The war on terror, self defeating or a neccesity?

[BobG]

What a rip. I asked about problem 15 from chapter 1 of 'Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity' by Baez and Muniain, and they were worse than no help at all. George Jones can beat these guys with one hand tied behind his back.

You're killing me.

 

[Pelt]

Yep. Should of gone for the real target not the Taliban, that's precisely what I'm suggesting, a lighting strike by special force units. I don't see what the problem is with the idea?

Well, for one your "lightning strike" idea exists only in movies like Air Force One. Your target is not simply one man, but one man backed by an organization of scantily understood scope and capability that is organically tied into the forces of the sovereign state protecting him.

Central Asia might look small on a globe, but it's still several million square kilometers of rough terrain with several dozen million people. Simply knowing that bin Laden and his associates are somewhere in that mess doesn't exactly narrow things down for you, so you'll need to deploy capability to react to intelligence as it comes in. Once you accept that, you've accepted that the timeframe for your operation is quite probably indefinite and, more importantly, you'll need to support your forward forces for the duration. That means forward operating bases in the AOR.

On top of that, you're not going to get much of a take in intel if you don't go out and meet the enemy. Add to that you're dealing with a landlocked, mountainous country that's been in civil war for 20 years, it would be impossible to gather any intelligence without a local constituency to feed it to you. You can rule out the Taliban--they're committed to backing al Qaeda and determined to take as many of the Pashto-speaking provinces with them. That leaves you with everybody else--and everybody else is the Northern Alliance. The price for their cooperation--surprise, surprise--is assistance taking the Taliban out of power and keeping them down.

So once again, how do you get bin Laden and friends without taking out the Taliban?

 

[Pelt]

Right or wrong, the Marshall Plan set the standard by which future conduct has been judged and as bad as world opinion is of us now, it would be worse if we didn't adhere to that.

I've seen no evidence that global opinion of the US is noticeably sensitive to American humanitarianism, so I question whether or not the Marshall Plan set any standard. That said, assistance to Europe after World War II served a vital strategic purpose, it prevented a wave of Bolshevism from sweeping into the West. I'd argue that the only lesson Americans need take from that experience is the need to prevent enemies--old or new--from emerging to sweep aside the hard-fought gains of major combat operations.

 

[Moridin]

Frankly, the "War on Terror" is actually nothing more than a war on Islam.

 

[Pelt]

Frankly, the "War on Terror" is actually nothing more than a war on Islam.

If it is, it's a half-hearted one that shies away from the juiciest targets and the most efficient means of prosecuting them.

 

[Moridin]

If it is, it's a half-hearted one that shies away from the juiciest targets and the most efficient means of prosecuting them.

Who said it was an effective war?

 

[Pelt]

Who said it was an effective war?

If this is a war on Islam, incompetence doesn't nearly explain why the Administration chooses objectives that blatantly contradict the obvious aims of such a struggle. For your hypothesis to fit with reality, the President must knowingly sabotage his own effort. Otherwise, the Administration would not have allied with Pakistan and the Gulf States, counseled Israeli restraint in their ongoing dispute with the Palestinians and Syria, and refrained from using American airpower to strike the Hashemites of Jordan, Mecca, Qom, Najaf, etc. On top of that, the President must've coopted the entire body in both a clandestine decision to attack Islam and an even more secret one to deliberately throw the war. It would be one of the few controversial strategic issues that fails inspire some discontent constituency in Washington to leak.

That is, of course, if your theory holds any water.

 

[baywax]

Or can this be written off as a just another conspiracy theory?

All we know, so far, is that some planes flew into some buildings. How someone was able to finger a specific perpetrator 20 minutes into the attack I don't know.

The best defense when it comes to terror would be effective investigative techniques. Where's the evidence from the attacks and who's in charge of the lock-up?

A war on terror should be similar to the way you would dispel a child's terror of a dark closet. Get a flashlight. Shine some light on the subject. See it for what it really is. Act accordingly. You don't send 100s of thousands of troops to investigate. They'd be more useful at home shoveling snow etc, rebuilding and re-locating New Orleans, helping out in California and so on..

 

[Pelt]

All we know, so far, is that some planes flew into some buildings.

Well, we know significantly more than that. We have footage of the hijackers boarding their aircraft, evidence linking them to al Qaeda, bin Laden's own confession of responsibility for the attacks, two of the men behind the planning of the attacks, etc.

How someone was able to finger a specific perpetrator 20 minutes into the attack I don't know.

All that was known 20 minutes into the attack is that it was an attack. The details were filled in the following days and weeks. The US did not strike until nearly a month later.

The best defense when it comes to terror would be effective investigative techniques.

Even investigators frequently rely on uniforms to handle the arrests, and occasionally special tactics to rustle up the tough collars.

Where's the evidence from the attacks and who's in charge of the lock-up?

There's enough evidence in the public record--forensics and witness testimony--to choke horse. And quite frankly, the suspect the evidence points to professes his own guilt without remorse or compunction. If he's a patsy, he's one of the most willing and elusive ones ever to play the part--in short, perfect fodder for conspiracy theories.

A war on terror should be similar to the way you would dispel a child's terror of a dark closet. Get a flashlight. Shine some light on the subject. See it for what it really is. Act accordingly. You don't send 100s of thousands of troops to investigate. They'd be more useful at home shoveling snow etc, rebuilding and re-locating New Orleans, helping out in California and so on..

If your mystery "investigators" are so magical that they can take down the leadership of a well-armed terrorist organization integrated into the armed forces of a hostile nation, then why not scrap the regular services and turn them loose on snowstorms, wildfires and floods as well?

 

[baywax]

I'd like to see some references supporting your claims.

 

[mheslep]

I'd like to see some references supporting your claims.

?

"www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf"[/URL]

 

[baywax]

?

"www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf"[/URL][/QUOTE]

911 Report?

Oh, you mean the report the government was forced to do in the face of criticisms from the public and the (only) other party in American politics? Let's see, do we take that report as independent or is it just another internal audit?

I'd like to see references from archived footage among other resources. (For example: I claimed that Bin Labin's name was mentioned during the first 20 to 120 minutes of this mass murder. For me to back up my claim I need to go to CBS or ABC, or NBC, or CNN or FOX and find the footage of the newscast I was watching during the first hour of this cowardly attack. I'm not too sure, but, my bet is that a lot of this kind of footage has been mysteriously recycled.

 

[Pelt]

Oh, you mean the report the government was forced to do in the face of criticisms from the public and the (only) other party in American politics? Let's see, do we take that report as independent or is it just another internal audit?

The government didn't issue the 9/11 Report.

 

[baywax]

The government didn't issue the 9/11 Report.

Actually, it was a bipartisan group of government appointed folk doing the "investigations".

This group had to be approved and signed for by the the President and his admin. Where is the New York City Police Dept. represented in this group? The majority of this mass murder took place in New York City.Philip Zelikow,
Executive Director

Christopher A. Kojm,
Deputy Executive Director

Daniel Marcus,
General Counsel

Joanne M.Accolla
Staff Assistant

Alexis Albion
Professional Staff Member

Scott H.Allan,Jr.
Counsel

John A.Azzarello
Counsel

Caroline Barnes
Professional Staff Member

Warren Bass
Professional Staff Member

Ann M. Bennett
Information Control Officer

Mark S. Bittinger
Professional Staff Member

Madeleine Blot
Counsel

Antwion M. Blount
Systems Engineer

Sam Brinkley
Professional Staff Member

Geoffrey Scott Brown
Research Assistant

Daniel Byman
Professional Staff Member

Dianna Campagna
Manager of Operations

Samuel M.W.Caspersen
Counsel

Melissa A. Coffey
Staff Assistant

Lance Cole
Consultant

Marquittia L. Coleman
Staff Assistant

Marco A. Cordero
Professional Staff Member

Rajesh De
Counsel

George W.Delgrosso
Investigator

Gerald L. Dillingham
Professional Staff Member

Thomas E. Dowling
Professional Staff Member

Steven M. Dunne
Deputy General Counsel

Thomas R. Eldridge
Counsel

Alice Falk
Editor

John J. Farmer, Jr.
Senior Counsel & Team Leader

Alvin S. Felzenberg
Deputy for Communications

 

[Pelt]

Actually, it was a bipartisan group of government appointed folk doing the "investigations".

And that's important why?

This group had to be approved and signed for by the the President and his admin. Where is the New York City Police Dept. represented in this group? The majority of this mass murder took place in New York City.

The commission's charter was to investigate the attacks. What purpose would having an NYPD representative serve?

 

[denverdoc]

I felt the 911 was wanting in several key areas, many of which have been enumerated elsewhere in great detail. Perhaps it was bipartisan, but I would have greatly preferred a Richard Fetnmann or two. Where was the science?

 

[Pelt]

I felt the 911 was wanting in several key areas, many of which have been enumerated elsewhere in great detail. Perhaps it was bipartisan, but I would have greatly preferred a Richard Fetnmann or two. Where was the science?

How about a John Dower? Where was the Meiji-era Japanese history? Or maybe a Dale Earnhardt Jr. or Peyton Manning. Who on the 9/11 commission was looking out for NFL and NASCAR fans? I mean c'mon, Congress and the President convened the Commission to independently investigate the attacks and make recommendations pertinent to the attacks. It wasn't put together to recommend some form airline lawsuit liability, negotiate with the FDNY unions or NYPD PBA reps to determine proper payouts, or make rulings the admissibility of scientific evidence in a court of law. It existed solely to enumerate a public record of facts and make recommendations therefrom.

 

[baywax]

And that's important why?

They're government appointees. They are not independent investigators. Or I should say "investigator" because there is only one investigator listed on the panel.

The commission's charter was to investigate the attacks. What purpose would having an NYPD representative serve?

Any murder that happens in NYC is investigated by the NYPD. This is a case where over 3000 murders took place with in an hour. I would think the NYPD would have a place in the investigation.

Sorry to have brought this topic off topic. The original topic asks what the right approach is to end the cowardly sucker punches being pulled by some weak-minded, panty-waisted group of scum. My solution is to show them the right way to live as in "provide a good example". Best in the new year!

 

[Benzoate]

No assumptions are needed since for example, the 7th of July bombings in London were commited by people who clearly stated that British involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was their motivation. there have been numerous other warnings from terrorist groups to countries with troops in those two aforementioned countries.

Well the United States could have capture osama and executed him and his followers probably would've attack the US in response to let the United States know that they will carry on osama's legacy. Terrorists attacks are inevitable now, whether we invaded another country or not.

 

[Pelt]

They're government appointees. They are not independent investigators. Or I should say "investigator" because there is only one investigator listed on the panel.

Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "independent," then. I tend to draw a bright line at political appointees that answer either to some executive of legislative leadership. Where do you draw the line?

Any murder that happens in NYC is investigated by the NYPD. This is a case where over 3000 murders took place with in an hour. I would think the NYPD would have a place in the investigation.

NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.

Sorry to have brought this topic off topic. The original topic asks what the right approach is to end the cowardly sucker punches being pulled by some weak-minded, panty-waisted group of scum. My solution is to show them the right way to live as in "provide a good example". Best in the new year!

I don't think that's going to be terribly effective on Al Qaeda. The leadership's seen how the West lives and decided they want something else. They also speak to cultures where households and clan relationships mean a great deal more than in Western countries. If setting an example hasn't stopped various overseas crime cultures from setting up hundred million dollar shops in the US, I sincerely doubt it alone can solve the US's public relations problem.

 

[baywax]

Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "independent," then. I tend to draw a bright line at political appointees that answer either to some executive of legislative leadership. Where do you draw the line?

My idea of an independent inquiry is different from yours. Mine begins with people who have no connection with the middle east, oil company lobbyists, airlines, military or other governmentally influenced or influencing entities. For instance a civil union such as the NYPD or perhaps a democratically appointed panel brought into being through an open referendum or vote of some kind. This is not my area of expertise however, and I would look to someone such as Nome Chompsky or even a super computer that randomly makes its choices according to the specific criteria involved in such a complex case... a case so complex that I doubt that an "ex"-CIA operative like Bin Labeled could have devised it.

NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.

Your knowledge of these convenient federal laws and regulations is amply noted.

 

[Pelt]

My idea of an independent inquiry is different from yours. Mine begins with people who have no connection with the middle east, oil company lobbyists, airlines, military or other governmentally influenced or influencing entities.

Wouldn't that rule out Noam Chomsky? He does, after all, have a wide range of activist contacts with people and organizations in the Middle East.

For instance a civil union such as the NYPD or perhaps a democratically appointed panel brought into being through an open referendum or vote of some kind.

Could you clarify what you mean by "civil union?" I'm not sure what criteria you're using to lump the NYPD together with "a democratically appointed panel." And I'm still not certain what purpose you envision the NYPD fulfilling.

 

[Evo]

Any murder that happens in NYC is investigated by the NYPD. This is a case where over 3000 murders took place with in an hour. I would think the NYPD would have a place in the investigation.

Not when the crime falls into Federal jurisdiction.

NYPD lost jurisdiction the minute those aircraft took off from Logan. Aside from being an act of terrorism, jurisdiction over airspace is federal period. If that's not enough for you, the crime was inherently of an interstate nature.

Pelt is correct.

 

[Astronuc]

Not when the crime falls into Federal jurisdiction.

Specifically the FBI.

 

[baywax]

I'll suggest that a change in terminology will help in the "war on terror". Quite literally the title, "war on terror", evokes emotional responses like hate, fear and hysteria in most audiences. These audiences are what comprise a society and a nation. I would propose that the phrase become the " war on cowardice". This change of terminology is intended to provide a two-fold benefit to the society. One, it will instill a national and international determination to eradicate acts of cowardice and two it will define the "terrorists" and their accomplices for what they are and how they act.

 

[Pelt]

I'll suggest that a change in terminology will help in the "war on terror". Quite literally the title, "war on terror", evokes emotional responses like hate, fear and hysteria in most audiences.

A cursory search of Google Scholar for cognitive research supporting this idea is particularly frustrating. Do you have some sort of support for this hypothesis or is it your own personal belief?

These audiences are what comprise a society and a nation. I would propose that the phrase become the " war on cowardice". This change of terminology is intended to provide a two-fold benefit to the society. One, it will instill a national and international determination to eradicate acts of cowardice and two it will define the "terrorists" and their accomplices for what they are and how they act.

I believe your idea boils down to to undermining some alleged atmosphere of hate, fear and by shaping people's perceptions of the terrorist threat downward. Setting aside the very tenuous basis for that strategy, how did you work out that changing the label to "war on cowardice" would in anyway impact public opinion?

 

[baywax]

A cursory search of Google Scholar for cognitive research supporting this idea is particularly frustrating. Do you have some sort of support for this hypothesis or is it your own personal belief?
I believe your idea boils down to to undermining some alleged atmosphere of hate, fear and by shaping people's perceptions of the terrorist threat downward. Setting aside the very tenuous basis for that strategy, how did you work out that changing the label to "war on cowardice" would in anyway impact public opinion?

Hi Pelt 0,

A power word is a word that illicits a powerful emotional response from the browser. It is a word so irresistible that it makes a user far more likely to first notice and then click on the Google pay-per-click ad.

from: How Emotional Words Play a Dead-Serious Role in Google Ads & Blog Post Titles

http://blog.mindvalleylabs.com/google-adwords-secret-power-words-boost-ctr-by-114/61/What works in advertising works in media hype.

Here's a PDF file of the book...

The Power of Words: Unveiling the Speaker and Writer's Hidden Craft By David S. Kaufer

http://books.google.com/books?id=FWDfqJRcKb8C&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=power+of+word+emotional+response&source=web&ots=eAXrLLNDhc&sig=gI3uCsWagmHo_mMCBl72KlFv-S8 Interesting methods and invention here measuring responses to emotion-inducing stimuli (this study has a practical application in advertising and is as equally useful in government/media campaigns). A lot of info there.

"Method and apparatus for analyzing neurological response to emotion-inducing stimuli"

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6292688-description.html

Some people on Wicipedia with an opinion

"Use of the word terrorism (policy development) archive"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_the_word_terrorism_(policy_development)_archive

This article is related.Here's one...

"Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research By Jennings Bryant, Dolf Zillmann"

Fright Reactions To Mass Media

This research has a multitude of authors.http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Lv4z9QeIRFAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA287&dq=%22CANTOR%22+%22Fright+Reactions+to+Mass+Media%22+&ots=K1Y2f54oc3&sig=WKlDrx3bo-F93lgkyzNhrvN8a4M#PPA263,M1

 

[Pelt]

Hi Pelt 0,

Hey baywax. I think you misunderstood me. I'm looking for refereed scholarship. Your own would suffice. It's for my edification.

 

[baywax]

Hey baywax. I think you misunderstood me. I'm looking for refereed scholarship. Your own would suffice. It's for my edification.

I'm not sure that I can help you with that.

If you don't understand how a word can effect you physiologically and psychologically, whether written or spoken, then you need to pay attention to your own responses. Here's a little test... have a look at these two words and gauge your response.TERROR

and

COWARD

Some refereed science and scholarship has already been done with regard to the effects of aurally and visually presented words on the physiology of human neurons.

Just google "Evoked Potential". The research involves using words, images and other stimuli to map areas of response in the brain.

This sort of study has been on-going since the 60s and is a well developed tool of government agencies and advertising agencies alike.

Is this too off-side for you?!

edit:

Further to my proposal, the word "terror" implies and evokes feelings of chaos, impending doom and an inability to react in a timely fashion. This type of psychological response does not lend itself to restoring a civil society and a saner world. Whereas, labeling this "war" a "war on cowards" creates the intention and the evocation that the "war" will be easily won (since cowards are so predictable)... thus, helping to reduce fear and boost the confidence and effectiveness of a society's efforts in that direction.

Moreover, when we admit we are in "terror" and continue to say that we are being "terrorized" we play directly into the hands of the cowards. They see in our newspapers and our news programming that they have had a desired effect and are therefore boosted in confidence and gain a renewed interest in continuing to "terrorize" the admittedly terrorized target.

 

[Pelt]

I'm not sure that I can help you with that.

Too bad.

If you don't understand how a word can effect you physiologically and psychologically, whether written or spoken, then you need to pay attention to your own responses.

Once again, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm asking specifically about your theories regarding the phrases "war on terror" and "war on cowardice." I'm not interested in your broader thoughts on rhetoric and social psychology. I'm also not interested in anything less than actual research on this issue. For example...

Here's a little test... have a look at these two words and gauge your response.


TERROR

and

COWARD

...I have no response to these words independent of the context of our discussion. Either your hypothesis is messed up or your test is less than satisfactory gauge.

Some refereed science and scholarship has already been done with regard to the effects of aurally and visually presented words on the physiology of human neurons.

Once again, I'm looking specifically for scholarship on a phrase that has been used widely and attracted a great deal of scholarly attention for six years now. Absent that, I'd love to see other research that at least allows me to reasonably the phrase's impact.

Is this too off-side for you?!

No, it's merely irrelevant to the question I asked.