Comments Posted By ed
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 205 Comments
NEW JIHADI VIDEO GIVES HEART TO TERRORISTS
mannning:
"Hamas has ordered a number of passive Muslims, who never had any thought of fighting, to strap on a bomb and go do death to infidels. So the mass of Muslims can be corrupted into the fight against the infidel with relatively little effort by the leadership."
This is arguing with anecdotal evidence. Just because some Muslims were convinced to become suicide bombers by Hamas, this does not speak at all concerning the mass of Muslims.
It is also a non sequitur. 1) Some suicide bombers are Muslim, 2)masses of people on Earth are Muslims, therefore, 3) all Muslims are suicide bombers.
Wrong and wrong. Even a bigot can be logical with a little effort. Work on it.
Comment Posted By ed On 5.07.2007 @ 15:38
Big Kahuna Said:
"In the end, the simplest way to rid the world of terrorism is to go out and eliminate all those who would commit terror. Without remorse or chance of parole for those who resort to it."
Since we have been unable to do this in Iraq, with four years effort by the U.S. military and our coalition partners, how do you see this happening worldwide?
I'm not sure your idea is all bad, it is just that the logistics of such action don't seem to be feasible.
Comment Posted By ed On 5.07.2007 @ 12:27
I will confess to not knowing the answers either. I can look at history and see that Israel strikes back at every attack coming from Islamic foes and terrorists. The results appear to be only an ebb and flow of attacks (and attackers)on Israel.
During the 40 years I have been watching,Israel's instant responses have not stopped attacks from terrorist-type groups or stopped the notion that Israel must be destroyed in the minds of their foes. My suspicion (based on the above history) is that large scale retaliation for the coming attacks on the U.S. will not temper Islamic inspired terrorism in the U.S. or reduce the number of future terrorists.
That said, we must invest heavily in intelligence and border and port security, and be prepared to punish any state supporting terrorist actions in the U.S., including our so-called Arab allies. By punish, I mean bomb their oil production capacities. Our best defense against terrorists will be an Apollo-type effort to end our dependence on oil in the next decade, with our major oil companies given massive incentives to lead the way in finding alternative energy sources.
Comment Posted By ed On 5.07.2007 @ 08:54
STOP OVERREACTING TO TERRORISTS?
Thanks, Dale in Atlanta:
I appreciate the excellent and informative responses to my questions. I certainly agree that the plots stopped so far (publically) have been very amateurish, and most likely any trained terrorist's plots are silenced for national security reasons. Common ground there.
We may not agree on the Iraq War (I have always thought those resources should have gone toward border security, intelligence, and port security instead of overthrowing a dictator that will inevitably be replaced by another), but I suspect we agree that very much more needs to be done to fight terrorism and increase our own security.
And just so you know, your ideas DO make me think and sometimes reconsider my own.
Comment Posted By ed On 2.07.2007 @ 16:01
Dale in Atlanta,
I often disagree with your positions, but your first post on this thread was a terrific, thought-filled statement that is appreciated. I do have one question. You mentioned keeping Jihadist's busy in Iraq as helping keep them from attacking the U.S. I pray this is true.
What I don't understand is that the entire 9/11 operation only involved a few dozen plotters and operations people and a half a million dollars at most. It would seem to me, although I don't have your knowledge or background, that nothing going on in Iraq could stop a few dozen men from raising suffecient cash and carrying out a serious terrorist act in the U.S.
I also would like to think that our intelligence and law enforcement efforts (shutting down several active plots that we know of) have played a more important role in preventing terrorist attacks than the Iraq War. You obviously know more than I do on the topic, so my question is, where am I wrong in these assumptions?
Comment Posted By ed On 2.07.2007 @ 09:57
CAGE MATCH: ASSIMILATION VS. MULTICULTURALISM
As a recovering academic, I smell someone ginning up controversy to sell a book and get on blabfest TV. The research hasn't even been reviewed for publication, according to the article. And for heaven's sake, one study NEVER can be a definitive answer to any question.
Comment Posted By ed On 27.06.2007 @ 15:31
Sorry I couldn't get back sooner, but Slimguy, I hope you are correct and I turn out to be completely wrong. Recent history would seem to be not on your side, but let's work intelligently (negotiate with the Iraqi factions while pressuring them intensely) to make your predictions a reality.
Comment Posted By ed On 27.06.2007 @ 09:49
Not a bad point, actually. In your thinking, do you assume al-Qaeda will lessen their activity in Iraq if U.S. forces are not so prevalent? That seems a real possibility. It is true that in other guerilla actions, entrenched factions have finally tired of the violence and ended major hostilities. The Greek Civil War 1946-49 and the conflict in Peru that started in 1980 with government of Peru, the Shining Path, the Rondas Campesinas, and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement fighting for 20 plus years quickly come to mind.
If you would have an interest, it would be useful to read your thoughts on potential U.S. political actions in a post-redeployment Iraq (and Middle East)to facilitate a less than catastrophic end game for the Iraq War.
As far as Iraq itself, it would seem that keeping the Kurds in northern Iraq in (geographic)place, and preventing mass immigration of Kurds to avoid trouble with Turkey is in order. And protecting the Sunnis in their current situation might also require a brokered deal for a separate "home within the homeland". Would this require negotiations with Iran in order to happen? Is there something other than the partitioned Iraq idea even possible?
Comment Posted By ed On 26.06.2007 @ 16:09
In all sincerity, I don't see how a catastrophic end to our presence in Iraq can be avoided. If the American military and the Iraqi "government" cannot reach the goals outlined above (The insurgents defeated? Al Qaeda destroyed utterly? Foreign fighters vanquished and prevented from entering the country? Iraq at peace and a stable society? The Iraqi government building a multi-sectarian democracy?) in four years, on what basis does anyone think these goals can be achieved in another 4 years, even if we redeployed to safer areas? Come to think of it, especially if we redeployed to safer areas. No matter how hard the Bruces and Slimguys try to avoid it, the Iraq war is a house that was built on quicksand with only one long term outcome-collapse.
Comment Posted By ed On 26.06.2007 @ 14:29
"What would Hubert have done? . . . . A fascinating exercise but not really germane."
Rick, you often use the above rhetorical device: Introduce a topic, expound on it for a while, then declare the topic not meaningful. You are a 100 times better writer than I, but I always assume you mean to make a point when you offer a paragraph. What gives with this approach? Not trying to be snarky, I am genuinely confused as to where you are going with this device, as clarity is your hallmark. Help.
Comment Posted By ed On 22.06.2007 @ 14:42
