When do the terrorists win?

[onthebottom]

I think terrorists win when they can get us to change our policy because we are not willing to endure the costs of their attacks. Lebanon under Reagan and Mogadishu under Clinton are prime examples - the calls for surrender in Iraq are another.

OTB

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I think terrorists win when they can get us to change our policy because we are not willing to endure the costs of their attacks. Lebanon under Reagan and Mogadishu under Clinton are prime examples - the calls for surrender in Iraq are another.

OTB

You might do better to change your policies rather than your laws.

 

[onthebottom]

You might do better to change your policies rather than your laws.

I think you missed the point, which isn't typical for you.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

This is a typical post from the right - you forget or may not know that Canada enacted some of the most restrictive anti-terror laws in the West, in fact our wire tap rules would make Dick Cheney blush with envy - those laws where passed by some of the most progressive members of the Canadian Liberal Party after 9/11.

So your view would be that the terrorists have been more successful in Canada than the US?

This type of comment from you actually harms democracy as it dismisses descent with insult and fear mongering.

It is normal OTB for democracies to over react to a traumatic event - it is also normal for a democracy to question the wisdom of those reactions.

Putting your head into the sand and ignoring the problem seems to be the trade mark of the right these days.

It's easy to insult or fear monger with one or two words in today's media than have a reasonable discussion, isn't it?



bbk

Actually it's very politically incorrect to say the left has hurt national security by tieing the hands of those who protect us, that's why you'll never hear that view from a major liberal news organization. Imposting that political correctness is what dampens democracy.

You've still not given me the example.

OTB

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

So they win, but that wasn't their goal. They win but their goal wasn't to win. Now I see. Of course, it must be me who is struggling with something here. Naturally.

I'll bite one more time.

The goal of the terrorists is to destroy and devalue what the U.S.A. stands for. Their method of choice is violence. These acts of violence are not as damaging or far reaching as the U.S.A.'s response to it.

If the terrorist's goals are the destruction of the American way of life, whenever an American's freedoms and rights are restricted is a victory.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I think you missed the point, which isn't typical for you.

OTB

I didn't miss your point and I agree we need to protect ourselves from terrorists.

I don't have the solution but I do know if the only solution is the restriction of rights and freedoms, it diminishes what is being protected.

Fighting a draconian "movement" with the implementation of draconian laws (like the suspension of habeas corpus) is not the answer IMO.

 

[onthebottom]

I'll bite one more time.

The goal of the terrorists is to destroy and devalue what the U.S.A. stands for. Their method of choice is violence. These acts of violence are not as damaging or far reaching as the U.S.A.'s response to it.

If the terrorist's goals are the destruction of the American way of life, whenever an American's freedoms and rights are restricted is a victory.

Based on bbk's post looks like they've been more successful in Canada.

OTB

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Based on bbk's post looks like they've been more successful in Canada.

OTB

Agreed, and I don't like it.

 

[TQM]

say looking,

that was so much better. The terrorists are achieving their goals then. So that is a victory for them, right? Can you please explain to me one more time what was it I said that was wrong?

(P.S. You don't understand these terrorists. But we won't let that matter for the purposes of this debate, okay?)

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

that was so much better. The terrorists are achieving their goals then. So that is a victory for them, right? Can you please explain to me one more time what was it I said that was wrong?

Snip from your post:

These terrorists don't give a shit if your phones are tapped without warrants - that isn't their goal. And to pretend otherwise, is simply disingenuous. It displays a complete lack of understanding - historically; psychologically; and politically - of the terrorist mindset.

This implies I am "pretending" the goal of the terrorists is to limit rights and freedoms of Americans. This is not what I'm saying.

These terrorists are religious zealots that believe violence will perpetuate their cause, both on a political and psychological level. If the resulting byproduct of their violence is the U.S. eliminating certain rights at home, they are winning. Albeit accidentally.

(P.S. You don't understand these terrorists. But we won't let that matter for the purposes of this debate, okay?)

You wouldn't recognize a debate if it hit you over the head.

When one has no respect for another's point of view, they are incapable of debate.

 

[Cinema Face]

Homeland security has to get it right every time.

The terrorists only have to get it right once.

 

[TQM]

looking

So there's no victory but they are winning. Now I understand much better.

And they are winning accidentally. What was accidental about it? Just when I was so clear, you messed me up again.

Little one.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

So there's no victory but they are winning. Now I understand much better.

And they are winning accidentally. What was accidental about it? Just when I was so clear, you messed me up again.

Little one.

LMAO.....whata putz.

The reason for your pomposity is obvious. You're trying to make up for other deficiencies.

I can forward you some spam I received today that may be helpful to you. Give me your email address and I'll send it right away........little one.

 

[papasmerf]

In light of the "Torrorist" and "Kadhr" threads, I believe many Americans are missing the big picture.

When do the terrorists win?

When the U.S. systematically eliminates the rights and freedoms that have made it a great country. The affects of this are far more reaching and lasting than any bomb blast.

You have mistakenly assumed that privileges we take for granted are rights. Things we do that affect others one a global scale are subject to inspection.

Let us take for instance my daughter is dating a young man I do not like. Should that young man disappear and never be heard from again. Would you say I might be a person of interest?

 

[danmand]

You people have a too restricted definition of terrorism.
Basically, you define terrorism as any action against US interests.

You should read Noam Chomsky.

 

[oldjones]

Have you meet an American that has had their rights or freedoms impacted?

OTB

You must be too young to remember getting on airplanes or going to movies without having your belongings pawed over or submitting to a body search. Never mind passports to get back into your own country.

Or are we defining "rights and freedoms" as narrowly as the current administration: It's only a right if we can't figure out a way to keep the courts from stopping us.

BTW is your use of "American" significant? As in 'Americans have rights and freedoms, but others under the USA's power do not'? So Kahdr's seven years of incarceration w/o charges, or speedy trial, seeing the evidence against him—and he's only a name in the news, not the only case under the Patriot and other recent Acts—wouldn't count?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

You have mistakenly assumed that privileges we take for granted are rights. Things we do that affect others one a global scale are subject to inspection.

Holding a drivers license is a privilege. Getting a fair and speedy trial is a right. At least it used to be.

Let us take for instance my daughter is dating a young man I do not like. Should that young man disappear and never be heard from again. Would you say I might be a person of interest?

Sorry, I don't follow.

 

[oldjones]

Homeland security has to get it right every time.

The terrorists only have to get it right once.

A concise statement of the problem faced by cops everywhere. Surely the solution is not to hire cops meaner than the bad guys and give them free reign—not that you said that, I know. But that's what many believe the Cheneys of the world are foisting on us.

Soon, if it isn't already, it may only be the uniforms that distinguish Bad and Good, and the guys in the uniforms will be the baddest.

 

[onthebottom]

You must be too young to remember getting on airplanes or going to movies without having your belongings pawed over or submitting to a body search. Never mind passports to get back into your own country.

Or are we defining "rights and freedoms" as narrowly as the current administration: It's only a right if we can't figure out a way to keep the courts from stopping us.

BTW is your use of "American" significant? As in 'Americans have rights and freedoms, but others under the USA's power do not'? So Kahdr's seven years of incarceration w/o charges, or speedy trial, seeing the evidence against him—and he's only a name in the news, not the only case under the Patriot and other recent Acts—wouldn't count?

I do remember, do you remember the rash of hijackings.....

This was, I think, a discussion of limits on rights and freedoms in the US - so I asked the Americans question. bbk has never said who he knows that has had their rights violated.

OTB

 

[oldjones]

"Turn this plane around and take me to Cuba/Entebbe/Libya". Terrorist acts resulting in freedoms and rights once enjoyed by Americans (and others) on American soil being violated/abridged. 9/11 made it worse—and demonstrated how ineffective the so-called anti-hijack measures are.

If you want to consider only Americans whose rights have been violated by the American government, you may. It is your right to do so, but that does not make it right when America violates the rights of non-Americans.