiol Hill, which killed how many people? Government usesa theoretical maximum effectiveness when calculating harm, which is always an over statement.

""But you are probably right, it would disperse before it would kill too many people.""

That's why you need large amounts. Look at any terrorist attack that used chems or bio, they were not that successful in terms of body count. Big body counts required huge amounts, like the battery factory that blewup in India(?)

[Timon19]

Well said (except for the typos and stuff 🙂 ).

[Timon19]

Response was to Fluffy, not John.

[jtuf]

I disagree. Look at the deaths caused by the mofia over the decades. Consistently going after them has made them less dangerous, even if they do still exist.

[John]

That is a good point. Or look at the Colombian guerrillas for another example. You make all of the arguments Fluffy is making about Sicily in the 1970s with the mafia. Yet, Sicily someone managed without surrendering.

[Fluffy]

Actually, the mafia IS A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE and something we should look at.

Did we fight the mafia by invading Sicily and by bombing continental Italy?

Does anyone think that would have been an efficient or effective way to go after the mafia?

If the radio was reporting right now on our glorious victories in the Apennines or on the Amalfi coast, would you hear those reports and think to yourself, "Wow, we've really got the Gambino crime family [or whoever, I don't know who the mob bosses are anymore] on the run now"?

Or was the best method of going after the mafia the method we, you know, actually used?

And when fighting organized crime, would it really make any sense to say, "We're going to make a 15 billion dollar a month military deployment in Country X, and we're not going to end it until there is no organized crime anywhere in the world"? How long would our military deployment last if that was our standard of success? Would we reach a day when there was no organized crime anywhere? Not a single protection racket? Not one racketeer?

[John]

If Afghanistan had had a cooperative and effective government like Italy, you would have a point. Had the Taliban rounded up Al Quada and turned them over, we would have never gone to war. Also, if the mafia had pulled 9-11 and Sicily had refused to do anything, we would be at war in Sicily.

The two situations are nothing alike. Also, weren't you saying above we had no right to go after Bin Ladin since we refused to turn over the Shah? How dare you support using the police to do things you clearly don't think the US has a right to do.

[Fluffy]

Ummm...I'm talking about organized crime IN THE UNITED STATES.

I don't really give a shit about Italy's problems.

I'm asking if there was a MILITARY SOLUTION to the problem of organized crime in the United States. Or if you could give me a hypothetical military solution to it. Or if the problem was better suited to a non-military approach.

That is the subject here: what tool fits what problem.

I said that the military couldn't stop terrorism because it wasn't the right tool for the job.

Jtuf responded "What about the mafia, huh? Look how we stopped them!"

And I pointed out that to the extent we have degraded the mafia, we haven't done so militarily. And then I painted an absurd scenario of how we might have chosen to act militarily, to mock the entire idea. But I guess I misjudged the audience, because apparently the scenario wasn't absurd enough for you to not jump up and endorse it.

[Gabe]

Bush said it wasn't important to get Bin Laden

[John]

Also Fluffy, you would have never in a million years supported the police actions taken by Sicily to stop the mafia. They had secret trials and all sorts of things that would offend your sensibilities.

Admit, your solution to terrorism is for us to die because as Americans we deserve it.

[dave b.]

And your solution is to continue the same failed policies that cause terror attacks.

[John]

Because defending ourselves just makes it worse, the solution must be to surrender right?

[dave b.]

How can you defend yourself when you are the aggressor?

[jtuf]

Terrorists cause terrorism, not USA policies.

[Fluffy]

My overall position is that if I was in charge, there wouldn't be any anti-US terrorism to speak of and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If I was in charge, Muslim parents would be naming their kids "Muhammad Fluffy USA #1" inside of ten years, so we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If freaks still launched terror attacks we would deal with them the way we deal with guys who shoot up McDonald's or the Post Office: we'd stop them when we can, imprison them if we can, and kill them if we have to, and we'd do it by the motherfucking book.

If there was a foreign power that said "We demand that you give up the Constitution or we will attack you tomorrow!" and I was in charge, I would fight them and would refuse to give up the Constitution even if it cost the lives of every American. Do you seriously think I want to give up the Constitution to stop one car bomb in Times Square?

My solution is not to promise people safety that cannot possibly be achieved. YOUR solution is to "do something" even though you have admitted several times that you know that there will still be attacks. So YOUR solution is ALSO "for us to die", because somebody's going to die in those attacks you admit you can't stop.

[John]

And we would all get ponies and unicorns to.

"I would fight them and would refuse to give up the Constitution even if it cost the lives of every American."

That is awfully kind of you. But I doubt the Americans will be so interested in giving up their lives so you can feel better about yourself. You won't take the life of one foreign civilian in the defense of the country. But you will gladly sacrifice the lives of every American to fulfill the dictates of ideological purity.

Good luck with that.

[dave b.]

No one is saying that the US shouldn't attempt to defend itself, so please stop with the lies that we can never kill a terrorist. However, you might want to take off your neocon jingoism shades and see what we have done to cause these issues.

[John]

"No one is saying that the US shouldn't attempt to defend itself"

True, they just object to every actual attempt. It is a good shell game. Sure the US can defend itself. We will just never offer any way to do so we would approve of.

And further, Fluffy is saying he would kill every American in order to preserve the constitution.

[dave b.]

Perhaps other people's definition of 'defense' doesn't involve invasion of other countries and permanent bases everywhere.

[Timon19]

dave b., this is why I quit responding. He's incapable of honest discussion with people holding dissenting views and cannot argue without actively caricaturing them.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

He is the right wing version of Joe. He asks a question & if someone answers it in a way he doesn't like he redirects the conversation. It really is pointless to have a discussion with him.

[jtuf]

Please read Bin Laden's speeches again. He is agnry about losing Spain 5 centuries ago. He also wants to take over India, the Philapines, and dozens of other countries. Jihadism has been around for 1400 years. It is not a result of US actions.

[Fluffy]

So if the Soviet Union had said, "Surrender, or we will launch our weapons" you would have surrendered?

Wow, you know what? I thought you were a patriot. But you're a fucking coward.

As long as "defending the United States" means bombing people who can't fight back, you're a patriot.

I see that you subscribe to the GOP conception of "honor". That's nice to know. Or see confirmed once again.

You won't take the life of one foreign civilian in the defense of the country.

That's completely untrue. I have, on various occasions, supported the Hiroshima bombing, the bombing of German cities, etc. on these boards.

But because I don't want to bomb the particular civilians you want to bomb TODAY, you continue to think that I'm a pacifist.

And because I think that bombing civilians is not a particularly good way to make people love us, you continue to think I'm a pacifist.

But you will gladly sacrifice the lives of every American to fulfill the dictates of ideological purity.

On any other occasion, you'd talk about the glorious sacrifice of American boys at Normandy to fight for freedom, etc. Because that sort of poetry moves you.

But freedom does not inspire you as much when the demand placed on the citizen is that they accept less than perfect safety in exchange for it.

Charge a beach into machinegun fire = OK to expect of the citizen, in the defense of freedom.

Obey the limits of the Constition = not OK to expect of the citizen, in the defense of freedom. At least, not to you.

[Fluffy]

And you're right, I wouldn't have endorsed secret trials or "all sorts of things" to stop the mafia.

I would just have legalized gambling, prostitution, and drugs, and gotten rid of the usury laws, and there wouldn't have been a mafia to stop any more.

I'm sure the protection racketeers would have tried to make a go of it, but without the other businesses to provide cash flow it's a much weaker organization.

[John]

That is it. We can just legalize suicide bombing and all of our problems will be solved. Why didn't we think of that before?

[Cosmotarian Overlord]

support the troops, buy Northern Alliance Heroin

[MIke Laursen]

Let's say that military action really is the only way of stopping terrorist attacks. You still have to ask whether it would be worth it.

Which is worse for the country? Some random terrorist attacks or systematically draining wealth from our economy to fight endless foreign wars?

[jtuf]

The total cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars so far is 990 Billion.

http://www.costofwar.com/

That about the same as last year's bank bailout. We are not getting crushed by the cost of war.

[MIke Laursen]

jtuf, you realize that's additive, right? We're not spending on the war instead of the bailout. We're spending on both, and a shitload of other programs.

[Maverick]

The US military IS in Italy. It has been since 1943. We invaded Sicily and bombed continental Italy . . . just sayin'.

[MIke Laursen]

Have we ever completely left a country once we've established a presence?

[TrickyVic]

"" Look at the deaths caused by the mofia over the decades. Consistently going after them has made them less dangerous, even if they do still exist.""

Is there any proof that the kinder gentler mafia is a result of government crackdown?

[John]

I would say that the fact that all of their leaders and most of their members are either dead or in jail is pretty good evidence. I don't think they stopped being the mafia out of kindness.

[TrickyVic]

""I would say that the fact that all of their leaders and most of their members are either dead or in jail is pretty good evidence""

If they exist, they have leaders. It's silly to think that just because someone that held the position is off the street, dead or jail, means that position will remain empty. Sort of like how we keep killing AQ's #2 guy.

[John]

But the mafia doesn't have near the power or destructive capability anymore. If throwing them in jail and killing them doesn't stop it, what does? If nothing will stop them, why even try? Sicily is a lot safer place now than it was 20 years ago and that is primarily due to whacking the mafia.

[TrickyVic]

"""But the mafia doesn't have near the power or destructive capability anymore.""

Just because they don't use it, doesn't mean they don't have it.

""If throwing them in jail and killing them doesn't stop it, what does? ""

If we knew that, we could apply it to terrorism.

[John]

We do. It is called rubble doesn't make trouble.

[MIke Laursen]

Really, you don't think reducing villages to rubble doesn't contribute to Al Qaeda's ability to recruit new members?

[jtuf]

We should avoid reducing villages to rubble for moral reasons. However, the historical evidence suggests that reducing villages to rubble reduces Al Qaeda's ability to recruit new members. Check out the Pew research findings on support for terrorism in Middle Eastern Countries. Approval for terrorist organizations was above 50% in most Arab countries 10 years ago. After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on, support for terrorism declined significantly. The average terrorist supporter only likes the idea of a terrorist attack if some one else is going to die as a result. Once the prospect of personal risk comes into play, he is much less enthusiastic.

[MIke Laursen]

I just looked at the Pew study. Don't see how you get from that study to "reducing villages to rubble reduces Al Qaeda's ability to recruit new members." The poll's major finding is reduced support for terrorism in six selected Muslim countries, only one of which, Pakistan, has any U.S. presence.

Now, show me some Pew poll workers going door-to-door with clipboards in neighborhoods in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[I Learned It From You, Dad]

Congress Members Bet on Fall in Stocks

Some members of Congress made risky bets with their own money that U.S. stocks or bonds would fall during the financial crisis, a Wall Street Journal analysis of congressional disclosures shows.

Senators have criticized Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for profiting from the housing collapse. And Congress is considering legislation to curb Wall Street risk-taking, including the use of financial instruments known as derivatives and of leverage, or methods that amplify returns.

According to The Journal's analysis of congressional disclosures, investment accounts of 13 members of Congress or their spouses show bearish bets made in 2008 via exchange-traded funds?portfolios that trade like stocks and mirror an index. These funds were leveraged; they used derivatives and other techniques to magnify the daily moves of the index they track.

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....tions_news

[I Learned It From You, Dad]

Some of these legislators have publicly criticized practices such as short-selling, or betting on a security to decline. In February, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.) argued on the Senate floor that "we don't need those speculating in the marketplace to take unfair advantage of the values of equities that are owned by Americans all over this country for the sake of making a buck on a short sale."

[J_L_B]

The immigration issue has a more political component to it than a racist one. Obviously the Democrats presume millions of legalized illegal immigrants will be eternally grateful and reward them by converting some red states to blue. But another issue keen to Americans is whether Hispanics support illegal immigration because of a racial connection to the illegals that trumps respect for the rule of law. If that's indeed the case one can understand the concern that a large block of voters will support lax enforcement of laws due to racial solidarity. That would undermine the rule of law and undermine individuality by converting us to a country ruled by racial factions. I'm confident that's not the case, and while you hear a loud minority of Hispanics supporting illegals and shouting down others are racists or traitors, the Hispanics that vote and the democrats insist on courting are presumably legal immigrants or native-born. For them, amnesty and loose enforcement of immigration laws are not in their interests.

[Pip]

I personally know a man from Costa Rica who advocates Latinos in the USA have as many babies as possible in order to eventually outnumber the whites.

[cynical]

Too bad for him white people have the Duggars, then, eh?

[P Brooks]

we have found all sorts of intelligence that says Al Quada would love nothing better than get a hold of Chemical or bio weapons and kill tens of thousands.

I would love nothing better than to see the current Tax Code scrapped, and replaced with a five per cent flat tax, and a variety of consumption and "fee-for-service" taxes.

That doesn't mean it will happen.

[John]

Since you have absolutely no way of making that happen, your opinion doesn't mean much. But if you could get together with a few of your friends, get some money from some sympathetic foreigners, and go to a safe place and spend a few years making it happen, your opinion might matter more.

Also, it is a lot easier to make Anthrax than it is to change the tax code.

[robc]

Not true, fuckers in DC change the tax code at the drop of a hat.

[Ska]

How about if "change the tax code" was restated as "simplify the tax code?"

[cynical]

Well, if you could get together with a few of your friends, get some money from some sympathetic foreigners, and go to a safe place and spend a few years developing a bioweapon to be deployed against Congress and the IRS, you could make it happen.

[P Brooks]

"we don't need those speculating in the marketplace to take unfair advantage of the values of equities that are owned by Americans all over this country for the sake of making a buck on a short sale."

?????????

[BakedPenguin]

If you recognize reality, you must not profit from it!

[Ska]

You know what's insane about people who hate on going short? They fail to realize that in order for me to take a short position, someone out there is taking a long position.....

[Not Balkoesque threadjack]

Sorry to threadack, but how about this? A LEO who could have gotten away with an No-questions-asked shooting, doesn't do one.

Sometimes behavior from a non-Balkoesque universe has to be noted and appreciated, even if a more Balkoesque state of things still threatens to be closer to the norm.

Deputy Clay Grant Jr., who stopped into Target to buy some paper towels on his day off work, heard screams from a nearby aisle. He grabbed his Beretta handgun, identified himself as a sheriff's deputy and ordered the woman to drop the knives, he told reporters at a news conference afterward. She ran from aisle to aisle before surrendering.

"She finally dropped her knife, and I was able to place handcuffs on her," said Grant, 26, whose comments were carried by several news agencies.

Grant said he decided not to shoot at the woman because he didn't feel his life was in jeopardy. "Her facial expression was someone who was lost, confused, didn't know exactly where they were," he said.

(I wonder how many INNOCENT persons woken by invading drug war SWAT teams at 4.a.m. and were shot or otherwise bullied looked the same way.)

[?????]

thanks