"We need more terrorist attacks" says GOP chairman

[threegun]

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said.

This statement is directed at explaining what it would take for the people against the war to understand that Bush was correct in fighting it. The nay sayers (people against the war) will come around very quickly to appreciate (not join or get behind or vote republican but appreciate) the commitment of Bush and the men and women serving to protect us. Nothing in this statement says he is hoping for an attack to boost ratings. Milligan believes Bush is right and that another attack would make the naesayers understand that Bush is right nothing more than that.

He is saying that the reason the nay-sayers *haven't* come around is because there haven't been any more terrorist attacks.

Which is true....so what.

 

[SecDef]

Threegun, how would an attack justify the war in Iraq? I seem to be missing that bit, because as I said in my prior post, it seems like that would force the OPPOSITE conclusion, that the correct steps weren't being taken...

Appreciate. everyone already appreciate's the troops wherever they are. How would we suddenly appreciate the President's decisions when they result in terrorist attacks on US soil?

 

[threegun]

The president has been warning of the threat we face from Al Qaeda the primary force we are facing in Iraq. Another attack by Al Qaeda here at home will justify the Iraq war because it is the currant battle ground between us and Al Qaeda. Because victory in Iraq will cripple them and begin the end of terrorism. The naysayers seem to have forgotten that we are facing a foe that wishes to destroy us and has already attacked us. After 9-11 these same folks were all for destroying the enemy. We had bi partisan support for removing the threat but time has weakened their resolve. They have become complacent. As Miligan correctly stated another attack would remind them of the threat we face and they would appreciate the effort given of Bush to keep the pressure on the enemy in the face of such opposition.

 

[SteelCore]

threegun,

The president has been warning of the threat we face from Al Qaeda the primary force we are facing in Iraq.

Are you sure al Qaeda is the primary enemy in Iraq? That may be what the government says in order to tie the Iraq war to 9/11 as much as possible (since Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda, was hated by Osama, and had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks).

This government lies as a first resort. It's best to question every single claim they make.

Another attack by Al Qaeda here at home will justify the Iraq war because it is the currant battle ground between us and Al Qaeda.

No, it will simply prove that the Iraq war did not make us safer.

Because victory in Iraq will cripple them and begin the end of terrorism.

Even if there is a complete victory in Iraq -- and there probably won't be, since guerrilla wars are almost impossible to win -- there will never be any shortage of people who want to commit terrorist attacks on the US as long as our foreign policy stays the same. It's much like Timothy McVeigh attacked a building in Oklahoma City because of his anger over Waco. When the US government causes injustice and innocent death, then eventually what's done our name will come back to haunt us.

The naysayers seem to have forgotten that we are facing a foe that wishes to destroy us and has already attacked us.

Of course they attacked us. The US government has been harassing Arabs on behalf of oil and Israel for decades. Many innocent people have been killed with US-made bullets and missiles. Are they supposed to love us for that? If you were an Iraqi and US "shock & awe" had killed your family, wouldn't you be looking for a little payback? We need to look through the eyes of outsiders once in a while, to see us as they see us. That's not being wimpy; it's being moral.

After 9-11 these same folks were all for destroying the enemy. We had bi partisan support for removing the threat but time has weakened their resolve. They have become complacent.

Most people, including myself, supported going after Osama in Afghanistan. He attacked us, we retaliated. Fine. But I knew from the very beginning that the plan to invade Iraq was based on nothing but lies. The war became less popular as more people realized they'd been duped.

As Miligan correctly stated another attack would remind them of the threat we face and they would appreciate the effort given of Bush to keep the pressure on the enemy in the face of such opposition.

All we're doing is making them hate us more. They can come over here and attack us no matter how much pressure is on them. Anyone can pretend to be a noncombatant and leave Iraq to come sneak into America and cause harm. Some terrorists from whatever origins may already be here -- note the recent JFK plot.

My opinion is that this nation needs to defend itself aggressively when attacked, but apart from that, we have NO business forcing "democracy" on other people at the barrel of a gun. The more we continue to prove how "tough" we are, the more enemies we'll make -- and rest assured, some of them will get through, even if America is turned into a police state in the name of "security."

 

[GoSlash27]

threegun,
As I read it, your whole argument seems to center around the concept that the terrorists will be somehow hampered by a stable democracy in Iraq. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If true, all I can conclude from it is that you really don't understand the nature of the enemy.

Which is true....so what.

"So what"....what? I think you're getting defensive about an accusation I never leveled or implied. He said what he said, and you seem to be in agreement with my interpretation of what he said. I do personally disagree with what he said. You say "it's true", I say "no it's not" because I think that even another 9/11 won't bring around the nay-sayers at this point....but that's not important.

What *is* important is that this topic even came up in the first place. Let's assume that, as you say, "it's true"; The nay-sayers won't come around unless there is another 9/11 attack....who's fault is that? It's not the nay-sayers we've got to worry about, it's the general public. What will it take to bring *them* around? I watched the Republican debate tonight. All of the candidates stood up there and got to explain exactly where the party went wrong.

^THERE IT IS!! Do you see it? This guy is sitting there blithely suggesting that the Republican party's fortunes will turn...provided the enemy does something....we don't want them to do! There's a short version for that circumstance: "screwed".

So head on out, buy some cosmoline, and try not to think too hard about why you're doing it.

 

[gc70]

This establishes a link between the political fortunes of the Republican party and the actions of the terrorists.

Wishful thinking, Go/27? I fail to see "Republican party" in the quote from the original article:

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

 

[GoSlash27]

gc,
No, just logical conclusion. This guy 1) clearly endorses Bush's policies and apparently hasn't accepted that the public doesn't anymore, and B) is the chairman of the Arkansas Republican party.

And "wishful thinking"? What would I be wishing for? 4 (or maybe 8) years of the same totalitarian garbage from the left merely because there's nobody to stop them? I just sat through that with the Republicans. Hardly something to "wish" for.
What I wish is that the Republican party would get it's (*&^ together before the '12 election.

 

[threegun]

Goslash,

"So what"....what? I think you're getting defensive about an accusation I never leveled or implied. He said what he said, and you seem to be in agreement with my interpretation of what he said. I do personally disagree with what he said. You say "it's true", I say "no it's not" because I think that even another 9/11 won't bring around the nay-sayers at this point....but that's not important.

American is divided roughly 50/50 right now politically. After 9-11 the country was one. The enemy wasn't each other but Al Qaeda. We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another attack by Al Qaeda would galvanize Americans against them once again.

If you are saying that Milligan said that another attack would make the folks against the war appreciate the Bush's commitment to fighting it then we agree. When you start adding your own stuff to it we no longer agree.

Why should I buy Cosmoline? Do you really think that Hillary is going to win? Just look at Bush last election. Republicans knew he was horrible yet Kerry was so much worst that Bush wins again. Heck I voted Bush only to prevent a kerry presidency. Hillary is saying anything and everything she believes folks want to hear and her dislike numbers are near 50% already. We might disagree about the war and you might even add your own stuff to republican quotes but in the end it will be a republican against Hillary and if the next presidential candidate doesn't sound braindead (like bush) he will win.

 

[gc70]

This establishes a link between the political fortunes of the Republican party and the actions of the terrorists.

GoSlash27, your statement is as logical as saying:

"This establishes a link between the financial fortunes of veterans and the actions of the terrorists".

 

[Fremmer]

Yeah, that's right, the Republicans are in a vast conspiracy for more terrorist attacks on the US. I can't believe that you guys are even arguing about interpretation.

 

[threegun]

With media reporting this quote as some sort of desire for another attack on Milligans part or that there is some sort of link between the republican party's fortunes and terror attacks its no wonder we have the problems we have. Too many people out there are just to easy to fool. Thats right the Demoncrats have done a great job at fooling many of you into thinking that Bush lied about WMD's. That this war is lost already. That we aren't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they are trying to spin this quote from Milligan. Well they have fooled a few of you easy ones probably the same bunch they regularly manipulate and it pretty sad. Makes you guys look like sheeple.

 

[b22]

Too many people out there are just to easy to fool.

Yeah definitely.

Thanks for the laugh.

That this war is lost already.

This war was lost before it started. These people have been fighting each other for thousands of years, what makes you think that we'll ever win? I think that OBL is actually winning this war.

That we aren't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Well we wouldn't be if the dear leader hadn't gone in there and destroyed their government. Would we?

 

[threegun]

Well we wouldn't be if the dear leader hadn't gone in there and destroyed their government. Would we?

Correct. Now if Al Qaeda wasn't using resources of men, money, and weapons to fight us in Iraq where do you think they would be focusing those resources? Think now easy.

This war was lost before it started. These people have been fighting each other for thousands of years,

Thank god people like you didn't exist in mass during the beginning of WW2. We would be speaking Japanese or German now if you had.

what makes you think that we'll ever win?

Because we are Americans!

If we were united nothing can beat us. However folks like you show the enemy that we aren't united. The enemy knows that it cannot defeat us militarily. They have to focus on a political means of defeating us. You give them this means by showing them the divide. For our leaders focus then shifts from fighting in Iraq to fighting political battles at home. Every setback used as fuel by you to destroy the effort.

There are tons of good things happening in Iraq they just aren't news rating boosters like the IED's or suicide bombers are. We can win this war but only if we are united.

 

[b22]

Correct. Now if Al Qaeda wasn't using resources of men, money, and weapons to fight us in Iraq where do you think they would be focusing those resources? Think now easy.

You know that we don't have infinite money right? In fact we owe China billions of dollars, a lot of that money was wasted on Iraq. Terrorists aren't our only enemy and we can be attacked in ways that don't directly kill anyone.

Thank god people like you didn't exist in mass during the beginning of WW2.

The Iraq war can't be compared to WWII. Tell me, which of his neighbors did Saddam invade?

Because we are Americans!

If we were united nothing can beat us.

Somehow I knew that would be the answer.

Give me a real reason please. The Titanic was unsinkable you know.

They have to focus on a political means of defeating us.

No they have to focus on an economic means of defeating us, which is exactly what Bin Laden has said he was going to do (he's doing it).

There are better ways to fight terrorism than wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives in a war that will never be won.

 

[Slugthrower]

The War on Terror. Terrorism is nothing more than a tactic. This war could go on from now till eternity. The US Armed Services are like and unstoppable battle axe. The problem is that a battle axe is a poor weapon to use against flies. These Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are sneaky, we need to be just as sneaky, instead of lumbering into their stumbling blocks.

There is no reason to have our soldiers, inside the hornet's nest, playing a game of bomb magnet. A more plausible idea would be to set up a base in the middle of the desert. If we did this, the terrorists would have to come to us. We could use night vision equipment and other advanced technologies to see them coming and have a nice greeting waiting for them. All supplies could be air lifted from helicopter carriers and dropped inside this base. We might need satellite bases for refueling to facilitate this. Any people that we need to communicate with on the Iraqi side can be done via radio, computers, and the occasional face to face. When an official wants a face to face, they would have to get approval ahead of time and approach this main base inside of a preplanned corridor. They also would have to use a vehicle that we have pre checked for IEDs and Trojan wannabes. Once they are under way they should be escorted by helicopters to prevent ambush and secret switch outs before they arrive at our remote base. Any other vehicles or people that approach us without prior notification should be destroyed with extreme prejudice. We have the weapons to out range any force that they could ever mount. Instead of letting these fanatics get in close and nullify these advantages.

When we need to send troops out for a patrol, which should be random and/or done under the cover of night, it can be supported by air power and forward observation. This war would be best served by special operations. The problems we are encountering are more from poor strategy and tactics than from the inability to defeat the enemy in this theater of operation.

 

[GoSlash27]

Slugthrower,

The problems we are encountering are more from poor strategy and tactics than from the inability to defeat the enemy in this theater of operation.

The problems are from poor strategy and tactics, and that is reflected in the fact that we're even in that theater of operations in the first place.

 

[threegun]

Slugthrower, A change in tactics would be great.

B22, I asked you a question and you ignored it. I'll ask it again.

If Al Qaeda wasn't using resources of men, money, and weapons to fight us in Iraq where do you think they would be focusing those resources?

The answer will help my argument hence your reluctance to answer it but in a debate it is customary to answer.

The Iraq war can't be compared to WWII. Tell me, which of his neighbors did Saddam invade?

He invaded Kuwait and signed a ceasefire agreement prior to the end of GW1. He violated that agreement dozens if not hundreds of times by firing on our aircraft. I won't even go into the numerous UN resolutions he violated. We were justified in invading him the very first shot he took at our planes. I guess the liberal media has found yet another easy mark in you.

No they have to focus on an economic means of defeating us, which is exactly what Bin Laden has said he was going to do (he's doing it).

I was referring to the war in Iraq. We can only be defeated by leaving. Bin Laden was referring to defeating the us as a whole by economic means. He meant attacking us here at home in an area vital to our economy.

There are better ways to fight terrorism than wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives in a war that will never be won.

None involve appeasement and retreat. All involve killing them before they kill us. Agreed that it can be done better but it still needs to be done and it will cost money and people will die.

 

[GoSlash27]

threegun,
It's really striking how much you don't understand about terrorism.
You're advocating the exact same policy that's been implemented these last six years, yet remain oblivious to the fact that we are losing this "war" by any objective measure. Do you suppose those two facts are coincidence?
And your interpretation of Bin Laden's economic warfare strategy is about the most factually incorrect thing I've ever seen posted on this forum as "fact"...aside from one comment I read in another sub-fora that stated that Glocks had plastic slides. You are 100% dead-wrong. I know that you are 100% dead wrong, because (unlike you) I have actually read their strategy.

Moving along...
Our government reacted out of the same fear, anger, and ignorance that you now display, and we all bear witness to the aftermath of this policy. Your suggestion that we lop those heads off the Hydra more vigorously just goes to show that you know nothing about the nature of the Hydra.

It was anger that drove our government to wage this so-called "GWoT"...as if it were really "global", a "war", or as if such an approach could ever defeat "terror"

It was fear that led them to believe that terrorists were stronger than the law, so they instituted extrajudicial detention, rendition, and torture overseas and secret police powers and warrantless wiretapping at home.

But the worst was ignorance that blinded them to the hard-won lessons of past battles with terrorists. They ignored the fact that interning made the IRA stronger. They ignored the fact that torture cost the French Angola. They ignored the fact that domestic spying hindered our efforts against the Weather underground, the Klan, the BLA.

The terrorists? They are not ignorant of history, nor are they fools. They have watched "the Battle of Algiers". They have read The Mini-Manual and The Green Book. They have learned from past successes and failures.

And they're winning. They're winning big, because people not unlike yourself are advocating disastrous policy.

You need to correct your rectal/cranial inversion and start learning about your enemy. I direct this tirade at you, but it really applies to all who follow your wayward thinking.
If you wish to defeat terrorism, step #1 would be to QUIT DOING EVERY *&^%*&$%ING THING THE TERRORISTS WANT YOU TO DO!!!!
Stop treating it like a "war" because you merely justify their propaganda as being "holy warriors".
Stop interning them as "enemy combatants". See above.
Stop undermining our own Constitution, which doesn't operationally hinder them, but merely serves to make us look as tyrannical as they say we are.
Stop confusing the Arab on the street with them. It forces the critical neutrals into their arms.
In short...stop doing everything in your power to prove the terrorists right.

They are no more than organized crime in reality, except they seek political clout instead of money.
They're just criminals, and if our policy reflects that and we treat them as such, they can't win.

So, uhh...step #2 would be to start doing things they don't want us to do.

 

[GoSlash27]

And to respond to your question

If Al Qaeda wasn't using resources of men, money, and weapons to fight us in Iraq where do you think they would be focusing those resources?

They would do so here. They would have to, because they need us in Iraq. Anything that lures us back there helps the terrorists.

Now answer this:
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, do you suppose that maybe AlQaeda wouldn't have the resources of men, money, and weapons that you're so scared of?

It was our policy that made them this powerful. So what to do now? Continue growing our enemy's power in exchange for the perception of temporary safety? Do you understand the concept of tactical thinking vs. strategic?

 

[threegun]

They would do so here. They would have to, because they need us in Iraq. Anything that lures us back there helps the terrorists.

Thank you for answering the question for B22. Now you accuse me of short sightedness and I'm going to point out yours now. If we are attacked again which you say the chance is greater by pulling out, what is the economic impact of such attack? You are concerned that the terrorist are going to bleed us out fighting in Iraq (monetarily). Sept 11th cost the US 200 billion dollars in losses. Thats 2 years of fighting in Iraq. If we are attacked again here at home on a larger scale (which is their goal) I submit that the economic losses would make the war spending look like pennies. The difference is if attacked here we lose the capacity to make money so the impact is devastating. Thats why Bin Laden has said that destroying the U.S. must be done economically with attack like Sept 11th.

bin Laden says: "The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power"

"blessed by Allah to destroy America's economic and military landmarks".

I'm not arguing that Bin Laden doesn't want to also try to bleed us like the soviets clearly this has to be desirable to him. He does understand that America is a bit different than the Soviet Union economically. He directly talks about hitting us economically at home as a way of defeating us.

"There's an acute awareness of where to hit, where it hurts the most," Ranstorp said. "There's an awareness of the benefits of targeting critical infrastructure."

If you expect us to believe that Bin Laden prefers loosing thousands of men and millions of dollars fighting us in Iraq to loosing 17 men and half a million dollars (the cost of sept 11ths attacks as reported by OBL) you are loony.

BTW, I do understand OBL's history and Afghanistan's fight against the soviets. Didn't he accept our help then? Evil as we be helping Israel to kill those poor Palestinians and medaling around the world. You see he has you fooled. You believe his excuses. I see his lies. They want the world controlled by Muslims. They will kill us all to achieve this goal. You can wake up now or when its too late.