.....The only way to ensure this never happens is to make people so scared of doing it that it never happens....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or, you could take away their desire for doing it - by educating them so they can see an alternate path for their future...

Or, you could give them what they want

Or, you could compromise

Or, if none of the above works, nuke the bastards.

.....The only way to ensure this never happens is to make people so scared of doing it that it never happens....

Or, you could take away their desire for doing it - by educating them so thay can see an alternate path for their future...

Or, you could give them what they want

Or, you could compromise

Or, if none of the above works, nuke the bastards.

Actually, there's these Neutron Bombs out there that supposedly leave the infrastructure intact but the folks on the ground don't fare so well. Let's see what happen in Faleuja over the next few days. It would be nice to be done with that slum before the elections in January. Done in terms of pacified

Go Dickie. Well spoken, even for an Englishman.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

? ? ? ? ?!? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ! !

Do you really want to get into this?

Fighting terror is impossible, it being an emotion built into animals, including us.

Fighting people who use it as an instrument of coercion (terrorists) is possible, but you can never win a war if destroying terrorists is the condition of winning as more will appear sometime in the future. The only way to ensure this never happens is to make people so scared of doing it that it never happens BUT then you are "people who use it (terror) as an instrument of coercion", i.e. you become that thing against which you fight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or, you could take away their desire for doing it - by educating them so thay can see an  alternate path for their future...

Or, you could give them what they want

Or, you could compromise

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fear this is simple logic that our Neo-Con correspondents (& leaders) could never get their tiny little minds around. Little problem though. Terror : Fear is not the same as terrorism. Only way to get rid of terrorism is to solve the problems that lead to it. End of story. Nothing else works.

Actually, there's these Neutron Bombs out there that supposedly leave the infrastructure intact but the folks on the ground don't fare so well.  Let's see what happen in Faleuja over the next few days.  It would be nice to be done with that slum before the elections in January.  Done in terms of pacified

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neutron Bombs, beautiful things.

They release huge amounts of radiation with only a few kilotons of explosive power. Drop one on your enemy's city and you'll only destroy a few tens/hundreds of square miles, but you will kill all animal life in many thousands of square miles and make the whole area a radiation hotspot for generations.

Use only when you really hate the bastards.

(Oh, I forgot, we are talking about Extremist-Fundamental-Neo-Con-KK-Kristians v/s followers of Mohammed here, aren't we.)

They'll be nuked - and Krishna save the Planet.

.....The only way to ensure this never happens is to make people so scared of doing it that it never happens....

Or, you could take away their desire for doing it - by educating them so thay can see an alternate path for their future...

Or, you could give them what they want

Or, you could compromise

Or, if none of the above works, nuke the bastards.

Actually, there's these Neutron Bombs out there that supposedly leave the infrastructure intact but the folks on the ground don't fare so well. Let's see what happen in Faleuja over the next few days. It would be nice to be done with that slum before the elections in January. Done in terms of pacified

This is the most disturbing thing from you I have ever read. I suppose you were one of those mighty men who bombed the Vietnamese, Laos, and Cambodians?

US Ready To Put

Weapons In Space

America Likely To Ignore Treaty Ban

By Mark Townsend

The Observer - UK

11-7-4

America has begun preparing its next military objective - space. Documents reveal that the US Air Force has for the first time adopted a doctrine to establish 'space superiority'.

The new doctrine means that pre-emptive strikes against enemy satellites would become 'crucial steps in any military operation'. This week defence experts will attend a conference in London amid warnings that President Bush's re-election will pave the way to the arming of space.

Internal USAF documents reveal that seizing control of the 'final frontier' is deemed essential for modern warfare. Counterspace Operations reveals that destroying enemy satellites would improve the chance of victory. It states: 'Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack. Space and air superiority are crucial first steps in any military operation.'

Theresa Hitchens, vice-president of a Washington-based independent think-tank, the Centre for Defence Information, said: 'These documents show that they are taking space control seriously.'

This week's meeting, held by the British-American Security Information Council (Basic), will also discuss whether Britain can restrain a US administration intent on strategic control of space.

Next year's budget for the US Missile Defence Agency includes funding for research into the development of 'space-based interceptors'. Although the funding allocated to develop lightweight ballistic missile parts is only £7.5m, further details have emerged of a more ambitious programme to site weapons in space.

Plans for a 'thin constellation of three to six spacecraft' in orbit, which would target enemy missiles as they took off or landed, are planned, according to Hitchens. The document, said Hitchens, signals that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which outlaws the use of weapons in orbit, will be ignored.

Of equal concern to some UK defence experts is Britain's agreement in principle to station US interceptor missiles at RAF Fylingdales, North Yorkshire. Participation in the missile defence programme means that Britain is already 'locked into' a programme that could ultimately include space warfare, say those who are monitoring developments.

'If the UK government tries to argue that it is participating in missile defence, but not in the weaponisation of space, either officials have been duped or they are being disingenuous,' said Hitchens.

Suggestions of a deepening relationship between Britain and America over missile defence surfaced again last week. A parliamentary statement from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon to Labour MP Llew Smith conceded that the MoD has sent two experts to work at the US Missile Defence Agency. Another two will be sent next year.

In a separate debate last week, defence minister Lord Bach admitted that the US was encouraging Britain to become involved in its missile programme. 'The US has offered to extend coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the UK and other allies, should we require them,' he said.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,...1345460,00.html

.....The only way to ensure this never happens is to make people so scared of doing it that it never happens....

Or, you could take away their desire for doing it - by educating them so thay can see an alternate path for their future...

Or, you could give them what they want

Or, you could compromise

Or, if none of the above works, nuke the bastards.

Actually, there's these Neutron Bombs out there that supposedly leave the infrastructure intact but the folks on the ground don't fare so well. Let's see what happen in Faleuja over the next few days. It would be nice to be done with that slum before the elections in January. Done in terms of pacified

This is the most disturbing thing from you I have ever read. I suppose you were one of those mighty men who bombed the Vietnamese, Laos, and Cambodians?

Jeeeeze...you guys...I simply mention that there's one of those type of weapons out there and y'all jump to conclusions!

Did I say anything about whether or not I advocated using one? No...

All I said boys, is that we need to pacify Fallujha - that's all. By anybody's measure of sensibility, that is what is needed right now. Eliminate that rat's nest of terrorists and try to bring representative government to Iraq.

What's wrong with that???

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna

Krishna, Krishna

Hare Hare

Hare Rama, Hare Rama,

Krishna, Krishna,

Hare Krishna

I am desparately trying to see a relationship between the Hari Krishna, Iraq and Bugs Bunny. I was never good at riddles.

Oh yes, I just got it: H A R E=Rabbit, that makes lots of sense.

They'll be nuked - and Krishna save the Planet.

=connection/association w. the Hare.

I appreciate that some of you may question the relevance or indeed the validity of this connection. My reply would then have to be that the association is as relevant as that between trying to remedy the causes for September 11 and attacking Iraq.

They'll be nuked - and Krishna save the Planet.

=connection/association w. the Hare.

I appreciate that some of you may question the relevance or indeed the validity of this connection. My reply would then have to be that the association is as relevant as that between trying to remedy the causes for September 11 and attacking Iraq.

An analogy would be the "Duck" test. If it walks, talks etc. like a terrorist...?

Freedom squelches terrorist violence

KSG associate professor researches freedom-terrorism link

By Alvin Powell

Harvard News Office

"A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."

This is what we’ve been saying all along. Look at Muhammad Atta – a medical doctor’s son who was the chief architect of the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The rest…

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/1.../05-terror.html

"A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."

Bush is not on the poverty line, that should of been obvious

In the newspapers I've seen them referred to as insurgents, guerillas, freedom fighters and terrorists. They don't give a sh!t what the press calls them, what I call them, what you call them or what anybody else calls them. They are protecting their country and their people against an invader, a barbaric force, a killing machine. You know if you were in their shoes, you would do the same.

Shame on America and Britain!

In the newspapers I've seen them referred to as insurgents, guerillas, freedom fighters and terrorists. They don't give a sh!t what the press calls them, what I call them, what you call them or what anybody else calls them. They are protecting their country and their people against an invader, a barbaric force, a killing machine. You know if you were in their shoes, you would do the same.

Shame on America and Britain!

mbkudu~

You seem like a nice enough guy but you know not of what you speak. Have a look at the facts, please...

Amsterdam helps explain the stakes in Fallujah -- the Amsterdam of Nov. 2, 2004, where an Islamist radical murdered Dutch libertarian filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

Fallujah is Iraq's murder capital -- or more precisely, the outlaw town used as a staging area for murder committed by Iraq's secular and religious reactionaries.

And "reactionary" is a much more apt description for these thugs than "insurgent."

Words matter, and insistently describing the murderers in Iraq as insurgents distorts the aims and true nature of these enemies. Saddam's old cronies (the secular reactionaries) and Musab al-Zarqawi's suicide bombers (the religious reactionaries) don't hold elections, they don't dig sewers, and they don't build hospitals. The secular reactionaries want to return Iraq to a Sunni-dominated dictatorship -- the corrupt, murderous hellhole Iraq was in March 2003. The religious reactionaries have a grander target, with their "golden age" a bit deeper in time. They want to run the entire world along the lines of an 11th or 12th century Muslim caliphate.

for the rest...

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/2004119.asp

Would you care for your wife/daughter/niece to be circumcised just at puberty???

Didn't think so...

I think some people still miss the irony that there were no terrorists in Fallujah before the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq

I think some people still miss the irony that there were no terrorists in Fallujah before the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq 

No...Fallujah was full of Saddam's thugs - Sunnis who would return Iraq to the 12th Century if they had their way...

Yeah, I agree that Sadam and his thugs were not nice guys. But I still can't get over the irony that now Iraq is full of terriosts when one of the 'excuses' for invading was to stop terrorism. All the invasion did was create a vacum which allowed these guys to flood in and create havoc .

The Central Intelligence Agency.

The White House is gutting America's first line of defence against terrorism.

A purge is taking place of all who are seen to be disloyal. ie. Those who do not brown-nose Bush's Neo-Con team.

Whilst the punditry wanders weak and weary in the deep fogs of the "moral values debate," what say we pay some attention to what is going on, eh?

According to Newsday, "The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Ladin..."

Bad Nooz. In the first place, the concept of "purge" has not hitherto played much part in our history, and now is no time to start. Considerable pains have been taken to protect the civil service from partisan pressure for extremely good reasons.

"Disloyalty to Bush," or any president, is not the same as disloyalty to the country. In fact, in the intelligence biz, opposing the White House is sometimes the highest form of loyalty to country, since when we fight without good intelligence, we fight blind.

I would not have been troubled to learn there was to be a "purge" at the CIA of those responsible for giving bad information to the administration about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Even a "purge" of those who caved in under pressure from the White House to confirm the dubious WMD theory might be useful. (George Tenet is already gone.) But that's not what they're fixing to do here. This is not a purge of incompetent officers or of those who have caved under political pressure – this is a political purge of those "disloyal to George W. Bush."

That's what I was most afraid of in the next four years: the complete closing of the circle, the old Bush emphasis on loyalty as the first and most important asset, above brains, judgment or expertise. Bush has been making this mistake for years, and it is clear it will now get worse. The clash of ideas is not welcome in his office. He wants everything solved in a one-page memo. This effectively limits him from being exposed to anything but obsequious third-rate thinking. It's precisely how he got into Iraq.

One of Bush's personal weaknesses is his tendency to go with his "gut" when both facts and logic are against him. This used to be just an intellectual failing, one that led many who know him to conclude he cannot think very well.

It is more alarming to find that those around him are so familiar with the phenomenon that they have now invented a sort of justifying philosophy for it. According to Ron Suskind's much-noted New York Times Magazine article, some White House staffers now refer slightingly to "reality-based" decision-making, as though it were quite inferior to delusional thinking. This bodes poorly.

One does not have to be an expert on the CIA to see the problem here. Bureaucracies are peculiarly vulnerable to bullying from the top: Everyone who has ever worked in an office is familiar with the gesture toward the ceiling for "upstairs" to explain some ###### fool command from on high. Punishing those who were right is not smart.

Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, who wrote "Imperial Hubris" as Anonymous, has now resigned. The book is about the Bush team's failure to pursue bin Laden and about the diversion of intelligence and military manpower from the war on Al Qaeda to the war in Iraq. The thesis is dirt common, not a state secret.

Another leak involved a report that concluded the likely outcomes in Iraq are all fairly grim and the worst-case is civil war. Since I wrote the very same thing all by my little self before this war even started, without a shred of input from the CIA, this strikes me as a "leak" of the self-evident.

It's no secret there is a sort of culture war at the CIA – see "Charlie Wilson's War," among others. The tug-of-styles is between gung-ho risk-taking agents prepared to jump into any harebrained scheme and the more cautious higher-ups, often Ivy Leaguers, who worry about dull stuff like breaking international law and starting World War III. Naturally, we like the gung-ho sort ("Huah!"), but it's not a bad idea to keep some grown-ups in charge. Otherwise, you wind up with stuff like the plot to make Castro's beard fall out or Ollie North taking a cake to Iran.

We consistently see this administration trying to solve real policy problems by knocking out dissent, as though dissent itself were the problem. The Bushies always remind me of Cousin Claude, a major political thinker.

Claude says: "######, yiss, I believe in the right to dissent. H'it's in the Constitution! What I can't stand is all this criticism. Criticize, criticize, criticize. Why don't they leave poor Dubya alone and let him fight his war in peace?

"We're sendin' our best boys over there, and you know what them Eye-raqis do? They come out at night. Wearin' dirty robes. Not even Christian. If they don't like what we're doin' for 'em, whyn't they just go back where they come from?"

With gratitude to Molly Ivins.

The Central Intelligence Agency.

The White House is gutting America's first line of defence against terrorism.

A purge is taking place of all who are seen to be disloyal. ie. Those who do not brown-nose Bush's Neo-Con team.

Whilst the punditry wanders weak and weary in the deep fogs of the "moral values debate," what say we pay some attention to what is going on, eh?

According to Newsday, "The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Ladin..."

Bad Nooz. In the first place, the concept of "purge" has not hitherto played much part in our history, and now is no time to start. Considerable pains have been taken to protect the civil service from partisan pressure for extremely good reasons.

"Disloyalty to Bush," or any president, is not the same as disloyalty to the country. In fact, in the intelligence biz, opposing the White House is sometimes the highest form of loyalty to country, since when we fight without good intelligence, we fight blind.

I would not have been troubled to learn there was to be a "purge" at the CIA of those responsible for giving bad information to the administration about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Even a "purge" of those who caved in under pressure from the White House to confirm the dubious WMD theory might be useful. (George Tenet is already gone.) But that's not what they're fixing to do here. This is not a purge of incompetent officers or of those who have caved under political pressure – this is a political purge of those "disloyal to George W. Bush."

That's what I was most afraid of in the next four years: the complete closing of the circle, the old Bush emphasis on loyalty as the first and most important asset, above brains, judgment or expertise. Bush has been making this mistake for years, and it is clear it will now get worse. The clash of ideas is not welcome in his office. He wants everything solved in a one-page memo. This effectively limits him from being exposed to anything but obsequious third-rate thinking. It's precisely how he got into Iraq.

One of Bush's personal weaknesses is his tendency to go with his "gut" when both facts and logic are against him. This used to be just an intellectual failing, one that led many who know him to conclude he cannot think very well.

It is more alarming to find that those around him are so familiar with the phenomenon that they have now invented a sort of justifying philosophy for it. According to Ron Suskind's much-noted New York Times Magazine article, some White House staffers now refer slightingly to "reality-based" decision-making, as though it were quite inferior to delusional thinking. This bodes poorly.

One does not have to be an expert on the CIA to see the problem here. Bureaucracies are peculiarly vulnerable to bullying from the top: Everyone who has ever worked in an office is familiar with the gesture toward the ceiling for "upstairs" to explain some ###### fool command from on high. Punishing those who were right is not smart.

Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, who wrote "Imperial Hubris" as Anonymous, has now resigned. The book is about the Bush team's failure to pursue bin Laden and about the diversion of intelligence and military manpower from the war on Al Qaeda to the war in Iraq. The thesis is dirt common, not a state secret.

Another leak involved a report that concluded the likely outcomes in Iraq are all fairly grim and the worst-case is civil war. Since I wrote the very same thing all by my little self before this war even started, without a shred of input from the CIA, this strikes me as a "leak" of the self-evident.

It's no secret there is a sort of culture war at the CIA – see "Charlie Wilson's War," among others. The tug-of-styles is between gung-ho risk-taking agents prepared to jump into any harebrained scheme and the more cautious higher-ups, often Ivy Leaguers, who worry about dull stuff like breaking international law and starting World War III. Naturally, we like the gung-ho sort ("Huah!"), but it's not a bad idea to keep some grown-ups in charge. Otherwise, you wind up with stuff like the plot to make Castro's beard fall out or Ollie North taking a cake to Iran.

We consistently see this administration trying to solve real policy problems by knocking out dissent, as though dissent itself were the problem. The Bushies always remind me of Cousin Claude, a major political thinker.

Claude says: "######, yiss, I believe in the right to dissent. H'it's in the Constitution! What I can't stand is all this criticism. Criticize, criticize, criticize. Why don't they leave poor Dubya alone and let him fight his war in peace?

"We're sendin' our best boys over there, and you know what them Eye-raqis do? They come out at night. Wearin' dirty robes. Not even Christian. If they don't like what we're doin' for 'em, whyn't they just go back where they come from?"

With gratitude to Molly Ivins.

Get real...

If the CIA had blown the 9/11 (along with the FBI) lead-up, Saddam's WMD's and just about every other "Big" event during the past however many years - don't you think there should be a purge at that agency?

Get out the dead wood? Too bad some bureaucrats lose their job...

BTW, what's the source of the piece?

Yeah, I agree that Sadam and his thugs were not nice guys. But I still can't get over the irony that now Iraq is full of terriosts when one of the 'excuses' for invading was to stop terrorism. All the invasion did was create a vacum which allowed these guys to flood in and create havoc .

THE TIMES OF LONDON is making its content free online now. You can read this story in its entirety:

Such is the fear that the heavily armed militants held over Fallujah that many of the residents who emerged from the ruins welcomed the US marines, despite the massive destruction their firepower had inflicted on their city.

A man in his sixties, half-naked and his underwear stained with blood from shrapnel wounds from a US munition, cursed the insurgents as he greeted the advancing marines on Saturday night.

"I wish the Americans had come here the very first day and not waited eight months," he said, trembling. Nearby, a mosque courtyard had been used as a weapons store by the militants. . . .

The same story of arbitrary executions was told by another resident, found by US troops cowering in his home with his brother and his family.

"They would wear black masks, carry rocket-propelled grenades and Kalashnikovs, and search streets and alleys," said Iyad Assam, 24. "I would hear stories, about how they executed five men one day and seven another for collaborating with the Americans. They made checkpoints on the roads. They put announcements on walls banning music and telling women to wear the veil from head to toe."

It was not just pedlars of alcohol or Western videos and women deemed improperly dressed who faced the militants' wrath. Even residents who regard themselves as observant Muslims lived in fear because they did not share the puritan brand of Sunni Islam that the insurgents enforced.

These are Michael Moore's "minutemen." Read the whole thing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1359782_1,00.html

Would you care for your wife/daughter/niece to be circumcised just at puberty???

Didn't think so...

No, but I'd love for her and all her friends to bring automatic weapons with them to their prom.

BTW, what's the source of the piece?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As my post states; With gratitude to Molly Ivins.

Would you care for your wife/daughter/niece to be circumcised just at puberty???

Didn't think so...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, but I'd love for her and all her friends to bring automatic weapons with them to their prom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks M. I needed that.

Would you care for your wife/daughter/niece to be circumcised just at puberty???

Didn't think so...

No, but I'd love for her and all her friends to bring automatic weapons with them to their prom.

Well...we all can't be "neutral" and come from Sweden...

BTW, what's the source of the piece?

As my post states; With gratitude to Molly Ivins.

Ahem...perhaps I should have specified link - have no idea who Molly Ivins is either?

Thank you, p1p...

BTW, what's the source of the piece?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As my post states; With gratitude to Molly Ivins.

Ahem...perhaps I should have specified link - have no idea who Molly Ivins is either?

Thank you, p1p...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have difficulty giving a link to an email on my computer's hard disk. Much of what I post comes from friends & writers who send me their own work. Some is also published elsewhere, but I am not given details.

Would you care for your wife/daughter/niece to be circumcised just at puberty???

Didn't think so...

No, but I'd love for her and all her friends to bring automatic weapons with them to their prom.

Oh Yeah, We're the Country Full of Hatemongers. This is only a shock if you've had your head in the sand for decades. It seems England's black soccer players are now finding out what Jews have known for years - that Europe is filled with far more racists and bigots than the U.S.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004532921,00.html

It seems England's black soccer players are now finding out what Jews have known for years - that Europe is filled with far more racists and bigots than the U.S.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004532921,00.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The dagoes have always despised us, and not just because of Gibraltar. The caning they gave Cole during the match was just because he was a convenient target - i.e. black - as well as part of the English team. The frogs are similar, both countries suffering from a vastly oversized estimation of their self-worth while being, in reality, futile and superfluous.

Would you care for your wife/daughter/niece to be circumcised just at puberty???

Didn't think so...

No, but I'd love for her and all her friends to bring automatic weapons with them to their prom.

Oh Yeah, We're the Country Full of Hatemongers. This is only a shock if you've had your head in the sand for decades. It seems England's black soccer players are now finding out what Jews have known for years - that Europe is filled with far more racists and bigots than the U.S.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004532921,00.html

There's plenty of racists in Europe, and in Sweden too unfortunately, and I don't recall saying otherwise. I don't like them any better than I like the US right wing nutters. Since Hitler however, the European fascists have only managed to have a marginal impact on world events.

Unlike their junk-fed brethren on the opposite side of the Puddle.

Time to wake this thread from its somnambulant mode and do a quote from the esteemed Ann Coulter commenting on music artist Sheryl Crow.

Ms. Crow's music is OK but she appears to be somewhat naive...

"(Sheryl) Crow explained that the 'best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.' War solves that problem too: We won't have any enemies because we're going to kill them. Crow warned of 'huge karmic retributions that will follow.' She seemed not to understand that America going to war is huge karmic retribution. They killed three thousand Americans and now they're going to die."