Color me VERY impressed..

I have always said and maintain to this day.

ANYONE who can quote Trek in a philosophical argument is someone who simply can't be all bad... :D

Michale.....

That's what I like and respect about'cha. You reach out to other sources and see what others are saying. I do the same. Even though people like Michelle Malkin are cowards and won't let just anyone comment on their site. Always wondered what they're afraid of.

Heck, you even put up with us :D

- David

"Together we are greater than the sum of both of us," Vulcan Proverb, The Scroll of Surak

The three blind men and the elephant? Are you Sufi? Have you been reading Muslim parables? Associating with Hindus? That story isn't American. Have you been consorting with terrorists?

Hehehehehehe I don't recall where I read the story..

You would be surprised at how well read I am. I actually even read Al Jazeera daily.. :D

sitting around on their respective asses eating cookies and sharing them with others.

My only beef with them is when they share them with terrorists... I am simply one of those (apparently) rare individuals who thinks that terrorists are the scum of the earth and deserve no kindness, no compassion, no quarter and certainly no cookies.

"afw'ein Mnhei'sahe"

It's the Romulan translation of the Latin term, 'sans humanite' which, loosely translated (and paraphrased) means, "I will give them no pity, they deserve no mercy and it serves them right!"

Anything done to terrorists in the name of saving innocent lives, up to (but not including) terrorism itself, is justified and warranted.

So I hope you're ok and don't have an aneurysm one of these days responding to the "hysterical left." If you were here, I'd offer you a cookie and we could both digest.

Most often, the Hysterical Left (like the Hysterical Right) just amuses me, so I'll be ok. :D Thanx for the concern, though. :D

Michale.....

I have to say I'm a little worried about you. But not because you've been reading Muslim literature. I'm worried that you're going to have a heart attack one of these days when you start unironically frothing about the hysterical left. The CAPITAL letters suggest you are highly agitated and ANGRY about all of these pro-terrorist hippy degenerate lawyers with their SITARS and Ravi Shankars sitting around on their respective asses eating cookies and sharing them with others.

Cookie givers. Give a terrorist a cookie and they just want another cookie. Teach them how to make cookies, however, and they have cookies for life.

So I hope you're ok and don't have an aneurysm one of these days responding to the "hysterical left." If you were here, I'd offer you a cookie and we could both digest.

David

p.s. Interestingly enough, there used to be a Terrorism Knowledge Base which was funded, in part, by the Department of Homeland Security called TKB.org. It seems to have undergone some changes and has emerged here:

http://www.start.umd.edu/start/

The U.S. data is shows that between the years 1970 and 2007, there were never any more than 120 defined terrorist attacks in a year. And most of these are perpetrated by small fringe US groups and were against property and simply defined as "terrorist" because they were associated with a political cause. Virtually no incidents from 1970 to 2007. This seems to indicate that factors other than who was President are responsible for the low rate of terrorism in the U.S.

Other interesting facts: 98 incidents of terrorism in US from 2001 to 2007 (very low as Michale points out)

Global rate of terror: Has doubled since 2001 from under 1500 incidents per year to about 3000

Make of these what you will. I was just intrigued to find this database as there has been so much talk of statistics lately :)

Seems that the government might have been none too proud of their own statistics as well: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/White_House_Increase_in_terror_attacks_0110.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/06/10/waterloo/

Interesting how the same speech produces such diametrically opposed view points.. :D

Kinda like the three blind men and the elephant..

Michale.....

Actually, your post WAS about "Bush bashing vs. supporting our President."

But you can win the minds of the vast majority of people who are not terrorists. This is the big difference between his approach and George W. Bush's approach.

Obama, with his speech, is working to win over the vast majority of the Muslim world which does not support terror. It seems like he understands, though, that force should still be used for true terrorists and criminals, but that your average Muslim just wants the same things that anyone wants- happiness, freedom, etc. By speaking to the Muslim world as people rather than terrorists, he "isolates" the extremists (thx - nypoet22).

I simply responded to your points and refuted them with the facts. As I am wont to do.. :D

In your case, you are the one fighting the good fight against terrorism and everyone else is "hysterical left" tree-hugging hippie terror-supporting socialists :).

Not "everyone else".. Just those that believe that the comfort and convenience of terrorists is more important than the innocent lives of the men women and children that those terrorists would butcher..

Silly me... :D

But I did notice how it was you who totally ignored my points in an attempt to change the subject by accusing me of changing the subject.

You wouldn't by chance be a lawyer, would you? (No offence..) But a good lawyer will always argue the facts. Unless the facts are not on their side, then they will argue the law.

That seems to be the debate tactic of the pro-terrorists group. They can't argue they facts, so they argue the "law".. In this case, their "law" is the touchy-feely, Koom-Bi-Ya belief that, if we just be nice to terrorists, give them cookies and be all warm and fuzzy with them, they will realize the error of their ways and become pacifists. Of course, the pro-terrorist group has never actually had any actual experience with real terrorists or whatnot. But they read on firedoglake.com that this is what would happen and, of course, everyone knows that firedoglake.com is the premiere counter-terrrorism website where all is undisputed fact...

But I digest...... :D

Michale.....

It's about changing the conversation.

If the original conversation is about comparing 2 different approaches to combating terror, you change it to be about Bush bashing vs. supporting our President.

Brilliant!

I also like how you take your opinion and contrast it with a dumb opposing opinion to make yours look reasonable.

Like so ...

1) You either agree with me that our Counterterrorism efforts have stopped all attacks in the US, or
2) You think the terrorists are in cahoots with the Bush administration

Nick Naylor would be proud. Define the opponents position for them and try to make them look ridiculous. You sir, are a crazy conspiracy theorist while I am a rational grown up!

This type of stuff was made for TV. The opponent can't believe you're not debating the topic, but just changing the subject. It's not about ice cream, it's about freedom! I'm pro freedom and you're against it!

In your case, you are the one fighting the good fight against terrorism and everyone else is "hysterical left" tree-hugging hippie terror-supporting socialists :).

Well played, well played ...

- David

"But here are the facts and there is just no getting around them...."
-Sam Weinberg, A FEW GOOD MEN

Since 9/11, there wasn't one single terrorist attack on US proper.

NOT ONE...

This is a fact..

One has to ask one's self "Why is this???"..

Several possible answers.

Terrorists, all of the sudden, got stupid.
This is extremely unlikely that, after planning a decisive and brilliant strategy, that they would revert to the terrorist equivalent of the Marx Brothers.

There were no terrorist attacks planned.
This is completely unsupported by any facts whatsoever.

The Bush Administration is actually in cahoots with the terrorists and the terrorists were simply trying to make Bush et al look good.
I'll let THIS gem of moronic-ness stand on it's own merit. Or lack thereof....

The diligence of our Intelligence and Counter Terrorist operations worldwide, with the full and complete support of the Bush Administration, led to unprecedented success in stopping terrorist attacks before they could be put into play...

If one employs the concept of Occam's Razor and has a modicum of intelligence, this is the obvious conclusion.

Time will tell if Obama's penchant for "talking" will actually mobilize Muslims to police their own and will, in turn, lead to continued success in preventing terrorist attacks on US proper. Considering all of Obama's actions, I kind of doubt it..

When faced with true terrorism such as the recent Somali pirate attack, Obama authorized going after them and using the appropriate force.

Sorry to burst your bubble but, by definition, the Somali pirate attacks are not terrorism at all, let alone "true" terrorist attacks..

Michale.....

Nick Naylor, the main character, is talking to his son about his role as a spokesperson for the tobacco industry and explaining how he is "never wrong."

He has his son pick his favorite ice cream and asks him to defend it. His son picks chocolate and he picks vanilla. His son starts the debate by saying that chocolate "is the best ice cream. I wouldn't pick any other."

Nick responds with the brilliant line: "I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty."

But that's not what we're talking about, his son says. That's what I'm talking about, Nick says. But you didn't prove that vanilla was the best.

"I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong. And if you're wrong, I'm not right." Nick says.

"But you still didn't convince me," Joey says.

Nick responds by claiming that it's not you that I'm after, I'm after them and he points into the crowd.

This, I think, is one of the things that makes Obama so smart. He seems to understand that you are not going to win the minds of a small group of zealots.

But you can win the minds of the vast majority of people who are not terrorists. This is the big difference between his approach and George W. Bush's approach.

Bush claimed that we were in a war against Islamofascism and created enemies from civilians who weren't terrorists. He seemed to see things as Muslims vs. Christians and went after the wrong targets. His inflammatory rhetoric created enemies where there weren't enemies before.

Obama, with his speech, is working to win over the vast majority of the Muslim world which does not support terror. It seems like he understands, though, that force should still be used for true terrorists and criminals, but that your average Muslim just wants the same things that anyone wants- happiness, freedom, etc. By speaking to the Muslim world as people rather than terrorists, he "isolates" the extremists (thx - nypoet22).

When faced with true terrorism such as the recent Somali pirate attack, Obama authorized going after them and using the appropriate force.

But he also understands that terrorists are a small group. And the truly fanatical are an even smaller group. If you win over the majority of the Muslim world you isolate those fanatics and win over people who can help you fight the true criminals.

Great post and discussion! Fun and lively as always :)
- David

Touche' :D

I had hoped you would read that in the tongue in cheek manner that it was meant.. :D

Michale

I'm going to answer everyone else later, but I just had to say:

There are no wrong topics. There are only wrong comments.

No, wait, that can't be right...

:-)

Heh heh.

-CW

Thanx :D

I am actually surprised we have disagreed so much of late. I have always thought that we agree on so much more than we disagree on..

I guess CW is just picking the wrong topics! :D

Michale.....

Thanks for setting the record straight - you nailed it!

I know I can be an "arrogant ass", too...sometimes...well, not as often as you...:D

But, hey...that's why we get along so famously and have really hit if off from the get-go! So, there is never a need to apologize between us, OK? At least, I'll you know when I need one.

:-)

I know I can be an arrogant ass sometimes.. OK OK.. MOST times.. I don't really mean to be personally insulting. My apologies, sincerely....

All I am saying is that ANY kind of diplomatic overture to the Muslim world in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 would have been mis-construed by the Muslim populace and intentionally mis-characterized by the terrorists themselves. It would have amounted to a defacto "win" for the terrorists, even more so than it already actually was.

Enemies would be OH SO MORE inclined to be our friends if they are faced with the choice of that or utter destruction..

"PEACE.... Thru superior firepower."

:D

Michale.....

You're shooting at different targets. Liz is talking about diplomatic efforts with the muslim world as a whole, not with the minority who attacked us. An effort like the president is giving now, had bush done it in 2001, would have isolated extremists and brought us widespread support to kill them, not appease them.

Michale is talking about not showing weakness after being attacked, which i agree is an important element. in response to an attack, you have to hit back hard. i think most of the muslim world respected us for doing that in afghanistan in 2001; it's just the subsequent iraq war and diplomatic gaffes (e.g. "axis of evil") that blew an opportunity to turn many more muslims to our side, and against al-qaeda.

Why is it that your FTP columns at the Democratic Underground only get recommendations and not comments.

What is wrong with those people?

I seem to have some sort of innate ability to make myself about as clear as mud...and, I'd to lose it sometime. :)

But, wait a second! What did I ever say to imply a "Touchy/Feely Tour" (you really know how to hurt a person's feelings...jeez, Michale...I resemble that remark), "apologizing", or "begging for forgiveness"? Those are YOUR words and thoughts, they are most certainly not mine.

I thought you were on our side - the side of obliterating al-Qaeda, not talking to them! Or, have I misunderstood you? You don't talk to al-Qaeda and the violent extremists of their ilk - you root them out, once and for all! And, you need the rest of the civilized world, including the vast majority of the 'Muslim world', to do that, plain and simple.

And, so...Michale, I think we may be in complete disagreement because I would say to you that it is NEVER the time to talk or extend the olive branch to al-Qaeda or any other group of violent extremists. But, it is long past time to wipe their sorry asses (excuse my french!!!) off the face of this planet!!!

And, furthermore...if that's about as clear as mud, then I officially give up. :(

If we had to sum up the previous administration in just a few words, we could probably do it in just two...squandered opportunities. In fact, that's probably the absolute best that could possibly be said about their efforts over eight long years.

Don't get me wrong. In principle, I am in complete agreement with you. I am enough of a liberal to want to talk with my enemies and make friends out of them..

But there is a time for that. In the immediate aftermath of having our enemy kick us in the balls with a steel toed boot is definitely NOT the time to go about that process.

If history shows us anything, it shows us that a lasting peace and lasting friendship can only be achieved the will and/or the ability of the enemy to wage war has been thoroughly decimated.

World War II. We nuked two Japanese cities to show the Japanese that the continuation of their war would likely result in the death of their entire culture. We obliterated their will to fight. On the European front, we totally decimated the German's ability to fight. And the loss of ability also served to eliminate their will to fight.

The British/IRA issue is another perfect example of beating your enemy to a pulp before extending the hand of friendship..

So, I completely and 1000% agree with you in principle... Our only point of contention is when would be the best time to extend the olive branch. In dealing with terrorists, the absolute WORST time is to do it in the immediate aftermath of an attack. Such an action would absolutely GUARANTEE future terrorist attacks and make the US look like Israel.

Michale.....

I'd be willing to bet the farm that, if that had happened, we wouldn't still be waiting to capture bin Laden and we sure shootin' wouldn't still be listening to his pathetic audio tapes!

And I am willing to bet the farm (or any amount of quatloos you desire) that, if Bush had done that, he would have been impeached the micro-second he returned from the Touchy/Feely tour...

Imagine the reaction if, on Dec 8th 1941, FDR had traveled to Japan and made the speech apologizing for all the wrongs the US had committed that "forced" the Japanese to kill thousands and thousands of Americans.

What you suggest is an act of appeasement. We had just got our collective ass kicked. Bush going to Mecca (oh wait, a mere infidel is not allowed to go to Mecca... :^/ ) and begging the forgiveness of Islam would be like Oliver going up to the headmaster saying, "Please sir. Can I have some more???"

@Osborne Ink

Far from "dancing in the streets," the Middle East reacted with horror on 9/11.

Really?? So there was NO "dancing in the streets" in Islamic countries after 9/11??

Hmmmm I guess ALL the news footage showing just that was faked, right??

No one wanted to carpet-bomb Michigan after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building.

No, but we did nuke Japan after Pearl Harbor..

You're comparing apples and alligators again. If Michigan were a different country that raised their children to hate everything American and their entire culture revolved around killing innocent Americans as the surest path to heaven, you can bet that carpet bombing Michigan would be very high on a very short "Honey Dew" list...

Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg also thought they could "talk" with Islamic terrorists and befriend them.

Sadly, they found out differently.

Michale.....

I just have to say that I was most impressed by the way Obama's speech translated. He's a rare American to understand that language is more than pronunciation: one must speak a cultural syntax, not just words. The Bush administration did this only once, with the constant repetition of the word "evildoers." Obama did it several times in ONE SPEECH.

I can't agree more. Far from "dancing in the streets," the Middle East reacted with horror on 9/11. A million people held a candlelight vigil in Teheran. But where was our press? We never heard about these things -- they were drowned out by the jingoistic drum-beat of "let's roll."

Really, 9/11 was such a wasted opportunity for diplomacy, both public and private. Iran wanted to talk, and until the Bush team decided to stuff them in an ideological box with Iraq and North Korea (could there be three stranger bedfellows?), Iran helped us in Afghanistan. How different would things have been if the Texas oilman had presented then-president Khatami with a diplomatic opening?

But no, we had to be cowboys. We had to let the neocons talk up a "clash of civilizations," and do as much clashing as possible. All that incendiary talk of carpet-bombing the whole region just exemplifies how thoroughly the extremist threat was, and is, misunderstood. No one wanted to carpet-bomb Michigan after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building.

I'm sure you guys read what I wrote but, I'm not sure that you understand that what I wrote is not precisely what I meant to say! :D

I was just thinking how different the last several years might have been if President Bush, in the early aftermath of 9/11, had been so inclined and compelled to travel to a Muslim capital and deliver a speech - as a certain presidential candidate in 2008 suggested - calling on all nations and all peoples to unite against the violent extremists and, together, plan and implement a comprehensive strategy to isolate and eliminate al-Qaeda and their ilk from the face of the planet.

I'd be willing to bet the farm that, if that had happened, we wouldn't still be waiting to capture bin Laden and we sure shootin' wouldn't still be listening to his pathetic audio tapes!

That IS a shocker.. :D But a pleasant one, to be sure..

my only bone of contention with you here is that i don't think president obama is "dictating" terms, at least not the way president bush did. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements [in the west bank]," is a statement of disagreement, not an ultimatum to get rid of the settlements or else. i think israelis recognize the distinction.

Another shocker.. I agree with you as well..

I wasn't saying that President Obama is dictating to Israel.. I simply pointed out that, at this time, with Israel still suffering nearly daily terrorist attacks, neither he nor any other world leader has the moral, legal or ethical right to dictate to Israel how to handle it's security concerns. As you can probably tell, I have immense respect for the Israeli security services (both civilian and military), which comes from personal experience. Their expertise and professionalism is, by far, the best in the world.

What I had meant to say is that those on the hysterical Left who castigate the Bush administration for how it had "dictated" to other countries are the same people who WANT President Obama to dictate to Israel.

Fortunately, President Obama has, once again, proven that he is much MUCH smarter than the average bear by ignoring the hysterical Left.

Ya gotta love the guy, if only for that! :D

Michale.....

However by resorting to terrorism and support of terrorism, the Palestinians will always be morally, ethically and legally in the wrong. Has anyone ever wondered why Israel has (pretty much) carte blanche in dealing with the Palestinian situation? It is because of the Palestinians' constant and enduring ability to avail themselves of every opportunity to miss every opportunity. By the constant and nearly unwavering support of terrorism, the Palestinians are their own worst enemy…

here's a shocker: i agree with you almost completely.

my only bone of contention with you here is that i don't think president obama is "dictating" terms, at least not the way president bush did. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements [in the west bank]," is a statement of disagreement, not an ultimatum to get rid of the settlements or else. i think israelis recognize the distinction.

Let’s imagine, for a moment, how the course of history might have been altered if the President of the United States had delivered a similar sort of speech in a majority-Muslim nation’s capital around about the time of late September, 2001?

Yer kidding, right??

That's like suggesting that the Israeli leaders should have traveled to Berlin in 1952 and deliver a Koom-Bye-Ya/touchy feely speech to the Germans...

While in a perfect utopia, it would have been all nice and grand, we have to allow for human nature.

I think it's sufficient that we didn't start lobbing nukes around the mid-east... You ever read SUM OF ALL FEARS??

@CW

Since everything else has been debated to death, let's touch on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict..

Palestinians must abandon violence.

That pretty much sums up the whole of the entire argument, although I would qualify it as "Palestinians must abandon terrorism and support of terrorism." Resistance thru violence CAN be honorable, necessary and eventually successful..

However by resorting to terrorism and support of terrorism, the Palestinians will always be morally, ethically and legally in the wrong. Has anyone ever wondered why Israel has (pretty much) carte blanche in dealing with the Palestinian situation? It is because of the Palestinian's constant and enduring ability to avail themselves of every opportunity to miss every opportunity.. By the constant and nearly unwavering support of terrorism, the Palestinians are their own worst enemy...

NOTHING justifies terrorism. And, by resorting to and supporting terrorism, the Palestinians justify every excess, real or imagined, that the Israeli's commit.

In short, the Palestinians could live in peace, side by side with the Israelis if they were content to live in peace, side by side, with the Israelis.

Until the terrorism against Israelis ends, NOTHING will be resolved in the region..

And until the security of Israel can be assured, no one, not even President Obama, has the right to dictate to the Israelis what they must and must not do..

It's actually rather ironic in a way. The Left has denigrated and castigated the Bush Administration because of how it dictated terms and conditions to other countries. Yet, that same Left wants the Obama administration to dictate to the Israelis on how to run their affairs...

Just another example of Left wing hypocrisy in action...

Michale.....

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Bush seemed to learn his lesson. After intially using the term "crusade" from then on, he always was careful to say "we're not at war with Islam" and give similar respect to the religion when talking about "the war on terra." Obama wasn't saying anything very materially different, but (1) the fact he was giving his speech in Cairo, and (2) his style and oratory were just miles beyond what Bush could ever have managed, IMHO.

nypoet22 -

If anything, the bit about the CIA and the Shah would seem to be the ripest cherry for them to pick. But Obama's got the facts of history on his side.

When talking to people about Iran, I always ask the following: "If another country had hijacked America's democratically-elected government when your father (or grandfather, to some) was a boy and installed a dictator, whom you then held a revolution to overthrow when you (or your father) were a boy... would you still harbor some ill will towards that country today?"

Putting the shoe on the other foot, and seeing things from someone else's point of view is crucial to getting anything done anywhere in the world, and especially in the Middle East. Obama is pretty good at that sort of thing, as he so ably demonstrated by his speech. Or course, the hard part (actual policies and dimplomacy) is yet to come, but that speech was a pretty good start, if you ask me.

-CW

OK, now I’m going to sit back, put my tired feet up, and thoroughly enjoy your grande examination of this remarkable speech. See ya next week!