Saddam's Terror Links

[molson_golden2002]

No, you're very, very stupid for not understanding that the "Global War on Terrorism" is NOT the "Limited War on Trans-National Terrorists Hiding In Central Asia Who Are Behind The Attacks Of 9/11/2001."

I'm sorry, but the breathless idiocy behind this statement stunned me into silence yesterday. I just didn't know where to begin.

 

First off, terrorism is a tactic, as I'm sure you know. So a war on "it" doesn't make any sense at all. Secondly, how do you define what a terrorist act is? Just because it's low tech? More likely because its used again those we don't want it to be, Israelis for instance. Your statement opens us up to become involved in every single little grievence the world over. I think most Americans would want us to concentrate on getting those behind 9-11. That would be fine and dandy, to most people here, instead of launching a crusade against the crime of blowing things up. Tht's why Bush worked so hard to convince America that Saddam was behind 9-11. What would have been wrong with just focusing on the ones that attacked us? Why does the Palistinian/Israeli conflict necessarily have to be our problem? Most terrorism is local. 9-11 was an exception to that rule. Your "Global War on Terrorism" if carried out to take on all "terrorism" would take us to every part of the world and committ us to something we are in no way capable of handling.

[DC Tom]

I'm sorry, but the breathless idiocy behind this statement stunned me into silence yesterday. I just didn't know where to begin.

 

First off, terrorism is a tactic, as I'm sure you know. So a war on "it" doesn't make any sense at all. Secondly, how do you define what a terrorist act is? Just because it's low tech? More likely because its used again those we don't want it to be, Israelis for instance. Your statement opens us up to become involved in every single little grievence the world over. I think most Americans would want us to concentrate on getting those behind 9-11. That would be fine and dandy, to most people here, instead of launching a crusade against the crime of blowing things up. Tht's why Bush worked so hard to convince America that Saddam was behind 9-11. What would have been wrong with just focusing on the ones that attacked us? Why does the Palistinian/Israeli conflict necessarily have to be our problem? Most terrorism is local. 9-11 was an exception to that rule. Your "Global War on Terrorism" if carried out to take on all "terrorism" would take us to every part of the world and committ us to something we are in no way capable of handling.

 

I didn't say it wasn't a stupid statement, I said you were stupid for not understanding it: the "Global War on Terrorism" is "The Global War on Terrorism", it is not the "Limited War on Trans-National Terrorists Hiding In Central Asia Who Are Behind The Attacks Of 9/11/2001". I'm not advocating it. It's a factual statement. That's the government policy. I strongly disagree with that policy, but you - specifically, you - can't discuss the subject intelligently until you understand that that's the policy.

[molson_golden2002]

I didn't say it wasn't a stupid statement, I said you were stupid for not understanding it: the "Global War on Terrorism" is "The Global War on Terrorism", it is not the "Limited War on Trans-National Terrorists Hiding In Central Asia Who Are Behind The Attacks Of 9/11/2001". I'm not advocating it. It's a factual statement. That's the government policy. I strongly disagree with that policy, but you - specifically, you - can't discuss the subject intelligently until you understand that that's the policy.

I'm glad you agree with me

[DC Tom]

I'm glad you agree with me

 

Trust me, it's purely coincidental. Random chance dictated that you'd have to be right about something eventually...

[molson_golden2002]

Trust me, it's purely coincidental. Random chance dictated that you'd have to be right about something eventually...

If I was a better bull sh---er I could be right 100% of the time, right?

[Chef Jim]

I'm sorry, but the breathless idiocy behind this statement stunned me into silence yesterday. I just didn't know where to begin.

 

First off, terrorism is a tactic, as I'm sure you know. So a war on "it" doesn't make any sense at all. Secondly, how do you define what a terrorist act is? Just because it's low tech? More likely because its used again those we don't want it to be, Israelis for instance. Your statement opens us up to become involved in every single little grievence the world over. I think most Americans would want us to concentrate on getting those behind 9-11. That would be fine and dandy, to most people here, instead of launching a crusade against the crime of blowing things up. Tht's why Bush worked so hard to convince America that Saddam was behind 9-11. What would have been wrong with just focusing on the ones that attacked us? Why does the Palistinian/Israeli conflict necessarily have to be our problem? Most terrorism is local. 9-11 was an exception to that rule. Your "Global War on Terrorism" if carried out to take on all "terrorism" would take us to every part of the world and committ us to something we are in no way capable of handling.

 

What does this statement mean?

[Sirius99]

I'm sorry, but the breathless idiocy behind this statement stunned me into silence yesterday. I just didn't know where to begin.

 

First off, terrorism is a tactic, as I'm sure you know. So a war on "it" doesn't make any sense at all. Secondly, how do you define what a terrorist act is? Just because it's low tech? More likely because its used again those we don't want it to be, Israelis for instance. Your statement opens us up to become involved in every single little grievence the world over. I think most Americans would want us to concentrate on getting those behind 9-11. That would be fine and dandy, to most people here, instead of launching a crusade against the crime of blowing things up. Tht's why Bush worked so hard to convince America that Saddam was behind 9-11. What would have been wrong with just focusing on the ones that attacked us? Why does the Palistinian/Israeli conflict necessarily have to be our problem? Most terrorism is local. 9-11 was an exception to that rule. Your "Global War on Terrorism" if carried out to take on all "terrorism" would take us to every part of the world and committ us to something we are in no way capable of handling.

 

No, terrorism is a strategy, not a tactic. The use of IEDs would be an example of a tactic to support the strategy. The terrorism definition is contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

 

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

 

Given all of this information, it should be quite clear that terrorism is virtually never "local", unless you mean the target is the politics of one nation, which it sometimes is.

[Sirius99]

But the unnamed WSJ editorialists know that, which is why they used the word "indicates" rather than something stronger like "concludes" or "clearly shows" or "PROVES!"

 

Intelligence doesn't work that way. It never "proves" anything. Intelligence analysis is an art which purports a "likelihood" or "confidence level" of a conclusion based on the information available at the time, which is always subjective at least in part.

[molson_golden2002]

No, terrorism is a strategy, not a tactic. The use of IEDs would be an example of a tactic to support the strategy. The terrorism definition is contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

 

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

 

Given all of this information, it should be quite clear that terrorism is virtually never "local", unless you mean the target is the politics of one nation, which it sometimes is.

Horsesh--. Terrorism is a tactic mostly perpetrated to achieve local political objectives

[Chef Jim]

Horsesh--. Terrorism is a tactic mostly perpetrated to achieve local political objectives

 

So the attack on the WTC was to influence the local City Council? Madrid...do influence local politics? London to change the local London political scene? Indonesia to change the local Bali politics?

[molson_golden2002]

So the attack on the WTC was to influence the local City Council? Madrid...do influence local politics? London to change the local London political scene? Indonesia to change the local Bali politics?

Those would be exceptions to the rule

[Sirius99]

Horsesh--. Terrorism is a tactic mostly perpetrated to achieve local political objectives

 

Golly, I just completed 9 graduate-level credit hours in National Security Studies from the USAF's Air University. I guess I should tell them all of their material was wrong because molson golden from TBD said so. They'll be so happy you've pointed out the errors of their ways...

 

And to think I thought DC Tom was an exaggerator.

[Chef Jim]

Those would be exceptions to the rule

 

 

I think you confused terrorism with crime.

[molson_golden2002]

 

I think you confused terrorism with crime.

Terrorism is a crime, that's right. Tim McVeigh, local terrorist, was executed after a trial

 

 

Oh God, I'm actually starting to argue with the idiot Chef Jim

 

Time to get off the internet........

[Chef Jim]

Terrorism is a crime, that's right. Tim McVeigh, local terrorist, was executed after a trial

 

 

Oh God, I'm actually starting to argue with the idiot Chef Jim

 

Time to get off the internet........

 

Great, backed into a corner and you resort to name calling. Good job. Ok so terrorism is a crime to change local politics. I gave you four examples of terrorism and your response is that those are exceptions. How about roadside bombs in Iraq. Are those designed to change the local politics or are they designed to make a global statement? Are those even terrorist attacks or are they military strategies? What about car bombs in Iraq, are those to change Iraqi government or are they designed to make a global political statement.

[Sirius99]

Great, backed into a corner and you resort to name calling. Good job. Ok so terrorism is a crime to change local politics. I gave you four examples of terrorism and your response is that those are exceptions. How about roadside bombs in Iraq. Are those designed to change the local politics or are they designed to make a global statement? Are those even terrorist attacks or are they military strategies? What about car bombs in Iraq, are those to change Iraqi government or are they designed to make a global political statement.

 

Since he ignored my previous post, I considered trying to provide a more detailed description of the difference between tactics and strategy, but thought better of it when it became clear he doesn't have any genuine interest in the facts. I commend you for trying Chef.

[DC Tom]

Horsesh--. Terrorism is a tactic mostly perpetrated to achieve local political objectives

 

Then why do trans-national terrorists exist? What, al-Qaeda's myriad statements and actions against the US are intended to achieve local political objectives in Afghanistan? The African embassy bombings were against the Dar es Salaam and Nairobi city governments? The USS Cole bombing was to promote shipping reform in Yemen?

 

Have I called you an idiot yet today? You're an idiot.

[Sirius99]

Then why do trans-national terrorists exist? What, al-Qaeda's myriad statements and actions against the US are intended to achieve local political objectives in Afghanistan? The African embassy bombings were against the Dar es Salaam and Nairobi city governments? The USS Cole bombing was to promote shipping reform in Yemen?

 

Have I called you an idiot yet today? You're an idiot.

 

C'mon Tom, those are obviously exceptions to the rule.

[RI Bills Fan]

Intelligence doesn't work that way. It never "proves" anything. Intelligence analysis is an art which purports a "likelihood" or "confidence level" of a conclusion based on the information available at the time, which is always subjective at least in part.

 

That is absolutely correct if you're talking about the actual Pentagon Report. However my statement was in reference to the WSJ Editorial that Eryn is attempting to portray as some new revelation which proves that the invasion of Iraq was a good decision.

 

I disagree with that position. And I was pointing out that there is no new information in the report. Everthing it contains has been previously disclosed but now it's wrapped in a prettier package so people who want the Iraq War decision to be correct can look at it and say "See we were right all along!"

 

Even though nothing has changed and no new intelligence information has emerged.

[erynthered]

However my statement was in reference to the WSJ Editorial that Eryn is attempting to portray as some new revelation which proves that the invasion of Iraq was a good decision.

 

 

Assuming again. Sirius pwnd your ass and you're trying to use me an out. Nice try, scallywag. There was no attempt on my part to portray the article in any way. Thats why if you remember in my first post I said, " I cant wait to see some of the responses". You have far exceeded what I expected, especially from you. I had thought molson would have taken your coarse of assumption. Thanks for the laugh.