SmokingTarpan

My question was meant to provoke thought on what the terrorists (those that have aimed at the US and allies in recent years, specifically) actually meant to achieve. They are largely billed as mindless/goalless killers that want to do nothing more than kill people and cause chaos. Obviously they do have goals, though opinions vary on what those goals may be. I just wonder if they aren't already well on the road to accomplishing some greater objective that we don't grasp yet due to our focus on their "barbarism".

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

Steeler

One of the major goals of Bin Laden, according to several commentators, is the establishment of a pan-Arab Islamic state across the Middle East. The primary obstacles to that establishment are the secular and monarchial powers that currently run the governments there. Notably the Sauds, Pakistan's Musharraf, Karzai's government in Afghanistan, and until recently, Saddam Hussein. America is seen as one of the benefactors and enablers of these regimes, and as such we are a convenient evil to rally the troops around. (All politics are local.) There is enough of a cultural rift that the leaders of AQ can summon a large enough number of "mindless/goalless killers" to their cause, but we should not confuse the temperment of the fanatics with the goals of the leaders.

I do think it's intellectually irresponsible to simply label all terrorists as "hating freedom" as it certainly blurs the issues, but that characterization is not meant for analytical purposes, it is rhetoric to gain support for war. You need to play up your enemy a bit for the citizens when you're trying to rally an army. What worries me is when the leadership, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz, actually believe the rhetoric. Like it or not, recent events have required sober analysis and clear thinking, and I'm not confident that's what we got.

There is a line of analysis that suggests that the 9/11 attacks were, among other things, intended to draw us into a wider conflict in the Middle East, thus weakening our support of the regimes there and expanding the recruiting base for AQ. That may be playing into the "supervillain" mode of thinking on terrorism, but it's one way of looking at it. And in many ways, our response has played into that provocation.

__________________

AMosely

That narrows the scope significantly - Al Qaeda is the only organized group that has attacked the U.S. in recent years. I would argue that they have not won anything but recognition - prior to September 11 the U.S. government quite obviously didn't take them as a serious threat, and they should have. Since 9/11, Bush has spent billions of dollars pouding on them. There have been no clear victories or defeats, however.

Iraq could be considered a gain for them, but that would be a difficult argument to prove, as Iraq is secularly controlled by many factions right now, including the U.S. Al-Qaeda has actually lost quite a bit - a lot of ground in Afghanistan and the lives of quite a few important individuals.

As stated by Bin Laden, the goal of Al-Qaeda is to drive the 'infidels' (namely non-Muslims) from interfering with the affairs of Islamic states. He has resorted to global terrorism to achieve this. So far, he has not suceeded. I would argue that he's made matters worse, but that is not to say Bush and the U.S. are 'winning' their 'war on terror.' As with most conflicts, both sides continue to incite one another.

Mjr Doodie

GW said, "The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation." Those words ring true. Whatever drives them, whatever grieves them, Islamic fanatics have declared war and seem willing to wage it to the death. If they prevail, our children will grow up in a world where fear governs the imagination and determines the rules of life. I think that on balance we are winning, I think this for several reasons. Since 9/11 more than 5,000 al Qaeda members have been killed or captured in 102 countries. The war on terror is a lot larger than the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It occurs on a global stage. A tremendous number of terrorist plots by al Qaeda and its organisations against Western targets have been forded. A plan to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Paris was prevented, as well as an attempt to sink U.S. and British war ships in the Strait of Gibraltar by ramming zodiac inflated rafts loaded with bombs into the hulk of these ships. In fact, the intelligence that led to the unravelling of these plots came from prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That alone, I think, justifies holding those prisoners.

GW seah"Twice in six decades, a sudden attack on the United States launched our country into a global conflict, and began a period of serious reflection on America's place in the world. The bombing of Pearl Harbor taught America that unopposed tyranny, even on far-away continents, could draw our country into a struggle for our own survival. And our reflection on that lesson led us to help build peaceful democracies in the ruins of tyranny, to unite free nations in the NATO Alliance, and to establish a firm commitment to peace in the Pacific that continues to this day.

The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 also revealed the outlines of a new world. In one way, that assault was the culmination of decades of escalating violence -- from the killing of U.S. Marines in Beirut, to the bombing at the World Trade Center, to the attacks on American embassies in Africa, to the attacks on the USS Cole. In another way, September the 11th provided a warning of future dangers -- of terror networks aided by outlaw regimes, and ideologies that incite the murder of the innocent, and biological and chemical and nuclear weapons that multiply destructive power.

Like an earlier generation, America is answering new dangers with firm resolve. No matter how long it takes, no matter how difficult the task, we will fight the enemy, and lift the shadow of fear, and lead free nations to victory."

I agree. Gw had overwhelming support of the war on terror. Remember "any country harboring,supporting and funding terrorism" Many Americans do not have the stomach for war so he is slowly loosing support. Iraq was the most logical target in the war on terror. 12 years of sanctions,the use of WMD's on his own people and the support of many terrorist originations.

Steeler

Can you post links to those stories? I'd be interested to read about that.

__________________

AMosely

I completely disagree with this. The words most certainly do not ring true with many people. It is not, and never will be a calling of my generation - to wage an ambiguous war born out of fear. That's pretty much what UBL and Al Qaeda did and are doing, and I believe it is incredibly short-sighted to simply follow suit as the Bush administration has done.

We know exactly what drives them. They talk about it openly, it's just that your government wants you to listen to their interpretation instead of thinking about it on your own. Read any number of translated speeches and texts (some referenced in this thread). 'They' won't prevail. Much of the free world is against them - far more than the U.S.

Incorrect - had had at best 70% support. At worst, 40% (December 2004, MSRG Cornell). Provide references when you make statements such as this. A marginal (50%) election win in 2004 was not at all a 'political mandate' as Bush referred to it.

Remember it because it is hypocrisy. This is a perfect example of why I dislike Bush - the U.S. itself probably harbors more terrorists than most countries on Earth. These statements are meant to sound tough (which is what Bush is designed to do), and to scare people - much in the same way terrorism itself does. It doesn't work - well, not on everyone. Bush has never been supported by more than half of the American population at any given time.

Incorrect - most Americans do not agree with the war in Iraq (again, check your poll data). This number has been growing not because they 'do not have the stomach for war' but because more and more Americans are discovering that things in Iraq are most definitely not going to plan, and that in fact there was no plan in the first place other than 'shock and awe.'

If you wish to support the current President, that's fine, but avoid making generalizations about the American public. I am an American and I disagree with you.

Mjr Doodie

I will find the pole numbers at the beginning of the war on TERROR and now. A 90% approval rate is very high. Why do you think SOME liberal Democrats exploit the number of troops lost in this war. I'm not stereotyping the American people. The combination of American soldier's lives lost and political propaganda can cause American civilians to loose their resolve. Not all of us believe this way. You say "the U.S. itself probably harbors more terrorists than most countries on Earth." I disagree. Our government does not HARBOR terrorist they do not fund or support them. Sadam did. He gave $10.000 to the families of suicide bombers from Hesbula. He hosted training camps in Iraq.


Bush is not the terrorist!

Mjr Doodie

Gallup Poll and CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll

Approve% Disap-% Unsure%


1/20-22/06 43 54 4



2/21-24/05 51 45 4



1/9-11/04 59 38 3



1/7-9/02 84 12 4



9/21-22/01 90 6 4

Mjr Doodie

New Zogby Survey shows Iraq a Partisan War


In the face of rising gas prices, partisan sniping over Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and a resumption of insurgent violence in Iraq, President Bush’s job approval rating has slipped into a post-holiday funk, again dipping below 40%, a new telephone poll by Zogby International shows.

His approval rating almost mirrors the percentage of respondents (40%) who said the nation overall is headed in the right direction.

The deterioration in the President’s numbers appears to be the result of eroding support among the investor class and others who supported him in his 2004 re-election bid, said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. And the problem is the Iraq war – just 34% of respondents said Mr. Bush was doing a good or excellent job managing the war, down from 38% approval in a Zogby poll taken in mid-October.


Bush’s overall job approval rating in that poll was at 46%.


Among investors, Bush’s support for managing the war dropped five points since October, from 45% to 40%, Zogby data shows. But Zogby said the glaring split between how Republicans, Democrats and independents think the President is handling Iraq is remarkable.


“The numbers in support for the war in Iraq are extremely low among Democrats and independents,” Zogby said. “This is a partisan war.”


While 61% of Republicans said he was doing a good job managing the war (down from 70% in October), just 11% of Democrats and 28% of independents gave him good marks in that area. Among Democrats, 71% said Bush was doing a “poor” job with the war, while 17% said he was doing only a “fair” job.


Among men, 36% said the President was handling the war well, while 31% of women agreed.


Bush has retained a base of support for his handling of the broader war on terror, as 46% said he is doing a good job, down just one percent since October. His management of the war on terror had been a consistently bright spot for the President since the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, before dipping below 50% last year.


However, half of those surveyed said they feel safer with Bush as President, compared to 38% who said they feel less safe.

Respondents rated the war in Iraq and the war on terror as the two top issues facing America. Jobs and the economy were also important, they said, with health care coming in a distant fourth, followed by concern over gas and fuel prices.

QUESTION: Which of the following do you consider to be the gravest threat to your personal safety?

RESULTS:*

-Terrorism: 35%

-Disease (bird flu, HIV/AIDS, ebola, etc.): 12%

-Environmental catastrophe (earthquake, tsunami, global warming, etc.): 13%

-Nuclear war with another nation: 4%

-Crime: 26%

-Not sure/other: 10%

*Due to rounding, percentages may add up to over 100%. Margin of error is +/- 2.2%

Mjr Doodie

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/43178.htmsorry wrong site try thies

http://murphy.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1096
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...-09-10kay.html

Steeler

Both of those links talk about Iraq. I don't really want to resurrect that horse and start beating it again. I meant the other terror plots that were foiled that you mentioned.

The President's speech mentioned some police actions by foreign governments that have netted "extremists," but that's too vague to tell us anything. Do you have anything more concrete?

__________________

Mjr Doodie

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...864297398.html
http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/salafist.asp
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/0...s/0321000f.htm
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/10559/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct19.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3603961.stm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...5/101649.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in613915.shtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/10/06/whitehouse.plots/
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/21/bergen.otsc/

AMosely

I have to credit you on providing source data, good work. It seems to me that you're only furthering my point - I'm seeing a lot of ~40%'s here. Last time I checked, 40% represented a minority, and not a good spot for approval ratings. You can make up excuses for it, but the fact is most of America does not support the current President in what he is saying and doing.

The fact that it's a 'partisan' war is really irrelevant. The U.S. is a partisan country right now - a country divided. (flashback - remember when Bush said he was going to be the big uniter?) The point I am trying to make is that we've been that way ever since 2000, when the election literally fell 50-50 and Bush was put in the White House by the Supreme Court. That's why I was frustrated by your comment that Bush has 'overwhelming' support of the Iraq war - he never did, and never will. The only thing he's ever had overwhelming support on was the invasion of Afghanistan - which his administration did a horrible job of managing.

As for your sources on foiled terror plots, I don't think anyone will argue that they are successes (and again you did a good job of providing sources). I would guess that if you looked closely, the vast majority of them were actually carried out by foreign governments or agencies within the U.S. government - no involvement from Mr. War on Terror. One thing I noticed is how little any of them have to do with Iraq. How many billions of dollars has Bush wasted on defense initiatives, contractors and troop movements in his 'war on terror?' Imagine how successful America would be if it truly focused on thwarting terror attacks instead of trying to completely rebuild a large country in the Middle East (Iraq).

My main concern with the concept of a 'war on terror' is that it blurs the lines of distinction between foreign Governments, radical religious groups, and everyday civil discourse. It's a mistake to do this because the believing public (of which I believe you are a part of) begins to see much of the world as one giant threat - which it most certainly is not. Even more dangerous is how the rest of the World views this process - as arbitrary, righteous and pig-headed. When things get blurry, it's difficult to find the true source of problems, and mistakes are made.

leejo

This is false. The Florida results were legally certified. Al Gore sued to force a recount. The Supreme Court ended a legal farce and therefore the existing results stood.

Had the Gore team not sued, the Supreme Court would gladly have stayed out of the matter, and we would have the exact same president we have today. The Supreme Court didn't put anyone in the White House.

Steeler

Can we NOT go back to the 2000 election? Please, please? Where's my "aw geez" graphic?

__________________