It’s not garbage at all. It is simply the logical conclusion to be drawn from what you’ve written, no dedication necessary to understand it. You place blame for terrorism rates on the US. But the reality is that it increases regardless of US action or inaction. You simply don’t hear or ignore it if the US isn’t involved.

“The fact that U.S policy in the Middle East has given rise and has increased terrorism since 9/11 is a fact. And that is all. It’s growing – it was growing – and it will continue to grow if the current application of the war on terror continues.”

Your opinion. Again, the goal is to end it, not perpetuate it. The US is working towards that end. Simply asserting that “it was growing – and it will continue to grow” is just taking an arbitrary point in time and trying to extrapolate a trend from that. Just because the outcome is not decided does not mean it’s destined for failure.

“But we’re not fighting a ‘war’- we’re fighting a tactic. Or a religion (for the extremists).

Either one is open-ended.”

Argument by canard. What exactly is open ended about fighting to deny the enemy sanctuary in Afghanistan? The goal is to end their sanctuary. What exactly is open ended about ending the terrorism that Saddam visited upon his own citizens, and ending the risk that he would take it beyond his own borders? Open ended was the perpetuation of sanctions, and the continuation of the state where Saddam was “contained”. The alternative to what the US did in Iraq was open ended, not what the US actually did and continues to work towards finishing today.

We are walking along the sidewalk minding our own business when we are attacked. We bust the attacker’s nose but his buddies join in – even so, we are holding our own – getting a few bruises but in return knocking out their teeth and blacking their eyes. Suddenly Stephen interrupts and from the sidelines starts handing rocks and clubs to the attackers, hollering loudly over our protests: “I AM HELPING THEM BECAUSE YOU ARE CAUSING TOO MUCH VIOLENCE.”
 

Incidently – assuming I’m correct about the quote – there have been many, many since 9/11 that the Saudi criminal was in the sights of the U.S miltary and nothing was done.

Seems to be a bit of a problem whoever is President of the United States. Only it’s a bit more disconcerting when it’s done while fighting a ‘global war against Islamo-facists’and you’ve just said Bin Laden will be taken ‘dead or alive’…

Gee Sergey what happened to your Russian broken english?

Anyway – the quote you offer probably has nothing at all to do with the topic – so it would make
you look really stupid using it(sorry mate, but thats the way I see it – I sincerely hope you would to seeing as you normally seem to treat the topic quite seriously.)

The ‘leftist’ approach isn’t anything of the sort. But if you’d rather be an ignorant buffon that’s your choice…

“That’s missing several points. First off, that statement implies that without US actions – the “policies” canard that Stephen likes to throw around – that terrorism would be either at a steady state or diminishing. That’s not true. The most the US can be accused of is bumping up an already increasing rate. It either grows fast, or a bit faster with US involvement, but it grows nonetheless.”

I shouldn’t really have to but I will.

It doesn’t ‘imply’ anything of the sort. A bit like grackles ‘implication’ that what I refer means that ‘nothing'(force) should be done. Pure garbage. Yours and his words – not mine. And, as I say, I takes real ‘dedication’ to find that implication in what I’ve written.

The fact that U.S policy in the middle east has given rise and has increased terrorism since 9/11 is a fact. And that is all. It’s growing – it was growing – and it will continue to grow if the current application of the war on terror continues.

With catastophic concequences that that logically implies.

“Talking about US involvement increasing violence, whether in WWII or the present times is to miss the fact that the increases are not open ended. They are towards the ultimate end of ending the violence and deaths once and for all. To accept Stephen’s view of the world is to accept a neverending, midrange steady state of violence. In the long run, that claims many more lives than working towards shutting it down for good.”

But we’re not fighting a ‘war’- we’re fighting a tactic. Or a religon(for the extremists).

Either one is open-ended.

And the tactic the U.S is concerned about comes directly from it’s actions – which are violent, rejectionist, and oppressive.

Increasing that will not end what was the reason for it in the first place.

But at least our goals are the same…..