Terrorism -- Pigeon-holing too easy

[Nono]

No need to listen to us lefties. Here are a few excerpts from a recent article by Paul W. Schroeder in The American Conservative, entitled "The War Bin Laden Wanted".

I invite anyone on this board to refute the points made in this article. By refutation I do not mean rabid rant, but rather reasoned rebuttal. Dubbyistas who take a crack at it will earn my renewed respect.

A United States that had responded to 911 in the manner Schroeder suggests would have had -- and continued to have -- the active support of many millions of people like me around the globe.

Instead we're wondering whether the US hasn't become just another banana republic.

(...) It is beyond doubt that ... for more than three years after 9/11 things have generally been going (bin Laden's) way, and that he could not have achieved this huge, improbable victory without indispensable American help. (...) Certainly 9/11 required strong action including military measures against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the natural, inevitable war psychology pervading the country had to be reckoned with. Yet ... these needs required actions like those taken initially more than words. As far as the public rhetoric and justification was concerned, nothing hindered the administration from conceiving and explaining the undertaking differently both to the American public and the world, especially the Arab-Muslim world that was Osama bin Laden’s real target. There is little point now in drafting the kind of address Bush should have delivered to Congress and the public. But one can readily imagine an American president (though not Bush) persuasively making the two cardinal points. First, the United States intended to pursue al-Qaeda with all the weapons at its command on grounds of legitimate self-defense and, while respecting the rights of other countries, would allow no one to interfere with these actions. It would not, however, dignify al-Qaeda’s atrocious crimes by calling them acts of war or give Osama bin Laden and his fellow criminals what they obviously wanted, a pretext to portray themselves as soldiers in a holy war against the United States. Instead, it would pursue them ruthlessly the way civilized nations had always pursued criminal organizations, as international outlaws and pirates, enemies of all governments and of civilization itself, and it expected other countries to co-operate in this struggle. (...) The "War on Terror" in America is basically a sham, a charade. While great, even ultimate sacrifices have been demanded of relatively few, chiefly those in the armed forces, for the overwhelming majority of Americans having the country at war has meant massive tax cuts, exhortations to spend and consume, enormous deficits, politics and government spending as usual - in short, no wartime sacrifice at all. The rest of the world knows this and sees the hypocrisy, if we do not. (...)

[Scribbler1]

Sigh, another good Conservative gone bad. A misguided traitor to his party's beliefs. Truly a sad thing to see.

I suspect the Bush groupies will see the man in that light, or more likely avoid this topic entirely.

I'd like to see a list of all the Republican Conservatives who are against Bush's actions. I'm thinking it would read like a Who's Who of genuine Conservatives who remember that the GOP today bears little resemblance to what it was.

Unlike the right-wingers of today, who have secessfully split this country down the middle, I believe Conservatives AND Liberals have some good, positive viewpoints. And the current crop of right-wingers is NOT representative of real, old-school Conservatives, IMO.

(...) It is beyond doubt that ... for more than three years after 9/11 things have generally been going (bin Laden's) way, and that he could not have achieved this huge, improbable victory without indispensable American help.

This comment denies reality. Bin Laden's Taliban government in basically destroyed, the Muslim Terrorists who still exist there not withstanding. The fact is the have had an election which would have been impossible had it been "bin Laden's way."

Since the Muslim Terrorists made it clear they are trying to destroy the West, the USA and its loyal allies went ahead and dealt with the Muslim Terrorist supporter Saddam and have made it clear that other countries may be dealt with militarily. Pakistan probably should be invaded, but their leader is on good terms with the USA, so it is a little more difficult.

Muslim Terrorists have been exposed as to what they are and currently they are focusing their efforts in Iraq where they are killed by the dozen. That is not a victory for Mohammad Bin Laden.

(...) Certainly 9/11 required strong action including military measures against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan,

Actually there are numerous Muslim Terrorists organizations and they are all equally dangerous to civilization.

..and the natural, inevitable war psychology pervading the country had to be reckoned with. Yet ... these needs required actions like those taken initially more than words. As far as the public rhetoric and justification was concerned, nothing hindered the administration from conceiving and explaining the undertaking differently both to the American public and the world, especially the Arab-Muslim world that was Osama bin Laden’s real target.

What a convoluted bunch of sentences. The fact is Bush pandered way too much to the Muslims with his "religion of peace" nonsense. We all know now that one of the primary duties of Islam is the Jihad.

There is little point now in drafting the kind of address Bush should have delivered to Congress and the public. But one can readily imagine an American president (though not Bush) persuasively making the two cardinal points. First, the United States intended to pursue al-Qaeda with all the weapons at its command on grounds of legitimate self-defense and, while respecting the rights of other countries, would allow no one to interfere with these actions. It would not, however, dignify al-Qaeda’s atrocious crimes by calling them acts of war or give Osama bin Laden and his fellow criminals what they obviously wanted, a pretext to portray themselves as soldiers in a holy war against the United States. Instead, it would pursue them ruthlessly the way civilized nations had always pursued criminal organizations, as international outlaws and pirates, enemies of all governments and of civilization itself, and it expected other countries to co-operate in this struggle.

Does the author of this idiocy realize that over half of the brainwashing ignorant Muslim masses think Bin Laden is a hero? Treating Mulsim Terrorists as "criminals" is ridiculous. Would this author think it would have been appropriate to treat Nazis or Communists as criminals? To ignore the Jihad is to ignore reality; which is insanity.

(...) The "War on Terror" in America is basically a sham, a charade. While great, even ultimate sacrifices have been demanded of relatively few, chiefly those in the armed forces, for the overwhelming majority of Americans having the country at war has meant massive tax cuts, exhortations to spend and consume, enormous deficits, politics and government spending as usual - in short, no wartime sacrifice at all. The rest of the world knows this and sees the hypocrisy, if we do not. (...)

The left and rest of the world who deny Muslim Terrorism or think that being nice to Muslim Terrorists and their nations will make them safe are hypocritical fools.

[Compugasm]

"Right-winger, genuine conservative.." Show me one person that can clearly define the ideology that any of those words represent. You have to stop thinking of things in "Blue and Red" which seemed to be what people were critisizing Bush for in the first place, with Good vs. Evil.

Just as you say Republicans are no longer the same, either are Democrats. For example, you define conservative as someone wishing to maintain the status quo. But most people who call themselves conservative do not wish to maintain the state of high taxes, deficit spending, expanding welfare.. Conservatives want change.

I purposely created a selective example of what change conservatives want. But that demonstrates how the term is manipulated to suit a purpose.

After reading those snippets, I'm not sure what you expect me to refute. Or, conclude that GWB should not be president because of it. Example:

improbable victory without indispensable American help.

Does he me administration screw-ups, or protesters in suburbia burning flags in front of Starbucks? Both undeniably help OBL. In the last snippet, he basically calls everyone spoiled brats. Do you disagree?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Compugasm, "Right-winger, genuine conservative.." Show me one person that can clearly define the ideology that any of those words represent. You have to stop thinking of things in "Blue and Red" which seemed to be what people were critisizing Bush for in the first place, with Good vs. Evil.

I'll be the first to admit it is a tough thing to define, but I was going for the simplest explanation possible. Right winger is, as you point out, simply a label, but one must have these things to differentiate the players. For the sake of discussion we MUST think in blue and red or no one will understand who we mean half of the time.
Liberal and Conservative are also labels, but if you try to explain the similarities and differences the two have you'll end up writing a book.

For me, I've been around long enough to see how the Conservative label as used to describe someone 30 years ago and someone under today's Bush banner has dramatically changed. The terms Right Wing and Left Wing have also similarly changed.

Just as you say Republicans are no longer the same, either are Democrats. For example, you define conservative as someone wishing to maintain the status quo. But most people who call themselves conservative do not wish to maintain the state of high taxes, deficit spending, expanding welfare.. Conservatives want change.

And that illustrates the imperfection of the labels. It's a "rose by any other name" situation. You have to call them SOMETHING to identify to others who you are talking about.
BTW, I don't recall actually "defining" a Conservative. If I did, I apologize.

After reading those snippets, I'm not sure what you expect me to refute. Or, conclude that GWB should not be president because of it. Example: improbable victory without indispensable American help. Does he me administration screw-ups, or protesters in suburbia burning flags in front of Starbucks? Both undeniably help OBL. In the last snippet, he basically calls everyone spoiled brats. Do you disagree?

I have my own way of looking at things and I honestly try very hard not to let the opinions of others color my perspective. As for spoiled brats, my opinion of ANYONE who blindly follows another's rhetoric and/or propaganda is considerably less charitable.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Snouter Bin Laden's Taliban government in basically destroyed

Three years after the West swept through the country the Taliban are "basically" destroyed? Jeez, not bad. Except that they're resurgent in the countryside.

... the Muslim Terrorist supporter Saddam ...

Are you going to trot out his payments to Palestinian families, or perhaps a pension or two for clapped-out bomb throwers? Or do you have a single shred of real evidence for his support?

Actually there are numerous Muslim Terrorists organizations and they are all equally dangerous to civilization.

There are now since Qaeda Central was scattered to the four winds (instead of being captured).

Does the author of this idiocy realize that over half of the brainwashing ignorant Muslim masses think Bin Laden is a hero?

Yeah, I think he does. Unlike you, he realizes that Osama is a far bigger hero now than before, and that the Iraq adventure has made Boy George the poster boy for the highly successful Islamist recruitment campaign. They're on a roll.

To ignore the Jihad is to ignore reality.

My goodness, I can see that you didn't actually read the article. He suggests no such thing.

Muslim Terrorists have been exposed as to what they are and currently they are focusing their efforts in Iraq where they are killed by the dozen. That is not a victory for Mohammad Bin Laden.

Yeah, yeah, that's what you said in Vietnam too.
"We's gettin' real good kill ratios here, boy!" And so it went on from one hopeless year to the next until the US public had had enough.
Kill is what the Islamic crazies want you to do to them. Killing them hasn't worked; and it won't. You're in deep shit in Iraq, and it's not getting any shallower.

Who was that guy on the tube the other day laughing in your face? Osama. You've done his bidding.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Comp Does he me administration screw-ups, or protesters in suburbia burning flags in front of Starbucks?

No, he means walking into Osama's trap and proving Osama's point about the US to millions of Mulsims who now regard him as the bee's knees and his surrogates in (post-Saddam) Iraq, who are spitting in your eye and fast sinking the whole Bushista project, as models of resistance.

On 12 September 2001 the US had the support of pretty near the entire world. Now it's mistrusted, ridiculed and -- yes -- hated in the four corners of the globe.
Nice work!

[Pooeypants]

There is no Al Qaeda global network, all of that is a fantasy. This fear of huge organised terrorism was an ideology which came from the Islamist movement which wanted to create Islamic states. When Afghanistan was invaded, just how Al Qaeda members were captured? Most were foriegn fighters trying to help the Taliban, captured by the Northern Alliance and sold to the US then shipped to Guantanamo bay. Remember all the talk about massive underground bases in Tora Bora? What did they find? Dust and rock. Oh yes, scary indeed.

[Scribbler1]

That network was probably an invention of our own government more than anything else. Regardless of motive, any wartime president MUST acknowledge the political aspects of a successful war. It looks a lot better to have the electorate believe we have defeated a HUGE global enemy than a loosely connected mob of fanatics.
OBL's group may have been fairly large before, but it is much bigger now. Our colleague seems to be working on emotion rather than fact. Facts our own government acknowledges.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Pooeypants Remember all the talk about massive underground bases in Tora Bora? What did they find? Dust and rock.

One interesting question is who "they" were. Not the US armed forces, apparently, but rather Afghans sent in by casualty-shy Americans. Man, would you like to go snooping around in Tora Bora? Neither would I. And neither did the Americans. And neither, by all accounts, did the Afghans. So what happened? Looks like OBL&Co. got away.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Nono, One interesting question is who "they" were. Not the US armed forces, apparently, but rather Afghans sent in by casualty-shy Americans. Man, would you like to go snooping around in Tora Bora? Neither would I. And neither did the Americans. And neither, by all accounts, did the Afghans. So what happened? Looks like OBL&Co. got away.

The American and British forces were there for months, scowering all possible locations. Admittedly, the GI's were sent two months after the invasion began. Donald Rumsfeld would have us believe that there were huge underground bases with lot's of amenities when in reality you had scat little caves with some reserved ammo.

[Nono]

True enough, but the key thing at the time was: Is Osama in there? (Not whether they had carpeted elevators and a wine cellar.) In fact, everybody seemed to be saying he was. But he got away.