Liberal Minds and Homegrown Terrorism: Disbelief and Disrespect

Hmm? I don't think I ever said Bush created Islamic Terrorism. Hold on let me look. Nope, sure didn't.

What I stated is that we are being goaded like sheep to believe they exist around every corner, while pursuing a world strategy that breeds terrorism against us like rabbits. That is what I said, stop trying to place words in my mouth.

So you actually believe that attacking countries and lying aboiut the reason is fostering love for our country? You actually believe that???

Tell me how you would feel about a country that suddenly decided Bush was an evil dictator and we needed to be liberated, and they stayed for more than four years, bombing yoiur home and everybody you know? You would welcome more?

Like giving Afghanistan more foreign aid than any other country?

Most attackers were Saudi Arabian, in case you have forgotten.

Bartle,

Yes I did, and I am not sure what your point is? If you want me to be more specific, our illegal actions against Iraq have generated more hatred and annimosity against us then any of our actions in the previous 50 years combined, and I am including Vietnam and Korea.

A person would be lead to believe that there is nothing to worry about when it comes to homegrown terrorism.

Someone needs to understand how the London bombing of 7/7 came about and who were the guys behind it.

As for the exchange in the thread above, if anyone is unaware of the Global Peace Index (launched last week), here's something I seeded last week.

Global Peace Index

I don't live in fear. I do live in reality, though.

That's the fundamental Conservative obstinate and self perpetuating genuinely destructive blind-spot right there.
They believe 'reality' is a political and personal absolute. They own it and to differ or question or critique or protest is, in their estimation, a sign of madness to be scorned.

Transparent to all but the afflicted is the fact that politically, collective reality is elastic.
Subject to marketing investment it is also malleable.

The 'reality' you live in you chose.

It gives you what you need. Is this all news to you?

TB goes weird and kills every liberal on the planet, after burying a couple of neighbours and partying hard for an extended period you will look to further define your new perimeters and you will find an object that helps define you by your objection to it.

Please take your 'reality' and give it a good soak in the sanity of introspection just a nanosecond.

You're on your own .

Cling to likeminded, surround yourself with reinstators of your values, very important, define defensive political position.

There, I'll just drop you off gently back where I found you, in your 'reality'.

ThePef and others hit the nail (or several nails) on the head, Bodhi.

The terrorists we really need to fear are the perpetrators in the White House. When you have state-sponsored terrorism and a blank check to commit limitless atrocities in the (Orwellian) name of "freedom" and "democracy", the inevitable result is blowback.

Like the bumper sticker says "We're making enemies faster than we can kill them."

From The Nation:

The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims.

Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an "asymmetric strategy," in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets.

On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight."

This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values--as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon--is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated.

...islamic militant terrorists have been attacking the U.S. well before Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

And yet, the U.S. appears to be surviving. You can't have it both ways - either they're a serious threat to our nation's existence, in which case it's pretty hard to understand how they've been "attacking the U.S. well before Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq" and yet have killed fewer than 4000 Americans, or they're a bunch of incompetent wanna-be's who have been unable, for all of their attempts over years and years, to seriously threaten the existence of the United States.

You can't have it both ways. Let's use Occam's razor, and take the choice that is the most simple and direct - these Keystone Terrorists couldn't terrorize their way out of a wet paper bag, and the people who consider them to be a serious threat to the existence of our nation are willing to give far too much credit to the type of people who can't even manage to light their own shoelaces on fire.

Bart,

To believe that Bush is the cause of global terrorism plays right into the terrorists hands.

Bush may not be the precise cause of global terrorism, but his actions have led to an increase in terrorism, not to mention that he has given Al Queda a nice place to recruit and practice in Iraq.

...and the people who consider them to be a serious threat to the existence of our nation are willing to give far too much credit to the type of people who can't even manage to light their own shoelaces on fire.

They also seem willing to give up America, to defend her. It's an interesting train of thought...

Terrorists hate our "freedoms" and attack us to take it away. To defend us against terrorism, our President takes away certain freedoms we once had.

There people aren't idiots. They watch CNN. They know when Americans are angry, and they understand the impact each US death has on our people. They know Bush and company is shredding the "truths which are self evident" in the Constitution and they realize they don't even have to kill people anymore. All they have to do is "plan" attacks and we won't be able to @!$%# sitting down on a plane anymore.

You blame liberal ideology for "losing the war" when it's Bush's domestic and foreign security policy that "emboldens the enemy". Where is the difficulty is understanding this?

Look above, I just knew this was going to be one of those articles meant to inflame opinion, perhaps drive comment traffic and at some point the comments would drive more votes than the article itself.

Bod,

Do you really believe the stuff you spew, or are you just trying to get revenue? I for one donate all of mine, I wonder if you do the same thing?

peopel miss the fact that we attacked iraq because bush heard from god that 2 years later ossama would order one of his his loonies to attack the us and bring al qauda to iraq..

see the terrorists may not hae been there and saddam may have hated them and the only one that was there was under the protection of our allies the kurds and under the us no fly zone.. see bush knew that the war of terror woudl move there.. so we got there 2 years early to set up camp.

and though the only rebuilding project in iraq that is on time is our grand embassy, the iraqis love us to death.. hey were is my chocolates????

True, but they trained and planned in Afghanistan. Then Afghanistan refused to turn them over, choosing to harbor those they knew to be guilty.

What would America have done? Further, it isn't as if they has Osama in custody and could have simply turned him over. Considering somewhere around 50% of murders don't even get solved in America, I would think that a poor nation like Afghanistan would have even greater difficulty than that richest nation in the world. No?

Hi, Bodhi1

But what happens if they get in touch with some really bad dudes, and they figure that out. But they also find a way to alter the plan in a way that will result in mass destruction.

What if? What if, instead of getting in touch with some really bad dudes, these guys do what is much more likely, and simply give up trying once they figure out that not only is it going to be difficult for them to put their fantasy attack together, but that the amount of damage they're going to do by blowing up a pipeline and some fuel tanks isn't really all that great? What if? Three words, Bodhi1 - coulda woulda shoulda. What if, indeed.

What I find staggering is the lack of vision you guys have on the possibility that this plot could develop into something bigger, but get stuck in the mindset that you are being played.

Aw, you had to go there, didn't you? Lack of vision? C'mon, man - lack of vision? You mean that because I don't have some wild imagination, because I don't see the boogeyman lurking around every corner, because I understand that just because somebody wishes they could mount some sort of terrorist attack doesn't mean that they're actually capable of it, you think that I'm being played? Get real, my brother - somebody's being played alright, but it's not the people who use common sense to understand the difference between a mass murderer and some punk with a copy of Google Earth and a ridiculous daydream.

Brad, in all this back-and-forth ranting, you're making the most sense.

I'm not really sure why people keep rising to Bodhi's troll-bait. It works all the time, and hey, more power to ya if it keeps the hits coming to your column, but really...what do headlines like 'OMG THE LIBERALS HATE AMERICA AND ALSO MOM AND APPLE PIE!' accomplish?

The point of being a terrorist is to terrorize. Right? We ain't terrorized. And Bodhi -- and the Bush administration, and a chunk of people on the extreme right -- seem to be shocked and appalled and deeply pissed off that oh no, we're not terrorized!! Why aren't people terrorized?? Don't you know you should be terrorized? It's not working if you're not terrorized!! Uh, yeah. That's right.

We're not terrorized by a bunch of morons who are angry about Israel and dream about blowing up an airport, but can only figure out how to start a fire. O NOES. We aren't terrorized by a couple yokels who want to take over a military base by storming it yelling AAAAATTICAAAAAA!!!!. O NOES. We're not terrorized by the fat guy in the cube down the hall who really likes his red stapler and swears that someday he's gonna burn the place down. O NOES.

We weren't terrorized by an idiot with a tiny explosive in his shoe, but we still have to take off our shoes now every time we go to the airport. This doesn't make us safer, and all it does is create more fear where there was none. Tell me: who are the terrorists? There are ways to make airports safer, and none of them involve forcing people to strip.

Why the hell does the extreme right want us to be afraid? Why is that appealing? Why is the agenda of the terrorist a good thing to you people?

What are you on about?

I'm well aware of training camps around the world. I've followed news of some of the ones in Pakistan and Haiti for some years now.

That is so completely irrelevant to what I said above I find myself at a loss for the vocabulary to encompass how totally inapropos it is.

Did I fail to adequately express the sentiment that we are not terrorized by the incompetent plots going on in America, which are occasionally brought to light in America, and used to justify tighter security measures in America, and which are also the focus of Bodhi's article?

I'm on topic here. Come join me.

What's your point? You're one of the people who are running around here telling us that we're not afraid enough. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you're too afraid, Chicken Little? When you fear, when you are terrorized, when you try to incite fear in others with your claims that the sky is falling, you lose to the terrorists. You have allowed them to accomplish their goal, to induce fear in Americans, and you are berating people for being more courageous and sensible than you are. You have used words like "tragic" to describe the idea that people aren't frightened enough by some pathetic group of morons who don't even have a workable plan - I'll tell you what's tragic. What's tragic is that the terrorists have such an easy time succeeding at terrorizing 28% (or so) of Americans. What's tragic is that in a nation where once people made statements like "as for me, give me liberty or give me death," we now have people proclaiming "give up your liberty because I'm afraid I might die."

Bart, you need to find a nice cave somewhere and hide. Don't forget to bring enough supplies to last a long time. Terrorism has been with us forever and will continue to be with us for a very long time. We can mitigate its effects through targeted action (not blanketed action as in Iraq), world cooperation and setting directions that demonstrate our commitment to a better world. One that is free of violence and oppression.

Right now we are doing the oppressing so it is only natural for groups to lash out at us.

so you are suggesting that Bartleby emulate Bin Laden? Why so angry ThePef?

Bartleby, those aren't themes, they're assertions. And so far, they've been baseless assertions. Feel free to back up your bull@!$%# with some reasoned arguments at any time. We'll wait.

Where have I said you weren't afraid enough?

It's a rich vein of fear.

Tom, it's astounding to me how willing these unwitting people are to defend bin Laden and serve his purposes by bashing the will to fight his psychological warfare...

"these unwitting people" don't understand how dangerous the terrorists are?

thereby emboldening the terrorists because it means they're winning...

"The left" simply doesn't realize that the terrorists are winning? "The left" doesn't fear the these idiots, Chicken Little. That's what makes them not believe that the terrorist are "winning," except for that small minority of "Americans" who are, well, terrorized.

So while there's no need to rationally fear terrorism as a response to an individual survival instinct, there is a need for society to try to contain and limit it and whenever possible to prevent it from happening in order to save lives and property and to limit its effectiveness as a way to further recruit terrorists by having successful examples with which to refer and to and spread terrorism as an effective means of generating more fear which leads to more terrorism in a sort of perverse biofeedback loop.

That one's a bit convoluted, but you clearly describe terrorism as "...an effective means of generating more fear..."

Here's something one of the other fearmongers said:

You would think that leftists would wake up and smell the coffee at some point. Whenever and wherever Islamist radicals hold the levers of power, it will be the secularists and libertines who will suffer the most.

In other words, "the left should really be afraid, because the terrorists are going to come for them first." Here's your reply:

I concur with you Tom.

So, yeah, I feel pretty comfortable with my characterization of your point of view. In truth fear, both individually and collectively, shows itself more in actions than in words. When some 28% of Americans are convinced that they need to give up essential American freedoms in order to obtain a (dubious) promise of security from the President, they are clearly demonstrating their fear. It's not surprising that they believe that all Americans should be just as afraid as they are. If everyone else is afraid, after all, their own cowardice is justified, and they feel vindicated.

As to your two main themes, they're hardly worth addressing.

The Bush administration and its apologists are "aiding and abetting the cause of terrorism" by promoting an irrational and unwarranted fear of a criminal gang as posing some sort of existential threat to the United States on the same scale as that, for example, posed by the Soviet Union after WWII. That's what the terrorists want, and Bush and his apologists are giving it to them on a silver platter.

The Bush administration has spent the past six years fomenting the "disdain" that he is held in by an ever-growing segment of the American population through his inept management of pretty much every one of the duties he is charged with. That disdain isn't "myopic" by any means, as the damage done by this incompetent public servant will affect our ability to thrive for decades to come. If anything, the American people's "disdain" for this President is farsighted - what he's doing to us we may be able to undo once he's gone, but what he's done to our children and our grandchildren will affect them for their entire lives.

Actually, they're inescapable deductive conclusions that follow from premises put forward in this discussion if you want to get all semantical about it.

LOL! You are a piece of work. What are these "premises" of which you speak? You provide a lot of baseless subjective opinions and assertions, is that what you mean?

I would love to see your list your premises, the factual basis for them, and the logic you use to reach your so called deductive conclusions.

So far we can conclude that you are a blowhard from the facts at hand.

Actually, they're inescapable deductive conclusions that follow from premises put forward in this discussion if you want to get all semantical about it. Did you manage to pull that off, once, in your high school debate club or something? Deduction involves the process of inferring the conclusion. In case you've forgotten, the process of inferring involves passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former. Neither of your "themes" are inescapable if for no other reason that, as they are inferences from other propositions the truth of which is disputed, they cannot themselves be said to, of necessity, be true. And that would be granting that you had made some sort of logical argument from which these conclusions were derived, which you haven't.

In other words, they're simple assertions-- or as I like to call them: bull@!$%#.

So far, I've seen a lot of bloviating, fear-mongering, presentation of straw-man arguments, and circular reasoning from you. What I haven't seen is a chain of premises from which can be deduced your two "themes." When you finish with your entertaining and creative misuse of the English language, feel free to join us here in the world of meaningful discourse. Bring something to back up your arguments, as well.

(and just a note: "semantical" is much the less preferred term. "Semantic" would have sufficed.)

Henry, I have to agree with you on your root premise. The problem is radical Islam. Unfortunately you can't win it through physical action, unless you have specific targets that are a threat.

The best way to attack is to mitigate and understand the root causes. The big economic disparity between the ruling parties of most countries and their common folk, is a big one. Instead of lashing out against someone who has power by "Allah" they focus on an external suppressor. Who better than the US? We have to understand and teach them the truth about who their real oppressor is.

Is that all you got "I don't think so". Surely Bod you can do better than that?

he doesn't need to do any better than that, what he thinks is reality. he simply hasn't learn't to share.

Bodhi, do you realize that it is possible to make friends and enemies at the same time? What has happened is that the nation had a large population of non-violent people that disliked America for its involvement in the Middle East.

Now, we have three groups. We have more of those you mention, who would seek to help us stop violence. We have less people who feel the same as before, not helping, but not harming. Finally, we have more people who have taken their hatred to the next level - becoming violent.

This is not ideal. You see, we have made some allies and created some enemies. With each day in Iraq, more of the neutral group are becoming allies and more are becoming enemies. Our involvement is polarizing to a nation that had previously been one of silent detractors.

"I don't think so".

Could you explain the basis of that conclusion.

The fact that there are at least some good signs is not a logical basis upon which to conclude that the net impact is good. You at least appear to be adopting the falacy that if the news is not universally bad, it must therefor be net good.

Now if you were responding a claim that no one is making here that the US has had not even had any isolated successes then your response would address that straw man.

If you focus soley on what you see as good news and filter out all the bad then you will by definition have an unrealistic view of the situation. It at least appears thats what you are doing.

The analysis doesnt support your conclusion and isolated anecdotes dont change it. The CIA warns that the situation is worsening. Our military leaders for the most part when free to talk and not under political control say the situation is worsening. Most international experts believe it is worsening.

The fact you can find anecdotes is not a logical basis to conclude: I dont think so.

As much as the right seems to be assisting the terrorists I don't believe that we should actually accuse them of having the same agenda although they do appear to have many of the same goals. The fact of the matter is they are just totally inept when it comes to foreign relations and haven't a clue as to what to do. An example is of Bush single handedly reigniting the cold war.

I illustrated that point with the blockquote and the link. I look at it as the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept.

You fail to explain as to why a single isolated anecdote you have cherry picked outweighs all of the other evidence and analysis.

I look at it as the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept.

That is truly magical thinking if you believe that automatically makes the Iraq war not harmful.

Who exactly are you enemies in this ridiculous analogy and why in the world other than wishful thinking does it lead a reasonable person to agree with you?

Do you honestly believe that if you can find one example to support what you want to believe and ignore the rest, thats a raional way to approach such a complex subject?

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

Its a long thread but I have yet to see any coherent rebuttal of the findings of US spy agencies. I certainly wish that the Iraq war were not making America less safe but that does not make it so. Obviously not everything is going wrong and somethings are going well, but that does not change the overall impact as much as you want to focus on the good and completely filter out the bad.

Now if you have something other than isolated anecdotes and faith to back up "I dont think so", please share.

edit:

Security wise we should be fine or at enough of a stand still to let those in Washington work their magic and try to make the lives of those the DoHS is working so diligently to protect. (And there was no sarcasm there, I really think they're doing a bang-up job)

Should be:

Security wise we should be fine or at enough of a stand still to let those in Washington work their magic and try to make better the lives of those the DoHS is working so diligently to protect. (And there was no sarcasm there, I really think they're doing a bang-up job)

two shells--

maybe you should have said

heckuva job

just trying to help a brother out.

"Me bad at English? That's unpossible!"

Thank you!

thanks..........?

And while you're at it-- just to stay fair and balanced-- what direct impact have the terrorists had on your life?

Bodhi1, where to start? How about not being able to bring fluids or gel or lighters along in carry-on luggage? How about being required to have a "Real ID" compliant driver's license?

How about not being able to bring fluids or gel or lighters along in carry-on luggage? How about being required to have a "Real ID" compliant driver's license?

Funny, I thought we were talking about rights, not conveniences. Hmmm

OK, how about free speech zones then?

I was listing things from my daily life. I drive and fly more than I go to protests these days. However, I do consider it my right to travel freely - affected, since in addition to fluids you also now have to show government ID to fly. I consider it my right to know the law that governs me - and neither the government nor the airlines will tell you what the law is that requires you to show papers in order to fly, they just say there is one - affected. I also consider it my state's right to handle their driver's license however they feel like it - affected (though not my personal right). If your state chooses not to participate in Real ID, as Vermont has chosen, you will not be allowed to fly at all, nor will you be allowed into any federal building that requires ID - definitely affects your rights, I don't know how you would even get into a federal courthouse to testify if you were subpoenaed in that case. I also consider it my right to be secure in my papers and possessions from unreasonable search or seizure - affected in a big way. Ashcroft, not exactly a champion of personal rights, refused to renew the warrantless wiretapping program because he felt it had no legal basis, as came out in testimony during the lawyergate fiasco. I consider it the right of every American citizen to have a speedy trial and to know the charges against them (habeas corpus) - again affected though it hasn't hit me personally.

Been thru this before. You can travel freely, you just have to follow the rules about what you can bring along with you. it is not the same thing. Is it inconvenient? Maybe. is it really a violation of your rights? sorry, just don't buy it.

I don't personally agree with the 'free speech zones' but I do understand the need to protect the President and if that means setting up a separate area where you can exercise your right to protest I don't have a huge issue with it either.

You have every right to know what laws govern you. You may have to put forth your own effort to find them and understand them, rather then having them spoon fed to you tho.

As far as I know the states ARE allowed to have any license they choose. Now, when you decide to use that license for interstate travel, well that is an entirely different case. As to you not being allowed to fly. You will be allowed to fly, but you may be required to show something else as ID. (perhaps you should get a passport?)

I somehow doubt you have been affected in a big way by the warrantless wiretapping program.

Bodhi1:

I'm curious. How, in your day to day life, have your rights been effected? What changes have you felt as you go through your day?

Honestly, so far very little. There is an uneasy feeling that these extreme law enforcement measures will be abused by the FBI as has been done already. I will no longer check books out from my library. I feel uneasy ordering books offline and don't know if I'm just being paranoid, or if I will regret it in a few years. I hate the fact America is viewed as morally inept because we use torture.
And this is probably not fair, because Iraq used to have nothing to do with terrorism in the US, but the war in Iraq will cost ME THOUSANDS of tax dollars. No kidding.

And while you're at it-- just to stay fair and balanced-- what direct impact have the terrorists had on your life?

Nothing, I live somewhere where this is not an issue...I have no fear of terrorist attacks personally ever happening to me at all. Of course, we all had to see 9/11 happen.

I still resist the government's grab at my rights to read what I want, think what I want, do what I want within reason without their interference or monitoring. This is the @!$%#ing US of A. We used to be radically number one in the rights we give our citizens. We are no longer even close to number one. I refuse to secede that to the history books.

I just would like to say that I love your name!

Now that he's got 5 votes, I'll go with my previous assumption this has something to do with my last name? Somehow, I must be French, or maybe a pussy, maybe I want to surrender in war or some such? Well I'm not, and boo on all of you who voted for that comment. Lame.

Jimmy,

It probably has a lot more to do your name's similarity to former president Jimmy Carter.

@DaWeb, there was a big lawsuit where some rich guy with a lot of time on his hands sued to find out the laws about carrying an ID. He couldn't find out the law. That is wrong.

1. Plaintiff John Gilmore is a United States citizen concerned that the climate of fear that currently pervades American society is eroding long-standing constitutional rights. Today, he files this lawsuit because he believes persons have a right to travel by air without the government requiring that they relinquish their anonymity. No security threat is as important as the threat to American society caused by erosion of the right to travel, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the right to exercise First Amendment rights anonymously.

2. On July 4, 2002, Plaintiff tried to fly to Washington, DC to petition the government for redress of grievances and to associate with others for that purpose. He was stopped because he refused to identify himself before boarding the flight.

3. When he asked the airline officials why, they told him the government required that the airlines ask for ID, but they could point him to no law or regulation to support their demand. That is because no such regulation has been published. For the first time in this Nation's history, the US government is using secret regulations to restrict First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Vermont residents, along with those apparently of Montana and Washington, since their states are not planning on adopting Real ID, are not going to be able to fly anywhere even with their licenses. That is being able to travel freely?

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=206433:

The penalty if states do not conform to the act is that their citizens will not be able to use their driver's licenses for federal identification purposes, such as boarding an airplane or entering a federal building.

Richard Barth, an assistant secretary at the federal Department of Homeland Security , told state legislators at an April meeting that Real ID was designed to be voluntary

Why in the world should you need a passport to travel from one state to another? That's not what passports are for.

@Jimmy, I am guessing people are reading your name as Jimmy Carter-ette. I have no idea why.

@Jimmy, I am guessing people are reading your name as Jimmy Carter-ette. I have no idea why.

Ok, fair enough

DaWeb, there was a big lawsuit where some rich guy with a lot of time on his hands sued to find out the laws about carrying an ID. He couldn't find out the law. That is wrong.

I don't disagree with this.

I do disagree that blocking Air Travel is the same as blocking your ability to travel freely.

No, that is not the primary purpose of a passport; however, if you are in need of ID to travel in the manner in which you choose, and a passport will fulfill that need, I would recommend that you get one. pretty simple really. Fact is that a Drivers license is not required to travel either.

quick point. I agree that if they are going to say it is the law they should be able to back it up. I am OK with the government requiring minimum ID in order to fly commercial air tho.

I am OK with the government requiring minimum ID in order to fly commercial air tho.

Why? None of the 9/11 hijackers was here illegally. They all had valid passports. This 'security' measure would not have helped in the slightest to prevent 9/11. The argument could be made that we should be more careful about who we give visas to to prevent a recurrence, but the argument cannot be made that requiring drivers licenses or passports is keeping us safe from terrorists.

I don't recall my ever stating that I thought that a requirement to have a legal ID to fly would have or will prevent 9-11 or another 9-11. so why is it that you are now bringing this up?

Just like you are required to hold a Drivers license to operate a car, I am OK with requiring ID before allowing you on a plane. that is all.

Just like you are required to hold a Drivers license to operate a car, I am OK with requiring ID before allowing you on a plane. that is all.

The proper analogy would be that you would be ok with requiring an ID to allow you to fly the plane. Oops.

We don't require valid IDs for people to be passengers in cars.

No, we do make other requirements on them tho. Like wearing a seatbelt for example...

you are correct that the comparison to the pilot would be a very good analogy.

I still don't see a problem with requiring ID for passengers on a plane. I have yet to hear a single argument against it. (yes, I reject the concept that it removes the right of 'free travel')

The national ID proposal came from the 9/11 Commission, which is why I brought that up. Sorry, I seem to be mixing up the two issues sometimes of needing a license, and needing a specially designed license.

The 9/11 Commission report gave new impetus to a national ID proposal that has languished in Congress for years. House and Senate versions of intelligence reform legislation would establish a national ID system by creating federal standards for state drivers' licenses and IDs. But the 9/11 Commission did not analyze or describe how a national ID would actually work to protect the American homeland from terrorists. And that crucial question remains: would a national ID system make us safer, or just less free? Join us for a discussion about concerns raised by creating a national ID, including issues of individual liberty, homeland security, and practical viability.

http://www.cato.org/events/041026hb.html

As iarnuocon points out, the drivers license is needed to verify you've passed a test on driving laws, and is only required of the driver. The only reason I can think of for requiring a license/passport when flying is to make it easier for authorities to check the no fly list, which has turned out to be horribly flawed in practice.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

Bruce Schneier talks a lot about the fallacy of thinking that identifying who someone is helps to identify what their intentions are.

Oh - you are requiring that we prove why a new government imposition is bad. I usually start with the assumption that it is.

I would like to know what the argument is for having this requirement? There needs to be a reason to make new rules usually.

Oh - you are requiring that we prove why a new government imposition is bad. I usually start with the assumption that it is.

I would like to know what the argument is for having this requirement? There needs to be a reason to make new rules usually.

Now this I can agree with. I am for the government staying out of our business as much as possible. However IF (big if mind you) we are expecting the government to do the things they currently do. ie. regulate air travel, bail out commercial airlines, provide emergency information about those that died in a crash, etc. then you need to have some way to know who was on the plane in the first place. Additionally if you are expecting that government regulation to protect you as you fly, and recall that one of the ways they are doing this is by enforcing a do-not-fly list, you need to have a valid ID. There needs to be some standard. They have chosen one.

I am curious tho, would you have a problem if say Northwest Airlines decided that their business model was now going to be that only passengers with a Valid ID (license, or whatever) would be allowed to fly on their flights?

I am curious tho, would you have a problem if say Northwest Airlines decided that their business model was now going to be that only passengers with a Valid ID (license, or whatever) would be allowed to fly on their flights?

That is the policy. You are not allowed to pass through to the terminal unless you show Valid ID with your ticket, to prove you are the one using the ticket.

I don't know why they let Ted Kennedy off the do not fly list. Of course, I don't have any idea why they put him on in the first place. Like anything else the do not fly list needs to be judged on its effectiveness. So far I hear a lot about senators, babies, and peace activists being denied the ability to fly because they're on the list. And I've heard a lot about how, unless you're a senator, it's impossible to figure out what to do to get off the list. The list appears to be just names - no other identifying information (hence the baby problem). Right off the top of my head, I would expect that all the problems we've seen would have been obvious to whoever came up with the idea. Lots of people have the same name. Only one of them is a potential terrorist. So what happens when you put that name on the list? Trouble. As a regular traveller, it seems like it would be much easier to get a fake id to travel with if your name got put on the list than to try to get your name off the list. Because the whole system assumes that nobody has fake ids or real ids with fake names. Thus, it's very easy for the system to inconvenience honest people but it is of no use protecting you from a known terrorist. It just makes some people feel safer. Except for the do not fly list, which I'm obviously not a fan of, airlines were already doing all that other stuff before they checked IDs, which was really not very long ago.

It doesn't really matter how well an ID card works when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people that would carry it. What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited.

The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. And even worse, people will get legitimate cards in fraudulent names.

Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's licenses in fake names. And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents... all of which would be easier to forge.

...

What good would it have been to know the names of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, or the DC snipers before they were arrested? Palestinian suicide bombers generally have no history of terrorism. The goal is here is to know someone's intentions, and their identity has very little to do with that.

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#1

I'm so pleased to see a Schneier quote in this discussion.

(That's a more eloquent way of saying MEEE TOOOOO!!!).

And the piece of trite you published is turning into a comment fest. I hope you do at least the good thing and donate any money you get from this dribble.

You are correct, "tripe". Though as an adjective trite works as well.

Bod, given the fact that you are not giving your earnings to charity this will be the last post I have on one of your threads, since your intent is obvious.

Do you really think anyone is seriously trying to make money here on Newsvine?

As long as the grammar police are out, dribble should be drivel.

Trust me for someone who is in the military, we don't want to be in Iraq, not a single person I've encounted who came back from the sandbox has said "Well, that was a joyous deployment (which would be one extreme)" or even say "wow that was tolerable." It's always (as polite and respectfully as possible) "@!$%# whoever's in charge here and if I wouldn't get arrested for it I wouldn't do a damn thing while I'm over here." I agree with you that it's not the military as a whole that's the problem, but with every company/organization the leader should take responsibility for it's employee's actions.

And for the record, anything negative will ALWAYS give you more views and reactions than positive things.

Abu Ghraib was the fault of the media? You sure? I seem to remember some military involvement.

That 'mentality' has nothing to do with the media's relationship to the military. It is how all reporting is done. "Nothing goes wrong today" is not news. "Something's on fire" is news. Every member of the public who rewards news programs for this kind of behavior is responsible for fostering this.

...the media's mentality of focusing on the failures of our military, whether is is a failure of discipline, character, or obedience to the law, does damage to the image of the military.

Not really, Bodhi1. What does damage to the image of the military are the failures of discipline, character, and obedience. In this era of personal responsibility, let's put the blame where it belongs - with the people who dishonor our military with their poor behavior. Let's understand that, even if it isn't reported in the media, even if nobody outside of the military knows about it, our military is diminished. I didn't behave badly when I served, and I'll bet you didn't either. The United States military is well equipped to prevent the kind of behavior that tarnishes its image. Blame the messenger if you like, but the real responsibility for the image of the military lies with the people who behave dishonorably, and the leaders who fail to prevent it.

My point is the lack of stories documenting the positive changes and the progress tint the perspective in an unfavorable light.

That may be your point, Bodhi1, but that's not what you said. Here:

...the media's mentality of focusing on the failures of our military, whether is is a failure of discipline, character, or obedience to the law, does damage to the image of the military.

Notice how you claim that "the media's mentality ... does damage to the image of the military?" It's not the media's mentality, Bodhi1, that does the damage. It's the servicemembers who misbehave that are doing the damage. The media, to the extent that they actually report on that behavior, is doing their job. If you want to argue that "the media's mentality" (to be honest, I think you could have chosen a better word there, like maybe "practice", but I think we both understand what you mean) causes people to be aware of the damage done by those misbehaving servicemembers, and that it is preferable for Americans not to be aware of that damage, I think you could make a better argument. I don't think, though, that you'd be able to support the part about it being preferable very well. Personally, I already know that the American military is comprised of an overwhelming majority of "good apples." I damn sure want to know when the bad apples are trying to spoil the barrel, though. By being aware of what is going on with the military (who, I'd just point out, I employ), I'm more likely to be able to take some sort of action to try and see to it that it doesn't get out of hand. If the media's practice was to tell me only the good things about the military, I would consider them to be derelict of their duty to keep me informed about issues which I may need to act on.

Either way, though, Bodhi1, you can't (and won't, I think) deny that the real damage that is done to "the image of the military" is not done by the press who reports on the damage. That wouldn't make any sense at all. I can assure you, if you use your influence with Congress to force them to step up and take their oversight responsibility seriously, and to see to it that the military understands that dishonorable behavior is not going to be treated as a technicality, that American values are going to be reflected in the actions of our servicemembers, and that you will not tolerate any bad behavior on the part of American servicemembers, the press won't have any "failures of the military" to report on, and when the occasional situation pops up over which no one in command actually has any control, Americans will understand very well that the bad behavior is rare. If there were no "failures" to report on, the press would be powerless to "do damage to the image of the military," even if, as you appear to believe, they had some interest in doing so.

Repeated Focus on Perceived Attitude Highlights Right Wing Bias

The author here and many of those supporting the war present themselves as if they were psychotherapists and mind readers. It is bourne out in the title of this artle like many others. Instead of focusing on the facts they want to tell us how liberals feel and the "mentality of the press."

The appears to reflect the pushing of these complex issues away from rationalitiy and towards emotion. You clearly dont have a clue what liberals honestly feel and believe or what the editors of the NYT believe. You can certainly imagine it, but given you anger and bias its just a characature.

I recommend you read: Willing to War

One of the most common cognitive failures is also the most pernicious in conflict situations. People attribute the behavior of others to some cause, either to the context or their disposition, says Renshon. Yet "even when you know for a fact that behavior is dictated by situational constraints, you still tend to overattribute behavior to disposition." To illustrate, he cites a famous 1960s experiment involving three groups of students: the first group was required to give pro-Castro speeches, the second group to give anti-Castro speeches, and the third to act as the audience. Asked to assess the real political views of the speakers, audience members overwhelmingly rated pro-Castro speakers as more leftist—even though they knew that their views were randomly assigned.

This bias is so widespread and so empirically "robust" that social psychologists have dubbed it the fundamental attribution error. "In situations when you don't know for sure what the behavior is caused by," says Renshon, "this bias is even more pronounced."

The example of the NYT is illustrative. You have no idea what situational constraignts there in changing the front page for a new story. You have no idea what the decsision was caused by, but you assume that its due to bias.

The examples of the Times' liberal bias in the past is a reason for my beliefs.

Seriously? So, for future reference, are you going to use this episode as an "example of the Times' liberal bias" to evaluate possible future examples? Doesn't this kind of logic boil down to "I've already made up my mind, and I can't be swayed by new evidence, because the new evidence can't be valid, because it contradicts my old evidence?"

Bodhi1, behavior like this is the reason for the stereotype about conservatives being close minded and unable to change their minds in the face of contradictory evidence. If you use your pre-existing biases as evidence to refute common-sense conclusions, how can you ever change your mind about anything?

The real problem, here, Brad is that any right-wing bias that the Times might print is simply considered "reality" by Bodhi. Naturally anything he disagrees with suffices as evidence of "left-wing bias." He has no neutral yardstick by which to measure any actual bias of the NYT.

The difference between a claim of bias against the Times and one against Fox News is that ex-employees of Fox News have publicly detailed how Fox News begins by trying to fit news stories into a right wing slant, as a directive from upper management.

In the end, I could hardly care less. I don't mind news sources with a bias, as long as I understand what the bias is. You can learn a lot about the concerns of mainstream faux-conservatism in modern America by simply watching some Fox News, once you understand the filter through which they're running everything.

In the end, I could hardly care less.

That's about where I am, too. For heaven's sake, it's a business. Fox News is able to deliver a certain demographic to their advertisers. The New York Times is able to deliver a certain demographic to their advertisers. I choose where to get my news, nobody jams it down my throat, and I don't really give a flying f*ck if Bodhi1 or anyone else doesn't read the same newspaper I read or watch the same television news program that I watch. Apparently, the "right" needs some bogeyman to explain why everybody doesn't accept the same spin that they do, and they've fixated on the "librul media," while completely failing to consider the possibility that perhaps their views on every issue simply aren't the only possible way to look at those issues.

Having said that, the idea that anyone would claim that they think it's in any way logical to use their own subjective opinion as a way to "prove" that their own subjective opinion is "true" is mind-boggling, to say the least.

I note that 1) you point to an opinion piece (and yes, the fact that it is the opinion of the public editor makes it on point, but still an opinion), and 2) you neglected this quote:

TIMES publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint ''urban.'' He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means ''We're less easily shocked,'' and that the paper reflects ''a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility.''

If your version of conservatism includes abortion as a litmus test that separates true from false conservatives, you will no doubt find the NYT implacably slanted to the left. But then one wonders why your party is considering Rudy Giuliani as a candidate.

What I find interesting is that Okrent mentions the following sections in his confession of Times liberality

• The Op-Ed page
• the Sunday magazine
• the Arts & Leisure front page
• fashion coverage
• the Sunday Styles section
• Science Times

Strangely absent was any confession that, beyond the obviously social issue of gay marriage, any actual news content is intentionally slanted.

Probably most glaringly absent from your selective quoting was this:

But it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this.

[Emphasis mine]

So in case you missed it the first time (you have a habit of doing that, you know)-- "The difference between a claim of bias against the Times and one against Fox News is that ex-employees of Fox News have publicly detailed how Fox News begins by trying to fit news stories into a right wing slant, as a directive from upper management."

Of course, I understand that someone with an ideological axe to grind might fail to see the difference, especially if what they're trying to do is preserve the legitimacy of a news venue which has willingly and intentionally set itself up as a propaganda organ for today's mangled and schizophrenic "conservatism."

But there is a difference.

One way in which you see that difference is the Times reporting in the run-up to the Iraq war. No one could say that their reporting in that instance was "liberally slanted", especially when you consider how many column inches were devoted to conservative propagandist and administration shill Judith Miller's creative fiction, which posed as "news reporting."

So is there bias present in the NYT? Sure. Is it automatically to the left, when it comes to "hard news"? I don't think you've made your case. Is it institutionalized, directed from upper management, and part of the agenda of the paper? By light of your own source, no.

So thanks for playing, and please try again.

The left has a responsibility to take any threat to the US seriously but that does not mean that we have to overreact to every threat.

A serious problem that has been created not by the terrorists but by the right in that so much of what this administration has done has been clouded in secrecy, not for national security concerns but for political reasons. Add that to the outright lies and half truths that have been served up almost non-stop it is little wonder that the left considers the right more of a threat to national security than the terrorists.

Personally, I would like to see the country return to to moderation and cooperation between the left and the right and a combined well thought out strategy to protect our country and reduce the terrorist threat around the world.

You really have a hard time with making distinctions. very few people have had anything but praise for the law enforcers generally. People have been objecting to the overblown fearsomeness of half made plans.the politicizing of threat for fears sake.
Where you twist that into disrespect for investigators themselves demonstrates that your perception has an emotional base rather than a rational one. You truly imagine these people need you to defend them? You truly believe that efforts made in securing americans safety is an issue your boogiemen 'liberals' cannot contemplate and appreciate.

Pithy little tags like Bush derangement syndrome [google shows 177 000 hits for this gem, convenient little phrase to appease the ever diminishing faithful] are further evidence that views opposed to yours are considered mental illnesses. Sadly you yourself and the arguments you make are not convincing because on the level you work you are not interested in any other viewpoint other than your own other than simply surviving them with your prejudices dramatically self evident. i think personally you're full of @!$%# and enjoy being in a defensive minority but i at least provide a courtesy you do not in not presuming you're deranged.
I don't have your quite understandable bunker mentality.

Here's the thing, Bodhi: You want me to say "Good job" to the FBI, et al? Ok. Good job, fellas. Thanks. But the problem is that you think identifying description of this "plot" as "overblown fear-mongering" is somehow disrespectful to law enforcement. The two things are not at all tied together.

If you rob a liquor store, and get caught, I'm going to say "thank you" to the police. If the mayor then comes out and says, "Thank God the police stopped Bodhi. If they hadn't intervened when they did, he might have gone on a killing spree that would have seen thousands of our citizens killed!"; my disrespect for that statement in no way reflects on whether I respect or am thankful for law enforcement officers doing their job.

Claims that these guys were about to obliterate New York are overblown. Period.

Sure, they might have contacted some "real" terrorists. Sure, they might have managed to get some Al Qaeda funding, if such a thing still exists. And they might have realized all the flaws in their plan, and developed a better one. And they might have decided that a better plan was to drive a truck full of ANFO into the ticketing area. And given all these things in conjunction, they might have succeeded in killing potentially hundreds of people. These are all things that they might have done. They are in fact things that someone still out there might do. The question is, "How reasonable and justified is the fear over these possibilities?"

This administration has been singularly inept at providing an answer to that question. And it is not wrong, nor paranoid, nor unpatriotic to speculate as to why.

Unfortunately, Brad, these beliefs that the Bush administration is orchestrating these events has led the left to completely dismiss the efforts made to prevent their success.

Didn't I just say, and didn't you just agree, that the work done by law enforcement is exemplary? Come on, Bodhi1 - how can you turn around right after agreeing with me that the work is exemplary, and claim that I "dismiss the efforts made to prevent their success?" Honestly, Bodhi1, I don't mind you insulting me with the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" thing, as I know it makes you crazy rightwingers feel good (how'm I doing?), but seriously, I'm beginning to wonder if you even read what you write. It is this kind of disorganized, hateful, lashing out at "teh libs" that has led to some of the negative stereotypes about the "right" that only detract from meaningful communication. Fortunately, I'm not really susceptible to stereotypes, and I've seen you (and some other rightwingers) make some reasonable arguments, so there's no way I'm going to succumb to the idea that all you rightwingers are equally incapable of arguing beyond the talking-point, libs-are-teh-suck level. Maybe you could return the favor sometime.

No I didn't, Bodhi1. I drew a very clear distinction between the work done by American law enforcement agencies and the bullsh*t fearmongering done by the Bush administration.

Are they doing a good job or are they tools?

They are doing a good job. The Bush administration are tools.

Bodhi1, it is seriously disrespectful of you to attempt to put words into my mouth. I have told you how I feel, I've made it clear here several times. There's no need for you to twist my words to try to make it appear that I've said something I haven't. If you start from the completely unfounded premise that I hate America, that I hate "the troops," or that I am unpatriotic, you may feel the need to try to find a way to make everything I say fit your mistaken assumption (you know, sort of like the way you use your preconceptions about "liberal bias" in the media to justify your claims of "liberal bias"). Amazingly, Bodhi1, I've had a number of other people here do the same thing. Want to take a guess what they have in common with you?

Bodhi, you really do have an allergy to the English language, don't you?

you read everything that happens through that "hate Bush" set of filters, which allows you to see this not as the result of great investigative work, but as the propaganda wing of the Bush Reign of Terror on America. First, in what way has Brad said that this isn't the result of great investigative work? And secondly, how does the quality (or lack thereof) have anything to do with whether this incident was used or distorted by the administration in some sort of propaganda effort?

The two things are completely separate.

Obviously the Bush administration has highlighted this case because it was beneficial to them to do so. The problem in this particular incident is not the timing of the announcement (although the Bush administration has shown that it is more than willing to seize on minor news items to distract from particular low points in the execrable job it has done), but the way in which this was spun as a plot which would have "destroy[ed] John F. Kennedy Airport and a large portion of Queens".

That you keep missing that distinction, even when pointed out, makes me wonder whether it is intentional.

That you keep missing that distinction, even when pointed out, makes me wonder whether it is intentional.

That this "missing the distinction" goes on and on, over the course of many articles, makes me wonder the same thing.

I don't particularly hate President Bush, Bodhi1, but I certainly do hate what he's doing to my country. Frankly, I'm a little bit surprised that you don't hate it as well, knowing that you, like me, once took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, even if the enemy doing harm to the Constitution happens to be the President of the United States. As I recall, that oath didn't suggest that I evaluate whether or not I thought that the Constitution deserved to be attacked in a particular case, it didn't require that I only defend the Constitution against attacks that I happen to disagree with, the oath didn't obligate me to defend the Constitution against only those enemies with whom I happen to disagree with politically. It was clear to me when I took it, and it is clear to me now. I don't hate Bush, any more than I hate any enemy of the Constitution. I simply recognize the sacrifice made by countless Americans who, like me, took that oath to defend the Constitution, and took it seriously, and fought and died in order to preserve its provisions of freedom and liberty, even when they didn't agree with the politics of the Commander in Chief.

Hate Bush? No. Love America? Yes. Willing to defend the Constitution? You can bet your sweet ass. Not just in this thread, Bodhi1, but in every single thread, at the ballot box, and in the streets of my town, if necessary. I've made it as clear as I can. If you can't accept it, I don't know how else to put it.

Bodhi1,

You wrote:

I think you hate Bush.

What if he does? Its pretty obvious you hate liberals and democrats and me. You demonstrate again and again that it blinds your views and leads to your biased conclusions.

Of course, dislike or even hate doesnt necessary blind people as it blinds you.

You seem to assume that because you are blinded by your hatred, everyone else must be too.

You seem to be proud of your filters, dont assume everyone else has the same blinders.

What a colossal waste of resources though. It is of little comfort to the tens of thousands who die every year that they died to further the noble goal of government acting like scared little children instead of acting like grownups. Oh wait, that's actually not a noble goal. Your argument is that acting irrationally is human nature, thus we should expect nothing but irrational behavior from our government?

In that case, I want a pony.

Why is wanting a pony irrational behavior? Because a vest has no sleeves. Therefore, bicycle. Fnord?

Oh, and btw, I just wanted to say that this? So while there's no need to rationally fear terrorism as a response to an individual survival instinct, there is a need for society to try to contain and limit it and whenever possible to prevent it from happening in order to save lives and property and to limit its effectiveness as a way to further recruit terrorists by having successful examples with which to refer and to and spread terrorism as an effective means of generating more fear which leads to more terrorism in a sort of perverse biofeedback loop. Yeah, that's a total fallacy. It's known as the "false dilemma." In other words, there are more than the two choices of 1) "Do whatever humanly possible to stop anything that could remotely be seen as successful terrorism", and 2) "Don't do anything at all."

That rational middle is where most of us live on most issues. You hit the nail on the head, though, Bartleby, when you said Terrorism works on the same irrational principle resulting from an emotional as opposed to rational reaction to fear. The excessive vividness of 9/11 has apparently completely boiled away the ability of "the right" (or at least what publicly passes for it) to form a rational response to terrorism.

But the irrational response represent wasted resources, and a probable loss of focus on the truly threatening prospects which really need to be dealt with. For example, would you like to see 90% of our efforts focused accurately on true terrorists, or some lesser amount such as 10%-- while the other 90% is spread around to completely non-terrorist groups? Which would you think i smore effective at combating terrorism?

Terrorism isn't much of a threat. And all the fear-mongering isn't a rational response. The question is, who's really benefiting from all the hysteria?

From your first link:

It would take only one or two guys with a gun or an explosive to terrorize vast numbers of people, as the sniper attacks around Washington, D.C., demonstrated in 2002

Seriously, when the rumors were everywhere that the sniper was sent by bin Laden I actually got worried that he'd gotten smart and had figured out how easy it would be to terrorise America. Nope. Not yet at least. I'll worry about it when he does.

iarnuocon, good question "who's really benefiting from all the hysteria?".

There is money to be had with hysteria, if we follow the ever present dollar we are consistently led back to companies that are linked to the Bush administration and their friends.

What's really interesting to me is that at the time of the DC sniper shootings, I was working in the area, around the corner from where one of the victims was shot-- something like maybe half a mile away. Do you know how "terrorized" I was by it? Absolutely not at all. I was more in danger of being injured on my job than of being shot by that asshat.

Coincidentally, I also had to drive daily through the section of I-270, southeast of Columbus, Ohio; where the Columbus nutball sniper shot several people, while he was still on the loose. You know how "terrorized" I was by having to take that route? Absolutely not at all. Something like several hundred thousand cars a day blow through that area.

My point is that if you irrationally decide to alter you life because of some tiny chance that something bad will happen to you, you will live your life wrapped in cotton. You have to judge the odds. Any other response is simply dumb.

Oh, and if you're really paranoid, I suggest not standing near me at the next Vinemeet.

After hearing about the sniper day in and day out it got kind of nerve wracking. Well, particularly as I lived in Silver Spring, where his little rampage started.

Wow, you do like length, don't you?

Guess so. Anything else?

outrage is cosmetic, results are indicative of consistant focus. There have been no results, no convictions, the trail went dead when the strain was traced to a US military source. There's been attempts at whitewashing that source since but in real terms no progress has been made in years and 'what we don't know' used in the way you do is just another article of faith you lend your govt, which like most peoples Gods, is an invention that says more about your inability to deal with complexity than it does recognition of the possibility of improvement.
You think we're deranged but you also think your president is beyond criticism by sane people.

When was the last abortion clinic bombing? I'd call it terrorism if it ever happens.

Otto, many of those plots have been exposed and subverted over the years as well. And yes it is terrorism. Just as is anything meant to cause fear, acknowledging the fear is playing into their hands.

When was the last abortion clinic bombing? I'd call it terrorism if it ever happens. Successful, or just attempted? Because if we include attempts, then the last attempted abortion clinic bombing (or should we call it "an abortion clinic bombing plot?) as of 2004's data was in... 2004.

Prepare for Otto's waffling in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Here's some.

It's nice that Malkin did a "remember" piece which apparently couldn't of been written without hating on NPR, but as winsome pointed out above, which bears repeating:

There have been no results, no convictions, the trail went dead when the strain was traced to a US military source.

Why no anger at this?

It also wouldn't hurt to point out that Malkin is famous for outing bloggers, publishing names and addresses of war protesters so that people can harass them, calling the owners of U-Tube are bonafide terrorists, and digs the idea of interment camps for Arabs and Muslims. So I'm not too impressed if she only freaks out over an attack on media figures, of which she is one.

Do you know without a doubt that nothing is being done, that no agents are currently in place, that no informants exist?

The blogger I linked to covers these groups quite a bit. One of the things he looks at is the money trail, and has found patterns where groups that heavily fund the GOP have been tied to these terrorist groups. Could you even imagine the if a democratic candidate had ties to a company that had ties to extremists? We'd never hear the end of it.

A few things off the top of my head as well - The minutemen has connections with neo-nazi and white supremacists groups, but for some reason no one seems to concerned about this, in fact the minutemen have been supported generously by the right. The calls for profiling of Muslims and Arabs after 9/11 also missed the larger picture of terrorism, anyone that took a threat of these militias seriously would not push for a measure that leaves the typical American militia member - a white Christian extremist, out of the radar.

When I read about Islamburg, NY, I wondered why nothing was being said about this, why nothing was being done

But you are aware of it. It is being covered. The right-wing extremist groups, on the other hand, are rarely covered.

Then I thought that it might be because there is something being done and they don't want to give it away.

It's possible that the militias are well covered. We just don't know.

This doesn't quite work though. You can't sit and hate on liberals for their "apathy" when it comes to Muslim extremist groups, but then when it comes to Christian or Right-Wing extremist groups just shrug and say "eh, gov will take care of it". That would also be considered apathy, Bodhi.

If you're interested at all, a few books have come out in the last decade about some of these groups.

When was the last abortion clinic bombing? I'd call it terrorism if it ever happens.

The most recent bomb attempt was in Texas in April of this year:

An explosive device "which could have caused substantial harm" was found Wednesday in the parking lot of an Austin, Texas, women's clinic where abortions are performed, authorities said.

Southbound lanes of nearby Interstate 35 were closed as bomb technicians detonated the device, and the clinic, an insurance agency and an apartment building behind the clinic were evacuated.

(Source)

Wow, another long response from Stacy!

Guess so. Anything else?

Y'all really got to find a better rebuttal.

Wow, another long response from Stacy!

yes and it was a pretty good one too.

When was the last abortion clinic bombing? I'd call it terrorism if it ever happens.

well otto, how's that crow tasting?

More soundbites!
More talking points!
More baseless arguments!
Fewer supporting sources!
Oh, and could you try to use smaller words, too?

Guess so. Anything else?

Y'all really got to find a better rebuttal.

Nope, nothing else. I didn't read it. :-)

I also was not rebutting it.

Nope, nothing else. I didn't read it. :-)

If you don't want to read Stacy's posts, for whatever reason (I imagine it's because they make you feel very uncomfortable down there in your bunker), why do you feel the need to make glib comments?

Pretty pointless behavior.

That your casual skimmed observations are of such imminent relevance to all does great credit to you.

(I imagine it's because they make you feel very uncomfortable down there in your bunker)

Guess that is why it is in your imagination. it has no basis in reality.

I didn't read this one because so many of her other comments have bored me to tears. I didn't feel the desire to read this one.

I also did not feel the need to comment, merely the desire. Neat thing about freedom, huh.

Next time you're bored to tears, perhaps you could use a cloth of some sort, much more absorbent than pith.

Yes, attempted bombings of abortion clinics represents terrorism. It should be condemned (I'm not sure what it is I would waffle on).

Stopping an abortion clinic bombing in it's planning stages is crucial just as stopping Islamic terror attacks in their planning stages.

Now back to the question I asked - when was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed? People speak as if they happen every week, like it's an epidemic. I just think when abortion clinic bombings are used as gages against other issues, there should be some clarity about them.

People speak as if they happen every week, like it's an epidemic.

Woah woah woah!

Back up, and think about the big stink that is still being made after the terror attack almost six years ago... Almost as though it were an epidemic. I mean, we invaded two countries.

Granted, 3,000 dead versus a few doctors, or women, but who's counting? The deaths mean the same to the people that died.

Now back to the question I asked - when was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed? People speak as if they happen every week, like it's an epidemic. I just think when abortion clinic bombings are used as gages against other issues, there should be some clarity about them. Are you just not reading responses to your posts? This has been answered.

For every year between 1989 and 2004 (where the data from my link ends), at least one attempt was made. In some years, roughly an attempt every two weeks. The average for 1994-2004 is 9.2. The median for years 2000-2004 was 3. Stacy linked to a bombing attempt made last month. Those are just bombings and arson attempts. They don't include murders, attempted murders, acid attacks, assault and battery, death threats, stalking etc.

I'm not sure what it is I would waffle on

Allow me to point it out for you: People speak as if they happen every week, like it's an epidemic. I just think when abortion clinic bombings are used as gages against other issues, there should be some clarity about them. They happen more regularly than Islamic terror plots on American soil, and when it's pointed out to you, you simply gloss over it as though to imply that it doesn't happen very often.

Maybe I should have used the word "weasel" instead of "waffle".

Did I say they had? Nope.

Bartleby: The left is seriously misguided and are unwittingly in most cases allies of the agents of terror by aiding and abetting their international psy-ops campaign that the west lacks resolve, will, and determination in remaining vigilant against global terror.

Bodhi1: True...

Comment #1 and #1.1

Did you say they had? Yep.

Yes you are obviously bonkers, thanks for reinforcing Bodhi1's comparative sanity so succinctly.

But to dismiss the entire thing as a charade orchestrated to assist the executive branch in scaring the public,

This is the sort of thing the administration does. How can you believe someone who keeps lying to you day after day?

That's why I don't understand how you still believe them. They keep lying, and some of you keep falling for it. What will it take to get you to understand this administration is extremely corrupt and needs to leave the white house before anything will ever get better.

This isn't a left or right issue for me. I don't care what party the next president comes from as long as they are willing to do the best job for the country-and not for themselves. As long as they don't keep lying to me day after day. I don't care about left or right: I care about this country and getting it out of the mess that Bush put us in.

People that still trust them need to wake up.

You are so absolutely wrong on so many points I don't know where to begin.

Young Muslims in France riot and burn cars all of the time because they have a much more difficult time integrating with the shrinking and older European culture and society than in the US. Not to mention the racism and intolerance there. The US's domestic Muslim population are much more integrated and loyal to the United States than European countries.

You may be talking about some Muslim cultures, like the Saudi's. Sharia law is the law of the land there, eg don't get raped yest ye will get stoned, etc. On the other side you have places like India, Indonesia, Pakistan, New Zealand and Iran where the culture is much more 'Western' and moderate.

The more we have Muslims integrate in the United States, the better off we will be as far as domestic Islamic terrorism.

On the other side of the coin, we shouldn't let them force their culture on us. We do not accept forcing any American to wear a burka if they don't want to, we do not accept your Sharia Law.

Pimpzilla,

You seem to be lumping all of Islam together. There are non-violent spiritual non-political followers and they are completely different from Islamists, or political Islam.

It's even a little more complicated than that because there's about 6 different branches of Islam and they can be more different from one another than even Pentecostals from Catholics.

When you lump all of Islam together it's the same thing as lumping all Christians together as abortion clinic bombers.

@ Bodhi,

This is a very well written and thoughtful piece and I appreciate it. Islamists are actively recruiting and encouraging discontented and/or disaffected people all over now via the internet so although there may not necessarily be a direct link to AQ it doesn't mean they weren't a factor. I think that a lot of people, not just the left, don't realize what some law enforcement officers have to face every day. Of course the comments you've cited are rather extreme examples. Still, it wouldn't hurt any of us to consider all they do for so little pay.

There are non-violent spiritual non-political followers and they are completely different from Islamists, or political Islam.

See Turkey for one. Completely Muslim. Completely secular in politics. Much more secular than America actually.

Seriously? Have you watched the news lately? There have been major riots to keep the Islamists from being elected. Here's some random stories I googled on 'Turkey secular'. You can do that yourself next time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3192647.stm:

Muslim women argue that wearing a headscarf is a human right and a religious duty.

Secularists see the headscarf as a provocative political symbol, and have managed to get it banned from universities, state schools and government ministries.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9955573:

A Turkish court has invalidated the first round of last week's presidential election. The decision is a setback for the moderate Islamist party's candidate, Abdullah Gul, who was expected to win easily. The fear: too much power for a non-secular party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey:

Atatürk and his associates not only abolished certain religious practices and institutions but also questioned the value of religion, preferring to place their trust in science. They regarded organized religion as an anachronism and contrasted it unfavorably with "civilization," which to them meant a rationalist, secular culture. Establishment of secularism in Turkey was not, as it had been in the West, a gradual process of separation of church and state. In the Ottoman Empire, all spheres of life, at least theoretically, had been subject to traditional religious law, and Sunni religious organizations had been part of the state structure. However, usually state had authority over the clergy and religious law, even at the Ottoman period (e.g.many Sultans are known to change Seyhulislams, who do not approve state politics). When the reformers of the early 1920s opted for a secular state, they removed religion from the sphere of public policy and restricted it exclusively to that of personal morals, behavior, and faith. Although private observance of religious rituals could continue, religion and religious organization were excluded from public life.

Quite a bit different from America where our presidential candidates try to out-Christian each other and mingle their faith freely in their political speeches.

I think that both the left and the right fail to realize the danger we face with the Muslims. Islam is a dangerous religion. I say this because with Islam you are either Islamic or you are an infidel. There is no free will in Islam. If you decide to leave Islam, you'd better leave the planet because you become a marked man.

I think that both the left and the right fail to realize the danger we face with the Christians. Christianity is a dangerous religion. I say this because with Christianity you are either Christian or you are a heretic (Matthew 12:30). There is no free will in Christianity (Ephesians 2:8-9). If you decide to leave Christianity, you'd better leave the planet because you become a marked man (Revelation 2:4-5).

And when it comes to dealing with us infidels, the Muslims don't hold back. Some of them hate us enough to be willing to strap on a bomb and kill us. The ones that aren't militant don't do anything to stop it and that makes them accomplices in the crimes that are committed against non Muslims.

And when it comes to dealing with us heretics, the Christians don't hold back. Some of them hate us enough to be willing to invent nuclear weapons and kill us. The ones that aren't militant don't do anything to stop it and that makes them accomplices in the crimes that are committed against non Christians.

The longer we let Muslims infiltrate our society and influence our politics and culture, the worse off we will be with the @!$%# hits the fan. And that day is going to come sooner or later.

The longer we let Christians infiltrate our society and influence our politics and culture, the worse off we will be when the @!$%# hits the fan. And that day...is already here.

Oh, sorry, were you saying something?

Also tell me about how the Turkish "much more secular than America" political system has treated the Kurds since Ataturk.

That is an ethnic difference isn't it? It has nothing to do with secular/religious.

and what you call secular, I call military and judicial intolerance under the guise of secularism.

I call it secular. If you don't agree, then there is nothing I can say that will convince you they are more secular than America because it will all be more of this "military and judicial intolerance".

Bartleby, do us a favor and look up the word "secular" before commenting any further on this. You're embarassing yourself.

What Bartleby means to say is, "I would prefer not to."

Come on, man, get back to your roots! It makes this kind of argument far easier, and more effective in the long run!

Pev,

Exactly.

The toughest part is that so many right wingers sometimes sound like they are repetitive exercises in absurdist literature.

Bartleby, how is asking you to review the definition of a word that you are obviously unfamiliar with or using incorrectly in any way an ad hominem. I haven't said your argument is invalid because of some odious fact about your person. I've simply noted that you're ignorant of the meaning of the word "secular" (bolstered by your use of the term in reference to Kurdish society, for instance). When someone present an argument based on faulty understanding, pointing out the fault in their understanding cannot be, by any definition, an ad hominem.

If you don't know the meaning of the word "secular", and base your objections to Brian's post on that ignorance, then it simply means that your argument was incorrect and ignorant. On the other hand, if (as you state) you really do know the meaning of the term, then your objection was disingenuous, and your subsequent attempt to channel the discussion into a question of whether Turkish treatment of the Kurds is justifiable or not simply serves as a distraction. Changing the subject, however entertaining, doesn't say a damn thing about the secularity of the Turkish government.

So which is it? Are you ignorant, or merely disingenuous? (I'll happily entertain a third option, if you can provide one.)

...Unless he was referring to my allusion to the actual story 'Bartleby the Scrivener' as an ad hominem attack...

...which would really just melt my brain.

I'm both ignorant and disingenuous simultaneously. Well, glad we could clear that up.

Incidentally, I take offense to your condescending use of the adverbial descriptor "merely" when I was in fact "wholeheartedly" disingenuous. It wasn't meant as an indictment of your fervor so much as a comment on the general impact your disingenuousness has on Newsvine.

You will be hearing from my attorneys soon. I look forward to the opportunity. Make sure they pack a lunch.

You will be hearing from my attorneys soon.

high school kids have lawyers now?

wow

Bartleby, you kill me. It's like looking at myself at age 14.

That said, you will lose said lawsuit.

You can lead a conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think (apparently).

Secularism has nothing to do with democracy or oppression. "Secular" is defined as 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal [secular concerns] b : not overtly or specifically religious [secular music] c : not ecclesiastical or clerical [secular courts] [secular landowners]. Feel free to show how American proponents of secularism are somehow promoting oppression, simply by virtue of promoting a secular government. A country could be oppressive and secular, or free and secular, or anything in between and secular. You can conflate secularism and oppression all you want, but it's a fallacy to do so.

The only people I see here who are "not getting it" are Tobias and Bartleby.

In response to some of the things posted after my comment I will just say that I am certainly lumping all of Islam in together. I'm not saying I think all Muslims are likely to bomb a restaurant. What I'm saying is that as a whole, Islam is a dangerous religion at this point in history. There is a very radical portion of Islam that is focused on wiping non-Muslim culture from the face of the earth. There is a vastly larger population of Muslims who are not militant, but who are content to let the radicals be the face of their religion. You can argue against it all day long, but this makes them non-active or non-vocal supporters of the violent policies being forwarded by the radicals.

There is a vastly larger population of Muslims who are not militant, but who are content to let the radicals be the face of their religion.

You are still assuming this statement. Militant radicals are not the face of the muslim religion. So your thesis that somehow the majority is to blame fails from the start.

Why do you hold the majority of Muslims responsible for your myopic view of the relgion of hundreds of millions of people. If you actually paid attention to what real muslims would have to say you would know your assumption is false.

Although there have been some very rude and disrespectful rightwing commenters on this thread, not a single one of the "moderate" rightwingers have stepped up to bring their ideological brothers under control. Some of the same rightwingers are the first to call for the "moderate" Muslims to bring their ideological brothers under control. If we can't even expect a group of moderate Americans to "control their own" in the relatively very small population of Newsvine users, how on earth can we expect it from an entirejavascript:void(postComment())
javascript:void(postComment()) religion of a billion people?

...how on earth can we expect it from an entirejavascript:void(postComment())
javascript:void(postComment()) religion of a billion people?

...how on earth can we expect it from an entire religion of a billion people?

ah response to source of quoted primaries from the first paragraph? veracity?

Whenever and wherever Islamist radicals hold the levers of power, it will be the secularists and libertines who will suffer the most.

The same can be said of radicals of any religion - including yours.

Whenever and wherever Islamist radicals hold the levers of power, it will be the secularists and libertines who will suffer the most.

I'm not sure what you mean by Islamist radicals. The secularists in Turkey seem to do just fine in a completely Muslim country.

Henry,

Really? In America we are imprisoning people for their faith? We are executing women who have been raped? We are planning to nuke Israel off the map? We are supporting terrorist bombers? We are trying to establish sharia law?

Henry, you're a smart guy. Don't play the Rosie O'Donnell moral equivalency game. It's way beneath you. Hate Christianity if you wish, but please check out your current events.

Brian,

Exactly. The secularists in Turkey are not Islamist radicals. (The term "Islamist," by the way was suggested by moderate Muslims as a way to differentiate between themselves and the militant radicals who have hijacked their religion.)

In America we are imprisoning people for their faith? No, we send them to Cuba.

We are executing women who have been raped? No, but politicians recently eliminated a potentially life-saving procedure (partial-birth abortion) from use when women get pregnant. Not exactly a loving law.

We are planning to nuke Israel off the map? No, now that Afghanistan and Iraq are off the map - Our sights are on Iran now.

We are supporting terrorist bombers? Yes.

We are trying to establish sharia law? No, but you are trying to establish a Christian theocracy. That is just as bad.

That said, your response had nothing to do with my comment at all. Read. Really.

We are executing women who have been raped?

Actually, the mindset that is based in is not that different, just the outcome is. Both are based in an idea that women that are raped must have brought it upon themselves and should be punished. In America, we shame them in public for being irresponsible drunken sluts that tempted poor innocent boys to rape them. In some places in the Middle East, they stone them. But the idea behind both of these actions is the same, both are motivated by a deep hatred of women's sexuality that can usually be traced back to religious origins.

There was just a case in America where a young woman was gang raped at a party, and even though there are three witnesses to it, the case will not go to trial because apparently those three female witnesses are not enough. How is that really different from the "Women need four male witnesses in order to prosecute rape" that they have in the middle east?

Not that this excuses any act of violence on women anywhere, but I'd pause a second and look at your own culture before tooting the "Hey, we may beat and rape our women, but at least we don't kill them!" horn.

I'm not sure what you mean by Islamist radicals. The secularists in Turkey seem to do just fine in a completely Muslim country.

But I've heard from Christians, and they don't.

A little more detail please?

Here's one example of Christians being persecuted in Turkey ...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007938.php

Well Jesus Christ if I may say so myself. Jihadist's persecuting Christians? Who has ever heard of such a thing?

I wish more was said about the fact that the Darfur genocide is perpetuated by radical Islamists against Christians.

I wish more people would decide that either we help people or we do not.

Black or white. Gay or straight. Christian or Muslim. None of that matters. Either mass murder is wrong or it is not. The same goes for our foreign policy. Calling it a war doesn't make it alright to murder innocent people. The same goes for death row. Murdering a murderer isn't alright.

That 70% of the American public are in league with the 'psy-ops of bin Laden' shows only how much we have in common and how easy a mutual agreement could be. ..Now if we could just find him.

psy-ops of bin Laden

He has psychic powers now? ;)

Wikipedia's definition of psy-ops:

Psychological Operations (PSYOP,PSYOPS) are techniques used by military and police forces to influence a target audience's emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and behavior. Target audiences can be governments, organizations, groups, and individuals, and are used in order to induce confessions, or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives. These are sometimes combined with black operations or false flag tactics.

This concept has been used by military institutions throughout history, but it is only since the twentieth century that it has been accorded the organizational and professional status it enjoys now.

I'm not sure if anything bin Laden does qualifies under that definition.

During the Waco Siege, the FBI and BATF conducted psychological operations on the men, women and children inside the Mount Carmel complex. This included using loud speakers to play sounds of animals being slaughtered, drilling noises and clips from talk shows about how David Koresh was much hated. In addition, very bright, flashing lights were used at night.

I'm definitely sure he hasn't done anything like that.

You are aiding and abetting the will of the terrorists.

actually terrorists only win if they succeed in terrorizing someone.

get a clue.

Admit it, Bartleby, you're actually channeling Joe McCarthy's ghost, right now, aren't you? Waaahhh!!! They could be anywhere! They could be anyone Waaahhh!!! Myopia of the Left! Waaahhh!!!

It's like watching a Chatty Cathy doll pull its own string.

I think somebody needs to drink a warm glass of milk and go to bed.

I am being duped by looking up a definition on Wikipedia? Seriously? The definition includes the word government. If you don't like that definition, go to the wikipedia page and edit it yourself and fight it out with whoever posted that definition. I looked up some other pages as well. ALL of them define it as a military operation. None of them seem to include terrorist activities in their definition. Is everybody wrong but you? Why would that be? bin Laden may have goals, but that doesn't mean that his activities necessarily count as psy-ops.

http://www.psywarrior.com/psyhist.html:

Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals. Used in all aspects of war, it is a weapon whose effectiveness is limited only by the ingenuity of the commander using it.

What information is bin Laden getting out to western audiences that is supposed to be influencing us? A bomb is not information. Hence, not a psy-op.

Oh my God, Brian! Bin Laden has gotten to Wikipedia! What's next, Merriam Webster?!!??

Thank God, we still have Conservapedia to save us! (and here's the GOOD news, Bartleby: psy-ops is undefined in Conservapedia. You can make the word mean anything you want it to mean! just like you do with the rest of the English language!!)

Resolve? Weakened wills? Never surrender. more like Churchill.
As they say in downtown Baghdad, all politics is local.

Bartleby - Psy-ops. Would that be what Bush used on us when he lied us into war?