The West Wing - Isaac and Ishmael - Sam Seaborn

[saadmerhi1]

who/what is Israel that he speaks about? is it a pizza recipe?

[TeeCeeBee13]

is there any place i can c this entire episode?

[AvalaDemson]

i genuinly think this episode should be in the curiculum for every school in the country XD

[namdlogd]

What do you call a society where the pizza place you're eating in can blow up without warning. Israel. Am Y'Israel Chai.

[acr225]

What do you call a terrorist state that plays the anti-semitism card anytime somebody criticizes its human rights record?

Israel.

[pepsibookcat]

I remember the first time I saw this episode. It was the night it first ran on TV. And, after that girl asked that question and before Sam answered, I whispered at the TV, "Israel." Then, when Sam said it, chill bumps ran down my arms. It's very, very true. So sadly true. The writers were so brilliant there.

[Julie15gtc]

"Israel". Beautifully written scene.

[hempartist420]

the Issac and Ishmael story is a myth retards, my god... what the hell planet are you people on?

[maamardli]

what do you call a place where your house can be blown away at any time by F16??..

Palastine



[ReginaDoctor]

@maamardli

What do you call place which blow a peaceful people in the buses, train stations?

Palastine

[poprockssuck87]

This clip is simplistic. Terrorism is defined by the opposition, and the implied definition of it in this video completely avoids state and state-sponsored terrorism, both of which have been effective over the centuries. Terrorism could also be applied by an opposition to refer to any 'illegal' paramilitary staging a revolution, especially those employing guerrilla tactics. There are cases where terrorism has been used by the winning side, and the term's use is often on the basis of convenience.

[mickeyforchina]

1:01

[mickeyforchina]

1:00

[purpleferret]

"How's capitalism doing?"

Well, now you come to mention it, Sam...

[Crazydog7]

Yes that's right little sheep violence never works so never react violently, post on Youtube or watch MTV.

Good boy.

[Reqrezentin]

Yeah, Muslims hate the US because of Freedom ...

Stupid Americans.

[kencenpn]

what is the song at the end of this episode?

[pinkpanther7892]

what episode number/what season is this from?

[kencenpn]

@pinkpanther7892

season 3 episode 1

[pinkpanther7892]

@kencenpn thanks, but i looked it up and its like a special episode not in the regular episode number thing so its season 3 epsiode 0 techincially

[starry4sky]

of course, many Palestinians also live in fear of their place being blown up without any warning, due to the Israeli's bombing campaigns

[bwworld]

Without warning? Do some research. When Israel fears terrorists who've been launching rockets at Israeli towns are hiding among civilians, they attempt to send text messages to the civilians and drop leaflets first, urging them to get out of harm's way before they drop bombs. Unfortunately, the terrorists are usually waiting at the door to their buildings, guns pointed at them, telling them that if they don't go back in, they'll shoot them.

[starry4sky]

@bwworld my point was that this ridiculous notion that many Americans hold - that Israel is the good state and Palestine the bad state - is simplistic and simply wrong. The Israeli blockade on Gaza has caused the deaths of many and while Hamas may be a terrorist organisation, the innocent civilians are not. Israel is an imperialist power, preying on a weaker state. Israel fights for dominance, Palestine fights for survival.

[bwworld]

@starry4sky With all due respect, some several mistaken assumptions here. 1. Israel is surrounded by nations and terrorist groups (Hamas, Hizbollah) whose official goal is to destroy Israel. Israel is fighting for survival. 2. If Hamas were to recognize Israel's right to exist, the blockade would end immediately. 3. Why blame Israel for Pal. civilian suffering caused by Hamas's violence and intransigence? 4. Israel is an internationally recognized state, Palestine isn't...yet.

[starry4sky]

@bwworld Yes, that's my point - Palestine isn't an internationally recognized state and so it is fighting to be recognized in the world. I am not denying that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and I condemn their efforts to kill innocent Israelis. I just get so fed up with this simplistic American idea that Palestine deserves what it is getting and that Israeli is simply defending itself. Israel is not purely on the defensive. It is an imperialist power and its blockade is deplorable.

[bwworld]

@starry4sky Int'l recognition would come tomorrow, and the blockade would end if Hamas laid down its arms and recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state within secure borders. I believe this is what most Palestinians and Israelis want, to live side by side in peace.

[starry4sky]

@bwworld I'm sure Palestine would say the same thing though - that is Israel laid down its arms, Hamas would stop bombing and recognise its right to exist. The blockade is an illegal act which punishes Palestinian civilians. Israel is using its immense leverage as a friend of America to persecute its neighbours. Yes it is surrounded by enemy states but that does not give it a right to snatch the food from the mouths of Palestinian children.

[bwworld]

@starry4sky When you say "Palestine would say the same thing" who is Palestine? Hamas, which is dedicated to Israel's destruction? Fatah, which was violently overthrown by Hamas in Gaza? The PA, which says the right things but isn't able/willing to stand up to the radicals? Israel has laid down its arms by ,making peace with Jordan and Egypt. Where are the voices of peace representing the Palestinians who can make a peace agreement stick?

[pinkpanther7892]

@starry4sky guys, honestly, who are you both kidding? do you seriously think that you're going to change either of the other person's minds on youtube?? believe what you believe, but dont waste your breath trying to convince the other guy, because theres a 99.999% you'll be ineffective.

[ModernBabylon]

@starry4sky I'm not even going to bother asking you whether you have read the Hamas charter because you clearly haven't. It states categorically that Israel and the Isralis must be wiped out. This is regardless of whether they lay down their arms or not. According to Hamas they simply don't have the right to exist.

[starry4sky]

@ModernBabylon I am by no means suggesting that Hamas should be recognised.

Please remember that, according to the Israelis, Palestine doesn't have a right to exist. I am for a two-state solution. Israel has been blocking supplies to Gaza, causing deaths and poverty, for no apparent reason. Blocking food causes the suffering of civilians who simply want to live their lives in peace. I'm guessing you're American? It's strange how the Americans support Israel and the British support Palestine.

[ModernBabylon]

@starry4sky Israel isn't saying that Palestine doesn't exist, in fact many Israelis believe in a two-state solution (generalising all Israelis is a bit dangerous). My point was that "Palestine" doesn't actually exist, whether it has a right to or not. Israel is letting a lot of material and food into Gaza, mostly it only doesn't allow things that can be used by terrorists, especially for making weapons or explosives. I'm actually English, very much so.

[starry4sky]

@ModernBabylon You tell me not to generalise about Israelis when you generalised about Palestinians. Remember that not everyone in Palestine is a member of Hamas. And what are you talking about? Of course Palestine exists! What you mean is that it is not internationally recognised. Which is all the more reason for it to receive aid. Israel's hijacking of the flotilla delivering aid to Gaza a few months ago is evidence of what I am saying. That boat was carrying food.

[ModernBabylon]

@starry4sky I'm not generalising about "Palestinians", quite the opposite, I am saying that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian" and that there are in fact many different tribes of different ideologies.

That boat was also carrying people and material attempting to support terrorist activity in Gaza.

[DAngelo136]

@ModernBabylon and what was Israel called before 1947? What was the Republic of Ireland called before 1923? The United States before 1787? How about the Confederate States Of America after 1865? Terrorism, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The aims, tactics and objectives within political struggle are fluid, were the French Resistance fighters terrorists? Not against the Nazis. It all depends on where you sit.

[ModernBabylon]

@DAngelo136 and how this is relevant to my comment?

[DAngelo136]

@DAngelo136 My mistake: My comment was aimed at starry4sky. By the time I realized the error, it was too late to correct.

[drbayoms]

@DAngelo136

Well said.

[ModernBabylon]

@starry4sky Palestine isn't a state. It is a random collection of internally warring tribes and terrorist factions that couldn't coexist even if they were given complete recognition.

[hitch4645]

josh zuckerman at :33. whenever i see him in other stuff i think of him as "that one smart kid from The West Wing."

[YNot1989]

"Nobody got hurt at the Boston Tea Party." Ok, but the Sons of Liberty tarred and feathered British trade inspectors in order to further their cause. That is terrorism, any act of violence used to further a political agenda is terrorism, and no country can just wipe the blood off of their hands.

[lemonNlime1000]

this is no question one of my favorite episodes!!

[ILUV2XLR8ALOT]

what episode is this from i cant find it

[KawaOle]

season 3, Isaac and Ishmael 3x00

Is a special episode after 9/11

[whynotbig]

nice video

[YNot1989]

Terrorism never works? That is only true when they loose; if they win they aren't called terrorists they're called freedom fighters.

[Darusdei]

exactly

[DarkFenix34512]

@YNot1989 I have to admit, that is basically true, I guess you could call them rebels to make it sound more friendly, at least here in the US, the brits thought we would last a year on our own, "A Nation of Rebels, How could we have lost?"

[MikhailBakunin]

@YNot1989 I can't think of an example of a terrorist group referred to not only by themselves, but others as 'freedom fighters', let alone such a group which defeated a populist/traditional force, so I would have to disagree with that. What you're referring to is the difference between revolution and rebellion, which is success, but both are supported by populist movements.

[MikhailBakunin]

@YNot1989 Terrorism is sectarian, the act of extremists without popular support who turn to violence to have their voices heard, or just to strike out in anger. There's no victory or freedom in that.

[drbayoms]

@MikhailBakunin

Maybe the "freedom" comes not in the end result, but in the idea/fact that you are "enlightened and courageous enough" to fight in the first place. "Freedom" (whatever that means to each individual) comes from the fight itself, not necessarily the "success" of the struggle. If you ever found something you believed in enough to fight for it. If you did not "succeed" you would still be free, because you fought. I guess it depends on where you sit, as the person above stated

[naioka1992]

@YNot1989 However, the Americans won the War of Independence, and were recognised in this clip as technically being terrorists.

Don't get me wrong, I think you've made a very telling point, but I have to acknowledge that this episode was meant to inform people after 9/11. So you can't expect the writers to present a completely balanced debate, since talking about terrorists winning doesn't help their argument. But on the other hand, they've done a damn good job at a balanced argument anyway.

[DAngelo136]

@YNot1989 One man's "terrorism" is another man's "armed struggle". 

[Tantaculas]

@YNot1989 As much as I'm sick of the term "freedom fighter", it does mean something different. When the US fought against the British in the Revolutionary War, it was about making America a free nation, not under British rule. It wasn't about killing the British. Terrorism is aggression. It's about hurting somebody.

[DAngelo136]

@Tantaculas You ignore the dead British soldiers. They fought for crown and country. How about the Confederates? Are they heroes or traitors? How about Native Americans? Were they not insurgents fighting for their ancestral homes? Were the men who died at the Alamo "freedom fighters" or usuprers of the rightful rule of Mexican law under Santa Ana? John Brown was hanged for treason; should he have been? Is it better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven?

[Tantaculas]

@DAngelo136 What are you talking about? I'm making the point that Americans were "freedom fighters" in the Revolutionary War and not terrorists to counter what YNot1989 said. Nobody were terrorists in that situation. The British were soldiers doing their duty, the Americans were people fighting for their freedom. I'm talking about terrorism here, which isn't the same as war. War is about something bigger, but terrorism is, by definition, about hurting people for the sake of causing fear.

[Tantaculas]

@DAngelo136 I was making the distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters, but there are plenty of other roles in a conflict. Confederates weren't terrorists OR freedom fighters, they were just an opposing faction. Native Americans WERE freedom fighters, they just got crushed by the pilgrims.

Also the Alamo was a stupid last stand. They should have retreated. But that's another discussion.

And it is better to rule in hell. You can fix stuff if you're in charge. Also another discussion.

[DAngelo136]

@YNot1989 It's never terrorism, it's "armed struggle". Unsuccessful terrorists are called "executed traitors", Successful ones are called "founding fathers"

[NewYorkBound]

The first few times I saw this, I was thinking, "These kids are idiots." Then I realized that back in the day, we didn't grow up learning and knowing about this stuff. Very strange to think about life before 9/11.

[narukyuubi]

Yeah. We didn't pay any attention to the middle-east, if at all, before then.

[fredocarroll]

I'm sorry, but I had to chuckle at the "life before 9/11". Plenty of people DID understand these issues long before 2001. It did awake much more popular attention, although understanding still seems quite elusive. The more amazing thing, to me, is how much American society has changed, especially in regard to the extension of government power. As someone who has lived and travelled abroad, it still boggles my mind how much change that brought out. from a single attack.

[lostlyrarose]

I thought this was the worst west wing episode. so preachy and force-fed. it meant well, but it just didn't do it for me.

[jokr8790]

Tell you the truth. I thought this was one of the finest "teachable moments" on T.V.

[lostlyrarose]

Yeah, I can see that. but it's the little things where Toby is like "am I pronouncing this right?" as if Toby has trouble pronouncing anything. Oh and yeah, no violence in the Civil Rights movement?

[jokr8790]

What violence from the civil rights movement were you referring to?

[lostlyrarose]

Kids attacked when they desegregated schools in the south, the freedom summer murder by the Klan, bus bombings when they desegregated the buses, etc.

[jokr8790]

Oh, O.K. I thought you were referring to violence on the part of the civil rights movement, not against them. As you notice that terrorism wasn't successful either. Don't forget the bombing of the church in Birmingham, AL where four children died. They used to call it "Bombingham."

[jokr8790]

Actually I thought it was Josh Lyman asking if he was pronouncing it right.

[lostlyrarose]

Toby asks about the pronunciation.

[nudist0885]

I love how this show teaches at least a little bit of history of ACTUAL events.

Take the episode where Glen Allen Walken (John Goodman) is about to relieve President Bartlet of his office and he does a little thing about how the BLACK HAND assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. That act eventually started what would become WW1.

I love these little tidbits.

[faceprecious]

if anything inspired this episode and the episode of 7th Heaven that you mentioned it would of been the events of SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. This episode aired right after 9/11 and before the season premiere (the week before) of West Wing's third season. If you watch the very beginning of this episode with the cast they say that the premiere was pushed back a week.

[abfirefighterchick]

The actors even stated that viewers shouldn't try and place this episode into 'The West Wing' time line.

The writers wanted to address the horrible events of that day in a respectful, hopefully educational context.

[wonderglory]

This episode may or may not have inspired the 'Suspicion' episode of "7th Heaven".

[Neil999go]

Wow, you guys are unbelievably wrong,

"History is History"???

There is a difference between revolution and terrorism. The Republic of Ireland revolted against the UK government, because the people of Ireland wanted to leave.

The IRA engaged in terrorism to try and force their views, because they weren't popularly supported. If they'd had popular support they would have just demanded a referendum.

Terrorism is different from popular revolution, terrorism has never succeeded.

[IrishGirlification]

The Republic of Ireland has been free of British rule since the 1920's thanks to Michael Collins, founder of the IRA. Who were a completely different organisation to the IRA of today may i add.

I really like English people but History is History

[kcroyalfanatic]

I think what happened with the IRA is that splinters formed because the real IRA realized that different times call for different actions. Many of those who consider themselves IRA today are no more then people who just go on killing Protestants and that is wrong. I still would like to see a united Ireland someday (I am not keeping my hopes up though). Let me be clear though, there still is an IRA ala Michael Collins but these are different times and different approaches are taken

[keithsmd1948]

Rob Lowe just wasn't credible playing a smart person.

[reynwrap582]

Wow, I dun started a debate. Oddly enough I posted this for a class on Terrorism to see what other students thought, but nobody there bothered to respond.

[bigrob981]

this is a fictional television show....argueing about it, or trying to place the characters in real life situations is best left for the trekies.

[SunSunSuperFun]

Terrorism's never worked? Ask the French how their exploits in Algeria are going. Or perhaps you could ask Batista how running Cuba is going.

Terrorism works precisely because it gets central governments to crack down on the people through increased security. The security causes resentment, and the government falls. Cuba, Algeria, Viet Nam, Tsarist Russia, Pre-Mao China, etc. all followed the same pattern.

[teenageindiefan]

btista was removed around 50 years ago,although still dictated.cuba's still a problem for US.terrorism didn't remove th tsar, mor the fact that the Tsar was so stupid to distract the country by waging an "easy war"(Russo-Japanese War).Terorism damn sure kept the comies there - google Cheka/NKVD.Same wit mao. Algeria and veitnam are examples of puppet states terrorising, not risings from beneath.terrorism doesn't work alone - algeria/vietnam worked out cos of france/USSRs pre-existing strength.

[sassmyfrass]

This was such a great script; such eloquence during a tragic time.

[Married2aMARINE]

what I can't find is "the First Lady's" comments on Isaac and Ishmael...she outlined it best. The Rev Terry Waite, of England, went to the Middle East to negotiate the release of hostages and was taken hostage himself. During his approx seven years of captivity all "they" would allow him to read was the Koran and the Bible. He said he came away from the experience very depressed. He came to realize the conflict was Biblical and would have no end...

[BERGRS]

She was the last person to speak to the kids toward the end of the episode. This was the special episode right after the 9/11 attacks on the wtc. I believe its on you tube

[BERGRS]

Look for Dr Bartlett how it began

[Married2aMARINE]

Thank you

[Achillesinhistent]

Terrorism does not have a 100% failure rate. Even ineffective terrorists succeed in grabbing people's attention & forcing governments to spend money to deal with them. Effective terrorists get the population on their side and become revolutionaries. In the last century, there have been dozens of successful revolutions in Africa, South America, & South East Asia. Keep in mind Aaron Sorkin is a fiction writer, not a political scientist or historian. He wrote this very quickly after 9-11.

[fredocarroll]

Exactly. Algeria is a good example of a country whose independence arose from a guerrilla war that would be considered terrorism under the present use of the term. The French, incidentally, fought terror with terror and torture, and still lost.

[sophieak]

I am a huge West Wing fan, but the wholesale ignorance and arrogance of this episode, especially what comes out of Mr Seaborn's mouth here, just makes me want to weep.

[Prod1Kh]

why? what he said was true. The Brits are still in Ulster. The protestants are still the majority in the UK province of Northern Ireland. He may whitewash the Revolution, but he notes that it was fought against soldiers of the crown, not the citizens of the land.

Ignorant? No. Arrogant? No.

Not only was it true, it had the added benefit of also being correct.

[fredocarroll]

Arguably, terrorism succeeded in Northern Ireland, because frustration over the Troubles and the bombing campaigns helped push toward negotiations. Terrorists rarely succeed in winning outright by violence, but they do sometimes manage to raise the profile of their cause sufficiently that the terrorized power agrees to negotiate, which they might not otherwise have done.

[Prod1Kh]

Demonstrably terrorism failed.

There has been no "re-union" between Ulster and Eire. That was the whole point behind IRA an INLA terrorism.

The negotiations produced nothing the Republican or Nationalist basic platforms demanded: The seccession of the six counties from the United Kingdom.

And now the majority of the population including a majority of the minority (Catholics) are publicly condemning every new terrorist attack.

[jetbrucelee]

read all the verses from 101 to 122 in the below reference.

It clearly states that the sacrifice took place on the first born son of abraham

HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 -- 122

ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE?

[Fellini115]

Well-written, eventhough the discussion of the Boston Tea party was weak. U.S. terrorism is best seen in the cases of El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti, at the time Iraq still wasn't the latest member on the list, unless you count the sanctions.

[neutrino78x]

The United States of America does NOT engage in terrorism. A terrorist attacks civilians INTENTIONALLY -- not as collateral damage -- and acts for political gain, not legitimate security goals.

[AndrewMann552]

Actually, the specific orders from the State Department for the Contras in Nicaragua were to "hit soft targets," the documents of the time specify that the Contras were to destroy civilian areas because it was easier than to take on the Sandinista army, so civilians WERE specifically targeted. Another notorious case is the US Navy shooting down a civilian Iranian airliner on July 3, 1988, killing mostly women and children, an act of pure aggression.

[grumpytosnowwhite]

That Contra stuff is totally true. And guess what? It was ILLEGAL. And a huge scandal. If America was a terrorist state, we would have cheered Oliver North for funnelling all the money, and Reagan would have tried to take credit for it. Our government does illegal things, but only in secret, as a great shame, with the threat of America's and Congress's wrath hanging over their heads. That is not a terrorist state.

[AndrewMann552]

There's a difference between the state and the people. Most citizens for example, are against continuing the war in Afghanistan which Obama has escalated. There are many Palestinians and Israelis, who oppose their leaderships' policies, and many of those policies can be labeled as terrorism. The state itself can easily be a terrorist entity without approval of the population. As for crimes in secret, the invasion of Iraq was done pretty openly.

[grumpytosnowwhite]

I'm not talking about the population. I'm talking about the majority of the government. You utterly ignored what I said -- when it was found that they did the Contra stuff, it was scandal. Congress didn't do it. The "state" didn't do it, a fraction of the government did -- part of an agency. And I wasn't talking about Iraq...that's not full-on terrorism, just an immoral war that...guess what? we now are getting out of thanks to a little thing called elections...

[AndrewMann552]

Yeah, we're getting out...and leaving a pretty large force behind, plus we're keeping in place an embassy literally the size of the Vatican in Baghdad which Iraqis already see as a colonial symbol. Elections? You mean rigged votes which have installed a regime just as brutal and corrupt as Saddam's? "Terrorism" and "immoral war," somehow there's a difference?

[grumpytosnowwhite]

I meant elections as in George Bush wasn't allowed a third term. Not Iraqi stuff. And yes, "terrorism" and "immoral war" are different things. Terrorism is a specific term, not an all-purpose word for "bad stuff".

[donieking]

agree

[whynotbig]

some haved compared washington as a terrorist

[grumpytosnowwhite]

Okay, listen: terrorist = person whose objective is terror. As in, a person whose main reason for committing violent acts is to instill terror in order to gain an unfair advantage over someone.

Washington was a rebel, a "traitor" to the British crown (not the British people -- the colonists considered themselves British), but not a terrorist. His goal was to get the British to give up the colonies. How does the word "terror" fit into that? People use the word way too loosely nowadays.

[whynotbig]

i was comenting in what a terrorist said to convence someone he was doing something right that being in a fictional world and i comprende i only want to show you an interesting opposite point of view wich isnt mine

[donieking]

agree

[AndrewMann552]

It would be interesting to hear what "legitimate security goals" justified the utter destruction of Nicaragua and El Salvador, where US-trained forces bombed such dangerous "military targets" like newspaper offices, nunaries and hacked to death newspaper editors and human rights activists.

[neutrino78x]

united states military officers did not give any order to attack a newspaper office. They have to operate via the UCMJ which would forbid that.

and our security problem in nicaragua and el salvador was the spread of communism and further advancement from the soviet union.

as opposed to a terrorist group such as al qaeda which was not attacked by the united states, and is not fighting to protect anyone, but rather to impose their brand of extremist islam on others by force.

[AndrewMann552]

Actually, according to Reagan's own Ambassador to El Salvador at the time, the US did actively sponsor and support these major death squad activities as described in El Salvador. The US also trained the notorious Atlactl batallion which carried out the infamous El Mozote massacre where women's wombs were slashed open and fetuses torn out, again, with the US in full knowledge of these actions. It's all part of the basic documentary record.

[neutrino78x]

I didn't say anything about the CIA. I said that officers in the United States Army would not have ordered non-combatants to be attacked.

[AndrewMann552]

As all the current documentation and testimony shows, the US MILITARY actively trained Central America's worst governments in the kinds of barbaric tactics they employed. The School of Americas gave the world Pinochet, Somoza's National Guard etc. The Pentagon even used the Americas a testing ground for the goodies it would later unleash on countries like Vietnam, such as the use of napalm, torture interrogation techniques, wiping out entire towns to try and cut off insurgencies etc.

[neutrino78x]

The US Military taught me how to use an M-16. But if I use that training to go kill some random person, I don't get to say the Navy told me to do so.

The United States of America is not a terrorist state. For a terrorist state, see Iran.

[AndrewMann552]

Riiight, whatever lets you sleep at night buddy.

Iran, another example of a state that went radical after we overthrew it's elected government in 1953 and installed the brutal regime of the Shah.

Again, please go READ before you respond.

[neutrino78x]

I think we would both agree that Barack Obama is a Liberal, and not a terrorist. ABC News reports that within an hour after he took the oath of office, he was asked for permission to fire a missile from a Predator drone at a terrorist target in Pakistan. He gave permission. No President would stand idly by when this nation is under threat of attack, and defending ourselves is not terrorism, not even if innocent people die in the process. Collateral damage and terrorism are two different things.

[AndrewMann552]

The strike killed 22 civilians, so the threat hasn't been dented at all. In fact, according to the best Pentagon planners and analysts, aggression of that kind only HEIGHTENS the threat of an attack on the US. Why? Because these forms of aggression only help enflame the region and breed new radicals. The recent Israeli invasion of Gaza has only served to make Iran more popular and actually weaken the moderate Palestinian Fatah government.

[neutrino78x]

From what I understand, Fatah is thriving in the West Bank. Still, it is not clear what exactly you think we should do in response to terrorist attacks. You don't want to respond with force, you don't want to use clandestine operations to infiltrate them...what do you want to do? We can't just sit here and take it, we have to defend our country. btw I voted for Obama in 2008 and Kerry in 2004 and Clinton in 1996. I had trouble getting absentee ballot in 2000 (was in the USN at the time).

[AndrewMann552]

Fatah is "thriving" in the sense that is keeping the population under control at gunpoint thanks to the security forces trained by the UK and Jordan that it uses to jail anyone who speaks their mind.

[AndrewMann552]

We should respond to terrorist attacks by going after those who attacked us such as Osama Bin Laden. Invading Iraq based on lies, threatening Iran etc., doesn't help at all BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

[neutrino78x]

I agree with you on Iraq. Threatening Iran is because Iran is threatening us. They paint "death to America" on their missiles. They just recently launched a satellite, which means they will soon be able to launch an ICBM.

Going after those who attacked us is going to involve non-combatants dying due to collateral damage...are you going to call that terrorism?? When Obama gave permission to fire with the Predator drone, that was going after those who attacked us.

[AndrewMann552]

How is Iran threatening us? On the contrary, the Iranians are well aware that the US and Israel could erase them from the map tomorrow morning if tonight there was the slightest hint that they were a real threat to ours or Israel's safety. Other countries will continue advancing technologically with or without our permission. Iran's isn't even well-equipped to pose any sort of military threat to the West or Israel, which has a mighter army than NATO.

[neutrino78x]

they are threatening us with the loss of cities via nuclear weapons...I don't know about you, but I don't give permission to Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I think they addressed Iran's nuclear ambitions on The West Wing at some point. btw I remember at least one episode of The West Wing where Bartlett fired missiles at an enemy.

[AndrewMann552]

Here's the problem: The 16 top intelligence of the US in 2007 released the National Intelligence Estimate report where they concluded Iran ended any nuclear weapons programme it had back in 2003. There is absolutely no evidence they are making an atomic bomb. If they did, Israel would have already attacked that country with or without our consent.

[neutrino78x]

Israel is quite interested in attacking them, and asked Bush for advanced weapons to do so. Iran has launched a satellite, and they are enriching uranium. I notice you spell program in the British fashion, so if you're not even an American, that explains your position. I am an American and I know the USA is not a terrorist nation. I would also note that Queen Elizabeth II has her Army in Afghanistan right along with us, and her Army has killed non-combatants with collateral damage also.

[Prod1Kh]

Interesting timeline you have there: School of Americas trains Pinochet and then later uses such methods on Vietnam...

Do pick up a book and learn about the Century of Conflict.

Napalm was deployed in Korea - 1950s.

US combat troops entered SVN in 1965.

US combat troops left SVN in 1973.

Augusto Pinochet's coup was 11/9/1973.

Clueless.

I don't like what Nixon, Kissinger, Raegan and North did in Central and South America, but at least I know who did and who didn't do it.

[AndrewMann552]

Actually, my timeline was not connecting the Chile coup to Vietnam. As described in Greg Grandin's excellent work "Empire's Workshop," before the US used napalm in Vietnam it tested it in Colombia against emerging guerrilla groups. The SOTA was already around way before the Pinochet coup anyway, and trained the security forces of other dictators I described such as Somoza etc.

[Prod1Kh]

You might want to read what you wrote again. It might have been clearer had you put the earlier events first and the later events second.

And who cares about Napalm being tested in South America before being used in VN.

It was used in Korea and before that WW2. That fact undoes your hypothesis and Grandin's.

Napalm was simply a development of earlier incendiary weapons. It's development followed a natural progression from conflict to conflict.

Nothing special.

[AndrewMann552]

As for Nicaragua and El Salvador being security threats, it is quite laughable. Declassified records and even Fidel Castro himself state that the Soviet Union was actually hesitant about backing rebellions in Latin America, at the time it was more concerned with keeping it's crumbling client state network together in Eastern Europe. In the US policy still failed because as you must surely know, most of Latin America has gone socialist, with only 2 or 3 conservative governments remaining.

[AndrewMann552]

It is true, Al Qaeda was not attacked by the United States, but consider that the United States was also never attacked by Nicaragua or El Salvador, so the brutal acts of aggression were never justified there as well.

[neutrino78x]

The United States was under threat from the Soviet Union. anyone who became an ally to the USSR was a threat to the USA. btw Russia's 6,000+ nuclear weapons are still there. and if you sympathize with communists or communism, please do not call yourself a liberal. A true liberal does not support communism. Liberalism is about freedom, communism is antithetical to that.

[AndrewMann552]

As the internal State Department documents show, Nicaragua's Sandinista Revolution had virtually no Soviet agents or influcnece within it's ranks, in fact, it's original plan was to have a mixed economy. It only began to see aid, and very little aid in fact, from the USSR when the US began waging a brutal terrorist campaign against those who overthrew a barbaric US-backed tyrant. Please go read some serious scholarship before you respnd. I could recommend a few books if you like.

[neutrino78x]

Your definition of "serious scholarship" requires that the author support communism.

Communism in Nicaragua amounts to soviet sympathy.

Again, the United States does not engage in terrorism. You are using such a loose definition as to render the word meaningless. Try a dictionary.

And...note that no character on The West Wing ever said "we are not going to respond to this attack on US soil". I'll bet you anything that Bartlett would have responded to 9/11 with force. Any President would.

[Married2aMARINE]

terrorism :Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong.These groups have no connection with governments, they usually have the financial/moral backing of sympathetic governments.Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, aim of sowing fear and confusion. (See also September 11 attacks,Osama binLaden,Hezbollah,and Basque region.)...don't see USA listed there w/binLaden and his ilk...

[akylae101]

OMG LMAO!

[benk22]

"What do you call a society that has to live every day with the idea that the pizza place you're eating in can just blow up without any warning?"

Sam: "Israel."

[privee1]

What about the irgun hagannah and the and their terrorist acts against the King David hotel.