Islam is the problem. Sorry, politically-correct-bed-wetting liberals. Wherever there is a terror plot or attack, wherever the asshole are from, ISLAM is the reason they do it.

This is just a fact. To downplay or ignore this is just playing politics.

They come for Guyana, Albania, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi, need I go on?

What do the diaper-wearers REALLY think is going on here? All FOX news hyperbole?

The thing is, it doesn't matter who you are, if you say ANYTHING even remotely postive about Prs. Bush you are written off as a "Shill for Bush".  If you say anything positive about the war, you are a "shill for Bush"... in fact, if you say ANYTHING positive about the US, you are a "Shill for Bush".

On the other hand, if you say, "I support the Troops" before the "But", then nothing is negative, vile or evil enough against the US... anything goes.

 

Ted:

On the other hand, if you say, "I support the Troops" before the "But", then nothing is negative, vile or evil enough against the US... anything goes.

You're absolutely right: "I support the troops" has become the new mantra for just any old policy statement, domestic or foreign. My favorite is "I support the troops, so I think they should come home as soon as possible -- what better way to support the troops than to bring them out of danger?" And don't forget, "I support the troops so we should not give them the dollars, money, or equipment they need." That takes some perverse logic, I tell you what.

Is that like in "Talladega Nights", where Ricky Bobby felt he could say anything he wanted as long as he started the sentence with "With all due respect..."?

Is that like in "Talladega Nights", where Ricky Bobby felt he could say anything he wanted as long as he started the sentence with "With all due respect..."?

Or when a southern lady starts a sentence with "Bless your heart..........."

But does "supporting the troops" mean that we're seeing an increased sense of urgency regarding the reason they're over there: ostensibly to fight terrorism on their shores rather than on our own?

Let me check the Magic 8-Ball: signs point to no.

We are seeing an increased sense of urgency regarding the reasons from where it counts most... the troops.

i'm guessing yall prefer to ignore this because it's like dna in that it irrefutably identifies those responsible for propogating such an outrageous prevarication.

deny it however it serves you best; in fact, we're no safer today than we were 6 years ago. blame it on the liberals, blame it on diversity, blame it on the media or the phases of the moon but it's really a consequence of 6 years of incredible misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance.

here's a lil more dna: in october 2004, ron suskind reported a conversation he'd had with the inexorable "unamed administration official" (by which he prolly meant karl rove but..) during which he was informed "guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' (people who) 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors.... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

i'm actively working for the defeat of those who vainly and arrogantly consider themselves history's actors--disgustingly corrupt wanna-be emperors so determined to create their own reality they willingly, blithely sacrifice lives of american troops.

those who empowered people like rumsfeld and left him in power even after hearing him wondering aloud on september 15, 2001 whether we shouldn't "do iraq first" since afghanistan had so little in the way of newsworthy targets.

in other words, the men who squat behind the man who works the soft machine.

Quite easily, believe it or not. The key to terror isn't what we do, it is what we WON'T do. They balance their violence carefully to ensure that it is just enough so any overreaction will receive negative play in the world. Sadly, we give a damn.

Look at Israel. Hezbollah won their recent little tiff if Lebanon. The world looked at the ongoing bloodbath and said "All that over three guys"? Granted, the world is generally ignorant of the constant harrowing crap Israel has to put up with, but then the terrorist groups count on that, too. What did they do? Pulled out defeated.

The way we combat that is by devaluing their ability to judge our reaction. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we won't invade Pakistan to catch bin Laden. They know that we won't risk the ire of other states by using nuclear weapons.

Look at Fallujah. We decide to get tough, we start cleaning the place out, it endangers talks elsewhere, we drag our shredded soldiers away. They knew we would, and they know next week we'll do it again. Had we leveled the city from 30k feet, they would have been taken aback and the next city might not have been so welcoming to the insurgency.

Terrorist groups are a loose collection of bad people, working under the tolerance of slightly less bad people, in communities full of ordinary people. If those other people knew with certainty that terrorism will provoke their doom, they'd hand terrorists over by the truckload. The day that world leaders say "Oh God, they might attack the US, and you know we are really screwed then", THEN we'll start winning the war on terror.

We have to poison their soil, and the only way to do that is by making sure that any soil that welcomes them is burned black and unfit for habitation. Harsh? Yep, but such wars are bloody, and over quickly. Fewer of our soldiers at risk, and their scars serving as a lesson for the future.

Basing your wars on public opinion only makes terrorism bloom, because that's their playing field.

i shoulda elaborated.

terror is, as she points out, a tactic (one could also argue warfare is itself institutionalized or formalized terrorism).

as a slogan, a mission or an objective, a war on terrorists or war on terrorism woulda at least made sense at a cost of not being nearly as impactful.

what shoulda been conducted was a war on afghanistan or a war on the taliban and al quaeda.

it woulda made harboring a terrorist like posada less of an issue, if nothing else, no?

The real test would have been Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Our decision not to treat Pakistan like the friends of Al Qaeda they were has gutted our efforts around the world.

The real test would have been Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Our decision not to treat Pakistan like the friends of Al Qaeda they were has gutted our efforts around the world.

Did you read today how al Qaeda and some Libyan terror group based in Pakistan are joining forces? Hmmm... guess you were right.

The problem as I see it is there has been no distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Iraq is now a hotbed of terrorist activity because we have given them an easy target. They can now kill Americans on a daily basis. It has been proven that any ties that Iraq had in terrorism were at worst turning a blind eye.

Terrorist groups are a loose collection of bad people, working under the tolerance of slightly less bad people, in communities full of ordinary people. If those other people knew with certainty that terrorism will provoke their doom, they'd hand terrorists over by the truckload. The day that world leaders say "Oh God, they might attack the US, and you know we are really screwed then", THEN we'll start winning the war on terror.

That is an incredibly salient, relevant quote that fully sums up the problems we have fighting terrorism. How can we fight an enemy that blends in perfectly with the populace? Have the populace turn on them. Easier said than done, but we can figure out how over the course of years.

If the West and forces of globalization can provide these people who harbor terrorists a glimpse or promise of a better life, then they will hopefully drop the terrorists like a bad habit.

Anyone that would argue we are not in danger from the radical Islamists is both dangerous and disconnected from reality. The sheer magnitude, the dispersion and the passion of those who are part of this movement demonstrate just how big a danger it presents to the United States and most non Moslem countries. The issue is not is the radical Islamic movement a danger but HOW WELL has Bush delta with this danger.

The invasion of Iraq was a mistake for several reasons. First, we invaded an Islamic country that was NOT in the forefront of the radical Islamic movement. We put it on the front burner and allowed radicals like al Qaeda to establish a foothold from which they can plan future attacks. We committed a large portion of our ground forces in a war that is not going well and has proven to be an effective source for the radicals to recruit more people that are willing to attack us in the future. We acted against the wishes of most of our allies and alienated people in most countries at a time when we need their cooperation more then ever to deal with the world wide Islamic Radicals. We did not eliminate the source of the radicals that planned 9/11 and the violence in Afghanistan is on the rise because we choose to invade Iraq. We have avoided diplomatic action to move toward a settlement of the Israeli/Palestine issue and appear far too biased toward Israel. We have enabled elections in Palestine where the people elected Hamas as their governing party. We enabled the people of Iraq to elect a government that is dominated by the Shea who are close to Iran and the enemy of our friends in Jordan and the oil rich Arab states such as Saudi Arabia. We helped a weak government in Lebanon free themselves of the Syrians and then allowed Israel to severely weaken that same government over the capture of two Israeli Soldiers.

Taken together our actions during the past 6 plus years have played into the hands of those that are our worst enemies in the Moslem World. The issue is not do we understand the struggle with radical Islamists is serious. The issue is the way Bush has delta with EVERY ASPECT of this dangerous enemy. He has weakened our position and played into the hands of our enemies. We are in FAR more danger today from the Radical Islamic Terrorists then in 2001. Only better intelligence and defense has enabled us to prevent another disastrous attack on the United States. It is not that we have reduced the danger. To the contrary, our actions have increased the danger of attacks in the future! The failure is not in understanding the severity of the danger but in how we have dealt with that danger!!!