Has the corner been turned in the war against terror?

Au

I stand corrected. My comments were opinions.

EBrown

I did not see your post until after I posted. We agree here.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Hours before a visit by the American secretary of state, four explosions rocked the Saudi capital late Monday, including car bomb attacks at compounds housing Americans and other Westerners. There were dozens of injuries, a hospital official said.
The string of blasts occurred in quick succession, the last coming early Tuesday outside the headquarters of a joint U.S.-Saudi owned company.
"We dont know how many are injured, but we received 50 and the number is growing," an official at the National Guard Hospital in Riyadh told The Associated Press by telephone, without identifying himself.
Three Western compounds were attacked, an American who lives in one of the targeted areas told the AP in an e-mail exchange from Riyadh. There was extensive damage to property, he said on condition of anonymity, adding that he believed there had been some deaths.

The only real terrorists to the world are the stupid white men playing puppetmaster in the White House and the CIA.

http://lightscion.com/Video/secretgov2.wmv

i really have to wonder, yes i am often wrong, has this entire mess been improperly assigned to the CIA? not that i think the CIA is beyond reproach but its possible that they did provide accurate info to the White House and then duely ignored. just a thought.

Welcome to newcomers, Scrat and Trix. I agree with Fishin and Frank and EBrown and others generally.

I also think the attack on the WTC was a criminal attack and should have been treated as such in a sane world. The country is not sane at this time (Bush wouldn't be in office if it were). It deploys slick weaponry with one hand and tosses out convenient new phrases with the other. The administration wanted a crisis, was forewarned and curiously unresponsive, and it revelled in it, immediately saw the political possibilities. America certainly breeds a kind of terrorism on a small scale. It's a victim of its own crime at home -- in schools, on the streets. But 9/11? Not even with the full and repetitive TV coverage could America be said to have been in terror, nor anywhere near. Shocked, gripped, angry (some), not really surprised (others) -- and lots of other emotions -- but experiencing nothing like the terrors inflicted in Rwanda and Kosovo (for example). Obviously we can't speak for or even know what the 2000+ victims of 9/11 suffered -- what comes to mind immediately is the image of those who jumped into one of New York's canyons from one of its highest buildings, hand in hand.

The Oxford Concise says a terrorist is "one who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community." Now, who springs to mind? Orange alert anyone?

"...its possible that they did provide accurate info to the White House..."

Not just possible, as I understand it, Dys. The memo is dated and was received in Crawford.

I sure hope so. Let's see, the war on terrorism consists of the following

1) The now completed invasion of a sovereign nation against the will of most of the international community with the implied threat that we "may" invade other sovereign nations if they don't do what we want. This of course is a very costly threat considering the hundreds of billions of dollars that we are spending in Iraq (not to mention the lives).

2) Broad new powers by the government to spy on American citizens in secret without accountability or the victims knowledge. This includes phone taps and library records.

3) The ability of the government to jail American citizens without charge or legal counsel. The government only needs to say the magic words "Trust us, it's for the war on terrorism".

4) A groovy new color system that costs state and local government millions every time we go to "orange". This money is of course not reimbursed by a government who would rather cut taxes for those wealthy !@?$%'s who have yet to create me the job they promised.

5) The desparate attempts of a president to remain a "wartime president" since this is the only way to get Americans to ignore what a mess the country is getting into.

When I say turn the corner, I mean getting rid of it. If there is any good in this crazy world, the next administration will do this.

This "war on terrorism" damages the very core of America and does very little to minimize any real risk.

What's wrong with positing a moral equivalence? If killing civilians is wrong, it is wrong whether you are a government, a freedom fighter or a terrorist. Of *course* there is "moral equivalence". Being a government does not give you the right to act imorally.

Attempts to "thwart terrorism" are almost always just attempts to make political gains. It is just an excuse to do what wanted to do anyway. For example growing settlements in the West Bank is not a logical response to terrorist activities.

And what are you calling the "illness" and what is the "cure"? Many innocent people, including women and children, are being killed by our war on terrorism.

What if *your* family was the one being killed by US bombs? Would you feel the same if it was your family that needed to die to cure this "illness"? I don't know of any illness in the world that would be grave enough for me to make this sacrafice.

Wrong is Wrong!

It is wrong for people to blow themselves up to kill civilians.

It is wrong for governments to engage in military actions that will almost certainly kill civilians.

This can not be changed with any amount of propaganda.

What is wrong with it is that it ignores the context in which the actions are taken, and context is everything.

Ignore the context and a doctor who amputates a limb to save your life is just some lunatic who cut your leg off. I think we can all agree that losing a leg is not a desirable thing, but within a certain context it can be a very necessary thing.

To assert a moral equivalence across all killing is akin to asserting a moral equivalence between stabbing and surgery. (I personally think they are very different things, but perhaps you see it differently.)

"turning the corner on terrrorism" is turning a corner that opens to a new long dark corridor, IMO.

It's sort of like the light at the end of the tunnel being an oncoming train.

Better the train we can see than the one we can't.

Scrat,

I wasn't making the argument that all "killing" is equally wrong. My point is that killing civilians *is* wrong. If your family is killed in a bomb attack, does it make a difference whether that bomb is strapped to someones waist or dropped from 30,000 feet? I would consider either one immoral.

Also,

Please explain your surgery metaphor. I assume you mean that the US is the doctor, but who is the patient?

... And the kids that were killed by US bombs and are still dying becuase of the upheaval we caused ... are they the patient or the infection?

ebp - Your argument is based in a myth; that being that no harm would have come to anyone in Iraq had the coalition done nothing. The mass graves being uncovered all over Iraq do not support your rosy assessment of the risks inherent in leaving Saddam in place.

This is what I mean by context. You chose to ignore it. I do not.

Maybe I misunderstand your argument, Scrat, but it seems to me that our killing of civilians is not justified by Saddam's killing of civilians. Had we intervened at an earlier time as a member of a genuine coalition (UN) to stop Saddam from killing civilians, we'd have been in a different position morally. Our moral position at this time is D-- at the very most.

Yes, I think you misunderstand my argument.

Scrat, I think I understand your argument.

You are saying that although the cost of human life is high, the greater good is worth the cost.

Your medical metaphor points out that in extreme cases it is proper to sacrafice things that are most dear in dire emergencies. Sure I would give up a leg to save my life.

The problem is that there is no "greater good" from the war. I am guessing from your posts that you think the "greater good" consists of a more secure world and liberation for the Iraqi's.

But look at the facts:

1) We say we were liberating the Iraqi's. But, the Iraqi's did not ask us to liberate them. Their reception was lukewarm at best, and we are now resisting the efforts of Iraqi's to kick us out of their country.

2) The world is not any safer. As Steissd should know from his country's experience, brutal military force against a civilian population with an inferior military does not stop terrorism.

3) It is certain that American's are no safer now. Most of the world doesn't feel any safer and most of them did not support this war that is supposedly in their name.

It seems to be very easy for Americans to sacrafice *Iraqi* lives. Extending your medical metaphore, I would not be willing to sacrafice a leg to heal my toothache, but I may be willing to sacrafice *yours*.

ebp - Is your argument that there is never a "greater good" to be had through the sacrifices made in war?

Tartarin

I don't think you misunderstand Scrat's arguments at all. Fact is, most of Scrat's "arguments" are not arguments at all. They are attempts to justify or rationalize these kinds of things.

Of course, since Scrat is a "newbie" --albeit a rather precocious one, I may be proved wrong in the long run. If there is a long run!

You know how it is with newbies -- they come and go -- and new ones take their place.

Frank,

What is the definition of an "argument" in a debate? As far as I know it does not exclude justifications and rationalizations, in fact I feel it suggests precisely those activities.

Yeah, you may be right. But it sounded like a good line so I used it.

In any case, I don't think Scrat is all that hard to understand. As I mentioned, since he/she is a newbie, I really don't have a lot to work from, but considering the several posts I've seen during his/her short time here, it appears he/she is going to rationalize or attempt to justify just about all conservative opinions or actions.

Now that you are a conservative, that may sit well with you, but I like to poke these conservatives as often as possible. They're such fun to watch while they are reacting.

And I honestly think American conservatism (particularly under the gang of thugs known as the Bush Admnistration) is the most dangerous thing our country has ever had to face so far in its history.

In my opinion, alll decent people should be on their asses as often and as regularly as possible.