Is George Bush doing a good job fighting terrorism?

Is President Bush doing a good job of fighting terrorism?

  • Yes, he is doing what is best.

    Votes: 12 12.2%
  • Yes, but he could do more.

    Votes: 3 3.1%
  • No, he isn't doing what is best.

    Votes: 11 11.2%
  • No, in fact he's screwing things up more.

    Votes: 72 73.5%

  • Total voters
    98

mad pierrot

I jump to conclusions
Messages
334
Reaction score
38
Points
0
Location
The world via Chi-town
Tis' the season for political debate! My question to you is this: Is our president doing a good job of fighting terrorism? Several other threads lean toward this issue, one of the main points of contention in this year's election.

Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, only opinions. In light of the recent beheadings, let's keep it civil.

Personally I think he is doing a bad job. So much so that President Bush's policies are now creating more terrorism. I draw this conclusion from my own experience. I have been abroad before and after his "war on terror." Since his regime has taken policy into action, I have watched opinions of America go from bad to worse. Places I could have traveled to 5 years ago are now near impossible. Some of my own Pakistani relatives shed light on this. The world is, quite simply, a less safe place than it was 4 years ago. In my opinion, were it even possible to round up all the terrorists in the world, line them up, and kill them, it would only make them all saints and martyers. Fighting terrorism with a massive, overt military response is like trying to smother a fire with wood. It's not going to work. The next logical question is "What will work?" Please post answers.

I'm going to post one last article that I feel captures current frustrations. Also, I swear there was already a thread on this subject, although I did a search and couldn't find it. Regardless, given that so many developments have taken place since then I believe this is a question worth asking again.

One Man's Resistance: 'Why I Turned against America'
The confused psychology of the Iraqi resistance and meets a Sunni guerrilla who welcomed the Americans at first but is now happy to have black GIs in his sights
by Jason Burke in Baghdad

'There is no greater shame than to see your country occupied'

Early one morning this week, when the police have yet to set up too many checkpoints, Abu Mujahed will strap a mortar underneath a car, drive to a friend's in central Baghdad and bury the weapon in his garden. In the evening he will return with the rest of his group, sleep for a few hours and then take the weapon from its hiding place. He will calculate the range using the American military's own maps and satellite pictures - bought in a bazaar - and fire a few rounds at a military base or the US Embassy or at the Iraqi Prime Minister's office. Then Abu Mujahed will shower, change and, by 10am, be at his desk in one of the major ministries.
Last week he sat in a Baghdad hotel speaking to The Observer. A chubby man in his thirties with a shaven head, a brown sports shirt, slacks and a belt with a cheap fake-branded buckle, he gave a chilling account of his life fighting 'the occupation'. He talked for more than three hours and revealed:
How his resistance group, comprising self-taught Sunni Muslim Iraqis, is almost completely independent, choosing targets and timings themselves, but occasionally receiving broad strategic directions from a religious 'sheikh' most of them have never met.
How it is funded by Iraqis in Europe, including the UK, and from wealthy sympathizers in Saudi Arabia.
How it has rejected any alliance with al-Qaeda affiliated 'foreign fighters' and Shia militia.
How it receives intelligence from 'friends' within the coalition forces.
How it runs a counter-intelligence operation that has resulted in the execution of two suspected spies in recent weeks.
How it is learning increasingly sophisticated techniques and plans to detonate big bombs in Baghdad soon.
He also spoke about the difficulties of continuing security operations against them and admitted that many Iraqis do not support their actions. Much of Abu Mujahed's account is corroborated by various independent sources.
Intelligence experts in Iraq talk of three main types of insurgent. There is the Mahdi Army of Shia Muslims who follow the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and have led recent resistance to coalition forces in northern Baghdad, the central shrine city of Najaf, and Basra, the southern port under British control. There is also 'al-Qaeda' - non-Iraqi militants who have come to Iraq to wage jihad. And finally the 'former regime loyalists', who are said to want the return of Saddam Hussein or, if that is impossible, his Baath party.
Abu Mujahed, worryingly for the analysts, fits into none of these easy categories. For a start, he was pro-American before the invasion. 'The only way to breathe under the old regime was to watch American films and listen to their music,' he said. He had been a Bon Jovi fan.
'It gave me a glimpse of a better life. When I heard that the Americans were coming to liberate Iraq I was very happy. I felt that I would be able to live well, travel and have freedom. I wanted to do more sport, get new appliances and a new car and develop my life. I thought the US would come here and our lives would be changed through 180 degrees.'
He spoke of how his faith in the US was shaken when, via a friend's illicitly imported satellite TV system, he saw 'barbaric, savage' pictures of civilian casualties of the fighting and bombing. The next blow came in the conflict's immediate aftermath, as looters ran unchecked through Baghdad.
'When I saw the American soldiers watching and doing nothing as people took everything, I began to suspect the US was not here to help us but to destroy us,' he said.
Abu Mujahed, whose real name is not known by The Observer, said: 'I thought it might be just the chaos of war but it got worse, not better.'
He was not alone and swiftly found that many in the Adhamiya neighbourhood of Baghdad shared his anger and disappointment. The time had come. 'We realized. We had to act.'
Nothing had been planned in advance. There has been speculation, and especially among American officials, that Saddam's henchmen had planned a 'guerrilla war' if defeated. But Abu Mujahed, who described himself as 'a Muslim but not religious', and the others in his group were not working to any plan. Everything they did was improvised. And each of his seven-man group had a different motive: 'One man was fighting for his nation, another for a principle, another for his faith.'
Significantly, his group contains several former soldiers, angry at the controversial demobilization of the Iraqi military by the coalition last year. Others, like Abu Mujahed, have salaried government jobs. The cell is not part of any broader organization and does not have a name, he said. 'We are just local people ... There is a sheikh who co-ordinates some of the various groups but I do not know who he is.'
To start with, the group lacked armaments and know-how. 'We made some careful inquiries. Some people gave us weapons, others sold us stuff they had looted,' he said. The group also sought out experts, often former military officers, who gave impromptu tutorials in bomb-making and communications .
The group's first operation - in June last year - was an attempted ambush of three US soldiers in Adhamiya. It was a fiasco. 'We were so confused and scared we opened fire at random,' Abu Mujahed said. 'They took cover and we ran away.'
Their next try was more successful. The lead vehicle of an American military convoy ran over an anti-tank mine the group had laid in a road. 'We think we killed the driver,' he said. 'We found the mine in a house that had been used by the military during the war. The Americans were not expecting that sort of device.'
Over the next months the group varied the tactics. 'One day we try and snipe them, the next we use an IED [Improvised Explosive Device], the next a mine. We never get any orders from anybody. We are just told: "Today you should do something," but it is up to us to decide what and when.'
Black soldiers are a particular target. 'To have Negroes occupying us is a particular humiliation,' Abu Mujahed said, echoing the profound racism prevalent in much of the Middle East. 'Sometimes we aborted a mission because there were no Negroes.'
In contrast to many militants, who have killed hundreds of Iraqis in the last year, Abu Mujahed said his group was careful not to kill locals. 'We are now planning to use bigger bombs in central Baghdad. But it is hard because there are so many civilians.' Support for the militants is far from universal. They are not attracting new recruits and finances are tight, he admitted.
'We used to be able to use banks and bank transfers. Now it is harder,' Abu Mujahed said. 'Often sympathizers buy cars in Saudi Arabia or Jordan and we get them driven to Baghdad or Basra and we sell them. A supporter in the UK has recently sent an Opel pick-up. But most of our money comes from local people who support what we do but can't fight themselves.'
Tactics depend on resources. The price of rocket-propelled grenades has gone up recently as supplies dried up during August's heavy fighting between Americans and the Mahdi Army in Najaf. The missiles now cost 25,000 Iraqi dinars (around ?10) in markets in Sadr City, the northern Shia Muslim-dominated area of Baghdad - 10 times the immediate post-war price. The group is restricted to one attack every few days.
There are also spies. He boasted of information from 'friends within the coalition' and said that his group have executed two suspected informers within Adhamiya. One was killed less than three weeks ago, after being under surveillance for a month. 'He had a wife and child but I did not feel bad. He was a fox. He was made to kneel and shot in the head.' Other suspected spies have been threatened and fled Baghdad.
Western intelligence analysts worry that various resistance elements might combine. But Abu Mujahed dismissed the Mahdi Army as 'thugs and traitors who ... welcomed the Americans to Iraq with flowers and then went looting' and said that relations with Islamic militants coming from overseas are worse.
'Some have no allegiance to any group, others have so much money they must come from al-Qaeda. It is impossible to work with them. They are bloody people, far too irrational. They do not care if they kill innocent Iraqi people. They are terrorists.'
Last week US military casualties in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, most killed since the end of the war by the actions of men like Abu Mujahed. The former engineering student said he does not know how many his group has killed: 'It is impossible to say what has been hit. I could boast of killing maybe 25, but to be honest we don't know,' he said. 'Maybe only five or six.'
'I know the soldiers have no choice about coming here and all have a family and friends,' he added. His justification for the struggle was an inconsistent mix of political and economic grievances and wounded pride: 'We are under occupation. They bomb the mosques, they kill a huge number of people. There is no greater shame than to see your country being occupied.'
He dismissed the interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, as 'the Americans' Barbie doll' but then says that if everyone had 'full bellies' no one would fight.
'Iraqis' top priority is to provide a good living for their families. I take home less than 250,000 ID (?100) a month and I have four children. I have to pay the rent, doctor's bills, my wife needs something, my house needs something. And a kilo of chicken costs 2,500 ID.'
'The US or the UK are not my enemy. I know that any individual US or UK citizen is very good, but we will keep fighting the occupying forces. We have no choice.'
And with that he left. The Observer was told not to contact him again.

Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Sorry it's so friggin' long! :sorry:
 
This wasn't a tough choice for me. Since I love that America has pissed off all its allies, thumbed its nose at the U.N. and told them that they don't know what the hell they're talking about even though they represent a good part of the free world, we've finally gotten rid of all those jobs that kept us busy all day, we're conquering nature, we've made sure that future generations won't get too high and mighty with all that unneccesary education we've gotten, there are more terrorists to keep us busy now so we have more "evil doers" to point our fingers at rather than people having time to think about all the internal problems in the country, I can keep all my riches and screw my fellow man, and so on, I think Bush has done a great job. All I really need is a guy in the White House who quotes the bible from time to time, lets me keep my gun so that no one will give me any crap, women aren't allowed to take charge of their lives by choosing to have a child, and gays are sent to the fires of hell, so I'm happy. I'd have to say that Bush is doing a great job, I wouldn't change a thing. Honestly I was getting a little tired of all that peace and prosperity that was going on in this country before Bush came along. FOUR MORE YEARS, FOUR MORE YEARS....

For those not familiar with sarcasm, this is it. :D
 
... i love the poll results. :D

... nice article.
 
article too long to read, brooker's post short and good.

People need to make stuff shorter to accomodate us lazy people with short attention spans... WE'RE 90% OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION!

I bet more people would watch the president's speeches if they were on debate on Jerry Springer...
 
Another article on the war on terror by "The Nation". About how the Bushites brag with their "successes" but forget to mention when these turn out to be false.

Quote:
"Until that reversal, the Detroit case had marked the only terrorist conviction obtained from the Justice Department's detention of more than 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps since 9/11. So Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000.

When the Attorney General was locking these men up in the immediate wake of the attacks, he held almost daily press conferences to announce how many "suspected terrorists" had been detained. No press conference has been forthcoming to announce that exactly none of them have turned out to be actual terrorists."
 
mad pierrot said:
Wow. That just broke the
Sarcast-O-meter.

:D
Exactly!
A clear "No, in fact he's screwing things up more." for me as well. :haihai:
That clown is a lot like Don Quichote, fighting terrorism that just exists in his imagination :eek:kashii:
 
You forget all the good Bush has done:

Lowered taxes for the rich means more rich are travelling. More contact with rich American tourists will lower terrorism.
Damaging the environment makes it harder for terrorist to go camping.
Stopping Cat Stevens in Maine saved us from another WTC
Manufacturing an energy crisis in a time of corporate greed ensures that the wealthiest of Arabs will be too busy buying new plasma screens to fund and encourage terrorism.
Invading muslim nations has made them love us so much more.
The PATRIOT USA act lets the CIA and FBI look at my medical records and search my house without a warrant or even telling me. Finding out the state of my prostate makes my nation so much more secure.
And finally- all the poor Arabs that were picked on for malapropism, mispronunciations, and for looking clueless- won't become terrorists because they identify with the guy.
 
sabro said:
Finding out the state of my prostate makes my nation so much more secure.

Aw, my god, did I laugh... Aaah, that felt good..

:D :relief:
 
Only one person on this entire forum thinks old Dubya is doing the job fighting terrorism? We obviously have some sort of enlightened global perspective represented here. Will no one speak up for the embattled commander in chief?

The debate scheduled between Bush and Kerry Thursday will center on foreign policy. this should be interesting. I look forward to some global perspective.
 
calling it the PATRIOT ACT is so friggin low..

it's just so you can't argue with it...
"I don't like the patriot act"
"WHAT?! YOU'RE NOT A PATRIOT!? DON'T YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY, COMMUNIST SCUM!?"

has nothing whatsoever to do with what it actually is.
 
Here's a comic from the Seattle, P.I. that points out how the American government is following some of the tactics that Hermann Goering, Hitler's propaganda man, used. It's a very telling point....

The text reads...
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. -Hermann Goering"

Check it out...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=913
 
and it's frighteningly true...

If anyone is going to launch the third world war any time soon, it'll be Bush...

Although there are other leaders of cuntries that are as hostile towards others, he's the only one with enough punch to start something big...
 
This discussion, as well as another thread on "what if you were drafted", reminded me of this piece. It's about 125 years old, but it shocks me how pertinent it is to todays political climate. Some of you might enjoy it (and yes, I answer the thread question below):

The means to real peace. No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest. Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the disire for conquest just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without a fight. Thus all states are now ranged against eachother: they presuppose their neighbor's bad disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests.

And perhaps the great day will come when a people, distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free will, "We break the sword," and will smash its entire military establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering oneself unarmed when one had been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling--that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither oneself nor one's neighbor and, half from hatred, half from fear, does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared--this must someday become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth too.

A German Philosopher, 1880
"...the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all countries, is the absence of peace of mind." ... :singer: Duck, and cover! :) Well, I suppose that's a bit outdated... Now we get Orange Alert and duct tape shortages at K-Mart.

"twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared." Is Bush taking the US in this direction? I don't think so.
 
yeah well.. the second all peacefull countries completely bury all their armaments, is the second when one ***hole dictator starts his world-wide conquest...

aslong as there are evil people in this world, good people will have to stay armed whether they like it or not.
 
TwistedMac said:
yeah well.. the second all peacefull countries completely bury all their armaments, is the second when one ***hole dictator starts his world-wide conquest...

aslong as there are evil people in this world, good people will have to stay armed whether they like it or not.

interesting presupposition you have there Mac. :0)
 
I'm just saying it's ok to keep an army.. just keep them inside your own borders (that goes for unmanned cruisemissiles too!).
If everyone did that, there wouldn't be any wars anyway, would there?

And still we would have a ready army when Einstein and the other aliens decide to attack us!

bababababa! trrrrrrr! aliens attacking! ababababa!

(I had to look up the word "presupposition")
 
Brooker said:
Here's a comic from the Seattle, P.I. that points out how the American government is following some of the tactics that Hermann Goering, Hitler's propaganda man, used. It's a very telling point....

The text reads...
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. -Hermann Goering"

Check it out...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=913
It's downright creepy how true that is... if they keep this current course, they're on the best way to a second Nazi empire :eek:kashii:
 

This thread has been viewed 9895 times.

Back
Top