March 18, 2004

• I really don't give a flying one what these people think.
• Exactly. It's just noise. Both sides (Kerry and Bush) can use it to their own advantage. Probably just something Al-Qaeda (or someone) threw out to mess things up even more.
• And did I mention my deep and abiding love for religious fanatics who murder innocent people just going about their business?
• Hey, the bible says we should love them, even while we're mowing them down with AK-47s. Go ahead. We should have a Kiss-A-Terrorist Day, or something. Show them how much we love them. /sarcasm
• Well, this dovetails with the whole fracas over both Bush & Kerry being Skull & Bones boys... if those two are 'bad' choices, well, you know what (Nader?) to do... /runs before poo flinging starts
• religious fanatics who murder innocent people just going about their business wolof, isn't that precisely how they see us? Besides, of course terrorist organizations would want Bush re-elected. He's extremely good for business.
• sigh. i'm just so tired of terrorism.
• There, there, SideDish. *pat pat* I'm sure we'll be back to porn in no time.
• Fuck al-Qaeda.
• uh.. flagpole.. you did hear that nader stated, on record, that the only reason he's running is to see bush get re-elected, right? don't know why you would vote for a guy who apparently has no interest in the job, and is only in it to keep the republicans in power since it's good for big business. (never heard an update on that, so if it turned out to be BS i apologize. but still - nader?) personally i don't know on this... if al qaeda really wanted bush in power, why would they tell us that, knowing it might make us vote against him? and um... from the photo... why the hell do so many military headgear designs have the chinstrap planted directly on the lower lip? aside from making it hard to talk, how effective is that in keeping the hat/helmet on anyway?
• The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades have sweet dick-all to do with al-Qaida. It's not clear if, in fact, they do anything other than claim responsibility for stuff, any stuff. This, at least, has the advantage that it's funny, in a despairing-at-the-world kind of way. Terrorism is 95% psychology, after all, and this is a bleakly amusing stab at subverting our expectations. Spread the confusion, spread the confusion... we'll be back to pawn in no time.
• Great. It's not good enough to murder us, now they have to fuck up our elections. Am I the only person who is beginning to get the sinking feeling that terrorism actually works? It had an obvious impact on the elections in Spain.
• "Cruelty is all they have left," interesting newsweek column. basically says, terrorists have few goals anymore, except pure violence. i say, let's play as dirty as they do. let's announce from now on, any terrorist who dies in an attack is buried with a pig.
• i say, let's play as dirty as they do. let's announce from now on, any terrorist who dies in an attack is buried with a pig. That's a good way to show our moral superiority.
• Well, with the support of such heavyweights as Al-Qa'ida, I don't see how Bush can fail to win.
• i know, dng, i know. but how does a civilized society counter a group that is not only willing but EAGER to die in violent attacks?
• they're toying with the piggie idea in israel...
• Maybe we should post their heads on pikes at the town gate, too. I've just yet to be convinced that a descent into barbarity is the best way to show your opposition to other peoples barbarity.
• let's announce from now on, any [muslim] terrorist who dies in an attack is buried with a pig. Plus, often there ain't that much of them left.
• but what if we did open "negotiations" with terrorists. how would we even go about giving them what they want? it's such a frightening, discouraging problem. sigh. any muslim mofites? i'm just curious as to their thoughts on this topic, what it's like to have their religion hijacked in this manner.
• but how does a civilized society counter a group that is not only willing but EAGER to die in violent attacks? The only humane (read: non-genocidal) solution is to separate them from civilized society, much as you separate a violent man from local society by placing him in prison. To wit: Total physical embargo. Literally cut off regions/countries/etc from the rest of the world by military and/or other (i.e. cobalt track) means. Perhaps, someday, they might be paroled. An apropos literary quotation from mythology: "And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell." I might be more compromising if the great majority of people from those countries which have historically supported and provided haven for terrorists weren't so... shy, in their denunciation of terror and its adherents that so many seem so willing to ascribe to them. Sometimes, their sympathy for the victims of terror - those eternally dead people, grievously injured people, and their families, whose hate for the purveyors of terror must now surely extend to thoughts of crimson revenge, whose only crime was to be of, say, a different religion, or to be from a different country with different values, or simply those who were easy, television-friendly targets - seems almost demure, amid the mournful dancing, the newspaper editorials that ostensibly praise the terrorists but, certainly, must have some subtle undercurrent of criticism, the volumes of money and supplies given to the terrorist organizations in hopes that they'll leave off terror, and the hiding terrorists from authorities, while they apparently personally appeal to them to change their murderous, bloodsoaked ways and return to civility, so that the entire world won't mistake their religion and politics as barbarism fit only for expungement. In any event, after the inhuman viciousness in Madrid, I suspect that we'll get to see a lot more terrorism. Especially against easy targets - train stations, schools, purely civilian locations - since governmental and military targets have become so difficult, and the results so apparently effective. Bullies and cowards attack the weak and the defenseless precisely because they are weak and defenseless, and they are, like anyone, emboldened by success.
• Am I the only person who is beginning to get the sinking feeling that terrorism actually works? It had an obvious impact on the elections in Spain. I believe the elections in Spain were influenced more by the outgoing administration's attempts to politicize the tragedy, re-direct the blame, and mislead the public than by the bombings per se.
• Catholics: how does it feel to have your religion hijacked? Protestants: how does it feel to have your religion hijacked? All Christians: How does it feel to have your religion hijacked? But yeah, the problme of negotiations is a difficult one - especially because no one knows who al-Qaeda actaully are, or what they want. They barely make any demands - bin Laden has only released occasional communications, with an ever shifting, seemingly arbitrary list of things each time (didn't he mention the Kyoto agreement once?) - half the time they don't even bother claiming various outrages they've carried out, other times fifty different groups will claim any random thing as theirs (the blackouts in America last summer, for example). So what do I know? Nothing basically, but acting at their level will only bring about a Pyrrhic victory at best, as far as I can see.
• i just want them to stop!!! *sobs pitifully*
• But yeah, the problme of negotiations is a difficult one - especially because no one knows who al-Qaeda actaully are, or what they want. American troops out of Saudi Arabia, for a start. "In his writings and speeches, bin Laden has hotly argued that since at least 1991—the year of the Persian Gulf War, which was waged by a U.S.-led coalition with bases in Saudi Arabia—the United States has been 'occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories, Arabia, plundering its riches, overwhelming its rulers, humiliating its people, threatening its neighbors, and using its bases in the [Arabian] peninsula as a spearhead to fight against the neighboring Islamic peoples.'"
• Am I the only person who is beginning to get the sinking feeling that terrorism actually works? It had an obvious impact on the elections in Spain. Terrorism works. Terrorism has a long history of working, if its goal is to gain political concessions or to bring a government to the negotiating table, based on the promise of a halt to the terror. However, I fail to see how getting a socialist government elected in Spain can be considered to be an example of terrorism "working". Since when has that been a goal of al-Qaida? Certainly, it's impossible to negotiate with or give concessions to absolutist fanatics. But it is possible to enact policies which starve them of their membership and support. People are not born absolutist fanatics; they must be persuaded. These men, for example, they gave explicit reasons for their actions. Yes, they performed an act of great evil based on horribly flawed arguments. But their evil was not inevitable. If it wasn't the case that so many in muslim society were able to justify (to themselves, and to their peers) terrorist acts, then might not al-Qaida and all its imitators subside into something approaching insignificance?
• from the newsweek column, re: troops in saudi arabia: >>Al Qaeda's declaration of jihad had, as its first demand, the withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden does not seem to have noticed, but the troops are gone
• But yeah, the problme of negotiations is a difficult one - especially because no one knows who al-Qaeda actaully are, or what they want. American troops out of Saudi Arabia, for a start. Well at least America won't appease the terrorists, I suppose.
• i wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some kind of very behind-the-scenes negotiation going on somewhere.
• American troops out of Saudi Arabia, for a start. ...and Israelis out of Palestine. And that was it. Their only concern was for "the liberation of Holy Places". There is now a third cause, a third Holy Place to liberate - Iraq - which we helpfully provided them with. British Government dossier (non-dodgy variety) on Bin Laden and al-Qaida.
• I believe the elections in Spain were influenced more by the outgoing administration's attempts to politicize the tragedy, re-direct the blame, and mislead the public than by the bombings per se. Likely so. And yet? Can we doubt that al-Qaeda will claim that it successfully forced Spain to capitulate to its demand they leave Iraq?
• So what? We're not having a debating contest with them.
• Indeed yes we are. We are debating the usefulness of terror as a method of political gain, we being the cons, they being the pros. Now, they can go back to their respective audiences and claim a strong argument for pro. With a strong pro argument, other people who, previously, were tentatively con will come over to the pro side. And more people on both sides will get the opportunity die for the twin idiocies of religion and politics.
• Oh I see, you mean it matters what they believe - I thought you (just) meant that they could thumb noses at Spain. I apologise! Even so, I respectfully disagree with regard to this particular point. Al-Qaeda would not have folded up shop if Spain voted to the right, neither will they now. Even if this has such an effect, the withdrawl of US troops from Saudi Arabia would have been a far greater "win". We are not just having a debate with them Fes, its something more serious than that.
• Literally cut off regions/countries/etc from the rest of the world by military and/or other (i.e. cobalt track) means. so, if al qaeda promises to be a good boy and play nice, will you put away the radioactive death-powder so he can come out and play again? seriously, we don't want to start a precedent of encircling our enemies with radioactive death. that's just not cool, and sounds like something out of a frank herbert novel to boot. there are probably way too many groups out there who would be more than eager to stop the threat of american imperialistic expansionism by outlining our borders in cobalt. plus, any country thus outlined would by necessity be locking innocents in with the asses we were trying to contain... not the best way to get general public opinion on our side. plus, deciding who does and doesn't get outlined would take an international body of some sort, like the league of nations, that most countries would be willing to listen to. (what's that? the UN? oh, not them, of course; they didn't support our War on Terror so they don't count.)
• Al-Qaida: An Apology In numerous recent statements, articles and editorials, we have suggested that the al-Qaida network, headed by Mr. Osama bin Laden, were a group of psychopathic religious fundamentalists, who hated all democracy and had no desire other than to kill Westerners, regardless of creed or political beliefs. We now appreciate that, in fact, they take a keen and active interest in democracy. Their goal is not the destruction of all Westerners, but rather is the election of socialist governments who will propose a conditional withdrawl of some troops from Iraq unless the UN is given a greater role in the governance of that country. /Gnome Of course, the truth is somewhere in between the two. They may well retrospectively claim it as a success; I doubt it will be a significant or particularly persuasive argument. They have carried on quite happily despite previous acts not "working"; they seem to be more about reacting to circumstances than trying to actively change them. On preview: the q kid just done gone said a similar thang.
• Actually, I like yours better.
• Your argument, that is - not your thang :)
• Actually terrorists - namely Eta - have been influencing elections in Spain for thirty years. Its why they always killed people during the few days before voting. But it never seemed to get them what they wanted. And I don't think this will get al-Qaeda what they want either. And more people on both sides will get the opportunity die for the twin idiocies of religion and politics. Unfortunately, Fes is right. Or, to put it another way: So it goes.
• seriously, we don't want to start a precedent of encircling our enemies with radioactive death. that's just not cool As opposed to the coolness of, say, blowing up several trains full of innocent people? The time when this could reasonably be considered a popularity contest has long since passed. eager to stop the threat of american imperialistic expansionism by outlining our borders in cobalt Hmm. Never in the history of America have we had an empire (unlike, say, our constructively critical European detractors [and allies, fair enough]), and our expansionism days stopped at the Rio Grande, as I recall. When Mexico starts suicide bombing bus stations in Houston, then perhaps the idea of terrorism in retaliation for American "imperialism" might be seriously considered. The worst criticism that can be leveled that even approaches this is that we practice a rather vigorous brand of capitalism, and we have a bad habit of helping those states which profess to be our friends, to our detriment and usually in excess of reason and criticism (Israel and Saudi Arabia, for example). And that we bring Britney Spears to the world (under the rubric of the aforementioned vigorous capitalism). We did not deserve 9/11, any more than Spain deserved Madrid. Self-flagellation is personally satisfying in the face of complex situations, but ultimately as a political stance it is an invitation to disaster. any country thus outlined would by necessity be locking innocents in with the asses we were trying to contain In hopes that doing so would, like the good qualities of a convict's soul winning out over the evil, speed the ostensibly more numerous innocents to curb the excesses of the far less numerous but when unchecked disproportinately representative asses and thus garner parole far sooner. plus, deciding who does and doesn't get outlined would take an international body of some sort, like the league of nations, that most countries would be willing to listen to. I agree. The political checkmating of the UN by the Bush Administration was a foolish, if viscerally satisfying, adventure. We should have invaded Iraq at the head of a UN column, not a USA cruise missile. I doubt it will be a significant or particularly persuasive argument I wish I was as certain of that. Even here in America, where we fancy ourselves sophisticated media consumers, the idea that terrorism called the tune of the Spanish election holds some ground. Do you think that the more fertile ground of a marginalized terrorist organizatin will reflexively reject such a claim? Also: caution live frogs: you *nailed* the Frank herbert reference :) Credit where it's due.
• SideDish: yeah, we should learn how to deal with terrorism from the Israelis, since they have such a fucking fantastic record. We can completely morally compromise ourselfs by invading other countries and overseeing the setting up of concentration camps (cf Lebanon)! We can bulldoze people's neighbourhoods! We can introduce conscription to provide enough warm bodies to occupy other countries! And look, no terror attacks in Israel, in what, a week? I could go on, but I said most of what I think needed to be said here; in light of the vitriol and contempt poured on the Spanish for daring to have a functioning democracy, I guess we know which road the US went down.
• The only humane (read: non-genocidal) solution is to separate them from civilized society, much as you separate a violent man from local society by placing him in prison. To wit: Total physical embargo. Literally cut off regions/countries/etc from the rest of the world by military and/or other (i.e. cobalt track) means. Walls aren't that popular in Europe, these days.
• Nice job quoting half of the story, Rodger.
• rogerd, i was just trying to think what would make a serious impact, would really be a deterrent, to terrorists. it's a tough question because the logical deterrent, death, doesn't apply to them. what would you suggest? (not being snarky, just curious)
• rogerd, i was just trying to think what would make a serious impact, would really be a deterrent, to terrorists. it's a tough question because the logical deterrent, death, doesn't apply to them. what would you suggest? (not being snarky, just curious)
• ARG!!! posts are arriving in the middle of the thread now.....
• rogerd, i was just trying to think what would make a serious impact, would really be a deterrent, to terrorists. it's a tough question because the logical deterrent, death, doesn't apply to them. what would you suggest? (not being snarky, just curious) posted by SideDish at 09:06PM UTC on March 18 That comment, for whatever reason, has been posted way upthread It did provide a nice moment of inadvertant comedy, though: rogerd, i was just trying to think what would make a serious impact, would really be a deterrent, to terrorists. it's a tough question because the logical deterrent, death, doesn't apply to them. what would you suggest? (not being snarky, just curious) posted by SideDish at 09:06PM UTC on March 18 rogerd, i was just trying to think what would make a serious impact, would really be a deterrent, to terrorists. it's a tough question because the logical deterrent, death, doesn't apply to them. what would you suggest? (not being snarky, just curious) posted by SideDish at 09:07PM UTC on March 18 i just want them to stop!!! *sobs pitifully* posted by SideDish at 06:41PM UTC on March 18 (Now I've just got to cross my fingers, and hope this appears at the bottom, where its supposed to be)
• (Fuck it)
• Hmm. Never in the history of America have we had an empire (unlike, say, our constructively critical European detractors [and allies, fair enough]), and our expansionism days stopped at the Rio Grande, as I recall. When Mexico starts suicide bombing bus stations in Houston, then perhaps the idea of terrorism in retaliation for American "imperialism" might be seriously considered. We already started our retaliation. It's just that we are more subtle and we are slowly replacing all your population with ours.
• Fes, I must congratulate you on being the first person I've read who critiscised the Spanish election result with an argument that is both coherent and based on reasonable, factually consistent assumptions. I don't agree with it, not because I think that potential recruits to al-Qaida won't believe that they influenced the Spanish result, but that I think it does not tie in with either their motivations, their methods or the type or scale of their goals - it won't tip the balance for any of them. But this is a matter of interpretation, and you may well be right. Whatever, I don't see that it justifies the vitriol sent the way of a democratic decision by an intelligent, informed populace (eg). The worst criticism that can be leveled that even approaches this is that we practice a rather vigorous brand of capitalism. China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), the Belgian Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99, 2003-present), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998), Yugoslavia (1999, Afghanistan (2001-present). It's not an empire, but the fact that so many countries are either economically dependent upon the US, or under threat of military intervention from it, is a root cause of much hatred towards America. I'm not saying that hatred (or its violent expression) is in any way justified, but I am saying that a more enlightened, long-term self-interest may well be for the USA to tread a little more softly upon the face of the world.
• A jail with a hole in the wall for the oil to come out. That's the solution? Put them in a jail until we decide to parole them? And in same breath to say that we aren't imperialists? Imprisoning and punishing entire nations because they are not rejecting terrorism strong enough. This seems like a strange treatment for dealing with civil strife like terrorism, and more than a little heavy handed. Or am I the only one who sees the iron curtain here. I would not be so quick to fall into the midset of our enemies, nor use the failed tools of the past. And when did the American prison sytem go from fostering greater problems to a shining example of foreign policy?
• Wow. I've never read anything by Ann Coulter before. She seems fairly crazy, really. As has no doubt been said before - Spain was under a vicious military dictatorship just 30 years ago - and half of Germany was, too, until 15 years ago - calling the population of Europe cowards seems a bit fucking rich, to me. And if I hear another fucking thing about cheese eating surrender monkeys...
• Imprisoning and punishing entire nations because they are not rejecting terrorism strong enough ... Surely that wasn't being seriously suggested? If so, permit me to laugh my ass off at the thought of the USA building a big wall around Iran, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, while telling those inside that there's no such thing as an American empire.
• So will we divide the Mediterranean down the middle, or build the wall along the North African Coast.Or maybe we can build along the European coast, and Spain can use it to finally, successfully blockade Gibraltar.
• I find it amusing that Ralph Nader would be suggested as a solution to fight terrorism. Nader said on Meet the Press that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. Tim Russert just let him slide on that one. What dishonesty. MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq? MR. NADER: He would have. I think he was a hawk. He may have done it in a different way. He and Clinton got through Congress a regime-change resolution as a pillar of our foreign policy. But let me answer the points you made. Ralph changes the subject before he has to back up his statements. What is Nader's stand on national security issues? I don't think he has a policy.
• I don't see that it justifies the vitriol sent the way of a democratic decision by an intelligent, informed populace Neither do I, and neither have I been comfortable with the mean-spirited anti-French attitudes that were fostered here not so long ago. One can speak cavalierly of the Lafayette Debt having been paid twice over, but those of us with a knowledge of history know that France has always stood with America for freedom and democracy. Please, don't assume that Ms. Coulter speaks for all of us who consider ourselves conservatives. She's a firebrand and a polemic. Reasonable conservatives (and I'd like to think that I am one) find her as distasteful as you do - more so, perhaps, since she purports to represent us. She does not. I am saying that a more enlightened, long-term self-interest may well be for the USA to tread a little more softly upon the face of the world. An excellent point, and I gladly concede it. And yet, the military intervention in many of those countries could easily be view in other ways than a heavy-hand on the whupping-stick. Korea, to stop Chinese communist insurgents from toppling it; Grenada, to liberate American citizens held captive; Libya, in response to being attacked first; El Salvador and Nicaragua, again with the foreign insurgents; Bosnia/Yugoslavia, to stop a genocide. Many of these were multilateral efforts, others manadated by the UN. I suppose what I'm saying (rather badly) is that having the largest, most effective military in the world often leads to having those who don't ask you for help. Not all of those incidents were missions of mercy, agreed - but in not ONE case did we remain as occupying overlords. Iraq will not be an exception. America is not an imperialist nation, and never has been. A jail with a hole in the wall for the oil to come out. That's the solution? Who said anything about oil? Let them keep it. I personally feel that the US should do everything in it's power to wean itself off middle eastern oil. I felt that, on 9/12, we should have literally cut the pipes. Not one barrel of arabian crude coming to the US. Put them in a jail until we decide to parole them? And in same breath to say that we aren't imperialists? An imperialist nation is one that takes over other countries for it's own gain. The two are completely separate ideas. This seems like a strange treatment for dealing with civil strife like terrorism, and more than a little heavy handed. It would be, had terrorism remains a *civil* (and by that I mean, internal to a particular country or region) activity. Now, though, is in international. But yes, I agree, heavy-handed. I proferred it as an idea that might actually work, not one that I believe we have the fortitude to make. And when did the American prison sytem go from fostering greater problems to a shining example of foreign policy? I'm not sure about the greater problems (which seem centered not on the man in prison but what happens when the man *leaves* prison, but that's a different thread) - but a man in prison cannot harm anyone outside it. Upon Preview: Again, imprisoning a country and making that country a colony (what empires do to the countries over whom they garner dominion) are two very different things.
• Imprisoning a country implies that we have dominion over it. A prison is not a room locked with people in it, it is a system, with wardens, and judges. Who would be the judges? The wardens? Colonial apropriation would be better, as a colony at least still has value, and but imprisonment like this would deny that a nation has any value to offer the world. Perhaps you had a different name for this sort of thing?
• Imprisoning a country implies that we have dominion over it. Perhaps, but not in an imperialistic way. And I said earlier that such decisions would be necessarity have to be done multilaterally. For the US to imprison, say, Jordan, would amount to an embargo, would be an act of war rather than of justice, and would fail since all the rest of the world would interact with Jordan as they always had, or engagen in smuggling, etc. where they could. but imprisonment like this would deny that a nation has any value to offer the world. Not any more than imprisoning a man denies that he has any value to the society. Imprisonment, conversely, impies the reverse, that there does remain value - else, using the imprisoned man analogy, we'd simply execute him and be done with it. Perhaps you had a different name for this sort of thing? No, because I never equated the two. Whatever my modest proposal is, it's not imperialism. I assumed I'd demonstrated that.
• A modest proposal indead. A multilateral effort to imprison nations that support terrorism. In a non- imperialsist fashion. To isolate those that seek us harm from being able to reach us. But we don't have a multilateral base of support. And how are we going to identify location? Everywhere there is Muslims? That's quite a few countries and a very big fence. Perhaps we should think of this as the new communism; we'll just contain them, and spend lots of money and resources on it. As for my definition of imperialism: it extends to only those nations who use wooden boats to carry every valuable item back to the motherland. I don't think those terrorist type are using the same definition as me though. This vengance and justice mindset is something though.
• MasturbateForPeace.com Endorses Ralph Nader for President
• The politics of terror
• "What was the subliminal message of John Ashcroft's stepped-up terror warning earlier this week? Its that if the terrorists want to disrupt the presidential election, that must mean they're for Democratic candidate John Kerry."