Nothing more than US (and allied) foreign policy blowback. Or as Malcolm X would call it, "Chickens coming home to roost."

Didn't Rep. Ron Paul (R) also suggest that there is no "War on Terror" since terror is a tactic and not a group?

Would you also classify fighting would-be-abortion-clinic bombers as fighting the "War on Terror"?

What about Right-Wing militia groups (like the OK bombing)- is that also fighting the "War on Terror"?

The student at Falwell's funeral, was that bomb-bust part of the "War on Terror"?

Isn't it just a question of semantics? Aren't we REALLY talking about fighting jihadists when we use the ill-named "War on Terror" slogan?

Matt,

Those of us against the invasion and occupation of Iraq do not deny that there is, has been for some time and will always be terrorist actions against us and our allies. We fail to see how invading Iraq is putting out the fire of that threat. And there are a lot more dead Americans and dead Iraqis today because of this invasion that has done nothing to quell the global terrorist threat.

And while you're at it, tough guy, get yourself a bumper sticker that says "I am young enough and healthy enough to serve in war that I wholeheartedly support, but I think I'm better than that."

"War on Terror" War on Drugs" same thing.
A war with no direction or end. War is great.

"War on Terror" War on Drugs" same thing.

SAME THING?????????????????

Oh good Lord, the brain damge is permanent.

Would you also classify fighting would-be-abortion-clinic bombers as fighting the "War on Terror"? - coulterfan

Well sure it is. I mean combatting the rogue individual who very randomly sets his twisted sights on an abortion clinic doctor is very similar to the well financed, very well organized Islamic Jihadist movement that has reigned unbelievable torment and death on the civilized world for three decades.

Very similar indeed. Is that you John Edwards?

Neocon,
I think it's safe to say that for the last couple decades nobody has brought more torment and death to the world than the United States -- in the name of freedom and democracy.
You might as well face the facts -- the Bush family alone has killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever dreamed of.

"War on Terror" War on Drugs" same thing.
A war with no direction or end."

Awww the poor little lib needs it all laid out like an episode of American Idol to feel comfortable.

"War is great."

Brain Damage ? No you got to have one to damage it.
Simple thoughts for simple minds.

You might as well face the facts -- the Bush family alone has killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever dreamed of.- Sal

Really? So you're faulting the Bush Administration for every violent act of the jihadists which are directly responsible for the death of the Innocent Iraqis over the last four years? Or are you buying into the Rosie screed of 600,000 dead Iraqis as a result of our taking out Saddam. Either way, it clearly demonstrates your extensive brain damage.

I think it's safe to say that for the last couple decades nobody has brought more torment and death to the world than the United States -- in the name of freedom and democracy. - Sal

Really? How about a little history lessen for our resident pathetic Islamist apologist (that would you Sal):

November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days,

1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

...the Bush family alone has killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever dreamed of. - sal-monella

No question. That Barbara Bush is one tough grandma. And Jenn and Barb, c'mon, who could battle them?

Are you afraid of teenage girls Sal?

Good list but I didnt see Bali in there. A little more info for the blithering idiot...

(USA TODAY)Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened, fill a bookshelf. Jail cells, with dried blood on the floor and rusted shackles bolted to the walls, line the corridors. And the screams of what could be imprisoned men in an underground detention center echo through air shafts and sewer pipes.

As U.S. forces entered the Iraqi capital here, hundreds of military intelligence officers fled the Directorate's headquarters. Apparently, they feared being captured or killed by the U.S. forces or beaten by Iraqis for decades of tortures and killings committed here.

Over the weekend, relatives of those arrested began arriving at the now-abandoned intelligence headquarters to inquire about loved ones. They brought pictures, birth certificates and dental records. It was the first time most had even approached the main gate, much less entered the site. Signs outside the headquarters read "Forbidden to enter under penalty of death.

"Under Saddam, there were no rights of appeal," Kardom said. "I begged them to stop as they beat me. It only inspired them to beat me harder."

An Iraqi soldier, who according to the facility's records witnessed the beatings, said interrogators regularly used pliers to remove men's teeth, electric prods to shock men's genitals and drills to cut holes in their ankles.

In one instance, the soldier recalled, he witnessed a Kuwaiti soldier, who had been captured during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, being forced to sit on a broken Pepsi bottle. The man was removed from the bottle only after it filled up with his blood, the soldier said. He said the man later died.

"I have seen interrogators break the heads of men with baseball bats, pour salt into wounds and rape wives in front of their husbands," said former Iraqi soldier Ali Iyad Kareen, 41.

He then revealed dozens of Polaroid pictures of beaten and dead Iraqis from the directorate's files.

Another Source:

“In 1991 Saddam killed 500,000 people when they rose against him. Nobody demonstrated against him then. But now the United States wants to get rid of the dictator, people are demonstrating against it.”
-one of the Iraqi liberation soldiers the U.S. is training at "Camp Freedom" in Hungary

Salivater if you were any stupider you might qualify as a pet rock. I'll make it simple for you...YOUR A MORON.

"Very similar indeed. Is that you John Edwards?"

Actually, closer to Ron Paul. Still, you think that we can group abortion-clinic bombers, unibombers, militiamen, and jihadists under the same moniker and fight them in exactly the same way?

Do you really believe that the same thing motivates Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols, the Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh, James Kopp, and Bin Laden?

That it is all part of the same fight?

Remember, we supported the 'freedom fighters' in Nicarauga, our early Revolutionaries used 'Terroristic' tactics to fight the MUCH LARGER British Army. We killed thousands of Japanese during WWII- most of them innocents in order to terrorize them into surrender. Can you really win a war against a 'tactic'? Don't you have to understand the group that you are fighting and what motivates them?

Even Bush tried to change the WOT slogan to "War on Islamic Extremism" (which is more accurate)- but that didn't fly as well as the "Bumper Sticker Slogan" for the simpleminded.

Good list but I didnt see Bali in there. - zoot

Zoot,

That's just a partial list I compiled a couple of years ago. It doesn't include Bali or the Jakarta bombings. Nor does it include the more recent events of Beslan Russia, London and Madrid.

People like Sal and coulterfan are just as dangerous as the Jihadists. It's their complete ignorance and stupidity that enables the jihadists to continue to manipulate them and proceed with their killing.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

If you can explain to me how you fight a war on an abstract concept then we could start having a discussion. You can of course have a war with a country - or even with a terrorist group. But it doesn't make any more sense to have a war on "terror" then it does to have a war on "hate". The sad fact is that it is absolutely correct to say that it is a bumper sticker slogan - one that has the same intelligence behind it that a cartoon character like Captain America. Once you are ready to have a discussion that involves more than cartoon slogans we can talk...

Actually, closer to Ron Paul. - coulterfan

That's even worse!!! LMAO!

Do you really believe that the same thing motivates Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols, the Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh, James Kopp, and Bin Laden? - coulterfan

um.......NO! Do you? Was Hitler motivated by the same thing Ted Bundy was? You more completely stupid than I first gave you credit for.

We killed thousands of Japanese during WWII- most of them innocents in order to terrorize them into surrender. - coulterfan

Um.....yea. Remember Pearl Harbor? They attacked us first, remember??????

Don't you have to understand the group that you are fighting and what motivates them? - coulterfan

You haven't figured out what motivates them yet?
Do some homework then come on back when you gain an ounce of intelligence.

If you can explain to me how you fight a war on an abstract concept then we could start having a discussion. kblock

So UBL and the radical Islamist jihadist movement that has killed scores of people on nearly every continent over the last thirty years is a:

ABSTRACT CONCEPT

Oh Good Lord.

To say blankly that, "Democrats say there is no war on terror" is disingenuous. This belief is held exclusively by John Edwards (and possibly Dennis Kuchinich, but who really pays any attention to that guy). I completely disagree with Edwards, but I understand what he was trying to say... that you can't be at war with an ideology, blah, blah, blah. But, on the other hand, during WWII, nobody would have flinched if you said we were at war with Nazism.

Personally, I think war on terror' is too weak a phrase. Our war is against radical, fundementalist Islamists, but with our PC culture, that would never fly.

Thank God that car bomb in London was defused, but it is inevitable that at some point, one will go off either here, Britain, or another western country. Once that happens, our PC culture of wishy-washy non-offensive labels will come to an abrupt end.

We can only hope that the majority of moderate Muslims stand up to this fringe element hijacking their religion before it's too late.

"Personally, I think war on terror' is too weak a phrase. Our war is against radical, fundementalist Islamists, but with our PC culture, that would never fly."

Perfectly stated.

I don't point these things out because I hate the US. I point this out because it shows the American public that we are not being told the truth as to why these terrorist attacks keep occurring! You can't hide from the truth. Sooner or later it catches up to you. If we really want to live in peace with the Muslim world then we have to acknowledge our role in the mess. We must take responsibility and move forward in a way that is beneficial to everyone, not just us. If we keep undermining the world, the world will keep hating us, and attacking us.

Yes folks, I’m sorry to say, but terrorism wasn’t born in 1979. There are actually events that took place pre 1979 that are more so responsible for today’s state of affairs. I’ll try to fill in the gaps:

The west had little interest in the Middle East until 1941 but we’ll start 20 years earlier.

1921 – the Shah of Iran, Reza Shah Pahlivi, supports modernization and begins to do what is known today as “westernize”. He produces railroads, modern industry and a national education system.

1941 – Great Britain and the USSR(Allies) invade Iran to prevent Germany and Japan (Axis) from creating a stronghold in Iran and more importantly, controlling the oil. They force the Shah to step down and to be replaced by his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who they feel would be more supportive of the Allies.

1951 – Ten years later, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh became the first democratically elected prime minister of Iran. He caught the west off guard by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil company.
This was a huge blow to Britain. The UK were taking 85% of Iran's oil profits through shares they owned in the AIOC. Nationalizing the AIOC took all of those profits away from Britain and gave them back to the Iranian people. After failed negotiations, the UK put an embargo on Iran which virtually shutdown Iran's oil industry. Needless to say Iran's economy and people suffered from the UK blockade and embargo. This created a good environment for a coup.

1953 – British and US Intelligence services led a covert operation to overthrow the Democratically elected prime minister. This was successful. Dr. Mossadegh was captured and tried for treason and sentenced to jail for three years and the Shah was reinstated.
Shah Reza proceeded to run Iran as a “police state” with the continued support of the US and UK. With the embargo lifted, and the majority of oil profits returned safely to the UK, Iran's oil industry was again flourishing. Go figure. For the next 26 years Shah Reza, with US and UK support, ruled with an Iron fist. It's crucial to understand that because of oil, the US helped the UK overthrow a democratically elected leader and replaced him with a tyrannical dictator. This is probably the biggest reason for anti-west sentiment throughout Iran. And the main reason for the Iranian Revolution.

1979 – Led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the Iranian Revolution takes place in which the Shah, along with the Constitutional Monarchy, were ousted. Nov 4 1979 - university students seize the US Embassy in Iran dubbed the “Den of Spies”. They believed the embassy to be full of CIA agents working to oust Ayatollah Khomeini in the wake of the Iranian revolution.
The only reason the west was successful in 1953 is because of the Intelligence activity going on between 1951-1953. The Iranians had every reason to not trust the US embassy and there motives for staying in Iran thru the Iranian revolution. The Iranians had historical reasons to suspect the US Citizens working at the embassy were spies.

At this point, direct communication between Iran and the US halt. And according to Neocons Terror Highlight reel, terrorism against the US begins.

Hey neocon, somehow I can't find any of Iraq's terrorist attacks against the US in your list. I know that we invaded Iraq as part of the war on terror, so I know they must have carried out some sort of terrorist attacks against us.

Well played robert.

>>um.......NO! Do you?

No, but that's MY POINT. The 'War on Terror' moniker lumps them all together!

>>Um.....yea. Remember Pearl Harbor? They attacked us first, remember??????

Umm, but Pearl Harbor was a military target with only military targets (thus, not an act of 'terrorism') Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT military targets- it was a NUCLEAR strike targeting civilians (intended to inflict mass civilian casualties, or by today's standards, an act of 'terrorism')

>>You haven't figured out what motivates them yet?

Again, you miss my point. The WOT moniker lumps them all together, but the same things that motivates Operation Rescue does not motivate Al Queda!

No wonder you need 'Bumper Sticker' slogans!!!

Hey, Robert...
Somehow, I can't find any of Afghanistan's terrorist attacks on the US on the list.....

If you still deny that SH harbored and gave various means of support to various terrorist groups, you truly have your head in the sand.

I think Salv is reffering to episodes in American history such as Nicaragua, supporting Suharto who practiced genocide in East Timor, propping up various human rights violators with all the mod-cons to effectivel destroy any oppositon or innocents who happened to get in the way. There then is of course the carpet bombing of Cambodia, the over throwing of democratically elected governments coz they weren't bending over for us. Oh yeah the support for Saddam while he was raping, murdering and gassing all those innocent people. Don't get me wrong the majority of western countries has been involved in similar things, especially Britain.

Now NONE of the attrocities carried out by any terrorist organisation be it Muslim or the IRA, UVF and so on can be condoned in any way, shape or form. However state terrorim is just as serious and kills at least as many innocent people if not more than the normal definition of terrorists. What some people do not realise is that us taking the lives of innocents is no more justified than other militants doing the same, no matter what the cause. We may not like the democratically elected government of a country but killing innocent people or sacrificing innocent people is no way to get regime change for example Chille, Haiti etc. We also cannot disregard human rights one moment and then pick them up when we want something. Iraq is an example of this. Or we ignore human rights e.g Indonesia under Suhrto, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Nicaragua under Somoza and so on.

I don't think terror can be defeated militarily, mainly because it is a concept, that is to say it lives in peoples minds. Whether or not it is terrorists, drugs, high crime rates, disease epidemics etc if you have fear of it then it has won. Terror will always exist, it's just that whatever is scaring us will change. For example people used to be terrified by communism, now it is Islamic fundamentalists and in the future it could be anything. Therefore terror itself can't be defeated. If you are terrified though they have already won which is wht I don't believe the sort of stuff freedom 1 posts. Why bother being terrified of something if it impacts on your life in anyway then why bother fighting it, whatever we are supposed to be fighting has won. The only people that the Islamic fundamentalist manipulate are the people that are scared of them, if you're not scared of them they can't control your life.

Just random info al-Megrahi has been granted another appeal because of evidence that evidence against him was tampered with,missing or overlooked statements and so on. Whilst it still looks like Muslim terrorist it looks like they were not libyan backed according to the evidence but more likely Iranian backed but that the CIA and others wanted to keep Iran onside because of the 1st Gulf war. We'll have to wait for the outcome of that appeal though to determine whether this is true or not.

"Hey neocon, somehow I can't find any of Iraq's terrorist attacks against the US in your list. I know that we invaded Iraq as part of the war on terror, so I know they must have carried out some sort of terrorist attacks against us."

"Well played robert."

Gosh what ironclad thinking...lol. Does someone create these idiots in a lab designed for making simple minded, uneducated, gullible, history ignorant fools or what. Lenin would be proud of the crop of useful idiots today.

What about many UN resolutions ignored, constant targeting and firing on planes in the no fly zone, playing games with and then expelling the UN inspectors, the killing of the salt marsh Arabs and the destruction of that whole ecosystem, the continuing push for weapons that every major intelligence service and most Dem leaders are on record as being concerned about, the hidden monetary support of terrorist orgs, rampant abuse of the UN food for oil program...etc

This doesn't even address the strategic value of surrounding Iran assuming we had the balls to deal with it.

Has the war been prosecuted properly...hell no.
Have there been stupid naive mistakes...hell yes.
But a lot of its due to being PC to satisfy the whining weak minded MSM, left and "world opinion" the rest I lay on Bush and Rumsfield doorstep. BTW I always thought, from the first time I heard it, that the focus on WMD's was a mistake. Bush is a truly lousy communicator and the country, all of us, have paid the price.

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at Cal State Fresno wrote:

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam.

Neocon,
I would posit that America's CIA and corporate interests have an equally heinous track record compared to that of "muslim extremists":

Cuba, 1952
Iran, 1953
Guatemala, 1954
Indonesia, 1958
Cuba, 1961
Vietnam, 1961-75
Iraq, 1963
UAE, 1966
Pakistan, 1968
Chile, 1973
Ecuador, 1981
Panama, 1981
Nicaragua, 1981
Pakistan, 1989
Iraq, 2003

Now I am sure the toll of the deaths of peasants and workers, you know brown or black people that you care nothing for, from all those incursions, assassinations and resource grabs is much higher than all of those terror attack tolls.

Is there anything the terrorists can do to us or to our allies that will inspire anything but sympathy from these spineless liberals? AMAZING, is there utter disgust for this country. Which begs the old question: Why are you here? Seriously. After all, is there anything this oppressive empire can do to atone for all 'THE DEATH AND TORMENT WE HAVE BROUGHT TO THE WORLD'? The liberal malcontent drama queen who wrote that, certainly doesn't thinks so. I mean, didn''t Bill Clinton do exactly what you apologists demand? He appeased our enemies like Kim Jong Ill, treated them like nuclear equals by FUNDING THEIR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION. He backed out of a conflict in Somalia at the first sign of any confrontation. Prompting Bin Laden and his bloodthirsty soldiers to deam us nothing more than a 'PAPER TIGER' who could not stomache a real fight. And ofcourse he worried more about WHAT THE WORLD THOUGHT OF US than our NATIONAL SECURITY. Which is precisely why he IGNORED 8 AL QUEDA ATTACKS, emboldening Bin Laden to plan the 9/11 attacks but hey AT LEAST FRANCE STILL RESPECTED US FOR NOT FIGHTING BACK. We were so respected by the unviersal community for our non-meddling that terrorists decided to launch their deadliest attacks ever. See what a great handle you guys have on this whole national security thing? God help us if you ever get the presidency again.

On a side note. I was watching FOX news last night at 1 am. West Coast time, when the story broke. I flipped back and forth between CNN and MSNBC to see how they were covering it. It took MSNBC a full 2 HOURS to make one mention of it. Instead they opted to talk about the weather and Bush's 'devasting defeat on the immigration bill'. It was their live broadcast by the way, not some reairing of Keith Olberdork or something. They opted not to cover the MOST IMPORTANT NEWS STORY IN THE WORLD at that moment. WHY? Aren't they in the business of covering important stuff FIRST. I guess when it reinforces the belief that maybe there is such a thing as a GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR (and it's not just some republican fabrication engineered to re-elect George Bush and his minion), then their journalistic zeal takes a back seat to the leftist agenda. Same thing happened when ABC (or one of the other big three) refused to break the Monica Lewinsky story, thus giving birth to Matt Drudge who did run with the BIGGEST STORY OF THE DECADE. --All I have to say is thank God for FOX and talk radio. No wonder these pseudo-Stalinists like Pelosi, Clinton, and Feinstein want to silence us with the Fairness Doctrine. They still remember what it used to be like when they controlled the air waves and the information. Geobbles understood it. ANd all good communists (like Chavez) know, you have to control the information to hold onto power.

I know that we invaded Iraq as part of the war on terror, so I know they must have carried out some sort of terrorist attacks against us. -robot

My thoughts exactly zoot. They really are part of the propaganda machine for Al Jazeera.

um.......robot (and your sidekick b.e.l.), I will refer you to AlGores speech on Saddam back from 1992 so that you can get a sense of Saddams connection to terrorists. Then I will refer you to the 17 UN resolution violations over a 12 year period that stemmed from the first Gulf War for one of the MANY reasons to depose Saddam.

I know it's hard to pay attention though with the advanced case of ADD you obviously have.

"My thoughts exactly zoot. They really are part of the propaganda machine for Al Jazeera.

um.......robot (and your sidekick b.e.l.), I will refer you to AlGores speech on Saddam back from 1992 so that you can get a sense of Saddams connection to terrorists. Then I will refer you to the 17 UN resolution violations over a 12 year period that stemmed from the first Gulf War for one of the MANY reasons to depose Saddam.

I know it's hard to pay attention though with the advanced case of ADD you obviously have. " -neocon

What terrorist attacks agianst the US did Iraq commit? There are terrorist attacks in other countries like every day, the US supports countries that sponsor terrorism. What do UN resolutions against the size of Saddam's military have to do with terrorism? We had legitimate reasons to attacks Iraq, but is terrorism really one? There are far worse sponsors of terrorism, when are we going to invade Columbia, Palestine or Saudi Arabia?

In terms of the invasion of Iraq being part of the overall war on Islamic Jihadism, it wasn't until we made it that, period.

In terms of our continued existence there, it is most accurate to compare it to the continued existence of a crutch at a disabled medical patient's side. If you want someone who is wheelchair bound to walk, you don't yank the chair out from under them all at once and expect them to run a marathon. However, switching them to a motorized wheelchair isn't going to help them walk either. If you want a wheelchair bound person to walk, you incrementally decrease the amount of support so that it does less and the patient has to do more by him or her self.

The same reasoning should apply to our presence in Iraq. When we invaded and dismantled the Baathist government, military, and infrastructure, we essential broke Iraq's legs. We applied support so that Iraq could start doing things on its own, but we aren't incrementally removing that support so that they have to do more and more by themselves. Instead, we are applying more, if not too much, support, fostering a psychological attachment. Just as you don't give a cripple trying to walk a stronger wheelchair, we shouldn't be using more military force at a time where the Iraqi military and government are supposed to be doing more for themselves. We should remove support, piece by piece, all the while being ready to reapply it should they falter, as a doctor stays vigilant as a patient takes his or her first steps.

Also, I found this quote from Reagan interesting...

Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

There are far worse sponsors of terrorism, when are we going to invade Columbia, Palestine or Saudi Arabia? - robot

Finally! A liberal getting tough on rogue terrorist states. Let's do it robot. Ask your passivist representatives that you, as a member of their base, want to invade the aforementioned countires.

Godspeed.

Oh and uh robot, please show me where Palestine is on the map. I can't seem to locate it.

"What terrorist attacks against the US did Iraq commit?"

Ya know Robert I just don't have the time or patience to try and educate someone who is seemingly so determined to be stuck on stupid but I will respond a last time.

"There are terrorist attacks in other countries like every day, the US supports countries that sponsor terrorism."

So does like France, Germany, Russia, China, etc. dude..Whats your point? For F**ks sake read a history book. Geo-Politics has always been a messy affair with alliances that are sometimes distasteful but necessary and sometimes just stupid.

"What do UN resolutions against the size of Saddam's military have to do with terrorism?"

If this is the sum of your understanding of the UN resolutions it might explain your lack of knowledge in many of the other areas discussed.

"We had legitimate reasons to attacks Iraq, but is terrorism really one?"

OK so we had legitimate reasons, the cease fire of GW1 was contingent on Sadam complying with the UN resolutions. On that basis alone we were justified. Yes terrorism was a reason albeit imho a smaller one.

"There are far worse sponsors of terrorism, when are we going to invade Columbia, Palestine or Saudi Arabia?"

So your saying that if were not willing to take everything on at once we shouldn't do anything? Not a real tactical thinker are you? Are you advocating that we should attack them all en masse? Once again, whats your point?

Come back with something that even remotely shows that you have the slightest sliver of a clue and the smallest knowledge of the events leading up to Iraq and the history of the Middle East, perhaps then we could discuss. Until then I will waste no more time as your seem intellectually inconsequential. The lack of critical thought in many of the youth today is a sad thing.

War on terror, war on drugs, war on obesity, war on crab grass. So many wars, so little time, money and IED bait.

From the news story you linked:

"In Washington, two officials said British authorities found no link between the defused car bomb and any terrorist group during the early hours of the investigation. The officials, who were briefed on the inquiry, said the investigation had yielded no suspects and no definitive description of anyone leaving the vehicle."

Obviously, the Brits have a serious crime problem. Call their response a war on random violent crime, if you wish. War on terror? That's unclear at this point, but I realize your need to produce a constant output of politically self-serving semantics.

Show some proof the above cited attempts at mass murder were directed, planned, coordinated and/or funded by al Qaeda masterminds — bin Laden, al Zawahiri, etc. Then, if you can continue showing those links to some such future attempts or acts of violence, a clear, consistent pattern, you'll have a credible rant on this basis.

As it is, what went down in London was attempted mass murder, which is certainly a serious crime. But it could just as well have been disgruntled, poorly assimilated immigrants, thrill- or vengeance-seeking sociopaths or plain old gangsters.

So far you have nothing that negates John Edwards' put down of President Bush's political equivalent of Linus' security blanket.

Rant and rave. I'm right, you're wrong. You're wrong, I'm right.
And so it goes here on BFB. Ad nauseum.
As all of us hide behind our keyboards and monitors.
May all of you take comfort in the delusional excercise of smug and self rightious indignation.
Iraq as a codpiece for GWB and his dwindling legions of mindless rabid supporters (no pun intended)is swiftly being swift-boated by reality.
For the umteenth time, terrorisim is a tactic. It is not a country, an army or a city-state.
It is a way that the weak and disenfranchised lash out at those pervceived to be their masters. In the only way that they know how. Neandethals they are, but exist nonetheless.
The Bush administration will soon be history (yea!!!)and then what? Who are you going to rally against next? Who is going to maintain the continum of fear in you after the next election? Someone who is smarter perhaps? Someone who can actually solve problems instead of making more? Someone who has a sober, mature and eductated mind? Someone who represents "us" who can out smart, out beguile and out-charm "them"?
I sure hope so, because you bushbots are a dead branch on the evolutionary tree.

robin'big

Go suck on a bong man. Peace. We're just dealing with a bumper sticker man. Chill. Peace. Love. Bongs for all.

This "intellectual" crowd is entertaining.

Gee robin'big..nice hypocritical piece there asshat!

But here's the best post yet.

Posted by: Martin at June 29, 2007 10:08 AM

Matt,

Those of us against the invasion and occupation of Iraq do not deny that there is, has been for some time and will always be terrorist actions against us and our allies. We fail (obviously)to see how invading Iraq is putting out the fire of that threat. And there are a lot more dead Americans (which the democRAT party thrives on) and dead Iraqis today because of this invasion that has done nothing to quell the global terrorist threat (redundant but we get your point; you still don't see the big picture as most kook liberals do not).

And while you're at it, tough guy,(what good would it do to send unqualified people to fight this war when we have plenty of VOLUNTEERS that are more than willing to fight for America) get yourself a bumper sticker that says "I am young enough and healthy enough to serve in war that I wholeheartedly support, but I think I'm better than that." (another kook talking point that is absolutely meaningless..period)

Has anyone noticed how only the kook libs here "high-five" each other when they think they've scored?? It must be lonely under them rocks.

"As it is, what went down in London was attempted mass murder, which is certainly a serious crime. But it could just as well have been disgruntled, poorly assimilated immigrants, thrill- or vengeance-seeking sociopaths or plain old gangsters.

So far you have nothing that negates John Edwards' put down of President Bush's political equivalent of Linus' security blanket."

Per ABC:

British police have a “crystal clear” picture of the man who drove the bomb-rigged silver Mercedes outside a London nightclub, and officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com he bears “a close resemblance” to a man arrested by police in connection with another bomb plot but released for lack of evidence.
Officials say the suspect had been taken into custody in connection with the case of al Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot, who was convicted of orchestrating a vehicle bomb plot involving targets in London, New York, Newark, N.J. and Washington, D.C.
Officials say a surveillance camera caught the suspect “staggering from the Mercedes” shortly after parking it outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub.
U.S. and British law enforcement officials tell ABC News it is increasingly clear Friday’s bomb plot in London involves multiple vehicles, and is described by a senior official as a “terror plot involving Islamic extremists.”

I guess an upside for you is where your head resides Colon Polyps will never be a surprise.

Nothing more than US (and allied) foreign policy blowback. Or as Malcolm X would call it, "Chickens coming home to roost."

It didn't take long, did it, to blame our invasion of Iraq for the failed London bombing attempts. Well done, Cav.

robert, you are a bigger moron than Dr. Retard, and that says a lot, because she's brain-dead. We didn't attack Iraq because of an attack on us; we attacked Iraq because Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, and the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East. I know I'm wasting my time on a waste of oxygen, so I'll stop.

If you can explain to me how you fight a war on an abstract concept then we could start having a discussion. You can of course have a war with a country - or even with a terrorist group. But it doesn't make any more sense to have a war on "terror" then it does to have a war on "hate". The sad fact is that it is absolutely correct to say that it is a bumper sticker slogan - one that has the same intelligence behind it that a cartoon character like Captain America. Once you are ready to have a discussion that involves more than cartoon slogans we can talk...

This, ladies and gentleman, is the work of a self-professed PhD, Dr. Retard, who had to be the by-product of a failed abortion. There's no way any brain cells, well, living brain cells, were involved in writing the above paragraph. This sorry excuse for humanity has been polluting this blog for what, about six months now? And has this colossal piece of human excrement ever made a valid point? No!

And she claims to have a PhD. hahahaha!!!

robin'big wrote:

The Bush administration will soon be history (yea!!!)and then what? Who are you going to rally against next? Who is going to maintain the continum of fear in you after the next election?

I'll see your "yea!!!" and raise you 100 hallelujahs.

In answer to your interesting question, I suspect the GOP cavalcade of politically useful external threats will be topped by Iran and North Korea for awhile, giving way ultimately to the People's Republic of China.

First, though, it will be necessary to complete the union-busting, middle-class eroding race to the bottom. Then, an imminent threat from China will belatedly be perceived, one requiring endless outlays for exquisitely expensive weapons systems from their friends and benefactors in the defense and high-tech industries.

Our neoconservative Republican friends had better hope they can squeeze the cost of those weapons systems from their favored friends, the nation's millionaires and billionaires. Because when middle and working class folks have been trickle-downed, globalized, downsized, right-to-worked and outsourced nearly out of existnece, the angry few left won't be in any position to pay the freight. What's more, they might not be in any mood to send their sons and daughters off to fight our next few oil wars.

Navy-

You can not be serious in stating that we have plenty of qualified and willing indviduals to fight this war. Multiple tours and exteneded tours as implemented by our governemnt to fight this war do not seem to lend credence to your argument.

Neocon, keefer, spook, libsbane et al. all congratulate one another on their brilliance. It is not all of us kook libs that do that.

Car Bomb Plot in London - Update: Threat Message Posted on Jihad Forum: via Lgf, "CBS News reports that a message was posted on a jihadi bulletin board hours before the car bomb was discovered": "Was London Bomb Plot Heralded On Web?, Internet Forum Comment From Night Before: ‘London Shall Be Bombed’."

And there’s a Salman Rushdie connection.

Hours before London explosives technicians dismantled a large car bomb in the heart of the British capital’s tourist-rich theater district, a message appeared on one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums, saying: “Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed.”

CBS News found the posting, which went on for nearly 300 words, on the “al Hesbah” chat room. It was left by a person who goes by the name abu Osama al-Hazeen, who appears regularly on the forum.

Al Hesbah is frequently used by international Sunni militant groups, including al Qaeda and the Taliban, to post propaganda videos and messages in their fight against the West. ...

Al-Hazeen’s message begins: “In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful. Is Britain Longing for al Qaeda’s bombings?”

Al-Hazeen decries the recent knighthood of controversial author Salman Rushdie as a blow felt by all British Muslims. “This ‘honoring’ came at a crucial time, a time when the whole nation is reeling from the crusaders attacks on all Muslim lands,” he said, in an apparent reference to the British role in Iraq.

“We say to Britain: The Emir of al Qaeda, Sheikh Osama, has once threatened you, and he carried out his threats. Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed,” the message reads.

robin'big wrote:

The Bush administration will soon be history (yea!!!)and then what? Who are you going to rally against next? Who is going to maintain the continum of fear in you after the next election?

I'll see your "yea!!!" and raise you 100 hallelujahs.

In answer to your interesting question, I suspect the GOP cavalcade of politically useful external threats will be topped by Iran and North Korea for awhile, giving way ultimately to the People's Republic of China.

First, though, it will be necessary to complete the union-busting, middle-class eroding race to the bottom. Then, an imminent threat from China will belatedly be perceived, one requiring endless outlays for exquisitely expensive weapons systems from their friends and benefactors in the defense and high-tech industries.

Our neoconservative Republican friends had better hope they can squeeze the cost of those weapons systems from their favored friends, the nation's millionaires and billionaires. Because when middle and working class folks have been trickle-downed, globalized, downsized, right-to-worked and outsourced nearly out of existnece, the angry few left won't be in any position to pay the freight. What's more, they might not be in any mood to send their sons and daughters off to fight our next few oil wars.

neocon - you missed my point entirely. Nobody is disputing that terrorism is real. Nobody is disputing that it is something we need to fight against and find solutions to. Terrorism is a very real very dangerous threat. The problem with the "war on terror" approach is that there is nothing you can do to fight abstract concepts. What is needed is the following:
1) bring terrorists to justice
2) stop future terror attacks
the best way to do this is not to create a police state, have continuous wars abroad, etc.. This won't stop terrorism - as 16 of our own intelligence agencies it has INCREASED terrorism and the threat of terrorism. The best way to fight terrorism is to understand why people are attacking you. Sure - there will always be a few crazy people out there who will kill just for killing sake - but thats the small small minority of terrorists. The vast majority of terrorists have very specific motivations. If most terrorists just killed for killing sake why don't you hear about Al Queda attacks on Sweeden, Switzerland, Mexico, etc? The problem with the Bush view on terrorism is that it lacks any intelligence at all. It just assumes that there are rabit people out there to kill us all for no reason whatsoever and will never stop. Of course if you take this mentality and ignore all of the facts you insure that terrorism will continue forever...

ZootAllure wrote:

Per ABC:

British police have a “crystal clear” picture of the man who drove the bomb-rigged silver Mercedes outside a London nightclub, and officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com he bears “a close resemblance” to a man arrested by police in connection with another bomb plot but released for lack of evidence.

The perps might well turn out to be jihadists, Sunni or otherwise. Or not. Time will tell.

Keep in mind (note that I hold out the possibility you have one, despite your insulting snark) that I wrote the comment you cited on the basis of the BFB post and linked news story.

The Rabit people didn't attack Sweeden? How did I miss that headline?

Damn, you're truly stupid.

Your post is just like your ass; it goes on forever and it's just as scary!

you didn’t investigate before making your claims? You're ignorant because you're lazy?

How’s that working out for you?

OK SW I apologize for the snarky comment but it was fairly obvious by the type of attack where it was coming from. Its your kind of head in the sand fuzzy thinking that I believe contributes to the problems today.

"I wrote the comment you cited on the basis of the BFB post and linked news story."

The difference is I actually waited to develop any expressed opinion until it was confirmed. You jumped at the chance to take the dhimmi apologist side. I will admit I thought it was arabs all along.

"I realize your need to produce a constant output of politically self-serving semantics."

This is your problem you seem ideologically incapable of realizing that its not our need nor want to produce anything. The bad guys, yes there are really bad guys out there, produce all anyone can stand...if your not blind to it.

"The perps might well turn out to be jihadists, Sunni or otherwise. Or not. Time will tell."

The proof of ideological blindness is in this statement. You still cant bring yourself to call the spade a spade.

Then, if you can continue showing those links to some such future attempts or acts of violence, a clear, consistent pattern, you'll have a credible rant on this basis.

If the list provided by neocon at the top of this topic plus the others he acknowledged but omitted and the continuing murder around the world in the name of allah isn't enough then son aint nothin ever going to be enough.

We are in a good old fashioned ideological religious war with Islam...not radical islam...whether we like it or not. Islam until recently has not had the means to prosecute this war but has always had the desire. Read the Koran...read the hadiths...there is nothing peaceful about them. This is a religion that righteously defends honor killings, female subjugation, ethnic hatred, sexual repression, etc. To be sure not all muslims are the problem but then neither are all piranha's in the river just the ones chewing on me.

BTW I didn't vote for Bush...I voted against Kerry. Bush has disappointed me greatly.

"Bush has disappointed me greatly."

Quick, someebody call Zoot a traitor a coward and demand he be hung for treason!

"you still don't see the big picture as most kook liberals do not)."

Navydad,

You decry talking points while using the ultimate rightie talking point yourself??? The "big picture" talking point? Anyone out there pointing out the litany of negatives from the invasion of Iraq?? No problem! Just tell 'em they don't see "the big picture".

All:
I feel like poor psychopathic Ann Coulter. Why are all of you picking on me? Boo hoo...sob!
Gfys.
After you are done with that, maybe we can discuss one of the many logical solutions to your inability to outhink your supposed "enemy" and just decide to nuke'em instead. A final solution.
Hitler tried it and failed. The United States was more successful against the natives. And the gunpowder was a big help.
Africa?? Those folks are poor and nuts and survival oriented and life is cheap. It comes and goes. From the most simple form of protazoa to the most neurologically complex creatures...such as whales.

The End Is Near
See God
In Reverse Order

John from Cincinatti

OK SW I apologize for the snarky comment...

Don't apologize to SW, Zoot--in case you don't remember SW, he is a snarky kook anti-Bush lefty who has been here before, spouting his crap. He is yet another who suffers from BDS. Check out his blog--it sucks.

Soooo, are all you idiot trolls gonna continue to dodge the issue of this post? Are you trolls all members of the "sh*t happens" coalition?

Are you trolls all members of the Dr. Retard club? Are we at war, or are these car bombs mere nuisances to you?

To be sure not all muslims are the problem but then neither are all piranha's in the river just the ones chewing on me. by: ZootAllure

LoL. So true.

Islam's goal is world conquest:
Qur'an, Chapter 48: AL-FATH (VICTORY, CONQUEST)

Qur'an 48.28
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness.

Pew Research Study on Muslims in the US (2007) p.54

26% of US Muslims age 18-29 believe that Suicide Bombings are Justified!

From Pew Research Study on Muslims in Europe (2006):

Great Britain: 35% of Muslims age 18-29 believe that suicide bombings are justified.

France: 42% of Muslims age 18-29 believe that suicide bombings are justified.

Germany: 22% of Muslims age 18-29 believe that suicide bombings are justified.

Spain: 29% of Muslims age 18-29 believe that suicide bombings are justified.

"Don't apologize to SW, Zoot--in case you don't remember SW, he is a snarky kook anti-Bush lefty who has been here before, spouting his crap."

I know but I'm able to dissect these cretins without resorting, however creatively, to F U type responses. I went to his blog and read a bit of the conspiracy minded, simple thinking and America blaming nonsense. I'm always fascinated by these folks that put so much effort into it yet seem so unable due to ideological reasons to see past the end of their noses.

Notice there hasn't been one real substantial response to the points made...merely strawmen and disingenuous diatribe.

"I don’t think I would have called it the 'war on terror.' I don’t mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me." - Donald Rumsfeld, townhall.com

The Bush administration will soon be history (yea!!!)and then what? Who are you going to rally against next?

That would be the Thompson Administration with Rudy as VP.

After you are done with that, maybe we can discuss one of the many logical solutions to your inability to outhink your supposed "enemy" and just decide to nuke'em instead. - robyn

Maybe we can discuss the lefts inability to outhink your preceived "enemy" of James Dobson and the Christian Right. You seem very fearful of them, yet they have to behead anybody.

Rosie, tell me again how the Christian Right is just as dangerous as Islamic Jihadists. Pleeeaaasse, I really liked that one.

Notice there hasn't been one real substantial response to the points made...merely strawmen and disingenuous diatribe.

Substance isn't part of the left's vocabulary--hatred and anger are their only weapons...

Just read an piece on DailyKos titled, "London Bomb - What a crock of crap!!" that outraged me so much that I had to walk away from my computer...

I often agree with some of the left leaning folks on this site regarding our situation in Iraq, but when I read bulls@#t like this it makes my head spin. What if this bomb (no matter how small) went off? What if only a few people died? To dismiss this car bomb as some trivial event that we should brush off is outrageous, offensive, and completely idiotic.

When six idiots get together to plan a raid on a highly guarded military compound and get their training videos copied at Kinkos (or whatever it was), it's easy to dismiss... but this was a freakin' car bomb!!!! I would consider myself a true centrist independent, and I am no fan of the extreme right or left... but the fact that this was a recommended diary on Daily Kos does not do the democrats any favors in my book.

I wish to God there was third party that wasn't beholden to a bunch of ideologically driven lunatics, or politically correct socialist morons. I need a drink...

For all the folks who don't like "The War On Terror"
how about The Struggle Against Islamic Totalitarianism. Is that OK? Will that make you warm and fuzzy? Freakin libs are like folks arguing over which deck chair they get to sit in on the Titanic.

Quit arguing the semantics on this case which don't mater and deal with the real issue. Islam is a cancer and as many good muslims as may be around as long as Islam exists there will be an issue between it and the west. There is no good solution so all you libs that cant bring yourself to deal with the s**t sandwich Islam created STFU and let the adults keep you safe once again.

Indie, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the third party sentiment.

Frankly, I don't think that you can have a war on terrorism. The sheer logistics don't work out.

With a war, you have a set, defined group of enemies that are united under a specific ideology or objective. A tactic (such as terrorism) is not a viable unifying factor.

In the WOT, all of the people that can possibly conceived as terrorists are considered enemies. That includes Islamic Dominionists, Islamic Nationalists, Al Qaida, and non-Arab groups like Chechen Nationalists in Russia and the now largely defunct IRA. That's not even taking into account the people who act on their own insane impulses.

What you get is this amorphous blob of "enemy combatants" that really have no unifying factor other than the tactics they use. So, theoretically, we are in for an infinitely long conflict fighting against non-coordinated groups fighting in different places for different things. Some objectives are immediate, such as Chechen independence from Russia, some are more long term, such as religious domination, and some are as far sighted as bringing about the Apocalypse.

The practical applications of such a term are close to nonexistence, and it is used only to summon political capital and silence critics.

Quit arguing the semantics on this case which don't mater and deal with the real issue. - zoot

And 4 minutes later:

Frankly, I don't think that you can have a war on terrorism. The sheer logistics don't work out......In the WOT, all of the people that can possibly conceived as terrorists are considered enemies. That includes Islamic Dominionists, Islamic Nationalists, Al Qaida, and non-Arab groups like Chechen Nationalists in Russia and the now largely defunct IRA. - rana

Semantics mean everything in politics, in case you haven't noticed...

It's why pro-choice became pro-death, the estate tax became the death tax, and supporting the troops became the same thing as supporting the President's war policy.

So... are semantics unimportant?

"So... are semantics unimportant?"

Yup, meanings, actions and results are what count. Talk is cheap as most libs and politicians prove every time they open their mouth.

Ah semantics. I wish I had more time to defend my point. I'll do what I can in that regard, but I offer it more as a point to ponder.

Implicit in this post is the assumption that if we don't "fight to victory", conspiracies like this car bomb (or bombs) in London will keep happening. That's a fair enough assumption. But it is predicated on another assumption -- that "victory in the war on terror", is not necessarily the same as "victory in the war in Iraq". I take that distinction as self-evident. I would hope there is no one who equates "victory in Iraq" and "victory in the war on terror". And if there is anyone who makes that equation, I hereby proclaim you as a hopeless idiot and I refuse to listen to you. By extension, I am equally impatient with people who take comments to effect of, "this will be a very long war, a generational war" out of context. The war on terror and the war in Iraq are not the same thing, and any attempt to equate the comments made in the context of one with the context of the other are inappropriate. But as far as I can tell, this is a very common mistake. And one of the worst purpetrators is neocon. The fact is, no one (of any import in the Bush admin.) expected the war in Iraq to be anything close to a generational war. To suggest that (i.e., to put quotes that Bush, et. al., have made in the past about the war on terror into the context of the war in Iraq) is the worst kind of spin. And any suggestion that Bush, et. al., are now confusing the contexts are hopefully inaccurate. And if they aren't, then Bush, et. al., are being dishonest.

So again, the "war on terror" and the "war in Iraq" are not the same thing. And anyone who thinks they are is an idiot. By extension, anyone who confuses quotes intended in one context, and attempts to imply them to the other, is also an idiot. They are not the same. So now we come to the definitions of "war" and "victory" in the two contexts. Let's take "war" first. In Iraq, "war" is much closer to the traditional definition: at least on one side there are guys in official uniforms, organized in classical military units, battling to clear, hold, and secure space. Whether or not the "enemy" adheres to those definitions is beside the point: the ones that are are defining the engagement and its results. None of that is true in the "war on terror" (or at least very little of it). In fact to define the "war on terror" as a "war" stretches the definition of "war" almost to the breaking point. It would be ridiculous to even try to fight the war on terror in the same way as the war in Iraq is being waged. It would be like calling apples oranges. At minimum.

At least implicitly, (and with very few exceptions) everyone understands that. But explicitly, many people have a hard time with any change in semantics that recognizes that distinction. As far as some people are concerned, for anyone to even suggest that the "war on terror" is removed from any classical definition of "war" to merit the term is tantamount to heresy. It's almost as if anyone who prefers to call what is actually happening in the larger sense (i.e., with respect to the war on terror) a "struggle against Islamic extremism" is almost by definition a heretic, or a traitor, because it seems to trivialize what's going on in Iraq. And most of us seem to have some kind of need to equate the two without any degrees of separation. But in the end it's all semantics. The reality is that the situations are very different.

The fact remains that the realities in the war on terror (or whatever you want to call it) and the war in Iraq are very different. Thus, the strategies required for combatting them are very different. And to assume that the performance of any given military unit on the battlefield, or by extension the performance of all military units on all battlefields, will somehow equate with their success or others' success on the streets of some city in the role of policemen in a friendly city, or along a border as border agents along a friendly border, is just plain silly. They are completely different concepts. I mean COMPLETELY. To equate them on any level is pretty ludicrous.

So to answer your question, Zoot, about whether it would be okay if people called it a "Struggle Against Islamic Totalitarianism" (actually, you said "libs", not people, but I'm assuming that characterization includes everyone that doesn't agree with everything you say), that would be fine as long as everyone (libs and otherwise) agreed that there are many different ways to combat the threat, and that success (or failure) in one facet or in one battle doesn't necessarily ensure success (or defeat) in any other facet. In other words, many people seem to hold this woefully simple assumption that "if we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here". On an ultimate level there may be something to that. But we are so far away from that level that it's hardly worth talking about. In my mind, an aggressive policy to make the US energy independent is likely to make more of an impact on the situation in the ME than anything that involves tanks and stuff -- given the time frame we're really talking about, which is a generation or more. So, where are you going to put your assets?

ZootAllure wrote:

The difference is I actually waited to develop any expressed opinion until it was confirmed. You jumped at the chance to take the dhimmi apologist side. I will admit I thought it was arabs all along.

One of those America-blaming cretins here again. I notice you don't cite any specifics to back up that America-blaming nonsense. Could it be because you equate criticism of President Bush and his cronies crew with blaming America?

Your charge about "jumping at the chance . . ." better fits Matt's original post than my comment.

You'll have to translate "dhimmi" for me, it's not in my dictionary. I took no apologist side at all. I made no apologies to or for anyone or anything. Please, read what I said.

Ever hear the one about know thine enemy? We do ourselves no favors by invading countries unnecessarily. We do ourselves no favors by spinning up some kind of monolithic or highly systematic and well-coordinated conspiracy where none exists.

Effectively countering terrorism and/or criminality requires knowing who and what we're up against and responding sensibly on the basis of that knowledge — not twisting facts and truth in an effort to maximize political benefit.

Later reports indicate the London Mercedes bomb was an amateurish piece of crap that mostly endangered anyone inside the car. But since it was smoking and didn't/couldn't detonate, it should mostly be an embarrassment to the terrorist wannabe dipsticks responsible for it.

Glad you visited my blog, Zoot. Too bad you're apparently so thoroughly indoctrinated you couldn't or wouldn't accept what's there for what it is. Your characterization is unfair and inaccurate. Better you should've said you don't agree with the opinions expressed and therefore don't like it.

I'm sure you're much more comfortable in this BFB cocoon, where calling people you disagree with cretin, asshat and such passes for intelligent discussion.

BushWon:

Two excellent posts by you....I have decided it is
useless trying to explain anything to these USA HATERS....as you said, Why are you still HERE? If
the Rosie's, Reid's, Pelosi's, etc, all think our country is so vile, 'WHY DON'T THEY MOVE TO OTHER PLACES THEY FIND MORE DESIRABLE'? I understand, that Pelosi, holds stocks in Alcatel-associated with Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc....she is a hypocrit
and the GOP, should bring it to light, especially
since the libs are telling everyone else to get rid of anything that is connected to terrorism....
Here again, the old "double standard".

Again, great posts...I am just tired of trying to educate some of these idiots, so "have at it"

"Frankly, I don't think that you can have a war on terrorism. The sheer logistics don't work out.

With a war, you have a set, defined group of enemies that are united under a specific ideology or objective. A tactic (such as terrorism) is not a viable unifying factor."

So your solution would be what, go home and cross your fingers? I've been reading some of the stuff you idiotic libs have been posting here. My god, I really can't comprehend how truely delusional you people really are.

Are you blind? Do you just choose to ignore reality? How on earth do you manage to dress yourself? Are you drunk, or just on drugs? I really don't get it.

"I'm sure you're much more comfortable in this BFB cocoon, where calling people you disagree with cretin, asshat and such passes for intelligent discussion."

How can you have an intelligent discussion with elitist regressives, such as yourself, who are completely oblivious to how the world works? It is impossible to have a discussion with your type. No matter how many times you explain things, it just doesn't get through. This is a proven fact, with this blog as the proof. How many times can you explain to you people why we invaded Iraq? It has been explained over and over and over and over and over.....

jbiccum: No matter how many times you explain things, it just doesn't get through. This is a proven fact, with this blog as the proof.

With all due respect to the authors of B4B, offering this blog up as any sort of "proof" about anything is more than a little sad. This isn't a news blog, it's an opinion blog. For you to think otherwise is itself proof of nothing except perhaps you really do live in a cocoon. I say that with the greatest respect for the guys at B4B. But for goodness sakes, recognize a spade for a spade.

jbiccum wrote:

Are you blind? Do you just choose to ignore reality? How on earth do you manage to dress yourself? Are you drunk, or just on drugs? I really don't get it.

No, but you seem to be having either a vision or reading problem. That quote you cited, that begins, "Frankly, I don't think that you can have a war on terrorism. The sheer logistics don't work out. . ."

That wasn't a liberal, a Democrat or a Bushphobe. Go back and look. Donald Rumsfeld said that.

You got one thing right, though, when you wrote, "I just don't get it."

". . . I have decided it is useless trying to explain anything to these USA HATERS....as you said, Why are you still HERE? If the Rosie's, Reid's, Pelosi's, etc, all think our country is so vile, 'WHY DON'T THEY MOVE TO OTHER PLACES THEY FIND MORE DESIRABLE'?"

This seems to be the fallacy du jour at Blogs for Bush: Anyone who criticizes, disagrees with or points out any of George W. Bush's many lapses of honesty, good judgment and/or common sense hates America. Likewise, anyone who objects to bad outcomes and horrible results of Bush's policies and decisions is supposedly an America hater.

That really takes executive privilege to a new level. Now, we're expected to believe Bush is America.

ZootAllure, NavyDad, the rest of you, that is totalitarianism — same BS required of people by the regimes and political parties of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and communist China.

For your own safety, get a clue.

I have been reading comments from Londoners and spoke to my friends down there and most that I have spoken 2 and comments I have read are actually not that scared of terrorism. They are more angry than anything else and even more determined to live their life the same as they do now. They are more worried abut violent crime and gun crime than terrorism. Many also say that they lived through the various IRA bombings and don't see why other idiots should make them change their lives.

In fact to define the "war on terror" as a "war" stretches the definition of "war" almost to the breaking point. - Ricorun

Hardly. 7th century jihadis who are waging a global jihad (holy war) clearly understand that it is indeed war. Many different tactics are employed by jihadis from bombs to lawsuits, but it is most definitely a war. This isn't rocket science, dude. Savage Muslim terrorists can understand that this is a global war, why can't you??

This is a global war. Iraq is one front in this global war. Afghanistan is another front in this global war. Thailand is yet another front in this global war. Europe is yet another front in this global war. Sudan is yet another front.... Again, this isn't rocket science. Vicious terrorists who blow up women and children in marketplaces understand this. Why is this so hard for educated Westerners to understand?? (General question).

In my mind, an aggressive policy to make the US energy independent is likely to make more of an impact on the situation in the ME than anything that involves tanks and stuff --

Absolutely! Agreed. Others have suggested that the US should undertake a new Manhattan Project with the goal of getting the US off of oil. Make the Saudi black gold worthless and that will dry up the money used to fund terrorism, mosques, madrassass, legal lawsuit jihads, and Islamic universities and institutions. No money, no jihad. Or at least- less money, less jihad.

Of course, energy independence will be moot if massive Muslim immigration into Western nations has already taken place. Then it's just a matter of implementing Shari'a law. For example, 50% of Muslims in Britain want Shari'a law and have been attempting to implement it. France has 751 No-Go Zones where de-facto Shari'a law already exists. Muslims in Canada have also already attempted to implement Shari'a law. You get the picture.

Later reports indicate the London Mercedes bomb was an amateurish piece of crap that mostly endangered anyone inside the car. But since it was smoking and didn't/couldn't detonate, it should mostly be an embarrassment to the terrorist wannabe dipsticks responsible for it. - SW

UNBELIEVABLE! I knew I would see this, but it still boggles the mind. Terrorists have proven time and time again of what they are capable of in terms of IED's yet, when an attack is thwarted, the left is compelled to downplay the threat and label the would-be bombers as bungling idiots to further their agenda. There were TWO bombs moron, and the potential destruction could have been severe.

The left is soooooo transparent.

I'm sure you're much more comfortable in this BFB cocoon, where calling people you disagree with cretin, asshat and such passes for intelligent discussion. - SW

You have yet to proffer up anything that could even remotely be considered intelligent discussion. Pot, meet kettle.

This seems to be the fallacy du jour at Blogs for Bush: Anyone who criticizes, disagrees with or points out any of George W. Bush's many lapses of honesty, good judgment and/or common sense hates America. - SW

This guy is just as dishonest as the day is long. Bush has been criticized by nearly everyone on this blog, including myself. He has made many mistakes in this war effort, but it what still the right thing to do. He has made a mockery out of the immigration/border issue of which I am incensed.

What we take exception to is the undermining of AMERICA, not Bush. Fore example, stating that Americas foreign policy throughout the years justifies the terrorists response. Things like that. It's a good thing you're here, you obviously need an education.

jbiccum-

Perhaps if you realized that the "War on Terror" isn't an actual war...

Anyways, once again you guys make a false dilemma fallacy... Either I support the President's actions and the ridiculous catchphrase of a "War on Terror". or I don't want to fight terrorists... Hmmm...

Perhaps if we saw each theater of what you call the "War on Terror" as an individual conflict and by its own merits, we would understand the individual conflicts better. I mean, the military (at least servicemen that I know) separates Afghanistan and Iraq and doesn't oversimplify it into one "fight of our time." No, its politicians that are grasping for more power and the mouthpieces for their policy, that use this phrase to the point of making it trite. Just so you know... it's impossible to fight a war against a tactic...

But, while were at it... let's fight a "War on Trench-Warfare." I never liked trench warfare, let's defeat it...

I just noticed the following and was wondering why America can't seem to get quality children programming like this:

Hamas TV on Friday broadcast what it said was the last episode of a weekly children's show featuring "Farfur," a Mickey Mouse look-alike who had made worldwide headlines for preaching Islamic domination and armed struggle to youngsters.

In the final skit, Farfur was beaten to death by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfur's land. At one point, Farfur called the Israeli a "terrorist."

Anyways, once again you guys make a false dilemma fallacy... Either I support the President's actions and the ridiculous catchphrase of a "War on Terror". or I don't want to fight terrorists... Hmmm... - Rana

Rana,

You're sure putting in a lot of effort in defending your "semantic" diatribe vis a vis the GWOT.

You say it's not a war.......but that is using the dated definition of "war". Someone said 4 years ago that this would be a "war, like no other war", and he was right.

This "war" will need to employ every facet of defense we are capable of deploying: diplomacy, law enforcement and military, and possibly some other tactics. Each and every component is as vital as the next.

Quit spinning the semantic diatribe, recognize the real issue of the Extreme Islamic purpose and join us in defeating this cancer on civilization.

Fine... lets fight a war against Islamic Dominionists, but fighting a war against a tactic is impossible...

neocon,

Information about what amateurish and underpowered crap the bombs in yesterday's abortive incident in London were comes not from me but from former CIA agent Larry Johnson. He appeared on MSNBC's "Countdown." You probably didn't watch that and will claim Johnson doesn't know what he's talking about, but if you're interested you can read the transcript Monday on MSNBC's site. Just look for the transcripts link on the main page.

I know there was two bombs. The potential for destruction was largely to the cars and their contents because the bombs used a poor choice of materials and were made badly.

BTW, you come off like a lowlife, eternal adolescent calling people you disagree with "moron." You might be the product of a faulty upbringing but you can overcome that if you will try.

I must've missed all that criticism of Bush on this blog by those on the right.

What we take exception to is the undermining of AMERICA, not Bush. Fore example, stating that Americas foreign policy throughout the years justifies the terrorists response. Things like that.

Well, neocon, if that's what bothers you, you'll be hard put to find when and where I've done it. In fact, I have NEVER done that. In fact, I favor policies and actions that would take the fight to Islamic terrorists and their enablers that would be far more aggressive, comprehensive and hard on them than the Keystone Kops response the Bush administration is responsible for.

The first step is to make sense of the threat, which several commenters here have done with extreme clarity and accuracy. The second step is recognize