In fairness, if we send enough people to fight “over there,” there won’t be anyone to die in terror attacks back here.

faraway battlefields no one is ever supposed to have heard of

He presupposes that everyone has been watching Fox.

Yet the surge in efforts to attack the United States over the last few months, including on Detroit-bound Northwest Flight 253, is in many ways a measure of our success on faraway battlefields no one is ever supposed to have heard of.

We fight them over there so we have to fight them over here.

The US should have attacked Antartica because you can totally spot penguins when they’re going through the gates at the airports.

Also, the lack of attacks are also proof that our foreign wars are keeping us safe. Also, the fact that no other gigantic skyscraper- and airliner-downing attacks had occurred on Bush Jr’s watch meant that they kept us safe, but it does suggest a massive failure of Bill Clinton’s anti-terrorism strategy.

no one is ever supposed to have heard of.
You can bet if we heard of it, it’s Obama’s fault.

Ex Bush Jr. administration officials have to beat the shit out of their wives over here so that they don’t have to beat the shit out of their wives over there.

Presidentin’ means you have to make few terrorists to defeat the terrorists.

It’s no longer about moving the goalposts, the goalposts have become quantum, such that any effort to measure their location, changes their location, and one can only assign probabilities at any time as to where the goalposts might be, within a range.

Any attempt to assign a metric of success that determines whether anti-terrorism measures are working only creates more terrorism, it is only by not measuring anything that we can be certain of nothing.

Or something.

Come to think of it, this is an appropriate metaphor, after all you do measure particles by their “spin”, and it’s even possible for particles to be spinning in both directions simultaneously.

The attempted terrorism attack both proves Obama’s policies are a failure, and proves the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a success.

Fascinating. This might be the most bizarre thing I’ve heard all day, and I’ve been arguing with objectivists on the internet all day.

FM FTW.

Wait, we go from zero to one on the terrorism happenings in the past 8 years and that’s a huge increase? Huh.

I mean, he’s blaming Obama for the attack, but crediting him for devoting more energy to the wars, which deter terrorists, except when they don’t, which means we need more security, and…yeah. Penis.

Finally, we’re safe: I just watched Obama’s speech and he used the words terror and terrorist and the phrase “We are at war”, so this means we are now safe, because what I’ve learned from the right over the past couple of weeks is that the terrists will now kill us all b/c Obama made it illegal to use the words “terror” and “terrorist” and he refuses to admit WE ARE AT WAR.

However, he may have undermined all our newfound safety by then saying that we as a free society will not live as a frightened people under siege, which will now make me feel awkward about living in the root cellar and wearing Al Qa’ida resistant helmets with crosses on them.

is in many ways a measure of our success on faraway battlefields no one is ever supposed to have heard of.

Well if the useless corporate media hadn’t shut down all its foreign bureaus, maybe we would have heard of all these battlefields that we’re “not supposed” to hear of.

Fuck, now the terrible, facile coverage the media provides is some kind of unstoppable force of nature or something, rather than a series of deliberate decisions to dumb down content and insight.

The US should have attacked Antartica because you can totally spot penguins when they’re going through the gates at the airports.

You’ve forced my hand, good sir.

Are “contrarians” anything like Rosicrucians?

I still have fond memories of their cool ads in magazines when I was a wee sprog.

Screw the Tea Party crap – America needs a Contrarian Party … & its honorary chairman could be this great political genius.

faraway battlefields no one is ever supposed to have heard of.

Abrose Bierce pointed out that war is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.

A[m]brose Bierce pointed out that war is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.

If you include counter-insurgencies and hired FREEDUM FIGHTUZ, I’ll agree with that, ’cause otherwise I might never have known much about exotic locales like East Timor, or Cuito Cuanavale, or the Magdalena Medio.

Wow. Just like Cheney and Bush, claiming increasing troop and civilian deaths in Iraq means the terrorists are getting desperate and on the ropes, in the last throes, etc. Reality doesn’t matter when your answer is always the same.

As the Great Stalin reminds us, the closer we come to achieving True Communism, the more class enemies we have to kill.

“As the Great Stalin reminds us, the closer we come to achieving True Communism, the more class enemies we have to kill.”

Limbaugh’s corrolary; the less liberalism there is in America (see the anemic and centrist presidency of the moment), the more people we will accuse of being liberals (to the point that Bush and McCain are now considered RINOs and liberals, barely better than the pinko commies of the left). Not completely relevant to the article at hand, just to your statement.

We often think of “contrarians” as people habitually accustomed to take views opposite of those which seem to be the prevailing or even most well argued or documented views. But what if the opposite were the case? Hmmmm?

Dickey. Heh heh.

To answer that, El Cid, first we have to account for the possibility that you wouldn’t have asked that question if you didn’t ask that question.

It’s no longer about moving the goalposts, the goalposts have become quantum, such that any effort to measure their location, changes their location, and one can only assign probabilities at any time as to where the goalposts might be, within a range.

wngnuz @trgclyflp LOL glpsts nt r33l cep 2 u c-bll rulz r teh bmb. bkmrk it lbs.

To answer that, El Cid, first we have to account for the possibility that you wouldn’t have asked that question if you didn’t ask that question.

Ordinarily that’s exactly what you might think, but here I think we ought to think outside the box.

The fire ants in my shorts are evidence that my strategy of stomping anthills is working.

Also, we’ve turned the corner.

And last throes.

The fire ants in my shorts are evidence that my strategy of stomping anthills is working.

Or are you just glad to see them?

Thanks for the link about the near-wife killer. Just another hard working Republican suffering from long hours at the office I’m sure. If he can get out by 2013, possibly he can get a job working on domestic policy, where he can continue to put women in their place, by the millions.

As for the terrorist plotting, we’re getting close to playing, “Find the terrorist in your neighborhood.” its only a matter of time.

You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. Eggs with terrorists inside.

Ordinarily that’s exactly what you might think, but here I think we ought to think outside the box.

You can push the envelope, ut it’s still stationary.

You can push the envelope, ut it’s still stationary.

Oops, a B-

Oops, a B

Or wait, is it half a B?</a

FYHTML

You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. Eggs with terrorists inside.

WHY DO THE LIBRULS HATE OMELETS?

So after reading the article, I have to respectfully disagree with the premise that Dickey is some sort of wild-eyed neocon.

The gist of the article was “don’t let the butthurt and panic over the underpants bomber stampede the administration into doing something stupid. Quietly use targeted methods and our allies in the Middle East to find and kill Al Qaeda members. Most especially, don’t go on a giant bombing campaign or invasion in Yemen ’cause that would be stupid.” Do you honestly disagree with that?

There are, in fact, people who want to kill as many Americans as they can and we need to do what we can (legally) do to find and stop them. Ignoring this fact is as stupid as the neocon premise that bombing the maximum number of brown people will make the rest of the world love us.

Forgot to mention that the statement that “the presence of the panty-bomber indicates that we’re winning over there,” while stupid, is really peripheral to the theme of the article and (while recognizing that this is a snark blog after all) focusing on that is unfair to the bigger point Dickey is making.

Well, there is the larger moral point that, y’know, maybe we shouldn’t kill Al Qaeda members through politically dubious and legally abhorrent methods.

But I recognize the idea that we should arrest people and not simply assassinate them is a hard nut to crack in this day and age. After all, they’re out to kill us so we need to kill them first.

In other words, just because his article’s gist wasn’t as stupid as invading Yemen is a brilliant idea, doesn’t mean his idea is common sense.

“But I recognize the idea that we should arrest people and not simply assassinate them is a hard nut to crack in this day and age.”

Yes it is. When Pakistan can’t control its own Northwest Frontier, Somalia can’t control anything, Afghanistan (remember, militarily / police-wise that’s us) can’t control anything outside Kabul — it’s pretty tough to do proper police procedure.

Yemen is supposed to be relatively stable but apparently they’ve got some places where training and indoctrination can go on. Should we work with the government as much as possible? Of course we should.

It does not follow that if you can’t arrest the bad guys, you should do nothing. Some situations really require us to kill some people before they or their dupes can kill some of ours. If believing that makes me a fellow-traveler of the Villagers, so be it.

It does not follow that if you can’t arrest the bad guys, you should do nothing. Some situations really require us to kill some people before they or their dupes can kill some of ours. If believing that makes me a fellow-traveler of the Villagers, so be it.

Just beware the ol’ slippery slope the neocons like to bring up when it comes to librul ideas. It works the other way too. As old Sam Vimes once said,”Once you are willing to do something for the right reasons it becomes much easier to do it for the wrong reasons.” Also watch for blowback, there is a convicted, escaped terrorist living in Miami these days with a nod from our government. Is it now OK for Cuba to send a Cruise missile in there to get him? Or is it a case of IOKIYAA

“there is a convicted, escaped terrorist living in Miami”

Don’t know about this; who? Is s/he a continuing threat to Cuba? Do they have no other recourse? etc. Linky would be welcome.

I fully acknowledge that there are moral and practical issues with Predator strikes on what you think might be terrorists. I’m just saying that in some cases that’s still your best option. Not that it’s a good option.

Link, an old article but as far as I know they are still here. If I recall correctly, Carrilles was tried and convicted in a Venezuelan court of blowing up a comercial airliner.

As usual, Bosch refused to admit guilt, but his chilling defense of the bombing – and the strong evidence that has swirled around his role – leave little doubt of his complicity, even as he lives in Miami as a free man.

Another Cuban exile, Luis Posada Carriles, also has been tied to the bombing, but the Bush administration has so far rebuffed Venezuela’s extradition request for him, since he sneaked into the United States in 2005.

Basically, what Sirius said.

As soon as we decide that it’s become politically expedient to just up and kill motherfuckers, we no longer have any ground to stand on when someone else decides hey, killing a U.S. Senator or military general is totally fair play. Or for that matter, any of his or her associates.

Once you let that Lee Harvey Oswald out of the box, you aren’t going to have an easy time stuffing it back in. And then it deteriorates to “well, we know he’s in collusion with terrorists, so we’ll send a Apache helicopter after his ass.”

Because you want to be certain you get him, right? After all, he’s out to kill us. The fact that we generate a bunch of martyrs to the cause, throw our weight around as judge, jury and executioner on the world stage, and hey, let’s invade a nation because they’re all out to i>kill us.

Excuse me if I don’t piss the bed looking for ways around law enforcement because it’s too hard.

Thanks for the link. Certainly Bosch and Carriles should be extradited and face their accusers. That’s supposed to be one of the things that separates us from the extremists.

Yeah, I know, Pollyanna but still.

I will say this: they don’t appear to be a current threat to Cuban interests. That is a factor too.

This is from the Wikipedia entry for Luis Posada Carrilles. Isn’t it great the we Americans will not put up with the archaic and inhuman practice of torture.

On September 28, 2005 a U.S. immigration judge ruled that Posada cannot be deported, finding that he faces the threat of torture in Venezuela

I will say this: they don’t appear to be a current threat to Cuban interests. That is a factor too.

So if Bin Laden promises to “never do it again” in some fashion that would convince you, you would be ok with him living unmolested where ever he chooses to live? I doubt it.

I did have a crystallization moment way back in ’02, how my morals were becoming so utterly distinct from the general caterwaul of the “U.S. public”.

Apparently, Bill Clinton had the opportunity to assassinate Osama bin Ladin at one point. This was supposed to inspire outrage at the Clenis, I imagine, but it gave me a renewed appreciation for the man.

Assassins, like torture, was something other countries, countries headed by wicked men, indulged in. My nation shouldn’t be pulling that shit.

There’s a reason people think the CIA are a bunch of evil knobs. And it’s not just because they work out of Virginia.

You guys are arguing a slippery slope argument that I don’t agree with. This isn’t about “political expediency,” it’s about dealing with a problem that’s next to impossible to counter in any other way. What, we’re supposed to send the FBI to the Punjab to round up Bin Laden? What do you suppose the Pakistani government would have to say about that? How about the Punjabis? How about the ISI? Do you suppose they might have an issue with us messing with their pet terrorists?

Meanwhile, there’s a bunch of cells recruiting and training people to kill Westerners along with their own countrymen and religious bretheren. It isn’t pants-pissing to acknowledge that and try to think of ways to counter it, including, yes, killing them.

There’s all kinds of nuance and hard choices and sticky moral problems with addressing international terrorism. There are big things that I think we can all agree on, like “don’t invade a third party that had nothing to do with that shit” and “don’t indiscriminately bomb people just because they happen to be in the way” and “don’t demonize an entire religion for the acts of a few of its members” but when you get more granular, the choices get a little more tricky.

I suppose we’ll have to just disagree on this. I do, however, think that Dickey’s position can be defended on its merits. I also happen to believe that we can, in fact, go kill certain specific people without turning into the monsters we’re trying to stop.

How’s our record so far? Pretty crappy but getting better. I actually believe the current administration is headed in the right direction, if still not perfect.

You can push the envelope, [b]ut it’s still stationary.
It’s also stationery.

You can push the envelope, [b]ut it’s still stationary.
It’s also stationery.

Yeah, that’s what I meant. Proofreading is for pussies.

“So if Bin Laden promises to “never do it again” in some fashion that would convince you, you would be ok with him living unmolested where ever he chooses to live?”

This is a good point and I had to think about it a bit. If I ran teh USA!!! and Bin Laden convinced me that he wasn’t going to actively try to kill as many of us as he could (or “bleed us white” or any of his other current goals) then I’d be much more patient about working through the system to get him into our country and the courts. Unmolested, though? Nope.

Y’see, it’s a matter of urgency. The urgency of getting Bin Laden goes down with the level of threat he presents and options open up to use established diplomatic and legal means to deal with it. Yes, urgency is a judgment call. That’s why it’s important to have an open government and a strong press (pshyeah, right) to hold people accountable for their judgment calls, precisely so that they have a care about that slippery slope.

Another slippery slope to consider. You may believe that the current decision makers are making good decisions and are doing what’s best under the circumstances. But what happens after the next election, or the one after that, or the one four decades from now. with the wonderfully enlightened electorate I see around America these days I worry a lot about that too.

How about the ISI? Do you suppose they might have an issue with us messing with their pet terrorists?

Note that, much to my surprise, the ISI are targets of their pet terrorists.

“Assassins, like torture, was something other countries, countries headed by wicked men, indulged in. My nation shouldn’t be pulling that shit.”

Can I just say, with the greatest respect for your opinion, that while I disagree with a lot of what my nation does and shouldn’t (torture especially), assassination isn’t always one of them.

Suppose, for example, that we’d been both willing and able to simply assassinate Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait. Then told his successor, “Okay mate, you’ve got until the end of the week to pack your bags and head on home or the same thing that happened to your predecessor is going to happen to you.” Theoretically, that could have prevented the deaths of a lot of coalition soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians. We might have been able to go home without firing more than one shot (and that shot would have been at the one person in the whole mess who actually deserved to die).

I realize that it’s a slippery slope, but I think the rule prohibiting foreign assassinations stinks of divine right of kings, back when war was just one big game from which the kings themselves were immune and off-limits. I don’t think assassination should be allowed in peace-time, but in war-time (or as an alternative to war), why wouldn’t we target the bastard who started it all? It beats the hell out of carpet-bombing cities full of civilians.

Well, actually the rule against assassination was enacted by executive order in the ’70s after it was revealed that the CIA was involved in all sorts of sordid assassination plots in the 50s and 60s.

It goes back to my open government comment: if you’re going to assassinate someone, you should own up to it afterward. I wouldn’t have any problem with someone killing any of the known top leadership of Al Qaeda, assuming it was carefully targeted, and assuming they said, “yeah that was us” afterward.

As to the ISI and the Taliban blowing up their facilities and people…that’s a pretty good illustration of the law of unintended consequences at work right there. “Oh look, the lil’ guy’s all grown up!”

“Well, actually the rule against assassination was enacted by executive order in the ’70s after it was revealed that the CIA was involved in all sorts of sordid assassination plots in the 50s and 60s.

It goes back to my open government comment: if you’re going to assassinate someone, you should own up to it afterward. I wouldn’t have any problem with someone killing any of the known top leadership of Al Qaeda, assuming it was carefully targeted, and assuming they said, “yeah that was us” afterward.”

In that case, I agree. (Especially on the “carfully targeted” bit, having seen the Israelis blown away Sheikh Yassine with Hellfire missiles fired from a gunship. You’d think the most powerful army and intelligence agency in the Middle-East would have snipers or something similar).

Theoretically, that could have prevented the deaths of a lot of coalition soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians

Yes, because we have such good luck with engaging in Middle Eastern politics with brute force violence. I say, let’s kill a world leader and then threaten his successor with more of the same. That couldn’t possibly explode in our face, start up some kind of “revolution” those people are just so fond of, unseating whatever puppet we decided to put on a throne and make the situation a million times worse.

Or, along similar lines, did our show trial of Saddam do dick to calm down Iraq? No? Then what makes you think something even less legally straight-and-narrow than that trial would keep blood from rushing down the gutters of Basra?

I mean look, I understand that it makes instinctual sense to take out the head of the serpent. But the problem is that we long ago (about the time when we mostly stopped having kings and divine right at work publically), advanced beyond that metaphor.

We’re dealing with trying to shoot clouds here.

How many #3 guys from Al Qaeda has the U.S eliminated? Have we gotten any step closer to actually eliminated the #3 guy at any stage? No, because some guy just gets promoted to that slot, or there’s at least six different iterations of “Al Qaeda” each with their own #3 guy.

Do you imagine Saddam Hussein was doing all the paperwork for his party? That he was the only bad man there? Fuck no! He’s got bureaucrats, military generals, secret police heads, all that shit.

Now, are we going to assassinate all them too? Cause that’s going to be a lot of people. We’d probably be more cost-efficient to just go back to the carpet-bombing.

And as far as distinctions between “war time and “peace time”. The assholes who make the kind of decisions about who we’d hit don’t think there is a peace time.

—

And finally, wasn’t one of the justifications Bush had for invading Iraq that Saddam put a hit out on his old man? Do you somehow imagine we’d be in a politically safer position if we decide to start murdering the shit out of world leaders ourselves? Or do we just provide some flash point for North Korea to really decide to bomb Alaska?