Fighting Terrorism "Indirectly" - Thomas Henriksen

[Ugnetator]

terrorism does not exist

[xxashyy]

What this guy is preaching sounds like more neoconservative bullshit. The US government should mind its own fucking business and stay OUT of other peoples business. Promoting "democracy" directly or indirectly is dumb. Also there is no such thing as a "moderate muslim". Either your true to the faith or not. Besides moderate muslims are looked at in most parts of the arab world as traitors working for the west. A moderate Muslim reminds me of "compassionate conservative" it doesnt exist.

[HudsonRand]

Hooya2, death and terror are the only exports the US really has.

[Hesam0000]

It's easy to say we killed these people directly, we caused those wars indirectly, we trained those others to kill indirectly,

then.....

continue by calling Middle-Eastern youth who are defending their countries against your criminals "Terrorists"!

PARDON ME SIR, YOU ARE THE TERRORIST SNOB IN SUIT, AND THEY'RE THE SIMPLE, DECENT PEOPLE IN RAGS.

[Hooya2]

"...Middle-Eastern youth who are defending their countries against your criminals "Terrorists"!"

Uh by bombing their fellow countrymen?

Oh wait, you're one of those stupid fucks who thinks most of the violence in Iraq is between soldiers and Iraqis! Here's a thought--do some research. Most of the killings in Iraq today are sectarian violence--Muslims killing Muslims.

Ah, but if you acknowledged that then you'd have to admit that both sides contain evil people, and that's just confusing!

[Hesam0000]

Hooya2,

No retard,soldiers haven't killed 1million, Blackwater murderers haven't been sniping brown people for 7 years,the whole country of Iraq hasn't been bombed by US airforce,Iraq is not occupied by 300,000 US soldiers & I'm having dinner with Elvis as I type.

The secterian violence?you mean the "mysterious" bombs that keep going off in the middle of bazars?are you really sure they were planted by other Iraqis?

Havn't you read the British book of "using enemies against themselves?"

[Hooya2]

"soldiers haven't killed 1million"

Yes, of course they have--in war. War is not terrorism.

"Blackwater murderers haven't been sniping brown people for 7 years"

In military actions--again, not terrorism.

"are you really sure they were planted by other Iraqis?"

So not only do you not understand the word 'terrorist', you're also a conspiracy nut. LOL

[Hesam0000]

Hooya2,

Iraq war is US unprovoked attack based on lies, US occupation of Iraq and Iraqi-militia defense. Not exactly a 2-sided war.

War is not terrorism? what do you call dropping bombs on people, tearing their childrens bodies to pieces, driving army tanks in the streets, crashing cars, sniping people and all other atrocities? Olympics?!

I can tell you have no idea why US attacked Iraq instead of chasing Osama in southern Afghanistan. No clue whatsoever.

[Hooya2]

"Iraq war is US unprovoked attack... Not exactly a 2-sided war."

What? Are you saying that because the US had no good reason to attack that the Iraq army didn't fight back? LOL

"what do you call [blah blah blah]Olympics?!"

Um... war. Duh.

"I can tell you have no idea why US attacked Iraq..."

You seem to be having trouble following the conversation; we are talking about what the attack was (terrorism or war), not whether there were good reasons for it. The Iraq war was not terrorism.

[Hesam0000]

Hooya2,

That's not a war. What that was from start looked a lot like a group of terrorist mercenaries led by a criminal (Bush) attacking a totally innocent nation with a dictator regime(Who was created by US itself) to commit genocide of Muslim Arabs for Zionist Israelis and their Jewish supporters in America, to take over Iraq's oil-reserves, to give multi-billion dollar contracts to defense corporations, to raise the price of oil so Exxons,Chevron,Shell,BP make multibillion$ record profits.

[Hooya2]

Hesam, it doesn't even look like you know why you think Bush went to war. Was it to slaughter the Muslims (lol)? Was it to serve his Jewish masters (WTF)? Was it to steal the oil reserves (Which he never did)? Was it to increase the DoD budget (Which he never used)? Or was it to make the oil companies (That he doesn't have stock in) rich?

In my own opinion, he went to war because he's incompetent, but I'm interested in seeing what one of you conspiracy nuts thinks.

[Hesam0000]

Hooya2,

You can only be 3 things:

Extremely stupid,

or

Completely brainwashed,

or

Both of the above.

You seem to have barried your head under sand. You're saying you don't know that hundreds of thousands possibly over a million Iraqis have been murdered by Americans?

Don't you know that US has been shipping out Iraq's oil in the name of reconstruction cost?

They are unsuccessfully trying to hold on to oil-reserves.He did send treasury money to "fund war/pay corporations.He has..contin

[Hesam0000]

contin:

Hooya2,

He has no stock in oil companies but buying stock is not how you get paid these days. You do them the favors and they deposit your percentage in your secret Swiss account. Cheney was employed by Haliburton and Bush has a long line of relationships with big oil. Even the man he put as Afghanistan president, Hamid Karzai was a Unocal employee.

[Hooya2]

"...they deposit your percentage in your secret Swiss account."

So your argument is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory? ROFL

What conclusion can I reach from looking at your comments? well, it seems as though you're obsessed with portraying Bush as not just criminally negligent and incompetent, but a villain. You're even willing to make up imaginary motives in order to support this.

I suppose it says something of American culture that they see conspiracy theories around every corner...

[Hesam0000]

I found out which one of the two you are:

TOTALLY BRAINWASHED.

I'm not portraying Bush to be a criminally negligent. Anyone with half a brain can add all of his lies and the outcome of his lies, put 2 and 2 together and come up with:

He's a f..ing criminal!

But then again that takes at least half a brain :)

[Hooya2]

"I'm not portraying Bush to be a criminally negligent."

I'm the one who's arguing for criminal negligence. You are arguing that he is beyond criminally negligent.

"Anyone with half a brain can add all of his lies and the outcome of his lies, put 2 and 2 together and come up with:

He's a f..ing criminal!"

I suppose it takes a full brain to realize that such a black-and-white worldview doesn't really fit with reality.

[Hooya2]

"you don't know that hundreds of thousands possibly over a million Iraqis have been murdered by Americans?"

The number is over a million, but the vast majority of them was in the initial invasion, or in skirmishes after.

"...US has been shipping out Iraq's oil in the name of reconstruction cost?"

Lol false.

"...did send treasury money to "fund war/pay corporations..."

Gasp, funding companies that work in Iraq for the US! That's insane! They should be required to do everything pro bono.

[Hesam0000]

"the vast majority of them got killed in the initial invasion, or in skirmishes after?"

And that leaves.......what time? :)))

Any relationship to Einstein?

yes, funding US corporations working in Iraq. As in....Haliburton, Blackwater, Exxon, BP,

Whatever that's funded to them is off of Americans' table.

[Hooya2]

"And that leaves.......what time? :)"

Sorry, I should clarify: I'm talking about the people, not the time.

I'm trying to say that the majority (like 95%) of the fatalities were Iraqi combatants. This is in sharp contrast to terrorist attacks, which focus explicitly on noncombatants (i.e. 9/11).

"Whatever that's funded to them is off of Americans' table."

Well yeah that's how nation-building works... You still haven't demonstrated any criminal intent or motive on Bush's part.

[Hesam0000]

Correction: Only about 100,000 got killed at initial invasion which were Saddam's actual army. Afterwards 900,000 got killed who were Iraqi youth, civilians turned militia to defend Iraq against US forces.

No criminal intent?

Bush says we have to overthrough Saddam in early 2001, 9/11 happens right afterward supposedly by Osama, Bush attacks Iraq and forgets Osama!!!!

4400 US citizens get killed not to mention 3600 in 9/11. 60,000 injured losing legs, arms.

Ask the parents of dead soldiers.

[Hooya2]

"...civilians turned militia to defend Iraq against US forces."

By militia, you mean people who decided to fight and try to kill American troops. Just so we're clear on your terms.

"...Bush attacks Iraq and forgets Osama!"

Except that we're still hunting Osama... And you've still failed to establish criminal intent.

"Ask the parents of dead soldiers."

Because we all know how unbiased they are!

And you still haven't established criminal intent.

[Hesam0000]

Yes, by militia I mean the people who decided to defend their country against the American terrorists(aka army).

The only way that you don't see a criminal intent is to bury your head in sand as you seem to do.

Iraq did nothing to America during or after 9/11. Nothing whatsoever. But Saddam cut dollar from it's oil-deals and tried to assasinate father Bush as they said. Bush concentrated 300,000 troops in Iraq,where the oil was and just a few troops in Afghanistan where the 9/11 terrorist was!

[Hooya2]

And perhaps once you've answered that, you can explain to me how hundreds of thousands of troops invading a country and targeting military and political targets (not civilian targets)with the intent of peaceful occupation is somehow a terrorist act and "not a war."

[Hesam0000]

Hooya2,

If you break the bank's door, try to kill only the guard but few customers get killed on the way by you, then you do your plan which is nothing but innocently take the bank's money then stay in the bank and take the rest of customers hostage by the force of guns with no decision to leave the bank,

hmmmmmmmm

I guess you're right, that wouldn't count as a bank robbery :)

I love to find out what you'd do if Russians attacked America to "target military and political targets"!

[Hooya2]

"...nothing but innocently take the bank's money..."

LOL America has done nothing but pour billions into Iraq. The US debt has increased by several TRILLION since this war began. It's been a financial disaster. But hey, don't let reality prick your conspiracy buble!

"..if Russians attacked America to "target military and political targets"!"

If they used nukes, mutually assured destruction. Anything else, we would win easily--America's military is several times larger than Russia's.

[Hesam0000]

Correction:

America has done nothing but pour billions of bullits and bombs on Iraqis and nothing but pour billions of dollars(of US treasury and debt for next-generation Americans)into US corporations/contractors pockets.

Regarding military power, US couldn't even win easily from pre-bombed Iraq!

US and Russia have equal total of active and reserves, both near 3million, but Russia has near 17,000 nukes compared to US 9200. And yes mutual-flatening is the result so no one thinks of it.

[Hooya2]

"America has done nothing but pour billions of bullits and bombs on Iraqis..."

Most of the money spent by the US on Iraq has gone towards repairing it.

"...billions...into US corporations..."

Right, because it's not like those corporations are doing anything useful with that money.

"US and Russia have equal total of active and reserves..."

People don't make armies; weapons do. America has an annual military budget of 440 billion, Russia of about 30. Who do you think is better armed?

[Hesam0000]

Hooya2,

A few decades ago Russia sent men to the moon.

Then US sent men to Nevada desert :)

(wind blew their flag, in the moon where there's no air!)

Does that answer your question?

Weapons don't make armies, people do, brains do to be exact. Military strategy and correct plans. I am 1 person, if I was a bad guy I could cause more damage than 50 bulldozers put together. Why? because of analytical power, decision-making, strategy, efficiency, using minimal force to gain the highest result.

[Hooya2]

"A few decades ago Russia sent men to the moon."

Russia never made it to the moon...

"(wind blew their flag, in the moon where there's no air!)"

The flag wasn't moving because of air, it was settling due to gravity. Honestly, are all conspiracy nuts this stupid?

"Military strategy and correct plans."

All the strategy in the world can't stop a fleet of American stealth jets from blowing everything else out of the air before they even appear on radar.

[Hesam0000]

Hooya2,

Russia made the first landing on the moon on Luna9 in 1966. After hearing that Russia made it there US said they made it there and opened up a restaurant in 1969. :))

Watch:"MSNBC Debates Moon Landing Hoax (2002)" at time: 5:07 then tell me that's gravity!

You know by now who's really stupid.

Stealth Jets? Old technology.

[Hooya2]

"I am 1 person, if I was a bad guy I could cause more damage than 50 bulldozers put together."

Yeah, I'm sure you're a lethal weapon there Hes. I'm sure that if you were trained, given a lot of heavy explosives, and equipped with a tank, you could really do some damage.

If only there was a group of well-trained individuals armed with explosives and tanks--that would be epic!

[Hesam0000]

Don't underestimate the power of mind and guts.

Size does not matter, quality matters.

Bruce lee and Porsche 911 turbo are both made in small package.

If I was a weapon I would have been a lethal one but lucky you I'm just a nice guy :)

[Hooya2]

"Size does not matter, quality matters."

Hesam, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. The American army may be about the same size as the Russian army, but they are FAR better armed. About $400 billion better armed, to be more precise.

Unless all the Russian soldiers have super-powers, they'd get creamed in a battle with the US.

[Hesam0000]

American army is far better armed?

name 1 weapon Americans have that Russians don't have better of.

The number of soldiers are equal.

The number of nukes Russia beats US by about 8000.

Soldiers toughness US guys must have AC-cooled tents, girl shows, direct cell phones, etc, Russians work in snow-covered mountains.

US has Stealth Russia has T-160 and anti-stealth(watch: Tu-160, Russian Silver Bullet).

And half of Russian technology is in secret.

[Hooya2]

"name 1 weapon...that Russians don't have better of."

Bombs, planes, carriers, tanks, submarines, and guns. America has better, and more, of each. That's the advantage $400 billion gives.

"...Russia beats US by about 8000 [nukes]."

So? It only takes 100 to end all mankind; anything beyond that is just redundancy. The US and Russia's armament programs are both wasteful.

"And half of Russian technology is in secret."

Hardly half--The cutting edge is secret, but then so is America's.

[renaldo999]

Good for Henrikson. Re-colonization of the Middle East is not in America's national interest. It may (or may not) be in Israel's, but it's not in ours.

The Hoover Institute needs more scholars like Henrikson.

[MementoExpose]

Bullsh*t, Saddam was a criminal and he had to be removed, Iraq is moving ahead now

[Hesam0000]

Saddam was a criminal.

Those who invaded Iraq are also criminals.

Iraqis deserve freedom and democracy without puppets, bombs, tanks and occupations.

[truthadvocate]

I'm pretty sure this is how Bin Laden was able to escape us. We left his escape route to be blocked by forces other than our own. Also we used indirect force in the Iran Iraq war, supporting Iraq, which greatly increased anti-American sentiment in Iran. Plus we have been blamed for the atrocities that Saddam committed because we supported him in the past. The truth is, we will be hated no matter how we approach the Middle East.

[CognosSquare]

Yes this sounds like the true engine of change to me. I have always thought this way.

And there will be no culture revolution at gunpoint.

It seems the Iranian government have been successful in stifling change through censuring and intimidation. Hopefully the Iraqi government will not do the same.

[neotoy]

I agree with the general strategy. Furthermore I'd say that attacking terrorism directly will only make it stronger. Ultimately terrorism is nothing more than a desperate attention getting mechanism, with only the weakness of society giving it any power at all.