Olbermann Rips Bush a new arsehole

[MRT144]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Fighting al Qaeda where they aren't, while letting two equally or more dangerous enemies go nuke, is really effective at preventing attacks in the US. I'm going to go across San Diego and spray somebodies house for cockroaches. When I come back, and I don't notice any cockroaches in my house, that will prove my theory that spraying for cockroaces across town prevented them from infesting my house.

I would like to buy that rock!

[Dinner]

You'll have to talk to Drake then since he is the one smoking it.

[MRT144]

bear patrol

[Drake Tungsten]

Given the administration's tendency to decry all insurgent actions and paint them with the same bruch (they're too PC to just say "all them ragheads are the same"), it's consistent to label them all terrorist acts.

Since when do you toe the administration line?

Having our military capacity slowly bled out to serve as targets, training exercises, and recuiting tools really isn't relevant to dealing with al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups.

I didn't really argue either way on that question. I was just suggesting that most people are more willing to accept the deaths of military personnel engaged in combat than they are of civilians in their offices.

Fighting al Qaeda where they aren't, while letting two equally or more dangerous enemies go nuke, is really effective at preventing attacks in the US.

I think you're oversimplifying things far too much. True, we aren't really fighting the Al Qaeda leadership in Iraq. However, Iraq has become a magnet for terrorist groups, both affiliated with Al Qaeda and not, so I think our presence there is doing something to distract and possibly kill terrorists who might otherwise be involved in attacks elsewhere around the world. How much we are achieving is the real question, along with whether or not the benefits to us outweigh the costs. I would argue that they don't, but I'm really not informed enough on the situation to make that determination with any sort of authority.

so pearl harbor wasnt actually a declaration or act of war, it was an act of terrorism?

Pearl Harbor was committed by a state actor, so it was an act of war. The American public certainly viewed it as a more heinous act than later Japanese attacks because it happened during peacetime.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

so pearl harbor wasnt actually a declaration or act of war, it was an act of terrorism?

Pearl Harbor was committed by a state actor, so it was an act of war. The American public certainly viewed it as a more heinous act than later Japanese attacks because it happened during peacetime.

Too bad the American public are filled with idiots that just look at the fact we got attacked, not who did, where, and why.

I fail to see the difference of being attacked in peacetime and war whether by a state or by terrorists. the net impact is the same; dead americans, and pissed off americans.

[Drake Tungsten]

I fail to see the difference of being attacked in peacetime and war whether by a state or by terrorists. the net impact is the same; dead americans, and pissed off americans.

That's fine. All I'm saying is that many people do think there is a difference between attacks during peacetime and those during war.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I fail to see the difference of being attacked in peacetime and war whether by a state or by terrorists. the net impact is the same; dead americans, and pissed off americans.

That's fine. All I'm saying is that many people do think there is a difference between attacks during peacetime and those during war.

I know thats all youre saying and its obvious to everyone. I think the bigger issues is do we call it terrorism if we dont see attacks coming? is that where people make the difference?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

MRT has a point. AQ had declared a state of war against the US even if we didn't recognize it or put ourselves on a footing to deal with it in terms of war. The Japanese fully intended to decalre war but were fubar'd and didn't delvier their proclamation of war until after pearl harbor.

Regardless a sneak attack against troops or civilians is a rallying cry. Much worse though in my opinion if premeditated against civlians. Rationales go through peoples minds that the military sign up for the possibility of being in a shooting conflict (even in times of peace) whiel civilians never expect such outcomes.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think we consider it terrorism if we don't see an ample justification for the attacks. If you're an Iraqi Sunni insurgent attacking an American military that invaded your country, then I'll probably consider your actions justified even if I don't agree with them. If you're an Al Qaeda guy bombing American soldiers in their housing complex in Saudi Arabia (a country that invited US troops in), on the other hand, I'm probably not going to be so accepting of your justification. And I'm really not going to buy your excuses if you're intentionally targeting civilians.

The difference in the viewing of attacks during wartime and peacetime is related to this, I think. Attacks are more accepted in a time of war, as the very fact that you are at war provides a blanket justification for attacking your enemy.

[Ramo]

Oh, I see. You are saying attacks on soldiers and sailors in peace are no different from attacks on soldiers and sailors in war.

Nope, try again. I'm saying that attacks on American interests don't magically become irrelevant just because we turn regions into full-blown war zones.

True, we aren't really fighting the Al Qaeda leadership in Iraq. However, Iraq has become a magnet for terrorist groups, both affiliated with Al Qaeda and not, so I think our presence there is doing something to distract and possibly kill terrorists who might otherwise be involved in attacks elsewhere around the world.

This has always been a silly fantasy. By all reasonable accounts, the war in Iraq is fueling militancy among Muslims, increasing the number of Islamist militants. This is indicated by the massive increase in world-wide militant actions since the invasion (as has been documented, i.e. by the State Dept) and the even more massive drop off in approval of the US in the Islamic world. The relative insignificance of foreign fighters within the Sunni Arab insurgency (which has been quantified, i.e. by the number of arrests) clearly demonstrates that "draining the swamp" ain't particularly effective as a strategy.

[Drake Tungsten]

"Draining the swamp" by its very nature was a strategy that would take decades to bear fruit. Judging its success or lack thereof five years in is ridiculous...

[Ramo]

The difference in the viewing of attacks during wartime and peacetime is related to this, I think. Attacks are more accepted in a time of war, as the very fact that you are at war provides a blanket justification for attacking your enemy.

That's a totally arbitrary distinction. OBL considered us occupiers in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. We were seen as supporting secular client regimes with our cash, weapons, and military presence. The only distinction in this respect with Iraq is, again, the magnitude of the conflict.

[Drake Tungsten]

OBL considered us occupiers in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.

OBL isn't a state actor. As such, few people really care if he thinks American troops are occupying Saudi Arabia and Yemen when the actual leaders of those states don't...

The only distinction in this respect with Iraq is, again, the magnitude of the conflict.

In Iraq, several states (US, UK, etc.) invaded another state (Iraq) to overthrow its government and then occupied its territory. It's quite a bit different from the US presence in Saudi Arabia.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I think we consider it terrorism if we don't see an ample justification for the attacks. If you're an Iraqi Sunni insurgent attacking an American military that invaded your country, then I'll probably consider your actions justified even if I don't agree with them. If you're an Al Qaeda guy bombing American soldiers in their housing complex in Saudi Arabia (a country that invited US troops in), on the other hand, I'm probably not going to be so accepting of your justification. And I'm really not going to buy your excuses if you're intentionally targeting civilians.

The difference in the viewing of attacks during wartime and peacetime is related to this, I think. Attacks are more accepted in a time of war, as the very fact that you are at war provides a blanket justification for attacking your enemy.

Do Americans wait for Al Qaeda operatives to be in their housing complexes in locations deemed their home base of operations ? Why would that be in our benefit? Why would we wait for them to cross over into afghanistan from pakistan to attack them?

I just think its bizarre that we are getting bent out of shape because people dont play the rules we do, and then we go and contradict much of what we state we believe in as right and wrong through semantics arguements about "enemy combatants" and terrorism vs. war.

[Ramo]

"Draining the swamp" by its very nature was a strategy that would take decades to bear fruit. Judging its success or lack thereof five years in is ridiculous...

There has been a severe increase in terrorist attacks due to our occupation of Iraq. The number of people involved has been radically increased. This again, can be demonstrated by the State Dept's survey on the number of terrorist attacks and the simple fact that foreign fighters are a minor element of the Iraqi insurgency, and therefore account for a relatively minor portion of the terrorist attacks in Iraq - where the bulk of the increase has been. It's demonstrated by the impression that people in the Islamic world have of us. The "draining the swamp" position is patently absurd without any basis in reality.