Terrorists: How to Achieve Your Objective

According to President Bush (so it MUST be true) the reason the terrorists attacked the U.S. is because "they hate freedom."

What would you think -- what would John Ashcroft think -- if a highly-placed American told them exactly how to accomplish their goal? Would that person not be considered a traitor? Would that person not be considered a terrorists?

Well, an American did just that. Jane Fonda? No. Al Franken? No.

It was General Tommy Franks, leader of the war in Iraq.

When asked what would happen if the terrorists use a "Weapon of Mass Destruction," Franks said:

“... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.

It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

--Cigar Aficionado Magazine, November-December 2003 issue

First, it is frightening that someone so highly placed believes our freedoms, the very thing that we are SUPPOSEDLY fighting for, are so fragile.

But, more importantly, why is he pointing it out to the terrorists? Why is he making it clear that, in one WMD strike, they can accomplish their goal of "destroying freedom."

Look, we all know a WMD attack is coming. It might be tomorrow. It might be next year. It might be in ten years. But it will happen.

But why make it clear that it will be very effective? It almost seems as if he is encouraging a strike.

 

When he says that, I just take it as political rhetoric. Do you really think that people believe that the terrorists hate freedom? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding but, it makes absolutely no sense to me that the terrorist would hate freedom?

 

Dad .. what's a terrorist?

by David Campbell
April 23, 2004

Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil.

Dad ... what's a terrorist?

Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.

Why do they kill them?

Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.

Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill them if all the soldiers don't leave?

Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what they want the hostages will be killed.

So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?

No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call it "good blackmail.

Good blackmail? What's that?

That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.

But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.

True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.

So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?

No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.

Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?

Yes ... just like him.

But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?

Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just the way things are.

So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?

Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.

What uniforms do terrorists wear?

That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.

War has rules?

Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.

So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?

Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.

The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?

Technically speaking, yes. But ...

So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?

Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.

But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?

Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.

Is it a better place?

I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.

Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?

Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...

So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?

Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated issue and I don't know what I'd do ...

Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.

What?

I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.

But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.

I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?


David Campbell is a Melbourne writer.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616260498.html

 

You don't think they already know that?

 

The big problem with that story, of course, is that the US didn't randomly kill anyone before 9/11, negating the revenge theory.

This revisionist crap is really starting to aggravate me.

 

Yeah, right

And the CIA are a bunch of choirboys...





(can you say Chile, thats right, I knew you could...)

 

So you have no problem with the idea that when a WMD attack occurs, that will be the end of the Constitution?

This fascist crap is really starting to aggrevate me.

 

Listen, If there were to be a WMD attack, the aim of our freedom, as the "terrorists" see it - is our wealth of our country. I truly do not feel that these terrorists see or understand the value of our constution as we value it -they see it only as a tool for our success in the capitalist market. To them, If they were to use a WMD it would be where it would hurt us financially, and that is NYC - home of the Stock Market and Such. This is one of the reasons Al Queda attacked WTC - not for some religious purpose, but for a financial one. It's all about money to these guys, in my opinion, and the terrorists are able to convince a poor society - who dosen't have much - that we "Americans" are evil and against the will of Mohammed's teachings, therefore legimiate targets for their "Jhiad".

 

End of the Constitution? BS!

If another terrorist attack takes place, with or without WMD implications, it will hardly be the "end of our Constitution". Let's not forget that the terrorists are dealing with the US, a highly unpredictable, violent society that has a history of winning wars and conflicts of all types - oh yes, we also value freedom, freedom in all its aspects (economic, social, cultural, etc.). There's no way that is going to go down - instead I predict an uprising of massive proportions of patriotism, willingness to understand the need for targetting certain groups for additional surveillance (as we did in WWII, sometimes improperly, but nevertheless appropriately given the circumstances), and a bolstering of the citizens' right to bear arms.

Our nation does not lie down before dogs and dictators. We defeat them. Period.

And we keep our Constitution in the process. Period.

Bring it on Al-Quaeda. If there was one thing I had hoped would happen as a positive result from the World Trade Centers event it was the reinstatement of a national draft/national service and putting the fear of God into this generation of slackers (15- 22 year olds) who feel that the world (i.e., parents) owe them a living well into their 30s. That didn't happen. But, trust me, it will happen if a terrorist attack of that magnitude occurs again. Once America wakes up from its sleep (as we did in 1941), our enemies had better start to tremble in their strongholds - they will all be destroyed.

If that means Islam goes down the tubes, I for one will not be shedding any tears. Enough is enough.

How's that for a "liberal viewpoint"?

 

Re: End of the Constitution? BS!

You're a liberal??????????

 

Re: Re: Terrorists: How to Achieve Your Objective

OMG, I can't believe this... freedom IS precious and fragile, especially now. Look at Michael Moore, the Goebbels of his time, and the fan base he has. Be very afraid. Look at Bill Clinton... omg, the master of the lie. Did you notice how the mainstream media had no freaking idea of how to explain President Reagan and the outpouring of grief? What do you think these radical muslims (to hell with the "war on terrorism" - it is a war against the radical Wahibist sect of muslim. That is probably my biggest concern with President Bush. Call a spade a spade; the war should be against wahibists. These wahibists do indeed hate us for being us. What do you think we'd have to do for them to "love" us? Why should we care if they love us? If the French love us? The U.N. loves us? Who cares??? If you sell out principles, what good are we?

My God, my fellow Amerikans can be as scary as our enemies.

 

Re: End of the Constitution? BS!

To Carl,

You are 110% correct! Great reply!

And if these terrorists attack us again, then its time to use our WMD.

Rich Hartel

 

Re: Re: End of the Constitution? BS!

Sometimes.

It is just that I don't equate social libertarianism with surrendering to totalitarian regimes and/or heartless fanatics.

In fact, as a historian, I am rather proud of our nation's history of military triumph, and our tendency to not back down before evil powers that threaten our national interests. I realize that's why I have my nice house, my freedom, my two cars, and my internet connection all under A/C. So, yes I feel safe to preach a liberal social agenda but I am very thankful for the military, political, and economic power that the US has at its disposal to keep me that way.

By the way, I'm voting for Kerry. I voted for Nader last time around....

 

Re: Re: Re: Terrorists: How to Achieve Your Objective

Actually, MUCH scarier and far more dangerous when provoked by the forces of evil.

 

As usual, you have too little faith in our form of government.

We as a nation would survive a WMD attack. Maybe, just maybe, that might give the libs and peaceniks the boot in the ass that they need to realize that we're playing for keeps this time.

The Islamo-facists want to kill all of us, therefore we have to kill them first. The U.S. Armed Forces have no equal when it comes to killing our enemies, as long as they aren't restrained from doing their job.

The U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Coast Guard against a bunch of cowardly terrorists? No contest.

 

Re: End of the Constitution? BS!

Carl, that made me think that I might be able to salvage you yet.

Seriously.....great post.

 

I guess I don't know what you mean by "our form of government."

I believe in the Constitution, but it is not perfect. The Federalists, who designed our Constitution warned that there would be attacks upon it from within. The Constitution does not defend itself. Sometimes, good Americans have to defend it.

I just heard talk show host Michael Savage agreeing with a caller who said that maybe we need another terrorist attack to straighten out American thinking? What is the point here? Clearly, they are not concerned with protecting America.

Good Americans do have to defend the Constitution against people who believe that cops should be able to shoot suspected drug dealers or terrorists on sight.

They have to defend it against people who believe that Americans should only be able to voice their opposition to the President in "free speech zones."

They have to defend it against an administration that has some members produce and "leak" false memos so that the Vice President can cite those bogus reports as a reason to go to war.

They have to defend it against those who want a London-style surveillance system that tracks every move of every citizen.

They have to defend it against those who believe that we should "suspend" our civil liberties while we are at war. A war, by the way, that the administration has admitted will NEVER end.

It is true, I have no faith in the type of government that we are heading towards. I have no faith in those who believe that we should "suspend" parts of the Constitution. I have no faith in those who believe the Second Amendment is the only worthwhile part of the Constitution. I have no faith in those who believe that we can no longer afford religious tolerance. I have no faith in those who would place business deals above what is best for our country.

I have no faith in our current adminstration, but I believe that they have done a brilliant job in decimating the Constitution.

I do have faith in the Constitution, but I know it can not defend itself, and right now, there are very few people defending it.

 

AOL says the just beheaded the infidel American in saudi.

 

From the tone of your response (Listen,....) it is clear that your an expert in this subject, "Doctor" Gina.

Considering that your claims run counter to the vast majority of material regarding the motives of Al Qeada, I'm sure you have some extraordinary evidence to support this extraordinary claim. I would love to see it, Doctor.

 

If the United States is ever attacked again by any Muslim terrorist gruop, the best way to deal with them is to hit them were it would really hurt;

We wipe out from the face of the planet Mecca and Madina, then we go after the terrorests!!

This may seem harsh, but this should be the seed of warning that we should plant in their feeble minds.

That's just my opinion!

Rich Hartel