Treat the root causes of terrorism. Uproot'em.

Talk Cancer » Cancer Chemotherapy » Treat the root causes of terrorism. Uproot'em.

Categories: Cancer Chemotherapy

Question:

On the contrary, if the governments of the U.S. and Great Britain have supported terrorism, which certainly seems to be the case, there is no reason not to guess that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have supported terrorism from time to time as well. After all, the State is war, and terrorism is a form of war. But if your solution to this problem is to find the best state and support whatever imperial adventures it may concoct in the name of "fighting terrorism", then I don’t think you’re really suited for the anarchism business.

As you are well aware, that is not my proposed solution to the terrorism problem.

Actually, I don’t know what your solution is, if any. There seemed to be a certain admiration for the imperial American state floating around — merely an optical illusion, I guess. Further, you were not arguing against "nation building", "exporting democracy" and similar silliness. You were arguing that various evil regimes were innocent and did not deserve to have their leaders killed and their toys broken.

Odd — I haven’t seen these postings yet, even though I’m supposed to have written them! Well, they must be from my evil twin. Care to transmit them over to this side? — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv’t

Response:

— mmm, oh yes I’m convinced. "Bullshit" and "Indeed". Can’t argue with that. Just as I can’t argue with "I saw it in the news somewhere".

Now what did I see in the news somewhere? – I saw that two muslim governments, nominally allies of the west, were doing bad things. Why would you *want* to argue with that? Presumably you want to argue with that because if governments do bad things that endanger US citizens, it suggests that the US government should deter those governments – and deterrence can easily turn into "nation building" and "exporting democracy" which can then turn into hundreds of thousands of US soldiers walking the streets of Iraq. However, a government deterring other governments is not imperialism, nor is it an expansion of state power. A government deterring ordinary people – for example checking to see if little old ladies are carrying nailclippers on to a plane, is an expansion of state power. A government nailing the likes of Saddam is not an expansion of state power. When you lot argue that the rulers of various unpleasant regimes are innocent, you support state power, out of your preference for oppressive regimes over liberal regimes. If you really opposed imperialism, rather than supported despotism, you would argue against US soldiers on the streets of Iraq, rather than arguing against the death of Saddam, and arguing against the wickedness of various unpleasant regimes. –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG neGDFkEDxLxndDtwP9KEaLax4EijJsovjPjFCIEd 4IaoKWcSACkMa8LNoekagiqdhpNI78Ix8im+pYB9A What else can – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I do when faced with such potent arguments but "concoct idiocy": ie, describe his position accurately and point out the decidedly un-anarchist character of the purpoted "anarchist". As Bulba said to Josh: "More like you [Josh] concoct idiocy so you could attribute it to debatant, then claim how ridiculous it is (it is ridiculous) and then you jump up & down in joy as if you proved anything." That is empty, so I guess naturally, you find it compelling. Anyone can assert that anything is a straw man regardless of whether it is or isn’t, and this is literally all he’s done. And, as a fellow ng reader has said to me, "this bulba character seems to be a ‘logic free zone’ on afnc", an observation confirmed still more by the reflexively hostile and empty non-response quoted above. And I think I have made similar observations about Josh. As have others about you and James. Except for one problem, that is exactly James’ position (and yours too naturally, independent thinkers that you are). And neither you, James nor ‘bulba’ can form any argument to the contrary, let alone a compelling one.

Response:

— G*rd*n: On the contrary, if the governments of the U.S. and Great Britain have supported terrorism, which certainly seems to be the case, there is no reason not to guess that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have supported terrorism from time to time as well. After all, the State is war, and terrorism is a form of war. But if your solution to this problem is to find the best state and support whatever imperial adventures it may concoct in the name of "fighting terrorism", then I don’t think you’re really suited for the anarchism business.

James A. Donald: As you are well aware, that is not my proposed solution to the terrorism problem.

Josh Dougherty That’s exactly your proposed solution: support the expansion of the surveillance, policing and warmaking powers of the biggest and most powerful imperial super state that exists to smash many of the comparably small and least powerful states, which are "evil".

Bullshit. –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MLLrDeLUFQFe+TjfC3pJWf6QNMRLAJEVeue+TPlw 41XEKId0QdEq75PaeqWWIKp/4mDbUydGpWeOY+0bK

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — G*rd*n: On the contrary, if the governments of the U.S. and Great Britain have supported terrorism, which certainly seems to be the case, there is no reason not to guess that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have supported terrorism from time to time as well. After all, the State is war, and terrorism is a form of war. But if your solution to this problem is to find the best state and support whatever imperial adventures it may concoct in the name of "fighting terrorism", then I don’t think you’re really suited for the anarchism business. James A. Donald: As you are well aware, that is not my proposed solution to the terrorism problem. Josh Dougherty That’s exactly your proposed solution: support the expansion of the surveillance, policing and warmaking powers of the biggest and most powerful imperial super state that exists to smash many of the comparably small and least powerful states, which are "evil". Bullshit.

Indeed. As Bulba said to Josh: "More like you [Josh] concoct idiocy so you could attribute it to debatant, then claim how ridiculous it is (it is ridiculous) and then you jump up & down in joy as if you proved anything." And I think I have made similar observations about Josh.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — G*rd*n: On the contrary, if the governments of the U.S. and Great Britain have supported terrorism, which certainly seems to be the case, there is no reason not to guess that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have supported terrorism from time to time as well. After all, the State is war, and terrorism is a form of war. But if your solution to this problem is to find the best state and support whatever imperial adventures it may concoct in the name of "fighting terrorism", then I don’t think you’re really suited for the anarchism business. James A. Donald: As you are well aware, that is not my proposed solution to the terrorism problem. Josh Dougherty That’s exactly your proposed solution: support the expansion of the surveillance, policing and warmaking powers of the biggest and most powerful imperial super state that exists to smash many of the comparably small and least powerful states, which are "evil". Bullshit. Indeed.

mmm, oh yes I’m convinced. "Bullshit" and "Indeed". Can’t argue with that. Just as I can’t argue with "I saw it in the news somewhere". What else can I do when faced with such potent arguments but "concoct idiocy": ie, describe his position accurately and point out the decidedly un-anarchist character of the purpoted "anarchist". As Bulba said to Josh: "More like you [Josh] concoct idiocy so you could attribute it to debatant, then claim how ridiculous it is (it is ridiculous) and then you jump up & down in joy as if you proved anything."

That is empty, so I guess naturally, you find it compelling. Anyone can assert that anything is a straw man regardless of whether it is or isn’t, and this is literally all he’s done. And, as a fellow ng reader has said to me, "this bulba character seems to be a ‘logic free zone’ on afnc", an observation confirmed still more by the reflexively hostile and empty non-response quoted above. And I think I have made similar observations about Josh.

As have others about you and James. Except for one problem, that is exactly James’ position (and yours too naturally, independent thinkers that you are). And neither you, James nor ‘bulba’ can form any argument to the contrary, let alone a compelling one.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — For example the bomb making material that killed 200 australian civilians in Bali was under survielance by the famously efficient and effective Singaporean anti terrorism police – but when it entered Indonesia, they were stone walled by the Indonesian police, and had to rely on australian secret agents, who have no penetration in Java, so they lost track of it. Where did you get this information from? Indeed, that’s a very good question. And one, you’ll notice, that still has yet to be addressed. I read it in the news somewhere.

mmm, very convincing.

Response:

For you, no evidence is sufficient to convict oppressive states.

G*rd*n In a sense that’s true. They’re all "guilty" of being states,

Response:

— On the contrary, if the governments of the U.S. and Great Britain have supported terrorism, which certainly seems to be the case, there is no reason not to guess that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have supported terrorism from time to time as well. After all, the State is war, and terrorism is a form of war. But if your solution to this problem is to find the best state and support whatever imperial adventures it may concoct in the name of "fighting terrorism", then I don’t think you’re really suited for the anarchism business.

As you are well aware, that is not my proposed solution to the terrorism problem. Further, you were not arguing against "nation building", "exporting democracy" and similar silliness. You were arguing that various evil regimes were innocent and did not deserve to have their leaders killed and their toys broken. –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG jGXP/P3sgZ12zZiU0r8EvUtxi9PMUALGU23iWd1j 4REr/KHXlrbwPLNhGu/X3m/XOuDf/t9hDsInr30YQ

Response:

That’s exactly your proposed solution: support the expansion of the surveillance, policing and warmaking powers of the biggest and most powerful imperial super state that exists to smash many of the comparably small and least powerful states, which are "evil". Further, you were not arguing against "nation building", "exporting democracy" and similar silliness. You were arguing that various evil regimes were innocent and did not deserve to have their leaders killed and their toys broken.

If he was arguing that, he would have argued that George W. Bush does not deserve any reprisal for anything, and that we should all support your program for the expansion of the biggest and most powerful military super state around, and support all exercise of its state power all over the globe. Yet he hasn’t done so afaik.

Response:

Since terrorists operate in secret (otherwise they’d be stopped) all sorts of fables can be purveyed about them, such as their association with states their Imperial majesties would like to target. Information which can be verified in another matter.

For you, no evidence is sufficient to convict oppressive states.

In a sense that’s true. They’re all "guilty" of being states, whereas convicting a particular state of being "oppressive" seems to imply that all the others are good. While some states are certainly more harmful than others, I don’t think any of them should be given a blank check, especially when on an imperial rampage. …

– (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv’t

Response:

— For example the bomb making material that killed 200 australian civilians in Bali was under survielance by the famously efficient and effective Singaporean anti terrorism police – but when it entered Indonesia, they were stone walled by the Indonesian police, and had to rely on australian secret agents, who have no penetration in Java, so they lost track of it. Where did you get this information from? Indeed, that’s a very good question. And one, you’ll notice, that still has yet to be addressed.

I read it in the news somewhere. I also read in the news that the spiritual leader of the bombers got two years of privileged soft time, and was released after 18 months. Under extreme pressure from Australia and the united states, he was rearrested, and will be charged all over again – probably to a longer period of unusually comfortable prison. You all know that various non muslim groups in Indonesia suffer terror that goes unpunished – why do you do find it hard to believe that terror against non Muslim foreigners is more of the same? You invariably blame the United states for terror committed by nominally non government groups in Indonesia, which presupposes that such terror is protected, and to some extent instigated by the Indonesian government.. Why are you so reluctant to blame the Indonesian government for terror committed against westerners when you have no hesitation in blaming its nominal allies for terror committed against various internal groups? –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MXP5dP9bCYc6XWE5mS9ikS4UxER2peHcNK+2Inbz 4Y/YWIF2mD6fZXOwl/+hKY3fx/ZbmdJLxkTi4wY9K

Response:

— For you, no evidence is sufficient to convict oppressive states.

G*rd*n In a sense that’s true. They’re all "guilty" of being states,

But any evidence, no matter how indirect and far fetched, serves to convict such states as the US and England, while you demand impossiblly high standards of evidence to make Saudi Arabia and Indonesia guilty of what is done by certain Saudis and Indonesians. You demonstrate a bias in favor of tyranny. –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG iNR6L0HaJFL+goHoH7Ht8RNHxFqQjo0UkDmPwolR 4oh3yfoqLSGNwd5sDHZ/dh3rgu0dK6sMt28FNFY6F

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – G*rd*n: One problem with this suggestion is that it does not appear that the U.S. is capable of determining from whom its attackers acquire their aid and shelter. James A. Donald Well actually US can, but the trouble is that much of it is acquired from US "allies" – in particular Saudi Arabia. Very little, however, is acquired from Libya, Iran, Iraq, or Syria – perhaps because the rulers in those places feel that if they got too cosy with terrorists, the USG would kill them. Deterrence is working – to the extent that the US has the will to apply it. G*rd*n You seem to share the fallacy that effective terrorists must be supported by states… The terrorists that are troubling us now only function to the extent that they are supported and protected by states, the primary sources of support being our "allies": Saudi Arabia, and the great Muslim democracy of Indonesia. For example the bomb making material that killed 200 australian civilians in Bali was under survielance by the famously efficient and effective Singaporean anti terrorism police – but when it entered Indonesia, they were stone walled by the Indonesian police, and had to rely on australian secret agents, who have no penetration in Java, so they lost track of it. Where did you get this information from? Indeed, that’s a very good question.

And one, you’ll notice, that still has yet to be addressed.

Response:

— Since terrorists operate in secret (otherwise they’d be stopped) all sorts of fables can be purveyed about them, such as their association with states their Imperial majesties would like to target. Information which can be verified in another matter.

For you, no evidence is sufficient to convict oppressive states. The truth of the story is confirmed by other more public Indonesian defense of terrorism. – by the Indonesian governments failure to punish terrorists except are extreme pressure by foreign states, its frequent failure to arrest and convict terrorists. Clearly, Muslim terrorists in Indonesia terrorize various non Muslim indonesians, and do not get punished. When they terrorize foreign non muslims, the punishments are often bizarrely light, causing considerable indignation among foreigners. Those foreigners would clearly kill the offenders out of hand, except that to do so they would have to go to war with Indonesia. The terrorists that we encounter originate from, or organize in, states that are conspicuously soft on the murder of non muslims. –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Jj1HltCdWhuxLPDSs1kaNOKgau0jURko0NlGJ8NE 4J5gpZ5rLp/O12FcHIWjrYVCRvhPVmMW/VPn2r+8o

Response:

— In any case, that doesn’t sound like "state support" can be blamed. That sounds like you believe there was insufficient state surveillance and oversight of people’s behavior, not too much state support.

A muslim state blocked survielance of explosives in the hands of terrorists by non muslim states. Those attempting to track the explosives had to act furtively, as though they, rather than the terrorists, were the criminals. The Indonesian attitude to Australian spies is similar to the American attitude to Soviet spies, though Australia and Indonesia are supposedly allies – much as America and Saudi Arabia are supposedly allies. Your claim is that the terrorists were able to slip one by because of the insufficient exercise of state power.

They were protected by a Muslim state from exercise of power by two non Muslim states, both of which reasonable expected that their citizens were likely targets for those explosives.. We do not have a similar problem in Somalia, where there is little state power, hence little protection for terrorists, and we have a a considerably lesser problem in Yemen, where state power, though considerably stronger than in Somalia, is still too weak to stop the targets of terrorism from killing terrorists in Yemen. Where there is a strong state that is hostile to terrorists, for example Kuwait, we have no terrorist problem. Where we have very weak states, or no state at all, as in Somalia, we have no terrorist problem. The terrorist problem primarily comes from terrorists resident in strong states that are sympathetic to terrorists – Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and, to some limited extent, Germany and France. Doubtless Syria, Libya, and the rest are even more sympathetic to terrorism, but they have been successfully deterred. The US government needs to apply similar deterrence to Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and perhaps to Germany and France. –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG W19eeNoad8HhfbV/YPIpAQDFRqVWqROMxiFQTA1P 41YZ3mWdM3dOOX6ABgAYPtgI1Q3ldepxK5l68+1nM

Response:

G*rd*n: One problem with this suggestion is that it does not appear that the U.S. is capable of determining from whom its attackers acquire their aid and shelter.

James A. Donald Well actually US can, but the trouble is that much of it is acquired from US "allies" – in particular Saudi Arabia. Very little, however, is acquired from Libya, Iran, Iraq, or Syria – perhaps because the rulers in those places feel that if they got too cosy with terrorists, the USG would kill them. Deterrence is working – to the extent that the US has the will to apply it.

G*rd*n You seem to share the fallacy that effective terrorists must be supported by states…

The terrorists that are troubling us now only function to the extent that they are supported and protected by states, the primary sources of support being our "allies": Saudi Arabia, and the great Muslim democracy of Indonesia. For example the bomb making material that killed 200 australian civilians in Bali was under survielance by the famously efficient and effective Singaporean anti terrorism police – but when it entered Indonesia, they were stone walled by the Indonesian police, and had to rely on australian secret agents, who have no penetration in Java, so they lost track of it.

Where did you get this information from?

Indeed, that’s a very good question. Since terrorists operate in secret (otherwise they’d be stopped) all sorts of fables can be purveyed about them, such as their association with states their Imperial majesties would like to target. Information which can be verified in another matter. We have to rely on governments and media which have been caught in lie after lie and have no reason not to be lying now. On the other hand, some elements of both government and media probably try to find and tell the truth from time to time, if only by accident. How one deals with this situation probably reveals one’s fundamental relationship to authority. Americans seem to have been suckered about Iraq because the society and its culture have become profoundly credulous, passive and submissive. Yet, astonishingly, many of the lies were exposed. However, when we do see actual terrorist acts, and before the fables begin, there is a remarkable lack of evidence of state involvement — they seem to work with equipment which is cheap and unsophisticated, for example, McVeigh’s fertilizer and Atta’s box-cutters. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In any case, that doesn’t sound like "state support" can be blamed. That sounds like you believe there was insufficient state surveillance and oversight of people’s behavior, not too much state support. Your claim is that the terrorists were able to slip one by because of the insufficient exercise of state power. In this case you’ve found a way to blame some other state for limiting the exercise of power by the first state, and you think this let’s you off the hook and proves your case. But it’s still the same in the end: insufficiently free and unlimited use of state power as allowing terrorism to be effective, not state support as the only way for terrorism to be effective. The "bad" states are those that are insufficiently brutal and total in their policing and surveillance of "terrorists" These states "support terrorism" when they limit the perogative of "good" states to perform surveillance, oversight, or violent strikes as they see fit. The "good" states are the ones who exercise power and brutality liberally, and who allow other states to do the same as they see fit. In short, as usual, you take the anarchist position in favor of increased use of state power to counter terrorism, with anything that might hinder the use of state power is "supporting terrorism". And you see this as the only means to counter terror, as even Indonesia somehow limiting Singapore’s totally free exercise of state power was sufficient to "support terrorism", in that it allowed the state to "lose track", thereby with the state no longer firmly in control of the situation, terrorism flourishes. Ah, another of my daily lessons in anarchism.

Well, James’s beliefs and positions are hardly "anarchist" in the usual sense of the word. Or if they are, we need another word to denote opposition to government, state, authority, social coercion and the like, since he’s a big fan of the American state in its military-imperial mode. Lots of people feel that way, of course, but it’s odd to me that people who actually want to be ruled by powerful authorities wish to call themselves "anarchists" even as a joke. — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv’t

Response:

For example the bomb making material that killed 200 australian civilians in Bali was under survielance by the famously efficient and effective Singaporean anti terrorism police – but when it entered Indonesia, they were stone walled by the Indonesian police, and had to rely on australian secret agents, who have no penetration in Java, so they lost track of it. Where did you get this information from? In any case, that doesn’t sound like "state support" can be blamed. That sounds like you believe there was insufficient state surveillance and oversight of people’s behavior, not too much state support.

Not really, this is rather the struggle between various kinds of state power: one teocratic (Indonesia), one kind of semi-socialist-with-free-market-in-intl-trade (Singapore) and one social-democratic (Australia). Your claim is that the terrorists were able to slip one by because of the insufficient exercise of state power.

Nonsense. He clearly wrote that it was Indonesian government that has simply made it impossible to track the material. State power was sufficient all right – for Islamic government to make terrorist act in Bali possible. There are many forces all trying to acquire the power and fighting each other. Some are better – Australia, Singapore, some are worse – Indonesia, but that’s about it. In this case you’ve found a way to blame some other state for limiting the exercise of power by the first state, and you think this let’s you off the hook and proves your case. But it’s still the same in the end: insufficiently free and unlimited use of state power as allowing terrorism to be effective, not state support as the only way for terrorism to be effective.

More like you concoct idiocy so you could attribute it to debatant, then claim how ridiculous it is (it is ridiculous) and then you jump up & down in joy as if you proved anything. <snip idiocy Ah, another of my daily lessons in anarchism.

You understood nothing. — I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — G*rd*n One problem with this suggestion is that it does not appear that the U.S. is capable of determining from whom its attackers acquire their aid and shelter. James A. Donald Well actually US can, but the trouble is that much of it is acquired from US "allies" – in particular Saudi Arabia. Very little, however, is acquired from Libya, Iran, Iraq, or Syria – perhaps because the rulers in those places feel that if they got too cosy with terrorists, the USG would kill them. Deterrence is working – to the extent that the US has the will to apply it. G*rd*n You seem to share the fallacy that effective terrorists must be supported by states The terrorists that are troubling us now only function to the extent that they are supported and protected by states, the primary sources of support being our "allies": Saudi Arabia, and the great Muslim democracy of Indonesia. For example the bomb making material that killed 200 australian civilians in Bali was under survielance by the famously efficient and effective Singaporean anti terrorism police – but when it entered Indonesia, they were stone walled by the Indonesian police, and had to rely on australian secret agents, who have no penetration in Java, so they lost track of it.

Where did you get this information from? In any case, that doesn’t sound like "state support" can be blamed. That sounds like you believe there was insufficient state surveillance and oversight of people’s behavior, not too much state support. Your claim is that the terrorists were able to slip one by because of the insufficient exercise of state power. In this case you’ve found a way to blame some other state for limiting the exercise of power by the first state, and you think this let’s you off the hook and proves your case. But it’s still the same in the end: insufficiently free and unlimited use of state power as allowing terrorism to be effective, not state support as the only way for terrorism to be effective. The "bad" states are those that are insufficiently brutal and total in their policing and surveillance of "terrorists" These states "support terrorism" when they limit the perogative of "good" states to perform surveillance, oversight, or violent strikes as they see fit. The "good" states are the ones who exercise power and brutality liberally, and who allow other states to do the same as they see fit. In short, as usual, you take the anarchist position in favor of increased use of state power to counter terrorism, with anything that might hinder the use of state power is "supporting terrorism". And you see this as the only means to counter terror, as even Indonesia somehow limiting Singapore’s totally free exercise of state power was sufficient to "support terrorism", in that it allowed the state to "lose track", thereby with the state no longer firmly in control of the situation, terrorism flourishes. Ah, another of my daily lessons in anarchism.

Response:

Your claim is that the terrorists were able to slip one by because of the insufficient exercise of state power. Nonsense. He clearly wrote that it was Indonesian government that has simply made it impossible to track the material. State power was sufficient all right – for Islamic government to make terrorist act in Bali possible. Do you ever cease adding nothing to usenet exchanges? And if no one’s around to hear it, is it still stupid?

Don’t blame me for your inability to understand nature of your mistakes. — I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For example the bomb making material that killed 200 australian civilians in Bali was under survielance by the famously efficient and effective Singaporean anti terrorism police – but when it entered Indonesia, they were stone walled by the Indonesian police, and had to rely on australian secret agents, who have no penetration in Java, so they lost track of it. Where did you get this information from? In any case, that doesn’t sound like "state support" can be blamed. That sounds like you believe there was insufficient state surveillance and oversight of people’s behavior, not too much state support. Not really, this is rather the struggle between various kinds of state power: one teocratic (Indonesia), one kind of semi-socialist-with-free-market-in-intl-trade (Singapore) and one social-democratic (Australia). Your claim is that the terrorists were able to slip one by because of the insufficient exercise of state power. Nonsense. He clearly wrote that it was Indonesian government that has simply made it impossible to track the material. State power was sufficient all right – for Islamic government to make terrorist act in Bali possible.

Do you ever cease adding nothing to usenet exchanges? And if no one’s around to hear it, is it still stupid?

Response:

— G*rd*n One problem with this suggestion is that it does not appear that the U.S. is capable of determining from whom its attackers acquire their aid and shelter.

G*rd*n You seem to share the fallacy that effective terrorists must be supported by states

Response:

Mark F: What to do? The key for the United States

Talk Cancer