Muslim Immigrants: Importing Terrorists?

[Chris Alger]

The following proposition is undeniable: most American adults believe that targeting civilians can be justified if it is necessary to "defend the U.S." While I agree that public sentiment turned against Vietnam and that killing civilians had something to do with this, once the spotlight was off the issue was largely forgotten. Moreover, the vast majority of Vietnamese civilians were killed in the South, yet most outrage was directed toward the bombing of the (relatively more protected) North, suggesting that the issue wasn't driven by civilians dying but by risks of a wider war that could engage other powers. It also remains an article of faith among large segments of "conservative" opinion that mass killing of civilians in Vietnam is a "myth" or "liberal lie," witness the traction generated by the Swift Boat nonsense.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. To take just one case, consider the generally cavalier attitude among Americans, particularly among war supporters, have toward civilian deaths in Iraq. It is so extreme, for example, that there exists virtually no political pressure on U.S. officials to even count the numbr of civilians the U.S. kills.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you feel about the bombing of Dresden? How about the firebombing of Tokyo?

I trust you feel that they were heinous acts perpetrated by American terrorists

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, The British firebombed Dresden

[Chris Alger]

The British and Americans both participated in the firebombing of Dresden. The USAAF Eighth Air Force was scheduled to carry out the first attacks, but was held back by weather, leaving the initial foray to RAF Lancasters. U.S. B-17s later followed up with additional bombing.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Or were they...given the circumstances...justifiable in your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were justifiable. We were responding to an agressive force. We weren't targeting civilians -- we were targeting the means of production that allowed them to continue their agression. Peace treaties were offered prior to the bombing in both cases. Today we have weapons that can better discriminate civilian targets, and we do everything possible to avoid them.

Terrorists target civilians as a first act of agression. There's a big difference.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
They were justifiable. We were responding to an agressive force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes. I'm certain that suicide bombers in Baghdad don't think that's whay they're doing.

[ QUOTE ]


We weren't targeting civilians -- we were targeting the means of production that allowed them to continue their agression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah..because the Nazis wouldn't have been able to continue their campaign of aggression without lovely, lovely paintings to look at. I wish to thank you for proving my point nicely by way of the most oblivious and ironic post of the year.

Oh, and please read a book on Dresden.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"we were targeting the means of production that allowed them to continue their agression"

[/ QUOTE ]
Utter nonsense contradicted by those who planned and carried out the attacks. Every history student knows that "Butcher" Harris's strategic bombing campaigns in Europe directed targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure not only to decrease Germany's war-waging potential but to break civilian morale and thereby put pressure on the German government, the same strategy used by terrorists today. Harris's accomplice, the U.S., pursued the same strategy against the Japanese. "According to [USAAF Generals Hap] Arnold and Curtis LeMay, bombing civilians was essential in order to break Japanese morale and this was the quickest way to force them to surrender." source. The objectives are neither military nor tactical but to strike fear into the hearts of non-combatants in order to pressure governments.

The denominator common to all terror campaigns, including those by fabled enemy-of-terror Israel (generating refugees in Operation Grapes of Wrath, 1996 and wiping out civilian infrastructure and medical services in Operation Defensive Shield, 2002), is that they are designed not to kill to accomplish military objectives, or to kill for the sake of killing, but to use civilian fear and tragedy as a lever that forces a change in policy.

[Ray Zee]

if we are going to let people of any country or place move here, they should meet the muster for sure before they set foot in our country.
u.s. lets in people from countries we cannot go or invest in freely. yet let their people do so in our country. most foreign countries do not let outside individuals invest freely or stay for extended periods of time. it should be the same here until it becomes a reciprocal aggreement.

[Felix_Nietsche]

by Joel Mowbray

Joel Mowbray has written an eye opening book on "Foggy Bottom" (the nickname for the US State Department). In it he decribes the culture of the state department and why the Secretary of State (and even the President!) has difficulty controlling this department. Their infamous "Visa Express" program was the Visa program that let 3 of the 9/11 hijackers into the USA without a face-to-face interfere or fact checking of their paperwork. In the Chinese embassy one of the state department employees accepted bribes and sexual favors in exchange for Visas. When he got caught....he got PROMOTED. If this happen in another country I'd be laughing. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] After 9/11, several representatives sought to punish the State Department by tranfering the Visa program to the Department of Homeland Security. The Visa program is a cash cow and that fool Colin Powell lobbied sucessfully to keep this program at the State department.

George Schultz, the Secretary of State under Reagan, use to call all new diplomats into his office before their assignments. He would walked them over to a globe and ask them to identify their country. If the chose any country other than the USA, he would playfully rebuke them. In the US State department, the culture is to show 'customer service' towards the host country and not to anger them. Representing the USA seems to be a secondary consideration.

[ratso]

Extremists from any direction are problems, and they will kill indiscriminately for their cause. See Apocopylse Now when Brando talks about how much committment the NVA had to cut off arms of children innoculated by the Westt or better yet, read Calib Carr's "Lessons of Terror". This terrorism is nothing new. Ask the Pilgrims or the English or read about the Civil War. Difference now is that we should be able to be more effective at stopping it and educating those who think it will bring justice to their cause. Terrorism has always failed.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism has always failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nuclear age, it can fail spectacularly.