The war on terrorism

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

The war on terrorism

Postby Haggis@wk » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:41 am

Hugh Hewitt notes that not a single prominent Democrat has dissented from the ridiculous decision by partisan judge Anna Diggs Taylor, which held the NSA's interception of international terrorist communications unconstitutional, for reasons no reader of her opinion has been able to discern. Consequently, Hugh concludes,
"Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability."

It's hard to argue with that conclusion.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby dai bread » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:34 pm

I believe the fuss was over the tapping of American citizens' phone lines without court orders. At least, that's how it seemed from the reports in my newspaper.

This may well be unconstitutional (I wouldn't know), and it's certainly disquieting. It shouldn't be difficult to get a court order for legitimate surveillance.
We have no money; we must use our brains. -Ernest Rutherford.
dai bread
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand

Postby shostakovich » Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:48 pm

The TV has given several legal opinions about the NSA wiretapping. Some agree that it's unconstitutional. Others say it's necessary. These conclusions are not incompatible.
Shos
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Postby analog » Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:47 am

shostakovich wrote:The TV has given several legal opinions about the NSA wiretapping. Some agree that it's unconstitutional. Others say it's necessary. These conclusions are not incompatible.
Shos



Hmmmm... I wonder - were these folks using CB radios instead, would the same "wiretap" argument apply?

Given that it's no longer necessary to go to a telephone pole and tap into the wires, is it still a wiretap? My understanding is they eavesdrop on the satellite links that carry phone traffic. There's a cottage industry out there pirating TV by eavesdropping on other satellite links, and the only outrage is from satellite tv retailers. The argument "the airwaves belong to everybody" has a corollary, "if you want it private don't broadcast it".

My own opinion is technology has obsoleted the expectation of absolute privacy over any telephone more sophisticated than a tin can & string....


I hope NSA named their phonecall-monitoring supercomputer "Ernestine"................:idea:
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby GreatCarouser » Sun Aug 20, 2006 2:23 am

dai bread wrote:I believe the fuss was over the tapping of American citizens' phone lines without court orders. At least, that's how it seemed from the reports in my newspaper.


Goodness! The New Zealanders seem to have gotten it....why is Hewitt unable to comprehend it? I guess we may surmise that a vote for a Republican is a vote for 'victory' but against the Constitution?
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby Haggis@wk » Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:24 am

GC,
Dai Bread at least has the excuse that the article he read in local papers were just wrong. What yours?

Dai,
The calls monitored were to specific terror related individuals located outside the country. Unfortunately the Left has made this into just another attempt to blame the president. Consider this, not one Democrat in Congress or the House ever said the program should be halted, they just bad mouthed it.

The truth is that all of them support the program they're just trying to give the president a black eye once again showing that their political ambitions are more important than national security; and they expect to win offices on that platform?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby shostakovich » Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:28 pm

I think Russ Feingold said halt and investigate its legality. He got very little support. Since the American majority, based on polls, is not troubled by the spying, no politician is likely to push the issue. Yes, political ambitions come first. Hell, that's what's wrong with politics.
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:07 pm

What does the end of WWII and the “Global War on Terrorism” have in common? The answer? Nothing; yet.

I've spent the last few days studying the future by examining the past; that is why I wrote this.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about where we are in the GWOT. First of all, I really hate that tag, GWOT. Why in the hell don’t we call it what it is? A war against Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism, Islamic Jihad ANYTHING but GWOT!!

That alone would go a long way in defining what, exactly, we are against. We weren’t afraid to call out the Axis parties in WWII why won’t we identify our enemies now?

I think that Melanie Phillips is able to accurately define that which we are loath to face. This excerpt from her book “Londonistan” (pp. 49-50), is a perfect explanation of why we are losing or at least not winning:

”To understand the depth of this reluctance and incomprehension in Britain [to acknowledge a threat based on religious belief], … it is necessary first to bear in mind one of the most deeply rooted of all aspects of the British character. This is its belief in the rational, the everyday and what is demonstrably evident, and its corresponding suspicion of the abstract, the theoretical and the obscurantist.

Wars of religion, when different kinds of Christians burned each other at the stake in post-Reformation England, are seared into the British historical memory but belong to a premodern period of savagery upon which the country has long resolutely turned its back. The liberal settlement that followed the Enlightenment in Britain put religion very firmly back into its box and elevated reason to pole position as the supreme national virtue. This sturdy empiricism lies at the very core of the British love of liberty, and has bequeathed to them their deep skepticism of all forms of extremism. Presented with a ranting ideologue, the British are less likely to succumb than to scoff.

But the downside of this robustly down-to-earth approach is that the British now find it very hard to deal with religious fanaticism. They no longer recognize it – or want to recognize it. Presented with a patently ludicrous ideological ranting, they refuse to believe that anyone can take it seriously. So when Islamist clerics … were loudly trumpeting their hatred of the West and their calls to holy war against it, MI5 regarded them as little more than pantomime clowns, shooting their mouths off in the open where everyone could hear them and laugh them to scorn. Except, of course, a number of impressionable young Muslims did not laugh at all. Such ranting incited them instead to enlist in that holy war against the West which Britain refused to accept was an actual and lethal reality.

As one foreign intelligence source put it: “During the 1990s, many attempts were made to enlighten the British about what was happening. But they refused to see this problem as having a religious character. If this was a religious problem, it became a religious confrontation – and the specter of a religious war was too horrendous. A religious war is different from any other war because you are dealing with absolute beliefs and the room for compromise is very limited. Religious wars are very protracted and bloody, and often end up with a very high toll of lives.

“So Britain turned a blind eye to the fact that freedom of religion for Muslims means freedom to propogate their faith in every possible way. There was almost a conscious psychological suppression of this subject. Politicians didn’t want to think about it at all. The official class wanted to think about it in as narrow a way as possible by dealing with individual incidents as they occurred, but no more than that. They were very concerned about social unrest among Asians in cities like Bradford, but they treated it more as a criminal matter. There was a conscious and subconscious effort to deracialize and depoliticize it and distance themselves from the religious aspects. After 9/11, they woke up in principle but not in practice. They still thought that the UK wasn’t in the front line, and if they continued with their policy of ‘benevolence’ the same thing wouldn’t happen to them.”


Most of us here on B.com BB know what we are fighting; we’re fighting radical Islam. They want us dead or dhimmitude. This is not an exaggeration and it is not an overstatement. And it is not new. This evil has been a stated goal of Islam since the seventh or eighth century. The only thing new in the equation is the oil in the mid-east that gives the impression that there might be some flesh on the bones of that desire. Not that it will last, but that the reason I’m writing this.

The first step in winning what is going to be a difficult and bloody war is simple calling the evil we face by what it is; Radical Islam.

As I mentioned above, most of us “little people” already know that and now people in position of influence are beginning to “say the truth that we all ignore”

LONDON’S most influential former police chief has rounded on Britain’s Muslims, drawing blistering criticism, blaming them for the terrorist networks in the country. It’s a good step in a country that’s generally more PC than we tend to be. More PC maybe, but still one that has much more draconian security than we will ever have. Something to think of when the NYT next rants on about wiretaps, illegal detention and all the other pap they’ve been spewing.


Lord Stevens

”I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?

No. But they are all getting exactly the same amount and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever. Yet the truth is Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always travelling alone or in very small groups. A tiny percentage, I bet, of those delayed today have such characteristics. “


Then we need to consider and then confront the most serious event civilization’s enemies desire more than anything. Anthrax in Detroit or a mushroom cloud in (insert name of favorite city you love to hate) and know that is what the people we are fighting want more than anything else; to kill us into surrender.

When the neo-cons (like me) said that we would be greeted with garlands of roses in Iraq, I meant it. I couldn’t imagine anyone preferring an 8th century theocracy to freedom and liberty. But subsequent events in Iraq have had to give any thinking person (or me) pause. The people of Palestine democratically opted for a government that promises non-stop war with a much more powerful enemy.

Where the people of Iraq stand remains clouded but I’m not yet convinced that they are rushing to embrace national suicide. I might be wrong in that, but I still don’t see it; yet.

We know from reports that the Iranian government is wildly unpopular with its people and hope they soon will rise up. I afraid that the evidence for hopes of a popular uprising remain unconvincing and tenuous.
However the evidence for the hatred of the U.S. that many people of the region have remains all too clear.

So now I start predicting, I haven’t been all that correct in the predicting business. Although in 1999 I did predict a major terrorist attack against the U.S. but thought it was very improbable. I can post that post here if anyone’s interested.

How will our war on radical Islam end? To predict that I went back into history and looked at how other wars ended with victory for one side and defeat for the other and I can only come to one conclusion. Just like World War II ended with lots of dead Nazis and imperialist troops of Japan this war will only end when we kill enough Jihadists. As in those wars the ones that remained alive lost the will to fight on. Since this war also has religion as the main basis for conflict I have to surmise that it means a lot more dead Jihadists than the German or the Japanese were willing to tolerate before they surrendered.

Only when they realize that in their destruction their way of life might become extinct will there be an end to this particular conflict.

That it will end that way seems as inevitable to me as the end of WWII was viewed inevitable in the opening days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. From the very beginning of that war we established that unconditional surrender was the only acceptable ending to the conflict.

Until the Jihadists realize they can’t win, they will continue to fight. Every instance of Western weakness gives them (false) hope. Every U.N. resolution, European cry for diplomacy and academic case for moral equivalency feeds their notion that their victory is inevitable.

And victory will be ugly. We will kill innocents, just as we did in Nagasaki, Hiroshama, and Dresden. And we will suffer our own losses.

Personally I think we, the U.S., will have to suffer a another (or possibly several) losses before we truly release the full might, the really serious “dogs of war” we have at our disposal. But I can’t imagine that those losses won’t happen, as is often said, we have to be lucky every time and they only have to be lucky occasionally.

This war won’t be won by serious conversations and negotiations. There’s nothing new going on here, nothing that’s not 14 centuries old. The only difference is that a trillion dollars in petro-dollars has given the forces of Jihad power and reach that even the Prophet never imagined. To think we can talk our way out of this is dangerously wishful thinking.

It’s a horrible, disgusting reality but I think the correct one.

We will -hell we HAVE to- win, but it will be bloody.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:22 pm

One question(so far): So why did we go into Iraq half-cocked, per Rummie's grandiose scheme? If this was so important, why not make it the overwhelming victory through overwhelming numbers and resources as everyone outside the GWB administration(and lackeys) preached right up to the invasion? I can't help but wonder if we would have turned Iraq back over to an Iraqi democracy over a year ago if we had done it that way. And I don;t think it's a case of 20/20 hindsight, either, because the war scholars had done the research and had the proper recommendations at the time. GWB, Rummie, et al, simply chose to go their own stubborn, la-la way.

(Oops, that's two...)

Haggis, you're the first conservative to not be ashamed to label himself a "neocon". However, I don't consider you to truly be one, because you have our nation's best interests at heart.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby bignaf » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:27 pm

nice post Haggis, but a few quibbles.
it's not Islamic fascism we're fighting against. Fascism is a form of goverment, and has nothing to do with foreign relations.
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby Shapley » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:31 pm

Haggis,

We can't even begin to really fight this war until about half this nation realizes who the enemy is, and that he's not in Washington D.C., and not in Bentonville, Arkansas.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby barfle » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:43 pm

I have the fervent hope that education will quell the insanity that religious fundamentalists thrive on. When they realize their mythology is no better than any other mythology, their interest in 72 post-mortem virgins will cease.

But fundamentalism is based on ignorance of the physical world. Their knowledge base is their scripture, and anything that disagrees with it, no matter how well backed by evidence, is blasphemy.

I don't know how to get past that. Whoever does will be the greatest hero the world has ever known.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Postby shostakovich » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:49 pm

I agree with Big regarding Fascism being a form of government --- that nationalizes (or otherwise controls) business and industry. Stalin's Communism was Fascism, even as they fought German Fascism. The use of the term "Islamic Fascism" is designed to demonize our enemies --- like they needed demonizing. It may also be accurate. I don't know enough to judge. Our country is an example of "inverse Fascism", where business and industry control the government.

As events are unfolding, I'd say Haggis's prediction of ugly, bloody war is likely. Beating the Islamic radicals into submission (I think Islam MEANS "submission) will be VERY difficult, since they are numerous and growing. The true radicals embrace martyrdom. How do you scare somebody who wants to die in service to God? Lots of good Muslims and non-Muslims will be dying in the near future. We'll be looking back at 9/11 as the halcyon days.
Shos
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Postby jamiebk » Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:59 pm

There is simply no way of winning a "religious war". No one is capable of eradicating or snuffing out either side. Simply put, we cannot control men's minds. Years of persecution of all various sorts of religions should teach us that. In spite of everything inflicted upon them, the spark of faith and commitment remains like an ember waiting to flame up. We need to learn to live together which I know sounds corny and very "60's". The fact is that no one ever eliminated "religions", at least not in a common variety war.

In conclusion..I leave you with the lyrics from one who was definitely ahead of his time...Mr. Tom Lehrer...not much has changed since he wrote this in 1965, From the albumn, That Was the Year That Was:

Send the Marines:

When someone makes a move
Of which we dont approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!

Well send them all weve got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of tripoli,
But not to mississippoli,
What do we do? we send the Marines!

For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
till somebody we like can be elected.

Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Oh we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby dai bread » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:00 am

The last time Christianity and Islam came into conflict was the Crusades. Christianity lost. Whatever the reason for this, there's no guarantee that it won't be repeated in a modern conflict.

There seems to be an obsession these days for fighting guerilla warfare with regular troops, and trying to engage the guerillas in pitched battles. The essence of guerilla warfare is that you don't fight pitched battles.

A good deal of thinking needs to be done by our leaders. I can only hope it's being done quietly, behind very tightly closed doors. It's certainly not being done publicly.

As for the press, the British security people had to tell their American counterparts to shut up. All the details that the Brits had uncovered about their latest crop of wannabes were being published in the U.S. for the enemy to read.

Even our own Govt. got upset when details of our Army's missions in Afghanistan were posted on the internet from U.S. sources. Our Govt. never ever comments on our SAS.

Journalists need to learn discretion. So do those who brief them.
We have no money; we must use our brains. -Ernest Rutherford.
dai bread
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand

Postby analog » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:53 am

jamiebk wrote: The fact is that no one ever eliminated "religions", at least not in a common variety war.



I dunno, Jamie ... It seems the Japanese no longer regard their emporer as a diety. Of course General Macarthur had the sense to let it come about gradually.

For this one, I think the lyrics to Leonard Cohen's "Future" are closer to reality. Look at the recent ruckuses in France and Holland, and the percentage of muslim population - - if the radicals pull their act together, Europe could erupt again.
'Things gonna slide.........
in all directions...'
:soldier:
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby jamiebk » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:57 am

dai bread wrote:The last time Christianity and Islam came into conflict was the Crusades. Christianity lost. Whatever the reason for this, there's no guarantee that it won't be repeated in a modern conflict.


My point exactly, analog...and did Christianity's loss at the Crusades stop the spread of the Christianty? Quite the contrary. The answer is not war. If anyone thinks that they are going to eradicate radical Islam through conventional war, they are nuts...The only way that radical Islam will be stopped is if Islam takes control of their own religion and stops the radicals from within. THEY must decide that the radicals do not represent their values and put a stop to it. Those outside the religion are powerless to change anything.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby analog » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:11 am

jamiebk wrote: ...............

The only way that radical Islam will be stopped is if Islam takes control of their own religion and stops the radicals from within. THEY must decide that the radicals do not represent their values and put a stop to it. Those outside the religion are powerless to change anything.



I'm saying, on the other hand - the rest of the world can't sit idly by until islam grows up and learns self control. Unless of course we're willing to accept another holocaust.

Social authority has its roots in the need to tame juveniles.

These folk want to set off atom bombs in Israel and New York. They want to bathe the world in "the blood of infidels". Of course they're juveniles who need to be reigned in. So was Hitler. They've figured out how to switch on the human "lemming" gene and start a mass movement.
These are not harmless children with whom the world can remain permissive. :grouphug:
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby bignaf » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:22 am

dai bread wrote:Journalists need to learn discretion. So do those who brief them.

the Journalists won't, so those who brief them should. it's all these anonymous sources.
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby bignaf » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:23 am

jamiebk wrote:
dai bread wrote:The last time Christianity and Islam came into conflict was the Crusades. Christianity lost. Whatever the reason for this, there's no guarantee that it won't be repeated in a modern conflict.


My point exactly, analog...and did Christianity's loss at the Crusades stop the spread of the Christianty? Quite the contrary. The answer is not war. If anyone thinks that they are going to eradicate radical Islam through conventional war, they are nuts...The only way that radical Islam will be stopped is if Islam takes control of their own religion and stops the radicals from within. THEY must decide that the radicals do not represent their values and put a stop to it. Those outside the religion are powerless to change anything.

No one thinks they can eradicate radical Islam. that is not the objective. the objective is to render it impotent.
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Next

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron