The Lone Haranguer
Member
Move along. Nothing to see here. Please disperse. 
Last edited:
Terrorist Attacks in USA
- Thread starter anygunanywhere
- Start date
- Status
James T Thomas
Member
judgement versus ideology
"Tecumseh:"
Go to the list of highjackers for the 911 attack, and review their status for the evidence you demand. I know it's now 2007, but I don't think this one attack has used up all the recruits from our campuses.
I'm not going to take a poll every time I shop at a convenience store that is owned or operated by a middle easterner. Some may be just trying to make a living like all of us, then too, most would answer "no" to my inquiry of whether they are a terrorist or not. I do recognize when they are not Irish, nor Greek, nor French, and I know that those who have attacked us have been from Egypt, Syria, S.Arabia, etc. It just narrows the field of selection. Not controlled scientific, but true, none the less.
At the outbreak of WWII our own Japanese Americans were all suspected of being possible colaborators, spies, or saboteurs, and yet none of them had reaked the destruction as the 911 attack did. We were wrong as a nation to jump to the conclusion we did without "evidence." On the other hand there were Japanese nationals here in our nation who were indeed spies, etc.
Were we then to grant them too the benefit of the doubt where our national security was in jeopardy?
The attack on the world trade centers, The USS Cole, the Marine barraks in Lebanon, etc. does provide some "evidence" that we should at least be suspicious of some groups, especially when it has been those same groups that have been killing our people -don't you think?
"Tecumseh:"
Go to the list of highjackers for the 911 attack, and review their status for the evidence you demand. I know it's now 2007, but I don't think this one attack has used up all the recruits from our campuses.
I'm not going to take a poll every time I shop at a convenience store that is owned or operated by a middle easterner. Some may be just trying to make a living like all of us, then too, most would answer "no" to my inquiry of whether they are a terrorist or not. I do recognize when they are not Irish, nor Greek, nor French, and I know that those who have attacked us have been from Egypt, Syria, S.Arabia, etc. It just narrows the field of selection. Not controlled scientific, but true, none the less.
At the outbreak of WWII our own Japanese Americans were all suspected of being possible colaborators, spies, or saboteurs, and yet none of them had reaked the destruction as the 911 attack did. We were wrong as a nation to jump to the conclusion we did without "evidence." On the other hand there were Japanese nationals here in our nation who were indeed spies, etc.
Were we then to grant them too the benefit of the doubt where our national security was in jeopardy?
The attack on the world trade centers, The USS Cole, the Marine barraks in Lebanon, etc. does provide some "evidence" that we should at least be suspicious of some groups, especially when it has been those same groups that have been killing our people -don't you think?
scout26
Member
Tecumseh, Make sure you enroll in a class on Middle Eastern History. (Hint: Once Moses told Pharoh to go pound sand he led the Isrealites BACK to Isreal/Canaan from where they had come from before they were enslaved by the Egyptians. Linky thingy---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses )
Then take a class on Early American (post-Revolution) History. (Hint: The US Marine Corps hymn has the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in for a reason. Read up on the 1083-0804 First Barbary War, Stephen Decatur and USS Philadelphia and then the Second Barbary War in in 1815. Free linky thingy to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur
We've pretty much had been doing that, but they hate us and still attacked us first. As a friend of mine once stated "If the Brits had not found oil there, the Arbs would still be chasing their goats around the desert and the rest of the world could give two poo-poo's less about them."
Oh, if we really are an Empire/Colonial Occupying Force, then I'd expect to be paying 25 cents a gallon for Super-Duper unleaded and the guy in crisp, white uniform with the Texaco star on it would washing the dead bugs off my windshield and checking my oil while pumping the gas.
Other then oil can someone name any other contribution the Middle East/Muslim world has made to further the culture, science, art, music, the humanities, or anything else to the civilized world in the last 600 or so years ??? Sorry, but I have to agree with Patton on this one.......
I hold a somewhat different opinion on this issue.
My comments are limited to the reasonably small portion of the Islamic Population that is very radical/militant and highly motivated.
The original bombing of the WTC back in 1993 is generally understood to have been carried out by Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin and was funded by Al Queda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.
THAT bombing didn't wake up the US.
9/11 resulted in almost 4000 American Deaths and was carried out by more of these highly motivated radical militant Islamist. Through ALL of this the American Population has barely batted an eye and continues to this day to go about their business in essentially the same way they did on 9/10.
With the influx of ~20 MILLION Illegal Aliens across our Southern Border we've demonstrated that its a trivial job to smuggle people and materiel into the US.
A decade passed between the first two WTC Bombings and in between the US Population and Gov't went back to sleep.
I believe that Al Queda is looking at this as a very long term assault on the west and is intentionally taking making no further attacks in the hopes that the US will go back to sleep.
I fear that it is not a question of IF we are attacked again rather its just a matter of WHEN and HOW.
Those of you that have followed the war in iraq and other issues in the world will realize that all of the key ingredients for a crude atomic device (Dirty or Otherwise) have been made avail to a group that is determined to build such a device and Al Queda definately fits that bill.
Recall at the beginning of the Iraq War there was an enormous stockpile of high explosives that was left unguarded in Iraq that was plundered....there was a very large amount of explosives that were reportedly well suited for use in building a crude atomic device.
cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/
Recall the Pakistani Scientist AQ Kahn is KNOWN to have shared nuke secrets, tech and plans with Iran, N Korea and Libya...who else did he share it with?
csmonitor.com/2004/0202/p07s02-wosc.html
Consider for a moment the large stocks of high grade nuclear materials that are virtually unsecured in the countries of the former Soviet Union not to mention reasonably believable reports that some of the missing suitcase nukes that they allegedly admitted to be unable to acct for have been reported to have made their way into Al Queda's hands.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114760,00.html
Throw in the confirmed tests of a nuke device by N Korea and their KNOWN desperation for hard cash and Al Queda being rather well funded by the Saudi's and others...do you doubt that N Korea would hesitate to share any knowledge or resources or even SELL one of their devices to Al Queda for a tidy sum of several tens of millions of dollars?
Throw in all of the development and testing of N Korea and Iran (as I recall) and the possible avail of a Nuclear Device and what do you get? You get a state/group that may soon have the ability to detonate an atomic device at high altitude.....what goes along with that? An EM Pulse.....an EM Pulse at high altitude over the US would knock out a large portion of our infrastructure, banking systems, telephones and vitually anything electric/electronic that is not hardened...THIS would be the ultimate terrorist act folks...an EM Pulse at the right altitude over the continental US has the potential to effect systems across the ENTIRE N American Continent......
fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32544.pdf
Why do you think Bush is trying to create a missile defense system around the world?
As it stands today Al Queda doesn't appear to have access to a ballistic vehicle capable of getting a device to sufficient altitude but it IS likely that they at the very least have access to a large amount of high explosives and a significant amount of radioactive materials...certainly enough to construct and detonate a dirty bomb in the US either at ground level or in a plane...and worst case scenario they may already have in their possession one or more Atomic Devices.....kinda scary eh?
All of this info is freely avail on the web from reliable sources folks...anyone that is paying attention should see this stuff in the news and recognize the potential threat once they start putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
We MUST secure our borders folks.....As US Citizens we have an obligation to write/call/e-mail our Elected Officials and DEMAND that they IMMEDIATELY secure the borders with no further delay and increase security at our nations Ports.
The terror threat in the US is very real folks....I'm not an alarmist...just a realist.
FWIW I believe that history will remember/recognize that while George Bush and his administration has badly bumbled and fumbled domestic/international issues/relations he will be recognized for identifying and trying to take action to combat a large number of developing threats to Western Civilization.
My comments are limited to the reasonably small portion of the Islamic Population that is very radical/militant and highly motivated.
The original bombing of the WTC back in 1993 is generally understood to have been carried out by Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin and was funded by Al Queda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.
THAT bombing didn't wake up the US.
9/11 resulted in almost 4000 American Deaths and was carried out by more of these highly motivated radical militant Islamist. Through ALL of this the American Population has barely batted an eye and continues to this day to go about their business in essentially the same way they did on 9/10.
With the influx of ~20 MILLION Illegal Aliens across our Southern Border we've demonstrated that its a trivial job to smuggle people and materiel into the US.
A decade passed between the first two WTC Bombings and in between the US Population and Gov't went back to sleep.
I believe that Al Queda is looking at this as a very long term assault on the west and is intentionally taking making no further attacks in the hopes that the US will go back to sleep.
I fear that it is not a question of IF we are attacked again rather its just a matter of WHEN and HOW.
Those of you that have followed the war in iraq and other issues in the world will realize that all of the key ingredients for a crude atomic device (Dirty or Otherwise) have been made avail to a group that is determined to build such a device and Al Queda definately fits that bill.
Recall at the beginning of the Iraq War there was an enormous stockpile of high explosives that was left unguarded in Iraq that was plundered....there was a very large amount of explosives that were reportedly well suited for use in building a crude atomic device.
cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/
Recall the Pakistani Scientist AQ Kahn is KNOWN to have shared nuke secrets, tech and plans with Iran, N Korea and Libya...who else did he share it with?
csmonitor.com/2004/0202/p07s02-wosc.html
Consider for a moment the large stocks of high grade nuclear materials that are virtually unsecured in the countries of the former Soviet Union not to mention reasonably believable reports that some of the missing suitcase nukes that they allegedly admitted to be unable to acct for have been reported to have made their way into Al Queda's hands.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114760,00.html
Throw in the confirmed tests of a nuke device by N Korea and their KNOWN desperation for hard cash and Al Queda being rather well funded by the Saudi's and others...do you doubt that N Korea would hesitate to share any knowledge or resources or even SELL one of their devices to Al Queda for a tidy sum of several tens of millions of dollars?
Throw in all of the development and testing of N Korea and Iran (as I recall) and the possible avail of a Nuclear Device and what do you get? You get a state/group that may soon have the ability to detonate an atomic device at high altitude.....what goes along with that? An EM Pulse.....an EM Pulse at high altitude over the US would knock out a large portion of our infrastructure, banking systems, telephones and vitually anything electric/electronic that is not hardened...THIS would be the ultimate terrorist act folks...an EM Pulse at the right altitude over the continental US has the potential to effect systems across the ENTIRE N American Continent......
fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32544.pdf
Why do you think Bush is trying to create a missile defense system around the world?
As it stands today Al Queda doesn't appear to have access to a ballistic vehicle capable of getting a device to sufficient altitude but it IS likely that they at the very least have access to a large amount of high explosives and a significant amount of radioactive materials...certainly enough to construct and detonate a dirty bomb in the US either at ground level or in a plane...and worst case scenario they may already have in their possession one or more Atomic Devices.....kinda scary eh?
All of this info is freely avail on the web from reliable sources folks...anyone that is paying attention should see this stuff in the news and recognize the potential threat once they start putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
We MUST secure our borders folks.....As US Citizens we have an obligation to write/call/e-mail our Elected Officials and DEMAND that they IMMEDIATELY secure the borders with no further delay and increase security at our nations Ports.
The terror threat in the US is very real folks....I'm not an alarmist...just a realist.
FWIW I believe that history will remember/recognize that while George Bush and his administration has badly bumbled and fumbled domestic/international issues/relations he will be recognized for identifying and trying to take action to combat a large number of developing threats to Western Civilization.
This question is self-righteous PC indignation which is supposed to trigger a chain of "Let's Keep it HighRoad, folks" comments as THR posters stumble over one another to be the first to proclaim that they have no problem with the "Religion of Peace," just those misguided, unfortunate, brain-washed "few" who practice a "distorted" version of that religion.
Everyone remember to be polite, open-minded and accepting of anyone wearing strange clothes and yelling religious chants, whether they're trying to kill you or not. Don't be a hater.
Waitone
Member
. . . . . . and remained incomprehensively deaf, dumb, and blind to the single most obvious danger this country faces, an unrestricted border. History may well regard him as the president who pulled off the single most damaging and expensive game of charades ever played. Nobody, I repeat, nobody can be that<ignorant, stupid, or insert pejorative of choice> without have some reason for it. That reason must have a higher value to Bush than the potential loss of a city or two. I hope historians can figure out what and why because what he is doing now simply can not be explained on the basis of information readily available.
samtechlan
Member
Scout26,
That is not correct. Nations and populations engage in actions for reasons other than economic ones. For Woodrow Wilson the goal was to democratize the world whether such actions benefitted the US materially or not. For the neo-cons of today the stated goal is also to democratize the world although the primary unstated reason is to protect the state of Israel. Segregation in the US never made economic sense either but that sure didn't stop many individuals from fighting really hard to keep the status quo.
Well in the Middle Ages it was the Arabs who brought back the works of the ancient Greek Philosophers like Aristotle to the Western World.
See link: How Greek science passed to the Arabs http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/greek.htm
"O'Leary writes a fascinating history of a critically important phase in mesopotamian history. After all, it was the Arabs who brought with them into Spain the Arabic versions of the Greek works, from which translations were made into Latin and spread throughout Europe, which was then in its dark age. It is this Greek body of knowledge that brought Europe out of its dark age and into the renaisance - the rebirth or revival."
I also notice that you ignore arab/moslem contribution in the area of mathematics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra
"The word "algebra" is named after the Arabic word "al-jabr" from the title of the book al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala, meaning The book of Summary Concerning Calculating by Transposition and Reduction, a book written by the Persian Muslim mathematician Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-khwārizmī in 820. The word Al-Jabr means "reunion". The Hellenistic mathematician Diophantus has traditionally been known as "the father of algebra" but debate now exists as to whether or not Al-Khwarizmi should take that title from Diophantus.[2] Those who support Al-Khwarizmi point to the fact that much of his work on reduction is still in use today and that he gave an exhaustive explanation of solving quadratic equations. Those who support Diophantus point to the fact that the algebra found in Al-Jabr is more elementary than the algebra found in Arithmetica and that Arithmetica is syncopated while Al-Jabr is fully rhetorical.[3] Another Muslim mathematician, Omar Khayyam, developed algebraic geometry and found the general geometric solution of the cubic equation."
________________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Waitone, the obvious answer is the NAU and everything that goes along with it.....a large portion of Congress appears to have been on board with it based upon how they voted on the recent Immigration Bill in the Senate.
It would be a boon for banks and big business for certain.
Alternatively the more paranoid/conspiracy theorists have speculated that he's pulling a Pearl Harbor by almost facilitating an attack on the US by not addressing the border issue effectively.....in the hopes of polarizing the US Population to take action as a country.
Personally I don't subscribe to that theory but have seen it posted before.
It would be a boon for banks and big business for certain.
Alternatively the more paranoid/conspiracy theorists have speculated that he's pulling a Pearl Harbor by almost facilitating an attack on the US by not addressing the border issue effectively.....in the hopes of polarizing the US Population to take action as a country.
Personally I don't subscribe to that theory but have seen it posted before.
P5 Guy
Member
Please don't take this wrong
One of the reports today said that they had targeted the club because western women dress wrong and dance.
This week is Gay Pride Week and I'd be real vigilent around those celebrations knowing the hate the terrorist types have for that group.
I hope that all goes well and no more bombers are about to kill and disrupt the weeks holidays.
Happy Independence Day, too.
One of the reports today said that they had targeted the club because western women dress wrong and dance.
This week is Gay Pride Week and I'd be real vigilent around those celebrations knowing the hate the terrorist types have for that group.
I hope that all goes well and no more bombers are about to kill and disrupt the weeks holidays.
Happy Independence Day, too.
scout26
Member
samtechlan,
We've been accused of being empire building/colonizing in the middle east. The context in which it is used has been based on the idea of Rome, Britain or Spain, in which one country invades another for the purpose of extracting Tribute (Rome), Natural Resources (Spain/Britain) or manufactured goods (Britain) for the mother coutry to the detriment of the colony/conquered country. The US, of course, does it backwards in which we spend blood and treasure not to make our lives better, but to ensure the peace and grant/restore freedom to others. Hardly the stuff of empire building. (See Cuba and the Phillipines: Post Spanish-American War; After WWI we goofed it up, causing WWII; However Post WWII we did much better, see Germany, Japan, Italy; South Korea: Post Korean War; we also tried in Vietnam as well as several Carribean Nations). Hence my tongue in cheek comment about 25 cent, full service gas. We're the only nation that gets kicked in the 'nads by our enemies, finally goes kicks their butts, rebuilds their nation on our dime and then pays them full retail price for their trade goods once the war is over. (For a humourous take on this Read/see The Mouse that Roared and why Grand Fenwick decides to declare war on the US.)
And regarding the preservation of ancient Greek History (which the Romans were wont to destroy) and the advances in Math, Astromony, etc. All those occured well prior to 600 years ago. Since the decline/fall of the Caliphate the Arab/Muslim world has culturely stagnated/entered a "Dark Ages" much like Europe did after the fall of Rome.
I attribute the cause of both to the their respective religions (a good read on the subject is Terry Jones Barbarians . Especially the part regarding the upbringing/training of future sultans of Ottoman Empire. Heckuva way to run a railroad.)
But the parallels to the Dark Ages of Europe and the current situation in the Middle East are strikingly similiar. (Religious repression, Crusade vs Jihad, etc....)
We've been accused of being empire building/colonizing in the middle east. The context in which it is used has been based on the idea of Rome, Britain or Spain, in which one country invades another for the purpose of extracting Tribute (Rome), Natural Resources (Spain/Britain) or manufactured goods (Britain) for the mother coutry to the detriment of the colony/conquered country. The US, of course, does it backwards in which we spend blood and treasure not to make our lives better, but to ensure the peace and grant/restore freedom to others. Hardly the stuff of empire building. (See Cuba and the Phillipines: Post Spanish-American War; After WWI we goofed it up, causing WWII; However Post WWII we did much better, see Germany, Japan, Italy; South Korea: Post Korean War; we also tried in Vietnam as well as several Carribean Nations). Hence my tongue in cheek comment about 25 cent, full service gas. We're the only nation that gets kicked in the 'nads by our enemies, finally goes kicks their butts, rebuilds their nation on our dime and then pays them full retail price for their trade goods once the war is over. (For a humourous take on this Read/see The Mouse that Roared and why Grand Fenwick decides to declare war on the US.
)And regarding the preservation of ancient Greek History (which the Romans were wont to destroy) and the advances in Math, Astromony, etc. All those occured well prior to 600 years ago. Since the decline/fall of the Caliphate the Arab/Muslim world has culturely stagnated/entered a "Dark Ages" much like Europe did after the fall of Rome.
I attribute the cause of both to the their respective religions (a good read on the subject is Terry Jones Barbarians . Especially the part regarding the upbringing/training of future sultans of Ottoman Empire. Heckuva way to run a railroad.)
But the parallels to the Dark Ages of Europe and the current situation in the Middle East are strikingly similiar. (Religious repression, Crusade vs Jihad, etc....)
samtechlan
Member
Scout26,
Perhaps the left uses "imperialism", "colonization" etc. in the traditional sense which I agree with you is superficial and, more importantly, incorrect. When anti-war conservatives and rightists use it (e.g. Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, the late Samuel Francis, Old Rightists, Paleoconservatives, Libertarians and other non-leftist anti-interventionists) they are referencing it in the Woodrow Wilson sense; which is to say a crusade to democratize or police the Middle East by force. This desire to intervene among such modern imperialists is present whether such intervention is in America's interest or not.
Many of us believe that the neo-cons do not put the interests of America first due to their fanatical devotion to the state of Israel. As long ago as the 1980's, before anyone dreamed that we would invade Iraq, Russell Kirk, the philosophical founder of modern American conservatism charged that neo-cons often confused Tel Aviv with the capital of the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk
Note that rightists critics of neo-conservatim do not charge the new imperialism as being driven by economic considerations or the oil companies, or Haliburton etc. That may be Chomsky's argument, it is not ours.
It is interesting that you cite the last 600 years as a period of non-productivity in the Arab/moslem world. You might be surprised that the founders of modern Arab nationalism such as the Christian Michel Aflaq would agree with you 100%. http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9354679/Michel-'Aflaq
The founders of modern arab nationalism argued that the arab nations declined when they were overrun by the foreign Turkish conquerors who came to the Middle East from central asia after being converted to Islam and who eventually formed the Ottoman Empire. That issue is still up for debate but that is their argument.
____________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
Perhaps the left uses "imperialism", "colonization" etc. in the traditional sense which I agree with you is superficial and, more importantly, incorrect. When anti-war conservatives and rightists use it (e.g. Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, the late Samuel Francis, Old Rightists, Paleoconservatives, Libertarians and other non-leftist anti-interventionists) they are referencing it in the Woodrow Wilson sense; which is to say a crusade to democratize or police the Middle East by force. This desire to intervene among such modern imperialists is present whether such intervention is in America's interest or not.
Many of us believe that the neo-cons do not put the interests of America first due to their fanatical devotion to the state of Israel. As long ago as the 1980's, before anyone dreamed that we would invade Iraq, Russell Kirk, the philosophical founder of modern American conservatism charged that neo-cons often confused Tel Aviv with the capital of the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk
Note that rightists critics of neo-conservatim do not charge the new imperialism as being driven by economic considerations or the oil companies, or Haliburton etc. That may be Chomsky's argument, it is not ours.
It is interesting that you cite the last 600 years as a period of non-productivity in the Arab/moslem world. You might be surprised that the founders of modern Arab nationalism such as the Christian Michel Aflaq would agree with you 100%. http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9354679/Michel-'Aflaq
The founders of modern arab nationalism argued that the arab nations declined when they were overrun by the foreign Turkish conquerors who came to the Middle East from central asia after being converted to Islam and who eventually formed the Ottoman Empire. That issue is still up for debate but that is their argument.
____________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
samtechlan
Member
Thank you for the infantile response. The neo-conservative movement is made up of jews, gentiles, protestants, catholics, religious folks and non religious folks. No one claims it is a "jewish conspiracy", vast or otherwise. Prominent neo-cons include catholics like Bill Bennet, catholic theologian Michael Novak and the late Jeanne Kirkpatrick. The fact that neo-cons place the interests of Israel at the top of their list is hardly a secret. In fact many neo-cons started off a liberals or leftists and changed their philosophy when the left turned against Israel in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Read their publications, Commentary and the Weekly Standard; read the papers released by neo-conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute. Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor setting forth the Neo-conservartive ideology:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html (Part of article excerpted below, sell link for full article.
"Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world."
By the way you probably don't know with your offhand comment about Paul but the basis of much of his ideology and political program is a school of economic thought known as "Austrian Economics". The two most influential proponents of this school happen to be two Jewish Americans: Ludwig Von Mises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Von_Mises and Murray Rothbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard. Ron Paul has repeatedly expressed his admiration and gratitude to these two great americans for their contribution to freedom in this country and Mises is a particular hero of his. The charge that he is an anti-semite is absurd on its face.
Marshall
Member
neomaz,
Don't worry bout it. Hell, it's just a buzz word. As for the descriptions of neo-cons, heck, after reading it, I might have to consider adding it to my sig line. Marshall Neo Con.
911 kinda put doubt on the containment thing. Add nukes/dirty bombs to that and it may have merit.
Yea, Carter and Clinton proved that. Guilty.
Guilty
Guilty. The UN is so effective.
Don't worry bout it. Hell, it's just a buzz word. As for the descriptions of neo-cons, heck, after reading it, I might have to consider adding it to my sig line. Marshall Neo Con.
911 kinda put doubt on the containment thing. Add nukes/dirty bombs to that and it may have merit.
Yea, Carter and Clinton proved that. Guilty.
Guilty
Guilty. The UN is so effective.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
The history of the USA is almost one large series of "terrorist" attacks. We might call them wars, indian uprisings, massacres, whiskey wars, slave uprisings, civil wars, draft riots, more indian wars, prohibition, union riots, student campus riots, etc. with each little battle representing someone who wanted something he/they they thought worthy enough of killing someone who was usually just trying to get by and feed their families but represented the power of our government of the people.
When you put the proper spin on it, everyone seems to nod their heads in agreement and tell Uncle Sam to "go ahead and do it" in the heat of the moment. Each time, our gov't defeats one group, they seem to grow a little stronger absorbing the energy that anger's response required to "defeat" those particular little band of warriors.
Maybe that's good. Maybe that's bad. Other's who are wiser than moi can and will determine the final judgement. All I know is, It just... Is.
(sing with me) I fight authority, authority always wins. repeat ad nauseum.
When you put the proper spin on it, everyone seems to nod their heads in agreement and tell Uncle Sam to "go ahead and do it" in the heat of the moment. Each time, our gov't defeats one group, they seem to grow a little stronger absorbing the energy that anger's response required to "defeat" those particular little band of warriors.
Maybe that's good. Maybe that's bad. Other's who are wiser than moi can and will determine the final judgement. All I know is, It just... Is.
(sing with me) I fight authority, authority always wins. repeat ad nauseum.
samtechlan
Member
It is a little baffling when neo-cons or their supporters are shocked, shocked at being called imperialists since some of them have EXPLICITLY advocated a modern american empire. See for example the writings of one of the leading neo-cons Max Boot in the neo-conservative magazine Weekly Standard and other publications:
The Case for American Empire
The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role.
by Max Boot
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/318qpvmc.asp
American imperialism? No need to run away from label
By Max Boot
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-05-boot_x.htm
Max Boot, "Neither New nor Nefarious: The Liberal Empire Strikes Back," Current History, Vol. 102, no. 667 (November 2003)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/boot.htm
Create a U.S. foreign legion
BY MAX BOOT AND MICHAEL O'HANLON
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/03/2552879
BTW I am only citing Max Boot because he is the most honest and forthright of all the neo-con intellectuals. I honestly respect his candor even while completely disagreeing with his conclusions.
Other neo-cons like William Kristol and Robert Kagan and other writers use words like "hegemony" over the Midddle East but the content is the same--they are advocating an American Empire.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_2_33/ai_75099634
Someone once said that the definition of a Racist among some Democrats seemed to be "anyone who disagreed with Jesse Jackson". Today the definition of an Anti-Semite seems to be anyone who disagrees with a neo-conservative.
____________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
The Case for American Empire
The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role.
by Max Boot
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/318qpvmc.asp
American imperialism? No need to run away from label
By Max Boot
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-05-boot_x.htm
Max Boot, "Neither New nor Nefarious: The Liberal Empire Strikes Back," Current History, Vol. 102, no. 667 (November 2003)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/boot.htm
Create a U.S. foreign legion
BY MAX BOOT AND MICHAEL O'HANLON
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/03/2552879
BTW I am only citing Max Boot because he is the most honest and forthright of all the neo-con intellectuals. I honestly respect his candor even while completely disagreeing with his conclusions.
Other neo-cons like William Kristol and Robert Kagan and other writers use words like "hegemony" over the Midddle East but the content is the same--they are advocating an American Empire.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_2_33/ai_75099634
Someone once said that the definition of a Racist among some Democrats seemed to be "anyone who disagreed with Jesse Jackson". Today the definition of an Anti-Semite seems to be anyone who disagrees with a neo-conservative.
____________________________________________________________
www.ronpaul2008.com
another okie
Member
I don't really understand the question. There was the planned attack on LAX, the gas line plot on JFK airport, the Fort Dix plan... There have been plenty of them.
If the question is why they haven't been more successful, well, all those invasive and repressive measures in the Patriot Act do in fact help our security, though whether it's a good trade is an open question.
Some intelligence folks believe that Al Qaeda is holding off on attacking the U.S. because they don't want to make George Bush popular again. (I doubt if a successful attack would have that effect, but who knows?) They are pretty sophisticated about western politics. Look what they accomplished in Spain.
If the question is why they haven't been more successful, well, all those invasive and repressive measures in the Patriot Act do in fact help our security, though whether it's a good trade is an open question.
Some intelligence folks believe that Al Qaeda is holding off on attacking the U.S. because they don't want to make George Bush popular again. (I doubt if a successful attack would have that effect, but who knows?) They are pretty sophisticated about western politics. Look what they accomplished in Spain.
I love all the mindless babbling about "neocons" being pro-Israel, when in fact Bush 1.0 and 2.0 are in the back pocket of the Saudis, not the Israelis. They aren't in love with every Arab despot the way Clinton/Carter are, but they certainly are closer to the Sauds than any other regime in the ME.
Reagan was the last Israeli supporter. In those days, we'd give them intel then Mossad would blow the head off any terrorist. Since Clinton, we give the terrorists financial aid instead of the special cell phone they deserve.
Reagan was the last Israeli supporter. In those days, we'd give them intel then Mossad would blow the head off any terrorist. Since Clinton, we give the terrorists financial aid instead of the special cell phone they deserve.
samtechlan
Member
Wait a darn second, what about the great outpost of democracy known as Iraq? We all remember the "Purple" election don't we? Purple fingers (or was it toes? Maybe it was toes the second time you voted) beign waved in front of every camera from Basra to Baghdad to Tikrit. It reminded me over and over of the Founding Fathers and our own revolution. I saw in those purple digits our own Jefferson, Madison, and Patrick Henry. And finally after its long nighmare Iraq was a democracy in the spirit of Ancient Athens.
IIRC we were all supposed to paint our own fingers purple in order to express our eternal devotion to Iraqi democracy but I couldn't find any purple paint that day so I rented the movie "Purple Rain" instead to express my solidarity.
Last edited:
Tecumseh:
My suspicion is the same: we would see no direct, immediate, or even medium-term increase in the number of terror attacks in the US or the West in general, were we to leave the Middle East tomorrow - completely. However, what we would see is a consolidation of power in the Middle Eastern countries of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afgahnistan, Pakistan - and further down the line, friendly countries like Israel, Jordon and Kuwait would succum to the Islamic power brokers currently railroading Iran and Syria.
Basically, medium-term we'd be looking at a very substantial increase and consolidation of Jihadists - Sunni and Shia - in the Middle East in much the same fashion that national socialism and Italian fascism found consolidation and expansion of power during and prior to World War II. I don't think there would be much sectarian infighting once a side gained regional control; they'd do a pretty good job of redirecting ire towards the United States.
There would also be substantial medium-term (5-10 years) increases in the financing of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Long term, this would cause problems for - if not us - our children, and the children of our allies. These groups - as well as others - would grow substantially due to funding throughout the world and the US. This would lead to attacks down the line: we do have very good security in this country as it is, and an armed populace. They'd have to be very thorough and covert to tear us down, and that takes time, money, and extensive planning.
And yes, I'm basing this off the 6-pillar version of Islam, which appears to be the most widely supported version practiced, if we're going on what's most readily visible.
My suspicion is the same: we would see no direct, immediate, or even medium-term increase in the number of terror attacks in the US or the West in general, were we to leave the Middle East tomorrow - completely. However, what we would see is a consolidation of power in the Middle Eastern countries of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afgahnistan, Pakistan - and further down the line, friendly countries like Israel, Jordon and Kuwait would succum to the Islamic power brokers currently railroading Iran and Syria.
Basically, medium-term we'd be looking at a very substantial increase and consolidation of Jihadists - Sunni and Shia - in the Middle East in much the same fashion that national socialism and Italian fascism found consolidation and expansion of power during and prior to World War II. I don't think there would be much sectarian infighting once a side gained regional control; they'd do a pretty good job of redirecting ire towards the United States.
There would also be substantial medium-term (5-10 years) increases in the financing of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Long term, this would cause problems for - if not us - our children, and the children of our allies. These groups - as well as others - would grow substantially due to funding throughout the world and the US. This would lead to attacks down the line: we do have very good security in this country as it is, and an armed populace. They'd have to be very thorough and covert to tear us down, and that takes time, money, and extensive planning.
And yes, I'm basing this off the 6-pillar version of Islam, which appears to be the most widely supported version practiced, if we're going on what's most readily visible.
Cosmoline
Member
This is all old news, me boyo. The KKK hasn't been a significant force since the 1920's. The "eco terrorists" are a joke that gets blown out of proportion to justify huge budget hikes and increasingly draconian federal criminal laws. The recent church burnings turned out to be a bunch of college kids.
horge
Member
I don't see what "US Imperialism" has to do with any of this "terrorism".
IMO, there's simply worldwide resentment over poverty, and a bunch of
demagogues have discovered they can harness it profitably by painting
the rich, powerful Americans as the Devil.
Democracy is not a prerequisite to prosperity, although removal of dictators
(those who exploit the America=Satan angle) is a first step to realizing, as
a people, that you have to carry your own weight, rather than blaming the US
for not giving you more dole-outs. That business is fierce competition, and
that in order to make money, you have to compete fiercely for it.
Take my country:
We ought to know better than most what "American Imperialism" is
(there are still quite a few living memories of our days as a US colony).
We have disaffected Muslims in our population, and a few provinces are
majority Muslim. And yet... when a referendum was held asking those
provinces if they wanted to be granted autonomy (to wit: a Muslim
existence, safely apart from a basically US-based Constitution and laws),
almost none of them opted for it.
You see, as poor as mostly-Christian Philippines is, for Muslims it still
represents better opportunities in terms of economics, education and health
care, than being stuck in an autonomous Islamic state.
I do have a few Muslim friends, and aside from dietary-religious issues
that have to be considered, they're great company. They are as patriotic
as I am, and they dream not of establishing a Muslim country, but of an
ever more prosperous Philippines.
IMO, there's simply worldwide resentment over poverty, and a bunch of
demagogues have discovered they can harness it profitably by painting
the rich, powerful Americans as the Devil.
Democracy is not a prerequisite to prosperity, although removal of dictators
(those who exploit the America=Satan angle) is a first step to realizing, as
a people, that you have to carry your own weight, rather than blaming the US
for not giving you more dole-outs. That business is fierce competition, and
that in order to make money, you have to compete fiercely for it.
Take my country:
We ought to know better than most what "American Imperialism" is
(there are still quite a few living memories of our days as a US colony).
We have disaffected Muslims in our population, and a few provinces are
majority Muslim. And yet... when a referendum was held asking those
provinces if they wanted to be granted autonomy (to wit: a Muslim
existence, safely apart from a basically US-based Constitution and laws),
almost none of them opted for it.
You see, as poor as mostly-Christian Philippines is, for Muslims it still
represents better opportunities in terms of economics, education and health
care, than being stuck in an autonomous Islamic state.
I do have a few Muslim friends, and aside from dietary-religious issues
that have to be considered, they're great company. They are as patriotic
as I am, and they dream not of establishing a Muslim country, but of an
ever more prosperous Philippines.
pcosmar
member
A good Video on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU
U.S. Counter-Counterterrorism Unit Successfully Destroys Washington Monument
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_counter_counterterrorism_unit
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_counter_counterterrorism_unit
- Status
