Here is why it is Impossible to Stop a Clever Terrorist Attack

how can you misrepresent Kerry's position? He had all positions and no positions at the same time.

in the end he seemed to be for continuing the war with the help of allies.

But we were told the french and germans would not help. Kerry neglected to update us on his position so in reality had had no useful plan. Status quo for the regressive dems and leftists.

 

The French and Germans weren't interested in helping Bush.

Kerry might have been able to get their help, as they didn't have the hatred of Kerry they have of Bush....

Kerry updated his position clearly.

1. He voted for the Afghanistan war.
2. He voted for authorization of the Iraq war.
3. When it was discovered the war was waged on bogus intel, he voted not to fund it further.
4. When it was discovered that we were undermanned and stuck in a quagmire, he voiced a plan to add troops, and lobby greater international support.

The only thing that isn't clear to the right wing base is why they continue to spew lie after lie, yet people swallow their swill....at least until more recently where the polls show people are slowly starting to see this fraudulent team of neopublicans for who they really are....

 

From 'Gooks' to 'Hajis'

by
Scott Taylor
June 6, 2005

There is an inescapable comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. It has been two years now since the first signs became evident that the US occupation of Iraq would become a bloody fiasco.

On 26 May 2003 the White House announced that the interim military Governor of Iraq Jay Garner was to be replaced with Ambassador Paul Bremer.

At this juncture, the frenzy of widespread post-invasion looting had petered out to a state of violent anarchy, and three weeks earlier, President George Bush had declared “mission accomplished” aboard the aircraft carrier USS “Abraham Lincoln”.

Nevertheless, as the random civil disobedience dissipated, it soon became clear that a nucleus of armed resistance was forming among certain angry elements of the Iraqi population.

In predominantly Sunni urban centres – such as Fallujah – the fighters were successful in forcing the American patrols off the streets.

Only weeks after they had toppled Saddam, the US troops who were told they would be hailed as liberators, were being gunned down in brutal ambushes which left civilian bystanders cheering and dancing.

Although US State Department officials repeatedly stated that Jay Garner had not been fired his replacement by Paul Bremer was an acknowledgement that America’s post-war plans had already gone astray.

Military commanders admitted that US troops were experiencing an increase in hostile engagements, but the Pentagon dismissed these as “acts of desperation by Saddam loyalists”.

Any suggestion that the situation was slipping towards a guerrilla war was vehemently denied.

However, a month later, the Iraqi fighters launched a series of coordinated attacks, which left eight American soldiers dead on 1 July 2003.

The following day, a visibly perturbed President Bush had challenged the rebels to “Bring it on!” Apparently Bush’s comments struck a receptive chord among the insurgents – and “bring it on” they certainly did.

By 28 August 2003, the post-war death toll of American soldiers had climbed to 139 – one more than had been killed during the actual combat operations.

Given the mounting scale and scope of the conflict, US generals were by now using the term “quagmire” to describe the worsening situation.

The fighters, however, the rebels were still referred to as Saddam loyalists, and any suggested parallel with Vietnam was dismissed with the prediction that resistance would collapse once the elusive ex-Iraqi dictator had been captured.

Fast forward to December 2003, when American soldiers proudly pulled a dishevelled, bewildered Saddam from his primitive dirt “hidey-hole”.

Contrary to US expectations, the televised appearance of the former president in humiliating captivity did nothing to diminish the guerrilla attacks against occupation forces.

By early 2004, once it became clear that America was involved in a protracted guerrilla war, the comparison of Iraq to the US experience in Vietnam could no longer be logically denied.

Of course there are fundamental differences. In terms of terrain, the triple canopy jungles of the Mekong delta are certainly not the barren expanses of the Syrian desert, and unlike the Vietcong guerrillas, the Iraqi insurgents are not supported by the regular formations and heavy weaponry fielded by the North Vietnamese Army.

And, although there were factious ethnic divisions involved in the South East Asia of conflict, they cannot be compared to the deep-rooted fear and distrust between Iraq’s polyglot religious and ethnic minorities.

It must also be noted that when America first became involved in the Vietnam War it was to prop up the existing South Vietnamese government and to bolster its already formed military units.

Nevertheless, throughout that decade-long conflict, despite the wholesale provision of training, modern weapons and equipment, the US attempt to make the South Vietnamese Army a viable combat force proved to be a singular failure.

When pitted against their fellow countrymen, the South Vietnamese units tended to lack resolve.

Contrast the Vietcong and North Vietnamese soldiers who often displayed a suicidal courage – which prompted many a US general to ask, “Why can’t our gooks fight like their gooks?”

Despite the failure of its policy in Vietnam, the Pentagon has seized upon the “Iraqification” of Iraqi security forces as the solution to battling the insurgency in Iraq.

It is hoped that by December of this year the Iraqi police force and army will be sufficiently trained and equipped so as to enable the US military to begin withdrawing the majority of their occupation forces.

However, the Iraqi Security Forces have yet to display any consistency in combat against insurgents and their loyalty has often been called into question.

Unlike the South Vietnamese soldiers who would quietly desert their trenches, there have been a number of occasions when Iraqi police have turned against their American military counterparts in the middle of a firefight.

The open collusion between many of the police units and the insurgents is widely known to US soldiers on the ground, and for that reason the security forces are not equipped with night vision goggles, armoured vehicles or heavy weaponry.

Nevertheless, the Pentagon continues to pin its hopes on a Vietnam-style “peace with honour” pullout based on its ability to build an Iraqi army by Christmas.

Already one can hear exasperated US generals wondering aloud, "Why can't our Hajis fight like their Hajis?"

 

ZZZ do you forget that we lived through Kerry's "updates" only a short while ago. Every time he spoke he was a nuanced piece of fraudualent crap. He rarely ever gave a straight answer.

And I remember reading that France and Germany said they would not help Kerry either --- and Kerry did not "update" his woeful lack of a plan.

Remember Mr. flip flop --- who did not even address his flip flop for months. Could that be because he had no plan. And it is the policy of the left to not give out plans.... just whine and bitch? The left has no backbone and no plan. Admit it, you will feel better and think more clearly.

 

Kerry had a hard time dumbing down to speak with ditto heads, for sure.....

 

.


Version77: Number 1: Do not try to get me to read any of your BS by going to
an anti-American website. Will not work. This thread is bad enough.

********

SouthAmerica: Brazzil magazine is not an anti-American website. The editor of that magazine believes in something that is becoming foreign to the American mainstream media – He believes in “Free Speech” and in “Freedom of the Press.”

The editor of Brazzil magazine does not have any agenda – He does publish stuff all over the place from very conservative to very liberal and everything in between.

A number of times I have seen articles published by Brazzil magazine which I did not agree with the author’s point of view. But I also believe in free speech, and I believe they have the right to express their points of view even though I don’t agree with them.

********

Version77: Number 2: I am real happy you have some material published.
It must feel very nice to be one of the people trying to undermine the US
government and everything it does.

********

SouthAmerica: The current US government administration does not need anyone’s help to undermine the future of the country. In that area this administration is doing a wonderful job – and when this administration leaves Washington 3 and half years from now, they are going to live behind an economic wreckage for the next administration to clean up – and a mess from a civil war in Iraq and Afghanistan to huge deficits about the size of Mount Everest.

********

Version77: Number 3: Do not be afraid of going to church and seeing something out of the ordinary. Name the church you went to?

********

SouthAmerica: I have no problem going to church.

The problem is with the born again Christians – they are a fanatical group of people – It does not matter if you are a Catholic, a Protestant, or any other religion – If you don’t become a born again Christian you are going straight to hell. That is what many of the born again Christians that I know believe.

********

Version77: Number 4: It is obvious you are anti-Christian from your writings.

********

SouthAmerica: No I am not anti-Christian.

********

Version77: Number 5: You believe that Iraq will not become what we are trying to do there. Time will tell. It is not over till the Fat Lady Sings.

********

SouthAmerica: Democracy in Iraq?
Please tell me a new joke, because that one is getting old.
Let me put that way: there is a better chance of the United States becoming a communist country than Iraq becoming a democracy.

That gives you an idea of the odds of Iraq becoming a democracy in our life time – One hundred years from now I have no idea.

********

Version77: Number 6: The civil war in America eventually ended. So why not in Iraq?

********

SouthAmerica: A civil war has to run its course, and the people involved in de conflict has to figure out a way to end it. It is their decision, and after a lot of scores has been settled. It can be a long process, but eventually they reach a point that the conflict ends.

Colombia (in South America) has been engulfed in a civil war for the last 35 years, and basically they have the same roots and background.

Can you imagine the complexity of the mess in Iraq with so many cultures involved in that conflict and a lot of old scores to be settled?

********

Version77: Number 7: The insurgents are killing their own people. Not our fault.

********

SouthAmerica: According to the BBC News tonight they had a news piece saying that the US forces still killing a lot of Iraqis. They did show a group of Iraqis that just had been shot by American forces – These Iraqis were in their way to enlist themselves in the Iraqi police force and they were riding this bus when the American forces attacked their bus.

These were the Iraqis who were trying to work for the new Iraqi government established by the US.

********

Version77: Number 8: Leave Iraq now and they will really be killing themselves if they have a "civil war"? Sounds like a great idea. (Kerryish)...
And some terrorist group can take over the country... Fine...

********

SouthAmerica: Kerry was in favor of staying in Iraq. Why are you still talking about Kerry anyway?

The Iraqis are considered in the Middle East by the people of the other countries in the area as a very well educated population, smart, and Iraq has a high literacy rate.

You are dealing with a well-educated people, and they would not allow a terrorist group to take power in Iraq after the occupation forces leave their country.

********

Version77: P.S. I take it you live in New Jersey. I heard on the news today that there is a hotbed of some type of info going around in New Jersey so you might want to leave the state for a while as it seems like it might be the next terrorist site. Not kidding...

********

SouthAmerica: Yes, I live in New Jersey.

The terrorists will not attack a New Jersey location, because they need a place to get the biggest bang for their dollar. Most people around the world have no idea where New Jersey is located, and an attack in New Jersey would not be as a big news around the world as an attack in other locations.

My guess is that they will pick a high visibility place that most people have seen on American movies, and they know that the entire world would recognize such as New York City, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles.

Or they would pick a place that would generate a lot of economic damage to the United States such as the main bridge between the United States and Canada where a very high volume of trade goes through every year – if they destroy that bridge that would be a major blow to the US and Canadian economies. That could cause Detroit to stop its production lines because of lack of parts from Canada, and so on down the line.

I saw a special on television about the economic damage that would be caused to the US and Canadian economies if the terrorists destroy that particular bridge.


.

 

Still talking about Kerry because I am still traumatized that he almost
became President?...

And I see no evidence that the Iraq people could keep their country
out of the hands of a terrorist group if we left tomorrorw. We will
leave when the job is done right. We have to.

As far as what I heard on KOMO TV news about the possibility of
something going on in New Jersey, it was really strange because
Kathy Goertzen just barely mentioned it and then they went to
commercial right away and I haven't heard a word since about what she
said and cannot find anything on the net or anywhere else about it.

And as far as where the terrorists might strike, I would think they
could strike anywhere they see something vulnerable. I have heard
our area (Seattle) is the #3 area for possible terrorist action due
to the fact that Boeing is here, Bangor nuclear subs and Hanford
Nuclear site, ect., are here.

Kind of hope they don't pick on the Auburn Boeing plant as we live
about 4 miles to the west in Federal Way.

 

And after #3 Kerry decided this was a great opening for him, Senator Kerry,
to try and win the Presidency! (Boy, was that a waste of Ketchup,
I mean money)...

Unfortunately, he had forgotten he had voted for the Afghan and the
Iraq war in the first place!

So he had to flip/flop his position in order to fool the people who vote.


(I can hear him now... We will pull the troops and bring them home!
No... we will add more and get the Germans and French to add support also)...

(No... we will ask Osama over for lunch and see if we can make up)...

(No... hell... I don't know what to do... I don't even have a concrete plan
at all)... (hmm... maybe the voters won't notice... yeah... that's
the ticket)...

Didn't work...

 

Sanity in the Face of Suicide

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, July 19, 2005; Page A21

Back in 2002 I confessed that I once thought suicide bombing would be "self-limiting." At the time, I was referring to the Palestinian intifada, which had turned to suicide bombings even though the Palestinians were widely thought to be secular or moderate Muslims. But by February of that year, the number of suicide bombers had exceeded 90 since the Oslo accords of 1993, the most recent being a woman, Wafa Idriss, who was described as anything but a religious zealot -- just someone who had had enough. Since then suicide bombings have become a worldwide daily occurrence, producing an unimaginable slaughter of the innocent. The Muslim world seems to have gone nuts.

Of course, it is not the entire Muslim world we are speaking of, just a portion of it and just a tiny percentage of worldwide Muslims. But the figures for Iraq alone are appalling -- about 400 suicide bombings since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Even if the number includes a preponderance of foreigners -- Saudis in particular -- it would have been hard at one time to conceive that there were so many people willing to end their own lives, not to mention those of others, particularly children.


In the Western world, suicide is anathema. We often attribute suicide to mental illness -- profound depression, for instance -- and try to deny it even to the terminally ill. And in the Western world, particularly in America, we are wont to attribute our beliefs to others. Everyone wants democracy. Everyone wants jeans and rock music. Everyone values life, particularly one's own. Once again we have learned the hard way that our beliefs are not universally shared.

The London bombings are a particularly frightening reminder that the last frontier for the cultural geographer is the human mind. The alleged suicide bombers were not smuggled into the country from the Islamic world; three of the four had been born in Britain and one on the Caribbean island of Jamaica. Two had infant children. None of the bombers fit a profile. Now, however, they do: the European Muslim. There are 15 million to 20 million of them, about 5 percent of Europe's population, 10 percent of France's. There are bad days coming.

In the TV age, everything is historic -- especially if there's an anchorman on the scene -- but this month there was a truly historic, if only scarcely noticed, anniversary: 60 years since the successful testing of an atomic bomb near Alamogordo, N.M. The next month, August 1945, the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated. There were, I think, good and sufficient reasons to use the bomb -- some of them based on what, for lack of a better phrase, I'd call Japanese culture. The use of kamikaze pilots who purposely crashed their planes into U.S. warships unnerved Americans. So did the Japanese military ethic of never surrendering, fighting almost literally to the last man.

But the Japanese military was not alone. In the waning days of the battle of Saipan, in 1944, hundreds of civilians killed themselves -- some by jumping off cliffs -- rather than submit to U.S. occupation. To Americans, these and similar actions were downright frightening and a warning of what would happen if the Japanese mainland was invaded. All this set the stage for the use of the atom bomb.

Now we are similarly confronting another enemy that seems so alien it might as well not be considered human. This will particularly be the case if, as some predict, there are additional suicide bombings in Europe and maybe, in due course, in the United States. Then the admirable words of George Bush and Tony Blair, who both have embraced the humanitarian values of mainstream Islam, will be sorely tested. Politicians are sure to demand aggressive profiling, immigration restraints -- a kind of guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to Islamic minorities. Draconian measures will be demanded -- not the A-bomb, of course, because the war against terrorism is not a war for territory, but, as the saying goes, whatever it takes. Terrified and enraged people can be remarkably brutal and illogical. We are at war in Iraq because of terrorist attacks that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with. We were entitled to be angry. But we were obliged to be smart.

Somewhere, in Europe or the United States, suicide bombers are making their plans. We cannot afford to believe otherwise. They have already struck in New York, Washington, London, Madrid, over and over again in Israel and virtually daily in Iraq. They are all Muslims, and they seem to most of us to have lost their humanity. Maybe so. But it will only benefit the suicide bombers if we lose ours in return.

cohenr@washpost.com

 

.


SouthAmerica: Today, this story is front page on most Brazilian newspapers.

This poor guy has been living in London with his two female cousins for 3 years, and he worked as an electrician.

He was running to get the subway because he was late for work.

His cousin said that running to get the subway was normal most of the time, and that if you missed one subway you would have to wait until the next one - and that could take more than 10 minutes.



*******


Man Shot Dead by British Police Was Innocent Brazilian Citizen
Bystander Mistaken for Suspect in Failed Bomb Attacks
By Glenn Frankel

Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 24, 2005; Page A24

LONDON, July 23 -- The man shot dead by police in front of terrified passengers inside a subway car Friday was an innocent Brazilian bystander mistaken for a suspect in the abortive bomb attacks the day before, police officials acknowledged Saturday.

The officials said the man emerged from the same South London apartment complex as a prime suspect in the failed bombings of three subway trains and a double-decker bus, and was followed by armed plainclothes officers to a nearby subway station.

They gave chase fearing the man was preparing to attack a train, police officials said. The officers pushed him to the floor of the car and shot him five times in the head at close range, according to witnesses, who gave searing accounts broadcast on television and radio. Under guidelines adopted in recent years, officers are advised to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head to prevent them from setting off explosives.

Police identified the man as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, a Brazilian citizen.


You can see his photo at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300987.html

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was an electrician. (Str - Reuters)

The mistaken shooting set off a new wave of alarm and criticism from leaders of Britain's minority Muslim community, who expressed concern that police are singling out men with certain physical characteristics or ethnic backgrounds in their pursuit of the would-be bombers, believed to be Muslims of South Asian or North African origin.

"We accept that police are under tremendous pressure to apprehend the criminals attempting to cause carnage, but we believe this incident makes it vital that the authorities explain and follow the rules of engagement to ensure innocent people are not caught up and killed due to overzealous policing," said Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.

A police statement expressed regrets for the killing and added: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy." Officials said the incident would receive a full investigation but declined to comment further.

In Brazil, the Foreign Ministry said it was "shocked and perplexed" by the death of Menezes, whom it did not name but described as "apparently the victim of a lamentable mistake," the Associated Press reported.

The ministry said it expected British authorities to explain the circumstances of the shooting, and Foreign Minister Celso Amorim would try to meet with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw during a visit to London.


.