Al Queda Plans
 

HOW, WHY AND WHEN TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES

The following interview was conducted by a reporter for the Al-Jazeera network with the third-in-command of the Al Queda organization, Mr. Mohammed Al-Asuquf. Al-Asuquf's background is impressive; a doctorate i= n physics and masters in international economics. In the interview, he talks of Al Queda's plans with total detachment, with deep knowledge a= nd an unshakeable commitment to his cause. This interview was sent to Abel-Bari Atwan, chief editor of Al Quds, an Arabic-language newspap= er published in London, but was never printed, due to its highly revealin= g [inflammatory=3F] contents.

A copy of the interview came to Foz-do-Iguacu, and was translated into Portuguese by a university professor in the city's Arab community. This is probably the only existing version of this interview not in Arabic.

Al-Jazeera: What is the objective of the Al Queda network

Al-Asuquf: To destroy the Great Satan, that is, the United States and Israel.

Al-Jazeera: Why

Al-Asuquf: The USA over the past 60 years has been impregnating [infecting] the world with its arrogance, greed and malfeasance. It is the incarnation of all that is evil. The people of this planet don't deserve this torture.

Al-Jazeera: Isn't this view somewhat one-sided

Al-Asuquf: No; one only has to observe recent events. The disrespect of the Kyoto treaty; the case of the Permanent Court of International Justice, their inaction with regards to our Palestinian brothers; the financial greed and absurd speculations in Third World countries; the complete indifference to other oppressed people and countless other situations which all of the world's leaders well know. And on top of al l that, the Bush doctrine of "shoot first and ask questions later." Thi s is an unacceptable abuse and will therefore have very grave consequence s.

Al-Jazeera: But the isn't the development and influence of America the fruit of its own competence

Al-Asuquf: Competence in extortion, competence in subjugation, competenc e in lying. After the Second World War, the USA was the only industrializ ed country with its manufacturing infrastructure intact. Loaning money lik e a good loan shark, it ended up becoming a very rich and powerful countr y; however, its greed remained undiminished. Today, Americans live like maharajas [], wasting more than any other people, spending more than $80 billion per year just on gambling. They've lost any notion of spirituali ty and live in constant sin. With each passing day the USA demonstrates th at it doesn't know how to live with other peoples; for this, it deserves destruction.

Al-Jazeera: Wouldn't it be easier to simply assassinate President George

Bush

Al-Asuquf: In the first place, it would do no good, other than turning h im into a martyr. When you face a powerful enemy, the best strategy is not

to kill him, but to make him lose his leadership due to his incompetenc e, and let him live to watch this unfold.

Al-Jazeera: Does the Al Queda network have the military capacity to make

war on the United States

Al-Asuquf: If we analyze history, we will see that all great wars, befor e they were started, were based on previously established concepts [of war ]. But if we observe well, we will see that these concepts and strategies came to nothing, since a new type of war was ultimately waged. An exampl e is the construction of the Maginot line by the French before the First

World War, which, in reality proved to be completely useless against th e invading forces. Aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and spy satellites will be useless in the next war.

Al-Jazeera: American authorities hold more than 1,000 people suspected o f terrorism since September 11th. Won't this compromise Al Queda's plans

Al-Asuquf: Of those imprisoned, perhaps 20 to 30 percent belong to Al Queda. Moreover, they are from the second echelon. We have more than 50 0 members of the first echelon and 800 from the second, inside the Unite d States.

Al-Jazeera: What do you mean by first and second echelons

Al-Asuquf: In the first echelon are Al Queda members who have been in th e United States for more than 10 years, many married with children. They have detailed knowledge of our plans and are just waiting for a phone call. They are also known as "sleepers." Those of the second echelon have arrived in the last five years and have no idea of our plans.

Al-Jazeera: Are even those who are married, with children, ready to die with their families

Al-Asuquf: Yes. All of them are ready to die. Long live September 11th.

Al-Jazeera: What was September 11th to Al Queda's overall plans

Al-Asuquf: As a general step, it was just the beginning. It was a way of

calling the world's attention to what is still to come.

Al-Jazeera: How many members does Al Queda have

Al-Asuquf: In the first echelon, about 5,000; in the second, about 20,00 0, all over the world.

Al-Jazeera: In the detention camp at Guantanamo, are there any members o f the first echelon

Al-Asuquf: No, in fact, many of those there are not even Al Queda member s.

Al-Jazeera: How does Al Queda intend to destroy the most powerful nation

in history

Al-Asuquf: It's a question of logistics. Using its own poison, that is, attacking the heart of what they consider the most important thing in th e world: money.

Al-Jazeera: How so

Al-Asuquf: The American economy is an economy of false appearances. Ther e is no real economic ballast to the American economy. The American GDP o f is something around $10 trillion, of which just 1 percent represents agriculture, and just 24 percent represents industry. Therefore, 75 percent of the American GDP is service and most of this is financial speculation. For those who understand economics, and it appears that th e American Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil, doesn't or doesn't see

it, it's enough to say that the USA acts like a huge "dot-com," and dollars, strictly speaking, are its shares.

Al-Jazeera: Can you explain that

Al-Asuquf: The value of a company's shares is directly proportional to t he profitability of the enterprise. When a business is just a service provider and doesn't produce any durable goods, the value of its shares

depends on its credibility. Which is to say that if the credibility of the USA were shaken, its shares (the dollar) would fall with incredible

rapidity and the entire American economy would begin to collapse.

Al-Jazeera: How can you be so sure of this

Al-Asuquf: On a smaller scale, it's exactly what large financial groups do to the countries of the third world to reap profits in one month that Swiss banks couldn't get in four or five years.

Al-Jazeera: So how will Al Queda shock the American economy to this poin t

Al-Asuquf: By provoking a deficit of between $50 and $70 trillion dollar s, the equivalent of the United States' GDP for five to seven years.

Al-Jazeera: How will this be done

Al-Asuquf: With the destruction of the seven largest American cities, along with other measures.

Al-Jazeera: By what means will this be done

Al-Asuquf: Using atomic bombs.

Al-Jazeera: With all of the security in the USA, how, hypothetically, wi ll these bombs be smuggled onto American soil

Al-Asuquf: They won't be smuggled in, they're already there.

Al-Jazeera: What are you saying

Al-Asuquf: There are already seven nuclear devices on American soil whic h were put in place before September 11th and are ready to be detonated.

Al-Jazeera: How did they get in to the USA

Al-Asuquf: Before September 11, American security was a fiasco, and even

after, were it necessary, we could manage to smuggle bombs into the Unit ed States. They entered through seaports, as normal cargo.

Al-Jazeera: How is that possible

Al-Asuquf: A nuclear device is no bigger than a refrigerator; therefore,

it can be easily camouflaged as one. Millions of cargo containers arriv e in seaports each day, and no matter how efficient security is, it's impossible to check, search through and examine each container.

Al-Jazeera: Where did these atomic bombs come from

Al-Asuquf: They were purchased on the black market.

Al-Jazeera: From whom

Al-Asuquf: We bought five from the defunct Soviet Union and two more fro m Pakistan.

Al-Jazeera: How is it possible to buy an atomic bomb Isn't there security

Al-Asuquf: Before 1989 it was practically impossible, however after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Russian army began a process of self destruction, and some high generals began to lose their privileges, and

therefore, highly susceptible to corruption. Even General Lebeb, now deceased, and Hans Blix, the head of the arms inspection commission of the United Nations, have stated this, notwithstanding denials by Russia n Defense Minister Seguey Ivanov.

Al-Jazeera: How much does a nuclear bomb cost

Al-Asuquf: Somewhere around $200 million.

Al-Jazeera: How did Al Queda get this money

Al-Asuquf: We have numerous sponsors.

Al-Jazeera: Who are they

Al-Asuquf: There are a number of countries which support us, and also numerous wealthy individuals.

Al-Jazeera: Are all of these countries Arab

Al-Asuquf: No, there are some European countries as well which have an interest in the fall of the USA.

Al-Jazeera: Who are these wealthy individuals

Al-Asuquf: People who are also tired of watching the USA suck the wealth

out of the rest of the world.

Al-Jazeera: Is Saddam Hussein one of them

Al-Asuquf: You could say that he's just one of the collaborators, throug h Abdul Tawab Mullah Hawaish, his vice-prime minister and the person responsible for Iraq's arms program.

Al-Jazeera: Are these atomic bombs powerful ones

Al-Asuquf: The five Russian devices are from the old T-3 missiles, also known as RD-107s, and their potency is something around 100 kilotons eac h, that is, 5 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. The Pakistani bombs

are less powerful, somewhere around 10 kilotons.

Al-Jazeera: Can't the bombs be detected and disarmed by American authorities

Al-Asuquf: No, in spite of their age they've undergone modernization and

are well hidden. Even if they were found, they have autodetonation provisions should anything get close to them. Even electromagnetic pulse s would be incapable of deactivating them.

Al-Jazeera: Don't they emit radiation Can't they be detected

Al-Asuquf: No. They are wrapped in thick leaden cases.

Al-Jazeera: A suspected Pakistani ship was recently searched and all tha t was found were lead bars. Does this have anything to do with the bombs

Al-Asuquf: Yes, however that lead was just an extra layer, and was not essentially necessary.

Al-Jazeera: How will the bombs be detonated

Al-Asuquf: There are numerous methods, a cell-phone call, radio frequenc y, seismic shocks or by timer.

Al-Jazeera: Once detonated, how many deaths will be caused by these bomb s

Al-Asuquf: It depends, since our plans are very malleable.

Al-Jazeera: So what is the entire plan

Al-Asuquf: The beginning will be the detonation of a nuclear device, whi ch will cause the death of between 800 thousand and one million people and

create chaos on a scale never seen before. During this chaos, two or thr ee cropsprayers that are now dismantled and stored in granaries [silos]

close to little-used highways in the countryside will take off on suici de missions to spray two or three large American cities with smallpox. Th at means that once the smallpox has been identified, all airports and seaports will be closed by quarantine. Land borders will likewise be sh ut down. Not one airplane, ship or vehicle will enter or leave the United States. This will cause total chaos. White House Press secretary Ari Fleischman will be very busy.

Al-Jazeera: But the American government has guaranteed that within five days it could produce enough smallpox vaccine to inoculate the entire population.

Al-Asuquf: There will be simultaneous suicide attacks against the vaccin e production plants. Al-Jazeera: Which will be the first city

Al-Asuquf: The first city will be that in which optimal conditions prese nt themselves, for example, clear skies, and winds of eight miles-per-hour or less in the direction of the country's center so tha t radioactive dust can contaminate the maximum possible area.

Al-Jazeera: Will this attack annihilate the USA

Al-Asuquf: No. But the process will have begun. Who will buy food produc ts from the United States knowing they may have been contaminated by radiation Who will travel to the United States knowing the possibilit y of contracting smallpox Who will continue to invest in American institutions Just as with the World Trade Center, it will be simply a question of time before the entire economic structure collapses and tur ns to dust. If our objectives are reached with one bomb and the smallpox, probably we'll save the lives of others, however that's risky [unlikely ], and it's probable that six more bombs will be detonated, one per week, a nd other attacks with chemical weapons will be carried out.

Al-Jazeera: How many innocent people will die

Al-Asuquf: According to estimates made by me and Ayman Al-Zawahiro, somewhere around 15 million due to the atomic bombs and their radiation.

Of those exposed to smallpox, 25 percent will die, approximately five million, and many more due to the ensuing chaos and disorder.

Al-Jazeera: What about the American military response

Al-Asuquf: There will practically be none. Even if five or ten cities we re chosen at random to be destroyed, that would still be a small price to pay. The problem is the economic despair will be so great that even economizing by not using arms unnecessarily will occur, since the liquidity of American goods will be almost zero and at that point the United States will make more selling its Nimitz-class aircraft carrier s, which cost about five billion dollars, to Turkey or Italy for one billi on dollars, since the country will so urgently need to recapitalize, thou gh it will be too late. Moreover, how will the morale of American soldier s be knowing that their entire families have died and their country no longer exists. Fight for what

Al-Jazeera: And won't the global economy also be ruined

Al-Asuquf: In the beginning it will be very difficult; a serious economi c crisis will ensue. However, without the United States, the world will so on arise in a more just and fraternal manner.

Al-Jazeera: And Israel

Al-Asuquf: As they say... it will be dessert.

Al-Jazeera: Does bin Laden's spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Gheith, know that y ou are giving this interview

Al-Asuquf: It was he and bin Laden who suggested I give it.

Al-Jazeera: Osama bin Laden is still alive

Al-Asuquf: He is quite healthy, alongside his commanders Mohammed Atef a nd Khalid Shaik Mohammed and Mullah Omar.

Al-Jazeera: Aren't you fearful that Al Queda's plans will be discovered

Al-Asuquf: The plan is already in its countdown, and nothing can stop it .

Al-Jazeera: Not even if the United States asks forgiveness and changes i ts attitudes

Al-Asuquf: That won't happen, and even if it did, it's too late.

Al-Jazeera: When will the attack begin

Al-Asuquf: I can't reveal that. Allah Akbar.

Somebody emailed it to me. For all I know the whole thing is just a hoax, but it is at least worth thinking about. I think it is just a hoax, but nonetheless it is pretty easy to make up many ways for really bad terrorist things to happen. And we all cheer at Mel Gibson movies that glorify terrorists - Patriot and the one in England whatever the name was.

Sounds like the Boy Smoked too much Opium today; all that big talk he must of forgot they are hunted soon to be dead dogs!:mad:

Tom the Terrorists wore Red and got Kicked back to England!

A-Bombs in refrigerators, it sounds a lot like the movie Sum of All Fears, in that movie the A-Bomb was in a cigarette machine, sounds like someone has too much time on their hands and is watching too much TV. If the bomb is encased in lead to where you can't detect radiation, it would take one hell of a refrigerator to hold that much lead. That is where I think that little tale has a big flaw and is just a hoax.

HOAX
 

IF the Al Qeada had nukes in place in the States I think they would have used them by now.

It was interesting to read though.
Here is a link discussing the hoax.hoax

A hoax. The faux interview draws heavily from themes found in John Clancy books, such as "The Sum of all Fears" and "The Peacemaker". The writing style and questions posed are nowhere near the quality and integrity of journalism found with true Al-Jazeera reporters. This assumption was verified by Omar Bec, head of Newsgathering & Operations for Al-Jazeera, who dismissed the email as being "totally bogus". He also noted that "had the (interview) taken place, jazeera would not hesitate to air it at all" for the sake of journalistic integrity. It also appears that even the name "Mohammed Al-Asuquf" is a fake, as there is no known person by that name affiliated with Al-Queda

Erie Desire, Big E,
Those were both interesting well thought out posts. Thank you.

Steve,
Seems like we are both interested in some of the same things. I agree about the redcoats.

It will be interesting to see if this email hoax has legs. it could become another urban legend that sooner or later even gets talked about as a hoax in the press.

Nonetheless as much as I don't want too, I get nervous when i see someone dressed as a Muslim no matter how hard I try to believe that this particular person is one of the overwhelming majority that are not fanatics.

Hummm....... How can I say this nicely? Take the rag off your head you piece of sh*t and bring it on !!! I got some thing waiting for ya' ....(In Souhtern Talk). Wardey, "Dammit":mad: :mad: :mad:

Verrrrrrrrrrry interrrrrresting:crazy:

Worst part is , there could be some truth to it.
What those a$$ hole , camel ridin , towel wearin jiz bags don't realize is ...we (the US) support most of the world in one way or another. If we collapse , God help the rest of the world.
We'll all be living in caves and hunting with bows and arrows. First thing I gotta do is move to a warmer climate:rolleyes:

Yes all hoax..Although the sentence.."The American economy is a economy of false appearances" Is quite true...

Our "house of cards" economy is quite fragile...and more attacks could do some very serious damage

Only when folks are thinking like that will the American Economy bust out and show the real strength and resiliency that makes America the strongest Economy/Country in the world. Technology advancements and innovations are the fodder for AMERICA's continuing greatness and may always be. Just sharing a humble opinion from a contrarian and I am certainly not trying to stir the pot with this. :)


James

Has it been confirmed that is a bs? Don't forget we had previous knowledge of past attacks from these camel humpers and didn't act until too late.

What is a California Poodle?

IF all is true and not a hoax, then don't these arab countries relize that the one thing we gave them and their big money supply maker will be gone. OIL!!!!! I was under the assumption that we were the biggest dependant on OIL. Isn't that where most od their SEED MONEY comes from? Stupidity pollutes the earth!;)

These Idiots mentioned Lead Cases!! You would need like a foot of Lead to avoid detection if you could at all!?!? The math says it would weigh @100,000 Pounds to conceal something the size of a fridge.

That’s a bit much for a Toyota Pickup truck.or a Camel

When you read stuff like that , one cant help but to wonder if it could really happen,no matter how far fetched or improbable it may be it does catch your attention,you see on t.v. and you read in the newspaper all this talk about small pox and how our high ranking officials are getting vaccinated i mean are we supposed to be getting vaccinated as well , do they know something we dont it just makes you wonder sometimes.I have the greatest faith in our government to defend our great nation against any foe that is declared.What burns me up is this bull**** about racial profiling hey if you look or are possibly from or have ties to im going to check you out.I really dont care if people think its politically incorrect.Tell that to the families of 911 victims as a matter of fact it shouldnt bother you at all if you have nothing to hide and really call yourself an AMERICAN!You wouldnt let just anyone into your home would you?WE (USA)SHOULDNT EITHER.ITS TIME THAT PEOPLE REALIZE THAT MANY COUNTRIES AND IDIVIDUALS WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE USA GO DOWN-SO THOSE DEMONSTRATERS ON OUR OWN SOIL NEED TO SHUT THE HELL UP OR GET THE HELL OUT.WE NEED TO UNITE AS A COUNTRY AND A PEOPLE TO SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT AND MILITARY..DONT THEY REALIZE THE LIFE THEY ARE SAVING MAY BE OUR OWN.---MY PERSONAL OPINION-GOD BLESS AMERICA--THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT...

INCONGINTO


These Anti-War Protesters are a joke/disgrace from the Standpoint of their actual knowledge of the basic facts for one, and a are traitors for the simple reason they are fifth column lackeys, Now with that said; what is real and a fact of life is we are at War now.

Quote:Moreover, how will the morale of American soldier s be knowing that their entire families have died and their country no longer exists. Fight for what

I know how I would feel---- KILL ALL THE TOWEL HEADS--- GLASS THE F'ER'S OVER NOW
If they did that I know we wouldn't stand by and do nothing. We would retaliate with much worse than what they used. CAN WE SAY MEGATON WEAPONS. Hell if anyone is going to glow we won;t be the only ones.

LOL:D :D

From what I understand many of the anti war protesters are right wing christians, ministers, business people, war veterans, etc. They seem to be a cross section of Americans who are afraid we are repeating some of the same mistakes we made in Vietnam, Korea, etc. It is interesting that the protests are way ahead of where they were in the Vietnam era and from a way more diverse collection of Americans. The Vietnam war was very old before protests started and this time the war hasn't even started yet.

I am not going to go into the past!LBJ and all :

But it is in fact up to... Iraq (they know exactly what they have to do) not the United States to stop the War!.

We are at War now and this is just a piece of the Puzzle.

The War protesters one look at them and their Placards (I find their slogans to be of pitiful stupidity) would show they are vastly uninformed and are Stooges of the Enemy!

They look like good fun though Paint-Ball and Slingshot time.
:D :p :D :p

I'm all for removing Saddam. I also think Muslims worldwide need some kind of policing since they seem to create a huge danger to the world and they don't seem to be policing themselves. Nonetheless I have a basic distrust of all governments and think that questioning them is the most patriotic thing we can do. There is too much history of our own government misleading the public about war. Perhaps not the best argument, but below is at least an article that mentions some of the points for consideration.

Juan Andrade: 'Bush is the latest 'wartime' president we can't trust'
Posted on Friday, January 17 @ 09:30:13 EST By Juan Andrade, Chicago Sun-Times

It was alarming to see President Bush addressing our troops at Fort Hood, Texas, the U.S. Army's largest military training base for ground troops, just one day after we welcomed in the new year. The base supplied an estimated 25,000 troops to the Persian Gulf War, and it's likely to send a comparable number for war against Iraq. The president's charade was as disturbing as it was sad. This guy is determined to send our superior-trained men and women to kick a little Iraqi ass and has yet to tell us why, for how long, at what price in lives lost, and at what expense.

Frankly, I don't trust the president. I don't trust his motives or his judgment. After WWII, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, I've become very skeptical of what our leaders tell the American people, critical of their intellect, honesty and motives, and disillusioned by the way they make decisions when it comes to war.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was disturbingly secretive and notorious in underutilizing and undermining the very officials in his Cabinet responsible for advising him on war policy. In his book, The Conquerors, published in 2002, Michael Beschloss uses recently declassified documents to show how the president played Churchill and Stalin against each other and himself against both, and how he excessively used special envoys to create tension, rivalry and deceit among his own advisers. Had Roosevelt lived any longer, America may have won the war but lost the peace.

In Reaching for Glory, published in 2001, Beschloss again uses recently declassified transcripts of taped conversations, official memos, and personal diary excerpts to show how Lyndon B. Johnson, his senior Cabinet officials and military advisers just let us drift aimlessly into war in Southeast Asia. LBJ knew we shouldn't go in, had no idea about how to win once we did, and was clueless on how to get out. Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy and all the rest were arguably useless in their advice to the president.

In No Peace, No Honor, Larry Berman also uses recently declassified documents, including correspondence, meeting notes and memos from all warring parties, i.e., North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the United States, to show how Nixon and Kissinger effectively betrayed the government and people of South Vietnam. In short, the author makes a very compelling argument that, because of our senseless political posturing and diplomatic chicanery, the war was unnecessarily prolonged for four years at a tragic cost of 20,000 additional American lives.

In my view, there's no better insight into the war-making process inside the Bush White House than Bob Woodward's latest book Bush at War. It also confirms my greatest fears. The book, is based entirely on interviews with the president and his senior inner circle, i.e., Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, the joint chiefs, etc., and notes from their post-9/11 meetings.

When Cheney advised the president to appoint a war council and designate a chairman, Bush did, and inexplicably named himself chairman. Here's a guy who wouldn't even attend his pilot training sessions with the Texas Air National Guard and couldn't name his commanding officer, directing a war against terrorism! Reassuring isn't it? More than once, his chief of staff, Andrew Card, had to remind Bush that he's not a general.

Indeed, it's very apparent that Bush has difficulty distinguishing between his role as president from commander in chief. The problem is his tendency to act and try to think like a general. Card was right, and we have reason to be concerned. As a war president, Bush can't distinguish between a general and a commander in chief.

To complete anyone's distrust of presidents and U.S. foreign policy-making decisions, there's The Trial of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens. While the author makes state-supported terrorism allegations against the United States, there's sufficient veracity to make any reasonably intelligent person distrusting of decision-makers. The results can be appalling in terms of lives lost, laws broken, and profits made.

During the last year Bush has learned all the right things to say to delude us into believing that he is genuinely interested in avoiding war. He's not. Without war he has nothing. If there was ever a time to question a president's competence in committing America to war, it's now. Since 9/11, Bush's approval rating has dropped from over 80 percent to 58 percent. It's obvious more Americans are starting to catch on.

Copyright 2003, Digital Chicago Inc.

Reprinted from The Chicago Sun-Times:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/
andrade/cst-edt-juan17.html

I was stationed in Thailand when the Isrealis got into it with the Arabs in '73. We were reconfiguring our B-52's for nukes and sending them to the nearest American AFB with nukes to be loaded. All the planes were set up with conventional racks as we had just quit bombing Cambodia a month or so before. We all new that if it blew over there it would spread world wide and that we may not have a home to go back to.
There was not one person there who would not have fought to the death. If the terrorists really think it will be demoralizing to our guys they are in for the surprise of their lives. Their country will become a sea of glass. Assuming this thing is true it will put a hurt on us but nothing even close to the pain they will feel.
I have been there, I know our soldiers, and I know they will not quit until it is resolved.
Dont think our gee whiz weapons are any good? Look at what happened to the strongest army in the region a few years ago in that little thing we called Desert Storm. And we didnt even need the big stuff.
All the terrorists in the world know where to find us. If they are so damn bad step up. Or you can hide in the camel barn like the chicken****s that you are.
Steve

its people like that that cause people like us to turn on turbin wearing s.o.bs in the USA f@@k em if they want us to take care of all of them in the USA. than keep talking that sh@t!:hothead: :hothead: :hothead: :hothead:

Tom since Ole Jaun has it in his head that all American Presidents are Bad !
Now my question to him would be:
Who would his example of good be?? Castro! Franco! Noriega!

Also the bashing of the Democrats Icon Roosevelt he fails to Mention Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini? Only how Awful We were/are!!Only Poor Joe Stalin!! and Churchill he needs to read a little!!

Clinton/algore were notably missing even though the war started in their term!!

Bob Woodward Is that the same Puffed up Anti American Idiot Watergate Bob??

Again I must Laugh; For during the cold war what spy would work for us when the very next day they would get their photo in the Washington Post?? Front Page no less!

All I can say is that if everyone is as proud to be an american as I am they will have to kill all of us before they even stand a chance. After the 911 disaster this country came together like no one thought it could. I wasn't even aware that the people of this country was so patriotic untill that happened. We all need to stick together and take care of each other. Be concerened about the people around you and their welfare. Stick together. Try to be more patient with people.
I'm not sure how to put into words what I'm trying to say but, I think you get the point.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

Proud to be an American
Vietnam Vet

I think we should do "WHAT EVER" it takes to end the terroist and all their supporters. Tighten the boarders here and stop all imigration, for the time being, till we get a handle on this.

Having the country divided, over this, is doing exactly what the terroist want. They have caused an internal struggle and a sense of not trusting each other. If this continues and grows it will dilute are strength.

When your back is against the wall, you stand united and fight.

Dave,
I agree the internal squabbling has to end. We need to present a united front to the rest of the world.
The history channel has a good show today that discusses our lack of intelligence in the Mideast and the reasons for it. It is a must see for anyone who has an interest in the subject which should be everyone in the country.
Steve
Always American, Forever a soldier

This area has always seemed to be a bit of a catch-22 for the US. The freedoms we fight to save, such as press and demonstration, are also our weakness in conflict. The US is often perceived to be divided on international choices and some may view this as a weakness they can exploit. Our attention span is nothing short of horrific, I recall it wasn't 6 months past September 11 before the media was airing stories protesting the fight in Afghanistan and reporting every unsubstantiated story of America targeting innocent civilians. They have to know this weakens the resolve of our nation making the job much harder for our military and leaders. And this in turn creates the need for our leaders to persuade the public in ways some obviously feel are unethical. In WWII the US had to convince the public to join in fight against Hitler. Once pearl harbor was bombed it was OK, many say today that could have been prevented, what an enormous cost to endure to sway public opinion. While I'm certain nobody believed the damage would be as bad as it was how long would it have been before the US joined the fight. What will Hussein have to do before people recognize the threat and danger? How many will have to die? I can’t say I have an answer but do feel that this constant distrust of our leadership is very destructive. It is no surprise that some leaders take advantage of their position and some make genuine mistakes. To those who make it there life’s work to bash each and every leader we have had, I have no tolerance for. I guess I'm done rambling.

Steve

I have found it great that political discussions have been more open and thoughtful on OSO lately. I know we are mostly about offshore boating, but this topic is so important to all of us. I have not seen the History Channel, thanks for the reference to it. We at OSO also find ourselves with different thoughts on the topic and it is great aht we are all trying to express our feelings without resorting to name calling.

It seems to me that we are all in total agreement about the need to take action against terrorism and the countries that harbor mass destruction. I think it is healthy to have constructive debate. It maybe makes it harder to present a united front, but it is necessary both within the US and the entire family of nations of the world. I think the freedom to question the government and protest if we disagree is our nations greatest strength. Without that debate we are loosing the support of our own citizens as well as the world community. Sure it makes it harder, but that is why we are the best nation in the world. President Bush once joked that it would be so much easier if he was dictator. That is not the country any of us want to live in.

I agree with catmando that the secrecy is what is causing the problem. If they really have evidence than show it to us. The whole world will be behind it. If they don't, than I think there is enough question that I might even join the protests.

GFrom the press:

Behind closed doors: Government openness at issue as Bush holds onto records
Posted on Friday, January 03 @ 10:05:36 EST By Adam Clymer, New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has put a much tighter lid than recent presidents on government proceedings and the public release of information, exhibiting a penchant for secrecy that has been striking to historians, legal experts and lawmakers of both parties.

Some of the Bush policies, like closing previously public court proceedings, were prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and are part of the administration's drive for greater domestic security. Others, like Vice President Dick Cheney's battle to keep records of his energy task force secret, reflect an administration that arrived in Washington determined to strengthen the authority of the executive branch, senior administration officials say.

Some of the changes have sparked a passionate public debate and excited political controversy. But other measures taken by the Bush administration to enforce greater government secrecy have received relatively little attention, masking the proportions of what dozens of experts described in recent interviews as a sea change in government openness.



A telling example came in late 2001 when Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the new policy on the Freedom of Information Act, a move that attracted relatively little public attention.

Although the new policy for dealing with the 1966 statute that has opened millions of pages of government records to scholars, reporters and the public was announced after Sept. 11, it had been planned well before the attacks.

The Ashcroft directive encouraged federal agencies to reject requests for documents if there was any legal basis to do so, promising that the Justice Department would defend them in court. It was a stark reversal of the policy set eight years earlier, when the Clinton administration told agencies to make records available whenever they could, even if the law provided a reason not to, so long as there was no "foreseeable harm" from the release.

Generally speaking, said Alan Brinkley, a Columbia University historian, while secrecy has been increasingly attractive to recent administrations, "this administration has taken it to a new level."

Its "instinct is to release nothing," Professor Brinkley said, adding that this was not necessarily because there were particular embarrassing secrets to hide, but "they are just worried about what's in there that they don't know about."

The Bush administration contends that it is not trying to make government less open. Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said, "The bottom line remains the president is dedicated to an open government, a responsive government, while he fully exercises the authority of the executive branch."

Secrecy is almost impossible to quantify, but there are some revealing measures. In the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2001, most of which came during the Bush presidency, 260,978 documents were classified, up 18 percent from the previous year. And since Sept. 11, three new agencies were given the power to stamp documents as "Secret" -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services.

In Congress, where objections to secrecy usually come from the party opposed to the president, the complaints are bipartisan. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat first elected in 1974, said, "Since I've been here, I have never known an administration that is more difficult to get information from." Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said things were getting worse, and "it seems like in the last month or two I've been running into more and more stonewalls."

Mr. Cheney says the Bush policies have sought to restore the proper powers of the executive branch. Explaining the fight to control the task force records to ABC News last January, he said that over more than three decades: "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. We saw it in the War Powers Act, we saw it in the Anti-Impoundment Act. We've seen it in cases like this before, where it's demanded that the presidents cough up and compromise on important principles. One of the things that I feel an obligation on, and I know the president does, too, because we talked about it, is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."

Mr. Bush has made similar comments. But the more relevant history may have been in Texas, where Mr. Bush, as governor, was also reluctant to make government records public. Confronted with a deadline to curb air pollution, he convened a private task force to propose solutions and resisted efforts to make its deliberations public. When he left office, he sent his papers not to the Texas State Library in Austin, but to his father's presidential library at College Station. That library was unable to cope with demands for access, and the papers have since been sent to the state library.

(continued next post)

Framing an Argument

One argument underlies many of the administration's steps: that presidents need confidential and frank advice and that they cannot get it if the advice becomes public, cited by Mr. Cheney in reference to the task force and by Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, in explaining the administration's decision to delay the release of President Ronald Reagan's papers.

Mr. Gonzales said "the pursuit of history" should not "deprive a president of candid advice while making crucial decisions."

Some administration arguments are more closely focused on security. Mr. Ashcroft has said that releasing the names of people held for immigration offenses could give Al Qaeda "a road map" showing which agents had been arrested.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has threatened action against Pentagon officials who discuss military operations with reporters, said before troops at the Army's Special Operation Command on Nov. 21, 2001, "I don't think the American people do want to know anything that's going to cause the death of any one of these enormously talented and dedicated and courageous people that are here today."

The critics argue more generally. Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, argues that secrecy does more harm than good. The Central Intelligence Agency's exaggerated estimates of Soviet economic strength, for example, would have stopped influencing United States policy, Mr. Moynihan said, if they had been published and any correspondent in Moscow could have laughed at them.

"Secrecy is a formula for inefficient decision-making," Mr. Moynihan said, and plays to the instincts of self-importance of the bureaucracy.

Mary Graham, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, saw two major risks in this administration's level of secrecy.

"What are often being couched as temporary emergency orders are in fact what we are going to live with for 20 years, just as we lived with the cold war restrictions for years after it was over," Ms. Graham said. "We make policy by crisis, and we particularly make secrecy policy by crisis."

Moreover, she said, it ignores the value of openness, which "creates public pressure for improvement." When risk analyses of chemical plants were available on the Internet, she said, people could pressure companies to do better, or move away.

Mr. Fleischer contends that there is no secrecy problem. "I make the case that we are more accessible and open than many previous administrations -- given how many times [Secretary of State Colin L.] Powell, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft have briefed," he said.

Asked if there was anyone in the administration who was a consistent advocate of openness, who argued that secrecy hurt as well as helped, Mr. Fleischer said President Bush was that person. He said that was exemplified by the fact that while "the president reserved the authority to try people under military tribunals, nobody has been tried under military tribunals."

In the cases of Zacarias Moussaoui and John Walker Lindh, he said, Mr. Bush has opted for the more open and traditional route of the criminal justice system.

Shielding Presidents

The Bush administration's first major policy move to enforce greater secrecy could affect how its own history is written.

On March 23, 2001, Mr. Gonzales, the White House counsel, ordered the National Archives not to release to the public 68,000 pages of records from Ronald Reagan's presidency that scholars had requested and archivists had determined posed no threat to national security or personal privacy. Under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the documents were to become available after Jan. 20, 2001, twelve years after Mr. Reagan left office. Mr. Reagan's administration was the first covered by the 1978 law.

The directive, which also covered the papers of Mr. Reagan's vice president and the president's father, George Bush, was to last 90 days. When Mr. Gonzales extended the sealing period for an additional 90 days, historians like Hugh Davis Graham of Vanderbilt University attacked the delays, saying they were designed to prevent embarrassment and would nullify the records law's presumption of public access to those documents.

On Nov. 1, 2001, President Bush issued an even more sweeping order under which former presidents and vice presidents like his father, or representatives designated by them or by their surviving families, could bar release of documents by claiming one of a variety of privileges: "military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, presidential communications, legal advice, legal work or the deliberative processes of the president and the president's advisers," according to the order.

Before the order, the Archivist of the United States could reject a former president's claim of privilege. Now he cannot.

The order was promptly attacked in court and on Capitol Hill. Scott L. Nelson of the Public Interest Litigation Group sued on behalf of historians and reporters, maintaining that the new order allowed unlimited delays in releasing documents and created new privileges to bar release.

House Republicans were among the order's sharpest critics. Representative Steve Horn of California called a hearing within a few days, and Representative Doug Ose, another Californian, said the order "undercuts the public's right to be fully informed about how its government operated in the past." The order, Mr. Horn said, improperly "gives the former and incumbent presidents veto power over the release of the records."

On Dec. 20, the White House sought to silence the complaints by announcing that nearly all the 68,000 pages of the Reagan records were being released. Legislation introduced to undo the order never made it to the House floor, where leaders had no interest in embarrassing the president. And a lawsuit challenging the order languishes in Federal District Court before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

Historians remain angry. Robert Dallek, a biographer of Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, said, "This order of Bush, we feel it's a disgrace -- what it means is if this policy applies, they can hold presidential documents close to the vest in perpetuity, the way Lincoln's papers were held by the family until 1947."

Battling the Congress

The administration's most publicized fight over secrecy, and its biggest victory to date, has come over its efforts to keep the investigative arm of Congress from gaining access to records of the energy task force led by Vice President Cheney.

This fight is only the showiest of many battles between the Bush administration and members of Congress over information. Such skirmishes happen in every administration. But not only are they especially frequent now, but also many of the loudest Congressional complaints come from the president's own party, from Republicans like Senator Grassley and Representative Dan Burton of Indiana.

The vice president framed the fight as being less about what the papers sought by the General Accounting Office might show than over power -- what Congress could demand and how it could get it or what essential prerogatives the executive branch could maintain, especially its ability to get confidential advice. And he welcomed the battle. In an interview the day before the suit was filed, he said. "It ought to be resolved in a court, unless you're willing to compromise on a basic fundamental principle, which we're not." And on Dec. 9, Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court ruled for the vice president.

Judge Bates ruled that David M. Walker, who as comptroller general heads the General Accounting Office, had not suffered any personal injury, nor had he been injured as an agent of Congress, and therefore the suit could not be considered. An appeal is all but certain to be filed, but for the time being, the administration clearly has a victory.

"Vice President Cheney's cover-up will apparently continue for the foreseeable future," said Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who pressed Mr. Walker to act, hoping to find evidence of special interest favoritism for Republican donors in the Cheney documents.

There have been other bitter fights over disclosure between the White House and the Congress. While the Democrats controlled the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the chairman, James M. Jeffords, independent of Vermont, repeatedly threatened last year to subpoena the Environmental Protection Agency for documents explaining the scientific basis and potential impact of its proposed air pollution rule changes requiring aging power plants to install new pollution controls when their facilities are modernized. Mr. Jeffords, who never got around to issuing the subpoena, argued that the administration had broken its promises of cooperation.

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was infuriated last August when the Justice Department said it would send answers to some of his questions about how it was using the USA Patriot Act to the more pliant Intelligence Committee, which was not interested. Mr. Sensenbrenner threatened to issue a subpoena or "blow a fuse."

Mr. Grassley, the incoming chairman of the Finance Committee, said administration obstruction required him to go and personally question government officials working on Medicare fraud cases, instead of sending his staff. But his new chairmanship and the Treasury confirmations before it may give him a lever. He said he told a White House aide of his problems and asked, "How can I get a presidential nominee through if I have to be spending my time doing things my investigators could be doing?"

(continued next post)

Closing the Courtroom

Legal policy is where the administration's desire to maintain secrecy has excited the most controversy. Since the first few days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government has insisted on a rare degree of secrecy about the individuals it has arrested and detained.

The immigration hearings held for hundreds of people caught in sweeps after the bombings have been closed to relatives, the news media and the public.

The names of those detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service have been kept secret, along with details of their arrests, although on Dec. 12 the Justice Department told The Associated Press there had been 765 of them, of whom only 6 were still in custody.

A few dozen individuals have been held as material witnesses, after the Justice Department persuaded federal judges that they had information about terrorism and might flee if released. Neither their names nor the total number of them have been made public.

The administration has also kept a tight lid on the identities of the military detainees being held at Guantanamo, Cuba. But in considering how to deal with them, in military tribunals, the government has moved away from secrecy. When Mr. Bush directed the Defense Department in November 2001 to set up military tribunals to try noncitizens suspected of terrorism, one reason cited was the ability to hold those proceedings in secret, to protect intelligence and to reduce risks to judges and jurors. But when the rules were announced in March, they said "the accused shall be afforded a trial open to the public (except proceedings closed by the presiding officer)."

While the government's policy in the immigration cases has suffered some judicial setbacks, appeals and stays have allowed it to remain in effect.

Fundamentally, the government has argued against opening hearings by contending that they would make available to terrorists a mosaic of facts that a sophisticated enemy could use to build a road map of the investigation, to know what the government knew or did not know, and thus to escape or execute new attacks.

That argument was also made in the main case involving releasing the names of those detained, where the government also maintains that the Freedom of Information Act's right to privacy would be violated by a release of the names.

Legal scholars have objected particularly to the decision to close all the immigration hearings, rather than parts of them. Stephen A. Schulhofer, a professor at New York University Law School, said there was already a legal provision for closing a hearing when a judge was shown the necessity.

The "road map" explanation seemed implausible, Mr. Schulhofer said, because the detainees had a right to make phone calls, in which "a real terrorist could alert cohorts who would not have known he was detained."

At a recent seminar at Georgetown University Law School, Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff said protecting privacy was the main reason for suppressing the names. Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, dismissed that rationale, asking Mr. Chertoff, "How can you even say that with a straight face?"

So far, the government has won challenges to the detention of material witnesses.

On releasing the names, it lost in a Federal District Court here, but appeared to have impressed two of the three appeals court judges who heard the case in November.

On the question of a blanket closing of "special interest" immigration hearings, an appeals court in Cincinnati ruled against the government in August and one in Philadelphia ruled in its favor in October. The Supreme Court is likely to be faced with choosing between them.

Putting Sand in the Gears

Immediately after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, governments at all levels feared that information they made publicly available could be useful to terrorists, and began moves to curtail access, a trend the Bush administration encouraged.

The first of the strictures on information resulting from Sept. 11 were described by Ms. Graham, the Brookings and Kennedy School scholar, in her book, "Democracy by Disclosure" (Brookings Institution Press, 2002).

"Officials quickly dismantled user-friendly disclosure systems on government Web sites," she wrote. "They censored information designed to tell community residents about risks from nearby chemical factories; maps that identified the location of pipelines carrying oil, gas and hazardous substances; and reports about risks associated with nuclear power plants."

Many of those withdrawals mirrored efforts industry had been making for quite a few years, arguing that the public did not really need the information. Some information has been removed from public gaze entirely. James Neal, the Columbia University librarian, said that officials of libraries like his around the country that serve as depositories for federal information "have some concern about the requests to withdraw materials from those collections." Perhaps even more important, Mr. Neal said, was that "we also do not know what materials are not getting distributed."

Some material that has been removed from Web sites is still available, though obviously to fewer people, in government reading rooms. The chemical factory risk management plans cited by Ms. Graham are no longer available through the Internet, said Stephanie Bell, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency. But individuals can look at up to 10 of them and take notes (but not photocopies) in 55 government reading rooms around the country, Ms. Bell said. There is at least one reading room in every state except Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

Last March the Defense Department issued a draft regulation concerning possible limits on publication of unclassified research it finances and sharp restrictions on access by foreign citizens to such data and research facilities.

This prompted some concerted resistance from scientists. Bruce Alberts, a biochemist who heads the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences, told the academy's annual meeting on April 29:

"I am worried about a movement to restrict publication that has been proceeding quietly but quickly in Washington. Some of the plans being proposed could severely hamper the U.S. research enterprise and decrease national security. It is being suggested that every manuscript resulting from work supported by federal funds be cleared by a federal project officer before being published, with serious penalties for violations. Another rule could prevent any foreign national from working on a broad range of projects."

Even though the department withdrew its proposal and officials say there has been no decision on whether to try again, the scientists say they are still worried.

The new Ashcroft directive on Freedom of Information requests has also begun to be felt. A veteran Justice Department official said he believed that fewer discretionary disclosures were being made throughout the government because "as a matter of policy, we are not advocating the making of discretionary disclosures."

Delays are one clear reality. The General Accounting Office reported last fall that "while the number of requests received appears to be leveling off, backlogs of pending requests governmentwide are growing, indicating that agencies are falling behind in processing requests."

To Thomas Blanton, who helps run the National Security Archive, which collects and posts documents gained through Freedom of Information Act, that is a clear effect of the Ashcroft order.

"What these signals from on high do in a bureaucracy, they don't really change the standards," Mr. Blanton said, "but they put molasses or sand in the gears."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Reprinted from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/
01/03/politics/03SECR.html

It's easy. The hard part is finding an article worth posting;)

1) Search for and read every article from every source you can find. Make sure you study every point of view so that you can get a view from all sides of a topic.

2) pick articles that you think present a good logical well thought out argument no matter what side it is from.

3) copy the article by highlighting it and using edit>copy

4) open a new document in a word processing app. Paste your copy into it.

5) go through the article and remove the ads and sidelines that were copied with it. Be careful next time to only copy what you want, but it is impossible.

6) copy from your newly edited article. Don't edit out the author or anything he/she said unless you use ... to indicate that some is missing, but preferrably show the whole thing. Editing someones article can cause it to say the opposite of what they meant and is not fair, just ask Al Gore how he feels about that.;)

5) start a new thread or reply to one.

6) Paste your article into it.

7) at the bottom of the small window where you put your text, click on the "check message length" link.

8) if it is the right length send it.

9) If too long cut some out hopefully at a natural break in the story

10) Go back to your original and copy the rest of the article and go back to step 5. repeat till all article is posted.

11) Wait for someone to slam you for it.;)

Cat --- Wasn't it Clinton that let Osama get away???

Tom since when are we holding “military detainees” in Cuba there are terrorists or enemy combatants and allied Scum. Do not even attempt to glorify them!

On second thought maybe you and Cat can bake the poor dears a Box of cookies and hand feed them!

These nice Liberal terrorists BTW would have no problem killing a Bus Load of American School Children and have said so!!

Also as for the protecting this country in these unprecedented times. Personally I could care less if they put a camera in my House!!!!!!!!!! I have nothing to hide!! NOTHING!

You know any Dumbass can be a Critic:

The real genius is taking the first steps!!

The First steps to the resolution!!

All I hear is criticism of the policies.... WHERE are the These People telling me my Children will be safe??????????? At?? Because they have a better plan!! Lets hear it !!!!!!!!!! All I hear Is Bull**** on top of Bull**** coming from the left ...and they in fact are responsible for this situation.


I read these articles all the time and you know what! They are written by NOBODYS WHO NEVER DID ANYTHING. Where is this great Liberal Plan???????????? For protecting this country?? I hear is nothing encouraging from that bunch of Screw-ups But alcohol laden breath and hot air.

NUKE THE AFGANIS!!!!!!!!!!
GET KOREA AND IRAQ AT THE SAME TIME TOO, AND WHILE WERE THERE, TAKE OUT IRAN, GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT THEY GOT UP THEIR SLEEVE!!!!!

Got another comment.......I keep hearing that the Muslin faith is a peace loving faith and they are not agressive against people of other faiths.

Well....my question is then how come most of the problems we are having around the world all have one common thread....Muslin terroist. Hmmmmmmmmm the entire world seems to be in arms against them, not just the USA.

The problem is they seem to have nothing but the Muslim equivelent of Steve 1 as their spokesman. I would really like to hear a Muslim explain how they claim to be peace loving, yet do not stop thier own from such hateful speech. On the other hand look at all the irrational hate speech on this thread alone. Exterminating a billion or more Muslims is going to make us worse than Hitler, but then we would be in good company - Hitler, Mussolini, Aaron Burr, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Trent Lott were ALL conservatives. In defense of those who have a moderate conservative bent like I do on some issues, these people were just as extreme examples as the extremist Muslims are to their own beliefs. We must stand up to the extremists at every opportunity and remind everyone that rational thought must prevail.

I believe it is Christians that are the terrorists in Ireland, not to mention those in our own country that blow up buildings, kill people, and justify it with their twisted view of the Christian religion. Looks to me like extremism is the real problem and most of it seems religion based, greed based, or political. Last I checked North Korea is not a Muslim country. I have said it before that I am uncomfortable with Muslims, but we are no better than the Nazis if we stand back and tolerate such hate in the world without trying to bring rational thought into the picture.

Does anyone beside me notice that when the hate speech comes out the logic and even sentence construction goes right out the window? The same person can write an intelligent post that is well thought out, but once hate takes over all intelligence is missing in the next post. I personally believe that religion, political affiliation, race, etc. have nothing to do with it as long as it is not an extremist position. Seems poverty, lack of education, and perceived or real inequity is the breeding ground of frustration and hate. My guess there is a greater relation to extremism to those things than what religion or political affiliation one belongs to unless you look at the extremes. Leftist rebels are just as bad as right wingers, but Thomas Jefferson, JFK, FDR, Mohatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Albert Einstein were ALL liberals. Why do the right wingers keep claiming their own as liberals? Probably because they are too blinded by their own extremism to notice that they make no sense?

Now back the rational discussion we were having. Gearhead99, your post is a great point and I agree with you in your questioning. Please don't think I am ranting against you.

Oh damn, where to begin. Tom, you don't have a freekin clue! Talk about losing any sense when hate shows up. Hitler and Mussolini as conservatives???? WTF is that? Do you even have a clue as to what a conservative believes?? You apparently have been so taken by the cult of the left that you somehow believe that everything bad can be blamed on the right and/or Christians. I suppose this is what comes from living in the liberal mecca on the left coast. It really doesn't surprise me that you have such a hateful opinion of well spoken conservatives like Steve1. After all, having your entire world view shaken by someone with actual facts and figures and illustrations must be quite disturbing. And just to be fair I do agree with you on one point:

Extremism on any side of an issue is not a good thing and more people have been killed in the name of religious extremism than most other reasons-except maybe anti-religious extremism. (See Hitler and the Russian and Chinese revolutions)

Careful how far on the left you hang out there Tom, you might just fall off.

It is called emotion. And this issue can get very emotional for some and should for all. Not everyone was captain of the debate team and their emotions can and will cause rash comments and spelling and grammar errors. This is yet another one of those areas I do not understand. Immediately following 9/11 we were being told by supposed scholars not to give in to our anger. While I do not condone the action against anyone based on religion or race, that does not mean I cannot be mad, angry and yes hateful towards those who wish me, my family and my countrymen DEAD. That is where logic and calm understanding cannot help us. This is a foreign concept to Americans, even during the cold war, the Russian people, nor government, did not wish all Americans dead. It is also not logical for a few thousand people to believe they can defeat the strongest nation on the planet, yet that is their belief.
As far as the comments directed at Steve 1, I do not know him and although some of his comments may seem flip, I have read his posts and find he speaks from an experience few of us have had. And I for one favor experience to classroom theory. I have never been to the Middle East nor have I been in the military. I do have a good friend who was a ranger in Desert storm as well as a few other conflicts. The barbaric acts and hatred towards Americans that he witnessed are hard for me to comprehend. It is like the scene from Independence Day where the president asks the alien what they want, the response, we want you to die. This is what we face with terrorists and unfortunately we can't infect the mothership with a virus and have a glorious Hollywood ending. This war will be distasteful, long and expensive all of which require patience and unfortunately that is not a strongpoint we have demonstrated. The terrorists planned the attack on September 11th for years, and we complain that our leaders have not yet found or killed Bin Laden. Because the newspapers do not run a front page story on our fight against terrorism we assume they must be doing nothing, and if our government talks of another enemy be it N. Korea or Iraq, we must not care about terrorism. Wouldn't be great if our enemies would take a number like they were at the deli counter. Saddam, you can't sell that chemical weapon we haven't called your number.
:crazy: