this is not an "age of terrorism"

[datasuspect]

this shit has been happening for eons: catapulting pox and plague infected corpses over walls; poisoning indian blankets; the munich olympics; beirut; etc. ad nauseum.

we are not at "war."

it is an elective excursion manufactured by the bush administration and foisted upon the american people, iraqis, and the rest of the world.

there is probably more threat now because of bush's actions.

i really cannot stand alarmist, reactionary thinking which tries to excuse illegal government action by attempting to rationalize the poor behavior of our government by saying we are "at war."

bunch of malarkey.

[niyad]

1. but it is sooooo much easier to control a population of sheeples who are

encouraged to be afraid of everything--that way, they have neither the time nor the energy to pay attention to anything else. silly, don't you know that basic precept by now?

[datasuspect]

2. i know

it is one of the most masterful marketing campaigns i have had the severest displeasure to witness.

[Al-CIAda]

10. The BBC's 'Power of Nightmares' goes through this wonderfully.

BBC series – The Power of Nightmares
TV documentary that explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

transcript-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

[ConfuZed]

55. You can actually download the whole series I just can't tell you where :(

[wli]

3. it's pretty rare outside military-occupied territory

More commonly suicide bombing (or "terrorism") is a false flag attack by the government to influence politics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. You know that, I know taht

though I am guilty I liked the moniker of the Sacred Age of Terra for soem fiction I am writing... it just has a nice cache to it, and nice way to turn it on its head.

;-)

[Warren DeMontague]

5. "How many Terrorists have you met, Sam? ...ACTUAL Terrorists?"

[datasuspect]

6. we're all terrorists

anyway, i'm not "with" bush, so i must be against him.

[Lannes]

7. More people die from the flu every year than from terrorism

But Id like to see the west address the causes of terrorism instead of only the symptoms.

Not invading countries pre-emptively would be a good start.

[G_j]

8. perpetually at war against a vague and ever- changing enemy

I'm convinced they have read 1984

[The Traveler]

9. Declaring war on terror

is much like declaring war on flanking maneuvers. Terrorism is a tactic. I prefer the term "asymmetrical warfare".

When people send people to drive airplanes into "important buildings", and kill 3000 or so people doing it, you're at war with someone, buddy. We would use a cruise missile for such a task, and have. They used hijacked airplanes, 'cause they don't have cruise missiles. They end result is the same ... carnage.

It is quite valid to argue that given certain aspects of American foreign policy, we can't be too surprised that we're drawing some fire. I think that subject needs some honest debate, if only so that we the people come to some understanding of what is being done in our name around the world. I think an objective look at that would indicate a need to "clean up our act" a bit and bring our actions abroad more in line with American values. But, make no mistake about it ... Bin Laden and Company want the world to return to 12th Century values. I don't. I like women's rights, for example.

I don't mind being THEIR enemies. I sure as fuck don't want to be their FRIEND. But we have turned many to their cause with whom we could have reasoned and done business. A study of aikido would have done much to improve American strategy ... but the principles of aikido are far too subtle for the Bushista mind to grasp.

[Maple]

12. bin Laden

doesn't want the 'world' to return to any 12th century.

They want to run their own countries, without interference.

They have no interest in how you run yours, as long as you stay out of theirs.

[The Traveler]

14. Hmmm .. then he should revise certain statements. (n/t)

[Maple]

16. Or you should check

to see that the real bin Laden said them.

Lotta tapes...few have been authenticated.

[The Traveler]

34. I have studied Bin Laden

He first came to my attention in the early eighties. Here was this rich kid who abandoned his comforts to go fight the Soviets in Afghanistan ... and was kicking their ass. It makes for an intriguing story, actually.

Bin Laden shares a common view among mystics of various theological stripes that capitalism has created a vast concentration camp of the soul. That while there is liberation to be found in it, that liberation is built on bondage. (I'm trying to summarize a lot of stuff here very briefly.)

In Bin Laden's view, American people suffer in the belly of this beast. This is a very important point to understand ... Osama does not hate us. He opposes us and wants to liberate us from godless capitalism. He is convinced that until America is brought to its knees, our brand of capitalism will continue to hold sway over the world, will screw up the Middle East ... and that it is devoid of human values and must be shut down.

Frankly, I think some of his criticisms are on target. We are mistaken when we attribute to the free market, to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" the attributes of gods. It is in this sense he accuses us of idolatry ... worship of false gods. When I look at the monster created by for profit medicine and other matters, it is hard for me to discredit his point of view entirely. Free markets seems to want to operate only to satisfy the profit motive, and are too willing to sacrifice other human values. I point to the level of poverty we in this affluent nation are willing to accept as supporting evidence for this view. If globalized free markets are such a good thing, why are we witnessing a rise in forced labor around the world? But I digress.

Blowing up Buddhist statues (as was perpetrated by his Taliban friends) and "honor killings and rapes" are not the proper responses to the epistemological and ethical failures of capitalism or Western civilization in general but are quite consistent with his approach to things. Bin Laden's problem is that he is convinced that he knows THE TRUTH ... and that there is only one Truth. Epistemologically, his error is, as the scientist and peace advocate Jacob Bronowski would have noted, similar to the Nazi error: When you believe you know the only things worth knowing, all manner of atrocities become morally possible. This is also, I might add, a problem I believe George Bush shares. I think these guys actually have much in common psychologically.

On this basis, I oppose Bin Laden and his philosophy. Since he is willing to do us violence I would have no problem pulling the trigger on the sonofabitch. Don't expect an apology for that.

The larger issue of American Middle Eastern policy ... I suspect you and I are in relative agreement as to what has gone wrong there.

[Maple]

38. Oh rubbish

bin Ladens dad is a big capitalist in Saudi Arabia.

He has no interest in Americans beyond removing them from his country...Saudi Arabia....and other Arab countries.

Stop attributing some anti-capitalist jargon to a man who is on a completely different page.

[Guaranteed]

42. Extremely well said.

He may have a couple of points, but, to be honest, I really don't give a shit.

Pretty amazing to believe that we have people defending bin Laden, here.

[datasuspect]

44. you can comment about something

and detach yourself from the subject matter.

it doesn't mean you defend, condone, or bash--it simply means that you are discussing other viewpoints about the ideas.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. He's not DEFENDING Bin Laden

just explaining where he's coming from and how his views evolved.

That kind of stuff is worth knowing so that you don't make tactical errors in combatting him.

[The Traveler]

61. I thought you knew me better than that, man.

Not defending the dude. Explaining my perception of his thought processes.

But I also think various thinkers are correct in their assessment that something has gone hideously wrong with a world order based on ascendent capitalism. Capitalism represents a fine impulse, and is a mighty engine for creative chaos. However, the free market has demonstrated it will not through the intervention of some invisible hand create all the structures required to erect a healthy society.

In that respect, I can sorta see his viewpoint. If you will, we have elevated capitalism beyond its proper place. The profit motive must once again be restored to a proper competition with other valid human impulses. If you accept that premise, the question becomes which impulses are to be allowed to enter into that competition, how the competition is structured. In our answers to that question, Bin Laden and I are in fundamental opposition. You and I, on the other hand, would quibble over detail. (Of course, that IS where the devil really resides ... in all those difficult to assess details. My point is you and I can work in the shades of gray and make something work. Bin Laden cannot.)

He is an absolutist, and would make the capitalistic impulse subject to his interpretation of God's Laws (whatever they are). I am absolutely not an absolutist. (**grin**) Being human, it is my belief that mine is the right to be wrong.

The critical issue is not getting it right all the time, but in detecting and correcting error. Absolutists like Bush (and I have come to believe he is indeed one) and Bin Laden are emotionally incapable of this.

Ideology alone is insufficient to surf the waves of change washing over us. Ultimately, we will have to learn to shift, adapt, and work those waves. We can do so without becoming aimless, without abandoning the bonds of fellowship, without denying our duty to our neighbor. We can get a lot of it right, but we'll make a lot of mistakes along the way.

[geek tragedy]

64. No one is accusing you of defending bin Laden. It's another poster

who's spouting pro-bin Laden bullshit.

[Guaranteed]

20. I don't give two shits what bin Laden wants.

That motherfucker needs to be killed or captured. There is no excuse for what he did.

We DO need to look at our foreign military and economic policies to make sure that they are fair, as always. But I'm not going to take the time to look and say, "Well, maybe this bin Laden guy has point." I don't care what he wants. He has recused himself from the realm of honest, civil discussion.

[Maple]

26. Well you should

because you haven't one shred of proof he did anything.

And if he did, he has cause.

Maybe you should consider that before you 'regime change' in someone elses country the next time

[Guaranteed]

29. Yeah, cuz I supported the war in Iraq, right?

WTF is the BULLSHIT that people keep pulling?

You can't distinguish between fighting Al Qaeda and invading Iraq, yourself?

[Maple]

30. Neither were for fighting 'terrorism'

And both were a waste of lives, money and time.

You want to solve the problem, stop interfering in other people's countries.

[Guaranteed]

33. That's fucking bullshit. Al Qaeda was rooted in Afghanistan.

And Saudi Arabia as well.

We invaded Afghanistan RIGHTLY. Competently? No. But we had absolutely no choice but to go in and take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which were supporting Al Qaeda, as best we could.

And we should have done something about Saudi Arabia, too, but, of course Bush wouldn't do that. Nor would he put the needed troops in Afghanistan to get the job done, since he wanted to invade Iraq.

[Maple]

36. There is no such thing as 'al qaeda'

all it was originally, was a database of names created by the US, to list those who could fight Russia.

You created bin Laden and the Taliban. Armed and trained them too.

You created Saddam

You keep the Saudi family in power

You put the Shah in Iran

You have no idea who did 911, and not one shred of proof it was bin Laden.

And bombing innocent people in an entire country from 30,000 ft for the sake of one man, in either Afghanistan OR Iraq, is no solution to anything.

Blowback's a bitch

[datasuspect]

37. actually when you look at it that way

you actually sound correct.

[Maple]

39. That's because

I live outside the US, and get world news.

Americans only get one version...Bush's.

[Guaranteed]

41. No, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree again.

Because, you see, what that kind of rhetoric is doing is attempting to JUSTIFY what Osama bin Laden did.

And I'm afraid that I'm just not cool with that.

[datasuspect]

43. i dunno, i guess i get less and less "rah rah rah"

about the official US line about these matters.

not much the US government and its media organs say seems believable. in many cases, they outright lie.

[Guaranteed]

46. I'm quite aware of their lies.

But it's pretty well established that this was the work of Osama.

Would you at least admit that whoever did carry out 9/11 needs to be killed or captured?

[datasuspect]

48. i'm not the one to say who should be killed

but the actual perpetrators are dead. they died in the airplanes. anything after that (where it concerns mass murder) is a legal matter.

[Guaranteed]

50. You know what, just stay out of our party's leadership.

Fuck this. Unbelievable.

Over and out.

[datasuspect]

52. "party's leadership"

you seem hung up on this phrase.

can you disagree that the actual perpetrators are dead?

the ones who flew the airplanes?

[Maple]

53. Do you never read profiles??

I'm Canadian, and have no interest whatever in your local political squabbles.

So your party's leadership, such as it is, is in no danger from me.

However, if I WAS in there...Democrats would be in the WH instead of just complaining.

Jeebus...like Will Rogers said 'I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat'.

[Maple]

47. So be uncool

it won't change reality.

It's you that has to face up to it.

YOU caused the problem in the ME. No one else.

And now it's payback time.

I realize that's upsetting to you, but US actions in the ME have been upsetting millions for years.

You just never thought of that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. Nobody's JUSTIFYING flying planes into the WTC

But it is true that Bin Laden is a product of the U.S.'s stupid Cold War policy of arming and funding anyone who claimed to be anti-Communist.

Most of the mujahadeen didn't known Communism from commercialism, and what set them off was the revolutionary government's institution of compulsory schooling for girls.

It used to make me so mad when Jeane Kirkpatrick blathered on and on about the wonderful "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, because I thought, "Lady, they'd have you in a veil and confined to the kitchen before you could say 'authoritarian.'"

In Afghanistan, the CIA actually preferred the Taliban above the other factions because they had better internal discipline and made more successful raids.

I've disagreed with Maple in the past, but in this case, she's absolutely right.

Bin Laden, if he is the one who indeed masterminded the WTC attacks, is a prime example of blowback.

[Guaranteed]

40. I'm REALLY glad that you're not part of our Democratic leadership.

Because we'd be instantly run out of office on rails if any of our leadership ever said your subject line.

Yes, we (not the Democrats, actually, but the REPUBLICANS) did create bin Laden and Saddam and put the Saudi Royals in power and the Shah.

But we absolutely DO know who carried out 9/11. That was OBL, with Al Qaeda, his network.

And it almost sounds as if you're trying to justify terrorism against the United States. Is that the case?

Do you think killing 3,000 innocent people at once, on PURPOSE, having them jumping out of their windows 110 floors above the street is justified? That's just cool with you???

[Maple]

45. Well lots of others have said it

because it's true.

And no, you have no idea who did 911. Not one shred of proof.

Bush simply announced it. There was nothing more than that.

The Taliban asked to see the proof, and offered to hand over bin Laden if they did. Bush refused.

There is no such thing as 'terrorists' either...it's a tactic, not a group.

Do you think massacring thousands and thousands of people in the ME over many years is justified? Is that cool with you?

Well it isn't cool with their families...hence the blowback.

[Guaranteed]

49. "There's no such thing as terrorists." I can't believe this shit.

Listen:

Terrorists are those who subscribe to the doctrines of terrorism. I.E., those who agree with the idea of killing innocent people for the sake of terrorizing.

Terrorism IS a TACTIC- however, those who USE it are FUCKING TERRORISTS. It's an ever-changing group as far as the individuals comprising it, but it's for damned sure a group of people who make use of those tactics.

And, again, you're justifying. I can't believe it. You actually have the audacity to try to justify 3,000 people being killed on purpose for some kind of bullshit political theory.

[Maple]

51. It's a tactic, nothing more

and it's a tactic used by all kinds of groups the world over, for eons.

The US has, in fact, killed thousands of innocent unarmed people, so don't come all over moral with me kiddo.

In fact, most people in the world consider Americans terrorists.

So put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

[geek tragedy]

63. No use debating those on the side of our enemies.

They don't care about our safety or our well-being, and they seek to help the cause of those who would murder us and enslave their fellow Muslims.

[G_j]

54. exept that the Taliban offered to turn OBL over to a third country

if the US provided evidence that he was behind the attacks.
Of course war-horny Bush would not hear of it. So there were other 'choices'. Perhaps there was no evidence anyway. Whatever the case, OBL is now nowhere to be found. Fine poppy crop though, this year.

[geek tragedy]

62. There isn't a single true word in your post.

There is AMPLE evidence of bin Laden's support for terrorism against the United States.

He had NO cause to butcher innocent people in Africa and New York and Washington.

And he attacked the US long before we removed Saddam from power.

Disgusting anti-American, pro-bin Laden pig crap.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. I totally agree with you

I'm old enough to remember the last terrorism scare, the era of the Weathermen, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the massacres of the Israeli athletes and the Lod Airport Massacre, the Tupamaros, the Japanese Red Army, the Italian Red Brigades, North Korean terrorists blowing up a delegation of South Koreans in Burma, rampant state terrorism in Latin America, all of which involved fatalities, all of which occurred within a few years in the 1960s and 1970s.

In fact, it seems that terrorism was much more prevalent then than it is now.

[Just Me]

13. Actually, "the people" ARE being subject to terror,...

,...the terror of exploitation by those who are supposed to be serving their best interests.

So, this IS an "age of terrorism",...by the most calculative of tyrants.

Yup.

[bloom]

15. The age of US terrorism....

nobody is terrorizing more than Bush&Co.

[Guaranteed]

17. Both the United States and Britain are dealing with terrorism.

And we are defending ourselves from those who would want to hurt us.

BTW, threads like this? They don't help us get any kind of power back in Congress, the White House, or anywhere else. Denying that we need to defend ourselves from terrorism that ACTUALLY exists will NEVER, EVER fly. EVER. You're hurting us by doing that.

Further, there IS more of a terrorist threat now, thanks to Bush invading Iraq. MOST FUCKING DEFINITELY. That you're right about, for sure. We had no business invading Iraq.

And, lastly, you should read my whole thread, just in case you think you know me simply because I recognize that terrorists exist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I don't think that was the poitn of the original poster

my interpretation and he \she is correct, this has been happening for ever...

so in that sense he or she is correct,

That said, the sacred war on Terra is a funny way of calling this but this is a war of ideas insofar as we have fanatics of all stripes having all kinds of fun

[Guaranteed]

19. No...that really wasn't my interpretation at all.

Particularly this part:

"it is an elective excursion manufactured by the bush administration and foisted upon the american people, iraqis, and the rest of the world."

Hmm...

[datasuspect]

21. what else was it?

invading iraq to topple saddam hussein (the one OBL called a "socialist infidel") had something to do with terrorism?

[Guaranteed]

22. See, you're lumping in Iraq with the war on terror.

Which is what Bush does.

I don't agree with that.

Invading Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda had set up its network and bin Laden was hiding was not only justified but absolutely necessary in order to defend ourselves.

Maybe we could distinguish the two by denoting the REAL one the "war on terror," and Bush's the "War on Terror."

In any case, you seem to want to ignore what happened on 9/11 by just lumping it in with the invasion of Iraq, which was clearly and entirely wrong. That's going to hurt us.

We need to SEPARATE the two, not push them together.

[datasuspect]

24. agreed

but there hasn't been much progress in afghanistan either.

but i guess we're still fighting the war on drugs too.

[bloom]

57. The trouble is

the Democratic politicians for the most part are going along with this nonsensical "War on Terror" that includes Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Muslims in general.

There is no way to "spin it" for positive Democratic soundbites except to denounce everything that the United States is doing to encourage and promote terrorism throughout the world.

If someone wants to have some namby pamby nicey nicey aren't WE the victims philosophy - I'm not having it.

[datasuspect]

23. both the United States and Britain are dealing with controlling

their respective populations. the specter of terrorism is a convenient ruse.

it's been almost 4 years since 9/11.

what happened to OBL?

[Guaranteed]

25. THAT is what we need to be asking. nt

[datasuspect]

28. it's the 900 pound gorilla sitting in the living room

that no one wants to talk about.

assuming OBL even did it.

[deadparrot]

27. You're correct.

People have been dying due to some form of terrorism for centuries, for one reason or another.

It's only when attacks are on wealthy industrial countries that the issue comes to the forefront. Let me just say that I believe that *any* death due to terrorism is a wasted life, and one death is one too many. One injury is one too many. It doesn't matter where that life is, be it in America or Europe or the Middle East or Central America or anywhere else on Earth.

But if 3,000 Iraqis (or the people of any other third world, developing, impoverished nation) died tomorrow in a massive terrorist attack similar in scale to 9/11, I highly doubt it would get the kind of coverage 9/11 did. Hell, if 50 people were killed, it wouldn't get the coverage London did.

[datasuspect]

31. and many, many more die from hunger every year

but who cries for them?

where is their ribbon?

[deadparrot]

32. Their governments don't have a massive GDP

and trillions of dollars in their bank account.

[datasuspect]

35. 10-4

yep.

[anarch]

58. I'd have to disagree...

but only with this part of your statement:

"there is probably more threat now because of bush's actions."

b/c there is definitely, unquestionably more threat now because of his actions.

Also, I refuse to call what is going on a "war", especially in Iraq. What that is, see, is an illegal invasion and occupation. Pure aggression. So, while it may get some people sent up for "war crimes" -- eventually -- it is not in fact a "war".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Well, in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials,

"waging aggressive war" was one of the charges.

What the U.S. is doing in Iraq has the same legal status as what Japan did to China--making up a lame excuse (in that case, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident) to invade and occupy a country that contains desired resources.

[sintax]

65. Excellent Post

www.notinourname.net

The free-market fundamentalists kill far more each day due to their policies than any group of so-called 'terrorists'.
.webloc

www.bellaciao.org