Bush adviser - liberals urge ‘understanding’ for 9-11 atFollow

Really? You want a logical example of why the study of violence is necessary? Does such a thing exist when someone has stated that they believe nothing can possibly justify it? On top of ignorant, you're patronizing. I'm not trying to win you over to my side. As a metter of fact, I want to keep you as far as possible. It would be nice if you could admit that there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak, but I intimated I was expecting that, then I'd be patronizing you.

1. No one except Karl Rove said that anyone was advocating compassion as the sole method for dealing with terrorists. Rove, as you may remember, is a conservative himself, pulling "facts" out of his *** as usual.

2. No one on this thread has advocated understanding the enemy as the sole means of defeating with them or coping with further threats. It is, however, a powerful weapon to have. If I can understand someone, I can predict his likely course of action, manipulate his thinking and - if I'm good - give him what he thinks he wants as long as it's a bargain for me.

3. No one except Karl Rove said that anyone was advocating compassion as the sole method for dealing with terrorists. Since you don't seem to understand this it bears repeating.

Predatory X, let me put it to you this way. Many of the conservative muslims see America's involvement in the middle-east as abortion activists see abortion doctors involvement in the abortion argument. You see, it is a threat to their way of life and the way they see the world.

Understanding of that fact is the gateway toward PREVENTING the creation of more terrorists in the future. You can kill weeds non-stop, but if you don't prevent them, they will return with a vengeance. The military in Iraq is like tropical rainstorms in the desert. The weeds and undergrowth of terrorism are drinking their fill.

You militaristic folks like to answer essay questions with true or false answers and when you get an F as a result you scratch your head.

Source? Are you an Islamic follower? What evidence do you have of this? If this is true, why have tens of thousands of Iraqis that practice Islam joined the American led coalition to train to be police under the guide of the United States?



You could use that for every war in history. We should not have committed ourselves in the Revolutionary War, because more brits would hate us and join the fight with the British, and more Americans and British would die. I suppose you support British sovereignty then. We should not have joined the Allies in WWI, because more fascist dictators would arise to replace the old and then more people would die. We should not have committed ourselves to WWII, because more Germans would have rallied towards their cause, and hated the U.S., and more people would die. By your accusations, we should not commit ourselves to any war ever, because the risk of additional followers of the enemy is too great, and it is not worth it if the enemy does not like us in the end.

You speak of weeds. I had a lot of weeds in my front yard at one time. You know what I did to get rid of them all? I got a can of poison spray and annhilated every single one of them. Guess what? No more weeds, haven't had them since. Problem solved. Show me your alternative way to prevent terrorism and if it is logical, I will have no choice but to completely agree with you.

So you don't agree with Rove then? ok then, objection withdrawn.

While I agree with most of what that guy said in the article, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions, and a couple of his base assumptions.

First off, he seems to focus waaaaaay too much on the goals of terrorists and downplays their methodologies. What *makes* someone a terrorist is the methods they use. Why on earth be surprised that there's nothing unusual about their goals? Again. What makes a terrorist different from an activist is that a terrorist blows people up for his cause whereas an activist maybe just marches around. Both may have exactly the same goal, so that's irrelevant.

It's the methods that matter, but he seems to be ignoring that factor.

Secondly, he talks about the Administration overplaying the Religious aspect of their "motivations" (again he's talking about goals rather then methods). I don't think that's accurate at all though. I don't think that the Aministration has once stated that these terrorists hate us *because* they are Muslim Fundamentalists. While you'll certainly hear that from the peanut gallery, I don't recall that ever being stated in any official way from this or any previous US administration.

What this administration has recognized is that Fundamentalist Islam is *used* as a tool to turn political activists into terrorists. Again though, Pape kinda sidesteps that because he's incorrectly focusing on the "goals" of terrorists rather then the methods, and therefore since the goals are secular, the fact that they may or may not be Muslim isn't that big a deal. But that's a kind of strawman really. No one's saying that someone is a terrorist becuase of his goals. Someone is a terrorist because of his methods. Thus, examining the methods used in middle eastern terrorism is completely valid. And ignoring the Islamic connection to that is inherently dangerous.


The third paragraph is kind of accurate, but he's guilty of the "implication by exception" fallacy that I've pointed out many times before. Yes. Foreign military occupation and its threat to the communities way of life is a factor in generating the level of hate needed for suicide terrorism. However, it's not the *only* one. He does hit a key point. That it's about the effect outsiders have on their way of life. But by mentioning only foreign military presense, he implies that this wouldn't be a problem if only we moved our troops out.

Fact is that he's wrong there. Any influence by outsiders on their way of life contributes to the hatred that generates suicide terrorism. That's what's been going on for the last 30 years in the region. Moving our troops out wont change that. Everytime we put a McDonalds in the ME, this generates hatred by those with extreme cultural views that dont include influence by foreigners. Everytime we do business in the ME, this contributes to suicide bombers. Barring literally walling off the entire region and never allowing anyone inside to ever see or hear anything of the outside world, nothing we do will *ever* change that.

However, what has caused many to flock to that level of cultural extremism *is* the historically horrible leadership in the region. The sense that the people have little say in their governments. The sense that they are just pawns in a much bigger game. Those are the things that cause people to have the viewpoints that make them hate foreign influence in the first place. While one can certainly argue that *more* foreign influence will just **** off more of them, the point isn't to just look short term, but long term.

Also, because he's overly focused on the "goals" of the terrorists rather then their methods, I think he misses a very critical point. People most often turn to terrorism (heck, maybe *only* turn to terrorism) when they feel that they cannot achieve their goals without resorting to violence. Again. It's about the methods used. The goals are inconsequential when considering why terrorism occurs. An examination of the methods available and asking *why* more peaceful methods don't work is IMO going to be much more fruitful. And in this particular case, a history of rulers who care little about their citizens, with minimal rights, almost no concept of equality and due process, and virtually no say in the governing of the people certainly contributes heavily to an environment in which people will use terrorism in order to obtain politcal goals.

If we succeed in generating a true democracy (which btw, does not exist *anywhere* in the Middle East), then the people may actually feel a part of their country rather then a collection of mostly disenfranchised people's. This will reduce the overall view of "outsider==bad", and gradually reduce the rate at which people will turn to terrorism to fight against those things. More importantly, even those still wishing to oppose foreign influence will be more likely to turn to legal methods to pursue those goals rather then violent ones like terrorism.


The last paragraph is kind of funny actually. While I'm sure he didn't intend to, what he's basically doing is supporting the US's allegation that the UN badly handled the Iraq situation. After all, we were *forced* by UN charter to push back Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. No choice. But by the UN going with a tediously slow and overly forgiving weapons inspection methodology when it became apparent that Iraq was not going to willingly comply with the cease fire agreement in 91, they created a situation where US troops were forced to be present in the region for 11 years. One can easily argue that he's essentially blaming the 9/11 attacks on the UN's poor policy for handling Iraq...

Interesting.

Edited, Mon Jun 27 22:37:53 2005 by gbaji

I remember watching a show that was interviewing CIA agents and getting there take on the war in Iraq and it boiled down to this:

Saddam was a dictator with a love of power.

He was also a socialist therefore he kept religious types contained.

Any WMD or force he was capable of was the method that he used to stay in power

The idea that he would give these weapons to islamic militants that were not loyal or under his direct control was laughable because of his disdain for them and the fact that he would be giving up his "power" to people he supressed

Edit- it went on to explain that the current war in Iraq had the opposite effect in that it spurred terrorism and islamic fundamentalism because once Saddam was out there was no one to keep them in check. Also US soldiers on Iraq soil is seen as an invasion by radicals and that along with mounting civilian casualties and the record of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo abuse is being used as a recruiting tool by islamic terrorists.

Also to note that the CIA/NSA and a number of think tanks had put together a mutli volume tome as to how to handle Iraq, both invasion and post invasion. It detailed both macro and micro plans and possibilities. Bush and crew disregarded it and one of the biggest mistakes they made was not incorporating the existing Iraqi military into a new Iraqi guard. Thus leaving the old guard no work and giving the insurgents a rather large pool of trained people to select from who had a grudge against US.


Edited, Tue Jun 28 10:01:56 2005 by bhodisattva

Edited, Tue Jun 28 10:08:22 2005 by bhodisattva

Yep, forget about figuring out WHY these people hate us, just continue to kill and be killed by them.

It's like the US is taking the "Hatfield and McCoy" approach to war. "Them there idiots done pissed us off, let's git 'em! YEEEHHHAAAAWWW"

I don't think Rove should apologize. Then again, I don't think Durbin should either. One day, one of these guys or gals in politics will get the balls or ovaries to say, "Don't like what I said? Tough shit. I'm not apologizing. I'm not going to say I've made a mistake when I've really just told people what I think. If you don't like it, run against me next time. Otherwise, say what you have to say, but I'll never apologize for saying what I believe."

That politician will be re-elected in a landslide. People are tired of fake apologies. Everyone knows they're BS, but it's the "expected" thing to do.

Grady

why not?, we treated the Native Tribes like the Romans did the Gauls..... spread McDonalds' like aquaducts and our language has become nearly universal.

Sure, Rome was great wasn't it? really worked out for them too didn't it?

Caused? I didn't even come within shooting distance of implying that. I'll spare everyone else the rest of your post.

Tell me, varus. How's life below the filter?

Bah. Same missing of the point IMO...



Again. He's talking about goals and not methods. He's still missing the point. Whether we were there or not, clearly the *methods* of terrorism as a mean to achieve and end existed. In most places, if a hated regime had just fallen, the people's first reaction would be to form into political groups (dare I say parties?), and attempt to influence the politics of the new nation in that manner. The fact that some percentage of the population immediately turned to terrorism shows that there was a problem there *before* we got there. We just created a situation in which terrorists would act. We did not create the methodology of terrorism, nor it's common use in the region.

He's essentially advocating that we should avoid doing things that create symptoms of an illness instead of trying to treat the illness itself. Sometimes, in order to remove a disease, you have to treat it in a way that makes the patient sicker in the short term.



Certainly. but that's a twisting of the words. If the US forces leave, then there aren't as many targets to use those suicide tactics on. Again. Confusing goals with methods. It wont make it any harder to recruit people, or convince people that the methods of terrorism are the only/best way to deal with problems. In fact, I'd argue heavily that pulling out would only make those sitting on the fence even more sure that terrorism was the right method to use (since it worked, right?).

The objective is to get people to not turn to terrorism as their first methodology to achieve a goal. Arguing that terrorism isn't a problem because the terrorists don't have any nearby targets is a ridiculous postiion to take! Cuase eventually, they will find ways to attack the people they hate, despite that distance. That's exactly the kind of moronic approach to terrorism that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur in the first place.

We must recognize that the problem is large groups of civilians who believe that the only methods they have availble to them to enact change is terrorism. The "fix" is to change that perception. That's not going to happen as a result of any of this guys suggestions, and IMO, his ideas will make things infinitely worse since we'll just be proving to the terrorists that their methodologies work.

Understand your enemy or hand him the pistol and assume the position.

Understanding and compassion ain't the same thing.

I don't have any compassion for the guy who kept dumping his trash in my yard, but I took the time to understand where he hangs out and what he does of an evening.

His wife was amazed at the photographs.

-1 compassion
+1 understanding
+2,500 Roller's ability to look like a cu[/i]nt*



*Am I supposed to say 'an c[i]unt' if I want to play in your 'hood?