Changing Tack, Bush Says Terror War Winnable

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Creamo
Arrg, that's a good point Furious, and that was/is such a failure.

I'm still voting for Bush, and I'm still certain Elizabeth Edwards would win a hotdog eating contest, unless Takeru Kobayashi cheats and enters the first lady weiner eating death match.



 

I hope for his sake that he's getting some action on the side.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Furious
go get some rest man, you are working to hard on all this.

But it is a key problem in your thinking. America is full of millions of willing and paying drug consumers.  It is not full of terrorism consumers.  Big difference.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Toad
The "War on Terror" will be won when the folks still living in the Dark Ages have more of a reason to live than a reason to die.

A nice and simple mission objective, but it doesn't really stand up to even cursory scrutiny.

Is America a bunch of folks living in the Dark Ages with more reason to die than to live?

If not, how are we to explain Timothy McVeigh?

Is Japan? If not, why Aum Shinrikyo?

Is Germany? What then of Baader Meinhof? The list goes on and on, covering all the "Civilized" nations as well as all the ones "in the Dark Ages".

And in an age where the majority of casualties in war are civilians, the line between terrorism and military operations is a very blurry one indeed.

[Gixer]

Grun,

I respect your views and agree totally that one can't stand back and just let terror have it's way.
 
War on Terrror is like a War on Crime for the police. The police will never totally eliminate crime. The best they can do is manage it and protect us the best they can. Just like governments around the world are trying to do against terror and as they have always done.

Obviously due to 9/11 this has become even more so to the forefront of worldwide public attention and governments which is an obvious reaction.

Whether it's Bush,Kerry or whoever using the "War on Terror" and saying that they are "winning" or "winable" is false and nothing more then trying to please the simplistic minded and media.

People 50 years ago during the Cold War use to ask the same question. Is the Cold War winnable. As we all know, unexpectedly yes it was.

So when the same questions today are being asked about the War on Terrror and whether it's winnable. The answer is no, simply because unlike the Soviet Union Terror,Terroism isn't confined to just one country or countries.

It's an ideal, a means to an ends for millions globaly hence it will always exist as it has done since history began.




...-Gixer

[Gyro/T69]

"If not, how are we to explain Timothy McVeigh?"

Your kidding right? He's a mystery? You have heard of Waco Tx, yes?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1321244.stm

another

On April 26, 2001, Timothy McVeigh sent a letter to Fox News correspondent Rita Cosby, to explain what most of us already assumed about his motives for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building. His primary reason was

    "...a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own.

Search for "Timothy McVeigh motive"

[Nilsen]

hehe.... "evil-doers"

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Gixer
Grun,

I respect your views and agree totally that one can't stand back and just let terror have it's way.
 
War on Terrror is like a War on Crime for the police. The police will never totally eliminate crime. The best they can do is manage it and protect us the best they can. Just like governments around the world are trying to do against terror and as they have always done.

Obviously due to 9/11 this has become even more so to the forefront of worldwide public attention and governments which is an obvious reaction.

Whether it's Bush,Kerry or whoever using the "War on Terror" and saying that they are "winning" or "winable" is false and nothing more then trying to please the simplistic minded and media.

People 50 years ago during the Cold War use to ask the same question. Is the Cold War winnable. As we all know, unexpectedly yes it was.

So when the same questions today are being asked about the War on Terrror and whether it's winnable. The answer is no, simply because unlike the Soviet Union Terror,Terroism isn't confined to just one country or countries.

It's an ideal, a means to an ends for millions globaly hence it will always exist as it has done since history began.


...-Gixer

I agree. We will never end terrorism, because terrorism is a tactic.

If every last islamofascist was killed now, in a few weeks some other group will do a kidnapping or blow up a pizzeria for some other cause.  Again, because terrorism is a tactic.

But what we have here post 911 is not a war on "terrorism" except in name. For political reasons we cannot call this specifically what it is - a war on the islamic extremist political agenda and its armies.

And I do belive that can be defeated, just as communism was.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Gyro/T69
"If not, how are we to explain Timothy McVeigh?"

Your kidding right? He's a mystery? You have heard of Waco Tx, yes?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1321244.stm

another

On April 26, 2001, Timothy McVeigh sent a letter to Fox News correspondent Rita Cosby, to explain what most of us already assumed about his motives for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building. His primary reason was

    "...a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own.

Search for "Timothy McVeigh motive"

I'm not saying his motives are a mystery.

What I'm asking is does his being a terrorist mean he was still living in the Dark Ages with more of a reason to die than to live?

Or not? And if not, then surely Toad's assertion - to wit: 'the "War on Terror" will be won when the folks still living in the Dark Ages have more of a reason to live than a reason to die' - is wrong. Maybe it's just much more complicated than any simplistic "cure" or policy initiative can come up with.

[Gyro/T69]

"I'm not saying his motives are a mystery."

Sorry. my misunderstanding.

[Patches]

If I slap your face, will you slap mine in return?

If not, then may I continue to slap your face until you give me your wallet, your wife, your children, your spritual beliefs, your political ideologies...or whatever else I may demand of you under the threat that I will not cease slapping your face until you aquiesce to me as your sole provider and keeper of your physical and spiritual life?


Terrorism isn't new...nor is the complacency that allows terrorism to exist.


Where do you fit in this picture....or can't you see the picture because it is blurred by international political rhetoric? If this is the case simply wait a bit and the terrorist nearest you will reprint the picture to your liking...after slapping your face.

[Toad]

Make up your mind Dead. Is it a "mission statement" or an "assertion"? You need to know which of  your straw men you're attacking.

It's an observation.

People that have nothing to live for blow themselves up. You don't see too many folks that love life strapping on the dynamite and boarding the bus.

Note I did not say it was a totally achieveable goal. I said you have to start somewhere.

[lazs2]

dead...  I believe toad is saying that so long as there are places where life is not worth living then they will hbreed terrorists.

Any country of millions of people will breed an occassional malcontent or nut with the brains to kill effectively from time to time..

Poinmt is.. In a land of opportunity this will be rare.   giving up is like bganning the right to defend yourself because once every decade or so some nut goes crazy and shoots a few people.

lazs

[Furious]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ


But it is a key problem in your thinking. America is full of millions of willing and paying drug consumers.  It is not full of terrorism consumers.  Big difference.

The error is yours.

The "WoD" applied, primarily, to the US.
The "WoT" applies to the entire world.

Americans may not be "consumers" of terrorism, but there sure as hell "willing and paying" purveyors of terrorism world wide.

You have about as much chance shutting down every individual terrorist world wide, as you do of shutting down every crack house here.  It is not a winnable thing.  People want to do either one too much.

[Gixer]

Kerry:

"With the right policies, this is a war we can win, this is a war we must win, this is a war we will win,"

"In the end, the terrorists will lose, and we will win, because the future does not belong to fear, it belongs to freedom."



Bush:

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way,"



Atleast one of them is starting to think. Why in the world Kerry would say such a thing is beyond me. And playing on the "Fear" and "Freedom" line is very 01.

Also with his opinion that he would still of invaded Iraq today even if he knew what was known today is really starting to  place him in the "I have no opinion of my own" catagory.



...-Gixer