When will they learn they can't "fight terror"?

[linazelle]

Police are combing subways in DC and NY. Alerts are up and money is being wasted chasing the shadows of terrorists.

There won't be any more bombings today. Or tomorrow, or next week--at least from the group responsible for today's tragedy.

We are not any safer, and if any one of us happens to be unlucky enough to board a train or plane when the next attack is planned, well, sweet dreams is all I can say.

Until they address the Saudis and bin Laden (instead of spending money on oil and defense weapons) and move beyond the "#3 man" we are pretty much part of a worldwide roulette game. The only question is, where will the gun be pointed next.

[ewagner]

1. Good post

This should be a war fought in the shadows. No against nations. Also, it's a war of ideologies or ideas, if you will. The only way to win a war against ideas is to prove that you have a better idea and we are doing NOTHING to prove that our ideas are better...in Iraq we're showing the ugliest side of our ideas...rampant capitalism without a humane component to it.

You're right...the focus has to be against the leaders and their ideas.

[amazona]

2. but you can fight terror

I don't understand the cult of helplessness. Of course you can fight terror. Remember Italy in the 1970s and early 80s? Now look at Italy today. If there is a will to do it, terrorists can be caught, arrested, and brought to certain justice. And the bombings, kidnappings, etc. can be brought to a dead halt.

Now clearly if someone attacks you, and your response is to go hit the other guy who didn't have anything to do with it, then terrorists see that they will not be brought to justice and indeed there is a double pay-off for their dirty deeds...so the terrorists will continue to plan other attacks.

This just means our law enforcement and our leaders are ineffectve failures. It does not mean that all leaders faced with terror become raving maniacal little Caligula's. It just means that Bush did.

Terror could be fought effectively, he just chose to fight it ineffectively instead -- more profit for Cheney, Halliburton, and the rest if we lose the war on terror.

But never assume the war couldn't have been won. Hold their feet to the fire for their very real failures in this matter.

[linazelle]

3. Your clarification is on point--when I say "fight terror" it's in

the way that BushCo approaches it. No planning and billions of wasted dollars on defense weapons. But you are right, if we do the things we need to do, we can minimize the risks. Unfortunately, in four years, Bush has done very little to assure that we are safer.

[Mandate My Ass]

4. They never intended to fight terror. They breed terror

Terror is good for Carlyle, for Bechtel, for Halliburton etc. and bad for humanity and human rights. Keeping people in fear allows them to rob us blind without repercussions. They need for us to believe they're fighting terror, they repeatedly say that that's their goal, but their actions tell a much different story.

[linazelle]

5. Exactly. They love it. "Bring it on." n/t

[GeekMonkey]

6. Terror is an emotion

Terrorism is a tactic

Claiming to be fighting 'Terror' is like claiming to be fighting 'Sadness'

Claiming to be fighting 'terrorism' is like claiming to be fighting 'siegeism'

Let's fight TERRORISTS instead, ok?
Starting with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove

[linazelle]

8. Outstanding points. I'll have to keep them in mind as I listen

to the onslaught of inevitable propoganda surrounding today's tragedy.

[Mr.Green93]

7. A leader need to come forward and propose

Peace Talks. The Paris peace talks ended the Viet Nam war. Peace talks now could bring accommodation with radical Islam.

[Tommymac]

9. Well, first we need a leader....

until then, nothing will be done.

[linazelle]

10. Bush nor Blair are capable...and the beleaguered UN is not

in any shape to step up to the plate. The world is in a sad state--and it's pretty much BushCo's fault.