A Thought for Tuesday

[jarandhel]

Bin Laden's ideology is not really the problem. Bin Laden's methodology is the problem. His use of terrorism as a political tool is the problem. Not his political ideas.

If you vote for Kerry or for Bush based on your impression of Bin Laden's ideology and which candidate you think sounds like he has similar ideas, you are doing yourself and your country a disservice. The question is not whether Bin Laden is right or wrong. He may have some valid points about American foreign policy. That does not justify the methods he uses. He needs to be stopped, to be caught or killed.

Which candidate strikes you as having the ability to effectively stop him from committing more terrorist acts? Which candidate strikes you as making prudent choices in the war against terror that will actually lead to the downfall of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Which candidate strikes you as having the judgment to be able to stop terrorism on a global scale, by organizations that are not connected to rogue governments?

Terrorism is a crime. It is committed by groups that have more in common with the mafia than with the KGB. Which candidate do you think has the right mindset to deal with the problem on those terms?

Comments

[rialian.livejournal.com]

Terrorism is a crime. It is committed by groups that have more in common with the mafia than with the KGB. Which candidate do you think has the right mindset to deal with the problem on those terms?

===I would disagree.

===An individual does not need to be caught. An environment has to be adjusted. What is happening now is people applying themselves to one world mindset, where such means are actually accepted, and can be "explained".

==="The War on Terror" is a war to encourage terror. It is not designed to actually stop or inhibit this sort of behavior. It works within the paradigm...and extends it out to make it "justifiable" .

===Had we been serious, we would have not "gone to war". We would have tried to identify the people involved, and actually brought them to justice. We would not be sending in armies. We would not be terrorising the innocent in those countries.

==We would not now be talking about who can do the job "better".

===We could have had a pivot with 9/11. We could have had all eyes looking at this travesty (which is actually only one of many that have been going on for a very long time), and maybe finally gotten it so that the peopel were actually working together to watch out for such folks. We could have made it incredibly difficult for such forces to act without warning. We could have had a level of open communication that woudl have secured us all. without the losses of liberty.

===But we blew it. We did our best to close those eyes and minds, and make certain that this will happen a lot more often, and a lot easier.

==="Neither" candidate is good. I especially place the word neither in quotes, because that is the other problem....there should not be a lesser of two evils, which has they saying that they can conduct this "war" better than the other.

===But yes, I do intend on voting.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

===Had we been serious, we would have not "gone to war". We would have tried to identify the people involved, and actually brought them to justice. We would not be sending in armies. We would not be terrorising the innocent in those countries.

That is -exactly- my problem with this whole thing. What the US government has done by invading these countries and going to war is, to me, no better than the supposed attack of Al Qaeda on the US. (After looking at the evidence with an open mind, I'm not believing that what the government says happened is exactly what happened, but that's another story entirely.) To me, the "war on terror", is nothing other than a terrorist attack in its own right, except that since it's lead by the Americans, no one views it as such.

I don't think either candidate is good, as I said before. I still maintain that Kerry is better for the country than Bush, but as you indicated, it's a case of the lesser of two evils. It's a sad thing when that's the only way it's possible to vote.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

That is what I meant by assessing what candidate has the right mindset to deal with terorrist groups as they are. We don't send in the national guard to deal with the mafia, we work through police and FBI action. Likewise, terrorist groups should be dealt with through intelligence gathering, covert operations, and diplomacy among other things. Not open warfare. And that's the difference between Kerry and Bush's approaches to the war on terror.

I don't think that Kerry is just the lesser of two evils... I know that's a popular meme that's out there, but when it comes right down to it what actions of his can you really point to as evidence of him being an evil? That he voted for the authorization of force in Iraq is the only one that I've heard, and frankly I don't hold him responsible for reacting that way to doctored intelligence fed to him.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

Kerry's too conservative on a few issues for me. I still maintain that he can fix a lot of the internal problems that Bush has casued in the last four years- unemployment & outsourcing, health care, education, etc. -if- he holds to what he promised in his campaign speeches. As for the external problems... eh. It's a wait and see thing, really. That mess is a little harder to clean up, and he's wavered on his opinions so much that it's hard to tell what he truly thinks or will do.

Perhaps I should change my phrasing a little- I see it as neither candidate being truly what the US needs. However, Kerry falls less far from the mark than Bush does. Another term of Bush would pretty much ensure my return to Canada within the next few years. I'm at least willing to live and work in this country under Kerry if I can't go home.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I agree with some of your premises, but I don't see them as conflicting with mine, nor do I see them as leading to the conclusions that you do.

1. Whether an individual needs to be caught or an environment needs to be adjusted: I don't see these as mutually exclusive goals. I do think the environment needs to be adjusted, but I do not think that would be meaningful if we do not also capture or otherwise bring to justice the perpetrator of the crimes against our nation.

2. The war on terror does not inherently promote terror. The way that it has been conducted does. The war on terror should always have been a metaphor, not an actual war. Our grounds for invading Afghanistan were tenous at best, and our grounds for invading Iraq were even worse. Kerry seems to want to wage the war on terror more along the lines of intelligence gathering and sting operations, coupled with diplomacy to gain the aid of other nations. I see nothing incompatible between this vision for the war on terror and your assertion that we should not be going in with armies and terorrizing the innocent population of other countries.

3. With respect, we would be talking about who can do the job better. We talk about that every four years. It's part of our electoral process.

4. Yes, we did make mistakes. It seems to me that Kerry is the candidate talking about fixing them and speaking about the mistakes in much the same terms that you are, while Bush's administration is all about denying that they ever happened or that they even could be fixed. His administration espouses the philosophy that the only defense is a good offense.

5. I disagree that neither candidate is good. Kerry might not be an ideal candidate on some issues, but there is a world of difference between his stances and Bush's, all of it good. There is not a single issues that Bush has a more enlightened, more intelligent, or more compassionate view on.

Kerry's not just the lesser of two evils, for once. I'm not saying he's perfect, no one is, but I think he actually deserves a chance at the job.

Of course, the person I really wanted as the democratic nominee was Sharpton, so I'm one of those "way out on the fringe liberals" that Kerry apparently appeals to. ;-)