Re: Finally ...


walstib77 wrote:
> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > walstib77 wrote:
> > > deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > walstib77 wrote:
> > > > > deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > walstib77 wrote:
> > > > > > > deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > > > walstib77 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > C The Shocker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > deemsbill@xxxxxxx <deemsbill@xxxxxxx> farted, felt something wet, then
> > > > > > > > > > > checked his underwear only to discover:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/jordan.blasts/index.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Why do people tolerate indiscriminate murder of innocents?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if they'll actually do something about it we'll be getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > somewhere.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I totally agree. The true destruction of "Terror" will be when the general
> > > > > > > > > > > populations won't stand for it and will hunt down the perps vigilante-style
> > > > > > > > > > > and execute them. Hopefully the Arab World is waking up to the fact that
> > > > > > > > > > > their OWN PEOPLE are dying in these senseless "attacks" and put a fuckin'
> > > > > > > > > > > end to it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > C The Shocker
> > > > > > > > > > > 2005 King of RSPW
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm Not Nice.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It doesn't have to be "vigilante style". Enough of the general
> > > > > > > > > > population just has to say "enough is enough" and turn these guys in.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yeah, I mean, look how we citizens thwarted Oklahoma City.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How many more Oklahoma Citys have there been?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The point I was making is that a citizenry united against terrorism
> > > > > > > will not stop terrorism.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't matter how many citizens of nation X say "enough is enough;"
> > > > > > > nation X can still be hit by terrorists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But if the citizens of nation X AND the citizens of nation
> > > > > > Y....where the terrorists originate...both say "enough is enough", the
> > > > > > 'job of the terrorists become much, much harder.
> > > > >
> > > > > So how did the IRA continue for so long?
> > > >
> > > > Because they had significant support within a portion of the
> > > > citizenry?
> > >
> > > I guess my point is that "significant support" can come from such a
> > > fringe faction of the citizenry that it is futile to castigate the
> > > populace as though they were somehow collectively implicit.
> >
> > Who's castigating? All I'm saying is that the terrorists have a
> > fair level of popular support. If this support evaporated, the
> > terrorists' 'jobs would be harder.
>
> I think you are doing a few things here:
>
> 1. Confusing terrorists striking American citizens with insurgents
> fighting American military occupation.

No, there's quite a lot of overlap in this case.

>
> 2. Assuming a level of support based upon a basic prejudging of the
> limited set of data available to us, the U.S. public.

Any more than you're assuming to make your points?

>
> > > > > I posit that terrorism is not thwarted by the will of the citizenry.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not saying that it is, but a hostile populace makes organized
> > > > terrorism much harder. Organized terrorism relies on financial and
> > > > other support within some kind of community.
> > >
> > > Oklahoma City was perpetrated by a few men who were really, really
> > > pissed. The population around them and their mindset had little to do
> > > with it. Other than maybe the drumbeat of those who thought WACO was
> > > the fault of the feds and not the nutcase who was raping children and
> > > hording weapons.
> >
> > And how much more did they do? I agree that it's nearly impossible
> > to stop one strike, but an ongoing insurgency of the level in Iraq has
> > to have a decent level of support within the populace.
>
> They only had one strike? Well, I guess you'll agree, then, that
> treating terrorists as criminals isn't always that ineffective, as the
> neocons alleged at the onset of the Bush administration.

Treating terrorists as criminals is only effective where the laws
can be applied. If terrorists have safe havens that refuse extradition,
etc.....what other options are open? And no, I don't agree with many of
this admin's policies.

>
> One would think, juding by their juxtoposition of the approaches, that
> the perpetrators of Oklahoma City and WTC I had gotten away from
> authorities for four years and were running around Tora Bora and
> Pakistan, sending video to Al Jazeera every few months and striking
> sporadically around the globve, like bin Laden and al Qaeda have while
> we are mucking up Iraq.

I agree with you here. I think Iraq was a mistake...not because
Saddam didn't need to go, but because we needed to finish what we
started in Afghanistan. Also, I don't think we're likely to see a
secular democracy emerge from the ashes. I do think, now that we're
there, we do need to try and fix the mess.

>
> > >
> > > > This support can be overt
> > > > or tacit....looking the other way or cutting deals like "as long as you
> > > > don't blow stuff up here".
> > >
> > > I'd say that you are buying into something that isn't necessarily well
> > > known or well founded;
> >
> > The Saudis, UAE, etc had long looked the other way as long as the
> > terrorists didn't piss on their soil.
>
> No different than the US, under admins both Dem and Republican, did for
> decades.

Another crop of apples among the oranges?

>
>
> > I don;t doubt that there are people in Iraq who
> > > support action there.
> >
> > There are many who support it...especially within the Sunni
> > community. There are probably more who are scared and just look the
> > other way rather than stand out as targets.
>
> So you're again confusing the terrorists who perpetrated WTC II w3ith
> the Iraqi insurgency.

There is an Al Qaeda presence among the insurgency if for nothing
else than the old "enemy of my enemy" thing. I'm not confusing
anything...you're assuming.

>
> I'm not saying that's unusual; with all the deliberate obfuscation of
> the truth going on, most Americans do.

You really have no idea of the depth, or lack thereof, of my
knowledge of the situation.

>
> > >
> > > But I think you are bordering on a dangerous precipice that falls into
> > > a chasm of prejudicial blindness.
> >
> > You lost me there.
>
> I can tell.

You're assuming again.

>
> > > > > The 9/11 perpetrators were Saudis. And we invaded Iraq.
> > > > >
> > > > > So which nation is nation Y?
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't really have anything to do with my point, but I'd say
> > > > nation Y, in this case, would be the Muslim Arab community as a whole.
> > >
> > > And the broad brushstrokes broaden...
> >
> > Do you deny that Islamic terrorists get their support from within
> > the Muslim Arab community?
>
> No more or less than McNichols and McVeigh got their support within the
> US Christian community.

Bull***. Mainline Muslims are much more likely to
support...especially tacitly.....the actions of Muslim terrorists than
mainline Christians would come close to supporting McVeigh, etc. I'm
not saying all Muslims support Al Qaeda,etc...just that a lot more do
than McVeigh ever enjoyed. Israel is the motivating factor among large
numbers of Muslims. Christians don't really have a factor like that.
The most recent Christian example would be the IRA mess in Northern
Ireland.

>
> > > > > > > As far as how many more Oklahoma Citys, I guess that depends on how you
> > > > > > > frame it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Domestic instigators of terroriusm? I'd say the DC sniper and the
> > > > > > > anthrax mailer qualify.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We'd disagree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, what is your frame? Massive attack on domestic soil?
> > > > >
> > > > > WTC I & II.
> > > >
> > > > I'd say well organized and financed groups rather than a few
> > > > lone/small number of nutjobs. I'm not trying to downplay the DC
> > > > snipers, etc, but they pale in comparison to an Al Qaeda, IRA, or PLO.
> > >
> > > Wasn't Ok. City a few nutjobs?
> >
> > Once again, as awful as it was, OKC was pretty much of a one shot
> > deal.
>
> Which is more or less than the number of Al Qaeda attacks on US soil?

It's one less if WTC 1 is considered Al Qaeda. Also, WTC 2 could
be considered four separate attacks.

>
> > > Why do brown people require more community support to blow things up
> > > than white people?
> >
> > Why do you keep throwing apples in with the oranges? OKC, the DC
> > snipers, etc are nowhere near comparable to AlQaeda, the IRA, or the
> > PLO...all of which have support ...fairly significant support....within
> > certain communities. P.S.....the Irish aren't brown-skinned.
>
> I brought up the IRA; you are the one confusing Al Qaeda with the Iraqi
> insurgency.

Al Qaeda is very much involved with the insurgency. There would
still be an insurgency without Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda has helped funnel
"foreign fighters" into Iraq and has helped supply the knowhow and
infrastructure for not only attacks, but PR campaigns throughout the
Muslim world.

.

Loading