On the nature of terrorism
- Thread starter GoSlash27
- Start date
ForksLaPush
New member
Dr. Paul has let all know that he has read the 911 report and the Constitution. What else has he read? The Saudi wahabis have been dominating the academic view of islam for a couple of decades, which is why policymakers didn't see 911 coming, even after WTC1 in 1993 or Osama's declaration of war in 1998. The 911 report is influenced by the same thinking, that jihad is just a few bad apples acting out based on legitimate grievances.
Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such. The fact that they are politically or religiously motivated is not relevant to their crimes except that it should be useful in apprehending them. Our own political correctness gives us a "Patriot Act" instead of an "Anti Islamofacist Act".
I would really like to like Dr. Paul, but he seems to have a Jimmy Carter-like view that if we extend our political correctness overseas and behave a certain way on the international stage, the jihadists will stop finding justification for their actions. Their justification comes from their world-view that it is their holy duty to expand the islamic world whenever the situation allows- until a world-wide caliphate is eventually established. If anyone is stupid enough to pick a third-generation fight with us like Saddam did in '91, Paul could probably handle it. Unfortunately, 911 can be the first of many, or the turning point where we go after the criminals. Paul has indicated that we should hope for the best and see if they don't attack us again.
The KKK and the IRA simply did not have broad enough support to be good examples of your point. Attitudes were changing for the better. Islamists have countries where they enjoy popular support, staggering piles of money, and the wahabi educators are changing attitudes for the worse. Maybe the mongols ability to raid the edges of China would be a better analogy. Most Chinese emperors stayed in the forbidden city isolated from reality (like Washington DC) and strengthened the big wall because that was the cautious time-tested approach recommended by their armchair generals. The mongols of course, kept going around or through. From time to time, a few aggressive generals were allowed to go after the mongols in their summer pastures and they always kicked serious butt and could have had lasting victories if the politicians had let them follow through.
It's too bad everyone can't live by high principles, but fighting islamists on the arabian peninsula seems like a better plan than waiting for them to show up in Manhattan, for the third time, or worse.
Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such. The fact that they are politically or religiously motivated is not relevant to their crimes except that it should be useful in apprehending them. Our own political correctness gives us a "Patriot Act" instead of an "Anti Islamofacist Act".
I would really like to like Dr. Paul, but he seems to have a Jimmy Carter-like view that if we extend our political correctness overseas and behave a certain way on the international stage, the jihadists will stop finding justification for their actions. Their justification comes from their world-view that it is their holy duty to expand the islamic world whenever the situation allows- until a world-wide caliphate is eventually established. If anyone is stupid enough to pick a third-generation fight with us like Saddam did in '91, Paul could probably handle it. Unfortunately, 911 can be the first of many, or the turning point where we go after the criminals. Paul has indicated that we should hope for the best and see if they don't attack us again.
The KKK and the IRA simply did not have broad enough support to be good examples of your point. Attitudes were changing for the better. Islamists have countries where they enjoy popular support, staggering piles of money, and the wahabi educators are changing attitudes for the worse. Maybe the mongols ability to raid the edges of China would be a better analogy. Most Chinese emperors stayed in the forbidden city isolated from reality (like Washington DC) and strengthened the big wall because that was the cautious time-tested approach recommended by their armchair generals. The mongols of course, kept going around or through. From time to time, a few aggressive generals were allowed to go after the mongols in their summer pastures and they always kicked serious butt and could have had lasting victories if the politicians had let them follow through.
It's too bad everyone can't live by high principles, but fighting islamists on the arabian peninsula seems like a better plan than waiting for them to show up in Manhattan, for the third time, or worse.
Last edited:
I don't think I would use the KKK as a benchmark.It faded away because the society except for the fringe lunatics decided not to judge people by the color of their skin.But,it hung around in some incarnation with strength until the mid 60's with most law enforcement against it.That's about 100 years,which means it took 5 generations to lose enough recruiting base to disappear.
I don't want Al Qaeda blowing stuff up for 100 years.
I don't want Al Qaeda blowing stuff up for 100 years.
fremmer,
It should be self-evident that a nationwide conversion to Islam would not actually end the attacks, hence the religious goal (converting the whole world to Islam) isn't really there.
His goal is to attain leadership of his identity group. That's a political goal, not a religious one.
ForksLaPush,
Your sentence above is an excellent summation.
If we "we extend our political correctness overseas and behave a certain way on the international stage" the terrorists will still wish to fight us, but the average Muslim and Arab on the streets will tell them to go pound sand.
ZeroJunk,
See above. The KKK didn't merely fade away due to changing social mores. It's eventual decline was due to a concerted effort to exploit it's weaknesses. There is still a large white supremacist contingent in our society. They are splintered, ineffective, and largely irrelavant because our Domestic terrorism policy works.
All we really have to do is apply it to our international terrorism policy... in fact, here's a mental excercise:
Suppose a white supremacist group began a campaign of terror in the southern states. What policies would best serve to defeat them? Would you invade Alabama and impose martial law? Would you send suspected neo-nazis to Gitmo without legal representation? Torture them? Have contractors armed shuttling diplomats around Biloxi and shrug off the occasional accidental shootings?
If not, why not?
Yes, he says several things. Care must be taken to interpret them in their correct context. All publicly released statements are for the consumption of the identity group, not the targetted group (even when it's addressed to us personally).
It should be self-evident that a nationwide conversion to Islam would not actually end the attacks, hence the religious goal (converting the whole world to Islam) isn't really there.
His goal is to attain leadership of his identity group. That's a political goal, not a religious one.
ForksLaPush,
Exactly. We're not fighting them because they're Muslim. We're not even fighting them because they're radicals. We're fighting them because they chop off peoples heads, fly airplanes into our buildings, and blow stuff up.
Your sentence above is an excellent summation.
It only seems that way. After reading above, it should occur to you that he understands that the terrorists will never stop justifying their actions or decide to like us. That's exactly why we have to undermine their ability to carry out their actions through undermining their support.
If we "we extend our political correctness overseas and behave a certain way on the international stage" the terrorists will still wish to fight us, but the average Muslim and Arab on the streets will tell them to go pound sand.
At one point the KKK formed an entire shadow government in the most powerful nation on Earth. The IRA had de facto control of Ireland for the better part of a decade. They make excellent examples.
ZeroJunk,
See above. The KKK didn't merely fade away due to changing social mores. It's eventual decline was due to a concerted effort to exploit it's weaknesses. There is still a large white supremacist contingent in our society. They are splintered, ineffective, and largely irrelavant because our Domestic terrorism policy works.
All we really have to do is apply it to our international terrorism policy... in fact, here's a mental excercise:
Suppose a white supremacist group began a campaign of terror in the southern states. What policies would best serve to defeat them? Would you invade Alabama and impose martial law? Would you send suspected neo-nazis to Gitmo without legal representation? Torture them? Have contractors armed shuttling diplomats around Biloxi and shrug off the occasional accidental shootings?
If not, why not?
GoSlash27
GoSlash27:
I don't see that I've gone "low road" anywhere. If I have, please point it out and I will apologize.
I did not offer the "Israeli solution" as an "improvement". On the contrary, my point is that the Israelis have been, to a very large extent, using this very plan and it ISN'T working.
The KKK has virtually disappeared because Southern sensibilities have changed. Racism is no longer acceptable among decent people. I don't see that anyone using this plan had anything to do with it.
I will admit, though--as I did in my initial post to this thread--that it was successful in the case of the IRA, and would be useful in countering any politically-based terrorist group.
My point is rather elementary: every conflict with terrorists, like every war, is different. One ought not use the same playbook in every such conflict any more than one should use the same strategy in every war.
A good general is always, first and foremost, a pragmatist; one uses tactics that work and discards those that don't. Any commander that goes to some theoretical manual and applies the same strategy and/or tactics in every situation is not worthy of command; one adapts one's tactics to the nature and aims of one's enemy, AND to the nature of the battlefield, AND to the resources one brings to the battle--and, perhaps even more importantly, one ought NEVER make war according to a predictable plan. That principle of warfare has been recognized since Alexander the Great, probably the greatest "out-of-the-box" thinker--and certainly the most successful battlefield commander--in human history.
The very reason that the attack on 9/11 was so successful, whatever 20/20 hindsight may allege, is that it involved a plan of attack that no one had ever seen before and for which no one was prepared. The threat from AQ et. al. is qualitatively, as well as tactically, different from any threat we have ever faced. A candidate who seems unaware of that and is blithely confident that a set of facile theories will work against them makes me nervous.
Whatever it will take to defeat radical Islam in general and AQ in particular, I think it will be more than a quick-'n-easy pamphlet containing a few simple principles. If that were the case, the Mideast would be at peace by now.
If you expect to post an opinion piece and receive no rebuttals, you're in the wrong place. That's called "writing an editorial". This is called a "forum", and that means a place for discussions. You state your opinions, and I'll state mine.
I see in a later post that you do not think we should take bin Laden at his word regarding his aims for jihad. No offense intended, but I think that view has more to do with forcing bin Laden to fit your paradigm than for any rational or logical reason. One of the lessons we Jews drew from the Holocaust is this one: "When someone says they're going to kill you, believe them." assuming that bin Laden's rhetoric is only for domestic consumption is a very dangerous gamble to take. Better to have at least a contingency plan--of which I see no sign here--just in case he really means it.
I respect you as a fellow American and a fellow shooter, and the fact that we disagree on some matters of political theory is of little consequence compared to what we have in common. If I have, or seemed to have, insulted you personally in any way, I apologize; such was never my intent. I hope that some day we will meet at the range; we will have a fine old time yelling at each other and shooting at the targets--and not, of course, the other way round....
;-)
GoSlash27:
I don't see that I've gone "low road" anywhere. If I have, please point it out and I will apologize.
I did not offer the "Israeli solution" as an "improvement". On the contrary, my point is that the Israelis have been, to a very large extent, using this very plan and it ISN'T working.
The KKK has virtually disappeared because Southern sensibilities have changed. Racism is no longer acceptable among decent people. I don't see that anyone using this plan had anything to do with it.
I will admit, though--as I did in my initial post to this thread--that it was successful in the case of the IRA, and would be useful in countering any politically-based terrorist group.
My point is rather elementary: every conflict with terrorists, like every war, is different. One ought not use the same playbook in every such conflict any more than one should use the same strategy in every war.
A good general is always, first and foremost, a pragmatist; one uses tactics that work and discards those that don't. Any commander that goes to some theoretical manual and applies the same strategy and/or tactics in every situation is not worthy of command; one adapts one's tactics to the nature and aims of one's enemy, AND to the nature of the battlefield, AND to the resources one brings to the battle--and, perhaps even more importantly, one ought NEVER make war according to a predictable plan. That principle of warfare has been recognized since Alexander the Great, probably the greatest "out-of-the-box" thinker--and certainly the most successful battlefield commander--in human history.
The very reason that the attack on 9/11 was so successful, whatever 20/20 hindsight may allege, is that it involved a plan of attack that no one had ever seen before and for which no one was prepared. The threat from AQ et. al. is qualitatively, as well as tactically, different from any threat we have ever faced. A candidate who seems unaware of that and is blithely confident that a set of facile theories will work against them makes me nervous.
Whatever it will take to defeat radical Islam in general and AQ in particular, I think it will be more than a quick-'n-easy pamphlet containing a few simple principles. If that were the case, the Mideast would be at peace by now.
If you expect to post an opinion piece and receive no rebuttals, you're in the wrong place. That's called "writing an editorial". This is called a "forum", and that means a place for discussions. You state your opinions, and I'll state mine.
I see in a later post that you do not think we should take bin Laden at his word regarding his aims for jihad. No offense intended, but I think that view has more to do with forcing bin Laden to fit your paradigm than for any rational or logical reason. One of the lessons we Jews drew from the Holocaust is this one: "When someone says they're going to kill you, believe them." assuming that bin Laden's rhetoric is only for domestic consumption is a very dangerous gamble to take. Better to have at least a contingency plan--of which I see no sign here--just in case he really means it.
I respect you as a fellow American and a fellow shooter, and the fact that we disagree on some matters of political theory is of little consequence compared to what we have in common. If I have, or seemed to have, insulted you personally in any way, I apologize; such was never my intent. I hope that some day we will meet at the range; we will have a fine old time yelling at each other and shooting at the targets--and not, of course, the other way round....
;-)
Defjon
Defjon:
I suspect that some, at least, of the commanders at Abu Ghraib knew about some, at least, of what was going on--though soldiers are not famous for alerting their superiors to their own incompetence and irresponsibility, nor for inviting them to join in brutal and/or sexual misconduct. I also suspect that, knowing whatever they knew, they didn't regard it as being as big a deal as, say, skinning prisoners alive, electrifying their genitals, or sawing their heads off on camera.
The question I asked--which you don't seem interested in--is why anyone DID.
Of course I am aware that Paul knows he's dealing with dishonest and biased media. Aren't we all? The question, again, is what can be done about it?
For the record, conservative media--Human Events, National Review, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, etc.--don't seem to be any more enamored of Paul than is MSNBC. I think Paul's problems with getting more support have very little to do with media bias and more to do with his ideas.
Defjon:
I suspect that some, at least, of the commanders at Abu Ghraib knew about some, at least, of what was going on--though soldiers are not famous for alerting their superiors to their own incompetence and irresponsibility, nor for inviting them to join in brutal and/or sexual misconduct. I also suspect that, knowing whatever they knew, they didn't regard it as being as big a deal as, say, skinning prisoners alive, electrifying their genitals, or sawing their heads off on camera.
The question I asked--which you don't seem interested in--is why anyone DID.
Of course I am aware that Paul knows he's dealing with dishonest and biased media. Aren't we all? The question, again, is what can be done about it?
For the record, conservative media--Human Events, National Review, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, etc.--don't seem to be any more enamored of Paul than is MSNBC. I think Paul's problems with getting more support have very little to do with media bias and more to do with his ideas.
Pitz96
Pitz96:
Now this is interesting: Four times now, on this forum and one other, when I have posted remarks favorable to Israel, pro-Paul posters have brought up the subject of anti-Semitism out of the clear blue, related to nothing I wrote.
Specifically, they did exactly what you did: said that any criticism of Israel is always dismissed as anti-Semitic, before anyone else had a chance to mention such an idea. In fact, that particular line seems to follow any favorable comments about Israel whatever, as if it counters any such comments all by itself, with no other statements necessary, as it did in your post.
That accusation is made often, but very rarely occurs in actual fact. At one time, and I think still, there was a standing offer of a $10,000 reward for a documented example of such a statement being made by any Jewish leader or organization. There were no takers. I can't even offer $10, but if anyone can link to such a statement, post it here and I'll publicly apologize.
How about it, Pitz? If that happens all the time, you should be able to find a few examples. Search my posts first, if you like. And good luck.
(If you want to read criticism of Israel, pick up a Jewish or Israeli magazine or newspaper. Jews, particularly American Jews, criticize Israel more, and more vehemently, than anyone else.)
For the record: Israel is a nation like any other, and criticism of Israel or Israeli policies is no more anti-Semitic than objecting to illegal immigration is racist.
The possibility of anti-Semitism does exist, though, when Israel is held to a higher moral or ethical standard than any other nation, or when Israel's "human rights abuses" are trumpeted while the much more brutal and prevalent abuses of its neighbors are ignored or excused, or when its "right to exist" is questioned when that issue is applied to no other nation on Earth.
(BTW, remarks about how the Jews control the media--or the banks, or the government, or how the Holocaust is a hoax--are legitimate grounds for suspicion, too.)
The only time that I have remarked on the POSSIBILITY that another poster MIGHT be an anti-Semite was when I was told, straight out, that I MUST be disloyal to my country, simply and only because I am a Jew. I think I can safely say that that poster had a problem.
One more note:
I cannot help observing that some, at least, of Dr. Paul's supporters seem to get a good deal more exercised about the Jews than they do about radical Muslims. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but as I say, I've seen it more than once.
(The replies to this post should be particularly illuminating.)
Pitz96:
Now this is interesting: Four times now, on this forum and one other, when I have posted remarks favorable to Israel, pro-Paul posters have brought up the subject of anti-Semitism out of the clear blue, related to nothing I wrote.
Specifically, they did exactly what you did: said that any criticism of Israel is always dismissed as anti-Semitic, before anyone else had a chance to mention such an idea. In fact, that particular line seems to follow any favorable comments about Israel whatever, as if it counters any such comments all by itself, with no other statements necessary, as it did in your post.
That accusation is made often, but very rarely occurs in actual fact. At one time, and I think still, there was a standing offer of a $10,000 reward for a documented example of such a statement being made by any Jewish leader or organization. There were no takers. I can't even offer $10, but if anyone can link to such a statement, post it here and I'll publicly apologize.
How about it, Pitz? If that happens all the time, you should be able to find a few examples. Search my posts first, if you like. And good luck.
(If you want to read criticism of Israel, pick up a Jewish or Israeli magazine or newspaper. Jews, particularly American Jews, criticize Israel more, and more vehemently, than anyone else.)
For the record: Israel is a nation like any other, and criticism of Israel or Israeli policies is no more anti-Semitic than objecting to illegal immigration is racist.
The possibility of anti-Semitism does exist, though, when Israel is held to a higher moral or ethical standard than any other nation, or when Israel's "human rights abuses" are trumpeted while the much more brutal and prevalent abuses of its neighbors are ignored or excused, or when its "right to exist" is questioned when that issue is applied to no other nation on Earth.
(BTW, remarks about how the Jews control the media--or the banks, or the government, or how the Holocaust is a hoax--are legitimate grounds for suspicion, too.)
The only time that I have remarked on the POSSIBILITY that another poster MIGHT be an anti-Semite was when I was told, straight out, that I MUST be disloyal to my country, simply and only because I am a Jew. I think I can safely say that that poster had a problem.
One more note:
I cannot help observing that some, at least, of Dr. Paul's supporters seem to get a good deal more exercised about the Jews than they do about radical Muslims. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but as I say, I've seen it more than once.
(The replies to this post should be particularly illuminating.)
This is just wrong in so many ways.I live right in the middle of Dixie and to try and explain the black/white relationship in the south to somebody who already thinks they know what it is is an impossibility that I will not try again.But,I assure you that nobody except some obscure illiterate trash has any ill will toward blacks. I suspect the local black police chief can deal with the trash.
To some of the Paul supporters, when the President of Iran states that Iran will wipe Israel off of the map, that's a misinterpretation. When Osama says that if the US will only convert to Islam, AQ will stop attacking the US, well, that's a misinterpretation, too.
To some of the Paul supporters, the Jewish citizens of the US control all fiscal policy, foreign policy, and everything else, along with the freemasons and the neo-cons, and everything is unconstitutional. It is one big huge super-conspiracy.
Yup, you'll hear that a lot on TFL from the Pauloids. Not all of them, just the majority of them. And many will vote for Hillbama come election time, anyway.
To some of the Paul supporters, the Jewish citizens of the US control all fiscal policy, foreign policy, and everything else, along with the freemasons and the neo-cons, and everything is unconstitutional. It is one big huge super-conspiracy.
Yup, you'll hear that a lot on TFL from the Pauloids. Not all of them, just the majority of them. And many will vote for Hillbama come election time, anyway.
cnorman,
Thank you, and I return the respect in kind.
The reason I posted this little missive was to explain that although the Paul doctrine ( I just made that up
) as it relates to terrorism may seem foreign, perhaps naive or even cowardly when viewed through the prism of your perspective, it's really not.
It makes perfect sense to Dr. Paul and his supporters including myself, because we see the problem from a different angle. You no doubt disagree with it just as I disagree with your perspective, and there we are.
Which I maintain is every terrorist group.
Which I fundamentally agree with. It does help to actually have the opposition's playbook, which we do.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that AQ is fundamentally different from other terrorist threats in any way that materially hampers our strategy. I think that the reason that 9/11 was so spectacularly effective is because nobody expected them to actually do something so spectacularly dumb. That attack very nearly destroyed Al Qaeda at the outset. The only thing that saved them was our own spectacularly inept response.
Al Qaeda has shown itself to be less politically savvy than the ordinary terrorist organization (which is saying a lot). We have uniformly failed to capitalize on that, failed to recognize our successes when we've had them, and failed to capitalize on their mistakes when they've made them.
This is the weakness of the current administration, and as good a reason as any to vote for change (except, of course voting for a Dem who has no plan at all). It's well-nigh impossible to do worse than we've done thus far. The terrorists have never had a victory we didn't hand them. They've had many, many victories.
You see, I have no problem thinking like them. Their behavior makes perfect sense to me because they're merely doing exactly what I would do in their shoes. That is not to say that I sympathize with them, merely that (as Chris Rock once said) "I understand".
Many on this forum are reluctant to place themselves in the mind of the enemy. Perhaps they're afraid of what they'll find out. Perhaps they're afraid of being branded terrorist sympathizers. Whatever the reason, I don't share that reluctance and don't mind admitting it. I've cheered the movie Red Dawn. I've deeply enjoyed the book Unintended Consequenses. I have, in my service, been willing to lay my life on the line for a cause. I understand them because they're fundamentally just like me.
They don't want to talk to us. That doesn't fit their plans. They must be seen by their identity group, however, as having made the attempt. It's sandbox finger-pointing writ large. Even that missive about "converting to Islam" was grossly misinterpreted if you actually read the release (which I did).
That wasn't for us. It was for them. Much like when Nancy Pelosi writes an "open letter" to the president it's not really for him, but for the press.
It can all be interpreted. The supposedly random dots can resolve themselves into a floating 3 dimensional image. But only if you look at it correctly. Your government has a vested political interest in not telling you this stuff. You have an emotional interest in not acknowledging what I'm saying. Fair 'nuff.
How do I know I'm right? I don't. But history seems to be on my side. What makes me think you're wrong? Aside from the above, the scorecard (2 wars going badly, a third on the way, 4,000 dead, a trillion dollars gone in exchange for the death and capture of "hundreds" of AQ operatives and their numbers are *increasing*) tells me that the current way of doing things doesn't seem to work very well.
Thank you, and I return the respect in kind.
The reason I posted this little missive was to explain that although the Paul doctrine ( I just made that up
) as it relates to terrorism may seem foreign, perhaps naive or even cowardly when viewed through the prism of your perspective, it's really not.It makes perfect sense to Dr. Paul and his supporters including myself, because we see the problem from a different angle. You no doubt disagree with it just as I disagree with your perspective, and there we are.
Which I maintain is every terrorist group.
Which I fundamentally agree with. It does help to actually have the opposition's playbook, which we do.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that AQ is fundamentally different from other terrorist threats in any way that materially hampers our strategy. I think that the reason that 9/11 was so spectacularly effective is because nobody expected them to actually do something so spectacularly dumb. That attack very nearly destroyed Al Qaeda at the outset. The only thing that saved them was our own spectacularly inept response.
Al Qaeda has shown itself to be less politically savvy than the ordinary terrorist organization (which is saying a lot). We have uniformly failed to capitalize on that, failed to recognize our successes when we've had them, and failed to capitalize on their mistakes when they've made them.
This is the weakness of the current administration, and as good a reason as any to vote for change (except, of course voting for a Dem who has no plan at all). It's well-nigh impossible to do worse than we've done thus far. The terrorists have never had a victory we didn't hand them. They've had many, many victories.
Not at all. I think if anything it's the other way around. It's your perspective that leads you to misunderstand, hence why their methods seem like chaotic madness to you. That's why so many people around here mistake their behavior as insanity.
You see, I have no problem thinking like them. Their behavior makes perfect sense to me because they're merely doing exactly what I would do in their shoes. That is not to say that I sympathize with them, merely that (as Chris Rock once said) "I understand".
Many on this forum are reluctant to place themselves in the mind of the enemy. Perhaps they're afraid of what they'll find out. Perhaps they're afraid of being branded terrorist sympathizers. Whatever the reason, I don't share that reluctance and don't mind admitting it. I've cheered the movie Red Dawn. I've deeply enjoyed the book Unintended Consequenses. I have, in my service, been willing to lay my life on the line for a cause. I understand them because they're fundamentally just like me.
They don't want to talk to us. That doesn't fit their plans. They must be seen by their identity group, however, as having made the attempt. It's sandbox finger-pointing writ large. Even that missive about "converting to Islam" was grossly misinterpreted if you actually read the release (which I did).
That wasn't for us. It was for them. Much like when Nancy Pelosi writes an "open letter" to the president it's not really for him, but for the press.
It can all be interpreted. The supposedly random dots can resolve themselves into a floating 3 dimensional image. But only if you look at it correctly. Your government has a vested political interest in not telling you this stuff. You have an emotional interest in not acknowledging what I'm saying. Fair 'nuff.
How do I know I'm right? I don't. But history seems to be on my side. What makes me think you're wrong? Aside from the above, the scorecard (2 wars going badly, a third on the way, 4,000 dead, a trillion dollars gone in exchange for the death and capture of "hundreds" of AQ operatives and their numbers are *increasing*) tells me that the current way of doing things doesn't seem to work very well.
So Convert To Islam! Go to Iran, and you will find your self only a half Infidel Dog! They will place you under there wings and teach you what button to push when you reach the middle of the crowd!
OMG people, Terrorist are just that! They want to instill terror in your life to achieve there goal. Goal ,,,,,,,,,,Eliminate anyone that can not be controlled, If you can not be controlled you are a Infedel Dog, Not worthy of a life as a CockRoach!
I say fight fire with fire!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4174519.stm
HAAAAAA!
OMG people, Terrorist are just that! They want to instill terror in your life to achieve there goal. Goal ,,,,,,,,,,Eliminate anyone that can not be controlled, If you can not be controlled you are a Infedel Dog, Not worthy of a life as a CockRoach!
I say fight fire with fire!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4174519.stm
HAAAAAA!
ForksLaPush
New member
If you have to start reading people's minds as to what they really meant instead of what they say they meant, you are living in a dream world made up to fit your assumptions. If I were going that route, when Ron Paul says he would talk nice and wait for the jihadists to make the next move, I could just go ahead and believe that he is broadcasting the message that if they step out of line he would nuke mecca. Now that would erode their support among the hoped-for "moderates", so I guess I would vote for Paul based on his tough stance in the Global Defensive War Against Jihad (GDWAJ). At some point you have to touch base with the reality of what people are actually saying.
a bit of personal information
GoSlash27,
Thanks for the expression of returned respect. If you're ever in Dallas, PM me and I'll buy a case of whatever you drink and we'll armwrestle and settle this. (You'll win.)
We can leave it here till then, I guess. Still, it's apparent that--well, before I say it, here's what I'm talking about:
"You have an emotional interest in not acknowledging what I'm saying."
You do, as another poster said a while ago, seem to have a peculiar confidence in your ability to read minds--bin Laden's and my own.
Unfortunately, you may not be as good at it as you think.
As it happens, I have a neurological condition which makes me depend almost entirely on cognition; for most practical purposes, I have no emotions at all. Everything I do comes from conscious, cognitive thought.
Example 1: My conversion to Judaism from Christianity was entirely motivated by intellectual and theological concerns. I had been a proud and devoted Christian all my life, but when I became convinced that Judaism made more intellectual sense to me, I left the faith of my birth without a qualm and never looked back. I had no emotional connection with the Christian faith. I have none with Judaism, either. It's what I believe, not what I feel.
Example 2: I was devoted to my parents, but when they died, I did not shed a tear; the grief just wasn't there. I missed having them around, but there was no emotional pain. Whatever it is that hurts when people die, I don't have it.
The only emotion of which I am sure I am capable is anger, and even that only under extreme or extended (and usually intellectual) provocation--and even then, it dissipates instantly when the provocation is gone.
In short, I have no emotional investment in anything at all. I can't. I don't even know what that means.
So I think it's fair to say that your judgment, in this case, was wrong. It was perhaps a bit arrogant and overconfident to assume that anyone who doesn't accept these ideas is somehow irrational or unable to understand them.
I understand the reasoning behind the "Paul doctrine" completely, and as I say, with most conventional, political groups, I think it's a fine strategy--and if your judgment about bin Laden's statements are accurate, then for them too; I'm just not sure that you're right in that regard. If you're this wrong about me, you just *might* be wrong about him, too.
Food for thought, perhaps.
One thing I have learned after living only in my head for all my years is this: when one is totally convinced that one CANNOT be wrong, it is time to reevaluate.
Live long and prosper.
GoSlash27,
Thanks for the expression of returned respect. If you're ever in Dallas, PM me and I'll buy a case of whatever you drink and we'll armwrestle and settle this. (You'll win.)
We can leave it here till then, I guess. Still, it's apparent that--well, before I say it, here's what I'm talking about:
"You have an emotional interest in not acknowledging what I'm saying."
You do, as another poster said a while ago, seem to have a peculiar confidence in your ability to read minds--bin Laden's and my own.
Unfortunately, you may not be as good at it as you think.
As it happens, I have a neurological condition which makes me depend almost entirely on cognition; for most practical purposes, I have no emotions at all. Everything I do comes from conscious, cognitive thought.
Example 1: My conversion to Judaism from Christianity was entirely motivated by intellectual and theological concerns. I had been a proud and devoted Christian all my life, but when I became convinced that Judaism made more intellectual sense to me, I left the faith of my birth without a qualm and never looked back. I had no emotional connection with the Christian faith. I have none with Judaism, either. It's what I believe, not what I feel.
Example 2: I was devoted to my parents, but when they died, I did not shed a tear; the grief just wasn't there. I missed having them around, but there was no emotional pain. Whatever it is that hurts when people die, I don't have it.
The only emotion of which I am sure I am capable is anger, and even that only under extreme or extended (and usually intellectual) provocation--and even then, it dissipates instantly when the provocation is gone.
In short, I have no emotional investment in anything at all. I can't. I don't even know what that means.
So I think it's fair to say that your judgment, in this case, was wrong. It was perhaps a bit arrogant and overconfident to assume that anyone who doesn't accept these ideas is somehow irrational or unable to understand them.
I understand the reasoning behind the "Paul doctrine" completely, and as I say, with most conventional, political groups, I think it's a fine strategy--and if your judgment about bin Laden's statements are accurate, then for them too; I'm just not sure that you're right in that regard. If you're this wrong about me, you just *might* be wrong about him, too.
Food for thought, perhaps.
One thing I have learned after living only in my head for all my years is this: when one is totally convinced that one CANNOT be wrong, it is time to reevaluate.
Live long and prosper.
!
Well, as long as it's not single-malt Scotch or something.
I don't drink much. I like a couple of shots of the Pinch or a good brandy now and then, but I avoid getting snockered.
You've got your happy drunks, your fighting drunks, and your silent drunks; but I'm a crying drunk. For me, alcohol in quantity is a gen-yoo-wine, full-out, pedal-to-the-metal depressant.
Sober, I probably know more jokes than anyone you ever met (and I REMEMBER them!), but get me loaded and I'm no fun at all. Two-drink maximum. Probably connected with the stuff I talked about in my last post.
Remind me to tell you the one about the Irishman who drowned at the brewery sometime.
Well, as long as it's not single-malt Scotch or something.
I don't drink much. I like a couple of shots of the Pinch or a good brandy now and then, but I avoid getting snockered.
You've got your happy drunks, your fighting drunks, and your silent drunks; but I'm a crying drunk. For me, alcohol in quantity is a gen-yoo-wine, full-out, pedal-to-the-metal depressant.
Sober, I probably know more jokes than anyone you ever met (and I REMEMBER them!), but get me loaded and I'm no fun at all. Two-drink maximum. Probably connected with the stuff I talked about in my last post.
Remind me to tell you the one about the Irishman who drowned at the brewery sometime.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
..
Last edited:
cnorman,
If I'm ever in the area I'll take you up on the offer.
I'm sorry to hear that. I have known others with similar conditions and it certainly does make things difficult.
I stand corrected re. "emotional investment" and retract that with my apologies. It does, however, apply to the bulk of those who maintain the position stated 5 posts back. If you are like the others I know with this condition, your ability to use empathy is impeded. If that's the case, you're not averse to thinking like your enemy, but rather hampered in doing so.
Nice quote for a sig. Everyone would do well to heed that.
ForksLaPush,
A terrorist is a crappy politician. Like most politicians, you can tell when he's lying because his lips are moving. You have to interpret such things with an eye towards the speaker's agenda.
Public statements from terrorists are always for the identity group, not the target group. They are propaganda, nothing more. They can be useful for some things, but not when accepted at face value.
What is more useful than public statements for divining the enemy's intentions is to evaluate his track record and his capabilities. They do not support the notion that he'd refrain from attacking us if we'd convert to Islam (which, to the best of my knowledge, is something he never even claimed in the first place).
If I'm ever in the area I'll take you up on the offer.
I'm sorry to hear that. I have known others with similar conditions and it certainly does make things difficult.
I stand corrected re. "emotional investment" and retract that with my apologies. It does, however, apply to the bulk of those who maintain the position stated 5 posts back. If you are like the others I know with this condition, your ability to use empathy is impeded. If that's the case, you're not averse to thinking like your enemy, but rather hampered in doing so.
Nice quote for a sig.
Everyone would do well to heed that.ForksLaPush,
Really? So if I don't take Romney's word at face value that he "supports the 2nd amendment" then I'm living in a dream world? Bin Laden also said that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 and it was a staged attack by our own government. Take it as fact? Do you accept everything you see on CNN as "fact"?
A terrorist is a crappy politician. Like most politicians, you can tell when he's lying because his lips are moving. You have to interpret such things with an eye towards the speaker's agenda.
Public statements from terrorists are always for the identity group, not the target group. They are propaganda, nothing more. They can be useful for some things, but not when accepted at face value.
What is more useful than public statements for divining the enemy's intentions is to evaluate his track record and his capabilities. They do not support the notion that he'd refrain from attacking us if we'd convert to Islam (which, to the best of my knowledge, is something he never even claimed in the first place).