Terrorists will attack the American homeland again - but only out of the sheer necessity of self-preservation.
Cheney's still up to his old demagoguery: "Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a "high probability" that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration's policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Cindy D
Dave,
Of course I wouldn't. I don't think the young Israeli woman, who posted those pictures, would either.
pablo, ty.
27 - Dave Nalle
Perhaps Dave can give us some accurate statistics of how many of Hamas's bottle rocket bombs have actually killed and or maimed civilians. Dave?
Well sure, Pablo. When I last checked about a week ago it was at 15 dead and about 300 injured since the middle of last year when they escalated the rocket attacks.
I'll save you the trouble of your next argument. I don't subscribe to the idea of proportionate response. Hamas has no justification for killing ANY Israelis, nor do they have any justification for oppressing the people of Palestine and provoking Israel into attacking them. Every one of the deaths on both sides is on the heads of Hamas, because without their criminal behavior most of the violence could be avoided.
Dave
28 - Brunelleschi
What is your opinion on Israelis "settling" on Palestinian land and displacing the owners by force, who are robbed of their freedom (property)?
29 - Al Barger
Glen lives here in fantasy land, positing things that he'd like to believe. For example, he says "You can’t kill a religious movement with bullets" Well, YES you can. Unless he thinks they're Jesus and going to raise from the dead, one bullet apiece between the eyes will shut any movement down COLD.
He will then say that this will only encourage more people to join up because they're "persecuted." That may be true to a certain point, but then the new recruits can be killed as well. And there are only so many people even among the f'd up world that is Islam that are truly suicidal.
In short, you got fanatics in an organization killing or conspiring to kill US, put bullets in their head. Repeat as necessary.
30 - Al Barger
Zing sez re: Iraq "america did a damn good job of making a fool of itself"
You might make arguments that we look like bad guys somehow, or that the cost to America was higher than the benefits or something. But we certainly did not make fools of ourselves. We did in fact right quickly topple the Ba'athist regime, and took out all their leadership. Weren't US looking like fools when Saddam got fished out of his spidey hole.
In fact, it's looking pretty clear now that we won. Bush can be faulted legitimately in many ways, but we took out one of the worst actors on the scene and have helped the people of Iraq set up the beginnings of a good ol' messy democracy.
Iraq has gone from one of the couple of worst treacherous places in the world to a friendly democracy. And the US look like "fools" exactly how?
31 - Brunelleschi
Al-
If it is a friendly democracy, why are the troops there?
I will answer for you. The Oil Law is not passed yet.
See also "Private Property Rights Meme"
I knew this would happen before it started.
athankyou!
32 - Dave Nalle
What is your opinion on Israelis "settling" on Palestinian land and displacing the owners by force, who are robbed of their freedom (property)?
I'm entirely against it. I think that the UN has grossly failed in its mandate to see that settlement in the disputed territory was handled equitably. Even if the rights of the Palestinians are only "squatters rights" since they have no long-term presence in the area, they still have as much as or more standing than the Israelis.
But Israel's inconsistent and sometimes abusive settlement policies are certainly not a justification for terrorism.
Dave
33 - Roger Nowosielski
Bruno,
You're dealing here with a perfect example of "the politics of fear" having taken hold of the mind.
See comment #29 in the above thread.
34 - zingzing
al: " We did in fact right quickly topple the Ba'athist regime, and took out all their leadership."
and left a power vacuum that got incredibly dangerous to civil war, increased sectarian violence and made our true enemy, al qaeda, much more powerful. 6 years later, we're barely starting to get it under control. that's foolish. fucking dumb, more like.
"helped the people of iraq set up the beginnings of a good ol' messy democracy?" no, we forced one on them. and they're not very good at it. it's like taking a bunch of people from australia and forcing them to play ice hockey.
"Iraq has gone from one of the couple of worst treacherous places in the world to a friendly democracy. And the US look like "fools" exactly how?"
well, for starters because some people would seriously say that iraq has gone from one of the most treacherous places in the world to a friendly democracy.
WE made it vastly more treacherous than it was, and now they have a completely shaky democracy that threatens to collapse without our military presence.
you certainly have a rosey-eyed view of iraq, al. and so did america's leadership and military, for the most part. it's one big clusterfuck that has helped to doom our economy, kill hundreds of thousands of people, seriously damage america's image abroad and further destabilize the middle east. for what?
we're damned fools. or at least you are.
35 - zingzing
al: "In short, you got fanatics in an organization killing or conspiring to kill US, put bullets in their head. Repeat as necessary."
ahh, is that the recipe for a religious war? god knows we don't have enough of that around the house. whip one up! i'll make room in the fridge next to the bloodbaths.
36 - zingzing
in #34, that should be: "that got incredibly CLOSE to civil war." dunno what happened there.
37 - Brunelleschi
#32
"But Israel's inconsistent and sometimes abusive settlement policies are certainly not a justification for terrorism."
What happened to "there is no higher morality than protecting property, property equals freedom.." and all that?
They are only doing terrorism for freedom... :)
38 - Baritone
According to the British, our Minutemen were in essence, terrorists.
Benedict Arnold: American Traitor - British Hero
It's all a matter of perspective.
While Dave and others point fingers, kids die. Both sides are at fault owing to their collective stupidity, greed, lust for power or the glory of their god. Hmmm. Is all this god's fault? Maybe.
If god sees all, knows all and is all powerful, all hesheit need do is end it. But hesheit doesn't. Why? Perhaps hesheit just enjoys the carnage in hisherit's name. It's no sweat off hisherit's uh, balls.
It's plainly the Al Bargers of this world who perpetuate the myth that all problems can be dealt with through violence. It is just those type of people who held power in our government for the past 8 years. These were the shoot first and ask questions later bunch. It is the same type of people in power in Israel and Gaza as well. Knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
B
39 - handyguy
It amazes me that several of the rightists on here manage to keep conflating Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, and that no one calls them on it.
I'm still skeptical that there ever was a massive worldwide network of "evildoers." Instead I see separate small [and mostly incompetent!] bands of Islamic terrorists who share a 'brand name' and similar ideas and grievances - but not a central command or organization.
But whether you agree with me about this worldwide description, the insurgents in Iraq and the group in exile in the tribal areas of Pakistan are not the same folks at all. Sometimes they employ overlapping rhetoric, but they are not part of a single "membership."
So anyone who calls them both Al Qaeda, interchangeably, is just revealing his ignorance.
40 - Dave Nalle
Handy, your last assertion would be more effective with examples of "rightists" conflating al Qaeda with the Iraqi insurgency.
Dave
41 - Roger Nowosielski
It was our departed president and staff who had made this equation. And they made it stick
42 - Mar(k E)den
Rog, good to see you back on the boards, but it does make me laugh out loud. Kinda like nicotine, no?
43 - Ma(rk Ede)n
Cindy, would you be happier if those were Israeli corpses?
What the fuck, Dave?
44 - Cindy D
But Israel's inconsistent and sometimes abusive settlement policies are certainly not a justification for terrorism.
It's not terrorism when Israel does it.
45 - Roger Nowosielski
Yes, Mark. It is addictive. There are some minds here I don't want to do without - however slight a possibility of getting somewhere.
So I'll just keep on trying.
46 - M(ark E)den
I totally understand Rog...hurrah's to you
47 - Al Barger
Zing asks "is that the recipe for a religious war?" The answer is NO. It's got nothing to do with religion, not from our side. It's got to do with people wanting to kill US, and US not being willing to let them do it. I'm not a believer, and have no interest in making them accept Christ or any form of theocratic rule.
Our actions in Iraq may have "de-stabilized" the Mideast - but in a now unmistakably GOOD way. Iraq itself is settling down, but the example of their improved freedoms will hopefully bring instability and doubt to some of the worser ugly regimes in the neighborhood. You have to de-stabilize the old to make room for the rise of the new and improved. The old "stability" wasn't working.
Brunelleschi ask "If it is a friendly democracy, why are the troops there?" In the first place, you could ask that about a lot of unmistakably friendly democracies in Europe - with better reasons for US withdrawal.
But in Iraq specifically, they're only just becoming a friendly democracy - after we knocked out some really bad people for them. They're not very good at democracy yet, maybe.
But 1)NOBODY is real good at democracy, cause it's messy and multifaceted and nothing is easy. Jumpin' Jebus on a pogo stick, look what kind of soup we've got going in DC - and we've been at it for a couple hundred years. The Iraqis are largely running their own affairs now, though. They just had their third election - and the first one without US running it, and most critically the first one with active Sunni participation. That's a major buy-in.
2)The main obvious critical function for US still being there is to keep the neighbors from getting stupid as they're gearing up - Iran most specifically.
Zing buddy, YOU are the fool if you insist on saying that Iraq now is more treacherous or dangerous than it was under Saddam. You're totally into FAG Penn territory there.
I do not agree that Iraq has in fact seriously damaged America's image abroad - but wouldn't particularly care if it did. It depends partly for starters on what you would mean by damaging our image. In fact, our image and prestige are improved by the fact that we've demonstrated that we can and will stand up and take out ugly thugs and put something better in their place.
Insisting on another chorus of Kum Bi Yah no matter what wins you great points in the Harvard faculty lounge. In the real world of living, breathing mammals, however, proving that you're willing and able to stand up for yourself means 100x more than making nice.
Besides which, in fact even and especially amongst the worst actors, the Kum Bi Yah crapola does not make them like or respect US more or improve our image. It marks US as pussies and paper tigers.
You might reasonably say that our image is "damaged" if by damaged you mean simply that we've pissed some people off. We surely have - though we've also impressed some people and made friends with them, which you would obviously discount.
But I'm more interested in respect or fear if necessary than in everybody loving US all the time. You can hate US all day long - so long as you know better than screwing with US.
Roger can call that "the politics of fear" if he likes, and that's cool. But sometimes fear is in fact a proper and adaptive response to enemies who wish you harm.
The thing is to shift the fear to the other side. It's mostly the bad guys who are afraid now. WE are certainly not afraid of the Iraqi government sponsoring terrorists and such now - nor are the Iraqi people afraid of Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers.
48 - Roger Nowosielski
Well, Mark. I may disagree with many of you - although with some it doesn't really matter. But I cannot deny that this community is populated with bright and highly intelligent members.
Consequently, I would be doing myself a great disservice (not to mention the disservice I'd be doing to some significant others) if I refused to participate.
49 - Dave Nalle
Glad you'll be participating, Roger. Despite your wealth of misconceptions and bizarre ideological programming you do at least seem to occasionally be paying attention.
Dave
50 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave, misconceptions are not strangers to any of us. I do believe to have an open mind and am always willing to reconsider.
51 - zingzing
al: "YOU are the fool if you insist on saying that Iraq now is more treacherous or dangerous than it was under Saddam."
i'm not sure about now, but for a good 4 years, that place was FAR more treacherous and dangerous, and i'm not entirely convinced that we haven't laid the groundwork for it to become much, much worse. we need to get out, to let iraq try and stand on its own, but i'm seeing it about 50/50 whether it works or disintegrates into civil war when we finally do leave.
"I do not agree that Iraq has in fact seriously damaged America's image abroad - but wouldn't particularly care if it did."
well, that's the problem then. just 15-20 years ago, we were almost universally respected for our good intentions AND (to some degree) feared for our military strength. now, we are seen as very vulnerable and touched by evil.
america's image abroad, especially in muslim circles, is the entire reason we are in this so-called "war on terror." so, unless you really like war, i'd say improving our image is something you should care about.
"Our actions in Iraq may have "de-stabilized" the Mideast - but in a now unmistakably GOOD way. "
yeah, we've got a nuclear iran, israel running rampant and iraq as a pit into which we pour money and blood. fuckin great.
"We surely have - though we've also impressed some people and made friends with them, which you would obviously discount. "
who? where? i really can't think of a nation that suddenly bound themselves to us because of our actions in iraq.
52 - Roger Nowosielski
Great Britain under Tony Blair; and Australia. That was the full extent of so-called coalition.
53 - zingzing
but those two were already on our side. i'm looking for al's new "friends."
54 - Roger Nowosielski
Well, you know it ain't so. Many may have selfish reasons of course, which doesn't change the fact. Whether they use it as a pretext or not, the fact remains that our prolonged presence there does not command any widespread approval. All one need to do is witness the European response at the eclipse of Bush's presidency. It was all but enthusiastic.
55 - handyguy
Dave:
Handy, your last assertion would be more effective with examples of "rightists" conflating al Qaeda with the Iraqi insurgency.
See Obnoxious American's very ignorant series of posts, 4 of the first 8 on this thread I think. He's certainly not the only one to do this [and as has been pointed out, the Bush administration was only too happy to let people hang on to this idea].
You yourself, Al Barger, and others may no longer make this specific error, though I daresay you indulged in it in 2004-06; but you do tend to lump all Islamists, and even all Muslims into one pile and call it The Enemy, or Al Qaeda.
I think it makes more sense to talk about the world as it is, and also to admit to gaps in our knowledge. If Al Qaeda really were a worldwide membership organization, there would be more evidence of it, and the post-9/11 plots that have been carried out around the world, or allegedly stopped, wouldn't be so consistently puny and poorly planned -- and almost entirely local in origin.
This doesn't mean Islamist terrorists are not dangerous, or not a threat -- just that blindly continuing to treat them as one single enemy is a good way to screw up our defenses.
56 - Al Barger
Really now Zing. Iran's going nuclear because we're in Iraq or because of anything that Bush did? Really? And their nuclear program is a reason for us to stand down and run off with our tails between our legs, cause that'll improve their actions. Really?
And "israel running rampant" is basically just an evil and hateful thing to say in the face of the actual facts. They walked out of Gaza - so the Palestinians destroyed all the greenhouses and nice stuff they left for them, and use the place to rain rockets on Israel. But apparently you think that the Jews should just sit there and let these people kill them. The Palestinians sending suicide bombers to see how many random Jews they can kill, that's apparently just freedom fighters. Making any move to actually stop people who are killing your people is "running rampant." Your idea of morality here is frankly backwards and evil.
And again with your Sean Penn level nonsense about US turning Iraq into a pit. It's been a pit for at least several decades - and we've invested a great deal of money and blood into helping them make something better for themselves.
Do the Iraqi children now play in rivers of chocolate wearing gumdrop smiles? No, but they weren't before, were they? Things are far from perfection - as they always are in the real world, but they're a damned sight better off than they were.
57 - Roger Nowosielski
"we've invested a great deal of money and blood into helping them make something better for themselves."
Quite a spin on U.S. foreign policy - to endow it with humanitarian motives. But then again, there's nothing new about putting such a gloss on things.
58 - zingzing
"Really now Zing. Iran's going nuclear because we're in Iraq or because of anything that Bush did? Really? And their nuclear program is a reason for us to stand down and run off with our tails between our legs, cause that'll improve their actions. Really?"
did i say that? nope. but it is the destabilization of the region that is causing all of these things. it's been years in the making, and a lot of that has to do with u.s. foreign policy.
"And "israel running rampant" is basically just an evil and hateful thing to say in the face of the actual facts."
well, the fact is that they ARE running rampant.
"But apparently you think that the Jews should just sit there and let these people kill them. The Palestinians sending suicide bombers to see how many random Jews they can kill, that's apparently just freedom fighters. Making any move to actually stop people who are killing your people is "running rampant." Your idea of morality here is frankly backwards and evil."
i've always maintained that both sides are to blame. they are both children, fighting over who gets to pee in the sandbox. peace is attainable, if either side would just budge a little. but no, they don't. maybe they won't. my morality is not backwards and evil, it's the damn truth.
"And again with your Sean Penn level nonsense about US turning Iraq into a pit."
iraq IS a pit into which we pour money and lives. that's the truth. it was a pit before, but it certainly wasn't so full of our money and soldiers. america shouldn't be in the business of state-building. we're frankly bad at it.
59 - Roger Nowosielski
Let's face it, Zing. We've always wanted a lasting presence in the Middle East; and the situation in Iraq, with Saddam being an easy target, it was a dream come true.
60 - Clavos
Anybody know a good treatment for skinned knuckles??
61 - zingzing
evolution.
62 - Ma(rk Ede)n
(I used to use Corona 'til they took out the creosote.)
63 - Al Barger
Zing, Iraq was a pit when we went in. It's considerably less of one now. It might be reasonable to question whether the cost in American lives and treasure has been worth the improvements as regards actual US interest, but it's just not reasonable to say that we haven't accomplished anything good or made things better than they were before.
Then you say "did i say that? nope. but it is the destabilization of the region that is causing all of these things." But yes, you are in fact right there re-stating what I speculated that you were implying. WE "destabilized" the region, you said, and that is causing Iran to go nuclear. And that is a ridiculous thing to say.
And the Israelis are NOT running rampant by any reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the words. They face daily rocket attacks on their civillian population, hundreds and hundreds no matter what they do - and the nicer they play, the worse it gets.
But the recent Gaza excursion, for example, was highly restrained, and the Israelis backed off unilaterally even though they were completely winning. OK, maybe that'll be just enough to teach them a lesson.
But of course, Hamas responds with proclamations of victory and more rocket attacks and immediately going back to rebuild their supply lines. In fact, the Israelis were not running rampant, but not going far enough.
At some point, it's obviously going to take some Hiroshima level devastation to break these bastards' will. Not to worry though - Bibi's coming, thank YHWH.
64 - Clavos
Mark,
Yeah me too. Now I can't even drink the stuff; the creosote gave it a kick.
65 - zingzing
al, i said we "further destabilized" the region, and that we now have a nuclear iran. these things are true. everyone knows that these things reach back further than our latest excursion into iraq, and that the conditions that created a nuclear iran stretch back a good 60 years. but it is in a large part due to our meddling that these conditions came about.
i certainly didn't put all the blame on w-era policies, for that would be too simplistic. still, his policies have exacerbated an already-tense situation. i think negotiation with iran would be far easier without his bullheaded approach, and i think that even you have to believe that, somewhere in your dark, dark soul.
squirrel meat?
66 - Lumpy
wow. I go away for a few days and we get an insurgency from the lefty hate machine. clearly they feel empowered by the obama win. the human capacity for self deception is truly a marvel.
67 - Al Barger
RE: conflating Iraqi insurgency with Al Qaeda and jihad, Handyguy sez "You yourself, Al Barger, and others may no longer make this specific error, though I daresay you indulged in it in 2004-06; but you do tend to lump all Islamists, and even all Muslims into one pile and call it The Enemy, or Al Qaeda."
As to what I said in 2004-2006, you can readily go into my BC archives and see what I was saying. But note that I'm a fairly hardcore libertarian (Goldwater division), and thus highly oriented to breaking things down to individual action as much as possible.
But then there are patterns that you can observe. Al Qaeda was deeply entrenched in the Iraqi insurgency, for one thing - as well as the Muslim religious extremists of Iran. Wouldn't have had the third part of the mess we had there without them. Nor would Israel be having near the problems with Hamas or Hezbollah without Iran being involved.
Plus, you can well get so supposedly nuanced and sophisticated in your understanding that you lose the real truth. On the one hand, obviously not all Muslims are the same. Don't think we've got much problem with Sufis. And even within sects, the Persian Iranian Shia are not the same as Iraqi Shias, who mostly don't want anything to do with them.
But then there's the big picture. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all the terrorists in the world today are in fact Muslim. They ain't Jews, Christians, Hindus or atheists.
There might be many nice Muslims, but it's the ugliest part of them that are in the driver's seat and causing mayhem. Overall, for whatever reasons, the "good" parts of the Muslim world have done little to stand up to the bad actors in their midst. That could be latent sympathy, or fear of reprisal, or pure indifference.
Overall then, I consider it perfectly reasonable to take a dim view of the whole overall Muslim community. Again though, that doesn't apply to everyone, and it's much dimmer of some quarters than others.
I routinely try to give everyone every reasonable benefit of the doubt, but I've seen very minimal from most of the Muslim world to impress me. The Iraqi people generally excepted.
Also Handyguy, consider that some of the puniness, weakness and half-assed local nature of most jihadist attacks since the rather sophisticated and co-ordinated attacks of 9/11 might be exactly because the Americans stepped up and started kicking ass. If Bin Laden can't dare even use a cell phone for fear of an immediate US attack, then that's progress. It hasn't eliminated the threat, but it's sure knocked them back several steps and thinned the ranks and made their attempts punier.
68 - Roger Nowosielski
Zing:
"somewhere in your dark, dark soul"
The everlasting battle between good and evil, or darkness and light.
69 - Al Barger
Zing sez "i'm looking for al's new "friends."
A lot of that will be on an individual basis of attitude hard to measure, rather than a clear and official government edict. But we're now fairly much friends with Iraqi Sunnis where we obviously were not in 2003. You got to admit to that.
Also, I'd count Libya. Qadafi may not necessarily feel great affection for US, but they are now acting like more or less co-operative neighbors, if not BFF. That's close enough.
70 - lLumpy
nice to see u here again and talking such good sense al. maybe u xan explain the continued derangement if the antiwar left in the face of the miraculous turnaround in iraq. it can't just be their antisemitism, can it? does ideology make them immune to reality?
71 - Roger Nowosielski
I think he, Qadafi, perceived it more advantageous to remove Libya from the list of rogue, terrorist states, than not. Which hardly makes him trustworthy. I'd be fearful of dining with him lest he poisons my food.
72 - Cindy D
"I'm impressed," I said, as Atlas smirked.
73 - Al Barger
Roger sez: "Quite a spin on U.S. foreign policy - to endow it with humanitarian motives."
You have at least half of a reasonable point there. As a student of Ayn Rand, I am extremely skeptical of altruistic motives - although his damned compassionate conservatism really was a big part of Bush's thinking.
But we COULD have just run out the Ba'athists and high tailed it out after the Mission Accomplished banner - which would have been a perfectly proper statement if our mission were limited to knocking out the Ba'athist threat. 90+% of the blood and treasure the US has put into Iraq these last six years has in fact been for their benefit though.
The better argument for our humanitarian efforts is that a stable, democratic, free and prosperous Iraq is in our and other's interest as well as theirs. If they've got something good going for themselves, they won't be raising hell with their neighbors. The more democratic they are, the less likely they will be to be screwing with Israel, warring against Iran, or sponsoring jihad.
74 - Roger Nowosielski
I go for the last part, Al. That is beneficial for the spread of prosperity worldwide. Mind you, I don't mind that at all. (Of course, there's always the question of the cost.)
You must admit, though, that our last president was a very poor communicator. Or did he think, perhaps, that communicating the full message would be above the people's head?
75 - Al Barger
Well Roger, again, I'm not saying that US and Qadafi are BFF. Not that we like or trust one another. But seeing what we did to Saddam gave the bastard a clue, and he basically dares not do anything stupid. I predict you won't see him blowing up any more airplanes or trying to acquire WMDs.
And he's a perfect example of my disregard for people liking US as the benchmark for what we need to aim for. No amount of carrots we could have offered Qadafi (or Iran now) would dissuade him from bad action. But Reagan and then W taught the sumbitch some respect - and that clearly IS working.