It's a world war

[drdon326]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1079168639948&p=1006953079865


From Bali, Casablanca, and Manhattan to Moscow, New Delhi, and Madrid, the evidence is too vast, clear, and appalling to ignore: The world is at war.

Having been in the thick of this mayhem longer than others, Israel is routinely asked by states victimized by terrorism to help in a variety of aspects, from intelligence gathering and targeted killings to bomb detection and corpse identification. The victims are, of course, doing well to seek such assistance in Israel, and Israel is right in offering it. However, besides such technical aid there is a mental syndrome that frequently afflicts new terrorism targets, and which Israel can help combat: it's called denial.

The haste with which Spanish officials blamed Thursday's atrocities on an organization that insisted it did not perpetrate them, ETA, while stubbornly denying reports that the ones responsible for the Madrid Massacre are those who indeed soon assumed responsibility for it – al-Qaida – reflected a mental refusal to join the list of the fundamentalist scourge's victims.

snip

Spain and the rest of Europe must understand that, just like last century's threat to their future was fascism, this century it is the militant form of Islam, and that just like Nazism's in its time, the jihad's excuses for its mass-murders are not even worth a hearing. Europe must concede it is at war, and has no choice but to fight it until it is won.

The jihadis see Europe and America as a common enemy against which they hope to play divide and conquer. The longer Europe waits to join with America in common cause, the more the war will escalate and spread, including within Europe. The sooner Europe joins the fight, the sooner these massacres will end and the cause of freedom and human rights will prosper.


=================================================================

*THIS* is a great article.

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Glad to see it

I just wish more folks believed this.

[bpilgrim]

63. why am i not suprised

that you would be glad to see wwIII?

peace

[GabysPoppy]

65. Of course, that is NOT what he said

:shrug:

[bpilgrim]

66. "It's a world war" - "Glad to see it"

that's how it comes off, to me, anyways :shrug:

excuse me if that wasn't his intent but it fits his prior postings that i have seen.

peace

[Nostradammit]

2. From where I sit -

The threat of fascism is alive and well.

The haste with which Spanish officials blamed Thursday's atrocities on an organization that insisted it did not perpetrate them, ETA, while stubbornly denying reports that the ones responsible for the Madrid Massacre are those who indeed soon assumed responsibility for it ? al-Qaida ? reflected a desire to deflect criticism of their participation in the war in Iraq, which was wrong and counter to the wishes of the citizens of Spain.

Thanks for playing.

[bemildred]

6. Doesn't show the best grip on Spanish politics, to be sure. nt

[Lithos]

3. I think it's a big bogey man

Much like communism during the 1950's, the answer being given is too simple and patently ignores far greater problems which deal with failures at the local level.

[drdon326]

5. Perhaps...

but I noticed you failed to mention the rise of fascism
in the 1930's....where I believe the parallels of denial
are noticeable.

[number6]

55. I agree, it's a big bogey man

too simple and patently ignores far greater problems in the
world, lets look at what and whom has killed more people ...
hunger, war, pollution, natural disasters ..

[Djinn]

4. you're either with us or with the terrorists

mmm where else did I hear that?

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. astonishing millions, who until that moment had not realized that

A) they were terrorists or B) terrorism was respectable

[BowlingForPalestine]

34. DuctapeFatwa...

LOL....see my damned post below. This article had me rolling on the floor! I'm outta breathe here.

RFLMAO......................

[edzontar]

70. You heard from BUSH and his evil minions of course

Thank the gods the spanish voters are more intelligent than some of the folks here.

Via Spain!

[Darranar]

7. This is junk...

The jihadis see Europe and America as a common enemy against which they hope to play divide and conquer. The longer Europe waits to join with America in common cause, the more the war will escalate and spread, including within Europe. The sooner Europe joins the fight, the sooner these massacres will end and the cause of freedom and human rights will prosper.

This is classic neocon propaganda. The only way Europe is not participating in the "war on terrorism" is with its reluctance to back US imperialism in Iraq and elsewhere. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with that.

Spain and the rest of Europe must understand that, just like last century's threat to their future was fascism, this century it is the militant form of Islam, and that just like Nazism's in its time, the jihad's excuses for its mass-murders are not even worth a hearing. Europe must concede it is at war, and has no choice but to fight it until it is won.

This is pure hyberbole. How many innocent Muslims has the US killed in the past four years? Is that a declaration of war by the West? Are terrorism and warfare now permitted for the Arabs, because they, too, have been attacked? Isn't that what the Crusade war on terrorism is supposed to stop?

[ex_jew]

8. This is bunk - there is no war

You can't have a war without opposing armies. We have an army, but they have nothing but angry bearded men. There is no way that they can occupy our land, kill large numbers of us, or humble our armies, as in a real "war".

Terrorists are more like criminals than they are like soldiers. The idea of fighting them like we did in the past, with massive groups of well-equipped soldiers, accomplishes nothing. Armies tend to attack conventional targets, such as Iraq, which have nothing to do with stopping crime - in fact, it only makes it much, much worse, because it helps to recruit more criminals.

[PsychoDad]

11. Hey1

I'm an angry bearded man! :silly:

I agree with you, "Terrorists" (in this case, groups like Al Q.) are criminal organizations, not armies. They would be best treated and prosicuted as such.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Irregular troops

Have been part of war for centuries. The problem now is that because of technology (planes, trains, computers, high-tech bombs, etc.), they have the ability to make war anywhere on anyone.

Yes, it is a world war and the problem is too many nations aren't ready to fight it.

[ex_jew]

15. Irregular troops are PART of war

but they can't make war by themselves. Did you ever hear the phrase "boots on the ground" ? Only the ability to physically install your personnel on the enemy's territory and take control of all his institutions counts as winning a war. Making the odd train or building blow up from time to time is just criminal mischief.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. You want to fight by old rules

Doing exactly that can, over time, bring a nation to its knees economically. Terrorists could harm so many U.S. interests easily that they would force draconian measures to stop them. Even those might not work.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meti57b]

13. "They" do have an army and this is a "war". There are opposing armies.

The reason it appears that they do not, is because their weapons are actually superior to ours: people who are willing to commit suicide to kill others, because they believe there is certain afterlife of some sort. Our army and weaponry relies on the concept that most if not all adversaries would basically want to stay alive. What is causing confusion here, is the over-reliance on conventional labels, such as "army", "war", "weapons".

There is no need to carpet-bomb the United States. Half of our population is clustered into large metropolises, which depend on long supply lines to sustain them. Devastation can be achieved by wiping out hubs of the transportation systems, (airports, subways, freeway interchanges), hubs of electrical power delivery system, water supply, etc. Any or all of that would bring the economy crashing down in addition to life, itself being threatened though lack of essential services.

It's true, most of the world doesn't have any of these necessities of modern civilization, but we are accustomed to them and would consider it a wipe-out to lose any of it. And indeed, without essential services, there would be a threat to life.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. I must disagree with both you and the editors of the JPost

See post number 10, below.

[JohnLocke]

17. "You can't have a war without opposing armies."

Really, now?

[Djinn]

9. Guess that explains Netanyahu's

“It’s very good.” “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy .” comment.

Some people were watching in horror and thinking of the families of those dying in the WTC on 9/11, others were thinking how "good" it was for Israel

[Evil_Dewers]

18. others were thinking how "good" it was for Israel

Whatever happened to that story of the "Israeli art students" who were videotaping the 9/11 tragedy and celebrating?

[Evil_Dewers]

19. As credible as JPost

http://www.prisonplanet.com/110303fiveisraelis.html

Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001

Sunday Herald

Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA? Neil Mackay investigates.

THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis - and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.



http://www.khou.com/news/defenders/investigate/STORY.e91581de81.93.88.fa.80.345872c7.html

ATTACK OF THE ART STUDENTS
Another odd detail is the story about those bands of Israeli "art students" who suddenly appeared at government buildings, and even defense installations, in the wake of 9/11. On October 1, Houston's KHOU TV reported that "Federal Buildings could be in jeopardy, in Houston and nationally." The 11 News "Defenders" investigative team uncovered evidence of "a curious pattern of behavior" by groups of students claiming to be Israeli "artists." They showed up at the Houston headquarters of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the federal building, the federal prosecutor's office, loaded down with artwork for sale: but that, law enforcement sources said, appeared to be a cover for casing these buildings. In some cases, these "students" tried to enter secure areas, unobserved, and they even showed up at the homes of federal employees.

[BowlingForPalestine]

35. It was effectively shitcanned...

we can't make the allies uncomfy.

[Djinn]

53. did I even mention that!!!!!!!!!!

or are you going to try and deny the quote???

[Evil_Dewers]

20. Netenyahoo!!!

http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy .”

If Israel’s closest ally felt the collective pain of mass civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists, then Israel would have an unbreakable bond with the world’s only hyperpower and an effective free hand in dealing with the Palestinian terrorists who had been murdering its innocent civilians as the second intifada dragged on throughout 2001.

[Djinn]

54. it doesn't matter WHY he thought "it was good"

and I think yuo'll find that I included his "correction" when I posted and I seriously resent the veiled implication that I also propagate the other stupid stories that flew around after 9/11.

I don't care what the outcome for Israel is/was/could be all I know is that I was woken up from sleep in the middle of the night - watched the towers and threw up - other people with sat slack jawed in horror and others cried THEY are reasonable reactions shortly after such a horrific crime - finding any "good" in it was repulsive

[Jack Rabbit]

10. This is not a great article; it is pro-Bush horsepucky

Now, some Spaniards can be expected to blame themselves for their own victimization. If Spain had not joined the war on Iraq, they will say, it would not have been attacked. We cannot but implore Spain to avoid that kind of thinking; we've been through all that and can now confidently say that Spain was targeted not for anything it did or failed to do, but for what it is, namely a country that embraces and offers all the freedoms that Muslim fundamentalism detests.

There are two kinds of people who are pushing the idea that for Spain to get out of Iraq is a surrender to terrorists: (1) Bush and his followers; (2) Osama and his. They are both wrong.

There are two kinds of people pushing the idea that you're either with Bush or with the terrorists: (1) Bush and his followers; (2) Osama and his. They are both wrong.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Saddam had no close association with any terrorist organization, least of all al Qaida. He had nothing to offer to terrorist organizations; certainly not biochemical weapons he didn't have. Therefore, invading Iraq could do nothing to alleviate the problem of international terrorism.

Bush and his aides knew this. There is no way they could not have. The invasion of Iraq was a cynical use of international terrorism as a pretext for a colonial misadventure. Whether Aznar was a fool to believe Bush or a willing participant in a conspiracy to deceive the people of Spain and the world didn't matter to Spanish voters last Sunday. They were right to punish Aznar and his party for allowing Spain to be misused by the liar and colonialist Bush.

However, the if the invasion couldn't alleviate the problem of international terrorism, it could exacerbate it. And that it has. While we've been busy counting bodies in Iraq, we may have missed the fact that al Qaida has uncorked at least four major attacks since your favorite Frat Boy and mine announced the end of major hostilities in Iraq: two in Riyadh, one in Istanbul and the one last week in Madrid.

Now it is Osama rather than Bush who is using a false pretext for action. He doesn't care about Iraq. He is using the occupation of Iraq for his own purposes. He would be attacking western targets regardless.

The writer of this article is partly right: if the Europeans in general and Spaniards in particular were in denial about the nature of international terrorism, they would think that leaving Iraq would solve all their problems and be sadly mistaken.

However, there is no evidence that that is the case. On the contrary, France, which didn't support Bush's pointless war, is being just as security conscious right now as Spain and Britain. European leaders are calling for an emergency summit to discuss ways to deal with the threat of international terrorism.

What is different about this summit is that Bush is dealt out. Why shouldn't he be dealt out? He has proved that he has no real answers to terrorism, just an ability to use its existence to persuade some people, like Aznar and Blair, into joining him in an unjustified war. Bush has wasted two years in doing anything positive about terrorism. Why should Europeans seek to join America in common cause against terrorism, when American leadership has so badly failed?

For the same reasons, we Americans would do well do deal Bush out as well. We'll have the opportunity in November. Let's hope we, too, aren't hit by another attack from al Qaida in the meantime. Bush's failure to solve the problem the problem of terrorism is a danger to us as well.

Iraq was not Spain's fight. Zapatero is right to withdraw Spanish troops who should never have been sent to Iraq in the first place. They are now needed to defend Spanish citizens on Spanish soil.

The battle for American citizens must now be to remove the failed leadership and replace it with leadership that, we should hope, is worthy of the trust of the rest of world and capable of leading an international effort against terrorism.

[sushi]

26. Another great post!

I agree with you. Spain's PM-elect Zapatero is right. He said he will withdraw Spain's troops from Iraq unless the UN takes over. Why should anybody support Bush' illegal war?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Illegal war, yes, but more importantly a foolish one

I agree that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. No act of Congress, not even a formal declaration of war, could have made it otherwise. It was a preventive (not a pre-emptive) strike; there was nothing defensive about it. The United Nations didn't authorize the attack and the enabling resolution was withdrawn because it faced certain defeat. Consequently, the invasion was an act of aggression in violation of the UN charter, a treaty to which the United States is party. Therefore, invasion was in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land clause of Article 6 of the US Constitution. It's not going to happen, but Bush and Cheney should be impeached, they and their aides removed from office and then tried for war crimes before an international tribunal. We'll have to settle for defeating them in November.

However, even if the war were legal, that would not have made it right either morally or pragmatically. No matter how much Bush, Cheney and their friends (including those at the Jerusalem Post) try to spin it, invading Iraq could not have accomplished anything positive toward alleviating the problem of international terrorism. At best, it was a waste of time and resources. It was foolish.

The Spanish voter realized this and acted accordingly. They were right to do so.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

36. Well said.

I agree completely, Jack Rabbit.


A question for the Moderators - why is it acceptable to conflate Palestinians with the Nazis, when it is not acceptable to compare the Likudists to Nazis? Let's leave double standards to the Republicans.

[BowlingForPalestine]

38. Excellent question....

We might not like the answer though.

[Jack Rabbit]

44. It isn't

See the alert button down there. Try using it from time to time. Please use some good judgment in doing so.

That would help the moderators. I speak from experience.

[BowlingForPalestine]

47. Great post JackRabbit.

:toast:

[number6]

56. pro-Bush horsepucky, yes

it is ....;)

[sushi]

22. Israel,

or I should say this newspaper, wants all of Europe, the whole world, to join this war. How? The enemies live everywhere, including in the US. Even after Osama bin Laden has been captured there will still be terrorism.

What the prosperous nations of the world should do is address poverty and disease and education of the poor countries, which will reduce, or hopefully stop, the people supporting terrorists. Instead, led by the strongest one, the coalition invades weak countries with their powerful weapons, and alienates more people, some to the point of joining the enemy. I bet Israel's hawks would now like war on Iran, and Syria, etc.

I hear people asking "what do these people want?" Well, I think, for starters, they want the US to get its troops out of their lands. First occupied by the Europeans, and now by America. Put yourself in their place! And yes, the terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Thank you for that report from Utopia

However, spending every penny we have to improve the lot of the Third World won't stop fundamentalist Islamic terrorists who wish to convert all the world to Islam.

[Evil_Dewers]

25. Yeah, we should spend every penny we don't have to fund Israel's

military.

*grin*

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. We sure aren't spending every penny

We also fund a bunch of other things, including sending money to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

[sushi]

27. Sure, they want to convert us all

to Islam, but don't we also want to convert everybody to Christianity? What do you think the missionaries are doing in their countries? I also believe that improving their lot is cheaper than spending on military might!

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Not me

I am not looking to convert anyone.

And, for the record, improving their lot won't stop terrorism.

[sushi]

41. You're not

but US missionaries are hard at work "spreading the word" in Iraq right now. A bit much to do that in an overwhelmingly Muslim country! Read in GD - "Evangelicals flock into Iraq on a Mission of Faith," and "Handing out food is a perfect time to talk about Jesus Christ with nonbelievers."

There will be terrorism until the end of time, so no, improving their lot won't stop terrorism but will certainly reduce it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. They have every right to spread the word

I see Islamic mosques in the U.S. spreading the word of Islam. I see no difference.

Apparently the rule is the West is supposed to tolerate Islam but not the reverse? Nope.

[sushi]

48. I don't disagree

with people of all faiths trying to convert others. In fact I think the west allows the Muslims to build too many mosques while no churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. But I feel it's a bit different, and I feel a bit uncomfortable when it comes to Iraq, because Iraq was illegally invaded. I think missionaries should have waited until after the handover of sovereignty. Then they can work as teachers or aid workers, and talk about Jesus.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. But you seem to

They had no reason to wait. They are free to do as they choose.

[sushi]

52. I was reponding to

your post #24.

I think they should have waited. It would have been the decent thing to do. The whole occupation is illegal. The coalition shouldn't be there at all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. They are independent of the war

They are there to spread their religion.

[sushi]

29. Well, Muddle

What do you suggest we do? Use military might to solve this problem? Who shall we bomb? Where?

Watch Iraq deteriorating. Shall we forget about innocent civilians getting killed (after all, they're foreigners and not even Christians!) and bomb the whole country? Oops, can't do that because we want the oil. Shall we give up pretending that the war was to liberate (what a joke!), and just occupy it for good? Would you like to go live in Iraq when it becomes US territory? Or Afghanistan? Or Iran later - after the good guy USA has also invaded that country? Or Syria?

Actually, I enjoyed living in the ME - it's a very interesting place and I do like the desert (it's especially beautiful in the cool months), but first, we have to get rid of everybody, because they hate us even more now. What do you think?

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. A combination approach

First of all, it's time people in Europe and elsewhere woke up to the problem, but I doubt they will.

It should be a multi-faceted approach.

* First of all, we should stop supporting the screwed up Arab regimes like the Saudis and push for freedoms in the Arab world.
* Secondly, we should declare a clear definition of terror and make it clear that anyone who funds it, facilitates it or participates in it is a dead man/woman. And then we should stick to that decision.
* We should declare as enemies of the civilized world all terror groups from the RIRA (Real IRA) to the ETA to Hezbollah to Hamas to, well you get the idea.
* Next we should also work actively to push the UN to improve things around the world -- places like Africa for instance. We shouldn't wait till something like Haiti happens to intervene.

That's a start.

[sushi]

51. I don't agree

Your post sounds bossy. Exactly who does all this declaring and pushing?

Everybody is against terrorism, except for the extremists. People in Europe, and I think most of the world, just don't agree with the way Bush is handling it.

*Can't stop supporting Saudi Arabia because they have oil. How do you "push" for freedoms in the Arab world? By bullying? Invading them one by one? Look at Iraq!

*Yes, let's have a clear definition of terror!

...anyone who funds it, facilitates it or participates in it is a dead man/woman.

Including the many American supporters of the IRA?

*What do you mean by "civilized world?" I think EVERY country has civilized and uncivilized PEOPLE.

*I'm surprised you now want to give the UN a role. Didn't you say it's controlled by the Arabs?

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Everybody isn't against terror

North Korea isn't. Syria isn't. Iran isn't. The PA isn't. Saudi Arabia isn't.

And that's just for starters.

Who does all this declaring? The rest of the world, that's who. If the Islamic states don't wish to go along because they like how terror is used against Israel, then too bad. They will be left out of the decisions.

* We can absolutely stop supporting Saudi Arabia. They don't dare turn off the oil. THEY would suffer as well. And they aren't the only oil producer in the world.

We push for freedoms in the Arab world by cutting off trade, diplomatic relations, etc. We FORCE them through diplomatic means to give in. If they don't like it, again, too bad.

As for the IRA? Yes. Henceforth, absolutely. I don't know if you noticed, but you don't see a lot of pro-IRA commentary in America anymore. Part of it has to do with the accords and the splintering off of the RIRA, but part of it is 9-11 and Americans learned the hard way. So yes, whether it's RIRA or Hezbollah, ETA or Hamas, all are enemies of civilization. All must be squashed.

By civilized world, I mean nations that do not support terror. (See list above for starters of those who DO NOT belong.)

The Arabs/Muslims (two distinct groups with lots of crossover) have a very strong bloc in the UN. Assuming they are willing to stand up against terror, they deserve a role. If they do not, screw them.

[Darranar]

60. Nations that do not support terrorism?

They are quite few in number.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Times change

Rules change. Weapons change. Terror cannot be tolerated.

[sushi]

62. How come

Spain is not on your list of countries for terror?

"...you don't see a lot of pro-IRA commentary in America anymore. ...part of it is 9-11 and Americans learned the hard way."

It is sad that it took an attack by terrorists to open the eyes of the IRA supporters in America.

Earlier today I saw on TV a former US ambassador to Italy and Spain, and now a professor of law at Columbia, Richard Gardner, say in answer to the question whether Americans should pay attention to the polls in the Arab world and Europe showing how unpopular the US is, and what to do about them, that yes, Americans should definitely pay attention to them. "You cannot run an intelligent foreign policy unless we see ourselves as others see us. And if the reflection in the mirror is bad we don't break the mirror. We have to figure out how to communicate better or maybe we should change some of our policies."

I agree with him, but too many people (like you) want to push and force and squash.

"We push for freedom in the Arab world by cutting off trade, diplomatic relations, etc. We FORCE them through diplomatic means to give in. If they don't like it, again, too bad."

"The Arabs/Muslims...have a very strong bloc in the UN. Assuming they are willing to stand up against terror, they deserve a role. If they do not, screw them."

Sounds arrogant and aggressive and patronizing to me. What do you mean exactly? Do as we say or we invade your countries and bomb your people? You think they'll listen? How many Iraqs do you want! The world supports the war on terrorism but not the war in Iraq.

Btw, where is the clear definition of terror?

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. It was a asample, not a list

I don't think Spain is pro-terror. I am concerned that the new leadership will seek appeasement and that never works.

As for force, in case you hadn't noticed, I propose a multi-faceted plan to get freedom for Arab people. I don't see the * admin pushing anything like that for sure.

My plan might be arrogant. It sure is aggressive and it's only patronizing if they don't sign on.

Again, I don't want even one Iraq. I've opposed it from the very beginning. However, there are many ways to prod nations. Trade, travel, diplomacy all can be used.

My definition of terror is deliberately killing civilians to terrorize a nation into taking actions you want.

[bpilgrim]

69. well, what do you call bombing iraq?

"My definition of terror is deliberately killing civilians to terrorize a nation into taking actions you want."

peace

[bpilgrim]

64. we'd have to put ourselves on such a list... thats the sticking point

terrorism is already defined and pretty clear, the problem is we fall under it's definition too often to be articulated often enough for folks to actually understand it and then recognize it.

some will say we have to play dirty to win but i say that when we are playing dirty more often than not or as often than we have crossed a serious line that needs to be addressed and not ignored, or shouted down or pretended away.

violence only begets more.

why do we thing we live in an age of intitled ment were the long sorid tale of the history of wars and empire don't applt to us and that the majority of the friction and aggression is due to the timeless quet for resources and empire?

or more directly, muddle, why do you ignore these lessons from our history?

peace

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

71. Really?

*** Secondly, we should declare a clear definition of terror and make it clear that anyone who funds it, facilitates it or participates in it is a dead man/woman. And then we should stick to that decision. ***

***We should declare as enemies of the civilized world all terror groups from the RIRA (Real IRA) to the ETA to Hezbollah to Hamas to, well you get the idea***

Great idea, but seems just a little excessive, Muddle.

*** facilitates it or participates in it ***
- House of Saud/Bush
- Hamas, Al Aqsa et al.
- Everyone in the Israeli army.
- You and your kind who try to rationalise Israel's irrational crimes.

*** funds it ***
- House of Saud
- US taxpayers

Glad to see you've adopted a less unbalanced position in your posts! Or perhaps you didn't think it through.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

40. Thankyou

for that insightful post, Muddleoftheroad.
</sarcasm>

I take it you have a policy of ignoring what the terrorist scum actually state are their reasons in speeches and publications. Have Al Qaeda or Hamas ever claimed bombing people would convert them to Islam?

Al Qaeda has said many times that what they are "fighting" for is to "free palestine" and end "Western" influence and control over the Middle East. The main difference between the terrorists and the rest of the muslim world is that the terrorists are killers of innocents, like the IDF.

Sure, they'd like the world to convert to their faith. So do most people of any religion. Thats not what their attacks are about, though, and it is deceitful of you to pretend otherwise.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Their attacks

Trying to make sense out of your post. Here goes:

Al Qaeda added the concept of "freeing Palestine" as a marketing tool. They are scum. They aren't stupid. They are at war with the West. Not just in the Mideast, but worldwide. If they kick western influence out of the Mideast, they won't stop there.

They are zealots. Zealots that must be fought everywhere.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

57. Yes, well put.

I agree with everything you said in that post.

However, Israeli land-stealing, civilian-killing and UN-resolution-ignoring is what has transformed terror groups from angry old men into popular movements.

Your (and the author's) preferred tactics have been tried for fifty years with zero success. Negative success, actually. Well, they've made a few people rich and allowed others to express their sadism without fear of reprisal.

I do not think the rest of the world joining in will change that.

Thankyou for replying. From what I have read of your posts elsewhere, we agree on most things. Not this though.

[BowlingForPalestine]

33. This article is hilarious!

The author is too simplistic in his review! It's almost as if he's trying to recruit a new army of crusaders to fight the evil Islamic hordes. Yet he gives a superficial view as to why the "evil Islamic" hordes attack!

This article belongs in Hollywood, not in a political discussion board.


Fucking ridiculous.

[BowlingForPalestine]

37. It's a World War!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drdon! I have to hand it to you!

You probably didn't get the response you wanted...but hey!, 'tis a good story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LOL..........

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehe

[BowlingForPalestine]

39. It's the end of the war and we know it and I feel fine!

The lead post is too funny.

The hysteria without actually "thinking" about what the root causes are.

The simplicity of the lead post is almost....well...it's just damed too stupid.

[Stockholm]

45. You are absolutely right and wrong...

You are right - the article is just stupid - and wrong to wave it of as such.

The fear factor is what is driving this whole "war on terror" debacle forward. Portrayal of Muslims world over as foaming terrorists is (if you cut away all non-essential rhetoric) how flawed policy after flawed policy is sold to and bought by the general public.

It is so easy to underestimate the power of the wolf-argument.

That said I unfortunately believe that both the US and Europe will see more terrorist bombings by Al-Qaida wannabees.

[BowlingForPalestine]

46. I happen to agree.

And it will be somewhat of our own making.

We decided to take a bat to a beehive, we have to expect to get stung. We may eventually kill all the bees, but we're going to get hurt.

[rman]

67. There's no comparing Hitler with terrorism

Hitler was doing expansionist war and used his armies to quickly assimilated several nations.

Those Muslim nations that do have armies are not using them, so the opposition to the 'free west' consists primarily of "nothing but angry bearded men" (to quote a DU-er).

There is a war on in the sense that many people are losing their lives, homes, families as a result of organized large scale armed conflict. But it is an a-symmetric war, and by the looks of it, it isn't the terrorists who are expanding territory (or control if you will).

No matter how terrible terrorist attacks are, there is no comparing that to hordes of German soldiers swarming Europe. There certainly are not hordes of Muslim warriors swarming Europe, or anywhere else for that matter. The only Muslim army that was involved was no match for the military forces of the west, and except for invading one of its neighbors it was defending its homeland.

Many if not most Europeans do understand that provocations like the war in Iraq and the way in which Israel is handling the Palestinian conflict are a significant cause of terrorism, so they do not think it is a very good idea to also attack other Muslim nations, as regularly suggested by the US and Israel.

And then there's the uncomforting fact that due to these enemies who hate us for our freedoms, we have to give up much of those very same freedoms. Which does remind many Europeans of a certain period in their history.
All this should encourage Europe to look for other ways then armed conflict to resolve these tensions.

[thingfish]

72. This is a ridiculous article.

That makes me very suspicious.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.