They are his words.

Post #151,067 by bepatient 4/13/04 5:44:24 PM Reply	They are his words. No herring. I didn't invent his position. He, in fact, validated it. He disagreed only with me attriuting this document any weight in formulating that position. Which actually semi-supports my position that he's reading with the blinders already on. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,097 by Silverlock 4/13/04 10:15:23 PM Reply	The grasshopper objects. In case you missed it, my position was that this document is gravy. This document is simply another in the long list of documents that have shown this admin to be derelict. Jesus H. Christ dude, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being persecuted. It only makes it unlikely. Discounting info because of its source is a insidious trap we all fall into. I know I have. But let's get real, you are defending a admin that has shown itself to hold only the most venal of values. Doesn't thiat piss you off? Or are you a true believer? A thought I refuse to believe. Nah. I have to bet most of the recent posts (and to be honest, most of your entire history here) were more of the nature of "keep presenting the opposing position and stir up trouble if you can". Do you honestly believe after all that has been presented that this admin was paying attention? ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,100 by bepatient 4/13/04 10:32:12 PM Reply	I don't believe they were paying any more or any less attention than any previous administration. Nor that there was anything they could have done even if they had walked in the door with this as their #1 agenda. They knew it to be important, but it was not "critical". It had never been critical. We were invincible remember? Freeh has it right. We were not on a war footing. A war footing >may< have been able to hamper the terrorists. (key word >may<). Now, how much popular support do you think there would have been for the TSA and like policies >before< 9/11? This is all being done on hindsight. Equal blame can go on all administrations back through Reagan. Possibly as far back as Carter. The government, regardless of administration, was not capable nor could it have garnered support for the steps required to combat this enemy prior to 9/11. Clinton, for example, got nice footage of Bin Laden. Could have ended the search right there. Why didn't he? No support from the consituents. This administration holds lots of values. They don't match yours. Alot of them aren't very close to mine either. However, I do not believe them to be doing things out of malice, which it appears that many do actually believe. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,382 by CRConrad 4/16/04 9:34:55 AM Reply	Have you all gone completely INSANE ??? BeeP: Freeh has it right. We were not on a war footing. Holy fucking shit, when were you ever SUPPOSED to "be on a war footing" ??? There IS NO WAR!!! (OK, there was one, a while ago, against Iraq; but that has since turned into an occupation; could have been like the occupation of [large parts of] Germany, unless your troops screwed up and it's turning into a Vietnam in stead. [So you might soon have a war on your hands again... But right now, you don't.]) I'll buy this talk about a "War on Terrorism" when you show me a copy of the Declaration of War that your ambassador to the country of Terrorism delivered to the government of that country. Until then, this is all just another case of America running Amok in foreign parts, just like in Vietnam. Then, the excuse was some gobbledy-gook about "the imminent danger of World communism"; now, it's a single CRIME that some fuck-head from foreign parts committed in the USA. (Conveniently, he had accesories from several other foreign parts, and supporters in even more, so the USA is taking this as carte blanche to run Amok pretty much whereverthefuck it feels like it. [I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that they have so far happened to do so in places with Lots Of Oil...]) It's fucking time for America -- and more so than many Americans for you, Beep() -- to take a deep breath, and GET the fuck OVER IT! This administration holds lots of values. They don't match yours. Alot of them aren't very close to mine either. However, I do not believe them to be doing things out of malice, which it appears that many do actually believe. What does it matter if it's actuallly intentional* malice or not? When fanaticism -- in favour of anything, even the most inoffensive generally beneficial goal imaginable (though the Shrubbist's "values" don't come even close to that) -- gets sufficiently rabid, it will in effect be indistinguishable from malice that was intended as such. So, AFAICS, it's actually just another form of the same thing: Say, in stead of intentional malice, "blind malice". In a nutshell: Yes, "this administration" is, because of its "values", in effect doing things "out of malice"; out of blind malice. (): Not that you're alone among IWeThey'ers, in this: There's also Arkadiy (and his hero James Lileks -- frigging scary, with his blither about it being "9/10 in some parts of America, and 9/12 in others"), and Addison and all the Warmonger-bloggers he frequnts nowadays in stead of this place, and... Oh, I'm not keeping count. Ah, yes, of course -- I almost forgot the Mar-bot. [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad]* (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #151,387 by jbrabeck 4/16/04 9:42:31 AM Reply	Bravo I had quit reading this thread due to the incessant blathering. When I saw your post I decided to read it. Well said and FWIW I concur with your observations.
Post #151,394 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:14:40 AM Reply	Ok. Call it what you want. But put simply a well organized and well funded group declared war (def >jihad<) against the United States. We, in traditional fashion, tried to arrest them. So far, we're short a few 767s and a couple of very large buildings. No they don't have a border or a constitution or a patch of land to carpet bomb. But "war footing" is not a replacement for "at war" either. It is as much a state of mind by the people in this country. That state of mind is that there are certain people who are not going to be afforded a public attorney before they are whacked and we damn well better be prepared for it. Bombing a pill factory and a barren patch of desert because "thats all the polls will support" is NOT going to solve the problem. Call it whatever the fuck you want, but wandering over with a badge and a snub-nosed 38 and saying "yer unda arrest, pardner" is NOT gonna work. You'll have all the folks crying once you get him here about how his "rights" have been violated, and how we have to make sure that he is treated fairly and given access to the best attorneys (if the turbin don't fit, you must acquit!). Aiding is also a crime. So how do you arrest the sitting government of several nations that actively support these criminals? Maybe we should all just sit together and sing kumbayah. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,395 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:36:04 AM Reply	We are (used to be?) a nation of laws, beep. Do try to remember that. CR is correct. This was not a "declaration of war". This was a criminal act of mass murder. Immediately after the fact, we had a choice: 1) Leverage the world-wide sympathy we had to illicit the help of the world's criminal investigative powers to root out the co-conspirators, bring them here, try them, convict them and send them to prison for the rest of their lives (similar to what we had done during the Millenium threat and the first group of thugs that tried to blow up the WTC). -OR- 2) We could become just like the terrorists we were trying to capture while simultaneously alienating almost the entire world in the process. Guess which one we did?
Post #151,397 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:39:20 AM Reply	I don't think you get it either. you cannot threaten someone willing to DIE with life in prison. The fact they they can kill several thousand that then get 3 squares and 100k a year to support them with free cable...yeah baby!!! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,398 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:41:35 AM Reply	Whose threatening? I'm talking about getting them behind bars so that they can plot no more. Or does your protest, as I LARGELY suspect, have more to do with an infantile "I gotta hit 'em back" attitude than it does with making us a safer, more humane and more respectable place?
Post #151,437 by jb4 4/16/04 2:01:17 PM 4/16/04 2:02:57 PM Reply	I dunno, BeeP Putting a martyr-wannabee behind bars for-basically-ever, and making sure they can't ever become martyrs strikes me as being a death worse than fate, and wholly appropriate punishment. (And the occasional boo-foo would surely add insult to injury, as well.) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT Edited by jb4 April 16, 2004, 02:02:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,465 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:51:36 PM Reply	Depends on what you regard prison AS. Do you think of it as a place of rehabilitation, a place of restraint, or a place where you exact your revenge? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,464 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:50:37 PM Reply	Declare war then. Until then, accept that you're indulging in bilateral (UK + US) armed conflict. But you ain't at war. No way, no how. Who are you declaring WAR on? And we're not on a war footing, either; that means conscription, and all the shit that goes with that. Whine all you like, but the evidence (huge contracts awarded to American companies (Halliburton, for one)) indicates that the reason we're in Iraq is pure and simple business. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,485 by boxley 4/16/04 6:53:07 PM Reply	war IS a business, when has it not been? All you euros for centuries trudging up and down the continent killing each other ever since you found out the buggers over the hill have something you want. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,396 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:37:26 AM Reply	Not all of us, but an alarmingly high percentage. Bush was backed by 45 percent ... in the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. [link\|http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/04/09/poll/index_np.html\|http://www.salon.com...oll/index_np.html]
Post #151,399 by boxley 4/16/04 10:43:27 AM Reply	got yer declaration right here [link\|http://www.islam-online.net/English/Views/2001/09/article10.shtml\|http://www.islam-onl...9/article10.shtml] Even if bin Laden was not behind the September carnage, a declaration of war against him is logical. After all, he declared war on the United States in February of1998 . His signature appears on a fax sent to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi of a directive that specified "crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims" and on the basis that struggle "is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries" that therefore "to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim" (Bin Laden, et al.1998 ). so war was declared, you dont need a counter declaration. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,403 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:49:30 AM Reply	I declare War on Microsoft. Are Microsoft and I now "at war"? GMAFB. Some Islamic lunatic "declares war" and that's all it takes? Fsck. Who can't declare war?
Post #151,405 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:53:28 AM Reply	Its one thing to declare it. But we've suffered several thousand casualties as a result of >that< one. Strap a bomb on your back and walk up MS way...I bet they take yours seriously afterwards. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,408 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:58:20 AM Reply	Then I'd be a murderer, not a nation-state capable of prosecuting a war.
Post #151,411 by bepatient 4/16/04 11:13:14 AM Reply	Ah. And what would the leader of the country that paid your family after you did it be? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,447 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 2:46:27 PM Reply	Be very careful with that argument. Wasn't Reagan one of your heroes? Emphasis Mine. Between 1980-85 the CIA funds the recruitment and training of thousands of volunteers from three dozen Muslim countries to fight in Afghanistan. *Among these \ufffdAfghan Arabs\ufffd is Osama bin Laden,* heir to a Saudi construction fortune, as well as top officials from Islamic movements throughout the Middle East and Asia. Many of these fighters and groups later join to form the Al Qaeda network and turn against their former American and Saudi sponsors.6 President Reagan says that \ufffdThe resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.\ufffd7 [link\|http://www.cesr.org/Emergency%20Response/Afghanistan%20Fact%20Sheet%202%20WORD.doc\|http://www.cesr.org/...et%202%20WORD.doc] and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983... The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. ... Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31]. *Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests."* [link\|http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/\|Shaking hands with Saddam]
Post #151,492 by bepatient 4/16/04 8:30:19 PM Reply	And what would these things do... ...other than bolster my continuing argument? Everyone points fingers at this administration when the problem is systemic and years old? One could even call it "historic". And meeting with people is one thing. Show me where these guys [link\|http://www.seacoastonline.com/2002news/4_4_w2.htm\|cut checks] to the families of suicide bombers. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,593 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 12:43:48 PM Reply	Boggle And meeting with people is one thing. Show me where these guys cut checks [] to the families of suicide bombers.* Maybe you can't read. Start with this one: Between 1980-85 the CIA funds the recruitment and training of thousands of volunteers from three dozen Muslim countries to fight in Afghanistan. Among these \ufffdAfghan Arabs\ufffd is Osama bin Laden,... Reagan praised them, sent Rummy to friendly up to Saddam. You say we had to rid ourselves of Saddam because he paid criminals ex post facto for their crimes. What do we do with ourselves? You know, the people who paid for the "recruitment and training of thousands" to commit the crimes? The crop you're defending, (Rummy, Cheney, et. al.) are the ones who paid for the recruitment and training of the very same terrorists who have attacked us. If Saddam paying "our old pals" is enough for us to go after him, isn't it time we, at the very least, threw Cheney and crew out of office?
Post #151,602 by Another Scott 4/18/04 2:39:45 PM Reply	We've been through this before. The CIA didn't support, recruit or train bin Laden. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=9897\|#9897] and the link within. Cheers, Scott.
Post #151,604 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 2:56:59 PM Reply	Why I cautioned Beep. If "financing" terrorists is enough, well then we don't have to look beyond our borders do we? Keep in mind that bin Laden himself didn't pilot those aircraft. Nor did Saddam. If "funding" is enough - well, then, we're culpable too.
Post #151,606 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:00:26 PM Reply	It wasn't funding I was discussing. You should read the link. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,608 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:03:28 PM Reply	I (mis?)read this one. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=151408\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=151408] Aren't you saying that 'We went after Saddam because he paid the families of suicide bombers'? Wouldn't that, generally, be classified as "funding terrorists"?
Post #151,609 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:05:49 PM Reply	I would generally say no. Cause the terrorist is already dead. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,612 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:09:13 PM Reply	Okay, I'll play. Exactly, why did we need to get rid of Saddam? And please, don't lecture me about what an evil bastard he is/was. I was screaming about that when you were probably still in high school and I was in college back when Saddam was "the leading force for moderation in the region" according to the Reagan Administration (circa that famous handshake above).
Post #151,615 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:17:20 PM Reply	We didn't. You really haven't been paying attention, have you? The question is, when arresting and prosecuting terrorists, what do you do when you have >governments< complicit in the terrorism? Do you stroll into Libya and arrest Khadaffi? He bankrolled the bombing of a 747. We arrested those "responsible", but we didn't get all of those complicit in the attack. The point being, fighting terrorism is NOT as simple as "arresting terrorists". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,621 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:31:18 PM 4/18/04 3:34:08 PM Reply	? The question is, when arresting and prosecuting terrorists, what do you do when you have >governments< complicit in the terrorism? Central America anyone? Or are "Death Squads" not terrorists? The United States (in particular the United States when run by folks like Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al.) has a history of supporting terrorists. I'm just cautioning you about living in a glass house and pitching rocks. [Edit: Supporting terrorists, not terrorist nations] Edited by mmoffitt April 18, 2004, 03:34:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,624 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:40:03 PM Reply	So fine. What do you do? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,626 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:58:18 PM Reply	Vote for smarter people ;0) I saw Kerry on "Face the Nation" today. I'd go along with him for the most part. Russert tried to beat him up over his position that fighting terrorism "is not primarily a military action" but a primarily a law enforcement, intelligence action. Bombing Iraq for the sake of "defendin' mah daddee" didn't do a lot for rooting out terrorist organizations (which, mind you, I do not think are that great a threat in the first place. Sure, we should pay attention. Sure, we can't have slackers in the CIA, FBI and White House. Yes, we've got to have a President who pays attention even when he is on the longest Presidential Vacation in history. But most Americans - no, probably ALL Americans are more likely to be killed by their automobiles on the way to work than they are to become a victim of terrorism). In pursuing those responsible for 9/11, imagine where Osama would be today if we had sent the same number of troops into Afghanistan when we had Osama cornered in Tora Bora as we sent into Iraq. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it is clear to me that the current crop has none of the answers.
Post #151,707 by bepatient 4/18/04 10:55:33 PM Reply	I wish there were some to vote for. We're back to a lesser of 2 evils choice again. It would be nice to see someone smart actually run. Unfortunately, the fact that their smart automatically excludes them from consideration. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,466 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:53:28 PM Reply	So declare war, or else STFU. Or is it just a handy way to get the ra-ra kids going? I notice a singular absence of any formal declaration of war anywhere. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,505 by boxley 4/16/04 10:43:22 PM Reply	google bush declares war on Al Quida Results 1 - 10 of about 711 for bush declares war on Al Quida. (0.28 seconds) pick one get over it. Yhink how many more hits I ould get if I could spell. Point == useless, war has been declared. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,716 by pwhysall 4/19/04 1:24:03 AM Reply	Neato. And here's me thinking "war", in the context of international politics, is some kind of specific state of declared conflict between sovereign nations. Thank you for reminding me that "war" is what the USA declares whenever it's about to spend a lot of money and lives on something pointless. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,729 by boxley 4/19/04 8:08:29 AM Reply	cant help if you are uneducated war is conflict. The Crips have an ongoing war with the Bloods. Smarmy bastards in suits dont have a monopoly on it. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #151,751 by pwhysall 4/19/04 10:43:18 AM Reply	Whatever. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,737 by Silverlock 4/19/04 9:30:38 AM Reply	War on Terrorism as successful as the War on Drugs. 'Scuse me while I fire up this bong. Waiting for my heroin to finish cookin' before I shoot up. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #151,738 by drewk 4/19/04 9:44:02 AM Reply	Someone please fork this damn thing === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,747 by jbrabeck 4/19/04 10:28:14 AM Reply	Forked Dr. Strangelove. (new thread) Created as new thread #151746 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=151746\|Forked Dr. Strangelove.]
Post #151,400 by Another Scott 4/16/04 10:43:31 AM Reply	It's an old problem. It's similar to what the US and Europe had to deal with when confronting the [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150713\|Barbary pirates]. The US and Europe didn't treat piracy as a law enforcement problem, but rather as a something that the military often had to address. [link\|http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/blackbea.cfm\|Edward Teach - aka Blackbeard] - didn't spend his last days in a prison cell - he was killed in battle. The US did effectively declare war on terrorism on [link\|http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/useofforce.htm\|September 14, 2001]. The wording is similar to that used to enter WWII. It's not simply a law enforcement issue. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #151,404 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:51:31 AM Reply	And that attitude. It's not simply a law enforcement issue. is what we are shredding the BoR for. "We are at War" so we have to give up some, maybe just a few, of our liberties. You can't protect anything by destroying it.
Post #151,406 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:57:17 AM Reply	If you want it to be a "law enforcement issue" You have to be willing to give law enforcement the proper tools to do it. Which you aren't. 4 lilly whites cannot be investigated until they commit some type of crime. You have to stop them before they start building it. But you can't, because you're not allowed to investigate them. See a problem here? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,409 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 11:01:14 AM Reply	You want it to be a "war"? How's about you telling me the object of any war? Hint: It ain't victory. 'Nother hint: It's PEACE. Now, how's about you telling me with whom we reach this peace? Wars are of finite length and result, ultimately, in peace. What's the end-game for this "War on Terrorism"? Hint: There isn't one. 'Nother hint: There can't be because this is not a war at all.
Post #151,410 by bepatient 4/16/04 11:12:01 AM Reply	I want it solved. By the most effective means possible. And I don't like the term "War on Terror" because its not entirely accurate. Nor do I like the term "police action" because thats not entirely accurate. But to pretend that we can use the same rules that got us into this mess to get us out of it is just that. Pretend. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,417 by jbrabeck 4/16/04 11:48:30 AM Reply	Simple solution Kill off the entire population of the world except for you. Short of having only one inhabitant, nothing can prevent all terrorism. They, the terrorist, is fighting for an idea. Tim McVey was a terrorist. The only thing that makes us civilized are laws. Realizing that I'd rather obey the law than go to jail. If I didn't care about the results of my actions then I'm freed to do whatever I want. If a terrorist is willing to die for his beliefs, then war won't stop him. Neither will police action. Believing that any agency could infiltrate all organizations and prevent further terroristic actions in an exercise in fantasy. There will always be terrorists. A War on Terrorism is ludicrious. Unless the War is only a front to restrict our freedoms. "We're at war, therefore ...". A war must be against a country with whom we can negotiate a ending. ObL cannot end the terrorism. So we cannot declare "war" on ObL. When will Schrub declare "peace"? Week after his reselection?
Post #151,438 by jb4 4/16/04 2:06:32 PM Reply	When, indeed! "We're at war with Eastasia. We've alwasy been at war with Eastasia!" jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #151,468 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:57:41 PM Reply	That's not a declaration of war. A declaration of war is a very specific thing. That ain't it. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,472 by jbrabeck 4/16/04 5:09:12 PM Reply	But Peter, We have a War on Drugs -- ends when everyone is high. And a War on Poverty -- Ends when Shrub & Co has all the money. And locally we have a war on prostitution -- Ends when everyone is hard up ;-j Must have a few more, but that's all that I can think of right now.
Post #151,474 by drewk 4/16/04 5:18:40 PM Reply	Can someone please fork a new thread (or several)? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #151,476 by Another Scott 4/16/04 5:24:10 PM Reply	It'll probably die soon. Threads usually croak after I've posted more than 3 replies. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #151,493 by bepatient 4/16/04 8:31:59 PM Reply	Yeah darnit...FORK this thread! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,535 by Arkadiy 4/17/04 12:48:40 PM Reply	Knifing it is too much work -- Buy high, sell sober.
Post #151,475 by Another Scott 4/16/04 5:22:25 PM Reply	Not in the traditional sense. In the traditional sense, terrorism isn't a cross-border phenomenon. E.g. The Red Brigades, Bader-Meinhoff, and even the IRA didn't operate across (more than one) border(s). They were domestic terrorists. Al Qaeda is different. It's closer to the Barbary Pirates than to a traditional terrorist organization. As you say, traditionally, states-of-war can only exist between governments. The [link\|http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/tonkin.htm\|Gulf of Tonkin] resolution was probably closest to the 9/14/2001 resolution. It didn't state that the US was at war with North Vietnam, but it authorized the use of military force to repel and prevent further aggression. I think if we apply the Duck Test, then the 9/14/2001 is a declaration of war. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!