It seems that somebody does not like the military recruiters in Times Square.

No firm reports, but it appears that a bomb went off in NYC this morning, ant it was aimed at the military recruiting station there.  Thankfully there appears to be no injuries or major damage.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWEN436220080306

we made our threads at the same time...


so far on the news no big deal, though they are talking about a man-made device on TV

i bet it's anti-recruiting activists. like the eco-guys who set fire to those houses. they'll be calling these cats "terrorists" but if they didn't kill anybody that's a strong word to use, simply because if you get pinned with that label in this country now you instantly lose all guarantee of basic human rights.

i bet it's anti-recruiting activists. like the eco-guys who set fire to those houses. they'll be calling these cats "terrorists" but if they didn't kill anybody that's a strong word to use, simply because if you get pinned with that label in this country now you instantly lose all guarantee of basic human rights.


But they are terrorists.  You do not have to kill or wound people to be a terrorist.

To me, anybody that uses violence, destruction, or the threat of such to achieve their goals is a terrorist.  In this country we have a ballot box, where everybody can express their opinions and beliefs.

And in recent months, this kind of behavior has escalated sharply.  Recruiting stations in recent months have been targets for numerous accounts of vandalism.

http://www.startribune.com/local/15845022.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/berkeley-code-pinkos-deface-us-marine.html
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=2887448

And this is just a small sample.  I am not surprised that things are starting to escalate.  With Code Pink in Berkley, some are seeing such actions as being popular.

Everybody has a right to protest.  But destroying property and setting bombs is not protest, it is terrorism, plain and simple.  And if somebody thinks that setting a bomb is an appropriate form of protest, then I invite that person to move to Iraq.  Because they obviosuly do not have a clue how a democratic Republic works, and have no right being in this country.

well if they're going to violate people's human rights based on their being labeled "terrorist" the term should probably be done with, in fact. it's the new version of labeling someone "jew" or "untermensch." you stop being a human being with a right to due process and it's frighening to start seeing that term being applied to more and more things. and this isn't in any way to condone arson or bomb-planting, it's just to assert that everyone should have the right to have their guilt or innocence tested in a fair trial. and once you're labeled a "terrorist" this is no longer true. guilt or innocence no longer matters.

p.s. any definition of "terrorism" that excludes the practice of "shock and awe" is meaningless. shock and awe is textbook terrorism.

But they are terrorists.  You do not have to kill or wound people to be a terrorist.

To me, anybody that uses violence, destruction, or the threat of such to achieve their goals is a terrorist.  In this country we have a ballot box, where everybody can express their opinions and beliefs.

And in recent months, this kind of behavior has escalated sharply.  Recruiting stations in recent months have been targets for numerous accounts of vandalism.

http://www.startribune.com/local/15845022.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/berkeley-code-pinkos-deface-us-marine.html
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=2887448

And this is just a small sample.  I am not surprised that things are starting to escalate.  With Code Pink in Berkley, some are seeing such actions as being popular.

Everybody has a right to protest.  But destroying property and setting bombs is not protest, it is terrorism, plain and simple.  And if somebody thinks that setting a bomb is an appropriate form of protest, then I invite that person to move to Iraq.  Because they obviosuly do not have a clue how a democratic Republic works, and have no right being in this country.


And then there are wars that are nothing but terrorism.

i'm taking bets that they catch this guy, he's in the news for about an hour, and then he mysteriously disappears.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_re_us/times_square_shutdown;_ylt=AsvzWY_YYiIwx2Ptrik3lSNvzwcF

Video shows bicyclist fleeing Times Sq. By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

NEW YORK - A small bomb caused minor damage to a landmark military recruiting station in the heart of Times Square before dawn Thursday, and police were searching for a hooded bicyclist seen on a surveillance video pedaling away.

ADVERTISEMENT

The video shows the bicyclist getting off a bike at 3:40 a.m. Thursday and walking toward the building. A minute or so later, the person returned to the bike and rode away. A brief flash and a cloud of white smoke follows.

p.s. any definition of "terrorism" that excludes the practice of "shock and awe" is meaningless. shock and awe is textbook terrorism.



And then there are wars that are nothing but terrorism.


Therefore, Hillary Clinton, along with 81 Democratic Representatives and 29 Democratic Senators are also Terrorists, since they authorized the invasion.

And people wonder why those in the military find themselves turning away from "Peace Protestors".  It seems to me that in the mind of many people, it is only a short move from "peace protest" to "legitimate protest action" to "act of terrorism".

And when people seem to think that this kind of action is not terrorism, and instead try to shift it back to some kind of political point, it shows how deluded people can be.  I suppose that the actions of The Weathermen and the SLA were also not terrorism also, since they were also perpetrated against groups that "the left" traditionally hates.

And then people wonder why I almost never post in here anymore.  Because to me, this board is so almost totally given over to the "kook fringe" of the Democrats, that I simply can't understand it.  To most in here, nothing seems to matter other then making political digs, and trying to make anybody that does not agree with you "the enemy".  Yet these same people scream that the group I identify with as the "hatefull ones".  *shakes head*

And no, I am not talking about everybody.  But ask yourself: "Do I think this kind of action is a legitimate form of protest?"  Or "Are members of the US Military terrorists?"  Because if you do, you are on that slippery slope that leads to bombings on college campuses.  And to me, you have lost all sense to tell right from wrong.

Therefore, Hillary Clinton, along with 81 Democratic Representatives and 29 Democratic Senators are also Terrorists, since they authorized the invasion.

And people wonder why those in the military find themselves turning away from "Peace Protestors".  It seems to me that in the mind of many people, it is only a short move from "peace protest" to "legitimate protest action" to "act of terrorism".

And when people seem to think that this kind of action is not terrorism, and instead try to shift it back to some kind of political point, it shows how deluded people can be.  I suppose that the actions of The Weathermen and the SLA were also not terrorism also, since they were also perpetrated against groups that "the left" traditionally hates.

And then people wonder why I almost never post in here anymore.  Because to me, this board is so almost totally given over to the "kook fringe" of the Democrats, that I simply can't understand it.  To most in here, nothing seems to matter other then making political digs, and trying to make anybody that does not agree with you "the enemy".  Yet these same people scream that the group I identify with as the "hatefull ones".  *shakes head*

And no, I am not talking about everybody.  But ask yourself: "Do I think this kind of action is a legitimate form of protest?"  Or "Are members of the US Military terrorists?"  Because if you do, you are on that slippery slope that leads to bombings on college campuses.  And to me, you have lost all sense to tell right from wrong.
you're deliberately misinterpreting what i'm saying. as usual. i'm not justifying this action, i specifically said i'm not condoning arson or bomb-planting. and ten years ago i'd be more than happy to call it terrorism. but now the rules have changed, and if someone becomes labeled a "terrorist," that is a free pass to do anything to them one likes. arson and explosives planting are specific crimes with specific remedies under rule of law. none of these involve waterboarding, indefinite detention, stress positions, extraordinary rendition, or any of the other extra-judicial thug tactics the US government is now free to perform at will on those it deems "terrorists."

as for terrorism, shock and awe, and the "kook" wing of the democratic party, i notice you're not bringing up the 100,000 civilians you guys have gotten killed in iraq, the 4000 american troops killed, the tens of thousands maimed and disfigured, the devastation you've wrought on america's economy, and the immense damage you've done to america's good name around the world. you all can shake your head in sanctimonious moral offense all you like, but sooner or later you guys are going to have to face up to what you've really done. over the next few years you're going to find the truth to be a very stubborn thing, my friend.

And people wonder why those in the military find themselves turning away from "Peace Protestors".  It seems to me that in the mind of many people, it is only a short move from "peace protest" to "legitimate protest action" to "act of terrorism".oh, and also -- i don't know about "peace protestors," you seem to mean something different from that term than i do, but here's a little kick in the head for you.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

sorry, you "kook fringe" right-wing guys might have spoken for most of the military once upon a time but not anymore.  :(

well if they're going to violate people's human rights based on their being labeled "terrorist" the term should probably be done with, in fact. it's the new version of labeling someone "jew" or "untermensch." you stop being a human being with a right to due process and it's frighening to start seeing that term being applied to more and more things. and this isn't in any way to condone arson or bomb-planting, it's just to assert that everyone should have the right to have their guilt or innocence tested in a fair trial. and once you're labeled a "terrorist" this is no longer true. guilt or innocence no longer matters.


No offense, tia, but if someone is stupid enough to set off a large explosive device in downtown New York, especially in this day and age knowing full well the potential consequences, well, if they get caught by the NYPD, mysteriously black out for a few days, and then suddenly wake up in some dungeon in Guantanamo Bay getting 10,000 volts zapped up their butt then they probably deserve it.

  I agree with Tia.  Assuming it is just a (very) misguided anti-war protester and not another John Walker Lindh, don't you see how framing this as a "War on Terror" style terrorist attack instead of "merely" a criminal act is blowing it out of proportion?  It takes it from "Really Bad" to "OMIGOD This Makes Hitler Cry It's So Bad"...

  Yes, what this idiot did was really bad.  It's a crime and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but it was not an act of war.  In the US legal system we take motivations into account.  That's why we have the distinction between murder and manslaughter.  If this is what it looks like, it was an criminal act meant to be an act of protest.  It wasn't meant to be an act of terror.  If it had meant to be an act of terror, they did a piss-poor job of it...

  I wonder who would be defending this as just political activism if it was an abortion clinic at 3 AM?  But it wasn't...

  ^
  Serious straw-man there...*shrugs* ::)

No offense, tia, but if someone is stupid enough to set off a large explosive device in downtown New York, especially in this day and age knowing full well the potential consequences, well, if they get caught by the NYPD, mysteriously black out for a few days, and then suddenly wake up in some dungeon in Guantanamo Bay getting 10,000 volts zapped up their butt then they probably deserve it.


it's less trying do defend this individual's actions than it is the slippery slope this sets us down if this cat gets put on as de facto al qaeda rather than (as is more likely) a pimply-faced schlubb who did something incredibly stupid. as we see above with mushroom's post, it's tempting for the pro-war peeps to use acts like this to associate "terrorists" with peace activists, and the next thing you know, grandmas with "give peace a chance" signs are gonna be getting tased and put in stress positions until their hips dislocate. hell, that's even more of a black mark against the guy who set off the bomb, he should have known that ultimately he'll be giving these war-on-terror guys even more ammunition to twist their boots into the necks of lawful dissenters. setting bombs at recruiters' stations? that's playing their game, and there's no way the people are gonna beat the government using force. the system's just too stacked in the government's favor.

wow. that's rather strong language, isn't it? oh, well. guess i'm pissed.

   I agree with Tia.  Assuming it is just a (very) misguided anti-war protester and not another John Walker Lindh, don't you see how framing this as a "War on Terror" style terrorist attack instead of "merely" a criminal act is blowing it out of proportion?  It takes it from "Really Bad" to "OMIGOD This Makes Hitler Cry It's So Bad"...

   Yes, what this idiot did was really bad.   It's a crime and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but it was not an act of war.  In the US legal system we take motivations into account.  That's why we have the distinction between murder and manslaughter.  If this is what it looks like, it was an criminal act meant to be an act of protest.  It wasn't meant to be an act of terror.  If it had meant to be an act of terror, they did a piss-poor job of it...

   I wonder who would be defending this as just political activism if it was an abortion clinic at 3 AM?  But it wasn't...

   ^
   Serious straw-man there...*shrugs* ::)
propz

   I wonder who would be defending this as just political activism if it was an abortion clinic at 3 AM?  But it wasn't...


Not me.  And I would consider such an act terrorism as well.


oh, and also -- i don't know about "peace protestors," you seem to mean something different from that term than i do, but here's a little kick in the head for you.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

sorry, you "kook fringe" right-wing guys might have spoken for most of the military once upon a time but not anymore.  :(


Polls like that really tell you very little.  Simply look at the number of people involved.  In fact, they list less then 100 people as giving donations at all.

I have donated to a politician lately, and as my career I simply listed "Government".  In fact, there are strict rules that forbid the military from getting involved in politics.  For example, I am not allowed to identify myself as being in the military if I make any kind of public statement for or against a politician.  I am not allowed to wear a uniform or any item that makes me as being in the military to any kind of political gathering.  If I attended a formal fundraiser, I would have to wear a civilian suit, not my dress uniform.

To me, that poll is rather a joke.  With over 3 million people in uniform (and about 10 times that retired), they questioned less then 100 people.  The fact that somebody even printed such a laughable and rediculous poll shows how biased the media has become.

Oh, and "Shock And Awe" was a tactic devised by the US Military, and approved by the President.  Therefore, the military is the terrorist if you claim that is terrorism, not the President.  Because we devised and enacted the tactic.  And it has worked.

And I am sorry, 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq.  Who killed them, the US military, or terrorists and insurgents?  Try placing blame where it belongs.

And yes, 4,000 US troops killed is tragic.  But look at it this way:  It took almost 5 years to equal the number of deaths in 1 day of combat in WWII (6 June 1944).  And the death rate would have to be over 3 times higher to even come close to the rates we lost in Vietnam.

The toughest fighting in the Korean War lasted about the same length of time as the operation in Iraq.  But there we lost over 35,000.  Those of us in the military are aware of these facts.  As horrible as any deaths are, this war has really been very low intensity, with very low casuality figures.

These are facts, not propaganda.  It does not take much research to show this is true.

Oh, and "Shock And Awe" was a tactic devised by the US Military, and approved by the President.  Therefore, the military is the terrorist if you claim that is terrorism, not the President.  Because we devised and enacted the tactic.  And it has worked.well, if what you say is true, i suppose i have to accept that. whoever came up with shock and awe as a tactic of warfare is practicing terrorism. it's explicitly about generating fear in the civilian population in order to demoralize an entire nation and wear down their will to fight. if that isn't "terrorism" in the formal sense then the word has no consistent meaning.

and to claim that the tactic is "working" is false on its face. the plan was to assault the country into abject submission immediately. shock and awe called for a war that was going to last for weeks or months at most. that's why administration folks were going on the talk shows and saying there was no way it was going to last more than six months. five years later it's plainly failed in its stated objectives. whether the "surge" is working, which i guess is what you mean, is another question. but S&A was trotted out, it killed a bunch of people and destroyed iraq's infrastructure, but failed to lead to a short war or a total victory.

And I am sorry, 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq.  Who killed them, the US military, or terrorists and insurgents?  all of the above. but the fact that this was an aggressive war started by the bush administration and the neo-cons i rather think the blame should be shared between them and those on the other side who deliberately target civilians. if you start a war, you own the results. you can't invade a country and then blame the resultant carnage on the country invaded, on the pretext that they aren't good at being occupied. for all the sick bastards who target civilians for suicide bombs there are just as many people on the other side who have picked up arms to defend their country or because some errant air strike or trigger happy blackwater merc hopped up on steroids gunned down his family. i dont blame THOSE guys for fighting for their country -- i would do the same if chinese troops were on my streetcorners tomorrow. nor do i blame the US soldier who genuinely signed up to defend america and sees now what a farce this war has become. but for every one of those guys there seems to be some other sick bastard pitching puppies off cliffs or beating on kids. and those guys aren't any better than the suicide bombers. i'm sick to death of people deciding whether someone's good or evil based on what color flag is stitched on their sleeve.

And yes, 4,000 US troops killed is tragic.  But look at it this way:  It took almost 5 years to equal the number of deaths in 1 day of combat in WWII (6 June 1944).  And the death rate would have to be over 3 times higher to even come close to the rates we lost in Vietnam.yes, of course the fatality rates are lower. two reasons (and you know them both, i'm sure):

1. better armor has increased the wound-to-kill ratio. yes, fewer soldiers are dying. at the same time, more, as a proportion, are coming back with brain damage or dismembered. is this an improvement? i suppose. is it an unambiguously good development? hardly. and

2. in these other wars the opponent was funded and armed by superpowers, either the chinese or the russians. here the resistance/insurgency seems to be much more indigenous, funded by smaller governments like iran and syria, and extra-governmental militant organizations around the middle east. so of course americans will die more slowly. given that the war appears to be set to go on indefinitely i imagine the casualty rate will catch up to these other, bloodier wars, eventually. hardly makes the war any more justified.

The toughest fighting in the Korean War lasted about the same length of time as the operation in Iraq.  But there we lost over 35,000.  Those of us in the military are aware of these facts.  As horrible as any deaths are, this war has really been very low intensity, with very low casuality figures.

These are facts, not propaganda.  It does not take much research to show this is true.
again, korea was a conventional war. this is not. so your "facts" dont really apply.

well, if what you say is true, i suppose i have to accept that. whoever came up with shock and awe as a tactic of warfare is practicing terrorism. it's explicitly about generating fear in the civilian population in order to demoralize an entire nation and wear down their will to fight.


Shock And Awe is not a tactic that is aimed at the civilian population.  It is a doctrine that is used to dominate the theatre of combat.  In such an action, the main targets are communications and transportation.  You disrupt the enemies ability to talk and move around, and you greatly reduce their effectiveness.

As opposed to previous doctrines of bombing cities indescriminately, in 2003 the main targets were communications facilities (radio towers, telephone exchanges, etc), transportation (bridges, motor pools, railroads, runways, etc), and power distribution (transformer farms, as opposed to the old tactic of destroying the power plants themselves).  This tactic greatly reduced the ability of Saddam's forces to react to the invasion, and kept civilian casualities to a minimum.

In fact, as in Europe in WWII, most civilian casualties occured because Saddam (as so many in that region of the world) chose to base his troops and fight from inside of the cities.  Hammas uses similar tactics, hiding rockets in such places as schools, hospitals, and mosques.  That way they can use any damage caused in eliminating such threats as a propaganda tool.

Oh, and the number of "Civilian Casualties" in Shock And Awe?  6,616.  That's all.  And that figure is given by Iraqi Body Count, a non-violence and disarmament group headquartered out of Oxford.  Their current total of Civilian Deaths since the invasion began in 2003?  Somewhere between 68,347 and 74,753.  Even the highest number is far lower then the number you gave.  And those include all casualties, including US Military, insurgent, civilian, and other.  Remove the 10,000 or so US, Coalition, Law Enforcement, Insurgent, and you have a death count roughly half od what you claim.


and to claim that the tactic is "working" is false on its face. the plan was to assault the country into abject submission immediately. shock and awe called for a war that was going to last for weeks or months at most. that's why administration folks were going on the talk shows and saying there was no way it was going to last more than six months. five years later it's plainly failed in its stated objectives. whether the "surge" is working, which i guess is what you mean, is another question. but S&A was trotted out, it killed a bunch of people and destroyed iraq's infrastructure, but failed to lead to a short war or a total victory.


You are under the mistaken assumption that we are fighting the same war.  We are not still fighting the same war that started in 2003.  We are now helping Iraq in fighting a foreign insurgence.  Just as in 1990-1991, the "Second Iraq War" was short and decisive.  The enemy that is being fought now is no longer Saddam, or his military forces.  It is multiple terrorist groups, who's main target is not the US Military, but Iraqi civilians.


all of the above. but the fact that this was an aggressive war started by the bush administration and the neo-cons i rather think the blame should be shared between them and those on the other side who deliberately target civilians. if you start a war, you own the results. you can't invade a country and then blame the resultant carnage on the country invaded, on the pretext that they aren't good at being occupied.


Then is President Clinton to blame for the slaughter in Yugoslavia?  After all, he got us involved in that war even though the controlling faction did not want us there.  And before anybody should demand an exit strategy for Iraq, they should instead ask for an exit strategy for Yugoslavia.

And how about President Clinton's invasion of Somalia?  There are claims that as many as 10,000 militia and civilians were killed in just one battle there.  Personally, I think the President did the right thing in sending us in there.  And if you think Shock And Awe is criminal, it is exactly the action taken by President Clinton in the Battle for Mogadishu.  So if you feel President Bush should be tried for war crimes, you had better put President Clinton up there with him.


yes, of course the fatality rates are lower. two reasons (and you know them both, i'm sure):

1. better armor has increased the wound-to-kill ratio. yes, fewer soldiers are dying. at the same time, more, as a proportion, are coming back with brain damage or dismembered. is this an improvement? i suppose. is it an unambiguously good development? hardly. and

2. in these other wars the opponent was funded and armed by superpowers, either the chinese or the russians. here the resistance/insurgency seems to be much more indigenous, funded by smaller governments like iran and syria, and extra-governmental militant organizations around the middle east. so of course americans will die more slowly. given that the war appears to be set to go on indefinitely i imagine the casualty rate will catch up to these other, bloodier wars, eventually. hardly makes the war any more justified.
again, korea was a conventional war. this is not. so your "facts" dont really apply.


Vietnam was not a conventional war in any way, shape, or form.  And the forces in the region are being backed by a regional Super Power, Iran.  Iran (and the other nations in the region) are not military or political super powers, but they are economic super powers.  They are able to throw huge amounts of money into insurgency operations.  And as long as you have warm bodies willing to pick up a gun and use it (or to strap on a bomb, or burry one by the side of the road), you only need money to give them equipment.

If it is one thing that the Cold War showed us, it is that insurgencies are cheap ways to fight a war.  Castro knew that, and used it successfully.  So did the USSR when it funded North Vietnam.  We used the same tactic in Afganistan after the Soviet Union tried to annex it. 

The main enemy in this conflict is not people.  It is not a group, or a country.  It is a philosophy.  It is people that are willing to kill and die in order to achieve their goal: that the entire world worship their God in the way THEY want you to.  Nothing less then total global submission.  In the 20th Century, the enemy was the idea of Global Socialism through Revolution.  Today, the enemy is Global Theocracy by The Sword.

We are not fighting an enemy, we are fighting a belief.

And if you wonder why I sound so angry, it is because today I attended the 4th memorial service I have been to this year.  The kid was 18, and I helped train him a few months ago.  To many of you, military deaths are a political statement.  To me, they are something very personal.

And please, I ask for anybody that feels so inclined to pray for the family of PV2 Phillip Harris.  6 September 1989 - 23 February 2008.

Shock And Awe is not a tactic that is aimed at the civilian population.  It is a doctrine that is used to dominate the theatre of combat.  In such an action, the main targets are communications and transportation.  You disrupt the enemies ability to talk and move around, and you greatly reduce their effectiveness.

As opposed to previous doctrines of bombing cities indescriminately, in 2003 the main targets were communications facilities (radio towers, telephone exchanges, etc), transportation (bridges, motor pools, railroads, runways, etc), and power distribution (transformer farms, as opposed to the old tactic of destroying the power plants themselves).  This tactic greatly reduced the ability of Saddam's forces to react to the invasion, and kept civilian casualities to a minimum.

In fact, as in Europe in WWII, most civilian casualties occured because Saddam (as so many in that region of the world) chose to base his troops and fight from inside of the cities.  Hammas uses similar tactics, hiding rockets in such places as schools, hospitals, and mosques.  That way they can use any damage caused in eliminating such threats as a propaganda tool.

Oh, and the number of "Civilian Casualties" in Shock And Awe?  6,616.  That's all.  And that figure is given by Iraqi Body Count, a non-violence and disarmament group headquartered out of Oxford.  Their current total of Civilian Deaths since the invasion began in 2003?  Somewhere between 68,347 and 74,753.  Even the highest number is far lower then the number you gave.  And those include all casualties, including US Military, insurgent, civilian, and other.  Remove the 10,000 or so US, Coalition, Law Enforcement, Insurgent, and you have a death count roughly half od what you claim.iraq body count is actually a very conservative number despite their being an activist organization because they restrict their figures to casualties reported in the press, and a great many, probably most, casualties never are. this is particularly true in a situation like the bombing of baghdad, where the reporters were mostly taking shelter much like the civilians were, and there was so much chaos. even so, 6600 casualties is actually still quite high, given that the shock and awe campaign lasted, what, three, four weeks?

it's amusing to cite a figure as "only" more than twice the casualties suffered at the world trade center. see how the double standard works? there's this sad presumption among many war supporters that middle eastern lives count for less, and it reveals itself in the language at every turn. can you imagine, first of all, putting the term "civilian casualties" in quotes when talking about the 911 attacks? and saying the casualty rate was "around 3000. that's all"? you'd be judged to be incredibly heartless, and rightly so. but middle-eastern casualties are routinely met with a shrug among the war supporters in the west, and little wonder -- despite all the perfunctory gesturing that they're trying to "liberate" the iraqi people, the fact remains that they've staged an aggressive war against iraq on false pretexts, which is among the worst crimes one nation can perpetrate against another. naturally one must think little of the lives of the people in a particular nation in order to feel justified in committing such an act.

Then is President Clinton to blame for the slaughter in Yugoslavia?  After all, he got us involved in that war even though the controlling faction did not want us there.  And before anybody should demand an exit strategy for Iraq, they should instead ask for an exit strategy for Yugoslavia.i dont recall that clinton lied about the genocide in yugoslavia the way bush lied about the WMDs in iraq -- hell, a lot of the people in bush's cabinet actually AIDED hussein in his brutal actions against the iranians and the kurds before they suddenly decided it wasn't to their liking. if clinton sold milosevic chemical weapons precursors i'd be curious to hear about it. plus, i also recall clinton had the support of nato? whereas bush had a ragtag bunch of nations whom he had offered quid pro quo recompense of aid and other payoffs. and even so those guys are dropping off the coalition of the willing roster like rats off a sinking ship. also, there had been a remarkable escalation in the region before clinton went in, a fact that was not true in iraq even though bush said that it was. also, bush's campaign contributors and companies linked to his administration have profited WILDLY off of the war in iraq. also something i dont believe was true in anything like the same way in clinton's case. not to say that i'm wildly in support of clinton's actions, but they're much, much easier to justify than bush's aggressive invasion of iraq.

that's all i can do for now, i have to get back to work.

And if you wonder why I sound so angry, it is because today I attended the 4th memorial service I have been to this year.  The kid was 18, and I helped train him a few months ago.  To many of you, military deaths are a political statement.  To me, they are something very personal.

And please, I ask for anybody that feels so inclined to pray for the family of PV2 Phillip Harris.  6 September 1989 - 23 February 2008.
i actually hadnt wondered, because you dont sound more angry than usual, and i'm sorry for your friend. i frankly resent the implication that my opposition to the war is a "political statement" -- it's something i feel on a deeply personal level and however much you might disagree with me i must ask that you not question that. i'm hoping through my actions to prevent as many further deaths such as those of mr. harris as i possibly can.

my grandfather flew bomber missions over japan and korea in wartime and i attended his funeral last year. my cousin, who's serving in the air force, said at the service, through his tears, that world war II, the war my grandfather was in, was the last war america fought in that made sense. so there are a variety of opinions people can feel on the subject of war, and they dont only feel them in emotionally neutral periods, to come around to your point of view in times of tragedy. to the contrary, the more tragedy i hear about in iraq the more certain i become of my convictions. peace.

i'm not justifying this action, i specifically said i'm not condoning arson or bomb-planting. and ten years ago i'd be more than happy to call it terrorism. but now the rules have changed, and if someone becomes labeled a "terrorist," that is a free pass to do anything to them one likes. arson and explosives planting are specific crimes with specific remedies under rule of law. none of these involve waterboarding, indefinite detention, stress positions, extraordinary rendition, or any of the other extra-judicial thug tactics the US government is now free to perform at will on those it deems "terrorists."


May I humbly suggest that your position ten years ago was, and still is, the right one to take.  Your main issue isn't with what this NYC douchebag (we're debating whether he's an "arsonist" or a "terrorist", but can we all at least agree he's a "douchebag"? :-) did, your issue is with the current executive branch policy of sidestepping the judiciary whenever terrorism is suspected.

If I read you correctly, you're suggesting that what this douchebag did ought to be called "arson" instead of "terrorism", solely because "arsonists" still get fair trials, but "terrorists" get one-way trips to torture facilities.

(( Edit: If I don't read you correctly, please clarify!  If I do understand your position correctly, however...

...then )) that's my beef with your position, because your position legitimizes the current practice of "extrajudicial thuggery" for both the current administration and the one that takes over next January.  You don't lessen the charges just because you don't like what a bunch of bounds-overstepping thugs will do to the douchebag -- you get rid of the thugs!  The thugs have presented you with a false dichotomy -- they're hoping you don't notice that it's perfectly consistent to insist that the thuggery end, and that the douchebags still get prosecuted under the appropriate sections of the code.

You were right ten years ago.  The douchebag has the right to a fair trial, to not to be tortured, to face his accusers... but on charges of terrorism, not arson.  If he turns out to be a US citizen, I'd even support charges of treason (in pre-9/11 America, tossing a bomb at a military installation was pretty much the definition of "making war"), and suggest that he face the penalty stated point-blank in the Constitution. 

Constitutions are annoying things to governments -- they're the embodiment of underlying principles that aren't supposed to change over time.  You were right ten years ago, and the fact that the rules have changed doesn't mean you're wrong today.  It merely means the rules are wrong today, and need to be fixed.  We don't need extrajudicial thuggery to give this douchebag what he deserves.  The pre-9/11 rules are more than strong enough.  Please reconsider your position, so that you may once more be right.

You were right ten years ago.  The douchebag has the right to a fair trial, to not to be tortured, to face his accusers... but on charges of terrorism, not arson.  If he turns out to be a US citizen, I'd even support charges of treason (in pre-9/11 America, tossing a bomb at a military installation was pretty much the definition of "making war"), and suggest that he face the penalty stated point-blank in the Constitution. 
most of this is actually pretty hard to argue with, i guess the only thing i'd pipe in with is, what's the penalty for starting a war that decimates the entire military and destroys the american economy? seems like if blowing the door off a recruiting station is treason, deliberately destroying the military oughta rate, too. so i say sure, let's prosecute this bike-riding bomb-pitcher for treason -- if and only if we throw the rats in the administration in jail too. but if they get off (meaning they make it to 2009 without their wrists connected) then this guy oughta get off too. what's good for the goose...

most of this is actually pretty hard to argue with, i guess the only thing i'd pipe in with is, what's the penalty for starting a war that decimates the entire military and destroys the american economy?


No worries -- and while it's unfortunate, the most Constitutional answer I have for your question is along the lines of "if Congress authorized it, not a damn thing." 


what's good for the goose...


In Washington, two wrongs don't make a right... but the three do.

But if we're arguing what's right instead of what's politically expedient, the answer has to be no.  The only Constitutional remedy for the voter is to vote against representatives who fail to represent their constituents.  If that means voting against every incumbent until they get the message (which would take at least three or four consecutive terms of one-term Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents -- much like the WoT, you're looking at a generational struggle requiring a multi-decade commitment), so be it.  Nobody said being a citizen in a Constitutional republics was supposed to be easy.  Nobody guaranteed that a Constitutional republic would last forever. 

Cue that speech from Agent Smith in the Matrix about how late-90s Western Culture was our species' high point.  Even if it's all downhill from here, we're lucky it lasted as long as it did, and to have experienced it at the peak of its wealth and power.  Relax.  Eat some gourmet steak, pour yourself a glass of top-shelf wine, have a slice some delicious and moist caek.  Maybe we end up eating microwaved roach feces 20 years from now.  No big deal.  We got to see the peak of our civilization, and it was a great ride.

well crap. i dont like that answer very much. so the pinnacle of our society was "twister" and the american remake of "godzilla"? someone put some wings on that order of roach feces!  8-P

so here's a question... is THIS guy a terrorist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NMfxVx1msc

well crap. i dont like that answer very much. so the pinnacle of our society was "twister" and the american remake of "godzilla"? someone put some wings on that order of roach feces!  8-P


Sorry, unless you're willing to stretch the definition to include Palmetto bugs, roaches don't have wings.  But yeah, don't Twister and Godzilla pretty much prove my point?  We jumped the shark in the 70s, when we went to the moon on computers less powerful than today's pocket calculators.  We've got more computing power in our cellphones than was used to develop the atomic bomb, and we use the greatest communication tool in the history of the species to look at naked people and to slap captions on pictures of cats, sometimes at the same time.  Face it, we're boned.  But it was an awesome ride, wasn't it?

Gimme back the Berlin Wall,
Gimme Stalin and St. Paul
I've seen the future, brother,
It is murder.
- Leonard Cohen, The Future, and you should get the 6:43 12" mix, not the 3:46 version, because the 3:46 version cuts out half the lyrics. 

May I humbly suggest that your position ten years ago was, and still is, the right one to take.  Your main issue isn't with what this NYC douchebag (we're debating whether he's an "arsonist" or a "terrorist", but can we all at least agree he's a "douchebag"? :-) did, your issue is with the current executive branch policy of sidestepping the judiciary whenever terrorism is suspected.

If I read you correctly, you're suggesting that what this douchebag did ought to be called "arson" instead of "terrorism", solely because "arsonists" still get fair trials, but "terrorists" get one-way trips to torture facilities.

(( Edit: If I don't read you correctly, please clarify!  If I do understand your position correctly, however...

...then )) that's my beef with your position, because your position legitimizes the current practice of "extrajudicial thuggery" for both the current administration and the one that takes over next January.  You don't lessen the charges just because you don't like what a bunch of bounds-overstepping thugs will do to the douchebag -- you get rid of the thugs!  The thugs have presented you with a false dichotomy -- they're hoping you don't notice that it's perfectly consistent to insist that the thuggery end, and that the douchebags still get prosecuted under the appropriate sections of the code.

You were right ten years ago.  The douchebag has the right to a fair trial, to not to be tortured, to face his accusers... but on charges of terrorism, not arson.  If he turns out to be a US citizen, I'd even support charges of treason (in pre-9/11 America, tossing a bomb at a military installation was pretty much the definition of "making war"), and suggest that he face the penalty stated point-blank in the Constitution. 

Constitutions are annoying things to governments -- they're the embodiment of underlying principles that aren't supposed to change over time.  You were right ten years ago, and the fact that the rules have changed doesn't mean you're wrong today.  It merely means the rules are wrong today, and need to be fixed.  We don't need extrajudicial thuggery to give this douchebag what he deserves.  The pre-9/11 rules are more than strong enough.  Please reconsider your position, so that you may once more be right.


  Since this guy was targeting the US military, maybe he could be considered an enemy combatant?  But was the intent anti-U.S.?  Anti-military?  Anti-war?  We'll find out...

  So, I'm confused about how reactionaries would wish me to react to things like this.  It seems simple enough: Arrest them and put them on trial.  No death penalty.  No waterboarding.  Charge them under applicable NY and federal laws...

  I mean, if you're going to throw molotov cocktails at something, AT LEAST make it Hillary Clinton's campaign HQ...

  I keed...

i thnk this sums up my anxiety about the subject quite nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvExn1-WtsM

But they are terrorists.  You do not have to kill or wound people to be a terrorist.

To me, anybody that uses violence, destruction, or the threat of such to achieve their goals is a terrorist.  In this country we have a ballot box, where everybody can express their opinions and beliefs.

And in recent months, this kind of behavior has escalated sharply.  Recruiting stations in recent months have been targets for numerous accounts of vandalism.

http://www.startribune.com/local/15845022.html
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/berkeley-code-pinkos-deface-us-marine.html
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=2887448

And this is just a small sample.  I am not surprised that things are starting to escalate.  With Code Pink in Berkley, some are seeing such actions as being popular.

Everybody has a right to protest.  But destroying property and setting bombs is not protest, it is terrorism, plain and simple.  And if somebody thinks that setting a bomb is an appropriate form of protest, then I invite that person to move to Iraq.  Because they obviosuly do not have a clue how a democratic Republic works, and have no right being in this country.


We may have doubt with...(I can't help it, I'll have to go political!) The Patriot Act, but these little things like this by protecting us from bombs is what we need!