Who’s afraid of the big bad terrorists?
Police speculate that three recent car bomb incidents in Britain are related. Perhaps al Qaeda is part of the picture, perhaps not. But all three car bombs had a similar modus operandi to one another, and the outcomes of all three were exactly what you would want from a terrorist attack: no one was hurt, or it was only the terrorists themselves that were injured.
This allows us to add these particular events to the fairly long list of what you might call the Keystone Cops school of terrorist activity—would-be perpetrators who don’t seem to be able to do much more than harm themselves. It also allows those on the Left who are so inclined, to pooh-pooh the threat of terrorism and to mock those who take it seriously (I’m not going to link to the particular Leftist blogs in question and add to their traffic—but if you’re especially interested, a typical such site can be found if you follow the appropriate link here).
I’ve written at some length previously on the topic of the Left’s accusations that the Right is motivated by irrational fear. What interests me more right now about the current terrorist activity in Britain, and the reaction of the Left to it, is the use of the “incompetence” meme.
Until 9/11, Islamic terrorists in Western countries had a reputation as bumblers. This despite their deadly success on foreign soil: the Khobar Towers, Pan Am Flight 103, the US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the USS Cole.
This “bumbler” reputation should have been put to rest by 9/11, but it was not. And the long list of exceedingly successful attacks on Western allies since 9/11 ought to indicate a very serious intent and threat, as well: the London subway bombings, the Bali nightclub carnage, and the Madrid train bombings, to name just a few.
But the lack of major attacks in the US since 9/11 has allowed many people to think of that day as an anomaly, and to focus instead on failed attempts. Successful terrorist attacks may not be easy to execute perfectly, but there’s absolutely no reason to think they cannot and will not be, simply because so many fail. The pattern is to try, try again if unsuccessful, till they get it right. In that respect 9/11 itself is a good case in point.
The WTC attack of 1993 was an extremely serious one that killed six people and injured over a thousand others. But it was not taken all that seriously by many in the general public because the number of people murdered was so small compared to the grandiose plans of the perpetrators, and because of certain details of how they were caught—particularly the fact that one of them was arrested while trying to collect a deposit on the rental van involved in the explosion (a “Saturday Night Live” touch if ever there was one).
But the intent was every bit as deadly as the 2001 attack that toppled the buildings. In fact, the intent was the same—mastermind Ramzi Yousef fully intended to destroy the towers, and only missed accomplishing that goal by a slightly faulty placement of the bomb, according to the WTC architect’s testimony in the trial.
The difference between a plan that can be viewed as farcical and almost comical, and one that is as horrific and deadly as 9/11, can be surprisingly small. If something had gone wrong with the terrorists’ plans and/or execution on 9/11—bad weather, perhaps, or a greater ability of the intelligence community to connect the dots—they would have seemed to be incompetent bumblers like the earlier plotters. And the same might have ended up being true, in reverse, of these most recent would-be terrorists—if they’d been just a bit more technically competent, they might have perpetrated a horrific mass murder.
Nothing prior to 9/11 prepared us for that day, although many things should have. Nothing subsequent has indicated terrorists have given up on attacking us.
One thing is certain: if another large attack occurs, we cannot say it came as a surprise, or that the perpetrators were incompetent fools.
“terrorism” means striking fear into people…if we do not let ourselves become frightened by incompetents then the terrorist lose! If however people like you hype the capabilities and strikes of the terrorists then you are helping their cause!
And look not one of these attacks was thwarted by a multi-billion dollar war effort…it was all law-enforcement!
“…all three car bombs had a similar modus operandi to one another”
I’m actually more afraid of our education system…
the reason there have been no attacks since 9/11 is because we are looking for them, like so many presidents had done before georgie. Yes, these people are supremely incompetent and just the smallest bit of vigilance goes a long way.
I like how you phrased it and you are so right – the difference between the farcical and the horrific is infinitesimally small. The most farcical and comical plan and execution can in fact be deadly when playing with dangerous chemicals and fire. It would have been very easy for someone in the terminal to have been hurt through the crash, fire, or smoke. What has struck me about the left response to this is their complete lack of empathy. Apparently if it doesn’t happen on their front stoop it doesn’t matter. In so many situations, the left is lacking in humanity.
As long as the West is culturally and intellectually 1,000+ years ahead of societies where they breed, we will have terrorist, which carries the notion, “we better just get used to it…”. This should never be confused with, “we better surrender to it”.
So days after Brown (who many think will pull UK troops from Iraq) takes over for Blair, there are terrorist attacks in the UK?
You’d almost think the terrorists want the Iraq War to continue for recruitment reasons.
Q. Who’d a thunk it?
A. Anyone paying an iota of attention.
Well hell Neo, we had 3K of our fellow citizens murdered by those terrorists who were obviously successful. The left shrugged it off as being our fault in the first place.
They’re not interested in fighting terrorists, they’re either hoping it just kinda goes away on its own, or like Mary said, feel the threat sufficiently remote to themselves personally that they can feel free to marginalize others for taking the problem seriously.
I think Mary has got it right. I highly doubt I will be involved any form with a terrorist incident, therefore I dont “fear” the threat of terrorism, but the left likes to project this upon me because, I feel, thats how they look at the situation. If a terrorist incident happened in their neighborhoods, liberals would be screaming for us to open branch Gitmo’s and a telephone surveillance that actually does spy on Americans.
harry above is probably right. I always thought that too: The modern left always claims how little they fear because:
1. They don’t believe Islamic fundementalist terror is real, it is only something to scare people into supporting the “neo-con cabal”, therefore one has to claim they are fearless to be seperate from the “sheeple” that think terrorism is real
2. A lot of my friends lean left and also tend to be very self-centered. As long as it doesn’t happen to them, or someone they know, it is simply pictures on the TV. Nothing to fear from this performance art – it isn’t going to touch them so why think about it? The old “a liberal is a conservate that hasn’t been mugged yet.” theory.
Well hell Neo, we had 3K of our fellow citizens murdered by those terrorists who were obviously successful. The left shrugged it off as being our fault in the first place.
Just make stuff up, huh? You just make stuff up. Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts – we have king george to ‘protect’ us. Shooter and the King – what a match up. Stop the lies and maybe the good Lord will forgive you for blindly following the current criminal assministration. What a tool! Praise god, not bush.
I readily admit that I don’t know how frightened right wingers are by terrorism. Since the threat of terrorism is useful to you in promoting the growth of state power (destroying habeas corpus, enabling torture, muzzling the press), your promotion of public hysteria may be purely cynical. Please except my apologies if I’ve mistaken your hypocrisy for cowardice.
But they “fear” global warming. Or at least, they pretend to be awfully concerned with it when Im sure most only follow climate concerns out of fashion.
Every day I pray to George W. Bush, the one true God that he restores peoples reasoning.
Every day I pray to George W. Bush, the one true God that he restores peoples reasoning
So you are praying to the ‘one true God – george bush’? Are you serious? Really serious? Have you fallen so far that now bush is God? How are you going to explain that when end of days arrives? You so scared about brown furriners that you will swap out your God for bush? If what you are espousing is supported by the rest of the 27%’ers, then truly we are doomed. Truly doomed.
reediculous. what a bunch of sloppy junk. ” The Left” which must remain highly undefined so you can define it in a way that not only slanders your fellow citizens but also makes you seem …smarter and more humane does not exist. You will argue yes it does and then name anywhere from four to ten people who prove your point, but really don’t. This blog like so many others relies on poorly reasoned arguments which really just exist for the sake of argument itself.
You have allowed yourselves to become so highly agendized that you can no longer think but in terms of the us vs them paradigm.
it is beyond pathetic and ultimately our undoing. Well done dummies.
Oooh, I didnt see this:
“(destroying habeas corpus, enabling torture, muzzling the press), your promotion of public hysteria may be purely cynical.”
Now who’s doing the fear mongering?
What is the purpose of our cynicism? If as you say, we are merely using the threat of terrorism solely for the growth of state power, Id just as soon vote Democrat and actually get more powerful and intrusive government.
Sure, Bush spends a lot of money, but Im not actually seeing any of this habeas corpus destroying, torture enabling, muzzling the press business you talking about. I feel cheated.
That’s right, Lefties! Bush is evil, the right-wing is just scared, 3K of our fellow citizens weren’t murdered on 9/11 (or, if they were, it doesn’t really matter.)
And don’t bother with logic, or reasoned argument; just scream “DUMMIES!” and try to intimidate all who disagree with you with insults and sarcasm.
It is, after all, what people like you have always done; “KING GEORGE! WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ FACTS! WORSHIP G-D, NOT GEORGE BUSH! THERE IS NO LEFT! YOU’RE JUST BEING MEAN TO US!”
And so. You guys can’t even muster a reasoned argument anymore, can you?
As long as the West is culturally and intellectually 1,000+ years ahead of societies where they breed
Nyomy,
That’s a questionable claim.
I don’t see much difference between believing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will prevent domestic terrorism and believing that chucking a few virgins into a volcano every year to will prevent crop failure.
AHBUS:
“The Left” which must remain highly undefined so you can define it in a way that not only slanders your fellow citizens but also makes you seem …smarter and more humane does not exist. You will argue yes it does and then name anywhere from four to ten people who prove your point, but really don’t.”
Oh, Im sure you’ve said the same thing on Huffington Post.
Putting that aside, maybe you could tell us why Neo is wrong.
harry,
Why do I always have to explain to people that 9/11 doesn’t matter?
If it mattered, the President of the US wouldn’t have underfunded the 911 Commission. He wouldn’t have stonewalled the 911 Commission. He wouldn’t have had Condi lie to the 911 Commission.
If it was really important, don’t you think the President would want to understand how it happened?
He don’t, and it don’t.
What else you got?
Robert:
“If it was really important, don’t you think the President would want to understand how it happened?”
Honestly, what is there left for you people to understand about how it happened? Or are you a “truther”?
Neo, even by the moniker indicates a Straussian approach to politics that I can only liken to the essential elitism and abstract of Communism not in content but in its massive and unyielding capacity for inhumanity and its total failure of long term planning. Feith,Wolfowitz,Cheney,Kristol and the rest of the PNAC, along with our web host have sent our national interests on a downward spiral that no one can see their way out of.
The Left as Neo refers to them are the Machiavellian internal enemy which allow the true believers to conceive of themselves as in some heroic struggle to overcome the weakness within our society. This is of course the canard that allows for the manipulation of information and deceipt in general toward an end that would never be publicly acceptable. Neo in any formulation must continue to present the LEFT as a counterpoint to the align the true believers.
It is beyond assinine to suggest that democrats want bad things to happen to America. It is subversive to the Republic to continue to play on the inherent weakness of mans need to associate with like minds by devaluing the thoughts and concerns of those with whom you disagree.
But I probably said the same thing on Huffpost…
harry, was it ever determined how our air traffic contollers did not know that the four planes on 9/11 had been hijacked until after they had hit their targets?
Have steps been taken to prevent this in the future?
Look in the mirror. You’re the ones who promote the endless expansion of state power and the contraction of individual rights. Whatever you say you support, what you actually support is authoritarian state socialism built around a permanent state of war, an American version of the current Chinese system. To explain the contradiction between your rhetoric and the actions of the leaders you support, you have to convince yourselves it isn’t socialism if the money goes to defense, it isn’t torture if we say it isn’t, it isn’t invasion if we call it liberation, it isn’t corruption if the right people benefit from it.
AHBUS:
“It is beyond assinine to suggest that democrats want bad things to happen to America. It is subversive to the Republic to continue to play on the inherent weakness of mans need to associate with like minds by devaluing the thoughts and concerns of those with whom you disagree.
But I probably said the same thing on Huffpost…
“
Well, here’s your chance to denounce ideological vilification by the left on this post, as it looks as if Robert and Roderick are suggesting that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of 9/11 and are currently keeping us uninformed and continued danger of a repeat attempt.
Is that what your saying guys? Please feel free to explain, because right now Im assigning this allegation as a smokescreen to hide the fact that you guys were justifying the attack in the first place.
Sure, Bush spends a lot of money, but Im not actually seeing any of this habeas corpus destroying, torture enabling, muzzling the press business you talking about.
Try opening your eyes, bubblehead. Ever hear of the Military Commissions Act, you know, the law that explicitly stripped the right of habeas corpus from those locked up (“accused” would hardly be accurate, since that term at least implicitly suggests the existence of some kind of evidence) as “unlawful enemy combatants?” Can you possibly be unaware of the repeated assertions by the Imbecile-in-Chief about the legitimacy and lawfulness of the use of torture, as well, of course, the minor fact that they’ve actually been torturing prisoners by the hundreds? Have you missed the criminilization of the media’s reporting on various government leaks, except those, of course, that are part of the Republicans’ officially sanctioned propaganda campaign (Scooter Libby anyone?) Wake up!
That’s right, Lefties! Bush is evil, the right-wing is just scared, 3K of our fellow citizens weren’t murdered on 9/11 (or, if they were, it doesn’t really matter.)
Ahh, the stink of Republicanism at its most aromatic. Needless to say, no one on the left has said that 9/11 didn’t happen or that it didn’t matter. This is simply the kind of utterly typical statement by half-wits that were home schooled using materials from the Rush Limbaugh Academy. Yes, 3000 Americans were murdered. Now here’s a novel idea: the neocon filth should’ve actually gone after the people that murdered them instead of exploiting the incident as an excuse to start a war against a country that didn’t have a damn thing to do with it. You know what would be a good idea: If the Imbecile-in-Chief actually pays attention to the terrorist warnings this time instead of simply ignoring them, which is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.
I am not sure I agree with your characterization. But I will gladly grant you that the conspiracy theorists are basement dwelling book deficient types who cannot accept that reality is complicated enough.
“it isn’t torture if we say it isn’t,”
Ticking their toes till they talk isn’t torture, which is the corollary of what they were getting under Saddam and would still be getting today if the world had followed the advice of the anti-war movement. So no fako crocodile tears for humanity, please!
“it isn’t invasion if we call it liberation,”
It certainly isn’t a liberation to the religionist and nihilist destroy the areas around Baghdad is it?? However, it my be a liberation to the people who saw it for what it was.
“it isn’t corruption if the right people benefit from it.”
Our democratic allies would be the main beneficiary of liberation. An inference that was once our core principle, abandoned today for the cult of political correctness, derision, and the ill-conceived perspective of hating conservatism and the religion right just because hey have the courage to champion our core values on the question of Iraq — even though their heart is not in it; human liberation. The greatest pity of all is see seeing many of my former comrades whoring themselves to the most sadistic elements of international right wing etremism, because of petty, parochial hatreds?? What a pity!!!
harry,
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying 9/11 isn’t important. Where did I get such an idea? I was following my President’s lead. Why else wouldn’t the President want to know how it happened?
It’s because it’s not important.
Unless, of course, you think W is hiding something because he had something to do with it.
For me it’s the former.
Which is it for you?
Hey AHBUS, Im sensing some intolerance coming our way here. Go get’em guy.
By the love of our one true God, George W. Bush, {Tom ;)}, The Military Commissions act stripped no one of habeas corpus. “Unlawful enemy combatants” by definition, never had that right in the first place. The leftist definition of “torture” is generally somewhat at the level of college fraternity hazing, as well as the leftist definition of criminilization and muzzling. One would imagine the actual jailing and government persecution and prosecution of journalist in this country. Quite honestly, Im just not seeing any of that.
Robert, Im sorry but you still hadnt answered my question. Which is it for me? I think your just being ridiculous in order to give yourself another excuse not to care.
Just imagine if Al-Q’s best bomb-makers hadn’t been sucked into Iraq and Afghanistan. Then these “terror doctors” would doubtless have had access to their expertise when assembling their weapons. In which case their attacks wouldn’t have fizzled at all.
Jose Padilla
harry,
What’s your question?
Do I think Bush knew about it beforehand?
No.
Do I think it was justified?
No, I don’t agree with OBL’s preemptive strike anymore than I agree with W’s.
If those aren’t the questions, do me a favor. Ask me the question.
Yikes! All the context-dropping, the non sequiturs and, especially, the use of poorly defined terms make the comment section of this essay nearly useless. In the future, please keep it related (at least a little) to Neo’s topic. Brevity and lucidity would not hurt either.
” The leftist definition of “torture” is generally somewhat at the level of college fraternity hazing”.
That’s funny coming from the Right. The Right needed a fainting couch because John Kerry made a joke last year they construed as an insult to our soldiers.
Yet they will protect us from terrorists.
Ha ha ha. Too funny.
C’mon Harry. Let’s see how well you handle waterboarding.
Europeans react to terrorism in a very different way we do.
I was in Spain one year after the terrorist attack in Madrid. I expected to hear nothing else in the Spanish news, but to my surprise there was very little mention of terrorism at all. The Spaniards were back then talking about a big forest fire in the Galicia Region (North West Spain).
My point here is that Europeans don’t allow terrorist to dominate their lives the way we do. For good or bad terrorism in America has become big business. It is a business born of hype, hot air, sensationalism, empty patriotism, and political expediency.
A lot of misguided Americans that like to call themselves Neo-Conservatives, and Right WIng Conservatives buy into this theory that terrorism, in order to be confronted has to be hyped.
The fact is that nothing helps a terrorist more than hype. The true war on terrorist is in the shadows, it uses stealth, intelligence, immagination, deseption, and even torture and murder if necessary. There’s no Aircraft Carrier grandstanding, or infantile name calling to the detractors of Terrorist policies.
In Europe, and other countries of the world terrorism is viewd as an on going dirty war that every one knows has been with them before they were born, it will continue all trough teir lives, and will be here pn hearth way after we all die.
For you see, terrorism can’t be stopped any more than crime can’t be stopped, or war itself can’t be stopped. But just like crime, terrorism can be hyped by sertain political and economic interests into something is not. Europeans understood this a long time ago, and act accordingly, we in America don’t.
If this is all al-Qaeda have to offer, we should never have lost a moment’s sleep over them – let alone shoved our valuable appendages into the military meat-grinder of Afghanistan (I’m choosing to assume here that al-Qaeda only became a serious presence in Iraq after we invaded the place. Argue among yourselves as to whether Saddam was more or less threatening than Osama).
Getting back to here and now, these have to be some of the most pathetic terror attacks ever – difficult to distinguish from minor accidents. For goodness’ sake, a car is full of gas anyway; and gas cylinders too often enough. People drive cylinders of gas around all the time. Now and again – oh my god! – they probably carry boxes of nails, bolts, tools or whatever in the same vehicle. (Aiee!)
AHBUS:
“Jose Padilla”
Oh boy, that certainly indicts the entire War on Terror.
http://snipr.com/1ns74
gil:
“The fact is that nothing helps a terrorist more than hype.”
I get it now. 3K people killed in now morning? Ho-hum, didnt happen to me.
harry,
The President of the United States ON September 11th, 2001 doesn’t care.
Why do you?
Mathew M:
“In the future, please keep it related (at least a little) to Neo’s topic.”
Oh boy, is it ever related. Its making her point perfectly.
Robert you’re continuing to be rediculous. What kind of mental gymnastics are you doing to yourself in order to give yourself the delusion that it just didnt matter? Just go with the flow like Gil has. Gil doent need an excuse to ignore 9/11. There’s nothing to it.
By “Jose Padilla”, I assume you are talking about “Abdullah al-Muhajir”. He’s the one who changed it. Why don’t you show him enough respect to use the name he prefers. After all, guys, he’s your cause, isn’t he?
Robert, it really isn’t that difficult to know “what happened” on 9-11, just read the 9-11 Commission Report, Nova, or Popular Mechanics. They’ve all done a pretty good job explaining “what happened”, and where “we failed”.
So why do you remain ignorant?
And many of our own soldiers, sailors, and airmen have “handled waterboarding” as part of their training. It’s called SERE (survival, evasion, resistance, escape). Didn’t you ever see G.I. Jane? Waterboarding, in fact, was developed to “simulate torture” rather than actually “be” torture. If you want me to be worried about it, you’ll actually have to come up with “real” torture we inflict (unscented deodorant and underinflated balls don’t count, either).
And Al Qaeda and Iraq have had ties long before we invaded. If you don’t believe Richard Clark, who will you believe? Besides, chanting screeds like “Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11” is a lot like saying “Mussolini had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor”.
I’m not even going to the anti-semitic, Jewish plot PNAC crap. You lefties now turn to nazis for your hate Bush rhetoric, huh?
But, let’s see….Bush is “expanding State control”, “torturing”, “muzzling the press”, “creating terrorists”, etc. Gee. I guess I should be “afraid” of him. And you guys have the NERVE to say he’s the one “manufacturing fear”. Apparently you’re not “that” worried about being “rounded up” because you hate Bush types keep “typing away”, don’t you? How “brave” you guys on the left are, huh? How “European” of you to just “ignore it” because it “won’t go away”, and focus on the “real” enemy: Bush, and us righties.
But, hey, I guess you lefties didn’t play Dungeons and Dragons all those years and not learn a little something about courage. And your enemies are just as “real”.
Harry.
What I am saying by ” Nothing helps terrorism more than hype” is that for the next five years after the attack we talk about terrorism on a daily basis. That is hype.
We invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack, and then have been hyping that invasion into a war on terrorism. Is not. The war in Iraq was a mistake by Bush, then it became a sectarian war, and now it has a terrorsit component, only Al quaida in Iraq stays in Iraq, and for the most part attacks Shiite.
3,000 people lost their lives on 9-11. Do you have any idea how many people loose their lives because of drugs every year directly or indirectly? How many policeman, how many kids, how many inocent people??
It would be nice to focus in te war on drugs because it kills so many more Americans than any terrorist attack will ever do. But is not politicaly expedient, is not glamorous, you can’t hype it into a multi-billion program for arms, or an ever expanding military career can you?
Has anyone noticed the left wants everyone to focus on whatever problem Bush “isn’t”? One guy even wants us to win the “war on drugs”, now, rather than the real one we’re in.
Yep. When it was Saddam’s turn for supporting terrorists, the lefties all said “why not Iran, why not North Korea”. That is, until it looks like we may be ready to deal with Iran. Then it’s the same old “how do we know they’re any kind of threat, huh?” One guy says we need to go after the “guys who did 9-11”, until he realizes we would have to invade Pakistan to accomplish that. Then, I’m sure, he’ll insist that Musharraf is doing that for us very well, and we just don’t have any confidence in our “ally”.
Other than rhetoric and platitudes, I have yet to see an actual “solution” to any problem other than whatever Bush isn’t doing.
The point is Bush, the President of the United States on 9/11 didn’t want a 911 Commission to be formed.
Is it because he didn’t care, or because he had something to hide?
I’ve bben told only crazy conspiracy theorists think he had something to hide.
I agree, and I’m no conspiracy theorist.
Also, how anyone can see a connection between Iraq and al Quaeda and can’t see a connection in how an American (like Padilla) is treated and how they (as an American) can be treated is being willfully ignorant.
There are no solutions to imaginary problems, lee.
Except therapy and medication, of course.
Perhaps we should work on coping skills?
Then why aren’t you in rehab, Alphie?
And anyone who can say if it can happen to Abdullah al-Muhajir(terrorist), it can happen to “any one of us”(not terrorists) is deliberately manufacturing fear, or being willfully paranoid.
Gil, so why can’t the anti-war movement ignore the war on terrorism?
this whole terrorism threat must be a ruse. i mean, i picked up my brother and his family at philadelphia’s airpoirt the other night, and i could have easily jumped the curb with my minivan and run over 20 people in baggage claim and killed at least a half dozen passengers, if i were so inclined. how can these terrorist “masterminds” really be so ineffective? all that training and videos and meetings in mosques, and these guys can barely kill anyone with 3 cars loaded to the hilt with petrol at an airport and on a london street. it boggles the mind, c’mon guys!! there IS one group who’s doing their job — the fear-mongerers like bush and blair, keeping us scared to death over nothing, as 40,000 people a year die of car crashes in the US alone.
Lee,
I never said I was ignorant of how 9/11 happened.
Nice irrelevant point, though.
I said it wasn’t important, and I cited the fact that the President of the United States on 9/11/2001 (of all people) didn’t think it was important.
That (I believe) is why Bush; was against the creation of the 911 Commission; underfunded the 911 Commission; stonewalled the 911 Commission; and rewarded Condi with the Secretary of State position after she bald-face lied to the 911 Commission.
Why is this important to me?
Because we have people like harry, who come here and try to justify the Iraq war by bringing up 3000 dead americans on 9/11.
I’m just letting harry know that I’m not falling for his irrelevant “reasons” for the Iraq war.
By asking harry why he thinks Bush was against the 911 Commission, I’m making him face the fact I already know. 9/11 is NOT important, and makes a pretty sorry excuse to invade Iraq.
Wingers have been bringing up 9/11 to justify all kinds of garbage my government has done.
I’m calling them out on it.
Lee @ 5;55,
I believe Padilla was accused of being a terrorist, but it was never proven.
I don’t see why the government can’t accuse you (or I) of being a terrorist with no proof also.
That’s not “fear mongering”, that is true. (and it also points out how far America has strayed from its core belief system).
You make a great point here, Neo. And you say it without the kind of acrimonious rhetoric that I’ve seen on some blogs.
Though I can’t say the same for some of the commenters here.
Robert:
You worry that “the government” might accuse you of being a terrorist with no reason. Fine.
Is there any evidence of that happening? Are random innocent civilians being rounded up and disappeared?
No.
Are random innocent civilians being murdered by terrorists?
Yes.
Therefore, rather than worrying about the hypothetical perils of government tyranny, why not focus on the very real perils of Islamic terror?
Instead, the Left denies the existence of Islamic terror (handwaving away the burnt and mangled bodies), and constantly engages in fearmongering about the jackbooted agents of oppression who are always just about to start rounding up the innocent (but never quite get started).
So who’s really the “reality-based community?”
Not you guys.
Trimegistus,
You say “No” like you have some way to back it up.
Do you only have government assurances?
Remind me agin why Americans (or anyone) should blindly take their government at its word.
History books are filled with the reasons why you (they) shouldn’t.
But you keep blindly trusting government. That’ll eventually work out for you. (sarcasm alert)
And your papragraph that starts with “Instead” is one of the finest strawmen I’ve seen anyone brazen enough to construct in public.
And “rather than worrying about the hypothetical perils of government tyranny, why not focus on the very real perils of Islamic terror”.
Because living under a tyrranical government is a MUCH greater threat to me than being killed by a terrorist.
A statistics class might help explain why.
@ Gil
What I am saying by” Nothing helps terrorism more than hype” is that for the next five years after the attack we talk about terrorism on a daily basis. That is hype.
For years we had basically ignored terrorism. The result: 9/11. So should we have continued to ignore terrorism, in the sense that we continued to not retaliate against it? However, in another sense “Nothing helps terrorism more than hype” is a point well taken, insofar as it relates to media coverage of terrorism. To a degree, the terrorists plan their attacks for media impact. If the media would cover them less, that alone might reduce the impact and incidence of terrorism.
we invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack, and then have been hyping that invasion into a war on terrorism. Is not.
Take the global view. What are the root causes of terrorism? One interpretation is : the inability of the Arab and/or Muslim world to come to terms with modernity, one symptom of which is the overwhelming rule of tyrants in that part of the world. Terrorism is one consequence of tyranny.
Perhaps you thought that the US was attacked on 9/11 because of things we did wrong, such as supporting Israel instead of the Palestinians. I did not, because I saw that even when the US supported the Arabs, we were not appreciated. A Palestinian Christian told my mother that the only reason that Eisenhower told the Brits, French and Israelis to get out of Suez in 1956 was because Eisenhower was afraid of the USSR. As regards the injustice of the Israeli occupation compared to what was before, the father of this Palestinian Christian told his children before 1967 to get out of the West Bank because Christians could not advance. As the father was an employee of the Jordanian civil service, he knew.
Also note that Osama at one point stated that one reason for going after the US was that we had troops in the “ holy land” of Saudi Arabia. We had troops there as a consequence of not taking out Saddam in 1991. So, in that sense, we were damned if we did and damned if we didn’t.
The US was not exactly on good terms w Saddam before 9/11. The October 2002 “Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” listed about 20 reasons for doing so, none of which stated that Iraq had any responsibility for 9/11. The resolution stated that Saddam had ties with terrorism, and that is a fact. Is it OK to try to assassinate a former President- as long as he is a Republican?
Did you wish to ignore those 20 or so reasons, and keep Saddam in power? Do you also maintain that at the time of the invasion, that Saddam no longer had any connection with possession of weapons of mass destruction nor personnel nor infrastructure for constructing weapons of mass destruction? In other words, would you have supported the lifting of UN sanctions against Saddam? For now we will ignoring the thousands of Iraqis that Saddam would have killed and/or tortured had he remained in power. Had sanctions been lifted on Saddam, what do you think of the implications of both Iran and Iraq seeking to build a nuclear bomb?
In other words, it ain’t that easy. Go and make fun of Bush and all those dumb simplistic moronic un-nuanced redneck neocons. I doubt that things would have been better had you been in charge. My guess is that they would have been worse.
Robert, as Trimegistus pointed out, are random Americans disappearing? Are people being arrested simply for their point of view? Are people who criticize the president being thrown in jail? It seems to me there is a lot of anti-war activism, and a lot of criticism of Bush at the moment, and I don’t see anybody being thrown into concentration camps.
The paranoia of the Left is truly something to behold. I think a lot of it stems from their dabbling in illegal drugs. They’re contantly afraid the Feds are going to bust them. . .
And for gosh sakes, Robert, of course 3000 did Americans aren’t important! 3000 of our fellow citizens, murdered on 9/11, simply because they were Americans—but how can that possibly be important? Hard working Americans, some of our best and brightest; hard-working dads, moms making a living for their kids, immigrant waiters in the Windows of the World restaurant, striving for a better life, bright business people, computer programmers, movers and shakers. And let’s not get into the firemen, and police men who lost their lives that day—but that’s not important, Robert. What’s important is that you feel threatened by mean ol’ George Bush, who’se just using those unimportant 3000 people to make you feel bad!
Poor Robert. America is picking on him.
Osama himself told us how 9/11 happened, Robert.
But if it makes you feel better to blame big bad Bush, and then dismiss 9/11 as unimportant, you go right ahead.
Trim,
It’s not a question of whether we should do something about the threat of terrorism or not, but how much should we spend on it.
$200+ billion a year is way too much.
What would be reasonable?
Maybe $10 billion…10 times more than we spend to prevent an Avian Flu pandemic.
Robert is “afraid” of living under a “tyrranical government”, yet keeps “living here”, even though, according to him, one “exists” here. Yet, rather than “move” or “start the revolution to reinstate usurped Constitutional rights”, all he does is “openly bitch” about it and says we can “vote them out” next time. Doesn’t add up, does it?
Abdullah al-Muhajir should have thought of his “rights as an American” before he renounced his citizenship, trained at a Taliban camp, then returned to scout for holes the terrorists could use to bring in dirty bombs or worse. Sorry, Robert, but if you could come up with “just one other” American “rounded up” based on “flimsy evidence” you might have a case. As it is, you are either “paranoid”, have a “political agenda”, or openly “root for” the enemies of this nation.
In fact, Bush appointed the 9-11 Commission, just not a “Congressional investigation” started by Democrats. Big difference there, don’t you think?
And since all you have is “assertions” rather than “facts”, I suggest you back up some of your crap with “sources”(and please, no Alex Jones militia nazi stuff).
Who’s afraid of the big bad terrorists?
Come on Neo, this is the 21st century. Terrorists cannot truly threaten the Western World… can they?
This allows us to add these particular events to the fairly long list of what you might call the Keystone Cops school of terrorist activity–would-be perpetrators who don’t seem to be able to do much more than harm themselves.
That’s what happens when you don’t got any training camps and safe havens. Iran is doing much better in the terror bizness, if you’ve noticed, due to their training camps and logistics.
A lot of Leftists think of guerrila warriors as some kind of Angels of Vengeance, without need of Mortal Sustenance. But even terrorists are mortal, neo, they need food, rest, and psychological rest the same as us.
They do not spring up full formed out of the brow of Allah, ready to commence the Jihad against the infidel with the knowledge and wisdom of the ages; regardless of how much utter crap the BBC puts out in favor of our enemies.
And the same might have ended up being true, in reverse, of these most recent would-be terrorists–if they’d been just a bit more technically competent, they might have perpetrated a horrific mass murder.
While luck and Murphy does come into it, Neo, I think the primary cause of these spoiled attacks is the same thing that got the Japanese concerning qualified carrier pilots. You need people with real experience in fields to be able to do them professionally. Because Allah gets AQ’s most experienced agents first and doesn’t give them back, the terrorists have a severe shortage of experienced AND trained personnell. That makes their attacks… a lot more likely to screw up just on a percentage basis. Course, Israel and Europe makes up for that by releasing terrorists left and right but HEY, they aren’t really dangerous, Neo….
The problem is, most people don’t know how you actually get competent in terrorism, so they can’t really tell the difference, Neo. An Iranian Quds force guy is about the same as Al Qaeda to them, no diff. That’s bad.
Shooter and the King – what a match up.
You ever get the sense, Neo, that the Left is living in some kind of cartoon land with their cute nicknames for Bush and Cheney? Shooter hehe. Happy sappy sidekick! I mean in the real world, if Cheney really executed people by shooting them, you wouldn’t really have anyone talking about him let alone making fun of him; he would be too scary to even think about.
And so. You guys can’t even muster a reasoned argument anymore, can you?
It’s kind of hard to do that when they’re snorking, injecting, and inhaling every drug high known to man. Psychologically, if not physically, if you get the smoke swirls.
Well… there’s something to be said for an influx of Leftist Views, Neo. It clears the sinuses quite well. The more I read these comments, the more that Russian guy becomes a wonder and Sergei’s comments sound funnier and funnier. It is refreshing to see a Russian perspective on the useful idiots, that is all.
$200+ billion a year is way too much.
What would be reasonable?
Maybe $10 billion…10 times more than we spend to prevent an Avian Flu pandemic.
Defense wouldn’t be so expensive for America if all the people that benefited from it, like the Germans, French, and what not, paid us money for it, Alphie. But they don’t, because American protection is free, due to the fact that Americans pay for it in blood and treasure.
Also everybody ignores the fact that experience counts for more in combat than just rolls of money. That’s that old argument concerning what are the Sinews of War, Money or Good Men?
heritage.orgAlpo,
Actually, we don’t spend as much on the war on terror as we did on the “cold war”, which sucked up 7.5% of GDP, while today, defense spending(ALL defense spending) is only 4% of GDP.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_s/s7.cfm
So much for the “we’re going broke” straw man.
Robert: Remind me agin why Americans (or anyone) should blindly take their government at its word.
It’s always a bit funny to see left-liberals, who demand ever more government regulation of their lives, who believe the government when it says it will take their money and look after their health, their environment, and their economy, who “blindly” accept the government’s word when it tells them what’s good for them and what’s bad for them, but who suddenly acquire a suspicion of government when it comes to the one thing a government is most needed for: the security of its people.
Still, better they display at least this much skepticism than none at all, which is their normal state. Unfortunately it’s clear, just from Robert’s attempts here alone, that a skeptical or critical approach to government is not something they understand very well — they confuse it with a simple-minded opposition to government, or, worse, with an excuse for the most vulgar displays of partisan hostility (for an example of which, at its most pathological, see the self-styled “legaleagle” above). A skeptical, as opposed to blindly oppositional, approach would certainly be able to raise questions about Iraq or the treatment of suspected terrorists — while at the same time acknowledging that the problem extends beyond the perpetrators of a single deed to terrorist-supporting states and cultures, and that this scope means that ordinary criminal law may not be sufficient to deal with it. It would allow for, yes, a “nuanced” approach that is notably lacking in the collection of childish taunts and rants from lefties we see above.
Lee,
During the cold war, the Soviets had to match our spending pretty much dollar for dollar if they wanted to keep up.
In Iraq, we are outspending the insurgents by a ratio of 1000:1 and are still losing.
There are much better places to spend our money.
Well, Alpo,
If we’re “losing” in Iraq, why are all the Anbar tribes coming over to our side? How do you explain the same thing in Diyala? Don’t you think the people there have a better assesment than you do over here? Yet, they’re not “joining Al Qaeda” or the “insurgency” anymore, they’re joining us. Pretty stupid, don’t you think, to jump aboard a “sinking ship”?
Ahhhh, yes, more graduates with advanced degrees from the Rush Limbaugh Academy. First, we have the impressive intellectual stylings of Lee:
Robert is “afraid” of living under a “tyrranical government”, yet keeps “living here”, even though, according to him, one “exists” here.
What exactly do these dummies think is accomplished by placing quotation marks around words such as “afraid,” “living here,” and “exists” (unlike the purpose that is obviously served in this sentence, for example). They seem to be trying to convey some kind of point, but the only thing clearly demonstrated is that they are too stupid to have attended a four-year college. Here is the second manifestation of the same disease from Sally:
It’s always a bit funny to see left-liberals, who . . . “blindly” accept the government’s word when it tells them what’s good for them and what’s bad for them
Again, there is nothing whatever conveyed by the use of quotation marks around “blindly,” except attendance at the Rush Limbaugh Fellatio Academy. Admittedly, my knowledge of such people is purely abstract; I have never actually seen one where I work, where I eat, or where I went to school; if one somehow sneaked into my house to take a dump, I ‘d have to have the whole place renovated. But it remains true that Argument by Punctuation is one the hallmaks of a rightwing halfwit.
Neo:
You really struck a nerve with the moonbats with this one. If anything ever demonstrated the intellectual vacuity of the Left, the comments on this thread are the ne plus ultra of idiocy. What’s sad is the complete ignorance of facts. We are challenging their religion, and they’re marching in the virtual street, chanting “Death to Neocons!”
Pathetic.
Yeah, eaglelegal is a piece of work, isn’t he, even by the obsessive-compulsive standards set by most trolls? Absurdly pompous, he seems not even to understand that quotes are used to indicate someone else’s text. Nor that thinking you’re smart isn’t the same as actually being smart. He’s just another sadly comic illustration of how the left has degenerated, into an assortment of sputtering, ineffectual insult-generators.
Pfffttt…saying there is going to be another major attack is a gimmie considering our schizophrenic foreign policy. The question is what do we do about it. Our current approach is like Mickey Mouse chopping up the brooms in Fantasia. The outcome we want is opposite to what Bush’s policy delivers. For most, anyway (exception Haliburton).
Preventing terrorism is almost always going to be most effective when countered by the most local authorities. Using the military is like trying to swat a fly with a sledge hammer. In the end the fly gets away and your house gets wrecked.
Yep… we see how the airport screeners stopped those “flies” on 9-11, didn’t they? Can’t get any more “local” than that. ‘Course then, it WAS the federal government’s responsibility to stop terror at the “local” level; right, lefties? And in the end, the “flies” wrecked the house.
And the outcome we want(less, if not zero, terror attacks) is the outcome we have gotten, so far.
legaloser,
I use “quotations” for “emphasis”. If that “bothers” you, “tough”, “loser”.
Sally says, “It’s always a bit funny to see left-liberals, who demand ever more government regulation of their lives, who believe the government when it says it will take their money and look after their health, their environment, and their economy, who “blindly” accept the government’s word when it tells them what’s good for them and what’s bad for them, but who suddenly acquire a suspicion of government when it comes to the one thing a government is most needed for: the security of its people. “
Bzzzt! Try again. There’s nothing open about security; it’s ripe for abuse. Whereas, at least there can potentially be oversight on other government programs. I guess you never thought of that, though I’m not surprised.
Given half a chance, as we can see by some Iraqis turning against al Qaeda in Iraq, terrorist suck so bad that if Neocon policy didn’t make us so vilified, we could likely win half the battle alone on terrorists own suckage. But no… necons squandered probably the most sympathetic world response post 911 that we’ve had in years. I remember reading a quote from a Pakistani newspaper at the time after Osama’s men had toppled the twin towers, “they understand revenge over here”, even from so not decidedly pro U.S. elements in areas of that part of world. They were ready to let us go after the Talaban and Osama. But the neocons can’t focus (ADD much?) and launch a boneheaded plan in Iraq even Lucy Ricardo would have rejected as idiotic.
Neocons don’t do us any more favors.
Oh, sure, go after “those” terrorists over there, but don’t go for the ones we do business with, or appease with tribute, or we might just not like you guys anymore. After all, our way they only bomb us sometimes. Now, while they can’t necessarily bomb us all the time, they are threatening us all the time, and we have more important things to worry about besides freedom for oppressed peoples.
The fact you can still bitch while not wrapping your daughters in bags is all the favor you’re going to get. Don’t worry. You don’t deserve any more favors.
“We invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack,”
Sort of like how, after Pearl Harbor, we invaded a French colony (Morocco?)
Question: When you play Chess, do you make it a point to only capture pieces that your opponent has already moved against you?
Strategy in the war sometimes demands indirect thinking.
“nothing to do with” betrays a failure to recognize the commonalities of the forces arrayed against our civilization. You look for a classic Western heirarchy structure; there is none. But the action against us is created by a broad psycho-social value structure which each element of contributes to; welcome to the age of memetic warfare. Any attack which damages or discredits the enemy meme-structure at any point is effective.
And so we must act with freedom, so that our their will is not the only force shaping the conflict space.
As the master (Sun Tzu) said:
Attack where they are not prepared, go out to where they do not expect.
Ben
Ben
Sally, yes, I’ve noticed this paradox with Leftists myself.
They assure the government should, and ought, to care for us from cradle to grave, including mandating our health, taking care of our retirement, taking our money to spend on “wise” government programs, even telling us what to eat, and yet they simultaneously insist that it can’t be trusted when it comes to security, then it’s just waiting for the chance to become a dictatorship, and that we must fight tooth and nail to prevent it from getting control over our lives—even as the Left works day and night to give it that very control.
So can government be trusted, or can’t it? You can’t have it both ways, here.
I’ll offer areading comprehension course to you “geniuses” who can’t understand what I write.
Notice how harry won’t answer my question?
It’s because he (like me) knows the answer:
9/11 is not important.
Why won’t he answer me?
Because it blows his whole cover for the Iraq War.
Some people (yes, you harry) are too afraid to admit when they are BSing the rest of us.
Lee,
I’m leaving the country. Don’t worry about that.
But, I will be back for the revolution.
(And I know which side I’ll be fighting on).
It won’t be for another 10-15 years. It’ll take that long for enough Americans to realize (and admit to themselves–right harry?) what their government is doing in their name.
In the meantime, let’s replace “In God WeTrust” on our currency with something that better defines Americans.
I’m thinking “Slow on the Uptake”.
Sally,
Could you be more wrong?
I don’t think so either.
As a left-liberal I NEVER trusted the government to do what’s right.
As an American ( a real one–not the cartoon character the Right thinks is an American –i.e. sheep) I demand more from my government.
And “nuance”: What are you French?
You, of the “Good vs. Evil” world, wouldn’t know nuance if it bit you in the ass.
To all,
Yes. Me and my left-liberal pals are SOOOOO paranoid.
That’s why I supported a war against Saddam’s non-existent WMDs (sarcasm, again).
Another valuable lesson of the right.
Blaming others for their own character flaws.
If I was just trying to score political points I’d ask you if Saddam was a friend or foe of America.
I can’t keep up.
Friend–when he was fighting Iran and gassing the Kurds.
Foe-when he invaded Kuwait.
Friend-when Cheney’s Halliburton was doing business with him in the 90s (yes, the 90s).
Foe when we needed to show the world how tough we are. Did I write tough? I meant stupid.
So a very simple question to you on the Right.
Are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending you are to win the debate?
“We invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack,”
Sort of like how, after Pearl Harbor, we invaded a French colony (Morocco?)
Ben, spot on.
Baboo: Bzzzt! Try again. There’s nothing open about security; it’s ripe for abuse. Whereas, at least there can potentially be oversight on other government programs. I guess you never thought of that,…
Well, Babs, at the risk of increasing your already serious case of cognitive dissonance — not to mention your swollen paranoia — I’d point out that the government you can’t trust with your security is the same government you’re trusting to tell you what to eat (as Talkin says), wipe your bottom, and put you to bed.
In fact, much of the security area is at least as open as the other pork-dispensing areas of government, and where it’s not (for security reasons), there are at least some checks in the form of oversight committees, etc. Which is a reason for vigilance and critical thinking, certainly, about security as well as about any other government program, but, as I’ve already said, there’s a big difference between that and the Rosie O’Donnell style of lefty credulity manifested here.
That said, I can’t resist another specimen of mangled lefty syntax and thought that Baboo has so nicely provided: I remember reading a quote from a Pakistani newspaper at the time after Osama’s men had toppled the twin towers, “they understand revenge over here”, even from so not decidedly pro U.S. elements in areas of that part of world.
No doubt they do “understand revenge” in the tribal regions of Islam, Bab, but revenge on our part isn’t and wasn’t the point — solving the problem was the point. This is a concept that’s a bit difficult to grasp for the left, particularly in its increasingly influential atavistic factions that have regressed to a tribal level themselves, but if the problem could be solved without a single further death then we neocons would be all for it. I know that doesn’t compute for you, but don’t worry about it — stick to the Lucy reruns.
As for Robert: notice that he thinks pretending to be stupid is actually a way to win a debate? Only a left-lib, huh?
Buh-bye, Bob. We’ll let you know when the Revolution starts.
Ben,
We surprised our allies, too, when we invaded Morocco.
They thought we were going to invade Europe.
We had to give Stalin Eastern Europe to make up for our cowardice.
And your “master” Sun Tzu was an advisor to a losing side.
But if you still follow his advice, he said: “Never get involved in a long war in a distant land with incompetent leaders…for you will surely lose.”
Sally:
“As for Robert: notice that he thinks pretending to be stupid is actually a way to win a debate? Only a left-lib, huh?”
I dont know that its pretense. He’s been after me to answer a question that makes the least bit of sense to me whatsoever.
Sally,
Please do.
It’s coming, whether you want to admit it or not.
“As for Robert: notice that he thinks pretending to be stupid is actually a way to win a debate? Only a left-lib, huh?”
Playing stupid may not help one win debates, but it sure helps to confuse the issue.
Just checkout the stupidity Rush and his ilk have been spewing to confuse the rubes.
And it’s Robert, not Bob.
And your “master” Sun Tzu was an advisor to a losing side.
Losing is something the Left loves, Alphie. So what is the problem?
Yes harry,
Answering this question: “Why do you think Bush was against the 911 Commission?” is a real stickler.
And (unless you’re playing stupid) you know why I ask it.
It’s because an honest answer (I know, who am I kidding) will blow your excuse for the Iraq War right out of the water.
You don’t have to answer it.
Your avoidance has answered it for you.
We both know that 9/11 is as much of a justification for the Iraq War as my love for ice cream is.
Sally:
Sally, yes, I know; security can’t be controlled, but other government programs, such as Social Security, pork-barrel spending, etc., all are completely under control, and out in the open. . . yeah, right. Bab really does suffer from cognitive dissonence—as does the Left in general.
As for Bob, alas, I fear he really is stupid. Osama himself answered the all-important question he wanted answered, but still he does not believe. Come the revolution, however, we will all be cheering in the streets as Bob—no, ROBERT!—comes to liberate us poor, Rush-loving dumb-dumbs, and brings with him the glorious revolutionary golden age, when evil Amerikkka shall be defeated and all us kulaks will just STOP calling him Bob, when his name is ROBERT!
All joking aside, Bob does display the very reason why the Left can’t be trusted, namely, that it contains far too many people like him, who hate this country, are eager for “revolution” and who dream of being some strutting little Commissar, punishing all those who disagree with him (and insist on calling him BOB). Such a person shouldn’t be in charge of a rubber ducky, let alone be allowed into politics, but Bob fancies himself some sort of future “Fearless Leader.” So do many others like him.
(Not that Bob really is much of a revolutionary, I suspect; he’s more the weasely little I’ll-report-you-to-the-Ministry-of-Truth petty tyrant type.)
I get it now. What Bob is really getting to is that Bush new about 9/11 before hand but allowed it to happen so that it would give him the excuse he needed to attack Iraq, thats why he opposed the formation of the 9/11 commission. Is that right Bob? Although Bob is a little shy in just coming right out and saying it.
Bob also seems to be shy in taking the conspiracy another step further. Why rely on terrorists to perform such an elaborated plot when they clearly are too incompetent to be a real threat?
Go ahead Bob. I feel it should be an all or nothing conspiracy theory.
elaborated? {sigh}
Alpo,
Boy. The twisted history continues on even from a previous article, huh?
“We surprised our allies, too, when we invaded Morocco.”
You are either stupid or deliberately rewrite history to suit your taste. Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa, was done at the request of Churchill to aid and relieve the British 8th Army fighting Rommel’s Afrika Korps in Egypt at the time(summer, ’42), to cut off German supplies and eventually destroy the entire Panzer Armee Afrika in a classic pincer operation.
Stalin, while disappointed it was not a direct assault on the Atlantic Wall, was not “surprised”. He was kept well informed of all our major operations and in a few cases, was able to launch offensives of his own to divert forces from our efforts.
Who taught you history, Bozo the Clown? Laidback Lennie?
I’d really like your “take” on why, if it so surprised our allies, we would go to Morocco when France is just across the Channel from U.K. Why we chose to go there when everyone else wanted us “somewhere else” that November in ’42.
Hey, look! It’s Bob. Living large and finally getting some well-deserved respect from the neighborhood. Hope you can still get those pills where you’re going so you don’t shrivel back up. Not that you’re really leaving, anyway, blowhard.
C’mon, Bob, don’t be shy! Let’s hear your theory, and let’s see the proof you’ve assembled that it really was Bush behind 9/11!
We’re all agog.
I’ll elaborate harry-your’e a complete tool of the bushie’s. “Naturally the common people don’t want war;neither in russia,nor in England,nor in America,nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is lthe leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is democracy, or facist dictator, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” Herman Goring Well I guess Bush does read- who’d thunk.
Well, Raul,
If that’s “all” it takes, why didn’t Reagan do it? Why not Clinton(especially that guy, he could have set himself up as “president for life” up to his neck in interns)? Why not Nixon? After all, he didn’t even have to conjure up a war, he had one, and got us out.
You do realize Goering didn’t take America into account, there? Unlike Europe, where most people even today call themselves “subjects” rather than “citizens”, in America we have an independent, self-sufficient attitude born from a wariness of government. It’s even codified in our operating system, the Constitution. Here, even the truth isn’t believed, if the truth comes from goverrnment.
Lemmie guess….you’re a Pearl Harbor denier, too.
I really wish just ONCE, you guys would provide sources rather than just assertions based on paranoia. Who besides Bush is involved in this “grand conspiracy”? The air traffic controllers? The airport screeners? The Jews?(after all, it always comes down to the Jews with you guys)
Lee shows his comprehensive lack of education in suggesting that most people in Europe call themselves subjects rather than citizens. Exactly which people? Certainly not the French or the Germans. The British are technically subjects–they retain a rather ceremonial monarchy–but I doubt if even a brainless booster like Lee thinks that the Brits aren’t a free people because of a terminological nicety.
In American history, one large group of our citizens proved that they were willing to follow their leaders into ruin. Most of the white men who died in Pickett’s charge never owned a slave, but they proved themselves to be the willing tools of the minority that did. Now, 150 years later, the same spirit of ignorant loyalty to a bad cause lives on in their descendants. The American right wing has become the revenge of the Confederacy.
Actually, Jim, it is the left that continues to implement the “socialism of the South” A small, white elite, “caring” for those racially and ethnically incapable of “caring for themselves”, and decrying capitalist “exploitation”. The welfare plantation is just one example. Don’t project your faults onto me.
And while 9 out of 10 Southerners didn’t own slaves, 9 out of 10 slaveowners had only one slave, meaning even the poor among them considered slavery to be “acceptable” and a way of life to fight for. They were not “dupes”, they wanted slaves for the status symbol themselves. Those that didn’t went North.
Yes, if there is a conspiracy, let’s hear all the details: who’se in on it, why did they do it, what’s the point, what do they gain? Like Lee, I’m tired of vague accusations against a nebulous, mysterious “them.”
Alpo, Lee barged in while you were take a bath and, plop, sunk your boats. LOL
I think Lee is recapping the old war movies he’s seen, Nyom, not talking about actual history.
Prolly the same ones Bush & Cheney watch.
We took the easy way out in WWII.
Not a bad move, really.
Too bad the rest of the world learned from our example.
Now we’re the ones holding the bag.
NIce smack down, Talkin.
Yeah, Alpo,
The “easy” way, straight through Kassarine Pass.
At least we thought Italy would be easy. Then “Smiling” Albert Kesselring had other plans called the Gustav Line. Anzio and six months of bombing and frontal assaults. So “easy”.
Atlantic Wall: piece of cake.
Monty sure thought Arnhem was easy. Until his 1st Airborne Division fell into a two panzer division tank park. Well, at least it was “easier” the second time around, 7 months later.
Yep, how easy those Solomon Islands and New Guinea were. And Tarawa. MacArthur promised to return to the Phillipines because he knew how “easy” it was going to be. The Divine Wind was just a gentle breeze.
What a jerk.
I want to just say that one more time.
Waht a jerk.
Happy Independence Day, jackball.
Hey, Alpo,
Did you pick your feet in Ploesti?
Happy 4th! Thank God, GOD himself, for America, for democracy, for our Constitution.
Especially for George Washington — fairly uncorrupt, fairly competent, brave.
Not like the S. Viet allies of the US: corrupt, incompetent, cowardly. Not like the corrupt elected Euro Commission (all resigning a few years ago), or corrupt Dems & Reps in Congress today, or corrupt Iraqi Gov’t, not very competent.
Corruption comes with democracy.
Thinking about Generals vs elected politicians, most Generals who’ve succeeded in becoming top leaders are far more corrupt than Gen. George; and most post-WW II leaders of ex-colonies have been corrupt.
Terrible silly comments here, Neo. So bad it won’t surprise me if you don’t read them.
One Lefty wrote:
“the same spirit of ignorant loyalty to a bad cause lives on in their descendants.”
The bad cause of liberation? Of democracy? Of human rights? These are the reasons I supported Operation Iraqi Freedom — and will keep supporting it AT LEAST as long as the US has been occupying Germany (60+ years and counting).
But the Left has perfected the art of seeing their own weakness and projecting it. What was the Left’s goal in Vietnam? To make America leave, to make America’s allies lose … to allow the commies to win, to allow boat people, re-education camps, Killing Fields, and genocide. The Dem Party voted to NOT FIGHT against these evil outcomes, and, in doing nothing, allowed evil to win.
Their bad cause — (false) “peace” meaning “stopping America from fighting” (even against evil). Ignorant loyalty to this bad cause…lives on. All too sadly.
Pingback:OK, the terrorist conundrum….smart or dumb? at Amused Cynic
Lee,
If you can’t prove it, it didn’t happen.
Any PROOF on who was behind those (boring) 9/11 attacks?
Before you answer, you should KNOW this: 41% of Americans (still ” slow on the uptake”) think Saddam planned and funded it.
Proof, not theories please.
Sorry, Bob..
I asked you first.
When(and only when) you have the courtesy to provide your sources, then(and only then) will I respond in kind.
It is rude to expect answers to questions you avoid yourself.
Pingback:Dean's World
> “terrorism” means striking fear into people…if we do not let ourselves become frightened by incompetents then the terrorist lose! If however people like you hype the capabilities and strikes of the terrorists then you are helping their cause!
Sorry, Matt — ignorance is not a valid option.
The proper attitude is one of ACKING the truth while not being COWED by it.
Which one is brave, the soldier who runs into the room under fire from a hail of bullets believing he can’t be shot, or the soldier who knows he can be shot from earlier experience, but does it anyway because someone has to do it?
Clearly, there are SOME terrorists who are not incompetent, and, if there are not now, then it is a statistical certainty that someday there will be. So being prepared for such, for not taking terrorist ineptitude as an eternal granted, one is using prudent common sense.
Facing such truth with a defiant “F*** YOU!” is the only valid response, not keeping your head in the sand.