pdh1 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Posted February 19, 2007 Not much. Terrorism is a tactic - not a strategy, and it is used for discrete goals. Even if you are part of a global network, terrorism is of limited utility for any organization and is always a weapon of weakness. Tactically - if you use terrorism, by definition you have a weak hand. Even if an organization is globally networked, it makes little difference, if it needs to use terrorism its global ambitions or its ideology are really of little concern beyond the discrete events of terror. Terrorism is now a tool used by nations such as Iran and Syria to give them plausible deniability. WE didn't launches rockets in to Israel!! Nope Not Us! You can't hit us back! NOPE, we didn't blow up that airliner in Scottland. Not Us!
OCinBuffalo Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Terrorism is now a tool used by nations such as Iran and Syria to give them plausible deniability. WE didn't launches rockets in to Israel!! Nope Not Us! You can't hit us back! NOPE, we didn't blow up that airliner in Scottland. Not Us! Which is why this notion that "diplomacy" will somehow work is ridiculous on its face. Somebody ask Lloyd George how diplomacy worked out with him and Hitler.
X. Benedict Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Terrorism is now a tool used by nations such as Iran and Syria to give them plausible deniability. WE didn't launches rockets in to Israel!! Nope Not Us! You can't hit us back! NOPE, we didn't blow up that airliner in Scottland. Not Us! Yes. So?
/dev/null Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Terrorism is now a tool used by nations such as Iran and Syria to give them plausible deniability. WE didn't launches rockets in to Israel!! Nope Not Us! You can't hit us back! NOPE, we didn't blow up that airliner in Scottland. Not Us! China too Oh so sawwy, we didn't hack your network
erynthered Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Terrorism is now a tool used by nations such as Iran and Syria to give them plausible deniability. And this is all new. Never before were these tactics used in those countries?
molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Which is why this notion that "diplomacy" will somehow work is ridiculous on its face. Somebody ask Lloyd George how diplomacy worked out with him and Hitler. How about asking Ronald Reagan? And I like the Lloyd George reference. Too bad I like it because it shows only how totally ignorant you are.
erynthered Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 How about asking Ronald Reagan? And I like the Lloyd George reference. Too bad I like it because it shows only how totally ignorant you are. Why not go back to Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, LBJ, JFK, DDE...etc You're an idiot.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Why not go back to Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, LBJ, JFK, DDE...etc You're an idiot. Because Reagan called the Soviet's the Evil Empire, yet he negotiated with them anyway. There is a place for diplomacy. Like I have said before, the world is getting smaller, technology--destructive technology--is spreading as wealth spreads and we all have to learn to get along or kill each other. I'd rather get along. And you are really smart
molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 If all the volience is the result of US and British foreigh policy, how do you explain the volience in Darfur, Somalia, Indonesia, the Philippines and on going threats against Spain? Like I said, local people, local hate, not US manufactured at all. Just like in Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other for hundreds of years, we didn't create that and I do not see us making the Lion lay down with the lamb and be nice, either.
Chef Jim Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Because Reagan called the Soviet's the Evil Empire, yet he negotiated with them anyway. There is a place for diplomacy. Like I have said before, the world is getting smaller, technology--destructive technology--is spreading as wealth spreads and we all have to learn to get along or kill each other. I'd rather get along. And you are really smart How do you have a diplomatic converstion with a group of people that say "covert or die"?
erynthered Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Because Reagan called the Soviet's the Evil Empire, yet he negotiated with them anyway. There is a place for diplomacy. Like I have said before, the world is getting smaller, technology--destructive technology--is spreading as wealth spreads and we all have to learn to get along or kill each other. I'd rather get along. And you are really smart No. You chose to use RR as your point. Yet every President before him did the same thing. Therefore, you're an idiot. Your bias is overwhelming, yet predictable.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 How do you have a diplomatic converstion with a group of people that say "covert or die"? You know, are they saying that? Were not the Russians going to convert the world to Communism too? The Iranians have ties to the rest of the world and can have them with us, too.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 No. You chose to use RR as your point. Yet every President before him did the same thing. Therefore, you're an idiot. Your bias is overwhelming, yet predictable. What's wrong with using RR? I know I chose to use RR because W models his presidency after him. So what?
Chef Jim Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 What's wrong with using RR? I know I chose to use RR because W models his presidency after him. So what? Now I know you're nuts. W models his presidency after Reagan? If so he must have been sniffing the glue he's using to build that model.
erynthered Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 What's wrong with using RR? I know I chose to use RR because W models his presidency after him. So what? Nothing wrong with using RR, just use you analogy in a context that's worth a !@#$. What you did was demonstrate your complete ignorance of American Politics. Good Job. Though I'm not surprised.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Now I know you're nuts. W models his presidency after Reagan? If so he must have been sniffing the glue he's using to build that model. Sure, what 'Conservative' would want to model his presidency after a 'Conservative' Icon?
Chef Jim Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Sure, what 'Conservative' would want to model his presidency after a 'Conservative' Icon? One that want to creat his own legacy you dipsh--. And what does Conservative have to do with the current sitting President?
molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Nothing wrong with using RR, just use you analogy in a context that's worth a !@#$. What you did was demonstrate your complete ignorance of American Politics. Good Job. Though I'm not surprised. Its a good analogy. Reagan used the 'Evil Empire' rhetoric, Bush used 'Axis of Evil.' RR used diplomacy and Bush won't.
Chef Jim Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Its a good analogy. Reagan used the 'Evil Empire' rhetoric, Bush used 'Axis of Evil.' RR used diplomacy and Bush won't. The word Evil is the only common ground between the two situations. Completely different enemy.
molson_golden2002 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 One that want to creat his own legacy you dipsh--. And what does Conservative have to do with the current sitting President? HA HA, what does 'Conservative' have to do with Reagan? How were they different on the main points of Conservative ideology? Spending, tax cuts, immigration, military spending, etc....
Recommended Posts