Sonia Joshi
Feb. 15, 2006

India Times

According to media reports, The U.S. government's list of alleged international terrorism suspects or associates has grown to 325,000, four times more than when the database was created in 2003, The Washington Post reported Feb. 15, citing counterterrorism officials. The list, maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), contains far more names in a single government database than had been disclosed previously, the newspaper said. NCTC officials told the Post, however, that the same person could show up under different spellings or aliases. Most of those listed are non-U.S. persons and do not live in the United States, an anonymous NCTC official said.


-----------------------------------------------------------
These people want to kill us thats why we have to stay on the offense. Some people think that when Bush leaves office the next President who is elected might stop going after these guys and we will be safe. I do not agree! We have to keep going after them because they will not stop coming after us. It is a new world and a new enemy.

But you have to bear in mind, DS, that there will inevitably be those who will argue that the number is up because of the war on terror. For me, it's not the number that scares me; there have always been American-haters. It's their sentiment itself. We'll always be seen as infidels, and there will always be crackpots willing to line up against us...with or without Bush. You'd think the first WTC bombing would have taught us that much, but it's much more convenient to blame Bush.

What a useless thread, IMO. This is just going to start the same argument we all just had. I want to argue about something new, not this "New World Order WCW Heavyweight Title Match" with W. in one corner and Evil in the other.

Blah, Blah, Bad Terrorists, Blah, Blah, W. is Great, Blah, Blah. Next.

The Doc

(I also realize this argument goes both ways, thus, I'm not stating anything here myself.)

There will always be people and terrorist groups out there that want to kill us. Are you suggesting that we stay there forever, and track each terrorist down one by one?

Thanks for acknowledging that.

There will always be people and terrorist groups out there that want to kill us. Are you suggesting that we stay there forever, and track each terrorist down one by one? [/b][/quote]Or we can just wait for them to blow something up here.

ds

My point is eventually we're gonna have to leave. We can't just stay over there and fight them forever. Eventually we're gonna have to take our chances and bring our boys and girls home. Terrorism will be around forever, whether we're fighting it on the front lines or not. Certainly you can agree with that?

There are thousands of warlords and guerillo's in the Democratic Republic of Congo, plundering an entire country, murdering, raping, ...
Why isn't Bush doing anything about that? Instead he is fighting Jihadi's, who are just dying until Bush says he will fight them.

I see your point, and I sure as hell don't don't have an answer, but I do know (as we all do) that we took that position for years, terroism is everywhere, there is nothing we can do about it, lets don't rock the boat, lets don't make them mad at us, lets try to solve the problem diplomatically, lets handle it through the world court etc etc and all it got us was 9/11. There has got to be some reason (besides luck)that this country has not been attacked since we got aggressive over there.

Well what about Iraq? Werent thousands dieing there from a ruthless dictaor? How come some do not applause Bush for going in there and freeing millions of people? You cant have it both ways.

DS

Because, last time I checked, the Congolese terrorists weren't part of a larger group connected with Al Qaeda, whose goals involve attacking the United States. I'd say that the Al Qaeda-affiliates would be our #1 targets.

Where is France, Canada, Germany, Spain, and the rest of the non-participatory ragtag crew, Enzo? Why aren't they sending troops to the Congo? Why does it have to be President Bush and the US?

I mean, besides the fact that it is convenient to bash America... :rolleyes:

Why the hell do people like yourself, Enzo, hate on America for being the "world police," yet, when they don't do something, are the first to receive the blame? Can you rationalize that for me?

Why don't you complain to the leaders in your country to do something about it?

The real question to ask is: Why isn't my own goddamn government doing anything about that? Why do I place the blame on George W. Bush and America when my own government is sitting on their ass doing jack bo diddley squat?

Because, as I said, it is much easier to blame America for the source of the world's problems, while at the same time, yearning for their aid (financially and militarily) when the chips are down, and damning the country in both cases.

Because, last time I checked, the Congolese terrorists weren't part of a larger group connected with Al Qaeda, whose goals involve attacking the United States. [/b][/quote]Al Qaeda as an organisation doesn't exist. There are only seperated little groups of terrorists. The only reason they are in Iraq is because there are so many Americans to kill.


Sure. I don't want anyone to be the "world police" at all. But if the USA want to be it, then why don't they start where it's the worst. In 20 years of Saddam, 10,000's died. In 5 years of civil war in Congo, 4,000,000 died.
To me it's logic that if you want to improve the world, you start where the most brutal crimes are commited.


Congo is a former colony of my country, which is Belgium. We are giving lots of financial aid. That's all humanitarian, economically we aren't winning anything with it. We are also helping in the slow process of democracy that the Congolese are starting. However, we aren't installing democracy, only helping them.
We couldn't do anything military in the Congolese civil war of '98-'03 since the Belgium army is practically nothing. Unless you count the 500 soldiers we have in Afghanistan.

That aid is necessary, but some times I'm feeling like the USA, the UK, and all countries in the western world are kinda picky on which country they're gonna help.


Yep. I America!

What rock are you hiding under? You're trying to tell me there isn't a well-organized terrorist network known as Al Qaeda operating throughout the world? :rolleyes:


America, coincidentally, like all nations, is concerned with threats towards America first. Granted, what is happening in the Congo is a terrible tragedy. But I don't see why the blame should fall squarely on the United States, when we've got the United Nations, which could assemble a coalition to go in there and take care of things if they wanted to.

So, essentially what you're saying is that you want American to clean up your country's mess?

Funny. I don't see Europe using its vast military resources. Perhaps you should divert some of that unilateral skepticism towards Germany, France, and Spain?

Yes. It exists, but it's not well-organized. They are individual cells.

Fine by me, no problem. But that's not how Bush sells it. He says he wants to bring democracy and peace to the world, while all he wants is to assure safety for his country. Again, fine by me, but I think he should say what his real intentions are.

Nope. But again, the USA always say they want to bring piece and democracy to the world. I admire that.
Congo has arguably known the worst conflict of the past 10 years. Then logic would say me that the USA would do something about that, according to all they're saying.

The UN? You've stated yourself how less functional it is.

You're absolutely right. European leaders should have more balls, at the right place. And they should be more consequent. Thanks to the fockers in Holland and France, who rejected the European Constitution, the EU is in a coma now. So Europe is to blame.

But why should I start blaming them here ? There are maybe 3 Europeans on these boards. And 2000 Americans to irritate. No really, the majority here is American, so why shouldn't we talk the most about America.

Incidentally about the EU constitution. If a referendum were held here in Italy too to approve the so called European Constitution I would have voted a earnest, staunched NO. What sort a constitution was it in fact, refusing to include any reference to the Jewish and Christian roots in it, so vanishing any true European identity for some hypocritical political correctness or - what's even worse - not to irritate some Islamic countries (i. e. Turkey) which are pressing to enter the EU? If this EU is meant to be uniquely a bunch of countries which share a common market and economic interests, then we already have such a thing, since 1957. What was the Constitution use? If the use was to stress an ideal and cultural identity, then the way it was written is rubbish.

I voted against it in Holland because I don't see much advantages and don't thrust the Brussels government; it's too big and looks too much like Washington, corruption included. no thanks for me.

It's better to co-operate where you can agree than to constantly chase this megalomaniac vison of one great Europe which will never happen. It has been tried a few times in history but there are just too many different cultures.

For example: This reference to Christianity and Judaiism would have been another reason for me to vote against this EU constitution if it would have been in there for I think religion and politics should be as seperated as possible.

For the Italian Stallionette the abcense of it would have been a reason to vote against.

On Iraq: You can blame Europe for not being united but there simply was no consent:

England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Denmark were in favor

Holland was in the Middle as always

France, Germany, Belgium and some others were against

Since you can't force a fellow member state to go to war, "Europe" (which is just a sub-continent nothing more) was divided.

Personally I think it's good to have strong differences of opinion while able to talk about them. This is why you should always take religion out of the equasion for it tends to cloud people's vision.

This is a lesson the US did not get in my opinion (from the statue of liberty France gave them) - it's basically a Christian-Jewish state as some Europeans also want Europe to be.

You either respect ALL religions or you don't, there really is no inbetween if you want people to have real freedom.

With respecting all religions I mean you should be able to make fun of or even insult any religion without being punished by some government as religioous people mare also allowed to do the same with non-believers.

just a short note on that, because this incidental discussion is off topic here. Of course the separation between religion and politics is not questioned, E lucky R. Europe is not a theocracy and no European with a brain would like it to be otherwise. What I (along with a lot of others) would have liked to see in the Preamble of the EU Constitution was the mentioning of the role and the importance of Jewish and Christian roots in the development of Europe as a cultural and historical identity. What in fact formed Europe as a new entity after the Roman Empire was Christiany. This is an historical truth which should have been acknowledged IMO.

Ah no, you both against it.
And I tought you were leftwing...

What the hell are you talking about? It is an international terror network, where the cells can operate with orders from Bin Laden or other higher ups, they have their own media outlet (As-Sahab), and they have been able to hide Bin Laden and other leaders.

I'd say that is pretty organized to me!

Why? Why does he have to prove anything to you? His only responsibility is to that of his constituents who put him in office.

But again, I ask you, why is the United States obligated when it already has more commitments than it can handle, while Europe sits idly by while more Congolese die?


France? Please. Let's keep in mind that they had to wait for us to kick the British out before they even starting thinking about chopping off heads.

I believe he should also tell what he wants to the countries he's invading, and to all the coalition partners.
Bringing democracy to the world, or stabilizing certain regions for US safety, is quite different. IMHO, Bush as the unofficial world leader should say what he wants.

Nobody is obligated. But, don't the rich countries have the moral duty to help countries like Congo?
1. But the USA only want to stability in regions convenient for themselves.
2. And Europe does...not much I'm glad we agree about this one

Again, this is not surprising - but give credit where it is due. The US has been the leader in peacekeeping operations both within and outside the UN for quite some time.

Europe, as we've agreed upon, has been sitting in its chair, drinking French wine, eating a German Bratwurst, and making love to a Spanish beauty, all while snubbing their nose at America. This isn't anything new - it has been going on for decades.

How many of these guys might be in Iraq? Well, it depends on how many Al-Qaeda and other terrorists er...I mean party crashers entered the country to join Little Bush's party. Seriously though, I hope that Little Bush doesn't call off the party before it's really over like The American people want him to do. I mean, Little Bush has already declared the party a smashing sucess and other than some admittedly very bright spots, I don't think it has been. Little Bush should send some more of his people to the party because it looks like things are getting a bit out of control and there are more unwanted guests or party crashers than Little Bush and his minions (or are they superiors?) planned for. If Little Bush is reading this, here's a message from Canada, Iraq and the rest of The World that's not part of The Coalition of The Chilling, Fix the mess you created before you destroy the cradle of civilization and make a beautiful country into hell on Earth for nearly 30 million people!

Let's be fair here.

The country was a "Hell on Earth" for most of the Iraqi people before we got there, and the question of whether or not it's any better off now is at least arguable.

The real question is, IMO, despite the fact that it was "Hell on Earth" (and may still be), what are we doing there in the first place?

P.L., what The Americans are doing in Iraq is a whole other question altogether and perhaps I wasn't entirely fair in claiming (by omission) that things were all hunky dory in the country before the war. However, as bad as Saddam Hussein was and is, and believe me I am happy to see the guy out of power and I do hope he rots in hell, and although I am officially against torture I wouldn't mind if The Americans and The Iraqis set the dogs on his evil, black hearted ass, Hussein did run a tight ship. A lot of the evil, dastardly things he did against his countrymen were done either with American tolerance or American support. We all remember the picture of that other abnorm Donald Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand right? The U.S.A. was buddy buddy with Iraq (as was most of The West I believe) in the early 80's because Iraq was fighting Iran. The fact that The U.S. played both sides against the middle by supporting both Iraq and Iran in the war (hoping that they kill each other off and American corporations can pick up the pieces maybe?) is besides the point. For ultra Conservatives to claim that Iraq had to be invaded because Hussein oppressed his people is somewhat kooky because a lot of the opression was done with either tacit or explicit American support.

I'm not in any way saying that I think Iraqis would be better off under Hussein, but the country would be more secure and stable. However, (and remember I was originally against the war) now that the bastard is out of power and The Americans are deep in, in Iraq, America should not and really cannot leave the country until it establishes some sort of stability. To leave now would be not only selfish and stupid it would be disastrous for Iraq, The Arab World, The Middle East, The United States and for the whole world.

To Bushie, don't leave until you, yes you (not none of your little lackies and yescountry ((aside from the United Kingdom)) coalition partners), finish the job. If you pull out I don't think The Federated States of Micronesia or Fiji or whoever else is part of the coalition will be able to do the job on their own.