15 Jul 05
Originally posted by Amauroteyour figures for wounded are incomplete, but still declining.
Several problems there: first of all, you're not factoring in the 700 wounded the other day or the 1500 in Madrid. Secondly, in terrorist terms, citing 9/11, the most horrifically successful terrorist act of the last century. as the sort of thing that - but for the grace of the invasion of Iraq - Al-Qaeda would otherwise be able to pull off every other wee ...[text shortened]... , the samples oppose terrorism because terrorists have killed people in their own nation-states.
who said every other week? is that a valid point?
if the UK wants porous borders, and Pakistan wants to permit schools that foster ideologies that result in the action we saw last week, what do you reasonably think the U.S. could or should do about that?
the survey also relates a decline in support for bin Laden. to what degree this is related to his own unactions is unspecified; in any event, it undermines your point.
15 Jul 05
4 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotZeeblebot, they are only declining if you are hopelessly Eurocentric - tell me, do you seriously believe that the casualties in Iraq are declining or not occuring on a daily basis? And as for "who said every other week", citing three sensational terrorist events as if they were typical and then drawing a casualty sine wave through them is preposterous - most of these events take years in the planning, whereas setting off a car bomb in a street in Baghdad may take days, which is precisely how often it occurs. If you want to convince people, try factoring in the hundreds of low-level events which result in maimed, dead, traumatized. Then come back to us.
your figures for wounded are incomplete, but still declining.
who said every other week? is that a valid point?
if the UK wants porous borders, and Pakistan wants to permit schools that foster ideologies that result in the action w ...[text shortened]... ctions is unspecified; in any event, it undermines your point.
As for the survey indicating decline in support - quite apart from the sample being of 17 nations, one of which registers a 14% rise in support, you're confusing recruitment with popularity. When you're dealing with a nation as populous as Indonesia, a Likert scale indicating majority disapproval isn't going to effect recruitment at all - if they even capture 0.05% of 200 million people as revolutionary cadres, they aren't losing anything.
PS: If you think the UK supports porous borders, you don't know much about mainstream debate here. We're more xenophobic than ever, and the yellow press is like something out of V For Vendetta.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by AmauroteAny "battle of ideas" can only occur in an arena in which both sides are willing to talk. They, the Islamofascists, started this round of "dialogue". Until they demonstrate they're willing to at least entertain the idea that our civilization's right to exist free from their terror rampages, the current resident of the White House is absolutely correct in carrying the fight to them.
Even presupposing that Iraq was some kind of mano a mano battle in excelsis between Islamists and the US military, I don't think the West is even remotely equipped to militarily defeat them. After all, our weapons of choice are depleted uranium bullets, Apaches and aerial bombardment, their weapons of choice are garden fertilizer, audiocassettes and boxcut ...[text shortened]... have to win the battle of ideas, and the current incumbent of the White House doesn't have any.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by gpb0216I can see why you say that, but to be perfectly honest I don't see any reason why it should be true. Why do you need to sit down around a table with a terrorist to win a battle of ideas? You don't need to negotiate at all - if you want an example of a successful use of suasion and secularism versus clerical repression, take a look at the popularity of laicism in France. What was it, 70% support at the very lowest? 1-0 to secularism, irrationalism and superstition pushed back a little - and not a shot fired or a border crossed.
Any "battle of ideas" can only occur in an arena in which both sides are willing to talk. They, the Islamofascists, started this round of "dialogue". Until they demonstrate they're willing to at least entertain the idea that our civilization's right to exist free from their terror rampages, the current resident of the White House is absolutely correct in carrying the fight to them.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by gpb0216That's what they figured when they took the fight to us. The history of the world didn't start on September 11, 2001; US meddling in the Middle East as been going on since at least 1953 when the CIA overthrew Mossadegh, the elected president of Iran. We've been supplying arms and money to their "terrorist" governments that they are sworn to overthrow. The Islamofascist war is a mirror image of the war on terror with the difference that they're winning in the long run because the bloody policies of the US like the invasion of Iraq are fanning the fuels of hatred against the West and adding to their ranks everyday. The policy your dimwit President is following is a sure loser, Sunshine.
Any "battle of ideas" can only occur in an arena in which both sides are willing to talk. They, the Islamofascists, started this round of "dialogue". Until they demonstrate they're willing to at least entertain the idea that our civilization's right to exist free from their terror rampages, the current resident of the White House is absolutely correct in carrying the fight to them.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by gpb0216Interesting topic. Do you have sources for this information?
The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of death-wo ...[text shortened]... ause we "play nice" by pulling out of Iraq, or anywhere else.
We win or we perish. Choose.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by Amauroteeurocentrism is maintaining that only europeans have the right to military assistance, freedom, and other inconsequentialities.
Zeeblebot, they are only declining if you are hopelessly Eurocentric - tell me, do you seriously believe that the casualties in Iraq are declining or not occuring on a daily basis? And as for "who said every other week", citing three sensational terrorist events as if they were typical and then drawing a casualty sine wave through them is preposterous - m ...[text shortened]... more xenophobic than ever, and the yellow press is like something out of V For Vendetta.
would you rather have the insurgency achieve their aims and regain power? ... back to the days of the Baathists? ...
"one of which" out of 17, why even bring that up?
here is the white house's take on it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap1-nrn.html
"President Bush launched a global effort to defeat terrorism and to protect and defend America. During his term in office, the President has led a steady and systematic campaign against global terrorists and their allies. ( Video) ( Audio)
Since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the United States has waged two of the swiftest and most humane wars in history (Afghanistan: Video) and (Iraq: Video). Fifty million people have been liberated from two of the world’s most brutal and aggressive regimes – and the terrorists’ foreign operating bases are being taken away.
More than three-quarters of al Qaeda's known leaders and associates have been detained or killed. These include Mohammed Atef, al Qaeda’s senior field commander killed in a bombing raid in Afghanistan; Abu Zubaida, Osama bin Laden’s field commander after the killing of Atef, captured in Pakistan; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the September 11th attacks, captured in Pakistan; Ramzi Binalshibh, a coordinator of the September 11th attacks, captured in Pakistan; Hambali, top strategist for al Qaeda's associate group Jemaah Islamiah in Southeast Asia, captured in Thailand; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, al Qaeda’s chief of operations in the Persian Gulf, captured in the United Arab Emirates; Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a suspect in the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, captured in Pakistan; and Abu Issa al–Hindi, a central planner of detailed reconnaissance of American finanncial institutions, captured in Britain.
Operational and logistical terrorist support cells have been disrupted in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Southeast Asia.
Nearly $140 million in terrorist assets have been blocked in over 1,400 accounts worldwide.
President Freezes Terrorists' Assets ( Video)
President Blocks More Assets in Financial War On Terrorism ( Video)
We are working closely with intelligence services all over the globe and have enhanced our intelligence capabilities in order to trace dangerous weapons activity. ( Video) "
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotThat's what's called propaganda, Sparky. Is the "swift and humane" war in Iraq that has resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 Iraqis and close to 2,000 Americans over? Guess I missed that White House press release.
eurocentrism is maintaining that only europeans have the right to military assistance, freedom, and other inconsequentialities.
would you rather have the insurgency achieve their aims and regain power? ... back to the days of the Baathists? ...
"one of which" out of 17, why even bring that up?
here is the white house's take on it:
ht ...[text shortened]... enhanced our intelligence capabilities in order to trace dangerous weapons activity. ( Video) "
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebot(1) No it isn't: it's a form of parochialism, and by ignoring the everyday terrorist reality in Iraq and focusing on three sensational events in the West as if they were the norm and the events in Iraq just trivia in some faraway land, you're embodying it.
eurocentrism is maintaining that only europeans have the right to military assistance, freedom, and other inconsequentialities.
would you rather have the insurgency achieve their aims and regain power? ... back to the days of the Baathists? ...
"one of which" out of 17, why even bring that up?
here is the white house's take on it:
ht ...[text shortened]... enhanced our intelligence capabilities in order to trace dangerous weapons activity. ( Video) "
(2) Your rhetorical question is bizarre and tangential. It's Saturday morning, so I'm sorely tempted to recite the lyrics to "Would you like to swing on a star?" as a response, but give me some credit, I've resisted.
(3) If you think Jordan is not a major contributor to the terrorist scene, you're way off beam: to take just one example, where do you think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi comes from? Most of the major contributors to terrorism come from nations whose governments are well-disposed to the United States of America - like Britain, for instance. Sorry, but 17 nations is too small a sample for something so large as a global war on terror.
Meanwhile, this brilliantly successful war on terror has yet to catch Osama bin Laden, never mind stem the crimson tide of deaths. I suppose the CIA are just warming up for the big push later on?