6 points on terrorism

[Mike Peterson]

1. We are at war with al-Queda, not with "terror".
2. For the foreseeable future, we cannot completely eliminate terrorist attacks, no more than we can completely eliminate murder. Our goal should be to reduce the risk.
3. There are certain extremely important principles upon which our nation is based. Due process and not torturing people (even guilty people) are two of them.
4. "They do it, why can't we?" is not a valid argument. My mom was not convinced by this argument when I made it at age five. It is rather upsetting to see it made by adults.
5. Maintaining our principles is more important than reducing the risk of terrorist attacks. There is no point in living if you have to sacrifice your decency to do so.
6. The good news is that we don't have to make that choice! Most of the principle-violating shit that has occurred in the past six years hasn't actually made us any safer.

Mike

[Lenny]

1. We are at war with al-Queda, not with "terror".
2. For the foreseeable future, we cannot completely eliminate terrorist attacks, no more than we can completely eliminate murder. Our goal should be to reduce the risk.
3. There are certain extremely important principles upon which our nation is based. Due process and not torturing people (even guilty people) are two of them.
4. "They do it, why can't we?" is not a valid argument. My mom was not convinced by this argument when I made it at age five. It is rather upsetting to see it made by adults.
5. Maintaining our principles is more important than reducing the risk of terrorist attacks. There is no point in living if you have to sacrifice your decency to do so.
6. The good news is that we don't have to make that choice! Most of the principle-violating shit that has occurred in the past six years hasn't actually made us any safer. Mike

Heavy points, Mike. Wish we could have a beer and the time needed to work through them. For #1, isn't Al Queda a bunch of Afghans, organized by The Arab (as they call Osama), and they are kind of like the KKK immediately after the Civil War. That is a few of those guys got tired of the anarchy, criminality on the public highways, and lawlessness, and decided to organize to establish SOME kind of law. As they had no "history" and "infrastructure" and were essentially decimated by 20 years of war on the Russian/Soviets, they turned to the only source they had. Sorry it wasn't The Bible, but......If that IS the case then I've no beef with them, per se. Unless they come here to harm US. The enemy is more elusive, in my limited understanding, than to say "Al Queda". Yeah, they are popping caps at us and would kill us in a heartbeat, but then I would be too if they were in MY country. No, I don't like their treatment of much of anything, but I can understand them. The Afghans and US are the ONLY peoples on the planet the overthrew the mighty British Empire. No other nations kicked the Brits out! They will war on one another until an outsider shows up, then unity within prevails. Something we could learn, or at least so I think (and admire).
On the #2 point, comes the rub. As you want to "reduce the risk (of terror) please tell me how, WITHOUT giving up some of what we call freedom, etc. Tough nut to crack.
But before we put all asleep, let me thank you for your thoughtful post. I found it refreshing, stimulating, and enjoyable. Hope you post again your view. :2cents:

[Braggi]

1. We are at war with al-Queda, not with "terror".
...

Thanks Mike, for the thoughtful post.

I have a slightly different point of view on the issue above. I don't think "we're" at war at all. I think the US Govt. wants terrorist groups to grow and prosper because it gives them a good reason to steal more money from US taxpayers and gives an excuse for us to invade countries that are oil rich.

Al-Queda (there are at least half a dozen spellings) is a word invented by the CIA. I don't think Osama bin Laden ever used the word before the 9/11 attacks, at least, not on one of his public announcements. Now it is a rallying cry for him. Good work, CIA.

So we have a real problem here that is a whole lot bigger than Al-Queda and OBL, and that problem is home grown.

All of our tactics since the 9/11 attacks have served to strengthen terrorist groups and increase recruitment. Is this an accident?

-Jeff

[Reportanddeport]

If I had good reason to think that you had planted a bomb that was going to kill a lot of innocent people, I'd do whatever it took to make you talk. Those who disarm the defenders are just as guilty as the attackers. Just because you're too pussy to do what's right, doesn't mean I am.



1. We are at war with al-Queda, not with "terror".
2. For the foreseeable future, we cannot completely eliminate terrorist attacks, no more than we can completely eliminate murder. Our goal should be to reduce the risk.
3. There are certain extremely important principles upon which our nation is based. Due process and not torturing people (even guilty people) are two of them.
4. "They do it, why can't we?" is not a valid argument. My mom was not convinced by this argument when I made it at age five. It is rather upsetting to see it made by adults.
5. Maintaining our principles is more important than reducing the risk of terrorist attacks. There is no point in living if you have to sacrifice your decency to do so.
6. The good news is that we don't have to make that choice! Most of the principle-violating shit that has occurred in the past six years hasn't actually made us any safer.

Mike

[Mike Peterson]

Good feedback, Jeff. We're really at war with ourselves. It was the U.S. that earned the retribution of 9/11 in the first place. If we want to seek out an enemy then we as a nation need to look in the mirror. The U.S. practices brutal imperialism and world domination that result in the deaths of at least thousands of people every year all over the world. The economic consequences of U.S. foreign policy subjugates the economies of many nations, keeping them impoverished or far below their growth potential.

So when the underdog finally gives the big bully an overdue black eye, we Americans are clueless as to why it happened because had been doing business as usual. Just look back at the idiotic things that Bush said were the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. Nothing could be further from the truth but the right wing doesn't want you to know the truth because it's not in their interests that the public be informed of what's really going on. Other right wingers, such as the ones in this forum, are completely deluded and in denial.

Which furthermore points out a poignant truth about the 'Ron Paulers' that says it all. On the surface, they viciously criticize Bush on only some of his policies, such as Iraq and why we were attacked. But the reality is that Ron Paul supporters are even more reactionary than Bush. Just read their position on Global Warming and many other issues. They want to completely defund government and reduce it to a tiny spec with little or no social services. They believe that they are the true custodians of the American Dream. What a bunch of hogwash.

Mike


Thanks Mike, for the thoughtful post.

I have a slightly different point of view on the issue above. I don't think "we're" at war at all. I think the US Govt. wants terrorist groups to grow and prosper because it gives them a good reason to steal more money from US taxpayers and gives an excuse for us to invade countries that are oil rich.

Al-Queda (there are at least half a dozen spellings) is a word invented by the CIA. I don't think Osama bin Laden ever used the word before the 9/11 attacks, at least, not on one of his public announcements. Now it is a rallying cry for him. Good work, CIA.

So we have a real problem here that is a whole lot bigger than Al-Queda and OBL, and that problem is home grown.

All of our tactics since the 9/11 attacks have served to strengthen terrorist groups and increase recruitment. Is this an accident?

-Jeff

[theindependenteye]

>>If I had good reason to think that you had planted a bomb that was going to kill a lot of innocent people, I'd do whatever it took to make you talk.

Sounds like a good idea for a tv series. But is the door to torture limited to that, and once it's open, what follows? What exactly is "good reason"? Seems as if that justifies the North Vietnamese in their torturing of McCain & others who were actually dropping bombs on them.

>>Just because you're too pussy to do what's right, doesn't mean I am.

Sounds kinda sexist to me. I think women could do just as good a job at torture as men can, if given the opportunity.

General comment, and not directed just at Report: I wish we could all lighten up a bit. These are serious issues, yes, and people feel deeply about them. But it's really hard for me to hear what you're saying when it goes into personal attack — no matter how much some of us may loathe one another. YMMV.

Cheers--
Conrad

[Neshamah]

Of the top three remaining Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is the most supportive of torture, ahem, I mean, enhanced interrogation techniques. Obama and McCain both want to restrict it.

It is true that torture, (and tapping our phones, internet, etc.) may save lives, but the cost is the destruction of the ideals of the United States. (The U.S. in the last century has fallen far short of its ideals, but liberty and religious tolerance are still good ideals.) If saving lives is our principle concern, we could save a lot more by enforcing a Federal 5 mph speed limit. The cost of such a measure, while high, does not actually go against the Constitution or against international standards of human rights.

~ Neshamah

[Clancy]

If saving lives is our principle concern, we could save a lot more by enforcing a Federal 5 mph speed limit.

Not to mention the fact that the US government subsidizes and taxes the sale of one of the most addictive drugs known to man, which still kills half a million Americans a year, many of them in horribly painful circumstances.

I always find it odd to see cigarettes for sale in 'drug stores', where people also go to get their prescription drugs for cancer.

[Tars]

Of the top three remaining Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is the most supportive of torture

Hmmm...I don't see what you're accusing, from any of her statements. I think that both Obama and Clinton are almost exactly equally anti-torture. I Googled "Hillary+torture". The most critical article I could find in the top listings was from Salon, a quite-liberal source. And their stance was that she was "somewhat vague" about one of her statements.

Here're Clinton's responses to specific questions from Salon about torture:
1) Does HRC support renditions?

The Bush administration's policy of rendition is a moral and national security failure, and Senator Clinton strongly opposes it. Senator Clinton opposes sending anyone to places for interrogation where they will be tortured or where their basic human rights will not be protected.


2) Does HRC support the policy of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"?

No. The Senator is in favor of interrogations that are lawful.


3) Does Senator Clinton support the use of "black sites"?

Senator Clinton categorically opposes enforced disappearances as wrong, damaging to our security, and contrary to our international obligations.

No doubt that if she's the Dem candidate in the general election, a more-specific opinion will be presented by her or her campaign. In the meantime, she appears to have come out firmly against torture.