In the heated discussion prompted by my statement that “I hope we win”, commenter Julian Morrison posted the following comment, much of which I disagree with but which struck me as worth “promoting” to a post to give it better visibility and its own discussion. I have removed the quotes from other comments in the discussion so it can be read as a stand-alone.
Terrorism is a tool to influence governments, via scaring the electorate. In the absence of governments to scare, it would be a pointless tactic, just stupid and non-effectual murder. By analogy with the famous quote, “terrorism is the continuation of lobbying by other means”.
There is no war.
I hear “terrorists”, but all I see is (a) “clerics” with more mouth than sense, but more sense than balls, failing to convince the rest of Britain’s moslems to rise up in Jihad (they would rather sell you groceries) (b) the security state having a big happy “who needed civil liberties anyway” party.
The western world is not under attack by moslems. It is, at most, “under rant” by a few hotheads, if that’s even a phrase.
There are no WMDs. Iraq didn’t have any. The terrorists don’t have any. They’re a bunch of illiterate backwater arab yokels. They wouldn’t know a nuke from a microwave oven. The nearest they come to microbiology is the infestations upon their own scabrous hides.
If there were real terrorists in Britain or the USA, then they wouldn’t need WMDs. They could drive either country into a blue shivering funk by randomly suicide-machinegunning a few crowded malls, while screaming “allahu akbar!” Far more bang for the buck. There’s nothing effectual preventing them. They haven’t. They don’t exist.
9/11 wasn’t indicative of a national malaise. It was a fluke.
I’ll repeat here what I said in that comment section:
How many flukes does it take to make a pattern of aggression?
The USS Cole
The US Embassies in Dar Es Salaam. Tanzania & Nairobi, Kenya
The 1st WTC bombing
The Khobar Tower bombing
Is that enough?
CBK
9/11 wasn’t a fluke, it was an attack, and we were justified (and right) to respond to that attack, in exactly the same fashion that we are right to defend ourselves as individuals.
The part that I have a problem with is the idea of a ‘war on terror’. Terror is far too amorphous a target to justify a ‘war’. There is no clear victory condition, a prerequisite for any justifiable war.
There will be those who say that the victory condition will be reached when the terrorists are gone, but that just begs the question of how we know that they’re gone, and how we can be assured that the definition of ‘terrorist’ isn’t expanded to include whoever is next out of favour with those in power.
Nebulous ‘wars’ and the concomitant jingoism that goes with them are not an effective approach, and generally only serve as an attempt by governments to increase their power and influence over their employers (the people).
The correct approach, IMHO, is to only engage in action against a credible threat, where such threat can be clearly defined and justified, and where there is a clear cut (and predefined) victory condition. This approach should be followed in entirety for every proposed target.
It is a war. Its been a war for a while. As CBK pointed out so nicely.
Not to mention Bali, that guy with bomb in shoe, those guys who plead guilty in Buffalo, and so forth.
Yes, the opposition appears to be mostly idiot mullahs and people ignorant enough to listen to them, but that doesn’t make them any less dangerous.
I will repeat myself, too:
This is leading nowhere. People who believe that we are at war have completely different perceptions of reality, with according necessary policies, than people who don’t believe so, and we will always keep talking past one another.
PS. For the record, I believe we are at war, which really started in Iran during Carter administration.
Some one has been smoking the white rock.
How easy for those who claim ‘we are not at war’ to sit back, complain, distort, and otherwise undermine any efforts to rid the world of those madmen who kill for their extremist pursuits. They sleep well at night because the rest of us take up the burden of this battle. What a bunch of lazy, nasty buggers they are.
War can be waged by any group of people, not just governments. I offer as as a prime example the Hatfields and the McCoys. Other examples include the Crypts and the Bloods, the 13s and the 14s. Of all of these, only the Crypts and Bloods have even a vague semblance of a government.
Jeannie,
Yes these people do “mock the uniform that guard them while they sleep”, don’t they?
I am always curious to what alternatives to current policies can they offer. So far I have not heard single one that was not tried before and soundly discredited.
But then there are still people out there who believe that in the “right hands” socialism could work. I think that this is a similar sort of blindness.
To clarify my position, in case there’s some misunderstanding, I have no problem with the idea that we should declare and exact war (or are at war) against those *specific* targets that are a threat (whether the Taliban, Saddam, etc.).
What I have a problem with is the idea of a war against a nebulous concept. A war against a concept is empty and unwinnable.
A war against a specific foe, however, I have no problem with.
Professional Paranoid
by William Stone, III
wrs@0ap.org
Exclusive to TLE
There are no terrorists in the United States. There never have been, there aren’t any now, and there aren’t likely to be any in the future.
And I can prove it.
…Remember, one of the goals of a terrorist organization would be to remain secret. This being the case, it has a shortage of trained technical personnel, as well as a shortage of specialized materiel. Remember, too, that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are expensive, difficult to obtain and refine, and are rife with all manner of toxic side effects. They’re additionally very difficult to transport and deliver with any degree of accuracy and success.
Given all this, it seems likely that the average terrorist will choose simple, cheap, easy-to-manufacture, easy-to-hide, easy-to-deliver explosive-based weapons. In fact, this is what we find worldwide: terrorists use explosives rather than nuclear or biological weapons.
…There would be nothing — absolutely nothing — to prevent a terrorist from filling a small knapsack (of the kind worn by hundreds of tourists) full of pipe bombs. Such explosives are identical to those used at the Olympic Park bombing and are simplicity itself to make. For a few hundred dollars, one could fill one’s garage to bursting with them, and it requires only a trip to the local hardware and sporting goods stores to obtain the materials for them.
If there were hundreds of thousands of terrorists in this country, there would necessarily be thousands of basements filled with cheap, easy-to-make pipe bombs to choose from for the job of terrorizing Mount Rushmore’s tourists. They would throw a few into a knapsack, spend a few extra dollars for a timed detonator, and rent a car in Rapid City. They’d then arrive at Mount Rushmore in time for the lighting ceremony, take a seat in the center of the crowd, and quietly slide their knapsack under the concrete bench in the amphitheater. They’d then leave, ostensibly to go to the bathroom (if an excuse is even necessary), get in their car and drive back to Rapid. With appropriate timing, about the time their car hits the town of Keystone, the explosive will go off, killing dozens and injuring hundreds. They’d then return the rental car in Rapid and disappear back into obscurity.
That’s just one possible scenario. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of thousands of potential targets such as this throughout the United States. If one allows one’s paranoid fantasies free reign, one realizes that if terrorists existed in the United States, there should be a news story every single day about how some public place was bombed somewhere in America.
There is nothing — literally nothing — preventing the devious terrorists the FedGov claims exist from performing such acts every day. And yet, such acts never occur. Not today, not yesterday, and not ever. …
Katherine,
I would date the beginning from the Munich massacre in 72. European appeasement began then. American appeasement began in 78-9 with the Iranian’s.
Terrorism is a tactic and as such cannot be an enemy. Terrorist’s can be and are enemies and can be eliminated with patience. Terrorism by Islamists has been a very profitable method of extortion for 32 years. Anwar Sadat is still dead and Arafat is still rich. Until I see a price on Arafat’s head, I will doubt the seriousness of the present undertaking. A list of Wahhabi clerics and financiers with their own deck of cards would also convince me that we had reached a point of determination that would assure the reduction of occurences to the levels of the 50’s.
Greate rationale Scott, completely untouched by any indication of understanding of what alQueada’s aims and methods have been and are.
Rdale: I have a problem with … the idea of a war against a nebulous concept. A war against a concept is empty and unwinnable. A war against a specific foe, however, I have no problem with.
WW2 was a war against Japan-Germany-Italy. Was it also a war against fascism?
WW3 was a (cold) war against the USSR. Was it also a war against communism?
I’d say ‘yes,’ and I’d say both wars were indeed winnable (and won). I think you can fight a concept (at the same time you fight a specific target), and indeed in our ideological age, many (most?) wars will be to some extent fought against a concept. It’s not “X or Y”, it’s “X and Y”.
Now, that said, is “The War on Terror” misnamed? Of course. It’s a war against Islamofascism. But I hypothesize that after we defeat the world’s main Islamofascists (i.e., specific targets), we will have defeated the idea of Islamofascism, as well, in the sense that (1) we’ve removed it as an existential threat to liberal society, and (2) we’ve removed it as something that large numbers of serious people are able to support and believe in.
la chute,
While I basically agree with your position, there is still the problem of the ‘war on terror’ being *primarily* against the concept, more than against the Islamofascists.
When we fought WWII, we fought against specific enemies who were fascists. We only fought the concept of fascism in the context of those specific enemies (that we were opposed to fascism as a concept is a given, but we were fighting an *enemy*).
When we fought communism, it wasn’t quite so neatly tied up as you state. We fought against communism in Vietnam, to name one. Part of the reason it didn’t go as well as we wanted was primarily because we were fighting against the idea of communism moreso than we were fighting the enemy itself. Yes, we did have a specific enemy to target, but we didn’t really understand that enemy in a way that allowed us to gain an advantage, and we also did not have a clearly predefined victory condition (such condition as we had was ‘fight communism’).
We discredited communism, eventually, because we economically defeated it, and not so much militarily (a valid victory, nonetheless). And we did that primarily because Reagan made the Soviet Union (moreso than communism as an idea) the adversary we were needing to defeat.
We need (as ethical people) to be opposed to the concept of terrorism, but we also need to focus our *efforts* toward specific targets, using specific justification, and with a specific outcome as a goal.
Just to clarify the above just a bit, I’ll say for the record that I support the actions we’ve taken in Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to whatever we need to do to clean up after ourselves before we leave.
It is clearly a justified response to the responsible and contributory parties, and that response has a defined success condition (the clean up part may not be as neatly defined, but it is obligatory).
I’m not opposed to the war, I’m opposed to the lack of focus that a war on a concept entails. As long as we maintain our focus, and adequately define what it is we need to do for each identified target, I don’t have to hope we win, because I know we will.
Where’s the highest concentration of islamofascism in the world? Surely everybody here knows the answer to this.
So that’s our target.
But, uh, they also control our oil supply. So we’ll have to be careful. Very, very careful. Iraq as a working democracy is a stepping stone, and an important one, on the way to defeating islamofascism as an ideal. So too, was Afghanistan.
I find it kind ironic that for all his faults, Saddam probably did us a favor when he went secular(more or less).
In one sense, Julian’s comments are stating a truth that the vast majority of Muslims have no quarrel with the West and want to get on with life in peace. Well said. While I think a lot of his comments are barkingly naive, that at least was an accurate statement.
If this war is won, it will be in part because millions of Muslims will turn on the nutters who have perverted their religion and attempted to turn it into a death cult.
Scott, here you come again dispensing platitudes when (most of) the rest of us are trying to have an actual discussion. What could your statement possibly mean, and how could you know it? Ever heard of Hamas? They’re far too open about who they are, and about how then intend to carry out their aims. Now, you and Mr. Dumpty can go off in a corner and play your semantic games, but in the Real World we do, in fact, use the word “terrorist” to describe such as Hamas.
That’s “Julian Morrison” not “Julian Simon” 😉
I’d quibble with The Wobbly Guy; I’m inclined to think the most dangerous concentration of Islamist radicalism is Pakistan, because Pakistan is nuclear armed NOW.
This worries me. A lot.
Granted Pres. Musharraf may be more genuinely inclined to pro-Western policies than the House of Saud, but the influence of extremists in the ISI and local politics is v.large.
Especially given interaction with India and the Kashmir dispute.
V. informative post at Winds of Change on this.
Individuals plotting terrorist acts do so secretly. Al Queda didn’t buy ad space in the NY Times to warn us on 9/10.
Never try to argue with an idiot. They’ll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Rdale’s point is a good one, and one that worries me considerably. I’m all for what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I worry when we screw with language.
Wars are fought against nations, with borders and leaders and armies. You know when you’re done because the other guy says so. I realize that the goals here have to be more plastic, I just wish we’d use a more appropriate terminology to reflect that.
The precedent is not good. We’ve been waging beaucoup wars against abstract concepts, and we haven’t won one yet. War against poverty, war against drugs. These two pseudo wars have brought us endless grief and loss of liberty, without doing much harm to the ‘enemy’. I think we declared war on cancer at some point, didn’t we?
Oh, it’s Julian MORRISON. Nuff said.
Er, just one point to make …
Here in Cape Town, from the late 1990s until just after the real new millennium began, there was a series of bombings and murders that began, notably, with the Planet Hollywood blast, the biggest and bloodiest. Many more followed, mostly pipe bombings. All were linked to Islamist “G-force” elements of a local organisation that ostensibly existed to combat drugs and gangsterism. The city lived in a state of tension, since places of entertainment (including gay bars, nightclubs, a pizza parlour, etc) were frequent targets. Sound familiar at all?
At the same time, leading Muslim moderate scholars who offered objections were threatened with death. They fell silent and in one or two cases, fled the country.
Then as arrests began, came targeted killings: witnesses in safe houses were silenced. Police investigators were ambushed. A magistrate in a big terrorism case was murdered in his drive way. Attempts were made to kill another, and a high court judge.
But eventually the main perpetrators, a relatively small number with a notorious “general”, were sentenced to lengthy terms for murder, sabotage etc.
Since then, strangely, there have been no more bombings or killings.
I relate this just to emphasise that what is allowing people like Juliian to sit around chortling over the bombs that didn’t go bang is that the most ruthless and best organised terrorist groups are relatively small (except in the West Bank) and have been decimated and put to flight.
I assure you, these people do exist, they are still managing to strike sporadically and if we sit back and sneer, they will soon regroup. In the meantime, on with the struggle (let’s call it that, shall we, if war is too strong for some of us?).
Kirk Parker wrote:
Ever heard of Hamas? They’re far too open about who they are, and about how then intend to carry out their aims.
[sarcasm]
Hamas aren’t terrorists, they’re militants. :-p
[/sarcasm]
How are the chickenhawks on this thread supporting the war different politically from conservatives? What distinguishes you guys from outright Republicans or Tories?
Weasel wrote:
“Wars are fought against nations, with borders and leaders and armies. You know when you’re done because the other guy says so. “.
In the good old times wars were like that. I wish they stayed that way. But here we are, people by the hundreds or thousands murdered, and the perpetrators don’t even have the decency of formally declaring war, and indicating exactly where they are so we can go and get them.
You have to adapt, to fight wars as they are not as they were. Terrorism is very real, unlike Julian Morrison tries to claim – the dead are proof of that. You have do to your best to stop this, wether you call it war, struggle or police action. Doing nothing, no defensive measures, no ofensive operations – just burying the dead and hoping it was a fluke – that won’t do.
We might feel uneasy about this strange and unusual kind of war, but we have to adapt. Not fighting back is not an option for people who value their lives.
Not fighting back is not an option for people who value their lives.
Of course not. But a “war against terrorism” doesn’t distinguish between al Qaeda and a kid who pulls the fire alarm to get out of a sixth period algebra exam. And the worry is that our new terrorism laws won’t, either. The vagueness is dangerous.
Now, a War against Islamic militants is a bit more precise.
Mr. Cattanach;
Why should we (libertarians) care if we’re supporting the war the same way as or differently from conservatives? If it’s right, it doesn’t matter who else thinks so and if it’s wrong then it again doesn’t matter who else thinks so. It may be that such confluence means we should double check our premises, but if the answer comes up the same again, then so be it.
It’s interesting that you say that, because one of the left’s primary problems is their reflexive anti-Americanism, where not being like America is the primary goal. Yet the result is that the Left’s policies are set by the conservative Bush administration. That strikes you as a good plan, one that libertarians should emulate? I think not.
This is also one reason I’ve been unable to get the concern-o-meter off zero about “Bush’s lies”. I never paid attention to that in the first place, because I don’t use the conservatives as my policy touchstone the way the Left does.
I don’t mean the war on Iraq – I’m asking why this site isn’t called “Neoconservative Samizdata”? What won’t you trust the govt to do given how much you trust them concerning the war? Why not give the police expanded powers to fight the domestic part of the War on Terror, just like you trust the govt for the military part of the war? Why not give social conservatives what they want? If we can remake Iraqi society, why not remake American society?
From a libertarian viewpoint, defense is one of the few valid powers of a federal government.
At some point, it is necessary, even required, to take action in defense, or even with an eye toward prevention. If we can improve the lot of those under a regime like Saddam in the process, so much the better.
Just because I may support (however guardedly) the current efforts in Afganistan and Iraq, doesn’t mean I’ll roll over and accept any other position from the administration (whether Dem or Rep).
There is no hard and fast dividing line between individuals who are conservative, libertarian, or social-liberalist. I may agree with one or the other in certain circumstances, and still think that they’re loopy in others. (as I’m sure the reverse is true).
Agreement on a point is not agreement on the spectrum. I am not a conservative (or neocon), because their overall goals are not mine. Same for the leftists. That doesn’t mean I’ll reject their position right out of hand merely because of their leaning.
No, but if I said “I’m a libertarian who supports socialized medicine, because protecting people is one of the few valid powers of the fedgov”, I’d take some heat on LS (and deservedly so). Preemptive attacks are not “national defense”. I haven’t seen any “gaurdedly” in any of the acceptance of govt action (in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anything else).
That’s “Julian Morrison” not “Julian Simon”.
My bad. Fixed now. Kind of dyslexic Freudian thing, I guess.
There is more to the question being presented here than whether or not one supports a particular military action, either in Iraq or on a wider scale against Islamofascism. The statement “I hope we win” presumes a moral and intellectual committment that the subject of this thread rejects.
I would submit that that rejection is an intellectual and moral error of a very significant kind. I will try to demonstrate this error by relating the following completely ordinary story.
My Grandfather’s grandparents came to the US as part of a very specific resettlement of a group of Belgian Catholics to a new, small farming community they founded in 1881 by the name of Ghent. They left Europe because of the recurrent warfare, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 being the proximate cause, and the ethnic and religious hatreds between the Flemish and Walloons, and between Catholics and Protestants in general.
My family were not part of the “huddled masses”, but were middle class farmers and minor county officials, although they certainly were “yearning to breathe free”. They bought a farm, and settled down to life in a new and different land.
My Gf was born in 1896. I often wonder if my own life will be marked by the same range of experience as his, a small town farm youth who lived from a time of horses and steam locomotives to see men walk on the moon.
The family flourished, 5 boys and 3 girls, with my Gf the eldest. Each was provided a trade, his was being sent to barber school, one set up with a general store, another a heating oil distributorship. The others stayed in farming, the girls getting land as a wedding present, the boys inheriting the main farms that their parents had acquired over the years.
Only my Gf’s youngest sister is still alive, the family now extending into the 5th and 6th generations, scattered like all families all over the place, few left in the farming life that was the fount of all that followed. My own older children are out working in the world, the younger two still in school. None of them could speak even one word of flemish, nor the Bohemian dialect my grandmother spoke with her sister. They are simply Americans.
And so now the impatient among you, waiting for some big denouement to this tale that you can snort at and dismiss it are wondering “Yes, yes, so what? Everybody did this in one way or another.”
In your demand that the world live up to your exacting standards, or be rejected as stupid and unworthy of support, you have lost your sense of wonder at the beauty of the story I have just described. The fact that it is ordinary, as I stated at the beginning, is the glorious, shining point of living in a free society.
People living their lives in reasonable peace and security, free from oppression, confiscation, torture, imprisonment, and the myriad other assaults that marked life on most of this planet for most of its history is a revolutionary development.
It marks a step forward in intellectual and moral achievement that you seem to have missed entirely, perhaps because it was TOO ordinary for you to notice, or appreciate.
I have told variations of this story to my children in order to help them understand what they have been given: the gift that the Psalms cried out to God for, a land flowing with milk and honey, a land upon which the terrors of war and oppression have never walked.
Is everything perfect? No, it is not the lot of human beings to live in perfection. But it is a society worthy of devotion and support, of respect and dedication to its principles, it is eminently worthy of the simple, fervent wish, “I hope we win.”
Um Freudian? Do I even want to know? *laughs*
Anyway.
In answer to the people whove said “what about [list], were they flukes too?”: yup, they were. When so very few attacks plague such a huge and unprotected target, the only possible conclusion is that “terrorists” are rarer than hens teeth, and incompetetent on a par with Wil E. Coyote.
For a situation involving real attack, compare Israel.
If the govt started a new and expanded socialized medicine program, would Samizdata’s response be “I sure hope it works”? After all, y’all wouldn’t dream of being so evil that you’d actually wish poor medical service on people, would you?
Scott—I remember a day awhile ago when you stated you wouldn’t be blogging very much because school was starting. Good for you. Stay in school and learn. The try living. Right now, you know a little, and understand nothing.
Don’t bother to respond. You live in a cardboard box and wonder why the world is all brown.
For some reason, I don’t feel particularly refuted by your tripe.
My Dear Scott,
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there is nothing in your postings to be refuted. A refutation would suppose a rational argument, offering realistic proposals, and conducted in a civil manner. You are 0 for 3.
The reason I asked you not to respond was because I expected the immediate descent to snotty—it’s your trademark.
What is your next step? Will you hold your breath until you turn blue, while stomping your feet, unless the world does everything exactly as you wish RIGHT NOW.
I was orignally responding to the post by Julian. You are a distraction, and I will not have anything further to say to you except for this one hint about the nature of the problem you are having about my “tripe”—it is about real people living real lives in the real world. The reason you don’t get it is that reality is terra incognita to idealogues.
Best wishes on your junior year.
Please don’t address any more posts my way, veryretired. Senility has obviously taken you past the point where you’re capable of intelligent comment.
Its a shame Perry turned LS over to the neoconservative intellectual cannon fodder. They’ve turned what used to be a decent website into a political mutual masterbation society:
“I think we’re right.”
“I think we’re more right than you do.”
“Oh, yea? I think everyone who disagrees is much more stupid than you do.”
etc.
Dishman: For the record, the blue-wearing street gang is the “Crips”, not “Crypts”.
Neither tomb nor code symobology is intended, as far as I know.
Julian Morrison seems to have forgotten that “minor” attack on 9/11/2001 which killed not just Americans but plenty of Britons and other Westerners.
That aside, attacks in Saudi Arabia and Bali were all targeting Westerners.
Morrison wants to compare to Israel? You add up all the bodies from the various attacks and they certainly match if not exceed Israel’s body count.
No war? What planet does Morrison live on?
JohnF, I disagree with you. Yes, for all the factors you had mentioned, Pakistan is indeed a threat, but it is hardly the greatest one.
The greatest threat comes from the islamofascists sponsored by oil money setting up indoctrinating schools all over the world. That’s where they have to be stopped, in order for the terror to end. Much of the funding comes from Saudi Arabia.
If we cannot stop the money flow, there will be a never ending flow of recruits to their cause.
It’s always about the money. It makes the world go round.;)
The one common error that most people who do not believe we are at war is in definition. Wars are fought “generally” for economic reasons. However, some are not.
We are not at war with a peoples or particular nations. We are at war with a culture and philosphy that has manifested itself in Islam. The degree that we have to engage nations in combat to stem this radical culture depends on the degree to which nations wish to use that culture to benefit themselves. If Saudi Arabia allows this culture (radical Islam and Wahabism) to flourish, supports it financially, or exports it for their own benefit then Saudi Arabia has become a willing accomplice and de facto combatant. (More than likely most in the governing elite of Saudi Arabia have no love for the radicals but fear them far more than they fear the US, that is until now.)
Those who believe that a war is not occuring are defining war as fought in the last century. Unfortunately this no longer is the case. In the American Civil War millions of men marched headlong in uniform lines to be butchered. Outdated tactics and beliefs die hard and slow, ususally a terrible cost in lives, technologies do not adding to the carnage.
The success of the devil is in convincing us he doesn’t exsist and to quote James Lileks, “Thank God for the autonomous nervous system because some people are too stupid to remember to breathe.” These people usually end up as collaborators or the first ones in the pits because defending themselves or their freedom is such an alien concept to them.
The physical targets in this war are those financing it.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc.
The enemy philosophy is Islamofascism.
I’d say Iran was next on the list.
HTY: Ten cigarettes in a small box is “full”. Twenty cigarettes in a huge packing crate is “barely any there”.
Julian Morrison writes:
“… the only possible conclusion is that “terrorists” are rarer than hens teeth, and incompetetent on a par with Wil E. Coyote.”
Maybe, but they are there. There were far fewer terrorists 10 years ago. There is a problem.
Now what is your point ?
1. Do you say there is no problem ? or,
2. The problem is too small to deserve the name “war” ?
Do you say: we need not do anything about it ?
If not – then what do you propose to do ?
Gulf War I was roughly 10 years ago. There was, by your own claim, an evidently large increase in the number of terrorists throughout the decade we ‘fought’ Saddam.
Hmmmmmm.
My goodness, Scott – are you saying the terrorist activity of the last decade was all Saddam avenging? And here I thought the official naysayer orthodoxy says that Islamic fundamentalists don’t think much of him and there’s no possible connection between Iraq and terrorism.
Hmmmmmm.
Jacob asks:
Given a time-averaged view, rather than looking directly at, and only at a handful of (large but extremely rare) events, terrorists probably kill or harm fewer people than serial killers, and vastly fewer than arsonists. Nobody is proposing a “war on arson”.
Terrorism should be treated like what it is: a crime. Fry the perpetrators and their bosses, shake down their financial backers for reparations.
The War Party says Saddam is the key to terrorism (which is why we invaded Iraq right after going after Al Queda in Afghanistan), yet terrorism went up at the same time we put the clamps on him.
I don’t have to claim its caused by revenge for going after Saddam, its enough that the evidence just given does seem to show that going after Saddam does not reduce terrorism (as terrorism increased when we did so).
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Its been argued that CAFE standards (auto fuel efficiency – smaller cars use less gas, but don’t protect you as well in an accident) kill as many people per year as died on 9/11. There is, however, no War on Congress.
Waffle, anyone?
Leggo my eggo.
Julian:
Your view that we need a couple more 9/11’s before you take terrorism seriously is infantile. It makes me feel soiled just to respond to such obvious idiocy.
There are no WMDs. Iraq didn’t have any. The terrorists don’t have any.
You LIE, and I can PROVE that you LIE.
First, Iraq most certainly provably did have chemical weapons around the time of Gulf War I. It was documented. It was also documented how much they had left to destroy when they kicked the inspectors out. That has never been accounted for, except by the Iraqi information minister claiming they’d been destroyed out of the goodness of Saddam’s heart.
Even if you grant the “There are no Americans in Bagdad” man’s claims, Iraq DESTROYING their chemical weapons is a hell of a long shot away from NOT HAVING THEM.
Here is a question for you: If the U.S. hadn’t been all over Saddam, do you believe Iraq would have gotten rid of them? And if not, what consequences does this have for your thesis that the threat is fictional?
The threat would still be there had we not imposed sanctions or forced inspections or invaded (whichever you choose to believe forced his hand). And therefore because we eliminated the threat, it never existed?
Your statement cannot be reconciled with reality… in any way, shape or form that would indicate seriousness or honesty. I am not suprised.
As for the terrorists, do you believe this is a fictional story?
So, Iraq had WMD before we acted, and Al-Qaeda had WMD before we acted.
We have established that you have lied in a major section of… no, THE major supporting pillar of… your claim. By rights, that should end this conversation… no one here has any duty to debate a liar, or someone whose self-inflicted ignorance is so vast that he might as well be a liar.
I suggest that Julian Morrison ask the families of the 3,000 or so people lost on 9/11/01 if they think we are “at war” or not. And the claim that serial killers have killed more is just unbelievable.I would bet that the sum total of serial killings documented in U.S. history is below the 9/11 deathtoll alone.Baffles me how otherwise well educated people can be so willfully blind, or blindingly stupid.
Right after we ask someone who’s 5 year old child is dying from some really expensive disease whether we should have socialized medicine.
Comparing deaths like that is disingenuous, callous, and idiotic.
But I suppose that’s all you have left.
Scott…we will always have to fight disease.Will we always have to fight terrorism?Nice try with muddying the waters.We are talking about the war declared on western civilization by fundamentalist Islam.
When somebody else declares war on me, I’m rather inclined to believe them.
I dunno. To me there doesn’t really seem to be a great deal of terrorism happening anywhere in the world right now, Iraq and Israel excepted. A lot of big talk from some pretty greasy people about what they are going to do but no a lot of action. Hmmmmmm, I wonder why? Oh well, I guess the whiny left will have to entertains us chickenhawks til something and/or someone blows the fuck up to remind us that we indeed are at war.
Julian:
“Terrorism should be treated like what it is: a crime. Fry the perpetrators and their bosses, shake down their financial backers for reparations.”
OK. Now suppose in Canada there is a tribe of Indian people who claim that the US has robbed their land and they regularly send killer and arsonists over the border, where they perpetrate their terrorism/crime and then escape back to Canada. The Canadian government claims the motives of these people are noble and their claims and actions correct. The government also claims that it has nothing to do with the killers, but they refrain from arresting them or preventing their actions. Maybe the government also clandestinely helps them and trains them, as they publicly declare their support for the cause.
What would you do ?
Yes, which is why throwing yourself on the mercy of your government is a bad idea in either case – neither problem will ever completely end.
Then I’d declare a never-ending war on the entire Anglosphere, seeing how they all share language and ideology with those murderous Canadians.
1, 2, 3, 4, who’s gonna stop that racist war?
Scott, Scott!
Never mind 9 – 11 – 03,
The real problem is the D O D!
Scott, Scott!
Yes, Iraq is now semi-free,
But we should have done it with wal-mart’s security!
Scott, Scott!
Right now your mother is being beaten to by thugs,
Don’t call 9/11, because some toddler can’t get lifesaving drugs!
Scott, Scott!
And if some terrorist manufactures anthrax,
protest instead the income tax!
And when it comes time for your vaccination,
Refuse the needle: Uncle Sam paid the coproration!
Scott, Scott!
Ryan, neoconservative arguments for the all-encompassing War on Terror do sound like liberal calls for socialized medicine (or to stop global warming). Sorry if immature temper tantrums are all you have to defend yourself with.
Like you think you’re going to personally and single handedly stop terrorism by supporting this war?
Scott:
“Then I’d declare a never-ending war on the entire Anglosphere, seeing how they all share language and ideology with those murderous Canadians.”
I actually asked Julian, but can we infer from your answer that war on Canada would be justified ?
I’m not a pacifist, I just don’t accept the neocon “if it justifies a war, it justifies any war against anyone we want” argument. Iraq wan’t behind 9/11. We will not remake the mideast in our image. The claims made to justify the war, and the supposed goal of the war, don’t reflect reality.
If you can’t mentally distinguish between witnessing a temper tantrum and being mocked for a fool, you must be…. Scott.
I’ll tall you what doesn’t reflect reality… your claims about others’ claims do not reflect reality.
For example, lets revisit this one:
Here is a homework assignment, since you obviously haven’t done yours: Go to Bush’s much-maligned SOTU speech, where he laid out his case for an attack, and find where he claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11.
Go on, I’m waiting.
Still waiting…
You lie about others’ claims, then you mock the straw man you yourself have created for not reflecting reality. This is why your pitiful smears don’t deserve anything more than a brief chuckle.
You are about as honest as you believe Bush to be.
“We will not remake the mideast in our image.”
Whoever said we were trying to? We are not trying to remake the middle east. What we are trying to do is change the direction in which the middle east is headed. You cannot do this by trying to talk Assad, Saddam, the House of Saud, Mubarak, Arafat, and the mad mullahs of Iran into changing peacefully. Nope, it ain’t gonna happen. I would much rather fight these battles on the Islamist home turf in the middle east than here in the states and I really would rather fight these battles now while we ony have 100 million fundamentalist Islamists rather than 250 million 25 yrs from now. Other than oil, the middle east reallly has nothing to offer the rest of the world in the area of commerce, therefore, the chances of starting serious agriculture or manufacturing economies is nil. The west and especially America will continue to take the blame for this, because a great deal of middle eastern muslims are incapable of introspection, but are masters at projection.
Here be the nitty gritty, Scott.
Making nice talk to the Monster in the Closet is not going to make him a nice Monster or sate his appetite. He remains hungry and is still royally pissed off that you get to sleep in the bed but he has to remain in the closet because he cannot behave himself. And although you feel he is not ultimately responsible for his predicament and as long as he is locked in the closet you’re safe, if he ever has the chance to escape the closet he is going to tear you limb from limb and take over your domicile. He doesn’t give a damn about nice talk, it a weakness he can exploit.
Sooooooo what you have to do to protect your home and family is screw up your courage and go into that closet with a baseball bat, a cricket bat for you Brits, and fuck that Monster up. And hopefully after the Monster has had enough physical and emotional therapy to recover from the righteous asswhupping you have just administered he will be civil enough to venture out of the closet to take tea and cakes with you and the family. If not, you just keep repeating “baseball bat therapy” until he is capable.
If we are unable to do this then we need to do one of two things. Either practice asskissing in order to be a collaborator and/or dhimmi or buy a great $1000.00 Armani suit for the pit, but remeber to have them put a bib on you before beheading you or the blowing off the back of your head off so as not to get your blood on that fine capitalist suit.
Hell it worked for Geramany and Japan. And it only took one treatment.
The problem with Scott’s argument about pipe bombs and small sustained attack patterns is that it is one that an organization would only carry out if their goal were, in fact, terrorism. I am in Lee Harris’ camp when it comes to this–Osama and crew are in fact terrorists by definition, but their goal wasn’t to cause terror. They were fulfilling a fantasy.
If they had any sense they would employ classical terror tactics on American soil, which might not have amounted to 3000 deaths or WTC level damave in the end, but would in fact have gone a long way towards terrorizing the American public. Not cowed into submission, but definitely more terrorized. So we are not dealing, in fact, with a rational group of people.
Dealing with them is imperative. Whether or not you call it war is a semantic quibble.
Your wait is over, eat it:
Then
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither
adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor
likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
and
acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Now
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 — disputing an idea held by many Americans.
… “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11” attacks.
The president’s comment was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.
… [Condoleezza] Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11.”
That document mentioned September 11th but doesn’t correlate Iraq to it explicitly enough to even say that Iraq had anything to do with it, much less that Iraq was behind it.
Is this like the time we weren’t at war with Afghanistan and Sudan and Bill Clinton bombed them anyway during one of those crucial Monica ‘had a chance to fuck but blew it’ Lewinsky moments? Sounds to me the left is making an agrument that is flagrantly hipocritical, because they made no such argument then. The difference is now we have the good sense to understand that we are at war with a philosphy and culture, that either wants us enslaved, converted, or dead and is ensconced itself damn near everywhere within the middle east. For some unkown reason many on the left view this war as a war between gentlemen who should follow certain rules rather than the goddamned fight to the death it is. Sheesh. It’s as though we have millions of wannabe Darwin Award Winners amonst us, the only that burns my ass is that these boneheads want to take the rest of us with them. That’s what elitism will get you, enslaved or dead. Except for the elistists that is, arrogant bastards.
Sooooooo I’m willing to let the Islamists have most of the left in America, all of the Democratic Presidential candidates, and Scott Cattanach and anyone who feels the way he does, in return they leave the rest of us alone or face nuclear annihilation. Because it’s perfectly fine for Scott and the rest of the whackjobs to negoiate away their liberty for the opportunity to be the ayatollah’s right-hand dhimmi, remember, they are leftist and since the left is secular it does not matter what manifestation of God they serve under as long as power is included in the deal. But do not try to speak for us and attempt to negoiate away our freedoms and liberties, they are not yours to give.
The document said that going after Iraq was consistent w/ the policy of going after the people behind 9/11. That’s legalese for “they did it”.
I the meantime, you will be negotiating away your liberty to Jackboot John Ashcroft for the domestic part of the same “War on Terror” supposedly being fought in Iraq.
As far as my supposed inconsistency concering Clinton – I’m not a Democrat. Clinton bombed Iraq and stuck his cocaine-ravaged nose into Kosovo to get Monica off the front page. I don’t say that often now because he is no longer in office lying to people; Geedub is.
Having heard “what about Clinton’s lying?” on this thread, I have a question. Would
or
be considered lies if Clinton had said them? Have you neocons forgotten the “Clinton clause”? That’s the buried phrase that allowed him to say “see, I didn’t outright lie” after you found out you were mislead by something he said. You remember “that depends on what the word ‘is’ means”, don’t you?
Would your opinion of Bush’s honesty survive the same scrutiny you (rightfully) gave Clinton?
Doing the right thing on false beliefs or outright lies, or even plain stupidity, does not make it any less right.
If Bush did lie to the public, well then, hooray for him that he got away for it!
Same thing goes for Clinton. But he should have done more than blow up some measly pharm factory.
I have no problems with liars. It’s only right and proper for politicians to lie, for otherwise they can’t do their jobs.;)
“The ends justifies the means” – how socialist of the War Party.
I’m not afraid of Ashcroft, Scott. I understand his ilk. You seem to think Conservatives are just chomping at the bit to give their Constitutional freedoms away in some weird paranoid cult-like belief. Nothing is farther from reality. If it comes to subverting freedoms and/or the US Constitution Ashcrogt will not get very far with Conservatives and/or Libertarians and he knows it, remember, it’s mainly conservatives and people on the right who practice their 2nd Admendment rights.
And so far Ashcroft has yet to murder thousands of people and throw them into pits because he did not like the library books they checked out, he has not driven an airplane into a building full of people for the glory of fundamental Christianity, and for damn sure he has not, with complicity of the FBI, ATF, and the US Army (at the time commanded by Wes Clark with Clinton waiving the rules preventing US mitliary personel and equipment from being used against American citizens) stormed, with tanks, a religious compound killing everyone inside because he did not approve of the way they were practicing their Constitutional rights the way Janet Reno did. And 3000 citizens and/or resident aliens weren’t even murdered on Clinton and Reno’s watch by true enemies of the United States, instead Clinton and Reno used the power of the state to crush dissent. Sheesh. So let’s be somewhat realistic here and leave that paranoid lefty horseshit where it belongs, in the Indymedia.
No one on the right or middle is giving Bush a free ride, especially since he spends our money like a drunken sailor, but during “wartime” I am willing to give him and his team the benefit of the doubt.
If you have a better plan than just talking or begging our enemies into surrender (i.e. seeing the error of their ways) or closing your eyes and wishing them away like most lefties, I’m all ears, so to speak. If you cannot, at least bitch about Bush and the war with a little more pf an open mind.
And for the cold reality of the way the world really works here in the normal universe: Saddam Hussein had to go sooner or later, just as Kim Sung Il will have to go. The sanctions could not remain in place forever, at great cost to the US and British taxpayer, and with the Europeans pretty much ignoring them anyway for financial gain. The questions then are these, would you rather take him out now while he is relatively weak or do you wait until he has substanial amounts of various WMD? Would you be comfortable with Saddam Hussein, knowing full well his history because it is not a goddamn secret, being the only nuclear power within the middle east? And lastly, if he became the only nuclear power in the middle east what would be our options in fighting and/or defending ourselves against radical Islam then? I realize that these are all hypotheticals, but given his history they are hypotheticals that should be considered. Not to do so is not only naive but dangerously stupid. So one should be more of a realist about Saddam Hussein and the middle east and not let their moral indignation about Saddam ” being an immediate threat” to the United States be a morality borne of stupidity, for that is surely suicidal.
And I don’t care if you are a Democrat or not. No one has said Democrats have a lock on idiotarianism.
Are you too ignorant to know Isreal has the bomb, or just too dishonest to acknowledge it?
Sorry, that should be “Israel” above.
Sorry Scott, that should have been the ‘totalitarian and Islamic middle east’. (Heh, seems they’re the same thing.)
And your right, God only knows what those totalitarian and/or fundamentalist Israelis will do with their nuclear weapons.
The Israelis have had the bomb for a while but have shown no inclination use it or to attack their neighbors at all, except in self-defense. My sense is that the Israelis built the bomb only after they learned of Saddam Hussein’s plans regarding the Osiris nuclear power plant that Jacque Chirac and France sold and then built for him. That, and as a hedge against being annihilated and pushed into the sea by far overwhelming numbers of Palestinian and Islamic zealots. For that, I cannot blame them. Besides being the only country in the middle east with nuclear they are also the “only elected democracy” in the middle east for chrissakes. And as far as that goes who would you rather have nukes in the middle east anyway, Israel or Saddam Hussein? And don’t get all lefty unrealistic and answer, neither, for the toothpaste is already out of the tube. Feel free to use history as a guide in making the choice.
And honestly, how long do you think Israel would last without the support of the US? Think about it, if you were an Israeli would you put your country’s survival and your life solely on a promise of defense by the people of the United States and their government knowing full well that the US has many pro-Palestinian and anti-zionist sympathizers loose about the country. I sure as hell wouldn’t. But, hey, I’ve never counted on anyone but myself to provide for and defend myself and my family. Why should we ask the Israelis to be any different, especially when it comes to their very survival? In the real world, the police will only intervene after you’re dead. And other people will let you down, when there is danger involved, when sacrifice is called for, and/ or when the going get’s tough, every friggin’ time. So I certainly can understand why the Israelis don’t completely trust the US government to make the right descisions all the time either concerning their defense, what with us turning and running in Viet Nam and our weak responses to terrorist attacks up until Sept. 11, 2001. Lastly, go and asked one of those Americans with children or loved ones kidnapped by a Saudi Arabian national, if the US state dept. is looking after their interests. Those elitist shits in the State Dept. worry and annoy me far more than Ashcroft ever will, they’ll get us all killed if we let them.
Your sense? Do you hear voices?
Why not just leave the problem of keeping Saddam nuke-free in the capable hands of the Israelis? Why give them enough $$ to defend themselves against anyone who comes at them, then intervene in the mideast because they’re evidently defenseless?
Pssst. The only reason we support Israel is because Protestant evangelicals want to prop them up for 50 years to force Jesus to come back to Earth, whether He wants to or not. The lives of flesh and blood Israelis is irrelevant (as the same prophesies we’re in the mideast to force to come true has them converting or dying by the millions).
Just wanted to highlight that little admission, for those of you that missed it.
Yes Scott I hear voices and they are telling me your last post is too stupid to warrant any kind of reply. I win.
But saying you won’t reply is a reply, therefore you lose.
You guys want some of us LGF regulars to stop by and take care of that troll for you?
If you want to take care of Harry for us, go ahead.
Bush?s Iraqi Smoke
by Sheldon Richman, September 19, 2003
The Bush administration long ago set the record for misleading the American people. Compared to President George W. Bush and his minions, Bill Clinton was an amateur.
And don’t think that’s a small achievement. It isn’t easy to choose words that will both deceive and allow the speaker to claim later that he did not lie. That takes talent.
…It is an utter falsehood to assert that the president never led the American people to believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11. All right, he never said: “Saddam Hussein plotted with Osama bin Laden to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon.”
But he did say, on declaring an end to major combat in Iraq last May, “Terrorists declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.”
Ponder that for a moment. Bush had just sent the armed forces into Iraq to depose its government and to establish American control of the country. On declaring victory he uttered words that could have no other intent than to directly tie Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. What else could that sentence mean? Hussein personally did not issue a declaration of war against the United States. His armed forces did not attack Americans before the invasion. He was a brutal totalitarian dictator, but he was not a terrorist by the conventional definition. On the other hand, bin Laden did declare war on the United States, and al Qaeda personnel flew airplanes into three buildings on U.S. soil.
Thus when Bush said, just as the formal war on Iraq ended, that “terrorists declared war on the United States, and war is what they got,” it could have meant only one thing: Saddam Hussein was an accomplice in the al Qaeda 9/11 operation. And 70 percent of the American people believed him.
But now the president says Hussein was not involved. In other words, never mind….
If the US continues its current foreign policy, it will continue pissing people off and creating an inexhaustible supply of new terrorists. Each year that goes by, these terrorists will get access to ever more dangerous weapons and methods of delivery. Eventually, one of their attacks will succeed with a highly destructive weapon. No matter what the response, short of nuking pretty much the entire world (which would destroy all life in the US within a few years) the US will still not be able to defend against further attacks.
Therefore, current US policy will lead to massive loss of life in the west due to WMD attacks which cannot be defended against using current technology.
Katherine writes – “I am always curious to what alternatives to current policies can they offer. So far I have not heard single one that was not tried before and soundly discredited.”
The alternative is to pursue a less aggressive foreign policy, thus removing the motivation for terrorist attacks in the first place. One can understand Israel declaring war on a terrorist group such as Hamas whose charter calls for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth. One cannot undestand the US risking mass death of its citizens just so it can retain a military presence in a corrupt and oppressive Middle East country such as Saudi Arabia. US foreign policy increases the likelihood of death of American citizens, increases taxation and wasteful government spending, and fails to further any useful national interest.
The appeasement argument is valid (since it just incentivises further terrorism), and thus one must immediately launch a massive attack on any terrorist group or government that aggresses against us. This will discourage future attacks and, short-term, eliminate the immediate threat. But after that show of force, the optimal response is to then remove the rationale for further attacks by withdrawing from the conflict area if it is peripheral, and pursuing serious negotiation otherwise (e.g. IRA ceasefire). The strategy of failing to address the motivation for the terrorism will simply ensure that it returns, again and again – see NI, Israel, Chechnya etc.