home

Fort Dix Suspects Trained in the Poconos

Yesterday I wrote about the FBI's acknowledgment that there was no known connection between those charged in the Fort Dix case and al-Qaida.

After all, they trained not in Afghanistan but in the Poconos.

Wonkette makes a good point:

Ok. So, the plot was: six dudes from New Jersey buy some guns and storm Fort Dix. The Fort Dix that is full of lots and lots of Army reservists with way, way more guns. And, like, extensive military training and sh*t. Yes, thank god these terrorists have been caught and locked up before they could be killed within minutes of deciding to carry out the dumbest f*cking terrorist plot we’ve ever heard of.

TRex at Firedoglake also has some thoughts well worth reading.

< Jury Chosen in Jose Padilla Trial | Workman Executed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Stop the insults please (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    and discuss the Fort Dix case.

    t.rexx at firedoglake suggests more. . . (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:58:42 AM EST
    as jeralyn also noted,
    t-rex takes wonkette's
    tart humor one step beyond
    ,
    to suggest, perhaps plausibly,
    that the fort-dix-six aprehensions
    could have happened at any time in
    the next few weeks, but may -- may,
    mind you -- have been very-carefully timed. . .

    it seems bush's approval rating is now
    below even jimmy carter's nadir, at
    27.8 percent.  nothing like a solid
    home-front "war on terror" plot-
    thwarting to kick up those approval
    ratings. . .

    sho-Oo-ot -- he might even crack his
    30% approval "ceiling"!  go nuts!


    rainn (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:29:21 AM EST
    Laying aside the fact that Bush has demonstrated a total disregard for approval ratings, why now?

    There are no national elections for two years.

    If the timing was important from a political view, why not before the 2006 elections? Just a few votes would have kept the Senate Repub.

    Many of the House elections also swung on just a few votes.

    Or, why not wait until the last week of October, 2008??

    The facts are that they were picked up after purchasing (unworkable) weapons. Do you think that refusing to sell the weapons to them would have exposed the Government's surveillance? Do you think them finding out that weapons wouldn't work would have exposed the Government's surveillance?

    rainnn, why do you, and many others on the Left, continue to deny that we have a problem? Why all this worry over a lame duck President?

    Parent

    Has anyone considered the possibility (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Al on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    that these guys were just idiots? I give you this:
    The current case came to light in early 2006 when the suspects -- four ethnic Albanians, three of them brothers; a Jordanian; and a Turk -- asked their local video store to transfer their own improvised jihadist videotape to DVD and a representative of the store called the authorities. Within weeks, federal agents managed to infiltrate the group with an informer who recorded them with apparent ease -- at home, in their cars and on the phone for more than a year.

    What self-respecting terrorist takes their jihad videotape to a store to convert to DVD?

    I understand that in principle these guys might have been dangerous, but given their intellectual abilities, I doubt they would have arrived at Fort Dix without blowing themselves up before.

    It also appears that (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:36:11 AM EST
    the rethugs are having a hard time not blowing themselves up over this, too. How they made it this far is a mystery, having shot themselves in both feet so many times the past few years.

    TRex at FDL:

    Well, so much for fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

    You know that Debbie Schlussel is turning clumsy-ass cartwheels of joy that there's finally some Hot Islamic Jihadi Action for her to write about.  And of course, their semi-questionable citizenship status has Michelle Malkin melting through her Victoria's Secret white cotton lady briefs.  You can go look at their blogs if you want.  I don't have the stomach for it.   They'll be dining out on these six losers and their woodland paintball games all the way to the 2008 elections and beyond.  The Muslim Fanatics are, like, totally among us right now!!



    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    Whether they are idoits or not has nothing to do with the fact they wanted to kill a bunch of us. You write:

    I doubt they would have arrived at Fort Dix without blowing themselves up before.

    Is that an excuse for the terrorist??

    Are you an expert on such matters??

    If you are wrong, what would have happened if he store clerk hadn't alerted the Feds.

    Do you think the clerk violated the privacy of these wannabe killers??

    Parent

    Terrorist (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Wed May 09, 2007 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    As far as I know a terrorist is someone who has incited terror, ie car bombing etc.

    These guys have not ever done anything of the sort as far as I can tell.

    The notion that these guys would have blown themselves up before doing any damage to others or property seems more than likely to me too.

    Parent

    But, but (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:14:36 PM EST
    The fact that they were such idiots means they were far too stupid to put anything over on anyone as sharp as ppj, or, decon, or wile, or jarobster, or Bush, or Michelle Malkin, or Debbie Schlussel, or any of the other 26, I mean 28, percenters.

    So of course they were nothing to be scared of... were they? Or were they?

    Never mind... It must be time to bomb somebody for this. These guys were terrists, dadgummit!

    Somebody's gotta pay! Who's with me?

    Parent

    Wait a minute here........ (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:20:02 PM EST
    Maybe. Nawww. Couldn't be, could it?

    They were evil geniuses pretending to be idoits? That's why they waited. Of course!!! To make all the cut 'n run libs think that invading Iraq didn't work! That's it!!!

    Noooo. Well.... maybe?

    Parent

    Let me repeat that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Al on Wed May 09, 2007 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    I did say that I understand that these people could have been dangerous in principle.

    While we're on the topic, another thing that worries me is that the real terrorists (Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar) are at large. If all we are able to catch is these morons, then how safe are we?

    Parent

    Who says were "safe" now? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:10:49 PM EST
      I don't think anyone exept the deluded who thought terrorism was no real threat the day before these guys were arrested thinks that.

      In the big picture the degree by which this operation increases overall "safety" from terrorist is minute. But, obviously that would not be so if the threat posed by all the other terrorists wasn't real.

      The fact the "smart" terrorists are harder to catch is not a particularly strong argument for doing less to catch them.

    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:32:59 PM EST
    What does "in principle" mean?

    That's a qualifier. They either were, or they were not, dangerous.

    Your call.

    As to your complaint, I seem to remember making the point that, over the long term, defense doesn't work.

    BTW - Isn't your problem that you don't want to admit anything good happened in teh Bush admin??

    Parent

    Full of horse manure (none / 0) (#68)
    by Al on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:27:09 PM EST
    What do you mean, defense doesn't work? You invaded Afghanistan, right? That's not defense, that is a very incompetent attack.

    Mostly though, you shocked and awed Iraq, which is the ultimate screw-up: You invaded the wrong damn country.

    As for these morons, sure they're dangerous, in the same sense that a chimpanzee with a gun is dangerous.

    Come to think of it judging by some of the crap you write, I think you're dangerous.

    The Bush admin? Now that is dangerous on a whole other level.

    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:34:55 PM EST
    We tried "defense" from 12/79 to 9/11/01. During that time all that happened was that the numbers of attacks went up and the US dead went up.

    As for these morons, sure they're dangerous, in the same sense that a chimpanzee with a gun is dangerous.

    Thanks Al. That is just so.... Lefty

    Parent

    Your idea of not-defense (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Al on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:58:03 PM EST
    is to have Americans and others die by the thousands in Iraq.

    And yes, these morons are not Al Qaeda. Bin Laden doesn't go to the corner store to convert a tape to DVD.

    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    You know Al, I kinda get a chuckle out of some of this. But you are demonstrating a definite lack of something when you write...

     

    Bin Laden doesn't go to the corner store to convert a tape to DVD.

    Are not capable of understanding that we got very lucky here? What if the clerk hadn't noticed? What if the clerk had taken your attitude??

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Al on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:00:22 PM EST
    Do you think the clerk violated the privacy of these wannabe killers??

    Where did you read that?

    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    I didn't say you said it.

    It's a question.

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#69)
    by Al on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:27:43 PM EST
    It's not a very good one.

    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:36:29 PM EST
    Oh, I don't know.

    I bet the lawyers someone will hire for them thinks it is a very important question.

    Parent

    Boy, you're clever (none / 0) (#77)
    by Al on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:00:09 PM EST
     of thse folks as they evidently believed it to exist. Surely, they would not have delivered incriminating evidence to a store if they thought it would be delivered to the authorities.

      The 4th Amendment, though only protects our "reasonable expectation" of privacy from the eyes and ears of government agents. The clerk is not a government agenat and in any event it's probably not "reasonable" to expect that a video of which you relinquish control and deliver to a 3rd party is absolutely private. The government agents lawfully obtained the video from the clerk and not by engaing in an unreasonable search and seizure of an area in which the men ahad a reasonable expectation of privacy, so unless there is some other problem it will be admissible in court.

       

    Parent

    "After all... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by desertswine on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:51:35 PM EST
    they trained not in Afghanistan but in the Poconos."

    Say, some of our best comedians trained in the Poconos;  ie. Sid Caesar.

    Hmm (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:23:54 AM EST
    During WWII, there were lots of partisans who fought against the Nazis with no active connection to Allied forces - would you then say that those partisans were not on the same side as the Allies?

    Back during the Civil War, there were unorganized partisans that assisted the Confederate cause, again, with no active connection to the Confederacy.  Were they on the same side as the Confederate government?

    Do you recognize the concept of fellow traveler, or is that just too hard?

    Same side. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Skyho on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:45:04 AM EST
    During WWII, there were lots of partisans who fought against the Nazis with no active connection to Allied forces - would you then say that those partisans were not on the same side as the Allies?

    Since the Sunni and the Shiite both wish to eject the US from Iraq, are they on the same side?

    Bush wants the US to stay in Iraq.  bin Laden wants the US to stay in Iraq.  Fellow travelers?  I present, you decide.

    You make the argument of a 7 year old who manages to keep the crayon marks within the lines that the piece is a work of art.  Rarely are issues black and white, except in the minds of Repukes and morons.

    Parent

    Skyho (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:10:24 AM EST
    You write:

    Since the Sunni and the Shiite both wish to eject the US from Iraq, are they on the same side?

    On the issue of what they "wish," the answer is yes.

    Try and think your question through before you ask.

    ;-)

    Actually, his comment was about the note that these six are not members of al-Qaida but fellow travelers.

    Parent

    That you travel with the nuts is recognized, (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:42:23 AM EST
    edger, let me help you (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:32:21 AM EST
    So you are not familar with the term, "fellow traveler?"

    Link

    Link

    How about "usedul idoit?"

    Link

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:42:03 AM EST
    already do help. You always have.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:56:12 AM EST
    Glad to see you understand my comment.

    Parent
    You didn't look at the link, obviously. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:00:59 AM EST
    You're not helping jarobster much though. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:42:47 AM EST
    Fellow traveler (none / 0) (#72)
    by Al on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:43:26 PM EST
    Actually, the concept of "fellow traveler" has pretty sinister precedents. It was used to blacklist and persecute people accusing them of being communist sympathizers, like Charlie Chaplin.

    By all means charge the Fort Dix would-be attackers with a crime, but forget the "fellow traveler" label. That's a very slippery slope.

    Parent

    Al (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:06:25 AM EST
    There is no slippery slope except in your mind. It is a descriptive term used to describe people who support an organization/cause but who do not belong to it. The term itself has no "bad" or "good." It is the organization referred to that adds that.

    During the 50's it was used to describe people who supported the Communist Party. Some did so, others did not. Again it is not the term, but the accuracy that matters.

    Another term, was "useful idoit." As shown in the link this came from either Lennin or Stalin to describe someone who would do the bidding of the communist party, but didn't belong to it.

    jarober's comment is noting that the radical Moslems arrested in Ft Dix do not have to be members of al-Qaida to do what they plotted to do.

    Describing them as fellow travelers and useful idoits is accurate.

    Parent

    Don't be an idoit, DA. (4.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:15:12 AM EST
    Bush has enough idoits behind him now. ;-)

    Parent
    DA (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    Thanks for your comment re sepllign..

    Do you have anythiung of substeances ti add??

    Parent

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#81)
    by Sailor on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:44:45 PM EST
    and it wasn't by accident, ppj is a big fan of Joe McCarthy.

    Good night and good luck.

    Parent

    Sailor can't read. (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:52:28 AM EST
    Actually jarober used the term.

    I plead guilty to providing definitions.

    If you read jarober's comment, you will discover that he was saying that you don't have to be a member of an organization to support it.

    That's the essence of "fellow traveler" and "useful idoit."

    He was, of course, referring to the fact that the radical Moslems arrested in the Ft Dix matter are not a member of al-Qaida. That they are not, of course, is meaningless as to their plans and guilt.

    As to your McCarthy slur.... what can I say. It is just sailor making another false claim.

    Parent

    Six of them! (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:31:55 AM EST
    Jesus, Allah, and Reverend Moon! This could have been serious. And deadly. All six could have been killed and turned into martyrs for the cause.

    Whew. That was a close one. It's a good thing all they managed to do was drive the last few nails into the coffins of George Bush and his supporters.

    FOXNews: Plot to Attack Fort Dix

    We had a group that was forming a platoon to take on an army.

    --FBI agent J.P. Weis

    Martyrs for the FOXNews cause, that is....

    Like SuperPatriot Phony Joe Cafasso:

    "The Fox News Channel thought it had found an asset when it hired the gruff, barrel-chested former military man as a consultant to help in its coverage of the fighting in Afghanistan.

    He claimed to have won the Silver Star for bravery, served in Vietnam and was part of the secret, failed mission to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980. ... People at Fox News had taken his credentials at face value.

    But records indicate that his total military experience was 44 days of boot camp at Fort Dix, N.J., in May and June 1976, and his "honorable" discharge as a private, first class.

    Peasants.

    The problem (none / 0) (#2)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:44:49 AM EST
    is most people think that, while on bases, the soldiers march around with rifles all day.  in reality, the weapons are kept at the base armory checked in, unloaded.  Taken out to keep qualifications up at the range.  The only people always armed are the MPs.  The base cops.  
    It was a good plan, as delivery people (pizza the biggest group) have easy access to the bases.  The gate guards see them so often, they just get waved through the gate a majority of time.  

    I don't know anyone who thinks that Wile. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:54:32 AM EST
    But I grew up on military bases. Is it only FOXNews readers who think that?

    Parent
    Wonkette (none / 0) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:00:49 AM EST
    seems to believe that.
    BTW, it is spelled faux vice fox, correct.

    Congratulations on growing up on a base then. Good job!  Which one?  Maybe I've been based on it.  

    Parent

    Where? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:09:01 AM EST
    Quote her if you can. Attributing something to her she didn't say undermines your credibility, not hers.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#82)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:28:41 AM EST
    I've been at work.  
    Just read her paragraph.  Makes the impression with me that shee thnks everyone marches around all day with m-16s.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:22:39 AM EST
    Smart terrorists > stupid terrorists.

    This does not dictate the conclusion that stupid ones pose no real threat.

      I'm going out on a limb and speculating that few suicide bombers gave up promisng careers as rocket scientists but the lack of sophistication of their plots doesn't mean no one gets hurt.

       Obviously, there is no way these guys would have destroyed Fort Dix, but even if it would  just be a shootout at the gate which they lose in short order, it would seem to be a good idea to stop it before that stage is reached.

    Strawman (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:40:05 AM EST
    No such conclusion was suggested.

    Parent
    Perhaps the nuance .. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:47:13 AM EST
    goes over your head, but that is obviously the suggestion here:

    "Yes, thank god these terrorists have been caught and locked up before they could be killed within minutes of deciding to carry out the dumbest f*cking terrorist plot we've ever heard of."

    Parent

    Perhap sarcasm is over yours. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:48:50 AM EST
    No, it doesn't and I know what sarcasm means (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:52:59 AM EST
      and it has nothing to do with your post labeling my argument a "strawman." You were not being sarcastic; you were just wrong.

    Parent
    You're right. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:03:25 AM EST
    I was not being sarcastic. Wonkette was. She was also ridiculing your "war on terror" by correctly calling this the "dumbest f*cking terrorist plot we've ever heard of".

    And yes, your comment was a strawman. "Smart terrorists > stupid terrorists" is not a conclusion even remotely suggested, no matter how much you wish it had been.

    Parent

    And you missed both. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:03:53 AM EST
    yes, SHE (none / 0) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:07:26 AM EST
     was being sarcastic and her sacasm was clearly intended  to suggest this was not a real threat, so my post was not a "strawman" argument but one directly challenging the point she WAS MAKING making as being extremely misguided.

     

    Parent

    Indeed. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:23:28 AM EST
    Decon, your point is well-taken. There is no reason we should ignore idiot terrorists just because they're idiots. The point is that they plan or commit terrorism, not that they go about it in a dumb way.

    Parent
    ::Nobody:: ignores Bush. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:27:57 AM EST
    But in case you meant the six guys arrested (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:29:47 AM EST
    and not Bush, then in either case you're letting idiots guide your actions.

    You figure that's wise?

    Parent

    Opinion. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:26:47 AM EST
    Unless you read minds?

    Parent
    And so it goes (none / 0) (#19)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:28:26 AM EST
    The typical non-answer from Edger.  How about a real answer?  

    It was a real answer. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:32:25 AM EST
    I'm sorry if it was beyond you.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:53:31 AM EST
    edger - Your comments are very clear. First you try and claim Decon's spot on comments re Wonkette's comments is a strawman. Then you make a nasty attack on jarober's comments that note that you don't have to be a member of al-Qaiada to support it, with an attack on Bush in between.... speaking of strawmen, eh.

    But this type of action is not unusual for you. Here is one of your past comments.

    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM

    (edger quotes my previous comment) "Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey."

    (edger's reply) "That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq":

    Why do you want to excuse people who do things like the above?

    Why do you immediately jump to the defense of these six people, three illegal aliens and three naturalized citizens, who are charged with plotting to attack and kill US soldiers??

    And why bring Bush into it? Are you so consumed with hatred for Bush that even when we have a success you won't accept it because you think it helps Bush??

    Edger, there is a pathology in this. Bush will be gone. The problems with the radical Moslems will remain.

    You figure decon & jarobster are incompetent? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 08:59:55 AM EST
    As I said, you're not helping jarobster, and probably not decon either, unless he appreciates you insinuating that he's incompetent at defending himself.

    The rest was all discussed over here.

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:03:39 AM EST
    Edger, we all know you. Your positions are as plain as they can be.

    What I'm trying to do now is understand how a rational person can hold them.

    Parent

    I sympathize (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    with your difficulty in "understanding". It's not a very good excuse though.

    Parent
    Bush will be gone for sure... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:08:14 AM EST
    .. and if we can keep the fringe loonies from scaring away the swing voters, the next President will be a Democrat and he or she will have to deal with the reality that terrorists exist and do in fact seek to engage in destructive and harmful acts.

      We could end the war in Iraq tomorrow and terrorists will remain. We could allow Israel to be destroyed and another diaspora, and terrorists will remain.

      We can't eliminate something by refusing to acknowledge its existence and the danger it poses. We have no choice but to engage terrorists because they choose to engage us and no matter what we do as anation a certain number of people will remain our enemies and be willing to employ violence to express that enmity.

      How we choose to deal with that reality ppresents many complex and competing interests and it is possible  to strongly disagree with HOW we are responding to this very real threat and not mindlessly babble incoherent nonsense opposing the mere acknowledgment of reality.

    Parent

    Weird comment..... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Skyho on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:41:32 AM EST
    the next President will be a Democrat and he or she will have to deal with the reality that terrorists exist and do in fact seek to engage in destructive and harmful acts.

    It will be a welcome change to get someone who actually does deal with that particular reality, instead of co-opting the meme as a political tool.  

    We could end the war in Iraq tomorrow and terrorists will remain.

    We cannot end "the war" in Iraq.  It is self-sustaining, a civil war if you will, where terrorist tactics are used against each other.  For the US to pull out will simply stop our reckless spending of resources, men and equipment, in a war that has no ideological relationship to ourselves.  Those directing their efforts to ejecting the US from Iraq will either redirect or melt back into the populace and try to survive the civil war uncorked by the US moronic pResident.

    We could allow Israel to be destroyed and another diaspora, and terrorists will remain.

    Yes, like Pandoras box, once you open the lid on terrorist recruitment, you cannot close the box for at least one generation, likely more.  The loathing that creates a person who resorts to terrorist tactics does not go away when the trigger goes away.

    The crude terrorist tactics we see are simply a subset of global terrorism practiced by the US, imposed by the lack of resources to mount a more nuanced form of terror, "Shock and Awe", with pretty colors, flowers and calls for nationalistic pride.

    We have no choice but to engage terrorists because they choose to engage us and no matter what we do as anation a certain number of people will remain our enemies and be willing to employ violence to express that enmity.

    Total bull-hocky.  They engage the US because they believe the US is engaging them.  It started with the ill-conceived Crusades.  The US moron president simply extended that meme from the past to the present, not once, but many times.

    Freezing someones bank accounts simply because they don't do what you want them to do is a form of terror practiced by the US.  The US does it all the time, freezing the Talibani assets when they refused a pipeline through their country or attacking Saddam when he tried to get out from under the US thumb by going from a dollar bourse to a euro.

    Regime change in Israel would not "destroy" Israel but would allow a saner Israeli government be installed.  Sometimes a caged mad dog has to be put down.

    Lastly you talk about "very real threat" without ever acknowledging that the US, by their actions of the last six years, have done nothing but increase the "very real threat".   The US has gone into a neighborhood they know little about and knocked off a capo, in the process unleashing a gang war and turning a large part of the neighborhood against the US.  Staying in the neighborhood simply inflames the problem.

    What would you do?


    Parent

    I have not once (none / 0) (#56)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:48:07 AM EST
     defended the decision to invade Iraq and I find inexcuable the way in which we have implemented that decision.

      That's not the issue I am addressing. Recognizing that this Adminisstration has done most things wrong does not require one to take leave of their senses and fall for nonsense based entirely on the premise that the USA and its lesser allies in the Western world are responsible for all evil.

      You perfectly illustrate the thinking I find totally misguided. You refuse to consider anything other than the evil of the  US and, of course the evil mad dog Israelis as being the root cause of the existence of terrorism. In fact you then exploit your extreme disdain if not hatred to justify the actions of terrorists.

      One of the things I would do is fight that abhorrent phiolsophy to my last breath and seek to defeat it as it is morally indefensible impedes any rational responses.

      Of course, I absolutely think we MUST take all reasonable steps to do common sense things such as make the movement of men, money and materiel used to support terrorism more difficult and to the extent possible deprive terrorists of them. YOU label that "terrorism" on our part which essentially means we cannot defend ourselves and begs the question of why then we should not simply surrender, take our defeat gracefully with the least conflict and let the Islamic global dominance begin forthwith.

      Perhaps they will be more benevolent than we have been but I see little evidence to support that conclusion and rather envision a world ruled by violence and oppression on a scale beyond anything in history. But,  I guess payback is Hell,  and you would support that since we started the Crusades.

       Not desiring that, despite our rather pronounced imperfections, I'd rather have us retain our power. I'd just like to see us use it more wisely and more humnaely.

      That does mean not invading countries which while ruled by very bad people had relatively little connection with the "terrorists" and it certainly doesn't mean plunging foolishly in  with undermanned forces and setting off a conflagaration we cannot contain with any level of force acceptable to our people or any sense of morality.

      It's pretty easy to say that was a bad idea and has had very bad consequences. It does not not allow for any rational person to then conclude we have no right to defend ourselves in any manner-- unless the rationale is we deserve to be destroyed because we are evil.

      If that's your pposition, it's a free country and you are free to hold it and even espouse it, but don't expect anyone but a tiny number of disaffected and dangerously damaged people to join you.

       

    Parent

    I don't know of too many (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:17:21 AM EST
    who refuse to acknowledge the existence and danger, or the idiocy, of Bush's so called war on terror.

    There are still a few though.

    Parent

    If you limit .. (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    your critiques to expressions of disagreement with HOW the "war on terror" is being waged and ever offered even the semblance of an IDEA on how it could more effectively and less destructively be waged,  THEN I wouldn't dismiss you as a blithering idiot. You are incapbale of that though and all you do is screech the same irrational nonsense over and over.

    Parent
    It's funny to kill only a few soldiers (none / 0) (#35)
    by roy on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:25:58 AM EST
    When a car approaches a military base, a soldier comes to talk to the driver.  He's armed, but he's not allowed to point his weapon at the people in the car until there's a sign of trouble.  He'd be killed for sure.

    I assume there are a few more soldiers right at the gate, also armed, but not armed heavily enough to instantly take out a vehicle or six people in one.  Some or all of them would probably be killed, too.

    HA HA!

    Thailand (none / 0) (#36)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:26:14 AM EST
    So Edger - perhaps you could try and explain the Islamic violence in southern Thailand?  Thailand is not engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other part of the middle east.  There's been escalating terrorism in the south for years, and after a coup brought to power a new government that has tried to engage the terrorists, the violence has gotten worse.

    This is a fairly clear-cut case of Islamic radicals attempting to impose their will.  So why does that even exist?  How is the West, or colonialism, or any of the other bugbears you like to bring up involved?  

    You've been around here long (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    enough to know. I'm sorry if you haven't paid attention.

    Parent
    this is classic.. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:31:09 AM EST
      you simply cannot engage in rational debate because you CAN'T THINK.

      If you will not accept "the premise" that terrorists exist, will continue to exist and that some response is necessary regardless of which faction of which Party controls which branches of government then the only purpose you serve is to illustrate for the swing voters how the Republican arguments that too many Democrats are mindless fools who should not be trusted with control of the Executive Branch is not entirely false.

      Our job is to comfort people by explaining that the fool brigade is in fact a small minority and we will not be influenced by it, so we can be trusted.

    More insults, decon? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    When did you switch from (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:37:59 AM EST
    claiming you're a democrat to admitting being a republican. This is the first time I've noticed it.

    Do you make it a habit to trust people who misrepresent themselves? Or expect others to?

    Parent

    youi don't read well either (none / 0) (#41)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:42:29 AM EST
     "Our" refers to those of us who represent the MAJORITY of the Democratic Party and OUR job is to defeat the Republican propaganda efforts to portray yor minority views as being in OUR mainstream.

    Parent
    Carefull. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:46:04 AM EST
    You can hurt yourself backpedalling that fast. ;-)

    Parent
    do you actually (none / 0) (#45)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:53:02 AM EST
     think this sort of nonsense helps you?

      It is just FURTHER illustration of the point that you are incapable of saying anything sensible on any subject. Because you cannot THINK and respond when cornered with a point for which you can't remmber the dogma to spew,  all you can do is make the most pathetic attemts at diversion by pretending a response is unecessary because it comes from the "other side."

      I am on a different side than you. No question about that and I very much want to encourage everyone to be on a different side than you because I think your ilk are a disgrace and the less of you the better.

     You not only make it more difficult for the Democratic Party to "win" in political terms you make it a worse Party in moral and philosophical terms (not to mention REALLY dumbing it down) by your presence in it.

    Parent

    More insults, decon? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:55:08 AM EST
    As to Thailand... (none / 0) (#51)
    by jarober on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    Edger,

    I'm still awaiting an answer.  Thailand was never a colony of the West, it's never been a Christian country, it's not been involved in any aspect of the war on terror.

    So why is it that Islamic terrorists are killing people by the thousands there?  Based on your worldview, it shouldn't be possible.  

    Parent

    Edger - Decon (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:22:04 AM EST
    Switch over to Monday's Open thread and let's get some positions on the table.

    Parent
    Mine are on the table there. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:31:32 AM EST
    Have fun.

    Parent
    No.They're not. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:26:57 PM EST
    You need glasses. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    Well... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 06:38:18 PM EST
    a bit more, actually. But they'd be a good start.

    Parent
    Let's see some proof (none / 0) (#63)
    by Sailor on Wed May 09, 2007 at 03:25:04 PM EST
    all we have are the gov's word. Did the fbi entice them to buy the weapons? Did the plan actually call for RPGs? Has anyone seen the video?

    All you bedwetters screeching about these morons of terror and not one of you knows anything more than what the govt has said about it. Ya think maybe the gov ever lies about such things?

    sailor (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    These weren't johns being enticed by a hooker into an act of prostitution... This wasn't even a con man enticing a bank clerk into helping him steal money.

    Acquiring maps of a military base, buying assualt weapons, training on how use the weapons.... these are all very specific things that require a specific mind set.

    Parent

    Specific Mindset (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    Like buying a blowtorch to bring down the brooklyn bridgem or combat boots to bring down the sears tower.

    Parent