I still have problem with the rhetoric: terrorists

cat's meow · #1 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 12:43 AM

I guess this is why we call this a debate site..

I have been looking at this British/Islamic terrorist plot that the officals in England and Pakistan are trying to still track down (5-15 suspects still out there depending on the news source I have looked at). Sure, I worry about some of this stuff and especially with the that fact I have to take two or three business trips in the next few months that will go through major airports. I will be very happy to hand over anything at the airport they deem necessary for me to discard for the safety of myself and everyone else on the flight. I will buy shampoo, shaving cream, blades, and deodorant at my destinations if need be; not a big deal to me. I am not a conspiracy nut, I don't like to bash our president or our government when things start to get serious like this; yes, I truly believe this was going to happen and it got thwarted (for now).

This is where I have a problem and always have. I don't think I am cherry picking here with all the stuff I have seen over the years, this just is not today.

How do you define the problem and where is it coming from? How do you 'attack' it? It is very diffcult question to answer at times.

This time:
Looks like it was British nationals who are of Pakistani descent
and might have some link to Afghanistan, this is hard to tell yet. Yes, they are radical Islamic followers who are young, misguided and in their twenties. And, they all should be gvine due process but in the end probably shot by a firing squad, put in "ol' Sparky," or given the 'green needle.' They were not in Iraq, not in Iran, not in Lebanon...they were in a suburb of London and had ties to Pakistan.

I saw the Bush press conference when he came off the plane and then an interview with AG Alberto Gonzales. I thought the AG was very well spoken and liked what he had to say about this and how this has to be approached
as and ongoing threat. I thought our president to be inconsistent with this
subject and using terms (again) to define the 'war of terror' confusing and misleading. How can these guys be so off from one another? Again I am left with the feeling (due to past history of this) that someone like Cheney or others connected with the EB feed Bush before a press conference on something like this and "tune him up"; there is not a response from HIM any longer at all. Espesially, with so many questionable decisions that have been made in the middle east this makes me scratch my head.

I think the British officials are trying hard and there are good American officals trying hard. I think certain people like Gonzales and sometimes a Richard Clark and others (they happen to be the ones seen tonght) give me something I can hang my hat on even with how much uncertainty there is out there. Clark himself (the interview I just saw) was pretty blunt about the influence war being lost on our side and there are more terrorists than ever, and they are more diffused and diverse.

When I hear George Bush speak he seems out of touch...way too prepared to say what HE is going to say (or Cheney...someone in that set of guys) and not ready to answer some very hard questions about terrorists and what is really going on. I hear the phrase "an all out war on Islamic Fascism" and I start thinking of Hitler or Mussolini in turban head-dress. Even his own AG doesn't come close to using rhetoric like this (a good buddy of his from TX I might add). I have questioned it for a long time and it gets worse.

Is our president (the Whitehouse) that disconnected from so many other parts of this whole picture when talking about terrorists? Does he just parrot a bunch of lines that Dick 'in the last throws' Cheney scribbles down for him?

cat's meow · #2 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 03:57 AM

I have to say, I agree with the article and this was just sent to me...I did not go out and seek it...my start to the thread was written without this article.

Quote:

Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot
by Olivier Knox
Thu Aug 10, 2:53 PM ET

CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections.

The London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin.

"It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America," he said. "We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren't completely safe."

His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break.

Vice President Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort to win renomination.

But Bush aides on Thursday fought the notion that they had exploited their knowledge of the coming British raid to hit Democrats, saying the trigger had been the defeat of Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut by an anti-war political novice.

"The comments were purely and simply a reaction" to Democratic voters who "removed a pro-defense Senator and sent the message that the party would not tolerate candidates with such views," said Snow.

The public relations offensive "was not done in anticipation. It was not said with the knowledge that this was coming," the spokesman said.

Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism.

An aide to Lieberman, who would have been one of the first Democrats to hear of the plot because he is the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said the lawmaker first heard of it late Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Cheney had suggested that Democrats believe "that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't, we can't, be," he said.

While some Democrats have opposed some steps in the war on terrorism, and more and more are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, no major figures in the party have called for a wholesale retreat in the broader conflict.

But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

cat's meow · #3 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 04:03 AM

another that is part of my thinking in this thread...whether you think Dionne is a bleeding heart liberal or not, I have to say this is where I am at more and more...

Quote:

Who's Guilty of 'Petty Partisanship'?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, August 11, 2006; WP, Page A19

Oh my goodness, as Don Rumsfeld might say. Support for the Iraq war hits a record low, and all the president's hit men decide that it's time to smear their opponents as defeatists who give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Of course they didn't mention the poll on Iraq released by CNN on Wednesday. As a basis for their guilt-by-association campaign, they used the fact that Democratic voters in Tuesday's Connecticut primary favored antiwar businessman Ned Lamont over Sen. Joe Lieberman.

The gentlemen who have gotten us into a mess in Iraq prefer not to explain how they'll fix things. They would rather use national security for partisan purposes, and they were all out there on Wednesday, spewing incendiary talking points. Hey, they may not have sent enough troops to win a war, but they sure know how to win midterm elections.

In a telephone call with journalists, Vice President Cheney came close to suggesting that there is a new political blog out there called "al-Qaeda for Ned." His words have not received nearly the attention they deserve.

Mourning the fact that Democrats would "purge a man like Joe Lieberman" -- that word "purge" has a nice Stalinist ring, doesn't it? -- our vice president went on to say this:

"The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, [from] the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al-Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

The rejection of Lieberman made Cheney wonder if "the dominant view of the Democratic Party" is "the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home."

Wow! I bet the 145,000 free citizens of Connecticut who voted for Lamont will be shocked to learn that they were really sending signals of "retreat" to "al-Qaeda types."

Then there was Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, handpicked by President Bush and Karl Rove.

Speaking in Cleveland, Mehlman couldn't resist starting with a little old-fashioned redbaiting. He explained Ronald Reagan's defection from the Democratic Party this way: "He saw the beginning of the end, as a party that had vowed to fight communism became a party that set itself against those who fought communism." Ah, yes, the party of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale was nothing but a bunch of anti-anti-communists.

From there it was an easy leap to saying a Democratic Party -- cleverly renamed the "Defeat-ocrat Party" by the RNC chairman -- "that once stood for strength now stands for retreat and defeat." Translation: Anyone who dares question our botched approach is in favor of surrender.

Finally, from Tony Snow, the White House official who speaks for the president, came this analysis of the Connecticut result: "It's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you."

This statement is rooted in a lie -- or, to be polite, fiction. As Adam Nagourney noted in the New York Times yesterday: "In fact, the vast majority of Democratic Party leaders supported Mr. Lieberman in the primary and did not endorse Mr. Lamont until after the results were in." On Time.com, Perry Bacon Jr. noted that Lieberman had the support of "almost the entire Democratic establishment."

And if being against the Iraq war makes you "extreme left," then the administration has succeeded in pushing 60 percent of Americans into that camp. That's the proportion opposed to the war in the new CNN poll.

When he announced he was running as an independent, Lieberman issued a ringing condemnation of "petty partisanship and angry vitriol." He denounced those who offered "insults instead of ideas" and said the purpose of politics is "to lift up, not to tear down." True, and there could hardly be any more offensive examples of petty partisanship than the vitriolic screeds issued by Cheney, Mehlman and Snow -- coming, as they did, just a day before we learned of a new terrorist plot against us.

We'll never achieve authentic bipartisanship until a crowd that has clung to power by dividing us into bitter camps gets the rebuke it deserves. In the meantime, Lieberman might usefully send a copy of his speech to his friends in the White House. They divide us at our peril.

cat's meow · #4 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 01:10 PM

Just in the car listening to the BBC. They had a call in show about problems in the Islamic world and what should be done; the two things that were commented on three times in a row by Muslims who are both in America and not in America, the questions were being directed to the first answer and the second comment came unsolicited (I scratched my head yesterday too):

1. moderate and peaceful Muslims need to OPENLY denouce the violent actions of fanatics, if there is a problem witht he west then protest and use non-voilent means to make your voice heard.

2. The comment of "Islamic Fascism" used yesterday so prominently by George is very misleading a it does not line up at all. This comment only shows a greater misunderstanding witht he Islamic world.

Scoody Boo · #5 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 02:31 PM

9-11 gave me all of the understanding of the Islamic world I need.

cat's meow · #6 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 02:57 PM

I hope that is an understaning that you have come to and not something that Dick Cheney via Bush of another talking head has told all of us...

Scoody Boo · #7 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

I hope that is an understaning that you have come to and not something that Dick Cheney via Bush of another talking head has told all of us...

When the 2nd plane hit the Towers, before Dick Cheney or President Bush said one word about it, my understanding was complete.

Still Dizzy · #8 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoody Boo

9-11 gave me all of the understanding of the Islamic world I need.

First WTC attack?
Second WTC attack?
Madrid bombing?
London bombing?
Kenya bombing?
Tanzania bombing?
U.S.S Cole bombilg?
Some Muslims kill the innocent. Others support them, and remain silent about their actions.

Scoody Boo · #9 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Dizzy

First WTC attack?
Second WTC attack?
Madrid bombing?
London bombing?
Kenya bombing?
Tanzania bombing?
U.S.S Cole bombilg?
Some Muslims kill the innocent. Others support them, and remain silent about their actions.

9-11 gave me all of my understanding. The other just served to verify and authenticate it.

cat's meow · #10 (**permalink**) 08-11-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Dizzy

First WTC attack?
Second WTC attack?
Madrid bombing?
London bombing?
Kenya bombing?
Tanzania bombing?
U.S.S Cole bombilg?
Some Muslims kill the innocent. Others support them, and remain silent about their actions.

I agree...I would also add the word Fanatical before the word Muslim.

OK, let me add a bit more here.

So, this time with these guys in London it is looking like the link is to Pakistan and North to Afganastan and the Taliban/Al Quida. Not Iran, not Iraq, not other countries that get thrown into this. And the guy who sits in those damn mountians in that region laughing his ass off at us is Bin Laden. What happened? Why are we still in Iraq and then on the other end allowing Bin Laden to be some sort of martyr and inspiration to these young fanatics (and these are NOT fascists, that is again misleading and does not get us to the REAL guy, Bin Laden)?

The circle of logic of fanatic Islam goes like this:

1. They are pissed off at the world; not a whole lot to do about that except keep your eye on them and try to prevent them from killing innocent people.

2. The US moving into Iraq only confirms all thier beliefs about how the west works and allows certain Muslims in the middle to better believe in the fanatic's cause.

3. Getting Bin Laden early would have pissed the extremists off but would have been a great relief to the people in the middle who would normally see him as fanatical. It would have made the Western cause for peace far more viable and even moving into Iraq would have fallen further down the priority list. Multi-National companies would even be looked at more favorably at that point.

4. The longer we stay in Iraq and/or antagonise Iran (with Bin Laden being able to interpret everything that is going on in the middle east like some prophet) only makes things worse and encourages younger, non-educated Islamic fanatics to give thier lives and take as many 'infidel' lives as possible.

Anything that does not address this cycle of logic of the fanatics at this point is a smoke screen and means nothing.