Originally posted by MacBetH: A) You still said they didn;t attack us. COunter factual. I thought I was being given credit or acknowledging who declared war. <b>You were. I said elsewhere that I overlooked a correction that they didn't attack us. Do the German attacks on the US measure up to the acts of terror perpetrated on the US since the early 90s?</b> B) What does whether they like us or not have to do with anything? We didn't do it for them, we did it for us. <b>Isn't that "we did it for us" exactly one of the major criticisms made at the Bush administration regarding the War on Terror in the Iraq theatre?</b> We had treaties of mutual protection which we ignored while they were under attack for years, and didn;t get into the war until we had no choice. <b>Wait until Paris or Munich suffer a major terror attack on the scale of 9/11. Will they then be ready to jump into the fight?</b> FIghting the war in their backyard made a hell of a lot better sense than fighting it in ours. This idea that we sacrificed for them is ridiculous...we had years of opportunity, and we ducked it. <b>Tell that to the families of all the dead from WWII. Boy, I'd like to track down the elderly woman who sat behind me in the theatre watching "Saving Private Ryan." She sobbed miserably through the violence of those beach landings. Yeah, we could have engaged earlier but to say we did not sacrifice is a very questionable position.</b> Actually, no, Kuwait wasn't, in fact we had a better working history with Saddam, but all besides the point. We already fought that war, and we signed the treaty afterwards. Wanna attack Germany over WWII? <b>Isn't the point that the treaty was violated by Saddam-- not that we signed it?</b> And, no, this piece does try to make that point, but you have missed the rebuttle. Any casualties for an unjust war are too many, casualties for a just war are unfortunate. Do you see the difference? <b>To call it an unjust war is just an opinion. Of course, I see the difference. I wonder what percentage of the soldiers fighting feel it is an unjust war?</b> To try and break it down the numbers...which is the point of this thread, not the anti-war argument, is ridculous. <b>The point of the piece is to show a glaring disparity. Nowhere does it say that GWB is the best president because his soldier casualty count is the lowest.</b> Not sure what you're saying here. Any assesment of who is the worst President which starts off by excluding one party from the list is pointless. This piece did that. Pointless. <b>Again, I think you are missing the point of the piece. You're giving it too much ambition. It's not a tribute to GWB, it's a refutation of a sloppy criticism that persists.</b>
? really- i was just looking for clarification, but i guess you're so used to your own sarcasm you don't recognize genuine confusion when you see it.
if you'll look back a few pages you'll see i posted my own rankings of post-war presidents. i missed your well-informed riposte.
<b>MacBeth: The german attacks were A) worse, and B) not requiring elaborate rationalizations for which to lay credit. Worse because they were sustained military attacks from the foremost military force on the planet. And there was no need for vague philosophical theorums or sloppy intel to point the finger at ze Germans. Yes, but unlike Iraq, there was a direct and clear threat, not a supposed futire one. No one would have begrudged us attacking Iraq had they attacked us first. Giddy, this is silly. The Europeans have suffered more, not less from terrorists than we have. And more to the point, it again ignores simple facts which run contrary to the 'we're the only ones who suffered and thus will do the right thing' argument, namely, the Europeans who are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan...you know, the war with an actual connection to 9-11? It never ceases to amaze me that we can know: * Other countries gave us unqualified support after 9-11. * Other countries went into Afghanistan because of the clear link with 9-11, and are still there. * Those same countries doubted the link between 9-11 and Iraq. We said we knew better. * Those countries were proven right, we were proven to be misleading and incorrect. And still pro-war types will try to paint other countires as being the ones lacking, the ones looking for an excuse, the ones in the wrong. Blows my mind, and is a grave disservie to their soldiers who have dies fighting the real war on terrorism. Ad hominem. Pointless arguement. And the soldiers sacrificed their lives for those of us at home. We did not sacrifice for Europe excpet as a side effect. Simple logic; when we had a choice to sacrifice for them, even when it was supported by treaties we had signed, and their constant pleas...we turned away. For years. It's not just a matter of us waiting a bit and then pitching in, we only joined WHEN WE HAD NO CHOICE. This is not us sacrificing for them, much as we try to paint it that way. Er, no. If the treaty was valid, we broke it. And the treaty itself established who decides whether it was violated, what the extent of the violation was, and what the repercussions would be. What we did was like a man going in and shooting up a crack house and calling it upholding the law. Ad hominem again. I don't think I'm giving it what isn't there. It's a pretty clear message. It begins and ends with the same rhetorical question, and clearly tries to establish a direct link between casualties and where a President ranks, completely overlooking other factors. It would be akin to a policeman caught on tape shooting a handcuffed, unarmed suspect in the head, and having his defense council point out that the accused's superior officer shot 4 men who were in the course of killing bank tellers, and leading and ending with the question " Who's a dirty cop?"</b> Boy that "Ad hominen" sure comes easy doens't it?! Can you provide some detail regarding how the German attacks were worse for Americans? That's what I need to know. The times were different then. The weapons were different. Ground forces and the Luftwaffe versus sandaled terrorists slipping in and out of populous areas. Can you detail how the Europeans have suffered worse terrorism attacks than we have? Apparently those other countries didn't give us "unqualified support" post 9/11. A dead soldier is a sacrifice, period. How an you argue that? Even a dead terrorist is a sacrifice. Damn them! So, were we the modern-day France of the late 1930s-- turning a deaf ear on appeals for help? The presidents are never ranked in the piece. It provides an overall picture showing the Democrats presided over the deaths of many more soldiers without suffering these kinds of criticisms. Gotta go.
1. OK, Well, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that it does intend to make some form of inquiry into that judgment, see, e.g. the title and the conclusion. Can you understand how a normal person would have that interpretation? I highly doubt that this is a nuanced work of satire and double entendres. 2. And it does so by citing to combat deaths, which you bolded to draw attention to them, and contrasting them with those of other presidents. Yup, I can see it just fine. I agree with you, and you agree with me.
Europe has suffered from terrorist bombings for decades. We didn't jump on the terrorism bandwagon until we were hit hard on 9/11. Yes, they did. We had unqualified, unwavering support for the action in Afghanistan. You know, the country that was harboring the terrorists that had something to do with 9/11. We gave up that unqualified support when we broke a treaty and invaded a country based on "intelligence" that was exaggerated, manipulated, and fabricated.
Quite right. Even our French, Canadian, and German "enemies" served (and some currently still maybe serving . . . and dying) in Afghanistan as we speak.
Point? What kind of detail do you want? A list of German armaments at the time in questioN? The distinction between a sovereign superpower declaring war vs. a disenfranchised organization making a terrorist attack? Ok. And? The History of Terrorism: More than 200 Years of Development The history of terrorism dates back at least 1500 years when Jewish resistance groups (66 - 72 A.D.) known as Zealots killed Roman soldiers and destroyed Roman property. The term assassin comes from a Shi'ite Muslim sect (Nizari Isma'ilis - also known as hashashins "hashish-eaters") fighting Sunni Muslims (1090 - 1275) and during Medieval Christendom resisting occupation during the Crusades (1095-1291). The hashashins were known to spread terror in the form of murder, including women and children. The brotherhood of Assassins committed terror so as to gain paradise and seventy-two virgins if killed and to receive unlimited hashish while on earth. The modern development of terrorism began during the French Revolution's Reign of Terror (1793 - 1794). During this period the term terrorism was first coined. Through the past two hundred years, terrorism has been used to achieve political ends and has developed as a tool for liberation, oppression, and international global politics. This essay is designed to provide an overview of the development of terrorism over the past 200 years. In summary, the development of terrorism as a tool to achieve political goals is as follows: Late 18th Century - The French Revolution Government Sponsored Terrorism Goal: Eliminate opposition and consolidate power. The word terrorism was coined. Late 19th and Early 20th Century - The Anarchists Individual Terrorism Propaganda by deeds Goal: Use terror to bring down a government Early 20th Century - Russian Revolution Government Sponsored Terrorism Goal: Use terror to maintain power and control an entire population. Added systematic society wide use of terror to the concept of government-sponsored terrorism Early 20th Century - Irish Rebellion Selective Terrorism Sustained Terrorism Cell Operations Goal: Use terror to gain independence Middle 20th Century Terror to End Colonialism Goal: Use of selective terrorism on sympathizers and civilians Between the French Revolution and the end of WWII, terrorism was local and organization of terror was confined to a specific area of conflict. The late 1960's brought a new change. The Middle East / Cold War -Late 1960's The Internationalization of Terrorism and State-Sponsored Terrorism The unification of different terrorist groups as a worldwide network. Additionally, due to the Cold War different countries supporting different terrorist groups in order to destabilize rival governments. Terrorist groups allied in order to bring attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Middle East / Islamism (Militant Islam) - 1979 Religious Based Terrorism Expansion of Islam and the protection of Islam against Jews, Christians and the West formed a justification for the use of terror independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discussion Over the past two centuries terrorism has been used for various reasons to achieve various goals. Terrorism has been used by religious zealots and by non-religious ideologues. The historical development of terrorism shows that it is a tool of change. Pre-Modern Use of Terrorism Terrorism is nothing new in the Middle East and its use is not new to Jews or Muslims. Jewish Zealots used terrorism to resist the Romans and Muslims used terrorism to resist each other (Shi'ites vs Sunni) and against the crusades. Terror during this period was used kill religious enemies. From the beginning terrorism and religion were companions. The concept of Suicide Martyrdom, dying in the service of God - dying while killing the enemies of God - dates back more than a thousand years ago. From the earliest days, terrorism encompassed the idea of dying in the service of God as a divine duty which would be rewarded in the afterlife. Terrorism against an enemy was a religious act which was considered a good and worthy act. The French Revolution's Reign of Terror (1793 - 1794) Modern terrorism began with the Reign of Terror by Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobin Party. Robespierre brought to terrorism the concept that terrorism has virtue in that it can be a tool to bring about "legitimate" governmental ends. He used terror systematically to suppress opposition to the government. Robespierre introduced Government-sponsored terrorism: the use of terror to maintain power and suppress rivals. Before his reign was over hundreds of people met their end with the sound of the guillotine. Anarchists (1890 - 1910) Anarchists were very active during the late 19th and early 20th century. Russian anarchists sought to overthrow the Russian Czar Alexander II by assassination and eventually succeeded in 1881. The Anarchists believed that killing the Czar and other kings and nobles of Europe would bring down governments. To this end the anarchist introduced to the development of terrorism, Individual terrorism. Individual terrorism is the use of selective terror against and individual or group in order to bring down a government. The use of terror was selective because targets were selected based on their position within the governmental system. Terrorist acts were limited to ensaure that innocent bystanders were not hurt. This concept of limited collateral damage to innocents, not targeting innocents, did not survive the second half of the 20th century. Anarchists also introduced the observation that terrorism has a communicative effect. When a bomb explodes, society asks why. The need to kbow why an act was committed provides the perpetrators of the terrorist act a stage to which an audience is ready to listen. Thus the concept of propaganda by deeds was added to the development of modern terrorism. Terrorism was a tool of communication. Between 1890 and 1908 anarchists were responsible for killing the kings and queens of Russia, Austria Hungry, Italy and Portugal. Anarchists were also active in the U.S. between 1890 and 1910 setting off bombs on Wall Street. The two most famous acts by anarchists were the assassinations of President McKinley (1901) and Archduke Ferdinand (1914) which resulted in the Great War. The Soviet Revolution (1917) Lenin, followed by Stalin, expanded the idea of government-sponsored terrorism as a tool to maintain governmental control. Both used terror against an entire class of people within society (as supposed to use against one's enemies), systematically. Terror was used to control the entire society in order to build society. Fear was used as a motivational factor for governmental operations and public compliance with government. Terror was used as a way to organize and control a society. The Irish Rebellion (1919 - 1921) The Irish War of 1919 brought three concepts to the development of terrorism (1) selective terrorism, (2) sustained terror over time and (3) cell operations. The goal of the war was to gain Irish independence from England. Led by Michael Collins, terrorism was applied to representatives of England (police, soldiers, judges, government officials, etc.) in an effort to make the cost of continued occupation too high to maintain. Thus to terrorism was added the concept of selective terrorism, acts of terror against representatives of government to force their departure from an area. A tactic that has been adopted and used in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967 with the loss of one key concept, the selective aspect. Today's terrorism involves attacks on civilians and non-governmental officials. Also added to the development of the use of terrorism is the concept that to make a change in a society, the acts of terror must be sustained over a long period of time. The sustained terror will, over time, break down the will of the targeted government and they will eventually seek to an accommodation. The Irish war also provided the concept of cell operation to terrorism. Cell operation decentralizes the implementation of terrorist acts and prevents the discovery and destruction of the terrorist organization. Each cell has a specific goal or objective. Each cell only knows its members and its specific task. Thus the capture of one cell does not provide avenues to other terrorists. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda operated with this decentralized design to implement the attack on September 11th. Cells in Europe, the Middle East and the U.S. had specific objectives (transfer funds, learn to fly planes, create false documents, etc.). It has been estimnated that $500,000 was spend to implement the attacks of September 11th with cells operating in Europe and the Middle East providing organization, operation and financial assistance to the main cell that carried out the attack. After WWII terrorism continued to be used as a tool for liberation and for ending colonialism in the Third World. Selective terror changed from targeting government officials to civilians and sympathizers of occupation. Terrorism entered a new phase of development and use during the late 1960's. The 1960's brought to terrorism an international scope and a focus on the Middle East. With the 1967 war in which Israel defeated Jordan, Egypt and Syria, taking control of the Golan Heights (from Syria), East Jerusalem, the West Bank (from Jordan), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula (from Egypt), the use of conventional war as a means to destroy Israel ended and the use of terror with the purpose of focusing attention on Israel and the Palestinians (the occupied territories) began. Cuba and the Tri-Continental Conference (1966) In 1966 Cuba hosted the Tri-Continental Conference which was sponsored by the Soviet Union. This conference was the beginning of the internationalization of terrorism. Terrorist and "liberation" groups from Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America began to work together and build alliances. Financial, political, operation and intelligence cooperation connected terrorist groups across the world. International terrorism flourished over the preceding two decades. Europe suffered a decade of terrorist activity as European and Middle Eastern terrorist groups worked together to bring attention to the Palestinian cause. In Germany, the Red Army Faction (German group) allied itself with Black September (Palestinian group); in France, Action Direct (French group) allied with the Red Army Faction and the Red Army Brigade (Italian group); in Japan, the Japanese Red Army allied with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Cuba became a training ground for terrorist groups. Terrorism, the Middle East and the Cold War As the Cold War esculated in the 1960's and the world become polarized between the East and the West, a new dynamic was added to terrorism; State-Sponsored Terrorism: governments exporting terrorism to other parts of the world for their own political interests. Iran supported Hizballah, Libia supported Abu Nidal, Iraq, Cuba, Sudan and Algeria provided training camps, economic and political support to other terrorist groups. The focus of terrorism moved to the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli / Israeli- Palestinian conflict with the U.S. supporting Israel and the Soviet Union supporting various Arab countries. The 1970's was the decade of air terrorism with more than 20 events of terrorism directed at European and American airlines involving hijackings, bombings and hostage taking. The 1970's also involved bombings, kidnappings and other types of terrorist activity throughout Europe. Terrorism, the Middle East and Islamism The last twenty years of the 20th century brought terrorism full circle from its earliest history 1500 years prior. With the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran (1979), religious based terrorism returned. Militant Islam and the protection of Islam against Jews, Christians, and the West formed an independent justification for terrorism. Religious suicide martyrdom in which young men and women die in the service of Allah is evidenced in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and New York City. The 1980's was the decade of hostage taking and terrorism found a target in U.S. interests around the world. Between 1979 and 1988 there were at least twelve incidents of terrorism directed at the U.S. and her interests. These incidents included the hostages in 1979, the bombing of U.S. Embassies, kidnapping of American citizens, and the bombing of airplanes. The last decade of the 20th century made another change to the development of terrorism. Terrorism in the 1960's through the 1980's was about exposure to one's cause. A terrorist act was followed by credit taking or a warning to the U.S. that future attacks would occur if the U.S. did not change its policies or a way to gain the worlds attention to the Palestinian cause. The 1990's brought to terrorism, indiscriminate killing and high mass casualty counts for its own sake. Between 1993 and September 11, 2001 seven terrorist attacks were committed against the U.S. in which the destruction was the point of the attack. The 1990's returned to terrorism, religious extremism and hate being enough to justify the use of terror. 1993 WTC - 6 dead, major damage to the WTC 1995 Saudi Arabia - 5 dead - bombing of the U.S. Military Headquarters 1996 Saudi Arabia - 19 dead - Khobar Towers 1997 Egypt - 58 tourist dead - terrorists open fire in the Temple of Hatshepsut 1998 Kenya and Tanzania - 224 dead - bombing of two U.S. Embassies at the same time 2000 Yemen - 17 sailors killed - U.S.S. Cole 2001 WTC / Pentagon - 3000 dead After two hundred years, terrorism has changed and has been used for a variety of different purposes to achieve various goals. Ultimately terrorism is a tool to change behavior. If you want numbers, it'll take a while, but I can tell you in advance, they're not close. 9-11 is the greatest single terrorist attack, in terms of casualties, I believe, but accumulatively it's miles apart. Terrorism has been a part of everday life for much of Europe for so long, things like alrms on subways for unleft packages have been in place for over a decade. We are the ones new to this, not Europe. In what way? There was little if any objection to the invasion of Afghanistan. But a sacrifice for and to whom? That's the point. The US did not, repeat and underline, NOT send troops over to save Europe, stop the Holocaust, etc. We sent them over for one very simple reason, because war was declared on us, and we were attacked. In the preceding years when we had an opportunity to enter the war for the reasons we now claim to have had, we declined, and the vast majority of the country wanted no part of it. FDR was not among them, but he was in a very small minority. We anted...gasp...to look after our own interests, to hell with what the world thought. Difference then was that our self-centeredness was passive. No. Had the Brits asked us to respond to the German attack by invading New Zealand, and we'd baulked, that would have been a parallel. [/B][/QUOTE]
You seem to have no problem using sarcasm. Not at all. You also don't have a problem with "moving on" if you don't like the responses you get. Sorry, but I don't buy the "genuine confusion". And that's not sarcasm.
Oh Deckard, now you to will be blacklisted by basso as I have been. How my life has been lacking since that fateful day!
Quite naturally I object to the special recognition you reserve for so-called "normal" persons. You don't really need to "interpret" the piece; that's where you got into trouble. Just read the damn thing! I also doubt that it is a nuanced work of satire and double entendres. BTW, I never suggested it was. You all were the ones stretching it and turning it inside out to wrangle more meaning out of it than it ever intended. 2. I bolded the numbers because there was such a stark contrast in the numbers when compared to Bush. That is very significant.
Why? That is an assumption that all wars are premised on an equal basis. Many of us believe that to not be the case...at all. As such, the numbers are not important in how they relate to past, justifieable wars, but only in comparison to how many would have died had Bush et al played it straight. And even that is only a part of the objection to the war, let alone his entire Presidency.
1. "Just read the damn thing!" That's what I did. I read the damn thing, including it's title, which was "Worst President in History?" and its conclusion "worst president in history", and hence was left with the impression that the passages were meant to address that subject. Before you chided me for interpreting it literally, now you tell me I am reading too much into it. Either it is one or the other. 2. Why are these numbers significant?
giddyup, I posted a rather lengthy thing, for me, that I hoped you would at least give some sort of response to. You think it has nothing to do with the topic or what? I thought it had everything to do with it.
Originally posted by andymoon Europe has suffered from terrorist bombings for decades. We didn't jump on the terrorism bandwagon until we were hit hard on 9/11. <b>Like what? Did they ever lose 2800 in one fell swoop?</b> Yes, they did. We had unqualified, unwavering support for the action in Afghanistan. You know, the country that was harboring the terrorists that had something to do with 9/11. We gave up that unqualified support when we broke a treaty and invaded a country based on "intelligence" that was exaggerated, manipulated, and fabricated. <b>"In Afghanistan" is not unqualified support.</b>
I'll get to it. It was kind of dense for me to get through in the last 18 hours or so. Sorry. I've mentally constructed part of a response-- as I have read it a couple of times.
Giddy... Come on. This isn't a realistic argument, and I suspect you know it. People killed in bombings are fatalities whether they died with 2, 799 others, or with 279 others. The sum totals are not even close; more Euros have died to terrorism than Americans, by far. And, as the long term cost of terrorism beyond lives is the fear it puts into everyday life, the fact that Europe has had hundreds of terrorist killings over time ingraines that fear more into the Everyman than does one extreme bombing. But there are dozens and dozens of European terrorist attacks which have killed many people at one time, and there are other high profile terrorist killings which have arrested the world's attention; Munich Olymics? Arch Duke Ferdinand? IRA rocket launches at 747s, etc. etc.
When you can't handle the argument, you just get deliberately obtuse and act as if you're above it all. I'm not fooled. I believe I asked you to have an "honest imagination." That does not require either one or the other. It holds room for both.
