[Helmling]

Bush's comments today pulled that moniker beloved by many conservatives for defining the philosophical base of the terrorists who continue to target us: Islamofascists. I could comment on how this seems to align hiim with those actually advocating the escalation of the various Middle East conflicts into a full-fledged World War III.

But I'm much more interested in the other word: "war"

Bush is enamored of this language, labeling our struggle against terrorism as "The War on Terror."

And yet...did our active "wars" in Iraq or Afghanistan prevent or insulate us in any way from this latest threat?

No...they did not. Instead, it was law enforcement that derailed this attack. Could it be that the entire War on Terror paradigm was flawed from the onset and that terrorism really is a law enforcement issue after all?

[Spliffdaddy]

Or it could be that we're at war with islamic fascists.

[Moderator]

The bottom line is this is an ongoing threat....but its nothing to be afraid of...you still, and always will, have a better chance of being robbed...so where is..dun dun DUUNNN. THE WAR ON ROBBERY!

Its pretty clear that the right wing..here and there..are the one's who are afraid...not the liberals. Every attack here will help the right wing here...and every attack there will help the right wing there. Does anyone else recognize the problem? Its called irrational fear...and its based in the irrational beliefs that religious fundamentalism requires..Christianity, Islam, Judaism..whatever.

I know I'm not worried...and I live in New York...not Tampa. This is nothing to burn the Constitution over. Relax..breath..we are at "war" with a bunch of thugs...creative thugs...but thugs nonetheless.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Moderator

The bottom line is this is an ongoing threat....but its nothing to be afraid of...you still, and always will, have a better chance of being robbed...so where is..dun dun DUUNNN. THE WAR ON ROBBERY!

Its pretty clear that the right wing..here and there..are the one's who are afraid...not the liberals. Every attack here will help the right wing here...and every attack there will help the right wing there. Does anyone else recognize the problem? Its called irrational fear...and its based in the irrational beliefs that religious fundamentalism requires..Christianity, Islam, Judaism..whatever.

I know I'm not worried...and I live in New York...not Tampa. This is nothing to burn the Constitution over. Relax..breath..we are at "war" with a bunch of thugs...creative thugs...but thugs nonetheless.

I had friends who'd go to parties and see a bowl full of recreational pills and just pop a few without asking or caring. They weren't worried.

I had a buddy who was always doing things like standing on the edge of rocks hundreds of feet above the valley below or trying to pass slower moving vehicles on blind mountain curves. He wasn't worried.

I read about guys in VietNam (like the son of deceased Admiral Elmo Zumwalt) who drank the clear and apparently harmless liquid, Agent Orange, to demonstrate it's lack of toxicity. They weren't worried.

My drug friends are now zombies. My buddy died while thrill seeking on his motorcycle. The son of Adm. Zumwalt? Dead of lymphoma linked to exposure to Agent Orange.

You can be brave. You can be fearless. You can be foolhardy. You can die because of it.

[Moderator]

So if one isn't afraid of dying in terrorist act..he or she is...foolhardy? Please. I find it more then interesting that the American's who are afraid are the one's in Kentucky and Alabama and Georgia while the rest of us...who actually have some, albeit tiny, chance of being affected by terrorists are going about our lives wondering why your crowd is shivering under your sheets and pounding your chests with false machismo.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Bush's comments today pulled that moniker beloved by many conservatives for defining the philosophical base of the terrorists who continue to target us: Islamofascists. I could comment on how this seems to align hiim with those actually advocating the escalation of the various Middle East conflicts into a full-fledged World War III.

But I'm much more interested in the other word: "war"

Bush is enamored of this language, labeling our struggle against terrorism as "The War on Terror."

And yet...did our active "wars" in Iraq or Afghanistan prevent or insulate us in any way from this latest threat?

No...they did not. Instead, it was law enforcement that derailed this attack. Could it be that the entire War on Terror paradigm was flawed from the onset and that terrorism really is a law enforcement issue after all?

They are Islamic. They're also fascists, I suppose, although I'm not sure that term quite fits. I'd say violent fundamentalist Islamic theocrats, or something.

Using the term 'war' is what has made Bush popular amoung certain crowds. But unless we realize it's a different kind of war - a guerilla war with popular support - we're going to be in trouble. Because thinking of it as a conventional war is not only ineffective, but counterproductive. It creates more popular support while failing to defeat the "guerillas."

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Moderator

So if one isn't afraid of dying in terrorist act..he or she is...foolhardy? Please. I find it more then interesting that the American's who are afraid are the one's in Kentucky and Alabama and Georgia while the rest of us...who actually have some, albeit tiny, chance of being affected by terrorists are going about our lives wondering why your crowd is shivering under your sheets and pounding your chests with false machismo.

Just talking about what is prudent and what is a prudent attitude. Go ahead and Godspeed, John Wayne!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Or it could be that we're at war with islamic fascists.

Yup. Because for years and years before 9/11 they were at war with US!

http://islamwatch.forumup.in/post-44...watch.html#416
The Goal of Islam: A Mission to the World

Notes and Quotes on Islam's Ultimate Goal

Understanding Islam requires knowing its goal. Throughout the world today we see Islamic tyranny, terrorism, political and economic jihad, rioting and mayhem, injustice, and human rights violations. This has been going on for the past approximately 1400 years, beginning with Mohammad’s rise to power. It is impossible to make sense out all of this without first understanding the actual beliefs and goals of Islamists. Simply put, Islam’s goal is to conquer the entire world, all of humankind, by force if necessary, to set up Koranic law, convert as many people to Islam as possible, and to destroy polytheism and disbelief. Islam is an inherently imperialistic enterprise. These notes present information about Islam's goal and the means permitted to achieve it.


Note On Terminology:

There is also some confusion over the Koran’s [English translated] terminology, with some people giving terms like “persecution” and “oppression” modern secular western meanings (see 8:39 and 2:193 below, “fitnah”). For example, in recent years some progressive reformist Muslim thinkers have adopted modern “western” interpretations of these terms. In fact, fitnah was a broad category that included not just religious persecution, but chiefly referred to disbelief, idolatry, polytheism, or opposition to Islam. Thus, terms such as oppression or “persecution”, Islamically-defined, differ in meaning from how Amnesty International or the U.N. might use the term today.

Reformists overall have only had a small impact on mainstream Islam, which is still controlled largely by Islamists. Islamists tend to use the classical and original interpretations of the words of the Koran. Here are some original citations from the Koran, Hadith, and Sira, and classical interpretation (tafsir) on the Means and Goals of Islam.


What is Fighting in Allah’s Cause? Jihad is Fighting to Make Allah’s Religion Dominant, Victorious, Supreme.

4:74 "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
{al-Jalalayn, tafsir: So let them fight in the way of God, to elevate His religion, those who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of God and is slain, dies a martyr, or conquers, overcomes his enemy, We shall give him a great wage, a plentiful reward}.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

They are Islamic. They're also fascists, I suppose, although I'm not sure that term quite fits. I'd say violent fundamentalist Islamic theocrats, or something.

Using the term 'war' is what has made Bush popular amoung certain crowds. But unless we realize it's a different kind of war - a guerilla war with popular support - we're going to be in trouble. Because thinking of it as a conventional war is not only ineffective, but counterproductive. It creates more popular support while failing to defeat the "guerillas."

I think the term "Militant Islam" fits best.

Ask a Sufi what they think about it.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Just talking about what is prudent and what is a prudent attitude.

Its not "prudent" to be afraid of something that you have a near zero chance of ever encountering.

That fear is irrational and its the terrorists most effective weapon. Its also, not coincidentally, cable news' biggest money maker and Bush's biggest poll bouncer. Alot of people have a lot invested in keeping you afraid. Prudent would be thinking for yourself...try it.

[evfish84]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Its not "prudent" to be afraid of something that you have a near zero chance of ever encountering.

That fear is irrational and its the terrorists most effective weapon. Its also, not coincidentally, cable news' biggest money maker and Bush's biggest poll bouncer. Alot of people have a lot invested in keeping you afraid. Prudent would be thinking for yourself...try it.

Regardless of one's chances of dying in terrorist plots, it is still "prudent" to remove militant Islamic groups from places such as Afghanistan and Lebanon. How many different wars have they triggered in the last 5 years? 20 years? How many thousands have died because of them? "Prudence" would be to eliminate this cancer from both Islamic countries and the Western world. This would free up these countries as well as tens of billions of dollars that can go into more worthwhile investments than war.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Helmling

And yet...did our active "wars" in Iraq or Afghanistan prevent or insulate us in any way from this latest threat?

Technically, Bush wouldn't consider either Iraq or Afghanistan individual wars. He (and many others) believe they are both battlefronts in the same war. The war agasinst Islamic fascists. The War on Terror. Whatever you call it.

[Moderator]

I call it The Iraq War....or The War of Choice.

[Ron Goodman]

WIthout the "War on Terrror", Dubya's presidency would be a fading memory. It's all he has going for him, and he'll milk it for all its worth.

[Kerrigan]

Not really, since his handling of the WoT and Iraq are the reasons that his poll numbers are sinking.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman

WIthout the "War on Terrror", Dubya's presidency would be a fading memory. It's all he has going for him....

Yeah, that and a stellar economy w/ super-low unemployment, when he was handed a growing recession.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman

WIthout the "War on Terrror", Dubya's presidency would be a fading memory. It's all he has going for him, and he'll milk it for all its worth.

Keep in mind he didn't choose it. It was brought to him.

And if it is all he has going for him, why do Democrats think that's where he is weak? I'd say that the economy is going well, stock market is going well, the tax cuts worked...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Its not "prudent" to be afraid of something that you have a near zero chance of ever encountering.

That fear is irrational and its the terrorists most effective weapon. Its also, not coincidentally, cable news' biggest money maker and Bush's biggest poll bouncer. Alot of people have a lot invested in keeping you afraid. Prudent would be thinking for yourself...try it.

Your assumptions are questionable as they are based on past experience.

By your reckoning once we are in a state of peace, prosperity and tranquility that state should never change. But that idea does not take into account the plans by dedicated and resourceful others (individuals, groups, or governments) to bring us down.

Can you remain sanguine in the face of evidence that there are terrorists already here in the US with suitcase nukes awaiting the right signal (message or event) to trigger their device(s)?

And it is not my intention to simply cause panic or needlessly raise anyone's fear.

I hope that those who have been so carefree in their criticism of our government that it has emboldened the enemy might stop and consider the part they MIGHT have played in hastening or facilitating upcoming events. All of which was predicted.

And as all of those who are loyal Americans here, (even the fuzzy ones) should be given the information they need to take precautions I'd say that your attitude is all well and good. But, if I were you, I'd hedge my bet and get a good supply of provisions ready.

Just in case.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Bush's comments today pulled that moniker beloved by many conservatives for defining the philosophical base of the terrorists who continue to target us: Islamofascists. I could comment on how this seems to align hiim with those actually advocating the escalation of the various Middle East conflicts into a full-fledged World War III.

But I'm much more interested in the other word: "war"

Bush is enamored of this language, labeling our struggle against terrorism as "The War on Terror."

And yet...did our active "wars" in Iraq or Afghanistan prevent or insulate us in any way from this latest threat?

No...they did not. Instead, it was law enforcement that derailed this attack. Could it be that the entire War on Terror paradigm was flawed from the onset and that terrorism really is a law enforcement issue after all?

There is not an exclusive either/or approach being used, as recent events bear out. We use law enforcement where appropriate and the military where it is appropriate.

As far as the Iraq or Afghanistan preventing or insulating us, your assumption is that what you see happening only began with the war on terror.

It started many years prior to that. I won't bother to cite chapter and verse, but OBL declared war on us on ABC TV in 1998 and he brought the war to us and while we continually ignored the cancer that was growing throughout the world that cancer gained confidence and momentum.

If you're looking for a more accurate perspective on things, look at Iraq and Afghanistan as our going to a firefight armed with only a knife.

Islam’s goal is to conquer the entire world, all of humankind, by force if necessary, to set up Koranic law, convert as many people to Islam as possible, and to destroy polytheism and disbelief.

This was true before the WoT. It remains true.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman

WIthout the "War on Terrror", Dubya's presidency would be a fading memory. It's all he has going for him, and he'll milk it for all its worth.

If President Bush had done nothing after 9/11 or had gone only after OBL in the mountains the day would have come when you might have said:

If Dubya had done his job he wouldn't have allowed Islamic terrorism to grow so strong and pervasive that we are now in the fight of our lives and the combat is taking place here in America.

Here's a revelation for you.

In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris's first tier.

Clinton asked Morris where he stood. "I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category," Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president's standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. "Yeah," Clinton responded, "It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it."

Clinton then asked, "What do I need to do to be first tier?" "I said, 'You can't,'" Morris remembers. "'You have to win a war.'" Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. "I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism," Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)

But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris's polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?

"He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform," Morris explains. "He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals." But there was more to it than that. "On another level, I just don't think it was his thing," Morris says. "You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you'd get was a series of grunts."

And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn't his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He's right about that, too.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/y...ue112901.shtml

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Keep in mind he didn't choose it. It was brought to him.

And if it is all he has going for him, why do Democrats think that's where he is weak? I'd say that the economy is going well, stock market is going well, the tax cuts worked...

And when no one would have bet any serious money on the prospect we'd go five years without another serious terrorist attack on our soil after 9/11, here we are 5 years later and so far, so good. But we can't expect to shut the terrorists down completely, as much as we might like and some unrealistic posters might take for granted.