Beslan in America? You Connect the Dots

The reaction, and ensuing over-reaction scare me.

And thank you for proving how effective this sort of attack would be in achieving the goals of the folks perpetrating them.

They aren't soldiers, this isn't a war - they are criminals, and the minute you give them any more status than that you legitimate them.

War on terror? Do you really trust your government to wage a war on anything? God help us all if the war on terror is even half as effective as the "war on drugs." Bin Laden and company would like nothing better than to elicit another senseless violent response from us, and Bush and company would love nothing better than another excuse to pour a few more billion dollars into the defense industry. Ever wonder where that money ends up?

So in the event of such an attack, who would you propose we attack with this "swift, deadly and extremely violent" response? You know it wouldn't be Saudi Arabia, home of al Quaeda and the whole sunni movement. Iraq again? Why not, it would be just as logical as the first time. No, you'd likely buy into the rhetoric designed to make you support war against Iran, since obviously their Shi'ia regime has nothing better to do than clandestinely support their sworn enemies and help them to establish a global sunni empire, right?

Man, this comment is just making me really frustrated. Life is not this simple.

What about all of the American arms in the hands of al quaeda and taliban and the various other paramilitary organizations we've armed over the years? So what, should we bomb washington, too?

And yeah there sure is a lot of tension between the US and Iran ever since we took out their democratically appointed leader and placed a dictator in his place. Those silly Iranians went and overthrew him and installed a fundamentalism regime and for some reason they still don't like us. Funny how that works out.

What does that have to do with terrorist attacks in the US? Al Queda is Sunni, not Shia, and Iran doesn't want to see them succeed anymore than Saddam did.

War criminals are people who use their legitimate authority in time of war to perpetuate attacks against illegal targets. Terrorist groups cannot be war criminals because they lack legitimate authority. I know the word feels nice rolling off your tongue and gives you that warm righteous-fury feeling inside, but "war criminal" is not the proper term to describe what they are.

They are criminals.

To call them anything else is to legitimize them to a degree that they'd simply love to see.

Osama would be laughing into his breakfast cereal if Bush managed to convince the dumb rednecks in this country to go after al queda by attacking iran, their enemy. It's all the same to bush, because he gets 3 cents per bullet fired - probably per bullet fired on each side. But if you have some indignation you'd like to vent, I'd really suggest learning who it should be vented towards.

And you're right, Osama did have two stated goals with 9/11 - he wanted to destabilize the oil market, causing a great spike the price of oil, because he has money in the oil industry. And he wanted the US to pull their troops out of Saudi Arabia. Both happened immediately after 9/11. Whose goals are being accomplished?

And, again, who else stands to gain from a boom in the oil industry? Hint: it's our president and the various oil-industry lobby groups that got filthy rich when oil tripled in price.

Your intention can indeed be the destruction of terrorism, that's noble - but you seem to be grieviously ill-informed as to the efficacy of a swift, violent reprisal, especially if you're thinking of aiming it at Iran. C'mon man, do your reading!

According to your reasoning Osama and Bush are batting for the same team. Pull you head out of the oil and take a look around. You are confusing battles in the Cold War with battles in the current war.

The fact is that, by the Iranian government's own research, a full 80% of the population does not support the current regime--a regime which has sworn itself to the destruction of other nations and peoples.

Your preconceived notion that Sunni and Shia cannot share common goals is also flat wrong. They fully believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least until that enemy is defeated.

I can give you many examples of Sunni and Shia working together. Let's pick one from each end of the spectrum. First, we have Iran's leaders giving safe haven to known AlQueda terrorists, including Bin Laden's brother as well as their providing training, weapons, and technology in attempts to fuel a civil war and kill as many of our troops with armour piercing IED's as they can, in addition to the civilian casualties they have purposely set out to inflict on the Iraqi civilian population.

Now, on the other hand we have both Sunni and Shia vowing to fight Al Queda together and rid their country of them following the Sheik's assassination earlier this week. This follows a trend that has been growing in-country, though it is little reported.

Also little reported are the successes throughout the rest of the country building schools, roads, and other infrastructure since the news dogs stay in Anbar and Bagdad--which the bad guys also know to go to for the most impact in the propaganda wars.

I've done my reading...and lived it.

Do you think the fight in Iraq will in any way, help prevent the scenario you describe? Is it really making us safer, or might our resources be put to better use against threats such as these?

Rhetorical questions, Jim?

Including several that were created by attacking the wrong person, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. You can't fight everyone everywhere: that's the big mistake Hitler and Napoleon both made. Dispersion leads inevitably to weakness, as any study of military history will clearly show. And sometimes tactical or even strategic retreat is the right answer, not faux-manly chest beating and spittle inflected rants about "cutting and running."

History will be left to decide if it was the wrong person, time and place. And we are not fighting everyone everywhere, just two places currently. Other countries are helping by fighting through intel within their own borders. But, you can't leave one job unfinished and consider yourself ready to take on whatever the next may be.

Strategic retreat is only used when you are in need of regrouping before proceeding. We don't need to regroup. We need to finish the job.

Study of military history clearly shows that leaving before the work is done is an invitation to disaster on a bloody human scale. Witness Vietnam and Cambodia after that "strategic retreat". We can't afford to "cut and run" or "strategically retreat" for our own security's sake and for the sake of the millions of Iraqi that would surely be slaughtered in the resulting blood bath.

Whether we got there for good reason, bad reason, or made up reason, the fact is we are there and we bear the responsibility for protecting the innocents and leaving them to fend for themselves would be the most irresponsible action possible.

A study of history says, "don't try to invade Afghanistan"...

History says the US left the Kurds out to dry after the 1st Iraq war; what has the US done for 'em lately?

Whether we got there for good reason, bad reason, or made up reason, the fact is we are there and we bear the responsibility for protecting the innocents and leaving them to fend for themselves would be the most irresponsible action possible.

Yes my friend, I too lug about the White man's burden. If only we could Christianize these Heathens and show them the light. (Where's Eric? Here is a great place for a rambling polemic about the evils of Amerika and the petit bourgeoisie... come on mang, you know I love ya... I only make fun of you 'cause I admire your strength...)

Study of military history clearly shows that leaving before the work is done is an invitation to disaster on a bloody human scale

Study of military history also clearly shows that not retreating and regrouping from a lost cause or an unrealistic objective leads to bloody failure as well. Witness Napoleon's march on Moscow, Stalingrad, and even Hannibal's invasion of Italy.

It is quite possible that "fixing" Iraq is impossible for an outsider short of genocide. Are you willing to liquidate one or more of the ethnic groups there to bring stability? That doesn't sound like "victory" to me.

Even the innocent ones who had nothing to do with it?

Yeah, god damn those damn muslims. How dare they bring their culture here, don't they know this is a christian nation? Right on, Chloe, you hold 'em down and we'll go get the rope! We'll show them how Americans deal with their problems! USA! USA!

Hey, where are we right now?