After Afghanistan, other Terrorist Targets

Hopefully the U.S. and allies will do the job right this time: eradicate all major terrorist groups, their leaders and lieutenants and heads of state who support them. This means Saddam and probably Khadafy too. Get the Palestinians a homeland.

One at at time these terrorist organizations and the countries who support them can be brought to their knees, and the free world can make it clear that terrorism will be squashed wherever it crops up.


It is indeed time for a sort of New World Order...one without tolerance for terrorism. It is also time that the backward regimes which support and spawn terrorism, such as Iraq's leadership, be eliminated and replaced, preferably by a democratic form of government.


In several countries of the Middle East, the Muslim populace has long been tyrannized by the governments in power. When we send them food aid, the bastards in power often appropriate it and let only the military and government use it, while the populace for which it was intended continues to suffer and starve. Their people deserve better and the rest of the world deserves to be able to live without fears of state-sponsored or state-supported terrorism.

"When we send them food aid, the bastards in power often appropriate it and let only the military and government use it, while the populace for which it was intended continues to suffer and starve."


Very important point. The reason people starve is usually not because of overpopulation or underproduction. It is politics. When the worst was occuring, for example, in Bangladesh, the country was a net exporter of foodstuffs.


This is not to say that we should ignore other causes of hunger. But the political sphere is where the primary problem lies.

Interesting that you deem it appropriate to include getting Palestinians a homeland in your first paragraph where you talk about fighting terrorism. Everytime I look at a map of the middle east, I am struck by how big the Arab nations are and how small Israel is. Yet the only land suitable for a homeland happens to be the exact land Israel is on.


JG

As I have mentioned before on several occasions, my guess is that a homeland could be purchased for them from a neighboring country. Israel built up the desert; so too can the Palestinians. They claim they won't be satisfied unless a homeland includes Jerusalem; well, does that mean they would actually TURN DOWN a piece of land purchased with U.N. funds, from, say, Jordan or another neighboring country? Surely ANY homeland would be better than NO homeland...isn't it?


Why do you say that the only suitable land would be where Israel is today? The surrounding Arab/Islamic nations are indeed huge and that is exactly the point...surely there is a chunk of land that could be purchased for the Palestinians from one of these countries...is this an impossibility? And if so, why?

They're called Palestinians because their home was Palestine. Not some other Arab nation.


The United Sates used the same logic in taking the land away from the Indians. Push them to the west, so what, look how big the continent is and the only land that is suitable for their home happens to be the exact land that we want. The logic was flawed then and it's flawed now.


M is correct that getting the Palestinians a homeland will go a long way towards reducing international terrorism. Especially if the United States does what it can to insure the survival and well-being of that Palestinian state while still doing the same, as it has done, for Israel. The two goals need not be mutually contradictory.

The Palestinians won't be happy with any land other than Palestine. Well, they're not getting Palestine, if Palestine includes Jerusalem and Israel...that much is obvious. So they will have to settle for less...but the less fanatical and militant amongst them might see the wisdom in accepting another homeland if it was truly offered to them.

I think it is likely they would turn down a homeland located somewhere else. Additionally, I don't think solving the Palestinian problem will end the terrorist threat from the Middle East. (Although it would probably help some.) What concerns me is that the more I read about this conflict, the more I think it is a battle against western ideas and ideals. I think there is a big anti-American sentiment in the Middle East that will not go away if the Palestinians get a homeland. But many people in radical Islamic groups want Israel and America destroyed because the west poses a threat to their way of life. The truth is that we do pose a threat to those who want to live a backwards, middle-ages type existence like the Taliban. Most rational people don't want to live like that, so they reject the values that religious fundamentalists advocate. (As an aside, compare the secular or somewhat religious Israeli to some of the extreme right wing religious fundamentalists in Israel) To some extent, much of the conflict in the world is due to the clash between the rational and demonstrably good versus the irrational, which often has its roots in religion. On the homefront we have occasional terrorist attacks committed by environmental groups that worship nature as Druids did, irrationally, unscientifically, and as a religion. We have religious beliefs interfering with scientific research that could revolutionize medical care and progress. In our universities there is an ongoing attack on the values that created the universities in the first place. And in the Middle East, well, you have thousands of years of irrational fighting over things. So I think there will be many more groups that will target the west for destruction. The key will be to manage the risk two ways. First, we have to eliminate as many terrorists as possible and eliminate their support and funding. This will help keep terrorist attacks limited. Then we must win the war of reason. But that will be a harder war to win, because we aren't all that successful ourselves. We must defeat all enemies, foreign and domestic in this regard.

They might well turn down an offer of a homeland located somewhere else...but we won't know for sure until they are truly offered one. The more rational amongst them surely realize by now that they are never going to get Israel.


Yes there are many causes of conflict besides the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, but it is one major cause.


The War of Reason will be slow, as it always has been throughout human history. All the more reason why Logic should be taught in schools right alongside the three R's--it should be a required subject with as much emphasis given to it as Reading, Writing and Arithmetic.

"I think there is a big anti-American sentiment in the Middle East that will not go away if the Palestinians get a homeland."


What if the United States undertook protection of the Palestinian state, similar to the way we undertook the protection of Israel (while at the same time continuing and strengtheing our relationship with Israel)? Might not it be more difficult for anti-Americanism to flourish were we the Palestinians' protector and benefactor?


"much of the conflict in the world is due to the clash between the rational and demonstrably good versus the irrational"


What is demonstrably good to me or you may not be so to someone else. Ditto for the demonstrably irrational. Most situations are neither black nor white, but rather somewhere in between. The positing of absolutes worries me. This was the philosophy of Lenin and Mao. I would agree with the following statement: "Much of the conflict in the world is due to the clash between people believing that only their viewpoint is rational and that only their enemies's viewpoints are irrational and demonstrably bad, and other people who believe the same thing."

I can't get into the relativistic view of things. The fact that Bin Laden thinks he's rational doesn't make him so. A big difference is how we act on our beliefs. I personally believe many people are irrational and have views that make the world a worse place. But I don't advocate killing them off or go out and commit terrorist acts to destroy them. Of course, I advocate eliminating Bin Laden and his cohorts, but they attacked us and killed our people. The difference in how we act on our beliefs is in itself an example of rationality.

I think you both have good points, and there is one small thing I would like to point out.


There is a difference between beliefs being a matter of opinion and beliefs being rational or not, although the waters can get quite murky when religion enters the picture.


If one party believes in Islamic view of Allah and the other in a Christian view of God, that is at this point most likely a matter of opinion, and neither party is necessarily right.


If someone endorses a truly irrational belief, one which can rationally be disproven, it is no longer a matter of opinion. I don't put belief in God in this category because as far as I know nobody has either proven nor disproven the existence of God.


Some things many people believe are truly irrational, and this is where science and logic can help clarify things.


I think the biggest differences in the world today are not of people believing that their view is rational and trhe other is irrational, but that their view is right and the other view is werong. Well, sometimes it is...either way. However, logic is immutable, and mathematics is never wrong.


The world needs more education in logic and math...much more. Faulty reasoning processes and poor evaluation skills are perhaps the primary cause of many, if not most, of the world's problems today.

Good points, but. . .


Robert McNamara was the most logical person around. No one was better at mathematics. The problem was that the numbers being given to him were lies and also that, even if they weren't, it wouldn't have mattered. Garbage in, garbage out. So while I agree education in logic and math are important, it can sometimes be useless or even harmful without parallel education in history and ethics.

Oh M, stop with the new world order fascist dogma. We will be lucky to get out of Afghanistan in 10 years(like the Russians). Islam cannot be the new holocaust victim. The US has a real politik neccessity to go to war. Defining how the war is won, or seeking some sort of exit strategy should be part of the situation before one counter-attacks.


This is a very bad situation for the world economy, and a bad situation for the American public. We are being told that this struggle will have to last years. We are told that this isn't a war against Islam, yet people like you cry for an imperial occupation of ALL OF ISLAM.


I believe the President should define to the American public what will constitute victory.


When the bombing first happened, I wasn't sure that the Bush administration was staging a true military coup d'etat. The evidence suggests otherwise, but I wouldn't put it past Cheney and Rumsfeld.


Without some critical thinking over the next few months or years, a military dictatorship in the name of God and country could easily transpire.

"Oh M, stop with the new world order fascist dogma. We will be lucky to get out of Afghanistan in 10 years(like the Russians)."


I suggest that it is the Taliban and bin Laden which are more fascist in nature than either myself or the U.S. government.

Do you think the world should tolerate terrorism? I don't, and obviously most of the free world agrees. If you want to call a policy of intolerance towards terrorism "fascist," be my guest, but realize that this is a Ray Springfield definition, not a commonly accepted definition.


I would be happy to lay you 10-1 that the Taliban will be defeated in less than 10 years, and that we will have far greater and faster success, from a military perspective, in Afghanistan than did the Soviets 20 years ago. Care to wager?


"We are told that this isn't a war against Islam, yet people like you cry for an imperial occupation of ALL OF ISLAM."


Well Ray thanks for defining "people like me." Your statement is blatantly false because I DON'T call for an occupation of all of Islam...and neither do people like me.


"When the bombing first happened, I wasn't sure that the Bush administration was staging a true military coup d'etat. The evidence suggests otherwise, but I wouldn't put it past Cheney and Rumsfeld. Without some critical thinking over the next few months or years, a military dictatorship in the name of God and country could easily transpire."


First of all I seriously doubt that, but even if so, would it really be worse than the Taliban's military dictatorship?


Stupidity and emotionalism over logic exists all over the world, and it is a problem right here at home in the USA too, Ray. Think about it;-)

The Nazis, Japanese and Italians all used as their primary slogan "the new world order." If you can read, then you can see that I stated that the USA has just cause to go to war. The parameters of that war should be defined.


What is a terrorist? Certainly Al Queda qualifies. Your definition appears to be any Arab that believes the Israelis are unreasonable. Any rebel group that runs drugs? Or just the rebel groups that don't run drugs for the CIA? Any American citizen that questions the government? Anyone that doesn't agree with M?


The rest of the free world is not calling for military occupation of any Arab nation that you don't like.

"The Nazis, Japanese and Italians all used as their primary slogan 'the new world order.'"


So is this the reason you believe that my using a similar phrase with respect to worldwide intolerance of terrorism is "fascist dogma?" Can't you look at things based on their own merits, not based on some perceived loose apparent resemblance?


"What is a terrorist? Certainly Al Queda qualifies. Your definition appears to be any Arab that believes the Israelis are unreasonable."


That's NOT my definition, and I doubt that's what my definition might appear to be to anyone except RAY SPRINGFIELD. You are truly a bonehead if you think that's my definition.


"The rest of the free world is not calling for military occupation of any Arab nation that you don't like."


What is this statement intended to imply? I'm not calling for a military occupation of any Arab nation I don't happen to like, either; I merely asked if such would actually be worse than what Afghanistan has now, since you raised the possibility of such an occupation coming to pass.

I believe in Patrick Henry, Mr.M. You obviously don't. Better a an American dictatorship than another? You are a right wing radical, sir.


Don't call for invading Libya, Iraq,(or you may as well add Sudan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan) and try to say that you don't support military occupation of these countries. I believe the Middle-East is complex. If Bush followed your advise oil would be $50.00 a barrel, and the world economy would be shot.


I have deep respect for GHW Bush, and he wisely chose to leave Hussein in power to counter balance the Shiites. It won't do any good to try to reason with you. You already stated that you would not oppose military dictatorship in the USA.

Ray wrote:


"You already stated that you would not oppose military dictatorship in the USA."


I absolutely DID NOT write that, and what's more, I don't believe it either.


In addition to the above flat-out baldfaced lie, Ray, you have a penchant for twisting my words.


When you wondered if American action in Afghanistan just might be a prelude to an American military dictatorship there, I said I doubted that, and went on to hypothetically question whether it would actually be worse than the Taliban's dictatorship. This because the Taliban is clearly one of the most brutal, backward and repressive regimes in history. Do not misconstrue my meaning; I was merely posing the query to illustrate just how bad the Taliban really is. Likewise I don't think a tempporary American military dictatorship in Europe during WWII would have been worse than Hitler's military dictatorship...don't you see, I am drawing a comparison, not advocating an American military dictatorship.


As to Iraq and Libya and other countries which may sponsor terrorism, I think Bush and our allies are on the right track. This will no longer be tolerated, and rightly so. If that means these brutal rogue governments choose to continue siding with terrorism rather than human decency and mutual respect for others, especially innocent civilians, then they will indeed probably be attacked and invaded. And yes, I do believe the world would be a better place without the likes of Saddam Hussein and his cohorts and Muammar Khadafy. That doesn't mean I am advocating an attack on them regardless of what transpires...only if necessary. They are free to choose to stop supporting terrorism. And the free world is FED UP with terrorism at this point, as it rightly should be.


So there you have it, Ray. Please don't twist my words any more. Especially please don't lie about what I said, as in the quote of yours at the top of this page.

M said this......

Without some critical thinking over the next few months or years, a military dictatorship in the name of God and country could easily transpire."


First of all I seriously doubt that, but even if so, would it really be worse than the Taliban's military dictatorship?


The answer is yes, M, because this IS THE USA!!!!!!!

Take your disctatorship loving trash to the USSR..M....the trash bin of history.

I said that that critical thinking is necesarry to avoid military ditatoriship here in the USA. M stated that military dictatorship here would be better than dictatorship in Afghanistan. I vehemently disagree. The USA is the land of the free. A military dictatorship here would equate to NO FREEDOM anywhere in the world.


M obviously doesn't feel that way.


I support the war effort;however, the parameters of the war should be defined to the American people. If the American public permits the military (here in the USA) a free ride with no accountability, then this war will either end in holocaust(possibly nuclear, note the reaction in India), or worse in my view, the American people will surrender our freedom to the American military establishment.

This is what you wrote Ray:


"When the bombing first happened, I wasn't sure that the Bush administration was staging a true military coup d'etat. The evidence suggests otherwise, but I wouldn't put it past Cheney and Rumsfeld.


Without some critical thinking over the next few months or years, a military dictatorship in the name of God and country could easily transpire."


This was my response:


"First of all I seriously doubt that, but even if so, would it really be worse than the Taliban's military dictatorship?"


Ray: the context of your words here is not talking about a military dictatorship in the USA; you are talking about Afghanistan. If you meant the USA you should have specified it because any reader would have assumed you were still discussing Afghanistan, as I did. Thus I was hypothetically comparing the Taliban regime to the scenario of American miltary rule (probably temporary) in Afghanistan.


So this is a misunderstanding on both our parts...please realize it is due to the fact that you gave no indication you were changing subjects and had started talking about the USA instead of Afghanistan.


Finally, I DON'T love dictatorships or authoritarian regimes--I hate them. I am merely pointing out that some are worse than others, and that IMO the Taliban is one of the worst.


So this explains why we had such a difference on this...but it doesn't quite let you off the hook for twisting other words of mine.

Ray, you wrote:

"I said that that critical thinking is necesarry to avoid military ditatoriship here in the USA."


No, as I pointed out in my post below, you did not specify the USA. You MEANT the USA, but you had just been talking about AFGHANISTAN. So I thought you were still talking about Afghanistan, and I hypothetically questioned whether a US miltary dictatorship there would be worse than what they have now.


When you change who or what you are talking about, please let others know so they don't make the error of assuming you are still talking about the same person, country, policy, etc.

Ray wrote this:


"When the bombing first happened, I wasn't sure that the Bush administration was staging a true military coup d'etat. The evidence suggests otherwise, but I wouldn't put it past Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Without some critical thinking over the next few months or years, a military dictatorship in the name of God and country could easily transpire."


I responded:


"First of all I seriously doubt that, but even if so, would it really be worse than the Taliban's military dictatorship?"


Now it is clear that part of the confusion lay in the fact that Ray was talking about the USA here, though he left the reader thinking he was still talking about Afghanistan. BUT THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE PROBLEM. Even if he had specified this (which he didn't), my response WOULD STILL HAVE NOT BEEN WHAT HE CLAIMED. To wit:


Ray wrote: "You already stated that you would not oppose military dictatorship in the USA."


NOW RAY I defy you to show how my above expression of doubt that a hypothetical US military dictatorship would be worse than the Taliban IN ANY WAY means that I would not oppose such a military dictatorship. I DID NOT STATE THAT, PERIOD. Questioning something or comparing two things IS NOT THE SAME AS STATING ONE WOULD NOT OPPOSE SOMETHING, OR THAT ONE SUPPORTS SOMETHING. YOU FLAT-OUT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.


Learn to read accurately, man, and don't put words in others' mouths. This is similar to the way you misconstrued, and then misrepresented, what Dan Hanson said in the past. He ended up leaving these forums because of it. I won't leave, but I will correct you if I catch you misrepresenting my statements, and I don't appreciate it.


It is my guess that your highly emotional attachment to some of these ideas we are discussing causes you to jump to conclusions about others and about what they are saying. Try reading EXACTLY what is written without "reading into" it. If you think someone has certain political leanings, well you might be right or you might be wrong, but don't let that color what you read of theirs. Just read what is there.

Boy, M, you are one self indulgent right wing fanatic. Learn how to quit attacking people that simply ask the government(in particular George W.Bush, and Richard Cheney) to tell the public what they plan to do.

"Learn how to quit attacking people that simply ask the government(in particular George W.Bush, and Richard Cheney) to tell the public what they plan to do."


I didn't attack you for that; in fact, I didn't even address that point of yours. I attacked your misrepresention of what I wrote because it was so blatantly erroneous and misleading, and because you have a penchant for misrepresenting what I and others write. Perhaps this is due to your misinterpreting what is written; perhaps it is due to your emotions obscuring your analytical skills; or perhaps it is due to a desire to twist words and obfuscate matters for your own purposes.


Perhaps your inclination to appeal to emotion at the expense of the facts would make you a good propaganda writer--but I doubt it.

M, Learn to read what others say, besides learning to mean what you write. You stated that dictatorshop in AMerica was ok. You stated that it was more important to conquer the Taliban to maintain a free country here. That is what you said M. Grow up.

Ray Springfield wrote:


"M, Learn to read what others say, besides learning to mean what you write. You stated that dictatorshop in AMerica was ok. You stated that it was more important to conquer the Taliban to maintain a free country here. That is what you said M. Grow up."


I DID NOT state dictatorship in America was OK, or that it was more important to conquer the Taliban than to maintain a free country here. What's more, at this point you know it as the entire issue has been thoroughly clarified. You are now DELIBERATELY spreading FALSE information about me which is LIBEL.


If you can show one instance where I stated that dictatorship in America was OK, I will send you $1,000.00. If you cannot do so, you need to print a retraction.