Skip

Dear Leader Speaks
October 6, 2005 11:04 AM   Subscribe

The U.S. President speaks to the nation. With an approval rating hovering in the low 40 percentile, the sting of conservative hostility to his Supreme Court nomination Harriet Miers fresh on his jaw, and another deadly day in the Occupied Territories, George Bush summons the courage to approach the microphone to present yet another new rationale for his war: "Some call this evil Islamic radicalism. Others militant jihadism. Still, others Islamo-fascism... we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world."
posted by three blind mice (195 comments total)

 
If he weren't so goddamn dangerous, I'd be entertained.
posted by odinsdream at 11:06 AM on October 6, 2005


Terror! Terror! Terror!
posted by eriko at 11:10 AM on October 6, 2005


Some people call me the Space Cowboy.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:12 AM on October 6, 2005


Heard it all before. Really just the same speech: "9/11...9/11...9/11...if yer not with us, yer against us...a terrible threat for our freedoms...Iraak is the central front on terrurr. We must nev'r give in."
posted by ericb at 11:12 AM on October 6, 2005


Damn right. Muslim extremeists cannot be allowed to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world, because that's our job.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:12 AM on October 6, 2005


How do you know when George Bush is lying? His lips are moving.

Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September 11 attacks,

..the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States.

The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan.

How about some supporting links Mr. President?
posted by three blind mice at 11:13 AM on October 6, 2005


New talking point: "This will be a 'long war'.
posted by ericb at 11:14 AM on October 6, 2005


Oops ... wow ... really wrong link: 'long war'.
posted by ericb at 11:15 AM on October 6, 2005


You know what? The room service on the Titanic really sucked.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:16 AM on October 6, 2005


That speech could have been made two years ago with minor modifications.
posted by shawnj at 11:16 AM on October 6, 2005


BBC Press Release: God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers.
posted by ericb at 11:17 AM on October 6, 2005


Be afraid, be afraid, be afraid.

I'm so tired of this crap. I was never afraid of Saddam Husein, and I don't know why anyone in America should have been.

He gave a speech, who cares.
posted by delmoi at 11:17 AM on October 6, 2005


Some call this evil Islamic radicalism. Others militant jihadism. Still, others Islamo-fascism... we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.

Sounds about right.

Not sure this statement of the obvious deserves its own post, though. Radical Muslims have been suggesting this kind of thing for decades, and there is clearly no reasoning with them. Does in a war in Iraq help or hurt our chances of bringing them into the modern world? A war in Afghanistan? Altering civil liberties? Deporting radicals? Withdrawing from that part of the world altogether? Merely condemning thier dicatators? Going to war against them? Obviously we all disagree on how to go about preventing more bloodshed.

Anyway. As amberglow, digaman, rothko/alex, et al have stated many many times already, though, Eric Rudolph & Tim McVeigh were patently more dangerous, more well-funded, more well-connected and part of a larger & more insidious movement than any of these al-Qaeda nuts. As the "Power of Nightmares" explained, al-Qaeda is not even a threat. It's made up. Clearly. Victims like these just don't know it yet. Anyone who says otherwise is an Islamaphobe Racist.
posted by dhoyt at 11:19 AM on October 6, 2005


That speech could have been made two years ago with minor modifications.

shawnj - Rick Santorum agrees:
"Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said the speech was 'one he should've made a few years ago. I'm glad he made it now.'"
[Associated Press | October 06, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:20 AM on October 6, 2005


Be afraid, be afraid, be afraid.

Exactly, now time to ratchet-up the fear-mongering related to some sort of flu coming ... I think it's called "bird flu," right? Oh noes!11
posted by ericb at 11:21 AM on October 6, 2005


"Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply....

Defeating a militant network is difficult because it thrives like a parasite on the suffering and frustration of others....

The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution.....

In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world....

They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself....

By fearing freedom, by distrusting human creativity and punishing change and limiting the contributions of half the population, this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible and human society successful....

Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure until those societies collapse in corruption and decay....

Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent until the day that free men and women defeat them....

May God bless you."

from A brief history of the American Conservative Coalition, by GW Bush
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:22 AM on October 6, 2005


This was a press conference or just a speech?

I'm asking because I want to know where the hell is Osama? Dead or Alive? Has he been "smoked out" yet? Can you answer me Mr. Preznit?

One more question Mr. Preznit, how deeply involved is our government in the resurgence of the opium trade in Afghanistan?
posted by nofundy at 11:23 AM on October 6, 2005


Adolf Hitler.
posted by xmutex at 11:23 AM on October 6, 2005


dhoyt As the "Power of Nightmares" explained, al-Qaeda is not even a threat. It's made up. Clearly.

That's not at all what the Power of Nightmares says at any time so either you haven't watched it or you were not paying attention. You can resume hating Muslims now, all of the ones say around me in the office say you're a dick, I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you never actually hung out with any.
posted by longbaugh at 11:25 AM on October 6, 2005


How do you know when George Bush is lying? His lips are moving.

If we've gotten to the point where we're recycling Nixon jokes about W, he's in real trouble.
posted by alumshubby at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2005


>>>The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan.

How about some supporting links Mr. President?

links? you want links? here's a line from the president's speech along with the relevant link.

"We are at war with Eurasia. Eurasia is our enemy. Eastasia is our ally. Oceania will prevail."


Thank you Mr. President.
posted by beelzbubba at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2005


In a couple of years or so, it's going to be fun to watch people claim they didn't vote for him or support the war.
posted by 2sheets at 11:27 AM on October 6, 2005


It's already "fun".
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:28 AM on October 6, 2005


BTW -- total aside -- during a number of President Bush's recent television appearances, I -- and a few friends -- have noticed a weird jaw spasm (also noticed by the Huffington Post -- video here). Has anyone else noticed it? I wonder if it is related to stress and/or nervousness.
posted by ericb at 11:28 AM on October 6, 2005


Eric Rudolph & Tim McVeigh were patently more dangerous, more well-funded, more well-connected and part of a larger & more insidious movement

I dont' know about that. After all Al Queda has had the government of Saudi Arabia funding them, CIA dollars organizing and arming them and GW Bush turning out to be their very best recruiter ever so you may be incorrrect there dhoyt.
posted by nofundy at 11:29 AM on October 6, 2005


shawnj - Rick Santorum agrees:
posted by ericb at 11:20 AM PST on October 6


Yes, but unlike Santorum, I wasn't applauding. That speech is the same recycled garbage that we've heard for the past three years. My point was that you change a few minor references, change the date to 10/06/03, and it would work.

This speech is nothing new.
posted by shawnj at 11:29 AM on October 6, 2005


I -- and a few friends -- have noticed a weird jaw spasm
cocaine use?
posted by nofundy at 11:31 AM on October 6, 2005


Oh wait. The only thing new is the increased casualty statistics.
posted by shawnj at 11:31 AM on October 6, 2005


longbaugh, I had the exact same thought as you about the infamous troll, dhoyt. My Muslim neighbors are people I've gone to time and again for help as they have me. My younger son has worked with Iraqi and Irani Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians and they all want to know why "we" hate them so much. All I can say to them is that since they are godless Islamofascists, they'll just have to put up with it.
posted by beelzbubba at 11:31 AM on October 6, 2005


dhoyt: It's perfectly possible for the Islamic world to harbor a number of dangerous and well-funded extremists and extremist groups and for Al-Qaeda to be basically made up.

The news story you linked to doesn't even describe the Bali bombing as Al-Qaeda's work. They use the increasingly popular (and vaguely Orwellian) phrase "Al-Qaeda-linked," which could be applied to anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone who is involved in whatever Al-Qaeda proper is supposed to be. This is a way to admit that there's no evidence Al-Qaeda was involved, while still getting an opportunity to drag the bogeyman out of the closet.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:32 AM on October 6, 2005


The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution.

Wait, is he talking about the militants or the U.S.?
posted by NationalKato at 11:33 AM on October 6, 2005


This speech is nothing new.

I agree. Not sure Santorum was actually applauding. He might have been posturing (i.e. "This is what he should have said a long time ago, like I, President Santorum, would have."), as he has been doing alot lately, as he anticipates a run for the next Republican Presidential nominee (yeah, right Ricky)!
posted by ericb at 11:33 AM on October 6, 2005


If we've gotten to the point where we're recycling Nixon jokes about W, he's in real trouble.

Bush is so crooked he has to screw his pants on in the morning!

Sock it to him!

That's all I got.
posted by COBRA! at 11:35 AM on October 6, 2005


This speech is nothing new.

Amen to that. This is a desperate, pathetic, and transparent attempt to get back to the only time this president wasn't viewed as a universal failure: the short period of time following 9/11 before his rank incompetence started to show through.

It's predictable as hell -- things aren't going his way on something, anything: time to bring out 9/11 again, talk about Islamofascits and how they hate our freedoms. Time to pretend his monumental Iraqi fuck-up had something, anything to do with Islamic terrorism. Time to pretend that we can trust GWB to take it to the evil bad guys (like in a movie!), even though he let Bin Laden get away and doesn't care where he is now. But most importantly, it is time to ignore all of Bush's many, many faults and be scared of terrorists again!

It's annoying that he thinks we're this stupid. It's even more annoying that some people here are.
posted by teece at 11:39 AM on October 6, 2005


"We are at war with Eurasia. Eurasia is our enemy. Eastasia is our ally. Oceania will prevail."

DAMN RIGHT! PUT YER DUKES UP!
posted by eurasian at 11:39 AM on October 6, 2005


ericb writes "I wonder if it is related to stress and/or nervousness."

DT's, man.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:42 AM on October 6, 2005


during a number of President Bush's recent television appearances, I -- and a few friends -- have noticed a weird jaw spasm (also noticed by the Huffington Post -- video here). Has anyone else noticed it? I wonder if it is related to stress and/or nervousness.

He's had this all along. I've always interpreted it as an attempt to look macho, and I think he learned it when he took his fake-Texan lessons. It's something you see in cowboy movies - pushing the jaw forward to show a firm, strong, stubborn attitude. Apparently it makes some people go all warm and gushy inside - 'Big strong leader Daddy! Only you can protect me from the terrisss and the bird flu!'
posted by Miko at 11:44 AM on October 6, 2005


Somebody already pointed out that Bush Godwin'd his own argument about NUTJOBS TOWELHEADS THAT WANT TO EAT YOUR LIVER!!!1!.

The money quote.
Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either we achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life."

And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history.

Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.
And thanks to It's Raining Florence Henderson [!] for pulling out all the ambiguous statements that seem to be self-referential.
posted by wah at 11:44 AM on October 6, 2005


Terror, terror, terror, Islamofascists, hate, terror, al-Qaeda, terror, September 11, Iraq, freedom, terror, hatred, terror, terror, freedom, terror, freedom, terror, terror, Osama bin Laden, terror, freedom, terr--wait, where are you going?
posted by fandango_matt at 11:47 AM on October 6, 2005


NationalKato writes "The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution.

"Wait, is he talking about the militants or the U.S.?"


I believe he is talking about Michael Brown in New Orleans.
posted by nkyad at 11:50 AM on October 6, 2005


Bush says more sacrifice needed in war on terror, perhaps he should step up to the plate and sacrifice his own kids.
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:51 AM on October 6, 2005


Seriously...when he gave that random press conference the other day (boy, was that a train wreck) I was cleaning my house. I kept moving throughout the whole thing -- boilerplate, no real surprises -- but the one thing that stopped my in my tracks? He started talking about bird flu.

Bird flu? That's all you've got? You failed to scare me sufficiently with your screaming bloodthirsty terriisss and your gross incompetence and your evil plan to sell the entire federal goverment into your rich buddies' hands, and now you want to scare me with the bird flu?

Such a naked attempt to keep us afraid.
posted by Miko at 11:52 AM on October 6, 2005


hats off to It's Raining Florence Henderson who pulled it together earlier in the thread, drawing from the speech it self , and throwing it back in bush's face.


In a couple of years or so, it's going to be fun to watch people claim they didn't vote for him or support the war.
posted by 2sheets
word.
posted by nola at 11:56 AM on October 6, 2005


Bush says more sacrifice needed in war on terror, perhaps he should step up to the plate and sacrifice his own kids.
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:51 AM PST on October 6 [!]


You know, I'm pretty anti-war. But this argument is doomed to failure.

Jenna and Barbara are people with their own lives, and their own decision if they want to join up or not. George doesn't and shouldn't have the right to offer them up as some kind of sacrifice.

You want Bush to make sacrifices? Attack him on his budget, his policies, or his vacation time. Attacking him for not forcing his daughters to enlist into service which is voluntary for everyone else, is pretty hollow and fallicious.
posted by shawnj at 12:01 PM on October 6, 2005


We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags and the Cultural Revolution and the killing fields.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies.

In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.

Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women.

They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.

While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent.


Best justification I've seen from him yet.
posted by loquax at 12:01 PM on October 6, 2005


While I was listening to this on the radio I couldn't decide if he was talking about Iraq or the U.S.
posted by trbrts at 12:03 PM on October 6, 2005


Miko

Haven't you heard??!!!!! They just reconstructed that 1918 flu that killed 20 million people, and it turns out it is just like bird flu.

/going out to kill all the birds in my neighborhood.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:03 PM on October 6, 2005


This is the same thing we get every time things aren't so good for GW--questionable supreme court nominee, total fuck-up in New Orleans, and the ongoing whatever we want to call it in Iraq.

"Hey...let's go on TV and remind the country about terrorism and scare the hell out of everyone".

These guys are masters at deflecting attention.

PS--I was graciously given this account as a gift for all the 'abuse'. :) I figured what the hell...I'm going to use it since everyone knows me anyway! :)
posted by Todd Lokken at 12:06 PM on October 6, 2005


Attacking him for not forcing his daughters to enlist into service which is voluntary for everyone else, is pretty hollow and fallicious.

Give it a year or two, when it is no longer voluntary.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:08 PM on October 6, 2005


Santorum is thinking of making the big run in a few years? Heh, so far we have ol' butt discharge and kitten killer. The Repubs will have to force Jeb to run, or some dark horse if they actually want to win.
incidentally, Santorum may well lose his seat in congress next year unless his numbers firm up. admittedly it is a LOOOONG aways away but as of now
posted by edgeways at 12:09 PM on October 6, 2005


Give it a year or two, when it is no longer voluntary.

Hey, that's what everyone was saying a year or two ago!
posted by loquax at 12:10 PM on October 6, 2005


Best justification I've seen from him yet.

Empty words are more pleasant than civilian corpses.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:11 PM on October 6, 2005


He's had this all along. I've always interpreted it as an attempt to look macho, and I think he learned it when he took his fake-Texan lessons. It's something you see in cowboy movies - pushing the jaw forward to show a firm, strong, stubborn attitude

I don't think they're talking about the chin-out, "go fuck yourself" pose. If you watch that video, you can see his jaw twitch sideways, almost as if he were grinding his teeth very quickly.

I wouldn't be surprised if he were drinking again.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:12 PM on October 6, 2005


F - U - to the effing D!

and props to IRFH.
posted by Suck Poppet at 12:14 PM on October 6, 2005


sonofsamiam: "Empty words are more pleasant than civilian corpses."

Less filling. Tastes great. Busch. Now on draft.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:15 PM on October 6, 2005


Civilian corpses are never pleasant. A good reason to fight the people killing all the civilians.
posted by loquax at 12:15 PM on October 6, 2005


Who the hell is Todd Lokken and why should I care?
posted by mrgrimm at 12:17 PM on October 6, 2005


He's had this all along.

I don't think they're talking about the chin-out, "go fuck yourself" pose.


mrgrimm - exactly. I -- and others -- have actually noticed it "post-Katrina" and, more-often-than-not, when he is answering questions rather than reading a prepared speech.
posted by ericb at 12:17 PM on October 6, 2005


A good reason to fight the people killing all the civilians.

Collateral damage is a good reason to fight a war? Huh?!
posted by wah at 12:19 PM on October 6, 2005


A good reason to fight the people killing all the civilians.

*boggle*
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:20 PM on October 6, 2005


loquax: "Civilian corpses are never pleasant. A good reason to fight the people killing all the civilians."

Careful, loquax. BushCo might hang you for treason. Oh, wait... you meant that the other way, didn't you? Sorry - my little brain can't seem to keep up with the doublethink.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:21 PM on October 6, 2005


So do you guys know who's setting off the car bombs? Who's strapping bombs to themselves and walking into lineups and markets? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the US Army.
posted by loquax at 12:23 PM on October 6, 2005


I think dhoyt is a fabrication by the BBC and the islamofascists.
posted by mr.marx at 12:24 PM on October 6, 2005




it isn't the US Army

of course not, that's the britons
posted by mr.marx at 12:28 PM on October 6, 2005


See also.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:30 PM on October 6, 2005


Beyond the (In)Security State
posted by homunculus at 12:30 PM on October 6, 2005


my little brain can't seem to keep up with the doublethink.

Good grief, me neither. I never thought when I read 1984 way back when that I'd be reading such blatantly anti-logical rhetoric every day for what has become years on end.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:32 PM on October 6, 2005


The terrorists/insurgents have killed between 5,000-10,000 and wounded another 10,000-15,000 of their own people in deliberately targeted attacks against women, children and men that are arab and muslim, just like them.

The war against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army caused the unintentional death of approximately 25,000 Iraqi civilians in an effort to liberate the country from the totalitarian tyranny of their dictator. In return, the US, the UN and the rest of the global community that feels this is important have pledged decades of political involvement and hundreds of billions of dollars of direct aid in order to give the Iraqi people the potential that was stolen from them by the previous regime.

If you can't discriminate between these two things, we share a different reality. Enjoy calling Bush names.
posted by loquax at 12:33 PM on October 6, 2005


So do you guys know who's setting off the car bombs?

You talking about the car bombs that target the green zone? Or the ones going after convoys?

And are you talking about the suicide bombers in the IA recruiting lines? Or the ones going after police stations?

Oh yes, you are talking about the PSYCHOTIC ISLAMOFASCISTIC SABRE-TOOTHED CAMEL HERDERS!!!911!!,....um....right? The ones that only want to kill, kill, kill, and have no real *targets*, per se.

-----
on preview....
-----
The war against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army caused the unintentional death of approximately 25,000 Iraqi civilians in an effort to....empower....the terrorists/insurgents [who] have killed between 5,000-10,000 and wounded another 10,000-15,000 of their own people in deliberately targeted attacks against women, children and men that are arab and muslim, just like them.
posted by wah at 12:36 PM on October 6, 2005


You are right, bevets. Sorry, loquax.
posted by mr.marx at 12:36 PM on October 6, 2005


we share a different reality.

That's the truth. But buddy, I care more about human life than good intentions. And every day this goes on, I find it harder to believe that their intentions were genuinely good.

women, children and men that are arab and muslim, just like them.

I may not be Arab or Muslim, but I bet those people are, like pretty much every human I have ever met, just like me.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:37 PM on October 6, 2005


I live in a very small city in the east Texas bible belt. Not even a college here. It is interesting that the local paper has been running a lot of anti-Bush editorials and political cartoons. Also the regional farming newsmagazine has been peppered lately with jabs at the administration for, among over things, big-business favoritism and sending American farm & ranch markets overseas.
posted by rolypolyman at 12:37 PM on October 6, 2005


among other things
posted by rolypolyman at 12:38 PM on October 6, 2005


Remember folks, when we kill civilians, it's on accident.

When they kill civilians, it's because they are blood-thirsty religious fanatics.

Everyone clear?

[should have been on last post, my bad]
posted by wah at 12:38 PM on October 6, 2005


Like I said: It's gonna take those car bombers a while to catch up. Your own numbers support this (5,000-10,000 vs. 25,000). Plus, of course, it was our actions that set off the terrorist activities in Iraq in the first place, so those dead are arguably on our heads, too. Therefore, your statement "A good reason to fight the people killing all the civilians," makes a better logical argument for the terrorists/insurgants than for us.

And yes - I can see clearly that we share a different reality.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:40 PM on October 6, 2005


I liked the speech. The analogy to Communism is the correct one; it's a long war, and one we'll eventually win, even if we have some setbacks along the way.

I wonder how many people imagined, as Saigon fell to the Communists in 1975, that East Germans would be dismantling the Berlin Wall less than fifteen years later, and that Viet Nam would be a stable source of cheap labor for American-based multinationals fifteen years after that?
posted by MattD at 12:40 PM on October 6, 2005



Mr. Terrorist, tear down this wall!

posted by blue_beetle at 12:44 PM on October 6, 2005


Sad. Sharing a different reality... hah. That's an understatement.
posted by prostyle at 12:44 PM on October 6, 2005


Viet Nam would be a stable source of cheap labor for American-based multinationals fifteen years after that

you say that's like it's a good thing. says a lot about you, really.
posted by mr.marx at 12:45 PM on October 6, 2005


that
posted by mr.marx at 12:46 PM on October 6, 2005


Carl? Is that you?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:47 PM on October 6, 2005


karl
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:47 PM on October 6, 2005


MattD writes "The analogy to Communism is the correct one"

How can it be? In that case, our enemies were states. There's not going to be an end to this "war" that involves Al-Qaeda relinquishing its millitary control over satellite groups, abandoning Islamofascism, and deciding to select its leaders by democratic elections. The cold war model just doesn't make any sense against diffuse, non-state actors.

Perhaps the model of international action against the Barbary pirates makes better sense?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:48 PM on October 6, 2005


By fearing freedom, by distrusting human creativity and punishing change and limiting the contributions of half the population, this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible and human society successful....

I eagerly await the American invasion of Saudi Arabia, then. And seeing as Iraq before the invasion was actually a secular state, not a theocracy, and that the status of women was, relatively speaking, not nearly as bad there as in many other places (like Saudi Arabia, say) I remain confused as to how the invasion of Iraq was supposed to cure an Islamic crypto-fascist government. Perhaps they made a mistake when looking at the map? Didn't they check Wikipedia?
posted by jokeefe at 12:49 PM on October 6, 2005


and that Viet Nam would be a stable source of cheap labor for American-based multinationals fifteen years after that?

Hooray!
posted by Space Coyote at 12:49 PM on October 6, 2005


The analogy to Communism is the correct one

ROTFLOL. Keep creating the bogeymen, Mr. Politicians. People seem to like having a purpose, even if it's fake.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:50 PM on October 6, 2005


Perhaps the model of international action against the Barbary pirates makes better sense?

Indeed. Fantastic link.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:51 PM on October 6, 2005


ROTFLOL. Keep creating the bogeymen, Mr. Politicians. People seem to like having a purpose, even if it's fake.

Ain't that the truth. Not even two hours after dhoyt tries to dismiss The Power of Nightmares, along comes his pal MattD and proves it absolutely correct. Beautiful.
posted by mr.marx at 12:54 PM on October 6, 2005


AP: "Since the 2002 Bali blasts, Jemaah Islamiyah has been tied to at least two other bombings in Indonesia, both in the capital, Jakarta. Those blasts, one at the J.W. Marriott hotel in 2003 and the other outside the Australian Embassy in 2004, killed at least 23. Western and Indonesian intelligence agency have consistently warned the group was plotting more attacks." Abu Bakar Bashir, JI's alleged spiritual leader, was sentenced in March to 30 months in prison for his involvement in the October 2002 Bali bombings, but he was cleared of more serious terrorism charges. The chief Indonesian security minister warned this week that JI continues to possess dangerous bomb-making talent. And a senior Filippino security official is quoted today as saying that al Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf and JI are jointly planning to carry out attacks in that country before the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

---

Hilla, Iraq - A suicide car bomber has killed 13 people and wounded about 40 outside a mosque in Hilla, south of Baghdad, on Wednesday as Shi'a worshippers were gathering for the start of the holy month of Ramadan, police sources said.



----


I mean, can you get any more peaceful?



You can resume hating Muslims now, all of the ones say around me in the office say you're a dick,

If they're the kind of fellow employees who bomb large groups of civilians while screaming Allahu Akbar, then they're welcome to point all the fingers they want. If they're peaceful people, then the "dick" epithet is off-base. Either way, you're fellow employees don't make a dent in this conversation.

Remember folks, when we kill civilians, it's on accident.
When they kill civilians, it's because they are blood-thirsty religious fanatics.
Everyone clear?


Well yeah. Pretty much. Their intent is to kill civilians. The more the better. This is not news.
posted by dhoyt at 12:54 PM on October 6, 2005


Give it a year or two, when it is no longer voluntary.

Doubt it. What you will see instead is increasing outsourcing and privatization. Mercenary: No longer a dirty word
posted by fourstar at 12:55 PM on October 6, 2005


I've noticed the jaw thing as well. It first became apparent during the Presidential debates. It may be a number of things: neurological damage from heavy cocaine binging or alcohol, some sort of Rx for stress or fatigue, even too much coffee can cause it. Then again a lot of folks hold tension in their jaws and grind their teeth while sleeping.

He was wound up the other day when he spoke to his conservative base about Harriet Miers. So curt and petulant towards reporter's afterwards. Homeboy was pissed. That's some scary stuff, seeing the most powerful man in the world get his knickers in a twist. Wonder if he and Rove are on the outs or what the deal is, that guys been laying lower than a frogs butt.

So anyway this speech today was to remind us that the terrorist's are not only evil and bad but SUPER DUPER EXTRA SUPERSIZED EVIL AND BAD. Wasn't there supposed to be something new??

I feel so gyped.
posted by Skygazer at 12:56 PM on October 6, 2005




MattD writes "The analogy to Communism is the correct one"

Okay, I have more to say about this. The cold war was essentially a long term nuclear stand-off. Mutually assured destruction with the Soviets and all that. We could not act against the primary stronghold of Communism. There's simply no analogy to the current situation. All states that embrace the terrorist philosophy (Afghanistan under the Taliban) have been overthrown; there is no single stronghold that we cannot attack; we move against terrorists at our will.

Which is why it's so frustrating that we've gotten tied down in a long-term conventional war that's draining our resources and handicapping us politically. The military should be focusing on remaining agile, acting swiftly in concert with allied countries to attack terrorists in all situations where military force would be useful.

It's almost like this administration, with its philosophical roots in the cold war (they're mostly Ford people, remember), couldn't understand how to act in the modern world, and chose to fight a Vietnam-style proxy war in Iraq. That's just fucked up.

This isn't the cold war at all. That just doesn't make any sense.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:58 PM on October 6, 2005


This speech was yet another shallow attempt to "shift the focus" away from the myriad problems Bush and the Republican are facing (e.g. the botched-Katrina response, indictments and/or investigations into Abramoff, DeLay, Frist, Safavian, etc. -- along with lowest polling results ever in his five-year presidency).

And, most importantly, with possible new indictments looming, the White House is "brac[ing] for decisions in the CIA leak case" (aka the Valerie Plame affair).

And -- just today -- Karl Rove has asked to appear before the Grand Jury on his own volition. Is he ready to "cop a plea":
"Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation....The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances." [Associated Press | October 6, 2005]
The "big picture" looks might-murky for George Bush and his cronies!
posted by ericb at 12:58 PM on October 6, 2005


It's Raining Florence Henderson, that has to be on my top ten "best Metafilter posts ever" list. Thank you.
posted by tizzie at 1:06 PM on October 6, 2005


Amar Ahmed Mohammed was 19 years old. But the fact that he had the mind of a four-year-old did not stop the insurgency's hard men as they strapped explosives to his chest and guided him to a voting centre in suburban Al-Askan.


These people need a hug. They're just misunderstood.

Campaigners said, European governments are allowing Islamic fundamentalists to trample on the rights of Muslim women under the guise of respecting different cultures, citing instances of forced marriage, domestic violence and genital mutilation.


Can we please, please take a more similar tack as Europe toward Islamic fundamentalists? Of the London bombings, one young Muslim says:

"Obviously the media is saying that Muslims did it, but I think it was a conspiracy by Tony Blair and George Bush," said Olle Rahaman, 32, a husband and father who, like the other men, was born in London of Bangladeshi parents. "An excuse to say, 'Let's go kick some ass.' "


And of the recent Bali bombings:
"Since the 2002 attacks, Jemaah Islamiyah has been tied to at least two other bombings in Indonesia, both in Jakarta. Those blasts, one outside the Australian Embassy in 2004 and the other at the J.W. Marriott hotel in 2003, killed at least 23.

The group's alleged spiritual leader, Abu Bakar Bashir, who has been jailed for conspiracy in the 2002 attacks, through a spokesman denied any personal connection to the weekend explosions. There was no statement from the group, which wants to establish an Islamic state across Southeast Asia.

Bashir is known for strong anti-Western and anti-Semitic views but has always maintained his innocence. Fauzan Al Anshari, his spokesman, said the cleric had no involvement in Saturday's explosions.

"No Muslim would carry out those bombings," he said.


Of course not. It's not as though (Muslim) jihadists have a history of bombings. More hugs all around.
posted by dhoyt at 1:11 PM on October 6, 2005


Lawrence O'Donnell: “Prediction: at least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators."
posted by ericb at 1:11 PM on October 6, 2005


"A nation of five-year-olds."
posted by mr.marx at 1:15 PM on October 6, 2005


And since we're obviously winning the war on terror, let's stay the course!!
posted by Floydd at 1:15 PM on October 6, 2005


dhoyt I think you mistyped littlegreenfootballs.com
posted by delmoi at 1:16 PM on October 6, 2005


9/11 and Jesus are the never ending rabbits that Bush keeps yanking out like the 5 year magic meth man.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:18 PM on October 6, 2005


The only problem with your examples, dhoyt, is that you're arguing against a position that no one here has taken. I apologize in advance, however, if I somehow missed the comment where someone said the terrorists were good guys.

Remember: world-wide terrorism has actually increased under this administration, not decreased. So your examples of terrorist mayhem do not support your point.

On preview, see also Floydd's link.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:20 PM on October 6, 2005


dhoyt - your continued misunderstanding of the Power of Nightmares is quite sad. I can understand you've probably heard quotes or misrepresentations from your ideological opponents which will make it seem like a poorly researched Michael Moore style shitefest but it is actually quite decent. If you have seen it, I'd like to hear which aspects you thought were wrong, if you've not seen it then your continual reference to it is much like me taking the piss out of the Tibetan Book Of The Dead - I haven't read it so I don't know a thing about it except second hand information.

Al Queda did not exist in it's present form at any point prior to the time that the US government decided it needed a single name for the hundreds of barely connected terrorist cells around the globe. Al Queda is not like the IRA circa 1970. It's not a single organised group, it's a bunch of different guys, with different ideals which happens to rely on the same group funding them (and I think it's pretty obvious who that is).

My Muslim colleagues and neighbours have no interest in terrorism and probably have less knowledge of blowing shit up than I do. They call you a dick because you are bad mouthing their religion for no purpose. I know you dont care about being called rude names but the least you could do is temper your hatred and maybe direct it at those of any religion who bend the guiding principles of their books to their own twisted desires.
posted by longbaugh at 1:25 PM on October 6, 2005


He lists militants as being "part of global borderless terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda," "in regional groups often associated with al Qaeda," "paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements," and "local cells inspired by Islamic radicalism but not centrally directed." None of these include the vast majority of insurgents in Iraq, who are primarily Sunni Arab Iraqis fighting because they don't want to give up their prewar power. Plus, I'm sure some Iraqis are fighting us because we invaded their country.

President Bush: The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.

That's because they were most likely Chechen nationalists involved in a nationalist conflict with Russia.

President Bush:
Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women.

They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:33 PM on October 6, 2005




I'm so sick of Paris Hilton's vagina Bush's lies.
posted by bshort at 1:39 PM on October 6, 2005


bshort - your continued misunderstanding of Paris Hilton's vagina is quite sad. I can understand you've probably heard quotes or misrepresentations from your ideological opponents which will make it seem like a poorly cleaned Ann Coulter style shitefest but it is actually quite decent. If you have seen it, I'd like to hear which aspects you thought were wrong, if you've not seen it then your continual reference to it is much like me taking the piss out of The Story of 'O' - I haven't read it so I don't know a thing about it except second hand information.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:49 PM on October 6, 2005


Flo, dhoyt, loquax, and probably most pro-war conservatives here are suffering badly from an excluded middle and I ask you not to point it out to them, as it makes them uppity.

See, either we give stuffed animals and a nice cup of tea to terrorists, OR invading Iraq the way we did was the totally right and only course of action towards fighting global radical islama-whammadingdong-fascism. So you're either with them or living in a different reality and probably a moonbat who is sexually attracted to moonbats of the same gender, and also against them.

Please keep this in mind.
posted by fleacircus at 1:49 PM on October 6, 2005


That is, "Flo: dhoyt, loquax..."
posted by fleacircus at 1:50 PM on October 6, 2005


Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September 11 attacks

At the risk of combining irreverance with being fussy about phrasing, didn't gravity & fire take care of immediately killing all those directly responsible for the September 11 attacks?
posted by phearlez at 1:50 PM on October 6, 2005


"Who put the bop in the bop-do-wop-do-wop,
who put the Islam in the Islama-whammadingdong?
Who was that man?
I'd like to shake his hand!
He made my country go to war you see."
posted by Floydd at 1:56 PM on October 6, 2005


phearlez: By "directly" he meant "indirectly". I know, I know, sometimes newspeak is hard to follow.

That's why they use it so much.
posted by wah at 1:57 PM on October 6, 2005


And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.

Why US isn't prodding Mideast peace process:
The high hopes of just a few weeks ago that the United States would aggressively reengage in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are beginniing to dim.

The "window of opportunity" that opened after the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israel's withdrawal from Gaza has not closed yet, experts say. But concern is growing in some quarters that the engine that has driven forward movement in the past - close US involvement - is not revving up.
...
With President Bush focused on domestic concerns, experts do not expect to see any major peace-process initiatives coming from the White House. "Bush has been knocked over by these hurricanes. He's totally distracted," says Michael Hudson, a Mideast expert at Georgetown University in Washington. "I don't expect to see anything new from the US, and that's too bad because it's a critical moment in Gaza."
posted by kirkaracha at 2:00 PM on October 6, 2005


Nice one, Floydd!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:03 PM on October 6, 2005


Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country.

Given his long history of being "mistaken," I'm not going to believe this without proof.

"Yeah, we stopped ten attacks, that's the ticket…"
posted by Jatayu das at 2:08 PM on October 6, 2005


Breaking news: New York increasing security on subways due to security threat, official says.

Coincidence?

\sarcasm
posted by ericb at 2:19 PM on October 6, 2005


Time to raise the color alert?
posted by ericb at 2:25 PM on October 6, 2005


On CNN -- a former FBI official is questioning why such a threat has been identified publicly this afternoon.
posted by ericb at 2:27 PM on October 6, 2005


Flo, dhoyt, loquax, and probably most pro-war conservatives

To call somebody "pro-war" for being in support of a particular war is the rhetorical equivalent of calling someone who didn't support this particular war "pro-Hussein".
posted by loquax at 2:29 PM on October 6, 2005


Police Investigate New York Subway Terror Threat.

Why am I so cycnical on the timing of this one? Oh, why?
posted by ericb at 2:30 PM on October 6, 2005


Anyone seen Jared?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:31 PM on October 6, 2005


Okay ... some clarification here: "Department of Homeland Security sources told ABC News they are very doubtful the threat information is credible, though NYPD sources said the information continues to come in and is disturbing."
posted by ericb at 2:32 PM on October 6, 2005


So basically someone made less than credible threats to NYC's transportation system, and 'Dear Leader' is to blame?
posted by dhoyt at 2:38 PM on October 6, 2005


They call you a dick because you are bad mouthing their religion for no purpose.

I could give a shit about either Xtianity or Islam to be perfectly frank. They've both caused enough shit in this world to make me want to ignore them forever. But if your co-workers condemn the terrorists, that's great. If they think I'm going to treat them any differently for being Muslim by proxy, they're wrong. The folks I'm condemning here are perverting Islam for violent purpose. If your co-workers aren't doing this, they have nothing to worry about. I think this is self-explanatory.
posted by dhoyt at 2:41 PM on October 6, 2005


Terror! Terror! Terror!

Learn to spell. It's "trr" as in "trrist" and "trrism"
posted by afx114 at 2:45 PM on October 6, 2005


Likewise -- Christianity "has caused enough shit in this world."

Throughout the past 2,000 years there are many instances of "some" Christians "perverting Christianity" for violent purposes. Two examples:
Exhibit A: The Crusades

Exhibit B: The Spanish Inquisition.
posted by ericb at 3:08 PM on October 6, 2005


"God told me to invade Iraq"
posted by mr.marx at 3:12 PM on October 6, 2005


Are you calling God a liar?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:16 PM on October 6, 2005


...and "Go get the Palestinians their state"

By the way, I, for one, am wholly in favour of finding the perpetrators of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and bringing them to justice.
posted by loquax at 3:17 PM on October 6, 2005


Thanks Eric, but read my statement again:
I could give a shit about either Xtianity or Islam to be perfectly frank. They've both caused enough shit in this world to make me want to ignore them forever.

But this thread isn't about the Crusades. Or the Inquisition. It's about Bush's remarks on today's radical Islam. We're not discussing the current network of Eric Rudolph disciples blowing themselves up all over the world, deliberately targeting civilians & yelling "Allahu Jesus" because there isn't one. There isn't such a movement despite the limp, desperate, innaccurate & dishonest equivalency you and amber and rothko and digaman are forever trying to construct. What Bush has described is a threat, does target innocents, and will be a force to reckon with in the coming years. Do you want to be the one on the sidelines, posturing smugly, sipping a latte and asking, "B-b-b-b-b-but what about Tim McVeigh?" while the buildings are falling down around you?
posted by dhoyt at 3:19 PM on October 6, 2005


loquax: "To call somebody "pro-war" for being in support of a particular war is the rhetorical equivalent of calling someone who didn't support this particular war "pro-Hussein"."

Or pro-terrorist?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:26 PM on October 6, 2005


What Bush has described is a threat, does target innocents, and will be a force to reckon with in the coming years.

And yet, the actions Bush has ordered have killed more innocents than bin Laden ever has.

People continue to just write it off. This administration is apparantly so inept that they accidentally kill more people than bin Laden can kill on purpose.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:27 PM on October 6, 2005


I don't know how you people can stand having a head of state who basically signs the death warrant of tens of thousands of people based on what the little voices in his head tell him he should do. I really don't. If there is a God, may he keep me from ever mistaking such insanity for anything else than what it is.
posted by clevershark at 3:28 PM on October 6, 2005


sonofsamiam writes "People continue to just write it off."

"They don't count, because we didn't mean to kill them -- although we knew full well that if we did what we did they would die." That's the basic justification. Do these fuckers even understand what they do?
posted by clevershark at 3:29 PM on October 6, 2005


dhoyt: why do you keep bringing up McVeigh? is he a friend of yours in need of google rank?
again
"God told me to invade Iraq"
posted by mr.marx at 3:30 PM on October 6, 2005


Aren't you paying attention, mr. marx? "amberglow, digaman, rothko/alex, et al" brought up McVeigh in other threads! Apparently, "et al" is Latin for "and other people not participating in this thread."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:34 PM on October 6, 2005


If there is a God, may he keep me from ever mistaking such insanity for anything else than what it is.

Amen. May we none of us ever become enamoured enough with our plans and theories to kill someone over them.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:34 PM on October 6, 2005


What Bush has described is a threat, does target innocents, and will be a force to reckon with in the coming years.

Agreed. My commute to work every day takes me past the motel in Vancouver where Ahmed Ressam stayed, on his way down to bomb LAX in 1999.

I just think Bush's current strategy of trying to end terrorism, by bringing democracy to the Middle East with fire and sword is utopian recklessness; it crosses the line between neo-conservative and neo-crazy, as conservative commentator Anthony Cordesmann put it. We need a better strategy.
posted by russilwvong at 3:35 PM on October 6, 2005


sonofsamiam: "May we none of us ever become enamoured enough with our plans and theories to kill someone over them."

Sorry, but the irony considering your nic is killing me. Pun intended.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:36 PM on October 6, 2005


Do you want to be the one on the sidelines, posturing smugly, sipping a latte

I don't like lattes.
posted by ericb at 3:42 PM on October 6, 2005



posted by cell divide at 3:50 PM on October 6, 2005


Onward Christian soldiers!
posted by ericb at 3:55 PM on October 6, 2005


Of course not. It's not as though (Muslim) jihadists have a history of bombings. More hugs all around.

And how many suicide bombings were there before we toppled Saddam with our well-thought out and well-executed plans for occupation and reconstruction ? Exactly none ? Oh, Well, bad terrorists ! Bad ! We got rid of Saddam. That's what counts--not the criminal negligence and lies and total lack of foresight and planning for the aftermath of our mighty shock and awe. Look upon our works and tremble! We certainly have no responsibility for unleashing this terror on the Iraqi populace. None at all. It's all those Islamofascists's fault.
posted by y2karl at 4:02 PM on October 6, 2005


And how many suicide bombings were there

In the country of Iraq, that is...

And how about that Islamic Republic of Iraq ? Yeah, we showed those Islamofascists ! Sharia law--that's empowering Iraqi women for you. We sure showed Bin Laden there.
posted by y2karl at 4:07 PM on October 6, 2005




The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan.

That would be the A.Q. Khan who was pardoned by General Pervez Musharraf, the non-elected ruler of Pakistan, our ally (should that have quotation marks around it?) in the war on terror.
posted by WestCoaster at 4:20 PM on October 6, 2005


why do you keep bringing up McVeigh?

Why do I keep bringing up McVeigh? Are you effing joking? It never would have occurred to me to bring up peons like McVeigh & Rudolph if not for the tireless & predictable attempts by so many MeFites to trot out those two names whenever Islamic terror is concerned, only they avoided it in this thread after my comments made it moot. It's like morality nuts who can't discuss drug laws without mentioning the evils of marijuana and equating them, say, meth casualties. It's a farce.

I'm not saying Bush's response is any great thing. But I'm saying today's comments don't strike me as all that crazy, frankly, and I think the smarmy contrarian pose so many of you adopt is an attempt to hide your deep-down fear that Bush, et al, might be right about Islamic Terror being a serious global threat worthy of discussion. For most of you, it's a matter of making a trite Blame-America one-liner, patting yourself on the back, and moving on to the next political thread. Great one-liners, but your fear of acknowleging the problem—and it's not going away anytime soon, Bush, Kerry, or whoever's in the White House—is mightily transparent. History isn't going to look any more kindly on Bush than it does on the evasive, limp and apologist responses to Islamic terrorists.

With threads like this it's no wonder Bush voters look around and go, 'Wow, a lot of these folks have innumerable criticisms of the president, yet shuffle their feet & change the subject when it comes to addressing the terror problem'.

Hey this thread's pretty long--are you sure there isn't still time left for one more "OMG Bush talks to God!" one-liner? The oft-repeated quote sounds like misinterpreted, mistranslated, paraphrased bullshit, for what it's worth.
posted by dhoyt at 4:27 PM on October 6, 2005


Well, "for what it's worth," I, too, believe that "Islamic Terror" is a "serious global threat worthy of discussion."

I also believe that you've posted little here today except strawman rants arguing against positions and people not even on the thread.

Kind of like how Bush started a war in Iraq to save us from WMDs that weren't there based on instructions from his imaginary friend in the sky.

Yep - there was room for one more "OMG Bush talks to God!" one-liner. Thanks!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:39 PM on October 6, 2005


I, too, believe that "Islamic Terror" is a "serious global threat worthy of discussion."

Ditto. I think it behooves us -- Americans -- to recognize that we responsible for making Iraq a breeding ground for international terrorits in the first place. That being said, I am having difficult in seeing that Bush insists on "staying the course," offering very few concrete steps as to how to mitigate further terrorist attacks.

I believe that -- among many mesaures --

(1) we need to definitively address the systemic problems in how we detain terror suspects (as the Senate wisely "[d]eliver[ed] a rare wartime slap at Pentagon authority and President Bush, the GOP-controlled Senate voted 90-9 on Wednesday to back an amendment that would prohibit the use of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held." - source). We need to demonstrate to the world-at-large that we abhor "torture" and will redouble efforts to abide by international treaties by bringing to justice more than the Lyndie Englishes of our Armed Forces.

(2) we need to explore and plan for a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, since our continued presence -- in my opinion -- only feeds the flames of recruiting more-and-more terrorists-in-training. We can hopefully plan for such and implement it in a time and manner which will mitigate civil war. It appears,however, that any vision of a unified Iraq has evaporated. Americans used to dream of building a strong, unified, pluralistic Iraq. Now the possibilities are a very loose federation, or violent disintegration.

(3) We need to redouble efforts to locate and capture/kill Osama bin Laden. Remember him?
posted by ericb at 5:01 PM on October 6, 2005


We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags Guantanamo Bay and its outliers and the Cultural Revolution Patriot Act and the killing fields unlawful invasion of Iraq.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial semi-imaginary enemies.

In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.

Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical erected religious monuments and brutalized [non-American] women.

They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.

While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists Americans are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples the rights of anyone with whom they disagree, claiming that [homosexual] men and women who live in liberty choose to wed are weak and decadent.
>>Best justification I've seen from him yet.

Really? Me too, but not in the same way you're thinking, I don't think.

Same as it ever was.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:15 PM on October 6, 2005


Islamic Terror being a serious global threat

I see, it's you who are "effing" joking.
posted by mr.marx at 6:41 PM on October 6, 2005


ericb writes "We need to redouble efforts to locate and capture/kill Osama bin Laden. Remember him?"

That guy's so 2001... he can't be much of a threat, seeing as how Bush "truly [is] not that concerned about him."
posted by clevershark at 7:17 PM on October 6, 2005


We're facing proposing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.
posted by dreamsign at 7:57 PM on October 6, 2005


And the same day Bush makes a speech repeating the same old tired, false, bullshit justifications for invading Iraq, suddenly there is a threat against New York subways, and that threat is linked to .... Iraq!

The USA has a White House full of lying stealing killing assholes.
posted by marxchivist at 8:03 PM on October 6, 2005


All this about the evil people wanting to kill Americans because they are terrorists.....why is it many of them have been on the payroll of the US?

What about getting a check from the American taxpayer and having that cash flow get cut off makes ya wanna kill American Taxpayers?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:28 PM on October 6, 2005


So do you guys know who's setting off the car bombs? Who's strapping bombs to themselves and walking into lineups and markets? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the US Army.
posted by loquax at 12:23 PM PST on October 6 [!]


And you are sure about that?
What if the Brittish were paying for 'suicide bombers' and 'car bombs'?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:41 PM on October 6, 2005


What if the Brittish were paying for 'suicide bombers' and 'car bombs'?

Are they?
posted by loquax at 9:29 PM on October 6, 2005


Well here is a shocker... you can not completely win this type of war. The options are 1) you kill every single person associated or who may be associated with the insurgency/terrorist movement, 2) you negotiate or 3) it drags out indefinably running hot and cold.

It is a choice we make
posted by edgeways at 9:47 PM on October 6, 2005


Bird flu? That's all you've got? You failed to scare me sufficiently with your screaming bloodthirsty terriisss and your gross incompetence and your evil plan to sell the entire federal goverment into your rich buddies' hands, and now you want to scare me with the bird flu?

The next flu pandemic scares *me* a heckuva lot more than Osama, and will quite likely kill more people over a far broader area than either Al-Qaeda and the US Military combined.

And yet for the flu threat, we seem to be spending a fraction of attention and money, and will likely end up with a response on order of effectiveness to Hurricane Katrina.

And have to listen to more libertarians talking about how it's not the government's responsibility to protect citizens against biological threats unless they're intentionally wielded by madmen.
posted by weston at 10:41 PM on October 6, 2005


dhoyt - fwiw I think anybody with any sense does not recognise the threat of fundamentalism. This is why the tired canard of Christian terrorism is dragged out every so often. There are many people using religion as a cover for power grabs, some using it for land disputes, others because they misunderstand or deliberately disregard the tenets of their holy books.

We can't help those people. Terrorists (of any faith) are radical fundamentalists and whilst killing or arresting them helps somewhat the most important thing to do is work with those on the path to terrorism. We need to convince these religious wackos that we don't want to harm them and that we are no threat to their precious way of life. If they want to live like it's the middle ages or what have you then let them do so away from the rest of the world (you don't see any Amish terrorists).

My way of life (i.e. European, Atheist etc.) is more at threat from Fundamentalist Christianity in the USA than it could ever be from Fundamentalist Islam. I lived through a couple of decades of IRA bombings including one just down the road from me. It never made anyone I know change a single thing about their lifestyle because a man with a gun or a bomb can inflict virtually no damage on a social group. The only damage comes from the group's reaction to this guns and bombs, and in this the US government is vastly more terrifying than any group of fuckwits in a cave. Tossing your freedom away because some invisible threat "might" injure a few people is frankly retarded.

Stupid arguments about I.D. in school are pathetic in this day and age and I feel more fear for the rolling back of the Enlightenment in the world than I do being a random target of some misdirected rage. This rant is kind of all over the place which I will blame on typing whilst doing work rather than my complete inability to formulate a cogent argument.
posted by longbaugh at 4:44 AM on October 7, 2005


The next flu pandemic scares *me* a heckuva lot more than Osama, and will quite likely kill more people over a far broader area than either Al-Qaeda and the US Military combined.

I am also well informed about the flu threat and don't underestimate it. But at this moment, for Bush to be intoning the threat in his deep scary voice is a complete red herring. It is a threat, so let's deal with it rationally and address it through the many existing means we do have. Spooking Americans in a red herring of a speech meant to distract us from problems immediately at hand is a shallow and transparent strategy.

Also, waving the spectre of 1918 before us is not well supported by reason. A few moment's thought about the state medical facilities, availability of medicine, public understanding of hygeine and disease transmission, and rapid dissemination of information via the media in 1918 vs. today should help us to get the concerns into perspective. Yes, we'll be seeing a terrible flu epidemic within the next dozen years or so. No, we won't see 20 million killed.
posted by Miko at 6:26 AM on October 7, 2005


What if the British were paying for 'suicide bombers' and 'car bombs'?

Are they?
posted by loquax at 9:29 PM PST on October 6 [!]


Yes.
7/7 Mastermind on MI6 payroll
The British state, which supposedly adheres to the rule of law and abhors the ‘men of violence’ in Ireland, has so deeply infiltrated the IRA and Protestant terror gangs that its agents have been directly involved in torture, assassination, and terrorist bombings. Oh, and mentions how such historical ties to the terrorists are happening in Iraq.


What I find interesting is how none of the Pro-Terrorists-threat agree with the data that many of these 'terrorists' were on the payroll of the people now under 'attack'. Is there a reason you are unwilling to admit to payments to terrorists by American Taxpayers Loquax? Or payments by ANY taxpayers to terrorists?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:15 AM on October 7, 2005


Juan Cole's rebuttal to Bush's speech: You can't 'stay the course' because you don't have a course. Get one.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:46 AM on October 7, 2005


rough aslar: Oh yes, you've got me. The British government as a matter of policy is targeting civilians in a manner similar to the insurgency and the Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq. They are equivalent. I had my doubts about your claim until I read it in black and white on the Guerilla News Network and the International Communist Current. But now I see my hypocrisy. Tell me, are there any organizations I can join dedicated to the toppling the fascist, terroristic government of the UK and replacing it with peaceful communist regime?
posted by loquax at 8:18 AM on October 7, 2005


Could I also respectively call "cow-poop" on those links as well? The British government might occasionally do some monumentally stupid shit but blowing up innocent civilians with car bombs is not one of them.

We have the RAF for that thanks.
posted by longbaugh at 8:39 AM on October 7, 2005


Tell me, are there any organizations I can join dedicated to the toppling the fascist, terroristic government of the UK and replacing it with peaceful communist regime?

You exclude so many middles, the view from inside your brain must look like the Cantor set.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:30 AM on October 7, 2005


Oh come on. Seriously. International Communist Current? What middle ground are we talking about here? Lenin as opposed to Stalin?
posted by loquax at 11:00 AM on October 7, 2005


Moore as opposed to Fonda.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:51 AM on October 7, 2005


While I’m in favor of military opposition to terrr, I lean towards longbaugh’s position. It’s the reaction that does more damage.
That being the case it’s not armies that fight it well, it’s small well trained groups (SEAL 6, SAS, et. al.). So I’m not fixated on it. But I think Bush had some few good points.
So I was more or less tuning out the speech as more “blah, blah blah” until I heard the comparison to communism.

mr_roboto did a nice job pointing that flawed comparison out so I won’t reiterate it.
But I did yell “WHAT THE F$#&) ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!?” at the radio.
I don’t think he heard me.

I am - ever so slightly - in favor of action in Iraq under certain conditions. Those conditions are not being met as far as I can see so overall I oppose what’s going on.

I also agree - slightly - with dhoyt that ‘islamic terror’ is a global problem and is worth discussing.

But I am fully opposed to action against terrorism being allowed to influence policy. Negative influence is still influence.
Apparently this administration doesn’t understand ‘reverse psychology.’

There is a reason anti-terrorist units keep a low profile - apart from the obvious ones of course.
You do not want the terrorists saying: “We’re such bad asses we have SEAL 6 (or whoever) trying to kill us.”

But here you have the POTUS on T.V. over and over again saying ‘Islamic Terror’ (Al-Kayda in particular) is a serious global threat.

Even a street cop on an anti-gang unit knows better.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:31 PM on October 7, 2005


Bush's Approval Rating Remains at All-time Low
"Public sentiment about the nation’s direction has sunk to new depths at a time people are anxious about Iraq, the economy, gas prices and the management of billions of dollars being spent for recovery from the nation’s worst natural disaster.

Only 28 percent say the country is headed in the right direction while two-thirds, 66 percent, say it is on the wrong track, the [AP-Ipsos] poll found....The president’s job approval is mired at the lowest level of his presidency — 39 percent. "

[The Associated Press | October 07, 2005]
CBS News Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low
Is the country on the 'wrong track'? -- 69% (Yes)

Do you disapprove of President Bush's job performance? -- 58% (Yes)

Does President Bush share your priorities for the country? -- 65% (No)

[CBS News | October 7, 2005]
posted by ericb at 5:15 PM on October 7, 2005


...Scruples about the unsavoury rightwing company they are now uncomfortably lodged with - such as the American neocons - have been easily squashed. With curious macho posturing, they are "muscular" or "hard" liberals: enough is enough, we can no longer tolerate the intolerant, is the battle cry. They raise their standard on Enlightenment values - their universality, the supremacy of reason and a belief in progress. The west represents the apogee of civilisation and all countries can be measured up against its yardstick (and are, of course, found wanting). It is an ideology of superiority that is profoundly old-fashioned - reminiscent of Victorian liberalism and just as imperialistic...

This muscular liberal project is dangerous. We live in a shrunken world and millions of people are on the move; one of our biggest challenges is how we learn to live in proximity to difference - different skin colours, different beliefs, different ways of life. How do we talk peacefully with people with whom we might violently disagree? ...But the idea of submitting all potential interlocutors to an ideological approval rating will mean we end up talking only to ourselves. Is a reminder necessary that this is a symptom of insanity?

Furthermore, this muscular liberal project is a dead end. It's a nostalgic grab for old certainties. It abandons the difficult but necessary task of reworking those precious Enlightenment values if we are to shake off our passive fatalism and reinvigorate our political imagination.

Here is a quick list of some of the Enlightenment legacy that we need to keep working on: the relationship of reason to emotion and faith (of all kinds, not just religious, most particularly our faith in humanity); a broader account of human nature beyond the bankrupted belief in the perfectibility of man; more meanings of freedom than the freedom to shop; a much better understanding of what individuality is (rather than the sham version we see lauded today) and its relationship to the collective. From such work, new understandings of progress could emerge.

For the muscular liberals so loudly and so emptily proclaiming their own superiority, it is anathema to suggest that the insights of Islam might have a bearing on many of these issues and could even contribute to a renaissance in western thought. But it's worth reminding them that it's done just that before.


The muscular liberals are marching into a dead end
posted by y2karl at 11:28 PM on October 7, 2005


rough aslar: Oh yes, you've got me.

Glad you went ahead and researched the items.

But like so many of the comments you've made, your lack of understanding DOES come through.

The Barron Report is the source about British involvement, not the 'International Communist Current'.

And MI6's payment of Haroon Rashid Aswat, Guerilla News Network is not the source of data on him being on the payroll....people like Former Justice Dept. Prosecutor and Terror expert John Loftus revealed that British Intelligence and the US dept of Justice had protected Haroon Rashid Aswat: "Back in 1999 he came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon... we've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat... , apparently Aswat was working for British intelligence" A man sought from 1999 was able to live and work in London. Mr. Aswat's name shows up in cell phone records, yet A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "The Americans are obviously very interested in this arrest in Zambia and we are happy for them to take precedence. The man in custody there is not our priority at the moment." (A man alleged to be involved in the bombing and he's not a priority? A man who's hanging out with known terrorists can come and go outta London? )

Or how about The New Criminologist.

Given the history of government "False Flag" operations, your previous belief that bombings are the actions of terrorists and not at all a possible action of a sovereign government is charmingly innocent. Glad I'm able to enlighten you that 'things are always as you are told by leadership'. Next up, I'll let ya know that your parents, bosses and clients lie to ya....as a service to you.

Now, as you've admitted I'm right.....what are *YOU* gonna do about American Tax Dollars going to various terrorists? Because the data shows, when American Tax Payers stop paying terrorists, the terrorists then start attacking American Taxpayers. Because you've been dodging that question.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:56 AM on October 8, 2005


Could I also respectively call "cow-poop" on those links as well? The British government might occasionally do some monumentally stupid shit but blowing up innocent civilians with car bombs is not one of them.

We have the RAF for that thanks.
posted by longbaugh at 8:39 AM PST on October 7 [!]


You could. But the reality is your position that "blowing up innocent civilians" is in the past of the British....and as such, to think it can't be happening now is wishful thinking. I'd *LIKE* it to be the case, just like you. But I'm a realist who looks to the revealed past and therefore is unwilling to say "nope" but to say "should assume they would and be pleased if not".

Sites like GNN, PrisonPlanet, ICC or even judicial-biz (shudder) are vocal about their agenda....wear it on their sleeve even. But they provide the service of "something is going on here" and to condemn the idea just because you don't like the idea they are fronting doesn't mean there isn't rotting meat to draw their buzzing interest.

Look into the 7/7-Aswat tie. Look into the IRA past. Then....start to look at the history of what Governments do WRT false flag operations. (or any of the other statements VS reality issues you wish to choose) Go read Smedley Butler too.

Then when a political leader starts talking ask yourself "should the statements being made be right"? This whole discussion is nothing more than one group taking a political leader at their word, and another group who don't.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:12 AM on October 8, 2005


My friend: Tens of thousands of completely innocent people have been massacred by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists over the past 20-odd years. You equate this with the vaguest of unproven British government links to one person? I have no idea what your links mean. They're a hodgepodge of innuendo and allegations. I do know what I see on the news every day. I don't even know what I'm arguing with you anymore. Believe in whatever reality and equivalence you like.
posted by loquax at 11:22 AM on October 8, 2005


Tens of thousands of completely innocent people have been massacred by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists over the past 20-odd years.

Really? Wow. Well, the US of A had better get right on saving the world. Guess that means that exactly ZERO of the events pointed to by governments as the actions of terrorists are actually government-backed operations. No matter if the past shows different, the NOW is all cleaned up. What would be interesting to know is the reason why each of the acts of violence to the "Tens of thousands of completely innocent people" happened. Perhaps you can provide all that data so people can decide if the actions are "due to Islamic fundamentalism" VS they happen to be in the set of "Islamic fundamentalist". Understanding the difference is important, so I look forward to all the data you've used to come to your learned opinion.

I have no idea what your links mean. They're a hodgepodge of innuendo and allegations.

Really? What would it take for you to 'believe'? Tell ya what, why don't you go over to Iraq and let us know, via reporting on the street that all is exactly as being reported to the citizens.

I do know what I see on the news every day.

And its so cute you are believing what's being said by political leaders in the news.


BTW, have you demanded of your political leaders to actually PAY for this policing? Because it is obvious the US Government doesn't have sufficient tax funding to pay for the war. perhaps you can add that to the letter you are drafting to your elected officials about using tax payer money to fund terrorists and making sure the ones who are funded keep being funded so they don't turn on the taxpayer.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:07 PM on October 8, 2005


rough ashlar - the websites you linked to deal in guesswork. Aswat may once have been a British Intelligence asset (based on John Loftus' 2nd hand testimony), that doesn't automatically follow that he is one now or ever has been. British Intelligence (SIS and Special Branch) have certainly worked hand in hand with protestant terrorists in N.I. but other than unofficial contact with individual representatives from SIS (i.e. Michael Oatley) I don't believe there to be a direct connection to IRA terrorism. I have read Smedley Butler (he's been featured on MeFi several times). I think you misunderstand me : I don't doubt that British Intelligence in the past has been a part of some extremely suspect activities (as in working with UDA terrorists in N.I. as above) but the sort of crap that annoys me is the recent allegations about SAS men driving a car bomb around Basra. It is ridiculous speculation that could only come from the mouths of those bereft of a clue, I have a few friends who work in this sort of job and there is no chance that it would happen. Nobody would be stupid enough to sign off on it and any study of conspiracy would show you that it would be impossible to conceal.

On preview - kinda what loquax said

-ish.
posted by longbaugh at 12:07 PM on October 8, 2005


the websites you linked to deal in guesswork

New criminologist and The Times deal in guesswork?

Please expand on your position.

I have a few friends who work in this sort of job and there is no chance that it would happen.

I see. So based on a few honest people you know, EVERYONE at the organization is honest.

Wonder if Ken Lay will use that logic WRT Enron.

about SAS men driving a car bomb around Basra.

There were claims about torture in the Operation Iraqi Liberation being passed about long before the hearing in Congress. One citizen alleged some 6 months ago that the US Military put a car bomb in his car.....not that this is a reality. But naked Iraqi stacking claims were stated as 'not reality' too at one point.

Given history and human nature....you willing to really say "no way no how"?

Nobody would be stupid enough to sign off on it and any study of conspiracy would show you that it would be impossible to conceal.

Gee, you want a PAPER trail?

Lets see, you claim there's a bunch of honest people. Some of them are honestly in the job of looking at paper trails. If the dishonest don't leave a paper trail, how can the honest people who's honest job is looking for honest actions gonna find em?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:43 PM on October 8, 2005


What would be interesting to know is the reason why each of the acts of violence to the "Tens of thousands of completely innocent people" happened.

Quite simple. Religious fundamentalists desire control and power in order to institute a totalitarian regime composing of the entire Muslim world, to start, then expanding to encompass the greatest extent of the previous caliphates, and ultimately the world. This is not a secret, or fantasy, it is their constantly stated desire, just like the communists or Hitler dreamt about world domination.

VS they happen to be in the set of "Islamic fundamentalist"

I honestly don't understand the distinction you're making.


Really? What would it take for you to 'believe'?


Evidence of motives, capabilities and opportunity. Not conjecture and hypothesis.

And its so cute you are believing what's being said by political leaders in the news.

I'm not talking about political leaders, I'm talking about the corpses in Iraq caused by Zarqawi and his pals, not mention the victims of both Bali bombings, the train attacks in Spain, the subway attacks in London, the various embassies destroyed over the years, the Beslan massacre, and the New York attacks. These are the acts of unaccountable agents, representing only themselves and their personal, selfish motivations. The British government, or the American government, acts not in the personal interest of Tony Blair's or George Bush's kingdom, they act as the duly elected representatives of the populations that they serve. If they make mistakes, they are accountable. If they commit crimes, they will be prosecuted. If you can prove to me that either government has directly sponsored terrorist actions designed to attack, kill and maim as many innocent bystanders as possible with no other goal other than advancement of personal agendas, I will lead the charge calling for their arrest and trial. Until then, there is no equivalence between the actions of the murderers in Iraq and the governments of liberal democracies.

BTW, have you demanded of your political leaders to actually PAY for this policing?


My political leaders have nothing to do with what we're talking about, and have chosen to sit out this effort, to my great shame.
posted by loquax at 1:20 PM on October 8, 2005


If you can prove to me that either government has directly sponsored terrorist actions designed to attack, kill and maim as many innocent bystanders as possible with no other goal other than advancement of personal agendas, I will lead the charge calling for their arrest and trial. Until then, there is no equivalence between the actions of the murderers in Iraq and the governments of liberal democracies.

Fallujah alone fits that bill, and all the other destruction we've wrought in Iraq. Just because our government did them does not mean they're not acts of terrorism, with many if not most of the same goals as other terrorists have.
posted by amberglow at 1:32 PM on October 8, 2005




Amberglow: In your opinion, why did the US/Allied governments choose to attack Fallujah?
posted by loquax at 1:38 PM on October 8, 2005


They said it was full of insurgents. I think they wanted to scare other Iraqis with the complete destruction of an entire city. They failed.

I think Cole has it right:
The scale of this human tragedy-- the dispossession and displacement of 300,000 persons-- is hard to imagine. ... While there were undeniably bad characters in the city, most residents had done nothing wrong and did not deserve to be made object lessons--which was the point Rumsfeld was making with this assault. He hoped to convince Ramadi and Mosul to fall quiet lest the same thing happen to them. He failed, since the second Fallujah campaign threw the Sunni Arab heartland into much more chaos than ever before. People forget how quiet Mosul had been. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:45 PM on October 8, 2005


rough ashlar - nothing happens in the military without a paper trail - ask anyone who's served. Within the Intelligence establishment it's exactly the same - it's not public, but it's there. Again - nobody would sign off on the action. Who would benefit? As far as the events in Abu Ghraib, Camp X-Ray etc - these are true, and the paper trail exists. See what I mean? Even if there were no actual physical evidence of wrongdoing it would be discovered. An actual secret is very difficult to keep; the more people who know about it, the more likely it is that someone will open their mouth about it.

I am not certain what Ken Lay has to do with anything I have mentioned. He's hardly in the same situation so I think you're maybe just putting that in to criticise an argument I am not making. Yes, I know a few people and that's hardly representative but I would be stunned to an unimaginable degree to discover the British government acting against it's own interests in Iraq.

As far as my "guesswork" comment is concerned - I already stated in a previous post about how reports of Aswat being a British intel asset are 2nd hand reports from an ex-Justice Department employee who is now out of the loop. The New Criminologist article you link to indicates that he may have had contact with SIS 6 years ago in support of Muslim rights in Kosovo, which may or may not be true. The whole article is based on the testimony of one individual whose record is not exactly stunning (look up Randy Vorick). You also mentioned false flag operations - how about stating that an enemy of yours works for you so that he is no longer trusted by his former compatriots? It's a moot point since Aswat will be in British custody soon and will no doubt be prosecuted should he turn out to have played a part in the subway bombings.

You are certainly welcome to believe that British and American secret agents are running around blowing up Iraqi civilians but I'm afraid that there is no evidence for this, or at least none that can be taken without an extremely large pinch of salt. I will have to side with loquax yet again and agree that you are barking up the wrong tree.

Fallujah was about proving a point - the US military wanted to show that it could avenge the two contractors who were tortured and maimed in the public eye. No way could the US back down from that. It was in my mind a fucking disaster, but then that is no big surprise. You don't see heart surgeons using chainsaws and the sooner the US military works this one out the better.
posted by longbaugh at 2:53 PM on October 8, 2005


Amberglow: Thanks for the response. I disagree, but it's probably a more fundamental disagreement than we can hash out here.

longbaugh: You said it far better than I did.
posted by loquax at 2:59 PM on October 8, 2005


Quite simple.

So you lack data. Other than what you have in your head.

Can I open up your head and try to extract it? How about putting electic wires on your body, so you'll share your data?

I will lead the charge calling for their arrest and trial

I've heard claims like this in the past...something about WMD and impeaching Bush. Said poster turned out to be a coward.

Until then, there is no equivalence between the actions of the murderers in Iraq and the governments of liberal democracies.

Good thing for your position America is a Republic.

My political leaders have nothing to do with what we're talking about,

Geee, for someone who has alot of talk on this matter, why arn't ya writing your political leaders to get involved if you see it all as such a big threat?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:50 PM on October 8, 2005


rough ashlar - nothing happens in the military without a paper trail - ask anyone who's served.

Really? Honest?

Then please explain how CBS News quoted Donald Rumsfeld as saying, "according to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."

Where's that paper trail you have so much faith in?

Looks like Mr. Rumsfeld claims a different reality than you are claiming exists.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:00 PM on October 8, 2005


So you lack data

Data? Look at the fundamentalist's own statements, they don't hide their intentions to create an Islamic Caliphate that encompasses the globe so that the will of Allah can be served. To that end, all that stand in the way are heathen and must die or be converted. Are we arguing about the same thing here?

Good thing for your position America is a Republic.

Sorry, I don't understand this comment. The United States, the United Kingdom and their allies in Iraq are representative liberal democracies, regardless of their their particular style of government. They are accountable to the wish of their people. The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere are accountable to no one, and represent no one beyond their leaders. That is the distinction I was trying to make between them.

why arn't ya writing your political leaders to get involved if you see it all as such a big threat?

What makes you think I restrict my activities to Metafilter?
posted by loquax at 4:06 PM on October 8, 2005


Look at the fundamentalist's own statements,

"Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!"

Like that statement?

Yet:
In May-August 2001, at least six hijackers (Atta, al-Shehhi, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Jarrah, al-Mihdhar, and Hanjour) flew to Las Vegas, and while there drank alcohol, gambled, went to strip clubs and enjoyed lap dances (on a stopover in Minneapolis on the way back from Vegas to Baltimore, Hanjour and al-Hazmi could have possibly met Moussaoui, who had started flight training in Minneapolis the day before). Former Senator Bob Graham asserts that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhdar frequented strip clubs in San Diego. Other stories in the media report them drinking alcohol, trying to sleep with prostitutes, renting porn, and watching strip shows the night before the attacks. 9/11 mastermind KSM is also said to have lived a lavish, partying lifestyle.


For someone so concerned about 'Islamic Fundamentalists' and their 'statements' Word != action it would seem. Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place eh?

America is a Republic.
Sorry, I don't understand this comment.


"And to the Republic for which it stands"
Noun

* S: (n) United States, United States of America, America, the States, US, U.S., USA, U.S.A. (North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776)

But perhaps The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. will help un-confuse you.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:34 PM on October 8, 2005


Sorry, at this point I think we're talking about two totally different things. I don't understand how your comments relate to what I've said, so I think I have to withdraw - good talking to you and have a good night.
posted by loquax at 4:40 PM on October 8, 2005


rough ashlar - what has spending got to do with chain of command? Again, you are arguing with me about a statement I haven't made. Even if orders are sealed they are still written down. The Pentagon's inability to correctly budget is a wholly separate matter (in fact it was something I was considering an FPP about).
posted by longbaugh at 2:26 AM on October 9, 2005


Again, you are arguing with me about a statement I haven't made.

Your statement was "nothing happens in the military without a paper trail". Accounting and dispensing of money is a something that happens, no?

Yet multi-billions is 'unaccounted for'. Either the accountants are not competent, or there have been actions taken that lack paperwork.

Supports the idea that paperwork isn't behind actions.

Don't accept that data? How about Iran Contra? Strains of Fawn Hall's seminal declaration that `sometimes you have to go above the written law.' (Or below the part of the law/rules about paperwork eh? How about bombing others?)

Other quotes:
Russo "was very uncomfortable with no paperwork to support the mission request..'"

On Jan. 29, 1986, despite the lack of proper orders, the first 1,000 U.S. TOWs were loaded onto pallets at Redstone Arsenal and transferred to the air field at Anniston, Ala.

Again, from past evidence, looks like actions happen without the paperwork being proper.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:00 AM on October 9, 2005


rough ashlar - The Pentagon's inability to budget properly is completely separate from a chain of command decision to secretly send soldiers to perform acts of terrorism or for an Intelligence officer to make contact with an enemy group.

The Iran-Contra example you are giving is one that is in the public eye. There is a reason for that. Somewhere, sometime, someone opened their mouth up and said "Yes, this is what happened" which kind of proves my point about secrets not staying that way. Iran-Contra was a covert operation that was supposed to be invisible to the public eye, and yet now it's extremely well known. Documentation has been made available from multiple sources, those involved had to stand up in front of congress and admit to their parts etc. The inevitable wiki link has the cover of Time magazine with North's famous statement on it. All I am saying is that you can't hide a covert operation and your example bears out my statement.

"...and when the bag was opened, the birds began to sing..."
posted by longbaugh at 1:40 AM on October 10, 2005


The Pentagon's inability to budget properly is completely separate from a chain of command decision to secretly send soldiers to perform acts of terrorism or for an Intelligence officer to make contact with an enemy group.

Huh. You were making claims about paperwork.
I just showed trillions of reasons why a paperwork claim is bogus.

Iran-Contra was a covert operation that was supposed to be invisible

And....if it had stayed that way, it would have made everything all OK eh? Kinda like Abu Graib....its all ok, so long as the public doesn't know?

All I am saying is that you can't hide a covert operation

Guess then if there *IS* a civilan bombing campaign going on, we'll all find out later eh?

That is just SO comforting to know.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2005


1: I never mentioned budgets. You did. Paperwork for orders is different from the Pentagon and Iraqi council pissing money away without an audit trail.

2: It wouldn't have been okay, no. But we found out about it and there was a paper trail which was made public. Try reading my earlier posts. Do you think I have attempted to defend Abu Ghraib?

3: Probably. Nobody ever said it was nice, just that you couldn't hide it. If it's true it will come out. My guess is that it hasn't happened.

What are you arguing with me about exactly? We're on the same side, I just happen to believe that to consider myself as being part of the "reality based community" means I have to disregard shit reasoning from both sides. I believe in actual evidence rather than hearsay, guesswork or inference. Apologies if it seems like I am trying to argue with you, it just seems that I have a higher standard for proof than yourself. That's not a statement designed to bait you, just an observation.
posted by longbaugh at 11:00 AM on October 10, 2005


« Older Bruce Sterling's "We See Things Differently   |   Al-Qaeda, Meet al-Salsa Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post