I tried to avoid commenting today. I really really did. Because as sad as this day was 5 years ago those feelings do not exceed how angry I am now. I am not normally prone to anger. Most people would describe me as a mellow, happy go lucky, funny, thou…

Pope Warns Against Secularization in Germany

MUNICH, Sept. 10 ­ Pope Benedict XVI attracted some 250,000 people to an outdoor Mass on Sunday, urging his largely secular home country not to let science and reason make it “deaf� to God.

“Put simply, we are no longer able to hear God ­ there are too many frequencies filling our ears,� he told the crowd, at a former airport on the outskirts of this city where he once served as archbishop. “What is said about God strikes us as pre-scientific, no longer suited for our age.�

What’s with all the personal attacks?

I can speak (and think) for myself, thank you very much!

I’m guessing if I hadn’t mentioned the word, “democrats” in a negative manner, I might’ve escaped your “neo-con-alert” radar! :)

1.) The reason Iraq was chosen was because it was the most promising for regime change. Our chances of regime change would’ve been far worse with Saddam in power, that’s a fact. If we could establish a democracy in the middle east, this would be a huge thorn in the side of islamo-fascism.

2.) Iraq breaking out into civil war is not a good enough reason to coward and accept defeat. The consequences would become twofold for America. Iraq would become a terrorist state and we would appear weak in the mind of our enemies (including Iran).

3.) Our enemy deliberately choses to fight and hide amongst innocent civillians. This idea that we should’ve fought them in the mountains of Afghanistan is silly, because they’d never let that happen to a level that would become effective. Instead the terrorists would disperse and cause havoc amongst civillian life to force us into civillian occupied battlefields. While Iran would most certainly be a gamble for on our intelligence and most likely a death trap for our troops. Bottom line is we are not fighting a conventional enemy and never in our history have we fought our dreamed of fighting an enemy like this.

@JFTDMaster

Excellent points about the crisis in the middle east.

“That being the case, shouldn’t we ask ourselves a question: what is it these people want from us?”
- To create a jihadi caliphate, with Taliban-controlled afghanistan as the model. To persecute all who disagree. To use the caliphate to fight us. To kill and to defeat us. To kill and to defeat everybody who disagrees with their version of islam. To spread Islam by the sword.

“With a fair deal for the Palestinians and the US out of Iraq, I’d predict that terrorism would be reduced drastically.”
- Your prediction would in my opinion be wrong, because it would be seen as a weakness. And your weakness is an invitation to your enemies to attack you. As for the US being out of Iraq, the US also wants to be out of Iraq, but only after the Iraqi people can govern themselves in a demcoracy, and defend themselves from Baathists and their neighbours. What they want is not just the US out of Iraq, but what they want is a terrorist-sponsoring or terrorist-controlled government in Iraq, while the US does not want that.

And what exactly would constitute a “fair deal” for the palestinians, Israel’s destruction? The difference between pragmatists like Abbas and the ‘radicals’ was mainly that Abbas, while wanting Israel destroyed, did not believe it was practical. If Israel acts with sufficient weakness, he would believe it would be practical to destroy it, and will be in complete agreement with Hamas on that issue.

Reality is that every time Israel offered more to the palestinians, the result was more violence, not less. To end the violence, Israel must defeat its enemies decisively enough to have a few more decades of peace.

“6 million Israelis will not prevail against 250M Muslims.”
- They have prevailed in the past, and since the early 60’s they have also had nukes, and now they have enough to destroy every city in the arab world. They have not used them, however, even when they weren’t doing so well in the Yom Kippur war.

The reality is that “we” (i.e. “civilized” countries), are much stronger than our enemies, but sometimes lack the will to use our weapons to keep destroying our enemies until they surrender. If we “withdraw” for a while, the result will be that our enemies will grow bolder, and there would be more violence, not less. If we do not decide to defeat them now, we will be forced to defeat them in the future in a much more bloody conflict. If it becomes a nuclear conflict, we might in the end up killing everybody in any area that oppose us. If we act with more determination and with a clearer purpose now, we would not let it get that far.

As others have pointed out, much more eloquently than me, there will never be a military solution to the War on Terra. It will not happen. That being the case, shouldn’t we ask ourselves a question: what is it these people want from us? OBL’s grievances were fairly simple: a square deal for the Palestinians, the US off of holy ground in Saudi, and an end to the murderous Iraq sanctions. With a fair deal for the Palestinians and the US out of Iraq, I’d predict that terrorism would be reduced drastically.

That leaves one problem, of course: our oil is still under their sand.

In years past, we talked to Stalin, to Chiang Kai Shek, et al. We had diplomats who sat at a table with bad people and tried to sort things out. But now, all who oppose us are “terrorists”, and Jeebus knows we don’t talk to terrorists.

Here’s the deal: Iran will get nukes. The Palestinians will eventually get a deal. 6 million Israelis will not prevail against 250M Muslims. the US will be booted out of the Middle East. The only real question is how much blood and treasure we will leave behind before we face these inevitabilties.

Did Pakistan ever actually “control” those territories i.e. Waziristan? The short answer is no.

Has there been the “threat” of jihadists being in charge of the nukes for as long as Pakistan had them? Yep.
Was the ISI the most likely power behind Taliban’s rise to power, with all of the support? Yep.
Do we know to what extent they still may or may not support them? Nope.
Do many analysts have doubts about the degree of Pakistan’s support for the “war on terror” i.e. is it possible that there are forces in Pakistan that are only allowing the arrest of the competitor non-pakistani terrorists? Yep.
Wasn’t it the Pakistani scientists’ “nuclear underground” that gave Iran nuclear technology, after which Khan was forgiven and called a national hero by Musharraf? Yep.
I have nothing against Musharraf, he seems like a courageous man in a difficult situation. This recent “change”, however, only exposes the reality on the ground, I am not sure if it creates any new danger.

This reminds me of Hizbollah being basically a separate state of a ~ 3 million people, but the rest of the world pretending otherwise. It also reminds me of the situation in Africa, where we pretend that cental governments do in fact control “their” territory more than other forces. However, in Pakistan the additional complications are the nukes, general support for jihadism, and the fact that we do not understand the Pakistani government factions very well. That is reality, as well as I see it.

I think it’s time to take your meds now.

“A President that fails to communicate the threat we are all facing.” Why is it that Republicans still cling to that one?? What more does he have to do? The truth is that Democrats and most Americans are VERY well aware of the threat we face. The insane part is that Republicans and other Neocons have ZERO idea as to how to combat that threat! Democrats have been slandered by FoxNews and others and folks such as yourself buy in to it. What Democrats and logical thinking Americans want is a policy that in fact DOES keep us safe. In case you didn’t recognize the situation, Iraq posed ZERO threat to us. Even if they HAD a nuclear program they gave no indication that they would use it against us. One could certainly argue they may have some day used it against a neighbor but is that really what we are about, killing people that may some day be a threat? I can almost swallow that except we have the REAL threat of a soon to be nuclear Iran and little Mr. Quickdraw didn’t exactly jump into that did he? Why did GWB really attack Iraq? Because he is a coward and Iraq posed no real threat to our VASTLY superior armed forces. Oh and by the way, when Democrats oppose the war it does NOT have anything to do with anti-Americanism, or anti-Patriotism, and it certainly has nothing to do with not supporting our troops.

You speak of Democrats doing anything to gain power. Wow! You say that while GWB and his ilk stooped to the lowest possible low and used the Gay Marriage fiasco to not only use God’s name for their own gain but to tear the rights of these Americans from them in the bargain. I don’t care how you feel about gays to do something so wretched to our own people is about as sick as it gets. I am a heterosexual and an Agnostic, but at times I hope there is a God so that when you folks get to the pearly gates, he can ask you how it is that YOU decided that GOD had made a mistake by creating these people and YOU needed to make it right by making them miserable. Your answer no matter how well thought out by FoxNews will sound fairly pathetic even to your own ears I guarantee it.

The Westphalian response to the current situation is that Pakistan must either control its territory and stop the Taliban from coming to Afghanistan to die or Pakistan has to cease to exist. It is not our business how Pakistan accomplishes this within its borders. They can sign all sorts of internal political “treaties” if they want. If the Taliban keep coming over the border, Pakistan must die and that has to be the bottom line.

I disagree. I think we should, because most mainstream media outlets have been seemingly and disturbingly gleeful in reporting our own body counts back to us!

Which brings me to my next point. We haven’t lost the War, but I think we did lose a huge battle on the propaganda front. When we have a media machine with a lack of integrity and moral boundaries reporting the “facts,” a president that fails to communicate the threat we’re all facing, and democrats who are willing to do anything in order to regain power. It really should come as no surprise.

I start to worry when I hear body counts. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember Vietnam, but according to the body counts of the day we killed every Viet Cong and NVA soldier about a dozen times each. And yet, there they were waving goodbye as we flew off into the sunset.

When we started in Afghanistan and Iraq we said we wouldn’t be doing body counts.

Blah - I didn’t mean our belief in God would destroy the world. Though if terrorists get their hands on some nukes, it just might. What I actually meant was, our greed, selfishness, and slowness to change will doom our species. Personally, I think it’ll be global warming but that’s another thread. And don’t think I’m excluding myself from the greed, selfishness, and slowness to change. I freely include myself and that’s what gives me the confidence that I’m right. We’ve been around a couple million years - the dinosaurs were around for 100’s of millions. I doubt we’ll be as successful as a species.

To your point about reason being the ‘reason’ we believe in God. I disagree. The reason we believe in God, IMHO is two-fold. One, it makes it easier to live because it gives everything some sort of reason in all the chaos. Without belief in an afterlife, what’s the point of all this, right? Wrong…again, if we’d just reason it out instead of just saying, “God wants it.” That’s the opium of the masses. Why can’t we just say, “Gee…I don’t want people to hurt me or steal from me so I shouldn’t do it to them.” Realizing that our time here is all we have and it all comes down to quality of life at the end of the day - maybe we’d be quicker to share and help people. But no, we say God wants these things and that’s that. Sports each week - both sides pray, only one side wins. That’s a 50/50 shot. In other words - it makes no difference. Why, when people win, do they say, “Thank you Lord.” But when they lose they don’t say, “Why’d you pick the other guy, God?” It’s hypocricy, just like the bible. You know, the bible that says a guy lived in a whale and people lived to be 900 years old and the dead rose and you should stone people to death for working on Sunday…that bible. If it’s the word of God, it’s ALL the word of God. You don’t get to pick and choose parts that fit your view. Secondly - people told ‘bible stories’ to kids to help them cope with unanswerable questions. But clergy noticed an interesting side-effect - people actually took the stories to heart and believed them as fact. Viola! Social Control. Think about it - if you do what WE tell you God says you should do, you’ll die and live forever in ultimate happiness. But if you don’t do what we tell you God says you should do, you’ll be doing the backstroke in the lake of fire for all eternity. Religion has actually convinced people that an invisible man sitting in the sky watches everything you do every minute of the day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you DO any of these 10 things you’ll burn in hell forever! But he loves you…. Give me a break - sounds like Santa Clause.

I donÂ’t think people are getting the seriousness of this.

In a move that some say appears ‘a total capitulationÂ’ to pro-Taliban forces, Pakistan signed a peace deal with tribal leaders in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan Tuesday, and i…

Justin Gardner at Donklephant has a great post on recent events regarding Pakistan’s involvement in the our War on Terror. If you read only one blog post today, make it this one…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the power to reason is actually WHAT allows humans to have a belief in God. If reason wasn’t necessary for a belief in a Being that is a step above us in the creative food chain, you’d see otters, ponies and iguanas all genuflecting when they pass a church and fasting on their respective holy days.

Also, the Communists in Russia did a pretty good job of extinguishing quite a few life forces during their heyday–hey, you mentioned one instance yourself!–and they didn’t have religion on their side. As a matter of fact, their policy was to stifle religion in all of its forms and to keep its people blissfully atheistic. :) Wait, did that stop them from killing and almost nuking the world at various points during their reign? Heyyyyy, the answer is ‘no’! :) Religion won’t destroy the world, it won’t doom our species. Man has been religious ever since he acquired the power to reason. Of course, at first he may have worshipped rocks and fire, but he did worship something and that never accelerated his path to eventual doom. Quite the opposite–man has thrived during his religious tenure. Heck, do you see a shortage of people when you look around? 6.5 billion people couldn’t be wrong. ;)

No, it won’t be religion, but I will tell you what WILL doom us as a species: our clever little minds that keep whipping up this fantastic world-destroying/polluting/raping technology. THAT is what will doom our–and every other, ‘cept maybe everyone’s little friend the cockroach–species. Yep, ’nuff said.

We as in the People yes, we have lost the day Geroge Bush got elected.

We as in the neocons, and Geroge W’s administration, no they have not lost. The loser “we” have been spending billions of dollars, and the winner “we” is laughing all the way to the bank.

By having a safe heaven for the Al Queda, the winner “we” would have a permanent boogie man to arouse fear among the masses and guaranteeing their elections.

sideways, sorry about that.

mike,
from crazyland, it’s better than “reality”

I agree with the earlier post. This will just help to round-up and seal in the Taliban. As long as we continue to control access to and fro…

Does anybody know anything about Pakistani intelligence agencies meeeting with Porter Goss on the morning of 9/11?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

I was responding to Tristan (point by point, as in item #1, item #2,etc.)

I was saying that I thought you wrote this article for people who were still making a connection; not that you yourself were making one.

I brought up the anthrax because Tristan said there had been no more terror attacks since 9/11. (point #2 by tristan)

Lastly, is it also my imagination that 30,000 children die every day from hunger and other preventable causes.
Or that the US national debt is 8,528,918,391,741 and rising by an average of $1.74 billion per day since September 30, 2005! Sideways, your portion is over 28,000. Don’t you ever question to whom you owe this money?
Shall I go into wealth distribution? Top 10% own 80% of wealth while bottom 40% own 1%.
What else do you need to know…educational system, “working-class poor,” Secret societies…if you think this is all just fraternity prank stuff-then you’re correct, my reality is much diffrent from yours.

I was asking tristan to check out maxwell jordan, but thanks for turning me down anyways.

Connect the dots, step out of the matrix. You (sideways) can begin your journey at FREEDOM DOMAIN. However, it is easier to live within the matrix and not to question “reality.” Remember the Joe Pantoliano character…

Got any more glib responses? Like you said, it would be nice if you actually read the comments.

Just got from work and couldn’t post a response all day.

Basically, I don’t believe any of the things you claim I do. I got the idea you were arguing with some “liberal” stereotype you’ve concocted in your head. (And what’s with the WTC conspiracy stuff - I don’t believe it and it has nothing to do with the Waziristan stuff!)

Here’s my point - we do need to be politely “kicking ass” but after 5 years we are not doing so. Meanwhile we spend trillions, thousands of US soldiers die and terrorist recruiting and attacks go up world wide creating a problem for generations. So why keep supporting a failed administration with a failed policy which is accomplishing the opposite of our stated goals?
Not only do you support it but when I question the effectiveness of letting our enemies win, you question my patriotism and turn me into some leftwing nutbag! (WTC conspiracies? Jon Stewert?)

Just take this news - Pakistan is basically caving into pressure to allow our arch-enemies a safe haven and we are impotent to prevent or stop it. When I - and others - point this out, you attack us. How about the failed CinC whose allowed this to happen?

WTC attack 1993 - all terrorists imprisoned for life
WTC attack 2001 - none captured and world-wide jihand strengthened; “Honestly, I don’t think much about Bin Laden - he’s just not that important.” Bush, 2003.

Notice the difference? In what world would you argue that Bush’s policies are more effective than Clinton’s?

Just got from work and couldn’t post a response all day.

Basically, I don’t believe any of the things you claim I do. I got the idea you were arguing with some “liberal” stereotype you’ve concocted in your head. (And what’s with the WTC conspiracy stuff - I don’t believe it and it has nothing to do with the Waziristan stuff!)

Here’s my point - we do need to be politely “kicking ass” but after 5 years we are not doing so. Meanwhile we spend trillions, thousands of US soldiers die and terrorist recruiting and attacks go up world wide creating a problem for generations. So why keep supporting a failed administration with a failed policy which is accomplishing the opposite of our stated goals?
Not only do you support it but when I question the effectiveness of letting our enemies win, you question my patriotism and turn me into some leftwing nutbag! (WTC conspiracies? Jon Stewert?)

Just take this news - Pakistan is basically caving into pressure to allow our arch-enemies a safe haven and we are impotent to prevent or stop it. When I - and others - point this out, you attack us. How about the failed CinC whose allowed this to happen?

WTC attack 1993 - all terrorists imprisoned for life
WTC attack 2001 - none captured and world-wide jihand strengthened; “Honestly, I don’t think much about Bin Laden - he’s just not that important.” Bush, 2003.

Notice the difference? In what world would you argue that Bush’s policies are more effective than Clinton’s?

That’s actually just a side controversy. The main point is this truce. If the Sherriff says he won’t ride into outlaw country it pretty much means he’s not planning on arresting any outlaws.

No sweat. I’ve popped off myself on one or two occasions. Or maybe a hundred.

Pakistan Denies Bin Laden Gets a Pass

“The ambassador said a Pakistani military spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, had been “grossly misquoted” when he told ABC News Tuesday that bin Laden would not be taken into custody…”

It was apparently good enough for the Afghani “Freedom Fighters” to kick the Soviet Union’s butt from.

Tristan: “As much as it ties up their forces over there, OK it’s a strategy.”

It took what, 19 terrorists to pull off 9/11? Are they really that short of good help? In any case, the next bunch that blows something up over here will predominantly have blond hair and blue eyes and will have never been east of Coney Island anyway.

Tristan: “As much as Bush is the leader, remember the Democrats in Congress voted for this action (oh yes, they were *so* deceived by the WMD statements â€â€? that were repeatedly supported by previous administrations).”

Even the staunchest anti-war Democrat figured they’d find enough stuff lying around in Iraq to justify the pre-war fear mongering, at least for the public. The entire world was stunned that they found nothing, zilch, nada. Where Congress (not just the Dems) was deceived was in the promise the force option was simply a bargaining chip to bring Iraq into compliance with the UN resolutions.

Tristan: “I have not heard any rational ideas on how to handle this conflict from the administration’s detractors â€â€? just ‘OMG! Bush is such an idiot.’”

Try this on for size: First we need an independent analysis of exactly what the hell is going on. Perhaps the GAO or some non-partisan commission of military professionals with the power to get what they need and talk to anyone and demand answers. The result of this investigation will have one of three possible outcomes:

1) We are making meaningful progress in Iraq. “Stay the course” is a rational choice.
2) We are at a stand-still in Iraq. “Stay the course” is at least keeping us even but it needs to be tuned and refined in order to produce positive results.
3) We are in decline in Iraq. “Stay the course” is not a viable option, no matter how politically well it polls. The two probable alternatives are:

a) Withdraw forces and suffer the consequences
b) Ramp up forces and suffer the consequences.

At this point in time there are no “good” options for Iraq. The administration has seen to that. The best we can hope for now is something that works. Kinda…